 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 4:47 AM (GMT -6) |   | Message Go To Page 2 >>
TGB
12/16/00 10:34 AM
Left in the Dust
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends-
I stepped away from my computer for a day to attend to my life outside this forum. When I returned...Whoah! Posts galore! I tried to follow the philosophical debate between Greg and Mephi2k and found myself reading them over and over again. I remember the feeling I had when first I dove into Arabic grammar. I felt left in the dust. But I now preach, teach, AND dream in Arabic, so maybe there's hope that I'll one day actually understand what you guys are talking about.
But while I'm at it, let me ask this question (and in so doing reveal what a simpleton I am). Isn't it far more likely that God intended people of average intelligence to form an accurate view of him without having to become trained philosophers?
In the meantime, can somebody quickly answer me something:
Why does exhaustive foreknowledge of Classical Theism destroy free will? Set it up for me in logical steps. Why cannot our choices be free (of the libertarian sort) AND God know ahead of time what those choices will be? Why cannot we have the best of both?
Pretty stupid eh?
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Mephi2K
12/16/00 12:17 PM
Never Left Behind, My Friend
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Tom,
Man, I'm really sorry about the complexity of some of the posts you see here, especially those between Dr. Boyd and me. I would make it simpler if I could, believe me. But you said something really interesting:
"Isn't it far more likely that God intended people of average intelligence to form an accurate view of him without having to become trained philosophers?"
Mephi:
One day, a theologian and seminary professor once spoke something to his class along these lines: "There are many people like you who have a better CONCEPTION of God, but never forget that there are some simple saints out their who often have a better PERCEPTION of God than you may." I find this to be true. Bottom line: Our theologians, scholars, biblicists usually aren't the ones interceding for the pains, hurts, and concerns of the world. It's the "simple saints" who just know that they love Jesus and they believe He is the answer for the world. We have some seminary graduates who couldn't tell you the last time they had a really good encounter with God in prayer. One of the biggest self-perceived problems of ministers in America is lack of time with God. What's happened? I think that some of us have forgotten that God isn't a concept, deduction, or even an epistemological foundation. God is a being who wants relationship. God is a being who showed His nature and saves us wonderfully in Jesus Christ God, via the Holy Spirit, is the one who helps us conform to the nature of Christ. I think we can get so mired in the theological logistics that we forget all this. I read a lot of A. W. Tozer, the great Christian mystic. His works really help me keep perspective about what this whole thing is about: Loving and serving God and being like Christ.
Another thing. Let's be honest. Many Christians are heretics in some form or another. Surely, we don't believe that all of our members competently understand the Trinity, the person and work of Christ, and the Creeds of the Church. If we do, then we are fooling ourselves. I believe many Christians are either tritheistic or modalistic with respect to the Trinity. Docetism or Apollinarianism is rampant as well. Now, I do believe this stuff needs to be addressed, but do you think this stuff really matters to God more than the fact that hearts be genuinely turned to His Son in love and reverence? Heck, no. We are to attack heresies because in some regard the diminish from the essential Gospel of Christ, not for the mere sake of being anal-retentive taskmasters. I would rather people see Christ living in me and the Gospel as is expressed in my life than to have people have perfect theological accuracy, and a life devoid of God's power and presence. That's just me...
My advice to anyone reading this. Keep the main things the main things. Love Jesus and exalt Him as King of All. Serve and trust Him with all your heart. Walk in the Spirit and not by selfish, proud motives. Do the good you KNOW to do. I was reading Stephen Covey's 7 Habits book, and in one section, he talked about envisioning your own funeral. He wanted you the reader to really think about what they would want people to say about them. I did this and I found it interesting. I didn't want people to talk about my theological acumen, nor any type of intellectual capacity I may have had. I didn't want people to talk about my sermons, teachings, or anything like that. I wanted them to be able to say "When we saw this man, we saw Jesus. He truly loved God and lived God's love and truth in every area of his life." That's all. Nothing else. I ask you to think the same way. In the end, it's all about us exalting Jesus Christ as Lord to the Glory of the Father in the power of the Holy Spirit. That's my word.
****************************************
You also said:
"Why does exhaustive foreknowledge of Classical Theism destroy free will? Set it up for me in logical steps. Why cannot our choices be free (of the libertarian sort) AND God know ahead of time what those choices will be? Why cannot we have the best of both?"
Mephi:
You and your wonderful questions! LOL This oughta be good too...
Striving toward the prize like Paul,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
12/16/00 11:19 PM
RE: Preach it Meph!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was beautiful. Amen. Praise the Lord.
Man o Man, Mephi is starting to sound like Boyd
when he's all fired up in the pulpit.
I like it.
Jules
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
12/18/00 1:01 AM
Try this out...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom,
Here goes:
Let's say you will eat cheerios tomorrow morning:
1. God (who for this example possesses EDF - exhaustive definite foreknowledge) knows that you WILL eat 47 Cheerios.
2. God knows this from all eternity.
3. God's knowledge is always perfectly accurate.
You wake up at 6am the next morning and go to get cereal. Is it "possible" that you might pick Lucky Charms? No, of course not, lest God be proved wrong in God's EDF. God knew from all eternity that you would eat Cheerios this morning and it could not occur otherwise. Could you even deviate one Cheerio more or less than the 47 Cheerios that God knew from all eternity would constitute your breakfast this morning? No, or else God is proved to have been wrong in what God knew. In a view which posits EDF all possibilities are simply reflections of our human limitedness, not actual constituents of reality. Every aspect of our lives is as equally certain as the number of Cheerios you will eat tomorrow morning if we hold to the EDF doctrine.
In the openness view, God experiences possibilities as genuine. Even in God's mind it could be the case that you will eat Lucky Charms tomorrow morning rather than Cheerios and it may be the case that the standard deviation is about 40-60 Cheerios, but which exact number it will be is still undecided until you actually eat them. Unless God knows that the box only contains 48 Cheerios left
The easiest way to conceive of the difference is in God's relation to sequence (what we measure as "time"). The classical God does not experience sequence, but exists outside of it. The God of Open theism is thoroughly sequential and experiences it more perfectly than any other being. Our God is supremely sequential, the Lord of History, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God who brought Israel up out of Egypt. The point here is that in Scripture God often defines God's own name in terms of historical faithfulness, this is intutive for the God of Open Theism, but counter intuitive for that of Classical Theism. The latter would rather talk of the great "I AM".
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
12/18/00 1:31 AM
Now Try THIS Out...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, Tom. I want to use Modes same model, ok? Just having some fun.
Let's say you will eat cheerios tomorrow morning:
1. God (who for this example possesses EDF - exhaustive definite foreknowledge) knows that you WILL eat 47 Cheerios OF YOUR OWN VOLITION.
2. God knows this from all eternity.
3. God's knowledge is always perfectly accurate.
You wake up at 6am the next morning and go to get cereal. You walk to your cabinet. Your have both a box of "Cheerios" and a box of "Lucky Charms" You ate Lucky Charms yesterday, and got a friggin marshmallow stuck in your teeth. (That damnable yellow moon!) It hurt like the dickens. Plus you ate Lucky Charms the past 3 days before that. You decide "Hey! Today is a Cheerios day!" You grab the box, get some milk and get ready to chow down. You pour the Cheerios into the bowl and because of the way you held the box, aimed the box edge at the bowl, and innumerable other factors, exactly 47 o's pop into the bowl. (Like you give a rip, right?) You pour the milk and chow down.
Q & A:
Was it possible for you to get some Lucky Charms? Yep
Did you? Nope
Why not? Because, for various reasons, you didn't want them.
Were you under any mind control of any type? Nope.
Not even some REALLY, REALLY underground type mind control where you merely THOUGHT it was you, but it wasn't? Nope.
So, for all PRAGMATIC intents and purposes, you were free to do what you wanted to do, right? Right.
Does positing a God with EDF change the innate intuitive feeling of freedom? Nope.
Isn't this innate intuitive feeling of freedom that comes from actively making one's OWN choices without coercion what it's all about? Well, yeah.
No further questions, your Honor.
Peace out,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
12/18/00 2:51 AM
Two Posts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all-
I posted "Cheerios, Lucky Charms, and Divine Foreknowledge" twice accidentally. I couldn't remove one, so I edited it. That's what you're reading right now.
I'd be happy to know how to remove a post in such a case.
Your truly,
Stupid
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
TGB
12/18/00 2:48 AM
Cheerios, Lucky Charms, and Divine Foreknowledge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph and Modes-
“Meph” and “Modes”—sounds like a dance and song duo if ever there was one!
Taking up Modes’ bowl of cheerios, Meph adds (in caps):
1. God…knows that you will eat 47 Cheerios OF YOUR OWN VOLITION.
It all boils down to this doesn’t it? Does Meph’s addition resolve the tension? It doesn’t for me at this point. Trouble is, I don’t know why! Modes, there’s a number #4 missing from your three steps which ought to explain why God’s knowing what I would freely choose (as Meph argues) necessarily renders the choice a determined one. Granted, I could not choose other than that God foreknows, but precisely why does this negate the freedom of my choice?
Let me grab something GDG said to me regarding God’s prophecy regarding Cyrus. I had asked how the God of Open Theism could prophecy accurately 200 years prior to the event the name of the man who would decree the return of Jewish captives. I assumed he could only do it by coercing the will of Cyrus’ Mom and that this meant her act of naming Cyrus was not a free choice. GDG replied:
God's predestination of free acts was one of my biggest hangups with the open view. However, from what I understand of Greg Boyd's approach to this problem, he says that God never coerces people to do something that is contrary to their own self-determination.[italics mine]
Here’s my question. If God can announce 200 years before the event what some mother will chose to name her son (not to mention his decision to major in political science as opposed to carpentry) without coercing her will as Doc argues, then why would Doc or any Open Theist have a problem with Meph’s explanation of my choice of Cheerios? God knows that I will freely choose Cheerios just as he knew Cyrus’ Mom would freely name him Cyrus. And God's knowledge of these events does not coerce them or strip their status as free choices.
I’m not convinced this is so, I just don’t know how to establish my response either way!
By the way, I HATE Lucky Charms.
Cheers,
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
GregBoyd
12/18/00 6:56 AM
RE: The Settledness of the Past and Future
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the philosophical reason why God can't foreknow free acts:
My favorite argument runs something like this:
Premise 1) You aren't free or morally responsible for any thing in the past, for the past is by definition what is settled and unalterable.
Primise 2) If God possesses eternal exhaustively definite forknowledge of the entire future, then among all the facts that were settled in the past are the facts about the future.
Conclusion: We can no more change the future than we can change the past. Hence, we can be no more free regarding future events than we are regarding past events.
Suppose God wrote all his knowledge about the future in a book and gave it to us in 1935. Now we'd see that we can no more change anything about our future than we can change anything about 1935. Hence, we can be no more free and morally responsible about anything in the future than we are with regard to anything in 1935.
Think about it.
Greg
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/18/00 9:02 AM
is your own volition really your own?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To my compatibilist friends:
In Mephi's model of EDF and human freedom, he says: "God...knows that you WILL eat 47 Cheerious OF YOUR OWN VOLITION."
I asked this question somewhere else in this discussion (I forget where) and I will ask it again: In what sense is my "own volition" really my own in compatibilism? Is my "own volition" to eat 47 Cheerios any less predetermined by God than the exact number of Cheerios I will eat?
So I guess I'm wondering in what sense my "own volition" is really my own, and also in what sense my "own volition" is really a volition (where volition means "the act or power of willing; voluntary action")?
What gives?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Ken15
12/18/00 2:37 PM
RE: Left in the Dust
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDG, I am sorry if I got off to a bad start with you. Hopefully our opinions as to what constitutes a good movie will not prevent beneficial dialogue between us. J
I believe I am typical among soft determinists, so I will take a stab at answering… Soft determinists usually say something like the following in response to your question:
Our actions are free as long as we were not constrained to do something contrary to our will. So in light of the prevailing conditions, it could not have been the case that we would have chosen otherwise. As has been stated elsewhere, the complex set of environmental and physiological circumstances that exist prior to a given action would be nearly impossible, if not completely impossible to enumerate. But at the moment of choice, the circumstances are such that it is not a neutral objective state from which the will observes and chooses. Given the circumstances, the volition is swayed towards one option over another. Indeed, every act is caused in one way or another, for the contrary is not acceptable, even to the libertarians. If it were, than there would be no moral choices made, in fact, every choice made would be without cause, and life would be incomprehensible and chaotic.
My will or volition is my own in that the complex being known as "me" is the agent which does perform a given action, regardless of what the cause of the action is. What it is that makes up a personal being, the "me" doing the deciding, is something I profess to not understand very well, the Mind/Body dilemma for instance. But I believe that we always choose according to our strongest inclination at the time of our choice, and that it is impossible for it to be otherwise. So that whatever we do, we do exactly as we wanted to do, unless constrained to do otherwise by outside forces. For instance, a gunman might point his 9mm at my head and say to me "your money or your life." At which point I have choices to make, though my options seem to be quite limited at that moment. I am certainly inclined towards one choice over another, but there is no constraint somehow "making" me choose one way or the other. I could say to him "Go ahead and shoot." Or I could let him have my money. Either way, I made a choice, but my strongest inclination would be in one direction or the other.
Jonathan Edwards notes "It is that motive, which, as it stands in view of the mind, is the strongest, that determines the will." He continues to later say "Things that exist in the view of the mind have their strength, tendency, or advantage to move, or excite its Will, from many things appertaining to the nature and circumstances of the thing viewed, the nature and circumstances of the mind the mind that views, and the degree and manner of its view; of which it would perhaps be hard to make a perfect enumeration. But so much I think may be determined in general, without room for controversy, that whatever is perceived or apprehended by an intelligent and voluntary agent, which has the nature and influence of a motive to volition or choice, is considered or viewed as good; nor has it any tendency to engage the election of the soul in any further degree than it appears such. For to say otherwise, would be to say, that things that appear, have a tendency, by the appearance they make, to engage the mind to elect them, some other way than by their appearing eligible to it; which is absurd. And therefore it must be true, in some sense, that the will always is, as the greatest apparent good is."
As a layperson GDG, I have benefited from compatibilitists like John S. Feinberg, especially his chapter in the second volume of The Grace of God and The Bondage of the Will, and Palm Helm's The Providence of God, as well as Edwards himself, and his many interpreters, primarily John Gerstner and John Piper.
Blessings, Ken
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
12/18/00 3:14 PM
RE: RE: The Settledness of the Past and Future
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg-
Thanks for jumping in. It’s a privilege to talk to you. Can’t tell you how much your Letters meant to me. My own Dad is still much like your Dad was. Anyhow…
Regarding your first premise (“You aren't free or morally responsible for any thing in the past, for the past is by definition what is settled and unalterable.”), I was of the understanding that the past (i.e. our own past actions) is the only thing we are morally responsible for. What else is there possibly to be held accountable for but what we have already done? I’m sure I’m missing the point here.
Secondly, seems to me that your second premise (“If God possesses eternal exhaustively definite foreknowledge of the entire future, then among all the facts that were settled in the past are the facts about the future.”), is itself the conclusion for which we're seeking proof. In what sense are the facts "settled" is the point of discussion. From the Classical Theist’s point of view, it seems to me the facts are settled in the direction which runs from “our choosing” to “his knowing” (as opposed to running from his knowing to our choosing). This seems to make sense (the only way it COULD make sense!) if it is true that God is exists outside of time. That is, from God's point of view it is WE who have determined his knowledge of our choices, not the other way around. If he were to write out his knowledge of future events in a book, would it be possible to view God only as the publisher and ourselves the authors?
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ModesofThought
12/18/00 7:04 PM
two birds...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom,
You were quite right. I skipped #4.
4. Since God knows from all eternity that you will eat x number of Cheerios, you cannot do otherwise tomorrow morning when you sit down to have breakfast.
Of course, your response to Greg reflected the Arminian perspctive that the fact that you will eat x number of Cheerios is do to our choosing it and God's knowledge is based upon that. But surely you can see the faulty logic herein.
1. No effect preceeds its cause.
2. God's knowledge preceeds your eating x number of Cheerios tomorrow morning, by at least an eternity.
3. Therefore, you are NOT the cause of your eating x number of Cheerios tomorrow morning.
4. Therefore God's knowledge is not caused by your decision.
We define freedom as the ability to do otherwise. For instance, if you were to eat y number of Lucky Charms instead. But this would be impossible if in fact God knew from all eternity that you will instead eat x number of Cheerios. Here it should be clear that your ability to do otherwise is negated by the fact that God' perfect and certain knowledge of the future prevents any part of that future from being as God knows it will be.
Hope that helps...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
12/19/00 8:20 AM
RE: two birds...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes-
Wouldn’t both your first (No effect precedes its cause) and second premise (God's knowledge precedes my eating x number of Cheerios tomorrow morning by at least an eternity) fail if indeed God exists outside the realm of time? Would it not be true that from God’s point of view the question of “preceding” or “following” with regard to cause and effects simply would not arise (in which case God's knowledge of my eating does not precede my choice to eat)?
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Orpheus42
12/19/00 4:08 PM
RE: Left in the Dust
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, hello everyone. I am new to this board; I like what I see so far and even though I probably won't be able to keep up with a lot of you I'll poke my two cents in whenever I can. I am a sophomore music/biblical studies double major at the University of Evansville in Indiana. My email should be available to the left of this post. Don't be too hard on me, guys
It seems to me that if God does indeed exist outside the realm of time then the idea of EDF really doesn't matter- there would be no "when" to God. Does the Bible show God to transcend time? How far does one extend "I Am"? As far as I was aware, "I Am" in classical theology has been interpreted to mean always was and always will be. Does the Bible support God existing outside of time? Or could it be that there was no time until the creation? Does God constrain his dealings in this world within the frame of time he created? I really hate being so vague, but before continuing further I'd like to have people's opinions on that sort of thing. If God exists outside the realm of time, it seems to me the entire discussion doesn't make any sense anyway.... there couldn't be foreknowlege by the definition we know it by because God wouldn't be accountable to the time constraints we are.
Peace, Love, and Jesus Christ,
Jason
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/19/00 4:59 PM
RE: RE: Left in the Dust
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome Jason.
I have heard some people argue that every time the Bible attributes a verb to God, it suggests that God experiences sequence. The idea of something "happening" requires a before and an after. Also in order for God to be in relationship within Godself (i.e. the trinity), and with creation, God must experience a before and an after. If nothing else, at least the Son experienced sequence when he became incarnate.
If EDF is true, then God's foreknowledge is only "fore"knowledge from our perspective. For God, there would be no distinction between foreknowledge of the future or knowledge of the past. Both are equally and always present to God.
Well, those are my thoughts. I will let the pros answer your question more thoroughly, I just wanted to say hi. Peace, GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
12/19/00 6:58 PM
RE: RE: RE: The Settledness of the Past and Future
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To TGB: You are responsible for the past only to the extent that it was once future. When it was future you had the power to settle it. The past that was never your future you aren't responsible for. Boyd's point, I think, is that if the future is eternally settled, you can't prevent it any more than you can change any part of the past.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Craig
12/19/00 7:24 PM
RE: RE: Left in the Dust
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orpheus-
Does the Bible say God exists outside of time? Honestly, no. Could we deduce that He is outside of time? I think so. He declares that He knows the end from the beginning, Christ was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world, etc. To be able to know the future should imply being outside of time. Einstein seems to have shown that time is dependent on rate of speed and matter, and unless these CREATED things have always existed, I would say God lives outside of it though He can act (and does!)within time. So time is a created thing, it isn't something God is contained in.
Think about sequential events for a bit. How could one experience sequential events without a beginning? God is "I am", He has no beginning. Some argue that because numbers can go on infinitely both positively and negatively proves it is possible for time to have always existed. The problem with that is in order to begin to count, one needs to START counting, so there must be a beginning.
Also, think of going backwards infinitely. To go back infinitely means to continue going without stopping. How is it possible for one to go back infinitely and then be able move to the present? Its impossible, unless you were to start somewhere.
Here is a really simplistic example: What is your momentum before you take a step? You're not moving, right? Can you start from less than not moving? No. In sequential events you cannot have a not beginning and be moving without a starting point. Numbers can go infinitely backward and forward, but not with sequential events, they can have a starting point and theoretically continue from that point into infinity.
That's my opinion, at least
Craig
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Craig
12/19/00 7:30 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: The Settledness of the Past and Future
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beso-
One can only change the present and prepare for the future, but cannot change the future. We are responsible for what we have done in all of our past "presents" and the present, and the future ones we will be responsible for when we do whatever we will do. So, how do you change the present?
Craig
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
12/19/00 11:57 PM
RE: RE: RE: Left in the Dust
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey GDG-
What Jason asked and your reply are exactly my point to Greg and Modes regarding God's relationship to time. If he exists outside time, then where's the objective to EDF? As an Open Theist yourself, I was a little surprised you recognized this. You seem to be objecting to the notion that God experiences sequence in saying, "I have heard some people argue...." Is this something you agree with?
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ghost-dog-girl
12/20/00 9:33 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Left in the Dust
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Tom!
I believe that God DOES experience sequence. If everything that ever will be already exists (i.e. is settled) and God doesn't know it exhaustively, then God would be ignorant of something (i.e. not omniscient), and all the biblical passages that speak of God's interaction and response to human events through time must be anthropomorphic.
But if part of the future does not exist as settled (even to God) because it hasn't happened yet, then it makes sense to talk about God's foreknowledge and it does not make sense to talk about God as ignorant in any way. If God doesn't know how many Cheerios I will eat tomorrow, this does not imply that God is ignorant, but rather there is nothing to know because it hasn't happened yet. If God needed to know how many Cheerios I will eat for breakfast, God could make sure that I ate the exact number he needed me to.
If God is outside of time, then God's "fore"knowledge is only foreknowledge from our perspective. But if God experiences sequence, then God's "fore"knowledge is truly foreknowledge from our perspective and from God's. Even though the event has not yet occured, God knows how it will unfold because he has determined it will unfold a particular way, or because he knows there is no other possible way it could unfold.
I believe that in order for God to act on and be acted upon by his creation, God must experience sequence. The Bible portrays God as taking the initiative with his creation, but also as responding to it. This reciprocal relationship becomes unintelligible if God is outside of time.
Believe it or not, I'm trying to clarify things. There are people in this discussion who know a lot more about the metaphysics of this, so any time they want to jump in is fine by me! I noticed that Greg deals with the question of time on the website--it's in the Q&A section under philosophy. Check it out if you're looking for something more articulate.
p.s. When I first heard about the open view, the notion that God experienced sequence scandalized me more than anything else--it's quite a paradigm shift. It seems like a God outside of time is loftier than a God who experiences sequence, but it's actually quite limiting--consider the way theologians have tried to work it out in the past: a God who is outside of time must be immutable (cannot change), impassible (cannot experience passion), purus actus (cannot have potential), etc. On the contrary, a God who experiences sequence is free to be in dynamic relationship with creation. In fact, the Trinity suggests that dynamic relationship is at the core of who God is. But that's a whole new thread....
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:53 AM (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 |
|
|