User Tag List

Page 3 of 34 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 500

Thread: Discussion - Enyart vs. Ask Mr Religion (One on One)

  1. #31
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,258
    Thanks
    1,703
    Thanked 3,401 Times in 2,037 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1675790
    Quote Originally Posted by PastorKevin View Post
    Wow. Hang on everyone, I am counting the Bible verses that AMR cited and discussed in his responses. Man it's going to take all night...........
    Quote Originally Posted by PastorKevin View Post
    1..........
    LOL again!

    Let me help...

    1)"...our Scriptural relationship is defined from God downward to man, versus the humanistic pining of the unsettled theist upward to God..."
    Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.
    For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)
    2) The Scriptures tell us that God is indeed immutable, but that He nevertheless notices and is affected by the obedience, plight or sin of His creatures.
    Mal 3:6 For I am Jehovah, I change not. Because of this you sons of Jacob are not destroyed.
    Psa 89:34 I will not break My covenant, nor change the thing that has gone out of My lips.
    3)God sets the standard, and the terms of His relationships, not man
    Heb 8:11 And they shall not each man teach his neighbor, and each man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest.
    Psa 119:9 BETH: With what shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed according to Your Word.
    4)"So here and now, letís put an end to the rhetoric that only unsettled theism understands Godís desire to have a relationship because He loves us."


    1Jn 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God has in us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.
    These seem to be scripture to me. I don't want to accuse you of complaceny, red herrings, strawmen etc. These all came very readily to mind.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  2. #32
    Formerly Shimei! Servo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,046
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6919
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    LOL again!

    Let me help...

    1)"...our Scriptural relationship is defined from God downward to man, versus the humanistic pining of the unsettled theist upward to God..."

    2) The Scriptures tell us that God is indeed immutable, but that He nevertheless notices and is affected by the obedience, plight or sin of His creatures.

    3)God sets the standard, and the terms of His relationships, not man


    4)"So here and now, letís put an end to the rhetoric that only unsettled theism understands Godís desire to have a relationship because He loves us."




    These seem to be scripture to me. I don't want to accuse you of complaceny, red herrings, strawmen etc. These all came very readily to mind.
    Can God change His mind? Yes or no? Not looking for a book or even a paragraph. YES or NO?

    More than that answer means you have no clue about OT.

  3. #33
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,258
    Thanks
    1,703
    Thanked 3,401 Times in 2,037 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1675790
    Quote Originally Posted by Shimei View Post
    Glad to help another moron with no point.

    Moronic point? Really. I don't blame you, it is a parroting response but it is so blatantly unhistorical. I overlook your ignorance, but please, don't overlook it yourself. This is a response where you shouldn't listen to those who purport this idea.
    I can start posting scriptures and early church fathers and you can show me the OV supports to this assertation. Usually I get "Who cares what the fathers thought?" which is a rich rebuttal to the obvious. Hopefully you're up to that challenge

    To begin with, do you have any early church father quotes to support historicity of OV off the bat? It seems you should for such an assertation. I'm ready whenever you are (maybe needs a separate thread - "Early church fathers supported OV theology"). Please send me a PM when you start it with a link
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  4. #34
    Formerly Shimei! Servo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,046
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6919
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Moronic point? Really. I don't blame you, it is a parroting response but it is so blatantly unhistorical. I overlook your ignorance, but please, don't overlook it yourself. This is a response where you shouldn't listen to those who purport this idea.
    I can start posting scriptures and early church fathers and you can show me the OV supports to this assertation. Usually I get "Who cares what the fathers thought?" which is a rich rebuttal to the obvious. Hopefully you're up to that challenge

    To begin with, do you have any early church father quotes to support historicity of OV off the bat? It seems you should for such an assertation. I'm ready whenever you are (maybe needs a separate thread - "Early church fathers supported OV theology"). Please send me a PM when you start it with a link


    So intimidating you are. Read this battle and get back to us with more of your brilliance.

  5. #35
    Over 2000 post club Mr. 5020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,368
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 60 Times in 41 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    22145
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Moronic point? Really. I don't blame you, it is a parroting response but it is so blatantly unhistorical. I overlook your ignorance, but please, don't overlook it yourself. This is a response where you shouldn't listen to those who purport this idea.
    I can start posting scriptures and early church fathers and you can show me the OV supports to this assertation. Usually I get "Who cares what the fathers thought?" which is a rich rebuttal to the obvious. Hopefully you're up to that challenge

    To begin with, do you have any early church father quotes to support historicity of OV off the bat? It seems you should for such an assertation. I'm ready whenever you are (maybe needs a separate thread - "Early church fathers supported OV theology"). Please send me a PM when you start it with a link
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight (a.k.a. owner of the site) View Post
    Lets not get into any drawn out debates in this thread.

    Lets use this thread to comment about the posts being made in the One on One. If you want to debate a point that was made in the One on One maybe it would be best to open up a new thread.

    Sound fair?

  6. #36
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,901
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked 2,821 Times in 1,848 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1920770
    Quote Originally Posted by PastorKevin View Post
    I agree with most of what you say here Clete. The only thing I don't agree with is I don't think AMR will be able to wrest victory from this no matter how many words he uses. Calvinism is untrue and in the end it will always lose when the Bible is held up against it.

    Well I can't disagree. Whatever victory is won, if any, will be superficial at best, of course.

    AMR might claim a victory but it will ring hollow when his own foundation has already been shown to be faulty and lacking Biblical substance!
    I would not have used the word "might" in this sentence.

    Bob will be able to refute AMR's "answers" in mere minutes per question while AMR spends days upon days writing out these long-winded posts. Bob already knew that was going to happen and said so himself.
    You know I hadn't given any thought to Bob's response to these "answers" AMR is giving. The fact that AMR is doing little more than spewing every Calvinist doctrine he can figure out how to tie to one of Bob's questions, no matter how far removed from the context of the question, does lend Bob the same latitude in his responses to these "answers". Bob will have an opportunity to respond to far more of the Calvinist error than he would have otherwise had.

    EDIT: Let me state that I also agree with Clete in that AMR should keep his answers confined to within the context of Battle Royale X and attempt to answer the questions based upon WHY the questions were asked in the first place. Bob did not agree to do this to start up a whole new Battle Royale with AMR replacing Lamerson, I don't believe.
    Quite right!

    If AMR ignores the context of the questions he is not answering the questions at all, thus my use of the quotation marks whenever referring to AMR's "answers".

    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

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    Tambora (September 5th, 2016)

  8. #37
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,258
    Thanks
    1,703
    Thanked 3,401 Times in 2,037 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1675790
    Quote Originally Posted by Shimei View Post
    Can God change His mind? Yes or no? Not looking for a book or even a paragraph. YES or NO?

    More than that answer means you have no clue about OT.

    "No" God does not change His mind. To say "Yes" would be a gross generalization on my part.

    You will not find a scripture that says "God changed His mind." It is a colloquial term. We never actually 'change our minds.'

    Better asked: Does God move to our supplications? "Yes, He does." This all goes back to a discussion of Foreknowlege which has been repeatedly discussed.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  9. #38
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,258
    Thanks
    1,703
    Thanked 3,401 Times in 2,037 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1675790
    Quote Originally Posted by Shimei View Post


    So intimidating you are. Read this battle and get back to us with more of your brilliance.
    LOL, Been there....

    (Sorry, been reading Knight's humor posts lately which has me in a humorous mood).

    I do think it would be a great discussion in all seriousness. If you believe the OV has tenure in any of the early church it would be reflected in the Father's writings so I think it would be a profitable thread (not sure if we'd coax many readers).
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  10. #39
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,258
    Thanks
    1,703
    Thanked 3,401 Times in 2,037 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1675790
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. 5020 View Post
    Originally Posted by Lon
    Moronic point? Really. I don't blame you, it is a parroting response but it is so blatantly unhistorical. I overlook your ignorance, but please, don't overlook it yourself. This is a response where you shouldn't listen to those who purport this idea.
    I can start posting scriptures and early church fathers and you can show me the OV supports to this assertation. Usually I get "Who cares what the fathers thought?" which is a rich rebuttal to the obvious. Hopefully you're up to that challenge

    To begin with, do you have any early church father quotes to support historicity of OV off the bat? It seems you should for such an assertation. I'm ready whenever you are (maybe needs a separate thread - "Early church fathers supported OV theology"). Please send me a PM when you start it with a link Originally Posted by Knight (a.k.a. owner of the site)
    Lets not get into any drawn out debates in this thread.

    Lets use this thread to comment about the posts being made in the One on One. If you want to debate a point that was made in the One on One maybe it would be best to open up a new thread.

    Sound fair?
    Which is why I opted to suggest another linked thread?

    I agree to not rabbit-trail here.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  11. #40
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,901
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked 2,821 Times in 1,848 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1920770
    Quote Originally Posted by Evoken View Post
    The Scripture you mention is not part of the question, which is what AMR agreed to answer. If we are to follow you reasoning then AMR should actually respond to all the complete entries made by Enyart in the debate, for they lead in some way or the other to the questions he asks. If the verse were actually part of the question, then your objection would be valid, but it is not so there are no grounds for this objection.
    Nonsense!
    It is not necessary for AMR to response to "all the complete entries made by Enyart in the debate" in order for him to answer the questions IN CONTEXT.

    If he ignores the context he isn't answering the question, plain and simple.

    The simplicity of God is not a Calvinistic doctrine. Where did you get that from?
    Well from AMR for one!
    Why didn't you ask him this question, I wonder?

    Augustine and Thomas Aquinas are the real culprits of course but the doctrine is commonly held throughout Calvinism. In fact, Calvinism is little more than Reformed Augustinian theology. The doctrine of Divine Simplicity is one of those doctrines Bob referred to in the debate when he mentioned how the Reformation parted from Rome but not from the Greeks.

    For more information about the doctrine read the following article...

    Divine Simplicity

    Are you like all other unsettled theists who use the term "Calvinism" in a derogatory way to encompass all classical theists and not just real Calvinists?
    Yes! That is, unless given some reason to believe that the individual is Arminian. Generally if a person quacks like this particular sort of duck he's either a Calvinist or a Catholic and since Catholics are usually pretty easy to spot the term Calvinist works in most situations rather nicely. Even people who don't call themselves Calvinists believe most of these things because of John Calvin any and so the term really isn't as inaccurate as you would probably like to think it is even in your own case.

    Apparently you have not read the title of the One on One thread: "A Calvinist's response...". What do you want AMR to do? To first establish the truth of Calvinism and then answer the questions?
    Yes! That's exactly what I want AMR to do! Not the whole of Calvinism of course but at least that portion of it which he intends to use as arguments against Open Theism. You see this is why it is important to acknowledge the context of these questions. Without doing so it isn't a response one would give in a debate, its merely a Calvinistic commentary. It seems perfectly clear to me that the intent was to have AMR respond to the questions as he would have had he been in Lamerson's place debating against Bob in Battle Royale X, which would be an interesting exercise both for AMR and for all the rest of us. As it is, so far, AMR has had all the fun in the world getting to write his brains out about his theology and the rest of us are going to check out in about another 2 or 3 "answers" of the sort that have been offered so far because frankly no one gives a crap about reading the "Ask Mr. Religion Commentary on Classical Theism" blog.

    That is not what he agreed to do, and if he did that you would be complaining that he is not answering the questions and is writing instead an "essay on the Calvinist doctrine". Seems like AMR is in a lose-lose situation with you.
    AMR is a lying fool who wouldn't know an honest response to a debate question if it bit his nose right off his face. AMR lost this before he ever started it as far as I am concerned. He has precisely zero credibility with me as either a scholar, a Christian nor even as a man.

    His three responses so far have sufficiently answered Enyart's questions and go farther in that AMR spends a much needed time explaining the concepts involved to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.
    He didn't answer Bob's question number two at all. He never even addressed it. He answered a question but it wasn't Bob's.

    All you are doing with your post is to poison the well Clete, this is dishonest, specially since you did not even take the time to point out the numerous "fallacies" in AMR's responses you alluded to in the opening sentences of your post.
    My comments were based on material that is there for everyone to read for themselves and I predicted a victory (of sorts) for AMR if he is permitted to continue his current course. I hardly think that hardly counts as poisoning the well, although I do not deny that I am AMR's enemy and make no pretensions of being objective.

    And please don't tempt me to actually delineate each of AMR's fallacious comments, it wouldn't go well for your side and I think you know that.

    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. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    Tambora (September 5th, 2016)

  13. #41
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,901
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked 2,821 Times in 1,848 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1920770
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    As I am fond of saying, "you choose the behavior, you have chosen the consequences." Deal with it.
    Did anyone else notice this "return evil for perceived evil" policy of AMR's?

    "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

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    Tambora (September 5th, 2016)

  15. #42
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    11791
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    In case I am pressed for time, let me pre-respond to the usual crowd now:

    godrulz: "No, it is not a nuanced motif and I disagree with what {so and so} writes."


    Get on with it now.
    I usually describe Greek grammar as nuanced (semantical range of meaning for words).

    I usually describe the two motifs as some of the future is open/unsettled, while other aspects is settled by God's intentions and ability to bring these to pass. This takes both of our proof texts at face value, while closed theism must make one set figurative, without warrant.

    I tend more to agree with so and so.

    AMR: Have you heard of Calvinism's God lisps?

    http://www.untothebreach.com/CalvinAccommodation.html

    Scripture does not mean what it says (at least the open theism verses) because God is talking baby talk to us?! Cmon.

    You accuse OT of elevating attributes. We know that God is love, but it seems to me that you elevate hyper-sovereignty above other attributes (verse for 'God is sovereign'? Yes He is, but other attributes are more predominant).
    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.

  16. #43
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,258
    Thanks
    1,703
    Thanked 3,401 Times in 2,037 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1675790
    BEQ1: 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 (for example, as Ware says, especially to allow for true relationship)?
    AMRA-BEQ1: "On the contrary...I was unaware that the relationship a Christian has with God was not already a true relationship. Inexplicably it has only been in the last twenty years or so that some philosophers masquerading as theologians (PBS: Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders) resurrected earlier humanistic writings, wrapped them in some biblical double-speak, hoping to set everyone straight, including apparently God Himself."

    Q1 is directly addressed in my opinion. Perhaps it is an OV perspective that discounts the answer? I'm seeing it as addressed.

    BEQ2: Do you agree that righteousness is the foundation of Godís sovereignty.

    AMRA-BEQ2a: "No I do not, nor should anyone who understands the nature of Godís attributes."

    Lamerson (same question - SAL-BEQ2): "I believe that the true attributes of God are inseparable. We cannot speak of one attribute as being the ground for another simply because they are both necessary."

    Psa 89:14 Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.
    This in my mind seems to be saying something different from Enyart's question. He is equating and that can be a slippery slope. The Psalmist is saying that God is just and righteous. He rules because He is God (righteously, because He is righteous). I'm in agreement with Lamerson and AMR here. There is no reason to read 'into' the text.


    AMRA-BEQ2b: "In summary, when discussing how God can be righteous, loving, omnipotent, etc., we must be careful to avoid separating the divine essence and the divine attributes. We must also guard against false conceptions of the relation in which these attributes stand with each other. This is the most egregious error of unsettled theism. Godís attributes are very real determinations of His Divine Being, that is, qualities that inhere in the being of God. Godís perfections are God Himself as He has revealed Himself to mankind. Godís attributes are not parts composing the Divine Essence. The whole essence is in each attribute, and the attribute in the essence. We should not conceive of the divine essence as existing by itself, and prior to the attributes. God is not essence and attributes, but in attributes. Indeed, knowledge of the attributes carries with it knowledge of the essence."

    This seems a fair and accurate address of the question to me.


    BEQ3: Do you agree that the five divine attributes of living, personal, relational, good, and loving, are more fundamental and take precedence over matters of location, knowledge, stoicism, power, and control?
    AMRA-BEQ3: "No, I do not...To be clear, we have absolutely no warrant to elevate any one of Godís attributes above another. Nor do we have a warrant to fixate, as do unsettled theistís, upon one attribute at the expense of all of the others."

    Again I see a clear answer here that directly responds to the question. I think it can simply be answered by all with another question:

    "Is it more necessary for a police chief to be 'relational' or 'able'?"
    "Is it more necessary for a nuclear physicist to be relational or able?"

    If you are like me, you want more information. If we add "...to do his job?" to the end of each it colors our answer significantly. I agree here with Lamerson and ARM.
    Moses, after asking "Who am I to say has sent me?"
    "I AM" was the answer that said God would be all Moses needed Him to be. All attributes there at Moses' need. God's attributes do not change, 'my' need changes and He is and always is what we need Him to be. There are no jokers, no wild-cards in this discussion.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  17. #44
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,258
    Thanks
    1,703
    Thanked 3,401 Times in 2,037 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1675790
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Divine Simplicity
    Good link with good philosophical presentation but I think he'd have to go into the P1 & P2 discussion for strength of his counter because he merely suggests a different approach rather than weighing them alternatively.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  18. #45
    Old Timer Chileice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    395
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    175
    I think the problem most Christians have, including Calvinists and Open Theists is that we can't live with ambiguity and do it well. I think that in this life we will never fully be able to explain God or understand him and NO hermeneutic that we build will ever be able to fully enfold the complexity and simplicity of almighty God. I think AMR really did a good job in this post. He just needs to remember that it applies equally to Calvinists as it does to Open Theists.


    The choice of a theological and hermeneutical key on any biblical topic will inevitably reflect the pre-understanding of the interpreter and not the objective teaching of Scripture. The use of such a key is also inconsistent with the evangelical doctrine of plenary inspiration. Including all texts on a given subject allows each text to have its distinctive input and avoids interpretations that are slanted by human bias. God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent as Psalm 139 so beautifully recognizes (Psalms 139:1-16). To allow any of these other qualities to overshadow Godís love would be equally misleading as allowing the greatness attributes (omnipresence, omnipotence, etc.) of God to overshadow His love.

    We ALL have a human bias based on our own experiences and needs. I find it interesting that Jesus did not just say he was the door. Some people needed a door. Others needed a fountain of living water, others needed him to be the light of the world or to share the yolk with them. He is and does all of those things, but we tend to focus on the aspect that was most helpful to us in our need and we try to universalize that one aspect or attribute above all others.
    Blessings of Peace,Chileice
    "Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit." Romans 15.13

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Tags for this Thread

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