BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 4 thru 7)

[Shadowx]

Hey (in case you missed this post in Battle Talk Round 1-3),

While Dr. Lamerson may not be up to the task of debating Bob Enyart, Hilston certainly is. Check out his detailed refutations of Enyart's specious arguments at the link found here.

JB

I read it.

Here is a sample:

Enyart is incorrect. First, the whole premise of prioritizing God's attributes is specious and biblically untenable. Sure, from a humanistic man-is-the-measure-of-all-things philosophy, one can try to ascertain which attributes of God seem more important or more foundational or whatever. However, in the absence of scriptural teaching on such a hierarchy, it remains a humanistic assessment, which is characteristic of the Open View on just about every subject.

Hilston, where is the teaching in the scripture that God is an unemotional deity and that His creating a world full of people preprogrammed in murdering there kids unto false God's would be pleasing and glorifying to God? In fact we see the opposite IN scripture that such things did not please God, yet you assert here it would be pleasing to him and just because our "human minds" can't understand it doesn't mean it's not so..

Open Theists often accuse God of doing this or that, "all to glorify Himself." They miss the fact that everything God does or decrees (not always the same, by the way), cannot not glorify Him. If God created a world absent of evil, that would glorify Him. If God created a world that was only evil, that would glorify Him. Because our small mind cannot fully comprehend such propositions, Open Theists dismiss it out of hand. On the Open View, God is not free and is not arbitrary (please look this word up; it's NOT a bad word). If God is to glorify Himself, according to Open Theists, He is constrained by higher, superior laws that govern what God is allowed to do.

So I would argue that Hilston accuses Enyart of the very thing He approves of "Humanistic Assertions" even when scripture indicates the opposite. So why does Hilston view those scriptures as meaning the exact opposit of what they say?

Shadowx
ps: Having said that, Hilston would have made a better opponent for Enyart then Lamerson..Hilston why don't you offer to debate Enyart over these issues at some future date? Or have you?

 

[1Way]

mind vrs emotion, substantial vrs superficial

mind vrs emotion, substantial vrs superficial

Brockerst
Welcome to TOL!
You said

This debate really isn't working!

There is no real argument or debate. There is no progression of ideas. It seems there is more "preaching" going on then anything else.

We the observers in the grandstand do not visit theologyonline and follow Battle Royal X to be shown the "light" or to be TOLD the "truth." Instead we (well me anyway) want to see issues raised, then debated, then conclusions put forward, perhaps with concessions from both sides, like a war! (or a boxing bout.)

I feel the contenders are fighting different wars. Sam a battle of the mind and Bob a battle of the heart and emotion. I can't see anything of value coming from the debate if it continues as it does.

I find this to be somewhat troublesome, and somewhat accurate, at the same time.

I take a bit of exception to your take on Bob Enyart. I’m biased, I am very grateful and have benefited greatly from his teaching ministry. Bob has been both logical and reasonable. He is a great bible teacher and author. He has also done live debates, radio programs as well as a daily call in talk show. All of which may or may not mean much, except that it is my experience, and I’m sure many here would agree, that Bob Enyart is extremely logical. Don’t loose the argument because Bob also displays emotional responses as well.

Consider the following

1
Hermeneutical offering
Bob E
Clearly explained his approach and how it works. Which is essentially, conform to, and do not violate the character and being of the author (God).
Sam L
Has given the reason or goal for having a hermeneutic, and at the same time as not provided a clear hermeneutic. In fact, he violated his own demonstrated reasoning for how to understand prophecies (which is a hermeneutic issue)! Example, Sam said that the Nineveh prophecy was (obviously) conditional (it could have unfolded in more than one way), because (1) a prophesy was delivered (to the concerned party, Nineveh), and (2) they were given time prior to the conclusion of the prophesy. Either Sam was being argumentative (or terribly incomplete) and rejects his own logic, or else he is essentially self-refuting his own position over the centerpiece of his presentation for the settled view! According to Sam, Peter and Judas had to conform to the prophecy as foretold in advance, yet the prophecies both perfectly fit his recorded reasoning for why they were (obviously) a conditional/contingent prophecy! :help:

2
Historical facts about the influence of Greek/pagan philosophy into Christianity
Bob E
Has presented an exemplary repository, complete with citations just screaming out to be corrected by the opposition, if there were any (apparently Bob has presented them accurately)
Sam L
When he presents/asserts his view that God must have all the IM’s and OMNI’S, he does not alleviate himself from the Augustinian/Platonic origins, and at the same time, he has given no cogent reasoning for functionally contradicting scripture teachings that plainly deny his view such as The Son of God does NOT have all knowledge, no one knows the day or hour, not even The Son.

Also the incarnation, Jesus humbled himself and asks the Father to give Him the glory that He had previously enjoyed. (John 17:5) Having come in the flesh and from then on remains a man! These are all serious and central teachings to Christianity, and they necessarily require God to change for these changes to happen.

3
Approach to promoting their view
Bob E
Presented his arguments for the open view, and he does so by presenting a bible repository of historical (and I dare say "truthful") teachings and events.

Fundamentally resting one’s faith in the plain truth from God’s word is hardly worthy of suggesting that such a thing is a matter of emotion instead of mind. And remember, Bob has argued primarily in the negative against the settled view and has primarily waited till the 2nd half to present the open view.

Sam L
Reasons that a few prophecies that happened to unfold as predicted is sufficient to believe that God knows everything in the entire future, while at the same time self refuting himself reasoning that since (1) the Nineveh prophecy was delivered and (2) time was allotted prior to it’s fulfillment, then obviously it was a conditional/contingent prophecy.

How I agree with you is that there seems to be a lack of interaction between the two opponents. The old, "you have not answered my question" bit is overdone. Each party needs to expose their problems with the other’s responses and move the debate forward.

 

[1Way]

Jerry Shugart,
Thanks kindly for allowing me to interject my perspective over Bob’s arguments in light of your objections. You quoted me saying.

No, a reasonable expectation might be that. God knew far more than your scant description. The truth is, a lot more was going on than your idea that Peter was brave when he denied even knowing Jesus.

Then you said

I ask myself why I should even waste my time discussing these things with someone who would put words in my mouth that I never said! I never said that Peter was brave when he denied being a disciple of Christ.I said that he was evidently not afraid to risk his life for the cause when he earlier stood up and cut off the ear of one on the men who had come to arrest the Lord Jesus.

Evidently you do not want to discuss these matters in an intelligent way but instead you choose to put words in my mouth that I never said.

Please lets focus on the arguments and ideas, not imagined personal agendas. “We” were discussing the issues around Peter’s denial and Bob’s arguments from the debate about that prophecy. But you keep mentioning an earlier account when Peter cut off the ear, and you (erroneously?) keep claiming that such an act is an act of bravery instead of fear and foolhardiness, all of which is rather beside the point.

You repeatedly say that Peter was brave and not fearful as we engage discussion about the Peter’s triple denial prophesy, so I addressed your point within the context of our discussion, but now you say I’m putting words in your mouth for suggesting that you were arguing that Peter was being brave. I find all that “difficult” to follow.

As to Peter denying knowledge of Jesus and your equating that with sin. God hardened Pharaoh’s heart by beating Pharaoh at the power play. Every miracle served to strongly (but not absolutely) refute Pharaoh’s power/control issues. God won every time, but Pharaoh did not give in! Pharaoh hated God and His people and refused to humble himself to God’s will. Yet through all that, God did not violate Pharaoh’s free will, his heart was already hardened against God “prior” to God strengthening and emphasizing that issue. For God to predict and setup an opportunity for two of His disciples to falter not an example of divine exhaustive foreknowledge. It just means that God can know presently accumulated information and wisely predict and sometimes influence near future responses. Yet at the same time, sometimes God’s predictions of yet future events do NOT come to pass! Thus God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge.

Do you agree that God has the power to influence people?

Claiming that Peter denied his faith in God and did not more realistically simply give superficial expression because of fear, is still just as far fetched as it started. You have no idea if Peter actually lost faith in God because of these temptations, or if instead he was more interested in preserving his own life at the time.

I agree that God does not tempt people to sin, making notice and highlighting sin is a large part of God’s business.

Rm 7:13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.

1Cor 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.

Rom 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. ...

God can highlight and contrast the issues of sin and righteousness in peoples lives. That does not implicate God in forcing or compelling or tempting anyone to sin... Unless you think that every vile act proceeds from the mind of God... (which fits the (Calvinistic) settled view!!! And is contradictory to the open view!)

 

[Clete]

ps: Having said that, Hilston would have made a better opponent for Enyart then Lamerson..Hilston why don't you offer to debate Enyart over these issues at some future date? Or have you?

I think that there was one trying to be set up sometime last year but it fell apart for some reason. But I agree with you that Jim would make at outstanding opponent for Bob. I think Lamerson is doing about as good as any Augustinian Calvinist could but Jim would make a much more substantive argument than Lamerson has thus far made, that much is certain.

One major obstacle to getting such a debate going is that while you might think Bob Enyart's positions are less than main stream, you haven't seen nothing until you've gotten your brain around some the extremely complex and very unorthodox (small "o") beliefs that Jim Hilston holds. And so while there is some wide appeal and widespread interest in a debate between a David and a Goliath, there is much less interest in a contest between two Davids. And while both are excellent debaters, I'm afraid that is about what a debate between Bob Enyart and Jim Hilston would amount to from an impact point of view. So in other words, if Bob defeated Jim in a debate on Open Theism vs. Acts 9 Dispensational Calvinistic Presuppositionalism (or whatever Jim would call his theology) it would be great for those of us on TOL who know them both, but outside of that no one would much care. And the reverse is true as well, if Jim won, the impact would be felt most heavily here on TOL and almost nowhere else.

So all that to say that I would be one of the most interested parties alive in getting such a debate set up because I think they are both brilliant debaters but I doubt that it will ever happen. The cost/benefit ratio in terms of time spent verses impact realized just doesn't seem to add up for either of them.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[1Way]

Clete, well put. Another issue might be Hilston being a 15 pointer as opposed to being a 5 pointer. It might be interesting to us, but most interest would be lost quickly over such pedantic or obscure notions.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You repeatedly say that Peter was brave and not fearful as we engage discussion about the Peter’s triple denial prophesy, so I addressed your point within the context of our discussion, but now you say I’m putting words in your mouth for suggesting that you were arguing that Peter was being brave. I find all that “difficult” to follow.

1Way,

You did not just say that I was arguing that Peter was brave and you know it.Here is what you said:

No, a reasonable expectation might be that. God knew far more than your scant description. The truth is, a lot more was going on than your idea that Peter was brave when he denied even knowing Jesus.

I never said that he was acting brave when he denied being a disciple.You put words in my mouth that I never said,and now you are denying that you did anything wrong.

I challenge you to quote me where I ever said that Peter was being brave when he denied that he was a disciple.

 

[Shadowx]

I think that there was one trying to be set up sometime last year but it fell apart for some reason. But I agree with you that Jim would make at outstanding opponent for Bob. I think Lamerson is doing about as good as any Augustinian Calvinist could but Jim would make a much more substantive argument than Lamerson has thus far made, that much is certain.

One major obstacle to getting such a debate going is that while you might think Bob Enyart's positions are less than main stream, you haven't seen nothing until you've gotten your brain around some the extremely complex and very unorthodox (small "o") beliefs that Jim Hilston holds. And so while there is some wide appeal and widespread interest in a debate between a David and a Goliath, there is much less interest in a contest between two Davids. And while both are excellent debaters, I'm afraid that is about what a debate between Bob Enyart and Jim Hilston would amount to from an impact point of view. So in other words, if Bob defeated Jim in a debate on Open Theism vs. Acts 9 Dispensational Calvinistic Presuppositionalism (or whatever Jim would call his theology) it would be great for those of us on TOL who know them both, but outside of that no one would much care. And the reverse is true as well, if Jim won, the impact would be felt most heavily here on TOL and almost nowhere else.

I briefly debated with him..some..(Hilston) so I'm not completely unfamiliar with his beliefs, although he would say I'm way off

So all that to say that I would be one of the most interested parties alive in getting such a debate set up because I think they are both brilliant debaters but I doubt that it will ever happen. The cost/benefit ratio in terms of time spent verses impact realized just doesn't seem to add up for either of them.

Yet, at least one of them continues to spend time directly refuting the other..
If it would be an issue of lack of time to spend, when that time needs to be spent making a living, I'd be willing to put up some money.

It's not that Sam isn't qualified or that I am not really enjoying this debate, I am.
It's just based on reading some of Hilstons stuff vs Sams, I believe it would be a more interesting debate. Hilston v Enyart.

 

[Clete]

Yet, at least one of them continues to spend time directly refuting the other..

Well there's little debating that Hilston would stand to gain far more from a victory over Bob then Bob would with a victory over Hilston. Not that this means Jim has any ulterior motives, I don't believe he does at all. But I think it's rather obvious that Bob would have more to lose than to gain by engaging in any formal debate with Jim and Jim would have more to gain than to lose.

Of course that's only my opinion. I suppose, after thinking about it, that I really don't know Jim as much as I feel like I do and so none of the above statement is by any means a foregone conclusion but it is what my gut tells me is the case. Maybe I'm wrong. Either way, I'd really, really love it if they were to debate Open Theism or if not that, perhaps we could get Bob to simply respond to what Jim feels are the strongest arguments against the Open View. A one round debate if you will.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Leonard A]

God Makes Mistakes

God Makes Mistakes

Greetings All,

Bob Enyart wirtes:

So Sam, along with millions of Settled Viewers, you discount the historical error correction regarding the LORD repenting.

Response:

I have pulled out this statement for emphasis. NOTE: Read the context and it says that God makes mistakes. God needs to recover from something that His analysis did not take into account. Thus, He reverses or modifies His action based upon this new data.

A person can conclude the following:

God learns from an outside source.
God is bound by time.
Time and circumstances govern God. He is not the supreme being.

If someone carries this belief to the end of their life, these beliefs will witness against them when they stand before the Judge at the “Great White Throne.”

I have confidence in the inspired statement by Paul, recorded below.

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature,shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8: 38,39

“nor any other creature”
If you can think of anything that can defeat, sway, reverse, or modify God’s desire, insert it there. In this case time and circumstances.

Stop and Consider.

Leonard A.
2 Tim. 2:19


.

 

[Vaquero45]

God learns from an outside source.

Genesis 2 "to see what he would name them"

God is bound by time.

"bound"? Overstates the idea.

Time and circumstances govern God. He is not the supreme being.

Neh 9:30 Yet for many years You had patience with them,
And testified against them by Your Spirit in Your prophets.
Yet they would not listen;
Therefore You gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands.
NKJV

Here we have God's patience measured by time and God reacting to creatures, (as you protested below) and circumstance (They did not listen)

Does Neh. 9:30 prove that God "is not the supreme being"?

If someone carries this belief to the end of their life, these beliefs will witness against them when they stand before the Judge at the “Great White Throne.”

Bema Seat?

I have confidence in the inspired statement by Paul, recorded below.

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature,shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8: 38,39

“nor any other creature”
If you can think of anything that can defeat, sway, reverse, or modify God’s desire, insert it there. In this case time and circumstances.

This doesn't apply at all to what Bob wrote. The verse specifies "able to separate us from the love of God".

Jeff

 

[1Way]

Jerry Shugart,
If you can't/wont focus on the arguments presented, I can see why you are having trouble with it. Again, please stop with the arguments about a person's intentions. You were arguing about Peter's denial prophecy by saying that he was brave just before it happened, that is a fact, and after repeatedly trying to get you to respond to this disparity, I shortened the issue to sharpen the focus because you have yet to respond to the argument.

However, if you renounce your argument about Peter being brave verses being fearful (according to your own exact words and intentions), then great, move on with it.

(1)
Your bravery comments are close but no cigar, Peter was afraid during his denials, an earlier state of mind does not necessarily dictate a later one. (Right?)

(2)
Some acts of "bravery" are sometimes more accurately classified as acts of fear. Wouldn't you agree that sometimes this distinction is hard to determine?

Thanks,
1Way

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry Shugart,
If you can't/wont focus on the arguments presented, I can see why you are having trouble with it. Again, please stop with the arguments about a person's intentions.

That is what the argument is about.What the Lord Jesus could know about the "intentions" of Peter when He made His prediction.

You were arguing about Peter's denial prophecy by saying that he was brave just before it happened, that is a fact, and after repeatedly trying to get you to respond to this disparity, I shortened the issue to sharpen the focus because you have yet to respond to the argument.

Yes,you shortened it by making a statement about what I said that was not true.I never said that Peter was brave when he was denying the Lord.Here are your own words:

No, a reasonable expectation might be that. God knew far more than your scant description. The truth is, a lot more was going on than your idea that Peter was brave when he denied even knowing Jesus.

I challenged you to quote me where I ever said such a thing,but you cannot.Instead of apologizing for misrepresenting what I said you continue to make excuses.

However, if you renounce your argument about Peter being brave verses being fearful (according to your own exact words and intentions), then great, move on with it.

I said that he was brave when he cut off the ear of one of the men who came to arrest the Lord Jesus,so I have no reason to "renounce" what I said.You continue to be blind to the fact that you misrepresented what I said and you have no intention whatsoever to set the record straight.

And you have no comment to make in regard to the verse that I provided that demonstrates that Peter's denial was a "sin"--"whatever is not of faith is sin".

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

 

[1Way]

Jerry Shugart,
Our discussion was about Peter's denial (you agree!), not what happened before or after. You also do not deny “trying to argue” about Peter’s demonstrated bravery (in recent events concurrent to the denials). I agree you did not say Peter was being brave when denying knowing Jesus. But that was not my point, to directly quote you, it was my continued attempt to get you to get back on focus over Peter’s denial. I thought that my attempt to get you to get back on focus was warranted, no offense intended, so please get back on track. However, if you do not take back your arguments from Peter’s bravery, then my response has been two fold against that view. (1) An earlier emotion does not necessarily dictate a later one. And (2) Peter’s so called bravery might have been a fear response instead of bravery. Not enough info to tell for sure.

Please
either
drop the bravery argument,
or
respond to my two arguments against your bravery argument.


As to your sin argument. I say that knowing if Peter's word's faithfully depicted his spiritual morality at those moments was not easy to determine.

After all, men throughout history are well known for
a) Always speaking the truth accurately, especially when it comes to their own heart/spirituality
or
b) Often messing up the truth in numerous ways

However, I do “not” want to argue whether or not Peter actually sinned. I would tend to agree with your estimation that Peter actually sinned because Jesus seemed to imply his “repentance” and so as such this seemed to be an issue of Peter lacking faith. If I was to argue about this, even granting that Peter sinned, for Jesus to call attention to Peter’s problem of ensuing sin does not harm to the open view. The function suggested is that God influences behavior in extraordinarily effective ways, not “controlling” it, thus violating man’s free will. So that discussion is beside the point.

Back to the point at hand
My comment questioning your view about that was more about whether or not “speaking a lie was necessarily sinful”. I say it is not.

I do not know for sure about Peter’s denial and it’s implication with sin. Certainly, lying is not all by itself a sin. Your claim that Peter denied his faith (presumably in Christ) seems argumentative, especially without any support reasoning.

Please respond to the lying as equated with sinning issue. Sorry if I was not focused enough about that issue. Unfortunately, things like that happen from time to time, we do not always speak or hear with the clarity we'd like.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Shadowx: consider Post 7B dedicated to you!

Shadowx: consider Post 7B dedicated to you!

From his Critique thread post:

I believe It's time for some bullets Bob. Show, in bright glowing neon colors, where you point blank answerd Sam and where he did not answer you. And anything you have not answerd, answer it.

Shadowx: consider Post 7B dedicated to you!

-Bob

 

[Shadowx]

From his Critique thread post:


Shadowx: consider Post 7B dedicated to you!

-Bob

Fire away :chuckle:

Shadowx
(Danny)

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jeremy asked:

…in Exodus 32:14, when God repented of the harm He said He would do to His people," what did God really mean here? Did God truly intend to consume His children with fire (Exodus 32:9,10) or did He foreknow Moses' prayer and His own repentance.

Did God truly intend to consume His children with fire?

Of course not.The verse Jeremy refers to is not to be taken literally,any more than the following words of the Lord spoken to Adam after he had sinned::

” And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?”(Gen.3:9).

Jeremy,do you believe that the Lord did not even know where Adam was?Of course this verse is not to be taken in a literal manner any more than Exodus 32:14.And what about these words of the Lord to Adam?:

” Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?”(Gen.3:11).

Did the Lord not really know whether or not Adam had eaten of the forbideen tree?Of course He did.But if we are to take that verse literally then we must believe that the Lord did not know whether or not Adam had eaten from the forbidden tree.

At Exodus 32:14 we can know that the Lord never intended to consume His children with fire because previously He had already made this promise:

” The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be”(Gen.49:10).

If the Lord had intended to kill all of the children of Israel except for Moses then He would have known that He would not been able to fulfill that promise because there would be no descendants left from the tribe of Judah.

When the Lord says something He will make it good:

”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).

But those who follow Bob Enyart’s brand of Open Theology are quick to defend their mistaken views by saying that God can speak but not make it good.They say that God can be wrong!

They cling with an iron tenacity to the idea that verses like Exodus 32:14 should be taken literally even though they must admit that according to their ideas the Lord might make a promise and then break it!

But better God be wrong than their theology.

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

 

[Jerry Shugart]

1Way,

Earlier you said this about my contention that when Peter denied being a disciple of Christ that he sinned:

I do not know for sure about Peter’s denial and it’s implication with sin. Certainly, lying is not all by itself a sin. Your claim that Peter denied his faith (presumably in Christ) seems argumentative, especially without any support reasoning.

I can see that we are making progress by what you said later:

I would tend to agree with your estimation that Peter actually sinned because Jesus seemed to imply his “repentance” and so as such this seemed to be an issue of Peter lacking faith.

If God arranged it so that Peter would deny that he was a disciple of Christ,then it is clear that God arranged circumstances whereby Peter would sin.

And Bob Enyart said this,and there can be no doubt that he is saying that God would intervene to fulfill prophecy:

So God knows the hearts of men (as all sides agree), and He has influence and power to intervene (as all sides agree), and God would especially intervene to fulfill prophecy (as all sides agree)! [emphasis mine]

And Bob even has God “producing” accusers:

If the Magi could find the Babe in a manager, then whether Peter went to Bethany on the far side of Olivet, or back into the city, God would be able to produce accusers. And those accusations would not be temptations to do evil (James 1:13-14), but simple questions of whether Peter knew the Lord.

So we see that Bob said that God would especially intercede to fulfill prophecy,and that He would be able to provide accusers.It sure seems as if Bob is saying that God is influencing events in order to fulfill the prophecy that Peter would deny the Lord Jesus three times.

In fact,his whole argument is based on this idea:

Even if all men were utterly impotent to influence others, God is not. The typical person who hung around Caiaphas’ household would be inclined of his own accord to question Peter…

But since Bob knows that if God was intervening to make the prophecy come true then God would be tempting Peter to sin,and Bob also knows that God would do no such thing.So even though he continually used the argument that God would intervene to make the prophecy come true he then backs away and says that those “accusations would not be temptations to do evil”.

How can that be?

If the Lord Jesus knew that Peter would deny Him three times,then He must have also knew that if confronted with accusations that he was a disciple of His then Peter would deny those accusations.So if God intervened and produced those who would accuse Peter then the Lord had to know that these accusations would be temptations to deny Him and by doing so Peter would sin.

But Bob wants it both ways.First he backs up his argument that the Lord would intervene to make sure the prophecy came true:

So God knows the hearts of men (as all sides agree), and He has influence and power to intervene (as all sides agree), and God would especially intervene to fulfill prophecy (as all sides agree)![emphasis mine]

And then he turns around and says that God would not do anything to “make certain” that the prophecy came true:

Actually, I utterly disagree that God wanted Peter to deny Christ AT ALL, let alone “make certain” of it.

If God did not want to make certain that the prophecy of the Lord Jesus came true then why would He produce three accussers in order to get the results which was prophesised by the Lord Jesus?

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

 

[chatmaggot]

Jerry,

I think you are mistaken when you say "But those who follow Bob Enyart’s brand of Open Theology are quick to defend their mistaken views by saying that God can speak but not make it good.They say that God can be wrong!"

It's not that God can be wrong...it's that God has the freedom to change His intentions when the situations warrant it. If He says that He is going to do something...but then the people turn on Him...he isn't stuck by His word. He has the right to not do what He said if the situations change.

Consider the following example:

A dad says to his kids "we are going to Disney Land next week". From that day forward the kids act up and are total brats for a week straight. Their grades drop, they are disrespectful to their parents, they steal money from grandma, etc..

When the time comes when the dad said that he was going to take them to Dinay Land...he doesn't. Why? Becuase his kids didn't deserve it any longer.

According to you...if this were God...He would HAVE to take them because He said He would. God is not bound by His word if the situations change. God is a just God and it is right for Him to not do something that He said He would if He wants to not do it.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry,

I think you are mistaken when you say "But those who follow Bob Enyart’s brand of Open Theology are quick to defend their mistaken views by saying that God can speak but not make it good.They say that God can be wrong!"

chatmaggot,

Sam asked Bob:

"Is it possible for God’s prophecy to be incorrect?"

To which Bob answered,"Yes."

It's not that God can be wrong...it's that God has the freedom to change His intentions when the situations warrant it.

If God makes a prophecy and then changes His mind after that prophecy is made then He was obviously "wrong" when He made that prophecy.

Consider the following example:

A dad says to his kids "we are going to Disney Land next week". From that day forward the kids act up and are total brats for a week straight. Their grades drop, they are disrespectful to their parents, they steal money from grandma, etc..

When the time comes when the dad said that he was going to take them to Dinay Land...he doesn't. Why? Becuase his kids didn't deserve it any longer.

According to you...if this were God...He would HAVE to take them because He said He would. God is not bound by His word if the situations change. God is a just God and it is right for Him to not do something that He said He would if He wants to not do it.

Yes,a "man" might change his mind and fail to bring about something which he said that he would do,but God is not like a man in that:

"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).

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

 

[chatmaggot]

Jerry,

God doesn't repent in the same manner that man repents. God doesn't repent because He did something bad. God has the right to say He is going to do something...and then not do it due to a change in the circumstances. Don't you agree?

Does God have the right to "repent" i.e. turn from something he said that He was going to do if everyone turned on Him?