How to respond to classical theists who dodge Open Theism arguments

[Clete]

I'd suggest 'attacking the messenger' the least effective way to 'respond to "classical" theism.' I may be wrong, like I said, not my thread and I lost interest. It doesn't seem to stay on focus regarding more important articles of need and faith. I'm just not interested in banter-over-substance- attack instead of regarding material. I'm pretty sure this thread will be quite useful or at least interesting and compelling if it ever pursues the thread interest, which I think is either 'how to protect ourselves' or 'how do we win other theologians to what we view as correct and Christ-honoring?" Something along those lines. I can only throw hints your way about how at least one "Classic" theologian would need to be responded to, and what it'd take. If you want to talk more specifically about Hebrew words and meaning, maybe start that thread. I think it was an 'example' on point, not to be the end-all nor even primary point of thread. If such however, it 'shows' the response and tactics inadvertently, people can look at the responses and see if any of it is effective for 'how to' discuss things with a "classic" theist. I'll leave such to others to decide. -Lon

Where you drunk when you wrote that?

I reads like the sort of gibberish you get from someone at hotel bar at 1 a.m. after two too many glasses of wine. If there’s a point in here worth addressing, maybe try saying it plainly and directly. I know that you are at least occasionally capable of that.

 

[Idolater]

The apostle Peter when translated to English said the opposite. It’s funny how you don’t actually listen to a word he says. He says you do not get to interpret the Bible. The apostle Paul says to study. The new King James version call it diligence. You’re to study and learn it for what it says, not what you want it to say.

Interpretation is just inferring what the Bible is saying. You're not allowed to infer something the Bible's NOT saying. But you are allowed to infer what the Bible IS saying—but then that's the whole question here. What is the Bible saying. When it's saying something which when taken rhetorically means that Open Theism is wrong, you ofc don't read it that way, you read it the way that makes Open Theism correct, which means you're taking it wooden literally because the wooden literal position supports Open Theism.

It's like when I'm a Catholic taking "This is My body" literally, and "My flesh is real food". You guys say I'm taking it literally but it's supposed to be rhetorical. But when I say, "Your Open Theism passages are rhetorical," you say I'm wrong.

 

[Idolater]

The one problem: are we reading paraphrase or actual intent? If we stick to some one's particular rendition, have we bought that particular translator(s) paraphraser's rendition that can be off?

This is the point about claiming that you all take your preferred Bible's printers, as your magisterium. They are interpreting as they are translating. In order to translate, they have to interpret. No other option. So you are buying what they're literally selling in some sense. Their version of the Scripture in English is what they're selling. You're buying it. They are your magisterium.

 

[Lon]

This is the point about claiming that you all take your preferred Bible's printers, as your magisterium. They are interpreting as they are translating. In order to translate, they have to interpret. No other option. So you are buying what they're literally selling in some sense. Their version of the Scripture in English is what they're selling. You're buying it. They are your magisterium.

Or buying any particular translation. That knife is double-edged. Be careful shaving.

 

[Lon]

Where you drunk when you wrote that?

I reads like the sort of gibberish you get from someone at hotel bar at 1 a.m. after two too many glasses of wine. If there’s a point in here worth addressing, maybe try saying it plainly and directly. I know that you are at least occasionally capable of that.

Nice! Unsettler, note form on this one for 'how to respond to "classic" theism from Clete's attempt here. Realize for most anybody else, low-brow and blue-collar are beneath the rest so if you are going for actual dialogue, this won't work. If just "Protect my theology at all costs" I still won't think it'll do, but you'll have to find that out on your own. Clete, I've talked to Bob Enyart about you, God rest his soul, and he agreed (you can look it up in whichever thread if it still exists), your first foot forward isn't logic, or even debate. Your first foot forward is 'mean.' And THEN you think.

Of course he agreed!

Of course your first inclination was some sort of childish emoting right after reading this post. Of course it is.

It is oddly telling when high-five hand slaps ring after "Battle Royale's" on TOL. There is just too much childishness to go around in Open circles. It is odd too, that the most 'relational intending' theology is the meanest (means it isn't what one would hope it would be).

Am I drinking? Nope. A bit out of reach of those who don't like climbing trees? Yep.

 

[Nick M]

You guys say I'm taking it literally but it's supposed to be rhetorical.

No, symbolism. Water baptism is symbolic too, for the Israelites. Their sin wasn't actually washed away.