 |
| 
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/29/2004 10:43 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
John: As to your accusation of me bearing "false witness" against you...
pOw: You said that I "implicitly condemn all Open Theists..." I would not post on this board If I didn't believe that I could do so, and be posted to, without wedges of derision. Your "false witness" is not about individual words, but about a person claiming that he has malace against others. I do not.
I don't think you have MALICE towards Open Theists/Theism, PoW. However, when you say things like, "THIS theologian approaches the subject from the point of view of devotion, awe, worship," or something to that effect, you are clearly implying (whether you mean to or not) that the opposing point of view does not approach the subject from the appropriate point of view (and thus the "superior" theology resulting from the view you advocate).
quote:
PoW: It is slanderous to say that my faith is no better, no more salvific than a Buddhist.
John: What I actually said was that you have no better REASON for your faith, not that your faith is not salvific. The Buddhist appeals to his own experience of his faith, just as any anti-intellectual Christian does.
PoW: That's not true, and it is completely unrepresented by my post.
- But IN CHRIST we are TRANSFORMED in our inner being.
- we do "become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).
- "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls." (Matthew 11:29)."
I affirm that all of those verses are true. However, the Buddhist (or any other relativist) can claim they are transformed, find rest for their souls, etc., through the practice of their religion, too.
quote:
John: The fact that you typically refer to . . . clearly implies . . . that you mean we are somehow less devoted to God . . .
PoW: That's called "second guessing."
Okay, if I were to say, "My view approaches this question in the correct way," how is that NOT saying your view doesn't?
quote:
Modes of Thought, Greg's assitant, invited me onto this board. He, I, and many other who remain here make an effort to point to the "one thing necessary" (Luke 10:41-42) Tom is another one who comes to mind. There is ONLY one faith. Brandon is talking on another thread about not letting theories and systems get in the way of the ONE STORY. Amen! That is what I'm doing in that post too.
And I would by no means invite you to leave, PoW. All I'm giving is my perspective of your general approach here, that's all.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/29/2004 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid: First of all, to say "God only reveals what is true" is to define God, "after realizing that he is undefinable".
PoW: i'LL ASK FOR FORGIVENESS BELOW, BUT LET ME SIDESTEP THIS ONE. I don't feel really discussing. I don't understand that thinking.
Hope we do better below. Looks like we do.
Sahid: "God is love" defines God. God revealed this statement, so it is TRUE. Therefore, "God is love is a true definition of God. Maybe not a specific definition. But still a definition.
PoW: From the end... You say -- and I'll agree -- that "God is love" is not a "specific definition. But it is a true definition. So, I'll subscribe to your satement that it "defines" in one way and doesn't "define" in another. It is a definition we can add to other definitions, all of which are true, but not "specific" in the sense of not being exhaustive. At least that's my thinking.
Sahid: God has also revealed we responsible for our sin. God revealed that He expects us to do good, at least sometimes (the vineyard). Seems to me that God has revealed that we have choices to make. It also seems to me that God has revealed that we can sometimes get God to change His plans (Moses interceding for Israel).
OK.
Sahid: Are you saying we become one with Christ but not one with the Trinity, or are you saying something else?
PoW: Plumbing. We are branches grafted onto the main trunk. We get the same sap, without being part of the trunk. Works for me. That's what Athanasias and the other old guys were saying.
Sahid: For me personally, ever since I accepted Christ as Lord and Saviour, I've had a hunger to get to know him even better. That hunger has gone hand in hand with a hunger to know truth and reject lies regardless of the consequences. It just scares me to think that I could look back on my life and remember accepting a lie because the consequences were easier. The wonderful thing is that whenever my beliefs are torn down in order to match the truth, God's love somehow is more "real" to me. When I abandoned my old prejudiced reasons for believing Christ, I found that Christ was still there. He didn't need me to bend the truth for him. I'm not saying that you are bending the truth. THAT IS NOT MY POINT AT ALL. I'm just restating the old cliche in my own words, "All truth is God's truth." I am one who seeks after truth passionately. I believe that is part of what Christ has recreated me to be. I believe we can and should reason about God from God's revelation.
PoW: WONDERFUL!!!
pOW: With love and hope that you will forgive any arrogance that I unintentionally show you,
Sahid (a name my friends gave me)
pOw: pLEASE FORGIVE ME TOO. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/29/2004 10:48 AM (GMT -6) | | | John, the Wheel has one center. We can all try to get as centered as we can. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/29/2004 11:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
PoW: From the end... You say -- and I'll agree -- that "God is love" is not a "specific definition. But it is a true definition. So, I'll subscribe to your satement that it "defines" in one way and doesn't "define" in another. It is a definition we can add to other definitions, all of which are true, but not "specific" in the sense of not being exhaustive. At least that's my thinking.
About "God is love": I think we agree on what I'm about to say, but just to make sure, because "God is love" is true God will not be unloving. That would contradict what He has told us about Himself. So if God acts, He acts lovingly, or at least not unlovingly.
Now, how can God's grief not be literal? Sure, maybe some acts don't give rise to emotion, but the Bible claims that many of His acts do. Here's a proposed compromise: God is completely sovereign. He only experiences passion if he wants to. However, from the acts of creation and redemption we know that God does want to at least make it possible for him to experience passion. Because he has opened himself to the possibility of passion, we may define God (for he defines himself) as 'passible' but not necessarily so. So God is not forced by who he is to be passible, but instead chooses passibility.
I don't know. Tell me what you guys think.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/29/2004 12:00 PM (GMT -6) | | John, you are second-guessing me, and projecting onto what I write what I'm not saying, meaning, etc. Kindly stop. Or, keep it to yourself.
Be like Harry Truman, who kept writing declarations of war against Russia  and stuffing them in his desk drawer until it was clogged.
Don't air your private suspicians in publid at my expense. Thanks!!! | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/29/2004 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
John, you are second-guessing me, and projecting onto what I write what I'm not saying, meaning, etc. Kindly stop. Or, keep it to yourself.
Be like Harry Truman, who kept writing declarations of war against Russia and stuffing them in his desk drawer until it was clogged.
Don't air your private suspicians in publid at my expense. Thanks!!!
Okay, so it's safe to assume that you don't choose theologians to cite based on how you perceive their devotion to Christ?
By the way, these are not private suspicions; they are based on what you post in here, a public forum.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/29/2004 12:18 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
quote:
PoW: From the end... You say -- and I'll agree -- that "God is love" is not a "specific definition. But it is a true definition. So, I'll subscribe to your satement that it "defines" in one way and doesn't "define" in another. It is a definition we can add to other definitions, all of which are true, but not "specific" in the sense of not being exhaustive. At least that's my thinking.
About "God is love": I think we agree on what I'm about to say, but just to make sure, because "God is love" is true God will not be unloving. That would contradict what He has told us about Himself. So if God acts, He acts lovingly, or at least not unlovingly.
Now, how can God's grief not be literal? Sure, maybe some acts don't give rise to emotion, but the Bible claims that many of His acts do. Here's a proposed compromise: God is completely sovereign. He only experiences passion if he wants to. However, from the acts of creation and redemption we know that God does want to at least make it possible for him to experience passion. Because he has opened himself to the possibility of passion, we may define God (for he defines himself) as 'passible' but not necessarily so. So God is not forced by who he is to be passible, but instead chooses passibility.
I don't know. Tell me what you guys think.
THAT WAS GREAT!!!!
May I pause at the beginning, and say that while the "O-T"s around here get feeling uncomfortable at the mere sound of "im"-anyting, and don't appreciate Cyril of Alexandria's choice of words that Ghrist "impassibly suffered". . . Sahid has demonstrated that carying two opposite cateforied in sonsort is sometimes both useful and necessary. Sahid's categories, as just demonstrated, are easy-to-define and tough-to-define.
Sahid, I notice that with all piety and respect that you feel you have to ascribe certain terms and declarations to God because to not do so would be untrue. And there are another class of things about you feel a need to say "maybe some acts don't. . ." and "at least make it possible for him to experience. . ." and "he has opened himself to the possibility of. . ." THAT seems to be the same place that the Church Fathers I've been reading feel that they are.
Such a feeling is one that says that you can give some definitions, and you need to have some to live honoring God. And yet, there is the feeling that even with some of the surrest definitions that there are some 'caveata', some holding back in some way or another, that is necessary.
I think that tells us that we don't just opperate out of our definitions. We someone feel that we know better than follow every series of words to where the logically lead. Scripture acts as a sheepdog. And our common life in Christ does too. St. Irenaes of Lyons said "Our faith agrees with the Eucharist (the Communion service that was handed down, part of which Paul records in 1 Cor.) and the Eucharist agrees with our faith. All of these become bells going off if we cross invisible lines. With the Spirit's help, we know better.
But we are NOT 'anti-intellectual.' Reason is good, and necessary.
But theology is, in its literal definition, a 'vision of God.' Knowing God, and not just knowing about him. Surely that involves knowing about God too. What we love most fills our bookshelves, our conversation, directs our relationships. But the "one thing needful" is sepending time with God. Praying. Gathering together for Church.
And as we do so, both the Words on the page and the Word in the lives of those who confess Jesus as Lord agree.
WONDERFUL OBSERVATION, SAHID!!!! | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/30/2004 9:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
So, let's see if this works. What if we said that God just is loving and therefore passible? What if that's just the way He is, as opposed to God choosing passibility? In this view God wants to experience passion, because it's His nature to want that. It also makes God necessarily passible. Is this going too far?[/font=Book Antiqua]
You are theorizing: "What if we said." Don't theorize. Theo-rise.
You can do as in your early post (You can do it if its genuine, and not just playing with theory.) and say that there is more happening than you can rightly describe -- that God "condescends" to us, but is not hindered in His love by our sin. And that salvation is accomplished by Christ in his divinity (which can only be separated by our imagination, as there is neither division nor confusion of natures in Christ--says the Creeds) sustaining in himself the salvation he accomplished for us in his flesh. You can say these things because they are true, and they are our faith. They are not theory. They can be experienced by the Spirit.
But the rest, that you try to build logically on the first, are done forgetting what you are building upon. What you know only imperfecly from revelation can't be deconstructed and played with.
So, I ask, are you "sincere?" (from a Greek work that sculptors used that means "without wax", implying that the marble is good, and not cheeply patched up.) Such theorizing is not "sin-cere." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/6/2004 12:01 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
At that time he [Babe] was so much bigger than the game that it wasn't guesswork. It was willpower. If he wanted it enough he could hit the ball anywhere he chose. When the Babe calls his homerun it's not luck and it's not time travel
When Babe calls his homerun? Are you aware that Babe held the strike out record as well? [or so ive heard] Why didn’t he just call them everything….o yes, I see, he wanted to give the other team a chance.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/6/2004 12:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Attention
My last post was meant to go in the
The Open View In Light Of God's Eternal Purpose [thread] Sorry for the mistake 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/6/2004 2:41 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Bobber
When Babe calls his homerun? Are you aware that Babe held the strike out record as well?
Which makes his prediction all the more proof that Babe had exhaustive foreknowlege.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/6/2004 5:20 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
quote:
Originally posted by Bobber
When Babe calls his homerun? Are you aware that Babe held the strike out record as well?
Which makes his prediction all the more proof that Babe had exhaustive foreknowlege.
 | | Back to Top | | |
| 142 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:13 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|