ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
patman
Active member
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Bill Clinton
New member
What are you trying to say?
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Philetus
New member
:wave2:
Look everyone, Johnny Boy is back! Yay.
:jawdrop::doh: :sigh:
Philetus
New member
What are you trying to say?
Oh, lord. And I thought the night was over.
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
How are we to get "are" right when we haven't even established what "is" is?
And now you want to bring up "was"? :doh:
Philetus
New member
Is was.
What will be, will not necessarily be.
How in the world are you, my favorite smacker?
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Whoa!! That's really insightful. I think I'm gettin' it now.
Philetus said:
Just a tad on the delerious side, finding myself hallucinating at times, sometimes seeing things in the room that aren't there due to lack of sleep.
But other than that, I'm great, how 'bout yourself?
Philetus
New member
Only insightful at four in the AM. Tomorrow it will seem different. But, hey, living for the now. Pushing the OV boundaries.
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Gotcha!
This flying monkey over here keeps telling me it's his turn to use the computer so I guess it's only fair. :wave2:
:grave:
Philetus
New member
:wave2:
Look everyone, Johnny Boy is back! Yay.
I know it's time to go to bed. I just tried to neg rep myself for missing that one.
patman
Active member
What was is, is what is but not now what is is just a while ago. Was is is, is is, but before now. So really was is is but not as in is as now.
patman
Active member
Lon
Well-known member
Patman: Hey Lonster, I didn't think you would ever talk to me again.
How come?
My point to E4E was in response to the, what I think of as, ODD thought process the SV has to go through to come to in order to believe.
Here I'm seeing a difference in our perspectives. God is the power for this belief. It is a quickening of the soul more than a thought process. I came to Christ when I was 7. I had not a lot of thought processes going on. It was rather simple. I knew I needed a Savior as a sinner.
If God repents from something he said, SV says he meant to repent all along, even when he originally said he would do what he repented of. That's just ODD.
The conundrum is again, in trying to fit God into our context. God just doesn't fit. This isn't anti-intellectual, it is super-intellectual.
The verses you shared are great. As an Open Theist I completely agree. His words are here to stay.
I am just going to quote those:
19 “God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
Yeah, I think so. But the logic shown by many S.V. means God did lie, do you agree? noAnd repent in the fashion of repenting of lying is not the repenting that God does and proudly proclaims he will do in the event that we repent first.
You bolded the print, I concur. God does not lie.
I know you may never become an Open Theist. All along you have shown no interest in changing your mind no matter what we showed you because it just wasn't for you.
It hasn't been purported as a strong theological position. I believe it has gotten many things wrong. So yes, you are right, it isn't for me. I do appreciate the strenuous exercise it gives for a theological work-out. I appreciate the rigor in which you debate. I appreciate your commitment to the doctrines you hold, even though I see them as incorrect.
But on the other hand, I did make the change. I can't believe I read verses such as the ones you present in the way I did. The OV makes much better use of scripture.
Clete said that the difference between our views is likened to the percentage of how much we can understand concerning God. SV, he said might be considered1% while OV is likened unto 50%. When we don't even use 10% or our brains, I find this unlikely, but it does very much point to a foundational difference that is telling. When someone says 'your view of God is too small' what they really mean is that your self-perception of Him is too large. I get canned concerning anti-intellectualism often enough, to point to a basic philosophical difference. I believe it is telling more of our approaches than actual banter. (Romans 12:3; 1 Corinthians 1:20,21,25; 2:4,5,14;3:19; 2 Corinthians 1:12; Ephesians 1:17;Colossians 1:9). My perception is that we are in the 1% club, however intelligent I may or may not be.
How come?
My point to E4E was in response to the, what I think of as, ODD thought process the SV has to go through to come to in order to believe.
Here I'm seeing a difference in our perspectives. God is the power for this belief. It is a quickening of the soul more than a thought process. I came to Christ when I was 7. I had not a lot of thought processes going on. It was rather simple. I knew I needed a Savior as a sinner.
If God repents from something he said, SV says he meant to repent all along, even when he originally said he would do what he repented of. That's just ODD.
The conundrum is again, in trying to fit God into our context. God just doesn't fit. This isn't anti-intellectual, it is super-intellectual.
The verses you shared are great. As an Open Theist I completely agree. His words are here to stay.
I am just going to quote those:
19 “God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
Yeah, I think so. But the logic shown by many S.V. means God did lie, do you agree? noAnd repent in the fashion of repenting of lying is not the repenting that God does and proudly proclaims he will do in the event that we repent first.
You bolded the print, I concur. God does not lie.
I know you may never become an Open Theist. All along you have shown no interest in changing your mind no matter what we showed you because it just wasn't for you.
It hasn't been purported as a strong theological position. I believe it has gotten many things wrong. So yes, you are right, it isn't for me. I do appreciate the strenuous exercise it gives for a theological work-out. I appreciate the rigor in which you debate. I appreciate your commitment to the doctrines you hold, even though I see them as incorrect.
But on the other hand, I did make the change. I can't believe I read verses such as the ones you present in the way I did. The OV makes much better use of scripture.
Clete said that the difference between our views is likened to the percentage of how much we can understand concerning God. SV, he said might be considered1% while OV is likened unto 50%. When we don't even use 10% or our brains, I find this unlikely, but it does very much point to a foundational difference that is telling. When someone says 'your view of God is too small' what they really mean is that your self-perception of Him is too large. I get canned concerning anti-intellectualism often enough, to point to a basic philosophical difference. I believe it is telling more of our approaches than actual banter. (Romans 12:3; 1 Corinthians 1:20,21,25; 2:4,5,14;3:19; 2 Corinthians 1:12; Ephesians 1:17;Colossians 1:9). My perception is that we are in the 1% club, however intelligent I may or may not be.
- Status