ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!

[Christine]

Originally posted by Turbo

From Christine, yes. From you, no.

• [jesus]And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.[/jesus] John 12:32

She convinced herself that this verse was mistranslated in ever Bible version before she even looked up the Greek. And when she finally did look it up, she found nothing that indicated that "all" should have been "all called," yet maintained her position.

I got on to take a peek at this thread before I went to bed, so I wasn't going to post, but when I saw this I had too. Turbo, I said that if it did indeed mean "all men" (ie, all men in the whole wide world), then it would be in direct contradiction of the rest of scripture. I know that the Bible does not contradict itself.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Hilston :yawn:

 

[Hilston]

:first: POTD Knight! Congratulations! You must be very proud. Great job! :thumb:

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Christine
Turbo, I said that if it did indeed mean "all men" (ie, all men in the whole wide world), then it would be in direct contradiction of the rest of scripture.

No, it wouldn't. Take the verses Knight quoted for instance.

 

[ShadowMaid]

nt

 

[Yorzhik]

Now... the front page says Yorzhik is logged in, but ShadowMaid posted... what's up with that?

 

[natewood3]

Knight,

The verses you quoted does NOT in any way settle the issue. You think because it says "all" that it settles the issue, but it does not. If said, "Look the Bible says Christ only gave Himself for some men, not all," and then proceed to quote the following verses, does this settle the issue?

Isa 53:12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.

Mat 20:28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mar 14:24 And he said to them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Tit 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

Joh 10:15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Joh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
Eph 5:27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.


Rev 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God out of every tribe and language and people and nation,

I guess that settles the issue, right? Jesus Himself said He would give His life as a ransom for MANY, not all. You quoted a few verses and expected people to believe you because the verse used the words "all" or "world." So, now I am quoting verses that are using the word "many," so which did He die for, "all" or "many"? If I take your approach, you should agree that He only gave His life for many, not every single person.

Let me ask two simple questions:

IF Christ died for all people who ever would live, then why does the Bible use restrictive language to speak of the atonement? Why do the authors not say what they really mean? (BTW, you are not able to reverse this question to me, for the word "all" IS used to mean a group or specific people and not all people who ever lived frequently)

What was the PURPOSE of Christ's death? What was God seeking to accomplish in the cross of Christ?

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Turbo

From Christine, yes. From you, no.

• [jesus]And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.[/jesus] John 12:32

She convinced herself that this verse was mistranslated in ever Bible version before she even looked up the Greek.

What do you think? Is it an accurate translation? Do you believe Jesus was lifted up from the earth? If so, do you believe He has drawn each and every man, woman and child who has inhabited the face of the earth? Even those who had already died before He was lifted up? Yes or no?

 

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by Hilston

What do you think? Is it an accurate translation? Do you believe Jesus was lifted up from the earth? If so, do you believe He has drawn each and every man, woman and child who has inhabited the face of the earth? Even those who had already died before He was lifted up? Yes or no?

If I may jump in a sec,

When Christ said that He would draw all men unto Himself, the context makes it clear that He meant all men without distinction and not all men without exception. Meaning that Jesus indeed died for the whole world, but the whole world won't accept it. John 3:16 is very clear here.

 

[Hilston]

Turbo, do you agree with drbrumley?

 

[drbrumley]

Hilston, I noted your apparent anger and dismay, that Open Thiests misunderstand what Calvin taught.

I found this along time ago and think I will share it here. It's by Bob Hill.

Calvin

Calvin on Immutability:

“God remains unchangeably the same. God is here contrasted with created beings, who, as all know, are subject to continual changes...he is here placed in a state of settled and undisturbed tranquillity...Although he subjects the world to many alterations, he remains unmoved; and that not only in regard to himself.� 1)

“The book of life being nothing else than the eternal purpose of God, by which he has predestined his own people to salvation. God, it is certain, is absolutely immutable..� 2)

“To this the words of Augustine refer, “As we do not know all the things which God does respecting us in the best order, we ought, with good intention, to act according to the Law, and in some things be acted upon according to the Law, his Providence being a Law immutable.� 3)

“Besides as he is the Eternal Wisdom, the Immutable Truth, the Determinate Counsel of the Father.� 4)

“By that immutable counsel of God, by which he predestined to himself whomever he would, was alone effectual for their salvation...That Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction.� 5)

“Because his immutable decree had once for all doomed them to destruction.� 6)

“Where it is said that God repented of having made Saul king, the term change is used figuratively. Shortly after it is added, “The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent, for he is not a man, that he should repent.� In these words, his immutability is plainly asserted without figure.� 7)



1) Calvin, John, trans. James Anderson, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan. p.462

2) ibid, p. 73

3) Calvin, John. Calvin’s Institutes, Book One, Chapter XVII, c2, p. l03.

4) Ibid, p. 517.

5) Ibid, p. 494.

6) Ibid, p. 522.

7) Ibid, p. 109.



As proof that God remains unalterably the same Calvin declares that God remains unmoved. Compare this statement with Aristotle (Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, The Loeb Classical Library, trans. by Hugh Tredennick, Harvard University Press, 1933, p. 207) “for there is something which always moves that which is moved, and the prime mover is itself unmoved.� Calvin obviously is borrowing his ideas from Aristotle, a pupil of Plato, and mixing them with his theology of immutability.

Why is Calvin certain that God is immutable? Is this plainly asserted in Scripture? In this article most of the occurrences of the Hebrew word for repent are listed. Of the 32 occurrences, 26 are references to God. God is said not to repent 6 times. 20 references are to God repenting. Is Calvin certain that God does not repent because of Scripture or because of his Platonic influence?

Does Scripture prove God’s immutable counsel. Where is this clear evidence? It is interesting that when Calvin is presented with the evidence that God changes he dismisses it lightly.

Calvin’s explanation that “change� is just a figure of speech is unacceptable. A figure of speech is used to represent one concept in terms of another because the nature of the two concepts allows an analogy to be drawn. There is no analogy between the concepts of “does not change his mind� and “changes his mind�.

The Niphal form of the Hebrew word naham is used in 1 Samuel 15:11 and 1 Samuel 15:35 to mean that the Lord repented. However in 1 Samuel 15:29 the same word is used to say that the Lord does not repent. If we understand that the Lord does not repent but that in this specific instance God will not change his mind the apparent conflict is easily explained. However Calvin uses another approach. Calvin is convinced that God is immutable and therefore the term change is used figuratively with God. Where does Calvin obtain his conviction that God is immutable? Why does he dismiss without an explanation the idea that God could change his mind?

Calvin quotes Augustine as a source for immutability. As we have already demonstrated Augustine received his doctrine of Immutability from Plato.

 

[drbrumley]

Going to bed, catch up with this tomorrow.

 

[Yorzhik]

Betty, Al... :chuckle:

 

[Hilston]

drbrumley,

I don't give flying fudgepan anymore about whether or not you guys understand immutability or impassibility. It used to concern me because I liked some of these Open Theists and I was concerned that they were making fools of themselves by critiquing things they didn't understand. But each and every Open Theist I've encountered thus far, with the possible exception of Yorzhik, has demonstrated an intransigent insistence on maintaining a false understanding of these terms. It is the epitome of willful ignorance in its full glory.

What I now find to be typical of Open Theists is the theological inbreeding that perpetuates your ignorance, to your shame (and you don't even have the clarity of vision to be ashamed of yourselves). Rather than going to the source yourself and understanding for yourself what Calvin and Augustine mean by immutability, rather than reading modern theologians to espouse these views, especially after you've been told repeatedly and shown from excerpted Calvinist material that you're wrong and do not understand, you still take the distorted and partisan "journalism" of one of your own co-bunglers.

Here's the bottom line: Open Theists don't care. All that matters is that Bob Hill or Bob Enyart or some other Open Theist Bob has declared it to be so, and it is uncritically accepted and promulgated like political talking points.

Bob Hill's definition of a figure of speech is so simplistic that it's embarrassing, but that's the thing about willful ignorance: It doesn't allow a person to even know when to be embarrassed. He accuses Calvin of "lightly" dismissing the language that says God changes. Yet Bob Hill himself doesn't bother to do the research to explain what is meant by the figure of speech. He dismisses lightly the importance and richness of figures of speech just so he can get back to his distortions of immutability (and by implication, impassibility).

It's all par for the Open Theist course, dr. I'm no longer surprised or annoyed by it. Now I expect it and have become profoundly amused by it. With each new bud that grows from the Open View weed I find new opportunities to marvel at the depths to which the human condition will distort and demonize the God of the Bible in order to justify itself.

Job 40:8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston

drbrumley,

I don't give flying fudgepan anymore about whether or not you guys understand immutability or impassibility. It used to concern me because I liked some of these Open Theists and I was concerned that they were making fools of themselves by critiquing things they didn't understand. But each and every Open Theist I've encountered thus far, with the possible exception of Yorzhik, has demonstrated an intransigent insistence on maintaining a false understanding of these terms. It is the epitome of willful ignorance in its full glory.

I have seen you say this a hundred times and have yet to see you post a single thing that substantiates it. To my knowledge you have never given any reason for any of us to believe that Calvin believed anything different that what the above quotations clearly depicts. You make claims all the time that we do not understand his (Calvin's) teachings but never even try to prove that claim.
I'm sure you don't care what I think but be that as it may, it is my firm conviction that you are blowing smoke. You make lofty claims and pretend to be smarter than everyone else on the planet but I'm not buying it! I have personally asked you dozens of times to make the argument and all you do is tell me to find it myself. That is a load of crap! You are a liar Jim. You had me fooled for a long time and even when I had doubts about your intellectual honesty, I persistently gave you the benefit of the doubt and continued to pursue discussions with you because, well I don't really now why, I guess I just wanted to believe that I was missing something important. But no longer; I am convinced that you are a deceiver, you prefer playing intellectual games to telling the plain truth. You're a liar of the highest order and I no longer trust you any further than I could throw you.

What I now find to be typical of Open Theists is the theological inbreeding that perpetuates your ignorance, to your shame (and you don't even have the clarity of vision to be ashamed of yourselves). Rather than going to the source yourself and understanding for yourself what Calvin and Augustine mean by immutability, rather than reading modern theologians to espouse these views, especially after you've been told repeatedly and shown from excerpted Calvinist material that you're wrong and do not understand, you still take the distorted and partisan "journalism" of one of your own co-bunglers.

We aren't reading modern theologians we are reading Augustine's own words. And as I said, you've never bother to show me anything that would suggest that Augustine didn't believe in the absolute immutability of God. It is interesting however that your having said such a thing demonstrates your acknowledgment that God cannot be immutable and remain logically coherent.

Here's the bottom line: Open Theists don't care.

An outright, intentional lie! I know for a fact, that you must know that this is not true. You wouldn't even be on this site if it were not for an Open Theist you goof!

All that matters is that Bob Hill or Bob Enyart or some other Open Theist Bob has declared it to be so, and it is uncritically accepted and promulgated like political talking points.

Yet another intentional lie! Can you not understand that everyone here can still see the Dr.'s post and that we can all read?

Bob Hill QUOTED CALVIN'S OWN
WORDS!!!!

WAKE UP!

Bob Hill's definition of a figure of speech is so simplistic that it's embarrassing, but that's the thing about willful ignorance: It doesn't allow a person to even know when to be embarrassed. He accuses Calvin of "lightly" dismissing the language that says God changes. Yet Bob Hill himself doesn't bother to do the research to explain what is meant by the figure of speech. He dismisses lightly the importance and richness of figures of speech just so he can get back to his distortions of immutability (and by implication, impassibility).

This is laughable to anyone who knows anything about Pastor Hill. To suggest that he, of all people, hasn't bother to do his research would be funny in any other context. In this context, it just makes you look silly, which is as good a refutation of what you've said that could be done.

It's all par for the Open Theist course, dr. I'm no longer surprised or annoyed by it. Now I expect it and have become profoundly amused by it. With each new bud that grows from the Open View weed I find new opportunities to marvel at the depths to which the human condition will distort and demonize the God of the Bible in order to justify itself.

Just words Jim, words without substance.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Hilston

drbrumley,

I don't give flying fudgepan anymore about whether or not you guys understand immutability or impassibility.

What I now find to be typical of Open Theists is the theological inbreeding that perpetuates your ignorance, to your shame (and you don't even have the clarity of vision to be ashamed of yourselves).

Nice post PASTOR Jim.

 

[Yorzhik]

Originally posted by Hilston:
The position is not merely of debt and no possible way of paying, but of debt and no desire to pay

So we could pay the debt if only we had the desire to do so?

Originally posted by Hilston:
Question: "Free?! No strings? What's the catch?"
Answer: "The catch is you gotta ask for it."

Again using the debt analogy; If one were commanded to take a gift that pays a debt, the entire (in practical terms) value of the gift is in accepting it? Would it be different if the gift were not commanded to be taken but just offered?

Originally posted by Hilston:
For you, what Christ did had no intrinsic value. Only potential value (even though you say it had infinite value]. For you, what Christ did was not sufficient to accomplish anything in and of itself, something, namely the faith of men, must be added for it to actually become kinetic.

If you give a gift to someone, and they don't accept it, you are saying it has no value? I'll agree that it has no value to the recipient, but no value at all?

I realize you don't regard the gift of salvation as a gift, and your theology requires that, but if salvation is a gift, then the gift would only be valueless to the person who rejected it, not to the giver, correct?

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I have seen you say this a hundred times and have yet to see you post a single thing that substantiates it.

When you quoted Sproul, your modern authority on Calvinism (remember: I don't get to define Calvinism, you and R.C. do) about immutablity and impassibility, I gave you further quotes from Sproul that demonstrated that you didn't understand Sproul. Either you have a selective memory, or you're a liar, in which case that would make two of us.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
To my knowledge you have never given any reason for any of us to believe that Calvin believed anything different that what the above quotations clearly depicts.

Sure I did. There's the Sproul quote. And there are the excerpts I offered, to which Knight exclaimed: "So Calvin does believe God can change!"

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You make claims all the time that we do not understand his (Calvin's) teachings but never even try to prove that claim.

I have tried. I've led about a dozen horses to the same watering hole. You all just stand there and look at each other, hooves firmly embedded in the mud, refusing to drink, telling each other what the water tastes like, refusing to bend your neck to taste it for yourself. Soon, here comes Hilston, with yet another Open Theist horse in tow. The horse takes his place amid the other horses, but before he can drink, the other horses start telling him what the water tastes like. Before long, his hooves are stuck in the mud as well.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I'm sure you don't care what I think but be that as it may, it is my firm conviction that you are blowing smoke.

What is that conviction based on? Your own investigation of the doctrines of immutability and impassibility, or my refusal to waste my time culling and typing in the excerpts and explanations? You used to be a Calvinist, Betty. 20+ years, right? And you've been debating Calvinists ever since you converted, right? You probably have a better library of Calvinist writings than I do. That is what shames you. You have no excuse. That is sufficient evidence to tell me that you. Don't. Care.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You make lofty claims and pretend to be smarter than everyone else on the planet but I'm not buying it!

You've got a real inferiority complex, Betty. I've never been called smart or accused of pretending to be smart so much until you and I began debating. I'm only a part-time genius.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I have personally asked you dozens of times to make the argument and all you do is tell me to find it myself. That is a load of crap!

Ask yourself this question: "Have I, Betty, sought to understand what Sproul means by the word 'immutable' given the fact that Hilston quoted Sproul as saying that God does change?" If your answer is "no," then I'm not the one with the load of crap.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer You are a liar Jim.

I know you are, but what am I?

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You had me fooled for a long time and even when I had doubts about your intellectual honesty, I persistently gave you the benefit of the doubt and continued to pursue discussions with you because, well I don't really now why, I guess I just wanted to believe that I was missing something important. But no longer; I am convinced that you are a deceiver, you prefer playing intellectual games to telling the plain truth. You're a liar of the highest order and I no longer trust you any further than I could throw you.

That's precisely the advice I would have given you myself. You shouldn't trust me. I do lie. I do deceive. I do manipulate. And that means, if you really want to have an accurate knowledge and understanding of immutability and impassibility (and you should probably throw in total depravity -- you don't seem to get that one either), you'll have to get serious and find out for yourself.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
We aren't reading modern theologians we are reading Augustine's own words.

Of course, and in isolation, you can get Augustine's words to say anything you want. We journalists do this all the time.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
And as I said, you've never bother to show me anything that would suggest that Augustine didn't believe in the absolute immutability of God. It is interesting however that your having said such a thing demonstrates your acknowledgment that God cannot be immutable and remain logically coherent.

If you're serious about that sentence, and if no one else sees the silliness of it, maybe I am really smart. Try to follow this. I'll go slow: I acknowledge that God cannot remain immutable by your twisted distortion of the meaning of the word and remain logically coherent. By my definition of the word, there is no incoherence.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
An outright, intentional lie!

Betty, please try to keep up: You do not get to decide what my intentions are. Only God and my psychic friends get to do this.

Hilston wrote: Here's the bottom line: Open Theists don't care.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I know for a fact, that you must know that this is not true.

If you cared, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You'd already know and you'd be writing Bob Hill to inform him that he has distorted the teachings of Calvin and Augustine. Actions speak louder than words, Betty. You have a record.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You wouldn't even be on this site if it were not for an Open Theist you goof!

Um ... what?

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Yet another intentional lie! Can you not understand that everyone here can still see the Dr.'s post and that we can all read?

Bob Hill QUOTED CALVIN'S OWN
WORDS!!!!

WAKE UP!

You're still not keeping up. I'm not denying Calvin has been quoted. I'm telling you that you don't understand the quotes. And by excising the quotes from their context and his overall teaching, you only further distort the issue and thereby sacrifice accuracy for debate points.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
This is laughable to anyone who knows anything about Pastor Hill. To suggest that he, of all people, hasn't bother to do his research would be funny in any other context. In this context, it just makes you look silly, which is as could a refutation of what you've said that could be done.

That's exactly the kind of response I expect from theological inbreds: Uncritical acceptance of your leaders' teachings, and swift defense of those leaders teachings based on personality traits. There are lots of thorough researchers who are thoroughly wrong.

 

[drbrumley]

Then help me out here Hilston.

Is this the correct definition of immutable:

Not subject or susceptible to change?

immutable

\Im*mu"ta*ble\, a. [L. immutabilis; pref. im- not + mutabilis mutable. See Mutable.] Not mutable; not capable or susceptible of change; unchangeable; unalterable.

Agree or disagree with above definitions?

 

[drbrumley]

How about 2 entries found for impassibility.
im·pas·si·ble
adj.

1. Not subject to suffering, pain, or harm.
2. Unfeeling; impassive.

Is this also correct in your view?