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

[godrulz]

A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down...

AMR: Before creation, we know that God is love in His triune relations. What was He sovereign over? Is Clete correct that sovereignty is tied to creation only (I had not thought of it that way, but that may have some merit...ties into providence/rule over creation, not eternity past?).

 

[chatmaggot]

...To God, all sin is grievous sin. God does not wink at what we think are the lesser sins. That some sins carry a greater burden of guilt is clear (e.g., John 19:11), but the penalty is the same for the unregenerate.

I agree that some sins do carry a greater burden of guilt...but is the penalty the same for all sins?

Could you comment on 1 John 5:16-17

16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

Also, are you saying that although some commandments take precedence over others that doesn't mean they are greater?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down...

AMR: Before creation, we know that God is love in His triune relations. What was He sovereign over. Is Clete correct that sovereignty is tied to creation only (I had not thought of it that way, but that may have some merit...ties into providence/rule over creation, not eternity past?).

Trying to equate sovereignty and love, then choosing between them is incorrect reasoning, as I argued in my One on One response. You are correct to agree.

It is an apples and oranges comparison. Sovereignty is simply one of the perfect expressions of God's attributes. God is sovereign because He is "greater than all Gods" (2 Chronicles 2:5) and "he is good" (Psalms 107:1). Recall that under these two classifications are the following attributes:

‘our God is greater than all gods’ (2 Chronicles 2:5)
- self-existence (Exodus 3:14; John 5:26; Jeremiah 2:13; Psalms 36:9)
- eternity (Psalms 90:2; Isaiah 57:15; Hebrews 1:2; 1 Timothy 1:17)
- immensity (1 Kings 8:27; Romans 8:38, 39)
- omnipresence (Psalms 139:7-10; Jeremiah 23:23, 24)
- omniscience (Hebrews 4:13; 2 Chronicles 16:9; Isaiah 46:9-11)
- omnipotence (Matthew 19:26; Genesis 17:1; Jeremiah 32:17; Isaiah 40:28; Ephesians 1:11; Revelations 19:6)
- incomprehensibility (Psalms 36:5-6; Romans 11:33, cf. 34-35; Job 11:7)
- absoluteness (1 Timothy 6:15; Romans 1:25)
- infinity (Ephesians 1:23; Jeremiah 23:23-24; Psalms 139:7-12; Psalms 147:5; Job 11:7-9)
- transcendence and immanence (Isaiah 57:15; Psalms 139:7-10; John 8:23)
- time and space, time-space (Psalms 90:1-2; 1 Corinthians 2:7; Romans 8:39; 1 Kings 8:27)

‘Oh give thanks to the Lord, for he is good’ (Psalms 107:1)
- holiness (Psalms 99:9; Psalms 51:11; Isaiah 57:15; Psalms 105:42; Psalms 89:35)
- righteousness (Psalms 11:7; Titus 1:2; 2 Timothy 2:13; Psalms 89:14; Psalms 119:137; Romans 3:21; Revelations 16:4-7)
- truth (John 17:3; Jeremiah 33:6; 2 Samuel 2:6; Exodus 34:6; John 1:17; Romans 3:4)
- faithfulness (Deuteronomy 7:9-11; Deuteronomy 32:4; Jeremiah 16:19; Psalms 89:18; Psalms 19:7; Deuteronomy 6:26)
- love (1 John 4:19; 1 John 4:12; John 4:8)
- mercy (Psalms 145:15-16; Psalms 106:1; Psalms 136:11; Acts 14:17)

Sovereignty is not an attribute of God. Sovereignty is an expression of the attributes of God. He is sovereign because He is eternally omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, holy, righteous, merciful, love, etc. To say that God is sovereign because God is love, or that God was love before He was sovereign, is very imprecise, for it makes the mistake I have argued against in several responses: that of giving primacy to one of God's attributes over the other. It bears repeating: every positive attribute of God inheres in all positive attributes of God.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I agree that some sins do carry a greater burden of guilt...but is the penalty the same for all sins?

Could you comment on 1 John 5:16-17

16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

Also, are you saying that although some commandments take precedence over others that doesn't mean they are greater?

Yes, this passage often arises in this discussion.
We cannot say for certain what exactly the “sin leading to death” is. Some interpretations are:

1. Refers to persistent sin by a believer that is unconfessed. E.g., 1 Corinthians 11:30

2. Some believe murder is the sin referred to and that we should not feel empowered to pray for the murdering Christian given God’s statement that “whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed.”

3. Others believe the sin referred to is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, i.e., attributing the works of the Spirit to the devil. (There is even some disagreement here on the unpardonable sin. Some hold that it was attributing the miracles of Christ to the devil.)

4. Still others hold that the sin referred to was some special sin such as that committed by Moses or Aaron, Ananias and Sapphira, where God summarily judged them.

5. Lastly, some hold that the sin referred to is apostasy as it best fits the context. In Hebrews 6 we see that this sin leads to death. Anyone that commits this sin has no way of escape, since “they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.” In the entire Epistle, John has the Gnostis in view. These false teachers had at one time enjoyed the Christian fellowship. They had professed to be believers. They had intellectually known the facts of the Good News, but they turned away from Christ and accepted a teaching which denied His deity and the sufficiency of the atonement. Here we see that a Christian is not at liberty to pray for the restoration of such person because God has already indicated that they have sinned unto death.

Clearly, the words, a sin that does not lead to death, can be easily misunderstood. All sin ultimately leads to death, but the expression “that does not lead to death” (me[FONT=&quot]̄[/FONT] pros thanaton) should be understood in the sense, “not punished by death.” The distinction is between sins for which death is a quick consequence and sins for which it is not.

 

[Clete]

A gentle answer turns away wrath. Maybe Godrulz remembered that verse from Sunday School. You don't have to be confrontational to disagree. In fact he may be more of an asset for the cause than someone who just discounts everything the other guy says as a lie.

Or maybe godrulz speaks before he thinks.

I think most people will see that AMR is trying to be fair and is trying to be biblical as he interprets the Scripture. Saying you hate someone just because of their theology seems to cross out your words about God and his love.

God hates people because of their theology too Chileice. You should try it sometime. Being Godly can be pretty cool.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Post 59 counts as one of those fallacies you were so interested in the other day.

 

[Clete]

A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down...

AMR: Before creation, we know that God is love in His triune relations. What was He sovereign over. Is Clete correct that sovereignty is tied to creation only (I had not thought of it that way, but that may have some merit...ties into providence/rule over creation, not eternity past?).

I didn't not suggest that God's sovereignty "is tied to creation only" as you put it. I was merely being consistent with the question that Bob asked that AMR was supposed to be trying to answer. Bob asked...

BEQ6: Sam, which is greater, God’s sovereignty over creation, or God’s love? [emphasis added]​

I don't see how God's sovereignty would apply with meaning to anything other than the creation but the point is that I was not trying to make a new argument, I was simply being consistent with the question as asked by Bob in the debate.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Any chance that 1 John 5:16-17 is referring to capital crimes when is speaks of "sins leading to death"? The chapter has a lot of legal jargon in it like witness, testimony, etc. and so it would seem to fit.

Also not only is not all sin is the same, but neither are the punishments for them. God is not unjust folks! That is to say that the real God, the God of Scripture in not unjust. The so called god of Calvinism is, of course, anything but just.

Luke 12:47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.​

 

[Lon]

A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down...

AMR: Before creation, we know that God is love in His triune relations. What was He sovereign over. Is Clete correct that sovereignty is tied to creation only (I had not thought of it that way, but that may have some merit...ties into providence/rule over creation, not eternity past?).

I believe you are correct here. He had love in mind in creating. AMR's point holds up well here however, we'd be guessing. It is meaningful to discuss this, but ultimately when we extrapolate/reason/deduce it isn't inductive and we proceed carefully.

Great response to the thread and topic.

Lon

 

[chatmaggot]

Mr. Religion,

In your answer to:

BEQ11: As in my section, How to Falsify Openness, can you indicate how Scripture could theoretically falsify (prove wrong) the Settled View?

You state:

These chosen or elect individuals are purposed to become monuments to God’s love for all of eternity.

To whom are those lucky people that God predestined to be saved before the foundation of the world monuments? The angles? Himself? Each other?

How monumental is it to for God to advertise (i.e. set up as a monument) those people who had no choice but to be saved...because they could do nothing otherwise?

Do people follow Christ with the hope that they are going to be one of those preselected in the "before the foundation of the world" lottery?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

To whom are those lucky people that God predestined to be saved before the foundation of the world monuments? The angles? Himself? Each other?

How monumental is it to for God to advertise (i.e. set up as a monument) those people who had no choice but to be saved...because they could do nothing otherwise?

Do people follow Christ with the hope that they are going to be one of those preselected in the "before the foundation of the world" lottery?

The elect are the saved who receive God's gift of saving grace form the hearing of the Good News, regenerating them to belief and faith.

I have been answering your questions sincerely. Assuming a conversation is taking place.

So I am always disappointed when the tone takes a sudden turn towards sarcasm and flippancy for no apparent reason. You ask questions. I answer them. You ask more. I answer them. Wham! Out of the blue you become belligerent.

Do I know you? Have we ever communicated before? Have I personally offended you in the past? What?

 

[SOTK]

Hey, AMR,

Great job in the 1:1 brother! :up: I am very much enjoying your responses to Enyart's questions!

 

[Lon]

BEQ7: Since Sam’s answer (SLA-BEQ1) restated my question, I am asking you to answer it again, without using the word “total.” Sam answered, “Since Bob cites Dr. Reymond’s text, I will say that the doctrine as it is set forth by Reymond does not need total reformulation.” My question is, “Do you agree with me that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs reformulation in order to explicitly acknowledge that God is able to change (for example, as Ware says, especially to allow for true relationship)?”

AMRA-BEQ7 - "If God changes, especially through the actions of unsettled theists with libertarian free will, we are not worshipping the same God today that was worshipped by Abraham—God has changed from something He was in the time of Abraham. God tomorrow will be different than God today, and so on."

I like how BE has reworked the question so AMR could address it as opposed to BEQ4 was specifically addressed to Lamerson's response.

AMR does a nice job of analyzing the question and giving meaningful response of not only his answer, but the 'why's' of that answer.

BEQ8: Sam wrote, “In the section on God as unchangeable in his being, Dr. Reymond cites no less than 24 passages of Scripture!” I’m having a hard time identifying those passages in Section 7 of his systematic theology book (pp. 153-203), and I would be thankful if you could just cite a list of these proof-texts for God being “unchangeable in his being.”

AMRA-BEQ8 - "I take issue with the “proof texts” characterization, for you are fully aware of the treatment given to the texts in question by the author in question. From the 1998 Second Edition, of Reymond’s A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Chapter 7, pages 153-203 the verses you have requested are as follows"

AMR didn't miss this characterization and answers the question.
I'm embarrassed for BE that he wasn't able to 'find' these verses as readily

BEQ9: Do you agree with me that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs to be clearly taught as now reformulated in order to explicitly acknowledge that God is able to change, even if only, for example, as Ware says, to allow for true relationship?

AMRA-BEQ9 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
I do not believe the orthodox definitions of immutability need any reformulations. Therefore I do not believe any changes in the curricula of orthodox seminaries needs to be changed. What needs to be changed is the clear misunderstandings of unsettled theism about this topic.

Speaks clearly.

BEQ10

I think AMR could have skipped a couple of these question but for the agreement. This one wasn't necessary to address and was Lamerson/Enyart context merely

BEQ11: As in my section, How to Falsify Openness, can you indicate how Scripture could theoretically falsify (prove wrong) the Settled View?

AMRA-BEQ11 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
"My preferences to show that classical theism is theoretically false would be to prove that TULIP is not coherent, as follows..."

I think this was a nice leveling ground question from BE for mutual discussion.

 

[chatmaggot]

The elect are the saved who receive God's gift of saving grace form the hearing of the Good News, regenerating them to belief and faith.

I have been answering your questions sincerely. Assuming a conversation is taking place.

So I am always disappointed when the tone takes a sudden turn towards sarcasm and flippancy for no apparent reason. You ask questions. I answer them. You ask more. I answer them. Wham! Out of the blue you become belligerent.

Do I know you? Have we ever communicated before? Have I personally offended you in the past? What?

What are you talking about? When did I become belligerent? I too thought we were having a conversation. My questions are asked in all seriousness.

I do not know why you think I became sarcastic. I did use bold...but only for clarification. Did you mistake the bold for sarcasm and belligerence?

I too am disappointed that you feel this way. I guess that is one of the downfalls of text conversations...you never get a perfect feel for the tone.

Anyways, you still never anwered the question. Who are the saved monuments too? You stated who the saved were...but not to whom they are monuments.

 

[Clete]

chatmaggot,

AMR is the only one allowed to use sarcasm and to ask questions designed to win a debate.

AMR thinks that any question of him that he cannot answer without contradicting himself is some sort of trick question, asked sarcastically and/or belligerently. Don't worry about it. It only means that you've won whatever debate you were having at the time the whining started.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

In response to AMR's continued fallacious and intentionally dishonest association of Open Theism with "the cults", I post the following link. It is a substantive response to an obviously vacuous attempt to discredit Open Theism by way of using the guilt by association fallacy that AMR knows is inaccurate. If AMR believes Open Theism to be a cult, let him show it to be one with substantive argumentation. Of course he can't do that and obviously isn't going to stop employing the fallacy and so I recommend anyone who counts themselves honest to read the following...

Is Open Theism Christian Theism

(Click here for html version)

 

[CabinetMaker]

BEQ16: Does the Incarnation show that God the Son divested Himself in some significant degree of knowledge and power, but explicitly not of His goodness?

AMRA-BEQ16 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
No. Christ is God and cannot divest himself of any of His attributes. Thus, Christ did not divest Himself of knowledge or power. As I argued in AMRA-BEQ2, the attributes of God are identical with His being. For God to divest Himself of any of His attributes, He would not be the simpliciter God, but a composite God that is decomposable, divisible into parts. Yet God is pure actuality, thus having no potentiality, for that which has potential can be divided. If God could be divided, then God could be changed, as would be the case if He were able to divest Himself of some of His attributes. A divisible God is changeable, therefore not an immutable God. This is contrary to the Scriptural revelation of God.

I think AMR is wrong here. Jesus said Himself that only God the Father knows when the End Times will come. Jesus did not know so Jesus does not have the same knowledge as God the Father. It would seem that Jesus did divest Himself of some of Gods attributes.

 

[chatmaggot]

I think AMR is wrong here. Jesus said Himself that only God the Father knows when the End Times will come. Jesus did not know so Jesus does not have the same knowledge as God the Father. It would seem that Jesus did divest Himself of some of Gods attributes.

I agree. He states that a divisible God is changeable and that can't be because we "know" that God is immutable.

God did "divide" Himself. He divided Himself into Spirit and Flesh at the incarnation. There was a time when God wasn't flesh...and then He was. That is a change.

 

[Chileice]

What are you talking about? When did I become belligerent? I too thought we were having a conversation. My questions are asked in all seriousness.

I do not know why you think I became sarcastic. I did use bold...but only for clarification. Did you mistake the bold for sarcasm and belligerence?

I too am disappointed that you feel this way. I guess that is one of the downfalls of text conversations...you never get a perfect feel for the tone.

Anyways, you still never anwered the question. Who are the saved monuments too? You stated who the saved were...but not to whom they are monuments.

I didn't detect sarcasm either. I think maybe AMR expects to get it because he has gotten it on several occassions on different threads. But I really didn't see where AMR was coming with his comments, either.

 

[Yorzhik]

I don't think using the term "unsettled theism" is too bad. Just as long as one is accurate, and perhaps adds something to make it clear, like: "unsettled (but not completely unsettled) theism." Seems like a lot to type if you ask me, though.

 

[PKevman]

How screwy is it to say that Jesus did not change when He became an infant baby?