Now you too can be

[Winman]

What exactly does it mean to be made in the image of God? The word "image" has overtones of "likeness" or "similar." In what way is man similar to God? Man is similar to God in that he is a moral creature. Man certainly doesn't share any of God's divine attributes. Even our moral likeness is imperfect. Finite. Mankind still possess the same moral similarity, although it is mortally wounded by sin. Our morality cannot be repaired, it needs to be remade; and that's exactly what Christ does for all who believe.

A moral creature is one who understands between good and evil and can choose between them.

Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

God himself shows that little children have no knowledge between good and evil. God did not hold these children responsible for their parent's sin, but allowed them to enter the Promised Land. All the parents died in the wilderness for their unbelief when they sinned.

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

This verse also shows little children do not know between good and evil at first. This verse also shows that man has the ability to refuse evil and choose good.

Now, this is little speculation on my part, but when Adam and Eve sinned, God said "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to KNOW good and evil" (Gen 3:22). This knowledge is not evil, for God himself has this knowledge.

This is what happened when Adam and Eve sinned, now all men are born with the innate ability to know good and evil. Little children are born with this ability, but it is not developed and matured for some time. All children mature differently, but I would guess that no child truly understands between good and evil until he is maybe 7-8 years old. Only God knows when the individual has reached this maturity.

This knowledge makes man both responsible and accountable. A small child is not held accountable until he understands good and evil. The moment he does understand he becomes accountable and is condemned by the law when he sins. I believe this is what Paul was speaking of in Romans 7.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Paul here said he was alive without the law once. If a man is born dead in sin as many teach, then it could never be said a man was alive, but Paul clearly said he was alive. It was the law that taught him what sin is. Once he matured and understood the commandments, he was convicted by the law, he spiritually died. The law is good, but sin by the law convicted him and slew him.

Man is a moral creature because he understands right from wrong. The scriptures also show man has choice, he can refuse the evil and choose the good if he so desires.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Yes man was made in God's image pre fall. He was created good, pre fall. Surely you don't think we bear the full image of God post fall?

Yes, we do, and yes, man does...still bear his full image. God created him to do so. Why not?

 

[Amy.G]

Yes, we do, and yes, man does...still bear his full image. God created him to do so. Why not?

We are sinful. God is sinless. There is definitely a difference in our images.

Why not? Because man fell from a sinless state.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

What exactly does it mean to be made in the image of God? The word "image" has overtones of "likeness" or "similar." In what way is man similar to God? Man is similar to God in that he is a moral creature. Man certainly doesn't share any of God's divine attributes. Even our moral likeness is imperfect. Finite. Mankind still possess the same moral similarity, although it is mortally wounded by sin. Our morality cannot be repaired, it needs to be remade; and that's exactly what Christ does for all who believe.

"Tri-partate" form....the fact that our properties are logically subsequent to the whole...all of that...YES, man was made in the IMAGE of God, we remain so, even post fall.

 

[percho]

You are correct Amy G. If God did not choose [elect] some to salvation in Jesus Christ no one would be or could be saved.

Kind of reminds me of what God told the children of Israel way back yonder, I have put before you this day life or death, choose life. Oddly no one did!

I have put before you this day Christ or death, choose Christ.


I don't think so.

 

[percho]

We are sinful. God is sinless. There is definitely a difference in our images.

Why not? Because man fell from a sinless state.

God created the man Adam in his image so that the Lamb of God, the Son of Man, Son of God, the last Adam, could come in the image of the first man Adam, die and be resurrected by his Father God, as quickening Spirit, that we by resurrection from the dead and or instant change at the appearing of the Son of Man in the glory of his kingdom could be regenerated in the image of the Son of God making him the firstborn of many brethren.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Man is made in, and remains the very image of God. He has also fallen...That does not change this. I cannot fathom how this is even disputable...

 

[HeirofSalvation]

We are sinful. God is sinless. There is definitely a difference in our images.

Why not? Because man fell from a sinless state.

NO, there is no difference in our "image"...we may have a fallen state after the fall...this does not change the fundamental comparison and likeness between God and man...only MAN, is, of the created beings, capable of sin, and a partaker of Grace...No being is like that, not Lucifer, not Michael the Archangel, not Gabriel, no one. Only God and his special creation man. We were made, and remain in, his image. Any alternative Theology of the nature of man is sick at it's very core. The status of man's "fallenness" is simply not germaine or relevant to his status as an "image-bearer" of God. Period. It is not the same topic.

 

[quantumfaith]

What exactly does it mean to be made in the image of God? The word "image" has overtones of "likeness" or "similar." In what way is man similar to God? Man is similar to God in that he is a moral creature. Man certainly doesn't share any of God's divine attributes. Even our moral likeness is imperfect. Finite. Mankind still possess the same moral similarity, although it is mortally wounded by sin. Our morality cannot be repaired, it needs to be remade; and that's exactly what Christ does for all who believe.

That is a great question, I posted earlier, I article that I really liked by Lemke. I am a mathematician, but at least I can have my "opinons" in the theological domain.

 

[quantumfaith]

What exactly does it mean to be made in the image of God? The word "image" has overtones of "likeness" or "similar." In what way is man similar to God? Man is similar to God in that he is a moral creature. Man certainly doesn't share any of God's divine attributes. Even our moral likeness is imperfect. Finite. Mankind still possess the same moral similarity, although it is mortally wounded by sin. Our morality cannot be repaired, it needs to be remade; and that's exactly what Christ does for all who believe.

The image of God is the reflection/likeness/similarity of God’s essence which He created in human beings, and is reflected most noticeably in the personal, spiritual, relational, rational,volitional, moral, responsible, and emotional aspects of human life. This definition does not suggest that humans are of the same substance (homoousia) with God–this, of course, is the case
only for Jesus and the Holy Spirit–but merely that humans bear a likeness (homoiosis) to God. However, it is to say that humans do mirror some of the aspects of God’s nature, and indeed that God created these aspects within humans. Humans are a reflection or copy of the divine image,
but humans are obviously not divine. The image of God is more than the sum of the parts of any list of composite aspects which make up the image of God, but it is through these aspects that the imago Dei is mostclearly seen.20 The list of eight characteristics in this definition is not intended to be exhaustive,
but these are at least some of the primary characteristics which reflect the image of God in humankind.

• A Personal Being – God is personal in each of the three Persons in the Trinity, and this personal nature is reflected in human persons as well. Human beings are selves with individual personhood. Each person has a personal center of identity often associated with the
make decisions as free agents which initiate changes in the created world.23
• A Spiritual Being – God is Spirit (John 4:24), and He created a spirit within each human
being so that we can worship Him in spirit and in truth. Each human being has an innate need
for God, an empty vacuum which only God can fill.
• A Relational Being – In the classicus locus for the creation of the image of God (Gen. 1:26-28), it is notable that both God (“Let us create . . .”) and humans (“man and woman . . .”) are described as being in relationship. God is relational, and this is an inbred component of human existence as well. Humans are social beings. We are not just capable of relating; we
need relationships. We find fulfillment only when we are properly related to God and to other humans, the tasks which Jesus described as the first and second greatest commandments (Matt. 22:36-40; c.f. Deut. 6:5).
• A Rational/Creative Being – God is omniscient and wise (Rom. 16:27; 1 Tim. 1:17; Jude 25). Humans, of course, can never approach the completeness of divine knowledge. However, God created us with minds and with reason. When we exercise rationality and creativity, we are reflecting the nature of God. Humans are, after all, homo sapiens – thinking beings. Rationality is probably mentioned most consistently through Christian history as the one trait
that exemplifies the image of God in persons, perhaps largely because of the high place that
• A Volitional/Free Being – God is free and sovereign, and He creates humans with freewill. Freedom is one of God’s most precious but dangerous gifts to humankind. By creating humans like Himself (rather than as mere animals or puppets), He gave humans the possibility of rebelling against Him. I affirm a perspective of action theory which I describe
as soft libertarianism.24 Libertarian freedom is propaedeutic to any robust view of moral responsibility and accountability.
• A Moral Being – God is holy, and He created humans to be holy (Matt 5:48; Rev. 4:8 ). God created a conscience within all humans (Rom. 2:14-15). Conscience can be seared or ignored, but it is part of the innate hardware of every human person. Morality presupposes volition,
because without a moral will, one cannot have moral accountability.25 Good deeds are not praiseworthy if they are not freely chosen, and evil deeds are not justly punishable if they are not freely chosen.
• A Responsible Being – God has charged humans with dominion over the world He created (Gen. 1:26-28; Ps. 8:5-6). This may be a consequence of the image of God rather than the essence of human existence, but being God’s representative or steward requires a foundational essence which is capable of managing all aspects of creation. God has given persons the ability to represent Him and exercise dominion over all the earth.
• An Emotional Being – God is love, and He created humans with the capacity to love ( 1 John4:7-20). Although some theologians affirm a doctrine of impassibility, the majority of Christian theologians understand the scriptural language that speaks of God as caring and loving toward persons but angry toward sin. Although the Greek philosophical worldview led many early Christian theologians to diminish or deny the role of emotion, the Bible actually
portrays emotion when used correctly as a positive reflection of the image of God.

 

[agedman]

NO, there is no difference in our "image"...we may have a fallen state after the fall...this does not change the fundamental comparison and likeness between God and man...only MAN, is, of the created beings, capable of sin, and a partaker of Grace...No being is like that, not Lucifer, not Michael the Archangel, not Gabriel, no one. Only God and his special creation man. We were made, and remain in, his image. Any alternative Theology of the nature of man is sick at it's very core. The status of man's "fallenness" is simply not germaine or relevant to his status as an "image-bearer" of God. Period. It is not the same topic.

I think it is important to recommend one part of this post. That part that states, "only MAN, is, of the created beings, capable of sin, and a partaker of Grace."

It is true in the first part - certainly man is capable as is all creation of sin. I didn't think that rape and murder were part of the animal kingdom until it was documented many years ago. I suppose weeds grow in every part of creation and more in humankind for we have the creative aspect of "inventing" perversions that excel above all the rest of the animal kingdom.

It is that second part that to me may be (depending upon the point of view) a bit troublesome. Man being a partaker of grace.

Grace is given whether man "partakes" or not. God allows rain on the just and unjust. There is no merit in man that can gather God's favor of grace for it by definition is unmerited favor.

In my opinion, HeirofSalvation is being specific in characterizing the Grace of Salvation is what is given to a person unlike the rest of creation.

As to the rest of the thread, in what is the image of God, I would offer the following observation.

Mankind does display certain God "like" qualities which include:

We recognize good and evil.
We have creative and inventive aspects.
We have fine arts aspects.
We have mathematical aspects.
We have certain esthetic understanding.
We have a value system that reaches into all areas of our existence.
We have a structure of society and personal.​

But which of these is not also manifested in some measure by the rest of the animal kingdom and by the angels even evil ones?

So, just what is the "image."

Unlike all other of God's creative work, the Scriptures teach that the God breathed into humankind a "living soul" - eternal. That transcends the "fall" and "redemption."

This is important when viewing the very work of salvation.

God knew when forming Adam that sin would would also make an investment and corrupt the creative work; He still breathed into Adam that living breath. Without such, humankind would be of no greater value than any other part of creation and not worth the effort of redemption.

 

[Iconoclast]

So are you "functionalist" in regards to this imago dei?

http://www.nobts.edu/faculty/itor/lemkesw/personal/PersonhoodETSpaper.pdf

Not sure of that term yet.I have disagreed with some of Mr.Lemkes writings before, so let me proceed with caution.
He is correct that this doctrine has to be worked through slowly.There is much to study and pray about with this area.lets see what he offers:

Based on the affirmations in Gen. 1:26-28 and Ps. 8:5-8, Old Testament scholars are
nearly unanimous in interpreting the image of God to be expressed in human dominion over
Nature. J

yes....this is correct and the writer to hebrews gives divine commentary in hebrews 2:4-8

[The New Testament, however, presents two very different perspectives on the image of
God. N. W. Porteous describes the New Testament perspective on the image of God as a “sea change” from the Old Testament perspective.5 Several of these New Testament texts echo the
creation language of Genesis 1 in affirming that humans are or have the image of God created
within their essence (1 Cor. 11:7, Jas. 3:9). However, other New Testament texts portray the image of God as being represented perfectly in Jesus Christ, who is the target for humans to work toward to achieve full and complete humanity (2 Cor. 3:13, Rom. 8:29, Col. 3:10). In these texts,
the image of God must be “transformed” or “renewed” to come into alignment with Christ, the perfect image of God/QUOTE]

:thumbs: okay so far!

Now on pages 4-6 i fit in between Kuyper and Hoekema---

Functionalist definitions understand the image of God to be reflected in
humankind fulfilling the cultural mandate of Gen. 1:26-28 and Ps. 8:5-6 to exercise dominion over all the created world. In this view, then, the image of God is something that humans do or have. Humans are authorized by God to serve as His visible representatives on earth. Calvinists
in the tradition of Abraham Kuyper and/or Christian Theonomists and Christian
Reconstructionists are among the advocates of this position

.

Anthony Hoekema describes these four moments or
aspects of the image of God in Scripture as
the original image (as created by God),
the perverted image (as impacted by the Fall),
the renewed image (as Christians strive to become more Christlike in the process of sanctification),
and the perfected image (as Christians in glorification
are aligned completely with the perfect image of God, Jesus Christ).

There are elemnets of both of these that I like, but I am still struggling to work through the implications of both of these thoughts...particularly Hebrews 2:4-8...that is why I say I am in between amill and post mill....
I am still open to learn much here!
QF.....as an aside- This is more what we should be discussing on BB as far as I can see. A person, a pastor ,a teacher puts forth a solid presentation, then we as the bereans see if it stands the test.
While i can pick at things in the article, the better way is to take a fresh look at the verses.

I sort of cheat when I look at this teaching.maybe i am not as smart as the writers quoted.....I look at the end of The book....and see the Lamb who was slain reigning on the throne. We are being conformed to his Image. as I responded to WD....1 cor.15 says;
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

QF, I have spent alot of time in this chapter reading through this section as it points to our future. We can know where we are going so we get a hint on what we should be doing in the meantime:thumbs: Does this make sense so far?

I just deleted a lengthy part 2 by accident[ or more accuratly by God's providence] QF.....basically trying to explain where i agree or differ on how he words things...
for example I believe the prodigal comes to himself because of the work of the work of the Spirit.

 

[Winman]

Kind of reminds me of what God told the children of Israel way back yonder, I have put before you this day life or death, choose life. Oddly no one did!

I have put before you this day Christ or death, choose Christ.


I don't think so.

And that is not true, Joshua and Caleb chose life.

 

[quantumfaith]

Not sure of that term yet.I have disagreed with some of Mr.Lemkes writings before, so let me proceed with caution.
He is correct that this doctrine has to be worked through slowly.There is much to study and pray about with this area.lets see what he offers:



yes....this is correct and the writer to hebrews gives divine commentary in hebrews 2:4-8

[The New Testament, however, presents two very different perspectives on the image of
God. N. W. Porteous describes the New Testament perspective on the image of God as a “sea change” from the Old Testament perspective.5 Several of these New Testament texts echo the
creation language of Genesis 1 in affirming that humans are or have the image of God created
within their essence (1 Cor. 11:7, Jas. 3:9). However, other New Testament texts portray the image of God as being represented perfectly in Jesus Christ, who is the target for humans to work toward to achieve full and complete humanity (2 Cor. 3:13, Rom. 8:29, Col. 3:10). In these texts,
the image of God must be “transformed” or “renewed” to come into alignment with Christ, the perfect image of God/QUOTE]

:thumbs: okay so far!

Now on pages 4-6 i fit in between Kuyper and Hoekema---

.






There are elemnets of both of these that I like, but I am still struggling to work through the implications of both of these thoughts...particularly Hebrews 2:4-8...that is why I say I am in between amill and post mill....
I am still open to learn much here!
QF.....as an aside- This is more what we should be discussing on BB as far as I can see. A person, a pastor ,a teacher puts forth a solid presentation, then we as the bereans see if it stands the test.
While i can pick at things in the article, the better way is to take a fresh look at the verses.

I sort of cheat when I look at this teaching.maybe i am not as smart as the writers quoted.....I look at the end of The book....and see the Lamb who was slain reigning on the throne. We are being conformed to his Image. as I responded to WD....1 cor.15 says;
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

QF, I have spent alot of time in this chapter reading through this section as it points to our future. We can know where we are going so we get a hint on what we should be doing in the meantime:thumbs: Does this make sense so far?

I just deleted a lengthy part 2 by accident[ or more accuratly by God's providence] QF.....basically trying to explain where i agree or differ on how he words things...
for example I believe the prodigal comes to himself because of the work of the work of the Spirit.

I am not quite sure "what you are saying" but this highlighted portion is what should be done, but, when we as bereans investigate, we ALL investigate according to our own biases. Occasionally we can agree on something being absolutely correct or absolutely incorrect, but we know that is not a common occurrence.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Seconded....on every level. :thumbs:
I love this priceless quote:

What a gem!!!....On a debate board, wherein it might be assumed that there would be disagreement, Icon thinks that everyone on here awaits his Divine "Correction", and when anyone disagrees, then they are "refusing" to accept Scriptural instruction and reproof. (Note to Cals...they don't "refuse" to accept...they just think your arguments suck.) All this from a poster who is little more than a parrot of all that his overlords have horse-whipped him into repeating ad nauseum.

Personally, I have asked him numerous times to consider some of the ideas and arguments of those not of his ilk....(even on ideas not at all germaine to the debate of "Cal vs. Arm")....Soteriologically neutral ones... and he will admit that he simply refuses to read them, learn from them, or call them anything less than blasphemers. He calls C.S. Lewis a blasphemer, for crying out loud....whatever Lewis was...a "Blasphemer" is not it. Yet nothing but scorn comes from the creature with no unique thoughts of his own...just derision and insult. It is un-Christlike garbage.

Since joining this Board myself... I have never heard as many proponents of the Calvinist point of view, I have never heard as much pro-Calvinist argument....and it has made me more non-Calvinist than I ever was before...whatever they are arguing...I don't want to think like they do, and I decidedly never want to emulate their Theological discourse. I simply do not want to worship the Moral Monster they worship. And I never want to emulate the vicious and un-loving messengers of their god.

I agree with you, and have encountered what you have described. I dont know why Iconoclast is the way he is. None of the other calvinists I have dealt with on here are like him. None of the calvinists I deal with off-line are like him.

Whats needed is to pray for him. He needs it desperatly

 

[psalms109:31]

And that is not true, Joshua and Caleb chose life.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

While everyone was saying we can't win there is giants and not to listen to the council of the many but the one the word of God to trust in Him when things looks hopeless.

In my long separation with my wife, I lost my home, my church and time with my children. I tried everything to save my marriage and the more i fought the more I pushed her away. It wasn't until i trusted in God and hoped in Him that what ever was going to happen it would all work out.

What I learned was no matter what i can't change other people, it is going to happen especially when they have made their mind up to do it. The only thing we can change is our attitude about the situation and not let what other people do destroy our relationship with God. It first to God and then to our family. To trust in God even when the earth gives away around us, He is our sure foundation.

God gave me my family back, if He didn't it would still be O.K. because He will never forsake me or leave me.

 

[Iconoclast]

Genesis 9:6 was post fall, soundly refuting your notion man is only made in God's image pre fall. Next.

Not a surprise as you do not understand the fall,or Romans 5. Your error spreads because of it. You have nothing here to offer....as usual:wavey:

His God is the same as yours. The fact you question a god he believes in and describes is just what I claimed. Your entire thread is nothing more than a cheap shot.

Your lack of reading comprehension is not my fault. Personal attacks,and mis-reading my posts is on you.
That you cannot understand the post on the image bearer doctrine indicates you are a stranger to systematic theology on this area.

someone who admittedly only will read the work of reformers calling someone out on objectiviity. You are a riot

Bearing false witness is sin.......I prefer the puritans and reformers yes for sure. I have read others but they are mostly defective,so why waste time. You show yourself for what you are here...so it is what it is.

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes man was made in God's image pre fall. He was created good, pre fall. Surely you don't think we bear the full image of God post fall?

Amy,
You are correct.
post fall we read this;

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

The divine commentary on it is first cor 15:

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Webdog and Hos do not grasp this....so their theology will error everytime.

Instead they twist my words and ignore the scriptures offered as if that will make the issue clear up.:laugh::wavey::laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

(Note to Cals...they don't "refuse" to accept...they just think your arguments suck.) All this from a poster who is little more than a parrot of all that his overlords have horse-whipped him into repeating ad nauseum.

Personally, I have asked him numerous times to consider some of the ideas and arguments of those not of his ilk....(even on ideas not at all germaine to the debate of "Cal vs. Arm")....Soteriologically neutral ones... and he will admit that he simply refuses to read them, learn from them, or call them anything less than blasphemers. He calls C.S. Lewis a blasphemer, for crying out loud....whatever Lewis was...a "Blasphemer" is not it. Yet nothing but scorn comes from the creature with no unique thoughts of his own...just derision and insult. It is un-Christlike garbage.

Since joining this Board myself... I have never heard as many proponents of the Calvinist point of view, I have never heard as much pro-Calvinist argument....and it has made me more non-Calvinist than I ever was before...whatever they are arguing...I don't want to think like they do, and I decidedly never want to emulate their Theological discourse. I simply do not want to worship the Moral Monster they worship. And I never want to emulate the vicious and un-loving messengers of their god.

Icon thinks that everyone on here awaits his Divine "Correction", and when anyone disagrees, then they are "refusing" to accept Scriptural instruction and reproof

It seems that way to you because of your posting failed molinist and open theism ideas.
May the Lord reward you according to your works:laugh::laugh::wavey:

I simply do not want to worship the Moral Monster they worship.[

Do not worry...you cannot.

")....Soteriologically neutral ones... and he will admit that he simply refuses to read them, learn from them, or call them anything less than blasphemers.

Why lie??? You know it did not happen that way.

So you are seeking to lecture me on christlikeness....lets see-

(Note to Cals...they don't "refuse" to accept...they just think your arguments suck.)

Yet nothing but scorn comes from the creature with no unique thoughts of his own...just derision and insult. It is un-Christlike garbage.

Well here we have another example of some of your "unique thoughts" from another thread.....lets see

What a weak, unimaginative, childish, and non-Sovereign God you Calvinists worship. He is a 5 year-old child who merely utilizes force to demand his own way every day in all situations. What an unloving and preposterous deity this is. The God worshipped by Calvinists is simply non-Sovereign, weak and un-creative. .

Yes webdog... and AIC.....here is your friend blaspheming the God of the bible.

All this from a poster who is little more than a parrot of all that his overlords have horse-whipped him into repeating ad nauseum.

Your quotes remind me of cs lewis.....he wrote about......liar, lunatic.... I can see what he was getting at by reading your highly edifying post.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

It seems that way to you because of your posting failed molinist and open theism ideas.

You regularly describe alternative viewpoints as being "failed".....I never have understood what you mean by that. Just what is a "failed" idea? Please pick a better word, this sentence is hard on the eyes.

A Molinist, (btw) cannot, by definition be an Open Theist....they are contradictory...it is not possible. Pick one thing to attempt to malign, but you cannot pick both. I am a Molinist (yes) although not a very committed one...that renders it impossible to be an O.T. You apparrently have no idea what Molinism is or O.T. is, or both...It is impossible to believe both, and I do not.

May the Lord reward you according to your works :laugh::laugh::wavey:

Is this is you wishing for someone to suffer and taking pleasure in the idea of it? I thank God that, in his infinite wisdom, he has chosen NOT to place you into any position of political authority.

Do not worry...you cannot.

This is yet again, your consigning someone to Hell and proclaiming their being un-saved because they disagree with your "correction"....Why do you do this? That is evil. This is why I said:

And I never want to emulate the vicious and un-loving messengers of their god.

(I should not have generalized all into one group).

Why lie??? You know it did not happen that way.

I Know, no such thing...I may have misunderstood your intent....but that is precisely what I perceived at the time. Why assume intentional falsehood? "Charity believeth all things, and hopeth all things..." ....Maybe I was simply mistaken???? Was your intent otherwise?

Your quotes remind me of cs lewis.....he wrote about......liar, lunatic.... I can see what he was getting at by reading your highly edifying post.

You cannot, in fact, see what he was getting at, as you misunderstood the point he was making then, and would not have bothered to revisit it (by your own admission). There is no reason to assume you understand it now.