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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lon

Well-known member
I read the link and it does NOT make the argument Lon.

Try again. Only this time actually make some attempt to actually address the points I've brought up.



The link is an example of didactic passages upholding a narrative doctrine.
(hmm, seems to address your question to me).

You like to pick on Bob Hill. First, show us how his teaching removes the passages he uses to substantiate his teaching from their intended context then show us how that removal nullifies the teaching.



I don't pick on Bob Hill. I brought up one of his posts. I've been very careful to say I disagree with his doctrine. I do understand the defensive posture both for Enyart and Hill. There is no question in my mind that you should. So please don't see that as an attack on him personally, it is not. It was taking a post and explaining why narrative isn't the place to build doctrine. To be clear, there are very few narrative doctrines that Christiandom holds to. The OV is rive with them.

In order to do that you are going to have to prove that the passages he uses are "only narrative passages" and that those passages somehow contradict the so called doctrinal passages.
I gave the link for how to tell, both mine an the last one. Bob Hill's are all narrative passages. Simply, narrative is where there is a storyline. Doctrine is where we are told something universally and specifically as believers. Knight pointed to narrative in his quotes for mocking those in opposition. My point is that you cannot do likewise but I'll hit on this on the last comment you've made.
It would seem, according to your arbitrary standard that the Moses basically wrote no doctrinal passages to speak of at all aside from "about half" of the book of Deuteronomy. That's a totally ridiculous position that you have no hope whatsoever of defending. It's down right laughable! Genesis is referred to as the "see plot" of the Bible for a very good reason. It is perhaps the most important book of doctrine in the entire Bible! It is the very foundation of the entire Christian faith and worldview! Job is the oldest book in existence and is entirely narrative from beginning to end and yet it too is practically bursting at the seems with doctrine.
That's a totally 'ridiculous' ascertation. First, nope, Moses wrote lots of doctrine. Does it all apply to you directly? Nope. You don't follow Levitical (Leviticus) directives. How much applies to us? A lot, but the point is to note where story begins and ends, where doctrine begins and ends, who it applies to etc. Second, The last author I gave cleared this up extremely well. You should read the whole article as I said his position was mine as well. You are saying things as if you don't care to know my position or read that article indepth. I agree 100% with his position.

In you last post you claimed that "Scripture does contradict itself"and provided a link to a post where you said, "I cannot concur that we can kill narrative with doctrinal passages. The whole of scripture supports itself."

It would seem that it is you who contradict yourself Lon. Care to clarify?
Incorrect, the 'last' post had the correction. I did miss a negative in that first statement which was why the double post, but oops, you missed that (or did you? Are you being disingenuine?).

What?
One of our favorite places to start a debate on predestination vs. free-will is with Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18! You've lost your mind on this one Lon. Not only is your position arbitrary and self-contradictory but you've based it on the completely false basis that we use "only narrative" passages to support our position.

AHHHH! So you DO know the difference! Thanks for substantiating that AND showing that some of what you are asking for is pedantic.

And finally the last of your links only makes things harder for you Lon because that piece comes right out and says that one is not required to get doctrine exclusively from didactic passages of Scripture and so whether Bob Hill or some other Open Theist uses narrative/historical passages or not isn't really the issue at all. The issue is whether or not the passage actually does teach what we say it teaches, which of course has been the real issue all along. That article effectively states the very thing I've been stating (except that I don't think the distinction is necessary in the first place). You cannot simply cry "Narrative passage!" and thereby trump any teaching that disagrees with your doctrine. You have to make the argument Lon. That's the only way it works.

I think you didn't do a very good job of grasping his point and are actually saying the opposite. For one who accuses me of not reading well, this is a bit perplexing for me. I'll help by paraphrasing as and with Paragraph numbers 'P#' (disregarding single line entries):


First of all, he says doctrine may be derived from narrative(P3) but he gives several caveats: 1) it must be repeatable(P4) 2) it must build cautiously (P9 ; P11-14) 3) it should be a rarity (P15) 4) it should most often be supported by didactic (doctrinal directive) and 5) there isn't a solid hermenuetical procedure for doing so (P25,26).

Catch that? *******Warning flag*********

He quoted another author to support this:

"I have failed to find a hermeneutical articulation that took me by the hand and showed me how one goes about doing this—that is, establishing something normative on the basis of historical precedent alone."

The author states that one 'may' derive doctrine from narrative, but points back to foundational caveates for deriving any doctrine from narrative alone and said that it must be 'clearly' a 'normative' example to follow (blatant).

He closes this by saying that the narrative writer would make plain a normative doctrine in text if a doctrine is prescribed.

He had a very good chart in that post as to how to tell apart narrative from didactic literature and how to interpret them.

Paraphrased again, his chart was:

Narrative------------------------------Doctrine
story--------------------------------- instructions
examples------------------------------directives
applies to those-----------------------applies to all
in the story

He gave multiple examples of faulty extrapolation from narrative to press the points of his article, all of which I have redressed here. Few doctrines in the church are ever built off of narrative. To be clear, let me make plain that no substantial doctrine is built soley off of narrative whereas OV does so more often than not.

Here you can see in Bob Hill's post easily that every point is made off of a storyline.

Here is another by an OVer (I could keep doing this all day).
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Lon,

You aren't getting it are you.

I've never denied or even suggested that I do not understand the difference generally speaking between didactic and narrative passages of Scripture. My point has been that you cannot reject a doctrinal teaching solely on the basis that is derived from narrative passages of Scripture! You don't get to simply blurt out "You used a narrative passage to make that point!" and then act as if you've somehow refuted the point. You haven't ! You have to MAKE THE ARGUMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By "make the argument" I mean you have to show how the use of those narrative passages is invalid in that particular instance. You have to show how the conclusion drawn from those narrative passages somehow contradicts didactic passages which direct speak to the point being discussed. Didactic vs. narrative is not a magic trump card that you can pull out just because it suits your fancy.

I don't care that Bob Hill's makes his points off of a storyline and I have no doubt whatsoever that you could quote instances of other OVer's doing so all day long. SO WHAT? Do you realize that most of the theology we have concerning God Himself comes from narrative passages? We find out what sort of person God is by looking at how He interacts with mankind through history. And nearly all of the passages Bob Hill quotes in the link you provided are Both doctrinal and narrative anyway! Let's look at them...

1 John 3:20 For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.

What is that if not doctrine?

Gen 22:12,15-17 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” 15 Then the Angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, 16 and said: “By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son; 17 “blessing I will bless you,”

Here we are being presented the very words of God as he spoke them to Abraham! How are you going to blow that off as "storyline"?

Exo 13:17 Then it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, “Lest perhaps the people change their minds [The Hebrew word is: nacham] when they see war, and return to Egypt.”

Once again, this passages quotes God! How are you going to blow off this passage as narrative and disregard the point that God HIMSELF makes in this passages?

Jer 26:1-3: In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came from the LORD, saying, 2 “Thus says the LORD: ‘Stand in the court of the Lord’s house, and speak to all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lord’s house, all the words that I command you to speak to them. Do not diminish a word. 3 Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may repent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings.’”

Jer 36:1-3 Now it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, that this word came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 “Take a scroll of a book and write on it all the words that I have spoken to you against Israel, against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spoke to you, from the days of Josiah even to this day. 3 “It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the adversities which I purpose to bring upon them, that everyone may turn from his evil way, that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin.”

Eze 12:1-3 Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 2 “Son of man, you dwell in the midst of a rebellious house, which has eyes to see but does not see, and ears to hear but does not hear; for they are a rebellious house. 3 Therefore, son of man, prepare your belongings for captivity, and go into captivity by day in their sight. You shall go from your place into captivity to another place in their sight. It may be that they will consider, though they are a rebellious house.”

Jer 3:6-15 The LORD said also to me in the days of Josiah the king: “Have you seen what backsliding Israel has done? She has gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and there played the harlot. 7 “And I [the Lord] said, after she had done all these things, ‘She will return to Me’ But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 “Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also. 9 “So it came to pass, through her casual harlotry, that she defiled the land and committed adultery with stones and trees. 10 “And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah has not turned to Me with her whole heart, but in pretense,” says the LORD. 11 Then the LORD said to me, “Backsliding Israel has shown herself more righteous than treacherous Judah. 12 “Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say: ‘Return, backsliding Israel,’ says the LORD; ‘I will not cause My anger to fall on you. For I am merciful,’ says the LORD; ‘I will not remain angry forever. 13 Only acknowledge your iniquity, That you have transgressed against the LORD your God, And have scattered your charms To alien deities under every green tree, And you have not obeyed My voice,’ says the LORD. 14 “Return, O backsliding children,” says the LORD; “for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion. 15 “And I will give you shepherds according to My heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.”

Wow! A pattern is forming here Lon! How are you going to blow off these passages which directly quote God Himself saying something that contradicts your theological worldview purely on the basis that God happened to have been quoted in the context of a historical account?

I'd do the same with your second link but the post it goes too cannot possibly be the one you intended and so I can't. It would be redundant anyway. The point is that you cannot simply pull out your "narrative passage" trump card and blow off teaching which is derived from such passages. That is not proper hermeneutics and the author of that article your so fond of would be ashamed to be associated with anyone who would use his material to suggest such a thing, especially when those narrative passages directly quote the Creator!

Now, will you make the argument or will you mindlessly continue to blather on about narrative vs. didactic passages?

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Lon

Well-known member
The link made the way this is done, and the danger on founding doctrine off narrative only. It is there for anyone to read even if you do not choose to.

Next, it is a problematic hermenuetic that any and all of the rest of Christiandom will continue to nail you on regardless of your objection and it will stick.

Looking over your quotes, you should remember that I told you two things that you didn't quite manage to grasp about narrative.

1) you do have doctrinal teachings in narrative as with Moses and Jesus' teachings.

2) You do have to read narrative as story and doctrine as instruction (and you do seem to grasp it at least to some degree or you'd not have proven that point).
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The link made the way this is done, and the danger on founding doctrine off narrative only. It is there for anyone to read even if you do not choose to.

Next, it is a problematic hermenuetic that any and all of the rest of Christiandom will continue to nail you on regardless of your objection and it will stick.

Looking over your quotes, you should remember that I told you two things that you didn't quite manage to grasp about narrative.

1) you do have doctrinal teachings in narrative as with Moses and Jesus' teachings.

2) You do have to read narrative as story and doctrine as instruction (and you do seem to grasp it at least to some degree or you'd not have proven that point).
Now you're changing your tune a little here, Lon!

Your entire post in refutation of Knight's Scripture quotation (and then later the same principle is applied to Bob Hill's post as well) simply pointed out that the passages quoted were narrative.

That was it! No argument, nothing to clarify the point, nothing. Your point was clearly that Pastor Hill's points (let's stick with his since he actually made a real doctrinal argument) were invalid based solely on the fact that he used nothing but narrative passages to prove his position (which he did rather well, by the way).

THAT WAS YOUR ENTIRE POINT!!!

If you will recall it was I who first brought up how that article you're so fond of only makes things worse for you because it directly states that doctrine can be derived from narrative passages, a point you are now trying to turn around and use against me. It isn't going to work, Lon.

The passages quoted by Pastor Hill were all narrative and they all directly quoted God Himself and Hill drew his conclusions directly from God's own words in their immediate Scriptural context.

IT MAKES EXACTLY ZERO DIFFERENCE THAT THE PASSAGES HAPPENED TO HAVE BEEN NARRATIVE!!!!

But you blow off Hill's argument solely on that basis alone, which your own cited expert would agree is an incorrect thing to do! By your own admission doctrine can and should be derived from narrative passages and so your rejection of Hill's argument on that basis is rendered moot.

So, if, as you have repeatedly stated, doctrinal teachings are contained within narrative passages of Scripture, then on what basis do you reject the argument of Bob Hill's which you have linked too as an example of poor OV narrative based hermeneutics?

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Lon

Well-known member
This is ignoring his very clear caveates (ones I've already stated, repeatedly)
 

Philetus

New member
Nang I can post Bible verses also....

Judges 4:21 Then Jael, Heber’s wife, took a tent peg and took a hammer in her hand, and went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went down into the ground; for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.

1Kings 18:27 And so it was, at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, “Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened.

2Peter 2:22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”

Psalms 52:6 The righteous also shall see and fear, And shall laugh at him, saying,
7 “Here is the man who did not make God his strength, But trusted in the abundance of his riches, And strengthened himself in his wickedness.”

The high point in a brilliant thread.

Illustrated for the narrative challenged:
:hammer:
:mock::yawn: :sleep:
:vomit::dog:
:rotfl:
 

Philetus

New member
In case I am pressed for time, let me pre-respond :) to the usual crowd now:

godrulz: "No, it is not a nuanced motif and I disagree with what {so and so} writes."

Knight: "You misquoted me in stating..."

Clete: "Sticks and stones may break my bones..."

PastorKevin: "Yes, yes, you are a 'man of God' and a 'preacher', but..."

Muz: "Your exegesis errs once again, in that..."

stipe: "Huh?"


Philetus: "Sorry, but someone will have to quote you for me to see anything you post."

Yorshik: "Now exactly who is sitting at the table across from me?"


:e4e:

Get on with it now.

I guess that means I'm still on AMR's ignore list. :shocked:

Philetus
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Anyone who defends Bob Enyart in his tactics, or who is impressed by his conduct on this "One on One" effort, is worse than a fool.

This exercise was performed before the eyes of the Lord, and God is not mocked. All things will come to light; including the emptiness of souls who proclaim to serve what is right in this world, but through their failure to comprehend the truths of God, prove to be merely self-serving.

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
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Shimei,

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

Nang
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Nang,

You are the stupidest woman on TOL.

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

Satisfied?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
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? :pray:
 

Lon

Well-known member
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.
[URL="http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1521132&postcount=2" said:
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:
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.... :sigh:
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.”
:sigh: ...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:
...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
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
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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:

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
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?
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
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? :granite:
 

Lon

Well-known member
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top