Smokescreen rationale. You deny that examining what the church theologians have written is worth examination or pause. Then you are careless.
I do not deny that what Luther and Calvin have written is worth examination. On the contrary! I encourage people to look at what these writers have said about why they believe what they believe and to notice how their own rational is much more philosophical than it is Biblical. This very point is precisely where bringing up the actual history of Calvinist doctrines becomes pertinent to the discussion. We as Open Theist can show that based on Calvinism's own publications, such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, the doctrines are not Biblical but Greek! If they were both, then that would be one thing but they aren't! When defending doctrines such as impassibility, for example, any scripture that is quoted, if any, is supportive at best, not foundational. The foundation is Platonist philosophy.
Hmm. Wasn't impossible for the church's theologians to define these doctrines, yet it is somehow impossible for open theists to respond to them. Perhaps it is impossible, because, well, it is impossible!
AMR, are you aware of the Biblical principle that teaches that we will give an account of every idle word we speak (write)? If not, you should read your Bible more often. This comment of yours sounds clever but it amounts to a lie. You know full well that no one here is capable, do to time limitation or whatever reason, to sit down and type up posts which respond point for point to the collective works of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Spurgion, and whatever other "great theologians" you have in mind. Even if someone did that, all you would do is tack on yet another "great theologian" that we must be scared to respond too or seriously consider. This is nothing but a rhetorical ploy on your part and you know it. Now drop it and stop racking up the lies.
Try
this technique. It works! Then r-e-a-d. You have already stated in many responses how you "miss" this or that post. You are careless and only interested in yammering on about how wonderful you are.
There is no way in Hell that I am going to go searching around in order to read your posts AMR. I have a life away from TOL and I commonly miss posts, especially if I don't really expect for someone to respond, which is the case with you. If you don't link to them, I will simply assume that they do not exist. Even if you do link to them, they will prove to be nothing but mere restatements of your doctrine and will not even try to actually establish those doctrines in any meaningful way aside from the "millions of people can't be wrong" argument you seem so fond of.
Your words here do not follow your words elsewhere, whereby you take particular glee in shouting "Greek" whenever you get the opportunity. Your statement amounts to a lie, Clete.
No they don't. (AMR's response to such an accusation, if there was one at all, would have stopped at that period.)
You made the accusation before and I went into some considerable detail about how it wasn't so. I never denied talking about the issue of the Greek (i.e. non-biblical) origins of Calvinism on a regular basis. In fact, I discuss the issue quite a lot because it is directly relevant. Your having missed the point of such discussion and your subsequent refusal to be corrected, doesn't amount to a lie on my part.
See, AMR. That's how you respond directly to a point that someone has made against your position.
Wow! You mean there are a whole 10 books upon which you draw your knowledge?
I didn't say it was an exhaustive list but what if it was? How is the number of published books relevant to your accusation that no sound exegesis has been done by Open Theists?
Stop obfuscating AMR. It's transparent as can be. Your colleagues, if they actually exist, would be embarrassed for you.
What an impressive body of literature of the so-called restoration of the truth! By the way, I have read all of them but two and I own them. How many of
these have you read and own?
You're lying AMR!
Either you have not read the books you claim to have read or you lied and know you lied when you said " No one, Boyd, Pinnock, or Sanders, included, has taken up the task to respond to their critics with anything that resembles a proper exegetical rejoinder to their critics." It is not possible for both statements to be true.
Which are you lying about AMR? Tell us again how many of the books you've read?
So far as I know I have read none of the books you linked too, and don't care too either, but then again, it isn't me making the accusation, you are. How is my not having extensively read Calvinist literature relevant to the point? I acknowledge without having to extensively read their writings that they have done substantive work. I just argue that their work proceeds from false premises and falsify that work on that basis.
Answering your questions has proven that you ask only to bolster you own ego. You do not ask me anything to learn something.
So far you have not demonstrated that you have anything to teach me that I would want to know. Respect is earned AMR, not given away. You've acted like a fool from the first day your arrived here so don't get all in a tiffy over get treated like one.
My asking the question certainly has precisely zero to do with my trying to learn anything from you, that much you can take to the bank! I asked the question because I knew you didn't know the correct answer. I didn't expect you would answer me in the first place, the fact that you did at all only helped me prove the point as does your now defensive and reactionary refusal to do so. Either answer the question or don't, either way, your position is undermined and perhaps one more person will turn from the Calvinist heresy.
Proves my point above that you are careless. See
here.
By careless I presume you mean to suggest that I hadn't seen that post. I had seen it but it is nothing but a restatement of the answer you've already given. It's the "millions of people can't be wrong!" argument. It's not only the exact same argument Luther faced but it is just as fallacious now as it was then and it is not the correct answer to the question.
Please try again if you like.
Now I will do something that I have never done before here--actually ask a question about your interpretation of scripture.
Please tell me your interpretation of the following:
Exo 4:14 "Then the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses and he said,"
And since PK is apparently unwilling or unable, take a shot at
this, too.
No interpretation is necessary. It means what it says. God was angered when Moses refused to be God's spokesmen on the basis of his speech impediment. That's what it says, that's what it means. God clearly desired Moses' obedience but didn't yet have it and was therefore perturbed, as any good Father would be.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Oh, my, Clete, a taste of your own medicine is bitter, no? I may have to change my slogan and quote Clete's immortal words above.
