Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #16
    Wow. Hang on everyone, I am counting the Bible verses that AMR cited and discussed in his responses. Man it's going to take all night...........


    Comment


    • #17
      1..........


      Comment


      • #18
        1..........
        1..........

        Wait, for someone to say:

        Originally posted by AskMrReligion
        God sets the standard, and the terms of His relationships, not man.
        There just HAS to be more Scriptural references to the beginning of his arguments. There just HAS to be.....


        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by AskMrReligion
          we can know things about God
          AMEN! I agree with AMR wholeheartedly! And WHERE do we go to know those things? Do we go to the really nice sounding big words of theologians (all of which I understood completely by the way)

          Or do we go to the Word of God???

          Originally posted by AMR
          unsettled theism is all about man defining God in his own terms
          Great AMR! I am sure in your two responses so far where you make such a HUGE deal about definitions that you would show some Scriptures to back up your arguments.




          Let's give AMR the benefit of the doubt. Back to counting.....


          1........

          1........


          WOW! ONE Bible verse is all we find from someone who accuses Open Theists of basing all of their definitions on the thinking of MEN such as Sanders rather than on the Bible.

          Nice try AMR, I sure hope the rest of your answers do better than these!

          And for the record-let me say that I think AMR did a better job of answering than Lamerson did!


          Comment


          • #20
            Ok so maybe AMR's ONE Bible verse is all it took for all of his definitions given to be proven Biblical and Bob's and the positions of Open Theists to be proven unBiblical. Maybe it was a heavyweight verse? What was it?

            John 14:9
            9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

            This is a WONDERFUL verse no doubt! But wherein lieth the stone cold proof that AMR's definitions are Biblical and Open Theist's are not? No Open Theist who is teaching the Bible correctly would deny that Jesus was the perfect representation of the Father. So this verse has absolutely nothing to do with Open vs. Settled Theism.

            So AMR's one Bible verse quoted did not support his given accusation that Open Theists base their thinking on the teaching of men rather than on the Word of God. In fact all of his two long answers were centered around man-made definitions and NOT the Word of God! Pretty telling I think. But I digress.........


            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by PastorKevin View Post
              Ok so maybe AMR's ONE Bible verse is all it took for all of his definitions given to be proven Biblical and Bob's and the positions of Open Theists to be proven unBiblical. Maybe it was a heavyweight verse? What was it?

              John 14:9
              9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

              This is a WONDERFUL verse no doubt! But wherein lieth the stone cold proof that AMR's definitions are Biblical and Open Theist's are not? No Open Theist who is teaching the Bible correctly would deny that Jesus was the perfect representation of the Father. So this verse has absolutely nothing to do with Open vs. Settled Theism.

              So AMR's one Bible verse quoted did not support his given accusation that Open Theists base their thinking on the teaching of men rather than on the Word of God. In fact all of his two long answers were centered around man-made definitions and NOT the Word of God! Pretty telling I think. But I digress.........
              I don't think his argument is flawed just because it has only one verse specifically quoted. He also quoted Isaiah without citing the quotation. But he makes a very valid point throughout and here is a key paragraph in my opinion:

              It is erroneous to state that all of God’s attributes flow from His righteousness. As inferred immediately above, every positive attribute of God inheres in all positive attributes of God. When discussing how God can be righteous, loving, omnipotent, etc., we must be careful to avoid separating the divine essence and the divine attributes. We must also guard against false conceptions of the relation in which these attributes stand with each other.

              I believe we err, even in human terms, when we try to seperate out the varying aspects of human personality from the whole being. We are beings with traits, is any one trait the well from which all the rest of our being springs? I don't think so. God is righteous because he is God. He is not God because he is righteous.

              "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

              Comment


              • #22
                "Answers"

                Ugh!

                These "answers" are going to be nearly impossible for me to read through!

                PK, You might get to a higher number if, instead of counting Bible references, you count either guilt by association fallacies or totally unsupported assertions or totally off the topic "answers" to Bob's questions.

                One thing I've noticed so far (besides the ridiculously dishonest use of the pejorative term "unsettled theism" and the fallacious association of Open Theism with cults, both of which are intentionally dishonest debate tactics) is that AMR is not reading the context of Bob's questions and thereby ensuring that his "answers" will be mostly a waste of time as they will, at best, be answers to somewhat different questions than the ones actually asked by Bob of Dr. Lamerson in the original debate. Something I wouldn't permit as this is whole exercise was intended to be an appendage to Battle Royal X. One would hope that such an exercise would be on the same topic as the original work.

                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! How can AMR's essay on the Calvinist doctrine be considered an answer to Bob's question if he never addressed the very thing that prompted the question in the first place, namely the Scriptures? His "answer" to the questions amount to nothing more than an essay on the simplicity of God, a Calvinist doctrine which has nothing at all to do with the question asked.

                Further, AMR is basically begging the question in these "answers" of his. The debate is effectively about whether Calvinism is true or not. AMR presumes the truth of that which is in question and "answers" these questions as though Calvinism is the undisputed truth. The effect is that his posts are turned from answers to Bob's questions into merely a Calvinist taking an opportunity to shoot his mouth off endlessly about what his various doctrinal positions are.

                So far, all TOL is doing is providing free E-publishing privileges to a narcissistic Calvinist who is clearly in love with his own rhetoric and has been looking for a venue where he is allowed to endlessly ramble on while presenting his doctrine under any pretext he can come up with. So far these are not answers, there just so many doctrinal essays which have used Bob's questions as convenient jumping off points to what is going to be a very wide variety of doctrinal topics.

                Of course those who are already in agreement with AMR will love these essays and rave about the profundity and complex thoroughness, Chileice being the first manifestation of this. And since AMR's ridiculous verbosity gives his posts an appearance of substance the Open Theist's claim that he hasn't really answered any of the questions, while true, will come off as shallow and disingenuous. As a result, I predict that if allowed to continue unchecked, AMR will, with these so called "answers" of his, hand his side of the debate a victory, albeit an unsubstantial and purely emotional one.

                Resting in Him,
                Clete
                Last edited by Clete; October 21st, 2007, 07:46 PM.
                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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Chileice View Post
                  I don't think his argument is flawed just because it has only one verse specifically quoted. He also quoted Isaiah without citing the quotation. But he makes a very valid point throughout and here is a key paragraph in my opinion:

                  It is erroneous to state that all of God’s attributes flow from His righteousness. As inferred immediately above, every positive attribute of God inheres in all positive attributes of God. When discussing how God can be righteous, loving, omnipotent, etc., we must be careful to avoid separating the divine essence and the divine attributes. We must also guard against false conceptions of the relation in which these attributes stand with each other.

                  I believe we err, even in human terms, when we try to seperate out the varying aspects of human personality from the whole being. We are beings with traits, is any one trait the well from which all the rest of our being springs? I don't think so. God is righteous because he is God. He is not God because he is righteous.


                  The point is that we err, even in human terms, when we try to define God outside of the direct revelation wherby He has given us to know Him: The Bible!

                  AMR makes some very serious allegations against Open Theists and fails to back them up with the Scriptures. Instead he does exactly what Bob says in the debate in the first place. He provides a bunch of man-made definitions and explanations as the foundation of his argument. For all of his ranting and raving, the Biblical attributes of God (living,loving,personal, relational,&good) are what is taught in the Scriptures and not the pagan Greek attributes that AMR defends (Omni's & Im's).

                  This debate shouldn't be about what any person (Bob, Samuel Lamerson, AMR, etc...) thinks about how God should be defined. It should be about how does GOD DEFINE HIMSELF in His Word! That is what Bob drove home in this debate, and if AMR has any chance at all to get out of this without looking like a complete idiot he is going to have to discuss the Scriptures themselves. The problem he has is that when this is done, the Scriptures support the Open View of God. So AMR has to spend his first two "answers" (which aren't actually answers at all) propping up his doctrine on man-made definitions! I merely commented on how ironic that is considering he leveled the accusation against us that we rely on the teaching of men and that Open Theism is a humanist idea. Yet we are the ones continually pointing back to the Bible!


                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Clete View Post
                    Ugh!

                    These "answers" are going to be nearly impossible for me to read through!

                    PK, You might get to a higher number if, instead of counting Bible references, you count either guilt by association fallacies or totally unsupported assertions or totally off the topic "answers" to Bob's questions.

                    One thing I've noticed so far (besides the ridiculously dishonest use of the pejorative term "unsettled theism" and the fallacious association of Open Theism with cults, both of which are intentionally dishonest debate tactics) is that AMR is not reading the context of Bob's questions and thereby ensuring that his "answers" will be mostly a waste of time as they will, at best, be answers to somewhat different questions than the ones actually asked by Bob of Dr. Lamerson in the original debate. Something I wouldn't permit as this is whole exercise was intended to be an appendage to Battle Royal X. One would hope that such an exercise would be on the same topic as the original work.

                    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! How can AMR's essay on the Calvinist doctrine be considered an answer to Bob's question if he never addressed the very thing that prompted the question in the first place, namely the Scriptures? His "answer" to the questions amount to nothing more than an essay on the simplicity of God, a Calvinist doctrine which has nothing at all to do with the question asked.

                    Further, AMR is basically begging the question in these "answers" of his. The debate is effectively about whether Calvinism is true or not. AMR presumes the truth of that which is in question and "answers" these questions as though Calvinism is the undisputed truth. The effect is that his posts are turned from answers to Bob's questions into merely a Calvinist taking an opportunity to shoot his mouth off endlessly about what his various doctrinal positions are.

                    So far, all TOL is doing is providing free E-publishing privileges to a narcissistic Calvinist who is clearly in love with his own rhetoric and has been looking for a venue where he is allowed to endlessly ramble on while presenting his doctrine under any pretext he can come up with. So far these are not answers, there just so many doctrinal essays which have used Bob's questions as convenient jumping off points to what is going to be a very wide variety of doctrinal topics.
                    Of course those who are already in agreement with AMR will love these essays and rave about the profundity and complex thoroughness, Chileice being the first manifestation of this. And since AMR's ridiculous verbosity gives his posts an appearance of substance the Open Theists claim that he hasn't really answer any of the questions will come off shallow and disingenuous. As a result, I predict that if allowed to continue unchecked, AMR will, with these so called "answers" of his, hand his side of the debate a victory, albeit an unsubstancial emotional on.

                    Resting in Him,
                    Clete

                    I agree with most of what you say here Clete. The only thing I don't agree with is I don't think AMR will be able to wrest victory from this no matter how many words he uses. Calvinism is untrue and in the end it will always lose when the Bible is held up against it.
                    AMR might claim a victory but it will ring hollow when his own foundation has already been shown to be faulty and lacking Biblical substance! Bob will be able to refute AMR's "answers" in mere minutes per question while AMR spends days upon days writing out these long-winded posts. Bob already knew that was going to happen and said so himself.

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


                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Clete View Post
                      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! How can AMR's essay on the Calvinist doctrine be considered an answer to Bob's question if he never addressed the very thing that prompted the question in the first place, namely the Scriptures?
                      The Scripture you mention is not part of the question, which is what AMR agreed to answer. If we are to follow you reasoning then AMR should actually respond to all the complete entries made by Enyart in the debate, for they lead in some way or the other to the questions he asks. If the verse were actually part of the question, then your objection would be valid, but it is not so there are no grounds for this objection.


                      His "answer" to the questions amount to nothing more than an essay on the simplicity of God, a Calvinist doctrine which has nothing at all to do with the question asked.
                      The simplicity of God is not a Calvinistic doctrine. Where did you get that from? Are you like all other unsettled theists who use the term "Calvinism" in a derogatory way to encompass all classical theists and not just real Calvinists?


                      Further, AMR is basically begging the question in these "answers" of his. The debate is effectively about whether Calvinism is true or not. AMR presumes the truth of that which is in question and "answers" these questions as though Calvinism is the undisputed truth.
                      Apparently you have not read the title of the One on One thread: "A Calvinist's response...". What do you want AMR to do? To first establish the truth of Calvinism and then answer the questions? That is not what he agreed to do, and if he did that you would be complaining that he is not answering the questions and is writing instead an "essay on the Calvinist doctrine". Seems like AMR is in a lose-lose situation with you.


                      The effect is that his posts are turned from answers to Bob's questions into merely a Calvinist taking an opportunity to shoot his mouth off endlessly about what his various doctrinal positions are.
                      His three responses so far have sufficiently answered Enyart's questions and go farther in that AMR spends a much needed time explaining the concepts involved to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.


                      As a result, I predict that if allowed to continue unchecked, AMR will, with these so called "answers" of his, hand his side of the debate a victory, albeit an unsubstancial emotional on.
                      All you are doing with your post is to poison the well Clete, this is dishonest, specially since you did not even take the time to point out the numerous "fallacies" in AMR's responses you alluded to in the opening sentences of your post.


                      Evo

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by PastorKevin View Post
                        Bob did not agree to do this to start up a whole new Battle Royale with AMR replacing Lamerson, I don't believe.
                        [/FONT][/SIZE]
                        Exactly. The agreement is that AMR will write a response to the questions only, not to the whole entry. So, AMR cannot be blamed because he did not respond to something that was not part of the question involved.


                        Evo

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Chileice View Post
                          I don't think his argument is flawed just because it has only one verse specifically quoted. He also quoted Isaiah without citing the quotation. But he makes a very valid point throughout and here is a key paragraph in my opinion:

                          It is erroneous to state that all of God’s attributes flow from His righteousness. As inferred immediately above, every positive attribute of God inheres in all positive attributes of God. When discussing how God can be righteous, loving, omnipotent, etc., we must be careful to avoid separating the divine essence and the divine attributes. We must also guard against false conceptions of the relation in which these attributes stand with each other.

                          I believe we err, even in human terms, when we try to seperate out the varying aspects of human personality from the whole being. We are beings with traits, is any one trait the well from which all the rest of our being springs? I don't think so. God is righteous because he is God. He is not God because he is righteous.
                          Indeed!
                          Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                          Do you confess?
                          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?


                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Evoken View Post
                            Exactly. The agreement is that AMR will write a response to the questions only, not to the whole entry. So, AMR cannot be blamed because he did not respond to something that was not part of the question involved.
                            Evo
                            Correct!

                            BE posed the following challenge (emphasis mine):
                            Originally posted by Bob Enyart View Post
                            Thus, I offer an alternative:

                            Right here on TOL is my Open Theism Debate with Dr. Lamerson. He was EXTREMELY unresponsive to the questions I carefully composed and posted in numerical order, BEQ1 - BEQ50.

                            Either of you can read that debate and answer those questions. And then, if you would, post all 50 questions (full text of each), with your answers (please be direct, I directly answered all of Lamerson's questions), in a single post, and I'll make a commitment to reply.
                            You would be doing the Settled View camp a service, since, after many have read that debate, they have no idea what answers there may be to many of those questions, since Lamerson was so unresponsive and left many completely unaddressed.
                            -Bob Enyart
                            I believe I have met the conditions, save one, to the posed challenge. I am not posting all my answers to 50 questions in a single post. I doubt vBulletin will even support such a lengthy post. As my first three answers indicate, the answers require lengthy discourse.

                            I have the text of all 50 questions. I post that text in all of my answers for all to see. They can be checked in the original BR X thread. I have read the BR X thread numerous times. I have all 194 pages of the BR X reformatted, spell checked, indexed for rapid searches, and saved on my hard drive. I refer to it often as I post my answers. Hence, I understand fully what the underlying context and agenda of the 50 questions are and my response incorporates that foundation where appropriate. Nevertheless, the challenge was not a debate challenge. It was a challenge to answer 50 questions. Period.

                            BE wanted full answers. He decried the answers he received from Lamerson. He is getting his wish now in my answers. That some here don't appreciate the so-called 'bully pulpit' that has been extended is irrelevant and frankly speaks to the unwillingness of many to fully and accurately understand the Reformed position.

                            I predict by the time I have answered all 50 questions, there will be not a few here that will have a clearer understanding of the Reformed doctrines they spend so much time inaccurately portraying. It is my hope that my answers will ferment a more reasoned dialog between unsettled theists and orthodox theists.

                            As for the term, 'unsettled theism', I remind everyone that there is only one logical antonym to the word 'settled', as in 'settled theism'. Perhaps if open theist proponents had adopted the more accurate phrase, 'classical theism' to describe the orthodox position, they would not now have to endure the 'unsettled' label. But, as I have noted in my responses and elsewhere, the unsettled theist makes much hay by using unwarranted derisive terms when discussing any doctrine they disagree with. It appears from some comments herein that these same persons can dish it out, but cannot take it.

                            I know that so many here have come to expect nothing less than an irenic attitude from the classical theist in these forums, all the while having to endure vitriolic 'truth-smacking' attitudes from their opponent. Lamerson irenically responded to BE in all of his posts. What Dr. Lamerson got in return from BE was anything but a response in kind. I willingly swallowed the bait Nang hung out there with full foreknowledge of where things would end up when I agreed to BE's proposal. Giving my opponent a taste of his own medicine was an opportunity I could not pass up.

                            As I am fond of saying, "you choose the behavior, you have chosen the consequences." Deal with it.
                            Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; September 22nd, 2007, 06:30 PM.
                            Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                            Do you confess?
                            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?


                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Shimei View Post
                              Wrong! Open theism never "came along", it always was...
                              That is what the closed theists can't seem to grasp.

                              The authors of the Bible were open theists. It wasn't until Greek Pagan philosophy came along that this whole "fate" thing started.
                              LOL!


                              (sorry sorry sorry, this was absolutely hilarious-next to my only warning, this one will continue to bring a great smile to my face. Thanks, I needed this)
                              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

                              ? Yep

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

                              ... 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..."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Lon View Post
                                LOL!


                                (sorry sorry sorry, this was absolutely hilarious-next to my only warning, this one will continue to bring a great smile to my face. Thanks, I needed this)
                                Glad to help another moron with no point.
                                http://prolifeprofiles.com/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X