 |
| 
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/20/2003 6:40 PM (GMT -6) |   | Pow: Finally, honorman, you also write: "There is nothing about the contingency of humans, only about what God may or may not do, based what humans may do." Seems to me that the "contingency of humans" (what they do or don't do--by my definition) IS the subject about which the KING kingly says about what He "may or may not do, based what humans may do." It is for purpose of that rhetorical exchange that the Jeremiah passage comes about. (Don't you agree?)
Doc: If I were honorman, I certainly would NOT agree. If God tells me he may change his mind, I have every reason to suppose that he MAY change his mind. I would only conclude that this was rhetorical "king speak" if I assumed ahead of time that God doesn’t really think of the future in terms of "maybes," and doesn’t really change his mind. And, with TGB and honorman, I strongly suspect this is what leads you to your conclusion.
Bobbie: Besides, Greg already said it all: "I DECLARE MYSELF THE WINNER." That lil' ol' statement right there speaks volumes...
Doc: a) I’m sure inquiring minds are curious about the "volumes" it speaks to you bobbie. b) As Icon pointed out, I said IF NOONE RESPONDES to my challenge, I declare myself the winner. c) I was obviously having fun. Humor. Jest. Kidding around. Not serious. Jovial. Facetious. Etc….
TGB: Pray for me. I need help. Pow, you pray too, OK?
Doc: Your post here had me in tears – laughing. I LOVE YOU BRO. You know I know, don’t you? Like – EXACTLY. In the words of St. Clinton, "I feel your pain." Better not be ANY seriousness in your comment about checking out. You’re one of the main reasons some of us keep checking in. Just keep your sense of humor.
AND STOP FRIGGIN FOLLOWING MEN BLINDLY YOU IDIOT MORON!!!!!
Bobbie: Give up on Tom, per his request.
POW: REALLY waiting to see your response to Iconoclasts elucidation of my challenge.
Love and peace
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/20/2003 7:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: I echo Doc. Your recent postings so hit the mark. Such musings qualify for sainthood in my book (if I were Catholic, of course). Honesty and humor are indeed a rare combination.
Bobbie, your comments about us being upset because YOU are speaking out about (against) open theism "speaks volumes," but more perhaps about your own view of yourself than anything you say about open theism. I mean, really, cmon, we open theists aren't sitting on this website panting over the bigger names who have come out against it (which includes most of the major players in evangelism) but Bob (well, Bobbie) pops on in with her/his words of wisdom and suddenly the open theism world is set to crumble...you have really got to do better than that. But, on the other hand, your posturing has got me laughing.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/20/2003 7:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: I would also like to second Doctor Boyd's comments about checking out. You articulate the open theism view in such a way that the ordinary person like me who doesn't have the time to read the scholarly stuff can understand and that has helped me to defend what I believe more than you know (and articulate it as well). So you
CANNOT go anywhere. You have got to keep the posts going...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 4/21/2003 4:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Honorman:quote:
Tom: I would also like to second Doctor Boyd's comments about checking out. You articulate the open theism view in such a way that the ordinary person like me who doesn't have the time to read the scholarly stuff can understand and that has helped me to defend what I believe more than you know (and articulate it as well). So you
CANNOT go anywhere. You have got to keep the posts going...
Well said, honorman. I too hope Tom doesn't let a couple of people who are more interested in passive-aggressive games than real dialogue get him down.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/21/2003 5:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Pow: Finally, honorman, you also write: "There is nothing about the contingency of humans, only about what God may or may not do, based what humans may do." Seems to me that the "contingency of humans" (what they do or don't do--by my definition) IS the subject about which the KING kingly says about what He "may or may not do, based what humans may do." It is for purpose of that rhetorical exchange that the Jeremiah passage comes about. (Don't you agree?)
Doc: If I were honorman, I certainly would NOT agree. If God tells me he may change his mind, I have every reason to suppose that he MAY change his mind. I would only conclude that this was rhetorical "king speak" if I assumed ahead of time that God doesn’t really think of the future in terms of "maybes," and doesn’t really change his mind. And, with TGB and honorman, I strongly suspect this is what leads you to your conclusion.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
POW: REALLY waiting to see your response to Iconoclasts elucidation of my challenge.
Love and peace
Greg
There was a TV show that I watched once: a lawyer show. In it the main character's boyhood best friend came into the story and recounted their debating team's State Finals exploits; and one thing in particular. It seems to apply here pretty well too.
In the final round the opposing school's debater went so far afield from the core of the issue -- with drama but no foundation -- that the hero, his friend recounts, merely rose, went to the microphone, said "So what?." and returned to sit down. He nearly won.
Greg, "So what?"
That's my answer to Icon too.
But I won't stop there.
To Tom, I DID rest my "case" (the CON); for which I'm only having to provide a defense by saying that those verses (Jer. and now Ez.) are just fine without the "Openness"/God-in-time view. (As a matter of fact they are just fine without the God-in-time/"Determinist" view too!) But after I rest my case, apparently, the PRO gets their summary.
The PRO have put on the table another verse. But its really the same argument.
First, the issue Icon interjected parenthetically should be addressed: "let alone determining." THAT may not be at all as neat and clean as Icon wants. Beginning with the most "messy," I know several places where hearts "hardened" are part of the story. But less messy is this... Icon asks: "IF God motivated Ezekiel to enact this prophecy knowing that the people would not understand, how was he NOT being deceitful in telling Ezekiel that perhaps they WOULD understand?"
There are two parts to Icon's question: The first is whether there is anything wrong with making the statement even if the statement-maker is not ignorant of outcome; and the second is whether God was deceiving Ezekiel through his statement. Each should be taken separately.
To answer Icon's charge that God would be "deceiving" Ezekiel the issue is actually void. (It is very easy to conceive contemporary domestic examples where perhaps...if-s apply, where resources such as time, stamia, preparedness are at work. Such as:
When a parent finds that a child has been fooling around, being naughty, etc., and the parent comes in to interupt and call things accountable... THEN a "perhaps" can bear materially on matters of whether what should or shouldn't be done, or must then be undone ro redone, etc., will successfully be fixed before naturally occuring deadlines pass.
Preparedness is a factor in doing homework and in cleaning a room in time to do something special. A human parent can make a "perhaps...if..." statement, and it might have an "edge" to it.)
God seems to take both a short, a long, and a very long view of things. See what God says in Ezekiel!
quote:
Ezekiel
Chapter 12
1 The word of Jehovah also came unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of the rebellious house, that have eyes to see, and see not, that have ears to hear, and hear not; for they are a rebellious house. 3 Therefore, thou son of man, prepare thee stuff for removing, and remove by day in their sight; and thou shalt remove from thy place to another place in their sight: it may be they will consider, though they are a rebellious house. 4 And thou shalt bring forth thy stuff by day in their sight, as stuff for removing; and thou shalt go forth thyself at even in their sight, as when men go forth into exile. 5 Dig thou through the wall in their sight, and carry out thereby. 6 In their sight shalt thou bear it upon thy shoulder, and carry it forth in the dark; thou shalt cover thy face, that thou see not the land: for I have set thee for a sign unto the house of Israel. 7 And I did so as I was commanded: I brought forth my stuff by day, as stuff for removing, and in the even I digged through the wall with my hand; I brought it forth in the dark, and bare it upon my shoulder in their sight. 8 And in the morning came the word of Jehovah unto me, saying, 9 Son of man, hath not the house of Israel, the rebellious house, said unto thee, What doest thou? 10 Say thou unto them, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: This burden [concerneth] the prince in Jerusalem, and all the house of Israel among whom they are. 11 Say, I am your sign: like as I have done, so shall it be done unto them; they shall go into exile, into captivity. 12 And the prince that is among them shall bear upon his shoulder in the dark, and shall go forth: they shall dig through the wall to carry out thereby: he shall cover his face, because he shall not see the land with his eyes. 13 My net also will I spread upon him, and he shall be taken in my snare; and I will bring him to Babylon to the land of the Chaldeans; yet shall he not see it, though he shall die there. 14 And I will scatter toward every wind all that are round about him to help him, and all his bands; and I will draw out the sword after them. 15 And they shall know that I am Jehovah, when I shall disperse them among the nations, and scatter them through the countries. 16 But I will leave a few men of them from the sword, from the famine, and from the pestilence; that they may declare all their abominations among the nations whither they come; and they shall know that I am Jehovah.
God says, "it may be...though..."
Icon and Greg's model seems predicated on God destroying his people immediately upon their failure. (That would at least accomplished the closed-model way they are conceiving of it as being.) God has Ezekiel "remove from thy place to another place in their sight . . . and thou shalt go forth thyself at even in their sight, as when men go forth into exile" for the purpose of illustrating that "they shall go into exile, into captivity."
Did the people have a chance to avoid this? YES. Did they fail? Yes. (Not the first time, and not the last.)
Does the passage end within itself (Is it a closed-model?)? NO. This episode has continuing meaning for the people well beyond this setting and moment. And it has continuing meaning well beyond the lives of those involved in particular. It is not a closed-episode.
Does God "deceive" Ezekiel? That is the silliest question. Ezekiel is the messenger. Who is the Lord. Ezekiel?
And, it should then be asked: "Is God deceiving us????"
No way! There is nothing false in that Ezekiel passage. Clearly, that passage is a revelation of BOTH our need and God's salvation. Implicit in that "drama" that Ezekiel acted out is that God would not utterly destroy them, even if they failed. And God's brooding over them showed -- to those of them that would see -- that there was even more to his providence than merely that chance. Perhaps even, as we now know, to that 'kind' of chance.
Icon accuses God: "Is this not lying?"
No way!
Icon asks -- this time correctly: "If God has someone do something on the grounds that PERHAPS people will understand, does this not imply that there is the POSSIBILITY that they WILL understand?"
Of course they had a chance. This "chance" could include everything from a big chance where they were not even beginning to be tempted to sin to a tiny chance where they were given opportunity to let go of evil-doing. That's a small chance. But they DID have a chance. And what is entirely missing from the closed-model hermeneutic is the fact that this "chance" does not have to begin at the moment it was made public. It can easily (as in my contempoary domesitic examples above) be an on-going thing. The "chance" can even be a sort of "natural consequences" that is preached about before it happens instead of waiting until everything has hit the fan.
It IS prophecy/preaching after all.
Icon tries to lock "possibility" and "certainty" into an inseparable and inflexible unit. That is not the case. "Certainty" does not belong in the story AT ALL. It is the people who are acting. God does not cause sin. (The Bible says that!) It is THEIR acts that determine.
This next part of Icon's concern bears examination. I agree with what concerns him. But I disagree that it is relevant to the pasaage.
quote:
Icon: But if God foreknows (let alone predetermines) that people will NOT understand, there obviously is no genuine possibility that they will understand... hence no truthfulness to God saying, "perhaps they will understand."
There is the "pre" thing. THAT traps God "IN" time as much as the Open view." And both should be guarded against. Literally, the suggestion that Icon rightly finds repugnant is that somewhere IN time God made a determinantive act that rigged things so that the people had to behave as robots.
Icon will please note that we agree on the repugnance of that. (Evdokimov bears some re-reading, Icon.)
Icon: POW, do you hold to theological determinism or simple foreknowledge?
PoW: No, I don't. God does not fit in a box. To try to putgod in a box is idolotry. (Packer makes some good points on that.)
Icon: (One of) two possibilities (is, that) There is a true possibility that the people WILL understand and God does not know FOR SURE whether they will or they won’t.
PoW: YOU JOINED TWO THINGS. AND THESE NEED TO BE TAKEN SEPARATELY: (1) There is a TRUE CHOICE. (I'm discarding the word "possibility" as being more fitted to abstractions and raw matter.) (2) Any presumption that God "does not know" is FULL of a host of presumptions! It presumes to understand "how" God knows. It presumes through that to understand God's self-knowledge. It presumes to understand what the Bible says that even the angels that reside closest to God's glory -- without being obliterated by it -- know.
Icon: (One of) two possibilities (is, that) God foreknows (or predetermines) that the people will not understand. If this is true then isn’t God encouraging Ezekial by lying to him? I don’t see how your supposition of “King Speak” addresses this. Is it OK for the King to lie to the people in order to encourage them to do something? Wouldn't this show a severe weakness on God’s part if He has to resort to lying to someone to get them to do something?
PoW: "Foreknow" is, again: (ala Evdokimov) the prefix "pre" introduces time into the eternity of God. ... inevitably ... the dubious Augustinian idea ... is buckled in upon itself without any possible exit Evdokimov also says this: Causal determinism is fatally situated in time...
God does not do that, so we don't even have to ask the question that follows. God is speaking through Ezekiel; not "lying to Ezekiel.
Icon: I don’t see how your supposition of “King Speak” addresses this.
PoW: Is doesn't address THAT at all. It is what the OVER-ALL rhetorical mode of communication is. Begin with what Mickelson is saying. (Bethel Book Stores has the book!) Understand that. And then apply it to the passage. But don't read into it anything that I am also not reading into.
My point, Icon, is that the passages are just fine the way they are. (I'm arguing the "CON," you must remember.) The passages require NONE of the "Openness" presumptions that you are choosing to lay on them. They are just fine the way they have always been read. They DO reveal something about the economy of God's salvation!!!!!!!!!!!!! (As I began to ponder in what I wrote above:
quote:
PoW
There is nothing false in that Ezekiel passage. Clearly, that passage is a revelation of BOTH our need and God's salvation. Implicit in that "drama" that Ezekiel acted out is that God would not utterly destroy them, even if they failed. And God's brooding over them showed -- to those of them that would see -- that there was even more to his providence than merely that chance. Perhaps even, as we now know, to that 'kind' of chance.
And as I say above:
quote:
(It is very easy to conceive contemporary domestic examples where perhaps...if-s apply, where resources such as time, stamia, preparedness are at work. Such as:
When a parent finds that a child has been fooling around, being naughty, etc., and the parent comes in to interupt and call things accountable... THEN a "perhaps" can bear materially on matters of whether what should or shouldn't be done, or must then be undone ro redone, etc., will successfully be fixed before naturally occuring deadlines pass.
Preparedness is a factor in doing homework and in cleaning a room in time to do something special. A human parent can make a "perhaps...if..." statement, and it might have an "edge" to it.)
Icon: Is it OK for the King to lie to the people in order to encourage them to do something?
PoW: That looks convoluted, Icon. God did have Ezekiel preach and demonstrate to His people. But that preaching presented them with a chance for a REAL CHOICE. Not a lie. He obviously DID "encourage them to do something."
THE PASSAGE DOESN'T REQUIRE THE "Open" ISSOGESIS!
fini.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/21/2003 3:24:57 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/21/2003 5:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Pow: Finally, honorman, you also write: "There is nothing about the contingency of humans, only about what God may or may not do, based what humans may do." Seems to me that the "contingency of humans" (what they do or don't do--by my definition) IS the subject about which the KING kingly says about what He "may or may not do, based what humans may do." It is for purpose of that rhetorical exchange that the Jeremiah passage comes about. (Don't you agree?)
Doc: If I were honorman, I certainly would NOT agree. If God tells me he may change his mind, I have every reason to suppose that he MAY change his mind. I would only conclude that this was rhetorical "king speak" if I assumed ahead of time that God doesn’t really think of the future in terms of "maybes," and doesn’t really change his mind. And, with TGB and honorman, I strongly suspect this is what leads you to your conclusion.
Greg, I have to ask myself what "changing His mind" would constitute. God did not change his mind. The connectedness between "perhaps" and "then" WITHIN the story remained. Were GHod to have "changed His mind" (Which WITHIN narrative He can mercifully do--in His wisdom.) he would have relented on the "then." But history shows that the prophecied "then" was carried out. So God did not "change His mind." BEYOND the story, God did not "change His mind" about his covenental love either. We just celebrated the Holy Feast of that Love!
God did not forget Israel. Or the Gentiles whom through Abraham he blessed, in His Son.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 4/21/2003 5:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
I know that I have not been a contributor to this thread, but I have read it all from the beginning. Your grace and patience have been amazing. I used to love you for your brains, but now I love you for your character too.  I appreciate your willingness to sacrifice yourself for all of us, but if you try to leave, we'll have to kill ya. 
Icon, Laika, John, BJS, Doc, Honorman and I can't remember who all...you are saints!
Springs
"He owes me money." -Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 4/21/2003 5:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
I wanted to let you know as someone who is just now beginning to wrestle with the issues of God's knowledge of the future I have benefited greatly from your posts. Your post addressing the simple foreknowledge position was very helpful. I appreciate your articulate presentation of the issue. As someone who is not for sure an Open Theist (though I'm leaning more and more that way the more I read) Your arguments and humor on this thread have been a blessing.
Ross
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/21/2003 5:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom, like many on this board, I have also enjoyed learning from you and laughing with you. If you do take a break, I hope it will only be a comma* before you come back to us.
Truly,
Electra
* Tom also has great taste in movies. This reference to “comma” comes from one of his recommendations: Wit, starring Emma Thompson.
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/21/2003 6:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom, I think that you should post here too!!!!!
You do seem "tense"; so a break might be useful. I pray for you *especially* since the place of your ministry is more intense than ever. (I've wondered whether there might be a cross-over.) I'll continue to pray for Beruit and Lebanon, and the work you do there.
If you take a break, be sure to "come back."
(o)
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/21/2003 11:05:58 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/21/2003 9:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Bobbie,
I was encouraged to learn that Open Theism was being discussed and considered on the website called “Bane of Monotheism.” These people seem to reject so much about biblical Christianity, but perhaps their interest in Open Theism will lead them back to saving belief if they have in fact strayed from it. This interest is no doubt due in part to long discussions with Empiress, who cares about people who make others sick to their stomachs—the kind of people Jesus cared about but the self-righteous rejected.
I can’t say I come to the same theological conclusions Empiress does, but even on points of disagreement, I trust her heart and her mind. Although you seem to be quoting her in order to discredit open theists, I, for one, am proud to be associated with her.
Sometimes attempts to discredit others via guilt by association and other insinuations are persuasive to those who already share your suspicions. But other times such tactics end up revealing more about your character than those you are attempting to discredit.
If you are seriously worried about guilt by association, you should leave this discussion immediately, before someone uses your participation in this dialogue against you. If you choose to stay, please express your disagreement with the ideas being discussed without causing division and strife with your discussion partners.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 4/21/2003 9:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Bobbie,
I was encouraged to learn that Open Theism was being discussed and considered on the website called “Bane of Monotheism.” These people seem to reject so much about biblical Christianity, but perhaps their interest in Open Theism will lead them back to saving belief if they have in fact strayed from it. This interest is no doubt due in part to long discussions with Empiress, who cares about people who make others sick to their stomachs—the kind of people Jesus cared about but the self-righteous rejected.
I can’t say I come to the same theological conclusions Empiress does, but even on points of disagreement, I trust her heart and her mind. Although you seem to be quoting her in order to discredit open theists, I, for one, am proud to be associated with her.
Sometimes attempts to discredit others via guilt by association and other insinuations are persuasive to those who already share your suspicions. But other times such tactics end up revealing more about your character than those you are attempting to discredit.
If you are seriously worried about guilt by association, you should leave this discussion immediately, before someone uses your participation in this dialogue against you. If you choose to stay, please express your disagreement with the ideas being discussed without causing division and strife with your discussion partners.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Extremely well said. Thanks, Electra.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/21/2003 9:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, I think Tommy boy should be feeling loved on right about now. On to ideas....
POW: Greg, "So what?" That's my answer to Icon too.
Greg: I have no idea what this means.
In any event, it seems to me, POW, that you drive a wedge between the "God" of the narrative of the Bible and the "God" of reality. The "maybe" and "change my mind" make sense, you say, in the context of the narrative, but we need not suppose IN REALITY that God actually sees the future as a maybe and changes his mind. If one is committed to the view that the narrative is our best clue to reality, as I am, then they'd be more inclined to think that the "maybe" and "change my mind" in the TEXT indicates a "maybe" and "change my mind" in REALITY – in GOD’s reality.
Another point: I honestly can’t see how your response got God off the hook for lying to Ezekiel when he promised him "perhaps they will understand" knowing full well they WOULDN’T understand. But I may be missing your point, because I have to confess I didn’t understand your response much at all (e.g. the "domestic" analogy).
Blessings,
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/21/2003 10:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg,
As to "domestic..." I edited my post. Please go re-read it.
As to "So what?", I'm not being inflammatory. I was obviously extending the story immediately above it:
quote:
"There was a TV show that I watched once: a lawyer show. In it the main character's boyhood best friend came into the story and recounted their debating team's State Finals exploits; and one thing in particular. It seems to apply here pretty well too.
In the final round the opposing school's debater went so far afield from the core of the issue -- with drama but no foundation -- that the hero, his friend recounts, merely rose, went to the microphone, said "So what?." and returned to sit down. He nearly won.
I'm likening your position to the "debater (who) went so far afield from the core of the issue -- with drama but no foundation..."
My posts have tried to gesture in the right direction.
Proof texts wander away from the big picture. Foundation is lacking.
Haven't there been endless threads in the past year or so with titles like "Is X-Y-Z and Open-ness Verse," etc. It all amounts just to PROOF-TEXTING and SPECULATIVE THEOLOGY
The verses from Jeremiah and Ezekiel don't foist more than more of the same proof-texting.
When, in all of the history of the Christian Church has anyone "tried" to pull our from those passages ANYTHING such as you are pulling out.
...And that is the state of things.
I would expect more.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/21/2003 3:42:46 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/21/2003 11:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg (and others!): Well, I think Tommy boy should be feeling loved on right about now.
Tom: Indeed I do. 
Thanks for the affirmations. Too good!
Tom
"Stone me if you'd like" Bobbie | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 4/21/2003 3:26 PM (GMT -6) | | John Calvin comments on the 'Open View'
Providence…pertains as much to His operating hands as to His observing eyes
Divine Providence lies in the dealings of God with men as beings endowed with reason
But to take contingency out of the world altogether would be absurd
We are not here inquiring whether or not God works all the godly and holy affections which are found in the hearts of His people, because that is, beyond all dispute, certain. The great question is, whether He holds also in the hand of His power all the depraved and impious affections of the wicked, and turns them hither and thither, that they might desire to do that which He hath decreed to accomplish by their means?
"That the power of God is absolute and tyrannical," I utterly abhor | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/21/2003 4:34 PM (GMT -6) | | With God ALL (except perhaps listening to constructive criticism) things are possible.
Edited by - honorman on 04/21/2003 9:35:55 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/21/2003 4:57 PM (GMT -6) | | HONORMAN says: "With God ALL (except perhaps listening to constructive criticism) things are possible".
BOBBIE: You seem really hung up over that Bible verse! Um... as to the "constructive criticism", could you provide an example? I have seen criticism but not the constructive type you mention.
Edited by - Bobbie on 04/21/2003 10:26:19 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 4/21/2003 5:25 PM (GMT -6) | | HELP! I'M ABOUT TO GET SUCKED
INTO THE BOBBIE VORTEX!
SOMEBODY GRAB MY HAND
AND PULL ME
BACK OUT!
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 4/21/2003 5:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Sheesh, I sometimes don’t know what to think of this thread (scratch’n my head). You know this thread has some of the flavor of the old days when that crazy lion was prowling with his lamb, well until every once and a while some freak’n moon Shine came skating down his system…oh, and some demon named mephi2k (or something like that) intelligent, yet brazen was pelting this sight with his crazy wit and sweet slang! And TGB was frigg’n Socrates merely asking question after question to gain knowledge (Man oh Man what I learned from you, Tom) Ohhh, and I can’t forget Old Canada, and well, since were reminiscing, whatever happened to GhostDogGirl, ModesofThought, Revival, Pilgrim, ect. I miss their sweet knowledge…hmmmmmmm…well, I guess it’s not a perfect parallel, but as mainly a reader myself, Bob sounds a little like that old lion I used see prowling through the threads. Nevertheless, I guess what was interesting about the whole deal was that while dialog was intense at times they marched on and Mephi and TGB even came to hold on to Open Theistic theology…wow, and I never would have expected Mephi (or Memphi, I’m to lazy to look, which pseudonym it was) to have come to this conclusion. I think he taught me what it was to debate for the sake of knowledge and not for the sake of winning. Sooooo, what the heck does this have to do with the thread…does it really matter? All I got to say is that I love this site and I thank the Doctor for keep’n it real.
For what it’s worth…
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
PS
Brett, you're too funny!
“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).
Edited by - Tiggers on 04/21/2003 10:32:50 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/21/2003 5:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Bobbie
That's it Brett? Hmmm... you say I play "passive-agressive games" and yet your only contributions in this thread have been to "sigh" over my comments and to say this about me? Come on! You can do better than that, can't you? I just think it's really weak for you (and Mayflower has done this also) to just join in to make a punch here and jab there yet contribute nothing else of substance.
Brett
HELP! I'M ABOUT TO GET SUCKED
INTO THE BOBBIE VORTEX!
SOMEBODY GRAB MY HAND
AND PULL ME
BACK OUT!
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Iconoclast
Brett! Give me your hand good buddy.
Listen, it is ONLY an invitation to the game. Yes, it has power words designed to “set the hook” so you can be reeled in, but in itself it is ONLY an invitation. Invitations can be declined.
Let it go, let it go, let it go, let it go, let it go, let it go …
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 04/21/2003 10:58:31 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/21/2003 6:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Here comes the hook.... oh, and now the "smoke screen"... here's some "bait"...
All the Open Theists of the world... UNITE! Stand firm and don't let those friggin' non-opens get to ya!!
Go ahead Brett... give Icon your hand. Don't be afraid of bad ol' Bobbie. Just give him your hand. Watch out for that scary Bobbie vortex!
Heehee... this is making me laugh very hard! You guys are trippin' all over this!
Chill out and enjoy life a bit!
"I DECLARE MYSELF THE WINNER!"
Edited by - Bobbie on 04/21/2003 11:06:47 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/21/2003 6:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Sorry, Bobbie, but sarcasism explained is not sarcasism. So if you don't get it, I can't be explainin' it. But I am sure some get it, so I'll keep puttin' some tags out there...Nothing of substance?! Cmon, you gotta admit that is some funny stuff...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 4/21/2003 6:28 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tigress... Is that what this is all about? You guys think I am someone else who used to be here or something... reincarnated as the mysterious "Bobbie"? Hmmmm... if that's the case, there's a whole heck of alot of paranoia in here! But that would help me make some sense of some things like Mayflower's comments and Electra's threatening "you should leave this discussion immediately, before someone uses your participation in this dialogue against you."
It's intersting and humorous to watch the way you guys egg each other on! All the open theists of the world... UNITE!
"With God ALL things are possible" Matt. 19:26
Hey Bob,
It's Tiggers NOT Tigress (that's someone else), but don't fret (not that you would) because I'm horrible with names myself. Anyways, NO I’m not in a state of paranoia…please, shhhh, oh no, wait what was that… ! AND NO, I don’t believe you are the old LionLamb!!! I’ve been reading this site for some time now and was really just paralleling your pseudonym-like personality with his. Oh, and even if you were him/her, big deal, I mean really…what would happen, sheesh  ! Ok, now Bobbie I’ve got nothing against you, truly, but rather in my letter I was simply trying to nudge you a little and hoping you would stick around and be open not closed in the dialog. Remember, fight for the truth as others have, be honest in love, and sister, no matter what side of the theological fence you fall on, my love and prayers are with ya!
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
PS
Don't take things so personally on message boards,  !
“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). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobbie
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 64
| Posted 4/21/2003 6:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tiggers:
Good to know you're not in a "state of paranoia." Being paranoid is no way to live a joyful life!
I do find it humorous how others view me! It's kinda funny here from my end.
Tiggers: fight for the truth as others have
Bobbie: I aim to.
Tiggers: PS-Don't take things so personally on message boards
Bobbie: Nope... life is much too short, eh?
Peace!
Edited by - Bobbie on 04/21/2003 11:51:40 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 309 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:54 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 |
|
|