Vulnerable? I'd be more worried about spiritual pride if I were you.
Since love, which is not puffed up (like gnosis knowledge), abounds in epignosis knowledge, it can't be puffed up. Confident absolute assurance and persuasion (pistis faith) is not pride.
Nothing beats the simple faith of a child, and no child would buy some of the stuff you're selling.
When I became a man, I put away childish things. No child would understand what hypostasis and ousia and prosopon mean. That doesn't mean we shouldn't mature in the faith.
The simplistic childlikeness is about a type of faith, not to have us forever eschewing any pursuit of the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the epignosis knowledge of him.
I've certainly never regarding you as a child. I've always seen spiritual maturity.
1 Corinthians 1:25-27
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
I'm not wise after the flesh. Oida and epignosis knowledge are of the spirit. I've just spent the time to have dianoia and suneimi understanding because scripture insists we do.
All things are possible with God, and I seem to be hearing from the most learned among us that it isn't possible for God to change. Seems like what man claims is impossible is perhaps just so much hot air.
Is it possible or impossible for God to lie?
Your answer is really in the Luke 1 passage where the angel is addressing Mary. "With God, nothing (no rhema) shall be impossible."
Rhema stands for the thing thought and spoken about. The subject matter, content, or substance of all though and speech. There is no Logos without Rhema.
"With God, no thing spoken about shall be impossible." And Mary replied, "Be it unto me according to thy rhema (word)."
To not know and understand the distinction between God's inherent essence and His economy in energies, is to not understand Theology Proper at all.
All these concepts from human logos aren't God's Rhema. They aren't the thing spoken about. And that thing was His very substance (hypostasis) that became flesh.
That was procession and conception. The economy of God's substance, not His essence.
You and your peers are arguing from a perspective that is devoid of much information and understanding. Open Theism is the substitute for that information and understanding, and the means of placing humanity in the role of God to varying extent.
It's the Edenic lie penetrating to hybridize and minimize the true Christian faith. And it means someone doesn't even understand their own Theology Proper and likely doesn't adhere to it, believing in "another" Trinity.
None of this is beyond God's grace and mercy, but for few/some/many/most it could be a salvific issue. I can't know those hearts, but the doctrine is completely fallacious for reasons Open Theists can't even fathom in their gnosis that isn't epignosis.
Gnosis is what's puffed up, and presumes others are. I'm actually shocked you're an Open Theist. I didn't know, cuz I don't spend much time on the topic.
