 |
| 
Calvin_and_Hops
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/13/2004 6:05 PM (GMT -6) |   | ARTICLE: Possibility and Actuality:
The Doctrine of Creation and Its Implications for Divine Omniscience
by Amos Yong, Assistant Professor of Theology, Bethel College, St. Paul, MN
david.snu.edu/~brint.fs/wpsjnl/Yong01.htm
(Contains contrasting versions of defining the Creation. Contrasts "creation ex nihilo" with a view of Boyd termed "creatio ex mente Dei".)
Anyone know what "creatio ex mente Dei" is?
Hmmmm..........
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Calvin_and_Hops
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/16/2004 1:09 AM (GMT -6) | | | I don't feel comfortable concluding that is all it is. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/16/2004 6:05 AM (GMT -6) | | | If God thought about what he was going to create BEFORE he created it, that would imply duration (time) and God would be temporal at that time. | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/16/2004 8:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
If God thought about what he was going to create BEFORE he created it, that would imply duration (time) and God would be temporal at that time.
I discovered something very interesting as I was reading through one of the worst Calvinist writings I have accessed so far. The title of the book is The Sovereignty of God by A. W. Pink. I ran accross something he wrote in chapter two that was actually, well, consistent with a view of God not being in some "eternal now" mode:
In the great expanse of eternity, which stretches behind Ge 1:1, the universe was unborn and creation existed only in the mind of the great Creator. In his sovereign majesty God dwelt all alone. We refer to that far distant period before the heavens and the earth were created. There were then no angels to hymn God's praises, no creatures to occupy his notice, no rebels to be brought into subjection. The great God was all alone amid the awful silence of his own vast universe. But even at that time, if time it could be called, God was sovereign. He might create or not create according to his own good pleasure. He might create this way or that way; He might create one world or one million worlds, and who was there to resist his will? He might call into existence a million different creatures and place them on absolute equality, endowing them with the same faculties and placing them in the same environment; or, he might create a million creatures each differing from others, and possessing nothing in common save their creaturehood, and who was there to challenge his right?
I am sure that in his other writings, Pink advocates a "God outside of time". This shows a real inconsistency among Evangelicals because they know that they have to place God in a period in which He actually had to give some thought to creation BEFORE He created.
I just found it very interesting.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/16/2004 9:21 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Calvin_and_Hops
I don't feel comfortable concluding that is all it is.
Okay, what do you think it means? | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/16/2004 10:55 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
(From)The Sovereignty of God by A. W. Pink. "...In his sovereign majesty God dwelt all alone. . . . The great God was all alone amid the awful silence of his own vast universe.
Two things are very bothersome, for me, in the above:
1. Where's the Trinity? (Someone give me an "Amen!") Where's the "perichoretic love?"
2. Speaks of a preexistent universe before Creation. What's that about?
Enough of that. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/16/2004 11:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Echo: one would assume since Pink believed in the Trinity that is
what he means by God ( ). Love? Since love was not the subject Pink seemed to be discussing, why would he talk about it? Preexistant universe before creation? Sounds like Pink needed a place to put God to describe him. Ain't nothin' wrong with 'hat! ( ) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/16/2004 11:10 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm wondering if we could get God to give us the date and time of the very first time He created anything. Before that He would have just "sat" there. No time taking place, of course--no thoughts in God's mind and no relationship, of any type, among the members of the Trinity either, because that would mean there'd be duration. And, well ...
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/16/2004 2:08 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Echo: one would assume since Pink believed in the Trinity that is what he means by God ().
E: You are welcomed to that view, feelinahole. But the expression still shocks me a bit. It just seems that the perichoresis of the Trinity is not an "alone" kind of thing. For us, the most alone there can be is sin. Sin's issolation and fragmentation are "hell." The greatest punishment for the devil will be his own powerlessness allthewhile wanting to be god of everything. "Yertle the Turtle" repeated. But since our own greatest possible glory is to "dwell in the shaddow of the Most High," and love each other as the Father, Son and Spirit do--in keeping with Christ's revelatory command--it seems, at least, ILLITERATE of the nature of Christianity to ever make such a remark.
That's all.
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Since love was not the subject Pink seemed to be discussing, why would he talk about it?
But God IS Love. That WAS his subject.......
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Preexistant universe before creation? Sounds like Pink needed a place to put God to describe him.
Failing to describe (I presume too much of the full page, not to mention the book. I'm just tee-ing off over a passage -- and I KNOW THAT  ) God in the "place" of his perichoresis, third-best is all he's got.
Didn't God ask "Where are you?" Love IS a place!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/16/2004 2:27 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
I'm wondering if we could get God to give us the date and time of the very first time He created anything. Before that He would have just "sat" there. No time taking place, of course--no thoughts in God's mind and no relationship, of any type, among the members of the Trinity either, because that would mean there'd be duration. And, well ...
Starkman
Yo, Starkman.
So, do you hold more strongly to the Social Theory of the Trinity than the article by the Bethel College professor says that Cr. Boyd does? Do you? (I'd like to hear more from you on that.)
I mentioned in my post the word "perichoresis." (They tell me that's Greek. All I know is 'Opah!') A good English translation is "coinherence." That's sharing. It is not tossing-back-and-forth. "Tossing back and forth" would be Co-herence, I suppose. This is co-IN-herence. Its participating in what is within the other(s).
Gregory of Nyssa wrote an essay: On "Not Three Gods"
www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-05/Npnf2-05-28.htm#P2559_1755103
In it one can clearly see suppression of the misconception that the Trinity is three God's exchanging in socially "tight" or "buddy-buddy" relationship. For its author the Father is the source, and the Son and Spirit share in all that the Father is, in ways that are uniquely distinct to themselves; with the result that the Son is not the Father nor the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Son nor the Father; and the Father is neither the Son nor the Spirit. Yet there is one God and not three!
I THINK, that the scene you dramatically set above requires this "Social Theory of the Trinity." So I'd like to hear more from you on YOUR view.
But as to the article that perhaps not all of us have read (?) the author says of Dr. Boyd. (Where is he?) that:
quote:
<footnote 50>
. . . It may be unfair to label Boyd as a social trinitarian even if he does talk of “God’s internal triune sociality” (Trinity and Process, 382). Perhaps it is preferable to consider him a relational theist. This category of would certainly be much more inclusive than that of either social trinitarianism or open theism, as Ted Peters’ wide-ranging discussion—including individuals like Barth, Claude Welch, Jüngel, Rahner, Moltmann, Boff, Bracken, LaCugna, Jensen and Pannenberg—shows. Peters’ distinguishes relational trinitarianism from social trinitarianism by insisting on the temporalistic and eschatological features of the former over and against the pluralistic and communitarian emphases of the latter (see his God as Trinity: Relationality and Temporality in Divine Life [Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993], 184-86). Boyd, as all open theists, would agree on relationality as central to the divine life.
Whatever the possition that Cr. Boyd does hold, the Bethel author indicates above that "relationality" -- at least for his idea of Boyd -- holds "relationality as central."
I didn't see that in your drama above, Starkman.
(You and Pink can get together for coffee?) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/16/2004 2:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Didn't you guys click the link? 
Here's something: GREG BOYD AND JONATHAN EDWARDS.
quote:
<footnote 48>
Boyds develops this trinitarian vision in Trinity and Process, 374-400, drawing in part on Jonathan Edwards’ doctrine of intra-trinitarian dispositions; on Edwards, see Sang-hyun Lee, The Philosophical Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), esp. 48-51 and 175-210, for an exposition.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/17/2004 5:52 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
I discovered something very interesting as I was reading through one of the worst Calvinist writings I have accessed so far. The title of the book is The Sovereignty of God by A. W. Pink.
In the great expanse of eternity, which stretches behind Ge 1:1, the universe was unborn and creation existed only in the mind of the great Creator. In his sovereign majesty God dwelt all alone. We refer to that far distant period before the heavens and the earth were created. There were then no angels to hymn God's praises, no creatures to occupy his notice, no rebels to be brought into subjection.
Thanks, VW. Interesting.
An Open Theist would probably say, "no people to love".
Pink says, "no rebels to be brought into subjection"!!!!
"No creatures to occupy his notice"!!!!!
(Pink to wife, "You occupy my notice, your subjection is always on my mind.") 
That's one of the big differences between the two views.
I wonder if it's because it's come from a medieval mindset, where thousands of little fiefdoms existed everywhere and the man with the most power, was the one who, in battle, ruthlessly controlled and united the most fiefdoms. So sovereignty is seen as raw, brute force.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/17/2004 5:56 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
Pink was indeed a TRINITARIAN.
I know that, and don't doubt it. But many Calvinists are WEAK on the Trinity. I've been going to Calvinist churches since 1981. They are desparately interested in recovering what their Scholaticism (from Beza on) did to their sense of the Trinity. They are WEAK in the tradition that everything that God does is the work fo the whole Trinity. They have, instead, made popular the notion that the Fahter does some things, the Son others, and the Spirit still others. (As is plain in the Heidelberg Confession (1563).
Pinkis Trinitarian. But that does not mean that he has a good understanding or presentation of the Trinity. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/17/2004 6:06 AM (GMT -6) | | I appreciate Dr. Yong's scholarship--his attitude making the his scholarship that much more interesting. He is necessarily object and clearly deliniates between his subjectivism and scholarship. Nice work, and relaxing to read.
A comment with regard to an Open View of possibilities
A very slight editorial modification of something I wrote in the "Open view inconsistency?" thread in the Raging Debate category:
quote:
Within the Open View, all possibilities God is supposed to know might become blurred when considering the dymanics of, say, the human factor; it is hard to find only specific choices or possibilies in a continually revolving or shape-shifting mass (viz., the constant mobility of the mind). In other words, God's knowledge of the possibilities in a situation like this would be that God knows the possibilities are limitless. What He cannot know, then, in this situation is a finite amount of possibilities.
What this means is that if the dynamics of the human element, for example, are, in fact, limitless, then God does not know all of the possibilities and choices of mankind as finite. He only knows that they are not finite, and He will discover the shape-shift as it takes place. This does not put God in a disadvantage, even though this limitless possibility example is unlike the chess game where there is a finite amount of moves. God still knows all--He knows when something has or does not have limitless possibilities. Further, He is all-powerful--He is able to deal with anything that comes His way. He is never caught off guard. In that He knows the possibilities are limitless, He is prepared and is above the effects of all enacted possibilities and choices.
Is it possible that there are situations prohibiting God from knowing the possiblities as finite--God only knows the possibilities as infinite? At the moment, in view of what I've written above, I think it's possible.
On Social Trinitiarianism
Let us make man in Our image.
Father, glorify me with the glory I had with you before the world was.
The first statement could be argued for a post-created order (angels already having been in existence), but the second statement cannot; the glory that was Jesus' before the world was is an affiliation within the eternal. While on earth Jesus conversed (socially) with the Father. Though Jesus was in a body, would this create a difference as to his relationship with the father before the incarnation? Certainly He was no less capable to converse with the the Father in eternity as He did while on earth. Further, if we are to define God as three persons then we are already close to a socially expressing concept of the Trinity. However ...
We have very little knowledge from Scripture about God's manners prior to the creation. Everything we have today (from our own creation) is couched in a different framework than how God functions in eternity, either before or after this creation (including angels). Other than the Royal Signature "Let Us" statement in Genesis, I cannot, off the top of my head, think of any passages in Scripture that express something about the communicative manner among the persons of the Trinity prior to anything of creation as we know it or know about it.
Personally, I do not think that there are three separate persons sitting next to each other (as in the drama I noted in my previous post). I don't think the Son takes off for a while, comes back and asks how the Father's doing or where the Spirit is. God is one. He is so One that I believe in the realm where God is and exists, He is not divided by His personage. That only comes about as necessary, as in, say, the incarnation. Even then, the understanding is "I and the Father are One." Whatever division exists among the personages of the Trinity, I do not think it is quite as divisible to conclude the concept of a social Trinity.
Echo quoted Nyssa: "For its author the Father is the source, and the Son and Spirit share in all that the Father is, in ways that are uniquely distinct to themselves ...." Either God as One is eternal or He is not. There is no need, as EO theology holds (PoW will disagree with me here, won't you, PoW!), to addendum the Trinity with garnishment flavoring the Father as the eternal source, origin, sustainer or anything like that. All persons are the One God. All persons are eternal. There has never been a time when they have all not been. To color this concept with anything that creates internal contradiction (e.g., the Son proceeds from the Father) is to belie the meaning of the word eternal, particularly in view of the God.
Well, that's my two cents!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/17/2004 8:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Looking at Starkman's comments:
quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
On Social Trinitiarianism
(re-arranged)
The first statement -- Let us make man in Our image -- could be argued for a post-created order (angels already having been in existence).
But the second statement -- Father, glorify me with the glory I had with you before the world was -- cannot be argued for a post-created order.
Starkman raises this, I guess, because this is what the thread is asking about. (Personally I dismiss this notion of pre-existence as pagan--as the Church did in its Ecumenical Council.)
But as to whether one should see angels already having been in existence from the text "Let us" I vote no. I take the "US" to refer to the Triune God -- the traditional interpretation.
quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
the glory that was Jesus' before the world was is an affiliation within the eternal.
Starkman, sorry. I don't know what you mean by that.
quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
While on earth Jesus conversed (socially) with the Father. Though Jesus was in a body, would this create a difference as to his relationship with the father before the incarnation? Certainly He was no less capable to converse with the Father in eternity as He did while on earth.
So far I say "Preach, brother.
quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
Further, if we are to define God as three persons then we are already close to a socially expressing concept of the Trinity. However ...
We have very little knowledge from Scripture about God's manners prior to the creation. Everything we have today (from our own creation) is couched in a different framework than how God functions in eternity, either before or after this creation (including angels).
Good caution.
quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
Other than the Royal Signature "Let Us" statement in Genesis, I cannot, off the top of my head, think of any passages in Scripture that express something about the communicative manner among the persons of the Trinity prior to anything of creation as we know it or know about it.
Even there, it is revelation -- which is what God wants to TELL us about himself in order to shape the relationship between God and man. It's not "reporting" in the electronic-journalism mode of expectations.
quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
Personally, I do not think that there are three separate persons sitting next to each other (as in the drama I noted in my previous post). I don't think the Son takes off for a while, comes back and asks how the Father's doing or where the Spirit is. God is one. He is so One that I believe in the realm where God is and exists, He is not divided by His personage.
We have to strain. I interpret Starkman's use of "realm" to be abandoning hope of an ideal term and just settling on something -- as we must.
quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
That only comes about as necessary, as in, say, the incarnation. Even then, the understanding is "I and the Father are One." Whatever division exists among the personages of the Trinity, I do not think it is quite as divisible to conclude the concept of a social Trinity.
Starkman can respond to me, here, if he wishes. I like what he writes, about the social Trinity not saying things right. I'd "clean up" his remarks about "dividing in Personage" that "comes about as necessary. . .the incarnation." I don't think Starkman means to say that.
The Son has the same relationship to the Father before the incarnation, during his life on earth, and continuing now as Christ. But what IS different is that the Son became Emmanuel (God with us), and the The-anthropos (God-man). The Son changed in respect to "holding our nature close to himself." Yet, unequivocally, He did not change with regard to his divinity! Nor did the Trinity change!
quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
Echo quoted Nyssa: "For its author the Father is the source, and the Son and Spirit share in all that the Father is, in ways that are uniquely distinct to themselves ...." Either God as One is eternal or He is not.
Starkman, have you read ALL that Nyssa has to say in that essay? I'm doubting that you have spent enough hours with some important material.
Nothing in EO writing is an attempt to "define" God. Categorically it intends not to do what can't be done; and what would be delusional to attempt.
Along with the piece you quote, this must also be said: that there never has been a time that the Father was without the Son...without the Spirit. The two balance each other -- or more adeptly, they each book-end the truth, protecting us by drawing boundaries beyond which we must not wander; but they do not define.
quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
There is no need, as EO theology holds (PoW will disagree with me here, won't you, PoW!), to addendum the Trinity with garnishment flavoring the Father as the eternal source, origin, sustainer or anything like that.
Why I have to view this portion as non-sense, Starkman, is that the "Son" is Son and the "Father" is Father. That's clear to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
... To color this concept with anything that creates internal contradiction (e.g., the Son proceeds from the Father)
The Son is begotten. The Spirit proceeds. SCRIPTURE is the source of that revelation. The Church Fathers stopped short of trying to even define what those two mean. We are not capable of knowing much about the distinction between the two. But God has revealed that there is a difference. And it is God's will to reveal that to us. So we faithfully accept the canon of Scripture.
quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
All persons are the One God. All persons are eternal. There has never been a time when they have all not been.
Coincidental-Eternality of three persons does not stack up to "One God." Does it? That's three God's the "same age." Otherwise, can you explain what you are saying?
quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
To color this concept with anything that creates internal contradiction (e.g., the Son proceeds from the Father) is to belie the meaning of the word eternal, particularly in view of the God.
Again, the Son is "eternally begotten of the Father." "Word of the Father" is how the Christmas hymn "O Come All Ye Faithful" puts it -- that's the same thing.
Why do you want, seemingly, to undo and replace what the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit has been saying for over nineteen-hundred years? (And at what authority, permission, qualification...?)
.
Maybe THIS is central to your thoughts. If so, can you explain?
quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
...the meaning of the word eternal, particularly in view of the God.
What's THAT mean. Is God-ness defined by eternality. The Person by an attribute, that--perhaps--only has meaning when contrasted to creatures?
Can you make this seem less odd?
Well,
Thank you very much for your responses and thoughts, Starkman.
(And make available to yourself the LINK to Gregory of Nyssa. When I read I like to try and notice the background issues that his writings are hoping to address.)
Peace! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Calvin_and_Hops
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/17/2004 8:27 AM (GMT -6) | | So, Pink and Pinnock are cousins? Classical and OpenView commonly rooted.
Is that what I'm seeing here?
(Like a soap opera!) | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/17/2004 10:21 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
I discovered something very interesting as I was reading through one of the worst Calvinist writings I have accessed so far. The title of the book is The Sovereignty of God by A. W. Pink.
In the great expanse of eternity, which stretches behind Ge 1:1, the universe was unborn and creation existed only in the mind of the great Creator. In his sovereign majesty God dwelt all alone. We refer to that far distant period before the heavens and the earth were created. There were then no angels to hymn God's praises, no creatures to occupy his notice, no rebels to be brought into subjection.
Thanks, VW. Interesting.
An Open Theist would probably say, "no people to love".
Pink says, "no rebels to be brought into subjection"!!!!
"No creatures to occupy his notice"!!!!!
(Pink to wife, "You occupy my notice, your subjection is always on my mind.")
That's one of the big differences between the two views.
I wonder if it's because it's come from a medieval mindset, where thousands of little fiefdoms existed everywhere and the man with the most power, was the one who, in battle, ruthlessly controlled and united the most fiefdoms. So sovereignty is seen as raw, brute force.
I hear ya' Laika
I read in a book by Samuel Fisk (DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN FREEDOM, p.24) where A. C. Gaebelein broke fellowship with Pink for nearly the same reason you give:
"Mr. Pink used to be a contributor to our magazine. His articles on GLEANINGS IN GENESIS are good, and we printed them in book form. But when he began to teach his frightful doctrines which make the God of love a monster we broke fellowship with him. The book you read is totally unscriptural, It is akin to blasphemy. It presents God as a being of injustice and maligns His holy character. The book denies that our blessed Lord died for the ungodly. According to Pink's perversions He died for the elect only. You are not the only who has been led into darkness by this book. Whoever the publisher is and whoever stands behind the circulation of such a monstrous thing has a grave responsibility. It is just this kind of teaching that makes atheists."
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/17/2004 10:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by echo
quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
Pink was indeed a TRINITARIAN.
I know that, and don't doubt it. But many Calvinists are WEAK on the Trinity. I've been going to Calvinist churches since 1981. They are desparately interested in recovering what their Scholaticism (from Beza on) did to their sense of the Trinity. They are WEAK in the tradition that everything that God does is the work fo the whole Trinity. They have, instead, made popular the notion that the Fahter does some things, the Son others, and the Spirit still others. (As is plain in the Heidelberg Confession (1563).
Pinkis Trinitarian. But that does not mean that he has a good understanding or presentation of the Trinity.
You might be right Echo. I never looked into that aspect of Calvinism before.
Would you believe that there are actually Oneness Pentecostals out there who are Calvinists? Surprised me when I first found out.
Anyway, I just found it interesting that Pink, a staunch, near hyper-cal would advocate God as experiencing, well, TIME!
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/17/2004 12:11 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
where A. C. Gaebelein broke fellowship with Pink for nearly the same reason you give:
Having TAUGHT at the school A.C.G.'s dad founded -- that is interesting to me! | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/17/2004 12:14 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
Anyway, I just found it interesting that Pink, a staunch, near hyper-cal would advocate God as experiencing, well, TIME!
That's two reasons right there for me to stay away from him: mechanizing salvation (hyper-calvinism), and locking God inside time. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/17/2004 1:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Who does have a good understanding of the Trinity?
Echo: whether or not "love is a place," God is Spirit," and, as such, does not occupy space. | | Back to Top | | |
| 67 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:58 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|