mitchellmckain said:
You seem to under the foolish delusion that people communicate whenever they talk. People talk past each other all the time. Most of the time that is exactly why they get upset. The point where they realize that they have been talking about competely different things is when communication finally begins. If you consider reaching that point to be a waste of time, then you have no interest in communication. For my part, this is whole point of these discussion forums.
It is also possible that you are interested in communication but that like me you do not handle fustration very well.
Well if you are going to insist that you know what I know better than I know it myself and refuse to listen me on this matter, then communication is clearly an impossibility.
But let me make a few things perfectly clear. The topic of this thread is Open Theism and if you wish to discuss something else the burden is on you to explain what that is. I know perfectly well what I was talking about, but your reponse here tells me that I have not understood your questions as you intended. All I can do is try to second guess what you might be talking about when I consider your questions in the future.
Who is stupider the person who keeps trying to explain himself better and keeps trying to figure out what the other person is talking about, or the person who just decides to call the other person stupid?
First of all let me say that I had not simply ignored this post. I got busy and was unable to respond right away and then ended up forgetting exactly which thread this discussion was in and then the other day all you guys went into chat mode and next thing I knew I was forty posts behind and I had nearly forgotten that we were even discussing this stuff.
Having said that, let me respond to the whole of the above quoted portion of your post by saying that I do get very frustrated when I feel like someone has wasted my time. It happens a very great deal around here and it has been happening even more than usual during the past several weeks. However, judging from this response, it seems clear that it was not your intention to be playing silly word games as it at first seemed to me that you must have been doing. My apologies for having jumped to the wrong conclusion.
I am frankly rather wary of answering this question that is so much like the others. The hostility of your responses puts me on my guard and make me wonder what is the point of these question?
The questions follow logically from your having objected to debates on the basis that things cannot be proven. It is my intention to demonstrate that it is not possible to remain consistent with that worldview.
Therefore, if you are talking about personal methods of making decisions, then I must insist that you explain your methods first.
I rely on two things and two things only, both of which combine to create the most objective means possible of determining truth (particularly doctrinal truth), those two things being Scripture and sound reason.
But while I must make judgements on many issues for myself in order to make decisions in my life, I do not put my faith in these decisions. I put my faith in God. In other words, I do the best that I can, with faith that God will guide me in a manner that is in accordance with His will. And this does NOT mean that I assume that my decisions are more correct that those of others. My faith is only that God has my sanctification in His hands according to His plan, whether it is to teach me through my errors or otherwise. I, therefore, leave it up to God to judge which interpretations are "MORE CORRECT".
This is question begging. You say you make judgments but that you have faith in God rather than in those judgments. You seem to miss the fact that this attitude is itself a judgment that you've made.
Let me state it another way. You say that your faith is "only that God has my sanctification in His hands according to His plan, whether it is to teach me through my errors or otherwise." HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE?
And just to be clear, I am not denying that it is true, I am only asking you how do you know it's true. Do you know? Or is it that you believe that belief is not the same as knowing?
You never said you were talking about the validity of Biblical interpretation. You asked, "Are you saying that theology is just a subjective matter of opinion?" To that I answered yes. Apparently to you that means that Biblical interpretation has no validity.
That is precisely what it means. I couldn't care less what your opinion is. I don't know you from Adam. As far as I know, you've got child porn pulled up on a second web browser as you read this (not that I actually think that you do, the point is simply that I don't know you.) I am very simply not interested (generally speaking) in what your opinions are. What I am interested in is what you can establish as objective truth. Do you even believe there is such a thing?
You seem to think that only that which is objective is valid, but I do not share that opinion.
Who cares whether you "share that opinion"?
I understand that the point of this sentence what to attempt to cast my position as merely my opinion but I don't care about that either. Saying it doesn't make it so, Mitchel. Your having called my position an opinion doesn't make it one. Besides, you have mischaracterized my position here anyway. It is not my position that in order to be valid, an interpretation must be purely objective. On the contrary, absolutely pure objectivity is not possible. But what is possible is for us to use the tools God gave us to remain as objective as it is possible to be and to be diligent to separate opinion from fact and to be honest enough to acknowledge the difference between the two.
In short, rather that saying that only the objective is valid, I would say simply that the objective is superior to the subjective. And no, that is not an opinion, that is a fact. I do not merely believe that objective truth supersedes opinions, I know that it does. The alternative is irrational.
It is clear that we do not think the same way. Perhaps a habit of calling people who think differently than you do stupid has limited your realization of the basic fact that people do think in vastly different ways even when they come to the same conclusion.
There is a difference between someone who holds a different opinion and someone who is intentionally irrational. The latter is stupid.
I find it sad that you consider overcoming temptation and quoting our Lord Jeus to be lunacy.
Doing so in the context you did it in is sort of loony.
First of all, Satan had nothing to do with it. Secondly, you completely missed the point altogether and were in no danger of sinning in the first place. Thirdly, there is no Biblical precedent for you to take the Lord's words for your own in that sort of context in the first place. Satan, despite whatever raving lunatic has taught you otherwise, does not answer to you. People can be every bit as evil as Satan ever thought about being and they don't click their heels every time the name of Christ is uttered, why do you suppose Satan would?
(Answering that question will almost certainly take us into a discussion about Dispensationalism and the differences between the Body of Christ and Israel. If you choose just to let that sleeping dog lie, I won't be offended by your lack of response.)
I do keep trying to get over myself. I thought that is what I was doing. But for some of us arrogant ignorant slobs the road to becoming conformed to our Lord and Savior is a long one.
Indeed! No longer than mine though, I'm sure.
Resting in Him,
Clete
