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

Not open for further replies.


Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Sam mentions hermeneutical considerations,. There seems to be a wrong conclusion and inordinate assumption about metaphors. Just because some of Scripture is figurative or metaphorical does not mean that all revelations about God and His ways are metaphorical (see John Sanders "God who risks" discussion on anthropomorphisms).

Genesis 3 is admitted by many Open Theists to be figurative or rhetorical based on context. Just because many Open Theist verses are read in a 'straightforward' manner, does not preclude the possibility of figures of speech in other contexts (like the obvious Ps. 17 ears, hands, etc.). Pitting a literal passage against a figurative passage and trying to make them both literal or figurative is disingenuous.

It seems to me that there is more meaty debate in pro and con Open Theism literature. This debate could use more meat instead of rehashing a few minor points over and over.


Pain Killer
Super Moderator
I really like Dr. Lamerson’s answer to BEQ31! Almost sounds like progress! Our debaters have agreed on at least one important point.
Dr. Lamerson said, “SLA-BEQ31: Again, I must say that I thought that I had already answered this. Depending upon what one means by the word change, yes. The word change is not self-defining. I have always believed that God can and does have a true relationship within the Trinity and with his creatures. This change however must be carefully defined. It does not mean that he ceases to give up any of his attributes or in any way ceases to be God.”
Here is where I think Dr. Lamerson opens a new can of worms:
Dr. Lamerson said, “SLA-BEQ32: George B. Caird says, in his classic The Language and Imagery of the Bible that “all, or almost all, of the language used by the Bible to refer to God is metaphor.” No doubt this is true because of the infinite qualitative difference that exists between the Creator and his creation.

Thus through metaphorical language, something that is well-known becomes a window through which we can gain insight into something that is lesser known. But since no one thing is exactly identical to another thing, every metaphor expresses both similarities and differences between the two objects…. Psalm 17 shows some examples of this. In verse 6 the author asks God to ‘incline his ear’ which clearly means to hear his prayer. Are we to say that God has actual ears?”
God may not have ears, but does He hear us? Of course! Even though God does not have “ears”, He is still able to hear. It is this ability that is pointed out through the above “metaphor.” I’m not sure how this response answers BEQ32.

All in all, I was surprised at the brevity of Dr. Lamerson’s post. I imagine this is due to the new school year, the weather, and the paper he’s working on. I hope he hangs in there, though. We are all learning a lot from both debaters, even if the they are on different wavelengths.


New member
Hi Bob! What about Deut. 20-22?

Hi Bob! What about Deut. 20-22?


I noticed a major part of your position is that not all of God's prophecies come to pass (because people are free to change the future), and that God would even be pleased if people went against his prophecy to humble themselves or do what is righteous. This is a very logical position, but millions of Christians hold to the view that God's prophecy, through a true prophet, will ALWAYS come to pass. A major group of verses from Scripture to support this is ironically one you often use on your show to mock people who think they can predict the end times (Deut. 18:20-22). Specifically, Deuteronomy 18:22 - "when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken..." These "false" prophets are to be put to death.

I'm surprised Sam hasn't brought these verses up in the debate! I have yet to hear you deal with them, other than an unconvincing approach on your Predestination Vs. Free Will album in which you say they should be dealt with "loosely." But verses saying people should be put to death should be taken very seriously.

- Ash1


Who is the stooge now?
Wow! The gloves come off in round 7!

Sam, a much better round 7 post - kudos to you!

Bob, another brilliant post, I especially liked these lines...
As with the purpose of all prophetic warning, Jesus prophesied this in hopes of preventing it! The Lord indicates this by continuing, “See, I have told you beforehand. Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look…,’ do not believe it.” That is: I am telling you this “beforehand,” not to prove that I foreknew or predestined it, but hoping that it will not happen!

The Lord’s prediction regarding Peter is just like His other prophetic warnings. God makes predictions of bad behavior for two reasons, both as a deterrent, and as an encouragement to trust Him. First, as a deterrent, God hopes that men will repent and obey. Second, as an encouragement, if those involved fail to repent, then God hopes that the prophesy will encourage those willing to learn to trust His insight.
The above two points seem to be proof positive that the future is unsettled.

I would love to see BEQ-36 Sam if Jesus predictions of future actions are not giving to affect the future what possible purpose would these predictions serve?

Bob's answers to Sam's questions are so completely direct and to the point it would be really great if Sam could respond likewise.
Yes it is clear that God planned the cross, and holds responsible the participants. But by this question you meant to ask something that you forgot to bring out, your assumption that if God planned an event, that means He must have compelled all the eventual participants. Why would this be? Men plan events all the time, from class meetings to Super Bowls to wars, which involve dozens, or thousands, or millions of free will agents, and we make stuff like this happen all the time. Why do you suppose God would be incompetent apart from foreknowledge? Was it foreknowledge, or His own creative genius that enabled Him to design DNA?
BOOM! Bob answers with a clear "Yes" or "no" and then illustrates his point further. Sam answering Bob's questions similarly would really help this debate a great deal.


New member
Another comment or two!

Bob: Love “hopes all things,” which exhaustive foreknowledge cannot do.
Then God is hoping he will fulfill his unconditional promises? Such as the new heavens and the new earth? That believers will have new bodies? He is not sure of this?

Romans 8:22-24 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved.

Galatians 5:5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope.

God is hoping we will have this righteousness some day, too? Surely this part of the description of love does not apply to God.

SLQ20-Peter-3 If Jesus could have been wrong about this prediction what else could he have been wrong about?

BEA-SLQ20: Everything that He wanted to be wrong about, including that the Jewish leaders would likely persecute His followers, and that many will be deceived ... That is: I am telling you this “beforehand,” not to prove that I foreknew or predestined it, but hoping that it will not happen!
Presumably Bob means "everything he was willing to be wrong about" here, for hoping an event won't happen means you don't want to be wrong! But can Jesus be willing here? Surely there is no choice, if the future is not knowable, so God is not in control to the extent of being able to choose so freely what he will and will not be possibly wrong about, given the constraints God has placed for himself, according to the Open View.

This is a crucial problem in the Open View, we hear that God can change his mind, be mistaken, and yet always accomplish some of his purposes. And I wonder, which ones? And for whom? It makes the promises quite slippery ground, as above!

The Invincible Chess Master always wins, we are told, and also we hear of the Warfare Worldview, so maybe the Chess Master wins, but not the pieces, not each pawn?

Romans 8:37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.

That's present tense, too! And for all the pieces, even the least, there are no regrettable losses for those within his will.

Psalm 56:11 In God I trust; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?

BEA-SLQ25: Yes it is clear that God planned the cross, and holds responsible the participants. But by this question you meant to ask something that you forgot to bring out, your assumption that if God planned an event, that means He must have compelled all the eventual participants.
But if God brought about, with certainty, that some would participate, how can that be fair, in the Open View? This does not resolve the dilemma, for if all refused, some must then indeed be made to carry out this deed, one way or the other, or there is no salvation.

Last edited:


Pain Killer
Super Moderator
Rev. Enyart’s post in round 7 was amazing! He took this opportunity to really pull everything together and lay it all out for us step by step. For the first time in this debate, I really began to feel as though I could grasp all the aspects of what the debaters have discussed so far. Thank you for that!

I was really able to see how unscriptural the Settled View is in its approach. This was made perfectly clear by the list Rev. Enyart put together:
You have appealed to many extra-scriptural, outside sources and authorities in defense of your Settled View position! You appealed to:
1. The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas
2. All Second-Temple Literature (taken as a whole)
3. Davies and Allison (who declare the purpose of prayer)
4. Chrysostom (Homily on Matthew)
5. Reymond (who I raised in refutation, and you appealed to)
6. Erickson (God the Father Almighty, on the issue of change)
7. “Thousands [of Christians]”
8. “Major denominations”
9. “Some of the finest theological minds”
10. The beliefs of an average “first-century Jewish person” (assuming validity)
11. Bruce Ware (on what would be “strictly speaking impossible for human beings”)
12. Four Greek Experts, “men whose work cannot be questioned” (Why? Were they inspired?)
13. Morris (interpretation of John 13:19)
14. Theologians Warfield, Berkhoff, Erickson, and Grudman (“noble heritage”)
15. George B. Caird (virtually all bible language about God is metaphoric)
16. And finally, you boldly appealed to the Westminster Confession (and “the finest theological minds” who agree with it)!
How can Dr. Lamerson argue against this. All one has to do is look back over the debate so far and it becomes painfully obvious. As Rev. Enyart said, “’simply saying’ that you and the Settled View only appeal to Scripture ‘does not do the trick’.” His subsequent analysis of the Settled View’s metaphorical argument, along with the OMNI’s and IM’s was brilliant. What this did was to really emphasize, in my mind, all of Rev. Enyart’s points so far, especially those that dealt with the attributes of God.

I loved how Rev. Enyart presented his proof texts using symbols. I’m on the edge of my seat trying to anticipate what they might be and how Dr. Lamerson will deal with them. I also appreciated the way in which he explained JONAH and NOAH and that he makes it clear that his “hermeneutics are explicit, testable, and applicable, and are in black and white, and available for anyone to analyze.”

I really enjoyed reading Rev. Enyart’s answers to Dr. Lamerson’s questions. They were refreshingly straightforward. For example, in response to SLQ 20 – Peter – 3, Rev. Enyart answered:
“Everything that He wanted to be wrong about , including that the Jewish leaders would likely persecute His followers, and that many will be deceived by ‘false christs’who will ‘deceive, if possible, even the elect.’ As with the purpose of all prophetic warning, Jesus prophesied this in hopes of preventing it! The Lord indicates this by continuing, ‘See, I have told you beforehand. Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look…,’ do not believe it.’ That is: I am telling you this ‘beforehand,’ not to prove that I foreknew or predestined it, but hoping that it will not happen!”
I had to read it a couple of times to really grasp what he was saying, but when it finally became clear to me, I was amazed by his insight. This is one of the things Rev. Enyart is so good at – analyzing and then explaining what should be obvious, those things that our muddled brains just don’t comprehend at first.

I also appreciated Rev. Enyart’s clarification of non-prophesy. I’ve always had a little trouble with this concept, but now I feel as though I have a better understanding. Bob Hill used to talk about this in his theology classes, but I just didn’t get it. Now I think I do. I always had this idea that what Bob Hill was describing was some kind of "convenient coincidence.” Now I see that it is much more than that. Very powerful!

The following was just painful:
Readers unfamiliar with language studies may have difficulty following this disagreement, and since you teach Greek, they’ll probably think you are right, especially with you asking things like:

What else would Christ be claiming to prove? That he was Jesus? Certainly not! –Sam

Of course not. But why did you reverse the natural order of the name and title of the Lord, and imply that I was arguing something silly, instead of giving the reader the benefit of you confronting my actual argument, which you should have represented like this:

“What else would Jesus be claiming to prove? That he was the Christ? Well, that is possible!” -Bob reveals Sam’s obfuscation
All in all, Rev. Enyart’s tone, his responsiveness, and his logical presentation of the debate so far were wonderfully crafted. I really enjoyed it and can’t wait to see what happens next!


New member
It seems my first post got deleted...

Well it was about how the rooster crowed twice, not once, and Peter had to not remember the first time, and then remember the second time, and how is this just character solidification? This often gets overlooked when discussing Peter in the Open View, and I wish Sam had mentioned that. And Jesus' confirmation of Peter saying "You know all things" with another prediction about Peter's future actions! This time, he will glorify God, and so we must say that "all things" Jesus knows must include what Peter will do, even many years in advance, and Jesus knows this, this is not an estimate, and he knows this now.


Nathon Detroit

Lee, the idea here is to critique Sam and Bob's posts. OK? If you want to make comments or discuss the posts you can do so in the Battle Talk threads.


New member
There certainly are some great things about Bob's new post. However, I now have serious concerns about a problem at this point that I am sorry to say I did not foresee earlier. And I'll go into that in the latter part of this post.

That said, let's look over 7b...

Bob has gotten Sam to concede that 1) God is not timeless, and 2) God changes. Wow, that's considerably more than most Calvinists are willing to admit! I know White would be upset if he were watching this! He certainly did not allow for any such things in his video debate with Sanders (and in which he slaughtered Sanders, btw). So, having not even presented the real positive case for the Open View yet, Bob has had terrific success in this debate on this alone!

And now, he also decimate's Lamerson's whole foundation with a crashing boom. Not only did Bob already show (with some absolutely amazing quotes) the pagan Greek influence on Christian settled view theology, but now Bob pulls the whole rug out from under Lamerson, and I cannot even fathom how Sam can get himself out of this one. This is serious.

The issue of extra-biblical authority for doctrine. Sam says he doesn't use any such thing, but rather accuses Bob of doing this. So often, people project their own wrongdoing on others to avoid guilt. Sam is clearly guilty of this, and there is no getting around it. Bob provides 16 distinct examples of Sam committing what Sam proudly and openly declares to be wrong! Sam says it's wrong to do this; how can he possibly argue his way out of this? He is nailed to the wall. And it is very telling that almost no settled viewers in the grandstands have commented on this round in general, and no one on Sam's side has commentedon this in particular! (This isn't a matter of responding to other posts; it's entirely relevant because it demonstrates how completely Bob nailed Sam on this, such that even his biggest supporters can't so much as whisper a defense.)

Bob then slashes Sam's supposedly couple dozen passages supporting immutability. That Job passage is a laughable claim for immutability. Almost nothing in the passage is even about God! What on earth does Job 1:4-5 have to do with immutability, either way? Nada! And then for Sam to list Jonah 3:3-5, 10? Again, ridiculous! His supposed laundry list of proof texts for immutability is exposed as considerably weaker than he wanted us to believe.

Bob then nails Sam on yet another issue! Sam asked Bob to back up his claims about pagan Greek influence! When Bob spent a huge amount of word count fulfilling Sam's request, how did Sam respond? He blew it off in a couple sentences as being irrelevant! How can this be, Sam? You asked for it, you got it, Toyota! For Sam to blow this off is just ridiculous. I'm sorry, Sam's a nice guy, but this is intellectually dishonest. He has just blown off so many things from Bob, but in this case, Sam was the one who said they should go into this issue! And now he feels the need to flee and pretend it doesn't matter, all of a sudden? Sure seemed to matter when you said that it "screams out for evidence and argument!"

Eventually, Bob gets to the positive case for the Open View. Wait, no he doesn't. He proposes a deal for Sam. And herein lies the problem. I like the idea of the deal. But it should have been offered 2 rounds ago, at the end of round 5. Here, Bob also lays out how they can discuss the positive case for the open view. And herein lies another problem, which we're about to get to.

But first, the questions and answers!

Bob's answers to Sam's first few questions were good, solid, neither thorough nor incredible but certainly sufficient. Of course, some of it was just reiterating the arguments Bob already gave previously, which Lamerson has been ignoring because he didn't expect those particular arguments.

I was concerned about the Peter/"it is necessary" issue, as Sam gave what appeared to be a fairly strong argument on that. But Sam asks a specific question - not about the phrase "it is necessary" this time, but about whether Peter could have been wrong about the Davidic prophecy. And Bob answers that question thoroughly and clearly and logically! It is not evidence for the Open View, but it certainly is a defense against a proposed problem. Well done.

Sam asked an excellent question about how God could have even reasonably foreseen as a probability all of the individual free will decisions that were involved in the night of Peter's betrayal. That indeed is one of the better questions Sam has given us. But Bob again answers very proficiently, and in a way anyone can understand. After all, Bob recently put on a seminar here in Denver. Did he have to know the free will decisions of the people at the table selling books and videos? Did he have to know even the names of the hotel staff who provided meals and drinks? Did he need to know who would clean the room before and after the event, or when those things would take place? Heck no! And yet, I can attest having been there that the event went off without a hitch! (At least as far as I could tell as a guest!) God didn't need to know the free will decisions. He didn't even have to know which specific individuals would ask Peter. And Bob outlines this very well.

I was particularly concerned about Sam's question concerning Christ basing His Judas prophecy as evidence of His deity. This is another thing I thought Sam argued well. But Bob exceeded my expectations and did a great job of showing a case for the interpretation that He was presenting this prophecy as evidence that He is the Christ (messiah), not that He is God! Nicely done, I was afraid we'd have to take a hit on this one! And honestly, even if Sam is right about this (and I currently think Bob has this one), even still this point is outweighed by the point Bob has repeated made about God preferring repentance over prophecy! So, in the end... great answer, but even if Bob is wrong, he still wins on this point.

Bob handled the concession about Noah's name perfectly. And I'd like to admit to everyone I'm the one he heard that from, and I didn't check into it thoroughly. It is listed in Strong's as being related. But since then, I know Doogieduff (my pal Will) asked Tim McMahon at Derby here in Denver (that theology school's resident Hebrew expert) about this, and Tim confirmed they aren't related. And Tim is in Bob's camp, so there you have it, for anyone on our side who holds out any hope on that little tidbit.

But that's all it is! A tidbit! C'mon, Sam, this is not the basis for anyone's argument, not yours or Bob's! Talk about minutia. Yeah, it's a mistake, but not one that makes any difference in the debate. It was offered as an afterthought, mentioned only in passing as a piece of trivia, nothing more.

Finally, Bob points out all the questions Sam still hasn't answered, many of which he hasn't even acknowledged the existence of! Glad the settled viewers in the stands can see that pointed out.

Bob said:
BEQ33: In Battle Royale X, the side that has often appealed to extra-biblical sources in defense of it’s position is:
A: The Open View
B: The Settled View
I laughed out loud, I really did. Ouch! Sam is just nailed. I can hardly wait for the answer to this question. He dare not cop out on this one.

And I like Bob's other two questions, nice. However, he's not really going to be able to talk about Lamerson's responses to them, because...

... of the serious problem facing Bob at this point!

I truly wish I'd foreseen this earlier. I did a little, but blew it off. And now I'm realizing how serious it is. 7 rounds are done and Bob still hasn't even started presenting his positive case for the Open View! Yipes! He has done an outstanding job of refuting Lamerson's case, but he now has 3 remaining rounds, the last of which is essentially a conclusion round, a wrap-up, a summary of all points and some conclusions about them, and so it's really more like 2 or 2 1/2 rounds left! Bob has painted himself into a corner. Frankly, Bob cannot afford to spend any significant amount of time refuting Lamerson's arguments, from this point forward. Bob has got to focus on his positive case, and almost nothing else. Maybe a couple extremely brief responses to Sam, but it must be kept to an absolute minimum. "The Deal" (for the 3 pericopes in return for Sam's hermeneutic) should have been offered at the end of round 5, or end of round 6 at the absolute latest!

I hope Bob takes this seriously. He has a huge lead in this debate, but he must present a good case for his view, or it is mostly for naught! Bring it, Bob! Face it, you no longer have the luxury of refuting Sam anymore. Heck, you've refuted his case for 7 rounds, more than you ever should have!!! You must make him refute you, now! Make him respond to your case! As it is, he'll have to respond to your case for only 3 rounds, whereas he got you to respond to his for 7, more than double!

Bring it on, Bob!

P.S. I must amend my critique, as it has been pointed out to me that Bob did start putting forth the beginning of his positive case in round 6. How could I forget? I zoned in on this round so much, focused so tightly that I missed that, it slipped my mind!

He laid some ground work, not much more. He still does have a major challenge before him, and I still think it's a problem, although far from insurmountable. He's just gotta attack it head on, and spend almost no more time refuting Lamerson. So my advice stands, but I do acknowledge His introduction to the Open View case, in which he outlined all of biblical history in a bulleted summary that beautifuly exposed the dynamic, responsive relationship God has with His creation.

Sorry, Bob! :up:
Last edited:


New member
Run Sam run..

Run Sam run..

Bob said, "• Is it true that non-verbal, actual divine intervention cannot be a figure of speech?" BEQ32

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

The point is that there is a difference between God and Man that can never be overcome. We use human language to speak of God but he is so much greater than us that our language always falls short of a totally accurate picture (and even the word picture is a figure of speech).

Given that when the Scripture says that God “struck down” a people, does that mean that they felt a fist? You see, we are always struggling to speak of a God who is wholly other, yet use human words.

Sam..what are you talking about?? This is such a simplistic question. Again Sam, it doesn't matter if some figurative language is used to describe that interaction, is that interaction itself a figure of speech??

Don't let this pass Bob, stick on it like glue..
Last edited:


New member


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

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

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

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


New member
From Sam's 8th round post:

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

From Bob Enyart's second round post:
Bob Enyart said:

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

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

Sam had no trouble understanding this, as he wrote in round 3, and repeated verbatum in round 5:
Sam Lamerson said:
Bob uses Micah 5:2 as an example of a “predictive prophecy.”
But now, in round 8, Sam has written:
Sam Lamerson said:
Notice that Rev. Enyart has called Micah 5:2 a “non-prophecy.” This is simply not the case.
Sam then goes on to needlessly argue that Micah 5:2 is a predictive prophesy, which Bob has affirmed all along. If only Sam were this responsive toward points that Bob has actually made!


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

Let's get to it, then.

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

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

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

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

Not anywhere close to the same thing.

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

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

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

Now, back to it.

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

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

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

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

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

So, then you give us your "hermeneutic."


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did I miss anything?

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

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

That's all I got.

Z Man

New member
Good job Sam!!!

Good job Sam!!!

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

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


Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Sam, in your answer to...

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

you state...

"Show me a false prediction made by Jesus."

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

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

"If God is omniscient then He is incapable of thought…because if you know everything…you cannot think…because there is nothing to think about. Because to think about things there would have to be questions and God cannot have any questions. So God creates man and He must know that this is going to go horribly wrong and that He will then have to come as a man to be crucified etc.."


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

"Since" creation implies that creation already happened.

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

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

Thanks you again for your willingness to answer questions etc... I appreciate it.


Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Samuel Lamerson said:
Note that Rev. Enyart never responds to the specific charge that Peter is the one speaking here and that he very clearly claims that the death of Jesus was known and planned by God. Yet despite the fact that this death was known and planned by God, the men who committed this crime are still responsible. Thus the following statement is true: God knew both who would kill Jesus and how they would kill him, thus those men had no other choice. Yet because they did what they wanted to do (not because they had the ability to do otherwise) they are held guilty for their crime.
The conclusion here doesn't follow the premise. God does not have to know the who in order to know the what. In other words, Lamerson's so called true statement assumes facts that are not in evidence and so begs the question.

Further, in spite of Dr. Lamerson's direct claim to the contrary Bob did respond to this point saying...
Could God have provided for our salvation if Judas had repented? Of course! Of a thousand possibilities, Jesus could have sent Judas back to Caiaphas, to tell him that Jesus was in Gethsemane (the Lord wasn’t hiding after all) and still to refuse the payment. Even with this, some of the non-prophesies would have been fulfilled. For example they still could have used the thirty pieces of silver to buy the potter’s field, “fulfilling prophecies” of Jeremiah and Zechariah. But regardless, even if Judas played no traitor role whatsoever, not a single atheist critic of Scripture would quote any Old Testament verse as an unfulfilled “betrayal” prophecy, because they wouldn’t be able to find one.

There was no lack of wicked people standing in line to crucify Jesus. With or without Judas, the high priest Caiaphas could have arrested Jesus. With or without Caiaphas, Pilate could have sentenced Christ (with any mob shouting, “We have no king but Caesar”). But what if every Jew repented, and every Gentile? If the whole world humbled itself, including Judas, Caiaphas, Herod, Pilate, and even Tiberius Caesar, absolutely everybody, then would God be unable to sacrifice His Son? No. Then He could instruct the high priest, who would be obedient, to prepare to sacrifice the Offering. “Caiaphas, stand outside the Temple, and lift up your eyes, and go, and at the top of the hill, as it was prophesied, ‘In the Mount of the Lord it shall be provided,’ there on Mt. Moriah, as Abraham had readied Isaac, prepare to sacrifice My Son, Jesus. He will present Himself there. And at the moment that every family is killing their Passover lambs, you will slay the Atonement, My Holy Passover, and sprinkle His blood on the people.”

God could have planned the cross in this way. But by His understanding, He knew that men’s hearts were dark, and that there would be no end of wicked leaders, whoever they would be, to set themselves against His Son. If anything, Jesus had to make sure no one killed Him earlier than His time (Luke 4:29). But then by increasing His visibility, and by finally raising Lazarus that last week, that would provoke those who hated God to delay no longer, and to kill Him at their first opportunity (John 11:53).

Sam, I’m almost sure you’ll agree with this: God did not need Judas or anyone to provide the way of salvation.

God would not be crushed, nor would His purpose crumble, if a man failed Him. Most do. By the story of the Bible, God’s chosen servants, people ostensibly on His side, repeatedly failed the tasks He gave them. And if God survived the failures of His servants, He could survive the failures of His enemies, including Judas. God choose Nebuchadnezzar to take Tyre, and he failed. And God eventually cut off His chosen kings Solomon and Saul, and His chosen priests Nadab, Abihu, Hophni, and Phinehas, and most of the chosen people for that matter. If your reasoning is based upon the teachings of Calvin, and so on Augustine, and so on Plato, then you’ll conclude that a failure on Judas’ part would thwart the plan of salvation and disprove Christianity. Whereas if you consciously eliminate Greek philosophy and use (BEA-SLQ2) “the nature of God… and secondarily… the overall plot of the story in His Word,” you will conclude that the God of the Bible could survive if Judas failed to conclude his betrayal.​

and only a few sentences later...

The key Greek words are εδει (δει, had to) πληρωθηναι (be fulfilled). It’s been twenty years since I took a couple years of Greek, and I’ve lost much of the little skill I had, but I still enjoy struggling with translation. It is widely acknowledged that frequently, when the Hebrews meant illustrated, they said fulfilled. But more significant here is δει. That word can mean “had to,” as in “must” or even “compulsory divine destiny.” However leading authority Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich (BAG) list 24 δει verses under the meaning “of what is fitting.” They list Acts 1:16 as meaning that what happened to Judas was “fitting,” that is, it behooved or was appropriate; they did not classify this under their category of “divine destiny.”

Centuries before Judas, God planned for a traitor’s role leading to the cross. Scripture recorded David’s son’s betrayal and similar accounts, not as prophecies, but as historical records. Then Jesus intentionally chose eleven men who hungered for righteousness, and one who was a thief and a liar who hated God. The devil knew the Scriptures, and yet entered Judas (Luke 22:3) to try to thwart God. Thankfully, Lucifer did not know God’s actual plan. For God wisely omitted predictive prophecies about a betrayal role (a Judas) from the Old Testament, and only published relatively hidden, non-prophesies of a general typological nature. And Satan’s blind hatred made him more vulnerable to God’s manipulation.

Notice that there is no other way to interpret Peter’s words “this Scripture had to be fulfilled” other than by the attributes of God! So, this cannot be a Calvinist proof-text, but both sides interpret it based on their primary view of God’s nature, as unchanging and controlling, or as good and loving. Beware to the Calvinist who still insists that the definition of words require this verse to mean divine destiny. Luke commonly used δει to mean ought or should or appropriate. He used δει quoting Jesus saying the Pharisees should love and do justly (Luke 11:42, which they did not do), and see Acts 5:29; 19:36; 24:19; 27:21; Luke 13:16; and 15:32 where it was fitting to celebrate the prodigal’s return.​

It would seem that Dr. Lamerson has stopped paying any attention to the debate at all and is simply making a response because he feels obligated to do so because he gave his word or something. I, for one, wish that he would deal with what Bob has said seriously or just bow out. There's no sense in doing things half way and doing so dishonors the Dr. and insults both Bob Enyart and those of us who take this issue seriously. I couldn't be more disapointed.

Resting in Him,


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

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

Main Entry: lie
Function: verb

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

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

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

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

Jerry Shugart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Enyart also said:
When relatively short-term prophecies come to pass, they provide credibility to the prophet. God then uses that credibility to further build His case that men should trust Him.[emphasis mine]
He fails to state the obvious consequences that would occur if any of the Lord’s prophecies prove to be untrue.If His prophecies fail then how can anyone place their trust in Him?

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

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”


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

Yes, pleeeease answer this one.

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

I really believe this is the death nail of your view.
Maybe you have the Augustinian or Biblical.. hammer to pull it out..However, pointing out verses that show God interacting, intervening, have some anthropomorphic language that describe God's being, or even HOW he interacts won't do it. seem to be a bit apprehensive of this well as some of the "I said she WILL return to me...she did NOT return.."

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

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


New member
Kudos to both combatants for taking the job seriously

Kudos to both combatants for taking the job seriously

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace and Joy
Keith From Berthoud
Not open for further replies.