BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)

[Poly]

I enjoyed Bob's call with Dr. Lamerson today on his show. It was encouraging to hear Dr. Lamerson speak of his parents in such a neat way in that they were Godly parents who raised him in the admonition of the Lord. This really seems to be evident in his great love for God.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry,

Yes, my computer had some issues, but I answered your questions.

Jeremy,

Here are your own last words from the debate:

I apologize for Round V being cut short. My computer crashed last night due to a virus, and I lost everything. I had to post this round from my dad’s computer. I plan to respond to Jerry’s questions in the commentary section after this is all over.

You never responded to my questions in the commentary section after the debate.

Here's your verse Jerry. Do you see how the CONTEXT clearly shows that God will not change His mind in this instance? No matter what lies Saul comes up with, God will not change His mind and restore Saul to the throne.

No,the Lord here is speaking about His very nature,and He is using what He reveals to demonstrate that He will do what He said:

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"(Num.23:19).

We can know that He is speaking of His nature because He is comparing His nature to the nature of a man.

In HIs grace,--Jerry

 

[1Way]

Hey everyone. I just printed out the first round. Looking forward to reading it, and maybe getting involved here. I'm sure Bob will do a great job, he has a remarkable grasp of the bible.

Blessings

 

[Poly]

Hey everyone. I just printed out the first round. Looking forward to reading it, and maybe getting involved here. I'm sure Bob will do a great job, he has a remarkable grasp of the bible.

Blessings

Great to see you, 1Way! It's been a while. Glad to see you're sticking around for the Battle. :up:

 

[Servo]

Hey everyone. I just printed out the first round. Looking forward to reading it, and maybe getting involved here. I'm sure Bob will do a great job, he has a remarkable grasp of the bible.

Blessings

Welcome back 1Way!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I know what I said, but now....
Why?, because..Them that honor me..I honor..them that don't, I don't..
I changed my mind Eli, based on your actions..

Shadowx,

Here are the words from the "New Scofield Study Bible" in regard to the verses where the Scriptures speak of God "repenting":

"When applied to God,the word is used phenomenally,according to O.T. custom.God seems to change His mind.The phenomena are such as,in the case of a man,would indicate a change of mind"(Note at Zech.8:14).

The same type of figurative language can be seen in the following verse despite the fact those who follow Bob Enyart's version of "Open Theology" interpret it literally:

"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).

If we use our common sense we can know that this narrative is not to be read employing a wooden literalism.If we take it literally then we can see that the Lord did not know whether or not Abraham feared God until He saw the outward act of Abraham taking the knife to slay his son,Isaac.

However,when the Lord describes His own attributes we can see that He does not need to see outward acts to know whether a man fears Him or not:

"But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart"(1Sam.16:7).

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[RightIdea]

Jeremy,

Here are your own last words from the debate:

You never responded to my questions in the commentary section after the debate.

No,the Lord here is speaking about His very nature,and He is using what He reveals to demonstrate that He will do what He said:

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"(Num.23:19).

We can know that He is speaking of His nature because He is comparing His nature to the nature of a man.

In HIs grace,--Jerry

Jerry, with all due respect, the fact remains that when He says in 1 Samuel that He doesn't repent.... the specific thing that He is not repenting of... is that fact that He DID just repent a few verses earlier. That verse is not talking about His nature, but about a specific one-time event. He did repent, and He will now not repent of that repentance. That first repentance will stand, He will not reverse it.

Do you not concede this?

In regards to Numbers, this passage must be interpreted in light of other passages in which God explicitly states that He will do something, only for us to see that He did not then do it. There are multiple examples of this, the least of which is the story of Jonah. So, how can you claim this Numbers verse is universally applicable, when God - speaking in the first person (which I really love) - tells us numerous times that He will do X.... but then He does NOT do it?

In Numbers, He is speaking of that particular situation, as Jeremy pointed out. This must be so, because we know for a fact that elsewhere, God says He will do X, and then He doesn't do it.

"Hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" Yes, indeed this occurs multiple times. Are you unfamiliar with such passages? If so, we can introduce them to you.

In Jeremiah 18, itself, God explicitly states that He said He would do X, but now He will not do it.

Do you not concede this?

 

[RightIdea]

Shadowx,

Here are the words from the "New Scofield Study Bible" in regard to the verses where the Scriptures speak of God "repenting":

"When applied to God,the word is used phenomenally,according to O.T. custom.God seems to change His mind.The phenomena are such as,in the case of a man,would indicate a change of mind"(Note at Zech.8:14).

The same type of figurative language can be seen in the following verse despite the fact those who follow Bob Enyart's version of "Open Theology" interpret it literally:

"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).

If we use our common sense we can know that this narrative is not to be read employing a wooden literalism.If we take it literally then we can see that the Lord did not know whether or not Abraham feared God until He saw the outward act of Abraham taking the knife to slay his son,Isaac.

However,when the Lord describes His own attributes we can see that He does not need to see outward acts to know whether a man fears Him or not:

"But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart"(1Sam.16:7).

In His grace,--Jerry

On no, my own family's study Bible (he's most likely distantly related) being used against us? LOL I didn't forsee that one...

I see, Jerry... so what you're claiming is that those passages are simply man's perspective rather than God's perspective. (As you may recall, the debate is very specifically being restricted to discussing God's perspective and not man's.)

So, in other words... God divinely inspired men to write something in scripture that is 180 degrees opposite of the truth... simply because it's man's perspective?

Jerry, I don't know about you, but when I want to learn about man's perspective of God, I don't go to the Bible. Maybe the Bahgavad Gita, or the Book of Mormon.... But when I want God's perspective about God, I go to the Bible.

If the Bible is simply fully of man's perspective about God, then my gosh, what good is it??? If that's the case, it belongs in my trash can, not on the highest shelf of my desk and on altars in churches everywhere.

Would you really have us believe that God inspired the authors of the Bible to write something that is 180 degrees opposite of the truth... .simply because He wants the Bible to be man's perspective about God?

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Jeremy,

You never responded to my questions in the commentary section after the debate.

If memory serves, I answered all of your questions. As usual, you didn't like the answers and found new ways to ask them. If there's anything in particular you would like answered, feel free to ask...

No,the Lord here is speaking about His very nature,and He is using what He reveals to demonstrate that He will do what He said:

Wow... Yet another waste of time. I pose a valid alternative to your position, and you refuse to respond to any of my specific points... I guess things never change, do they Jerry?

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"(Num.23:19).

We can know that He is speaking of His nature because He is comparing His nature to the nature of a man.

So, I guess Numbers 23:19 has nothing to do with God refusing to be bribed... :rotfl: Take care Jerry, and good luck in your search for truth...

God Bless,

--Jeremy

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, with all due respect, the fact remains that when He says in 1 Samuel that He doesn't repent.... the specific thing that He is not repenting of... is that fact that He DID just repent a few verses earlier. That verse is not talking about His nature, but about a specific one-time event.

Rightidea,

If the verse is not about His nature then why do we see Him comparing His nature to the nature of a man?

We can see the same principle when the Lord reveals another aspect of His nature,and again He compares this one aspect of His to a man:

"But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart"(1Sam.16:7).

The Lord spoke those words in regard to a specific one-time event but that does not change the fact that He can look into the heart of man.

In regards to Numbers, this passage must be interpreted in light of other passages in which God explicitly states that He will do something, only for us to see that He did not then do it. There are multiple examples of this, the least of which is the story of Jonah. So, how can you claim this Numbers verse is universally applicable, when God - speaking in the first person (which I really love) - tells us numerous times that He will do X.... but then He does NOT do it?

The example that I presented of figurative language in regard to Abraham and Isaac should suffice to answer any verses that are set in a "narrative" that seem to indicate that God changes His mind.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If memory serves, I answered all of your questions. As usual, you didn't like the answers and found new ways to ask them. If there's anything in particular you would like answered, feel free to ask...

Jeremy,

Since you specifically said that you would answer my questions in the commentary section I wonder why you never did.

I pose a valid alternative to your position, and you refuse to respond to any of my specific points... I guess things never change, do they Jerry?

I did respond to your points,Jeremy.You said that the Lord was not revealing things about His very nature but I said that it is evident that He is indeed comparing His nature with that of a man.

So, I guess Numbers 23:19 has nothing to do with God refusing to be bribed...Take care Jerry, and good luck in your search for truth...

I never said that.Instead,I said that He stated things concerning His very nature to show that He will not change His mind and therefore will not be bribed.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Shadowx]

I'm going to do something..but now..I'm not

I'm going to do something..but now..I'm not

So..you wrote all this to say that God didn't change his mind "really" when he told Eli, "I know I said all that, but now because of your actions towards me, forget it?

I was pointing out that the verse you posted..."Hath he said and hath he not done", which follows, "The Lord is not a man that he should repent"you are using in a broad to wooden, mechanically literal way. Sometimes love changes..

With regards to Saul. God is only saying to Saul, forget it, my mind is now set.
That verse is not saying that God never swears to do something, only to change his mind based on human behaviour, it's confirming it. He initially told Saul he would do A, only to do B. Why did he change his mind, or did he? Is that a real change or not?

Has God ever said I'm doing A, only to do B?
If so, how do you explain this?

Danny

Shadowx,

Here are the words from the "New Scofield Study Bible" in regard to the verses where the Scriptures speak of God "repenting":

"When applied to God,the word is used phenomenally,according to O.T. custom.God seems to change His mind.The phenomena are such as,in the case of a man,would indicate a change of mind"(Note at Zech.8:14).

The same type of figurative language can be seen in the following verse despite the fact those who follow Bob Enyart's version of "Open Theology" interpret it literally:

"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).

If we use our common sense we can know that this narrative is not to be read employing a wooden literalism.If we take it literally then we can see that the Lord did not know whether or not Abraham feared God until He saw the outward act of Abraham taking the knife to slay his son,Isaac.

However,when the Lord describes His own attributes we can see that He does not need to see outward acts to know whether a man fears Him or not:

"But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart"(1Sam.16:7).

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I see, Jerry... so what you're claiming is that those passages are simply man's perspective rather than God's perspective. (As you may recall, the debate is very specifically being restricted to discussing God's perspective and not man's.)

When the Scriptures speak of the sun "rising" is that not from man's perspective?It appears to man that the sun is rising,but actually it is the earth that rotates.

So, in other words... God divinely inspired men to write something in scripture that is 180 degrees opposite of the truth... simply because it's man's perspective?

Did God inspire the words of Mark when he spoke of "the rising of the sun"(Mk.16:2)?

Of course He did but at the same time we know that the sun does not actually rise.

Jerry, I don't know about you, but when I want to learn about man's perspective of God, I don't go to the Bible. Maybe the Bahgavad Gita, or the Book of Mormon.... But when I want God's perspective about God, I go to the Bible.

Yes,but you realize that figurative language is used in the Bible,don't you?

Would you really have us believe that God inspired the authors of the Bible to write something that is 180 degrees opposite of the truth... .simply because He wants the Bible to be man's perspective about God?

Annswer my question about Mark 16:2 and you will have your answer.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Shadowx]

Samuel verse Moses

Samuel verse Moses

When the Scriptures speak of the sun "rising" is that not from man's perspective?It appears to man that the sun is rising,but actually it is the earth that rotates.

Did God inspire the words of Mark when he spoke of "the rising of the sun"(Mk.16:2)?

Of course He did but at the same time we know that the sun does not actually rise.

Jerry, how are you able to determine the verses about Saul, where God says I'm going to do this, but then says forget it, I'm going to something else, is from God's perspective and he is not really changing His mind, yet the others that say God changed his mind are from mans?

How do you know that Samuel got it right about God and the rest where just speaking of God from their perspective on the issue of repenting, not knowing the sun really doesn't rise?

Which writers in the Bible got it technically right about the issue of God repenting?
Moses...samuel..who?

Danny

 

[RightIdea]

Wow, Jerry totally ignored almost all of my points as well. I'm shocked. :chuckle:


God said He would do X, and then He didn't do it? Over and over again? Jerry doesn't bat an eyelash. (Those blinders certainly work for him as well as they do for horses.)

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Wow, Jerry totally ignored almost all of my points as well. I'm shocked.

I notice that you said nothing about the rising of the sun.

God said He would do X, and then He didn't do it? Over and over again? Jerry doesn't bat an eyelash. (Those blinders certainly work for him as well as they do for horses.)

I addressed that also,but you do not seem to understand.At Numbers 23:19 the Lord is speaking about His nature.We know this because He is comparing His nature with the nature of man.And according to His nature He will not lie and He will not change His mind.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, how are you able to determine the verses about Saul, where God says I'm going to do this, but then says forget it, I'm going to something else, is from God's perspective and he is not really changing His mind, yet the others that say God changed his mind are from mans?

As I have repeatedly said,when the Lord God is speaking of His nature then those are the words that should guide us in regard to His nature.If a verse from a narrative contrdicts what God says about His nature then we know that the language there is figurative.

How do you know that Samuel got it right about God and the rest where just speaking of God from their perspective on the issue of repenting, not knowing the sun really doesn't rise?

The words at Numbers 23:19 are described as being what the Lord spoke (Num.23:17).And there He is describing His nature.

Which writers in the Bible got it technically right about the issue of God repenting?
Moses...samuel..who?

Moses wrote the book of Numbers,and it is there where we read of the nature of God in regard to His changing His mind.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Bob Enyart said:

God the Son was not always a man. He “became flesh” (John 1:14). Became is a change word. The Incarnation is not just a figure of speech, and it shows that God can undergo infinite change.

Did the very nature of God undergo an "infinite change" when He "became flesh"?

Was He not the Son of Man before He became flesh?:

"What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before"(Jn.6:62).

The Son of man was in heaven before He "became flesh".The Lord Jesus declared explicitly that the Son of man descended out of heaven:

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven"(Jn.3:13).

Sir Robert Anderson wrote:

The revelation of the Son of Man will lead the spiritual Christian, who has learned to note the hidden harmony of Scripture, to recall the language of the creation story: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." The type," as the biologist would phrase it, is not the creature of Eden, but He after whose likeness the creature was fashioned. And this suggests the solution of a "mystery." We are but men, and while angels behold the face of God, no man hath seen Him or can see Him. We are "flesh and blood," and "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." And yet as men we are to dwell in heavenly glory; and that wonderful promise shall be fulfilled to us-" They shall see His face."

How is this seeming paradox to be explained? "Flesh and blood" are not essential to humanity. True it is that, as "the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same. He assumed "a natural body." "For there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." The one pertains to "the first man," who is "of the earth earthy, the other to "the second Man," who is "of heaven." For the Lord from heaven is "Very Man," and it is as Man that He is now upon the throne. But the body is not the man: it is but the tent, the outward dress, as it were, which covers Him. And He is "the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever " the same who once trod the roads of Galilee and the streets of Jerusalem. He is enthroned as Man, but no longer now in "flesh and blood." For ere He "passed through the heavens" He changed His dress.(Anderson,"The Lord From Heaven",p.31-32).

 

[godrulz]

Post of the year nomination. Just for the truth smack prensentation of it. That was great Jeremy.

I concur. Very good, clear exegesis.

 

[chance]

Jerry lacks the epistemic humility needed to discuss interpreting the Bible seriously. All hail the infallible Jerry Sherbert!