Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion thread: One on One: AMR and JCWR on the Temporality of God

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • tetelestai
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    So... if this applies to everyone (you included) why go out of your way to lambaste "Enyartites"??? That was a really odd and strange way to make a point.
    Because if you remember the BR X - A Calvinist's Response (Ask Mr. Religion vs. Enyart) it didn’t matter what AMR said, everyone who was pro-Enyart said Enyart won the debate, and everyone who was pro-AMR said AMR won the debate.

    It was like a sporting event. Let me try to explain. I have been to many Pittsburgh Steelers games over the last 35 years. However, when the Steelers play the Cleveland Browns, the games are just a little more fun and intense. There are a lot of people from Cleveland who come to the games, and vice versa with the games in Cleveland (the two cities are less than 2 hours apart)

    No matter who wins the game, when the game is over, and people are walking to their cars, if some Steelers fans see people wearing Cleveland jerseys, they yell “Cleveland sucks” even if the Browns just won the game. Likewise, after games the Steelers have won, Cleveland fans yell “Pittsburgh Sucks”

    Unfortunately that is how I saw the BRX thread with AMR and Enyart. It didn’t matter what either guy said, each side was loyal, and pretty much said the other side “sucked”, but in different words.

    That’s not the way it is supposed to be, but for some reason that’s the way it always ends up 99.9% of the time. Today however was different, and it was nice to see the difference.

    Remember Knight, you and Enyart and all the other open theists could be 100% correct, and all of us settled theists wrong. I am open to that possibility. That is why I don’t wear “Settled Theist” authentic jerseys, not even the cheap fake ones.

    Leave a comment:


  • Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    [COLOR=black]My apologies the lack of entertainment value in the debate, Knight. I reviewed all of JCWR's posts and he seemed to be quite articulate. I even agreed with a few things he had to say!
    It wasn't your fault.

    Apparently Door thinks very highly of JCWR, too, from some of the posts I reviewed.
    Well... JCWR might be a great fella... I guess he just didn't have the time to actually or maybe he didn't realize all of this could have been accomplished on the regular forums.

    Anyway, I hope you don't hold this against JCWR. I appreciated his graciousness in conceding the debate.
    No biggie. Not every battle is gonna be a "winner".

    Leave a comment:


  • Ask Mr. Religion
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    And thus the risks of agreeing to set up One on One's with members that we know very little about.

    Sorry guys, clearly this "conversation" could have been done on the regular forums.

    Can you say..... dud?
    My apologies the lack of entertainment value in the debate, Knight. I reviewed all of JCWR's posts and he seemed to be quite articulate. I even agreed with a few things he had to say!

    Apparently Door thinks very highly of JCWR, too, from some of the posts I reviewed.

    Anyway, I hope you don't hold this against JCWR. I appreciated his graciousness in conceding the debate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by P8ntrDan View Post
    Couldn't it also be just as easily understood as the beginning of time? Since time requires a period to pass between one event and the next, could creation be that first marker by which time is measured?
    The measurement of time and time itself are two very different things.

    By creating the heavens and the earth (an act) doesn't that mean that God 'created/started' time?
    Of course not. Unless you can provide some type of compelling argument that explains why we should all make the same leap in logic that you have.

    It wasn't the beginning of God, and he existed before that, but there is no point of reference, making God timeless.
    Do you believe that God DIDN'T experience one thought after another thought, and one event after another event prior to our creation?

    Leave a comment:


  • Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
    Bob Enyart and the Enyartites on the other hand, insist on fighting to their death to be right no matter how much scriptural truth is presented to them.

    What’s sad is how much fear can overtake people. There are unbelievers who live their whole life never accepting Jesus as their Savior because of the fear of telling their family, friends, and co-workers. These people will die and go to hell because of the fear of what other people would think of them if they tell people they have decided to believe in Jesus.

    Now, I’m not saying that open theists are going to hell. I consider open theists believers in the Body of Christ. I just believe that when one is so “deep” into a particular theology, it becomes that much harder to recognize the truth because of the fear of admitting one was wrong. This goes for Calvinists too, and to everyone including me.
    So... if this applies to everyone (you included) why go out of your way to lambaste "Enyartites"??? That was a really odd and strange way to make a point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by JCWR View Post
    AMR,

    I apologize for my lack of response to your posts. Your thoughts are very deep for me as I am not a native English speaker. I had to ask some of my old seminary teachers to help me understand your words. I used to think my English written comprehension was quite good, but your posts have humbled me now. haha!

    Frankly, after reading your materials I am finding so little I can disagree with. My original thinking about God being in time has been strongly challenged by you. It seems as if there is no real reason to challenge the timelessness of God other than from the libertarian free will view. I am not sure that view is sufficient a motivation to alter the traditional view of God and time.

    I agree that you have made your case as we agreed and that means I have to concede this debate to you. I don't mind "losing" a debate because it means I have "won" some new knowledge from my opponent, so I appreciate that.

    Before we close off our debate I wonder if you would mind telling me exactly what your definition of time would be?

    Thank you, JCWR
    And thus the risks of agreeing to set up One on One's with members that we know very little about.

    Sorry guys, clearly this "conversation" could have been done on the regular forums.

    Can you say..... dud?

    Leave a comment:


  • tetelestai
    replied
    Originally posted by Nang View Post
    Has anyone read the posts in the actual debate of question, lately?

    Does anyone have a comment or reply to make to AMR's argument?

    This thread has become its own debate, whose arguments are being answered on the One To One . . . if anyone is really interested in getting to the biblical truth of the matter.

    Nang
    I agree!

    However, JCWR said:
    I agree that you have made your case as we agreed and that means I have to concede this debate to you. I don't mind "losing" a debate because it means I have "won" some new knowledge from my opponent, so I appreciate that.
    AMR did a fantastic, and superb job making his point against JCWR, as did AMR against Bob Enyart when they debated. The only difference is that JCWR is mature enough, humble enough, and gracious enough to recognize scriptural truth.

    Bob Enyart and the Enyartites on the other hand, insist on fighting to their death to be right no matter how much scriptural truth is presented to them.

    What’s sad is how much fear can overtake people. There are unbelievers who live their whole life never accepting Jesus as their Savior because of the fear of telling their family, friends, and co-workers. These people will die and go to hell because of the fear of what other people would think of them if they tell people they have decided to believe in Jesus.

    Now, I’m not saying that open theists are going to hell. I consider open theists believers in the Body of Christ. I just believe that when one is so “deep” into a particular theology, it becomes that much harder to recognize the truth because of the fear of admitting one was wrong. This goes for Calvinists too, and to everyone including me.

    Anyway, it is so refreshing seeing the above statement from JCWR. If anything, it shows that we can be wrong, and if we are smart we can see it as a “WIN” and not a loss.

    Thank you JCWR.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nang
    replied
    Originally posted by Delmar View Post
    Have you read my signature lately?
    Has anyone read the posts in the actual debate of question, lately?

    Does anyone have a comment or reply to make to AMR's argument?

    This thread has become its own debate, whose arguments are being answered on the One To One . . . if anyone is really interested in getting to the biblical truth of the matter.

    Nang

    Leave a comment:


  • Delmar
    replied
    Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    But that is time from our perspective which I am not convinced is the same as time from Gods perspective.
    Have you read my signature lately? I absolutely agree with you, that our perspective of time is not the same as God's.

    Leave a comment:


  • Delmar
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    Do you believe God (from His perspective) is still hanging on the cross? Or is that part of God's past?
    God apart from sequence = God apart from reality

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by P8ntrDan View Post
    Couldn't it also be just as easily understood as the beginning of time? Since time requires a period to pass between one event and the next, could creation be that first marker by which time is measured? By creating the heavens and the earth (an act) doesn't that mean that God 'created/started' time? It wasn't the beginning of God, and he existed before that, but there is no point of reference, making God timeless.
    A necessary effect of that is to believe that nothing happened before creation.

    Leave a comment:


  • P8ntrDan
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    In the beginning of creation. Isn't that how you understand it?

    The beginning was the beginning of us! Our universe, our world, our realm, our planet, etc.

    It wasn't the beginning for God and His existence therefore there is absolutely no reason to assume that time was created "in the beginning". Keep in mind, God does in fact detail what He created during creation and time wasn't one of those things.
    Couldn't it also be just as easily understood as the beginning of time? Since time requires a period to pass between one event and the next, could creation be that first marker by which time is measured? By creating the heavens and the earth (an act) doesn't that mean that God 'created/started' time? It wasn't the beginning of God, and he existed before that, but there is no point of reference, making God timeless.

    Leave a comment:


  • Knight
    replied
    Originally posted by P8ntrDan View Post
    I don't know if it's clearly not mentioned. How do you explain it saying 'In the Beginning...'?
    In the beginning of creation. Isn't that how you understand it?

    The beginning was the beginning of us! Our universe, our world, our realm, our planet, etc.

    It wasn't the beginning for God and His existence therefore there is absolutely no reason to assume that time was created "in the beginning". Keep in mind, God does in fact detail what He created during creation and time wasn't one of those things.

    Leave a comment:


  • P8ntrDan
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    That is a lot to ponder. And it is true that God can overcome things that we cannot i.e., time passing eternally into the past.

    Because we know that not everything was created at creation (Love, mercy, power, and so on). In fact we know specifically what was created at creation and time wasn't one of those things mentioned.

    Why assume something from the text that is clearly NOT mentioned?

    The creation account is there for anyone to read. If God had created time (which is irrational i.e., how long did it take God to create time? ) I am sure He would have mentioned it in the creation account.
    I don't know if it's clearly not mentioned. How do you explain it saying 'In the Beginning...'? It doesn't take God time to create anything, the 7 days was an example for us.

    Leave a comment:


  • WandererInFog
    replied
    Given the topic of the debate, it might be beneficial if both sides define precisely what they mean by "time".

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X