BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 4 thru 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.

RightIdea

New member
Jerry Shugart said:
RightIdea,

You just ignored the verse that I gave that demonstrates that God uses figurative language when describing His actions:

"I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know"(Gen.18:21).

Do you take this literaly,RightIdea,or are you just going to ignore this verse again?

If you take it literally then how do you explain the following verses?:

"Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me"(Ps.139:7-9).

If you hold that both Genesis 18:21 and Psalms 139:7-9 are to be taken literally then it is you who makes God out to be a God of confusion.

In His grace,--Jerry

”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html
Jerry, to coin a phrase, "I thought I was being kind by not addressing that one."

Yes, God went down. More specifically, the Son, who is the one who is the mediator between the Father and mankind, and we know that the Son had a bodily form even in the Old Testament, which he frequently appeared in on numerous occasions, even before 72 leaders in the wilderness! The Son, since Creation, has possessed locality!

What's the alternative, Jerry? You ignored my point, which was that there is no value to such figurative language, if that is in fact what it is! You'd have us believe that just as with the unfulfilled prophecies, God willfully tells us things He knows to be false, over and over and over again.

Yes, we know that the Son came down from heaven, met with Abraham, and investigated those wicked cities. The Lord says so, right there in scripture! And your personal human wisdom tells you that can't be true, thta would be "beneath God" to do that, so surely it must mean the opposite of what God says.

God is speaking in the first person there, Jerry. It's not some man's impression of the event. God is speaking, Himself! And He says He will go down! And I, for one, believe Him. He is not a God of confusion, and certainly not a God of lies. A figure of speech here makes no sense.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
RightIdea said:
Yes, we know that the Son came down from heaven, met with Abraham, and investigated those wicked cities.
So the Lord had to come down to the earth in order to investigate those wicked cities?

Is that what you think?

If so,how do you explain the following verse?:

"The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good"(Prov.15:3).

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

RightIdea

New member
Jerry Shugart said:
So the Lord had to come down to the earth in order to investigate those wicked cities?

Is that what you think?

If so,how do you explain the following verse?:

"The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good"(Prov.15:3).

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html
It's not my opinion. It's what I know to be true from God's word. The Son came down, because He is personal, relational, not a distant God who only keeps us at bay!

Do you deny the Son had a bodily form in the OT? Do you deny that this bodily form had locality? I know you can't deny that God said He was going down. Unfortunately, you don't believe Him.

God's eyes are everywhere. We know that God is present everywhere He wants to be, amen. But you should darn well know that Proverbs is an artistic writing, one given to sweeping statements for effect, and not written for precision! My gosh, there are many proverbs that couldn't possibly be taken literally, and you know it.

Jerry, you would have us take a historical account figuratively, and an artistic writing that uses hyperbole... as literal! Brother, your hermeneutic is so incredibly backward! We know God isn't literally everywhere. Proverbs commonly uses exaggeration. It doesn't say things that are the opposite of the truth, but rather it expresses in strong and sweeping statements things that do resemble the truth! But God isn't in the heart of a wicked man. So, no, God isn't absolutely everywhere. And the Bible says so.


On what basis do you believe we should take historical accounts figuratively and hyperbolic, artistic writings literally? What is the basis for that hermeneutical principle, Jerry? Where'd you learn that?
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
doggieduff,

You said:
Jerry, as I said before, 2 Tim. 3:16 says ALL scripture is for instruction in righteousness. What can I learn from a verse that says God repents? To this you have no answer, and a big problem'
Since you think that there is an explanation for every single thing that is said in a narrative that is in figurative language then perhaps you will explain the meaning of the following words:

"I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know"(Gen.18:21).

If we take a "literal" view of this verse then we must believe that at the time those words were spoken that the Lord did not know whether or not the reports about the wicked cities were true or not.But we know that this is not to be taken literally,because the Lord surely knew that they were acting wickedly:

The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good"(Prov.15:3).

So since Genesis 18:21 is figurative,then perhaps you will provide an answer as to what is the meaning when the Lord said that He will come down to investigate the wicked cities.After all,you seem convinced that there is a meaning that we can always put on figurative language.Here is your chance to prove it.

In His grace,--Jerry

”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RightIdea

New member
Jerry, I have a very sincere question.

Do you believe God responds to prayer? If so, how is that different from Moses petitioning to God, face to face back then? That's all it is, nothing more. We pray to God about our needs, He responds to us, genuinely responds! As Bob said, He's not a stone idol but a living Person in relationship with us!

Moses essentially prayed to God, and God acted based on Moses' prayer! Just as we hope He will do in regards to us, today!

So then, do you believe God responds to prayer?
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
RightIdea,

I quoted this verse:

"The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good"(Prov.15:3).

And this is the way that you answered it:
RightIdea said:
God's eyes are everywhere. We know that God is present everywhere He wants to be, amen. But you should darn well know that Proverbs is an artistic writing, one given to sweeping statements for effect, and not written for precision! My gosh, there are many proverbs that couldn't possibly be taken literally, and you know it.
Proverbs 15:3 is saying that He sees everything.But in your zeal to limit God you say that God is only present where He wants to be!

How about His "undertanding" being infinite?Is that not to be taken literally:

"Great is our Lord, and of great power: His understanding is infinite"(Psa 147:5).

According to your literal reading of Genesis 18:21 He did not even have an understanding of what was going on in the wicked cities until He went down to investigate.In other words,you deny that the Lord's knowledge is infinite because you say that He did not even know what was going on in the wicked cities until He went to investigate.

And how about this verse?:

"Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do"(Heb 4:13).

According to you the people in Sodom and Gomorrah were not manifest in His sight until He went down to investigate.

After reading the teaching of those who support the brand of Open Theism espoused by Bob Enyart I have come to realize that they do not believe that He can know everything about us that will happen in the future,and they believe that the Lord can make a false prophecy,and they believe that God does not know everything that is happening on the earth at the present time.

They are willing to argue that God can be wrong so that they can cling to their fables.

In His grace,--Jerry

”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html
 
Jerry Shugart said:
Jeremy,

If you used Numbers 14 to show that God changed Him mind then why did you say the following?:

The third reference refers to Numbers 14. The word "nacham" or repent was not used there. God Himself said, "I have pardoned according to your word." That's why I said, "God did not repent there" Jerry... Pay attention.

And there are your comments on Numbers 14:

God planned to strike and disinherit Israel, but responded to Moses prayer. He didn't repent Jerry, He pardoned according to the words Moses spoke.

Jerry,

I hope you're not purposely trying to aggravate me. I hope that you're unaware of my point. I hope that it is my fault, and that I'm not being clear. I'll try for a third time...

In Exodus 32:14, God "repented" of the harm He said He would do. The Hebrew word "nacham" is used in Exodus 32:14. God repented, or had a change of mind concerning His intended judgment. God inspired Moses to use the Hebrew word "nacham" when He wrote Exodus 32:14, which is commonly translated "repent" in many places (Numbers 23:19 says God will not "nacham" repent).

In Numbers 14, God again states that He will destroy Israel. Specifically, God says He will "strike them with pestilence and disinherit" Israel. Moses prayed (as he did in Exodus) and God responded to that prayer. God responded, "I have pardoned according to your word." God did not inspire Moses to use the Hebrew word "nacham" in this passage. God changed His mind, but Moses showed this truth without using the Hebrew word for repent (nacham). Again, that's why I said what I said.

To clarify for you Jerry... God changed His mind in Exodus 32 and in Numbers 14. God repented (nacham) in Exodus 32 and changed His mind. God pardoned the people in Numbers 14 and did not use the Hebrew word for repent (nacham). Am I clear now Jerry?

Jerry Shugart said:
Previously when speaking about Numbers 24...

Do you mean Numbers 14?

...you said that "God did not repent there",but now you are saying that you used Numbers 14 "to show that God changed His mind".

Are you not aware that to "repent" means to change one's mind?

I'm well aware Jerry. That's why I clarified for the third time above...

Jerry Shugart said:
I said that if we are to take these verses "literally" then they show that God changes His mind.Leave it to you to take what I said out of its context.

And of course you did not answer the fact that if they are taken literally then they also teach that Moses was wiser than God.All you have to say is:

Here is the problem with a "literal" reading of those verses,Jeremy.Perhaps you will address that problem instead of just ignoring it.You said:
If we take the verses at Exodus 32 and Ezekiel 20 "literally" then we must believe that Moses had more wisdom than the Lord.If we take a literal reading of the verses then we must believe that the Lord did not realize the consequences would be if He destroyed the children of Israel.After He makes His threat we read:

"And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people...And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people"(Ex.32:11,12,14).

Then we see that is was not until Moses told the Lord these things that He repented.And the Lord tells us exactly why He repented:

"Then I said, ‘I will pour out My fury on them and fulfill My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.’ But I acted for My name’s sake, that it should not be profaned before the Gentiles among whom they were, in whose sight I had made Myself known to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt"(Ez.20:8,9).

If these verses are to be taken literally then we must believe that the Lord was not aware that if He destroyed Israel that His Name would be profaned among the Gentiles for the mischief He would do for bringing them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth.

But the Lord was not wise enough to realize this,and it was not until Moses explained this to Him did He understand.That is what we must believe if we take these verses in a literal manner.

Jeremy,since you say that these verses should be read literally then you must believe that the Lord was not as wise as Moses.

No Jerry, that's your opinion. You set up a straw man here. God is gracious and desires all men everywhere to repent. God intended to destroy Israel numerous times, and changed His mind. Ezekiel 20 clarifies why He changed His mind. Moses being "smarter" than God never enters the picture.

I echo Doogieduff's question to you Jerry. What am I suppose to learn from Exodus 32 and Numbers 14 when they say God changed His mind? You say these passages are "figurative," and do not really mean what they say. Please explain what truth I can take from these passages if they don't really mean what they say.

God Bless,
--Jeremy
 

RightIdea

New member
Jerry Shugart said:
RightIdea,

I quoted this verse:

"The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good"(Prov.15:3).

And this is the way that you answered it:

Proverbs 15:3 is saying that He sees everything.But in your zeal to limit God you say that God is only present where He wants to be!
And I explained my logical rationale for exactly that (as has Bob), which you ignore, pretend I never even wrote (just like Sam), because it's not convenient for you to actually address. And you completely ignored the question of why you take literally something in an artistic book like Proverbs or Psalms, but you take figuratively a specific historical account. Which makes not the least bit of sense, Jerry!

How about His "undertanding" being infinite?Is that not to be taken literally:

"Great is our Lord, and of great power: His understanding is infinite"(Psa 147:5).
Amen, what's the problem with that? I'm with ya. No disagreement there.

According to your literal reading of Genesis 18:21 He did not even have an understanding of what was going on in the wicked cities until He went down to investigate.In other words,you deny that the Lord's knowledge is infinite because you say that He did not even know what was going on in the wicked cities until He went to investigate.
You completely ignored my question about prayer, and you expect me to still respond to you, Jerry? Hypocrite.

And how about this verse?:

"Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do"(Heb 4:13).
Amen to that! All things are available for God to see if He wants! All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him! No problem there...

According to you the people in Sodom and Gomorrah were not manifest in His sight until He went down to investigate.

After reading the teaching of those who support the brand of Open Theism espoused by Bob Enyart I have come to realize that they do not believe that He can know everything about us that will happen in the future,and they believe that the Lord can make a false prophecy,and they believe that God does not know everything that is happening on the earth at the present time.
Amen, amen and amen! God does not know our future free will choices, and thank God He doesn't!

Thank God that He does change His mind and does not bring about some of the things He said He would do! (Do you even deny this? How can you possibly?)

And amen, God doesn't want to watch children sodomized while they're being filmed for mass distribution. God does not want to see absolutely everything. You would imprison God in His own omniscience, make Him a slave to knowledge. How dare you put God in a box like that and command Him to do this or that, or have the gumption to tell Him what is appropriate?

They are willing to argue that God can be wrong so that they can cling to their fables.

In His grace,--Jerry

”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html
Oh yes. You take artistic poetry as literal, and specific historical accounts as figurative, and you claim we are the ones who cling to fables? I did need a laugh today, Jerry. Thanks! :thumb:
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
RightIdea,

Let us examine your responses to my last post.First I said:

How about His "undertanding" being infinite?Is that not to be taken literally:

"Great is our Lord, and of great power: His understanding is infinite"(Psa 147:5).


To which you replied:

Amen, what's the problem with that? I'm with ya. No disagreement there.

RightIdea,if the Lord's understanding is infinite,why did He not know about what was going on in the wicked cities?In other words,why was it necessary to go down and investigate what was going on there?

That is why I said:

According to your literal reading of Genesis 18:21 He did not even have an understanding of what was going on in the wicked cities until He went down to investigate.In other words,you deny that the Lord's knowledge is infinite because you say that He did not even know what was going on in the wicked cities until He went to investigate.

And your answer is no answer.It is nothing but an evasion.You said:

You completely ignored my question about prayer, and you expect me to still respond to you, Jerry? Hypocrite.

What does prayer have to do with this?We were discussing the passages in regard to the evil cities before you even asked anything about prayer.But now you will not answer because I have not yet responded to a question about something that has nothing to do with what we were previously discussing.

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

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Jeremy,

I asked you:

Are you not aware that to "repent" means to change one's mind?

To which you replied:

I'm well aware Jerry.

But you said that God did not repent at Numbers 14:

The third reference refers to Numbers 14. The word "nacham" or repent was not used there. God Himself said, "I have pardoned according to your word." That's why I said, "God did not repent there" Jerry... Pay attention.

But now you say that at Numbers 14 that God did change His mind:

God changed His mind in Exodus 32 and in Numbers 14.

At one place you said that God did not repent at Numbers 14 and then at another place you say that He did change His mind at Numbers 14.

If “repent” means to change one’s mind,then how is it possible that the Lord did not repent at Numbers 14 but yet He changed His mind?
I hope you're not purposely trying to aggravate me. I hope that you're unaware of my point. I hope that it is my fault, and that I'm not being clear.
I think that it is the third “hope”—that it is your fault and that you are not being clear.In fact,you are contrdicting yourself.

Next,I demonstrated that if Exodus 32 and Ezekiel 20 are to be taken literally then we must believe that the Lord was not aware that if He destroyed Israel that His Name would be profaned among the Gentiles for the mischief He would do for bringing them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth.

But the Lord was not wise enough to realize this,and it was not until Moses explained this to Him did He understand.That is what we must believe if we take these verses in a literal manner.

Jeremy,since you say that these verses should be read literally then you must believe that the Lord was not as wise as Moses.

Here is your response:

No Jerry, that's your opinion. You set up a straw man here.

You said:

Ezekiel 20 clarifies why He changed His mind.

Yes,He changed His mind so that His Name would not be profaned before the Gentiles:

"Then I said, ‘I will pour out My fury on them and fulfill My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.’ But I acted for My name’s sake, that it should not be profaned before the Gentiles among whom they were, in whose sight I had made Myself known to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt"(Ez.20:8,9).

And it is obvious when He realized that His Name would be profaned before the Gentiles if He destroyed Israel—after Moses told Him that would happen if He did destroy Israel:

And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people...And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people"(Ex.32:11,12,14).

Again,if we are to take a literal reading of these verses we must conclude that the Lord was not even aware of the consequences of destroying Israel until Moses pointed out those consequences.But you say that I am wrong but you do not tell me what I said that was wrong.In other words,you just evaded the whole question.
I echo Doogieduff's question to you Jerry. What am I suppose to learn from Exodus 32 and Numbers 14 when they say God changed His mind? You say these passages are "figurative," and do not really mean what they say. Please explain what truth I can take from these passages if they don't really mean what they say.

I will give you a chance to answer what I said to doggieduff:

“Since you think that there is an explanation for every single thing that is said in a narrative that is in figurative language then perhaps you will explain the meaning of the following words:

"I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know"(Gen.18:21).

If we take a "literal" view of this verse then we must believe that at the time those words were spoken that the Lord did not know whether or not the reports about the wicked cities were true or not.But we know that this is not to be taken literally,because the Lord surely knew that they were acting wickedly:

”The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good"(Prov.15:3).

So since Genesis 18:21 is figurative,then perhaps you will provide an answer as to what is the meaning when the Lord said that He will come down to investigate the wicked cities.After all,you seem convinced that there is a meaning that we can always put on figurative language.Here is your chance to prove it.”

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

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Jerry Shugart,

You said
However,if we read Bob Enyart's comments on the prophecy of Peter denying the Lord three times then there can be no doubt that he is saying that the Lord went about arranging a circumstance whereby Peter would sin by making his denials.

Bob Enyart said this,and there can be no doubt that he is saying that God would intervene to fulfill prophecy:
No one sins apart from freely/voluntarily following after their own lusts. And Bob stated that God can and does intervene in order to fullfill prophesy, that does not mean that God's intervention was "causal", rather, Bob has been consistently saying that God's intervention was by way of "influence". God used his influence to create an environment where one's own temptations might become clearly understood and dealt with, either through proactive repentance saying something like, your right Lord, please help me with my unbelief, or by simply remembering God's words when His prediction of the denials actually happens.

Again, I've already given all these arguments just as Bob has perhaps a half dozen times in sucession. I hope you catch the meaning offered this time.


You also say
But since Bob knows that if God was intervening to make the prophecy come true then God would be tempting Peter to sin,and Bob also knows that God would do no such thing.So even though he continually used the argument that God would intervene to make the prophecy come true he then backs away and says that those "accusations would not be temptations to do evil".

How can that be?
God knows the hearts and minds of men, even their thoughts before they speak them. Sin starts with temptation and ends up in death and destruction. There is a predictable path that sin takes. All Jesus had to know, was that the environment around Jesus and His followers had actually become deadly, and that Peter would respond with fear because of that reality. Perhaps Peter's fear was in part born from a deep seated caring for Jesus, naely, that he did not want to loose Him and His wonderful ways. Peter did not want Jesus to be killed as his sword play clearly indicates. Perhaps he feared that Jesus would not make a triumphant return. I mean, since when was death not the final (known) act of any man? And I think that God's word indicates a lack of beliefe at the initial accounts that Jesus had risen demonstrating that Peter's fear of loosing Jesus was common.

So Jesus knew of the environment and Peter's personal estate that was bubbling over the rim with fear! It simply does not get much more complex than that. Oh, I forgot to mention, Jesus knew all that prior to it actually happening, so that is how that could be true that Jesus foretold of these events without making it happen or without tempting Peter.


As to your so called, Bob wants it both ways argument

No, you are mentioning two different issues, not one issue in a contradictory way.
In the first case
God did want to provide an envirement where "IF" Peter wanted to, he could follow the path of his temptations to sin, and also, IF Peter wanted to, Peter could decide to repent instead of sin. Fortelling of the one option does not eliminate the possability of the other. See Nineveh not being destroyed in 40 days for a clear example among many.

In the second case
Bob is saying that God did NOT WANT PETER TO GIVE IN TO HIS OWN TEMPTATION TO SIN, not as you are saying that God did not want to provide an environment that would bring the issue of Peter's own temptation to it's resulting end, either toward his own pesronal repentance or sin.
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Jerry, if you want to continue, then fine, but I feel that I have stated what I needed to say, even several times over. Please carefully consider this previous post because so far I don't see much progress being made. I sincerely hope this helps you understand!
 

ApologeticJedi

New member
I said: The direct context of the repenting passages is often that God repented. Therefore just saying that they are a figure of speech doesn’t solve your problem because the figure of speech appears to mean the exact same thing as the definition of the word.

Jerry Shugart responded: Yes,it appears to man that God is repenting.That is the meaning of the word "repent" when it applies to God and is used phenomenally.For example,let us examine the following verse: "And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun"(Mk.16:2). Do you understand that the words "rising of the sun" is being used phenomenally?That the sun is not really rising but instead that is the way that it appears to man.Now I will use the same arguments that you use: "The direct context of the 'sun rising' passages is often that the sun rose. Therefore just saying that they are a figure of speech doesn’t solve your problem because the figure of speech appears to mean the exact same thing as the definition of the word."

Jerry,

Sorry about the delay in responding, we’ve been rather buzy. You’ve made a few statements and comparisons, and missed some rather big points that I’ve been explaining because you think figures of speech are somehow “special cases”. Let me do, a I’ve done before, one more time and see if you can understand.

“And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came to the sepulcher anatei-Lontos ton eliou” (Mark 16:2)

Now, if this was left untranslated as I’ve left it, then how would you know what the phrase (lat alone, meaning of the figure of speech) “anatei-Lontos ton eliou” was? Well, you could look at the context around the phrase and the meaning would be somewhat clear. Clues like “very early” and “morning” give us some clue as to what the meaning is. Further, in this passage, even if we never figured out the meaning, it wouldn’t change the story.

In the repentance passages, even if the part you say is a figure of speech is left out, you still would understand that God repented because unlike the “run rising” passage, it is central to the story. You get the idea of repentence, not just from the word repent, but that the entire story tells of God’s repentance. So not just the word would have to be a figure of speech, but we must now allegorize the entire story to hold to your pagan concept of Fatalism.

I’ll give you another example to seal the deal. I’ll pick a repentence passage that doesn’t use the words “God repented”. Look at the next chapter of Exodus!

[Exodus 33]
[vv. 1-3] And the Lord said to Moses, “Go forward… and I will send at the same time and angel before thy face, and he shall cast out .. for I will not go up with thee, because thou art a stiff-necked people…”
[vv. 12-16] And Moses said unto the Lord “… If thou go not up with us thyself, bring me not hence. And how shall it be surely known, that both I and this people have found favour with thee, except only if thou go with us?”
[vv. 17] And the Lord said to Moses, “I will also do for thee this thing…”

And God does lead them, despite what he said in verses 1 through 3. No “repent” word is used, but the overall context is that God repent. The story falls apart if God did not repent. The same as the story from Exodus 32 falls apart if God didn’t repent. If the sun didn’t “rise” in Mark 16, the story doesn’t fall apart.


Jery Shugart said:
If we are to take this literally then we must believe that the Lord decided to destroy the children of Israel without considering the consequences.However,when Moses points out the consequences to the Lord ( that the Egyptians would say that He brought them out just so that he could slay them and therefore His Name would be profaned before the Gentiles) the Lord reconsiders and changes His mind. In other words,Moses had more wisdom that did the Lord.The Lord didn't even have the wisdom to even consider the consequences of his his proposed actions,but Moses did. That is the ridiculous conclusion that is arrived at if the word "repent" is taken literally .

Do you really think God cares what the Gentiles thought? Do you believe God is so unassured of Himself that He cares if someone sets up false ideas about Him and begins to slander him? I put to you that God din’t care about those things, but Moses was the one who cared!

Moses pleads with the Lord not to destroy the Israelites. For Moses sake, God says he did not destroy them. That Moses brought up a concern doesn’t mean God hadn’t thought it out. God could well have been prepared to deal with those insignificant consequences, but for Moses sake (and because Moses’ fear of what the Gentiles think) God changed His mind.

So what is the opinion of the Settled View here? God knew He would never destroy the Israelites, but told Moses to “leave him” (a command) and let Him destroy Israel, obviously for the purpose of testing Moses in order to see if he would grovel. Moses who didn’t sin, God toyed with and threatened.
Jerry Shugart said:
The Lord is attempting to convey a truth in regard to the nation of Israel.And that is the fact that they deserved to be destroyed,and it was not because of anything that they did that spared them from this deserved puishment.And in order to teach this truth the Lord employed "figurative" language.It appears to man that God did repent,but he did not actually repent.Just as the Scriptures speak of the "sun rising" does not mean that it actally rises.

So you believe that God is lying to Moses when he says that he will destroy Israel? And while I have already revealed that it is not sinful to lie to the wicked … to lie to someone you want to have a relationship with is a very bad thing.

So obviously (based on your presumption that “I repent” is just an appearance to man), the problem with this verse is still there but transferred to God saying to Moses, “Go away and I will destroy them.” Because if this part is truth, and not a lie on God’s part, then like Exodus 33, it doesn’t matter if the word “repent” appears or not, because the purpose of the context is that God repented.

Jerry Shugart said:
I am not aware of any verses where it can be said that God lied.There might be instances where He allowed demons to influence others by deceit,but that is not the same thing as God actally lying. And if He did lie to the wicked,how do you explain Paul's word where He says that God cannot lie (Titus1:2)?
It is the rule of thumb statement, not a character trait. It does not mean in every instance without exception, but as a general rule God doesn’t lie. Just like the Bible says to obey the governing authorities. As a general rule we should always do that. If they come into conflict with God’s rules should obey God rather than man.
In a normal situation God will not tell a lie, however God does lie to the wicked. God deceived Ahab (1 King 22:20-23). He deceives false prophets (Ez. 14:9). And He deceives the determinedly sinful (Thess 2:9-12; Ez 20:24-26). When giving battle plans against the city if Ai, God recommended a “feint”, an attack method in which you deceive your enemy that you are running away and that he is winning. So also, in war, is it okay to deceive your opponent (so long as yours is the righteous side).
 
Jerry,

As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over. You continually misrepresent me, and when I attempt to clarify, you say,

Jerry Shugart said:
Jeremy,

I asked you:

Are you not aware that to "repent" means to change one's mind?

To which you replied:

I'm well aware Jerry.

But you said that God did not repent at Numbers 14:

The third reference refers to Numbers 14. The word "nacham" or repent was not used there. God Himself said, "I have pardoned according to your word." That's why I said, "God did not repent there" Jerry... Pay attention.

But now you say that at Numbers 14 that God did change His mind:

God changed His mind in Exodus 32 and in Numbers 14.

At one place you said that God did not repent at Numbers 14 and then at another place you say that He did change His mind at Numbers 14.

If “repent” means to change one’s mind,then how is it possible that the Lord did not repent at Numbers 14 but yet He changed His mind?

I think that it is the third “hope”—that it is your fault and that you are not being clear.In fact,you are contrdicting yourself.

You fail to understand the issues surrounding this debate. The key issue I've tried to discuss with you is the Hebrew word "nacham" and it's usage in the OT. For some reason, you fail to understand.

My final point is this... God repented (nacham) in Exodus 32. As a result of this repentance, we conclude that God changed His mind concerning His intended statement.

In Numbers 14, God "pardoned according to (Moses') word." We conclude from this pardoning that God changed His mind. The point is, the Hebrew word "nacham" is not found in Numbers 14.

Either you fail to understand, or you antagonize and fail to respond.

Good luck in your search for truth Jerry. I'm not sure if you'll ever find it since you believe God doesn't mean what He says...

--Jeremy
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
*Acts9_12Out* said:
Either you fail to understand, or you antagonize and fail to respond.
It is, I'm afraid, unfortunately, the latter. :nono:

Know that your efforts weren't completely wasted. I, for one, got a great deal out of what you had to say, as always.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
*Acts9_12Out* said:
Jerry,

As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over. You continually misrepresent me...
Jeremy,

I quoted your own words.Just because you made a mistake does not mean that I misrepresented you.

And it does not surprise me that you are leaving this discussion,especially since you continue to evade the points that I made.
In Numbers 14, God "pardoned according to (Moses') word." We conclude from this pardoning that God changed His mind. The point is, the Hebrew word "nacham" is not found in Numbers 14.

Either you fail to understand, or you antagonize and fail to respond.
Jeremy,originally you did not say that "the Hebrew word "nacham" is not found in Numbers 14,but instead you said that " God did not repent there".

I understand perfectly and I have responed.I quote your own words but since you cannot deny that you wrote them you attack me for some reason.I didn't make you write what you wrote,Jeremy.You did that on your own.
Good luck in your search for truth Jerry. I'm not sure if you'll ever find it since you believe God doesn't mean what He says...
Remember it is those who follow Bob Enyeart's brand of Open Theology who say that God's prophecies can fail! I would never say such a thing.

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

GodsfreeWill

New member
Gold Subscriber
Jerry, what's your deal man? You keep asking and asking more questions, and WON'T repsond to my posts. I'm thoroughly disappointed. In this informal debate setting, your lack of response is an admission of defeat. From my last post to you here I asked what can be learned from a verse such as Jer. 15:6 to which you failed to respond to, admitting passively that you have no idea and that your theology can make no sense of "it's" (your theology) figures. You fail to respond to 2 Tim. 3:16, which is considered a lie by you and your theology. You make God a liar, not the OV. I further explained how Genesis 22:12 should be taken literally, and again no response. You must agree with me then. You continue to bring up more and more apparent "figures" which I really don't care about in this discussion Jerry, I'm just interested in how your "theology" interprets it's "figures" and you don't even know. You invented the "theology" Jerry, did you forget to solve this problem when you created your "theology"? Well, I'm exposing it, and you fail to respond time and time again.

Jerry Shugart said:
doogieduff,

You said:

Since you think that there is an explanation for every single thing that is said in a narrative that is in figurative language

I didn't say this, God did. See 2 Tim. 3:16.

then perhaps you will explain the meaning of the following words:

I'd love to since you can't think outside of your tiny box.

"I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know"(Gen.18:21).

For all those reading, Jerry finds it problematic for one to take this verse literally. I do not. It's actually quite simple. God appeared as a man to Abraham in Genesis 18.

Gen. 18:1-3
1 Then the Lord appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre,* as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day.
2 So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground,
3 and said, "My Lord, if I have now found favor in Your sight, do not pass on by Your servant.


Jerry, the Lord appeared to Abraham and it says 3 men appeared to him. These three men are God and two angels. Abraham immediately recognized one of these men as the Lord and bowed down to Him.

Gen 18:4-5
4 Please let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree.
5 And I will bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh your hearts. After that you may pass by, inasmuch as you have come to your servant." They said, "Do as you have said."


The Lord has feet for Abraham to wash, and Abraham offers him a bite to eat. Did you know God appeared as a man before the incarnation Jerry?

Gen 18:16
16 Then the men rose from there and looked toward Sodom, and Abraham went with them to send them on the way.


The men (including the Lord) looked toward Sodom and since the Lord was not omnipresent as a man, He was about to physically "go down" to Sodom to reign fire and brimstone on them from heaven.

Gen 18:20-21
20 And the Lord said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave,
21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know."


See Jerry? This statement needs to be taken literally. The Lord (man) is about to literally go down to Sodom and Gomorrah, (not down from heaven, he's already on the earth as a man) to destroy them, but WAIT, our God is merciful and repents from doing harm (according to Jonah, who you think is in error) and therfore, there is a chance that the city of Sodom has repented since his descent to see Abraham. He must now literally "go down" to see the PRESENT state of Sodom, not what it was when He descended, and when he gets there, there is not even 10 righteous, and Jehovah (man) reigns fire and brimstone from Jehovah (God) out of the heavens.

Gen 19:24
24 Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens.


If we take a "literal" view of this verse then we must believe that at the time those words were spoken that the Lord did not know whether or not the reports about the wicked cities were true or not.But we know that this is not to be taken literally,because the Lord surely knew that they were acting wickedly:

The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good"(Prov.15:3).

So since Genesis 18:21 is figurative,then perhaps you will provide an answer as to what is the meaning when the Lord said that He will come down to investigate the wicked cities.After all,you seem convinced that there is a meaning that we can always put on figurative language.Here is your chance to prove it.

In His grace,--Jerry

”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

As I've shown Jerry, it's not figurative. I continue to answer everything you put my way, when are you going to start to respond to mine?
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
doogieduff said:
Gen 18:20-21
20 And the Lord said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave,
21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know."


See Jerry? This statement needs to be taken literally.
doggieduff,

If we take the verse literally then we must believe that God did not even know whether or not those in the wicked cities had "done according to the outcry against it" so He must go down and see for Himself.

But as I have already demonstrated,the Scriptures make it plain that the Lord is not ignorant of what is going on in the earth:

""The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good"(Prov.15:3).

The Lord is not ignorant of what is going on in the earth because His understanding is infinite:

"Great is our Lord, and of great power: His understanding is infinite"(Psa 147:5).

According to your literal reading of Genesis 18:21 He did not even have an understanding of what was going on in the wicked cities until He went down to investigate.But the Scriptures reveal that all of God's creatures are "manifest in His sight":

"Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do"(Heb 4:13).

doggieduff,do you really believe that God did not know what was happening in the wicked cities until He went down to find out?
As I've shown Jerry, it's not figurative. I continue to answer everything you put my way, when are you going to start to respond to mine?
I responed to you but since you obviously believe that God is ignorant of what is going on in the earth my response means nothing to you.
I have already responed to your point.
Jerry, what's your deal man? You keep asking and asking more questions, and WON'T repsond to my posts. I'm thoroughly disappointed. In this informal debate setting, your lack of response is an admission of defeat.
I am disappointed that there are actually Christians who must defend their views by saying such things as God makes prophecies that fail and that God is ignorant of what is going on in the earth.
You make God a liar, not the OV.
I never said that a true Open View makes God a liar,but the brand of Open View put forth by Bob Enyart makes God a liar.That brand says that God will make a prophecy and then fail to fulfill that prophecy.
I further explained how Genesis 22:12 should be taken literally, and again no response.
I have responed as to that verse on this very thread within the past couple of days,and I have even used Bob Enyart's comments on that verse to make my case.So to say that I have made no response as to whether that verse should be taken literal is not true.
Jerry, I'm just interested in how your "theology" interprets it's "figures" and you don't even know.
Again,this is not true.I quoted from the "New Scofield Study Bible" to support what I said.But since you cannot understand this simple concept you charge me with not even knowing what it means.

I am more than happy to let what I say be judged by others.If they believe that God is ignorant as to what is happening on the earth then I am sure that they will embrace your theology.But for those who believe that God knows everything that is happening on the earth they will know that your theology is in error.

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

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
ApologeticJedi said:
Jerry,
In the repentance passages, even if the part you say is a figure of speech is left out, you still would understand that God repented because unlike the “run rising” passage, it is central to the story. You get the idea of repentence, not just from the word repent, but that the entire story tells of God’s repentance. So not just the word would have to be a figure of speech, but we must now allegorize the entire story to hold to your pagan concept of Fatalism.
ApologeticJedi,

I never meant to convey the idea that only the word "repent" is to be used figuratively.In fact,my interpretation of the "repent" passage at Genesis 26 demonstates that I am saying that the whole nattative is to be taken in a figurative sense.

Now I will give you an example of a narrative that is not to be taken in a literal sense:

" "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know"(Gen.18:21).

If we take this verse "literally" then we must believe that God did not "know" whether those in the evil cities had "done altogether according to the cry" until He went to investigate whether or not it as true.

But the Lord is not ignorant of what is going on the earth.He sees everything and nothing is hidden from His eyes:

"The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good"(Prov.15:3).

"Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do"(Heb 4:13).

So unless we believe that God is ignorant of what is happening on the earth then we cannot take the narrative at Genesis 18:21 in a literal sense.

ApologeticJedi,are you willing to argue that God does not know all that is going on in the earth at any point in time?If not,then surely you can see that the narrative here cannot be taken literally.
Do you really think God cares what the Gentiles thought? Do you believe God is so unassured of Himself that He cares if someone sets up false ideas about Him and begins to slander him? I put to you that God din’t care about those things, but Moses was the one who cared!
If we are to believe a literal interpretation of His words then we can see that He is saying that He "acted...to bring them out of of the land of Israel" (instead of destroying them) because destroying them would have profaned His Name before the Gentiles.

"Then I said, ‘I will pour out My fury on them and fulfill My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.’ But I acted for My name’s sake, that it should not be profaned before the Gentiles among whom they were, in whose sight I had made Myself known to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt"(Ez.20:8,9).

If the Lord was acting in order to satisfy Moses' concerns then the Scriptures would have said so.But they say no such thing.
Moses pleads with the Lord not to destroy the Israelites. For Moses sake, God says he did not destroy them.
I see no place where it is said that God did not destroy them for Moses' sake.
That Moses brought up a concern doesn’t mean God hadn’t thought it out. God could well have been prepared to deal with those insignificant consequences, but for Moses sake (and because Moses’ fear of what the Gentiles think) God changed His mind.
A literal reading of the verses shows that the Lord did not change His mind until after Moses told Him the consequences of His proposed act.It was at that time when the Lord changed His mind.Therefore,a literal reading of the narrative demonstates that the Lord was set on destroying Israel until Moses told Him the consequences of destroying Israel.And the Lord's own words at Ezekiel 20 demonstrates that the Lord changed His mind because Moses pointed out the consequences that He had evidently overlooked.
So you believe that God is lying to Moses when he says that he will destroy Israel?
I am saying that we are not to take the verse "literally".Was God lying to us when He spoke of Himself having "arms" and was Mark lying when he spoke of the "rising of the sun"?

I asked you,"And if He did lie to the wicked,how do you explain Paul's word where He says that God cannot lie (Titus1:2)?" To which you replied:
It is the rule of thumb statement, not a character trait. It does not mean in every instance without exception, but as a general rule God doesn’t lie.
So Paul's words that "God cannot lie" means that as a general rule He will not lie?But He will!
In a normal situation God will not tell a lie, however God does lie to the wicked. God deceived Ahab (1 King 22:20-23).
If you will read the account at 1King 22:20-33 you will see that God lied to no one.Instead,He allowed others to decive the wicked,but He never lied.
He deceives false prophets (Ez. 14:9).
But not by lying to them.
And He deceives the determinedly sinful (Thess 2:9-12; Ez 20:24-26). When giving battle plans against the city if Ai, God recommended a “feint”, an attack method in which you deceive your enemy that you are running away and that he is winning. So also, in war, is it okay to deceive your opponent (so long as yours is the righteous side).
Again,there is no evidence in any of the verses that you list that God ever lied to anyone.A person can be decived by entirely honest methods.Just because someone is decived is no proof that they are lied to.And Paul says that God cannot lie and the author of Hebrews says that it is "impossible for God to lie"[/i](Heb.6:18).

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

GodsfreeWill

New member
Gold Subscriber
Jerry Shugart said:
doggieduff,

If we take the verse literally then we must believe that God did not even know whether or not those in the wicked cities had "done according to the outcry against it" so He must go down and see for Himself.

But as I have already demonstrated,the Scriptures make it plain that the Lord is not ignorant of what is going on in the earth:

""The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good"(Prov.15:3).

The Lord is not ignorant of what is going on in the earth because His understanding is infinite:

"Great is our Lord, and of great power: His understanding is infinite"(Psa 147:5).

According to your literal reading of Genesis 18:21 He did not even have an understanding of what was going on in the wicked cities until He went down to investigate.But the Scriptures reveal that all of God's creatures are "manifest in His sight":

"Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do"(Heb 4:13).

doggieduff,do you really believe that God did not know what was happening in the wicked cities until He went down to find out?

Jerry, you missed my entire point. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the Lord as a man is omnipresent to which I don't think you can. When the Lord made that statement in Gen. 18, He was not omnipresent and thus needed to go to Sodom and Gomorrah.

I responed to you but since you obviously believe that God is ignorant of what is going on in the earth my response means nothing to you.
I have already responed to your point.

Where? Please give me a link where you responded to my explanation of Gen. 22:12.

I am disappointed that there are actually Christians who must defend their views by saying such things as God makes prophecies that fail and that God is ignorant of what is going on in the earth.

Where in the Bible does it say that if God makes a prophecy that fails, He si no longer God? God REJOICES in unfulfilled prophecies of destruction. I never said God is ignorant of what is going on in the earth. Please don't misquote me.

I never said that a true Open View makes God a liar,but the brand of Open View put forth by Bob Enyart makes God a liar.That brand says that God will make a prophecy and then fail to fulfill that prophecy.

God laid out His principles in Jer. and Ezek. 18, therefore an unfulfilled prophecy is not a lie. Your arguments are not scripturally found and with great error.

I have responed as to that verse on this very thread within the past couple of days,and I have even used Bob Enyart's comments on that verse to make my case.So to say that I have made no response as to whether that verse should be taken literal is not true.

I can't read everything you write. If you must, please copy and paste me a response you wrote to someone else if you mean it for me as well.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top