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

Status
Not open for further replies.

billygoat

How did I get such great kids??
LIFETIME MEMBER
I hope I am wrong

I hope I am wrong

I am not hoping Sam bails on us. I hope he sticks to it and defends his position. Even though I don't believe his position is defensible, if we use God's Word and our God given logic. Everything that happens, even the horrible evil things, little children being tortured, are all God's will?? Unbelievable!! Not the God of Scripture!
 

chatmaggot

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Sam remarks that "OV does not solve the problem of evil" and the example he uses is the twin towers. He correctly states that God could have "stopped them" in reference to the planes but I am not sure why he brought this point up because to me those who hold that God has absolute foreknowledge are on the losing end of this argument. Sam states that he believes that "at some point God will reveal to us why he allowed that to happen and it will, in the end, glorify him." I think the only thing relevant in this sentence is that God "allowed it to happen". That's the point Sam. In my opinion the OV says that God allows evil…in so much that he doesn't stop bad things from happening. Actions have consequences and we have to live with those consequences. God could stop every Tsunami, every earthquake, every lightening strike that causes damage, every bullet fired from a gun that would ultimately has harm to someone. God could stop the rape of an innocent girl. The OV says that God gave us a will. We decide how we are to live. We could live according to God's WILL (all men to be saved) or we could do our own thing. I think the problem with your argument is that when it comes to the problem of evil (any of those I listed above) you would have to ultimately concede that not only did God know about it from eternity past…but that it was part of His WILL! Oh my. How disgusting is that? It was God's WILL…and somehow it is going to glorify Him? Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

A women recently raped goes to her pastor for counseling. Her pastor does not hold to the OV position and "eases" her grief with remarks such as "Well, God's ways are above our ways"…"We may not know everything but God does and someday He will reveal to you why it was part of His WILL from eternity past that you were raped and beaten and that act is going to give glory to Him."

I am sure the women would leave there praising God after a counseling session like that.

Can God make good come from bad situations? YES. Does God predestine those situations so that good will result? NO. God doesn’t need for someone to be raped so that something good will result. An example of this is found in John 9 when Jesus healed the blind man from birth. His disciples asked if he was blind because of his sin or his parents. Jesus responded neither. BUT, he continues, to show how great God is…I am going to heal him. God didn't cause the blindness (some might consider it an evil) but to show that God can use a bad situation for his glory he healed him. God didn't cause him to be blind SO THAT He could heal him. That's kind of sick. Wouldn't a God who has the ability to act and make good happen from bad things that people choose to do be greater than one who caused the bad things to happen in the first place so that He could say "Look at what I am going to do now...I am going to make it right." How cool is that?

Those are just a few of my thoughts. I am really enjoying reading your posts…I just thought I would give my two cents on the problem of evil argument.
 

duel

New member
Issues

Issues

I have debated many, many timed formaly and informaly. When you know that a fight has 10 rounds in it there are a number of ways one could proceed especially if you know your audience or opponent well.

While it may have been a less prefered menthod for Enyart to avoid a majority of Sam's questions in the first round it is understandable because in a fight you do not want to have to respond only to the activity directed at you. Typically the one that has the other responding instead of acting will win. Opposite for example of what we are doing in Iraq.

What I do know is that Sam needs to respond to Bob's assertion regarding the lesser and greater attributes. He believes that by making them all equal that he can just ignore Bob's perhaps greatest hermeneutic for dealing with apparently contradictory verses. I appreciate this method greatly. I think it is a mistake to ignore it or believe by simple equivocation all attributes are equally important is to miss perhaps the greatest difference between most open view authors and Bob's fresh approach.

So there are 10 rounds. I guarantee Bob will not let any stone unturned, so while you may not appreciate his style I assume that there is a great amount of head to head debate coming.
 

jeremiah

BANNED
Banned
I was still trying to digest and understand as fully as possible Bob's second post, when Dr. Sam posted his third. In the midst of a busy work week it is difficult to fully read, let alone analyze each post. I suspect that both debaters are having similar difficulties and are practicing clock management!
Bob had the benefit of the first clock stoppage, and the first four day weekend! He held his post back as long as possible, but the good Dr. posted his third round quickly, and will now receive the second four day weekend break.
I liked each of the last two posts. Each person made good points in their favor. I still think that the Dr. is more on topic and the burden remains on Bob to get more on topic, and to convince me that God does not know my entire future, and solve the problems that creates.
I commend the Dr. for not getting drawn into a debate on Calvinism. If he does he will lose me, and the debate, because I think foreknowledge can not be successfully argued from that point.
I think that God does know my entire future, and that is my "horse in this race" even if it is being ridden by a "Calvinist" jockey.
I fully agree with Bob, that Jesus would have loved for Judas to repent and not betray Him. Just as I say, Amen and Amen, to the fact that God is living, loving, personal relational and good. That said, it in no way conflicts with my belief that God is omniscient and as Loving and merciful as you describe Him.
I also agree that Augustine brought many erroneous beliefs into the Church and many of those beliefs are Greek and pagan in nature.
Yet again, how does that change whether or not God is omniscient or not?
It may influence how we think of God, but you still have to answer the statements about God, and by God, in His Holy Book.
The analysis of Peter's denial, from post one still stands virtually untouched, and therefore presently unrefuted, from the OV position.
I know that many consider, the Ninevah passages strong for the OV. I completely agree with Dr Sam's analysis and dismissal of them.
What I consider much stronger and problematic are the passages concerning God's sorrow and repentance for having Created man. The passage concerning Abraham's test with Isaac. Another one is the whole subject of Job. Why would Satan who dwells in the spiritual realm, take up God's challenge concerning Job? If God knows and has in effect peeked into the future and knows what Satan will do to Job, and that Job will remain faithful: Why would a being as intelligent as Satan fall for a sucker's bet? Does Satan not know that God has already seen the future?
I hope to see these Scripture passages, as well as Peter's denial, and Psalm 139 dealt with before the end of round ten.
May God bless you both, and you are both doing far better than critics like myself, or most any of the rest of us could!
 
Last edited:

Shadowx

New member
I could have

I could have

Sam says: Bob argues that this makes God guilty of sin (a cheating man could not have done otherwise) but this is to misunderstand the point. The cheating man does what he wanted to do, simply because he could not have done otherwise does not mean that he did not freely choose to cheat on his wife and is thus responsible for his actions.


(rhetorical)
Why did he "want" to do it? Was it because God tempted, compelled him in some way?
Or did God simply foresee it all, through his own righteousness, wanting this man not to molest, rape, cheat etc etc, but a slave to His own foreknowledge, helpless even in the righteousness he has put IN man's conscieounce to persuade them otherwise..


Sam said "Third, it is a serious problem for Bob that in Matthew’s gospel the betrayal of Judas is said to be a fulfillment of prophecy (Matt 26:54-56).
54 "How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen this way?" 55 At that time Jesus said to the multitudes, "Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as against a robber? Every day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me. 56 "But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled." Then all the disciples left Him and fled. (NASB)"

You left part out, "Think not that I could.." Could he have?
Could Jesus have called on angels for help, considering the future is locked into place, since it was already a done deal in God's mind and prewritten to come to pass that he would be betrayed and crucified...

Did Jesus really have that kind of freedom?
If he did call on the angels, would it have been wrong?

Danny
Ps: Sam's 3rd post is much better..this is getting interesting..
 
Last edited:

Z Man

New member
KO'd!!!

KO'd!!!

:box:

Wow. Dr. Lamerson really laid it on Bob this time. Not only does Bob have the burden of proof still resting on his shoulders from the Dr.'s first post, but now Dr. Lamerson has given concise 'pro' argumentation from Scripture concerning Judas's betrayel (Matt. 26), and even showed how Enyart's proof texts on Acts 1:16 are proven wrong by the very source Enyart posts from!

Good job Dr. Lamerson on all of your posts. Bob Enyart has a lot of work to catch up. In my opinion, your third post knocked Bob to the ground. Showing Mr. Enyart how Jesus proved his diety in the prophecy of Judas's betrayal was one strong uppercut that basically stunned Mr. Enyart's view. And then, proving him wrong by using his own source on Acts 1:16 was the final knock out blow! Ouch Mr. Enyart; how does the mat taste? :eek:

Looking forward to see Enyart try and stumble his way back up from the mat...
 

CRASH

TOL Subscriber
Slander???

Slander???

With all due respect Lamerson, quit complaining about Bob’s debate style and get into the fight. If you have a major problem quote it from the rules of this debate and check first to see if you have violated any of the rules yourself. You never saw Suger Ray going into round 3 still complaining that the opponent only threw jabs and didn’t constantly go for the knockout punch.



You brought up planes flying into the twin towers and said “I believe that at some point God will reveal to us why he allowed that to happen (CRASH -Easy, He allowed it to happen because He gave us free will and some people are really evil!) and it will, in the end, glorify him.”



You are kidding, of course, right? Terrorists, hell bent on and successful at their plan of mass murder will glorify God? Is that because God ordained it and planned it before the foundation of the world? It’s all part of God’s plan? No way. Like those who sacrificed their babies to Molech, this evil NEVER entered His mind. What an insult to God to say he pre-ordained all of the evil in the world and it is all part of His "plan". If I am reading too much into this I am open to correction but if what I say describes your view, it is Slanderous!



On a lighter note, I am obviously, OV (I was predestined by God

to be OV ) but I have to hand it to Lamerson for the funniest line,

I can hear some in the grandstands sharpening their knives on this passage….”

Regardless of which side you are on, sometimes it seems that way and I laughed out loud.:chuckle:
 
Last edited:

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I appreciate Dr. Sam's use of Greek, though Greek scholars often disagree. What does A.T. Robertson say on your passages? I appreciate how you are thinking and responding instead of giving pat answers from anti-OV.

Sam is not presenting a hyper-Calvinist position per se. I would like to see some comment about Arminian simple foreknowledge to contrast it with Calvinism and Open Theism. These are the 3 major views in evangelical circles relating to the topic.

I do not think that Bob believes that passages showing that God knows the entire future are anthropomorphic (Sam's words under 'on the virtually pointless statement..'). Bob probably does not believe that there are passages that even imply this. It seems to be an extrapolation from specific examples to a general assumption (logical fallacy). As Boyd emphasizes, some of the future is settled and some of the future is unsettled/uncertain. The Open View takes both sets of passages at face value. Closed theists take one set as literal and the other motif as anthropomorphic (Sam admits this). Open Theists do not take the closed sets as anthro., but also take them literally. We agree that God predestines and knows some of the future, but this does not mean that He knows all of the possible future as actual/certain beforehand.

The proof texts from Psalms are not definitive. Some merely affirm that God knows the past and present perfectly, or that He knows certain aspects of the future (but not necessarily all= extrapolation/assumption).

I Sam. 15:11, 29, 35 We do not require hermeneutic gymnastics to understand these verses. The Open View takes them at face value. God changes His mind in some ways/circumstances, but He does not change it in other situations. KISS (keep it simple Sam...no need for another ivory tower hermeneutic...use the basic one we all agree on).

Jn. 13 does not have to mean the prediction was from eternity past. In light of all verses about Judas (I believe he was a believer who became apostate; Calvinists must assume he was never a believer), the prediction happened after Judas went sour. This still affirms the Deity of Christ since He knew this sooner rather than later (like the disciples). The prediction was fulfilled in an illustrative sense. IF Judas did not betray Christ, someone else would have went down in history as the fulfillment or Christ would not have spoken the words about Judas and the Spirit would have inspired a different historical narrative. The Bible is historical, not written in heaven before actual events and dropped from a cloud.

I agree that 'non-prophecies' is not standard and needs clarification.

Sam said that God is not timeless. This needs expanding on. If God is not in an 'eternal now' seeing past/present/future all at once, what is the mechanism of His certain, exhaustive foreknowledge? Is it decrees and determinism (deductive reasoning vs self-evident/explicit)? Is it the Arminian simple foreknowledge (whatever that is...trying explaining it)? Time is unidirectional. If He is divinely temporal, then the future is not there to see or know. We can pack our bags and go home.

The immutability proof texts simply affirm God's stable character and attributes. These verses do not preclude the possibility of God changing His mind, actions, thoughts, feelings, or relations. His knowledge can change (possible to actual) without changing His inherent perfections. A changing clock is perfect, whereas an unchanging clock is only correct 2x/24 hours.

The problem of evil (theodicy) honestly is better resolved by Open Theism. To think otherwise displays a weak understanding of the Open View. It also underestimates the omnicompetence of God to think the view has disadvantages. e.g. the inspiration of Scripture is superintended by God. If the authors would have misused their freedom and calling, we would have more apocrypha. Inspiration theories do not state that God controlled the authors like a megaphone or pen. Their personalities came out in their styles. The Spirit moved on them, but did not merely dictate through them.


See Boyd's treatise on evil:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_2/002-7911674-7031268?v=glance&s=books

I wonder if the debaters are teachable enough to concede errors and embrace new understanding? I trust the peanut gallery will also be open to affirming what we believe and why or embracing new light.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Both Sam and Bob have chosen to set up straw men and knock them down instead of answering the real questions of the debate. The real questions are
  • Does man have free will to choose his actions(OV)?
  • If man has free will, is God unable to influence man(OV)?
  • Are some men selected for salvation and others selected for damnation(SV)?
  • What is prophecy?
  • Does God tell men what He knows will happen in the future?
  • Is man or the devil able to prevent a prophecy from being fulfilled?
  • Is prophecy God's power to enforce the fulfillment of His prophecies, in spite of man's free will and an open future?
If Calvin is correct, then God lied when He said:
Deuteronomy 11:26Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; 27A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day: 28And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.
If the future was already settled when God said this, then He lied to the children of Israel about setting forth a blessing because history shows that the children of Israel did not receive the blessing but did receive the curse.
 
Last edited:

mamatuzzo

New member
What a magnificent debate!!!!!!


Thank you to both participants, it has lifted my faith. Bobs last post was brilliant! In answering Dr. Lamersons questions he has stated the facts and quoted scripture accurately. In all respect to Dr. Lamerson, I believe his arguement up to this point has been dogmatic. Bob is relating to all of us the Living God as apposed to a stone idle.


In His Service,

Michael Amatuzzo
 

Montana

New member
I want to thank Sam for establishing that he is qualified to be in this debate. I should have asked him for clarification instead of accusing him otherwise. For that I apologize and ask his forgiveness. Like Sam, I have important people following this debate. I am satisfied that no one will disregard the evidence based on a misunderstanding of a sentence he wrote about his qualifications.

I appreciate the aggressive and well thought out challenges of Sam’s third post. I think it is important in a situation like this to bring everything you have to the table. Christians today get their ideas from a smorgasbord that includes some pretty unhealthy stuff. I think it is right to risk offending fellow believers out of concern for their spiritual diet.

Both debaters are capable of arguing their positions from a scholarly position. What I am starting to notice however, is that I am drawn to the emotion that Bob adds to his posts. As I have grown older, relationships really have become paramount to me. Bob brings realism and believability to the descriptions of God as Savior, Father, provider, etc. I suspect that not all the differences in the posts are the result of writing style. God is big enough to meet as all where we are at. How does the Settled View make God personal?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Sam said in the main debte
SLQ2-See the Judas discussion above. It is interesting that Bob has chosen to take up so much time with the Judas question and has yet to deal with the prediction of Peter that makes a strong case for some form of compatibilism (free will existing with foreknowledge). I spent a good bit of time on the argument in the first post and would have liked to have seen the point that I put forth about Peter answered.

If Sam doesn’t like Bob’s answers concerning the Judas “prediction” he will be equally unsatisfied with Bob’s response regarding Peter. The answer will be nearly identical because the logic is the same. In essence Bob did answer the same question by going into detail with regard to Judas.
 

denversurvivor

New member
Give me a break!

Give me a break!

Sam wrote:

The cheating man does what he wanted to do, simply because he could not have done otherwise does not mean that he did not freely choose to cheat on his wife and is thus responsible for his actions.


Sam, that's exactly what that means!

Even though you think you had to put that in your last post, your still responsible for it's stupidity.
 

Truppenzwei

Supreme Goombah of the Goombahs
LIFETIME MEMBER
I'll be brutally frank, while Bob's posts are making what the OV actually is MASSIVELY clearer for me I honestly couldn't say that either of the posters in the debate seem to be actually dealing with the Does God Know The Future bit. This is the bit that I am really interested in.
 

billygoat

How did I get such great kids??
LIFETIME MEMBER
proof texting has no place, what saith The Scriptures overall

proof texting has no place, what saith The Scriptures overall

We all know there are isolated biblical texts that we can dust off and put into the debate that, standing alone, seem to prove one's point. Both sides can do this.

It would be a crying shame if this is all we get in this endeavor. We all should want to go through the Bible from a to z and digest it, so we can determine what the overall teaching of scripture is.

Sam has already brought up some of his side's proof texts. What I hope will happen is that we get past that, ands see a glimpse into the mind of Almighty God, to see how He works, how He thinks, and what makes Him tick.

Does God overall in Scripture present Himself as a God who takes pleasure in the death of the wicked? Of course not. Jesus saw people sufferring and was moved with compassion.

Does He set up situations where innocent people are cruelly killed and tortured so it will "bring glory to Himself?" Let it not even be named among those who claim to love God!

What I am hoping for is that picture of God that shows Him making predictions, and then changing His mind because circumstances change. If I'm evil and bound for hell, if I repent, God and His Holy angels would all rejoice if I repent and accept Christ as my Saviour.

God says in Jeremiah chapter 18 that if he says he will destroy a people who are wicked, but they repent, He will change and not do the evil He said He was going to do to them. Likewise if God says He will bless a nation, and they then turn evil, He will not bless them as He said He would.

This is a PRINCIPLE under which God operates. He adapts and adjusts to what men do. This is the picture that is consistant in the Bible. Not a God who cannot bless someone because His hands are tied by predestination.

These are the things I hope we get into. God adapts and reacts to what we do.
 

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Sam's third round post was his best yet!

But regarding this point:
Sam Lamerson in Round 3 said:
SLQ5- Bob here says that God planned the crucifixion of Christ before the creation of man. He adds that “if man sinned . . .” but fails to tell us why the Lamb would have been slain before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8-note that I disagree with the translation of the NAS here and believe that the NKJ’s translation is much better). The lamb being slain before the foundation of the world indicates that God knew, before he created, that man would sin.

Why does Sam prefer NKJ over NAS for this verse? Let's take a look at both:

Revelation 13:8 (New King James Version)
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Revelation 13:8 (New American Standard Bible)
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.​


It's no surprise that Dr. Lamerson rejects the NASB's translation. The phrases are arranged so that it doesn't say anything about Christ being slain from the foundation of the world. NKJV seems to better support Dr. Lamerson's interpretation, but it is ambiguous; it could also be interpreted no differently than NASB.

So now what? Is there any way to conclusively determine which phrase "from the foundation of the world" refers to?

You bet there is! Revelation 17:8 says the same thing in a way that clarifies beyond any doubt:


Revelation 17:8 (New King James Version)
The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Revelation 17:8 (New American Standard Bible)
The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come.​


Mention of "the Lamb slain" is omitted from this verse, but everything else from Rev. 13:8 is in tact here. We can therefore clearly see that "from the foundation of the world" refers to the names that have not been written in the Book of Life. So NASB got it right! (Not that NKJV is wrong, it's just ambiguous.) It could be said that "of the Lamb Slain" is the Book of Life's subtitle (since subtitles are sometimes left off).

Revelation 13:8 (New King James Version)
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in
The Book of Life
of the Lamb Slain
from the foundation of the world.​
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
My general impression of Dr. Lamerson's round 3 post is that it is by far his most aggressive and best post yet in the debate. If things continue to improve as they have in terms of hard hitting argumentation, the second half of BR X is going to blow everyone's mind!

There are a few specific things that I would like to comment on...
Sam Lamerson said:
DOES GOD KNOW THE FUTURE?
ROUND IIIa-Sam Lamerson 8/10/05​

To begin, I would like to again thank Bob for having me on his radio show, and thank those who have taken the time to read carefully and critique my posts. I must say that I have been somewhat disturbed by some of the posts (Chance’s post that he was banned for, for example). My son is interested in debate as well as the foreknowledge question and has been following along with the posts and the grandstands. Needless to say, he and I had a talk about why some feel the need to viciously attack the person instead of the idea. There have been some posts that seemed to be ad hominem attacks and for the life of me, I can’t quite figure out why. While we may disagree on the issue, I have tried to be gracious and kind in my responses and am not quite sure what I have done to provoke these attacks.
You've done nothing Dr., any such attacks are entirely unwarranted and shameful. I hope that none of my comments have come off as being personal attacks, none of them were at all intended as such. Anything I say in this thread is intended only as commentary on the debate itself and is intended to help insure that the debate is as good as it can be. If they seems otherwise, let me know and I will gladly clarify my comments.

Another issue that has caused some confusion was my statement that “I am not the most qualified person to debate this issue.” What I meant was that there is, presumably, one person (hence the definite article ‘the’) who is the most qualified (it might be Dr. Kennedy, Dr. Sproul, Dr. Steve Roy, Dr. Bruce Ware, etc.) and that I am not that particular person. I in no way meant to imply that I was not qualified or that I was “setting up an escape hatch” in case things went South in the debate.
I'll address this because I was one of those who made comment about it earlier and after reading my own comments I can see how it may have come across as a personal attack so I wanted to clarify to make sure that my intentions are understood.
I said what I said the way I said it in the hopes that my comments would have the effect of closing any such escape hatch. I know that I was not the one who used the phrase "escape hatch" but it is a good analogy to what I feared was being readied for use and so with the above reaction it seems that one of two things are true. Either the Dr. wanted (perhaps unconsciously) to have our expectations lowered in respect to his performance in the debate and my comment and that of others has had its desired effect, or the Dr. never had any such intention and my reaction to his comments in his second post were and over reaction and my comments were not necessary. I will be very content to assume the latter.

Now, on to the rest of the post! (Don't worry, I'm not going to comment on every bit of it. ;) )
Bob Again Fails to Answer the Arguments in my First Post

Notice that I argued from two events in the gospels. Peter’s betrayal and Jesus statement that our Father knows what we need before we ask. Some of those in the grandstands have stated that in a debate both opening statements need not directly clash with one another. This would be unlike any formal debate that I have ever been involved in (an I have been involved in many). It would also be in conflict with the nature of formal debate. Professor David Zarefsky of Northwestern University says this in his course on Argumentation (available from “The Teaching Company” on audio or video tape) “once the initial argument has been advanced (unless it is self-defeating on its face), the burden of rejoinder comes into play.” (p. 27 of course outline) A. Freely in his classic textbook Argumentation and Debate states the issue this way- . . . the negative has the burden of rebuttal [this is the same concept as Zarefsky’s burden of rejoinder]-that is, the negative must refute the issues of the affirmative, or the affirmative will prevail. (4th edition, p. 203)

The issue, very simply, is this: the first speaker has the burden of proof, it is his job to set forth an argument. The second speaker (negative) has the burden of rejoinder. The second speaker must respond to the arguments set forth. If this were not the case why flip a coin to see who goes first? Why not just have both sides set out their first papers? Why give Bob 48 hours to respond when he does not need to deal with any of my arguments? At the very least I hope that those of you that are reading will agree that we are now into the third round and that Bob has not, in any sense, dealt with the arguments (not the questions but the arguments) that I set forth in my first post. Because I went first, Bob will rightly have the last word in the debate. The advantage that I had in going first has been nullified by Bob’s failing to respond to my arguments. Yet even if all of this analysis were not correct, we are now heading into the third round and I am waiting for a response to my first post.

I know that there are those of you who believe that I am making too much of this point. The fact is, however, in a moderated debate when a position has not even been attacked, much less refuted for two rounds the judge would rightly consider those points conceded.
Okay, I just deleted about four lines of ranting that I typed in as an emotional response to this section. Suffice it to say that you (Dr. Lamerson) seem to have failed to grasp pastor Enyart's argument. The simple fact of the matter is that he has not only addressed your argument, he has dismantled it and left it in pieces. This is a debate where the posts are supposed to be limited in length to approximately 6000 words which is not sufficient space to give the sort of treatment to each of your points which you seem to desire of him. Bob went to some length to address in detail what he considered the most difficult of the passages you brought up. And more importantly than that, he did so in such a way that his direct response to any of the other points should be intuitive to both you and the rest of the audience and in fact it was just that. Bob very clearly communicated the thought process which brought him to the conclusion that he came to in response to your Judas argument. The logic will be exactly the same with the rest of your argument as well. Is it really necessary that he present basically the same rebuttal over and over again just because you brought up more than one similar Scriptural example? I certainly don't think it is.

On the “Virtually Pointless” Statement

Notice that Bob has overstated my point, I do not believe that I called Bob’s hermeneutic pointless, I said that the answer “context” is “so broad as to be virtually pointless.” I believe that the Scripture clearly shows that God knows the future and that passages that seem to show God as not knowing or changing his mind are “anthropomorphisms.” Bob believes that these texts show that God does indeed not know the entire future and that passages that present God as knowing the entire future must be another sort of “anthropomorphism.” We both agree that we must interpret passages based on context, and yet we come to completely different conclusions. This means that we must sharpen our hermeneutical tools so that we can agree on some method for understanding this particular figure of speech.
That's precisely what Bob gave you though! He presented extremely sharp (well thought out) hermeneutical tools (principles) and you missed it completely and responded as though he had simply given the pat answer of "context" which he flat out did not do.

On Greek Influence

Bob argues that Augustine was influenced by Plato and since Augustine is a great and respected theologian many who follow him were thus influenced. I will have a number of responses.

First, again from my second post “let me say up front that I will be using only one text to argue my case and that text is the Scripture” There are many instances where Augustine is wrong in his interpretation of Scripture. I am a Christian who follows the word of God.
Great! If so, you'll be an open theist in just a few more rounds. ;)

Second, I know that many in the Grandstands, as well as Bob are surprised that I challenged this notion. Some seem to think that I am unfamiliar with this argument. It is not that I am unfamiliar with the work of those who make this claim (Boyd, Sanders, Pinnock, Rice, and others) it is that I am unconvinced by them. There are numbers of others who are specialists in this field who will argue that if anything, OV is more influenced by Greek Philosophy than is the traditional view (see for example the work of R. Fuller and C. Owen Brand).
Well then why didn't you say that in your second post? If you're familiar with the argument then refute it. Why wait until your opponent has to spend 400 words reiterating it before you make you case against it?
Perhaps you were hoping that Bob wasn't able to establish the point. If so, I would caution you against such thinking in the future. I have known Bob Enyart for over a decade now and I have never once heard him say a single thing that he wasn't prepared to establish quite thoroughly.

On the Psalms Being Written Before Plato

This has caused a great deal of comment from the grandstands and is responded to by Bob and so I believe that the actual statement deserves a careful examination. There is a subtle shift in the position of Bob from post I to post II.

First let me quote the exact statement that Bob made in post I: “. . . Psalms ignores or downplays the Greek and Roman philosophical attributes of the OMNIs and IMs . ..” Again, it is impossible to “ignore or to downplay” that which does not exist. Bob very clearly here makes an error. The Greek philosophy that Bob is speaking of in this context did not exist at the time and so the writers could not have ignored it! That seems simple enough.

Second, I believe that what Bob meant to say is seen in his second post. He restates his position by stating that the “Psalms do not emphasize the classical attributes but they glorify God for his Openness attributes. . .This is an entirely different point from the one made by the statement in the first post quoted above. Bob argues that I have conceded his point here, but this is a misunderstanding. I do not concede that God’s knowledge of the future is not seen in the Psalms. I do concede that the writers of the Psalms were not influenced by a philosophy that did not exist at that time.
It is not an entirely different point Dr. It is precisely the same point, you just missed it the first time around and seemingly still are missing it now. You said, "The Greek philosophy that Bob is speaking of in this context did not exist at the time..." but Bob was not talking about Greek philosophy in the comment you quoted. He was talking about the attributes of God which the Greeks talked about and that you claim are in the Bible, as my highlighting should clearly show. Bob's entire point was that those attributes aren't spoken of in the Psalms and you definitely missed the point. I recommend just letting this point drop.

Third, again we come to the question of hermeneutics. I can cite many passages from the Psalms that seem to say that God knows the future. Here are a few:

Psalm 22:16-18 16 For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me; 18 They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots

Psalm 33:10-11 10 The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples. 11 The counsel of the LORD stands forever, The plans of His heart from generation to generation.

Psalm 56:10 - 57:1 10 In God, whose word I praise, In the LORD, whose word I praise, 11 In God I have put my trust, I shall not be afraid. What can man do to me? 12 Your vows are binding upon me, O God; I will render thank offerings to You. 13 For You have delivered my soul from death, Indeed my feet from stumbling, So that I may walk before God In the light of the living.

Psalm 73:9-12 9 They have set their mouth against the heavens, And their tongue parades through the earth. 10 Therefore his people return to this place, And waters of abundance are drunk by them. 11 They say, "How does God know? And is there knowledge with the Most High?" 12 Behold, these are the wicked; And always at ease, they have increased in wealth.

Psalm 89:34-37 34 "My covenant I will not violate, Nor will I alter the utterance of My lips. 35 "Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David. 36 "His descendants shall endure forever And his throne as the sun before Me. 37 "It shall be established forever like the moon, And the witness in the sky is faithful." Selah.

Let me preclude some objections by saying that I know that each of the passages can be debated as to what it actually prove. That is my point. We must agree on some more carefully crafted hermeneutical principle than just “context.”
Bob's argument to this point has been that his hermeneutic is superior to that of the Closed View. And, since you have already conceded that the Bible clearly has passages that seem to teach the Open View and that the only difference is which hermeneutic is used to determine which set of verses is used to interpret the other, I would say that determining whether Bob's proposed hermeneutic is superior to any alternative you wish to offer is the central issue at this point in the debate. In other words, who ever comes out on top in this hermeneutical battle will be the winner of the debate.

Fourth, Bob drops my analysis (in post II) of Psalm 139 where I argue [Psalm 139:4 “Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all.” This cannot be reduced to a simple guess on the part of God as to what we will say. The writer goes on to say in Psalm 139:16 “Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.” It seems clear that for God to know all of the days of our lives before we are even formed he must know all that will happen to us under any circumstance.] This is yet another example of Bob being non-responsive. If this is to be a true debate there must be clash on particular issues. While I know that there is a word limit and that neither one of us can deal with every single point, this was a very important argument and it was not dealt with.
It should be obvious what Bob's response will be here based on what he has already presented. But, I'm sure Bob will be happy to explain it anyway. It's quite an interesting section of Scripture; I'm sure everyone will be edified by the teaching.

A point that I tried to make in my first post was that both Bob and I could throw out passages that seem to teach what we believe. The real question is which of us is correct (the point of the debate). In order to settle this difficult question we must first agree on how the Scripture is to be interpreted.
As I said above. It isn't necessary to come to an agreement on this issue. It is only necessary for Bob to demonstrate that his hermeneutic is more sound that your (or vise versa).

While “context” is a good start, it does not go far enough. I think that I understand your NOAH (nice name, by the way) but I do not see that it gets us very far. By calling itself an “openness” hermeneutic, it assumes the very question that is up for debate.
I did think that this was a decent point. The name "New Openness-Attributes Hermeneutic" does sort of beg the question in the context of this debate. However, a rose by any other name is still a rose Dr. If you don't like the name, don't use it. It's the principle of it that we are concerned with, you can call it whatever you like.

Bob cites BAG (here I presume that he means BAGD), which he calls a “leading authority.” This is the leading authority for Koine Greek, that is true. The problem is that the lexicon does not say what Bob quotes it as saying.
As I said a moment ago, Bob just simply doesn't make statements that he isn't prepared to prove. I hope we will see a response from Bob on this that will lay this controversy to rest.

Bob uses Micah 5:2 as an example of a “predictive prophecy.” This raises a number of issues: Did Mary and Joseph have the choice not to go to Bethlehem? What would have happened if they had chosen to ignore the census? Was the census ordained by God? It seems that this prophecy begins to violate the will, or at least limit the choices of those involved.
I thought this was a good point. I really hope to see a response from Bob on this one.

Second, Bob, I would like for you to show me some examples of two things: First, those prophecies which did not come to pass (Bob promises these for another post). This would indicate, despite Bob’s answer to SLQ7, that according to Bob, God has at times held beliefs that were proven to be false. The example of Nineveh that Bob gives simply does not hold up under pressure. It is obvious that the message Jonah preached to Nineveh and thus the prophecy of God allowed for repentance. If not there is no reason to send Jonah, and no reason to give them forty days. Second, I would like to see some criteria for determining a “predictive prophecy” as opposed to a “non-prophecy.”
Be careful what you ask for, you're liable to get it! ;)

Bob’s Answers to My Questions

Observation-some in the grandstands have said that we can “put to bed the issue of Bob being unresponsive because he answers Sam’s questions. . .” While it is true that he answers my questions, as I have pointed out earlier, he has not dealt with the arguments that I used in my first post, they have simply been ignored.
They haven't been ignored, you just missed the point of his response. It's all right though, I'm sure he'll clear things up.

SLQ2-See the Judas discussion above. It is interesting that Bob has chosen to take up so much time with the Judas question and has yet to deal with the prediction of Peter that makes a strong case for some form of compatibilism (free will existing with foreknowledge). I spent a good bit of time on the argument in the first post and would have liked to have seen the point that I put forth about Peter answered.
Again, it was answered. It was answered so well that it hardly seems necessary to answer effectively the same question again. But, since you've not gotten it, I'm quite sure Bob will oblige with a direct response to the Peter thing.

SLQ3-I do not agree that my definition needs nuancing. To decide is to do something. I was not saying that an agent could accomplish that which they choose to do, but only that they could choose to do so.

Here Bob puts his finger on the real issue of this debate. Does “will” include the ability to do otherwise? This is a hinge upon which much of this discussion swings. Please allow me to give an illustration that may help clarify this.

A man rents a room at a boarding-house. He uses the basement of the house for his scientific experiments. Usually he gets his best ideas at night and gets out of bed, goes downstairs and rattles around with his equipment, waking up the rest of the boarders.

The landlady asks the boarder to please refrain from his experiments at night because he is annoying the rest of the people who room there. That night, the renter gets a great idea, but instead of rushing downstairs to try out the experiment, he stays in bed until morning. He thinks that he has done the right thing of his own free will. What he does not know is that the landlady has locked the door from the outside so that he could not have gone downstairs if he had chosen to. Was the man’s choice free? I would say yes, because he did what he wanted to do. Bob would (I presume) say no because he did not have the ability to choose otherwise (let us presume that the door is the only way out of the room to preclude any talk of climbing out the window, etc.) This is the issue of the debate and how one decides what it means to be free will spill over into other areas of one’s theology.
There are severally points here which you seem to miss not the least of which is that the decision to stay or to go is itself an action. The man decided to stay but could have decided otherwise. Whether he was physically able to carry out a decision to do otherwise is beside the point. I'm not here to debate the issue so I'll leave it at that for now.

SLQ4- Here Bob says that Jesus could have been in error, yet he tells us in SLQ7 that God cannot hold any beliefs that are, or might prove to be, false. Bob, can you clarify for me how it might be possible to Jesus to be mistaken and yet still hold that God never hold’s any beliefs that are false? More importantly, what else is Jesus mistaken about?
Good question.

SLQ5- Bob here says that God planned the crucifixion of Christ before the creation of man. He adds that “if man sinned . . .” but fails to tell us why the Lamb would have been slain before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8-note that I disagree with the translation of the NAS here and believe that the NKJ’s translation is much better). The lamb being slain before the foundation of the world indicates that God knew, before he created, that man would sin.
Another decent point.

SLQ6-Again Bob slips into a serious logical problem here. How is it possible for God’s prophecy to be incorrect and yet for God to never hold any belief that proves to be false? Bob goes on in Q7 to speak of core belief, context, hope, and a variety of other things that really don’t make his answer very clear. The problem is simply this: If God can predict future events and then see that these events did not come to pass, God, for a short time at least, held to beliefs that were proven to be false. As to Nineveh, see my analysis above.
Three good ones in a row!


Okay, that's more than enough for now (probably too much really). I think everyone should have a pretty good understanding of my take on this latest post. I applaud you for being more aggressive than you were in your first two posts and I hope that will continue. I think that you'll find that with this post, those who feel the need to attack you personally will diminish tremendously or at least I hope that will be the case.
I'll be looking forward to your next post.

God bless you!

Clete
 
Last edited by a moderator:

prima scriptura

New member
They are neck and neck

They are neck and neck

Sam: "No, I do not agree that these five attributes [living, personal, relational, good, and loving] are more fundamental [than omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, impassibility, and immutability]. I reject the idea that God can be separated from any of these attributes or that one is more important or takes precedence over another."

Bob: With this, I declare victory in the debate.

I'm not so sure about this declaration of victory. Bob was making some interesting points, to be sure. For example, his rebuttal about God knowing our words before we say them, not necessarily before we think them, was particularly apt.

I have watched this debate with interest, and would say they are neck and neck at this point. Of course, Bob had more ground to make up because:
(a) the open view is new
(b) it does not agree with what the church fathers and a vast majority of Christian teachers have taught
(c) there is no significant movement to speak of for the Open View. In fact, this web site is the only place I have heard it endorsed, and I have read a decent amount of Christian literature and current publications.

To add a point in the OV column which I've not yet read, the idea that Jesus could (theoretically) make an incorrect prediction (which He never has nor will) is no less untenable than saying Christ was (theoretically) capable of sin while on earth (though we all know He was sinless).

To take away a point from OV, just because God said He would judge, say Ninevah, and communicated it to them does not negate the fact that He knew they would repent. Also, I'm not so satisfied with Bob's answer to the Judas betrayal (even less so after watching The Gospel of John movie, a verbatim rendition of the book, last night) or moreso his answer to Peter's betrayal.

Be that as it may, doesn't the idea that God does not know the future just seems plain silly? Maybe it's just me.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Sam asked:

"SLQ4: Was Jesus’ prediction about the action of Judas possibly in error?"

To which Bob replied:

"Yes. Jesus would have rejoiced if Judas would have repented."

Then Sam said:

"SLQ4- Here Bob says that Jesus could have been in error, yet he tells us in SLQ7 that God cannot hold any beliefs that are, or might prove to be, false. Bob, can you clarify for me how it might be possible to Jesus to be mistaken and yet still hold that God never hold’s any beliefs that are false? More importantly, what else is Jesus mistaken about?"

Bob: No answer!

And still no answer in regard to Peter's three denials.

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