BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 4 thru 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vaquero45

New member
Hall of Fame
Jerry Shugart said:
Yes,a "man" might change his mind and fail to bring about something which he said that he would do,but God is not like a man in that:

"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? or hath He spoken, and shall he not make it good?”(Num.23:19).

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

Here in Jeremiah, we have God doing exactly what Chatmaggot is saying.

Jer 18:7-10
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
KJV

You are the one who has a problem with it, not God. God doesn't change because He did evil, He typically changes because we do.

Jeff
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Some prophecies are unconditional (e.g. Messianic prophecies or future judgments in Revelation).

Other prophecies are declarative or conditional. Depending on contingencies, the fulfillment may be A or B.
 
Jerry Shugart said:
chatmaggot,

Sam asked Bob:

"Is it possible for God’s prophecy to be incorrect?"

To which Bob answered,"Yes."

If God makes a prophecy and then changes His mind after that prophecy is made then He was obviously "wrong" when He made that prophecy.

Yes,a "man" might change his mind and fail to bring about something which he said that he would do,but God is not like a man in that:

"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? or hath He spoken, and shall he not make it good?”(Num.23:19).

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

Let's test your line of reasoning... Here's one of God's prophecies...
Exodus 32
9 And the Lord said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people!
10 Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation."

Did this come to pass Jerry? No, God repented and changed His mind concerning the impending wrath He said He was going to do. Why? Because Moses prayed and "Mercy triumphs over judgment..."

Exodus 32:14 So the Lord repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

God prophecied. Moses prayed. God changed His mind.

Jerry, if you argue that God "already knew" He was going to change His mind, you make God a liar. Did God really intend to destroy Israel with fire, or was He just kidding?

--Jeremy
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Jerry,
You said
But since Bob knows that if God was intervening to make the prophecy come true then God would be tempting Peter to sin, and Bob also knows that God would do no such thing.
That is simply false. The intervention is by way of persuasion, not causing anyone to do anything against their free will.

I made a point about lying not necessarily being sin, please respond to that point.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
*Acts9_12Out* said:
Jerry,
Did this come to pass Jerry? No, God repented and changed His mind concerning the impending wrath He said He was going to do. Why? Because Moses prayed and "Mercy triumphs over judgment..."
If you take a "literal" reading of the verse then you are absolutely correct.But you failed to address the verses where I demonstrated that we cannot always take the things revealed in a "narrative" literally.

Or do you believe that we should take the following words of the Lord addressed to Adam in a literal sense?

"Where are thou?"(Gen.3:9).

Jeremy,do you believe that we should take these words literally and believe that God did not even know the location of Adam?And what about these words addressed to Adam:

"Have thou eaten of the tree...?"(Gen.3:11).

Are we to take a "literal" reading of those words and teach that the Lord did not even know whether or not Adam had eaten from the forbiddeen tree?

We must use our common sense when we attempt to decide whether or not a verse is to be taken literally or figuratively.And you did not even address my point as to why I do not believe that Exodus 32;9,10 is to be taken literally.

The Lord had already prophesised of things that will happen to the natural posterity of Jacob "in the last days"(Gen.49:1),and so if the Lord did destroy all the children of Israel then the Lord's prophecy would have failed.

But for you this must not be a problem because I would guess that you agree with Bob Enyart that when God makes a prophecy it might or might not come true.
Jerry, if you argue that God "already knew" He was going to change His mind, you make God a liar. Did God really intend to destroy Israel with fire, or was He just kidding?
Jeremy,was the Lord just kidding when He asked Adam where he was?Was He just kidding when He asked Adam if he had eaten from the forbidden tree?

And it is your mistaken views that would leave one with the idea that God is a liar.According to you the Lord would make promises and reveal those promises in the Scriptures but then at a later time He would do something that would make it impossible for Him to carry out those promises.

Sam asked Bob:

"Is it possible for God’s prophecy to be incorrect?"

To which Bob answered,"Yes."

I guess that you agree with Bob.The only way that you can defend your poisition is to say that the Lord made prophecies but those prophecies can be in error!

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

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
1Way,

Earlier I said:

” But since Bob knows that if God was intervening to make the prophecy come true then God would be tempting Peter to sin, and Bob also knows that God would do no such thing.”

To which you reply:
That is simply false. The intervention is by way of persuasion, not causing anyone to do anything against their free will.
First of all,I never said that this was to force anyone to do anything against their free will.Again,you attempt to put words in my mouth that I never said.

And Bob’s words that I quoted were in regard to how the Lord Jesus might be able to predict that Peter would deny Him three times.Again,here are Bob’s own words in regard to this subject:
So God knows the hearts of men (as all sides agree), and He has influence and power to intervene (as all sides agree), and God would especially intervene to fulfill prophecy (as all sides agree)!
Bob said that God would “produce accusers”,and the reason that He would do that is to fulfill the prophecy of Peter’s three denials.

You said:
I made a point about lying not necessarily being sin, please respond to that point.
I would think that there might be a circumstance where lying is not necessarily a sin,but this discussion is about whether or not Peter sinned when he denied the Lord Jesus.And on this you seem to agree with me,saying:
I would tend to agree with your estimation that Peter actually sinned because Jesus seemed to imply his “repentance” and so as such this seemed to be an issue of Peter lacking faith.

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

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Jerry,

You simply cannot be paying attention to what Bob has said or the points he has made on this issue. His primary point is that Peter could have done otherwise and that if he had done so, that God would have prefered that outcome over the fulfullment of His prophect. All these quotes you are using from Bob need to understood in that context. Your presentation of Bob's position is disengenuous at best.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

RightIdea

New member
Exactly. Bob has demonstrated in round after round that - with the exception of unconditional prophecies like the crucifixion, the judgment, etc. - God's purpose in prophecy is try to get people to do the right thing. And sometimes it works, and sometimes it does not! But it isn't a declaration of certain foreknowledge. It is a warning or a conditional prophecy of blessing. These things are conditional, which implicitly means that it could happen otherwise, contrary to what Lamerson believes!

And all this has whizzed right over Lamerson's head like a low-flying airplane! He's completely missed the boat. He came here expecting the same old arguments as always, and that's what he prepared for. He's reciting lines, but Bob's putting on a very different play, so Lamerson is quite lost and out of place. LOL
 

Ash1

New member
Some prophecy doesn't come to pass?

Some prophecy doesn't come to pass?

Bob,

I noticed a major part of your position is that not all of God's prophecies come to pass (because people are free to change the future), and that God would even be pleased if people went against his prophecy to humble themselves or do what is righteous. This is a very logical position, but millions of Christians hold to the view that God's prophecy, through a true prophet, will ALWAYS come to pass. A major group of verses from Scripture to support this is ironically one you often use on your show to mock people who think they can predict the end times (Deut. 18:20-22). Specifically, Deuteronomy 18:22 - "when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken..." These "false" prophets are to be put to death.

I'm surprised Sam hasn't brought these verses up in the debate! I have yet to hear you deal with them, other than an unconvincing approach on your Predestination Vs. Free Will album in which you say they should be dealt with "loosely." But verses saying people should be put to death should be taken very seriously.

- Ash1
 

RightIdea

New member
Well, we see that Moses wasn't put to death for false prophecy, nor Joshua, nor David, nor Isaiah, nor Daniel, nor Jonah... We can see that based on the historical (non-metaphorical) interpretation of this commandment is regarding whether a prophecy "failed." Just because a prophecy comes to pass doesn't mean it failed. Jonah's prophecy didn't fail! It worked! So did the prophecy to Hezekiah!

If God says He will bless men, and they turn wicked, and they are blessed, then this is evidence against the prophecy, not for it. And if God says He will destroy the wicked, and they repent, and they're immediately destroyed, this is evidence against the prophecy, not for it! In these cases, the prophecy would have failed, because the prophecy came true as stated.

But if a prophet says that God will destroy the wicked, and then they repent, and God doesn't destroy them...? This isn't a failure. And there would surely be no reason to stone that prophet to death! And we know this clearly from the many examples we have, where prophets say X will happen, and it doesn't happen, and those prophets are held up as godly men! Based on that, we can clearly see the intent of the author.

We use the same hermeneutical principle to discern the 10 commandments.

Thou shalt not kill?
Thou shalt not murder?

Which is it?

Well, very soon after that, the same author says that God commands the Israelites to kill! So, clearly the commandment is not against all killing! The blatantly obvious intent of the author is that he wrote "thou shalt not murder." So, when a Christ-hater comes to us saying, "But thou shalt not kill!" we can show how this obviously is not the author's intent, at all.

Same thing applies to prophecy. These prophets say X will happen, and then it doesn't happen. Over and over and over again. And they are held up as godly men, obviously not as false prophets! Therefore, we understand the principle involved! It is a good thing that many of these prophecies didn't come true as stated! :up:
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Clete said:
Jerry,

You simply cannot be paying attention to what Bob has said or the points he has made on this issue.
Clete,I would say that it is you who has not being paying attention.Over and over Bob says that the Lord is able to make prophecies because He has the ability to make them come to pass.That is his main argument against the idea that the Lord has a knowledge of the future.He wrote:
So as with the kinds of biblical examples offered by the Settled view, God prophesying something that He can do or bring about by influence cannot be proof of exhaustive foreknowledge, just as FDR’s committed effort toward the Allied victory does not prove him omniscient of the future.
Even when Bob is speaking about Peter's denials he repeatedly uses this argument,saying:
So God knows the hearts of men (as all sides agree), and He has influence and power to intervene (as all sides agree), and God would especially intervene to fulfill prophecy (as all sides agree)!
And...
Even if all men were utterly impotent to influence others, God is not. The typical person who hung around Caiaphas’ household would be inclined of his own accord to question Peter...
And...
If the Magi could find the Babe in a manager, then whether Peter went to Bethany on the far side of Olivet, or back into the city, God would be able to produce accusers.
So the whole thrust of Bob's argument in regard to prophecies,including Peter's three denials,is the idea that God would intervene to fulfill prophecy.

But since Bob knows that if the Lord intervened to fulfill the Lord Jesus' prediction about the three denials then He would in fact be "tempting" Peter to sin.So he changes God's motive in intervening from to "fulfilling prophecy" to "simple questions of whether Peter knew the Lord.":
Asking Peter to admit He is a follower of Christ is not evil; it is not a temptation to sin; it is an honorable test, which he failed.

Those questions were an opportunity for Peter to grow in his faith.
First of all,according to Bob,the Lord knew that Peter would deny him,and Bob gave these reasons:
But how could Jesus know that Peter would not die for the cause? Well let’s see. Is that a difficult judgment to make?… Jesus wouldn’t need omniscience, just rudimentary discernment

Jesus knew Peter was too weak to give his life, and yet impetuous...
So according to Bob God would know that Peter would deny the Lord if he was placed in circumstances where Peter thought that a truthful answer would put him in jeopardy.

So God would also know that if He produced accusers then Peter would sin by denying that he was a disciple of Jsus Christ,and therefore He would also know that He was tempting Peter to sin.

So no matter what "motives" that Bob places on God for arranging the accusations,the fact is that God would know that by arranging the accusations that He would be tempting Peter to sin.

But if Bob cannot use the idea that God was influencing events in order to be reasonably sure that the prediction about Peter's denial would come true then he cannot possibly explain how the Lord Jesus would be reasonably sure that Peter would deny Him three times.

So Bob wants it both ways.First he uses the idea that the Lord Jesus could make the prediction because He knew that God would make it come to pass.But then he turns around and says that God's actions in producing people to accuse Peter had nothing at all to do with causing the prediction to come true.
His primary point is that Peter could have done otherwise and that if he had done so, that God would have prefered that outcome over the fulfullment of His prophect.
Yes,his position is so weak that in order to cling to that position he must argue that the prophecies of God can fail.

Despite this position Bob said:
When relatively short-term prophecies come to pass, they provide credibility to the prophet. God then uses that credibility to further build His case that men should trust Him.
If Bob is right here,then we can only conclude that failed prophecies can only lead to man not trusting Him.But here is what Bob says about a possible failed prophecy in regard to the three denials of Peter:
Those questions were an opportunity for Peter to grow in his faith.
If the prediction in regard to the three denials were not fulfilled then this could only lead to the fact that Peter would lose some of His faith in what the Lord Jesus said.This sure would not lead to "an opportunity for Peter to grow in his faith".
All these quotes you are using from Bob need to understood in that context. Your presentation of Bob's position is disengenuous at best.
I would say that it is Bob's responses that is disengenuous at best!

First he makes it plain that he thinks that the Lord was arranging things in order to fulfill the prediction in regard to Peter's three denials:
So God knows the hearts of men (as all sides agree), and He has influence and power to intervene (as all sides agree), and God would especially intervene to fulfill prophecy (as all sides agree)!
But then he says that when God intervened it did not have anything at all to do with fulfilling the prediction but instead was just "an opportunity for Peter to grow in his faith".

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html
 
Last edited:

GodsfreeWill

New member
Gold Subscriber
Jerry Shugart said:
Or do you believe that we should take the following words of the Lord addressed to Adam in a literal sense?

"Where are thou?"(Gen.3:9).

Jeremy,do you believe that we should take these words literally and believe that God did not even know the location of Adam?And what about these words addressed to Adam:

"Have thou eaten of the tree...?"(Gen.3:11).


Jerry, since when does asking someone a question imply lack of knowledge of the question asked? Do you have kids? I don't, but I'm a hockey coach, and ask my "boys" didactic questions all the time. Those questions in no way imply I have no idea of what's going on. Give me a break. That's one of the most foolish ideas I've heard, to take something God says in Exodus 32 as figurative because God says, "Where are you?" in Genesis.

Jerry, your true colors shown bright when you stopped dialoguing with me and failed to respond to my last post to you here. Any reason why?
 

RightIdea

New member
Exactly. Asking a question is in no way synonymous with making a statement of fact or a declaration of intent, Jerry! A question, by definition, cannot be a lie! Only such things as statements of fact and declarations of intent can be lies. So, those questions you cited are hardly relevant.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
RightIdea said:
Exactly. Asking a question is in no way synonymous with making a statement of fact or a declaration of intent, Jerry! A question, by definition, cannot be a lie! Only such things as statements of fact and declarations of intent can be lies. So, those questions you cited are hardly relevant.
RightIdea,

The questions asked by the Lord certainly implied that He did not know the location of Adam and that He did not know whether or not Adam had eaten of the forbidden tree.

But if you want to quibble,then please consider the following:

"The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain"(2Sam.23:3,4).

Did the Lord lie when He said that the "sun riseth"?

The sun does not rise but instead the earth rotates on its axis.This is an example of a "phenomenal" language,a figure of speech.

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

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
doogieduff said:
That's one of the most foolish ideas I've heard, to take something God says in Exodus 32 as figurative because God says, "Where are you?" in Genesis.
I did not say that Exodus 32 should not be taken literally because of something in Genesis.I merely pointed out that the Scriptures employ "figurative" language when speaking of God.
Jerry, your true colors shown bright when you stopped dialoguing with me and failed to respond to my last post to you here.

Here is your question:
With that said, what does the figure "repent" represent?
The "figure" is decribed in the "Companion Bible":

"An-throp'-o-path-ei'-a; or, Condescension (Gen. 1:2; 8:21. Ps. 74:11. Jer. 2:13. Hos. 11:10). Ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings, irrational creatures, or inanimate things."

The "New Scofield Study Bible" has this to say about the word translated "repent":

"When applied to God,the word is used phenomenally,according to O.T. custom.God seems to change His mind."(Note at Zech.8:14).

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

ApologeticJedi

New member
Jerry Shugart said:
The "figure" is decribed in the "Companion Bible":
"An-throp'-o-path-ei'-a; or, Condescension (Gen. 1:2; 8:21. Ps. 74:11. Jer. 2:13. Hos. 11:10). Ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings, irrational creatures, or inanimate things."

The "New Scofield Study Bible" has this to say about the word translated "repent":

"When applied to God,the word is used phenomenally,according to O.T. custom.God seems to change His mind."(Note at Zech.8:14).


Thank goodness Jerry that you have a source that picks to spiritualize the same passages you do to make your point. That way you can quote them. Otherwise you'd have to rely on the Bible only and that would leave you without much defense.

Difficult questions are still not being answred by you. Why do you choose to believe this is anthropomorphic language, when the reading the verse in it's immediate context suggests otherwise? Likewise, why do you hold to other verses that hold that God will not repent should be removed from their immediate context to mean, not just that situation, but of all time God cannot repent?

Will you find the answer for why one must ignore context in the Companion Bible?
 

Ash1

New member
Let's hear what Bob says about it.

Let's hear what Bob says about it.

RightIdea said:
Well, we see that Moses wasn't put to death for false prophecy, nor Joshua, nor David, nor Isaiah, nor Daniel, nor Jonah... We can see that based on the historical (non-metaphorical) interpretation of this commandment is regarding whether a prophecy "failed." Just because a prophecy comes to pass doesn't mean it failed. Jonah's prophecy didn't fail! It worked! So did the prophecy to Hezekiah!

RightIdea,

Thanks for trying to deal with that passage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe by "Just because a prophecy comes to pass doesn't mean it failed." you actually meant "Just because a prophecy doesn't come to pass doesn't mean it failed." I can see what you're going for here, but the words from the Scripture I picked out don't say anything about prophecy "failing." They say if the prophecy "doesn't happen or come to pass" then it's not truly from the Lord.

This is different than the "kill/murder" passage you pick out, because the intent of the original Hebrew was obviously "murder."

I'd like to see how Bob deals with these passages.

- Ash1
 

ApologeticJedi

New member
Jerry Shugart said:
Did the Lord lie when He said that the "sun riseth"?

The sun does not rise but instead the earth rotates on its axis.This is an example of a "phenomenal" language,a figure of speech.

Of course "the sun rises" is a figure of speech. It means when the sun appears in the sky. WE all know what that figure of speech means.

Please tell us what the figure of speech "I repent" means? :)

Does it mean, "I'll never repent"? ;)
 

RightIdea

New member
Ash1 said:
RightIdea,

Thanks for trying to deal with that passage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe by "Just because a prophecy comes to pass doesn't mean it failed." you actually meant "Just because a prophecy doesn't come to pass doesn't mean it failed." I can see what you're going for here, but the words from the Scripture I picked out don't say anything about prophecy "failing." They say if the prophecy "doesn't happen or come to pass" then it's not truly from the Lord.

This is different than the "kill/murder" passage you pick out, because the intent of the original Hebrew was obviously "murder."

I'd like to see how Bob deals with these passages.

- Ash1
Ash, all of these instances necessarily involve issues of proper translation. And there have been translations that said, "Thou shalt not kill." And you and I can look at that, and see that it is translated wrong, can we not? Because the same author then soon after writes that God commanded His people to kill! Several times! Therefore, the word in that verse in question cannot mean "kill." It must mean "murder."

By the same token, I submit to you that the passage that talks about prophecies not coming true... must be interpreted in the same way. Because those same authors that give us various prophecies also then tell us that those events didn't come to pass! It is explicitly stated as such, by the same authors! And yet, the prophets in question are lifted up as heroes, as godly men, not as false prophets. Therefore, it is quite clear that the proper interpretation of that "prophet test" is whether the prophecy genuinely failed it's purpose. Not whether it simply came to pass as stated or not. We know that many did not, and yet these men are not false prophets.

It's textual criticism 101, friend! How is this not obvious? They said X would happen. It emphatically did not happen. And yet the same authors say these are godly men, genuine prophets of God. Put 2 and 2 together, and you understand the proper interpretation of how to test a prophet.

It is the same issue.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
ApologeticJedi said:
Why do you choose to believe this is anthropomorphic language, when the reading the verse in it's immediate context suggests otherwise?
ApologeticJedi,

We must judge verses not just by the "immediate context" but also by what the rest of the Scriptures reveal.For instance,we know that the Lord made prophecies concerning the descendants of Jacob that would come to pass in the "last days"(Gen.49:1).We know that the Lord would not destroy the children of Israel because if He did then there would be no way that He could fulfill those promises.Therefore,the word "repent" in the following verse is being used in a figurative sense:

"Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation...And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people"(Ex.32:10,14).

I do not believe that the prophecies of God can fail,and since they cannot I believe that the passages at Exodus 32:10-14 should be interpreted figuratively.

After all,Bob himself said that the fulfillment of prophecies strenghtens one's faith.So that being true a failure of prophecy can only weaken one's faith.Therefore,since our Lord is a faithful God we can rest assured that His prophecies will be fulfilled.
Likewise, why do you hold to other verses that hold that God will not repent should be removed from their immediate context to mean, not just that situation, but of all time God cannot repent?
As I have aleady demonstated,figurative language is used in the "narrative" of the Bible,but when the Lord is specifically speaking of His very nature then those verses should be taken literally as describing His character.Here He is describing His nature and contrasting that nature with that of a man:

"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? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"(Num.23:19).
Will you find the answer for why one must ignore context in the Companion Bible?
I never said that we should ignore the immediate context of any verse.But we must consider it by other things which the Scriptures reveal.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top