Search results

It does, but you can't see it through your biases. I haven't seen any text where I have to be inconsistent. I've addressed several before. Yes, see below. Agreed If He was at one time "without us", then He changed, correct? From a God who had no people to a God who has a people. More...

Will try soon. Ping me if you don't see it within a couple days.

It shakes your very foundation. And that means your foundation is wrong, and not a foundation at all, but a house built on sand.

No, it doesn't, if Hezekiah's doesn't. It doesn't matter whether you're a slave or not. If God tells you you are going to die, then says you are going to live, the conditional proves open theism's point. There are no conditionals in settled view. There can't be. God either knows one thing to be...

Well, he IS saying that, technically. But that isn't what the context includes. In no wise does the context include all things from the foundation of the world. The same for Hezekiah's second word, which utterly contradicted the first. God can't prophecy both dying and not dying at a particular...

I doubt that Peter was basing it on some kind of knowledge added at His resurrection. More likely is that Peter was remembering Jesus' words before the denial, which was your point earlier, if I remember correctly. And if he was remembering the former words, which were about love (or lack...

Two pairs of pliers, or four pliers. In case you were wondering, here's a plier: At least that's what my 4-yr-old grandson would tell you. (He has some trouble with his "R's".)

Yes, but it's not the ability to bear good fruit, rather it's the impetus to gain due to the fear of death versus the recognition of life ahead because of the power of the Spirit as an earnest of the life to come.

The problem comes in when you say that God knows everything because He is pushing all the buttons He wants pushed. One of those buttons creates Peter and his faults, including both the braggadocia and the inability to resist temptation, not to mention all of the thoughts Peter had about the...

My point was that "all things" in Peter's mind didn't have to include all things past present and future for all humans past present and future. It might just mean "You know all that's in my heart, good and bad."

So, if they don't know everything, then He wouldn't either? I'm not sure that's what "lower than the angels" means, but it could, I guess. Not a strong argument, imo.

You are correct that the text is more clearly saying that Jesus knows all things (omniscience), but the text doesn't stand on its own. We know that Jesus didn't know all things at one point in time: Mark 13:32 KJV — But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in...

James 3:12 KJV — Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.

Faith is in the "..." on my post.

Why would that change my answer?

If he was already a demon, then sin had already entered the garden and the world, and it wasn't "very good" anymore. But rather, I think, Satan and Adam sinned around the same time.

Wild grapes on a domestic grape vine is bad fruit. Adultery is bad fruit. Covetousness is bad fruit. Jezebel luring people to commit idolatry is bad fruit. Love, joy, peace, patience, goodness...self control is good fruit. Of course, that all takes us back to the idea that a tree can refer to...

He knew based on knowing Peter, searching his heart, not on some preexisting knowledge before the world began.

The first sin wasn't because we were broken.

Not on a fig tree.