Stop misrepresenting my view!

[DaChaser1]

Why is it so hard for you to answer a question posed to you 2 days ago while being constantly reminded about it? You make the argument I somehow contributed to my salvation, what this thread is dealing with...answer the question.

You do believe that you made the free will choice to place personal faith in Christ, apart from any work by God other than preaching to you the Gospel?

 

[mandym]

This is probably the number one complaint I hear on this forum. It comes from both sides of the soteriological debate and quite honestly is pretty common in any debate regardless of the subject. It's called a Straw-man fallacy and everyone is probably guilty of it on some level.

Both sides want to feel that their views are understood and correctly represented. No one wants to be mischaracterized or falsely labeled.

Some mistakenly assume that if their views were really understood then there would be perfect agreement, when in reality one may fully understand your views but simply not agree with them. That is okay, this is a debate forum after all.

As you all know, I'm not a Calvinist but was one about a decade ago. I have been railed upon as not understanding Calvinism or as misrepresenting Calvinism numerous times. To those I'd like to say this:

Which form of Calvinism have I misrepresented exactly?

As I've quoted before, Calvinists are seriously divided among themselves and always have been. There is Supralapsarianism vs. Sublapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism. 'The Supralapsarians hold that God decreed the fall of Adam; the Sublapsarians, that he permitted it' (McClintock & Strong). The Calvinists at the Synod of Dort were divided on many issues, including lapsarianism. The Swiss Calvinists who wrote the Helvetic Consensus Formula in 1675 were in conflict with the French Calvinists of the School of Saumur. There are Strict Calvinists and Moderate Calvinists, Hyper and non-Hyper (differing especially on reprobation and the extent of the atonement and whether God loves all men), 5 pointers, 4 pointers, 3 pointers, 2 pointers. In America Calvinists were divided into Old School and the New School. As we have seen, the Calvinists of England were divided in the 19th century.

Whenever, therefore, one tries to state TULIP theology and then refute it, there are Calvinists who will argue with you that you are misrepresenting Calvinism. It is not so much that you are misrepresenting Calvinism, though. You might be quoting directly from various Calvinists or even from Calvin himself. The problem is that you are misrepresenting THEIR Calvinism! There are Calvin Calvinists and Thomas Fuller Calvinists and Arthur W. Pink Calvinists and Presbyterian Calvinists and Baptist Calvinists and many other sorts of Calvinists. Many Calvinists have never read Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion for themselves. They are merely following someone who follows someone who allegedly follows Calvin (who, by his own admission, followed Augustine).

Calvinists believe that they have the right to reject or modify some parts of or conclusions of Calvin. I agree with them 100%, and I say, further, that we also have the right to reject the entire thing if we are convinced that it is not supported by Scripture!

I'm sure there are similar feelings from the other perspective, and that is fine. But, instead of reporting posts that you feel misrepresent your view may I challenge you to engage in a debate over the views by seeking to understand and be understood before labeling and dismissing others as "heretics" or whatever other demeaning term you prefer.

Just my thoughts on the matter...

There are some who want to misrepresent the views of others because they cannot debate the actual merits of the debates.

 

[Winman]

Third, I did respond to Winman, who though disavowing himself of Pelagian belief does not do so either accurately or completely. While he diasvows himself of the TERM he continues to support the doctrine that it represents. That is about as disingenuous as can be.

First, I do not know for certain what Pelagius actuallly believed. It is easy to condemn a dead man who cannot defend himself. From what I have read, twice he was found not guilty of heresy, and the third time when he was not present to defend himself he was.

But if Pelagius believed man can come to God without God's grace, I absolutely disagree with this. Without God's word, none of us would know who the true God is, and we would not know Jesus died for our sins and therefore could not possibly believe on him.

See, I believe God's word is the grace that bringeth salvation that has appeared to all men.

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

I believe the word of God is the grace that has appeared to all men. Unsaved persons have the word of God if they want to read it and study it, or they can go to church and hear the preaching of God''s word. Men are aware of God's word, it has appeared to them.

But only those who listen and learn from the word of God get saved. This is a choice, you can choose to listen and learn, or you can turn away in unbelief, that is your choice.

Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

If you believe in Jesus, you did not believe without the word of God. You weren't walking along one day absolutely ignorant of Jesus and then God suddenly zapped you with this knowledge. No, you had to hear the gospel from either reading the Bible, hearing preaching, or someone witnessing to you. So, if you believed, it was because God sent his word into the world and men to preach it.

This is what you Calvinists cannot seem to grasp. The word of God is powerful and alive. When a man hears the word of God he is enlightened and taught. You would not know how the world was created if the scriptures did not tell you so. You are also convicted by the power of the Holy Spirit to recognize you are a sinner. And you are taught that God loves you and sent Jesus to die for our sins and rise again, and taught that if you believe on him your sins will be forgiven.

For a non-Cal, this is enough. The word of God has the power to teach and convict a man. By this we are enabled to believe. Not that we have to be supernaturally regenerated to believe, but we have to be taught to believe.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Does Paul say we have to be supernaturally regenerated to believe here? No. He says we must hear. That is our part, we must listen and learn with a willing heart. But without God first providing his word, we would have nothing to believe. You cannot possibly believe what you do not know. So, this is what I mean by enabling, that God provides his powerful word to teach and convict us, and by this alone we are enabled to believe.

In my opinion, to believe you must be supernaturally regenerated to believe is to deny the power of God's word.

Jhn 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

We cannot speak to dead people. Well, we can, but they cannot hear us. But when Jesus speaks, the dead can hear it. He can speak to the dead. And if the dead are willing to hear and believe, then they shall be made alive.

So, to say that a person must be made alive to hear is to deny that Jesus has the power to speak to the dead, and when he does speak to the dead they can hear him.

So, I believe Reformed doctrine denies the power of God's word.

2 Tim 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

But I am not Pelagian if Pelagius believed any man could come to God without God's grace.

But if you want to continue to call me a Pelagian, that is OK with me, I am very secure with what I believe. Childish name-calling does not intimidate me at all, knock yourself out.

 

[Luke2427]

Third, I did respond to Winman, who though disavowing himself of Pelagian belief does not do so either accurately or completely. While he diasvows himself of the TERM he continues to support the doctrine that it represents. That is about as disingenuous as can be.

I agree with this 100%. But when I say this kind of thing, I am reprimanded as being a bully or engaging in overkill.

But regardless, I have said the same thing about Winman numerous times. I cannot help but think that Skandelon MUST know that he, AT THE VERY LEAST, has STRONG Pelagian and Open Theist leanings. What shocks me is that Skandelon never corrects him on them.

It makes us wonder...

 

[Luke2427]

Just let me say that ANYTHING a regular Christian posts is deemed 'uneducated', 'ignorant', ans even 'heretic', by the Calvinists on this board.

If Calvinism is so obvious, then why did it take 1500 years for man to figure it out? God was pretty precise about salvation in the Bible, and the need for the sacrifice of the blood of Jesus....but He never said directly that He was only going to save a few that are predestined, and the rest of us are screwed. (He did say that only a few would accept salvation, but He never said He would only accept a few) You guys 'determined' that by 'systematic theology', which means nothing more than applying man's logic to God's Word. News flash here!!!!.....man's logic is the most flawed concept in the universe. You can't apply man's logic to God's Word.

You guys made that up by over studying the Bible, and by a need to feel special. That's right, DoG gives priveledge to certain people with the assumed special preference over everybody else ever created. You believe that God 'sanctioned' your salvation before the beginning of time while simply creating others He intended to send to Hell. This doctrine is very arrogant and selfish.

I know, I know, you are going to say that I don't understand DoG...but I submit to you that it is not my understanding that is lacking, it is instead your acceptance of the fallicay of it that is lacking.

Luke2427 made it clear that anyone that doesn't accept the DoG is ignorant. He said that if we are not Bible scholars that can spend many years figuring it out for ourselves, then we should believe in "historic theology", and "historic this and that"

That is a bunch of bull.

My biggest problem with you Calvinists is that you seem to be more concerned with converting us regular Christians to Calvinism, than you are converting lost souls to Christ.

Take your "gospel" to the lost, and leave us regular Christians alone.

We are already going to heaven

John

I've been gone for months and my name is still defamed and my hard stance for knowing-what-the-heck-you're-talking-about-before-you-talk-about-it is still a thorn in the hearts of people on here.

I'm flattered.:love2:

I hope it lingers on- not for my own sake- but for yours.

I actually hated Calvinists at one point. I hated people who purported that a good seminary education is needful for a minister as a general rule.
But what that festering bitterness did in me was keep these ideas in the forefront of my mind all the time until one day it occurred to me that my bitterness was really toward my own self for not being able to support my backwards beliefs against the strength of the other side's arguments.

On one hand I am ashamed of myself for being a fire breathing, King James Only, Anti-Calvinist, education hating fundamentalist.

On the other, I'm glad for the experience of personally being able to contrast the two worlds.

And I'm glad for the thorn that brought me to the light.

STT, I hope it festers in you until it does to you what it did to me.

I am honored to have been the instrument that placed that in your heart like, to a lesser degree, Stephen's hard words were probably an instrument that helped bring Paul to the truth.

 

[Luke2427]

Why is so hard for some of us her to actually list a formal statement of beliefs, as concerning their own bibical/systematic theology?

The 1689 London Baptist Confession pretty well sums up mine.

Hope that helps.

 

[David Lamb]

Which brings up a point that I have argued before, and was largely ignored.

"Calvinism" is not necesarily the teachings of Calvin. Calvinism is more the teachings of those who came after Calvin, and who formulated the TULIP (Calvin DID NOT write that!) in opposition to the Remonstrants who offered the 5 Articles to counteract the teachings of Calvin that had come to be known as "Calvinism" after Calvin's own time. (snip)

Yes, I agree, and have said so several times on the BB. If "Calvinism" meant "following Calvin in everything he believed and taught", not a single baptist could be a Calvinist, because Calvin believed in, taught and practiced paedobaptism. Here, for instance, is a quote from his commentary on Acts 10.47:

And whereas unlearned men infer thereupon that infants are not to be baptized, it is without all reason. I grant that those who are strangers from the Church must be taught before the sign of adoption be given them; but I say, that the children of the faithful which are born in the Church are from their mother’s womb of the household of thekingdom of God. Yea, the argument which they use preposterously against us do I turn back retort upon themselves; for, seeing that God hath adopted the children of the faithful before they be born, I conclude thereupon that they are not to be defrauded of the outward sign; otherwise men shall presume to take that from them which God hath granted them.
​

I never (or very rarely) refered to myself as a Calvinist before joining the Baptist Board. Here, I found, "Calvinism" appears to be used as the usual term for what are sometimes called "The Doctrines of Grace", "Reformed doctrine" and "monergism". A problem with the use of the term "Calvinism" has been that it can give the impression that those who believe such doctrines are following a mere man (John Calvin) rather than the Saviour. I remember writing something like this a few yedars back. I have just done a sefrach for it, and found it in a thread Quotes on Limited Atonement, where I wrote (in answer to a poster who had repeatedly stated that Calvinists elevate Calvin over Christ):

I can believe in the possibility of someone writing a systematic theology in which the author refuses to give glory to God's name, but instead gives it to Calvin's. However, I have never come across such a work. Of course there are several systematic theologies where the theological standpoint is similar to that of Calvin's, but that is not the same thing as giving glory to Calvin's name instead of God's. Perhaps you could let us know who wrote a systematic theology that glorifies Calvin, at the expense of the glory due to God alone, and give us some actual quotes from it to back up what you are saying.

The Reformers were very clear, that salvation is by Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, in the Scriptures alone, and to the glory of God alone.

I think at least part of the problem is the very name (Calvinism) that is so often given to those beliefs otherwise known as "The Doctrines of Grace" or "Reformed theology". Calvin did not invent what we call "Calvinism". It is just a convenient term for what is called the Doctrines of Grace.

Incidentally, I found the idea of Calvinism/Doctrines of Grace/Reformed theology being something we need to "own up to" rather strange. If all who believed those doctrines kept the fact quiet, this discussion would not be taking place.
​

 

[glfredrick]

I personally think it wise to simply leave PM in PM. And be "cautious" with who you PM not in a "hiding" sense, but in the sense of having a sense of trust and respect, much like people who come to you for pastoral care and counseling.

If you will note my behavior since joining this board some 3000+ posts ago, you will recognize that I have never before made public a PM.

In this case, I felt that the issue was already a public issue and that the conversation behind the scenes needed exposure to the light of day so I posted it -- including my own remarks.

I understand the "private" nature of the PM system. But I also understand that some works are done in darkness on purpose and I resolved long ago in my ministry career to expose to light those who do so intentionally. Pastoral care and the private nature of individual conversations is one thing, public affairs on this board, and the covering of the PM system to take them from the public light is another, and I made the call.

 

[seekingthetruth]

I've been gone for months and my name is still defamed and my hard stance for knowing-what-the-heck-you're-talking-about-before-you-talk-about-it is still a thorn in the hearts of people on here.

I'm flattered.:love2:

I hope it lingers on- not for my own sake- but for yours.

I actually hated Calvinists at one point. I hated people who purported that a good seminary education is needful for a minister as a general rule.
But what that festering bitterness did in me was keep these ideas in the forefront of my mind all the time until one day it occurred to me that my bitterness was really toward my own self for not being able to support my backwards beliefs against the strength of the other side's arguments.

On one hand I am ashamed of myself for being a fire breathing, King James Only, Anti-Calvinist, education hating fundamentalist.

On the other, I'm glad for the experience of personally being able to contrast the two worlds.

And I'm glad for the thorn that brought me to the light.

STT, I hope it festers in you until it does to you what it did to me.

I am honored to have been the instrument that placed that in your heart like, to a lesser degree, Stephen's hard words were probably an instrument that helped bring Paul to the truth.

I didnt defame your name....you did that yourself

John

 

[preacher4truth]

If you will note my behavior since joining this board some 3000+ posts ago, you will recognize that I have never before made public a PM.

In this case, I felt that the issue was already a public issue and that the conversation behind the scenes needed exposure to the light of day so I posted it -- including my own remarks.

I understand the "private" nature of the PM system. But I also understand that some works are done in darkness on purpose and I resolved long ago in my ministry career to expose to light those who do so intentionally. Pastoral care and the private nature of individual conversations is one thing, public affairs on this board, and the covering of the PM system to take them from the public light is another, and I made the call.

Spot on. Keeps people from their snide comments behind the scenes. I've employed this exposing a couple who practice these tactics, and it's been awful quiet since, I haven't heard a peep.

 

[quantumfaith]

I agree with this 100%. But when I say this kind of thing, I am reprimanded as being a bully or engaging in overkill.

But regardless, I have said the same thing about Winman numerous times. I cannot help but think that Skandelon MUST know that he, AT THE VERY LEAST, has STRONG Pelagian and Open Theist leanings. What shocks me is that Skandelon never corrects him on them.

It makes us wonder...

Here is one list of essential tenets of Open Theism:
1. God's greatest attribute is love.
This attribute of God is often elevated above His other attributes and used to interpret God in such a way as to be a cosmic gentleman who wants all to be saved, mourns over their loss.

2. Man's free will is truly free in the libertarian sense.
Man's free will is not restricted by his sinful nature but is equally able to make choices between different options.By contrast, compatibilist free will states that a person is restricted and affected by his nature and that his nature not only affects his free will choices, but also limits his ability to choose equally among different options.

3. God does not know the future.
This is either because God cannot know the future because it does not exist, or...It is because God chooses to not know the future even though it can be known.

4. God takes risks.
Because God does not know the future exhaustively, He must take risks with people whose future free will choices are unknowable.

5. God learns.
Because God does not know the future exhaustively, He learns as the realities of the future occur.

6. God makes mistakes.

Because God does not know all things and because He is dealing with free will creatures (whose future choices He does not know), God can make mistakes in dealing with people. Therefore, God would change His plans accordingly.

7. God changes His mind.
God can change His mind on issues depending on what He learns and what He discovers people do. Usually, God's change of mind is due to Him being surprised by something for which He didn't plan or expect.

You may of course delete or add to this list, however I see only 1 or 2 items that you even POSSIBLY in some remote way lay at the feet of Skandelon. Your analysis here, at least according to this definition, is off base.

 

[webdog]

You do believe that you made the free will choice to place personal faith in Christ, apart from any work by God other than preaching to you the Gospel?

Why do you keep asking ME questions?!? ANSWER THE QUESTION POSED TO YOU

 

[DaChaser1]

Yes, I agree, and have said so several times on the BB. If "Calvinism" meant "following Calvin in everything he believed and taught", not a single baptist could be a Calvinist, because Calvin believed in, taught and practiced paedobaptism. Here, for instance, is a quote from his commentary on Acts 10.47:

And whereas unlearned men infer thereupon that infants are not to be baptized, it is without all reason. I grant that those who are strangers from the Church must be taught before the sign of adoption be given them; but I say, that the children of the faithful which are born in the Church are from their mother’s womb of the household of thekingdom of God. Yea, the argument which they use preposterously against us do I turn back retort upon themselves; for, seeing that God hath adopted the children of the faithful before they be born, I conclude thereupon that they are not to be defrauded of the outward sign; otherwise men shall presume to take that from them which God hath granted them.
​

I never (or very rarely) refered to myself as a Calvinist before joining the Baptist Board. Here, I found, "Calvinism" appears to be used as the usual term for what are sometimes called "The Doctrines of Grace", "Reformed doctrine" and "monergism". A problem with the use of the term "Calvinism" has been that it can give the impression that those who believe such doctrines are following a mere man (John Calvin) rather than the Saviour. I remember writing something like this a few yedars back. I have just done a sefrach for it, and found it in a thread Quotes on Limited Atonement, where I wrote (in answer to a poster who had repeatedly stated that Calvinists elevate Calvin over Christ):

I can believe in the possibility of someone writing a systematic theology in which the author refuses to give glory to God's name, but instead gives it to Calvin's. However, I have never come across such a work. Of course there are several systematic theologies where the theological standpoint is similar to that of Calvin's, but that is not the same thing as giving glory to Calvin's name instead of God's. Perhaps you could let us know who wrote a systematic theology that glorifies Calvin, at the expense of the glory due to God alone, and give us some actual quotes from it to back up what you are saying.

The Reformers were very clear, that salvation is by Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, in the Scriptures alone, and to the glory of God alone.

I think at least part of the problem is the very name (Calvinism) that is so often given to those beliefs otherwise known as "The Doctrines of Grace" or "Reformed theology". Calvin did not invent what we call "Calvinism". It is just a convenient term for what is called the Doctrines of Grace.

Incidentally, I found the idea of Calvinism/Doctrines of Grace/Reformed theology being something we need to "own up to" rather strange. If all who believed those doctrines kept the fact quiet, this discussion would not be taking place.
​

Thing a problem as regarding the term "Calvinism" is that some here view that as I do, in regards to mainly expressing Sotierology model, the DoG...

reformed bethren tend to see it including ALL aspects of the theology, salvation just a part of it!

 

[DaChaser1]

Here is one list of essential tenets of Open Theism:
1. God's greatest attribute is love.
This attribute of God is often elevated above His other attributes and used to interpret God in such a way as to be a cosmic gentleman who wants all to be saved, mourns over their loss.

2. Man's free will is truly free in the libertarian sense.
Man's free will is not restricted by his sinful nature but is equally able to make choices between different options.By contrast, compatibilist free will states that a person is restricted and affected by his nature and that his nature not only affects his free will choices, but also limits his ability to choose equally among different options.

3. God does not know the future.
This is either because God cannot know the future because it does not exist, or...It is because God chooses to not know the future even though it can be known.

4. God takes risks.
Because God does not know the future exhaustively, He must take risks with people whose future free will choices are unknowable.

5. God learns.
Because God does not know the future exhaustively, He learns as the realities of the future occur.

6. God makes mistakes.

Because God does not know all things and because He is dealing with free will creatures (whose future choices He does not know), God can make mistakes in dealing with people. Therefore, God would change His plans accordingly.

7. God changes His mind.
God can change His mind on issues depending on what He learns and what He discovers people do. Usually, God's change of mind is due to Him being surprised by something for which He didn't plan or expect.

You may of course delete or add to this list, however I see only 1 or 2 items that you even POSSIBLY in some remote way lay at the feet of Skandelon. Your analysis here, at least according to this definition, is off base.

Open theism God might be the God of the philoophers, but is NOT the God of the Bible!

 

[Amy.G]

Open theism God might be the God of the philoophers, but is NOT the God of the Bible!

philoophers???? New cult? :laugh:

 

[glfredrick]

Thing a problem as regarding the term "Calvinism" is that some here view that as I do, in regards to mainly expressing Sotierology model, the DoG...

reformed bethren tend to see it including ALL aspects of the theology, salvation just a part of it!

Some, perhaps, but typically not Baptists who tend to see "Calvinism" primarily as a framework for understanding soteriology.

 

[glfredrick]

Open theism God might be the God of the philoophers, but is NOT the God of the Bible!

We should be careful when speaking about philosophers, as we are all one at one time or another. Philosophy is the endeavor by which one searches for "wisdom" (sophia) and we all do that. The way some see or use the term points more to a "secular" view of that wisdom instead of a view that suggests that our wisdom stems from the revelation of God, but that view that holds that wisdom stems from God does not have to be dismissed in order to do philosophy, nor are philosophers who do not even understand or regard God disqualified in their search, for they merely search according to the "other" revelation of God -- His creation (a general revelation versus the more "specific" revelation of His Word).

In any case, some -- mostly called "liberals" in that their view of Scripture stems from their worldview, which includes a very human understanding above the self-revelation of God -- see that the only way God can really be pleasing to humans who do not regard Him in the same light as the self-revelation of His Word, where He is held to be "all knowing" (etc.), is that God must be limited. And so they present a theological doctrine that suggests just that -- that God is most human-like in His limitations -- He cannot see into the future (or if He can, not in a way where He can see specific ACTIONS of free individuals, those not happening until a "choice" is made) nor can He divinely guide free humans into those actions. So, he (I find it difficult to even capitalize pronouns for God when having this discussion as I do not see that those holding the open theism view of God truly speak about GOD) must observe, learn, take chances, and hope for the best.

A deficient and weak view of God to be sure. A friend of mine penned a couple of books on the subject that are worth reading. Check out Bruce Ware on any Christian book seller's list.

 

[quantumfaith]

Open theism God might be the God of the philoophers, but is NOT the God of the Bible!

And......?

I guess I don't understand your point.

 

[DaChaser1]

We should be careful when speaking about philosophers, as we are all one at one time or another. Philosophy is the endeavor by which one searches for "wisdom" (sophia) and we all do that. The way some see or use the term points more to a "secular" view of that wisdom instead of a view that suggests that our wisdom stems from the revelation of God, but that view that holds that wisdom stems from God does not have to be dismissed in order to do philosophy, nor are philosophers who do not even understand or regard God disqualified in their search, for they merely search according to the "other" revelation of God -- His creation (a general revelation versus the more "specific" revelation of His Word).

In any case, some -- mostly called "liberals" in that their view of Scripture stems from their worldview, which includes a very human understanding above the self-revelation of God -- see that the only way God can really be pleasing to humans who do not regard Him in the same light as the self-revelation of His Word, where He is held to be "all knowing" (etc.), is that God must be limited. And so they present a theological doctrine that suggests just that -- that God is most human-like in His limitations -- He cannot see into the future (or if He can, not in a way where He can see specific ACTIONS of free individuals, those not happening until a "choice" is made) nor can He divinely guide free humans into those actions. So, he (I find it difficult to even capitalize pronouns for God when having this discussion as I do not see that those holding the open theism view of God truly speak about GOD) must observe, learn, take chances, and hope for the best.

A deficient and weak view of God to be sure. A friend of mine penned a couple of books on the subject that are worth reading. Check out Bruce Ware on any Christian book seller's list.

Thanks for readdressing this!

Would agree that Christian Philosophy as an approach to understanding/speculate on the person/nature of God if valid, as long as it uses the scriptures as ultimate source of wisdom in this area...

I see Open theism as being more the vain man centered musings paul warns us against!

 

[DaChaser1]

And......?

I guess I don't understand your point.

just following up your point, that God of open Theism NOT One have in the Bible!

Your outlined points pretty much confirms that!