User Tag List

Page 7 of 67 FirstFirst ... 456789101757 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 993

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

  1. #91
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    14,176
    Thanks
    1,290
    Thanked 8,800 Times in 5,785 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147845
    Quote Originally Posted by *Acts9_12Out*
    Jerry,

    You still following the story Jerry?

    You still with me Jerry?
    Jeremy,I know what is going on here so you do not have to act as if it might be over my head.And by the way,you never answered my questions in our last debate.If you remember your computer crashed right before your last post in our debate but you promised to answer my questions sometime later.

    But you never answered them,Jeremy.I answered every single one of your questions but I am still waiting for your answers.
    Please take the time to read the context Jerry.
    You assume that I was ignorant of the context but you are wrong Jeremy.
    You will see that there is a specific reason God does not lie or repent in this instance.
    So the Lord God will lie but only not in this instance.And if the words I quoted were only for "this instance" then why would Samuel say the very same thing in regard to an another entirely different instance?:

    "And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent,for He is not a man,that He should repent"(1Sam.15:29).

    Jeremy,are you saying that the Lord will tell lies but He will remain truthful only in "this instance"?

    In His grace,--Jerry

  2. #92
    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
    11815
    Quote Originally Posted by chance
    This is what Sanders had to say concerning Sam's first post:



    Couldn't agree more! The debate is about the nature of the future - all settled realities OR partly settled and partly unsettled?
    This is the key. If one just looks at the settled verses (and they are there), then one thinks the future is closed and knowable. If one just looks at the open verses, one might minimize God's superintending of human history. Unfortunately, if one has a preconceived theology that God's knowledge must be exhaustive/immutable, then libertarian free will is watered down (determinism in the worse case scenario), or God's self-revelation must be seen as figurative and less meaningful (God changing His mind verses, etc.).

    Boyd does a masterful job of clarifying these two motifs (with proof texts for settled/unsettled) in "God of the Possible" and "Is God to blame?" and other books.

    I still feel the nature of time vs eternity is another key factor. It helps elucidate why the future is open and unknowable. "God and time: 4 views" IVP is a good primer. I believe N. Wolterstorff's defense is the most coherent and biblical.
    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.

  3. #93
    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
    11815
    Quote Originally Posted by elected4ever
    To my understanding, God's foreknowledge does not limit man's free choice. Just because God knows what our choices will be does not mean that God dictated our choices. That is what prophecy is all about. God's knowledge of what man does in the future and what He will do in the future does not limit man's choices in responses to current and future events.It is not that God does not know but that we do not know. Indeed our whole existence depends upon the foreknowledge of God and our reliance upon it. We are reactive and God is proactive. God acts in response to his own will and not responsive to man's will. We have trouble when our will is not in line with God's will and this does not prevent God from knowing what our will is even when our will is in conflict with His.
    The way God knows some of the future as certain is that He has the ABILITY (omnicompetence) to purpose and bring it to pass (read Is. 46 and 48 carefully). It is not based on His foreknowledge. A chessmaster responds to contingencies with knowledge, insight, and wisdom. He would not be a master if he knew every move in advance or mind-controlled the other player's moves. God is responsive and creative. He is not locked into a fatalistic, closed scenario.

    Simple foreknowledge is assumed, but is not explainable nor defensible. Determinism would be more coherent, but at the expense of genuine love and freedom (it would also make God responsible for heinous evil). Exhaustive foreknowlege of future free will contingencies is logically incoherent (not to mention biblically). I realize this is not self-evident due to the preconceptions most have from the Augustinian/Anselmian/Aquinas views.
    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.

  4. #94
    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
    11815
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart
    Jeremy,I know what is going on here so you do not have to act as if it might be over my head.And by the way,you never answered my questions in our last debate.If you remember your computer crashed right before your last post in our debate but you promised to answer my questions sometime later.

    But you never answered them,Jeremy.I answered every single one of your questions but I am still waiting for your answers.

    You assume that I was ignorant of the context but you are wrong Jeremy.

    So the Lord God will lie but only not in this instance.And if the words I quoted were only for "this instance" then why would Samuel say the very same thing in regard to an another entirely different instance?:

    "And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent,for He is not a man,that He should repent"(1Sam.15:29).

    Jeremy,are you saying that the Lord will tell lies but He will remain truthful only in "this instance"?

    In His grace,--Jerry

    I Sam. 15 is another example of not changing His mind in a specific instance/context. It is sheer proof texting and eisegesis to extrapolate it to mean that God cannot vs will not change His mind. The few texts that show He does not change His mind in specific cases cannot be pitted against the many verses that show that He does change His mind in other circumstances (just not in a capricious, fickle way). You are forced into a wooden literalism for a few verses at the expense of wrongly making other verses figurative that should be taken at face value.

    You are not a dummy, but you cannot seem to think outside the traditional box on this issue. Let us know when the lights go on.

    Is our explanation plausible? Probable? Are you dogmatically sure that your view is the only way to skin this cat?

    (Hint: strong vs weak immutability and impassibility are issues being re-thought by the most traditional/classical theologians...you are stuck in the Dark Ages...see Jay Wesley Richards in "The Untamed God" IVP).
    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. #95
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    14,176
    Thanks
    1,290
    Thanked 8,800 Times in 5,785 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147845
    Quote Originally Posted by doogieduff
    I am doubting your belief in the innerrant, infallible, inspired word of God.
    Just because I can recognize "figurative" language and you cannot does not mean that I do not believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.
    I love how OV'ers are accused of limiting God, yet it's Jerry the calvinist who says CANNOT lie, CANNOT repent, etc. My God is all-powerful.
    That I why I cannot understand why you people say that God does not know the future.

    "I am God,and there is none like Me,Declaring the end from the beginning,and from ancient times the things that are not yet done..."(Isa.46:9,10).
    I am an open theist and I do believe God can lie. Again, I don't limit God Jerry.
    So you say that God can lie.
    Lying is laid out biblically as a sin... Lying would go against the character of our God...
    So even though lying is a sin and lying would go against the character of God you still believe that God can sin.
    I think you've fallen off the deep end with this statement Jerry. Do you mean to tell me that ALL scripture written by man cannot be taken as true?
    I am saying that in some instances the narrative in the Scriptures contain "figurative" language.

    Here are the words from the "New Scofield Study Bible" in regard to the verses where the Scriptures speak of God "repenting":

    "When applied to God,the word is used phenomenally,according to O.T. custom.God seems to change His mind.The phenomena are such as,in the case of a man,would indicate a change of mind"(Note at Zech.8:14).

    To give you another example,in the Scriptures the sun is said to be "rising".To man's point of view the sun does indeed seem to be rising.However,we know that the sun is not rising but instead the earth is rotating.
    The Holy Spirit inspired the men who authored the Bible. What do you hold as true Jerry? Further, God HIMSELF said He was weary of repenting!
    So the Lord Himself sometimes speaks phenomenally.
    Please respond to the Hosea scripture, and answer one question for me, was Jonah wrong calling God "One who repents"?
    Was Mark wrong when he wrote of the sun rising at Mark 16:2?

    The sun seems to be "rising" and to man God seems to change His mind.But He does not change His mind.When He describes His very nature He says that He will not lie and He will not change His mind:

    "God is not a man,that HE should lie,neither the son of man,that He should repent"(Num.23:19).

    In His grace,--Jerry

  6. #96
    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
    11815
    Open Theists also interpret figuratively when the context makes it evident to do so. Quoting a blatantly figurative passage to argue against a literal one that can be taken at face value (except in contradicts your preconceptions) is disingenuous.

    Is. 46 is a favorite open theist proof text. It correctly shows that some of the future is settled. You make the mistake of ignoring the verses that show the other motif that some of the future is unsettled/open/uncertain. The context shows the reason God's predictions will come true: it is due to His ABILITY, not his so-called foreknowledge (read 46:11 that you missed "What I have said, that I will bring about; what I have planned, that will I DO = ability, not foreknowledge...you wrongly assume that God plans and brings everything about...this ignores contingencies and free will and makes God responsible for heinous evil).

    cf. Is. 48:3 What He declares (He does not meticulously decree/declare every moral and mundane detail in the universe), He will bring about. This is based on His power, not 'foreknowledge'. His divine intentions will come to pass due to His sovereign ability. "Suddenly I ACTED, and they came to pass).

    It is an exegetical error to take a verse that is talking about specific judgments and to extrapolate it to mean that God must control and know all of the future (vs some).

    We need the illumination of the Holy Spirit and sound exegetical principles.
    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.

  7. #97
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    14,176
    Thanks
    1,290
    Thanked 8,800 Times in 5,785 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147845
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz
    I still feel the nature of time vs eternity is another key factor. It helps elucidate why the future is open and unknowable.
    If the future is "unknowable" then how do you explain the following:

    "I am God,and there is none like Me,Declaring the end from the beginning,and from ancient times the things that are not yet done..."(Isa.46:9,10).
    I Sam. 15 is another example of not changing His mind in a specific instance/context.
    I contend that it is for all instances.He will never tell a lie:

    And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent,for He is not a man,that He should repent"(1Sam.15:29).

    If you are correct and these words are only in regard to this particular instances then in other instances He will indeed "repent" and He will lie.

    In His grace,--Jerry

  8. #98
    Over 6000 post club Aimiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    6,516
    Thanks
    367
    Thanked 422 Times in 310 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    119706
    Quote Originally Posted by Montana
    How could Jesus have become man and remained all knowing?
    The same way that John said is available to you, and 'unction' or anointing (The Holy Ghost) from The Lord:

    I John 2:20
    But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
    "That man of sin must first be revealed." -- Jesus

    If you haven't tried: you've already failed. -- Aimiel

  9. #99
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    14,176
    Thanks
    1,290
    Thanked 8,800 Times in 5,785 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147845
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz
    Open Theists also interpret figuratively when the context makes it evident to do so.
    The following verse is clearly not to be taken literally but despite this fact those who follow Bob Enyart's version of "Open Theology" interpret it literally:

    "And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me"(Gen.22:12).

    If we use our common sense we can know that this narrative is not to be read employing a wooden literalism.If we take it literally then we can see that the Lord did not know whether or not Abraham feared God until He saw the outward act of Abraham taking the knife to slay his son,Isaac.

    However,when the Lord describes His own attributes we can see that HE does not need to see outward acts to know whether a man fears Him or not:

    "But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart"(1Sam.16:7).

    In His grace,--Jerry

  10. #100
    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
    11815
    I Sam. 15

    see vv. 11, 35 God was grieved that He made Saul king. This does not sound like a closed, knowable future. God had a change of mind an inner disposition as contingencies changed. This is not figurative language, but a window into the heart of God.

    If God changed His mind in this case it would be a lie and capricious/fickle. God is faithful to His Word. He will not change his mind and lie when He unconditionally states something. Other contexts are explicitly conditional. God purposes one thing, but will change course if contingent circumstances change. You would have to make a liar of God when He says that Hezekiah will die, period. Then He does change His mind and adds 15 years. This makes no sense if the future is closed. God responded to prayer and changed His mind. Not all mind changes are lies. If I initially ask for chocolate ice cream, and then change my mind to vanilla, this is not a moral issue.

    If God says that He will judge a nation due to their present state, this does not preclude Him changing His mind and relenting if they repent. In fact, He would be lying in this case if He did not change His mind since He promised He would judge if they do not repent, but would change His mind/purpose if they do repent (cf. Jonah). Why not read things at face value instead of using mental gymnastics to support the closed view?

    I answered Is. 46 on another thread in detail. The key is that this is a verse about a specific judgment that God will bring to pass by His ability. Foreknowledge is not causative or the issue. God knows the end from the beginning because He is able to initiate and conclude the judgments He is talking about in Isaiah. This is a verse about some of the future being settled/foreknown. It cannot be pitted against other verses that show an openness/uncertainty. Regrettably, you are forced to make these figurative to retain your closed theism.

    Open Theism, rightly understood, does not compromise God's glorious attributes. It simply reflects the type of creation (open vs determinism) that God wisely chose in His sovereignty.
    Last edited by godrulz; August 3rd, 2005 at 10:54 AM.
    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.

  11. #101
    Over 2000 post club elected4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz
    We all agree that God knows all that is knowable. The future does not exist, so God correctly knows it as possible rather than actual.
    God does know all that is knowable and the future is knowable to God but not to man. We must rely on the faithfulness of God in order that we may know the future. Indeed it is God's foreknowledge that we rely upon. This in no way prevents man's freedom of choice. Man's freedom of choice is limited to what he knows or thinks he knows. God is the only reliable source of knowledge of future events. Man is subject to manipulation and God is not. This does not require the predestination of the everyday events of man or individuals. Man can make free choices but is limited by his knowledge. We should not think of God it the same terms as we think of man.
    Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

    The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

  12. #102
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    14,176
    Thanks
    1,290
    Thanked 8,800 Times in 5,785 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147845
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz
    I Regrettably, you are forced to make these figurative to retain your closed theism.
    I do not support "closed theism".What I object to is the method of interpreting Scriptures that is being used here to support the Open view.

    In His grace,--Jerry

  13. #103
    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
    11815
    Quote Originally Posted by elected4ever
    God does know all that is knowable and the future is knowable to God but not to man. We must rely on the faithfulness of God in order that we may know the future. Indeed it is God's foreknowledge that we rely upon. This in no way prevents man's freedom of choice. Man's freedom of choice is limited to what he knows or thinks he knows. God is the only reliable source of knowledge of future events. Man is subject to manipulation and God is not. This does not require the predestination of the everyday events of man or individuals. Man can make free choices but is limited by his knowledge. We should not think of God it the same terms as we think of man.
    Man is not a god. God's knowledge of the past and present is perfect and exhaustive. The nature of the future is not identical to the past/present. Possible/probable is not actual, even in God's experience. You are begging the question to assume that God knows the future. This is highly problematic to free will and contingencies. There is no need for an omnicompetent God to know the future exhaustively. He would, if it was possible. He knows the future as it is in reality...not yet and open. This is not a deficiency in omniscience anymore than the fact that God cannot create square circles or cannot make rocks too heavy to lift limits omnipotence (absurd).
    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.

  14. #104
    Over 2000 post club elected4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz
    Man is not a god. God's knowledge of the past and present is perfect and exhaustive. The nature of the future is not identical to the past/present. Possible/probable is not actual, even in God's experience. You are begging the question to assume that God knows the future. This is highly problematic to free will and contingencies. There is no need for an omnicompetent God to know the future exhaustively. He would, if it was possible. He knows the future as it is in reality...not yet and open. This is not a deficiency in omniscience anymore than the fact that God cannot create square circles or cannot make rocks too heavy to lift limits omnipotence (absurd).
    A straw man if I ever seen one. God 's knowledge of what you will choose 5 days from now does not limit your ability to make them. The only thing that will effect your choices are what you know and what you think you know. Your choice is only as good as the information you have. God makes choices on the information he has which is complete knowledge of past, present and future events. You have no such knowledge.
    Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

    The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

  15. #105
    Veteran STONE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    282
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete

    That's very clever! I love puns!


    I was thinking about this earlier this morning and it would probably be more accurate to say that most CVer's are Augustinian to one degree or another and so since Calvinism is basically revised Augustinianism therein lies the confusion. That along with the fact that most OVer's, myself included, tend to render our opponents positions in light of the logical conclusions to which their positions lead and more often than not that means Calvinism (Augustinianism). Because of this we are often accused of misrepresenting our opponents views and creating straw men to knock down but it isn't really true. At worst we are guilty of jumping the gun and racing to quickly to the end of things without taking the time to establish what it is we are reacting too.
    At any rate, this open theist knows that not everyone who disagrees with me would call themselves a Calvinist whether they unwittingly support his theology or not and I do try not to insist that they are a Calvinist although I don't always succeed.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    The Augustinian label put upon the Closed view is both innacurate and dishonest. We have gone over this before. The closed view is the traditional Jewish view (remember...the Bible was written by all Jews). This is blatantly evident to anyone who has studied Judaism or talked to most any Rabbi.
    But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they sought it not by faith, but (sought it) as it were by the works of the law.

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