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

[Chileice]

Ok so maybe AMR's ONE Bible verse is all it took for all of his definitions given to be proven Biblical and Bob's and the positions of Open Theists to be proven unBiblical. Maybe it was a heavyweight verse? What was it?

John 14:9
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

This is a WONDERFUL verse no doubt! But wherein lieth the stone cold proof that AMR's definitions are Biblical and Open Theist's are not? No Open Theist who is teaching the Bible correctly would deny that Jesus was the perfect representation of the Father. So this verse has absolutely nothing to do with Open vs. Settled Theism.

So AMR's one Bible verse quoted did not support his given accusation that Open Theists base their thinking on the teaching of men rather than on the Word of God. In fact all of his two long answers were centered around man-made definitions and NOT the Word of God! Pretty telling I think. But I digress......... :think:

I don't think his argument is flawed just because it has only one verse specifically quoted. He also quoted Isaiah without citing the quotation. But he makes a very valid point throughout and here is a key paragraph in my opinion:

It is erroneous to state that all of God’s attributes flow from His righteousness. As inferred immediately above, every positive attribute of God inheres in all positive attributes of God. When discussing how God can be righteous, loving, omnipotent, etc., we must be careful to avoid separating the divine essence and the divine attributes. We must also guard against false conceptions of the relation in which these attributes stand with each other.

I believe we err, even in human terms, when we try to seperate out the varying aspects of human personality from the whole being. We are beings with traits, is any one trait the well from which all the rest of our being springs? I don't think so. God is righteous because he is God. He is not God because he is righteous.

 

[Clete]

"Answers"

"Answers"

Ugh!

These "answers" are going to be nearly impossible for me to read through!

PK, You might get to a higher number if, instead of counting Bible references, you count either guilt by association fallacies or totally unsupported assertions or totally off the topic "answers" to Bob's questions.

One thing I've noticed so far (besides the ridiculously dishonest use of the pejorative term "unsettled theism" and the fallacious association of Open Theism with cults, both of which are intentionally dishonest debate tactics) is that AMR is not reading the context of Bob's questions and thereby ensuring that his "answers" will be mostly a waste of time as they will, at best, be answers to somewhat different questions than the ones actually asked by Bob of Dr. Lamerson in the original debate. Something I wouldn't permit as this is whole exercise was intended to be an appendage to Battle Royal X. One would hope that such an exercise would be on the same topic as the original work.

As an example of what I'm talking about, in "answer" to BEQ2, AMR never even brought up the Scripture which Bob quoted in the debate which comes right out and says that God's thrown (i.e. His authority) is founded upon His righteousness. He never even brings it up! How can AMR's essay on the Calvinist doctrine be considered an answer to Bob's question if he never addressed the very thing that prompted the question in the first place, namely the Scriptures? His "answer" to the questions amount to nothing more than an essay on the simplicity of God, a Calvinist doctrine which has nothing at all to do with the question asked.

Further, AMR is basically begging the question in these "answers" of his. The debate is effectively about whether Calvinism is true or not. AMR presumes the truth of that which is in question and "answers" these questions as though Calvinism is the undisputed truth. The effect is that his posts are turned from answers to Bob's questions into merely a Calvinist taking an opportunity to shoot his mouth off endlessly about what his various doctrinal positions are.

So far, all TOL is doing is providing free E-publishing privileges to a narcissistic Calvinist who is clearly in love with his own rhetoric and has been looking for a venue where he is allowed to endlessly ramble on while presenting his doctrine under any pretext he can come up with. So far these are not answers, there just so many doctrinal essays which have used Bob's questions as convenient jumping off points to what is going to be a very wide variety of doctrinal topics.

Of course those who are already in agreement with AMR will love these essays and rave about the profundity and complex thoroughness, Chileice being the first manifestation of this. And since AMR's ridiculous verbosity gives his posts an appearance of substance the Open Theist's claim that he hasn't really answered any of the questions, while true, will come off as shallow and disingenuous. As a result, I predict that if allowed to continue unchecked, AMR will, with these so called "answers" of his, hand his side of the debate a victory, albeit an unsubstantial and purely emotional one.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[PKevman]

I don't think his argument is flawed just because it has only one verse specifically quoted. He also quoted Isaiah without citing the quotation. But he makes a very valid point throughout and here is a key paragraph in my opinion:

It is erroneous to state that all of God’s attributes flow from His righteousness. As inferred immediately above, every positive attribute of God inheres in all positive attributes of God. When discussing how God can be righteous, loving, omnipotent, etc., we must be careful to avoid separating the divine essence and the divine attributes. We must also guard against false conceptions of the relation in which these attributes stand with each other.

I believe we err, even in human terms, when we try to seperate out the varying aspects of human personality from the whole being. We are beings with traits, is any one trait the well from which all the rest of our being springs? I don't think so. God is righteous because he is God. He is not God because he is righteous.

The point is that we err, even in human terms, when we try to define God outside of the direct revelation wherby He has given us to know Him: The Bible!

AMR makes some very serious allegations against Open Theists and fails to back them up with the Scriptures. Instead he does exactly what Bob says in the debate in the first place. He provides a bunch of man-made definitions and explanations as the foundation of his argument. For all of his ranting and raving, the Biblical attributes of God (living,loving,personal, relational,&good) are what is taught in the Scriptures and not the pagan Greek attributes that AMR defends (Omni's & Im's).

This debate shouldn't be about what any person (Bob, Samuel Lamerson, AMR, etc...) thinks about how God should be defined. It should be about how does GOD DEFINE HIMSELF in His Word! That is what Bob drove home in this debate, and if AMR has any chance at all to get out of this without looking like a complete idiot he is going to have to discuss the Scriptures themselves. The problem he has is that when this is done, the Scriptures support the Open View of God. So AMR has to spend his first two "answers" (which aren't actually answers at all) propping up his doctrine on man-made definitions! I merely commented on how ironic that is considering he leveled the accusation against us that we rely on the teaching of men and that Open Theism is a humanist idea. Yet we are the ones continually pointing back to the Bible!

 

[PKevman]

Ugh!

These "answers" are going to be nearly impossible for me to read through!

PK, You might get to a higher number if, instead of counting Bible references, you count either guilt by association fallacies or totally unsupported assertions or totally off the topic "answers" to Bob's questions.

One thing I've noticed so far (besides the ridiculously dishonest use of the pejorative term "unsettled theism" and the fallacious association of Open Theism with cults, both of which are intentionally dishonest debate tactics) is that AMR is not reading the context of Bob's questions and thereby ensuring that his "answers" will be mostly a waste of time as they will, at best, be answers to somewhat different questions than the ones actually asked by Bob of Dr. Lamerson in the original debate. Something I wouldn't permit as this is whole exercise was intended to be an appendage to Battle Royal X. One would hope that such an exercise would be on the same topic as the original work.

As an example of what I'm talking about, in "answer" to BEQ2, AMR never even brought up the Scripture which Bob quoted in the debate which comes right out and says that God's thrown (i.e. His authority) is founded upon His righteousness. He never even brings it up! How can AMR's essay on the Calvinist doctrine be considered an answer to Bob's question if he never addressed the very thing that prompted the question in the first place, namely the Scriptures? His "answer" to the questions amount to nothing more than an essay on the simplicity of God, a Calvinist doctrine which has nothing at all to do with the question asked.

Further, AMR is basically begging the question in these "answers" of his. The debate is effectively about whether Calvinism is true or not. AMR presumes the truth of that which is in question and "answers" these questions as though Calvinism is the undisputed truth. The effect is that his posts are turned from answers to Bob's questions into merely a Calvinist taking an opportunity to shoot his mouth off endlessly about what his various doctrinal positions are.

So far, all TOL is doing is providing free E-publishing privileges to a narcissistic Calvinist who is clearly in love with his own rhetoric and has been looking for a venue where he is allowed to endlessly ramble on while presenting his doctrine under any pretext he can come up with. So far these are not answers, there just so many doctrinal essays which have used Bob's questions as convenient jumping off points to what is going to be a very wide variety of doctrinal topics.
Of course those who are already in agreement with AMR will love these essays and rave about the profundity and complex thoroughness, Chileice being the first manifestation of this. And since AMR's ridiculous verbosity gives his posts an appearance of substance the Open Theists claim that he hasn't really answer any of the questions will come off shallow and disingenuous. As a result, I predict that if allowed to continue unchecked, AMR will, with these so called "answers" of his, hand his side of the debate a victory, albeit an unsubstancial emotional on.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I agree with most of what you say here Clete. The only thing I don't agree with is I don't think AMR will be able to wrest victory from this no matter how many words he uses. Calvinism is untrue and in the end it will always lose when the Bible is held up against it.
AMR might claim a victory but it will ring hollow when his own foundation has already been shown to be faulty and lacking Biblical substance! Bob will be able to refute AMR's "answers" in mere minutes per question while AMR spends days upon days writing out these long-winded posts. Bob already knew that was going to happen and said so himself.

EDIT: Let me state that I also agree with Clete in that AMR should keep his answers confined to within the context of Battle Royale X and attempt to answer the questions based upon WHY the questions were asked in the first place. Bob did not agree to do this to start up a whole new Battle Royale with AMR replacing Lamerson, I don't believe.

 

[Evoken]

As an example of what I'm talking about, in "answer" to BEQ2, AMR never even brought up the Scripture which Bob quoted in the debate which comes right out and says that God's thrown (i.e. His authority) is founded upon His righteousness. He never even brings it up! How can AMR's essay on the Calvinist doctrine be considered an answer to Bob's question if he never addressed the very thing that prompted the question in the first place, namely the Scriptures?

The Scripture you mention is not part of the question, which is what AMR agreed to answer. If we are to follow you reasoning then AMR should actually respond to all the complete entries made by Enyart in the debate, for they lead in some way or the other to the questions he asks. If the verse were actually part of the question, then your objection would be valid, but it is not so there are no grounds for this objection.

His "answer" to the questions amount to nothing more than an essay on the simplicity of God, a Calvinist doctrine which has nothing at all to do with the question asked.

The simplicity of God is not a Calvinistic doctrine. Where did you get that from? Are you like all other unsettled theists who use the term "Calvinism" in a derogatory way to encompass all classical theists and not just real Calvinists?

Further, AMR is basically begging the question in these "answers" of his. The debate is effectively about whether Calvinism is true or not. AMR presumes the truth of that which is in question and "answers" these questions as though Calvinism is the undisputed truth.

Apparently you have not read the title of the One on One thread: "A Calvinist's response...". What do you want AMR to do? To first establish the truth of Calvinism and then answer the questions? That is not what he agreed to do, and if he did that you would be complaining that he is not answering the questions and is writing instead an "essay on the Calvinist doctrine". Seems like AMR is in a lose-lose situation with you.

The effect is that his posts are turned from answers to Bob's questions into merely a Calvinist taking an opportunity to shoot his mouth off endlessly about what his various doctrinal positions are.

His three responses so far have sufficiently answered Enyart's questions and go farther in that AMR spends a much needed time explaining the concepts involved to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.

As a result, I predict that if allowed to continue unchecked, AMR will, with these so called "answers" of his, hand his side of the debate a victory, albeit an unsubstancial emotional on.

All you are doing with your post is to poison the well Clete, this is dishonest, specially since you did not even take the time to point out the numerous "fallacies" in AMR's responses you alluded to in the opening sentences of your post.


Evo

 

[Evoken]

Bob did not agree to do this to start up a whole new Battle Royale with AMR replacing Lamerson, I don't believe.
[/FONT][/SIZE]

Exactly. The agreement is that AMR will write a response to the questions only, not to the whole entry. So, AMR cannot be blamed because he did not respond to something that was not part of the question involved.


Evo

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I don't think his argument is flawed just because it has only one verse specifically quoted. He also quoted Isaiah without citing the quotation. But he makes a very valid point throughout and here is a key paragraph in my opinion:

It is erroneous to state that all of God’s attributes flow from His righteousness. As inferred immediately above, every positive attribute of God inheres in all positive attributes of God. When discussing how God can be righteous, loving, omnipotent, etc., we must be careful to avoid separating the divine essence and the divine attributes. We must also guard against false conceptions of the relation in which these attributes stand with each other.

I believe we err, even in human terms, when we try to seperate out the varying aspects of human personality from the whole being. We are beings with traits, is any one trait the well from which all the rest of our being springs? I don't think so. God is righteous because he is God. He is not God because he is righteous.

Indeed! :first:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Exactly. The agreement is that AMR will write a response to the questions only, not to the whole entry. So, AMR cannot be blamed because he did not respond to something that was not part of the question involved.
Evo

Correct!

BE posed the following challenge (emphasis mine):

Thus, I offer an alternative:

Right here on TOL is my Open Theism Debate with Dr. Lamerson. He was EXTREMELY unresponsive to the questions I carefully composed and posted in numerical order, BEQ1 - BEQ50.

Either of you can read that debate and answer those questions. 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.
You would be doing the Settled View camp a service, since, after many have read that debate, they have no idea what answers there may be to many of those questions, since Lamerson was so unresponsive and left many completely unaddressed.
-Bob Enyart

I believe I have met the conditions, save one, to the posed challenge. I am not posting all my answers to 50 questions in a single post. I doubt vBulletin will even support such a lengthy post. As my first three answers indicate, the answers require lengthy discourse.

I have the text of all 50 questions. I post that text in all of my answers for all to see. They can be checked in the original BR X thread. I have read the BR X thread numerous times. I have all 194 pages of the BR X reformatted, spell checked, indexed for rapid searches, and saved on my hard drive. I refer to it often as I post my answers. Hence, I understand fully what the underlying context and agenda of the 50 questions are and my response incorporates that foundation where appropriate. Nevertheless, the challenge was not a debate challenge. It was a challenge to answer 50 questions. Period.

BE wanted full answers. He decried the answers he received from Lamerson. He is getting his wish now in my answers. That some here don't appreciate the so-called 'bully pulpit' that has been extended is irrelevant and frankly speaks to the unwillingness of many to fully and accurately understand the Reformed position.

I predict by the time I have answered all 50 questions, there will be not a few here that will have a clearer understanding of the Reformed doctrines they spend so much time inaccurately portraying. It is my hope that my answers will ferment a more reasoned dialog between unsettled theists and orthodox theists.

As for the term, 'unsettled theism', I remind everyone that there is only one logical antonym to the word 'settled', as in 'settled theism'. Perhaps if open theist proponents had adopted the more accurate phrase, 'classical theism' to describe the orthodox position, they would not now have to endure the 'unsettled' label. But, as I have noted in my responses and elsewhere, the unsettled theist makes much hay by using unwarranted derisive terms when discussing any doctrine they disagree with. It appears from some comments herein that these same persons can dish it out, but cannot take it.

I know that so many here have come to expect nothing less than an irenic attitude from the classical theist in these forums, all the while having to endure vitriolic 'truth-smacking' attitudes from their opponent. Lamerson irenically responded to BE in all of his posts. What Dr. Lamerson got in return from BE was anything but a response in kind. I willingly swallowed the bait Nang hung out there with full foreknowledge of where things would end up when I agreed to BE's proposal. Giving my opponent a taste of his own medicine was an opportunity I could not pass up.

As I am fond of saying, "you choose the behavior, you have chosen the consequences." Deal with it.:box:

 

[Lon]

Wrong! Open theism never "came along", it always was...
That is what the closed theists can't seem to grasp.

The authors of the Bible were open theists. It wasn't until Greek Pagan philosophy came along that this whole "fate" thing started.

LOL!


(sorry sorry sorry, this was absolutely hilarious-next to my only warning, this one will continue to bring a great smile to my face. Thanks, I needed this)

 

[Servo]

LOL!


(sorry sorry sorry, this was absolutely hilarious-next to my only warning, this one will continue to bring a great smile to my face. Thanks, I needed this)

Glad to help another moron with no point.

 

[Lon]

Wow. Hang on everyone, I am counting the Bible verses that AMR cited and discussed in his responses. Man it's going to take all night...........

1..........

LOL again!

Let me help...

1)"...our Scriptural relationship is defined from God downward to man, versus the humanistic pining of the unsettled theist upward to God..."

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.
For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)

2) The Scriptures tell us that God is indeed immutable, but that He nevertheless notices and is affected by the obedience, plight or sin of His creatures.

Mal 3:6 For I am Jehovah, I change not. Because of this you sons of Jacob are not destroyed.
Psa 89:34 I will not break My covenant, nor change the thing that has gone out of My lips.

3)God sets the standard, and the terms of His relationships, not man

Heb 8:11 And they shall not each man teach his neighbor, and each man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest.
Psa 119:9 BETH: With what shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed according to Your Word.

4)"So here and now, let’s put an end to the rhetoric that only unsettled theism understands God’s desire to have a relationship because He loves us."

1Jn 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God has in us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.

These seem to be scripture to me. I don't want to accuse you of complaceny, red herrings, strawmen etc. These all came very readily to mind.

 

[Servo]

LOL again!

Let me help...

1)"...our Scriptural relationship is defined from God downward to man, versus the humanistic pining of the unsettled theist upward to God..."

2) The Scriptures tell us that God is indeed immutable, but that He nevertheless notices and is affected by the obedience, plight or sin of His creatures.

3)God sets the standard, and the terms of His relationships, not man


4)"So here and now, let’s put an end to the rhetoric that only unsettled theism understands God’s desire to have a relationship because He loves us."




These seem to be scripture to me. I don't want to accuse you of complaceny, red herrings, strawmen etc. These all came very readily to mind.

Can God change His mind? Yes or no? Not looking for a book or even a paragraph. YES or NO?

More than that answer means you have no clue about OT.

 

[Lon]

Glad to help another moron with no point.

Moronic point? Really. I don't blame you, it is a parroting response but it is so blatantly unhistorical. I overlook your ignorance, but please, don't overlook it yourself. This is a response where you shouldn't listen to those who purport this idea.
I can start posting scriptures and early church fathers and you can show me the OV supports to this assertation. Usually I get "Who cares what the fathers thought?" which is a rich rebuttal to the obvious. Hopefully you're up to that challenge

To begin with, do you have any early church father quotes to support historicity of OV off the bat? It seems you should for such an assertation. I'm ready whenever you are (maybe needs a separate thread - "Early church fathers supported OV theology"). Please send me a PM when you start it with a link

 

[Servo]

Moronic point? Really. I don't blame you, it is a parroting response but it is so blatantly unhistorical. I overlook your ignorance, but please, don't overlook it yourself. This is a response where you shouldn't listen to those who purport this idea.
I can start posting scriptures and early church fathers and you can show me the OV supports to this assertation. Usually I get "Who cares what the fathers thought?" which is a rich rebuttal to the obvious. Hopefully you're up to that challenge

To begin with, do you have any early church father quotes to support historicity of OV off the bat? It seems you should for such an assertation. I'm ready whenever you are (maybe needs a separate thread - "Early church fathers supported OV theology"). Please send me a PM when you start it with a link

:yawn:

So intimidating you are. Read this battle and get back to us with more of your brilliance.

 

[Mr. 5020]

Moronic point? Really. I don't blame you, it is a parroting response but it is so blatantly unhistorical. I overlook your ignorance, but please, don't overlook it yourself. This is a response where you shouldn't listen to those who purport this idea.
I can start posting scriptures and early church fathers and you can show me the OV supports to this assertation. Usually I get "Who cares what the fathers thought?" which is a rich rebuttal to the obvious. Hopefully you're up to that challenge

To begin with, do you have any early church father quotes to support historicity of OV off the bat? It seems you should for such an assertation. I'm ready whenever you are (maybe needs a separate thread - "Early church fathers supported OV theology"). Please send me a PM when you start it with a link

Lets not get into any drawn out debates in this thread.

Lets use this thread to comment about the posts being made in the One on One. If you want to debate a point that was made in the One on One maybe it would be best to open up a new thread.

Sound fair?

 

[Clete]

I agree with most of what you say here Clete. The only thing I don't agree with is I don't think AMR will be able to wrest victory from this no matter how many words he uses. Calvinism is untrue and in the end it will always lose when the Bible is held up against it.

Well I can't disagree. Whatever victory is won, if any, will be superficial at best, of course.

AMR might claim a victory but it will ring hollow when his own foundation has already been shown to be faulty and lacking Biblical substance!

I would not have used the word "might" in this sentence.

Bob will be able to refute AMR's "answers" in mere minutes per question while AMR spends days upon days writing out these long-winded posts. Bob already knew that was going to happen and said so himself.

You know I hadn't given any thought to Bob's response to these "answers" AMR is giving. The fact that AMR is doing little more than spewing every Calvinist doctrine he can figure out how to tie to one of Bob's questions, no matter how far removed from the context of the question, does lend Bob the same latitude in his responses to these "answers". Bob will have an opportunity to respond to far more of the Calvinist error than he would have otherwise had.

EDIT: Let me state that I also agree with Clete in that AMR should keep his answers confined to within the context of Battle Royale X and attempt to answer the questions based upon WHY the questions were asked in the first place. Bob did not agree to do this to start up a whole new Battle Royale with AMR replacing Lamerson, I don't believe.

Quite right!

If AMR ignores the context of the questions he is not answering the questions at all, thus my use of the quotation marks whenever referring to AMR's "answers".

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

Can God change His mind? Yes or no? Not looking for a book or even a paragraph. YES or NO?

More than that answer means you have no clue about OT.

"No" God does not change His mind. To say "Yes" would be a gross generalization on my part.

You will not find a scripture that says "God changed His mind." It is a colloquial term. We never actually 'change our minds.'

Better asked: Does God move to our supplications? "Yes, He does." This all goes back to a discussion of Foreknowlege which has been repeatedly discussed.

 

[Lon]

:yawn:

So intimidating you are. Read this battle and get back to us with more of your brilliance.

LOL, Been there....

(Sorry, been reading Knight's humor posts lately which has me in a humorous mood).

I do think it would be a great discussion in all seriousness. If you believe the OV has tenure in any of the early church it would be reflected in the Father's writings so I think it would be a profitable thread (not sure if we'd coax many readers).

 

[Lon]

Originally Posted by Lon
Moronic point? Really. I don't blame you, it is a parroting response but it is so blatantly unhistorical. I overlook your ignorance, but please, don't overlook it yourself. This is a response where you shouldn't listen to those who purport this idea.
I can start posting scriptures and early church fathers and you can show me the OV supports to this assertation. Usually I get "Who cares what the fathers thought?" which is a rich rebuttal to the obvious. Hopefully you're up to that challenge

To begin with, do you have any early church father quotes to support historicity of OV off the bat? It seems you should for such an assertation. I'm ready whenever you are (maybe needs a separate thread - "Early church fathers supported OV theology"). Please send me a PM when you start it with a link Originally Posted by Knight (a.k.a. owner of the site)
Lets not get into any drawn out debates in this thread.

Lets use this thread to comment about the posts being made in the One on One. If you want to debate a point that was made in the One on One maybe it would be best to open up a new thread.

Sound fair?

Which is why I opted to suggest another linked thread?

I agree to not rabbit-trail here.

 

[Clete]

The Scripture you mention is not part of the question, which is what AMR agreed to answer. If we are to follow you reasoning then AMR should actually respond to all the complete entries made by Enyart in the debate, for they lead in some way or the other to the questions he asks. If the verse were actually part of the question, then your objection would be valid, but it is not so there are no grounds for this objection.

Nonsense!
It is not necessary for AMR to response to "all the complete entries made by Enyart in the debate" in order for him to answer the questions IN CONTEXT.

If he ignores the context he isn't answering the question, plain and simple.

The simplicity of God is not a Calvinistic doctrine. Where did you get that from?

Well from AMR for one! :freak:
Why didn't you ask him this question, I wonder? :think:

Augustine and Thomas Aquinas are the real culprits of course but the doctrine is commonly held throughout Calvinism. In fact, Calvinism is little more than Reformed Augustinian theology. The doctrine of Divine Simplicity is one of those doctrines Bob referred to in the debate when he mentioned how the Reformation parted from Rome but not from the Greeks.

For more information about the doctrine read the following article...

Divine Simplicity

Are you like all other unsettled theists who use the term "Calvinism" in a derogatory way to encompass all classical theists and not just real Calvinists?

Yes! That is, unless given some reason to believe that the individual is Arminian. Generally if a person quacks like this particular sort of duck he's either a Calvinist or a Catholic and since Catholics are usually pretty easy to spot the term Calvinist works in most situations rather nicely. Even people who don't call themselves Calvinists believe most of these things because of John Calvin any and so the term really isn't as inaccurate as you would probably like to think it is even in your own case.

Apparently you have not read the title of the One on One thread: "A Calvinist's response...". What do you want AMR to do? To first establish the truth of Calvinism and then answer the questions?

Yes! That's exactly what I want AMR to do! Not the whole of Calvinism of course but at least that portion of it which he intends to use as arguments against Open Theism. You see this is why it is important to acknowledge the context of these questions. Without doing so it isn't a response one would give in a debate, its merely a Calvinistic commentary. It seems perfectly clear to me that the intent was to have AMR respond to the questions as he would have had he been in Lamerson's place debating against Bob in Battle Royale X, which would be an interesting exercise both for AMR and for all the rest of us. As it is, so far, AMR has had all the fun in the world getting to write his brains out about his theology and the rest of us are going to check out in about another 2 or 3 "answers" of the sort that have been offered so far because frankly no one gives a crap about reading the "Ask Mr. Religion Commentary on Classical Theism" blog.

That is not what he agreed to do, and if he did that you would be complaining that he is not answering the questions and is writing instead an "essay on the Calvinist doctrine". Seems like AMR is in a lose-lose situation with you.

AMR is a lying fool who wouldn't know an honest response to a debate question if it bit his nose right off his face. AMR lost this before he ever started it as far as I am concerned. He has precisely zero credibility with me as either a scholar, a Christian nor even as a man.

His three responses so far have sufficiently answered Enyart's questions and go farther in that AMR spends a much needed time explaining the concepts involved to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.

He didn't answer Bob's question number two at all. He never even addressed it. He answered a question but it wasn't Bob's.

All you are doing with your post is to poison the well Clete, this is dishonest, specially since you did not even take the time to point out the numerous "fallacies" in AMR's responses you alluded to in the opening sentences of your post.

My comments were based on material that is there for everyone to read for themselves and I predicted a victory (of sorts) for AMR if he is permitted to continue his current course. I hardly think that hardly counts as poisoning the well, although I do not deny that I am AMR's enemy and make no pretensions of being objective.

And please don't tempt me to actually delineate each of AMR's fallacious comments, it wouldn't go well for your side and I think you know that.

Resting in Him,
Clete