Right. Christology is the premise (explanatory proposition) founded upon the absolute axiom, that God is Truth and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that has covenanted (promised) to save His people unto everlasting life and glory. (Gospel)
It's pretty obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. The gospel cannot, in any meaningful sense of the word, be considered an axiom.
God exist.
Now that's a presupposition might be something that could be considered an axiom but even that would require some explanation as to why it was so considered.
Getting from the premise to, "God is Truth and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that has covenanted (promised) to save His people unto everlasting life and glory" or whatever other point of doctrine you care to name is something of a complex issue, depending on the particular doctrine. Regardless, there is no possible way that in any world that actually exists that the doctrine of the Trinity or any doctrine associated with it could ever be considered axiomatic.
Maybe you should look up the definitions of some of these terms before spouting your mouth off about things you know nothing about.
Problem you Open Theists have, is you do not believe in eternal absolutes.
That's a lie!
Of course we do! God exists. God is alive. God is personal, God is relational , God is righteous, God is loving, God is just.
All of those things (and several more) are true and absolutely so. Any truth claim that contradicts any one of them is false by definition.
You do not believe in absolute Godly attributes.
Question begging stupidity.
I do not believe in the attributes that you and Plato force upon God because they are not only unbiblical but because they are in contradiction to the attributes I just listed.
Thus, you do not really believe in the propositions of the one saving Gospel which is the fruit and revelation of these absolute truths.
Wow! I'm astonished at the number of Calvinist heresies that I've managed to get you to endorse in an open forum!
Now it is Calvinists and Calvinists alone who believe that gospel and by extension it is only Calvinists who are saved.
That tracks though! I mean, if only God's elect believe in the first place, then why would He predestine His elect to believe false doctrine, right?
Such unbelief prevents you believing the propositions that are the foundation of the Gospel, Savior/God.
No, if this is true and your doctrine is correct, what prevents me from believing is God Himself. According to you, I believe precisely what God has predestined me to believe. He has also predestined that I argue you into corners from which you cannot escape every time that you engage me, which He also predestined.
Why?
You desire to worship the so-called "free will" propositions, theories, and opinions of fallen men, who all rest on the axiom of absolute lawlessness.
I dare you to make even the slightest attempt to establish that anyone's belief in free will is based on "the axiom of absolute lawlessness".
You'll need to start by figuring out how absolute lawlessness could ever be considered an axiom, which you will fail to do so let's lower the philosophical bar a bit and see if you can even accomplish the task of establishing that "absolute lawlessness" is even a premise upon which the belief in free will is logically based.
Go ahead! Prove to us all that this idiotic accusation didn't just leap from a bloviating tongue that is driven by an empty mind.
O.K. I just did . . .
"Concepts and propositions" issue forth from absolute axiom, alone.
Since you deny timeless eternity; absolutes; and divine attributes, you have no knowledge of God's absolute Truth; thus you are stuck believing garbage instead of the Word of God which testifies to Jesus Christ; God Who came in flesh to save souls.
You started this post with a one word sentence...
"Right."
That was stated in agreement with my undeniably true statement that no Christology could possibly be a primary premise. Now you're claiming that your agreement that it couldn't be a primary premise was somehow the equivalent to having done the opposite?
Nang, would you please stop getting drunk before posting on TOL! This is getting embarrassing for you!
Not only is one's Christology not an axiom, neither is the concept of a Messiah!
Let me help you out of your drunken stupor...
An axiom is a proposition that is SELF EVIDENTLY true.
The fact that Jesus was the Messiah or that there ever was a Messiah at all is not something that could be self-evidently true. There are arguments that can establish the truth of these things but the whole point is that you don't have to argue the truth of an axiom because it is SELF EVIDENTLY true.
So, put down the adult beverages and open a philosophy 101 book and get back to me when you have some clue about what you're talking about.
50 Philosophy Ideas You Really Need to Know
Clete
