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

[Balder]

So far, I find the OV to present the most anthropomorphic picture of God I've ever come across. In the OV, YHWH appears to me more like the old pagan gods -- say, Zeus or Odin -- than the understanding of God that I got through my original education as a Christian. This is ironic, of course, since Bob insists that Sam's view has pagan origins. In my view, Sam's perspective may mirror some "high pagan" attributes, but Bob's appears to mirror the common pagan picture of the divine: large human beings, moving in time with us, reaching in to influence things when it suits their will.

But with that said, I think Bob does make a good case that this anthropomorphic image of God has some Biblical precedent. When I have spoken with SV folks about God apparently repenting, changing tactics, etc, I have done so because those passages do appear to present a problem for a view which claims God is omniscient and immutable. In my understanding, the more anthropomorphic, mythological picture of God recorded in the Bible represents an earlier stage of Jewish thinking, which changed and deepened over the generations, shedding some of our human propensity for projection and image-building. You see a similar development in other world religions -- from literalist and rather simplistic approaches to more refined conceptions of the nature of divinity, sacrifice, justice, etc. It shouldn't be surprising that the Bible records a similar development in thought and understanding.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Balder, we are trying to keep this thread clear of any posts that are not direct critiques of posts made in BR X. Your post is more of a general comment about the two sides of the debate as you perceive them. I am going to leave your post here and not delete it since it may the closest thing we get to a critique from you, but please, in the future please post comments like this in the Battle Talk thread.

Thanks, and please do not respond to this post.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Bob Enyart said:

” 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).”

First of all,Bob says that the Lord Jesus could predict Peter’s denials and their timing because God knows the heart of men.Yes,but according to Bob the Lord only knows the “present” state of a man’s mind,and not his future state of mind.So how did the Lord know that the hearts of men would not change at a later time?

After all,those who support the open view put forth by Bob Enyart use this verse to show that the Lord did not even know whether Abraham had a fear of God until he drew back the knife to slay Isaac:

” And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me”(Gen.22:12).

So according to the Open View defended by Bob Enyart the Lord could not be sure about the “future” state of man’s heart.But yet Bob says that the Lord Jesus could predict Peter’s denials because he knew Peter’s heart even though the OV’ers say that the Lord only knows the “present” state of a man’s heart.

Next,Bob says that the Lord Jesus has the power to “intervene” in order to make his prophecy concerning Peter’s denials come to pass.However,the denials of Peter were indeed “sins” (Ro.14:23) and so if Bob is correct then we must believe that the Lord Jesus would intervene by tempting Peter to sin by denying Him.

However,the Scriptures reveal that the Lord would do no such thing:

” Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed”(Jas.1:13,14).

The Greek word translated “tempt” means ”to try or test one’s faith,virtue,character,by enticement to sin; hence acc. To the context i.q. ‘to solict to sin,to tempt’ :Jas. I.13 sq….”(”Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

If the Lord makes a prediction concerning Peter’s faith and his denial of that faith and then He “intervenes” to make that prophecy come true,then there is no doubt whatsoever that the Lord is indeed “tempting” Peter to sin and testing his faith.

This must be the only answer that Bob can give,and he gives it anyway even though it is directly contradicted by the Scriptures.It also contradicts the ideas put forth by those who follow this brand of Open Theology that say that the Lord knows the “present” state of the heart of man but HE does not know the “future” state of a man’s heart.

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

 

[sentientsynth]

Bob's 4th post is a gem. If the rest of the debate flows like round 4 has, then this debate would well be worth printing out and studying. Weren't a couple of theologians kicked out of the Evangelical Philosophical Society for holding the open view? Perhaps clear debates, such as this is turning out to be, will change all that.

I read Bob's 4th in parts, over two days, letting the argument sink in. So I can now affirm the statement, "God is free to change the future."

The NOAH hermeneutic is the correct interpretive model.

SS

 

[Jerry Shugart]

In his last post Sam asked Bob:

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?

That is surely a legitimate question.If the Lord Jesus could be wrong about his prophecy concerning Judas then how could Bob say that God could not hold any false beliefs.

Bob said:

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.

Let us examine Bob’s response:

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.

Here Bob is saying that the “belief” of which he speaks is merely a “hope” in regard to what man will do.He “hopes for the best”.

But what happens when man does not respond by doing his best?That means that the Lord’s belief was wrong,doesn’t it?

If my belief based on “hope” is that a man will deal honestly in business with me but he turns around and acts dishonestly then that means that my “belief” was indeed in error.So Bob has not answered Sam’s question but only evaded it:

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?

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

 

[Ecumenicist]

Comments on round 4:

First, I'd like to acknowledge Sam's angst, I sent my daughter and wife away this week
to set up daughter at a remote university, and I moved my oldest son down to a closer
university yesterday. Tough week.

Now, for Sam's comments:


On Sam's challenge to Bob to find a "best 3" scriptures to move the debate along, I whole
heartedly agree.

On Sam's reference to the Westminster confession, I'm guessing this means that
Sam's not into for-ordination, but this leaves him firmly in the foreknowledge trenches, which is
the view he is representing.

BEQ14 is a good question, and I think Sam ducks it. I don't see a logical disconnect in the
question, if God knows God is going to do something, vs if God forsees a human or a nation or
even nature itself doing something. I can know that a baseball will fly before I throw it, I cannot
know with certainty if another free agent will throw it back. BTW, of course God foresees it,
God knows all.

Sam's refutation of NOAH, yay, good, right on. How many exegetical guides are there? Well,
when I went to Divinity school, we were taught at least 7 or 8, of which I can only remember a
couple, but the point was, "truth" by human reasoning, even of scripture, is subjective, by any
method.

Sam's questions: In general good, good, good, get it back on track with scripture.

Bob's post:

First of all, the question about Jonah is a good scriptural retort that Bob brings back. I hope
Sam answers it.

Bob's rant about Sam's discussion of the 9/11 plane tragedy... Well, I don't see any refuting of
Sam's logic or words. Bob says a just God does rightly, Sam said, God did rightly, though we
cannot see it. I guess Bob is saying God did not do wrongly because God had nothing to do with
it. My God is all powerful, My God had the power to freeze those planes the second before
impact, adn lay them gently on the ground, but my God chose to let them complete their course.

Then Bob explains how it would be unloving of God to not allow evil. OK, it seems that Bob's
explanation works well for either view, but doesn't refute closed view...

On the whole rooster thing, yes it goes back to Bob's question about God's causing things
to happen vs God's knowing things will happen. OK, Pavlov can make a dog salivate, God
can make a rooster crow. Lets get back to people here, did God make Judas betray Christ?
Did God make Peter betray Christ? God knew these things would happen, did God make
them happen?

Now, as Bob moves on to God influencing people's minds, now we're talking heresy, now we're
talking about God interfering with hummanity's free will, now we're talking about God violating
God's own covenent with humanity. Stick with Jonah, Bob, its the best you have. That and
foreknowledge interfering with God's ability to act freely, but in this regard, you don't seem
willing to take a hint

And, here we go again rewriting scripture. Here's a possibility Bob, Jesus told Peter what Jesus
knew about Peter, because Jesus knew that in Peter recognizing the truth about his own
weaknesses, Peter would repent and grow into the position for which Peter was ordained, the
rock upon which the Church of Christ was built. Here we have an interaction of both God knowing,
and God acting, to bring about a future that God, again, knows. Yes, it can work both ways, its
not an either/or paradigm.

But, Jesus spoke to Peter openly, Jesus did not interfere with Peter's free will, Jesus revealed
the truth, in love, to Peter, which Peter eventually saw and accepted. No Jedi mind tricks. Just
honest interchange between 2 people, even though one person had the power of God, Jesus
interacted as a person.

BTW, it was grascious of Bob to concede the point on his declaration of victory, I respect that.

Bob's A and Q's : Bob scored a point in my book through the question of Jesus's relinquishing of
Divine attributes. ITs a good question, if Jesus had the power to bring down angels, but chose not
to use it. Does this mean Jesus had the power to see the future but chose not to use it?
(now that I think about this point, perhaps Bob can take a hint after all )

I originally answered this myself, but 60 seconds later edited my own answers out.
I'm interested in how this question will work its way through the discussion...

Dave

 

[novice]

Sam's 5th round post.

Sam makes a reasonable observation:

Red Herring: introducing and irrelevant or secondary subject and thereby diverting attention from the main subject.

Enyart- In round five I plan to show (space permitting) how Augustine redefined the Christian God based on utter Greek immutability, and how the Reformation broke with Rome but not Greece, and extended the 1,000-year Hellenist grip on theology.

Lamerson-We have agreed from the start of the debate that there is one question and that this question will be decided from the viewpoint of God. That is from the Scripture. Rev. Enyart continues to want to smuggle in whatever paper he has written about Greek philosophy but it has nothing to do with this debate. I am not quoting Plato or Augustine but Jesus.

I think this is indeed a good point.

The debate is subtitled: "Does God Know Your Entire Future?"

The debate is NOT subtitled: "Did Calvinism originate through Pagan Greek Philosophy?"

So while I agree the origins of Calvinism are interesting they are not pivotal to the fact that they are in error or not. When it gets right down to it, Calvinism could be biblical AND have parallels in pagan Greek philosophy. Or, Calvinism could be in error and have roots in Norwegian folklore. Does it really matter all that much? The settled view is either wrong or right based on it's biblical foundation or lack thereof.

If Bob continues to push the issue of Calvinism's origins he will lose points in this debate.

Other than that, Sam's post had very little content.

Sam, its time to bring out some new evidence! Bob has already responded in detail to all the points you have raised in post 5. You need to come up with some new fresh arguments for the second half of this debate.

Sam, if you are not going to come up with some new arguments you may as well concede the debate at this point.

Oh, and one more thing....
Sam, Battle Royale X is a debate! And maybe you are not used to debating but I would suggest you tone down the complaining. Almost every single post you have made you have whined and complained about Bob's approach yet you yourself have used similar tactics in the earlier rounds.

The more you complain about debate tactics the more people will assume you would like to ignore debate content.

Just my opinion!

 

[death2impiety]

Sam's fifth round post is by far his most fiesty. Though why he was offended by BEQ26 I haven't the foggiest. This debate is about challenging your opponents view. A remark like this illustrates the lengths Bob is willing to go to to know his opponent.

Unfortunately, Sam is still dodging Bob's arguments by labeling them as nonresponsive and claiming that he is attempting to lead them off on a tangent. I see no tangent, I see opposing views with opposing rhetoric. I don't understand how Sam can make claims like this when he has still refused to answer BEQ18 & BEQ20.

It seems as though the good doctor is refusing to see the logic in Bob's responses and acting as though he never answered at all. Sam seems to be focusing on beating questions like SLQ15 which was already answered by BEASLQ3 in Bob's second round post.

As for:

Originally posted by Sam
Red Herring: introducing and irrelevant or secondary subject and thereby diverting attention from the main subject.

Enyart- In round five I plan to show (space permitting) how Augustine redefined the Christian God based on utter Greek immutability, and how the Reformation broke with Rome but not Greece, and extended the 1,000-year Hellenist grip on theology.

Lamerson-We have agreed from the start of the debate that there is one question and that this question will be decided from the viewpoint of God. That is from the Scripture. Rev. Enyart continues to want to smuggle in whatever paper he has written about Greek philosophy but it has nothing to do with this debate. I am not quoting Plato or Augustine but Jesus.

When will you understand what Bob is saying? It's that Greek philosophy is responsible for your view of God. The origin and foundation of a belief structure is extremely important in a debate of this nature. Not only must the Bible be a focus, but also where the hermenuetic you defend came from. We have to start at the beginning and examine the foundation to see if the belief holds up.

Matthew 7:24-27
24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

Lets be sure to build our belief on solid rock.

In Christ,
B

 

[Clete]

Ridiculous!

Ridiculous!

The only word for Dr. Lanerson's latest post (Round 5) is RIDICULOUS!

Bob no longer need worry about any accusation from Lamerson about being unresponsive. It is clear from this post that his making the claim that Bob is being unresponsive is, and I assume now that it always has been, nothing more than a tactic and would have been claimed, and probably will continue to be claimed, throughout the debate regardless of what Bob says or how many times he says it. No one smart enough to be in the position that Dr. Lamerson is in could be possibly be stupid enough to think that nothing of his argument has been addressed! I consider it an outright lie. It seems Bob's claims of victory were quite well founded after all, more so even than I had realized.

The line in Dr. Lamerson's post that absolutely takes the cake is this one...

SLA-BEQ17 This has been asked and answered.

The intellectual dishonesty required to make such a comment after having done nothing but repost an argument that Bob has spent some 18,000+ words responding to is just more than I can take! Up to this point I have been willing to give Dr. Lamerson the benefit of the doubt and have assumed that he simply didn't get it; that he had some how missed Bob's point, but no longer. Lamerson found himself in over his head after one single post and has done nothing but tread water ever since. How very disappointing. :nono:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Shadowx]

(Careful Bob..don't suggest Sam is lying..or he will take his toys and go home..)

(Careful Bob..don't suggest Sam is lying..or he will take his toys and go home..)

I am a little shaky this morning. As I was driving here (I drive by highway 30 miles to my office) a truck pulling a trailer was in front of me, one lane over. The axle broke on the trailer sending one wheel in front of my car, the trailer flipping and the truck upside down. While I was bumped from behind by another car and the truck ended up completely upside down, no one was badly hurt. I thank God that he was watching out for me. To be consistent, though, I must say that had I been injured or killed, I would thank God for that as well.

Lest you think that I have had a life without tragedies and this word is only a hollow song, let me say that I have had some very difficult times in my life. My sister was killed in a car accident when I was a teenager; my mother and father died within eight months of each other when I was in my early twenties and my house was destroyed by a car accident the day my father died. Meanwhile my wife was pregnant and we were pastoring a small church that could not afford to pay mea living wage, much less insurance.

I say all of this to let you know that as I faced these difficult times in my life, the fact that God knew and planned all of this before eternity was comforting. Comforting because I know that someday I will come to know how all these seeming tragedies ultimately glorified God.

Sam, you don't seem very thankful to me for Bob's debate tactics..You can't even handle the thought that he might be challenging your honesty. Yet Sam, you would be thankful if some drunk looking to do the will of God ran over you or your child and paralyzed you/them from the neck down...?.

Criminals..sometimes say, "I was doing the will of God, not my own will when I raped/murdered" Sam would have to affirm to them that this is so..and it is to glorify God..You could not say they were wrong, if so the will of God is wrong.

It's not shocking to me why 2 people I talked to from D James Kennedy's "Center for Reclaiming America" try to justify voting pro homo/pro abort.
.
I have that email..

 

[jhodgeiii]

BEQ17: 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.

From NKJ Matthew 7:23:

"And then I will declare to them [apparently some of God's creatures], 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'"

Would Lamerson say that the ones whom Jesus is referring to have a true relationship with God? Or maybe is Lamerson implying that only some people are God's creatures? This answer seems either vague or just outright false.

 

[Z Man]

Great job Sam! Way to sock it to Bob. And way to stay focused and on track with the topic at hand. From the beginning of his post, Bob has done nothing but hide behind a bunch of smoke and mirrors that he creates with all the fancy wording and fantasy stories of Bible characters, and yet, has wandered so far off topic that it's annoying. The fact that Bob stated in his last post that he was going to talk about the orgins of Calvinism proves that his head isn't in the debate, but in some other topic that is irrelevant to anything Dr. Lamerson has tried to converse about.

I agree with Sam and support the idea that he should continuously ask Bob the same questions over and over until Bob finally sits down and honestly tackles them. Bob has yet to directly confront Sam's questions. Half of his last post did nothing but talk about how God can make a rooster crow; well DUH! Everyone knows that God can do what He wants to. The question Bob, how did Jesus know what Peter was going to do if He has no idea about the future choices of individuals?

It's easy to see that Sam has Bob in the juggler, and won't let go until Bob either gives up, or fights out of Sam's grip. Squirming ain't getting you nowhere Bob.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Remember folks this thread is for SINGLE "stand alone" critiques of the posts being made in Battle Royale X. Many of you have asked why your posts are being deleted and this is the reason.

Therefore if you wish to create a dialog about BR X please do so on the Battle Talk thread.

Thanks in advance for your time and cooperation.

 

[Prisca]

I know Dr. Lamerson is trying to make the debate seem more personal by telling us about how tough his week has been or how he’s “a bit shaky” due to a near accident, but it almost seems like a ploy for sympathy or an excuse for any perceived weaknesses in his posts. I actually enjoy personal comments, but not if they seem to have an ulterior motive.

Dr. Lamerson said, “I say all of this to let you know that as I faced these difficult times in my life, the fact that God knew and planned all of this before eternity was comforting. Comforting because I know that someday I will come to know how all these seeming tragedies ultimately glorified God.”

This is, I think, the crux of the SV. It is somehow comforting to many people to believe that even the worst tragedies are a part of God’s plan. But it is also what gives OV’s their most powerful ammunition, as Bob so brutally pointed out in Round 4.

Dr. Lamerson said, “As of this round I plan to continue to ask Rev. Enyart the questions that I have been raising since the first round. While I do not mean to be personal in my attack, but to only attack the ideas and answers of Rev. Enyart, it is unfortunate that he has chosen to engage in what are clearly fallacious tactics such as:….

Rev. Enyart has been answering his questions; Dr. Lamerson just doesn’t like the answers he’s getting. My suspicion is that they are not the answers he is familiar with. SV’ers seem to have a set repertoire of arguments they like to present and then defend. Anything outside of this frustrates them to no end.

Dr. Lamerson, “Bob might argue that this passage simply teaches that God knows the present thoughts of man. Therefore, he would know what a petitioner was about to ask, because he knows the present, not the future. The problem is that this works against the argument that God’s openness gives great incentive to prayer. Bruce Ware shows this quite succinctly when he points out that not just in the classic view, but even the in the open view, ‘t is strictly speaking impossible for human beings to inform God of their thoughts, concerns, longings, feelings and requests’ (because all these things exist in the present).”

This is a good argument. I was glad to see Dr. Lamerson come up with something that could be a problem for OV’ers if they don’t think things through.
The rest of Dr. Lamerson’s post was well organized and thought out, even though he seems to have misunderstood and sometimes misrepresented Rev. Enyart’s position on various points. I’m looking forward to the next post.

 

[truthteller86]

Sam Writes...
I say all of this to let you know that as I faced these difficult times in my life, the fact that God knew and planned all of this before eternity was comforting. Comforting because I know that someday I will come to know how all these seeming tragedies ultimately glorified God.

[empahsis mine] Sam, is it really naive of me to think that God's will is simply that we obey Him, and He recieves "glory" when we obey Him, not when a evil child molester carries out the most vile dispicable acts one could imagine. If you are right, I really don't want to know what "glory" God received from evil acts of wicked men.

 

[RightIdea]

Lamerson opens this round by trying to convey the hope he feels in his Calvinist relationship with God. Although anything's possible, I kind of doubt he has an ulterior motive here to illicit sympathy.

But it does seem to me to point to how one's doctrinal view in this area affects your relationship with God. It illustrates how this is not just an intellectual exercise but really does impact our relationship with Him.

Consider for a moment if your biological father related to you the way Lamerson suggests our Father relates to us all. Imagine your biological father setting you up for failure, decided ahead of time that one son or daughter would fail, while the other one succeeds. Imagine him executing punishment upon you at times when have not warranted it or done anything to deserve it at that time? Is this a loving father or a just father? May it not be said! Of course not. How one can have hope in a father (or the Father) who sets us up to fail, foreordains our destruction, or predestines catastrophe in our lives in a way that is not in actual response to sin? That is a recipe for hopelessness and despair. Lamerson's message here backfires on him, I believe. It seems downright unreal.


Lamerson accuses Bob of numerous things, including using "loaded language." C'mon, both sides use loaded language, it is part of debate! One of the ways to effectively debate is to control the definition of terms. Hello? Yes, of course. So, fine, you can contend about definitions. But don't accuse Bob of doing something quite normal and standard in a debate. You put forth your definitions, he'll put forth his. Let the audience draw the conclusions; you don't need to draw conclusions for them. God gave them minds to think with.


He accuses Bob of using the pagan origins of Calvinism as a red herring. I used to agree and used to be opposed to using that line of reasoning. Sam does rightly point out that they agreed to make this debate about God's point of view! However, it has occurred to me that this is entirely relevant to the debate for the simple fact that it shows that the source of Sam's view is unbelieving men. Every debate has both a positive and negative case. You support your view, and you refute the others' view. Sam, this is the part where he's refuting your view by showing it is not based on God's point of view, but rather on man's. And Bob is right on the money, on this one.


Sam then accuses Bob of using a straw man. He did no such thing, Sam. He addressed both halves of that issue! There are two halves, after all, and you brought them both up. God prophecied the actions of both Peter and the rooster. Therefore, if Bob had not addressed the rooster, you'd now be accusing him of not responding to one of your points! Bob rightly explained how God could know a rooster would crow after Peter's triple failure. But he also addressed God's foreknowledge of Peter's likely actions, while also very relevantly pointing out that Jesus would surely have preferred Peter's repentance over his sin! Would you honestly have us believe that Jesus preferred sin over repentance from Peter? Of course not! Jesus predicted failure, but if Peter had repented, this would have been to God's glory, and we wouldn't be weeping over it today as some kind of failure! Indeed, we know that many prophecies in the Bible do not come about as stated, and this is to God's glory! And this would be just one more on top of that big pile that we already know about! No problem whatsoever if Peter had repented. Indeed, we could have celebrated it, today.


Sam still accuses Bob of not responding to his points. This is just plain silly. Bob has spent huge amounts of space responding to every point Sam has made. Just because you don't like someone's response doesn't mean they never responded!


Sam moves to Matt. 6:8, and violates the very principle he just accused Bob of crossing a few moments ago. While Bob was not guilty of breaking this rule, Sam blatantly crosses this line here, just as he's done several times before! After having it pointed out more than once! At this point, it's just willfully breaking the rules. Sam thinks Bob should only address things from God's perspective. And here, Sam thinks we should base our evidence on how the average 1st century gnostic thought of God? Wha....? He goes to a gnostic work that is frighteningly mysogynist? Woman-hating? Blatantly heretical? And he wants us to think this is an example of what the average person back then believed about God? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. And I can scarcelessly believe Sam is still holding on to the "Gospel" of Thomas as being useful for anything more than the lining of a bird cage.


Sam cites the Lord's Prayer and how it looks forward to the future. A wonderful point... for the Open View. Why pray any such thing, if it's already set, all settled? For no good reason at all, except that God would desire us to be deceived or confused. When the petitioner prays this (altho it isn't for today, anyway), such a person is trusting in... God's power! Not His omniscience! It's an appeal to God's ability to bring such things about! So what on earth does this have to do with divine foreknowledge. Nothing. It only affirms the Open View, and works against the Calvinist view.

4. Bob says that I had defeated my own argument with the following passage:

Bob might argue that this passage simply teaches that God knows the present thoughts of man. Therefore, he would know what a petitioner was about to ask, because he knows the present, not the future. The problem is that this works against the argument that God’s openness gives great incentive to prayer. Bruce Ware shows this quite succinctly when he points out that not just in the classic view, but even the in the open view, “t is strictly speaking impossible for human beings to inform God of their thoughts, concerns, longings, feelings and requests” (because all these things exist in the present).

As you can see this is not the case.

I see no such thing, doctor.


Sam then goes on to repeat a bunch of old and tired points that Bob has entirely responded to. For what reason I am unable to comprehend. Already been addressed. Is that all the doctor has? Is that it? Is he just going to be a broken record from here on out...?


And then Sam tries to fudge his way out of the corner he painted himself into. (Boy is that a weird mixed metaphor, or what?)

So now he wants us to believe that the Son knew when the end would come... but Jesus did not know. Wha....??? So now we have two people walking around, and not one? Two people on the cross? Two minds, two spirits, inhabiting one body? We accuse unitarians of portraying Christ as being schizophrenic, but Sam seems to think He was too! But what is Christ trying to convey to the people before him, there?

Namely that He does not know... but the Father does. What will people understand that to mean? That He (Jesus/the Son) doesn't know, and the Father does! How can anyone actually expect any person standing there at the time to understand that Jesus was saying that He (Jesus) doesn't know, but He (the Son) does know? He doesn't say anything about the Son knowing. He says He doesn't know, but the Father knows. So if the Son knows, and says this.... then He must know that no one standing there is going to understand the truth from what He just said. Which means that the Son would be intentionally misleading people into false doctrine. And we can't have that. No, the Jesus is the Son, and He (not they) didn't know when. But the Father did. That's the contrast, and not some wacky contrast between a schizophrenic Christ.


Sam brings up the Judas prophecy, even though this has been addressed very well by Bob. Waste of time.


Near the end now, and Sam repeats a bunch of questions that Bob has answered multiple times! Yadda yadda yadda, waste of time. Again, just because you dont' like his answer (big surprise, you disagree, that' why you're debating) doesn't mean he didn't respond. Let the audience decide who they think makes the best case. But don't say Bob didn't respond; that's just ludicrous on its face.


He then lists Bob's questions and ignores most of them, just like last round.

Especially BEQ19/12! This is the simplest, most straightforward question Bob has asked this whole debate, and Sam still won't even give a basic yes or no! How hard is this? I'm flabbergasted that Sam gives yet another cop-out answer here! Yes, so God foreordained what would happen. And yes, God foreknew what would happen. We know you believe that, Sam, otherwise we wouldn't be having that debate. It's a great answer to a question Bob didn't (and never would) ask. He asked you if the two things are the same! That is a yes or no question. Pleeeeeeease answer this. How hard can it be?


Finally, Sam gets offended by Bob's simply asking to show his background on this issue. Why? What's the problem? If you've been consistent, you should be happy to show that and put Bob in his place. But instead, you get emotional and provide nothing at all, leaving Bob's question hanging in the air... like so many others. It's almost as if gravity itself has been suspended for them. LOL

(And Christ "emptied Himself" of His... blood? Huh? He thinks that refers to His blood? Where did that come from? That's a new one on me, and makes little sense. For one thing, Christ didn't pierce Himself. Others pierced Him. Others emptied Him of His blood. So no, that makes no logical sense.)


Questions that Sam just plain ignores:

Sam just flat out ignores (again) Bob's question of what kind of standard by which one could hypothetically refute the Settled View. (BEQ-18) Bob was willing to do that for the Open View, offering three (not the only three), but Sam seems to be so afraid of doing so for his side that he apparently pretends he didn't even hear this question at all. Nice try, Sam, but some of us are keeping track.


In the same, way, he ignores "BEQ21: Has it ever been possible for God to change anything that will happen in eternity future?" Why does the doctor pretend he didn't even hear this question? Another down-to-earth and straightforward question. Why avoid it and pretend it's not there?


Sam likewise ignores, "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?" No answer for this either? Didn't hear this one, either? Forgot? Or just afraid to answer....


"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?" Flat out ignored like the last few. Why? I'd think Sam would joyfully answer in the affirmative to this question.


"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." Flat out ignored. This is central to the debate. Why run from it? Why pretend it's not even there? Dr. Lamerson had plenty of unused space to address each of these!


In the conclusion, Sam unfortunately whines some more. I have to say, I didn't think the doctor could get any more disappointing than his last round, but this one takes the cake. I don't see a single redeeming quality. I like Dr. Lamerson, he's a great guy and I've no doubt a godly husband and father, and an effective leader in the ministry in which he works. But I sadly report that he is losing more of my respect in each round... and we're only halfway through the debate. I dont' enjoy saying that. I'm just being honest. Sam isn't being intellectually honest at all, and that's just stating the obvious.

 

[RightIdea]

I wrote:

Consider for a moment if your biological father related to you the way Lamerson suggests our Father relates to us all. Imagine your biological father setting you up for failure, decided ahead of time that one son or daughter would fail, while the other one succeeds. Imagine him executing punishment upon you at times when have not warranted it or done anything to deserve it at that time? Is this a loving father or a just father? May it not be said! Of course not. How one can have hope in a father (or the Father) who sets us up to fail, foreordains our destruction, or predestines catastrophe in our lives in a way that is not in actual response to sin? That is a recipe for hopelessness and despair. Lamerson's message here backfires on him, I believe. It seems downright unreal.

Might I add something else. Lamerson says if he'd been in a terrible wreck, he would thank God for that, too.

By implication, this infers that if someone we love dies without accepting Christ, we can rightly thank God that this person did not ever accept Christ, and that they will now suffer eternally in the Lake of Fire.

I wonder. Does Lamerson thank God that any specific unbeliever he's ever known didn't accept Christ before he or she died? And if it's never occurred to him before, will he now, before us all?

 

[Vaquero45]

Regarding Dr. Lamerson's 5th post.

I hate to pile on here, but I want to address these two statements by Dr. Lamerson.

I say all of this to let you know that as I faced these difficult times in my life, the fact that God knew and planned all of this before eternity was comforting. Comforting because I know that someday I will come to know how all these seeming tragedies ultimately glorified God.

And he said he would be thankful if he was injured or killed in the car wreck God put him in.

This, in a nut shell, is why I can't take predestination (as a Calvinist would explain it) and total foreknowledge. (the two are inseparable logically to me) By Dr. Lamerson's reasoning, he would be left wondering why God got so angry when Israel was burning their sons on the alter to Baal. After all, it was to His glory, no? In fact, He planned it?
By the same reasoning Auschwitz could have just as well been a giant "revival" camp.

They could/should have said "Wow, look what God is doing in our lives! Thanks Lord!!!"

Instead the thankless Jews complained. But I guess God planned for them to complain, and for His glory.

Well no thanks. I don't want any part of that God, and reasoning like Dr. Lamerson's is the reason many people think they hate God. I know a girl who was adopted into a horrible family. She hates God for doing this to her. She doesn't have any idea what God is really like, but hates Him for what she thinks He did to her. ( I haven’t seen her in years, hope she has figured things out) It is totally foreign to me how people can get excited by this way of thinking. Apparently I was not predestined to understand. If that IS the way God is, I hope He predestined and knows that I will change my mind, but I guess I was predestined to hope that, for His glory.

Jeff

 

[Shalom]

Regarding Dr. Lamerson's 5th post.

I hate to pile on here, but I want to address these two statements by Dr. Lamerson.

And he said he would be thankful if he was injured or killed in the car wreck God put him in.

This, in a nut shell, is why I can't take predestination (as a Calvinist would explain it) and total foreknowledge. (the two are inseparable logically to me) By Dr. Lamerson's reasoning, he would be left wondering why God got so angry when Israel was burning their sons on the alter to Baal. After all, it was to His glory, no? In fact, He planned it?
By the same reasoning Auschwitz could have just as well been a giant "revival" camp.

They could/should have said "Wow, look what God is doing in our lives! Thanks Lord!!!"

Instead the thankless Jews complained. But I guess God planned for them to complain, and for His glory.

Well no thanks. I don't want any part of that God, and reasoning like Dr. Lamerson's is the reason many people think they hate God. I know a girl who was adopted into a horrible family. She hates God for doing this to her. She doesn't have any idea what God is really like, but hates Him for what she thinks He did to her. ( I haven’t seen her in years, hope she has figured things out) It is totally foreign to me how people can get excited by this way of thinking. Apparently I was not predestined to understand. If that IS the way God is, I hope He predestined and knows that I will change my mind, but I guess I was predestined to hope that, for His glory.

Jeff

I totally agree with Jeff. I am in this same boat how could a person be thankful to God for putting them in the most miserable life circumstance and choosing others to have nice parents and a relativley normal life? My husband was severly abused and almost killed when he was growing up by his own father. Before I did a lot of thinking and reading both him and I believed we could possibly be predestined. But after much thought it actually comforts my husband to know God didn't put him in that situation, it was his Dad's choice to be an idiotic parent. Really how LOGICLY could someone explain to a child in that sitation that they just werent choosen to be in the elite house with the father who plays with his kids and the parents who love you and support you no matter what. I have come up with many issues as to why I dont believe in predestiny but this one for me is major.

Sara

 

[Z Man]

Sam says in his last post:

I say all of this to let you know that as I faced these difficult times in my life, the fact that God knew and planned all of this before eternity was comforting. Comforting because I know that someday I will come to know how all these seeming tragedies ultimately glorified God.​

Right on Sam. As Christians, we are to trust God through thick and thin. It's the Biblical way!

Job 2:10
Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?