BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
You have exactly zero Biblical evidence that this is so. When discussing the bringing of sin into the world (universe) the only we have Biblically is the tempting of Eve in the Garden of Eden. I beleive that this is the event which marked Lucifers down fall. If so, it would explain why he, as the prefallen Lucifer, would have been allowed into the Garden in the first place as well as why the Bible is completely silent as to any details about some other "fall of Lucifer" cenario.elected4ever said:
Your last sentence here is an overstatement but I agree with the rest of this but I see no problem with the rest of what you said here.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Well, of course you are right, at least to some degree. I think, however that you need to keep in mind that many of us, this is more than simply something of passing interest. Some of us, myself included, are quite emotionally invested in this issue and in Pastor Enyart himself as well. And so when you go to read these critiques and reactions to posts, if you are looking for completely unbiased essays then you're just frankly not going to find them. As much as I love Bob and as strongly as I believe in open theism, I do try to be as fair as I know how to be but the fact of the matter is that I cannot be completely unbiased nor do I believe it is necessary to be so. I am not the only person here and while I may not be in the minority on this site, it's not as if there aren't plenty of people here who believe as strongly that open theism is heresy as I believe it is Biblical truth. The point being, you need to grow a little thicker skin and remember who wrote what you're reading and take that into account when reading it.jeremiah said:This is something I had to move from the Battle Critique Thread per Knight's instructions so that is why it seems out of context.
To the Moderator: I would now like to make a small "critique of the critiquers," here? and or in the gallery?
If you must delete this part of my post or move it, I fully understand.
When I was a baby Christian I was so excited to go on my first retreat with my Church to a mountain getaway. When I got there all I heard was "and this is what we did last year", or "let's do what we did last year", or worst of all, "it was a LOT better last year." Fortunately, the Holy Spirit was there and at the very end something very different happened, and we all had our "socks blessed off", as we used to say, back then.
Although many of you have heard this type of debate many times before, I have not. So when you say that Bob is going to knock that one out of the ballpark, quite frankly, he has not knocked anything out yet. He has only had one post which was preparatory, and as the Dr. said, "non -responsive." Then you assume that Dr. Lamerson can only respond with answers that you have also already heard. You may be wrong, so please leave room in your thinking, that God may so inspire him with an answer that you may have never heard.
It may not be "just like last year." It may in fact be better, and we may all be edified. I would call that having an "open" view of a live debate. Let's allow God to be God, and work through the debaters, and inside our hearts and minds.
This is not a movie that I have seen before, and you shouldn't try to ruin the ending for those of us who haven't seen it. If you think this is a movie you have seen before, then I would say that you have a "closed" view of debates.
Thanks!
Actually, if this issue is really important to you personally, I strongly recommend that you not even read the critiques or anything in this thread. Simply read the debate and wait until it is over before frequenting these threads. For those of us who spend a lot of time on this site, these Battle Royales are a lot like the Super Bowl and we all have our favorite team. In fact we sort of consider ourselves to be members of that team and so it is difficult for us not to anticipate an upcoming argument or the course of the debate in general. I understand completely your desire for the debate not to be "ruined" by us giving up the end game too early and I for one will endeavor not to do so but if you really want to keep the suspense in tact, I recommend ignoring all the peanut gallery stuff and just watch the battle unfold for yourself. I will pray that God will give you both wisdom to discern the truth and patience to tolerate those of us who are already decidedly on one side of this issue or the other.
Resting in Him,
Clete
elected4ever
New member
Clete
So you believe that God's plan will not come to pass as He planed and the end is based on some contingency. What is the contingency that will change God's plan?
Your statement isn't completely wrong it just seemed an overstatement when I first read it. Actually, depending on what you mean by it exactly it may not be wrong at all.elected4ever said:Clete So you believe that God's plan will not come to pass as He planed and the end is based on some contingency. What is the contingency that will change God's plan?
Resting in Him,
Clete
taoist
New member
taoist,
As an example, consider the "personal" aspect common to both lists. Reading Bob's commentary on this aspect, an aspect he apparently feels is important in framing OV theology, it's clear this is not the standard dictionary definition I would naturally rely upon.
Turbo,
"Personal: Christ is “the express image of His person” (Heb. 1:3) so God could say, “Let Us make man in Our image” (Gen. 1:26)." -- Bob Enyart
"Relating to or having the nature of a person or self-conscious being: belief in a personal God." -- The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Bob Enyart,
Turbo, you're my hero.
***
Greetings, Bob,
And here I was trying to help you out by showing you an area where only the choir gets it. Do a guy a favor and see what you get. Oh yeah, I forgot. This is Bob "all atheists are disgusting" Enyart. Does talking to atheists make you feel dirty, Bob? My point was and is that ya'll been talking back and forth to each other so long you don't notice what gets left out.
(Two biblical quotations from Bob hardly qualify as "commentary," Turbo.)
In the current debate, you've used "personal" as an alternative to the Calvinist "omnipresence" in the table of attributes.
In Turbo's given definition, the "personal" nature of god derives from "the nature of a person or self-conscious being." How does this definition of "personal" strike a dissimilarity from the "omnipresence" listed as the corresponding attribute of Calvinism? It's the answer to this question that forms an illumination of your belief in a personal god used in other contexts, Bob.
Are you beginning to get it? I can go more slowly if you need it.
More, you've used the expression "... we are persons only because He is a personal God" in both this debate, in "Does God Exist?" and in its Post-Game Show. There is the obvious criticism in terms of the "DGE?" debate; that the assumption of a personal god cannot be used in showing evidence of a personal god.
But here, a clear reading of the example given in Webster's fourth shows the "personhood" of God as an anthropomorphism. Instead, and apparently unconsciously, both you and your hero have reversed the meaning of this example and inferred the "personhood" of man in what one might call a "deomorphism."
Bob, this will miss all nonbelievers until you've come to terms with the reversal. While you and your choir have accepted this deconstruction, you might want to find a way to communicate beyond the pews. Word up.
In peace, Jesse
As an example, consider the "personal" aspect common to both lists. Reading Bob's commentary on this aspect, an aspect he apparently feels is important in framing OV theology, it's clear this is not the standard dictionary definition I would naturally rely upon.
Turbo,
"Personal: Christ is “the express image of His person” (Heb. 1:3) so God could say, “Let Us make man in Our image” (Gen. 1:26)." -- Bob Enyart
"Relating to or having the nature of a person or self-conscious being: belief in a personal God." -- The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Bob Enyart,
Turbo, you're my hero.
***
Greetings, Bob,
And here I was trying to help you out by showing you an area where only the choir gets it. Do a guy a favor and see what you get. Oh yeah, I forgot. This is Bob "all atheists are disgusting" Enyart. Does talking to atheists make you feel dirty, Bob? My point was and is that ya'll been talking back and forth to each other so long you don't notice what gets left out.
(Two biblical quotations from Bob hardly qualify as "commentary," Turbo.)
In the current debate, you've used "personal" as an alternative to the Calvinist "omnipresence" in the table of attributes.
In Turbo's given definition, the "personal" nature of god derives from "the nature of a person or self-conscious being." How does this definition of "personal" strike a dissimilarity from the "omnipresence" listed as the corresponding attribute of Calvinism? It's the answer to this question that forms an illumination of your belief in a personal god used in other contexts, Bob.
Are you beginning to get it? I can go more slowly if you need it.
More, you've used the expression "... we are persons only because He is a personal God" in both this debate, in "Does God Exist?" and in its Post-Game Show. There is the obvious criticism in terms of the "DGE?" debate; that the assumption of a personal god cannot be used in showing evidence of a personal god.
But here, a clear reading of the example given in Webster's fourth shows the "personhood" of God as an anthropomorphism. Instead, and apparently unconsciously, both you and your hero have reversed the meaning of this example and inferred the "personhood" of man in what one might call a "deomorphism."
Bob, this will miss all nonbelievers until you've come to terms with the reversal. While you and your choir have accepted this deconstruction, you might want to find a way to communicate beyond the pews. Word up.
In peace, Jesse
I don't get the impression that the each attribute on the Open View side of the table is intended to be directly contrasted specifically with the Settled View attribute from the same row. And though that might have been clearer if there were no lines dividing the two lists into rows, I would think that by upon trying to make a direct connection between the items in each row most readers would conclude that the two lists were "package deals."taoist said:
Clete said:
To Clete: Thanks for responding to my post and indicating that you are trying to be unbiased, and will try not to reveal the endgame so early in the debate.
Your analogy to the Super Bowl really helps me understand some of the mentality. Since football is still my favorite sport, I now better understand some of the "rah rah" comments and we are going to "cream" them type exclamations!
I may have come off as a little too thin skinned! However, again using the football analogy, I think that I "lucked" out here with excellent seats. But you know how it is when the people in front of you never sit down, and talk really loud. It forces you to also stand up the whole time, and shout even louder!
The way I see it is that Dr. Lamerson is the huge underdog in this game on Bob's homefield. It always amuses and grates me a "little" when the hometown favorites claim that you visiting underdogs, have "no chance." Remember they said that about the N.Y. Jets, and also after game three of last year's Red Sox- Yankees playoff.
I enjoy reading the Gallery and the critiques, I only hope to keep, and or get, some people in their seats, so I can see the game a little better. If it becomes too distracting, your suggestion is an excellent one.
From my POV Lamerson has kicked a field goal and Enyart hasn't scored yet. Even so the feeling is that Bob is ahead because he is soon going to score big and the Dr. will be held scoreless the rest of the way. That is how the favorites usually lose, overconfidence.
When he does score some points, that's when I expect you all to stand and shout and jump. Until then, just tone it down a little. Basically, that's all I really meant to say.
sentientsynth
New member
Clete said:
What's the worst that can happen? They say no? Nothing lost, eh?
I'm sure that Dr. Hanegraaff would want to wait until after his next book, Exegetical Eschatology, comes out. So IF this happens, it may be late '06 or sometime '07 before it happens. But I AM going to contact CRI and see what they have to say. Just for giggles, if no more.
Keeping my fantasies somewhat reasonable,
SS
CRASH
TOL Subscriber
This Debate! BRX!
This Debate! BRX!
Maybe someone should check with Bob before calling Hank and proposing another debate - to see what topics Bob is most interested in debating.
It might be better now to get the people over at CSI (and any other ministry) interested in this debate!:think:
This Debate! BRX!
Maybe someone should check with Bob before calling Hank and proposing another debate - to see what topics Bob is most interested in debating.
It might be better now to get the people over at CSI (and any other ministry) interested in this debate!:think:
beefalobilly
Member
godrulz said:
I believe alvin plantinga is a molinist as well, and he's no dummy
While you're right of course that consulting Bob would be the polite thing to do, but keep in mind that it is not exactly likely that Hanegraaf would be at all willing to grant such a debate in the first place and as sentientsynth said, it probably wouldn't take place for more than a year if it took place at all.CRASH said:
And I, of course do not speak for Bob, but judging from attitudes that Bob has displayed in the past conserning debates, he'll take all comers in a public debate and he relishes any opportunity to debate people who are "important". The higher profile the apponent, the better it is for Bob. And while the proposed topic is a bit on the unusual side, I'd be extremely shocked if Bob turned down an opportunity to debate someone as high profile as Hanegraaf on any subject.
Resting in Him,
Clete
I just want to state clearly about the Molinist View that I do not consider any of its proponents to be dummies. My complaint about Molinism isn't at all that it is stupid; on the contrary, if anything it's too intellectual. It seems overly complicated and philosophically complex to the point that you just start to get the intuitive sense that somethin' aint right about it.
When reading about it I begin to feel the same way I did when I watched the conspiracy theory movie JFK in that it's just so incredibly complex and convoluted that it stretches credibility to the breaking point. But even so, I certainly would never think that any one who holds to that view and actually understands it to be stupid or a "dummy". Heck, you've gotta have some pretty good brain power just to understand it well enough to even articulate it, never mind believe in it.
Resting in Him,
Clete
When reading about it I begin to feel the same way I did when I watched the conspiracy theory movie JFK in that it's just so incredibly complex and convoluted that it stretches credibility to the breaking point. But even so, I certainly would never think that any one who holds to that view and actually understands it to be stupid or a "dummy". Heck, you've gotta have some pretty good brain power just to understand it well enough to even articulate it, never mind believe in it.
Resting in Him,
Clete
beefalobilly
Member
Clete said:
Gotcha, I was mainly referring to godrulz statement when I said that since he said something about a molinist also. I personally am unsure of where I stand on the issue, so this debate is of particular interest to me.
sentientsynth
New member
Crash,
I'll notify CRI about this debate. Really I think that every theological body should be interested in this debate. It's hot, "in-house," and very interesting. Hey, I'm here.
CRI may take note of it. But if one were to take CRI as a whole, it's thoroughly classical. A recent CRI mag has this article which I found pretty insightful. Somewhat brief, but good.
I have a lot of respect for both Dr. Hanegraaff and Pastor Enyart. It is their mutual Biblical knowledge and personality that leads me to believe that they'd make for an interesting debate. And good for all involved. Dr. Hanegraaff to openly debate the thesis of his recent work. Pastor Enyart to demonstrate why a growing number of Christians are listening to him. And TOL for publicity, hits, etc. A few debates of the order of magnitude as BRX and the hopeful BRXI would make TOL THE place for online discussion, debate, community, etc.
I'd like that. I know some other folks that'll like that. And with the proper planning and execution, it can happen.
SS
I'll notify CRI about this debate. Really I think that every theological body should be interested in this debate. It's hot, "in-house," and very interesting. Hey, I'm here.
CRI may take note of it. But if one were to take CRI as a whole, it's thoroughly classical. A recent CRI mag has this article which I found pretty insightful. Somewhat brief, but good.
I have a lot of respect for both Dr. Hanegraaff and Pastor Enyart. It is their mutual Biblical knowledge and personality that leads me to believe that they'd make for an interesting debate. And good for all involved. Dr. Hanegraaff to openly debate the thesis of his recent work. Pastor Enyart to demonstrate why a growing number of Christians are listening to him. And TOL for publicity, hits, etc. A few debates of the order of magnitude as BRX and the hopeful BRXI would make TOL THE place for online discussion, debate, community, etc.
I'd like that. I know some other folks that'll like that. And with the proper planning and execution, it can happen.
SS
- Status