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

[Lon]

I replied to Enyart's response that was also posted in the 1:1 thread here.

His reply was standard par for the course as well. Carefully worded slights once again painting abstract absurdity. It was like reading an impressionists description. Vaguely recognizable. The hollow eyes of obfuscation, the set jaw of dogged determination. It is sad really, the very accusations point back three-fold.

Does God see evil and chooses to do nothing? Hmm, and the Calvinist's have it worse how? How does OV adequately answer? It is my observation that those with shoddy work done in their theology will gravitate to something that hasn't had all the bugs exposed yet. The OV bugs are beginning to show profoundly.

As to being afraid to answer a direct question? Nope, it is just that in the OV discussion, words mean something different. The Mormons use many Christian words and expressions but mean something wholly different. Their simple questions cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. It always must be answered with "Let's define terms and get on the same page."

With OV this is also a must. You cannot answer an OVer's question as it means something most often different than classical theology.

Let's try one for size: "Can God write a new song?"

My response: "New for whom?"

Can God write a new song that is new to Him? Nope, everything extrudes from Him. Nothing exists without Him that exists (and that's scripture). How could something exist that is not of Him already? Answer: Can't.

Or let's take BE's answer to AMR. Talk about obfuscation. I'm disappointed.

 

[Servo]

Choose what otherwise?

There is a short and straight answer for you, and I am still not an OT.

 

[Nang]

A rare quote

A rare quote

I am in the process of reading Calvin's commentary on the Book of Daniel, and I rarely quote Calvin, but came across these timely words, that can be shared appropriately on this thread:

". . .Let us perceive then, that on both sides, the will is in God's power, either to bend the hearts of men to humanity, or to harden those which were naturally tender. It is true, indeed, that every one has a peculiar disposition from his birth; some are ferocious, warlike, and sanguinary; others are mild, humane, and tractable. This variety springs from God's secret ordination, but God not only forms every one's disposition at his birth, but every day and every moment, if it seems good to Him, changes every one's affections. He also blinds men's minds, and rouses them again from their stupor. For we sometimes see the rudest men endued with much acuteness, and shew a singular contrivance in action, and others who excel in foresight, are at fault when they have need of judgment and discretion. We must consider the minds and hearts of men to be so governed by God's secret instinct, that He changes their affections as He pleases. Hence there is no reason why we should so greatly fear our enemies, although they vomit forth their rage with open mouth, and are overflowing with cruelty; for they can be turned aside by the Lord. And thus let us learn from the example of Daniel to go on fearlessly in our course, and not to turn aside, even if the whole world should oppose us; since God can easily and readily remove all impediments: and we shall find those who were formerly most cruel, become humane when the Lord wishes to spare us. . ."

Context: Daniel 1:9

Nang

 

[Chileice]

His reply was standard par for the course as well. Carefully worded slights once again painting abstract absurdity. It was like reading an impressionists description. Vaguely recognizable. The hollow eyes of obfuscation, the set jaw of dogged determination. It is sad really, the very accusations point back three-fold.

Does God see evil and chooses to do nothing? Hmm, and the Calvinist's have it worse how? How does OV adequately answer? It is my observation that those with shoddy work done in their theology will gravitate to something that hasn't had all the bugs exposed yet. The OV bugs are beginning to show profoundly.

As to being afraid to answer a direct question? Nope, it is just that in the OV discussion, words mean something different. The Mormons use many Christian words and expressions but mean something wholly different. Their simple questions cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. It always must be answered with "Let's define terms and get on the same page."

With OV this is also a must. You cannot answer an OVer's question as it means something most often different than classical theology.

Let's try one for size: "Can God write a new song?"

My response: "New for whom?"

Can God write a new song that is new to Him? Nope, everything extrudes from Him. Nothing exists without Him that exists (and that's scripture). How could something exist that is not of Him already? Answer: Can't.

Or let's take BE's answer to AMR. Talk about obfuscation. I'm disappointed.

I'm not sure I was disappointed but it failed to really get at the crux of the question. I see them both, to some degree, talking at each other, rather than talking with each other. There is a general assumption that the other guy, be it AMR or BE is already disqualified from having anything of real importance to say.

 

[chatmaggot]

AMR,

You stated the following in response to Bob's answer:

Can you respond to the specific questions above? I believe you have answered the second item as "no, it is not impossible for God to do so, but it is absurd". Fair enough. But you have left the key item unanswered. Does God always respect the free will (by 'free will' I mean the libertarian free will assumed by the open theist) of His creatures?

Your original question(s) was stated as below found here:

Do you believe that God will always respect the free will of His creatures or that God will, albeit rarely, overrule the free will of a person or persons?

From reading your question(s) it seems you asked a single question with two options (hence the "or" in your question). You admitted that Bob answered the second part (therefore implying that Bob chose "option 2"). How then can you claim that Bob didn't answer your question?

Can you respond to the specific questions above?

Was Bob supposed to answer your one question with two options...or multiple questions?

Thanks.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Was Bob supposed to answer your one question with two options...or multiple questions?

The latest on the matter is clearly outlined here.

 

[godrulz]

And here, here, and there. ___________________

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

And here, here, and there. ___________________

Do you really want to start again? Resist the urges that compel you, they are not of the right spirit. Another is whispering to you. Fight the urge to yield to divisive temptation. Be the Christian man you hold yourself out to be and your witness will never be a stumbling block and bing dishonor to God.

 

[patman]

Fight the urge to yield to divisive temptation. Be the Christian man you hold yourself out to be and your witness will never be a stumbling block and bing dishonor to God.

Godrulz

Thank you for daily witnessing and sharing of yourself with others on TOL. Thank you for your years of study and for your commitment to finding truth to the best of your abilities.

Even though I do not always agree with you, I know your heart is with God, and your mind is committed to his word.

 

[godrulz]

Note to self: Add patman to my will; take AMR out of my will.

I was teasing about here, here, there...I am jealous that I do not know how to underline links like that

 

[patman]

Note to self: Add patman to my will; take AMR out of my will.

I was teasing about here, here, there...I am jealous that I do not know how to underline links like that

With him out of your will, maybe AMR won't be conspiring after you anymore:chuckle:

Oh, and make sure you drink allllll your coffee this morning, every last drop

 

[Chileice]

Bob,
I appreciate you taking the time to try to restate your argument to AMR. I read it but was left more unclear than before. I don't mean to be obtuse but all of the meanings of will on will and will if you will just confused me even more than before. I hope AMR was satisfied with the response. Maybe his response will shed further light on the subject for me. But I really was glad to see you take the time not to blow him off. I hope he answers you in a a way I can follow.

 

[Nang]

Bob,
I appreciate you taking the time to try to restate your argument to AMR. I read it but was left more unclear than before.

This is caused by one of two reasons:

1. Bob is attempting to preempt what he believes AMR's response will be, without fully understanding the question, or the Calvinist position, to begin with. (Thus, he is trying to cover all bases.)

or . . .

2. Bob is deliberately making more of the question than necessary, in order to create enough confusion so that other readers, such as yourself, walk away overwhelmed by mere words.

But, like you, I am pleased that he is present and posting.

Nang

 

[Nathon Detroit]

This is caused by one of two reasons:

1. Bob is attempting to preempt what he believes AMR's response will be, without fully understanding the question, or the Calvinist position, to begin with. (Thus, he is trying to cover all bases.)

or . . .

2. Bob is deliberately making more of the question than necessary, in order to create enough confusion so that other readers, such as yourself, walk away overwhelmed by mere words.

But, like you, I am pleased that he is present and posting.

Nang

I think that Bob is trying to give the question as full a treatment as possible knowing that he doesn't have time to engage in the daily conversations that the rest of us TOL'ers are accustomed to.

Personally I found Bob's response rather satisfying in regard to the question at hand and it appears to me that it left AMR nit-picking at words.

All in all... I appreciate both Bob and AMR's effort and the time they have dedicated to the discussion. :up:

 

[chatmaggot]

AMR,

In your response to Bob's clarification of his answer to your question you state:

Your argument is focused on assuming a definition of 'will' as the "ability to decide". It is a definition that I can agree with only in part...

Do you think that it is your commitment to "Calvinistic beliefs" that doens't allow you to disagree on the definition?

From the American Heritage Dictionary it says:

free will
n.
The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

It seems that Bob is using the common definition of freewill...which he simply terms "will". Do you also agree with the definition given by the dictionary?

Thanks for your time.

 

[chatmaggot]

AMR,

I didn't phrase things as I intended in my previous post. So for clarification I should have asked:

(1) Do you think that it is your commitment to "Calvinistic beliefs" that doesn't allow you to agree on the definition?

and then I wanted to end it with:

(2) It seems that Bob is using the common definition of freewill...which he simply terms "will". Do you also disagree with the definition given by the dictionary?

Again, thanks for your time.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR,
Do you think that it is your commitment to "Calvinistic beliefs" that doens't allow you to disagree on the definition?

I don't think so at all. My presuppositions are not Calvinistic, but based upon biblical axioms. If something does not fit biblically, yet does fit Calvinism, the latter must be rejected or, if possible, reformulated to fit the biblical truths. That said, I believe that my presuppositions which revolve around a wholly God-centered bible, inevitably lead to TULIP as the purest expression of the centricity of the God of the Scriptures.

From the American Heritage Dictionary it says:

If I strictly used dictionaries for biblical doctrines, I would always go to a better source, ideally the OED, or at least the Webster's Unabridged:

will
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): past would;
or archaic second singular wouldst;
or would·est present singular & plural will
or archaic second singular wilt
Etymology: Middle English wille, will, wil wish, wishes, desire, desires, intend, intends (1st & 3d singular present indicative, past wolde, wold, infin. willen), from Old English wile, wille (past wolde, infin. wyllan); akin to Old High German willu wish, will, wili wishes, will (infin. wellen, wollen), Old Norse vilja wish, will, vill wishes, will (infin. vilja), velja to choose, Gothic wiljau wish, will, wili wishes, will (infin. wiljan), waljan to choose, Latin velle to wish, Greek (Doric) Sanskrit voti he chooses, likes
transitive verb : to be inclined to : [SIZE=-1]CHOOSE[/SIZE] <call it what you will> -- often used in the form would with an object clause <would that I were young again> <I would to heaven I had never seen him>
verbal auxiliary
1 -- used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions refusal <the immortal gods will have no part in this affair -- John Buchan> <perverse set of facial muscles that will not, like those of other people, interpret the language of his soul -- Emily Brontë> <how long will we put up with the ... refusal of refrigerators to fit -- Pencil Points> <could find no one who would take the job> <if we willwill you please stop that racket>
2 -- used to express frequent, customary, or habitual action or natural tendency or disposition <has a quick temper and will get angry over nothing> <would fall asleep reading his newspaper> <will sit for hours watching the sea> <will work one day and loaf the next>
3 a -- used to express simple futurity <much like a delayed action bomb that will not explode for half a generation -- C.P.Taft> <cherish the belief that some day a perfect society will banish evil -- Crane Brinton> <tomorrow morning I will wake up in this first-class hotel suite -- Tennessee Williams> <have not employed it and probably never will -- R.W.Bliss> <some other time we will say what it was -- Notes & Queries> <list ... will be sent as usual for a stamped and addressed envelope -- May L. Becker> <cannot foresee what will happen, but a study of past changes may give us an idea as to what may happen -- C.E.P.Brooks> <problem of corruption and morality will remain very real and earnest -- Estes Kefauver> b -- used to express simple action or intention without conscious reference to future time <quite a famous view ... a good many people will stop and take pictures of it -- G.W.Brace> <we will now illustrate the procedure in detail -- Z.S.Harris> <I will give you two propositions for the year 1778: a little learning was a dangerous thing, and so was being an American -- A.W.Griswold>
4 -- used to express capability or sufficiency <square pegs will not fit in round holes> <this will do if there is nothing better> <back seat willwill just run to it -- John Buchan> <this will serve to illustrate the kind of problem -- F.N.Robinson> <found that his old rubbers would not go over his new shoes> <three yards of cloth will make a skirt and jacket>
5 -- used to express probability or recognition and often equivalent to the simple verb <that will be the milkman at the back door> <this house with the green shutters will be theirs> <she would have been about twenty when she married> <discover a plant growing and clinging close to the rocks. This will be the walking fern or walking leaf -- Anne Dorrance> <glass that hides the pendulum will often display a fine example of primitive painting -- Ellwood Kirby>
6 a -- used to express determination, insistence, persistence, or willfulness <I have made up my mind to go and go I will> <for some perverse reason he will put his worst foot forward> <had what the doctors will call influenze, as though there were only one form of it -- Lord Dunsany> <police are excellent fellows, but ... they will hare off after motive, which is a matter for psychologists -- Dorothy Sayers> b -- used to express inevitability <accidents will happen> <what will be, willwill out>
7 -- used to express a command, exhortation, or injunction <you will do as I say, at once> <color arrangements will be as prescribed in instructions issued by the Commanding General -- Army Regulations & Ordinances> <proposing ... that all disputes ... will be referred to an impartial tribunal -- T.F.Reynolds> <with his petition the applicant will
intransitive verb
1 : have a wish or desire : be inclined or disposed : be pleased <Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean -- Mt 8:2 (Authorized Version)> <for better, for worse, and whether we will or no -- advt> <factors for which man is responsible and which he can control or change if he will -- L.A.White>
2 archaic : will go <thither will I then -- Sir Walter Scott>
- if you will : if you wish to call it that <a kind of preoccupation, or obsession if you will -- Louis Auchincloss>
- will I, nill I or will he, nill he or will ye, nill ye : whether I, he, or you will it or not : [SIZE=-1]WILLY-NILLY[/SIZE]

​

As you can see, statements like "common definition" of this or that are not "common" and especially in the context of creaturely 'will', there is more at play that mere 'ability to decide'.

I have asked Bob to elaborate a bit further since he has made statements elsewhere that, on their surface, conflict with what he stated in his response to me. I think Bob knows why I am asking for this clarification, and I am giving him the opportunity to make his position crystal clear so I don't go off in a direction that he would later retort that I had misunderstood him. In other words, I am trying to be fair here. Elsewhere Knight stated that I was nit-picking on this point. I don't think Bob would agree, as he no doubt understands my motivations for asking and I hope appreciates my extending to him an opportunity to crisp up his thinking on the matter.

It is my belief, perhaps wrongly so, that given the topic, Bob has been doing some careful thinking, praying, etc., and has tweaked his position from that which he stated to Lamerson. We all do this when asked to defend what we believe in writing. When crafting my own responses to Bob's 50 questions, there were several things that I needed to refine in my own thinking, for I was unaware of some of my own misunderstandings until I saw them on paper. Which is why I am grateful for having had the chance to spend the time answering those questions.

 

[chatmaggot]

I have asked Bob to elaborate a bit further since he has made statements elsewhere that, on their surface, conflict with what he stated in his response to me.

Where would those statements be so that I can compare also. For example, could you provide a link to something Bob has said previously and then post his answer to you that you think contradicts the previous statement? Is it things he wrote in the Battle Royal that you believe differs from his answers to you?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Where would those statements be so that I can compare also. For example, could you provide a link to something Bob has said previously and then post his answer to you that you think contradicts the previous statement? Is it things he wrote in the Battle Royal that you believe differs from his answers to you?

CM,

Please review my most recent response in the actual 1:1 discussion thread. Links and commentary are embedded in my response.

 

[Mystery]

AMR...

I am curious what, if any, issues you have with Bob's definition of "will".

As an example, we both know that God made Eve from a rib of Adam's without consulting Adam in any way. Adam had nothing to do with the decision. Yet, in no way did God remove Adam's will. He simply was not involved in that decision. Even if Adam had been against losing a rib to gain a wife, it would not have removed his will to go against his will. Man has a will, and that is one of the things that makes him (as Bob said) a person.

I want to participate on this side discussion, because I think that there are things about the will that both sides (OT and Calvinism) are missing.