Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Vaquero45 View Post
    Who are you?
    Obviously someone who is "banned" and came in under a new user name. Perhaps?
    The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by drbrumley View Post
      Obviously someone who is "banned" and came in under a new user name. Perhaps?
      ?, got me.

      Just seems like I would have heard about some guy "slamming" the OV over 100 times around here.


      baloney, you can assert that you've slammed the argument already, but you are way ahead of yourself if you think everyone will pack up and go home on that.

      Maybe you could answer Clete's question? Be the first really brave non-OV'er.
      Marge: "Aren't you going to give him the last rites?"
      Rev. Lovejoy: "That's Catholic, Marge - you might as well ask me to do a voodoo dance."



      "Oh bother" said Pooh, as he chambered the next round.

      Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Vaquero45 View Post
        Who are you?
        He is a vulgar, foul mouthed, pervert as far as I can tell.
        Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
        TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by drbrumley View Post
          Did God actually hate Esau? Looking at Esau, I still see God's favor upon Him. So I say no. God did not hate Esau.
          Well, Maybe God really don't mean what he said. We can just change it to suit ourselves and mold God in our own image. Isn't a God that does not hate more lovable anyway.
          Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

          The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by baloney View Post
            Why do you guys go on with this open theim when I've slam dunked it a hundred times fold?
            That's baloney.

            Originally posted by Vaquero45 View Post
            Who are you?
            That's baloney.
            BRXI: Should Christians support the Death Penalty?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by elected4ever View Post
              Well, Maybe God really don't mean what he said. We can just change it to suit ourselves and mold God in our own image. Isn't a God that does not hate more lovable anyway.
              Do you hate your parents?
              BRXI: Should Christians support the Death Penalty?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Turbo View Post
                Do you hate your parents?
                irrelevant
                Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

                The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by elected4ever View Post
                  irrelevant
                  irrelevant? Is that how you sign your mother's and father's day cards?


                  "Mom/Dad you are the best! Thanks for everything!

                  irrelevant, e4e"


                  There could be cases where the expected answer is not true or even right, but generally, should people hate their parents?
                  Marge: "Aren't you going to give him the last rites?"
                  Rev. Lovejoy: "That's Catholic, Marge - you might as well ask me to do a voodoo dance."



                  "Oh bother" said Pooh, as he chambered the next round.

                  Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Vaquero45 View Post
                    irrelevant? Is that how you sign your mother's and father's day cards?


                    "Mom/Dad you are the best! Thanks for everything!

                    irrelevant, e4e"


                    There could be cases where the expected answer is not true or even right, but generally, should people hate their parents?
                    It sounds nicer than saying it is none of your dam business doesn't it?
                    Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

                    The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by elected4ever View Post
                      It sounds nicer than saying it is none of your dam business doesn't it?
                      OK, then. I didn't mean to touch a nerve.

                      I'll rephrase:
                      Generally, should people hate their parents?
                      BRXI: Should Christians support the Death Penalty?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Turbo View Post
                        OK, then. I didn't mean to touch a nerve.

                        I'll rephrase:
                        Generally, should people hate their parents?
                        I think people should assume the best about people until it is demonstrated otherwise. So I guess the answer would be no.
                        Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

                        The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Clete View Post
                          Lonster et al,

                          I am fully aware of the Scripture passages, your quoting them does not answer the question.
                          Originally posted by Lon
                          I agree, not the personal question, but it does answer the question: "Did God hate Esau." & "Should we hate our parents?" It seems to me like it is jumping the gun. Who cares if I love our hate my parents? The issue is really 'should I?'
                          Originally posted by Clete View Post
                          I say that God did not hate Esau and no I definitely do not hate my parents.
                          Originally posted by Lon
                          From the scriptures, are you correct on the first? Are you obedient on the second? It 'appears' not for both answers. Do you agree?
                          Originally posted by Clete View Post
                          There, now I've given straight forward answers, please reciprocate with simple yes or no answers.
                          Originally posted by Lon
                          Same questions: "Are you correct? Are you obedient?" Demonstrate please. I'd not like to 'guess' your train of thought here. I've jumped into the middle of a treatise with such a question. I have a full-blown treatise of my own but I suspect we'd be close to the same page here. Are you seeing your position as being in opposition to another view? What doctrine and position are you debating specifically?
                          Did God hate Esau? Yes or no? Literally or with a figurative meaning (clarification is so important).
                          Do you hate your parents? Yes or no? " "
                          Originally posted by Clete View Post
                          Once we get an unequivocal answer, we can proceed to the actual meat of the debate. Let's not drag out the preliminaries unnecessarily.

                          Resting in Him,
                          Clete
                          Drag them out? You haven't qualified the bible passages yet. You haven't described what your take on 'hate' is yet. Hate as in 'not love?' Hate as in, when you hate, you've commited murder on a heart-level? Hate as in despise? Hate as in contrast to allegiance? Hate as a similie or metaphor? What are we talking about? It greatly influences my answer. I could answer literally either way depending on my and your understanding of 'hate.'
                          My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                          Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                          Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                          Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                          No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                          Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                          ? Yep

                          Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                          ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                          Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Clete:

                            Yes

                            No
                            My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                            Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                            Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                            Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                            No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                            Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                            ? Yep

                            Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                            ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                            Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              God, in His holy wrath, hated Esau and predestined to reprobation before he was even born. Such is God's right to do so. God predestines the elect to salvation and the reprobate to damnation.

                              And, yes, I hate my mother and father, in the sense that Christ was commanding in Mt. 10:37 and Luke 14:26. In Luke, Christ was using an ancient instrument of rhetorical comparison, in effect, stating that your love for me (Jesus) must be so great that your love for your parents would appear as hate when compared to your love of your parents. And, yes, I affirm that my love for Christ is so great that it appears as if I hate my own parents.

                              Some make the mistake of trying to link verses in Mt. and Luke with Malachi and Esau. They would claim that God only loved Esau less, much, much less, but He still loved him. No, this is not what the passage states and the rest of the bible teaches about the sovereignty of God. Much straining is required to make the Esau passage into something different. There is no connection between them unless one strains to make the connection.

                              God's predestining of the reprobates is a harsh doctrine (to our finite minds), but it is scriptural. I always find it interesting that persons that teach the doctrine of the Trinity, they ask persons coming to study to put aside their preconceived notions and not rely upon unaided human reason to determine what can or cannot be true about God. The same persons will insist that the Scriptures be the unquestioned authoritative guide, too. All good advice and instruction. Yet these same persons are unwilling to follow these same rules when encountering God's sovereign predestination.

                              The part of the doctrine of predestination that has God, by a sovereign and eternal decree, choosing one portion of mankind to salvation while leaving the other portion to reprobation, initially strikes us as being opposed to our ideas of justice and thus needs a defense. The defense of the doctrine of reprobation rests upon mankind's original sin and total inability to save themselves.

                              God's decree finds all of mankind fallen. None have any claim on God's grace. Yet, instead of leaving all of mankind to their just punishment, God gratuitously confers undeserved happiness upon one portion of mankind (elect),—an act of pure mercy and grace to which no one can object,—while the other portion (reprobate) is simply passed by. No undeserved misery is visited upon the reprobate. No one has any right to object to this part of God's decree. If the decree dealt simply with innocent persons, it would be unjust to assign one portion to reprobation; but since the decree deals with men in a particular state, a state of guilt and sin, it is not unjust.

                              Any strict Calvinist (e.g., myself) must insist that while some are saved from their unbelief and disobedience, in which all are involved, and others are not, it is still the sinner's sinfulness that constitutes the ground of his reprobation. Election and reprobation proceed on different grounds; one the grace of God, the other the sin of man. It is incorrect to say that because God elects to save a man irrespective of his character or what he deserves, that therefore God elects to condemn a man irrespective of his character or what he deserves. No one has a birthright to be saved or offered salvation.

                              Here is a summary of the proper doctrine of election as understood by any Calvinist worthy of the label :
                              1. Election is a sovereign free act of God, through which He determines who shall be made righteous.
                              2. The elective decree was made in eternity.
                              3. The elective decree contemplates mankind as already fallen.
                              4. The elect are brought from a state of sin and into a state of blessedness and happiness.
                              5. Election is personal determining what particular individuals shall be saved.
                              6. Election includes both means and ends,—election to eternal life includes election to righteous living here in this world.
                              7. The elective decree is made effective by the efficient work of the Holy Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases.
                              8. God's common grace would incline all men to good if not resisted.
                              9. The elective decree leaves others who are not elected—others who suffer the just consequences of their sin.
                              10. Some men are permitted to follow the evil which they freely choose, to their own destruction.
                              11. God, in His sovereignty, could regenerate all men if He chose to do so.
                              12. The Judge of all the earth will do right, and will extend His saving grace to multitudes who are undeserving.
                              13. Election is not based on foreseen faith or good works, but only on God's sovereign good pleasure.
                              14. Much of the larger portion of the human race has been elected to life.
                              15. All of those dying in infancy are among the elect.
                              16. There has also been an election of individuals and of nations to external and temporal favors and privileges—an election which falls short of salvation.
                              17. The doctrine of election is repeatedly taught and emphasized throughout the Scriptures.
                              Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; June 9th, 2007, 11:17 AM. Reason: Corrected bad grammar (see colorized text 2nd para)
                              Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                              Do you confess?
                              Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                              AMR's Randomata Blog
                              Learn Reformed Doctrine
                              I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                              Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                              Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                              The best TOL Social Group: here.
                              If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                              Why?


                              Comment


                              • #30
                                In Luke, Christ was using an ancient instrument of rhetorical comparison,
                                Does scripture use rhetorical comparisons in any other place?


                                God's decree finds all of mankind fallen. None have any claim on God's grace. Yet, instead of leaving all of mankind to their just punishment, God gratuitously confers undeserved happiness upon one portion of mankind (elect),—an act of pure mercy and grace to which no one can object,—while the other portion (reprobate) is simply passed by. No undeserved misery is visited upon the reprobate. No one has any right to object to this part of God's decree. If the decree dealt simply with innocent persons, it would be unjust to assign one portion to reprobation; but since the decree deals with men in a particular state, a state of guilt and sin, it is not unjust.
                                None have any claim on God's grace? What about your so called 'elect'? Doesn't the "one portion of mankind (elect)” have a claim the rest could object to? That is such double talk that you can’t possibly call that PURE mercy and grace. You have to call that at best 50% mercy and Grace. No one objects to God’s decree that all mankind is under the curse of sin; nor would anyone in their right mind object to PURE mercy and Grace. What the Open View (and many others) object to is your Calvinistic (“Any strict Calvinist (e.g., myself)”) twisted interpretation of God’s universal offer of salvation to ‘WHOSOEVER WILL’.

                                No one has a birthright to be saved or offered salvation.
                                Yeper! That’s correct! That is why we can call it Pure Grace and you can’t.

                                14. Much of the larger portion of the human race has been elected to life.
                                And again, you base your numbers on what exactly?
                                17. The doctrine of election is repeatedly taught and emphasized throughout the Scriptures.
                                Right again! But again, your interpretation and application stinks! All are 'elected' to receive or reject God's offer of salvation by GRACE through Faith but not all will respond favorably. Those who do are the 'elect' to receive power/the right to become children of God.
                                Universal curse/Partial solution? The Calvinistic view of God is of a weak, controlling despot that doesn’t know the first thing about love, redemption or relationship. The God that has all the power and freedom to love Jacob and Hate Esau and still goes to the cross to redeem ALL humanity is the God revealed in Christian scripture. Total solution.

                                Sunday School 101

                                Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

                                For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

                                "Proof? You want PROOF! You can't handle the proof!"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X