Bob Enyart vs.Gary DeMar Debate

[Lon]

They had their ups and downs... but when they got too down God took actions to bring them back up. When God told Abram about his children, did he say they would be cut off and cut off some more and then they would be the chosen?

God said they would be his people. He expected it. Perhaps someone who could go to the original language could settle this between us, but that person Is not me . Whenever I run into the doubt of a particular word's meaning, I look to other subject related content to bridge the gap for me. Abram is an example of that... so anyway, there's my input... what scriptural reasons do you use to the word expect as you do?

Which original word? Expectation?

Knight and I discussed a bit more on this: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35394&page=2&pp=15

Starting from His ending verse on #28.

From Strong's Concordance #6960

קוה
qâvâh
kaw-vaw'
A primitive root; to bind together (perhaps by twisting), that is, collect; (figuratively) to expect: - gather (together), look, patiently, tarry, wait (for, on, upon).

The primitive root, just means that it is where the word comes from to give further background. The word carries all of the types of meaning and context and word choice for translation determines which is conveyed. For our discussion, the word meaning doesn't give us enough clarity to discern one way or the other, but rather our respective theologies color our understandings. SV believes that God is never caught by surprise because of foreknowledge. Our respective theology stances color the tenure of this text.
Just because I don't buy into the OV interpretation here does not mean I'm trying to convince you otherwise, it just means that it doesn't work for me as I understand scripture.

 

[patman]

Which original word? Expectation?

Knight and I discussed a bit more on this: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35394&page=2&pp=15

Starting from His ending verse on #28.

From Strong's Concordance #6960

???
qâvâh
kaw-vaw'
A primitive root; to bind together (perhaps by twisting), that is, collect; (figuratively) to expect: - gather (together), look, patiently, tarry, wait (for, on, upon).

The primitive root, just means that it is where the word comes from to give further background. The word carries all of the types of meaning and context and word choice for translation determines which is conveyed. For our discussion, the word meaning doesn't give us enough clarity to discern one way or the other, but rather our respective theologies color our understandings. SV believes that God is never caught by surprise because of foreknowledge. Our respective theology stances color the tenure of this text.
Just because I don't buy into the OV interpretation here does not mean I'm trying to convince you otherwise, it just means that it doesn't work for me as I understand scripture.

The Hebrew language is so figurative. I can see seeking collecting good wine grapes as "expecting."

There is no doubt preconceived notions color our understandings... The english language just has too many double meaning words, expect is just another one.

But we are talking about God, in all his wisdom and knowledge. Expecting, in either case, is something that goes way beyond what we do. If you had a rowdy kid who constant over and over again defied you, "expect" probably isn't a word you'd use, even if your expectations were for good behavior.

An owner of a vineyard expecting to get good grapes is not really the type of expectations you hold to in this context considering things. The owner's preparations of the vineyard should have produced very good grapes... that is the reason he expected it.. notice that? God didn't say he looked into the future to see if his work was worth while, he instead found out about it later.

 

[Lon]

The Hebrew language is so figurative. I can see seeking collecting good wine grapes as "expecting."

There is no doubt preconceived notions color our understandings... The english language just has too many double meaning words, expect is just another one.

But we are talking about God, in all his wisdom and knowledge. Expecting, in either case, is something that goes way beyond what we do. If you had a rowdy kid who constant over and over again defied you, "expect" probably isn't a word you'd use, even if your expectations were for good behavior.

An owner of a vineyard expecting to get good grapes is not really the type of expectations you hold to in this context considering things. The owner's preparations of the vineyard should have produced very good grapes... that is the reason he expected it.. notice that? God didn't say he looked into the future to see if his work was worth while, he instead found out about it later.

I was totally with you until you switched to the vinyard. It, of course, is analogous so we still have the same situation if you bring in the factor of repeated offense (the vineyard never did produce all good grapes, ever). We both believe in a remnant of the righteous. So again, the expectation in my mind is the same as your first analogy of the rowdy kid. I'm kewl with our differences btw. I do not see it as disparaging God from the OV perspective. There are potentials for hazardous extrapolations in this OV position, but no more than in the SV position as I see it from my current perspective of OV.

 

[patman]

I was totally with you until you switched to the vinyard. It, of course, is analogous so we still have the same situation if you bring in the factor of repeated offense (the vineyard never did produce all good grapes, ever). We both believe in a remnant of the righteous. So again, the expectation in my mind is the same as your first analogy of the rowdy kid. I'm kewl with our differences btw. I do not see it as disparaging God from the OV perspective. There are potentials for hazardous extrapolations in this OV position, but no more than in the SV position as I see it from my current perspective of OV.

I am glad you are more understanding of the OV. Not that I feel there is anything wrong with it, but S.V.er's often think there is and and we O.V.er's get to be called humanizers of God...

I never really understood why other S.V.er's go so overboard with the O.V.'s idea that Future Knowledge isn't all there. It as if though it completely handicaps God? Yet we O.V.er's believe God created the same world, the same universe, breathed the same life into Adam, was powerful enough to plan all the complex systems that exist in the smallest micro organism, all the way up to the strongest creature. He was powerful enough to light the fury of the sun's fire with nothing but the words of his lips.

What is future knowledge compared to that? What part of future knowledge Did God need to set all this into motion? Could he not do it again? Could he not make anything he wanted to make? Can he not simply wink at the world and it transform into heaven in a second?

Sooooo anyway, thanks for listening. That wasn't directed at you of course

 

[Lon]

I am glad you are more understanding of the OV. Not that I feel there is anything wrong with it, but S.V.er's often think there is and and we O.V.er's get to be called humanizers of God...

I never really understood why other S.V.er's go so overboard with the O.V.'s idea that Future Knowledge isn't all there. It as if though it completely handicaps God? Yet we O.V.er's believe God created the same world, the same universe, breathed the same life into Adam, was powerful enough to plan all the complex systems that exist in the smallest micro organism, all the way up to the strongest creature. He was powerful enough to light the fury of the sun's fire with nothing but the words of his lips.

What is future knowledge compared to that? What part of future knowledge Did God need to set all this into motion? Could he not do it again? Could he not make anything he wanted to make? Can he not simply wink at the world and it transform into heaven in a second?

Sooooo anyway, thanks for listening. That wasn't directed at you of course

I believe the 'fires' will die down a bit over time as we first understand one another's viewpoint, and second, as we appreciate the dimensions each stresses (I think they both stress characteristics of who God is that is glorifying). For the most part, I see logic problems between us more than very many doctrine problems. There are doctrine problems to be sure, but as of my understanding at this point, I see us rather in discussion on reasonableness of interpretation. Godrulz is pretty good about elucidating our actual doctrinal differences. Of course he's been at it for a few more years. I'm like 3 months in now looking at OV. Pretty newbie.

In Him

 

[patman]

I believe the 'fires' will die down a bit over time as we first understand one another's viewpoint, and second, as we appreciate the dimensions each stresses (I think they both stress characteristics of who God is that is glorifying). For the most part, I see logic problems between us more than very many doctrine problems. There are doctrine problems to be sure, but as of my understanding at this point, I see us rather in discussion on reasonableness of interpretation. Godrulz is pretty good about elucidating our actual doctrinal differences. Of course he's been at it for a few more years. I'm like 3 months in now looking at OV. Pretty newbie.

In Him

Every time I get a PM from you it is empty, strange... it happened twice?

I think there are logical problems there too... but mostly I see problems with SV in unifying scripture.... I never could do it as an S.V., so I left the theology partly for that reason too...

If you don't mind, lets just continue this discussion on the Open Theism thread?