Replies

***God doesn't foreknow what is not going to end up being true about the future.***

Does this mean you are back on the Open Theism bandwagon?

As a saint, I have a duty to pull a brother out of his sins. But, there is that fine line where I am not even asked to pray about certain things which a professing Christian who is not really saved is mired in. See 1 John 5:16. I tend to regard Open Theism as a fatal sin because how could someone who has actually met the Lord believe something so outrageously wrong about Him. How could someone so degrade the majesty of God? Could I be wrong? Yep! I don't think so. I think this wind which bloweth through the church is of the same spirit as those who deny the Trinity. And she ain't the Holy Spirit.

I am also still tending to be of the opinion that it would not be to my FReep health to wade into this mess, even though I know a great deal about the fatal flaws in the arguments of Open Theism. Besides, my well reasoned argument would probably not be read. You yourself have in the past indicated that you don't read my posts.

Woody.

We are in a new era. A well-reasoned, non-flaming piece WOULD be read by me and probably others.

I think your knowledge of math and engineering(?) would be welcome in a discussion of time. Did you see Alamo-Girl's post on the other thread? Excellent.

I'm not an open theist. I want the freedom, however, to discuss it. And if someone is an open theist, I want them to have the freedom to discuss it.

"God doesn't foreknow as true that which is not going to be true about the future." Do you agree with that? That's what I was trying to say in the other line that you paste/copied.

I know a great deal about the fatal flaws in the arguments of Open Theism. Besides, my well reasoned argument would probably not be read.

Woody, if you have any specific criticizms of the article, then post them. If you are going to resort to calling every idea that does not comport with CCWoodyism a fatal sin, without providing evidence of that fact, then yes, maybe you ought not to participate.

The article was posted for discussion. I don't agree with it, but I'm not going to go off on a limb and claim that anyone who agrees with Boyd must be some kind of reprobate. Our salvation is not dependent upon our understanding of God in the realms of space/time/relativity, but only on our recognition of the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross.

Boyd's arguments are for the most part well reasoned, and they encroach upon areas where the scripture is not all that clear. Now maybe you think that everyone ought to be as clear on the subject as you or else they are not saved. Fine. Think it all you want. It doesn't make it true and it doesn't make you the final arbiter of all things orthodox.

So, if you have some specific criticizm of Dr. Boyd's arguments and you think you can convince everyone of the errors of his ways, then lets hear your viewpoint. If you can't do it, then don't even bother posting. Everybody knows that you think that you are the most orthodox person on the planet. You don't have to remind us in every post.

As a saint, I have a duty to pull a brother out of his sins.

with all respect of course woody, shouldn't Gods work through the Holy Spirit in thier hearts be enough?

Certainly, I think you can put the gospel before them - but isnt it up to God to kindle the flame?

The subsequent rejection of sin is then a fruit of the faith/spirit

To pull someone from sin and leave them in thier same condition seems works based and antropocentric

I'll go on to say that a natural / un-elect man who is pulled from sin - will return to it

Where is then is the biblical call to save un-elect

Rather, I think you should shake the dust from your shoes and leave it to God to pull the lost from sin

focus on convicting them in word and being an example for them

........and with that - I am off for a well deserved break with my family, some roasted chicken and maybe a salad

See ya fellas