Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Clete
    An Arminian most likely. And yes, it is true that most of the OVer's on this site consider Arminianism to be too Calvinistic for their tastes but be that as it may, I think we all acknowledge that not every person who is opposed to the open view is a Calvinist, it's just that it get's to seeming that way when everyone who debates you on it is either a Calvinist or uses Calvinistic theology in their attempt to refute it.
    Believe it or not, you are probably more of a Calvinist than you realize. Basically if you are not a Catholic and not an open theist, there's very little else one could be aside from an Arminian of one form or another which as far as I am concerned is really just a subset of Calvinism, although there's not an Arminian in the world that would ever concede such a thing.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    Thanks for the explanation. Whether it is fair or not is another question. So my instinct was right. Many would say if you are a CVer you are either a Calvinist. or an Arminian, and an Arminian is a Calvinist. Therefore you ARE a Calvinist. Sounds like a rather closed view, pun intended.
    I can equate it with my Jewish friends, who say do you believe in one God?
    No matter how I explain the trinity, their answer always remains the same, "So then you believe in three Gods!
    No matter how I explain God's omniscience, I will always be a Calvinist to an OVer?

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Dave Miller
      Human logic, but looking to the example of Christ, rather than his own experience.

      I can't explain God's Logic, its far beyond me, but I can look to Christ's example to
      try and perceive how God's greater purpose applies to me.

      Dave
      So according to Dave Miller, God's logic could very well dictate that Dave Miller is damned to hell for eternity. According to Dave Miller, God's logic could very well dictate that Christ's example on earth is the opposite of what we humans should do. According to Dave Miller God may not have a greater purpose for Dave Miller and all of Dave Miller's attemps to perceive, even if he attains that perception, is for naught.

      Dave, whereas I can say that "God's ways are higher than our ways", you must say "God's ways are higher than our ways... or lower depending on God's logic"
      Good things come to those who shoot straight.

      Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by jeremiah
        Thanks for the explanation. Whether it is fair or not is another question. So my instinct was right. Many would say if you are a CVer you are either a Calvinist. or an Arminian, and an Arminian is a Calvinist. Therefore you ARE a Calvinist. Sounds like a rather closed view, pun intended.
        I can equate it with my Jewish friends, who say do you believe in one God?
        No matter how I explain the trinity, their answer always remains the same, "So then you believe in three Gods!
        No matter how I explain God's omniscience, I will always be a Calvinist to an OVer?
        Jeremiah; Don't sweat it. Now that you know, kindly replace any word "calvanist" with the words "one who believes in the closed view" when talking with a person that believes in the open view. Realize, we just do it save on typing.
        Good things come to those who shoot straight.

        Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

        Comment


        • #79
          Jerry,

          You said,
          I have alrady offered "proof".If both verses (Num.23:19 and Ex.32:14) are to be taken literally then we must throw our reason to the wind somehow force our minds to believe that He cannot change His mind but despite this He does change His mind.

          The solution is simple.Only Numbers 23:19 can be taken literally.The other verse is clearly "figurative"
          Have you considered the following?

          Jerry referred to Numbers 23:19 as a proof text that God does not repent, ever. Here’s the verse…

          Numbers 23
          19 “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
          This seems pretty obvious doesn’t it? God never repents, right? That’s what Jerry would like you to believe. Let’s look at the passage in context. Don't you think that's important Jerry? In Numbers 22, Balak, the king of the Moabites, was afraid when he saw what Israel had done to the Amorites.

          Numbers 22
          1 Then the children of Israel moved, and camped in the plains of Moab on the side of the Jordan across from Jericho.
          2 Now Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites.
          3And Moab was exceedingly afraid of the people because they were many, and Moab was sick with dread because of the children of Israel.
          4 So Moab said to the elders of Midian, “Now this company will lick up everything around us, as an ox licks up the grass of the field.” And Balak the son of Zippor was king of the Moabites at that time.
          So he sent messengers to his homeland in Mesopotamia to have the soothsayer, Balaam, come and curse Israel.

          Numbers 22
          5 Then he sent messengers to Balaam the son of Beor at Pethor, which is near the River in the land of the sons of his people, to call him, saying: “Look, a people has come from Egypt. See, they cover the face of the earth, and are settling next to me!
          6 “Therefore please come at once, curse this people for me, for they are too mighty for me. Perhaps I shall be able to defeat them and drive them out of the land, for I know that he whom you bless is blessed, and he whom you curse is cursed.”
          7 So the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed with the diviner’s fee in their hand, and they came to Balaam and spoke to him the words of Balak.
          8 And he said to them, “Lodge here tonight, and I will bring back word to you, as the LORD speaks to me.” So the princes of Moab stayed with Balaam.
          9 Then God came to Balaam and said, “Who are these men with you?”
          10 So Balaam said to God, “Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, has sent to me, saying,
          11 ‘Look, a people has come out of Egypt, and they cover the face of the earth. Come now, curse them for me; perhaps I shall be able to overpower them and drive them out.’ ”
          But God told Balaam not to go.

          Numbers 22
          12 And God said to Balaam, “You shall not go with them; you shall not curse the people, for they are blessed.”
          13 So Balaam rose in the morning and said to the princes of Balak, “Go back to your land, for the LORD has refused to give me permission to go with you.”
          14 And the princes of Moab rose and went to Balak, and said, “Balaam refuses to come with us.”
          So King Balak tried again, promising great honor to Balaam.

          Numbers 22
          15 Then Balak again sent princes, more numerous and more honorable than they.
          16 And they came to Balaam and said to him, “Thus says Balak the son of Zippor: ‘Please let nothing hinder you from coming to me;
          17 ‘for I will certainly honor you greatly, and I will do whatever you say to me. Therefore please come, curse this people for me.’ ”
          Then Balaam said he could not go “beyond the word of the LORD my God” (Numbers 22:18).

          I might add that his heart was not really sincere in following Yahweh, for 2 Peter 2:15,16 and Jude 11 say,

          2 Peter 2
          15 “They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
          16 but he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking with a man’s voice restrained the madness of the prophet.”

          Jude 11 “Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.”
          He then told them to wait and see what the LORD would say to him.

          Numbers 22
          18 Then Balaam answered and said to the servants of Balak, “Though Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not go beyond the word of the LORD my God, to do less or more.
          19 “Now therefore, please, you also stay here tonight, that I may know what more the LORD will say to me.”
          God let Balaam go to Balak, but He ordered him to say only what He told him (Numbers 22:20,21). That’s why “the Angel of the Lord took His stand in the way as an adversary against him”

          You still following the story Jerry?

          Numbers 22
          22 Then God’s anger was aroused because he went, and the Angel of the LORD took His stand in the way as an adversary against him. And he was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him.
          After Balaam’s encounter, verse 35 says,

          Numbers 22
          35 “Then the Angel of the LORD said to Balaam, Go with the men, but only the word that I speak to you, that you shall speak.”
          So King Balak welcomed Balaam, but Balaam had gotten the message. He told the king he could only speak what God put in his mouth.

          Numbers 22
          36 Now when Balak heard that Balaam was coming, he went out to meet him at the city of Moab, which is on the border at the Arnon, the boundary of the territory.
          37 Then Balak said to Balaam, “Did I not earnestly send to you, calling for you? Why did you not come to me? Am I not able to honor you?”
          38 And Balaam said to Balak, “Look, I have come to you! Now, have I any power at all to say anything? The word that God puts in my mouth, that I must speak.”
          39 So Balaam went with Balak, and they came to Kirjath Huzoth.
          So Balak offered oxen and sheep to Yahweh, to have God look favorable on him, that is, to bribe Him. So he took Balaam up “to the high places of Baal” for a better view, so he could see the Israelites to better curse them.

          Numbers 22
          40 Then Balak offered oxen and sheep, and he sent some to Balaam and to the princes who were with him.
          41 So it was the next day, that Balak took Balaam and brought him up to the high places of Baal, that from there he might observe the extent of the people.
          Balaam also got into the act by telling him to “build seven altars for me here”. Balaam wanted to bribe Yahweh also for he said, “perhaps the LORD will come to meet me”. Yahweh did,

          Numbers 23
          1 Then Balaam said to Balak, “Build seven altars for me here, and prepare for me here seven bulls and seven rams.”
          2 And Balak did just as Balaam had spoken, and Balak and Balaam offered a bull and a ram on each altar.
          3 Then Balaam said to Balak, “Stand by your burnt offering, and I will go; perhaps the LORD will come to meet me, and whatever He shows me I will tell you.” So he went to a desolate height.
          4 And God met Balaam, and he said to Him, “I have prepared the seven altars, and I have offered on each altar a bull and a ram.”
          5 Then the LORD put a word in Balaam’s mouth, and said, “Return to Balak, and thus you shall speak.”
          6 So he returned to him, and there he was, standing by his burnt offering, he and all the princes of Moab.
          You still with me Jerry? Again, the context determines the point of God's statement in Numbers 23:19... We're almost there!

          …but He caused Balaam to bless Israel.

          Numbers 23
          7 And he took up his oracle and said: “Balak the king of Moab has brought me from Aram, From the mountains of the east. ‘Come, curse Jacob for me, And come, denounce Israel!’
          8 “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed? And how shall I denounce whom the LORD has not denounced?
          9 For from the top of the rocks I see him, And from the hills I behold him; There! A people dwelling alone, Not reckoning itself among the nations.
          10 “Who can count the dust of Jacob, Or number one-fourth of Israel? Let me die the death of the righteous, And let my end be like his!”
          Balak got angry.

          Numbers 23
          11 Then Balak said to Balaam, “What have you done to me? I took you to curse my enemies, and look, you have blessed them bountifully!”
          12 So he answered and said, “Must I not take heed to speak what the LORD has put in my mouth?”
          13 Then Balak said to him, “Please come with me to another place from which you may see them; you shall see only the outer part of them, and shall not see them all; curse them for me from there.”
          Then, in verses 14-18 it says,

          Numbers 23
          14 So he brought him to the field of Zophim, to the top of Pisgah, and built seven altars, and offered a bull and a ram on each altar
          15 And he said to Balak, Stand here by your burnt offering while I meet the LORD over there
          16 Then the LORD met Balaam, and put a word in his mouth, and said, Go back to Balak, and thus you shall speak
          17 So he came to him, and there he was, standing by his burnt offering, and the princes of Moab were with him And Balak said to him, What has the LORD spoken?
          18 Then he took up his oracle and said: Rise up, Balak, and hear! Listen to me, son of Zippor!
          Now we must realize this is the third time Balak has offered sacrifices to Yahweh, trying to bribe Him to curse Israel. God has gotten fed up with this stuff. “You’re trying to bribe me? Don’t you know who I am?” Well, let’s read what God put in Balaam’s mouth. He caused Balaam to prophesy that wonderful statement, Numbers 23:19,20.

          Numbers 23
          19 God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
          20 Behold, I have received a command to bless; He has blessed, and I cannot reverse it.
          Notice verse 20 Jerry... Verse 20 helps us to understand verse 19 in conjunction with the previous context.

          From this, we can see that God would not lie. He has already blessed Israel twice. Now, just because they sacrifice all these sacrifices, is that going to change God? He is not like a man who can be bribed. Every man may have his price, but our wonderful God isn’t swayed by bribes. The point here is, God chose to bless Israel. No matter how many sacrifices or bribes Balak offered, God would not repent concerning Israel’s blessings. Now, I know Jerry would like us to believe that God never repents, but we know that is not true. God did not repent in this specific situation.

          Please take the time to read the context Jerry. You will see that there is a specific reason God does not lie or repent in this instance. God cannot be bribed like a mere man...

          God bless,
          --Jeremy Finkenbinder
          Do you desire to make all men see what is the Dispensation of the Mystery? (Eph 3:9)

          Comment


          • #80
            Mr. Finkenbinder,

            I enjoyed reading your post.

            If I could impose upon your patience, would you perform the same form of analysis of when God repented of creating man?


            Sincerely,

            SS

            Comment


            • #81
              Hey Jerry!

              If what Fink shared above is not enough to make you see the light, then you may wanna check out the article Bob Hill wrote concerning the matter here in his article Does God Repent? http://www.biblicalanswers.com/prede...d%20Repent.htm

              If that does not make things abundantly clear to you then there is no hope.

              Comment


              • #82
                Incoherent and Irrational

                Originally posted by jeremiah
                I love Bob Enyart but I am not an open theist, and I do not agree with his views regarding the subject. Nonetheless they are intruiging, but I am certainly rooting for Dr. Lamerson, and as he said, that the "truth" will win out!
                You will agree with Bob at the end of this debate.

                I am definately not a Calvinist, yet it seems to me that many OVer's try to insinuate being a CVer makes you one. Whether or not all Calvinists are CV or not, does not make all CVer's, Calvinists.
                Would anyone like to concede, and clarify that point?
                No. If you are a Calvinist then you believe, by definition, that the future is completely settled or closed. There are no future decisions/actions/events that remain to transfrom from a possibility to an actuality. Get it?

                I think that God is omniscient and knows the future and that we still have free will, as defined by God. What does that make me?
                It makes you irrational and incoherent.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Sanders' Response to Sam's first posting

                  This is what Sanders had to say concerning Sam's first post:

                  Thanks Quinn. I read a little bit. First, open theists should say that God knows all the “future” there is to know. The question is what actually exists to be known. Second, he does not quite get Boyd’s point on the first page. Boyd is not backtracking when he says later in the book that God cannot know with certainty the future actions of a creature acting with libertarian freedom. For Boyd, determined events are knowable and these can include some human actions such as Peter’s denial if (!) that action is not a libertarianly free one. If God removes Peter’s libertarian freedom in this instance then the action is quite predictable within openness theology. These are subtle points and I don’t blame the guy for not getting them straight for I sense that he really wants to understand.
                  Couldn't agree more! The debate is about the nature of the future - all settled realities OR partly settled and partly unsettled?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by chance
                    Hey Jerry!

                    If what Fink shared above is not enough to make you see the light, then you may wanna check out the article Bob Hill wrote concerning the matter here in his article Does God Repent? http://www.biblicalanswers.com/prede...d%20Repent.htm

                    If that does not make things abundantly clear to you then there is no hope.
                    Great article!! Quite worth the read.


                    SS

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by chance
                      This is what Sanders had to say concerning Sam's first post:
                      Thanks Quinn. I read a little bit. First, open theists should say that God knows all the “future” there is to know. The question is what actually exists to be known. Second, he does not quite get Boyd’s point on the first page. Boyd is not backtracking when he says later in the book that God cannot know with certainty the future actions of a creature acting with libertarian freedom. For Boyd, determined events are knowable and these can include some human actions such as Peter’s denial if (!) that action is not a libertarianly free one. If God removes Peter’s libertarian freedom in this instance then the action is quite predictable within openness theology. These are subtle points and I don’t blame the guy for not getting them straight for I sense that he really wants to understand.
                      Couldn't agree more! The debate is about the nature of the future - all settled realities OR partly settled and partly unsettled?
                      Are you saying that this is a quote about the opening post of Battle Royale X from the Dr. John Sanders; the author of The God Who Risks?

                      If so, you should edit your post on the critique thread so as to make that more obvious.


                      Resting in Him,
                      Clete
                      Last edited by Clete; August 3rd, 2005, 05:52 AM.
                      sigpic
                      "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
                        How can you speak about "logic" if you can't even see that the literal interpretation of Ex.32:14 does not contradict Num.23:19.

                        When the Scriptures are descibing the nature of God then that should over-rule any verses that are used merely in a narraitive.
                        Says who Jerry? You?! Can the Scriptures not describe the nature of God in a narrative? I am doubting your belief in the innerrant, infallible, inspired word of God.

                        Despite the fact that Numbers 23:19 says in no uncertain terms that God will not repent.And we know that these verses are speaking of the "nature" of God,because He cannot lie.

                        This goes along with other Scriptures that say the same thing about His "nature":

                        "In hope of eternal life,which God,Who cannot lie,promised before the world began"(Titus 1:2).
                        Jerry Jerry. In my past discussions with you, I realized you know no greek, so for the benefit of the listening audience, we'll discuss Titus 1:2. Titus 1:2 does NOT say "God who CANNOT lie," rather, it's the negative form of lie, and therefore should be translated 'the unlying God." I love how OV'ers are accused of limiting God, yet it's Jerry the calvinist who says CANNOT lie, CANNOT repent, etc. My God is all-powerful.

                        I do not even think anyone who suscribes to the "Open Theism" promoted by Bob Enyart would argue that the Lord God could lie.But even though the words that He will not repent are used in the very same verse and in the very same context they have no problem asserting that He can indeed repent.
                        I am an open theist and I do believe God can lie. Again, I don't limit God Jerry. (Please note, lying and repenting fall under two categories. Lying is laid out biblically as a sin, and repenting is laid out biblically as a good and necessary thing. Lying would go against the character of our God, and repenting is actually something God MUST do in order to remain true to His holy and just character.)

                        Which is it?Can He repent or can He not repent?It can't be both.
                        Yes, He CAN do both Jerry, why do you limit God? Can God both create and not create? YES! Why do you fail to respond to half of my original post to you? If you'd understand the point I made with Hosea 11:9, you'd understand that God does and does not do things in certain circumstances.

                        It is quite a simple answer.The words at Jonah 2:4 are not the words of the Lord describing Himself.Instead,they are the words of a man.The words at Numbers 23:19 are actually the words of the Lord (Num.23:16).
                        I think you've fallen off the deep end with this statement Jerry. Do you mean to tell me that ALL scripture written by man cannot be taken as true? The Holy Spirit inspired the men who authored the Bible. What do you hold as true Jerry? Further, God HIMSELF said He was weary of repenting!

                        Jeremiah 15:6
                        6 You have forsaken Me," says the Lord, "You have gone backward. Therefore I will stretch out My hand against you and destroy you; I am weary of repenting!


                        So I'm faced with a tough decision here, Jerry says "GOD DOES NOT REPENT!" and the Lord HIMSELF says, "I AM WEARY OF REPENTING!" Who do I believe?

                        Please respond to the Hosea scripture, and answer one question for me, was Jonah wrong calling God "One who repents"?
                        "Ignorance sustained by denial is crippling this nation's response to abortion. When something is so horrifying that we can't stand to look at it, perhaps we shouldn't be tolerating it." -Gregg Cunningham (Center for Bio-Ethical Reform)

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by jeremiah
                          Thanks for the explanation. Whether it is fair or not is another question. So my instinct was right. Many would say if you are a CVer you are either a Calvinist. or an Arminian, and an Arminian is a Calvinist. Therefore you ARE a Calvinist. Sounds like a rather closed view, pun intended.

                          That's very clever! I love puns!

                          I can equate it with my Jewish friends, who say do you believe in one God?
                          No matter how I explain the trinity, their answer always remains the same, "So then you believe in three Gods!
                          No matter how I explain God's omniscience, I will always be a Calvinist to an OVer?
                          I was thinking about this earlier this morning and it would probably be more accurate to say that most CVer's are Augustinian to one degree or another and so since Calvinism is basically revised Augustinianism therein lies the confusion. That along with the fact that most OVer's, myself included, tend to render our opponents positions in light of the logical conclusions to which their positions lead and more often than not that means Calvinism (Augustinianism). Because of this we are often accused of misrepresenting our opponents views and creating straw men to knock down but it isn't really true. At worst we are guilty of jumping the gun and racing to quickly to the end of things without taking the time to establish what it is we are reacting too.
                          At any rate, this open theist knows that not everyone who disagrees with me would call themselves a Calvinist whether they unwittingly support his theology or not and I do try not to insist that they are a Calvinist although I don't always succeed.

                          Resting in Him,
                          Clete
                          sigpic
                          "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Great post, doogieduff!
                            Originally posted by doogieduff
                            I am an open theist and I do believe God can lie. Again, I don't limit God Jerry. (Please note... Lying is laid out biblically as a sin, and repenting is laid out biblically as a good and necessary thing. Lying would go against the character of our God...
                            This is a bit of an overstatement since God endorses lying to deceive the wicked and thwart their plans, and takes part in that sort of lying from time to time. God blessed the Hebrew midwives of Exodus 1 for lying to Pharoah. God was pleased that David's wife repeatedly lied to her father, Saul, to protect David (and herself).

                            This story also comes to mind:
                            Micaiah continued, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD : I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?'
                            "One suggested this, and another that. Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'

                            " 'By what means?' the LORD asked.
                            " 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said.
                            " 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.' 1 Kings 22:19-22
                            BRXI: Should Christians support the Death Penalty?

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              To my understanding, God's foreknowledge does not limit man's free choice. Just because God knows what our choices will be does not mean that God dictated our choices. That is what prophecy is all about. God's knowledge of what man does in the future and what He will do in the future does not limit man's choices in responses to current and future events.It is not that God does not know but that we do not know. Indeed our whole existence depends upon the foreknowledge of God and our reliance upon it. We are reactive and God is proactive. God acts in response to his own will and not responsive to man's will. We have trouble when our will is not in line with God's will and this does not prevent God from knowing what our will is even when our will is in conflict with His.
                              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?

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by jeremiah
                                Thanks for the explanation. Whether it is fair or not is another question. So my instinct was right. Many would say if you are a CVer you are either a Calvinist. or an Arminian, and an Arminian is a Calvinist. Therefore you ARE a Calvinist. Sounds like a rather closed view, pun intended.
                                I can equate it with my Jewish friends, who say do you believe in one God?
                                No matter how I explain the trinity, their answer always remains the same, "So then you believe in three Gods!
                                No matter how I explain God's omniscience, I will always be a Calvinist to an OVer?

                                Depending on the issues and focus, Open Theism can be seen as a sub-type of Arminianism (more Arminians lean to Open Theism than do Calvinists) or Arminianism can be seen as a sub-type of Calvinism. Generally, Calvinists oppose OT and Arminianism with the same force and similar arguments.

                                I agree with Clete that Calvinism and Arminianism are problematic in similar ways, but Calvinism is far more deterministic.

                                If I could summarize some issues again:

                                1. Did God from all eternity decree whatever will come to pass?

                                Yes= Calvinism (no contingencies; no uncertainties)

                                No= Arminian
                                Alternative (open theism) (contingencies)

                                2. Is everything certain in God's mind from all eternity?

                                Yes= Calvinism (decree)

                                Arminian (simple foreknowledge) (certainties)

                                No= Open Theism (uncertainties)


                                God is resourceful, creative, responsive, and omnicompetent. He is not a meticulous control freak. The bottom line is that exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is an absurdity/logical contradiction. Open Theism is the least problematic, and most biblical resolution of the tension Scripture portrays between God's sovereignty and man's free will. Some of the future is settled and knowable, while much of the future is genuinely open and unsettled. The issue is the type of creation God chose, not God's omniscience. We all agree that God knows all that is knowable. The future does not exist, so God correctly knows it as possible rather than actual.
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X