ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Clete]

I have spent half this day giving my Scriptural arguments. All I could do at this point, is repeat them, and I do not care to, just to satisfy your temper tantrum.

Did I ask you to repeat anything? I asked you to respond to the arguments I actually made. Its not my fault you spent an hour or more responding to arguments I didn't even make! That's my whole point! Wouldn't it be a better use of your time to respond to what people actually say than to whatever convoluted nonsense you can turn it into?

If you do not grasp my argument the first time, that is too bad.

Grasp your argument!!!! What the Hell are you talking about Nang?!

I feel no need to defend myself, nor am I obligated to put up with your bad behavior.

MY BAD BEHAVIOR?

You call my getting upset by your lies and intentional dishonesty bad behavior? You're a hypocrite to boot! Who in the world do you think you are Nang? This once again is another perfect example of a Calvinist turning things completely on their heads and then claiming the moral high ground. Was that the tactic to begin with; to say something completely stupid so as to exasperate the opposition to the point of anger so as to afford you the opportunity to play Ms. High and Mighty? That's a pretty common tactic amongst Calvinist too, come to think of it. You learned that one from Reader, didn't you?

What are you afraid of Nang? Your entire argument over the terms used in the original language has been blown to smithereens and you have yet to respond to the argument concerning election, in any language, having never had an arbitrary connotation too it, as Calvinism clearly teaches. Will you respect the debate and honestly respond to the arguments or will you tacitly concede them by your silence? You choose, whether you believe you have the ability to do so or not.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RobE]

Just as thick as ever.

Thanks.

Yes. In one, Free will is possible. In the other, it is not.

Unfortunately, you cannot explain how free will decisions can be known before they are made.

Which is incompatible with free will.

Muz

How long has compatibalism been argued? I understand well that you don't accept it any more than hyperCalvinists do, but certainly one of the arguments rings true with you.

Free will doesn't require a conscious decision to enact. When we drive we are excercising our will. When we eat, or behave in any way our will is at work. Consciousness might well accompany our will(Kilstrom), but it in no way is our will.

With this in mind, isn't if fair to say that our actions are free unless they are coerced?

So in response to your query:

Unfortunately, you cannot explain how free will decisions can be known before they are made.​

I need to ask how does foreknowledge coerce our actions? It certainly proves that there were causes and influences behind our decisions. If foreknowledge doesn't coerce then our actions would remain free even while they are known. My answer is that God either divines our free actions through His immense intelligence or that He exists outside of time. Both answers are plausible even though I prefer the first.

 

[Nang]

Your entire argument over the terms used in the original language has been blown to smithereens

The original Hebrew and Greek languages reveal different emphasis placed on what has been translated as "chosen" and "elect." That was my argument to Muz, against his contention that just because Israel was "chosen" that therefore, Israel was elect.

Now you tell me Israel was not elect, and there were none elected before Paul.

So why don't you take up that argument with Muz, rather than me, because you and I have both observed the different nuances in the original languages.

and you have yet to respond to the argument concerning election, in any language, having never had an arbitrary connotation too it, as Calvinism clearly teaches.

I have stated more than once that I do not believe Godly election is arbitrary. (At least, not according to the human manifestation of limited arbitrariness.)

God elected a people with purpose and design; and not merely by preference or whim. For I would add, God intimately KNEW those He elected and created in Christ, whereas, the non-elect are not known by God. (e.g. Matt. 7:23) It is not that I do not answer you, but you refuse to accept my answer.

Just because we finite people are not privy to the thoughts of infinite God, and do not know the interactions between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit before He created, does not mean we should label the Lord as arbitrary in His establishment of covenant, decrees, and creative actions.

 

[RobE]

Originally Posted by themuzicman
Just because God CAN change His mind, doesn't mean He WILL.

(What a shock, another logical error...)

This is pefect!

Just because a man CAN do otherwise doesn't mean that he WILL.

Foreknowledge of what he will do; doesn't eliminate what he is able to do. Now do you understand the fallacy which exists in the logical statements against foreknowledge? It assumes you can't because you won't.

Or are you able to tell me the difference between Lee's logical error and your own?

 

[Clete]

RobE is still up to the same old ridiculous tricks, arguing against coercion as though someone besides him brought it up. I don't understand how you guys can sleep at night knowing that your belief system is so weak that you cannot defend it on the merits of the actual arguments made against it but instead have to resort to playing rhetorical games that no one but yourselves buy into. It's no wonder so many settled viewers are completely ineffective at evangelism! If I had to buy the stupidity you call a defense of your belief system, I'd be an atheist myself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

The original Hebrew and Greek languages reveal different emphasis placed on what has been translated as "chosen" and "elect." That was my argument to Muz, against his contention that just because Israel was "chosen" that therefore, Israel was elect.

Which I responded too by establishing without doubt that the exact same Hebrew word is used for BOTH "elect" and "chosen", which proves you wrong! They are the same word in the original! They mean the same thing there is no difference between 'bachiyr' and 'bachiyr'.

Now you tell me Israel was not elect, and there were none elected before Paul.

No, I didn't say that. In fact I said repeatedly that Israel was God's elect because of Abraham's faith. Please try to actually read my posts before going off half cocked. It only makes you sound more stupid than is necessary.

So why don't you take up that argument with Muz, rather than me, because you and I have both observed the different nuances in the original languages.

You have got to be on some sort of medication! How is it difficult for you to understand that the two words "elect" and 'chosen" are used interchangeably when translating the SINGLE word 'bachiyr'?

It's just like the terms "righteous" and "just". They are the same thing. They are completely synonymous as evidenced by the fact that they are translated from the same Hebrew word, "tsaddiyq"

Get it?

I have stated more than once that I do not believe Godly election is arbitrary. (At least, not according to the human manifestation of limited arbitrariness.)

I don't care what you've stated. You're a Calvinist who has repeatedly claimed allegiance to the WCF and every other Calvinist statement of doctrine in existence. You either believe that God's election is arbitrary or you are not a Calvinist and aren't even aware when you are contradicting yourself.

God elected a people with purpose and design; and not merely by preference or whim.

Yes, I understand that Calvinists teach that there was a reason why God decided to elect some people for salvation but IT DOES NOT teach that there was some reason God elected you over someone else. You are every bit as totally depraved as Adolf Hitler (accpording to Calvinism) and the fact that you were elected for regeneration had nothing to do with you, and Adolf wasn't passed over because of anything that had to do with him. The individuals that were selected for regeneration and salvation were chosen on a completely arbitrary basis "lest any man boast", according to your sick version of Christianity.

Shall I quote the WSF (Westminster Confession of Faith)? I've got it right here? I'm looking at it right now! Just say the word and I'll take the time to post for everyone to read what you already know to be the case.

For I would add, God intimately KNEW those He elected and created in Christ, whereas, the non-elect are not known by God. (e.g. Matt. 7:23) It is not that I do not answer you, but you refuse to accept my answer.

Bull! You know darn good and well that Calvinism teaches that God knows everything there is to know, including every non-elect person who have ever lived or that will ever live on into eternity and has known that since before time began and not only that but that the basis of unconditional election is based upon the doctrine of exhaustive predestination. The WSF has a whole section on it. Are you sure you wouldn't like me to quote it for you?

Just because we finite people are not privy to the thoughts of infinite God, and do not know the interactions between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit before He created, does not mean we should label the Lord as arbitrary in His establishment of covenant, decrees, and creative actions.

No kidding! That's my line!

You're the Calvinist here Nang, remember? Not me! I don't believe God is arbitrary at all! I'm not the one who teaches that God predestined some for hell before they ever existed, that's your teaching, not mine! I'm the one who teaches that God is just and that therefore Calvinism is more than just false, its blasphemy!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

Which I responded too by establishing without doubt that the exact same Hebrew word is used for BOTH "elect" and "chosen", which proves you wrong! They are the same word in the original! They mean the same thing there is no difference between 'bachiyr' and 'bachiyr'.

Agreed! But that was not the debate between me and Muz (have you read the entire exhange?) I originally said that Godly election was always individual and efficacious, being having basis in the Elect, Jesus Christ. Muz came back and said, no, Israel was "chosen" by God, and therefore the nation was to be consider elect. And I came back making distinction between the noun "bachar" which is often used to describe non-saving choices by God, compared to saving election ("bachiyr").

I said repeatedly that Israel was God's elect because of Abraham's faith.

I thought you didn't believe anyone was "elect" before Paul? And why would God efficaciously elect unto salvation, the nation of Israel He later divorced for unfaithfulness?

God chose to fulfill His temporaral and earthly promises to Abraham, by raising up the nation of Israelites and taking them into the promised land. But that was not the same as the spiritual, eternal, everlasting covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that brought them salvation from their sins and eternal life in the kingdom of heaven.

Thus, all my provisions of Scripture that explain Abraham produced two different kinds of offspring ("seed"). Both sons inherited the temporal, earthly promises, but only the lineage of Isaac, being the promised son, inherits the eternal promises.

Please try to actually read my posts before going off half cocked. It only makes you sound more stupid than is necessary.

It would have been really polite, if you had read the entire exchange between Muz and myself, so that I would not be forced to repeat the discussion between he and I back to you . . . but have, since you went off half-cocked and threw a tantrum (apparently in ignorance of the debate).

You have got to be on some sort of medication! How is it difficult for you to understand that the two words "elect" and 'chosen" are used interchangeably when translating the SINGLE word 'bachiyr'?

I agreed with you about this very point. What is the matter with you? Maybe you are on drugs . . .not me. I am old, but I seem to be able to keep track of what and with whom I argue. Can you?

I don't care what you've stated.

Then why are you insisting on challenging me . . .I could be cooking my dinner, but here I am, explaining to you, what I have already explained today with much Scripture. Just to not concede the debate by silence.

Yes, I understand that Calvinists teach that there was a reason why God decided to elect some people for salvation but IT DOES NOT teach that there was some reason God elected you over someone else. You are every bit as totally depraved as Adolf Hitler (accpording to Calvinism) and the fact that you were elected for regeneration had nothing to do with you, and Adolf wasn't passed over because of anything that had to do with him. The individuals that were selected for regeneration and salvation were chosen on a completely arbitrary basis "lest any man boast", according to your sick version of Christianity.

Clete, were you there in God's eternal realm, when God established His covenant for those He KNEW? God could ask you the same questions He asked Job . . .for you know very little of the motivations, means, and purposes of your Creator . . .because YOU WERE NOT THERE!

Shall I quote the WSF (Westminster Confession of Faith)? I've got it right here? I'm looking at it right now! Just say the word and I'll take the time to post for everyone to read what you already know to be the case.

Go ahead, and quote the section regarding divorce and remarriage, too. I will disagree with both conclusions, putting Scripture ahead of even the finest Christian Confession of faith ever compiled. For the WCF is fallible, but the word of God is infallible.

I stand first and foremost for the Word of God, alone.

Bull! You know darn good and well that Calvinism teaches that God knows everything there is to know, including every non-elect person who have ever lived or that will ever live on into eternity and has known that since before time began and not only that but that the basis of unconditional election is based upon the doctrine of exhaustive predestination. The WSF has a whole section on it. Are you sure you wouldn't like me to quote it for you?

You are confusing omniscience with the intimate knowledge God has of the sons of God. God "knows" Christians like a husband "knows" his wife. A husband knows about other people, but the intimacy of the husband/wife relationship far exceeds that general knowledge. And it is that kind of "knowing" God has of His people:

"So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does His church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. . . .This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church." Eph. 5:28-30, 31

This is how God "knows" His elect. This is how God does not "know" the non-elect.

Not all men are "known" like the elect bride of Christ.

 

[Lon]

Some will say God knows 'some' but this puts their own logic on trial. If God knows anything future, they are contradicting themselves in a logical conundrum by their own argument.

Unless, of course, all possible courses of the future run through a particular event.

It is interesting how our cyclical discussion always comes back around. Sometimes I think we are in NASCAR instead of a road rally

Foreknowledge simply means 'KNOWS' 'BEFORE' and it is a scripturally given term.

Which is exactly why an atemporal God cannot have it.

To discuss anything with a temporal people, atemporality isn't a workable vocabulary. Scripture does occasionally give us these ideas, but then we are hard pressed for definition and understanding because of our limitation not His. For instance: "Before Abraham was I AM." instead of "I WAS." Yes it is a name, but it is also a verb of being and it is spoken in present tense. This is blatantly atemporal and 'cannot' be argued against. You'll have not ability to do so. Again, it escapes 'both' of our logic. Compare 'Abraham was' and 'I am' and you'll see what I'm talking about. It is inescapable.

OV has to toss the term from their Bibles entirely before they could escape the implication: The OV logic handle is broken from scripture, therefore imperializes logic over revelation. What is revealed is that God has 'foreknowledge' despite how it disturbs logic ability to grasp it. To continually argue this is to argue against scripture, not 'my' logic.

Well, when we take what Scripture actually says about foreknowledge, rather than the preconceived notion of the protestant theologian about what foreknowledge must be, things become much clearer.

It means literally 'knows beforehand.' Not guesses beforehand, predicts beforehand, decides beforehand. There is no preconceived notion of definition that would be incorrect. 'Redefining' the term would be incorrect.

Free will is a derived idea. God's sovereignty is a scriptural given. Illogical thought is a derivation, Foreknowledge is a scripturally given. How come OV continues to imperialize the derivatives and ignores the Scripturally implicit?

Actually, free will is a Scriptural given. Without free will, there can be no moral judgment, nor can there be relationship.

God's sovereignty is also a Scriptural given, but we must adopt the Scriptural view of God's sovereignty, not the reformed view of it. Only then are these two harmonized.

Yes, but with the scripture given in context freedom is why Christ came otherwise will is in bondage. You'll also appreciate again with me that Jesus said in Matthew 6 that we will always serve either of two masters. We are never without bondage on the will. It is never truly free except as Christ defines it.

The only truly worthy free will discussion is related to our position in Christ. Until then we are 'robots' to sin without question with no ability to escape routine.

So, the unbeliever must sin at every possible opportunity?
Muz

Recognize that the man without the spirit 'cannot' please God. Can he make better choices? Yes. Can he escape the influence of sin upon those choices? No.

 

[Lon]

Thanks for your thoughtful answers

Thanks for your thoughtful answers

Some will say God knows 'some' but this puts their own logic on trial. If God knows anything future, they are contradicting themselves in a logical conundrum by their own argument.

Unless, of course, all possible courses of the future run through a particular event.

It is interesting how our cyclical discussion always comes back around. Sometimes I think we are in NASCAR instead of a road rally. It is okay, I'm just seeing the same landmarks of discussion.

Foreknowledge simply means 'KNOWS' 'BEFORE' and it is a scripturally given term.

Which is exactly why an atemporal God cannot have it.

To discuss anything with a temporal people, atemporality isn't a workable vocabulary. Scripture does occasionally give us these ideas, but then we are hard pressed for definition and understanding because of our limitation not His. For instance: "Before Abraham was I AM." instead of "I WAS." Yes it is a name, but it is also a verb of being and it is spoken in present tense. This is blatantly atemporal and 'cannot' be argued against. You (and I) will not have ability to do so. Again, it escapes 'both' of our logic. Compare 'Abraham was' and 'I am' and you'll see what I'm talking about. It is inescapable.

OV has to toss the term from their Bibles entirely before they could escape the implication: The OV logic handle is broken from scripture, therefore imperializes logic over revelation. What is revealed is that God has 'foreknowledge' despite how it disturbs logic ability to grasp it. To continually argue this is to argue against scripture, not 'my' logic.

Well, when we take what Scripture actually says about foreknowledge, rather than the preconceived notion of the protestant theologian about what foreknowledge must be, things become much clearer.

It means literally 'knows beforehand.' Not guesses beforehand, predicts beforehand, decides beforehand. There is no preconceived notion of definition that would be incorrect. 'Redefining' the term would be incorrect.
Yes, I understand you to be saying 'before' is a temporal expression, but once again, there is no verb that expresses atemporality meaningfully for us. The nearest I can get is to say it isn't quantity but quality, it isn't progression, but excellence unchanging. Once something doesn't change, duration is also a mute point. It has no value to the conversation. We are progressing and experiencing progression and change. God is already there. He uses atemporal terms all the time that do not make sense in temporal progression "I'm the Alpha and Omega" Before this happens, I'm declaring it to you (as already happening though it hasn't happened)." "I declare things that aren't (in existence NOW) as though they were." God already does this, repeatedly. They are scripture givens.

Free will is a derived idea. God's sovereignty is a scriptural given. Illogical thought is a derivation, Foreknowledge is a scripturally given. How come OV continues to imperialize the derivatives and ignores the Scripturally implicit?

Actually, free will is a Scriptural given. Without free will, there can be no moral judgment, nor can there be relationship.

God's sovereignty is also a Scriptural given, but we must adopt the Scriptural view of God's sovereignty, not the reformed view of it. Only then are these two harmonized.

Yes, but with the scripture given in context freedom is why Christ came otherwise will is in bondage. You'll also appreciate again with me that Jesus said in Matthew 6 that we will always serve either of two masters. We are never without bondage on the will. It is never truly free except as Christ defines it (in Him).

The only truly worthy free will discussion is related to our position in Christ. Until then we are 'robots' to sin without question with no ability to escape routine.

So, the unbeliever must sin at every possible opportunity?
Muz

Recognize that the man without the spirit 'cannot' please God. Can he make better choices? Yes. Can he escape the influence of sin upon those choices? No.

Hopefully I've answered some of your questions, but I always feel like it falls just shy of that proverbial light-bulb needed.

Blessings in Him, and thanks again

Lon

 

[Clete]

Agreed! But that was not the debate between me and Muz (have you read the entire exhange?) I originally said that Godly election was always individual and efficacious, being having basis in the Elect, Jesus Christ. Muz came back and said, no, Israel was "chosen" by God, and therefore the nation was to be consider elect. And I came back making distinction between the noun "bachar" which is often used to describe non-saving choices by God, compared to saving election ("bachiyr").

To which I responded by showing you that the Bible uses the terms "elect" and "chosen" interchangably and that the two are translated from the very same word in the Hebrew. The distinction you are making in opposition to Muz's argument does not exist!

I thought you didn't believe anyone was "elect" before Paul? And why would God efficaciously elect unto salvation, the nation of Israel He later divorced for unfaithfulness?

You are so stupid this conversation is hardly worth the time.

I don't care what you thought. You thought wrong. How could you think that I didn't believe anyone was elect before Paul when I clearly and repeatedly stated that Israel was elect!

Isa 45:3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call [thee] by thy name, [am] the God of Israel. 4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.​

God chose to fulfill His temporaral and earthly promises to Abraham, by raising up the nation of Israelites and taking them into the promised land. But that was not the same as the spiritual, eternal, everlasting covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that brought them salvation from their sins and eternal life in the kingdom of heaven.

Yes, of course it was the same. You only dispute that because your theology would break down otherwise.

Thus, all my provisions of Scripture that explain Abraham produced two different kinds of offspring ("seed"). Both sons inherited the temporal, earthly promises, but only the lineage of Isaac, being the promised son, inherits the eternal promises.

Right. Isaac who bore Jacob who was renamed Israel and became the father of that nation with whom God's covenant remained until they were cut off because of unbelief. They didn't disbelieve because they were cut off, they were cut off because they disbelieved. Had they believed then things would have been altogether different. Read Jeremiah 18

It would have been really polite, if you had read the entire exchange between Muz and myself, so that I would not be forced to repeat the discussion between he and I back to you . . . but have, since you went off half-cocked and threw a tantrum (apparently in ignorance of the debate).

You're the most hypocritical idiot I've ever known! I completely understand your exchanged and have apparently blown your position so completely off the map that you can't even understand it!

I agreed with you about this very point. What is the matter with you? Maybe you are on drugs . . .not me. I am old, but I seem to be able to keep track of what and with whom I argue. Can you?

What you can't seem to keep track of is the implications of the point which you concede. God! You're stupid!

Then why are you insisting on challenging me . . .I could be cooking my dinner, but here I am, explaining to you, what I have already explained today with much Scripture. Just to not concede the debate by silence.

Liar! You have yet to even respond to the argument! All you know how to do is obfuscate and distract attention from the fact that you've been handed you butt in yet another debate.

Clete, were you there in God's eternal realm, when God established His covenant for those He KNEW? God could ask you the same questions He asked Job . . .for you know very little of the motivations, means, and purposes of your Creator . . .because YOU WERE NOT THERE!

See what I mean? Obfuscation, distraction and just plain old unresponsiveness. You don't know how to defend you own beliefs do you Nang?

Pathetic.

Go ahead, and quote the section regarding divorce and remarriage, too. I will disagree with both conclusions, putting Scripture ahead of even the finest Christian Confession of faith ever compiled. For the WCF is fallible, but the word of God is infallible.

WHY THE HELL DIDN'T YOU SAY THIS TO BEGIN WITH?

On what basis then did God elect you and not Hilary Clinton?

You are going to regret having said this Nang. I will dismantle your entire theological worldview from this single concession. You will ignore it, or turn it upside down, or pretend like I said the opposite of what I said like you do with everything else and will therefore remain in your blissful ignorance but nevertheless, you've just given the whole store away and I intend to take it.

I stand first and foremost for the Word of God, alone.

You are a liar and a fool! You know nothing of the primary principles of the Biblical paradigm. Those being the principles of righteousness, justice, love, and relationship. You are poor, deaf, dumb, blind and naked. You know nothing of the living God of Scripture. You worship a bump on a log and can no more relate to the god you've created in your own head than the man in the moon.

You are confusing omniscience with the intimate knowledge God has of the sons of God. God "knows" Christians like a husband "knows" his wife. A husband knows about other people, but the intimacy of the husband/wife relationship far exceeds that general knowledge. And it is that kind of "knowing" God has of His people:

"So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does His church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. . . .This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church." Eph. 5:28-30, 31

These verses destroy Calvinism from its very foundation and you're too stupid and blind to see it.

This is how God "knows" His elect. This is how God does not "know" the non-elect.

Not all men are "known" like the elect bride of Christ.

According to Calvinist theology there is no knowledge of any sort that God does not possess fully and perfectly. God knows all things - period. Omniscience is not simply about facts and data but about ALL KNOWLEDGE, that is according to Calvinism, which you have repeatedly claimed to believe, or is this yet another aspect of Calvinism that you've conveniently decided to drop?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Aletheia]

I CHOOSE to follow Christ.

 

[Nang]

To which I responded by showing you that the Bible uses the terms "elect" and "chosen" interchangably and that the two are translated from the very same word in the Hebrew. The distinction you are making in opposition to Muz's argument does not exist!


You are so stupid this conversation is hardly worth the time.

I don't care what you thought. You thought wrong. How could you think that I didn't believe anyone was elect before Paul when I clearly and repeatedly stated that Israel was elect!

Isa 45:3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call [thee] by thy name, [am] the God of Israel. 4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.​

Yes, of course it was the same. You only dispute that because your theology would break down otherwise.


Right. Isaac who bore Jacob who was renamed Israel and became the father of that nation with whom God's covenant remained until they were cut off because of unbelief. They didn't disbelieve because they were cut off, they were cut off because they disbelieved. Had they believed then things would have been altogether different. Read Jeremiah 18


You're the most hypocritical idiot I've ever known! I completely understand your exchanged and have apparently blown your position so completely off the map that you can't even understand it!


What you can't seem to keep track of is the implications of the point which you concede. God! You're stupid!


Liar! You have yet to even respond to the argument! All you know how to do is obfuscate and distract attention from the fact that you've been handed you butt in yet another debate.


See what I mean? Obfuscation, distraction and just plain old unresponsiveness. You don't know how to defend you own beliefs do you Nang?

Pathetic.


WHY THE HELL DIDN'T YOU SAY THIS TO BEGIN WITH?

On what basis then did God elect you and not Hilary Clinton?

You are going to regret having said this Nang. I will dismantle your entire theological worldview from this single concession. You will ignore it, or turn it upside down, or pretend like I said the opposite of what I said like you do with everything else and will therefore remain in your blissful ignorance but nevertheless, you've just given the whole store away and I intend to take it.


You are a liar and a fool! You know nothing of the primary principles of the Biblical paradigm. Those being the principles of righteousness, justice, love, and relationship. You are poor, deaf, dumb, blind and naked. You know nothing of the living God of Scripture. You worship a bump on a log and can no more relate to the god you've created in your own head than the man in the moon.


These verses destroy Calvinism from its very foundation and you're too stupid and blind to see it.


According to Calvinist theology there is no knowledge of any sort that God does not possess fully and perfectly. God knows all things - period. Omniscience is not simply about facts and data but about ALL KNOWLEDGE, that is according to Calvinism, which you have repeatedly claimed to believe, or is this yet another aspect of Calvinism that you've conveniently decided to drop?

Resting in Him,
Clete

It is my conclusion, Clete, that you are an emotionally unstable person, not able to interact with others scripturally, calmly, and reasonably, regarding the truths of God.

I withdraw myself from your presence, due to your hateful language and insulting ad hominems . . .not because of any valid Christian debate offered on your part.

Producing my turkey dinner with mashed potatoes, gravy, cranberry sauce, green beans, and hot rolls, is my most important and virtuous priority at the moment.


Nang

 

[Clete]

It is my conclusion, Clete, that you are an emotionally unstable person, not able to interact with others scripturally, calmly, and reasonably, regarding the truths of God.

I withdraw myself from your presence, due to your hateful language and insulting ad hominems . . .not because of any valid Christian debate offered on your part.

Producing my turkey dinner with mashed potatoes, gravy, cranberry sauce, green beans, and hot rolls, is my most important and virtuous priority at the moment.


Nang

You bring it on yourself Nang. My response to you was totally reasoned and Biblical until you intentionally disrespected the debate and responded to arguments that were never made and began a process of wasting our entire evening.

And I did not employ even a single ad hominem argument. NOT ONE!

Would you please read a book on logic or at the very least look up the definition of the term 'ad hominem' before using it again. :bang:

 

[Nang]

You bring it on yourself Nang. My response to you

Ahem . . .I was not talking with you or discussing these matters with you.

You broke into a debate between Muz and myself.

was totally reasoned and Biblical until you intentionally disrespected the debate and responded to arguments that were never made and began a process of wasting our entire evening.

You interjected yourself into this thread, and spoiled your own evening.

My evening is just fine, and not wasted at all.

(Enjoying decaf coffee and chocolate-chip/macademia nut cookies at the moment.)

And I did not employ even a single ad hominem argument. NOT ONE!

Would you please read a book on logic or at the very least look up the definition of the term 'ad hominem' before using it again. :bang:

Sure, Clete. . . will do so . . . some time really soon now . . . :chew:

 

[lee_merrill]

Or are you able to tell me the difference between Lee's logical error and your own?

What? I made a logical error? :noway:

Blessings,
Lee <- Would have thought he made an illogical error, if any

 

[lee_merrill]

And I did not employ even a single ad hominem argument. NOT ONE!

Well, you sure did, Clete, review what you called Nang just in the last two posts. I agree that you are not well able to conduct a reasoned discussion, it's sad, because of all the people who clap hands (the high fives and such) with your comments and say how well you are doing.

 

[RobE]

What? I made a logical error? :noway:

Blessings,
Lee <- Would have thought he made an illogical error, if any

Well, it would appear that your statement isn't in error because of God's own nature, but if we are speaking of mankind it is certainly true....

Originally Posted by themuzicman
Just because God CAN change His mind, doesn't mean He WILL.

(What a shock, another logical error...)

RobE: Just because a man CAN do otherwise doesn't mean that he WILL.

Muz's error resides in the fact that He doesn't take God's nature into account.

RobE is still up to the same old ridiculous tricks, arguing against coercion as though someone besides him brought it up. I don't understand how you guys can sleep at night knowing that your belief system is so weak that you cannot defend it on the merits of the actual arguments made against it but instead have to resort to playing rhetorical games that no one but yourselves buy into. It's no wonder so many settled viewers are completely ineffective at evangelism! If I had to buy the stupidity you call a defense of your belief system, I'd be an atheist myself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete's apparent inability to think beyond the surface of a statement makes it hard to get anywhere with him. It's my understanding that the argument employed by open theists is that.....

If foreknowledge is true then the actions are 'settled' by some force other than the person, so some force must be coercing their actions and they are therefore not free.​

Clete, if this is untrue then why don't you state the position of open theists in your reply. Furthermore, some statement concerning the Natural Law(especially natural behavior) might be in order to clarify how man acts against His natural instincts within his environment to achieve the libertarian free will which open theism relies on.

If foreknowledge exists, does coercion exist?

 

[Clete]

Well, you sure did, Clete, review what you called Nang just in the last two posts. I agree that you are not well able to conduct a reasoned discussion, it's sad, because of all the people who clap hands (the high fives and such) with your comments and say how well you are doing.

You are an idiot Lee!

Is that an ad hominem or simply an insult?

If you say that its an ad hominem it will prove the statement true.

And I am perfectly well able to conduct a reasoned discussion when the people I engage is those discussion participate honestly. I am so fed up with the stupid games that people like Nang and RobE play around here I'm very near just quiting this gig altogether. Its very nearly impossible to find someone willing to discuss these issues that isn't either simply too stupid to bother with or intentionally dishonest!

Which of those two categories do you fit into Lee? Tell me something, if I'm the one being foolish here and you can see so clearly as to be able to declare it sad that there are those here who think I'm fairly good at this stuff, then how about you engage the debate I wanted to have with Nang (or in any debate you like for that matter)? I have no doubt that you agree with her idiotic position and so lets see just how honestly you can engage a debate and show the world here on TOL how Clete has gotten it all wrong. Engage me like a man with honesty and integrity, respect the debate and respond substantively to the real points made. I dare you Lee!

 

[Clete]

Clete's apparent inability to think beyond the surface of a statement makes it hard to get anywhere with him.

This is a lie RobE. If you are going to insult me, at the very least you should say something that sounds like it might be true to someone other than yourself.

It's my understanding that the argument employed by open theists is that.....

If foreknowledge is true then the actions are 'settled' by some force other than the person, so some force must be coercing their actions and they are therefore not free.​

Your understanding is wrong. You are stupid RobE. Not because you think this because I know you do not. You are stupid because you thought that I would buy into the idea that you actually think this way. No Open Theist has ever said anything remotely like this nor would any Open Theist ever agree with it.

Clete, if this is untrue then why don't you state the position of open theists in your reply.

I have about a million times and you know it. Look it up.

Furthermore, some statement concerning the Natural Law(especially natural behavior) might be in order to clarify how man acts against His natural instincts within his environment to achieve the libertarian free will which open theism relies on.

Libertarian freedom does not require that one be able to do anything at all that might come to mind. I do not have to be able to go catch a whale in the Dead Sea in order to have free will. All that is necessary is for me to be able to do or to do otherwise. There is no requirement for me to act outside my character, no necessity to act against my instincts.

If foreknowledge exists, does coercion exist?

No. Coercion is a completely meaningless term in a settled view paradigm. In fact, your very use of the term barrows from my open worldview. Thank you for asking that question. This argument had not occurred to me until just now.

Resting in Him,
Clete

p.s. I don't expect you to understand nor do I expect you to respond to what I've actually said here so go ahead and turn it all upside down, figure out how to make it mean the opposite of what I've just said clearly enough for any third grader to understand before responding. Don't respond with any sort of honesty. The shock of it would probably put someone in the hospital.

 

[Clete]

Ahem . . .I was not talking with you or discussing these matters with you.

You broke into a debate between Muz and myself.

You're on the internet you moron. It's not as if you were having a private conversation. You were having the discussion on a public forum with at least a dozen participants. And you responded to my post! You didn't have to respond at all and you most certainly didn't have to respond dishonestly as you know you did!

You interjected yourself into this thread, and spoiled your own evening.

On the contrary. I engaged you substantively and you proceeded to destroy the entire conversation by having willfully chosen to respond in a dishonest way. Had you told me to get lost or responded substantively the evening would have gone quite differently as you well know.

My evening is just fine, and not wasted at all.

So you have no problem with telling intentional lies and responding to arguments that were never made and presenting yourself as an idiot on the internet. Great!

Sure, Clete. . . will do so . . . some time really soon now . . . :chew:

I know you won't Nang because the very notion of it is in opposition to your theological paradigm but if you could get around that somehow, you really should read such books, Nang. Even if you never engaged me in another debate for the rest of your life, the debates you do get into will be more substantive and you will enjoy them far more than you do now because you'll now that those tiny hand full of debates that you happen to win as a Calvinist will have some meat to them. The victory will be sweeter because you will now that the victory was real. But be warned, with knowledge comes frustration at those who enjoy living in ignorance and tormenting you with one ridiculous argument after another concerning issues that you find extremely important.

Resting in Him,
Clete