Questions and Answers from the first half of BR X...
Questions and Answers from the first half of BR X...
During TOL’s Battle Royale X Open Theism Debate, I made my own list of the questions and answers that were appearing in the posts to help me keep track of what had been covered (the debate took many weeks, and ran to hundreds of pages).
So, while we wait for Ask Mr. Religion’s answers to my fifty questions, I thought I would post my list of those questions and answers from the first half of the debate, as a refresher for some, and a warm up for others who are eager to read AMR’s upcoming post.
-Bob Enyart
Battle Royale X: Q & A Summary
Sam Lamerson’s Post 1A
SLQ1. Are there any events, involving free agents, that God knows about without any possibility for error?
SLQ2. How should one determine the presence of antropomorphisms [sic, anthropomorphisms] in the Scripture?
SLQ3. Would you mind defining free-will? In fairness I will state that I believe free will indicates that an agent will always be free to do what he or she chooses.
SLQ4. Was Jesus’ prediction about the action of Judas possibly in error?
Bob Enyart’s Post 1B
BEA-SLQ2: We should interpret the Bible’s figures of speech, including anthropomorphisms, through the greater context, which is found foremost in a correct understanding of the nature of God (living, personal, relational, good, and loving), and secondarily in the overall plot of the story in His Word (creation, the ongoing rebellion, God’s work of reconciliation, and the eternal consequences). And we should reject interpretations driven by humanist philosophical constructs, especially when they produce tension with the divine attributes as repeatedly emphasized in Scripture.
BEQ1: Sam, do you agree with me that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs reformulation in order to explicitly acknowledge that God is able to change (for example, as Ware says, especially to allow for true relationship)?
BEQ2: Do you agree that righteousness is the foundation of God’s sovereignty?
BEQ3: Do you agree that the five divine attributes of living, personal, relational, good, and loving, are more fundamental and take precedence over matters of location, knowledge, stoicism, power, and control?
Sam Lamerson’s Post 2A
SAL-BEQ1: This question depends upon what one means by “utter immutability.” Since Bob cites Dr. Reymond’s text, I will say that the doctrine as it is set forth by Reymond does not need total reformulation.
SAL-BEQ2: I believe that the true attributes of God are inseparable. We cannot speak of one attribute as being the ground for another simply because they are both necessary.
SAL-BEQ3: No, I do not agree that these five attributes are more fundamental. I reject the idea that God can be separated from any of these attributes or that one is more important or takes precedence over another.
SLQ4 Did God know that Christ would die by crucifixion before the actual event happened? If so, how far in advance did he know this?
SLQ5 Is it possible for God’s prophecy to be incorrect?
SLQ6 Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?
Bob Enyart’s Post 2B
Sam asks SLQ4: Was Jesus’ prediction about the action of Judas possibly in error?
Yes. But before I defend my answer, Sam let me save you space in round three and make your initial rebuttal…
BEA-SLQ1: Are there any [future] events, involving free agents, that God knows about without any possibility for error?
Yes. Countless events, for example, Judgment Day will involve every free agent, and nothing will stop it from coming, nor the wicked from being punished.
BEA-SLQ2: See BEA-SLQ2.
BEA-SLQ3: Would you mind defining free-will?
I would rather define will. For free will is a redundancy. … Definition: Will is the ability to decide otherwise. [more]
BEA-SLQ4: Was Jesus’ prediction about the action of Judas possibly in error?
Yes. Jesus would have rejoiced if Judas would have repented.
Numbered sequentially [Sam had accidentally repeated the #4, which I renumbered as]:
BEA-SLQ5: Did God know that Christ would die by crucifixion before the actual event happened? If so, how far in advance did he know this?
Yes. God planned before creation that if man sinned, He would provide salvation. He could have determined the form of the sacrifice anytime from His inception of that plan onward, and God gave a prophecy of the crucifixion a millennium earlier in Psalm 22:16.
BEA-SLQ6: Is it possible for God’s prophecy to be incorrect?
Yes. As Jesus said, valuing souls more than He worried about a prophecy not coming to pass, “The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment… for they repented” (Luke 11:32). They are living proof that “God relented [Hebrew, repented] from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it” (Jonah 3:10; Jer. 18:7-8).
BEA-SLQ7: Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?
No. But belief speaks of knowledge. Remember that words have spheres of meaning, and beliefs, expectations, prophecies, and knowledge all have ranges that overlap; and belief also means trust, faith, religion, etc. But to answer, I am using the core meaning of belief for the context of your question. For example, hope is different than knowledge. For knowledge is the correct understanding of raw data, whereas hope is the desire for good which can persevere even against a mountain of foreboding knowledge. Love “hopes all things” (1 Cor. 13:7), while exhaustive foreknowledge cannot. Yet God is love. So when God describes what He hopes or expects that men will do, love influences that expectation. So He hopes for the best (even if that hope is delivered as a threat of destruction). Love can function, and God can hope because the future is Open, whereas the Settled View must wrestle to accommodate biblical expressions of God’s hope.
BEQ4: Sam, will you retract your criticism that my Attributes Hermeneutic was “so broad as to be virtually pointless?” Now that you've seen my NOAH interpretation method demonstrated again by using it in the exact same way I did in my first post to resolve an apparent conflict in Pauline passages, but this to answer your question about Judas. Please remember, I am not here asking you if you agree with the method, but just if it is a clear method.
BEQ5: Which describes something deeper within God, descriptions of Him that are dependent upon His creation, or descriptions of God that are true within God Himself, apart from any consideration of man?
BEQ6: Sam, which is greater, God’s sovereignty over creation, or God’s love?
BEQ7: Sam, since your answer (SLA-BEQ1) restated my question, I am asking you to answer it again, without using the word “total.” You answered, “Since Bob cites Dr. Reymond’s text, I will say that the doctrine as it is set forth by Reymond does not need total reformulation.” My question is, “Sam, do you agree with me that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs reformulation in order to explicitly acknowledge that God is able to change (for example, as Ware says, especially to allow for true relationship)?”
BEQ8: Sam, you wrote, “In the section on God as unchangeable in his being, Dr. Reymond cites no less than 24 passages of Scripture!” I’m having a hard time identifying those passages in Section 7 of his systematic theology book (pp. 153-203), and I would be thankful if you could just cite a list of these proof-texts for God being “unchangeable in his being.” Thanks!
Sam Lamerson’s Post 3A
Sam Addresses Bob’s Answers
Bob Again Fails to Answer the Arguments in my First Post … Some of those in the grandstands have stated that in a debate both opening statements need not directly clash with one another. This would be unlike any formal debate that I have ever been involved in (and I have been involved in many). It would also be in conflict with the nature of formal debate. Professor David Zarefsky… A. Freely…
On Greek Influence: It is not that I am unfamiliar with the work of those who make this claim (Boyd, Sanders, Pinnock, Rice, and others) it is that I am unconvinced by them.
SLQ1-BEA1-Here Bob argues that there are “countless events” and gives us an example of Judgment Day. The issue here is that Judgment day is something that God does. Are there examples of things that humans do that God knows without any possibility for error? Apparently Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem is a true prophecy. Yet this passage raises its own questions for the OV as I point out above.
SLQ2-See the Judas discussion above. It is interesting that Bob has chosen to take up so much time with the Judas question and has yet to deal with the prediction of Peter that makes a strong case for some form of compatibilism (free will existing with foreknowledge). …
SLQ3-I do not agree that my definition needs nuancing. To decide is to do something. [BE: emphasis added] I was not saying that an agent could accomplish that which they choose to do, but only that they could choose to do so.
Here Bob puts his finger on the real issue of this debate. Does “will” include the ability to do otherwise? This is a hinge upon which much of this discussion swings. Please allow me to give an illustration that may help clarify this. The landlady asks the boarder to please refrain from… annoying the rest of the people who room there. That night, the renter… instead of rushing downstairs… stays in bed until morning. He thinks that he has done the right thing of his own free will. What he does not know is that the landlady has locked the door from the outside so that he could not have gone downstairs if he had chosen to. Was the man’s choice free? I would say yes, because he did what he wanted to do. Bob would (I presume) say no because he did not have the ability to choose otherwise… This is the issue of the debate and how one decides what it means to be free will spill over into other areas of one’s theology.
Bob argues that this makes God guilty of sin (a cheating man could not have done otherwise) but this is to misunderstand the point. The cheating man does what he wanted to do, simply because he could not have done otherwise does not mean that he did not freely choose to cheat on his wife and is thus responsible for his actions.
SLQ4- Here Bob says that Jesus could have been in error, yet he tells us in SLQ7 that God cannot hold any beliefs that are, or might prove to be, false. Bob, can you clarify for me how it might be possible to Jesus to be mistaken and yet still hold that God never hold’s any beliefs that are false? More importantly, what else is Jesus mistaken about?
SLQ5- Bob here says that God planned the crucifixion of Christ before the creation of man. He adds that “if man sinned . . .” but fails to tell us why the Lamb would have been slain before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8-note that I disagree with the translation of the NAS here and believe that the NKJ’s translation is much better). The lamb being slain before the foundation of the world indicates that God knew, before he created, that man would sin.
SLQ6-Again Bob slips into a serious logical problem here. How is it possible for God’s prophecy to be incorrect and yet for God to never hold any belief that proves to be false? Bob goes on in Q7 to speak of core belief, context, hope, and a variety of other things that really don’t make his answer very clear. The problem is simply this: If God can predict future events and then see that these events did not come to pass, God, for a short time at least, held to beliefs that were proven to be false. As to Nineveh, see my analysis above.
SLQ7-See Q6
Sam Addresses Bob’s Questions
SLA-BEQ4-I don’t believe that I stated that Bob’s “Attributes Hermeneutic” was “so broad as to be virtually pointless.” I did say, and I continue to maintain, that an answer of “context” to the question of how one determines an anthropomorphism is too broad.
SLA-BEQ5-I would argue that the question is flawed. How would we know what “describes something deeper within God”? More than that what does “something deeper within God” actually mean?
SLA-BEQ6-As to the question of which is greater, God’s sovereignty over creation or God’s love, I must say neither. Both are perfect attributes of God and one is not greater than the other.
SLA-BEQ7-In order to answer this question, I set forth a definition (as used by Dr. Reymond). Bob asks me to agree that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs to be totally overhauled. If Bob would give me a definition of “utter immutability” I would be glad to answer. Let me try to answer in this way. If by that doctrine you mean that God is timeless, then yes, I agree that God is not timeless, and Dr. Reymond argues this very strongly in his systematics. Other than that I can only repeat my need for a definition of “utter immutability” before I can answer. I don’t mean to dodge your question, and I did answer it based upon the definition given in Dr. Reymond’s book. Perhaps it would be helpful for you to tell me what, about Dr. Reymond’s definition, you disagree with.
SLA-BEQ8- Here are the Scriptures that Dr. Reymond cites in that section [Sam quoted these first passages]: Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29-30; Psalm 102:26-7a; Malachi 3:6; 2 Timothy 2:13; Hebrews 6:17-18; James 1:17. [BE note: Appealing to external authorities, DR & WC…] “It should be noted that Reymond does not simply cite the passage… these passages might not be as easily understood in terms of the “unchanging being” of God’s nature… Reymond uses other passages to prove that God is unchangeable in his wisdom and in his power (he is following here the Westminster Confession). Isa. 25:1; Acts 2:23; I Peter 1:20; (Reymond here begins to cite passages that are often used against the idea of God’s foreknowledge.) Gen. 6:5-7; Ex. 32:9-10; Ex. 2:1; Gen. 49:10; I Sam. 15:11; Jonah 3:3-5, 10; Ezek. 33:11; Eph. 4:30 Luke 15:7, 10; Gen. 18:22-33; 19:29; Ex. 17:9-13; Job 1:4-5; Ezek. 22:30; Ex. 32:13; Ex. 32:30-32; Rom. 8:29.
Bob Enyart’s Post 3B
BEA-SLQ0: I reject that exhaustive foreknowledge (of the future) is taught by the present tense Mat. 6:8b, even though Sam tried to support (?) it by an interpretation of Chrysostom which was strictly present tense, and added support (?) with a strained interpretation of a present-tense passage from, of all places, the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas.
Bob Comments on Sam’s Answers
BEQ1: Sam, do you agree with me that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs reformulation in order to explicitly acknowledge that God is able to change (for example, as Ware says, especially to allow for true relationship)?
SLA-BEQ1: This question depends upon what one means by “utter immutability.” Since Bob cites Dr. Reymond’s text, I will say that the doctrine as it is set forth by Reymond does not need total reformulation. [emphasis added]
This is a textbook case of non-responsiveness…
BEQ7: Sam, since your answer (SLA-BEQ1) restated my question, I am asking you to answer it again, without using the word “total.” [And I repeated BEQ1, with its emphasis on classic immutability being reformulated to allow for relationship, which was the subject of Ware’s article!] And you answered in 3b:
SLA-BEQ7-In order to answer this question, I set forth a definition (as used by Dr. Reymond). Bob asks me to agree that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs to be totally overhauled. [Sam, I’m sure you just misread my question. So, let’s try this again.]
Bob’s Questions to Sam
BEQ9: Sam, do you agree with me that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs to be clearly taught as now reformulated in order to explicitly acknowledge that God is able to change, even if only, for example, as Ware says, to allow for true relationship?
BEQ10: Offer to Sam: Do you want to waive my fourth-round time and word count restraints, for me to answer all 54 of your remaining questions, plus those you officially ask as numbered questions in Post 4A, and reply seven days later?
BEQ11: As in my section, How to Falsify Openness, can you indicate how Scripture could theoretically falsify (prove wrong) the Settled View?
BEQ12: Are foreordination and foreknowledge the same thing?
BEQ13: Is my conclusion above (from FDR) true that, “prophecies of future events do not inherently provide evidence of foreknowledge?”
BEQ14: Is it theoretically possible for God to know something future because He plans to use His abilities to bring it about, rather than strictly because He foresees it?
Sam, here I’m not asking if you agree with NOAH (but remember the fate of those who didn’t ), but if this represents a clear, and specific method of interpretation.
BEQ15: Is NOAH a clear and specific method of interpretation: The New Openness-Attributes Hermeneutic resolves conflicting explanations by selecting interpretations that give precedent to the biblical attributes of God as being living, personal, relational, good, and loving, and by rejecting explanations derived from commitment to the philosophical attributes of God such as omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, impassible, and immutable.
BEQ16: Does the Incarnation show that God the Son divested Himself in some significant degree of knowledge and power, but explicitly not of His goodness?
Sam Lamerson’s Post 4A
Sam Addresses Bob’s Questions
BEQ1: Sam, do you agree with me that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs reformulation in order to explicitly acknowledge that God is able to change (for example, as Ware says, especially to allow for true relationship)?
SLA-BEQ1- The problem with this question is that the phrase “utter immutability” is not self-defining. Bob states that I am here engaged in “a textbook case of non responsiveness” despite the fact that I reference a document that Bob brought into the debate. It has become clear to me now that Bob has not read Dr. Reymond’s book and only used it in the first post as a straw man. How am I unresponsive if I state clearly that I agree with the definition cited in a textbook that Bob brings up?
BEQ7: Sam, since your answer (SLA-BEQ1) restated my question, I am asking you to answer it again, without using the word “total.” [And I repeated BEQ1, with its emphasis on classic immutability being reformulated to allow for relationship, which was the subject of Ware’s article!]
SLA-BEQ7 Bob clarifies: I’m asking if the classic doctrine of immutability, the one held for centuries, if it needs to be (or perhaps in some circles, properly has already been) reformulated to allow for God to be able to change, at least so that He can be relational with His children:
SLA-BEQ7 Bob acts as if the doctrine of immutability is one that has been agreed upon by the church at large as to its meaning. It has not been, many debates, down through the ages have centered upon exactly what “immutability” means. All that I am asking for is a specific definition of what Bob means when he uses the term.. Please Bob, give me a definition and I will give you an answer.
BEQ9: Sam, do you agree with me that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs to be clearly taught as now reformulated in order to explicitly acknowledge that God is able to change, even if only, for example, as Ware says, to allow for true relationship?
SLA-BEQ9: If by this you mean that the doctrine that God is “timeless” needs to be reformulated, I have already agreed. I am not sure that the classic doctrine of immutability would always be seen as not allowing God to have a true relationship.
BEQ10: Offer to Sam: Do you want to waive my fourth-round time and word count restraints, for me to answer all 54 of your remaining questions, plus those you officially ask as numbered questions in Post 4A, and reply seven days later?
SLA-BEQ10- No. Other commitments simply will not allow this.
BEQ11: As in my section, How to Falsify Openness, can you indicate how Scripture could theoretically falsify (prove wrong) the Settled View?
SLA-BEQ11- Let me state that I do not agree that the three options you list are the only ways (or even the best ways) to falsify openness. As to falsifying the traditional view here is my second challenge:
Bob, would you be willing to pick out the three best passages of Scripture for the openness view? I will agree that if I fail to show how those passages fail to show that God did not know the future then I lose the debate. …
BEQ12: Are foreordination and foreknowledge the same thing?
SLA-BEQ12-I agree with the Westminster Confession here.
The Westminster Confession states it this way: III.1 “God, from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”
BEQ13: Is my conclusion above (from FDR) true that, “prophecies of future events do not inherently provide evidence of foreknowledge?”
SLA-BEQ13-Not if the prophecies are known by God without possibility for error. That is if they must come to pass exactly as expected without any chance for change or error.
BEQ14: Is it theoretically possible for God to know something future because He plans to use His abilities to bring it about, rather than strictly because He foresees it?
SLA-BEQ14-There is a logical problem here. I am not sure that one can separate the two. Specifically, if a perfect being who is incapable of holding a false belief foresees something, that event must come to pass regardless of who causes it.
BEQ15: Is NOAH a clear and specific method of interpretation: The New Openness-Attributes Hermeneutic resolves conflicting explanations by selecting interpretations that give precedent to the biblical attributes of God as being living, personal, relational, good, and loving, and by rejecting explanations derived from commitment to the philosophical attributes of God such as omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, impassible, and immutable.
SLA-BEQ15-No. This is not a clear and specific method of interpretation. I asked in my second post about how this interprets God’s command to Joshua to kill women and children in the battle of Jericho. I have not seen an answer. This method assumes the very question that is open for debate by rejecting the attribute of omniscience.
BEQ16: Does the Incarnation show that God the Son divested Himself in some significant degree of knowledge and power, but explicitly not of His goodness?
SLA-BEQ16-No. God cannot divest himself of any of his attributes, therefore the Son did not divest himself of knowledge or power.
Sam Asks Bob
SLQ8 -Bob would you please respond specifically to the exegesis of Matthew 6:8, in particular my claim and arguments that this passage does not only speak of present knowledge?
SLQ9 -Would you please respond specifically to my exegesis of the prediction of Peter’s denial taking into account the points that I have made in the first post?
SLQ10- Would you please respond to my charge that you have misread whatever Greek lexicon that you are using when you speak of dei in Acts 2? Would you please list the name of the lexicon, the date, and the edition number along with the page that you are citing?
SLQ-11 Would you please respond specifically to the exegesis showing that Jesus based proof of his deity on the correct prediction about Judas?
SLQ12 -Would you please respond specifically to the exegesis showing that Judas did not have the ability to choose otherwise, particularly the exegesis found in Post III.
SLQ13 -Would you agree that if Peter and/or Judas did not have the ability to choose otherwise then your definition of free will (or will as you put it) is flawed? If not, why not?
SLQ14 -Would you explain (given your response in Post II) how it is possible for Jesus (whom we both agree is God) to be wrong and yet for God to hold no false beliefs?
Bob Enyart’s Post 4B
Bob Answers Sam
SLQ8 -Bob would you please respond specifically to the exegesis of Matthew 6:8, in particular my claim and arguments that this passage does not only speak of present knowledge?
BEA-SLQ8: I answered this with BEA-SLQ0 regarding the present-tense scope of Mat. 6:8, Chrysostom (347-407 AD), and the Gnostic Thomas (~150 AD). If you are asking me to respond to your “second-temple” (500+ BC - 70 AD) argument from silence, my answer is BEA-SLQ0.
SLQ9 -Would you please respond specifically to my exegesis of the prediction of Peter’s denial taking into account the points that I have made in the first post?
BEA-SLQ9: Jesus could predict Peter’s denials and their timing because God knows the hearts of men (as all sides agree), and He has influence and power to intervene (as all sides agree), and God does especially intervene to fulfill prophecy (as all sides agree). For a full treatment see above, On How to Make a Rooster Crow.
SLQ10- Would you please respond to my charge that you have misread whatever Greek lexicon that you are using when you speak of dei in Acts 2?
[BEA-SLQ10] Sam, you wrote of “several serious problems” including “that the lexicon does not say what Bob quotes it as saying.” I posted this scan in the Grandstands the day you made this accusation to minimize doubts about my reliability or integrity. My Greek lexicon is an older, hardcover edition of the standard Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, written in German by Bauer, and translated and adapted by Arndt and Gingrich, (or BAG, before Danker added his initial). Here’s the entry I was quoting from, on p. 171 of the 1957 edition: [JPG]
Readers will notice something quite unusual (and I’m grateful to you Sam for pointing it out to me). The lexicon gives two different meanings for the exact same word in the same sentence! …
SLQ-11 Would you please respond specifically to the exegesis showing that Jesus based proof of his deity on the correct prediction about Judas?
BEA-SLQ11: The only significant part of your Judas argument I can find that I did not address in my section titled, “Did Judas Have A Necessary Role?,” is as in 3A, where you quoted the Lord at the Last Supper from John 13:18, “‘that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘HE WHO EATS MY BREAD HAS LIFTED UP HIS HEEL AGAINST ME.’”, although I don’t think that He yelled it . And you continued with verse, “19 ‘From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He.”
Regarding you claim that εγω ειμι (ego eimi) here clearly refers to Christ’s deity… [more]
SLQ12 -Would you please respond specifically to the exegesis showing that Judas did not have the ability to choose otherwise, particularly the exegesis found in Post III.
BEA-SLQ12: Please see BEA-SLQ11.
SLQ13 -Would you agree that if Peter and/or Judas did not have the ability to choose otherwise, then your definition of free will (or will as you put it) is flawed? If not, why not?
BEA-SLQ13: Yes.
SLQ14 -Would you explain (given your response in Post II) how it is possible for Jesus (whom we both agree is God) to be wrong and yet for God to hold no false beliefs?
BEA-SLQ14: I have explained this in [BEA-]SLQ7 (I forgot to put the BEA-, which convention makes searching for answers really easy). Rather than me explain my explanation, Sam, per common debate practice, you should point out a disagreement with my explanation, which I can respond to.
Bob Asks Sam
BEQ17: Sam, In the tradition of BEQ1, BEQ7, and BEQ9, I ask: Is God able to change such that He can have true relationship:
A: within the Trinity?
B: with His creatures?
BEQ18: Please answer BEQ11.
Sam, the Grandstands are restless, wondering why you avoid answering, and after a lifetime of debating Calvinists, I reply: it’s not by eternal decree, it’s the questions! I asked, BEQ11, “…can you indicate how Scripture could theoretically falsify (prove wrong) the Settled View?”
BEQ19: Please answer BEQ12: Are foreordination and foreknowledge the same thing?
I appreciate the succinct quote of SLA-BEQ12 which discredited the Westminster Confession as confused and self-contradictory. But neither did you nor that quote answer BEQ12 nor even mention foreknowledge. A yes or no could answer. I am grateful that you’re pasting my questions, so that all can see plainly you’re not answering.
BEQ20: Please answer BEQ13, which I’ve here unnecessarily clarified: Is my conclusion above (from FDR) true that [as a general rule], “prophecies of future events do not inherently provide evidence of [exhaustive] foreknowledge?”
Your circular non-answer hurt my head. A yes or no could answer.
BEQ21: Has it ever been possible for God to change anything that will happen in eternity future?
BEQ22: Sam, do you agree that God did not ordain Peter’s rooster to crow because He eternally foresaw it, but because He willed it?
BEQ23: Sam, even if God were not to rely on exhaustive foreknowledge (for example, when He ordained the Body of Christ, etc.), God can be far more competent, powerful, able, and effective, than could any human being who does not have exhaustive foreknowledge?
[Typo: re-entered] BEQ24: will you agree that even apart from exhaustive foreknowledge, God can be far more competent, powerful, able, and effective, than could any human being who does not have exhaustive foreknowledge?
BEQ25: If a passage can be interpreted in an Open or Settled way, please provide a general hermeneutic that students can use to determine which may be the correct interpretation. [more]
Bob Comments on Sam Replies
Finally, I had asked in “BEQ16: Does the Incarnation show that God the Son divested Himself in some significant degree of knowledge and power, but explicitly not of His goodness?” And Sam answered:
SLA-BEQ16-No. (emphasis added)
SAM! Thank you for the direct answer. The lines are drawn! You added, “God cannot divest himself of any of his attributes, therefore the Son did not divest himself of knowledge or power.” From your first post we’ve been trying to draw you out on this, and get you to take a stand, and we sense that this debate has forced your hand. In 1A you seemed to leave the question open writing: “If Jesus believed that either his Father knew the future or he himself knew the future…,” suggesting that you were non-committal as whether the Son had divested Himself of omniscience through the Incarnation! So in the first paragraph of my discussion of the first OMNI, of my first post, I wrote that God the Son, “‘emptied Himself’ (Phil. 2:7 ASV; Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich; etc.) of qualities such as power, presence, and knowledge, but not of love,” trying to pull you out. By the way Sam, I was at the Broadmoor Hotel in the Springs in 2001 the same time you were, and I heard John Sanders give his wonderful defense of Openness in person, but I did not read the paper you presented there until this summer. And in your published Openness paper, you referenced the Lord’s remarks about His Second Coming, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father, (Mark 13:32; Mat. 24:36), and you wrote that this, “would indicate that Jesus felt no shame in admitting that his knowledge was limited in at least one area.”
So, Sam, when you published your paper, The Openness of God and the Historical Jesus, you did not take the position you’ve just made in TOL’s Battle Royale X, round four, when you rejected that Jesus humbled Himself, in part by relinquishing omniscience. Rather, you undermined that position. Please expect upcoming questions probing the absolutely foundational, decisive issue of Christ’s humility in the Incarnation. For now:
BEQ26: Can you deny, or affirm by giving an example from Dr. Kennedy’s program, or in a past published paper, etc., whether previously you have ever publicly identified yourself as rejecting that the Son relinquished (emptied Himself, held in abeyance, divested, lessened, your choice) omniscience (or any of the OMNIs or IMs) for the purpose of His Incarnation?
Sam Lamerson’s Post 5A
Sam repeats questions, slightly updating some
SLQ8 -Bob would you please respond specifically to the exegesis of Matthew 6:8, in particular my claim and arguments that this passage does not only speak of present knowledge?
SLQ9 -Would you please respond specifically to my exegesis of the prediction of Peter’s denial taking into account the points that I have made in this as well as the first post?
SLQ-11 Would you please respond specifically to the exegesis showing that Jesus based proof of his deity on the correct prediction about Judas?
SLQ12-Would you please respond specifically to the exegesis showing that Judas did not have the ability to choose otherwise, particularly the exegesis found in this post as well as post III
SLQ15-Would you be willing to pick out three passages or pericopes as I have done above and let the debate center on the word of God and what the word tells us about God?
Sam Addresses Bob’s Questions
BEQ17: Sam, In the tradition of BEQ1, BEQ7, and BEQ9, I ask: Is God able to change such that He can have true relationship:
SLA-BEQ17 This has been asked and answered. God can and does have true relationships with his creatures. God is not timeless. All that I have asked you for is an As to Reymond’s position, you are the one who brought up the systematics. It seems poor form to me to bring up the book as an example of what should not be taught, and the refuse to specifically cite what is wrong with it.
BEQ19: Please answer BEQ12: Are foreordination and foreknowledge the same thing?
As the Westminster confession makes clear, I believe that God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. Has he foreseen that as well? Yes, but this does not mean that he did not ordain it.
BEQ26: Can you deny, or affirm by giving an example from Dr. Kennedy’s program, or in a past published paper, etc., whether previously you have ever publicly identified yourself as rejecting that the Son relinquished (emptied Himself, held in abeyance, divested, lessened, your choice) omniscience (or any of the OMNIs or IMs) for the purpose of His Incarnation?
I find this question offensive. Is my word not good enough? I believe that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. As a man he could and did speak of things that he did not know. As God he knew all things. This view is standard and is held by such theologians as Reymond, Grudem, Erickson, and others. I have held this view since I was in seminary. The question of what Christ emptied himself of is clear when on realizes that Paul, in Philippians is echoing a passage from Isaiah 53:12 where it is said that the Christ will be "poured out" for us. Christ did empty himself of his blood for our redemption, but not of any of the attributes of God.
Bob Enyart’s Post 5B
Sam’s Questions Answered
SLQ8- Bob would you please respond specifically to the exegesis of Matthew 6:8, in particular my claim and arguments that this passage does not only speak of present knowledge?
BEA-SLQ8-B: BEA-SLQ8 addressed all your arguments except for the future aspects of Lord’s Prayer, to which I reply that God can answer, “Thy will be done,” without violating human will because He wills to reward those who repent, and punish those who do not. That requires neither exhaustive foreknowledge, nor violation of human will.
SLQ9-B- Would you please respond specifically to my exegesis of the prediction of Peter’s denial taking into account the points that I have made in this as well as the first post?
BEA-SLQ9-B: I’ll reply to the only new issue you raise, that my verse list from Luke’s books failed to make my point. I showed that δει does not always mean had to, as in divine destiny or fate, but it also means had to, as in what is fitting, what behooves, what ought to be done, etc., as in, “we had to throw a party, it was his birthday!” For this extremely common word, you said since I only quoted Luke’s uses, and not Peter’s, my argument failed (since Peter is the one Luke quoted in Acts 1:16). Sam, I did list a verse that Peter spoke, Acts 5:29, and his use of δει there also doesn’t mean fate or divine destiny, it means that we Christians should obey God, which often we do not. By the way, toward the “all things work together for good,” goal, perhaps the elders of DenverBibleChurch.org will authorize the purchase of a new BGDA lexicon (it’s $125 on Amazon) since you dissed my old one .
SLQ-11- Would you please respond specifically to the exegesis showing that Jesus based proof of his deity on the correct prediction about Judas?
BEA-SLQ11-B: Regarding your claim that John 13:19 is a deity verse, I answered BEA-SQ11. I’m surprised that you, being a Greek teacher, are trying to justify your translation with the claim that to be the Christ is de facto “a claim to Deity.” I already had said, “you can take it that way interpretatively,” (which is what you are doing). But you were claiming grammatical justification, and you just made a non-grammatical argument, and Sam then you used the “trust me” defense because you’ve been published (which I respect). But an expert with an answer would have responded to my two substantive rebuttals, that (1) the KJV/NKJV/NIV translators are not “certain” as you are but render as I’ve defended; and (2) “we’d have various gods running around the New Testament” if we translated the word GOD, per your predicate nominative “rule.” Finally, you would mark as incorrect any student’s translation of χριστος (Christ) as God, rebutting your own latest argument.
SLQ12-B- Would you please respond specifically to the exegesis showing that Judas did not have the ability to choose otherwise, particularly the exegesis found in this post as well as post III.
BEA-SLQ12-B: In addition to BEA-SLQ11 and BEA-SLQ12, I add BEA-SLQ11-B, and finally… I bring to bear the honest [BEA-]SLQ4! There! Oh, and to that I might as well add the venerable BEA-SLQ2 and the vigorous [BEA-]SLQ7! Sam, I’ve already asked you not to request that I explain my explanations without you specifically rebutting SOMETHING. I challenge your answers specifically, perhaps you can try doing likewise. It’s fun! It shows me whether or not I actually have an answer, which self-evaluation I find rewarding, and also, the readers will enjoy a more robust debate!
BEA-SLQ13 & BEA-SLQ14 appeared previously.
SLQ15- Would you be willing to pick out three passages or pericopes as I have done above and let the debate center on the word of God and what the word tells us about God?
BEA-SLQ15: Not at this time. You stated in round one that we can both list our own verses as proof texts, but the question of Openness “centers upon hermeneutics,” for “the question, of course, is which set of passages will be used to interpret the other.” -Sam 1A.
Sam, your “question” has not become less central since you put it into the introduction of your first post. However, the Settled View’s general discomfort with such fundamental matters is illustrated by your avoiding what matters most. Sure we can get racquets and bat around a few verses, but by me pressing toward the heart of the matter, the readers will learn which position has biblical answers and which avoids questions as we probe and defend our underlying principles.
Bob asks Sam
BEQ27: In the tradition of BEQ1, BEQ7, BEQ9, and BEQ17, I ask: Sam, is God able to change such that He can have true relationship:
A: within the Trinity? and,
B: with His creatures?
BEQ28: Sam, now that you have agreed that without exhaustive foreknowledge, God can make a rooster crow, then do you also agree that God could employ His abilities in various other ways toward fulfilling prophecies, similarly without relying upon exhaustive foreknowledge?
Sam, I can relate to your displeasure when one’s integrity is challenged for no good reason. Your taking offense alerted me to the way that BEQ26 could be easily misconstrued. I had a different reason for asking whether you could point to a previous public stand on the issue…
BEQ29: Have you previously specifically taught others, your students, or your family, or your friends, that God the Son did not in any way give up in any degree any of the divine attributes?
BEQ30: Sam, do you agree that Christianity should make a conscious effort to identify pagan Greek influence on Augustine and other leading Christians, and if any is found, to re-evaluate related doctrines on strictly biblical grounds?
That's the Q&A from the first half of BR X per my personal notes made by copy and paste during the debate. Looking forward to AMR's post!
-Bob Enyart
