Search results

No.

Meh. If God's will is the only thing, and He can perform it with robots, it's meaningless to us. Then it would only be necessary to list one. Yet we regularly speak of 3. And I've heard some add omni-benevolent and all-seeing (not sure what the omni is for that, omnioptical?) Who's talking...

"All power" doesn't have to mean nobody else can do anything, but it can mean "able to do anything". We recognize limits on what that can include, like logical impossibilities (married bachelors). That's why omniscience is OK with me, too, leaving out the logically impossible, such as knowing...

Meaning. But you lose meaning. What value is your version of omniscience if it means that your life was all predetermined. Your choices are meaningless, because even your choice to find meaning is predetermined. Or your choice to despair of meaning in life is meaningless. I don't think most...

Thanks! Did I say we know absolutely nothing about our future choices? I gave an option of fruitloops vs raisin bran, which is a major narrowing down from all possible cereals. Any narrowing of options is positive information about the final choices. Yes, and none of it is more than God knows...

Huh?

My point, and the point of your link's #4, was that unless God made someone with a sin nature, which goes against His character, then it is possible to be tempted without having a sin nature. And, as you have acquiesced partially, human nature is not the same as sin nature, as Jesus had a human...

This one handles my response: "Further, the theory states that sin nature is not necessary for sin to occur. Neither Adam and Eve nor the angels had a sin nature, yet they were tempted." More later...

No issues with any of that, but you were suggesting that one can have a sin nature and still not sin, as you said here: Are you saying you meant "human" nature?

Meaning that Christ had a sin nature at birth? Or do you mean that Adam was created with a sin nature? Answering yes to either of these is much more of a concern than open theism ever will be, but both are directly to be concluded from your statement.

Ok, but you think it so small a player that you aren't willing to answer, but prefer to change the question. Why? Yes, to the question I was asking. For which cereal I will eat today? How did you get there? No, but hopefully it considers how consistent the theology is in the extremes. A...

You say yes, but you still are answering a different question. The question began with "pick two things that you like", and I could clarify again that I mean two things you like equally well. Vanilla and chocolate don't qualify, so you will have to let that choice go, if you are interested in...

But I said "pick two that you like." You picked one that you like. If you have nothing that you waver between, then perhaps everyone around you always knows exactly what your future choices are. But imagine for a moment that vanilla didn't exist. Would you always pick chocolate over butter...

Why do you think that God knows less than we do in that case? If we know our future decisions, then God, who knows our thoughts before we speak them, could know our future decisions, too. But if our future decisions are still future, then we don't know them, and God doesn't know them. He doesn't...

Only as they remain children would they remain sinless. Leighton Flowers has some interesting things to say about Pelagius. You should look at his talks on it sometime. Yet semi-pelagianism is accepted by most as within the pale of orthodoxy today. Maybe the damage wasn't as severe as those...

Not quite true. It's for both, since a teacher needs to assess the student. Then why test? Just tell the student the grade they are getting on the test you aren't giving them. Yes, and that applies to some questions...not all. Not if God actually doesn't know in some cases. But the question...

Why do you say that? More precisely, those who don't believe. Your version would be more Calvinistic, imo. But it seems to imply a willfulness in belief, which would eliminate infants in the womb, I think, from those that can believe, and thus from those that are not condemned already. Or it...

But I think you understand my point. That when we take a verse and say that it means the opposite of what it says, we have cause for concern. That's what the Calvinists do, according to Bob Enyart. So if the verse, saying the God sees "in every place", really means "God doesn't see in every...

Interesting idea.

Questions don't imply ignorance. Same. No question that God "discovers". (I.e., I agree with you here.) This is an argument from silence if you presume it means God didn't already know their condition. Yep. A situation that God already knew, since He asked Satan to consider Job. Definitely...