Search results

From ICR's Dr. Tim Cleary: The geologic column has been under the scrutiny of numerous creationists for many decades. Critics have claimed the column is intimately tied to the evolutionary worldview and deep time, and cannot be trusted or used by creation scientists. Other creation scientists...

It's claiming that they "observe" a succession of fossils. Such a claim might be false, but if they actually are observing it, then we will need to deal with it. Succession, of course, doesn't mean that they lived so many years apart, but only that they died in that succession, which a number of...

I'm not sure that's exactly true. The "observation" is that "different kinds of fossils occur in different layers and that the order of the various kinds of fossils from bottom to top is always the same." Unfortunately, they don't always (never) have all the various kinds of fossils from bottom...

But never free just to take passages to mean what we want them to say. That's my problem with using that passage in that way...it presumes, likely incorrectly, that God doesn't know the answer to His own question, yet any good attorney will tell you never to ask a question (in court) that you...

Right! God can't be both wrong in prophecy and also give it contingently. Contingent prophecy--intended to help someone repent and avoid the punishment in many cases--cannot be wrong, because both outcomes are possible...in Open Theism, anyway. Not so in EDF, because God is giving an outcome He...

What I meant, though I admit to poor haste in my post (post haste?), is that if everything is "in Him" like panentheism, then Christians are no more in Him than anyone else, and thus unlikely to benefit from such a phrase. I would say "figuratively." I don't see how we are encapsulated by...

Your closing...is it a reiteration of the context, or merely a closing? If the former, it would seem to be meaningless in Christian circles, from your position as I read it in your post.

Maybe this is the one:

I listened to a Ravi Zacharias talk at BYU that was quite good. He wasn't open theist. I applaud any attempts to reach Mormons, and Paul gave us examples of finding common ground.

I think there's a point to @Clete's assertion, in that Jesus is God, but no longer in exactly the same way as the Father is God. He is a creature and creator at the same time...and cannot ever NOT be a creature again. Oil and water can be unmixed. Even two types of flour could be unmixed. But...

I think you're over-reacting (again). Even Lon's link explains that Mormons (at least the one writing the article) don't accept Open Theism: "If you claim to be an Open Theist then you accept the perception of other knowledgeable people, at least those that have an inkling of what Open Theists...

Right, but the question is formed in the same way as Gen 3:9. [Gen 3:9 KJV] And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where [art] thou? [Gen 4:9 KJV] And the LORD said unto Cain, Where [is] Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: [Am] I my brother's keeper? And Lon was bringing...

Yet, since we are talking about the character of water in a glass, we don't say, "God infinitely knows about the air in the glass." Seems like a personal problem, to me. But the point is that there is a limitation to "everything" when we are talking about "what exists". So when we read "by Him...

Did you read it? [Gen 4:9 KJV] And the LORD said unto Cain, Where [is] Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: [Am] I my brother's keeper? If, as some Open Theists say, God asking Adam where he was after he ate of the tree means that God did not know where Adam was, then when God asks Cain...

@Lon @Clete Compare Adam's whereabouts with Abel's, chap 4.

If the two things have become one in Christ, which makes sense, then you can't really have one of those things in conflict with the other, else He's conflicted.

The other thing He emptied Himself of was the ability to live forever...His immortality. Maybe "ability to live forever" is the wrong way to say it. More like "inability to die, ever".

Yes! Yes! Not to derail, but aren't these conflicting things? 1. That He was immortal (could not die), and 2. That He was mortal (He could die). And after He took on flesh, His human body, He had something that made Him different than He was before, His mortality. Yep. Two things that apply...

It seems that if God (even putting aside the trinity part of the equation for now) became something else while still remaining God, then He must have added something, in this case "man-ness" or "human nature". I'm not completely sure that you can say "It doesn't take anything from His deity,"...

Good! Now let's go back to how this part of the conversation got started: I said: And you responded: You said above that Jesus became a man. Here's a definition of "mortal" from Merriam-Webster: Human Obviously that doesn't mean that all mortal creatures are human, but it does mean that all...