Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

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

  • patman
    replied
    Verses

    I mentioned a few verses in my last post, here they are:

    Ex 34:11 “Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittiteand the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. ”

    Josh 3:10 And Joshua said, “By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites...


    Note Ex 34 is not a description of an event but rather Gods own word, which should be honored as true and which the meaning can be understood and trusted. Your rule rule cannot apply here.


    Jud 3:1-6 Now these are the nations which the LORD left, that He might test Israel by them, that is, all who had not known any of the wars in Canaan 2 (this was only so that the generations of the children of Israel might be taught to know war, at least those who had not formerly known it), 3 namely, five lords of the Philistines, all the Canaanites, the Sidonians, and the Hivites who dwelt in Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal Hermon to the entrance of Hamath. 4 And they were left, that He might test Israel by them, to know whether they would obey the commandments of the LORD, which He had commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses. 5Thus the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. 6 And they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons; and they served their gods.

    All the nations God said he would drive out were REALLY left. Nothing figurative at all. It is as it reads. Let us therefore understand God didn't look into the future when he proclaimed he would drive out nations that he knew he wouldn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • patman
    replied
    Originally posted by Hilston
    Do you believe Jesus is a door made of wood and nails? Do you believe He is a rock, or a light or a loaf of bread? Why not? Because the idea of Christ as being a literal rock, or a light, or a loaf of bread doesn't make sense in light of what you already assume about God. Here, your conclusions about figurative language would be correct based on correct assumptions about God's nature and existence. However, when the Open Theist, whose raison d'être is to bring God down and raise man up, reads that God changed His mind, they seize upon it as proof that God must be more human-like than God-like, using trial and error, not being sure of what the future will bring, handcuffed to the free will of His creatures, etc. ad nauseum.
    I didn't realize there was a conspiracy by open theist to bring down God. I have been one so long, and never knew. huh. Who knew!?

    OK, forgive the sarcasm.

    You of course are mistaken. Just because you see God in a certain way based on my beliefs does not mean I represent that view. That's a fallacy beyond any I have heard in a while. There in lies your problem again, reading into something the author didn't put there. Your changing or adding in of words goes beyond the bible.

    And yes, as i stated, the bible can be poetic. Jesus is a rock. Not literally. But just because there exists a figurative verse doesn't necessitate the need to make others out to be figurative.

    It just seems convenient that the verses you transform into a figurative verse also fit your bias.

    "Jesus is a Rock" and "I will without fail drive out the nations before you" are not alike. We cannot make the later figurative. It is a statement.

    And it seems odd to claim all OV'ers don't study their proof verse. I put a lot of study into them.

    I am particularly proud of this post:
    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...&postcount=398

    I show how God's prophecy about Babylon, Tyre and Egypt fit into history and can be considered literal(meaning he meant what he said, no need to turn it into something else), yet they do not come to pass. A problem for the S.V. that should be take to heart. It is an important matter, not just a way to make the other guy on TOL mad!

    Determining when a verse is figurative shouldn't rest on your what your theology teaches, but the context of the verse. Let it's understandable meaning speak for itself.

    On a side note, I wonder where the hateful scolding of your last message came from? Did I smart off to you to deserve that? Yes I did accuse you of misreading certain verses, but that is more constructive than demeaning. I simply want to show you how even your on writing proves how you think you can just change any verse to something close, but enough to be different to make it fit into your theology. I quoted you to show how you give yourself away. I am not staging some big debate or waging a war of witty lets-attack-the-other-guy-and-prove-i'm-not-dumb-and-he-is....

    You just revealed yourself in your writing to claim the ability to change meanings of verses when really they speak for themselves and don't need your input.

    I know you are intelligent and well meaning. I tried to show I believed that in my last post. All i wish for you is to take this more seriously. You think we OV'ers have an agenda and none of us study, therefore just write it off... But you have to realize that's not a real reason to write us off. You know these can't be true that can't be true in every circumstance. Why not give me an ear instead of a stereotype?

    My agenda is to let the bible teach me. When I see someone assert something into the word, I must speak up. That is what I did.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hilston
    replied
    Originally posted by patman
    Hilston, you have an interesting take on what I consider to be one of the S.V.'s bigger fall backs.
    What Unsettled Theists call "fall backs" I call obvious conclusions.

    Originally posted by patman
    When I read the Word, I understand that it is describing events. Yes, it is sometimes poetic, but if it says God changed his mind, it must mean what it says.
    That's because you're an Open Theist. Open Theists can't tell the difference between an obvious figure and a non-figurative statement. Looking at the Word through Open Theist lenses, and taking Open-View assumptions to their logical conclusions, God's word fails, prophecies fail, God is less than God and cannot be trusted.

    Originally posted by patman
    The only way to disagree with me is to do what you did, and say, "The action itself is not a figure, but the description of it is figurative." SO by saying that the Bible is so figurative that we can twist the words of it to fit our beliefs instead of letting it shape is, not the other way around.
    Do you believe Jesus is a door made of wood and nails? Do you believe He is a rock, or a light or a loaf of bread? Why not? Because the idea of Christ as being a literal rock, or a light, or a loaf of bread doesn't make sense in light of what you already assume about God. Here, your conclusions about figurative language would be correct based on correct assumptions about God's nature and existence. However, when the Open Theist, whose raison d'être is to bring God down and raise man up, reads that God changed His mind, they seize upon it as proof that God must be more human-like than God-like, using trial and error, not being sure of what the future will bring, handcuffed to the free will of His creatures, etc. ad nauseum.

    What is the mission and purpose of the Open Theist? To secure for themselves freedom from God, total autonomy and final authority.

    How does the Open Theist set about to accomplish this? The steps are as follow:
    (1) Under the guise of "freeing" God from any association with evil, the Open Theist strips God of His essential and transcendent attributes, i.e. His omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, impassibility and immutability;
    (2) Under the guise of extolling God's hatred of evil, the Open Theist over-emphasizes and distorts God's imminent attributes, i.e. that He is living, loving, good, personal and relational;
    (3) Under the guise of affirming justice, and all the while ignoring its true definition, the Open Theist makes man completely and totally autonomous by insisting that man's will must have libertarian freedom, otherwise God could not justly hold them accountable;
    (4) Under the guise of affirming genuine love, and all the while ignoring its true definition, the Open Theist makes man the final authority by insisting that man must choose for himself whether or not God will save him.

    What methods are used by the Open Theist to accomplish this?
    (1) They sit in judgment of God by seizing upon apparent contradictions in the Bible, and explain them by declaring God's ignorance;
    (2) They sit in judgment of God by seizing upon apparent contradictions in the Bible, and explain them by declaring God's lack of foresight;
    (3) They sit in judgment of God by seizing upon finite and figurative descriptions of God as changing and emoting, and to explain them by declaring God's ignorance and lack of foresight.

    These are the methods employed to one degree or another by every Open Theist I've encountered over the past eleven years. They takes a couple passages of scripture that seem to contradict, and eisegetically use them as prooftexts for his their theology. Do they bother to study them out to see what the verses really mean? No, there's no reason to. It says what it says. Nevermind that the concept of God actually changing his mind is contrary to the decretive will of God demonstrated from Genesis to Revelation. Instead the Open Theist jumps on the apparent contradiction and declares (by implication): See! See! Either God is less than God, or else the Bible contradicts itself. And since the latter cannot be true, the former must be. By insisting that God has actually, non-figuratively, changed His mind, you've made God less than God.

    And such is the mission and purpose of Open Theism. If a passage seems to say that God is fickle, don't even consider that it might be a figure of speech intended to emphasize rich, poignant, and wonderfully important insights that the original audience would have readily understood. Use it instead to prove that God is fickle. If a passage seems to say that God is too dumb to see something coming (i.e. is surprised by something), don't even consider that it might be a figure of speech intended to emphasize rich, poignant, and wonderfully important insights that the original audience would have readily understood. Instead, use it to prove that God is a dimwit. If a passage seems to say that God is ignorant, don't even consider that it might be a figure of speech intended to emphasize rich, poignant, and wonderfully important insights that the original audience would have readily understood. Use it to prove that God is ignorant. And so on.

    Here's the diffierence in approaches to such passages:
    The Bible student who believes in the Infinitude of God sees these descriptions in the Bible and concludes, "God cannot be fickle, dimwitted or ignorant, therefore these must be figures of speech conveying something even more emphatic and important than would appear on the surface; I'd better study this out."

    The Open (i.e. Unsettled) Theist sees these descriptions and jumps immediately to the conclusion that God is less than God, just as you've has done regarding alleged failed prophecies. Notice all the hoops that one must jump through to make sense of a passage that otherwise makes perfect sense according to the careful Bible student, sans hoop-jumping.

    The Open Theist will misquote the scripure to deny that God is the author of confusion and evil. The Open Theist attempts to use God's own word to tear Him down and baldly asks the Settled Theist: "Is God the author of confusion or not?" The answer is yes. God is the author of everything. God is infinite, unbounded, supreme. Nothing is greater than God; God is not subordinate to anything, not time, not man, not man's judgment, not man's will. Yet the Open Theist will readily and eagerly seize upon any verse they can twist to make God subordinate to all of these. And since God's attributes of being "good, personal, living, relational and loving" take priority over everything else, then He really can't do anything, which is what has been demonstrated abundantly in this forum for more than a decade. It is abundantly evident in the inability of any Open Theist to tell me one thing that God actually, actively is doing in their lives on a daily basis. What is God actively doing in your life right this moment, patman? The Open Theist has no answer.

    What are the results of Open Theist theology?
    (1) God is reduced to an incidental being who does not really, actually, actively DO anything;
    (2) Man is exalted to a level of total autonomy and final authority on all matters related his own life and eternal state.

    What is the Open Theist's raison d'etre? And as I stated at the beginning, the answer is: To secure for themselves freedom from God, total autonomy and final authority. And this should sound familiar, because the sin of seeking autonomous authority is the sin of Adam, and is (almost) as old as time itself.

    What is the conclusion concerning Open Theism?
    Open Theists have succeeded in created a God in their own image and have thereby committed the sin of Adam. They have sought to independently, on their own will, on their own judgment, authority and autonomy, to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that is, to acquire autonomous knowledge and judgment apart from God. Such a specious theology is powerful and compelling to the uninitiated, and directly appeals to the innate rebellion and sinful nature of man. This is the Broad Road, bidding welcome to the basest level of humanistic theology. Open Theism, taken to its logical conclusion, impugns and denigrates God, thereby pulling Him down. Open Theism exalts man's freedom and autonomy from God, thereby giving man the final authority of all matters concerning his own life and eternal state. Open Theism is nothing new. It started in the Garden of Eden, and has existed in one form or another ever since. Its goal is to question, judge and reduce God to something acceptable to sinful humanity. Its goal is to make God less than God and to make man more than man. It is humanism with a Luciferian impetus. With man as the final authority, God has become incidental, untrustworthy — the Sand God.

    Job 40:8 Wilt thou also disannul My judgment? wilt thou condemn Me, that thou mayest be righteous?

    Originally posted by patman
    And this is what you do. You take what was written and rewrite it in your own mind to mean what you think it should. Your re-writeing of the verses about God changing his mind into "God changed His actions ..." is evident of this fact.
    No, you misunderstand. I do not rewrite the verses. They stand the way they are written. But just as Jesus is not a wooden door made of nails, neither is God fickle or uncertain. So in the former case, the astute reader recognizes the obvious figure of speech. In the latter case, the astute reader recognizes an obvious figure of speech. Only those whose goal is to denigrate God's essential attributes will assume that God is like man, and that a repentance verse means God actually changed His mind. Why do you trust this God, patman? He might change His mind about your salvation. He might change His mind about things He has promised in His word. You have no guarantees. You have a Sand God.

    Originally posted by patman
    Hilston, your claims are very dangerous. They empower mere-mortals to take scripture and re-write it to fit their own agenda.
    On the contrary, patman, a logically consistent and normative hermeneutic protects mere mortals from taking scripture and rewriting it to fit their agenda. What you claim as "very dangerous" is exactly what Open Theists do by re-labeling an obvious figure to be non-figurative.

    Originally posted by patman
    Sure, call it all figurative, you can make it mean ANYTHING.
    Really? Let's see it then. Show me how using figurative language can make a verse mean "anything."

    Originally posted by patman
    You do not intend for this, but it is what you are doing even in your own understandings, and it holds others and yourself back.
    Don't just assert, patman. Prove it.

    Originally posted by patman
    Here is why you should know you are mistaken about the figurative-answer in this particular instance.

    1. God tells Israel he will without fail drive out the other nations from Israel.
    2. Israel sins.
    3. God tells Israel he will let the other nations stay forever.
    4. 3000 years later those nations are effectively gone.

    God made a decision to help Israel, and said he would do it with out fail. Wouldn't he be able to see into the future and know he would fail too drive them out as he said? Then he says he would never drive them out. And the same logic applies. They are gone today. Didn't God foresee this? Why then did he say otherwise? Are his words false?
    On my view, God's words are not false and if they have not been fulfilled, they will be according to God's predetermined time-table. On the Open View, however, this is just another prooftext for God to be untrustworthy, rash and impulsive in His declarations, uncertain and unsettled about the future, ignorant and open to error. If I see a passage that seems to tear God down because of failed prophecy, my conclusion is that I'm missing something and that I have to study it out. And in every case I've been challenged with thus far, I was better off for not jumping to irrational Open-View conclusions. The Open Theist, however, doesn't bother studying it out, because "it says what it says," missing the fact that how something reads can be significantly different from what something says ("I am the Door").

    Originally posted by patman
    If you believe he has absolute foreknowledge, yes, they contradict.
    Excuse me, patman, but they contradict according to YOUR view; not mine. And I'm the one who believes in absolute foreknowledge. You need to better understand what you're dealing with before you launch into these misguided criticisms.

    Originally posted by patman
    Instead his words reflect his actions at the time they were said. God didn't figuratively preform an action at all. God simply spoke his plans.
    His plans included a change of action, patman.

    Originally posted by patman
    NOTE: The reason why God changed his mind to change his actions about his promise have little to do to answer the question, 'why did God say this would happen when he knew without doubt it wouldn't?'
    Either one of two answers is true: (a) You don't understand the passage, or (b) God is less than God. The Open Theist chooses (b) for all the reasons I've outlined above.

    Nice try,
    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • patman
    replied
    Hilston

    Originally posted by Hilston
    Of course, God's actions are not figures of speech. But the descriptions of God's actions are often, if not always, figuratively described. When the Bible describes God as repenting, it is using a figure called a metonymy of adjunct. It is the putting of one thing for another for the sake of emphasis.

    ......

    God's repentance (change of mind), as are most descriptions of God's actions, is a figurative way of referring to the change of actions that are part of His decrees. The action itself is not a figure, but the description of it is figurative, and for excellent linguistic reasons. To simply say, "God changed His actions toward a rebellious Israel" states the facts. But it is much more emphatic and poignant to say that God repented of the good He would have done for Israel.
    Hilston, you have an interesting take on what I consider to be one of the S.V.'s bigger fall backs.

    When I read the Word, I understand that it is describing events. Yes, it is sometimes poetic, but if it says God changed his mind, it must mean what it says.

    The only way to disagree with me is to do what you did, and say, "The action itself is not a figure, but the description of it is figurative." SO by saying that the Bible is so figurative that we can twist the words of it to fit our beliefs instead of letting it shape is, not the other way around.

    And this is what you do. You take what was written and rewrite it in your own mind to mean what you think it should. Your re-writeing of the verses about God changing his mind into "God changed His actions ..." is evident of this fact.

    Hilston, your claims are very dangerous. They empower mere-mortals to take scripture and re-write it to fit their own agenda. Sure, call it all figurative, you can make it mean ANYTHING. You do not intend for this, but it is what you are doing even in your own understandings, and it holds others and yourself back.

    Here is why you should know you are mistaken about the figurative-answer in this particular instance.

    1. God tells Israel he will without fail drive out the other nations from Israel.
    2. Israel sins.
    3. God tells Israel he will let the other nations stay forever.
    4. 3000 years later those nations are effectively gone.

    God made a decision to help Israel, and said he would do it with out fail. Wouldn't he be able to see into the future and know he would fail too drive them out as he said? Then he says he would never drive them out. And the same logic applies. They are gone today. Didn't God foresee this? Why then did he say otherwise? Are his words false?

    If you believe he has absolute foreknowledge, yes, they contradict. Instead his words reflect his actions at the time they were said. God didn't figuratively preform an action at all. God simply spoke his plans.

    NOTE: The reason why God changed his mind to change his actions about his promise have little to do to answer the question, 'why did God say this would happen when he knew without doubt it wouldn't?'

    Leave a comment:


  • Hilston
    replied
    Clarifications regarding Bob's post.

    Originally posted by Bob Enyart
    [NOTE: I did not cite Dr. Reymond's definition of immutability. This seems to be just a dodge, as admitted by James Hilston on our BEL radio broadcast of May 1, 2006! So, in the second round, I asked again:]
    Although Bob probably did not intend it this way, his statement might be taken by some readers to mean that I somehow represent or speak for Sam Lamerson or for Lamerson's viewpoint. I do not. I do not claim to be a Calvinist, nor do I represent Lamerson in any way. For Bob to say "as admitted by James Hilston" connotes the idea that I made a reluctant confession (see the definition of 'admit'). I agreed with Bob that Lamerson's answer to the question seemed like a dodge. It wasn't an admission. It was an observation.

    Originally posted by Bob Enyart
    ... Oh and by the way, on that BEL radio show, Hilston not only agreed that, Yes, God does change, but also, that the truth of God changing is foundational to the story of the Bible! So, now we're getting somewhere, Lamerson, Reymond, et. al, admiting that God is NOT timeless, and Hilston, Bruce Ware, etc., admitting that Yes, God does change!
    As I specified in my on-air discussion with Bob, the belief that God does change is not new among Calvinists or Settled Theists in general. Calvin believed this, as did Augustine and, as far as I've read, all the reformed big guns in the history of Christendumb. As Calvin and Augustine wrote, God changes in His actions, not in His immutable and essential attributes. The Open View makes the error of assigning unqualified immutability to Calvinists and Settled Theists, and this is what I sought to address in my discussion with Bob.

    If anyone is interested in the right answers to all of Bob's unanswered questions, please see the following link:
    The Settled View’s Answer To Enyart’s Unanswered Questions

    Worshipping the Rock,
    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Enyart
    replied
    Recounting Bob's BEQ1 Immutability questions and Sam's answers

    I'm just now posting this summary so that I could link here from the radio broadcast that I did with TOL's James Hilston.

    BEQ1 [Bob Enyart's Question #1]: Sam, do you agree with me that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs reformulation in order to explicitly acknowledge that God is able to change (for example, as [anti-openness author Bruce] Ware says, especially to allow for true relationship)?

    SAL-BEQ1 [Sam Lamerson Answers Bob Enyart's Question #1]: This question depends upon what one means by “utter immutability.” Since Bob cites Dr. Reymond’s text, I will say that the doctrine as it is set forth by Reymond does not need total reformulation.

    [NOTE: I did not cite Dr. Reymond's definition of immutability. This seems to be just a dodge, as admitted by James Hilston on our BEL radio broadcast of May 1, 2006! So, in the second round, I asked again:]

    BEQ7: Sam, since your answer (SLA-BEQ1) restated my question, I am asking you to answer it again, without using the word “total.” You answered, “Since Bob cites Dr. Reymond’s text, I will say that the doctrine as it is set forth by Reymond does not need total reformulation.” My question is, “Sam, do you agree with me that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs reformulation in order to explicitly acknowledge that God is able to change (for example, as Ware says, especially to allow for true relationship)?”

    SLA-BEQ7-In order to answer this question, I set forth a definition (as used by Dr. Reymond). Bob asks me to agree that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs to be totally [Bob's bold emphasis] overhauled. (Sam, I’m sure you just misread my question. So, let’s try this again.) If Bob would give me a definition of “utter immutability” I would be glad to answer.

    BEQ9: Sam, do you agree with me that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs to be clearly taught as now reformulated in order to explicitly acknowledge that God is able to change, even if only, for example, as Ware says, to allow for true relationship?

    SLA-BEQ9: If by this you mean that the doctrine that God is “timeless” needs to be reformulated, I have already agreed. I am not sure that the classic doctrine of immutability would always be seen as not allowing God to have a true relationship.

    [Note: Although I appreciate it whenver any Calvinist admits that God is NOT timeless, this is another dodge as Hilston termed this non-responsiveness. I didn't ask about timelessness. Oh and by the way, on that BEL radio show, Histon not only agreed that, Yes, God does change, but also, that the truth of God changing is foundational to the story of the Bible! So, now we're getting somewhere, Lamerson, Reymond, et. al, admiting that God is NOT timeless, and Hilston, Bruce Ware, etc., admitting that Yes, God does change!]

    [So, I get back to my still unanswered question again:]

    BEQ17: Sam, In the tradition of BEQ1, BEQ7, and BEQ9, I ask: Is God able to change such that He can have true relationship:
    A: within the Trinity?
    B: with His creatures?

    SLA-BEQ17 This has been asked and answered. God can and does have true relationships with his creatures. [That's not what I asked.] God is not timeless. [That's not what I asked.] All that I have asked you for is an As [sic] to Reymond’s position, you are the one who brought up the systematics. It seems poor form to me to bring up the book as an example of what should not be taught, and the refuse to specifically cite what is wrong with it.

    [Lamerson has almost completely lost me with this dodge. I'm just asking him a direct question, and he's pretending that my question is somehow so entwined with Reymond's 1,200-page text book that Lamerson teaches from -- which I've hardly mentioned, and not in connection to this question -- that therefore Lamerson can't possibly answer my question, because I'm not revealing something or other. I think it was that Hilston guy who said it right: Dodge!
    And then again, with longsuffering, I asked:]

    BEQ27: In the tradition of BEQ1, BEQ7, BEQ9, and BEQ17, I ask: Sam, is God able to change such that He can have true relationship:
    A: within the Trinity? and,
    B: with His creatures?

    SLA-BEQ27: As I have mentioned there are a variety of different meanings for the word change. He can certainly have a relationship within the Trinity [I didn't ask that] and with his creatures [I didn't ask that]. I have affirmed that, perhaps not as clearly as I should have.

    [Still no answer: a yes or no would have helped! And if there are different definitions for the word change, that is preventing Sam from answering, than he should just offer a definition, and ANSWER!]

    BEQ31: As per BEQ1/7/9/17/27, Sam, I accept that you say you believe that God can have relationships, but I’m asking you something different: Is God able to change such that He can have true relationship:
    A: within the Trinity?
    And as part two of the same question,
    B: with His creatures?

    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?

    SLA-BEQ34: 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.

    [I'd LOVE to see any teaching to that effect in any of the Knox curriculum!]

    BEQ35: Sam, to my question, “Is God able to change such that He can have true relationship,” you answered “yes” but added “depending upon what one means by the word change,” and then you withheld from the readers whatever you mean by change! Please clarify.

    SLA-BEQ35: You were the one who asked the question, would you please clarify what you mean by change?

    -END OF BRX BEQ1 EXCERPTS-

    And after 35 questions, my first question was never answered without equivocation. For here the dodge ended, with a final dodge. SLA-BEQ34 was the closest thing to a direct answer, but it left a huge loophold (depending what a person means by change - as though there's any actual disagreement over that, and if there were, Sam should have defined it himself as I asked him to). It reminds me of Sam's typical calvinist statement earlier in the debate, that he believes in free will, and when I pressed for a clarification (which occurred on the radio and the transcript entered into BR X), that he admitted that he believes that God has utterly predestined everything a man will ever do, and he can NOT do anything but what has been predestined, and to Sam and countless Calvinists, that is called "Free Will." That reminds me of Mormons who tell unsuspecting listeners that they believe in one God (aside, that is, from all the others). So, because Sam chose to speak in such a manner, his loophole in SLA-BEQ34 is big enough to drive a tractor-trailer through, and I still don't know his answer to my question: whether Sam Lamerson agrees with Bruce Ware, and so many others, that the classical doctrine of immutability needs to be reformulated to acknowledge that God can change in relationship!

    BR X may have other Qs and As and comments directly related to BEQ1 that I missed in this round up. If you find any, please post them below and I'll add them here (eventually ).

    Thanks, -Bob Enyart

    Leave a comment:


  • bling
    replied
    Originally Posted by Patman
    Bling, I worry that sometimes you argue just to be arguing. I have no idea why you are debating the meaning of debt... the bible itself tells us the wages of sin are death... and we later find out that it means the second death, hell, then what is the issue? You can call it "debt" all day long, but I went straight to the heart of what that debt really is.
    I make a distinction between the debt of sin and the punishment for sin, because I see them as two totally separate things. Sin does separate us from God, a kind of death, but for some that is not a problem or concern until they experience physical death. Debt is a burden (for some more then others), but punishment hurts everyone equally. I am of the opinion, no one today experience the punishment for sin while on earth. The suffering and bad stuff that happens to bad people on earth is to help them as discipline and others servers for them. This all relates to my understanding of the world I live in.

    Originally Posted by Patman
    That is what Christ died for us. This is very basic stuff we both agree with, why are we even talking about it if you don't use this verse as a S.V. proof?
    This goes back to the concept of “he who is forgiven of much loves much”. There is that which we owe separate from the punishment, (we will receive for that which we owe). There is a difference between sin and punishment, between sin and the wages of sin. No sin means there will be no punishment. You could sin, be forgiven of that sin and receive no punishment. Not all debtors go to jail and you are a debtor before you go to jail.

    As far as S.V. proof text, that is not the point, but if you ask issue I have with accepting the O.V. view it would include changing my concept of Christ baring my sins on the cross, which would include the idea of the information of my sins traveling back in some form of time to the cross to be bore by Christ.
    Part of the proof text for Universal Salvation is the idea that Christ bore sin in general on the cross. I have confronted this idea well before I heard of the OVT.

    Originally Posted by Patman
    You ask what you are doing wrong... I do not accuse you of misunderstanding the cross, but I ask that you consider that we might agree on more things than you think, you just want me to say it like you do. But then it wouldn't be coming form my heart would it?
    Patman, I want you to be honest and when you can challenge me. As I said before, I have changed some of my thinking and have considered more ideas, but not always to the liking of the O.V.ers here.

    Originally Posted by Patman
    You point out that "foresee" means more than a logical conclusion to an outcome. And sometimes it does. If I were to say, "I foresee trouble if we go to war," well it doesn't mean I have supernatural powers. It can mean both. We shouldn't fight over words like this.
    I definitely agree if any human says, “I foresee” it is an educated guess at best.

    Originally Posted by Patman
    The word "foresee" isn't used in any of those verses you refer to anyway. We just use it in our explanations, so it isn't even worth discussing the meaning of the word.
    Like you say foresee could have many meanings.

    Originally Posted by Patman
    True or false. It is POSSIBLE for God to predict the denial of Peter and the betrayal of Judas without actually seeing those events in the future?
    With God all things are possible, but that might also mean how we define “seeing”. I have much more difficulty with Peter’s denial and with Judas killing himself, verse predicting Judas’ betrayal. At best I interpret any passage, with the out, “this is the most likely alternative to me at this point in my spiritual growth.” If you or anyone else wants to help me with choosing a better alternative, I will need more then conclusions, I need assumptions and interpretations and faults in my assumptions and interpretations.

    Originally Posted by Patman
    If you say true, why do you assume it required seeing those future events before it happened? What verse lead you to that conclusion?
    My understanding of: free will, God’s desire and willingness, Peter, Judas, Jesus’ statements, the purpose of sin, the role of Satan, the complexity of the situation, and I wind up choosing the most likely alternative. I also do not see it any differently then other prophecies like the angle prophesizing John the Baptist free will decisions.

    Originally Posted by Patman
    If you find yourself struggling to find the answer, then perhaps you will see why I do not attribute this as evidence for absolute foreknowledge. Not only because the answer isn't there, but because it also is fallible thinking to assume the accurate prediction of one future event, be it a difficult event to predict or not, means that that person has the ability to predict all future events.
    The same can be asked of you. If it is not inpossible for god to "see" the future then what compelling reason do you have to say He could not?
    I agree that it would be an assumption at best to say, God can predict all future evens when we have only a few future events being prophesied. I think especially in the N.T. prophecies there are really good reasons for the prophecies that are given. The issue arises from how at least some O.V.ers defining free will and foreknowledge to be exclusive of each other, it makes even rare foreknowledge a contradiction of God’s nature.

    Leave a comment:


  • bling
    replied
    Originally Posted by Patman
    So I retract my last point. It is easy to admit when your evidence is wrong, just say it. But there is other evidence to support the O.V. Claim.

    p.s. I don't understand why you won't talk about it here. The "academics" are everywhere, I consider myself smart enough to understand evidence you present. I am sorry that I didn't agree with her approach, I try to avoid anything that rests all your belief in a hope that could be very wrong. It turns out the answer is in the scripture, not in some "Oh please oh please let these conditions be right."
    This is fine, but the two young men on the road: Luke 24: 13Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem. … And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23but didn't find his body. These men should have said the fourth day not “third day” for the crucifixion to be on Wednesday. Do you think they just messed up?

    As far as academics, I really don’t care when you think Christ was crucified, unless your using it as some prove text. I like to talk about objectives, the role of the Spirit, the role of sin, love, faith, teaching the lose, raising a family and why the world is the way it is. I like to be prepared to answer with questions those that ask me with Spiritual concerns.

    Leave a comment:


  • patman
    replied
    Originally posted by bling
    Fore see the future means more then a logical thought-out estimate of what Peter would decide to do , what Judas would decide to do and what an un born John the Baptist would decide to do. It would not be stated by Jesus and the angel as “fact” if it were still being speculated about.

    .....

    I am not stating some S.V. idea, I have not heard them ever use this concept. I have my own issues and understanding. Any debt has to be bore by someone. If the Master wants to forgive the debt then the master bares the debt. If the master can not take on the debt (God can have nothing to do with sin), then someone who can handle the debt must step in, “Christ”.
    I think I get into the meat of the word, when I challenge the traditional ideas with sound Biblical Scholarship. What am I doing wrong?
    Bling, I worry that sometimes you argue just to be arguing. I have no idea why you are debating the meaning of debt... the bible itself tells us the wages of sin are death... and we later find out that it means the second death, hell, then what is the issue? You can call it "debt" all day long, but I went straight to the heart of what that debt really is.

    That is what Christ died for us. This is very basic stuff we both agree with, why are we even talking about it if you don't use this verse as a S.V. proof?

    You ask what you are doing wrong... I do not accuse you of misunderstanding the cross, but I ask that you consider that we might agree on more things than you think, you just want me to say it like you do. But then it wouldn't be coming form my heart would it?

    You point out that "foresee" means more than a logical conclusion to an outcome. And sometimes it does. If I were to say, "I foresee trouble if we go to war," well it doesn't mean I have supernatural powers. It can mean both. We shouldn't fight over words like this.

    The word "foresee" isn't used in any of those verses you refer to anyway. We just use it in our explanations, so it isn't even worth discussing the meaning of the word.

    True or false. It is POSSIBLE for God to predict the denial of Peter and the betrayal of Judas without actually seeing those events in the future?

    If you say true, why do you assume it required seeing those future events before it happened? What verse lead you to that conclusion?

    If you find yourself struggling to find the answer, then perhaps you will see why I do not attribute this as evidence for absolute foreknowledge. Not only because the answer isn't there, but because it also is fallible thinking to assume the accurate prediction of one future event, be it a difficult event to predict or not, means that that person has the ability to predict all future events.

    Leave a comment:


  • patman
    replied
    Oops

    Bling,

    Let's settle this right now. There is evidence that Christ was crucified on Wednesday. Bob Hill gives a convencing arguement with out twisting math and adding in days on the calander and with out distorting the word.

    http://www.biblicalanswers.com/quest...ons_4_body.htm
    Question: When was Jesus crucified?

    24 Apr 2000 16:03

    Name: Nathan Hoe

    When was Jesus crucified? Friday as I believe(Passover is Friday right?) or Wednesday as some say(three days and nights-24 hours)

    Answer: (click here to view the answer)


    Nathan,

    I believe Christ was crucified on Wednesday, the day of Preparation for the Passover according to John 19:14: “Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, and about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, ‘Behold your King!’” All the gospels agree that our Lord was laid in His tomb on the Preparation Day. Mat 27:62 On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate. Mk 15:42 Now when evening had come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath. Lk 23:54 That day was the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew near. John 19:42 So there they laid Jesus, because of the Jews’ Preparation Day, for the tomb was nearby. This day was Nisan 14. This was just before Nisan 15, the High Sabbath, John 19:31 “Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.” It was called a High Sabbath because of Lev 23:5-7 (The bold words beloew.) “On the fourteenth day of the first month at twilight is the Lord’s Passover. 6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Lord; seven days you must eat unleavened bread. 7 On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no customary work on it.

    Notice, I said “I believe”. I’m convinced, and it answers the problem of the 3 days and 3 nights of Mat 12:39,40, “But He answered and said to them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” I believe it is an interesting study. If you have any reasons you do not agree with this, please send them.

    In our risen Christ,

    Bob
    So I retract my last point. It is easy to admit when your evidence is wrong, just say it. But there is other evidence to support the O.V. Claim.

    p.s. I don't understand why you won't talk about it here. The "academics" are everywhere, I consider myself smart enough to understand evidence you present. I am sorry that I didn't agree with her approach, I try to avoid anything that rests all your belief in a hope that could be very wrong. It turns out the answer is in the scripture, not in some "Oh please oh please let these conditions be right."

    Leave a comment:


  • bling
    replied
    Rob E if you get a chance let me have your feed back on:
    . OK read Lori Eldridge she agrees with me: http://www.loriswebs.com/lorispoetry/crucifix.html
    I usually avoid this discussion, because it is more for the academics. Sabbath days at this time had come to refer to any holy day of rest and worship, it was used to describe the first day of the 7th month and even the entire Jubilee year(the Sabbath year). Rest and worship was not only once a week, rest was when you did not work for yourself (earning money) and worship was when you did stuff for God, any time you spent the whole day doing this was a Sabbath. Read Lori she does a great job. There are may others just get on the net with Thursday crucifixion.
    Also read my last post to Pat on the subject of three days and nights. I would like to here your comments on Lori’s web page.

    Leave a comment:


  • RobE
    replied
    Originally posted by patman
    Rob, what do you care? You are going to tell everyone it says something it doesn't, so why would you be concerned if it is fallible or not? You are going to put words in its pages that aren't there and bluntly ignore pleas for proof.
    So you're saying that the Bible is in error!

    Originally posted by Patrick
    Was Jesus really dead three days AND three nights? Crucified on a Friday, one day, dead Friday night, one night. Dead Saturday day and night, 2 days and 2 nights. Dead Sunday, risen on Sunday day.. so that's 3 days.... What about that other night he predicted that he would be dead?
    Patrick: Debating with you on this issue is becoming annoying. If you are going to debate on biblical issues, you must use the Bible. Since you do not stick to the Bible, there is no way you can be persuaded to its truths.

    Since you submit that the Bible contains errors then how are you able to accept it as truth?

    Originally posted by Patrick
    I will stick to the word. You have made your decision, I hope you can deal with the judgement that awaits your mishandling of the word. You are only hurting the treasures you were to receive in heaven. Everyone will know the truth of how you knowingly preached words you could not find and will understand perfectly how your heart was hardened to do it anyway.

    OR you could present Biblical evidence to your beliefs.... But I doubt you can.
    Click Here to See the Biblical evidence that I previously submitted!!!

    Show me again where God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were mistaken in the scriptures. God changing an outcome doesn't prove a mistake. God being grieved because of what happens is not a mistake.

    Patrick, for your view, to be correct God has to not be in control of His own creation. If you're going to stick with the Bible, then prove to all of us how the bible supports your view that God was wrong, that the word prophecy means 'might happen', and where God did not lie when He foretold the future.

    Friends,
    Rob

    Leave a comment:


  • bling
    replied
    Originally Posted by Patman

    I am not one to join the bandwagon. If you are right and O.V.ers say "it is not ever possible" I disagree full heartedly. But I know of no O.V.ers who say so. I would ask you to reconsider things you have head from OV to see if that is what was really said, and not just a misunderstanding.

    MY stand is there are times God can foresee the future, but that future knowledge is not total. Thus I agree with your #2 point. But not the same way you do. You 2nd point seems o say he has complete and total future knowledge to use and that he chooses not to use it at times. The problem is that we have no evidence to say "God has full future knowledge at his disposal." By continuing to hold to this belief you must also say "I have no evidence for this" to whomever you share it with, or risk tainting the words by doing what Rob is doing.
    Fore see the future means more then a logical thought-out estimate of what Peter would decide to do , what Judas would decide to do and what an un born John the Baptist would decide to do. It would not be stated by Jesus and the angel as “fact” if it were still being speculated about.


    Originally Posted by Patman
    We mustn't add words to the scripture, or assume things where there is no evidence to support our assumptions.

    As for the scripture about the 3 days and 3 nights. The OV have no problem with this. It is the SV who panic and try to make up an answer where there is no logical explanation.
    I must say that even if there were a logical explanation, I wouldn't be to proud to say I was wrong... And I would also submit a hundred other examples of the same thing.
    I was not raised accepting traditional ideas without first studying them and drawing my own conclusions. I studied this three day issues long before there was an O.V. Back then I had to use scholarly books there was no internet. Today you can get a ton of information intently. I find most Biblical scholars that are not steeped in tradition do not accept the Friday crucifixion, so would you mind finding a non traditional Biblical scholar that can support a Friday crucifixion from scripture and Jewish traditions of the time (don’t use early sec. and third church history, thinks got off quickly.)
    I have a problem with the explanation of the three days and nights being: “God did not know how long Christ would stay in the grave at the time of Jonah spending three days and nights in the fish and to be correct Jonah should have stayed only two days.” Or that Jesus should have said, “in two days I will rebuild this temple” to make a correct prophecy. I think one of the big issues with this is what the two young men said to the risen Jesus on the day of him being raised: Luke 24: 13Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem. … And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23but didn't find his body. These men should have said the second day not “third day” for the crucifixion to be on Friday.
    As usual Patman when sincere truth seeking Christians disagree it usually has to do with defining words: If you define Sabbath as meaning only the seventh day, then you wind up with on Friday. If you define Sabbath as a holy day then it can stand for the seventh day of the week and other holy days like the Passover day. In that case if Passover was the Friday before the seventh day you had back to back Sabbaths. The Passover had to happen some time so we are left with Thurs., Fri. or Sat. What did you think of Lori Eldridge work and can you find any better?
    Originally Posted by Patman
    But I do not see how anyone could miss this who is reading. The prophecy did not come to pass. God has his reasons for allowing this to happen; because he is in control of the prophecy, not the prophecy in control of him.
    You seem to be a little quick to though out a prophecy for the traditional interpretation. This will continue to generate problems for us in the future since I am not very traditional.


    1. Death is the word for separation, so do we bare separation? Being separated has the idea of missing something not having something. Since one sin given you the “burden of death”, should everyone feel the exact same burden? Has that been your experience?
    Originally Posted by Patman
    Separation from God is the second death. It is the punishment for sin. All who sin should feel this burden. Though there are also smaller penalties that result in sin that sometimes people experience. They don't matter in the long run tho, those who are sinners will be punished with death... i.e. the second death, as spoken of in REV.
    From your comments I see a problem. You seem to be defining “burden” as punishment, while I equate burden with debt. The punishment for the debt is prison (hell for the debt of sin), which is different from the burden (the debt for sin). Just because this burden (debt) is not physical does not mean it is not real and can not be seen with spiritual eyes or felt with the mind, spirit, soul and emotions.

    2. I don’t know if I would equate any earthly suffering today with sins we have committed. Why is a guilty Christian prisoner standing next to a completely innocent Christian prisoner in prison if it is not for the same reason?
    Originally Posted by Patman
    I can't either. The punishment of sin is too great to bare on earth or anywhere. But the original question you asked deals with how can someone feel earthly punishment, and the answer is sometimes people are punished for their sins on earth, like jail. You didn't ask me how hell might be experienced on earth.... that's not going to happen.
    Please read my above statement.

    3. Would the burden increase with more sins?
    Originally Posted by Patman
    Those in hell, the second death, will be punished more harshly who deserve a harsher punishment.
    Again punishment and burden are not the same to me.

    4. Peter when talking about Christ baring our burden does not mention blood. Other place mention blood washing away our sins, put Peter seems to be telling us where they go.
    Originally Posted by Patman
    We cannot ignore what others have said about the cross. Peter is not talking about time travel, he is saying a simple side thought that the S.V. is blowing way out of proportion and adding way to much to.

    Jesus' death took place of our death. He took the punishment, i.e. he bore our sins. It is really simple... it is the so called "milk" of the gospel. If you can't get this, how can you handle the "meat?"
    I am not stating some S.V. idea, I have not heard them ever use this concept. I have my own issues and understanding. Any debt has to be bore by someone. If the Master wants to forgive the debt then the master bares the debt. If the master can not take on the debt (God can have nothing to do with sin), then someone who can handle the debt must step in, “Christ”.
    I think I get into the meat of the word, when I challenge the traditional ideas with sound Biblical Scholarship. What am I doing wrong?

    Leave a comment:


  • patman
    replied
    Bling

    Originally posted by bling
    1. There are explanations for every one of those. You may not always like them, but neither do my agnostic friends when I go through the explanations to apparent conflicts with scripture.
    2. I do not say God has or uses His foreknowledge ability all the time.
    3. The reverse maybe truer, in that, all we have to show is that God had foreknowledge of just one human free will decision to prove it is possible. The statement by O.V.ers is, “it is not ever possible.”
    Bling,

    I am not one to join the bandwagon. If you are right and O.V.ers say "it is not ever possible" I disagree full heartedly. But I know of no O.V.ers who say so. I would ask you to reconsider things you have head from OV to see if that is what was really said, and not just a misunderstanding.

    MY stand is there are times God can foresee the future, but that future knowledge is not total. Thus I agree with your #2 point. But not the same way you do. You 2nd point seems o say he has complete and total future knowledge to use and that he chooses not to use it at times. The problem is that we have no evidence to say "God has full future knowledge at his disposal." By continuing to hold to this belief you must also say "I have no evidence for this" to whomever you share it with, or risk tainting the words by doing what Rob is doing.

    We mustn't add words to the scripture, or assume things where there is no evidence to support our assumptions.

    As for the scripture about the 3 days and 3 nights. The OV have no problem with this. It is the SV who panic and try to make up an answer where there is no logical explanation.

    I must say that even if there were a logical explanation, I wouldn't be to proud to say I was wrong... And I would also submit a hundred other examples of the same thing.

    But I do not see how anyone could miss this who is reading. The prophecy did not come to pass. God has his reasons for allowing this to happen; because he is in control of the prophecy, not the prophecy in control of him.

    1. Death is the word for separation, so do we bare separation? Being separated has the idea of missing something not having something. Since one sin given you the “burden of death”, should everyone feel the exact same burden? Has that been your experience?

    Separation from God is the second death. It is the punishment for sin. All who sin should feel this burden. Though there are also smaller penalties that result in sin that sometimes people experience. They don't matter in the long run tho, those who are sinners will be punished with death... i.e. the second death, as spoken of in REV.

    2. I don’t know if I would equate any earthly suffering today with sins we have committed. Why is a guilty Christian prisoner standing next to a completely innocent Christian prisoner in prison if it is not for the same reason?

    I can't either. The punishment of sin is too great to bare on earth or anywhere. But the original question you asked deals with how can someone feel earthly punishment, and the answer is sometimes people are punished for their sins on earth, like jail. You didn't ask me how hell might be experienced on earth.... that's not going to happen.

    3. Would the burden increase with more sins?

    Those in hell, the second death, will be punished more harshly who deserve a harsher punishment.

    4. Peter when talking about Christ baring our burden does not mention blood. Other place mention blood washing away our sins, put Peter seems to be telling us where they go.

    We cannot ignore what others have said about the cross. Peter is not talking about time travel, he is saying a simple side thought that the S.V. is blowing way out of proportion and adding way to much to.

    Jesus' death took place of our death. He took the punishment, i.e. he bore our sins. It is really simple... it is the so called "milk" of the gospel. If you can't get this, how can you handle the "meat?"

    Leave a comment:


  • patman
    replied
    Rob

    Originally posted by RobE
    Is the Bible fallable?
    Rob
    Rob, what do you care? You are going to tell everyone it says something it doesn't, so why would you be concerned if it is fallible or not? You are going to put words in its pages that aren't there and bluntly ignore pleas for proof.

    Debating with you on this issue is becoming annoying. If you are going to debate on biblical issues, you must use the Bible. Since you do not stick to the Bible, there is no way you can be persuaded to its truths.

    I will stick to the word. You have made your decision, I hope you can deal with the judgement that awaits your mishandling of the word. You are only hurting the treasures you were to receive in heaven. Everyone will know the truth of how you knowingly preached words you could not find and will understand perfectly how your heart was hardened to do it anyway.

    OR you could present Biblical evidence to your beliefs.... But I doubt you can.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X