ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Clete]

Then I would assume you do not see the verse as an example of an anthropopathism? Correct?

Correct.

What's the point? This actually sounds like the beginning of a real argument! :noway:

 

[Clete]

I gave my answer to your question. What is your answer to your question? The silence is deafening. How would you make the objective third-party determination your question asks to be made? I maintain that there is no way you can honestly and objectively answer your own question without appealing to existing bodies of literature.

The same way Luther did concerning his 95 theses.

"Scripture and plain reason." - Luther

That is the only way to determine doctrinal truth. The Open View merely takes the same scalpel that Luther used to rid the church of indulgences and other heretical teachings and practices and uses it to remove the cancer of pagan Greek philosophical influence. It is nothing more than sola scirptura applied to theology proper.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That depends on a lot of things. Calvinism is definitely heretical but Calvinists may not be. Most people who call themselves Calvinists have no idea at all where their doctrine comes from. They believe what they are taught and that's that. This includes many, if not most, Calvinist pastors, by the way. Sure, they've been to seminary and have been taught all sorts of things about why they believe what they believe but the fact is that they are still little more than cattle being led by the nose into the same error that they predecessors are teaching them.

One of the main problems is that of the church "establishment" for want of a better term. People who want to be in the ministry are pretty much forced to accept the "party line", if you will, or else they stand no chance of keeping a job in any church if they can get one at all. Pastors and other clergy are perhaps the most pitiful of all really because they've spent so much time, energy and money on learning their particular flavor of Christianity that it is simply too much to expect any of them to reject everything they've been taught since they were young children. They are literally entrenched into their doctrine and couldn't get out even if they wanted too. The cost is simply too high for most to be willing to pay. People in such positions are almost certainly saved Christian people who are simply doing the best they can, mostly oblivious to the rational and Biblical difficulties that a close look at their theology would present.

Note my emphasis added above. Pastors, called by God, are cattle in an establishment, forced to accept the party line (the establishment's interpetation of Scripture, thus Scripture is this "party line"), and are oblivious because they have not studied their theology well enough.

Clete, you have outdone even yourself this time. You are making accusations about God's Shepherds.

 

[themuzicman]

Of course I believe in omnipotence. It is just that I do not believe the way open theists have re-defined the orthodox understandings of omnipotence and omniscience.

open theism
omnipotence - God is not in exhaustively in control of everything in the universe,

That's not omnipotence, that's meticulous control. OVTs will say that God COULD have created this kind of universe, but did not.

therefore God is open to the failure of at least some of His intentions

Again, since when does failure have anything to do with omnipotence?

omniscience - God does not possess an exhaustive prescience of the future libertarian free choices of His volitional creatures, for it is not "logically possible to know" the future, therefore God is sometimes mistaken in His beliefs about what will happen

Once again, you confuse omniscience with Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge.

The later is biblical. Read Jeremiah 3:6-7.

When open theists speak of sovereignty, they do not mean “supreme in power, rank, and authority” any more than they mean that God knows all when they speak of His omniscience. Nor do open theists mean that God is everywhere present when they speak of His omnipresence or that He is all-powerful when they speak of His omnipotence. Open theists do not mean that God existed before time sequence became a reality when they speak of His eternality. All of these are orthodox beliefs, so when dealing with the non-orthodox one must be very careful.

No, all of these are Augustinian beliefs. Orthodoxy has never really settled on a view of God's foreknowledge and temporality, reformed theologians notwithstanding.

You remind me of an old joke.

An aged theologian dies and goes to heaven. There, he is assigned to the eternal theological school, and St. Peter is giving him a tour. In the first room, there's a group laughing and having fun, even drinking a beer. "That's the Catholic wing of the School." Next is a group of men sitting neatly in rows, all listening thoughtfully to a speaker philosophize. "That's the Methodists" Peter explains.

Then Peter asks the man to keep his voice down, as they go past a room with men dressed very formally, and they sneak past the door. Peter whispers: "This is the reformed wing. They think they're the only ones here."

In effect, just as the Mormons do, open theists have retained traditional terminology, but open theists have attached their own definitions to these words because of the contradictory nature of their system of beliefs. Thus, when dealing with open theists, any orthodox believer must use the same tactics as when dealing with cultists, requiring the cultist to precisely define their terms in order to reveal that the cultist is hiding behind common terminology, but not holding to the accepted definitions of orthodox believers.

In effect, just as the Mormons do, the reformed theologians have retained the traditional terminology, but reformed theologians have attached their own definitions to words like 'faith' and 'grace' because of the contradictory nature of their system of beliefs. Thus, when dealing with reformed theologians, any Orthodox believer must use thsame tactics as when dealing with cultists, requiring the cultist to precisly define their terms in order to reveal that the cultist is hiding behind common terminology, but not holding to the accepted definitions of Orthodox believers.

Muz

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The same way Luther did concerning his 95 theses.

"Scripture and plain reason." - Luther

That is the only way to determine doctrinal truth. The Open View merely takes the same scalpel that Luther used to rid the church of indulgences and other heretical teachings and practices and uses it to remove the cancer of pagan Greek philosophical influence. It is nothing more than sola scirptura applied to theology proper.

You cannot equivocate. "objective third party" determination is the crux of the question you posed. Try harder.

 

[Nang]

The impassibility of God is utterly unbiblical.

Not at all. It is simply the case that those who hold to OVT have attempted to redefine impassibility.

This is the correct teaching of impassibility:

God possesses the attributes of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, etc. all with self-control of Being. God is not subjected to these emotive attributes; He is not ruled by passions; He is not a reactionary and a victim of passion like sinful men.

God acts according to what He is, and He is all these things, and all these qualities are manifested to accomplish His eternal purposes.

Compare this truth to how man is ruled by his emotions, with no self-control over himself. We view emotions from the frame of reference of being victims of emotions. Due to the ravages of sin, human emotions become unruly passions that overrule the conscience, leaving all men without excuse.

Even a Christian is dependent upon the presence of the Holy Spirit to control his/her feelings, that fight against what the Christian knows is right and good.

For the sinful creature, emotions fight against the spirit.

God does not share in this victimhood. God is impassible and not subject to overruling passions.

For Holy God rules in Spirit and righteously applies His emotive attributes as He wills to fulfill His purposes and good pleasure.

And here is His good advice to men, who are victims of passions:

"My son, give me thine heart, and let thine eyes observe my ways." Proverbs 23:26

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD." Isa. 55:8

If you would like for me to make some specific argument concerning some specific doctrine, start a thread

I have already stated (twice) what I would like you to explain . . .I have been asking how you supposedly can disprove Calvinist publications (e.g. WCF) as being "not of the bible, but Greek" as you have claimed. Since you made these statements in this thread, please explain them in this thread. Note: I said "please."

Since you seem loathe to take even a single example from the WCFto make your point, as I suggested, I will supply you with one:

"There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; * immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty."
WCF, Chapter II, Article 1



What part of this statement is not biblical, but Greek?

Which part, or whole, can you disprove?

Why would you want to?

*Emphasis, mine, showing the correct (Calvinistic) teaching of "impassibility" while acknowledging the Godly attributes of love, etc.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Correct.

What's the point? This actually sounds like the beginning of a real argument! :noway:

When the Septuagint was translated, athropopathisms seemed crude to the translators and were rendered more elegant. The proper Hebrew rendering of the phrase in Ex. 4:14, is "the nostrils of the LORD burned". So, given your agreement that this is not an anthropopathism, how do you explain God's nostrils burning? If you agree, after reading this explanation of the proper translation, that it is anthropopathic, would you concede that analogical language is a dominant form of language used in the Scriptures when speaking of God's attributes?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

In one sense it is. In another it is about the community of believers, Christ's church, coming together, with the Spirit being present, and agreeing upon what is foundational in their beliefs, writing it down, and practicing it accordingly.

In my community of believers open theism is the orthodoxy.

And in your "community" open theism is not orthodox. Knowing that, how much closer are we to determining truth? ANSWER: None. We are no closer to truth based on orthodoxy.

Which is why I maintain that one cannot go off half cocked and dismiss what the larger body of Christ has found to be orthodox.

I don't dismiss the larger body of Christ by going off "half cocked", I dismiss the larger body's settled view using my entire rooster. :chicken:

I would not make such a stink about this if some of the more vocal here would preface their discussions with a nod to the fact that what they are advocating is recognized as not orthodox--versus the assumption of entitlement to orthodoxy from the opening discussion.

I think I just did that.

 

[Clete]

Note my emphasis added above. Pastors, called by God, are cattle in an establishment, forced to accept the party line (the establishment's interpetation of Scripture, thus Scripture is this "party line"), and are oblivious because they have not studied their theology well enough.

Clete, you have outdone even yourself this time. You are making accusations about God's Shepherds.

I guess I must be wrong since you've so passionately said so.

Do you deny that there exists a conflict of interest among professional clergy?

If so, on what basis?

And by the way, no one was ever called by God to preach the Calvinist error.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

When the Septuagint was translated, athropopathisms seemed crude to the translators and were rendered more elegant. The proper Hebrew rendering of the phrase in Ex. 4:14, is "the nostrils of the LORD burned". So, given your agreement that this is not an anthropopathism, how do you explain God's nostrils burning? If you agree, after reading this explanation of the proper translation, that it is anthropopathic, would you concede that analogical language is a dominant form of language used in the Scriptures when speaking of God's attributes?

I have never, nor would I ever deny the use of anthropopathism and virtually every other sort of figure of speech throughout the Bible. Figures of speech occur on every single page of the Bible and every one of them actually mean something. In this case, it would seem that the translators took a figure of speech in the original and translated it into what the figure means in English. Thus in the English there is no figure and it means precisely what it says and is NOT anthropomorphic, anthropopathic, or any other form of figure of speech.

You bring up an terrific point though that I think should be considered in some considerable detail. It is the point which I was actually hoping would come up when I asked you the question about how some third party might discover which of us is giving the proper reading of Scripture.

Some passages of Scripture are figurative and some are not. With that much there can be no dispute. Many, if not most, of the passages you consider to be figurative I consider to be plainly stated and vise versa. The question then is how can we discover who is right and who is not. If I can make a prediction without you considering it to be insulting and obtuse or juvenile, I would say that your method of determining which passages are figurative or accommodations to limited human understanding will be derived from tradition, from the exegesis of "great theologians" which have preceded you in the church, from "orthodoxy" if you will, and my method will be purely Biblical and/or rationally necessary.

Care to go into it, or would you rather just keep on insulting me?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Not at all. It is simply the case that those who hold to OVT have attempted to redefine impassibility.

This is the correct teaching of impassibility:

God possesses the attributes of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, etc. all with self-control of Being. God is not subjected to these emotive attributes; He is not ruled by passions; He is not a reactionary and a victim of passion like sinful men.

God acts according to what He is, and He is all these things, and all these qualities are manifested to accomplish His eternal purposes.

Compare this truth to how man is ruled by his emotions, with no self-control over himself. We view emotions from the frame of reference of being victims of emotions. Due to the ravages of sin, human emotions become unruly passions that overrule the conscience, leaving all men without excuse.

Even a Christian is dependent upon the presence of the Holy Spirit to control his/her feelings, that fight against what the Christian knows is right and good.

For the sinful creature, emotions fight against the spirit.

God does not share in this victimhood. God is impassible and not subject to overruling passions.

For Holy God rules in Spirit and righteously applies His emotive attributes as He wills to fulfill His purposes and good pleasure.

And here is His good advice to men, who are victims of passions:

"My son, give me thine heart, and let thine eyes observe my ways." Proverbs 23:26

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD." Isa. 55:8

If you repost this in the other thread I will respond to it there.

I have already stated (twice) what I would like you to explain . . .I have been asking how you supposedly can disprove Calvinist publications (e.g. WCF) as being "not of the bible, but Greek" as you have claimed. Since you made these statements in this thread, please explain them in this thread. Note: I said "please."

Since you seem loathe to take even a single example from the WCFto make your point, as I suggested, I will supply you with one:

"There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; * immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty."
WCF, Chapter II, Article 1



What part of this statement is not biblical, but Greek?

Virtually the entire thing.

Look Nang, I'm not evading the question. I will be happy to get into it with you but not on this thread. This new thread isn't three months old yet and it is already over fifteen hundred posts long precisely because people will not stick to the subject of the thread (I know I'm just as guilty as anyone but fifty wrongs don't make a right). If you want me to directly address specific doctrines of Calvinism I would say that amounts to a significant departure from the topic of this thread. It is not unreasonable to ask you to copy/paste the above paragraph into the open post of a new thread, especially in light of the fact that what you are asking me doesn't lend itself to short one line answers like the one I gave above (which was intentionally flippant, by the way. I know that such an answer is insufficient.)

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

You cannot equivocate. "objective third party" determination is the crux of the question you posed. Try harder.

You're so stupid.

By objective I was not referring to an unbeliever or some metaphysical/presuppositional definition of objective. I was merely referring to someone who didn't have a dog in this particular fight, who is undecided as to which of us is correct and which is not.

Objectivity (or as close to it as it is possible to get in this life) is precisely the reason why "plain reason" is and must be included and not simply Scripture alone. Without sound reason, the Bible can be made to teach that the Moon is made of green cheese.

2 Corinthians 13:1b “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.”​

 

[Nang]

If you repost this in the other thread I will respond to it there.

No, Clete.

The major discourse from orthodoxy, committed by OVT, is their redefinition of impassibility, which leads logically to denial of immutability.

The subject of impassibility according to Calvinists, compared to OT'ers, needs to be discussed in this thread.

Look Nang, I'm not evading the question. I will be happy to get into it with you but not on this thread.

Why not this thread? Because of the huge exposure of this thread?

Do you desire to hide the debate in a sub-thread that few will pay attention to?

If you want me to directly address specific doctrines of Calvinism I would say that amounts to a significant departure from the topic of this thread.

You are the one claiming your presence here is to disprove Calvinism, and you have revealed that specific intent and challenge in this thread. I am only responding to your challenge, in this thread.

I will not be diverted.

It will take you the same amount of energy to answer, anywhere, anyhow.

I suggest, if you intend to defend the OVT from critics, whether Calvinistic or not, it MUST be done here.

So I repeat, please, using just one example from the WCF (which happens to address "impassibility"), how it proves to be unbiblical, but rather "Greek."



Nang

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Do you desire to hide the debate in a sub-thread that few will pay attention to?

Nang, spare us the grade school rhetoric.

Clete is doing the right thing by trying to stay on topic.

Seriously, if you want to remain on TOL (especially in light of your recent banning) you are going to have to try a bit harder than the rest of us.

If not, please find another website to participate on.

 

[Nang]

Nang, spare us the grade school rhetoric.

Clete is doing the right thing by trying to stay on topic.

Seriously, if you want to remain on TOL (especially in light of your recent banning) you are going to have to try a bit harder than the rest of us.

If not, please find another website to participate on.

Just one question for you, Knight, before you leave on vacation . . .

Does Delmar speak for you?

Nang

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Does Delmar speak for you?

Nang

What does that even mean? :idunno:

Delmar is a friend, and TOL moderator.

I stand behind Delmar's decisions because I trust Delmar. I believe that Delmar is capable of moderating TOL. I rarely (if ever) disagree with anything Delmar says or does.

Is that the answer you were looking for?

 

[Nang]

What does that even mean? :idunno:

Delmar is a friend, and TOL moderator.

I stand behind Delmar's decisions because I trust Delmar. I believe that Delmar is capable of moderating TOL. I rarely (if ever) disagree with anything Delmar says or does.

Is that the answer you were looking for?

So Delmar banned me last week, for disrupting staff, when I posted to a member (Clete), with your knowledge and blessing.

And so you can explain to me what this is that I received tonight, as so "private" it comes without explanation; only stated with a little yellow box . . .

Private July 26th, 2007 05:50 PM July 7th, 2008 02:39 PM 0 Unnecessarily disruptive Delmar

What the heck does this mean, and does this come to me by your knowledge and representation?

Nang

 

[Nathon Detroit]

So Delmar banned me last week, for disrupting staff, when I posted to a member (Clete), with your knowledge and blessing.

And so you can explain to me what this is that I received tonight, as so "private" it comes without explanation; only stated with a little yellow box . . .

Private July 26th, 2007 05:50 PM July 7th, 2008 02:39 PM 0 Unnecessarily disruptive Delmar

What the heck does this mean, and does this come to me by your knowledge and representation?

Nang

Delmar gave you a warning instead of an infraction. A warning will not cause an automatic ban. Therefore you should thank Delmar for sparing your life.

 

[Nang]

Delmar gave you a warning instead of an infraction. A warning will not cause an automatic ban.

What is the warning? I am on suspension for a year? I am answerable to Delmar, for my beliefs?

Therefore you should thank Delmar for sparing your life.

"Sparing my life?" That is SO SICK.

My life is found in Jesus Christ . . .my life is not dependent upon TOL website approval.

NEVER! What nonsense!

However, you do admit Delmar speaks for Knight.

Well, Knight and spokesman, Delmar, my future is assured and guaranteed solely by the cross work of Jesus Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit of God, and is definitely not dependent upon your approval or wicked warnings, etc.

I mean . . .how can you give me warning a year ahead, when you teach even God does not know what will happen in the year ahead.

You are phonies trying to play God, assuming more powers than you give God.

This would all be laughable, if it were not so evil.

Open Theism is dead, because you have proven to be the enemies of those Christ has made alive.



Nang

 

[Nathon Detroit]

"Sparing my life?" That is SO SICK.

My life is found in Jesus Christ . . .my life is not dependent upon TOL website approval.

It was a joke you flaming retard! (hence the smilie)

Seriously, I think you should find another website to participate on, TOL is over your head.

However, you do admit Delmar speaks for Knight.

Well, Knight and spokesman, Delmar, my future is assured and guaranteed solely by the cross work of Jesus Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit of God, and is definitely not dependent upon your approval or wicked warnings, etc.

I mean . . .how can you give me warning a year ahead, when you teach even God does not know what will happen in the year ahead.

You are phonies trying to play God, assuming more powers than you give God.

This would all be laughable, if it were not so evil.

Open Theism is dead, because you have proven to be the enemies of those Christ has made alive.

:blabla:

What is it like being such a nut-job?