Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Trusting the Lord and the Open View

Forum Quick Jump

235 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 5/21/2002 1:31 AM (GMT -6)

Hey,

TIM: By love or selflessness, righteousness, peace, and joy, I know the power of the Holy Ghost. Although, many can argue, ‘What is love and righteousness?’ We each should know well, what is peace and joy; joy, not to be confused with, or depending upon what happens.

Rom 5:5…the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is…righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

Rom 15:13 Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

TIM: I am the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is within me, and I am not my own; the Holy Ghost teaches me grace and love, through communion with the same.

1Cr 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1Cr 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

2Cr 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, [be] with you all. Amen.

TIM: I know of a truth, the gospel came to me, not in word only; not by works of righteousness; but in power and in much assurance, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

1Th 1:5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance;

Tts 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

In God’s Love,

Tim

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 5/21/2002 4:46 PM (GMT -6)

Tim, FYI, I Jn 5:7 isn't in the original manuscripts. No modern translation includes it. One good reason not to use the KJV.

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Hilston
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103

Posted 5/22/2002 5:32 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Doc and Timlings,

I am jumping out of sequence in my replies and answering Doc and Timlings, primarily because I am interested in their answers to a few quick questions.

Doc had written: What if you are (misinterpreting scripture)? See, your assurance can go no deeper than your confidence that your correct in your interpretation of Scripture.

Hilston wrote: Unbelievable. Do you believe in such a thing as THE interpretation of Scripture? Please answer this question. Do you believe that the Bible is objectively true and that its unequivocal message can be confidently ascertained by the diligent student of scripture?

Doc writes:

quote:
Of course there is THE interpretation of Scripture.

How do we ascertain it?

Doc writes:

quote:
The fact that you think its UNBELIEVABLE that I try to get you to question your equation of YOUR interpretation with THE interpretation is what concerns me.

You miss the point. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about my interpretation or Bertrand Russell's. The question is: Can we say with certainty that interpretation A is correct and interpretation B is incorrect, and on what grounds do we make the assessment?

Doc writes:

quote:
What if I responded to your trying to get me to question MY interpretation with Scripture by saying, "Unbelievable. Do you believe in such a thing as THE interpretation of Scripture?"

I wouldn't question your interpretation. Rather, I examine your presuppositions and your concomitant handling of the text on grammatical, syntactical, linguistic, and contextual grounds. These are the foundational matters of proper interpretation. I'm not interested in shooting at leaves. I'm going for the roots.

Doc writes:

quote:
Your assurance goes no deeper than your confidence that you’re correct in your interpretation of Scripture. You’re just so confident that to question your interpretation is to question Scripture itself.

Thanks for telling me how my mind thinks. I question my interpretation every time I open the scriptures. But I have an objective framework by which to question it; not the arbitrary humanistic approach that, thus far, seems to pervade Open Theism.

Doc previously wrote: What if you are (misinterpreting Scripture) Hilston? Any possibility you're wrong on any point? Is your assurance of salvation no deeper than the insistent correctness of your interpretation, even on matters of whether statements about God changing his mind are figurative or not?

Hilston wrote: Unbelievable. Do you believe we can know confidently which is the case? Do you believe it is possible to arrive at, and to confidently know, THE correct interpretation of a given scripture?

Doc writes:

quote:
Well, I’m confident that the passages that speak about God changing his mind are NOT figurative.

What is your confidence based upon?

Doc writes:

quote:
If you think I’m not an idiot, it should cause you to on some level entertain the possibility that you might be wrong, even if you can’t see how.

This I do. This is why I'm here. I want to learn the Open View and its ramifications. I hope you are also open to re-evaluating your theology in light of these discussions.

Doc writes:

quote:
This is all wonderful, and we can learn from each other ...

I agree, Greg, the limitations of a text-only forum notwithstanding (my friends think it's funny that I'm so vilified and thought of as such a meanie. They know me as a goof-off who tries unsuccessfully to be funny all the time).

Doc writes:

quote:
– until one of us thinks our way into a corner and concludes that our assurance of salvation is identical to our assurance that our interpretation of Scripture is correct.

Hmm. How do you distinguish them, Greg? Upon what is your assurance of salvation based if it is not upon the correct interpretation of scripture?

timlings writes:

quote:
Regarding the issue of THE interpretation of scripture, what about the idea that God's truth has to be revealed by his Spirit in our spirit? Scripture has to be interpretted, yes, but ultimately what we are dealing with are 'words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.' (1 Corinthians 2:13)

There is a difference between interpreting the text (which any literate person can do) and believing it for oneself. The verse you quote refers to the latter. I've known plenty of non-believers who adequately understand the Bible and its message. I've read plenty of liberal theologians who come to correct conclusions about scripture, and sometimes have a clearer grasp of passages than the evangelical theologians (which I think is because the former do not have to lug around all the denominational baggage of the latter. They are better able to deal with the text in situ than those who come to the scriptures with a denominational agenda).

timlings writes:

quote:
This kind of shifts the goal posts slightly, and means that we can't just rely on our interpretation, or our ability to argue, or ability to use our minds, but rather rely on God's Spirit when dealing with scripture.

How do you do that? How does the Spirit inform you that you are interpreting correctly?

timlings writes:

quote:
Secondly, about faith being a work. The way I understand it is that all faith is is trust. We are called to trust in Jesus and his death on the cross, and this is how we get saved.

Are you trusting in His death to save you? Or are you trusting in your belief to save you? If Jesus died for everyone, then of what actual saving value is His death? If His death actually saves, then all men would be saved. If salvation depends upon your acceptance of and belief in Christ's death, then it is your belief that is the variable/dependent factor, right? So you're not really trusting Jesus and His death on the cross. You're trusting your own tenacity of faith. Please explain if I am misunderstanding.

timlings writes:

quote:
Interestingly enough, Paul writes that God has 'reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight without blemish and free from accusation - if you continue in your faith...' (Colossians 1:22-23) It seems to depend on our faith.

This is a common modern misunderstanding. "If" was used in different ways in the ancient languages, designated by the attending verb. The conditional "if", when accompanied by the indicative verb, as in this case, actually means "since in fact." It is not a causal relation, "if you continue in the faith grounded and settled, then he will present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:." It is rather, "Since in fact you are continuing in the faith grounded and settled, (this is indicative that) he will present you holy and unblameable and ureproveable in his sight."

timlings writes:

quote:
But this doesn't mean I'm trusting in myself for my salvation. I'm trusting in Jesus for that, ...

But, on your view, Jesus's work and efforts do not change, right? He is the constant in the equation. The desired result (salvation) depends upon the satisfaction of the variable, i.e. your belief. If you don't believe, you're damned. Your salvation seems to depend upon your own work (i.e. belief).

timlings writes:

quote:
... but I'm not trusting in my ability to trust in him.

It seems you are doing precisely that. Please explain how that is NOT the case.

timlings writes:

quote:
... Jesus is trustworthy and so putting our trust in him is not that difficult, ...

Sure it is. That's partly why so many people do not trust Him. It is a tremendous work to yield one's will and desires to the Lordship of Christ.

timlings writes:

quote:
... and certainly not something we should be congratulated for.

I agree. What does this have to do with anything?

Greg writes:

quote:
... Yes we need to use good, sound, exegetical and hermenuetical principles in interpreting the Word. But there's also the revelatory work of the Spirit that leads us and enlightens us. Now, what worries some about appealing to the Holy Spirit in exegesis is that there aren't any "objective" grounds to settle whose hearing the Spirit rightly.

What means "hearing the Spirit"? How else do we "hear the Spirit" if not through His Word?

Greg writes:

quote:
But why should we think something isn't true or real just because humans can't settle it?

I would rephrase your question this way: But why should we think something cannot be settled just because humans haven't seemed capable of settling it in millennia past?

Efcharisto polu',

James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org

Edited by - Hilston on 05/22/2002 10:43:22 AM

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 5/23/2002 1:01 AM (GMT -6)

My dear Friend,

Greg: One good reason not to use the KJV.

David Guzik: The words in question occur in no Greek manuscript until the fourteenth century, except for one eleventh century and one twelfth century manuscript in which they have been added to the margin by another hand. There is no quotation of this verse in the writings of the early church.

The text of verses 7-8 should more accurately read: For there are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

Greg: No modern translation…

Daniel B. Wallace: In textual criticism there are three categories of external evidence: the Greek manuscripts, the early translations into other languages, and the quotations of the New Testament found in the church fathers' writings. If the majority text view is right, then one would expect to find this text form (often known as the Byzantine text) in the earliest Greek manuscripts, in the earliest versions, and in the earliest church fathers. Not only would one expect to find it there, but also one would expect it to be in a majority of manuscripts, versions, and fathers.

But that is not what is found. Among extant Greek manuscripts, what is today the majority text did not become a majority until the ninth century. In fact, as far as the extant witnesses reveal, the majority text did not exist in the first four centuries.

Though textual criticism cannot yet produce certainty about the exact wording of the original, this uncertainty affects only about two percent of the text. And in that two-percent, support always exists for what the original said--never is one left with mere conjecture. In other words, it is not that only 90 percent of the original text exists in the extant Greek manuscripts--rather, 110 percent exists. Textual criticism is not involved in reinventing the original; it is involved in discarding the spurious, in burning the dross to get to the gold.

Greg: …I Jn 5:7 isn't in the original manuscripts.

TIM: Thank you, ‘For Your Information’.

In God’s Love,

Tim

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 5/23/2002 1:41 AM (GMT -6)

By Someone Else: God must change His mind because He is dealing with self-centered mortals who often get so wrapped up in their own petty problems that they neglect to listen to God. Because of our inability to be led, God must keep on finding alternatives to our lack of action.

TIM: I thought this was a cute remark, until I realized, how often I resemble it. However, we each should know well, what is peace and joy; joy, not to be confused with, or depending upon what happens, which is only happenstance.

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 5/23/2002 2:44 AM (GMT -6)

Hilston. I wouldn't question your interpretation. Rather, I examine your presuppositions and your concomitant handling of the text on grammatical, syntactical, linguistic, and contextual grounds. These are the foundational matters of proper interpretation.

Doc: This is what it means to question someones interpretation of Scripture.

Hilston: I question my interpretation every time I open the scriptures.

Doc: Then, since your assurance of God is rooted in your particular interpretation of Scripture, you must question your assurance in God.

Hilston: But I have an objective framework by which to question it; not the arbitrary humanistic approach that, thus far, seems to pervade Open Theism.

Doc: I'm not intrigued enough to inquire what it is about the interpretation of Scripture by open theists that you find "arbitrary" and "humanistic". (ALL open theists use this "arbitrary" and "humanistic" and no-objective approach? ) My only concern is that you see that, however "objective" you believe your approach to Scripture to be, THIS is what your TRUST is in... since your trust in GOD hangs completely on the interpretation of those passages you believe teach you that you, unlike others, cannot fall away. So I stand by my contention that your assurance can go no deeper than your confidence in your particular interpretation of Scripture. And now that I learn that you question your interpretation every time you go to Scripture, I find it remarkable that you think you trust God more than me, any other open theist, or any Arminian.

Hilston: Upon what is your assurance of salvation based if it is not upon the correct interpretation of scripture?

Doc: My assurance isn't rooted in any particular interpretation of particular passages. Its rooted in the central theme of the New Testament, anticipated in hte Old Testament, that God is decisively revealed in Jesus Christ. My relationship with the living Lord confirms the truth of this revelation. In the experience of this perfect love, there is no fear. The concern about assurance never arises.

Thanks for your openness (no pun intended

Later

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Tiggers
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219

Posted 5/23/2002 9:40 AM (GMT -6)

Hilston,
Ok, this dialog just seems to be going in circles, and frankly, as (usually) only a reader, the only way to stop this frustrating dizziness is to be defining one’s controlling presuppositions to his/her interpretation of the Scriptures, is this what you’re straight up asking for, Hilston? If so, by presups, do you mean how one goes about the exegetical and hermeneutical task, which leads into the best possible interpretation, OR are you speaking more along the idea of one’s theological methodology?

Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers

“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie).

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 5/24/2002 1:47 AM (GMT -6)

To whom it may concern,

Someone Else: I'd rather put my $$ on the side of an omniscient, omnipotent, immutable God than on the gamble that my will is free. From my point of view it may seem free, but one thing I know, that my view is limited. I will gamble that God's is not [free or limited?], but also neither are His divine attributes.

At least I will not be guilty of thinking He is smaller than He is. To stand before Him and hear Him say, "Ah, you thought too much of me," would be preferable than to hear Him say, "You thought too much of yourself."

TIM: [Brackets in the above are mine] I believe this kind of argument is a logical contradiction, ‘Gamble’, ‘not be guilty of thinking’ and ‘hear Him say…than to hear Him say’. These all imply the use of a unique, individual ability, to reason illogically; does the God I worship have this same capacity also? No offense intended; just sounds absurd. Or rather you should argue with your God, about what I have said or done, because I have no free will, according to the above post"?" Am I in the Twilight Zone?

I posted the above, by putting it at the end of every thread of that topic, and some cross repetition of certain phrases around it, which some considered offensive; appropriately so, and following with this...

I believe my manner was totally inappropriate, however, was it not my rude manner or God’s alone, if I have no free will as suggested above? That is to say, I believe in God’s foreknowledge without fatalistic determinism. I chose to be objectionable, to try to prove my point; does this make some kind of sense to anyone besides me, or Am I in the Twilight Zone?

I believe in free will or more appropriately ‘Choice’, however, I also believe in what I call, ‘Infinite foreknowledge or intelligence’[or intelligence was garnered from Greg Boyd]. Consider the following dilemma, of someone arguing that I have no free will.

Why would any man suggest, it is heresy, for me to have the belief; of having my own free will or choice, when he believes, that I do not? Obviously, God has put us in a fatal battle of futility, according to God’s own divine will and purpose; this should be considered the case, according to him; because there is no man with a free will, remember? If he considers himself correct and not me, then where is the blame or fault, for me not believing as he does. The one to blame for the way or what I believe or think, is the self-same God he worships without a free will of his own, according to his logic?

I believe, he is the living definition, of an Ox`y*mo"ron (?), n. [NL., fr. Gr. , fr. pointedly foolish; sharp + foolish.] (Rhet.) A figure in which an epithet of a contrary signification is added to a word; e. g., cruel kindness; laborious idleness.

In God’s Love,

Tim

Edited by - Tim on 05/24/2002 06:51:37 AM

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 5/24/2002 2:00 AM (GMT -6)

The Other Guy: At least I will not be guilty of thinking He [That is God] is smaller than He is. To stand before Him and hear Him say, "Ah, you thought too much of me," would be preferable than to hear Him say, "You thought too much of yourself."

Me: It is impossible for anyone to be guilty of thinking, if they believe they have no freedom to choose their thoughts!

johnmd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154

Posted 5/24/2002 5:41 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Trusting the Lord and the Open View

The Bible teaches that one is have trust in the Lord; full assurance, unwavering confidence in God. What does that mean to an Open Theist, and how is it supported biblically? For what does the Open Theist trust the Lord and what is the basis of that trust? Here are some verses, followed by an analogy that I've pulled from another thread:

Ps 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. 9 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.

Pr 3:26 For the LORD shall be thy confidence, and shall keep thy foot from being taken.

Ps 18:2 The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.

Col 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;

1Th 1:5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance ; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

Heb 6:11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:

Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

2Co 1:9 But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead: 10 Who delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver: in whom we trust that he will yet deliver us;

As an analogy, I proffer the following hypothetical (which was first posted in another thread):

Let's say my 8-year-old son and I are together in the car on our way to the market. We see a horrible car accident: A man and his young son are struck by another vehicle that seems to come out of nowhere. Nobody sees it coming. At first, both trapped in the car, but the father gets himself free. Unfortunately, as the father is moving toward the back of the vehicle to attempt to get his son out, the car explodes, killing the son. Let's suppose this has a huge impact on my son, as it would anyone. He is afraid to ride in a car now because he doesn't want that to ever happen to us. Is there any way to relieve his worry based upon his trust in *me* to keep him from harm? Could I blame the father in the accident for being negligent and assure my son that I would be more careful than that guy? Could I say that the man in the accident didn't love his son the way I love mine? Could I say that father failed to do *anything* that would have prevented that accident? Why is it logical for my son not to trust my ability to keep him from this kind of harm should he decide to ever ride in a car again? Because, from his perspective, all future car excursions are *partly* open. I can do my best about the "closed" parts: making sure my son is in his safety seat, not driving recklessly, not driving with distractions, etc. So even though my son can trust me to do the best I can about those things, that still does not satisfy his anxiety. Why? Because maybe the father in the accident made sure of all those things, too, and he still couldn't do anything to prevent his son from dying.

Now let's ask the question differently: What would I need to do (or be able to do) in order to *truthfully* secure my son's trust that such an accident will never happen to him should he decide to ride in a car again? I would have to *close* the future. I would have to know exhaustively and control meticulously all things without exception.

So I must ask, precisely what are we trusting in God for, if He Himself cannot guarantee everything about the future?

Antio,

James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org

johnmd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154

Posted 5/24/2002 6:21 AM (GMT -6)

We are trusting God ultimately for victory in the eschaton - Ultimate victory inthe spiritual WAR. Battles have been and will be lost along the way if the spiritual "war" described in scripture is a description of reality and not an illusion. If war is real, then some battles will be lost...

Consider the battle that God Himself fights moment by moment on behalf of each individual in an attempt to rescue them from eternal peril. yet untold numbers continue to die and go eternal punishment. Unless you are a "Universalist" and do not take scripture seriously, then God "lost" the battle for that individual life which began at Calvary despite his best effort.

On the flip side where is the security and trust in knowing that God "guaranteed" eternal damnation for so many?

The Open view allows one to trust God as "omniresourcefull" to bring our present spiritual warfare in a fallen world to ultimate victory in the escaton without compromising His holy character as a God who would create and then meticulously control guarantee eternal destruction for the creature all the while giving him the mistaken illusion of free will.

johnmd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154

Posted 5/24/2002 6:21 AM (GMT -6)

Winghead
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132

Posted 5/24/2002 2:53 PM (GMT -6)

I am reminded of a few things.

1. When I first was learning about the Calvinisst/Arminian controversy, I asked the Christian Research Institute about it, remembering hearing Walter Martin once say that he was a "Calminian." They replied that the extreme of either view is heresy. We are neither robots, nor is God bound by our will. The denomination that Francis Schaeffer started stated that any view that denied man's free will or the soverignty of God was wrong. They believed the two must be in tension. The point is, whether Calvinist, Arminian, or Open Theist, we need to find a way to explain a level of interaction of individual will and God's will, without denying either. It does not good to pretend it doesn't exist. Even if we are only aware of a fraction of what God does in our lives, we must work within our own limitations.

2. Scripture NOWHERE suggests that we should take an attitude of "GO CAN'T". (I am not talking about logical contridictions like making a "round triangle." Nor am I refering to boundaries that chooses to honor.) We are taught by scripture, and God's very own words, that we should go to him for what we need. We should trust him, in all we do. That we should know that He is faithful, even when we are faithless. He is SAVIOR, He is the Lamb of God that takes away sins, He is our High Priest, and it was He that made the offering for sin, once for all. There is NOTHING in the OV that suggests this should change. Open Theists know God to be omniscient and omnipotent. While an open theist might believe that God would not save someone against their will, the OV does not preclude God from trying to win us over -- just as he did with Israel and Judah (read Hosea). Talk about God NOT being able to do this or that is outside the bounds of scripture -- especially in the area of how we should approach God in everyday life. Do not lose perspective.

3. No matter what our view might be, scripture gives us every reason to believe that when we are standing before God, and we can see clearly -- at the consumation of the ages -- we will STILL be blown away by how AWESOME He is!!!! The idea that our theology might make Him "bigger" or "smaller" is in itself a contradiction. Infinity over anything finite is still Infinity. Do that math. Someday we WILL see clearly, we will understand the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we will understand the answers for theodicy, we will know the questions about those who we think will never hear the gospel. We will know, and then we will sing: "To the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever! Rev. 5:13 (NRSVA)

Now, all this said, we may still in our finite human way attempt to understand God better so we can better live this life and server Him. We can strive to improve on our theology, our biblical archeology, and our faithfulness in walking in the works that he prepared for us (Eph 2:10). We can stake Him seriously when he tells us that we should love the Lord our God with ALL our heart, mind, and soul. And we should take him seriously when he disciplines us and challenges us when we fall short. This is a part of life.

However, we should never stop trusting Him, Loving Him, and expecting Him to do the unexpected. "He is not a tame lion...."

In a great chorus they sang, "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty! The whole earth is filled with his glory!" Isa. 6:3 (NLT)

And THIS is COOL:
The LORD, your God, is in your midst,
a warrior who gives victory;
he will rejoice over you with gladness,
he will renew you in his love;
he will exult over you with loud singing
as on a day of festival....
Zeph. 3:1718 (NRSVA)

In Jesus' Love,
Winghead

"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 5/25/2002 5:34 AM (GMT -6)

Thank you for your post johnmd, and Winghead; I enjoyed them tremendously.

"…we need to find a way to explain a level of interaction of individual will and God's will, without denying either." – Winghead

TIM: Then we must share in our definitions; of what we believe or perceive, the ‘will’ of both God and man is; here is my suggestion, for a start; the 1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. As arduous, the task, or steep and lofty, the duty may seem, for God to subdue my will; it is the undertaking to control the unruly contending will, for which God endeavors and so do I.

http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/webster.form.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will (Page: 1653)

Will (?), n. [OE. wille, AS. willa; akin to OFries. willa, OS. willeo, willio, D. wil, G. wille, Icel. vili, Dan. villie, Sw. vilja, Goth wilja. See Will, v.]

1. The power of choosing; the faculty or endowment of the soul by which it is capable of choosing; the faculty or power of the mind by which we decide to do or not to do; the power or faculty of preferring or selecting one of two or more objects.

It is necessary to form a distinct notion of what is meant by the word volition" in order to understand the import of the word will, for this last word expresses the power of mind of which volition" is the act. Stewart.

Will is an ambiguous word, being sometimes put for the faculty of willing; sometimes for the act of that faculty, besides [having] other meanings. But volition" always signifies the act of willing, and nothing else. Reid.

Appetite is the will's solicitor, and the will is appetite's controller; what we covet according to the one, by the other we often reject. Hooker.

The will is plainly that by which the mind chooses anything. J. Edwards.

2. The choice which is made; a determination or preference which results from the act or exercise of the power of choice; a volition.

The word will," however, is not always used in this its proper acceptation, but is frequently substituted for volition", as when I say that my hand mover in obedience to my will. Stewart.

3. The choice or determination of one who has authority; a decree; a command; discretionary pleasure.

Thy will be done. Matt. vi. 10.

Our prayers should be according to the will of God. Law.

4. Strong wish or inclination; desire; purpose. &hand; Inclination is another word with which will is frequently confounded. Thus, when the apothecary says, in Romeo and Juliet, --

My poverty, but not my will, consents; . . . Put this in any liquid thing you will, And drink it off. the word will is plainly used as, synonymous with inclination; not in the strict logical sense, as the immediate antecedent of action. It is with the same latitude that the word is used in common conversation, when we speak of doing a thing which duty prescribes, against one's own will; or when we speak of doing a thing willingly or unwillingly." Stewart.

5. That which is strongly wished or desired.

What's your will, good friar? Shak.

The mariner hath his will. Coleridge.

6. Arbitrary disposal; power to control, dispose, or determine.

Deliver me not over unto the will of mine enemies. Ps. xxvii. 12.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will (Page: 1653)

Will (?), v. t. & auxiliary. [imp. Would (?). Indic. present, I will (Obs. I wol), thou wilt, he will (Obs. he wol); we, ye, they will.] [OE. willen, imp. wolde; akin to OS. willan, OFries. willa, D. willen, G. wollen, OHG. wollan, wellan, Icel. & Sw. vilja, Dan. ville, Goth. wiljan, OSlav. voliti, L. velle to wish, volo I wish; cf. Skr. v&rsdot; to choose, to prefer. Cf. Voluntary, Welcome, Well, adv.]

1. To wish; to desire; to incline to have.

A wife as of herself no thing ne sholde [should] Wille in effect, but as her husband wolde [would]. Chaucer.

Caleb said unto her, What will thou ? Judg. i. 14.

They would none of my counsel. Prov. i. 30.

2. As an auxiliary, will is used to denote futurity dependent on the verb. Thus, in first person, I will" denotes willingness, consent, promise; and when will" is emphasized, it denotes determination or fixed purpose; as, I will go if you wish; I will go at all hazards. In the second and third persons, the idea of distinct volition, wish, or purpose is evanescent, and simple certainty is appropriately expressed; as, You will go," or He will go," describes a future event as a fact only. To emphasize will denotes (according to the tone or context) certain futurity or fixed determination. &hand; Will, auxiliary, may be used elliptically for will go. I'll to her lodgings." Marlowe. &hand; As in shall (which see), the second and third persons may be virtually converted into the first, either by question or indirect statement, so as to receive the meaning which belongs to will in that person; thus, Will you go?" (answer, I will go") asks assent, requests, etc.; while Will he go?" simply inquires concerning futurity; thus, also,He says or thinks he will go," You say or think you will go," both signify willingness or consent. &hand; Would, as the preterit of will, is chiefly employed in conditional, subjunctive, or optative senses; as, he would go if he could; he could go if he would; he said that he would go; I would fain go, but can not; I would that I were young again; and other like phrases. In the last use, the first personal pronoun is often omitted; as, would that he were here; would to Heaven that it were so; and, omitting the to in such an adjuration. Would God I had died for thee." Would is used for both present and future time, in conditional propositions, and would have for past time; as, he would go now if he were ready; if it should rain, he would not go; he would have gone, had he been able. Would not, as also will not, signifies refusal. He was angry, and would not go in." Luke xv. 28. Would is never a past participle. &hand; In Ireland, Scotland, and the United States, especially in the southern and western portions of the United States, shall and will, should and would, are often misused, as in the following examples: --

I am able to devote as much time and attention to other subjects as I will [shall] be under the necessity of doing next winter. Chalmers.

A countryman, telling us what he had seen, remarked that if the conflagration went on, as it was doing, we would [should] have, as our next season's employment, the Old Town of Edinburgh to rebuild. H. Miller.

I feel assured that I will [shall] not have the misfortune to find conflicting views held by one so enlightened as your excellency. J. Y. Mason.
[1654]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will (Page: 1654)

Will (?), v. i. To be willing; to be inclined or disposed; to be pleased; to wish; to desire.

And behold, there came a leper and worshiped him, saying, Lord if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus . . . touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. Matt. viii. 2, 3.
&hand; This word has been confused with will, v. i., to choose, which, unlike this, is of the weak conjugation. Will I, nill I, / Will ye, hill ye, / Will he, nill he, whether I, you, or he will it or not; hence, without choice; compulsorily; -- sometimes corrupted into willy nilly. If I must take service willy nilly." J. H. Newman. Land for all who would till it, and reading and writing will ye, nill ye." Lowell.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will (Page: 1654)

Will, v. t. [imp. & p. p Willed (?); p. pr. & vb. n. Willing. Indic. present I will, thou willeth, he wills; we, ye, they will.] [Cf. AS. willian. See Will, n.]

1. To form a distinct volition of; to determine by an act of choice; to ordain; to decree. What she will to do or say." Milton.

By all law and reason, that which the Parliament will not, is no more established in this kingdom. Milton.

Two things he [God] willeth, that we should be good, and that we should be happy. Barrow.

2. To enjoin or command, as that which is determined by an act of volition; to direct; to order. [Obs. or R.]

They willed me say so, madam. Shak.

Send for music, And will the cooks to use their best of cunning To please the palate. Beau. & Fl.

As you go, will the lord mayor . . . To attend our further pleasure presently. J. Webster.

3. To give or direct the disposal of by testament; to bequeath; to devise; as, to will one's estate to a child; also, to order or direct by testament; as, he willed that his nephew should have his watch.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will (Page: 1654)

Will, v. i. To exercise an act of volition; to choose; to decide; to determine; to decree.

At Winchester he lies, so himself willed. Robert of Brunne.

He that shall turn his thoughts inward upon what passes in his own mind when he wills. Locke.

I contend for liberty as it signifies a power in man to do as he wills or pleases. Collins.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 5/25/2002 5:50 AM (GMT -6)

Deu 4:3 Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of Baalpeor: for all the men that followed Baalpeor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you.

Zec 8:23 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days [it shall come to pass], that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard [that] God [is] with you.

Act 23:1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men [and] brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

1Th 2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

pouringagape
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 28

Posted 5/26/2002 4:48 AM (GMT -6)

I thought I'd reply...finally

quote:

Hi Pouringagape,
This is in reply to your 05/10 post.
You write:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, my "point" is that love is the point. I really believe if we just love-we will see.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But this is called question-begging. I realize you may not be prepared to give a precise defintion, but logically, if we are to fulfill the command to love, then we ought to know what it means to love in order to know if we are obeying the command properly. You say, "I really believe if we just love - we will see ..." Does this go for atheists, too? Or how about Muslims?

Pouring:
I should have said " I really believe if we just love (and SEEK truth continually) we will see."

Think of it this way: If Jesus is "Truth" and Jesus IS "Love"....how can anyone be held accountable if they're always seeking those two things?

So,Atheists-yes
Muslim-absolutely

Try talking to an atheist or muslim without love and see how far ya get in proving your 'point'

Ok, love as an action is hard to define... maybe: just think the best of. Give the benefit of the doubt to. Lift up and don't tear down. Wonder about the variables in their life when tempted to judge. Think about how you would want to be treated. What would Jesus do? Look for needs. Notice people. Just know that we're all in this together. get the big picture. trust.
(Greg's) ascribe unsurpassable worth to. on and on and on...

pouringagape writes:

quote:

Let's say a Muslim or a Mormon says, "I can do that, too, and I don't have to agree with that christian stuff." What would you say? "If we just love, we will see"?

Pouring:
Are the muslims/atheists/mormons seeking truth while they are loving?

"Seek and you will find"

quote:

Muslims probably think this way toward one another, right? But they're all going to hell in a burkhah basket if they don't repent, right? So is your example specific to Christians only? Why or why not?

pouring:
I don't believe alll muslims will go to hell.

quote:

You can't separate love from points of doctrine and making biblical arguments. If we truly love one another, then we should not shrink from telling others the truth, arguing points of doctrine, making sure that he/she isn't living according to false knowledge or information, all the while seeking to improve our own understanding of scripture and of the love of God expressed and demonstrated therein. We are to be always ready to give an answer to him who asks for a reason of the hope that is in us.

pouring: Personally, I think that is secondary. What if we don't have the answer? (we can't know everything) or, what if I heed the wisdom to just shut up and listen? or to just say "I don't know"? Sometimes timing is everything...and not being a "know it all" is nice. :)

quote:

I am asking what it means for an Open Theist to trust and love God.

pouring:
You would have to ask an "Open Theist" then...I'm a borderline.

quote:

I've asked for a definition of "love." Do you have a concise definition?

pouring:
I have 2 but neither is completely satisfying.

Main Entry: love
Function:[bold] verb [/bold]
Inflected Form(s): loved; lov·ing
Date: before 12th century
transitive senses
1 : to hold dear : CHERISH
2 a : to feel a lover's passion, devotion, or tenderness for b (1) : CARESS (2) : to fondle amorously (3) : to copulate with
3 : to like or desire actively : take pleasure in
4 : to thrive in

and

Main Entry: love
Pronunciation: 'l&v
Function: [bold]noun [/bold]
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lufu; akin to Old High German luba love, Old English lEof dear, Latin lubEre, libEre to please
Date: before 12th century
1 a (1) : strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties (2) : attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3) : affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests b : an assurance of love
2 : warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion
3 a : the object of attachment, devotion, or admiration b (1) : a beloved person : DARLING — often used as a term of endearment (2) : British : — used as an informal term of address
4 a : unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another: as (1) : the fatherly concern of God for humankind (2) : brotherly concern for others b : a person's adoration of God
5 : [bold]a god or personification of love[/bold] interesting

quote:

But, you see, this is the problem: In my view, Jesus Christ is holding all things together and is meticulously controlling the entire created order.

Col 1:16,17 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

pouring:
If He created all things he must have created choice :)

quote:

The very word "kosmos" (world) has orderliness and specificity at its root -- not randomness and amiguity. A "jesus christ" who does not have and exercise this power is not the Jesus Christ I know, fear and love.

Sometimes I think about the analogy of the "Father" Would a good father on earth control every detail in his children's lives?
Would he allow them to make mistakes etc?
Would his love for them be continual and abiding even if they went off on their own and he didn't control them?

I also think about the father in the story of the prodigal son... he released his son to make choices.

pouringagape writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For me to look at you with no pre-judgement,(or at least interrupt the thought as early as possible, and lead it away from judgement) not assuming that I know what lies under the surface of your words--that, to me is love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, let's say I grant that is as your definition of love. Should that also define love for me, as well? Should I agree with your characterization and definition of love? Why or why not?

pouring:
yes

because I said so!??

Everything you've written desribes love as an action. Now my understanding is that Open theists distinguish between "genuine love" and love that is predetermined (which, to the Open Theist, is not "genuine"). It seems to me that if I do an action out of love, whether that love was predetermined or not, the action is an expression of love. What would be the actual observable difference between the love action of a man done out of libertarian free will and the love action of a man done out of compatibilist free will?

pouring: Again, you would have to ask an OT. I can say that an action has to be preceeded by a thought, if we practice the thought long enough, it can become habit, if we live in the habit...it becomes our character.

quote:

pouringagape writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as God's love toward me, I believe it is all the above and as Tom said "continually pursuing" me. Being my source, Being my provider, Being my worth, showing me that His burden is (truly) light!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More actions, right? How would you tell the difference between predestinated love action and libertarianly free love action?

pouring:
I think "being our source" and "being our worth" is more of the noun type love...other than that, I'd have to turn this one over to the OT's too.

love ya James,
thanks for the dialogue,
blessings,
pouring

pouringagape
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 28

Posted 5/26/2002 5:07 AM (GMT -6)

Sorry, I tried to clean up the above post, but the board thought I was "Tim"!

quote:

There has been a problem!

Only Admins, Moderators and the Author can change this post

hehe, nice message.

Try to wade through it.

Best of luck,
pouring

SUUURE no problem editing this one!

Edited by - pouringagape on 05/26/2002 10:09:30 AM

timlings
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130

Posted 5/27/2002 1:24 AM (GMT -6)

Dear Everyone (but more specifically Doc and Hilston)

Here again is my English tuppence worth (we haven't got the Euro yet, but just you wait...)

GregBoyd wrote: Now, what worries some about appealing to the Holy Spirit in exegesis is that there aren't any "objective" grounds to settle whose hearing the Spirit rightly.

Timlings writes: Ah yes. Hmm. I reckon that it's all about how you approach scripture. We need to firstly interpret scripture in the light of Jesus (which makes the old testament a lot clearer). Secondly we need to look really closely at what the words are actually saying in the original greek or whatever. And thirdly we need to let scripture speak for itself. It's so easy to read a passage and go '"well it can't possibly mean that", and so instead reinterpret it to say something else. We need the guts to let the bible break apart our theological systems.

But often with tricky passages, we really do need the Holy Spirit's help in interpretation. We could sit around and try and think of what it could mean, but that won't necesarily bring us closer to the truth. Now what the Spirit reveals will never contradict what the bible plainly says, but will probably shake up what we previously thought.

And yes, appealing to the Spirit does make it all rather messy and relational. But, y'know, that's a bit like God...

Timlings wrote: ...we can't just rely on our interpretation, or our ability to argue, or ability to use our minds, but rather rely on God's Spirit when dealing with scripture.

Hilston wrote: How do you do that? How does the Spirit inform you that you are interpreting correctly?

Timlings writes: It's more that the Spirit gives you revelation in your spirit. It's a knowing as opposed to just head-knowledge. But I'm still a learner at all this, so can't give a comprehensive answer.

Hilston wrote: Are you trusting in His death to save you?

Timlings: Yep!

Hilston wrote: Or are you trusting in your belief to save you?

Timlings: Nope!

I'll try and explain my position.

Salvation is basically an amazingly expensive gift (it cost Jesus everything) that God gives to us for free. I could never pay for this gift as I am very poor. But God does not ask us to pay for it, instead he asks us just to take it, to receive it. This is all faith is, receiving the free gift God offers us and has paid for. So in a sense I save myself. In Acts, Peter tells the crowd to "save yourselves from this corrupt generation". So, you know, quite biblical. But it's Jesus who saves me, I just get saved.

Hilston wrote: If salvation depends upon your acceptance of and belief in Christ's death, then it is your belief that is the variable/dependent factor, right?

Timlings: Yes. It is completely amazing really. But as comedian Harry Hill says (don't know if you American Folk will know of him...), "I don't make the rules up!" In the beginning of Mark's gospel, Jesus goes around saying "The Kingdom of God is here. Repent and believe the good news." Sounds to me like he's telling us what we need to do, and if we don't do it then we'll be held responsible.

Timlings wrote: ...Paul writes that God has 'reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight without blemish and free from accusation - if you continue in your faith...' (Colossians 1:22-23) It seems to depend on our faith.

Hilston wrote: This is a common modern misunderstanding. "If" was used in different ways in the ancient languages, designated by the attending verb. The conditional "if", when accompanied by the indicative verb, as in this case, actually means "since in fact."

Timlings: Looks like you don't like what it says, and so you are already trying to wriggle out of the meaning. If the word 'if' didn't actually mean 'if', then why didn't the translators do a better job? What does the original greek say?

To backtrack slightly, what the verse is actually talking about is rewards we get when Jesus returns. We have been reconciled already. We are saved, done and dusted, through Jesus' death on the cross. But we are saved to something. This something is that we are to be presented holy in his sight when he returns. This is much like a bride being presented all dressed up and beautiful to her husband and the wedding day (like in revelation and elsewhere). The conditional 'if' means that we might not get this reward if we don't continue in our faith.

Anyway. That's probably opened a whole new can of worms.

Hilston wrote: The desired result (salvation) depends upon the satisfaction of the variable, i.e. your belief. If you don't believe, you're damned. Your salvation seems to depend upon your own work (i.e. belief).

Timlings: Is belief a work? Where in the bible is faith equated with a work of the law? Paul opposes grace and faith with works and the law. Hmm...

Timlings wrote: ... but I'm not trusting in my ability to trust in him.

Hilston wrote: It seems you are doing precisely that. Please explain how that is NOT the case.

Timlings: Hmm. Perhaps an example from my life might help. A few years back I used to get worried that I might stop being a Christian. I knew God would never leave me, but I was scared that one day I might leave him. But then God reassured me that all I needed to do was to trust in him, that he would never let me go. He's got me, and is holding me tight in the palm of his hand. I need just to look to him, not myself.

Timlings wrote: ... and certainly not something we should be congratulated for.

Hilston wrote: I agree. What does this have to do with anything?

Timlings: Well, the way you're talking about salvation, it's about who can be congratulated for it - Jesus, of course. But because I say that our faith is a factor, you imply that I must be congratulated too, as after all, I played a part in it. But that's not true. Like the illustration above, receiving the gift is the sensible thing to do, and refusing it is the only choice that deserves any sort of comment (along the lines of "you fool!").

I think that's quite enough from me.

Love to y'all

Timlings

Edited by - timlings on 05/27/2002 06:31:17 AM

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 5/27/2002 3:14 AM (GMT -6)

Thank you for your post timlings, all I can say now, is AMEN!

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 5/27/2002 3:39 AM (GMT -6)

When I think of the Openness of God I think of how the ineffible became holdable. I think of how the immutable felt pain. And I think of how there was 'a cross in the heart of God before the creation of the world.'

But since part of that supremely OPEN relation on God's part is the incarnation, and part is the communion of God with man and the residence of the Spirit in the believer and Christ's Church... How can we possibly say that what we trust God for in salvation does not involve us.

"Works" is not always the same as the kind of false-reliance on human fulfillment of the law that Paul preaches against. Belief -- to "believe" is to "be-live." Believing is to Live. That is action.

Christians can expect that the God who began a good work in us will bring it to completion... But we are also a part. ITS NOT AN EITHER OR -- ITS A BOTH! And that BOTH is entwined in both the incarnation and the indwelling that is the Gospel.

Too much anti-pelagin rhetoric can skew a truer view of God's Openness.

PoW

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 5/27/2002 5:58 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Too much anti-pelagin rhetoric can skew a truer view of God's Openness.
PoW

True. True. But remember to use your thpell chequer next thime Mr. Anti-Pelagian.

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

Winghead
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132

Posted 5/27/2002 6:42 AM (GMT -6)

Nice post, Timlings!

Timlings:

quote:
GregBoyd wrote: Now, what worries some about appealing to the Holy Spirit in exegesis is that there aren't any "objective" grounds to settle whose hearing the Spirit rightly.

Timlings writes: Ah yes. Hmm. I reckon that it's all about how you approach scripture. We need to firstly interpret scripture in the light of Jesus (which makes the old testament a lot clearer). Secondly we need to look really closely at what the words are actually saying in the original greek or whatever. And thirdly we need to let scripture speak for itself. It's so easy to read a passage and go '"well it can't possibly mean that", and so instead reinterpret it to say something else. We need the guts to let the bible break apart our theological systems.

Excellent point.

Timlings:

quote:
But often with tricky passages, we really do need the Holy Spirit's help in interpretation. We could sit around and try and think of what it could mean, but that won't necesarily bring us closer to the truth. Now what the Spirit reveals will never contradict what the bible plainly says, but will probably shake up what we previously thought.

First, I need to say that I totally agree with Greg's point, above, that having the "Spirit" help us with interpretation can lead to a totally subjective interpretation. The Bible was communicated to us with the intent that it would be understood. We read and interpret it within the context of the rules of language. And, we seek to translate it into new languages in a way that is true to the original.

That said, you make another good point. The truth is, all believers understand scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit. Here's an interesting quote:

"Three stages of Scripture are envisioned here, each marked by the presence of the Spirit: its writing, which takes place in the virture of teh Holy Spirit; our reading the sacred page, which must take place in the virtue of the same Spirit; our deeper understanding, which creates within our soul the same sentiments as those of the Spirit of God." (Praying the Bible: An Introduction to Lectio Divina, by Mariano Magrassi, Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998)

quote:
Timlings: Hmm. Perhaps an example from my life might help. A few years back I used to get worried that I might stop being a Christian. I knew God would never leave me, but I was scared that one day I might leave him. But then God reassured me that all I needed to do was to trust in him, that he would never let me go. He's got me, and is holding me tight in the palm of his hand. I need just to look to him, not myself.

Exactly, trust God, not ourselves. I don't see why people have such a hard time understanding this.

In Christ,
Winghead

"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)

Edited by - Winghead on 05/27/2002 11:43:29 AM

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 5/27/2002 1:52 PM (GMT -6)

Dear pouringagape,

You may find this definition of love or rather agape more satisfying, let me know.

God knows if I have His love within me; pretending to love others genuinely is impossible, before a God that hates evil and is good.

Knowing genuine love, is the pure kindness of forbearance; to treat others with continuous careful thought; and when provoked, refusing to use doubtful words, or behavior.

Sincere faith in God, gives me power over my own actions, purposes, and affections; warning against and condemning [or rather correcting] that in me, which is wrong; approving and prompting me, to that which is right.

The purpose of God’s love, is His heart beating within mine, toward others, that they might know, and that we might share, in this purity of God.

God makes me a person, who is patient, and kind, with no ill will toward another's excellence; not to behave in a manner, intended to excite admiration of myself.

God makes me a person, who is not harsh, nor severe, demanding my own way, nor to keep a record, when wronged.

God makes me a person, who is never content, with the gross injustice of wickedness, and always rejoices in the truth.

God, living within my very being, helps me to bear all things, to believe all things, to hope all things, and to endure all things.

Faith in God never fails.

God is love,

Tim

Edited by - Tim on 05/29/2002 8:17:16 PM

pouringagape
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 28

Posted 5/27/2002 3:08 PM (GMT -6)

Great Tim,

I love it.

Blessings to you,
pouringagape

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 5/29/2002 4:27 PM (GMT -6)

PotOnWheel: Too much anti-pelagin rhetoric can skew a truer view of God's Openness.

TIM: Pelagianism is the daughter of legalism; there are five claims, especially made for it…

1) The creature that God had made,
2) The marriage that He had instituted,
3) The law that He had given,
4) The free will which was His greatest endowment to man,
5) And the saints who had followed His counsels.

Pelagius point of view is essentially, man's power is sufficient; to do all that righteousness can demand, and to work out not only his own salvation, but also his own perfection.

2Th 2:13-17 …God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth…to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught…

Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given [us] everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.

235 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:32 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual