Lon
Well-known member
Quoting one's self? You should have known better. Oooops DOH!
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Quoting one's self? You should have known better. Oooops DOH!
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
He (not you, Lonster) is another one on my ignore list that keeps my web page views less cluttered up with the mental detritus of the nattering nabobs of negativism.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I underlined the foolishness of your statement above.
Try something that makes sense:
Anyone who believes God is completely unchangeable in His attributes, and has completely planned out every event over all of existence is assured that God's holy will and our eternal glory will be accomplished.
See Hebrews 6:17-18 on God's unchangeable will, promise, and oath. The KJV renders unchangeable (used by the NASB and ESV) as "immutable". The Greek ametathetos is unmistakenly confering immutability no matter how you try and recast the word. (Note: Thank you, Nang, for reminding me of this passage last night.)
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You conveniently omitted the point I was responding to:
"Why is your accusation accurate and ours not? How would you propose that some independent third party make a determination as to which of us is correct about the other rationalizing God into their own preconceived notion of what God should be?"
So, other than polemics, what is your answer? Let me get you started.
1. For an independent determination, this independent party (person) would weigh the complete body of works of exegesis done by both sides. (CT 1, OT 0)
2. This person would also review the complete body of works defending the exegesis done by both parties. (CT 2, OT, 0)
3. This person would then examine how these bodies of works are manifested within the global community of believers. (CT 3, OT, 0)
4. This person would then retire to pray to God for guidance by a Holy Spirit that has been working in the proponents of both sides to reveal the truth. (CT ∞, OT 0).
Feel free to jump in anytime.
Philetus
New member
I like indulgences. It's like extra butter. :chew:
AMR's problem is that the whole of his stance is based on the dismissal of a handful of very significant texts and the adoption of a pagan philosophy that he can't believe is destroyed with a few honest careful r-e-a-d-i-n-g-s of scripture. Open Theists don't need to match him word for word ... just address him with the Word. One short essay ought to do it.
He has based his entire life and career as a professional Christian on complicating the Gospel so he can broker grace to some and withhold it from others. Makes you wonder what was (if anything) really reformed.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You're an idiot.
Lon
Well-known member
Matt. 5:22
Mat 5:22
Murder Begins in the Heart
21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’
22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you,
24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.
26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.
You're right. I should give my reasons.
You're an idiot because asking someone if they trust God should be a no-brainer. You're an idiot because I only asked 3 or 4 times till I learnt I was on ignore and then I stopped asking. You're an idiot because you think telling me to just say what I think shouldn't include me just saying you're an idiot.
Murder Begins in the Heart
21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’
22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you,
24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.
26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.
You're right. I should give my reasons.
You're an idiot because asking someone if they trust God should be a no-brainer. You're an idiot because I only asked 3 or 4 times till I learnt I was on ignore and then I stopped asking. You're an idiot because you think telling me to just say what I think shouldn't include me just saying you're an idiot.
themuzicman
Well-known member
OVT doesn't rewrite the nature of God, either. OVT is primarily about the nature of creation.
Of course we do ditch a few philosophical elements picked up from Greek philosophy by Augustine, but that's nothing more than what the reformation did.
Muz
No time for editing...please ignore any typos! Thanks!
How different would history be if Luther had responded in agreement with the falling argument during the trial at Worms....
I have found this appeal to tradition to be more and more common among Reformed believers. It is truly astounding how history repeats itself. The Reformed church has failed to understand why the Catholics rely so heavily on tradition and have thus doomed themselves to the same fate, appealing to history rather than Scripture and plain reason.
Before I continue with the more substantive stuff, there's one thing I need to get out of the way...
Now, on to the rest of the more meaningful stuff...
"Any one of the TULIP statements proven false would cause the rest to fall. They are all interlinked and stand or fall together, hence the strong coherence of the doctrines." - Post 1068
And then a few posts later (a post I missed completely and didn't even know you had written until this morning)...
"Either God knows everything exhaustively and His decrees (and therefore their ultimate end demonstrating His glory)spring from this knowledge, or He is contingently at the mercy of His creatures." - post 1074
So according to your own words, I don't have to respond in some methodical way to all the arguments of Calvin or any other "great theologian". All I have to do is show Biblically that any one of the TULIP doctrines are false OR that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge and your entire worldview falls to rumble around your ankles. This has been done so many times on this website that it nearly boggles the mind! And you have completely ignored every one of the arguments. That is to say, you've responded to them by merely repeating your position but without actually addressing the arguments themselves.
I've addressed this already. The first time your brought this up I could believe that you had misunderstood the nature of the argument, that belief is no longer possible. This sentence amounts to a lie AMR. Why do you ignore us all when we all tell you in virtual unison that we do not reject Calvinism based merely on the fact that it is Greek! That isn't the point of bring it up and you know it.
HERE is a whole list of publications concerning the open view's doctrine of God (Theology Proper). How many of them have you actually read? Any of them?
Now, would you care to try again on answering my question?
How would one go about determining which position has done their "proper exegesis" based on a preconceived notion of what God is supposed to be like?
Resting in Him,
Clete
How different would history be if Luther had responded in agreement with the falling argument during the trial at Worms....
"We [the Catholics] can appeal to thousands of years of exegesis by others and who can you appeal to, yourself? Any intellectually honest person must conclude that any position contrary to what other great theologians have concluded from their proper exegesis cannot be so easily dismissed. Yet that is all you and your ilk are prone to do. You never seriously ponder these other men's writings seriously and unbiasedly. You have formed a position based upon shallow theology and methods, and won't step back and ask yourselves, "How can what I am saying be rejected by so many throughout history who are obviously not ignorant and are very spiritual?""
I have found this appeal to tradition to be more and more common among Reformed believers. It is truly astounding how history repeats itself. The Reformed church has failed to understand why the Catholics rely so heavily on tradition and have thus doomed themselves to the same fate, appealing to history rather than Scripture and plain reason.
Before I continue with the more substantive stuff, there's one thing I need to get out of the way...
I actually figured you had cited the source in some previous post months ago since you've repeated the same lines a dozen or more times (without substantiating them, by the way). I only brought it up to goad you into responding. Figures that you would ignore the other four more substantive objections and focus exclusively on being defensive and hypocritically insulting.
Now, on to the rest of the more meaningful stuff...
That's because you aren't looking. Your definition of dissecting such arguments amount to responding point for point to the entire collective works of John Calvin and others like him, which you know will never happen. It clearly gives you some sort of glib satisfaction to point out that no one has met your impossible challenge but it doesn't impress me at all. The fact is that doing so would be a complete waste of time and is entirely unnecessary. The distinctive doctrines of Calvinism are all based on a very few foundational premises. Falsify anyone of those premises and the entire theological system falls completely apart. You've said so yourself...
"Any one of the TULIP statements proven false would cause the rest to fall. They are all interlinked and stand or fall together, hence the strong coherence of the doctrines." - Post 1068
And then a few posts later (a post I missed completely and didn't even know you had written until this morning)...
"Either God knows everything exhaustively and His decrees (and therefore their ultimate end demonstrating His glory)spring from this knowledge, or He is contingently at the mercy of His creatures." - post 1074
So according to your own words, I don't have to respond in some methodical way to all the arguments of Calvin or any other "great theologian". All I have to do is show Biblically that any one of the TULIP doctrines are false OR that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge and your entire worldview falls to rumble around your ankles. This has been done so many times on this website that it nearly boggles the mind! And you have completely ignored every one of the arguments. That is to say, you've responded to them by merely repeating your position but without actually addressing the arguments themselves.
WHERE? Please give me a link or two too these posts. I must have missed them.
I've addressed this already. The first time your brought this up I could believe that you had misunderstood the nature of the argument, that belief is no longer possible. This sentence amounts to a lie AMR. Why do you ignore us all when we all tell you in virtual unison that we do not reject Calvinism based merely on the fact that it is Greek! That isn't the point of bring it up and you know it.
This has to be another lie AMR! There is just no way I can be made to believe that you are completely ignorant of the dozens of books written by these men and others. You've read Battle Royale X and that alone would disprove this statement.
HERE is a whole list of publications concerning the open view's doctrine of God (Theology Proper). How many of them have you actually read? Any of them?
Now, would you care to try again on answering my question?
How would one go about determining which position has done their "proper exegesis" based on a preconceived notion of what God is supposed to be like?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Of course! With my very soul!
Philetus
New member
I'll give him 2 fiddy.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Trust God.... eternal damnation....
Trust God... eternal damnation....
Hmmm... tough choice
Muz
VanhoozerRocks
New member
Anyone thought that maybe both calvinists, arminians, open theists, and others all might be framinng the debate in the wrong manner? I read this book the Domestication of Transcendence recently, and it argued that a large portion of the modern form of this debate is fueled by post-Scholastic notions regarding how it is possible to speak of God in univocal terms. Its seems that a healthy addition to this entire debate might be regarding how language about God should be fundamentally analogical? But, that is a debate in itself. Any thoughts?
Interesting that I tend to distrust questions like this.
I trust God for so many reasons its difficult to say exactly. I trust Him because He died for me and because of what He had done in my life and because He has taught me, through His word, how to think clearly and what it means to love both Him and other people around me. It is He who salvaged my marriage. He's the central context to all of my most important and closest relationships. God, in short, is my whole life.
Does that answer your question?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
- Status