As I am fond of saying, "you choose the behavior, you have chosen the consequences." Deal with it.:box:
Did anyone else notice this "return evil for perceived evil" policy of AMR's?
:think:
As I am fond of saying, "you choose the behavior, you have chosen the consequences." Deal with it.:box:
In case I am pressed for time, let me pre-respond to the usual crowd now:
godrulz: "No, it is not a nuanced motif and I disagree with what {so and so} writes."
Get on with it now.
BEQ1: 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)?
BEQ2: Do you agree that righteousness is the foundation of God’s sovereignty.
Psa 89:14 Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.
BEQ3: Do you agree that the five divine attributes of living, personal, relational, good, and loving, are more fundamental and take precedence over matters of location, knowledge, stoicism, power, and control?
Divine Simplicity
Clete said: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Should he answer the questions in context? Sure,...
BEQ4: Will you retract your criticism that my Attributes Hermeneutic was “so broad as to be virtually pointless?” Now that you've seen my NOAH interpretation method demonstrated again by using it in the exact same way I did in my first post to resolve an apparent conflict in Pauline passages, but this to answer your question about Judas. Please remember, I am not here asking you if you agree with the method, but just if it is a clear method.
BEQ5: Which describes something deeper within God, descriptions of Him that are dependent upon His creation, or descriptions of God that are true within God Himself, apart from any consideration of man?
Again the answer is virually the same and AMR addresses it in a like manner. Anyone lost at the end isn't reading carefully and missed the initial statement AND the virtual similarity or rephrasing of the question. That it is asked twice in virtually the same way? :nono: <dunno>"Do you agree that the five divine attributes of living, personal, relational, good, and loving, are more fundamental and take precedence over matters of location, knowledge, stoicism, power, and control?"
BEQ6: Which is greater, God’s sovereignty over creation, or God’s love?
Good to see you agree to something every now and then.We cannot pit sovereignty vs love, I agree (AMR). The root problem is a wrong understanding of hyper-sovereignty in Calvinism, not that Open Theists reject sovereignty in favor of love. Likewise, a wrong understanding of sovereignty and free will leads to wrong conclusions. There is a way to resolve these tensions, and it is not Calvinism
Your 1000s of posts are merely more assertions. The wealth of non-Reformed literature you refer to is Arminian in nature. Unsettled theists claim to not be Arminian, hence the wealth of non-Reformed literature relevant to the discussion comprises the paltry works of philosophers masquerading as theologians: Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders.AMR will object to my assertions, so I point him to my 1000s of posts and the wealth of non-Calvinistic theology through the centuries.
If you are reading the book, then illuminate us all with Sanders' newfound insights. I am having enough trouble playing wack-a-mole with the ever-moving theologies of unsettled theism herein. :chuckle:In fairness, AMR should read and quote John Sander's Second Edition (I am rereading it now) of 'The God who risks'. He has responded to his critics and changed or clarified ideas over time from the first edition.
Per the terms of the proposal, Enyart is under no obligation to respond to anything until I have finished answering all of his questions. Enyart has agreed to respond to my single question regarding the eschaton I posed in another thread (see the three links in this post) after I have answered all of his BR X questions. The One on One was not to be a debate in the spirit of BR X. So, yes, it is a monologue that I am enjoying. In effect, I am trading 50 responses for 1. Not a bad deal in my opinion, assuming I get an honest response.Is your 'one on one' a monologue? Where is Pastor Enyart's contribution? You have substance and style, even if you are still wrong
godrulz,We cannot pit sovereignty vs love, I agree (AMR). The root problem is a wrong understanding of hyper-sovereignty in Calvinism, not that Open Theists reject sovereignty in favor of love. Likewise, a wrong understanding of sovereignty and free will leads to wrong conclusions. There is a way to resolve these tensions, and it is not Calvinism :noid:
Now this was an excellent point! You've pointed out just the sort of error that AMR is prone to making, only it isn't really an "error" as that term, at least in my mind, suggests it was done on accident, which I don't believe is the case with AMR. It would be more accurate in his case to say that you've pointed out just the sort of lie that AMR like to tell in support of his theology.AMR will object to my assertions, so I point him to my 1000s of posts and the wealth of non-Calvinistic theology through the centuries.
In fairness, AMR should read and quote John Sander's Second Edition (I am rereading it now) of 'The God who risks'. He has responded to his critics and changed or clarified ideas over time from the first edition.
BEQ6: Which is greater, God’s sovereignty over creation, or God’s love?
"...all of God’s commandments were the great commandments"
Per the terms of the proposal, Enyart is under no obligation to respond to anything until I have finished answering all of his questions. Enyart has agreed to respond to my single question regarding the eschaton I posed in another thread (see the three links in this post) after I have answered all of his BR X questions. The One on One was not to be a debate in the spirit of BR X. So, yes, it is a monologue that I am enjoying. In effect, I am trading 50 responses for 1. Not a bad deal in my opinion, assuming I get an honest response.
godrulz,
Why do you shoot your mouth off giving credence to liars and heretics without using your brain first? I swear sometimes you, as an ally to the Open View, are more destructive than any enemy anyone ever had!
Please think it through before agreeing with AMR! I have found almost nothing that he says to be worthy of giving that much credence too and I don't just say that because I hate him but because everything he says is a convoluted mess of question begging nonsense that bears very little or no resemblance to Biblical Christianity.
The Scriptures are clear in affirming Christ's words cited in my 1:1 response:Mr. Religion,
Does the command to obey the Sabbath stand equal with healing someone (loving your neighbor)?
Did God's command to obey the Sabbath take precedence to loving your neighbor or did loving your neighbor take precedence over the Sabbath?
Or...did the command to obey the Sabbath take precedence over circumcision...or did circumcision take precedence over the Sabbath?
How can all laws be the greatest when some laws had to be broken to obey others?
Doesn't that imply that some commands are greater than others?