What is Open Theism position on inerrancy of scripture?

Cygnus

BANNED
Banned
"The words I have uttered to you."
Who is He talking to? IOW Who is the "you" in that sentence?
You can't rip a verse out of context just because doing so makes it support your position.
That's called eisegesis.
You have not answered the question...and I will not respond further until you do

Are Jesus words only applicable to his immediate hearers?
 

Cygnus

BANNED
Banned
Within.........

But ..........
We are both skilled at what we do…well practiced…and refined in our technique.
There is no need to bypass a direct question I asked you to respond to in my post #61 and attempt to answer it through my response to another so as to falsely achieve some kind of ascendancy.
I consider both yourself and Clete to be powerful debaters...for the aforesaid reasons...and the primary defenders of this forum.
Our exchanges will be direct...person to person...or there will be no exchanges at all.
I request that you transpose your response to the appropriate location.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
We are both skilled at what we do…well practiced…and refined in our technique.
There is no need to bypass a direct question I asked you to respond to in my post #61 and attempt to answer it through my response to another so as to falsely achieve some kind of ascendancy.
I consider both yourself and Clete to be powerful debaters...for the aforesaid reasons...and the primary defenders of this forum.
Our exchanges will be direct...person to person...or there will be no exchanges at all.
I request that you transpose your response to the appropriate location.

RD said everything I was going to say anyways.

Why should I repeat what has already been said?

Come down off your high horse for a moment, would ya?
 

Cygnus

BANNED
Banned
They came…and killed our woman and our children

And we became angry

Like the bull buffalo when the wolves attack the calves

And so we went out

And when we found them…we killed them

And their scalps hang in out tepees
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
They came…and killed our woman and our children

And we became angry

Like the bull buffalo when the wolves attack the calves

And so we went out

And when we found them…we killed them

And their scalps hang in out tepees
Wow!
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
He lasted longer than I thought he would.

I just wasn't entirely sure that it was another sock account for TheDarkSideOfTheMoon. His more recent posts pretty much confirmed that he was, otherwise he would have been banned a lot earlier.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
So, I just read through most of this thread and I would have to say that I don't think that Open Theism is as irrelevant to the question of the inerrancy of scripture as RD was saying early on in the discussion. I agree that Open Theism is not defined by anyone's stance on the question of biblical inerrancy, but the fact that the bible that we have today, while very close, is not absolutely identical to what was originally written, is far more compatible with open theism that with a deterministic worldview.

The discussion got on the correct track when glaring examples of inconsistencies in the bible (inconsistencies which do not effect the message of the scripture) were presented, and when Cygnus failed to respond and just deflected as though the point was somehow off the topic, he should have been pounced on and squashed with this point until he went whimpering into the corner complaining about being the victim he so desperately seems to want to be perceived as.

Such inconsistencies are entirely incompatible with Calvinism's version of God. If God is in meticulous control of every single event, no matter how trivial or inconsequential, one would expect an absolutely flawless scripture. The fact that the scripture we have today is not absolutely flawless is strong evidence that God is not in meticulous control of every event that happens. Otherwise, you'd have to concede that the errors that are present are there because God wanted them to be in there, in which case it would be the originals that were less than perfect, which makes no sense at all.

In short, while our stance on the inerrancy of scripture is not a derivative of open theism, per se, the belief that today's bible is absolutely flawless is a derivative of the settled worldview. This explains why his instinct was to asked the question in the first place and why the doctrine of open theism is not irrelevant. Indeed, one's theology proper is almost never irrelevant to any doctrine one might hold. Cygnus' brain was saying to him, "If these people don't believe God predestined everything, if they don't believe that God is "sovereign", how can they trust the scripture?" The answer being, "The same way you do, except with a lot more consistency and intellectual honesty."
 
Last edited:

Right Divider

Body part
So, I just read through most of this thread and I would have to say that I don't think that Open Theism is as irrelevant to the question of the inerrancy of scripture as RD was saying early on in the discussion.
I never said that it was irrelevant, though I can see why someone might think that.

My point, which I stand by, is that (to my knowledge) Open Theism makes no claims one way or the other about the topic of Biblical inerrancy.
I agree that Open Theism is not defined by anyone's stance on the question of biblical inerrancy, but the fact that the bible that we have today, while very close, is not absolutely identical to what was originally written, is far more compatible with open theism that with a deterministic worldview.
I agree.
 

Derf

Well-known member
So, I just read through most of this thread and I would have to say that I don't think that Open Theism is as irrelevant to the question of the inerrancy of scripture as RD was saying early on in the discussion. I agree that Open Theism is not defined by anyone's stance on the question of biblical inerrancy, but the fact that the bible that we have today, while very close, is not absolutely identical to what was originally written, is far more compatible with open theism that with a deterministic worldview.

The discussion got on the correct track when glaring examples of inconsistencies in the bible (inconsistencies which do not effect the message of the scripture) were presented, and when Cygnus failed to respond and just deflected as though the point was somehow off the topic, he should have been pounced on and squashed with this point until he went whimpering into the corner complaining about being the victim he so desperately seems to want to be perceived as.

Such inconsistencies are entirely incompatible with Calvinism's version of God. If God is in meticulous control of every single event, no matter how trivial or inconsequential, one would expect an absolutely flawless scripture. The fact that the scripture we have today is not absolutely flawless is strong evidence that God is not in meticulous control of every event that happens. Otherwise, you'd have to concede that the errors that are present are there because God wanted them to be in there, in which case it would be the originals that were less than perfect, which makes no sense at all.

In short, while our stance on the inerrancy of scripture is not a derivative of open theism, per se, the belief that today's bible is absolutely flawless is a derivative of the settled worldview. This explains why his instinct was to asked the question in the first place and why the doctrine of open theism is not irrelevant. Indeed, one's theology proper is almost never irrelevant to any doctrine one might hold. Cygnus' brain was saying to him, "If these people don't believe God predestined everything, if they don't believe that God is "sovereign", how can they trust the scripture?" The answer being, "The same way you do, except with a lot more consistency and intellectual honesty."
And a different definition of "sovereignty".
 
Top