Thanks for the warning that you'll be going round in circles with our replacement theology pals or as Paul calls them in Romans 11 - ignorant brethren
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Calling all Open Theists for Feedback
- Thread starter Evil.Eye.<(I)>
- Start date
Thanks for the warning that you'll be going round in circles with our replacement theology pals or as Paul calls them in Romans 11 - ignorant brethren
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
I can be a regular Sheol Raiser over the topic you have broached... but it isn't my topic here. We can all lock horns over this on other threads... for now... (1 Co. 13:2)... ya dig... Big Kuhuna... leave the Haoles alone.
JK... dey brothers... brutha's is brutha's... dig?
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Metaphysical Fun............
Metaphysical Fun............
- not really, just philosophizing and bringing up some pertinent points in the question of omniscience (just how omniscient is God?)...and 'free will' (if we genuinely have any degree of libertarian freedom to choose?) - I've read your previous posts here and my responses still hold, with openness for further research, exploration and innovation.
I'll be responding to AMR soon, with his critiques on Molinism (middle knowledge model), since I do see some promise with the 'model' which appears to provide some resolve between some tensions between foreknowledge and human freedom, but there are some problematic points or objections as well, as common with any model.
This is a very complex and complicated subject given the dynamic tensions and logics involved on different logical and dimensional planes. See: Foreknowledge and Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Your chart and model from a Tri-une God perspective attempting to explain the tensions and relationship between 'a-temporal' and 'temporal' knowledge is commendable, and I agree with certain logical seg-ways within the 'context-model' presented.
But there are always more to dimensions to explore
Metaphysical Fun............
- not really, just philosophizing and bringing up some pertinent points in the question of omniscience (just how omniscient is God?)...and 'free will' (if we genuinely have any degree of libertarian freedom to choose?) - I've read your previous posts here and my responses still hold, with openness for further research, exploration and innovation.I'll be responding to AMR soon, with his critiques on Molinism (middle knowledge model), since I do see some promise with the 'model' which appears to provide some resolve between some tensions between foreknowledge and human freedom, but there are some problematic points or objections as well, as common with any model.
This is a very complex and complicated subject given the dynamic tensions and logics involved on different logical and dimensional planes. See: Foreknowledge and Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Your chart and model from a Tri-une God perspective attempting to explain the tensions and relationship between 'a-temporal' and 'temporal' knowledge is commendable, and I agree with certain logical seg-ways within the 'context-model' presented.
But there are always more to dimensions to explore
I'll be responding to AMR soon, with his critiques on Molinism (middle knowledge model), since I do see some promise with the 'model' which appears to provide some resolve between some tensions between foreknowledge and human freedom, but there are some problematic points or objections as well, as common with any model.
This is a very complex and complicated subject given the dynamic tensions and logics involved on different logical and dimensional planes. See: Foreknowledge and Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Your chart and model from a Tri-une God perspective attempting to explain the tensions and relationship between 'a-temporal' and 'temporal' knowledge is commendable, and I agree with certain logical seg-ways within the 'context-model' presented.
But there are always more to dimensions to explore
Indubitably good points!
:thumb:
I was ranting about my disappointment from not being word for word quoted... Then... I received your response and realized you had sacrificed your time to write this to me with word for word quoting when you were exhausted... and I was greatful... and felt a tinge of regret for expressing my upset... but then I brushed it off and went straight to thankful!
The picture of your cat being all thumbs made me laugh and smile.
This is all good... however... Open View acknowledges progressive revelation and is a tenant of how God relates to us. The TriUne mechanism of this matter hasn't been elaborated on... until... NOW... enter EE. Thus... trying to corner me with "closed, classical definitions is impossible". I am being very clear and every time I express matters... they are becoming easier to clearly express and tie to all scripture... remember... with me... "The future for us is open" and revelation from God, through scripture is too... thus I state Theology is under perpetual reform and progressive expansion for the greater good of the gospel.
100 examples where I relate to these exact words in Witness and discussion! Lol and crying too!
This is the first signs of genuine understanding of what I am saying... but it's not quite there. The distinction is in the TriUne God's ability to Be Architect, Builder and Mediator... all at once and with differing roles that co-collaborate for the ultimate purpose of the ONE.
Remember... three pieces of music written differently at the same time and joined to make a perfect symphony of ONE.
In my chart... I agree with you. Not one disagreement here... even down to the Son knows now.
You affirm foreknowledge, but I detect a scriptural leading that ... causes you to delve deeper into the study of matters. I will leave my words at this.
I indeed seek to reconcile all theology of the TriUne because Christ desires it. I cannot hide my stripes though. I clearly view free Will as the mark of God and Full Predestination as enslavement. I am indeed a believer that God desires sincerity over utter Control. I could word this a thousand differing ways, but I will leave it at this for the moment. I am an Open Theist. I have resisted the label in the past, but matters are clear. I didn't become this way by understanding labels and such... because as helpful as labales may be to assist communication... Scripture is my one stop source and I view all scripture (John 5:39) Christalogically. I find that most biblical models of theology are muddied with the attacks of adversarial theologies that would suppress scripture to perpetuate themselves... so... again... that label maker is extensively limited in the matter of OPEN theology, vs. Closed theology.
If there's 10 Open Theists that agree with this... they need to be biblically corrected. We know that God isn't the mistake maker in the scheme of Creation... we are. Just because there are Hyper Calvinists that say really stupid stuff that make you and AMR look bad for being Calvinists... doesn't mean that you and AMR agree with those peaches of people that are Hyper Wrong. It is common to have varying views within Calvinism... the scriptures in full scriptural use... book to book and chapter to chapter... separate the Hyper Wrong from the Bible based. So... same matter here about Open Theism.
I disagree with your assessment. This is non linear omniscience. The way that classical Theism has utterly failed... and it is becoming more apparent... is that it cries "anthropomorphism" left and right... but under its hood... it asserts that Omniscience is linear and non relative to infinite possibility. This is genuine anthropomorphism and it is a human understanding of THE INFINITE thinker of thinkers. Linear Omniscience and predestination that depends on a linear thinking God, who had to build a single railed roller coaster isn't a great theological assessment. To limit God so terribly is a good reason why the labels that may have been used to repress this matter will be shattered and discarded.
Now... this is an interesting observation... (grin)
Am I? Or are a lot of different text books conflating the minds of God's ministers? Are labels ruining the natural flow of scripture and the Spirits revelations of How He works with us with perfect Love and Respect of our unique identities?
There are many examples in scripture where outcomes were decided by mans decisions. God responded to man. In fact... even the Creation story of Adam and Eve supports that God reacted to their choices. It is only when Satan tricks them into relinquishing their free will to Him by going Is. 14:14, that Adam and Eve begin to lose free wil. God equals genuine liberation, while Satan delivers us to bondage. I say it this way... the Devil is the most religious person you would ever meet. Slavery and ritual is His game. This is why we have verses like this (John 8:36).
I think you are hasty in your assessment of Open Theism. It is OPEN and it is young. 1517-1648... recognize those years? That's the reformation. Wouldn't it be ironic if [MENTION=595]Knight[/MENTION] and many like him are a genuine reformist that ultimately impact Theology for the best, while the reformist's cling to tired doctrines that blind them to what God is doing through His Holy Spirit? That would suck for the brilliant reformists that read about the previous reformists and think... "Wow, I wish my name was in the history books". But... honestly... as long as Jesus is represented as best as possible in theology and the Gospel workmanship tools are palatable to the blind... who cares who is remembered anyways! It's all about Jesus anyhow! : )
What if I just mean it like scripture genuinely implies and the imposed labels are all a Carnal distraction?
The Father tree... Omniscience (The Knowledge of Good and Evil... aka... The Law of God that only God is Good by)
The Son Tree... Our tree of sincere relationship with the Son... was it not the Son that "Walked" in the garden with Adam and Eve? (Col. 1:15).
Note... theologians nitpic over the most marginal details... but when it says God Walked... they suddenly deny it... rotfl...(Gen. 3:8) why do classical theologians clammer to redefine this? Because it threatens their theology. If the Logos genuinely is what scripture says... then they have to shatter the known and restart from scratch... TA DA! Enter... Open Theism. Too bad people cling to tradition instead of truth. Not that that's in the Bible (John 5:39f, Col. 2:8; Mk. 7:13)
If one doesn't understand Jewish understanding when reading scripture... from prophecy to the gospel... 100% of scripture is cryptic and void. Every word of scripture is through the lens of those who venerated the author of the first 5 books of the Bible. Pentateuch anyone? Torah? Or the classic joke... which biblical books we have left if Jews were removed from the Bible? None!
Books that can be possibly considered not authored by Jews? Ruth... but that kinsman redeemer thing is pretty Jewish! And... she's in the King of the Jews Lineage. Job... oldest book that possibly pre-dates Moses... but... Semite tradition is present. Luke was possibly a gentile... and most likely so... but... the book is about Jews! Acts? Jews! No Jewish understanding, no worky.
This is severely off base.
Do you believe God cannot TriUnely co-collaborate with God's TriUne self to achieve His perfect Will?
Did God place the Tree of Knowledge in the garden knowing full well it would damn His "Cherished" Creation and then He would punish then for it too?
Did God pretend to act responsively to mankind in scripture when He was really just going through the motions?
Did God create everything... including evil? No wiggle room here... He either foreknew evil and Satan and created them anyways, dispite the horror to come... or ... yup... He did what I and Open Theism are implying.
So.... God specifically blamed us for damning us and cursing us with what He foreknew and acted in a manner that consequences feom His provision caused and ultimately supported...?
Or... is He is the Architect of free Will that Paid for its presence in Architectural design while separating Himself from all evil, simultaneously ... (Jesus is Our payment... though we don't deserve Him) ... and He is utterly relational to us as time unfolds, yet architecturally in control... yet... not micro managing in a linear fashion that makes Him the author of Evil. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit! Is God a bad apple tree?
Is choice an illusion Lon?
Who suppresses free will? Tyrants or Liberators?
Did Jesus marginalize our free Will or liberate us?
Is the Devil our liberator and God our Taskmaster?
You still aren't understanding what I am conveying Lon... you are FREE to continue to seek clarification and PROVIDE rebuttal.
- EE
[MENTION=6696]Lon[/MENTION] typos fixed
Last edited:
We are begotten by the Father as his children and we must grow spiritually to be born of the Father at Jesus' manifestation.
But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. (Romans 8:9)
The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God... (Romans 8:16)
The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God... (Romans 8:16)
Reproduction is always of like kind.
Right Divider
Body part
I'm going to need to see some scriptural confirmation of that one Lon.
I never said that it was a gift. Of course our will is prone to not doing right.
Sorry Lon, I don't understand this one either.
I gathered that.
Once again, I'm going to need to see some scriptural confirmation of that one. I've never seen a scripture that said that Satan gifted us anything.
So do you believe that God created some people for damnation and there was never any way that they could be saved?
I'm wondering how you understand this:
1Tim 2:4 (KJV)
(2:4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Yes, I have read those scriptures.
Zeke
Well-known member
Zeke
Well-known member
The peoples favorites were never chosen by God, All the theology giants past and present applied copious amounts of their doctrinal lipstick on the dead letter 2Cor 3:6, but, it's still the same ole worldly based dogma of mans traditions that looks outwardly Mark 7:13 and patronizes this world's system (which is a Caesar/truman show sitcom) for a solution to an inward cure Acts 17:24 Luke 17:20-21 that only comes by Revelation Galatians 1:12, Galatians 4:24.
"Dead Letter?"
PJ is Grace only! What do you mean by Dead Letter? The works of the flesh... (John 6:63) are the dead Letter.
Are you here for discussion or to derail this thread?
Ps... Awesome Jam!!!!
Lon
Well-known member
Wowsers, I trimmed some and you'd never know it. We are going for the long-wind marathon:
1) The Open View, limits God, the traditional view, limits man. I'll take the second and ever must.
2) Because of that, freelight has some truth at times as an Eastern Mystic philosopher, but it continually expresses that all roads lead to God, denying and trampling both the Son and all the truth the Son gives. In fact, he and Caino have a Urantian thread all about this topic and confirm their rejection of Christianity OTHER than as another way to God. Your view of a progressive revelation, in order to be Christian, can ONLY be biblical or it is no longer Christian and cannot be. Christianity is incompatible with all other faiths. Do other faiths have some truths? Yes, and we must use them to steer the lost to the Only Way, Truth and Life, but we must never compromise the Son. 1 John 5:12
3) In a nutshell, there is nothing in us that can breach the gap. Some call this Bible worship. In that sense, I honor it as words from God. My reverence for the Book, is reverence for the One who wrote it. I have cherished every letter from my wife, as if they are her, herself (and they are). Sure, they are limited in the scope of conveyance, but they are the very words of life. This is the important point: They are a closed theology. There is no new scripture. Christianity, in so many ways, must not be as open as some would portray a) Christianity, b) the whole counsel of God (Bible) c) or God Himself. (more on this as I proceed to the rest)
:
A quick side note: I agree with you, we want to be biblical, not reliant upon men, however, we also need to understand that the thoughts of men, organized to a systematic theology, is always an attempt to be biblical. In this case, I was corrected and correctable with my kenosis theology by orthodox correction (which was biblical).
Because you are unafraid of labels, and seeking to be biblical, it is a good place to be. I am merely saying that at times you embrace dichotomous and opposing views. It'd help if you picked up Sander's "A God Who Risks" or Knight's Open Theism 1, 2, &3 as well as did some online reading of Molinism.
For me, it eventually was found to be my master, rather than God, and I had to think of it as the cause of my sin dilemma. Without it, I'd be totally in His will and none-the-wiser. Now I simply want to be His vessel Romans 9:6-24 I genuinely don't care what that makes me, as long as I am in the hands of God to His glory, to do as He wills. He is a good God.
-une as I am adhering to 3 'persons' with Tri-
Sola Fide, by faith alone. Ephesians 2:8&9Sola Scriptura, by Scripture alone. 2 Peter 1:20-21 2 Timothy 3:16
Solus Christus, through Christ alone. Ephesians 2:8&9
Sola Gratia, by grace alone. Ephesians 2:8&9
Soli Deo Gloria, glory to God alone. Ephesians 2:10
I have many Open Theist friends I care much about on TOL. In fact, TOL is owned by them. We care about one another.
Many many times, we post together united. At times, we post opposed, as iron sharpens iron and trust that the wounds of friends are faithful.
Because I am neither MAD nor Open, I tread carefully on Open ground as a guest and ever seek to point toward the love of God, even in dispute.
Because God is sovereign, He has you where you are AND meets you where you are. As I said, I have been wrong. I was unorthodox concerning the Kenosis of the Lord Jesus Christ (Philippians 2:6-8). The Lord Jesus Christ kept me, and did not repudiate me or leave me abandoned in my ignorance. I believe and pray the same for all who belong to Him. He will correct us and discipline us else we are illegitimate children Hebrews 12:4-12 For me: There is comfort that my freewill is not so important that the Father would not discipline the crud out of me. I saw a sign on the sidewalk last summer: "Jesus loves the hell out of you." I liked it, lest I was an illegitimate son. In Him -Lon
Here is the difference, in a nutshell on several levels:
1) The Open View, limits God, the traditional view, limits man. I'll take the second and ever must.
2) Because of that, freelight has some truth at times as an Eastern Mystic philosopher, but it continually expresses that all roads lead to God, denying and trampling both the Son and all the truth the Son gives. In fact, he and Caino have a Urantian thread all about this topic and confirm their rejection of Christianity OTHER than as another way to God. Your view of a progressive revelation, in order to be Christian, can ONLY be biblical or it is no longer Christian and cannot be. Christianity is incompatible with all other faiths. Do other faiths have some truths? Yes, and we must use them to steer the lost to the Only Way, Truth and Life, but we must never compromise the Son. 1 John 5:12
3) In a nutshell, there is nothing in us that can breach the gap. Some call this Bible worship. In that sense, I honor it as words from God. My reverence for the Book, is reverence for the One who wrote it. I have cherished every letter from my wife, as if they are her, herself (and they are). Sure, they are limited in the scope of conveyance, but they are the very words of life. This is the important point: They are a closed theology. There is no new scripture. Christianity, in so many ways, must not be as open as some would portray a) Christianity, b) the whole counsel of God (Bible) c) or God Himself. (more on this as I proceed to the rest)
I believe it will need a lot more work to be able to convey such to anybody else, and it would have to echo traditional understandings of the Trinity/Triunity of God to be accepted. You might even consider going for some bible degrees if it is that important to you.
:
Yes, and there is some truth to what you suggest, but all analogy is limited. I readily tell folks all my analogy must fail at some level, if not now, eventually. I do think this particular is one of the better I've seen. Keep it, be aware of anywhere it may not convey, as well as where you can hone it.
For a long time, I was kenotic (Philippians chapter 2). Orthodox Christianity is opposed to it as a viable theory. Quick summation: Kenotics believed the Lord Jesus Christ laid aside His attributes 'emptying Himself.' Orthodoxy demands that the Lord Jesus Christ cannot change (the same yesterday, today, forever). Rather, they believe that He possessed all Godly attributes, but did not access all of who He was in the flesh.
A quick side note: I agree with you, we want to be biblical, not reliant upon men, however, we also need to understand that the thoughts of men, organized to a systematic theology, is always an attempt to be biblical. In this case, I was corrected and correctable with my kenosis theology by orthodox correction (which was biblical).
Realize there is no shame in disagreement. I am not even shamed when everybody says "a hundred thousand denominations." Why? We all have to meet separately somewhere, We can't all drive to Texas. We all do meet up at Christian concerts and movies across the denominational divide. IOW, I think you have a great heart, and I share it, but I don't fret too much that you go to a different church that I do. We are even all here on TOL, even those who do not honor the Son "as the Father." It is clearly a separating issue, yet here we all are.
Many more than ten. Perhaps you and I don't register enough to have them chime in and help shed light on the matter, but it is true. I've heard Boyd say it. Read Sanders say it, etc. The whole premise of Open Theism is based upon what is unpredictable. It is a hallmark of Open Theism tenant that God cannot know the future except His own actions. It is wrong-headed as far as I understand logic, the Bible, and the nature of God: This view would literally subject God to being a player (like the Master Chess player analogy they give), rather than Creator and sustainer of the Universe. The Open Theist is trying to salvage God's 'relationship' to man. Why? Because man needs relationship, thus cannot conceive of God without Him taking risks with us, and for us. I am very much logically, Biblically, and in order to not harm God's character: against this line of thinking and/or theology. I truly believe it harms the character of God as well as ourselves.
As we both must. It is a reflection of our understandings. I think it demands we attend different churches and meet up on TOL etc.
I'd suggest (suggest mind you) that you spend some time investigating molinism. It accounts for your nonlinear omniscience. I am not a molinist, but I understand where they are coming from and believe your theology very much molinism. Almost every time you describe Omnisciences, it echoes molinism to me. Occasionally it has elements of Open Theology, but I believe you are strongly molinism in your understandings.
Because you are unafraid of labels, and seeking to be biblical, it is a good place to be. I am merely saying that at times you embrace dichotomous and opposing views. It'd help if you picked up Sander's "A God Who Risks" or Knight's Open Theism 1, 2, &3 as well as did some online reading of Molinism.
Agree, but even in Molinism, God knows all outcomes. For me, the only thing this kind of theologizing does, is seeks to assuage man's sensibilities of autonomy and freewill. In fact, most cherish freewill as if it is a gift. I used to do the same. I thought God 'wanted me to have it.'
For me, it eventually was found to be my master, rather than God, and I had to think of it as the cause of my sin dilemma. Without it, I'd be totally in His will and none-the-wiser. Now I simply want to be His vessel Romans 9:6-24 I genuinely don't care what that makes me, as long as I am in the hands of God to His glory, to do as He wills. He is a good God.
1) I've been talking with Open Theists for ten years now. I guess in the prospective of centuries, it would be considered hasty. 2) I actually was kind in my assessment, or rather accurate. I even said they'd think 'us' over-reaching. I was trying to give you what Open Theists actually believe. Again, an Open Theist can come in here and correct anything I've said. They are not at all shy. If I ever misspeak, they generally let me know.
I 'think' labels actually serve you here: They help you know where to go to see others who think like you. We tend to relate better with those of like mind. Also, it helps you know where to go to 'test' your ideas to see if they stand or can stand. So for me, and my point in bringing them up: You carry ideology from both of these. I bring them up as a service to show where you agree, and where there is friction between the two. Other than that, perhaps carnality is correct: It'd either be Apollos or Paul. 1 Corinthians 3:4-9
Rather, scripture gives anthropomorphisms. For instance, God doesn't have wings, but we all want to be hid in the shadow of them (more of an animal attribute than human, but you get what I'm saying).
I've heard this before. For me: None of them who received prophecy ever got it. To me, that means not even going to Jews helped: They didn't get it when they had it. I rather, tend to think: "I'll know when He wants me to know." I think rather, He gives these so that 'when' we know (when we are going through it, if ever) we will keep trust and know what to do. After that, I'm like everybody else. I will work on it logically like a puzzle like everybody else does because it is interesting (and I'm talking about symbolism or other prophecy where the meaning isn't easy to grasp rather than things we certainly do).
Then you might be an Open Theist
I think, with the ensuing, no. Not to accomplish what you are thinking. I am not a tri-theist either. In every sense of the word, I am modal with
-une as I am adhering to 3 'persons' with Tri-
Yes, else the Lord Jesus Christ wouldn't have been crucified since the beginning of creation. Romans 13:8 Oddly, there are Open Theists that agree with me. Surely a good many may disagree as well.
I've discussed this at length in Open Theism 2. Example: You brag you are the strongest man in the world. I counter: "Okay, if you are, and can pick up my motorcycle and carry it away, you can have it." It isn't 'just' going through the motions, but teaching a lesson that you'd need to learn: that you aren't as strong as you think, perhaps. Good lesson, no? How could God be accused other than from man's misunderstanding? I don't think its possible. I won't build a theology based off of my problematic misunderstandings. That can never work (Not accusing Open Theology at this point, just this particular objection. I've seen it a few times).
No wiggle room: "No." But not for the reason you are thinking. Evil is a 'lack' an absence, a deprivation. It is not a 'thing' that can be created.
The parable of the wheat and tares. God's desire is clearly given that the wheat and tares will grow. The angels were forbidden to weed lest they harm the wheat. Whatever other accusation, we know the 'reason' is so that His own will not be harmed. Why would that happen? I've no idea, but the parable is about us. He told us why. This too is all discussed in Open Theism 1,2, and 3 (mostly 2 I believe).
:nono: I've already said I disbelieve God created freewill and "The knowledge of Good and Evil" in the garden IS freewill.
1) It very well could be, it isn't something that terrifies me. Not at all. 2) It is the result of our fall, not the gift of God (which specifically is why I don't fear a 'yes' answer, not at all. Who loses? Certainly not God. I want to be that guy where God wins. Every time so illusion doesn't scare me. I don't want to hide behind smoke and mirrors. I either have it or I don't and I'll let God worry about it. 1 John 3:2
Parents, actually, on both counts. I trusted mine.
Marginalize(if that's the only word): "Not my will, but thine."
Matthew 6:24
I believe I'm understanding you just fine. Rather, you are an Open Theist and I am not. We will continue to stand upon important doctrines of our faith and we will continue to disagree about the nature of ourselves and God most likely. I am not only resigned to it, I welcome it. I don't fear as other men fear. I don't worry overtly that there are many denominations because we all have to meet somewhere and you can't drive to my state. Unity? You bet.
Sola Fide, by faith alone. Ephesians 2:8&9Sola Scriptura, by Scripture alone. 2 Peter 1:20-21 2 Timothy 3:16
Solus Christus, through Christ alone. Ephesians 2:8&9
Sola Gratia, by grace alone. Ephesians 2:8&9
Soli Deo Gloria, glory to God alone. Ephesians 2:10
I have many Open Theist friends I care much about on TOL. In fact, TOL is owned by them. We care about one another.
Many many times, we post together united. At times, we post opposed, as iron sharpens iron and trust that the wounds of friends are faithful.
Because I am neither MAD nor Open, I tread carefully on Open ground as a guest and ever seek to point toward the love of God, even in dispute.
Because God is sovereign, He has you where you are AND meets you where you are. As I said, I have been wrong. I was unorthodox concerning the Kenosis of the Lord Jesus Christ (Philippians 2:6-8). The Lord Jesus Christ kept me, and did not repudiate me or leave me abandoned in my ignorance. I believe and pray the same for all who belong to Him. He will correct us and discipline us else we are illegitimate children Hebrews 12:4-12 For me: There is comfort that my freewill is not so important that the Father would not discipline the crud out of me. I saw a sign on the sidewalk last summer: "Jesus loves the hell out of you." I liked it, lest I was an illegitimate son. In Him -Lon
Jesus being inside of us is different than us being Like God.
Spirit has different meaning...
Spirit - The Father
Spirit - The (Rm. 8:9)
Spirit - Attitude
Spirit - Our breath of Life which is the very breath of God
Spirit - Entity of the Spiritual realm
We are spiritual... but not Like the Spirit (Any of the TriUne)... we are we and He is utterly He.
- all respect,
EE
Please understand the major discussion here is by people that elevate Jesus above Theology.
We are agreeing to disagree and sharing... (1 Co. 1:13) allows us to do this.
Please contribute from a perspective of valuable debate or find another thread.
Thank you,
EE
Wowsers, I trimmed some and you'd never know it. We are going for the long-wind marathon:
Here is the difference, in a nutshell on several levels:
1) The Open View, limits God, the traditional view, limits man. I'll take the second and ever must.
2) Because of that, freelight has some truth at times as an Eastern Mystic philosopher, but it continually expresses that all roads lead to God, denying and trampling both the Son and all the truth the Son gives. In fact, he and Caino have a Urantian thread all about this topic and confirm their rejection of Christianity OTHER than as another way to God. Your view of a progressive revelation, in order to be Christian, can ONLY be biblical or it is no longer Christian and cannot be. Christianity is incompatible with all other faiths. Do other faiths have some truths? Yes, and we must use them to steer the lost to the Only Way, Truth and Life, but we must never compromise the Son. 1 John 5:12
3) In a nutshell, there is nothing in us that can breach the gap. Some call this Bible worship. In that sense, I honor it as words from God. My reverence for the Book, is reverence for the One who wrote it. I have cherished every letter from my wife, as if they are her, herself (and they are). Sure, they are limited in the scope of conveyance, but they are the very words of life. This is the important point: They are a closed theology. There is no new scripture. Christianity, in so many ways, must not be as open as some would portray a) Christianity, b) the whole counsel of God (Bible) c) or God Himself. (more on this as I proceed to the rest)
I believe it will need a lot more work to be able to convey such to anybody else, and it would have to echo traditional understandings of the Trinity/Triunity of God to be accepted. You might even consider going for some bible degrees if it is that important to you.
:
Yes, and there is some truth to what you suggest, but all analogy is limited. I readily tell folks all my analogy must fail at some level, if not now, eventually. I do think this particular is one of the better I've seen. Keep it, be aware of anywhere it may not convey, as well as where you can hone it.
For a long time, I was kenotic (Philippians chapter 2). Orthodox Christianity is opposed to it as a viable theory. Quick summation: Kenotics believed the Lord Jesus Christ laid aside His attributes 'emptying Himself.' Orthodoxy demands that the Lord Jesus Christ cannot change (the same yesterday, today, forever). Rather, they believe that He possessed all Godly attributes, but did not access all of who He was in the flesh.
A quick side note: I agree with you, we want to be biblical, not reliant upon men, however, we also need to understand that the thoughts of men, organized to a systematic theology, is always an attempt to be biblical. In this case, I was corrected and correctable with my kenosis theology by orthodox correction (which was biblical).
Realize there is no shame in disagreement. I am not even shamed when everybody says "a hundred thousand denominations." Why? We all have to meet separately somewhere, We can't all drive to Texas. We all do meet up at Christian concerts and movies across the denominational divide. IOW, I think you have a great heart, and I share it, but I don't fret too much that you go to a different church that I do. We are even all here on TOL, even those who do not honor the Son "as the Father." It is clearly a separating issue, yet here we all are.
Many more than ten. Perhaps you and I don't register enough to have them chime in and help shed light on the matter, but it is true. I've heard Boyd say it. Read Sanders say it, etc. The whole premise of Open Theism is based upon what is unpredictable. It is a hallmark of Open Theism tenant that God cannot know the future except His own actions. It is wrong-headed as far as I understand logic, the Bible, and the nature of God: This view would literally subject God to being a player (like the Master Chess player analogy they give), rather than Creator and sustainer of the Universe. The Open Theist is trying to salvage God's 'relationship' to man. Why? Because man needs relationship, thus cannot conceive of God without Him taking risks with us, and for us. I am very much logically, Biblically, and in order to not harm God's character: against this line of thinking and/or theology. I truly believe it harms the character of God as well as ourselves.
As we both must. It is a reflection of our understandings. I think it demands we attend different churches and meet up on TOL etc.
I'd suggest (suggest mind you) that you spend some time investigating molinism. It accounts for your nonlinear omniscience. I am not a molinist, but I understand where they are coming from and believe your theology very much molinism. Almost every time you describe Omnisciences, it echoes molinism to me. Occasionally it has elements of Open Theology, but I believe you are strongly molinism in your understandings.
Because you are unafraid of labels, and seeking to be biblical, it is a good place to be. I am merely saying that at times you embrace dichotomous and opposing views. It'd help if you picked up Sander's "A God Who Risks" or Knight's Open Theism 1, 2, &3 as well as did some online reading of Molinism.
Agree, but even in Molinism, God knows all outcomes. For me, the only thing this kind of theologizing does, is seeks to assuage man's sensibilities of autonomy and freewill. In fact, most cherish freewill as if it is a gift. I used to do the same. I thought God 'wanted me to have it.'
For me, it eventually was found to be my master, rather than God, and I had to think of it as the cause of my sin dilemma. Without it, I'd be totally in His will and none-the-wiser. Now I simply want to be His vessel Romans 9:6-24 I genuinely don't care what that makes me, as long as I am in the hands of God to His glory, to do as He wills. He is a good God.
1) I've been talking with Open Theists for ten years now. I guess in the prospective of centuries, it would be considered hasty. 2) I actually was kind in my assessment, or rather accurate. I even said they'd think 'us' over-reaching. I was trying to give you what Open Theists actually believe. Again, an Open Theist can come in here and correct anything I've said. They are not at all shy. If I ever misspeak, they generally let me know.
I 'think' labels actually serve you here: They help you know where to go to see others who think like you. We tend to relate better with those of like mind. Also, it helps you know where to go to 'test' your ideas to see if they stand or can stand. So for me, and my point in bringing them up: You carry ideology from both of these. I bring them up as a service to show where you agree, and where there is friction between the two. Other than that, perhaps carnality is correct: It'd either be Apollos or Paul. 1 Corinthians 3:4-9
Rather, scripture gives anthropomorphisms. For instance, God doesn't have wings, but we all want to be hid in the shadow of them (more of an animal attribute than human, but you get what I'm saying).
I've heard this before. For me: None of them who received prophecy ever got it. To me, that means not even going to Jews helped: They didn't get it when they had it. I rather, tend to think: "I'll know when He wants me to know." I think rather, He gives these so that 'when' we know (when we are going through it, if ever) we will keep trust and know what to do. After that, I'm like everybody else. I will work on it logically like a puzzle like everybody else does because it is interesting (and I'm talking about symbolism or other prophecy where the meaning isn't easy to grasp rather than things we certainly do).
Then you might be an Open Theist
I think, with the ensuing, no. Not to accomplish what you are thinking. I am not a tri-theist either. In every sense of the word, I am modal with
-une as I am adhering to 3 'persons' with Tri-
Yes, else the Lord Jesus Christ wouldn't have been crucified since the beginning of creation. Romans 13:8 Oddly, there are Open Theists that agree with me. Surely a good many may disagree as well.
I've discussed this at length in Open Theism 2. Example: You brag you are the strongest man in the world. I counter: "Okay, if you are, and can pick up my motorcycle and carry it away, you can have it." It isn't 'just' going through the motions, but teaching a lesson that you'd need to learn: that you aren't as strong as you think, perhaps. Good lesson, no? How could God be accused other than from man's misunderstanding? I don't think its possible. I won't build a theology based off of my problematic misunderstandings. That can never work (Not accusing Open Theology at this point, just this particular objection. I've seen it a few times).
No wiggle room: "No." But not for the reason you are thinking. Evil is a 'lack' an absence, a deprivation. It is not a 'thing' that can be created.
The parable of the wheat and tares. God's desire is clearly given that the wheat and tares will grow. The angels were forbidden to weed lest they harm the wheat. Whatever other accusation, we know the 'reason' is so that His own will not be harmed. Why would that happen? I've no idea, but the parable is about us. He told us why. This too is all discussed in Open Theism 1,2, and 3 (mostly 2 I believe).
:nono: I've already said I disbelieve God created freewill and "The knowledge of Good and Evil" in the garden IS freewill.
1) It very well could be, it isn't something that terrifies me. Not at all. 2) It is the result of our fall, not the gift of God (which specifically is why I don't fear a 'yes' answer, not at all. Who loses? Certainly not God. I want to be that guy where God wins. Every time so illusion doesn't scare me. I don't want to hide behind smoke and mirrors. I either have it or I don't and I'll let God worry about it. 1 John 3:2
Parents, actually, on both counts. I trusted mine.
Marginalize(if that's the only word): "Not my will, but thine."
Matthew 6:24
I believe I'm understanding you just fine. Rather, you are an Open Theist and I am not. We will continue to stand upon important doctrines of our faith and we will continue to disagree about the nature of ourselves and God most likely. I am not only resigned to it, I welcome it. I don't fear as other men fear. I don't worry overtly that there are many denominations because we all have to meet somewhere and you can't drive to my state. Unity? You bet.
Sola Fide, by faith alone. Ephesians 2:8&9Sola Scriptura, by Scripture alone. 2 Peter 1:20-21 2 Timothy 3:16
Solus Christus, through Christ alone. Ephesians 2:8&9
Sola Gratia, by grace alone. Ephesians 2:8&9
Soli Deo Gloria, glory to God alone. Ephesians 2:10
I have many Open Theist friends I care much about on TOL. In fact, TOL is owned by them. We care about one another.
Many many times, we post together united. At times, we post opposed, as iron sharpens iron and trust that the wounds of friends are faithful.
Because I am neither MAD nor Open, I tread carefully on Open ground as a guest and ever seek to point toward the love of God, even in dispute.
Because God is sovereign, He has you where you are AND meets you where you are. As I said, I have been wrong. I was unorthodox concerning the Kenosis of the Lord Jesus Christ (Philippians 2:6-8). The Lord Jesus Christ kept me, and did not repudiate me or leave me abandoned in my ignorance. I believe and pray the same for all who belong to Him. He will correct us and discipline us else we are illegitimate children Hebrews 12:4-12 For me: There is comfort that my freewill is not so important that the Father would not discipline the crud out of me. I saw a sign on the sidewalk last summer: "Jesus loves the hell out of you." I liked it, lest I was an illegitimate son. In Him -Lon
I have to log back off, but I deeply value your response!!!! I will sit down with it and give your valuable words the time they deserve. All Christian Love and gratitude for your and [MENTION=7209]Ask Mr. Religion[/MENTION] 's willingness to discuss differing views to mine with me!
It is more appreciated than my words can express!
- EE
Lon
Well-known member
No problem. Some of it I'd reword or explain better, but ensuing posts will work that all out. In Him -Lon
Zeke
Well-known member
Do you believe the Father is not able to produce children of his kind?
Lon
Well-known member
Difficult: Freewill is represented in the Bible by the word נְדָבָה and always concerning an offering. The word more closely resembles generosity than 'free.' "Free" tends to mean costs nothing so both concepts together doesn't help with a freewill discussion.
For me, Matthew 6:24 is quintessential verse. It suggests we are slaves one way or the other. As I understand Genesis 3, the serpent wasn't lying: There is a knowledge that only God and he possessed thus "you will be like God" was somewhat true. Suddenly, we had a choice between good AND evil. However, the serpent didn't discuss bondage. Man was indeed 'free' from God but suddenly had a new master that would lord over him, even sin and death. Romans 5:21 Romans 8:2 [
Agree. It led to death.
I think that is fair, rather we build our doctrine giving deference and with God giving deference to it. If I am correct, God cannot give deference to it, but must defeat it, because it is the other master.
I like you, would ask for a lot more scriptures too. A few more to start: Romans 9:6-24 Matthew 16:24 Romans 12:1 1 Corinthians 6:12
Not to worry, I was saying that in order to understand, I'd have to step up my game and you'd have to read what I come up with. I think the most expedient answer at this time is simply to leave it perhaps, for another day where I will try to be more responsible for explaining my thoughts so that you can apprehend them. The gist was mainly this: You said we have to be able to choose, to not be puppets. I asked if God's inability to sin made Him a puppet. The answer is "no." In a nutshell, I'm saying choice in and of itself, isn't why we are not or are puppets by the idea or definition. In fact, I most see 'puppet' or 'robot' as a fear rather than logic. Sometimes (not all the time), we allow fear to rule our logical minds and I believe, without realizing that is what we are doing. Fear interferes with clear thinking.
No. I don't believe He created originally, that any should perish. You are correct. He is sovereign. I don't believe His hand is stayed in deference to freewill. That is our way to explain to an unbeliever that their 'salvation or damnation' is in their own hands. I'm saying rather that we rethink a better way to share the gospel. To me, that seems like a HUGE theological burden to throw upon another's shoulders, especially without the Spirit of God. Whenever I have ever shared the gospel, it is always "Today, if you hear His voice." It forgoes a need, imho because it is only the lost that 'might' care. You and I likely don't care at all if He chose us, or we chose Him, just as long as He's got us. The sovereignty or foreknowledge question is more about past events that we may have right our wrong. For the unregenerate, I think his/her immediate need is 'today' rather than the larger part of our theology burden.
Lon
Well-known member
Able or not, He will not and has not, nor will ever. Isaiah 42:8; 45:5 Isaiah 46:9
If you believe so, you have a God who has a God and is the product of the Universe (i.e. no such thing as an eternal God at all, illogically, and unscripturally). Your ideas have you elevated and He less than God can be. Satan told Eve "you will be like God." It was a lie, not the truth.
Not as a slam, but as a call to think clearly and biblically, in Him. -Lon