Why Panentheism is False.

[Clete]

"in" Him we live and move and have our being. I'm not going to rewrite scriptures. They will inform me rather.

Nice dodge.

You need to stop pretending that you're being intellectually honest in your "study" of the scripture. The fact is that you really don't give a damn what anyone might say, do you? You're going to ignore every argument anyone ever makes. You've chosen your doctrines and arguments to the contrary be damned.

Understood. Guilty by association? While I don't mind early dismissal, I do want to get homework done.

That response makes no sense whatsoever!

I'm the one, it seems, who is doing your homework for you. And while the fact that what you believe is also believed by others who are obvious nutjobs doesn't prove your doctrine false, the fact that they are the only people around that anyone can find who share your doctrine aught to at least serve as a red flag that indicates a need to reevaluate things to make sure you aren't also one of the nut jobs!

Does panentheism entail divergence? Yes. As such I may eschew it in the future but one has to ask 'what do you mean by using it?' to get away from all those who don't mean the same thing. I'm not with the 'in' crowd. Panentheists generally (in agreement with others) differentiate between God and His creation inherently else they'd be pantheists. Rather, Panentheists understand points I've elucidated. What do I mean by 'in?' Nothing more and nothing less that scripture means 'in' God or 'in' Christ. Colossians 1 intimates without Him, nothing exist(s) present active indicative. It necessarily means creation is presently sustained. This, among similar scripture, is very nearly the extent of my panentheistic thought.

Well, Lon, that just isn't the way reality works! You don't get to shave off this razor thin aspect of a major thought process and think you can stick that in your pocket and not bring a big bunch of the rest of that thought process with it. Ideas have consequences! That isn't just a slogan, that's real!

Notice, for example, how you twist the scripture so naturally that you almost certainly don't even notice that you've done it. Colossians 1 DOES NOT say that with Him, nothing exists! That isn't what it says and that isn't what it means! It simply means that God maintains the universe. You simply cannot take the phrase "in Him" and apply it the way you're trying to apply it. Besides all the other problems such an interpretation creates that I've already presented, the bible tells us that believers are identified "in Him". In fact, its quite an interesting study to go through and look in detail at all the time Paul uses the phrase "in Him" throughout his epistles. What would any of it mean if we are already "in Him" as your doctrine explicitly teaches? If the whole universe, including every unbeliever and rebellious demon and Even Satan himself is "in Him" then what the heck is Paul even talking about?

 

[Clete]

Meh! At a certain point in my theology, the ideas of panentheism looked to coincide with my beliefs. Reading your links and further, especially this one, has to have me eschewing the term altogether. While I have identified, the term used at large, is heretical and cannot jive with Christian thought. It is sad in that it is a good word for what I do believe, it is nothing like what most mean, therefore I must eschew it as describing my theology. :Z Looking for a new word if anybody needs me, and appreciate the input and correction. I'm not, in light of evidence, Panentheistic as the term is applied. In the meanwhile, I'll have to adopt 'biblical' as broad as such allows for the truths thereof.

I love this post except for the last sentence. The whole idea needs to be just thrown out. We simply do not exist inside God.

 

[Lon]

I love this post except for the last sentence. The whole idea needs to be just thrown out. We simply do not exist inside God.

I yet must reconcile 'in Christ' and 'in God' from scriptures. It cannot be ontological else God is physical but I yet must wrestle with 'in Him we live and move and have our being' which intimates at least our own physicality. I simply want to know God, know His word, and what He is trying to teach me/us.

 

[Right Divider]

I yet must reconcile 'in Christ' and 'in God' from scriptures. It cannot be ontological else God is physical but I yet must wrestle with 'in Him we live and move and have our being' which intimates at least our own physicality. I simply want to know God, know His word, and what He is trying to teach me/us.

Try learning about figures of speech.

 

[Lon]

Try learning about figures of speech.

I appreciate that and have thought accordingly. Let me say at this point, that it goes much further than that because I'm still wrestling where others have already stopped. Good/bad? I believe good else I'm not after the pattern of the Bereans. I want to search a thing out. Part of me being hard to follow is that I don't settle nearly as quickly as any other theologian I know. You'd say I'm in 'limbo' and you'd be correct, to a point, and it shows. It is purposeful, for what it is worth. I want God molding me, and not the other way around. Is it too high an aim? Yes. It is only in 1 John 3:2,3 that any of us get there (1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.) also . Until then? I have the Holy Spirit and I have you. I'll thank Him for both and keep working on it. In this, I pray encouragement to you. I am trying to be a faithful steward and brother. After 50 years, my theology is broader, but even less nailed down, only in the sense that I don't want 'Lonology.' Not in light of God's continued work on me as His creation. I would have been among you with a label and everything ready to go, but in order to even discuss legitimately with such a plethora of systems on TOL, I've had to let each enter my thoughts empathetically. Granted one may be frustrated when I'm resistant. On point: If I ever became Open Theist, 1) it'd be ten years before I think you'd know. 2) I'd yet be studying to insure that it fit all of scripture and that means years of devotion in my textual reading. I have a good working theology, and would think it evident what informs it in discussion. There are deep influences of Dispensationalism and Covenant in my formal education but I'm often called Mid Acts. Wishy washy? No. I am more comfortable with 'not knowing everything.' It keeps me, I think, in the right place. For what it is worth. -Lon

 

[Nick M]

In the UK posting such would get you a visit from the police and possibly a spell in jail

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1859603668317634815

And Gab sucks. That is the hilarious part.

 

[Clete]

I yet must reconcile 'in Christ' and 'in God' from scriptures. It cannot be ontological else God is physical but I yet must wrestle with 'in Him we live and move and have our being' which intimates at least our own physicality.

Explain that logic to me.

There are two biblical facts that are pertinent here...

1. The God who was at the time an entirely spiritual being, created the physical universe.
2. Human beings (including the incarnate Christ, by the way) are ontologically both physical and spiritual beings.

Why wouldn't those facts refute your objection?

I simply want to know God, know His word, and what He is trying to teach me/us.

A noble goal to be sure! I really think that you're simply over thinking things. "In Him" is a figure of speech. It's quite similar, although not identical to what the figure used on Hebrews 7....

​

Hebrews 7: 9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.​

​

Notice that the author of Hebrews even says that it's a figure of speech. In that passage, it's talking about something decidedly physical in that he was making reference to Abraham who was Levi's physical ancestor, but it not all that different because we are sons of God IN HIM! We are saved, not because of our work but because of His, we are upright before God not because of our righteousness but because of His. Every aspect of a believer's relationship with God is in spite of themselves and because of Christ. Our relationship with God is Christ's relationship with God and as such it is very natural, even intuitive, to speak of us as being "in Him".

 

[Lon]

Explain that logic to me.

There are two biblical facts that are pertinent here...

1. The God who was at the time an entirely spiritual being, created the physical universe.
2. Human beings (including the incarnate Christ, by the way) are ontologically both physical and spiritual beings.

Why wouldn't those facts refute your objection?

Ontologically, physical comes from Spirit. Spirit is intangible in any physical sense. While heaven is 'where' God dwells, it is also created. Details give us streets of gold etc. but everything is created by God. He tells David that no temple can contain Him, it is an intimation of a broader truth and paradigm. Physical comes 'from' Spiritual, I think necessarily ontologically. We all tend to think in reverse order because we are limited in concept to physical things and often think of God in physical terms. God reached us in our physicality through the Lord Jesus Christ and all His interactions help us grasp spiritual concepts. I yet can somewhat grasp eternity past, but the extent boggles. As far back as I can imagine or think, God existed, and then before that. I've no experience with anything but it 'came into existence.' Thus, a concept that can help is that all things are proceeded from a part of God, 'inside' (physical problematics) Him. Thus 'in Him, we live and move and have our being.' Somehow, God created us as separate beings. I get that. The problem is trying to reconcile large ideas, many of them above all our pay-grades. It is trying to peer underneath the veil so to speak.

A noble goal to be sure! I really think that you're simply over thinking things. "In Him" is a figure of speech. It's quite similar, although not identical to what the figure used on Hebrews 7....

​

Hebrews 7: 9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.​

Needs a lot of expiation for our concerns. Genetically, Levi was certainly in Abraham. The so to speak part is about Levi paying tithe to Melchizedek. John the Baptist baptizing Jesus comes to mind. The "so to speak" part is because Levi didn't pay tithe to Melchizedek but shows that Levi wasn't the end all of sacrifice. Hebrews is a special book. It is instruction and argument against going back to temple to sacrifice for sins once one is in Christ (you know this, just trying to give something for dialogue). Could you take a moment and explain a bit the main point you are getting across and ty.

​

Notice that the author of Hebrews even says that it's a figure of speech. In that passage, it's talking about something decidedly physical in that he was making reference to Abraham who was Levi's physical ancestor, but it not all that different because we are sons of God IN HIM! We are saved, not because of our work but because of His, we are upright before God not because of our righteousness but because of His. Every aspect of a believer's relationship with God is in spite of themselves and because of Christ. Our relationship with God is Christ's relationship with God and as such it is very natural, even intuitive, to speak of us as being "in Him".

He doesn't say 'figure of speech' but 'so to speak' (not in great contention here, but wanting to keep my mind clear on what the text says and what we imply). As such it is more a proposition for consideration, again so that Hebrew Christian men and women might consider why Jesus over against the priesthood. "So to speak" is a connection to the limitation of the priesthood in relation to the complete work of the Cross.

I get figures of speech, just not sure if this passage does justice for the example. Help please (by the way, not condescension nor clueless, just dialogue prompts for further inquiry).

 

[Lon]

This is rudimentary, obviously FB has been following my conversations and searches: https://www.facebook.com/reel/905207421452793

 

[Clete]

Ontologically, physical comes from Spirit.

Everything came from God and so yes, but Adam's physical body existed before his spirit. I don't see how any of that is even relevant.

Spirit is intangible in any physical sense.

So, you're saying that the spiritual isn't physical.

What a revelation!

While heaven is 'where' God dwells, it is also created. Details give us streets of gold etc. but everything is created by God.

The streets of gold are in the New Jerusalem, not Heaven.

Yes, God created it all. So what?

He tells David that no temple can contain Him, it is an intimation of a broader truth and paradigm. Physical comes 'from' Spiritual, I think necessarily ontologically.

Why do you think that is the question I'm hoping to eventually get an answer to.

We all tend to think in reverse order because we are limited in concept to physical things and often think of God in physical terms. God reached us in our physicality through the Lord Jesus Christ and all His interactions help us grasp spiritual concepts. I yet can somewhat grasp eternity past, but the extent boggles.

We are created in His image and likeness and so there is good reason for us to think of God in such terms. Not that He is physical but that He does have something that arms and hands are analogous to and He does have a face. When the bible talks about our being held in God's hand or about seeing Him face to face, it is something of a figure of speech but not entirely so. In other words, just because God isn't physical (Jesus' glorified body, not withstanding) doesn't mean that He doesn't have the ability to interact with the physical universe that He created. The very fact that He created it is proof that He can and does.

As far back as I can imagine or think, God existed, and then before that. I've no experience with anything but it 'came into existence.' Thus, a concept that can help is that all things are proceeded from a part of God, 'inside' (physical problematics) Him. Thus 'in Him, we live and move and have our being.' Somehow, God created us as separate beings. I get that. The problem is trying to reconcile large ideas, many of them above all our pay-grades. It is trying to peer underneath the veil so to speak.

What I don't get is why you aren't content with acknowledging that level of ignorance without feeling the need to force a doctrine into existence that doesn't even solve the issue? Where's the pay off here, Lon? I don't get it.

Needs a lot of expiation for our concerns. Genetically, Levi was certainly in Abraham.

Only as a figure of speech - at least mostly so. Levi was Abraham's great-grandson which means he would have had approximately 12.5% of Abraham's DNA and there are seven other great-grandparents that could rightly make the same claim.

The so to speak part is about Levi paying tithe to Melchizedek. John the Baptist baptizing Jesus comes to mind. The "so to speak" part is because Levi didn't pay tithe to Melchizedek but shows that Levi wasn't the end all of sacrifice. Hebrews is a special book. It is instruction and argument against going back to temple to sacrifice for sins once one is in Christ (you know this, just trying to give something for dialogue). Could you take a moment and explain a bit the main point you are getting across and ty.

The so to speak part is the author of Hebrews indicating that he's using a figure of speech. That's what the phrase means and that is the point I am making. We are saved by virtue of Christ's work and righteousness, not our own. His righteousness has been imputed to us and so it is in Him we are saved. It isn't at all the same thing as trying to communicate that we are inside of him.

He doesn't say 'figure of speech' but 'so to speak' (not in great contention here, but wanting to keep my mind clear on what the text says and what we imply).

The phrase "so to speak" means that he's using a figure of speech.

Look, I'm getting more than a little irritated with mindless stubbornness on such points. Your other post from filled from start to finish with the same sort of stubborn stupidity. Either acknowledge this totally mundane and obvious point or we're done. You have one and only one chance if you wish to continue.

As such it is more a proposition for consideration, again so that Hebrew Christian men and women might consider why Jesus over against the priesthood. "So to speak" is a connection to the limitation of the priesthood in relation to the complete work of the Cross.

It is him saying that it is a figure of speech and not to be taken literally.

I get figures of speech, just not sure if this passage does justice for the example.

That's because you desire your doctrine over the most plainly obvious meaning of any text of scripture that might lead someone to challenge that doctrine. There can be no other motive.

Help please (by the way, not condescension nor clueless, just dialogue prompts for further inquiry).

I'm happy to continue but you're going to have to turn up the intellectually honesty by about four notches.

 

[Clete]

This is rudimentary, obviously FB has been following my conversations and searches: https://www.facebook.com/reel/905207421452793

It certainly seems to me like you're saying a lot more than what that teenager was communicating; something more fundamental about the nature of our existence where such concepts are taken far more literally than is called for and that approaches heresies such as panentheism far too closely.

 

[Lon]

Everything came from God and so yes, but Adam's physical body existed before his spirit. I don't see how any of that is even relevant.


So, you're saying that the spiritual isn't physical.

What a revelation!


The streets of gold are in the New Jerusalem, not Heaven.

Out of heaven Revelation 21:21

Yes, God created it all. So what?


Why do you think that is the question I'm hoping to eventually get an answer to.

???

We are created in His image and likeness and so there is good reason for us to think of God in such terms.

Physical?

Not that He is physical but that He does have something that arms and hands are analogous to and He does have a face.

That'd be physical and most scriptures either talking of theophanies (the Son), or figuratively.

When the bible talks about our being held in God's hand or about seeing Him face to face, it is something of a figure of speech but not entirely so. In other words, just because God isn't physical (Jesus' glorified body, not withstanding) doesn't mean that He doesn't have the ability to interact with the physical universe that He created. The very fact that He created it is proof that He can and does.

Agree on point, but Moses was not allowed to see God's 'face' (couldn't live).

What I don't get is why you aren't content with acknowledging that level of ignorance without feeling the need to force a doctrine into existence that doesn't even solve the issue? Where's the pay off here, Lon? I don't get it.

It makes better sense than "Now" I know.' Do I have to have it all figured out? No, but as of now, my theology accounts for much. Mysteries? Yeah, I cannot look at God's face and live (likely not anyway).

Only as a figure of speech - at least mostly so. Levi was Abraham's great-grandson which means he would have had approximately 12.5% of Abraham's DNA and there are seven other great-grandparents that could rightly make the same claim.

Agree on point.

The so to speak part is the author of Hebrews indicating that he's using a figure of speech. That's what the phrase means and that is the point I am making. We are saved by virtue of Christ's work and righteousness, not our own. His righteousness has been imputed to us and so it is in Him we are saved. It isn't at all the same thing as trying to communicate that we are inside of him.

Initially, I have no problem with the extrapolation but I try to be exacting when discussing scriptures so that some ideas don't stick lest they take me away from the text. "FoS" is okay, but "so to speak" sticks better in my mind.

The phrase "so to speak" means that he's using a figure of speech.

"So to speak" is after the fashion in a literal sense that Levi, in Abraham/descended from Abraham, was not without lineage to sacrifice. A figure of speech is: "A figure of speech or rhetorical figure is a word or phrase that intentionally deviates from straightforward language use or literal meaning to produce a rhetorical or intensified effect. In the distinction between literal and figurative language, figures of speech constitute the latter." -wikipedia "Intentional deviation" isn't quite right addressing what the Hebrews author is saying.

Look, I'm getting more than a little irritated with mindless stubbornness on such points. Your other post from filled from start to finish with the same sort of stubborn stupidity. Either acknowledge this totally mundane and obvious point or we're done. You have one and only one chance if you wish to continue.

Will wrap it. Was nice while it lasted.

It is him saying that it is a figure of speech and not to be taken literally.


That's because you desire your doctrine over the most plainly obvious meaning of any text of scripture that might lead someone to challenge that doctrine. There can be no other motive.


I'm happy to continue but you're going to have to turn up the intellectually honesty by about four notches.

Keep working on patience? Until then, be well. I realize you are that point.

 

[Clete]

Out of heaven Revelation 21:21

Are we intentionally trying to miss the point? You aren't a Jew, Lon. Your home will never be in the New Jerusalem.

???

Sorry, that was unclear. The question I'm hoping someday to get the answer to is, "Why do you think that "Physical comes 'from' Spiritual, I think necessarily ontologically."?

Physical?

Again, are we just trying to miss the point? I went on to clearly explain myself.

That'd be physical and most scriptures either talking of theophanies (the Son), or figuratively.

NO!

Psalm 8:3-4​

"When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,​

The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,​

What is man that You are mindful of him,​

And the son of man that You visit him?"​

​

Psalm 139:5​

"You have hedged me behind and before,​

And laid Your hand upon me."​

​

Isaiah 41:10​

"Fear not, for I am with you;​

Be not dismayed, for I am your God.​

I will strengthen you,​

Yes, I will help you,​

I will uphold you with My righteous right hand."​

​

John 10:28-29​

"And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand."​

​

Deuteronomy 33:27​

"The eternal God is your refuge,​

And underneath are the everlasting arms;​

He will thrust out the enemy from before you,​

And will say, ‘Destroy!’"​

​

Isaiah 40:10-11​

"Behold, the Lord God shall come with a strong hand,​

And His arm shall rule for Him;​

Behold, His reward is with Him,​

And His work before Him.​

He will feed His flock like a shepherd;​

He will gather the lambs with His arm,​

And carry them in His bosom,​

And gently lead those who are with young."​

​

Numbers 6:24-26​

"The Lord bless you and keep you;​

The Lord make His face shine upon you,​

And be gracious to you;​

The Lord lift up His countenance upon you,​

And give you peace."​

​

Psalm 27:8​

"When You said, 'Seek My face,'​

My heart said to You, 'Your face, Lord, I will seek.'"​

​

2 Chronicles 7:14​

"If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land."​

Most all of these are anthropomorphisms but that doesn't mean that God doesn't have the spiritual equivalent to arms, hands, fingers, eyes and a face, etc. God is able to reach us and effect us both spiritually and physically by some means that is analogous to our bodies. This is a major part of what it means when the bible explicitly states that we are made in God's image and likeness

Agree on point, but Moses was not allowed to see God's 'face' (couldn't live).

So what? How is that relevant to what we are talking about? The point is that God has an actual face that Moses wasn't allowed to see!

It makes better sense than "Now" I know.' Do I have to have it all figured out? No, but as of now, my theology accounts for much. Mysteries? Yeah, I cannot look at God's face and live (likely not anyway).

No, it does not make better sense! The only reason you pretend that it does is because you have doctrines that you enjoy believing in that cannot survive the plain reading of the text.

Initially, I have no problem with the extrapolation but I try to be exacting when discussing scriptures so that some ideas don't stick lest they take me away from the text. "FoS" is okay, but "so to speak" sticks better in my mind.

So, you're exacting by being imprecise? How is "it sticks better in my mind" the measure by which something is determined to be more precise? The fact is that "so to speak" and "figure of speech" are precisely perfect synonyms.

"So to speak" is after the fashion in a literal sense that Levi, in Abraham/descended from Abraham, was not without lineage to sacrifice. A figure of speech is: "A figure of speech or rhetorical figure is a word or phrase that intentionally deviates from straightforward language use or literal meaning to produce a rhetorical or intensified effect. In the distinction between literal and figurative language, figures of speech constitute the latter." -wikipedia "Intentional deviation" isn't quite right addressing what the Hebrews author is saying.

Saying that Levi was "in Abraham" is a "phrase that intentionally deviates from straightforward language use or literal meaning to produce a rhetorical effect", which is why the author says that it's true "sort of speak".

Will wrap it. Was nice while it lasted.

You're the one ending it with your own stubborn stupidity, Lon. If you can't concede such an blatantly obvious point that has absolutely no effect on your doctrine whatsoever, then what's the point of even having a discussion about anything?

How is it even possible for the same mind to be convinced on the one hand that the use of the term "panentheism" is problematic while on the other hand being so stubbornly stuck on this meaninglessly trivial point that you'll walk away from the discussion before conceding it?

 

[Lon]

Are we intentionally trying to miss the point? You aren't a Jew, Lon. Your home will never be in the New Jerusalem.

Its a rabbit trail, not important.

Sorry, that was unclear. The question I'm hoping someday to get the answer to is, "Why do you think that "Physical comes 'from' Spiritual, I think necessarily ontologically."?

Because we come from God, Who is Spirit. Physical comes from a Spiritual Being. He wasn't in a universe, He created it.

Again, are we just trying to miss the point? I went on to clearly explain myself.


NO!

Psalm 8:3-4​

"When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,​

The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,​

What is man that You are mindful of him,​

And the son of man that You visit him?"​

​

Psalm 139:5​

"You have hedged me behind and before,​

And laid Your hand upon me."​

​

Isaiah 41:10​

"Fear not, for I am with you;​

Be not dismayed, for I am your God.​

I will strengthen you,​

Yes, I will help you,​

I will uphold you with My righteous right hand."​

​

John 10:28-29​

"And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand."​

​

Deuteronomy 33:27​

"The eternal God is your refuge,​

And underneath are the everlasting arms;​

He will thrust out the enemy from before you,​

And will say, ‘Destroy!’"​

​

Isaiah 40:10-11​

"Behold, the Lord God shall come with a strong hand,​

And His arm shall rule for Him;​

Behold, His reward is with Him,​

And His work before Him.​

He will feed His flock like a shepherd;​

He will gather the lambs with His arm,​

And carry them in His bosom,​

And gently lead those who are with young."​

​

Numbers 6:24-26​

"The Lord bless you and keep you;​

The Lord make His face shine upon you,​

And be gracious to you;​

The Lord lift up His countenance upon you,​

And give you peace."​

​

Psalm 27:8​

"When You said, 'Seek My face,'​

My heart said to You, 'Your face, Lord, I will seek.'"​

​

2 Chronicles 7:14​

"If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land."​

Most all of these are anthropomorphisms but that doesn't mean that God doesn't have the spiritual equivalent to arms, hands, fingers, eyes and a face, etc. God is able to reach us and effect us both spiritually and physically by some means that is analogous to our bodies. This is a major part of what it means when the bible explicitly states that we are made in God's image and likeness

We likely aren't agreeing. I see our 'imago deo' as characteristics that reflect God as Spirit, not at all in our our physical makeup other than as any of it would reflect God. I would agree it is anthropomorphisms, not literal hands etc. I don't believe God exists any'where' but inhabits His creation in some part of His being.

So what? How is that relevant to what we are talking about? The point is that God has an actual face that Moses wasn't allowed to see!

I'm entirely uncertain of such. It seems to me that Spirit is something different than we know.

No, it does not make better sense! The only reason you pretend that it does is because you have doctrines that you enjoy believing in that cannot survive the plain reading of the text.

Obviously there is contention, Clete. When such exasperates, this also closes 'open' doors. The conversation just ends and everybody entrenched. That is the fruit of frustration. It really cannot go anywhere else once these exasperation comments commence. Patience is over. Discussion is over, relegated to 'stupid' etc. etc. etc.

So, you're exacting by being imprecise? How is "it sticks better in my mind" the measure by which something is determined to be more precise? The fact is that "so to speak" and "figure of speech" are precisely perfect synonyms.

Actually, just 'what it actually says' and stopping. Extrapolations are fine, but the plain meaning of a text cannot just be 'English is good enough.' You have a concordance for a reason. Certainly the Open Theist quit a long time ago because their conceptions are upheld. I've tried to show even Open Theists need to keep working on 'nows' in scripture, if nothing else, to endeavor to show the rest of us. At least that.

Saying that Levi was "in Abraham" is a "phrase that intentionally deviates from straightforward language use or literal meaning to produce a rhetorical effect", which is why the author says that it's true "sort of speak".

True enough. "Levi paid tithes" 'so to speak.' The author is trying to tell Christians why Jesus is enough and thus showing a shortcoming of thinking Levitical sacrifices can do something Jesus couldn't. It seems to me we are both tracking just fine on this.

You're the one ending it with your own stubborn stupidity, Lon.

Reread that statement. You've checked out. Generally, a few more of these and our conversation finishes for at least a few months, at this venture.

If you can't concede such an blatantly obvious point that has absolutely no effect on your doctrine whatsoever, then what's the point of even having a discussion about anything?

How is it even possible for the same mind to be convinced on the one hand that the use of the term "panentheism" is problematic while on the other hand being so stubbornly stuck on this meaninglessly trivial point that you'll walk away from the discussion before conceding it?

Be specific if you'd care to. Which point exactly do you want me to concede? "Now?" "Figure of speech?" "God has hands and a face?" We've covered quite a bit and I'm in if your patience holds. If not, we'll go some other day and take a break. Hope your holidays are wonderful and full of His presence. -Lon

 

[Clete]

Because we come from God, Who is Spirit. Physical comes from a Spiritual Being. He wasn't in a universe, He created it.

Look up the term "tautology", Lon!

We likely aren't agreeing. I see our 'imago deo' as characteristics that reflect God as Spirit, not at all in our our physical makeup other than as any of it would reflect God. I would agree it is anthropomorphisms, not literal hands etc. I don't believe God exists any'where' but inhabits His creation in some part of His being.

That lasts sentence makes literally no sense at all. It is not a proper English sentence.

More than that, it attempts to convey an idea that DOES NOT exist in scripture and is right back to the Panentheism that you claim to have dropped last week.

Furthermore, no one cares what "you believe". I just keep on saying it and it just keep on bouncing off your forehead. You do NOT get to pick and choose your doctrine like you're at the salad bar at your favorite steak joint.

I'm entirely uncertain of such.

WHY? How many times does the bible talk about God's face?

My first attempt yielded the following 14 passages...

Genesis 32:30
"So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: 'For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'"

Exodus 33:11
"So the LORD spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend."

Numbers 6:24-26
"The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make His face shine upon you, and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace."

Deuteronomy 5:4
"The LORD talked with you face to face on the mountain from the midst of the fire."

Psalm 27:8
"When You said, 'Seek My face,' my heart said to You, 'Your face, LORD, I will seek.'"

2 Chronicles 7:14
"If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land."

Psalm 105:4
"Seek the LORD and His strength; seek His face evermore!"

Deuteronomy 31:17
"Then My anger shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them..."

Isaiah 59:2
"But your iniquities have separated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear."

Ezekiel 39:29
"And I will not hide My face from them anymore; for I shall have poured out My Spirit on the house of Israel," says the Lord GOD.

Exodus 33:20
"But He said, 'You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.'"

Psalm 67:1
"God be merciful to us and bless us, and cause His face to shine upon us. Selah"

Matthew 18:10
"Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven."

Revelation 22:4
"They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads."

It seems to me that Spirit is something different than we know.

You are a spirit, Lon! You have the inexplicable desire to make the spiritual antithetical to your own existence when you are the one who wouldn't exist if you didn't have a spirit.

Obviously there is contention, Clete. When such exasperates, this also closes 'open' doors. The conversation just ends and everybody entrenched. That is the fruit of frustration. It really cannot go anywhere else once these exasperation comments commence. Patience is over. Discussion is over, relegated to 'stupid' etc. etc. etc.

Nice try but I'm not buying it.

The only thing I'm exasperated about is the fact that you've been shown the truth and rather than yielding to it, you dig in your heels. You've got pet doctrines that make you feel something inside that you don't want to let go of. Fine! Just don't pretend like you're being honest about it and certainly don't act like it's my fault that a conversation can't proceed.

Actually, just 'what it actually says' and stopping.

Yet another improper sentence that can't be made head nor tails of.

Extrapolations are fine, but the plain meaning of a text cannot just be 'English is good enough.'

I never made any such claim. I don't care what language you quote the passage in. In regards to the point in question, the idea is identical in the Greek.

You have a concordance for a reason. Certainly the Open Theist quit a long time ago because their conceptions are upheld. I've tried to show even Open Theists need to keep working on 'nows' in scripture, if nothing else, to endeavor to show the rest of us. At least that.

You've tried and failed, Lon!

In other words, you see something that isn't there. You keep trying to show us the linguistic equivalent to Big Foot. Your failure to prove your position is not our problem, it's yours.

True enough. "Levi paid tithes" 'so to speak.' The author is trying to tell Christians why Jesus is enough and thus showing a shortcoming of thinking Levitical sacrifices can do something Jesus couldn't. It seems to me we are both tracking just fine on this.

Exactly, the author of Hebrews used a figure of speech to convey that point and thus said "so to speak" because he wasn't trying to say that Levi literally gave tithes to Melchizedek.

Reread that statement. You've checked out. Generally, a few more of these and our conversation finishes for at least a few months, at this venture.

Okay, I reread it. Now I'll restated it!

It is your own stubborn stupidity that is about to end this discussion because for some idiotic reason you feel threatened by the ridiculously obvious notion that "so to speak" is an indication that a figure of speech has been uttered! You're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

Be specific if you'd care to.

Of the two of us, it is not me who has been unclear, with one single exception that I have already fixed.

 

[Lon]

The only thing I'm exasperated about is the fact that you've been shown the truth and rather than yielding to it, you dig in your heels. You've got pet doctrines that make you feel something inside that you don't want to let go of. Fine! Just don't pretend like you're being honest about it and certainly don't act like it's my fault that a conversation can't proceed.

Exasperation statements do not carry a conversation. Entrench? Of course I'm entrenched. You must understand how people process. They don't have to oppose, but they are going to give you all their thoughts in opposition. I'm a slow burn. Honesty is about taking your points, giving the counterpoint as I or another understands it SO they can entertain your thoughts. It is a must.

Yet another improper sentence that can't be made head nor tails of.

My suspicion is you hit 'reply' and lose the flow. First actual sentence: Subject √ Verb√

Because we come from God, Who is Spirit. Physical comes from a Spiritual Being. He wasn't in a universe, He created it.

The next:

So, you're exacting by being imprecise? How is "it sticks better in my mind" the measure by which something is determined to be more precise? The fact is that "so to speak" and "figure of speech" are precisely perfect synonyms.

Actually, just 'what it actually says' and stopping. Extrapolations are fine, but the plain meaning of a text cannot just be 'English is good enough.' You have a concordance for a reason. Certainly the Open Theist quit a long time ago because their conceptions are upheld. I've tried to show even Open Theists need to keep working on 'nows' in scripture, if nothing else, to endeavor to show the rest of us. At least that.

It wasn't a sentence by itself but an addendum to yours.

I never made any such claim. I don't care what language you quote the passage in. In regards to the point in question, the idea is identical in the Greek.


You've tried and failed, Lon!

In other words, you see something that isn't there. You keep trying to show us the linguistic equivalent to Big Foot. Your failure to prove your position is not our problem, it's yours.

I've no 'problem' with it being my problem. We discuss things, I tell you what is on the table. It isn't on your plate, but it is on the table.

Exactly, the author of Hebrews used a figure of speech to convey that point and thus said "so to speak" because he wasn't trying to say that Levi literally gave tithes to Melchizedek.

Like I said, we agree.

Okay, I reread it. Now I'll restated it!

It is your own stubborn stupidity that is about to end this discussion because for some idiotic reason you feel threatened by the ridiculously obvious notion that "so to speak" is an indication that a figure of speech has been uttered! You're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

Look, just because you became an Open Theist at this or another venture doesn't mean it is readily meaningful to the rest of us. Stubborn? Denial? Perhaps but I'm not you. Most theists are not. Matt Slick, quoted in thread is quickly dismissive. I at least have gone several extra miles. In order for anybody to be swayed, the whole thing has to be viable and without holes, at the very least not as many holes as are in another's theology. While this is important, we tend to live to God the same way, or much the same way. I get along with Calvinists, Open Theists, and Arminians fine. Agree? No, of course not. So I'm looking at the big picture: What 'best' matches what I know this far from scripture. Okay and fine: You see it isn't as sturdy as your own Open paradigms but patience is necessary. You've made an impact on me in threads. I've been moved. I get frustration that I've not moved on every point, but please please remember I'm a slow burn and very analytical. I will 'what if it means this' all over the place. I want to let God move me and it must be incredibly clear. Then I'll move. To date I'm here.

Of the two of us, it is not me who has been unclear, with one single exception that I have already fixed.

Keep asking clarifying questions. My first drafts aren't always the best but I do endeavor. Like I said, I have to work harder than the rest of you.

 

[Clete]

Exasperation statements do not carry a conversation. Entrench? Of course I'm entrenched. You must understand how people process. They don't have to oppose, but they are going to give you all their thoughts in opposition. I'm a slow burn. Honesty is about taking your points, giving the counterpoint as I or another understands it SO they can entertain your thoughts. It is a must.

My suspicion is you hit 'reply' and lose the flow. First actual sentence: Subject √ Verb√

The next:


It wasn't a sentence by itself but an addendum to yours.

I've no 'problem' with it being my problem. We discuss things, I tell you what is on the table. It isn't on your plate, but it is on the table.

Like I said, we agree.

Look, just because you became an Open Theist at this or another venture doesn't mean it is readily meaningful to the rest of us. Stubborn? Denial? Perhaps but I'm not you. Most theists are not. Matt Slick, quoted in thread is quickly dismissive. I at least have gone several extra miles. In order for anybody to be swayed, the whole thing has to be viable and without holes, at the very least not as many holes as are in another's theology. While this is important, we tend to live to God the same way, or much the same way. I get along with Calvinists, Open Theists, and Arminians fine. Agree? No, of course not. So I'm looking at the big picture: What 'best' matches what I know this far from scripture. Okay and fine: You see it isn't as sturdy as your own Open paradigms but patience is necessary. You've made an impact on me in threads. I've been moved. I get frustration that I've not moved on every point, but please please remember I'm a slow burn and very analytical. I will 'what if it means this' all over the place. I want to let God move me and it must be incredibly clear. Then I'll move. To date I'm here.

Keep asking clarifying questions. My first drafts aren't always the best but I do endeavor. Like I said, I have to work harder than the rest of you.

This is very likely my most favorite of all the posts you've ever posted.

This is me turning the patience knob to 11.