ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[SaulToPaul 2]

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

Muz

Are you suggesting that you understand greek better than the translators
for KJV, NKJV, ESV, and ASV? (the only four I checked, all past tense glorified).

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

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

Why don't you just admit that you think God messed up or lied here?

Romans 8:30 KJV.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

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.

So, it switches from corporate to individuals when it's convenient? ok :sigh:

 

[themuzicman]

Are you suggesting that you understand greek better than the translators
for KJV, NKJV, ESV, and ASV? (the only four I checked, all past tense glorified).

Not at all. I would translate it the same way. The problem is that English doesn't have a good way to translate the aorist, since all of our tenses are very much concerned with the time of an action and not the KIND of action.

And, if we read the context clearly, that's not an issue.

The issue arises when people read a verse out of context, and then pick out an English tense and build a theology on it. That's where you're going to find a lot of your error.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

Are you suggesting that you understand greek better than the translators
for KJV, NKJV, ESV, and ASV? (the only four I checked, all past tense glorified).

We don't dispute this, but there are interpretative issues still (past tense= certainty, not literally already happened, based on other verses...if referring to bodily resurrection/glorification which is still future at the rapture).

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Not at all. I would translate it the same way. The problem is that English doesn't have a good way to translate the aorist, since all of our tenses are very much concerned with the time of an action and not the KIND of action.

And, if we read the context clearly, that's not an issue.

The issue arises when people read a verse out of context, and then pick out an English tense and build a theology on it. That's where you're going to find a lot of your error.

Muz

Called and justified are past tense, no problem with glorified being past tense.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

We don't dispute this, but there are interpretative issues still (past tense= certainty, not literally already happened, based on other verses...if referring to bodily resurrection/glorification which is still future at the rapture).

The rapture is when the glory is manifested...I'm already glorified.

 

[themuzicman]

Called and justified are past tense, no problem with glorified being past tense.

Actually, they're all aorists, and none of them have a time frame attached to them. The fact that some may be past or future is irrelevant to the passage.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

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.

We weren't talking about HOW God accomplishes anything. Open Theism is very clear on that one. God is able even without meticulous control or exhaustive foreknowledge. We were talking about HOW we read scripture. There is most certainly the element of faith when we read the bible. That doesn't mean we have to check our brains before reading it.

Trusting God doesn't require suspension of reason or understanding. And besides you changed horses in the middle of the stream. You are now arguing a case BEFORE scripture was even written to justify believing the bible before you understand it. I understand what Muz said ... I said 'when we open the bible we must do so with full expectation that God is going to speak to us' ... without the illumination of the Spirit we might take it at face value to mean just about anything. More important than 'What do I think this means?' is 'What is the Spirit saying to me about the meaning of this passage.' Too subjective for you? "Seems good to us and the Holy Spirit" to quote Paul.

Did Abraham get a telegram and read the call or did he hear it? Your exegetical approach sucks the life out of the word. I'm sure ol Abe understood the 'get out and leave' part. Not knowing where he was going was no doubt understood as well. That's where his faith played out ... not in his lack of understanding how personally precarious following the will of God might be but precisely in understanding it.

Philetus

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

We weren't talking about HOW God accomplishes anything. Open Theism is very clear on that one. God is able even without meticulous control or exhaustive foreknowledge. We were talking about HOW we read scripture. There is most certainly the element of faith when we read the bible. That doesn't mean we have to check our brains before reading it.

Philetus

Do you believe Romans 8:30 KJV or not? Or, can you not believe it because you can't understand how it would be possible?

I'm beginning to think that your word eats as doth a canker.

 

[bybee]

saul to paul,"I don't believe..."

saul to paul,"I don't believe..."

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

I'm very sorry. Apparently my post went to the wrong spot. I didn't mean it for you. Blessings, Bybee

 

[Clete]

This quote made me laugh outloud. When my five kids and assorted neighborhood friends would be playing in our basement, occasionally I'd hear one of them say "you are the stupidest person in the world!" I would hide my smile and say "Now, now, you are friends. Please try to find something nice to say, blah, blah, blah" They'd wait til I went back upstairs and I'd hear someone say "what's her problem?". Such is motherhood.Now, theological debate by adult, knowledgable christians ought, perhaps, to be conducted on a little higher plane???????:sigh:

Nang is not a Christian. She believes we are all better off because God caused evil to exist.

She showed up here exclusively for the purposes of harassing me (me personally) and intentionally decided to make an enemy of me.

Besides, she really is stupid beyond my ability to comprehend.

There is however one thing she said in a recent post that I should address. She pointed out that AMR didn't ask 50 questions, he answered them. That is correct and that's actually what I meant when I brought it up. Fortunately, my errors, unlike hers, are trivial and very easy to fix.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Philetus]

Do you believe Romans 8:30 KJV or not? Or, can you not believe it because you can't understand how it would be possible?

I'm beginning to think that your word eats as doth a canker.

I not only believe it is possible, I believe it is actually the case. I also approach it not simply as something to be believed without understanding, but as part of the total picture of God's dealing with humanity given to us in scripture; not as an isolated verse that must be believed without understanding, but understood and believed within the whole fabric of scripture, other wise requiring us to twist and distort the relational aspect of God's dealings with us.

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

Do you believe Romans 8:30 KJV or not? Or, can you not believe it because you can't understand how it would be possible?

I'm beginning to think that your word eats as doth a canker.

Do you believe John 3:16 or not?

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.​

Or, can you not believe it because you can't understand how it would be possible for God to actually require a volitional response of faith from His creatures?

I can understand if you don’t since you require one to approach the Word without understanding before believing it.

black

Philetus

 

[bybee]

Clete:"Nang is not a Christian..."

Clete:"Nang is not a Christian..."

Nang is not a Christian. She believes we are all better off because God caused evil to exist.

She showed up here exclusively for the purposes of harassing me (me personally) and intentionally decided to make an enemy of me.

Besides, she really is stupid beyond my ability to comprehend.

There is however one thing she said in a recent post that I should address. She pointed out that AMR didn't ask 50 questions, he answered them. That is correct and that's actually what I meant when I brought it up. Fortunately, my errors, unlike hers, are trivial and very easy to fix.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Perhaps she would benefit from reading C.S.Lewis's book "The Great Divorce"? He addresses the divorce between Heaven and hell as a rebuttal to Blake"s "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell". You do have the option of ignoring her, don't you? I'm impressed, in general, by the quality of thoughtful, intelligent and sometimes very wise responses which are posted on this web site. I've also noticed that some posts do seem to be guilty of circular logic in which someone is obviously chasing his or her tail. When we hear a "YIPE" we'll know that they have caught themselves.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I not only believe it is possible, I believe it is actually the case. I also approach it not simply as something to be believed without understanding, but as part of the total picture of God's dealing with humanity given to us in scripture; not as an isolated verse that must be believed without understanding, but understood and believed within the whole fabric of scripture, other wise requiring us to twist and distort the relational aspect of God's dealings with us.
Philetus

Who does this?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Do you believe John 3:16 or not?

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.​

Or, can you not believe it because you can't understand how it would be possible for God to actually require a volitional response of faith from His creatures?

I can understand if you don’t since you require one to approach the Word without understanding before believing it.

black

Philetus

Yes, I believe it. And, I understand it. I also believe Gen 12:1-3 KJV which is what it refers back to. I also understand that John 3:16 KJV isn't talking about you whatsoever.

 

[RobE]

What we see is RobE's complete inability to use his pea sized brain.

It doesn't matter TO THE ARGUMENT!!!

It can only be your will that causes it if it wasn't determined before you (and thus your will) existed and if your having done otherwise was a real possibility, you blithering idiot!

Wrong! Knowledge of you(and thus your will) might precede their existence! For example, knowledge of mechanical airflight existed before airflight existed. Doing otherwise is superfluous to the definition of free will since it never has, nor will it ever, occur.

All actions have preceeding causes. Otherwise, they would not occur.

So what? This is completely irrelevant to the argument.

Of course it isn't. If caused then knowledge is possible. Only random events are unknowable. Seemingly random isn't sufficient.

Oh, yes he is! You're just too stupid to detect it.

No. AMR is not lying. He simply understand the end result of your ideas. Just because he doesn't explain the steps between where you are and the ultimate conclusion(confusion) of your arguments doesn't mean he's lying.

Wrong! You might just be stupid enough to not have known this was false when you stated it and so while you are a complete imbecile, I can't rightly accuse you of lying here.

Ok. If God foreknows all future events, then acts upon His knowledge to bring about an individual's actions in a certain way; then is God's knowledge the root cause of the actions or is the agent free to do otherwise?

AMR is an intentional liar. I can't remember the last time he engaged the debate in an honest manner. He distorts the Open View at every opportunity and does so intentionally. He is a liar - pure and simple.

Your failure to comprehend the ultimate destination of the 'open' position in no way suggests that others aren't able to perform the task. AMR has not lied that I can find.

Rob: Why do acts of the will have to be completely random to be free?​

No this qualifies as a lie! You know full well that no one has ever suggested any such thing. But that does matter to you at all, does it?

Things which aren't random can be known. If it's possible God is able. The above is not a lie, it obviously isn't shallow enough for comprehension to occur.

 

[Philetus]

Yes, I believe it. And, I understand it. I also believe Gen 12:1-3 KJV which is what it refers back to. I also understand that John 3:16 KJV isn't talking about you whatsoever.

Explain that 'whosoever' isn't inclusive and I think you will have your answer to

"Who does this?"

Philetus

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Explain that 'whosoever' isn't inclusive and I think you will have your answer to



Philetus

I know you will find this hard to believe, but you are not in view in John 3:16 KJV.
Jesus is operating on covenant promises and you ain't in them.

Study your Bible, and you just might see it.