Search results

Correct. It says “infinite understanding.” It does not say “infinite knowledge,” and it certainly does not say “exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act.” Knowledge is information. Understanding is an ability. They cannot be the same thing. A man can possess information...

@Clete

The Bible does not say “infinite knowledge” in Psalm 147:5. It says: “Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite.” So you are already changing the wording. Knowledge and understanding are related, but they are not identical. The verse is not making a technical...

He's quoting what I said outside the quote tags.

“Infinite understanding” is not the same claim as “every future free act already exists as a settled fact.” You are treating those as identical, but they are not. Understanding is comprehension, wisdom, discernment, judgment, and the ability to know reality truly. God’s understanding is...

Blue Letter Bible is not Scripture. Don Stewart is not Scripture. If Don Stewart misrepresents Open Theism, then yes, he is wrong. That should not be controversial. I have not said the opposite. I affirm that God is wise. I affirm that God’s understanding is infinite. What I deny is your...

This has already been addressed. Repeating it as though it has not been answered does not make the argument stronger. It only makes it look like you cannot actually deal with the answer. You are assuming that Abraham’s offering of Isaac was necessary in order for God to accomplish redemption...

Saying it doesn't make it so. This has been a problem throughout this entire thread. You keep asserting your conclusion instead of demonstrating it from the text. What evidence do you have that God already knew what Abraham would do? The passage does not say that. The passage says: “Do not...

This is basically, "I don’t like what the passage entails for my theology, therefore it must be rhetorical." Genesis 2:19 says God brought the animals to Adam "to see what he would call them." You do not like the implication of that wording, because it does not fit exhaustive settled...

Seems just fine to me. Weird.

Post the link?

Oh and I completely forgot the obvious one: "From dust you were created, and to dust you shall return ."

Enrico Norelli writes, "Some fragments also remain, some of them probably spurious, of many writings of Peter of Alexandria, bishop there [in Alexandria] from 300 to 311. In a treatise On the Divinity he insisted that Christ did not abandon his divinity when he became a man. In another work, On...

Gonna push back just a little bit here, not because @ttruscott is right (his interpretation is definitely wrong), but because there's nothing inherently wrong with the translation he used. Let's look at the context. I've included the relevant verses here: To the Chief Musician. To the tune of...

"Obvious" is not an objective standard, and it is certainly not textual warrant. You keep asserting the exception. You still have not justified it. If it does not need defending, then defend it. So far all you have done is repeat that your exception is “obvious,” “common sense,” and...

Why not both?

That is a retreat. First you said, “If this is correct, then the unity-of-the-Trinity problem is resolved.” Now you say, “I do not claim to have solved the problem. I only presented a theory.” Fine. Then Clete’s point stands. The article proposes a theory, but it does not establish that the...

That's a convenient way of saying you can't answer it. Then it should be easy for you to defend it. But you still have not. You keep repeating the caveat as though repetition turns it into a principle. It doesn't. No one disputes that children are less developed than adults. What you...