ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well, I have read enough of both men's writings. I certainly do not need to have read each and every scrap of their streams of consciousness to form an educated opinion after due consideration of their seminal works.
Why you post this stuff without even reading what you link to is bewildering. It appears to also be divisive, for all you are doing is opening the door, throwing in some raw meat to the dogs, and then running away very fast.:wave2:
...about some things, not everything. He was correct to take exception to the hyper-Calvinism of his day. He was not wrong that God is holy, just, omnipotent, triune, etc. He was not wrong that justification is by grace through faith, etc. He was not wrong that the word obedience is found throughout Scripture.
The parts I read had merit. I also formulated my opinions about original sin from various sources many decades ago. Finney simply confirmed this and provided coherent argumentation to support it. I do not remember every detail about the topic, but I do know enough that it is based on a few proof texts that Overstreet and Finney dismantle.
I doubt you have read every word of every author of every link or book that you have ever pointed people to.
Sin is not a genetic substance. Physical depravity is not moral depravity. Sin involves volition, etc. These and other principles convince me that Augustine built a doctrine on his own struggle with sin, not on Scripture. You are set in Calvinism and deny genuine freedom. If you cannot even understand freedom, I do not accept you to not tow your party line on original sin.
My view does not deny that men are all sinners in need of a sinless Savior, so don't get your shirt in a knot.
If Psalm 51 is the best you have, then you should look at the other Hebraisms in the book that cannot mean fetuses pray, sin, talk, etc.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Long Term Retirement Plan for Godrulz
Long Term Retirement Plan for Godrulz
Long Term Retirement Plan for Godrulz
Are you 12 years old? In your usual superficial style, you overlook the distinction that when I post a link to something you can be assured that I have fully digested the content specific to my reasons for so posting in the first place.
Give me a nickel. Every time you say this traducianist nonsense and other such drivel, give me a nickel. I will give you all the nickels back if you ever get around to cogently and thoroughly substantiating what you write versus posting your usual optatives. In your case, think of it as a very long-term retirement program. I will.
No, your view (hiding behind your personally defined words belying orthodoxy) is some kind of humanistic heresy.
Where is my nickel? As did Calvin, I see nothing in Psalm 51 that is used to prove original sin, instead only to denote that a person knows they possess a sinful nature from birth. Do you know anything about the doctrines you like to spout off about or are you just skimming more web pages for this blatherskite?
Last edited:
Spitfire
New member
Do you think there was any particular significance to Christ's suffering and temptation in the garden of Gethsemane?
themuzicman
Well-known member
Gal 5:19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires
themuzicman
Well-known member
LOL... If you think this is my life's mission, you're sadly mistaken.
You almost sound bitter.
Muz
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
No, not bitter. You get under my skin occasionally, but at the end of the day
I truly feel sorry for you. I keep hoping one day you'll exchange your focus on Bible interpretationfor Bible belief.
It seems you find new levels of foolishness for each new day, Nang. You are intentionally presenting God as an unjust bully and you dare to ask me whether I fear Him? I mean that's just brazen!
Further, how is it that you cannot see that you've contradicted what you had just got through telling me? You said first of all that since you've repeatedly warned me, if I continue rejecting your disgusting version of God then its not your doing, implying that it is my own doing and then, when I point out that your theology contradicts that and says that it isn't my doing but rather God's, you agree with that but then immediately ask me whether that strikes fear in my heart as though I have any more control over how much fear is in my heart than I do with rejecting your bully of a god! If your sick joke of a theology is correct then the only fear in my heart is precisely that which God put there by fiat and not one bit more or less.
Resting in Him,
Clete
I have not read the rest of AMR's post nor do I have any intention of doing so but for those of you who can stomach his copy/paste jobs, notice in the rest of the post how many times AMR (or whoever actually wrote this stuff) contradicts this opening paragraph. That is assuming that he doesn't spend the rest of the post merely repeating the point made in this paragraph. The position is patently irrational and going more than two or three sentences without contradicting it is unavoidable.
Resting in Him,
Clete
themuzicman
Well-known member
LOL... God forbid that we should read the bible for what it says, rather than what we believe it says...
Muz
Philetus
New member
I think we have established our differences on how we understand the bible's teaching about election. You misread me: according to your view individuals are elected not loved; God loves nobody in particular. In corporate election God loves everybody in particular (each and every one regardless of their state) and adds those who respond in faith to his gift of life to the corporate elect.
What you have said above is that God really doesn't love anybody but Himself (the Son). In fact you have said that God loves the world (created things) but not people. Is that the same God who commands us to love one another, not the things of the world?
Our righteousness amounting to nothing more than filthy rags is not the same as saying the person in them is without value. Being totally unworthy is not the same as being totally worthless.
Your exaggeration of human depravity is really no more than the thinly veiled declaration of someone who supposes himself to be chosen by God over another and who is really only thankful that he isn’t like that poor lost sinner standing in the corner beating himself up over his unworthiness. Such is only false humility. It isn’t necessary to think less of one’s self than one ought in order to not think more highly of one’s self than he ought.
We have the same proof texts. It's in how they are read. Individually or all together.
No wonder the world (and the people in it) aren't buying your version of 'truth'. The same people who are on the one hand saying that human beings are worthless to God are on the other hand building a case against abortion based on the sanctity of life so they can execute abortionists. Go figure. While fundamental Calvinists scratch their heads and wonder how fundamental extremist Muslim suicide-bombers can blow people up physically they continue to blow them off spiritually. I’m not sure which is more destructive.
Philetus
New member
I've gotten to the place that I read the first paragraph and have a fairly good idea of where he ISN'T going with it.
I'm so glad I'm on his ignore list ... yet I see him sneak in a few digs at some of my phrases. What a hoot.
Mystery
New member
I can see how it would be difficult to say that God is love unless at some point He has loved. And the debate is centered around whether or not that action stems from a choice, an act of His will, or if His will and His choices are the result of His nature. I think I have said this before, but those actions that come from God, such as Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control, are the fruit of the Spirit. They result from the nature of God, who is Spirit. You and I do not simply choose to love because God chose to perform an action of love towards us, and now we imitate it, but rather because He has given us His Spirit, without which, love is impossible. The only possibility that we have of loving others as an act of the will stems from our new nature. This tells me that it is the nature which preceeds the action, and therefore God loves because He is love. The one who does righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. You must first be righteous for the righteousness to come.
elected4ever
New member
This is not true. I believe that you have a very skewed idea of what election is and your response is driven by hate and your judgment is warped. I know of no one, not even a Calvinist that believe what you have just accused them off. I am beginning to think that you are driven more by hate of a perceived dogma than by the love of the truth.
Election, whether individual or corporate is the expression of love, not hate. You cannot be of the corporate elect if you are not first elected individually. No one individual can be elected without being made part of the corporate elect and you cannot be of the elect without God expressing His love to you individually. If you are not of the elect , you are not of God.
Where is such a statement as this made? You mean to tell me that God does not love Himself? You mean to tell me that if God loves Himself that He is not capable of loving His creation? What God has done has originated from His self love. No one , not even God, can love others without first loving themselves.
I am going to withhold comment until you clarify what you mean by this statement. It doesn't make sense as it stands.
I don't think that characterizing a person being dead to God is an exaggeration. How would you characterize a rotten decaying corpse? You mean to tell me that you are not thankful that God elected you and not another that had the same opportunity. Then maybe you are the other guy that wasn't elected because you had rather have to have your way rather than God's way? Are you just mad because your sacrifice of work is what God said is unacceptable, like Cain and you want to kill Able?
Yes, and I have already proven that you don't believe them.
You are by far the most destructive because you hold the truth in unrighteousness expecting your dead works to suffice and make you acceptable to God.
Remind me of what Catholics think this was. I think Mormons see it as part of the atonement by sweating blood. This is not valid. The garden was part of the experience leading up to the cross, but it is only at the cross that sacrifice and redemption takes place.
The Agony:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01224a.htm
AMR:
Do you see any differences in categories of attributes and character relating to God?
His being and character are related, but not identical.
There are 3 absolutes in regards to God: Uncreated Triune Creator
God is uncreated (we are created): He is infinite, being (existence), metaphysics includes omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, omniscient, form.
These attributes of being are unique to God. It is impossible for man to be like God in these areas.
God is triune: He is spirit, not matter. He has unity and diversity. He is not solitary. This is also unique about God, though we also have spirit and are tripartite, but not triune in God's sense.
God is Creator: He is personal, has character, morals, experiential ability, intellectual ability, sovereign free will, sequence/duration, freedom. These are attributes of personality, not being. These qualities are automatic in man, in some sense, as we are in His personal image (we have will, intellect, emotions). We are not sovereign, but we can chose. These things make relationship possible.
From these attributes of being and personality flow His moral attributes: love, holiness, righteousness, lovingkindness, wisdom, truthfulness, faithfulness, etc. These attributes are possible for man, not automatic (men have wills, but not all men love, are faithful or truthful, etc. in every choice...we can be selfish liars, by choice). They are contingent as we respond to God and others or fail to live up to His absolutes and laws of love. This is another aspect of the Imago Dei.
Confusing being and personality may be your root error, suited to Anselm, Aquinas, Plato, or whoever, but not the best biblical understanding.
Verses can be given for each of these attributes (I will give your going rate of $5 for Bible answers).
In summary: Uncreated= attributes of being
Creator= attributes of personality
Triune (relational)
=========> Moral attributes/character (not just being, but volitional; love is a choice, not a state).
Do you see any differences in categories of attributes and character relating to God?
His being and character are related, but not identical.
There are 3 absolutes in regards to God: Uncreated Triune Creator
God is uncreated (we are created): He is infinite, being (existence), metaphysics includes omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, omniscient, form.
These attributes of being are unique to God. It is impossible for man to be like God in these areas.
God is triune: He is spirit, not matter. He has unity and diversity. He is not solitary. This is also unique about God, though we also have spirit and are tripartite, but not triune in God's sense.
God is Creator: He is personal, has character, morals, experiential ability, intellectual ability, sovereign free will, sequence/duration, freedom. These are attributes of personality, not being. These qualities are automatic in man, in some sense, as we are in His personal image (we have will, intellect, emotions). We are not sovereign, but we can chose. These things make relationship possible.
From these attributes of being and personality flow His moral attributes: love, holiness, righteousness, lovingkindness, wisdom, truthfulness, faithfulness, etc. These attributes are possible for man, not automatic (men have wills, but not all men love, are faithful or truthful, etc. in every choice...we can be selfish liars, by choice). They are contingent as we respond to God and others or fail to live up to His absolutes and laws of love. This is another aspect of the Imago Dei.
Confusing being and personality may be your root error, suited to Anselm, Aquinas, Plato, or whoever, but not the best biblical understanding.
Verses can be given for each of these attributes (I will give your going rate of $5 for Bible answers).
In summary: Uncreated= attributes of being
Creator= attributes of personality
Triune (relational)
=========> Moral attributes/character (not just being, but volitional; love is a choice, not a state).
- Status