User Tag List

Page 4 of 34 FirstFirst 123456714 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 500

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

  1. #46
    Over 500 post club Evoken's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    510
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    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.
    Here is what you said: "As an example of what I'm talking about, in "answer" to BEQ2, AMR never even brought up the Scripture which Bob quoted in the debate which comes right out and says that God's thrown (i.e. His authority) is founded upon His righteousness. He never even brings it up!"

    Your objection is founded on the fact that AMR did not bring up some particular thing (the Scripture cited by Enyart) in answer to a question that did not include such a thing. Lamerson didn't bring it up either. In fact, doing so is not strictly necessary to address BEQ2 and as I said in my previous post, AMR agreed to answer the questions only.

    Should he answer the questions in context? Sure, but that does not means that by doing so he is forced to include in his responses something Enyart said beyond the questions he asked. And as you can see in AMRA-BEQ4, he is doing so anyway.


    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.
    Not to derail the thread into this subject, but that God is simple is something that has always been believed by The Church, even long before St. Augustine or St. Thomas came along. And in fact, the greeks had certain errors on their idea of God which the early Fathers rebuked, while at the same time they acknowledged the elements of truth they had and attributed their origin both to divine inspiration and to the prophets of the Old Testament.

    By saying that the doctrine is Calvinistic, you are implying that it either originates from Calvinism or that it is exclusive to it. But this is not true when it comes to God's simplicity.


    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.
    Last time I checked, the majority of Arminians are classical theists, that is, they believe in the attributes of God rejected by unsettled theists. So, it is simply inaccurate to label all classical theists as Calvinists. Even without taking Arminians into consideration it is inaccurate to include Catholics within the "Calvinist" label.

    As far as John Calvin goes, I came into any serious contact with him and Calvinism long after I was Catholic.


    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.
    Perhaps so, but you have to remember that AMR does not necessarily agrees with everything Lamerson said or even with the manner he said it. So, there should be some flexibility as to allow him to explain things on his own terms and make any additional commentary he feels is necessary. The agreement was not that AMR would simply be Lamerson taking another shot at answering Enyart's questions.


    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.
    The only advice I gave to AMR when he agreed to respond to Enyart's questions was that he be as succinct as possible in his responses. So, I understand what you mean and I would not like things to turn out the way you perceive them to be now. That said, I believe that in the first few posts, since there is the need to clarify certain things, we are to expect longer responses. Later on, I believe, we are going to see more compact replies that presuppose what he stated early on.


    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.
    I disagree, here is the question and both Lamerson's and AMR's answers:

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

    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.

    AMRA-BEQ2: No I do not, nor should anyone who understands the nature of Godís attributes. The attributes of God appear to be a primary source of the doctrinal errors of unsettled theism, whereby its proponents spend inordinate amounts of time attempting to redefine and prioritize Godís very nature [....] 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.


    Lamerson does not clearly states wether he agrees or disagrees, and provides no explanation for why God's attributes are inseparable. AMR on the other hand, clearly answers the question in the negative and then proceeds to explain the reasons why God's attributes are inseparable. You may not agree with his answer, you may not like the length of his response or the fact that he spends some time defining the concepts involved, but to say that the question was not addressed is incorrect.


    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.
    Go ahead, isn't that what this thread is for?


    Evo

  2. #47
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,818
    Thanks
    215
    Thanked 2,630 Times in 1,738 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1720998
    Quote Originally Posted by Evoken View Post
    Should he answer the questions in context? Sure,...
    Enough said.
    "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

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

    Tambora (September 5th, 2016)

  4. #48
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,818
    Thanks
    215
    Thanked 2,630 Times in 1,738 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1720998
    AMR's "answer" number five is rather silly.

    He basically complains that Bob ignores the rest of the Psalm and so quotes it all for us as if it does something to support the Settled View, which it obviously does not.

    At the end he talks about the evidence being in. What evidence? The Psalms? Its difficult to know for sure what he's referring to since AMR didn't explain how the Psalms helps his position or refutes Bob's use of the passage in support of that which it plainly states. Bob never suggested that God did not reign nor did he suggest anything else that is in contradiction to the context of the Psalm. Further the statement that God's thrown is founded upon His righteousness is repeated in at least one other place. The context of neither suggests any reason for us to believe that they do not mean exactly what they say. Indeed, where would be the reason for rejoicing in the reign of God if the idea that God's authority is founded on His righteousness were not so?

    Does AMR deny that God's thrown is founded upon His righteousness? One would have to conclude that he does based on this so called "answer" to BEQ5, which by the way is more of an answer to BEQ2 than that which he actually wrote in AMRA-BEQ2.

    This is only "answer" five!!



    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

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

    Tambora (September 5th, 2016)

  6. #49
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,155
    Thanks
    1,638
    Thanked 3,257 Times in 1,971 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1629457
    BEQ4: Will you retract your criticism that my Attributes Hermeneutic was ďso broad as to be virtually pointless?Ē Now that you've seen my NOAH interpretation method demonstrated again by using it in the exact same way I did in my first post to resolve an apparent conflict in Pauline passages, but this to answer your question about Judas. Please remember, I am not here asking you if you agree with the method, but just if it is a clear method.
    AMRA-BEQ4 - "Unsettled theism hermeneutics present numerous problems for the orthodox historical-grammatical approaches to hermeneutics...all orthodox classical theists reply that this kind of selective interpretation hardly deserves the name of hermeneutics or exegesis. The proper name to be given to unsettled theismís NOAH, JONAH, etc., is hermeneutical malpractice."

    The question was specifically addressed to a Lamerson comment. It might have been better to have reworded this question or eliminated for AMR, but I believe AMR answers it directly by supporting Lamerson's statement and then explaining that support.

    BEQ5: Which describes something deeper within God, descriptions of Him that are dependent upon His creation, or descriptions of God that are true within God Himself, apart from any consideration of man?
    AMRA-BEQ5 -"Firstly, as posed, your question assumes descriptions of God ďdependent upon His considerationĒ are somehow linked to ďany consideration of manĒ. They are not."

    BEQ5 is similar to 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?"
    Again the answer is virually the same and AMR addresses it in a like manner. Anyone lost at the end isn't reading carefully and missed the initial statement AND the virtual similarity or rephrasing of the question. That it is asked twice in virtually the same way? <dunno>

    BEQ6: Which is greater, Godís sovereignty over creation, or Godís love?
    AMRA-BEQ6 - "Likewise, my answer to you question is that there is no attribute of our perfect God that has primacy over another attribute."

    "... I am certain that most unsettled theists do not fully understand Godís love."

    I'd augment this statement with "...as revealed in traditional hermenutics."
    or in some other way indicate that this was a comparative statement.

    Where is the broken record/dead horse icon?

    Shall I start counting the same question for repetition here? Perhaps BE wanted every nuance of answer.
    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..."

  7. #50
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,155
    Thanks
    1,638
    Thanked 3,257 Times in 1,971 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1629457

    Summary

    BEQ1: Do you agree with me that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs reformulation?

    AMRA-BEQ1 - No

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

    AMRA-BEQ2 - No

    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

    BEQ4: Will you retract your criticism that my Attributes Hermeneutic was ďso broad as to be virtually pointless?Ē

    AMRA-BEQ4 - No

    BEQ5: Which describes something deeper within God, descriptions of Him that are dependent upon His creation, or descriptions of God that are true within God Himself, apart from any consideration of man?

    AMRA-BEQ5- NoBiblical/traditional foundation to the question

    OR a rephrase to Q3

    AMRA-BEQ3,5 - No

    BEQ6: Which is greater, Godís sovereignty over creation, or Godís love?

    *see answers 3 and 5
    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..."

  8. #51
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    11790
    We cannot pit sovereignty vs love, I agree (AMR). The root problem is a wrong understanding of hyper-sovereignty in Calvinism, not that Open Theists reject sovereignty in favor of love. Likewise, a wrong understanding of sovereignty and free will leads to wrong conclusions. There is a way to resolve these tensions, and it is not Calvinism

    AMR will object to my assertions, so I point him to my 1000s of posts and the wealth of non-Calvinistic theology through the centuries.

    In fairness, AMR should read and quote John Sander's Second Edition (I am rereading it now) of 'The God who risks'. He has responded to his critics and changed or clarified ideas over time from the first edition.
    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.

  9. #52
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,839
    Thanks
    3,020
    Thanked 2,741 Times in 1,671 Posts

    Blog Entries
    143
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147668
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    We cannot pit sovereignty vs love, I agree (AMR). The root problem is a wrong understanding of hyper-sovereignty in Calvinism, not that Open Theists reject sovereignty in favor of love. Likewise, a wrong understanding of sovereignty and free will leads to wrong conclusions. There is a way to resolve these tensions, and it is not Calvinism
    Good to see you agree to something every now and then.

    The "root problem" is unsettled theism's misunderstanding and mis-characterizations of God's sovereignty, which inheres God's love. A point that unsettled theist's will not appreciate for they remain locked in one of God's attributes at the expense of all others. Hence they diminish the full revelation of God to His creatures.

    AMR will object to my assertions, so I point him to my 1000s of posts and the wealth of non-Calvinistic theology through the centuries.
    Your 1000s of posts are merely more assertions. The wealth of non-Reformed literature you refer to is Arminian in nature. Unsettled theists claim to not be Arminian, hence the wealth of non-Reformed literature relevant to the discussion comprises the paltry works of philosophers masquerading as theologians: Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders.

    In fairness, AMR should read and quote John Sander's Second Edition (I am rereading it now) of 'The God who risks'. He has responded to his critics and changed or clarified ideas over time from the first edition.
    If you are reading the book, then illuminate us all with Sanders' newfound insights. I am having enough trouble playing wack-a-mole with the ever-moving theologies of unsettled theism herein.
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    ó Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  10. #53
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    11790
    Arminians and Open Theists are free will theists, not determinists. We disagree about simple foreknowledge and exhaustive definite foreknowledge, but have more in common than differences (soteriology, etc., and certainly more than with Calvinists...TOL Enyart OT distance themselves from Arminianism). Calvinists argue against Arminians on many of the points that they also disagree with Open Theists over. I would say OT are similar to Arminians as opposed to Calvinists. The John Sander's link you had on your email forum classified these things. Have you refuted that link somewhere? I was pleased to agree with Sanders over Ware, if you care.

    Is your 'one on one' a monologue? Where is Pastor Enyart's contribution? You have substance and style, even if you are still wrong
    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.

  11. #54
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,839
    Thanks
    3,020
    Thanked 2,741 Times in 1,671 Posts

    Blog Entries
    143
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147668
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    Is your 'one on one' a monologue? Where is Pastor Enyart's contribution? You have substance and style, even if you are still wrong
    Per the terms of the proposal, Enyart is under no obligation to respond to anything until I have finished answering all of his questions. Enyart has agreed to respond to my single question regarding the eschaton I posed in another thread (see the three links in this post) after I have answered all of his BR X questions. The One on One was not to be a debate in the spirit of BR X. So, yes, it is a monologue that I am enjoying. In effect, I am trading 50 responses for 1. Not a bad deal in my opinion, assuming I get an honest response.
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    ó Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  12. #55
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,818
    Thanks
    215
    Thanked 2,630 Times in 1,738 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1720998
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    We cannot pit sovereignty vs love, I agree (AMR). The root problem is a wrong understanding of hyper-sovereignty in Calvinism, not that Open Theists reject sovereignty in favor of love. Likewise, a wrong understanding of sovereignty and free will leads to wrong conclusions. There is a way to resolve these tensions, and it is not Calvinism
    godrulz,

    Why do you shoot your mouth off giving credence to liars and heretics without using your brain first? I swear sometimes you, as an ally to the Open View, are more destructive than any enemy anyone ever had!

    Which came first, God's love or God's sovereignty over creation?

    Did not God love long before He was ever sovereign over creation?

    Was the act of creation as great as God's love or isn't it so that God created BECAUSE of His love and for the sake of it?

    Was it not Love Himself which created? God is not sovereign over love, that would be saying that He is sovereign over Himself, which wouldn't make any sense at all. God is however very definitely sovereign over creation. Thus God's love is much greater than His sovereignty over that which was created by and because of His love.

    Please think it through before agreeing with AMR! I have found almost nothing that he says to be worthy of giving that much credence too and I don't just say that because I hate him but because everything he says is a convoluted mess of question begging nonsense that bears very little or no resemblance to Biblical Christianity.

    AMR will object to my assertions, so I point him to my 1000s of posts and the wealth of non-Calvinistic theology through the centuries.

    In fairness, AMR should read and quote John Sander's Second Edition (I am rereading it now) of 'The God who risks'. He has responded to his critics and changed or clarified ideas over time from the first edition.
    Now this was an excellent point! You've pointed out just the sort of error that AMR is prone to making, only it isn't really an "error" as that term, at least in my mind, suggests it was done on accident, which I don't believe is the case with AMR. It would be more accurate in his case to say that you've pointed out just the sort of lie that AMR like to tell in support of his theology.

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

    Tambora (September 5th, 2016)

  14. #56
    TOL Subscriber chatmaggot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,098
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    29908
    Mr. Religion,

    Your answer to the question:

    BEQ6: Which is greater, God’s sovereignty over creation, or God’s love?
    Was:

    "...all of God’s commandments were the great commandments"
    Does the command to obey the Sabbath stand equal with healing someone (loving your neighbor)?

    Did God's command to obey the Sabbath take precedence to loving your neighbor or did loving your neighbor take precedence over the Sabbath?

    Or...did the command to obey the Sabbath take precedence over circumcision...or did circumcision take precedence over the Sabbath?

    How can all laws be the greatest when some laws had to be broken to obey others?

    Doesn't that imply that some commands are greater than others?

  15. #57
    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
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Per the terms of the proposal, Enyart is under no obligation to respond to anything until I have finished answering all of his questions. Enyart has agreed to respond to my single question regarding the eschaton I posed in another thread (see the three links in this post) after I have answered all of his BR X questions. The One on One was not to be a debate in the spirit of BR X. So, yes, it is a monologue that I am enjoying. In effect, I am trading 50 responses for 1. Not a bad deal in my opinion, assuming I get an honest response.

    I must say that you are certainly earning that answer. I don't know too many people who have the time or the gumption or both to respond to all 50 questions. I have enjoyed reading your comments, even if I don't comment on them all. I'm not convinced that Calvinism is the response to Open Theism, but I give you credit for doing a bunch of hard work for the benefit of all of us, even your detractors.
    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

  16. #58
    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
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    godrulz,

    Why do you shoot your mouth off giving credence to liars and heretics without using your brain first? I swear sometimes you, as an ally to the Open View, are more destructive than any enemy anyone ever had!
    A gentle answer turns away wrath. Maybe Godrulz remembered that verse from Sunday School. You don't have to be confrontational to disagree. In fact he may be more of an asset for the cause than someone who just discounts everything the other guy says as a lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Please think it through before agreeing with AMR! I have found almost nothing that he says to be worthy of giving that much credence too and I don't just say that because I hate him but because everything he says is a convoluted mess of question begging nonsense that bears very little or no resemblance to Biblical Christianity.
    I think most people will see that AMR is trying to be fair and is trying to be biblical as he interprets the Scripture. Saying you hate someone just because of their theology seems to cross out your words about God and his love.
    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

  17. #59
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,839
    Thanks
    3,020
    Thanked 2,741 Times in 1,671 Posts

    Blog Entries
    143
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147668
    It is obvious that this thread will not likely foster open communications, for anyone who may think that some of my responses in the 1:1 thread are on point will be subjected to much verbal abuse.

    This is the common tactic of a cult-like mentality--to berate presumed members (allies) of the group that disagree with the group's dogma. Keeping everyone holding to the party line is essential for such groups. Those that step outside of the boundaries of mandated behavior are quickly shut down.

    See here for another example of how this behavior works.
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    ó Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  18. #60
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,839
    Thanks
    3,020
    Thanked 2,741 Times in 1,671 Posts

    Blog Entries
    143
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147668
    Quote Originally Posted by chatmaggot View Post
    Mr. Religion,
    Does the command to obey the Sabbath stand equal with healing someone (loving your neighbor)?

    Did God's command to obey the Sabbath take precedence to loving your neighbor or did loving your neighbor take precedence over the Sabbath?

    Or...did the command to obey the Sabbath take precedence over circumcision...or did circumcision take precedence over the Sabbath?

    How can all laws be the greatest when some laws had to be broken to obey others?

    Doesn't that imply that some commands are greater than others?
    The Scriptures are clear in affirming Christ's words cited in my 1:1 response:

    Mat 22:37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
    Mat 22:38 This is the great and first commandment.

    This first commandment summarized the first table of the law written on the stone tablet.

    Mat 22:39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

    This second commandment summarized the second table of the law written on the stone tablet.

    In the next verse of Matthew 22 Christ clearly stated that all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments, i.e., all the Old Testament develops and amplifies these two points: love for God and love for others, who are made in Godís image.

    The context is not the many ritualistic Mosaic laws, e.g., circumcision, but the Decalogue. If we obey Christ's words, in effect, we will keep all of the commandments. Is murder a greater sin than stealing? Is adultery a lesser sin than murder? To our human minds, we answer 'yes'. To God, all sin is grievous sin. God does not wink at what we think are the lesser sins. That some sins carry a greater burden of guilt is clear (e.g., John 19:11), but the penalty is the same for the unregenerate.
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    ó Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



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