Search results

Because full-blown pelagianism says children are born sinless. Augustine vs. Pelagius was where the controversy began, so you are correct on that assessment. It went to councils specifically because it has everything to do with Jesus' sacrifice and whether it was needed for 'all' men. In...

Posterity: I do not, in fact, hold to a heresy * needs to be addressed against the accusation. I think it a red herring to this Open vs the rest of theology rather. What is actual heresy, Pelagianism,(not heterodoxy). For the record. Apparently from one 'heretic' to another -Lon

If Pelagian were correct, we'd see more than Jesus perfect. That is why those without the Son 'are condemned already.' Most who espouse this are concerned with their own freewill against scripture that is express that all men, all, need a Savior. John 3 is clear on this.

Easy: 1) Tired of the same 'ol arguments, don't want to do it anymore (has nothing to do with you other being member #289 for the #290th time). 2) Disdain. Doesn't want to continue the conversation so a good insult will end it (but you and I are made of different stuff with long suffering...

Teacher/student consideration: Who are tests for? Not 'for' the teacher. When I test students, I already know, from previous, how they are going to do. God is the test-giver. Anybody who switches that around 'for God to know' is checking on the teacher, not the student and questioning His...

It is the difference between omniscience vs. a new song, right? It is also about whether He walked the earth with Shadrach Meshack and Abednego. How strong am I in Christology doctrine? Is even suggesting scripture may have this in mind, heretical? Can you name the heresy? How can...

(y) How? He is one being, two natures. One nature He Himself created (human), the other He always was, and all of Who He is. He became that which was from Mary whom He created and through the general avenue of human nature He had made, became flesh. The Word became, part of His...

Next "heresy." "Open View and nobody else: God didn't know what it was like to be a man." :sigh: I'm not a heretic! Rather I'm saying what Jesus 'became' was what he 'made' and sustains already! Didn't He walk with Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego in the fiery furnace? Daniel...

Doesn't matter, I'm not the only theist that believes it or says it. You can ask 'why' but all my conversations in this thread are the weight of why with many instances of Open View problems. More than that, it has God inept. Who in their 'right' mind would go Open Theism when it means...

🆙 Enyart and I talked about this on forum. He agreed 'sparingly.' For me, usually never. I've tried it a couple of times, it is always a conversation ender. The problem is we lose at that venture. All of us. If, in good faith something is exasperating, it isn't our best foot...

Meh, after 11 years I still think I do it better than most and always with a lot of love, even if you don't see it :p

All true, just get rid of the stupidity comment. "If" one is stupid, it doesn't make a whit if you say it, they'll never get it. It is dismissive and it doesn't matter intent: always an insult. If not stupid? Then you've yet started shutting down conversation with a value statement...

Or simplicity? Yes it does and I'll show you in a moment...* "Being" and 'exist' are not mutually exclusive. You are parsing, simply and only because you are an Open Theist, thus you must. *Did you know some versions actually say 'exist?' ▲ These two statements disagree with one another▲...

Superimposed rationality. Superimposed. You think this a logical statement but it is not. Creation 'didn't' exist before it did. God couldn't have known 'how' to Create except through a evolutionary series of mistakes and corrections. "T-Rex killing everything? Oops! I'll start...

🆙

Some will say yes, others will say no. It depends on what you mean by sovereign. Such is Open Theism by concern, not Mid Acts. The two are exclusive from each other, but most Open Theists are also Mid Acts. Most Mid Acts are not Open Theists.

This one not a major doctrinal difference. I went to Multnomah Bible Seminary, they taught basically all this and let us simply have the evidence. I used to think Paul likely wrote Hebrews simply because tradition had set him as author but there are many good reasons to question whether...

Thank you, either conveniently missed this for its further length, or just missed it (just missed it, haven't had much time lately). Better: "What support do you have?" Answer: You cannot have 'infinity +1.' Why? Because it breaks the very definition of what infinity means. For...

Excellent post on point:

I'm not too caught up on this particular simply because it is scripture and it doesn't matter too much, 'who' wrote it. @Bladerunner God certainly was behind it. I tend toward your inclination, maybe not 'definitely not' as with you. Evidence seems to me, that Paul didn't write it. Right...