ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[SaulToPaul 2]

If God foreordains everything then our lives are no more valuable than a movie script with God being the writer, casting director, set designer and so on. We become merely hand selected actors in the drama of life and God our only audience. This is so pointless as to be beyond rational belief.

I don't believe any such thing, nor do the scriptures teach any such thing.

 

[themuzicman]

Glorified is past tense, and it's in Christ. His Body is glorified WHEN he is glorified.

Actually, these are aorist tense, which, inherently, have nothing to do with the time of an action, but rather speak of the action as a whole. Thus, we cannot conclude that all these are past, present or future. They simply happen.

The aorist can be past, but we would rely on context to define this for us. Here, there is no such context.

Muz

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Why not just common sense and face value for all scripture? You seem to think that your particular common sense isn't all that common among those who disagree with you. Hows come?



translation: "I think we'd all be better off to just believe MY VERSION of God and declare everybody a truth teller."

I don't/can't take it at YOUR face value reading simply because (IMHO) that's not what scripture says at all! Moreover, that's not my experience in Christ or my relationship with the Holy Spirit. "By grace;" that's the corporate offer. "Through faith;" that's the individual's response. We can stubbornly reject or with the help of the Spirit accept God's free gift. What could be more face value than that? Seems common enough to make sense to me, regardless the extent to which modern theologies complicate the life (another word comes to mind) out of it.

Maybe Jesus did say, "Its good that I go away so I can send you another/better book." :shut:

So many teachers ....... so few ears. Does the Spirit still speak to the church today?

Philetus

Romans 8:26-29 KJV. Can you explain to me how the Spirit makes intercession for a nameless, faceless, unidentifiable group of people?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The aorist can be past, but we would rely on context to define this for us. Here, there is no such context.

Muz

So, Jesus Christ was not glorified yet as of the time of Romans 8?

 

[themuzicman]

So, Jesus Christ was not glorified yet as of the time of Romans 8?

Romans 8:29-30 is speaking if us, not Christ.

Muz

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Romans 8:29-30 is speaking if us, not Christ.

Muz

29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.

Jesus Christ was glorified. His Body is identified in his glorification.
That's how it's past tense.

 

[Philetus]

I don't believe any such thing, nor do the scriptures teach any such thing.

Whewwww ... that's a relief. After all, it is fairly common.

"The Bible must first be believed before it can be understood."

Let's play infinite regression. You take black and I'll take blue. Or you can have blue and I'll argue blacks blue.

I know a guy that went to a conservative bible college and majored in Bible. He understands it very well (better than most it would seem)and for that reason doesn't/can't/won't believe. In fact his understanding of the scriptures teaching on foreknowledge and election are similar to your own. I guess believing without understanding would have been better for him. Go figure. :kookoo:

P

 

[themuzicman]

29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.

Jesus Christ was glorified. His Body is identified in his glorification.
That's how it's past tense.

Well, if Christ is glorified past tense, and our glorification is future tense, then it would make sense that we would be predestined to become conformed in the future to what Christ already is.

Muz

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Well, if Christ is glorified past tense, and our glorification is future tense, then it would make sense that we would be predestined to become conformed in the future to what Christ already is.

Muz

I am already glorified, Christ the new man, the hope of glory dwells in me.
The glory is simply not yet manifested.

 

[Philetus]

Romans 8:26-29 KJV. Can you explain to me how the Spirit makes intercession for a nameless, faceless, unidentifiable group of people?

Probably not, because your belief seems to get in the way of your understanding.

"The Bible must first be believed before it can be understood."

Sorry, you better ask God for wisdom ... He gives it generously without finding fault to those who believe. (See James)

I'm not that good.

P

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Probably not, because your belief seems to get in the way of your understanding.



P

Likewise, your "understanding" gets in the way of you believing the passage means what it says.

 

[Philetus]

Romans 8:26-29 KJV. Can you explain to me how the Spirit makes intercession for a nameless, faceless, unidentifiable group of people?

Somebody please unpack this question and point out what is so absurd in even asking it. Somebody who can remain civil maybe.

HEY CLETE! Tag your it.

P

 

[Philetus]

Likewise, your "understanding" gets in the way of you believing the passage means what it says.

blue!

I believe it.

How can you even claim to believe it without "understanding" it? Do you understand what it says? Did you say, "I'm going to believe the first thing that pops into my head when I open the bible and read a verse"? Is that believing? Do you ever have to revise your beliefs based on what you read in the bible? If not ... why do you even need to read it?

I'm really trying to 'understand' the hermeneutic here. It sounds really suspicious to me.

 

[themuzicman]

I think S2P is equivocating on "believe", here. On one hand, he's saying that you have to believe the bible is true before you can really understand what it is saying. That's probably accurate.

However, he's also saying that you have to believe his interpretation of the bible before you can understand it, too, as he claims to "just read the bible for what it says."

However, the latter isn't one that any should accept, given the way that S2P reads the bible.

Muz

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

blue!

I believe it.

How can you even claim to believe it without "understanding" it? Do you understand what it says? Did you say, "I'm going to believe the first thing that pops into my head when I open the bible and read a verse"? Is that believing? Do you ever have to revise your beliefs based on what you read in the bible? If not ... why do you even need to read it?

I'm really trying to 'understand' the hermeneutic here. It sounds really suspicious to me.

Did Abraham understand how God was going to accomplish Gen 12:1-3 KJV?
No, but he believed it.

The same with Romans 8. Believe it, don't worry about how God accomplished it, even if it doesn't agree with your syllogism.

 

[godrulz]

Actually, these are aorist tense, which, inherently, have nothing to do with the time of an action, but rather speak of the action as a whole. Thus, we cannot conclude that all these are past, present or future. They simply happen.

The aorist can be past, but we would rely on context to define this for us. Here, there is no such context.

Muz

It probably shows the certainty of this action for the believing ones. Those who believe and continue to believe will be glorified (obviously the living saints were not already dead, resurrected, and in glorified bodies when they read the letter).

 

[themuzicman]

Did Abraham understand how God was going to accomplish Gen 12:1-3 KJV?
No, but he believed it.

The same with Romans 8. Believe it, don't worry about how God accomplished it, even if it doesn't agree with your syllogism.

Your problem is that the original Greek doesn't agree with you.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

Romans 8:26-29 KJV. Can you explain to me how the Spirit makes intercession for a nameless, faceless, unidentifiable group of people?

In every generation this is true. The original audience would believe these truths, and we now believe them. They are present tense reality, not true in the future. The Spirit did not know or pray for me trillions of years ago, but He does now through the saints.

Likewise, Jn. 3:16 was reality for some in the first century, while now specific individuals also have this reality (but they did not have it before they were born). Original interpretation and future application, confuse them not.

 

[godrulz]

I am already glorified, Christ the new man, the hope of glory dwells in me.
The glory is simply not yet manifested.

Christ in us is the hope of glory now (Col. 1:27). Do not confuse that with the doctrine of glorification where we get a new body at His coming for the Church (post-resurrection, not just spiritual rebirth...I Cor. 15; I Thess. 4).

 

[godrulz]

I think S2P is equivocating on "believe", here. On one hand, he's saying that you have to believe the bible is true before you can really understand what it is saying. That's probably accurate.

However, he's also saying that you have to believe his interpretation of the bible before you can understand it, too, as he claims to "just read the bible for what it says."

However, the latter isn't one that any should accept, given the way that S2P reads the bible.

Muz

Reminds me of mystery-sozo, confusing his subjective interpretations with objective exegesis (thinly veiled arrogance).