ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Mystery]

DOES GOD GIVE WORTH TO SOMETHING THAT OTHERWISE HAS NO WORTH.

IF GOD ASCRIBES IT WORTH WHO ARE YOU TO SAY IT IS STILL WORTHLESS TO GOD?

I'm not stealing anything from God. I'm acknowledging His gift.

They have no worth until they receive the gift. They are worthless until God gives them worth, you stupid, stupid, person.

 

[elected4ever]

You are giving answer here to:

Originally Posted by Lighthouse
That which is in Christ does not sin. The flesh is not in Christ, and is full of sin. That which is sanctified does not. Understand?


This is Gnostic thought.

Christian continue to be sinners, even though they have the Holy Spirit indwelling. This causes a tension between flesh and spirit as taught by Paul in Romans 7&8.

This is the reason and necessity for the Holy Spirit in us to intercede on our behalf in prayer, and this is the reason and necessity for Jesus Christ to mediate on our behalf at the right hand of the Father.

We are saved by this grace, not by any removal of sin from our persons. Sins are forgiven and propitiated, but they are not removed. The wages of sin (death) has been paid, and therefore the Father can look upon us and see no sin, because we are accepted by Him in Christ, the Beloved. (Eph. 1:6)

Nang

That is not true. If I may be so bold as to say that no one sins because there is no law to condemn them. The only ones that are subject to the King are His subjects. People go to Hill be cause they are dead, not for some act that they do. The acts only prescribe the punishment once they are in hell but people go to hell because they are dead to God.

 

[Mystery]

Nope. Any fool can plainly see the absurdity of your position and I can plainly see it.:chew:

So according to YOUR understanding, it is "absurd" to say that you do not have something after it has been taken from you?

You're a moron of morons.

 

[Mystery]

Nope. Any fool can plainly see the absurdity of your position and I can plainly see it.:chew:

Yes, it would indeed take a fool like yourself to see that it is absurd for anyone to claim that they no longer have something after it has been removed.

 

[themuzicman]

This is another case of a Calvinist changing the meaning of a word to fit his theology.

Mystery: Define "worth."

 

[Mystery]

If you have a dollar bill in your hand and I take it from you, would you be lying if you say you still have it?

Any fool can plainly see the absurdity of your position and I can plainly see it.:chew:

And there you have it folks, the epitome of a heart so-filled with pride that he cannot admit that he is wrong.

 

[Mystery]

This is another case of a Calvinist changing the meaning of a word to fit his theology.

Mystery: Define "worth."

I am not a Calvinist. You define it Porky.

 

[Clete]

That would be you, not me.

"... for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one."

Paul is clear, and goes against your faulty view of man. There is no one who does good. There is no one who is righteous.

First it was love is impossible for the unsaved, then it was "many people performed acts of love and righteousness", and now we are back to there is no one who does good.

Which is it Mystery? Its sort of difficult to debate someone who waffles back and forth like this.

Further, why do you feel it necessary to debate with such dishonest tactics as this. Do you really believe that I disagree with Paul and that your having quoted him is somehow some new revelation for me? I do not disagree with Paul and if you think my position is in opposition to his then you misunderstand one position or the other (or both).

You want to say that man is righteous because he is not always as bad as he can be, or that he loves because he is not always apathetic. It does not matter if man does those things that YOU judge as love or as righteous, because without the Spirit of God in them, they are worthless (useless).

Not so! They are useless in the sense that they do nothing to undo the wrong they've done or to bring a person into a right relationship with God but that does not mean that a Mother providing for her children isn't doing a good and righteous thing!

[quote[Man is literally dead to God, and nothing man does qualifies him to be righteous, no matter how many "acts" you attempt to attribute to him.[/quote]
That I attempt to attribute to him? What is going on here Mystery? It's like when you get backed into a corner, you just flip a switch and your brains stop function and you just start spewing out this nonsense refuting things that no one said and arguing against things no one has advocated.

What do I have to do with attributing anything to anyone? I QUOTED THE BIBLE MYSTERY!!!
Did I write 1 Kings? I don't remember writing 1 Kings! Can someone confirm for me and Mystery here that it wasn't Clete Pfeiffer who inspired the writing of 1 Kings chapter 3! It's only a rumor but I think it might have been God who did that.

Forgive my sarcasm Mystery but this is just a little too much for me to take. You're trying to stretch Paul's words to an extreme that was clearly never intended and which directly contradicts whole sections of Scripture. If an unsaved, unregenerate, unbelieving prostitute unconditionally offering her own life in exchange for her child's isn't an act of love then I don't know what is.

You can deny or dispensationalize away 1 John all you want, but the fact remains...

"The one who does righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous"​

Thanks for conceding the debate Mystery. This quote states my whole position in a single sentence.

I really wish you could figure out how to debate this stuff without all the emotionalism. It clouds your thinking. I do not disagree with either Paul or John.

John says that those who do what is righteous are born of God. Some it was accounted (by faith) until the seed should come (Abel, Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Enoch, Rahab, Moses, Joseph, David, etc.) However, The promise of life was not given until Jesus was glorified. Without His life, righteousness is only accounted to those who believed God, until they are born of God.

You and I are not discussing the same topic. How is it possible that you would think that I would disagree with this?

Simply because man is dead to God does not mean that he is inanimate. Man can still choose to perform moral or immoral acts (none of which makes a man righteous).

No kidding! But that doesn't mean that what does make them righteous is divorced from the one Man's righteous ACT.

I'm out of time for now but I think we should stop now anyway. I have no desire to make an enemy unnecessarily and it seems to be becoming more and more difficult for you to keep focused on the actual point I am making. Perhaps that's my fault but whether it is or not, I doubt that going any further would be at all fruitful for either of us.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I am not a Calvinist. You define it Porky.

I can see where this is going.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I think you win the prize for being the most ignorant person in the history of TOL.

Congratulations! :first:

Is a comment like that really necessary? Seriously? How does this help the conversation at hand?

 

[Mystery]

Is a comment like that really necessary? Seriously? How does this help the conversation at hand?

You're right. I need to tone it down.

 

[Mystery]

Sorry Philetus, my comments were uncalled for.

If you want to discuss this, that's fine, but you need to show why what I asked is aburd, instead of just saying it is. I take a comment like that personally. It is not absurd to think that when something is taken away that you no longer have it. It is absurd to think that you still have it, when you know that you do not.

No one would ever ask Jesus for him to redeem them again, if they know that they have already been redeemed. It is the same as asking your wife to marry you. It really would be an insult to her.

 

[themuzicman]

I can see where this is going.

Except that I'm not going to respond in kind.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

I am not a Calvinist. You define it Porky.

Does this mean you refuse?

Muz

 

[Mystery]

Does this mean you refuse?

Muz

I am not going to bow down to your requests, muz. You have lost the right to ask me anything. You have refused to respond to a great deal asked of you. You no longer get to ask the questions. If you have something to say about man not being worthless contrary to the verses given, go for it. Oink away!

 

[themuzicman]

I am not going to bow down to your requests, muz. You have lost the right to ask me anything. You have refused to respond to a great deal asked of you. You no longer get to ask the questions. If you have something to say about man not being worthless contrary to the verses given, go for it. Oink away!

Wow... Can't handle the truth, huh?

Muz

 

[Philetus]

Sorry Philetus, my comments were uncalled for.

If you want to discuss this, that's fine, but you need to show why what I asked is aburd, instead of just saying it is. I take a comment like that personally. It is not absurd to think that when something is taken away that you no longer have it. It is absurd to think that you still have it, when you know that you do not.

No one would ever ask Jesus for him to redeem them again, if they know that they have already been redeemed. It is the same as asking your wife to marry you. It really would be an insult to her.

Sorry it took me a while to answer. I had to go get another dollar. Some Christian just stole mine. (That's the reason I see your argument as absurd if you missed it.) I got me another dollar as easily as I committed another sin. (I stole it - took it - from some body else.)

Christian's confessing sin isn't asking for a second redemption. It's continuing the relationship they are guaranteed IF they continue in the faith and continuing in the faith is recognizing that our righteousness is given not earned no matter how much 'sinning' we eliminate from our lives.


You are forgiven ........ again.
Philetus

 

[Mystery]

Wow... Can't handle the truth, huh?

Muz

Why don't you open your bacon greased lips and give it, and then we will see who can and cannot handle it?

 

[Philetus]

You are giving answer here to:

Originally Posted by Lighthouse
That which is in Christ does not sin. The flesh is not in Christ, and is full of sin. That which is sanctified does not. Understand?


This is Gnostic thought.

Christian continue to be sinners, even though they have the Holy Spirit indwelling. This causes a tension between flesh and spirit as taught by Paul in Romans 7&8.

This is the reason and necessity for the Holy Spirit in us to intercede on our behalf in prayer, and this is the reason and necessity for Jesus Christ to mediate on our behalf at the right hand of the Father.

We are saved by this grace, not by any removal of sin from our persons. Sins are forgiven and propitiated, but they are not removed. The wages of sin (death) has been paid, and therefore the Father can look upon us and see no sin, because we are accepted by Him in Christ, the Beloved. (Eph. 1:6)

Nang

Good answer, Nang!

 

[themuzicman]

Why don't you open your bacon greased lips and give it, and then we will see who can and cannot handle it?

I still think having your definition of "worthy" would further the conversation along nicely.

Muz