ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
I have seen people put their foot in their mouth before, heck I have been guilty myself! The normal remedy is to pull one's foot out of their mouth as gracefully as possible. Jim on the other hand, prefers to eat his entire leg. :chew:Delmar said:
Since SS is banned my boycott of any thread in which he is active can be suspended....
Jim here demonstrates his total immersion into his whacked out world where words don't mean what everyone in the whole English speaking world thinks they mean. One really does need to have a copy of the Jim Hilston Lexicon of the English Language before you can have a conversation of any length with him. Fortunately for all of us, this comment about it being a sin to give God credit for our salvation (or for anything at all) is an exception to the general rule because it really doesn't matter what Jim's definition of the word "credit" is, there is simply no sense at all in which such a position isn't just plane old insanity. Nothing at all need be said in refutation of a comment that is so blatantly stupid. In fact, to even offer a rebuttal of it would be to grant it more respect than it deserves. The fact that the comment actually follows logically from Jim’s theology is as strong a rebuttal of that theology as I can imagine!
Resting in Him,
Clete
Hilston said:
Jim here demonstrates his total immersion into his whacked out world where words don't mean what everyone in the whole English speaking world thinks they mean. One really does need to have a copy of the Jim Hilston Lexicon of the English Language before you can have a conversation of any length with him. Fortunately for all of us, this comment about it being a sin to give God credit for our salvation (or for anything at all) is an exception to the general rule because it really doesn't matter what Jim's definition of the word "credit" is, there is simply no sense at all in which such a position isn't just plane old insanity. Nothing at all need be said in refutation of a comment that is so blatantly stupid. In fact, to even offer a rebuttal of it would be to grant it more respect than it deserves. The fact that the comment actually follows logically from Jim’s theology is as strong a rebuttal of that theology as I can imagine!
Resting in Him,
Clete
Part of me agrees which is why I have tried to let Jim off the hook a couple times but he keeps jumping back on like a hungry fish. :chuckle:Clete said:
Yet there is this other part of me that feels it is really important to expose how bizarre the theology of Calvinism can be and what it can do to the human mind.
Basically, I am performing a public service.
I agree with you completely, Knight!Knight said:Part of me agrees which is why I have tried to let Jim off the hook a couple times but he keeps jumping back on like a hungry fish. :chuckle:
Yet there is this other part of me that feels it is really important to expose how bizarre the theology of Calvinism can be and what it can do to the human mind.
Basically, I am performing a public service.
The longer you can keep focus on that rediculous comment the better! This thread has been the best thing to happen to the open view since The Plot!
Philetus
New member
Hey all, especially Hilston and Knight, (I told you I’m doomed.
)In honor of Jim Hilston I changed my avatar. Like it?
That's just about enough Jim! I never got the impression from Knight or anyone that my call to ‘tweak’ the meaning of ‘responsible’ in regard to God’s activities was anymore than hair splitting. I never felt dressed down by Knight. We can disagree without the juvenile intrusion of lesser egos. It’s called relationship and you should look into the concept. Knight, if you meant to dress me down then try again. Did I miss it? I would be surprised if I did.
I want to go on record to say that I have never had a private conversation with Jim Hilston. (Just incase anyone was wondering.) All I have to say will be posted here.
Jim, I resent the way you have tried and drive a wedge in this and other threads from my comment on ‘responsibility’. You remind me of a bully on the playground whose ego is all wrapped up in winning at ‘Red-Rover’. You can’t allow anyone to even agree with you on a technical point without making it look like you are some kind of super intellectual. It’s too bad you can’t engage in a discussion of finer points without throwing biscuits from a horse’s rear-end.
You take not only the joy but most of the meaning out of the debate with your constant bad-mouthing.
Now:
God isn’t responsible for anything! God is responsable! Able to respond to decisions made by creatures to whom he has given a measure of irrevocable freedom to express their individuality. Regardless of how evil those decisions may be and regardless of the repercussions and affects, God is omnicompetent and no evil will ever result in God not accomplishing His intended purposes. God is faithful! God is good! God is able.
All according to God’s good, acceptable and perfect divine will, of course.
Philetus the Phearless
Lets lightin' the mood....
Lets lightin' the mood....
The following post is for Jim only. I don't want to distract from the thread so if you are not Jim you are FORBIDDEN to read this post!!!
Jim, let me re-set the disagreement between you and I using a Halloween themed analogy.
WARNING WARNING WARNING
The following is just an analogy and isn't intended to be a reliable replacement for the actual events that have transpired. Some of the names have been changed to protect the innocent and the guilty parties involved.
One day there were two boys were sitting on a porch. Lil' Jimmy and Nigel were their names. With Halloween coming up both boys agreed it was time to carve their jack-o'-lantern.
Lil' Jimmy was excited and exclaimed... "lets get the biggest squash we can find!"
Nigel responded... "I think my mom has the perfect pumpkin!"
Lil' Jimmy replied... "We don't want a pumpkin, we want a squash!"
Nigel... "a pumpkin IS a squash!"
An argument ensued about a pumpkin's and squash's. Lil' Jimmy asserted that Nigel was wrong to call a squash a pumpkin. Lil' Jimmy dug himself a deeper hole when he asserted that people would more likely agree with him than with Nigel. Nigel, trying to stay calm did his best to explain to lil' Jimmy that pumpkins are a type of squash. Lil' Jimmy refused to listen and ran around town with his fingers in his ears screaming... "it's wrong to call a squash a pumpkin when a squash is a squash!!!"
And at that moment people began to realize that lil' Jimmy was out of his gourd.
Lets lightin' the mood....
The following post is for Jim only. I don't want to distract from the thread so if you are not Jim you are FORBIDDEN to read this post!!!
Jim, let me re-set the disagreement between you and I using a Halloween themed analogy.
WARNING WARNING WARNING
The following is just an analogy and isn't intended to be a reliable replacement for the actual events that have transpired. Some of the names have been changed to protect the innocent and the guilty parties involved.
One day there were two boys were sitting on a porch. Lil' Jimmy and Nigel were their names. With Halloween coming up both boys agreed it was time to carve their jack-o'-lantern.
Lil' Jimmy was excited and exclaimed... "lets get the biggest squash we can find!"
Nigel responded... "I think my mom has the perfect pumpkin!"
Lil' Jimmy replied... "We don't want a pumpkin, we want a squash!"
Nigel... "a pumpkin IS a squash!"
An argument ensued about a pumpkin's and squash's. Lil' Jimmy asserted that Nigel was wrong to call a squash a pumpkin. Lil' Jimmy dug himself a deeper hole when he asserted that people would more likely agree with him than with Nigel. Nigel, trying to stay calm did his best to explain to lil' Jimmy that pumpkins are a type of squash. Lil' Jimmy refused to listen and ran around town with his fingers in his ears screaming... "it's wrong to call a squash a pumpkin when a squash is a squash!!!"
And at that moment people began to realize that lil' Jimmy was out of his gourd.
Philetus
New member
Clete said:
It does warrant attention. Because if by 'responsible' anyone (even common thinkers who use words without considering their implications) has come to believe that it means God is to blame or God is to be held accountable for God’s actions then the argument needs to be addressed. In fact I think it is the watershed issue. If there is such an over abundant misconception that is held by the masses (and I agree there is) then it is the job of Open Theists to chase this dog down. Jim is correct: no human being is to hold God accountable (another word pregnant with meaning). Only God can hold God accountable and because God does … we can trust Him.
If we believe in the God revealed in Christ we do not hold God accountable. We credit God for our salvation; we do not blame God for our sin. This is the strongest argument for the volition of free will in accepting salvation.
Philetus
So, it's a sin to claim we had anything to do with our salvation, and a sin to claim God had anything to do with it? Then who's responsible?!:dizzy:
Philetus-
Have you gotten my phone messages?
Philetus-
Have you gotten my phone messages?
Funny you should ask..... earlier on this thread...Lighthouse said:
Knight said:
Those were posts #4228 and #4229, just for reference.Hilston said:
Well, I have that nutcase on ignore, so I didn't see that idiotic post. No one?
Nope! Sorry Philetus! Ordinarily your posts are dead on but this time you've lost it. I don't care what sort of convoluted backflipping one has to do to get there, if anyone, including a person I respect as much as you, gets to a point where they can take a comment like "it is a sin to say God is responsible for your salvation" seriously then that person has done at least one too many convoluted backflips! :dizzy:Philetus said:
It's just nutty Philetus. It very simply is not a sin to give God credit for the things He does, period. If this were not so then it would be sinful to praise God or to say that God is good! Now just how stupid does that sound? :hammer:
Resting in Him,
Clete
Philetus
New member
Clete said:
Clete
You aren’t reading carefully. I never said it was a sin to ‘credit’ God with our salvation. Who did besides Hilston? It would be a sin not to. The discussion about the negative aspects of ‘responsibility’ started on the other thread and Hilston has drug it around in the dirt as he does many things until it is all out of wack. I clearly said that we ought to ‘credit’ God for our salvation ... it is worship. The way that Calvinism and the SV want to make man ‘responsible’ for his own salvation in the OV is ludicrous, even as making God ‘responsible’ for every meticulous detail in the universe is. They more than any misuse the word ‘responsible’ in such a negative way. Jim’s argument is with himself more than anyone else. You have a tendency to over react to anything that even suggest that Jim might have a point. I think given a chance I might have had a shot at pointing out the inverse of Jim’s argument to his own demise. I suspect that chance has passed and so I backed off. You guys just won’t let it go.
God is the only author, initiator and contributor to all that is necessary for man’s salvation. And in Jim’s view, man is the only responsible party (whether he can admit it or not); accountable to God for his rejection or acceptance of God’s free gift,; accountable to a higher authority. Jim’s error is that He absurdly tries to make God higher or better or stronger (which is not possible) and to make man less than God created him to be which is not only possible, it is the essence of sin. But, God remains true and expects more from man than the Calvinists who say man is unable to respond to God. They can’t have it both ways.
Jim quoted: “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” and then fails to realize that in Christ Jesus we see God as emptying himself, restraining his power to destroy those who live as if He doesn’t exist in order to love and redeem them through a grace and love filled relationship. And yes, all according to His plan which involves man’s volition. Remember relationship?
That more than anything destroys the argument that God is 'responsible' for sin and everything else in the universe. You guys let Jim get to you too easily and loose sight of the real issue. I think Jim and I could have had a good discussion about this, but he used it to try to put distance between me and Knight (though he failed miserably).
Oh, well.
Philetus
Umm, I'm confused.Philetus said:
What was it then that you were agreeing with Jim about? A moment ago you were saying Jim makes a good point and now it sounds like you completely disagree with him.
I'm very happy to find out that you haven't gone nuts on me but please clarify.
Resting in Him,
Clete
patman
Active member
Hilston said:
You got one :thumb: ,anyway, from me.
Regardless of what you think, you are not His puppet. When God gives you a :thumb: :thumb: too, will you insult him? Yeah, you are saved by grace made possible by God, but you chose to come, you opened the door when Jesus knocking.
Hmm. I just 'GOT' you, Hilston.
You believe you are a puppet. Soooooo, you are speaking for God, exactly what he wants you to say? That's why you are so careful to be conceding.
Last edited:
Philetus
New member
Clete said:Umm, I'm confused.
What was it then that you were agreeing with Jim about? A moment ago you were saying Jim makes a good point and now it sounds like you completely disagree with him.
I'm very happy to find out that you haven't gone nuts on me but please clarify.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Clete,
Jim made the point that to use the term ‘responsible’ in regard to making God responsible to a lesser authority is a misuse of the term. I agreed. I also pointed out that Jim’s use of the term was strictly negative and if the application of the term is so misleading to so many and I think it is in that the SV makes God ‘responsible’ for everything through meticulous control, maybe we needed to at least tweak the term or disregard it altogether. I’m in favor of the latter. I wish I could have pursued the discussion with Jim but it is so far beyond redemption now it isn’t worth it. I think it is worth consideration but Jim once again hijacked the thread by trying to make Knight look like a tyrant and me a weasel.
This thread saved my mind! I was ready to throw in the theological towel and go of into the shadows before I stumbled onto TOL this thread. And need I remind you … we have our work cut out for us. Open Theism is a relatively young theological discipline. And I for one am tired of allowing the old terms and definitions to always derail and continue to suppress the truth about God.
Salvation is God’s plan. It is necessary because WE sin. And we sin because WE rejected God’s original plan. Jim blames God without holding God accountable. I want to do neither. I want to repent; I need to repent. I’m responsible to God … not the other way around.
Philetus
- Status