Search results

Sometimes works of art provide concepts that aren't healthy to be expressed, too.

Here's how I see it. If your theology says that everything you will ever think and do is known before you exist, then you are really the one thinking and doing. Both options are therefore deterministic. The difference, then, is that White believes God is the determiner, while Wiersbe, though...

The problem is that both believe in determinism, but one is more consistent than the other. James White's view is more internally consistent, because he doesn't allow for man's free will in a universe of God's absolute sovereignty. If I were to describe it to you without naming any characters...

Both mysteries dissolve with an openness construct that denies God knows the future exhaustively. Why should we choose one bad mystery over another? It's like picking your favorite Scooby Doo episode.

I think Lon's motives are fairly obvious--he is clinging to a theological system that he can't logically defend any more, so he launches into stories that talk about how He feels, vs how God feels, vs how we ought to feel. That's really the only avenue left when the scriptures don't support your...

No. And of course you can erect a straw man and knock it down. But you should attempt to understand better when told your straw is showing. If you don't care about truth in theology, why are you arguing about it. Isn't bad Open Theism just as palatable as good Settled View Theism when you emote...

Yes. This is the whole crux of the disagreement. If God only knows what you are going to choose ten minutes before you choose it, you are an open theist.

The prophecy about Peter's death could easily have been fulfilled if Peter had later denied the Lord again finally. I'm not sure why it is so interesting a prophecy.

It does, but you can't see it through your biases. I haven't seen any text where I have to be inconsistent. I've addressed several before. Yes, see below. Agreed If He was at one time "without us", then He changed, correct? From a God who had no people to a God who has a people. More...

Will try soon. Ping me if you don't see it within a couple days.

It shakes your very foundation. And that means your foundation is wrong, and not a foundation at all, but a house built on sand.

No, it doesn't, if Hezekiah's doesn't. It doesn't matter whether you're a slave or not. If God tells you you are going to die, then says you are going to live, the conditional proves open theism's point. There are no conditionals in settled view. There can't be. God either knows one thing to be...

Well, he IS saying that, technically. But that isn't what the context includes. In no wise does the context include all things from the foundation of the world. The same for Hezekiah's second word, which utterly contradicted the first. God can't prophecy both dying and not dying at a particular...

I doubt that Peter was basing it on some kind of knowledge added at His resurrection. More likely is that Peter was remembering Jesus' words before the denial, which was your point earlier, if I remember correctly. And if he was remembering the former words, which were about love (or lack...

Two pairs of pliers, or four pliers. In case you were wondering, here's a plier: At least that's what my 4-yr-old grandson would tell you. (He has some trouble with his "R's".)

Yes, but it's not the ability to bear good fruit, rather it's the impetus to gain due to the fear of death versus the recognition of life ahead because of the power of the Spirit as an earnest of the life to come.

The problem comes in when you say that God knows everything because He is pushing all the buttons He wants pushed. One of those buttons creates Peter and his faults, including both the braggadocia and the inability to resist temptation, not to mention all of the thoughts Peter had about the...

My point was that "all things" in Peter's mind didn't have to include all things past present and future for all humans past present and future. It might just mean "You know all that's in my heart, good and bad."

So, if they don't know everything, then He wouldn't either? I'm not sure that's what "lower than the angels" means, but it could, I guess. Not a strong argument, imo.

You are correct that the text is more clearly saying that Jesus knows all things (omniscience), but the text doesn't stand on its own. We know that Jesus didn't know all things at one point in time: Mark 13:32 KJV — But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in...