Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.
    Narrative?

    Can God be so un-Christ-like?

    Is God not long suffering? Or is that just 'narrative' also? I think AMR needs to go back to his Bible Story Book (with pics) for a while. He is lost in his own words and has forgotten what it is to 'hear'. He only r-e-a-d-s! He has become so good at historical and literary criticism, that he no longer remembers the story.

    After the bible stories, maybe Hans Frei's The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative would help.

    P

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    And by extension, we then should have priorities in regards to the way we interpret Scripture, wouldn't you agree?
    Absolutely!

    "Proof? You want PROOF! You can't handle the proof!"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by stipe View Post
      Absolutely, and that should have been a given without going through all that thought process anyway. Also, we should have priorities on how we treat each other.

      Can someone interpret AMR's answer to my question for me. I'm just happy to be off ignore I'm too embarrassed to admit I didn't understand a word he said.
      No.

      "Proof? You want PROOF! You can't handle the proof!"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Delmar View Post
        Translation: "If I use words nobody can understand, they can't prove I didn't answer the question." AMR is not a Mensa member for nothing!

        Ok, I stand corrected. Somebody can!

        "Proof? You want PROOF! You can't handle the proof!"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
          LOL!

          This isn't the foundation for OVT theology. This is God clearly speaking or acting in ways that affirm what you deny! I've formed no doctrine here, Mr. Religion. I've just shown where your objections to what OVT implies are simply Scriptural. It wasn't even hard.

          And OVT in no way denies that God is just or any of the other biblical attributes of God. It simply brings out a long neglected attribute to its place in theology.

          Muz
          Aforementioned verses related to love, fire, holy are all teaching verses. Love is nowhere neglected in any doctrines. Open theism commits the error of designating a clear text, an interpretive center, a theological and hermeneutical key, a locus classicus, a defining passage, a starting point that serves as a filter for all other interpretations of Scripture. The doctrine of God should grow out of the whole counsel of God, not just selected parts.
          Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



          Do you confess?
          Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
          AMR's Randomata Blog
          Learn Reformed Doctrine
          I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
          Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
          Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
          The best TOL Social Group: here.
          If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
          Why?


          Comment


          • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
            Aforementioned verses related to love, fire, holy are all teaching verses. Love is nowhere neglected in any doctrines. Open theism commits the error of designating a clear text, an interpretive center, a theological and hermeneutical key, a locus classicus, a defining passage, a starting point that serves as a filter for all other interpretations of Scripture. The doctrine of God should grow out of the whole counsel of God, not just selected parts.
            This is simply incorrect. OVTs believe in eternal judgment. OVTs embrace all the proper attributes of God as revealed in Scripture. In fact, OVTs do this better than Calvinists, because we DO take into account God's nature as a loving God.

            The reason you see a lot about God's loving nature from OVT is because this is the major point of contention between Calvinists and OVTs regarding God's nature. All the atemporal and omniscient arguments arise out of this one, because it is God's loving nature and desire to love, in concert with God's other attributes and evidence in Scripture that guides the OVT in understanding God's transcendent attributes such as being temporal, and the nature of the universe, such as having an unknowable future.

            You also see a lot about Calvinist's meticulous control view of sovereignty, since this is the opposite of God having a loving nature. Seems to me that Scripture tells us the latter directly, but the former not at all.


            I take it that you're abandoning your objections to OVT because of the obvious Scriptural evidence?

            Muz
            I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

            2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
              In eternity God decreed, without any foreknowledge and only with the counsel of His own sovereign will, the following:
              1. To create the world for His glory
              2. Allow man to fall into sin through his own self-determination
              3. To elect some to salvation in Christ
              4. To pass by and leave the non-elect to their just fate and punishment
              AMR believes that God is immutable; that God's knowledge (among other things) does not increase or decrees or change in any way.

              AMR beleives that God is atemporal; that there is no before or after with God but all things are current within an eternally persistent "now".

              AMR just affirmed in the above quoted passage that God was without foreknowledge in eternity and since, according to AMR (and Calvinism in general), there is no "was" in eternity and since God's knowledge cannot change, we must conclude then that God remains without foreknowledge. But if God is without exhaustively perfect foreknowledge then God lacks something and is thus imperfect (according to Calvinism).

              There is only one word to describe this worldview...

              Incoherent.

              This incoherence is one of several reasons why hyper-Calvinist reject AMR's position. I find it quite telling that the vast majority of Calvinist reject hyper-Calvinism, which only just takes the Calvinist premises to their logical conclusion. A hyper-Calvinist is nothing more than a Calvinist with the courage of his own convictions. And the majority of Calvinists, including AMR, seem to know intuitively that there is something very wrong with hyper-Calvinist position.

              Resting in Him,
              Clete
              sigpic
              "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

              Comment


              • Aforementioned verses related to love, fire, holy are all teaching verses. Love is nowhere neglected in any doctrines. Open theism commits the error of designating a clear text, an interpretive center, a theological and hermeneutical key, a locus classicus, a defining passage, a starting point that serves as a filter for all other interpretations of Scripture. The doctrine of God should grow out of the whole counsel of God, not just selected parts.
                AMR makes the greatest error of all. Jesus is the defining revelation. Not what we believe about Jesus, but the person of Jesus. Jesus is the final word of God to mankind. Jesus is Lord! Calvinism might very well be the most un-Christ-like twisting of scripture on the planet.

                The Holy Spirit (living, relating and personal) guides us in to all Truth. That in no way devalues the written Word of God. It just reminds us that the Bible is not a member of the Living Godhead. It is an aid to hearing what the Spirit of Christ IS saying to those who have ears to hear.

                ASK Mr. Religion's very screen name betrays his inflated notion of himself and his twisted handling of the Holy Bible. Dozens of times on this thread alone he has exalted his r-e-a-d-i-n-g of texts over the texts themselves and questioned the veracity of those who read and hear them differently. AMR’s god is one he controls. Not the other way around.

                Open to the Word, the Spirit and the future,
                Philetus

                "Proof? You want PROOF! You can't handle the proof!"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                  AMR just affirmed in the above quoted passage that God was without foreknowledge in eternity and since, according to AMR (and Calvinism in general), there is no "was" in eternity and since God's knowledge cannot change, we must conclude then that God remains without foreknowledge. But if God is without exhaustively perfect foreknowledge then God lacks something and is thus imperfect (according to Calvinism).

                  This incoherence is one of several reasons why hyper-Calvinist reject AMR's position. I find it quite telling that the vast majority of Calvinist reject hyper-Calvinism, which only just takes the Calvinist premises to their logical conclusion. A hyper-Calvinist is nothing more than a Calvinist with the courage of his own convictions. And the majority of Calvinists, including AMR, seem to know intuitively that there is something very wrong with hyper-Calvinist position.
                  You are not making sense, Clete. Without any foreknowledge means God decreed without relying on any foreknowledge of the decisions of mankind beforehand. This is the key distinction between Arminian and Calvinistic doctrine. If you want to argue the finer points of supra and infra-lapsarian doctrine, start another thread and I will help you better understand the issues and the biblical rationale. Your comments demonstrate the difficulty of open theists in being able to perceive the concept of eternity, an existence vastly different than temporality where everything is known to God equally vividly.
                  Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                  Do you confess?
                  Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                  AMR's Randomata Blog
                  Learn Reformed Doctrine
                  I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                  Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                  Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                  The best TOL Social Group: here.
                  If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                  Why?


                  Comment


                  • Clete,
                    I would recommend more "caution" (for lack of a better word), in equating hyper-Calvinism as a Calvinist with courage. It demonstrates an ignorance (not in a deragatory manner) of the Calvinist tradition, and even of the arguments that the different points along the spectrum known as Calvinism would utilize in defence of their doctrinal specifics. Its nice to remain nuanced in one's discussion of such a divisive doctrine.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
                      This is simply incorrect. OVTs believe in eternal judgment.
                      No, they do not. Most hold to the notion that a God that is Love will not allow eternal torment. You are misinformed.
                      OVTs embrace all the proper attributes of God as revealed in Scripture.
                      No they do not. They re-define the proper understandings of God's attributes then claim they embrace all the OMs.
                      In fact, OVTs do this better than Calvinists, because we DO take into account God's nature as a loving God.
                      Open theists do not grasp that God's love is vastly different than what we know as love. The analogical treatments in the scriptures (love, wrath, repenting, etc.) are God's means of coming down to His creatures' level to relate His nature analogically, but with the clear caution that is overlooked by open theists, that God's ways are not our ways.
                      You also see a lot about Calvinist's meticulous control view of sovereignty, since this is the opposite of God having a loving nature.
                      Again, the sovereignty of God is an example of God's love, not what we like to think of love. Our notions of love of our parents, wives, children, etc., are comparable to what we call "hate" when compared to the ways that God expresses His love to His creatures. Vastly different unless you want to bring God down to the level of humanism. For God assures us that His holy will shall be realized irrevocably.
                      Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                      Do you confess?
                      Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                      AMR's Randomata Blog
                      Learn Reformed Doctrine
                      I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                      Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                      Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                      The best TOL Social Group: here.
                      If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                      Why?


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Yorzhik View Post
                        Perhaps we can take this one step at a time.

                        Can God sit with you at the kitchen table? I'm asking if God can only do what He did with Moses (Ex 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.)
                        Start a thread on the philosophy of religion or something if you want philosophical discourse. I majored in the subject before switching to theology for obvious reasons.
                        Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                        Do you confess?
                        Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                        AMR's Randomata Blog
                        Learn Reformed Doctrine
                        I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                        Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                        Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                        The best TOL Social Group: here.
                        If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                        Why?


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                          Start a thread on the philosophy of religion or something if you want philosophical discourse. I majored in the subject before switching to theology for obvious reasons.
                          Your right. OV is riddled with philosophy and vain deceit. They have human philosophy down pretty well but they also try to make God subject to that philosophy. That never works.
                          Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

                          The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                            No, they do not. Most hold to the notion that a God that is Love will not allow eternal torment. You are misinformed.
                            You need to r-e-a-d. I said 'eternal judgment' not 'eternal torment.' Once again, you demonstrate your inability to do so.

                            No they do not. They re-define the proper understandings of God's attributes then claim they embrace all the OMs.
                            "Proper" meaning how you define them. However, the beliefs of OVTs are not inconsistent with historical belief. Again, these are issues that aren't entirely settled in orthodoxy.

                            Open theists do not grasp that God's love is vastly different than what we know as love. The analogical treatments in the scriptures (love, wrath, repenting, etc.) are God's means of coming down to His creatures' level to relate His nature analogically, but with the clear caution that is overlooked by open theists, that God's ways are not our ways.
                            So much for a plain reading of Scripture, huh? Do we all have to adopt all of your assumptions to read Scripture?

                            Again, the sovereignty of God is an example of God's love, not what we like to think of love. Our notions of love of our parents, wives, children, etc., are comparable to what we call "hate" when compared to the ways that God expresses His love to His creatures. Vastly different unless you want to bring God down to the level of humanism. For God assures us that His holy will shall be realized irrevocably.
                            I don't recall saying that they were identical to human emotions. However, because God uses these terms, there must be some similarity which is born out in how God arranged the text for us to read. The fact that you have to spend a significant amount of time explaining away these things, but provide no significant Scriptural basis for what you replace the text of Scripture gives a clear indication that you have a problem with your Systematic theology

                            If we look at God's sovereignty, we find that God is a judge, an executioner, and issues commands and laws for which He is willing and able to hand out judgment for those who are guilty. That sounds like a really good definition of sovereignty from any perspective to me.

                            Perhaps you could explain your views on what God's love and justice and mercy and sovereignty anthropomorphize into by first explaining the attribute of man that God does not have, and then explaining from the text how we are to understand your anthropomorphized attribute of God...

                            Muz
                            I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

                            2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by elected4ever View Post
                              ...................................
                              Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water .... how ya doing E4E.

                              P

                              "Proof? You want PROOF! You can't handle the proof!"

                              Comment


                              • I love constructive dialogues.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X