BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 4 thru 7)

[*Acts9_12Out*]

If you take a "literal" reading of the verse then you are absolutely correct.But you failed to address the verses where I demonstrated that we cannot always take the things revealed in a "narrative" literally.

Or do you believe that we should take the following words of the Lord addressed to Adam in a literal sense?

"Where are thou?"(Gen.3:9).

Jeremy,do you believe that we should take these words literally and believe that God did not even know the location of Adam?And what about these words addressed to Adam:

"Have thou eaten of the tree...?"(Gen.3:11).

Are we to take a "literal" reading of those words and teach that the Lord did not even know whether or not Adam had eaten from the forbiddeen tree?

Jerry,

Doogieduff has addressed this quite well. There's a huge difference between God asking a rhetorical question and God making a declarative statement. When God asks the above questions, all agree that He already knows the answer. When I come out of my bedroom, check my son's room (and see that it is messy), and then ask, "Jared... Is your room clean?" I already know the answer. Likewise, when God asked Adam those questions, He knew the answer.

Now Jerry, if I say, "Jared, I'm taking you, your mother and sister to Disneyland tomorrow," (knowing full well that I can't afford a trip like that, and knowing full well that my kids have school). Jared replies, "Dad, I have a huge Math test two days from now. If I miss that test, I'll fail and be held back a year." I reply, "OK son, we'll stay home so you can take your math test." I made a statement that my son believed to be true, but I "foreknew" that I would change my mind. Am I a liar then Jerry? I would think so... You continue,

We must use our common sense when we attempt to decide whether or not a verse is to be taken literally or figuratively.And you did not even address my point as to why I do not believe that Exodus 32;9,10 is to be taken literally.

Common sense and Scripture... More in a moment...

The Lord had already prophesised of things that will happen to the natural posterity of Jacob "in the last days"(Gen.49:1),and so if the Lord did destroy all the children of Israel then the Lord's prophecy would have failed.

But for you this must not be a problem because I would guess that you agree with Bob Enyart that when God makes a prophecy it might or might not come true.

Jerry, we've been down this road before. I've already provided ample evidence that God would have spared Moses, Joshua and Caleb... Problem solved...

Jeremy,was the Lord just kidding when He asked Adam where he was?Was He just kidding when He asked Adam if he had eaten from the forbidden tree?

No. God was treating Adam like a child who had just sinned for the first time.

And it is your mistaken views that would leave one with the idea that God is a liar.According to you the Lord would make promises and reveal those promises in the Scriptures but then at a later time He would do something that would make it impossible for Him to carry out those promises.

Actually Jerry, God's Word makes it clear that He changes his declarative statements based on our repentance, or lack thereof...

Now, back to your previous statement...

We must use our common sense when we attempt to decide whether or not a verse is to be taken literally or figuratively.And you did not even address my point as to why I do not believe that Exodus 32;9,10 is to be taken literally.

How about if we use God's Word?

Ezekiel 20
5 “Say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “On the day when I chose Israel and raised My hand in an oath to the descendants of the house of Jacob, and made Myself known to them in the land of Egypt, I raised My hand in an oath to them, saying, ‘I am the Lord your God.’
6 “On that day I raised My hand in an oath to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt into a land that I had searched out for them, ‘flowing with milk and honey,’ the glory of all lands.
7 “Then I said to them, ‘Each of you, throw away the abominations which are before his eyes, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.’

God promised deliverance from bondage and provision for blessing. He assured Israel He would take them out of Egypt into a land flowing with milk and honey, the most beautiful of all lands. In His grace God asked the nation only to be faithful to Him, and to turn from the vile images and idols of Egypt. Did they do what God asked Jerry?

Ezekiel 20
8 “But they rebelled against Me and would not obey Me. They did not all cast away the abominations which were before their eyes, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt. Then I said, ‘I will pour out My fury on them and fulfill My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.’
9 “But I acted for My name’s sake, that it should not be profaned before the Gentiles among whom they were, in whose sight I had made Myself known to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt.

God states that He planned to destroy Israel while they were still in Egypt! However, He "acted for His name's sake," spared them, and led them out of Egypt into the wilderness. The Book of Exodus did not detail Israel’s religious life before the Exodus, but Ezekiel was inspired to document that it was a time of apostasy. Israel refused to heed God’s command. They did not remove the vile images nor forsake the idols of Egypt. This rebellion deserved judgment, so God was ready to pour out His wrath on them in Egypt. Yet the wrath did not come; Israel was spared. Israel’s being spared from God’s wrath was not because of any goodness on their part. It was only because of God’s grace and mercy: for the sake of His name. Keep reading Jerry...

Exodus 20
10 "Therefore I made them go out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness.
11 And I gave them My statutes and showed them My judgments, 'which, if a man does, he shall live by them.'
12 Moreover I also gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between them and Me, that they might know that I am the Lord who sanctifies them.

Next Ezekiel discussed God’s relationship to the first generation (vv. 10-17) and to the second generation (vv. 18-26). The wilderness experience began with another outpouring of God’s grace, by which He led them out of Egypt and into the desert. Those listening to Ezekiel would remember hearing about the miracle at the Red Sea when God parted the waters for Israel and delivered them from Pharaoh’s pursuing army. God did not rescue Israel only to abandon her in the heat of the desert. He saved her from Egypt so that He could set her apart to Himself as His special nation. The Books of Exodus and Leviticus contain God’s Laws and statutes for His Chosen People. God singled out one of His laws (the Sabbaths) as a visible manifestation of the Mosaic Covenant. It was a sign to the Israelites that they were God’s special people and were obligated to keep His Law.

Ezekiel 20
13 Yet the house of Israel rebelled against Me in the wilderness; they did not walk in My statutes; they despised My judgments, 'which, if a man does, he shall live by them'; and they greatly defiled My Sabbaths. Then I said I would pour out My fury on them in the wilderness, to consume them.
14 But I acted for My name's sake, that it should not be profaned before the Gentiles, in whose sight I had brought them out.
15 So I also raised My hand in an oath to them in the wilderness, that I would not bring them into the land which I had given them, 'flowing with milk and honey,' the glory of all lands,
16 because they despised My judgments and did not walk in My statutes, but profaned My Sabbaths; for their heart went after their idols.
17 Nevertheless My eye spared them from destruction. I did not make an end of them in the wilderness.

Jerry, what do you think verses 10-17 are referring to? That's right, Exodus 32:9-14! Instead of responding in obedience to God’s gracious provision, the nation disobeyed and rebelled against His rule and kept on in idolatry. God’s response was the same as His response in Egypt. The people deserved to die, but for the sake of His name, He spared them. There was a temporal judgment, though. Those who had sinned were not allowed into the Promised Land (v. 15). Guess what Jerry? Feel free to read Ezekiel 20:18-26. We have yet another instance of God stating that He was going to pour out His wrath, but did not...

So you see Jerry, common sense and Scripture help us to determine when the Bible uses figurative language, and when it does not. God inspired Ezekiel to document His frustration with Israel in Egypt and after the Exodus. One of those documented events happened to be Exodus 32:9-14. God said He absolutely intended to consume Israel with fire, but instead, "Ezekiel 20:17 Nevertheless My eye spared them from destruction. I did not make an end of them in the wilderness."

God gives us no reason to believe His words are figurative in Exodus 32 Jerry. In fact, He goes to great lengths to clarify what He meant.

God Bless,
--Jeremy Finkenbinder

 

[Ash1]

I'm still not convinced, and here's why...

I'm still not convinced, and here's why...

Ash, all of these instances necessarily involve issues of proper translation. And there have been translations that said, "Thou shalt not kill." And you and I can look at that, and see that it is translated wrong, can we not? Because the same author then soon after writes that God commanded His people to kill! Several times! Therefore, the word in that verse in question cannot mean "kill." It must mean "murder."

By the same token, I submit to you that the passage that talks about prophecies not coming true... must be interpreted in the same way. Because those same authors that give us various prophecies also then tell us that those events didn't come to pass! It is explicitly stated as such, by the same authors! And yet, the prophets in question are lifted up as heroes, as godly men, not as false prophets. Therefore, it is quite clear that the proper interpretation of that "prophet test" is whether the prophecy genuinely failed it's purpose. Not whether it simply came to pass as stated or not. We know that many did not, and yet these men are not false prophets.

It's textual criticism 101, friend! How is this not obvious? They said X would happen. It emphatically did not happen. And yet the same authors say these are godly men, genuine prophets of God. Put 2 and 2 together, and you understand the proper interpretation of how to test a prophet.

It is the same issue.

RightIdea,

I can see how the word "murder" (NKJV) could be mistranslated as "kill" (KJV) because they are two very closely related words. And as you point out, the Bible mentions putting people to death for numerous crimes on the very next page, so "murder" is obviously the proper translation. However, "does not happen or come to pass" cannot translate to "doesn't genuinely fulfill its purpose." These are two completely different things. Without twisting the words, it is hard to imagine it meaning anything other than what it says. This is one reason a lot of people claim that true prophecy in the Bible ALWAYS happens as written sooner or later (although as Bob pointed out it doesn't). So there seems to be a contradiction here.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jeremy,

Earlier you said:

Jerry, if you argue that God "already knew" He was going to change His mind, you make God a liar. Did God really intend to destroy Israel with fire, or was He just kidding?

Was the Lord just kidding when He said that the “sun riseth”?:

"The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain"(2Sam.23:3,4).

If I say that the sun doesn’t actually rise but instead the Lord was using figurative language does that mean I am making God a liar?

It is you who makes God a liar for representing Him as One Who will make promises but then fail to carry out those promises.Your whole theology is based on the mistaken belief that God will renege on His promises despite the fact that the Scriptures speak repeatedly of His “faithfulness” (Ps.36:5;40:10;119:90).

The Hebrew word translated “faithfulness” is “emuwnah”,and when it is applied to God it means ”faithfulness,in fulfilling promises”.

But this means nothing to you.The Lord made promises in Genesis in regard to what would happen in regard to the seed of the sons of Jacob that will come to pass in the “last days”(Gen.49:1).So if the Lord really meant to destroy the children of Israel at Exodus 30:10 then He was intent on making sure that everyone would know that He is not a faithful God but instead a God who will make promises but then turn around and fail to fulfill those promises.

All you have to say about this is:

I've already provided ample evidence that God would have spared Moses, Joshua and Caleb... Problem solved...

Frankly,Jeremiah,you confuse “evidence” with your “assumptions”.You have provided no evidence that the Lord said that He would destroy the children of Israel except for Moses,Joshua and Caleb.The Lord said specifically that He would make out of “Moses” (not Joshua and not Caleb) a great nation.

Why don’t you just admit that you share the view put forth by Bob Enyart that the Lord is not faithful and He will break His promises?

Now to the events described at Exodus 32 and Ezekiel 20.Here is the verses from Ez.20:

”But they rebelled against Me and would not obey Me. They did not all cast away the abominations which were before their eyes, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt. Then I said, ‘I will pour out My fury on them and fulfill My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.’ But I acted for My name’s sake, that it should not be profaned before the Gentiles among whom they were, in whose sight I had made Myself known to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt.”(Ez.20:8,9).

If we are to take this literally then we must believe that the Lord intended that His Name would be profaned before the Gentiles.He knew that if He destroyed the children of Israel that His Name would be profaned among the Gentiles,but He must not have realized that until it was pointed out to Him by Moses:

” Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people”(Ex.32:12).

So either we can realize that this whole episode is described in figurative language or we must imagine that God did not realize that by destroying the children of Israel that His Name would be profaned among the Gentiles.

Jeremy,do you really think that the Lord didn’t realize that His action of destroying Israel would profane His Name until Moses pointed that out to Him?Imagine that,if we are going to take the description of this episode “literally” then we must believe that Moses was wiser that God Himself!

For you guys who deny that God is faithful it is no great step to now proclaim that in some instances a man can have more wisdom than God.

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

 

[Vaquero45]

,do you really think that the Lord didn’t realize that His action of destroying Israel would profane His Name until Moses pointed that out to Him?Imagine that,if we are going to take the description of this episode “literally” then we must believe that Moses was wiser that God Himself!

For you guys who deny that God is faithful it is no great step to now proclaim that in some instances a man can have more wisdom than God.

Destroying Israel would not have "profaned" God's name anymore than the flood did. You are exagerating. God showed mercy, for Moses' sake. Israel did nothing to deserve mercy, God did it because He loved Moses. (on the otherhand, you would say God said He will destroy Israel even though knew He wouldn't really do it, because He planned to confuse Jerry S, and Jeff, thousands of years later, from the foundation of the earth, for His glory?)

For you guys who deny that God is relational, it is no great step to now proclaim that in MANY instances, God lies to man.

Jeff

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Destroying Israel would not have "profaned" God's name anymore than the flood did. You are exagerating. God showed mercy, for Moses' sake.

That may be your "opinion" but we can see that that is the reason that God gave for His actions:

"But they rebelled against Me and would not obey Me. They did not all cast away the abominations which were before their eyes, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt. Then I said, ‘I will pour out My fury on them and fulfill My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.’ But I acted for My name’s sake, that it should not be profaned before the Gentiles among whom they were, in whose sight I had made Myself known to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt.”(Ez.20:8,9).

Israel did nothing to deserve mercy, God did it because He loved Moses. (on the otherhand, you would say God said He will destroy Israel even though knew He wouldn't really do it, because He planned to confuse Jerry S, and Jeff, thousands of years later, from the foundation of the earth, for His glory?)

I never said that Israel deserved mercy!

Here is what the Scriptures reveal for the reason that Israel was spared:

"Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people"(Ex.32:12,13).

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I said: Why do you choose to believe this is anthropomorphic language, when the reading the verse in it's immediate context suggests otherwise?

Jerry Shugart responded We must judge verses not just by the "immediate context" but also by what the rest of the Scriptures reveal.For instance,we know that the Lord made prophecies concerning the descendants of Jacob that would come to pass in the "last days"(Gen.49:1).We know that the Lord would not destroy the children of Israel because if He did then there would be no way that He could fulfill those promises. Therefore,the word "repent" in the following verse is being used in a figurative sense:

Oh I agree that a verse can take on more symbolic or prophetic meaning that just it’s original context … but it still must fit within it’s original context. Language is interesting that even if you don't know what one word means, you can often deduce it's meaning by the words around it. That's what we tell our children when they are still building their vocabulary.

The context in the example you gave was that God didn’t do something he had thought to do. Notice I didn't need to use the word you contend over - the word “repent”. You say that the word "repent" it is figurative. Okay, EVEN considering your position is true, obviously then, whatever unknown figure of speech it is, it means, in context, that God is not going to do the plans He had “thought” to do. (Because that’s the end result in the story!)

Even if the word “repent” wasn’t used in this story, the idea still lingers. That’s the problem you would have to overcome (and have failed to do so by dismissing it as a figure of speech) if you want to believe the settled view.

As I have aleady demonstated,figurative language is used in the "narrative" of the Bible,but when the Lord is specifically speaking of His very nature then those verses should be taken literally as describing His character.Here He is describing His nature and contrasting that nature with that of a man:

"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).

Actually God often uses figurative language whenever describing His attributes. He talk about his “arms”, “eyes” and other parts even when describing to man what His character is like. So the idea that you can read literally whenever it is speaking of God’s character and figuratively elsewhere is an indefensible position (just ask Bruce Ware!).

In the context of Numbers 23, God was saying that we would not curse Israel because He had already blessed them. You have chosen to take it out of that immediate context and apply it across the entire Bible, and you seem to be struggling to justify why you do so.


Incidently, you never answered my question. Since we agree that the "sun rising" is a figure of speech refering to how the sun appears in the sky, what do you believe the figure of speech (acroding to you) of "I repent" must mean? Does it mean that God doesn't repent? :think:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Oh I agree that a verse can take on more symbolic or prophetic meaning that just it’s original context … but it still must fit within it’s original context.

How does the following "fit within its original context"?:

"Howbeit I sent unto you all my servants the prophets, rising early and sending them, saying, Oh, do not this abominable thing that I hate"(Jer.44:4).

The Hebrew word translated "rising early" always means to rise from sleep when it is used in the OT Scriptures.Are we supposed to believe that the Lord God actually sleeps,despite the revelation that "He who keepth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep"(Ps.121:4).

Obiously Jer.44:4 is not to be taken literally.Again,how does this "fit within its original context"?

You say that the word "repent" it is figurative. Okay, EVEN considering your position is true, obviously then, whatever unknown figure of speech it is, it means, in context, that God is not going to do the plans He had “thought” to do. (Because that’s the end result in the story!)

No,it is not an "unknown figure of speech".Instead it is a figure of speech called "anthropoptheia",and that is "ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings."

Even if the word “repent” wasn’t used in this story, the idea still lingers. That’s the problem you would have to overcome (and have failed to do so by dismissing it as a figure of speech) if you want to believe the settled view.

Why have I failed just because I dismiss it as being a figure of speech?

Are you willing to argue that God actually sleeps?

So the idea that you can read literally whenever it is speaking of God’s character and figuratively elsewhere is an indefensible position (just ask Bruce Ware!).

Oh really?

As I said one must take into account what the whole Bible reveals,and not just the context.As far as the verses in the narrative in regard to His "repenting" those verses must be judged by what is revealed about Him at other places:

"For I am the Lord, I change not"(Mal.3:6).

"With whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning"(Jas.1:17).

In the context of Numbers 23, God was saying that we would not curse Israel because He had already blessed them. You have chosen to take it out of that immediate context and apply it across the entire Bible, and you seem to be struggling to justify why you do so.

Are you saying that only in the immediate context of the following verse that God will not lie,but at other times He will?

"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).

Incidently, you never answered my question. Since we agree that the "sun rising" is a figure of speech refering to how the sun appears in the sky, what do you believe the figure of speech (acroding to you) of "I repent" must mean? Does it mean that God doesn't repent? :think:

I have already ansered that many times,but obviously you are having a difficult time understanding the concept of "figurative" language.This figure of speech is called "phenomenal",meaning that the sun "appears to man to be rising".

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

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Hey Jerry,

I appreciate your posts and look forward to your answers. Let’s me respond to your last post and see if we can find some common ground.

How does the following "fit within its original context"?:

"Howbeit I sent unto you all my servants the prophets, rising early and sending them, saying, Oh, do not this abominable thing that I hate"(Jer.44:4).

The Hebrew word translated "rising early" always means to rise from sleep when it is used in the OT Scriptures.Are we supposed to believe that the Lord God actually sleeps,despite the revelation that "He who keepth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep"(Ps.121:4).

Actually the context in this passage is the case of God defending his actions towards Israel and Judah saying that He sent them warnings. The “rising early and sending them” fits the frame of the picture showing that God went with gusto towards the task of warning Israel and Judah against worshipping other Gods. That is the direct context.

Unlike the "God repented" passages, if you took out the words "rising early" from this passage you would never get the idea that God sleeps and awakens, but you would still get the direct context. Wheras in the "God repented" passages, even without that phrase, one would still have the direct context of the passages indicating God repents.

I said: You say that the word "repent" it is figurative. Okay, EVEN considering your position is true, obviously then, whatever unknown figure of speech it is, it means, in context, that God is not going to do the plans He had “thought” to do. (Because that’s the end result in the story!)

Jerry Shugart No,it is not an "unknown figure of speech".Instead it is a figure of speech called "anthropoptheia",and that is "ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings."

You misunderstood what I said.

I understand you say it is an anthropopathism, which is definately a known "type". However, I wasn’t saying the type of figure of speech was unknown, but the usage itself. For instance, “hit the road”is a known figure of speech (at least in America). The phrase “I repent” is not a known figure of speech.

I said : Even if the word “repent” wasn’t used in this story, the idea still lingers. That’s the problem you would have to overcome (and have failed to do so by dismissing it as a figure of speech) if you want to believe the settled view.

Jerry Shugart replied : Why have I failed just because I dismiss it as being a figure of speech? Are you willing to argue that God actually sleeps?

Even if the word “repent” wasn’t used in any of the Repenting stories, the idea would still be there. Would the idea of God sleeping still be there if the words “riseth early” were not in Jeremiah 44:4? No, it would not. Why not? Because the direct context of that passage is not about God sleeping.

The direct context of the repenting passages is often that God repented. Therefore just saying that they are a figure of speech doesn’t solve your problem because the figure of speech appears to mean the exact same thing as the definition of the word.

(Further, it is sloppy to dismiss something just because it is a figure of speech since figures of speech are not meaningless.)

I said: In the context of Numbers 23, God was saying that we would not curse Israel because He had already blessed them. You have chosen to take it out of that immediate context and apply it across the entire Bible, and you seem to be struggling to justify why you do so.

Are you saying that only in the immediate context of the following verse that God will not lie,but at other times He will?

I am saying that His immediate context was that he would not lie at that moment. Whether He might lie to the wicked (as He did at times in the Bible) was not what He was referring to. God was saying He would not lie here, not making some overriding statement that He would never say something that isn't true.

I said: Incidently, you never answered my question. Since we agree that the "sun rising" is a figure of speech refering to how the sun appears in the sky, what do you believe the figure of speech (acroding to you) of "I repent" must mean? Does it mean that God doesn't repent?

Jerry Shugart replied: I have already ansered that many times,but obviously you are having a difficult time understanding the concept of "figurative" language.This figure of speech is called "phenomenal",meaning that the sun "appears to man to be rising".

Jerry, I gave you what "rising sun" meant already. I asked you what "I repent" must mean.

(Notice at what lengths you have gone to in order to avoid a very direct and simple question? You are terrifiedjust at trying to think of a meaning to the phrase that will fit inside the context. Why cling to a faulty doctrine that keeps you running scared from the simplest questions?)

I'll ask the question once more and if you still dodge it then I'll give the answer you would have given for you, and show why it fails. I feel that's a fair way to keep you from stalling. (I am adding to my list of reasons for not believing in the Settled View that I don't have to dodge simple questions.)

So here goes for the third time ....

What do you believe the supposed figure of speech, “I repent,” means? :think:

 

[M. K. Nawojski]

One Woman's Opinion

One Woman's Opinion

With seven of ten rounds of the Battle Royale X debate completed, I’ve got to say -- observing this thing unfold is like watching a race between a hamstrung horse and a sightless mule. I’ve followed the event from its lurching commencement past its feeble mid-point -- and am still observing, as the two contestants prepare to lope down the long stretch for home. By turns, I’ve been bewildered, I’ve been frustrated, I’ve been hopping mad. And it seems clear at this point that – if anything of value is to be gleaned from the experience – it will have to come from Jim Hilston’s critique, not from the debate itself.

Sam Lamerson seems to be a nice enough fellow – perhaps a little too nice to contend with the likes of Bob Enyart, who, in my opinion, makes use of the kind of cunning that has enabled the carnival huckster, from time immemorial, to earn his bread and butter by mesmerizing his fellow citizens just long enough to ensure they will eventually make their way homewards with pockets significantly lighter than when they sallied forth.

Be that as it may, one thing is beyond dispute – whatever their intellectual ability, educational attainments, character traits, and/or worldly triumphs – it’s Mr. Enyart’s hokey hermeneutic that has engendered his false, irrational doctrine, and it’s Dr. Lamerson’s defective hermeneutic that has rendered him powerless to deal with Enyart’s nonstop frontal assaults.

Puts me in mind of Paul’s words in II Tim. 4:3-4: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

MK

 

[Jerry Shugart]

ApologeticJedi,

You said:

The direct context of the repenting passages is often that God repented. Therefore just saying that they are a figure of speech doesn’t solve your problem because the figure of speech appears to mean the exact same thing as the definition of the word.

You still do not understand this simple thing.You say that "the figure of speech appears to mean the exact same thing as the definition of the word."

Yes,it appears to man that God is repenting.That is the meaning of the word "repent" when it applies to God and is used phenomenally.For example,let us examine the following verse:

"And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun"(Mk.16:2).

Do you understand that the words "rising of the sun" is being used phenomenally?That the sun is not really rising but instead that is the way that it appears to man.Now I will use the same arguments that you use:

"The direct context of the 'sun rising' passages is often that the sun rose. Therefore just saying that they are a figure of speech doesn’t solve your problem because the figure of speech appears to mean the exact same thing as the definition of the word."

No,the figure of speech in regard to the "sun rising" doesn't mean that the sun actually rises.It only appears to man that the sun rises,but that does not mean that the sun actually rises.

And the figure of speech in regard to God repenting doesn't mean that God actually repents.It only appears that way to man.

It is not really that complicated,and yet you just can't seem to understand this simple concept.I will ask you,does the figure of speech that describes the sun as rising actually mean that the sun rises?

Once you answer that question hopefully you will understand why the figure of speech in regard to the Lord repenting does not mean that He actually repented.

Literal Immediate Context
Let us examine the "literal" immediate context of the following verses:

""Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people...And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people"(Ex.32:10,11,12,14).

”But they rebelled against Me and would not obey Me. They did not all cast away the abominations which were before their eyes, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt. Then I said, ‘I will pour out My fury on them and fulfill My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.’ But I acted for My name’s sake, that it should not be profaned before the Gentiles among whom they were, in whose sight I had made Myself known to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt.”(Ez.20:8,9).

If we are to take this literally then we must believe that the Lord decided to destroy the children of Israel without considering the consequences.However,when Moses points out the consequences to the Lord ( that the Egyptians would say that He brought them out just so that he could slay them and therefore His Name would be profaned before the Gentiles) the Lord reconsiders and changes His mind.

In other words,Moses had more wisdom that did the Lord.The Lord didn't even have the wisdom to even consider the consequences of his his proposed actions,but Moses did.

That is the ridiculous conclusion that is arrived at if the word "repent" is taken literally.Therefore,it should be obvious to one and all that the word is being used in a figurative sense here.

The Lord is attempting to convey a truth in regard to the nation of Israel.And that is the fact that they deserved to be destroyed,and it was not because of anything that they did that spared them from this deserved puishment.And in order to teach this truth the Lord employed "figurative" language.It appears to man that God did repent,but he did not actually repent.Just as the Scriptures speak of the "sun rising" does not mean that it actally rises.

I am saying that His immediate context was that he would not lie at that moment. Whether He might lie to the wicked (as He did at times in the Bible) was not what He was referring to.

I am not aware of any verses where it can be said that God lied.There might be instances where He allowed demons to influence others by deceit,but that is not the same thing as God actally lying.

And if He did lie to the wicked,how do you explain Paul's word where He says that God cannot lie (Titus1:2)?

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

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Was the Lord just kidding when He said that the “sun riseth”?:

"The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain"(2Sam.23:3,4).

If I say that the sun doesn’t actually rise but instead the Lord was using figurative language does that mean I am making God a liar?

Jerry,

Your logic baffles me. You speak of common sense, but I don't see you exercising it too much. How can you equate the "sun rising" to God repenting? I really don't get it. Apologetic Jedi has humored you in this area, so I won't waste the time.

It is you who makes God a liar for representing Him as One Who will make promises but then fail to carry out those promises.Your whole theology is based on the mistaken belief that God will renege on His promises despite the fact that the Scriptures speak repeatedly of His “faithfulness” (Ps.36:5;40:10;119:90).

The Hebrew word translated “faithfulness” is “emuwnah”,and when it is applied to God it means ”faithfulness,in fulfilling promises”.

Why do you think I think God is not faithful? When have I ever said that? Sounds like obfuscation on your part Jerry...

But this means nothing to you.The Lord made promises in Genesis in regard to what would happen in regard to the seed of the sons of Jacob that will come to pass in the “last days”(Gen.49:1).So if the Lord really meant to destroy the children of Israel at Exodus 30:10 then He was intent on making sure that everyone would know that He is not a faithful God but instead a God who will make promises but then turn around and fail to fulfill those promises.

Jerry, I have already shown that God would have spared Joshua and Caleb as well. Are you saying that God would have destroyed the few faithful with the unbelievers? What kind of god do you worship Jerry?

Frankly,Jeremiah,you confuse “evidence” with your “assumptions”.You have provided no evidence that the Lord said that He would destroy the children of Israel except for Moses,Joshua and Caleb.The Lord said specifically that He would make out of “Moses” (not Joshua and not Caleb) a great nation.

Um, OK Jerry... I'll humor you... Here's the short version... If you want to pursue this, let me know. God, once again, planned to destroy Israel. I know you think it's fugurative, but in this instance, God does not repent. He simply changes His mind. He again says He will destroy everyone except Moses, but later blesses Joshua and Caleb.

Numbers 14
11 Then the Lord said to Moses: “How long will these people reject Me? And how long will they not believe Me, with all the signs which I have performed among them?
12 “I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they.”

20 Then the Lord said: “I have pardoned, according to your word;

God planned to strike and disinherit Israel, but responded to Moses prayer. He didn't repent Jerry, He pardoned according to the words Moses spoke. I know, I know Jerry... God didn't really mean it here either, right? Anyway, my point is, God would have spared Joshua and Caleb. Look at what preceeds this discourse and what comes after...

*Before
Numbers 14
6 But Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, who were among those who had spied out the land, tore their clothes;
7 and they spoke to all the congregation of the children of Israel, saying: “The land we passed through to spy out is an exceedingly good land.
8 “If the Lord delights in us, then He will bring us into this land and give it to us, ‘a land which flows with milk and honey.’
9 “Only do not rebel against the Lord, nor fear the people of the land, for they are our bread; their protection has departed from them, and the Lord is with us. Do not fear them.”
10 And all the congregation said to stone them with stones. Now the glory of the Lord appeared in the tabernacle of meeting before all the children of Israel.
11 Then the Lord said to Moses: “How long will these people reject Me? And how long will they not believe Me, with all the signs which I have performed among them?

*After
Numbers 14
24 “But My servant Caleb, because he has a different spirit in him and has followed Me fully, I will bring into the land where he went, and his descendants shall inherit it.
30 ‘Except for Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun, you shall by no means enter the land which I swore I would make you dwell in.

Jerry, do you really believe that God would have destroyed these two Godly men who "followed God fully?" I sure hope not. The key is common sense Jerry.

Why don’t you just admit that you share the view put forth by Bob Enyart that the Lord is not faithful and He will break His promises?

Neither Bob, nor I have ever said God is not faithful. Ad Homenim attacks are silly Jerry.

Now to the events described at Exodus 32 and Ezekiel 20.Here is the verses from Ez.20:

”But they rebelled against Me and would not obey Me. They did not all cast away the abominations which were before their eyes, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt. Then I said, ‘I will pour out My fury on them and fulfill My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.’ But I acted for My name’s sake, that it should not be profaned before the Gentiles among whom they were, in whose sight I had made Myself known to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt.”(Ez.20:8,9).

If we are to take this literally then we must believe that the Lord intended that His Name would be profaned before the Gentiles.He knew that if He destroyed the children of Israel that His Name would be profaned among the Gentiles,but He must not have realized that until it was pointed out to Him by Moses:

Jerry, if we are to take this figuratively, what must we believe the Lord intended?

” Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people”(Ex.32:12).

So either we can realize that this whole episode is described in figurative language or we must imagine that God did not realize that by destroying the children of Israel that His Name would be profaned among the Gentiles.

No Jerry, there's another option. We can realize that God is a passionate, loving God who hates sin and loves righteousness. God intended many times to destroy Israel, and changed His mind after heartfelt appeals by men who loved Him. God's Word is true Jerry... God will punish the wicked, but while dealing with Israel temporally, His mercy triumphed many times over His physical judgment.

Jeremy,do you really think that the Lord didn’t realize that His action of destroying Israel would profane His Name until Moses pointed that out to Him?Imagine that,if we are going to take the description of this episode “literally” then we must believe that Moses was wiser that God Himself!

For you guys who deny that God is faithful it is no great step to now proclaim that in some instances a man can have more wisdom than God.

In His grace,--Jerry

Jerry, do you believe that God punishes Godly men? Do you believe that God would give us numerous examples of His intentions to destroy Israel when the rebelled, if He did not intend to destroy them? I already know your answer will be something about "the sun rising" or "God getting out of bed," so I feel this will fall on deaf ears. Please Jerry, think about what you're saying and stay on topic.

--Jeremy

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Jerry,

Apologetic Jedi can respond to your comments to him. I do have one quick question for you though. You keep going back to the "sun rising" and somehow equating it with "God repenting." You suggest that since the Bible says "the rising of the sun," and the sun rises "from man's perspective," then God's repentance seems to be a change from man's perspective. If I misrepresent you, please let me know. Here's the question...

If we can understand that the sun does not rise, but rather, the earth revolves around the sun, what does it really mean when God repents?

Jerry, we know the sun rises from our viewpoint, but we understand what the earth does in relation to the sun. When God repents from our viewpoint what does the Bible mean when God repents? Are you saying that the Bible says the "sun rises" when in fact the "sun does not rise in reality," therefore, when "God repents from our perspective," God really is "not repenting?" If so, what does His "non-repentance" really mean? Please provide the opposite parallel of the earth rotating around the sun to God not repenting.

--Jeremy

 

[sentientsynth]

With seven of ten rounds of the Battle Royale X debate completed, I’ve got to say -- observing this thing unfold is like watching a race between a hamstrung horse and a sightless mule. I’ve followed the event from its lurching commencement past its feeble mid-point -- and am still observing, as the two contestants prepare to lope down the long stretch for home. By turns, I’ve been bewildered, I’ve been frustrated, I’ve been hopping mad. And it seems clear at this point that – if anything of value is to be gleaned from the experience – it will have to come from Jim Hilston’s critique, not from the debate itself.

Sam Lamerson seems to be a nice enough fellow – perhaps a little too nice to contend with the likes of Bob Enyart, who, in my opinion, makes use of the kind of cunning that has enabled the carnival huckster, from time immemorial, to earn his bread and butter by mesmerizing his fellow citizens just long enough to ensure they will eventually make their way homewards with pockets significantly lighter than when they sallied forth.

Be that as it may, one thing is beyond dispute – whatever their intellectual ability, educational attainments, character traits, and/or worldly triumphs – it’s Mr. Enyart’s hokey hermeneutic that has engendered his false, irrational doctrine, and it’s Dr. Lamerson’s defective hermeneutic that has rendered him powerless to deal with Enyart’s nonstop frontal assaults.

Puts me in mind of Paul’s words in II Tim. 4:3-4: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

MK

Mr. Enyart's hermeneutic did not engender his doctrine. He understands that Biblical knowledge flows from the top downward, and not from the bottom upward. One's hermeneutic must flow from the known attributes of God. And it is those attributes which are under debate. This least you could do would be to thank Mr. Enyart and Dr. Lamerson for their time, and to grant us fools the leisure of not reading your disgracious posts.

Regards,

SS

 

[M. K. Nawojski]

Mr. Enyart's hermeneutic did not engender his doctrine. He understands that Biblical knowledge flows from the top downward, and not from the bottom upward. One's hermeneutic must flow from the known attributes of God. And it is those attributes which are under debate. This least you could do would be to thank Mr. Enyart and Dr. Lamerson for their time, and to grant us fools the leisure of not reading your disgracious posts.

Regards,

SS

Well now, SS, if I craft a list of attributes . . . arrange the list so it will yield an acronym which sounds religious . . . ensure that the criteria which define each attribute on my list (particularly the attribute of “goodness”) is worded to meet with my personal specifications and/or prerequisites . . . and then insist that everything the Scriptures state about Almighty God must align with THE LIST -- in what sense does that guarantee that my biblical knowledge flows “from the top downward” and not “from the bottom upward”?

As for your comment that “One's hermeneutic must flow from the known attributes of God,” I’d be pleased to learn how one “knows” the attributes of God before he has a hermeneutic in place, to enable him to comprehend the Scriptures. It was my understanding that our comprehension of the nature and attributes of God must flow FROM the Scriptures, not the other way around.

MK

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jeremy,

It is difficult to discuss anything with you.First you said that God “repented” in regard to His threat to destroy Israel:

Did this come to pass Jerry? No, God repented and changed His mind concerning the impending wrath He said He was going to do. Why? Because Moses prayed and "Mercy triumphs over judgment..." [post #203]

But now you say that He did not repent:

God planned to strike and disinherit Israel, but responded to Moses prayer.He didn't repent Jerry, He pardoned according to the words Moses spoke.

Which is it Jeremy,did He repent or didn’t He repent.You can’t have it both ways!

Next,when confronted with a “literal” view of the verses in regard to this threat you do not address it but instead you avoid even discussing it.Let us look at these verses:

” Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people...And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people"(Ex.32:10,11,12,14).

”But they rebelled against Me and would not obey Me. They did not all cast away the abominations which were before their eyes, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt. Then I said, ‘I will pour out My fury on them and fulfill My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.’ But I acted for My name’s sake, that it should not be profaned before the Gentiles among whom they were, in whose sight I had made Myself known to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt.”(Ez.20:8,9).

If we are to take this literally then we must believe that the Lord decided to destroy the children of Israel without considering the consequences.However,when Moses points out the consequences to the Lord ( that the Egyptians would say that He brought them out just so that he could slay them and therefore His Name would be profaned before the Gentiles) the Lord reconsiders and changes His mind.

In other words,Moses had more wisdom that did the Lord.The Lord didn't even have the wisdom to even consider the consequences of his his proposed actions,but Moses did.

This is what I said to you about a “literal” reading of these verses:

Jeremy,do you really think that the Lord didn’t realize that His action of destroying Israel would profane His Name until Moses pointed that out to Him?Imagine that,if we are going to take the description of this episode “literally” then we must believe that Moses was wiser that God Himself!

For you guys who deny that God is faithful it is no great step to now proclaim that in some instances a man can have more wisdom than God.

Instead of dealing with this in a straightfoward manner you just evade the question altogether.You said:

Jerry, do you believe that God punishes Godly men? Do you believe that God would give us numerous examples of His intentions to destroy Israel when the rebelled, if He did not intend to destroy them?

You avoided dealing with what I said by changing the subject,Jeremy.You did not even attempt to deal with the only conclusion that can be arrived at if we take the verses literally.You evaded my points entirely,and then you had the nerve to say:

Please Jerry, think about what you're saying and stay on topic.

It is you who is not staying on topic,Jeremy.I also said:

” Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people”(Ex.32:12).

So either we can realize that this whole episode is described in figurative language or we must imagine that God did not realize that by destroying the children of Israel that His Name would be profaned among the Gentiles.

Again,you refuse to address the issue.You said:

No Jerry, there's another option. We can realize that God is a passionate, loving God who hates sin and loves righteousness.

I realize that Jeremy,but that has nothing at all to do with what I said.You are just evading the issue.You continue:

God intended many times to destroy Israel, and changed His mind after heartfelt appeals by men who loved Him.

Here you go again.First God “repented” and then you say that He did not repent at all.But now you are saying that He did in fact “change His mind”.Next you say:

God's Word is true Jerry... God will punish the wicked, but while dealing with Israel temporally, His mercy triumphed many times over His physical judgment.

Yes,God’s word is true.However,Bob contradicts this by saying that some of God’s Word are not true,that He will make prophecies and some of those prophecies will turn out to be untrue when they are not fulfilled!

Next you say:

Neither Bob, nor I have ever said God is not faithful. Ad Homenim attacks are silly Jerry.

Of course Bob would never come right out and say that God is not faithful,but His interpretation of Scriptures can only lead to that conclusion.For instance,Bob used the following verse in order to attempt to prove that the prophecies of the Lord Jesus do not always come to pass::

“Assuredly, I say to you,this generation will by no means pass away till all these things [Second Coming prophecies] take place.”

If the Lord Jesus was speaking of the generation then living then the Lord’s promise to them that the kingdom of God is near at hand (Lk.21:31) did not come to pass.In other words,He promised them that the kingdom of which they yearned for was near,but then He reneged on that promise.He was not faithful in fulfilling His promise.

But the Lord Jesus is faithful.He will not make a promise and then fail to fulfill that promise.His promise was not made to the generation then living,but instead it was for the generation that will see the signs of which He described in His Olivet Discourse:

Let us take a look at the verses:

”Verily,I say unto you,this generation will not pass,til all these things be fulfilled”(Mt.24:34).

The word “this generation” can mean:”it refers to a subject immediately preceding,the one just named”(”Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

The subject immediately preceding this verse is the generation which will see the signs:

”So likewise ye,when ye shall see all these things,know that it is near,even at the doors”(Mt.24:33).

But I am sure that you will say that the Lord said “when ye shall see all these things” so therefore the reference must be to the generation then living.However,earlier in the same day the Lord Jesus used the word “ye” in a sense that can be in regard to either the generation then living or a future generation when He said:

” For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord”(Mt.23:39).

Those whom the Lord were addressing did not afterward say,”Blessed in He that cometh in the name of the Lord”.But there will be a future generation of Jews who will say that.Therefore,when the word “ye” is used the reference is not always in reference to only those who heard Him.Instead,it can be describing those who will live later.

So the Lord did not make a promise that He did not fulfill.He is faithful and He will not make promises which He will not fulfill.

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

 

[1Way]

Jerry Shugart,
You said

Earlier I said:
"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.?

To which you reply:

1way said
That is simply false. The intervention is by way of persuasion, not causing anyone to do anything against their free will.

First of all,I never said that this was to force anyone to do anything against their free will.Again,you attempt to put words in my mouth that I never said.

You keep singing the same thing ("you said I said, but I did not say") even after I just got done dismissing your last claim (that "I said you said"), I did not say you said it would be causing Peter to sin. I argued against your argument (according to your own words, see Jerry's own words for his own presentation of his how arguments) that for God to impose into Peter's life the way he did, would be sinful, or as you said, God could not do that, temp Peter to sin.

You did not make a rebuttal against my argument that since God was not forcing someone to sin, that there is no problem. God teaches us that sin is the result of one's own temptation (James 1:14&15), so it's frankly impossible for God, or anyone else for that matter, to temp someone else into sin as though you could not have repented prior to engaging into such a sin. We all can influence others, but sin is the result of our own will giving into "our own lust" (desire for sin).

As to your argument (main line of reasoning against my stated view) that God can not intervene and influence people in such a way as to promote the fullfillment of their sinful bent, are you kidding? (Ex1) Remember in the creation account, and that God put the two trees right in the middle of the garden. God could have shielded man from sinning by eating of that tree, but instead He put it right in their very midst! It's not wrong to provide an environment where sin can easily happen according to your own free will. (Ex2) The teaching starting at Rms 1:24 tells us that God acted in such a way as to "give them up ... to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, ... to vile passions.", as if prior to that, God was somehow striving (personal influence) against their sinfulness and towards His righteousness.

In summary
It's not wrong to allow (or give them over to sin) a sin-bent person to sin. Remember, there is no sin imputed where there is no law/transgression of God's law (Rm 5:13), like when we become saved in this dispensation of Grace (Rm 6:14 " ... for you are not under law but under grace"; Rm 7:2-6, 8; 8:2), yet, God created the Law "to be the strength of sin" (1Cor 15:56), so that sin might become exceedingly sinful! (Rm 7:13 "... But sin, that it might appear sin, ... so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.")

In conclusion
God teaches and demonstrates that it's godly and redemptive to encourage others to become aware of and perhaps reap the consequences of "their own bent toward sin" (1Cor 5:5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that this spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.). So for God to give verbal warning to Peter/Judas prior to their opportunity to sin was not tempting them to sin, nor is facilitating an environment" (influence) for the fulfillment of their sin a violation of their own free will. (cont. after next para) ...

(Interjecting Note. Let me interject here how I would agree with you. It's wrong for anyone to tempt others to sin in such a way that it's your desire that they sin instead of repenting as they come to understand the natural destructive consequences of their own sin.)

... (cont. from next to last para) The world in which God created for man is well equipped with people who would use their influence to make others sin. So either you have to argue that God was wrong for allowing man to be able to influence others to sin, or you have to accept that we do have the freedom to decided by our own free will if we will sin by following after our own lusts regardless of any and all external influences placed before us. God has always left a way for man to resist sin. (1Cor 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bare it.)!

So by applying a rudimentary understanding of God's redemptive teachings about giving a person over to their sin, we can rest assured that it's not sinful to do so. For in all God has done or teaches us to do, He does not teach us to sin, it's manifestly fine to do what Jesus did with Peter and Judas, effectively giving them a redemptive warning about their current bent towards sin.

After repeatedly asking you to kindly stop the personal attacks, you continue with them (I said you said ad nausium, putting words in my mouth). This is not an unusual or unChristian request, please simply stop attacking me and simply deal with our bible discussion.

 

[Leonard A]

Jeff,

It has taken me a number of days to respond to your email. A brief explanation is in order. My work day is approximately 12 hours. This gave me little time to properly address your points.

For the record, I use the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. I say this because in the debate rounds the issue of hermeneutics has been given a high priority.

Genesis 2 "to see what he would name them"

You mean to tell me that God is waiting with baited breath for Adam to complete the task of naming animals? Can the audience picture this? God was being counseled by Adam?

Your god is too puny.

This is what the Scriptures say about the true God.

“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.” (Ro 11:33-36 AV)

This is the God of Scripture. Look at Isa 45:5-10

“I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it. Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?” (Isa 45:5-10 AV)

PRINCIPLE:
God deals with finite creatures who live in time. In addition, we must understand that man is responsible to God for his actions. Within this realm, He condescends to these creatures with language that they could understand

Moses in telling of this account shows God’s interaction with Adam and his responsibility.

"bound"? Overstates the idea.

No

My God does ALL His good pleasure.

Your god is too puny.

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"?

This a very straightforward question with tremendous eternal implications. The answer is NO. If what you are saying is true, a person cannot have any assurance about their relationship with God. There could be someone or something in the future that would countermand what God has established.

Stop and Consider

In man’s rebellion against God, man has degraded his view of God.

Ro 1:20,21 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

The witness of creation alone is enough to proclaim the supremacy of God. Man turns his back against it.

In fact, he suppresses it.

Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

hold (katecho) Strong’s Number:2722

AV-hold 3, hold fast 3, keep 2, possess 2, stay 1, take 1, have 1,
make 1, misc 5; 19

1) to hold back, detain, retain
1a) from going away
1b) to restrain, hinder (the course or progress of)
1b1) that which hinders, Antichrist from making his appearance
1b2) to check a ship's headway i.e. to hold or head the ship
1c) to hold fast, keep secure, keep firm possession of
2) to get possession of, take
2b) to possess

Quoted from the Online Bible

Ro 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

And in the final analysis, man can put himself in a position that he cannot understand God.

reprobate (adokimos) Strong’s Number 96

from 1 (as a negative particle) and 1384; TDNT-2:255,181; adj

AV-reprobate 6, castaway 1, rejected 1; 8

1) not standing the test, not approved
1a) properly used of metals and coins
2) that which does not prove itself such as it ought
2a) unfit for, unproved, spurious, reprobate

From the Online Bible

At this point, no matter how articulate and clear the presentation about the attributes of God,, is this individual does not have the capacity to understand the truth.

If a person believes that God is not supreme and holds this to his grave, he is in the category of the reprobate.

2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.


He does give us glimpses to the fact that He cannot be fully comprehended by creatures. Here is on example from His Word of this.

Isa 55:8, 9 For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.



I do not worship such a god. (No capitalization intended.)

Bema Seat?

No. The Bema Seat is for the regenerate out of this dispensation.

The Great White Throne is for the UNREGENERATE out of this dispensation (as well as the unregenerate out of Israel’s dispensation, and the unregenerate – and also the regenerate – out of the Gentile dispensation)..

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

Yes, it does. Bob states, “you discount the historical error correction regarding the LORD repenting.”

In other words, God could change His mind. Remember, Paul was persuaded that nothing would be able to separate us from the love of God. According to your statement (Does Neh. 9:30 prove that God "is not the supreme being"?) an individual could be separated.

Your god is too puny.


STOP AND CONSIDER, JEFF ETERNITY IS BEFORE YOU.

Leonard A.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

1Way,

You say:

You did not make a rebuttal against my argument that since God was not forcing someone to sin, that there is no problem.

You are having a difficult time distinguishing between “forcing someone to sin” and “tempting one to sin”.You seem to think that since God did not “force” Peter to sin then there is no problem.But the Scriptures says that God will not even “tempt” a man to sin.

God teaches us that sin is the result of one's own temptation (James 1:14&15), so it's frankly impossible for God, or anyone else for that matter, to temp someone else into sin as though you could not have repented prior to engaging into such a sin.

Here is the meaning of the word “tempt”: ”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”).

You are quite right that no one can force someone to sin,but that does not mean that someone cannot entice someone to sin:

” For this cause, when I could no longer forbear, I sent to know your faith, lest by some means the tempter have tempted you, and our labour be in vain”(1Thess.3:5).

And that is what James is saying here:

”…but each one is tempted when,by his own desire,he is drawn away and enticed”(Jas.1:14;NIV).

Satan can indeed inice a person to sin,but the Lord will do no such thing.

Over and over Bob says that the Lord is able to make prophecies because He has the ability to make them come to pass.That is his main argument against the idea that the Lord has a knowledge of the future.He wrote:

So as with the kinds of biblical examples offered by the Settled view, God prophesying something that He can do or bring about by influence cannot be proof of exhaustive foreknowledge, just as FDR’s committed effort toward the Allied victory does not prove him omniscient of the future.

Even when Bob is speaking about Peter's denials he repeatedly uses this argument,saying:

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)!

And...

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...

And...

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.

So the whole thrust of Bob's argument in regard to prophecies,including Peter's three denials,is the idea that God would intervene to fulfill prophecy.And what could the act of “producing accusers” be but an “enticement to sin?

But since Bob knows that if the Lord intervened to fulfill the Lord Jesus' prediction about the three denials then He would in fact be "tempting" Peter to sin.So he changes God's motive in intervening from to "fulfilling prophecy" to "simple questions of whether Peter knew the Lord.":

Asking Peter to admit He is a follower of Christ is not evil; it is not a temptation to sin; it is an honorable test, which he failed.

Those questions were an opportunity for Peter to grow in his faith.

First of all,according to Bob,the Lord knew that Peter would deny him,and Bob gave these reasons:

But how could Jesus know that Peter would not die for the cause? Well let’s see. Is that a difficult judgment to make?… Jesus wouldn’t need omniscience, just rudimentary discernment

Jesus knew Peter was too weak to give his life, and yet impetuous...

So according to Bob God would know that Peter would deny the Lord if he was placed in circumstances where Peter thought that a truthful answer would put him in jeopardy.

So God would also know that if He produced accusers then Peter would sin by denying that he was a disciple of Jesus Christ,and therefore He would also know that He was tempting Peter to sin.

So no matter what "motives" that Bob places on God for arranging the accusations,the fact is that God would know that by arranging the accusations that He would be tempting Peter to sin.

But if Bob cannot use the idea that God was influencing events in order to be reasonably sure that the prediction about Peter's denial would come true then he cannot possibly explain how the Lord Jesus would be reasonably sure that Peter would deny Him three times.

So Bob wants it both ways.First he uses the idea that the Lord Jesus could make the prediction because He knew that God would make it come to pass.But then he turns around and says that God's actions in producing people to accuse Peter had nothing at all to do with causing the prediction to come true.

As to your argument (main line of reasoning against my stated view) that God can not intervene and influence people in such a way as to promote the fullfillment of their sinful bent, are you kidding? (Ex1) Remember in the creation account, and that God put the two trees right in the middle of the garden. God could have shielded man from sinning by eating of that tree, but instead He put it right in their very midst! It's not wrong to provide an environment where sin can easily happen according to your own free will.

The fact that the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” was placed in the middle of the garden does in no way indicate that God was intervening and influencing anyone to sin.Neither Adam nor Eve was compelled to sin,nor did the Lord entice either one of them to sin.The enticement came from the tempter.

The teaching starting at Rms 1:24 tells us that God acted in such a way as to "give them up ... to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, ... to vile passions.", as if prior to that, God was somehow striving (personal influence) against their sinfulness and towards His righteousness.

Romans 1:24 does not say that God “acted in such a way to give them up to uncleanness.”There is nothing in these words that even hints that God enticed them to sin.

So for God to give verbal warning to Peter/Judas prior to their opportunity to sin was not tempting them to sin, nor is facilitating an environment" (influence) for the fulfillment of their sin a violation of their own free will.

I never argued that any verbal warning given to anyone was an enticement to sin.

The world in which God created for man is well equipped with people who would use their influence to make others sin. So either you have to argue that God was wrong for allowing man to be able to influence others to sin, or you have to accept that we do have the freedom to decided by our own free will if we will sin by following after our own lusts regardless of any and all external influences placed before us.

This is not about God “allowing other men to be able to influence others to sin”,but instead whether or not God would arrange things and produce accusers that HE knew would lead to Peter sinning.

After repeatedly asking you to kindly stop the personal attacks, you continue with them (I said you said ad nausium, putting words in my mouth). This is not an unusual or unChristian request, please simply stop attacking me and simply deal with our bible discussion.

I apologize for anything that I might have said that lead you to believe that I am “attacking” you with “personal attacks”.And I cannot see where you “repeatedly” asked me to kindly stop the personal attacks.One time I mistakenly said that you put words in my mouth that I never said and the next thing I know I am attacking you personally and you have “repeatedly” asked me to cease.

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

 

[chatmaggot]

Why in the world are so many people referencing Hilston and what he has to say? I agree that Hilston is an awesome artist. I love his work. However, he is in no way an independent observer trying to be partial when critiquing the debate. Hilston (in years past) has admitted that he doesn't agree with most of what Bob has to say and has been a staunch critic of The Plot and most things on Theologyline.

Nawajski says…

"if anything of value is to be gleaned from the experience – it will have to come from Jim Hilston’s critique, not from the debate itself."

Really? You have got to remember that the critique is coming from someone who thinks it is a sin to celebrate…ANYTHING! No birthday parties, no thanksgiving, no having a few people over for a labor day cookout, no burgers on the grill with the neighbors, etc…! If too many people visit at once and they actually start eating at the same time and it starts looking too much like a party he has to put an end to it because it is borderline sin.

 

[1Way]

Jerry,
You are becoming incredulous with so many personal attacks. I am not in the least having a difficult time distinguishing between forcing and tempting (That's personally insulting to me, and to you for contradicting the truth of the matter as clearly demonstrated in my last post.). Instead, I addressed both issues seperately and without troule understanding and explaining both concepts. If you don't like that I deal with different discrete issues seperately, then simply say so, but please stop malaigning myself with your belittleing personal attacks.

In my last post, I plainly stated a point that you spent half your post (in part) trying to establish, which was something that I had already conceeded! Here is what I already posted and you evidently ignored so that you can try to prove a point against me, even though it was already my point as well.

(Interjecting Note. Let me interject here how I would agree with you. It's wrong for anyone to tempt others to sin in such a way that it's your desire that they sin instead of repenting as they come to understand the natural destructive consequences of their own sin.)

Now, if you don't agree with that, then say so, if you do agree that it's wrong/sinful to purpose to entice someone to sin, then on this point, we are in agreement and half your last post was waisted trying to pursuade me of what I already freely admitted I believe. :think:

As to

So the whole thrust of Bob's argument in regard to prophecies,including Peter's three denials,is the idea that God would intervene to fulfill prophecy.And what could the act of "producing accusers" be but an "enticement to sin?

Your view is not just "corrected", it's "demolished" by the bible passages I already gave you in my last post. God demonstrates and teaches that it's redemptive to forewarn people of their own bent towards sin. Again I repeat one of Bob's well stated argument, producing an enviroment where sin can happen, is in no way sinful, God did it at the creation accuont, when people were given over to their own sinful lusts in Roman's, He teaches us to deliver one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit migth live, etc.

You said

But since Bob knows that if the Lord intervened to fulfill the Lord Jesus' prediction about the three denials then (1) He would in fact be "tempting" Peter to sin. (2) So he changes God's motive in intervening from to "fulfilling prophecy" to "simple questions of whether (3) Peter knew the Lord.":

Jerry, you are so far off a reasonable discussion here, I'm just going to straighten out this mess and leave it at that.

(1) Bob's and mine, and I believe all reasonble people who accurately hold to the open view, do not assume your false attack that God would be tempting Peter to sin simply by predicting his three denials in advance, and intervening to help ensure it will happen according to God's foreknowledge. Even according to your view, it's not tempting Peter to sin by foretelling of it. Our view says that Jesus would have been extatic if Peter said, you are right about me Jesus, please help me with my unbelief... That you seem unable to critique the open view without violating it is somewhat understandable, although it's still undesirable, from anyone's perspective.

(2) You are begging the question. Here's a tip, when critiquing another system of beliefe, do so according to their view without violating it. And simply stating that you know what God's intention was, that it fits your closed view and opposes our open view is circular reasoning. I'm right because I'm right is less than convincing, if you know what I mean.

(3) I think you may have meant, the Lord knew Peter('s heart/soul/willful inclinations and habbits).

You need to either represent the open view without violating it, or simply realize that your supposed corrections to the view are inappropriate and inaccurate by way or consistent misrepresentation on your behalf. May the truth set us all free.