User Tag List

Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst 123456714 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 248

Thread: Battle Royale X Critique thread - Does God Know Your Entire Future?

  1. #46
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,595
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 1,386 Times in 714 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1009111
    Godrulz . . . I am beggin' man, please do not dialog in this thread. You can dialog in the Battle Talk thread. This thread is for stand alone critique's of the posts being made in BRX.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

    Download the new TOL app for iPhone, iPad, and Android...


  2. #47
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,595
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 1,386 Times in 714 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1009111
    As a rule of thumb nobody should make more than one post in this thread after each post made in BRX. I.e., Sam makes a post then you can come here and comment, Bob makes post and then you can come here and comment, Sam makes another post and you can come here and comment etc. etc. etc. If you wish to dialog and debate use the Battle Talk thread.
    Last edited by Knight; August 5th, 2005 at 09:58 PM.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

    Download the new TOL app for iPhone, iPad, and Android...


  3. #48
    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
    Yes, the debate is on. This is why I have "tuned in" to Battle Royale 10. I think that God knows our entire future, but I also certainly want, and need to know if He does not.
    Dr. Lamerson from his first round engaged that question, and now in his second post has more fully embraced it, and challenged the premises that Bob Enyart attempted to lay down in his first round posting.
    I completely agree with the Dr, that I expected more direct engagement from Bob in his opening post. Even while laying down premises in an openng round one ought to respond in at least a cursory way, to questions, or valid points made by an opponent in a debate. Otherwise one is either "buying" time, or "wasting" it!
    This is not an essay contest, or chapters in a book. This is a "live" debate in which if the Holy Spirit is active, His Word will be active, and prove to cut both ways as a two edged sword.
    From the many challenges made by the Dr, in this second post, my first thought is, will ten rounds be enough.
    I find the Open view to be very intruiging and somewhat liberating. However, I truly wrestle with the strongest question in my mind, and the strongest point in Dr. Lamerson's second post. If God does not know our future entirely, then it truly is problematic, and that, then raises more questions than it answers.
    If Dr. Lamerson sticks to the question of the debate, and does not get sidetracked into Calvinism, then this is the problem that Bob has for someone like me. First He has to prove, scripturally that God does not know the future completely, and then has to solve, satisfactorally,{SP?} all the accompanying problems that it creates.
    I am now looking forward to the rest of the debate because I fully expect Bob to engage the question of this debate and respond directly to the Dr's, Scriptures ,and reasonings.
    Last edited by jeremiah; August 5th, 2005 at 10:08 PM.

  4. #49
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,595
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 1,386 Times in 714 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1009111
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremiah
    To the Moderator: I would now like to make a small "critique of the critiquers," here? and or in the gallery?
    Here.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

    Download the new TOL app for iPhone, iPad, and Android...


  5. #50
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

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

    "Context" Gets a Bad Rap

    Why is there a Jihad against "context"?

    I believe Lamerson's old professor was pulling the wool over his eyes when stating that one needed only to answer "context" after having been caught napping in class. Such a mocking should not be taken lightly. There is a war going on within the Church! A war of differing foundational beliefs.

    Lamerson should not run from an answer of "context" when debating truth. Lamerson, debate "context" so all can learn something new and true.

  6. #51
    Over 500 post club sentientsynth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Where the soil is black and red
    Posts
    534
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    158
    A hum-dinger of a reply by Dr. Sam!!!!!

    It may very well be that we have a debate on our hands folks. For what good is being or justice if it is not immutable. And will we get an explanation of Jesus's foreknowledge of Judas's acts from the open-view side?

    8 more rounds to go!!



    SS
    Last edited by sentientsynth; August 6th, 2005 at 02:00 AM.

  7. #52
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

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

    Response to Montana

    Quote Originally Posted by Montana
    In defense of his initially weak showing, Sam writes, “[T]here are others who are more qualified than I am. However, I am the one who has been asked to engage in the debate (I was asked, I did not seek this out, nor would I have sought it out) and so I must do the best I can with what I have.
    If Sam were to admit that he got caught flat-footed and wanted time to better prepare for the challenge at hand, I would understand. But instead he floats the thinly veiled accusation that Bob sought out an under-qualified opponent just to look good.
    Just a quick note to Montana. Bob did not choose me for this debate. I was not caught flat-footed but was simply replying to some on the site who expected someone like Bruce Ware or R.C. Sproul to be in the debate. To state that I "float the thinly veiled accusation" is both wrong and unkind. With this kind of response it is easy to see why others may have turned the debate down. Why bandy words with those who simply twist them to their own use?

    Sam
    Last edited by Turbo; August 6th, 2005 at 10:24 AM. Reason: fixes quote tag

  8. #53
    Over 3000 post club Freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    3,003
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    227
    [QUOTE=Samuel Lamerson]
    Quote Originally Posted by Montana
    In defense of his initially weak showing, Sam writes, “[T]here are others who are more qualified than I am. However, I am the one who has been asked to engage in the debate (I was asked, I did not seek this out, nor would I have sought it out) and so I must do the best I can with what I have.
    If Sam were to admit that he got caught flat-footed and wanted time to better prepare for the challenge at hand, I would understand. But instead he floats the thinly veiled accusation that Bob sought out an under-qualified opponent just to look good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel Lamerson
    Just a quick note to Montana. Bob did not choose me for this debate. I was not caught flat-footed but was simply replying to some on the site who expected someone like Bruce Ware or R.C. Sproul to be in the debate. To state that I "float the thinly veiled accusation" is both wrong and unkind. With this kind of response it is easy to see why others may have turned the debate down. Why bandy words with those who simply twist them to their own use?

    Sam
    Sam, this is a very militant crowd you are facing, as you have seen. Many will die for Bob and his beliefs. Anyone who challenges Enyart will face an onslaught of attacks. Some will border being unkind as seen in Montana's post.

    To you as you have taken the high road and have sought to defend the truth with humility.
    Jesus Loves You

  9. #54
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    38
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    I apologize for posting on this thread. I wanted to respond to Sam and do not have his personal email address:

    Sam, I am nobody special, just a guy living in Montana, raising my family. I crossed over to the open view after evaluating the best both sides have to offer. This is a very important debate for me and, I am certain, others in my situation. This is an excellent opportunity for OVers to further advance the simple, straightforward message of God’s Word. From your position, it is an excellent opportunity to serious weaken the growing interest in faulty theology.

    I want others to have that same opportunity I have had to examine the best of both positions, side by side. In this debate, you are the spokesman for the settled view. You took the challenge because you considered yourself worthy of the task. Your resources are vast and readily available.

    I do criticize you for already hatching an escape plan should you do poorly. At this point, I would like to hear you say that when you are not sure of a particular nuance, you will consult with those you consider foremost on the topic and provide the best answer the settled view has to offer. I do not think that there is anything meanspirited in expecting that kind of honesty from a fellow Christian.

    Yours in Him,

    Gary

  10. #55
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,595
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 1,386 Times in 714 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1009111
    Quote Originally Posted by Freak
    Sam, this is a very militant crowd you are facing, as you have seen. Many will die for Bob and his beliefs. Anyone who challenges Enyart will face an onslaught of attacks. Some will border being unkind as seen in Montana's post.

    To you as you have taken the high road and have sought to defend the truth with humility.
    Freak , that might be the most unfair post of the year.

    "Many will die for Bob and his beliefs."?????

    Give me a break!

    Freak this is the same kind of bizarre comments that got you banned from TOL last year. I think you need a TOL vacation. You are now banned for 30 days.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

    Download the new TOL app for iPhone, iPad, and Android...


  11. #56
    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
    196
    Dr. Lamerson’s Second Post
    Two bad points in a host of good ones:


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Lamerson
    In closing let me say that the OV brings a cure that is worse than the sickness. At what price do we give up the traditional attributes of God? At the cost of God himself not knowing for sure how and when (or if) his divine plan of salvation might be fulfilled.

    Sadly, this is a poorly thought out comment.

    Does Michael Jordan doubt he has the ability to win a basketball game against a toddler? He doesn’t need to see the future to know he can win. Further, the difference between might and power of God and Man, is greater than the difference between Jordan and a toddler.

    Without knowing the future; can you predict who will win between a Ford Escort and a Indy race car in a race around an Indy track? You mean you must know the future to be able to predict it? Come now ...

    Mohammed Ali used to predict what round he would knock out his opponents, and fulfilled his own prediction. Larry Bird was often said by his opponents to predict the very spot on the floor he would hit the game winning shot – and then did. These men didn’t “know the future”, they just felt that they couldn’t be stopped by the current level of opponent.

    Those men were not truly unstoppable but God is as unstoppable as he wants to be. Perhaps Dr. Lamerson feels that giving men “free will” is too difficult a hurdle for God to overcome, but I think he doesn’t give God enough credit. He quite literally is saying that taking away from God the ability to see the future will somehow stop God. That wouldn’t stop Michael Jordan against the toddler … why should one believe it would stop God.

    I don't really think it's a case of Dr. Lamerson not giving God any credit (though that's the way it comes across), but I think he's latched onto a bad argument without ever really thinking it through. I noticed he quotes from Bruce Ware a bit, and I've always found Ware's arguments to be very superfiscial and only hold up if one doesn't dwell to long on them. They sound good sometimes but any scrutiny reveals that they haven't had much thought put into them.

    Here's another example of a cliched attack that I don't think Dr. Lamerson actually put any thought of his own into:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Lamerson
    [God is Good] This is where the argument of OV really begins to break down. If God does not know my future, how can he or I be sure that what he gives to me will be good? Might not the spouse that he leads me to marry be the wrong one who will murder my children and myself?
    Dr. Lamerson, if you had thought about this argument I don’t think you would have given it. You provide the very evidence against your position because those things do happen. If God knows the future, He shares responsibility for the acts.

    God appointed (hand picked) Saul and that was a disaster. However, when God picked Saul. Saul was good, therefore the act was good. It is a good act to put a good man in office, whereas it is a wicked act to promote a wicked man to office. David was wholesome when God hand picked him. Both men turned out to use the power of their office to take innocent life.



    Otherwise it was a fairly good post. I think your first point in attacking Bob for not taking up more of his opening statement to address your questions was very slick. Touché!! Very good stuff.
    Last edited by ApologeticJedi; August 6th, 2005 at 03:49 PM. Reason: spelling and grammer
    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."

  12. #57
    TOL Subscriber CRASH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    1,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1180

    Thumbs up CRASH is back for The Fight

    Just back after a 4 year hiatus and the quality of thought here at TOL is as good as ever. I just spent 3 hours reading the debate and both related threads so I don't have much to say except....

    The debate is fabulous. I think Lamerson is doing reasonably well, however, I am in Enyart's corner and with that said, I seriously hope Dr Lamerson amasses any and all resources available to him to put forth the strongest argument possible for the settled view. Please if you are reading this and you are a settled view/Calvinist type - Get in the FIGHT (this is a boxing match of ideas after all!) and help your man! I also expect and hope for more direct responses to Enyart's points from the good Doctor. It seems as if Lamerson willfully misrepresents/misunderstands some of Enyart's positions that are clearly defined in a post that must be close to the 6000 word limit.

    Furthermore the drumbeat of criticism that Bob did not address all of Lamersons points is unfounded... Bob said,
    "With your indulgence, I will answer three of your four questions in the second round, and below I will answer your second question."
    The answers are right around the corner!

    Lamerson is a likable guy so Enyart should be on guard not to pull any punches.
    Last edited by CRASH; August 6th, 2005 at 07:13 PM.
    Psalms 58:10
    The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

    CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST

  13. #58
    Journeyman *Acts9_12Out*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    179
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    170
    It is becoming more clear that Dr.Lamerson is not very familiar with the Open View. Dr. Lamerson's 2nd post has more content than the 1st, but he makes numerous vital errors. Since many have already been mentioned (Greek Philosophy's influence on interpretation of God's Attributes, God's revealing that He does not repent ever - Num 23:19, 1 Sam 15:29 and His lack of change - Mal 3:6), I will focus on what I think to be a huge error...

    Dr. Lamerson wrote,
    The evidence with which I opened the debate presents Jesus as stating that his Father knows the future actions of free agents. That evidence and argument needs to be dealt with by Bob. Jesus in John 13:19 says "From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He.” The “I Am” passage is very significant in that it is a claim to deity. In other words, Jesus is basing his claim to be God on the fact that he can predict the future. Again, this argument cannot simply be swept under the rug.
    **Bold emphasis mine**
    Dr. Lamerson spoke of his Greek Professor, so I can only assume Dr. Lamerson has some working knowledge of the language. When I read the above statement, it seemed that Dr. Lamerson was arguing that every instance of egw eimi "I AM" referring to Jesus, implied Deity. I hope Bob addresses this point. I would agree that the egw eimi of John 8:58 refers to Christ's self proclaimation of being God, but as much as Dr. Lamerson disagrees, the immediate context helps us reach our conclusion. In the same chapter of John, we have another occurrence of egw eimi.
    John 8:24
    Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am egw eimi He, you will die in your sins."
    I wonder if Dr. Lamerson would argue that a person who has trusted in Jesus Christ as his/her personal Lord and Savior, believes that Christ died for his/her sins, and believes that Christ was raised from the dead, might be condemned to hell if he/she has not yet believed the reality that Jesus Christ is God? That person might not have the enigma of the Triunity of God figured out yet, but still believes that Christ died for them. Dr. Lamerson's point above would force supporting a person going to hell for not believing that Jesus Christ is God.

    In short, Dr. Lamerson should not argue that every instance of egw eimi "I AM" refers to Diety... Sometimes, Jesus is simply saying, "If you do not believe that I am He (the Messiah for the nation of Israel) you will die in you sins."

    Another time, Christ might be saying, "Before Abraham was, I AM (God)." How do we know Christ was saying He was God? The context shows Christ's claim to Diety. I know Dr. Lamerson says "context" is too broad, but making a blanket statement like, "The 'I Am' passage is very significant in that it is a claim to diety..." is not only broad, but in error. The context helps us to determine that Jesus was quoting Exodus 3:14. In Exodus 3:13, Moses asks what name he should give the children of Israel for the God who sent him. God's reply? Let's revisit the conversation...
    Exodus 3
    13 Then Moses said to God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"
    14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
    Christ's audience in John 8:58 knew He was claiming to be God. They knew the OT, and they knew He was claiming to be God...That's why they took up stones to kill Him. If every instance of egw eimi referred to Diety, why didn't they take up stones to kill Him following John 8:24?

    I can't wait for the rest of the debate!

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

  14. #59
    How did I get such great kids?? billygoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rocky Mtns.
    Posts
    56
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    172

    space limitations on posts..no whining

    I am enjoying the debate immensely so far, not to mention the depth of thought that is here in these responses. I am on vacation and thus will make this short and sweet. Dr. L complains long and loud that Bob didn't respond to his points, while also admitting that Bob promised to answer them in post 2.

    Sam, remember that there is a limit to the length of each post, and if Bob had things he wanted to say in his first post, he may not not have the space to answer all your issues at that moment.

    Fear not, I am confident that he will respond to anything you come up with, possibly to the point of your discomfort. By the end of the debate, I suspect you will have all you want of Bob's replies to your points.

    I too was disappointed in the 1 Samuel 15 stuff Sam came up with. This passage in it's context is showing us that God does repent. I am very surprised that Sam used this. It is NOT a strong verse for his position, if you read the CONTEXT of the extended biblical account. Pulling a passage out of it's context is not dealing correctly with God's Word.

    That's it from the Outer Banks, North Carolina, on the beach...back in Denver tomorrow.....sigh!!
    Phil 3:9-10
    ...and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, but that which is through faith of Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death.

  15. #60
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,635
    Thanks
    1,051
    Thanked 5,931 Times in 4,000 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2125766
    Dr.Lamerson wrote:
    Notice the writing in Psalm 139:4 “Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all.” This cannot be reduced to a simple guess on the part of God as to what we will say. The writer goes on to say in Psalm 139:16 “Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.” It seems clear that for God to know all of the days of our lives before we are even formed he must know all that will happen to us under any circumstance.Emphasis mine
    These verses cannot be misunderstood.The Lord knew these things and as Dr.Lamerson correctly observed,this cannot be reduced to a simple guess on the part of God.

    But there are those who said that He could predict the future because He would bring the things that He predicted to fruition.In other words,any prophecies that are made will come to pass because He will make them come to pass.But does that not make Him responsible for the death of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross?

    But that could not be true.Those who murdered the Lord Jesus were acting in fulfillment of a Divine prophecy,but yet their actions were absolutely their own:

    "...and by wicked hands have crucified and slain"(Acts2:23).

    According to Peter those who crucified the Lord were of "wicked hands",and guilt suposses the action of an independent will.The Lord God was not responsible for the death of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross even though He allowed it to happen.

    He had a knowledge that it would happen but at the same time He was not the cause of it.

    The arguments that Dr.Lamerson are making are very strong and I congratulate him for presenting such a credible case to defend the truth that the Lord God does indeed know our entire future.

    In HIs grace,--Jerry
    Last edited by Jerry Shugart; August 9th, 2005 at 08:53 AM.

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