Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

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

  • Originally posted by elected4ever View Post
    So your answer is no. Sin is sin in any context you put it in. and sin is defined always by the same definition. There is no ambiguity about it. Sin is not relative to anything but what it is. If sin is not defined then sin can be anything that we disapprove off regardless of a biblical definition.
    What happened to the sinning in the flesh and not in the spirit argument? That's confusing ... can you elaborate?

    I didn't contradict myself. I just didn't fully explain what reasoning we use. That of the spirit or or that of the flesh. We have both. One is alive. The other is dead.
    Define dead.

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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Philetus View Post
      Calvinism on the other hand places the origin of temptation and sin with God.
      That is a fundamental flaw in there logic isn't it.



      Originally posted by Philetus View Post
      Something I'm curious about: In your view that it is impossible for Christians to sin, do you also maintain that Christians are not tempted to sin?
      That depends if they are in Christ or not. If they are born again then they have the same attributes as Christ because as He is so are we in this world. We have the same Father who is God . We are of the Father's seed and consequently cannot sin. Sin is therefore not a choice that can be made by a child of God. No a child of god cannot be tempted to sin just as Jesus could not be tempted to sin. Jesus was proved and we are proved. The temptations of Christ was not to to get Jesus to sin but to prove He was indeed the Son of God. It proved that Jesus was just who God the Father said He was, His Only Begotten Son. Jesus could not sin and the temptations of Christ proved it.

      By the same token when we are proved it is not for the purpose of getting us to sin but to see the weaknesses of the flesh that we may learn to live by the life that now resides in our mortal bodies. As we are tested we learn to control the flesh that is born in death. We are in the process of killing the flesh that is already dead to God. We are no longer of the flesh but of the Spirit if it is true that the Spirit lives in us. If we have not the Spirit that is born of God then we are not of God and continue to be dead, separated from the life that is God.
      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 Philetus View Post
        What happened to the sinning in the flesh and not in the spirit argument? That's confusing ... can you elaborate?



        Define dead.
        I will define dead first. It may help to understand the sinnin in the flesh part.

        Death is separation from the life of God. The day that Adam sinned God separated Adam from Himself. That separation is called death. All men are born of Adam and into the death of Adam We are born separated from the life of God. Christ came to give us life and that life is in the Son and whosoever believes in Him has life and has pasted from death into life. I have come that you may have life and have it more abundantly. The life of Christ is a life of possession and not of achievement.

        As far as the flesh is concerned, it remains dead even after salvation. The flesh is not saved and God cannot be worshiped by the flesh. All flesh worship is profane to God. If one is to worship God, He is to be worshiped in Spirit and in truth. Only those who are born of God can worship God because they are the ones who have life.
        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 Clete View Post
          This sounds contrived to me AMR.
          Not at all, please see below.


          Where does it teach that God degreed all things without foreknowledge in the Bible?
          If we accept your implied assumption, creation would be contingent on something God was required to know before decreeing to create. To accept this is to fall into Arminianism. God is not contingent, God is truly free. As I noted in my opening post, the Scriptures speak of the freedom of God's will in the most absolute terms: Job 11:10; 33:13; Ps. 115:3; Prov. 21:1; Isa. 10:15; 29:16; 45:9; Matthew 20:15; Rom. 9:15-18,20,21; I Cor. 12:11; Rev. 4:11. The Church vigorously defends this freedom of God and also emphasizing that God’s freedom cannot be understood as absolute indifference.


          Where does it teach that God's providence is unrelated to His decrees in the Bible?
          Your paste of my comments above is missing the context around which I was responding. In your previous post you presumed a contradiction between two sections of the WCF. I outlined why there is no contradiction. You then asked for a more simpler clarification. Admittedly, my comments above were just too simple, which I why I dislike being terse on such matters when TOL’s “language lawyers” are dissecting each and every word I write. What I should have written above was that “God's providence is unrelated to God’s act of decreeing.” That there can be no providential influence until there is something to influence is obvious. Providence is certainly related to the decrees, the relationship being that of God’s sustaining execution of said decrees.


          How is that either one, even if they are so unrelated to one another, does not destroy self-determination? How is it possible for us to determine anything if it's already been determined before anyone ever existed?
          You determine based upon your greatest inclinations. Your actions do not take place because they are foreseen, they are foreseen because they are certain to take place. That God predisposes all events and their conditions in such a manner that all shall come to pass according to God's eternal plan in no way robs you of the ability to choose as you are most inclined to choose.


          And finally, to remain more on point...how is that that infralapsarian isn't falsified by the first sentence in chapter III of the WCF (and probably several others)?
          This is best made a topic of another thread. Both the supra and the infra lapsarian views can find expression within the WCF. Neither you nor I are going to find theological errors in the WCF proving one position holds over the other, so I view the debate as ultimately yielding little fruit.


          For literally hundreds of years both camps have made strong cases for their views. I hold to the infra position because the supra position ultimately leads the discussion of theology into the realm of philosophy (see the works of Dooyeweerd, Vollenhoven, and Hepp for instance).

          While the church is officially infralapsarian, the supralapsarian view is not condemned. In fact each of the presiding officers at the Synod of Dort and the Westminster Assembly were supralapsarians. The supra/infra lapsarian doctrines have much misunderstanding of Calvinism, including those that are Calvinists, claim to be Calvinists, or have been Calvinists. Unfortunately, it is these same confused folks, some even ordained, that run around on the internet engaging Arminians and others with incorrect understandings, and perpetuate these errors.
          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
            You determine based upon your greatest inclinations. Your actions do not take place because they are foreseen, they are foreseen because they are certain to take place. That God predisposes all events and their conditions in such a manner that all shall come to pass according to God's eternal plan in no way robs you of the ability to choose as you are most inclined to choose.
            AMR,

            It isn't my intention to simply ignore the rest of your post but the above paragraph seems most on topic for this thread. In response to it I simply want to ask a single question...

            Is it not the Calvinist position that my inclinations are themselves degreed by God?

            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


            • Originally posted by elected4ever View Post
              So your answer is no. Sin is sin in any context you put it in. and sin is defined always by the same definition. There is no ambiguity about it. Sin is not relative to anything but what it is. If sin is not defined then sin can be anything that we disapprove off regardless of a biblical definition.
              My answer is not no. Look E4E, you don't get to decide the rules of language and word usage. The fact of the matter is that a word's definition is determined by the context of its usage and if you are going to have a conversation using a word in a way different that its most common vernacular then the burden is on you to clarify what it is you are saying. Both you and Sozo refuse to do that and therefore cause tons of unnecessary confusion which you both routinely use as an excuse to call people unbelievers and berate them for their stubborn stupidity, when in fact it is you who is being obtuse and stubborn.

              The overwhelming vast majority of people use the word sin to discuss anything at all that is outside the will of God. You do not deny doing things that you should not have done, you simply refuse to refer to those actions as "sin" like everyone else does. It really doesn't matter if everyone in the world is confused about the definition of sin or not. The point is that the message you are attempting to convey can be effectively communicated without picking nits over what precisely is meant when one uses the word "sin". Your unwillingness to communicate your message in such a way as that message can be received and understood is a problem that is on your head, not on everyone else's. It is not the world's responsibility to read your mind. If your audience is confused then it is your responsibility to instruct them in the truth and they do not have to simply take your word for it. If you want to insist on using a strict definition of sin that most people are not going to intuitively understand then it is entirely your responsibility to demonstrate that your definition is Biblically sound and if you are unwilling or unable to do that, it doesn't mean that your audience is evil and full of unbelievers, it just means you suck as a teacher.

              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


              • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                My answer is not no. Look E4E, you don't get to decide the rules of language and word usage. The fact of the matter is that a word's definition is determined by the context of its usage and if you are going to have a conversation using a word in a way different that its most common vernacular then the burden is on you to clarify what it is you are saying. Both you and Sozo refuse to do that and therefore cause tons of unnecessary confusion which you both routinely use as an excuse to call people unbelievers and berate them for their stubborn stupidity, when in fact it is you who is being obtuse and stubborn.

                The overwhelming vast majority of people use the word sin to discuss anything at all that is outside the will of God. You do not deny doing things that you should not have done, you simply refuse to refer to those actions as "sin" like everyone else does. It really doesn't matter if everyone in the world is confused about the definition of sin or not. The point is that the message you are attempting to convey can be effectively communicated without picking nits over what precisely is meant when one uses the word "sin". Your unwillingness to communicate your message in such a way as that message can be received and understood is a problem that is on your head, not on everyone else's. It is not the world's responsibility to read your mind. If your audience is confused then it is your responsibility to instruct them in the truth and they do not have to simply take your word for it. If you want to insist on using a strict definition of sin that most people are not going to intuitively understand then it is entirely your responsibility to demonstrate that your definition is Biblically sound and if you are unwilling or unable to do that, it doesn't mean that your audience is evil and full of unbelievers, it just means you suck as a teacher.

                Resting in Him,
                Clete
                Clete, I understand your objections but they just don't hold water. Sin is an absolute. I have not read anywhere a compromise is made for sin using context as a way of making sin acceptable. Unless we recognize what sin is instead of taking a public opinion pole we will be calling each other sinners from now till the cows come home. We will forever be burdening ourselves with false guilt and false confessions. We will say that this is a little sin and that one is a big sin. This sin can be forgiven and that one cannot and on and on we go.

                I contend that no child of God is guilty of any sin of any nature. The most appalling thing to a child of God is for the child of God to believe he has sinned and disappointed God. It is just not true. I have tried to us the tactic of agreement and saying that the person is a sinner because the person chooses to believe he is one and then I am accused of calling that person a sinner when all I did was agree with them about their assessment of them selves. You are right. That hasn't worked very well.

                Seems like the children of God expect to sin instead of living righteously because they have been made righteous. People are just too willing to believe the worst about themselves whether it is true or not. That is a false humility and it is self defeating. What we wind up doing is setting standards for ourselves that are unattainable and then beat ourselves up for our failure to meet that standard.
                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
                  Depends on the "we" in your statement and it is more nuanced than your statement would belie. The elect can choose to sin or not to sin. The non-elect can only choose to sin more or sin less. If a "self-professed Christian" leads a life of sin with no works that are good works (here good as defined by God), then that person was never one of God's elect.
                  You just got finished saying we cannot tell the difference between who is elect and who is not. I don't care how nuanced your definition of 'we' is, it makes no practical difference even if you are correct.
                  Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                  E≈mc2
                  "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                  "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                  -Bob B.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by elected4ever View Post
                    Clete, I understand your objections but they just don't hold water. Sin is an absolute. I have not read anywhere a compromise is made for sin using context as a way of making sin acceptable. Unless we recognize what sin is instead of taking a public opinion pole we will be calling each other sinners from now till the cows come home. We will forever be burdening ourselves with false guilt and false confessions. We will say that this is a little sin and that one is a big sin. This sin can be forgiven and that one cannot and on and on we go.

                    I contend that no child of God is guilty of any sin of any nature. The most appalling thing to a child of God is for the child of God to believe he has sinned and disappointed God. It is just not true. I have tried to us the tactic of agreement and saying that the person is a sinner because the person chooses to believe he is one and then I am accused of calling that person a sinner when all I did was agree with them about their assessment of them selves. You are right. That hasn't worked very well.

                    Seems like the children of God expect to sin instead of living righteously because they have been made righteous. People are just too willing to believe the worst about themselves whether it is true or not. That is a false humility and it is self defeating. What we wind up doing is setting standards for ourselves that are unattainable and then beat ourselves up for our failure to meet that standard.
                    I don't know what you and Clete are discussing per se (seems there is plenty of history), but could you both agree that sin is defined as:

                    "any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God” (1 John 3:4; Rom. 4:15), in the inward state and habit of the soul, as well as in the outward conduct of the life, whether by omission or commission (Rom. 6:12-17; Rom. 7:5-24).
                    Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; July 30th, 2007, 03:04 AM.
                    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 stipe View Post
                      You just got finished saying we cannot tell the difference between who is elect and who is not. I don't care how nuanced your definition of 'we' is, it makes no practical difference even if you are correct.
                      I am starting to understand why very short posts by you are probably best. I have no idea what you are intending to communicate above.
                      Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; July 30th, 2007, 03:02 AM.
                      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 Clete View Post
                        Is it not the Calvinist position that my inclinations are themselves degreed by God?
                        God's decree does not produce your inclination; but the decree renders your inclination certain.
                        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
                          I am starting to understand why very short posts by you are probably best. I have no idea what you are intending to communicate above.
                          You cannot tell the difference between the elect and the non-elect. Having to define 'we' is pointless. You're the only one that needs to do so and when you do it makes no practical difference.
                          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                          E≈mc2
                          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                          -Bob B.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                            I know what you meant using words that open theists use to belie the sense of a mainstream system of beliefs. That is why I made it explicit for all to see clearly.No, how I and the orthodox Church defines them. You are just too desperate, no?
                            Again, you need to r-e-a-d. There are Calvinists who are annihilationists, and OVTs who believe in eternal torment. I'm one of them. The point is that OVT embraces God as eternally just.

                            Of course this answer only belies the fact that you screwed up, but, as usual, fail to own up to it.

                            I explain them mainly for those that may still have an open mind about the commonly held beliefs of the Church. Pick up any theology text, Grudem, Erickson, Reymond, Culver, etc., and see for yourself. You think I make this stuff up? Find out how far afield you are by digging deeper into the topic. Go beyond TOL and Enyart's The Plot. Test what you are being told by study of the scriptures and others that have made a lifetime studying them.
                            I've never read Enyart's books. I'm winding up getting my M. Div. I've studied theology extensively. I even have Reymond's systematic theology, and I've read it.

                            Maybe you should get the facts before you start making accusations.

                            No, you sound like a humanist trying to define God from your own sense of egalitarianism.
                            Egalitarianism? Wow.. You're seriously desperate, now, aren't you... I've never even given a hint of egalitarianism, and you're accusing me of it?

                            Asked and answered in this thread. R-e-a-d.
                            If those are your answers, then I suggest you stop posting. You're making Calvinism look bad.

                            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


                            • Ever notice that when Mr. Religion is confronted with clear Scriptural evidence, that he quickly goes on to change the topic?

                              Notice here Mr. Religion has his head handed to him with Scriptural evidence that refutes his every point, and yet here he completely ignores it, and goes on to falsely accuse OVT here.

                              I think I'll go with the Scriptural theology, rather than the one who runs from it.

                              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 themuzicman View Post
                                Ever notice that when Mr. Religion is confronted with clear Scriptural evidence, that he quickly goes on to change the topic?

                                Notice here Mr. Religion has his head handed to him with Scriptural evidence that refutes his every point, and yet here he completely ignores it, and goes on to falsely accuse OVT here.

                                I think I'll go with the Scriptural theology, rather than the one who runs from it.

                                Muz
                                Muz, Muz, Muz

                                Feel better now?
                                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

                                Working...
                                X