ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[patman]

Hi Patman,
Well, yes, I understand I said time measures the physical. I acquiesce that it can also measure another kind of place, but that place is also a created existence. God has no creation date. He is already outside of your construct, thus, yet again, I assert that time is subject to God, God is not subject to it. This, imho and estimation, is a no-brainer: It is not possible that God is subject to our same constraints when one accepts implicitly that God has no beginning. "No beginning" immediately falls outside of sequential constructs and its constrained logic. To assert otherwise is to completely ignore and defy one's own logical admission. It makes you argue only with yourself. The rest of us automatically don't get it because we acquiesce God is wholly apart from the sequential construct.

-Lon

Ok, so we established that time doesn't require the physical realm, and it must exist in the spiritual realm.

Now, in order to make up for this reality of time, you assert that time requires some kind of creation to exist. Thus without creation there is no time, and that must mean God is outside of time...

However, this doesn't work at all. You see, God is father, son and spirit. This spiritual aspect of God, always existed. How, then, can there be a spirit without time, if time also exists with the spiritual?

Time, therefore isn't something that "exists" but rather is only a measurement of events.

 

[Jay Walk]

Theodicy, the problem of evil, is one Achille's tendon of your view.

LOL! That one made me laugh coming from an open theist where that is actually a problem that shows you serve a counterfeit god. Saying evil exists and the majority of people that ever lived will/is in hell because God messed up when he took a chance (which the open theist god shouldn't since he goofs up the majority of the time and bats way under .500) and didn't know it will come about is not an answer and is embarrassing. The biggest FAIL of all time. The problem sums up your god neatly by saying "why call him god?" Nice red herring btw.

 

[DFT_Dave]

You make a continued mistake here as well, Dave. We have never said God does not act within our temporal existence but essentially what you are missing is similar to this: It is like saying if God builds a house, He must do it exactly the way we do it because the laws of nature would apply equally to Him. In other words, He'd have to saw trees, manufacture sheet rock, go to Home Depot to get sinks and tubs, etc. I cannot fathom that you cannot understand that God acts within our created parameters yet can easily do it His own way. It just doesn't make sense that you'd assert God, who has no beginning, must have a beginning in order to exist. Essentially, that is what you are demanding of God to say He is as constrained as we are by the universe. He created the universe with all its laws and properties, it did not create Him. Again, subjecting God to His creation, whether you realize it or not, makes Him the creation rather than the creator. Imo, this is a fatal logical flaw of Open Theism.

Hi Lon,

I think before I respond to this you may want to respond to my earlier post today #2777 you may have not have seen it.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Well, it wasn't for me, but you've asked it twice so I'll venture a response:

I would not agree.

The infinity of the Divine.
The Trinity.
The Incarnation.
The Resurrection.

Which of those, if explained to a man on the street, is "rational?"

God, by His very nature, defies human reason.

Do you mean that God is actually an impersonal force as in pantheism? Are you a panentheist?

--Dave

 

[Lon]

However, this doesn't work at all. You see, God is father, son and spirit. This spiritual aspect of God, always existed. How, then, can there be a spirit without time, if time also exists with the spiritual?

Time, therefore isn't something that "exists" but rather is only a measurement of events.

I believe this is the Achilles heel (deadly weakeness) for Open Theism.
With or without realizing it, you've made God a slave to His creation because you are constraining Him to linear durative movement.

Someone, can't remember who, argued with me over whether God could or could not obliterate past history. They suggested what is done is done and cannot be undone. I disagree. Whatever we call the power to obliterate Abraham Lincoln from our memories and all physical evidence, is in fact an obliteration of history (I'm dealing with can vs. would and acquiesce problems with would, but am entertaining 'could' only).
Why? Because even though he was technically right, that Abraham Lincoln would have existed still, it doesn't matter to the new reality. Nobody concerned with Abraham Lincoln would know and thus, history for them is obliterated and as far as they are concerned, "It never happened."

In repeat, not would, but could. We all must acquiesce the 'could' of this else God is not potent ("Almighty"- ALL-Mighty). If we accept the premise, He has complete control over His creation and could do this.

To the point: if God is restricted to forward durative progression, then He could not have an endless beginning. These two propositions are diametrically opposed to each other. You cannot have God stuck in durative progression and also acquiesce or recognize that He has no beginning. To say "God has no beginning" is exactly the same as saying "God is not subject to durative progression." If you embrace one truth, the other is unalterably and logically connected because "God has no beginning" is a description of God disconnected from durative progression. Literally, there is no point A which is necessary for any measurement whatsoever. In fact, you cannot apply ANY measure, physical or mental construct, to any property of God. He is beyond the measure of the universe, He cannot be quantified our quantified by finite measurements from finite man. God is infinite, we -finite and our inadequate terms do not apply. This, precisely, is why the OV gets labelled with humanizing the infinite God, restricted to concepts of finite man.

Nobody, nobody, nobody, accepting the above as fact will ever appreciate the OV position.

 

[Lon]

Hi Lon,

I think before I respond to this you may want to respond to my earlier post today #2777 you may have not have seen it.

--Dave

Fair enough. I believe I address your concern in the post just above to Patman in addition to this post.

Time is sequence, this before that. There is absolutely no problem with the logical conclusion that, if God is timeless/nonsequential and active, he does everything all at once in an eternal never ending moment--eternal now.

As you should know, only Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover" is truely timeless because he is "not active"--he is immovable, he did not create the world, he is only the cause of it's movement/activity. The Biblical God moves, the creation of the world is movement by God.

Time is not a thing outside of God that controls him anymore than love and morality are things outside of God that controls him. Nor is time a created thing anymore than than love or morality are. Time is freedom for God to do what he wants when he wants.

Freedom/time, love, and morality are intrinsic within the Trinity.

--Dave

I would state, love and morality are who God is. Freedom and time are not the same.
God certainly has freedom and is the only truly free entity in existence. He will not sin, not because He shouldn't but because He is free to not do so. On this I agree with you and would acquiesce discussion that freedom may also be part of His attributes but it is a tricky discussion because I'm not sure that me agreeing means the same thing across board. Freedom, for me, is a problematic word in describing a lot of things because it has a diversity of individual meaning. I don't want to get bogged down here on this one, but mention it only as a possible point of disagreement.

The point where we diverge is whether 'time' is an intrinsic trait of God.
We both, of course disagree because you'd say it is part of His movement.
I would think, even you would have to understand and appreciate part of Aristotle's proposition: If God is bigger than the universe, He has no 'place' to move but the important point to understand is that He isn't stuck 'inside' of the universe unmoving somewhere, but is outside of it. My problem with Aristotle is that he doesn't go far enough in explanation: God is not only immense, He proceeds in every direction beyond any point of understanding (measurement). What that means: 1st) it means that we move and have our being in Him (Colossians 1). Somewhere in infinity is us. We are inside of the infinite. We have constructs for our existence and these have parameters. Anything with parameters we call 'finite' as in de'finite.' We can de-'fine' where something starts and stops because we can see it and measure it. In math, we understand the concept that lines continue past our perception and never have ends. They keep going forever (immeasurable). Even the 'idea' of time is possible only by having a point A and B. Without either of these, there is no such thing as duration because we cannot measure it (the definition of time - a measurement from point A to B). That is, you cannot even conceive of 'time' for something that has no beginning or end, which God does/is.
2nd) Automatcally, this places God, not as a stone stuck inside of the universe, but beyond it. Because He extends beyond the universe and all creation, He is constantly moving beyond our grasp. Where would He 'move' to? God isn't 'moving' like you or I, He is the definition of movement.
Acts 17:28 For in Him we live and move and have our being, as also certain of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring.

Col 1:16 For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.

 

[godrulz]

Process Thought leads to finite godism/limitations on God with creation, but Open Theism is not guilty of this.

Strident Open Theist critic Bruce Ware actually agrees about temporality in God (endless time vs timeless/eternal now), but he does not follow it through to its logical conclusions.

Even the conservative 'Evangelical Dictionary of Theology' ed. Elwell has a long entry on 'eternity' that argues cogently for the endless time view (eternal now is Platonic/Augustinian, NOT biblical, not logical, so don't make it a test of orthodoxy!). You are not understanding duration/time, so you wrongly think it would be a limitation for God instead of the nature of divine triune reality (Ps. 90:2; Rev. 1:4; Ps. 102:27).

 

[Lon]

...Eternal now is Platonic/Augustinian, NOT biblical, not logical, so don't make it a test of orthodoxy!

Absolutely not. It is logic as stated above and as such has to be orthodox.
I'll say it again, if anything constrains God like duration, He is subject to creation and not the other way around no matter how you might like it otherwise. As I said above, the problem isn't an immovable God but a God by which all things (scriptures above) move and have their being.

You can assert all you like, but you contradict yourself, scriptures, and logic.

You are not understanding duration/time, so you wrongly think it would be a limitation for God instead of the nature of divine triune reality (Ps. 90:2; Rev. 1:4; Ps. 102:27).

I assert: not me, you. You are not understanding that duration strictly and completely is constrained from point A to point B. Without one or either, there is no such thing as duration (time).

God never had a beginning.

If you agree, you undo everything you've said.

If you disagree, God then has a beginning like the rest of us and is not eternal, thus, as I accurately and precisely stated, the OV has a God that is constrained by creation and is humanized.

Which is it to be? There is no other option.

 

[Clete]

There is no conradiction in my position, to the man unregenerated scripture is locked unless God opens the ear of understanding.

Unresponsive (and an unsupported claim I might add).
I didn't ask you whether there were any contradictions in your position.

I'm beginning to suspect that I will not get an answer to the question I asked - as usual.

To the regenerated soul scripture makes perfect sense.

Scripture either makes sense or it does not. There is no middle ground.

But even when we are born again we do not apprehend bible truths with our fleshly minds...this is just the problem, people study and swot and slave over their creeds and doctrinal and theological tomes, God may indeed be merciful in using those things but God's truths are apprehended in the soul.

Meaningless gibberish.

Could you just answer my question, directly please?

Paul says the natural man recieveth not the things of God...they are foolishness to him.

Irrelevant and a misapplication of scripture.

Just because someone doesn't understand doesn't mean its irrational. A claim is either true or it is false (given a particular context) - there is no middle ground.

To the Jew the [message of] cross is a stumbling block to the greek foolishness that is how I know Christ and His message is set to stumble the wisdom of man.

Again, (a complete misunderstanding of the passage not withstanding), a person's response to the message of the cross has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is rational nor on whether it is true.

I ask you again...

Can the irrational be accepted as true or must it be rejected as false?

Its a very simple question, but it cuts right to the heart of your entire worldview so you can tell intuitively that its risky to answer it.

Anyone whose beliefs are true stands on firm ground and can answer without fear. Those who stand on the thin air of blind belief fear anything that reeks of hard reality. But the fear, if it is present, points to hope! It is only those like Nang and AMR who are beyond reaching. They no longer care. They have turned off their mind and replaced it with a zero. To them, a willingness to believe that which is irrational is not stupidity but piety. As a result they believe what they've been taught to believe, and the less sense it makes the better.

When asked, "Can a claim, given a particular context, be both true and false at the same time?", they answer, "Yes, of course, to our feeble minds it can, sure!"

When asked, "Can two truth claims that contradict one another both be true at the same time and in the same way?" - Same answer!

Others see the glaringly obvious problem inherent with such a position but, while intelligent enough to alter their answers to the questions, are not smart enough (i.e. honest enough) to reject the position. These are the Hilston's of the world. Those who give accent to the idea that the truth is rational by definition and then hope that no one will notice that they've changed all the definitions (and I mean no one - including themselves).

Don't be one of them!

THINK!!!!

God created you with the ability to think and thereby live! That is what separates you from the animals and the plants and the dirt in God's creation. You were made in the image of the living Logos!

BE HONEST! Especially within your own mind!

The truth can (and will) take it! Can you?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Absolutely not. It is logic as stated above and as such has to be orthodox.
I'll say it again, if anything constrains God like duration, He is subject to creation and not the other way around no matter how you might like it otherwise.

This would only be so if God created time. An idea which is both unbiblical and irrational.

You can assert all you like, but you contradict yourself, scriptures, and logic.

Look who's "asserting" now!

I assert: not me, you. You are not understanding that duration strictly and completely is constrained from point A to point B. Without one or either, there is no such thing as duration (time).

God never had a beginning.

If you agree, you undo everything you've said.

If you disagree, God then has a beginning like the rest of us and is not eternal, thus, as I accurately and precisely stated, the OV has a God that is constrained by creation and is humanized.

Which is it to be? There is no other option.

Unsupported (and actually false) premise. The concept of time does not presuppose a beginning nor an end, only duration and sequence.

Further, your supposition would suggest that God didn't do anything at all prior to creation. Any action on God's part would supply your point A and point B, whether the action occurred before, during or after He created the physical universe, all three of which also provide your points A and B (and C).

Besides, wasn't God who called Himself the ALPHA and OMEGA? Two different letters to be sure but letters all the same.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Zeke]

Fair enough. I believe I address your concern in the post just above to Patman in addition to this post.


I would state, love and morality are who God is. Freedom and time are not the same.
God certainly has freedom and is the only truly free entity in existence. He will not sin, not because He shouldn't but because He is free to not do so. On this I agree with you and would acquiesce discussion that freedom may also be part of His attributes but it is a tricky discussion because I'm not sure that me agreeing means the same thing across board. Freedom, for me, is a problematic word in describing a lot of things because it has a diversity of individual meaning. I don't want to get bogged down here on this one, but mention it only as a possible point of disagreement.

The point where we diverge is whether 'time' is an intrinsic trait of God.
We both, of course disagree because you'd say it is part of His movement.
I would think, even you would have to understand and appreciate part of Aristotle's proposition: If God is bigger than the universe, He has no 'place' to move but the important point to understand is that He isn't stuck 'inside' of the universe unmoving somewhere, but is outside of it. My problem with Aristotle is that he doesn't go far enough in explanation: God is not only immense, He proceeds in every direction beyond any point of understanding (measurement). What that means: 1st) it means that we move and have our being in Him (Colossians 1). Somewhere in infinity is us. We are inside of the infinite. We have constructs for our existence and these have parameters. Anything with parameters we call 'finite' as in de'finite.' We can de-'fine' where something starts and stops because we can see it and measure it. In math, we understand the concept that lines continue past our perception and never have ends. They keep going forever (immeasurable). Even the 'idea' of time is possible only by having a point A and B. Without either of these, there is no such thing as duration because we cannot measure it (the definition of time - a measurement from point A to B). That is, you cannot even conceive of 'time' for something that has no beginning or end, which God does/is.
2nd) Automatcally, this places God, not as a stone stuck inside of the universe, but beyond it. Because He extends beyond the universe and all creation, He is constantly moving beyond our grasp. Where would He 'move' to? God isn't 'moving' like you or I, He is the definition of movement.
Acts 17:28 For in Him we live and move and have our being, as also certain of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring.

Col 1:16 For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.

Yep God created all things!! and also knew the outcome of creating all things which includes evil.

Grace, zeke.

 

[godrulz]

Absolutely not. It is logic as stated above and as such has to be orthodox.
I'll say it again, if anything constrains God like duration, He is subject to creation and not the other way around no matter how you might like it otherwise. As I said above, the problem isn't an immovable God but a God by which all things (scriptures above) move and have their being.

You can assert all you like, but you contradict yourself, scriptures, and logic.


I assert: not me, you. You are not understanding that duration strictly and completely is constrained from point A to point B. Without one or either, there is no such thing as duration (time).

God never had a beginning.

If you agree, you undo everything you've said.

If you disagree, God then has a beginning like the rest of us and is not eternal, thus, as I accurately and precisely stated, the OV has a God that is constrained by creation and is humanized.

Which is it to be? There is no other option.

God is eternal in both views, uncreated Creator with no beginning and no end. You really have not examined the various theories of time and eternity if you think only timelessness is eternal. Endless duration with no beginning/no end is just as much eternal, if not more. The fact that God experiences creation before the cross and Second Coming is the nature of divine reality, NOT a limitation on God.

 

[godrulz]

Yep God created all things!! and also knew the outcome of creating all things which includes evil.

Grace, zeke.

God did not create moral evil. He also did not create Apple computers or Ford cars.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Fair enough. I believe I address your concern in the post just above to Patman in addition to this post.

I would state, love and morality are who God is. Freedom and time are not the same.

God certainly has freedom and is the only truly free entity in existence. He will not sin, not because He shouldn't but because He is free to not do so. On this I agree with you and would acquiesce discussion that freedom may also be part of His attributes but it is a tricky discussion because I'm not sure that me agreeing means the same thing across board. Freedom, for me, is a problematic word in describing a lot of things because it has a diversity of individual meaning. I don't want to get bogged down here on this one, but mention it only as a possible point of disagreement.

The point where we diverge is whether 'time' is an intrinsic trait of God. We both, of course disagree because you'd say it is part of His movement.

I would think, even you would have to understand and appreciate part of Aristotle's proposition: If God is bigger than the universe, He has no 'place' to move but the important point to understand is that He isn't stuck 'inside' of the universe unmoving somewhere, but is outside of it. My problem with Aristotle is that he doesn't go far enough in explanation: God is not only immense, He proceeds in every direction beyond any point of understanding (measurement). What that means: 1st) it means that we move and have our being in Him (Colossians 1). Somewhere in infinity is us. We are inside of the infinite. We have constructs for our existence and these have parameters. Anything with parameters we call 'finite' as in de'finite.' We can de-'fine' where something starts and stops because we can see it and measure it. In math, we understand the concept that lines continue past our perception and never have ends. They keep going forever (immeasurable). Even the 'idea' of time is possible only by having a point A and B. Without either of these, there is no such thing as duration because we cannot measure it (the definition of time - a measurement from point A to B). That is, you cannot even conceive of 'time' for something that has no beginning or end, which God does/is.

2nd) Automatcally, this places God, not as a stone stuck inside of the universe, but beyond it. Because He extends beyond the universe and all creation, He is constantly moving beyond our grasp. Where would He 'move' to? God isn't 'moving' like you or I, He is the definition of movement.

Acts 17:28 For in Him we live and move and have our being, as also certain of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring. Col 1:16 For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him. Col 1:17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.

First, time is sequence, this before that, past, present, future, not just a measurement.

You should acknowledge this. Our concern is not about how big God is, it's about if God is active or not. If the creation occurs inside of him or outside of him is another question, but our first concern is activity by or in God.

1. Is God active, did he create the world or has it always existed?
2. Did God have to create the world, was he free not to?
3. Did God have to create the world the way he did or was he free to do it differently?
4. If God is active does he have to do everything all at once, timelessly, or is he free to do as much as he wants, when he wants, in sequence?

Is it time or timelessness/no time that restricts God or his freedom?

--Dave

 

[Lon]

God is eternal in both views, uncreated Creator with no beginning and no end.

No beginning and no end means God has no point A and no point B, nor Alpha nor Omega. He IS Alpha and Omega which means beginning and end but God has no beginning or end. This is like saying Love is God (untrue, that's not all He is). God is Love is correct. God experiences time (correct).
God moves in durative directions (also true). God does not move in any other way (absolutely not true-see below).

You really have not examined the various theories of time and eternity...

Yes, I have.

...if you think only timelessness is eternal. Endless duration with no beginning/no end is just as much eternal, if not more. The fact that God experiences creation before the cross and Second Coming is the nature of divine reality, NOT a limitation on God.

No, it is not and can never be. Having no beginning automatically means both (at least) directions at once. Having no beginning means that it is still going backwards into infinity/eternity.

 

[Lon]

First, time is sequence, this before that, past, present, future, not just a measurement.

You should acknowledge this. Our concern is not about how big God is, it's about if God is active or not.

I ask again, "what container is big enough to hold God? Why is this important? Because God would have to 'move/be active' inside of something greater than Himself. What we have then is God's actions without a containter that is beyond measurement. This includes duration.

] If the creation occurs inside of him or outside of him is another question, but our first concern is activity by or in God.

Look above, do you see why this is pertinent?

1. Is God active, did he create the world or has it always existed?

Pay attention: He created that which is finite (has parameters and definition) but is beyond and outside of His creation (is understood by His involvement in the parameters but exceeds them).

2. Did God have to create the world, was he free not to?

For me to answer this meaningful, I need to know where you are going, what you are looking for. It was in His nature to create so whether or not He could seems moot to me upon the observation that He did indeed do it.

3. Did God have to create the world the way he did or was he free to do it differently?

Again we are looking at His nature. It is like saying did I have to paint the picture this way. Well yes and no. Yes, as I made it, it is the way I made it and no, it is not the only render available in my repetiore. When we are talking about earth, it is the medium necessary for plants, animals and man to exist.

4. If God is active does he have to do everything all at once, timelessly, or is he free to do as much as he wants, when he wants, in sequence?

It would appear to us as all at once because it happens within a God with no limitations. God can use any medium within his repetiore but the OV constrains Him to one medium to act without realizing He is the definition of all movements (backwards, forwards, sideways, vertical and beyond) because He is beyond all movement into infinity.

Is it time or timelessness/no time that restricts God or his freedom?

--Dave

Time restricts his freedom? No, nothing restricts God because no container holds Him. He is immeasurably beyond it all into infiinity. Ultimately you have to entertain the question of "how big is God?" When you answer that question, He'll be eternally past your observations.

2Co 10:13 But we will not boast beyond measure, but according to the measure of the rule which the God of measure distributed to us, to reach even to you.

Eph 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Eph 3:15 of whom the whole family in Heaven and earth is named,
Eph 3:16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man;
Eph 3:17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love,
Eph 3:18 may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height,
Eph 3:19 and to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge, that you might be filled with all the fullness of God.
Eph 3:20 Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
Eph 3:21 to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen.

 

[Lon]

He also did not create Apple computers or Ford cars.

This is like saying the guy who built construction robots didn't build the house. Technically true, but we give the guy credit for the house as well and marvel more that he did it so elaborately. Therefore we can give God credit for Apple computers and Ford cars. He not only built the biological beings that made this possible, He sustained them in their ability to do so. Without Him, the house or computer or car doesn't exist.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Isaiah 46:9 remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,' 11 calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.

God states here that he has a future of "things not yet done".

The Day of judgment has not yet come for us or for God--open theism.

--Dave

*
Well I do have a view considering the Day of judgement which is distinctly different to Calvin or Aminius.

God is, God is, God IS

This is the very meaning of His name "I am what am and I will be what will be" the present past and future are IN Him. I hold that nothing happens outside God...I recognise that this throws up a great many problems.

For instance the slaughter of the innocents [and it may be applied to ANY similar atrocity or mis-hap] but what would you rather ? that such terrible events could occur outside God's knowledge/foreknowedge? if God knows then His permissive will is involved isn't it...that is the nub of the problem. On the other hand if such happenings can occur apart from God then who can we turn to when disaster or tradgedy befalls?...shall we cry to the devil? this is just what God meant when He chided Job [from memory] "wilt thou make supplication to Leviathan? will he listen to your entreaties? will you make a string for him for your maidens to lead along?....lay your hand upon him and you will not soon forget the ensuing battle."

Why does tragedy and horrors befall? now you can try to rationalize, but if they happen outside God, I do not know anywhere we can turn to in the day of rebuke and distress. I have cried to Him, when I hear of children brutalised and murdered...do you know what I percieve? when we see war?

This is man's destiny because of sin, this is what man has chosen....God allows the lid to be lifted off what is THERE in human society in ALL it's stark wickedness. These events are portents and warnings to society of what will happen if we turn away from God. All society would descend into the abyss of murder and oppression.
It is only the Presence of the Holy Spirit in the world that prevents it.

That is the meaning Jesus gave when tragedies happen "do you think these people were more sinner than others but I tell you unless you repent you shall all likewise perish."

 

[Totton Linnet]

Isn't this shown to be false by scripture? Of coruse. Faith comes by hearing and believing. Jesus said when he is raised up, he would draw all unto himself. This is why you are to shake the dust from sandals and leave. A throw away insult I might add. They do know the truth, but reject him.



That isn't true either. We don't have to apprehend, it just believe it. We have the mind of Christ, and we know who else does by what they say. It is what comes out of their mouth that defiles them.



Right. That is why he would draw all unto himself. Because we don't seek after him.

Were you born saved? were you not at one time at emnity with God? did God have mercy upon you? when are YOU going to have mercy upon others?

I have alot of reasons why I despise free willism, one of them is the utter arrogance that it supposes that there was something better in you that enabled you to make the right moral choice.

All free will posts if they are long enough contains contradictions as yours does...that is because free will IS a contradiction.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Unresponsive (and an unsupported claim I might add).
I didn't ask you whether there were any contradictions in your position.

I'm beginning to suspect that I will not get an answer to the question I asked - as usual.


Scripture either makes sense or it does not. There is no middle ground.


Meaningless gibberish.

Could you just answer my question, directly please?


Irrelevant and a misapplication of scripture.

Just because someone doesn't understand doesn't mean its irrational. A claim is either true or it is false (given a particular context) - there is no middle ground.



Again, (a complete misunderstanding of the passage not withstanding), a person's response to the message of the cross has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is rational nor on whether it is true.

I ask you again...

Can the irrational be accepted as true or must it be rejected as false?

Its a very simple question, but it cuts right to the heart of your entire worldview so you can tell intuitively that its risky to answer it.

Anyone whose beliefs are true stands on firm ground and can answer without fear. Those who stand on the thin air of blind belief fear anything that reeks of hard reality. But the fear, if it is present, points to hope! It is only those like Nang and AMR who are beyond reaching. They no longer care. They have turned off their mind and replaced it with a zero. To them, a willingness to believe that which is irrational is not stupidity but piety. As a result they believe what they've been taught to believe, and the less sense it makes the better.

When asked, "Can a claim, given a particular context, be both true and false at the same time?", they answer, "Yes, of course, to our feeble minds it can, sure!"

When asked, "Can two truth claims that contradict one another both be true at the same time and in the same way?" - Same answer!

Others see the glaringly obvious problem inherent with such a position but, while intelligent enough to alter their answers to the questions, are not smart enough (i.e. honest enough) to reject the position. These are the Hilston's of the world. Those who give accent to the idea that the truth is rational by definition and then hope that no one will notice that they've changed all the definitions (and I mean no one - including themselves).

Don't be one of them!

THINK!!!!

God created you with the ability to think and thereby live! That is what separates you from the animals and the plants and the dirt in God's creation. You were made in the image of the living Logos!

BE HONEST! Especially within your own mind!

The truth can (and will) take it! Can you?

Resting in Him,
Clete

*
I will never swap simple faith for human philosophy...mere human wisdom. And faith is a higher knowledge and wholly a gift. I also count an honour to be in the company of Nang, Amr and Lon...though they might not quite agree.