 |
 | 
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 8/26/2003 4:23 PM (GMT -6) |   | God may have had things ordained, but at the same time we don't put the Lord our God to the test. Why didn't Jesus just cast Himself off the cliff when Satan tempted Him and He fully knew that His angels would save Him? We don't test God, we don't act carelessly, and we don't use predestination as a license to be stupid. This is actually a very relevent question whether you meant it to be or not, but I'm going to stop commenting now.
g n p
borg
Phil 1:20,21
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
Kenya
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 8/27/2003 11:38 AM (GMT -6) | | | Borg, I really liked what you said. I believe in predestination (how can I not? it's right there in the Bible). Romans 8: 30, those he predestined. Eph. 1:11, having been predestined. That is one of the things about openness that I do not agree with because they really don't believe we are predestined, do they? Because they think it means we didn't chose God and so it can't be true love. That is what I understand them to say. I can't understand predestination and how it all works, but I really like the way you explained it Borg. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/27/2003 12:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Kenya, my buddy. Nice to hear from ya (how can you not? You have no choice, you were predestined too... ) | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/27/2003 1:58 PM (GMT -6) | | When I was in high-school, I believed in predestination but I deduced then that the logical consequences of predestination by itself were next to nil. It is predestined for us to look both ways to care that we not get hit by a car, yada, yada, yada.
For me, it served as a psychic balm. I didn't have to worry about the fact that I could get hit by a car again(as I was hit by a car when I was seven) and that this time I might be a half-step further and be killed.
If that happened, it was part of God's will for my life, and, while I shouldn't go flinging my body in front of ongoing vehicles, its possibility of recurring was no reason to worry.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 8/27/2003 2:47 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW you were right in saying that we don't have to worry about cars hitting us. What profit is it for us to worry? We fully know that God is not going to allow us to die before He wants it, if you believe that God accomplishes all of His plans perfectly. Basically you could go with the cheesy cliche, "You're immortal as long as your in God's will". What did God tell His disciples in Luke when He sent them out? What were they told in Acts? Things of this world like snakes and scorpions won't hurt them, as long as they are with God. For what benefit is it to worry about tomorrow, tomorrow has enough worries of it own. But on the same hand, does this give us a right to go jump of a 80 story building? Well you can if you want, but that would be very foolish. I can only imagine that had Paul done something as dumb as that at the start of his ministry, God in some way would have intervened, of course that's speculation. The same goes with the passive Calvinists and like thinkers who say, "Why should we evangelize, pray, etc. Can't I just be a couch potatoe?"--NO! God no where in Scriputre has ever given us the right not to share our faith, not to pray, not to fall into apathy. We are called to be bold, to have power, and to go out. God's not going to call someone to genuine salvation and than not enable them to partake of the fruits.
Some may view this as a really dumb thread, I do not. This is one of the largest misrepresented ideas about Calvinism out there. It's important that we understand that this is not what a true Calvinist thinks.
Welcome Kenya. I take it you are relativly new. Glad to have you, thanks for the post. Keep searching!
Grace and Peace,
borg
pslam 23
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/27/2003 3:02 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by borg
DLW you were right in saying that we don't have to worry about cars hitting us. What profit is it for us to worry? We fully know that God is not going to allow us to die before He wants it, if you believe that God accomplishes all of His plans perfectly. Basically you could go with the cheesy cliche, "You're immortal as long as your in God's will". What did God tell His disciples in Luke when He sent them out? What were they told in Acts? Things of this world like snakes and scorpions won't hurt them, as long as they are with God. For what benefit is it to worry about tomorrow, tomorrow has enough worries of it own. But on the same hand, does this give us a right to go jump of a 80 story building? Well you can if you want, but that would be very foolish. I can only imagine that had Paul done something as dumb as that at the start of his ministry, God in some way would have intervened, of course that's speculation. The same goes with the passive Calvinists and like thinkers who say, "Why should we evangelize, pray, etc. Can't I just be a couch potatoe?"--NO! God no where in Scriputre has ever given us the right not to share our faith, not to pray, not to fall into apathy. We are called to be bold, to have power, and to go out. God's not going to call someone to genuine salvation and than not enable them to partake of the fruits.
Some may view this as a really dumb thread, I do not. This is one of the largest misrepresented ideas about Calvinism out there. It's important that we understand that this is not what a true Calvinist thinks.
But borg, we can obey Jesus' commandment not to preoccupy ourselves with future possibilities without affirming complete predestination and interpreting certain passages as implying such...
Ultimately, for me, my belief in predestination as a youth, while it did comfort me from some of my pains and struggles, led me to accept somethings that I should not have accepted. I did not seek help over emotional trauma when I needed it and my social development was arrested in part because of this.
So while predestination may not imply what we should or should not do, it sometimes can lead us to fatalistically accept things that we really do need to deal with in our lives and relations to others.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 8/27/2003 3:12 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW, i would agree with you. I think that the idea of predestination and determinism can be very slippery. It's easy to even sometimes sin and think nothing of it, cause you wonder if you had any control over it. Paul even says should we sin that grace may abound all the more? No! He also basically says, "Therefore He has mercy on whom He WILLS, and whom He WILLS He hardens. YOU will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has RESISTED HIS will?" We shouldn't be slipping into the mind set that it's ok to fall into this crap. Paul clearly doesn't fall into it, Rom 7. If you're falling into the mind set that no one can resist God's will and so if i go out an kill someone tonight, it's ok cause God willed it, WRONG idea. Same with not seeking needed help. We are told to care for our bodies, we are told to carry one anothers burdens, we are told to hold one another accountable, and that is why we need to pray for God's grace that He will extend it to us to allow us to do such things. Does this make sense?
grace and peace,
borg
Rom 10:17
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
Kenya
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 8/27/2003 5:16 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW,
How do you explain these verses if you don't believe in predestination? Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? If you do, then how do you not believe these verses? That really confuses me! I really don't see how an open theist person can get around these verses unless they just deny them completely!n I found these verses at www.biblegateway.com.
FROM THE NIV
Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Romans 8:30
And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Ephesians 1:5
He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will
Ephesians 1:11
In him we were also chosen,having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,
FROM THE APPLIFIED VERSION
Ezra 1:1
NOW IN the first year of [Cyrus, a heathen ruler of a heathen empire (Persia), was "twice named [before his birth] in the book of Isaiah as anointed of God and predestined to conquer kings and fortified places and to set the Jews free from captivity (Isa. 44:28; 45:1-14).
Acts 4:28
To carry out all that Your hand and Your will and purpose had predestined (predetermined) should occur.
Ephesians 2:10
For we are God's [own] handiwork (His workmanship), recreated in Christ Jesus, [born anew] that we may do those good works which God predestined (planned beforehand) for us [taking paths which He prepared ahead of time], that we should walk in them.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/27/2003 7:19 PM (GMT -6) | | ACtually, Kenya, all those verses are solved within the belief in corporate election. Just as Israel was God's chosen and promises were made to her as a nation (yet not all within the nation saved, but many were judged), so also the church as a body can be predestined and yet the individuals not prestined. "He predestined us to be adopted..." those who would choose him were prestined to be adopted. William Klein goes through all the relevant passages in his book "The New Chosen People," a book called "That's Just Your Interpretation," deals with this issue (among others) and there is a book dealing with the subject by Robert Shank (I forget the name right now). So, actually, open theists deal with the issue quite well. And we do believe the Bible is the word of God. We simply don't believe your interpretation of these passages is the correct one. | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 8/27/2003 8:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Honorman, my one problem with that, is why in the world would I ever expect that this was speaking not about individuals? Is there anything within the text? Let me get back to you later with some more thoughts, but for now, show me Bible Verses to believe this isn't individually based.
Grace and Peace,
borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/28/2003 6:10 AM (GMT -6) | | | Given my example of Israel I would put the question back at you: why should I view the verses being about individuals? Is there anything in the text that precludes talking about a group as opposed to individuals? You are assuming your position is the best and asking me to refute it. I disagree with your premise so I feel no need to refute it. I believe the verses equally support my view. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/28/2003 6:15 AM (GMT -6) | | | However, I will post a general summary of the view from the book "That's Just Your Interpretation," soon... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Kenya
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 8/28/2003 10:26 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW,
What in the world is "organic coorporate"???? An "organic coorporate" view of predestination?? If that's true, how come no pastor I've ever heard in all my entire life has ever mentioned the "organic coorporate" view of predestination?
I really think you guys are just kinda brushing these verses aside because you don't want to believe them. I mean, well, I don't see any reason why it's not talking to the individual and I don't thing God would purposefully mislead us by these verses. When people read them, well, it doesn't say "this is only talking to groups of people". And when I read them, well, I don't see that either! It just sounds like you are giving excuses almost for something that you do not want to believe. Tha'ts just how it sounds to lil' ol' me. But, as I'm thinking about it, even IF "predestined" referred to nations, okay, well, then God still predestines people! Aren't nations made up of individual people? Does it even matter if predestined refers to a nation or to a specific individual? If God predestines, well, He predestines, whether it is a nation made up of people or the people themself. That doesn't even make sense. The nation is a bunch of individual people!! Don't you see??
Take Rom. 8:29. It says how God predestined us. Well, the verse before says that "God works for the good of those who love him" so is that also only referring to the nation of Israel and not to me as an individual? And then verse 30 says, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" Is "us" meaning Israel again, meaning that God is for the nation of Israel but not necessarily me as an individual? There is just absolutely nothing in here that says that these verses apply only to the nation of Isreal. If this were true, you'd have to apply that to all verses in the Bible where God says "you". You'd have to assume "you" meant a coorporate body.
I've never ever heard any pastor or preacher or teacher say that these verses only refer to a coorporate body or to Israel only. Like I said, I think you are trying to reason some verses because you do not want to believe they apply. But you can do that with any verse in the Bible! You can say "Oh that's not literal" or "That was only for back then" or things like that. You can do that with every single verse!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/28/2003 12:08 PM (GMT -6) | | | Kenya: I would suggest that instead of wondering why you have never heard a pastor teach such things, you might try studying the scriptures yourself. I believe it is YOU who are brushing aside the verses instead of honestly looking at what people are trying to say. If you are going to raise the questions to open theists you should at least have the integrity to listen to what they are saying, instead of making flippant comments about our motives. Sounds to me like you trust pastors more than you trust what God taught in his scriptures...and lil ole you would have to assume they are individuals as well. During that time and culture people were judged more as corporate entities rather than individuals. | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 8/28/2003 12:54 PM (GMT -6) | | honorman, i guess i would say the same to you. that the burden of proof shouldn't be on me, but instead on you. For as I believe Church tradition holds, that Romans 9 as well as other verses held to the singular view of election. So following in suit with that, the burden of proof wouldn't be upon me, but on the new idea of corperate. But I will explain the best I can why I believe that Romans 9 is about single. In the beginning Paul seems to unify the body of Israelites by saying "My contrymen" and even uses the term Israelites. To me, this is corporate (9:3,4). 9:6 again he clusters all Israel together under the term "Not all Israel who are of Israel." He goes on to say to break that down even more specific into Abraham and from Abraham into smaller categories of people, Isaac. Than jumping to verse 9 he again talks about a specific person, Rebecca and Isaac. In vs. 11 he takes it to the greatest extent and going from all of Israel as a whole, down to his countrymen, down into not all Israel but true Israel, through the line of Abraham, through Rebecca and Isaac, into the children born to them, Jacob and Esau. I see as though Paul gets more specific and to say that Jacob and Esau aren't suppose to be the actual people but the nations that were born of them, it would make more sense to me to use the words Israel and Edom, as Malachi 3 does. Now when He makes His vow to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and harden whom I will harden" to say that that is corporate, if no other text was given to back this up would be fine. However, Paul goes on and the only specific case He uses is that of Pharaoh. He doesn't use large countries of the Ammorites, Hitties, or the like, but Paul gets stinking individual there. Not to mention going back to Malachi 1 were the Israelites are complaining to God about God not loving them. In vs 3 it appears as though God goes from specific to general (corperate). The opposite of Rom 9, however, the specific would still hold true with the idea that "Jacob I have loved, and Esau I have hated". I'm going to make an assumption here, which could easily be wrong, but thinking through the Old Testament when God wants to refer to the people of Jacob I think He more often uses the term Israel/ites than Jacob. That would be something to look into. If that's the case, than why assume that it should change in Malachi.
I'm going to leave my defense at that. I've never explained this to anyone before so let me know what does't seem to fit. I've definatly thought about it before. But I would still hold to the fact that Church Tradition and the heros of the faith viewed it this way, and I believe that the Bible also gives a clear answer to it.
Grace and Peace,
borg
acts 13:48
ps, that's really only my defense for Romans 9, if you want more let me know.
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 8/28/2003 1:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Honorman and Kenya, I think what you two are saying is very good. I think Kenya is getting to the basic Evangelical idea that the Scriputre can only be interpreted correctly in one way. It's not possible for the Bible to be interpreted in many different ways. There was one aim, one goal, and one purpose driving the writing of the Bible. I would tend to believe that that purpose was to show and give God glory. To me, it is the Calvinist (fallible) theology that does the best at that. It makes the most out of God that I can imagine a loving God being like, and it makes the least out of us men. That's the important thing. Whether or not the Molonist, Arminist, Open Theist can run cirlces around me with philosophy or even in some regard Scripture, my goal while studying the Bible is to make the most out of God, ascribe to Him more worth, and to make the least out of me. The OV can, in my mind, try to make much out of God. I know where they see His glory, though I don't understand. But the biggest issue I have with it, is that it seems to put much stock in man. In our decisions, in our ways, in our works. And as of now, no one has been able to show me different. I can't imagine a sinfallen, God-hating, Jesus beating, sinner like me ever coming before God and saying "I accept You". What is God that He needs us to even except Him? That's where I stumble, that's where I fail to see God's glory. Plus the interpretation of Scripture doesn't come across as accurate to me, but that is simply a difference of opinion which by the grace of God can be worked out, as the Holy Spirit directs our discussions and leads into all truth.
Honorman, I can see where you said that back than people seemed to be judged corporatly rather than individually, if by the term "back than" you are talking about the Old Covenant. I don't see it much anywhere in the New Testament. If you could help me out, I would appreciate it.
thanks,
grace and peace,
borg
isa 8:20
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/28/2003 1:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Borg: you have truly got to be kidding?! Are you seriously trying to tell me that there are not scriptures that can't be interpreted legitimately more than one way? I would suggest to you that that view shows a vast ignorance of church history.
The church has legimately differed on many aspects of theology throughout its history and yet agreed that there are essentials that unite us. While there is only one correct interpretation of each scripture, many scriptures CAN be interpreted different ways without the need to "trump" each other. We can agree to disagree, believing each of us right in the eyes of God.
Oh, but of course the OV makes the most of man. Isn't that always the childish refrain...
AS far as I can tell, Borg, one does not seperate the Old From the New. Just because something is not in the New doesn't mean it doesn't exist, in other words I don't pit the Old versus the New...BTW, the arguments you make against the Open theism are against Armianism as well... | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/28/2003 2:36 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Kenya
DLW,
What in the world is "organic coorporate"???? An "organic coorporate" view of predestination?? If that's true, how come no pastor I've ever heard in all my entire life has ever mentioned the "organic coorporate" view of predestination?
organic:having the characteristics of an organism : developing in the manner of a living plant or animal <society is organic>
5 : of, relating to, or constituting the law by which a government or organization exists
corporative:relating to corporatism: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising some control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction
So maybe they weren't the best word-choices for describing the people of Israel. The point is they were as a people predestined to play a role, but that fails to specify who among them would remain faithful or fall-away.
quote:
I really think you guys are just kinda brushing these verses aside because you don't want to believe them. I mean, well, I don't see any reason why it's not talking to the individual and I don't thing God would purposefully mislead us by these verses. When people read them, well, it doesn't say "this is only talking to groups of people". And when I read them, well, I don't see that either! It just sounds like you are giving excuses almost for something that you do not want to believe. Tha'ts just how it sounds to lil' ol' me. But, as I'm thinking about it, even IF "predestined" referred to nations, okay, well, then God still predestines people! Aren't nations made up of individual people? Does it even matter if predestined refers to a nation or to a specific individual? If God predestines, well, He predestines, whether it is a nation made up of people or the people themself. That doesn't even make sense. The nation is a bunch of individual people!! Don't you see??
No, OVTheism does not deny the importance of predestination, just the understanding of the world and history as exhaustively predestined. There may always be a faithful remnant, but that doesn't mean from day one that it has been knowable who would be among that remnant at all points in time. Just as it has not been knowable that the Nazi Holocaust would come about. What has come about and will come about is based on fallible choices made by individuals and, as with a Grand Chess Master, God works God's plans in history taking into account the possible moves we may make.
quote:
Take Rom. 8:29. It says how God predestined us. Well, the verse before says that "God works for the good of those who love him" so is that also only referring to the nation of Israel and not to me as an individual? And then verse 30 says, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" Is "us" meaning Israel again, meaning that God is for the nation of Israel but not necessarily me as an individual? There is just absolutely nothing in here that says that these verses apply only to the nation of Isreal. If this were true, you'd have to apply that to all verses in the Bible where God says "you". You'd have to assume "you" meant a coorporate body.
God can work for our good at both the individual and corporate levels. They aren't mutually exclusive. However, corporate predestination doesn't imply predestination at the individual level.
quote:
I've never ever heard any pastor or preacher or teacher say that these verses only refer to a coorporate body or to Israel only. Like I said, I think you are trying to reason some verses because you do not want to believe they apply. But you can do that with any verse in the Bible! You can say "Oh that's not literal" or "That was only for back then" or things like that. You can do that with every single verse!
You can maintain that to understand the Bible one does need to understand the culture of the Old and New testament in which it was written. Otherwise, many teachings can easily be misconstrued to mean things that they never were meant to mean. Like Paul's counsels to early Church members to focus on the spread of the Gospel rather than liberating slaves. This has been interpreted to provide a justification for the inhumane institution of slavery that existed in our country at one time.
Yet, Paul was not likely saying that such an institution is of God and to be preserved for all time. His counsel may have been influenced by his expectations that the end may have been soon and the non-democratic gov't of Rome and the limitations of the finances of the early Christian Churches and slavery in ancient Rome not being as vile of an institution as it was in the US for African-Americans.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Kenya
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 8/28/2003 3:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Honorman, I do study Scripture myself and I won't apologize for learning from godly pastors. Pleazzzzeeee! Aren't we taught by Paul, Peter, Moses, all the men and women of the Bible??? You could include Jesus too, as being a teacher. Or are you going to tell me that I trust them too much too?? Your comments did nothing to address the things I brought up by the way.
You seem like such a bitter, hostile person.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/28/2003 3:44 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Kenya
Honorman, I do study Scripture myself and I won't apologize for learning from godly pastors. Pleazzzzeeee! Aren't we taught by Paul, Peter, Moses, all the men and women of the Bible??? You could include Jesus too, as being a teacher. Or are you going to tell me that I trust them too much too?? Your comments did nothing to address the things I brought up by the way.
You seem like such a bitter, hostile person.
honordude is not bitter, he is a debater and is willing to make judgement calls when someone is not playing fair in their dealings with Open Theism.
However, note:you are not dealing with the arguments we are making but personalizing this. The point is, in spite of our familiarity with scripture, we can always learn more and sometimes as a product of the circles we pass through we are not exposed to additional views that may be of importance.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/28/2003 5:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Kenya: do you equate godly pastors with the scriptures? Because that is what you seem to be doing. I try to learn everyone I come in contact with, but the Bible is God's word. I hold it in higher regard than any "godly" pastor.
BTW, thanks DLW, you hit the bullseye! | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 8/29/2003 10:55 AM (GMT -6) | | No Honorman, I'm not kidding and I would say it again, save the fact that you can read it again for yourself. And that doesn't point at all towards ignorance of Church History. Why do you think the Reformation came about? Why do you think the split of Lutheranism happened? Why the counter-reformation? Because people believed, as we should today that the Bible can only be interpruted in one way. God is not a God who throws out contradictions and gives it to see us squirm. He had one point, one message, one gospel, and it is us as fallible humans that argue over what that is. But the BIBLE CANNOT AND WILL NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF! Read Galatians 1, any other Gospel than what Paul and the apostles were teaching is to be accursed. Look at Gnosticism. They thought they were Biblical, for the most part, yet they were condemned. As the Body of Christ we are told to be united in everything, Christ, and it's because of OUR interprutations of the Bible, that we get differing opinions, that contradict one another, and because of that, there can't be more than correct way to do it. If we start to say that the Bible can have several conflicting truths, we start to get into the waters of relative truth within our own Bible. Dangerous ground. So no Honorman, you have got to be kidding me that you would accept two conflicting interprutations of the Bible as both divinley inspired and God's truth.
DLW, regardless of how you are seeing Honorman's conversation, I would say that the way his posts are coming across is in a very bitter way. Not that he's 100% to blame. I've been noticing several other members of this board seeming to be getting agitated. But we need to remember, regardless of the debated topics, we are all believed to be children of God so let us treat each other with the highest respect.
Kenya, I appreciate your support you've dropped on several of your posts.
lets keep this rolling.
g n p
borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/29/2003 8:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Sorry you feel that way, Borg, but the simple fact of church history is that great men of God who sow great fruit for God have disagreed on some very strong issues, yet both claimed to be Christian. I just find it funny (and a bit sad) that there are Christians who cannot agree to disagree, who have to "dismiss" another point of view for the sake of their "rightness."
Personally I believe Calvinists are totally wrong and misinterpret scripture. But I would not presume to say that the Bible could not be interpreted that way, nor would I question their hearts (nor the fruit God would bring through them.) Because there are a lot of passages in scripture that can be interpreted different ways and I recognize that they have been throughout history. Therefore I recognize that on certain points I could be wrong and those I disagree with could be right.
I do not believe that how I view God's knowledge or whether I believe God predestined us as individuals or corporating is going to affect whether or not I go to heaven. Nor is it going to effect God's glory. God is glorious with or without me and God's truth will shine with or without me. What it will effect is my relationship with God because how I view God goes a long way towards how I respond to God.
While I realize many reformed believers feel open theism is an affront to God, it does no good to act like Polycarp and drop on here quotes some verses and when we don't respond as he would have us, call us to repentance. Just because someone interprets scripture differently than you doesn't mean they are rebelling against God, are in sin, listening to devil or anything else. It may simply be that they have honestly come to their beliefs by diligent research and a search of their hearts, in honest reflection and have come to a different conclusion. I tend to try to give a person who holds to the same core beliefs as I do the benefit of the doubt.
Certainly all are entitled to their opinions. You don't believe open theism gives God true glory. I'm right back at you. I don't believe reformed views give God true glory. What does that prove? Didn't we both know that anyway?
Men interpret scripture, borg. Each person must decide under the guildance of the Holy Spirit what they believe. God does not believe for us. If he did, why is there so much disagreement even within reformed views (check out their views on the second coming.). It happens all over, in every denomination.
No, the Bible does not contradict itself. But men are fallible and must live with their fallible interpretations. The best we Christians can do is unite on the core beliefs and lovingly disagree on the rest.
I never said there were conflicting truths within scripture. You need to go back and read what I wrote. Christians have disagreed and struggled with unity since the beginning of the church. If you have a plan to unite all Christians on everything and you think it'll work, I'm all for it.  But reality has dictated that we will disagree. The best to hope for is to love each other inspite of our disagreements.
BTW, Borg, pointing out that someone is not debating fairly has nothing to do with being bitter. It has to do with being honest and forthright and truthful. Kenya has continuely asked questions and when given a response, simply dismisses with remarks like "I think you are dismissing the scriptures..." it is only fair that if a person asks a question and gets an answer, they respond to the answer, not simply retort with caustic comments. | | Back to Top | | |
| 27 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:10 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 |
|
|