A Question for Open Theists

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Having personal definitions of "will" may give hope to escape the issues motivating such a tactic, but it is seen to be merely as so hoped.

We choose according to our greatest inclinations at the moment we so choose. That is what "freedom" entails. The "will" is that by which the mind chooses something. The whole of that which moves a person to "will" something is called the motive. The strongest motive is always the driving force behind the will. Motive is the ground or cause of the will--the will is not self-determined, but rather the will is determined, or more properly speaking, the will is as the motive is. Hence, we can say motives are the antecedent causes which give rise to the act of willing.

Arminians, open theists, and others, like to argue that the will can come to action without a cause. Well, if we agree God is the necessary first cause of all things, it must be concluded that that which exists without a cause is eternal and eternality can only be ascribed to God.

AMR

[Stripe]

Having personal definitions of "will" may give hope to escape the issues motivating such a tactic, but it is seen to be merely as so hoped.

If you want to engage with what we believe, you have to argue against what we believe. If we believe the sky is pink, you have to argue that the sky is not pink. Arguing that the sky is not green is irrational, no matter how correct you are.

We believe the will is a man's ability to choose. Adding "libertarian" and "free" to the word and insisting it must be predictable is not responsive to what we believe.

This is called setting up a straw man. It is an argument you might be able to win, but it is not responsive to what we believe.

We choose according to our greatest inclinations at the moment we so choose. That is what "freedom" entails. The "will" is that by which the mind chooses something. The whole of that which moves a person to "will" something is called the motive. The strongest motive is always the driving force behind the will. Motive is the ground or cause of the will--the will is not self-determined, but rather the will is determined, or more properly speaking, the will is as the motive is. Hence, we can say motives are the antecedent causes which give rise to the act of willing.

Nope. That is what you believe. We do not believe that.

If Brian wants to make a case against us, he has to address what we believe, not what you believe.

Arminians, open theists, and others, like to argue that the will can come to action without a cause. Well, if we agree God is the necessary first cause of all things, it must be concluded that that which exists without a cause is eternal and eternality can only be ascribed to God.AMR

God created willful beings.

He gave us the ability to choose.

[Nang]

If you want to engage with what we believe, you have to argue against what we believe. If we believe the sky is pink, you have to argue that the sky is not pink. Arguing that the sky is not green is irrational, no matter how correct you are.

We believe the will is a man's ability to choose. Adding "libertarian" and "free" to the word and insisting it must be predictable is no responsive to what we believe.

This is called setting up a straw man. It is an argument you might be able to win, but it is not responsive to what we believe.

Nope. That is what you believe. We do not believe that.

If Brian wants to make a case against us, he has to address what we believe, not what you believe.


God created willful beings.

He gave us the ability to choose.

Yes, and Adam chose to rebel against the commands of God in the attempt to be equal with God.

Since then, Adam and all the human race he represented, has been been thrown into bondaqe to serving sin and death, because of Adam's wrong choice. (Romans 5:12)

Man remains willful, but he no longer is able to choose to serve God and His righeousness, because all men are slaves to serving sin, death, and the devil.

The only freedom from this bondage of the will, is God regenerating the heart and mind of the sinner, and through His saving grace, freeing that sinner with faith in the Truth of the Gospel of the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

That Truth alone, can set men free to willfully serve the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ.

John 8:36

[Desert Reign]

Yes, and Adam chose to rebel against the commands of God in the attempt to be equal with God.

Since then, Adam and all the human race he represented, has been been thrown into bondaqe to serving sin and death, because of Adam's wrong choice. (Romans 5:12)

Man remains willful, but he no longer is able to choose to serve God and His righeousness, because all men are slaves to serving sin, death, and the devil.

The only freedom from this bondage of the will, is God regenerating the heart and mind of the sinner, and through His saving grace, freeing that sinner with faith in the Truth of the Gospel of the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

That Truth alone, can set men free to willfully serve the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ.
John 8:36

Nang, thanks for once again reminding us of the core misanthropically based tenets of Calvinism. However the discussion was not about Calvinism but about open theism.
If you want to comment on open views of causation then please do. You might like to explain for example what causation really means. For example do we say that it is where one event follows on inevitably from another event due to the outworking of overriding universally applicable physical laws? Or what does it mean to say that a person caused something? Is there a difference betwen saying a person caused something and a person did something? What is the domain of meaning of the word 'cause'? Is it appropriate, for example, to say 'I caused a telephone'? Why is that sentence wrong?

As Stripe very well said, you need to discuss what we believe, not what we don't believe. Otherwise you are letting everyone know that you have no argument against it or you are admitting that you don't really understand it.

[Nang]

Nang, thanks for once again reminding us of the core misanthropically based tenets of Calvinism. However the discussion was not about Calvinism but about open theism.
If you want to comment on open views of causation then please do. You might like to explain for example what causation really means. For example do we say that it is where one event follows on inevitably from another event due to the outworking of overriding universally applicable physical laws? Or what does it mean to say that a person caused something? Is there a difference betwen saying a person caused something and a person did something? What is the domain of meaning of the word 'cause'? Is it appropriate, for example, to say 'I caused a telephone'? Why is that sentence wrong?

As Stripe very well said, you need to discuss what we believe, not what we don't believe. Otherwise you are letting everyone know that you have no argument against it or you are admitting that you don't really understand it.

With all due respect, discussing God endowing Adam with secondary causal and moral agency, gives answer to the OV fallacies regarding libertarian free will. . . Which is the very premise of your erroneous view.

Since when did it become illegitimate to counter illogical theory with logical fact?

[Desert Reign]

With all due respect, discussing God endowing Adam with secondary causal and moral agency, gives answer to the OV fallacies regarding libertarian free will. . . Which is the very premise of your erroneous view.

Since when did it become illegitimate to counter illogical theory with logical fact?

Well, I rest my case, since obviously you have not answered or even sought to understand my view. Other people, ordinary people, seem to understand it. Because you don't even try to, I can tell you that openness will surpass Calvinism not very long from now. You will be eclipsed. You will not matter any more.

[BrianJOrr]

And we have come to a point where any further discussion on this topic will be a waste of time—for me that is. It's hard to have a discussion on hermeneutics when one presumes to have a view of Scripture that he has developed without any outside influence, for how will my points of interpretation and hermeneutics influence him? Obviously, historical orthodoxy hasn't either. Or, rather it has, just in the heterodox direction.

I think what is quite obvious is that DR is being untruthful in his view that he is without influence, reading the text from a 'what it naturally says' approach, which I claim as well, but recognize that there have been many others before me, more seasoned in the Word, mighty men of the faith, of which I only stand on their shoulders. DR’s presuppositions deny that. Every student of the Word of God has been influenced or guided in a certain way when it comes to understanding the Scriptures. Teaching and discipleship are what the Lord has put in place for us to grow others in the faith, to guard the deposit, keeping the body of Christ pure until the day of redemption.

An important element to legitimacy is if the system of thought or hermeneutics is clearly seen through out the biblical text, is coherent, and stands the test of time through historical scrutiny. Church history is greatly important, not to prove to be our basis for doctrine but to see a shared understanding and transmission of that unified theory within the body of the church as it goes through trials in a fallen world. The Socinians tried this and failed many years ago, as I believe this resurrected understanding of Scripture today eventually will do as well.

One of the important aspects of orthodoxy lies in the consistency of doctrine throughout the history of the Church. It has only been through those, like DR, who have made the claim to hold to an interpretation of Scripture that comes unfettered by influence of men, to end up starting a heretical system of belief based on their 'clear reading’ of the text. Charles Taze Russell and Ellen White come to mind.

Has he not ever read a theological book written by a pastor or scholar, which helped him in his understanding of Scripture, helping him make connections between the Old and the New Covenants, which further solidify what the Bible teaches about God, man, sin, Christ, redemption, justification, etc?

We all have. And for him to deny being influenced as such is dishonest.

I am curious how he would define the Trinity without such language the early church Fathers used to define and articulate it, which is what the church uses today.

It's quite sad that DR cannot see the folly in his presuppositions.

I am not meaning to imply that he is not saved; rather, his abstruse understanding the text, which he accuses my tradition of having, is what normally leads to heresy (I can see why Lon questioned him on even being a Christian).

So, I exhort him to examine himself.

[Desert Reign]

And we have come to a point where any further discussion on this topic will be a waste of time—for me that is. It's hard to have a discussion on hermeneutics when one presumes to have a view of Scripture that he has developed without any outside influence, for how will my points of interpretation and hermeneutics influence him?

You are correct. It will be a waste of your time because if you have no concrete arguments to make then that is the end of the discussion.

And further, it is a waste of my time too because this is now the third time that you have misrepresented me. I never said I was without influence. The question was whether I had been influenced by other open theist theologians. And to that question I answered a definite no. I really don't see how you can be doing a PhD in which you are supposed to offer an original contribution to knowledge when along comes someone else who has indeed made an original contribution and all you can say to him is 'because your contribution is original I will have no further argument with you because your beliefs are not orthodox or influenced by orthodoxy'! What then do you expect others to make of your own supposed original contribution?

I think what is quite obvious is that DR is being untruthful in his view that he is without influence,

Aside from the obvious issue of misrepresentation, it seems to me that you are unable to recognise new thought when you see it. And because you cannot handle it you have to call me a liar. Because all your life you have been used to following orthodoxy (at least your version of it) you have no concept of what it means to bring original thought to a discussion. All you can do is trot out what hundreds of people before you have themselves trotted out. And you carry out a little bit of analysis on it and you call it a PhD.

reading the text from a 'what it naturally says' approach, which I claim as well, but recognize that there have been many others before me, more seasoned in the Word, mighty men of the faith, of which I only stand on their shoulders.

Yes, exactly. But why are you doing a PhD then?

DR’s presuppositions deny that. Every student of the Word of God has been influenced or guided in a certain way when it comes to understanding the Scriptures.

This is a truism. We are what we are, not what we were before.

Listen, I am a human being! I am entitled to think originally. It is my destiny to do so. I am not an automaton. You might be one and I daresay you aspire to be one when you grow up. I do not and am not.

An important element to legitimacy is if the system of thought or hermeneutics is clearly seen through out the biblical text, is coherent, and stands the test of time through historical scrutiny. Church history is greatly important, not to prove to be our basis for doctrine but to see a shared understanding and transmission of that unified theory within the body of the church as it goes through trials in a fallen world.

You are advocating a recipe for stagnation. What is your PhD for, is it to find some original way to stagnate?

The Socinians tried this and failed many years ago, as I believe this resurrected understanding of Scripture today eventually will do as well.

One of the important aspects of orthodoxy lies in the consistency of doctrine throughout the history of the Church. It has only been through those, like DR, who have made the claim to hold to an interpretation of Scripture that comes unfettered by influence of men, to end up starting a heretical system of belief based on their 'clear reading’ of the text. Charles Taze Russell and Ellen White come to mind.

One day Jean Calvin will be numbered along with CT Russell and Ellen White because you have failed to engage with the beliefs of open theists. I tell you, ordinary people are flocking to churches like mine and our congregations are vibrant attracting men and women equally, both the educated and the simple and people from all different ethnic backgrounds. In the eight years I have been at my present church we have been in three different premises because we have grown so fast.

Has he not ever read a theological book written by a pastor or scholar, which helped him in his understanding of Scripture, helping him make connections between the Old and the New Covenants, which further solidify what the Bible teaches about God, man, sin, Christ, redemption, justification, etc? We all have. And for him to deny being influenced as such is dishonest.

Never said that. More misrepresentation.

I am curious how he would define the Trinity without such language the early church Fathers used to define and articulate it, which is what the church uses today.

The creeds of your churches do not inspire faith. All they do is create strife and exclude and force people to conform. A long time ago I wrote this.

Since you are curious (which is perhaps another way of saying that you do not have sufficient imagination to work out how anyone could have a valid point of view that is different from your own), here is my answer.

I believe in the beauty of truth:
Whoever seeks truth with all his heart will be deeply satisfied by our heavenly Father.

I believe in living a morally perfect life:
As Jesus taught.

I believe in the power of the Spirit:
To witness, work and endure the hardship which disciples of Jesus will undergo.

I believe in resurrection and new life:
Both now and when Jesus returns in judgement
To make all wrongs right and reveal who are his.

I believe that Christians everywhere are one family:
To live sacrificially for each other in love,
That the church of the faithful is the custodian
Of the healing power and light of God for the world
And that in the church there are no barriers between God and man.

I love the Bible and rely on it; it is inspired and trustworthy.

[Stripe]

And we have come to a point where any further discussion on this topic will be a waste of time.

Only for those not willing to learn.

[Nang]

Only for those not willing to learn.

Translated: "Only for those not willing to learn (endorse) post-modern relativism and humanistic doctrines."

[BrianJOrr]

I wasn’t going to respond, but after listening to the White and Enyart debate again today, I heard Enyart say something that I had to ask you about.

He said that the seed/offspring of the woman in Genesis 3:15 is in reference to Christ. Now, I believe that as well. But in light of your comments regarding how you interpret the Bible, how can he believe that? I would have to assume you also share the same model of interpretation since you are both open theists. You did say that your method of interpretation is “how open theists interpret the Old Testament.”

So do you believe this? If so, how did you arrive to this conclusion based on what you said?:

“The meaning of a text is determined by itself, not by some other text whether in the New Testament, the Old Testament or anywhere else. The principle that passages in the Bible are interpreted in reference to other passages is a false principle and leads to unpredictable and inconsistent outcomes. Each passage should be interpreted in its own local context and the sum total of all such interpretations in the whole Bible constitutes the written inspiration of scripture. This is an objective and consistent approach. If you introduce random passages as essential contributors to the meaning of some particular passage, then you bring randomness and unpredictability into hermeneutics.”

But in looking at your other responses, I am baffled because you also said regarding context, “The local context might be the entire book or letter. Or it might be the whole second temple period.”

So, to me it sounds like there truly is no “local” in any sense. It’s all what you determine the context to be. If it doesn’t comport with your perspective, then it is a random passage being used out of context. That is what you accuse me of doing. Why? Because it doesn’t fit your theological framework.

I know you said this, "Each passage should be interpreted in its own local context and the sum total of all such interpretations in the whole Bible constitutes the written inspiration of scripture. This is an objective and consistent approach."

That is called systematic theology; you just don't want to call it that. When I interpret Scripture and want to understand what it teaches about sin, I go through all of Scripture to see what God's Word teaches about it. So, your argument is without merit.

Back to the Genesis 3:15 passage.

Could you come to that conclusion just in reading that text by itself? Or do we see that from other texts, further revealed in the OT and NT (Isa. 7:14; Mic. 5:3; Matt. 1:23, 25; Luke 1:34, 35; Gal. 4:4; 1 Tim. 2:15), we are able to fully understand that passage and can with certainty affirm that verse is speaking about Christ?

Those verses I supplied, would you consider those “random passages”? You never defined “random” passages; rather, you only said I was guilty of using random passages to support my theological doctrines when I was referring to Romans 9:14-18 and Exodus 33:14, which I don’t see how you can say they are random, considering Paul is the one using the Exodus passage to establish a theological point.

So really, What is random? How is a verse in your perspective considered random? I didn't use random verses to establish my point.

Wouldn’t you have to agree that Enyart might have “an axe to grind” if he were to go to those passages to support his view that Genesis 3:15 is speaking of Christ? How is the open theist’s understanding of Christ as the seed in Genesis 3:15 any different than my showing the connection between Romans 9:14-18 and Exodus 33:14, especially since there are no direct importations of Genesis 3:15 to any of the verses cited, which we all use to support that belief?

Next Point:

You stated:

“I read scripture for what it is and if theology comes as a result then that is fine but if it doesn't then that is also fine. After all, God inspired the scriptures, we all believe that. . . . I wish to be inspired by what God gave us first and foremost.”

“I let the scriptures do their own talking.”

“I was not influenced by him or any of the other big name American open theists whatsoever.”

“I don't exegete these passages to adhere to open theism. All I do is try to understand what the passages mean and be informed by them.”

You want me to accept your assumptions and dismiss mine. I too let the Scriptures do their own talking; I too read Scripture for what it is, using it as my filter when it comes to any doctrine attempting to be passed as biblical. So your road-less-traveled approach is, as already stated, pretentious. In my Greek and hermeneutics courses, the key was to let the Scriptures speak. Use the summation of biblical expression to have a unified understanding of God, man, sin, etc. I have the same view of the Bible as you do.

You said, “One day Jean Calvin will be numbered along with CT Russell and Ellen White because you have failed to engage with the beliefs of open theists. I tell you, ordinary people are flocking to churches like mine and our congregations are vibrant attracting men and women equally, both the educated and the simple and people from all different ethnic backgrounds. In the eight years I have been at my present church we have been in three different premises because we have grown so fast.”

I can say that too! In the last 5 years my church has gone to three different locations because of our growth, which has been mostly others coming to us from churches like yours. So, who wins this argument? (come on, that's a fallacy to use that as an argument. You should know better )

And lastly, you stated:

“when reading the Bible, the primary interpretive principle is not some doctrine of God but the historical outworking of a relationship.”

If that is the case (now, I am not denying that important element in the biblical expression of God and his relation to his creatures), what is different between you and a Mormon or a JW? They have a relationship with God through their interpretation. What classifies them as heretics?

The Mormons and JWs I know and have talked with many times, they too would agree on these things you stated as your “creed.”

I believe in the beauty of truth:
Whoever seeks truth with all his heart will be deeply satisfied by our heavenly Father.

I believe in living a morally perfect life:
As Jesus taught.

I believe in the power of the Spirit:
To witness, work and endure the hardship which disciples of Jesus will undergo.

I believe in resurrection and new life:
Both now and when Jesus returns in judgement
To make all wrongs right and reveal who are his.

I believe that Christians everywhere are one family:
To live sacrificially for each other in love,
That the church of the faithful is the custodian
Of the healing power and light of God for the world
And that in the church there are no barriers between God and man.

I love the Bible and rely on it; it is inspired and trustworthy.

And lastly, you said: “it seems to me that you are unable to recognise new thought when you see it.”

By the way, your thoughts are not original (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Like I said, it was already tried in the 1600s, and it failed the test of scriptural scrutiny. Most heresies start out that way; it sounds new and cool, but in the end it will show it tried and died.

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Brian,

It is very difficult to follow the discussion without using the quote functions.

Please use [quote] and [/quote] tags to bracket another's post in your post.

Also include at least one [QUOTE=Desert Reign;4227395] so as to point the reader to the quoted person's original text so we can all follow the discussion in its full context. That last tag above with the numbers 4227395 is shown when you select the "Quote" button of another's post. You can copy and paste it as an initial quote tag (be sure to end the quoted portion with the [/quote] as you create a standalone post without simply using the "Quote" button.

To quote multiple posts select the second icon at the bottom right next to the "Quote" button. So say you want to quote two different posts. Select that multi-quote button for the first post, then select the "Quote" button for the second and start editing your post which will contain the two quoted posts. You can delete any quoted portions not relevant, but do retain the bracketing quote tags therein.

Multi-quote is tricky. If you abandon a post that you intended to include multiple quoted posts, just be sure to go back and re-click any multi-quote buttons you had previously selected to turn them off. If you do not the software will remember the selection and the next time you quote a post you will find these unchecked posts also contained in your current editing window and wonder what is going on, where did that text come from, etc.

AMR

[patrick jane]

I wasn’t going to respond, but after listening to the White and Enyart debate again today, I heard Enyart say something that I had to ask you about.

He said that the seed/offspring of the woman in Genesis 3:15 is in reference to Christ. Now, I believe that as well. But in light of your comments regarding how you interpret the Bible, how can he believe that? I would have to assume you also share the same model of interpretation since you are both open theists. You did say that your method of interpretation is “how open theists interpret the Old Testament.”

So do you believe this? If so, how did your arrive to this conclusion based on what you said:

“The meaning of a text is determined by itself, not by some other text whether in the New Testament, the Old Testament or anywhere else. The principle that passages in the Bible are interpreted in reference to other passages is a false principle and leads to unpredictable and inconsistent outcomes. Each passage should be interpreted in its own local context and the sum total of all such interpretations in the whole Bible constitutes the written inspiration of scripture. This is an objective and consistent approach. If you introduce random passages as essential contributors to the meaning of some particular passage, then you bring randomness and unpredictability into hermeneutics.”

But in looking at your other responses, I am baffled because you also said regarding context, “The local context might be the entire book or letter. Or it might be the whole second temple period.”

So, to me it sounds like there truly is no “local” in any sense. It’s all what you determine the context to be. If it doesn’t comport with your perspective, then it is a random passage being used out of context. That is what you accuse me of doing. Why? Because it doesn’t fit your theological framework.

I know you said this, "Each passage should be interpreted in its own local context and the sum total of all such interpretations in the whole Bible constitutes the written inspiration of scripture. This is an objective and consistent approach."

That is called systematic theology; you just don't want to call it that. When I interpret Scripture and want to understand what it teaches about sin, I go through all of Scripture to see what God's Word teaches about it. So, your argument is without merit.

Back to the Genesis 3:15 passage.

Could you come to that conclusion just in reading that text by itself? Or do we see that from other texts, further revealed in the OT and NT (Isa. 7:14; Mic. 5:3; Matt. 1:23, 25; Luke 1:34, 35; Gal. 4:4; 1 Tim. 2:15), we are able to fully understand that passage and can with certainty affirm that verse is speaking about Christ?

Those verses I supplied, would you consider those “random passages”? You never defined “random” passages; rather, you only said I was guilty of using random passages to support my theological doctrines when I was referring to Romans 9:14-18 and Exodus 33:14, which I don’t see how you can say they are random, considering Paul is the one using the Exodus passage to establish a theological point.

So really, What is random? How is a verse in your perspective considered random? I didn't use random verses to establish my point.

Wouldn’t you have to agree that Enyart might have “an axe to grind” if he were to go to those passages to support his view that Genesis 3:15 is speaking of Christ? How is the open theist’s understanding of Christ as the seed in Genesis 3:15 any different than my showing the connection between Romans 9:14-18 and Exodus 33:14, especially since there are no direct importations of Genesis 3:15 to any of the verses cited, which we all use to support that belief?

Next Point:

You stated:

“I read scripture for what it is and if theology comes as a result then that is fine but if it doesn't then that is also fine. After all, God inspired the scriptures, we all believe that. . . . I wish to be inspired by what God gave us first and foremost.”

“I let the scriptures do their own talking.”

“I was not influenced by him or any of the other big name American open theists whatsoever.”

“I don't exegete these passages to adhere to open theism. All I do is try to understand what the passages mean and be informed by them.”

You want me to accept your assumptions and dismiss mine. I too let the Scriptures do their own talking; I too read Scripture for what it is, using it as my filter when it comes to any doctrine attempting to be passed as biblical. So your road-less-traveled approach is, as already stated, pretentious. In my Greek and hermeneutics courses, the key was to let the Scriptures speak. Use the summation of biblical expression to have a unified understanding of God, man, sin, etc. I have the same view of the Bible as you do.

You said, “One day Jean Calvin will be numbered along with CT Russell and Ellen White because you have failed to engage with the beliefs of open theists. I tell you, ordinary people are flocking to churches like mine and our congregations are vibrant attracting men and women equally, both the educated and the simple and people from all different ethnic backgrounds. In the eight years I have been at my present church we have been in three different premises because we have grown so fast.”

I can say that too! In the last 5 years my church has gone to three different locations because of our growth, which has been mostly others coming to us from churches like yours. So, who wins this argument? (come on, that's a fallacy to use that as an argument. You should know better )

And lastly, you stated:

“when reading the Bible, the primary interpretive principle is not some doctrine of God but the historical outworking of a relationship.”

If that is the case (now, I am not denying that important element in the biblical expression of God and his relation to his creatures), what is different between you and a Mormon or a JW? They have a relationship with God through their interpretation. What classifies them as heretics?

The Mormons and JWs I know and have talked with many times, they too would agree on these things you stated as your “creed.”

I believe in the beauty of truth:
Whoever seeks truth with all his heart will be deeply satisfied by our heavenly Father.

I believe in living a morally perfect life:
As Jesus taught.

I believe in the power of the Spirit:
To witness, work and endure the hardship which disciples of Jesus will undergo.

I believe in resurrection and new life:
Both now and when Jesus returns in judgement
To make all wrongs right and reveal who are his.

I believe that Christians everywhere are one family:
To live sacrificially for each other in love,
That the church of the faithful is the custodian
Of the healing power and light of God for the world
And that in the church there are no barriers between God and man.

I love the Bible and rely on it; it is inspired and trustworthy.

And lastly, you said: “it seems to me that you are unable to recognise new thought when you see it.”

By the way, your thoughts are not original (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Like I said, it was already tried in the 1600s, and it failed the test of scriptural scrutiny. Most heresies start out that way; it sounds new and cool, but in the end it will show it tried and died.

very good points. blunt and mildly harsh but very insightful - God Bless ! ! !

[patrick jane]

You are correct. It will be a waste of your time because if you have no concrete arguments to make then that is the end of the discussion.

And further, it is a waste of my time too because this is now the third time that you have misrepresented me. I never said I was without influence. The question was whether I had been influenced by other open theist theologians. And to that question I answered a definite no. I really don't see how you can be doing a PhD in which you are supposed to offer an original contribution to knowledge when along comes someone else who has indeed made an original contribution and all you can say to him is 'because your contribution is original I will have no further argument with you because your beliefs are not orthodox or influenced by orthodoxy'! What then do you expect others to make of your own supposed original contribution?

Aside from the obvious issue of misrepresentation, it seems to me that you are unable to recognise new thought when you see it. And because you cannot handle it you have to call me a liar. Because all your life you have been used to following orthodoxy (at least your version of it) you have no concept of what it means to bring original thought to a discussion. All you can do is trot out what hundreds of people before you have themselves trotted out. And you carry out a little bit of analysis on it and you call it a PhD.

Yes, exactly. But why are you doing a PhD then?

This is a truism. We are what we are, not what we were before.

Listen, I am a human being! I am entitled to think originally. It is my destiny to do so. I am not an automaton. You might be one and I daresay you aspire to be one when you grow up. I do not and am not.

You are advocating a recipe for stagnation. What is your PhD for, is it to find some original way to stagnate?

One day Jean Calvin will be numbered along with CT Russell and Ellen White because you have failed to engage with the beliefs of open theists. I tell you, ordinary people are flocking to churches like mine and our congregations are vibrant attracting men and women equally, both the educated and the simple and people from all different ethnic backgrounds. In the eight years I have been at my present church we have been in three different premises because we have grown so fast.

Never said that. More misrepresentation.

The creeds of your churches do not inspire faith. All they do is create strife and exclude and force people to conform. A long time ago I wrote this.

Since you are curious (which is perhaps another way of saying that you do not have sufficient imagination to work out how anyone could have a valid point of view that is different from your own), here is my answer.

I believe in the beauty of truth:
Whoever seeks truth with all his heart will be deeply satisfied by our heavenly Father.

I believe in living a morally perfect life:
As Jesus taught.

I believe in the power of the Spirit:
To witness, work and endure the hardship which disciples of Jesus will undergo.

I believe in resurrection and new life:
Both now and when Jesus returns in judgement
To make all wrongs right and reveal who are his.

I believe that Christians everywhere are one family:
To live sacrificially for each other in love,
That the church of the faithful is the custodian
Of the healing power and light of God for the world
And that in the church there are no barriers between God and man.

I love the Bible and rely on it; it is inspired and trustworthy.

better points -

[Stripe]

Enyart said that the seed/offspring of the woman in Genesis 3:15 is in reference to Christ. Now, I believe that as well. But in light of your comments regarding how you interpret the Bible, how can he believe that?

What did Bob Enyart say that would make you suggest he could not believe in prophecy?

Are you attacking an implied straw man? We do not believe that nothing is set in stone; we believe that not everything is set in stone.

The open theist's challenge to the Calvinist is for them to show that everything must be decreed and fulfilled; down to the tiniest of details. Showing that one thing is certain does not answer the challenge.