ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Clete]

You are either delusional, blind as a bat, or in a state of denial.

Whatever your problem, you miss great blessings provided by AMR.

:rain:

:rotfl:


AMR is not even a believer Nang! But then again, I suspect that perhaps you aren't either. So there you are. Birds of a feather.

 

[Lighthouse]

Matthew 26:52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

John 18:4 Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, "Who is it you want?"​

John 16 :

28 I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father."

29Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. 30Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God."

31"You believe at last!" Jesus answered. 32"But a time is coming, and has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me.

33"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."

:rotfl:

 

[Nang]

:rotfl:


AMR is not even a believer Nang! But then again, I suspect that perhaps you aren't either. So there you are. Birds of a feather.

:loser:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

:loser:

It is best to not communicate with demonic forces, Nang. Inexplicably, they will just continue to follow you around whispering in your ear all day long, never realizing their "fifteen minutes" are long since past and foreordained to destruction.

 

[Nang]

It is best to not communicate with demonic forces, Nang. Inexplicably, they will just continue to follow you around whispering in your ear all day long, never realizing their "fifteen minutes" are long since past and foreordained to destruction.

AMR,

You are right, and I will take your advice, dear sir.

Nang

 

[godrulz]

This statement is uncalled for as per our previous discussion. I know you are annoyed at Nang, but you've always been respectful and courteous no matter how others were behaving. You are better than this!

I apologize, but it seems immature to ignore people rather than working through things and learning together. It seems impulsive and moody. Being married to a middle age lady, I should have known that it would not go over good.

I apologize to all I have offended and crossed the line with a joke.

 

[godrulz]

How does my description differ from that of an open theist?

Originally Posted by RobE
God may have hoped that Adam, Israel, or we did not sin; but was not 'caught off guard' when it happened. It doesn't mean there isn't a real desire on His part that things were different.​

God was not caught off guard. Portraying Him as an impotent hand-wringer because He has children instead of robots is a straw man. Don't underestimate what He does know and is able to do. He was grieved when man Fell, but He certainly knew of the possibility before creation. He had a plan of redemption that was implemented and actualized after the Fall, so He certainly was not caught off guard unsure of what to do. This is part of the idea of your proof text of being slain before the foundation of the world.

 

[godrulz]

The Bible does not give any support for the idea that God is omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent as it was presented by Augustine.

AMR will appreciate your assertion lain:

 

[godrulz]

GR, you do many things that are uncalled for, but your personalization above is despicable and only hints at your own frustrations and inabilities to make any cogent arguments.

I have apologized, but for the record, it was Nang who pulled the plug instead of dealing with my arguments. Her lack of understanding and depth led to her putting her head in the sand, not me. This seemed impulsive and moody, hence the comment (my wife understands, but would not condone me).

Again, I apologize, but just remember who was not willing to keep the dialogue open. Nang has ideas and assertions that she does not support. You are hard on me, but not on her?

Feel free to bug me about my andropause. I have thick skin.

Can anyone give me advice about getting used to progressive glasses (trifocals)? Hair loss? ED?

 

[godrulz]

I don't remember the last you made an argument at all! The only difference between your style and godrulz' is that you bloviate until the reader passes out from boredom, whereas godrulz is the king of one liners.

I've begun to believe that you don't even know what making an argument even means.

I think AMR puts some sweat into his arguments. Not finding them persuasive or cogent does not mean he is not making an argument. They probably do merit a response.

I have very few one line posts.

 

[godrulz]

:rotfl:


AMR is not even a believer Nang! But then again, I suspect that perhaps you aren't either. So there you are. Birds of a feather.

Can you support this? I think it is possible to be Reformed and saved, don't you? I would also object if someone thinks I cannot be saved because I am Open Theist. Neither of us deny the essentials of the faith and can equally love Jesus as Lord and Savior despite different academic understanding of issues that have been debated for centuries by godly, capable people.

 

[godrulz]

:loser:

She can call people losers, but I cannot label a physiological, positive process?

 

[godrulz]

It is best to not communicate with demonic forces, Nang. Inexplicably, they will just continue to follow you around whispering in your ear all day long, never realizing their "fifteen minutes" are long since past and foreordained to destruction.

I reminded Clete that you can be a Calvinist and a Christian. To imply that Clete is demonized for his personality quirks also needs rebuke.

What is worse? Saying a person is in mid-life (true) or saying a follower of Christ is demonized (false)?! Hippo crit.

If you were Pentecostal, you could discern flesh from spirit from demonic

 

[Philetus]

I've been thinking about ov'ers preoccupation with rooster squezin. I thought maybe it would get some rest when AMR adressed the problem, again, in his response to Bob's 50 questions. First, I would like to remind you that the whole point doesn't revolve around the rooster's free will, but around Peter's free will. That's right, despite the fact that God is able to squeeze a rooster and therefore yield an, according to open theism, unknown result; it doesn't matter one iota to the argument at hand. Notice I said 'unknown' because without foreknowledge of what would happen that's exactly what the result would be from rooster sqeezin'.
According to 'open' logic God would have had to hide behind a bush and made rooster noises to bring His prediction/prophecy to pass.

Anyway, I digress. The matter at hand is Peter's free will. Let's examine what that will was:

Matthew 26:33Peter replied, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will."

Matthew 26:35But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same.​

According to Peter it was NEVER to betray Our Lord. What evidence did Jesus have that this wasn't true if open theists are right? Not once, not twice, not three times; but NEVER was Peter's statement of intention. Peter wasn't a sissy when it came to his own beliefs. Nor was Peter a compulsive liar who said anything that came to his own mind. Do open theists wish me to believe that God squeezed Peter just like the rooster they're so fond of speaking of?

Bob Enyart suggested that God foreknew that Peter would deny Him and waited until the right moment and then 'cued'(for lack of a better word) the rooster. If open theists are right in their assumptions then perhaps Jesus may have known that a denial on Peter's behalf was going to happen based upon Jesus' intimate present knowledge of the apostle. But the second denial or, worse, the third denial would be completely outrageous to assume. Why wouldn't Jesus say 'Peter you will deny me' instead of.....

Matthew 26:34"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."​

Wow!



Whereas, Philetus, I will say that other than at judgement; God NEVER need override any man's free will because God has the attribute of foreknowing events which would make the overriding unnecessary to accomplish His own desires. God would simply use a man's natural desires to accomplish His own good ends.



Just as everything is.....

Matthew 26:39Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

Matthew 26:42He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."​

....What sets Jesus Christ apart from us is that He always put the will of the Father above His own. Did Jesus know whether His death was a certainty based upon His prayer in the Garden? What say you open theists. It can't be 'yes' because that would require foreknowledge which is a logical impossibility, right.

Matthew 26:1When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, 2"As you know, the Passover is two days away—and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified."​

Did God orchestrate the death of Our Lord according to open theism? Does open theism claim that God 'squeezed' men to fulfill a prophecy?

Methinks, something is afoul in this line of reasoning.

Rob Mauldin

p.s. Sorry Philetus, I've been thinking about this subject for a few days and couldn't resist replying. I didn't intend it, anymore than Peter did, but alas it was going to happen despite my intentions.

Omg! :first: This hast to be your best work ever!

Of all the post you couldn't resist .... a sarcastic shot at your signature line provokes a dissertation that won't pass orals. You are a real work, Rob Mauldin, a real work.

I'm now convinced that a rooster could lay an egg if you said so.

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

I reminded Clete that you can be a Calvinist and a Christian. To imply that Clete is demonized for his personality quirks also needs rebuke.

What is worse? Saying a person is in mid-life (true) or saying a follower of Christ is demonized (false)?! Hippo crit.

If you were Pentecostal, you could discern flesh from spirit from demonic

I got that one. Does that make me a Pentecostal?

I don't know why (cause I haven't got a clue as to Calvinistic humor) but I'll bet if you had made the remark about AMR instead of Nang even Calvinists would have 'gotten' it. Anyway, you did right in apologizing. Now, go and sin no more.

Father Philetus

PS, I've found, my son, if you nod your head slowly up and down continuously, trifocals are easier to use, makes people think you are smarter than you know you really are and makes your enemies happy even if you can't hear what they are saying. Go figure.

 

[Philetus]

It is best to not communicate with demonic forces, Nang. Inexplicably, they will just continue to follow you around whispering in your ear all day long, never realizing their "fifteen minutes" are long since past and foreordained to destruction.

Rather have em whisper in my ear than behind my back.

Aren't ignore buttons great ... wait I said that already.



Hey GR, any help on repeating yourself, repeating yourself. (never mind) See here and here and here and here.

 

[Philetus]

:rotfl:

Yeah, I know.

 

[Philetus]

:cow: :cow: :cow: :cow: :cow: :cow: :cow: :cow:

Eight in a row ... how do you do it GR?

 

[godrulz]

:cow: :cow: :cow: :cow: :cow: :cow: :cow: :cow:

Eight in a row ... how do you do it GR?

8 what?

 

[RobE]

God was not caught off guard. Portraying Him as an impotent hand-wringer because He has children instead of robots is a straw man. Don't underestimate what He does know and is able to do. He was grieved when man Fell, but He certainly knew of the possibility before creation. He had a plan of redemption that was implemented and actualized after the Fall, so He certainly was not caught off guard unsure of what to do. This is part of the idea of your proof text of being slain before the foundation of the world.

Ok. How does my statement differ from yours?

Originally Posted by RobE
How does my description differ from that of an open theist?

God may have hoped that Adam, Israel, or we did not sin; but was not 'caught off guard' when it happened. It doesn't mean there isn't a real desire on His part that things were different.

Have the lenses which we view each other become so occluded that we aren't even able to say the same thing without arguing?