Author: MarkCain

Dale discusses this inconsistent triad of claims. It seems that a thinking Christian ought to deny one of these claims.

1. The New Testament gospels agree in their core claims about Jesus and God.
2. Matthew, Mark, and Luke don’t teach that the pre-human Jesus voluntarily assumed a complete human nature in order to save us.
3. John teaches that the pre-human Jesus voluntarily assumed a complete human nature in order to save us.

Which do you deny, and why?

Of interest here is the footer and links.

This is why sophisticated contemporary proponents of kenosis theory like Stephen T. Davis simply deny that God is immutable in the classical sense. In their view, God can and does change – not in his character, but in some of his other features. In patristic times, they would have dismissed this out of hand, but I think theists are on strong grounds to think that God changes in some respects. Any real response, any free action on God’s part, is going to involve him changing, is it not? e.g. His creating the cosmos from nothing. To many reflective Christians, trinitarian and unitarian, divine immutability seems dispensable.

This is going to be a blast. Let’s put some stuff in here so it is at least interesting to look at.

This is scary looking. But if you lived in the 20s, that was your energy drinks and your shoe fitting technique. My how things have changed.

The Future is Now

If the future is now, it is autonomously deterministic.

• Don’t get ahead of yourself.
• May the road rise up, remain the same, or drop away from you.
• Like sands through the hourglass, these are the instant of our lives.

Curious how that mp3 link will turn out inside the email.

Thanks for reading this far.