ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[godrulz]

The Word of God is meant to be interpreted, understood, and obeyed. It is not a hidden mystery for the elite.

 

[patman]

"they will never be able to bring themselves out of their condition." There is a truth there.

You know what I meant when I said that, right? They will never turn to God to get them out is what that means...

 

[patman]

Don't imply too much into that. I'm here and I'm giving it an honest look and hope there is reciprocation if for nothing more appreciation and at least thoughtful dogmatism. At this point, if I try to propose the OV (I've tried a couple of times) I tend to overstate or characterize, so I'm just quoting from a position that is safe for the time being for both of us to discuss. I find hot buttons can be so easily pressed and once that happens it is extremely difficult to find meaning. For the most part, you can be sure that I post here on a fairly even keel and try not to be accusatory, but I do give my perplexities and dilemmas straightforward.

I do not mean to imply or pry, but most times when I have presented content you should look into you usually answer me that someone else has a different take on the same thing or it is too much to take in now...

I'll help talk you through the O.V. perspective, but I won't give you everything, I can't for one, and I don't want to waste your time reading something you won't really even want to read.

I can appreciate that it takes time and there are other ideas to consider... but please consider my answers to your questions when I give them.

 

[Lon]

You know what I meant when I said that, right? They will never turn to God to get them out is what that means...

Correct, but let me explain my appreciation for God. I believe, and of course it has strong conservative SV influence but I believe OV appreciates, is that God is so good, that once we are His, even though we might disagree on doctrine, that He will not only bring our right actions, but our right thoughts. I have to believe these discussions are meant for exactly that, even if neither OV or SV continues to exist. One of the kewlest things Godrulz expounded and he should get an award for reminding and bringing it up, is that John Wesley and George Whitefield, though polarized, were still appreciative for one another.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1317591&highlight=John+Wesley#post1317591

And while you are passing out trophies TOL staff, there should be a persecution for righteousness award in here. He takes much flak for trying to champion truths and build bridges. Just my 2cents.

 

[Lon]

I do not mean to imply or pry, but most times when I have presented content you should look into you usually answer me that someone else has a different take on the same thing or it is too much to take in now...

I'll help talk you through the O.V. perspective, but I won't give you everything, I can't for one, and I don't want to waste your time reading something you won't really even want to read.

I can appreciate that it takes time and there are other ideas to consider... but please consider my answers to your questions when I give them.

I've read everything and every link you have posted. Forgive my lack of indepth response, I wasn't trying to change your belief, I was actually complimenting your intelligence by short posts because I believe you to be pretty sharp, and a Berean. With that thought in mind, my approach was that if I simply pointed you to the truth, you'd go like wildfire. You bet, I could go for the indepth answers, but I saw a spark in you I liked so I've treated you differently based on that perception.

 

[Lon]

Well I certainly mispoke (this time), and perhaps that is what you are refering to. I am usually at pains to explain that God is the ultimate authority and the source of the authority of scripture as well. But I suspect that the real source of trouble between Clete and myself lies in the difference between the traditional doctrine of Sola Scriptura



and the only version of "Sola Scriptura" that I accept which is simply that the Bible is the only authority given into the hands of men for the determination of the truth. This is basically little more than a denial of the apostolic authority claimed by the Mormons and the Catholic churches.

This difference between these is sufficient to make a clear distinction between my approach to the Bible and the fundamentalist approach to the Bible. For the fundamentalist, the Bible is not only, the only authority in the hands of men, but the Bible also admits only one possible interpretation. I however, am a pluralist, not only in regards to ethics but also in regards to Biblical interpretation. I actually believe that God is a God of confusion as exemplified in Genesis chapter 11, and that diversity serves the will of God.

I'm sorry, I was really trying not to come across strongly at all, I was just noting that the Holy Spirit, as I believe He resides in you both, is a unifier. I was simply saying that Clete missed it and I believe he'd more than be ready to rework his post. And while you weren't necessarily discounting Him, I thought it woud help bring you two to an appreciative understanding. I wasn't invited so it was a bit presumptuous, but I was just seeing both of your frustrations and it prompted me to but in with just a quick word. I was saying that without Him, the proper interpretation of scripture is null and void. He is the source of truth in which even the living logic of us must worship and bow down.

 

[patman]

Actually, I've read everything and every link you have posted.

I knew that... it is just your responses don't give me much to help you know more..

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy reading what you think and have to say, but find something you disagree with or find something you don't 'whatever' and I'll do what I can to answer... otherwise we'll just talk about how everyone has their own ideas

I feel a little dumb for bring this up because you DO do this to, I guess I mean to ask do more of this and less of the other

 

[Lon]

I knew that... it is just your responses don't give me much to help you know more..

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy reading what you think and have to say, but find something you disagree with or find something you don't 'whatever' and I'll do what I can to answer... otherwise we'll just talk about how everyone has their own ideas

I feel a little dumb for bring this up because you DO do this to, I guess I mean to ask do more of this and less of the other

Darn, I was editing my post. LOL. Shoot. Please go back and read the compliment :-D

 

[patman]

Correct, but let me explain my appreciation for God. I believe, and of course it has strong conservative SV influence but I believe OV appreciates, is that God is so good, that once we are His, even though we might disagree on doctrine, that He will not only bring our right actions, but our right thoughts. I have to believe these discussions are meant for exactly that, even if neither OV or SV continues to exist. One of the kewlest things Godrulz expounded and he should get an award for reminding and bringing it up, is that John Wesley and George Whitefield, though polarized, were still appreciative for one another.

I am ready to say never mind to that last trail i was going down.... just forget it.

I appreciate and love all christians, theology is not what save us, it is Grace. But having an accurate theology may plant stronger seeds that the Devil can't take away.

 

[Lon]

I am ready to say never mind to that last trail i was going down.... just forget it.

I appreciate and love all christians, theology is not what save us, it is Grace. But having an accurate theology may plant stronger seeds that the Devil can't take away.

See, that's what's great about our differences. I'm on another forum much of the time and there are 5 point Calvinists, PMers (Post Modernism), Armenianists, Catholics etc.

Though we disagree often and certainly do get into good debate, there is an appreciation there for universal fellowship of the saints. It is quite an eclectic bunch. The best thing about it is it allows me to view God from another's perspective and really examine what I believe. Here I am stumbing through OV and even though I'm an amatuer again in theological discussion from this perspective, I see it as an opportunity to shore up weaknesses. If I have a theological weakness, it is in being able to present my views to a system of theology I've never looked at before and I've had to start from scratch: Very good exercise but humbling.

 

[patman]

I've read everything and every link you have posted. Forgive my lack of indepth response, I wasn't trying to change your belief, I was actually complimenting your intelligence by short posts because I believe you to be pretty sharp, and a Berean. With that thought in mind, my approach was that if I simply pointed you to the truth, you'd go like wildfire. You bet, I could go for the indepth answers, but I saw a spark in you I liked so I've treated you differently based on that perception.

Ahhhhh. I don't know what the wild fire you expect would be like. I do like things to be really simple, and I do get bothered sometimes too. Just look back at my chat's with lee_merrill, for heavens sake -sigh-.

I try to be tactful... so if that worries you... you can stop.

I can't help but the the vibe that your interest is not for adaptations sake, but for studies sake. Your SV with freewill mix makes you content and the OV's newness is daunting I guess?

I say just remember when the word of God was lost for Israel for hundreds of years, then one day found. The words of the truth were heavy and new to those people too, yet it changed them. Truth can go hidden for a time, and then God helps someone find it again and boom, a lot of neat things he wants to see happen does. I think the O.V. is like this.

 

[Lon]

Ahhhhh. I don't know what the wild fire you expect would be like. I do like things to be really simple, and I do get bothered sometimes too. Just look back at my chat's with lee_merrill, for heavens sake -sigh-.

I try to be tactful... so if that worries you... you can stop.

I can't help but the the vibe that your interest is not for adaptations sake, but for studies sake. Your SV with freewill mix makes you content and the OV's newness is daunting I guess?

I say just remember when the word of God was lost for Israel for hundreds of years, then one day found. The words of the truth were heavy and new to those people too, yet it changed them. Truth can go hidden for a time, and then God helps someone find it again and boom, a lot of neat things he wants to see happen does. I think the O.V. is like this.

No, I'm not meaning wildfire for me, but that you seem like a person that really gets in and digs with any interjected ideas, and I'd never want to quench that fervor by simply giving a full post. That bereanishness is contagious, and I'm like that as well. Sometimes I really just like it when people post the links so I can run on them and get alone with the Bible, link, and the Holy Spirit so I can prayerfully consider. I see a similarity with you so I try to offer the same. I gave a link or two, but I'll try to give more in that and if you ask me to explain, I'll take that as my cue to jump in and share my studies and thoughts.

You are correct on that vibe. It isn't that I wouldn't change, I really have tried to put my systematic theology in God's hands, so I don't tend to follow any particular theological stance (I do identifiy with Presbyterians and Evangelical Lutherans in doctrine closely-among a few others). I try to be Biblical first and systematic second. If you checked out a Presbyterian Systematic Theology from the library, I'd fall pretty closely with their doctrine with a few minor points of departure. I really appreciate Buswell's Systematic Theology. So again, that perception of me is correct. I can be moved, but it tends to be God who moves me as I stay faithful to His Word. I think if we all tended to read scripture before turning to commentaries, and systematic theologies(denominational views), we'd all be less divided in denominations, and discussions like this would have a different kind of impact.

 

[mitchellmckain]

I'm sorry, I was really trying not to come across strongly at all, I was just noting that the Holy Spirit, as I believe He resides in you both, is a unifier. I was simply saying that Clete missed it and I believe he'd more than be ready to rework his post. And while you weren't necessarily discounting Him, I thought it woud help bring you two to an appreciative understanding. I wasn't invited so it was a bit presumptuous, but I was just seeing both of your frustrations and it prompted me to but in with just a quick word. I was saying that without Him, the proper interpretation of scripture is null and void. He is the source of truth in which even the living logic of us must worship and bow down.

Absolutely! However this tends to support my God of confusion idea, because despite the Holy Spirit, people do interpret the Bible in vastly different ways. So in the end I have my doubts that this can in fact reconcile Clete and myself to any great degree. I think that while Clete may not quite be able to celebrate our differences as I do, our reconcilation will most likely be limited to accepting that we will not change each others mind by continuing to argue about it.

 

[godrulz]

One of the kewlest things Godrulz expounded and he should get an award for reminding and bringing it up, is that John Wesley and George Whitefield, though polarized, were still appreciative for one another.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1317591&highlight=John+Wesley#post1317591

And while you are passing out trophies TOL staff, there should be a persecution for righteousness award in here. He takes much flak for trying to champion truths and build bridges. Just my 2cents.

This is a paid (bribe) announcement from rulz and his fan club (my cat and dogs).

Lonster has also demonstrated grace and maturity, rather than defensiveness, as he stands for his view and considers other views with humility and a teachable spirit (I think he is on the verge of becoming an Open Theist...misery likes company...come to the 'light' side, Luke).

 

[godrulz]

See, that's what's great about our differences. I'm on another forum much of the time and there are 5 point Calvinists, PMers (Post Modernism), Armenianists, Catholics etc.

Germans are from Germany. ArmEnians are from the country of Armenia.

ArmInians follow the teachings of J. Arminius.

I am not too bright, but I can spell. Another pet peeve: PentEcostal, not PentAcostal.

OK, so I am type A personality and blood type (A+, my academic history also).

 

[patman]

No, I'm not meaning wildfire for me, but that you seem like a person that really gets in and digs with any interjected ideas, and I'd never want to quench that fervor by simply giving a full post. That bereanishness is contagious, and I'm like that as well. Sometimes I really just like it when people post the links so I can run on them and get alone with the Bible, link, and the Holy Spirit so I can prayerfully consider. I see a similarity with you so I try to offer the same. I gave a link or two, but I'll try to give more in that and if you ask me to explain, I'll take that as my cue to jump in and share my studies and thoughts.

You are correct on that vibe. It isn't that I wouldn't change, I really have tried to put my systematic theology in God's hands, so I don't tend to follow any particular theological stance (I do identifiy with Presbyterians and Evangelical Lutherans in doctrine closely-among a few others). I try to be Biblical first and systematic second. If you checked out a Presbyterian Systematic Theology from the library, I'd fall pretty closely with their doctrine with a few minor points of departure. I really appreciate Buswell's Systematic Theology. So again, that perception of me is correct. I can be moved, but it tends to be God who moves me as I stay faithful to His Word. I think if we all tended to read scripture before turning to commentaries, and systematic theologies(denominational views), we'd all be less divided in denominations, and discussions like this would have a different kind of impact.

I dunno. Lately I tend to keep the post length and depth way down. My conviction to the O.V. is strong because I believe it is so revolutionary and the world needs it. It changed my heart in a huge way and opened the bible to me. At first when I came to TOL I was zealous to show it to others.

What I found saddened me. People who I discussed this with all just wanted to debate rather than talk. Then they would call God the author of sin, and and that was truly heart breaking. I wasn't going to change them... who can but themselves?

Take the timeline I made for Lee. Wow that took days and it shows exactly that God was speaking the a Pharaoh in Nebuchadnezzar's day. And the prophecy against him was that Egypt would go into captivity in Babylon and no one would even step foot in Egypt, yet it never happened... Egypt was always occupied by its natives. Lee just blindly moved on. -sigh-

So no more long posts from me

 

[bling]

And so now justice is a miracle?

Look Bling, you can't have it both ways. God is either just or He is not. You either choose your actions freely, which means you could have chosen otherwise, or you could not have chosen otherwise and you didn't choose freely. I CANNOT BE BOTH! If you want to just blow off sound reason then admit that your theology is irrational and that you don't really have any good reason for believing what you do but you just believe it and that's it. Don't pretend like your theology makes perfect sense when you know for a fact that it does not. Either confront the sound reason that has been presented to you or admit that you cannot or that you don't want too and then live with the consequences of that decision.

I'm just so sick and tired of this "miracle" cop-out! Where in the Bible are we shown that God ever did anything that was a rational absurdity? If all dogs have teeth and Spaniels are dogs, do you think it possible that for God Spaniels have no teeth? Is God able to blind you with yellow darkness? Can God move an immovable object or resist an irresistible force? Can God make one dimensional spheres? Can God tell a lie that's true or proclaim a truth that's false?

What else are you prepared to accept on the basis of the "miracle" trump card, Bling? Where should we draw the line? Who gets to decide where that line gets drawn? How is your theology not relegated to pure subjective opinion when you accept irrational doctrines to persist within it? Logic is the only tool we have to know who's doctrines are correct and who's aren't. Every theologian that ever existed would tell you that their theology is Biblical but there is no way that they can all claim to be BOTH Biblical and rational. And any intellectually honest man should be looking at all times to find anything within his theology that can be demonstrated to be false by, as Martin Luther put it, "Scripture and plain reason". There is no other avenue by which the truth can be reached. Depart from it and you will wonder forever in the waste land of subjective opinions where everyone does what it right in their own eyes.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Please read and if you wouldaddress my question on a treat for this subject: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1351527#post1351527
I will try to address the other specifics on this tread.

 

[Lon]

Germans are from Germany. ArmEnians are from the country of Armenia.

ArmInians follow the teachings of J. Arminius.

I am not too bright, but I can spell. Another pet peeve: PentEcostal, not PentAcostal.

OK, so I am type A personality and blood type (A+, my academic history also).

Thanks. Spelling error noted. I SOOOO wish this forum had a spell checker. I genrally spel purty gud, bot fergiv mee wan eye du mack eh mistaik.

 

[Lon]

I dunno. Lately I tend to keep the post length and depth way down. My conviction to the O.V. is strong because I believe it is so revolutionary and the world needs it. It changed my heart in a huge way and opened the bible to me. At first when I came to TOL I was zealous to show it to others.

What I found saddened me. People who I discussed this with all just wanted to debate rather than talk. Then they would call God the author of sin, and and that was truly heart breaking. I wasn't going to change them... who can but themselves?

Take the timeline I made for Lee. Wow that took days and it shows exactly that God was speaking the a Pharaoh in Nebuchadnezzar's day. And the prophecy against him was that Egypt would go into captivity in Babylon and no one would even step foot in Egypt, yet it never happened... Egypt was always occupied by its natives. Lee just blindly moved on. -sigh-

So no more long posts from me

Post # where the discussion started? (I'm on page 20ish I think so far).

 

[Lon]

Absolutely! However this tends to support my God of confusion idea, because despite the Holy Spirit, people do interpret the Bible in vastly different ways. So in the end I have my doubts that this can in fact reconcile Clete and myself to any great degree. I think that while Clete may not quite be able to celebrate our differences as I do, our reconcilation will most likely be limited to accepting that we will not change each others mind by continuing to argue about it.

I realize that it doesn't take care of our differences. I mean I feel very comfortable with my SV position but I see some very good things coming from OV theology. Especially challenging us (me particularly) to think through, present clearly, our (my) beliefs. So while dwelling in the Holy Spirit may not make a difference in the positions immediately, He does make a difference in us.