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

  • Shimei,

    Only cowards hide behind neg reps instead of issuing their insults publically.

    Nang
    "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

    " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
    Gordon H. Clark

    "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
    Charles Spurgeon

    Comment


    • Nang,

      You are the stupidest woman on TOL.

      There! I insulted you both via PM and in public!

      Satisfied?
      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


      • Originally posted by Nang View Post
        I am so disgusted with the lack of substantial, intellectual, and Christian response to AMR's sacrificial efforts, that I fear I may say too much and express nothing but excessive indignation and anger.

        Nang
        Perhaps you could just leave TOL altogether then? ray:
        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


        • Nang...banned.....nooooo. Stubborn, not totally stupid.
          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


          • Originally posted by Nang View Post
            Shimei,

            Only cowards hide behind neg reps instead of issuing their insults publically.

            Nang
            Originally posted by Clete View Post
            Perhaps you could just leave TOL altogether then? ray:
            That is almost exactly what my neg rep to Nang said.
            http://prolifeprofiles.com/

            Comment


            • I more than half expected the closing and nonresponsiveness of one of OV.
              In that I was not disappointed. As it stands, this is the last address to reply to and I will point out the unresponsiveness along the way.
              Originally posted by [URL="http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1521132&postcount=2"
              Bob Enyart[/URL]]Dear Ask Mr. Religion,

              I looked forward to your answers to my 50 BR X questions. I planned to determine how far I would go in reading and replying to you based upon two things: your biblical presentation of your answers, and your responsiveness to my BR X questions.
              Wouldn't it have been terrific to actually say "Please use scripture for support?"
              Especially if it was to be the terms for nonresponse? You are arguing against 1 (one) answer and missing the rest and this particular was over one particular scripture (given below).

              I’ve been a bit busy, depending upon one’s perspective of my ministry, either tilting at windmills, or fighting the spiritual battle: against atheism, child killing, euthanasia, and evolution, working hard to support Colorado Right To Life, Alan Keyes, American Right To Life, Colorado For Equal Rights and their personhood amendment, and to oppose pro-choice wolves in sheep’s clothing like Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. So, you’ve had some competition for my attention.
              Perhaps that's as it should be: OV needs substantiation.
              Granted they are noble efforts and about the Father's business, but I was greatly hoping against my expectations for something substantial as promised in October of this year.

              On AMR’s Biblical Presentation

              I was eager to reply to your biblical presentation, but in your answer to my first question, out of 1,671 words, only seven were from a single Scriptural passage, Isaiah 40:25. So, you quoted one verse. My first post was about three and a half times longer than your answer to my first question. However:

              22 times BR-X Post 1B referenced Bible verses and passages.
              47 times Post 1B excerpted or quoted verses in full.

              Much of my intervening text in 1B is a discussion of these scores of Bible passages, while your single scriptural reference is made in passing without hardly even another allusion to any passage.
              Nonsequitur, let's look at the terms again:
              Originally posted by Bob Enyart View Post
              Dear Ask Mr. Religion,

              Perhaps you read too much into my offer, but I stand by it:

              I wrote:
              ...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.

              I am happy to oblige you on your request not to consult with others. (Of course, when we at BEL debate, we hope we get the combined knowledge, experience and reputation of the best minds against us, so that we can truly test our own position, and show the readers that we have responded to the strongest arguments available. In fact, I typically attempt to offer my opponent stronger arguments than he has used, in order to rebut those also.)

              However, I am not offering to get into a debate with you, and I would expect that for you to answer all fifty questions in the context of BR X, you'd have to spend quite a few hours. I asked you to include the full text of my questions, and then your *direct* answers, all in a single post. Then I'll reply. I imagine this would take me only a fraction of the time it takes you. I've already put hundreds of hours into that debate.

              That's it AMR, you can accept that offer, or call the show (and Nang, you too).

              -Bob Enyart
              As seen here, the terms were about addressing the 50 questions, which AMR did.
              To say they weren't scriptural is ignoring the influence of scripture upon one's systematic theology. He could have stopped AMR at any time and readjusted his responses instead of waiting for all the work to be put in and then in hindsight come to this. There are plenty of scriptures offered and supported here (I list many of AMR's packed scriptural addresses below).

              A cultist can quote the Bible. Many references do not prove a doctrine. But in the Open Theism debate here at TOL, the question is, which position, the Settled View or the Open View, is the biblical view, and which is based on appeal to extra-biblical authority. You would have served yourself well to build a foundation for your answers, not on an avalanche of extra-biblical authorities, but on God’s Word.
              I have addressed this topic and the statistics are staggeringly in opposition to this ascertation.

              Your instinctive and almost subconscious appeal to extra biblical authorities includes:
              * “rigorously defined creeds”
              * “councils”
              * “oversight bodies”
              * “orthodoxy”
              * “classical theologians”
              * Open Theism “denounced as heretical”
              * “The Reformed view”
              * “a newly published study bible”
              * “1500 years of theological study”
              * “proper Reformed doctrines”
              They have withstood the test of time and upon scriptures. A further discussion if it weren't closed and BobE had time would have revealed them soon enough. AMR's task was to address the 50 questions succinctly as possible and he did use many scriptures here, here, here, here, here(#'s 6,7,8,9,11 and etc.)

              Here’s how you started to answer BEQ1:


              Quote:
              Originally Posted by AMR
              To begin with your very first question, on the contrary, I think unsettled theism needs to change its tactics.

              And then you criticized Open Theism for its “re-definitions,” apparently unaware that the “definitions” you appeal to as authoritative, and view as sacrosanct and not open to “re-definition,” are themselves the work of men (Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, etc.). Such theological definitions are themselves extra-biblical authorities. They appear outside of God’s Word. And you quote them even without reference.
              He gave a buzillion verses. This accusation for the first posts 'about scripture?'
              WOW!
              This was a question about scripture!
              Psa 89:14 Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.
              For crying out loud!

              Your rebuttal begins with the complaint that terms like “omniscience” and “sovereignty” would be “re-defined.” Yet you do not even inform the reader that “omniscience,” is a Latin philosophical term that does not even appear in Scripture! I use the New King James Version, and in it, the word “sovereign” does not appear at all, and the word “sovereignty” appears only once (1 Sam. 14:47), not of God, but referring to king Saul.
              Over that scripture! אדון Adonai: means 'sovereign.' Oops!

              In BR-X Post 1B, I let the reader know that the term “‘omniscience” is “non-biblical.” Yet you present its definition as the foundation of your rebuttal. Of course the Bible does mention “all knowledge” and the ability to “know all things.” The two books in the New King James that mention “all knowledge,” use that phrase to refer to believers, not to God (Rom. 15:14; 1 Cor. 1:5), and the one author who uses the phrase “know all things” also applies that phrase to believers (1 John 2:20). Paul and John clearly use that term as a figure of speech. The test to determine when a passage is rightly understood as a figure or when it is literal is based upon valid use of hermeneutics, and comparing Scripture to Scripture. In my BR X opening post I introduced this fundamental issue immediately after introducing the topic of the debate. You never got to it, but instead, someone who read your answer to BR-X-BEQ1 would think the proper way to interpret Scripture is to abide by non-biblical ecclesiastical authority and follow the traditions and definitions of men. Do I have to highlight all the references you made to extra-biblical authority which you used as the foundation for your posts? Or will you just concede that you should have done a better job building your argument upon Scripture? I ask this rhetorically; of course you are welcome to reply for the grandstands, but my schedule ―and my disappointment― limit me to this one post.
              Er....what about all the biblical ones? You are seriously accusing him of not using scripture? Seriously?

              AMR, you claim you have to coax the definitions of Open Theism terms as used in Battle Royale X “out of their hiding places,” yet you would let the reader assume that these terms are biblically central to theology. But as presented in Post 1B, “sovereignty” is not even a central attribute of God, for it positions God in respect to the creation. The fundamental attributes of God are NOT dependent upon creation, and unlike creation, have existed throughout all eternity past, completely apart from and independent from any created thing whatsoever. By misapplying sovereignty as a fundamental divine attribute, you define God in such a way that He could not even exist apart from man. You would allow the reader to assume that “theological definitions” are somehow unassailable. Why? Are they breathed by the Holy Spirit? And finally, your argument is circular, because open theists oppose the very theologians who construed these definitions. You cannot biblically refute the Open View by arguing, “Orthodox terms show it false.”
              Again, see what your children have been up to here. God's very name means sovereign and most of your flock do not oppose or resist the biblical inference.

              You write, AMR, as though you are dredging up from the darkness the most horrendous of accusations, that Open Theists: “cast words… into a dimly lit room” words like...”utter immutability” and “true relationship.” Yikes. And not only that, there is “more to come!” I was almost afraid to continue reading to see what other words I had used.
              It isn't that, it is that you have to be on ToL for about 4 months to even understand where OV is coming from to ascertain redefinitions and positioning.
              The language follows that OV is still in infancy, but it cannot be properly debated until these defining points are made clear.

              AMR, your answer was not biblical. You did not give a Scriptural presentation. If you have such in you, you should have begun with your best foot forward. For you squandered an opportunity this One-on-One presented.
              Continued harping on the opening and neglect of the rest....
              AMR, you made only a single passing reference to Scripture, and referred to yourself as a “scholar,” thus anyone could characterize your entire answer to BEQ1 as “trust me” and “trust us.”
              ...continued harping... nonsequitur, nonresponsive.

              It is hardly worth mentioning that we both can quote from opposing leading authors, and disagree with them. But in BEQ1 and Post 1B I quoted one of the Settled View’s leading anti-openness authors, agreeing with his point on the most fundamental matter, immutability. AMR, this should not be lost on you. You quote an opponent, and say, “He’s wrong;” and I quote an opponent, and say, “He’s right;” and you ignore it when answering BEQ1. I searched your 1,671 word answer for “Ware” and found “I was unaware,” but no reference to Bruce Ware’s extraordinary admission. And recall from BR-X, my practice is to quote from the extra-biblical sources with whom I disagree to refute their positions, and to quote from Scripture to defend Open Theism.
              אדון Adonai: means 'sovereign.'

              In my offer to you, I asked if you could “read the debate” and then answer the questions. Did you read the debate, or just the questions? Your answer to BEQ1 gives not a clue as to whether you read round one. Whether you did or not, you completely ignored all the scriptural material I quoted to undermine the Greek and Latin philosophical OMNIs and IMs, which biblical material formed the foundation of my question. Did it occur to you that you would have done a service to the readers, and provided me with a real value, if you would have addressed the biblical passages?
              On AMR’s Biblical Presentation

              I was eager to reply to your biblical presentation, but in your answer to my first question, out of 1,671 words, only seven were from a single Scriptural passage, Isaiah 40:25. So, you quoted one verse. My first post was about three and a half times longer than your answer to my first question. However:

              22 times BR-X Post 1B referenced Bible verses and passages.
              47 times Post 1B excerpted or quoted verses in full.

              Much of my intervening text in 1B is a discussion of these scores of Bible passages, while your single scriptural reference is made in passing without hardly even another allusion to any passage.
              Nonsequitur, let's look at the terms again:
              Originally posted by Bob Enyart View Post
              ...I would expect that for you to answer all fifty questions in the context of BR X, you'd have to spend quite a few hours. I asked you to include the full text of my questions, and then your *direct* answers, all in a single post. Then I'll reply. I imagine this would take me only a fraction of the time it takes you. I've already put hundreds of hours into that debate.

              That's it AMR, you can accept that offer, or call the show...

              -Bob Enyart
              That unresponsiveness reminds me of this excerpt from BR X Post 7B:

              I have exposed that the OMNIs and IMs are “propped up with [‘a handful of’] weak proof texts.” I asked you to demonstrate [and substantiate, now from] Scripture [your] appeal to extra-biblical authority when you claimed that “Dr. Reymond cites no less than 24 passages of Scripture” for immutability, indicating that God is “unchangeable in his being.” Having debated Settled Viewers for 20 years, I knew this would expose your unmerited trust in extra-biblical authority. So, here’s one of the immutability proof texts lurking within your outside authority, which you listed by reference only:

              And his sons would go and feast in their houses, each on his appointed day, and would send and invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. So it was, when the days of feasting had run their course, that Job would send and sanctify them, and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all. For Job said, “It may be that my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” Thus Job did regularly. -Job 1:4-5
              So, that’s an immutability proof text huh? And Settled Viewers don’t prop with a handful of weak proof texts their Latin and Greek philosophical OMNIs and IMs? That was the 23rd passage cited. Others are worse (like Jonah 3:3-5, 10)! Thank you Sam and Dr. Reymond for strengthening my claim that the Settled View survives only on texts twisted to support Augustinian/Greek tradition.
              Ask Mr. Religion, you have demonstrated so perfectly, as though I called you out on cue, the ongoing observation that Calvinists are so dependent upon extra-biblical human authority to make their case, that even in a forum like this One-on-One on TOL, where you are 100% certain to be called out for appealing to human authority rather than to God’s Word, you seem incapable of the restraint needed to allow yourself to build a biblical foundation upon which to make your case. Well, you’ve been called out.
              AMR gave scripture reference after scripture reference to nearly all of your questions, sir. This is disingenuine at best.

              AMR's response was resigned:
              Then go ahead and close the thread as this is my final response. Bob's latest was nothing more than a cobbling together of his usual self-righteous commentary that had nothing to do with the question I wanted answered.

              AMR
              AMR’s Responsiveness

              My offer to you:

              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.
              AMR, your reputation precedes you [1 Tim. 5:24]. This seemingly petty request of mine, that you answer “in a single post,” was in hopes that you would be responsive. The very discipline of replying in a single post should have kept you focused on being responsive. You ignored my offer and instead streamed a tome, judging from the first 1,700 words, that is neither biblically-based nor responsive.
              'Nice' summary dismissal. I could almost see Knight hovering over the 'close thread' button. Fear or time constraints? I suspect the latter, but know the former will always be in question. Formulating response and gaining opinion from the greater part of Christiandom is an important work for OV. It should not be neglected and a revisit of that BR is no waste of time.

              Conclusion

              AMR, you fancy referring to the Open View as “unsettled theism.” Alternate sides of issues commonly attempt to belittle their opposition in how they name them. In BR X, even though I was debating a credentialed Calvinist, a wanted to equally address Arminian readers, but satisfied with no convenient term that combined the opposition of two, I introduced the “Settled View,” which is not a pejorative, and quickly communicates to the uninitiated the essence of the disagreement. Of course, no one should assume that I recommend some kind of neutrality commitment. I repeat what I wrote to Lamerson:

              Here is an example of what you call free will: God unalterably and irresistibly ordained that a certain man will murder an Idaho mother, kidnap her children, torment and kill the son, molest and then rape the little girl, orchestrating this to the number of penetrations, and the man has no ability to desire otherwise, or to do otherwise, or to resist this causal predestination in anyway whatsoever, and you call that free will. [Dr. Lamerson] As you wrote in Post 1A:

              “‘In fairness I will state that I believe free will indicates that an agent will always be free to do what he or she chooses.” -A Calvinist [i.e., Lamerson]
              Fairness?
              I hold in contempt such commitment to Greek philosophy (immutability as the fundamental attribute, Neoplatonism, Augustinianism) that drives Christians to describe God as the author of filth, wickedness, perversion, infidelity, cruelty and idolatry. For, “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God;’ for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed” (James 1:13-14). However, I attempt to restrain myself in the framing of such a theological debate so that Christians can more readily join in and weigh the scriptural substance.
              OV never escapes the same accusation, just delays it. God is presently seeing all attrocity, therefore OV is equally in the same pool of discussion with no escape hatch.
              AMR, I do appreciate the concession you willingly made, that, “The Scriptures are full of examples of God… reacting to His creatures.” Thank you for that. It may save some TOL Open Theists a dozen posts in the future.
              We are not in total disagreement on doctrines.

              Regarding this post, if Calvinism is correct, then before the foundation of the world (and as I write this, I ask God for the wisdom to do so maintaining the utmost respect for Him), if Calvinism is correct, then every word of this post pre-existed, as decreed, without me have the least ability even to desire, let alone, to do, otherwise, for even my yearnings were foreordained; for every word here was then authored, verbatim, before the foundation of the world. And some day we can learn why such an exposé of a faithful Calvinist’s post would have been predestined. But if Open Theism is right, then AMR, you did it to yourself.
              You are arguing over 'duration.' Regardless of when, you must agree God sustained your breaths while typing in order to accomplish the task. You've escaped nothing in your logical parameters: Either God did or did not allow you strength and breath to type.

              One plight of the Calvinist demonstrated by Ask Mr. Religion is that, commitment to pagan Greek philosophy enables them to blatantly contradict themselves; to then feel good about it; and to finally deny that they have even contradicted themselves. AMR, you contradicted yourself when you concluded:


              Quote:
              Originally Posted by AMR
              “The Scriptures tell us that God is indeed immutable, but that He nevertheless… is affected by… His creatures.”

              As with contradictions, this one also is blatantly false. God is mutable. Our worship can touch His heart; the entire thrust of Scripture teaches that our prayer can move His hand. The Son changes the Father; the Father’s love changes the Holy Spirit. The godly and the ungodly both affect Him; and affecting Him is change. In what way is the LORD immutable? As Hebrews indicates, it is God’s commitment to righteousness that we can depend upon, forever, for He is Faithful. The Bible does not call on us to trust God because He cannot forsake us, but because He "will not forsake His people!"
              False definition of immutabilty. Turn it around, always turn it around: OV claims God is moved by His people. God is not a man nor does He think like a man. God cannot/will not change His nature to fit our needs. You are arguing over complete immutability vs. relationship and it should surprise no one that there is a logical conundrum with such statements. God says of Himself He doesn't change per fact.

              AMR, you then told the reader that he has “no biblical justifications for changing” the following extra-biblical “statement:”


              Quote:
              Originally Posted by AMR
              God is always the same in His eternal being. … God’s nature and character are constant.”
              Extra-biblical? Good grief!



              God the Son is now fully human, and fully divine. That is His nature. Now. He was not flesh, nor human, through eternity past. So AMR, while you tell readers that they cannot change extra-biblical definitions, Open Theists will use the vast sweeping truths of Scripture, in this case, the Incarnation, which is the central tenet of all of Christianity, that God the Son became flesh, which single truth demolishes your orthodox definition.
              You do not understand the orthodox position to say such a thing. Cook told you it wasn't a change. Even OVer's here on ToL have stated it isn't a change.
              Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today and forever.
              For God the Son was Spirit through eternity past, and became flesh. John the Apostle wrote that it is anti-Christ to deny that God the Son came in the flesh, and also, he wrote that the Son yearned to share again the glory He had with the Father, the glory that the two of them had shared “before the world was.” Then, the eternally gracious Father at one extraordinary moment poured out wrath on His Son. The Father is not pouring out wrath on His Son perpetually, but did so once, and will never do so again. The eternally blessed Son then became sin, and a curse, for us, suffered and died, once for all, never to be crucified again. And through the Holy Spirit, the Son was “justified” (1 Timothy 3:16), raised from the dead, and reconciled with the Father. No deference to philosophical OMNIs and IMs justifies minimizing these primary biblical truths. AMR, these extraordinary experiences comprise almost the greatest conceivable changes, God becoming a Man, and the Father pouring out wrath upon and then turning His back upon, and forsaking His own blessed Son, and the Son overcoming death and being resurrected. Man-made definitions notwithstanding, the mutable, Living God went through these Changes, for us. And that is Christianity.

              -Pastor Bob Enyart
              Denver Bible Church
              Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
              This isn't open theism. This is some other theology. Don't attribute things that aren't OVT to OVT.

              God the Son took onto Himself a human body. This didn't require a change in God, per se, but an addendum, if you will.

              Also, Christ was forsaken by the father. This is a relational term, not a state of being term.

              Finally, Christ was resurrected in the same body in which He died. He was glorified because He came, lived a sinless life, and fulfilled the will of the Father in doing do. If you'll recall, Jesus still had the holes in His hands, feet, and side after He was resurrected...

              Muz
              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


              • Lon has provided many on point observations in the preceding post. I appreciate that.

                I fully intended to respond to Bob's latest, but Knight clearly wanted to close the thread, allowing me only one final post and taking it upon himself to declare that Bob had adequately answered my single question I wanted answered. This, in spite of my October post in the 1:1 thread requesting further clarifications. Clearly the question Bob agreed to answer was not yet fully answered in my mind. No matter.

                Despite Enyart's assertions to the contrary, I believe I have done the Scriptures justice in relying upon them throughout the 50 questions I have answered. I have not made a count, but I am confident that there are hundreds upon which I relied. It is clear from his response that Enyart's personal agenda got in the way of his objectivity. That he completely ignored my October post requesting clarifications is evidence that Enyart had other intentions.

                For example, Bob attempts to make much of the Reformed position on immutability (God is unchangeable in His essence and His attributes), yet Enyart clearly has not reviewed my many comments in the 1:1 thread on this very topic. Enyart fails to recognize that God is unchangeably committed to change His attitude towards those who change their attitude toward Him. Enyart also fails to recognize, that God's immutability is rooted in His always doing right and in adapting the treatment of His creatures to the variations in the creature's character and conduct.

                In another place, Enyart wonders why I spend time noting how openists have recast orthodox definitions of the attributes of God. Yet he fails to not how much space he devoted to these very matters in the original BR X thread. That he would claim I have not fully read all of the BR X thread is a disingenuous tactic, one of many he employs in order to toady to his TOL supporters. In effect, Enyart seeks to make the discussion a popularity contest, all the while ignoring the substance of my responses.

                In yet another example, Enyart complains I have relied upon the teachings of historical forefathers as if this is somehow taboo in theological discourse. One wonders how anyone could manage to get themselves through seminary given Bob's narrow mindedness. No doubt Aquinas was correct, when commenting on the pursuit of knowledge, he observed, "Beware the man of one book."

                I had no great expectations and saw the 1:1 discussion as a chance to correct many gross mis-characterizations by many TOL openists, and to lay out in painstaking detail the Reformed positions. They are all there in detail for all to read in the 1:1 thread. From the many private, positive, comments I have received by others, I am confident I have met my goals.

                AMR
                Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; January 2, 2008, 10:55 PM. Reason: correct spelling error
                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


                • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                  For example, Bob attempts to make much of the Reformed position on immutability (God is unchangeable in His essence and His attributes), yet Enyart clearly has not reviewed my many comments in the 1:1 thread on this very topic. Enyart fails to recognize that God is unchangeably committed to change His attitude towards those who change their attitude toward Him. Enyart also fails to recognize, that God's immutability is rooted in His always doing right and in adapting the treatment of His creatures to the variations in the creature's character and conduct.
                  Given your statement of faith that says "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass", why would God need to change His attitude for those who change their attitude. It was all unchangeably ordained, wasn't it?
                  Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

                  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

                  What are my fruits today?

                  Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

                  "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
                    Given your statement of faith that says "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass", why would God need to change His attitude for those who change their attitude. It was all unchangeably ordained, wasn't it?
                    It's like a moving target isn't it?
                    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                    Comment


                    • Not as difficult as all that, If I offer you ice cream and know you like chocolate, it doesn't make a difference what other flavors are available. You are determined to get chocolate. Your decision is known and there are no other choices because of one's chocolate affinity. I don't like chocolate. My desire dictates what I eat. You say I'm locked into vanilla. You may be right, but I'd have it no other way and don't mind at all that I am a slave to my predictability that gives God and anyone buying me a dessert a certian foreknowledge that constrains me to that choice.

                      God made my tastebuds the particular way they are and I wonder if He didn't make me a vanilla-lover in the first place. "Oh no! I'm a vanilla robot!!!" ('Please' and 'so what?'). If I'm without LFW (and I believe I am) it dimishes my self-importance which is where I desire to be. That desire is a fundamental impetous for believing as I do.
                      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


                      • Originally posted by Lon View Post
                        Not as difficult as all that, If I offer you ice cream and know you like chocolate, it doesn't make a difference what other flavors are available. You are determined to get chocolate. Your decision is known and there are no other choices because of one's chocolate affinity. I don't like chocolate. My desire dictates what I eat. You say I'm locked into vanilla. You may be right, but I'd have it no other way and don't mind at all that I am a slave to my predictability that gives God and anyone buying me a dessert a certian foreknowledge that constrains me to that choice.

                        God made my tastebuds the particular way they are and I wonder if He didn't make me a vanilla-lover in the first place. "Oh no! I'm a vanilla robot!!!" ('Please' and 'so what?'). If I'm without LFW (and I believe I am) it dimishes my self-importance which is where I desire to be. That desire is a fundamental impetous for believing as I do.
                        Or we could take that to its full measure and say "God made me want to go to to hell" and "God made you want to go to heaven."

                        We should care about those hell bound, it is just their god given preference...
                        - Changing wineskins, at last.

                        - iPhone's Coolest Bible/, Touch Bible.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by patman View Post
                          Or we could take that to its full measure and say "God made me want to go to to hell" and "God made you want to go to heaven."

                          We should care about those hell bound, it is just their god given preference...
                          Point 1: Yes we should. Think about it...
                          However, remove yourself from the hell-bound list. I believe OV wrong but do not question your salvation.

                          Point 2: God is concerned for the lost and it is their God-given preference.
                          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


                          • Originally posted by Lon View Post
                            Point 1: Yes we should. Think about it...
                            However, remove yourself from the hell-bound list. I believe OV wrong but do not question your salvation.

                            Point 2: God is concerned for the lost and it is their God-given preference.
                            Well, the "me" was figurative. I wasn't trying to make you out to be holier than thou.

                            My point was really that foreordination is about more than your favorite flavor of ice cream, it is about where God foreordained you to go.

                            If you say God makes you like what ice cream you like, how much more would he make you like your eternal resting place? If God made them that way, why should anyone be concerned?

                            S.V. theism sets us up so we don't have to care and so we don't have healthy concerns because it makes it followers foolishly believe that everything will be alright when in reality everything will be alright for only half of the population. It makes us not care because we go around thinking this is how it was meant to be, so why worry? That is dangerous and unhealthy thinking.
                            - Changing wineskins, at last.

                            - iPhone's Coolest Bible/, Touch Bible.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by patman View Post
                              S.V. theism sets us up so we don't have to care and so we don't have healthy concerns because it makes it followers foolishly believe that everything will be alright when in reality everything will be alright for only half of the population. It makes us not care because we go around thinking this is how it was meant to be, so why worry? That is dangerous and unhealthy thinking.
                              What is unhealthy is your assumption that the number of lost is far greater than the number of saved. Nothing can be farther from the truth.
                              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


                              • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                                What is unhealthy is your assumption that the number of lost is far greater than the number of saved. Nothing can be farther from the truth.
                                AMR, that is besides the point. If God neglected to ordain even one person from the punishment that awaits in hell, we shouldn't live under the assumption that everything will be OK because those in hell won't believe the same thing.

                                Nang asked me how to keep her granddaughters from sinning under open theism. She, for some reason, believes her granddaughters will be protected from sexual sin because "they put their future in God's hands."

                                This is unhealthy! Because of this naive thinking she is leaving a gaping hole of vulnerability. She is unafraid of the sin her grand daughters face because she thinks the future is magically in their favor because God settled it that way.

                                With the same hope she has for her granddaughters future she negletcts to see the thousands of people who's futures were also in God's hand but yet somehow ended up in hell.

                                You guys preach a false security.

                                Now what will happen when the future blind-sights someone with something terrible and no one is to blame but God, whom they think made it happen?

                                S.V. is a false hope that all is well in the future. Millions burning in hell right now can verify this. Even if there are zillions in heaven, the millions had no choice but to go because they didn't make the cut... and what really sucks is they were cut before they were even born according to S.V..

                                What is the point in anything via S.V.? God will make it all happen, he will send these people to hell because he wanted, he will send these people to heaven because he wanted to, and no one can do anything about it.
                                - Changing wineskins, at last.

                                - iPhone's Coolest Bible/, Touch Bible.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X