User Tag List

Page 1 of 15 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 303

Thread: BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 4 thru 7)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    ...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

    Exclamation 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 at 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. #2
    Documenting mans devolution DEVO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Waddling in the modern primordial soup.
    Posts
    150
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1039
    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, ďArise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you.Ē 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 dayís walk. Then he cried out and said, ďYet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!Ē 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, ďAh, 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.


  3. #3
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,347
    Thanks
    1,895
    Thanked 1,839 Times in 1,357 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    530129
    BEQ12: Are foreordination and foreknowledge the same thing?

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

    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.

  4. #4
    Rookie Parel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    174
    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

  5. #5
    Gold level Subscriber Bob Enyart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 132 Times in 123 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    74377

    The moment of truth...

    Quote 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 isnít 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. Iím 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 Samís credentials twice while making these points is this: it is not the newcomers to Calvinism that most resist these simple truths of Godís nature, but itís 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 Godís 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 Godís attributes, Sam ďrejectsÖ that one is more important or takes precedence over another,Ē 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 Godís nature. Further, whereas I admit that my theology results from giving preeminence to some of Godís 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 couldnít 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 Godís 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 Godís 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 Godís 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 at 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.

  6. #6
    Patron Saint of SMACK Delmar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    7,613
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 871 Times in 725 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    751545
    Quote 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.

  7. #7
    Over 3000 post club Lucky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    south Texas
    Posts
    3,238
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    628
    Quote 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

  8. #8
    Over 500 post club sentientsynth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Where the soil is black and red
    Posts
    534
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    181
    Quote 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 isnít 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. Iím 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 Samís credentials twice while making these points is this: it is not the newcomers to Calvinism that most resist these simple truths of Godís nature, but itís 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 Godís 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 Godís attributes, Sam ďrejectsÖ that one is more important or takes precedence over another,Ē 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 Godís nature. Further, whereas I admit that my theology results from giving preeminence to some of Godís 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 couldnít 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 Godís 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 Godís 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 Godís 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

  9. #9
    Over 2000 post club elected4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    238
    Quote 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 isnít 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. Iím 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 Samís credentials twice while making these points is this: it is not the newcomers to Calvinism that most resist these simple truths of Godís nature, but itís 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 Godís 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 Godís attributes, Sam ďrejectsÖ that one is more important or takes precedence over another,Ē 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 Godís nature. Further, whereas I admit that my theology results from giving preeminence to some of Godís 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 couldnít 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 Godís 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 Godís 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 Godís 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
    This Post is absolute nonsense. If you start out on a false assumption your conclusion will be also be false. This is true of both sides.Your position that foreknowledge prevents choice is just plan bunk. How on earth do you expect Dr. Lamerson to defend what He knows to be false.You have set up a false primes and expect us to defend it.

    Explain something to me Bob, If God knew that you would answer or not answer this post from the foundation of the world, How would that prevent your choice? You would still make the choice free from any encumbrances. Oh I get it, Just because God knew that "locks" your choice and heaven forbid that you should be held accountable for it. It is not God that made your decision even though he knows your decision and He does not not put his fingers on the keyboard and type the response. You do that. Not God.
    Galatians 5:13 ∂For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

    The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

  10. #10
    Gold level Subscriber Bob Enyart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 132 Times in 123 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    74377

    Huh?

    Regarding E4E's post on my explanation of declaring victory, my comments are bracketed:

    Quote Originally Posted by elected4ever
    This Post is absolute nonsense. If you start out on a false assumption your conclusion will be also be false... [Of course (unless a logic error accidentally got you back to the truth).] Your position that foreknowledge prevents choice is just plan bunk. [E4E, could you please quote me on that?] How on earth do you expect Dr. Lamerson to defend what He knows to be false. [I agree, that would be inane.] You have set up a false premise and expect us to defend it. [Huh?]
    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.

  11. #11
    Over 2000 post club elected4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Enyart
    Regarding E4E's post on my explanation of declaring victory, my comments are bracketed:
    Thank you for your response. I had no idea that you lumpted all CVer's into the Calvanist camp and basicly you are debateing Calvanism Vs OV. I am a CVer but the things you were accusing me off were untrue and I found myself defending Calvanism; which is an imposability to defind. Now that I am aware of what you are doing maybe I wont get cought up as easyly.
    Galatians 5:13 ∂For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

    The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

  12. #12
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 14 Times in 14 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    11814
    Quote Originally Posted by elected4ever

    Explain something to me Bob, If God knew that you would answer or not answer this post from the foundation of the world, How would that prevent your choice? You would still make the choice free from any encumbrances. Oh I get it, Just because God knew that "locks" your choice and heaven forbid that you should be held accountable for it. It is not God that made your decision even though he knows your decision and He does not not put his fingers on the keyboard and type the response. You do that. Not God.
    How can God see or know in advance a contingent choice? What mechanism is there to turn possibilities into certainties centuries before their existence? If we are genuinely free to type, how is it a certain object of knowledge in advance if we could type trillions of permutations? Until the typing, the contingencies are simply not knowable, even for an omniscient God. You will rotely answer that it is possible for God. Really? We are back to the issue of God creating square circles (logically impossible, even for God).
    Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

    They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
    I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

    Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

    "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

    The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

  13. #13
    Over 2000 post club elected4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz
    How can God see or know in advance a contingent choice? What mechanism is there to turn possibilities into certainties centuries before their existence? If we are genuinely free to type, how is it a certain object of knowledge in advance if we could type trillions of permutations? Until the typing, the contingencies are simply not knowable, even for an omniscient God. You will rotely answer that it is possible for God. Really? We are back to the issue of God creating square circles (logically impossible, even for God).
    According to you God can change His mind about you. You can't be sure about anything. Oh well here today and gone tomorrow Just remember to keep impressing God with your actions. Maybe He wont change his mind about you.
    Galatians 5:13 ∂For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

    The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

  14. #14
    Super Moderator Jefferson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Seated with Him in the heavenlies
    Posts
    7,512
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 196 Times in 144 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    111482
    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.

  15. #15
    Resident Atheist Zakath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    3,015
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    250
    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.

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