PDA

View Full Version : BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)



Pages : [1] 2 3

Knight
September 2nd, 2005, 09:21 AM
Openness Theology - Does God Know Your Entire Future? - Battle Royale X (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21711)
S. Lamerson vs. B. Enyart

Discuss rounds 8 thru 10 of BR X here!

Let's try our best to stay on track and discuss/debate the content that is being posted in BR X.

for:
Battle Talk ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3). (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21712)
Battle Talk ~ BRX (rounds 4 thru 7). (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22076)

chatmaggot
September 4th, 2005, 05:53 PM
If you want, go to the webpage http://www.rctr.org/ap5.htm and listen to debate between William Lane Craig and Brian Edwards. It is found about halfway down the page. The reason I bring this up is because I think it is relevant to the current debate. The Craig/Edwards debate is supposed to be about the resurrection. You will see that after Craig gives his argument for the resurrection it is Edwards turn to discount the resurrection. He does nothing of the sort. Edwards quickly turns the debate into the topic of does God exist. (By the way Edwards is a former Christian and a former Sunday school administrator who lost his faith after the passing of his mother and subsequently going to college and "seeing the light")…

At about the 36-37 minute mark Edwards is giving his final argument and brings up the following argument (not a direct quote) on why God cannot exist…

"One has to assume that God is omniscient, all powerful, etc…"

Basically the OMNI's and IM's that Bob has been talking about and has shown that they are not biblical but pagan in their origin.

He goes on to say…

"If God is omniscient then He is incapable of thought…because if you know everything…you cannot think…because there is nothing to think about. Because to think about things there would have to be questions and God cannot have any questions. So God creates man and He must know that this is going to go horribly wrong and that He will then have to come as a man to be crucified etc.."

He then says…

"I just have to say that this is all just so…unbelievable…and unacceptable…that one simply has to reject it [that God exists]."

Thank you Bob Enyart for showing me that omniscience isn't biblical and that this Edwards has merely been indoctrinated through Aristotelian thought. I can only imagine that he, like so many, was taught the OMNI's and IM's growing up and when he went to college and began to think through the arguments he unfortunately decided to reject the Bible rather than reject the OMNI's and IM's not knowing as you have shown to me that they are unbiblical.

"If God is all knowing then He is incapable of thought." Wow! I wonder if Sam also believes this?

I know something else that is incapable of thought…a potato! My God is much more powerful than a potato. How about yours?

Bob Enyart
September 4th, 2005, 08:02 PM
"One has to assume that God is omniscient, all powerful, etc…"
Basically the OMNI's and IM's that Bob has been talking about and has shown that they are not biblical but pagan in their origin.
Edwards goes on to say, "If God is omniscient then He is incapable of thought…"
He then says…
"I just have to say that this is all just so…unbelievable…and unacceptable…that one simply has to reject it [that God exists]."
Thank you Bob Enyart for showing me that omniscience isn't biblical and that this Edwards has merely been indoctrinated through Aristotelian thought... he unfortunately decided to reject the Bible rather than reject the OMNI's and IM's...
"If God is all knowing then He is incapable of thought." Wow! I wonder if Sam also believes this?
I think the average Settler would quickly say that God cannot think, IF HE FEARED that admitting the opposite would threaten his defense of immutability.

By the way, this weekend a Christian in Chicago tried sharing the Gospel with a Buddhist woman, and he informed me that he soon was unsure how to proceed. But the Buddhist said that she believed events occurred by fate (which is not rigorously Buddhist, but very popular among them; previous lives left them with only one course of action in this life; etc.). Then, the Christian figured out exactly how to proceed. He recalled this debate and used the five biblical attributes of God: Living, Personal, Relational, Good, and Loving, and that immediately showed the difference between impersonal Buddhism and the living God of relationship! Please pray for this unnamed Buddhist woman, that this biblical presentation of Christianity may reach her in ways that philosophic Christianity have not.

And chat, thanks for your encouragement... (but have you ever thought of coming up with a less repulsive username? :) ).

-Bob

Bob Enyart
September 4th, 2005, 08:26 PM
Lee_Merrill wrote: "about how the rooster crowed twice, not once..."

Lee, I've read your argument, but rather than address it (I'm busy with Sam right now), I'd prefer to ask you about the text you're referring to. In fact, if any of Settlers in the Grandstands (including all Calvinists of course) can answer this, that would be great.

Open Viewers, let's let THEM work at this... and no HINTS! (RIdea & D2I, this means you both also!).

You referenced Mark 14:72 "Before the rooster crows TWICE, you will deny Me three times." Skeptics have often used this to attack the veracity of the Gospels, pointing out that elsewhere, we read, "I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me" Luke 22:34, as also in Mat. 26:34 & John 18:27.

Can you please answer the Skeptics for us, reasonably showing that the Scripture is not contradicting itself?

Thanks, -Bob

lee_merrill
September 5th, 2005, 07:03 PM
Hi everyone,


Lee_Merrill wrote: "about how the rooster crowed twice, not once..."

Lee, I've read your argument, but rather than address it (I'm busy with Sam right now), I'd prefer to ask you about the text you're referring to.
As indicated, I meant Mark 14, verses 30 and 72, thus this cannot be simply character solidification and God arranging circumstances. Jesus also confirmed Peter's saying "you know all things," with just this incident of Peter's denial in view, with another prediction of Peter's actions in the future. And Peter didn't reply "I do hope it turns out that way." He took it as a sure prophecy, as people did in their (mistaken) interpretation of what Jesus said further, about John. And John didn't say "No, Jesus is estimating" either! He said "Let's read more carefully Jesus' statement," as if exactly what he said, was sure and certain. As it was...


Skeptics have often used this to attack the veracity of the Gospels, pointing out that elsewhere...
Well, this is like the one or two donkeys (Mk. 11:7, Mt. 21:2), or the one or two demoniacs (Mt. 8:28, Mk. 5:2). It seems the people in those days didn't insist on photographic realism from their reporters!

Blessings,
Lee

Berean Todd
September 6th, 2005, 03:22 AM
I must say that I am highly disapointed in this debate. We're in the last wrap up stages here, and still Enyart continues to talk past, dodge, and avoid issues. I know that this site is rabidly pro-Enyart and the results will surprise the heck out of me if they don't reflect that, but this debate has not even been close, Dr Lamerson has dominated and is the only one being up front in his dealings in the debate.

GodsfreeWill
September 6th, 2005, 12:20 PM
I must say that I am highly disapointed in this debate. We're in the last wrap up stages here, and still Enyart continues to talk past, dodge, and avoid issues. I know that this site is rabidly pro-Enyart and the results will surprise the heck out of me if they don't reflect that, but this debate has not even been close, Dr Lamerson has dominated and is the only one being up front in his dealings in the debate.

Todd, the debate is whether or not God knows the ENTIRE future. Sam has yet to show that God knows the ENTIRE future, so how can he be dominating?

BTW, my siggy line still awaits you...

Freak
September 7th, 2005, 04:50 AM
The problem is that Rev. Enyart wants to play both sides of the game. He tells us in one post about his “Greek from twenty years ago.” Then a few posts later he tells us that he has had one of the best Greek educations in Colorado. I know, strange.


All I asked, and continue to ask is that Rev. Enyart reply to my specific arguments. I have made every attempt to number them and to make them clear.
My point was, and is, that while Rev. Enyart certainly has many gifts from the Lord, his gifts are different from mine. One of my gifts is in linguistics. Rev. Enyart is simply wrong in this area. Jesus very clearly meant to claim that his deity rested upon his ability to predict the future. The grammar proves this. Yes! Jesus Christ, DID claim Deity thereby His ability to know (predict) the future.

Clete
September 7th, 2005, 07:11 AM
Note that Rev. Enyart never responds to the specific charge that Peter is the one speaking here and that he very clearly claims that the death of Jesus was known and planned by God. Yet despite the fact that this death was known and planned by God, the men who committed this crime are still responsible. Thus the following statement is true: God knew both who would kill Jesus and how they would kill him, thus those men had no other choice. Yet because they did what they wanted to do (not because they had the ability to do otherwise) they are held guilty for their crime.
The conclusion here doesn't follow the premise. God does not have to know the who in order to know the what. In other words, Lamerson's so called true statement assumes facts that are not in evidence and so begs the question.

Further, in spite of Dr. Lamerson's direct claim to the contrary Bob did respond to this point saying...

Could God have provided for our salvation if Judas had repented? Of course! Of a thousand possibilities, Jesus could have sent Judas back to Caiaphas, to tell him that Jesus was in Gethsemane (the Lord wasn’t hiding after all) and still to refuse the payment. Even with this, some of the non-prophesies would have been fulfilled. For example they still could have used the thirty pieces of silver to buy the potter’s field, “fulfilling prophecies” of Jeremiah and Zechariah. But regardless, even if Judas played no traitor role whatsoever, not a single atheist critic of Scripture would quote any Old Testament verse as an unfulfilled “betrayal” prophecy, because they wouldn’t be able to find one.

There was no lack of wicked people standing in line to crucify Jesus. With or without Judas, the high priest Caiaphas could have arrested Jesus. With or without Caiaphas, Pilate could have sentenced Christ (with any mob shouting, “We have no king but Caesar”). But what if every Jew repented, and every Gentile? If the whole world humbled itself, including Judas, Caiaphas, Herod, Pilate, and even Tiberius Caesar, absolutely everybody, then would God be unable to sacrifice His Son? No. Then He could instruct the high priest, who would be obedient, to prepare to sacrifice the Offering. “Caiaphas, stand outside the Temple, and lift up your eyes, and go, and at the top of the hill, as it was prophesied, ‘In the Mount of the Lord it shall be provided,’ there on Mt. Moriah, as Abraham had readied Isaac, prepare to sacrifice My Son, Jesus. He will present Himself there. And at the moment that every family is killing their Passover lambs, you will slay the Atonement, My Holy Passover, and sprinkle His blood on the people.”

God could have planned the cross in this way. But by His understanding, He knew that men’s hearts were dark, and that there would be no end of wicked leaders, whoever they would be, to set themselves against His Son. If anything, Jesus had to make sure no one killed Him earlier than His time (Luke 4:29). But then by increasing His visibility, and by finally raising Lazarus that last week, that would provoke those who hated God to delay no longer, and to kill Him at their first opportunity (John 11:53).

Sam, I’m almost sure you’ll agree with this: God did not need Judas or anyone to provide the way of salvation.

God would not be crushed, nor would His purpose crumble, if a man failed Him. Most do. By the story of the Bible, God’s chosen servants, people ostensibly on His side, repeatedly failed the tasks He gave them. And if God survived the failures of His servants, He could survive the failures of His enemies, including Judas. God choose Nebuchadnezzar to take Tyre, and he failed. And God eventually cut off His chosen kings Solomon and Saul, and His chosen priests Nadab, Abihu, Hophni, and Phinehas, and most of the chosen people for that matter. If your reasoning is based upon the teachings of Calvin, and so on Augustine, and so on Plato, then you’ll conclude that a failure on Judas’ part would thwart the plan of salvation and disprove Christianity. Whereas if you consciously eliminate Greek philosophy and use (BEA-SLQ2) “the nature of God… and secondarily… the overall plot of the story in His Word,” you will conclude that the God of the Bible could survive if Judas failed to conclude his betrayal.

and only a few sentences later...



The key Greek words are εδει (δει, had to) πληρωθηναι (be fulfilled). It’s been twenty years since I took a couple years of Greek, and I’ve lost much of the little skill I had, but I still enjoy struggling with translation. It is widely acknowledged that frequently, when the Hebrews meant illustrated, they said fulfilled. But more significant here is δει. That word can mean “had to,” as in “must” or even “compulsory divine destiny.” However leading authority Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich (BAG) list 24 δει verses under the meaning “of what is fitting.” They list Acts 1:16 as meaning that what happened to Judas was “fitting,” that is, it behooved or was appropriate; they did not classify this under their category of “divine destiny.”

Centuries before Judas, God planned for a traitor’s role leading to the cross. Scripture recorded David’s son’s betrayal and similar accounts, not as prophecies, but as historical records. Then Jesus intentionally chose eleven men who hungered for righteousness, and one who was a thief and a liar who hated God. The devil knew the Scriptures, and yet entered Judas (Luke 22:3) to try to thwart God. Thankfully, Lucifer did not know God’s actual plan. For God wisely omitted predictive prophecies about a betrayal role (a Judas) from the Old Testament, and only published relatively hidden, non-prophesies of a general typological nature. And Satan’s blind hatred made him more vulnerable to God’s manipulation.

Notice that there is no other way to interpret Peter’s words “this Scripture had to be fulfilled” other than by the attributes of God! So, this cannot be a Calvinist proof-text, but both sides interpret it based on their primary view of God’s nature, as unchanging and controlling, or as good and loving. Beware to the Calvinist who still insists that the definition of words require this verse to mean divine destiny. Luke commonly used δει to mean ought or should or appropriate. He used δει quoting Jesus saying the Pharisees should love and do justly (Luke 11:42, which they did not do), and see Acts 5:29; 19:36; 24:19; 27:21; Luke 13:16; and 15:32 where it was fitting to celebrate the prodigal’s return.

It would seem that Dr. Lamerson has stopped paying any attention to the debate at all and is simply making a response because he feels obligated to do so because he gave his word or something. I, for one, wish that he would deal with what Bob has said seriously or just bow out. There's no sense in doing things half way and doing so dishonors the Dr. and insults both Bob Enyart and those of us who take this issue seriously. I couldn't be more disapointed.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Bob Enyart
September 7th, 2005, 01:26 PM
Quoting: "Enyart... tells us in one post about his 'Greek from twenty years ago.' Then a few posts later he tells us that he has had one of the best Greek educations in Colorado."

Freak then adds: I know, strange.


Freak, you know? :) Where did I ever say that? Since it's wrong, if you can quote me on that, you'd have me :) . (But what's funny is, the two halfs of that quote don't even contradict each other :nono: .)

Don't mind me though, I'm sleep deprived! (By the way, you can always tell how many nights I've gone with too little sleep by how many smilies I put in a post :) !

-Bob

Knight
September 7th, 2005, 01:36 PM
I know, strange.Freak what you just agreed with was never said.

Were you aware of that?

RightIdea
September 7th, 2005, 01:37 PM
When your opponent repeatedly makes up stuff about you, you know they're desperate, and that they know they're on the ropes.

chatmaggot
September 7th, 2005, 02:47 PM
Jerry,

You said in the critique thread:

"Bob makes a mistake here in assuming that the words “this generation” means the generation of Jews then living."

Have you ever read The Plot? This debate isn't the place to go into detail about this issue. I think Bob does an excellent job showing in The Plot that Jesus actually meant what He said. Just like God actually meant what He said when He said He "repented". Imagine that...actually believing what God says...and not considering it a "mistake" to take God at His word.

I think reading The Plot would answer some of your questions if you have not read it.

Turbo
September 7th, 2005, 02:58 PM
Jerry's brand of dispensation isn't so easy after all, since it doesn't allow him to believe what the Bible says in so many places, and he still has to explain away countless "problem texts."

Jerry Shugart
September 7th, 2005, 03:18 PM
Jerry's brand of dispensation isn't so easy after all, since it doesn't allow him to believe what the Bible says in so many places, and he still has to explain away countless "problem texts."
Just because I happen to be able to distinguish between "figurative" language and language that is to be taken "literally" I am accused of not believing the Bible.

That is how I am attacked over and over.But when it comes to their ideas they do not hesitate to say that the Lord made prophecies but yet He is unfaithful when it comes to fulfilling those prophecies.

They have no answers so they revert to name calling and saying that anyone who does not agree with them does not believe what the Bible says.

As you can see,not one of them has even attempted to prove what I said is not true.They just rely on their standard fare of accusing me of not believing the Bible.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

RightIdea
September 7th, 2005, 03:21 PM
Just because I happen to be able to distinguish between "figurative" language and language that is to be taken "literally" I am accused of not believing the Bible.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html
Yeah, sure you can distinguish them.

You take artistic, poetic writings full of hyperbole and you interpret those as literal. And you take historical narratives describing specific events and you take those as figurative.

Makes perfect sense! :LoJo:

chatmaggot
September 7th, 2005, 03:58 PM
Jerry,

Again...have you ever read The Plot?

RightIdea
September 7th, 2005, 04:03 PM
Jerry,

Again...have you ever read The Plot?
At the risk of sounding hypocritical because there's no way I could contribute.... but I wonder if perhaps some one might start a "fund" to chip in and get him a copy. LOL

RightIdea
September 7th, 2005, 04:20 PM
Yeah, sure you can distinguish them.

You take artistic, poetic writings full of hyperbole and you interpret those as literal. And you take historical narratives describing specific events and you take those as figurative.

Makes perfect sense! :LoJo:
And Jerry, I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think you should interpret artistic, poetic writings full of hyperbole as being literal, while historical narratives describing specific events shoudl be taken figuratively.

Please explain your rationale behind this. Because the only explanation I can come up with is that your'e desperately looking for any verse that fits your preconceived notion, even if you have to refer to poetry as literal and history as figurative, to force the square peg into the round hole. And that, brother, is textbook eisegesis.

But if you can explain otherwise, we're all ears.

Turbo
September 7th, 2005, 04:26 PM
At the risk of sounding hypocritical because there's no way I could contribute.... but I wonder if perhaps some one might start a "fund" to chip in and get him a copy. LOL
It would be a waste; he wouldn't read it.

Turbo
September 7th, 2005, 04:36 PM
Just because I happen to be able to distinguish between "figurative" language and language that is to be taken "literally" I am accused of not believing the Bible.As RightIdea has pointed out, you tend to take figuratively statements literally and literal narratives figuratively to force-fit it to your Settled-View paradigm.


That is how I am attacked over and over.But when it comes to their ideas they do not hesitate to say that the Lord made prophecies but yet He is unfaithful when it comes to fulfilling those prophecies.Hypocrite, no Open Viewer has said that any prophecies go unfulfilled because God is unfaithful. Should God have followed through with His promise to destroy Nineveh, despite their repentance, to prove to Jerry Shugart that He is faithful?


They have no answers so they revert to name calling and saying that anyone who does not agree with them does not believe what the Bible says.Jerry, God says plain as day in Jeremiah 18:1-10 that He will repent of what He thought he would do, and what He said He would do, if people repent of (or turn to) wickedness. (And there are many examples in the Bible of God doing just that!) But like Israel, you don't believe Him when He says this, and you have to rewrite history where He has done this.

novice
September 7th, 2005, 04:38 PM
Hypocrite, no Open Viewer has said that any prophecies go unfulfilled because God is unfaithful. Should God have followed through with His promise to destroy Nineveh, despite their repentance, to prove to Jerry Shugart that He is faithful?Ouch!

Jerry?

Freak
September 7th, 2005, 05:01 PM
Freak, you know? Yes, I do know.


Where did I ever say that? Since it's wrong, if you can quote me on that, you'd have me. (But what's funny is, the two halfs of that quote don't even contradict each other. You stated (note the bold):

"The key Greek words are εδει (δει, had to) πληρωθηναι (be fulfilled). It’s been twenty years since I took a couple years of Greek, and I’ve lost much of the little skill I had, but I still enjoy struggling with translation."

Bob, you admitted it's been twenty years. You admitted you have lost "much" of the skill. What does this tell YOU? For that matter what does that tell US?


Don't mind me though, I'm sleep deprived! Okay.

Moving forward...you stated:

"A month later, I dropped out of Arizona State University and left a job designing simulation software for the Apache Helicopter to move my family to Colorado so that I could study Scripture with Bob at his unaccredited Derby School of Theology (which for thirty years has provided unequivocally the strongest Greek education available in Colorado, and in my opinion, the best theological training in America)."

You have resorted to the use of the ancient languages in this debate. Why wouldn't YOU? Did you not tell us that you attended a school "which for thirty years has provided unequivocally the strongest Greek education available in Colorado." But what we found interesting was the admission:

It’s been twenty years since I took a couple years of Greek, and I’ve lost much of the little skill I had.

In my personal opinion (and which Sam is calling you on) you are weak in the area of languauges (this you admit) and yet you continue to turn to your understanding of the Greek text.

You resorting to your understanding of the ancient languages in the debate, in light of these known facts (see above), is strange.

Thanks for the questions.

RightIdea
September 7th, 2005, 05:22 PM
That's it????? You gotta be kidding me!


"A month later, I dropped out of Arizona State University and left a job designing simulation software for the Apache Helicopter to move my family to Colorado so that I could study Scripture with Bob at his unaccredited Derby School of Theology (which for thirty years has provided unequivocally the strongest Greek education available in Colorado, and in my opinion, the best theological training in America)."
This is his biography! And nowhere does he say that he studied Greek extensively at Derby! He only said that Derby provides an excellent Greek education!

Later, while actually making arguments, Bob says:


It’s been twenty years since I took a couple years of Greek, and I’ve lost much of the little skill I had.
Making it very clear where he stands on this, so that no one thinks he is lifting himself up as something he is not. Bob avoids any confusion here by saying openly that he doesn't have a strong Greek background! Bob goes out of his way to show humility in regards to his own authority to debate Greek, proceding using context and reason rather than some claim to fame like a degree or something, which would only boil down to saying "because I told you so."

And now you (and Lamerson) are going to make this absurd accusation? Please, you are both embarassing yourself. This is as lame as it gets. :doh:

Knight
September 7th, 2005, 05:26 PM
Freak :nono:

novice
September 7th, 2005, 05:27 PM
And now you (and Lamerson) are going to make this absurd accusation? Please, you are both embarassing yourself. This is as lame as it gets. :doh:
They gotta try something! :chuckle:

Bob Enyart
September 7th, 2005, 05:27 PM
Yes, I do know.

Freak, no you don't. This will be a good lesson for you on how easy it is to be confused.


You stated (note the bold):
"The key Greek words are εδει (δει, had to) πληρωθηναι (be fulfilled). It’s been twenty years since I took a couple years of Greek, and I’ve lost much of the little skill I had, but I still enjoy struggling with translation."
Bob, you admitted it's been twenty years. You admitted you have lost "much" of the skill. What does this tell YOU? For that matter what does that tell US?
Okay.
Moving forward...you stated:
"A month later, I dropped out of Arizona State University and left a job designing simulation software for the Apache Helicopter to move my family to Colorado so that I could study Scripture with Bob at his unaccredited Derby School of Theology (which for thirty years has provided unequivocally the strongest Greek education available in Colorado, and in my opinion, the best theological training in America)."

It’s been twenty years since I took a couple years of Greek, and I’ve lost much of the little skill I had.

In my personal opinion (and which Sam is calling you on) you are weak in the area of languauges (this you admit) and yet you continue to turn to your understanding of the Greek text.

Freak, my Greek classes from twenty years ago do not equate to Bob Hill providing the best Greek education available for 30 years. I would think after all the fuss, you would have looked at that. I took a year at Nyack College in 1977-78, and rec'd As in both semesters as I recall (from a great professor). Then in 1985 I moved to Colorado, and sat in on a few months worth of Bob Hill's classes, as my work schedule permitted, over a period of two years or so. If you can find a contradiction there, or if there was ANYTHING unclear about what I originally wrote, I'd be interested.

Regarding my argument with Sam over John 13:19, he has not once addressed my point that virtually all Bible translations agree with me, and only one rather loose translation goes with him. That would be a good point for him to respond to, no? And finally, the issue we are debating, the meaning of the absence of a predicate nominative, is an issue for a first semester Greek student. 3,476 years worth of Greek classes would not make the issue more clear than it would be after the first few weeks.

-Bob

Freak
September 7th, 2005, 05:45 PM
Freak, my Greek classes from twenty years ago do not equate to Bob Hill providing the best Greek education available for 30 years. You clearly stated: "I took a couple years of Greek." Then you tell us you studied the Scriptures at Hill's school (where one can receive top Greek training). Studying Scripture formally, would include, the studying of languages. Would it not? That is why we came to this conclusion.

Bob, not to rain on your parade, but two years does not qualify you, I'm afraid, to debate an individual who clearly understands the ancient languages (when probing the Greek text as you both are doing). He has called you on some specifics. Would you like to go over them briefly? It's all in the debate.

Knight
September 7th, 2005, 05:52 PM
Freak, do you ever read the posts that are made here on TOL?

Just curious.

Freak
September 7th, 2005, 05:56 PM
Freak, do you ever read the posts that are made here on TOL?

Just curious. Hello Knight. Making some observations, that's all.

Servo
September 7th, 2005, 07:17 PM
Hello Knight. Making some observations, that's all.

About what? About something you didn't really read or a self analysis about how confused you are?

Jerry Shugart
September 8th, 2005, 09:52 AM
Jerry,
Have you ever read The Plot?... I think Bob does an excellent job showing in The Plot that Jesus actually meant what He said.
chatmaggot,

No,I have not read "The Plot".But perhaps you can answer some questions that I raised in my post on the "Critique"thread.Here is what Bob wrote:

What could Jesus be wrong about? Everything He wanted to be wrong about. While He promised Israel to return to establish their kingdom, He would not be taken for a fool….Jesus repeatedly promised to return soon (giving the apostles the hope they displayed in Acts of His imminent return…[emphasis mine]

I asked:

"Where was Israel ever told by the Lord Jesus that He would return soon?How could He do such a thing since He had told them that He did not know the hour or the season when that would happen (Mt.24:36;Acts1:7)."

Does Bob answer those questions in "The Plot"?

I also said:

"The Apostle Peter knew that His return was dependent on the nation of Israel repenting and turning to the Lord,so the Lord would know the same thing.And unless He had knowledge that Israel was going to repent then He surely would not promise to come soon."

Does Bob say anything in "THe Plot" that might answer these concerns that I have?

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Jerry Shugart
September 8th, 2005, 10:09 AM
Hypocrite, no Open Viewer has said that any prophecies go unfulfilled because God is unfaithful.
If promises go unfulfilled then that in itself means that God is not faithful.

The Scriptures speak of the "faithfulness" of the Lord.

In the OT the Hebrew word ”emuwnah” is translated “faithfulness”,and it means “faithfulness,in fulfilling promises”.

In the NT the Greek word “pistis” is applied to the Lord,and it means means “fidelity,faithfulness,i.e. the character of one who can be relied on….of one who keeps his promises”(”Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

So the Scriptures reveal that the Lord is faithful and we can depend on His faithfulness in fulfilling His promises.But then Bob Enyart says that God does in fact not fulfill His promises.

Bob also says that God has not done anything contrary to His own righteous nature.

But a part of that "righteous nature" is His "faithfulness",and since Bob argues that He does not keep His promises then it is obvious that if Bob is right that HE has in fact done something contrary to His righteous nature.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Jerry Shugart
September 8th, 2005, 10:19 AM
Yeah, sure you can distinguish them.

You take artistic, poetic writings full of hyperbole and you interpret those as literal. And you take historical narratives describing specific events and you take those as figurative.

RightIdea,

Here is a "narrative" that is not to be taken literally:

"I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know"(Gen.18:21).

If we take this "literally" then we must believe that until the Lord went down that He did not know whether or not "they have done altogether according to the cry".

But the Scriptures reveal that the Lord sees everything that is going on in the earth:

"The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good"(Prov.15:3).

No sins of mankind are hidden from His eyes:

"Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do"(Heb 4:13).

All things are opened unto His eyes and He beholds the evil of every creature.So it is obvious that Genesis 18:21 is not to be taken "literally".

If He knows all evil because He sees the evil of man then it would not have been necessary for Him to go down to find out whether or not "they have done altogether according to the cry".

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

chatmaggot
September 8th, 2005, 02:42 PM
Jerry,

Bob does answer those questions in The Plot. It is an interesting read (and listen...I have his tape series too).

MyshrallBayou
September 8th, 2005, 03:27 PM
To Bob's fanclub. Please take notice that the greatest majority of Bob's posts have been rambling (sometimes structured) philosophic thought with very little to no attempt to exegete Scripture. Bob does the same things that many of his supporters do on this site, they rely on their own limited human reasoning. Hitek357 post #220 is a perfect example of this.

It is obvious that Sam was led to believe this would be a true debate centered on Scripture, but Bob has taken it as an opportunity to cut and paste his long-held beliefs in an apparant attempt to bolster his base and hopefully recruit some new followers. It is clear Sam feels betrayed by Bob, which only shows Sam didn't do his homework on his opponent.

Open Theism believes God's omniscience is incompatable with human free-will. It is not. Most OT theologians have an accurate understanding of what the traditional Christian belief of God's omniscience is, though they revel in painting emotional and distorted caricatures of this belief. The great divide appears to be over what "free will" means.

My question to the OT's is, what do you think the "will" is? And, what do you think happened to man's "will" when sin entered the human race through Adam? (i.e. was there any change in that "will"? Is the "will" of man the same after the fall as it was before the fall?).

Bob seems to glory in his belief that the historic/Biblical Christian doctrines he disagrees with have commonalities with Greek philosophy and therefore are wrong. This is absurd. Suppose Bob read about some non-Christian religion as a young man, and now Bob has a belief about God that has some commonalities with that same non-Christian religion. Do I safely assume Bob's beliefs were formed by this non-Christian religion rather than by careful study of the Scriptures? What if that belief is that God is loving, good and kind? (and many non-Christian religions believe this about their god). Do we throw these truths about God out? Of course not! The Socinians in the 18th century also argued that God cannot know the future exhaustively. In that sense they held the same view as OT, but they were heretics. They denied the trinity, the deity of Christ, and a lot of other things. By the way, there are many in the OT camp that do deny many other essential Christian doctrines such as the inspiration and reliability of Scripture, and given the Socinian roots of OT, it is only a matter of time before OT slides into that abyss (though I pray you won't).

In case you are wondering. I do not believe Open Theism is a Christian/Biblical belief, nor do I accept those who fully understand and embrace OT to be brothers in Christ. The god OT believes in is not the same God revealed in the Scriptures. Paul warned Timothy about wolves in sheeps clothing who sneak into the church to ravage the sheep and bring God down to man's level instead of exalting God to his rightful and Biblical place. God is infinitely higher than man, and OT has a problem with this. There are just some things that we won't understand about God until we see Him face-to-face, but we are responsible to embrace those things He has revealed. I do pray that you will all return to the true God of the Bible and refrain from the philosophies of man that make the Word of God of no effect.

.

Turbo
September 8th, 2005, 07:27 PM
Bob [and] his supporters... rely on their own limited human reasoning.
So, you don't bother to exercise your God-given ability to reason? Good to know; thanks for the warning.

However,
“Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD... Isaiah 1:18a

Bob has taken it as an opportunity to cut and paste...
I guess that's a compliment, that Bob's posts, each composed in just a few days, look quite thorough and refined.


in an apparant attempt to bolster his base and hopefully recruit some new followers.
Wait... You mean all this time Bob has been trying to convince people that his position is correct??? THAT JERK!!


...which only shows Sam didn't do his homework on his opponent.
I agree that Sam probably wasn't aware of the skill and effort Bob applies to his debates. I wonder how much of Battle Royale VII he read.


[Open Theists] revel in painting emotional and distorted caricatures of [Settled Viewers'] belief.
Like saying that the opposition believes in a God who is a bumbling, impotent loser? Oh, wait...


By the way, there are many in the OT camp that do deny many other essential Christian doctrines such as the inspiration and reliability of Scripture
Oh.... kay? I've yet to encounter one.


Bob seems to glory in his belief that the historic/Biblical Christian doctrines he disagrees with have commonalities with Greek philosophy and therefore are wrong. This is absurd. Suppose Bob read about some non-Christian religion as a young man, and now Bob has a belief about God that has some commonalities with that same non-Christian religion. Do I safely assume Bob's beliefs were formed by this non-Christian religion rather than by careful study of the Scriptures? What if that belief is that God is loving, good and kind? (and many non-Christian religions believe this about their god). Do we throw these truths about God out? Of course not!

...given the Socinian roots of OT...
Bob established that the Settled View doesn't just have coincidental similarities with pagan Greek philosophy, but that it was actually imported into Christianity by well-known theologians who recognized intuitively that "the Classics" clashed with plainly interpreted Scripture, but they deferred to the pagan Greeks regardless and adjusted their interpretation of Scripture accordingly.

But the Open View doesn't have Socinian roots. You won't find open theists now or ever who build their case based on Socinian writings. All that stuff you said about non-Christian religions getting some things right by happenstance? It just came back to bite you.


MyshrallBayou seems to glory in his belief that the Biblical Christian doctrines he disagrees with have commonalities with Socinian teachings and therefore are wrong. This is absurd. Suppose MyshrallBayou read about some non-Christian religion as a young man, and now MyshrallBayou has a belief about God that has some commonalities with that same non-Christian religion. Do I safely assume MyshrallBayou's beliefs were formed by this non-Christian religion rather than by careful study of the Scriptures? Do we throw these truths about God out? Of course not!

In case you are wondering. I do not believe Open Theism is a Christian/Biblical belief, nor do I accept those who fully understand and embrace OT to be brothers in Christ.
Thankfully, you are not God.


There are just some things that we won't understand about God until we see Him face-to-face, but we are responsible to embrace those things He has revealed.Is this your way of saying that we shouldn't expect you to back up your assertions?


I do pray that you will all return to the true God of the Bible and refrain from the philosophies of man that make the Word of God of no effect.Good news! That is just what we have done. I hope one day you will join us, so that you might better know the True and Living God.

Bob Enyart
September 8th, 2005, 08:36 PM
It is obvious that Sam was led to believe this would be a true debate centered on Scripture, but Bob has taken it as an opportunity to cut and paste his long-held beliefs...
Myshrall, I'm interested in the issue you raise about which side focused more on Scripture. I have a suggestion on how to determine that objectively. Copy the debate into two files, one titled Sam's Posts Only, and the other titled Bob's Posts Only, and from those files, delete the oppositions posts (I've done this from the beginning. It is extremely helpful in remembering and carefully analyzing Sam's arguments. And by the way, I also have files that contain, for example, only the Q&A that Sam and I have traded, and files that collect everything either of us have written, say, on Roosters, or Christ emptying Himself, or JONAH, etc.). Now that you have Sam Only, and Bob Only, then from each file delete everything except for the biblical material. If you leave only the quoted scriptures and verse references, which side do you think relied most heavily on Scripture? (Hint: the answer is inversely related to which side appealed heavily to extra-biblical authority [which Sam answered correctly, by the way, all though most people read his answer exactly backwards. Did you?].) Now, if that's too unfair a test, then try this: delete everything except quoted scriptures, verse references, and comments made directly on and about the text. And then see which side relied most heavily on Scripture! Now if these tests seem unfair to the Settled View side (I have no doubt), then don't declare the winner of these contests by word count (since the Open View has been far more willing to expound on it's position), but rather, divide the biblical material into the total argument presented by each side, and the winner will be the side with the lowest score! Now, I can already hear the Calvinists criticizing this entire scheme, saying, "Bob thinks that if you quote more words from the Bible, you're being more biblical! Ha!" Well, Myshrall, you criticized my posts complaining that, "Sam was led to believe this would be a true debate centered on Scripture." Well, what if you find out that I did quote and reference and directly comment on more Scripture than Sam, and also as a greater percentage of my argument? I perceive that regardless, you would still assert that Sam's posts were more centered on Scripture than were mine! And how would you come to this conclusion? Because you disagreed with my position. So, perhaps you can identify a weakness in the argument of this paragraph, but if not, this is what you first criticism translates into: I will judge whatever side that disagrees with me as not being centered on Scripture.

Of course, that attitude would set you up in your own mind as an authority over the Bible, which I'm sure you would not intentionally do. So... I'll accept a "thanks Bob for pointing that out to me," either in this thread, or when we meet in heaven :) .

Regarding cutting and pasting, Myshrallm, I guess that's an insult? If I had these posts written earlier, I WOULDN'T HAVE KEPT IT A SECRET! My ministry struggles financially to reach more people. We would have been selling this just like we sell The Plot (http://kgov.com/store/literature.html) manuscript! And while I'm at it, I was somewhat suprised when Sam wrote, "Rev. Enyart continues to want to smuggle in whatever paper he has written about Greek philosophy..." Smuggle in? Anyone who has read this debate has also read Sam's 2001 paper on Openness and the Historical Jesus, from which he copied and pasted much into BR X (in rounds 1, 3 and 5). And interestingly, just a couple sentences after Sam accused me of this, he copied lengthy swaths of that paper into Round Five! Huh! Myshrallm, this was your second criteria on which to judge the debate. So, after a bit more reflection, which side wins in the category of Least Smuggled Material?

My question to the OT's is, what do you think the "will" is?
See 2B [BEA-]SLQ3! You could comment on it!

Suppose Bob read about some non-Christian religion as a young man, and now Bob has a belief about God that has some commonalities with that same non-Christian religion. Do I safely assume Bob's beliefs were formed by this non-Christian religion rather than by careful study of the Scriptures? What if that belief is that God is loving, good and kind? (and many non-Christian religions believe this about their god).
Myshrallm: you give false religions too much credit. Firstly, they are all either pagan, polytheistic, pantheistic, or atheistic (except for the monotheistic religions which are perversions of the biblical revelation of the God of Abraham). What other religions acknowledge one true creator personal God who offers to save men from His own righteous judgment of the wicked? (This is what you jsut claimed I might have stumbled upon wading through some false religion not based on the Bible.) But even this does not sufficiently expose your confusion. Because my criticism of immutability and Christian fate is NOT that they are similar to Greek culture and philosophy -- but that they are DEMONSTRABLY IMPORTED from the Greeks.

there are many in the OT camp that do deny many other essential Christian doctrines such as the inspiration and reliability of Scripture...
And are you saving their identities to be used as a secret weapon in the future?

God is infinitely higher than man
Yes. And would you agree that He is not lower than man? Or are you one of the many who think that a homosexual sodomizing a young boy gives pleasure and glory to God?

-Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church (.org)

Knight
September 9th, 2005, 08:57 AM
Bob Enyart - :first: POTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=861203#post861203).

Jerry Shugart
September 9th, 2005, 10:19 AM
Now, if that's too unfair a test, then try this: delete everything except quoted scriptures, verse references, and comments made directly on and about the text. And then see which side relied most heavily on Scripture!
The important point in the debate is not in regard to how many Scriptures are quoted but instead the veracity of the "comments made directly on and about the text".

Let us take a look at the comments of Bob Enyart in regard to the "knowledge" of God.He said:

What is the true doctrine of God’s knowledge? God knows everything knowable that He wants to know. God does not want to know everything![emphasis mine]
Bob explains what the Lord does not want to remember:

He reveals that He has no desire to retain Memorex memories of endless sadism, sodomy, and rape, and He need not keep infinite charts analyzing the base bodily functions of all animals.[emphasis mine]
However,the Lord would “want” to know about all these crimes,or else He will be unable to “judge” men for their crimes:

”In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel”(Ro.2:16).

If the Lord does not “want” to know about the crimes of men how is He going to judge men at the Great White Throne?:

” And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works”(Rev.20:13).

Bob got one thing right:

The LORD has a purpose for His knowledge.
The Lord does have a purpose for "knowing" the secret crimes of men,and that purpose is so that He can judge men for those crimes.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Mr. 5020
September 9th, 2005, 11:58 AM
Bob Enyart - :first: POTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=861203#post861203).I'm shocked.

Knight
September 9th, 2005, 12:04 PM
I'm shocked.Yeah, me too.

I think that might be only the second POTD I have ever given to Bob.

chatmaggot
September 9th, 2005, 02:01 PM
Bob mentions in the critique thread that he is going to post something after round 10. Does he have the right to change his mind and not do it if circumstances change or is he stuck by his statement? He made a "prophecy" about the future. If he it comes to pass is he a true prophet? If he doesn't do it does it mean he's a false prophet or just that circumstances changed. Do all prophecies that are conditional have to state the conditions?

Clete
September 9th, 2005, 05:51 PM
Well it would appear that Dr. Lamerson actually showed up to do battle in the next to last round. Better late then never I suppose but this would have been a much more exciting debate had he given as much substantive thought to the rest of the debate.

Dr. Lamerson's opening paragraph is a crack up, as if Bob hasn't been keeping track of the word count himself. In fact, if I remember correctly it would seem that some 800+ words had to be used in one of Bob's posts doing nothing but quoting from the rules of the debate.

Further, the word limit rules read as follows...

The debate will last for ten rounds. The recommended maximum word limit for the average post is 6,000 words, but any or all posts could be much briefer.


That sounds to me like it could easily be interpreted to mean that we have a ten round debate, two posts per round for a total of 20 posts with an average word length of 6000 words per post. That's a total word limit for the entire debate of 120,000 words, which we are nowhere remotely close to reaching because Dr. Lamerson has basically chosen to barely participate since round three. In fact, according to my count there have been approximately 87,719 words used thus far in the debate. That means that unless all three of the remaining posts exceed 10,760 each, the word limit for this debate will not have been exceeded.

Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not but my point is that it is laughable that Dr. Lamerson wants to hold the rules over Bob's head after Bob was required to expend nearly a thousand words explaining the rules to him.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Bob Enyart
September 9th, 2005, 07:25 PM
"The debate will last for ten rounds. The recommended maximum word limit for the average post is 6,000 words, but any or all posts could be much briefer."

That sounds to me like it could easily be interpreted to mean that we have a ten round debate, two posts per round for a total of 20 posts with an average word length of 6000 words per post. That's a total word limit for the entire debate of 120,000 words, which we are nowhere remotely close to reaching because Dr. Lamerson has basically chosen to barely participate since round three. In fact, according to my count there have been approximately 87,719 words used thus far in the debate. That means that unless all three of the remaining posts exceed 10,760 each, the word limit for this debate will not have been exceeded.

I wish! -Bob

Clete
September 9th, 2005, 07:40 PM
I wish! -Bob

So do I! :D

RobE
September 10th, 2005, 09:01 AM
Just because the playwright/director knows the plot doesn't mean he doesn't watch and wonder how the actors will play their roles. Often he will coach the actors as they play their parts and replace actors who can't play the part correctly. All of which takes a lot of thought, planning, and intervention on HIS part; as well as, a lot of foresight to get the desired results. The plan is perfected through his vision(foresight) combined with his work(relationships). His own personality requires NO change and remains perfect(without mistakes/flaws) forever no matter how many of the actors believe he's not handling things correctly.


I think the average Settler would quickly say that God cannot think, IF HE FEARED that admitting the opposite would threaten his defense of immutability.

-Bob

RightIdea
September 10th, 2005, 09:31 AM
Just because the playwright/director knows the plot doesn't mean he doesn't watch and wonder how the actors will play their roles. Often he will coach the actors as they play their parts and replace actors who can't play the part correctly. All of which takes a lot of thought, planning, and intervention on HIS part; as well as, a lot of foresight to get the desired results. The plan is perfected through his vision(foresight) combined with his work(relationships). His own personality requires NO change and remains perfect(without mistakes/flaws) forever no matter how many of the actors believe he's not handling things correctly.
1 Soap Operas 13:13
And the director said to Saul, “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the latest script draft of the LORD your God, which He commanded you. For now the LORD would have established your starring role on "Days of Our Kingdom" forever.

Chileice
September 10th, 2005, 09:33 AM
Well it would appear that Dr. Lamerson actually showed up to do battle in the next to last round. Better late then never I suppose but this would have been a much more exciting debate had he given as much substantive thought to the rest of the debate.


Resting in Him,
Clete

I think lamerson's round 9 post was the best of the debate. I'm not sure what took him so long but I think it leaves Bob with several difficult questions to answer. The Jesus who saves me doesn't make mistakes. If He does, how will I know he didn't make a mistake and then change his mind some day. I think Isaiah 40-48 presents some very strong ammo for the SV side because it was God's unequivocable foreknowledge that was the key to the entire "debate" in those chapters against the false gods who could not and did not know the future. It will be interesting to see if Bob can answer with a limited word count.

Bob Enyart
September 11th, 2005, 01:49 AM
I think Isaiah 40-48 presents some very strong ammo for the SV side because it was God's unequivocal foreknowledge that was the key to the entire "debate" in those chapters against the false gods who could not and did not know the future. It will be interesting to see if Bob can answer with a limited word count.
Chileice, I know that there are many threads (thousands) in TOL (and millions) on the web. So perhaps you've stumbled in here accidentally and are unaware that there is a debate between two people going on, one presenting the Open View and the other the Settled View. And in Round Three, the Open View side addressed at length Isaiah 40-48.

Have a great day!

-Bob

ps. If you ever get around to actually reading the debate itself, it would be wonderful if you could comment on the Open View understanding of Isaiah 40-48 as presented about 2/3s of the way into Post 3B (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=835908&postcount=12), because it seems that you'd have an exclusive, since apparently nobody else will :) !

lee_merrill
September 11th, 2005, 02:31 PM
Hi everyone,


Chileice: The Jesus who saves me doesn't make mistakes. If He does, how will I know he didn't make a mistake and then change his mind some day.
Amen to the first part! And yes, if God can make mistakes, that puts every promise that depends in any way on free-will decisions in question, what are the limits? And what about heaven, if free-will is essential to a human being, can people sin there? Is eternity eternally uncertain?


Bob Enyart: In these nine chapters, I can only find two passages that need an Open View defense, first, that “I am God… declaring the end from the beginning,” and second, that God named a yet future king, Cyrus, that He would use toward accomplishing His ends.
Well, I think the claim Sam mentioned, of God saying "The idols fail at this," in general, is the most important point of the passage. How can this claim be distinctive, if God is only estimating like everyone else? And with Jonah, God's estimate seems to be worse than Jonah's! Jonah thought the Ninevites would repent, and God, apparently, did not, for he had to change his mind.

Also, should we always take God's advice, if he can be mistaken? Some other choice might turn out better, even from God's perspective, thus we need not always do what he says. Only the Bible says differently, complete obedience is the way:

Luke 6:46 Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?

Because he can be wrong sometimes, even in his own estimation?


Bob: Unlike God’s declarations “from the beginning,” which are unavailable to us, He does give some specific prophecies in historical times...
But surely these "from the beginning" statements are known statements, and the next verse gives an example:

Isaiah 46:11 From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do.

Which must refer to Cyrus, and thus "declare the end from the beginning" is another claim of the distinctive of being able to really tell the future, unlike the idols, as in the prior verse:

Isaiah 46:9 I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.


Why should anyone pretend that God didn’t use some kind of influence in naming Cyrus...
But influence is not a guarantee! Couldn't God be wrong here, according to the Open View? As he could have been (we are told) with Peter? Well, we can't have it both ways, both a sure prediction, and a possible mistake...

Blessings,
Lee

M. K. Nawojski
September 11th, 2005, 07:59 PM
. . . Further, the word limit rules read as follows...

The debate will last for ten rounds. The recommended maximum word limit for the average post is 6,000 words, but any or all posts could be much briefer.

That sounds to me like it could easily be interpreted to mean that we have a ten round debate, two posts per round for a total of 20 posts with an average word length of 6000 words per post. That's a total word limit for the entire debate of 120,000 words, which we are nowhere remotely close to reaching because Dr. Lamerson has basically chosen to barely participate since round three. In fact, according to my count there have been approximately 87,719 words used thus far in the debate. That means that unless all three of the remaining posts exceed 10,760 each, the word limit for this debate will not have been exceeded.

Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not but my point is that it is laughable that Dr. Lamerson wants to hold the rules over Bob's head after Bob was required to expend nearly a thousand words explaining the rules to him.

Resting in Him,
Clete

How true it is that an individual's or group's doctrine will define their walk!

From the first through the seventh round of Battle Royale X -- the OVers have announced that Bob will certainly triumph (that is, as soon as he gets going); Bob has already bested his opponent (and is presently just mopping up); Bob is winning hands down (as will soon be evident); and Bob will win by a landslide (although “the other side” might not acknowledge it to be so). . . .

Moreover, they have not hesitated to add that they’re champing at the bit for the end of the contest, so they can document Bob’s victory by publishing the “debate” manuscript far and wide!

But now, in the middle of the eighth round, the accolades have ground to a stop. And the group who just a short while ago were so confident (not to say egotistical or self-important) – those who were so confident, I say, of Bob’s overwhelming victory are now scrambling to post a slew of whiny, little notes (see one example, quoted above), grumbling about how few words poor Bob has left . . . how put upon Bob is . . . how Bob was forced to “waste” a lot of “his” word count . . . how unfair the word distribution rules are in general, and how they should specifically be reinterpreted or changed to give Bobby a better chance . . . how the big, bad Sam has beat up on little Bobby and his mommy wasn’t there to help him . . . .

Not surprising. This behavior is much like that of the OVers’ god, who -- they do not hesitate to proclaim -- can and often does make mistakes.

All I can say is: I hope when their god sees his mistakes, he tries to pull himself up by his bootstraps and at least put up a facade of fair sportsmanship and manliness.

M. K. Nawojski
http://twilight-tales.com

Leonard A
September 11th, 2005, 08:03 PM
Greeting All,

Theology On Line had rules in place for the Battle Royal X debate. One of which was the number of words that each participant was to use. The debate could not begin until Bob Enyart and Sam Lamerson agreed to the rules and in particular the number of words to be used in the debate. Please read the definition below.

Agreement: a : the act or fact of agreeing b : harmony of opinion, action, or character : CONCORD
2 a : an arrangement as to a course of action b : COMPACT, TREATY
3 a : a contract duly executed and legally binding b : the language or instrument embodying such a contract

From: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Now that it comes to the end of the debate and Bob Enyart has nearly used up his allotment of words for the debate there is a great yell to put aside the agreement.

This is Bob Enyart’s problem. He chose what strategy to use and now he has to live with it.

The moderator should quell these “spoil sports” by addressing the forum in writing for these to cease and desist from such remarks. It lessens the integrity of the debate and by extension the reputation of Theology On Line.

Stop and Consider.

Leonard A

Clete
September 11th, 2005, 08:43 PM
How true it is that an individual's or group's doctrine will define their walk!

From the first through the seventh round of Battle Royale X -- the OVers have announced that Bob will certainly triumph (that is, as soon as he gets going); Bob has already bested his opponent (and is presently just mopping up); Bob is winning hands down (as will soon be evident); and Bob will win by a landslide (although “the other side” might not acknowledge it to be so). . . .

Moreover, they have not hesitated to add that they’re champing at the bit for the end of the contest, so they can document Bob’s victory by publishing the “debate” manuscript far and wide!

But now, in the middle of the eighth round, the accolades have ground to a stop. And the group who just a short while ago were so confident (not to say egotistical or self-important) – those who were so confident, I say, of Bob’s overwhelming victory are now scrambling to post a slew of whiny, little notes (see one example, quoted above), grumbling about how few words poor Bob has left . . . how put upon Bob is . . . how Bob was forced to “waste” a lot of “his” word count . . . how unfair the word distribution rules are in general, and how they should specifically be reinterpreted or changed to give Bobby a better chance . . . how the big, bad Sam has beat up on little Bobby and his mommy wasn’t there to help him . . . .

Not surprising. This behavior is much like that of the OVers’ god, who -- they do not hesitate to proclaim -- can and often does make mistakes.

All I can say is: I hope when their god sees his mistakes, he tries to pull himself up by his bootstraps and at least put up a facade of fair sportsmanship and manliness.

M. K. Nawojski
http://twilight-tales.com

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Bob won this debate in round one as far as I am concerned and I am the only one I know of who said that it would be sweet if Bob actually took the Dr. up on his dare to end the debate. My point wasn't to actually suggest that Bob be given some 20,000+ more words to use (although I would read them all if he wrote them and enjoy every syllable). The point was to point out that the Dr. is being ridiculous with his silly warning about holding to the word count rule when he has barely participated in the debate since round three and has had to have the rules explained to him on more than one occasion by the very man who's feet he's now holding to the rule following fire. It's disingenuous at best (as have been most of his responses to Bob's posts) and outright hypocritical at worst.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Leonard A
September 11th, 2005, 10:08 PM
Greetings All,

I had mistakenly posted my remarks on the "THE BATTLE OF WORDS???" on the Rounds 4 though 7 area. Clete, responded to that post. I replied to that post in that area. I have reproduced my reply to Clete in this area.


Don't be an idiot, alright?

Is this how you address a civil, logical, and polite observation to the point revising the number of words that will be assigned to Bob Enyart?

Col 4:6 Let your speech [be] alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

I would suggest the you review James 3 about controlling the tongue and its application to our written communications.


Bob Enyart isn't as stupid as you might think. He's perfectly aware of the rules and how many more words he has to use. Probably the only question in his mind is whether or not he can legitimately reclaim the 800+ words he used requoting the rules to Dr. Lamerson, which I think is a no brainer but whether it is or not, the decision is completely up to Knight and Knight alone.

As you said “ the decision is completely up to Knight and Knight alone.”

Bob Enyart, as you said used 800 + words. However, he could have referenced the rules which would have taken no more that a dozen or so words. Again, this was part of Bob Enyart’s choice to the debate to be verbose in the explanation of the rules.

The moderator is the one who has the serious task to enforce the rules no matter how unpopular they my be the majority or minority of the group. Honesty and integrity must be the hallmark of his decision. If it not, it will have grave consequences.


Besides, who here has called for the rules to be "put aside" anyway?

You did. Please review your words


. . . Further, the word limit rules read as follows...

The debate will last for ten rounds. The recommended maximum word limit for the average post is 6,000 words, but any or all posts could be much briefer.

That sounds to me like it could easily be interpreted to mean that we have a ten round debate, two posts per round for a total of 20 posts with an average word length of 6000 words per post. That's a total word limit for the entire debate of 120,000 words, which we are nowhere remotely close to reaching because Dr. Lamerson has basically chosen to barely participate since round three. In fact, according to my count there have been approximately 87,719 words used thus far in the debate. That means that unless all three of the remaining posts exceed 10,760 each, the word limit for this debate will not have been exceeded.

Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not but my point is that it is laughable that Dr. Lamerson wants to hold the rules over Bob's head after Bob was required to expend nearly a thousand words explaining the rules to him.

Any unilateral slanted request to change even one iota of an agreement is “putting aside” said agreement. It is up to the participants along with the moderator to come to a consensus.

Stop and Consider.

Leonard A.

Bob Enyart
September 11th, 2005, 10:15 PM
Any unilateral slanted request to change even one iota of an agreement is “putting aside” said agreement.

Leonard, how can a request be a "putting aside?"

Stop and Consider.

Bob E.

geoff
September 12th, 2005, 01:05 AM
I so wanted to reply and say something nasty..

but all i'll say is.. neither side has one. Enyart has only proven he'd made a great policitian/word spinner. And Lamerson has done nothing to further the cause of his view. It was always going to be that way. Over here, we call it a hiding to nothing.

I wonder at the sense of having the equivalent of rabid right wing fundy Christians debating muslim fanatics... because thats about how extreme the two views are. And about the same likelihood either side is going to listen/learn/be objective from or about the other.

Leonard A
September 12th, 2005, 06:10 AM
Bob wrote:

Leonard, how can a request be a "putting aside?"

When rules have been established and both sides have agreed to them with a clear understanding that these will govern the Battle Royal X debate and subsequently there is a request to reinterpret or change any of the rules that WOULD constitute a “putting aside” of the original agreement.


Stop and Consider.

Leonard A.

Bob Enyart
September 12th, 2005, 06:29 AM
:nono:

M. K. Nawojski
September 12th, 2005, 06:33 AM
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

. . . My point wasn't to actually suggest that Bob be given some 20,000+ more words to use. . . . The point was to point out that the Dr. is being ridiculous with his silly warning about holding to the word count rule. . . .

Oh really?

After Dr. Lamerson's eighth post had been published to the Web -- and before Mr. Enyart's eight, ninth, and tenth posts were due -- in the “Battle Talk Round 8” thread, in Post #44, you wrote: “ . . . That means that unless all three of the remaining posts exceed 10,760 each, the word limit for this debate will not have been exceeded. Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not. . . .”

In Post #45, Bob responded: “I wish!”

In Post #46, you said: “So do I.”

On the same topic, in the "Battle Talk Rounds 4 – 7" thread, you said to Leonard A: “Bob Enyart isn't as stupid as you might think. He's perfectly aware of the rules and how many more words he has to use. PROBABLY THE ONLY QUESTION IN HIS MIND IS WHETHER OR NOT HE CAN LEGITIMATELY RECLAIM THE 800+ WORDS HE USED REQUOTING THE RULES TO DR. LAMERSON, WHICH I THINK IS A NO BRAINER but whether it is or not, the decision is completely up to Knight and Knight alone [emphasis mine]."

Based on those remarks on the topic, it appeared to me that you were scrambling to filch whatever extra words you could for Enyart to use in his final three posts.

MK

Clete
September 12th, 2005, 06:35 AM
Is this how you address a civil, logical, and polite observation to the point revising the number of words that will be assigned to Bob Enyart?
Actually my reading of the rules would add some 4000+ words to Dr. Lamerson's final post as well but I suppose you hadn't stopped long enough to think through my comments well enough to have figured that out.


I would suggest the you review James 3 about controlling the tongue and its application to our written communications.
And I would suggest that you stop and think about what you are saying before saying something stupid and running the risk of someone calling you on it.


As you said “ the decision is completely up to Knight and Knight alone.”
Which is what I also said in the original post when I explained the whole point of having brought the idea up in the first place...

Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not but my point is that it is laughable that Dr. Lamerson wants to hold the rules over Bob's head after Bob was required to expend nearly a thousand words explaining the rules to him.


Bob Enyart, as you said used 800 + words. However, he could have referenced the rules which would have taken no more that a dozen or so words. Again, this was part of Bob Enyart’s choice to the debate to be verbose in the explanation of the rules.
In defense of Dr. Lamerson suggesting that Bob wasn't following some set of debate rules which the Dr. seemed to think we somehow universally known and excepted. If he hadn't done so and simply ignored such an accusation, you would no doubt be whining about how Bob broke the rules and has therefore lost the debate. It's ridiculous and asinine for you to be complaining about our "putting aside" the rules when Dr. Lamerson was holding these rules in abeyance in favor of a completely unrelated set of rules which he assumed everyone knew and intended to follow.


The moderator is the one who has the serious task to enforce the rules no matter how unpopular they my be the majority or minority of the group. Honesty and integrity must be the hallmark of his decision. If it not, it will have grave consequences.
Grave consequences? Like what? Like you crying foul and declaring victory?
As if that isn't going to happen anyway. :rolleyes:


You did. Please review your words

Any unilateral slanted request to change even one iota of an agreement is “putting aside” said agreement. It is up to the participants along with the moderator to come to a consensus.
I know perfectly well what I said. How about if you read the whole post before leaping to idiotic conclusions and making yourself look like a fool by telling everyone else to stop and consider. I've quoted the last line of my post above but you probably skimmed over it again so I will quote it once more...


Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not but my point is that it is laughable that Dr. Lamerson wants to hold the rules over Bob's head after Bob was required to expend nearly a thousand words explaining the rules to him.


Stop and Consider.
Hypocrite!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
September 12th, 2005, 06:58 AM
Oh really?

After Dr. Lamerson's eighth post had been published to the Web -- and before Mr. Enyart's eight, ninth, and tenth posts were due -- in the “Battle Talk Round 8” thread, in Post #44, you wrote: “ . . . That means that unless all three of the remaining posts exceed 10,760 each, the word limit for this debate will not have been exceeded. Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not. . . .”
You know what those three little dots and the end of this quote make you?

A liar! That's right, a liar. Because what you intentionally left out goes completely against the assertion you are making. Let me, once again quote myself since you guys seem so fond of intentionally ignoring when someone specifically explains their point. I've highlighted the portion which you intentionally left out...

Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not but my point is that it is laughable that Dr. Lamerson wants to hold the rules over Bob's head after Bob was required to expend nearly a thousand words explaining the rules to him.


In Post #45, Bob responded: “I wish!”

In Post #46, you said: “So do I.”
Both statements are completely true! I do wish that Bob has all the space in the world in which to post as much material as he likes. It's not as if Dr. Lamerson would respond to it, even if he could. But my wishing it were so, doesn't mean that it is or even that it should be but again, that wasn't the point of my post.


On the same topic, in the "Battle Talk Rounds 4 – 7" thread, you said to Leonard A: “Bob Enyart isn't as stupid as you might think. He's perfectly aware of the rules and how many more words he has to use. PROBABLY THE ONLY QUESTION IN HIS MIND IS WHETHER OR NOT HE CAN LEGITIMATELY RECLAIM THE 800+ WORDS HE USED REQUOTING THE RULES TO DR. LAMERSON, WHICH I THINK IS A NO BRAINER but whether it is or not, the decision is completely up to Knight and Knight alone [emphasis mine]."

Based on those remarks on the topic, it appeared to me that you were scrambling to filch whatever extra words you could for Enyart to use in his final three posts.
Bob asked for those 800 words when he reposted the rules! Have you even read the debate? I'll bet that you haven't.

Resting in Him,
Clete

M. K. Nawojski
September 12th, 2005, 07:47 AM
You know what those three little dots and the end of this quote make you?

A liar! That's right, a liar. Because what you intentionally left out goes completely against the assertion you are making. Let me, once again quote myself since you guys seem so fond of intentionally ignoring when someone specifically explains their point. I've highlighted the portion which you intentionally left out...

Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not but my point is that it is laughable that Dr. Lamerson wants to hold the rules over Bob's head after Bob was required to expend nearly a thousand words explaining the rules to him.


Both statements are completely true! I do wish that Bob has all the space in the world in which to post as much material as he likes. It's not as if Dr. Lamerson would respond to it, even if he could. But my wishing it were so, doesn't mean that it is or even that it should be but again, that wasn't the point of my post.


Bob asked for those 800 words when he reposted the rules! Have you even read the debate? I'll bet that you haven't.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Ah, Mr. Clete, if “bluster” were the mark of the man, you’d certainly be a magnificent specimen!

Tempted as I am to write off our exchange as “pointless,” I hesitate because -- in spite of all! -- your latest post has succeeded in widening my previously guarded smile into a broad grin . . . as well as providing a merry chuckle or two, to brighten my lackluster day.

Having received much diversion from your explanations and excuses, I have diligently sought some means of offering praise for the same . . . but find I cannot do so in good conscience . . . because, you see, I’m constrained by Proverbs 26:1: “As snow in summer, and as rain in harvest, so honour is not seemly for a fool.”

And by Proverbs 27:22: “Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him.”

And by Proverbs 29:20: “Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him.”

And yes, though I blush to confess such frittering away of my time, I have read Battle Royale X -- word by word, line by line, post by post, first to last. Have you?

MK

Clete
September 12th, 2005, 10:12 AM
Ah, Mr. Clete, if “bluster” were the mark of the man, you’d certainly be a magnificent specimen!

Tempted as I am to write off our exchange as “pointless,” I hesitate because -- in spite of all! -- your latest post has succeeded in widening my previously guarded smile into a broad grin . . . as well as providing a merry chuckle or two, to brighten my lackluster day.

Having received much diversion from your explanations and excuses, I have diligently sought some means of offering praise for the same . . . but find I cannot do so in good conscience . . . because, you see, I’m constrained by Proverbs 26:1: “As snow in summer, and as rain in harvest, so honour is not seemly for a fool.”

And by Proverbs 27:22: “Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him.”

And by Proverbs 29:20: “Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him.”

And yes, though I blush to confess such frittering away of my time, I have read Battle Royale X -- word by word, line by line, post by post, first to last. Have you?

MK

Indeed I have, some of it more than once. But if you're attitude is so pious and full of wisdom answer this one simple question...

Why, when you quoted me, did you intentionally leave out the part where I specifically expressed the point I was trying to make?

Resting in Him,
Clete

M. K. Nawojski
September 12th, 2005, 12:54 PM
Indeed I have, some of it more than once. But if you're attitude is so pious and full of wisdom answer this one simple question...

Why, when you quoted me, did you intentionally leave out the part where I specifically expressed the point I was trying to make?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Let me ask you a question, Clete. Is it likely, in an open forum such as this:

1. Where rules are in place to ensure that dialogues proceed with straightforwardness and honesty (e.g., the user can’t post something and then go back and modify the post . . . if the individual has something further to say, he/she must simply post additional information and/or explanation)

2. Where electronic safeguards are established to ensure that -- regardless of any given individual’s personal penchant for dishonesty -- the rules will be obeyed

3. Where occasions for he-said/she-said types of argument are precluded by the fact that all commentary is in written form (i.e., no word-of-mouth input)

4. Where everything YOU have had to say on this subject (except the one uncontested post in the BR X Rounds 4-7 thread) is in this thread, BR X Rounds 8-10, which currently has a range of five pages and is exhaustively and quite easily accessible to any interested person

5. Where, in all my responses, I gave the specific numbers of any of your posts which I referenced

6. Where, in any and all of my responses where parts of your posts were excluded, I called attention to the fact by correctly providing ellipsis points

Is it likely, I ask -- in these circumstances -- that I was hoping to successfully alter one or more of your posts, pretend the text of the altered post contained all of your thoughts on the subject, and then provide an answer to that post, in the hope I could make a point of some kind?

Getting a little paranoid, are we?

MK

Clete
September 12th, 2005, 02:11 PM
Is it likely, I ask -- in these circumstances -- that I was hoping to successfully alter one or more of your posts, pretend the text of the altered post contained all of your thoughts on the subject, and then provide an answer to that post, in the hope I could make a point of some kind?
Likely or not, this is exactly what you did. It's not the first time people have forgoten that what people say is right there in black and white for all to read.

The fact is that you did indeed intentionally leave that portion of my post out and then proceeded to make an argument that I had actually been making a point which was in direct opposition to the point which I specifically stated in the portion which you deleted. And I would just like a direct answer to my question, please. Why did you do that?


Resting in Him,
Clete

M. K. Nawojski
September 12th, 2005, 04:19 PM
Likely or not, this is exactly what you did. It's not the first time people have forgoten that what people say is right there in black and white for all to read.

The fact is that you did indeed intentionally leave that portion of my post out and then proceeded to make an argument that I had actually been making a point which was in direct opposition to the point which I specifically stated in the portion which you deleted. And I would just like a direct answer to my question, please. Why did you do that?


Resting in Him,
Clete

It’s clear that unfounded and unreasonable accusations -- along with an attitude of bluster and bluff -- are quite effective in gaining your ends, in your little world. God help any people who are under your authority!

Happily, your world and your rules do not impact me.

In a public forum, you have called me a “liar,” and have accused me of acting out of deceitful and dishonest motives, in an attempt to delude and defraud members and guests of “Theologyonline.com.” In Post #65, I provided a detailed listing of reasons why I (or any other sensible person) would not have used the methods you allege. I now state for the record that your charges concerning me (including any and all impugned motives and/or purposes) are false, and I recommend the following verses to your attention:

Proverbs 13:16: “Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly.”

Proverbs 12:16: “A fool’s wrath is presently known: but a prudent man covereth shame.”

Proverbs 14:16: “A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident.”

Other than that, I have no more words to waste on you.

MK
http://twilight-tales.com

Clete
September 12th, 2005, 04:58 PM
It’s clear that unfounded and unreasonable accusations -- along with an attitude of bluster and bluff -- are quite effective in gaining your ends, in your little world. God help any people who are under your authority!

Happily, your world and your rules do not impact me.

In a public forum, you have called me a “liar,” and have accused me of acting out of deceitful and dishonest motives, in an attempt to delude and defraud members and guests of “Theologyonline.com.” In Post #65, I provided a detailed listing of reasons why I (or any other sensible person) would not have used the methods you allege. I now state for the record that your charges concerning me (including any and all impugned motives and/or purposes) are false, and I recommend the following verses to your attention:

Proverbs 13:16: “Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly.”

Proverbs 12:16: “A fool’s wrath is presently known: but a prudent man covereth shame.”

Proverbs 14:16: “A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident.”

Other than that, I have no more words to waste on you.

MK
http://twilight-tales.com


It's not bluster; I'm simply asking a question that any reasonable person who was operating with the motives which you are claiming should easily be able to answer. How is that a difficult, deceptive, unfounded, unreasonable or blusterous thing to ask for? Just answer it, that's all. I don't care about the Bible verses you want to quote, I don't care about whether you like me, or whether you feel sorry for those in positions of authority under me. I simply would like a straight forward answer to a very simple question.

What was the purpose of leaving off the part where I specifically state my point when you were discussing what my point was? If it wasn't to be deceptive and make your own unfounded and unreasonable accusation then what was it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
September 13th, 2005, 06:21 AM
Sam has my vote so far for the simple fact I can understand his argument. He does a better job at keeping the reading level down to where a simple publicly schooled person like myself can understand.
Are you serious here or was this supposed to be sarcasm? :confused:

Clete
September 13th, 2005, 11:42 AM
The substantive qualities of this debate take preeminence over that quantitate elements of this debate. :)

Of course! :doh:

Leave it to Knight to find the wisest interpretation of the rules. Excellent! :thumb:

Of course, you know that everyone on the settled view side will accuse you of playing favorites.

c’est la vie!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Knight
September 13th, 2005, 11:44 AM
Of course, you know that everyone on the settled view side will accuse you of playing favorites. I don't care what anyone says, I just want a debate focused on the issue at hand!

Clete
September 13th, 2005, 12:14 PM
I don't care what anyone says, I just want a debate focused on the issue at hand!
Agreed. I would say that far too many words have been expended discussing the word count non-issue.

defcon
September 13th, 2005, 12:17 PM
If it doesn't matter what the word count is -why even mention it in the rules?

fool
September 13th, 2005, 12:22 PM
I find Bob's use of the term "straw dummy" to be inflamatory.
Grow up Bob.

Clete
September 13th, 2005, 12:26 PM
If it doesn't matter what the word count is -why even mention it in the rules?
It matters but not more than the substance of the debate. If someone was being ridiculously verbose just for the sake of making a long post, or using excessively long posts as a tactic where an endless array of red herrings are presented, then the word count provision would be there to control that. But it's clear that it was never anyone's intention to worry about the word count more than the substance of the issues being debated.

Resting in Him,
Clete

defcon
September 13th, 2005, 12:35 PM
It matters but not more than the substance of the debate. If someone was being ridiculously verbose just for the sake of making a long post, using excessively long posts as a tactic where an endless array of red herrings are presented then the word count provision would be there to control that. But is clear that it was never anyone's intention to worry about the word count more than the substance of the issues being debated.

Resting in Him,
CleteSo then why didn't the rules state that as long as the topic was being addressed, there was no word limit? Sorry, but this is ethically questionable at best. Both sides should have been made aware of the disposal of the word limit earlier in the debate- not 1 post before the end. In fact, Knight even mentioned the 6,000 word limit after Round 3.


The 6,000 word limit is extremely tight in a debate of this complexity therefore we want to save as much space as possible for actual content.

This decision is highly questionable.....

Jerry Shugart
September 13th, 2005, 12:49 PM
Bob Enyart said earlier:

But for all the true reversals and changes God exhibited in the Old Testament, the most harm results when Calvinist and Arminian Settled Viewers overlook God changing His course in the New Testament!
Bob then gives the following instances where he thinks that the predictions of the Lord Jesus did not come true:

Jesus repeatedly promised to return soon (giving the apostles the hope they displayed in Acts of His imminent return).
• “There are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
• “I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”
“Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things [Second Coming prophecies] take place.”
However,even Bob admits that the promise of His coming was “conditional” on whether or not the nation of Israel would accept their King:

God explicitly declares that some of His promises are conditional, including that He would establish Israel’s kingdom if they obeyed their king, not otherwise! Thus Jesus did not return to establish that Kingdom.
If the setting up the the kingdom and the return of the Lord Jesus was conditional then why would the Lord Jesus be promising to return to set up His kingdom before Israel made a choice as to whether or not to accept the King?

The Lord would not be promising anything about His return without knowing whether or not Israel would accept the King.But despite this Bob is quick to assert that the Lord broke His promise.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Clete
September 13th, 2005, 12:51 PM
So then why didn't the rules state that as long as the topic was being addressed, there was no word limit? Sorry, but this is ethically questionable at best. Both sides should have been made aware of the disposal of the word limit earlier in the debate- not 1 post before the end. In fact, Knight even mentioned the 6,000 word limit after Round 3.
I think that the rule could have been stated more clearly but "ethically questionable at best"? Come on, now. It seems pretty clear to me that the intent of the rule was to keep people from getting out of control. If the intent had been to create a hard and fast word count limitation the word "recommended" would not have been put in there.


This decision is highly questionable.....
On what grounds? Because you don't like it, is that it?

defcon
September 13th, 2005, 12:57 PM
I think that the rule could have been stated more clearly but "ethically questionable at best"? Come on, now. It seems pretty clear to me that the intent of the rule was to keep people from getting out of control. If the intent had been to create a hard and fast word count limitation the word "recommended" would not have been put in there.


On what grounds? Because you don't like it, is that it?It taints the debate. Sam has been stating for a few posts that he was keeping track of the word limit, then all of the sudden it doesn't matter? Why not tell Sam, "Post as much as you want, this debate is fruitful and we're not worried about word limits. There is no need to keep track of Bob's word count anymore." This wasn't the case, and as I've shown, Knight even mentioned the "extremely tight" 6,000 word limit after the 3rd Round. You know this questionable. Let me ask you - Are you in favor of the ruling because you like it? :think:

fool
September 13th, 2005, 01:00 PM
Rules are rules, unless you're a relativist, like Knight.

Clete
September 13th, 2005, 01:01 PM
If the setting up the the kingdom and the return of the Lord Jesus was conditional then why would the Lord Jesus be promising to return to set up His kingdom before Israel made a choice as to whether or not to accept the King?
Because He knew of the comming "fertilization" of the Holy Spirit and expected the fig tree to bare it's fruit. But it did not and so God cut it down and grafted in the gentiles instead.


The Lord would not be promising anything about His return without knowing whether or not Israel would accept the King.But despite this Bob is quick to assert that the Lord broke His promise.
This is intellectually dishonest Jerry and you know it. God does not break His promises and Bob did not assert anything of the sort. If you want to debate Open Theism and you think your position is superior to it, why do you feel it necessary to intentionally mischaracterize the Open View? If your position is superior then stand toe to toe with the real issue and confront it like a man. Tactics like this only make you out to be childish and scared.

Resting in Him,
Clete

death2impiety
September 13th, 2005, 01:01 PM
It taints the debate. Sam has been stating for a few posts that he was keeping track of the word limit, then all of the sudden it doesn't matter? Why not tell Sam, "Post as much as you want, this debate is fruitful and we're not worried about word limits. There is no need to keep track of Bob's word count anymore." This wasn't the case, and as I've shown, Knight even mentioned the "extremely tight" 6,000 word limit after the 3rd Round. You know this questionable. Let me ask you - Are you in favor of the ruling because you like it? :think:

Sam didn't seem too concerned with posting at length anyway...if the suggested limit was set at 10,000 words it's likely he'd have used the same amount of space.

All this hooplah about words is so silly. Do you want knowledge and info or not? To limit Bob is to limit your own understanding of the opposition and the truth :think:

RightIdea
September 13th, 2005, 01:02 PM
So then why didn't the rules state that as long as the topic was being addressed, there was no word limit? Sorry, but this is ethically questionable at best. Both sides should have been made aware of the disposal of the word limit earlier in the debate- not 1 post before the end. In fact, Knight even mentioned the 6,000 word limit after Round 3.



This decision is highly questionable.....
With a heavy heart, I have to agree here. Unless I am missing something, the rules were a little ambiguous (I agree on that part), but then Knight clarified after round 3 by saying:


Also please do not waste valuable space commenting on why a question wasn't responded to if that question was not in your official question list. The 6,000 word limit is extremely tight in a debate of this complexity therefore we want to save as much space as possible for actual content.
Emphasis mine.

I wish it wasn't so, but this is clearly a judgment by the moderator as to the interpretation of the rules. Consequently, this new decision I can view as nothing else but biased and suspect. I do not enjoy saying this in the least, as I'm sure anyone can guess.

Even if Knight "misspoke" in the above quote, it is unfair to Dr. Lamerson at this point to pull such a switcheroo on a technicality, when clearly the reasonable understanding of the rules was at best an average word count of 6,000, rather than just a "recommendation." What was Sam supposed to take this to mean? C'mon, the rules combined with Knight's statement after round 3 clearly infer that massive posts 50% over the "recommended" word limit not only aren't within an "extremely tight" limit of 6,000 words but aren't in the spirit of it, either.

I was fine with the "average word count" interpretation. I don't think that violates anything we've seen on this. But now to just say it was a recommendation?

I wouldn't call the phrase "limit is extremely tight" as a recommendation. Again, I have not had time to pour over every word in the entire debate right now in regards to this specific question, and so if I'm wrong, please let me know, cuz I want to be wrong. But as far as I can tell, Defcon is absolutely right, here.

Sorry, friends.

fool
September 13th, 2005, 01:08 PM
Right idea RightIdea.

RightIdea
September 13th, 2005, 01:20 PM
At this point, I believe Bob should rescind his post, and have some limited amount of time to reformulate his submission. This would be necessary because he made his post based on the decision of Knight, so it wouldn't exactly be fair to Bob to retroactively take away his post while keeping the time limit, making it impossible for him to post. Bob posted that in good faith (albeit some poor judgment, as I also think Bob should have likewise questioned Knight's decision, as a man of honor). Perhaps one day would be appropriate.

If anyone can think of a better solution, please suggest one! But I do not think it should stand as it is. This is clearly unfair to Dr. Lamerson.

Servo
September 13th, 2005, 01:21 PM
If the word count between participants was the other way around, would people even notice or care?

Jerry Shugart
September 13th, 2005, 01:35 PM
Because He knew of the comming "fertilization" of the Holy Spirit and expected the fig tree to bare it's fruit. But it did not and so God cut it down and grafted in the gentiles instead.
Clete,

If the Lord Jesus "expected" that the fig tree would bear fruit then He obviously "believed" that.

But Bob Enyart said that God does not hold any beliefs that might prove to be false.Sam asked Bob the following question:

Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?
And Bob answered,saying:

No.
So according to you the Lord believed that "the fig tree would bear its fruit" but He was wrong about that belief.But Bob said that God cannot hold any beliefs that might prove to be false.

This is intellectually dishonest Jerry and you know it. God does not break His promises and Bob did not assert anything of the sort.
Who is being intellectually dishonest here?You say that the Lord Jesus was wrong in His belief that the fig tree would bear fruit despite the fact that Bob himself said that God does not hold any beliefs that might prove to be false.

Clete,before you start accusing others of being intellectually dishonest perhaps you should consider Bob's own words.Here he lists a "promise" that the Lord did not keep according to him:


Jesus repeatedly promised to return soon (giving the apostles the hope they displayed in Acts of His imminent return).[emphasis mine]

It is you who is either ignorant of what Bob said previously or it is you who is being intellectually dishonest.

If the Lord Jesus promised to return soon,and then He did not return soon then He broke His promise.But you say that God does not break His promises.If Bob is correct in his interpretation of these verses then it is evident that He did break a promise.

If you want to debate Open Theism and you think your position is superior to it, why do you feel it necessary to intentionally mischaracterize the Open View?
I have not mischaracterized a thing that Bob Enyart has said.

If your position is superior then stand toe to toe with the real issue and confront it like a man. Tactics like this only make you out to be childish and scared.
Why is it that when no one defending Bob Enyart has an "intelligent" answer they always end up saying things like "tactics like this only make you out to be childish and scared"?

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

fool
September 13th, 2005, 01:36 PM
Dr. Lamerson should declare victory in light of the obvious jerrymandering that has taken place. I think he was unwise to agree to a debate in his opponents freinds forum.

defcon
September 13th, 2005, 01:37 PM
If the word count between participants was the other way around, would people even notice or care?We'll never know. But in the interest of keeping the Battle Royale debates alive, and having qualified individuals participate in the debate, it is best to act with integrity. I'm ok with RightIdea's idea (sounds redundant for some reason) on letting Bob repost. I think probably the best solution is to temporarily remove Bob's post and have Knight get in touch with Bob and Sam to work out a resolution both sides agree on.

Poly
September 13th, 2005, 01:58 PM
Funny that there wasn't this kind of uproar when Sam failed to comply by the rules. Was he asked to go back and reformulate his post? No. Instead Bob used some of his word count to emphasize again the part of the rules that Sam seemed to overlook (after acknowledging that he had read them) which caused confusion in his post.

drbrumley
September 13th, 2005, 02:00 PM
A somewhat decent debate, both sides pretty much talked past each othe with Bob being the one more direct with Samr, and now this.......it's ruined now.

drbrumley
September 13th, 2005, 02:01 PM
Both sides made numerous debate errors. Just let it go.

defcon
September 13th, 2005, 02:03 PM
Funny that there wasn't this kind of uproar when Sam failed to comply by the rules. Was he asked to go back and reformulate his post? No. Instead Bob used some of his word count to emphasize again the rules that Sam seemed to overlook after saying that he had read the rules and agreed to them.So then remove from Bob's word count the section where he pointed out Sam's error. Geez guys, I think anybody who is reading this Battle Royale knows that the ruling on the word count is unfair. What is being requested to right the situation is not unreasonable.

RightIdea
September 13th, 2005, 02:09 PM
Funny that there wasn't this kind of uproar when Sam failed to comply by the rules. Was he asked to go back and reformulate his post? No. Instead Bob used some of his word count to emphasize again the part of the rules that Sam seemed to overlook (after acknowledging that he had read them) which caused confusion in his post.
Sam was new here, and very unaccustomed to the somewhat unorthodox rules this site has. And it was entirely reasonable to cut him some slack for that very thing.

When he made a conscious decision to flaunt one particular rule in the second half of the debate (the coding of questions,) it didn't effectively impact the debate, and Bob responded to those questions as if they had been coded.


This isn't even remotedly the same thing. Bob and Knight cannot be excused as being unfamiliar with the rules. On the contrary, the problem is that they made up new rules at the end of round 9. As for Sam, the best thing for him to do, regardless, is to keep his cool and finish the debate, hopefully after working out a solution to this present problem.

But, if this had been pulled on Sam in, for example, round 5 or 6, I wouldn't have faulted him for quitting the debate. Nevertheless, with only one post remaining, Sam should definitely be the "bigger man" here, and finish it.

drbrumley
September 13th, 2005, 02:14 PM
So Bob is where? 62,000 words? 65,000?

RobE
September 13th, 2005, 02:17 PM
:dog: Why doesn't KNIGHT just ask Sam if the post is acceptable. As far as I see, Bob hasn't made any inroads or 'points' in the debate in his post. Why not let Sam decide. I'm sure he won't mind since he only has to respond to the same questions he's already answered...again and again and again. He'll then be done with the debate. I would like to see Sam answer all the questions in Bob's last post even though it shouldn't shed any new light on the subject matter. It would be nice if Sam would answer the questions directly, let Bob go into his normal diatribe, and end the debate.

Army of One
September 13th, 2005, 02:17 PM
I agree with RightIdea and Defcon on this. I think it is reasonable to credit Bob with the word count he used when quoting the rules, but to just do away with the word count all together is only going to cause problems. I would love to hear Bob's argument without any word limitation, but the rules seemed pretty clear from the beginning.

GodsfreeWill
September 13th, 2005, 02:23 PM
It sounds as if this "recommendation" decision on word count was made only AFTER Bob was in trouble. I don't agree with it, and it was definitely misleading to say the least. BUT! I haven't felt that Sam came ready to defend his theological position at all costs, because of his short posts and quick responses. Bob has obviously put forth more effort (at least it seems) in this debate and that should be rewarded. We definitely don't want a debate on word count, but on God's foreknowledge, and why limit the discussion because of word count? Here's my solution: Sam needs to be "punished" for not putting forth more effort, and the "use it or lose it" rule should be put in effect, and Bob should get all the words Sam could have used, but did not. Then we may be able to have a 6,000 word average for the debate as a whole. I HIGHLY doubt Bob was counting words as he was writing his posts, and was just doing what he felt necessary to defend his position. In other words, without a word limit in the rules, I GUARANTEE both sides' posts would have been the same posts that they have written thus far. I think this would do Sam more justice on the apparent misleading done to him. (He even talked about it one of his posts that he was watching Bob's word count carefully and no one said a word.) What do you guys think? Knight? Bob? The last thing we need is Sam to decide to leave the debate now. Let's finish this bad boy!

Knight
September 13th, 2005, 02:23 PM
If it doesn't matter what the word count is -why even mention it in the rules?Who said word count "doesn't matter"?

Word count does matter.

We don't want to see any 20,000 word essays submitted as posts.

So we asked the participants to keep their posts to a recommended 6,000 words.

SOTK
September 13th, 2005, 02:30 PM
A somewhat decent debate, both sides pretty much talked past each othe with Bob being the one more direct with Samr, and now this.......it's ruined now.

:up:

I agree although I am not sure about the "Bob being more direct" part.

At times, both participants have been direct, and at times, both have been ambiguous.


Both sides made numerous debate errors. Just let it go.

Again, I tend to agree.

Personally, I could care less about the 6,000 word rule. I think it almost would have been better if Knight wouldn't have said anything. Dealing with it at the end of the debate and in the manner in which it was dealt with is what has caused the controversy.

At this point, it's probably just best to let it go. There has been nothing but bias on both sides of this debate. I honestly and seriously appreciate both Bob's and Sam's time in this debate, however, each camp is securely entrenched in their theology. I know I haven't commented much but I have read tons. Nobody wavered. The debate and the side discussions which occured due to it showed the same old bias and arguments which have occured since I've been here.

defcon
September 13th, 2005, 02:33 PM
Who said word count "doesn't matter"?

Word count does matter.

We don't want to see any 20,000 word essays submitted as posts.

So we asked the participants to keep their posts to a recommended 6,000 words.
So then by "extremely tight" 6,000 word limit, the participants understand that to be "As long as I don't post 20,000 words I'm fine"? C'mon Knight - this is throwing up all sorts of flags. As moderator, you need to treat both participants fairly.

Bob Enyart
September 13th, 2005, 02:36 PM
But now to just say it was a recommendation?
I wouldn't call the phrase "limit is extremely tight" as a recommendation.


If the word count between participants was the other way around, would people even notice or care?


We'll never know.

To RightIdea: I noticed a couple rounds ago you asked somebody for something he was smoking. Was that request ever taken literally?

You crack me up. The rules explicitly say: “recommended.”

“The debate will last for ten rounds. The recommended maximum word limit for the average post is 6,000 words…”

I realize you like to demonstrate that you’re able to criticize your own side, and that’s admirable. But it’s rather bizarre to suggest that this is just “now” being called a recommendation when the rules say: “recommended maximum word limit.”


Also please do not waste valuable space commenting on why a question wasn't responded to if that question was not in your official question list. The 6,000 word limit is extremely tight in a debate of this complexity therefore we want to save as much space as possible for actual content.

Knight’s statement after round three was an encouragement to stay focused on the debate, and it was not a repeal of one of the rules. And by recommendation, if there is not provocation, it is reasonable to take the limit as a recommendation, meaning that there is a few percentage points of leeway. If there is provocation, then the recommendation margin would increase proportionately to the provocation.

To Shimei: the answer is: no.

To defcon: yes, we would know, based on past behavior. In Battle Royale VII, the back and forth interaction was very similar to BR X. And when Zakath went AWOL, the response from the moderator, Knight, and from me was to wait, and wait, and wait… to give Zakath a chance to post! There was no bias to rule against Zakath because TOL is a Christian site. Likewise, it should be obvious, that Sam could post late, or long, or copy and paste in his lengthy argument on Isaiah written by someone else, and the bottom line for TOL and me is that we want the best argument Sam can muster. So, the answer is no, of course we would not care if Sam went 10% over the limit, or 20% for that matter. My goal is to debate the issue, and win or lose on the merits.


NOTE ABOUT WORD COUNT
Much has been made in the grandstands and in the coliseum about the recommended 6,000 word count limit. The 6,000 word count limit is a recommended limit (as stated in the rules) and the spirit of the rule is to keep the posts at a reasonable word length. The bottom line is TOL is looking for a substantive debate about God's foreknowledge not a trivial debate about word counts.

The substantive qualities of this debate take preeminence over that quantitate elements of this debate.


And finally, again to RightIdea: I don’t know WHAT you’re thinking?? Really? What are you thinking?

-Bob

Jerry Shugart
September 13th, 2005, 02:40 PM
Clete,

You said:

Because He knew of the comming "fertilization" of the Holy Spirit and expected the fig tree to bare it's fruit. But it did not and so God cut it down and grafted in the gentiles instead.
If the Lord Jesus "expected" that the fig tree would bear fruit then He obviously "believed" that.

But Bob Enyart said that God does not hold any beliefs that might prove to be false.Sam asked Bob the following question:

Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?
And Bob answered,saying:

No.
So according to you the Lord believed that "the fig tree would bear its fruit" but He was wrong about that belief.But Bob said that God cannot hold any beliefs that might prove to be false.

This is intellectually dishonest Jerry and you know it. God does not break His promises and Bob did not assert anything of the sort.
Who is being intellectually dishonest here?You say that the Lord Jesus was wrong in His belief that the fig tree would bear fruit despite the fact that Bob himself said that God does not hold any beliefs that might prove to be false.

Clete,before you start accusing others of being intellectually dishonest perhaps you should consider Bob's own words.Here he lists a "promise" that the Lord did not keep according to him:

Jesus repeatedly promised to return soon (giving the apostles the hope they displayed in Acts of His imminent return).[emphasis mine]
It is you who is either ignorant of what Bob said previously or it is you who is being intellectually dishonest.

If the Lord Jesus promised to return soon,and then He did not return soon then He broke His promise.But you say that God does not break His promises.If Bob is correct in his interpretation of these verses then it is evident that He did break a promise.

If you want to debate Open Theism and you think your position is superior to it, why do you feel it necessary to intentionally mischaracterize the Open View?
I have not mischaracterized a thing that Bob Enyart has said.

If your position is superior then stand toe to toe with the real issue and confront it like a man. Tactics like this only make you out to be childish and scared.
Why is it that when no one defending Bob Enyart has an "intelligent" answer they always end up saying things like "tactics like this only make you out to be childish and scared"?

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Knight
September 13th, 2005, 02:43 PM
Also please do not waste valuable space commenting on why a question wasn't responded to if that question was not in your official question list. The 6,000 word limit is extremely tight in a debate of this complexity therefore we want to save as much space as possible for actual content.When I made the above comment I was merely attempting to get both combatants less focused on the unimportant debate procedures and more focused on the substance of the debate.

The truth is there have been literally dozens of rules violations of all types in BX and BOTH Sam and Bob could have been penalized for these violations but would that really be what we want?

Do we really want to focus more an the small rules violations or do we really want to focus on the substance of the debate?

What we do want is to get all the best arguments out in this debate regardless of small rule violations that are only a distraction.

Major rules violations would be a different story. But even then it would be a judgement call as to penalizing the participant.

For instance....
Sam had a what I would call a somewhat MAJOR violation in his last post but it wasn't worth making a big deal out because it would have distracted from the substance of Sam's post.

Knight
September 13th, 2005, 02:45 PM
Rules are rules, unless you're a relativist, like Knight.And fools are fools, like fool.

Knight
September 13th, 2005, 02:46 PM
If the word count between participants was the other way around, would people even notice or care?No.

fool
September 13th, 2005, 02:49 PM
When I made the above comment I was merely attempting to get both combatants less focused on the unimportant debate procedures and more focused on the substance of the debate.

The truth is there have been literally dozens of rules violations of all types in BX and BOTH Sam and Bob could have been penalized for these violations but would that really be what we want?

Do we really want to focus more an the small rules violations or do we really want to focus on the substance of the debate?

What we do want is to get all the best arguments out in this debate regardless of small rule violations that are only a distraction.

Major rules violations would be a different story. But even then it would be a judgement call as to penalizing the participant.

For instance....
Sam had a what I would call a somewhat MAJOR violation in his last post but it wasn't worth making a big deal out because it would have distracted from the substance of Sam's post.
Why not just enforce the rules and shut everybody up? What's the point in having rules if your not gonna enforce them?

Knight
September 13th, 2005, 02:53 PM
Why not just enforce the rules and shut everybody up? What's the point in having rules if your not gonna enforce them?Why would you ask a question and also include my quote that contains a perfectly reasonable answer to your question in it? :kookoo:

RightIdea
September 13th, 2005, 02:58 PM
Bob, you yourself didn't interpret the rules that way until round 9. You and Knight came up with this interpretation of the rules at the end of round 9 to justify your post. How can you claim otherwise? You wrote 8b with the understanding that you knew your remaining word count was extremely limited. You told me so, yourself, when we had a conversation about it. This interpretation is brand new, and that's where the problem lies.

I don't care what the rules were, in particular. If there was never a word limit, or if it was an average per post for each, or an average per post for the debate overall (such that you could use the words he doesn't use) or just an "approximate" guide of 6,000 words (which your round 8b isn't even close to fulfilling in spirit), I wouldnt' have cared which rules were in place. The problem is when you and the moderator figure out a new way to interpret the rules, a way which which no one has interpreted the rules up to this point, including yourself.

48 hours ago, your lack of remaining word count was a problem, from your own mouth. Suddenly, it is not. That is a change. And you can't change how the debate is run in round 9. That is wholly unfair to Lamerson.



Finally, I do not enjoy criticizing my own side. I believe we must stand on the dual principles of truth and love, and if we focus on either at the expense of the other, we're led astray and we cause problems in people's lives. I don't at all believe that you went into this debate with the intention of changing the rules. I don't even think you intented to do it when you wrote round 8. I'm positive you didn't. Rather, I think you gave into temptation in the heat of the moment, out of frustration, something that is completely forgiveable, but I do think you need to repent of it first.

You yourself thought you had a word count problem 48 hours ago. Today, suddenly you do not. How can you say this has been the interpretation all along, in light of that? And how can you now say that 8b was written in the spirit of such an approximate 6,000 word count concept? It's almost 50% over that.

Knight
September 13th, 2005, 03:07 PM
Right Idea.... you are missing the point.

I do think that Bob needs to keep his 10th round post to the recommended limit.

And Bob probably should have made some of his other posts shorter.

But none of this is worth making a big deal out of! Truth be told, Bob has spent a large portion of the debate re-answering questions 2 and 3 times that he has already answered.

Also....
Sam, posted a large bit of pre-written text that wasn't written by him nor for this debate! Should I go back and disqualify that post of Sam's??? I wouldn't do that to Sam because it isn't worth it!

Other rule violations...
Sam was late on a post, Bob was late on a post, Sam misused the question numbering system and Bob made a mistake on the question numbering system - So what?????

In the end we are getting a really good debate which was the goal from the beginning!

drbrumley
September 13th, 2005, 03:09 PM
For future reference, maybe a 10,000 word LIMIT should be ENFORCED!

fool
September 13th, 2005, 03:09 PM
Why would you ask a question and also include my quote that contains a perfectly reasonable answer to your question in it? :kookoo:
You mean a relatively reasonable answer.
A perfectly reasonable thing to do would be enforce the rules, then there can be no doubt as to the fairness of the venue. Bob is your pastor, if I were you I would do everything possible to insure that there could not possibly be any bias on the part of host. Doing this is very simple. Enforce the rules as written, if a post is to long snip it at 6000. If copywritten material has been pirated delete it. If someone is smoking in the bathroom throw a bucket of water over the door. We need an absolutly fair debate, not a relatively fair one.

Knight
September 13th, 2005, 03:10 PM
48 hours ago, your lack of remaining word count was a problem, from your own mouth. Suddenly, it is not. That is a change. And you can't change how the debate is run in round 9. That is wholly unfair to Lamerson.I admit I did get involved in this because I was frustrated that people were actually making a big deal of this. It's so silly!

I almost made a statement regarding this subject earlier in the debate but I decided against it so as to not distract from the debate.

drbrumley
September 13th, 2005, 03:10 PM
I agree with Knight, both made mistakes.

Now our arguments over this is totally RUINING it.

Knight
September 13th, 2005, 03:12 PM
You mean a relatively reasonable answer.
A perfectly reasonable thing to do would be enforce the rules, then there can be no doubt as to the fairness of the venue. Bob is your pastor, if I were you I would do everything possible to insure that there could not possibly be any bias on the part of host. Doing this is very simple. Enforce the rules as written, if a post is to long snip it at 6000. If copywritten material has been pirated delete it. If someone is smoking in the bathroom throw a bucket of water over the door. We need an absolutly fair debate, not a relatively fair one.Great point!

Which is why I am stepping in to enforce the rules more accurately.

The word limit is a "reccomended word limit".

Therefore I would have to CHANGE the rules to make the word limit a hard count.

Get it?

I didn't think so. :rolleyes:

Knight
September 13th, 2005, 03:14 PM
Now our arguments over this is totally RUINING it.Not for me.

Both Sam and Bob have done a marvelous job in BR X and they should continue to focus on the substance of the debate.

Poly
September 13th, 2005, 03:18 PM
I agree with Knight, both made mistakes.

Now our arguments over this is totally RUINING it.

I have to disagree with you here, drb. No amount of worthless, wasted bickering over a very silly and small issue can take away from the substance that's been given in this debate.

RightIdea
September 13th, 2005, 03:18 PM
Knight, I'm totally supportive of those decisions to let some things slide in the spirit of good debate. I've no quarrel there whatsoever. (And weren't both late posts at least mostly beyond the control of the combatants? So that certainly couldn't be held against them, especially when they took measures to show good faith that their post had been entirely composed at that time.)

But where's the good faith here? This was a decision made by the moderator prior to the posting, for the express purpose of making it possible for one side to do something they hitherto could not do. And that is favoritism on its face. That is the problem. Letting some things slide is totally cool, I'm for that, in the interest of the debate. It is the motive here that particularly creates the problem. In round 9, the new interpretation was applied for the specific purpose of allowing Bob to go beyond what he himself believed to be his limited word count. Bob himself recognized he was stuck, and you made this ruling to "unstick" him.

I love ya, but that is not fair.

defcon
September 13th, 2005, 03:18 PM
I know it must be tough for RightIdea to be taking the side he is on, but I am growing to respect RightIdea more and more for it :thumb:. Bob and Knight, I'm disappointed you have taken this as casual as you have. I'm sure Sam reading these posts would have a different opinion of the new "interpretation" of the rules.

This is simply an issue of integrity. The word count has been an issue since the start of Battle Royale and Sam pointed out that Bob's posts were excessive. No one was informed that in reality they weren't excessive until Round 9.

Bob, it is easy to claim that this wouldn't have happened if the roles were reversed. To say that this excuses Knight's ruling and gives you the right to post as you like is laughable.

Knight
September 13th, 2005, 03:21 PM
Knight, I'm totally supportive of those decisions to let some things slide in the spirit of good debate. I've no quarrel there whatsoever. (And weren't both late posts at least mostly beyond the control of the combatants? So that certainly couldn't be held against them, especially when they took measures to show good faith that their post had been entirely composed at that time.)

But where's the good faith here? This was a decision made by the moderator prior to the posting, for the express purpose of making it possible for one side to do something they hitherto could not do. And that is favoritism on its face. That is the problem. Letting some things slide is totally cool, I'm for that, in the interest of the debate. It is the motive here that particularly creates the problem. In round 9, the new interpretation was applied for the specific purpose of allowing Bob to go beyond what he himself believed to be his limited word count. Bob himself recognized he was stuck, and you made this ruling to "unstick" him.

I love ya, but that is not fair.So, your asking that I change the rules that were agreed to by both participants?

You want me to change the rules from "recommended limit" to "hard limit"?

I don't think that seems very fair.

fool
September 13th, 2005, 03:22 PM
Great point!

Which is why I am stepping in to enforce the rules more accurately.

The word limit is a "reccomended word limit".

Therefore I would have to CHANGE the rules to make the word limit a hard count.

Get it?

I didn't think so. :rolleyes:


Also please do not waste valuable space commenting on why a question wasn't responded to if that question was not in your official question list. The 6,000 word limit is extremely tight in a debate of this complexity therefore we want to save as much space as possible for actual content.


Get it?

Knight
September 13th, 2005, 03:23 PM
I know it must be tough for RightIdea to be taking the side he is on, but I am growing to respect RightIdea more and more for it :thumb:. Bob and Knight, I'm disappointed you have taken this as casual as you have. I'm sure Sam reading these posts would have a different opinion of the new "interpretation" of the rules.

This is simply an issue of integrity. The word count has been an issue since the start of Battle Royale and Sam pointed out that Bob's posts were excessive. No one was informed that in reality they weren't excessive until Round 9.

Bob, it is easy to claim that this wouldn't have happened if the roles were reversed. To say that this excuses Knight's ruling and gives you the right to post as you like is laughable.The word count has not been an "issue".

And if it were an "issue" it was an "issue" in error.

Knight
September 13th, 2005, 03:24 PM
Get it?I didn't think so. :dunce:

novice
September 13th, 2005, 03:27 PM
Oh give me a break!

So Bob goes over a few hundred words and everyone has a cow. What is the big deal? Clearly this is a non-issue.

fool
September 13th, 2005, 03:27 PM
Knight: how can you reconcile those two quotes of yours I posted for you?

Knight
September 13th, 2005, 03:28 PM
Knight: how can you reconcile those two quotes of yours I posted for you?I already did, try to keep pace.

RightIdea
September 13th, 2005, 03:29 PM
So, your asking that I change the rules that were agreed to by both participants?

You want me to change the rules from "recommended limit" to "hard limit"?

I don't think that seems very fair.
Nobody had that interpretation until the end of round 9. Rules have to be interpreted by someone. That's why God gave judges to men. You're the judge. And no one had this interpretation until now, least of all Bob.

I'm not talking about changing rules. They are what they are. I'm talking about a change in interpretation. First the rules say recommendation. Then you describe the limit as "extremely tight." Then we hear that it's all about the average word count of each participant. And now, at this late date, suddenly you say that "extremely tight" actually means "extremly loose" just in time to allow Bob to post an otherwise impossible post. At the very very best, it gives a huge appearance of impropriety, an appearance of favoritism, even if you rationalized some other reason in your mind at the time.

defcon
September 13th, 2005, 03:30 PM
The word count has not been an "issue".

And if it were an "issue" it was an "issue" in error.So Knight, is Sam ok with this ruling? I mean - since he has mentioned the word count a few times, and now you say that the 6,000 word limit won't be enforced on Bob, surely you let him know of the ruling and explained the reasons, why your quote of "extremely tight" after Round 3 was to be interpreted differently, etc., right?

RobE
September 13th, 2005, 03:30 PM
"Rather, I think you gave into temptation in the heat of the moment, out of frustration, something that is completely forgiveable, but I do think you need to repent of it first."--Rightidea.

This is a mischaracterization of Bob. As he well knows - Rules in debates are only guidelines! The purpose of the debate is to give the arguments for both sides. Have you ever seen a presidential debate where one of the candidates kept talking after his time expired? The problem with Bob's word count is that he spent most of his early posts trying to get Sam to 'bite' (talk along certain lines) on specific ideas that favor his position. Sam wasn't going to be led down certain avenues of thought so Bob spent his time trying to get these 'key' points of his argument answered by the closed view. The word count doesn't matter in this debate. It's a non-issue. Bob knows it! Knight knows it! And to be quite honest Sam knows it(He just doesn't have the time to go into lengthy responses)! Sam doesn't want to be inundated with Bob's retoric without the opportunity to respond.

By the way, I'm enjoying the debate except for the word limit arguements. And "Hi, Bob" if you're reading this. I haven't spoken to you in a long time. I did see you in St. Pete, though. The family says hello as well.

RightIdea
September 13th, 2005, 03:31 PM
Oh give me a break!

So Bob goes over a few hundred words and everyone has a cow. What is the big deal? Clearly this is a non-issue.
It's not a few hundred. It is thousands. Including thousands in just 8b alone.

Knight
September 13th, 2005, 03:33 PM
Nobody had that interpretation until the end of round 9. Rules have to be interpreted by someone. That's why God gave judges to men. You're the judge. And no one had this interpretation until now, least of all Bob.The very reason I decided to get involved! It wasn't worth commenting on until certain folks began to make a big issue out of it.

I didn't want Bob to think he had to adhere to a hard limit when there was no such hard limit.


I'm not talking about changing rules. They are what they are. I'm talking about a change in interpretation. First the rules say recommendation. Then you describe the limit as "extremely tight." Then we hear that it's all about the average word count of each participant. And now, at this late date, suddenly you say that "extremely tight" actually means "extremly loose" just in time to allow Bob to post an otherwise impossible post. At the very very best, it gives a huge appearance of impropriety, an appearance of favoritism, even if you rationalized some other reason in your mind at the time.Again, when I said "extremely tight" it was a plea for the participants to stop wasting words on minutia! Which of course is exactly what we are doing here. :)

Who wants to read a debate where the participants bicker about how to debate each other which is what was going on early in the debate.

RightIdea
September 13th, 2005, 03:33 PM
So Knight, is Sam ok with this ruling? I mean - since he has mentioned the word count a few times, and now you say that the 6,000 word limit won't be enforced on Bob, surely you let him know of the ruling and explained the reasons, why your quote of "extremely tight" after Round 3 was to be interpreted differently, etc., right?
If Knight had talked with Sam on this before the post, I'd think Knight would have already mentioned by now.

fool
September 13th, 2005, 03:36 PM
The word count has not been an "issue".

And if it were an "issue" it was an "issue" in error.
You made it an issue when you said "the 6000 word limit is extremely tight".
What you should have said was "the 6000 word recomendation is a non-issue."
There is no hope, this debate is the fruit of a poison tree.
denying these facts makes things worse and causes me to question your integrity, as well as Bob's

Knight
September 13th, 2005, 03:38 PM
...and now you say that the 6,000 word limit won't be enforced on Bob:doh:

The word limit IS being enforced that's what I am doing!

I am enforcing the fact that the limit is a "recommended limit".

Knight
September 13th, 2005, 03:39 PM
You made it an issue when you said "the 6000 word limit is extremely tight".
What you should have said was "the 6000 word recomendation is a non-issue."
There is no hope, this debate is the fruit of a poison tree.
denying these facts makes things worse and causes me to question your integrity, as well as Bob'sAnd of course I should have banned you last night when you acting equally stupid on the other unrelated thread.

defcon
September 13th, 2005, 03:40 PM
You made it an issue when you said "the 6000 word limit is extremely tight".
What you should have said was "the 6000 word recomendation is a non-issue."
There is no hope, this debate is the fruit of a poison tree.
denying these facts makes things worse and causes me to question your integrity, as well as Bob's:thumb: Me too.

Knight
September 13th, 2005, 03:41 PM
:thumb: Me too.Me too, what?

Poly
September 13th, 2005, 03:42 PM
You made it an issue when you said "the 6000 word limit is extremely tight".
What you should have said was "the 6000 word recomendation is a non-issue."
There is no hope, this debate is the fruit of a poison tree.
denying these facts makes things worse and causes me to question your integrity, as well as Bob's

You could care less about this whole debate, fool. You've basically said nothing about it until this issue came up. You saw it as a great opportunity to attack Bob because of how much you despise him.

Mr. 5020
September 13th, 2005, 03:45 PM
Now, everybody knows that I despise Bob, but this is ridiculous. Knight is the administrator, and the owner, of this site. There is no doubt that he is biased at times, as we all are; however, this is his site and these are his rules. If he feels like enforcing a rule strictly sometimes and loosely other times, that is his choice, NOT OURS.

defcon
September 13th, 2005, 03:47 PM
Me too, what?I'm questioning Bob's and your integrity just like fool is, because as I said from the beginning - this is an issue of integrity.

hitek357
September 13th, 2005, 03:47 PM
Good debate, whatever the limit may be in the rules.

My preference might have been shorter posts on average than what I've seen here - seems like the chunks would have been easier to chew and the combatants would have converged more quickly on the meat of the debate. As it turns out now, there is good "clash" on the atoms of the disagreement and, the way I'm reading it, very little of Sam and Bob "talking past" each other.

On with the show.

Mr. 5020
September 13th, 2005, 03:49 PM
I'm questioning Bob's and your integrity just like fool is, because as I said from the beginning - this is an issue of integrity.No it's not. This is an issue of you being as annoying as possible. Now stop.

defcon
September 13th, 2005, 03:49 PM
Now, everybody knows that I despise Bob, but this is ridiculous. Knight is the administrator, and the owner, of this site. There is no doubt that he is biased at times, as we all are; however, this is his site and these are his rules. If he feels like enforcing a rule strictly sometimes and loosely other times, that is his choice, NOT OURS.Well, that may be, but it is unfortunate though that Sam appears to be being railroaded. Maybe we'll here from Sam soon - if he's not bothered by it, then I guess it doesn't matter.

Mr. 5020
September 13th, 2005, 03:49 PM
Good debate, whatever the limit may be in the rules.

My preference might have been shorter posts on average than what I've seen here - seems like the chunks would have been easier to chew and the combatants would have converged more quickly on the meat of the debate. As it turns out now, there is good "clash" on the atoms of the disagreement and, the way I'm reading it, very little of Sam and Bob "talking past" each other.

On with the show.:thumb:

I agree.

Mr. 5020
September 13th, 2005, 03:50 PM
Well, that may be, but it is unfortunate though that Sam appears to be being railroaded. Maybe we'll here from Sam soon - if he's not bothered by it, then I guess it doesn't matter.See, Knight. It just takes a little persuasion.

;)

defcon
September 13th, 2005, 03:52 PM
Whatever let's you sleep at night ;)

Mr. 5020
September 13th, 2005, 03:55 PM
Whatever let's you sleep at night ;)I assure you that not a second will be lost due to this issue.

Knight
September 13th, 2005, 03:56 PM
The following note was emailed to both Sam and Bob....
Sam and Bob, I refuse to let BR X turn into a bickering match about word counts.

The rules clearly state that 6,000 words is the recommended word limit. The substance of the debate is what is important to TOL. Both of you have committed rule violations in this debate and I have let them slide because those are unneeded distractions in what is an awesome debate!

Both of you have put in a ton of work and now the debate is almost over.

I intended to not bring any of this up but apparently it has become a "big deal" to some so I am forced to involve myself.

Bob, you should have kept some of your posts shorter. Sam there are a few things in this debate that I wished you hadn't done also. However I am not going to use any of this to taint what has become a really great debate. Any moderator of any debate must make judgment calls as to what let slide and what they do not let slide. I am making a judgement call regarding all the previous rule violations that none of them are serious enough to distract from the substance of this debate.

Thank you for being understanding on this issue.

Let's finish the debate with our closing arguments and let the truth be judged by the readers.

If you have any comments or objections please email me.

- Knight

Mr. 5020
September 13th, 2005, 03:58 PM
The following note was emailed to both Sam and Bob....I thought I had settled it for you. :chuckle:

Balder
September 13th, 2005, 04:21 PM
Bob is making passionate case for ethnocentrism, which may undo him. He wants to purge all "pagan" influence from the supposedly "pure" Hebrew thought. There is no reason to argue against the "taint" of all ideas that did not originate in a Hebrew mind except ethnocentrism, which is a hard position to defend on many fronts. But I think Bob will also be hard pressed to show that the Old Testament reflects "pure" Jewish thought. The Bible is riddled with influences from other cultures, with the sharing of moral perspectives, rules, worldviews, cosmological notions, etc. It is pure fantasy to imagine that the Bible preserves a "pure" line of thought that grew completely independently of the contact of Hebrew minds with other cultures and systems of thought. I don't know of any reputable scholar who would defend such a position.

RobE
September 13th, 2005, 04:35 PM
Bob is making passionate case for ethnocentrism, which may undo him. He wants to purge all "pagan" influence from the supposedly "pure" Hebrew thought. There is no reason to argue against the "taint" of all ideas that did not originate in a Hebrew mind except ethnocentrism, which is a hard position to defend on many fronts. But I think Bob will also be hard pressed to show that the Old Testament reflects "pure" Jewish thought. The Bible is riddled with influences from other cultures, with the sharing of moral perspectives, rules, worldviews, cosmological notions, etc. It is pure fantasy to imagine that the Bible preserves a "pure" line of thought that grew completely independently of the contact of Hebrew minds with other cultures and systems of thought. I don't know of any reputable scholar who would defend such a position.

Perfectly put! Bob's asserts here that the closed view relies on pagan theology even though I believe that Zeus's personality would more closely resemble an OV position. All truth flows from God. It's the perversion of this truth that makes false religions dangerous. As one theologian put it, "the best deception has 99% truth mixed with 1% poison". This is just as deadly. Don't throw out the truth just because you've identified the 'poison'. Thank you for your insight. This is a weak argument. I wonder how many words were spent on this?

Turbo
September 13th, 2005, 04:58 PM
Perfectly put! Bob's asserts here that the closed view relies on pagan theology even though I believe that Zeus's personality would more closely resemble an OV position. All truth flows from God. It's the perversion of this truth that makes false religions dangerous. As one theologian put it, "the best deception has 99% truth mixed with 1% poison". This is just as deadly. Don't throw out the truth just because you've identified the 'poison'. Thank you for your insight. This is a weak argument. I wonder how many words were spent on this?
RobE (and Balder),

Bob has never suggested that we should throw out truth just because some pagan pointed it out. Even broken clocks are right twice a day.

Rather, Bob has pointed out that even Augustine recognized that the Bible, plainly interpretted, is in conflict with the philosophies of certain pagan Greek philosopers, but Augustine deferred to them and attempted to force-fit the Bible accordingly. And since Augustine was so influential, we can now understand how we got into this "Settled View" mess to begin with.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Bob has pointed out how, when, and by whom the clock got broken so that we might be willing to invest the effort necessary to fix it.

Mr. 5020
September 13th, 2005, 05:01 PM
RobE (and Balder),

Bob has never suggested that we should throw out truth just because some pagan pointed it out. Even broken clocks are right twice a day. Rather, Bob has pointed out that even Augustine recognized that the Bible, plainly interpretted, is in conflict with the philosophies of certain pagan Greek philosopers, but Augustine deferred to them and attempted to force-fit the Bible accordingly. And since Augustine was so influential, we can now understand how we got into this "Settled View" mess to begin with.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Bob has pointed out how, when, and by whom the clock got broken so that we might be willing to invest the effort necessary to fix it.Hey Turbo, who do you think is winning the debate thus far?

Turbo
September 13th, 2005, 05:02 PM
Hey Turbo, who do you think is winning the debate thus far?
Bob.

How bout you?

Mr. 5020
September 13th, 2005, 05:10 PM
Bob.

How bout you?Just like you, I think the person that agrees with my theological viewpoint is winning. :)

Clete
September 13th, 2005, 05:18 PM
Just like you, I think the person that agrees with my theological viewpoint is winning. :)
The difference is that our side can point to specific and substantive reasons why, our guy has already won the debate and your side has to cry over how Bob used too many words.

RobE
September 13th, 2005, 05:19 PM
RobE (and Balder),

Bob has never suggested that we should throw out truth just because some pagan pointed it out. Even broken clocks are right twice a day.

Rather, Bob has pointed out that even Augustine recognized that the Bible, plainly interpretted, is in conflict with the philosophies of certain pagan Greek philosopers, but Augustine deferred to them and attempted to force-fit the Bible accordingly. And since Augustine was so influential, we can now understand how we got into this "Settled View" mess to begin with.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Bob has pointed out how, when, and by whom the clock got broken so that we might be willing to invest the effort necessary to fix it.

I just have to wonder....

Which god reacted to outside stimulus and made decisions as he went along. Which god didn't know the entire future and had to wing it as he went along? Yours, mine, or the Greek gods? The foundation of Greek theology would seem to infer that the gods didn't have foreknowledge of events and therefore were worshipped by open view followers.

SOTK
September 13th, 2005, 05:25 PM
The difference is that our side can point to specific and substantive reasons why, our guy has already won the debate and your side has to cry over how Bob used too many words.

Don't use your side so generally, Clete. At least one of your side was honest enough to point out the problem and not all of my side really even cares about the problem.

Furthermore, the whole use of the our side and my side vocabulary further solidifies the notion that this debate was never really gonna go anywhere as nobody can obviously see past their own bias (mine included).

M. K. Nawojski
September 13th, 2005, 05:29 PM
My “membership” in TOL has been brief. I joined August 1, 2005, for the express purpose of following Battle Royale X. At that time, I had never met nor communicated with either Mr. Bob Enyart or Dr. Sam Lamerson.

I had a high interested in monitoring the “clash” of this particular debate because -- although I had been familiar with Calvinistic theology for a number of years -- I knew almost nothing about the doctrine and practice of those who proclaim “Open Theology.” And I was eager to examine their views. Moreover, having no historical/background information regarding TOL (and specifically no idea of the connection between the site and Bob Enyart), I assumed it was a “neutral” forum -- where the Battle Royale X and resultant dialogue would take place under clear, evenhanded rules, enforced by impartial and dispassionate moderators.

I couldn’t have been more wrong!

Today, having read Knight’s new interpretation of the BR X “word count” regulation, which was agreed to by all parties before the debate commenced -- and having reviewed the myriad of subsequent rationalization/validation for this dishonorable last-minute, sleight-of-hand maneuver -- I am removing my name from the TOL membership list.

I’m ashamed that it was ever listed there.

M. K. Nawojski

Clete
September 13th, 2005, 05:32 PM
My “membership” in TOL has been brief. I joined August 1, 2005, for the express purpose of following Battle Royale X. At that time, I had never met nor communicated with either Mr. Bob Enyart or Dr. Sam Lamerson.

I had a high interested in monitoring the “clash” of this particular debate because -- although I had been familiar with Calvinistic theology for a number of years -- I knew almost nothing about the doctrine and practice of those who proclaim “Open Theology.” And I was eager to examine their views. Moreover, having no historical/background information regarding TOL (and specifically no idea of the connection between the site and Bob Enyart), I assumed it was a “neutral” forum -- where the Battle Royale X and resultant dialogue would take place under clear, evenhanded rules, enforced by impartial and dispassionate moderators.

I couldn’t have been more wrong!

Today, having read Knight’s new interpretation of the BR X “word count” regulation, which was agreed to by all parties before the debate commenced -- and having reviewed the myriad of subsequent rationalization/validation for this dishonorable last-minute, sleight-of-hand maneuver -- I am removing my name from the TOL membership list.

I’m ashamed that it was ever listed there.

M. K. Nawojski


:wave2:

Clete
September 13th, 2005, 05:35 PM
Don't use your side so generally, Clete. At least one of your side was honest enough to point out the problem and not all of my side really even cares about the problem.

Furthermore, the whole use of the our side and my side vocabulary further solidifies the notion that this debate was never really gonna go anywhere as nobody can obviously see past their own bias (mine included).
To have expected otherwise is naive, at least speaking generally it is. There are those who are intellectually honest who will be swayed by the truth and those who were already convinced on the issue will have opportunity to learn more powerful arguments to convince others in the future. Any expectations beyond this are wishful thinking at best.


Resting in Him,
Clete

jhodgeiii
September 13th, 2005, 05:39 PM
MyshrallBayou,

Why do you make these drive-by comments, which are thoughtfully refuted, and never come back to reason? Do you think we here at ToL should take your word as gospel? There's a word for those who make comments and don't have the courage to back them up.

That being said, your latest post in the Critique Thread here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=867604#post867604) defines an interesting word:
Eisegesis is the approach to Bible interpretation where the interpreter tries to 'force' the Bible to mean something that fits their existing belief or understanding of a particular issue or doctrine.Since Sam Lamerson seems to want to avoid specifics here, perhaps you'd like to tell us why Jesus said the following in His omniscience:
• “There are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
• “I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”Do you believe that some who were standing there are still alive today? Or can you make a case that Jesus has already returned? How about the ubiquitous "Jesus didn't mean what we all thought he did" excuse without telling us what he indeed meant?

Be brave. Let us all hear your exegesis on Jesus' words here.

Bob Enyart
September 13th, 2005, 05:44 PM
I just have to wonder....
The foundation of Greek theology would seem to infer that the [Greek] gods didn't have foreknowledge of events...

RobE, as your quote is part of a comment on BR X, I'll suggest that I think you're confusing Greek mythology with platonic philosophy.

I've never argued that Augustine compromised Christianity with Greek "mythology." I think that's what your assuming here. He compromised Christianity with neo-platonic immutability and timelessness.

Augustine then morphed those ideas back into the Greek fatalism that did and still does hold such influence over the masses.

Plato himself outwardly rejected such fatalism, and the absurdity of Mt. Olympus. However, just like Arminians today who reject Calvinism and yet frequently speak in Calvinist terms, while he despised fatalism, he introduced the world to a divinity that was unchangeable in anyway. Thus he unwittingly provided a philosophical underpinning for the very worldview he despised (though it had deeply affected him also).

Thanks, -Bob

RobE
September 13th, 2005, 06:02 PM
RobE, as your quote is part of a comment on BR X, I'll suggest that I think you're confusing Greek mythology with platonic philosophy.

I've never argued that Augustine compromised Christianity with Greek "mythology." I think that's what your assuming here. He compromised Christianity with neo-platonic immutability and timelessness.

Augustine then morphed those ideas back into the Greek fatalism that did and still does hold such influence over the masses.

Plato himself outwardly rejected such fatalism, and the absurdity of Mt. Olympus. However, just like Arminians today who reject Calvinism and yet frequently speak in Calvinist terms, while he despised fatalism, he introduced the world to a divinity that was unchangeable in anyway. Thus he unwittingly provided a philosophical underpinning for the very worldview he despised (though it had deeply affected him also).

Thanks, -Bob

I appreciate the fact that you caught my shift from Greek philosophy to Greek mythology. I was simply trying to spark a debate as to how an 'Open View' god is different from the gods as they are portrayed in Greek mythology. I truly didn't mean to misrepresent what you were saying in the debate even though my original post on this did say, and reference, Greek mythology. My apologies. I would; however, still like to know how an 'open view' Jesus is different from say a zeus. This question has been plagueing me ever since round 2. I'm sincerely trying to tie the 'open view' with how I perceive the Lord.

Bob Enyart
September 13th, 2005, 06:04 PM
Dear Enyartites:

Bob's "exegesis" of Psalm 139:16 was a very painfully classical example of EISEGESIS.

Myshrall, Is the third stanza of Psalm 139 about the development of the baby in the womb?

Thanks, -Bob

Bob Enyart
September 13th, 2005, 06:11 PM
I would... still like to know how an 'open view' Jesus is different from say a zeus.

Mythology: The Greek gods showed partiality. They inflicted suffering on people without cause. They had no semblance of a just and wise counsel. They were self-centered. They were the invention of a darkened culture. (However, much of Greek mythology is a twist, that is, a perversion, of actual history as reported accurately in Scripture.)

Scripture: The God of the Bible is insulted by the accusation that He shows partiality. And He only wills for good to all His creatures. (The vast majority of the early Christian church fathers prior to Augustine agreed with this next sentence.) It is the will of those creatures (humans and angels) that determines whether they freely accept God's goodness toward them, or endure His judgment.

Clete
September 13th, 2005, 06:28 PM
(The vast majority of the early Christian church fatheres prior to Augustine agreed with this next sentence.) It is the will of those creatures (humans and angels) that determines whether they freely accept God's goodness toward them, or endure His judgment.


Ezekiel 18:30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord GOD. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord GOD. “Therefore turn and live!”

RobE
September 13th, 2005, 06:30 PM
Didn't God choose Saul of Tarsus, Abraham, Jacob, and Job. Esau might not like his impartiality since Jacob was chosen over and above. John, the apostle, whom he loved.

Job might be a problem in "accessory to inflicting suffering'.

defcon
September 13th, 2005, 06:48 PM
My “membership” in TOL has been brief. I joined August 1, 2005, for the express purpose of following Battle Royale X. At that time, I had never met nor communicated with either Mr. Bob Enyart or Dr. Sam Lamerson.

I had a high interested in monitoring the “clash” of this particular debate because -- although I had been familiar with Calvinistic theology for a number of years -- I knew almost nothing about the doctrine and practice of those who proclaim “Open Theology.” And I was eager to examine their views. Moreover, having no historical/background information regarding TOL (and specifically no idea of the connection between the site and Bob Enyart), I assumed it was a “neutral” forum -- where the Battle Royale X and resultant dialogue would take place under clear, evenhanded rules, enforced by impartial and dispassionate moderators.

I couldn’t have been more wrong!

Today, having read Knight’s new interpretation of the BR X “word count” regulation, which was agreed to by all parties before the debate commenced -- and having reviewed the myriad of subsequent rationalization/validation for this dishonorable last-minute, sleight-of-hand maneuver -- I am removing my name from the TOL membership list.

I’m ashamed that it was ever listed there.

M. K. Nawojski
Sorry to see ya go.... This is the first time I've encountered this at TOL, so hopefully it is just an isolated event :sigh:

geoff
September 13th, 2005, 07:03 PM
Sorry to see ya go.... This is the first time I've encountered this at TOL, so hopefully it is just an isolated event :sigh:


HAHAHAHAAH

:hammer:


RobE has a good point whhich Enyart failed to answer.

More importantly though, how is the OV god any different to baal or any other of the older testament gods?

Temporal, non omniscient, etc etc..

No difference at all.

Knight
September 13th, 2005, 07:19 PM
My “membership” in TOL has been brief. I joined August 1, 2005, for the express purpose of following Battle Royale X. At that time, I had never met nor communicated with either Mr. Bob Enyart or Dr. Sam Lamerson.

I had a high interested in monitoring the “clash” of this particular debate because -- although I had been familiar with Calvinistic theology for a number of years -- I knew almost nothing about the doctrine and practice of those who proclaim “Open Theology.” And I was eager to examine their views. Moreover, having no historical/background information regarding TOL (and specifically no idea of the connection between the site and Bob Enyart), I assumed it was a “neutral” forum -- where the Battle Royale X and resultant dialogue would take place under clear, evenhanded rules, enforced by impartial and dispassionate moderators.

I couldn’t have been more wrong!

Today, having read Knight’s new interpretation of the BR X “word count” regulation, which was agreed to by all parties before the debate commenced -- and having reviewed the myriad of subsequent rationalization/validation for this dishonorable last-minute, sleight-of-hand maneuver -- I am removing my name from the TOL membership list.

I’m ashamed that it was ever listed there.

M. K. NawojskiUhm, let me guess.... I don't suppose I offended you when I cut Sam serious slack in round 9? :rolleyes:

:wave2:

Knight
September 13th, 2005, 07:20 PM
Sorry to see ya go.... This is the first time I've encountered this at TOL, so hopefully it is just an isolated event :sigh:"this"?

Being fair is "this"????

Look, if you don't like TOL don't let the door hit....

Delmar
September 13th, 2005, 09:43 PM
Here is the deal. I sort of agree with Right Idea and defcon and yet. Sam said nothing of substance in rounds 6, 7 and 8 Then in round 9 when Sam realizes Bob has spent his allotted word count then and only then does he start making bold assertions! This left Bob with two choices .
1 Blow past the word count and refute what Sam said in round 9( bad choice).
2 Allow the garbage Sam posted in round 9 to stand unchallenged by the truth (worse choice).

Clete
September 13th, 2005, 09:50 PM
HAHAHAHAAH

:hammer:


RobE has a good point whhich Enyart failed to answer.

More importantly though, how is the OV god any different to baal or any other of the older testament gods?

Temporal, non omniscient, etc etc..

No difference at all.
For starters, besides being holy, just and good, the "OV God", as you so eloquently call Him, actually exists.

RobE
September 14th, 2005, 08:53 AM
For starters, besides being holy, just and good, the "OV God", as you so eloquently call Him, actually exists.

:think:

Didn't the followers of Zeus kinda think he was holy, just, and good. For sure they believed he existed; otherwise, the wouldn't have had temples, festivals, etc....

When bad things happened to them they probably though Zeus was punishing them in some way. Don't ya think?

Balder
September 14th, 2005, 09:04 AM
Perfectly put! Bob's asserts here that the closed view relies on pagan theology even though I believe that Zeus's personality would more closely resemble an OV position. All truth flows from God. It's the perversion of this truth that makes false religions dangerous. As one theologian put it, "the best deception has 99% truth mixed with 1% poison". This is just as deadly. Don't throw out the truth just because you've identified the 'poison'. Thank you for your insight. This is a weak argument. I wonder how many words were spent on this?
I agree, and have commented elsewhere, that it is kind of ironic that Bob, in trying to purge the influence of "high pagan" thought from Christianity, is insisting on a portrait of God that is much closer to the "low pagan" model of deity.

This does not mean that he is actually drawing on low pagan ideas; only that he is insisting on an understanding that is common to many mythologically based cultures around the world, the early Hebrew culture among them.

And as I pointed out, it is fairly certain that the early Hebrews were also influenced by their pagan neighbors. This shows up pretty clearly in early Hebrew cosmological notions, for instance.

Clete
September 14th, 2005, 10:09 AM
You guys are missing the point! Good greif people! Is it really this difficult to follow someone's very simple train of thought?

Bob doesn't attack Greek influence based merely on the fact that it is Greek but attacks it because it is not Biblical. He has never denied that the Greek gods happen to have some attributes that are similar to the true and living God of the Bible, in fact it would be impossible for this not to be the case regardless of what Bob believed. What he has denied is that the God of the Bible is immutable, immpassible, etc and that the reason why Christians believe such things about God isn't because it's Biblical but because of the influence that Plato had on Augustine.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
September 14th, 2005, 10:12 AM
:think:

Didn't the followers of Zeus kinda think he was holy, just, and good. For sure they believed he existed; otherwise, the wouldn't have had temples, festivals, etc....

When bad things happened to them they probably though Zeus was punishing them in some way. Don't ya think?
It makes no difference what they believed, that wasn't the point. The point was that in spite of their belief, Zeus has never existed and therefore has never been holy, just or good.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Balder
September 14th, 2005, 10:47 AM
You guys are missing the point! Good greif people! Is it really this difficult to follow someone's very simple train of thought?

Bob doesn't attack Greek influence based merely on the fact that it is Greek but attacks it because it is not Biblical. He has never denied that the Greek gods happen to have some attributes that are similar to the true and living God of the Bible, in fact it would be impossible for this not to be the case regardless of what Bob believed. What he has denied is that the God of the Bible is immutable, immpassible, etc and that the reason why Christians believe such things about God isn't because it's Biblical but because of the influence that Plato had on Augustine.

Resting in Him,
Clete
Clete,

I've been interested in following Sam's defense of the notions of immutability, etc, because I agree that many depictions of God in the Bible appear to reflect an entity more like the one Bob is describing -- temporally situated, relational, capable of making mistakes or repenting, and so on. In some contexts, I have also challenged Christians who argue for Augustinian concepts of God with examples from scripture which present the image of a more anthropomorphic (and frankly "limited") deity.

If you see Biblical thought as part of the great overall sweep of human thought, subject to the same forces of development and revision and cross-pollination as all other fields of knowledge and understanding, then it does not strike me as necessarily problematic that a particular tradition moves away from earlier, simpler, more anthropomorphic models of deity to fuller, more radically challenging understandings. You see a similar progression in many cultures and religious traditions. So, even if Christian thought was influenced by Greek thought in certain areas, such that its notion of deity was refined, taking it even beyond what earlier Biblical models conveyed, I don't see that as problematic -- unless you insist on an ethnocentric perspective which says the only valid understanding must come from Hebrew minds, and must be checked against whatever previous Hebrew minds have said.

In another thread, I talked to you about the issue of time. I think this is something that needs to be worked out in more detail in OV thought. I see some merit to some of the OV perspective -- I like and respect the idea of the fundamental creative openness of reality. I just think Bob may go too far in trying to promote a particular, "common sense" model of temporality, rejecting the whole of Greek ideas about timelessness, etc. As I pointed out, timelessness may not be opposed to temporality, but a necessary ground for it:


This is clearly a logical problem: In an infinite series of points, where the "now" is understood as any discrete point along an infinite line, with an infinite history of previous "nows" leading up to it, it seems it would impossible to ever be able to "arrive" at any point, because every point has an infinite history of previous "nows" which cannot be exhausted or completely unfolded. If you reflect on this, it suggests that perhaps there is something about "nowness" or "presence" that transcends (and includes) the linear, past-to-future unfolding of moments in time.

If you begin to grasp this and what it means ("eternity in our hearts"?), you may also begin to grasp what is meant by "unchanging" in mystical and pagan philosophy. This is not opposed to linear, "in time" activity: it is the necessary foundation for it.
In my conversation with Philosophizer on the "Open View Time" thread, I tried to ask some questions that would help us explore this more, but unfortunately he dropped out of the conversation and it went no further.

Clete
September 14th, 2005, 10:59 AM
Clete,

I've been interested in following Sam's defense of the notions of immutability, etc, because I agree that many depictions of God in the Bible appear to reflect an entity more like the one Bob is describing -- temporally situated, relational, capable of making mistakes or repenting, and so on. In some contexts, I have also challenged Christians who argue for Augustinian concepts of God with examples from scripture, which present the image of a more anthropomorphic (and frankly "limited") deity.

If you see Biblical thought as part of the great overall sweep of human thought, subject to the same forces of development and revision and cross-pollination as all other fields of knowledge and understanding, then it does not strike me as necessarily problematic that a particular tradition moves away from earlier, simpler, more anthropomorphic models of deity to fuller, more radically challenging understandings. You see a similar progression in many cultures and religious traditions. So, even if Christian thought was influenced by Greek thought in certain areas, such that its notion of deity was refined, taking it even beyond what earlier Biblical models conveyed, I don't see that as problematic -- unless you insist on an ethnocentric perspective which says the only valid understanding must come from Hebrew minds, and must be checked against whatever previous Hebrew minds have said.
It's not about Hebrew thought; it's about God's thought. The Bible is of divine origin not human (Hebrew or otherwise). Thus it is the bedrock of all things theological, thus if any system of thought, Hebrew, Greek or whatever is found to be in conflict with it, that system of thought must be discarded in favor of that which is demonstrably Biblical.


In another thread, I talked to you about the issue of time. I think this is something that needs to be worked out in more detail in OV thought. I see some merit to some of the OV perspective -- I like and respect the idea of the fundamental creative openness of reality. I just think Bob may go too far in trying to promote a particular, "common sense" model of temporality, rejecting the whole of Greek ideas about timelessness, etc. As I pointed out, timelessness may not be opposed to temporality, but a necessary ground for it:


In my conversation with Philosophizer on the "Open View Time" thread, I tried to ask some questions that would help us explore this more, but unfortunately he dropped out of the conversation and it went no further.
I would not be apposed to exploring the issue with you. I believe that our theologies must be of sound reason and so if you can show me, either here or on the other thread, how time is dependent upon timelessness for its coherence, then I would be interested to read what you have to say.

Resting in Him,
Clete

RobE
September 14th, 2005, 12:29 PM
Actually, Bob hasn't denied the fact that God is immutable- He's only denied that the traditional omnis aren't part of his character. He insists that his loving, etc... are immutable and shown to be immutable by the incarnation of Christ. He isn't opposed to immutability as a concept... only to pagan Greek philosophy which includeds the ims.

This still doesn't answer my question which addresses how God behaves, thinks, or rationalizes. My point was --- If God makes decisions, as time progresses, without foreknowledge; isn't he just like Zeus seeing the current situation and acting based on his emotion at the time. We all agree that there is a plan. It's how that plan is put into action that we're talking about here. Wouldn't you consider God from the OV perception to be more Zeus-like than from the CV perception. And if not, why not?


You guys are missing the point! Good greif people! Is it really this difficult to follow someone's very simple train of thought?

He has never denied that the Greek gods happen to have some attributes that are similar to the true and living God of the Bible, in fact it would be impossible for this not to be the case regardless of what Bob believed. What he has denied is that the God of the Bible is immutable, immpassible, etc

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
September 14th, 2005, 01:02 PM
Actually, Bob hasn't denied the fact that God is immutable- He's only denied that the traditional omnis aren't part of his character. He insists that his loving, etc... are immutable and shown to be immutable by the incarnation of Christ. He isn't opposed to immutability as a concept... only to pagan Greek philosophy which includes the ims.
You have either misworded this or you are flatly wrong or both. The incarnation proves that the only thing immutable about God is His character. He can change in dramatic, fundamental and permanent ways. The doctrine of immutability flatly denies this as does the definition of the word.


This still doesn't answer my question which addresses how God behaves, thinks, or rationalizes. My point was --- If God makes decisions, as time progresses, without foreknowledge; isn't he just like Zeus seeing the current situation and acting based on his emotion at the time.
It differs in at least the ways in which I have already listed which are that the God who, unlike Zeus, actually exists, reacts, not based on His emotions, but rather upon His righteousness, His holiness, His justice, etc.


We all agree that there is a plan.
A plan? Like what? This terminology is usually loaded with meaning that I will almost certainly disagree with. I agree that there is an over all plan, sort of big picture type plan, but there is no specific plan that God has for my life or yours aside from his desire to see us do rightly and to love Him and His righteousness.


It's how that plan is put into action that we're talking about here. Wouldn't you consider God from the OV perception to be more Zeus-like than from the CV perception. And if not, why not?
I would consider it to be a moot point. There is no linkage, historical or otherwise between Zeus and Christian open theism. In regards to Calvinism’s links to Greek philosophy, one can connect the historical dots right down the line all the way to Aristotle. No such historical connection can be made with the modern open view movement within Christian circles. Open Theism was born out of an attempt to evacuate Greek influence from Biblical theology and so similarities to the Biblical God in whatever ancient god you want to pick mean nothing. What is the point in even drawing such a parallel if there is no historical linkage between the two? It misses the whole point, as I've said. The point isn't about what is or isn't Greek but what is or isn't Biblical.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Servo
September 14th, 2005, 01:03 PM
This whole worried about the word count thing is majoring in the minors.

The substance being presented in the debate is what matters. All are guilty of it, but leave it to Christians to argue about details that DO NOT matter. Now can we get back to our study of a better understanding of GOD???

RobE
September 14th, 2005, 01:32 PM
I was directly speaking to God's immutable character. I even used that word. Thanks for agreeing.

And I was speaking of an overall plan. Again, thanks.

Your comment did make me wonder about Saul, Peter, Abraham, Jacob, Mary, Joseph, John the Baptist, and even Nebawhosit the Babylonian King("there is no specific plan that God has for my life or yours aside from his desire to see us do rightly and to love Him and His righteousness").

The historical links between Christianity and false religions is immense since Satan has tried throughout history to pervert the truth by washing it out or watering it down. Just remember that Jesus, THE CHRIST, was preceded by an inumerable amount of false messiahs. What we can see from false religions is how Satan has tried to 'head the truth off at the pass'. My primary concern is the same as yours --- Is it Biblical. Do ancient false religions frame their gods in a way that makes them more temporal or not?

:idea:


You have either misworded this or you are flatly wrong or both. The incarnation proves that the only thing immutable about God is His character.

A plan? Like what? This terminology is usually loaded with meaning that I will almost certainly disagree with. I agree that there is an over all plan, sort of big picture type plan, but there is no specific plan that God has for my life or yours aside from his desire to see us do rightly and to love Him and His righteousness.


I would consider it to be a moot point. There is no linkage, historical or otherwise between Zeus and Christian open theism. In regards to Calvinism’s links to Greek philosophy, one can connect the historical dots right down the line all the way to Aristotle. No such historical connection can be made with the modern open view movement within Christian circles. Open Theism was born out of an attempt to evacuate Greek influence from Biblical theology and so similarities to the Biblical God in whatever ancient god you want to pick mean nothing. What is the point in even drawing such a parallel if there is no historical linkage between the two? It misses the whole point, as I've said. The point isn't about what is or isn't Greek but what is or isn't Biblical.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
September 14th, 2005, 02:53 PM
Jerry Shugart,

In response to this. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=868587&postcount=235)

Bob does not deny that Jesus can predict the future and that He can do so with terrific accuracy for a variety of reasons. There is more than one problem with your line of reasoning in the above post but even if we assume that your arguments are sound (which they are not) then all you've done is shown that God could not have "tempted" Peter, which no one denies in the first place. But that, by itself, does your position no good because you forget that we find out just before Jesus makes this prophecy that Satan had asked to sift (tempt) Peter. So in this case it isn't even necessary for God to have intervened at all. All that would be needed for Jesus to be able to predict this event would be to have known, for example, that God gave Satan permission to tempt Peter to sin three times sometime between when Jesus made the prediction and the moment a rooster would crow the following morning.

Basically your entire argument misses the point of the Open View's position on this passage and others like it. Any thing we say about how such prophecies were brought to pass is speculation, we do not pretend to know for certain how it was pulled off in any sort of detail. All we do know is that it would not be necessary for God to know the future in order to accurately make such a prediction. There are any number of ways that Jesus could have known enough to be able to confidently make such a prediction. And more importantly, had the prediction not come true, it would not have falsified Jesus' deity because there are other very similar prophecies in Scripture which were not fulfilled and rightly so because God prizes repentance above fulfilled prophecy, which is the whole point of Jeremiah chapter 18.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Knight
September 14th, 2005, 03:54 PM
Thank you Sam Lamerson! (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=869044#post869044)

GuySmiley
September 14th, 2005, 04:02 PM
My point was --- If God makes decisions, as time progresses, without foreknowledge; isn't he just like Zeus seeing the current situation and acting based on his emotion at the time.
God is just like Zeus in the same sense a corvette is just like a tricycle because they both have wheels. So God makes decisions as time progresses, and so does the mythical zeus. But Bob already pointed out the DIFFERENCES between God and the mythical zeus which you seem to ignore so that you can keep repeating this claim.

Clete
September 14th, 2005, 05:11 PM
Thank you Sam Lamerson! (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=869044#post869044)
I second that! :thumb:

Thank you very much Dr. for not only being willing to participate in the Battle Royale but for sticking with it to the end. I would say that of the all the debates that Bob has been in, that I have had the privilege to be witness too, you've been as good or better an opponent as any Calvinist has ever been. In fact, I think you've done about as well as any Calvinist could do in presenting a case against Open Theism. That probably sounds sarcastic coming from me but I don't intend it that way; seriously I don't.

I think that had you been more familiar with the style of debate that is common here on TOL, that the debate would have flowed better than it did and perhaps there would have been more "clash", as you call it, but, all in all, I think both sides presented the case that they sought to present for all to see and so, as far as I am concerned, it has been a terrific success (or will be as soon as Bob posts the final post ;) ).

God bless you Dr. I hope this won't actually be the last time we hear from you.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Jerry Shugart
September 14th, 2005, 05:12 PM
Jerry Shugart,
Bob does not deny that Jesus can predict the future and that He can do so with terrific accuracy for a variety of reasons.
Yes,the "variety" of reasons is that God will make it happen.

There is more than one problem with your line of reasoning in the above post but even if we assume that your arguments are sound (which they are not) then all you've done is shown that God could not have "tempted" Peter, which no one denies in the first place.
You say that my "reasoning" is wrong,but you don't even attempt to prove it!

But that, by itself, does your position no good because you forget that we find out just before Jesus makes this prophecy that Satan had asked to sift (tempt) Peter. So in this case it isn't even necessary for God to have intervened at all.
The words of the Lord Jesus in regard to the "sifting" by Satan are in about all the Apostles (the "you" is in the plural),meaning that Satan would put them all through difficult times.

All that would be needed for Jesus to be able to predict this event would be to have known, for example, that God gave Satan permission to tempt Peter to sin three times sometime between when Jesus made the prediction and the moment a rooster would crow the following morning.
Where is your Scriptual support for your bold assertion that God gave Satan permission to tempt Peter to sin three times?

You just made that up,didn't you?

Basically your entire argument misses the point of the Open View's position on this passage and others like it.
We can see that there is no Scriptual support for your assertion concerning this passage.

Any thing we say about how such prophecies were brought to pass is speculation, we do not pretend to know for certain how it was pulled off in any sort of detail.
Details or no details you prove that you will not hesitate to speculate if it suits your purposes.

All we do know is that it would not be necessary for God to know the future in order to accurately make such a prediction.
Yes,that is what Bob Enyart said.He says that God will make it happen.And then he says that it is possible that the Lord Jesus could have been wrong about that prediction.

There are any number of ways that Jesus could have known enough to be able to confidently make such a prediction.
Then why don't you tell us those number of ways?

And more importantly, had the prediction not come true, it would not have falsified Jesus' deity because there are other very similar prophecies in Scripture which were not fulfilled and rightly so because God prizes repentance above fulfilled prophecy, which is the whole point of Jeremiah chapter 18.[emphasis mine]
Here we go again.

The Open View presented by Bob Enyart cannot be defended apart from the idea that God can be wrong.

But when asked if any of the God's beliefs can be wrong,Bob Enyart answered,"No".

Sam asked him:

"Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?"

And Bob answered:

"No."

So we see that your theology is based on the idea that God can make predictions that are in error,but at the same time God does not hold any ideas that might prove to be false.

If you cannot see that this is contradictory then I am just wasting my time trying to show you that Bob Enyart is in error.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

RobE
September 14th, 2005, 05:50 PM
:thumb:

Clete
September 14th, 2005, 05:54 PM
If you cannot see that this is contradictory then I am just wasting my time trying to show you that Bob Enyart is in error.
They are only contradictory when one intentionally misses the point being made, which I am now convinced is exactly what you are doing. You are perhaps the biggest waste of time currently on TOL. It's as if you don't know how to read! :bang:

Resting in Him,
Clete

novice
September 14th, 2005, 05:57 PM
They are only contradictory when one intentionally misses the point being made, which I am now convinced is exactly what you are doing. You are perhaps the biggest waste of time currently on TOL. It's as if you don't know how to read! :bang:

Resting in Him,
CleteJerry is a joke and always has been.

Clete
September 14th, 2005, 05:59 PM
RobE,

This might seem like I'm bringing up a new topic, but I'm not. Just indulge me by answering one question. Jerry, I suppose I would entertain an answer from you on this as well...

Was God wrong when He said through Jonah, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”?

Yes or no, please.


Resting in Him,
Clete

RobE
September 14th, 2005, 06:13 PM
RobE,

This might seem like I'm bringing up a new topic, but I'm not. Just indulge me by answering one question. Jerry, I suppose I would entertain an answer from you on this as well...

Was God wrong when He said through Jonah, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”?

Yes or no, please.


Resting in Him,
Clete

No, do you know why he wasn't wrong, Clete? :confused:

Jerry Shugart
September 14th, 2005, 06:18 PM
They are only contradictory when one intentionally misses the point being made, which I am now convinced is exactly what you are doing.
Clete,the point that Bob made is simple and cannot be misunderstood by anyone with an open mind.

He says that God can make predictions that turn out to be wrong but at the same time He cannot hold any beliefs that might turn out to be wrong.

And just because I point out that this is contradictory I am accused of "intentionally" missing the point being made.

You are perhaps the biggest waste of time currently on TOL. It's as if you don't know how to read!
It is you who proves over and over that you can throw your reason to the wind so that you can continue to believe the fable that God can make predictions that prove to be false.

Jerry Shugart
September 14th, 2005, 06:41 PM
Jerry, I suppose I would entertain an answer from you on this as well...

Was God wrong when He said through Jonah, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”?
Clete,

If God was wrong about that then it is obvious that God did have a belief that turned out to be false.But Sam asked Bob the following question:

"Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?"

To which Bob replied,"No.

Are you saying that Bob is wrong,that God did indeed held a belief that turned out to be false?

The passage concerning Nineveh is not to be taken literally,any more than is the following verse:

"I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know"(Gen.18:21).

If we are to take this verse literally then we must believe that God did not know what was going on in the wicked cities until He went to those cities to see.

Are you now willing to argue that God is wrong sometimes and that He didn't even know what was happening on the earth at Genesis 18:21?

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Clete
September 14th, 2005, 06:56 PM
Clete,

If God was wrong about that then it is obvious that God did have a belief that turned out to be false.But Sam asked Bob the following question:

"Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?"

To which Bob replied,"No.

Are you saying that Bob is wrong,that God did indeed held a belief that turned out to be false?

The passage concerning Nineveh is not to be taken literally,any more than is the following verse:

"I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know"(Gen.18:21).

If we are to take this verse literally then we must believe that God did not know what was going on in the wicked cities until He went to those cities to see.

Are you now willing to argue that God is wrong sometimes and that He didn't even know what was happening on the earth at Genesis 18:21?

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html
Did you miss the part where I asked for a simple yes or no? Don't assume you know where I'm going with this, just answer the question. Do you, in your own opinion beleive that God was wrong when he said through the prophet Jonah, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”?

Clete
September 14th, 2005, 06:57 PM
No, do you know why he wasn't wrong, Clete? :confused:
Yes! I do know!

It's the same reason Jesus would not have been wrong had Peter remained faithful and not denied Christ three times.

Resting in Him,
Clete

RobE
September 14th, 2005, 07:03 PM
Yes! I do know!

It's the same reason Jesus would not have been wrong had Peter remained faithful and not denied Christ three times.

Resting in Him,
Clete

That reason is......:drum:????

I won't see your post until Friday.....

Clete
September 14th, 2005, 07:10 PM
That reason is......:drum:????

I won't see your post until Friday.....
You tell me. I don't even want to open that can of worms. That wasn't the point of asking the question. The point is that I don't believe Jesus would have been mistaken about Peter any more than you believe God was mistaken about Ninevah and that there is therefore no contradiction in what we or Bob have said.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Knight
September 14th, 2005, 07:44 PM
Yes! I do know!

It's the same reason Jesus would not have been wrong had Peter remained faithful and not denied Christ three times.

Resting in Him,
CleteBINGO! :up:

lee_merrill
September 14th, 2005, 09:46 PM
Well, if I may...


Do you, in your own opinion beleive that God was wrong when he said through the prophet Jonah, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”?
They were overthrown, yet not by judgment, but by repentance! The same word ("overthrown") is used in several places, of God changing human hearts, one such place being here:

Psalm 105:25 ... whose hearts he turned ['overthrew'] to hate his people, to conspire against his servants.


The point is that I don't believe Jesus would have been mistaken about Peter any more than you believe God was mistaken about Ninevah and that there is therefore no contradiction in what we or Bob have said.
God is invincible, unless he fails? Jesus could not be mistaken, expect when he was mistaken? It seems the Open View tries to have it both ways...

Blessings,
Lee

Quirt
September 14th, 2005, 10:21 PM
I was just wondering if anyone read Sams last pathetic post and realized that he hoped we would all just try to forget about the questions that Bob asked. Sam wants us to know that he does not care about how poorly he did in the debate the important thing is that he is right even when proven wrong.

Balder
September 15th, 2005, 12:59 AM
I would not be apposed to exploring the issue with you. I believe that our theologies must be of sound reason and so if you can show me, either here or on the other thread, how time is dependent upon timelessness for its coherence, then I would be interested to read what you have to say.

Resting in Him,
Clete
Hi, Clete,

I will post something now on the Open View Time thread.

Best wishes,
B.

bling
September 15th, 2005, 07:38 AM
Brother Enyart, I am done reading the debate and started reading these treads which are huge. I have respond and asked some questions on other treads, but I have not got a strait answer to the following, so maybe you can help me. . Peter 2:24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree,
Also In Heb. 13: 11The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. Using JONAH and your, “Literal interpretation is best, and correct when it fits the immediate and greater contexts, and is consistent with the nature of God.” The questions:
Should we take 1 Peter 2:24 literally? If not why not?
We know Jesus blood washes away our sins. In 1 Peter 2:24 Does it not suggest, Jesus bore at least some Christians sins on the cross?
Do you believe your sins were bore by Christ on the cross?
Can Christ bare something that does not and may not exist?
You have shown at least some of Samuel Lamerson’s theology to be in error, but does that me yours is all right?

Jerry Shugart
September 15th, 2005, 08:29 AM
The point is that I don't believe Jesus would have been mistaken about Peter any more than you believe God was mistaken about Ninevah and that there is therefore no contradiction in what we or Bob have said.
In Round 2 Bob Enyart said:

"But still I answer, “yes,” Jesus’ prophecy about Judas could have failed."

So it is clear that Bob is saying that God Himself could have been mistaken about His beliefs in regard to the actions of Judas.However,Sam asked Bob:

"Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?"

To which Bob answered:

"No."

It is beyond me how anyone can say that "there is therefore no contradiction in what we or Bob have said."

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Clete
September 15th, 2005, 09:26 AM
In Round 2 Bob Enyart said:

"But still I answer, “yes,” Jesus’ prophecy about Judas could have failed."

So it is clear that Bob is saying that God Himself could have been mistaken about His beliefs in regard to the actions of Judas.However,Sam asked Bob:

"Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?"

To which Bob answered:

"No."

It is beyond me how anyone can say that "there is therefore no contradiction in what we or Bob have said."

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html
I just explained it to you Jerry. Was God wrong or did He hold any false beliefs when He prophecied the detruction of Ninevah in Jonah chapter 3?
If you answer yes to that question then you defeat your own objection by your own words and if you say no to that question then you must concede that there is no contradiction in Bob's position because Jesus' prediction could have not come true for the same reasons that God's prediction about Ninevah did not come true as stated. Either way, your position is defeated.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Jerry Shugart
September 15th, 2005, 09:47 AM
I just explained it to you Jerry. Was God wrong or did He hold any false beliefs when He prophecied the detruction of Ninevah in Jonah chapter 3?
If you answer yes to that question then you defeat your own objection by your own words and if you say no to that question then you must concede that there is no contradiction in Bob's position because Jesus' prediction could have not come true for the same reasons that God's prediction about Ninevah did not come true as stated. Either way, your position is defeated.
Clete,

I answer "no" to the question regarding Ninevah because those passages are not to be taken literally.The prediction in regard to Judas is to be taken literally.So my position is not defeated.

Here again are Bob's words:

"But still I answer, “yes,” Jesus’ prophecy about Judas could have failed."

So it is clear that Bob is saying that God Himself could have been mistaken about His beliefs in regard to the actions of Judas.However,Sam asked Bob:

"Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?"

To which Bob answered:

"No."

Bob clearly contradicts himself.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Clete
September 15th, 2005, 11:14 AM
Jerry,

You've crossed over from debating to lying. I'm done. :wave2:

Jerry Shugart
September 15th, 2005, 11:34 AM
Clete,

I am getting used to this.Whenever someone defending Bob Enyart cannot give a "reasonable" answer to the mistakes of Bob Enyart they revert to character assassination.Now I am a "liar"!

I challenge you to quote my words where I lie.Did I lie when I said that Bob Enyart said the following?:

"But still I answer, “yes,” Jesus’ prophecy about Judas could have failed."

Did I lie when I said that Sam asked the following question to Bob?

"Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?"

Did I lie when I stated that Bob answered:

"No."

Did I lie when I stated my opinion that the verses in regard to Ninevah are not to be taken literally:

I answer "no" to the question regarding Ninevah because those passages are not to be taken literally.The prediction in regard to Judas is to be taken literally.So my position is not defeated.

Where did I lie,Clete?

If you are going to accuse someone of lying then the least that you can do is to provide "evidence" that he lied.Where is your evidence,Clete?

Clete
September 15th, 2005, 12:05 PM
Clete,

I am getting use to this.Whenever someone defending Bob Enyart cannot give a "reasonable" answer to the mistakes of Bob Enyart they revert to character assassination.Now I am a "liar"!
It has nothing to do with Bob Enyart. It has to do with you intentionally ignoring what you know to be the truth in order to keep your staw man argument in tact.


I challenge you to quote my words where I lie.


Clete,

I answer "no" to the question regarding Ninevah because those passages are not to be taken literally.The prediction in regard to Judas is to be taken literally.So my position is not defeated.

Here again are Bob's words:

"But still I answer, “yes,” Jesus’ prophecy about Judas could have failed."

So it is clear that Bob is saying that God Himself could have been mistaken about His beliefs in regard to the actions of Judas.However,Sam asked Bob:

"Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?"

To which Bob answered:

"No."

Bob clearly contradicts himself.
Every word of that was a lie because you present the argument with full understanding of why it is invalid. You thereby present information which you know is false or at the very least misleading and you do so intentionally. That's a lie, Jerry and you are guilty of it and you know it. Intellectual dishonesty is still dishonesty.


Resting in Him,
Clete

GodsfreeWill
September 15th, 2005, 12:06 PM
Well, if I may...

You always "may" but in this instance you're wrong.


They were overthrown, yet not by judgment, but by repentance! The same word ("overthrown") is used in several places, of God changing human hearts, one such place being here:

Psalm 105:25 ... whose hearts he turned ['overthrew'] to hate his people, to conspire against his servants.

The burden of proof is on you to show that "overthrow" has the meaning you want it to in this Jonah passage. Just because "hfk" (the hebrew word we're dealing with) is used elsewhere in a different context, does not PROVE that it has the same intended meaning in Jonah. You MUST show why that meaning should be taken in Jonah 3:4.

The problem is that you won't be able to. In fact, the context of the entire chapter of Jonah 3 goes completely against what you're saying. The reason you hold to this is not because it's the natural reading of the text, it's your "Commitment to Augustinian Tradition." (I like that!) Nor was it the natural reading of the Ninevites and their king. Let's look at the entire chapter.

Jonah 3:4
4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day's walk. Then he cried out and said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"

If Jonah was really stating that God is prophesying that the people of Ninevah will repent in 40 days, how would you expect them to react? Would you expect them to be completely frightened, quit eating, and to cover every man and animal in sackcloth and ashes? That's foolish. If the "traditional" view on God's foreknowledge were held by Jonah and the Ninevites, wouldn't they want to be as evil as they could for the next 40 days since God looked into His crystal ball and foresaw their repentance? I would. What's the point of God telling them they will "repent" in 40 day? BTW, if that's the case, God's prophecy went unfulfilled as they repented BEFORE 40 days. We read on...

Jonah 3:5
5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them.

Why did they react so quick lee merrill? Were they trying to prove God wrong? "God said 40 days, let's prove Him wrong and do it sooner!!"

6 Then word came to the king of Nineveh; and he arose from his throne and laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth and sat in ashes. 7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published throughout Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; do not let them eat, or drink water.

Pretty weird reaction to a prophecy of repentance wouldn't you say lee?

8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God; yes, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands.

Uh oh lee, apparently the city of ninevah was a wicked city and the king took Jonah's (God's) words as meaning "destruction", not "repentance" like you want us to believe. The King immediately wanted the city to turn from his evil way. Why you ask? Let's read on...

9 Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?

And the final nail in lee's "theological" coffin. God is angry lee, and will cause them to "perish" if they don't repent. It was a prophecy of destruction.

Oh yeah, one more thing, "hfk" is used to describe Sodom and Gomorrah as well. Make sure you list all the verses, not just the ones that fit your "theological" position.

Please repent lee or my destruction come upon you!!! j/k :LoJo:

Jerry Shugart
September 15th, 2005, 12:19 PM
Every word of that was a lie because you present the argument with full understanding of why it is invalid.
Clete,

First you accuse me of being a liar and then you fail to give any evidence that I lied.

It may be your "opinion"that I presented my argument with a full understanding that it is invalid,but your "opinion" is not evidence.

You thereby present information which you know is false or at the very least misleading and you do so intentionally.
I did no such thing.You continue to accuse me of being a liar despite the fact that you have no evidence that I ever lied.

That's a lie, Jerry and you are guilty of it and you know it. Intellectual dishonesty is still dishonesty.
Again,you fail to give any evidence that I ever lied.

I will give you one more chance to tell me where in my post where I lied.In fact,I challenge you to quote my words where I lie.Did I lie when I said that Bob Enyart said the following?:

"But still I answer, “yes,” Jesus’ prophecy about Judas could have failed."

Did I lie when I said that Sam asked the following question to Bob?

"Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?"

Did I lie when I stated that Bob answered:

"No."

Did I lie when I stated my opinion that the verses in regard to Ninevah are not to be taken literally:

I answer "no" to the question regarding Ninevah because those passages are not to be taken literally.The prediction in regard to Judas is to be taken literally.So my position is not defeated.

Where did I lie,Clete?

Clete
September 15th, 2005, 01:06 PM
Clete,

First you accuse me of being a liar and then you fail to give any evidence that I lied.
You forget that everyone can still my last post Jerry. You just lied again! :doh:


It may be your "opinion"that I presented my argument with a full understanding that it is invalid,but your "opinion" is not evidence.
It is self evident Jerry. You'd have to be stupid not to see it. So which is it, are you stupid or a liar?


I did no such thing.You continue to accuse me of being a liar despite the fact that you have no evidence that I ever lied.
Again, you leave us with the following choice. Is Jerry lying (now a third time) or is he simply not smart enough to see what he is doing?


Again,you fail to give any evidence that I ever lied.
I quoted your own words Jerry. It's right up there about 20 inches or so above this line of text.


I will give you one more chance to tell me where in my post where I lied.In fact,I challenge you to quote my words where I lie.Did I lie when I said that Bob Enyart said the following?:
The entire post is a lie Jerry, the entire post. It is an intentionally misrepresentation of Bob's position and it is intellectually dishonest, as I have explained to both you and to RobE.

I will not go through this will you any longer. It's a waste of my time. Good bye.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Jerry Shugart
September 15th, 2005, 01:44 PM
Clete,

Here is your basis for saying that I lied:

It has nothing to do with Bob Enyart. It has to do with you intentionally ignoring what you know to be the truth in order to keep your staw man argument in tact.
How do you know that I am ignoring what I know to be the truth,Clete?

Can you read my mind?

Despite the fact that you cannot read my mind that does not stop you from calling me a "liar".

You forget that everyone can still me last post Jerry. You just lied again!
Everyone can still me last post?

I think that you are losing it,Clete.If you ever had it together to begin with.

It is self evident Jerry. You'd have to be stupid not to see it. So which is it, are you stupid or a liar?
You say that it is "self evident",but you refuse to say exactly what is self evident--only that I am intentionally ignoring what I know to be the truth.

But you provide no evidence to support your assertion.

I quoted your own words Jerry. It's right up there about 20 inches or so above this line of text.
Yes,you quoted my words but you did not say which of those words were lies.

The entire post is a lie Jerry, the entire post. It is an intentionally misrepresentation of Bob's position and it is intellectually dishonest, as I have explained to both you and to RobE.
So I misrepresented Bob's position by quoting his own words,did I?And when I asked you to be specific as to how I lied or misrepresented Bob's position you gave nothing specific.

Instead,all you do is pretend that you can read my mind and say that I am ignoring what I know to be the truth.

I will not go through this will you any longer. It's a waste of my time. Good bye.
This will not be the first time that you have run away when you cannot answer.Earlier I said:

"If the setting up the the kingdom and the return of the Lord Jesus was conditional then why would the Lord Jesus be promising to return to set up His kingdom before Israel made a choice as to whether or not to accept the King? "

To which you replied:

Because He knew of the comming "fertilization" of the Holy Spirit and expected the fig tree to bare it's fruit. But it did not and so God cut it down and grafted in the gentiles instead.
If the Lord Jesus "expected" that the fig tree would bear fruit then He obviously "believed" that.

But Bob Enyart said that God does not hold any beliefs that might prove to be false.Sam asked Bob the following question:

Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?
And Bob answered,saying:

No.
So according to you the Lord believed that "the fig tree would bear its fruit" but He was wrong about that belief.But Bob said that God cannot hold any beliefs that might prove to be false.

And despite the fact that you told me to confront the real issue as a man and that the tactics which I use make me out to be "childish" and "scared" it is you who did not respond.

So it does not surprise me that you call me a "liar" and then question whether or not I am "stupid" and "childish" and "scared".

Bob Enyart
September 15th, 2005, 02:49 PM
Okay, I have a question for Zakath.

Or for that matter, for Flipper, Taoist or Huey. (Huey! Hey, what ever happened to Heusden and his invisible mice?)

It seems that Sam has left the Coliseum leaving behind a number of unanswered questions. I’m wondering if any of you think (or anyone else for that matter) that this situation calls for Sodium Pentothal (truth serum, for those not familiar with SP or BR VII).

Thoughts?

-Bob

Clete
September 15th, 2005, 03:28 PM
Okay, I have a question for Zakath.

Or for that matter, for Flipper, Taoist or Huey. (Huey! Hey, what ever happened to Heusden and his invisible mice?)

It seems that Sam has left the Coliseum leaving behind a number of unanswered questions. I’m wondering if any of you think (or anyone else for that matter) that this situation calls for Sodium Pentothal (truth serum, for those not familiar with SP or BR VII).

Thoughts?

-Bob
:chuckle:

I can't wait!

MyshrallBayou
September 15th, 2005, 04:47 PM
Bob, you said:


Mythology: The Greek gods showed partiality. They inflicted suffering on people without cause. They had no semblance of a just and wise counsel. They were self-centered. They were the invention of a darkened culture. (However, much of Greek mythology is a twist, that is, a perversion, of actual history as reported accurately in Scripture.)

Scripture: The God of the Bible is insulted by the accusation that He shows partiality. And He only wills for good to all His creatures. (The vast majority of the early Christian church fathers prior to Augustine agreed with this next sentence.) It is the will of those creatures (humans and angels) that determines whether they freely accept God's goodness toward them, or endure His judgment.

We agree that Adam had a "free will" before the fall. Was there any change in that will after the fall, and if so how was it changed? I'd like to discuss this with you one brief step at a time. If you don't respond, I'll understand that you don't have time or a need to respond to someone such as myself, and I promise I won't take it as your conceding anything to me, unlike what you did to Sam.

John

Bob Enyart
September 15th, 2005, 08:30 PM
Bob...
If you don't respond, I'll understand that you don't have time or a need to respond to someone such as myself, and I promise I won't take it as your conceding anything to me, unlike what you did to Sam.
John

MyshrallJohn, that's big of you. (I think.)

-Bob

bling
September 16th, 2005, 02:49 PM
In round 6 Bob Enyart gives us His view of God with scriptures from the whole Bible.
This generated many questions. To begin with:

1. If God’s plain A failed and B and C and so on, what plan are we on?

2. Was the Garden of Eden plain A?

3. Was the objective of the Garden completed or was it a failure?

4. Do you see Adam and Eve being better off outside the Garden or inside the Garden (before they sinned)? Why?

5. What lesson do you learn from this garden story that could not be told another way?

RobE
September 16th, 2005, 07:28 PM
The Question:


This might seem like I'm bringing up a new topic, but I'm not. Just indulge me by answering one question. Jerry, I suppose I would entertain an answer from you on this as well...

Was God wrong when He said through Jonah, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”?

Yes or no, please.

The Answer? (note: All I did is ask you to answer the 'why' in your question)


You tell me. I don't even want to open that can of worms. That wasn't the point of asking the question. The point is that I don't believe Jesus would have been mistaken about Peter any more than you believe God was mistaken about Ninevah and that there is therefore no contradiction in what we or Bob have said.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Thanks for opening the can of worms and refusing to put them back in again and please don't ask me any questions if you don't intend to discuss them. What would happen if I really didn't know the answer?

The point is that you DO believe that Jesus could have been mistaken about Peter, but wouldn't be. That's where we diverge in our beliefs. I DON'T, CAN'T, and WON'T believe that JESUS CHRIST might possibly be WRONG/MISTAKEN about anything.

On the other hand, you point out the fact that GOD said Nineveh would be overthrown and wasn't. You see that either God didn't overthrow Nineveh that he either made a change or was a LIAR. You DON'T, CAN'T, and WON'T believe that GOD is a LIAR.

Well, where do we go from here?

Bob hinted at the answer in the debate when he pointed out the attributes of a dynamic, living God; but I outrun myself....

When Bob goes to discipline his kids, he has to decide what punishment is appropriate. It's far easier for God because he made a list(law) to follow. The punishment is universal---death. He foresaw our death when we became as they are with the knowledge of good and evil. Anyway, I digress...

When Bob tells his son to quit a behavior or he's going to spank him; and then, when his son commits the offense he doesn't spank him is Bob a liar? After all, he believed(not foreknowledge) with a certainty that he would the next time his son did whatever it was. He absolutely did not lie.

Now, say Bob was Omniscient for a day and the same events occurred. Then would Bob be a liar? You say 'yes' and I say 'no'. I say 'no' because part of Bob's immutable character is he is merciful. And it should be pointed out that I know Bob loves his son. Would he change the future for mercy's sake? I can say this because I know Bob, have had a personal relationship with him, and rely on the fact that his mercy outweighs(trumps) his judgement in most situations. Bob differs from our Lord in the fact that in our Lord's immutable character: mercy, as expressed through the incarnation, ALWAYS outweighs his judgement.

By the way, this is a point that both you and I hold in common(hopefully).

Now the case of Peter. I would propose to you that it was simply an observation since he didn't say something to the effect of "Peter, you'll deny me three times and go to hell!". He simply stated as a matter of fact what Peter would do with no judgement to it at all. A non-issue only, an observation, period. That's the difference in the parallel you're trying to draw. OK?

Now you see that we agree on God's ability to change---for mercy's sake because of his immutable character(love, grace, mercy).

What you don't seem to understand is that (per Bob) the open view is inviting heresy by attacking the divinity of GOD. Your understanding of the open view itself shows in your above comments:


You tell me. I don't even want to open that can of worms. That wasn't the point of asking the question. The point is that I don't believe Jesus would have been mistaken about Peter any more than you believe God was mistaken about Ninevah and that there is therefore no contradiction in what we or Bob have said.

Resting in Him,
Clete

You say, "The point is that I don't believe Jesus...", and, "...you believe God...".

Bob argues in the debate that God divested himself of certain abilities. That God laid down part of himself and essentially changed. The open view must do this to survive!
Examine your own thinking(and your own words, above). What the closed view is unwilling to do is to say God can change his basic nature; all the while, remembering that mercy outweighs and defeats his judgement(as God on the Cross proves).

This is my concern....Did God create man to become gods or did man create God to become man? Is this the 'open' road? Does Jesus change the future or is he subject to it because it's out of his control? If you know everything aren't all outcomes possible? Aren't you responsible for everything if you know everything? Shouldn't you execute summary judgement on Adam and be done with it?.....

...Or show mercy and let Bob, Clete, RobE, Knight, and the ones you can; escape from the wreckage. Are you responsible for all the dead simply because you desired to give them all life? They rejected it and it saddened you, but some survived to become your 'sons' --for your glory. There's only one of you and it's my hope you're in the kingdom. And if that's my hope, what price will the Lord pay for your salvation. He knows, and that's part of the price for your uniqueness and his gift of free will.

Sorry it's so long. I got on a roll. Thanks for you being you.

RobE

Bob Enyart
September 17th, 2005, 06:44 AM
In round 6 Bob Enyart gives us His view of God with scriptures from the whole Bible.
This generated many questions. To begin with:

1. If God’s plain A failed and B and C and so on, what plan are we on?
2. Was the Garden of Eden plain A?
3. Was the objective of the Garden completed or was it a failure?
4. Do you see Adam and Eve being better off outside the Garden or inside the Garden (before they sinned)? Why?
5. What lesson do you learn from this garden story that could not be told another way?

Bling is it? I'd like to respond to your questions, so let me do it in a narrative here. God had a plan to create creatures to fellowship with, and if the humans rebelled, God would offer redemption to them (at great expense to Himself). That all happened. The rebellion was a contingency. Plans and hopes are two different things. Perhaps you can respond to this statement, since Sam never did. "Love hopes all things, which exhaustive foreknowledge cannot do." God's "plan" fully anticipated the possibility of sin. So, if that is the meaning of your A in Qs 1 & 2, then, we would still be in plan A. If however, you want to number these by hopes, then God's first hope was for man to obey. Man sinned, now God hopes for each man individually to accept His offer of salvation, which is a new hope. I guess you could call that Hope B if you wanted. Now, the objective of the Garden, was it completed or a failure: the garden functioned as God intended, it could have sustained Adam and Eve indefintely had they not rebelled, and by contingency God planned that if they sinned, He would evict them (and the Garden, by the way, itself played a key role in triggering the Flood, Ezek 31, etc.). So, the Garden was the setting for contingent events which God had anticipated. Is your Q4 clear? I'm not sure I understand it. But I'll try to answer anyway. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve had a worldwide extaordinary paradise they could explore, and the Garden itself was a special treasure above all else. After the fall, God could have prevented them from eating of the Tree of Live (which ends up in the New Creation) in different ways, but He chose to evict them and to leave the Garden itself in tact on Earth until it was destroyed by the Flood ~1650 years later. After sin, they were better off struggling to provide for themselves because the very process of having to work hard to survive is a motivator toward maturing, which is part of the process of people acknolwedging reality (including that they and their world are fallen). The lesson from the Garden story is that it teaches us the actual historical account of the origin of evil, in it's actual historical setting, so that, we could create a metaphor for the Garden and the temptation (as C.S. Lewis did in Out of the Silent Planet), and such a metaphor could instruct us about the principles of God and the consequences of rebellion, but then it would not provide the an actual historical record of the events that led to man's sinful state.

-Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver BIble Church

duel
September 17th, 2005, 12:02 PM
I previously missplaced this note. I have since updated it.




Bob

I remember when the notions of “The Plot” first touched my theological grasp. I devoured the possibilities. I asked you, "Is there more...?" :D

More than five years later I have had the pleasure of debating the deep theological arguments for open-dispensationalism. Part of my apologetic has always been to re-define the Omni's by replacing them, with Ultra-niscient, Ultra-present, Ultra-potent. While my efforts may have been accurate they lacked the sweet sense of relationship with the living and loving God that you attempted to teach during the debate. Sweet.

In this debate I learned for the first time how to clearly and effectively describe the character and/or nature of God with the notion of greater and lesser attributes. Amazing. I believe you are bringing light to the dark shadows of Churchianity. Thank You!!!

I also learned the term "special-immutability” as way to clearly and utterly declare that God’s Loving Character is far greater and unchangeable than his magnificent creative power.

Thanks again. :sinapisN:

I did not expect that Sam would offer any great resistance to your so-called sloppy EISEGESIS. While I am saddened that no real effort was made to critically analyze your hermeneutic(s), it is more common than not that any attempt to bring clarity to someone that could hold contradictions like his and not take your approach seriously enough to understand it will miss it entirely. Denying the true loving character of the one true Lord would never come to understand the fresh breath of truth you have presented to us all.

Don’t get me wrong, judgment will come, of that I am sure. But within repentance is the wonderful grace of God.

“If man would repent, the Lord would never have to.” I‘ll stand by that and I would have never come to that conclusion if it were not for you..

I can’t thank you enough for the simple yet powerful charity you bring to the theological table. I wish that we had more time together and I look forward to many more blessings through you and with you.

I am glad that it was predestined before the foundation of the world that we would teach that it wasn’t. May the Lord bless you with His presence NOW, literally and forever. :Poly:

I can only imagine what a 26 hr day would be like if you had them all to yourself. :doh:

Daniel
GODISNOWHERE.org

duel
September 17th, 2005, 12:52 PM
Well, if I may...

God is invincible, unless he fails? Jesus could not be mistaken, expect when he was mistaken? It seems the Open View tries to have it both ways...

Blessings,
Lee


How is hope in the belief that your creation will come to faith, failure?

Does God hope? :kookoo:

chatmaggot
September 17th, 2005, 02:06 PM
In the critique thread Bob said...

"I have a surprise to reveal to you right after the final tenth round post! I'll do so in this Critique Thread..."

Was this a reference to the email that he hoped to receive from Sam admitting defeat or is it something else. If it is something else, then where is it? Or did I miss something?

Bob Enyart
September 17th, 2005, 02:58 PM
In the critique thread Bob said...
"I have a surprise to reveal to you right after the final tenth round post! I'll do so in this Critique Thread..."
Was this a reference to the email that he hoped to receive from Sam admitting defeat or is it something else. If it is something else, then where is it? Or did I miss something?

CM: No, it's something quite different. I don't have time to post it right now. Tomorrow (Sunday) Columbine dad Brian Rohrbough and I are flying to Ft. Lauderdale to give a presentation on Christian Political Strategy to the director of D. James Kennedy's Reclaiming America. (Yes, coincidentally, this is another group under the same umbrella organization that Dr. Lamerson's Knox Theological Seminary operates under, but the debate and this meeting were arranged by people who don't even know each other, so they have nothing directly to do with each other.)

When I return in the middle of next week, I'll post my surprise for the Calvinists and Settled Viewers. Thanks for asking.

-Bob

Bob Enyart
September 17th, 2005, 03:00 PM
So, do any Calvinists or Setted Viewers think that their side lost Battle Royale X?

Now that it's over. Do any think they won?

I'd like to know what you think.

-Bob

Delmar
September 17th, 2005, 03:16 PM
So, do any Calvinists or Setted Viewers think that their side lost Battle Royale X?

Now that it's over. Do any think they won?

I'd like to know what you think.

-Bob I was pretty sure you won but Tye Porter set me straight . He claims you lost in your first post. He didn't explain why all that well though because I have no idea what he was talking about.
here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=869237&postcount=44) . He claims you lost in your first post. He didn't explain why all that well though because I have no idea what he was talking about.

Leonard A
September 17th, 2005, 08:59 PM
I became a member of the TOL to follow the debate between Bob Enyart and Sam Lamerson. I read each post. The more I read the clearer it was that Bob Enyart did not come to debate. Battle Royal X was merely a pretext to broadcast his views. He used this pseudo-debate as a springboard and to go off on his condescending ramblings (e.g., his hobby horse to attack Sam Lamerson’s position that God does not change comes from pagan tenets that influenced theology through the ages).

Bob Enyart never dealt substantively with the arguments that Sam Lamerson presented. This made the debate null and void with respect to Bob Enyart’s position and thus Sam Lamerson won, despite his sometimes inadequate or faulty presentation of the truth.

Apparently, Dr. Lamerson does not realize: when an individual holds and truly believes a thing, he does not need to apologize for it. Instead of looking gracious, his repeated apologies, made him appear weak and created questions about his commitment to vigorously challenge the Open View.

Clete is a caricature of the town bully in the old western movies. Attempting to intimidate individuals that are not in agreement with the “party line.” By way of contrast, he obsequiously kowtows to Bob Enyart with servile flatteries. Boorish bluster may work with some people. However, when you remove the myriad rash imprecations which are sprinkled throughout Clete’s posts there is very little if any substance left. If it weren’t for the seriousness of the issues involved, he would be laughable – a mere joke.

Regarding Knight, he is nothing more than another one of Enyart’s coven of lackeys. He does not moderate debates. He is merely a Bob Enyart front man bowing to whatever Bob needs (e.g., when Bob is floundering Knight jumps to salvage him).

Viewing the various posts from different responders, the bulk of the commenting TOL membership must be from Bob Enyart’s church. So, no matter how he is doing in the debate the statistics will show that he is “winning” the debate by popular pole and posts in the form of reply or critique.

I challenge TOL to submit the debate record to an independent group to objectively judge the rounds. I know that you will not.

Remember this, every single individual will appear before God to give an account for all their words and actions.

To any and all individuals who hold to the OV position, I have this to say; if you have truly understood and embraced OV doctrine; if you have rejected the Settled View (after having honestly examined its claims in the light of the Scriptures); if you have continued to fight against the omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, impassibility, and immutability of the Triune God of Scripture until you die; you will appear alone and unaided before the Great White Throne (not the Bemma Seat) to answer for your Luciferian doctrine. Stop and Consider.

With this said, I will leave.

I am hereby requesting that my name be removed from the TOL membership roster and that I be notified by email when this is accomplished.

Leonard A.

Clete
September 17th, 2005, 09:28 PM
Clete is a caricature of the town bully in the old western movies. Attempting to intimidate individuals that are not in agreement with the “party line.” By way of contrast, he obsequiously kowtows to Bob Enyart with servile flatteries. Boorish bluster may work with some people. However, when you remove the myriad rash imprecations which are sprinkled throughout Clete’s posts there is very little if any substance left. If it weren’t for the seriousness of the issues involved, he would be laughable – a mere joke.
Before you go, I'd love for you to attempt to objectively establish this little tidbit. I know that you will not.


To any and all individuals who hold to the OV position, I have this to say; if you have truly understood and embraced OV doctrine; if you have rejected the Settled View (after having honestly examined its claims in the light of the Scriptures); if you have continued to fight against the omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, impassibility, and immutability of the Triune God of Scripture until you die; you will appear alone and unaided before the Great White Throne (not the Bemma Seat) to answer for your Luciferian doctrine. Stop and Consider.
I would also like for you to establish Biblically that one must believe that the future is settled in order to be saved. I know that you will not.


With this said, I will leave.

I am hereby requesting that my name be removed from the TOL membership roster and that I be notified by email when this is accomplished.

:wave2:

jhodgeiii
September 18th, 2005, 10:17 AM
I would also like for you to establish Biblically that one must believe that the future is settled in order to be saved. I know that you will not.
As Leonard A showed in his post, there have been one or two other Settled View posters who made the disturbing claim that those people who hold the Open View are not saved. I, also, have been wanting to directly ask them who made this rule up? Man (yourself)? Or God (in His Word)? Frankly, I feel it's this very type of thinking (holding doctrine and tradition above the substance) that lead a significant amount of people to despise so-called organized religion. It's because so often you do as the Pharisees and scribes apparently did. I give Matthew 15:1-9 as an example:
Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."Settled Viewer: Why do you Open Viewers transgress the Church's tradition of the Settled View?
He (Jesus) answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?For salvation, our Lord requires belief in Him. Yet, people like Leonard A are saying it takes more than belief in Christ for salvation. You must also believe in His "omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, impassibility, and immutability." This standard did NOT come from Christ. Moreover, the heavy weight and focus given to this doctrine is stealing focus from of the real substance: God's love for man. For if God did not love man and there was no redemption of sins, what good would believing in His attributes do? Jumping ahead, Jesus then goes on to admonish the Pharisees and scribes by saying:
Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' "Leonard A and others who think like him: You need to take to heart that love of God and your neighbor is vastly more important than any man-inspired doctrine!

Delmar
September 18th, 2005, 02:04 PM
Before you go, I'd love for you to attempt to objectively establish this little tidbit. I know that you will not.


I would also like for you to establish Biblically that one must believe that the future is settled in order to be saved. I know that you will not.



:wave2:I find it intresting that a settled viewer ( Tye Porter)
was just accusing Bob of saying you had to be an OVer to be Christian! Somthing Bob did not say and I'm quite sure does not believe.

Clete
September 18th, 2005, 03:37 PM
I find it intresting that a settled viewer ( Tye Porter)
was just accusing Bob of saying you had to be an OVer to be Christian! Somthing Bob did not say and I'm quite sure does not believe.
Bob definately does not believe that.

MyshrallBayou
September 19th, 2005, 08:55 AM
MyshrallJohn, that's big of you. (I think.)

-Bob

I didn't think you would want to discuss this. But thank you for generous post to my question nonetheless.

bling
September 19th, 2005, 02:13 PM
Thank you for taking the time to answer, I am not apposed to what you are saying, just have a lot of questions, since before this month, I did not looked into it or think much about it. I was more familiar with the issues of Calvinism, which generates a lot of questions also.


[QUOTE]I'd like to respond to your questions, so let me do it in a narrative here. God had a plan to create creatures to fellowship with, and if the humans rebelled, God would offer redemption to them (at great expense to Himself). That all happened. The rebellion was a contingency. Plans and hopes are two different things. Perhaps you can respond to this statement, since Sam never did. "Love hopes all things, which exhaustive foreknowledge cannot do."
In 1 Corinthians 13 13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
I always took this to mean Love continues to exist in heaven while Faith and Hope are not needed. I define Hope as desired expectation, in heaven you no long need to expect to get anything, since you already have it and you no longer need faith since you have sight (so to speak) of God and Christ. Faith, Hope and Love very much go together on earth.

1. What will we Hope for in heaven?
2. Do we need faith in heaven, also?



God's "plan" fully anticipated the possibility of sin. So, if that is the meaning of your A in Qs 1 & 2, then, we would still be in plan A. If however, you want to number these by hopes, then God's first hope was for man to obey. Man sinned, now God hopes for each man individually to accept His offer of salvation, which is a new hope. I guess you could call that Hope B if you wanted.

We see God as the source of Hope (desired expectation), but does God have desired expectations?

Now, the objective of the Garden, was it completed or a failure: the garden functioned as God intended, it could have sustained Adam and Eve indefintely had they not rebelled, and by contingency God planned that if they sinned, He would evict them (and the Garden, by the way, itself played a key role in triggering the Flood, Ezek 31, etc.). So, the Ga rden was the setting for contingent events which God had anticipated. Is your Q4 clear? I'm not sure I understand it. But I'll try to answer anyway. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve had a worldwide extaordinary paradise they could explore, and the Garden itself was a special treasure above all else. After the fall, God could have prevented them from eating of the Tree of Live (which ends up in the New Creation) in different ways, but He chose to evict them and to leave the Garden itself in tact on Earth until it was destroyed by the Flood ~1650 years later. After sin, they were better off struggling to provide for themselves because the very process of having to work hard to survive is a motivator toward maturing, which is part of the process of people acknolwedging reality (including that they and their world are fallen). The lesson from the Garden story is that it teaches us the actual historical account of the origin of evil, in it's actual historical setting, so that, we could create a metaphor for the Garden and the temptation (as C.S. Lewis did in Out of the Silent Planet), and such a metaphor could instruct us about the principles of God and the consequences of rebellion, but then it would not provide the an actual historical record of the events that led to man's sinful state.

Since Adam was made full grown and preprogrammed to some extent by God, how smart do you think he was?
I see God as having very wonderful desires for all humans (the garden be one desire for all humans) the problem is the Garden, as He should realize will not work.

You understand how people are, if you only had knowledge of people and the power of Satin would you expect a person put in the Garden situation not to sin, by his own power?

In the Garden:
Humans must maintain their eternal close relationship with God by obedience. Outside the Garden they will be dependent on God’s mercy for an eternal relationship. Would you rather be dependent on your obedience or God’s mercy?
In the Garden humans can not experience forgiveness, since they have not sinned, is there a problem with this?
In the garden there are no needy people (those you can help without being helped directly in return) God is providing for all the needs of humans, His agape love is being showered on them, but they can’t be faithful sheep in the example of Matt. 25: 31-46, can they?
We love then we obey, does our developing agape love require needy people?
Adam and Eve can not see the full extent of God’s love without the cross. Does agape love begin with the realization of being forgiven of much for humans Luke 7: 36-50?
Did Adam and Eve have the indwelling Holy Spirit?
Do you think God could not see this as a huge problem, before He made Adam?

Thank you again for responding.

Bob Enyart
September 19th, 2005, 04:05 PM
Bob Enyart never dealt substantively with the arguments that Sam Lamerson presented.
Leonard, I'll pay you $100 for everyone of Sam's 29 official questions that you can list that I did not answer.

And if you object that I left out your qualifier, "substantively," then for a bonus of pure satisfaction, why don't you point out the two questions that I did not so address. Remember, you will not be fully satsified by completing this exercise simply by listing questions for which you disagreed with my answers, but you'll have to list questions for which I did not address the substance.

Hey, perhaps you could offer to donate to DBC a certain sum for every one of my questions that Sam didn't answer? No? Well then, how about this... Why don't you list those questions that Sam didn't answer, and give solid Settled View answers for them? Yes? That would be fun!

I challenge TOL to submit the debate record to an independent group to objectively judge the rounds. I know that you will not.
Leonard, I have a challenge for you. Submit this debate record to an independent group [?] to objectively judge the rounds. I hope that you will!

Remember this, every single individual will appear before God to give an account for all their words and actions.
Leonard, Calvinists believe that God wrote every word of the Open View side of Battle Royale X, eons before I was born. So... if you don't like my posts, you might as well complain to Sam as to me, or yourself for that matter. You know (if Calvinism is correct, and my posts are so ludicrous), it just might be that God had written this entire debate...both sides!, before the ages, just to annoy you!

That would be a hoot, wouldn't it!

Stop and Consider.

With this said, I will leave. I am hereby requesting that my name be removed from the TOL membership roster and that I be notified by email when this is accomplished. Leonard A.
Leonard, if you really had left, then you wouldn't have just read this post of mine. No? And if you had left the last time that you posted that you had left, you wouldn't have written the post I've just quoted from. So, the question is, why have you been predestined to repeatedly write that you are leaving, without you having the strength to really leave?

And finally, aside from all the rather straightforward questions I've asked in the debate, do you think you can answer this really deep one: Why does the Calvinist God desire less glory from toothaches from people who floss? No?

-Bob

Mr. 5020
September 19th, 2005, 04:22 PM
I am hereby requesting that my name be removed from the TOL membership roster and that I be notified by email when this is accomplished.No! It will stay there...


FOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEERRRR RRRRRRR

Bob Enyart
September 19th, 2005, 04:25 PM
Bling, of course I cannot insist that you to respond to question. But you started to respond (I think), but then switched to answering some different question. There are always different questions that are interesting. But it's hard to dialogue if we are talking about different things. I asked you:

Perhaps you can respond to this statement, since Sam never did. "Love hopes all things, which exhaustive foreknowledge cannot do."
And you answered...

well...

I wanted to paste your response here --> (<-- actually, right there, in that space between the arrows). But I couldn't find it :) !

(We haven't been formally introduced, so I'm not even sure that you'd be ok with me making light of this. But it's difficult to discuss important matters without disciplining ourselves to actually respond to each other.)

So, I stopped reading your post right there! (Well, not actually <--- right there, but somewhere up there -----^.) If you'd like, you can re-write that post, starting off by responding to that question (not that you have to, of course, but only if you really want to dialogue). And I'll try to get back here and look for your new post (and for LeonA sneaking around!).

Thanks, -Bob

bling
September 20th, 2005, 11:19 AM
I am sorry if I was not direct enough in my answer. I will try to do better and please watch me if I wander and call it to my attention. Let us try again:


Thank you for taking the time to answer, I am not apposed to what you are saying, just have a lot of questions, since before this month, I did not looked into it or think much about it. I was more familiar with the issues of Calvinism, which generates a lot of questions also.

[
QUOTE=Bob Enyart]
Quote:
I'd like to respond to your questions, so let me do it in a narrative here. God had a plan to create creatures to fellowship with, and if the humans rebelled, God would offer redemption to them (at great expense to Himself). That all happened. The rebellion was a contingency. Plans and hopes are two different things. Perhaps you can respond to this statement, since Sam never did. "Love hopes all things, which exhaustive foreknowledge cannot do." “Love always hopes”

As I see Hope being used (and might always be used for spiritual Hope) is desired expectation. Now if God hopes, it is what He both desires and expects (knows) will happen. Humans can have (spiritual) hope in any of God promises which we can know will happen and what we are asked to hope for.


Quote:
God's "plan" fully anticipated the possibility of sin. So, if that is the meaning of your A in Qs 1 & 2, then, we would still be in plan A. If however, you want to number these by hopes, then God's first hope was for man to obey. Man sinned, now God hopes for each man individually to accept His offer of salvation, which is a new hope. I guess you could call that Hope B if you wanted.

Can God have a burning desire for something and yet have no (logical) expectation of it happening?

Quote:
Now, the objective of the Garden, was it completed or a failure: the garden functioned as God intended, it could have sustained Adam and Eve indefintely had they not rebelled, and by contingency God planned that if they sinned, He would evict them (and the Garden, by the way, itself played a key role in triggering the Flood, Ezek 31, etc.). So, the Ga rden was the setting for contingent events which God had anticipated. Is your Q4 clear? I'm not sure I understand it. But I'll try to answer anyway. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve had a worldwide extaordinary paradise they could explore, and the Garden itself was a special treasure above all else. After the fall, God could have prevented them from eating of the Tree of Live (which ends up in the New Creation) in different ways, but He chose to evict them and to leave the Garden itself in tact on Earth until it was destroyed by the Flood ~1650 years later. After sin, they were better off struggling to provide for themselves because the very process of having to work hard to survive is a motivator toward maturing, which is part of the process of people acknolwedging reality (including that they and their world are fallen). The lesson from the Garden story is that it teaches us the actual historical account of the origin of evil, in it's actual historical setting, so that, we could create a metaphor for the Garden and the temptation (as C.S. Lewis did in Out of the Silent Planet), and such a metaphor could instruct us about the principles of God and the consequences of rebellion, but then it would not provide the an actual historical record of the events that led to man's sinful state.

Since Adam was made full grown and preprogrammed to some extent by God, how smart do you think he was?
I see God as having very wonderful desires for all humans (the garden be one desire for all humans) the problem is the Garden, as He should have realize will not work.

You understand how people are, if you only had knowledge of people and the power of Satin would you expect a person put in the Garden situation for a long period of time not to sin, by his own power?

In the Garden:
Humans must maintain their eternal close relationship with God by obedience. Outside the Garden they will dependent on God’s mercy for an eternal relationship. Would you rather be dependent on your obedience or God’s mercy?
In the Garden humans can not experience forgiveness, since they have not sinned, is there a problem with this?
In the garden there are no needy people (those Adam can help without being helped directly in return) God is providing for all the needs of humans, His agape love is being showered on them, but they can’t be faithful sheep in the example of Matt. 25: 31-46, can they?
We love then we obey, does our developing agape love require needy people?
Adam and Eve can not see the full extent of God’s love without the cross. Does agape love begin with the realization of being forgiven of much (for humans) Luke 7: 36-50?
Did Adam and Eve have the indwelling Holy Spirit?
I see these as huge problems, do you think God could not see these as a huge problem, even before He made Adam?

Thank you again for responding.

Vaquero45
September 20th, 2005, 12:53 PM
Stop and Consider.

With this said, I will leave.

I am hereby requesting that my name be removed from the TOL membership roster and that I be notified by email when this is accomplished.

Leonard A.

But he will always be with us, as long as we have his memory.

Thanks for stopping and considering.

GuySmiley
September 20th, 2005, 12:58 PM
Stop and Consider.

With this said, I will leave.

I am hereby requesting that my name be removed from the TOL membership roster and that I be notified by email when this is accomplished.

Leonard A.
Could we have a moment of silence for all TOL'ers to stop and consider please!!

Knight
September 20th, 2005, 01:03 PM
Could we have a moment of silence for all TOL'ers to stop and consider please!!How can we....

How will we....

.... be able to ....

con... tin..... ue...... on?

:taoist:

Nineveh
September 20th, 2005, 01:09 PM
: ....stops... considers how nice it would have been to see the answers to unanswered questions... :

Shalom
September 20th, 2005, 01:41 PM
Leonard A. :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave2: :wave2: :wave2: :the_wave:

jhodgeiii
September 20th, 2005, 05:02 PM
“Love always hopes”

As I see Hope being used (and might always be used for spiritual Hope) is desired expectation.I can follow this analysis...
Now if God hopes, it is what He both desires and expects (knows) will happen....but here it appears that you're pulling a semantical slight-of-hand. The words expect and hope, when used properly, never imply something factual. That would be knowing. Furthermore, if your interpretation here is what Paul really was trying to communicate, why wouldn't he just say "Love always knows?"

jhodgeiii
September 20th, 2005, 05:09 PM
I, for one, am always disappointed to see people like Leonard A leave. Yet another Christian out there unwilling to reason his theological positions. But then again...maybe he just couldn't. Habits are hard to break, even when the truth smacks ya.

RobE
September 21st, 2005, 04:39 PM
And finally, aside from all the rather straightforward questions I've asked in the debate, do you think you can answer this really deep one: Why does the Calvinist God desire less glory from toothaches from people who floss? No?

-Bob

Why? I'm really interested.

I have a question. Does the 'open view' allow for the presence of any of the omni's such as omnipresent?

The reason I asked is-- in many of the posts against Calvinism(Armenianism) it is proposed that if God knows everything to the smallest detail that he's the author of such things as child molestation, rape, abortion, etc..

It occurs to me if he is omnipresent then he would be an accessory to these crimes even if he doesn't have extensive foreknowledge according to the open view objection to Calvinism above.

If he isn't omnipresent then why do you pray? Does he have a spiritual voice mail service? Are you just praying for your own benefit? Does he not yet realize that people are being killed at abortion clinics? Isn't he an accessory to abortion since he could stop it by using his supernatural authority? Or is he impotent to end certain wrongs because of his nature. Maybe his intervention would interfere with your free will?

I'm not sure. How would the 'open view' look on these issues?

Thanks,

RobE

jhodgeiii
September 21st, 2005, 05:41 PM
Does the 'open view' allow for the presence of any of the omni's such as omnipresent?I think that the Open View posits that God is everywhere He chooses to be--that He isn't a slave to having to be in all places at all times. For instance, He probably chose not to see what was happening in Sodom and Gomorrah.

I guess that means that God certainly has the power to be omnipresent.

Regarding how God actively hears our prayers we can only guess. He could possibly set up a medium to always hear the prayers of humble, truth-seeking persons who know or desire to know Him (God knows who they are). Just a wild guess here.

RobE
September 21st, 2005, 06:14 PM
:eek:
I think that the Open View posits that God is everywhere He chooses to be--that He isn't a slave to having to be in all places at all times. For instance, He probably chose not to see what was happening in Sodom and Gomorrah.

I guess that means that God certainly has the power to be omnipresent.

Regarding how God actively hears our prayers we can only guess. He could possibly set up a medium to always hear the prayers of humble, truth-seeking persons who know or desire to know Him (God knows who they are). Just a wild guess here.

Thanks for the answer. I wonder if it's complete though? This is the first time anyone on TOL has answered my question directly. I appreciate it.

His,

RobE

Delmar
September 21st, 2005, 06:49 PM
Why? I'm really interested.

I have a question. Does the 'open view' allow for the presence of any of the omni's such as omnipresent? I would say that the OV mostly infers different conclusions about the Omnis. I do believe, for example, that God is all powerful in that he is the origin of all power.



The reason I asked is-- in many of the posts against Calvinism(Armenianism) it is proposed that if God knows everything to the smallest detail that he's the author of such things as child molestation, rape, abortion, etc.. I think you may have misunderstood the argument. Some settled viewers believe that God causes everything that happens. If that is true then it would in fact make him the author of all evil. Others believe that God does not cause all things but knows them because he sees all events before they happen or from a position outside of time. OV'ers belive this is illogical because if God already knows it, they could not choose otherwise.



It occurs to me if he is omnipresent then he would be an accessory to these crimes even if he doesn't have extensive foreknowledge according to the open view objection to Calvinism above.

If he isn't omnipresent then why do you pray? Does he have a spiritual voice mail service? Are you just praying for your own benefit? Does he not yet realize that people are being killed at abortion clinics? Isn't he an accessory to abortion since he could stop it by using his supernatural authority? Or is he impotent to end certain wrongs because of his nature. Maybe his intervention would interfere with your free will?

I'm not sure. How would the 'open view' look on these issues?

Thanks,

RobE