Search results

But that isn't the only point you hold to within Open Theism. You also have argued that God doesn't have exhaustive knowledge and that is the point most people equate with the Openness view with which they take the most issue. Do you honestly think you fully understand the knowledge of God and...

"If God is not omniscient then He is not God." "The Sovereignty of God is the most important aspect of who He is." Statements like these are often heard on sites like this, but rarely do you here people arguing in defense of God's holiness even though it is the most used divine attribute in...

Amy, while there are various views among those who hold to 'reformed' theology I believe most would agree a common belief in soteriology (doctrine of salvation) as being 'Calvinistic,' or 'Augustinian.' For example, there are Presbys, Baptists and Lutherans who all would consider themselves...

Mormons affirm the doctrine baptism by immersion, so should we claim that we are all Mormans to a limited degree? This is an attempt on your part to blur the lines of distinction between orthodox Baptist believes regarding God's full and complete knowledge of all things and your Openists views...

Sorry, guys. I hate closing threads, I really do, but that is part of my job. :( Feel free to start a new one so I can find out if Van has an answer to the question I've posed. :)

Van, 1. The POINT of Open Theism I'm addressing is regarding God's knowledge of all things, NOT his predestination of sin. You affirm Open Theism's belief that God is not all knowing, I do not. We agree that God doesn't predetermine sin, but that is not uniquely 'Openistic.' 2. We both...

We are not debating the claims of the gospel, we are debating infinite matters regarding the cause/effect relationship between God's complete knowledge, man's freedom and creation. Things which are mysterious indeed. Obviously many doctrinal views share some common grounds Van. We all agree...

As have I, but I'm not going to continue to repost them in defense of Baptist Theology on a board where ONLY those who accept Baptist theology are supposed to be participating. Read the Board's Statement of Faith. You are clearly in opposition to it so please take this discussion elsewhere...

EW&F felt this last comment was unfair and so I'll clarify by saying that I realize HE would never characterize humans in this fashion, but neither should I be characterized as a 'humanist.' Both were 'cheap shots' and we should refrain from overstating the other's view to make it appear they...

This thread has derailed into just a personal argument.... start over if you want, but stick to the topic, not each other please.

Sorry, this thread is way beyond the limit... feel free to start a new one. Here I'll repost your last post so you have the last word and won't accuse me of anything...

Humanism? Really? I guess it appears that way to a person who thinks humans are no more than rocks made to cry out, in pain or in worship by their creator. :(

You have a very narrow view of Christian history brother. How about instead of playing the label and dismiss game you actually deal with the scripture and their ACTUAL historical context, rather than the context of your narrow reformed worldview? You may learn a new perspective. :)

The part where you label it 'new.' I had to look up NPP. I'd never heard of it before you all brought it up. There is nothing NEW about it. It's OLDER, scholastically speaking, than the basis on which your system rests.

Just so those who are reading along are aware. This so called "New Perspective on Paul" (NPP) is actually just an attempt on the part of some scholars to lift Paul's letters out of the Calvinistic/Reformed framework and interpret them based more on the original language/intent of the...

Prove it. Once again you make an unfounded accusation. I assure you that my views are older and more established than yours. Quote me and then make an actual argument. Just once... Just because some author or other 'scholar' who is quoted here or who says some point which we have in...

No, I explained the reasons I believe they make errors in their interpretations. I gave specifics... ??? Not sure what you mean by this...my view is nothing unorthodox or modern.

:laugh: This is one of the major issues of this debate. Cals seem to forget that the NT wasn't written 1000 years AFTER Christ came to earth, the Holy Spirit came down like fire, the Gospel was sent to be proclaimed into all the world by divinely appointed apostles and the church was...

You deny that some Cals use versus such as John 15:16, Rom. 9, Mark 4, Matt. 13, John 6, Eph 1 etc to support their soteriological views? These 3 summary statements simply cover the major common areas of error in how they view those passages. What specifically do you need cleared up about that?

They've been quoted ad nauseum and we both know you are aware of them, you just interpret them to mean that "he knows all that is possible to know" and then proceed to decide what is possible to know. Is it 'logically' possible under your finite, deterministic linear worldview for a divine...