ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

Nathon Detroit · Oct 7, 2006

Jim's word games have betrayed him.

Jim's word games have betrayed him.

How far will Jim go?

Jim says God is not responsible for our salvation.

One of Jim's stated definitions for the word responsible is...

Responsible: being the primary cause of something and so able to be credited for it.

So then I ask Jim if he would at least credit God with our salvation.

Jim says "no", we cannot give God credit for anything.

Hilston said:
It can't apply to God. No finite being has grounds upon which to judge God, be it for blame or for credit."

Yet as most people already know the word credit is also a common synonym for the word praise along with other words like, belief, faith, glory, honor, thanks, trust.

Main Entry: credit
Synonyms: acclaim, acknowledgment, approval, attention, belief, brownie points, commendation, confidence, credence, distinction, faith, fame, glory, honor, kudos*, merit, notice, points*, praise, reliance, strokes*, thanks, tribute, trust.
SOURCE: Thesaurus.com - credit

In fact, my dictionary lists the following as an example of credit: Phrases - Credit where credit is due: praise given when it is deserved, even if one is reluctant to give it.

Jim.... can you at least praise God?

Jim... will you admit that we can believe in God? Can we have faith in God? Can we give God glory? Honor? Thanks? Can we trust in God?

Hilston · Oct 7, 2006

Anything to avoid answering the questions, huh Eric?

Knight said:
The above paragraph is pure silliness!

The fact that this is how you respond to it speaks volumes and gives me more information than all your words put together. Did you even try to understand it? The more time I spend on TOL, the more poignantly I understand the metaphor of casting one's pearls before swine.

Knight said:
Finite beings CAN and DO give God credit for all sort so things.

- I credit God for creating all that exists. (Gen 1)

On what grounds do you give him credit? By what standard have you evaluated God as deserving credit? Do you understand the rebuke of Job? Why did God spend 5 chapters asking Job where he was when God created the universe, etc.? Did Job forget? What was Job's sin, Eric? Please don't skip this like you've skipped everything else. On second thought, nevermind. I don't really care. Your error is glaring for everyone to see who hasn't been poisoned by your mind-numbing theology.

Knight said:
- God IS responsible for my salvation (I give Him credit for He is the cause Rom 6:23)

No, you're the cause, remember? God doesn't cause your salvation; He just offers it to you. You saved yourself and caused your own salvation. Do we have to define "cause" now? This is just yet another one of Open Theism's internal contradictions that expose it as a false theology.

Knight said:
- I credit God for giving us His word (Rom 1:2)
- God is responsible for truth (I give Him credit for He is the cause John 14:6 )
- God IS responsible for all that is good, and the perfect gifts that come from above. (James 1:17)

Etc. etc. etc......

In all of the above instances (and many others), I give all the credit to God and I do so using Jim's definition of responsible (being the primary cause of something and so able to be credited for it.).

You left out the blame part, which is crucial to understanding the definition, which is what puts the credit part in context. Your journalizing is classic. Good job! Context doesn't matter much to Open Theists, because they continue reject individual redemptive election, despite what the scriptures teach, they contradict their own espoused tenet on miracles by their conception of a "zesty prayer life", they contradict the ineluctable clarity with which the Bible teaches that God decrees events that are contrary to His prescriptive will, they ignore the scriptures that teach how God uses evil for good, and they openly do violence to language in order to imagine clay pots with free will that talk back to the potter and mar themselves.

Knight said:
Anyone that doesn't give God credit for these things is part of the lost and we should all pray for them.

Anyone who sets himself up to judge God as either blameworthy or credit-worthy is being insolent and Luciferian. I don't expect you to get this, Eric. I'm very serious about this. You won't try, and your mental disorder would probably hijack the process even if you did. It really disgusts me how you not only treat people, but how disrespectful you are to the debate. I write this only for the sake of those willing to think on their own and to not allow you to use ignorance, or your influence, as a cudgel against them.

Check this out:

Ex 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

2Sa 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

Why do you trust this God, Eric? :loser:

All according to God's inexorable decrees, of course.

Your friend,
Jim
Why God is not responsible for our salvation.

Nathon Detroit · Oct 7, 2006

Hilston said:
On what grounds do you give him credit?

On the "grounds" of the definition of the word responsible that you supplied me.

responsible: being the primary cause of something and so able to be credited for it.

Those are my "grounds".

Hilston · Oct 7, 2006

Knight said:
How far will Jim go?

How far will Eric go with his red herring to avoid the theological questions that have been hanging over his head for a dozen pages now? :loser:

(Here's an idea, Eric. Instead of discussing the substantive issues on this thread, maybe you want to argue about whether or not it has been a dozen pages; maybe it's been only eleven? Perhaps we get into how I define "dozen"? Is it a baker's dozen? Or a metric dozen? Just a thought you might want to consider, you know, as a friend and all.) :loser:

Knight said:

One of Jim's stated definitions for the word responsible is...

Responsible: being the primary cause of something and so able to be credited for it.

Click to expand...

That's great journalism, Eric! Well done. The real definition puts "credited" in context.
being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.
That definition, and that meaning of credit, juxtaposed with blame, cannot be applied to God. This is exactly what I mean when I say that Open Theism raises man up and brings God down. Existentialism seeks to evaluate God on the basis of automous standards of goodness. Humanism seeks to ascertain God according to man as the measure of all things. With every post from Eric's fingertips, he demonstrates what a despicable and loathsome human being he is. He tears down God, he raises man up, he treats his friends like enemies, he disrespects rational discourse, he ignores questions that do damage to his theology. All according to God's inexorable decrees, of course.

Knight said:

In fact, my dictionary lists the following as an example of credit: Phrases - Credit where credit is due: praise given when it is deserved, even if one is reluctant to give it.

Click to expand...

Eric has determined that God deserves praise. I wonder how he came to that conclusion? Did he use biblical reasoning or Luciferian reasoning?

Knight said:

Jim.... will can at least praise God?

Jim... will you admit that we can believe in God? Can we have faith in God? Can we give God glory? Honor? Thanks? Can we trust in God?

Click to expand...

Eric, will you admit that God decrees evil for good purposes? Will you admit that your denial of individual redemptive election is contrary to scripture? Will you admit that your denial of miracles is contrary to your espoused notions of prayer? Will you admit your abuse of metaphors in teaching that clay pots can talk and mar themselves?

Knight said:

On the "grounds" of the definition of the word responsible that you supplied me.

Click to expand...

Those aren't grounds, Eric. My goodness, man, are you even trying? By what criterion do you ascertain that God deserves credit, and how do you justify that criterion? Your answer to this will determine whether your thinking is Biblical or Luciferian.

Just jam your head in the sand, Eric. Everyone sees what you're doing. Those who like you or fear you will try to excuse it. Those with their rational faculties still intact will be disgusted.

All according to God's inexorable decrees, of course.
Your friend,
Jim
Why God is not responsible for our salvation.

Nathon Detroit · Oct 7, 2006

Hilston said:
That's great journalism, Eric! Well done. The real definition puts "credited" in context.
being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.
That definition, and that meaning of credit, juxtaposed with blame, cannot be applied to God.

Jim, do you know what the word "or" means? Oh great, now I suppose Jim will attempt to redefine the word "or". You are worse than Bill Clinton!

Jim.... I must admit am torn.

Torn between wanting to befriend you and wanting to mock you for your embarrassing display on TOL. You know I like you, but your wrong. Plain and simple and I must correct you (I will try to be more friendly in my approach), you will have to forgive me I am not used to people who claim to believe in God stating that God is not to credit for our salvation. I might expect that from an agnostic or an atheist but not from a Christian.

Let's do this again...

YOUR DEFINITION:
Responsible - being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

"OR" Did you catch the "or"?????

Therefore it's just as proper to say....
Responsible - being the primary cause of something and so able to be credited for it.

As it is proper to say...
Responsible - being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed for it.

Will you at least concede that the following definition is acceptable for the word responsible based on your own definition?

Responsible - being the primary cause of something and so able to be credited for it.

Eric, will you admit that God decrees evil for good purposes?

Are you saying God is responsible for evil decrees? Are you crediting God with evil decrees? :chuckle: Jim, if you wont credit God with anything why are you now arguing that I should?

Still curious....

Jim.... can you at least praise God?

Jim... will you admit that we can believe in God? Can we have faith in God? Can we give God glory? Honor? Thanks? Can we trust in God?

Jim, you have dug yourself a hole that not even an experienced spelunker could escape from.

Hilston said:
Just jam your head in the sand, Eric. Everyone sees what you're doing. Those who like you or fear you will try to excuse it. Those with their rational faculties still intact will be disgusted.

I will take my chances Jim.

And I appreciate your subtle admission that things aren't going so well for you in this exchange. :up:

Bob Hill · Oct 7, 2006

I thought this was cute, clever, shrewd, or sharp, but I can't decide which one?

sentientsynth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Hill

God determined before the ages that Christ would have a body of believers...

Had you said "believers" you would be correct. But as you placed the plural "believers" as the object of a preposition, it cannot be the direct object of your verb "determined". Rather, "body" is the object of the verb, while "believers" is the object of the preposition.

So what you're saying is that God determined ... a body, which is singular. This isn't correct. What God determined (or foreordained), rather, was a plural term us.

Eph 1:3-6 ¶ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

"Body of believers" is singular and irreconcilable with the plural pronouns of Eph.1. Had you said "believers" you would be correct

Actually, chagrin would be the term I have experienced.

Oh how could I?

Bob Hill

lee_merrill · Oct 7, 2006

Hi Patman,

But your theology causes you go take it to the next place. Not only did God send Joseph, he now is the cause of the evil the brothers committed against Joseph.

Yet “it was not you who sent me here, but God” refers to his being sold into slavery, it refers to events in the past, and thus God did cause them.

God could have just told him "Go to egypt and tell Pharaoh what he is dreaming about," totally skipping the entire fiasco, and the same thing would have happened.

So then why didn’t he do this, and skip the sin part?

And again, the grammar demonstrates that it was the very deeds that his brothers did that God meant, how do you have an intent for a deed you are uninvolved in? "I intend that Patman's next post be for encouragement for the Dodgers fans." No, that doesn't work, I cannot have a purposeful intent for something you do.

It is simple that solution that includes "God caused sin" is wrong. Just stop saying it.

Jeremiah, too?

Lamentations 3:37-38 Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?

Isaiah?

Isa. 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.

Micah? Amos?

Micah 1:12 Those who live in Maroth writhe in pain, waiting for relief, because disaster has come from the Lord, even to the gate of Jerusalem.
Amos 3:6 When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?

"This is the same lesson we learn from 2 Cor. 12:7 where Paul says that his thorn in the flesh was a messenger of Satan, and yet was given for the purpose of his own holiness. 'To keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me – to keep me from exalting myself!' Now, humility is not Satan's purpose in this affliction. Therefore the purpose is God's. Which means that Satan here is being used by God to accomplish his good purposes in Paul's life." (John Piper)

And "given me" must thus refer to God as the giver, not Satan.

Blessings,
Lee

sentientsynth · Oct 7, 2006

Bob Hill said:
I thought this was cute, clever, shrewd, or sharp, but I can't decide which one?

Just call it official SS Status, baby!!

:guitar:

Hilston · Oct 7, 2006

Knight said:
Jim, do you know what the word "or" means? Oh great, now I suppose Jim will attempt to define the word "or". You are worse than Bill Clinton!

This is starting to bore me. But it is exactly what I expected from Eric. He refuses to care about what is intended, about what my actual beliefs are. He is more interested in his strategem and ignoring the crux issues of this discussion. It was initially as amusing as it was pathetic. Now it's just boring.

Let's recap: Eric cannot answer how God's decretive will is contrary to His prescriptive will. Eric contradicts scriptures that show God plans evil for good. Eric cannot answer how God moved David to number Israel, against His own prescribed will, all for God's good purposes. Eric contradicts his own espoused theology of miracles by his theory of prayer. Eric denies individual redemptive election contrary to the scriptural proofs that have been shown. Eric abuses language and the metaphors of scripture by insisting that clay pots can talk and mar themselves. Eric ignores the elephant in the room, and it's disgusting. The context is plain. Open Theism is a mental disorder.

Knight said:
... you will have to forgive me I am not used to people who claim to believe in God stating that God is not to credit for our salvation.

It is obvious that this has been a Pharisaical set-up from the beginning. I even warned him about it, and I've sent him private messages telling him that I knew what he was up to. But he was unfazed and unabashed. I saw this coming, and Eric knows it. He has no shame. As I said earlier, Eric does violence to language, including the word "friendship," by his dogged and incorrigible pursuit of this.

Notice that Philetus understood and actually thanked me for raising this issue, but by sticking his neck out and actually paying me a compliment, Eric's strategy was undermined. So what did Eric do? He took Philetus and dressed him down in public, to the extent that now Philetus has done a full one-eighty. He made Philetus an example. So now, no Open Theist within eyeshot of that thread will dare to betray even a skoche of agreement with the evil Hilston, lest he be on the receiving end of the same rap across the knuckles that Eric gave Philetus. Is it surprising? No, because this is Eric's idea of friendship. He rewards loyalty and punishes independent thinking and scholarship, all under the guise of friendship. It's Knight's way or the highway. Eric is a sickening human being.

Knight said:
Let's do this again...

YOUR DEFINITION:

This is how evil Eric is. He quotes the definition that I quoted, which happened to be one of many definitions, and, in typical Luciferian fashion, ignores the fact that I said: "With the exception of number 5, none of the definitions apply to God." Eric focuses on number 2 because he thinks it will serve his "friendly" strategy of misinformation, misrepresentation and distraction. He doesn't care what I really think. He doesn't care what I really believe. He is just like the Pharisees to tried to trap Jesus. He is just like Lucifer who tried to deceive Adam.

Knight said:
Responsible - being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

"OR" Did you catch the "or"?????

Therefore it's just as proper to say....
Responsible - being the primary cause of something and so able to be credited for it.

As it is proper to say...
Responsible - being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed for it.

Sure, but it's proper, but only if one keeps those statements together to provide full and proper context. Eric plays the role of a media journalist when he insists on separating them, thereby misleading the reader by providing only a partial definition.

Knight said:
Will you at least concede that the following definition is acceptable for the word responsible based on your own definition?

Responsible - being the primary cause of something and so able to be credited for it.

When Eric leaves out "blamed," the definition becomes misleading, which is what his strategy is all about. I seem to recall someone in the Bible who also selectively left words out in order to mislead.

Knight said:
Are you saying God is responsible for evil decrees? Are you crediting God with evil decrees? :chuckle: Jim, if you wont credit God with anything why are you now arguing that I should?

This is called equivocation. Everyone sees it. Some will defend it. Others will gag on it. It makes me sick. :vomit:

Knight said:
Still curious....

Jim.... can you at least praise God?

Yes, but not because I've presumed to sit in judgment of whether or not God deserves it as Eric and Open Theism does.

Knight said:

Jim... will you admit that we can believe in God? Can we have faith in God? Can we give God glory? Honor? Thanks? Can we trust in God?

Click to expand...

I can believe in God, give Him glory, honor and thanks. I can also trust in Him. Eric and the Open Theist cannot do any of these without violating their own espoused tenets. Eric and Open Theists can't explain how to trust a God who, by prescription says:

Ex 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

But by decree reveals:

2Sa 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

Why does the Open Theist trust this God?

Knight said:
Jim, you have dug yourself a hole that not even an experienced spelunker could escape from.

This is Eric's convenient take on the matter, all based on equivocation, misrepresentation, selective quoting and brutality to communication. Anyone can see this. And it's disgusting. It's evil. It's all that Open Theism has left. Eric can't engage the actual debate. Eric can't answer the questions put before him without resorting to these tactics. And Eric doesn't even have the good sense to be ashamed of himself. But then again, were the Pharisees ever ashamed for trying to trap Jesus? Was Lucifer ever ashamed for trying to deceive Adam? Of course not. We shouldn't be surprised. Remember this, people: With me, Eric is like the Pharisees, trying to trap and discredit me. With the reader, Eric is like Lucifer, trying to deceive you by twisting words.

All according to God's inexorable decrees, of course.

Why God is not responsible for our salvation.

godrulz · Oct 7, 2006

Who is Eric?

Is Jim a genius, ignorant, arrogant, or insecure?

Hilston · Oct 7, 2006

godrulz said:
Who is Eric?

Is Jim a genius, ignorant, arrogant, or insecure?

I'm a part-time genius, which, by inference suggests I'm at least partly ignorant. I'm full-time arrogant and full-time insecure. Why else would I be trying so hard to get everyone here to like me?

godrulz · Oct 7, 2006

Hilston said:
I'm a part-time genius, which, by inference suggests I'm at least partly ignorant. I'm full-time arrogant and full-time insecure. Why else would I be trying so hard to get everyone here to like me?

I like you, I think. SIncerity does not create truth, but it is refreshing to know a thinker with convictions or interest in the Queen of Sciences (Theology). I trust there is also a love for God and His people.

Nathon Detroit · Oct 7, 2006

Hilston said:
Notice that Philetus understood and actually thanked me for raising this issue, but by sticking his neck out and actually paying me a compliment, Eric's strategy was undermined. So what did Eric do? He took Philetus and dressed him down in public, to the extent that now Philetus has done a full one-eighty.

Jim, I am going to ignore your post (for now) and focus on that last statement.

What on earth are you talking about Jim?? I never pressured Philetus in any way! Philetus, has his own mind, and his own opinions which I value immensely.

I realize that this thread is embarrassing for you, but resorting to flat out lies???? :shocked: That's OK, I take it as a sign that you are embarrassed. Only people that are trying to cover their tracks do stuff like that. :nono:

Nathon Detroit · Oct 7, 2006

I asked Jim....

Jim.... can you at least praise God?

Hilston said:
Yes, but not because I've presumed to sit in judgment of whether or not God deserves it as Eric and Open Theism does.

:rotfl: Notice the PAIN in Jim's post?

He can barely admit that he can praise God because if he does Jim knows he is acknowledging that he is giving credit to God (praise and credit are synonyms) and if Jim can give God credit then Jim can also admit that God is responsible for the good gifts that come from heaven.

Who would have ever thought that we would have to debate Jim Hilston about giving God credit for our salvation!!! :kookoo:

Friends don't let friends be Calvinists.

Hilston · Oct 7, 2006

Knight said:
Jim, I am going to ignore your post (for now) and focus on that last statement.

Of course! This is what Knight always does. He ignores the parts he can't answer, and then deflects the dialogue to the stuff over which he can offer some sustained bickering. So here we go:

Knight said:
What on earth are you talking about Jim?? I never even talked about Philetus in any way!

This is why Open Theism is a mental disorder. It affects the mind. It damages brain cells. It deletes memory. See link below.

Knight said:
... Philetus, has his own mind, and his own opinions which I value immensely.

Note the backpedaling. Just like a mob boss rewarding the renewed loyalty of someone who dared cross him previously, Eric compliments Philetus. But Philetus won't forget how he was treated and what it felt like to touch that hot stove. This is not imagined. I know at least two other Open Theists who have privately expressed similar fear.

Knight said:
I realize that this thread is embarrassing for you, but resorting to flat out lies????

Anyone can read this for themselves: The dressing down of Philetus by Knight

Knight said:
That's OK, I take it as a sign that you are embarrassed. Only people that are trying to cover their tracks do stuff like that.

Knight is right. I am so embarrassed. I should have given in earlier to his "friendly" strategy of misinformation, misrepresentation and distraction. I should have just ignored the fact that Knight cannot answer how God's decretive will is contrary to His prescriptive will, that Knight contradicts scriptures that show God plans evil for good, that Knight cannot answer how God moved David to number Israel, against His own prescribed will, that Knight contradicts his own espoused theology of miracles by his theory of prayer, that Knight denies individual redemptive election contrary to the scriptural proofs that have been shown, and abuses language and the metaphors of scripture by insisting that clay pots can talk and mar themselves.

And proving that he knows exactly what he is doing by his egregious, manipulative and pharisaical equivocation, Knight writes:

Knight said:
Who would have ever thought that we would have to debate Jim Hilston about giving God credit for our salvation!!!

:vomit:

Nathon Detroit · Oct 7, 2006

I wonder. :think:

I wonder what would happen if we asked 100 Christians the following question(s)

Is God responsible for your salvation?

Do you credit God for your salvation?

Lets assume none of the people we asked had ever talked with Jim or with me. I wonder how many of the 100 would say "no" to those questions. :think:

Nathon Detroit · Oct 7, 2006

Hilston said:
Anyone can read this for themselves: The dressing down of Philetus by Knight

:rotfl: Jim that is a link to YOUR post. If anything, it looks like you were trying to "dress down" Philetus.

Philetus, doesn't need you "defending" him. :chuckle:

Dude, quit while you are ahead. Do you have no shame? Serioiusly.

Hilston said:
I should have given in earlier to his "friendly" strategy of misinformation, misrepresentation and distraction.

I would LOVE nothing more than to be "nice" to you Jim. But how "nice" can I be to a guy who says he is a Christian yet argues "God is not responsible or to be credited for our salvation" that's just a slap ion God's face.

Nathon Detroit · Oct 7, 2006

Hilston said:
No. Not according to that definition. We can only think God's thoughts after Him. He declares Himself to be the Savior and the author of our salvation; we acknowledge that and declare God's words on the matter. We do not autonomously "credit" Him. It's insulting. It's presumptuous.

Jim what you have just done is give God credit for our salvation.

That isn't a bad thing! Jim, I realize you think I am being mean to you or something but frankly I think I have been just as cordial if not more so than you have been. Yes, some times it gets heated and we try to jab one another but I really want you to consider what you have said in the quote above.

When you say...

He declares Himself to be the Savior and the author of our salvation; we acknowledge that and declare God's words on the matter.

Like it or not, you are giving credit where credit is due! That's a good thing not a bad thing.

- When we praise God we credit Him.

- When we honor God we credit Him.

- When we trust God we credit Him.

- When we acknowledge God we credit Him.

- When we give glory to God we credit Him.

For all of these things are common and acceptable synonyms for the word "credit".

Main Entry: credit
Synonyms: acclaim, acknowledgment, approval, attention, belief, brownie points, commendation, confidence, credence, distinction, faith, fame, glory, honor, kudos*, merit, notice, points*, praise, reliance, strokes*, thanks, tribute, trust
SOURCE: thesarus.com

Now, if you consider it an insult for me to tell you that you are giving God credit and that credit is due, I guess I am guilty as charged.

Poly · Oct 8, 2006

Hilston said:
Knight, thanks for your friendship. It's nice knowing that my friends won't let me use a dictionary to define words, but rather insist on using the vague and sloppy definitions, determined by the lowest common denominators of society. Thanks for not caring one whit about what my statements mean and what points they're trying to convey. Instead, you make every effort to twist my words and to make them appear to mean what I do not at all mean. It's good to know that when you're doing your best to turn over a new leaf and to be friendly toward me, I can count on you to doggedly pursue opportunities misrepresent me, to quote me out of context, to smear me at every turn, and best of all, to make absolutely sure no Open Theist agrees with me, let alone saying anything kind toward me in thanks for helping them to think. It's so awesome to have friends! Where did you learn to be such a great friend? Your god, perhaps? :vomit:

But he uses definitions you gave from the dictionary and just copied it from the page you linked to onto here and makes his points by using these very definitions. You claim he won't let you use a dictionary to define words and would rather use vague and sloppy definitions. But in the following, he's wanting you to use the dictionary and the exact definitions that it gives to define words such as responsible.

Knight said:
Jim, your definition of responsible that you reference is...

The definitions of 'responsible'*

responsible adjective [ predic. ].

1. having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role : the department responsible for education.
2. being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it : the gene was responsible for a rare type of eye cancer.
3. [ attrib. ] (of a job or position) involving important duties, independent decision-making, or control over others.
4. [ predic. ] ( responsible to) having to report to (a superior or someone in authority) and be answerable to them for one's actions : the team manager is responsible to the league president.
5. capable of being trusted : a responsible adult.
6. morally accountable for one's behavior : the progressive emergence of the child as a responsible being.

Click to expand...

Lets look at number 2 shall we?

2. being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it : the gene was responsible for a rare type of eye cancer.

Take note of... "being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited"

Or credited.

Or credited.

Therefore if "Or credited" is as acceptable as "to be blamed" (per your own reference) we could say... responsible means: being the primary cause of something and so able to be credited for it.

Jim is that an acceptable definition of the word responsible? And wouldn't you agree that most people use the word in just that way?

Just a note:
Websters Online Dictionary goes on to say... "being the cause or explanation " :think:
Based on that definition (in your own example) most normal thinking people acknowledge that God is responsible for their salvation.

Which makes me also wonder, according to Jim....

Can we credit God for our salvation?

I don't get it, Jim, really and truly, I just don't. How is this quoting you out of context, misrepresenting, smearing you or twisting your words?

Knight said:
Knight said:

..........what word would you replace it with?

Click to expand...

You fill in the blanks....

God is __________ for our salvation.

The Author

Main Entry: 1au·thor
Pronunciation: 'o-th&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English auctour, from Anglo-French auctor, autor, from Latin auctor promoter, originator, author, from augEre to increase -- more at
1 a : one that originates or creates : SOURCE <software authors> <film authors> <the author of this crime> b capitalized : GOD
2 : the writer of a literary work (as a book)
- au·tho·ri·al /o-'thor-E-&l/ adjective

So by this definition you would agree that God originates or creates our salvation?

Hilston · Oct 8, 2006

Poly said:
But he uses definitions you gave from the dictionary and just copied it from the page you linked to onto here and makes his points by using these very definitions.

Did you see the part where I said that those definitions do not apply to God? Of course you didn't, because Knight conveniently left that part out.

Poly said:
You claim he won't let you use a dictionary to define words and would rather use vague and sloppy definitions. But in the following, he's wanting you to use the dictionary and the exact definitions that it gives to define words such as responsible.

I have no problem with using the exact definitions. I have a problem with Knight perverting those definitions so he can use them as a trap. It's despicable behavior for anyone, but especially coming from one who has said that he is dedicated to being a better friend to me.

Poly said:
I don't get it, Jim, really and truly, I just don't. How is this quoting you out of context, misrepresenting, smearing you or twisting your words?

It's out of context because Knight conveniently left out the part where I said that those definitions do not apply to God. That is called "out of context." Knight misrepresents me because he knows I view God as sole basis for salvation, yet he wants to twist my words to make it sound like I am denying that fact. Knight is smearing me by mischaracterizing my statements to mean what they do not mean, and he knows it.

All according to God's decrees, of course.

ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

LIFETIME MEMBER

Active member

LIFETIME MEMBER

Active member

LIFETIME MEMBER

TOL Subscriber

New member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

LIFETIME MEMBER

LIFETIME MEMBER

Active member

LIFETIME MEMBER

LIFETIME MEMBER

LIFETIME MEMBER

Blessed beyond measure

Active member