Theology Club: A Question for Open Theists

BrianJOrr · Feb 14, 2015

Desert Reign,

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner—busy week!

I went through your 1-1 with Lon, and I did not find it persuasive by any means. There were a few things from that discussion and the one we are having currently that I wanted to press you a bit more on.

From our current discussion, you said: “If you accept that 'context drives meaning' then how do you relate that to your notion that you cannot understand the meaning (of an Old Testament text) without the New Testament?”

While there is immediate context in the OT, the NT establishes the overarching context of God’s purposes in redemptive history, making what was concealed before, revealed now. If you recall, the Jews failed to see the proper context of the OT. Weren’t they expecting to see the reestablishment of the Jewish people as a preeminent people group, with the Davidic king ruling over the nations? Did not the Jews think that they alone were the elect people of God? This misunderstanding of the OT was what Paul had to explain, going back to the OT, with new revelation to clearly express God’s will, in his letter to the Roman church. Did not Jesus chide the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the teacher of Israel Nicodemus for their failure to see and understand what the OT truly spoke about? There is an immediate context to every verse; but the grander context in its fullness is properly assessed when looking at the OT through the new covenant lens.

From our current discussion, you said: “As I said before, the only hermeneutical issue is what is meant by local context. You have apparently misrepresented me in the latter part of your post as assuming that local context means the verse in which a word appears. But this is very far from the case. The local context might be the entire book or letter. Or it might be the whole second temple period.”

I am sorry if I misrepresented you. However, your response saying, “The local context might be the entire book or letter. Or it might be the whole second temple period,” is nothing but a smoke screen. It’s you not wanting to label it what it is—systematic and/or biblical theology. You apply a hermeneutic of looking at the Scriptures that predicate something a fact, teaching, theme, etc., and look to see if it comports with the rest of Scripture (systematically and/or biblical theologically), to show consistency in what is being expressed.

When I asked you about the deity of Christ, you said: “I worship Jesus because he is righteous, because he died for me, because he performed miracles, because he taught the teachings of God, because he is seated at the right hand of the Father, because he is one with the Father.”

So, here you are building a case looking at a collective set of Scriptures to establish the deity of Christ. Though you completely disavow Arianism and Watchtower theology, I know JWs believe exactly what you said, but they don’t believe he is “one with the Father” as you believe, pointing to his sharing of the same substance as him. The context they understand that to mean is that he is one with him in purpose, not ontologically as you have drawn from that context. So, how did you draw from that context, that Christ is “the one who is in substance God”? It doesn’t say that he is God, as we believe him to be. You looked to the other Scriptures that demonstrate he is in fact God in the flesh and inferred and inserted that theological conclusion into that verse. Again, it doesn’t actually say Jesus is God. That is not the plain reading of the text. However, it makes sense because the rest of Scripture testifies to that, and you a priori assume the deity of Christ and use that verse to support it. Because you understand the context of the NT, you can clearly understand John 10:30.

Hermeneutics is not a science of developing a cohesive set of beliefs, going one verse in order at a time. I know that you have not worked through every text of Scripture and arrived at an open theistic position. Many scholars dedicate their whole life to this pursuit and cannot even finish one of the testaments. How long have you been an open theist? You must have imposed a theology on the text, (Just as the JWs have imposed a theology on the texts) and related it to other texts to arrive at a position as complicated as open-theism. Open theism is proposed as a unified theory. If you have read The Openness of God and The God Who Risks, you would remember how the data was presented. They formulated biblical, historical, and philosophical data to attempt to form a unified theory (which is really what systematic theology does, though you don’t want to admit that is what you do).

They are pushing a doctrine of God by pulling out biblical texts from all of Scripture to support this view, then testing it to see if it is philosophically satisfying (of course it will be to them), and then attempt to support it historically by imposing that paganism affected the idiomatic expression of Scripture, likening the classical understanding to be more in line with that of the gods of Greek mythology (though this has been put to bed long ago). They have to do this approach otherwise they don’t have a case (a unified system of doctrine) that will be taken seriously by scholars and pastors. If you want to present a unified theory of doctrine, you must have analogia scriptura to do so. I think your attempt to position yourself as a pure Biblicist is pretentious.

From the 1-1, you said, “The dogma that all scripture is self-consistent is one derived from experience, not from a priori assumptions. One reason why I find the Bible so wonderful is because it is self-consistent. But I have never made the assumption that it is. I have only ever interpreted each passage in its local context but I have never found any example of inconsistency . . . ”

I think you are being untruthful here. When you came to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, had you read every single text of the Bible to find out that it was self-consistent, or did you, based upon your belief in Christ as the source of ultimate truth, a priori (by faith would be the Christian term) believe that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

“ . . .This is the basis of my confidence that there is no need to interpret passages in the light of other passages outside their own proper context. And it is this that leads me to suspect that there are hidden agendas in operation when others try to do just that.”

So, if that is the case, how then would you interpret these passages?:
“Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel. So David said to Joab and the commanders of the army, ‘Go, number Israel, from Beersheba to Dan, and bring me a report, that I may know their number’” (1 Chron. 21:1-3).

“Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’ So the king said to Joab, the commander of the army, who was with him, ‘Go through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, and number the people, that I may know the number of the people’” (2 Sam. 24:1-3).

What do you do in this situation? Same verses; same context. The author of Chronicles says Satan incited David to act; the author of Samuel says the LORD incited David to act.

Exegesis drives theology. How are you to exegete these passages to adhere to open theism? We all have presuppositions when coming to the texts; the arrogant ones are those who don’t recognize they have them and point fingers at others accusing them that their interpretation is influenced by their presuppositions.

Thanks for the discussion

(if this is getting too long and want to end it, I understand. I know it can get tiring.)

Lighthouse · Feb 15, 2015

BrianJOrr said:
Lighthouse, read your post again. Isn't the whole premise of LFW that one's actions cannot be predicted? Because if you think about it, if God who knows us--our thoughts, desires, strengths, and weaknesses--perfectly, and knows every possibility based on what situation he presents to us (these are all points Boyd, Sanders, and Rice affirm), then God could bring about a situation by his omnipotent will to get the intended response he desires to bring about his purposes. And God, just as Desert Reign states, knew that Pharaoh would respond after four plagues.

No, the premise of will is not that our actions cannot be predicted. You are not rejecting the open view; you're rejecting a fallacy.

BrianJOrr · Feb 15, 2015

While I should have clarified it better, if one holds to libertarian free will then one's choices are neccesitantly unpredictable. There is no influence nor causality attributed to one's decision. God cannot know what one will do; if he can, knowing us so well, then he is able to perfectly influence us in the way he wants thus eliminating LFW as it is defined.

Desert Reign · Feb 15, 2015

BrianJOrr said:
I went through your 1-1 with Lon, and I did not find it persuasive by any means.

Thank you for sharing your opinion with me, though I am not sure what that contributes to a debate.

While there is immediate context in the OT, the NT establishes the overarching context of God’s purposes in redemptive history,

Hmmm. Looks like I am going to be here all night.
I guess you mean by this that any OT local context (I use that term rather than 'immediate') is a) likely to be at odds with some arbitrary context in the NT and b), given a), is subordinate to that NT context.

I might be wrong but perhaps you can confirm - is this your intention / are these your assumptions in making this statement? I shall assume so for the moment.

My second comment about this initial statement of yours is that you seem to be juxtaposing two dissimilar things. 'God's purposes in redemptive history' is a highly loaded phrase and full of theological ideas. Whereas the meaning of some random passage is much more concrete - scientific almost. You seem to be setting your interlocutor up for a "Let me tell you what this passage means because it doesn't mean what you think it does, what it appears to mean." This is exactly what Lon tried to do. So let me get this straight once again: there is no justification for suggesting that the New Testament takes precedence over the Old Testament. And since you've already now read that discussion, you will remember that this view entails an assumption that the Bible is self-contradictory.

Thirdly, your apparent justification for all of this is that 'the NT establishes the overarching context of God’s purposes in redemptive history'.
Well, excuse me, but where on earth did you get that idea from? I thought that the context of God's purposes in history was estabished in Genesis chapters 1 to 11.

So, a load of nice sounding words, but full of contradictions and false assumptions.

making what was concealed before, revealed now.

And there it is! The appeal to ignorance. 'Let me show the true meaning of what you are reading because you can't understand it yourself without my help...'

It's a sure sign of a cult mentality, inviting indoctrination. I am sure you won't even realise it, but that is what it is.

If you recall, the Jews failed to see the proper context of the OT. Weren’t they expecting to see the reestablishment of the Jewish people as a preeminent people group, with the Davidic king ruling over the nations? Did not the Jews think that they alone were the elect people of God? This misunderstanding of the OT was what Paul had to explain, going back to the OT, with new revelation to clearly express God’s will, in his letter to the Roman church. Did not Jesus chide the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the teacher of Israel Nicodemus for their failure to see and understand what the OT truly spoke about?

So you are suggesting that if no one had misunderstood the Old Testament, then there would have been no need for a New Testament?

Please answer directly as I feel your response is crucial.

Or are you suggesting that the Old Testament was inherently incomprehensible?

And if you are suggesting that, then why were the Jews considered blameworthy for not understanding it?

There is an immediate context to every verse; but the grander context in its fullness is properly assessed when looking at the OT through the new covenant lens.

There it is again. Those nice sounding words. But I'll tell you what it sounds like to me. It sounds like as time goes on, history unfolds. And the most important part of history is the present day. And human beings view everything relative to the present day because they don't really have a choice about that.
So it is only a truism that what comes later is more full than what went before. It seems that the only justification you have for asserting the precedence of the NT over the OT is that it is newer! You seem to be saying 'I don't understand the Old Testament but because I understand the New Testament I will just read the Old Testament as if it were the New testament.'

However, your response saying, “The local context might be the entire book or letter. Or it might be the whole second temple period,” is nothing but a smoke screen. It’s you not wanting to label it what it is—systematic and/or biblical theology.

Thank you again for sharing your opinion. However, in my 1-1 with Lon I discussed over 20 passages and if you want to see a practical outworking of my hermeneutics, then it is there in black and white. If you can show in any of those passages that I have been doing anything approaching systematic theology, then please show it. Otherwise your opinion will remain exactly that and completely unsubstantiated.

You apply a hermeneutic of looking at the Scriptures that predicate something a fact, teaching, theme, etc., and look to see if it comports with the rest of Scripture (systematically and/or biblical theologically), to show consistency in what is being expressed.

Again, if you can show examples of this I would be willing to discuss them, otherwise it remains that you are clutching at straws.

When I asked you about the deity of Christ, you said: “I worship Jesus because he is righteous, because he died for me, because he performed miracles, because he taught the teachings of God, because he is seated at the right hand of the Father, because he is one with the Father.”

So, here you are building a case looking at a collective set of Scriptures to establish the deity of Christ.

Once again (and I confess this is getting a little tiresome) if you can show evidence, then I would be happy to discuss it. Let me try to help you a little. Go back to the quote you just quoted above and find where I used the word 'deity' in relation to Christ. When you've done that, I'd be happy to discuss further. And if, surprising as it may seem to you, I didn't use such words or terms, then you might, as an alternative, wish to discuss what I said in an earlier post about openness being about relationship, not about substance.

Though you completely disavow Arianism and Watchtower theology, I know JWs believe exactly what you said, but they don’t believe he is “one with the Father” as you believe, pointing to his sharing of the same substance as him. The context they understand that to mean is that he is one with him in purpose, not ontologically as you have drawn from that context.

Not to put to fine a point on this but you seem in a hurry to read into my words everything I did not say. And indeed you seem so ill at ease with the general principles I have explained to you that you automatically read my words in a different light - in a light that you have imposed sub-consciously on them.

I suggest that you just reread what I said more carefully as it would probably save a lot of wasted time.

So, how did you draw from that context, that Christ is “the one who is in substance God”? It doesn’t say that he is God, as we believe him to be. You looked to the other Scriptures that demonstrate he is in fact God in the flesh and inferred and inserted that theological conclusion into that verse. Again, it doesn’t actually say Jesus is God. That is not the plain reading of the text. However, it makes sense because the rest of Scripture testifies to that, and you a priori assume the deity of Christ and use that verse to support it. Because you understand the context of the NT, you can clearly understand John 10:30.

Same. Once you have concocted your own version of what I said, you proceed to build an edifice on it. I'm afraid you're going to have to pull it down.

Hermeneutics is not a science of developing a cohesive set of beliefs, going one verse in order at a time.

Given your obvious inability to correctly interpret my own words, words written in a language which is your native language and in your own day, I guess I am going to be somewhat reticent about trusting any interpretation you might place on a text written 3000 years ago or more in another language by a people with completely different cultural norms to your own.

I know that you have not worked through every text of Scripture and arrived at an open theistic position. Many scholars dedicate their whole life to this pursuit and cannot even finish one of the testaments. How long have you been an open theist?

It depends on what you mean by an open theistic position. As I said to you before, openness is about relationship. I am not primarily seeking to develop a theology. I don't know how many times I need to say this before you will understand. I believe that the scriptures are inspired by God and are useful for teaching, training in righteousness, etc. Because I believe that, I let the scriptures do their own talking.

You must have imposed a theology on the text, (Just as the JWs have imposed a theology on the texts) and related it to other texts to arrive at a position as complicated as open-theism.

Again all surmise and building edifices without permits.

Open theism is proposed as a unified theory. If you have read The Openness of God and The God Who Risks, you would remember how the data was presented. They formulated biblical, historical, and philosophical data to attempt to form a unified theory (which is really what systematic theology does, though you don’t want to admit that is what you do).

This is quite irrelevant. You asked how open theists interpret scripture. I accept the nomenclature and so I answered. I did not get my open theism from Boyd, or Sanders or anyone else in fact. I have met Greg though and it is amazing how in so many ways we are similar, including being born on almost the same date, both Catholics, difficult childhoods, etc. And I do greatly appreciate his ethos. However, I repeat, I was not influenced by him or any of the other big name American open theists whatsoever.

I think you are being untruthful here. When you came to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, had you read every single text of the Bible to find out that it was self-consistent, or did you, based upon your belief in Christ as the source of ultimate truth, a priori (by faith would be the Christian term) believe that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Well, you can think what you like. You are just finding it hard to cope with a view of scripture that is so simple that a child could understand it. That is why you have to resort to calling me a liar.

So, if that is the case, how then would you interpret these passages?:
“Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel. So David said to Joab and the commanders of the army, ‘Go, number Israel, from Beersheba to Dan, and bring me a report, that I may know their number’” (1 Chron. 21:1-3).

“Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’ So the king said to Joab, the commander of the army, who was with him, ‘Go through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, and number the people, that I may know the number of the people’” (2 Sam. 24:1-3).

What do you do in this situation? Same verses; same context. The author of Chronicles says Satan incited David to act; the author of Samuel says the LORD incited David to act.

It has never bothered me that these two passages might contradict each other, though it is obvious that they offer strikingly different perspectives on the same events. They actually don't contradict each other at all:

encourage or stir up (violent or unlawful behaviour).
"they conspired to incite riots"
<TABLE class="vk_tbl vk_gy"><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 3px" class=lr_dct_nyms_ttl>synonyms:</TD><TD>stir up, whip up, work up, encourage, fan the flames of, stoke up, fuel, kindle, ignite, inflame, stimulate, instigate, provoke, excite, arouse, awaken, waken, inspire, trigger, spark off, ferment, foment, agitate for/against; Morecause, generate, bring about;
literaryenkindle
"Rico was arrested for inciting racial hatred"

egg on, encourage, urge, goad, provoke, spur on, drive on, stimulate, push, prod, prompt, induce, impel, motivate, make, influence;
arouse, rouse, excite, inflame, stir up, sting, prick;
informalput up to;
informalroot on;
procure
"she had incited him to commit murder"

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

urge or persuade (someone) to act in a violent or unlawful way.
"he incited loyal subjects to rebellion".
There is nothing here to indicate that David had no choice in the matter.

Exegesis drives theology. How are you to exegete these passages to adhere to open theism? We all have presuppositions when coming to the texts; the arrogant ones are those who don’t recognize they have them and point fingers at others accusing them that their interpretation is influenced by their presuppositions.

Firstly, I am not accusing you of being influenced by your presuppositions when you do exegesis. You yourself have admitted that this is what you do. You yourself stated that you take the NT as the overarching hermeneutical principle for interpreting OT passages.
Secondly, I don't exegete these passages to adhere to open theism. All I do is try to understand what the passages mean and be informed by them. Satan incited David does not mean that David was forced to do what he did. But it does mean that what David did was wrong and that David succumbed to the temptation. And inasmuch as God incited David to do it, again David didn't need to do it. God was angry with Israel for some unspecified reason and would have found some other way to bring judgement on them if David didn't want to command the census. It is tedious repeating all this. If David had not succumbed to this temptation the Bible would have just been written differently and you wouldn't be any the wiser. That's how history works.

BrianJOrr said:
While I should have clarified it better, if one holds to libertarian free will then one's choices are neccesitantly unpredictable. There is no influence nor causality attributed to one's decision. God cannot know what one will do; if he can, knowing us so well, then he is able to perfectly influence us in the way he wants thus eliminating LFW as it is defined.

People's actions are predictable but this does not mean that some or other prediction is correct. The fact that you can predict some person's actions proves that there is meaning in our relationships with each other. If our actions were utterly unpredictable, as you erroneously think open theists believe, then that would mean the world is in complete chaos. I can predict that my wife will get up tomorrow and have breakfast. But I might be wrong. She might fall ill and stay in bed all day. But what she won't do is randomly disappear and reappear in a spacecraft controlled by aliens and be transported to a planet that will randomly begin to exist tomorrow.

Stripe · Feb 15, 2015

BrianJOrr said:
If one holds to libertarian free will.

Men have wills. If they are not "libertarian" and "free," they are not wills.

One's choices are neccesitantly unpredictable.

Nope.

You just completely ignored :Brandon:'s post.

That a man is predictable in his choices does not mean he has no will.

There is no influence nor causality attributed to one's decision. God cannot know what one will do; if he can, knowing us so well, then he is able to perfectly influence us in the way he wants.

Nope. With wills, we see some men choose to reject God and some choose to obey. Occasionally, some will change their ways. That their decisions are predictable or influenced does not mean they had no choice.

Thus eliminating LFW as it is defined.

You seem to be having an argument with yourself. We have defined the will as being the ability for a man to choose for himself, thus the "L" and the "F" are redundant.

To be part of a rational discussion, you need to respond to what we believe. :up:

Ask Mr. Religion · Feb 15, 2015

Having personal definitions of "will" may give hope to escape the issues motivating such a tactic, but it is seen to be merely as so hoped.

We choose according to our greatest inclinations at the moment we so choose. That is what "freedom" entails. The "will" is that by which the mind chooses something. The whole of that which moves a person to "will" something is called the motive. The strongest motive is always the driving force behind the will. Motive is the ground or cause of the will--the will is not self-determined, but rather the will is determined, or more properly speaking, the will is as the motive is. Hence, we can say motives are the antecedent causes which give rise to the act of willing.

Arminians, open theists, and others, like to argue that the will can come to action without a cause. Well, if we agree God is the necessary first cause of all things, it must be concluded that that which exists without a cause is eternal and eternality can only be ascribed to God.

AMR

Stripe · Feb 15, 2015

Ask Mr. Religion said:
Having personal definitions of "will" may give hope to escape the issues motivating such a tactic, but it is seen to be merely as so hoped.

If you want to engage with what we believe, you have to argue against what we believe. If we believe the sky is pink, you have to argue that the sky is not pink. Arguing that the sky is not green is irrational, no matter how correct you are.

We believe the will is a man's ability to choose. Adding "libertarian" and "free" to the word and insisting it must be predictable is not responsive to what we believe.

This is called setting up a straw man. It is an argument you might be able to win, but it is not responsive to what we believe.

We choose according to our greatest inclinations at the moment we so choose. That is what "freedom" entails. The "will" is that by which the mind chooses something. The whole of that which moves a person to "will" something is called the motive. The strongest motive is always the driving force behind the will. Motive is the ground or cause of the will--the will is not self-determined, but rather the will is determined, or more properly speaking, the will is as the motive is. Hence, we can say motives are the antecedent causes which give rise to the act of willing.

Nope. That is what you believe. We do not believe that.

If Brian wants to make a case against us, he has to address what we believe, not what you believe.

Arminians, open theists, and others, like to argue that the will can come to action without a cause. Well, if we agree God is the necessary first cause of all things, it must be concluded that that which exists without a cause is eternal and eternality can only be ascribed to God.AMR

God created willful beings.

He gave us the ability to choose.

Nang · Feb 15, 2015

Stripe said:
If you want to engage with what we believe, you have to argue against what we believe. If we believe the sky is pink, you have to argue that the sky is not pink. Arguing that the sky is not green is irrational, no matter how correct you are.

We believe the will is a man's ability to choose. Adding "libertarian" and "free" to the word and insisting it must be predictable is no responsive to what we believe.

This is called setting up a straw man. It is an argument you might be able to win, but it is not responsive to what we believe.

Nope. That is what you believe. We do not believe that.

If Brian wants to make a case against us, he has to address what we believe, not what you believe.

God created willful beings.

He gave us the ability to choose.

Yes, and Adam chose to rebel against the commands of God in the attempt to be equal with God.

Since then, Adam and all the human race he represented, has been been thrown into bondaqe to serving sin and death, because of Adam's wrong choice. (Romans 5:12)

Man remains willful, but he no longer is able to choose to serve God and His righeousness, because all men are slaves to serving sin, death, and the devil.

The only freedom from this bondage of the will, is God regenerating the heart and mind of the sinner, and through His saving grace, freeing that sinner with faith in the Truth of the Gospel of the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

That Truth alone, can set men free to willfully serve the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ.

John 8:36

Desert Reign · Feb 17, 2015

Nang said:
Yes, and Adam chose to rebel against the commands of God in the attempt to be equal with God.

Since then, Adam and all the human race he represented, has been been thrown into bondaqe to serving sin and death, because of Adam's wrong choice. (Romans 5:12)

Man remains willful, but he no longer is able to choose to serve God and His righeousness, because all men are slaves to serving sin, death, and the devil.

The only freedom from this bondage of the will, is God regenerating the heart and mind of the sinner, and through His saving grace, freeing that sinner with faith in the Truth of the Gospel of the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

That Truth alone, can set men free to willfully serve the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ.
John 8:36

Nang, thanks for once again reminding us of the core misanthropically based tenets of Calvinism. However the discussion was not about Calvinism but about open theism.
If you want to comment on open views of causation then please do. You might like to explain for example what causation really means. For example do we say that it is where one event follows on inevitably from another event due to the outworking of overriding universally applicable physical laws? Or what does it mean to say that a person caused something? Is there a difference betwen saying a person caused something and a person did something? What is the domain of meaning of the word 'cause'? Is it appropriate, for example, to say 'I caused a telephone'? Why is that sentence wrong?

As Stripe very well said, you need to discuss what we believe, not what we don't believe. Otherwise you are letting everyone know that you have no argument against it or you are admitting that you don't really understand it.

Nang · Feb 17, 2015

Desert Reign said:
Nang, thanks for once again reminding us of the core misanthropically based tenets of Calvinism. However the discussion was not about Calvinism but about open theism.
If you want to comment on open views of causation then please do. You might like to explain for example what causation really means. For example do we say that it is where one event follows on inevitably from another event due to the outworking of overriding universally applicable physical laws? Or what does it mean to say that a person caused something? Is there a difference betwen saying a person caused something and a person did something? What is the domain of meaning of the word 'cause'? Is it appropriate, for example, to say 'I caused a telephone'? Why is that sentence wrong?

As Stripe very well said, you need to discuss what we believe, not what we don't believe. Otherwise you are letting everyone know that you have no argument against it or you are admitting that you don't really understand it.

With all due respect, discussing God endowing Adam with secondary causal and moral agency, gives answer to the OV fallacies regarding libertarian free will. . . Which is the very premise of your erroneous view.

Since when did it become illegitimate to counter illogical theory with logical fact?

Desert Reign · Feb 17, 2015

Nang said:
With all due respect, discussing God endowing Adam with secondary causal and moral agency, gives answer to the OV fallacies regarding libertarian free will. . . Which is the very premise of your erroneous view.

Since when did it become illegitimate to counter illogical theory with logical fact?

Well, I rest my case, since obviously you have not answered or even sought to understand my view. Other people, ordinary people, seem to understand it. Because you don't even try to, I can tell you that openness will surpass Calvinism not very long from now. You will be eclipsed. You will not matter any more.

BrianJOrr · Feb 18, 2015

And we have come to a point where any further discussion on this topic will be a waste of time—for me that is. It's hard to have a discussion on hermeneutics when one presumes to have a view of Scripture that he has developed without any outside influence, for how will my points of interpretation and hermeneutics influence him? Obviously, historical orthodoxy hasn't either. Or, rather it has, just in the heterodox direction.

I think what is quite obvious is that DR is being untruthful in his view that he is without influence, reading the text from a 'what it naturally says' approach, which I claim as well, but recognize that there have been many others before me, more seasoned in the Word, mighty men of the faith, of which I only stand on their shoulders. DR’s presuppositions deny that. Every student of the Word of God has been influenced or guided in a certain way when it comes to understanding the Scriptures. Teaching and discipleship are what the Lord has put in place for us to grow others in the faith, to guard the deposit, keeping the body of Christ pure until the day of redemption.

An important element to legitimacy is if the system of thought or hermeneutics is clearly seen through out the biblical text, is coherent, and stands the test of time through historical scrutiny. Church history is greatly important, not to prove to be our basis for doctrine but to see a shared understanding and transmission of that unified theory within the body of the church as it goes through trials in a fallen world. The Socinians tried this and failed many years ago, as I believe this resurrected understanding of Scripture today eventually will do as well.

One of the important aspects of orthodoxy lies in the consistency of doctrine throughout the history of the Church. It has only been through those, like DR, who have made the claim to hold to an interpretation of Scripture that comes unfettered by influence of men, to end up starting a heretical system of belief based on their 'clear reading’ of the text. Charles Taze Russell and Ellen White come to mind.

Has he not ever read a theological book written by a pastor or scholar, which helped him in his understanding of Scripture, helping him make connections between the Old and the New Covenants, which further solidify what the Bible teaches about God, man, sin, Christ, redemption, justification, etc?

We all have. And for him to deny being influenced as such is dishonest.

I am curious how he would define the Trinity without such language the early church Fathers used to define and articulate it, which is what the church uses today.

It's quite sad that DR cannot see the folly in his presuppositions.

I am not meaning to imply that he is not saved; rather, his abstruse understanding the text, which he accuses my tradition of having, is what normally leads to heresy (I can see why Lon questioned him on even being a Christian).

So, I exhort him to examine himself.

Desert Reign · Feb 18, 2015

BrianJOrr said:
And we have come to a point where any further discussion on this topic will be a waste of time—for me that is. It's hard to have a discussion on hermeneutics when one presumes to have a view of Scripture that he has developed without any outside influence, for how will my points of interpretation and hermeneutics influence him?

You are correct. It will be a waste of your time because if you have no concrete arguments to make then that is the end of the discussion.

And further, it is a waste of my time too because this is now the third time that you have misrepresented me. I never said I was without influence. The question was whether I had been influenced by other open theist theologians. And to that question I answered a definite no. I really don't see how you can be doing a PhD in which you are supposed to offer an original contribution to knowledge when along comes someone else who has indeed made an original contribution and all you can say to him is 'because your contribution is original I will have no further argument with you because your beliefs are not orthodox or influenced by orthodoxy'! What then do you expect others to make of your own supposed original contribution?

I think what is quite obvious is that DR is being untruthful in his view that he is without influence,

Aside from the obvious issue of misrepresentation, it seems to me that you are unable to recognise new thought when you see it. And because you cannot handle it you have to call me a liar. Because all your life you have been used to following orthodoxy (at least your version of it) you have no concept of what it means to bring original thought to a discussion. All you can do is trot out what hundreds of people before you have themselves trotted out. And you carry out a little bit of analysis on it and you call it a PhD.

reading the text from a 'what it naturally says' approach, which I claim as well, but recognize that there have been many others before me, more seasoned in the Word, mighty men of the faith, of which I only stand on their shoulders.

Yes, exactly. But why are you doing a PhD then?

DR’s presuppositions deny that. Every student of the Word of God has been influenced or guided in a certain way when it comes to understanding the Scriptures.

This is a truism. We are what we are, not what we were before.

Listen, I am a human being! I am entitled to think originally. It is my destiny to do so. I am not an automaton. You might be one and I daresay you aspire to be one when you grow up. I do not and am not.

An important element to legitimacy is if the system of thought or hermeneutics is clearly seen through out the biblical text, is coherent, and stands the test of time through historical scrutiny. Church history is greatly important, not to prove to be our basis for doctrine but to see a shared understanding and transmission of that unified theory within the body of the church as it goes through trials in a fallen world.

You are advocating a recipe for stagnation. What is your PhD for, is it to find some original way to stagnate?

The Socinians tried this and failed many years ago, as I believe this resurrected understanding of Scripture today eventually will do as well.

One of the important aspects of orthodoxy lies in the consistency of doctrine throughout the history of the Church. It has only been through those, like DR, who have made the claim to hold to an interpretation of Scripture that comes unfettered by influence of men, to end up starting a heretical system of belief based on their 'clear reading’ of the text. Charles Taze Russell and Ellen White come to mind.

One day Jean Calvin will be numbered along with CT Russell and Ellen White because you have failed to engage with the beliefs of open theists. I tell you, ordinary people are flocking to churches like mine and our congregations are vibrant attracting men and women equally, both the educated and the simple and people from all different ethnic backgrounds. In the eight years I have been at my present church we have been in three different premises because we have grown so fast.

Has he not ever read a theological book written by a pastor or scholar, which helped him in his understanding of Scripture, helping him make connections between the Old and the New Covenants, which further solidify what the Bible teaches about God, man, sin, Christ, redemption, justification, etc? We all have. And for him to deny being influenced as such is dishonest.

Never said that. More misrepresentation.

I am curious how he would define the Trinity without such language the early church Fathers used to define and articulate it, which is what the church uses today.

The creeds of your churches do not inspire faith. All they do is create strife and exclude and force people to conform. A long time ago I wrote this.

Since you are curious (which is perhaps another way of saying that you do not have sufficient imagination to work out how anyone could have a valid point of view that is different from your own), here is my answer.

I believe in the beauty of truth:
Whoever seeks truth with all his heart will be deeply satisfied by our heavenly Father.

I believe in living a morally perfect life:
As Jesus taught.

I believe in the power of the Spirit:
To witness, work and endure the hardship which disciples of Jesus will undergo.

I believe in resurrection and new life:
Both now and when Jesus returns in judgement
To make all wrongs right and reveal who are his.

I believe that Christians everywhere are one family:
To live sacrificially for each other in love,
That the church of the faithful is the custodian
Of the healing power and light of God for the world
And that in the church there are no barriers between God and man.

I love the Bible and rely on it; it is inspired and trustworthy.
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-GB</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

Stripe · Feb 18, 2015

BrianJOrr said:
And we have come to a point where any further discussion on this topic will be a waste of time.

Only for those not willing to learn.

Nang · Feb 18, 2015

Stripe said:
Only for those not willing to learn.

Translated: "Only for those not willing to learn (endorse) post-modern relativism and humanistic doctrines."

BrianJOrr · Feb 19, 2015

I wasn’t going to respond, but after listening to the White and Enyart debate again today, I heard Enyart say something that I had to ask you about.

He said that the seed/offspring of the woman in Genesis 3:15 is in reference to Christ. Now, I believe that as well. But in light of your comments regarding how you interpret the Bible, how can he believe that? I would have to assume you also share the same model of interpretation since you are both open theists. You did say that your method of interpretation is “how open theists interpret the Old Testament.”

So do you believe this? If so, how did you arrive to this conclusion based on what you said?:

“The meaning of a text is determined by itself, not by some other text whether in the New Testament, the Old Testament or anywhere else. The principle that passages in the Bible are interpreted in reference to other passages is a false principle and leads to unpredictable and inconsistent outcomes. Each passage should be interpreted in its own local context and the sum total of all such interpretations in the whole Bible constitutes the written inspiration of scripture. This is an objective and consistent approach. If you introduce random passages as essential contributors to the meaning of some particular passage, then you bring randomness and unpredictability into hermeneutics.”

But in looking at your other responses, I am baffled because you also said regarding context, “The local context might be the entire book or letter. Or it might be the whole second temple period.”

So, to me it sounds like there truly is no “local” in any sense. It’s all what you determine the context to be. If it doesn’t comport with your perspective, then it is a random passage being used out of context. That is what you accuse me of doing. Why? Because it doesn’t fit your theological framework.

I know you said this, "Each passage should be interpreted in its own local context and the sum total of all such interpretations in the whole Bible constitutes the written inspiration of scripture. This is an objective and consistent approach."

That is called systematic theology; you just don't want to call it that. When I interpret Scripture and want to understand what it teaches about sin, I go through all of Scripture to see what God's Word teaches about it. So, your argument is without merit.

Back to the Genesis 3:15 passage.

Could you come to that conclusion just in reading that text by itself? Or do we see that from other texts, further revealed in the OT and NT (Isa. 7:14; Mic. 5:3; Matt. 1:23, 25; Luke 1:34, 35; Gal. 4:4; 1 Tim. 2:15), we are able to fully understand that passage and can with certainty affirm that verse is speaking about Christ?

Those verses I supplied, would you consider those “random passages”? You never defined “random” passages; rather, you only said I was guilty of using random passages to support my theological doctrines when I was referring to Romans 9:14-18 and Exodus 33:14, which I don’t see how you can say they are random, considering Paul is the one using the Exodus passage to establish a theological point.

So really, What is random? How is a verse in your perspective considered random? I didn't use random verses to establish my point.

Wouldn’t you have to agree that Enyart might have “an axe to grind” if he were to go to those passages to support his view that Genesis 3:15 is speaking of Christ? How is the open theist’s understanding of Christ as the seed in Genesis 3:15 any different than my showing the connection between Romans 9:14-18 and Exodus 33:14, especially since there are no direct importations of Genesis 3:15 to any of the verses cited, which we all use to support that belief?

Next Point:

You stated:

“I read scripture for what it is and if theology comes as a result then that is fine but if it doesn't then that is also fine. After all, God inspired the scriptures, we all believe that. . . . I wish to be inspired by what God gave us first and foremost.”

“I let the scriptures do their own talking.”

“I was not influenced by him or any of the other big name American open theists whatsoever.”

“I don't exegete these passages to adhere to open theism. All I do is try to understand what the passages mean and be informed by them.”

You want me to accept your assumptions and dismiss mine. I too let the Scriptures do their own talking; I too read Scripture for what it is, using it as my filter when it comes to any doctrine attempting to be passed as biblical. So your road-less-traveled approach is, as already stated, pretentious. In my Greek and hermeneutics courses, the key was to let the Scriptures speak. Use the summation of biblical expression to have a unified understanding of God, man, sin, etc. I have the same view of the Bible as you do.

You said, “One day Jean Calvin will be numbered along with CT Russell and Ellen White because you have failed to engage with the beliefs of open theists. I tell you, ordinary people are flocking to churches like mine and our congregations are vibrant attracting men and women equally, both the educated and the simple and people from all different ethnic backgrounds. In the eight years I have been at my present church we have been in three different premises because we have grown so fast.”

I can say that too! In the last 5 years my church has gone to three different locations because of our growth, which has been mostly others coming to us from churches like yours. So, who wins this argument? (come on, that's a fallacy to use that as an argument. You should know better

)

And lastly, you stated:

“when reading the Bible, the primary interpretive principle is not some doctrine of God but the historical outworking of a relationship.”

If that is the case (now, I am not denying that important element in the biblical expression of God and his relation to his creatures), what is different between you and a Mormon or a JW? They have a relationship with God through their interpretation. What classifies them as heretics?

The Mormons and JWs I know and have talked with many times, they too would agree on these things you stated as your “creed.”

I believe in the beauty of truth:
Whoever seeks truth with all his heart will be deeply satisfied by our heavenly Father.

I believe in living a morally perfect life:
As Jesus taught.

I believe in the power of the Spirit:
To witness, work and endure the hardship which disciples of Jesus will undergo.

I believe in resurrection and new life:
Both now and when Jesus returns in judgement
To make all wrongs right and reveal who are his.

I believe that Christians everywhere are one family:
To live sacrificially for each other in love,
That the church of the faithful is the custodian
Of the healing power and light of God for the world
And that in the church there are no barriers between God and man.

I love the Bible and rely on it; it is inspired and trustworthy.

And lastly, you said: “it seems to me that you are unable to recognise new thought when you see it.”

By the way, your thoughts are not original (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Like I said, it was already tried in the 1600s, and it failed the test of scriptural scrutiny. Most heresies start out that way; it sounds new and cool, but in the end it will show it tried and died.

Ask Mr. Religion · Feb 20, 2015

Brian,

It is very difficult to follow the discussion without using the quote functions.

Please use [quote] and [/quote] tags to bracket another's post in your post.

Also include at least one [QUOTE="Desert Reign, post: 0"] so as to point the reader to the quoted person's original text so we can all follow the discussion in its full context. That last tag above with the numbers 4227395 is shown when you select the "Quote" button of another's post. You can copy and paste it as an initial quote tag (be sure to end the quoted portion with the [/quote] as you create a standalone post without simply using the "Quote" button.

To quote multiple posts select the second icon at the bottom right next to the "Quote" button. So say you want to quote two different posts. Select that multi-quote button for the first post, then select the "Quote" button for the second and start editing your post which will contain the two quoted posts. You can delete any quoted portions not relevant, but do retain the bracketing quote tags therein.

Multi-quote is tricky. If you abandon a post that you intended to include multiple quoted posts, just be sure to go back and re-click any multi-quote buttons you had previously selected to turn them off. If you do not the software will remember the selection and the next time you quote a post you will find these unchecked posts also contained in your current editing window and wonder what is going on, where did that text come from, etc.

AMR

patrick jane · Feb 20, 2015

BrianJOrr said:
I wasn’t going to respond, but after listening to the White and Enyart debate again today, I heard Enyart say something that I had to ask you about.

He said that the seed/offspring of the woman in Genesis 3:15 is in reference to Christ. Now, I believe that as well. But in light of your comments regarding how you interpret the Bible, how can he believe that? I would have to assume you also share the same model of interpretation since you are both open theists. You did say that your method of interpretation is “how open theists interpret the Old Testament.”

So do you believe this? If so, how did your arrive to this conclusion based on what you said:

“The meaning of a text is determined by itself, not by some other text whether in the New Testament, the Old Testament or anywhere else. The principle that passages in the Bible are interpreted in reference to other passages is a false principle and leads to unpredictable and inconsistent outcomes. Each passage should be interpreted in its own local context and the sum total of all such interpretations in the whole Bible constitutes the written inspiration of scripture. This is an objective and consistent approach. If you introduce random passages as essential contributors to the meaning of some particular passage, then you bring randomness and unpredictability into hermeneutics.”

But in looking at your other responses, I am baffled because you also said regarding context, “The local context might be the entire book or letter. Or it might be the whole second temple period.”

So, to me it sounds like there truly is no “local” in any sense. It’s all what you determine the context to be. If it doesn’t comport with your perspective, then it is a random passage being used out of context. That is what you accuse me of doing. Why? Because it doesn’t fit your theological framework.

I know you said this, "Each passage should be interpreted in its own local context and the sum total of all such interpretations in the whole Bible constitutes the written inspiration of scripture. This is an objective and consistent approach."

That is called systematic theology; you just don't want to call it that. When I interpret Scripture and want to understand what it teaches about sin, I go through all of Scripture to see what God's Word teaches about it. So, your argument is without merit.

Back to the Genesis 3:15 passage.

Could you come to that conclusion just in reading that text by itself? Or do we see that from other texts, further revealed in the OT and NT (Isa. 7:14; Mic. 5:3; Matt. 1:23, 25; Luke 1:34, 35; Gal. 4:4; 1 Tim. 2:15), we are able to fully understand that passage and can with certainty affirm that verse is speaking about Christ?

Those verses I supplied, would you consider those “random passages”? You never defined “random” passages; rather, you only said I was guilty of using random passages to support my theological doctrines when I was referring to Romans 9:14-18 and Exodus 33:14, which I don’t see how you can say they are random, considering Paul is the one using the Exodus passage to establish a theological point.

So really, What is random? How is a verse in your perspective considered random? I didn't use random verses to establish my point.

Wouldn’t you have to agree that Enyart might have “an axe to grind” if he were to go to those passages to support his view that Genesis 3:15 is speaking of Christ? How is the open theist’s understanding of Christ as the seed in Genesis 3:15 any different than my showing the connection between Romans 9:14-18 and Exodus 33:14, especially since there are no direct importations of Genesis 3:15 to any of the verses cited, which we all use to support that belief?

Next Point:

You stated:

“I read scripture for what it is and if theology comes as a result then that is fine but if it doesn't then that is also fine. After all, God inspired the scriptures, we all believe that. . . . I wish to be inspired by what God gave us first and foremost.”

“I let the scriptures do their own talking.”

“I was not influenced by him or any of the other big name American open theists whatsoever.”

“I don't exegete these passages to adhere to open theism. All I do is try to understand what the passages mean and be informed by them.”

You want me to accept your assumptions and dismiss mine. I too let the Scriptures do their own talking; I too read Scripture for what it is, using it as my filter when it comes to any doctrine attempting to be passed as biblical. So your road-less-traveled approach is, as already stated, pretentious. In my Greek and hermeneutics courses, the key was to let the Scriptures speak. Use the summation of biblical expression to have a unified understanding of God, man, sin, etc. I have the same view of the Bible as you do.

You said, “One day Jean Calvin will be numbered along with CT Russell and Ellen White because you have failed to engage with the beliefs of open theists. I tell you, ordinary people are flocking to churches like mine and our congregations are vibrant attracting men and women equally, both the educated and the simple and people from all different ethnic backgrounds. In the eight years I have been at my present church we have been in three different premises because we have grown so fast.”

I can say that too! In the last 5 years my church has gone to three different locations because of our growth, which has been mostly others coming to us from churches like yours. So, who wins this argument? (come on, that's a fallacy to use that as an argument. You should know better )

And lastly, you stated:

“when reading the Bible, the primary interpretive principle is not some doctrine of God but the historical outworking of a relationship.”

If that is the case (now, I am not denying that important element in the biblical expression of God and his relation to his creatures), what is different between you and a Mormon or a JW? They have a relationship with God through their interpretation. What classifies them as heretics?

The Mormons and JWs I know and have talked with many times, they too would agree on these things you stated as your “creed.”

I believe in the beauty of truth:
Whoever seeks truth with all his heart will be deeply satisfied by our heavenly Father.

I believe in living a morally perfect life:
As Jesus taught.

I believe in the power of the Spirit:
To witness, work and endure the hardship which disciples of Jesus will undergo.

I believe in resurrection and new life:
Both now and when Jesus returns in judgement
To make all wrongs right and reveal who are his.

I believe that Christians everywhere are one family:
To live sacrificially for each other in love,
That the church of the faithful is the custodian
Of the healing power and light of God for the world
And that in the church there are no barriers between God and man.

I love the Bible and rely on it; it is inspired and trustworthy.

Click to expand...

And lastly, you said: “it seems to me that you are unable to recognise new thought when you see it.”

By the way, your thoughts are not original (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Like I said, it was already tried in the 1600s, and it failed the test of scriptural scrutiny. Most heresies start out that way; it sounds new and cool, but in the end it will show it tried and died.

very good points. blunt and mildly harsh but very insightful - God Bless ! ! !

patrick jane · Feb 20, 2015

Desert Reign said:
You are correct. It will be a waste of your time because if you have no concrete arguments to make then that is the end of the discussion.

And further, it is a waste of my time too because this is now the third time that you have misrepresented me. I never said I was without influence. The question was whether I had been influenced by other open theist theologians. And to that question I answered a definite no. I really don't see how you can be doing a PhD in which you are supposed to offer an original contribution to knowledge when along comes someone else who has indeed made an original contribution and all you can say to him is 'because your contribution is original I will have no further argument with you because your beliefs are not orthodox or influenced by orthodoxy'! What then do you expect others to make of your own supposed original contribution?

Aside from the obvious issue of misrepresentation, it seems to me that you are unable to recognise new thought when you see it. And because you cannot handle it you have to call me a liar. Because all your life you have been used to following orthodoxy (at least your version of it) you have no concept of what it means to bring original thought to a discussion. All you can do is trot out what hundreds of people before you have themselves trotted out. And you carry out a little bit of analysis on it and you call it a PhD.

Yes, exactly. But why are you doing a PhD then?

This is a truism. We are what we are, not what we were before.

Listen, I am a human being! I am entitled to think originally. It is my destiny to do so. I am not an automaton. You might be one and I daresay you aspire to be one when you grow up. I do not and am not.

You are advocating a recipe for stagnation. What is your PhD for, is it to find some original way to stagnate?

One day Jean Calvin will be numbered along with CT Russell and Ellen White because you have failed to engage with the beliefs of open theists. I tell you, ordinary people are flocking to churches like mine and our congregations are vibrant attracting men and women equally, both the educated and the simple and people from all different ethnic backgrounds. In the eight years I have been at my present church we have been in three different premises because we have grown so fast.

Never said that. More misrepresentation.

The creeds of your churches do not inspire faith. All they do is create strife and exclude and force people to conform. A long time ago I wrote this.

Since you are curious (which is perhaps another way of saying that you do not have sufficient imagination to work out how anyone could have a valid point of view that is different from your own), here is my answer.

I believe in the beauty of truth:
Whoever seeks truth with all his heart will be deeply satisfied by our heavenly Father.

I believe in living a morally perfect life:
As Jesus taught.

I believe in the power of the Spirit:
To witness, work and endure the hardship which disciples of Jesus will undergo.

I believe in resurrection and new life:
Both now and when Jesus returns in judgement
To make all wrongs right and reveal who are his.

I believe that Christians everywhere are one family:
To live sacrificially for each other in love,
That the church of the faithful is the custodian
Of the healing power and light of God for the world
And that in the church there are no barriers between God and man.

I love the Bible and rely on it; it is inspired and trustworthy.

better points -

atrol:

Stripe · Feb 20, 2015

BrianJOrr said:
Enyart said that the seed/offspring of the woman in Genesis 3:15 is in reference to Christ. Now, I believe that as well. But in light of your comments regarding how you interpret the Bible, how can he believe that?

What did Bob Enyart say that would make you suggest he could not believe in prophecy?

Are you attacking an implied straw man? We do not believe that nothing is set in stone; we believe that not everything is set in stone.

The open theist's challenge to the Calvinist is for them to show that everything must be decreed and fulfilled; down to the tiniest of details. Showing that one thing is certain does not answer the challenge.

Theology Club: A Question for Open Theists

New member

The Dark Knight

New member

LIFETIME MEMBER

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle

TOL Subscriber

LIFETIME MEMBER

TOL Subscriber

LIFETIME MEMBER

New member

LIFETIME MEMBER

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle

TOL Subscriber

New member

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

BANNED

BANNED

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9