Search results

Then the travel of light must also be supernatural for you to account for this illogical anomaly. And I am mostly critiquing the "en route" view or "age built in" concept for the travel of light. It doesn't work on a logical plane.

Yet again, these verses seem to say more about God being omni-observant from his throne (implied omniscient then) rather than he is everywhere. God seeing everything is not a necessary equivalent that he is everywhere. God can see everything from his throne b/c (a) he is transcendent of...

You don't appear to be understanding the concept. If a star is 1 million lightyears away and it explodes, then it will take 1 million years for that information (light and the scene of explosion) to reach us regardless of a telescope. Therefore, if we believe that the information of an...

While I wouldn't deny that those verses may infer that, the most you can say the clearly teach is multi-presence. Or that God's vision is vast that he sees everything (Prov 15:3). Or it appears as hyperbole as in Jer. 23:24 to indicate how God can appear and follow and guide anywhere...

Problem w/ your "age built in" idea w/ lightyears is that while you can say that the light was already on its way at creation, you are also saying that the information that is being sent is information about something that never existed in history. For example, when we see stars exploding from...

First, is it Biblical? Ps 139:7-12 and Jer 23:23-24 seem to indicate it BY INFERENCE. But it is not stated clearly. It appears multi-presence is affirmed. But not necessarily omni-presence. Second, is it even logical? Doesn't it imply that God is in hell? Doesn't it seem pantheistic in...

Fail... the 90's called, they want their soft, theologically weak music back.

Funny thing is, so much debate goes into that realm of theology known as eschatology when eventually that will be the one section of theology that we will have a full grasp of knowledge once all the events transpire. Yet things as magnificent as the Gospel and Jesus and God will be pondered for...

Where is the Amill Atrib position??? I don't believe in a 7 year Trib at all. So the only "rapture" I hold to is the one where Jesus comes back and gathers the elect.

It is no longer on biblegateway either!!!

Do you even know Greek? Yes the words are different. One is the noun form and the other the verbal form. But they have the same root. They are morphological cognates. They mean the same thing but have different grammatical functions in a sentence. In other words, they both mean "elect" or...

Wow... this is exegesis??? You know the noun "elect" and the verb "choose" comes from the same cognate. It is just that one is the noun form and the other the verb form of the same root. So the way you are interpreting Eph. 1:4 could just as easily be turned to say "elected". Your reasoning...

Not much except the latter is an eschatology whereas the former is an inclusive system (lack of a better term) of many categories including eschatology (broadly). One can be a premill or Amill in NCT. The system does not dictate a specific eschatological view.

A foundation rooted in the OT and its continuity with Israel (kinda like the early church)

I actually think it will work b/c of its emphasis on biblical theology. That discipline is on the rise and increasing in popularity and validity (and usefulness). The gospel project is an example of that as SS material. So instead of viewing eschatology in a vacuum, it presents the kingdom...

Can't tell if you are being sarcastic. The authors are big time profs of SBTS. It is only a matter of time until their book influences the next group of pastors coming out of the flagship seminary (can't believe I said that being a SEBTS student ;)). So, yes, it is on the rise in the SBC...

Actually, if you could call Kingdom through Covenant NCT, then I'd say it is on the rise in the SBC.

It's not so much a calvie vs armie debate. It is just that reformed baptist lean that way. Easiest way to summarize NCT is to see it similar to Covenant Theology (at least in its outworkings) without the theological covenants of works and grace (and redemption). That may be overly...

Can you offer Scripture for either view??? Or is this an inference gleaned from other truths?

Before this thread deteriorates into a general Calvie vs. non-Calvie debate (which I am sure it will), what exegetical proof do you offer to make the claim of God's love being equal to all humans or special to the elect???