First of all, I agree with some other posters that the two combatants need to let go of a lot of this whiny, accusatory blather and focus more on the debate. I hope that Bob, in his next post, will make a quick comment to that effect and then get straight to the issues. They both have limited space here, and at this point, too much space is being wasted arguing about who broke what rules and yadda yadda yadda. That's the job of the mod, not the combatants.
That said, let's get to bidness...
SLam complains again that Bob hasn't answered his arguments (comprised of the aforementioned 61 questions), and yet he's not going to give Bob the proposed 7 day period to answer them. Well, that's a nice kettle of fish. I realize the doctor has his own more concrete restraints in his life, and I respect that. But then don't complain about Bob not answering every specific argument with an individual, distinct response for each and every one. Some responses must span multiple arguments, and Bob has already said
more than once that his Judas response applies to the Peter issue and numerous other arguments that SLam produced in the very first post! Those arguments
have been answered. Don't like the answer? Big surprise; you're a Calvinist and he's Open. LOL But, Sam, Bob did respond. Disagree with his response, but don't pretend it isn't there. We all read it.
So, since SLam isn't going to make any new arguments (which I don't really mind, personally), he only responds to Bob's questions.
BEQ1: The "utter immutability" question. SLam somehow thinks that this phrase or term is not self-defining? How on earth is this not self-defining? It is UTTER immutability, Sam. Bob obviously isn't telling you to speak or "utter" the word "immutability," so that's ruled out, leaving only one possibility -- total and absolute immutability. There are indeed many Calvinists, including theologians, who hold to a total and absolute immutability of God. I've personally spoken with some of them, people who claim God experiences no emotion at all, does not love of have joy or feel emotional pain or anything else, that He is like a giant block of granite and everything bounces off of him, affected by Him but having no effect on Him. Bob wants to know if you believe that definition should be redefined so as to allow for relationality. This is the easiest and most straightforward question Bob has put to you in this entire debate up to this point. For you to say that the term is "not self-defining" is ridiculous, with all due respect, sir. The term is "utterly" self-defining.
SLA-BEQ9: SLam thinks that the concept of a "timeless" God needs to be redefined or updated. Nice! I think the atemporal God concept is preposterous on its face, totally fallacious, and its logical conclusion is either deism or Process Theology.
SLA-BEQ11: SLam makes an intriguing challenge, one that could change the tone of the debate from here on out if Bob accepts. However, I don't know if Bob should or not. I dont' say that out of fear, but out of genuine concern for hermeneutical approach, and here's why.
Giving just small snippets of scripture is usually a bad idea (it's called "proof-texting"), but in the issue of God's foreknowledge it's even more problematic because this issue requires looking over large passages and multiple passages just on single questions, tying multiple chapters and evne multiple books together to show context. So, to ask Bob to just throw out three snippets for the doctor to prove wrong... I don't know. I'm on the fence as to whether he should take that challenge. I think he can do it, so long as it's understood they can both go anywhere outside that passage to back up that passage. Taking the passage itself strictly without any other support is a big no-no.
If Bob is interested in the possibility, I strongly suggest the two of them discuss the rules for such a proposed challenge OUTSIDE the debate forum, so as not to waste any time or writing space. I hope this can be facilitated as it would be in
everyone's best interest.
Bob asked: BEQ12: Are foreordination and foreknowledge the same thing?
Sam answered with the Westminster Confession, an opinion voted upon by democratic process by a bunch of fallible and very dead men who aren't here to discuss this with us. Not only is this a cop-out, but it didn't directly answer the question. Yes, Sam, we know you believe God foreordained everything before creation. But Bob asked you if foreordination and foreknowledge are the
same thing. You didn't answer that.
BEQ13: Is my conclusion above (from FDR) true that, “prophecies of future events do not inherently provide evidence of foreknowledge?”
SLA-BEQ13-Not if the prophecies are known by God without possibility for error. That is if they must come to pass exactly as expected without any chance for change or error.
Another cop-out. Didn't directly answer the question. Bob provided an example of a "prophecy" that came true, given by someone who obviously doesn't have EDF. Why can't Sam concede logically that just because someone says something will happen and it comes true... doesn't mean they had EDF? This should be obvious to anyone? No need to tap dance or cop-out. We all know it, just agree so we can move on.
BEQ14: Is it theoretically possible for God to know something future because He plans to use His abilities to bring it about, rather than strictly because He foresees it?
SLA-BEQ14-There is a logical problem here. I am not sure that one can separate the two. Specifically, if a perfect being who is incapable of holding a false belief foresees something, that event must come to pass regardless of who causes it.
Yet another cop-out. The commonly-used Michael Jordan analogy obviously applies here. Jordan can obviously know for certain that he'll beat a 10-year-old in a one-on-one match on the court. He knows this not because he has EDF but because he has the power to bring it about. This proposition is
entirely valid. He can prophecy the outcome of the match with "utter" accuracy.
(Personally, I prefer the analogy of Neil Young. If Young enters into a singing contest with an untrained, tone-deaf stutterer with a strong German accent, clearly the outcome is "utterly" predictable, and I wouldn't need EDF to predict that perfectly. It's obvious that Neil Young would lose such a contest every time, simply because his opponent would have the greater skill and natural ability. But just because I can predict it for certain doesn't mean I have EDF.)
Bob asks if NOAH is a clear and specific hermeneutical method regarding God's foreknowledge. Sam cops out
yet again by writing:
"SLA-BEQ15-No. This is not a clear and specific method of interpretation. I asked in my second post about how this interprets God’s command to Joshua to kill women and children in the battle of Jericho. I have not seen an answer. This method assumes the very question that is open for debate by rejecting the attribute of omniscience."
Jericho? What on earth does that passage have to do with God's foreknowledge??? That's an issue of theodicy, not foreknowledge! Talk about going off topic! LOL Where did that come from? This qualifies as a bona fide
non sequitor.
Bob asks Sam to concede that the Son divested Himself of the omnis during the incarnation. Amazingly, Sam denies it! He denies the Kenotic view! Wow, how is he going to defend that? I gotta see this... Oops, wait. Sam doesn't bother to actually explain why he denies this. He doesn't try the least bit to respond to Bob's
argument. He wastes an entire 96 hours by simply denying it and then moving on to the next question. Sam, surely you can foresee that you'll have to explain this??? What are you thinking? You know you'll have to delve into this; why are you forcing everyone to wait a full round before doing so? Big waste of time. I'm very disappointed, Dr. Lamerson. I
know you're better than that. (And that's intended as a compliment, not an insult.)
Finally, Sam gets to his own questions... after copping out, ignoring or sidestepping all of Bob's.
SLQ8 - This tired old question? It's obvious on its face that the presentist view answers this passage. One of the all-time weakest passages for supporting EDF. Asked and already answered.
SLQ9 - The Peter thing again. Asked and answered, but I'm sure Bob can cover it again if SLam needs.
SLQ10 - Decent question, I look forward to Bob's response. If he's in error, I trust he'll say so; he's an honorable man. We'll see.
SLQ-11 - "Would you please respond specifically to the exegesis showing that Jesus based proof of his deity on the correct prediction about Judas?" Another fair question, I look forward to Bob's response.
SLQ12 - "Would you please respond specifically to the exegesis showing that Judas did not have the ability to choose otherwise, particularly the exegesis found in Post III." -- Fair question, look forward to Bob's response.
SLQ13 - "Would you agree that if Peter and/or Judas did not have the ability to choose otherwise then your definition of free will (or will as you put it) is flawed? If not, why not?" Bob has already answered this. Even if both Peter's and Judas' free wills
were interfered with and overpowered in these specific situations, it doesn't prove SLam's case the least bit! Bob has already pointed out that we agree God sometimes supercedes the free will of some people. If SLam wants to go this route, he'd have to prove every action in the entire Bible is the same, on a case-by-case basis, which he obviously cannot. He's trying desperatel to prove something the Open View freely concedes! ... So what?
SLQ14 - "Would you explain (given your response in Post II) how it is possible for Jesus (whom we both agree is God) to be wrong and yet for God to hold no false beliefs?" Good question and I know Bob has a great answer.
Nice conclusion. 'Nuff said!
). “Can you switch back to the Standard Editor, and re-format and re-post?” (That’ll only take a couple hours or so, with checking all the formatting, and all.)
