ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[patman]

You do a great job of making me tear up from laughter with your hypocritical/ironic posts. You're the king of idiots here when it comes to misrepresenting Calvinism on purpose despite many Calvinists on this forum setting you straight. Not once have you ever proved or attempted to show I straw-manned you out of the numerous times you accused me including the negative reps while I have pointed out your willful lying/dishonesty many times. I have asked you more than 3 times to back up your accusations coward. You know what happens to liars and them having their part in the lake of fire right? I think you are embarrassed of your own views of how you make God impotent and weak so you save face and just claim strawman when people point out your ridiculous super-human god.

Jay,

Do you believe godrulz is going to hell?

Thanks,

Patman

 

[Jay Walk]

Jay,

Do you believe idolrulz is going to hell?

Thanks,

Patman

Not my call. The Bible only gives a couple of examples of those who can be said 100% aren't save such as docetism. When someone becomes born again they conform morally and doctrinally to an extent. There are non-Calvinists and anti-Calvinists. When I see anti-Calvinists who just froth at the mouth at the thought of Calvinism, curse it, say the Calvinist God is Satan, and say they would rather be in hell, I personally believe they are going to hell. Not to mention all the fruit I see with anti-calvinists including willful dishonesty/lies/strawman among many which is expected of someone who is unregenerated. Im not dogmatic about it and tell them they are going to hell though. Just my own belief.

 

[patman]

Not my call. The Bible only gives a couple of examples of those who can be said 100% aren't save such as docetism. When someone becomes born again they conform morally and doctrinally to an extent. There are non-Calvinists and anti-Calvinists. When I see anti-Calvinists who just froth at the mouth at the thought of Calvinism and curse it and say they would rather be in hell, I personally believe they are going to hell. Not to mention all the fruit I see with anti-calvinists including willful dishonesty/lies/strawman. Im not dogmatic about it and tell them they are going to hell though. Just my own belief.

Well you must think he isn't a Christian.

Why else would you call him "idolrulz" every time?

You have plenty of other bad things to say about him that you obviously believe are true.

Let's put it like this:

Do you think he is a christian?

A) Yes. B) No.

If B) are you bold and honest to come to the right conclusion when asked?

 

[godrulz]

The words "from the beginning" must mean something so what do they mean?

Then how do you explain the following verse which says that salvation by grace was given "before the world began":

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Tim.1:9).

Grace and gospel was in God's mind from the beginning (eternity past/Gen. 1-3, whatever), but not fully revealed until Christ came (Jn. 1; Heb. 1; Phil. 2). Now, as believers come to Him and receive grace, they become part of the Church, in the first century, in our century. The Thess. were experiencing what God envisioned in the past. We experience it today based on His finished work.

The Bible thinks corporately, but Westerners (modern) think individualistically. Statements about corporate issues do apply to individuals, but only once they become part of the group. If they never become in Christ, in Church, they will never know His grace, grow in conformity to His image, ultimately be glorified in His presence (Rom. 8).

Calvinism, Arminianism/Open Theism differ on election details, decretal views, etc. just as Protestants differ on sacramental issues with Catholics.

I am suggesting that your paradigm needs adjusting (I think) and that you are interpreting a pet verse in light of the paradigm, whereas I am trying to factor in other relevant verses that would show we do not experience grace in eternity past or before we even exist (impossible and not what the verse implies). The grace is objectively considered in the mind of God. It becomes necessary after the Fall (not before). The cross and provision happens in the first century, not before creation. The appropriation of this to individuals happens in real space-time through the centuries. The text does not use the above words (duh), but is consistent with them.

Check some commentaries. You are making a mountain out of a molehill to support a quasi-Calvinistic view (or are you Open Theist?). Are you not part of the Hilston confusion clan?

 

[godrulz]

Well you must think he isn't a Christian.

Why else would you call him "idolrulz" every time?

You have plenty of other bad things to say about him that you obviously believe are true.

Let's put it like this:

Do you think he is a christian?

A) Yes. B) No.

If B) are you bold and honest to come to the right conclusion when asked?

Being a Christian is based on faith in the person and work of Christ (grace), not by works. It is not based on theological infallibility, saying nice, but untrue things about Calvinism/Calvinists. It is certainly not dependent on embracing TULIP error or affirming Calvinism where it is contrary to Scripture.

Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16; Rom. 10:9-10; Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 1:16; Titus 3:5; I Jn. 5:11-13.

One can reject Calvin without rejecting Christ. One can embrace Calvin and not know Christ. One can be Calvinistic, Arminian, Open Theist and know and love the triune God revealed in Christ.

Rejecting Calvinism is not tantamount to being a Muslim who does reject the Deity, death, resurrection of Christ in favor of Allah/Mohammad, nor being a JW who trusts Jehovah of WT/Jesus=Michael Archangel, nor Mormonism and affirmation of Joseph Smith and polytheistic jesus, spirit brother of Lucifer.

Calvinists too often are arrogant in their ignorance and turn a flawed theological system into a cult/sect.

If I ever do that with Open Theism or Pentecostalism (don't hold breath), smack me.

 

[Jay Walk]

Well you must think he isn't a Christian.

Why else would you call him "idolrulz" every time?

You have plenty of other bad things to say about him that you obviously believe are true.

Let's put it like this:

Do you think he is a christian?

A) Yes. B) No.

If B) are you bold and honest to come to the right conclusion when asked?

I believe my post answered these questions. Of course I personally don't think he is a Christian or saved for the reasons I mentioned. I can't be dogmatic about my beliefs because of:

"By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:" - 1 Corinthians 15:2-4.

"that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in him will not be disappointed.” - Romans 8:9-11

 

[godrulz]

I do not believe the Calvinist God is Satan since we both affirm the triune God and Deity in Christ. I had a thread in relation to TULIP that showed the Calvinistic misunderstanding of God on one point was not much different than Satan on one point (big difference from your false accusation: God wants some to be saved and some to be damned in double predestination, whereas Satan wants all to be damned, not just some; the biblical view of God is that He wants all to be saved, but this would require Calvinists to change their view instead of the Bible).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Grace and gospel was in God's mind from the beginning (eternity past/Gen. 1-3, whatever), but not fully revealed until Christ came (Jn. 1; Heb. 1; Phil. 2). Now, as believers come to Him and receive grace, they become part of the Church, in the first century, in our century. The Thess. were experiencing what God envisioned in the past. We experience it today based on His finished work.

Why cannot you deal with the verse honestly. godrulz?

It says that the blessing was GIVEN BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN!

You refuse to deal with that fact.

Calvinism, Arminianism/Open Theism differ on election details, decretal views, etc. just as Protestants differ on sacramental issues with Catholics.

You need to worry less about what men say about the Scriptures and more about what the Scriptures themselves actually say.

I am suggesting that your paradigm needs adjusting (I think) and that you are interpreting a pet verse in light of the paradigm, whereas I am trying to factor in other relevant verses that would show we do not experience grace in eternity past or before we even exist (impossible and not what the verse implies).

You are paying too much attention to other verses and not enough on the one under discussion.

You have made up your mind to such an extent that your mind refuses to see what the verse actually says.

 

[Jay Walk]

I do not believe the Calvinist God is Satan since we both affirm the triune God and Deity in Christ. I had a thread in relation to TULIP that showed the Calvinistic misunderstanding of God on one point was not much different than Satan on one point (big difference from your false accusation: God wants some to be saved and some to be damned in double predestination, whereas Satan wants all to be damned, not just some; the biblical view of God is that He wants all to be saved, but this would require Calvinists to change their view instead of the Bible).

So non-trinitarians are lost and their god is Satan? You're starting to be cultic/sect hypocrite. That isn't a big difference from comparing God to Satan and actually calling God Satan. That is a small difference. And no, the biblical view of God isn't one where he wants everyone to be saved, but fails miserably batting probably under .250 and unable to do anything (even though in another contradictory post you say God sometimes initiates and saves people on his own violating your idol of free will). The Biblical view of God is where he is sovereign and EVERYONE he wants saved is saved and Christ's blood isn't wasted or a possibility. Quit blaspheming God by making him impotent.

 

[godrulz]

It is your view that makes God impotent because saving everyone (universalism) would be full success. The problem is that salvation/relationship/love is not coerced and not a primary issue of omnipotence (Jesus on the cross was human weakness compared to a Roman soldier).

I believe modalists can be saved, but Arians cannot (one affirms the Deity of Christ, while the other rejects it). Do you think Muslims are saved? Buddhists? Hindus? Saying the Mormon Christ does not exist is not saying the Mormon Christ is Satan.

Calvinists, Arminians, Open Theists, Molinists all strongly affirm the sovereignty of God, but rejecting the Calvinistic version is not tantamount to rejecting God Himself or a more cogent, biblical view (providential vs meticulous sovereignty). Obama, Hussein, Gaddafi, Bush, Harper, etc. are all sovereign heads of their countries, but the nature of their rule differs (dictatorship, democracy, etc.).

 

[godrulz]

Why cannot you deal with the verse honestly. godrulz?

It says that the blessing was GIVEN BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN!

You refuse to deal with that fact.

You need to worry less about what men say about the Scriptures and more about what the Scriptures themselves actually say.

You are paying too much attention to other verses and not enough on the one under discussion.

You have made up your mind to such an extent that your mind refuses to see what the verse actually says.

Check other versions, check original languages, check context, compare other relevant verses, consider your theological paradigm, etc. before you are dogmatic.

I have given you some principles and points. Since I don't know what you believe about the verse or where we agree/disagree, this is not helpful.

'From the beginning' is used idiomatically and can refer to a general vs absolute time. In relation to Judas, it refers to him going rogue near the beginning of his ministry, not the hour he was chosen as an apostle. 'From the foundation of the world' alludes to early Genesis, not 1 second after creation. 'From the ages' does not have to refer to eternity past, but can encompass earth history, etc.

 

[Lon]

Lon, what do you mean when you speak of foreknowledge"?

Are you saying that God actually gains knowledge about the future in some way?

William Ames was one of the foremost of Reformed thinkers, often known as "the Learned Doctor Ames" because of his great intellectual stature among Puritans, said:

"Thereis properly only one act of the will in God because in Him all things are simultaneous and there is nothing before or after. So there is only decree about the end and means, but for the manner of understanding we say that, so far as intention is concerned, God wills the end before the means." (William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, translation and introduction by John,Dystra, Eudsen, [Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1968], 153-154).

According to Ames all things in the eternal state are "simultaneous and there is nothing before or after." And since all things with God are "simultaneous" then the idea of Him having a "foreknowledge" of anything is an oxymoron, is it not?

Another respected person within the Calvinists community is Loraine Boettner and he wrote:

"We are creatures of time, and often fail to take into consideration the fact that God is not limited as we are. That which appears to us as 'past,' 'present,' and 'future,' is all 'present' to His mind. It is an eternal 'now'...Just as He sees at one glance a road leading from New York to San Francisco, while we see only a small portion of it as we pass over it, so He sees all events in history, past, present, and future at one glance" (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination; Chapter VI [Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1932]).

Since God sees the past, present and FUTURE in one glance then there is really no such thing as "FOREknowledge" with Him, is there?

Thanks!

Yeah I acquiesce the point. Foreknowledge is simply a term scripture gives to knowledge of us before such takes place. It is a relational term for us finite beings to grasp that God already knows.

 

[Lon]

Lon, I don't think you are being fair here. The only reason we are discussing this is because we were talking about Saul's missed opportunity. You CHANGED to an unrelated passage by quoting David's promise.

Alright. I thought it was a direct comment but disagree we can assume Saul would have ever been the messianic line.

I pointed out the conditional part. Unless you have no clue about the history of the kingdom of Israel, and its kings, you'd understand which part was conditional, and that conditions exist (which I suppose you do).

One is a messianic promise unconditional, the other is about the physical kingdom reign (none are on that throne now - Christ's is over all men).

I also made it clear that the "Christ promise" was kept.

My point was just that they are both different, not the same.

In my opinion, this is your way or dismissing an argument so you don't have to deal with it. Why would you tell me not to change passages when you did that? Why would you tell me I destroyed messianic prophecy when I pointed out the difference?

No, it is my way of trying to see where the conversation morphed from (I'm a 'big-picture' thinker).

By the way, Saul did miss out on having that promise for himself.

Yes, I was saying it was conditional. We need not go to far on this if you see a difference as well.

Lon, you are the one writing out your arguments. I don't think I need to answer everything you assert because, like the above "David promise" discussion, things can get off topic. I am trying to answer your stronger points that are like the can at the bottom of the pyramid of cans. If I am missing something, you can just point it out without the shots below the belt, because either you not explaining things well, or I am not.

It may be the way you are reading me, I've been posting congenially.

Like when you said I substantiated your point. I was in defense mode standing against an unfair argument (like now ) - or just an argument you didn't understand - and I had to back track to another post because you were not understanding me.

That a literal half and hour and the rest not-literal is inconsistent.
Where you are adamant that it is 'a vision' you cannot turn around and assert it is a literal half an hour coinciding with earth because it is a future vision (*this passage addresses your final question below).

At the very beginning I mentioned the "thirty minutes" to kick off the discussion. But if you remember, I am saying that time is nothing more than sequential events. Again you are missing the forest for the trees. I am beginning to wonder why, as you are seemingly taking cheap shots. This is turning into a debate and the tactics are beginning to show.

No cheapshot at all, it is a future happening that hasn't happened yet. No sequence has happened or it did happen for John, stay consistent, please.

Looks like it's at least getting somewhere. In the past you used physics as evidence that time exists. But when there is no physics in spiritual world.

Page 186

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

As I requested before, I would like for you to research and find a verse that talks about time in heaven not being parallel to our own, or out of sync with earth. If you can't find a teaching verse, and you are not willing to learn from what seems obvious in the text of many stories in the Bible, I still find myself wondering why?

*answered above. The Revelation that John saw was a future event. It did not/does not synch with our time until we experience it.

Take the atheist's teapot argument: If you don't have a reason to say there's a teapot floating around in space, why say it could be there and put down those who doubt it is there?

Likewise, If don't have a reason to say time is out of sync then why say it could be, and then blast the person who disagrees?

Er, the above passage....

If you are going to forever be "agnostic" to the idea that time in heaven is the same as is on earth then I'll just drop it. As much as I asked for a good reason for you to state why time in heaven is different form earth time, I have yet to see a good answer. Only "you and I have no idea" just like that teapot out there in space.

This is back and forth asserting. For me, John's Revelation answers this for me in clarity. I wasn't intentionally blasting you, just laying my parameters for such views: that it must agree with what we know, and then, if not pedantically clear, softly. OV tends to stomp.
-Lon

 

[patman]

I believe my post answered these questions. Of course I personally don't think he is a Christian or saved for the reasons I mentioned. I can't be dogmatic about my beliefs because of.....

Jay,

Thank you for your direct answer. I know Open Theist say this all the time, but IF you are right, godrulz can't help himself. He just simply wasn't called, so why fight God?

On the other hand, since you know you can't be dogmatic, why not treat him more like a brother since he does claim Jesus is his Lord.

 

[patman]

Being a Christian is based on faith in the person and work of Christ (grace), not by works. It is not based on theological infallibility, saying nice, but untrue things about Calvinism/Calvinists. It is certainly not dependent on embracing TULIP error or affirming Calvinism where it is contrary to Scripture.

Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16; Rom. 10:9-10; Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 1:16; Titus 3:5; I Jn. 5:11-13.

One can reject Calvin without rejecting Christ. One can embrace Calvin and not know Christ. One can be Calvinistic, Arminian, Open Theism and know and love the triune God revealed in Christ.

Rejecting Calvinism is not tantamount to being a Muslim who does reject the Deity, death, resurrection of Christ in favor of Allah/Mohammad, nor being a JW who trusts Jehovah of WT/Jesus=Michael Archangel, nor Mormonism and affirmation of Joseph Smith and polytheistic jesus, spirit brother of Lucifer.

Calvinists too often are arrogant in their ignorance and turn a flawed theological system into a cult/sect.

If I ever do that with Open Theism or Pentecostalism (don't hold breath), smack me.

Well said!!

 

[Jay Walk]

Jay,

Thank you for your direct answer. I know Open Theist say this all the time, but IF you are right, godrulz can't help himself. He just simply wasn't called, so why fight God?

This is equivalent to asking why evangelize if Calvinism is true or why not be living in open sin if we have eternal security. The means are just as important as the ends and all of the Bible's principles need to be taken into account instead of singling one out. Namely predestination. God uses us to accomplish his purposes according to the pleasure of his good will. There are many reasons why I rebuke idolrulz. One is:

"For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." - 1 Corinthians 11:19.

Edification of others and possibly a correction in erroneous doctrine if he (or others reading) is saved. Nobody knows the future or what God has decreed to occur.

On the other hand, since you know you can't be dogmatic, why not treat him more like a brother since he does claim Jesus is his Lord.

I may not be dogmatic concerning his blasphemous doctrines, but I can be dogmatic morally concerning his fruit of continual willful lying/dishonesty common of anti-Calvinists. Besides, the Bible teaches to avoid, expose, and cast heretics out of the church.

 

[patman]

This is equivalent to asking why evangelize if Calvinism is true or why not be living in open sin if we have eternal security. The means are just as important as the ends and all of the Bible's principles need to be taken into account instead of singling one out. Namely predestination. God uses us to accomplish his purposes according to the pleasure of his good will. There are many reasons why I rebuke idolrulz. One is:

"For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." - 1 Corinthians 11:19.

Edification of others and possibly a correction in erroneous doctrine if he (or others reading) is saved. Nobody knows the future or what God has decreed to occur.



I may not be dogmatic concerning his blasphemous doctrines, but I can be dogmatic morally concerning his fruit of continual willful lying/dishonesty common of anti-Calvinists. Besides, the Bible teaches to avoid, expose, and cast heretics out of the church.

I was asking a rhetorical question; Calvinists never see the point of that first question, so I asked for it another reason. It's more of something to get you to consider exactly what you are doing here than to start a back and forth.

I guess it didn't work.

Answer this then, can God forgive blaspheme, even if it's against the Father?

 

[Jay Walk]

I was asking a rhetorical question; Calvinists never see the point of that first question, so I asked for it another reason. It's more of something to get you to consider exactly what you are doing here than to start a back and forth.

I guess it didn't work.

Answer this then, can God forgive blaspheme, even if it's against the Father?

I don't get where this question came from. There is no unforgivable sin these days.

 

[Bright Raven]

I don't get where this question came from. There is no unforgivable sin these days.

The only unforgivable sin today is blasphemy against the Spirit. (rejection of Christ)

 

[Jay Walk]

The only unforgivable sin today is blasphemy against the Spirit. (rejection of Christ)

Blasphemy against the Spirit was attributing the works of Jesus Christ, when he walked the earth, to Satan:

“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever pblasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.” - Mark 3:28-30

Everybody who is saved started off rejecting Christ and has that sin forgiven.