Announcement

Collapse

Theology Club Rules

For years many TOL members have asked for a special set of forums where theology could be discussed without the distraction of troublemakers and other distractions. To post in the Theology Club forums you must apply for membership (yes even TOL subscribers must apply). Almost all memberships will be approved however your membership will be revoked if you engage in anti-Christian rhetoric, repeated cases of red-herrings, quibbling over terms (equivocation), strawmen, false allegations, and other devices contrary to honest debate. In short the Theology Club is a place for honest and friendly discussion regarding theological topics.
See more
See less

Open Theism and Genesis 1

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
    What your view fails to do, AMR, is consider that just as God the Son took to himself a human nature, without conflation in the natures, and yet having one person, so he took to himself a human person, forming one person from the two, without conflating the two.

    Only in this was can Christ be fully human and fully God. (for that matter, only in this way can there be two wills in Christ. When you make the human nature impersonal, you remove the will.)
    Rank heresy.

    "took himself a human person, forming one person from two persons" is contrary to Chalcedon's warnings of mixing, confusing, dividing, separating the two natures.

    Again, will is attached to nature, not to person. The human nature is impersonal (not a person). This in no way means there cannot be two wills as will is associated with the nature.

    You are all over the place with your odd views and now resort to making up new creedal statements. Please speak with your pastor and ask him what he thinks of the statement: so he took to himself a human person, forming one person from the two. Sigh.

    AMR
    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


    • #32
      Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
      You clearly have no idea what "Open Theism" is, or what kind of freedom it purports. The fact that God gives dominion and commands us to subdue is a clear indicator of free will. The fact that man is given direction doesn't change that at all.
      I 'think' I do have a clear idea. If man was commanded to do something, he is not free to disobey.
      Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
      Again, you need to go look at what Open Theism actually claims. These verses in no way affect free will.
      "Without me you cannot do any one thing" doesn't affect freedom of will? What could you do without Christ? Any one thing?
      Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
      Sounds like Calvinism.
      "God is Spirit" is Calvinism? I hope to God it is Open Theology as well. "God is not physical Acts 7:48." I hope to God it is part of Lutheran belief as well. God's ways are different than our ways? Isaiah 55:8-9
      I pray Catholics believe the same thing. Can we surmise things about God wrongly as finite men and/or sinners? If not, I'd not need a Savior nor need to study to show myself an approved workman. I pray to God we all are seeking to be approved workmen. What was Calvinistic?

      Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
      Free will doesn't mean unlimited ability. Surely you're intelligent enough to grasp that distinction.
      Surely I do, but I want to know in what sense 'you' think we are free. All I have said with a few supporting points, was that I think "subdue" as a directive describes a command Adam and Eve "weren't" free to disobey. When pushed, I do agree with you of sorts, because they were perfect, thus the world was indeed more open to them. They had not but one command to subdue the earth and the other to avoid the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. I guess I'd even say that it supports your point they had a 'free' will at that point. My only contention is that I don't think it supports Open Theism in that passage.
      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


      • #33
        Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
        Rank heresy.

        "took himself a human person, forming one person from two persons" is contrary to Chalcedon's warnings of mixing, confusing, dividing, separating the two natures.

        Again, will is attached to nature, not to person. The human nature is impersonal (not a person). This in no way means there cannot be two wills as will is associated with the nature.

        You are all over the place with your odd views and now resort to making up new creedal statements. Please speak with your pastor and ask him what he thinks of the statement: so he took to himself a human person, forming one person from the two. Sigh.

        AMR
        Maybe you should define "person", as it's clearly not defined like the rest of us define it.
        I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

        2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Lon View Post
          I 'think' I do have a clear idea. If man was commanded to do something, he is not free to disobey.
          Umm... Adam was free to disobey... And DID. He wasn't free from consequences, but that doesn't mean he couldn't.

          (That's a major Bzzzzzzt.)

          "Without me you cannot do any one thing" doesn't affect freedom of will? What could you do without Christ? Any one thing?
          People around the world live their entire lives without Christ. They do lots of things.

          You see, this is what it known as "bad exegesis", in that you ignore what Jesus is actually speaking about so you can talk about what YOU want to talk about.

          Are you going to dispute that people around the world live their entire lives without Christ?

          (Another Bzzzzzt.)

          "God is Spirit" is Calvinism?
          OK, troll, you're done.

          Have a nice life.
          I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

          2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
            "Did not take a man" - meaning did not take a person, like you are a man.
            "not a personal man" - meaning did not take a person, like you are a personal man
            If Christ is not fully human like me, then his sacrifice was in vain, and it cannot propitiate my sins.

            And you've just confirmed, yet again, that you directly contradict Chalcedon.
            I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

            2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
              Maybe you should define "person", as it's clearly not defined like the rest of us define it.
              Asked and answered:

              http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post4679570

              We must avoid anachronistically importing how "the rest of us define" person when speaking of the theological doctrine of the Trinity or the Incarnation. Modern notions do not work well in this arena and will lead to the errors you are flirting around with now.

              The simple litmus test of a proper understanding of the incarnation is the answer to the question "Could the person we call Jesus have existed without the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit?"

              There is only one right answer: No.

              Why? Such a person known as "Jesus" to have existed without the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit would have been the result of natural union between man and woman, thereby he would have been yet another fallen man just as you or I were at our birth. Such a fallen man would have been in need of the Good News, the works of God alone for his re-birth just all us sinners require.

              The human nature of Our Lord was not an inherited fallen human nature.

              Unlike us, Our Lord did not participate in Adam's sin (we all sinned in Adam just as if we were really there, hence we are born sinners who sin), so the corruption and guilt of Adam's fall were not transmitted to Our Lord's human nature. We need to remember that sin is not essential to the human nature qua nature. Sin is not an entity in itself; sin is always related to a law. Corruption of a person is not material; it is moral. The seat of morality lies within our will. Our will lies within our nature.

              Our Lord took on Him our human nature's sinless infirmities, such as hunger, grief, thirst, weariness, and the like (Rom. 8:3), submitted to poverty and want (Matthew 8:20), endured assaults and temptations of Satan (Hebrews 4:15), together with the contradiction, reproach, and persecution of a wicked world (Hebrews 12:3). He did so such that He might take the sting out of all the afflictions of His people (Romans 8:28), and sympathize with them in their troubles (Isaiah 63:9).

              No such a Person could have existed unless this Person was the God-Man, Jesus Christ.

              AMR
              Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; April 19th, 2016, 02:34 PM.
              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


              • #37
                Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
                Umm... Adam was free to disobey... And DID. He wasn't free from consequences, but that doesn't mean he couldn't.

                (That's a major Bzzzzzzt.)
                Depending on how you define 'free.' I dislike it, when discussing the will. "Responsible" will is much better imho.

                Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
                People around the world live their entire lives without Christ. They do lots of things.
                Out of His Will. There is a difference.
                Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
                You see, this is what it known as "bad exegesis", in that you ignore what Jesus is actually speaking about so you can talk about what YOU want to talk about.
                Not what I did. Read 'a difference' above. You are strawman-ning it again.
                Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                You... are just being combative for no real reason.
                AMR


                Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
                Are you going to dispute that people around the world live their entire lives without Christ?

                (Another Bzzzzzt.)
                Nope. Are you going to continue to play the 'simpleton' role? I'm not going to buzz you, but will not waste my time, but ignore you.



                Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
                OK, troll, you're done.

                Have a nice life.
                Mutual at this point. This is not the section for inane banter, Muz.
                Last edited by Lon; April 19th, 2016, 05:46 PM.
                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

                Working...
                X