User Tag List

Page 1 of 45 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 665

Thread: BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

  1. #1
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,337 Times in 1,101 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    1099924

    Exclamation BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

    Openness Theology - Does God Know Your Entire Future? - Battle Royale X
    S. Lamerson vs. B. Enyart

    Discuss rounds 8 thru 10 of BR X here!

    Let's try our best to stay on track and discuss/debate the content that is being posted in BR X.

    for:
    Battle Talk ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3).

    Battle Talk ~ BRX (rounds 4 thru 7).
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  2. #2
    TOL Subscriber chatmaggot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,098
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    29932
    If you want, go to the webpage http://www.rctr.org/ap5.htm and listen to debate between William Lane Craig and Brian Edwards. It is found about halfway down the page. The reason I bring this up is because I think it is relevant to the current debate. The Craig/Edwards debate is supposed to be about the resurrection. You will see that after Craig gives his argument for the resurrection it is Edwards turn to discount the resurrection. He does nothing of the sort. Edwards quickly turns the debate into the topic of does God exist. (By the way Edwards is a former Christian and a former Sunday school administrator who lost his faith after the passing of his mother and subsequently going to college and "seeing the light")…

    At about the 36-37 minute mark Edwards is giving his final argument and brings up the following argument (not a direct quote) on why God cannot exist…

    "One has to assume that God is omniscient, all powerful, etc…"

    Basically the OMNI's and IM's that Bob has been talking about and has shown that they are not biblical but pagan in their origin.

    He goes on to say…

    "If God is omniscient then He is incapable of thought…because if you know everything…you cannot think…because there is nothing to think about. Because to think about things there would have to be questions and God cannot have any questions. So God creates man and He must know that this is going to go horribly wrong and that He will then have to come as a man to be crucified etc.."

    He then says…

    "I just have to say that this is all just so…unbelievable…and unacceptable…that one simply has to reject it [that God exists]."

    Thank you Bob Enyart for showing me that omniscience isn't biblical and that this Edwards has merely been indoctrinated through Aristotelian thought. I can only imagine that he, like so many, was taught the OMNI's and IM's growing up and when he went to college and began to think through the arguments he unfortunately decided to reject the Bible rather than reject the OMNI's and IM's not knowing as you have shown to me that they are unbiblical.

    "If God is all knowing then He is incapable of thought." Wow! I wonder if Sam also believes this?

    I know something else that is incapable of thought…a potato! My God is much more powerful than a potato. How about yours?
    fidelis usque ad mortem

  3. #3
    Gold level Subscriber Bob Enyart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 132 Times in 123 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    74377
    Quote Originally Posted by chatmaggot
    "One has to assume that God is omniscient, all powerful, etc…"
    Basically the OMNI's and IM's that Bob has been talking about and has shown that they are not biblical but pagan in their origin.
    Edwards goes on to say, "If God is omniscient then He is incapable of thought…"
    He then says…
    "I just have to say that this is all just so…unbelievable…and unacceptable…that one simply has to reject it [that God exists]."
    Thank you Bob Enyart for showing me that omniscience isn't biblical and that this Edwards has merely been indoctrinated through Aristotelian thought... he unfortunately decided to reject the Bible rather than reject the OMNI's and IM's...
    "If God is all knowing then He is incapable of thought." Wow! I wonder if Sam also believes this?
    I think the average Settler would quickly say that God cannot think, IF HE FEARED that admitting the opposite would threaten his defense of immutability.

    By the way, this weekend a Christian in Chicago tried sharing the Gospel with a Buddhist woman, and he informed me that he soon was unsure how to proceed. But the Buddhist said that she believed events occurred by fate (which is not rigorously Buddhist, but very popular among them; previous lives left them with only one course of action in this life; etc.). Then, the Christian figured out exactly how to proceed. He recalled this debate and used the five biblical attributes of God: Living, Personal, Relational, Good, and Loving, and that immediately showed the difference between impersonal Buddhism and the living God of relationship! Please pray for this unnamed Buddhist woman, that this biblical presentation of Christianity may reach her in ways that philosophic Christianity have not.

    And chat, thanks for your encouragement... (but have you ever thought of coming up with a less repulsive username? ).

    -Bob
    The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

  4. #4
    Gold level Subscriber Bob Enyart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 132 Times in 123 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    74377

    One Crow Too Many

    Lee_Merrill wrote: "about how the rooster crowed twice, not once..."

    Lee, I've read your argument, but rather than address it (I'm busy with Sam right now), I'd prefer to ask you about the text you're referring to. In fact, if any of Settlers in the Grandstands (including all Calvinists of course) can answer this, that would be great.

    Open Viewers, let's let THEM work at this... and no HINTS! (RIdea & D2I, this means you both also!).

    You referenced Mark 14:72 "Before the rooster crows TWICE, you will deny Me three times." Skeptics have often used this to attack the veracity of the Gospels, pointing out that elsewhere, we read, "I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me" Luke 22:34, as also in Mat. 26:34 & John 18:27.

    Can you please answer the Skeptics for us, reasonably showing that the Scripture is not contradicting itself?

    Thanks, -Bob
    The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

  5. #5
    Over 750 post club lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    903
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    229
    Hi everyone,

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Enyart
    Lee_Merrill wrote: "about how the rooster crowed twice, not once..."

    Lee, I've read your argument, but rather than address it (I'm busy with Sam right now), I'd prefer to ask you about the text you're referring to.
    As indicated, I meant Mark 14, verses 30 and 72, thus this cannot be simply character solidification and God arranging circumstances. Jesus also confirmed Peter's saying "you know all things," with just this incident of Peter's denial in view, with another prediction of Peter's actions in the future. And Peter didn't reply "I do hope it turns out that way." He took it as a sure prophecy, as people did in their (mistaken) interpretation of what Jesus said further, about John. And John didn't say "No, Jesus is estimating" either! He said "Let's read more carefully Jesus' statement," as if exactly what he said, was sure and certain. As it was...

    Skeptics have often used this to attack the veracity of the Gospels, pointing out that elsewhere...
    Well, this is like the one or two donkeys (Mk. 11:7, Mt. 21:2), or the one or two demoniacs (Mt. 8:28, Mk. 5:2). It seems the people in those days didn't insist on photographic realism from their reporters!

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions from which we receive no word to bring away." (George MacDonald)

  6. #6
    Journeyman Berean Todd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Houston, Tx
    Posts
    187
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    I must say that I am highly disapointed in this debate. We're in the last wrap up stages here, and still Enyart continues to talk past, dodge, and avoid issues. I know that this site is rabidly pro-Enyart and the results will surprise the heck out of me if they don't reflect that, but this debate has not even been close, Dr Lamerson has dominated and is the only one being up front in his dealings in the debate.

  7. #7
    Journeyman GodsfreeWill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    179
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

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

    Rep Power
    17324
    Quote Originally Posted by Berean Todd
    I must say that I am highly disapointed in this debate. We're in the last wrap up stages here, and still Enyart continues to talk past, dodge, and avoid issues. I know that this site is rabidly pro-Enyart and the results will surprise the heck out of me if they don't reflect that, but this debate has not even been close, Dr Lamerson has dominated and is the only one being up front in his dealings in the debate.
    Todd, the debate is whether or not God knows the ENTIRE future. Sam has yet to show that God knows the ENTIRE future, so how can he be dominating?

    BTW, my siggy line still awaits you...
    "Ignorance sustained by denial is crippling this nation's response to abortion. When something is so horrifying that we can't stand to look at it, perhaps we shouldn't be tolerating it." -Gregg Cunningham (Center for Bio-Ethical Reform)

  8. #8
    Over 3000 post club Freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    3,003
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    250
    The problem is that Rev. Enyart wants to play both sides of the game. He tells us in one post about his “Greek from twenty years ago.” Then a few posts later he tells us that he has had one of the best Greek educations in Colorado.
    I know, strange.

    All I asked, and continue to ask is that Rev. Enyart reply to my specific arguments. I have made every attempt to number them and to make them clear.
    My point was, and is, that while Rev. Enyart certainly has many gifts from the Lord, his gifts are different from mine. One of my gifts is in linguistics. Rev. Enyart is simply wrong in this area. Jesus very clearly meant to claim that his deity rested upon his ability to predict the future. The grammar proves this.
    Yes! Jesus Christ, DID claim Deity thereby His ability to know (predict) the future.
    Jesus Loves You

  9. #9
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,752
    Thanks
    684
    Thanked 7,072 Times in 3,765 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147777
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel Lamerson
    Note that Rev. Enyart never responds to the specific charge that Peter is the one speaking here and that he very clearly claims that the death of Jesus was known and planned by God. Yet despite the fact that this death was known and planned by God, the men who committed this crime are still responsible. Thus the following statement is true: God knew both who would kill Jesus and how they would kill him, thus those men had no other choice. Yet because they did what they wanted to do (not because they had the ability to do otherwise) they are held guilty for their crime.
    The conclusion here doesn't follow the premise. God does not have to know the who in order to know the what. In other words, Lamerson's so called true statement assumes facts that are not in evidence and so begs the question.

    Further, in spite of Dr. Lamerson's direct claim to the contrary Bob did respond to this point saying...
    Could God have provided for our salvation if Judas had repented? Of course! Of a thousand possibilities, Jesus could have sent Judas back to Caiaphas, to tell him that Jesus was in Gethsemane (the Lord wasn’t hiding after all) and still to refuse the payment. Even with this, some of the non-prophesies would have been fulfilled. For example they still could have used the thirty pieces of silver to buy the potter’s field, “fulfilling prophecies” of Jeremiah and Zechariah. But regardless, even if Judas played no traitor role whatsoever, not a single atheist critic of Scripture would quote any Old Testament verse as an unfulfilled “betrayal” prophecy, because they wouldn’t be able to find one.

    There was no lack of wicked people standing in line to crucify Jesus. With or without Judas, the high priest Caiaphas could have arrested Jesus. With or without Caiaphas, Pilate could have sentenced Christ (with any mob shouting, “We have no king but Caesar”). But what if every Jew repented, and every Gentile? If the whole world humbled itself, including Judas, Caiaphas, Herod, Pilate, and even Tiberius Caesar, absolutely everybody, then would God be unable to sacrifice His Son? No. Then He could instruct the high priest, who would be obedient, to prepare to sacrifice the Offering. “Caiaphas, stand outside the Temple, and lift up your eyes, and go, and at the top of the hill, as it was prophesied, ‘In the Mount of the Lord it shall be provided,’ there on Mt. Moriah, as Abraham had readied Isaac, prepare to sacrifice My Son, Jesus. He will present Himself there. And at the moment that every family is killing their Passover lambs, you will slay the Atonement, My Holy Passover, and sprinkle His blood on the people.”

    God could have planned the cross in this way. But by His understanding, He knew that men’s hearts were dark, and that there would be no end of wicked leaders, whoever they would be, to set themselves against His Son. If anything, Jesus had to make sure no one killed Him earlier than His time (Luke 4:29). But then by increasing His visibility, and by finally raising Lazarus that last week, that would provoke those who hated God to delay no longer, and to kill Him at their first opportunity (John 11:53).

    Sam, I’m almost sure you’ll agree with this: God did not need Judas or anyone to provide the way of salvation.

    God would not be crushed, nor would His purpose crumble, if a man failed Him. Most do. By the story of the Bible, God’s chosen servants, people ostensibly on His side, repeatedly failed the tasks He gave them. And if God survived the failures of His servants, He could survive the failures of His enemies, including Judas. God choose Nebuchadnezzar to take Tyre, and he failed. And God eventually cut off His chosen kings Solomon and Saul, and His chosen priests Nadab, Abihu, Hophni, and Phinehas, and most of the chosen people for that matter. If your reasoning is based upon the teachings of Calvin, and so on Augustine, and so on Plato, then you’ll conclude that a failure on Judas’ part would thwart the plan of salvation and disprove Christianity. Whereas if you consciously eliminate Greek philosophy and use (BEA-SLQ2) “the nature of God… and secondarily… the overall plot of the story in His Word,” you will conclude that the God of the Bible could survive if Judas failed to conclude his betrayal.

    and only a few sentences later...


    The key Greek words are εδει (δει, had to) πληρωθηναι (be fulfilled). It’s been twenty years since I took a couple years of Greek, and I’ve lost much of the little skill I had, but I still enjoy struggling with translation. It is widely acknowledged that frequently, when the Hebrews meant illustrated, they said fulfilled. But more significant here is δει. That word can mean “had to,” as in “must” or even “compulsory divine destiny.” However leading authority Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich (BAG) list 24 δει verses under the meaning “of what is fitting.” They list Acts 1:16 as meaning that what happened to Judas was “fitting,” that is, it behooved or was appropriate; they did not classify this under their category of “divine destiny.”

    Centuries before Judas, God planned for a traitor’s role leading to the cross. Scripture recorded David’s son’s betrayal and similar accounts, not as prophecies, but as historical records. Then Jesus intentionally chose eleven men who hungered for righteousness, and one who was a thief and a liar who hated God. The devil knew the Scriptures, and yet entered Judas (Luke 22:3) to try to thwart God. Thankfully, Lucifer did not know God’s actual plan. For God wisely omitted predictive prophecies about a betrayal role (a Judas) from the Old Testament, and only published relatively hidden, non-prophesies of a general typological nature. And Satan’s blind hatred made him more vulnerable to God’s manipulation.

    Notice that there is no other way to interpret Peter’s words “this Scripture had to be fulfilled” other than by the attributes of God! So, this cannot be a Calvinist proof-text, but both sides interpret it based on their primary view of God’s nature, as unchanging and controlling, or as good and loving. Beware to the Calvinist who still insists that the definition of words require this verse to mean divine destiny. Luke commonly used δει to mean ought or should or appropriate. He used δει quoting Jesus saying the Pharisees should love and do justly (Luke 11:42, which they did not do), and see Acts 5:29; 19:36; 24:19; 27:21; Luke 13:16; and 15:32 where it was fitting to celebrate the prodigal’s return.

    It would seem that Dr. Lamerson has stopped paying any attention to the debate at all and is simply making a response because he feels obligated to do so because he gave his word or something. I, for one, wish that he would deal with what Bob has said seriously or just bow out. There's no sense in doing things half way and doing so dishonors the Dr. and insults both Bob Enyart and those of us who take this issue seriously. I couldn't be more disapointed.

    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

  10. #10
    Gold level Subscriber Bob Enyart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 132 Times in 123 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    74377
    Quote Originally Posted by Freak
    Quoting: "Enyart... tells us in one post about his 'Greek from twenty years ago.' Then a few posts later he tells us that he has had one of the best Greek educations in Colorado."

    Freak then adds: I know, strange.
    Freak, you know? Where did I ever say that? Since it's wrong, if you can quote me on that, you'd have me . (But what's funny is, the two halfs of that quote don't even contradict each other .)

    Don't mind me though, I'm sleep deprived! (By the way, you can always tell how many nights I've gone with too little sleep by how many smilies I put in a post !

    -Bob
    The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

  11. #11
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,337 Times in 1,101 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    1099924
    Quote Originally Posted by Freak
    I know, strange.
    Freak what you just agreed with was never said.

    [Freak] Were you aware of that? [/freak]
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  12. #12
    Old Timer RightIdea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    369
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    206
    When your opponent repeatedly makes up stuff about you, you know they're desperate, and that they know they're on the ropes.
    1 Corinthians 13:2
    And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.

  13. #13
    TOL Subscriber chatmaggot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,098
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    29932
    Jerry,

    You said in the critique thread:

    "Bob makes a mistake here in assuming that the words “this generation” means the generation of Jews then living."

    Have you ever read The Plot? This debate isn't the place to go into detail about this issue. I think Bob does an excellent job showing in The Plot that Jesus actually meant what He said. Just like God actually meant what He said when He said He "repented". Imagine that...actually believing what God says...and not considering it a "mistake" to take God at His word.

    I think reading The Plot would answer some of your questions if you have not read it.
    fidelis usque ad mortem

  14. #14
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1037
    Jerry's brand of dispensation isn't so easy after all, since it doesn't allow him to believe what the Bible says in so many places, and he still has to explain away countless "problem texts."

  15. #15
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    13,955
    Thanks
    1,285
    Thanked 8,753 Times in 5,746 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2146768
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo
    Jerry's brand of dispensation isn't so easy after all, since it doesn't allow him to believe what the Bible says in so many places, and he still has to explain away countless "problem texts."
    Just because I happen to be able to distinguish between "figurative" language and language that is to be taken "literally" I am accused of not believing the Bible.

    That is how I am attacked over and over.But when it comes to their ideas they do not hesitate to say that the Lord made prophecies but yet He is unfaithful when it comes to fulfilling those prophecies.

    They have no answers so they revert to name calling and saying that anyone who does not agree with them does not believe what the Bible says.

    As you can see,not one of them has even attempted to prove what I said is not true.They just rely on their standard fare of accusing me of not believing the Bible.

    In His grace,--Jerry
    ”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
    http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shuga...made_easy.html

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