Recent content by JudgeRightly

Bearing false witness is a sin.

It's not okay to be gay.

That has not been my question for the last several pages, Arthur. At this point, it really does seem that you either are not reading what I write, or are deliberately substituting an easier question because you cannot answer the one actually asked. I am not asking: “Should a person be allowed...

I couldn't care less what Geisler says. Geisler is not Scripture, nor does he have the authority of Scripture. I'm willing to be corrected. But you haven't demonstrated that I'm wrong. You've only asserted that I am wrong. You don't get to simply declare your theology “correct” and then...

No, I would not agree with Geisler’s definition as stated. And notice what you just did again. You still have not made the biblical argument. You moved from GotQuestions, to Merriam-Webster, to Norman Geisler. Geisler defining omniscience as knowledge of “past, present, and future” does not...

This is still eisegesis by way of leading questions. You are not making an argument from Psalm 147:5. You are asking questions designed to smuggle your interpretation into the phrase “His understanding is infinite.” The verse says God’s understanding is infinite. Amen. I affirm that. But you...

Yes, I believe Psalm 147:5 in its totality. “Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite.” Amen. But Psalm 147:5 does not say every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens. That is your addition to the verse. And yes, I believe 2 Timothy...

You just conceded the point. If “omniscience” is not a biblical word, then the doctrine must be defined by Scripture, not Webster. You cannot use a dictionary definition of a non-biblical term as the standard, then accuse us of denying the Bible when we reject your definition. Show the...

Haven't you noticed which particular "social groupings" they are? They all seem to be on one particular side of the aisle...

Merriam-Webster is not Scripture, and dictionaries do not settle doctrine. Dictionaries do not give inspired, fixed, technical meanings. They give common usage: groups of words used to approximate how another word is commonly used. So even if “omniscient” is commonly glossed as “knowing...

Amen. All Scripture is profitable. That is exactly why proof-texting Psalm 147:5 is not enough. Your doctrine has to account for Genesis 22:12, Exodus 32:14, Jonah 3:10, Jeremiah 18, and the passages where God grieves, relents, responds, tests, and says “now I know.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not...

Because “omniscient” does not mean “the future is exhaustively settled before anyone acts.” That is your definition, not the Bible’s. God knows whatever He knows perfectly. He knows what He has determined, promised, declared, and intends to bring about. What I deny is that every future free act...

No, you have not represented me correctly. First, your sentence has a double negative, so I’m not entirely sure what you intended to say. But if you meant that I deny God knows anything about future events, then no, that is not correct. I believe God knows future events that are settled...

The “why” has been stated repeatedly, but here it is plainly. You are treating exhaustive settled foreknowledge as though it were identical to “God knows the future.” That is the dispute. I believe in God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the living God who searches hearts. I believe God...

I’m not sure what you mean by “the God knowing Future Foreknowledge.” It sounds like you are treating your doctrine of exhaustive settled foreknowledge almost like one of God’s titles. I believe in God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Living God, the God who searches hearts. I believe...