BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 4 thru 7)

[RightIdea]

I posted this on another tread. I think it is appropriate to restate it here.

I went back and reread the post. I must have just skimmed over it. I made a mistake. Mr Enyart did address the issues of my concern. I apologize for my misstatements. I'll pay better attention next time.

Thank you, E4E, I really appreciate that. Takes a man to admit he made an error... Lord knows I make plenty of 'em.

 

[elected4ever]

Thank you, E4E, I really appreciate that. Takes a man to admit he made an error... Lord knows I make plenty of 'em.

:e4e:

 

[Clete]

I posted this on another tread. I think it is appropriate to restate it here.

I went back and reread the post. I must have just skimmed over it. I made a mistake. Mr Enyart did address the issues of my concern. I apologize for my misstatements. I'll pay better attention next time.

:thumb:

 

[theo_victis]

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?

Surely you dont mean this!!!!! Was Jesus not God when he laid aside his divine attributes in order for servanthood to take place (as phillipians 2:6 tells us) because he no longer possesed "Omniscience" or "Omnipotence" but rather relied on his Father?

Phi 2:6 Who, being in very nature[1] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
Phi 2:7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[2] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
Phi 2:8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross!

To further illustrate my point, Jesus clearly had to learn as a child:
Luke 2:40 The child Jesus grew. He became strong and wise, and God blessed him.

Surely Christ being without complete Omniscience, even today is still God:

Mat 24:36 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[6] but only the Father."

Mark 13:32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

If you understand God to be God because of his nature rather than his identity and being as God, then you are falsely chaining God to an immutable nature that God has already proven to have broken through in his incarnation of Christ.

Let me give you this example: I work at a home for people with dementia related disabilites, mainly with alzhiemer related residents. Many of these residents do not know who they are, what they have done, what they liked to do, whom they were married to, how many kids they have, their age, or even the current situation, however, even though they have lost their characteristics, quirks, and even addictions that uniquely made them who they are, their being and identity still, nevertheless, remains. They dont become less of a human or even less of themselves when they discard their previous nature or further change their nature.

What i mean is I will always be theo_victis no matter what i do unless my "eternal" nature is taken away. So God, being eternal, will always be God no matter what nature he possesses, even to the likeness of a servant (phillipians 2:6)!

 

[theo_victis]

Which unsupported and illogical claim of mine are you referring to, Clete? MK

I am sorry... this just sounds to funny. I read this without reading Clete's post and i just laughed. If you read it alone without any context it sounds as though you have many unsupported and illogical claims and are confused at which one Clete is discussing... lol

:rotfl: :chuckle: :juggle: :rain: :thumb:

 

[Parel]

...At any rate here is the first challenge. If Bob really believes that he has won the debate he should have no problem ending the debate here. If he continues, it is evident that he does not believe that he has won... -Samuel Lamerson

I'd like to see how Bob Enyart is going to respond to this. :think:

 

[elected4ever]

Surely you dont mean this!!!!! Was Jesus not God when he laid aside his divine attributes in order for servanthood to take place (as phillipians 2:6 tells us) because he no longer possesed "Omniscience" or "Omnipotence" but rather relied on his Father?

Phi 2:6 Who, being in very nature[1] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
Phi 2:7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[2] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
Phi 2:8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross!

To further illustrate my point, Jesus clearly had to learn as a child:
Luke 2:40 The child Jesus grew. He became strong and wise, and God blessed him.

Surely Christ being without complete Omniscience, even today is still God:

Mat 24:36 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[6] but only the Father."

Mark 13:32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

If you understand God to be God because of his nature rather than his identity and being as God, then you are falsely chaining God to an immutable nature that God has already proven to have broken through in his incarnation of Christ.

Let me give you this example: I work at a home for people with dementia related disabilites, mainly with alzhiemer related residents. Many of these residents do not know who they are, what they have done, what they liked to do, whom they were married to, how many kids they have, their age, or even the current situation, however, even though they have lost their characteristics, quirks, and even addictions that uniquely made them who they are, their being and identity still, nevertheless, remains. They dont become less of a human or even less of themselves when they discard their previous nature or further change their nature.

What i mean is I will always be theo_victis no matter what i do unless my "eternal" nature is taken away. So God, being eternal, will always be God no matter what nature he possesses, even to the likeness of a servant (phillipians 2:6)!

According to Bob's first post the OVers does not believe God possesses theses qualities to begin with. Read his first round response.

 

[M. K. Nawojski]

Yes I noticed that too. That was done to change the direction of the debate. One thing i have noticed about Bob's debating style. He wonts to debate on his points of interest and ignore yours in an attempt to gain advantage and a win for him. It does not matter the validity of his opponents argument. It's all about controlling and winning the debate. He wonts to debate on his terms not the opponents.

I agree with your insightful observations. Mr. Enyart certainly is quite an aggressive debater . . . which would be a good thing in any other realm . . . but in a debate on scriptural issues, I think his win-at-any-cost-and-by-any-means tactics are out of place.

MK
http://www.twilight-tales.com

 

[elected4ever]

I agree with your insightful observations. Mr. Enyart certainly is quite an aggressive debater . . . which would be a good thing in any other realm . . . but in a debate on scriptural issues, I think his win-at-any-cost-and-by-any-means tactics are out of place.

MK
http://www.twilight-tales.com

I still think that Bob has assigned God the character of a mythical Greek god. By restricting God to human limitation and reasoning but with far greater power is like watching a movie basted on Greek mythology. I wonder if we are discussing Zeus or God?

 

[Delmar]

I agree with your insightful observations. Mr. Enyart certainly is quite an aggressive debater . . . which would be a good thing in any other realm . . . but in a debate on scriptural issues, I think his win-at-any-cost-and-by-any-means tactics are out of place.

MK
http://www.twilight-tales.com

Could it be that Bob believes there is more at steak than his pride?

 

[Zakath]

I'd like to see how Bob Enyart is going to respond to this. :think:

I'm sure he's got another book in the works and would really like to get as much material from Lamerson as he can, gratis, to fill things out...

 

[Turbo]

From the critique thread:

Does anyone else feel that Bob is paving road, apart from what Sam has laid before him to take? It seems from the very get go of this debate that Bob is running away from the direction Sam started to take this topic. Not to mention Bob has continued to 'pave his own road' until he has gotten way off subject! That letter he posted from that guy who lost his child at Columbine was unnecessary. Has Bob forgotten that Sam is not debating about Calvinism, nor is the topic anything about debating if Calvinism is wrong or not? This debate is about God knowing the future, to which Sam has presented a valid case for, from the beginning of the debate! And yet, from the get go, Bob has ignored the direction of Sam's post and has decided to create his own path apart from the topic at hand. Sam cleared the way for Bob in post one, but Bob seemed to have started his own path. So, unwillingly, Sam ventured down Bob's road and even cleared more for Bob to follow. But what does Bob do? He did what any Open Theists I've come to debate on this site always seems to do; they ignore the path set before them to debate and make up their own path. It's their only defense to steer clear of the obvious truth, which is the Bible does not support their views.

(Emphasis added)

Open Theists make up their own path? Strange words, coming from a Calvinist. How in the world are OVers able to make up their own path, according to your own worldview? Once again your own words betray what you claim to believe.

Ever wonder why God has predestined you to speak as though people have free will while claiming to believe they don't? I suppose someday you'll find out how that glorifies Him.

 

[elected4ever]

From the critique thread:
(Emphasis added)

Open Theists make up their own paths? Strange words, coming from a Calvinist. How in the world are OVers able to make up their own path, according to your own worldview? Once again your own words betray what you claim to believe.

Ever wonder why God has predestined you to speak as though people have free will while claiming to believe they don't? I suppose someday you'll find out how that glorifies Him.

There in lies your fallacy. You think that just because a person is a CVer that man's choice is somehow over ridden. That sir is a lie to justify your own belief. Will you please stop making this false accusation. It is not true, has never been true and will never be true. You seem to have no concept of what a CVer believes except what some jug head has told you.

 

[Clete]

There in lies your fallacy. You think that just because a person is a CVer that man's choice is somehow over ridden. That sir is a lie to justify your own belief. Will you please stop making this false accusation. It is not true, has never been true and will never be true. You seem to have no concept of what a CVer believes except what some jug head has told you.

e4e,

What a Calvinist believes whether he admits it or not is that free will is an illusion. The only way to escape the conclusion is to redefine the terms "free", "will", "illusion", and "predestination". Regardless of what someone claims to believe it does not require me or any open theist to suspend our own ability to reason and determine for ourselves what the logical conclusion of their stated beliefs are. The bottom line is that if I cannot choose to do or to do otherwise, I do not have free will; the violent protestations of Calvinists to the contrary not withstanding.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[elected4ever]

e4e,

What a Calvinist believes whether he admits it or not is that free will is an illusion. The only way to escape the conclusion is to redefine the terms "free", "will", "illusion", and "predestination". Regardless of what someone claims to believe it does not require me or any open theist to suspend our own ability to reason and determine for ourselves what the logical conclusion of their stated beliefs are. The bottom line is that I cannot choose to do or to do otherwise, I do not have free will; the violent protestations of Calvinists to the contrary not withstanding.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sir the only thing greater than your blindness to the facts is your ignorants of them. What makes you think that I will support the OVers relegating God to the order of a mythical Greek God?

 

[M. K. Nawojski]

Surely you dont mean this!!!!! Was Jesus not God when he laid aside his divine attributes in order for servanthood to take place (as phillipians 2:6 tells us) because he no longer possesed "Omniscience" or "Omnipotence" but rather relied on his Father?

Phi 2:6 Who, being in very nature[1] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
Phi 2:7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[2] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
Phi 2:8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross!

To further illustrate my point, Jesus clearly had to learn as a child:
Luke 2:40 The child Jesus grew. He became strong and wise, and God blessed him.

Surely Christ being without complete Omniscience, even today is still God:

Mat 24:36 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[6] but only the Father."

Mark 13:32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

If you understand God to be God because of his nature rather than his identity and being as God, then you are falsely chaining God to an immutable nature that God has already proven to have broken through in his incarnation of Christ.

Let me give you this example: I work at a home for people with dementia related disabilites, mainly with alzhiemer related residents. Many of these residents do not know who they are, what they have done, what they liked to do, whom they were married to, how many kids they have, their age, or even the current situation, however, even though they have lost their characteristics, quirks, and even addictions that uniquely made them who they are, their being and identity still, nevertheless, remains. They dont become less of a human or even less of themselves when they discard their previous nature or further change their nature.

What i mean is I will always be theo_victis no matter what i do unless my "eternal" nature is taken away. So God, being eternal, will always be God no matter what nature he possesses, even to the likeness of a servant (phillipians 2:6)!

Do you realize -- in your zeal to make a point here -- that you're comparing the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, impassible Creator of All Things to created (or procreated) beings who have been immobilized through Alzheimer's or other mentally-debilitating diseases? Is that what you really mean to say?

In your post, you quote some verses from the second chapter of Paul's epistle to the Philippians. Allow me to here cite the verses again, along with their fuller context: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Using these verses as proof text, you write that "Jesus... laid aside His divine attributes" during His incarnation. I challenge you to pause and consider these words. Because the Son of God voluntarily took on the "likeness of men", with their weaknesses and frailties (but not their sins nor their sin nature) -- and in His humanity, relied solely on the Spirit's power (which was given to Him "without measure") – does it follow that, in His deity, He ceased to possess the attributes that were His before the incarnation? If by the phrase “laid aside,” you understand that the Son of God’s power was eradicated or wiped out during that time, then you’ve missed the whole point of the passage. Note further that Heb. 1:1-3 says, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by HIS SON, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and UPHOLDING ALL THINGS BY THE WORD OF HIS POWER, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high [emphasis mine].” This text tells us that the Son of God (1) created all things and (2) now holds them together (i.e., they continue to exist) by the word of His power. But if you believe the infinite power, which the Son possessed, was wiped out during His incarnation, Who do you imagine held the world together during that time?

Do you assume -- because the Scriptures inform us that the Second Person of the Trinity, in His incarnation, became truly man -- He thereby ceased to be truly God? Do you suppose Jesus of Nazareth had only one nature (human)? This is a vital point because the death of one finite man can pay for the life of only one other finite man -- but the death of Jesus Christ is sufficient to redeem an incalculable number of men because of the infinite majesty and value of His person (i.e., His sacrifice was and is beyond price because of Who He was and is, truly God as well as truly man). If He had NOT been truly God, as well as truly man, would his death have been of infinite value?

I pass over (1) your warning that I should not understand "God to be God because of His nature," (2) your reference to YOUR OWN “eternal nature,” and (3) your statement that “Surely Christ BEING WITHOUT COMPLETE OMNISCIENCE, EVEN TODAY is still God [emphasis mine]." And with the earnest desire that you will solemnly review your seriously flawed and somewhat incoherent opinions in light of the Scriptures, I close.

MK

 

[Turbo]

There in lies your fallacy. You think that just because a person is a CVer that man's choice is somehow over ridden. That sir is a lie to justify your own belief. Will you please stop making this false accusation. It is not true, has never been true and will never be true. You seem to have no concept of what a CVer believes except what some jug head has told you.

I wasn't commenting on what all CVers believe, I was commenting on what Z Man, a hardcore Calvinst, believes.

 

[Clete]

Sir the only thing greater than your blindness to the facts is your ignorants of them. What makes you think that I will support the OVers relegating God to the order of a mythical Greek God?

What?

I'm not relegating God to anything. I am simply using good old fashioned logic and applying it to Calvinist doctrine. How about you tell me which facts that you think I don't already know and haven't responded to a hundred times before. Can you even think of one single point of Calvinist doctrine (or Arminian doctrine for that matter) that I have ignored or glossed over or avoided? I challenge you to present to me even one single point that I have shut my eyes too.

Here, I'll tell you what; you don't even have to look for one that I haven't responded too before. Just tell me what you think I'm overlooking and I promise to address it directly. How's that sound?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Which unsupported and illogical claim of mine are you referring to, Clete? MK

Here's my previous post which explains....

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

 

[theo_victis]

Do you realize -- in your zeal to make a point here -- that you're comparing the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, impassible Creator of All Things to created (or procreated) beings who have been immobilized through Alzheimer's or other mentally-debilitating diseases? Is that what you really mean to say?

I am dissapointed with you. I thought you would have read through my post more carefully. I clearly stated that it was an example of how one could change their characteristics and still remain the same entity.

I will repeat my question that i developed out of this. What makes God, God? isnt it his eternal state?

Using these verses as proof text, you write that "Jesus... laid aside His divine attributes" during His incarnation. I challenge you to pause and consider these words. Because the Son of God voluntarily took on the "likeness of men", with their weaknesses and frailties (but not their sins nor their sin nature) -- and in His humanity, relied solely on the Spirit's power (which was given to Him "without measure") – does it follow that, in His deity, He ceased to possess the attributes that were His before the incarnation? If by the phrase “laid aside,” you understand that the Son of God’s power was eradicated or wiped out during that time, then you’ve missed the whole point of the passage.

I didnt say eradicated. I did say laid aside. You are putting words into my mouth. Christ clearly cannot be all knowing during the incarnation if he had to learn. Christ clearly is not all knowing to this day since he does not know the day or hour the Father will return him. Is Jesus a liar? You missed the point of the passage in context with the Gospels all together. I used phillipians 2:6 to demonstrate that Christ made a central change, while still being in the very nature of God.

Then i supported the fact that he was not omniscient because of verses in Luke, Mark, and Matthew. Get yer facts strait!

Note further that Heb. 1:1-3 says, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by HIS SON, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and UPHOLDING ALL THINGS BY THE WORD OF HIS POWER, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high [emphasis mine].” This text tells us that the Son of God (1) created all things and (2) now holds them together (i.e., they continue to exist) by the word of His power. But if you believe the infinite power, which the Son possessed, was wiped out during His incarnation, Who do you imagine held the world together during that time?

Did I mention omnipotence? I dont remember doing so but since you brought it up..... I will repost the verse in a clearer translation: NIV

Heb 1:1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
Heb 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
Heb 1:4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

I would like to point out two key points concerning this passage. I also took the liberty to extend the verse to verse 4 which you did not share with us (its ok, i dont always display the full context sometimes, but i try to implement it before i post it though). If you notice in verse 2 it says that the universe was made through Jesus by God.

Secondly, verse 4 says that Jesus became superior to the angels after his ascending to heaven meaning that he once was lower then the angels during the incarnation:

Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Obviously Jesus' divine nature changed but not his eternal status. Jesus died on the Cross but rose from the dead proving him victor over death.. Proving him to be God for he still remains eternal though dying.

Now, to answer your argument. Since the other members of the Godhead made the world through Christ, i think that they would be suffice to hold it together, less you think they are incapable. Also, the hebrew passage you cited conflicts with your theological implication that Jesus held the world togethar during his human-god life span. This passage clearly places Jesus ruling in Heaven at the right hand of God so he could be holding the world together right now. However, it is my belief that God made the world through Christ before his incarnation (John 1:1-7) then Christ became incarnate, then Christ was raised back to glory.

Do you assume -- because the Scriptures inform us that the Second Person of the Trinity, in His incarnation, became truly man -- He thereby ceased to be truly God?

Did i ever assume that? I have never believed that Christ wasnt God at one point. He has always been eternal, making him God. God is God no matter how low of a servant he makes himself. Just read the Bible Jesus proved that to be true!

Do you suppose Jesus of Nazareth had only one nature (human)? This is a vital point because the death of one finite man can pay for the life of only one other finite man -- but the death of Jesus Christ is sufficient to redeem an incalculable number of men because of the infinite majesty and value of His person (i.e., His sacrifice was and is beyond price because of Who He was and is, truly God as well as truly man). If He had NOT been truly God, as well as truly man, would his death have been of infinite value?

I believe that Jesus was truly God, truly Man. I never stated otherwise. I believe that Jesus is God today even though he is not omniscient (see Mark and Matthew Passages where he DOES not know his return time). And because Jesus does not know his return time, it is evident that he does not know the future, duh!

To answer your quesiton: I believe that if Christ was just a mere man, according to anthanasuis' explotation of the arian controversy, Christ's sacrfice would not be sufficent. Since, however, Christ is God, his sacrifice is atoning for all who believe in him and repent of their sins.

I pass over (1) your warning that I should not understand "God to be God because of His nature," (2) your reference to YOUR OWN “eternal nature,” and (3) your statement that “Surely Christ BEING WITHOUT COMPLETE OMNISCIENCE, EVEN TODAY is still God [emphasis mine]."

What do you mean you pass over all of this? This was my main argument. Way to pick and choose evidence.

And with the earnest desire that you will solemnly review your seriously flawed and somewhat incoherent opinions in light of the Scriptures, I close.

I am missing where i am seriously flawed, and how can i be somewhat incoherent with Scripture? Either i hit the target or i miss it altogethar! Why dont you consider my arguments and claim to just pass over them?

In my closing argument against your theological implications, i would ask you where did Christ gain his earthly power? from himself? or from the Father?