User Tag List

Page 4 of 21 FirstFirst 123456714 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 303

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

  1. #46
    Old Timer RightIdea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    369
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    205

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by M. K. Nawojski
    I am referring to all answers to my first post in this forum (the post which asked two questions but made no "claims" at all): i.e., "Has anybody noticed that Bob Enyart, in 'discarding' what he calls the 'Settled View' listing of God's attributes -- omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, impassibility, and immutability -- has thus swept aside the 'defining' traits of deity, which identify the Almighty God of Scripture and distinguish Him from all false gods and/or created beings? And has anyone noticed further that the 'Open View' list which he substituted -- living, personal, relational, good, loving -- does not draw a distinction between the Creator and His creatures at all. The 'Open View' listing could be used to describe any number of created beings, including the holy angels."

    By the way, I had no plan at all to follow that initial post with the suggestion that Almighty God is NOT living, personal, relational, good, and loving -- and, in fact, had never heard of (nor imagined) such a notion. I was merely drawing attention to the fact that -- out of the myriad of thrice-holy attributes, which could be used to reference the Eternal God of Scripture -- Mr. Enyart has chosen to attack and reject a very specific grouping, i.e., the ones which define God as "God."

    MK
    MK, what in the world are you talking about??? Bob hasn't thrown away the omnis! Where do you get that from? How can you so blatantly misrepresent what he said?

    He said that the Openness attributes he listed are the greater attributes which take precedence over the omnis which are the lesser attributes, and he proved it beautifully by going to the incarnation!

    As he pointed out, God the Son, Himself, "threw away" temporarily the Omnis in His earthly ministry, while keeping the "Openness attributes" that Bob listed! So, it is no problem for God to divest Himself of the omnis, but if He gives up any of the NOAH attributes by the tiniest degree, God comes undone! If He commits even the tiniest sin, He's no longer God! So, if you cant' stand the idea of the omnis being removed (temporarily) from God.... tell it to God! Not us...
    1 Corinthians 13:2
    And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.

  2. #47
    TOL Subscriber CRASH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    1,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1202

    Thumbs up Ok

    Quote Originally Posted by M. K. Nawojski
    I am referring to all answers to my first post in this forum (the post which asked two questions but made no "claims" at all): i.e., "Has anybody noticed that Bob Enyart, in 'discarding' what he calls the 'Settled View' listing of God's attributes -- omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, impassibility, and immutability -- has thus swept aside the 'defining' traits of deity, which identify the Almighty God of Scripture and distinguish Him from all false gods and/or created beings? And has anyone noticed further that the 'Open View' list which he substituted -- living, personal, relational, good, loving -- does not draw a distinction between the Creator and His creatures at all. The 'Open View' listing could be used to describe any number of created beings, including the holy angels."

    By the way, I had no plan at all to follow that initial post with the suggestion that Almighty God is NOT living, personal, relational, good, and loving -- and, in fact, had never heard of (nor imagined) such a notion. I was merely drawing attention to the fact that -- out of the myriad of thrice-holy attributes, which could be used to reference the Eternal God of Scripture -- Mr. Enyart has chosen to attack and reject a very specific grouping, i.e., the ones which define God as "God."

    MK
    MK-
    That explanation is helpful. Though there may have not been a formal "claim" made, if you re-read what you wrote, it could easily be construed as accusatory. Apology accepted.
    Psalms 58:10
    The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

    CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST

  3. #48
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,686
    Thanks
    661
    Thanked 6,961 Times in 3,706 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147776
    Bob is not attacking any true attribute of God. His argument is simply that the qualitative attributes are foundational to the quantitative attributes, not that they do not exist at all.

    "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

  4. #49
    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
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by RightIdea
    MK, what in the world are you talking about??? Bob hasn't thrown away the omnis! Where do you get that from? How can you so blatantly misrepresent what he said?

    He said that the Openness attributes he listed are the greater attributes which take precedence over the omnis which are the lesser attributes, and he proved it beautifully by going to the incarnation!

    As he pointed out, God the Son, Himself, "threw away" temporarily the Omnis in His earthly ministry, while keeping the "Openness attributes" that Bob listed! So, it is no problem for God to divest Himself of the omnis, but if He gives up any of the NOAH attributes by the tiniest degree, God comes undone! If He commits even the tiniest sin, He's no longer God! So, if you cant' stand the idea of the omnis being removed (temporarily) from God.... tell it to God! Not us...
    Bob has lost the debate because he has change the subject and conceded the points of Dr. Lamerson in the first round. It does not matter if Dr lamerson is right or wrong from this point on. It is an exercise in futility. I fault the moderators for that. It does not matter what attributes are lesser or greater. The point is that Mr Enyart changed the subject that Dr. Lamerson was discussing and effectively conceded the points. Mr. Enyart, you lose.

    As for as I am concerned Dr. Lamerson need not answer any of Mr. Enyart's questions until Mr Enyart returns to the first post and addresses it effectively. He has not done so to this point.
    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?

  5. #50
    Old Timer RightIdea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    369
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    205
    Change the subject? How on earth do you figure that? Didn't respond to Lamerson's first post? He's responded strongly to everything in Lamerson's first post! Have you not read the last 2 rounds, E4E? Some new posts have been made available in the last week or so, you know. LOL

    What question of Lamerson's do you think hasn't been answered?
    1 Corinthians 13:2
    And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.

  6. #51
    Just livin' life one day at a time. Poly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    6,607
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 516 Times in 261 Posts

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





    Rep Power
    420477
    Quote Originally Posted by elected4ever
    Bob has lost the debate because he has change the subject and conceded the points of Dr. Lamerson in the first round. It does not matter if Dr lamerson is right or wrong from this point on. It is an exercise in futility. I fault the moderators for that. It does not matter what attributes are lesser or greater. The point is that Mr Enyart changed the subject that Dr. Lamerson was discussing and effectively conceded the points. Mr. Enyart, you lose.

    As for as I am concerned Dr. Lamerson need not answer any of Mr. Enyart's questions until Mr Enyart returns to the first post and addresses it effectively. He has not done so to this point.
    e4e, I'm beginning to question whether you're really putting any effort into keeping up with this debate. Some of the things you say and the accusations you assert cause me to wonder if you're really reading the posts or just jumping at the chance to say "Bob is wrong" simply because it's Bob who's saying it. I encourage you to carefully read what has been posted by both Bob and Sam in this debate and then to carefully weigh whatever accusations or claims you choose to make, being cautious by making sure they are accurate.
    "The most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" - Ronald Reagan



    Check out the "rightest" of all right wing moms. FarRightMom


    Upgrade your TOL membership.

  7. #52
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,686
    Thanks
    661
    Thanked 6,961 Times in 3,706 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147776
    Quote Originally Posted by elected4ever
    Bob has lost the debate because he has change the subject and conceded the points of Dr. Lamerson in the first round. It does not matter if Dr lamerson is right or wrong from this point on. It is an exercise in futility. I fault the moderators for that. It does not matter what attributes are lesser or greater. The point is that Mr Enyart changed the subject that Dr. Lamerson was discussing and effectively conceded the points. Mr. Enyart, you lose.

    As for as I am concerned Dr. Lamerson need not answer any of Mr. Enyart's questions until Mr Enyart returns to the first post and addresses it effectively. He has not done so to this point.
    You're are either not paying attention or are willfully lying. It was Lamerson who brought up the need to figure out which set of proof texts are to be used to interpret the other, not Bob. And so it is Lamerson who laid that as a foundational issue. Bob simply proved that the open view texts must be used to interpret the other and explained clearly why. In so doing, he effectively responded not only to every point Lmaerson made in the first post but every point that Lamerson could ever make.
    It seems clear that you need to reread Bob's posts.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete

    "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

  8. #53
    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
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    You're are either not paying attention or are willfully lying. It was Lamerson who brought up the need to figure out which set of proof texts are to be used to interpret the other, not Bob. And so it is Lamerson who laid that as a foundational issue. Bob simply proved that the open view texts must be used to interpret the other and explained clearly why. In so doing, he effectively responded not only to every point Lmaerson made in the first post but every point that Lamerson could ever make.
    It seems clear that you need to reread Bob's posts.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    I did not comment on weather Mr. Enyart was right of wrong only that he has conceded the points of Dr. Lamerson. It is the habit of Mr Enyart to change the subject in order to control the debate. It is a common practice of his that he exhibits regularly on his radio program. I see the same practice employed here and I think it is inappropriate for this debate.
    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?

  9. #54
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    496
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    215

    Bob assumes privileges not his due

    Bob’s declaration of early victory is not a presentation of evidence or an argument, but rather a statement of judgment. But the task of a debater is to present his case and to let the judges – in this case, we readers – make the decision as to how well each side carried their case. For Bob as a debater to declare victory in the middle is rather like a batter in a baseball game calling strikes and balls and outs as though the umpire were surplus baggage. Indeed, in both Bob’s mind and that of the batter the issue may be crystal clear, but it is not by fiat of the debater’s or Bob’s declaration that the call is made. The play must be made so that from our (hopefully) less biased umpire’s perspective we can make an impartial judgment.

    Bob has the right to declare a preemptive victory, but that is just a debate tactic, not unlike other tactics designed to sway the judgment of the judges. Arguing excessively with the umpire over a call can backfire.

    No one doubts that Bob thinks his arguments are irrefutable, and anyone who has heard Bob expound his theology knew that before the first post. Bob explains he made his victory declaration because if he allows the propitious moment to pass without such a victory declaration, then the remainder of the debate will lose focus in the “comparatively unimportant matters” that follow. I wonder how the debate can proceed for the agreed to remaining rounds without discussion of a number of supporting ideas, whether early victory is declared by one side or not. One objective of an effective debater is to end the debate with the victory, meaning no matter what baggage is thrown in the ring, when all is over, the debater has managed to successfully prosecute his case throughout the duration. An effective closing to a debate often involves focusing on those earlier crucial arguments and counterarguments that best support your side.

    I feel a bit put down, since as one of the unofficial judges, Bob has indicated that he doubts my ability to recognize and retain the impact of decisive ideas if they are followed by less focused discussions. In fairness, and since Sam had the opening post, he should be informed that he can first declare preemptive victory over Bob, after which anything Bob says can be taken as sour grapes from the loser.
    Last edited by ThePhy; August 16th, 2005 at 01:26 PM. Reason: typos

  10. #55
    Over 5000 post club elohiym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    In Christ
    Posts
    5,875
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 112 Times in 95 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    421651
    From Sam: "At any rate here is the first challenge. If Bob really believes that he has won the debate he should have no problem ending the debate here. If he continues, it is evident that he does not believe that he has won."

    Nice play.

  11. #56
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,686
    Thanks
    661
    Thanked 6,961 Times in 3,706 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147776
    Quote Originally Posted by elected4ever
    I did not comment on weather Mr. Enyart was right of wrong only that he has conceded the points of Dr. Lamerson. It is the habit of Mr Enyart to change the subject in order to control the debate. It is a common practice of his that he exhibits regularly on his radio program. I see the same practice employed here and I think it is inappropriate for this debate.
    You are a liar e4e! I've watched and or listened to Bob Enyart's shows for over a decade and while many who don't want to face the force of his arguments or are too dim witted to follow his point often say that he is changing the subject but that fact is that he is very careful NOT to change the subject. Read his posts again. You cannot be so stupid as to not be able to see the logic of his argument. It's not only on topic and responsive, it is substantive and brilliant. If you don't see it, it'll be because you've intentionally shut your eyes to it.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete

    "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

  12. #57
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,686
    Thanks
    661
    Thanked 6,961 Times in 3,706 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147776
    Quote Originally Posted by elohiym
    From Sam: "At any rate here is the first challenge. If Bob really believes that he has won the debate he should have no problem ending the debate here. If he continues, it is evident that he does not believe that he has won."

    Nice play.
    It's stupid. Bob Enyart does not say things he doesn't mean. It makes me wonder if Lamerson wants out. No one calls someone's bluff that they don't even know unless they are desparate.

    I think it would be sweet if Bob took him up on the offer.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete

    "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

  13. #58
    Over 5000 post club elohiym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    In Christ
    Posts
    5,875
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 112 Times in 95 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    421651
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    I think it would be sweet if Bob took him up on the offer.
    Agreed.

  14. #59
    TOL Legend kmoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    A farm
    Posts
    10,550
    Thanks
    1,225
    Thanked 2,609 Times in 1,393 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    1246786
    Honestly, I'm getting pretty tired of this BR. I went into this excited and looking foward to a good debate on an issue that recently I had been very back and forth on and it has really done nothing. Neither side, in my opinion, has thoroughly responded to the others arguments. Bob has avoided some arguments that Sam has offered and Sam has dodged some questions that Bob has asked.

    There seems to be more sarcasm and fake "nice" conversation than actual debating. Bob goes and declares victory, which, even if he honestly believes he has won, was, in my opinion, arrogant and unnecessary. Now Sam comes back and, like Clete said, seems to be calling Bob's bluff and is either trying to bully Bob into more rounds or may be hoping that Bob does end it because he wants out.

    If it keeps going I'll continue reading, but I've been far from impressed so far and I sincerely hope the debating gets better.

    but maybe that's just me.....

  15. #60
    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
    237

    Apology

    I posted this on another tread. I think it is appropriate to restate it here.

    I went back and reread the post. I must have just skimmed over it. I made a mistake. Mr Enyart did address the issues of my concern. I apologize for my misstatements. I'll pay better attention next time.
    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?

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