User Tag List

Page 6 of 34 FirstFirst ... 345678916 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 500

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

  1. #76
    Member of the 10 year club on TOL!! CabinetMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    On the back of a horse someplace in Colorado
    Posts
    4,249
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked 319 Times in 229 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    210784
    Quote Originally Posted by AMR
    BEQ16: Does the Incarnation show that God the Son divested Himself in some significant degree of knowledge and power, but explicitly not of His goodness?

    AMRA-BEQ16 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
    No. Christ is God and cannot divest himself of any of His attributes. Thus, Christ did not divest Himself of knowledge or power. As I argued in AMRA-BEQ2, the attributes of God are identical with His being. For God to divest Himself of any of His attributes, He would not be the simpliciter God, but a composite God that is decomposable, divisible into parts. Yet God is pure actuality, thus having no potentiality, for that which has potential can be divided. If God could be divided, then God could be changed, as would be the case if He were able to divest Himself of some of His attributes. A divisible God is changeable, therefore not an immutable God. This is contrary to the Scriptural revelation of God.
    I think AMR is wrong here. Jesus said Himself that only God the Father knows when the End Times will come. Jesus did not know so Jesus does not have the same knowledge as God the Father. It would seem that Jesus did divest Himself of some of Gods attributes.

  2. #77
    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
    29904
    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    I think AMR is wrong here. Jesus said Himself that only God the Father knows when the End Times will come. Jesus did not know so Jesus does not have the same knowledge as God the Father. It would seem that Jesus did divest Himself of some of Gods attributes.
    I agree. He states that a divisible God is changeable and that can't be because we "know" that God is immutable.

    God did "divide" Himself. He divided Himself into Spirit and Flesh at the incarnation. There was a time when God wasn't flesh...and then He was. That is a change.

  3. #78
    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
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by chatmaggot View Post
    What are you talking about? When did I become belligerent? I too thought we were having a conversation. My questions are asked in all seriousness.

    I do not know why you think I became sarcastic. I did use bold...but only for clarification. Did you mistake the bold for sarcasm and belligerence?

    I too am disappointed that you feel this way. I guess that is one of the downfalls of text conversations...you never get a perfect feel for the tone.

    Anyways, you still never anwered the question. Who are the saved monuments too? You stated who the saved were...but not to whom they are monuments.
    I didn't detect sarcasm either. I think maybe AMR expects to get it because he has gotten it on several occassions on different threads. But I really didn't see where AMR was coming with his comments, either.
    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

  4. #79
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,839
    Thanks
    96
    Thanked 163 Times in 131 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    192645
    I don't think using the term "unsettled theism" is too bad. Just as long as one is accurate, and perhaps adds something to make it clear, like: "unsettled (but not completely unsettled) theism." Seems like a lot to type if you ask me, though.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  5. #80
    Over 3000 post club PKevman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN.
    Posts
    3,630
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 71 Times in 71 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2148
    How screwy is it to say that Jesus did not change when He became an infant baby?

  6. #81
    Over 3000 post club PKevman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN.
    Posts
    3,630
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 71 Times in 71 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2148
    I find the following statements to be just nutty, and one of the reasons Calvinism is so easy to expose as false teaching:

    Quote Originally Posted by AMR
    As for His essential being the Logos was exactly the same before and after the incarnation. The verb egeneto in John 1:14 does not mean that the Logos changed into flesh, and that His essential nature was altered. It simply means that He took on that particular character; that He acquired an additional form, without in any way changing His original nature. He remained the infinite and unchangeable Son of God.
    "He remained the infinite and unchangeable Son of God"?

    God the Son had been an infant baby from eternity past........
    God the Son cried and googooed and spit up from eternity past..... OR maybe He didn't really cry and googoo and spit up. Maybe He just sat up and started spouting out Scriptures as an infant baby?
    Seriously, how could becoming an infant baby not be a change for the Creator of the universe? How could it NOT be divesting Himself of some of the divine attributes? Either He was a real infant baby or He wasn't a real infant baby!

    If God the Father AND God the Son cannot change, then why does it say:

    Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

    1. If God the Son cannot change, how could He grow in wisdom and stature?
    2. If God the Son cannot change how could He grow in favor with men?
    3. If God the Son cannot change how could He grow in favor with God?
    4. If God the Father cannot change, how could his favor FOR God the Son increase?

    These 4 common sense questions completely annihilate AMR's post #16.

  7. #82
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,602
    Thanks
    174
    Thanked 2,261 Times in 1,504 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1198504
    I was in a hurry when I posted post #75 and actually cited the wrong fallacy! My mistake - sorry for any confusion that might have caused. Fortunately my mistake is easier to correct than AMR's. The post has been corrected. It is his association of Open Theism with "the cults" that the article I linked to refutes, not his use of the silly and intentionally inaccurate term "unsettled view".

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

    Tambora (September 5th, 2016)

  9. #83
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,625
    Thanks
    2,612
    Thanked 2,415 Times in 1,506 Posts

    Blog Entries
    141
    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2031261
    Quote Originally Posted by chatmaggot View Post
    I do not know why you think I became sarcastic. I did use bold...but only for clarification. Did you mistake the bold for sarcasm and belligerence?
    Quote Originally Posted by chatmaggot
    To whom are those lucky people...monuments?
    ...How monumental is it...people who had no choice but to be saved...preselected in the "before the foundation of the world" lottery?
    Not sarcasm? Not belligerence? You think God's holy acts are a lotto? You think God's elect are robots without choice? You denigrate God's decree as not monumental? Please, sir, I do know sarcasm when I see it, your protests to the contrary notwithstanding. Nothing I have communicated to you warranted the tone of your words quoted here.

    Anyways, you still never answered the question. Who are the saved monuments too? You stated who the saved were...but not to whom they are monuments.
    The saved are monuments to the glory of God, which is His ultimate purpose for all that He does.
    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
    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. #84
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,839
    Thanks
    96
    Thanked 163 Times in 131 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    192645
    Lon,

    Could we expect you to get upset with a comment that chatmaggot made? Would an innocuous comment like this seem rude to you?

    Here's the exchange... AMR sure seemed to take it hard.

    Quote Originally Posted by chatmaggot
    To whom are those lucky people...monuments?
    ...How monumental is it...people who had no choice but to be saved...preselected in the "before the foundation of the world" lottery?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Not sarcasm? Not belligerence? You think God's holy acts are a lotto? You think God's elect are robots without choice? You denigrate God's decree as not monumental? Please, sir, I do know sarcasm when I see it, your protests to the contrary notwithstanding. Nothing I have communicated to you warranted the tone of your words quoted here.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  11. #85
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,602
    Thanks
    174
    Thanked 2,261 Times in 1,504 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1198504
    Just answer the questions AMR and stop being a cry baby about someone's "tone"!

    If his questions weren't right on target they wouldn't be getting under your skin so badly.

    The fact is that there is no glory in saving people who could not have gone to Hell had they wanted too and there is no denying that the Calvinist doctrine of election amounts to the ultimate cosmic lottery.

    Now either refute it or live with it and stop being such a pansy.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete

    P.S. This is the exact same road AMR took me down shortly after he arrived here. I have little doubt that chatmaggot is soon to be AMR's newest enemy and that AMR will declare that his accusations of belligerent sarcasm where true from the start and decide that chatmaggot is no longer worthy of his time.
    "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. #86
    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
    29904
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Not sarcasm? Not belligerence? You think God's holy acts are a lotto? You think God's elect are robots without choice? You denigrate God's decree as not monumental? Please, sir, I do know sarcasm when I see it, your protests to the contrary notwithstanding. Nothing I have communicated to you warranted the tone of your words quoted here.

    The saved are monuments to the glory of God, which is His ultimate purpose for all that He does.
    Anyways, let's move on. I admit. I am a sarcastic jerk and the reason for by posts are not to gain understanding but rather to make people mad. My "cosmic lottery" was not an attempt at being sarcastic, I was making an analogy.

    Mr. Religion,

    You stated:

    ...but a composite God that is decomposable, divisible into parts. Yet God is pure actuality, thus having no potentiality,...
    This seems to contradict your statement:

    ...He acquired an additional form...
    How can something that is immutable acquire? Could you comment please?

  14. #87
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    7,577
    Thanks
    1,221
    Thanked 2,583 Times in 1,579 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1392991
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
    Lon,

    Could we expect you to get upset with a comment that chatmaggot made? Would an innocuous comment like this seem rude to you?

    Here's the exchange... AMR sure seemed to take it hard.
    Maybe it is Chat's avatar and handle? Hard to tell. I don't know. Sometimes I color another's comment by thread context ("the 'crowd' is bashing me"). When other's see it in me I chalk it up to misunderstanding and/or poor communication on my part. I got neg repped on this thread already, because of lack of clarity in my initial post :*(

    I pos repped him back just to give him a nicer day.

    AMR is the source for getting to the bottom of your query
    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..."

  15. #88
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    7,577
    Thanks
    1,221
    Thanked 2,583 Times in 1,579 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1392991
    Quote Originally Posted by chatmaggot View Post
    Anyways, let's move on. I admit. I am a sarcastic jerk and the reason for by posts are not to gain understanding but rather to make people mad. My "cosmic lottery" was not an attempt at being sarcastic, I was making an analogy.

    Mr. Religion,

    You stated:



    This seems to contradict your statement:



    How can something that is immutable acquire? Could you comment please?
    It could be Jim Carrey and maggots are jerks (no, wait, that was Steve Martin and maggots are just doing their job).

    Anyway...

    I had a similar discussion with Clete. My clock does not change (discounting entropy) but the display changes. It goes through a routine and in that it doesn't vary (24hours in succession).
    We didn't come to conclusion on our discussion, but the statements "The clock changes/does not change" were the focal point of that discussion. I chalked the difference up to semantics and our mutually poor attempt to explain both the immutable/changing facets of the clock.

    Not sure if that helps, but when we are discussing God as He "Changes not" and is responsive to us, I think some of the similar semantic discussion can lead to a similar confusion/disagreement: Changes/doesn't change
    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..."

  16. #89
    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
    29904
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Maybe it is Chat's avatar and handle? Hard to tell. I don't know. Sometimes I color another's comment by thread context ("the 'crowd' is bashing me"). When other's see it in me I chalk it up to misunderstanding and/or poor communication on my part. I got neg repped on this thread already, because of lack of clarity in my initial post :*(

    I pos repped him back just to give him a nicer day.

    AMR is the source for getting to the bottom of your query
    I changed my avatar so as to not confuse others in the future.

  17. #90
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    7,577
    Thanks
    1,221
    Thanked 2,583 Times in 1,579 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1392991
    Quote Originally Posted by PastorKevin View Post
    I find the following statements to be just nutty, and one of the reasons Calvinism is so easy to expose as false teaching:



    "He remained the infinite and unchangeable Son of God"?

    God the Son had been an infant baby from eternity past........
    God the Son cried and googooed and spit up from eternity past..... OR maybe He didn't really cry and googoo and spit up. Maybe He just sat up and started spouting out Scriptures as an infant baby?
    Seriously, how could becoming an infant baby not be a change for the Creator of the universe? How could it NOT be divesting Himself of some of the divine attributes? Either He was a real infant baby or He wasn't a real infant baby!

    If God the Father AND God the Son cannot change, then why does it say:

    Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

    1. If God the Son cannot change, how could He grow in wisdom and stature?
    2. If God the Son cannot change how could He grow in favor with men?
    3. If God the Son cannot change how could He grow in favor with God?
    4. If God the Father cannot change, how could his favor FOR God the Son increase?

    These 4 common sense questions completely annihilate AMR's post #16.
    Hello PK,

    Part of your refrain continues to extrapolate to absurdity (which can be said to be a problem from both perspectives).

    This steers us very nearly to extreme perceptions of one another. Perhaps it is true that our disagreements have us declaring the other false, for the rhetoric certainly points that way but I've always (okay, no, I've fallen into this trap from time to time as well) tried to be careful about asking questions rather than jumping to the extreme. If I carry OV perception to its invariable conclusion I come up with similar extremity. So perhaps a few clarifying questions will steer this back on track if you will indulge me:

    God the Son had been an infant baby from eternity past........
    Is this what you think AMR believes? I might see the attempted levity, but generally it humor works best when it is applied to a true statement, otherwise it is mischaracterization and attack which is only fun and funny for the bully on the playfield who's a little dim (this type of humor).

    God the Son cried and googooed and spit up from eternity past..... OR maybe He didn't really cry and googoo and spit up. Maybe He just sat up and started spouting out Scriptures as an infant baby?
    Is this the classic/traditional perspective or an extrapolation based on that perspective? The reason I'm asking is because I don't think we could put AMR's name/stamp on this assumption, do you?

    These 4 common sense questions completely annihilate AMR's post #16.
    I realize you were sharing levity but it is lost in mischaracterization and that dim/bullying humor approach. IMHO, you might have elicited a response with direct questions and IHO, I don't think you've addressed the post at all yet in comment or question except for the initial:

    "He remained the infinite and unchangeable Son of God"?

    I think it is similar to Chat's question so of course, asked meaningfully, expresses the need for clarification in elucidation.
    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..."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 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