Monday, July 28, 2014

Some Bad Advice From Tony Miano

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/07/some-bad-advice-from-tony-miano.html

Monday, July 21, 2014

Another faithless liberal

I don't care how many times liberals tell me that they love Jesus and all that. Ask them enough questions and you find that they actually love themselves quite a bit more. Check out this comment conversation that developed on a video of mine:

 
Character assassination against Old and New Testament scholars who come to conclusions other than what is deemed acceptable by fundamentalist Christian apologists hardly qualifies as a meaningful critique of their research or positions. 


 
Huh?

 
+Rhology White mentions at 1:32 that much of the scholarship pertaining to the Bible in mainline Universities are anti Christian. Although White may interpret it that way, there are many Christian scholars of both Old and New Testament teaching in seminaries who have views that are very similar if not identical to the "anti-Christian liberals" whom White is referring to. Is this because these Christian scholars are looking for ways to deceive people? Hardly. White says that Old Testament studies has never recovered from the critical analysis from the German scholars of the 19th century (3:35-3:41), as if to say that the approach to the Old Testament has been damaged in some way. On the contrary, it is because the literary and documentary evidence of multiple scribal hands, redactions, anachronisms, and diverse theological outlook is so massive that scholars can no longer hold to the simple conclusions that were once held in regard to Biblical authorship and inerrancy such as "Moses wrote every word from Genesis 1 to Deuteronomy 34, because that's what our tradition tells us". To White, this is poison (8:24) and he wants to interpret the situation in pure black and white terms by insisting that anyone who doesn't agree with how he thinks scholarship should be done are perishing  and are doomed to hell. In my opinion, that is hardly a basis for substantiating the claims he is making. 

 
+ors712 \\Is this because these Christian scholars are looking for ways to deceive people?\\

How do you know that?


\\as if to say that the approach to the Old Testament has been damaged in some way\\

You don't think widespread liberalism has damaged real study of the Bible?


\\it is because the literary and documentary evidence of multiple scribal hands, redactions, anachronisms, and diverse theological outlook is so massive that scholars can no longer hold to the simple conclusions that were once held in regard to Biblical authorship and inerrancy such as "Moses wrote every word from Genesis 1 to Deuteronomy 34, because that's what our tradition tells us".\\

Ah, thanks for showing your hand.
As if these liberal "conclusions" aren't themselves based on naturalistic presuppositions. White interacts with that sort of idea all the time, as have many others. Liberalism is a position based in human imagination. It has no rational merit.


\\he wants to interpret the situation in pure black and white terms by insisting that anyone who doesn't agree with how he thinks scholarship should be done are perishing  and are doomed to hell.\\

This is not a fair analysis of what White said or thinks.

Wednesday, July 09, 2014

Open Theism followup

Teh Interw3bz are abuzz today about the debate between James White and Bob Enyart, which resulted in a massive success for White if the two cross-ex periods that are now available are any indication.

An open theist talked to me about it:

  • Christopher Minor Rhol, what were James White's responses to Bob's four main arguments in his opening statement? They were:

    If God is free, the future is open.

    The Incarnation proves God is not outside of time and not immutable.
    The five biblical attributes of God are different than the five philosophical attributes of God.
    Time cannot be created because time is a prerequisite to bring something from non-existence to existence.
  • Christopher Minor Rhol, I predict that James White did not answer these and that you cannot either. But I'm all ears.
  • Rhol Ogy I haven't listened to the whole debate, just the two cross-ex periods.

    My answers are:

    God is free and His decree is perfect, both.
    God the Son ENTERED INTO time and yet He remains immutable. How? Kenosis. It's quite mysterious. Yet it's true.
    I don't know what the 5 attributes are you're referring to.
    As for this:
    \\Time cannot be created because time is a prerequisite to bring something from non-existence to existence.\\

    1) You don't know that from the Bible. So it's pagan philosophy, which makes me LOL.
    2) The Bible says that God is timeless.
    3) The Bible says God created everything. Time is part of everything.
  • Rhol Ogy Could Jesus choose to cease to exist?
  • Christopher Minor Rhol, it looks like your post got cut off. The answers are missing.
  • Rhol Ogy refresh; I edited
  • Christopher Minor //God is free and His decree is perfect, both.//

    Was God free to decree, meaning He had the ability not to? Was God free to decree differently? And once God decreed, is He free to change His decree?


    //God the Son ENTERED INTO time and yet He remains immutable.//

    God the Son had one nature in eternity past and now has two natures. How is that not a change? And do you see the sequence experienced by God the Son? He was God the Son with one nature first, and God the Son with two natures second. That is a before and after, which means God is not outside of time.

    //I don't know what the 5 attributes are you're referring to.//

    5 Biblical attributes: Living, Personal, Relational, Good and Loving
    5 Philosophical attributes: Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, Impassibility

    Christ was all 5 of the biblical attributes in the emptied incarnate state, but none of the 5 philosophical attributes, yet remained God. This proves the 5 biblical attributes are essential to God and the 5 philosophical attributes are not, because Christ remained God without them.

    //1) You don't know that from the Bible. So it's pagan philosophy, which makes me LOL.//

    God being outside of time came from pagan philosophy, not the Bible.

    //2) The Bible says that God is timeless.//

    No it doesn't.

    //3) The Bible says God created everything. Time is part of everything.//

    Time is not part of everything, like truth and morality are not part of everything. Time, truth and morality all exist, yet none were created by God. They flow from His nature. We experience linear duration because God does.
    58 mins · Like · 1
  • Rhol Ogy Was God free to decree, meaning He had the ability not to? --- Yes. Since God doesn't have a decree, could His will to bring about the final Eschaton the way He wants be thwarted?

    Was God free to decree differently? --- Not sure. His decree is perfect
    , so you're asking whether He is free to decree imperfection. Does your god even know what perfection is? If so, how? Does that idea ever change?

    once God decreed, is He free to change His decree? --- His decree has never not existed, and it has always been perfect. Can your god be sure that anything he says will certainly come to pass?

    God the Son had one nature in eternity past and now has two natures. How is that not a change? --- Because Hebrews 13:8.

    That is a before and after, which means God is not outside of time. --- He entered into time for a reason and a purpose b/c He is omnipotent.
    Since your god is inside time, doesn't that mean that there are things that have always existed alongside him? That he didn't create? Which means your god is not a necessary being?

    Christ was all 5 of the biblical attributes in the emptied incarnate state, but none of the 5 philosophical attributes, yet remained God. --- Like pretty much all open theists I've talked to, you never take the kenosis into account.

    God being outside of time came from pagan philosophy, not the Bible. --- Except for all the times God says that He created everything. So it's what I said, not what you said.

    Time is not part of everything, like truth and morality are not part of everything. --- LOL. I'm not part of everything either. I am sui generis!
  • Christopher Minor //Was God free to decree, meaning He had the ability not to? --- Yes.//

    This means that the future was open and not settled. Which also means God did not have exhaustive foreknowledge until He decreed. Which means the God of Calvinism learns. He incre
    ased in knowledge once He decided what to decree.

    //Was God free to decree differently? --- Not sure.//

    If God could not have decreed differently, then He is not free. But I believe God has libertarian free will. And that means He has the ability to choose. Let's make this simple for you. Could God have created the universe differently, with just one more grain of sand than He did? And how would one more grain of sand make the universe "imperfect"?

    //once God decreed, is He free to change His decree?//

    Yes or No?

    //God the Son had one nature in eternity past and now has two natures. How is that not a change? --- Because Hebrews 13:8.//

    That's not an answer. Does Hebrews 13:8 mean that Jesus did not grow in wisdom and stature?

    //That is a before and after, which means God is not outside of time. --- He entered into time for a reason and a purpose b/c He is omnipotent.//

    I didn't ask about God entering into time. How do you account for the sequence experienced by God going from one nature in eternity past to two natures in eternity future? When you meet Him, He will have two natures. When Enoch met Him, He only had one.

    //Like pretty much all open theists I've talked to, you never take the kenosis into account.//

    This is not an answer. Christ remained God, yet was not omniscient. This means that omniscience is not an essential attribute of God.

    //God being outside of time came from pagan philosophy, not the Bible. --- Except for all the times God says that He created everything.//

    Did God create truth and morality? Yes or no?
  • Rhol Ogy No no no... Your turn to answer my questions. Then we can proceed with yours.
  • Christopher Minor We're not finished with my original questions. Once we hash those out, I'm all yours. You can ask me whatever you want and I'll answer everything with a direct Yes or No.
  • Rhol Ogy \\We're not finished with my original questions.\\

    And we haven't even started with my own original questions.
  • Rhol Ogy \\You can ask me whatever you want and I'll answer everything with a direct Yes or No.\\

    Go ahead and start now. thanks!
  • Christopher Minor Rhol, it's clear you can't answer my questions. I'm content with that.
  • Rhol Ogy Shrug. I gave a lot more answers than you did.
  • Christopher Minor I'm prepared to answer many more from you. I predicted (originally) that you could not answer Bob's four main arguments. I want to finish that challenge before moving on to something else. It makes it easier to follow.
  • Rhol Ogy I'm prepared to answer many more from you as well including the follow-ups you sent rather than answering my own questions.

    At this point, one of us has ponied up some dough. The other is ruffling his fur, trying to look big.,
  • Christopher Minor Well, you have an opportunity to prove my prediction wrong. I'll be waiting. Feel free to post on my wall anytime. Thanks.