ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!
- Thread starter Swordsman
- Start date
Originally posted by GreenPartyVoter
However if only Nicene Creed/"Bible Believing" Christians are allowed in this particular forum, then I apologize for jumping in here. I just happened to see the heading about Open Theology in the latest threads box, and as I had been thinking a bit about it recently (what little I know, anyway) I joined the conversation.
I did not wish to give you the impression that you should get out of the discussion or weren't welcome. Hey...how do any of us learn anything if we only talk to people who agree with us?
Going on day #8...
Going on day #8...
Swordsman.... I don't want this to get lost in the shuffle. This was from my post #119....
If "repent" is an anthropomorphism then could you please explain the anthropomorphism to us?
In other words.... what does "repent" mean if indeed it is an anthropomorphism? What type of behavior or emotion is it describing?
Come on Swordsman I know you have been online, even posting in other threads.
You made an assertion and I am merely asking you to back up your assertion.
That's fair... isn't it?
Going on day #8...
Swordsman.... I don't want this to get lost in the shuffle. This was from my post #119....
If "repent" is an anthropomorphism then could you please explain the anthropomorphism to us?
In other words.... what does "repent" mean if indeed it is an anthropomorphism? What type of behavior or emotion is it describing?
Come on Swordsman I know you have been online, even posting in other threads.
You made an assertion and I am merely asking you to back up your assertion.
That's fair... isn't it?
God_Is_Truth
New member
Hold on here. I said that God was in control, not that he controls all things. Do you agree or disagree that one can be in control of a situation without controlling all the things that occur inside of it?
I think that faith is partly us and partly God. By faith we accept the gospel as truth and believe in God for our hope. We all know we are sinners and I think we all know that we’ve messed up in life and done things we shouldn’t have done. We also know that if there is no God than we shouldn’t feel bad for any of those things. They would instead feel natural and there would be no conviction in one’s heart for those things.
So we also know that we have done things we shouldn’t have and gone against what the person who put those convictions there wants. We also know that this person is God. Romans 1 makes this very clear. Thus, we know we need forgiveness from God for the things we did wrong. Thus, we all have the ability innately to turn to God and say “God, I know I’ve done things I shouldn’t have. I’ve done things you didn’t want me to do. Please forgive me of these things and help me to sin no more but to live in according to what is right.�
The part of faith I believe that is God’s part is seeing Christ for who he really is, accepting that salvation is by grace, and a complete turn around from the sin we used to live in. you also noted some things in another thread about what God does when we are saved to which I would add here as well.
As for the passages not mentioning this, I ask why does it need to? If Paul is simply explaining to us and praising God for his work in our salvation and our sanctification, and also remembering that it was written to believers who had already put their faith in Christ, then I see no real reason or purpose to explain what they already knew and had already done.
I think we have faith partly because we know we are sinners and in need of forgiveness and partly because God reveals himself to us.
I was not trying to say that all have faith in Christ and had to “accept it� or anything like that. Sorry for the confusion. All I was saying is that we all have faith (or trust and hope) in something. We all have the capacity to turn towards Christ and put that faith in him, but many of us choose not to.
Do you really think God would command the impossible from us? Would he command us to grow wings? Would he command us to walk to the moon? Would he command us to drink the pacific ocean? Thus, I see it as reasonable that anything God commands us to do is something we have the ability to do. It may be hard, we may not like it, but we are able.
Here are the two verses we are talking about:
7the sinful mind[6] is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
Now in verse 7 it says that the “sinful mind� is hostile to God. It doesn’t mean that the entire person is hostile, just that the sinful mind is. Clearly there is more to a person than just their mind. There is the heart, soul, will etc. verse 8 says “it does not submit to God’s law nor can it do so�. This is about the sinful mind. But as I already stated, there is more to a person than the mind. There is the heart, soul and will for starters. So, if a person decides to come to their senses and stop living according to the sinful mind and doing what they know is wrong, I believe they can ask for forgiveness, repent and God does the rest from there.
See above.
I don't think so. The OV God does NOT love me like the God of the Bible [
Before you were born God could not have loved you except in the way of a thought or a future thing. He could not love you the same way he loves you now because you didn’t exist then and you do exist now. Furthermore, if that is the case, what do you make of this verse?
Galatians 4:9
But now that you know God–or rather are known by God–how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?
If God knew you all the way back at the cross personally, then this verse should be a lie right? How could God have known you personally all the way back then and then claim to start knowing you again for the first time once you believe? It cannot be both. God cannot have exhaustively, personally, and individually known you forever in eternity and on the cross and claim that when you believe that you are “now known by God�.
And once again I add that our theology should not be built upon what theology says God love us more or which one seems to say that God cares most about us. It should be about truth as found in the word of God—the bible.
Because his death is not something where sins were sort of “put on him� literally. It was a sacrifice in our place, bearing the punishment we deserved as the result of our sins. He lived perfectly and as such was able to pay the price he himself did not deserve, but that every one of us deserves when we sin. Thus, his righteousness is imputed to us by faith in
that work because though we are guilty, he was innocent.
There are many scriptures that support this idea if you are interested.
What’s comforting is irrelevant. What’s important is truth. If the bible says God had all the women and children killed then that’s what happened regardless of how we feel about it.
also, are you saying that all people today were people back then? What else would they be besides “non-persons�? they couldn’t have been people like they are now because they didn’t exist.
The WE in that verse is about all of mankind. It’s about the human race as a whole, yourself included. While humans were sinners, Christ died for us. Furthermore, if God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future, then in what sense did Christ die for us “while we were yet sinners�?
To quote from Greg Boyd’s website:
“While we were yet sinners?�
Rom. 5.7-8:
“Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man -- though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.�
If God possess exhaustive definite foreknowledge, in what sense then did Christ die for us “while we were yet sinners�? In the accompanying analogy, Paul CONTRASTS the rare willingness of a person to die even for somebody who (relatively speaking) deserves to be saved with Christ’s death for people who (in contrast to the righteous man) offer no guarantee of a return on the investment. That is, we may die for a righteous or good man because good men are likely to “pay it forward� via their goodness. Our readiness to die in this case is determined by the likelihood that the person we are dying for will make our death worthwhile.
However, Paul CONTRASTS this with Christ’s death for us “while we were yet sinners.� Think through the implications of this. Both the deterministic and simple foreknowledge views of the future rob this analogy of its effect on readers, for the needed contrast between the analogy of how/why we die only rarely for good people and how/why Jesus died for us “while we were sinners� is entirely lost. If a) Christ dies for those he has elected from eternity only, or b) God knows that so-and-so will in fact receive him, become a righteous person and bring forth fruit, then it makes no sense to contrast Christ’s death for me “while I was a sinner� with our willingness to die for people who promise a return on our investment. If God is certain of the return he will get on his investment (because he already knows for whom Christ’s death will be effective), then Christ’s death is not dissimilar to the way we die for others. But Paul insists it IS different.
End of quote by Boyd.
You can’t love someone who doesn’t exist any more or less whether you know they will be born or not. They still don’t exist and anything you feel towards them is just one sided and unfulfilled. Also consider how much more it displays God’s love towards us in that God didn’t even know which people would be born, but he gave a sacrifice that would suffice for all of them. He went out on a limb and did what he didn’t need to for people he didn’t know would exist! It’s one thing to die for specific people you know and love, but how much greater is the love that someone gives for people he does not know! Who has the greater love, someone who dies to save his relatives, or someone who dies to give all people to come a chance for salvation? I think the answer is obvious.
It’s about the nation of Israel who because of unbelief was cutoff. Thus, God turned to those who were not a nation (the gentiles) and called people from among them to be his people. The term “hate� in that passage is another word for saying “rejected�. In other words, Jacob I chose, Esau I rejected.
Where does it say it was before?
because God works with our free will to bring about good. Nothing God does in us contradicts free will. Remember also that we have been regenerated and long for God to do things through us, giving God a much easier time in using us for good works.
Because they are not only done by God. It is both of us who does them. God commands us to do them and works in us and helps us to bring it about.
First off let me remind you that proverbs are general statements that the authors wrote down about what they saw as true in the world around them. They are not always absolutes. For example, one may say “the wicked will not prosper� but obviously they sometimes do. Thus, in general they will not and they will not prosper forever, but if we took it literally and absolutely, it would be wrong.
That said, I think this verse is talking about how anything we do is ultimately allowed by God. A straight forward reading of the text might suggest that every word we say is from God, but should we really hold such a view? That would mean that every swear word, every word of hate, every misuse of the Lord’s name is from God. Surely this is not so. Also, it would render the phrase “the word of the Lord� meaningless as every word would become “the word of the Lord�. Thus, I see it as saying that all of our actions are allowed by God as he is sovereign. We plan in our hearts what to do, but if God doesn’t want it to happen, he won’t let us do it. I believe that can be done without affecting free will in any way.
I see this as basically the same as above except that God also sends events into our lives as he wishes (plagues, famine etc.) and thus, he can establish our steps as well as simply allowing the ones we decide to take on our own.
Remember Pharaoh? Bear in mind that just because God can affect our hearts it does not mean our free will has been tampered with.
Where did I ever suggest that?
All things exist by God’s power so ultimately they come from him. But unless you wish to make God the author of sin, I think you’ll agree that even though it’s by God’s power that they are done, we are the ones who use that power to do evil things.
That’s nonsense. I haven’t done them yet. And if I have free will, then there exists a degree of uncertainty by definition such that it’s impossible to know with 100% accuracy what I will do before I do it. furthermore, I see little biblical support for such a view.
That’s logical through the definition of free will. The only way God can know absolutely for certain what we will is if we don’t have free will.
Are you saying God is illogical? Are you saying he’s outside of reality? The bottom line is that the two concepts (free will and exhaustive foreknowledge) are mutually exclusive in reality. They cannot co-exist no matter how hard one wants them to.
I hope he didn’t teach that we don’t make real decisions, I certainly believe we have them
however, logic was not as developed as a train of thought then as it is today and thus he couldn’t see the logical problem with the two concepts. That doesn’t change the present logical dilemma however. They are still mutually exclusive.A debate for another day perhaps
Then I’m not free to choose apart from what God says I will choose. When the situation comes around I will not be free to choose what I decide to choose, I will only be able to “choose� what God “knows� I will choose. I am not free in this case.
That argues against the whole idea of free will! Free will says that you cannot know what someone will do even though you can know what they might or are likely to do. If God knows I will watch tv because he knows that I would watch it in that situation, then I have become a 100% predictable being who is thus not free. A being that is free, by definition cannot be 100% predictable. That’s the whole meaning of free.
See above.
Not if God knows with 100% accuracy what we are going to do before we do it.
If I’m really free then all he can know is what I might choose or what I’m likely to choose. He can know what percentage the possibility of me choosing a particular choice is, but he cannot know for certain what I’ll do if I’m really free.
how does God know it? I haven’t done it yet. The only way he can know it is to cause it, unless I don’t have free will and am just like a robot, completely predictable. In the last sentence, it could not be a possibility. Nothing is a possibility if God has EFK (exhaustive foreknowledge). Everything is certain. There is no possibilities or any sense of contingency if God has EFK.
I see no biblical, logical, experiential or rational reason to believe this.
In Christ,
GIT
Re: Going on day #8...
Re: Going on day #8...
I have talked to scores, if not hundreds, of people who claim God has predestined everything, including every dust mite, and every piece of dust, every murder, every tragedy. Most of them say when the Bible says repeatedly that God repented, was grieved, was sorry, was angry....it is an anthropopithism or an anthropomorphism..But they can never explain what God is trying to illustrate to us by saying the exact opposite of what He meant.
It's a gigantic cop-out!!
We Christians have got to start being intellectually honest with ourselves. If you hear something that is different from what you were taught, you owe it to yourself to study and examine it; not just reject it out of hand.:singer: :bang:
Re: Going on day #8...
I have talked to scores, if not hundreds, of people who claim God has predestined everything, including every dust mite, and every piece of dust, every murder, every tragedy. Most of them say when the Bible says repeatedly that God repented, was grieved, was sorry, was angry....it is an anthropopithism or an anthropomorphism..But they can never explain what God is trying to illustrate to us by saying the exact opposite of what He meant.
It's a gigantic cop-out!!
We Christians have got to start being intellectually honest with ourselves. If you hear something that is different from what you were taught, you owe it to yourself to study and examine it; not just reject it out of hand.:singer: :bang:
So goes the rumor.
Maybe he will share them here.
And maybe Swordsman will take a stab as well.
A strength of the Open View is that it takes all passages about the nature of God and His ways literally (except obvious figures of speech like He covers us with His wings). God is not strongly immutable (absolutely unchanging in every sense) nor impassible (without feelings). These were classical philosophical constructs that are not defensible. There is no reason to make a literal passage an anthropomorphism just because it contradicts a preconceived theology.
Simple foreknowledge and predestination/meticulous control are not compatible philosophically, logically, or biblically with exhaustive foreknowledge of free will contingencies. They are problematic views. This way not be self-evident when we have only been exposed to one explanation (God knows everything including all of the future). The relationship of God's sovereignty to human freedom does not have to be a 'mystery' (meaning it seems contradictory, but we just accept it). It can be cogently resolved with the alternate view that God predestines some of the future, while other aspects of the future is genuinely open and thus unknowable as a certainty/actuality until the choice is made.
Simple foreknowledge and predestination/meticulous control are not compatible philosophically, logically, or biblically with exhaustive foreknowledge of free will contingencies. They are problematic views. This way not be self-evident when we have only been exposed to one explanation (God knows everything including all of the future). The relationship of God's sovereignty to human freedom does not have to be a 'mystery' (meaning it seems contradictory, but we just accept it). It can be cogently resolved with the alternate view that God predestines some of the future, while other aspects of the future is genuinely open and thus unknowable as a certainty/actuality until the choice is made.
Gen 3:9 But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?"
Gen 3:11 He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"
Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
Gen 8:1 But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided.
Are all these passages literal? Should we take a "straightforward" reading of the text?
Gen 3:11 He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"
Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
Gen 8:1 But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided.
Are all these passages literal? Should we take a "straightforward" reading of the text?
Each verse or passage must be interpreted on its own merits. The above verses do not have to be interpreted with a wooden literalism, but passages where God literally changes His mind and intentions do not have to be interpreted figuratively (only a preconceived theology of strong immutability suggests this; any personal being can change His thinking, feeling, actions; an omniscient/omnipotent being would know and see presently available knowledge).
Of course the verses are literal!
Gen 3:9 But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?"
The above event LITERALLY happened don't you think? Aren't you really asking what motivated God to ask Adam the question the way He did? I am assuming we agree that this event did in fact take place and therefore the verse is to be taken literally. The verses you have referenced are not examples of anthropomorphisms (with the possible exception of Gen 8:1).
Going on day #9....
Going on day #9....
Swordsman.... I don't want this to get lost in the shuffle. This was from my post #119....
If "repent" is an anthropomorphism then could you please explain the anthropomorphism to us?
In other words.... what does "repent" mean if indeed it is an anthropomorphism? What type of behavior or emotion is it describing?
Come on Swordsman I know you have been online, even posting in other threads.
You made an assertion and I am merely asking you to back up your assertion.
That's fair... isn't it?
Going on day #9....
Swordsman.... I don't want this to get lost in the shuffle. This was from my post #119....
If "repent" is an anthropomorphism then could you please explain the anthropomorphism to us?
In other words.... what does "repent" mean if indeed it is an anthropomorphism? What type of behavior or emotion is it describing?
Come on Swordsman I know you have been online, even posting in other threads.
You made an assertion and I am merely asking you to back up your assertion.
That's fair... isn't it?
Swordsman
New member
Re: Going on day #8...
Re: Going on day #8...
Sorry Knight. My memory failed me. I will answer your question now.
When the Scriptures mention God repenting or relenting, it is using those words as anthropomorphisms. Or He is relating to us with human emotional terms.
Pardon me for asking, but what particular passages are you questioning that contain "repent" in it? I know of a few, but it isn't me that is questioning if God changes His mind as man does.
Thanks Knight.
p.s. on a sidenote, I wanted to ask you if you are bummed that the NHL is still under a lockout?
Re: Going on day #8...
Sorry Knight. My memory failed me.
I will answer your question now.When the Scriptures mention God repenting or relenting, it is using those words as anthropomorphisms. Or He is relating to us with human emotional terms.
Pardon me for asking, but what particular passages are you questioning that contain "repent" in it? I know of a few, but it isn't me that is questioning if God changes His mind as man does.
Thanks Knight.
p.s. on a sidenote, I wanted to ask you if you are bummed that the NHL is still under a lockout?
Knight,
Gen 3:9 But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?"
Gen 3:11 He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"
Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
You said these were literal verses. You in fact said:
Gen 3:9 But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?"
God must also be ignorant of the present. He is asking, "Where are you presently," not "Where will you be in the future?" God must also not be omnipresent, since He obviously does not know where in the Garden they are. So, the God of the OV is not only ignorant of the future, but He is also ignorant of the present and is not omnipresent.
Gen 3:11 He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"
WOW! God is also ignorant of the past, for He obviously would not have asked, "Who told you..." if He knew perfectly the past. His knowledge of the past must also be the same of the past: imperfect and not exhaustive. Once again, "Have you eaten..." God is obviously ignorant of the past, for if He wasn't, then He would have known that they had eaten of the tree. The God of the OV is not only ignorant of the future, but He is also ignorant of the past.
Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
This definitely shows the ignorance of God. "What in the world have you done Eve?! I never dreamed you would actually do such a thing. I can't believe I actually created you!" God is so ignorant, when Eve sinned, He didn't even know what had happened!
The God of the OV is ignorant of the past, present and future, and He cannot be omnipresent.
OR:
God really knows the past, present, and future, and is omnipresent, and these are rhetorical questions/anthropromorphisms, expressing how God acts in human terms so that we would be able to relate to the infinitely holy and almighty God.
Gen 3:9 But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?"
Gen 3:11 He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"
Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
You said these were literal verses. You in fact said:
Gen 3:9 But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?"
God must also be ignorant of the present. He is asking, "Where are you presently," not "Where will you be in the future?" God must also not be omnipresent, since He obviously does not know where in the Garden they are. So, the God of the OV is not only ignorant of the future, but He is also ignorant of the present and is not omnipresent.
Gen 3:11 He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"
WOW! God is also ignorant of the past, for He obviously would not have asked, "Who told you..." if He knew perfectly the past. His knowledge of the past must also be the same of the past: imperfect and not exhaustive. Once again, "Have you eaten..." God is obviously ignorant of the past, for if He wasn't, then He would have known that they had eaten of the tree. The God of the OV is not only ignorant of the future, but He is also ignorant of the past.
Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
This definitely shows the ignorance of God. "What in the world have you done Eve?! I never dreamed you would actually do such a thing. I can't believe I actually created you!" God is so ignorant, when Eve sinned, He didn't even know what had happened!
The God of the OV is ignorant of the past, present and future, and He cannot be omnipresent.
OR:
God really knows the past, present, and future, and is omnipresent, and these are rhetorical questions/anthropromorphisms, expressing how God acts in human terms so that we would be able to relate to the infinitely holy and almighty God.
Re: Re: Going on day #8...
Re: Re: Going on day #8...
An anthropomorphism is a way to communicate the action's of God by using human terms so that we can understand better (using human understanding) what God is trying to tell us.
In other words...
An anthropomorphism should work as clarity.
You earlier stated....
Let me give you an example to work from...
Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
If "repented" in Gen 6:6 is a anthropomorphism and if a anthropomorphism is given to create clarity and not confusion what does the anthropomorphism mean in Gen 6:6?
Re: Re: Going on day #8...
No worries.Originally posted by Swordsman
Sorry Knight. My memory failed me.
Uh... you already claimed this.
An anthropomorphism is a way to communicate the action's of God by using human terms so that we can understand better (using human understanding) what God is trying to tell us.
In other words...
An anthropomorphism should work as clarity.
You earlier stated....
So I ask you to please explain what "repent" means if it is indeed a "anthropomorphism".
Let me give you an example to work from...
Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
If "repented" in Gen 6:6 is a anthropomorphism and if a anthropomorphism is given to create clarity and not confusion what does the anthropomorphism mean in Gen 6:6?
Yes... I am bummed.
natewood3, which word in Gen 3:9 is a anthropomorphism?
To the Clete-Knight tag team:
Originally posted by Hilston:
What part of my statement does not represent your view? Don't you believe God's prophecies do not always come true?
Originally posted by Hilston:
Don't you believe that God gets surprised by [His] creation?
Originally posted by Hilston: Don't you believe God wants to save everyone?
Originally posted by Hilston: Don't you believe that He cannot save those who reject Him?
Clete, do you believe God could save unrepentant, faithless sinners if He wanted to?
Originally posted by Hilston: Don't you believe that hundreds of people plunge into hell on a daily basis?
Originally posted by Hilston: I didn't realize this was a test for Swordsman. I've obviously confused you with someone who really wants to know the answer to the question.
Originally posted by Hilston: What part of my statement does not represent your view? Don't you believe God's prophecies do not always come true? Don't you believe that God gets surprised by creation? Don't you believe God wants to save everyone? Don't you believe that He cannot save those who reject Him? Don't you believe that hundreds of people plunge into hell on a daily basis?
Originally posted by Hilston: How can you have any comfort or trust believing in a God whose prophecies do not come true,
Originally posted by Hilston:
who is surprised by His own creation,
Originally posted by Hilston: ... and who continues to sit idly by, unable to lift a finger, while hundreds of people He supposedly wants to save but cannot, plunge into hell on a daily basis?
Originally posted by Hilston:
What part of my statement does not represent your view? Don't you believe God's prophecies do not always come true?
Clete agrees with my description of the OV. Therefore, no misrepresentation.
Originally posted by Hilston:
Don't you believe that God gets surprised by [His] creation?
Again, Clete agrees with my description of the OV. Therefore, no misrepresentation.
Originally posted by Hilston: Don't you believe God wants to save everyone?
Yet again, Clete agrees with my description of the OV. Therefore, no misrepresentation.
Then what does this verse mean to you?: God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1Ti 2:3b-4)
Originally posted by Hilston: Don't you believe that He cannot save those who reject Him?
That's what I meant, i.e., on the Open View, He cannot save those who reject Him without violating His stipulated requirements. Once again, Clete agrees with my description, and therefore, there was no misrepresentation.
Clete, do you believe God could save unrepentant, faithless sinners if He wanted to?
Originally posted by Hilston: Don't you believe that hundreds of people plunge into hell on a daily basis?
Once again, Clete agrees with my description, and therefore, there was no misrepresentation. Yet Knight accuses me of being unfriendly and unchristian because of misrepresentation. Go figure.
Originally posted by Hilston: I didn't realize this was a test for Swordsman. I've obviously confused you with someone who really wants to know the answer to the question.
So you're not really interested in the answer to your question, right? You're only interested in whether or not Swordsman has an explanation? Maybe you could phrase it this way: "Swordsman, do you agree with the explanation that most of the blood-drinking Closed Theists give for this figure, or is yours different?"
Anyone who really wants to know can PM me.
Originally posted by Hilston: What part of my statement does not represent your view? Don't you believe God's prophecies do not always come true? Don't you believe that God gets surprised by creation? Don't you believe God wants to save everyone? Don't you believe that He cannot save those who reject Him? Don't you believe that hundreds of people plunge into hell on a daily basis?
Originally posted by Hilston: How can you have any comfort or trust believing in a God whose prophecies do not come true,
Right. You say so yourself, here:
So my statement is not a misrepresentation.
Originally posted by Hilston:
who is surprised by His own creation,
So you admit this. Therefore, it is not a misrepresentation. You assume that it's on rare occasions. But you don't know. How could you? Does God tell you everytime He gets surprised?
That's another one of those figures that you choose to willfully ignore because if you made any effort toward understanding them, your entire theological house of cards would list and collapse.
Originally posted by Hilston: ... and who continues to sit idly by, unable to lift a finger, while hundreds of people He supposedly wants to save but cannot, plunge into hell on a daily basis?
I get this stuff from you and your Open Theist cohorts. It is You who should be ashamed. See below.
You prove my point. You say God "has gone" to incredible measures. "Has gone" indicates completed action in the past. On your view, what is He currently doing to save people? Or is He sitting idly by?
Again, you prove my point. "What more could have been done" indicates completed action in the past. On your view, what is God doing now, today, at this moment to save people? Or is He sitting idly by?
From your own words, Knight, it is you who are creating a straw man -- out of your own propositions. You misrepresent yourself!
No, you don't. This is just posturing. If you really expected more from me and valued our friendship, you wouldn't say this stuff in public. You'd PM me out of genuine and earnest concern that our friendship is in jeopardy. Instead you publicly chide me for allegedly doing something that you yourself do all the time: Misrepresenting other people's views. It's a double standard, and everybody sees it.
Last edited: