5/4/2016 WILLIAM BIRCH.: Answering Chris Fisher on Open Theistic Claims

http://www.williambirch.net/2016/04/answeringchrisfisheronopentheisticclaims.html 1/8

W I L L I A M B I R C H . A R M I N I A N . E P I S C O P A L I A N . P A T R I S T I C .

Friday, April 29, 2016

Answering Chris Fisher on Open Theistic Claims

Open Theists love their Arminian brethren -- that is, as long as those Arminians are refuting the

errors of Calvinism. But when those Arminians begin to refute Open Theism, that love can often

turn sour, as is the case with Open Theist Chris Fisher. Take, for instance, Fisher's latest post:

"William Birch's Disingenuous Representation of Open Theism." This current post is one of

response as well as a further refutation of Open Theistic errors. No doubt, whatever critique I

offer, such will be perceived by Fisher (and perhaps other Open Theists) as merely a "disingenuous

misrepresentation," as some people tend to view any opposition to their most cherished beliefs as

an overt misrepresentation, even when their opponent is quoting from primary sources.

Fisher begins by noting our prior dialogue on this topic. He does not specifically note that this

dialogue took place on Facebook. He suggests that our previous discussion must not have "held" in

my mind, nor "does it seem to have held on the internet either (as the thread disappeared abruptly

and mysterious [sic] soon after he showed disapproval of my arguments)," complains Fisher. But

what Fisher fails to inform his readers is the belittling nature of his own comments toward me and

others -- how convenient. This, and this alone, is why I deleted the Facebook conversation. Since

this is the communicative language Fisher perpetually abides then I will return the favor for his

benefit. I would not, after all, want to deprive him of his own preferred narrative.

Fisher, when engaging his opponents, seems to fail in resisting the use of a demeaning rhetoric, as

he defends his Open Theistic philosophy to the death, one snarky comment after another. When

Chris appears in the comments section of any post that is challenging Open Theism, on the Society

of Evangelical Arminians Facebook outreach page, one can be certain that, by tone and by

polemics, the conversation will devolve into linguistic carnality. So, yes, I deleted his comments;

and, not only did I delete his comments, but I blocked him from my Facebook account. I block all

toxic individuals (like Open Theist Tom Torbeyns, a fanboy of Chris Fisher, who names me a bully

on Fisher's site), irrespective of their professed Christian beliefs, when such individuals begin to

demean either myself or my Facebook contacts who are commenting on any given post. So, when

he comments, "I am sure the reader can divine some thoughts on why it vanished," now "the

reader" will have gained a proper perspective as to why the thread vanished, divining

notwithstanding.

Fisher is responding to my post, "The Confused Nature of Open Theistic Prayer," which is a

follow-up post to the article, "The Confused Nature of Calvinistic Prayer," with which Fisher

seems to have no issues. Evidently, I am not misrepresenting Calvinistic implications regarding

prayer, but I am most certainly misrepresenting Open Theistic implications regarding the same.

Fisher is displeased with my brief treatment of Psalm 139, with regard to both prayer and Open

Theistic claims, naming my engagement "a very disingenuous misrepresentation of Open Theistic

beliefs." One wonders whether an "honest misrepresentation of Open Theistic beliefs" is even a

possibility. But I digress. Fisher complains that I am misusing the text -- that the author of Psalm

139 is not addressing omniscience and so I, therefore, am proof-texting where I ought not be proof-

SAMUEL SEABURY

Search

ABOUT WILLIAM AND ARMINIUS

ARMINIAN ARTICLES, BOOKS, & LINKS

ARMINIUS AND THE REMONSTRANTS

ARMINIUS PHOTO GALLERY

ARMINIUS VS. WESLEY

CALVINISTS SHOULD ADVANCE ARMINIUS

REMONSTRANCE OF 1610

REMONSTRANTS: OPINIONS 1618

REMONSTRANTS: CONFESSION 1621

5/4/2016 WILLIAM BIRCH.: Answering Chris Fisher on Open Theistic Claims

http://www.williambirch.net/2016/04/answeringchrisfisheronopentheisticclaims.html 2/8

texting. Let us examine the Psalm in order to see if the author addresses the knowledge of God.

At the opening of this Psalm the author notes that God has searched and known him, in a past

tense (Ps. 139:1), and that He currently knows all that is occurring in his life, in a present tense

(Ps. 139:2, 3, 4). He then states, "Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O Lord, You

know it all" (Ps. 139:4, emphases added), denoting prior knowledge. When I highlight the author's

words, especially as such regards God's prior knowledge, Fisher the Open Theist complains: "The

Psalms verse is just not about [the] concept of omniscience, and drawing those types of conclusions

is not warranted (and countered) by the text." So, prior knowledge, as noted by the Psalmist, is

"just not about [the] concept of omniscience," and I should know better than to assume as much.

But how can I ignore such a statement from the Psalmist?

If the Psalmist did not intend to convey the meaning that God has prior knowledge of our words,

then why would he write the phrase in such a way that so very clearly, directly and explicitly

conveys no other notion than that God has prior knowledge of our words? But you see the problem:

Fisher and other Open Theists cannot assume a prima facie reading of this text because the text so

very clearly contradicts their entire philosophy. When the Open Theist begins with the notion that

God cannot foreknow our future free will actions, which, by the way, must, by a logical and

consistent necessity, include our future free-willed words, then the Open Theist is obliged to

answer passages like this one from the Psalmist to the contrary and proffer a "proper"

interpretation.

Fisher retorts: "Birch assumes that denying his prooftext as a prooftext is equivalent to denying

that the verse is useful, a tenuous and ungracious jump in logic. There are several of these tenuous

jumps of logic in Birch's post, so bear with them." Yes, please do bear with these alleged "jumps of

logic," as I attempt to keep Open Theists consistent with their own claims -- no little feat in itself.

You see, when confronted with passages that contradict Open Theistic claims, Fisher &c. must

scramble for a way around the painfully-obvious explication of the author. Fisher posits that this

Psalm is, "more likely," only applicable to King David. But even this point betrays Fisher: God

foreknew King David's words! Does Fisher not find his own conclusion problematic for an Open

Theistic hermeneutic? God cannot foreknow the free-willed words of anyone -- not even David.

Fisher then proffers that David may be communicating hyperbolically -- an exaggerated speech. He

claims that hyperbole is "everywhere" in Scripture. If this passage is hyperbolic, exaggerated

notions of God's relation to King David, then what, exactly, is the King attempting to convey? This

is a contrived and desperate explanation for the Open Theist at best -- the very best.

Fisher claims: "This verse appears to link God testing David to God knowing David's words (as

evident by verse 1), countering the claims Birch wishes to make about this verse. The direct

context points against Birch's claims." This novel notion is, again, necessary in order to avoid

assuming not only a prima facie reading but also admitting that God could have prior knowledge of

a future context. Understand this: whatever text is presented to the Open Theist, to the effect that

God foreknows an event, the future-state of one's heart, or what one may think or say in a future

context, the Open Theist must present an interpretation of such passages. Most of Christendom has

rejected their novel interpretations. I suppose the minority could be right. But I highly doubt it.

Fisher attempts to explain the Psalmist thusly by quoting another Open Theist: "Even before there

is a word on my tongue, Behold, my daughter knows it all. It's uncanny. Almost like we have lived

together so long she really knows me, who I am, and how I think. She will even say sometimes, 'I

know what you are thinking.' And she is right." From our perspective, this answer is trite, and

fails to convey reality. To suggest that the man's daughter "knows it all," knows exactly what the

father will say, is misleading. Even if the daughter has an idea of the father's reaction, or response

APOLOGETICS STUDY BIBLE (HCSB)

CEB STUDY BIBLE (COMMON ENGLISH BIBLE)

CEB WESLEY STUDY BIBLE (COMMON ENGLISH BIBLE)

CHRONOLOGICAL LIFE APPLICATION STUDY BIBLE (NLT)

FIRST-CENTURY STUDY BIBLE (NIV)

HARPER COLLINS STUDY BIBLE (NRSV)

ILLUSTRATED STUDY BIBLE (NLT)

KEY-WORD HEBREW-GREEK STUDY BIBLE (NASB)

LIFE APPLICATION STUDY BIBLE (NIV)

LITERARY STUDY BIBLE (ESV)

NEW INTERPRETER'S STUDY BIBLE (NRSV)

NEW OXFORD ANNOTATED STUDY BIBLE: FOURTHREVISED ED. (NRSV)

NIV STUDY BIBLE

NKJV STUDY BIBLE

NRSV WESLEY STUDY BIBLE

QUEST STUDY BIBLE (NIV)

THE PEOPLE'S BIBLE (NRSV)

THE WESLEY BIBLE (NKJV)

RECOMMENDED STUDY BIBLES

ANGLICANISM | THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH (17)

APOSTASY | PERSEVERANCE (13)

ARMINIAN HISTORY (36)

ARMINIANISM (129)

ARMINIANISM MISREPRESENTED (34)

ARMINIUS (47)

ART | CINEMA | LITERATURE | MUSIC | POETRY (40)

ATHEISM (11)

BAPTISM | PÆDOBAPTISM (5)

BOOK: CHOSEN BUT FREE REBUTTAL (6)

BOOK: GRACE FOR ALL (11)

BOOK: THE POTTER'S FREEDOM REBUTTAL (13)

CALVINISM | NEW CALVINISM (105)

CALVINISM: JOHN PIPER (15)

CHARISMATIC | PENTECOSTAL | THIRD WAVE (2)

CHRISTIANITY (35)

CHURCH | ISRAEL | END-TIMES (2)

COMPLEMENTARIANISM | EGALITARIANISM (7)

DEPRESSION | GRIEF | LONELINESS (17)

DETERMINISM | FREE WILL | SOVEREIGNTY (78)

EARLY | MEDIEVAL | REFORMATION (18)

ELECTION | PREDESTINATION (29)

EPISTEMOLOGY | HERMENEUTICS | THEOLOGY (12)

EXEGESIS (47)

FAITH | GRACE | REGENERATION (34)

FORGIVENESS | JUSTIFICATION | REDEMPTION (22)

GOD | JESUS | SPIRIT | TRINITY (35)

GOSPEL | SALVATION (43)

HERESY (13)

IMAGO DEI | RACISM | SEXISM (3)

TOPICS ON THIS SITE

5/4/2016 WILLIAM BIRCH.: Answering Chris Fisher on Open Theistic Claims

http://www.williambirch.net/2016/04/answeringchrisfisheronopentheisticclaims.html 3/8

to a given circumstance, the likelihood of the daughter knowing the exact words that he will speak

is slim. In conjunction with the Psalmist's notion, let us to turn to the knowledge of Jesus.

Jesus insists that Peter will deny Him three times prior to the rooster crowing two times. (cf. Matt.

26:34; Mark 14:30; Luke 22:34) By what knowledge could Jesus possibly know 1) that Peter

would deny Him; 2) that Peter would deny Him three times rather than once or twice; and 3) that

the rooster would crow two times rather than once or three or four or five times prior to Peter's

denial? There is no ambiguity in Christ's words. He does not convey any notion of Peter possibly

denying Him; or that Peter is behaving in a manner that would lead him to deny Christ; especially

as Peter is confessing his undying love and devotion to Christ in His presence.

Now, the Open Theist will insist that God can predict what a person may do, given the

circumstances and past of the individual. But, if we are to be consistent with Open Theistic claims,

Jesus could not have foreknown that Peter would deny Him three times and that a rooster would

crow twice prior to those denials -- at least, Jesus could not have foreknown those specifics in an

absolute sense, but only in a predictive sense. Which indicates, of course, that Jesus could have

been wrong, that God can be wrong about His predictive abilities, and that prophecies uttered by

God with regard to the future could be wrong. But let us return to Fisher's responses.

He claims that Psalm 139 is actually Open Theistic. That is, of course, outlandish. No passage in

Scripture is Open Theistic, Arminian, Calvinist, Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, Roman Catholic,

Lutheran, Anglican, or otherwise explicitly teaching a particular position. Fisher's comment is,

simply, naïve. Evidently, Chris Fisher needs a refresher course on Hermeneutics. The Open Theist,

the Calvinist, the Arminian, the Lutheran, etc., opens the text of God's word and interprets that

word through his or her respective presuppositional grid. Fisher's naïve confession is no better

than that of the Calvinist, who makes a similar declaration, against whom the Open Theist objects.

Fisher believes that, at Psalm 139, God "tests to know David." True enough, but then David

informs the reader not about his own thoughts, but that God already foreknows the thoughts and

words of David himself. (Ps. 139:4) Fisher tries so very hard to make David say what David is not

saying that the attempt appears so very obviously desperate. But Fisher's "testing" a priori is key

LGBTQ ISSUES (14)

LITURGY | PRAYER | WORSHIP (10)

LOVE (14)

MOLINISM | OMNISCIENCE | OPEN THEISM (18)

ORIGINAL SIN (4)

PELAGIUS | SEMI-PELAGIANISM (8)

PERSONAL ISSUES (7)

REMONSTRANTS | SYNOD OF DORDT (22)

ROMAN CATHOLICISM (5)

SCRIPTURE (14)

SIN | PROBLEM OF EVIL (30)

SPIRITUAL DISCIPLINES (42)

THE SUNDAY LITURGY (22)

THIS WEEK IN ARMINIANISM (71)

VIDEO (5)

WORLD RELIGIONS (11)

POSTS

COMMENTS

MUST-HAVE EPISCOPAL SOURCES

ARCHIVE OF THIS SITE

5/4/2016 WILLIAM BIRCH.: Answering Chris Fisher on Open Theistic Claims

http://www.williambirch.net/2016/04/answeringchrisfisheronopentheisticclaims.html 4/8

to his hermeneutic: God tests people in order to get to know people. See, the Open Theist God is

without sufficient and proper knowledge, so this God must learn in order to know. So He tests

people in order to gain knowledge He did not previously possess. In an orthodox Arminian

understanding, God tests people not so that He might understand us better, but so that we might

understand both ourselves and God better. Unless we are thusly tested, we are the ones who

remain without sufficient and proper knowledge, both of ourselves, in our fallen context, and of our

loving and gracious and merciful and redeeming Triune God, in Christ, by means of the Holy Spirit.

Chris Fisher continues: "It seems more likely that Birch has no interest in understanding what

actual Open Theists believe, and thus misrepresents them. What Open Theist does not believe God

protected David?" Of course he misses the point entirely. Did I write that God is incapable of

protecting David? No. Did I write, or even allude to any notion whatsoever, that Open Theists do

not believe God is capable of protecting David? No, not an inference, nor even a hint. Then why

this inane and irresponsible response from Fisher? Because Chris Fisher is in the nasty habit of

offering decontextualized commentary with his opponents by meas of response. I have offered

plenty of direct quotes from Open Theists on other posts and still have been criticized by Open

Theists for not referencing "the right" Open Theists. But, yet again, I digress. That section of the

post is minor compared to the bigger picture regarding God, Open Theism, and prayer. Fisher

states:

Again, Birch assumes God is more incompetent then [sic] humans. Normal humans have fairly

accurate and widespread knowledge of the future. Just the other day I told a Calvinist that I

was going to bring my son to his hospital appointment at 9AM, and everything happened as

predicted. This is not unusual. Normal people say things like "I know my wife would not like

that" or "I know that price controls will cause shortages" or "I know that the football game will

be on at 5PM." In fact, there are complex betting markets on future events, which turn out to be

a fairly accurate way to predict major events in the future. This is not even counting the near

infinite knowledge of even minor future events that humans possess.

Fisher's sophomoric and faulty assertion should be obvious even to the novice: prediction is not

tantamount to knowledge. Fisher's comment here is like equating wishful thinking to faith. "I was

going to bring my son to his hospital appointment at 9AM, and everything happened as predicted."

I am, quite literally, astonished at the level of ineptitude of this comment. What Fisher did not,

obviously, foreknow is all the contingencies that could have occurred and, hence, could have

hindered him taking his son to the hospital appointment at 9AM. In no sense whatsoever could

Fisher insist that he knew beforehand that he would actually arrive at the hospital for the 9AM

appointment; and to equate this quasi-predictive circumstance to omniscience is an embarrassing

elementary mistake. For those Open Theists who complained about me quoting from Open Theist

scholars rather than Chris Fisher and Michael Saia, this is why.

I would no more expect a Calvinist to quote from my writings on this blog, in lieu of quoting from

accomplished Arminian scholars like William Klein, Keith Stanglin, Thomas McCall, Brian

Abasciano, Thomas Oden, Grant Osborne or I. Howard Marshall than I should be expected to quote

from Open Theist bloggers who are not published. One might ask: Then why are you expending so

much effort in this post answering Chris Fisher? I will tell you why: Because Fisher is himself

disingenuous regarding my post, my interactions with him on Facebook, and in his own response

on his blog. I think his readers deserve another perspective of the matter. However, the point is

well taken, in that further addressing Fisher could be considered entirely superfluous. I do believe

for future reference I will only address Open Theism from its accomplished scholars.

Finally, Fisher's conclusion is telling, as it represents an obnoxious fundamentalist attitude:

"Perhaps he will read this. Perhaps he will come to the realization that he cannot misrepresent

▼  2016 (126)

►  MAY (4)

▼  APRIL (33)

WHEN THE ABUSED RETURN TO THE LORD

ANSWERING CHRIS FISHER ON OPEN THEISTICCLAIMS

THIS WEEK IN ARMINIANISM

IN CALVINISM, GOD IS THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

THE DEVIOUS AND DUPLICITOUS MIND OF THECALVINIST ...

THE CONFUSED NATURE OF OPEN THEISTIC PRAYER

THE CONFUSED NATURE OF CALVINISTIC PRAYER

THE SUNDAY LITURGY: FIFTH SUNDAY OF EASTER:GOD IS...

WHY DOES THE ARMINIAN PRAY?

5 REASONS WHY THE NEW CALVINISM IS WORTHREJECTING...

THIS WEEK IN ARMINIANISM

CALVINISM ECLIPSED BY ARMINIANISM IN CHURCHOF ENG...

THE LITURGICAL REVOLUTION ADVANCES

REMONSTRANT SIMON EPISCOPIUS ON ORIGINAL SIN

ARMINIUS' COVENANTAL THEOLOGY ON ORIGINALSIN AND ...

THE SUNDAY LITURGY: FOURTH SUNDAY OF EASTER:FOLLO...

BEFRIENDING YOUR LIFE

THIS WEEK IN ARMINIANISM

SUBMIT, WOMAN! THE ASSAULT OFCOMPLEMENTARIANISM

YOU ARE NOT MY SHEEP

JACOB ARMINIUS AND THE DUTCH REFORMEDCONFESSION A...

JACOB ARMINIUS' CONFESSIONAL AND COVENANTALREFORM...

THE SUNDAY LITURGY: THIRD SUNDAY OF EASTER:RECREA...

HORRIFIED BY YOUR PAST?

THIS WEEK IN ARMINIANISM

ONCE MORE UNTO THE BREACH: TOTAL DEPRAVITYAND TOT...

WITNESSES AND THE DEITY OF JESUS: EXPLICATIONSAND...

THE BAKER ILLUSTRATED HANDBOOK ON THE GRACEOF GOD...

THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT: BLINDED BY MIGHT

THE SUNDAY LITURGY: SECOND SUNDAY OF EASTER:PRAYE...

ANGLICAN RICHARD HOOKER: CONTROVERSIALGRACE TOWAR...

THIS WEEK IN ARMINIANISM

THE PROBLEM WITH FILM CRITICS . . .

►  MARCH (30)

►  FEBRUARY (29)

►  JANUARY (30)

►  2015 (309)

►  2014 (158)

MUST-HAVE PATRISTIC SOURCES

5/4/2016 WILLIAM BIRCH.: Answering Chris Fisher on Open Theistic Claims

http://www.williambirch.net/2016/04/answeringchrisfisheronopentheisticclaims.html 5/8

Newer Post Older PostHome

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Posted by William Birch at Friday, April 29, 2016 0 Comments

Labels: Molinism | Omniscience | Open Theism

other's views unchecked. Perhaps he might even adopt normal reading comprehension as the best

way in which to read the Bible." Fisher's constant ploy toward "normal reading comprehension" is

betrayed by his own interpretive method when he cannot ably assess "normal reading

comprehension" of the Psalmist but must, due to his faulty hermeneutic, contort the text to suggest

what it clearly does not suggest. He concludes: "At the risk of sounding trite," which is too late,

"perhaps Open Theists should pray for Mr. Birch. After all, the Biblical response is to pray for

one’s detractors because the future is not yet set and they still may come to the knowledge of

truth."

Again we gain insight into the naïveté of the mind of the Open Theist blogger. References in the

New Testament toward "knowledge of the truth" proper regard the Christian faith. (cf. 2 Thess.

2:10; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Tim. 3:7) If Fisher thinks that Open Theism is synonymous with Christian

orthodoxy then he is self-deceived at best and blinded by the Enemy at worst. While I appreciate

the prayers of Fisher and other Open Theists, I assume I will be forgiven for doubting Mr. Fisher's

sincerity, because of past engagements with him. His reputation lacks sincerity when engaging his

opponents and so I have no confidence whatsoever that God will be hearing any prayers on my

behalf uttered by any Open Theist who reads Fisher. From a consistent Open Theistic stance, I

have little doubt that God Himself will be surprised by such prayers, since He presently has no idea

what the Open Theist will actually do in the future. I do pity the advocates of such an inept

philosophy.

+1   Recommend this on Google

0 Comments William Birch  Login1

 Share⤤ Sort by Best

Start the discussion…

Be the first to comment.

Subscribe✉ Add Disqus to your site Add Disqus Addd Privacyὑ�

 Recommend

RULE OF IRENÆUS

APOSTLES' CREED

NICENE CREED

COUNCIL OF SARDICA (343)

CONFESSION OF ST PATRICK (390)

DEFINITION OF CHALCEDON (451)

ATHANASIAN CREED (500)

CANONS OF COUNCIL OF ORANGE (529)

SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE: ANATHEMAS(533)

ELEVENTH COUNCIL OF TOLEDO (675)

THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (681)

SYNOD OF CONSTANTINOPLE (753)

COUNCIL OF NICEA (787)

95 THESES (1517)

AUGSBURG CONFESSION (1530)

BELGIC CONFESSION (1561)

HEIDELBERG CATECHISM (1563)

THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES OF RELIGION (1563)

SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION (1566)

CANONS OF DORDT (1619)

CATECHISM: EPISCOPAL (1801)

CREEDS OF THE CHURCH

MUST-HAVE ARMINIAN SOURCES

5/4/2016 WILLIAM BIRCH.: Answering Chris Fisher on Open Theistic Claims

http://www.williambirch.net/2016/04/answeringchrisfisheronopentheisticclaims.html 6/8

WHY CALVINISTS SHOULD ADVANCE ARMINIUS

BEN WITHERINGTON AND KEITH STANGLIN, JACOBARMINIUS, THEOLOGIAN OF GRACE– PART TWO

J. WARNER WALLACE, “DID FREE WILL SIMPLY‘EMERGE’?”

THIS WEEK IN ARMINIANISM

JERRY L. WALLS, “PHARAOH’S MAGICIANS FOILEDAGAIN: REPLY TO COWAN AND WELTY”

RECENT SOC. EVANG. ARMINIANS

ARMINIAN CONFESSION 1621

5/4/2016 WILLIAM BIRCH.: Answering Chris Fisher on Open Theistic Claims

http://www.williambirch.net/2016/04/answeringchrisfisheronopentheisticclaims.html 7/8

ON THE SACRED SCRIPTURES

ON KNOWING GOD

ON THE TRINITY

ON KNOWING THE WORKS OF GOD

ON CREATION: THE WORLD, ANGELS, MAN

ON THE PROVIDENCE AND SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

ON THE SIN AND MISERY OF MAN

ON THE WORK OF REDEMPTION

ON KNOWING GOD'S WILL

ON THE COMMANDMENTS OF FAITH AND REPENT.

ON FAITH

ON GOOD WORKS AND THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

ON GOVERNING AND DENYING OURSELVES

ON THANKSGIVING AND THE LORD'S PRAYER

ON THE TRADITIONS OF MEN

ON THE WORSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST

ON THE PROMISES OF GOD

ON ELECTION, ADOPTION, JUSTIFICATION

ON THE LIFE TO COME AND THE RESURRECTION

ON REPROBATION, HARDENING, BLINDING

ON THE MINISTRY OF THE WORD OF GOD

ON THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST

ON THE SACRAMENTS AND OTHER RITES

ON CHURCH DISCIPLINE

ON SYNODS AND COUNCILS

ARMINIAN CONFESSION 1621

5/4/2016 WILLIAM BIRCH.: Answering Chris Fisher on Open Theistic Claims

http://www.williambirch.net/2016/04/answeringchrisfisheronopentheisticclaims.html 8/8

Template images by gaffera. Powered by Blogger.