As I previously said, I made the same statement about scripture. I stated that openness also conformed to scripture. Scripture doesn't interrupt 'my little exercise'.
And as I replied, I disagree completely with this statement. I don't think that OV conforms to scripture and I provided scriptures that clearly challenge the open view. For some reason, these have gone completely unaddressed.
:think:
I wonder why....
DR said:
Only those who agree with your particular interpretation of scripture.
Special Pleading...
What makes you so sure that
your view isn't a a product of
your particular interpretation and those who agree with
your particular interpretation?
DR said:
Anyone reading the scripture at face value will see that God gave the Israelites a choice to accept the covenant or not and their future depended on that choice.
What makes you think that Calvinist don't believe this? Why would you think that this provides any challenge to predestination?
DR said:
Once again, you repeat the error of describing our experiences as fallible.
That's not an error, its biblical truth. We experience a world that is infected by sin and we ourselves are tainted by it. How could you come to any other conclusion?
DR said:
Our experiences are simply what they are. But if you insist on this then your reading the Bible is as much an experience as anything else...
No.
:nono:
A clear and honest reading of the bible is not just the equivalent of any other experience. Reading the bible is an encounter with the very words of God.
DR said:
...and therefore your argument is self-defeating.
I know that tactic is one of your favorites, but it doesn't work here.
DR said:
A tenant is somebody who pays rent to live in a house or other property. This makes no sense whatsoever.
Right, "tenet." The spellcheck function isn't always kind to horrible typists like your's truly. I am pretty sure you understood what I was saying anyway but are just choosing to be difficult. That's fine, you can act petty if you like, but it does make sifting through all the pettiness quite annoying.
DR said:
Correction, it has everything to do with you because your interpretation of a lot of scripture is wrong.
That's a strong assertion, care to prove it by addressing
any of the scriptures I have provided to you in this thread?
DR said:
Also, your argument of the 'primacy of God's word' (by which I assume you mean the scriptures - which in the scriptures themselves are not called 'God's word' at all) is nowhere stated in the scriptures. Therefore your argument is totally self-defeating because that argument itself is not in the scriptures and therefore cannot have primacy.
A basic "tenet" ... :chuckle: of Christianity is that the bible is the word of God.
It is commonly reflected in statements of faith, including TOL's Statement of Faith.
Either you don’t believe this, don’t understand it, or are just being difficult (and petty) again.
If you don’t understand it then I would be happy to direct you to some resources to educate yourself as to why Christians think the bible is the Word of God. If you don’t believe it then you aren’t a Christian and you shouldn’t be posting in the “exclusively Christian theology” section. If you are choosing to be petty then please stop, it only serves to make you appear to be a horse’s posterior and doesn’t help move the discussion forward in any way.
DR said:
My assertion has the significance I first gave to it.
Which is that somehow Calvinism is disadvantaged in some undefined way because OV conforms to everyday experience, correct?
I’ve more than addressed these assertions by (1) disputing that OV does conform to everyday experience, (2) pointing out that even if it did it wouldn’t say anything about how God predestined before everyday experience was "everyday experience" and (3) pointing out that human experience is a notoriously horrible source to appeal to when attempting to decide matters of theology.
DR said:
Saying that you dispute my observation is of course fair comment. It's the first relevant response to what I said that you have made. However, I never claimed that this was the source of my 'theological knowledge'. Furthermore, I have actually never claimed to have 'theological knowledge'. This is not the kind of claim I would make.
What discussion are
you having?
I’m talking about predestination. That is about as “theological” as it gets.
DR said:
It was stated to mean that openness has that advantage whilst for Calvinism, it was a disadvantage.
Advantageous in what way, specifically?
Even if it were true, I wouldn’t see it as advantageous given what the bible says about the unreliability of knowledge gained from experience (Proverbs 28:26).
DR said:
In my original post, you will perhaps have noticed that I was not making truth claims, just giving observations about the power of certain arguments.
?????
Just a bit later you made the following comment.
DR said:
As I said, I am glad you are starting to recognise that my simple statement is or might even be true.
You are glad that, in your estimation, I am starting to recognize that your simple statement (which wasn’t meant to be a truth claim) might even be....
TRUE???
:doh:
I’m more than a little confused by your inability to make a consistent argument.
