You have not answered the question...and I will not respond further until you do
Are Jesus words only applicable to his immediate hearers?
What is Open Theism position on inerrancy of scripture?
- Thread starter Cygnus
- Start date
Are Jesus words only applicable to his immediate hearers?
Right Divider
Body part
It seems you have a contradiction to deal with...I suggest you refine your response...but nice try RD
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
There is no contradiction.
I suggest that you pay closer attention to whom you are responding.
Right Divider
Body part
No, there is not.
So you accept that there is a universal application?
We are both skilled at what we do…well practiced…and refined in our technique.
There is no need to bypass a direct question I asked you to respond to in my post #61 and attempt to answer it through my response to another so as to falsely achieve some kind of ascendancy.
I consider both yourself and Clete to be powerful debaters...for the aforesaid reasons...and the primary defenders of this forum.
Our exchanges will be direct...person to person...or there will be no exchanges at all.
I request that you transpose your response to the appropriate location.
RD said everything I was going to say anyways.
Why should I repeat what has already been said?
Come down off your high horse for a moment, would ya?
Unacceptable...end of transmission
And with that, I win!
Wow!
Derf
Well-known member
He lasted longer than I thought he would.
I just wasn't entirely sure that it was another sock account for TheDarkSideOfTheMoon. His more recent posts pretty much confirmed that he was, otherwise he would have been banned a lot earlier.
So, I just read through most of this thread and I would have to say that I don't think that Open Theism is as irrelevant to the question of the inerrancy of scripture as RD was saying early on in the discussion. I agree that Open Theism is not defined by anyone's stance on the question of biblical inerrancy, but the fact that the bible that we have today, while very close, is not absolutely identical to what was originally written, is far more compatible with open theism that with a deterministic worldview.
The discussion got on the correct track when glaring examples of inconsistencies in the bible (inconsistencies which do not effect the message of the scripture) were presented, and when Cygnus failed to respond and just deflected as though the point was somehow off the topic, he should have been pounced on and squashed with this point until he went whimpering into the corner complaining about being the victim he so desperately seems to want to be perceived as.
Such inconsistencies are entirely incompatible with Calvinism's version of God. If God is in meticulous control of every single event, no matter how trivial or inconsequential, one would expect an absolutely flawless scripture. The fact that the scripture we have today is not absolutely flawless is strong evidence that God is not in meticulous control of every event that happens. Otherwise, you'd have to concede that the errors that are present are there because God wanted them to be in there, in which case it would be the originals that were less than perfect, which makes no sense at all.
In short, while our stance on the inerrancy of scripture is not a derivative of open theism, per se, the belief that today's bible is absolutely flawless is a derivative of the settled worldview. This explains why his instinct was to asked the question in the first place and why the doctrine of open theism is not irrelevant. Indeed, one's theology proper is almost never irrelevant to any doctrine one might hold. Cygnus' brain was saying to him, "If these people don't believe God predestined everything, if they don't believe that God is "sovereign", how can they trust the scripture?" The answer being, "The same way you do, except with a lot more consistency and intellectual honesty."
The discussion got on the correct track when glaring examples of inconsistencies in the bible (inconsistencies which do not effect the message of the scripture) were presented, and when Cygnus failed to respond and just deflected as though the point was somehow off the topic, he should have been pounced on and squashed with this point until he went whimpering into the corner complaining about being the victim he so desperately seems to want to be perceived as.
Such inconsistencies are entirely incompatible with Calvinism's version of God. If God is in meticulous control of every single event, no matter how trivial or inconsequential, one would expect an absolutely flawless scripture. The fact that the scripture we have today is not absolutely flawless is strong evidence that God is not in meticulous control of every event that happens. Otherwise, you'd have to concede that the errors that are present are there because God wanted them to be in there, in which case it would be the originals that were less than perfect, which makes no sense at all.
In short, while our stance on the inerrancy of scripture is not a derivative of open theism, per se, the belief that today's bible is absolutely flawless is a derivative of the settled worldview. This explains why his instinct was to asked the question in the first place and why the doctrine of open theism is not irrelevant. Indeed, one's theology proper is almost never irrelevant to any doctrine one might hold. Cygnus' brain was saying to him, "If these people don't believe God predestined everything, if they don't believe that God is "sovereign", how can they trust the scripture?" The answer being, "The same way you do, except with a lot more consistency and intellectual honesty."
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
I never said that it was irrelevant, though I can see why someone might think that.
My point, which I stand by, is that (to my knowledge) Open Theism makes no claims one way or the other about the topic of Biblical inerrancy.
I agree.
Derf
Well-known member
And a different definition of "sovereignty".
Yes, that's why I put it in quotes. I'm tellin' ya. I can read these people's minds.
.........which is probably why I'm half nuts.