ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Poly]

You're mixing things up. Sin is against God. The question you should be asking is: 'Have you ever caused your kids to do something against what you've already stated is the right way?' I will answer yes. After repeatedly telling my daughter not to do something, I decided to tell her to go ahead and do it her way so she would then know by first hand experience why I had been telling her not to do it that way. Now she understands by experience what I was saying.

So, you caused her to sin. That's not being a very good dad.

How did I cause her to sin against God?......

Even if I did. If the end result is to teach how God's ways are superior, that sounds like a caring dad to me.

That is just about the sickest thing I've read. If you tell your daughter not to do something because it's wrong, then tell her that she should go ahead and do this wrong thing, you think you're justified because it's teaching her that God's ways are superior? That's a warped and abusive thing for a parent to do. The loving and healthy thing to do :duh: is continue to tell her not to do it and if she does it out of her own free will (rather than her father telling her to) she will suffer the consequences of her actions.

If you actually did this to your daughter you should be ashamed of yourself and repent.

Matthew 18:6 Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

:up:

 

[dale]

That is just about the sickest thing I've read.

Thats what happens when you draw conclusions without adequate information. That's what Muz did and he was directly involved in the conversation. It's no surprise you did also.

 

[Poly]

Thats what happens when you draw conclusions without adequate information. That's what Muz did and he was directly involved in the conversation. It's no surprise you did also.

You specifically told your daughter to do something after telling her not to because it wasn't the right way. I'm simply going by what you said here. (emphasis mine)

The question you should be asking is: 'Have you ever caused your kids to do something against what you've already stated is the right way?' I will answer yes. After repeatedly telling my daughter not to do something, I decided to tell her to go ahead and do it her way so she would then know by first hand experience why I had been telling her not to do it that way.

You also asked what it mattered if you caused her to sin against God in doing so, did you not?

Please show me how I'm drawing conclusions without adequate information.

 

[dale]

You specifically told your daughter to do something after telling her not to because it wasn't the right way. I'm simply going by what you said here. (emphasis mine)




You also asked what it mattered if you caused her to sin against God in doing so, did you not?

Please show me how I'm drawing conclusions without adequate information.

The example of me and my daughter was used as an example of God and man. It gets to be a problem when those involved in the conversation mix things up thinking that when I say I caused my daughter to do something against what I said to do originally that I was causing her to sin. If you want to keep it in the analogy (me being God) then yes I did cause her to sin. But, that's not what Muz was saying (at least that's not what I think he was saying). He was suggesting that I was causing my daughter to sin against God when what I was saying was that I caused her to do something against what I was telling her originally.

Which leads to me saying "even if I did..."

If as a parent, I choose to pick a situation that I deem relatively minor to cause my daughter, after repeated attempts to show through other means, to actually sin for the purpose of showing her the wisdom in NOT doing such a thing, then that's my business. I will carefully chose those situations I deem appropriate.

The whole point of all that was to show why I believe God is just in causing people to sin (or do things He originally said not to do). Among other things, understanding with empathy.

 

[Nick M]

Pastor KevinIn that Satan was of a different creation it can logically follow that sin had a beginning before the creation of the earth and man. God only instructs us on the creation of the earth but He also created the heavens which He does not instruct us on. If you consign the heavens to the six days of the earth then where was heaven before that? Where were the angels before the earth was? Are heaven and the angles of late creation too? You are leaving God, angels and satan to the area of man's invention to explain man's presents on earth. Do you think that wise?

E4E, doesn't Genisis 1:14-19 describe the heavens being created, including the stars? Sorry for the question from 6 pages back. I would assume that includes the place called "heaven" in addition to the "heavens" meaning the sky and space.

Your analysis and the others here(most of them) is appreciated.

 

[elected4ever]

E4E, doesn't Genisis 1:14-19 describe the heavens being created, including the stars? Sorry for the question from 6 pages back. I would assume that includes the place called "heaven" in addition to the "heavens" meaning the sky and space.

Your analysis and the others here(most of them) is appreciated.

I believe that the heavens and the earth are physical. There is a difference in the creation of 'the heavens' and 'the earth' It was not the heavens that was in disarray but the earth. "And the earth was" The six days refer to earth only. To say that there was no creation before the six days is an assumption at best. Did the earth exist in some fashion before the six days. The text seems to suggest that it did.

 

[lee_merrill]

That is just about the sickest thing I've read. If you tell your daughter not to do something because it's wrong, then tell her that she should go ahead and do this wrong thing, you think you're justified because it's teaching her that God's ways are superior? That's a warped and abusive thing for a parent to do. The loving and healthy thing to do :duh: is continue to tell her not to do it and if she does it out of her own free will (rather than her father telling her to) she will suffer the consequences of her actions.

If you actually did this to your daughter you should be ashamed of yourself and repent.

"This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: You and your wives have shown by your actions what you promised when you said, 'We will certainly carry out the vows we made to burn incense and pour out drink offerings to the Queen of Heaven.'"

"Go ahead then, do what you promised! Keep your vows!" (Jer. 44:25)

 

[Clete]

This is very well stated. I'll be interested to see if there is a response.

There would not have been a response had you not stated your agreement with this unbelievers comments. I feel no obligation to debate the nature of God with pagans nor even respond to their blathering. However, since you agree and seem to effectively count his post as your response I will gladly respond to it...

Then our righteousness cannot be said to be an act of volition on our part can it because we received the righteousness we have. You see the difference Clete?

Of course I see the difference! This was MY point! "Our righteousness" does not exist! It is Christ's righteousness which has been imputed to us. We did nothing, He did everything!

The point is that HE DID SOMETHING!!!! How many times would you like for me to quote Romans 5:8? And it is that righteous act which makes it possible for God to justly declare us righteous. Without it, God could not do so and remain righteous Himself. No matter how many times you try you very simply will not succeed in divorcing God's righteousness from God's action. It is His decision (an act of the will) which makes Him righteous. Without choosing to act, His action has no virtue of any sort.

A righteous act proceeds from a righteous character that we have received from God.

This statement is true of us but only because we are born with a fallen nature and require God's life in order for our nature to be considered righteous but even before we are saved, we can act in the best interest of others and thus act, in that instance, righteously.

There are righteous acts but they cannot come from an unrighteous character. It is not simple doing an act that is perceived to be right it is being righteous that defines the act.

Not according to Jesus. See Luke 10:25-37

To help Knight see why I agree with e4e.

Jesus could only perform a righteous act because He is righteous.

"If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him."

Again this idea that no one with a fallen nature is capable of acts of righteousness is simply not Biblical. No one in the Old Testament had anything but a fallen nature and there are hundreds of actions throughout the Old Testament which God calls righteous and people whom He calls friends.

Further I think that you are losing sight of the fact that I am not simply talking about good deeds. It is the decision to act that makes the action righteous. That is to say that there is more than one kind of action. There are the outward deeds we perform but there are also the inward decisions we make and the attitudes we possess. It is these actions of the mind that define a persons character and which yield good deeds. In this sense all actions proceed from the inside out but the point is that they are all chosen actions and it is the quality of these choices that define the quality of a person's character.

Of course, I have no doubt that this will not have convinced you to change your position and so let me save us an iteration here and simply ask you again...

If it is not God's actions (whether in thought or deed) which makes Him righteous, then what does? How does one define righteousness apart from action?

Also, on that point, you said earlier that God was righteous before He had ever acted, or something along those lines. I was wondering when you thought that was? Has not God always been in perpetual relationship with the members of the Trinity? Has not God the Father always loved the Son and Spirit and acted in a way consistent with the nurturing of those relationships? When was the time before God acted righteously? There was no such time!

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I don't know what exactly is going on over there at Wikipedia nor how the cite works and who is able to edit the articles contained therein but since this morning that article has been significantly edited and portions even made to say the opposite of what it said earlier today. I am removing the link from my earlier post. No wonder no one trusts that website!

 

[Clete]

I believe that the heavens and the earth are physical. There is a difference in the creation of 'the heavens' and 'the earth' It was not the heavens that was in disarray but the earth. "And the earth was" The six days refer to earth only. To say that there was no creation before the six days is an assumption at best. Did the earth exist in some fashion before the six days. The text seems to suggest that it did.

You might try reading past the first chapter of the Bible sometime elected4ever! It's a pretty good read!

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’”​

 

[godrulz]

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

Jesus is God manifest in the flesh.

What do you mean by this?

The Word became flesh (Jn. 1:14). The Word is God (Jn. 1:1).

 

[godrulz]

I am a child Christ died for, and He will hold you accountable for your hatred shown towards my person.

Meanwhile, you are added to my ignore list with other infidels who oppose the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

Nang

Funny how Mystery says the same things about the rest of us. The reality is that we are believers who are disagreeing on nuanced issues based on imperfect wordings in our posts.

I disagree with Mystery's one nature theory and Nang's TULIP, but that does not mean we all have false gods and gospels.

 

[godrulz]

This is very well stated. I'll be interested to see if there is a response.

Motive determines vice and virtue of outward acts. The Pharisees prayed and tithed and were rebuked for wrong motive. Other believers were blessed for praying and tithing with the right motive.

Obedience and disobedience are themes from Genesis to Revelation. They are volitional, not nature only.

 

[Mystery]

What do you mean by this?

The Word became flesh (Jn. 1:14). The Word is God (Jn. 1:1).

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[elected4ever]

You might try reading past the first chapter of the Bible sometime elected4ever! It's a pretty good read!

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’”​

Your right Clete. That is why I do not believe in the gap theory. I just said that the text in Genesis 1 suggest otherwise. Which it does. But that is why I also do not believe that the six days are a literal 6 - 24 hour periods of time as you do. The statement as I remember was first made in the context of sin not existing pre Adam. Do you have any thoughts on that subject?

Just on a side note. I do not believe that the heavens and the earth are God's first creations and I do not believe they will be His last. But they are the one that we are concerned with.

 

[godrulz]

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Try another translation or the original Greek. You say God was manifest in the flesh, but mean something different than Nang and the creeds. It would help if you clarified your understanding. The orthodox position is that Jesus is one person with two natures. He is 100% Deity and 100% humanity. There were many heresies relating to the incarnation. I think it was the monophysites that said He only had one nature, an unbiblical position which compromises His true Deity and/or true humanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism

Note the other related heresies that were also refuted by the orthodox (not to be confused with Catholic) position.

No one ever said you were a theologian. It would not be so bad, but you are often dogmatic in your ignorance when you should not be.

How are the wife and kids?

When are you coming to visit? My wife will want to lock the doors, but I would welcome you.

 

[Mystery]

Try another translation or the original Greek. You say God was manifest in the flesh, but mean something different than Nang and the creeds. It would help if you clarified your understanding. The orthodox position is that Jesus is one person with two natures. He is 100% Deity and 100% humanity. There were many heresies relating to the incarnation.

I know what the "creeds" teach. I know what the "orthodox" position is, but I fully reject that Jesus had two natures.

No one ever said you were a theologian. It would not be so bad, but you are often dogmatic in your ignorance when you should not be.

The only one between you and me that suffers from ignorance is you. You don't know what I know. And you don't know what the bible teaches, and most of all, you don't know Jesus.

 

[Mystery]

Everytime I post verses from the bible, godrulz, you NEVER have anything to offer but excuse after excuse. It's either a metaphor, or that's a bad translation, or it's not what some theologian teaches, or that's what so-and-so teaches, or some other mish-mash of mindless rhetoric.

How in the world you get away with people defending you is beyond me.

 

[elected4ever]

There would not have been a response had you not stated your agreement with this unbelievers comments. I feel no obligation to debate the nature of God with pagans nor even respond to their blathering. However, since you agree and seem to effectively count his post as your response I will gladly respond to it...


Of course I see the difference! This was MY point! "Our righteousness" does not exist! It is Christ's righteousness which has been imputed to us. We did nothing, He did everything!

The point is that HE DID SOMETHING!!!! How many times would you like for me to quote Romans 5:8? And it is that righteous act which makes it possible for God to justly declare us righteous. Without it, God could not do so and remain righteous Himself. No matter how many times you try you very simply will not succeed in divorcing God's righteousness from God's action. It is His decision (an act of the will) which makes Him righteous. Without choosing to act, His action has no virtue of any sort.


This statement is true of us but only because we are born with a fallen nature and require God's life in order for our nature to be considered righteous but even before we are saved, we can act in the best interest of others and thus act, in that instance, righteously.


Not according to Jesus. See Luke 10:25-37


Again this idea that no one with a fallen nature is capable of acts of righteousness is simply not Biblical. No one in the Old Testament had anything but a fallen nature and there are hundreds of actions throughout the Old Testament which God calls righteous and people whom He calls friends.

Further I think that you are losing sight of the fact that I am not simply talking about good deeds. It is the decision to act that makes the action righteous. That is to say that there is more than one kind of action. There are the outward deeds we perform but there are also the inward decisions we make and the attitudes we possess. It is these actions of the mind that define a persons character and which yield good deeds. In this sense all actions proceed from the inside out but the point is that they are all chosen actions and it is the quality of these choices that define the quality of a person's character.

Of course, I have no doubt that this will not have convinced you to change your position and so let me save us an iteration here and simply ask you again...

If it is not God's actions (whether in thought or deed) which makes Him righteous, then what does? How does one define righteousness apart from action?

Also, on that point, you said earlier that God was righteous before He had ever acted, or something along those lines. I was wondering when you thought that was? Has not God always been in perpetual relationship with the members of the Trinity? Has not God the Father always loved the Son and Spirit and acted in a way consistent with the nurturing of those relationships? When was the time before God acted righteously? There was no such time!

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I don't know what exactly is going on over there at Wikipedia nor how the cite works and who is able to edit the articles contained therein but since this morning that article has been significantly edited and portions even made to say the opposite of what it said earlier today. I am removing the link from my earlier post. No wonder no one trusts that website!

That was in connection with the keeping of the law and not righteousness. The law is for the unrighteous and not the righteous. All three who pasted by were unrighteous, not righteous. No where does Jesus say that the deed of the samaritan was a righteous act. So no, my position has not changed.

PS. I never read the article because in wikipedia what is says can change from minute to minute.

 

[godrulz]

I know what the "creeds" teach. I know what the "orthodox" position is, but I fully reject that Jesus had two natures.

The only one between you and me that suffers from ignorance is you. You don't know what I know. And you don't know what the bible teaches, and most of all, you don't know Jesus.

I have known and walked with Jesus for almost 3 decades. He is my Lord, God, Savior, Friend, Master, Boss, King. He is risen from the dead. He died for me, so I live for Him.

Who are you to judge another Master's servant based on internet info with no personal knowledge of myself? I know...you are sozo the great, reincarnated in another name. Correct me if I am wrong...though you usually play games until fully exposed...nice MO, but it lacks integrity.

 

[Mystery]

I have known and walked with Jesus for almost 3 decades.

I don't believe it for a minute.