DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
<form
action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr"
method="post"
target="_top">
<input
type="hidden"
name="cmd"
value="_s-xclick">
<input
type="hidden"
name="hosted_button_id"
value="DKL7ADEKRVUBL">
<input
type="image"
src="https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif"
border="0"
name="submit"
alt="PayPal
- The safer, easier way to pay
online!">
<img
alt=""
border="0"
src="https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif"
width="1"
height="1">
</form>
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Christian Threads
*****************************************************
#Post#: 343--------------------------------------------------
Re: How did you arrive at your current Theological stance?
DIR By: patrick jane
Date: August 13, 2018, 7:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jon Wood link ---
>
> [quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=22.msg320#msg320 date=
>
> Then your saying Open Theology is a progressive living
theology?
>
> Blade
>
--- End Quote ---
At least in my understanding of Open Theism and to the
understanding of a few others, yes Blade. That’s a great way to
put it! In many ways to me, Open Theism is just the way I study
through the Bible and through life.
[/quote]Right Jon. I let the Bible say what it says and I keep a
positive and open mind in life.
#Post#: 344--------------------------------------------------
Re: How did you arrive at your current Theological stance?
DIR By: guest5
Date: August 13, 2018, 7:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought I ended up double posting, so I deleted what I thought
was a double. Pj has my last comment quoted in his response
though so i’m Okay with it lol.
#Post#: 351--------------------------------------------------
Re: How did you arrive at your current Theological stance?
DIR By: guest8
Date: August 13, 2018, 1:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Sasha link ---
>
> [quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=22.msg320#msg320
date=1534119668]
> [quote author=Sasha link=topic=22.msg307#msg307
date=1534090311]
> [quote author=Jon Wood link=topic=22.msg269#msg269
date=1534005654]
> [quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=22.msg254#msg254
date=1533960854]
> are you familiar with Arminianism? It is the opposite of
Calvinism as they still believe that God allows MAN to have free
will to accept or reject HIM. They simply do not believe in
predestination The open Theology is a runoff from that. It is a
silly argument to me but then that is my opinion. God is not
forcing us to accept HIM, but rather has foreseen who will
accept him and He does everything He can do to make sure that
happens including saving my but many times in those early years.
>
> The free-will people do not believe Rom 8:29-30. This is
pretty clearly stated and I feel God will have something to say
about their not believing His scripture. Whether it will affect
their salvation, I do not know as there is some dispute on this
point.
>
> My post shows why I believe in Predestination. God in eons
past saw me, Blade and knew that I would seek Him. He then set
my heart right at the right time. I still had the free will at
that time to seek HIM or NOT. Bringing this information forward
to when we are actually living on earth, Jesus knows everyone,
etc. He also knew that on a certain day, I would raise my face
to heaven and ask Him to come into my heart and become my
savior.
>
> He also knows those that will not accept him, that have
rejected Him (and I am getting close to the line here) during
their lifetimes. You have seen some of these people on atheist
forums, etc. that simply do not believe in anything except
mankind.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Blade
>
--- End Quote ---
I think the main point of open theism is to say that not all
outcomes are always predetermined, and that we are followers of
Jesus because we want to be, not because He knows that we would.
I guess i’m Not a traditional representation of an open theist
either, because I can see some of the arguments for Calvinism in
a way that I understand and agree with as well.
I think I don’t fully fall into either of the two categories in
a traditional sense. To a traditional open theist, Calvinists
seem like they are saying that God is just up there playing army
men all day. To a traditional Calvinist, an open theist sounds
like they are saying that God has no control over anything.
Like many arguments in theology that I’ve run across, most of
the points of contention are actually the extremist view on
either side and/or a misunderstanding of terminology. If you pay
close enough attention, both sides agree with each other more
than you would think they do, (except the extremists)
[/quote]
Open Theism also draws forth a term that undermines human lens.
Open. If taken to the full literal, the “Open” Theist is prone
to not posture, but learn, grow and perpetually develop, without
“Closing” theology or having a cup so full, that it can no
longer be filled.
Ironically, this means “Open” Theist commentary would be mere
ponderings along a path of development that would change with
“time”.
Constantly Developing is a better way to word this. I believe
someone once said that and I genuinely appreciated their saying
it.
[/quote]
Then your saying Open Theology is a progressive living theology?
Blade
[/quote]
Blade,
For me and others along the path, I would absolutely say that.
It’s a rebellious cry to admit that theology in general is meant
to be perpetually searched out and never capped off. It’s the
desire to stay sensitive to the Holy Spirit in Scripture till
death.
You nailed it!
All Love in Jesus Christ to you, Brother.
[/quote]
I don't think you understood my question? my fault for not
wording it correctly.
We in the U.S. have a constitution that many want to make a
living (progressive) piece of paper that would change according
to societies wants and needs. We see this everyday. Yet, the
forefathers wrote it literally so it would conform to all ages
and not be changed.
My question to you was, Do you believe the Bible should change
its meaning (progressive) according to societies needs and
views?
To be sure, new discoveries of the Bible today are because of
computers, science, etc. that DO NOT change the objective(s) of
the Bible but rather serve more to ratify the contents.
Every time I read something and mostly while trying to get an
answer for someone, I find something hidden away that I had not
noticed before. (i.e. Rev 7 happened prior to Rev 6)
Take Homosexuality, mainly because it is on the front burner
both in society and various religious organizations today.
If one agrees with the progressive way of interpreting the Word
of GOD, then we would be saying the Word of GOD is outdated and
anything goes without GOD's interferece
Blade
#Post#: 353--------------------------------------------------
Re: How did you arrive at your current Theological stance?
DIR By: Sasha
Date: August 13, 2018, 2:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bladerunner link ---
>
> [quote author=Sasha link=topic=22.msg328#msg328
date=1534130270]
> [quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=22.msg320#msg320
date=1534119668]
> [quote author=Sasha link=topic=22.msg307#msg307
date=1534090311]
> [quote author=Jon Wood link=topic=22.msg269#msg269
date=1534005654]
> [quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=22.msg254#msg254
date=1533960854]
> are you familiar with Arminianism? It is the opposite of
Calvinism as they still believe that God allows MAN to have free
will to accept or reject HIM. They simply do not believe in
predestination The open Theology is a runoff from that. It is a
silly argument to me but then that is my opinion. God is not
forcing us to accept HIM, but rather has foreseen who will
accept him and He does everything He can do to make sure that
happens including saving my but many times in those early years.
>
> The free-will people do not believe Rom 8:29-30. This is
pretty clearly stated and I feel God will have something to say
about their not believing His scripture. Whether it will affect
their salvation, I do not know as there is some dispute on this
point.
>
> My post shows why I believe in Predestination. God in eons
past saw me, Blade and knew that I would seek Him. He then set
my heart right at the right time. I still had the free will at
that time to seek HIM or NOT. Bringing this information forward
to when we are actually living on earth, Jesus knows everyone,
etc. He also knew that on a certain day, I would raise my face
to heaven and ask Him to come into my heart and become my
savior.
>
> He also knows those that will not accept him, that have
rejected Him (and I am getting close to the line here) during
their lifetimes. You have seen some of these people on atheist
forums, etc. that simply do not believe in anything except
mankind.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Blade
>
--- End Quote ---
I think the main point of open theism is to say that not all
outcomes are always predetermined, and that we are followers of
Jesus because we want to be, not because He knows that we would.
I guess i’m Not a traditional representation of an open theist
either, because I can see some of the arguments for Calvinism in
a way that I understand and agree with as well.
I think I don’t fully fall into either of the two categories in
a traditional sense. To a traditional open theist, Calvinists
seem like they are saying that God is just up there playing army
men all day. To a traditional Calvinist, an open theist sounds
like they are saying that God has no control over anything.
Like many arguments in theology that I’ve run across, most of
the points of contention are actually the extremist view on
either side and/or a misunderstanding of terminology. If you pay
close enough attention, both sides agree with each other more
than you would think they do, (except the extremists)
[/quote]
Open Theism also draws forth a term that undermines human lens.
Open. If taken to the full literal, the “Open” Theist is prone
to not posture, but learn, grow and perpetually develop, without
“Closing” theology or having a cup so full, that it can no
longer be filled.
Ironically, this means “Open” Theist commentary would be mere
ponderings along a path of development that would change with
“time”.
Constantly Developing is a better way to word this. I believe
someone once said that and I genuinely appreciated their saying
it.
[/quote]
Then your saying Open Theology is a progressive living theology?
Blade
[/quote]
Blade,
For me and others along the path, I would absolutely say that.
It’s a rebellious cry to admit that theology in general is meant
to be perpetually searched out and never capped off. It’s the
desire to stay sensitive to the Holy Spirit in Scripture till
death.
You nailed it!
All Love in Jesus Christ to you, Brother.
[/quote]
I don't think you understood my question? my fault for not
wording it correctly.
We in the U.S. have a constitution that many want to make a
living (progressive) piece of paper that would change according
to societies wants and needs. We see this everyday. Yet, the
forefathers wrote it literally so it would conform to all ages
and not be changed.
My question to you was, Do you believe the Bible should change
its meaning (progressive) according to societies needs and
views?
To be sure, new discoveries of the Bible today are because of
computers, science, etc. that DO NOT change the objective(s) of
the Bible but rather serve more to ratify the contents.
Every time I read something and mostly while trying to get an
answer for someone, I find something hidden away that I had not
noticed before. (i.e. Rev 7 happened prior to Rev 6)
Take Homosexuality, mainly because it is on the front burner
both in society and various religious organizations today.
If one agrees with the progressive way of interpreting the Word
of GOD, then we would be saying the Word of GOD is outdated and
anything goes without GOD's interferece
Blade
[/quote]
Blade,
God meant what He said, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
through fellow wretched men, with the exception of “God With
Us”, who was the Living God speaking and free of wretchedness.
Man is arrogant and exceedingly set on telling God what God
said, but 1 John 2:27 tells us that we are to allow no man to
teach us. This parallels with Jesus saying He alone is our
teacher.
I am not a biblical relativist. I am, however, aware that
theology contained in “Commentary” is just crayola scribbles and
attempts to interpret scripture. I see God perpetually making
Love the standard and mankind being deceived to disobey this
simple standard.
All excuses can be made, but the account in John where the woman
caught in the throws of adulterous passion was thrown before the
only Man ever to sincerely walk the earth the union of God and
Man, and the very God that commanded us to stone her, knew the
Law better than us and by the law, didn’t stone her... thus
showing us that mercy and love trump human frailty. Many claimed
to be the SON of God, but God Flat our married to the flesh of
mankind and showed us what He meant, with His teachings.
Satan has got the Body divided as Paul warned us not to allow,
and was starting his campaign just decades after Christ’s
ascension.
Popular theology isn’t spread through truth, but selfish appeal
to mankind’s self exalting heart, or at the tip of the sword and
the oppression of political force. No brick and mortar
establishment “Has the Truth”, as, and I’m certain you’ll agree,
the Truth is at the Right Hand of God and IS GOD, yet to See HIM
is to “Have seen the Father”. He is the very glory of God. In
other words, the WOMAN (Church) was never supposed to speak for
the MAN (Christ).
As for the topic you broached, I am a person of peace. I’ve
studied the churches favorite divisional pet at enormous length
and I indeed have a personal doctrine that I adhere to, but it
is raw scripture that binds to itself so extensively, it
typically brings a load of butt hurt, when I biblically exegete
it all.
I keep my mouth shut on such matters, because I’m sick of
getting drug into discussions that give Satan exactly what he
wants.
Jesus is Love and Satan is Hate. I never forget how the Creator
is adversarially opposed by the greatest crafter of twistings of
the literal Words of the living WORD.
I sincerely keep a low spiritual profile these days, but God
didn’t say by our doctrine shall we be known, but by our Love
for one another.
I believe no human being has it 100% right and I can truly say,
the only time theology was embraced correctly by a “man”, was
here (John 5:39).
I will sharpen what I’m saying, but I fear you and I might cross
blades, and God help me Blade, please allow peace to reign
between us. You may cause me to stumble if you bring me into
debate. I don’t say this to be a jerk, but because I enjoy
discussion with you and ache to see the Global Body of Christ
ache for the lost and reach to Love one another despite even the
most difficult of theological skisms. The “my way is the true
way” approach has destroyed the body of Christ.
I hope this answer finds you well and answers any questions you
may have had about my stance.
All Love in Jesus Christ to you, Brother in Him.
#Post#: 355--------------------------------------------------
Re: How did you arrive at your current Theological stance?
DIR By: guest5
Date: August 13, 2018, 2:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bladerunner link ---
>
>
>
--- End Quote ---
I don't think you understood my question? my fault for not
wording it correctly.
We in the U.S. have a constitution that many want to make a
living (progressive) piece of paper that would change according
to societies wants and needs. We see this everyday. Yet, the
forefathers wrote it literally so it would conform to all ages
and not be changed.
My question to you was, Do you believe the Bible should change
its meaning (progressive) according to societies needs and
views?
To be sure, new discoveries of the Bible today are because of
computers, science, etc. that DO NOT change the objective(s) of
the Bible but rather serve more to ratify the contents.
Every time I read something and mostly while trying to get an
answer for someone, I find something hidden away that I had not
noticed before. (i.e. Rev 7 happened prior to Rev 6)
Take Homosexuality, mainly because it is on the front burner
both in society and various religious organizations today.
If one agrees with the progressive way of interpreting the Word
of GOD, then we would be saying the Word of GOD is outdated and
anything goes without GOD's interferece
Blade
[/quote]
That is where I misunderstood you then Blade. Open theism is not
solely limited to the “progressive” or “liberal” movements in
society or politics no. While the extreme representatives are
most likely within that group, not all of us are. I don’t want
the Bible to change to keep everyone out of hell. Open theism is
not a political agenda.
#Post#: 358--------------------------------------------------
Re: How did you arrive at your current Theological stance?
DIR By: guest8
Date: August 13, 2018, 5:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jon Wood link ---
>
> [quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=22.msg351#msg351
date=1534185511]
>
>
--- End Quote ---
I don't think you understood my question? my fault for not
wording it correctly.
We in the U.S. have a constitution that many want to make a
living (progressive) piece of paper that would change according
to societies wants and needs. We see this everyday. Yet, the
forefathers wrote it literally so it would conform to all ages
and not be changed.
My question to you was, Do you believe the Bible should change
its meaning (progressive) according to societies needs and
views?
To be sure, new discoveries of the Bible today are because of
computers, science, etc. that DO NOT change the objective(s) of
the Bible but rather serve more to ratify the contents.
Every time I read something and mostly while trying to get an
answer for someone, I find something hidden away that I had not
noticed before. (i.e. Rev 7 happened prior to Rev 6)
Take Homosexuality, mainly because it is on the front burner
both in society and various religious organizations today.
If one agrees with the progressive way of interpreting the Word
of GOD, then we would be saying the Word of GOD is outdated and
anything goes without GOD's interferece
Blade
[/quote]
That is where I misunderstood you then Blade. Open theism is not
solely limited to the “progressive” or “liberal” movements in
society or politics no. While the extreme representatives are
most likely within that group, not all of us are. I don’t want
the Bible to change to keep everyone out of hell. Open theism is
not a political agenda.
[/quote]
Yeah, hear you. Even the end times have religion coupled with
politics.
Blade
#Post#: 359--------------------------------------------------
Re: How did you arrive at your current Theological stance?
DIR By: Sasha
Date: August 13, 2018, 6:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bladerunner link ---
>
> [quote author=Jon Wood link=topic=22.msg355#msg355
date=1534189582]
> [quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=22.msg351#msg351
date=1534185511]
>
>
--- End Quote ---
I don't think you understood my question? my fault for not
wording it correctly.
We in the U.S. have a constitution that many want to make a
living (progressive) piece of paper that would change according
to societies wants and needs. We see this everyday. Yet, the
forefathers wrote it literally so it would conform to all ages
and not be changed.
My question to you was, Do you believe the Bible should change
its meaning (progressive) according to societies needs and
views?
To be sure, new discoveries of the Bible today are because of
computers, science, etc. that DO NOT change the objective(s) of
the Bible but rather serve more to ratify the contents.
Every time I read something and mostly while trying to get an
answer for someone, I find something hidden away that I had not
noticed before. (i.e. Rev 7 happened prior to Rev 6)
Take Homosexuality, mainly because it is on the front burner
both in society and various religious organizations today.
If one agrees with the progressive way of interpreting the Word
of GOD, then we would be saying the Word of GOD is outdated and
anything goes without GOD's interferece
Blade
[/quote]
That is where I misunderstood you then Blade. Open theism is not
solely limited to the “progressive” or “liberal” movements in
society or politics no. While the extreme representatives are
most likely within that group, not all of us are. I don’t want
the Bible to change to keep everyone out of hell. Open theism is
not a political agenda.
[/quote]
--- Quote ---
> Blade- Yeah, hear you. Even the end times have religion
coupled with politics.
>
> Blade
--- End Quote ---
Blade, That’s a major BINGO!
#Post#: 649--------------------------------------------------
Re: How did you arrive at your current Theological stance?
DIR By: guest13
Date: August 28, 2018, 7:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
My theological stance .... ? Not really sure that I have one.
It's rather a heinz 57 mix of my upbringing and uncertainty.
While admittedly, my Biblical knowledge is dusty, it isn't due
to the fact that I haven't read and studied the Bible, just more
of, it's been awhile.
The one thing I do not have insofar as theology is a
closed-mind. I read and listen.
Obviously being agnostic, I don't have a lot to offer insofar as
theology ... though the one thing is a blessing is the comfort
level I have at TF and this forum to inquire and converse
without the ridicule or disdain I have witnessed elsewhere.
#Post#: 650--------------------------------------------------
Re: How did you arrive at your current Theological stance?
DIR By: guest5
Date: August 28, 2018, 9:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jinkx link ---
>
> My theological stance .... ? Not really sure that I have one.
It's rather a heinz 57 mix of my upbringing and uncertainty.
While admittedly, my Biblical knowledge is dusty, it isn't due
to the fact that I haven't read and studied the Bible, just more
of, it's been awhile.
>
> The one thing I do not have insofar as theology is a
closed-mind. I read and listen.
>
> Obviously being agnostic, I don't have a lot to offer insofar
as theology ... though the one thing is a blessing is the
comfort level I have at TF and this forum to inquire and
converse without the ridicule or disdain I have witnessed
elsewhere.
>
--- End Quote ---
I’m a fairly young Christian that is not very studied yet. I
like being here and TF, I’ve never been to any of the other
forums that everybody dislikes and i’m Kinda glad. I like having
a bunch of different people around to draw from and talk with.
#Post#: 651--------------------------------------------------
Re: How did you arrive at your current Theological stance?
DIR By: patrick jane
Date: August 28, 2018, 9:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jinkx link ---
>
> My theological stance .... ? Not really sure that I have one.
It's rather a heinz 57 mix of my upbringing and uncertainty.
While admittedly, my Biblical knowledge is dusty, it isn't due
to the fact that I haven't read and studied the Bible, just more
of, it's been awhile.
>
> The one thing I do not have insofar as theology is a
closed-mind. I read and listen.
>
> Obviously being agnostic, I don't have a lot to offer insofar
as theology ... though the one thing is a blessing is the
comfort level I have at TF and this forum to inquire and
converse without the ridicule or disdain I have witnessed
elsewhere.
>
--- End Quote ---
I bet you do have a lot to offer theologically. You know more
than you think.For me it was repetition. I kept reading Paul's
epistles and reading posts on TOL and then at some point it all
made sense and the whole Bible made sense after reading Paul. I
was stuck in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
I have believed in God and Jesus Christ since childhood but
never really knew I was saved for sure until reading Romans,
Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Galatians and Colossians.
All are easy to read and not too long. Each time I read them I
learn and remember something new or that I missed before. It's
like reading a new book every time.
I think you could be growing spiritually whether you intend to
or not. Thanks for this post Jinkx.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page