ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Nang]

That wasn't the point.

Never mind.

And it wasn't a scathing rebuke. You guys have got to be the most innately hostile Christians I've ever seen in my life.

Who are exactly the "you guys" you associate with Mystery?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Mystery, Lighthouse... I am trying to be lenient here but I have asked a couple times now to stay on topic.

There are already several threads about your "Christians cannot sin" assertion so we don't really need to be discussing it in the open theism thread.

 

[Mystery]

Who are exactly the "you guys" you associate with Mystery?

I'm sure he meant to say "you guys and that nagging girl". :chuckle:

 

[Mystery]

Mystery, Lighthouse... I am trying to be lenient here but I have asked a couple times now to stay on topic.

There are already several threads about your "Christians cannot sin" assertion so we don't really need to be discussing it in the open theism thread.

And where is it exactly that I am doing that?

 

[Nang]

I'm sure he meant to say "you guys and that nagging girl". :chuckle:

Butt out, trouble maker . . .

Either Clete or Knight can and will answer my question sufficiently.

 

[Clete]

Who are exactly the "you guys" you associate with Mystery?

Read the last 100+ posts of this thread and you'll know.

 

[Nang]

Read the last 100+ posts of this thread and you'll know.

I am sorry, but I have been reading this thread for months.

Affiliations and motives are not that easily grasped by relative newcomers, as myself.

Who exactly are all those sympathetic to this "perfectionist" view purported by Mystery?

You made a reference to "you guys." Who are "you guys."

(Not being adversarial with you, Clete, in the least, but only wanting to be informed of which members of TOL advocate this heresy.)

Nang

 

[elected4ever]

I am sorry, but I have been reading this thread for months.

Affiliations and motives are not that easily grasped by relative newcomers, as myself.

Who exactly are all those sympathetic to this "perfectionist" view purported by Mystery?

You made a reference to "you guys." Who are "you guys."

(Not being adversarial with you, Clete, in the least, but only wanting to be informed of which members of TOL advocate this heresy.)

Nang

Every Calvinist and Open viewer that advocates that Jesus could sin and that the children of God can sin. Those are the ones that propose heresy.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

And where is it exactly that I am doing that?

Well... clearly you are not discussing open theism. :idunno:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Not being adversarial with you, Clete, in the least, but only wanting to be informed of which members of TOL advocate this

Mystery, Lighthouse, e4e and there may be one other.

 

[Nang]

Mystery, Lighthouse, e4e and there may be one other.

Thank you, Knight.

I will be on the lookout for the potential "one other."

Nang

 

[Mystery]

I came on this thread over 800 posts ago, and I went back and read my posts, and I only touched on the subject one time briefly in the middle of a post, but not to make a point of that subject in any way, but only to answer someone's question.

The discussion was sidetracked by Philetus in the midst of my discussion with Clete about God being righteous because He does right or because He is right. I could have ignored Philetus, but he made some very false statements about what I was saying to Clete.

 

[Mystery]

Well... clearly you are not discussing open theism. :idunno:

Actually, I was. I was discussing the issue of "Free will" and why God does not have it, and neither do we, as it was being defined by both Open Theists and Calvinists.

 

[Nang]

Actually, I was. I was discussing the issue of "Free will" and why God does not have it, and neither do we as being defined by both Open Theists and Calvinists.

Oh . . .I picked up the message that Christians are no longer sinners.

I disagree with that conclusion.

Christians have the law of sin remaining in their members; legally forgiven by God in Christ and without condemnation for their mortal condition, but not without sin, as you teach, until they are resurrected to glory.

Nang

 

[godrulz]

Some Calvinists are compatibilists. I do not think this is genuine free will.

Open Theists affirm genuine, libertarian free will. I thought this was self-evident.

What other ways are there to understand freedom or lack of free will?

What is the label for my gospel (besides 'false')? I thought grace and faith in the person and work of Christ alone, apart from works, was standard, Protestant, evangelical, biblical belief? Jn. 3:16; Rom. 1:16

 

[Mystery]

Oh . . .I picked up the message that Christians are no longer sinners.

There you go, Knight. Who is not on topic?

You are the one who suggested that we are sinners. Saying that we are no longer sinners, does not in any way say that we do not sin.

I am pretty sure that Knight and Clete both would say that Christians are not sinners. You are just posting this to stir up trouble, and you know it. You are a conniving little manipulator.

 

[Clete]

Clete, you have got to be blind, if you cannot see all of the "egos", including yours that permeate this thread. How in the world you don't think that you were not arrogant in your post to Lighthouse is just flat self-denial.

Your mind reading skills are sorely lacking Mystery. Debate theology and keep your personal opinions, particularly the ones having to do with my personal state of mind, to yourself.

You just told Lighthouse that his view of the gospel is "asinine".

No, I said that debating it was asinine.

asinine - foolish, unintelligent, or silly; stupid

How is that not an arrogant statement on your part?

Because, for one, you didn't even bother to read what I said and understand the point being made and instead assumed the most negative and personally degrading interpretation that is possible to assume, as you are in the habit of doing. And, for another, this thread is supposed to be about debating open theism not every nuance of someone's understanding of exactly how the gospel message should be stated. It seems the topic we were discussing wasn't far enough removed from the specific topic of open theism and that every opportunity that presented itself to bring up another rabbit trail cannot be resisted by either Lighthouse or yourself.

In other words... "I don't really know if you are a Christian or not, Lighthouse, because you could end up in hell, and it will be your own fault"

You see what I mean?! It's like you don't know how to read! I never questioned Lighthouse's salvation nor even the sincerity of his beliefs! I simply refused to debate the issue with him!
Do you do this with all the people in your life; just presume that they certainly must be trying to be an arrogant jackass no matter what they say? You must have a list of friends a mile long!

"What's the matter with you Lighthouse, how did you become so full of it that you could possibly believe something other than what I believe, which is the truth. People go to hell for their own sin."

It's no wonder you can't get along with anyone on this forum and find it amusing to count the number of days without having been banned. You think the whole world is populated with other people just like you!

"Any idiot can understand it. even you Lighthouse, if you would stop wandering off from what the author is saying, but you are too lazy to give it any effort"

"You are creating your own complex theology, Lighthouse, because what I believe is so simple that it should be easy for you to see that you are wrong"

"You must really be dumb, Lighthouse"

I think you get the point.

Yeah, I get the point that you are a certifiable jerk and that you assume everyone else to be as well.

I will never say that I do not do that, because I do it in about every response, because that is exactly the way nearly everyone on this site talks to each other, including you, and godrulz does it twice as bad as I do, but for some reason most of you lack the discernment to recognize it. (Translation: You must be stupid).

I bend my backside over backward trying to have substantive and respectful conversations on a whole variety of subjects and I get angry when people consistently and/or intentionally disrespect the debate by either refusing to respond to the arguments made or by becoming sarcastic to the point of being downright insulting. I also react harshly to lies and to blasphemy and to those who are perverts or who defend murder, adultery and perversion. In short, haughtiness and hostility are not my default position and as a result I do not read people's post trying to find the most negative possible interpretation imaginable and I am most certainly not in the habit of declaring everyone that says something that I disagree with an unbeliever! That's your bailiwick, not mine!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

Some Calvinists are compatibilists. I do not think this is genuine free will.

Open Theists affirm genuine, libertarian free will. I thought this was self-evident.

What other ways are there to understand freedom or lack of free will?

What is the label for my gospel (besides 'false')? I thought grace and faith in the person and work of Christ alone, apart from works, was standard, Protestant, evangelical, biblical belief? Jn. 3:16; Rom. 1:16

It would be helpful if you disclosed to whom, and the exact points made, you are responding.

Otherwise, your comments make no sense.

Nang

 

[Nang]

There you go, Knight. Who is not on topic?

You are the one who suggested that we are sinners.

All human beings, by nature, are sinners,.

Saying that we are no longer sinners, does not in any way say that we do not sin.

Since this is your postion, you will have to explain yourself. (e.g. if we are no longer sinners as you say, why do we still sin?)

I am pretty sure that Knight and Clete both would say that Christians are not sinners.

Would they? Let them say so, then.

You are just posting this to stir up trouble, and you know it. You are a conniving little manipulator.

I love you, too . . .

Nang

 

[godrulz]

John Sanders now has a second edition to "The God who Risks". I wonder how he has modified his views in response to critique and criticism?

(attempt to get back on topic)

http://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Have...7946810?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188707792&sr=1-6

I ordered this. Did you read it Clete and how would you rate on scale 1-10?