BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 4 thru 7)

[Turbo]

I am new to theology online, so this is my first response. I liked the lawn mower analogy as well. But I was wondering, am I missing something? If God can do anything (all powerful), why did sin enter the picture? Couldn't he have come up with a plan to do away with sin and the crucifixion of Jesus?
David22

Not if He wanted to create being that were capable of truly loving Him, because love must be volitional.

 

[NarrowWay]

David22,

What would give God greater glory, making a creature that had no choice but to choose Him all the time, or a creature that could choose Him freely? With the first choice, the outcome is inevitable. By creating a creature that could only choose Him is cheap. I can program my own computer to tell me it loves me each time it boots up. Does it mean anything? Not really.
Let's take it one step further. Does God create a creature that has no choice but to reject Him? If you take the settled view then you would have to answer, yes. However, imagine the happiness of a Creator, that gives His creation the ability to choose or reject Him; for the creature to TRULY love Him. Why would a God that creates the creature to only have the ability to choose Him, be happy at all? It wouldn't be a surprise would it? You almost get a picture of that type of God as a child sitting at a table having an imaginary tea party with made up guests playing out some type of soap opera script with the characters' fate already defined. I almost feel sorry for that type of God. However, if we have a God that is active in our lives and He lives and is touched when we are disobedient, not because he "programmed" us that way, but because He wants us to act the right way, the ways that He has told us is right. A God that is comfortable enough with His power and His abilities to create a creature that can choose is by far a greater God than one who micromanages and makes creatures that He can pose and move like action figures.

I'm not sure if I answered your question directly, but I hope that by showing the contrasting position between the Open View and the Settled View, it may shed light on the answer. By allowing for the choice, God, in His preparations, prepared for the occasion that someone would choose to disobey. By doing so, it even further proves His love for us in that He didn't want for the creature that chose to disobey, to have to remain in that condition of broken relationship... unless it wanted to. "Choose you this day, whom you will serve," has so much more meaning when you actually have a choice.

 

[RightIdea]

I can create a screensaver on my computer that says, "Jim is God! Praise Him!" and bask in that all day long.

And it wouldn't mean a gosh dilly darned thing...

 

[Bob Enyart]

Does anyone realize that Bob has described...

Does anyone realize that Bob has described...

Has anybody noticed that Bob Enyart, in "discarding" what he calls the "Settled View" listing of God's attributes -- omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, impassibility, and immutability -- has thus...

MK, will you let me finish that sentence: By "discarding the Settled View attributes of the OMNIs and the IMs, Bob has described the... Nativity.

As to:

And has anyone noticed further that the "Open View" list which he substituted -- living, personal, relational, good, loving -- does not draw a distinction between the Creator and His creatures at all. The "Open View" listing could be used to describe any number of created beings, including the holy angels.
M. K. Nawojski

The "made in His image" quote by Deardelmar is perfect... well, in His "likeness" would be perfect. But also, from the Battle Royale VII, Does God Exist?, Post Game Show, my response to Taoist is worth thinking through when making the kind of argument you posited.

Taoist wrote, "Pastor Enyart believes in a God who is (a) the supernatural Creator of the natural universe, (b) existing eternally, (c) powerful, (d) wise and knowledgeable, (e) personal, (f) loving, and (g) just. Of the good pastor’s seven attributes, the last five could describe any good mortal ruler, and are anything but unique to a divinity. The first two are impossible to ascertain by natural, mortal beings…"

Bob Replied: "Any Mortal: I will show below that apart from God’s existence, Taoist could not claim that these 'last five could describe any good mortal ruler.' But first, notice the form of Taoist’s argument: In principle, I reject as irrelevant anything in a description of God that could also be descriptive of men. Imagine if we were debating whether the moon really exists or if it’s just a phantom in the sky, and I offered that the moon has mass as evidenced by its pull on the oceans, and Taoist shoots back: 'Well, the Earth has mass also, so I reject that part of the definition.'"

Thanks for your thoughts! -Bob

 

[elected4ever]

Parel, It is my observation that with any disagreement, but importantly on debates over the most vital matters, the argumentation can crescendo to where the truth is staring both sides in the face. And if that moment passes, the debate will degenerate into comparatively unimportant matters. (For BRX: It is denying some of the most basic truths of the Incarnation vs. Can Jesus really know that Peter is too weak to risk His life? Can the Holy Spirit really prompt three people to remember Peter? Can God get a rooster to crow on cue? Or is that too difficult for Him, since maybe the farmer will eat the rooster the night before? And isn’t it wildly inconceivable that God could do all these three things simultaneously?) Debates are won and lost all the time with the losing side unaware of what has happened (ask Zakath). If your position is correct, and you hope to instruct and demonstrate the truth, then you should seize the moment and point it out, and just bear the criticism.

Once it became obvious that Sam was sticking with his position which denied some of the basic truths of the Incarnation, it was crucial to declare victory, because most readers would probably not perceive what had just happened. I’m sorry that I flaunted my position in the way that I put it; if I could edit my post, I would tone that down; Sam surprised me by posting almost a day early, and he thereby robbed me (permissibly) of my expected weekend; so I worked through most of the next two nights (I am a very slow writer, and really need all of my opponents time to catch up on his remaining questions), and well, sleep deprivation lowers my inhibitions, so that while I fully stand by my assessment, I wish I could tone down the bragging.

And the reason I pointed out Sam’s credentials twice while making these points is this: it is not the newcomers to Calvinism that most resist these simple truths of God’s nature, but it’s the theologians, the authors, the senior pastors, the professors, the standard-bearers. The argument that the attributes of goodness, etc. take precedence over power, etc. is so utterly true on the face of it. Yet a Calvinist resists such fundamental truth, because he intuitively sees that it will undermine his theology. For THIS IS THE ULTIMATE HERMENEUTIC for deciding between the Calvinist ordination of evil, and God’s creation of human will. (The matters of God being in or out of time, and exhaustive foreknowledge, are mere symptoms of the human philosophical idea of utter immutability.) For Calvinist theology originates in and depends upon the primacy of the Greek-influenced OMNIs and IMs, over the attributes that Christ retained as a man. Of God’s attributes, Sam “rejects… that one is more important or takes precedence over another,” which claim lost him the debate, partly for being therefore theologically unqualified to judge the more complex matters of truth and righteousness that flow from an understanding of God’s nature. Further, whereas I admit that my theology results from giving preeminence to some of God’s attributes, Sam denies that He does the same (although it is utterly obvious). For the Calvinist has elevated the wrong attributes, influenced by Calvin, who couldn’t agree more with Augustine, who bragged about importing Greek philosophy (primarily utter immutability) into Christian theology. Thus Sam argues that all attributes are equal, but the Settled View (including Arminians) has accepted conclusions that result from exaggerating God’s immutability and knowledge. As an aside, thankfully, the Arminian Settled Viewers do stop short of accepting the additional Calvinist elevation of power (control, sovereignty) over His being relational.

Once you prove that God’s attributes do have a divine order of priority, through the Incarnation, that relationship, righteousness and love take precedence over omniscience and omnipotence, etc., and your opponent rejects that, he has lost, and you have won. Let Sam admit that God’s being relational, good, and loving take precedence over power and knowledge, and then together we can begin to go through the relevant passages with this hermeneutic, and then all can see that the declaration of victory was made at the right moment.

-Bob

This Post is absolute nonsense. If you start out on a false assumption your conclusion will be also be false. This is true of both sides.Your position that foreknowledge prevents choice is just plan bunk. How on earth do you expect Dr. Lamerson to defend what He knows to be false.You have set up a false primes and expect us to defend it.

Explain something to me Bob, If God knew that you would answer or not answer this post from the foundation of the world, How would that prevent your choice? You would still make the choice free from any encumbrances. Oh I get it, Just because God knew that "locks" your choice and heaven forbid that you should be held accountable for it. It is not God that made your decision even though he knows your decision and He does not not put his fingers on the keyboard and type the response. You do that. Not God.

 

[Clete]

Red Herring

Red Herring

Has anybody noticed that Bob Enyart, in "discarding" what he calls the "Settled View" listing of God's attributes -- omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, impassibility, and immutability -- has thus swept aside the "defining" traits of deity, which identify the Almighty God of Scripture and distinguish Him from all false gods and/or created beings?

And has anyone noticed further that the "Open View" list which he substituted -- living, personal, relational, good, loving -- does not draw a distinction between the Creator and His creatures at all. The "Open View" listing could be used to describe any number of created beings, including the holy angels.

M. K. Nawojski

This is a terrific example of the logical fallacy known as the Argumentum ad Consequentiam fallacy or an "appeal to consequences" fallacy. in which the author points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is false.

It is a type of Red Herring and can take either of two forms.

1.(Belief in) p leads to good consequences.
(Where the good consequences are irrelevant to the truth of p.)
Therefore, p is true.

2. (Belief in) p leads to bad consequences.
(Where the bad consequences are irrelevant to the falsity of p.)
Therefore, p is false.

Of course Mawojski's argument has taken the latter form. It is a fallacy of logic because it confuses the consequences of a logical conclusion with evidence for the truth of that conclusion.

Wouldn't you agree with Bob and I that we would should do (and/or believe) right and risk the consequences! :thumb:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Bob Enyart]

Huh?

Huh?

Regarding E4E's post on my explanation of declaring victory, my comments are bracketed:

This Post is absolute nonsense. If you start out on a false assumption your conclusion will be also be false... [Of course (unless a logic error accidentally got you back to the truth).] Your position that foreknowledge prevents choice is just plan bunk. [E4E, could you please quote me on that?] How on earth do you expect Dr. Lamerson to defend what He knows to be false. [I agree, that would be inane.] You have set up a false premise and expect us to defend it. [Huh?]

 

[M. K. Nawojski]

Does the term made in his image ring a bell?

Yes, the phrase “made in His image” does ring a bell . . . but thanks much for the kind Christian charity which prompted you to verify that fact by courteously drawing the phrase to my attention.

I’m also familiar with the fall of Adam, through which his mind, heart, soul, and spirit were corrupted -- and through which all his unfortunate offspring came to be cast in HIS OWN vicious, rebellious, depraved image. As Paul says in I Cor. 15:49, “ . . . we have borne the image of the earthy . . . . “

Are you familiar with these portions of Scripture?

Psa. 50:16-21: “But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee. . . . Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit. . . . These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; THOU THOUGHTEST THAT I WAS ALTOGETHER SUCH AN ONE AS THYSELF: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes [emphasis mine].”

Isa. 40:12-26: “Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering. All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. TO WHOM THEN WILL YE LIKEN GOD? OR WHAT LIKENESS WILL YE COMPARE UNTO HIM? . . . Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble. TO WHOM THEN WILL YE LIKEN ME, OR SHALL I BE EQUAL? SAITH THE HOLY ONE. Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth [emphasis mine].”

Isa. 46:1-13: “Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth, their idols were upon the beasts, and upon the cattle. . . . They stoop, they bow down together; they could not deliver the burden, but themselves are gone into captivity. Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, which are borne by me from the belly, which are carried from the womb: And even to your old age I am he; and even to hoar hairs will I carry you: I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you. TO WHOM WILL YE LIKEN ME, AND MAKE ME EQUAL, AND COMPARE ME, THAT WE MAY BE LIKE? . . . Remember the former things of old: for I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NONE ELSE; I AM GOD, AND THERE IS NONE LIKE ME, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it [emphasis mine]. . . .”

Gal. 6:3: “For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.”

And one final verse, which -- interestingly enough! -- references the OV attribute of “living,” which Mr. Enyart has been emphasizing in the current debate:

Heb. 10:31: “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

M. K. Nawojski
http://twilight-tales.com

 

[RightIdea]

Amen, M.K.! Awesome scriptures to support the Open View. :up:

 

[David22]

Choose you this day....

Choose you this day....

David22,

What would give God greater glory, making a creature that had no choice but to choose Him all the time, or a creature that could choose Him freely? With the first choice, the outcome is inevitable. By creating a creature that could only choose Him is cheap. I can program my own computer to tell me it loves me each time it boots up. Does it mean anything? Not really.
Let's take it one step further. Does God create a creature that has no choice but to reject Him? If you take the settled view then you would have to answer, yes. However, imagine the happiness of a Creator, that gives His creation the ability to choose or reject Him; for the creature to TRULY love Him. Why would a God that creates the creature to only have the ability to choose Him, be happy at all? It wouldn't be a surprise would it? You almost get a picture of that type of God as a child sitting at a table having an imaginary tea party with made up guests playing out some type of soap opera script with the characters' fate already defined. I almost feel sorry for that type of God. However, if we have a God that is active in our lives and He lives and is touched when we are disobedient, not because he "programmed" us that way, but because He wants us to act the right way, the ways that He has told us is right. A God that is comfortable enough with His power and His abilities to create a creature that can choose is by far a greater God than one who micromanages and makes creatures that He can pose and move like action figures.

I'm not sure if I answered your question directly, but I hope that by showing the contrasting position between the Open View and the Settled View, it may shed light on the answer. By allowing for the choice, God, in His preparations, prepared for the occasion that someone would choose to disobey. By doing so, it even further proves His love for us in that He didn't want for the creature that chose to disobey, to have to remain in that condition of broken relationship... unless it wanted to. "Choose you this day, whom you will serve," has so much more meaning when you actually have a choice.

Thank you for your response. The settled view is saying that "God micromanages and makes creatures that He can pose and move like action figures" But when you read the Bible, it is so contrary to scripture! How can anyone continue to believe in the settled view? Isn't it clear, as Bob stated that, the settled view is based on Greek mythology.

 

[RightIdea]

Thank you for your response. The settled view is saying that "God micromanages and makes creatures that He can pose and move like action figures" But when you read the Bible, it is so contrary to scripture! How can anyone continue to believe in the settled view? Isn't it clear, as Bob stated that, the settled view is based on Greek mythology.

Inaccurate, you're confusing the settled view with Calvinism, which is only one of the three settled views (Calvinism, Molinism, Arminianism).

Especially Arminianism disagrees with your above description, because they hold that God passively foreknows the free will decisions of men. Not that He foreordains all actions and events or controls people like puppets. They categorically reject that notion.

Just for clarification.

(And this, I think, is my greatest criticism of both participants in the debate, that they are making this unfortunately a Calvinism vs. Open debate, rather than a settled vs. Open debate, which it should be, since all 3 settled views hold that God has EDF.)

 

[Delmar]

Amen, M.K.! Awesome scriptures to support the Open View. :up:

I quite agree ! Great scriptures MK ! May God be Glorified!

 

[Delmar]

The "made in His image" quote by Deardelmar is perfect...

Thanks :up:

 

[godrulz]

Explain something to me Bob, If God knew that you would answer or not answer this post from the foundation of the world, How would that prevent your choice? You would still make the choice free from any encumbrances. Oh I get it, Just because God knew that "locks" your choice and heaven forbid that you should be held accountable for it. It is not God that made your decision even though he knows your decision and He does not not put his fingers on the keyboard and type the response. You do that. Not God.

How can God see or know in advance a contingent choice? What mechanism is there to turn possibilities into certainties centuries before their existence? If we are genuinely free to type, how is it a certain object of knowledge in advance if we could type trillions of permutations? Until the typing, the contingencies are simply not knowable, even for an omniscient God. You will rotely answer that it is possible for God. Really? We are back to the issue of God creating square circles (logically impossible, even for God).

 

[elected4ever]

How can God see or know in advance a contingent choice? What mechanism is there to turn possibilities into certainties centuries before their existence? If we are genuinely free to type, how is it a certain object of knowledge in advance if we could type trillions of permutations? Until the typing, the contingencies are simply not knowable, even for an omniscient God. You will rotely answer that it is possible for God. Really? We are back to the issue of God creating square circles (logically impossible, even for God).

According to you God can change His mind about you. You can't be sure about anything. Oh well here today and gone tomorrow Just remember to keep impressing God with your actions. Maybe He wont change his mind about you.:cheers:

 

[RightIdea]

According to you God can change His mind about you. You can't be sure about anything. Oh well here today and gone tomorrow Just remember to keep impressing God with your actions. Maybe He wont change his mind about you.:cheers:

E4E, I asked someone this already, recently...

Doesn't my signature mean anything to you? Thank GOD that He changes His mind!

But no, you would have us believe that God is a liar. You'd have us believe that when He told Moses that He would destroy the Israelites and start over with him, that He knew all along He would do no such thing, ever. You'd have us believe that when He said He would "surely" destroy Ninevah on that particular day, He knew all along He would do no such thing. You'd have us believe that when God told David that Saul was coming to Keilah and the men of Keilah would hand him over to Saul, that God knew all along that no such thing would ever happen.

Liar, liar, liar. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Thank GOD that God changes His mind. If He didn't, it would be evidence against Christianity.

If God said He'd destroy Ninevah, and they repented, and He destroyed them anyway.... this would be evidence against the Christian God. If God said He would bless Israel in some way and she turned wicked and He blessed her anyway, this would be evidence against the Christian God. That's right; if these prophecies had come true... it would be evidence against God and His word! But no, He repents, He repents, He repents, so many times that He eventually says through Jeremiah that He is "weary of repenting!"

Gosh, He sure was awfully weary of something He never, ever does... according to you, anyway.

 

[M. K. Nawojski]

Discussion and Debate

Discussion and Debate

Well, I’ve got to say there are some interesting folks at Theology Online forums. I put forward a couple of simple and civil questions, thinking in all probability they’ll be overlooked or disregarded -- but instead, I discover that they have provided an opening for all manner of straw men to be hastily thrown together and attacked with everything from pea shooters to F-117s! With so much ammunition bursting around me, I hardly know whether to “duck and cover” right where I am, dive for whatever more stable refuge is within reach, or hitch up my skirts and sprint for the nearest bomb shelter!

Now, don’t take this the wrong way, because I’ve got to ask! In your examination of the Holy Scriptures, have any of you ever paused long enough to consider Proverbs 18:13? (“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.”)

Or Proverbs 17:28? (“Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.”)

Or Proverbs 29:11? (A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards.)

Or Proverbs 26:12? (Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.)

Meticulous preparation (founded on diligent study, as well as quiet contemplation) can be useful in any debate. And judicious speech is essential. Allow me to recommend these to you.

M. K. Nawojski
http://twilight-tales.com

 

[Clete]

Well, I’ve got to say there are some interesting folks at Theology Online forums. I put forward a couple of simple and civil questions, thinking in all probability they’ll be overlooked or disregarded -- but instead, I discover that they have provided an opening for all manner of straw men to be hastily thrown together and attacked with everything from pea shooters to F-117s! With so much ammunition bursting around me, I hardly know whether to “duck and cover” right where I am, dive for whatever more stable refuge is within reach, or hitch up my skirts and sprint for the nearest bomb shelter!

Now, don’t take this the wrong way, because I’ve got to ask! In your examination of the Holy Scriptures, have any of you ever paused long enough to consider Proverbs 18:13? (“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.”)

Or Proverbs 17:28? (“Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.”)

Or Proverbs 29:11? (A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards.)

Or Proverbs 26:12? (Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.)

Meticulous preparation (founded on diligent study, as well as quiet contemplation) can be useful in any debate. And judicious speech is essential. Allow me to recommend these to you.

M. K. Nawojski
http://twilight-tales.com

What was this in response too?
Generally when I see such posts it is an indication that the one posting it has no idea how to substantively repsond to the arguments presented against his position. Is this the case now, or can you offer a rejoinder that addresses the points made against you? This is after all, a debate forum. Making a stand alone claim is fine if you are doing so to spark a debate on the issue, but don't get shell shocked when people present arguments against your unsupported and illogical claim..

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[CRASH]

Meticulous preparation...diligent study... quiet contemplation

Meticulous preparation...diligent study... quiet contemplation

Well, I’ve got to say there are some interesting folks at Theology Online forums. I put forward a couple of simple and civil questions, thinking in all probability they’ll be overlooked or disregarded -- but instead, I discover that they have provided an opening for all manner of straw men to be hastily thrown together and attacked with everything from pea shooters to F-117s! With so much ammunition bursting around me, I hardly know whether to “duck and cover” right where I am, dive for whatever more stable refuge is within reach, or hitch up my skirts and sprint for the nearest bomb shelter!

Now, don’t take this the wrong way, because I’ve got to ask! In your examination of the Holy Scriptures, have any of you ever paused long enough to consider Proverbs 18:13? (“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.”)

Or Proverbs 17:28? (“Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.”)

Or Proverbs 29:11? (A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards.)

Or Proverbs 26:12? (Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.)

Meticulous preparation (founded on diligent study, as well as quiet contemplation) can be useful in any debate. And judicious speech is essential. Allow me to recommend these to you.

M. K. Nawojski
http://twilight-tales.com

MK -
I went back and read all your posts on the last few pages and just have no clue what you are talking about. You speak of straw men and attacks but I could not find either. There may may be some there, but you would do better to identify them in your posts instead of berating the crew here (it seems you are saying all who responded to you are "fools") with no specifics given as evidence or guidance. Are you saying that when you ask a question you don't want it answered? If people are answering a straw man you should consider being more clear in your questioning. You might consider "Meticulous preparation (founded on diligent study, as well as quiet contemplation)... And judicious speech..." Prior to entering your posts.

 

[elected4ever]

Regarding E4E's post on my explanation of declaring victory, my comments are bracketed:

Thank you for your response. I had no idea that you lumpted all CVer's into the Calvanist camp and basicly you are debateing Calvanism Vs OV. I am a CVer but the things you were accusing me off were untrue and I found myself defending Calvanism; which is an imposability to defind. Now that I am aware of what you are doing maybe I wont get cought up as easyly. :juggle: