User Tag List

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 152

Thread: Battle Royale VIII applicants wanted!

  1. #16
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,337 Times in 1,101 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1099924

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Battle Royale VIII applicants wanted!

    Originally posted by Zakath
    Why don't you consider Arminians a sub-set of Calvinists? I realize that Arminius himself was soundly condemned by the Calvinist synod in Dort (1618-1619), but he is still rooted in a moderate Calvinism. Even considering them separately, both groups together do not make up a plurality of professing Christians.
    That's why we are calling that side of the argument the "closed view" side therefore it will encompass both the Arminians and the Calvinists.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  2. #17
    Journeyman add yasaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    63
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    204

    huh

    Knight quote - That's why we are calling that side of the argument the "closed view" side therefore it will encompass both the Arminians and the Calvinists.


    I guess part of my job would be to prove that Arminians are not in the closed view. I already did that in previous threads, but I will give it a shot anyways.

  3. #18
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,337 Times in 1,101 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1099924

    Re: huh

    Originally posted by add yasaf
    I guess part of my job would be to prove that Arminians are not in the closed view. I already did that in previous threads, but I will give it a shot anyways.
    LOL... Arminianism is a closed view. No matter how many times you shout otherwise your view of God perfect foreknowledge always gets in the way.
    Last edited by Knight; January 9th, 2004 at 06:54 PM.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  4. #19
    Journeyman add yasaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    63
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    204

    crazy

    Knight quote - LOL... Arminianism is a closed view. No matter how many times you shout otherwise your view of God perfect foreknowledge always gets in the way.


    WOW! Stunning! you have "successfully" (sarcasm) made it unneccessary for the Battle in just a sentence. Notice "unneccessary" is not the same as "uncertain". LOL

  5. #20
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,337 Times in 1,101 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1099924

    Re: crazy

    Originally posted by add yasaf
    WOW! Stunning! you have "successfully" (sarcasm) made it unneccessary for the Battle in just a sentence. Notice "unneccessary" is not the same as "uncertain". LOL
    Uh... if you say so.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  6. #21
    Journeyman Scrimshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    NV
    Posts
    94
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    206

    OK

    Hi Knight,

    I am a proponent of the closed-view position and would be interested in participating in this BR.

    Thanks,
    Scrimshaw
    SCRIMSHAW

    "Passions act as winds to propel our vessel; our reason is the pilot that steers her, without the winds she would not move; and without the pilot she would be lost". - The French

  7. #22
    Journeyman Berean Todd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Houston, Tx
    Posts
    187
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Knight, actually I'm going to withdraw my name from this topic, and hope for taking part in the next BR. I'm retiring, for the time, from debate on this issue here at ToL. I do support anyone who will argue for the closed view, but also offer a caution - many people here at ToL are strict adherants of Mr Enyart, and as such are set in their ways of Open Theism, so it will be nigh-impossible to "win" any votes as to who won the debate, but the closed view does need to be presented so I support and encourage you to go for it if you feel so led.

  8. #23
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,337 Times in 1,101 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1099924
    Originally posted by Berean Todd but also offer a caution - many people here at ToL are strict adherants of Mr Enyart, and as such are set in their ways of Open Theism
    Oh please....

    You have got to be kidding me Todd!

    The open view has no more to do with Bob Enyart than opposing abortion has to do with Bob Enyart.

    Bob is an open theist so what? Bob isn't even going to be the opponent in this debate.

    If your arguments cannot stand up to the test then your arguments will lose on their own merit or lack thereof.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  9. #24
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,337 Times in 1,101 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1099924

    Re: OK

    Originally posted by Scrimshaw

    Hi Knight,

    I am a proponent of the closed-view position and would be interested in participating in this BR.

    Thanks,
    Scrimshaw
    OK... great! I will put you on the list! Can you give me a link to any TOL thread where you have argued your side on this topic?

    I would like to review your position so we know where you are coming from.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  10. #25
    Journeyman add yasaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    63
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    204

    debate

    I recommend Clete Pfieffer, for the open view and myself, for what you guys call the closed view. Did you already have somene in mind for the open view?

  11. #26
    Journeyman adajos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    78
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    192
    For the open view side it would be interesting if you could get Greg Boyd, or one of the people affiliated with his organization Christus Victor ministries. Boyd was a theology professor at Bethel College in St Paul, MN and I had many opportunities to hear him speak. His Open Theism was quite controversial on campus when I attended.

    He's a very intelligent man and an extremely passionate and articulate....it'd be cool if him or some other scholarly person would take the Open View side of a Battle Royal.

    If anyone is interested in trying to get him his website is www.gregboyd.org

    It might be worth a shot. I'd feel sorry for whoever had to debate him, even though I personally am not necessarily a proponent of the Open view.
    Warm Regards,

    adajos

  12. #27
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1037

    Re: debate

    Originally posted by add yasaf

    I recommend Clete Pfieffer...
    Clete is awesome on this topic!

  13. #28
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,337 Times in 1,101 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1099924
    Originally posted by adajos

    For the open view side it would be interesting if you could get Greg Boyd, or one of the people affiliated with his organization Christus Victor ministries. Boyd was a theology professor at Bethel College in St Paul, MN and I had many opportunities to hear him speak. His Open Theism was quite controversial on campus when I attended.

    He's a very intelligent man and an extremely passionate and articulate....it'd be cool if him or some other scholarly person would take the Open View side of a Battle Royal.

    If anyone is interested in trying to get him his website is www.gregboyd.org

    It might be worth a shot. I'd feel sorry for whoever had to debate him, even though I personally am not necessarily a proponent of the Open view.
    Hey adajos do you know the folks at Greg Boyd's website personally?

    If so... we would love to be linked in their "other ministries" links section located...

    http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=542

    We at TOL have been defending the open view on the internet since 1996!
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  14. #29
    Journeyman Scrimshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    NV
    Posts
    94
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    206

    Re: Re: OK

    Originally posted by Knight

    OK... great! I will put you on the list! Can you give me a link to any TOL thread where you have argued your side on this topic?

    I would like to review your position so we know where you are coming from.
    I have not engaged this topic on these forums yet, however, I can offer an overview of my position......

    The God of the Bible is described as being infinite, and whose existence transcends the physical properties of the universe. Time is one of the physical properties of matter. Its a physical dimension that directly correlates to a state of matter. Since God transcends matter (and therefore time), his knowledge is unbound by temporal delineations of matter/time (past, present, future). The only thing that delineates the present from the future is a variation in the state of matter. For example, our earth has not yet spun 4.4 degrees, so it is not yet 5pm. But God's existence transcends all states of matter, and therefore, his knowledge of universal events transcends all states of time. This is what "omniscience" means. Consequently, God possesses knowledge of everything we call "future" events. There is nothing that has ever occurred in this universe that God didn't know would happen. If God's state of knowledge ever changed, he would be a temporal being whose state of existence is in some way subject to the state of matter. (Since time is a variable that is directly attached to matter) If this were so, this obviously would demote God's sovereignty, and make God's knowledge (and therefore divine attributes) subordinate to the universe. But if any aspect of God's being (such as his knowledge) is subordinate to something else (such as the state of matter/time), then God cannot be considered all-knowing, all-powerful, or immutable.

    Open theism relegates God to a mutable, temporal being whose knowledge is in some way bound to the dictates of time/matter, which means he could not accurately possess the characteristics described in the Bible. (ie, Open theism contradicts James 1:17.)

    There is much more I could say, but I think this is enough information to give you a general overview of the position I would be representing.

    Thanks,
    Scrim
    Last edited by Scrimshaw; January 12th, 2004 at 07:09 PM.
    SCRIMSHAW

    "Passions act as winds to propel our vessel; our reason is the pilot that steers her, without the winds she would not move; and without the pilot she would be lost". - The French

  15. #30
    Journeyman Berean Todd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Houston, Tx
    Posts
    187
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Re: OK

    Originally posted by Knight

    OK... great! I will put you on the list! Can you give me a link to any TOL thread where you have argued your side on this topic?

    I would like to review your position so we know where you are coming from.
    Knight, there is a reason that 4 out of 5 theologians strongly reject open theism, and probably at least 3 out of 5 serious Christian posters here are adherants to it. You can chalk it up to whatever you want, but the strict adherance to Mr Enyart and his book "the Plot" comes up over and again from your side of the debate here, so I do see it as a major factor in the belief patterns here.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us