User Tag List

Page 7 of 239 FirstFirst ... 456789101757107 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 3574

Thread: ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

  1. #91
    Over 2000 post club elected4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    216
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    My point was that it isn't just a Calvinist doctrine. I do understand where you are coming from. My biggest caution is that it can lead some who have no right to believe the saved part, presume upon it. I do believe with you, a saint should have assurance from God and His Word.
    This is true. Especially when people put to much emphasis on the human endeavor to follow God instead of what God has done to make it possible to follow God.
    Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

    The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

  2. #92
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    11792
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    No they don't. Here is AMR's (John Piper) and here is Hilston's.

    Decretive means allow rather than desire. God will work with the way things are moving such as "All things work for good." It isn't that God wants us to suffer in order to grow, but that there is no other way. He is working through that which is undesired (sin and its effects) to bring about His desire and love for us.

    His prescriptive will is His commands. What we are expressly called to do or what happens because He decides it will be done. God does not will (command) that sin exist. It is hated by Him. He will work through them to bring about His desires.
    This is not what Calvin taught. You need to review quotes from him that are more exhaustive in scope of His monothetic will (you are trying to retain Arminian 'baggage'). One can also not be less than a 5 point Calvinist according to thinking Calvinists. The whole thing is dependent on each other. If you disprove or reject one point, it all crashes down.

    In all our views, we desire to be theo vs ego/anthro centric. We all desire to exalt God's majesty and sovereignty. The problem is with a wrong view of sovereignty that compromises His other attributes (love, goodness, etc.). There is much more emphasis on relational love in Scripture than a verse or two that implies His sovereignty. Again, His power is not divorced from love, wisdom, God-given creaturely freedom, etc.

    I think you are in transition and the cement has not hardened yet (thankfully...there is hope).

    http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Calv.../dp/1931667888

    I am finding this book surprisingly fair, thorough, and shocking. I double dare you...
    Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

    They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
    I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

    Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

    "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

    The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

  3. #93
    Over 2000 post club elected4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    216
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    This is not what Calvin taught. You need to review quotes from him that are more exhaustive in scope of His monothetic will (you are trying to retain Arminian 'baggage'). One can also not be less than a 5 point Calvinist according to thinking Calvinists. The whole thing is dependent on each other. If you disprove or reject one point, it all crashes down.

    In all our views, we desire to be theo vs ego/anthro centric. We all desire to exalt God's majesty and sovereignty. The problem is with a wrong view of sovereignty that compromises His other attributes (love, goodness, etc.). There is much more emphasis on relational love in Scripture than a verse or two that implies His sovereignty. Again, His power is not divorced from love, wisdom, God-given creaturely freedom, etc.

    I think you are in transition and the cement has not hardened yet (thankfully...there is hope).

    http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Calv.../dp/1931667888

    I am finding this book surprisingly fair, thorough, and shocking. I double dare you...
    I don't think that ether view tells the whole story. Half truths are error and both sides are guilty of that.
    Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

    The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

  4. #94
    TOL Subscriber CRASH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    1,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1181
    Just a suggestion -

    http://www.kgovstore.com/servlet/Detail?no=61

    You may as well consider all of the evidence.
    Psalms 58:10
    The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

    CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST

  5. #95
    Over 2000 post club elected4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    216
    Quote Originally Posted by CRASH View Post
    Just a suggestion -

    http://www.kgovstore.com/servlet/Detail?no=61

    You may as well consider all of the evidence.
    If you wont to buy into that trash, be my guest. Bob is right on some issues and wrong on others in my view. If you wont to have a discussion of a particular issue then put it forth and we will discus it. Don't expect me to buy in on an issue because "Bob" said so.
    Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

    The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

  6. #96
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56722
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    I've said before that ideas found in the OV camp are not new debates and have been soundly refuted. I do go to those texts, but it seems OV would do well to do the same research with many links, works of scholarship, language and scriptural considerations etc. Because OV is asserting here, I'm saying the subject hasn't even come solidly to the table yet.
    And it doesn't, here. Do you want me to bring a more doctrinal case?

    As we look at soteriology, I believe we are all closer, but our topic is not salvific, but about God's Character and interactions with man. There you find the departure.
    And the question is whether OVT is biblical. IT certainly makes that effort.

    You are back to whipping the horse, which is a good direction for getting this all back to the premise of Genesis 22.
    Premised based upon exegesis.

    As I said, you continue to assert against, despite word studies, commentaries, and history.
    Again, when is your confirmation? Or are you going EO?

    The point was, "Now I know, since" is within contextual parameters to mean something quite different than you believe.

    Assert assert assert.

    It is about as ridiculous as believing God has wings, or has no idea where Adam is.
    Only in your assertion.

    "Where are you" should have been "I know where you are, come out." You have no trouble with that, but for some reason cannot see the point that "Now I know" is also relational in the intended conveyance: "Now I know, and have known...." Your rejection of this is absolutely against prescience presupposition or there would be no discussion here.
    And now you insert words into the text. Is there nothing sacred that you wont' assert opposition?

    No, laughable is when one asserts against many that see it totally different. Laughable is when you ignore what has already been said that should have stopped you from revving your engine with your tires stuck in the quagmire of OV assertion and and supposition.
    Tell me how your claim that God really meant "Now you know" isn't just as great an assertion, if not even more so than mine.

    At least the text says what I claim it says.

    Laughable is a repeat of asserting here in hopes that some would forget what has been said, you failed to acknowledge that I have no problem with presupposition, if it is proved true, but I also see strengths in the position from the text. Asserting your position on supposed exegesis is what's problematic. Hasn't this come full-circle yet?
    The only thing going around in circles is you. You go around accusing me of assert assert assert, and yet, to explain this text away, that's all you do.

    I've studied church history. I see how theology comes about. It's not pretty. The church went 1500 years before Luther came around to assert sola fide. Do you reject sola fide because most of Christendom rejects it?

    I assert that everything I've said about the text is correct. You asserting over exegesis of others, over scholars, over history, that's laughable until you prove your point, which you haven't. I still disagree with you and so does the rest of Christiandom.
    You'd have said the same thing to Luther.

    Asserting asserting asserting, none of it makes it truth or raises acquiescence. Curiosity for the initiate to investigate? Yes, but that's all it accomplishes, it encourages a historical investigation with satisfying results against such.
    Again, are you going RCC or EO? Do you now reject sola fide? Are indulgences acceptable to you?

    Scrutiny is no problem for us either, but yours is going to be amplified as is proper for divergences. OV flames to the traditional kitchen take much longer to reach the roast than the stew meat. The scrutiny one way is much smaller than that going the other, again, as it should be. Holding a match to a roast takes much longer than a convection oven on a much smaller piece of meat. The problem is, one of the pieces is inedible and the rest of us have tasted the roast and are wondering what you are talking about. Maybe you got a bad taste, a garlic or a bone, or a grisly fatty bite. OV not only has to plop something palatable and substantial on the plate, it has to entice greatly away from what we already have, especially because the ideas have already been rejected before.
    That's fine. I'm willing to be patient. People rejected Luther and Lutherans. People still do. That doesn't make him wrong.

    Muz
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  7. #97
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,375
    Thanks
    1,810
    Thanked 3,548 Times in 2,104 Posts

    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1723571
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    This is not what Calvin taught. You need to review quotes from him that are more exhaustive in scope of His monothetic will (you are trying to retain Arminian 'baggage'). One can also not be less than a 5 point Calvinist according to thinking Calvinists. The whole thing is dependent on each other. If you disprove or reject one point, it all crashes down.

    In all our views, we desire to be theo vs ego/anthro centric. We all desire to exalt God's majesty and sovereignty. The problem is with a wrong view of sovereignty that compromises His other attributes (love, goodness, etc.). There is much more emphasis on relational love in Scripture than a verse or two that implies His sovereignty. Again, His power is not divorced from love, wisdom, God-given creaturely freedom, etc.

    I think you are in transition and the cement has not hardened yet (thankfully...there is hope).

    http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Calv.../dp/1931667888

    I am finding this book surprisingly fair, thorough, and shocking. I double dare you...
    I may pick it up in the future but I'm finding exactly what I expect from the comments. You'll note these aren't just run of the mill comments but those vehemently opposed to the position. It seems it is an 'atta-boy' for anti-Calvinists. I think if I were him, I'd write my own review when my material caters to the prejudice crowd. I would also guess that there is nothing new there that hasn't been discussed at length here. Still, I will look for it.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  8. #98
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,375
    Thanks
    1,810
    Thanked 3,548 Times in 2,104 Posts

    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1723571
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    And it doesn't, here. Do you want me to bring a more doctrinal case?
    No, I want doctorates to bring in more. Is the OV camp bereft of scholars? I don't mean to belittle OVer's but that lack of credentials lies suspect. I do realize Boyd has it, but even OVer's reject aspects of Pinnock and Sanders from their own camp!


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    And the question is whether OVT is biblical. IT certainly makes that effort.
    I disagree. If it were me, I'd be earning many more degrees 1) because I'd want to be absolutely sure AND pursuasive 2) Because I recognize the huge weight of burden of proof and after being convince, would also realize I now had to convince the whole of the Christian world of the fact. I'd be run by passion, hock my house, and be the forerunner fully recognizing the opposition. There would be a tenor of proving right, but there'd also be a love for others to see them get it right. Isn't it odd, that TOL has 'Truth of Smack' and 'Open rebuke...' when it purportedly seeks to salvage God's relational love? Isn't it odd that TOL seems more smack than love?
    I find it difficult to believe OV preserves His relational qualities when the disciples of it are about other things. It just doesn't seem a love revolution after all.
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Again, when is your confirmation? Or are you going EO?
    Do I have to say 'tomorrow' for you to stop asking? Is the question supposed to be maligning?

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Assert assert assert.
    Only in your assertion.
    Hebrew commentaries even say this. You are saying I'm asserting when it is you who are disagreeing?
    'now'
    עתּה
    ‛attâh
    at-taw'
    From [H5703]; at this time, whether adverbial, conjugational or expletive: - henceforth, now, straightway, this time, whereas.
    H5703
    עד
    ‛ad
    ad
    properly a (peremptory) terminus, that is, (by implication) duration, in the sense of perpetuity (substantially as a noun, either with or without a preposition): - eternity, ever (-lasting, -more), old, perpetually, + world without end.

    'since'
    לה לוא לא
    lô' lô' lôh
    lo, lo, lo
    lo; a primitive particle; not (the simple or abstract negation); by implication no; often used with other particles: - X before, + or else, ere, + except, ig [-norant], much, less, nay, neither, never, no ([-ne], -r, [-thing]), (X as though . . . , [can-], for) not (out of), of nought, otherwise, out of, + surely, + as truly as, + of a truth, + verily, for want, + whether, without.


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    And now you insert words into the text. Is there nothing sacred that you wont' assert opposition?
    I'm beginning to question your language credentials at this point. I cannot believe you just said this because of the implication in means to your prowess. Retract or admit.


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Tell me how your claim that God really meant "Now you know" isn't just as great an assertion, if not even more so than mine. At least the text says what I claim it says.
    Both you and GR have said this. I looked high and low for this and nobody in this thread said anything of the sort. Can you build a poorer strawman?
    Go back up to those Strong's excerpts for the 2nd point.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    The only thing going around in circles is you. You go around accusing me of assert assert assert, and yet, to explain this text away, that's all you do.
    Just because you don't like it does not mean I haven't done my homework. Take them point by point. Show me from the language that I'm wrong. Show me from scholarship support. Show me from the context where it can be assumed God had no idea what Abraham would do and prove Now and Since are the only options available and that they expressly reveal lack of prescience.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    I've studied church history. I see how theology comes about. It's not pretty. The church went 1500 years before Luther came around to assert sola fide. Do you reject sola fide because most of Christendom rejects it?
    Definition of sola fide usually has us in agreement. It is how works plays in connection to this that brings dissonance.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  9. #99
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56722
    OK, so the foundation of your objection is that OVT doesn't have a long lineage of scholars who give some foundation to it?

    Muz
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  10. #100
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    11792
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    I may pick it up in the future but I'm finding exactly what I expect from the comments. You'll note these aren't just run of the mill comments but those vehemently opposed to the position. It seems it is an 'atta-boy' for anti-Calvinists. I think if I were him, I'd write my own review when my material caters to the prejudice crowd. I would also guess that there is nothing new there that hasn't been discussed at length here. Still, I will look for it.
    I have just started the book, so blame me, not him. Reading Calvin's quotes convinces me he missed the boat because of his wrong assumptions about God's will, sovereignty, free will, etc. When cornered, he must appeal to mystery/antimony. Open Theism can appeal to Scripture because it is coherent.
    Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

    They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
    I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

    Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

    "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

    The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

  11. #101
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    11792
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    OK, so the foundation of your objection is that OVT doesn't have a long lineage of scholars who give some foundation to it?

    Muz
    He objects that we do not agree with everything Sanders and Pinnock say. So? We do not claim they are infallible, but I believe they are on the right track globally.
    Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

    They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
    I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

    Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

    "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

    The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

  12. #102
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,375
    Thanks
    1,810
    Thanked 3,548 Times in 2,104 Posts

    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1723571
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    OK, so the foundation of your objection is that OVT doesn't have a long lineage of scholars who give some foundation to it?

    Muz
    Boyd, Pinnock, Sanders, and Wagner have their PhD's but have trade papers instead of commentaries, websites instead of Systematic theologies, and blogs instead of historical considerations. Furthermore, I deem OV followings as being less than engaging in the study department. Most of these guys either came from a liberal background or charismatic backgrounds. I'm not sure they'd be able to converse well with us for their thoughts are molded in those spheres. Again, it seems with no commentaries, systematics, or historical tracings, that they aren't putting their best feet forward and it expresses itself both ad hoc and anti-academic and leaves you guys asserting on lack of supported strength. Furthermore, when the majority of mainstream theologians are moving strongly against OV ideas and digging up those works to refute it, there is a preponderance of evidence and support that weighs heavily to one side.

    So Yes, I'd like to see some quality time put in on these so I can examine them because OVers seem all over the map on doctrines and is hard to pin down. Like you, I object very strongly to points from these men and wonder how someone with a PhD can makes such huge blunders in serving a palatable view of the OV. Sanders and Boyd will always stay in my mind as saying God makes mistakes and Pinnock will always be a close friend to the Mormons (if one were to reach across and ecumenical table, at least it should not be a cult ).

    For God to have planned for a Savior from the beginning, there had to be a prescient reason for doing so. For God to make any future provision in steering His people toward a Savior, He had to know exactly what His plans were. In order for God to say 300 years before he was born, that Josiah would be his name and that he'd tear down the Asherah poles and burn the priests of Baal, He had to have prescience. There are huge concerns from my reading of scripture to be able to assess any strength in the OV position of limitation upon prescience. Again, if God isn't prescient, why hazard a guess? If God is ever mistaken, He's an unwilling liar and the truth is not in Him. I cannot, will not, accept that from anyone's position and it is more heinous than OV asserts against Calvinism. Both Boyd and Sanders have said God makes mistakes. Boyd has moved away from that statement strongly, but imo, it is too late. It reveals what he believes about the Father from his OV stance.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  13. #103
    TOL Subscriber CRASH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    1,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1181

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by elected4ever View Post
    If you wont to buy into that trash, be my guest. Bob is right on some issues and wrong on others in my view. If you wont to have a discussion of a particular issue then put it forth and we will discus it. Don't expect me to buy in on an issue because "Bob" said so.
    Nice try. I never said something is right because Bob said so.
    I'll buy the DVD series and send it to you if you agree to watch it and respond here to it.
    Won't cost you a penny to consider the Biblical evidence he presents.
    Psalms 58:10
    The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

    CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST

  14. #104
    TOL Subscriber CRASH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    1,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1181

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by elected4ever View Post
    If you wont to buy into that trash, be my guest. Bob is right on some issues and wrong on others in my view. If you wont to have a discussion of a particular issue then put it forth and we will discus it. Don't expect me to buy in on an issue because "Bob" said so.
    Want is spelled W-A-N-T.
    Psalms 58:10
    The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

    CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST

  15. #105
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,375
    Thanks
    1,810
    Thanked 3,548 Times in 2,104 Posts

    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1723571
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    I have just started the book, so blame me, not him. Reading Calvin's quotes convinces me he missed the boat because of his wrong assumptions about God's will, sovereignty, free will, etc. When cornered, he must appeal to mystery/antimony. Open Theism can appeal to Scripture because it is coherent.
    Oh, btw, the Amazon comments, not yours specifically. All 5 posts with A+'s and anti-calvinist rhetoric. Calvinism is not the only view on the table and Arminians in here have expressed the same concerns.

    Where is Rob E these days?
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us