Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by The Berean
    2. I liked the Peter example. I find it highy unlikely that Jesus "guessed" that Peter would deny him simply because Jesus knew Peter well.

    3. Dr Lamerson spells out exactly what he will attempt to prove:


    I will definitely keep this in mind when I'm reading through Dr. Lamerson's posts.

    4. Dr Lamerson gives good examples of Sctipture stating God can and does know the fututre. Matthew 6:8 is a clear example of this.
    Dr. Lamerson is using some classic passages in defending his view.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by novice
      With all due respect to Dr. Lamerson can anyone say "soft ball"?

      I do not think that was a very good opening post and can only assume Dr. Lamerson is an experienced rope-a-doper. My personal opinion is that Bob is going to knock this softball out of the park.

      At this rate I predict a knockout before the fifth round.
      I was rather uninspired by Sam's first post.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Livewire
        Ok, good. So I wasn't the only one who was thinking this. I was actually kind of surprised at his opening post in that it seemed rather weak. Not only is it unreasonable to limit his support using only the gospels but the passages that he offers as evidence for his case seem rather feeble.
        Same here, I was very disappointed. I saw multiple problems with his initial post, some of which have already been mentioned. Again, I'll post my own thoughts on them, point by point, later tonight I hope.
        1 Corinthians 13:2
        And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.

        Comment


        • #19
          Peter's example is considered a problem for the Open View. Boyd and others have given a plausible explanation. The issues for closed theism are greater in that they have to take clear statements in the OT and make them figurative (God changing His mind, etc.). The strength of the Open view is that it takes all relevant verses at face value (vs preconceived theology). The two motifs (open/closed) are interpreted literally, whereas the closed view must interpret the open motif as anthropomorphic (without warrant). It seems to me that one must also water down genuine free will to retain exhaustive foreknowledge.

          Is Sam a Calvinist (based on his institution)? He may use the same arguments against Arminianis/free will theism against Open Theism.
          Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

          They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
          I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

          Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

          "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

          The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

          Comment


          • #20
            I think that "going to Jesus Christ first" is always a good choice. Its especially pertinent here,
            because from a Christian perspective, the extent to which we can know God is revealed
            uniquely through Jesus Christ, in the flesh.

            I also think that the opening salvo was wisely planned, saving the bigger Pauline and Revelation
            resources, and even OT resources "as fulfilled through Christ," until later on. Its smart to feel out the
            opposition before showing your best cards.

            I know this crowd isn't too impressed with academic [i.e. quotes from other theologians] support,
            though its the way the rest of the world plays ball, it probably won't buy him much in this
            microcosm. Sam would probably be better off trying to incorporate the arguments of his resources
            directly into his scriptural arguments and into his logical arguments, rather than trying to show
            how other theologians agree or disagree with his assertions.

            My final comment: Go Sam! Go Sam! GO SAM!

            Dave
            1 John 4:7-8 "Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love."

            Comment


            • #21
              I have a feeling that Pastor Enyart is going to rip up Sam on his definition of free will. He asks Bob what he defines it as and then gives his own answer:
              3. Would you mind defining free-will? In fairness I will state that I believe free will indicates that an agent will always be free to do what he or she chooses.
              Free will isn't the ability to DO what he/she chooses. I can choose to do whatever I want, but I am obviously constricted by people, natural laws, etc.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by kmoney
                I have a feeling that Pastor Enyart is going to rip up Sam on his definition of free will. He asks Bob what he defines it as and then gives his own answer:

                Free will isn't the ability to DO what he/she chooses. I can choose to do whatever I want, but I am obviously constricted by people, natural laws, etc.
                I know! Wasn't that hilarious?

                I choose to go to work this morning, but someone hits me with a car. I'm not free to go to work, even though I chose it.

                What a wacky definition of free will! That isn't free will.... It's free action! Two very different things!

                I have the free will to fly unaided. But I don't have the free action.

                I have the free action to speak Portuguese... but not the free will because I don't know that language.
                1 Corinthians 13:2
                And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I think he was trying to say libertarian free will means one can chose or not chose in any given choice (alternatives). It is assumed that contingency may have restrictions in an absolute sense (we cannot fly to the moon with our arms).
                  Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                  They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                  I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                  Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                  "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                  The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Nevertheless, his definition of free will is the power to DO. And that is a completely incorrect definition.
                    1 Corinthians 13:2
                    And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by RightIdea
                      Nevertheless, his definition of free will is the power to DO. And that is a completely incorrect definition.
                      Suggest another definition.
                      Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                      They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                      I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                      Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                      "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                      The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by godrulz
                        I think he was trying to say libertarian free will means one can chose or not chose in any given choice (alternatives). It is assumed that contingency may have restrictions in an absolute sense (we cannot fly to the moon with our arms).
                        Yeah, Sam maybe meant something other than what he said, but in any case he should clarify his definition.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by godrulz
                          Suggest another definition.
                          The power to do within the constraints of the human condition?

                          Hey, does God limit free will by creating the human condition in the first place?
                          1 John 4:7-8 "Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by godrulz
                            Suggest another definition.
                            You agree with his definition? That free will is the ability to do that which you choose?



                            Libertarian free will is the genuine ability to choose one alternative or another. Not just free action, as so many Calvinists like to equivocate. Not a physical ability to do X or Y, but the ability to choose X or Y.

                            Just because you choose something doesn't mean you actually have the power to do it.
                            1 Corinthians 13:2
                            And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I am not familiar with 'free action' semantics. The key is the ability to chose between alternatives without coercion/causation. There are limitations. I cannot chose to be the President of the U.S. (I am Canadian).
                              Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                              They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                              I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                              Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                              "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                              The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I was a bit surprised when I read in Dr. Lamersons post, "If the exegete can determine the view of Jesus on divine foreknowledge, she may then have strong warrant for her hermeneutical decisions about the rest of the Bible." (emphasis mine) Did Dr. Lamerson really mean to refer to God in the feminine?
                                “Prevent SIDS---keep your pants on.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X