You're lying, Nang!You have not rightly described any of my beliefs . .
I've been debating this stuff for decades and have been debating you for years and years as well. I know what you believe because you've told me, you and your husband both.
It is your doctrine that is nonsense, Nang and I can tell that you know it. You'll never admit it to me or even to yourself but you can tell that what you believe makes no sense. Everyone can tell that what you believe makes no sense.:chuckle:
Sure . . I should renounce my beliefs just because you do not comprehend the Truth and misrepresent the Truth to which I testify?
Nonsense . . .
I deny Augustinian (Greek philosophical) omniscience but fully accept the biblical teaching that God knows everything that is knowable that He wants to know. I base my doctrine on what the bible says, not on the philosophy of Greek homosexual philosophers who enjoyed the 'company' of young boys.No, you deny the divine attribute of omniscience, altogether.
Reformed theology teaches Calvinism. They are therefore Calvinist. That's what the term means and the only reason you don't like it is because I found a list of quotes from the original source of your doctrine that you don't like the sound of but cannot bring yourself to deny. It's flat out hysterical!Reformers (who you insist on labeling "Calvinists") believe and teach the attributes of God, which you Open Theists deny.
Calvinists teach the attributes of Aristotle's god, not the attributes of Abraham's God.
Genesis 18:20 And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”
No one has suggested that you worship Calvin only that you believe his doctrine, which is what the word "Calvinist" means. I could call you an Augustinian but there's a lot of Catholic baggage that could be attached to that term that would not apply and so while Augustinian would fit in regards to your Theology Proper, Calvinism fits the whole of your doctrine and is thus the better term.Reformers highly respect the fruits of Calvin's teachings, but none of us claim to be the disciples of any man, but followers of Jesus Christ, only.
None of you here on TOL distanced yourself from Calvin by one inch until some of us Open Theists began to quote Calvin whenever you'd act like we didn't know what we were talking about. Then you suddenly wanted to hold Calvin at arm's length.I know of no Reformer who is ashamed of John Calvin, but I know of no Reformers who limit their testimony to his works alone.
This was a stupid thing to say.I cringe and am embarrassed by any and all who claim to follow Bob Enyart and extoll his book "The Plot" over the works of the early church fathers and beyond the Holy Scriptures. . . like you unabashedly do.
Find a post where I've quoted Bob Enyart's book. They exist but not in large numbers. Bob's book isn't about Open Theism, it's about Acts 9 Dispensationalism and when I debate Acts 9 Dispensationalism I quote Paul's epistles not Bob's book. Bob did not come up with Acts 9 Dispensationalism and his book is by no means the only book written to establish it but I am not at all ashamed of a single word in Bob's book as you clearly are of Calvin's words.
Find me a single point in Bob's book that is not fully established with rationally sound, biblical arguments and I'll drop that point from my belief.
I have not accused you of anything other than being a Calvinist, which you are and which you do not even deny!So be quiet accusing others of being disciples of mere men. You are guilty of such, and have no grounds to accuse others of your own faults.
Go ahead and find a quote from Bob and ask me whether I agree with it or not! I'll give you an immediate, straight, and probably one syllable answer.
Resting in Him,
Clete