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

[kmoney]

Sam's 2nd post was definitely strong. I also thought that Bob barely touched on what Sam said in his first post.

I think all the talk on greek philosophers won't really get anywhere. Sam's paragraph:

Thirdly, Bob states that the “Psalms ignores or downplays the Greek and Roman philosophical attributes of the OMNIs . . . .” The Greek philosophers to whom Bob refers did not exist at the time of the writing of the Psalms and so it is impossible to downplay that which does not exist. This is the equivalent of saying that Abraham Lincoln ignores or downplays the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr.. He could neither ignore nor downplay them because they did not exist yet. The Psalms were written much too early to have been influenced by the philosophers that Bob mentions.

I don't think this really helped Sam's cause at all, BUT I didn't really think Bob's point about it was any good either. Basically all the greeks introduced was some new vocabulary. I don't think you can say that the concepts weren't there prior to the philosophers. Also, like someone else said, this could be seen as Sam agreeing that the ideas of the "omnis" were introduced after the scriptures were written and I think that can do his side some harm, but I don't think that was what he was saying. There are clearly scriptures that can be interpreted as God having some of the "omni" characteristics so the "omni" ideas were not new to the greeks. In my opinion the whole greek philosophy part of the debate so far has been useless for the most part. Maybe someone can explain to me otherwise in the "battle talk" thread.

Overall though I think Sam gave some good points. I'm looking forward to Bob's reply.

Kevin

 

[Montana]

In defense of his initially weak showing, Sam writes, “[T]here are others who are more qualified than I am. However, I am the one who has been asked to engage in the debate (I was asked, I did not seek this out, nor would I have sought it out) and so I must do the best I can with what I have.
If Sam were to admit that he got caught flat-footed and wanted time to better prepare for the challenge at hand, I would understand. But instead he floats the thinly veiled accusation that Bob sought out an under-qualified opponent just to look good.

I am looking at the two men’s bios and the truth of the matter is that Bob claims none of the credentials of Sam. Bob’s claim to understanding the Bibles is his longtime passion to know God’s Word. Sam boasts a lengthy history of learning from the “masters” and has even presented his position at a theological symposium.

I think that Bob would agree that Sam has the bulk of Church history, Christian academia, and public opinion in his corner. He certainly has the resources to put together a vigorous presentation of the Settled View. If Sam feels he is behind, he should ask the assistance of his friend, “Andre the Giant.” If Andrea is not available then Godzilla, King Kong, Superman or any of the other Calvinist super heros will certainly help him squash this “theological mutiny.”

Sam makes much of Bob not answering all of the questions in his first post. I believe that Sam knows that in a debate each side is allowed to presenting their position in opening. Bob needs to address all of Sam’s questions. At the same time he deserves the opportunity to make a coherent and systematic presentation of his own position. That he has not responded to all of the questions yet is not a legitimate criticism.

I have read many critiques of the Open position, all of them ruthless. When it comes to truth we as Christians should not pull our punches. That is why I find Sam to be artificially cordial and a bit disingenuous. The matter of this debate is paramount to the nature of God and should be vigorously defended on both side. I would suggest to all listeners that what they are reading is in fact the best both side have to offer.

 

[Chileice]

I think Sam was stating a fact. Some people want a more "well-known" personality in the debate. But I think he was being straightforward. God can't use those who are not willing and able. Others might be more able, but weren't willing. Others were willing but unable. At least Sam is both willing and able and I think has shown himself to be worthy. Who needs a name if you are a capable thinker. I almost think it would be more "fair" if no one knew Bob was on the other end. It would be fun to have an "anonymous debate where neither the parties debating nor the audience knew who they were other than as a moniker. Then we would all have to pay attention to what was said rather than our pre-conceived notions of who we liked.

 

[godrulz]

Just a note to godrulz... I always enjoy your contributions at TOL and you are one of my favourite posters... but YOU aren't debating Lamerson, Bob is. Your post almost sounds like he is debating you.

I need some guidelines. I do not know how detailed we are to be in this thread. I responded to ideas that I felt I could critique, positively or negatively. This is a critique thread, but I do not want to be the debater.

Any practical suggestions for limits to what we post here? I tried to go point by point on the things that caught my eye. Bob and Sam's opinion would be appreciated (and Knight).

 

[godrulz]

I think Sam was stating a fact. Some people want a more "well-known" personality in the debate. But I think he was being straightforward. God can't use those who are not willing and able. Others might be more able, but weren't willing. Others were willing but unable. At least Sam is both willing and able and I think has shown himself to be worthy. Who needs a name if you are a capable thinker. I almost think it would be more "fair" if no one knew Bob was on the other end. It would be fun to have an "anonymous debate where neither the parties debating nor the audience knew who they were other than as a moniker. Then we would all have to pay attention to what was said rather than our pre-conceived notions of who we liked.

Both parties can do their general homework. They also have the tools and skills to think critically and prayerfully through the issues. I am not an expert. I am a student, not a scholar. I can spot a strong or weak argument based on general Bible knowledge. This biggest challenge is to put aside preconceived theologies that are accepted uncritically.

It is certainly helpful to be familiar with the literature on both sides of the issue. I have found anti-open theists often misunderstand or misrepresent the view (equate it too much with Process Theology, which we disagree with), use proof texts out of context, or assume Calvinism must be identical to biblical Christianity. There is a political element that wants to defend Reformed Theology as the big power broker in Christianity. They oppose Arminianism or Catholicism as much as they do the new 'heresy' on the block. Open Theism should not be seen as an attack on Calvinism alone, nor should Calvinism be assumed. It is begging the question/circular reasoning to uncritically assume Calvinism is true and anything else simply is false. We must demonstrate what we believe and why from Scripture.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Godrulz . . . I am beggin' man, please do not dialog in this thread. You can dialog in the Battle Talk thread. This thread is for stand alone critique's of the posts being made in BRX.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

As a rule of thumb nobody should make more than one post in this thread after each post made in BRX. I.e., Sam makes a post then you can come here and comment, Bob makes post and then you can come here and comment, Sam makes another post and you can come here and comment etc. etc. etc. If you wish to dialog and debate use the Battle Talk thread.

 

[jeremiah]

Yes, the debate is on. This is why I have "tuned in" to Battle Royale 10. I think that God knows our entire future, but I also certainly want, and need to know if He does not.
Dr. Lamerson from his first round engaged that question, and now in his second post has more fully embraced it, and challenged the premises that Bob Enyart attempted to lay down in his first round posting.
I completely agree with the Dr, that I expected more direct engagement from Bob in his opening post. Even while laying down premises in an openng round one ought to respond in at least a cursory way, to questions, or valid points made by an opponent in a debate. Otherwise one is either "buying" time, or "wasting" it!
This is not an essay contest, or chapters in a book. This is a "live" debate in which if the Holy Spirit is active, His Word will be active, and prove to cut both ways as a two edged sword.
From the many challenges made by the Dr, in this second post, my first thought is, will ten rounds be enough.
I find the Open view to be very intruiging and somewhat liberating. However, I truly wrestle with the strongest question in my mind, and the strongest point in Dr. Lamerson's second post. If God does not know our future entirely, then it truly is problematic, and that, then raises more questions than it answers.
If Dr. Lamerson sticks to the question of the debate, and does not get sidetracked into Calvinism, then this is the problem that Bob has for someone like me. First He has to prove, scripturally that God does not know the future completely, and then has to solve, satisfactorally,{SP?} all the accompanying problems that it creates.
I am now looking forward to the rest of the debate because I fully expect Bob to engage the question of this debate and respond directly to the Dr's, Scriptures ,and reasonings.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

To the Moderator: I would now like to make a small "critique of the critiquers," here? and or in the gallery?

Here.

 

[Supra Man]

"Context" Gets a Bad Rap

"Context" Gets a Bad Rap

Why is there a Jihad against "context"?

I believe Lamerson's old professor was pulling the wool over his eyes when stating that one needed only to answer "context" after having been caught napping in class. Such a mocking should not be taken lightly. There is a war going on within the Church! A war of differing foundational beliefs.

Lamerson should not run from an answer of "context" when debating truth. Lamerson, debate "context" so all can learn something new and true.

 

[sentientsynth]

A hum-dinger of a reply by Dr. Sam!!!!!

It may very well be that we have a debate on our hands folks. For what good is being or justice if it is not immutable. And will we get an explanation of Jesus's foreknowledge of Judas's acts from the open-view side?

8 more rounds to go!!



SS

 

[Samuel Lamerson]

Response to Montana

Response to Montana

In defense of his initially weak showing, Sam writes, “[T]here are others who are more qualified than I am. However, I am the one who has been asked to engage in the debate (I was asked, I did not seek this out, nor would I have sought it out) and so I must do the best I can with what I have.
If Sam were to admit that he got caught flat-footed and wanted time to better prepare for the challenge at hand, I would understand. But instead he floats the thinly veiled accusation that Bob sought out an under-qualified opponent just to look good.

Just a quick note to Montana. Bob did not choose me for this debate. I was not caught flat-footed but was simply replying to some on the site who expected someone like Bruce Ware or R.C. Sproul to be in the debate. To state that I "float the thinly veiled accusation" is both wrong and unkind. With this kind of response it is easy to see why others may have turned the debate down. Why bandy words with those who simply twist them to their own use?

Sam

 

[Freak]

In defense of his initially weak showing, Sam writes, “[T]here are others who are more qualified than I am. However, I am the one who has been asked to engage in the debate (I was asked, I did not seek this out, nor would I have sought it out) and so I must do the best I can with what I have.
If Sam were to admit that he got caught flat-footed and wanted time to better prepare for the challenge at hand, I would understand. But instead he floats the thinly veiled accusation that Bob sought out an under-qualified opponent just to look good.

Just a quick note to Montana. Bob did not choose me for this debate. I was not caught flat-footed but was simply replying to some on the site who expected someone like Bruce Ware or R.C. Sproul to be in the debate. To state that I "float the thinly veiled accusation" is both wrong and unkind. With this kind of response it is easy to see why others may have turned the debate down. Why bandy words with those who simply twist them to their own use?

Sam

Sam, this is a very militant crowd you are facing, as you have seen. Many will die for Bob and his beliefs. Anyone who challenges Enyart will face an onslaught of attacks. Some will border being unkind as seen in Montana's post.

:up: To you as you have taken the high road and have sought to defend the truth with humility.

 

[Montana]

I apologize for posting on this thread. I wanted to respond to Sam and do not have his personal email address:

Sam, I am nobody special, just a guy living in Montana, raising my family. I crossed over to the open view after evaluating the best both sides have to offer. This is a very important debate for me and, I am certain, others in my situation. This is an excellent opportunity for OVers to further advance the simple, straightforward message of God’s Word. From your position, it is an excellent opportunity to serious weaken the growing interest in faulty theology.

I want others to have that same opportunity I have had to examine the best of both positions, side by side. In this debate, you are the spokesman for the settled view. You took the challenge because you considered yourself worthy of the task. Your resources are vast and readily available.

I do criticize you for already hatching an escape plan should you do poorly. At this point, I would like to hear you say that when you are not sure of a particular nuance, you will consult with those you consider foremost on the topic and provide the best answer the settled view has to offer. I do not think that there is anything meanspirited in expecting that kind of honesty from a fellow Christian.

Yours in Him,

Gary

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Sam, this is a very militant crowd you are facing, as you have seen. Many will die for Bob and his beliefs. Anyone who challenges Enyart will face an onslaught of attacks. Some will border being unkind as seen in Montana's post.

:up: To you as you have taken the high road and have sought to defend the truth with humility.

Freak , that might be the most unfair post of the year.

"Many will die for Bob and his beliefs."?????

Give me a break!

Freak this is the same kind of bizarre comments that got you banned from TOL last year. I think you need a TOL vacation. You are now banned for 30 days.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Dr. Lamerson’s Second Post
Two bad points in a host of good ones:

In closing let me say that the OV brings a cure that is worse than the sickness. At what price do we give up the traditional attributes of God? At the cost of God himself not knowing for sure how and when (or if) his divine plan of salvation might be fulfilled.

Sadly, this is a poorly thought out comment.

Does Michael Jordan doubt he has the ability to win a basketball game against a toddler? He doesn’t need to see the future to know he can win. Further, the difference between might and power of God and Man, is greater than the difference between Jordan and a toddler.

Without knowing the future; can you predict who will win between a Ford Escort and a Indy race car in a race around an Indy track? You mean you must know the future to be able to predict it? Come now ...

Mohammed Ali used to predict what round he would knock out his opponents, and fulfilled his own prediction. Larry Bird was often said by his opponents to predict the very spot on the floor he would hit the game winning shot – and then did. These men didn’t “know the future”, they just felt that they couldn’t be stopped by the current level of opponent.

Those men were not truly unstoppable but God is as unstoppable as he wants to be. Perhaps Dr. Lamerson feels that giving men “free will” is too difficult a hurdle for God to overcome, but I think he doesn’t give God enough credit. He quite literally is saying that taking away from God the ability to see the future will somehow stop God. That wouldn’t stop Michael Jordan against the toddler … why should one believe it would stop God.

I don't really think it's a case of Dr. Lamerson not giving God any credit (though that's the way it comes across), but I think he's latched onto a bad argument without ever really thinking it through. I noticed he quotes from Bruce Ware a bit, and I've always found Ware's arguments to be very superfiscial and only hold up if one doesn't dwell to long on them. They sound good sometimes but any scrutiny reveals that they haven't had much thought put into them.

Here's another example of a cliched attack that I don't think Dr. Lamerson actually put any thought of his own into:

[God is Good] This is where the argument of OV really begins to break down. If God does not know my future, how can he or I be sure that what he gives to me will be good? Might not the spouse that he leads me to marry be the wrong one who will murder my children and myself?

Dr. Lamerson, if you had thought about this argument I don’t think you would have given it. You provide the very evidence against your position because those things do happen. If God knows the future, He shares responsibility for the acts.

God appointed (hand picked) Saul and that was a disaster. However, when God picked Saul. Saul was good, therefore the act was good. It is a good act to put a good man in office, whereas it is a wicked act to promote a wicked man to office. David was wholesome when God hand picked him. Both men turned out to use the power of their office to take innocent life.



Otherwise it was a fairly good post. I think your first point in attacking Bob for not taking up more of his opening statement to address your questions was very slick. Touché!! Very good stuff.

 

[CRASH]

CRASH is back for The Fight

CRASH is back for The Fight

Just back after a 4 year hiatus and the quality of thought here at TOL is as good as ever. I just spent 3 hours reading the debate and both related threads so I don't have much to say except....

The debate is fabulous. I think Lamerson is doing reasonably well, however, I am in Enyart's corner and with that said, I seriously hope Dr Lamerson amasses any and all resources available to him to put forth the strongest argument possible for the settled view. Please if you are reading this and you are a settled view/Calvinist type - Get in the FIGHT (this is a boxing match of ideas after all!) and help your man! I also expect and hope for more direct responses to Enyart's points from the good Doctor. It seems as if Lamerson willfully misrepresents/misunderstands some of Enyart's positions that are clearly defined in a post that must be close to the 6000 word limit.

Furthermore the drumbeat of criticism that Bob did not address all of Lamersons points is unfounded... Bob said,
"With your indulgence, I will answer three of your four questions in the second round, and below I will answer your second question."
The answers are right around the corner!

Lamerson is a likable guy so Enyart should be on guard not to pull any punches.

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

It is becoming more clear that Dr.Lamerson is not very familiar with the Open View. Dr. Lamerson's 2nd post has more content than the 1st, but he makes numerous vital errors. Since many have already been mentioned (Greek Philosophy's influence on interpretation of God's Attributes, God's revealing that He does not repent ever - Num 23:19, 1 Sam 15:29 and His lack of change - Mal 3:6), I will focus on what I think to be a huge error...

Dr. Lamerson wrote,

The evidence with which I opened the debate presents Jesus as stating that his Father knows the future actions of free agents. That evidence and argument needs to be dealt with by Bob. Jesus in John 13:19 says "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.” The “I Am” passage is very significant in that it is a claim to deity. In other words, Jesus is basing his claim to be God on the fact that he can predict the future. Again, this argument cannot simply be swept under the rug.
**Bold emphasis mine**

Dr. Lamerson spoke of his Greek Professor, so I can only assume Dr. Lamerson has some working knowledge of the language. When I read the above statement, it seemed that Dr. Lamerson was arguing that every instance of egw eimi "I AM" referring to Jesus, implied Deity. I hope Bob addresses this point. I would agree that the egw eimi of John 8:58 refers to Christ's self proclaimation of being God, but as much as Dr. Lamerson disagrees, the immediate context helps us reach our conclusion. In the same chapter of John, we have another occurrence of egw eimi.

John 8:24
Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am egw eimi He, you will die in your sins."

I wonder if Dr. Lamerson would argue that a person who has trusted in Jesus Christ as his/her personal Lord and Savior, believes that Christ died for his/her sins, and believes that Christ was raised from the dead, might be condemned to hell if he/she has not yet believed the reality that Jesus Christ is God? That person might not have the enigma of the Triunity of God figured out yet, but still believes that Christ died for them. Dr. Lamerson's point above would force supporting a person going to hell for not believing that Jesus Christ is God.

In short, Dr. Lamerson should not argue that every instance of egw eimi "I AM" refers to Diety... Sometimes, Jesus is simply saying, "If you do not believe that I am He (the Messiah for the nation of Israel) you will die in you sins."

Another time, Christ might be saying, "Before Abraham was, I AM (God)." How do we know Christ was saying He was God? The context shows Christ's claim to Diety. I know Dr. Lamerson says "context" is too broad, but making a blanket statement like, "The 'I Am' passage is very significant in that it is a claim to diety..." is not only broad, but in error. The context helps us to determine that Jesus was quoting Exodus 3:14. In Exodus 3:13, Moses asks what name he should give the children of Israel for the God who sent him. God's reply? Let's revisit the conversation...

Exodus 3
13 Then Moses said to God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"
14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

Christ's audience in John 8:58 knew He was claiming to be God. They knew the OT, and they knew He was claiming to be God...That's why they took up stones to kill Him. If every instance of egw eimi referred to Diety, why didn't they take up stones to kill Him following John 8:24?

I can't wait for the rest of the debate! :jump:

In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder

 

[billygoat]

space limitations on posts..no whining

space limitations on posts..no whining

I am enjoying the debate immensely so far, not to mention the depth of thought that is here in these responses. I am on vacation and thus will make this short and sweet. Dr. L complains long and loud that Bob didn't respond to his points, while also admitting that Bob promised to answer them in post 2.

Sam, remember that there is a limit to the length of each post, and if Bob had things he wanted to say in his first post, he may not not have the space to answer all your issues at that moment.

Fear not, I am confident that he will respond to anything you come up with, possibly to the point of your discomfort. By the end of the debate, I suspect you will have all you want of Bob's replies to your points.

I too was disappointed in the 1 Samuel 15 stuff Sam came up with. This passage in it's context is showing us that God does repent. I am very surprised that Sam used this. It is NOT a strong verse for his position, if you read the CONTEXT of the extended biblical account. Pulling a passage out of it's context is not dealing correctly with God's Word.

That's it from the Outer Banks, North Carolina, on the beach...back in Denver tomorrow.....sigh!!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Dr.Lamerson wrote:

Notice the writing in Psalm 139:4 “Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all.” This cannot be reduced to a simple guess on the part of God as to what we will say. The writer goes on to say in Psalm 139:16 “Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.” It seems clear that for God to know all of the days of our lives before we are even formed he must know all that will happen to us under any circumstance.Emphasis mine

These verses cannot be misunderstood.The Lord knew these things and as Dr.Lamerson correctly observed,this cannot be reduced to a simple guess on the part of God.

But there are those who said that He could predict the future because He would bring the things that He predicted to fruition.In other words,any prophecies that are made will come to pass because He will make them come to pass.But does that not make Him responsible for the death of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross?

But that could not be true.Those who murdered the Lord Jesus were acting in fulfillment of a Divine prophecy,but yet their actions were absolutely their own:

"...and by wicked hands have crucified and slain"(Acts2:23).

According to Peter those who crucified the Lord were of "wicked hands",and guilt suposses the action of an independent will.The Lord God was not responsible for the death of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross even though He allowed it to happen.

He had a knowledge that it would happen but at the same time He was not the cause of it.

The arguments that Dr.Lamerson are making are very strong and I congratulate him for presenting such a credible case to defend the truth that the Lord God does indeed know our entire future.

In HIs grace,--Jerry