 |
 | 
morenever
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 12/8/2004 4:04 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by WormBowedB4TerribleGod
quote:
Originally posted by morenever
Holiday, "rape murder and kill"? Why do you think anyone deserves anything better?
moronforever, please don't have children
You open theists don't realize the grotesque horror of your own sinfulness. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/8/2004 4:27 AM (GMT -6) | | This is why I want a closed forum.
Later folks. Much later.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 12/8/2004 4:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by morenever
quote:
Originally posted by WormBowedB4TerribleGod
quote:
Originally posted by morenever
Holiday, "rape murder and kill"? Why do you think anyone deserves anything better?
moronforever, please don't have children
You open theists don't realize the grotesque horror of your own sinfulness.
Morenever,
I confess and acknowledge before you and the world that I, a confessed non Open Theist, do not realize the grotesque horror of my own sinfulness. Sometimes I perceive a little bit how bad it really is, but I have no real clue the utter evil and grotesqueness of it.
Your statement seems to infer that you fully understand how utterly sinful you are and realize to the extreme limits how grotesque your own sinfulness is. I have never met a man that had this knowledge and especially one that could use such a claim to imply their superiority compared with those they disagreed with.
I have heard it said once that someone, "stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector."
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Holiday
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 12/8/2004 5:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
I apologize. I take the blame for this discussion gone awry. I probably stirred up the bees nest with my initial sarcastic comments. Your commments were pertinent to begin with and I should have left it alone.
Its just that sometimes I get so mad when people just assume Greg is an idiot, and they assume they are telling us stuff we've never heard.
Holiday
P.S. Alan thanks for your post, I was kind of counting on that one
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 12/8/2004 6:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by cpoteet
Alan, I can continue this un-edifying discussion (dealing with your claim of my straw man argument, questions begged, and the like), but I shall gracefully bow out. I have hope that the Sovereign Lord will move in all of your hearts (including Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, and John Sanders) to leave this view of God which so dishonors Him.
From what he says here, I presume Chris has left the discussion, so I will direct my comments to the CVM board.
Chris mentions the "un-edifying discussion". To some extent he is right. While he started it by making a series of unsubstantiated and question-begging pot shots at Doc, some responded in kind, hence the "unedifying" part. But there were also a number of substantive and serious posts (thank you, aaronshaf, Laika, etc.), and to that extent it was a (potentially, at least) edifying discussion.
But Chris has decided to bow out. When his claims and charges were challenged he gave no defense of them, but merely reasserted them, and followed it up with a prayer that God would deliver open theists from the error of their ways. If open theism is in fact wrong, then I say "Amen", but Chris's prayer simply assumes that it is wrong, which in the present context is question-begging and condescending.
Understandably, there are persons on all sides of this debate (and other debates) who are sincere, devoted followers of Christ and who are deeply convinced that their's is the right position. I'm all for rigorous debate--the issues are important. But it saddens me that so many of those who profess Christ are unwilling to seriously and charitably engage.
I won't pray that Chris be delivered from error. But it is my prayer that he and others (both open and non-open theists) will learn that question-begging, straw-manning, and condescension of any sort are unbecoming for those who would be Christ's ambassadors. Let us, instead, challenge and encourage one another with charity and respect to think more deeply and accurately about God and His Word.
Sincerely,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
cpoteet
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 12/9/2004 2:15 AM (GMT -6) | | "Open theism struggles to form an alliance with the classical Arminian view, drawing on its popularity and setting up against the unthinkable views of those who believe in predestination. This explains why openists will commonly speak in terms of whether the future is determined or partly undetermined, rather than known or partly unknown by God."
http://www.christian-truth.org/God/foreknowledge/arminianism.html
"Remember this, and be assured; Recall it to mind, you transgressors. "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.
Isaiah 46:8-11
"Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
Acts 2:22-23
Did Jesus know Judas would betray Him?
What's the point of the book of Revelation if not as a prophecy (and foreknowledge) of the second-coming?
quote:
but Chris's prayer simply assumes that it is wrong
Ok Alan. If you want to seriously debate, let's do it. I'll answer your post against my first claim (I'm at work now), but in the mean time I have following verses I'd really appreciate if you would qualify from an open theistic perspective. All the following verses deal with God's foreknowledge in regards to election (this is not a collectively exhaustive list). Of course I'm monergistic, but I'd just really appreciate it if you would clear this up for me.
Genesis 18:17-19
Deuteronomy 4:35-38, 7:6-8, 10:14-15, 14:2, 18:4-5
1 Chronicles 28:4
Psalms 33:12, 65:4, 78:67-71, 100:3, 105:6, 135:4
Ezekiel 16:16
Isaiah 40:23, 41:8, 44:1-2, 45:4, 65:9
Jeremiah 1:5, 17:9, 27:5, 31:35-36
Matthew 11:25-27, 20:15, 22:14, 24:24, 24:31, 7:21-23, 13:20
Mark 13:20
Luke 6:45, 18:7
John 1:4-5, 5:21, 6:37, 6:65, 8:43-44, 10:11-27, 13:18, 15:16, 15:19, 17:9
Acts 2:23, 9:15, 13:48, 16:14, 22:14, 10:41
Romans 7:5, 8:29-8:33, 9:11-13, 9:23, 11:5-7, 11:28, 13:1, 16:13
1 Corinthians 1:26-27
Galatians 5:17
Ephesians 1:3-14, 2:4-10
1 Thessalonians 1:4
2 Thessalonians 2:13-14
2 Timothy 1:8-11, 2:10, 5:21
Titus 1:1
James 2:5
1 Peter 1:1-5, 1:12, 1:20, 2:4-10
2 Peter 1:10
2 John 1:13
Revelation 13:8, 17:8
After this, I have an article refuting Open Theistic proof texts; and I'd really appreciate if you could show me truth behind that to.
"To confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly."
Augustine | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/9/2004 2:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Lock: I do not blame Chris for leaving the discussion. I have seen many times where discussions have been destroyed because some take shots at others' beliefs, twist what others have posted…
Tom: Lock, don’t you see that what you’re describing is what Chris did with regard to Boyd?
Lock: I am sorry if I ruffled your feathers. Tom- you asked if I was comfortable here and the answer is yes, I am.
Tom: Not at all, Bro. I thought your feathers were ruffled and you were uncomfortable here.
I’m definitely no longer comfortable here. So I need to pray about what my options are.
Alan, thanks for the post.
Lock: I have no worries when people disagree with my view.
Tom: Nor do I. But that’s not at all the issue.
Lock: Paul told the Corinthians that is was necessary that they should have sects.
Tom: I think he was being sarcastic to prove a point, but perhaps you misspelled “sects” and are really talking about 1Cor. 7.2-5, em?  
Take care,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 12/9/2004 4:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
Why the hostility?
This is why we can't dialogue with anyone but you. You butt in everywhere.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ataraxia
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 67
| Posted 12/9/2004 4:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Throw some water on the fire folks. Take it easy.
I believe the ball is in Alan's court. Alan, you have, by my count, 75, yes 75, passages to interpret and defend from the open view. That should take us to the end of next year if each passage is to be discussed.
cepoteet, how about you and Alan just stick for now to your original post and his reply to it. If you're still here when that's done, then you can begin to wade through your 75 passages.
ataraxia | | Back to Top | | |
|
cpoteet
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 12/9/2004 5:02 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
cepoteet, how about you and Alan just stick for now to your original post and his reply to it. If you're still here when that's done, then you can begin to wade through your 75 passages.
Here we go...
quote:
Nowhere does Boyd or any other open theist that I know of argue in the manner you have depicted [hasty generalization]. If you think otherwise, then please produce some direct quotes to back up your construal.
Alan, I just made a post in which I point that Boyd uses only 70 verses as "open passages" but that only constitutes .2% of the Bible. That is what I meant by hasty generalization. Also, you are the one who can easily commit the straw man if you do not deal with every single passage in the Bible that deals with God's sovereignty, will, purpose, foreknowledge, election, decree, and the like.
quote:
always try to construe your opponent's arguments in as strong and plausible a way as possible.
I just made another post which does a better job of fitting this.
quote:
Now please tell me, precisely, why appealing to experiential evidence, especially where other lines of argument are also given, is a fallacy? The fact is, it's not. If it were, then scientists could never appeal to observations to test their theories, we could never trust the deliverances of our senses or of introspection, and theologians could not appeal to observations of biblical texts to justify their systematic theologies.
One of the benchmarks of the reformation was "sola Scriptura." If a theologian appeals to empirical (experiental) evidence which is solely a an inductive argument. Systematic theologians don't appeal to the "observation" of texts but the exegetical meaning.
"David Hume addressed this problem in the 18th century in a particularly influential way, and no analysis since has managed to evade Hume's critique. Hume looked at ways to justify inductive thinking. He pointed out that justifying induction on the grounds that it has worked in the past begs the question [which is what OT do by pointing to verses in the past]. That is, it is using inductive reasoning to justify induction. Circular arguments are valid, but do not provide a satisfactory justification for the supposition they claim to support."*
quote:
Now, would you please explain the dialectical context behind your charge? What position is Boyd begging the question against? From whose perspective is Boyd's claim controversial, and why?
Boyd's claim is controversial (And which he affirms on his site), because this theology is changing who God is. It is not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is not weak, submissive, and not completely omniscient (i.e. Theology Proper). Boyd, Pinnock, and Sanders are attempting to re-write who God is into who they want Him to be (i.e. to explain the problem of evil, which one can do quite sufficiently without libertarian free will).
Me: "4) Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance)
Of course the Bible doesn't speak in anthropomorphic language. Nobody can prove otherwise."
quote:
Unfortunately, you didn't give any citations, so we have no way to check your assessment here.
"The point is, if we don’t decide ahead of time that this passage can’t be saying what the passage clearly seems to be saying—viz. if we don’t label it an “anthropomorphism” because it doesn’t agree with our Hellenistic preconceptions of what is and is not dignum Deo (viz. worthy of God)—we cannot help but conclude that this passage reveals the Lord as genuinely facing an open, indefinite, future."
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=533
Note: cf. his debates with John Piper.
How does Open Theism affirms God's sovereignty? They are mutually exclusive as much as OT want to say they are not. As sovereign is "possessed of supreme power .. unlimited in extent .. enjoying autonomy."
quote:
All you need is two verses on a given topic before systematic issues arise.
Yes, all you need is to before a situation arises, but we do not come from a Biblical conclusion from those two verses. Proper systematic theology is where we take all of the verses throughout the bible on a particular issue and come to a conclusion.
quote:
You are attacking open theism.
It would seem that way.
And I'd really appreciate if you could get back to me on all those verses, because I have a lot more I want to ask you about.
Grace and Peace!
Chris
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
"To confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly."
Augustine | | Back to Top | | |
|
morenever
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 12/9/2004 5:24 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
quote:
Originally posted by morenever
quote:
Originally posted by WormBowedB4TerribleGod
quote:
Originally posted by morenever
Holiday, "rape murder and kill"? Why do you think anyone deserves anything better?
moronforever, please don't have children
You open theists don't realize the grotesque horror of your own sinfulness.
Morenever,
I confess and acknowledge before you and the world that I, a confessed non Open Theist, do not realize the grotesque horror of my own sinfulness. Sometimes I perceive a little bit how bad it really is, but I have no real clue the utter evil and grotesqueness of it.
Your statement seems to infer that you fully understand how utterly sinful you are and realize to the extreme limits how grotesque your own sinfulness is. I have never met a man that had this knowledge and especially one that could use such a claim to imply their superiority compared with those they disagreed with.
I have heard it said once that someone, "stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector."
To be more precise, "You open theists don't seem to realize the fact that your sinfulness is a grotesque horror of some unknown magnitude."
Apparently, you think there is something in-and-of yourselves that deserves better than the worst. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 12/9/2004 10:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Chris,
You've thrown a lot on the table, more than I have the time to respond to in detail. But I will respond as I can.
quote:
Boyd uses only 70 verses as "open passages" but that only constitutes .2% of the Bible. That is what I meant by hasty generalization. Also, you are the one who can easily commit the straw man if you do not deal with every single passage in the Bible that deals with God's sovereignty, will, purpose, foreknowledge, election, decree, and the like.
Two comments here: (1) It is irrelevant how many "open passages" there are. If there is even one that clearly and unambiguously teaches that God views some of the future as open, then we either have to say that open theism is true or admit that the Bible as we have it is internally contradictory. (2) It's not a straw man fallacy not to deal with every verse on a topic. The straw man fallacy occurs only when someone critiques a distorted or weakened version of a position and concludes that the position itself has been refuted. That's what you did in you initial salvo against Boyd.
quote:
One of the benchmarks of the reformation was "sola Scriptura." If a theologian appeals to empirical (experiental) evidence which is solely an inductive argument. Systematic theologians don't appeal to the "observation" of texts but the exegetical meaning.
quote:
"David Hume addressed this problem in the 18th century in a particularly influential way, and no analysis since has managed to evade Hume's critique. Hume looked at ways to justify inductive thinking. He pointed out that justifying induction on the grounds that it has worked in the past begs the question [which is what OT do by pointing to verses in the past]. That is, it is using inductive reasoning to justify induction. Circular arguments are valid, but do not provide a satisfactory justification for the supposition they claim to support."
This is a strange and completely unworkable hermeneutic you propose. How does one get at the "exegetical meaning" except by making observations of the text? How do you grasp what I'm saying you now to in this sentence without opening your eyes and reading the sentence? The principle of "sola Scriptura" cannot even be applied unless we can make empirical observations on the text of Scripture.
Regarding Hume's problem of induction, I wrote my dissertation on this and as an expert on the issue I can assure you that it can and has been effectively answered. The reason why it is a problem is because Hume makes certain assumption about the nature of evidence and of inductive reasoning that seem, at first glance, quite plausible. Specifically, he argues, correctly, that inductive inferences make substantive assumptions about the world. But he assumes, incorrectly, that these assumptions have to be justified inductively if at all before we can be rationally justified in using them. When closely examined it turns out that that is not the case. Since a key assumption of Hume's argument can be plausibly denied, induction has not been refuted.
quote:
quote:
Now, would you please explain the dialectical context behind your charge? What position is Boyd begging the question against? From whose perspective is Boyd's claim controversial, and why?
Boyd's claim is controversial ..., because this theology is changing who God is. It is not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is not weak, submissive, and not completely omniscient (i.e. Theology Proper). Boyd, Pinnock, and Sanders are attempting to re-write who God is into who they want Him to be (i.e. to explain the problem of evil, which one can do quite sufficiently without libertarian free will).
You still haven't answered my question. The quote you gave from Boyd was as follows: "Self-determination means that the self determines its actions, or it has no clear meaning." You said this begs the question. I asked you to justify that charge by explaining what question he begs in that quote. You responded by pointing out that Boyd's open theism is controversial. Granted. But the quote you gave from Boyd mentions nothing about open theism, so your observation is irrelevant.
Moreover, you offer a massively question begging argument when you argue as follows:
(1) The God of the Bible is not weak, submissive, and not completely omniscient.
(2) The God of open theism is weak, submissive, and not completely omniscient. (unstated premise)
(3) Therefore, the God of open theism is not the God of the Bible.
The problem with this argument is that open theists do not accept the second premise. They argue that the God of open theism is strong, sovereign, and omniscient, and, moreover, that He is the God of the Bible. While you may think they cannot consistently say as much, you haven't supported that contention or addressed any open theist defenses of it. That makes it question begging.
quote:
quote:
quote:
4) Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance)
"Of course the Bible doesn't speak in anthropomorphic language. Nobody can prove otherwise."
Unfortunately, you didn't give any citations, so we have no way to check your assessment here.
"The point is, if we don’t decide ahead of time that this passage can’t be saying what the passage clearly seems to be saying—viz. if we don’t label it an “anthropomorphism” because it doesn’t agree with our Hellenistic preconceptions of what is and is not dignum Deo (viz. worthy of God)—we cannot help but conclude that this passage reveals the Lord as genuinely facing an open, indefinite, future." www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=533
OK, maybe I missed it, but I don't see the quote you cited anywhere in that link. No suggestion is made there that "the Bible doesn't speak in anthropomorphic language". Boyd is talking about a specific passage (Exodus 4). And what he says is not at all an appeal to ignorance. Instead, he argues that the most straightforward, natural interpretation of the passage "reveals the Lord as genuinely facing an open, indefinite, future." Again, your fallacy charge against Boyd simply doesn't stick. And shame on you for misquoting him. That's shoddy scholarship on your part.
quote:
How does Open Theism affirms God's sovereignty? They are mutually exclusive as much as OT want to say they are not. As sovereign is "possessed of supreme power .. unlimited in extent .. enjoying autonomy."
Open theists affirm that God is "possessed of supreme power .. unlimited in extent .. enjoying autonomy." No open theist I know of denies that. The dispute concerns not the fact of God's sovereignty but the manner in which God has chosen to exercise that sovereignty in His providential governance of the world.
quote:
And I'd really appreciate if you could get back to me on all those verses, because I have a lot more I want to ask you about.
I'm sure you do. I'll look at some of them, but seriously, if you don't buy the responses that Boyd, Sanders, Pinnock, et al. have given to such verses, then I doubt anything I will have to say will satisfy you.
Thanks for observing a more serious and respectful tone. It does make for a much better discussion.
God bless,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/9/2004 10:34 AM (GMT -6) | | morenever: To be more precise, "You open theists don't seem to realize the fact that your sinfulness is a grotesque horror of some unknown magnitude." Apparently, you think there is something in-and-of yourselves that deserves better than the worst.
Tom: morenever, what we're looking for is a meaningful notion of "deserve" in the claim that "we deserve the worst." As sinners, I'm sure we deserve the worst. It's precisely because I believe this that I find libertarian free will necessary to make the claim that we deserve the worst a 'meaningful' one. What makes the claim meaningless is attributing what I do to deserve the worst to an unconditional divine determination that I do what I do to deserve the worst.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/9/2004 11:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Spen: Do you really mean, "What makes the claim meaningless is attributing what I do to deserve the worst to an unconditional divine determination that I do what I do to deserve the worst." This seems silly to me. I DO believe that we deserve the worst. I think that you do as well. But I think that the claim is not that we do what we do IN ORDER TO deserve the worst, but because we desire to choose our own selfishness IN SPITE OF the worst that it will bring.
Tom: OK. Here it is:
Claim 1: As sinners we deserve the worst.
Claim 2: God decrees all that we do. His decree is, most importantly, unconditional.
Claim 2 makes claim 1 meaningless to me. I know of no way to affim both the "unconditionality" of God's decreeing all that I do, and my justly "deserving" the worst for my sin. Thus, the claim that we deserve the worst is made meaningless by attributing what I do to deserve the worst (i.e., my sin) to the unconditional decree of God that I do what I do. It seems silly to me also to say that "I" justly deserve the worst for my sin AND also that God unconditionally decreed that I sin and everything about my sin. Do you fathom what it means to say God's decree is (a) unconditional, (b) exhaustive, and (c) efficacious (all the things Calvin held regarding God's decrees)?
I WANT sinners to truly deserve the worst for willfully telling the God of the universe to take a hike. I WANT to pin it on us. I WANT us to be guilty. I WANT us to deserve the worst for what we've done. Because I want these things, I can never embrace the belief in Calvin's "horrible" decree, for in my mind it moves the responsibility for MY sin from ME to God. Yes, yes, I know. The Westminster doctors all said God alone decrees all that happens, including sin, in such a way as to leave sinners justly responsible for their choices. But saying that both are true doesn't make the claim that both are true "meaningful." But this is precisely what claims 1 and 2 above make. Do you still find it silly? Well, I don't find is as silly as I do "meaningless." If I said I heard the most beautiful shade of blue, would I be making a "meaningful" claim? No. That's what I hear when I hear someone say, "God unconditionally determines all our sin and evil and we justly deserve the worst for sinning."
Now, one comeback might be, "It's a paradox, a mystery. We CAN'T make any meaningful sense of both together, but by faith we just affirm both because they're both there," to which I reply, "Fine. Then there can be no reason for objecting to the open view on the grounds that it doesn't 'make sense', isn't 'logical', etc., for I will offer the same comeback: It's a paradox how God is sovereign and in control and the future is genuinely open and God knows is as such. It's all a mystery! Don't ask me to make sense of it." I think they're are some mysteries, yes; not "contradictions."
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 12/9/2004 11:29 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom: OK. Here it is:
Claim 1: As sinners we deserve the worst.
Claim 2: God decrees all that we do. His decree is, most importantly, unconditional.
Claim 2 makes claim 1 meaningless to me. I know of no way to affim both the "unconditionality" of God's decreeing all that I do, and my justly "deserving" the worst for my sin. Thus, the claim that we deserve the worst is made meaningless by attributing what I do to deserve the worst (i.e., my sin) to the unconditional decree of God that I do what I do. It seems silly to me also to say that "I" justly deserve the worst for my sin AND also that God unconditionally decreed that I sin. Do you fathom what it means to say God's decree is (a) unconditional, (b) exhaustive, and (c) efficacious (all the things Calvin held regarding God's decrees)?
I WANT sinners to truly deserve the worst for willfully telling the God of the universe to take a hike. I WANT to pin it on us. I WANT us to be guilty. I WANT us to deserve the worst for what we've done. Because I want these things, I can never embrace the believe in Calvin's "horrible" decree, for in my mind it moves the responsibility for MY sin from ME to God. Yes, yes, I know. The Westminster doctors all said God alone decrees all that happens, including sin, in such a way as to leave sinners justly responsible for their choices. But this is precisely what claims 1 and 2 above make. Do you still find it silly? Well, I don't find is as silly as I do "meaningless." If I said I heard the most beautiful shade of blue, would I be making a "meaningful" claim? No. That's what I hear when I hear someone say, "God unconditionally determines all our sin and evil and we justly deserve the worst for sinning."
Tom
Tom,
Thank you for being kind to me. I think that your explanation of God's decree concept in item 2 is very well conceived to conveyt your point. As stated, I could only agree that God's decree is (a) unconditional, (b) exhaustive, and (c) efficacious regarding salvation and those that are saved. I could not agree that that God's decree is (a) unconditional, (b) exhaustive, and (c) efficacious regarding damnation of all who will be damned, while I do believe that He knows who will be damned. You have done well to highlight the weirdness of my beliefs to me. And there you have it and I still believe them because I believe that they are scriptural, even if they appear to be weird. Thank you for taking the time.
You ask me, "Do you still find it silly." No, I find that the concept is not silly at all. I stand with you to oppose that God's decree is (a) unconditional, (b) exhaustive, and (c) efficacious regarding damnation of all who will be damned. I agree that this is destructive.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
| 214 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:24 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 |
|
|