User Tag List

Page 5 of 67 FirstFirst ... 23456781555 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 993

Thread: BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)

  1. #61
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 14 Times in 14 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    11813
    Jerry:


    Post #50 Boyd vs #49? Comments? How would God have communicated that He could change His mind?
    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.

  2. #62
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    13,843
    Thanks
    1,282
    Thanked 8,742 Times in 5,737 Posts

    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147840
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz
    Jerry:

    How would God have communicated that He could change His mind?
    Like this:

    "God is not a man,that He should lie.However,like the son of man He may repent."

    But that is not what He said,is it?Instead He said:

    "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).
    Godrulz,Post #50:
    "If His saying "I may change my mind" in Scripture isn't enough to convince us that God may in fact change His mind, then nothing would be."
    Why isn't the following enough to convince Godrulz that God will not change His mind?

    "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).
    Godrulz: "The burden of proof is on those who refuse to take God's revelation at face value when there is no hint it is figurative.
    I have alrady offered "proof".If both verses (Num.23:19 and Ex.32:14) are to be taken literally then we must throw our reason to the wind somehow force our minds to believe that He cannot change His mind but despite this He does change His mind.

    The solution is simple.Only Numbers 23:19 can be taken literally.The other verse is clearly "figurative"and the figure is:

    "An-throp'-o-path-ei'-a; or, Condescension. (Genesis 1:2; 8:21. Psalm 74:11. Jeremiah 2:13. Hosea 11:10). Ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings, irrational creatures, or inanimate things"("The Companion Bible",Appendix 6).

    Those who are adherents to Bob Enyart's ideas on the Open view offer no solutions.They seem to be able to believe that God can say that He will not change His mind but then turn around and do that very thing!

    In His grace,--Jerry

  3. #63
    Over 750 post club Ecumenicist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga
    Posts
    913
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    205
    So, um, is Bob out there? I hope he's not writing, like, a whole book or anything, you know?
    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."

  4. #64
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 14 Times in 14 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    11813
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart
    Like this:

    "God is not a man,that He should lie.However,like the son of man He may repent."

    But that is not what He said,is it?Instead He said:

    "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).

    Why isn't the following enough to convince Godrulz that God will not change His mind?

    "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).

    I have alrady offered "proof".If both verses (Num.23:19 and Ex.32:14) are to be taken literally then we must throw our reason to the wind somehow force our minds to believe that He cannot change His mind but despite this He does change His mind.

    The solution is simple.Only Numbers 23:19 can be taken literally.The other verse is clearly "figurative"and the figure is:

    "An-throp'-o-path-ei'-a; or, Condescension. (Genesis 1:2; 8:21. Psalm 74:11. Jeremiah 2:13. Hosea 11:10). Ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings, irrational creatures, or inanimate things"("The Companion Bible",Appendix 6).

    Those who are adherents to Bob Enyart's ideas on the Open view offer no solutions.They seem to be able to believe that God can say that He will not change His mind but then turn around and do that very thing!

    In His grace,--Jerry
    Early I showed how both verses can be taken literally from an Open perspective. Numbers is not a proof text for strong immutability (this would create a contradiction with other verses or force a figurative loop hole). In the specific case and context, God will not change His mind and purposes. In other contexts, the prophecy is conditional. God intends something based on present circumstances, and could respond to future contingencies with a change of intent. God does not change in a fickle or capricious way. You are wrong to extrapolate that will not means cannot in an absolute sense.

    God and man are personal with creative, self-determining wills. I could tell my child that I will not take him to the movie if he does not do his homework (thinking it improbable that he will get it done in time). If the homework is not done, I will stay the original course. If the homework is completed, I could change my mind and take him to the movie (or make excuses not to). Hopefully, I will not be arbitrary in my change, but play by the conditional rules. Certainly, if God changes His mind, it is based on His faithfulness and truth. The change will be defensible and the right thing to do in light of new contingencies.

    Why cling to a static model of God (Greek pagan philosophy) when the Hebraic view is clearly a responsive, dynamic, creative revelation?
    Last edited by godrulz; August 2nd, 2005 at 08:16 PM.
    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.

  5. #65
    Over 750 post club Ecumenicist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga
    Posts
    913
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz

    God and man are personal with creative, self-determining wills. I could tell my child that I will not take him to the movie if he does not do his homework (thinking it improbable that he will get it done in time). If the homework is not done, I will stay the original course. If the homework is completed, I could change my mind and take him to the movie (or make excuses not to). Hopefully, I will not be arbitrary in my change, but play by the conditional rules. Certainly, if God changes His mind, it is based on His faithfulness and truth. The change will be defensible and the right thing to do in light of new contingencies.

    Why cling to a static model of God (Greek pagan philosophy) when the Hebraic view is clearly a responsive, dynamic, creative revelation?
    Herein lieth the problem, you use the example of yourself, your logic, human logic,
    as a model from which to understand God...

    At least Sam uses Jesus Christ, One closer to God than anyone, to seek an understanding
    of God.
    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."

  6. #66
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    3,020
    Thanks
    328
    Thanked 386 Times in 277 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    402525
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Miller
    Herein lieth the problem, you use the example of yourself, your logic, human logic,
    as a model from which to understand God...

    At least Sam uses Jesus Christ, One closer to God than anyone, to seek an understanding
    of God.
    Dave, do you think Dr. Lamerson uses human logic or God's logic?

    Can you explain the difference between "God's logic" and "human logic"?

  7. #67
    Over 750 post club Ecumenicist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga
    Posts
    913
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Dave, do you think Dr. Lamerson uses human logic or God's logic?

    Can you explain the difference between "God's logic" and "human logic"?
    Human logic, but looking to the example of Christ, rather than his own experience.

    I can't explain God's Logic, its far beyond me, but I can look to Christ's example to
    try and perceive how God's greater purpose applies to me.

    Dave
    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."

  8. #68
    Old Timer ApologeticJedi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Bentonville, AR
    Posts
    401
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Miller
    Herein lieth the problem, you use the example of yourself, your logic, human logic, as a model from which to understand God...

    At least Sam uses Jesus Christ, One closer to God than anyone, to seek an understanding of God.
    And how exactly does he make use of that if not with his own human reasoning?Your statement sounds grand, but in truth doesn't solve the issue that we are all saddled with human powers of reasoning.
    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."

  9. #69
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 14 Times in 14 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    11813
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Miller
    Herein lieth the problem, you use the example of yourself, your logic, human logic,
    as a model from which to understand God...

    At least Sam uses Jesus Christ, One closer to God than anyone, to seek an understanding
    of God.

    I have used biblical examples before. I was trying to illustrate it with a limited analogy for simple clarification.
    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.

  10. #70
    Old Timer ApologeticJedi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Bentonville, AR
    Posts
    401
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    218
    Did Dr. Lamerson over-play his hand insisting on the narrow focus of Jesus’ life?

    Obviously the debate will go beyond just the gospels, and typical debates have a give and take. Stand-offs and “ties” are common on some points, so that you must move on to another point. Did Dr. Lamerson position himself such that he must win the argument that a look at Jesus reveals only the Closed position? Would a “draw” on this point, after having thrown down the gauntlet, now look badly for his position?

    While it’s not the typical heavy artillery of the Open camp, the Open concept is not defenseless in the gospels. Jesus mentions chance happenings many times, and in many occassions predicts His own return within the lifetime of His apostles.
    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."

  11. #71
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,335 Times in 1,100 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1097775

    Exclamation

    OK, I am switching things up a bit. I apologize in advance for any confusion this may cause but this thread is now open for debate and side-tracks, rabbit trails etc.

    I have created a new thread for BRX post critiques ONLY wich is located here. In the new thread only stand alone critiques of the BRX posts will be allowed.

    Thanks for all the participation!

    Battle Royale X post critique thread.
    Last edited by Knight; August 2nd, 2005 at 09:52 PM.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  12. #72
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,681
    Thanks
    657
    Thanked 6,951 Times in 3,701 Posts

    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147776
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    OK, I am switching things up a bit. I apologize in advance for any confusion this may cause but this thread is now open for debate and side-tracks, rabbit trails etc.

    I have created a new thread for BRX post critiques ONLY wich is located here. In the new thread only stand alone critiques of the BRX posts will be allowed.

    Thannks for all the participation!

    Battle Royale X post critique thread.
    Terrific idea!

    "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

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    Tambora (September 5th, 2016)

  14. #73
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,335 Times in 1,100 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1097775
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    Terrific idea!
    Bob Enyart made this suggestion so thumbs up go to him!
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  15. #74
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    389
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    I just read Dr. Lamerson's first post and all five pages of this thread. I am currently patting myself on the back for having done so.
    My first impression is that it is an excellent idea to focus upon Jesus, on the good DR's part. I love Bob Enyart but I am not an open theist, and I do not agree with his views regarding the subject. Nonetheless they are intruiging, but I am certainly rooting for Dr. Lamerson, and as he said, that the "truth" will win out!
    I am definately not a Calvinist, yet it seems to me that many OVer's try to insinuate being a CVer makes you one. Whether or not all Calvinists are CV or not, does not make all CVer's, Calvinists.
    Would anyone like to concede, and clarify that point?
    I think that God is omniscient and knows the future and that we still have free will, as defined by God. What does that make me?

    P.S. The Doctor said that he was a "terrible" speller. So when he typed "she" it was supposed to be "he" and "her" was supposed to be "him". Therefore I do not think it is necessary to accuse the DR. of any attempt at gender neutrality or political correctness, and I am sure, since it does not win ANY debating points with this crowd, he won't misspell those words again. Will you!

  16. #75
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,681
    Thanks
    657
    Thanked 6,951 Times in 3,701 Posts

    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147776
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah
    I am definately not a Calvinist, yet it seems to me that many OVer's try to insinuate being a CVer makes you one. Whether or not all Calvinists are CV or not, does not make all CVer's, Calvinists.
    Would anyone like to concede, and clarify that point?
    I think that God is omniscient and knows the future and that we still have free will, as defined by God. What does that make me?
    An Arminian most likely. And yes, it is true that most of the OVer's on this site consider Arminianism to be too Calvinistic for their tastes but be that as it may, I think we all acknowledge that not every person who is opposed to the open view is a Calvinist, it's just that it get's to seeming that way when everyone who debates you on it is either a Calvinist or uses Calvinistic theology in their attempt to refute it.
    Believe it or not, you are probably more of a Calvinist than you realize. Basically if you are not a Catholic and not an open theist, there's very little else one could be aside from an Arminian of one form or another which as far as I am concerned is really just a subset of Calvinism, although there's not an Arminian in the world that would ever concede such a thing.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete

    "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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us