 |
| 
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 12/18/2004 5:13 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
According to the vast majority of biblical language scholars who are responsible for translating our (non-universalist) versions of the Bible, instead of "disposition," the better translation in the Rom. 8 passage would be "the minding of the flesh," or "the mind set on the flesh," which clearly points up the volitional ability of mind that all people have.
John
Good point, Mr. Earp.
Romans 8:
3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh
Jesus came in the same flesh we are in, in order to condemn sin in the flesh. Proving that just being in the flesh is not sinful.
Romans 8:
4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
We, in the flesh, can walk according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh. Proving that just being in the flesh is not sinful.
Romans 8:
5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
Being in the flesh: you can either live according to the flesh or live according to the Spirit. Proving that just being in the flesh is not sinful.
Romans 8:
6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
Being in the flesh: you can either set your mind on the flesh and die, or set your mind of the Spirit and live. Proving that just being in the flesh is not sinful.
Romans 8:
7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.
Being in the flesh: you can either set your mind on the flesh and be hostile to God, or you can submit yourself to God, as Jesus did, in the flesh. Proving that just being in the flesh is not sinful.
Romans 8:
8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Jesus, in the flesh, pleased God. Proving that just being in the flesh is not sinful.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/18/2004 5:15 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
Plus, Paul clearly showed we transition into that carnal state, Romans 1. We don't start out "minding the things of the flesh".
We start out like Jesus started out, neutral.
Jesus, in the flesh, not minding the things of the flesh, proof that simply being born, simply being in the flesh isn't the same as setting our minds on the things of the flesh.
Hope I'm not misunderstanding....
"Flesh" is a word USED to denote something bad. But the author, and the readers KNOW that what God created, what is also (together will all the rest of us) "in the image of God" in an integrated whole IS NOT anything but "very good." We see this in Genesis.
"Flesh" means the ruling domination of what is enslaved to the rule of death and corruption in the fall.
It's easily confusing, isn't it. Flesh versus flesh. Another term that is equally tricky is "passion." Our emotions are part of how God created us. Yet, "following our passions" or being enslaved to them is bad.
Maybe we'd like to hope for a language where these ideas were more differentiated. Maybe there is one.
But the REAL issue is can we differentiate them IN OUR OWN LIVES AND ACTIONS. That is the REAL tricky part. The part we need the Holy Spirit and each other's witness to work at!
: ) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 12/18/2004 5:20 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Hope I'm not misunderstanding....
"Flesh" is a word USED to denote something bad. But the author, and the readers KNOW that what God created, what is also (together will all the rest of us) "in the image of God" in an integrated whole IS NOT anything but "very good." We see this in Genesis.
The flesh is not bad, else Jesus would have been contaminated by being in the flesh Himself.
It's the "mind set on the things of the flesh", it's those who "live according to the flesh", it's those who "walk according to the flesh" that are condemned, not simply those in the flesh.
The reason Jesus came in the flesh was to condemn sin in the flesh by being in the flesh yet setting His mind on the things of the Spirit,
by being in the flesh yet walking and living in the Spirit. Thus, He can be my High Priest.
Those who deny Jesus came in the flesh are denying the incarnation, POW.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/18/2004 5:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
Those who deny Jesus came in the flesh are denying the incarnation, POW.
Hope you didn't think I denied the incarnation.
quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
The flesh is not bad, else Jesus would have been contaminated by being in the flesh Himself.
Good point.
quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
The reason Jesus came in the flesh was to condemn sin in the flesh by being in the flesh yet setting His mind on the things of the Spirit.
Here "things of the Spirit" should carefully be said to not exclude "spiritual" things that are physical, emotional, etc. Avoiding unwanted dualisms. And for Christ, it is obedience, his obediance in the flesh, obedience in all things, his sufferin all the areas of the fall, that is his ministry as the Lamb of God.
quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
... by being in the flesh yet walking and living in the Spirit. Thus, He can be my High Priest.
Amen!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 12/20/2004 3:24 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Jesus, in the flesh, not minding the things of the flesh, proof that simply being born, simply being in the flesh isn't the same as setting our minds on the things of the flesh.
Sisters and John-
I agree with this statement to a point. Yes, Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh. And, yes, the flesh in itself is nuetral as Sisters has stated. It is when a person minds the things of the flesh over the things of God. According to Rom. 8 this will happen unless a person is lead by the spirit of God. Rom. 8 does not speak of a person choosing to walk according to the flesh or the spirit, instead...
Rom 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
Rom 8:10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
Rom 8:12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh--
Rom 8:13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Rom 8:14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
Jesus was able to complete the obligation of the law while in the flesh BECAUSE He was lead by the spirit of God. Until God's spirit makes its home in us we are unable to please God. I do not believe that we can dictate when the spirit makes its home in us, it is God's prerogative alone.
quote:
The Bible doesn't say you or I exist, either.
John-
Is this what LFW theology stands on?
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 12/20/2004 5:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
It's the "mind set on the things of the flesh", it's those who "live according to the flesh", it's those who "walk according to the flesh" that are condemned, not simply those in the flesh.
I would agree that a "mind set of the things of the flesh" is what leads to sin, but when you add "walk" and "live" according to the flesh you are adding to the original Greek of the verse. There is no a Greek word for "live" or "walk" in Rom. 8:5, but simply kata, which should be rendered "according" or "in accord". Unless a mind is lead by the spirit of God which makes its home in us, it will mind the things of the flesh.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/21/2004 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
JEE- No, it stands on the obvious inference anyone would logically conclude from the commands of God towards humans in Scripture,
Commands that the bible directly tells us were put in place so that "sin would increase" (Rom. 5:20) and through these commands we would gain a "recognition of sin". The fact that we are unable to please God through the law does not prove LFW.
According to GOD himself speaking through Moses in Deuteronomy 30, the law is not too hard to keep, but "the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth...that thou mayest do it." When God says, "Believe" it is manifest PROOF that we have the ability to do so, or else God is the most impossible tyrant imaginable.
What I actually said was that freedom of choice is a self-evident truth, not a 'self-existent' truth (whatever that might mean). A self-evident truth is something that needs no proof, and is not contested by any sane persons. (No offense intended). As I said earlier, one may as well argue against the fact that they exist as argue against the fact that they have freedom of choice.
Blessings in Christ,
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
cpoteet
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 12/24/2004 3:59 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
What I actually said was that freedom of choice is a self-evident truth, not a 'self-existent' truth (whatever that might mean). A self-evident truth is something that needs no proof, and is not contested by any sane persons.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but how is this 'self-evident?' Obviously it's not self evident to most theologians.
“While claiming to offer meaningfulness to Christian living, open theism strips the believer of the one thing needed most for a meaningful and vibrant life of faith: absolute confidence in God’s character, wisdom, word, promise, and the sure fulfillment of his will.”
—Bruce Ware
“Open theism…dishonors God, distorts Scripture, damages faith, and would, if left unchecked, destroy churches and lives.”
—John Piper
“Presenting itself as a legitimate variant within evangelicalism, ‘open’ theism in reality so redefines the God of the Bible and of theology that we wind up with a quite different God.”
—D. A. Carson
“Evangelical theology faces a crisis of unprecedented magnitude. The denial and redefinition of God’s perfections will lead evangelical theology into disintegration and doctrinal catastrophe. The very identity and reality of the God of the Bible is at stake.”
—R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
“The truth of the matter is that the fraying at the edges of the evangelical world has now turned into an unraveling at its center. First came the new definitions about who evangelicals were. Then the boundaries were shifted. Then they were crossed. And now the reality of God is redefined and made altogether more accommodating to our postmodern culture.”
—David F. Wells
“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
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/foreknowledge.html
"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 | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/24/2004 5:04 PM (GMT -6) | | cpoteet, some here would say that they desire a forum to discuss without your asking such pointed question. Or so it seems.
Good to have those quotes on the table, me thinks. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/25/2004 6:51 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
Yes, cpoteet, what you're missing is that I was referring to freedom of choice <emphasis by PoW> in the above, not the issue of the Open View of the future per se. Therefore, all your quotes are beside the point. As a matter of simple fact, there are many theologians who believe in freedom of choice <emphasis by PoW> who are not necessarily Open Theists. Heck, even PotOnWheel claims to believe in free will <emphasis by PoW>.
I believe that it is VERY appropriate for cpoteet to lay those stark quotes "on the table" to be considered along with everything else.
I point to this recent post by Greg Boyd:
quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
But this stops short of KNOWLEDGE.
And so long as our hope stops short of knowledge, it seems to me our attitude must be one of hope and warning.
FACT is that for the people and traditions represented in those posts there is not an absense' of what JEE tries to describe. NOR is their an absence in Greg Boyd's notions of God's sovereignty.
THE ONLY TRUE SHAME WOULD BE A LACK OF DIALOG, AND A FAILURE TO UNITE THROUGH DIALECTIC.
"Short of knowledge" and left with "hope and warning" (in Boyd's words) great theological humility is called for. And frequent coffee's with those we have trouble agreeing with.
Fact is, that THIS board has been useful towards that end. And great pause should be experienced by those would-be architects of a new board.
JCSites words, fairly recently, as to what caused a 'change' in this board should be heeded!
-------------
As to the specifics that JEE mentioned, he seems to have lumped freedom of choice and free will together. That is a mistake. The former implies what the Fathers would call "gnomic" will -- something a Wesley would warn against. It implies a choosing between options for selfish reason. The later implies something so uncomparable that it belongs in a different paragraph, and indeed in a different chapter of the Bible. . .that of our being created in the image of God. One can certainly have FREE WILL without the individualisms of "freedom of choice." A slave of Christ has the former (which those in bondage to sin do not have) and not the later (halelujah!).
Thanks for posting those rather polemical quotes cpoteet!
Let the dialog continue. (As it does with me and the "Calvinists" in my Sunday School.)
PoW ("For the Conversation" -- a tribute to Starky!)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
cpoteet
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 12/25/2004 4:44 PM (GMT -6) | | I believe in free will as well, but not in the "openness" sense. I believe that not only does God know everything that has and will come to pass, but He also provided the means for that to happen. We are responsible, moral agents. Free will is compatible with sovereignty.
It just seems to me that Open Theists (and Arminians) want to preserve "free will" so much that they eisegetically construe the Bible to come to such a resolution. There is nothing in the Bible to lead us to any rational conclusion that we can "choose otherwise" from God's act of foreordination.
I have read nothing in Boyd's, Pinnock's, or Sander's material to even come close to a sound, systematic conclusion. There is a reason Pinnock and Sanders were brought up for expulsion out of the ETS, and the same reason that Sanders was removed from his post.
I read Boyd say:
"The Open view demeans God’s sovereignty only if “sovereignty” is equated with “meticulous control.” Defenders of the open view of the future believe that the biblical portrayal of God’s sovereignty consists of much more than mere control and includes dynamic qualities such as flexibility, spontaneity and creativity. These aspects of God’s sovereignty are meaningless if the future is exhaustively settled."
"Meticulous control" is exactly the caricature that Arminians and Open Theists want to make Calvinists out to be (as I am defending my stance); that we are simply puppets of God, but the fail to even understand what the Calvinist (and Biblical) view of sovereignty is:
Divine Sovereignty
The right of God to do as He wishes (Psalm 50:1; Isaiah 40:15; 1 Tim. 6:15) with His creation. This implies that there is no external influence upon Him and that He also has the ability to exercise His power and control according to His will.
www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_s.htm
God is in absolute control. His sovereignty is affirmed, because He apparently gives us complete free will to decide what the "actualities" will become. Why does Boyd see God as "flexibility and spontane[ous]?" In denying the very anthropomorphisms that Open Theists do, you are reading in un-Biblical anthropomorphisms.
Now, I know Romans 9 is a common reformed text (as it should be), but there is a very real reason why it is as such. Paul dealt with these various questions posed on God's character (ie Boyd's comment up top).
You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
Romans 9:19-24
We are not to "guess" or read into what we would like God to be. The God of the Bible is in complete control, all-knowing, does with us as He pleases. We must end this budding anthropecentrist theology. Please...
"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 | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/25/2004 6:50 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
As to the specifics that JEE mentioned, he seems to have lumped freedom of choice and free will together. That is a mistake. The former implies what the Fathers would call "gnomic" will -- something a Wesley would warn against. It implies a choosing between options for selfish reason. The later implies something so uncomparable that it belongs in a different paragraph, and indeed in a different chapter of the Bible. . .that of our being created in the image of God. One can certainly have FREE WILL without the individualisms of "freedom of choice." A slave of Christ has the former (which those in bondage to sin do not have) and not the later (halelujah!).
PoW, who can almost always be counted on to make a distinction without a difference. 
The fact is that "freedom of choice" is a perfectly valid (and virtually equivalent) way of saying the same thing as "freedom of will." Theologians, philosophers, and just regular folks use the terms "choice" and "free will" interchangeably, and I certainly don't mean anything substantially different from "free will" when I use the term "freedom of choice." I just happen to find the term, "free will" imprecise. It is not the will that is free, is the is MIND that is free to use the will to execute its intentions.
As to the question of freedom of choice somehow implying the ability to choose selfishly, yes, that is true, just as it is of the term, "free will." Selfish choices are what the Bible calls SIN. While we all certainly retain the ability to sin, it is of course true that we never possess the right to sin.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/26/2004 3:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
As to the specifics that JEE mentioned, he seems to have lumped freedom of choice and free will together. That is a mistake. The former implies what the Fathers would call "gnomic" will -- something a Wesley would warn against. It implies a choosing between options for selfish reason. The later implies something so uncomparable that it belongs in a different paragraph, and indeed in a different chapter of the Bible. . .that of our being created in the image of God. One can certainly have FREE WILL without the individualisms of "freedom of choice." A slave of Christ has the former (which those in bondage to sin do not have) and not the later (halelujah!).
PoW, who can almost always be counted on to make a distinction without a difference.
The fact is that "freedom of choice" is a perfectly valid (and virtually equivalent) way of saying the same thing as "freedom of will." Theologians, philosophers, and just regular folks use the terms "choice" and "free will" interchangeably, and I certainly don't mean anything substantially different from "free will" when I use the term "freedom of choice." I just happen to find the term, "free will" imprecise. It is not the will that is free, is the is MIND that is free to use the will to execute its intentions.
As to the question of freedom of choice somehow implying the ability to choose selfishly, yes, that is true, just as it is of the term, "free will." Selfish choices are what the Bible calls SIN. While we all certainly retain the ability to sin, it is of course true that we never possess the right to sin.
John
OK. You are not saying "freedom of choisES." My bad.
I misread due to the history of discussions here that DID portend to "freedom of choisES."
But if you say you aren't dealing with that, then you are the authority on you.
Thanks.
While the distiction is not a "distinction without a difference." the difference is mighty important.l
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/26/2004 4:48 AM (GMT -6) | | cepoteet: Divine Sovereignty: The right of God to do as He wishes (Psalm 50:1; Isaiah 40:15; 1 Tim. 6:15) with His creation. This implies that there is no external influence upon Him and that He also has the ability to exercise His power and control according to His will.
Tom: Fine. On what basis then would you deny God the right to create us with libertarian free will and place us in a world which is partly open IF THAT'S WHAT GOD WANTED? Are you denying him the right to WANT this? The ability to DESIRE this kind of world? If God is absolutely sovereign in the sense you here descreibe, then he should have the freedom to limit the 'exercise' of his power and make SOME things conditioned upon wills other than his own. On what basis you would tell God he is INCAPABLE of doing such a thing? Do you want to limit God's sovereignty?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/26/2004 9:14 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
cpoteet
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 12/27/2004 3:37 AM (GMT -6) | | JEE:
From your website:
"...Scripture, Reason, and Experience, says that the future is not fixed, settled, or certain, but even in the mind of God is partly fixed and partly open."
So, no Sola Scriptura?
"...the Open view would not be drawing so much fire if it were very easily defeated scripturally and logically."
No, it has been dealt with, but OT are stuck in presuppositions. It is drawing fire, because it is re-writing who God is.
I like the "Pelajian Controversy" website. It has some interesting stuff on the KJV only (irrational) debate. Although, the site says that the KJV was not based on the TR, but it gives no outside resources. Can you provide? I'm debating with my pastor on this now.
"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 | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/27/2004 10:23 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by cpoteet
JEE:
From your website:
"...Scripture, Reason, and Experience, says that the future is not fixed, settled, or certain, but even in the mind of God is partly fixed and partly open."
So, no Sola Scriptura?
Hi cpoteet,
Nobody approaches Scripture without use of their God-given faculty of Reason, and without a priori assumptions and knowledge based on Experience. In fact, the very experience of reading, praying, and contemplating a passage of Scripture is, by definition, experiential. The trilateral I refer to is similar to what is known of as "the Wesleyan Quadrilateral," with only the "Tradition" aspect of that paradigm removed.
quote:
I like the "Pelajian Controversy" website. It has some interesting stuff on the KJV only (irrational) debate. Although, the site says that the KJV was not based on the TR, but it gives no outside resources. Can you provide? I'm debating with my pastor on this now.
You might want to contact the administrator of that website. That particular issue is not my forte.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/27/2004 5:36 PM (GMT -6) | | cepoteet: But the problem with your comment is that you cannot back up your presupposition that God did in fact excercise His sovereignty to grant us Libertarian free will. You are trying to turn the argument around but doing so unsucessfully. Your teaching a paradox of the stone (in terms of your logic) and getting no where logically or Biblically.
Tom: I asked questions, cepoteet. I didn't get into presuppositions or argue a case regarding any particular view. I just asked you a question. Let's try again, and this time try to answer:
If sovereignty means God has the right to do whatever he wants, on what basis would you deny God the right or ability to create us with libertarian free will? I'm not presupposing we do or don't have such freedom, cepoteet. Just follow the trail. You're claiming a particular definition of divine sovereignty: The right to do whatever God wants. I'm asking you: What is there in this defintion that precludes libertarian free will or the open view? Would you at least concede the 'possibility' that God could create a world in which he freely decided to limit the exercise of his power in certain circumstances? You either think God has the right to do this or you don't.
It's NOT like the stone paradox. Not at all. The stone paradox is a pardox because it flasifies what it affirms. It's self-contradictory. But it does not follow from the fact that God "has the right to do anything he wants to do" that he MUST do all he is capable of doing; that is, that a God who has the right to do whatever he wants to do cannot want to endow us with libertarian free will. Such freely chosen self-limitation is a perfectly sensible notion, not at all a paradoxical one.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
cpoteet
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 12/28/2004 1:57 AM (GMT -6) | | I used the paradox of the stone, because yes it contradicts itself the same way the true definition of sovereignty (the one I mentioned) conflicts LFW. But of course, to justify LFW (and they have to) Open Theists claim that God cannot know certain things (ie actualities).
Let's leave philosophy, why don't you give me Scripture that backs that we have LFW (that is, the ability to choose otherwise). And I'm sure you'll probably give me a text where God 'changed His mind, regretted, or the like.' Which is fine, I just want to see where this comes from, and establish your a priori assumptions as well.
The burden of proof is on the Open Theists to prove that we have LFW, not everyone else to prove that we do not. LFW is not 'self-evident.' This is liken the New Perspective or Process Theology where we attempt to justify our reasoning with philosophy, science, and other means outside of text. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral is the very reason Arminianism was propulgated (despite centuries of it being labeled as heretical).
"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 | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 12/28/2004 2:17 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by cpoteet
I used the paradox of the stone, because yes it contradicts itself the same way the true definition of sovereignty (the one I mentioned) conflicts LFW. But of course, to justify LFW (and they have to) Open Theists claim that God cannot know certain things (ie actualities).
No it doesn't.
The paradox of the stone shows that there are things God can't do, such as the logically impossible. God can't make a four-legged tripod.
The same way, God cannot know the unknowable and God not knowing the unknowable isn't a limitation.
quote:
Let's leave philosophy
Why? Because you're getting your butt kicked? LOL
They've answered your questions, now you answer theirs.
quote:
why don't you give me Scripture that backs that we have LFW (that is, the ability to choose otherwise)
Genesis 4:
6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast?
7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."
| | 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 1:14 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 |
|
|