Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Christine
    I was a bit surprised when I read in Dr. Lamersons post, "If the exegete can determine the view of Jesus on divine foreknowledge, she may then have strong warrant for her hermeneutical decisions about the rest of the Bible." (emphasis mine) Did Dr. Lamerson really mean to refer to God in the feminine?
    I'm pretty sure she is the pronoun that reflects "the exegete" not Jesus...
    Grace and Peace

    Comment


    • #32
      Agreed, I'm sure he was refering to the exegete. Although I did find it a bit disruptively PC, and unnecessarily so. But it was a minor detail.

      Btw, hi Bob! I know you're peeking in here. LOL (It's Jim.)
      1 Corinthians 13:2
      And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by RightIdea
        Agreed, I'm sure he was refering to the exegete. Although I did find it a bit disruptively PC, and unnecessarily so. But it was a minor detail.

        Btw, hi Bob! I know you're peeking in here. LOL (It's Jim.)
        Yeah, you know, acknowledging that women are able to read and think and all,
        very PC, very disruptive.
        1 John 4:7-8 "Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love."

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by RightIdea
          Agreed, I'm sure he was refering to the exegete. Although I did find it a bit disruptively PC, and unnecessarily so. But it was a minor detail.
          I realize and agree that it indeed is a minor detail, but I wondered what Dr. Lamerson meant by it. However, it is comforting to hear others say that they don't feel Dr. Lamerson was referring to God.
          “Prevent SIDS---keep your pants on.

          Comment


          • #35
            I'm very excited for this debate! What gets me is, why do determinists always run to Peter and Judas? If I'm stealing any of Bob's thunder, please delete this post (Lion or Knight, feel free!). I'll let Bob handle Peter, as I'm sure he'll do just fine. I hope Bob will add to my comments in his response to Lamerson's question concerning Judas.

            First off, Judas was a believer who fell away. Read the context of Matthew 13 and John 2. Jesus is speaking to His disciples (Judas was there!). Jesus says that Judas is a believer...

            Matthew 13
            13:16 "But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear;

            John 2
            2:11 This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him.
            If God foreordained Judas to betray Jesus Christ, how can this be reconciled with other Scripture? Judas’s actions seem to have been ordained by God because they are prophesied. But, the betrayal of Christ was never foretold in the prophets.

            If the betrayal of Christ by Judas was foreknown and foreordained, how could Matthew 26:24 be true?

            Matthew 26
            24 “The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”
            Judas would have had no choice. Therefore, God would have predestined a man to damnation. I know John Calvin taught this idea, but I must ask, “Does God do evil that good may come?” James 1:13-17 says God doesn’t even tempt men with evil let alone predestine them to do it.

            What does, “That it might be fulfilled,” mean?

            Matthew 2
            15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”
            23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene.” (What OT Scripture?)
            Notice, Matthew 2:15 references Hosea 11:1.

            Hosea 11
            11:1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son. ”
            Matthew 2:15 is a supposed “fulfillment” of Hosea 11:1. However, Hosea 11:1 does not refer to Christ, but rather the nation of Israel. These are not “fulfillments” of prophecy, but rather illustrations. Matthew offers another supposed “fulfillment” of prophecy. Here, Matthew shows us another illustration.

            Matthew 1
            23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us."
            Was the Immanuel prophecy actually fulfilled? Matthew refers to Isaiah 7:14,

            Isaiah 7
            14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
            Did this actually come to pass? Let’s take a look. Who was the promise made to?

            Isaiah 7
            10 Moreover the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying,
            11 "Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; ask it either in the depth or in the height above."
            12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!"
            13 Then he said, "Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also?
            14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
            15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good.
            16 For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.
            The Lord was to give Ahaz a sign. “Immanuel” was not a sign to Ahaz, but rather, an illustration applied to the Christ Child. Again, this was not an actual fulfillment since Ahaz did not receive the sign.

            Now, back to Judas… Gospel Scripture to consider:

            Matthew 27
            9 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced,
            10 and gave them for the potter’s field, as the LORD directed me.”
            Guess what? There is no Jeremiah passage. We do have, Zechariah 11:12-13

            Zecheriah 11
            12 Then I said to them, “If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain.” So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver.
            13 And the LORD said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD for the potter.
            Now, I ask, how does this refer specifically to Judas? It doesn’t. Let's look at a few more examples...

            John 13
            18 “I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.’”
            Most attempt to offer Psalm 41:9 as a proof text.

            Psalm 41
            9 “Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.”
            Many believe this refers to Judas. Many believe this is a specific “predictive prophecy” concerning Judas. Let’s take a look at what David has to say…

            In Ps 41:4-10 David’s prayer had been one for healing after confessing his sin (v. 4). However, he lamented the fact that his enemies took advantage of his condition. Wanting him to die (v. 5), they feigned friendship while slandering him (v. 6), saying that he would never survive (vv. 7-8). Even his trusted friend betrayed (lifted up his heel against) him (v. 9). These words, of course, were quoted by Jesus concerning Judas (John 13:18). But here David had in mind the treachery of his friend Ahithophel, who betrayed him, and then hanged himself (2 Sam. 16:20-17:3, 23).

            David was not referring to Judas!!

            Now, here’s another passage attributed to Judas.

            John 17
            12 “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
            Unfortunately, no OT Scripture says this.

            Now here is some Scripture in Acts to consider:

            Acts 1
            16 “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled (What Scripture?), which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus
            17 for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry.”
            David didn’t say this about Judas. He said it about his “own familiar friend” Ahithophel.

            Psa 41:9 “Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.”
            These scriptures were fulfilled in the sense of illustration by Judas.

            Acts 1
            20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms: ‘Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it’; and, ‘Let another take his office.’
            The book of Psalms does not say that about Judas.

            Psalm 109
            8 Let his days be few, And let another take his office.

            Psalm 6
            25 Let their dwelling place be desolate; Let no one live in their tents.
            Peter in Acts 1 said that David prophesied of Judas. But when did David discuss Judas Iscariot? Certainly he did not refer to him directly or name him. The Psalms often anticipate Christ. Likewise the enemies of the royal psalmist became the enemies of the Messiah. Therefore, someone was predicted in Psalms 69:25 and 109:8. Both of these Psalms are royal imprecatory psalms, but the prophecy is very general. Acts 1:20 applies them to Judas. These are not specific “predictive prophecies,” but rather, illustrations of OT examples.

            I sure hope Sam has more to offer for us in the "Battle Royal X" !!!!!

            God Bless, --Jeremy Finkenbinder
            Do you desire to make all men see what is the Dispensation of the Mystery? (Eph 3:9)

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Dave Miller
              Yeah, you know, acknowledging that women are able to read and think and all,
              very PC, very disruptive.
              Not at all. We are all one in Christ. It's just that it's a cliche PC thing to say, in the eyes of a lot of people, myself included. It distracts from the discussion. Most readers will hit that and in their mind pause for a moment and think about the fact that the author decided to use a feminine pronoun there. In that sense, yes, it is distracting.

              Now, on to my more complete appraisal of Lamerson's first post.


              First, I'd like to say that I think Lamerson's trying to restrict the discussion to Jesus' earthly ministry... is a wonderful thing to do!

              On one condition... That we can rephrase that just a tiny bit to say "the Son." If this debate focuses on the Son's perspective on this issue, then I think Bob would be exceedingly happy with that. Why? Because the Son is very active in the Old Testament. From the Garden to Abraham to Jacob to Moses to Joshua to the kings and prophets... the Son appears numerous times on earth in bodily form, personally and very relationally interacting with His people, meeting with them face to face, even to as many as 72 at one time. This is very "anthropomorphic" in the same sense that Lamerson refers to from Sanders' comment. And so, upon reflection, it occurs to me that if the conversation is restricted to the Son, then surely Bob would have no problem with this, as it wouldn't exclude the OT at all.

              Of course, if Lamerson insists on restricting things to Jesus' earthly ministry, excluding the 4,000 years prior to that and everything after the ascension, well... I'd agree with others here that this would be unreasonable.


              One particular criticism I have of his initial post is that he agrees to a standard - one put forth even in the very agreed-upon rules themselves - that both will focus on God's perspective rather than man's. And then what does Lamerson do for at least half his post? Focus on man's perspective.

              I have found nothing in second-temple literature which would lead me to believe that a first-century Jewish person listening to this saying of Jesus would have thought anything but that God knows the future. This is not to say the evidence does not exist, but only that the burden of proof must rest upon the openness proponents to provide second-temple evidence that points to a belief in a limited knowledge of the future on the part of God. What I am arguing here is that the burden of proof must rest with Bob. If he is to show us that the understanding of the church about God is mistaken, then he must have strong evidence.
              So since those fallible people tended to assume that as true about God, therefore the burden of proof is on the Open View's side? We should assume that majority opinion back then was the absolute truth, unless we can prove otherwise? Huh? Our default position should be the traditions and opinions of fallible men? This demand for "second temple evidence" seems to me to violate the very rules of this debate, and he hasn't even finished his first post at that point.


              Referencing the "Gospel" of Thomas was a huge mistake, imho, and brings him immediate discredit. Can we even say with certainty it was written within the time frame of the authorship of the New Testament, rather than being fraudulently composed much later? Even if it did originate in the 1st century, we have here a work of spiritual teaching that claims that women can't have eternal life, that a woman must effectively become a man in order to have eternal life. Is that the type of source he wants to go to for a picture of the 1st century biblical view of God? Really?


              He seems to portray the Peter & the Chicken issue as if we Open Creationists want to use it as evidence for our view. Nothing could be further from the truth. Is it (on the surface anyway) a problem text for us? Sure. And we can explain how it can be interpreted within the Open View, in light of a plethora of other scriptures. But I don't know of a single Open Creationist who would use this as evidence for our view, even on a bad day. LOL Our contention is simply that it isn't conclusive for either view.


              As far as I can see, Lamerson made one halfway decent point in his whole post:

              The so-called “ignorant son” passages (Matt 24:36; Mark 13:32) would indicate that Jesus felt no shame in admitting that his knowledge was limited in at least one area. Yet he makes a very specific prediction here. If Jesus had been unsure it seems that he would not have made such a prediction.
              Now that's a good point! It's by no means significantly persuasive to me in the greater scheme of things; I'm certainly not going to flip over one little point like that, but I do look forward to Bob's response.


              Finally, I'd reiterate that his definition of free will is completely unusable. It's just flatly wrong on its face. Free will isn't about the power to do. It's about the genuine ability to choose.

              Choice is internal. Action is external. Two different things.
              1 Corinthians 13:2
              And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.

              Comment


              • #37
                Oh man!

                Judging from this first post of Dr. Lamerson's, this is going to be a whopper of a debate!

                I wonder how shocked Lamerson will be to find out that Bob disagrees with Boyd on a lot a major issues?

                I understand why he did, and I agree that Lamerson couldn't have done any better than to open the debate by addressing open theistic issues as presented by Boyd but I think that he's in for a shock when Bob joins him in undermining some of what Boyd teaches.

                I can't wait for Bob's response!

                Resting in Him,
                Clete
                sigpic
                "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                Comment


                • #38
                  Lamerson is right in pointing out that Jesus is God. But he shoots himself in the foot by arguing that Jesus must have known everything. How could Jesus have become man and remained all knowing? Does Lamerson really expect to argue that Jesus knew everything there is to know, past, present, and future, as a zigot or infant? Did he coo at his mother's breast for months, and baby-talk for years all the while hiding his bottomless knowledge of not only Hebrew, but every other language of the world? I imagine he asked Jacob, his father, about the proper use of a hammer and nail. I guess that was all a fraud too. How about spelling? Did Jesus ever misspell a word and if so was it intentional? It must have been if he is "all knowing." Did he see an unusual animal for the first time and ask, "What's that?" Not according to Lamerson. At least not honestly so.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Montana
                    Lamerson is right in pointing out that Jesus is God. But he shoots himself in the foot by arguing that Jesus must have known everything. How could Jesus have become man and remained all knowing? Does Lamerson really expect to argue that Jesus knew everything there is to know, past, present, and future, as a zigot or infant?.
                    Sam embraces the dual nature of Christ, Montana. The God-man even as an infant had "all-knowledge" as He was God even as a baby.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Freak
                      Sam embraces the dual nature of Christ, Montana. The God-man even as an infant had "all-knowledge" as He was God even as a baby.
                      Sorry Freak... Doogie already pointed out,

                      Originally posted by doogieduff
                      Jesus grew in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52)


                      Luke
                      2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.
                      What say ye and Sammy?
                      Do you desire to make all men see what is the Dispensation of the Mystery? (Eph 3:9)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Freak
                        Sam embraces the dual nature of Christ, Montana. The God-man even as an infant had "all-knowledge" as He was God even as a baby.
                        Lk. 2:52 Jesus grew as a man. Phil. 2 shows that He voluntarily laid aside or veiled His divine attributes. Though God, He lived as a man, dependent on the Holy Spirit/Father.
                        Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                        They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                        I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                        Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                        "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                        The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Montana
                          Lamerson is right in pointing out that Jesus is God. But he shoots himself in the foot by arguing that Jesus must have known everything.
                          That’s a good catch, but don’t you doubt that will come back to haunt him. I mean that it would seem a waste of time to point out every single problem with Dr. Lamerson’s arguments. And really the actual questions he proposed are not so difficult as to be answered easily and readily.

                          I was very curious to see what sort of argument the Predestination position would give. It’s only in the past few years that I have begun to lean more to the “Free Will” side, and I still hold close ties to the Predestination camp…. It is much like an old home to me.

                          (Edited - I should point out that the Free Will camp is really an old home as well. It is little more than the belief we all had in God whenever we were children in Sunday School. Free Will seems to be the natural conception, right or not, that one takes away from the Sunday school lessons about Moses, Abraham, David, and the various stories from the Old Testament. Perhaps this is why Dr. Lamerson wisely hopes to avoid these common stories.)


                          Originally posted by godrulz
                          Mt. 6:8 is not a common proof text for either position. Sam anticipates objections, but the most we can conclude is that God has perfect past and present knowledge.
                          I agree that it really supports neither position unless one is trying to read their own position into the text. To me, it can mean even something very general. God, in a general way, knows what all mankind needs even before they pray. Even considering a fabricated person of literature (who has no needs due to not being real) God knows what he would need if he were to become real, even before he asked. I’m not sure the passage has the threat towards the Free-Willist camp that Dr. Lamerson believes it has.

                          Actually the context of the passage if you read the preceding verse, is just that God doesn’t need to be told over and over again as if he forgets … that’s certainly not going to tear down the “Free-Will” position.

                          Without having met him, I like Dr. Lamerson. I like his honesty thus far. However, having heard just a small amount of Enyart’s arguments in the past, and considering that most debaters put either their best or second best argument first, I think the better debating may well happen in the grandstands.

                          Originally posted by The Berean
                          Dr. Lamerson should focus on the Sciptures. I got a bit lost with "Boyd said this..." and "Sander's said that..." quotes. I have not read any writings by Boyd or Sanders so felt I was missing something.
                          I think that’s probably just the problem of going first. Until Enyart is able to lay out his beliefs, Dr. Lamerson is having to use the beliefs of others that may or may not position themselves exactly like Enyart. I don’t think he meant any particular strawman attack by it.


                          Originally posted by TheBerean
                          I liked the Peter example. I find it highy unlikely that Jesus "guessed" that Peter would deny him simply because Jesus knew Peter well.
                          I find it to be the single best argument that I could make when I was in the Predestination camp. I still think it is a good one, I just don’t think it can stand to the weight of evidence the Bible gives for the Free Will camp.

                          Many have answered this as Dr. Lamerson points out. Of those, he argues that Sander’s explanation (which I would find to be the most credible) presents the same problem with God because the three people might choose not to tempt Peter. Actually Sanders proposes that Jesus has said that Satan has asked permission to tempt Peter (Luke 22:31), perhaps God agreed to three temptations and Jesus knew Peter was not ready for Satan’s onslaught, even as God knew Job could withstand it.

                          Dr. Lamerson argues that the three tempters had free will and could have chosen not to tempt, but that’s a very weak point in my own opinion. After all, if one man refused to tempt Peter, Satan could move on to the next man. It is more unlikely, I believe, to suggest Satan couldn’t find even three people to use out of the entire crowds that were up. And I ‘m not sure that anyone argues that roosters have free will on when to crow.
                          Last edited by ApologeticJedi; August 1st, 2005, 11:22 PM.
                          A 'touchy-feely' CNN reporter, while interviewing an Army sniper asked, "What do you feel when you shoot a terrorist?" The Soldier shrugged and replied..... "Recoil."

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            RightIdea said: Agreed, I'm sure he was refering to the exegete. Although I did find it a bit disruptively PC, and unnecessarily so. But it was a minor detail..

                            Dave Miller said: Yeah, you know, acknowledging that women are able to read and think and all, very PC, very disruptive.
                            When I was in school they taught that the male pronouns “he” and "him" are the gender neutral pronouns to mean men or women. However, I guess society has learned that such thinking is chauvinistic, and now we accept female pronouns as the gender neutral.
                            A 'touchy-feely' CNN reporter, while interviewing an Army sniper asked, "What do you feel when you shoot a terrorist?" The Soldier shrugged and replied..... "Recoil."

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by godrulz
                              Lk. 2:52 Jesus grew as a man. Phil. 2 shows that He voluntarily laid aside or veiled His divine attributes. Though God, He lived as a man, dependent on the Holy Spirit/Father.
                              Will wait and and see how Sam approaches this...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by godrulz
                                The issues for closed theism are greater in that they have to take clear statements in the OT and make them figurative (God changing His mind, etc.).
                                godrulz,

                                Are you saying that we should not take any "clear statements from the OT" in a "figurative" sense?

                                How about this "clear statement"?:

                                "And he shall be as the light of the morning,when the sun riseth..."(2Sam.23:4).

                                Are we to teach that the sun actually "rises" and ignore the fact that it is the earth that rotates?
                                The strength of the Open view is that it takes all relevant verses at face value (vs preconceived theology).
                                That is the weakness,not the strength.For instance,this version of the "Open View" contradicts Scripture by taking a "literal" reading of several verses.The following verse should be taken in a "literal" way,and that is because it is specifically speaking of the very "nature" of the Lord God:

                                "God is not a man,that He should lie.Neither the son of man,that He should repent.Hath He said,and shall He not do it?"(Num.23:19).

                                There can be no misunderstanding here.The Lord will not "repent" because that is an attribute that is a part of His very nature.

                                But those who support this version of the "Open View" have no problem at all in taking verses which are clearly not to be taken in a "literal" manner and interpreting them literally and by doing so they contradict what is said at Numbers23:19.Here is an example of a verse which they take literally even though a literal interpretation contradicts what is said at Numbers 23:19:

                                "And the Lord repented of the evil which He thought to do unto His people"(Ex.32:14).

                                Instead of understanding that the word "repented" is used phenomenally in this verse those who support this view of Open Theism rush to contradict the words spoken about the Lord's nature.
                                The two motifs (open/closed) are interpreted literally, whereas the closed view must interpret the open motif as anthropomorphic (without warrant)
                                How is it "without warrant" to take a "figurative" reading of Exodus 32:14 since a "literal" reading clearly contradicts what the Scriptures reveal about the nature of the Lord God?

                                In His grace,--Jerry
                                Last edited by Jerry Shugart; August 2nd, 2005, 12:41 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X