Battle Royale VIII applicants wanted!

[Nathon Detroit]

Battle Royale VIII is in the works! :box:

We are looking for proponents of the closed view for BR VIII. We are looking for someone who thinks that the future is closed either through God's direct ordination or through God's perfect exhaustive foreknowledge.

Do you think you can defend that view successfully?

If so... we want you! :sam:

If your interested please post here on this thread why you feel you would be a good participant for BR VIII.

Also... if you have any questions regarding BRVIII feel free to ask them here.

 

[Poly]

Re: Battle Royale VIII applicants wanted!

Originally posted by Knight

Battle Royale VIII is in the works! :box:

:bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana:

 

[add yasaf]

cmon cletus, cmon!

cmon cletus, cmon!

God having knowledge of the future doesn't affect anyone's freedom. Not even Calvinist's say that. For Calvinist's it is based on the decrees of God before the world began.

I happen to be well read in this subject and know all sides well, even the different views in open theism itself!

I will go up against open theists, even though I don't fit the definition of a closed theist. Well...for some people I do. Just to warn all the wanna be exegetes. I do have qualifications. I have a Masters of Arts of Religion in Biblical Studies. Bring it on. U G L Y you don't have no alibi. You ugly, you ugly!!!!

 

[Lucky]

Re: Battle Royale VIII applicants wanted!

Originally posted by Knight

If so... we want you! :sam:

So that's what that smilie is for!

 

[Poly]

Re: cmon cletus, cmon!

Re: cmon cletus, cmon!

Originally posted by add yasaf

U G L Y you don't have no alibi. You ugly, you ugly!!!!

That's pretty funny.

(well, it was!)
:noid:

 

[Berean Todd]

If no one else is willing/able to oppose the open theist doctrine, I would be willing to consider it. However, while you know that I am strongly opposed to open theism, and that I want to take part in a future BR, this is not one of my first-choice topics so to speak. I see Add seems to be willing, but if it falls through with him and there are no other options, PM me and we'll talk Knight. Otherwise, my fingers are crossed for BR IX, and something closer to my heart (OSAS maybe, or some other topics I could think of ...). If I'm going to try to squeeze something like this in with my seminary, I would just rather it be something I'm more interested in defending than this.

 

[Zakath]

Re: Battle Royale VIII applicants wanted!

Originally posted by Knight
We are looking for proponents of the closed view for BR VIII. We are looking for someone who thinks that the future is closed either through God's direct ordination or through God's perfect exhaustive foreknowledge.

That might be tough to find since, other than for a handful of hyperCalvinists, it appears that neither of these "closed view" options represent the position on omniscience, foreknowledge and free will held by the vast majority of Christians. :think:

I wouldn't argue either of those positions...

Good luck! :thumb:

 

[Turbo]

Re: Re: Battle Royale VIII applicants wanted!

Re: Re: Battle Royale VIII applicants wanted!

Originally posted by Zakath

I wouldn't argue either of those positions...

Seeing as though you're an atheist, I would say, "duh!"

 

[servent101]

If you need someone to tell both sides there both nuts let me know, I will do my best - I will even break my New Years resolution for the sake of the poor misguided souls who think they know something, that they are actually making sense...hteir not - they are nuts.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Re: Re: Battle Royale VIII applicants wanted!

Re: Re: Battle Royale VIII applicants wanted!

Originally posted by Zakath

That might be tough to find since, other than for a handful of hyperCalvinists, it appears that neither of these "closed view" options represent the position on omniscience, foreknowledge and free will held by the vast majority of Christians. :think:

Huh???????? Are you kidding?????

The closed views listed above represent both Calvinists AND Arminians therefore represent the VAST maority of mainstream Christian theology.

 

[servent101]

Knight

The closed views listed above represent both Calvinists AND Arminians therefore represent the VAST maority of mainstream Christian theology.

Like I said there all nuts.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by servent101

Knight



Like I said there all nuts.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Good for you. Since you are not interested.... is there a reason you keep posting in this thread?

 

[servent101]

\Knight- I am interested, and feeling a little cantankerous today - hope you forgive me - it is in Matthew - you are suppose to forgive me - in a little while I might be able to post in one of your Battle Royals - when I am a better debater - one topic I would like to see debated is the necessity to view the Bible as the ONLY source of Spiritual knowledge - and this is why I say both sides are at odds with the truth - the truth being is the Bible was never intended to be the definitive source of all Spiritual knowledge, and when taken as such there is simply not enough information to deduce sensible doctrine from.

Have you ever had this type of topic at Battle Royal?

With Christ's Love

Servent101

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by servent101
Have you ever had this type of topic at Battle Royal?

Nope, not yet.

 

[Zakath]

Re: Re: Re: Battle Royale VIII applicants wanted!

Re: Re: Re: Battle Royale VIII applicants wanted!

Originally posted by Knight

Huh???????? Are you kidding?????

Actually, no. I wasn't.

The closed views listed above represent both Calvinists AND Arminians therefore represent the VAST maority of mainstream Christian theology.

Why don't you consider Arminians a sub-set of Calvinists? I realize that Arminius himself was soundly condemned by the Calvinist synod in Dort (1618-1619), but he is still rooted in a moderate Calvinism. Even considering them separately, both groups together do not make up a plurality of professing Christians.

:think:

Of course, that depends on how you define the term Christianity, I suppose.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Battle Royale VIII applicants wanted!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Battle Royale VIII applicants wanted!

Originally posted by Zakath
Why don't you consider Arminians a sub-set of Calvinists? I realize that Arminius himself was soundly condemned by the Calvinist synod in Dort (1618-1619), but he is still rooted in a moderate Calvinism. Even considering them separately, both groups together do not make up a plurality of professing Christians.

That's why we are calling that side of the argument the "closed view" side therefore it will encompass both the Arminians and the Calvinists.

 

[add yasaf]

huh

huh

Knight quote - That's why we are calling that side of the argument the "closed view" side therefore it will encompass both the Arminians and the Calvinists.


I guess part of my job would be to prove that Arminians are not in the closed view. I already did that in previous threads, but I will give it a shot anyways.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Re: huh

Re: huh

Originally posted by add yasaf
I guess part of my job would be to prove that Arminians are not in the closed view. I already did that in previous threads, but I will give it a shot anyways.

LOL... Arminianism is a closed view. No matter how many times you shout otherwise your view of God perfect foreknowledge always gets in the way.

 

[add yasaf]

crazy

crazy

Knight quote - LOL... Arminianism is a closed view. No matter how many times you shout otherwise your view of God perfect foreknowledge always gets in the way.


WOW! Stunning! you have "successfully" (sarcasm) made it unneccessary for the Battle in just a sentence. Notice "unneccessary" is not the same as "uncertain". LOL

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Re: crazy

Re: crazy

Originally posted by add yasaf
WOW! Stunning! you have "successfully" (sarcasm) made it unneccessary for the Battle in just a sentence. Notice "unneccessary" is not the same as "uncertain". LOL

Uh... if you say so.