Knight said:
Jim, do you know what the word "or" means?
Oh great, now I suppose Jim will attempt to define the word "or". You are worse than Bill Clinton!
This is starting to bore me. But it is exactly what I expected from Eric. He refuses to care about what is intended, about what my actual beliefs are. He is more interested in his strategem and ignoring the crux issues of this discussion. It was initially as amusing as it was pathetic. Now it's just boring.
Let's recap: Eric cannot answer how God's decretive will is contrary to His prescriptive will. Eric contradicts scriptures that show God plans evil for good. Eric cannot answer how God moved David to number Israel, against His own prescribed will, all for God's good purposes. Eric contradicts his own espoused theology of miracles by his theory of prayer. Eric denies individual redemptive election contrary to the scriptural proofs that have been shown. Eric abuses language and the metaphors of scripture by insisting that clay pots can talk and mar themselves. Eric ignores the elephant in the room, and it's disgusting. The context is plain. Open Theism is a mental disorder.
Knight said:
... you will have to forgive me I am not used to people who claim to believe in God stating that God is not to credit for our salvation.
It is obvious that this has been a Pharisaical set-up from the beginning. I even warned him about it, and I've sent him private messages telling him that I knew what he was up to. But he was unfazed and unabashed. I saw this coming, and Eric knows it. He has no shame. As I said earlier, Eric does violence to language, including the word "friendship," by his dogged and incorrigible pursuit of this.
Notice that Philetus understood and actually thanked me for raising this issue, but by sticking his neck out and actually paying me a compliment, Eric's strategy was undermined. So what did Eric do? He took Philetus and dressed him down in public, to the extent that now Philetus has done a full one-eighty. He made Philetus an example. So now, no Open Theist within eyeshot of that thread will dare to betray even a skoche of agreement with the evil Hilston, lest he be on the receiving end of the same rap across the knuckles that Eric gave Philetus. Is it surprising? No, because this is Eric's idea of friendship. He rewards loyalty and punishes independent thinking and scholarship, all under the guise of friendship. It's Knight's way or the highway. Eric is a sickening human being.
Knight said:
Let's do this again...
YOUR DEFINITION:
This is how evil Eric is. He quotes the definition that I quoted, which happened to be one of many definitions, and, in typical Luciferian fashion, ignores the fact that I said:
"With the exception of number 5, none of the definitions apply to God." Eric focuses on number 2 because he thinks it will serve his "friendly" strategy of misinformation, misrepresentation and distraction. He doesn't care what I really think. He doesn't care what I really believe. He is just like the Pharisees to tried to trap Jesus. He is just like Lucifer who tried to deceive Adam.
Knight said:
Responsible - being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.
"OR" Did you catch the "or"?????
Therefore it's just as proper to say....
Responsible - being the primary cause of something and so able to be credited for it.
As it is proper to say...
Responsible - being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed for it.
Sure, but it's proper, but only if one keeps those statements together to provide full and proper context. Eric plays the role of a media journalist when he insists on separating them, thereby misleading the reader by providing only a partial definition.
Knight said:
Will you at least concede that the following definition is acceptable for the word responsible based on your own definition?
Responsible - being the primary cause of something and so able to be credited for it.
When Eric leaves out "blamed," the definition becomes misleading, which is what his strategy is all about. I seem to recall someone in the Bible who also selectively left words out in order to mislead.
Knight said:
Are you saying God is responsible for evil decrees? Are you crediting God with evil decrees? :chuckle: Jim, if you wont credit God with anything why are you now arguing that I should?
This is called equivocation. Everyone sees it. Some will defend it. Others will gag on it. It makes me sick. :vomit:
Knight said:
Still curious....
Jim.... can you at least praise God?
Yes, but not because I've presumed to sit in judgment of whether or not God deserves it as Eric and Open Theism does.
Knight said:
Jim... will you admit that we can believe in God? Can we have faith in God? Can we give God glory? Honor? Thanks? Can we trust in God?
I can believe in God, give Him glory, honor and thanks. I can also trust in Him. Eric and the Open Theist cannot do any of these without violating their own espoused tenets. Eric and Open Theists can't explain how to trust a God who, by prescription says:
Ex 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
But by decree reveals:
2Sa 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
Why does the Open Theist trust this God?
Knight said:
Jim, you have dug yourself a hole that not even an experienced spelunker could escape from.
This is Eric's convenient take on the matter, all based on equivocation, misrepresentation, selective quoting and brutality to communication. Anyone can see this. And it's disgusting. It's evil. It's all that Open Theism has left. Eric can't engage the actual debate. Eric can't answer the questions put before him without resorting to these tactics. And Eric doesn't even have the good sense to be ashamed of himself. But then again, were the Pharisees ever ashamed for trying to trap Jesus? Was Lucifer ever ashamed for trying to deceive Adam? Of course not. We shouldn't be surprised. Remember this, people: With me, Eric is like the Pharisees, trying to trap and discredit me. With the reader, Eric is like Lucifer, trying to deceive you by twisting words.
All according to God's inexorable decrees, of course.
Why God is not responsible for our salvation.