ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Hilston]

TENET.

Main Entry: te·net
Pronunciation: 'te-n&t also 'tE-n&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, he holds, from tenEre to hold
: a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession​

Rob

Oooooh. Tenet! Of course! That would make much better sense, wouldn't it?

But from Clete's latest diaper project it appears he really does mean "One that pays rent to use or occupy land, a building, or other property owned by another." Obviously Clete's thinking is far above ours and we're not smart enough to understand the metaphor. Clearly he is being figurative and is explaining Calvinistic beliefs in terms of being "tenants" who pay rent to occupy the Calvinism "building."

That's it, isn't it?

Great for snacks and soups!
Jim

 

[Clete]

Oooooh. Tenet! Of course! That would make much better sense, wouldn't it?

But from Clete's latest diaper project it appears he really does mean "One that pays rent to use or occupy land, a building, or other property owned by another." Obviously Clete's thinking is far above ours and we're not smart enough to understand the metaphor. Clearly he is being figurative and is explaining Calvinistic beliefs in terms of being "tenants" who pay rent to occupy the Calvinism "building."

That's it, isn't it?

Great for snacks and soups!
Jim

Like you didn't know precisely what I meant in the first place.

It's just as I said. This sort of insulting crap is all you've got.

Pathetic. :down:

Keep it coming though! Please! You're doing better at destroying your own credibility and reputation than I ever could on my own. :up:

 

[Philetus]

Hey Clete,
Don’t you just hate it when that happens? The truth has a way of making sure we don’t get the big head. Half-truths seem to have the opposite affect. I would rather read 1207 posts with bad grammar that get at the Truth, even if I disagree with the position, than even one slanderous post that chases it own tale and stoops to insults to cover it.

That aught two bee as obvious as a tulip in a turnup patch.

From the Opening Post:

"Open theism's denial of God's exhaustive definitive foreknowledge constitutes an egregious biblical and theological departure from orthodoxy and poses a serious threat to evangelical integrity."

What a compliment to Open View Theists!

egregious >adjective 1 outstandingly bad. 2 archaic remarkably good.
-DERIVATIVES egregiously >adverb egregiousness >noun.
-ORIGIN Latin egregius 'illustrious' (literally 'standing out from the flock'), from grex 'flock'. (Oxford English Dictionary)

e•gre•gious Pronunciation: (i-grē'jus, -jē-us), —adj. 1. extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant: an egregious mistake; an egregious liar. 2. Archaic.distinguished or eminent. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997.)

archaic >adjective 1 belonging to former or ancient times. 2 old or in an old-fashioned style.
-DERIVATIVES archaically >adverb.
-ORIGIN Greek arkhaios 'ancient'.


Who would have thought that Open View Theism would be accused of being a
"Back to the Blessed old Bible" movement ... especially by proponents of evangelicalism?

evangelical >adjective 1 of or according to the teaching of the gospel or Christianity. 2 relating to a tradition within Protestant Christianity emphasizing Biblical authority and personal conversion. 3 fervent in advocating something. >noun a member of the evangelical tradition in the Christian Church.
-DERIVATIVES evangelicalism >noun evangelically >adverb.
-ORIGIN from Greek euangelos 'bringing good news'.

We seem to need to define a lot of terms. So, I was wondering, Clete, since the discussion is going in that direction, does this thread make Judas a tenant of Calvinism? He has resided here long enough.

Philetus​

Don't get all excited ... I know how they mint it.

 

[Vaquero45]

Oooooh. Tenet! Of course! That would make much better sense, wouldn't it?

But from Clete's latest diaper project it appears he really does mean "One that pays rent to use or occupy land, a building, or other property owned by another." Obviously Clete's thinking is far above ours and we're not smart enough to understand the metaphor. Clearly he is being figurative and is explaining Calvinistic beliefs in terms of being "tenants" who pay rent to occupy the Calvinism "building."

That's it, isn't it?

Great for snacks and soups!
Jim

You aren't serious are you? You are begging. Think of it like when you tell a joke and everyone just looks at you like you have two heads. That's how good this went. You have taken the gayness of scoring a point by jumping a spelling error to a whole new level.

 

[Hilston]

Vaquero,

I'm not here (in this thread, that is) to debate. I have no interest in scoring points. As far as I'm concerned, the Open View isn't even in the right ballpark. I'm here to mock. That is all. Jesus was not concerned with persuading the scribes and the pharisees who were trying to trip Him up. He mocked them for the sake of the onlookers. Paul was not concerned with persuading the Judaizers when he cursed them and called them dogs. There comes a point where reasoning with the opposition becomes futile. That is precisely the case here. Mocking is not for the mocked, but for the onlookers; the lurkers. Enough people are benefitting from my treatment of Open Theism here to warrant my behavior. If you want to discuss the Open View in a dialog format, please e-mail me. You simply won't find me debating or trying to convert Open Theists in this forum.

After 10 years of debating them, I know Open Theists like the back of my hand. When Clete is in meltdown-mode, he steps into every trap that is laid for him. He just cannot resist the bait, and then he makes a complete doofuss out of himself, with little help from me, by the unabashed boldness with which he offers his utterly irrational and embarrassing statements, such as the following:

“Qualified immutability" is an oxymoron

The plan is to get Clete to make such claims so that I can deride the idiotic inconsistencies in the Open View, in particular, to demonstrate how Open Theists, most of whom pretend to be a lot more educated than they really are, blindly wander into contradictions and unwittingly oppose themselves. Note that Bob Enyart disagrees with Clete's inane claim:

"God is immutable, that is, unchanging (Mal. 3:6; Ps. 102:27; Heb. 1:12; 13:8; James 1:17), not absolutely but in His goodness." ~ Source: Battle Royale X, Post 1B

That is called qualified immutabilty, not matter how you slice it. Will Clete inform Bob Enyart of his error? Or will Clete recant? Probably neither. Do I care? Heck no. None of this is for Clete, and I could not care less what he thinks of me and my posts. My posts are not intended to persuade Open Theists at all. Most, if not all, are too far gone. Rather, I offer these posts to the lurkers who have expressed benefit in seeing the exposure of the irrationalities, inconsistencies and self-contradictions that pervade the Unsettled View. Clete provides plenty of fodder, and since he is so highly regarded as one of the Big Guns on this site, his failure to even understand his opponent and to coherently defend his own view suffices to demonstrate, at least to those who have not yet sacrificed their irrationality on the altar of Theistic Humanism (Open Theism), that the Open View has Luciferian roots that go all the way back to the Garden of Eden.

If anyone cannot connect the dots and see the answer to Clete's whining for themselves, please feel free to contact me and will happily demonstrate to you how Clete does not know what he is talking about.

Made in Japan,
Jim

 

[Lighthouse]

Vaquero,

I'm not here to debate. I have no interest in scoring points. As far as I'm concerned, the Open View isn't even in the right ballpark. I'm here to mock. That is all. Jesus was not concerned with persuading the scribes and the pharisees who were trying to trip Him up. He mocked them for the sake of the onlookers. Paul was not concerned with persuading the Judaizers when he cursed them and called them dogs. There comes a point where reasoning with the opposition becomes futile. That is precisely the case here. Mocking is not for the mocked, but for the onlookers; the lurkers. Enough people are benefitting from my treatment of Open Theism here to warrant my behavior. If you want to discuss the Open View in a dialog format, please e-mail me. You simply won't find me debating or trying to convert Open Theists in this forum.

After 10 years of debating them, I know Open Theists like the back of my hand. When Clete is in meltdown-mode, he steps into every trap that is laid for him. He just cannot resist the bait, and then he makes a complete doofuss out of himself, with little help from me, by the unabashed boldness with which he offers his utterly irrational and embarrassing statements, such as the following:

The plan is to get Clete to make such claims so that I can deride the idiotic inconsistencies in the Open View, in particular, to demonstrate how Open Theists, most of whom pretend to be a lot more educated than they really are, blindly wander into contradictions and unwittingly oppose themselves. Note that Bob Enyart disagrees with Clete's inane claim:

That is called qualified immutabilty, not matter how you slice it. Will Clete inform Bob Enyart of his error? Or will Clete recant? Probably neither. Do I care? Heck no. None of this is for Clete, and I could not care less what he thinks of me and my posts. My posts are not intended to persuade Open Theists at all. Most, if not all, are too far gone. Rather, I offer these posts to the lurkers who have expressed benefit in seeing the exposure of the irrationalities, inconsistencies and self-contradictions that pervade the Unsettled View. Clete provides plenty of fodder, and since he is so highly regarded as one of the Big Guns on this site, his failure to even understand his opponent and to coherently defend his own view suffices to demonstrate, at least to those who have not yet sacrificed their irrationality on the altar of Theistic Humanism (Open Theism), that the Open View has Luciferian roots that go all the way back to the Garden of Eden.

If anyone cannot connect the dots and see the answer to Clete's whining for themselves, please feel free to contact me and will happily demonstrate to you how Clete does not know what he is talking about.

Made in Japan,
Jim

:wave2:Bye.

 

[Clete]

That is called qualified immutabilty, not matter how you slice it. Will Clete inform Bob Enyart of his error? Or will Clete recant? Probably neither. Do I care? Heck no.

Of course you do care or you wouldn't have bothered to say it. And the point stands, something can either change or it cannot it is either immutable or it is not. "Qualified Immutability" is an oxymoron, period. Does that mean it is a useless phrase? Does that mean we shouldn't use it? No. That wasn't the point and so I won't be informing Bob Enyart of that which he already knows. I will however take this opportunity to point out that the word "no" does not have the letter "t" in it. :chuckle:

None of this is for Clete, and I could not care less what he thinks of me and my posts. My posts are not intended to persuade Open Theists at all. Most, if not all, are too far gone. Rather, I offer these posts to the lurkers who have expressed benefit in seeing the exposure of the irrationalities, inconsistencies and self-contradictions that pervade the Unsettled View.

:chuckle:

This is so obviously a lie. You forget who you're talking too Jim.

Clete provides plenty of fodder, and since he is so highly regarded as one of the Big Guns on this site, his failure to even understand his opponent and to coherently defend his own view suffices to demonstrate, at least to those who have not yet sacrificed their irrationality on the altar of Theistic Humanism (Open Theism), that the Open View has Luciferian roots that go all the way back to the Garden of Eden.

Jim is himself displaying for all to see his pride. Jim is proud of his intellect, his vocabulary, his sense of humor, his ability to insult, even his ability to be a jerk. Pride was the original Luciferian sin, not the belief that he could have done otherwise.

If anyone cannot connect the dots and see the answer to Clete's whining for themselves, please feel free to contact me and will happily demonstrate to you how Clete does not know what he is talking about.

In other words, my arguments only make sense when there isn't someone around to respond to them in any substantive way.

Will you be including of copy of the Jim Hilston Lexicon of the English Language so that these PMs will be understandable to all of us who aren't in your little cultish circle of Hilstonian Quasi-Calvinists?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Even traditional, classical theologians are recognizing that the Bible teaches weak vs strong immutability (their terms). God is unchanging in some ways (essential character and being), but changing in other ways (relations, experiences, emotions, actions, incarnation, knowledge, thoughts). I did see quotes from Calvin based on immutability proof texts where he stated absolute immutability in every sense (static). Hilston seems to think Calvin and Augustine did not say these things. Is it a matter of early vs late writings or inconsistencies in their writings/thinking at times?

 

[themuzicman]

How do you know this? No one truly knows Judas' motives since they aren't in the scriptures.

It is inferred from the fact that Judas betrayed Christ into the hands of the religous leaders. I doubt that Judas would have done so, had Judas believed that Jesus was God.

Since you read the Bible constantly, why don't you show me where it says that Judas did NOT believe Jesus was the Christ!!!

If it would have been better for Judas to not have been born.. what might that mean?

Is allowing a bear to eat a two year old a fair contest? Is allowing in this case a cause?

Who said that life was fair?

"Cause" in the context we're referring to would be "overriding the free will" (we were talking about OVT and foreknowledge, remember?) Allowing something to happen would be passive. Causing something to happen would be active. Doesn't look to me like they'd ever cross.

Michael

 

[themuzicman]

Vaquero,

I'm not here (in this thread, that is) to debate. I have no interest in scoring points. As far as I'm concerned, the Open View isn't even in the right ballpark. I'm here to mock.

talk abot someone with the intellectual depth of a parking lot puddle..

Do you always set such low standards, and then fail to meet them?

Michael

 

[godrulz]

talk abot someone with the intellectual depth of a parking lot puddle..

Do you always set such low standards, and then fail to meet them?

Michael

I expect more than ad hominem argumentum from Hilston. It seems his mind is made up and he does not want to be confused with the facts. He misrepresents the Open view and is rejecting a straw man caricature of it.

 

[Clete]

Even traditional, classical theologians are recognizing that the Bible teaches weak vs strong immutability (their terms). God is unchanging in some ways (essential character and being), but changing in other ways (relations, experiences, emotions, actions, incarnation, knowledge, thoughts). I did see quotes from Calvin based on immutability proof texts where he stated absolute immutability in every sense (static). Hilston seems to think Calvin and Augustine did not say these things. Is is a matter of early vs late writings or inconsistencies in their writings/thinking at times?

From what I can tell Augustine believed both things and made no attempt to reconcile the confilict. I don't know whether he ever used the term but he would certainly have concidered Dvinine Immutability and the Incarnation of Christ to an antinomy. He simply accepted both as truth and ignored the contradiction as a matter of "faith".

 

[godrulz]

From what I can tell Augustine believed both things and made no attempt to reconcile the confilict. I don't know whether he ever used the term but he would certainly have concidered Dvinine Immutability and the Incarnation of Christ to an antinomy. He simply accepted both as truth and ignored the contradiction as a matter of "faith".

Hence the coherence of Open Theism vs philosophically tainted classical theism. It is similar to Calvin believing in double predestination and calling it a horrific doctrine that appears to contradict the nature of God. "Mystery" is a loophole to reconcile irreconciable concepts. Biblical theism is coherent, not contradictory.

 

[Delmar]

Vaquero,

I'm not here (in this thread, that is) to debate. I have no interest in scoring points. As far as I'm concerned, the Open View isn't even in the right ballpark. I'm here to mock.

Jim
Mock all you want, but as long as people see you being soundly refuted, as you were here...

.... On the Open View, God only makes it available. You have to save yourself..

Jim
You are a world class twister of words. Paul says that Abraham was justified simply by believing rather than by works! (Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness) Paul is claiming that "to believe" is not a work that a person does. So what is it? I contend that disbelief is like a door that God is drawing open. In order not to believe a person has to willfully be holding that door shut! Believing is simply relaxing.
Now Jim, if you don't want to take The Apostle Paul's word for it and you don't want to take my word for it, allow me to present you with the words of someone you might trust! You.

About what, you ask? Namely, could the Bible be wrong about what it says of those who reject the existence of God? First, here is what the Bible say of those who reject the existence of God:

* They already know the truth, but they hold (suppress) it in unrighteousness; [Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;]
* They innately know God, for He has sufficiently revealed Himself to them; [Ro 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.]
* They already see and are confronted with the knowledge of God's existence via the creation; [Ro 1:20a For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;]
* They have no defense. [Ro 1:20b ... so that they are without excuse:. ]
Jim

...it will be ignored.

 

[RobE]

It is inferred from the fact that Judas betrayed Christ into the hands of the religous leaders. I doubt that Judas would have done so, had Judas believed that Jesus was God.

Are you saying that Satan would change his ways if he acquired a knowledge of God?

If it would have been better for Judas to not have been born.. what might that mean?

What it says.

"Cause" in the context we're referring to would be "overriding the free will" (we were talking about OVT and foreknowledge, remember?) Allowing something to happen would be passive. Causing something to happen would be active. Doesn't look to me like they'd ever cross.

Allowing is passive, true. However your description is arranging not allowing by your own admission.

It's not the first time you argued about causation.......

3) When asked how Jesus foreknew this you said, "I never said God was dumb. In fact, He's smart enough to bring about events in such a way that 11 of the 12 disciples become true to Him, and one of them, who was known from the beginning, betrays Him."
Here you said God arranged it(caused it)!

Your Answer : Arrange is a far cry from cause. They are not synonyms.​

If God 'drew' Judas according to you then he wouldn't have been the betrayer. Did God love Judas less than Peter?

:nono: Thanks,
Rob

 

[themuzicman]

Are you saying that Satan would change his ways if he acquired a knowledge of God?

Knowledge is insufficient.

What it says.

You think that means he's in heaven?

Allowing is passive, true. However your description is arranging not allowing by your own admission.

It's not the first time you argued about causation.......

3) When asked how Jesus foreknew this you said, "I never said God was dumb. In fact, He's smart enough to bring about events in such a way that 11 of the 12 disciples become true to Him, and one of them, who was known from the beginning, betrays Him."
Here you said God arranged it(caused it)!

Your Answer : Arrange is a far cry from cause. They are not synonyms.​

And they aren't.

If God 'drew' Judas according to you then he wouldn't have been the betrayer. Did God love Judas less than Peter?

No.

Michael

 

[RobE]

You think that means he's in heaven?

You should probably re-read or restate your question in the previous post if this is your idea of what I said.

Your Answer : Arrange is a far cry from cause. They are not synonyms.

And they aren't.

3) When asked how Jesus foreknew this you said, "I never said God was dumb. In fact, He's smart enough to bring about events in such a way that 11 of the 12 disciples become true to Him, and one of them, who was known from the beginning, betrays Him."
Here you said God arranged it(caused it)!

Your Answer : Arrange is a far cry from cause. They are not synonyms.

Main Entry: foreordain
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: doom
Synonyms: destinate, destine, fate, foredoom, foretell, prearrange, predestine, predetermine, predict, preordain, reserve
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.​

Did you miss this in the earlier posts? In your view is foreordination a cause?

If God 'drew' Judas according to you then he wouldn't have been the betrayer. Did God love Judas less than Peter?

No.

Then why wasn't Judas 'drawn' according to you.

Thanks,
Rob

 

[Hilston]

Jim
Mock all you want, but as long as people see you being soundly refuted, as you were here ...

Excuse me, but where is the refutation in the excerpt you quoted? What I wrote in the excerpt you cited has nothing to do with the Open View, but rather those who deny God's existence. How is that at all relevant to this discussion?

Wait a second ... you're an Open Theist, aren't you? I should have known. Please disregard the above comments. It's not fair of me to use rational discourse with Open Theists and to expect them to engage discursive thought. My apologies.

...it will be ignored.

Not according to my inbox. My mock-jobs are getting puh-lenty of attention. Thank you very much.

Naturally decaffeinated,
Jim

 

[Bob Hill]

Hilston,

While I was majoring in Greek at UCLA, I had to study Plato. I realize, in spite of the boring tomes that Augustine wrote and the statements about how near the Platonists were to his beliefs, he is held in such high regard by many Christians. Why, I don’t know.

Augustine wrote, “It is evident that none come nearer to us than the Platonists. To them, therefore, let that fabulous theology give place which delights the minds of men with the crimes of the gods;” The City of God, page 248, Book VIII Section 5

“Let these two theologies, then, the fabulous and the civil, give place to the Platonic philosophers, who have recognized the true God as the author of all things, the source of the light of truth, and the bountiful bestower of all blessedness. And not these only, but to these great acknowledgers of so great a God, those philosophers” The City of God, page 249, Book VIII Section 5

“Therefore, although in many other important respects they differ from us, nevertheless with respect to this particular point of difference, which I have just stated, as it is one of great moment, and the question on hand concerns it, I will first ask them to what gods they think that sacred rites are to be performed – to the good or to the bad, or to both the good and the bad?. But we have the opinion of Plato affirming that all the gods are good, and that there is not one of the gods bad. It follows, therefore, that these are to be performed to the good, for then they are performed to gods; for if they are not good, neither are they gods. The City of God, page 258, Book VIII Section 13

Do you believe that the Platonists really “recognized the true God as the author of all things”.

I also do not see any evidence God “has foreknowledge of (ALL) future things”. There is too much scripture that rebuts that idea.

Plotinus III, Loeb Classical Library, trans. by A.H. Armstrong, Ennead III, Chap. 7, Sec. 3, p. 152)
Augustine seams to think that everyone believes that God knows all future events. p. 156 “Nevertheless, they are far more tolerable who assert the fatal influence of the stars than they who deny the foreknowledge of future events. For, to confess, that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly.”

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Clete]

Jim
Mock all you want, but as long as people see you being soundly refuted, as you were here ...

.... On the Open View, God only makes it available. You have to save yourself..

Jim
You are a world class twister of words. Paul says that Abraham was justified simply by believing rather than by works! (Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness) Paul is claiming that "to believe" is not a work that a person does. So what is it? I contend that disbelief is like a door that God is drawing open. In order not to believe a person has to willfully be holding that door shut! Believing is simply relaxing.
Now Jim, if you don't want to take The Apostle Paul's word for it and you don't want to take my word for it, allow me to present you with the words of someone you might trust! You.

Excuse me, but where is the refutation in the excerpt you quoted? What I wrote in the excerpt you cited has nothing to do with the Open View, but rather those who deny God's existence. How is that at all relevant to this discussion?

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: