Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Question for Open Theists

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by BrianJOrr View Post
    Lighthouse, read your post again. Isn't the whole premise of LFW that one's actions cannot be predicted? Because if you think about it, if God who knows us--our thoughts, desires, strengths, and weaknesses--perfectly, and knows every possibility based on what situation he presents to us (these are all points Boyd, Sanders, and Rice affirm), then God could bring about a situation by his omnipotent will to get the intended response he desires to bring about his purposes. And God, just as Desert Reign states, knew that Pharaoh would respond after four plagues.
    the (Word) in being in this material world limited His foreknowledge in order to facilitate true relationship and love responses both towards (ALL) created children and men responding in true love and passions (not puppet string, programmed responses) back to their creator.

    The Father being Spirit has all knowledge only, and works to bring a bride for His Son.
    Not a robot bride programmed to worship.

    plenty of examples of limited foreknowledge as the Creator/Son/Word interacts with men and (desires) all men to come to Him.
    Why else would God/Word (desire) anything if He already Knew all things and their outcomes.

    Being angry at the created children He made is illogical if He programmed the children to do the things that angers God in the first place.

    creating children/souls so they may go to hell and be tormented forever for the very way that they were created is ridiculous.

    your doctrine does not allow for repenting, believing or receiving.

    Choosing this day is irrelevant.

    that neither lines up with a fathers character or Gods Justice.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by BrianJOrr View Post
      You still have an inconsistency that makes your position quite untenable. If you cannot see this in your own words, then I don’t know how else to point it out.

      In your latest response, you said:

      However, it still does not clear up the objection I raised previously, when you stated:

      Do you see the problem? I will restate:

      1. The position regarding the career of those who have never heard the gospel is the same as babies who die before maturity.

      But then you said:

      2. if a person has not heard the gospel, he will be judged according to this deeds

      How am I making a straw man? These are your words. Unless you are implying babies are judged as well? I take this to mean that those who have never heard the gospel, their destiny is the same as babies who die before maturity. Is that destiny to be with Christ as the babies are? That is my assumption.

      Don’t you see the dilemma and the reason why I asked the question about choosing not to preach to anyone? How can a persons blood be on my hands, if I never preach to them, when you said that their destination is the same as babies who die before maturity? I am doing that person a favor because his destination is the same as babies, according to your words.
      Brian, you are taking what I said out of context. Your claim that I said X and then said Y is misleading because I didn't say Y until a long time after I said X and it was in a different post. You strung these two quotes together and did your usual trick of dividing by zero after first applying Fourrier transformations and matrix manipulation and getting the wrong answer. Your getting the wrong answer was an absolute certainty when you use such methods.

      All you had to was to read what it said

      The position regarding the career of those who have never heard the gospel is the same as babies who die before maturity.

      Nowhere did I say that the career of those who have never heard the Gospel was the same as that of babies. I explained my statement right then and there in the part that you conveniently forgot to include in your second cite.
      The Bible says nothing about this subject.
      That is the position I was referring to. Look at what you wrote again! You first gave the exact quotation of mine which was of course pulled up by the system so it is exact but when you copied and pasted it a few lines later you just ignored the part that you either didn't understand or was inconvenient to you.

      Now can I please ask you to quit this subterfuge and once again ask you to answer the question: explain why your doctrine of the inherited sinfulness of man is not incoherent and why your doctrine of man's inherent sinfulness is not unjust? You say that because man is born in sin, then everyone deserves judgement. This is a key doctrine of Calvinism. That is your rationale for asserting that God shows us mercy by predestinating some to salvation. Again, quit stalling and answer this.
      Last edited by Desert Reign; April 10th, 2015, 02:28 PM.
      Total Misanthropy.
      Uncertain salvation.
      Luck of the draw.
      Irresistible damnation.
      Persecution of the saints.

      Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
      (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

      RevTestament: It doesn't matter to me too much that the "New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.
      Dialogos: Calvin, as a sinner, probably got some things wrong.
      Brandplucked: I'm shocked that other people disagree with me.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
        I have thought about this and I have a slightly different take on it than Desert Rain.

        Those that have never heard the gospel are not discussed at all in scripture. There is nothing in scripture upon which to form an informed opinion. My only answer is that God is infinitely just and He will deal with those people accordingly.

        This answer is amazingly unsatisfying to a great many people as it seems to leave a gaping hole in our understanding of who is saved and who is not. It does. So what. We either trust God or we do not. I trust God and am perfectly content to let the matter rest there.
        CM, I think you will find that it is not my view that you have a slightly different take on but rather the distortion of my view that Mr. Orr has kindly published.

        I don't think of the issue as a gaping hole though. It is more a red herring. Calvinism has a much greater issue to answer for. We all know that the God of all the earth will act justly so what happens to babies or to the heathen who perhaps do good is bound to be satisfyingly answered by this one principle. But the idea that we are all by nature born in sin and as a result are considered already damned unless God shows a predestinating mercy is a far greater slur on God's justice and good character.
        Total Misanthropy.
        Uncertain salvation.
        Luck of the draw.
        Irresistible damnation.
        Persecution of the saints.

        Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
        (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

        RevTestament: It doesn't matter to me too much that the "New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.
        Dialogos: Calvin, as a sinner, probably got some things wrong.
        Brandplucked: I'm shocked that other people disagree with me.

        Comment


        • DR,

          It is from the same post:

          http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...&postcount=172

          You said:

          "The position regarding the career of those who have never heard the gospel is the same as babies who die before maturity."

          And further down you said:

          "So when God judges those who have not heard the Gospel, his judgement is against all those who commit wickedness. There is no disputing this. We are all agreed on it. All those who have committed sin will be punished according to their deeds."

          So what is it? Those who have not heard the gospel are judged, or do they share their eternal destiny with babies who die?

          Your statement regarding that the Bible does not say anything on that subject is beside the point, for you those who never hear the gospel are with infants.
          —Romans 11:36


          http://therantingreformer.com
          https://columbiaseminary.academia.edu/BrianOrr

          Comment


          • Romans 5:12-21 gives us our doctrine of original sin. I will work through this to show the parallel relationship between what Adam imputed to us and Christ imputed to us.

            12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

            - sin came into the world through the one man Adam’s sin, producing death
            - all die because all sinned
            - There is a causal inference here.

            The Bible is clear that all people without exception sin (except Christ) (Romans 3:23). As Adam’s progeny we are all under the power of sin. While we will answer for each sin, our judgment remains because of Adam’s sin, for Adam’s sin is imputed to us. This will be more apparent in verse 18-19. We are all separated from God. That is why Christ did not come from Adam, so he would not be in sin by virtue of Adam’s imputation of sin to all his posterity.

            13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

            - sin was in the world before the law. Why? Because of Adam’s sin.
            - though sin was not counted before the law, people still died. Why? By virtue of entering the world in a state of death, all humans sinned. Adam’s transgression meant condemnation for all (see vv.18-19)

            14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

            - Again, ‘yet’ death reigned from Adam to Moses, explaining why people died though they did not have the law.
            - Adam was a type, being head of humanity, as Christ is head of the new humanity

            15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

            - Christ’s free gift was his perfect life of obedience to God, his offering for reconciliation, leading to eternal life and fellowship with God—which is not like Adam’s trespass.
            - Many died through Adam; Many are made alive through Christ (his act of righteousness)
            - Though all die through Adam, the ‘many’ are those who are in Christ. (Unless you are a universalist)

            16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.

            - The free gift results in life; Adam’s sin resulted in death (for all, the many included).
            - Key point: judgment followed the one trespass, bringing condemnation
            - The free gift, Christ’s act of righteousness, brought justification for many trespasses (does not include all).

            17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

            - Death reigns because of one man's trespass (to all and many); righteousness reigns because of One Man's righteous act (only to the many)


            What is the relationship between us and Adam? Why do all without exception sin? (18-19 explain)


            18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

            - Because of Adam’s trespass, death reigned through him, leading to condemnation for all men. Clear as day!
            - Because of Christ’s act of righteousness, justification and life is given to all men (those in Christ)
            - Verse 19 shows us what Christ’s gift does for the many, who were made sinners by Adam’s disobedience—they, the many, are made righteous.

            According to this Paul’s contrast:

            Did we do anything to earn righteousness on own individual efforts? No
            Did we do anything to earn condemnation by our own individual efforts? No

            However, after the fall of Adam:

            Our nature in Adam is corrupted and can do nothing but sin, so we are judged by our works.

            And after the resurrection of Christ:

            Our nature in Christ is restored and we can now live righteously.

            One disrupts Paul’s point if one dismisses his argument about Adam. Because if one does, then one also has to reject his argument about Christ. If you don’t get the sin from Adam, then you don't get the righteousness from Christ.
            —Romans 11:36


            http://therantingreformer.com
            https://columbiaseminary.academia.edu/BrianOrr

            Comment


            • “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities. (*Amos‬ *3‬:*2‬ ESV)

              I guess that means God only knew about this people...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BrianJOrr View Post
                Romans 5:12-21 gives us our doctrine of original sin. I will work through this to show the parallel relationship between what Adam imputed to us and Christ imputed to us.

                12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

                - sin came into the world through the one man Adam’s sin, producing death
                - all die because all sinned
                - There is a causal inference here.
                actually, Romans 5:12 teaches us that the Adamic sin condemns us all "because we have all sinned." We are not "lost" because of Adam, we are lost because of our own malfeasance.

                No doubt about it, Adam was the anti-type to Christ, but just as we benefit from the curse of Adam because we participate in his sin, so, too, we benefit from the Life, because we participate in Him.
                I only know what is revealed to me.

                All theologies are but the inventions of men.

                God has chosen to work in, during, and because of . . . the proclamation of the Word.

                Christ is the only objective revelation of God to man.

                We are all prodigals of the father.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by jsjohnnt View Post
                  actually, Romans 5:12 teaches us that the Adamic sin condemns us all "because we have all sinned." We are not "lost" because of Adam, we are lost because of our own malfeasance.
                  Spiritual death is what is being inferred. Spritual death is eternal separation from God which, for the righteous before the cross meant paradise, the abode of the dead, Abraham's bosom, without the possibily of release to Heaven and the Presence of God..

                  No doubt about it, Adam was the anti-type to Christ,
                  Adam may hve been the anti-type of the man Jesus but Christ, The Word? I don't think so.

                  but just as we benefit from the curse of Adam because we participate in his sin, so, too, we benefit from the Life, because we participate in Him.
                  So what you are saying is we benefit from sinning and dying and living because we participate in the Life of Jesus Christ? How does that work?
                  "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" Philippians 2:15 (KJV)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cross Reference View Post
                    Spiritual death is what is being inferred. Spritual death is eternal separation from God
                    CR: Firstly, I presume you mean 'implied' and that your level of English doesn't extend to distinguishing correctly between these basic words.
                    Secondly, it is entirely your own invention that God's warning to Adam was in reference to something you call spiritual death. Your invention.
                    Thirdly, your ridiculous idea that God pronounced eternal separation from God on every man and then sent Jesus to save us - which can only mean that the so called eternal death wasn't eternal at all - is nothing but a joke that you haven't bothered to think through for even a second.

                    You remind me of the guy in Proverbs who does his best to tell as many people as possible what a fool he really is. You know - the one whose only chance of looking intelligent is if he keeps his mouth shut.
                    Total Misanthropy.
                    Uncertain salvation.
                    Luck of the draw.
                    Irresistible damnation.
                    Persecution of the saints.

                    Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
                    (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

                    RevTestament: It doesn't matter to me too much that the "New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.
                    Dialogos: Calvin, as a sinner, probably got some things wrong.
                    Brandplucked: I'm shocked that other people disagree with me.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cross Reference View Post
                      Spiritual death is what is being inferred. Spritual death is eternal separation from God which, for the righteous before the cross meant paradise, the abode of the dead, Abraham's bosom, without the possibily of release to Heaven and the Presence of God..



                      Adam may hve been the anti-type of the man Jesus but Christ, The Word? I don't think so.



                      So what you are saying is we benefit from sinning and dying and living because we participate in the Life of Jesus Christ? How does that work?
                      My goodness, how old are you? Out of high school? Seriously.

                      (allow me to finish my edit of this post after I publish it .. so don't jump to conclusions until this caveat is resolved. Just give me a couple of minutes. Thanks). I am finished and the following is more of my responce:

                      Spirtual Clearical - what difference does it make to my point? The fact is that Romans 5:12 has that pesky line in it that declares that we all die because we all sin . . . . and how many scriptures are there that declare our personal responsibility for caving in to our humanity? I mean, Jesus as "son of man," proved that "I am only human" is an excuse. His life of perfection condemns us all; his death and resurrection saves us all . . . . . . . . . as long as we in the shadow of love and caring, ala the prodigal and his father.

                      And why on earth do you deny Jesus as the Christ of God and, thus, God himself when you write: "the man Jesus but Christ, The Word?" Splain please or repent.

                      Finally, you write this: "
                      So what you are saying is we benefit from sinning and dying and living because we participate in the Life of Jesus Christ? How does that work?" We benefit from the faithfulness of Jesus, the Christ of God. Why would you include "sinning" in your question? You believe that Christ was sinless as do I. So, your question should have been: " . . . . what you are saying is we benefit from . . . . . dying and living because we participate in the Life of Jesus Christ? How does that work?"

                      How does that work? Well, he became like us in everyway (Heb 2:17-18) so that he could minister atonement to all of us as the Priest of God. It is by his faith that we are saved (Habakkuk [in prophecy] 2:4). We are baptised into the Living Christ, we believe into the Living Christ, we confess into the Living Christ . . . so why is "into the Living Christ" so important? Because, again, it is his life, his death, his resurrection that benefits us all.
                      I only know what is revealed to me.

                      All theologies are but the inventions of men.

                      God has chosen to work in, during, and because of . . . the proclamation of the Word.

                      Christ is the only objective revelation of God to man.

                      We are all prodigals of the father.

                      Comment


                      • [QUOTE=Desert Reign;4286829]
                        CR: Firstly, I presume you mean 'implied' and that your level of English doesn't extend to distinguishing correctly between these basic words.
                        Obviously you understood enough to ridicule and scoff.. But I will give my reply.

                        Secondly, it is entirely your own invention that God's warning to Adam was in reference to something you call spiritual death. Your invention.
                        My invention? Really?? Any serious student of the Bible knows otherwise. Are you a serious student? If so, maybe you can give reasons why it needs to be saying more?

                        Thirdly, your ridiculous idea that God pronounced eternal separation from God on every man and then sent Jesus to save us - which can only mean that the so called eternal death wasn't eternal at all - is nothing but a joke that you haven't bothered to think through for even a second.
                        God never pronounced eternal separation. Adam's sin pronounced that on its own, without words. No sin allowed in the Presence of a Holy God. Remember that one?

                        Therefore, it was eternal separation in the spiritual sense which carries the day in the phsyical sense, as well.

                        Jesus came to ransom those righteous held in the grave because of the penalty for Adam's transgression sometimes called "death" that caused the separation. Mediocre students know that..

                        You remind me of the guy in Proverbs who does his best to tell as many people as possible what a fool he really is. You know - the one whose only chance of looking intelligent is if he keeps his mouth shut.
                        Wonderful!
                        "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" Philippians 2:15 (KJV)

                        Comment


                        • Originally Posted by jsjohnnt
                          actually, Romans 5:12 teaches us that the Adamic sin condemns us all "because we have all sinned." We are not "lost" because of Adam, we are lost because of our own malfeasance.

                          No doubt about it, Adam was the anti-type to Christ, but just as we benefit from the curse of Adam because we participate in his sin, so, too, we benefit from the Life, because we participate in Him.

                          Quote:
                          Originally Posted by Cross Reference View Post
                          Spiritual death is what is being inferred. Spritual death is eternal separation from God which, for the righteous before the cross meant paradise, the abode of the dead, Abraham's bosom, without the possibily of release to Heaven and the Presence of God..

                          Adam may hve been the anti-type of the man Jesus but Christ, The Word? I don't think so.


                          So what you are saying is we benefit from sinning and dying and living because we participate in the Life of Jesus Christ? How does that work?
                          No. I am saying Adam was not anti-type of Christ, the Word of God


                          My goodness, how old are you? Out of high school? Seriously.
                          Probably much older than you are. So please have pity on me.

                          Spirtual Clearical - what difference does it make to my point? The fact is that Romans 5:12 has that pesky line in it that declares that we all die because we all sin . . . . and how many scriptures are there that declare our personal responsibility for caving in to our humanity? I mean, Jesus as "son of man," proved that "I am only human" is an excuse. His life of perfection condemns us all; his death and resurrection saves us all . . . . . . . . . as long as we in the shadow of love and caring, ala the prodigal and his father.
                          Romans 5:12 doesn't say that. So please start over. Read it until you get it right before comenting.

                          And why on earth do you deny Jesus as the Christ of God and, thus, God himself when you write: "the man Jesus but Christ, The Word?" Splain please or repent.
                          I didn't say that either. Seems you are on a roll.

                          Finally, you write this: "
                          So what you are saying is we benefit from sinning and dying and living because we participate in the Life of Jesus Christ?
                          You said that, not me. My comment was: "How does that work?"

                          We benefit from the faithfulness of Jesus, the Christ of God. Why would you include "sinning" in your question?
                          Again, they were your words, not mine.

                          You believe that Christ was sinless as do I. So, your question should have been: " . . . . what you are saying is we benefit from . . . . . dying and living because we participate in the Life of Jesus Christ? How does that work?"
                          These were you words: "No doubt about it, Adam was the anti-type to Christ, but just as we benefit from the curse of Adam because we participate in his sin, so, too, we benefit from the Life, because we participate in Him.

                          Hence your explanation for that understanding is too convoluted for being any kind of help to my understanding... Old age, perhaps.

                          How does that work? Well, he became like us in everyway (Heb 2:17-18) so that he could minister atonement to all of us as the Priest of God.
                          He was MADE to be sin by God. Jesus did not become us in everyway. That would imply He willingly sinned to understand our pain! However, Jesus was in every way TEMPTED as we are to understand our issue in dealing vanity. BTW, that is one more reason He wasn't divine at this point in time otherwise He would not have to be tempted to find out anything about us.

                          It is by his faith that we are saved (Habakkuk [in prophecy] 2:4).
                          Correction: "It is the JUST who are saved by His faith." If you are of the Just then you must be walking as He walked. Now, if you want the details on that kind of faith know that it implies living by the very Life of the Son of God. See Gal 2:20 KJV ONLY __ no modern translation here for their lack of the insight into what Paul was attempting to convey..
                          We are baptised into the Living Christ, we believe into the Living Christ, we confess into the Living Christ . . . so why is "into the Living Christ" so important? Because, again, it is his life, his death, his resurrection that benefits us all.
                          Whose we?? If you are all of that why are you still sinning????!!!! STOP!!
                          "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" Philippians 2:15 (KJV)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BrianJOrr View Post
                            DR,

                            It is from the same post:

                            http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...&postcount=172

                            You said:

                            "The position regarding the career of those who have never heard the gospel is the same as babies who die before maturity."

                            And further down you said:

                            "So when God judges those who have not heard the Gospel, his judgement is against all those who commit wickedness. There is no disputing this. We are all agreed on it. All those who have committed sin will be punished according to their deeds."

                            So what is it? Those who have not heard the gospel are judged, or do they share their eternal destiny with babies who die?

                            Your statement regarding that the Bible does not say anything on that subject is beside the point, for you those who never hear the gospel are with infants.

                            Mr Orr.

                            Just for the record, if you persist in continually misrepresenting me and making up straw men, I will have to just ignore you. This kind of talk doesn't help anything. It only serves to make you look worse than you already do. If I say I don't mean something, then that is the end of the matter and there is no point whatsoever in your insisting that I do mean it. It is not my responsibility to help you to understand - it is your responsibility to work out what it was that you misunderstood. Your problem lies in two contributory factors: 1) Your inability to understand plain English and 2) your insatiable desire to prove openness theology wrong, no matter what the cost, which leads you to add to your inability to understand plain English your acceptance of the idea that lying about or misrepresenting your opponents is acceptable. I hope this doesn't happen again. It has happened before. If it happens again I shall cease debating with you.

                            Also for the record, you did not answer the substantial issues I raised in previous posts but carried on regardless. I said that your position was incoherent and that if you tried to support it with scripture, then this was the same as stating that scripture supported incoherence. All your analysis of Romans 5 won't help you make your position coherent. You need to bring some arguments why your doctrine of original sin is coherent, not reinforce your incoherence with some scripture quotes. It is easy to see that the scripture doesn't support your position at all. (of course it doesn't - because Scripture is inspired by God and a house divided against itself cannot stand.) You glide in easy steps from 'All men sinned' to 'All men are condemned in Adam from birth'. I look forward to hearing from you your logical justification of your doctrine. And why God is just if he makes men sinful and then judges them for it.

                            I don't think there are many takers for 'Sure, God is unjust/incoherent and here is the scripture to prove it.'
                            Last edited by Desert Reign; April 14th, 2015, 09:29 AM.
                            Total Misanthropy.
                            Uncertain salvation.
                            Luck of the draw.
                            Irresistible damnation.
                            Persecution of the saints.

                            Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
                            (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

                            RevTestament: It doesn't matter to me too much that the "New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.
                            Dialogos: Calvin, as a sinner, probably got some things wrong.
                            Brandplucked: I'm shocked that other people disagree with me.

                            Comment


                            • Your failure to address issues I have raised is stacking up:

                              Your contradiction regarding the fate of those who have not heard the gospel, my Genesis 3:15 question, the tension between 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1, and your so-called refutation of 'Calvinist's proof-text' post, which I responded to, was weak.

                              However, I really don't need you to answer these because I see that you are so anti-Calvinist, your presuppositions force you to steer away from any Reformed interpretation. When I make a plain objection, showing inconsistencies and even a blatantly clear contradiction, you don't address them because the I believe the consistent conclusion would result in a Reformed understanding (the most biblical one that is) of the texts, and you can't have that.

                              I think if your position was truly the coherent and biblically sound one, it would be readily available for the church at large in some published form, having been tried and tested over the years, showing its ability to hold weight and be consistent in all aspects of the faith.

                              However, based off these few interactions, I don't think your interpretive model could stand up to being poked, prodded, and ultimately thrashed by seasoned biblical and systematic theologians. Historical theology and the plethora of biblical and systematic expressions of the Scriptures from the Reformed persuasion has demonstrated its consistency in biblical interpretation. Just because you reject it, doesn't prove anything. I believe you are not able to handle that the Scriptures rightly declare that God is sovereign over the ends and the means of everything, all according to his will.

                              If what you have given me in response is your best effort, then I will accept and not insist you provide more thorough answers, plus I am tired of reading your personal attacks when I ask for clarification.

                              So, by all means, ignore me. I am good with that.
                              —Romans 11:36


                              http://therantingreformer.com
                              https://columbiaseminary.academia.edu/BrianOrr

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BrianJOrr View Post
                                So, by all means, ignore me.
                                We prefer mockery.

                                BOrr.
                                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                                E≈mc2
                                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                                "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                                -Bob B.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X