Search results

"Words have no meaning." :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

It's a common mistake and it's surprisingly easy to miss the fact that you're making it, or at least it is in today's society where people haven't ever really been taught to even look for such things. It's annoying when people who aught to know better commit this sort of error but I don't think...

I could have made that prediction. Predicting the actions of groups isn't hard even for us fallible human beings. It's child's play for God. Also, stating that it is a "future event that will happen" is overstating it. It is a future event that will almost certainly happen. People that God...

There isn't anyone who knows anything about me or my doctrine who could rightly accuse me of preaching a works-righteousness. Also, I've never known anyone who articulated your point here who could explain to me the difference inherent in the distinction you are making. The fact is that "Faith...

No one here is disputing the existence of prophesy. God makes prophesies and carries most of them out. Has anyone ever shown you a list of prophesies that didn't come to pass? I mean, such lists don't sell a lot of books at the local Christian book store but such lists do exist. There's a whole...

I don't care about the rule book. It's just boring! The man needs to use his own mind and have a actual conversation with people.

First and foremost because it is neither biblical nor rational. Saying it doesn't make it so. Saying it doesn't make it so. Open Theism is much older than the 1980s. That particular title for it showed up in the 80s but the doctrine is as old as the scripture itself. I don't care what...

Well, that list is intended to be the "gospel proper". It is a list of the doctrines one must believe in order to be an actual saved Christian. It is not necessary to believe in OSAS in order to be saved and so it wouldn't quite fit on that particular list.

I read the scripture like it is written in normal human language that means what it plainly states unless good contextual or grammatical reasons are given to do otherwise. If whatever it is you are doing with it were valid, there'd be no way to falsify any wild-eyed doctrine any crank wanted to...

And any of that is relevant, how? Maybe try to actually respond rather than just copy/pasting stuff from a favorite teacher? Also, you really do need to get it through your skull that I (we) do not care what the "Church Fathers" said. The degree to which your arguments are both rational and...

It is what they all believed and taught! More than that, it is the logically inevitable position given their allegiance to the Aristotelian notion of an immutable God. The point being that what the reformers said isn't authoritative, scripture is! A point that even the Reformers would have at...

Foreknowledge "causing or approving it" isn't the issue nor the argument. There are several problems with the idea of exhaustive foreknowledge, not the least of which is that the bible does not teach it but your statement has to do with the issue of justice and so let's look at that issue in...

There was no insult intended. I've just been doing this for decades and already know all of your proof texts. None of them say what you likely believe them to say. If anything, my comments were simply intended as a challenge. Prove me wrong. Quite! Don't take my directness as hostility. So long...

No, you read that into whatever passages you're thinking of. Biblically, God knows what He wants to know of that information that is knowable. There is not one single syllable of the bible you can find that will contradict that statement. Any and every attempt you make will require you to read...

Biblical is what it is. It's only heretical for those who worship Aristotle's god.

Saying it doesn't make it so!

Brilliant point!

The Reformers also taught that all of our "moral self‑presentation and attempts at uprightness" or lack thereof was all predestined to either happen or not happen before time began and will or will not happen precisely in accordance with God's own sovereign declaration and for no other reason.

He isn't omniscient! At least not in the classical sense of that word! The real God is not the god of Aristotle. As for causing people to doubt, that's sort of a laughable objection, right? The version of God you believe in is omniscient, right? Does that seem to have prevented people from...

You! Your AI bot has failed you. Open Theism is not principally about reconciling free will with divine foreknowledge. It's about reading the bible and taking it to mean what it actually states, not what we want to read into it as is exemplified in every single one of the proof-texts it fed to you.