BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)

[novice]

Would-a, could-a, should-a, is that all you got. What should have happened did happen and it was planed from the foundation of the world. The answerer to your stupid question is a resounding NO! :chz4brnz:

So, since you answered "No" you are agreeing that Bob didn't state that he was claiming that his hypothetical is what "should have" happened.

Good for you! You aren't as dumb as Z Man.

Let's see what Z Man says shall we?

 

[BeHim]

Layman vs. Bob Enyart

Layman vs. Bob Enyart

No Doubt!

Most lay Calvinists could see past Bob Enyart's smoke and mirrors. This isn't a Biblical debate, this is a concept debate. Close the doors to your church and get off the radio Bob, you're a false teacher.

Bob's last post was a joke! It was a fantasy of his that I personally do not think is befitting for the debate. This isn't "What do you think should've happened Mr. Enyart"? This debate is about whether or not God knows our future or not. The Dr. cut right to the chase from the very get go, staying on topic, by presenting 2 cases from Scripture that seem to indicate yes, God does know our future. And yet, after 2 posts, Enyart has yet to respond to them! Give me a break!

Just so you know you're not alone Dr. Lamerson, this is the same behavior I have come to know from all open-theists that I have debated on this website.

Mr. Enyart, for you to believe that it would have been better for Judas to repent, and God to be delivered to the Gentiles to be crucified another way, is a slap in the face to God's wisdom. You're basically saying you know better than God.

Here's a news flash for all of you Open Theists out there: It's not about you.

 

[elected4ever]

So, since you answered "No" you are agreeing that Bob didn't state that he was claiming that his hypothetical is what "should have" happened.

Good for you! You aren't as dumb as Z Man.

Let's see what Z Man says shall we?

No! Z is right Bob is wrong. There is no value in Bob's hypothetical

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Close the doors to your church and get off the radio Bob, you're a false teacher.

Easy there big fella. We banned a person today for making out of line comments about Dr. Lamerson, don't think we wont do the same thing for Bob. Any further uncalled for comments from you and you will be a tiny footnote in TOL history. Fair enough?

 

[novice]

No! Z is right Bob is wrong. There is no value in Bob's hypothetical

Stunning use of logic. Now go to the head of the class the teacher has a gold star for you.

 

[godrulz]

No Doubt!

Most lay Calvinists could see past Bob Enyart's smoke and mirrors. This isn't a Biblical debate, this is a concept debate. Close the doors to your church and get off the radio Bob, you're a false teacher.

Some theological issues are philosophical in nature. The nature of this debate will not be resolved with a proof text. Philosophical, biblical, and logical issues must be considered (the nature of time and eternity involves biblical and philosophical arguments).

 

[Yorzhik]

This debate is onsided Theology on the side of Lamerson and Enyart's simply presenting every concept and text he can outside of the Bible.

Bob Enyart has yet to stand on the Authority of The Word, his basis for Openness is anything but the Bible.

100% victory to Mr. Lamerson.

That's Dr. Lamerson to you, buddy.

 

[RightIdea]

Has yet to stand on the authority of the Word? BeHim, are you absolutely blind??? Wow. Just stunning. Lamerson bases most of his case on tradition and philosophers and theologians, and even the infamous, heretical Gospel of Thomas! Enyart goes to scripture over and over. And you have the unmitigated gall to tell us that Bob has yet to stand on the authority of the word? Open Viewers fight an uphill battle trying to wrest this issue away from tradition and ECFs and philosophers and back to scripture where it belongs! One of the hallmarks of OV debate is its scriptural foundation in the face of tradition and majority fallacy, etc.!

Puh-LEASE.



And E4E, as usual not the tiniest shred of scriptural evidence. Your schtick wears thin real fast, I must say. Your entire argument seems to be based on "Cuz I said so."

 

[elected4ever]

And E4E, as usual not the tiniest shred of scriptural evidence. Your schtick wears thin real fast, I must say. Your entire argument seems to be based on "Cuz I said so."

I answered your question already. Don't like it. tough. You guys haven't answered my question. I'm an open guy. Just explain to me why God knowing something takes away your free will.

 

[RightIdea]

Why should I even waste my time on a hypocrite like yourself, E4E? You refuse to answer others' questions, you categorically refuse to give even one verse of scripture to support anything you say, and then you make demands of others, as if you have the slightest basis for holding anyone else accountable.

Dont' look now but you have a whopping redwood in your eye.

 

[elected4ever]

Why should I even waste my time on a hypocrite like yourself, E4E? You refuse to answer others' questions, you categorically refuse to give even one verse of scripture to support anything you say, and then you make demands of others, as if you have the slightest basis for holding anyone else accountable.

Dont' look now but you have a whopping redwood in your eye.

I doubt you even read my post to you.

 

[RightIdea]

Of course I read it. Think about it, E4E. How else would I know that to this very moment, you're still stalwartly refusing to answer questions or provide scripture? You're a grade-A hypocrite. I have little time for hypocrites.

 

[elected4ever]

Of course I read it. Think about it, E4E. How else would I know that to this very moment, you're still stalwartly refusing to answer questions or provide scripture? You're a grade-A hypocrite. I have little time for hypocrites.

:rotfl: You are really funny. If you don't like the answer, kill the messenger. I got it. God's attitude has not changed. God's foreknowledge does not mean that he condones evil any more than your open theism causes God to change his mine (repent) 300 million times a day or condone evil. God has a plan that was set in motion from the foundation of the world. God is true to His word. Not my word or yours.Your opinion of me does not matter and my opinion of you does not matter.

When God says that he repents of something it is not the same as you and I repenting. When God acts it is out of his total character and each attribute of His character is applied perfectly. God acts according to His righteousness.

Before man was ever made the plan for man was completed in the mind of God. Every thought and ever action of man was known and His response to that action was made from the beginning of God's plan to its ultimate end. This foreknowledge of God does not prevent the free will of man. If it did then why all the sorrow and suffering? Fact is if God made our decisions for us then we could never be conformed to His image.

As you can see. In many respects the open and closed view are the same. The difference is that in your view God reacts to a given situation and in my view God already knows and has prepared for the situation.

It is not God's perfect foreknowledge that caused us to believe but Our choice caused us to believe. God did not force our choice but He did know what our choice was.We have a hard time with such a concept because we are finite beings and do not know the future and we live ever day of our lives subject to the moment. God is not so confined. We cannot put God in our little box and limit Him as we are limited.

 

[Truppenzwei]

:rotfl: You are really funny. If you don't like the answer, kill the messenger. I got it. God's attitude has not changed. God's foreknowledge does not mean that he condones evil any more than your open theism causes God to change his mine (repent) 300 million times a day or condone evil. God has a plan that was set in motion from the foundation of the world. God is true to His word. Not my word or yours.Your opinion of me does not matter and my opinion of you does not matter.

When God says that he repents of something it is not the same as you and I repenting. When God acts it is out of his total character and each attribute of His character is applied perfectly. God acts according to His righteousness.

Before man was ever made the plan for man was completed in the mind of God. Every thought and ever action of man was known and His response to that action was made from the beginning of God's plan to its ultimate end. This foreknowledge of God does not prevent the free will of man. If it did then why all the sorrow and suffering? Fact is if God made our decisions for us then we could never be conformed to His image.

As you can see. In many respects the open and closed view are the same. The difference is that in your view God reacts to a given situation and in my view God already knows and has prepared for the situation.

It is not God's perfect foreknowledge that caused us to believe but Our choice caused us to believe. God did not force our choice but He did know what our choice was.We have a hard time with such a concept because we are finite beings and do not know the future and we live ever day of our lives subject to the moment. God is not so confined. We cannot put God in our little box and limit Him as we are limited.

Could you provide some scriptural references to back up this viewpoint please?

 

[sentientsynth]

Are we lead by the Spirit of God when we provoke one another? Brothers, we have not been reborn to factions and disputes, as the heathen live, but to conformity of Spirit, so as to esteem one another more highly than ourselves.

Brothers, it pains me to see the Body of Christ at war with itself. But how can the Body be at war with itself? It cannot. Therefore if you war one with another, you are cut off from the Spirit of God, and ought to repent.

SS

 

[elected4ever]

Could you provide some scriptural references to back up this viewpoint please?

Genesis 6:4 *¶There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
5 *And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 *¶And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 *And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 *¶But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
9 *These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

This passage has been used numerous times to say that God was taken by surprise so to speak and that god was sorry that he had made man. I intend to show that there is nothing in this passage that states that God ever changed His mind about creating man.

When God repents the word naham is used. This word does not imply the admission of a mistake being made and a change of direction takes place. The word for that is sub and is never applied to God but to man. Man is to repent and turn toward God but it is never that God did wrong and needs to change direction for something he did.

As you can see by the text that it was man who was wicked and needed to repent and not God. It is never implied by the text that God changed at all or that God changed. His mind. There is nothing in this passage that says that God was surprised by this development. Only that God was sorrowful and grieved by man's wickedness. It does however imply a change in relationship.

God is just as holy and just as he is loving and merciful. The relationship changed due to the justice demanded by God's holiness upon the wicked. No longer could God treat man with loving kindness and this grieved God. Man's relationship with God changed due to man's actions and not God's.

The open view says that God changed his mind. God never changed his mind about anything. God always acts according to his perfect nature. God did not change.

Where in this passage does it say that God did not know this would happen? No such statement ever appears in the text. Where does it say that God was surprised by these events? It does not appear in this text. I submit that the open view is nothing more than Darbyism which is theology made from whole cloth and has no Biblical foundation. The passage does not say what the open theist say it says.

 

[elected4ever]

Bob's latest post has me dumbfounded! I literally don't know what to say except that the argument was basically perfect!
Boy am I glad I'm not Dr. Lamerson!

You keep making dumb post like that and I might say something that is untoward and Knight will ban me. If you wont to be Bob's cheerleader get some pom- poms. :juggle:

 

[Delmar]

from the Critique thread

The Lord Jesus made a specific prophecy concerning His death before He was crucified:

he made this statement which we assume to be prophecy because it happened.

"Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:
And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again"(Lk.18:31-33).

The Lord Jesus Christ,the second Person of the Godhead,clearly believed that He would be crucified by the Gentiles.However,Bob Enyart seems to think that the crucifixion could have happened in an entirely different manner.He said:


If Bob is right that the crucifixion could have happened apart from the Gentiles then the Lord Jesus would have been wrong in regard to what He told His Apostles.So how could Bob answer "no" to the following question?:

"Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?"

to have a plan then change it when events change does not make you wrong.

So if the Lord could have been put to death apart from the Gentiles (as Bob maintains) then the Lord Jesus would have indeed held a belief that would have proved to be false.

No.

In His grace,--Jerry
"Dispensationalism Made Easy"
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-..._made_easy.html

 

[Poly]

You keep making dumb post like that and I might say something that is untoward and Knight will ban me. If you wont to be Bob's cheerleader get some pom- poms. :juggle:

e4e, this post is uncalled for. If you want to explain why you think Bob is wrong then by all means do so. This is greatly encouraged. But there's no need for you to slam somebody else because they agree with what you don't especially if it's to a point where you think you might end up saying something that will get you banned.

 

[godrulz]

I answered your question already. Don't like it. tough. You guys haven't answered my question. I'm an open guy. Just explain to me why God knowing something takes away your free will.

God knowing that I am sitting here typing does not take away free will. God knowing that we have a lawyer's appointment today to buy a house does not take away free will. God knowing these facts from before creation fails to distinguish possible from actual. If the future is foreknown as a certainty, it is fixed and unalterable. It could not be any other way. Some emphasize that this precludes free will and supports determinism/causation. Perhaps the emphasis should be on the logical incoherence of exhaustively knowing future free will contingencies. There is an element of uncertainty since contingent choices are one of many possibles. What is actually chosen does not become knowable until the choice is made. The best one can do in advance is speculate on possibilities/probabilites. God knows the past and present exhaustively. He has vastly greater insight than humans. This does not mean He sees possible/contingent events as certain/actual before they become so. He correctly knows reality as it is.

Though modal logic may be able to show that foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is an absurdity and contradicts genuine freedom, even for God, the uncertainty of the future could be your focus. The incompatibility of free will with foreknowledge will then intuitively follow. So, focus on the openness and uncertainty of the future before the implications to freedom. If freedom is self-evident, it follows that there is an element of uncertainty to the knowledge of choices before they become fixed objects of knowledge.

In all this, there is no limitation to the omniscience of God. God could know the future exhaustively, but this would negate freedom and leave us with a fatalistic, determined universe (closed vs open).