Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 4 thru 7)

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by David22
    Thank you for your response. The settled view is saying that "God micromanages and makes creatures that He can pose and move like action figures" But when you read the Bible, it is so contrary to scripture! How can anyone continue to believe in the settled view? Isn't it clear, as Bob stated that, the settled view is based on Greek mythology.
    Inaccurate, you're confusing the settled view with Calvinism, which is only one of the three settled views (Calvinism, Molinism, Arminianism).

    Especially Arminianism disagrees with your above description, because they hold that God passively foreknows the free will decisions of men. Not that He foreordains all actions and events or controls people like puppets. They categorically reject that notion.

    Just for clarification.

    (And this, I think, is my greatest criticism of both participants in the debate, that they are making this unfortunately a Calvinism vs. Open debate, rather than a settled vs. Open debate, which it should be, since all 3 settled views hold that God has EDF.)
    1 Corinthians 13:2
    And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by RightIdea
      Amen, M.K.! Awesome scriptures to support the Open View.
      I quite agree ! Great scriptures MK ! May God be Glorified!

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Bob Enyart
        The "made in His image" quote by Deardelmar is perfect...
        Thanks

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by elected4ever

          Explain something to me Bob, If God knew that you would answer or not answer this post from the foundation of the world, How would that prevent your choice? You would still make the choice free from any encumbrances. Oh I get it, Just because God knew that "locks" your choice and heaven forbid that you should be held accountable for it. It is not God that made your decision even though he knows your decision and He does not not put his fingers on the keyboard and type the response. You do that. Not God.
          How can God see or know in advance a contingent choice? What mechanism is there to turn possibilities into certainties centuries before their existence? If we are genuinely free to type, how is it a certain object of knowledge in advance if we could type trillions of permutations? Until the typing, the contingencies are simply not knowable, even for an omniscient God. You will rotely answer that it is possible for God. Really? We are back to the issue of God creating square circles (logically impossible, even for God).
          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.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by godrulz
            How can God see or know in advance a contingent choice? What mechanism is there to turn possibilities into certainties centuries before their existence? If we are genuinely free to type, how is it a certain object of knowledge in advance if we could type trillions of permutations? Until the typing, the contingencies are simply not knowable, even for an omniscient God. You will rotely answer that it is possible for God. Really? We are back to the issue of God creating square circles (logically impossible, even for God).
            According to you God can change His mind about you. You can't be sure about anything. Oh well here today and gone tomorrow Just remember to keep impressing God with your actions. Maybe He wont change his mind about you.
            Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

            The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by elected4ever
              According to you God can change His mind about you. You can't be sure about anything. Oh well here today and gone tomorrow Just remember to keep impressing God with your actions. Maybe He wont change his mind about you.
              E4E, I asked someone this already, recently...

              Doesn't my signature mean anything to you? Thank GOD that He changes His mind!

              But no, you would have us believe that God is a liar. You'd have us believe that when He told Moses that He would destroy the Israelites and start over with him, that He knew all along He would do no such thing, ever. You'd have us believe that when He said He would "surely" destroy Ninevah on that particular day, He knew all along He would do no such thing. You'd have us believe that when God told David that Saul was coming to Keilah and the men of Keilah would hand him over to Saul, that God knew all along that no such thing would ever happen.

              Liar, liar, liar. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Thank GOD that God changes His mind. If He didn't, it would be evidence against Christianity.

              If God said He'd destroy Ninevah, and they repented, and He destroyed them anyway.... this would be evidence against the Christian God. If God said He would bless Israel in some way and she turned wicked and He blessed her anyway, this would be evidence against the Christian God. That's right; if these prophecies had come true... it would be evidence against God and His word! But no, He repents, He repents, He repents, so many times that He eventually says through Jeremiah that He is "weary of repenting!"

              Gosh, He sure was awfully weary of something He never, ever does... according to you, anyway.
              1 Corinthians 13:2
              And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.

              Comment


              • #37
                Discussion and Debate

                Well, I’ve got to say there are some interesting folks at Theology Online forums. I put forward a couple of simple and civil questions, thinking in all probability they’ll be overlooked or disregarded -- but instead, I discover that they have provided an opening for all manner of straw men to be hastily thrown together and attacked with everything from pea shooters to F-117s! With so much ammunition bursting around me, I hardly know whether to “duck and cover” right where I am, dive for whatever more stable refuge is within reach, or hitch up my skirts and sprint for the nearest bomb shelter!

                Now, don’t take this the wrong way, because I’ve got to ask! In your examination of the Holy Scriptures, have any of you ever paused long enough to consider Proverbs 18:13? (“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.”)

                Or Proverbs 17:28? (“Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.”)

                Or Proverbs 29:11? (A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards.)

                Or Proverbs 26:12? (Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.)

                Meticulous preparation (founded on diligent study, as well as quiet contemplation) can be useful in any debate. And judicious speech is essential. Allow me to recommend these to you.

                M. K. Nawojski
                http://twilight-tales.com
                Always remember that you're unique, just like everybody else.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by M. K. Nawojski
                  Well, I’ve got to say there are some interesting folks at Theology Online forums. I put forward a couple of simple and civil questions, thinking in all probability they’ll be overlooked or disregarded -- but instead, I discover that they have provided an opening for all manner of straw men to be hastily thrown together and attacked with everything from pea shooters to F-117s! With so much ammunition bursting around me, I hardly know whether to “duck and cover” right where I am, dive for whatever more stable refuge is within reach, or hitch up my skirts and sprint for the nearest bomb shelter!

                  Now, don’t take this the wrong way, because I’ve got to ask! In your examination of the Holy Scriptures, have any of you ever paused long enough to consider Proverbs 18:13? (“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.”)

                  Or Proverbs 17:28? (“Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.”)

                  Or Proverbs 29:11? (A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards.)

                  Or Proverbs 26:12? (Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.)

                  Meticulous preparation (founded on diligent study, as well as quiet contemplation) can be useful in any debate. And judicious speech is essential. Allow me to recommend these to you.

                  M. K. Nawojski
                  http://twilight-tales.com
                  What was this in response too?
                  Generally when I see such posts it is an indication that the one posting it has no idea how to substantively repsond to the arguments presented against his position. Is this the case now, or can you offer a rejoinder that addresses the points made against you? This is after all, a debate forum. Making a stand alone claim is fine if you are doing so to spark a debate on the issue, but don't get shell shocked when people present arguments against your unsupported and illogical claim..

                  Resting in Him,
                  Clete
                  sigpic
                  "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

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Meticulous preparation...diligent study... quiet contemplation

                    Originally posted by M. K. Nawojski
                    Well, I’ve got to say there are some interesting folks at Theology Online forums. I put forward a couple of simple and civil questions, thinking in all probability they’ll be overlooked or disregarded -- but instead, I discover that they have provided an opening for all manner of straw men to be hastily thrown together and attacked with everything from pea shooters to F-117s! With so much ammunition bursting around me, I hardly know whether to “duck and cover” right where I am, dive for whatever more stable refuge is within reach, or hitch up my skirts and sprint for the nearest bomb shelter!

                    Now, don’t take this the wrong way, because I’ve got to ask! In your examination of the Holy Scriptures, have any of you ever paused long enough to consider Proverbs 18:13? (“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.”)

                    Or Proverbs 17:28? (“Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.”)

                    Or Proverbs 29:11? (A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards.)

                    Or Proverbs 26:12? (Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.)

                    Meticulous preparation (founded on diligent study, as well as quiet contemplation) can be useful in any debate. And judicious speech is essential. Allow me to recommend these to you.

                    M. K. Nawojski
                    http://twilight-tales.com
                    MK -
                    I went back and read all your posts on the last few pages and just have no clue what you are talking about. You speak of straw men and attacks but I could not find either. There may may be some there, but you would do better to identify them in your posts instead of berating the crew here (it seems you are saying all who responded to you are "fools") with no specifics given as evidence or guidance. Are you saying that when you ask a question you don't want it answered? If people are answering a straw man you should consider being more clear in your questioning. You might consider "Meticulous preparation (founded on diligent study, as well as quiet contemplation)... And judicious speech..." Prior to entering your posts.
                    Psalms 58:10
                    The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

                    CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Bob Enyart
                      Regarding E4E's post on my explanation of declaring victory, my comments are bracketed:
                      Thank you for your response. I had no idea that you lumpted all CVer's into the Calvanist camp and basicly you are debateing Calvanism Vs OV. I am a CVer but the things you were accusing me off were untrue and I found myself defending Calvanism; which is an imposability to defind. Now that I am aware of what you are doing maybe I wont get cought up as easyly.
                      Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

                      The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Clete
                        What was this in response too?
                        Generally when I see such posts it is an indication that the one posting it has no idea how to substantively repsond to the arguments presented against his position. Is this the case now, or can you offer a rejoinder that addresses the points made against you? This is after all, a debate forum. Making a stand alone claim is fine if you are doing so to spark a debate on the issue, but don't get shell shocked when people present arguments against your unsupported and illogical claim..

                        Resting in Him,
                        Clete
                        Which unsupported and illogical claim of mine are you referring to, Clete? MK
                        Always remember that you're unique, just like everybody else.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by M. K. Nawojski
                          Which unsupported and illogical claim of mine are you referring to, Clete? MK
                          Here's my previous post which explains....

                          Originally posted by M. K. Nawojski
                          Has anybody noticed that Bob Enyart, in "discarding" what he calls the "Settled View" listing of God's attributes -- omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, impassibility, and immutability -- has thus swept aside the "defining" traits of deity, which identify the Almighty God of Scripture and distinguish Him from all false gods and/or created beings?

                          And has anyone noticed further that the "Open View" list which he substituted -- living, personal, relational, good, loving -- does not draw a distinction between the Creator and His creatures at all. The "Open View" listing could be used to describe any number of created beings, including the holy angels.

                          M. K. Nawojski
                          This is a terrific example of the logical fallacy known as the Argumentum ad Consequentiam fallacy or an "appeal to consequences" fallacy in which the author points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is false.

                          It is a type of Red Herring and can take either of two forms.

                          1.(Belief in) p leads to good consequences.
                          (Where the good consequences are irrelevant to the truth of p.)
                          Therefore, p is true.

                          2. (Belief in) p leads to bad consequences.
                          (Where the bad consequences are irrelevant to the falsity of p.)
                          Therefore, p is false.

                          Of course Mawojski's argument has taken the latter form. It is a fallacy of logic because it confuses the consequences of a logical conclusion with evidence for the truth of that conclusion.

                          Wouldn't you agree with Bob and I that we would should do (and/or believe) right and risk the consequences!

                          Resting in Him,
                          Clete
                          sigpic
                          "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

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by CRASH
                            MK -
                            I went back and read all your posts on the last few pages and just have no clue what you are talking about. You speak of straw men and attacks but I could not find either. There may may be some there, but you would do better to identify them in your posts instead of berating the crew here (it seems you are saying all who responded to you are "fools") with no specifics given as evidence or guidance. Are you saying that when you ask a question you don't want it answered? If people are answering a straw man you should consider being more clear in your questioning. You might consider "Meticulous preparation (founded on diligent study, as well as quiet contemplation)... And judicious speech..." Prior to entering your posts.
                            I am referring to all answers to my first post in this forum (the post which asked two questions but made no "claims" at all): i.e., "Has anybody noticed that Bob Enyart, in 'discarding' what he calls the 'Settled View' listing of God's attributes -- omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, impassibility, and immutability -- has thus swept aside the 'defining' traits of deity, which identify the Almighty God of Scripture and distinguish Him from all false gods and/or created beings? And has anyone noticed further that the 'Open View' list which he substituted -- living, personal, relational, good, loving -- does not draw a distinction between the Creator and His creatures at all. The 'Open View' listing could be used to describe any number of created beings, including the holy angels."

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

                            MK
                            Always remember that you're unique, just like everybody else.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by M. K. Nawojski
                              I am referring to all answers to my first post in this forum (the post which asked two questions but made no "claims" at all): i.e., "Has anybody noticed that Bob Enyart, in 'discarding' what he calls the 'Settled View' listing of God's attributes -- omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, impassibility, and immutability -- has thus swept aside the 'defining' traits of deity, which identify the Almighty God of Scripture and distinguish Him from all false gods and/or created beings? And has anyone noticed further that the 'Open View' list which he substituted -- living, personal, relational, good, loving -- does not draw a distinction between the Creator and His creatures at all. The 'Open View' listing could be used to describe any number of created beings, including the holy angels."

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

                              MK
                              Yes I noticed that too. That was done to change the direction of the debate. One thing i have noticed about Bob's debating style. He wonts to debate on his points of interest and ignore yours in an attempt to gain advantage and a win for him. It does not matter the validity of his opponents argument. It's all about controlling and winning the debate. He wonts to debate on his terms not the opponents.
                              Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

                              The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by elected4ever
                                Yes I noticed that too. That was done to change the direction of the debate. One thing i have noticed about Bob's debating style. He wonts to debate on his points of interest and ignore yours in an attempt to gain advantage and a win for him. It does not matter the validity of his opponents argument. It's all about controlling and winning the debate. He wonts to debate on his terms not the opponents.
                                E4E, every debater wants to win the debate on his own terms. Duh! That goes without saying! LOL

                                However, Bob has directly and/or indirectly answered Sam's arguments, while Sam has misunderstood half of what Bob said, and ignored the other half! He's tap dancing almost as much as Z-Man does. What on earth do you think Bob has ignored???
                                1 Corinthians 13:2
                                And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X