James White to Debate Bob Enyart on Open Theism

[Tambora]

Nang, I have no doubt that Bob would consider the God of the Bible to be criminal.

Noted.

 

[glorydaz]

Would suggest an equally-appalling nickname for gdayz, but I know you're too refined to use it.

Sticks and stones.....call me anything your little mind can conjure up. I would suggest Rikki Tikki Tavi. He takes care of all the evil snakes. :thumb:



Note: The "refined one" had a dirty mind and read into what wasn't there, as you did. The "refined one" isn't as "refined" as you might think, now, is she? "Refined"....... :rotfl:

 

[Stripe]

When I am asked a yes or no question I only answer it when I am confident the asker and myself are speaking the same language.

I was asking you about your language.

Did I have it correct? Immutable applies in a limited way to certain things about God like His loving kindness and faithfulness, but does not mean He cannot change in terms of the incarnation -- for example.

That's a yes-or-no question. If your links answered that question, could you not just say so?

I sure do appreciate the irenic nature of the conversation.

I've been called a heretic and uneducated. James White reckons I'm not even a Christian. :idunno:

 

[Christian Liberty]

Oh come on, Nang. I'm worth it....really I am.

Congratulations

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/23/ron-paul-to-rick-santorums-face-youre-a-fake-video/

 

[Christian Liberty]

I was asking you about your language.

Did I have it correct? Immutable applies in a limited way to certain things about God like His loving kindness and faithfulness, but does not mean He cannot change in terms of the incarnation -- for example.

That's a yes-or-no question. If your links answered that question, could you not just say so?



I've been called a heretic and uneducated. James White reckons I'm not even a Christian. :idunno:

I agree with James. None of you guys are Christians.

 

[Nang]

Would suggest an equally-appalling nickname for gdayz, but I know you're too refined to use it.

Ha!

I have come up with a few of my own, but have resisted lowering myself to her vulgar level.

I just wonder if readers of this thread have taken note of the disruption of a fairly interesting discussion that was occurring before the pointless interruptions and name-calling that these female sycophants began this evening?

Is this the best defense Open Theists can conjure up in a debate?

 

[glorydaz]

Again, the texts in question are painfully simple. A "pastor" who does not recognize this lacks reading comprehension abilities and is unintelligent. This applies to Enyart.

Ah yes, the wisdom of the natural man. He thinks so highly of himself and considers the spiritual man a fool. Nothing new there. :nono:

you really are stupid aren't you? Why not research blowback? Or are you too scared to think your government could ever lie to you/

I'm too manly to blindly follow orders. I'm too manly to become a pawn to kill and die for politicians. And I'd be manly enough to say that to a soldier's face if I needed to.

FYI, little boy. Anyone who has to talk about how "manly" he is ISN'T. At least put on your big boy pants before coming to post on an adult forum. :duh:

 

[Tambora]

This is what you are not grasping . . . if God was mutable, He would not be God.

We know that is not correct, because God did change without ever ceasing to be God.

He would be no different or higher in Person than humans, animals, or any of His creation.

Well I'll be.
And here I heard Jesus was made a little lower than the angels, and yet never ceased to be God.
Maybe you didn't get the memo.

To claim that He is the same as all that He created, is to deny His very Godhood.

Another memo you must have missed:

Romans 1 KJV
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:​

It is blasphemy to attempt to bring God down to our finite level . . .

"Finite" level????
He became one of us (mankind) and walked among us. Yet he never ceased being God.

for change exists only amongst what is finite.

Since God is the only infinite one, you don't get to set that rule for Him to abide by. God can change, and God did change, and yet he never ceased being God.

The Infinite Creator is without and apart from any change because He so defines Himself.

He defined Himself as becoming a man and a little lower than the angels. And yet He never ceased being God.


God can and did change, and yet never ceased being God.
We know that from scripture.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Ah yes, the wisdom of the natural man. He thinks so highly of himself and considers the spiritual man a fool. Nothing new there. :nono:

I don't think highly of myself. If God didn't regenerate my mind I'd be just as dumb and lost as Enyart.

Its you guys who think highly of yourselves, since you think you chose to accept Christ.

FYI, little boy. Anyone who has to talk about how "manly" he is ISN'T. At least put on your big boy pants before coming to post on an adult forum. :duh:

I don't have to, I was just showing the absurdity of your original comment.

 

[glorydaz]

I suggest you refrain from stupid misrepresentations of any of the views being discussed.

You lie and bear false witness, just in order to be cute and oppose those, who know more than you know, in order to offset biblical oppostion to the cultic beliefs you have stupidly adopted as your own.

If you think you did so, you are just plain lying, wrong, or deaf, and spiritually blind.

How dare you make such a DISRUPTIVE statement, without foundation, in the midst of a serious and earnest debate?

And you still offer nothing of worth to this thread . . .

No genuine Christian would ever dare to use language such as this,

It cracks me up, to think you can enter into an ongoing discussion, with a mere 4 or 5 words of personal opinion, and be taken seriously.

How devilish is that? Whose tactics might those be? :devil: :devil:

So . . . they will continue to broadcast lies and laugh themselves into hell, for lack of faith and repentance of their unbelief.

His name is spelled Harry R-E-I-D :readthis:

Ha!

I have come up with a few of my own, but have resisted lowering myself to her vulgar level.

I just wonder if readers of this thread have taken note of the disruption of a fairly interesting discussion that was occurring before the pointless interruptions and name-calling that these female sycophants began this evening?

Yep, there ya be, Nang, in all your "sycophant" glory. :thumb:

 

[Christian Liberty]

Has anybody told you you were stupid, Glorydaz?

 

[Tambora]

the pointless interruptions and name-calling that these female sycophants began this evening?

Go on back and read my posts, and then list what names I have called you.

And then I will list the names you have called me.

Fair enough?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Or you could, you know, actually debate. If you had anything to debate, which you don't.

 

[glorydaz]

Has anybody told you you were stupid, Glorydaz?

Of course, and I've been called an idiot before, too. I always consider the source, however, and so am able to overlook it from people I have no respect for.

 

[Tambora]

One does not have to be the smartest to be right, now do they?
Huh? Tell us, just when did it become a criteria that in order for one to be right, they had to first be the smartest?
Let us all know when that rule was made, will ya?

Again, the texts in question are painfully simple. A "pastor" who does not recognize this lacks reading comprehension abilities and is unintelligent. This applies to Enyart.

Again, tell us, just when did it become a criteria that in order for one to be right, they had to first be the smartest of the two?

I'll wait.

 

[glorydaz]

God didn't regenerate my mind

I know...

 

[Brother Vinny]

Again, tell us, just when did it become a criteria that in order for one to be right, they had to first be the smartest of the two?

I'll wait.

This is a danger I see in Calvinism (although I am in danger of painting with too broad a brush) -- they put so much stock in doctrinal correctness that it becomes a mark of a right relationship with God. The implication is the better (and more-rightly) educated a person is, the closer that person's walk must be.

 

[glorydaz]

I explained this in my post above. You have the duty to reconcile clear teachings about God knowing what you will pray about before you even pray, moreover, the Spirit growning for you in prayer when you cannot even form the words of your prayers, versus this statement of yours. How is God's set in stone will being that when you pray for this or that He will answer this or that a problem? When you pray do you feel you are being coerced into so doing? Are not your prayers your genuine concerns at the time you so pray? Why is it you feel compelled to peek behind the curtain, as it were, to enter into the mind of God and seek more than which you are entitled (Deut. 29:29)? God has already answered those that would seek to place Him in the Dock to defend Himself, no? See Job. Many seem to have no problem with God sitting on His throne with His sceptre in His hand, but they gnash their teeth when He deems He should rule. Sigh. We really resist a sovereign God because we want to cling to notions of autonomy from Him, thus re-defining what the word "sovereign" means. This was the sin of Adam and it continues to war within us all to our death. I suspect you may know you will not have this precious free will you cling to now. Again Scripture is clear on this, too. How do you reconcile this fact with your current views?

AMR

To be honest, AMR. That is about the worst post I have ever seen you write. It's rambling, and doesn't make a lick of sense. Nor does it address the verses I gave you.

No, I do not feel like I'm being coerced into praying. I feel like I am speaking to my Father, and He is hearing every word I speak and knows every fear I can't even express. I know, without a doubt, that God will RESPOND and work together for good every circumstance that I face. He rewards me for coming to Him by filling me with His peace and answers every request that is for my best.

I don't believe God was lying when said, "You have not because you ask not. Whatsoever you ask in my Name.... You seem to think that we have a Father that sits on His throne with His fingers firmly in His ears and watches our mouths run. I don't believe it.

 

[Bob Enyart]

God decrees everything, Bob. Even the bad stuff. You call yourself a "pastor" but I doubt you've ever even read Isaiah 46, Isaiah 10, Romans 9, or John 6.

Hello CL,

I enjoyed interacting with a Reformed PhD at http://OpenTheism.org in the debate titled, Is Calvinism Biblical? If I recall, my opening post introduced the excellent passages that you're referencing CL. Then the debate proceeded mostly covering the Scripture in Romans 9. As I recall, afterward, the Calvinists said that their side won hands down.

-Bob Enyart


Posted from the TOL App!

 

[glorydaz]

Would suggest an equally-appalling nickname for gdayz, but I know you're too refined to use it.

Sticks and stones.....call me anything your little mind can conjure up. I would suggest Rikki Tikki Tavi. He takes care of all the evil snakes. :thumb:

For the record. This is hardly a "hit me with your best shot" permission, Vinny, as you've claimed in chat. You should be able to tell by my suggestion I didn't expect an adult male would even think of sending me the private message you did. If your conscience doesn't allow you to post something on the open forum, you should really try to refrain altogether.


Of course, I was surprised Nang took the low road, too, so go figure. "Equally appalling" tells me you two make a great team. Great minds think alike.