ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Philetus]

Yep, on a level even a Calvinist can understand.

Later I'll try to get it down to your level.

 

[Nang]

Yep, on a level even a Calvinist can understand.

But I don't understand it. It is vulgar gobbledygook that makes no sense.

Thus, being filled with courage, I reject your efforts.

 

[Philetus]

But I don't understand it. It is vulgar gobbledygook that makes no sense.

Thus, being filled with courage, I reject your efforts.

I think you are full of pudding.

 

[Nang]

I think you are full of pudding.

:chuckle:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The thought never entered my mind. I am a moderator, not a bouncer.:nono:

Sorry I snapped at you, I was a bit out of line and I apologize.

 

[Philetus]

:chuckle:

I take it by that you at least understand that I was just laughing at all of us ducks ... especially myself.

This thread has become as boring as AMR's avatar.

Just funning a little.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You asked if Christians have choices. I stated that they can choose to sin or not sin. Is that not an affirmative enough answer? But keep in mind, that unlike you, choices do not belie the openness of the future that you assume. Choices are choosing what you are most inclined to so choose when you choose, unawares of any external influences.

This is the same thing Hilston used to say and I firmly believe it does injustice to the meanings of the words and phrases we use (i.e., can we make choices?).

While it may be true that we only choose what we choose, that doesn't really address the idea if we have the actually ability to choose otherwise when considering our choices.

I believe I have said many times that no one can fully comprehend God. Why do you always misquote me?

That may be true, however if that is what you believe then I don't think you should use that as a reason as to why we are wrong and why you are right (which is what it seemed like you were doing).

If you are going to be coy, at my age I am way too set in my ways to grasp or deal with coyness. I prefer the direct approach.

Excellent! Direct something at me!

I am ready... give me your best shot. :up:

What were we talking about again?

 

[Philetus]

What were we talking about again?

Ducks?

:rotfl:

OK, I'm sorry. I'll quit.
:shut:

 

[patman]

Ya know, if the future is settled, we are all stuck in one big galactic game of Simon Says... only Simon's name is Yahweh... and there is never the "Eeeeh! Simon didn't say to do that," part of the game.:crackup:

 

[elected4ever]

Ya know, if the future is settled, we are all stuck in one big galactic game of Simon Says... only Simon's name is Yahweh... and there is never the "Eeeeh! Simon didn't say to do that," part of the game.:crackup:

Your pathetic. Why don't you say you don't trust God with your future and be done with it.

 

[patman]

Your pathetic. Why don't you say you don't trust God with your future and be done with it.

:rotfl:

That made my last post worth it. Thanks E4E.

BTW, I feel my future is in good hands. Why don't you trust God's decision to let us chose our own paths?:thumb:

 

[patman]

:rotfl:

Sorry, had a few more laughs to get out.

 

[elected4ever]

:rotfl:

That made my last post worth it. Thanks E4E.

BTW, I feel my future is in good hands. Why don't you trust God's decision to let us chose our own paths?:thumb:

Because God never made such a decision. Man made that decision against the will of God. If you priciest in your on will above God's will then He will give you up to the vanity of your own mind. You sure you wont that result? Not me bro!

 

[patman]

Because God never made such a decision. Man made that decision against the will of God. If you priciest in your on will above God's will then He will give you up to the vanity of your own mind. You sure you wont that result? Not me bro!

Whaaaaaaaaat? So man is running around going against the will of God, but God never allowed man to do that?:kookoo:

I agree that God's ways are better, and man should follow His ways, but the decision to let man decide what he wanted to do was something God came to. You should respect that.

If you believe man has freewill, you need to stop being confusing and just say it.

 

[Poly]

Because God never made such a decision. Man made that decision against the will of God. If you priciest in your on will above God's will then He will give you up tp the vanity of your own mind. You sure you wont that result? Not me bro!

lain:

:squint:

lain:



:think:

But the problem is.... urhfjidei ieh owthao of aotjeoaohte and theothe otha on otheteo. I'm sure you would agree that oeutouu ojbhtgegh, euagtore aoejthat. :thumb:

But more importantly, buhrsitgyriu ieht zoeithewo if the viytheia is oetheorej on the oiciteraoehg!!!

Did you ever stop to think about that little fact, bro? Huh? No?

Didn't think so! :nono:

:chz4brnz:

 

[elected4ever]

Whaaaaaaaaat? So man is running around going against the will of God, but God never allowed man to do that?:kookoo:

If God had allowed Adam to do that Adam would not have died.

I agree that God's ways are better, and man should follow His ways, but the decision to let man decide what he wanted to do was something God came to. You should respect that.

I should respect man's ability to sin and be a good boy and say nothing. Smart, real smart.:kookoo:

If you believe man has freewill, you need to stop being confusing and just say it.

I believe man has free will within the confines of who He is and not who he is not. Free will is therefore limited, not total.

 

[themuzicman]

lain:

:squint:

lain:



:think:

But the problem is.... urhfjidei ieh owthao of aotjeoaohte and theothe otha on otheteo. I'm sure you would agree that oeutouu ojbhtgegh, euagtore aoejthat. :thumb:

But more importantly, buhrsitgyriu ieht zoeithewo if the viytheia is oetheorej on the oiciteraoehg!!!

Did you ever stop to think about that little fact, bro? Huh? No?

Didn't think so! :nono:

:chz4brnz:

POTD!

Muz

 

[Poly]

POTD!

Muz

Common sense, reasoning and reality never seems to get through to him so I thought maybe somebody might have a better chance with some jibberish.

Worth a try. :idunno:

 

[Lon]

David Koresh quoted Paul all the time (or let's assume he did for the sake of argument).


So what? Is your authority tradition or the Scripture? (David might ask.)


That's your opinion. How would you know, in the darkened recesses of your sinful mind, what good fruit is? David would insist that all those who love him are exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit because all those who the Father has given him know his voice and follow him.


Nice! That sounds exactly like something David Koresh might say in answer to any of your arguments concerning Jesus.


What would be the point of doing so? All David would do is insist that you don't understand the passages you are quoting; that your mind has been darkened and cannot understand the things of God.

(THIS IS THE KEY QUESTION LON!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU'RE SO CLOSE AND DON'T SEE IT!)


SOUND doctrine?

OH! LON! Where does that phrase come from? What does the word "sound" mean in the above sentence?


I don't think you see it but you've just undone your entire theological worldview and no longer have any standing upon which to claim that God could possibly exist timelessly.


Well sarcasm or no, you are in fact begging the question by quoting any Scripture to David Koresh because all someone like him would do is quote more right back at you. The whole question in such a debate would be whether your interpretation of Scripture was valid. Your quoting it only assumes the answer to that question before it has been established. That's called begging the question. You assume the answer to the question at hand in order to argue for your position. That doesn't work.


Okay, I'm beginning to feel like you aren't going to tolerate this long enough to see the point on your own (if you don't see it already) and so let me get you off the hook here because I could keep you chasing your tail forever if I wanted to.

You've abandoned sound reason Lon. You openly and even proudly accept within your worldview what is clearly self-contradictory. And as a result you cannot claim to have sound doctrine. Theology is the 'logos' of the 'theos'; the logic of God and if you abandon logic, then you tacitly accept ALL truth claims because you no long have any standing upon which to declare them false.

No two truth claim which contradict each other can both be true at the same time and in the same respect. We accept the Scripture as truth for various reasons but regardless of the reason, if the Scripture is true and some other truth claim contradicts the Scripture then that truth claim is false on the basis of sound reason, (i.e. because of the law of non-contradiction). You have basically been making this argument all along except that you've previously rejected sound reason and so beg the question in doing so, rendering your theological worldview irrational and therefore no more valid than David Koresh's.

You simply must have the courage to reject ideas that are irrational. It doesn't matter how much faith you think it takes to accept an irrationality, it take more to reject it. The acceptance of tradition and "high minded" doctrines which give us a feeling of piety appeal to the flesh. We must remain faithful to Scripture and sound reason and nothing else for doctrines sake. Leave either one and you enter into a theological abyss where folks like David Koresh, Benny Hinn and the like reside.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Well, to be honest, I knew where you were going. Logic is your focal point.
I have no problem with that, as sound doctrine and mind are scriptural givens, however, I know many logical men who get it absolutely wrong if just to have their box nice and tidy. With that said, God is not packagable. That isn't to say we shouldn't come up with systematic theology, but that we need to examine one thing very clearly: God is infinite, we are finite. Finite is incapable of containing infinite. Because God is so vast, we will always have unanswered questions because our logical tape measure is only so long.

You imperialize logic to the neglect of scriptures. Paul did not say "We'll know the heretic by sound logic." He said, "You'll know by what their message produces."

Koresh abused his parish. Koresh did not know scripture. Again you assume a lot and ignore God's Word to call it impotent in your world where logic rules. You imperialize logic as if it is the paramount revelation from God. I lean wholly more upon the Holy Spirit and His promise to keep us rather than myself. My intellect is under the curse along with the rest of me. I do not believe God is a respecter of intellect but of humble dependence. God is the answer to your Koresh dilemma.
If you don't see it the same way, we are free to go our separate ways on this issue.

I know truth because God Himself allows it and wills it to be so. If I am in error, I am His workmanship, and He'll eventually bring me where He desires me to be.
"Not that I have already arrived, but I press on..."

 

[Philetus]

Common sense, reasoning and reality never seems to get through to him so I thought maybe somebody might have a better chance with some jibberish.

Worth a try. :idunno:

and I thought I had lost it.
Blab benze dork, em knot getz hit.

Whay douz wee boghter? Whazint hit rality beater when CAlvinestes only talked to each othner?

Thank you guys ... I had given up.
:rotfl: