Okay then, finally getting to Lamerson's post, let's have a look-see.
Nice to see Sam finally stopped phoning in the debate and put forth some actual effort. (Misdirected as much of it is.) And I think Sam has also figured out Bob's significant mistake regarding his mismanagement of word count, and is now taking distinct advantage of it, somewhat unfairly but pretty effectively in certain ways. Even still, some real problems here, and I'll look at both what he did right and what he did wrong.
Sam starts off on the wrong foot, as he has so many times already. What, now he's going to be the Word-count Police? Is that not the job of the moderator, and ultimately the audience? Sam makes the mistake that both he and Bob have made throughout the debate -- trying to play the role of jury rather than lawyer. Sam, you make the case and they decide. You don't need to play policeman, judge and jury as well. This is kind of beneath you, a bit silly for you to point out Bob's word count situation. We all know about it; it's no secret!
Sam then whines about Bob's posturing. Yes, we know Bob acts really confident, even exhuberent about his position in the race. But harping on it is pointless. Bob's attitude has absolutely zilch to do with whether his case is true or false.
Sam then makes a much more important mistake -- for the umpteenth time he misrepresents what the debate itself is about. From the start, he's deceived himself and misled others into thinking that if he proves just one case of God having definite foreknowledge of a future free will choice, he wins.
Has he not read the title of this debate?
"
...ENTIRE FUTURE"
Does God know your ENTIRE future! So, even IF everything Sam has said about Peter and Judas is correct, and even if you throw in Cyrus and each of the other specific examples he's mentioned as well, he has still proven nothing more than that God knows definitely... less than 1% of the future! Whoopy doo! The key word here is "entire!" I have said from the beginning that Sam is way off on this approach, setting himself up for a fall from the start. (Or did God set Sam up for a fall, from the start? Sam believes He does something like that to most people in the world, after all.)
So, frankly, if anyone is worried about Bob's word-count issue... I gotta tell ya, Sam is in the same situation. He's fought the wrong battle this whole debate, and while he has lots of word-count left (having given such a half-hearted contribution up to this point, and flat-out ignoring many of Bob's questions for round after round), he doesn't have much
time left to
start making his case for God knowing
all of the future! After all, Sam has one round left, the 10th! And that's awfully late to
start making your case! But who knows, maybe he'll surprise us.
The Isaiah chapters are another issue, and we'll get to that in a moment.
But for what it's worth, if you can put blinders on and ignore all of the above... Sam did a halfway decent post, this time.
Sam tries to make the understandable assertion that the OV believes in a God that makes "mistakes." But Sam is equivocating here, and he knows it. He's not some man on the street; he knows the arguments both sides use here, and it's just plain equivocation. He knows that we do not believe God makes mistakes. Rather, man makes mistakes and God responds to them at the time it happens. If I drive to work, and there's an accident blocking the road, I will regret that I took that route, and I will take a detour... but neither of those responses are because I did anything wrong. Someone else did something wrong, and consequently, I regretted the route I took. Such is with God. While He may be "mistaken" about a prophecy He made (I'd not word it that way), it is not by any lack of wisdom or righteousness on His part, but
strictly the responsibility of the human players involved. Nevertheless, it's not an unreasonable argument to make, and understandable. If I were on his side, I'd make the same argument, and it may help persuade some.
On Jesus divesting Himself of the Omnis, I think Sam is grasping at straws here, but at least he
finally makes the tiniest effort (an effort that was due a couple rounds back). He makes a passing comment that "There are many Scriptures that show that Jesus had divine abilities," but he doesn't really back it up except to mention a couple incidents which he makes no effort at all to exegete. Despite having tons of word-count left, Sam doesn't bother to use it. As usual. And then he claims Bob hasn't backed this up exegetically, at all? Pot and kettle, sir! And Bob has addressed this repeatedly. It is
Sam who has refused (even now round 9!) to back up his wacky claim that what Christ emptied Himself of.. was His blood.
I think Sam at least gives the appearance of a strong argument regarding the Greek issues over which he has wrestled with Bob. I think that Bob has used context rather than linguistic knowledge to prove Sam wrong on this, but whether that effectively gets across to the average reader is something else entirely, and this is probably one of the few areas where Sam comes across as stronger. He appears to be a superior authority, and readers will tend to lean toward that.
However, a big problem with this, that Sam didn't address (again). Even if Sam is right on this Greek issue, it is
trumped by the repeated argument from Bob that God cares more about people than prophecy! I'm sorry, but that trumps the Greek, big time, and Sam continues to pretend this argument of Bob's doesn't even exist! Plus, Sam hasn't responded to the fact Bob pointed out that the textbook they both referenced interprets this word ("had to")
in both ways!
Under his "Sixth" point, and for the second round in a row, Sam actually finally concedes he has used extra-biblical authorities to as evidence for his case! Amazing! After all his denials, he confesses! Then he proudly adds that "I have not used any of the Greek philosophers to prove my case." That's right, instead you referred to the opinions of scholars who "cannot be questioned." Which is just as bad, if not worse.
And then... Sam makes the most shocking statement of the entire debate.
I will say that I do not believe that anyone could read Plato’s republic beside the book of Hebrews and not see that the writer of Hebrews was impacted by Plato’s work.
Augustine admitted to importing Platonic philosophy into Christian doctrine to solve the "problems" he saw in scripture, and said that when he looked at the Platonists, everywhere therein he saw God and His word. All of which Sam has denied ever took place.
Lamerson has now claimed that the author of Hebrews himself imported Platonic influence into the very word of God! And this after making such a big deal about how the Platonists weren't around when the Psalms were written?
Absolutely incredible! I did a double-take!
Sam then goes into the well-known Isaiah chapters. And like all Calvinists, completely misses the boat, by thinking for some reason that these passages are about omniscience, when they are in fact about God's
omnipotence. Unlike those pagan idols, not only does God claim what His purpose for the future is, but He then brings it about! That's about God's power, His ability and His wisdom in exercising His ability! Bob already pointed out
early on in the debate that Bruce Ware himself (who Lamerson clearly loves) admits that not one of these Isaiah passages actually says God knows the future exhaustively!! It's about omnipotence, God's ability to bring about what He said
He would do! He said He would do something, and He can! Unlike the stone idols of the pagans. They can make claims all day, but they can't then
do what they claimed. It's about what God can
do. Not what God knows. Duh, God knows what He intends to do, big news flash.
But, Sam nevertheless makes a very good run at these passages, making as good a case as one can expect, for someone who's missing the whole point of it. And he may indeed persuade some readers regarding this issue. So, I think Sam did come on strong here. I may completely disagree with his take on those passages, but for what it's worth, for his side he did a decent job, I thought. Especially when he brings Cyrus into it, which is one of the toughest specific passages for the OV to answer. (Though not impossible, by a long shot, as Bob has shown long ago in this debate.) I was also impressed by Sam's use of Bob's own terminology in trying to show "both a quantitative and a qualitative argument for God’s exhaustive foreknowledge." Nicely done, Sam, one of your best moments in the debate.
Sam once again sums up his argument regarding Peter. How many times does the doctor have to sum this up for us? We get it! We know what Sam thinks about this issue. Repeating it ad nauseum isn't going to help. Beating a dead horse, here. He does appear to make some good points (albeit ones Bob has repeatedly refuted), but then makes another error by once again pointing out for all of us that the Son didn't know the His own "Second Coming!" Sam, are you trying to defeat yourself? You're supposed to be arguing that God knows
everything about the future! Everything means everything! Did you somehow take the
title of the debate figuratively, that perhaps it meant "most things" or "a lot of things?" Unfortunately, while "all" doesn't always mean literally "all," in this case the "everything" really does mean "everything." Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. This alone wins the debate for Bob, right here. One sentence from Sam, conceding that the Son doesn't know something about the future. And Sam has said this specific thing more than once. And yet, incredibly, Sam appears to be completely oblivious to the meaning of it! It doesn't say the man Jesus didn't know. It doesn't say the Christ didn't know. The passage says the
Son didn't know. The Son is God, specifically. The Son is not the "human half" of Jesus. The Son is the God half!
He then moves on to Judas, where he makes an amazing statement.
While one could argue that Judas had already made up his mind, and that knowledge of Judas’s present state was open to God, this will not answer the question of how Jesus would have known the ultimate outcome (i.e., death) of the betrayal, nor the question of what might have occurred had Judas changed his mind.
Has Sam already forgotten Bob's post in 2b??? Bob went to great lengths to discuss "What might have occurred had Judas changed his mind," and when Bob did so, Sam
criticized Bob for doing it! And now Sam laments that it hasn't been addressed? Is he kidding?
He does get back once again to what I think is his strongest argument (of the very few decent one's he's offered), and that is the Greek issue regarding Judas in Acts 1. As someone who doens't read biblical Greek, I think Sam's argument here comes across as the stronger argument. In the end, it's outweighed by Bob's many superior arguments in every other area, but on this question alone, I find Sam to
appear to be more persuasive, more convincing. And I'm sure it will come across that way to readers who are on the fence. And there's not much Bob can do about it, as Sam's grasp of biblical Greek is obviously far superior to Bob's. That doesn't make Sam right or win him the debate, but I think this is the one single, specific issue where Sam wins the battle (even while losing the war terribly).
Sam concludes (not counting the questions) with what sounds like a nice argument that sums everything up, but it just doesn't hold up. He once again claims that the OV solution is worse than the problem it purports to solve. Trouble is that Bob has already demonstrated repeatedly that the SV sacrifices God's righteousness to protect His sovereignty, which as has been well demonstrated, is a lesser attribute of God that is specifically reliant upon creation itself, and
not an eternal attribute of God.
Now for the questions.
His answers to BEQ36 and 37 completely miss the point, doesn't answer Bob's questions directly, regarding pagan Greek influence. But then, what's new? Still, beating a dead horse.
On BEQ38 and 39, he also doesn't answer the questions (regarding reformulation of immutability, but then this is yet another dead horse anyway, and I wish Bob hadn't asked it yet again.
Regarding BEQ40, Sam is the one who earlier claimed that Reymond doesn't hold to
utter immutability, but now when asked to back that up, he skitters back and refuses to back up what he said. Disappointing, but the question was another poor one from Bob in the first place.
On BEQ41, he tries to explain away his apparent self-contradictions regarding free will by explaining he's a compatibalist. No kidding. Problem here is that Sam's definition of "free will" is an equivocation, such that it means the person was powerless to do anything else but that. They were a slave to their will, and God decided what their will would be, thus in the end they "freely" did their will, and couldn't have done otherwise.
Than which nothing could be more absurd.
Actually, his response to BEQ42 is
half reasonable. "The problem is that the question assumes that God could pinch the rooster without having foreknown it. I do not agree with that assumption." That does make sense. Problem is that it still leaves wide open the argument that God foreknew it because it was something
He would definitely do, not the free will action of a free agent human! This scores no points for Sam.
For BEQ43, Sam just plain cops out. Oh, FDR was just guessing, but God really knows the future. Ipse dixit, doctor. Claiming it doesn't make it so. That's not an answer. He asked you if it proves someone's definite foreknowledge if they make a prophecy and it comes true. You know the answer; we all do. The answer is no. Just say it.
His answer to BEQ44 is just plain disengenuous, like many of his other answers throughout the debate. He answers a question Bob didn't ask! Bob didn't ask about descriptions of God's "arm!" He asked about the historical
event! And the
event is not a figure of speech, doctor! Is it? Stop answering questions Bob didn't ask. Why are you so afraid of this question?
BEQ45: Sam, I am curious, when you re-claimed Isaiah 40-48 as indicating exhaustive foreknowledge in 6A and 7A, why would you do so without addressing my extensive rebuttal of that argument in 3B?
SLA-BEQ45: I believe that you will find my answer above more than enough. As to why I waited, I was trying to get clash on specific passages of Scripture. I choose the New Testament passages. Bob choose not to reveal his passages to me until the debate was nearly over and in a post that is way, way overlong.
Halfway decent answer, Bob has also waited a round or two to respond to an argument Sam made, so that's fair enough. And Sam makes an entirely legitimate gripe concerning Bob's delayal on his proof texts. But as for the length of Bob's post, frankly Sam has all the word-count in the world to respond to Bob. He has no excuse there. He has tons of room, thanks to Sam's numerous, halfhearted little posts before this point.
BEQ46 -- Hallelujah, Sam finally answered a question directly! God can change in respect to relationships with people! That's the death knell for utter immutability, certainly.
Of course, then he makes the silly comment that "I have stated many times in the debate that God is able to have a true relationship." So? That statement is lackng the word "change," which is entirely the point! Can God change? Yes, He can. One of many self-destructive concessions Sam has made throughout this debate, defeating himself over and over and over again.
I'd like to point out that I'm appreciative and thankful that Sam didn't add any new questions for Bob. He did add a whole slew of them last round, but this round he did not, and that's a good thing on his part. He should be responding to Bob's case now, not vice versa.
Which brings me to my last point. To coin a phrase, Dr. Lamerson... "WHERE'S THE CLASH?"
Where do you actually respond to Bob's positive case for the Open View anywhere in this round? You don't! You ignored Bob's hermeneutic, you
utterly ignored his proof texts!!! UNBELIEVABLE. You scream for them, and beg for them, and you renege on Bob's deal by continuing (even to this day) to provide your hermeneutical principles, and Bob
still gives you his proof texts anyway, and you just flat out ignore them? This is inconceivable. You had some decent material in this post.
All of which is for naught! A total waste of time, because Bob put his case forth for the
second time, and you didn't even try to respond to it! You're still stuck on defending your own arguments, all of which is old news at this point! We've covered that ground, and now here you are covering it all over again, and giving a
free pass to Bob's case.
According to you, that means Bob's case stands!
But the bottom line in all of this is that Sam has
utterly failed to prove that God knows the
entire future. Even
if Sam is right about his three proof texts, he doesn't come even remotely close to proving God knows our
entire future. And Sam even openly admits
yet again that the Son (not Jesus, not "the Christ" but specifically the "Son!") did not know the timing of His Second Coming! And that is huge! Not only does this prove that the Son didn't have omniscience at that specific time, but it proves that He
never did! Because if the Son had known the timing of His second coming before the incarnation itself, then He would have had only to just remember it at this point! But no, He can't even
remember back when He might have known.
He never knew, all the way back into eternity past! The only way the Son could not know in the "ignorant Son passages" is if He
never knew.
Sam now has one single, solitary round to start making his case that God knows our
entire future. I can't even fathom how he plans to start doing that.
I'm done.
)
