Calling all Open Theists for Feedback

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

If I may be so bold, I'd suggest you 'identify' with Open Theism, rather than hold all their beliefs and tenants (and specifically): as I understand Open Theology in my ten years discussing issues with them and tenants of their belief. I'll go further: I believe a few of your theology beliefs in congruent with Open Theology (again, as best I understand them from ten years of discussion). I know, per fact, you hold views counter to a consistent Open Theology. It might be helpful to mention that AMR and others too, have noted the discrepancy, it isn't just me. Caveate: Open Theism has never produced a coherent and systematic theology, to date.

I deeply appreciate your observations. I will simply say that what is noted as discrepancy is possibly a misunderstanding. The premise of Open Theism is clear, but the expressions of how it does what it does are retained withing the confines of an "Open Future". This affords for peaceful differentiation's in view point. I believe I have now detected a point to make. Systematic theology... is designed to be "closed" in nature and "become" Dogma. This is in specific opposition to "Open" Theology. The "Progressive Revelation" of the matter isn't nullified, or allowed to be nullified, within the construct of "Open Theology". This could be why it perplexes you so very much... but I would go out on a limb and say that you never stop searching scripture with an "Open" heart and "Open" mind to Jesus. Perhaps this reconciles this concern of yours?

I will make a "bold" statement and claim responsibility for it, to remove my assertion from the collective group of Open Theists, but i would also, simultaneously assert that there is a good chance the vast majority of Open Theists would agree with me... the second some individual shows up and a writes a 30 volume set of "Commentaries" that state... This and this alone is the Bible through the "lens" of "Open Theism", that very person is no longer an "Open Theist". Perhaps this makes matters clear?

In this light... the Open Theist literally removes the Doctrines of man from the equation and elevates Jesus and Scripture above every reference in existence... including there own. This will sound rather aggressive, but I suggest that it is the closed theist that generates (Written Dogma) that unnaturally elevates the authority of their writings by proposing to "Close" Theism in the area they have written on. I avoid doing this by continually keeping (John 5:38f,40) in my heart, soul and mind.

I quoted it. I had to double-check as this cold is messing me up, but there was an incomplete sentence and I couldn't tell where one idea led to the other because of it.

"Perhaps, as I read the verses you have provided, I must state... I fully agree with everyone of them, but I think our theological lenses ar..."

This was a literary pun. I was hoping you would draw attention to it. I was pointing out that people come to different conclusions on matters that they perceive to be incomplete.

To finish this sentence would be to remove the "theological lens" pun. Theology can be like a game of telephone... this is my intended point. How do you see the conclusion of this sentence?

I guess, in and of itself, in that light, you are correct, that our definition and understanding of the greater 'free'-dom of the will is in dispute. Maybe not mis-defined, but rather that it is such a broad-term idea, that it isn't accurate enough. I actually very much dislike the word because of how unclear it actually is. Rather, I believe we have a will, and a will, because of the fall, that chooses against God's intention. All such, are necessary qualifiers concerning the will. "Free" is just too over-reaching imho.

I will simply state one verse to drop information into our "global" spiral. (John 8:36)

Very much the expression and inner-machinations of a global thinker. I don't tend to post this way any longer on TOL, but I used to. I had a one-on-one with Knight that clearly displays my global mind. We come at ideas as a spiral, as it were: We grab ideas along the way, while steering to the center of that spiral. It has a lot of good critical thinking skills employed in such, but those who take a direct approach would accuse us of being drunk, incoherent, or random. I can't remember the percentages, but there are not many that think like this. On a good note, it is the mark of a good mind, because it is a mind that is able to juggle ideas and keep them in mind until it gets where it needs to be. As such, we tend to be a little more thorough and certainly more convinced when we hit the target idea.

I'm busted! You literally nailed it! I cannot deny this... after all... (Jer. 13:23) So... :cheers: to global thinking and spiraling towards cognitive collaboration, while knowing full well we (Mt. 7:24)... so we have nothing to fear in learning one another's perspectives and tucking them away for those witnessing days where what we are saying just doesn't seem to be taking, so we say; "Well, you could look at these verses this way... I have a friend that suggests"... After all... we have to out craft the crafty... yet deliver the importance of (Eph. 2:8f and John 5:39) ... so we can be (Mt. 10:16).

I am seeing you juggling the serpent, the tree of knowledge of good and evil (which if I am reading you correctly, you posit it, is NOT evil in and of itself), as well as the intent of the serpent who was "most crafty."

Exactly! You are on the money.

I'm not sure where to jump in to help you collect those thoughts. In addition, I'd carry the idea that 'an ability to choose otherwise' would be foreign to God's perfect creation.

Yes and No ... Choice is the very signature of God. It's so written into scripture, it would void the content of its pages as quickly as removing all "Jewish" content from it. What is implied is that God architecturally designed our universe to foster genuine growth through sincere revelation of who we are and who we will choose to grow and become through success and failure.

This brings up a silly question to drive this point home... Before the serpent... if Adam was petting a Lion and the Lion yawned... could Adam have accidentally scratched his arm on it's teeth? And... if he did, would he have bled? If He bled, would He get his arm near the Lions teeth again?

As best as I understand Adam and Eve's demeanor, they never would have eaten from the forbidden tree sans the serpent, hence 'he was more crafty.' 2 Corinthians 11:3 says 'bedeviling' or 'trickery.'

This is a wonderful statement and again... I will answer that I partially agree. Here comes the kicker... Angels can choose to mess up. We know this because of the False Morning Star. If Angels can make mistakes and humans can too... we seem to be left with the idea that God sees value in the opportunity of situational growth through success and failure.

An excellent example of this is the story of Nebuchadnezzar that [MENTION=15579]1Mind1Spirit[/MENTION] formatted so well, directly from scripture. i will be integrating his post into our discussion in the immediate future as a "type".

I trimmed the rest of this, regarding our agreements and mutuality. Because of such, we are more discussing than debating. Giving counter ideas, rather than posturing. Sometimes it goes this way, but I always aim for it on TOL. Some will not have it, but I generally think it the better discussion material on TOL (I've actually enjoyed reading some of the flamboyant and heated debate on TOL, though). Toward that endeavor, thank you and His blessings. In our Christ, -Lon

On this excellent note and observation of yours... the wise man knows when he is entered into discussion with another wise man that knows how to "agree to disagree", and value the stance of another. This affords what we have here. It is my favorite style of discussion. It yields much positive fruit.

However, let us be warned... (Ecc. 1:18)

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Realize the @ feature only gives me one link in any given day. After clicking it once, if there are other @'s they disappear from an alert. I had only seen one @ on any given day. They are good to get an attention for maybe one or two items a week then, for me, accordingly -Lon
I wanted to try and catch up on a of these:
"Dragon" yes. Revelation 12:9

Oops... I am officially educated on the @ function. Thank you. And Excellent on Revelation 12... ! This affords a most profitable yield!

Job 1:6-12 has Satan going back and forth from heaven to earth. Isaiah 14:12 has him, by name 'falling star/lucifer', to earth and Ezekiel 28:6-19

Fantastic!!!

A question from my seminary days: "Were these strictly about the king of Tyre, or was the king a type of Satan?"

When you employ the lens of (John 5:39) ... there are many more scriptures that are irrefutably Typification of the adversary of God. After all, if I write a book about me, I would include the information about the individual that has tried to misinform people about me and why they would do so. This follows the typical Protagonist / Antagonist flow of all valuable literature.

What if I suggested that Revelation 12 carries a key to further understanding scripture that is overlooked by many, but if it is accepted... It unlocks scriptural doors that are genuine and specific? What if I suggested that this key is so plain in view that it is missed by many and I have been eluding to it all this time?

Interested? It sheds so much light on the enemy that his crafty tactics become tiresome, boring, repetitious and utterly predictable. After all, this is one of the 3 main points we are walking towards.

I'm not sure what the bottom-line is for discussion about the Fall in the Garden and regarding our Free-will. I'll leave this to you to tie up any loose end. -Lon

If you don't take part in this journey... the conclusion of the journey would be futile. Fortunately... you're a quick study and global thinker that knows how to agree to disagree and simultaneously elevate Jesus and Scripture above all matters. Therefore... this is a wonderful journey through scripture.

Good verse for not reviling one another either. We are ever seeking a righteous fruit, and thus must rather speak accurately, than deriding. God has shown us that whatever is common with a snake, is the character of the devourer.

Um... :granite: ... I may need to read it a few times more. ... But sincerely... I fully agree and embrace your observation.

Addressed this one here

Excellent... I will drop a quote of [MENTION=15579]1Mind1Spirit[/MENTION] 's use of the book of Daniel. He is on target... I'll call it providence.

As the King of Babylon is a scriptural type that reverberates to the very last book of scripture... I will point out what is important to glean from this "Typification".

Consider that in this passage... Neb. exalts his accomplishments and is continually met with God's resistance for doing so.

The way that this chapter of Babylonian history ends is positive... but we know that as a Nation/Empire... Babylon doesn't retain the conclusion Neb. came to.

Note the literal clarity of what Neb. does that brings God's correction. This will further our discussion and journey. It ties directly into our discussion and the tying up of loose ends that is now becoming inevitable.

Nebuchadnezzar.....

I am pleased to tell you what has happened. The Most High God has done miraculous signs and wonders for me. His miraculous signs are great. His wonders are mighty. His kingdom will last forever. His rule will never end. - Daniel 4:2-3

I was at home in my palace. I was content and very successful. But I had a dream that made me afraid. I was lying on my bed. Then dreams and visions passed through my mind. They terrified me. - Daniel 4:4-5

“Here are the visions I saw while I was lying on my bed. I looked up and saw a tree standing in the middle of the land. It was very tall. It had grown to be large and strong. Its top touched the sky. It could be seen anywhere on earth. Its leaves were beautiful. It had a lot of fruit on it. It provided enough food for people and animals. Under the tree, the wild animals found shade. The birds of the air lived in its branches. Every creature was fed from that tree.
“While I was still lying on my bed, I looked up. In my visions, I saw a holy messenger. He was coming down from heaven. He called out in a loud voice. He said, ‘Cut the tree down. Break off its branches. Strip its leaves off. Scatter its fruit. Let the animals that are under it run away. Let the birds that are in its branches fly off. But leave the stump with its roots in the ground. Let it stay in the field. Put a band of iron and bronze around it.
“ ‘Let King Nebuchadnezzar become wet with the dew of heaven. Let him live like the animals among the plants of the earth. Let him no longer have the mind of a man. Instead, let him be given the mind of an animal. Let him stay that way until seven periods of time pass by.
“ ‘The decision is announced by holy messengers. So all who are alive will know that the Most High God is King. He rules over all of the kingdoms of men. He gives them to anyone He wants. Sometimes He puts the least important men in charge of them.’ “- Daniel 4:10-17

Daniel tells the dream....

“My King, you are that tree! You have become great and strong. Your greatness has grown until it reaches the sky. Your rule has spread to all parts of the earth.” - Daniel 4:22

“My King and master, here is what your dream means. The Most High God has given an order against you. You will be driven away from people. You will live like the wild animals. You will eat grass just as cattle do. You will become wet with the dew of heaven. Seven periods of time will pass by for you. Then you will recognize that the Most High God rules over all of the kingdoms of men. He gives them to anyone he wants.
“But he gave a command to leave the stump of the tree along with its roots. That means your kingdom will be given back to you. It will happen when you recognize that the God of heaven rules.
“So, my king, I hope you will accept my advice. Stop being sinful. Do what is right. Give up your evil practices. Show kindness to those who are being treated badly. Then perhaps things will continue to go well with you.” - Daniel 4:24-27

Back to Neb.....

All of that happened to me. It took place twelve months later. I was walking on the roof of my palace in Babylon. I said, “Isn’t this the great Babylon I have built as a place for my royal palace? I used my mighty power to build it. It shows how glorious my majesty is.” - Daniel 4:28-30

I was still speaking when a voice was heard from heaven. It said, “King Nebuchadnezzar, here is what has been ordered concerning you. Your royal authority has been taken from you. You will be driven away from people. You will live like the wild animals. You will eat grass just as cattle do. Seven periods of time will pass by for you. Then you will recognize that the Most High God rules over all of the kingdoms of men. He gives them to anyone He wants.”
What had been said about me came true at once. I was driven away from people. I ate grass just as cattle do. My body became wet with the dew of heaven. I stayed that way until my hair grew like the feathers of an eagle. My nails became like the claws of a bird. - Daniel 4:31-33

At the end of that time I, Nebuchadnezzar, looked up toward heaven. My mind became clear again. Then I praised the Most High God. I gave honor and glory to the One who lives forever. His rule will last forever. His kingdom will never end. He considers all of the nations on earth to be nothing. He does as He pleases with the powers of heaven. He does what He wants with the nations of the earth. No one can hold His hand back. No one can say to Him, “What have you done?”
My honor and glory were returned to me when my mind became clear again. The glory of my kingdom was given back to me. My advisers and nobles came to me. And I was put back on my throne. I became even greater than I had been before.
Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, give praise and honor and glory to the King of heaven. Everything he does is right. All of his ways are fair. He is able to bring down those who live proudly. - Daniel 4:34-37

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Scripture?

Just to be difficult... (On the Hell part, but not the "Autonomy"... Silly me missed that!)

I will provide some scripture within the frame of (John 5:39f) that leans towards [MENTION=6696]Lon[/MENTION] 's statement.

Proverbs 10:24
Job 15:21
Proverbs 15:8
1 John 1:14
Job 3:25 in light of 1 John 4:18

And... to appeal to the dispensation side of matters... Zechariah 12:3 ... to get more specific ... (Zechariah 14:3)

After all... It has been perpetually written for much time now that (1 Samuel 17:46) ... note how this verbiage is seen again here... (Revelation 19:17f)

All this through the Old Testament frame of Joel 3:2

After all, that valley of Jehoshaphat has many names prophetic implications throughout scripture...

This eludes to Megiddo in cross prophecy with Rev. 16:16 ... All of this binds together to the insinuations of "Hinnom" or as the greek equivalent has now been accepted... Hell.

 

[Right Divider]

Just to be difficult...

Please note the comment that I quoted from Lon.... (see the bold and underlined parts).

But the autonomy is the killer, literally. John 15:5 John 3 is given to explain to us, that 'hell' isn't God's intention, it is our creation.

I was asking for some scriptural support for that comment.

Nowhere in the scripture will you find that idea.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Please note the comment that I quoted from Lon.... (see the bold and underlined parts).

I was asking for some scriptural support for that comment.

Nowhere in the scripture will you find that idea.

I agree with what you have underlined... You are correct to ask for scripture. I missed it. I was expounding on Hell.

Thanks RD ... Good "Eye"

 

[Lon]

Please note the comment that I quoted from Lon.... (see the bold and underlined parts).

I was asking for some scriptural support for that comment.

Nowhere in the scripture will you find that idea.

I was talking about the fact that there is no necessity for its existence without our Fall, hence, we have had a hand in it, at least, logically.

 

[freelight]

free to navigate.............

free to navigate.............

But the autonomy is the killer, literally. John 15:5 John 3 is given to explain to us, that 'hell' isn't God's intention, it is our creation. We made the mess. No matter how high Jonathan Livingston Seagull flew, I was seeing the gutters at the other end of the city. I grew up in that mess. I know, per fact, God didn't create that, nor desired or desires it.

I often prefer responding in the creative writing style of meta-philosophical musings as in my last post on another thread here and elsewhere - seeing that all is but an exploration of various relationships in consciousness. Consciousness is the core-reality matrix or medium thru which we perceive or know anything and everything. Consciousness is All There IS. (there may be more,..but as far as well know....nothing can be known apart from it ) - this is the underlying foundation of most all I write as its being inter-related or filtered thru any given subject of interest, exploring all its dimensions.

Having said that, which is nothing new to those who know me, your above observations acknowledge our own responsibility in matters of sin, suffering or corruption,...but there is also the positive side in using our response-ability to repent and makes amends (atone) for our own sins by REPENTANCE. - so this 'freedom' works both ways,...its open-ended. Our personal experiences are to be respected, but sometimes they can condition or distort our perceptions of reality, as well, and we could be 'stuck' or 'imprisoned' by them affecting our viewpoints. It may good to be flexible and OPEN to change and consider alternative views, always....as the Spirit of truth is ever guiding.

"the mind set on the flesh is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace" - its a matter of where you are placing your attention, what you are giving place or value at any given moment.

There is no hair splitting as far as I know the scriptures. Jesus was very clear to Nicodemus: "You must be born-again." Nicodemus didn't get it. He was satisfied to go and try to live life with his will, free or otherwise. We cannot born-again ourselves. I hate when the term is loosely thrown around as if our doing something could make us a 'born -again' vegan or a 'born-again' jogger. It is exactly opposite of what Jesus was telling Nicodemus. Only a being able to give life, can give the renewed needed life in a person who is born in the flesh, with all its trappings. John 1:4;14:6; 15:5

I agree, the Spirit Alone is Life. - there is still quite a lot of 'hair-splitting' going on

This is a denial as far as I assess. I know the evils from my heart. As I said, I grew up on the wrong side, the bad side, the ugly side, the harmful side. Goodness in me, that overcomes all, is the Only God. There is no other god. There is no other life. There is absolutely no way to escape other than to call upon the Only God who exists. There is literally, no one else. Acts 4:12

I would agree, God is the source of all goodness, truth, beauty, love, light. God is Life.

Ever hurt anyone, PJ? Will you ever again? It isn't 'supposed' to happen.

Not as a habit, as I know how terrible it is to feel 'hurt' or be demeaned, devalued, violated, grieved, etc. How we treat others, is how we are treating 'God' and ourselves,...for all is one. This is why the universal golden rule is according to universal law,....all is one. How you treat others, is how you treat 'God', and anything less than love is sin.

Can't. A half-truth is like a piece of candy in the dirt. It is like trying to pick up a piece of chewing gum of the street because it still has some good in it. A summation of your and my conversations is about our 'godliness.' For me, necessarily a relationship with the only God, permanently. John 15:5 You rather seem to have and want an 'autonomy' without accountability or admission. It is where you get the 'free-spirit' new age philosophy. I am telling you, it CANNOT exist. John 15:5 A balloon, without a tether, is destroyed in the atmosphere. A man, untethered to God, is destroyed by the Fall into sin and death. There is only, but one way. Jesus said, few ever find it...... we must be 'born-again.' Ephesians 2:8&9 There is no other way. He is exactly what we need. The lie in the garden was that we didn't and don't need Him. John 15:5 "Cannot do any one thing, without Me." Lon 1 Corinthians 15:50

'God' is already the source of life, being, consciousness. He is the light and life of all beings. Naturally, since God is Life, the Vine,...apart from him we as branches cannot flourish. But much of this is figurative speech, used much by Jesus in his teaching. We are to understand the allegorical/esoteric meanings behind certain metaphors and terms, some however prefer a more literal approach. But what matters is what is being spiritually communicated, the meaning and value being portrayed, what is being symbolized.

 

[intojoy]

No, Lon . . sovereignty questions have all to do with the eternal attributes of God. His foreknowledge likewise, defines His eternal omniscience.

Maybe most do not care about these biblical facts, but all faithful Christians do.

Count Nangula we can care and still get it wrong


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Lon]

Free to roam says it all

Free to roam says it all

I often prefer responding in the creative writing style of meta-philosophical musings as in my last post on another thread here and elsewhere - seeing that all is but an exploration of various relationships in consciousness. Consciousness is the core-reality matrix or medium thru which we perceive or know anything and everything. Consciousness is All There IS. (there may be more,..but as far as well know....nothing can be known apart from it ) - this is the underlying foundation of most all I write as its being inter-related or filtered thru any given subject of interest, exploring all its dimensions.

It tends to be Eastern Mysticism that likes it. A couple of points: 1) It may be TOL will not much appreciate the esoteric. 2) Christianity deals in tangible realities: Literally God entering the Flesh. There is much poetry in the Bible, most of us read it, sometimes sing it. It isn't that we don't listen to George Harrison, it is just that it isn't my standard fare, especially after Kevin Max re-recorded "My Sweet Lord" about the Lord Jesus Christ. Because I am a Christian, I reject a lot of things from my flower-children parents. It wasn't peace and love. It was abuse. I think living with colored glasses simply leaves you with yet another item for one's coffin. There is no escaping the end. Some of the most beautiful poetry is metaphor. Here is why: Everything in all of creation tells of God and His redemption. He is "Life" "Light" as you are so fond of talking about, but light shines in the darkness. It clearly reveals your situation, including the unwashed and the clutter, and the broken. A diamond in a hog pen is, by its surrounding, made worthless (totally). I'll say this again: The Lord Jesus Christ is life. Reject Him and one rejects life. There is no life but the Son. You can scream, kick your heals and pound the floor. Someday reality has to set in where childish pouting stops. You do not love as God loves. You cannot care as God cares. Such is elevating self as candidate for the position. Satan lied, the position is closed. That is good news, not bad news. Our need is the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no life without Him. It isn't a 'cosmic' footnote or platitude. It usurps all other contenders. It is finished. MOST of the time I meet folks like you, they are too into drugs, or other illicitly poor activity and excuse their condition. They marry it, will not contend with their own death-living. It is a lie. You will hate him for the deception one day, though you may love the pleasantry. The path is paved with as many pleasantries until the very end. Proverbs 16:25 Only those of us who delve into blood and guts can understand the necessity of the cross. God wasn't doing platitudes. He was getting down to the gritty to save us from that which is death, no matter what glasses you wear. 3) Most of the time, the flowery language tends to be from free-users. I've seen it. Most Christians do not employ it specifically because it is seen most in such contexts. I worry about my old friend Peyote Zeke. We cannot employ excusing behavior. A rejection of Christianity is fairly clearly seen: Where there is smoke....

IHaving said that, which is nothing new to those who know me, your above observations acknowledge our own responsibility in matters of sin, suffering or corruption,...but there is also the positive side in using our response-ability to repent and makes amends (atone) for our own sins by REPENTANCE. - so this 'freedom' works both ways,...its open-ended. Our personal experiences are to be respected, but sometimes they can condition or distort our perceptions of reality, as well, and we could be 'stuck' or 'imprisoned' by them affecting our viewpoints. It may good to be flexible and OPEN to change and consider alternative views, always....as the Spirit of truth is ever guiding.

You are on the wrong webpage 1) If you think any but me and a few others who are already New Age, read much of what you write. The odd thing is you accuse me of not reading and then in the next breath expect it. There is no life, there, PJ. Your words are flowers on the way to the grave. You can't dress that up. It is death. At the end, it is just you holding the hand, perhaps, attempting to comfort with fluff and feathers. It just can't work. 2) There are no roses of consciousness. You cannot conjure one thing from the nether. You can't live, while dying. You are just dying with whatever way pleases you, but it is death. Proverbs 16:25 God invaded your space to save you. It is a messy business. If you lived near me, I'd force you to help clean the barn. The stench is terrible. Jesus came into our mess to seek and save the lost, it is a messy business. A rejection of His sacrifice might need you to stop being prissy and get your hands dirty to understand it.
3) Repentance doesn't erase. Superglue doesn't actually repair the original condition.

"the mind set on the flesh is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace" - its a matter of where you are placing your attention, what you are giving place or value at any given moment.

Again, your platitude rather than embrace. Jesus is the only life and peace. There is NO life or peace without Him. There is no other way. Reality and facts in the rough'n'tumble are better than roses in death water.

I agree, the Spirit Alone is Life. - there is still quite a lot of 'hair-splitting' going on

There is no hair splitting. You are on a Christian board. This is what is on the table. This is always what is on the table. It is Jesus or nothing. Literally. Messily.

I would agree, God is the source of all goodness, truth, beauty, love, light. God is Life.

This is your second 'agree' but aren't they chameleon words? Don't you genuinely disagree in point of fact? Are we living in clouds of softness where truth doesn't matter, up where the air is free? I'm talking about this state of flesh and blood. God could certainly talk to man in ethereal avenues, but such cannot reach common man. My uncle was a drug addict. I well remember these discussions with him. He eventually lost his battle to those drugs. They killed him. He had a 140 IQ. He blew that away for his 'esoteric' trips. I saw where all this leads. My aunt dated a Buddhist. The man was Buddhist simply to reject scriptures that talked about sin. He was enjoying his too much until he went to prison leaving a wake of pain and horrors touching several families. Your cosmic café I've seen many times in real life. They were rotten people, too hyped up on homeopathic voodoo to see clearly it was their own behavior causing the death.

Not as a habit, as I know how terrible it is to feel 'hurt' or be demeaned, devalued, violated, grieved, etc. How we treat others, is how we are treating 'God' and ourselves,...for all is one. This is why the universal golden rule is according to universal law,....all is one. How you treat others, is how you treat 'God', and anything less than love is sin.

True, and we share some values, but I am adamant there is only one clinic. All others, and you will die. I've seen it. My uncle asked me to pray for him, he knew, at the end, he was dying and that Satan had lied to him his whole life. Maybe some of my discussion with you will make better sense. New Age, to me, has always wrought death. Always. No exceptions. Jesus said He is the Only Way. To ensure any got it, He said "No other way."

'God' is already the source of life, being, consciousness. He is the light and life of all beings. Naturally, since God is Life, the Vine,...apart from him we as branches cannot flourish. But much of this is figurative speech, used much by Jesus in his teaching. We are to understand the allegorical/esoteric meanings behind certain metaphors and terms, some however prefer a more literal approach. But what matters is what is being spiritually communicated, the meaning and value being portrayed, what is being symbolized.

EE talked about this: Romans 8:22-24 These words are life. We read the scriptures as coming directly from God, because the truth is in them. If you get stuck, like Caino always does, move on instead of excusing behavior. John 6:63

Unless we are born again, there is no Jonathan Livingston Seagull. In some ways, I understand and appreciate Eastern philosophy, but ONLY as it relates to what is real and actual. You are on a Christian board. Jesus is the Only Way. Only Truth. Only Life. Colossians 1:17 John 15:5 John 6:68 Think about this: If I am correct, and you can apprehend that if I am correct, then you know that literally, choosing the Lord Jesus Christ is choosing Life, and necessarily, it can only be connecting to Him, that could possibly produce life. There are not "many ways" else God is a liar and we are idiots. It cannot be any other way. It really cannot. The metaphor is equation: "No Jesus :nono: No Life."

 

[Right Divider]

I was talking about the fact that there is no necessity for its existence without our Fall, hence, we have had a hand in it, at least, logically.

That is not what the Bible says.

Matt 25:41 (AKJV/PCE)​

(25:41) Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
​

This is what the Bible says. It was his fall that caused its creation. Apparently mankind gets to join him if we don't accept God's grace and continue in rebellion along with him and his angels.

 

[daqq]

It tends to be Eastern Mysticism that likes it. A couple of points: 1) It may be TOL will not much appreciate the esoteric. 2) Christianity deals in tangible realities: Literally God entering the Flesh. There is much poetry in the Bible, most of us read it, sometimes sing it. It isn't that we don't listen to George Harrison, it is just that it isn't my standard fare, especially after Kevin Max re-recorded "My Sweet Lord" about the Lord Jesus Christ. Because I am a Christian, I reject a lot of things from my flower-children parents. It wasn't peace and love. It was abuse. I think living with colored glasses simply leaves you with yet another item for one's coffin. There is no escaping the end. Some of the most beautiful poetry is metaphor. Here is why: Everything in all of creation tells of God and His redemption. He is "Life" "Light" as you are so fond of talking about, but light shines in the darkness. It clearly reveals your situation, including the unwashed and the clutter, and the broken. A diamond in a hog pen is, by its surrounding, made worthless (totally). I'll say this again: The Lord Jesus Christ is life. Reject Him and one rejects life. There is no life but the Son. You can scream, kick your heals and pound the floor. Someday reality has to set in where childish pouting stops. You do not love as God loves. You cannot care as God cares. Such is elevating self as candidate for the position. Satan lied, the position is closed. That is good news, not bad news. Our need is the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no life without Him. It isn't a 'cosmic' footnote or platitude. It usurps all other contenders. It is finished. MOST of the time I meet folks like you, they are too into drugs, or other illicitly poor activity and excuse their condition. They marry it, will not contend with their own death-living. It is a lie. You will hate him for the deception one day, though you may love the pleasantry. The path is paved with as many pleasantries until the very end. Proverbs 16:25 Only those of us who delve into blood and guts can understand the necessity of the cross. God wasn't doing platitudes. He was getting down to the gritty to save us from that which is death, no matter what glasses you wear. 3) Most of the time, the flowery language tends to be from free-users. I've seen it. Most Christians do not employ it specifically because it is seen most in such contexts. I worry about my old friend Peyote Zeke. We cannot employ excusing behavior. A rejection of Christianity is fairly clearly seen: Where there is smoke....
You are on the wrong webpage 1) If you think any but me and a few others who are already New Age, read much of what you write. The odd thing is you accuse me of not reading and then in the next breath expect it. There is no life, there, PJ. Your words are flowers on the way to the grave. You can't dress that up. It is death. At the end, it is just you holding the hand, perhaps, attempting to comfort with fluff and feathers. It just can't work. 2) There are no roses of consciousness. You cannot conjure one thing from the nether. You can't live, while dying. You are just dying with whatever way pleases you, but it is death. Proverbs 16:25 God invaded your space to save you. It is a messy business. If you lived near me, I'd force you to help clean the barn. The stench is terrible. Jesus came into our mess to seek and save the lost, it is a messy business. A rejection of His sacrifice might need you to stop being prissy and get your hands dirty to understand it.
3) Repentance doesn't erase. Superglue doesn't actually repair the original condition.

Again, your platitude rather than embrace. Jesus is the only life and peace. There is NO life or peace without Him. There is no other way. Reality and facts in the rough'n'tumble are better than roses in death water.

There is no hair splitting. You are on a Christian board. This is what is on the table. This is always what is on the table. It is Jesus or nothing. Literally. Messily.

This is your second 'agree' but aren't they chameleon words? Don't you genuinely disagree in point of fact? Are we living in clouds of softness where truth doesn't matter, up where the air is free? I'm talking about this state of flesh and blood. God could certainly talk to man in ethereal avenues, but such cannot reach common man. My uncle was a drug addict. I well remember these discussions with him. He eventually lost his battle to those drugs. They killed him. He had a 140 IQ. He blew that away for his 'esoteric' trips. I saw where all this leads. My aunt dated a Buddhist. The man was Buddhist simply to reject scriptures that talked about sin. He was enjoying his too much until he went to prison leaving a wake of pain and horrors touching several families. Your cosmic café I've seen many times in real life. They were rotten people, too hyped up on homeopathic voodoo to see clearly it was their own behavior causing the death.

True, and we share some values, but I am adamant there is only one clinic. All others, and you will die. I've seen it. My uncle asked me to pray for him, he knew, at the end, he was dying and that Satan had lied to him his whole life. Maybe some of my discussion with you will make better sense. New Age, to me, has always wrought death. Always. No exceptions. Jesus said He is the Only Way. To ensure any got it, He said "No other way."

EE talked about this: Romans 8:22-24 These words are life. We read the scriptures as coming directly from God, because the truth is in them. If you get stuck, like Caino always does, move on instead of excusing behavior. John 6:63

Unless we are born again, there is no Jonathan Livingston Seagull. In some ways, I understand and appreciate Eastern philosophy, but ONLY as it relates to what is real and actual. You are on a Christian board. Jesus is the Only Way. Only Truth. Only Life. Colossians 1:17 John 15:5 John 6:68 Think about this: If I am correct, and you can apprehend that if I am correct, then you know that literally, choosing the Lord Jesus Christ is choosing Life, and necessarily, it can only be connecting to Him, that could possibly produce life. There are not "many ways" else God is a liar and we are idiots. It cannot be any other way. It really cannot. The metaphor is equation: "No Jesus :nono: No Life."

John 8:51 W/H
51 αμην αμην λεγω υμιν εαν τις τον εμον λογον τηρηση θανατον ου μη θεωρηση εις τον αιωνα
51 Amen-amen, I say to you, if anyone keep-guard-maintain my word: the same shall absolutely not see-observe-perceive death to the aiona.

Therefore, I say, the disciples of the Master view this statement as a commandment; and we neither "see" nor observe death in our walk, nor in our doctrine, nor in the holy writings of the apostles, disciples, and brethren of the Master Teacher: for the above is a commandment of the Master to his own.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Oops... I am officially educated on the @ function. Thank you. And Excellent on Revelation 12... ! This affords a most profitable yield!



Fantastic!!!



When you employ the lens of (John 5:39) ... there are many more scriptures that are irrefutably Typification of the adversary of God. After all, if I write a book about me, I would include the information about the individual that has tried to misinform people about me and why they would do so. This follows the typical Protagonist / Antagonist flow of all valuable literature.

What if I suggested that Revelation 12 carries a key to further understanding scripture that is overlooked by many, but if it is accepted... It unlocks scriptural doors that are genuine and specific? What if I suggested that this key is so plain in view that it is missed by many and I have been eluding to it all this time?

Interested? It sheds so much light on the enemy that his crafty tactics become tiresome, boring, repetitious and utterly predictable. After all, this is one of the 3 main points we are walking towards.



If you don't take part in this journey... the conclusion of the journey would be futile. Fortunately... you're a quick study and global thinker that knows how to agree to disagree and simultaneously elevate Jesus and Scripture above all matters. Therefore... this is a wonderful journey through scripture.



Um... :granite: ... I may need to read it a few times more. ... But sincerely... I fully agree and embrace your observation.



Excellent... I will drop a quote of [MENTION=15579]1Mind1Spirit[/MENTION] 's use of the book of Daniel. He is on target... I'll call it providence.

As the King of Babylon is a scriptural type that reverberates to the very last book of scripture... I will point out what is important to glean from this "Typification".

Consider that in this passage... Neb. exalts his accomplishments and is continually met with God's resistance for doing so.

The way that this chapter of Babylonian history ends is positive... but we know that as a Nation/Empire... Babylon doesn't retain the conclusion Neb. came to.

Note the literal clarity of what Neb. does that brings God's correction. This will further our discussion and journey. It ties directly into our discussion and the tying up of loose ends that is now becoming inevitable.

I deeply appreciate your observations. I will simply say that what is noted as discrepancy is possibly a misunderstanding. The premise of Open Theism is clear, but the expressions of how it does what it does are retained withing the confines of an "Open Future". This affords for peaceful differentiation's in view point. I believe I have now detected a point to make. Systematic theology... is designed to be "closed" in nature and "become" Dogma. This is in specific opposition to "Open" Theology. The "Progressive Revelation" of the matter isn't nullified, or allowed to be nullified, within the construct of "Open Theology". This could be why it perplexes you so very much... but I would go out on a limb and say that you never stop searching scripture with an "Open" heart and "Open" mind to Jesus. Perhaps this reconciles this concern of yours?

I will make a "bold" statement and claim responsibility for it, to remove my assertion from the collective group of Open Theists, but i would also, simultaneously assert that there is a good chance the vast majority of Open Theists would agree with me... the second some individual shows up and a writes a 30 volume set of "Commentaries" that state... This and this alone is the Bible through the "lens" of "Open Theism", that very person is no longer an "Open Theist". Perhaps this makes matters clear?

In this light... the Open Theist literally removes the Doctrines of man from the equation and elevates Jesus and Scripture above every reference in existence... including there own. This will sound rather aggressive, but I suggest that it is the closed theist that generates (Written Dogma) that unnaturally elevates the authority of their writings by proposing to "Close" Theism in the area they have written on. I avoid doing this by continually keeping (John 5:38f,40) in my heart, soul and mind.



"Perhaps, as I read the verses you have provided, I must state... I fully agree with everyone of them, but I think our theological lenses ar..."

This was a literary pun. I was hoping you would draw attention to it. I was pointing out that people come to different conclusions on matters that they perceive to be incomplete.

To finish this sentence would be to remove the "theological lens" pun. Theology can be like a game of telephone... this is my intended point. How do you see the conclusion of this sentence?



I will simply state one verse to drop information into our "global" spiral. (John 8:36)



I'm busted! You literally nailed it! I cannot deny this... after all... (Jer. 13:23) So... :cheers: to global thinking and spiraling towards cognitive collaboration, while knowing full well we (Mt. 7:24)... so we have nothing to fear in learning one another's perspectives and tucking them away for those witnessing days where what we are saying just doesn't seem to be taking, so we say; "Well, you could look at these verses this way... I have a friend that suggests"... After all... we have to out craft the crafty... yet deliver the importance of (Eph. 2:8f and John 5:39) ... so we can be (Mt. 10:16).



Exactly! You are on the money.



Yes and No ... Choice is the very signature of God. It's so written into scripture, it would void the content of its pages as quickly as removing all "Jewish" content from it. What is implied is that God architecturally designed our universe to foster genuine growth through sincere revelation of who we are and who we will choose to grow and become through success and failure.

This brings up a silly question to drive this point home... Before the serpent... if Adam was petting a Lion and the Lion yawned... could Adam have accidentally scratched his arm on it's teeth? And... if he did, would he have bled? If He bled, would He get his arm near the Lions teeth again?



This is a wonderful statement and again... I will answer that I partially agree. Here comes the kicker... Angels can choose to mess up. We know this because of the False Morning Star. If Angels can make mistakes and humans can too... we seem to be left with the idea that God sees value in the opportunity of situational growth through success and failure.

An excellent example of this is the story of Nebuchadnezzar that [MENTION=15579]1Mind1Spirit[/MENTION] formatted so well, directly from scripture. i will be integrating his post into our discussion in the immediate future as a "type".



On this excellent note and observation of yours... the wise man knows when he is entered into discussion with another wise man that knows how to "agree to disagree", and value the stance of another. This affords what we have here. It is my favorite style of discussion. It yields much positive fruit.

However, let us be warned... (Ecc. 1:18)

When you have the time... @Lon

- EE

 

[Lon]

I deeply appreciate your observations. I will simply say that what is noted as discrepancy is possibly a misunderstanding. The premise of Open Theism is clear, but the expressions of how it does what it does are retained withing the confines of an "Open Future". This affords for peaceful differentiation's in view point. I believe I have now detected a point to make. Systematic theology... is designed to be "closed" in nature and "become" Dogma. This is in specific opposition to "Open" Theology. The "Progressive Revelation" of the matter isn't nullified, or allowed to be nullified, within the construct of "Open Theology". This could be why it perplexes you so very much... but I would go out on a limb and say that you never stop searching scripture with an "Open" heart and "Open" mind to Jesus. Perhaps this reconciles this concern of yours?

A systematic theology is more about how things make sense. For instance, the Open View would say God knows all that it is possible to know and does not know the future actions of men exhaustively. Thus, 1 tenant of Open Theism is that God knows all that is possible, but not all men will do in the future. Once it begins addressing all attributes of God, in this example, then it has systematically made definitive statements about God, the believer, etc. Rather, I believe you are looking at a different kind of 'open' theology, and it seems rather, what you mean by it is that you believe you shouldn't be held to any particular theology system. As such, it might be 'open' to you, but it isn't 'Open Theology' however. The beliefs of Open Theology are specific, and though they themselves have not gone through all aspects of doctrine and faith in a 'systematic' way, the material is well-gelled and systematic.

I will make a "bold" statement and claim responsibility for it, to remove my assertion from the collective group of Open Theists, but i would also, simultaneously assert that there is a good chance the vast majority of Open Theists would agree with me... the second some individual shows up and a writes a 30 volume set of "Commentaries" that state... This and this alone is the Bible through the "lens" of "Open Theism", that very person is no longer an "Open Theist". Perhaps this makes matters clear?

I do think it clear, but clear that I think your definition and the Open Theism camp, are two very different things. Open Theism, though it has not produced a systematic theology, absolutely adheres to systematic rules and beliefs, and just because one's personal theology is open and unhindered by any particular theological system, he may be open in the sense he is learning and growing, but he/she is not considered an "Open Theist" unless he adheres to all of its tenants. I will briefly spell some of them out: 1) God does not have exhaustive definite foreknowledge. The future hasn't happened therefore there is no 'knowledge' to be had in something that doesn't yet exist (a modification of omniscience as well as a rejection of it as traditionally understood). 2) God is not omnipresent, but is capable of being where ever He wants to be, while avoiding other areas that would grieve Him. He thus had to come down to see if what He was hearing about Sodom and Gomorrah was true, etc. Thus, God 'can' be everywhere, but chooses not to be against the traditional assertion that God is omnipresent. 3) God is not omnipotent, as in the traditional sense. He chooses to give men power over their own lives so limits the use of His own, in order to be relational to man. 4) God, like a master chess player, is omnicompetent. He may be caught surprised, but never without the appropriate move He needs to make to bring about His will. He limits His interaction so that He may be genuinely relational to man.

Open Theology is a belief system that is somewhat systematized at the moment. I believe your open theology is different than "Open Theology." It isn't that open else it'd be called nonsystematized theology or something.

In this light... the Open Theist literally removes the Doctrines of man from the equation and elevates Jesus and Scripture above every reference in existence... including there own. This will sound rather aggressive, but I suggest that it is the closed theist that generates (Written Dogma) that unnaturally elevates the authority of their writings by proposing to "Close" Theism in the area they have written on. I avoid doing this by continually keeping (John 5:38f,40) in my heart, soul and mind.

:nono: You actually cannot be considered an Open Theist, without adhering to Open Theism tenants. In its infancy, many will claim the title without realizing they are not Open Theists at all

"Perhaps, as I read the verses you have provided, I must state... I fully agree with everyone of them, but I think our theological lenses ar..."

This was a literary pun. I was hoping you would draw attention to it. I was pointing out that people come to different conclusions on matters that they perceive to be incomplete.

To finish this sentence would be to remove the "theological lens" pun. Theology can be like a game of telephone... this is my intended point. How do you see the conclusion of this sentence?

:idunno:

I will simply state one verse to drop information into our "global" spiral. (John 8:36)



I'm busted! You literally nailed it! I cannot deny this... after all... (Jer. 13:23) So... :cheers: to global thinking and spiraling towards cognitive collaboration, while knowing full well we (Mt. 7:24)... so we have nothing to fear in learning one another's perspectives and tucking them away for those witnessing days where what we are saying just doesn't seem to be taking, so we say; "Well, you could look at these verses this way... I have a friend that suggests"... After all... we have to out craft the crafty... yet deliver the importance of (Eph. 2:8f and John 5:39) ... so we can be (Mt. 10:16).

Let me give a definition of "Systematic Theology" that might provide an ah ha moment: Theology is the study of God. We are told to study to show ourselves approved workmen. "Systematic" is how scripture makes sense. Put them together and you have "the thoughts of God revealed in a way that makes sense." We all systematize. We are all commanded to do so. In addition, "Open Theology" is a systematizing if not fully realized, to make sense of God redefined apart from the traditional beliefs about Him.

Exactly! You are on the money.



Yes and No ... Choice is the very signature of God. It's so written into scripture, it would void the content of its pages as quickly as removing all "Jewish" content from it. What is implied is that God architecturally designed our universe to foster genuine growth through sincere revelation of who we are and who we will choose to grow and become through success and failure.

This brings up a silly question to drive this point home... Before the serpent... if Adam was petting a Lion and the Lion yawned... could Adam have accidentally scratched his arm on it's teeth? And... if he did, would he have bled? If He bled, would He get his arm near the Lions teeth again?

I don't know.

This is a wonderful statement and again... I will answer that I partially agree. Here comes the kicker... Angels can choose to mess up. We know this because of the False Morning Star. If Angels can make mistakes and humans can too... we seem to be left with the idea that God sees value in the opportunity of situational growth through success and failure.

I don't believe so. Angels that mess up are ever after fallen. The angels who haven't, don't make mistakes, that I'm aware of.

An excellent example of this is the story of Nebuchadnezzar that @1Mind1Spirit formatted so well, directly from scripture. i will be integrating his post into our discussion in the immediate future as a "type".

I have been leaving this particular alone. I think, now that I'm seeing what you probably thought Open Theism was, that it had something to do with that, but it would seem off the table for this particular discussion. An open (unsystematized) theology is not "Open Theology."

On this excellent note and observation of yours... the wise man knows when he is entered into discussion with another wise man that knows how to "agree to disagree", and value the stance of another. This affords what we have here. It is my favorite style of discussion. It yields much positive fruit.

However, let us be warned... (Ecc. 1:18)

Perhaps what you desire is a 'simpler' theology rather than "Open Theology." As far as Wisdom making one weary, it does require more work, but work suits our desires.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Oops... I am officially educated on the @ function. Thank you. And Excellent on Revelation 12... ! This affords a most profitable yield!



Fantastic!!!



When you employ the lens of (John 5:39) ... there are many more scriptures that are irrefutably Typification of the adversary of God. After all, if I write a book about me, I would include the information about the individual that has tried to misinform people about me and why they would do so. This follows the typical Protagonist / Antagonist flow of all valuable literature.

What if I suggested that Revelation 12 carries a key to further understanding scripture that is overlooked by many, but if it is accepted... It unlocks scriptural doors that are genuine and specific? What if I suggested that this key is so plain in view that it is missed by many and I have been eluding to it all this time?

Interested? It sheds so much light on the enemy that his crafty tactics become tiresome, boring, repetitious and utterly predictable. After all, this is one of the 3 main points we are walking towards.



If you don't take part in this journey... the conclusion of the journey would be futile. Fortunately... you're a quick study and global thinker that knows how to agree to disagree and simultaneously elevate Jesus and Scripture above all matters. Therefore... this is a wonderful journey through scripture.



Um... :granite: ... I may need to read it a few times more. ... But sincerely... I fully agree and embrace your observation.



Excellent... I will drop a quote of [MENTION=15579]1Mind1Spirit[/MENTION] 's use of the book of Daniel. He is on target... I'll call it providence.

As the King of Babylon is a scriptural type that reverberates to the very last book of scripture... I will point out what is important to glean from this "Typification".

Consider that in this passage... Neb. exalts his accomplishments and is continually met with God's resistance for doing so.

The way that this chapter of Babylonian history ends is positive... but we know that as a Nation/Empire... Babylon doesn't retain the conclusion Neb. came to.

Note the literal clarity of what Neb. does that brings God's correction. This will further our discussion and journey. It ties directly into our discussion and the tying up of loose ends that is now becoming inevitable.

I deeply appreciate your observations. I will simply say that what is noted as discrepancy is possibly a misunderstanding. The premise of Open Theism is clear, but the expressions of how it does what it does are retained withing the confines of an "Open Future". This affords for peaceful differentiation's in view point. I believe I have now detected a point to make. Systematic theology... is designed to be "closed" in nature and "become" Dogma. This is in specific opposition to "Open" Theology. The "Progressive Revelation" of the matter isn't nullified, or allowed to be nullified, within the construct of "Open Theology". This could be why it perplexes you so very much... but I would go out on a limb and say that you never stop searching scripture with an "Open" heart and "Open" mind to Jesus. Perhaps this reconciles this concern of yours?

I will make a "bold" statement and claim responsibility for it, to remove my assertion from the collective group of Open Theists, but i would also, simultaneously assert that there is a good chance the vast majority of Open Theists would agree with me... the second some individual shows up and a writes a 30 volume set of "Commentaries" that state... This and this alone is the Bible through the "lens" of "Open Theism", that very person is no longer an "Open Theist". Perhaps this makes matters clear?

In this light... the Open Theist literally removes the Doctrines of man from the equation and elevates Jesus and Scripture above every reference in existence... including there own. This will sound rather aggressive, but I suggest that it is the closed theist that generates (Written Dogma) that unnaturally elevates the authority of their writings by proposing to "Close" Theism in the area they have written on. I avoid doing this by continually keeping (John 5:38f,40) in my heart, soul and mind.



"Perhaps, as I read the verses you have provided, I must state... I fully agree with everyone of them, but I think our theological lenses ar..."

This was a literary pun. I was hoping you would draw attention to it. I was pointing out that people come to different conclusions on matters that they perceive to be incomplete.

To finish this sentence would be to remove the "theological lens" pun. Theology can be like a game of telephone... this is my intended point. How do you see the conclusion of this sentence?



I will simply state one verse to drop information into our "global" spiral. (John 8:36)



I'm busted! You literally nailed it! I cannot deny this... after all... (Jer. 13:23) So... :cheers: to global thinking and spiraling towards cognitive collaboration, while knowing full well we (Mt. 7:24)... so we have nothing to fear in learning one another's perspectives and tucking them away for those witnessing days where what we are saying just doesn't seem to be taking, so we say; "Well, you could look at these verses this way... I have a friend that suggests"... After all... we have to out craft the crafty... yet deliver the importance of (Eph. 2:8f and John 5:39) ... so we can be (Mt. 10:16).



Exactly! You are on the money.



Yes and No ... Choice is the very signature of God. It's so written into scripture, it would void the content of its pages as quickly as removing all "Jewish" content from it. What is implied is that God architecturally designed our universe to foster genuine growth through sincere revelation of who we are and who we will choose to grow and become through success and failure.

This brings up a silly question to drive this point home... Before the serpent... if Adam was petting a Lion and the Lion yawned... could Adam have accidentally scratched his arm on it's teeth? And... if he did, would he have bled? If He bled, would He get his arm near the Lions teeth again?



This is a wonderful statement and again... I will answer that I partially agree. Here comes the kicker... Angels can choose to mess up. We know this because of the False Morning Star. If Angels can make mistakes and humans can too... we seem to be left with the idea that God sees value in the opportunity of situational growth through success and failure.

An excellent example of this is the story of Nebuchadnezzar that [MENTION=15579]1Mind1Spirit[/MENTION] formatted so well, directly from scripture. i will be integrating his post into our discussion in the immediate future as a "type".



On this excellent note and observation of yours... the wise man knows when he is entered into discussion with another wise man that knows how to "agree to disagree", and value the stance of another. This affords what we have here. It is my favorite style of discussion. It yields much positive fruit.

However, let us be warned... (Ecc. 1:18)

A systematic theology is more about how things make sense. For instance, the Open View would say God knows all that it is possible to know and does not know the future actions of men exhaustively. Thus, 1 tenant of Open Theism is that God knows all that is possible, but not all men will do in the future. Once it begins addressing all attributes of God, in this example, then it has systematically made definitive statements about God, the believer, etc. Rather, I believe you are looking at a different kind of 'open' theology, and it seems rather, what you mean by it is that you believe you shouldn't be held to any particular theology system. As such, it might be 'open' to you, but it isn't 'Open Theology' however. The beliefs of Open Theology are specific, and though they themselves have not gone through all aspects of doctrine and faith in a 'systematic' way, the material is well-gelled and systematic.

I do think it clear, but clear that I think your definition and the Open Theism camp, are two very different things. Open Theism, though it has not produced a systematic theology, absolutely adheres to systematic rules and beliefs, and just because one's personal theology is open and unhindered by any particular theological system, he may be open in the sense he is learning and growing, but he/she is not considered an "Open Theist" unless he adheres to all of its tenants. I will briefly spell some of them out: 1) God does not have exhaustive definite foreknowledge. The future hasn't happened therefore there is no 'knowledge' to be had in something that doesn't yet exist (a modification of omniscience as well as a rejection of it as traditionally understood). 2) God is not omnipresent, but is capable of being where ever He wants to be, while avoiding other areas that would grieve Him. He thus had to come down to see if what He was hearing about Sodom and Gomorrah was true, etc. Thus, God 'can' be everywhere, but chooses not to be against the traditional assertion that God is omnipresent. 3) God is not omnipotent, as in the traditional sense. He chooses to give men power over their own lives so limits the use of His own, in order to be relational to man. 4) God, like a master chess player, is omnicompetent. He may be caught surprised, but never without the appropriate move He needs to make to bring about His will. He limits His interaction so that He may be genuinely relational to man.

Open Theology is a belief system that is somewhat systematized at the moment. I believe your open theology is different than "Open Theology." It isn't that open else it'd be called nonsystematized theology or something.

:nono: You actually cannot be considered an Open Theist, without adhering to Open Theism tenants. In its infancy, many will claim the title without realizing they are not Open Theists at all





:idunno:


Let me give a definition of "Systematic Theology" that might provide an ah ha moment: Theology is the study of God. We are told to study to show ourselves approved workmen. "Systematic" is how scripture makes sense. Put them together and you have "the thoughts of God revealed in a way that makes sense." We all systematize. We are all commanded to do so. In addition, "Open Theology" is a systematizing if not fully realized, to make sense of God redefined apart from the traditional beliefs about Him.



I don't know.



I don't believe so. Angels that mess up are ever after fallen. The angels who haven't, don't make mistakes, that I'm aware of.


I have been leaving this particular alone. I think, now that I'm seeing what you probably thought Open Theism was, that it had something to do with that, but it would seem off the table for this particular discussion. An open (unsystematized) theology is not "Open Theology."



Perhaps what you desire is a 'simpler' theology rather than "Open Theology." As far as Wisdom making one weary, it does require more work, but work suits our desires.

I will stop dancing and be enormously clear. Freewill is the gift of God. We are free in God. The serpent took away our free will. The serpents sin was Pride. This is the biblical doctrine of original sin. "Pride goes before a fall".

I am indeed an Open Theist.

I have clearly used scripture to show that God's TriUne existence... allows Him to Be fully Omniscient beyond time in a specifically non-linear fashion and limit His foreknowledge within time to relate to mankind sincerely.

I have distinguished Architect, Creator and Mediator enormously clearly. There is no room to deny this aligns with all scripture. The only denial is to limit what God is capable of doing. We know God can limit His foreknowledge because of Jesus' words while among us.

By acknowledging that the Son and Spirit can mediate for us in a way that is (temporally) relational and responsive, I have now bolstered the systematic truth within Open Theism. Further more... to ever close Theology is in specific contradiction of the right to admit that only God knows all.

Free Will allows us to choose death (Trying to Be like God... The Father is the Tree of Knowledge and it's fruit is Law)... or choose Life (Accepting the Son's free gift of Life... Life eternal... The Tree of Life is The Son, and It's fruit is Ephesians 1:13)

This agrees with all scripture and is especially proven true in Romans 7.

I can see that you are assuming much and trying to cut me off with statements of dismissal and reframing of my actual perspective.

The doctrine of original sin and the denial of freewill is not accurate. It is the serpent that wants us to believe free will is of him, as he disguises himself as an angel of light. This makes him our liberation... this is a spot on God's character.

Again... please show me one scripture that says Jesus doesn't set us free.

A fellow son of thunder, In Him,

EE

 

[Lon]

I will stop dancing and be enormously clear. Freewill is the gift of God. We are free in God. The serpent took away our free will. The serpents sin was Pride. This is the biblical doctrine of original sin. "Pride goes before a fall".

I am indeed an Open Theist.

I don't believe so, Free Will theism isn't just Open Theism. I'd suggest this: Open Theists would allow you to attend their church, but not teach their classes, if that helps. Further? They would probably allow 'me' to teach their classes before you. They'd want someone who understood what they believed. As far as 'free' will, I still don't like it. It never seems to convey what is necessary and imho, always causes further confusion. The scripture themes simply talk about 'free will' as in offerings, which isn't the same as freewill discussion. All other paradigms are about a will that is in bondage to one of two masters. Instructions are to 'deny' self and not live toward the flesh. For me, much talk about 'free' will tends to be desires of the flesh and the struggle between it and the Spiritual man. The end of such discussion, for me, always ends up that my will, as a New Creation, is His. 1 Corinthians 6:20 Therefore, as best as I can discern from scripture, the 'free' will is the man of sin and his only freedom is to never think of pleasing or serving God. The New nature only desires the things of God. I have rather a consciousness, and I believe "will" rather serves me than rules me, free or otherwise. One day I'll be able to unpack all of this so that it makes better sense for everyone reading. On that day, I will probably have to write a book regarding "Will theism." Free will is definitely part of Open Theism, but not restricted to Open Theism. Holding to free will, doesn't in and of itself make an Open Theist.

I have clearly used scripture to show that God's TriUne existence... allows Him to Be fully Omniscient beyond time in a specifically non-linear fashion and limit His foreknowledge within time to relate to mankind sincerely.

Open Theists wouldn't allow you to teach this in their Sunday School classes. Again, I hope that helps you understand where you are and are not an Open Theist. You'd have to believe what they believe to truly be an "Open Theist."

I have distinguished Architect, Creator and Mediator enormously clearly. There is no room to deny this aligns with all scripture. The only denial is to limit what God is capable of doing. We know God can limit His foreknowledge because of Jesus' words while among us

I made this same mistake. I used to be a kenotic theologian. It is unorthodox (heterodox) specifically because: Hebrews 13:8 says it must be true. The 'limitation' isn't a lack or absence of foreknowledge. Think of it rather as pouring the whole of God into a little jar: only a little bit at a time can fit and other things must be juggled out an in (poor analogy, but it is all I got). Here is the difference He had full access, any time, to all of who He is, in human body. In His glorified state, that artificial restraint, that didn't 'remove' any of His attributes, is no longer there. As far as Open Theism they too believe with me, that God knows all that is knowable. Knowing the day and the hour is knowable, so I'm not sure where they would stand on this particular.

By acknowledging that the Son and Spirit can mediate for us in a way that is (temporally) relational and responsive, I have now bolstered the systematic truth within Open Theism. Further more... to ever close Theology is in specific contradiction of the right to admit that only God knows all.

Well, it looks more like 'desire' for identity rather than actual identity with Open Theism, to me.

Free Will allows us to choose death (Trying to Be like God... The Father is the Tree of Knowledge and it's fruit is Law)... or choose Life (Accepting the Son's free gift of Life... Life eternal... The Tree of Life is The Son, and It's fruit is Ephesians 1:13)

This agrees with all scripture and is especially proven true in Romans 7.

I can see that you are assuming much and trying to cut me off with statements of dismissal and reframing of my actual perspective.

Not by intent, no. Rather, I'm trying to give you both sides, as I said I'd try to serve you. You may call yourself an Open Theist, but rather, I'm trying to help you understand what you may need to change to actually be one, so I'm explaining both their and my position, and trying to tell you how the two are different. At times, you side with me, theologically (or I with you by example), and other times I think you do carry a few Open Theist ideas. My endeavor, rather, is to help you see more clearly where you are in agreement with one or the other.

The doctrine of original sin and the denial of freewill is not accurate. It is the serpent that wants us to believe free will is of him, as he disguises himself as an angel of light. This makes him our liberation... this is a spot on God's character.

Actually, that is my argument against it as well. Adam and Eve literally had but one restriction. They could do no wrong. That was free as I understand it, but this is not what we have today. That is why I say it is no gift and ALSO why I say 'free' is a horrible description for me.

Again... please show me one scripture that says Jesus doesn't set us free.

"From what?" Sin and death. The two master ideas is always with us: We serve one OR the other. "Free" is so broad as to convey 1) we don't need God to make decisions (so I hate it as a description specifically about 'will.' I love "whom the Son sets free is free indeed" because we are 'free' from sin and death, but that isn't talking about specifically the will, rather about our master/Master.

A fellow son of thunder, In Him,

EE

I pray this post has served your understanding as well as helped you see where you stand on the theology field. You are about between the North and the South, so are 'open' but not "Open" fully, that I can tell. In Him and your service -Lon

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I don't believe so, Free Will theism isn't just Open Theism. I'd suggest this: Open Theists would allow you to attend their church, but not teach their classes, if that helps. Further? They would probably allow 'me' to teach their classes before you. They'd want someone who understood what they believed. As far as 'free' will, I still don't like it. It never seems to convey what is necessary and imho, always causes further confusion. The scripture themes simply talk about 'free will' as in offerings, which isn't the same as freewill discussion. All other paradigms are about a will that is in bondage to one of two masters. Instructions are to 'deny' self and not live toward the flesh. For me, much talk about 'free' will tends to be desires of the flesh and the struggle between it and the Spiritual man. The end of such discussion, for me, always ends up that my will, as a New Creation, is His. 1 Corinthians 6:20 Therefore, as best as I can discern from scripture, the 'free' will is the man of sin and his only freedom is to never think of pleasing or serving God. The New nature only desires the things of God. I have rather a consciousness, and I believe "will" rather serves me than rules me, free or otherwise. One day I'll be able to unpack all of this so that it makes better sense for everyone reading. On that day, I will probably have to write a book regarding "Will theism." Free will is definitely part of Open Theism, but not restricted to Open Theism. Holding to free will, doesn't in and of itself make an Open Theist.


Open Theists wouldn't allow you to teach this in their Sunday School classes. Again, I hope that helps you understand where you are and are not an Open Theist. You'd have to believe what they believe to truly be an "Open Theist."
I made this same mistake. I used to be a kenotic theologian. It is unorthodox (heterodox) specifically because: Hebrews 13:8 says it must be true. The 'limitation' isn't a lack or absence of foreknowledge. Think of it rather as pouring the whole of God into a little jar: only a little bit at a time can fit and other things must be juggled out an in (poor analogy, but it is all I got). Here is the difference He had full access, any time, to all of who He is, in human body. In His glorified state, that artificial restraint, that didn't 'remove' any of His attributes, is no longer there. As far as Open Theism they too believe with me, that God knows all that is knowable. Knowing the day and the hour is knowable, so I'm not sure where they would stand on this particular.


Well, it looks more like 'desire' for identity rather than actual identity with Open Theism, to me.

Not by intent, no. Rather, I'm trying to give you both sides, as I said I'd try to serve you. You may call yourself an Open Theist, but rather, I'm trying to help you understand what you may need to change to actually be one, so I'm explaining both their and my position, and trying to tell you how the two are different. At times, you side with me, theologically (or I with you by example), and other times I think you do carry a few Open Theist ideas. My endeavor, rather, is to help you see more clearly where you are in agreement with one or the other.

Actually, that is my argument against it as well. Adam and Eve literally had but one restriction. They could do no wrong. That was free as I understand it, but this is not what we have today. That is why I say it is no gift and ALSO why I say 'free' is a horrible description for me.


"From what?" Sin and death. The two master ideas is always with us: We serve one OR the other. "Free" is so broad as to convey 1) we don't need God to make decisions (so I hate it as a description specifically about 'will.' I love "whom the Son sets free is free indeed" because we are 'free' from sin and death, but that isn't talking about specifically the will, rather about our master/Master.

I pray this post has served your understanding as well as helped you see where you stand on the theology field. You are about between the North and the South, so are 'open' but not "Open" fully, that I can tell. In Him and your service -Lon

Lon... you keep telling me to search tenants and embrace them to "fit" in. It's been this same theme in every returned post. Instead of handling the theology I put forth, you keep pulling out the old cookie cutter.

If you are free in Christ... you are free indeed!

You keep dodging it with presumptive ideas about what I am or am not. Surely you see this?

How about this... ask Knight if He believes God gave free Will. You will find the answer is yes. You will also find that you are holding on to the remnants of something that is merely a frame you have outgrown long ago.

I betcha a pack of Oreo double stuff I'm on the money. Ahem... in both accounts.

Not buying the whole cookie cutter vibe you keep trying to give :nono:

You've managed to dodge every theological point I've offered without actually evaluating it biblically...

You didn't even crack out romans 7 like I suggested. I'll put it this way... It's coming soon... be ready, because I already laid the foundation for it and you agreed with all of it. I'm wise as a forktounge, but harmless as a dove.

In Him,

EE

 

[Lon]

Lon... you keep telling me to search tenants and embrace them to "fit" in. It's been this same theme in every returned post. Instead of handling the theology I put forth, you keep pulling out the old cookie cutter.

Agree. You will confuse people in the future by saying 'open' theist rather than "Open Theist." They are a cookie cut. However, and please understand: I'm not telling you what to believe, but rather what you don't believe so you know how to label yourself. Are labels important? I'd say yes, but not terribly. They just 'help' another know where we are coming from. Labels should serve us or you are right, they should be ejected when they no longer serve. In that sense, "Open Theism" I don't believe, serves you. You are 'free' to self-identify of course, but I think accuracy serves the best. If there has been frustration in this communication and purpose, I apologize YET hope and pray it has served you.

If you are free in Christ... you are free indeed!

Yes but as I repeat now: Free and 'free will' aren't the same. I'll even say if you insist on conflating the two, it lends to the problem of sloppy theology. There is no need to study to show ourselves approved workmen if it doesn't produce clarity rather than conflation and confusion. For me at least, I have to try.

You keep dodging it with presumptive ideas about what I am or am not. Surely you see this?

It is part of that global thinking. We might have great patience with one another, but we still have to wait until we say things in a way that makes sense to others. If I am missing something, and frustratingly so, you are correct, the idea hasn't conveyed as yet, whatever it may be.

How about this... ask Knight if He believes God gave free Will. You will find the answer is yes. You will also find that you are holding on to the remnants of something that is merely a frame you have outgrown long ago.

:nono: Please reread what I wrote. My degrees are in this subject matter. I have been paid to think clearly about theological matters.

I betcha a pack of Oreo double stuff I'm on the money. Ahem... in both accounts.

as long as it comes with milk. I miss those ones that were dipped in white chocolate.

Not buying the whole cookie cutter vibe you keep trying to give :nono:

I know, your 'open' makes more sense to me with your every ensuing post. I'm not trying to tell you what you are, "I'm trying to tell you what you are not."

You've managed to dodge every theological point I've offered without actually evaluating it biblically...

I don't believe this accurate. I did, in fact, line item your post and responded. If you'll look, you didn't. Not much of this actually is a response to my points. You seem to be getting a bit emotionally set. It might be a good idea to stop the conversation for a week or two.

You didn't even crack out romans 7 like I suggested. I'll put it this way... It's coming soon... be ready, because I already laid the foundation for it and you agreed with all of it. I'm wise as a forktounge, but harmless as a dove.

I've read it many times and even suggested that the flesh is often congruent with 'free' will. If I drop "Free" from will, the way I describe the will is as follows: I have a will, always in bondage to one thing thus not obliged to the other. That is one definition of free. In fact, I already said, I agreed with some of your ideas regarding 'free' just that I disliked it because it is either free from God (in sin) or free from sin and death. Because both are labelled 'free' I greatly dislike the term.

In Him,

EE

Let's take a break. Perhaps a few days or a week will give a different, appreciative, and better perspective? In HIm -Lon

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Agree. You will confuse people in the future by saying 'open' theist rather than "Open Theist." They are a cookie cut. However, and please understand: I'm not telling you what to believe, but rather what you don't believe so you know how to label yourself. Are labels important? I'd say yes, but not terribly. They just 'help' another know where we are coming from. Labels should serve us or you are right, they should be ejected when they no longer serve. In that sense, "Open Theism" I don't believe, serves you. You are 'free' to self-identify of course, but I think accuracy serves the best. If there has been frustration in this communication and purpose, I apologize YET hope and pray it has served you.


Yes but as I repeat now: Free and 'free will' aren't the same. I'll even say if you insist on conflating the two, it lends to the problem of sloppy theology. There is no need to study to show ourselves approved workmen if it doesn't produce clarity rather than conflation and confusion. For me at least, I have to try.


It is part of that global thinking. We might have great patience with one another, but we still have to wait until we say things in a way that makes sense to others. If I am missing something, and frustratingly so, you are correct, the idea hasn't conveyed as yet, whatever it may be.


:nono: Please reread what I wrote. My degrees are in this subject matter. I have been paid to think clearly about theological matters.


as long as it comes with milk. I miss those ones that were dipped in white chocolate.


I know, your 'open' makes more sense to me with your every ensuing post. I'm not trying to tell you what you are, "I'm trying to tell you what you are not."

I don't believe this accurate. I did, in fact, line item your post and responded. If you'll look, you didn't. Not much of this actually is a response to my points. You seem to be getting a bit emotionally set. It might be a good idea to stop the conversation for a week or two.


I've read it many times and even suggested that the flesh is often congruent with 'free' will. If I drop "Free" from will, the way I describe the will is as follows: I have a will, always in bondage to one thing thus not obliged to the other. That is one definition of free. In fact, I already said, I agreed with some of your ideas regarding 'free' just that I disliked it because it is either free from God (in sin) or free from sin and death. Because both are labelled 'free' I greatly dislike the term.



Let's take a break. Perhaps a few days or a week will give a different, appreciative, and better perspective? In HIm -Lon

We can take a break... I'm a passionate person. I'm level and can keep moving forward... but those Oreos do sound good. What did happen to the white choclate ones?

Keep in mind... I don't see theology as the work of schooling or pay. In God's eyes, the Paid and the unpaid are identical.

I don't want to take a break! But... I can respect a friends desire for one.

Freewill Lon... we have it. This is the foundation of predestination vs. free will. One belief says chosen... the other says choose.

What did God do in the garden of Eden?

Son of thunder, hoping my thunder brother gets well soon...

All Love and Respect... the thread will go on... but our dialogue is paused...

- EE

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Lol... hope you didn't speed quote! I made two funny but huge typos!

 

[Lon]

We can take a break... I'm a passionate person. I'm level and can keep moving forward... but those Oreos do sound good. What did happen to the white choclate ones?
- EE

I cannot speak for Knight, but there is no theology regarding freewill that I've outgrown. As I said, I will one day write this book, it simply needs a bit more thought on my part to convey meaningfully what is true. Our 'will' serves us rather than "is" us. The freewill theist is scared to death of that statement, it is so self-protective of self. You know what I've found? Psalm 139:8 He's there. How much do I mean, when I say my identity is in Christ? For me, that I am His vessel to do as He pleases because only He matters, and damn (condemn) my free will. His will not mine. Mark 14:36. "Outgrown?" :nono: Coming into HIs own, rather. 1 Corinthians 6:20 Romans 12:5

You owe me some cookies!