ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[DFT_Dave]

AMR, it is you who needs to dig deeper. In the very article which you cited we read:

"We do not see how the universal corruption of mankind can be accounted for, without admitting that they are involved in the guilt of his first transgression. It must be some sin which God punishes with the deprivation of original righteousness; and that can be no other than the first sin of Adam" (The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith by Robert Shaw).

So when we read the following we can know that the Calvinists teach that God is responsible for man coming out of the womb corrupted and "made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil":

"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions" (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/4).

And then when man does exactly what he was designed to do God punishes him severely:

"...the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds...unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil" (Ro.2:5-6,8-9).

Your theology makes God out to be a tyrant who would punish the lame for limping and the blind for losing their way.

Amen, excellent point, well said! :thumb:

The logical conclusion escapes the irrationally minded.

--Dave

 

[godrulz]

Let your god out of the "condescension box," views based on figures of speech don't unlock Romans 11:33-35. Adam, adam where are you, adam this isn't funny anymore where are you? :nono: open veiw God knew where adam was.

Grace, Zeke.

Yes, God knew where Adam was when He asked this rhetorical question.
However, God did not know who would win the 2011 Superbowl years before it was played.

 

[Lon]

AMR, it is you who needs to dig deeper. In the very article which you cited we read

This is the hs graduate addressing the collegiate, like a pot calling the fine china black. Humorous and sad at the same time, 'cause you think you are serious.

Dave gave you props for this, which shows me he checked out awhile ago and went back to tired assertions because he's got nothing left, or so it strikes me anyway.

Lon, it is not me that you try to avoid but instead verses that prove that your mistaken view is in error. You continue to avoid actually addressing the following verse:

Oh no, you've got it all wrong. This is about a one-trick pony that has no prowess for any thread but to bring in his pet project. You are truly one-dimensional with nothing but one topic in your repetiore. I will probably put you on iggy since I'm not inclined to discuss your obtusion to any length in whatever thread you decide to bring up the same topic over and over and over. Do you really wonder why most of us think you didn't finish middle-school? It is like the kid who talks about one comic book, just one, that he read 20 years ago. It doesn't matter what thread you post in, it is the same topic. It is redundant, anti-intellectual, nonstimulating. I know you are interested in the topic. Your mistake is to think the rest of us are intrigued at all. I am not interested in discussing this topic with you at all. You are indoctrinated. What that means, is the conversation is exactly the same each and every time you bring it up. We've been there, done that. You've nothing interesting to add especially in a thread that has not a lot to do with it.

Enjoy your own comments. I'm done discussing with you here.

 

[Lon]

The issue is God and time not God and relationship. That a timeless God can be relational to a world in time is not possible. When God speaks in "sequence" in time he is not, at the same time, speaking non-sequentially/timelessly.

If time were a thing or place, and God is "outside" of "it", then God and the world would be in different places and you could not say that God is infinite in size because he would be excluded from the place of time and space. God is not in the "fish bowl". If God is in the fish bowl/world and outside of it at the same time then God is timeless and in time at the same time. This would be a "huge contradiction".

Logical conclusions are not lame, irrational propositions are. Scriptures and analogies that do not apply are of no help.

--Dave

Of course not. Dave doesn't want anything else. There are times you engage me and think about what I'm telling you and then there are times where you turn it off and return to old addages uncritically. Why? You don't want to let go of the OV, no matter what. You've found your golden toy and will not depart from it, even if it has dead batteries.
The contradiction is against your pet project, not against scriptural revelation or your intellect.
You already said yourself two posts ago that God is relational to and unconstrained by time (albeit for different reasons), Dave. You can't agree and then say it is a 'huge contradiction' in the next breath. You are the one looking illogical here, not me.

 

[Lon]

Yes, God knew where Adam was when He asked this rhetorical question.
However, God did not know who would win the 2011 Superbowl years before it was played.

Randomly inconsistent.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Enjoy your own comments. I'm done discussing with you here.

You are so predictable, Lon. You look for an excuse so you will not have to deal with the issues in question. You are like a little boy who takes his football and goes home when things are not going right for him.

The Calvinists teach that all men come out of the womb corrupted and AMR asserted that God is not responsible for this and he gave a source which he thinks proved his point. You agreed with him.

However, I say that the Calvinists teach that God is responsible for that and I quoted from the article which he cited to prove that I am right:

"We do not see how the universal corruption of mankind can be accounted for, without admitting that they are involved in the guilt of his first transgression. It must be some sin which God punishes with the deprivation of original righteousness; and that can be no other than the first sin of Adam" (The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith by Robert Shaw).

You had absolutely NOTHING to say about that. Instead you get on your high horse and ride off into the sunset.

Frankly, I cannot blame you after saying the following:

That's because you believe you have something to do with your salvation.

According to that ridiculous assertion of yours we have nothing to do with our salvation despite the fact that we must believe the gospel in order to be saved:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Ro.1:16).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It's not possible for God to be timeless and in time in the same way that it is not possible for God to exist and not exist.

If God is the cause of a "vision" that occurs in our time then there must be a time in God when he caused it or else the vision is still occurring. Since the "vision" or "words" have come and gone in our time I would suppose that they have also come and gone for God, right?

What detrmines whether or not God exists outside of time is if He limited by time or constrained by time. The question is if God is the Master of time or whether time masters Him. And the following verse demonstrates that time is irrelevant to God:

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet.3:8).

Here we have a speeding up of time at the same time as a slowing down of time. If Peter was looking for a way to express the idea that time is irrelevant with God then he could have found no better way than what he said at 2 Peter 3:8.

God is the Master of time so if He decides to actually place Himself in time temporarily then that does not mean that time masters Him.

 

[DFT_Dave]

What detrmines whether or not God exists outside of time is if He limited by time or constrained by time. The question is if God is the Master of time or whether time masters Him. And the following verse demonstrates that time is irrelevant to God:

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet.3:8).

Here we have a speeding up of time at the same time as a slowing down of time. If Peter was looking for a way to express the idea that time is irrelevant with God then he could have found no better way than what he said at 2 Peter 3:8.

God is the Master of time so if He decides to actually place Himself in time temporarily then that does not mean that time masters Him.

II Peter 3:8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 lThe Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsufferingtoward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past, And like a watch in the night.

Psalm 86:15 But You, O Lord, are a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in mercy and truth.

II Peter tells us that God relates to time differently than we do, not that he does not experience it at all. God is "long suffering" means he willingly suffers over a long period of time. A thousand years that passes by for us is like a day that passes by for God, etc.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR, it is you who needs to dig deeper. In the very article which you cited we read:

"We do not see how the universal corruption of mankind can be accounted for, without admitting that they are involved in the guilt of his first transgression. It must be some sin which God punishes with the deprivation of original righteousness; and that can be no other than the first sin of Adam" (The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith by Robert Shaw).

So when we read the following we can know that the Calvinists teach that God is responsible for man coming out of the womb corrupted and "made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil":

"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions" (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/4).

And then when man does exactly what he was designed to do God punishes him severely:

"...the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds...unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil" (Ro.2:5-6,8-9).

Your theology makes God out to be a tyrant who would punish the lame for limping and the blind for losing their way.

I am starting to wonder about your reading comprehension skills.

Original sin and the federal headship of Adam is in view from the quote from Shaw you are extracting and attempting to force fit into something very different. If you refuse to accept the doctrine of original sin, that is, all are born sinners deserving of nothing but God's justice, and if you do not reject the non-Biblical view that all are merely born with the potential of becoming sinners, we have little else to discuss.

That continued "God is a tyrant" bit is just a sure signal that the person using it is significantly uninformed. When one behaves badly like this, then whines that no Reformed believers will carry on a conversation with them, my advice is "Beam. Eye. Remove it!".

AMR

 

[Lon]

You are so predictable, Lon. You look for an excuse so you will not have to deal with the issues in question. You are like a little boy who takes his football and goes home when things are not going right for him.

The Calvinists teach....

"Oh boohoo. Lon won't play football on a tennis court."
Yup. You are in an OV thread that has nothing to do with your 50 Calvin threads. And are now on my iggy list.

I'll join your game when and if I decide to and until such a time will discuss anything I like other than you coming to a tennis court to play football. Ridiculous.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

II Peter tells us that God relates to time differently than we do, not that he does not experience it at all.

The verse tells us that "time" is irrelevant to Him. After all, if there is a speeding up of time with Him while there is a slowing down of time there can only be one conclusion--he is the Master of time and therefore He is not constrained by time as we are.

God is "long suffering" means he willingly suffers over a long period of time. A thousand years that passes by for us is like a day that passes by for God, etc.

God can relate to man in "time" but that does not mean that time masters Him and that would have to be the case if He exists in "time."

 

[Jerry Shugart]

"Oh boohoo. Lon won't play football on a tennis court."
Yup. You are in an OV thread that has nothing to do with your 50 Calvin threads. And are now on my iggy list.

Lon won't play football on a football field.

I quoted the following verse which relates to the question of whether or not the Scriptures portray a "settled" view:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

This verse shows us exactly how God chooses people for salvation and that way is by "belief of the truth."

I then said the following to you:

"The point that I have made is that no one is saved until he believes the gospel so no one was literally chosen for salvation before the world began. Therefore the Scriptures do not teach a settled view."

And here is your pitiful attempt to provide an answer:

That's because you believe you have something to do with your salvation.

Anyone with the least bit of knowledge of the Scriptures know that we must "believe" the gospel in order to be saved.

You have been given an opportunity to correct your assertion that we do not have anything to do with our salvation and I guess you stick to that answer even though you have been given evidence from the Scriptures which contradict your idea:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Ro.1:16).

Since you continue to assert that a person does not have to do anything to be saved then you do not have to deal with the following verse that teaches that no one is chosen for salvation until he believes the truth:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

You know that that verse undermines the "settled" view so you refuse to deal with it. You just stick your head in the sand and hope it will just go away. Then you pretend that that verse has nothing to do with the Calvinist's "settled" view.

 

[Zeke]

Yes, God knew where Adam was when He asked this rhetorical question.
However, God did not know who would win the 2011 Superbowl years before it was played.

Romans 11:33-35 still stand even though the open veiw trys to claim other wise. You over thought this one by a few leaps and bounds, kind of like your pentacostal pretending which shows your not honest with the facts, you know those small things like raising the dead and blind eyes opened ect..............................

Grace, Zeke.

 

[godrulz]

Randomly inconsistent.

God knows past and present knowledge exhaustively because it is inherently knowable as an object of certain knowledge.

Future contingencies do not exist, so it is logically not possible for them to be known even by an omniscient God until the possible becomes actualized by the agent (in your view, illogical retrocausation would be needed with a failure to distinguish determinate and indeterminate).

I know you are smart, but I am frustrated that you do not grasp these things due to clinging to preconceived ideas uncritically. The future is inherently different than the past and God knows reality as it is.

 

[Nang]

Enjoy your own comments. I'm done discussing with you here.

Righto! Jerry is one of my "been there, done that" experiences, too. :chuckle:

Nang

 

[Nang]

God knows past and present knowledge exhaustively because it is inherently knowable as an object of certain knowledge.

Future contingencies do not exist, so it is logically not possible for them to be known even by an omniscient God until the possible becomes actualized by the agent (in your view, illogical retrocausation would be needed with a failure to distinguish determinate and indeterminate).

I know you are smart, but I am frustrated that you do not grasp these things due to clinging to preconceived ideas uncritically. The future is inherently different than the past and God knows reality as it is.

You say elsewhere that God knows all things knowable, but not the unknowable.

Since when are football scores "unknowable?"



Nang

 

[Nang]

Yes, God knew where Adam was when He asked this rhetorical question.
However, God did not know who would win the 2011 Superbowl years before it was played.

You say elsewhere that God knows all things knowable, but not the unknowable.

Since when are football scores "unknowable?"

:chuckle:



Nang

 

[Delmar]

You say elsewhere that God knows all things knowable, but not the unknowable.

Since when are football scores "unknowable?"

:chuckle:



Nang

Since God dose not cheat

 

[Bright Raven]

Since God dose not cheat

:darwinsm:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Righto! Jerry is one of my "been there, done that" experiences, too.

You say that because I would not agree with what you said previously:

IOW's, we do not "believe" to get saved. We "believe" because we have been saved. . . strictly by the grace and will of God.

According to you we do not believe to get saved!

Evidently you believe that the Philippian jailer was given the wrong answer when he asked what he must do to be saved:

"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31).

Lon says we do not have anything to do with our own salvation and you say that we believe because we have already been saved.

This is a perfect example of the confusion among the Calvinists. They fail to understand even the most simple things revealed in the Bible.