BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 4 thru 7)
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Bob's recent post is coherent and meaty. Sam's seemed weak with quips rather than content.
Could we clarify the kenosis/humiliation/incarnation of Christ (Phil. 2)? I thought Christ voluntarily laid aside the independent exercise of His omni. attributes, not actually divested himself of what makes Him the God-Man. He depended on the Father by the power of the Spirit. He did not cease to be God. His humanity limited His omniscience/omnipotence. Since Scripture is not explicit on the relationship of His humanity/Deity, we must just affirm that He is one person with 2 natures (see church councils) and speculate on the rest without dogmatism.
God's absolutes of wonder include omnipotence, omniscience, eternality (uncreated triune Creator), and omnipresence. We are not like God in these ways.
We are like God in that we are personal, loving, etc. (personal and character attributes).
Bob's attributes are preeminent (incarnation argument), but it is also true (as pointed out) that angels and man share the relational ones (imago Dei).
Instead of pitting one set against another (probably not what is happening), we should clarify and define His legimate attributes. God is omniscient, but this does not mean He knows future free will contingencies exhaustively. He knows all that is knowable, not that which is a logical contradiction (cf. omnipotence).
I commend Bob for his content, and Sam for his mature character/heart. Bob could display grace (vs debate is won), and Sam could respond with meatier answers (must have been pressed for time last round).
Could we clarify the kenosis/humiliation/incarnation of Christ (Phil. 2)? I thought Christ voluntarily laid aside the independent exercise of His omni. attributes, not actually divested himself of what makes Him the God-Man. He depended on the Father by the power of the Spirit. He did not cease to be God. His humanity limited His omniscience/omnipotence. Since Scripture is not explicit on the relationship of His humanity/Deity, we must just affirm that He is one person with 2 natures (see church councils) and speculate on the rest without dogmatism.
God's absolutes of wonder include omnipotence, omniscience, eternality (uncreated triune Creator), and omnipresence. We are not like God in these ways.
We are like God in that we are personal, loving, etc. (personal and character attributes).
Bob's attributes are preeminent (incarnation argument), but it is also true (as pointed out) that angels and man share the relational ones (imago Dei).
Instead of pitting one set against another (probably not what is happening), we should clarify and define His legimate attributes. God is omniscient, but this does not mean He knows future free will contingencies exhaustively. He knows all that is knowable, not that which is a logical contradiction (cf. omnipotence).
I commend Bob for his content, and Sam for his mature character/heart. Bob could display grace (vs debate is won), and Sam could respond with meatier answers (must have been pressed for time last round).
Last edited:
elected4ever
New member
godrulz
We are not supposed to debate on this thread. This is my last breaking of rules. PM or go to the other thread.
Omniscience means that God knows all that is knowable. It is not reducing God nor his omniscience to say that some aspects of the future are inherently unknowable. If free choices were known, they would not be free. The issue is the nature of the future and God's creation (open vs closed), not whether God is omniscient or not. It is circular reasoning to assume that omniscience means knowing past/present/future without qualification. The future is not identical to the past/present (which God does know exhaustively).
Omniscience means that God knows all that is knowable. It is not reducing God nor his omniscience to say that some aspects of the future are inherently unknowable. If free choices were known, they would not be free. The issue is the nature of the future and God's creation (open vs closed), not whether God is omniscient or not. It is circular reasoning to assume that omniscience means knowing past/present/future without qualification. The future is not identical to the past/present (which God does know exhaustively).
elected4ever
New member
What is knowable to God is not what is knowable to man and for man to assume that God cannot know the future simple because the future is not knowable to man is the assigning to God the limitations of man. The limitation exist in your own mind therefore you limit God. This may not be your intent but it is fact none the less and you have chosen to believe a lie.godrulz said:
The future of God's creation is a closed issue to God though man and Satan oppose it for nether can change it's intent or purpose nor stop it's successful conclusion. All is in the hand of God and He has put none of it up for debate or vote.
e4e,
Don't you find it at all a problem that you tell us that we have "chosen to believe a lie" and then in the very next sentence say that the future is a closed issue and that it isn't up for debate. How can you live with the contradiction?
I seriously don't get it.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Don't you find it at all a problem that you tell us that we have "chosen to believe a lie" and then in the very next sentence say that the future is a closed issue and that it isn't up for debate. How can you live with the contradiction?
I seriously don't get it.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Jeff,Vaquero45 said:
If you agree with Einstein’s statement that if matter doesn’t exist then “time” doesn’t exist,then before the Lord Jesus “created all things” there was no matter and therefore no “time”.Thus the “sternal” state is a state without time.
Peter is replying to the taunt of the unsaved when they ask where is the promise of His coming.And Peter’s answer is that God is “longsuferring”,and to answer the taunt he points out that the Lord is not constrained by “time” as is man:
”But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”(2Pet.3:8).
This is not just saying,as you seem to think,that “that God will wait a day if necessary or a thousand(s) years because He is not willing that any should perish." If that is what Peter meant to say then that is what he would have said.But he did not.What he said can only be interpreted as stating that the Lord is not constrained by the limitiations of time as is man.
We can see from the following words that once again the writers of the Scriptures illustrate the truth that the things of God can be described as being outside of “time”:
”… "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."(Rev.13:8).
Yes,the Lord was indeed making Himself equal with God.Here the Lord Jesus is not speaking of His incarnation in His flesh and blood body but instead speaking existing before Abraham as God.However,you overlook the fact that He used language that was not appropriate if the Lord Jesus was saying that God existed in “time”--”Before Abraham was,I am”.
If the Lord Jesus was just expressing the thought that He is God then there is no explanation why He would have said that before Abraham “I am”.
What we are discussing is whether the “eternal” state is in “time”.Of course the Lord is seen inter-reacting “in time” but that does not mean that the “eternal” state is in time.
No one has yet had an answer to the questions I raised in regard to Bob Enyart’s replies to the Lord’s words predicting that Peter would deny the Lord three times.If Bob is right then surely there would be someone who could answer these questions,but no one has even attempted to answer them.
That leaves us with these questions unanswered.If the Lord Jesus knew that Peter was too weak to risk his life then why did Peter do just that when he cut off the ear of one of those who came to arrest the Lord Jesus?If the Lord knew that Peter was to weak to risk his life then why would he go to the one place where he could be exposed as being a disciple of the Lord?And why would the Lord Jesus think that Peter would go to the one place where he could be exposed?And finally,how would the Lord know that Peter would be asked if he was a disciple exactly three times?
Jeff,at least I attempted to answer your questions,which is more than you have done in regard to the questions I asked.
In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html
elected4ever
New member
Yes, I know you seriously don't get it. You OVers as well as the Calvinist think that predestination is causal.That all has been decided by God and man has no choice. At least you do reject the idea that man has no choice. For that i give you credit but your belief that predestination is causal has led you into the error of reducing God to the limited understanding of man. Predestination is not causal but affirming. It affirms your right to choose and it also affirms your choice. It does not prevent anything except the defeat of God's planClete said:
elected4ever said:
Okay whatever.
So why do you suppose the term -DESTINATION was used then? Does it not mean determined (destined) in advance? If my choices were determined before I existed how is it that I have still have a choice now? Is it possible for me to do otherwise than what I do? If so, how can it be said to have been determined before I made the choice?
You cannot have it both ways e4e. Run and hide under the banner of antinomy if you like but it won't change the fact that your theology is self-contradictory and therefore at least half wrong.
Resting in Him,
Clete
elected4ever
New member
There are two truths involve here. One is not less true than the other.Clete said:
Truth # 1 is that God did give man the faculty of self determination and that man would be responsible for the choices he made.
The Calvinist in reckless disregard for this truth has made God an unjust God by saying that God has predetermined the choice by making the choice for man and then insisting that man be held accountable for a decision that God made. Off what good is choice if the choice is not made freely and voluntary and how can man be held accountable for a choice that was not his to make? That is exactly what predestination does if predestination is causal. This is a valid objection to the closed view of Calvinism.
Truth # 2 is that God did predetermine His plan before the foundation of the world. The OVer's mistake is to reject predestination on the basis of the Calvinist view of predestination being causal. Need I remind you that I also reject this view of predestination. Where the OVer is mistaken is that he concedes to the Calvinist that predestination is a causal issue.The OVer then proposes an equally damaging view that God, like man, cannot know the future. This has the effect of making God the invention of man and subject to the limitation of man. This makes God no more than any deity that has been conceived by man over the centuries. God becomes who ever and what ever man determines him to be. I am sure that this is not the intent but is the net effect of such a belief. This is also a valid objection to the theology of the OVer.
Seeing that free choice and predestination are both Biblical, and seeing the valid objection to each argument, there is a third alternative that supports both predestination and choice. That view is that predestination is not causal but affirming. That is the only truth that will stand the test of applied Biblical truth.
Although predestination is not causal it is a closed view, it verifies predestination (the predetermining of God to execute His plan laid from the foundation of the world), ordination (the choosing by God independently of outside council) and foreknowledge ( God's knowledge of all things concerning His creation past, present and future) it does not violate man's free right to choose.
God did not in any manner make man's choices for him. God only accepted the choices man, or any human being, made, is making or will ever make and predetermined His responses in any and all occasions to insure the success of His plan. The idea of robing man of the ability to change his mind is a red herring in that God never prevents man from changing his mind. All is accepted before the earth was. It is not that God does not know. It is however that we do not know. We cannot restrict God to the limitations of finite man.
Last edited:
In the critique thread Z Man wrote...
Don't worry Z Man it's all for God's glory. :chuckle:
P.S. Z Man I will leave your post in the critque thread, although I will tell you it's really borderline for being any type of real critque. Please try a bit harder in the critique thread OK? Short comments like that are more suited for this thread (Battle Talk).
Ya know... it must drive Z Man nuts trying to figure out why God ordained OV'ers to frustrate Z Man so.Z Man said:
Don't worry Z Man it's all for God's glory. :chuckle:
P.S. Z Man I will leave your post in the critque thread, although I will tell you it's really borderline for being any type of real critque. Please try a bit harder in the critique thread OK? Short comments like that are more suited for this thread (Battle Talk).
RightIdea
New member
Z-Man, I don't know what you're smoking, but I'd love to have some. Bob is the one not responding???
Maybe you have the two confused. Bob is the one defending the open view. Sam is the one defending the settled view, and who is blatantly just ignoring half of Bob's questions as if they don't even exist at all. Read the end of Bob's post in round 4! HALF of those questions Sam didn't even acknowledge as existing in this round! Half!
Now, Bob has responded to EVERY argument that Sam has put forward. If you disagree with his response, well duh, you hold opposite views, that's to be expected! But don't tell us that Bob isn't even responding to Sam's arguments and questions. Bob has responded to every question specifically. Sam, on the other hand, is ignoring whole groups of questions from Bob. What he's thinking is beyond me. (You didn't give Sam a little of what you're smoking, did you?)
At least have the honor and honesty to hold someone accountable on your own side of the issue. I do it all the time. If someone on my side is a jerk or says something false, I'll call him out on it, and disagree openly. I am nobody's yes-man. If you can't do the same, you have no integrity, at all. It is not even debatable that Sam is ignoring half of Bob's questions from last round. It is an explicit fact.
Maybe you have the two confused. Bob is the one defending the open view. Sam is the one defending the settled view, and who is blatantly just ignoring half of Bob's questions as if they don't even exist at all. Read the end of Bob's post in round 4! HALF of those questions Sam didn't even acknowledge as existing in this round! Half!
Now, Bob has responded to EVERY argument that Sam has put forward. If you disagree with his response, well duh, you hold opposite views, that's to be expected! But don't tell us that Bob isn't even responding to Sam's arguments and questions. Bob has responded to every question specifically. Sam, on the other hand, is ignoring whole groups of questions from Bob. What he's thinking is beyond me. (You didn't give Sam a little of what you're smoking, did you?)
At least have the honor and honesty to hold someone accountable on your own side of the issue. I do it all the time. If someone on my side is a jerk or says something false, I'll call him out on it, and disagree openly. I am nobody's yes-man. If you can't do the same, you have no integrity, at all. It is not even debatable that Sam is ignoring half of Bob's questions from last round. It is an explicit fact.
Jerry Shugart said:
Einsteins quote was that "outside of matter and motion" time does not exit. If God moves, then moves again, we have two events that we can measure time between. I would add that if God has a thought, then another thought we also have two events.
On the 2peter 3:8 issue I think you basically repeated yourself, and I stand by my original answer. Same goes for the "I am" issue.
”… "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."(Rev.13:8).
Just after the fall of man, God had a plan to reconcile man to Himself. It is also easy to figure that God, having made free will beings knew they could fall, and had probably already figured how He would reconcile them. This is hinted at with the verse in Genesis 3.
Gen 3:15
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel."
NKJV
It doesn't mean Jesus was literally slain at the instant of creation. We don't say God became flesh and dwelt amongst us "from the foundation of the world".
Unless the "eternal" is unmoving and unchanging in any way, there have to be events to measure time between.
The only thing I see here that I do not remember being answered is: "why would he go to the one place where he could be exposed as being a disciple of the Lord? And why would the Lord Jesus think that Peter would go to the one place where he could be exposed?" I think Bob did cover your other points.
Ask Peter, you are the one who has a problem as to why he went there, and I don't see that it is important that Jesus knew in advance where Peter would go. Should I make up another scenario of how it could have went?
I guess I was unimpressed by the dilemma you think you create with "why Peter went where he did."
Jeff
(my edit was spelling)
Last edited:
geoff
New member
heh..
I cant believe this debate is still going on..
Lets pick 2 extremes and let them decide for everyone!
Fact is, neither party has all the answers. OV even less than most. Thats not to say OV hasnt had a valuable contribution to make... oh hang on.. no it hasnt. Sorry.
Both parties take parts of Scripture which suit them, and use them to argue that the bits that dont suit them are some how invalidated, or in need of reinterpretation. And generally is for personal reasons rather than good theological/biblical/technical reasons.
Recently I was talking to Don Carson (name dropping I know.. but
) and we were talking about how much ones personal junk influences ones understanding of Scripture. Its become SO hard to find someone who can truly stand back from the text and let it speak. VERY VERY hard.
And definately not in this debate.
It is, therefore pointless. And I cant understand why I wasted my time reading it. Perhaps some perverse s&m thing going on in my mind.. I dunno.
You people really need to get a life and/or take a break.
I cant believe this debate is still going on..
Lets pick 2 extremes and let them decide for everyone!
Fact is, neither party has all the answers. OV even less than most. Thats not to say OV hasnt had a valuable contribution to make... oh hang on.. no it hasnt. Sorry.
Both parties take parts of Scripture which suit them, and use them to argue that the bits that dont suit them are some how invalidated, or in need of reinterpretation. And generally is for personal reasons rather than good theological/biblical/technical reasons.
Recently I was talking to Don Carson (name dropping I know.. but
) and we were talking about how much ones personal junk influences ones understanding of Scripture. Its become SO hard to find someone who can truly stand back from the text and let it speak. VERY VERY hard.And definately not in this debate.
It is, therefore pointless. And I cant understand why I wasted my time reading it. Perhaps some perverse s&m thing going on in my mind.. I dunno.
You people really need to get a life and/or take a break.
Ecumenicist
New member
geoff said:
Oh, come on! OV allows us to manipulate God, and scripture, to get any answers
we want! You say there's no value in that? Where's your sense of personal election?
(BTW, election is not just a Calvinist word, the only difference is that Calvinists say that
election comes from God, OV'ers think they gain election through their own personal
piety, er, I mean, "justified by their faith.")
geoff
New member
Oh right.. sure thats valuable.. we can add OV to the ranks of those who did the same, Marcion, Pelagius etc :thumb:
Its a funny thing about faith. Its like a mustard seed. I know I know.. mustard seeds can grow up to be big and strong
But what is a mustard seed? Its tiny tiny tiiiiny little thing, so tiny its virtually insignificant.
Here endeth the lesson for today. Hallelujah brethren and sistren!
Its not the faith you have, but what you have your faith in.
Its a funny thing about faith. Its like a mustard seed. I know I know.. mustard seeds can grow up to be big and strong
But what is a mustard seed? Its tiny tiny tiiiiny little thing, so tiny its virtually insignificant.
Here endeth the lesson for today. Hallelujah brethren and sistren!
Its not the faith you have, but what you have your faith in.
Why thank you geoff.geoff said:
How is life down under?
No need to respond.
- Status