Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle Royale X Critique thread - Does God Know Your Entire Future?

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

  • Preterist..

    Bob said:
    • Offer a theoretical falsification of the Settled View.
    BEQ11/18

    Sam answered:
    :Show me a false prediction made by Jesus.

    I think it's probably safe to say Sam is some type of preterist.
    If Bob shows him predictions Jesus made that didn't happen..Sam will attempt to prove they did..

    I'm really enjoying the debate, so thanks to both Bob and Sam.
    (I'm like checking the debate clock and staying up late waiting for the next post..)

    Comment


    • From Sam's 8th round post:

      Originally posted by Sam Lamerson
      Notice that Rev. Enyart has called Micah 5:2 a “non-prophecy.”
      No, he most certainly did not!

      From Bob Enyart's second round post:
      Originally posted by Bob Enyart
      Non-Prophecies

      For years at Denver Bible Church we’ve taught about non-prophecies, which are different than predictive prophecies. And if you don’t understand what a non-prophecy is, you’ll misunderstand the Old Testament “prophecies” of Judas. A predictive prophecy is one that specifically foretells the future such as Micah 5:2 that the eternal Christ would be born in Bethlehem. The non-prophecies are not predictive, and therefore cannot normally even be identified as “prophecies” until after their “fulfillment.”
      (Emphasis added)

      Bob clearly used Micah 5:2 as an example of a predictive prophecy as a contrast to non-prophesies, which are not predictive.

      Sam had no trouble understanding this, as he wrote in round 3, and repeated verbatum in round 5:
      Originally posted by Sam Lamerson
      Bob uses Micah 5:2 as an example of a “predictive prophecy.”
      But now, in round 8, Sam has written:
      Originally posted by Sam Lamerson
      Notice that Rev. Enyart has called Micah 5:2 a “non-prophecy.” This is simply not the case.
      Sam then goes on to needlessly argue that Micah 5:2 is a predictive prophesy, which Bob has affirmed all along. If only Sam were this responsive toward points that Bob has actually made!
      "You guys got something to say to me? Why don't you say it in the microphone. I got a backup mic right here. Check one two. Testing, testing. Yep, they both work. And guess what, they don't like no feedback. What's up?"

      Comment


      • Here we go again, much of the same from Sam, who seems more lost with each progressive round. And worse, he's now giving what appear to be dishonest answers, cop-out non-answers and even self-contradictory answers!

        Let's get to it, then.


        Sam claims that he and Bob seem to be "talking past each other." Well, that's what happens when you rehearse for the wrong play and then show up on opening day. Everyone but you knows what's going on. Sam must feel like that dream where you're in school or at work in your underwear, suddenly realizing you forgot to dress that morning. Because Bob has been doing everything possible to actually debate for the last 7 rounds, and Sam has been missing half of Bob's arguments as they flew over his head, and flat out ignoring the other half.

        Bob has spent tens of thousands of words responding directly to Sam's arguments. Sam, it should come as no surprise that you disagree with Bob's arguments. That's why you're debating each other! But when you disagree with Bob's argument, you take that to mean that Bob didn't respond to you. Well, all of us who have eyes can read Bob's lengthy responses to you. You're not fooling us.


        Sam amazingly brushes aside Bob's devastating blow about extra-biblical authority for doctrine. I'm flabbergasted. Sam equates Bob's thankfulness for going to Derby under Bob Hill.... with citing Biblical linguist scholars "who cannot be questioned!" Are you kidding? Those two things aren't even in the same ballpark. I'm glad I took classes at Pueblo Community College, but I don't cite anyone there as an authority for truth! We can all be edified by earthly teachers, but no man on earth is an authority for doctrine! And Sam has put forth numerous non-biblical authorities for doctrine, including men "who cannot be questioned." Those four words alone convict their author - Lamerson, himself. Cannot be questioned? Like Bob said, "Why? Were they inspired?"

        We all learn from other people, Sam. That goes without saying! Every human being doesn't receive all of their learning by direct revelation from God. The Lord didn't teach me how to cook fries at McDonald's when I was 16. A human being taught me that. But that doesn't even come close to equating with listing someone as an authority for doctrine! And that's what you've done with the Westminster Confession, "some of the finest theological minds," majority rule in the Body of Christ, and of course those scholars "who cannot be questioned."

        Not anywhere close to the same thing.


        ON THE USE OF “I AM” -- Sam just flat out ignores what Bob wrote in his last post about this. Bob made a case for the fact that Jesus was linking this prophecy to the fact that He is the messiah, not that He is God. Does Sam answer that? Of course not. It's like he didn't even notice. Whizzzz.... right over his head.


        ON PETER AND JUDAS -- There is no getting around the fact that Jesus predicted the sin of both Peter and Judas. Yeah, Sam. And FDR predicted the U.S. would defeat Japan. So what? You, yourself, admit that just because someone predicts something and it come true doesn't mean that the prophet in question knew the future as definite. So what? You are the one talking right past Bob. You don't respond to what he wrote. You're just a broken record stuck on an ugly note.


        Sam, let me take a time-out here for a moment to say this. I know I'm upset, a little emotional in my most recent critiques of you. But it is not personal. On the contrary, youre' a brother in Christ and I love you and want what's best for you. What's best for you is to give a good debate. And you are not doing that, not even close. I have seen the video of the Sanders-White debate. White slaughtered Sanders, sir. I didn't enjoy watching that, but I'm glad I did see that. White did an outstanding job, and Sanders utterly blew it in beginning, middle and end. (Especially the end!) I can honestly say that; I can harshly judge the guy on my own side because of that, and concede that White was highly proficient and put forth the better case. That doesn't mean he's right, but he sure came prepared, which is more than I can say for Sanders, who was very much like you are in this debate. Floundering, weak, and coming up with very few answers to direct questions. I'm upset with you for exactly the same reason I was upset with Sanders. Neither of you have given it your best shot, or even tried. Like everyone else, I want a good debate. I want you to step up to the plate, be a man, take a hit now and then, and fight the good fight. But I'm sorry to say you have not done so. And I tell you this not because you're my enemy, but because you are family. If I didn't care about you, I wouldn't even bother saying any of this.


        Now, back to it.


        Rev. Enyart goes on with his semantics when answering SLQ22-Peter-5 Did God orchestrate the events that would cause Peter to [deny] Christ?BEA-SLQ22: Cause, as in causal? No

        Maybe it is just me, but that seems to be avoiding the question.
        This from the king of avoiding questions!

        Sam, you'd have a point, if that's all Bob had said. However, you blatantly misrepresent him, here. Bob then wrote more than 1,000 other words immediately after that, expounding on exactly what he meant! All of which you pretend don't even exist! You just look at the "no" and you stop right there! You didn't notice? Was it an accident? You willfully ignore Bob's arguments, and then accuse him of unresponsiveness. Hypocrite.


        "OTHER PASSAGES -- I have done my best to keep the discussion focussed. I have nearly begged Rev. Enyart to give me his three best passages but he seems to want to guard them as if they are state secrets."

        Now there's a fair criticism, I very much agree, and I have criticized Bob as well for waiting so long to present the bulk of his positive case for the Open View. I believe he should have put it forth starting in round 5. He did put something forth in part of round 6, and then went back to refuting your arguments in round 7. So, I agree on this point.

        So, then you give us your "hermeneutic."

        "I USE THE HISTORICAL GRAMMATICAL METHOD TO DETERMINE THE INTENTION OF THE AUTHOR."

        Uhm... okay. And what is the Historical Grammatical Method? Oh, I guess you still dont' want to talk about it. So, you throw out a nice name, and you keep it a secret. Bob has expounded at length about his hermeneutical principles of NOAH and JONAH. And what do you do? You give yours a name, and still keep it a secret. We're in round 8, Sam! What are you waiting for? And you accuse Bob of unresponsiveness.


        Sam's point about the Micah passage would actuall be a good one... except for the fact that Bob has now refuted it by getting Sam to concede that God can indeed bring something about by His omnipotence rather than foreordination. Not only that, but Sam flat out misrepresents what Bob said. I'm trying not to use the word "lie" here! C'mon, Sam himself earlier in the debate said that Bob used Micah 5:2 as an example of predictive prophecy! However, I don't have to go into this now, because some guy with mullet just beat me to it.


        Sam then goes into a three-paragraph exposition on 1 Peter 1:2, making some claims about it, without going into any depth, at all. Sam knows quite well that Bob has precious little space left to put forth his positive case for the Open View. Consequently, Sam has no business bringing in new major arguments for Bob to respond to. I thought Sam wanted Bob to bring on the Open View? Well, he can't do that, he can't put forth his case for Sam to respond to if he's devoting large portions of his remaining posts responding now to 1 Peter 1! My recommendation to Bob is to just plain ignore this. You can't respond to new arguments and put forth the case for the Open View, in the remaining space of this debate. If Sam wanted to talk about 1 Peter 1, he should have brought it up a long time ago! Sam knows full well that it's time for Bob to put forth the Open View, and he knows Bob is going to do that in the next round. This is a great issue, and it's brought up too late in the debate. Sorry, doctor, but your timing is terrible. I hope Bob doesn't devote more than one or two paragraphs to responding to this. We need to wrestle over the case for the Open View! If not now, then when???


        Matthew 25 - Sam really flubs it, here. First of all, another new argument for Bob to respond to? Too late. Same as what I said about 1 Peter 1. Not only that, but Sam reads a lot into this passage, anyway. In 1992, I went to Navy boot camp at Great Lakes, MI. And that place was prepared for me many decades earlier... even decades before I was born! Did anyone need to foreknow me personally, for that to be true? Of course not. Furthermore, Sam quotes this verse which says that this inheritance has been prepared since the creation. But at the end of Sam's paragraph, he misquotes his own proof text by claiming that it was prepared "before creation!" Whoa now! That is not what it says. You can't even keep your facts straight within a single paragraph? C'mon...


        On Tolle Lege, if Sam can't understand that Bob was using it tongue-in-cheek or sarcastically, then I don't know what else to say.


        Now for Sam's "answers" to Bob's questions. (And I use the term "answers" very loosely here.)


        Missed• Has God ever been able to change the future? BEQ21
        Since I believe that the future is settled, God knows the future without error and therefore has never changed it.
        A great answer to a question Bob didn't ask. He didn't ask of God ever did change it. He asked if God can change it! Sam's answer is disengenuous. He is not a fool. He didn't accidentally miss the point. I've lost count how many times this uestion has been reiterated in this debate. Can I recite the alphabet backwards 3 times in a row without error? Well, you know... I never have. But that's not an answer to the question, is it? Can I? Yes! Perhaps I have or perhaps I haven't done so, but can I? That's a distinctly different question.

        • Can God be more effective than people are without using foreknowledge? BEQ23

        Of course, but the question assumes that God can cease to use foreknowledge which I do not believe.
        A concession to Bob! He doesn't expound on it; of course not. Ho hum.


        Like making a rooster crow, could God fulfill some prophecy with His abilities rather than by foreknowledge? BEQ28

        I am not quite sure what you mean here by “abilities” but again, since I believe that God cannot cease to have foreknowledge, the question assumes a non-reality for my position.
        Cop-out answer. Sam doesn't know what Bob means by "abilities?" Gimme a break! This is just plain silly. Take a flying guess! At least take a crack at it!


        Misrepresented• Can God know something future because He plans it rather than sees it? BEQ14

        Again, according to my position, the two are not separable.
        Okay, so you say the two are indivisible. Interesting...


        • Are foreordination and foreknowledge the same thing? BEQ12/19

        No
        Wha...? You just said they can't be seperated, they're indivisible, you can't have one without the other! And now you say, no, they're not the same thing? Which is it? You can't have it both ways! Sam's now contradicting himself. But it gets better...


        • Do prophecies of the future inherently prove foreknowledge? BEQ13/20

        No, there are false psychics who get things correct sometimes. Prophecies of the future dealing with free agents and without error do prove foreknowledge.
        Blatant self-contradiction! First, Sam says that just because someone "prophecies" something and gets it right doesn't mean they knew the future. Therefore, his conclusion is...? That we know someone knows the future if they predict the future and it comes true! Sam is arguing with himself! He might as well, since he's not debating with Bob! The two sentences in Sam's paltry response here are explicitly contradictory.


        Offer a theoretical falsification of the Settled View. BEQ11/18

        Show me a false prediction made by Jesus.
        Non-answer. Wah wah wah.


        Provide specific hermeneutics (more than find out what the author meant) BEQ25

        I will use the grammatical historical method in an attempt to determine what the author meant by his written words.
        And what is the grammatical historical method? Oh yes, I forgot, you don't want to tell us what it actually is. It's a secret. But Bob is the one who isn't responding, yes of course.


        I am not quite sure what you mean here. When I stated that almost all that we know about God is in some sense a figure of speech, I meant that we have to realize that there is a huge gap between the creature and the creator. You mention, for example, God as King as a non figure of speech. Yet was God born like a king? Does he live in a palace? Does he have a queen for a wife? Does he wear a literal crown? Does he wear clothes? Does he get old like a king?
        Let's analyze these questions:

        Yet was God born like a king? Jesus was born, yes. Like a king? Well, was David "born like a king?" And yet, a king he was.
        Does he live in a palace? He has a throne room with a throne, surrounded by "mansions," and servants who praise Him. You tell me.
        Does he have a queen for a wife?His wife is Israel. He divorced her, He wanted to remarry her, she failed to accept Him in the year following His resurrection, and yet He will still return her to him in the end. Yes, He has a wife.
        Does he wear a literal crown?A king doesn't necessarily need a crown. The definition of a king is positional, relational, authoritative, and doesn't require jewelry.
        Does he wear clothes? Is Christ, now eternally a man... naked even as we speak, as He sits at the right hand of the Father?
        Does he get old like a king? Human aging isn't necessarily part of the definition of a "king." A human king, yes. But He isn't only human. He does, however, get "older" in the sense that He has experienced more time today than He had yesterday. Sam, even you concede that God is not "outside of time." He experiences chronology, the passage of time. That, at least, is to your credit.

        But overall, Sam's response here doesn't answer Bob's question! Bob didn't ask if some descriptions of God can be other than metaphorical or anthropomorphisms. Bob asked if events can be taken as a figure of speech! Of course they cannot. Events are not figures of speech. That is the point! A point which Sam pretended to miss. But he's not that stupid. He knows that, and he willfully ignores it.


        Which side has appealed to extra-biblical authority in defense of its view? Sam, in the single most ludicrous moment of the entire debate so far, claims the answer is Bob. I'm dumbfounded. That... is absolutely preposterous. And Bob proved it for everyone to see, in 7b.


        BEQ34: Sam, can you identify any curriculum resource at Knox (Reymond’s text, etc.), that explicitly affirms to your students that God is able to change?

        We all teach that depending upon what a person means by change, God is able to have a relationship with his creatures, and thus able to change.
        Sam concedes that God changes! Another concession! I'm gonna add these up later.


        And now Sam puts forth 3 new utterly useless questions which have no place at this point in the debate:

        SL27-Have you read Plato’s republic? If so in what translation?

        SL28-Please share with me what book of Aristotle you have read and in what translations.

        SL29-Can you give me one instance of a false statement by Jesus?
        Bob shouldn't even answer these. Hypocritical? Earlier it would have been, but not at this point. Sam cannot expect Bob to answer these questions and put forth his case for the Open View. what does he take us for? If Bob spends time on these, then he can only barely put forth his case. If Bob doesn't respond, Sam will criticize Bob for being unresponsive. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Well, Bob is gonna put forth his case, whether Sam likes it or not (and of course he won't). These questions shouldn't have seen the light of day, and they warrant no answer at this very late date.


        Sam ends with a weak, whiney conclusion, that I'm not even going to bother to comment on; there'd be no point.


        So, here's the thing. Let's tally a few things up. Bob has gotten Sam to concede:

        God exists in time.
        God changes.
        God can be more effective than people without using foreknowledge.
        Just because someone gave a prophecy that came true doesn't mean the prophet or his God knew the future definitely.

        Did I miss anything?

        Based on this alone, I can honestly say that even if Bob didn't write anything for this round, it would still go to Bob, because on these 4 issues, Sam has defeated himself. And if White were dead, he'd be spinning in his grave. (Or Sproul, or many of the actually deceased Calvinist theologians that Sam loves to look to for authority on doctrine, going back to Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, Augustine, and of course the most influential Christian theologian of all time... Aristotle.)

        However, unfortunately for Sam, Bob is going to put forth the Open View and do little else from here on out. Now Sam is going to be the one who has to refute Bob's case. Finally! Better late than never, it's true, but get ready, Sam. Here it comes.

        That's all I got.
        1 Corinthians 13:2
        And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.

        Comment


        • Good job Sam!!!

          Sam is doing an excellent job of focusing on the topic of this debate. Bob has no idea how to respond that he has to throw up a bunch of confusing noise and smoke and clutter in every one of his posts to derail the subject way off topic! When a person spends half thier post attacking the other's use of 'non-Scriptural' support, when they are guilty of the same thing, you know they're desperate!

          Keep at it Sam. I know you don't have a lot of supporters, especially on this website, but I want you to know that you do have some. It's only natural that Bob's 'disciple's' support him. It's only sad, however, that they do so at the expense of an intelligent, open mind. It's scary to think that Bob can influence the minds of so many people!
          Question what you believe in, and then you'll know.

          Comment


          • Sam, in your answer to...

            "Offer a theoretical falsification of the Settled View. BEQ11/18"

            you state...

            "Show me a false prediction made by Jesus."

            If it is possible to show that God said that something was going to happen or that He was going to do something and then NOT do it...would that be sufficient? After all Jesus is God right? You have made the claim that Jesus has based His God-ness on a specific prediction coming true. So, could God be substituted for Jesus and could showing that He didn't do something He said He was going to do ("without fail") be substituted for "false prediction"?

            Also I wasn wondering if you believe the following...

            "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.."

            Also...

            You quoted under your Matthew 25 paragraph "since the creation of teh world" but then in your last sentence you chenge it to "...this happened before the creation..."

            "Since" creation implies that creation already happened.

            "Before" creation implies...well...BEFORE creation.

            Do you think these are the same? For it was after the fall (the heal-head thing in Gen 3) but yet still at the time of creation (just a few days) that God knew He was going to send a saviour. So it was SINCE creation but not BEFORE creation.

            Thanks you again for your willingness to answer questions etc... I appreciate it.
            fidelis usque ad mortem

            Comment


            • 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
              sigpic
              "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

              Comment


              • Offer a theoretical falsification of the Settled View. BEQ11/18

                Show me a false prediction made by Jesus.
                Sam, Jesus told his disciples that "assuredly" he would be returning before that generation passes along with several other similar predictions. If the future is settled, and Jesus had complete knowledge of it (which you feel he did), He would be blatantly lying to his chosen twelve with these phony predictions! From the Merriam Webster Dictionary:

                Main Entry: lie
                Function: verb

                1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
                2 : to create a false or misleading impression

                We clearly see from the acts of the Apostles that they fully believed what Jesus told them. Jesus was not giving them a spiritual message, but a literal one.

                Therefore, for the sake of His integrity, I would surely hope that it was indeed Israel's own rejection of their messiah, which could not have been 100% foreknown, that caused this prediction to fail.

                Therefore, if my example to your BEQ11/18 answer is valid, the Settled View has been falsified by your own standard.

                Comment


                • In Round 8 Bob Enyart said:
                  “God is good,” in that He has never violated His own character, the description of which is the eternal definition of righteousness. God has not sinned (by doing or thinking anything contrary to His own righteous nature).
                  The “eternal definition of righteousness” in regard to the Lord must include His “faithfulness”.

                  In the OT the Hebrew word ”emuwnah” is translated “faithfulness”,and it means “faithfulness,in fulfilling promises.

                  In the NT the Greek word “pistis” is applied to the Lord,and it means means “fidelity,faithfulness,i.e. the character of one who can be relied on….of one who keeps his promises(”Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

                  So the Scriptures reveal that the Lord is faithful and we can depend on His faithfulness in fulfilling His promises.And Bob Enyart himself says that God would not do anything contrary to His own righteous nature.

                  But then he turns around and says that the Lord has in fact broken His promises.He uses the following verses in an effort to prove that the Lord is not faithful:
                  • “This saying went out among the brethren that [John] would not die. Yet Jesus did not say… he would not die, but, ‘If I will that he remain till I come…’”
                  Did the Lord ever promise that John would not die?Of course not.Here are the “unedited” words of the Lord Jesus:

                  ” Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”(Jn.21:23).

                  As we can see the Lord never promised that John would not die,so there never was a promise that He would not die.But Bob Enyart uses this verse in his attempt to prove that the Lord Jesus broke a promise here and therefore prove that the Lord Jesus is not faithful.
                  What could Jesus be wrong about? Everything He wanted to be wrong about. While He promised Israel to return to establish their kingdom, He would not be taken for a fool….Jesus repeatedly promised to return soon (giving the apostles the hope they displayed in Acts of His imminent return…[emphasis mine]
                  Where was Israel ever told by the Lord Jesus that He would return soon?How could He do such a thing since He had told them that He did not know the hour or the season when that would happen (Mt.24:36;Acts1:7).The promise of coming soon was not in regard to His coming to set up the kingdom but instead in regard to His coming for His Church at the rapture (more on this later).

                  The Apostle Peter knew that His return was dependent on the nation of Israel repenting and turning to the Lord,so the Lord would know the same thing.And unless He had knowledge that Israel was going to repent then He surely would not promise to come soon.
                  “Assuredly, I say to you,this generation will by no means pass away till all these things [Second Coming prophecies] take place.”
                  Bob makes a mistake here in assuming that the words “this generation” means the generation of Jews then living. Let us take a look at the verses:

                  ”Verily,I say unto you,this generation will not pass,til all these things be fulfilled”(Mt.24:34).

                  The word “this generation” can mean:”it refers to a subject immediately preceding,the one just named”(”Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

                  The subject immediately preceding this verse is the generation which will see the signs:

                  ”So likewise ye,when ye shall see all these things,know that it is near,even at the doors”(Mt.24:33).

                  But I am sure that there will be some who will say that the Lord said, “when ye shall see all these things” so therefore the reference must be to the generation then living.However,earlier in the same day the Lord Jesus used the word “ye” in a sense that can be in regard to either the generation then living or a future generation when He said:

                  ” For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord”(Mt.23:39).

                  Those whom the Lord were addressing did not afterward say,”Blessed in He that cometh in the name of the Lord”.But there will be a future generation of Jews who will say that.Therefore,when the word “ye” is used the reference is not always in reference to only those who heard Him.Instead,it can be describing those who will live later.So when the Lord Jesus said that this generation will see these things come to pass HE was referring to the generation which will see the signs leading up to His coming.He did not make a promise and then break it.

                  These are just a few of the verses used by Bob Enyart in his attempt to prove that the Lord is not faithful and we can see that he used those verses without even understanding their meaning.Now I will touch on His promise of coming quickly which is in regard to the rapture.It must be remembered that that promise was made to a “faith” church,and not to an unfaithful church:

                  Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown”(Rev.3:10,11).

                  Here are the words of Sir Robert Anderson in regard to this promise:

                  Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, given to "lead them into all truth," the Apostles taught the saints to look for the Coming as a present hope. The suggestion of subterfuge or mistake would be profane. The facts are not in dispute: how then can they be explained? Israel's story may teach us something here. When the people were encamped at Sinai, Canaan lay but a few days' march across the desert. And in the second year from the Exodus, they were led to the borders of the land, and bidden to enter and take possession of it. "But they entered not in because of unbelief." The Canaan rest, moreover, was only a type of the promised rest of the Messianic Kingdom. That rest was preached again "in David," (Hebrews 4:7) but lost again through unbelief and the apostasy which unbelief begets. And in the exile it was revealed to Daniel that it would be further deferred for seven times seventy years. Lastly it was preached at Pentecost, and lost once more by unbelief. And to continued unbelief is due the fact of these nineteen centuries of Israel's rejection. Does not this throw light on the seeming failure of "the hope of the Church"?Putting from us the profane thought that the Lord has been unmindful of His promise, are we not led to the conclusion that this long delay has been due to the unfaithfulness of His people upon earth?(Anderson,”Forgotten Truths”,p.83,84).

                  Every single one of the verses that Bob Enyart uses in his effort to prove that God is not faithful can be answered.It is too bad that there are those who go to such great lengths to attempt to prove that the Lord is not faithful.

                  Bob Enyart also 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.[emphasis mine]
                  He fails to state the obvious consequences that would occur if any of the Lord’s prophecies prove to be untrue.If His prophecies fail then how can anyone place their trust in Him?

                  ” God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged”(Ro.3:4).

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

                  Comment


                  • BEQ44: Please answer BEQ32: Considering not verbal revelation, but actual divine historical intervention, Sam, can you indicate if this statement is true: When God intervenes in history, the actual intervention itself cannot be a figure of speech!
                    Yes, pleeeease answer this one.

                    Sam please answer.., not the question Bob didn't ask, where you pointed out some anthropomorphic language that describes God, but the one he did ask.

                    I really believe this is the death nail of your view.
                    Maybe you have the Augustinian or Biblical.. hammer to pull it out..However, pointing out verses that show God interacting, intervening, have some anthropomorphic language that describe God's being, or even HOW he interacts won't do it.

                    Sam..you seem to be a bit apprehensive of this question..as well as some of the others..like: "I said she WILL return to me...she did NOT return.."

                    (I knew Enyart would point out the predictions Jesus made that did not come to pass. I am sure Sam will answer from a preterist position.) (Which Enyart already eludes do)

                    I'm also interested to see how Sam will deal with the contradictions in his answers that Enyart pointed out.

                    Comment


                    • Kudos to both combatants for taking the job seriously

                      Bob, you may have to point out that promises and predictions are two different animals.

                      Sam, I'm sympathetic to the idea that human language may be limited in describing God - his thoughts and actions - but on the other hand He invented language and since He apparently loves and wants to communicate with His creatures He both:

                      1) wouldn't create such a poor means of communication for His creatures that it would be difficult or impossible for us to know Him, and

                      2) would be rather good at using even human language to describe divine stuff outside the realm of five human senses.

                      When the Bible speaks of God's wings, it's not less accurate because He may or may not have wings like a crow. It's even more accurate.

                      My mother held me in her arms when I was a young child (I'm big and ugly now, so work with me) but it wasn't the flesh and bones sticking off of her shoulders that allowed her to perform an action that touched the heart of our Creator, it was the very part of her made in God's image. You might go so far as to say that it's wrong even to call it "human" language unless you're one of those who say that we think with the cells and chemicals in our brains.

                      I'm saying that these flesh and blood appendages are the metaphors for the real thing, not the other way around.

                      We'll know more about this someday, and I imagine we'll say, "Wow, man, He said 'arms' and 'wings' and he meant it."

                      Peace and Joy
                      Keith From Berthoud
                      Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. - Michael Crichton

                      Comment


                      • Surprise for the Calvinists after the 10th round!

                        To the Calvinists in the Grandstands,

                        I have a surprise to reveal to you right after the final tenth round post!

                        I'll do so in this Critique Thread, just in case your interested.

                        It'll be fun. You should love it! And, sorry to be secretive about it, but I have to be. Otherwise, it would ruin it!

                        -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.

                        Comment


                        • I'm always behind in critiquing these, for some reason. Alright, so let's not waste any more time. Let's to it, then!


                          First off, a whopping killer of a quote from Luther! The big one, wow, intense. Great beginning.


                          Bob keeps hitting Sam on his major blunders, like continuing to deny that Christ emptied Himself of anything other than "His blood." (I'm still flabbergasted where he got that from!), his repeated use of extra-biblical authority for doctrine (which alone should convict Lamerson to automatic failure in this debate), and Sam's multiple hypocrisy in his false accusations against Bob, which have now reached such a level that Sam is simply fabricating things out of thin air. And yet, while reminding readers of these thing, he only uses a few words here and there, careful wording and editing, nicely done, he doesn't just ramble on about it extensively, because Bob knows here that his time is running out, and he wants to get to the Open View case!


                          And that he does. But not before summing up everything up to this point, how he has refuted each of Sam's arguments, and nailed the settled view on not just a coincidental alignment with pagan philosophers but the openly proud declarations of settled view theologians talking about how they specifically imported that pagan philosophy into Christianity to solve doctrinal "problems" in God's word.


                          Finally, Bob gets back to presenting the case he began in round 6! (And about time! As I said before, I believe Bob procrastinated too much in presenting much of the case for the Open View, and thus painted himself into a corner to some extent, here near the end.) And even better, despite Sam refusing to take Bob's deal of the hermeneutic principles for the three proof texts, Bob brings the three texts out anyway, once again proving to be the bigger man, here.


                          The three texts fit neatly into the plan Bob already put forth in his fresh and new perspective on presenting the Open View. While I've had criticisms on how he's presented certain details (I personally hate the choice of the inaccurate term "non-prophecies," favoring perhaps "hindsight prophecies"), I nevertheless believe someone really needs to send this whole debate to Sanders and Boyd, to let them in on the great new thing!

                          Disproving "General Immutability."

                          Safeguarding "Special Immutability."

                          Showcasing the importance of God really and truly responding to free will agents at the time of their choices.

                          But most importantly, throughout all of that, contrasting the greater and lesser attributes of God, by repeatedly pinging on the importance of the greater attributes of being Living, Personal, Relational, Good and Loving and showing how they are vastly superior and more important than the quantitative attributes of power, knowledge, etc.


                          Just as he did in round 6, Bob then enters into the "big picture" mode that he's so good at, as he ties things together in a bigger level than most people are used to. People are so good at looking at all these specific issues in a vacuum, viewing them as seperate things, when really they're all tied together. And Bob demonstrates that when you look at this narrative on the grander scale, the plot of the Bible, you see more than ever God's relational and responsive nature revealed!


                          I was wondering all along whether Bob would go to the 70th week issue. Half of me said no, the other half said go for it! Well, here we are. Sam subtly dared Bob to challenge the preterist view, and Bob took a running start and hit it hard. By using his (should be) trademark technique of presentin the big-picture plot concerning the change of plan from Israel to the Body, he really painted a great picture of the ultimate biblical example of Jeremiah 18's message. I have long held that the 70th week issue is the single greatest chunk of biblical evidence for the Open View in the Bible, thus the recently coined term "Open Dispensationalism." And showing some guts, Bob tackled it with precious little room left in the debate. We can certainly expect Sam to attack it and try to present the wacky preterist case at the last minute, desperately trying to prove to us all that the tribulation actually did happen in the first century (which I know will leave a lot of settled readers scratching (or shaking) their heads in disbelief at the man they've so far treated as one who can do no wrong.


                          To determine this, I uncap a new yellow marker and begin looking for passages to highlight which emphasize God as being living, personal, relational, good and loving. And after about three hours… I give up!

                          Because my hi-liter is out of ink.
                          I laughed out loud. LOL


                          Bob again attacks Lamerson's refusal to accept that Christ emptied Himself of the Omnis, and quite effectively. Personally, I can't fathom how anyone can deny the Kenotic view. I mean, if Jesus retained the Omnis, then the temptation in the wilderness is meaningless! Tempting Jesus with things that He already can do, or things that He already has at His fingertips? What, Jesus can't conjure up His own bread? And angels will catch Him if He jumps? What, He can't fly through the air with the greatest of ease, like Superman? Why would Jesus need angels to catch Him if He was omnipotent? Seriously!


                          Finally, the questions. And Sam conceded that he is the one who uses extra-biblical authority! Woot! Who would have seen that coming? (Not even God )


                          SLQ29-Can you give me one instance of a false statement by Jesus?

                          BEA-SLQ29 No. Above I responded to your other challenge: “Show me a false prediction made by Jesus.” God had promised all along (Jer. 18:1-10) that He would not fulfill the promise to give Israel their Kingdom if in fact they rejected the King. Thus, by the Settled View, it was another failed prophecy when Christ did not quickly returning to establish Israel’s Kingdom; but by Openness, God’s goodness takes precedence over His knowledge, which changes continually, and thus contingency itself flows from our Living God as a glory, not as a problem text.
                          Great answer to a terribly and unfairly worded question! C'mon, Sam, you know that question was a man full of straw! Puh-lease.

                          Great answer, tho, Bob nailed it.



                          As for Bob's questions to Sam, I didn't like how Bob managed this part of the round, nearly as much. I think Bob asked too many questions overall, this close to the end. They need to be focusing on a narrower range of things, at this point. Second, I think Bob asked questions about old issues that need to be layed to rest at this point.

                          The reformulation of immutability is an old issue, we know Sam is categorically opposed to honestly answering this question directly. Waste of time and space.

                          The rooster died long ago, and has since been running around flapping wildly, in defiance of his own death. (Okay, that's a bit over the top, but it's an old issue, let's move on, we all know what both sides have to say about this! Which, for Sam, is precious little!) Unfortunately, Bob spends a lot of word count on this question, unfortunately getting stuck in debate mode within the question. He could have saved a lot of word count here.

                          BEQ43 is definitely a good question at this point, going to whether a prophecy that comes true is any evidence that the prophet knew the future. The obvious answer is no, that a person could have just gotten it right! But, of course, Sam couldn't even answer this directly. Rather, he directly and explicitly contradicted himself within his own answer.

                          When God intervenes in history, can that historical event be a figure of speech? Decent question, I approve.

                          And the "Can God change for relationship" question, beating a dead horse.


                          I really believe Bob should have thrown out most of these, and instead brought in questions about his case for the Open View! The majority of these questions were focused still on refutin Sam. That time is over! Bob doesn't have the luxury here of continuing to refute Sam, not in any significant amount of space! Now is the time to go on the attack, present the Open view directly! I think this is Bob's biggest mistake this round. But, Bob still wins the round, hands down. He got almost everything right, and Sam got almost everything way wrong, and worst of all, fabricated utterly false accusations about Bob, from thin air. Unbelievable.


                          Well, that's it. I'm hitting the hay. The team meets at 5 a.m. for our weekly Bible study, so I'm out of time. I no longer have the luxury of attacking Bob's strategies and debating points. It is time to attack that pillow! So, without further ado...
                          1 Corinthians 13:2
                          And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.

                          Comment


                          • Post 8 (Sam):

                            I am not persuaded that this debate rises or falls on the predictions about Peter. This is one specific, proximal example of relatively predictable foreknowledge that could be orchestrated by God's omnicompetence. The alternate view (open) precludes the possibility of extrapolating this to a general teaching of exhaustive foreknowledge of all future free will contingencies (mundane and moral). It would not prove remote knowledge before the existence of beings to make free choices (i.e. trillions of years ago God would not know I would type this response unless He causally makes me do it or the future somehow exists already in another dimension to be a possible object of knowledge=absurd).

                            It is not necessary to know or predestine which soldier out of thousands would actually pierce Christ's side (Sam states God knew the exact details, not just general fulfillment). Whether soldier A or B was involved does not change God's ability to bring His plans and predictions to pass. Saying they did what they wanted to (not because they had the ability to do otherwise) is incoherent and undermines responsibility and justice issues.

                            Sam could elaborate on his historical, grammatical method of hermeneutics. I think Bob would not reject it since it should not contradict Noah or Jonah. Most conservative Christians affirm the historical, grammatical, contextual, literal, cultural, theological approach to Bible interpretation. This contrasts with a subjective, allegorical approach to Scripture. I think both Sam and Bob share this hermeneutic. Sam could consider buying into NOAH and JONAH (not a typical way to , but not at the expense of the traditional hermeneutic (which Bob should also support).

                            Micah 5:2 could be seen as the motif where God settles some vs all of the future. Bob might want to agree with Sam on this particular verse. God has the ability to bring this Messianic prophecy to pass specifically. Alternatively, it could be an application by way of illustration after the fact.

                            I Peter 1:2 ; Rom. 8:29 is resolved by understanding election as corporate vs individual. This is another study that non-Calvinists have defended from Scripture (vs TULIP).

                            Mt. 25:34 is not a typical closed view proof text. God formulated a possible plan of redemption before creation. It was not implemented until after the Fall (now necessary) and did not become actual until centuries later (since vs before creation). This foreknowable example is another example of the motif that God settles some of the future as contingent history unfolds. It cannot be extrapolated to exhaustive foreknowledge of ALL future free will contingencies involving other free moral agent's moral and mundane choices.

                            Sam states that God cannot cease to have foreknowledge. This is begging the question/circular reasoning (assuming what trying to prove). The other motif in Scripture can be taken literally (vs metaphorically) to show that some of the future is open/uncertain/unknowable (except as possible/probable vs certain).

                            Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is a logical absurdity or contradiction. Though hard to appreciate initially, it becomes self-evident when we jettison the traditional filters that have not allowed critical thinking and sound exegesis of all the relevant passages.
                            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


                            • Well it would appear that Dr. Lamerson actually showed up to do battle in the next to last round. Better late then never I suppose but this would have been a much more exciting debate had he given as much substantive thought to the rest of the debate.

                              Dr. Lamerson's opening paragraph is a crack up, as if Bob hasn't been keeping track of the word count himself. In fact, if I remember correctly it would seem that some 800+ words had to be used in one of Bob's posts doing nothing but quoting from the rules of the debate.

                              Further, the word limit rules read as follows...
                              The debate will last for ten rounds. The recommended maximum word limit for the average post is 6,000 words, but any or all posts could be much briefer.

                              That sounds to me like it could easily be interpreted to mean that we have a ten round debate, two posts per round for a total of 20 posts with an average word length of 6000 words per post. That's a total word limit for the entire debate of 120,000 words, which we are nowhere remotely close to reaching because Dr. Lamerson has basically chosen to barely participate since round three. In fact, according to my count there have been approximately 87,719 words used thus far in the debate. That means that unless all three of the remaining posts exceed 10,760 each, the word limit for this debate will not have been exceeded.

                              Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not but my point is that it is laughable that Dr. Lamerson wants to hold the rules over Bob's head after Bob was required to expend nearly a thousand words explaining the rules to him.

                              Resting in Him,
                              Clete
                              Last edited by Clete; September 9, 2005, 04:50 PM.
                              sigpic
                              "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

                              Comment


                              • BEQ44: Please answer BEQ32: Considering not verbal revelation, but actual divine historical intervention, Sam, can you indicate if this statement is true: When God intervenes in history, the actual intervention itself cannot be a figure of speech!

                                SLA-BEQ44: Again the question is flawed. When God intervenes how do we speak about it? The strength of the arm of the Lord for example would lead one to believe that God had an arm. A better question is “does God actually intervene in history?” To that I would say of course he does.
                                Sam says Enyarts question is messed up....and proceeds once again to answer a question Enyart never asked. Then he says he has a better question and proceeds to answer that one.

                                Bob, I would just tell Sam why you are asking the question at this point..(wait, I'm pretty sure he knows..) He is not going to answer your question.., but at least he answered his own..

                                And Sam, this is not a better question: "Does God actually intervene in history?"
                                Your own answer to it shows us this, "Of course he does"..It would be a silly question for him to ask you, as you already indicate.. Which is why Bob didn't ask it..
                                Perhaps for someone who thinks nothing in the Bible is literal..it might be a decent question..

                                Still ..I think you did a good job showing the "Stone idol" example that OV appeals to can swing both ways..

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X