Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 4 thru 7)

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 4 thru 7)

    Openness Theology - Does God Know Your Entire Future? - Battle Royale X
    S. Lamerson vs. B. Enyart

    Discuss rounds 4 thru 7 of BR X here!

    Let's try our best to stay on track and discuss/debate the content that is being posted in BR X.

    for:
    Battle Talk ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3).

    Last edited by Knight; August 12th, 2005, 05:49 PM.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  • #2
    Apparently,

    Calvinists would sigh with relief if the story of Jonah and Nineveh read....
    Jonah 3:1 Now the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time, saying, “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you.” So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three-day journey in extent. And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” Yet the people of Nineveh's hearts were hardened. Then God saw their wickedness, and that their hearts were hardened; and God destroyed Nineveh with fire and brimstone as was prophesied.

    Battle Royale X has given a clarity to the notion that God's love, mercy and righteousness are indeed the greatest attributes.

    Even the reluctant Jonah knew...

    Jonah 4:2 So he prayed to the LORD, and said, “Ah, LORD, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm.
    Freedom of choice is what you want, Freedom of choice is what you got.

    sigpic

    Comment


    • #3
      BEQ12: Are foreordination and foreknowledge the same thing?

      BEQ13: Is my conclusion above (from FDR) true that, “prophecies of future events do not inherently provide evidence of foreknowledge?”

      BEQ14: Is it theoretically possible for God to know something future because He plans to use His abilities to bring it about, rather than strictly because He foresees it?
      Looks like Bob is asking the right questions here.
      Learn to read what is written.

      _____
      The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
      ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

      Comment


      • #4
        I thought that the declaration of victory by Bob Enyart was a bit childish and shows the opposite to be true.If one has truly won a debate,it would be clear to everyone but the fact that one has to say it explicitly reveals to me that he is not truly victorious.

        "Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum" [I think that I think, therefore I think that I am]. - Ambrose Bierce

        "Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever."- Mohandas Gandhi

        Comment


        • #5
          I think it's been 3 times now that Bob has asked Dr. Lamerson, "Sam, do you agree with me that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs reformulation in order to explicitly acknowledge that God is able to change."

          Twice, so far, Dr. Lamerson has responded that it does not need TOTAL reformulation.

          Excuse me Sam, but that's not what Bob asked. Why do you keep adding the word "total" to his question? How 'bout answering the question he actually asked instead of the straw man easy question you wished he would have asked.
          WARNING: Graphic video here.

          Comment


          • #6
            The moment of truth...

            Originally posted by Parel
            I thought that the declaration of victory by Bob Enyart was a bit childish... If one has truly won a debate,it would be clear to everyone...
            Parel, It is my observation that with any disagreement, but importantly on debates over the most vital matters, the argumentation can crescendo to where the truth is staring both sides in the face. And if that moment passes, the debate will degenerate into comparatively unimportant matters. (For BRX: It is denying some of the most basic truths of the Incarnation vs. Can Jesus really know that Peter is too weak to risk His life? Can the Holy Spirit really prompt three people to remember Peter? Can God get a rooster to crow on cue? Or is that too difficult for Him, since maybe the farmer will eat the rooster the night before? And isn’t it wildly inconceivable that God could do all these three things simultaneously?) Debates are won and lost all the time with the losing side unaware of what has happened (ask Zakath). If your position is correct, and you hope to instruct and demonstrate the truth, then you should seize the moment and point it out, and just bear the criticism.

            Once it became obvious that Sam was sticking with his position which denied some of the basic truths of the Incarnation, it was crucial to declare victory, because most readers would probably not perceive what had just happened. I’m sorry that I flaunted my position in the way that I put it; if I could edit my post, I would tone that down; Sam surprised me by posting almost a day early, and he thereby robbed me (permissibly) of my expected weekend; so I worked through most of the next two nights (I am a very slow writer, and really need all of my opponents time to catch up on his remaining questions), and well, sleep deprivation lowers my inhibitions, so that while I fully stand by my assessment, I wish I could tone down the bragging.

            And the reason I pointed out Sam’s credentials twice while making these points is this: it is not the newcomers to Calvinism that most resist these simple truths of God’s nature, but it’s the theologians, the authors, the senior pastors, the professors, the standard-bearers. The argument that the attributes of goodness, etc. take precedence over power, etc. is so utterly true on the face of it. Yet a Calvinist resists such fundamental truth, because he intuitively sees that it will undermine his theology. For THIS IS THE ULTIMATE HERMENEUTIC for deciding between the Calvinist ordination of evil, and God’s creation of human will. (The matters of God being in or out of time, and exhaustive foreknowledge, are mere symptoms of the human philosophical idea of utter immutability.) For Calvinist theology originates in and depends upon the primacy of the Greek-influenced OMNIs and IMs, over the attributes that Christ retained as a man. Of God’s attributes, Sam “rejects… that one is more important or takes precedence over another,” which claim lost him the debate, partly for being therefore theologically unqualified to judge the more complex matters of truth and righteousness that flow from an understanding of God’s nature. Further, whereas I admit that my theology results from giving preeminence to some of God’s attributes, Sam denies that He does the same (although it is utterly obvious). For the Calvinist has elevated the wrong attributes, influenced by Calvin, who couldn’t agree more with Augustine, who bragged about importing Greek philosophy (primarily utter immutability) into Christian theology. Thus Sam argues that all attributes are equal, but the Settled View (including Arminians) has accepted conclusions that result from exaggerating God’s immutability and knowledge. As an aside, thankfully, the Arminian Settled Viewers do stop short of accepting the additional Calvinist elevation of power (control, sovereignty) over His being relational.

            Once you prove that God’s attributes do have a divine order of priority, through the Incarnation, that relationship, righteousness and love take precedence over omniscience and omnipotence, etc., and your opponent rejects that, he has lost, and you have won. Let Sam admit that God’s being relational, good, and loving take precedence over power and knowledge, and then together we can begin to go through the relevant passages with this hermeneutic, and then all can see that the declaration of victory was made at the right moment.

            -Bob
            Last edited by Bob Enyart; August 13th, 2005, 07:25 AM.
            The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

            Comment


            • #7
              Debates are won and lost all the time with the losing side unaware of what has happened (ask Zakath).
              Reverend Enyart,

              I would concur with Parel and suggest that your present situations fits your illustration as well as any one else. Unilaterally declaring victory, as you have already done in your third post of the debate with Lamerson, does not actually mean you've won a debate in anyone's mind but your own. It demonstrates an attitude of arrogance that I would suggest is out of place in a reasoned dialogue and would not be tolerated in a venue where "special rules" were not the order of the day. Since the venue here at TOL requires debaters to abandon the traditional structure of formal debate, such things as winning and losing must be settled in the mind of each reader.

              I would suggest that, to the minds of many of the readers, neither of you have yet to win or lose this debate.

              Keep trying.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Bob Enyart
                Sam surprised me by posting almost a day early, and he thereby robbed me (permissibly) of my expected weekend.
                They don't call it a Battle for nothing! It was a great maneuver from a tactical standpoint.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Bob's declaration of victory didn't really come across to me as bragging. It seemed to me to be a tactical matter; a simple stating of the facts.
                  sigpic
                  "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Clete
                    Bob's declaration of victory didn't really come across to me as bragging. It seemed to me to be a tactical matter; a simple stating of the facts.
                    Right, and sam has 7 more chances to say " no way and here's why".

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      With Sam's proven proclivity for ignoring points that Bob specifically emphasises (ex. blowing off, with a couple sentences, Bob's lengthy dissertation of God's relational attributes having precedence over the Calvinist attributes; completely ignoring Bob's request that Sam not pretend that Bob used the word "total" when asking if the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs reformulation, not "total" reformulation, etc.) - with Sam's proven proclivity for ingoring emphasised points, I think it has become appropriate for Bob to use "shock value," as it were, to try to make sure Sam does not gloss over (or even completely ignore) yet another main point.
                      Last edited by Jefferson; August 13th, 2005, 09:49 AM.
                      WARNING: Graphic video here.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        In Sam's section "On the Psalms being written before Plato", Sam writes,

                        "This cannot be reduced to a simple guess on the part of God as to what we will say. The writer goes on to say in Psalm 139:16 “Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.” It seems clear that for God to know all of the days of our lives before we are even formed he must know all that will happen to us under any circumstance."
                        I'd like to thank Dr. Lamerson for helping to solidify my understanding and confidence in the OV position. Consider the following analogy.

                        I go out and build a homemade lawnmower in my garage. Before I built it, I ordained it to be a lawnmower. I knew before it was even created that it would mow my lawn. I knew it's inner workings and the overall projected lifespan of my project mower. I also knew it's needs before it even ran out of gas. I knew that oil was critical to it's survival. All of these things I took into consideration before even beginning to create the mower. Could I have built a go-cart instead, certainly. What about a tiller? Conceivably, I could even build a space shuttle with the right materials, knowledge, and space.

                        This is a rather simplistic analogy, but multiply the wisdom and knowledge of our Living God. How much more could He do with DNA and living cells? Wouldn't he know how his creation would perform, what it would do, how long it would last? What about it's performance? I ordained my mower to cut grass. What if someone stuck their hand underneath the housing? I didn't create a finger mower. But it became one because it was used incorrectly. The instructions weren't followed. The warning label was ignored and because of it; something outside of my design entered into the equation. Did I know that this could happen? Yes. Was that my intention for the mower when I set out to create it? No. But it was a risk I was willing to take because I chose to create a mower. Did God want us to disobey and enter into sin? No. He created us for His enjoyment and His fellowship. He also created a plan should such a thing happen. He pre-planned for the event...Christ's sacrifice. Just as I had a plan should someone cut their fingers off in the mower, I'd put the fingers in an ice chest, administer first aid, and take the person to the hospital. God is wise enough and clever enough to take all possibilities into consideration.
                        Mt 7:14 - Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by NarrowWay
                          In Sam's section "On the Psalms being written before Plato", Sam writes,



                          I'd like to thank Dr. Lamerson for helping to solidify my understanding and confidence in the OV position. Consider the following analogy.

                          I go out and build a homemade lawnmower in my garage. Before I built it, I ordained it to be a lawnmower. I knew before it was even created that it would mow my lawn. I knew it's inner workings and the overall projected lifespan of my project mower. I also knew it's needs before it even ran out of gas. I knew that oil was critical to it's survival. All of these things I took into consideration before even beginning to create the mower. Could I have built a go-cart instead, certainly. What about a tiller? Conceivably, I could even build a space shuttle with the right materials, knowledge, and space.

                          This is a rather simplistic analogy, but multiply the wisdom and knowledge of our Living God. How much more could He do with DNA and living cells? Wouldn't he know how his creation would perform, what it would do, how long it would last? What about it's performance? I ordained my mower to cut grass. What if someone stuck their hand underneath the housing? I didn't create a finger mower. But it became one because it was used incorrectly. The instructions weren't followed. The warning label was ignored and because of it; something outside of my design entered into the equation. Did I know that this could happen? Yes. Was that my intention for the mower when I set out to create it? No. But it was a risk I was willing to take because I chose to create a mower. Did God want us to disobey and enter into sin? No. He created us for His enjoyment and His fellowship. He also created a plan should such a thing happen. He pre-planned for the event...Christ's sacrifice. Just as I had a plan should someone cut their fingers off in the mower, I'd put the fingers in an ice chest, administer first aid, and take the person to the hospital. God is wise enough and clever enough to take all possibilities into consideration.
                          Amen, a very nice analogy to support the Open View.
                          1 Corinthians 13:2
                          And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by deardelmar
                            They don't call it a Battle for nothing! It was a great maneuver from a tactical standpoint.
                            Yeah, that was a cool surprise move. SLam knows how to play the game.
                            grace & peace

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Bob Enyart
                              Parel, It is my observation that with any disagreement, but importantly on debates over the most vital matters, the argumentation can crescendo to where the truth is staring both sides in the face. And if that moment passes, the debate will degenerate into comparatively unimportant matters. (For BRX: It is denying some of the most basic truths of the Incarnation vs. Can Jesus really know that Peter is too weak to risk His life? Can the Holy Spirit really prompt three people to remember Peter? Can God get a rooster to crow on cue? Or is that too difficult for Him, since maybe the farmer will eat the rooster the night before? And isn’t it wildly inconceivable that God could do all these three things simultaneously?) Debates are won and lost all the time with the losing side unaware of what has happened (ask Zakath). If your position is correct, and you hope to instruct and demonstrate the truth, then you should seize the moment and point it out, and just bear the criticism.

                              Once it became obvious that Sam was sticking with his position which denied some of the basic truths of the Incarnation, it was crucial to declare victory, because most readers would probably not perceive what had just happened. I’m sorry that I flaunted my position in the way that I put it; if I could edit my post, I would tone that down; Sam surprised me by posting almost a day early, and he thereby robbed me (permissibly) of my expected weekend; so I worked through most of the next two nights (I am a very slow writer, and really need all of my opponents time to catch up on his remaining questions), and well, sleep deprivation lowers my inhibitions, so that while I fully stand by my assessment, I wish I could tone down the bragging.

                              And the reason I pointed out Sam’s credentials twice while making these points is this: it is not the newcomers to Calvinism that most resist these simple truths of God’s nature, but it’s the theologians, the authors, the senior pastors, the professors, the standard-bearers. The argument that the attributes of goodness, etc. take precedence over power, etc. is so utterly true on the face of it. Yet a Calvinist resists such fundamental truth, because he intuitively sees that it will undermine his theology. For THIS IS THE ULTIMATE HERMENEUTIC for deciding between the Calvinist ordination of evil, and God’s creation of human will. (The matters of God being in or out of time, and exhaustive foreknowledge, are mere symptoms of the human philosophical idea of utter immutability.) For Calvinist theology originates in and depends upon the primacy of the Greek-influenced OMNIs and IMs, over the attributes that Christ retained as a man. Of God’s attributes, Sam “rejects… that one is more important or takes precedence over another,” which claim lost him the debate, partly for being therefore theologically unqualified to judge the more complex matters of truth and righteousness that flow from an understanding of God’s nature. Further, whereas I admit that my theology results from giving preeminence to some of God’s attributes, Sam denies that He does the same (although it is utterly obvious). For the Calvinist has elevated the wrong attributes, influenced by Calvin, who couldn’t agree more with Augustine, who bragged about importing Greek philosophy (primarily utter immutability) into Christian theology. Thus Sam argues that all attributes are equal, but the Settled View (including Arminians) has accepted conclusions that result from exaggerating God’s immutability and knowledge. As an aside, thankfully, the Arminian Settled Viewers do stop short of accepting the additional Calvinist elevation of power (control, sovereignty) over His being relational.

                              Once you prove that God’s attributes do have a divine order of priority, through the Incarnation, that relationship, righteousness and love take precedence over omniscience and omnipotence, etc., and your opponent rejects that, he has lost, and you have won. Let Sam admit that God’s being relational, good, and loving take precedence over power and knowledge, and then together we can begin to go through the relevant passages with this hermeneutic, and then all can see that the declaration of victory was made at the right moment.

                              -Bob

                              Bob,

                              I'm very glad that you've made this post. I guessed that that would be your (or rather, the)position with Peter (and I agree with your conclusion), but I wanted it plainly from the horse's mouth, so that I could say, "I agree with Pastor Enyart's conclusion." My critiques of the debate are centered on development, specificity, and responsiveness only. Not a critique of your overall position, though that may creep in at times. Thank you for clarifying your position. This post ought to be considered a valuable appendix to the rest of the Battle Royale.

                              Sincerely,

                              SS

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X