Open Theism

exo wrote:I've got a very similar outlook to Thomas on that front.  I ended up at those views simply because there is so much difference amongst many various theological viewpoints that ALL HAVE THEIR BELIEVERS BEARING OBVIOUS FRUIT.  The fact that some of that fruit might be apples and some are oranges is far, far less important than the fact that the garden overall is bearing fruit.  We're not told to go out and just farm apples.......

When you get down to it, MUCH of what passes for "theological debate", especially on an Internet forum that is not dedicated to it, amounts to little more than one person preferring Michael W. Smith praise and worship while someone else lectures them about how churches shouldn't have anything more than a piano and organ leading 120 year old hymns. Or that a "good Christian" should only be watching G rated films.  Or that my significantly longer than collar length hair and earrings means I'm somehow violating the OT admonishment about not appearing like a woman and thus in need of a spiritual intervention.  It's just an extension of those same thought patterns.

More than that, we oftentimes ONLY interact without our fellow forumites in online, with absolutely ZERO way of knowing how their beliefs actually fertilize their tree, and what fruit it bears in the "real world".

 There is a LOT of acreage in the garden our trees are planted in.  Those planted around the outer edges of it are still part of it, and some people forget that "we" aren't the Master Gardener.

I've got to say that I agree with this as well.

Well, except for one thing, Exo.

So if sin is in my heart because my hair is too long, what if I sport a skullet? (which is what would happen if I tried to grow my hair out now - friar tuck on top, massive hair on the sides)

Would my heart be sin free on top, but sin-ful on the sides?

I do miss my long hair though - it was down to my lower back. I told my wife if her best friend can get breast implants, then I can get hair plugs or whatever procedure they do to give men hair on their heads again. She didn't object!

HAHAHA!!!

Skullets are still sinful just simply because guys wearing them think they look good but are lying to themselves.  LoL

and that's why I shave my head right now! HAHA!!

ThomasEversole wrote:My opinion, for what its worth, as long as someone 1) has Jesus Christ in their heart as their Lord and Savior and

Thanks Thomas. Ok, how about a follow up question for you or for anyone else who would care to answer ? Any deal breakers in regards to the beliefs about nature of God, the Christ or salvation ?

I've seen a t-shirt that says, "If I'm told I need to find Jesus, does that mean He's hiding?" and there's a cartoon illustration of Jesus in a bunch of plants doing a shhhhhh with his finger.

The irony is, that Christ doesn't "hide" from us.  He's already knocking on the doors of our hearts, and has been all along.  All we need to do is let Him in so we can accept Him, as our Savior.

Now if encountered someone who believed that they had to DO something to be "saved", like be baptized (a church I went to as a kid believed this), or partake in communion, or whatever else...  I would disagree with that, but I wouldn't classify it as a "dealbreaker" as long as they're 1) seeking Christ and His gift of salvation and 2) living like a Christian.

Lets say I encountered someone who was polytheistic.  They have Jesus Christ as their savior, but also had The Muffin Man as their other savior, and they prayed to both, lived according to both, etc. etc. etc.  I would disagree with that Muffin Man part, but I wouldn't classify it as a "dealbreaker" as long as they're 1) seeking Christ and His gift of salvation and 2) living like a Christian.

That whole muffin man deal as a waste of time and a sin, but, none of us have room to talk.  We sin too, just differently.  

Regarding the nature of God, within reason, every Christian is going to have their own "understanding" of what God is like.  We can see God's behavior in The Word, but I don't think any of us can fully comprehend God as God comprehends Himself (or our heads would explode) - likewise, "wrath" and "love" are two very different human emotions, so its hard to paint a portrait of what that's really like in perfect unison.

Some people will look at the wrathful God and be like, " My God kick's evil's ass!  Watch out those who reject Him", while others might think, "Jeez...  God's kind of a jerk sometimes.".  Likewise regarding love, some will be like "God's love is the greatest love, God loves THE WORLD" but then others at the thought of say Jeffery Dahmer accepting Christ as his savior before he was murdered would think "There's no way God would love that POS because of what he did...", or a slightly different angle, disbelieving Jeffery Dahmer really accepted Jesus into his heart, because of the crimes committed.

Obviously there's more to God than just wrath and love, but we don't need pages of additional examples - I think we get the idea. Reminds me of this little rhyme I heard from a friend who's also a Catholic priest:

Two men look through prison bars
One sees mud, the other sees stars

Well both men are right, but perception is literally everything...  so why wouldn't people having different perceptions in/of life also have different perceptions of God?

That being said, there would be some "beliefs" regarding God's nature that I would disagree with, but I wouldn't classify it as a "dealbreaker" as long as they're 1) seeking Christ and His gift of salvation and 2) living like a Christian.
_________________________

Let me turn the tables here for a second sentient 6.  Twice now, you've referenced the term "dealbreaker".  Now I have my own definition of what that is, and I can assume how you're defining it, but can you clarify HOW you are defining it?

If someone does/believes something that is what you'd consider to be a "dealbreaker", does that mean:
- You refuse to show them love?
- You refuse to talk to or associate with them?
- You turn around and walk the other direction when they come near?
- You harass them through mental and emotional abuse until they leave or come around to your beliefs/actions?
- You approach them lovingly with the right answers, and get more and more "wrathful" when they don't come around?
- All of the above?

Hi thomas...been busy last few days. I will try to respond to your post tomorrow.

sentient 6 wrote:

ThomasEversole wrote:My opinion, for what its worth, as long as someone 1) has Jesus Christ in their heart as their Lord and Savior and

Thanks Thomas. Ok, how about a follow up question for you or for anyone else who would care to answer ? Any deal breakers in regards to the beliefs about nature of God, the Christ or salvation ?

I'll take this one on.  The way I see it, I don't get to decide what the "deal breakers" are because I'm not the one making the deal.  I don't get to disqualify anyone for the Kingdom because it ain't my Kingdom.  So no, I don't have any "deal breaking" doctrinal issues.

messiaen77 wrote:

sentient 6 wrote:

ThomasEversole wrote:My opinion, for what its worth, as long as someone 1) has Jesus Christ in their heart as their Lord and Savior and

Thanks Thomas. Ok, how about a follow up question for you or for anyone else who would care to answer ? Any deal breakers in regards to the beliefs about nature of God, the Christ or salvation ?

I'll take this one on.  The way I see it, I don't get to decide what the "deal breakers" are because I'm not the one making the deal.  I don't get to disqualify anyone for the Kingdom because it ain't my Kingdom.  So no, I don't have any "deal breaking" doctrinal issues.

Yeah. If I think there are deal breakers and I'm looking if someone else have done something to break the deal, and I base it on my personal understanding of things - which is very limited in the grand scheme of things - can I be 100% sure I haven't also lost the deal ages ago.

I've avoided people in my life. Because of how they act, what they say, or how they interact with other people. Back in my drinking days, I had a "landlord" that just hung around my place all the time (same building) and he was a dick. I literally chose to be homeless than live there because he was condescending, hit on the girlfriend I had at the time, would offer me food one day then get mad later because I ate it, etc.

That was a dealbreaker. ...because it directly impacted and effected me. I don't understand how a Christian's "fringe belief" directly effects someone else to the point of addressing it in the same way as the dealbreaker I described.

My own theological views change often enough that I no longer see them as essential to being on the right side of orthodoxy or not. Martin Luther himself said that he could not even rely on the church fathers writings to help him understand the role of works vs grace as none of them seemed to agree with each other. (My bad paraphrase from what I've read).

Definitely there are theological points of view that I would subsribe as less helpful than others (Oneness Christology, Prosperity Gospel, Marianism as examples), however I can understand why people believe them and I do not believe they are not equal followers of Jesus if they rely on his death and resurrection as the only means of salvation.

Myself, I do not believe that the first few chapters of Genesis or the Book of Revelation are meant to be taken literally. For me I have actually found my faith strengthened by coming to that point of view. Would I then insist that everyone think the same as me. No way, but I would appreciate that those with the opposite point of view not get their knickers in a knot when I honestly tell them this. Sadly I have had on more than one occasion friends attack me and state that I am on the way to losing my salvation.

I'm sure that everyone here believes differently from one another in some way based upon their interpretation of the Scriptures. The important thing is that we have all accepted Christ, and as long as we stay on that path, we will see each other in Heaven one day.

I also think that people's opinions here don't reflect how they see others in their walk with God. There are so many different aspects about Him, and I'm honored that He would allow us to serve Him even after falling short.

messiaen77 wrote:
I'll take this one on.  The way I see it, I don't get to decide what the "deal breakers" are because I'm not the one making the deal.  I don't get to disqualify anyone for the Kingdom because it ain't my Kingdom.  So no, I don't have any "deal breaking" doctrinal issues.

 Well, I am not referring to their eternal state per se. It could have that kind of consequence though. More along the lines of people who you feel you are in communion with in the local church. People you would worship together, learn and join under a common united belief.

ThomasEversole wrote:  I don't understand how a Christian's "fringe belief" directly effects someone else to the point of addressing it in the same way as the dealbreaker I described.

The body of Christ was meant by God to be a group that came together under a common belief. If there is no common belief, how can you truly have communion with anyone ?

sentient 6 wrote:
 Well, I am not referring to their eternal state per se. It could have that kind of consequence though. More along the lines of people who you feel you are in communion with in the local church. People you would worship together, learn and join under a common united belief.

The common united belief is faith in Christ Jesus.  Not Nature of God group A over here and Nature of God group B over there....  That just wreaks of a Corinth Clique, which Paul spoke against.

When one takes it upon themselves to be the world's doctrine police, they smash the church's "together, learn and join" to pieces.

messiaen77 wrote:
I'll take this one on.  The way I see it, I don't get to decide what the "deal breakers" are because I'm not the one making the deal.  I don't get to disqualify anyone for the Kingdom because it ain't my Kingdom.  So no, I don't have any "deal breaking" doctrinal issues.

 Also, there must be churches and denominations that you know that you could not in good conscious attend and be part of....right ?

ThomasEversole wrote:

The common united belief is faith in Christ Jesus.  Not Nature of God group A over here and Nature of God group B over there....  That just wreaks of a Corinth Clique, which Paul spoke against.

When one takes it upon themselves to be the world's doctrine police, you smash the church's "together, learn and join" to pieces.

 

So, believing that Christs nature is very God, or that Christ nature was also very human is essential ?

Thomas, I've had a long day, but I still want to answer the questions you posed to me. But it will have to wait until tomorrow.

sentient 6 wrote:
Also, there must be churches and denominations that you know that you could not in good conscious attend and be part of....right ?

Got an example?

sentient 6 wrote:
So, believing that Christs nature is very God, or that Christ nature was also very human is essential ?

Essential to what? Finish your thought please.

sentient 6 wrote:Thomas, I've had a long day, but I still want to answer the questions you posed to me. But it will have to wait until tomorrow.

Friend, its strange to rapid fire 3 questions and then say you don't have time to talk about this, all in a span of 9 minutes.

sentient 6 wrote:

ThomasEversole wrote:  I don't understand how a Christian's "fringe belief" directly effects someone else to the point of addressing it in the same way as the dealbreaker I described.

The body of Christ was meant by God to be a group that came together under a common belief. If there is no common belief, how can you truly have communion with anyone ?

Questions:

Exactly how homogenous is that common belief supposed to be, and who is the scripturaly declared judge of that?  At what point of getting the details wrong outside of accepting Christ have we gone so far off the rails that Christ will reject US?  Your particular track on this concept will ULTIMATELY lead to the rejection and denial of all those who differ in belief from yourself, so how can you expect there to be a united common belief when the ultimate endgame of the thought process leads to wedges and firm lines of division?  You can argue that it doesn't all you wish, but that runs counter to demonstrated history on the matter even here in as small an environment as the CMR is.


How can you talk about having a united common belief, when you have people lay out broad details on their own, only to dissect/reject/argue over them on such a consistent basis? You've literally had multiple people say "if you believe in Christ as Lord and Savior and are bearing fruit, we can fellowship with you", and then here you are again, devoting an INCREDIBLE amount of energy towards rejecting those points.  It's really almost as if you'd RATHER engage in an arguement than in fellowship.

ThomasEversole wrote:

Friend, its strange to rapid fire 3 questions and then say you don't have time to talk about this, all in a span of 9 minutes.

Lol, strange that I would want to get ready to go to bed ? I logged on, and I seen that I should clarify something. Why is it that whatever I post its always a " rapid fire " response ? ( please don't answer that though )

ThomasEversole wrote:

Got an example?

Essential to what?  Finish your thought please.

An example for me ? I could not join with JWs, Mormons, Roman Catholics, Oneness Pentecostals, or any denominations that have forsaken the scriptures as their sole source of authority for their beliefs. I could commune with Reformed Baptists, Most Lutherans, Most Presbyterians, Baptists, Wesleyans, and maybe some orthodox charismatics congregations. Probably some more, but I think you understand what I am saying.


To your second question, essential for salvation. I know people can start out in ignorance on these things. But I am talking about a willful and thoughful rejection once they are made of aware of what the scripture teaches.

exo wrote:



Questions:

Exactly how homogenous is that common belief supposed to be, and who is the scripturaly declared judge of that?  At what point of getting the details wrong outside of accepting Christ have we gone so far off the rails that Christ will reject US?  Your particular track on this concept will ULTIMATELY lead to the rejection and denial of all those who differ in belief from yourself, so how can you expect there to be a united common belief when the ultimate endgame of the thought process leads to wedges and firm lines of division?  You can argue that it doesn't all you wish, but that runs counter to demonstrated history on the matter even here in as small an environment as the CMR is.


How can you talk about having a united common belief, when you have people lay out broad details on their own, only to dissect/reject/argue over them on such a consistent basis? You've literally had multiple people say "if you believe in Christ as Lord and Savior and are bearing fruit, we can fellowship with you", and then here you are again, devoting an INCREDIBLE amount of energy towards rejecting those points.  It's really almost as if you'd RATHER engage in an arguement than in fellowship.

They do lead to division. That's why there are so many denominations. That's why there is only a kind of bare minimum of essentials here at the CMR. I know there has too be.


I am not rejecting what they posted. I think you are making more out of my posts than what is warranted. I am asking questions to see where people draw their lines in regards to Christian belief. Was I supposed to assume that everyone here believes the same thing about who Christ is  ? I think I know pretty much what everyone here believes about Christ. But once again, I was just asking what are the lines that people draw when they encounter beliefs about Christ and salvation that are different their own.