ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Mystery]

Here

You accused me of teaching Arianism. That was a pretty jerky thing to do.

I've yet to see you prove that Jesus has two natures or prove the hypostatic union theory.

 

[Delmar]

You accused me of teaching Arianism. That was a pretty jerky thing to do.

I've yet to see you prove that Jesus has two natures or prove the hypostatic union theory.

I was going to ask Knight if I could ban people who use words I don't understand. I decided against because he would most likely just tell me to look them up!

 

[Mystery]

I was going to ask Knight if I could ban people who use words I don't understand. I decided against because he would most likely just tell me to look them up!

:chuckle:

 

[Nang]

You accused me of teaching Arianism.

No I didn't. I said if you want to advocate Arianism, to start a new thread.

That was a pretty jerky thing to do.

Why? All you had to do was disassociate yourself from the person you (seemed) to be defending.

All I sought was clarification and taking the off-topic of Arianism to another thread.

I've yet to see you prove that Jesus has two natures or prove the hypostatic union theory.

Denial that Jesus Christ had two natures; human and divine, or to deny the hypostatic union existent in the Person of the Son of God is heresy; whether you want to call it Arianism or not.

I posted the Chalcedonian Creed to give answer to both you and elect4ever regarding sound and orthodox doctrine on this subject.

So what exactly do you believe, other than saying I am a jerk, for which you remain unapologetic?

Do you deny the hypostatic union of two natures in the Son of God, Jesus Christ, or not?

Nang

 

[drbrumley]

Depends on whether you are in Christ or not.

If you are in Christ, you do not call other Christians "stupid."

Where did I call you stupid? And BTW, if you are in Christ, you don't condemn a brother to hell. And PK is a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. So he is in Christ, yet you told him

You do not have a clue as to what is decent and sound theology, nor do you seem to be aware that God is recording all your inanities in a book, from which you will be judged in the end.

So, it seems to me you call him and all open theists "unbelievers."

And since you have no problem saying a fellow brother is going to the judgement, which is unchristlike, take your own stinking advice. Stupid.

 

[PKevman]

You do not have a clue as to what is decent and sound theology, nor do you seem to be aware that God is recording all your inanities in a book, from which you will be judged in the end.

I LONG for the day when I can stand before my Lord, and my life's goal is to hear Him say "Well done, good and faithful servant."

I long for the day, and I run the race seeking for the prize which is my reward from my Lord. You and nobody else can take it away. You aren't stronger than my Lord Jesus.

Your anger and pride blind you, and keep you from having a decent conversation.

Of course you gave no rebuttal or comment to the refutations that I offered against the Calvinist interpretation of the man born blind in John 9. Nothing. If I don't have a clue what is decent and sound theology, please enlighten me. I was taught and trained Calvinist views on things for years, so if you that I have no clue what Calvinists teach, maybe you need to swallow your pride. Your arrogance in this thread is stifling. I am sure it will lead you to joing your buddy AMR in being banned before long. (I hope I am wrong, but you really have acted like a jerk-Mystery was right.)

So here it is:

Please show me where I am in error. If I am in error I will submit to what the Bible actually teaches. Please note that I won't submit to what YOU teach. I won't submit to what John Calvin teaches (just because he is John Calvin). I won't submit to what Augustine teaches. I will submit to God and to His Word.


And God is not like the psycho roofer in my illustration.

 

[Nang]

Where did I call you stupid? And BTW, if you are in Christ, you don't condemn a brother to hell. And PK is a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. So he is in Christ, yet you told him



So, it seems to me you call him and all open theists "unbelievers."

And since you have no problem saying a fellow brother is going to the judgement, which is unchristlike, take your own stinking advice. Stupid.

Another juvenile added to my ignore list . . .

 

[drbrumley]

Good, and your on mine :loser:

 

[drbrumley]

What a witch!

 

[Mystery]

Denial that Jesus Christ had two natures; human and divine, or to deny the hypostatic union existent in the Person of the Son of God is heresy; whether you want to call it Arianism or not.

I posted the Chalcedonian Creed to give answer to both you and elect4ever regarding sound and orthodox doctrine on this subject.

"The Chalcedonian creed was written amid controversy between the western and eastern churches over the meaning of the Incarnation, the ecclesiastical influence of the emperor, and the supremacy of the Roman Pope".

Yes, they would be experts on heresy wouldn't they? :rotfl:

 

[Nang]

"The Chalcedonian creed was written amid controversy between the western and eastern churches over the meaning of the Incarnation, the ecclesiastical influence of the emperor, and the supremacy of the Roman Pope".

Yes, they would be experts on heresy wouldn't they? :rotfl:

So you deny the Chalcedonian Creed, adopted by the ECF and all orthodox Christians (prior to the eventual and sorry degeneracy of later councils and papistry)?

Telling . . .

 

[Mystery]

So you deny the Chalcedonian Creed, adopted by the ECF and all orthodox Christians (prior to the eventual and sorry degeneracy of later councils and papistry)?

I reject the supremacy of the pope, and I reject the hypostatic union thoery.

Jesus is God manifest in the flesh.

 

[Mystery]

Oh, and I also reject Calvinism's doctrine's of election, limited atonement, irresistable grace, and that God is a puppetmaster.

In fact, I view Calvinism as a far more dangerous cult than Catholicism or Islam.

 

[drbrumley]

Oh, and I also reject Calvinism's doctrine's of election, limited atonement, irresistable grace, and that God is a puppetmaster.

In fact, I view Calvinism as a far more dangerous cult than Catholicism or Islam.

:up:

 

[Nang]

I reject the supremacy of the pope, and I reject the hypostatic union thoery.

Jesus is God manifest in the flesh.

Pick your arguments and friends, as you choose, but to deny the hypostatic union, is to deny that Jesus Christ was fully God while fully Man.

Which is not orthodox Christianity, but the basis of gross heresies; namely the Mormons and JW's, who will be happy to agree with you, and be most pleased to align themselves with you, in order to also call me a "jerk" for revealing your error.

Nang

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I see that ad hominems, generalizations, and straw men are still running rampant in this thread. I very much enjoy this topic...reading and participating, but I find it hard to participate amongst such purposeful negativity. Can't we dispense with the unnecessary remarks in order to treat this topic with the respect it deserves?

It looks to me like the responses your received were nothing but civil.

I think the general rule in a thread like this is.....

- Respond in a direct and civil way, and you will be treated in kind.

- Be unresponsive, obfuscate, and post deceptively and you will be treated in kind.

Know what I mean?

 

[Nang]

Oh, and I also reject Calvinism's doctrine's of election, limited atonement, irresistable grace, and that God is a puppetmaster.

In fact, I view Calvinism as a far more dangerous cult than Catholicism or Islam.

Of course you do . . .

I am not surprised in the least.

Nang

 

[Clete]

That's an easy one.

At one time I was credited with being a sinner, even though I had not sinned in the likeness of Adam.

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here but I don't believe this is so...

Jeremiah 31:29 In those days they shall say no more:

‘ The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge.’

30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Ezekiel 18:1 The word of the LORD came to me again, saying, 2 “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:

‘ The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

3 “As I live,” says the Lord GOD, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.


Romans 7:9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.​

The Biblical teaching is clear, we are held responsible for our own sin and not that of Adam's or anyone else's.

Now I am credited with being righteous, even though I have not obeyed in the likeness of Jesus.

It is true that your righteousness is not your own, even though your sin was, but that does not change the fact that the righteousness which has been imputed is based on one man's righteous act and not merely His nature as your position would seem to suggest.

Romans 5:18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.​

I do, where?

Perhaps nowhere. I clearly assumed more than I should have. Ignore the point I made based on that incorrect assumption.

Free will only extends as far as the nature. God does not send anyone to hell for their sins, and He does not receive anyone into heaven because of their righteousness.

You are free to act as far as your nature will allow you, just as God is only free to act as His nature allows. Regarding righteousness, the only free will you have is to accept His as a gift or to reject it. And, you would not even know about His righteousness if it were not for the gospel where it is revealed. The gospel alone is the power of God unto salvation. The gospel makes it possible for you to exchange your nature for His.

You are making an error of category here Mystery. No one has suggested that God can do that which He cannot do. That would be a contradiction. That however has nothing to do with the issue of God's righteousness. If God does not choose His actions then there is no righteous merit in them. If God is not volitional by nature, then He cannot be righteous by nature because righteousness is volitional by definition.

I did address this. The word "righteous" is from the word "right". God is right, and we are not. We cannot fully comprehend the rightness of God anymore than we can fully comprehend His light, or His holiness.

No one has suggested that we can fully comprehend any attribute of God but your position goes far beyond that. Your position removes all meaning from the term 'righteous' completely. So much so that you are at a loss for words to even explain what it is about God's nature that makes Him righteous.

It is impossible for God to lie because His nature will not allow it.

God's nature cannot lie

Therefore it is impossible for God to lie.

Therefore (if what you've said here is so) God deserves no credit, no admiration, no glory, no praise, for having not lied any more than an apple tree deserves credit for not producing oranges.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Mystery]

Pick your arguments and friends, as you choose, but to deny the hypostatic union, is to deny that Jesus Christ was fully God while fully Man.

Which is not orthodox Christianity, but the basis of gross heresies; namely the Mormons and JW's, who will be happy to agree with you, and be most pleased to align themselves with you, in order to also call me a "jerk" for revealing your error.

Nang

Where the Calvinist will tell the young child who was just raped by a priest, that it was in fact God's will for their life.

 

[Nang]

Where the Calvinist will tell the young child who was just raped by a priest, that it was in fact God's will for their life.

Were you raped by a priest?

If so, contact me privately, so that I can give personal answer, according to the Word of God, alone.

Nang