Caller Answers: God Cannot Increase Tomorrow's Rain!

[Lighthouse]

Turbo-
How can God change something that doesn't exist?

 

[Poly]

Turbo-
How can God change something that doesn't exist?

Both the title of the show/thread and this quote indicate that it is the caller's view that God cannot change how much it's going to rain tomorrow. That is not Bob's view; Bob is stating the caller's view. "We Enyart people" agree with you that such a view is absurd and unbiblical.

(bold emphasis mine)

Turbo isn't suggesting that God can change something that doesn't exist. Once tomorrow's weather is in existance, God can change it if He wants to. He might even plan ahead of time to do this but it doesn't mean He's changing something that doesn't exist.

 

[Saintopher]

Responding to your comments as though they were questions:

SOQ1:


BEA-SOQ1: A valid approach, if the anticipated answer is correct. Thus, Saintopher, this criticism of yours begs the question.

SOQ2:


BEA-SOQ2: The question was based on many Scriptures, including for example, that believers can "hasten" the coming of the Lord; and by mercy God may *shorten* the days of Tribulation.

SOQ3:


BEA-SOQ3: Borderline? Heresy? That sounds like a woman who's a little bit pregnant.

SOQ4:


BEA-SOQ4: I'll assume you mean that it was a *hypothetical* question. Since I doubt that you would critize a question merely for being abstract, which by principle definition and your usage here would amount to critizing a question simply because it dealt with a general concept rather than a specific instance. And since you meant hypothetical, I'll respond: Hypothetical questions can be answered directly by someone not confident of unashamed of his position, unless the question is intrinsically invalid, in which case an argument could assert such.

SOQ5:


BEA-SOQ5: See BEA-SOQ1.

Thanks for your thoughts!
-Bob Enyart

Bob, I'll respond to your responses. Sorry for the delay.

Response 1-
I will have to concur that from the standpoint of argumentation you are correct in the use of this method...however, it seemed to me that it was a waste of time trying to get someone to answer a particular way before you would continue...especially in light of the fact that several times you wrongfully put incorrect answers into David's mouth. i.e., pre-supposing that his answer was going to be _____ because of _____. While you feel that my criticism begs the question, I still feel that your answer still has yet to be proven concretely.

Response 2-
If you will go back and study the passages in the Greek that use the word "coming" in speaking about the "coming" of the Lord, you will find that the word is parusia which can also be translated "presence." But this understanding opens an entirely new subject of what one believes about the "end times" as you see them. All of my studies have shown to be that the Partial Preterist interpretation of Daniel 9, Matthew 24, and Revelation has the least need for interpretational gymnastics. Future Millenialism, or Dispensationalism is a belief system that has its roots in a supposed vision that a woman in Europe had around 1800. John Nelson Darby bought into her teachings based on this vision and he tried also to teach it on a larger scale. Since his view was completely opposed to traditional orthodox teaching of both the Catholic and Protestant churches he was shunned as a heretic. His writings continued to go ignored until C.I. Scofield began publishing Darby's notes in his widely circulated study Bibles. Much like today, there began a large scale acceptance of this new teaching simply because of the increase in circulation. We all know how quickly the Church seems to latch on to every new wind and wave of doctrine when it is an issue of popularity.

So I still reject the scriptural arguments that you may have given for your position. You often accuse the Church as a whole for buying into erroneous ideas that give them faulty understandings of God, but I see you doing the same thing in regard to this form of Dominionist Dispensationalism. It takes just as much hermaneutical gymnastics for this view as it does to support Open Theism.

Response 3-
Just to show that I'm not all robotic, I actually got a pretty good laugh at your response. It did seem rather silly. :dunce: Personally, I try to walk a fairly liberal line with regard to calling something heresy. I know of too many people who jump to quickly at calling others heretics. That's why I now say that "heresy is in the understanding of the hearer." Thanks for the laugh. I'll have to use the "only pregnant a little" line one someone else sometime. :rotfl:

Response 4- You are correct. My bad; I did mean hypothetical. While I can partly see where you are coming from with your answer, I still kind of see this mode of argumentation about as useful as debating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Hypothetical situations are not concrete enough to try and prove the validity of something such as the Open View. Neither the Open or Closed argument can empirically prove either of their arguments. Much less depend on hypothetical situations to try and prove something for which we have no way to either affirm or deny the validity of the argument. It just seems to me that the excercise went nowhere.

Overall, I will have to say that I find that you as a person seem to come off as a very charming, warm, likable guy. I would probably enjoy being your neighbor. But when it comes to your theology and teaching, I just find it to be extremely 1.) incomplete 2.) selective 3.) impossible to carry out in a practical manner 4.) politically and personally dangerous

I am anxious to see how you respond to AllSmiles on the issue of punishment of homosexuality.