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

[PKevman]

I find the following statements to be just nutty, and one of the reasons Calvinism is so easy to expose as false teaching:

As for His essential being the Logos was exactly the same before and after the incarnation. The verb egeneto in John 1:14 does not mean that the Logos changed into flesh, and that His essential nature was altered. It simply means that He took on that particular character; that He acquired an additional form, without in any way changing His original nature. He remained the infinite and unchangeable Son of God.

"He remained the infinite and unchangeable Son of God"?

:idea: God the Son had been an infant baby from eternity past........
:idea: God the Son cried and googooed and spit up from eternity past..... OR maybe He didn't really cry and googoo and spit up. Maybe He just sat up and started spouting out Scriptures as an infant baby?
Seriously, how could becoming an infant baby not be a change for the Creator of the universe? How could it NOT be divesting Himself of some of the divine attributes? Either He was a real infant baby or He wasn't a real infant baby!

If God the Father AND God the Son cannot change, then why does it say:

Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

1. If God the Son cannot change, how could He grow in wisdom and stature?
2. If God the Son cannot change how could He grow in favor with men?
3. If God the Son cannot change how could He grow in favor with God?
4. If God the Father cannot change, how could his favor FOR God the Son increase?

These 4 common sense questions completely annihilate AMR's post #16.

 

[Clete]

I was in a hurry when I posted post #75 and actually cited the wrong fallacy! My mistake - sorry for any confusion that might have caused. Fortunately my mistake is easier to correct than AMR's. The post has been corrected. It is his association of Open Theism with "the cults" that the article I linked to refutes, not his use of the silly and intentionally inaccurate term "unsettled view".

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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?

To whom are those lucky people...monuments?
...How monumental is it...people who had no choice but to be saved...preselected in the "before the foundation of the world" lottery?

Not sarcasm? Not belligerence? You think God's holy acts are a lotto? You think God's elect are robots without choice? You denigrate God's decree as not monumental? Please, sir, I do know sarcasm when I see it, your protests to the contrary notwithstanding. Nothing I have communicated to you warranted the tone of your words quoted here. :chew:

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

The saved are monuments to the glory of God, which is His ultimate purpose for all that He does.

 

[Yorzhik]

Lon,

Could we expect you to get upset with a comment that chatmaggot made? Would an innocuous comment like this seem rude to you?

Here's the exchange... AMR sure seemed to take it hard.

To whom are those lucky people...monuments?
...How monumental is it...people who had no choice but to be saved...preselected in the "before the foundation of the world" lottery?

Not sarcasm? Not belligerence? You think God's holy acts are a lotto? You think God's elect are robots without choice? You denigrate God's decree as not monumental? Please, sir, I do know sarcasm when I see it, your protests to the contrary notwithstanding. Nothing I have communicated to you warranted the tone of your words quoted here. :chew:

 

[Clete]

Just answer the questions AMR and stop being a cry baby about someone's "tone"!

If his questions weren't right on target they wouldn't be getting under your skin so badly.

The fact is that there is no glory in saving people who could not have gone to Hell had they wanted too and there is no denying that the Calvinist doctrine of election amounts to the ultimate cosmic lottery.

Now either refute it or live with it and stop being such a pansy.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. This is the exact same road AMR took me down shortly after he arrived here. I have little doubt that chatmaggot is soon to be AMR's newest enemy and that AMR will declare that his accusations of belligerent sarcasm where true from the start and decide that chatmaggot is no longer worthy of his time.

 

[chatmaggot]

Not sarcasm? Not belligerence? You think God's holy acts are a lotto? You think God's elect are robots without choice? You denigrate God's decree as not monumental? Please, sir, I do know sarcasm when I see it, your protests to the contrary notwithstanding. Nothing I have communicated to you warranted the tone of your words quoted here. :chew:

The saved are monuments to the glory of God, which is His ultimate purpose for all that He does.

Anyways, let's move on. I admit. I am a sarcastic jerk and the reason for by posts are not to gain understanding but rather to make people mad. My "cosmic lottery" was not an attempt at being sarcastic, I was making an analogy.

Mr. Religion,

You stated:

...but a composite God that is decomposable, divisible into parts. Yet God is pure actuality, thus having no potentiality,...

This seems to contradict your statement:

...He acquired an additional form...

How can something that is immutable acquire? Could you comment please?

 

[Lon]

Lon,

Could we expect you to get upset with a comment that chatmaggot made? Would an innocuous comment like this seem rude to you?

Here's the exchange... AMR sure seemed to take it hard.

Maybe it is Chat's avatar and handle? Hard to tell. I don't know. Sometimes I color another's comment by thread context ("the 'crowd' is bashing me"). When other's see it in me I chalk it up to misunderstanding and/or poor communication on my part. I got neg repped on this thread already, because of lack of clarity in my initial post :*(

I pos repped him back just to give him a nicer day.

AMR is the source for getting to the bottom of your query

 

[Lon]

Anyways, let's move on. I admit. I am a sarcastic jerk and the reason for by posts are not to gain understanding but rather to make people mad. My "cosmic lottery" was not an attempt at being sarcastic, I was making an analogy.

Mr. Religion,

You stated:



This seems to contradict your statement:



How can something that is immutable acquire? Could you comment please?

It could be Jim Carrey and maggots are jerks (no, wait, that was Steve Martin and maggots are just doing their job).

Anyway...

I had a similar discussion with Clete. My clock does not change (discounting entropy) but the display changes. It goes through a routine and in that it doesn't vary (24hours in succession).
We didn't come to conclusion on our discussion, but the statements "The clock changes/does not change" were the focal point of that discussion. I chalked the difference up to semantics and our mutually poor attempt to explain both the immutable/changing facets of the clock.

Not sure if that helps, but when we are discussing God as He "Changes not" and is responsive to us, I think some of the similar semantic discussion can lead to a similar confusion/disagreement: Changes/doesn't change

 

[chatmaggot]

Maybe it is Chat's avatar and handle? Hard to tell. I don't know. Sometimes I color another's comment by thread context ("the 'crowd' is bashing me"). When other's see it in me I chalk it up to misunderstanding and/or poor communication on my part. I got neg repped on this thread already, because of lack of clarity in my initial post :*(

I pos repped him back just to give him a nicer day.

AMR is the source for getting to the bottom of your query

I changed my avatar so as to not confuse others in the future.

 

[Lon]

I find the following statements to be just nutty, and one of the reasons Calvinism is so easy to expose as false teaching:



"He remained the infinite and unchangeable Son of God"?

:idea: God the Son had been an infant baby from eternity past........
:idea: God the Son cried and googooed and spit up from eternity past..... OR maybe He didn't really cry and googoo and spit up. Maybe He just sat up and started spouting out Scriptures as an infant baby?
Seriously, how could becoming an infant baby not be a change for the Creator of the universe? How could it NOT be divesting Himself of some of the divine attributes? Either He was a real infant baby or He wasn't a real infant baby!

If God the Father AND God the Son cannot change, then why does it say:

Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

1. If God the Son cannot change, how could He grow in wisdom and stature?
2. If God the Son cannot change how could He grow in favor with men?
3. If God the Son cannot change how could He grow in favor with God?
4. If God the Father cannot change, how could his favor FOR God the Son increase?

These 4 common sense questions completely annihilate AMR's post #16.

Hello PK,

Part of your refrain continues to extrapolate to absurdity (which can be said to be a problem from both perspectives).

This steers us very nearly to extreme perceptions of one another. Perhaps it is true that our disagreements have us declaring the other false, for the rhetoric certainly points that way but I've always (okay, no, I've fallen into this trap from time to time as well) tried to be careful about asking questions rather than jumping to the extreme. If I carry OV perception to its invariable conclusion I come up with similar extremity. So perhaps a few clarifying questions will steer this back on track if you will indulge me:

:idea: God the Son had been an infant baby from eternity past........

Is this what you think AMR believes? I might see the attempted levity, but generally it humor works best when it is applied to a true statement, otherwise it is mischaracterization and attack which is only fun and funny for the bully on the playfield who's a little dim (this type of humor).

:idea: God the Son cried and googooed and spit up from eternity past..... OR maybe He didn't really cry and googoo and spit up. Maybe He just sat up and started spouting out Scriptures as an infant baby?

Is this the classic/traditional perspective or an extrapolation based on that perspective? The reason I'm asking is because I don't think we could put AMR's name/stamp on this assumption, do you?

These 4 common sense questions completely annihilate AMR's post #16.

I realize you were sharing levity but it is lost in mischaracterization and that dim/bullying humor approach. IMHO, you might have elicited a response with direct questions and IHO, I don't think you've addressed the post at all yet in comment or question except for the initial:

"He remained the infinite and unchangeable Son of God"?

I think it is similar to Chat's question so of course, asked meaningfully, expresses the need for clarification in elucidation.

 

[Nang]

AMR,

It is my observation that one can evaluate the worth of their service to the Lord by the amount and kind of opposition one generates. So far, friend, you are on the high road!

It is not only my prayer that God will give you the time and energy and wisdom to continue and finish answering Enyart's questions, but that all those who read, will do so with humble spirits, and that the Lord will cause us all to be willing to learn as the Scriptures are discussed.

This is not a game, where winning is all that matters.

This is a most holy exercise, that all participants should approach in great reverance and awe.

It is a great privilege to be trusted to handle the things of God and to be given glimpses into the depths of His riches communicated through revelations found in the written Word.

We cannot learn and be blessed, unless we honor the subjects discussed, and show love and patience with each other.

AMR has begun a good work in a good spirit and with much wisdom. He deserves our respect and our thanks and decent input and interaction, here in the Grandstands.

When Mr. Enyart answers, the same courtesies will be expected.

Meanwhile, may God richly bless and edify each of us, according to our faithfulness to read through, and meditate upon the Scriptures presented by AMR.

Nang

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I changed my avatar so as to not confuse others in the future.

Maybe that was adding to the 'tone' I was receiving. Anyway, as you said we will move onward. I see the topic of the nature of Christ from my 1:1 response, is a source of confusion to some. Will clarify things later today for everyone.

 

[Clete]

It could be Jim Carrey and maggots are jerks (no, wait, that was Steve Martin and maggots are just doing their job).

Anyway...

I had a similar discussion with Clete. My clock does not change (discounting entropy) but the display changes. It goes through a routine and in that it doesn't vary (24hours in succession).
We didn't come to conclusion on our discussion, but the statements "The clock changes/does not change" were the focal point of that discussion. I chalked the difference up to semantics and our mutually poor attempt to explain both the immutable/changing facets of the clock.

Not sure if that helps, but when we are discussing God as He "Changes not" and is responsive to us, I think some of the similar semantic discussion can lead to a similar confusion/disagreement: Changes/doesn't change

The point you seem to be unable to grasp is that in Augustinian/Calvinist style immutability God cannot go through any sort of routine. No such comment like "God changed/does not change" could ever be made in the Augustinian worldview.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[chatmaggot]

AMR,

It is my observation that one can evaluate the worth of their service to the Lord by the amount and kind of opposition one generates. So far, friend, you are on the high road!

Do you really believe that?

According to your logic...Bob Enyart is on an even HIGHER ROAD because of all the opposition that he generates.

Again, do you REALLY believe that ones worth is evaluated by the amount of opposition they generate...or just those people you agree with that generate opposition?

 

[Clete]

AMR,

It is my observation that one can evaluate the worth of their service to the Lord by the amount and kind of opposition one generates. So far, friend, you are on the high road!

David Koresh must really have been a great guy then, huh?!

Knucklehead! :hammer:

 

[Nang]

do you REALLY believe that ones worth is evaluated by the amount of opposition they generate?

Uh .. .that is not exactly what I said, is it?

Nang

 

[Lon]

The point you seem to be unable to grasp is that in Augustinian/Calvinist style immutability God cannot go through any sort of routine. No such comment like "God changed/does not change" could ever be made in the Augustinian worldview.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Perhaps that was indeed, my point of confusion (i.e. not the OV perception but my own, as you see it). Clearly it is a matter of perception for the misperception. I'm willing to take a second look but don't forget I'm on the lower end in the club and may need it 'splained a tad more (No idea why I went into Ricky Riccardo-mode).

 

[Lon]

Nang did say '...and KIND of opposition...'

:cloud9:

:rain:

 

[chatmaggot]

Uh .. .that is not exactly what I said, is it?

Nang

You said in post #91:

...one can evaluate the worth of their service to the Lord by the amount and kind of opposition one generates. So far, friend, you are on the high road!

So I guess not. I left out "of their service to the Lord". Does that change anything? If so how?

Please explain.

 

[Clete]

Perhaps that was indeed, my point of confusion (i.e. not the OV perception but my own, as you see it). Clearly it is a matter of perception for the misperception. I'm willing to take a second look but don't forget I'm on the lower end in the club and may need it 'splained a tad more (No idea why I went into Ricky Riccardo-mode).

This will glaze your eyes over (I guarantee it) but just read the first paragraph of the following...

Augustine on Divine Immutability

Note that the word "accidental" as used in the above refers to something that arising from extrinsic causes, like, for example the movement of a clocks hands (or the movement of anything for that matter).

Resting in Him,
Clete