ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[ChristisKing]

ChristisKing,

It is very unfortunate that you've decided that you don't care to discuss this seriously. The word translated as forordained does not have to mean predestinate and I think you know that already and so must resort to making fun and reacting as though this is all too rediculous to take with more than a grain of salt. You are a waste of my time.

I'll be around if you decide you want to take this more seriously. In the mean time...

:wave2:

Resting in Him,
Clete

So this is how you defeated all those Calvinist's huh? :chuckle:

One verse, just one verse and your entire theology falls to the ground and you wave bye-bye. When you can seriously address this verse biblically c'mon back, otherwise bye-bye.
:wave2:

 

[Clete]

So this is how you defeated all those Calvinist's huh? :chuckle:

One verse, just one verse and your entire theology falls to the ground and you wave bye-bye. When you can seriously address this verse biblically c'mon back, otherwise bye-bye.
:wave2:

Don't prove yourself a liar along with seemingly everyone else this past week. You know very well that I responded to your proof texts and did so directly. I have not claimed that what I said defeated your position nor do I think it did. It was the first response to a single question. We had hardly even started and hadn't even begun to scratch the surface on this issue, (which I consider to be a valid issue by the way) and you can't last one iteration without abandoning all intellectual honesty and resorting instead to laughing and thinking that being incredulous is a sufficient response to completely prove my reading of these verses is in error. I couldn't defeat you if I wanted to because you don't show up for the fight. As I said, I will be around if you decide to respond in a more substantive way (like actually trying to demonstrate how I cannot be correct from a Biblical perspective, for example). Until then I'm not going to waste my time with someone who isn't interested in actually exploring the real issues of this debate.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Where do you read that God had a "potential plan" ordained from the beginning?

I read that Christ was verily foreordained before the foundation of the world to shed His blood:

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

I read that Christ's death was absolutely so certain from all eternity that He is actually described as being slain from the very foundation of the world:

REV 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Where are you picking-up those extra words "potential plan?" Are you and Clete reading the same Open Theism 101 book?

It does not say He was slain trillions of years ago in eternity past. The phraseology would be consistent with the plan being implemented in Genesis 3, after the Fall, close to the creation of the world.

 

[godrulz]

So this is how you defeated all those Calvinist's huh? :chuckle:

One verse, just one verse and your entire theology falls to the ground and you wave bye-bye. When you can seriously address this verse biblically c'mon back, otherwise bye-bye.
:wave2:

Boyd and others have addressed your proof text in a cogent manner. I have posted it elsewhere and do not have time to keep rehashing the same research over and over.

 

[ChristisKing]

Don't prove yourself a liar along with seemingly everyone else this past week. You know very well that I responded to your proof texts and did so directly. I have not claimed that what I said defeated your position nor do I think it did. It was the first response to a single question. We had hardly even started and hadn't even begun to scratch the surface on this issue, (which I consider to be a valid issue by the way) and you can't last one iteration without abandoning all intellectual honesty and resorting instead to laughing and thinking that being incredulous is a sufficient response to completely prove my reading of these verses is in error. I couldn't defeat you if I wanted to because you don't show up for the fight. As I said, I will be around if you decide to respond in a more substantive way (like actually trying to demonstrate how I cannot be correct from a Biblical perspective, for example). Until then I'm not going to waste my time with someone who isn't interested in actually exploring the real issues of this debate.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Ahhh the 'ole "liar" and "I'm wasting my time" defense. Yeah, everybody seems to be a liar around here, huh Clete? :chuckle:

 

[Clete]

Ahhh the 'ole "liar" and "I'm wasting my time" defense. Yeah, everybody seems to be a liar around here, huh Clete? :chuckle:

I didn't say you were a liar and this post is proof that you would indeed be a waste of my time. How many more ways can a guy try to get across a desire to discuss this issue with respect and intellectual honesty.

What a disapointment. :nono:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[ChristisKing]

I didn't say you were a liar and this post is proof that you would indeed be a waste of my time. How many more ways can a guy try to get across a desire to discuss this issue with respect and intellectual honesty.

A guy can start by being intellectually honest with the clear meaning of words and not "adding" words to Scripture.

But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, (1PE 1:19-20)

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (REV 13:8)

 

[Clete]

A guy can start by being intellectually honest with the clear meaning of words and not "adding" words to Scripture.

I added nothing to Scripture, I simply am trying to stay on the same page that God is on and taking the verse for what it means. This is precisely why proof texting is generally a wast of time. You cannot formulate a theology base on two verses of Scripture, no one can. It is impossible because what one draws from one set of verses has implications about other verses which must also be taken into consideration. The Bible must make internal coherent sense or else theology itself becomes a waste of time. And so these verses must be interpreted in light of other truths about God which we know for certain are true.

But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, (1PE 1:19-20)

As I said, the word that is translated here "foreordained" does not have to be interpreted to mean predestined (in the Calvinist sense of predestination).

proginosko - To know in advance

It could mean that God predestined it but that doesn't have to be what it means and it is the logical implications of believing that God predestined it that makes it certain that He did not.

You are saying that these verses only say that Christ was just a contingency plan just in case there might be a fall, because some could rebel, and then they might also repent and believe this contingency plan and be saved? Are you really serious?

I would not couch it in quite those terms but for the sake of this conversation I'll let it go for now. What alternative would you suggest, that Adam was predestined to fall right? That no matter how badly Adam didn't want to sin, he was going to anyway because God predestined that he would, right?
This cannot be the case. Adam was not fallen before he fell! He was created good the Bible says, so if what you are suggesting here is correct, Adam could not have been the source of his own sin because that sin was predestined before he ever existed. You definately make God the author of sin with this doctrine, it therefore cannot be true. (James 1:13)

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (REV 13:8)

Two things here.

First of all the name of the book mention here is not "The Book of Life", it is rather "The Book of Life of the Lamb Slain".

Second, the phrase "from the foundation of the world" does not mean that, as godrulz put it, "...He was slain trillions of years ago in eternity past. The phraseology would be consistent with the plan being implemented in Genesis 3, after the Fall, close to the creation of the world."

Such an interpretation is completely consistent with the language of the text (in other words, we aren't adding anything to it) and the logical implications of such readings does no injury to such vital issues the character of God.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[ChristisKing]

I added nothing to Scripture, I simply am trying to stay on the same page that God is on and taking the verse for what it means....

Well what was all this then?

"Christ’s death was planned for but not ‘set in stone’ as it were. These verses do not teach that the fall was predestined or even that Jesus' coming was predestined, only that God planned in advance to do what was needed if the situation called for it.

God knew that creating a creature with a free will meant that they could rebel (and probably would). He set a plan in place wherein He would redeem any who had fallen if they would repent and believe. The salvation of those who would believe made it more than worth the risk of having most of mankind remain in rebelion and be set to Hell. These verses you've quoted would indicate simply that this planning out of the plan of salvation was done in advance of creation and was not an after thought of God's." Clete

Maybe you just didn't see the words in the verses properly, here let me post them again:

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Pls show me where any of those "extra words" you added above in blue that are in these verses, or in their context in the chapter, or in their context in the epistle, or in the entire record of Scripture anywhere whatsoever for that matter. I will patiently wait for any plain direct reference you can provide.

As I said, the word that is translated here "foreordained" does not have to be interpreted to mean predestined (in the Calvinist sense of predestination).

proginosko - To know in advance

It could mean that God predestined it but that doesn't have to be what it means and it is the logical implications of believing that God predestined it that makes it certain that He did not.

What in the world does that mean? "It could mean predestined but if you believe that it does then it can't." :chuckle: Man, where do you get this stuff??? I must ask you who is really wasting who's time?

What alternative would you suggest?[/QOUTE]

I already suggested it. God predestined that Christ would receive all the glory and man would not receive any. You suggest that there might have never been a need for Jesus Christ. Scripture is plainly against that teaching, here let me post another plain verse which indicates everything was created for the glory of Jesus Christ:

COL 1:16 For by him (Jesus Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Two things here.

First of all the name of the book mention here is not "The Book of Life", it is rather "The Book of Life of the Lamb Slain".

Second, the phrase "from the foundation of the world" does not mean that, as godrulz put it, "...He was slain trillions of years ago in eternity past. The phraseology would be consistent with the plan being implemented in Genesis 3, after the Fall, close to the creation of the world."

Oh ok I see now, so Christ's death was predestined after all. But I thought if you believed this then it couldn't be true, right?!? Oh well whatever!?! So anyway you now teach that He was predestined after all but it was only "after the Fall, close to the creation of the world," not before the foundation of the world as the Apostle Peter taught us, or in case of some people is trying to teach them.

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

 

[Clete]

Well what was all this then?

"Christ’s death was planned for but not ‘set in stone’ as it were. These verses do not teach that the fall was predestined or even that Jesus' coming was predestined, only that God planned in advance to do what was needed if the situation called for it.

God knew that creating a creature with a free will meant that they could rebel (and probably would). He set a plan in place wherein He would redeem any who had fallen if they would repent and believe. The salvation of those who would believe made it more than worth the risk of having most of mankind remain in rebelion and be set to Hell. These verses you've quoted would indicate simply that this planning out of the plan of salvation was done in advance of creation and was not an after thought of God's." Clete

Maybe you just didn't see the words in the verses properly, here let me post them again:

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Pls show me where any of those "extra words" you added above in blue that are in these verses, or in their context in the chapter, or in their context in the epistle, or in the entire record of Scripture anywhere whatsoever for that matter. I will patiently wait for any plain direct reference you can provide.

Unresponsive. Simply repeating your position is not a response. I have responded and done so quite clearly. If you cannot respond to it simply say so. I will not play your games.

What in the world does that mean? "It could mean predestined but if you believe that it does then it can't." :chuckle: Man, where do you get this stuff??? I must ask you who is really wasting who's time?

Again, what I said was clear enough for anyone who wants to understand it to get it without difficulty. You are responding to contradiction which you know for a fact isn't there.
However, just to be rediculously painlyfull clear. The fact that an interpretaion of foreordained would IN THIS CASE be logically impossible given the chracter of God then such a interpretation cannot be correct. Now will you respond to that point or will you continue playing stupid games? Anyone want to wager which it will be?

What alternative would you suggest?

I already suggested it.

Yes I know you already suggested it! I can read just fine, was it not obvious that I was playing off what you had already said in previous posts about Adam's fall being predestined? It was obvious to everyone, it had to be, no one is that stupid!

God predestined that Christ would receive all the glory and man would not receive any. You suggest that there might have never been a need for Jesus Christ. Scripture is plainly against that teaching, here let me post another plain verse which indicates everything was created for the glory of Jesus Christ:

COL 1:16 For by him (Jesus Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Now who's changing the subject?

The word here translated "for" that you have highlighted is the Greek word "eis" pronounced "ice". Here's what it means...

1) into, unto, to, towards, for, among
++++
"For" (as used in Acts 2:38 "for the forgiveness...") could have two meanings. If you saw a poster saying "Jesse James wanted for robbery", "for" could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The later sense is the correct one. So too in this passage, the word "for" signifies an action in the past. Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works.​

Source

Oh ok I see now, so Christ's death was predestined after all. But I thought if you believed this then it couldn't be true, right?!? Oh well whatever!?! So anyway you now teach that He was predestined after all but it was only "after the Fall, close to the creation of the world," not before the foundation of the world as the Apostle Peter taught us, or in case of some people is trying to teach them.

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

You missed it again CiK. I did not say nor did I even imply that Christ's death was predestined. The fall of mankind was anticipated and planned for. That plan was put in action when the need arose (i.e. when Adam fell). But that wasn't even the point of the Revelations passage in the first place. That isn't what it was saying at all. You know what though, I don't even care. You obviously have no intentions of really debating this issue so I think that I will just drop it after all. Go beleive whatever you want. God predestined it all anyway, right?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[ChristisKing]

Unresponsive. Simply repeating your position is not a response. I have responded and done so quite clearly. If you cannot respond to it simply say so. I will not play your games.

Or rather, you can not find a single one of the voluminous words that you added to Scripture to change it's meaning to fit your theology.

Again, what I said was clear enough for anyone who wants to understand it to get it without difficulty. You are responding to contradiction which you know for a fact isn't there. However, just to be rediculously painlyfull clear. The fact that an interpretaion of foreordained would IN THIS CASE be logically impossible given the chracter of God then such a interpretation cannot be correct. Now will you respond to that point or will you continue playing stupid games? Anyone want to wager which it will be?

Let's continue playing stupid games. :chuckle: Now you're saying there is something in God's character preventing Him from foreordaining?!? Do you know how many verses God has revealed how He has foreordained something? You're right, these are stupid games?!?

The word here translated "for" that you have highlighted is the Greek word "eis" pronounced "ice". Here's what it means...

1) into, unto, to, towards, for, among
++++
"For" (as used in Acts 2:38 "for the forgiveness...") could have two meanings. If you saw a poster saying "Jesse James wanted for robbery", "for" could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The later sense is the correct one. So too in this passage, the word "for" signifies an action in the past. Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works.​

What???? Where in the world are you going with any of this? :help:

You missed it again CiK. I did not say nor did I even imply that Christ's death was predestined. The fall of mankind was anticipated and planned for. That plan was put in action when the need arose (i.e. when Adam fell). But that wasn't even the point of the Revelations passage in the first place. That isn't what it was saying at all. You know what though, I don't even care. You obviously have no intentions of really debating this issue so I think that I will just drop it after all. Go beleive whatever you want. God predestined it all anyway, right?

No, He can't predestine anything....He has limited His Sovereignty by closing His eyes, shutting down His mind, and tying His hands together behind His back so that the all powerful god "FREEWILL" can reign in His place, right?

:bow: FREEWILL

 

[Clete]

No, He can't predestine anything....He has limited His Sovereignty by closing His eyes, shutting down His mind, and tying His hands together behind His back so that the all powerful god "FREEWILL" can reign in His place, right?

:bow: FREEWILL

According to your theology, this must be what God predestined me to believe, right? Could I have done anything else, or was my every thought, word, and deed predestined before time began?

 

[Poly]

According to your theology, this must be what God predestined me to believe, right? Could I have done anything else, or was my every thought, word, and deed predestined before time began?

Is ChristisKing being blasphemous to God, making fun of something that He predestined Clete to do? :think:

 

[ChristisKing]

Is ChristisKing being blasphemous to God, making fun of something that He predestined Clete to do? :think:

No way! How can it be blasphemous? God having submitted Himself to the god Freewill is just tickled pink that we all are still "choosing" to think of Him. He's always worried about that and how we are going to make everything work out. :vomit:

 

[Clete]

Is ChristisKing being blasphemous to God, making fun of something that He predestined Clete to do? :think:

Yes, it is Poly. But don't worry about it because God predestined that he would commit blasphemy by making fun of my believing something that God predestined me to believe!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[ChristisKing]

According to your theology, this must be what God predestined me to believe, right? Could I have done anything else, or was my every thought, word, and deed predestined before time began?

Now where have I heard this before..... :think: ...... I know :idea:

ROM 9:19 ¶ You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

 

[godrulz]

Now where have I heard this before..... :think: ...... I know :idea:

ROM 9:19 ¶ You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

Other verses say His will is resisted. Context is king. Quit proof texting your preconceived ideas.

'before vs from'?

potential vs actual

 

[Clete]

Now where have I heard this before..... :think: ...... I know :idea:

ROM 9:19 ¶ You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

Ha! And the trap closes shut on CiK's neck!

Would you like to dare debate me on the context and meaning of Romans chapter 9? It is the most powerful argument in the Bible AGAINST Calvinism. Come on, I dare you.

:chuckle:

It works every time!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Poly]

Ha! And the trap closes shut on CiK's neck!

Would you like to dare debate me on the context and meaning of Romans chapter 9? It is the most powerful argument in the Bible AGAINST Calvinism. Come on, I dare you.

:chuckle:

It works every time!

Resting in Him,
Clete

And I double dog dare ya!! :dog:

 

[Turbo]

And I double dog dare ya!! :dog:

Where's the other dog?