BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 4 thru 7)

[1Way]

Jerry Shugart

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.

:darwinsm:
The argument as originally stated was,
God CREATED this world in such a way that the environment was rich in ability to tempt man to sin (sinful man using their influence to tempt others to sin), yet God was not wrong for creating such an environment.

Yet you (effectively) "say" (not a quote ver batim) that that is nothing like God arranging things to produce an environment that He forknew would lead to a free will agent sinning.

Jerry, it's exactly like that. God created the law to be the strength of sin!!!

God's law makes it that sin might become exceedingly sinful!!!

The righteous lesson learned from the concequences of sin, is that it naturally leads to death and destruction. That's a most important step in God's plan for evangelising the lost world, tell them they are in need of a savior because without becoming saved, they are headed for eternal damnation. Do it God's way, warn them of their doom unless they repent, because God is loving and merciful, He greatly desires to fully forgive and save the lost soul!

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Jeremy,

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

But now you say that He did not repent:

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

Jerry,

This confirms that you have not been reading. God threatened to destroy Israel 3 times. All three were recorded in Ezekiel 20. The first was not recorded in Exodus, but God inspired Ezekiel to record the event. God was angry and planned to destroy Israel in Egypt! God's own words confirmed that He was going to destroy them, and then told us why He chose not to.

The second account in Ezekiel 20 refers back to Exodus 32. God repented there Jerry. You said it was figurative...

The third reference refers to Numbers 14. The word "nacham" or repent was not used there. God Himself said, "I have pardoned according to your word." That's why I said, "God did not repent there" Jerry... Pay attention.

Next, you attempt to muddy the waters by completely avoiding God's statements in Ezekiel 20 and say,

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).

I never said anything about Moses "being smarter than God." You avoid my question and ask another question. I'll ask again... Why did God say He was going to consume Israel with fire in Exodus 32, and then repent? You say that was figuative. Next, I ask why Ezekiel records that same event and God said He did not destroy Israel "for His name's sake." You avoid the question and ask another question...

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.

Sorry Jerry... Deal with the passage. Instead of suggesting what you suggest, answer why God said twice that He Himself chose not to destroy Israel. You say it's figurative both times. Please explain what idea God is trying to convey to us if His language is "figurative." What is God really saying then Jerry?

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

Jerry, this is your opinion. You have provided no reason as to why God's language is figurative here. Please answer the question.

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

I asked if God destroyed Godly people because you said God would have destroyed everyone but Moses. I provided proof that Joshua and Caleb were Godly men and would have been spared in Exodus and Numbers. I ask again, do you believe God would have destroyed Godly men who have been "forever faithful" to Him?

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:

You're not staying on topic. Instead of answering, you suggest that I believe Moses is smarter than God. I have never said that. I did say that God was angry, said He was going to destroy Israel, and then chose not to three times. You never answered why I should believe all three accounts are figurative.

It is you who is not staying on topic,Jeremy.I also said:
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, this is your opinion Jerry. You read way too much into the text. God said that was the reason He chose not to destroy Israel, not because Moses was smarter than He was.

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

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

No Jerry, this is the crux of the issue. God repented of the harm He said He would do because "mercy triumphs over judgment," not because it's figurative...

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:

Addressed above... Please keep up Jerry...

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!

No Jerry, you fail to comprehend conditional prophecy contrasted with unconditional prophecy... Why do you think God says, "If you do A, I will do B. If you do not do A, I will not do B" (Jer 18 is a great example of this).

Next you say:

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:

Once again, you put words in our mouths. Conditional vs. Unconditional Jerry. It's quite simple.:

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

Here you go again... Why bring up more information without addressing what's already on the table. Let's deal with what we have first, and I'd love to show you why you're wrong concerning "this generation..."

You failed to answer my most important question Jerry...

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.

To make it simple...

The sun rises = The sun does not rise, but rather, the Earth rotates around the sun.
God repents = ???????????????????????????????????

Please enlighten us as to what Scripture really means when it says "God repents," if in fact God does not repent.

God bless,
--jeremy Finkenbinder

 

[Clete]

Excellent post Acts9_12Out! :up:

 

[Leonard A]

Word Count

Word Count

Greetings All,

Thanks Bob for supplying word counts. It has given much insight to your theology.


Stop and Consider.

Leonard A.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jeremy,

You said:

The third reference refers to Numbers 14. The word "nacham" or repent was not used there. God Himself said, "I have pardoned according to your word." That's why I said, "God did not repent there" Jerry... Pay attention.

It is you who needs to pay attention.If we take these verses literally then we can see that at Numbers 14 that God did have a change of mind.Yes,He pardoned the nation,but before that He said that He would "strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them." If He pardoned them after saying that that He would strike them with pestilence and disinherit them then it is obvious to anyone who will use their brain that He did in fact have a change of mind:

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;

Jeremy,put on your thinking cap for a change.Can you not see a "change" in regard to what He was thinking to strike the children of Israel from the time when He pardoned them.If you cannot see a change of mind then I am afraid that you are totally lost!

Let me put it simply.

First,He was thinking that He would strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them.

Then He pardoned them;therefore He had changed His mind in regard to how He was going to treat them.

A change of mind,Jeremy.

Or do you think that He first thought that He would strike them and then He decided otherwise and pardoned them,but at the same time He never had a change of mind in regard to what He was thinking to do to them?

You have provided no reason as to why God's language is figurative here. Please answer the question.

Jeremy,please attempt to pay attention while I have to explain this to you again.If we take the verses at Exodus 32 and Ezekiel 20 "literally" then we must believe that Moses had more wisdom than the Lord.If we take a literal reading of the verses then we must believe that the Lord did not realize the consequences would be if He destroyed the children of Israel.After He makes His threat we read:

"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.32:11,12,14).

Then we see that is was not until Moses told the Lord these things that He repented.And the Lord tells us exactly why He repented:

"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 these verses are to be taken literally then we must believe that the Lord was not aware that if He destroyed Israel that His Name would be profaned among the Gentiles for the mischief He would do for bringing them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth.

But the Lord was not wise enough to realize this,and it was not until Moses explained this to Him did He understand.That is what we must believe if we take these verses in a literal manner.

Please explain what idea God is trying to convey to us if His language is "figurative." What is God really saying then Jerry?

Simple,Jeremy.The Lord is saying that the nation of Israel was guilty and deserved to be destroyed.He is also saying that they did nothing to earn His mercy.And to convey these thoughts he used figurative language.He first ascribed to God that which belongs to man (anthropopatheia) and then he described the scene phenomenally,which means that God seems to change His mind.

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?

First of all,you are right that the sun does not rise.But the sun does not appear because the earth revolves around the sun but instead because the earth rotates on its axis.

And again,the reason that I have provided this verse because it too is an example of phenomenal language.It appears to man that the sun rises.It appears to man that the Lord repented.As the New Scofield Study Bible says,"God seems to change His mind".

Please enlighten us as to what Scripture really means when it says "God repents," if in fact God does not repent.

The prophet Jeremiah speaks of God rising up early to send His prophets on their way (Jer. 44:4), but this Scripture must be interpreted in the light of that Psalm which says that God neither slumbers nor sleeps (Ps. 121:4):

"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).

"Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep"(Ps.121:4).

The Lord did not really "rise up early" because He neither sleeps nor slumbers.

The language at Jer.44:4 is figurative,where what belongs to humans is ascribed to God.God does not really rise up early because He never sleeps.And the Lord never repents because with Him "is no variableness,neither shadow of turning"(Jas.1:17).

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

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry Shugart
The argument as originally stated was,
God CREATED this world in such a way that the environment was rich in ability to tempt man to sin (sinful man using their influence to tempt others to sin), yet God was not wrong for creating such an environment.

This is not difficult to understand.Just because the Lord allows others to tempt men that does not mean that God is responsible for the temptation.

Yet you (effectively) "say" (not a quote ver batim) that that is nothing like God arranging things to produce an environment that He forknew would lead to a free will agent sinning.

Jerry, it's exactly like that. God created the law to be the strength of sin!!!

God's law makes it that sin might become exceedingly sinful!!!

The righteous lesson learned from the concequences of sin, is that it naturally leads to death and destruction. That's a most important step in God's plan for evangelising the lost world, tell them they are in need of a savior because without becoming saved, they are headed for eternal damnation. Do it God's way, warn them of their doom unless they repent, because God is loving and merciful, He greatly desires to fully forgive and save the lost soul!

Just because law was given to man doen't mean that law is a temptation to sin and that the Lord is tempting anyone.

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.).

Just because I question your judgment in regard to how you interpret the Scriptures does not mean that I am making a "personal attack" on you.Don't you know thedifference,1Way?Obviously not!

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

 

[Bob Enyart]

Thanks Bob for supplying word counts... Leonard A.

Leonard, you're welcome! Somebody around here's got to keep track of what's happening!

 

[1Way]

Jerry Shugart,

1Way said
Jerry Shugart
The argument as originally stated was,
God CREATED this world in such a way that the environment was rich in ability to tempt man to sin (sinful man using their influence to tempt others to sin), yet God was not wrong for creating such an environment.

Jerry Shugart said
This is not difficult to understand. (1) Just because the Lord allows others to tempt men that does not mean that God is responsible for the temptation.

1Way said
Yet you (effectively) "say" (not a quote ver batim) that that is nothing like God arranging things to produce an environment that He forknew would lead to a free will agent sinning.

Jerry, it's exactly like that. God created the law to be the strength of sin!!!

God's law makes it that sin might become exceedingly sinful!!!

The righteous lesson learned from the concequences of sin, is that it naturally leads to death and destruction. That's a most important step in God's plan for evangelising the lost world, tell them they are in need of a savior because without becoming saved, they are headed for eternal damnation. Do it God's way, warn them of their doom unless they repent, because God is loving and merciful, He greatly desires to fully forgive and save the lost soul!

Jerry Shugart said
(2) Just because law was given to man doen't mean that law is a temptation to sin and that the Lord is tempting anyone.

(1) Jerry, you just agreed with me about how I disagree with your view that God could not have created an environment rich in ability to influence a free will moral agent to go after his own lust! God (only) used His creative influene to get mankind to influence Peter, He did not violate man's free will to force anyone to be tempted. Again, all through this setup (if you will) provided by God, Peter could have repented and not denied Jesus! So you have to reason why God could fortell about Peter's three denials without implicating God in tempting man to sin, and that is what we are saying, God did not force things to happen, He used "influence".

I find it difficult to understand your apparent agreement with the open view over this issue, and that at the same time, you did not dismisss your disagreement that God can not do that because that would be tempting man to sin. If you see things differently, please explain the difference! I hope you see that according to the open view, God did not "cause" Peter's assumed sin of denial, instead God "created an environment" that would surely fascilitate "Peter's own temptation to sin".

(2) You also agree with my argument that God strengthened sin by His laws of commandment, further demonstrating that God appreciates man's need of awareness and respect over the natural consequences of their own sin, further demonstrating that you disagree with your previously stated position that God can not be involved in intervening in one's life in such a way as to foster the result of following after one's own temptation.

Let me guess, somehow you still claim that God could not use His own influence to create an environment that fascilitates the redemptive lesson provided from the results of following after one's own temptations as it turns into sin. :help: :freak: But at the same time, you agree that God did nothing wrong by creating an environment which is able to persuade man toward his own temptations. Which is the exact same issue going on between God and Peter's 3 denials.

1Way said
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.).

Jerry Shugart said
Just because I question your judgment in regard to how you interpret the Scriptures does not mean that I am making a "personal attack" on you.Don't you know thedifference,1Way?Obviously not!

Your continued and falsifying personal attacks insult primarily youself. Please stop portrying the ill willed view.

That you may have contradicted yourself over your intellectual argument is somewhat revealing ...

(On one hand, you argued that​

God can not create an environment rich in ability to influence a free will moral agent to become influenced towards following after their own temptation to sin, because that would be tempting man to sin,

contradicting on the other hand,​

it's easy to understand that God can create an environment rich in ability to influence man to sin and at the same time God is not wrong in doing so.),

... but that you seem unable to stop from being personally offensive by suggesting that I am so mentally inept as to have a problem understanding the difference between personal insult and an intellectual disagreement, is a great disapointment. :jazz: :drum: :guitar:

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Jeremy,

You said:

It is you who needs to pay attention.If we take these verses literally then we can see that at Numbers 14 that God did have a change of mind.Yes,He pardoned the nation,but before that He said that He would "strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them." If He pardoned them after saying that that He would strike them with pestilence and disinherit them then it is obvious to anyone who will use their brain that He did in fact have a change of mind:

Jeremy,put on your thinking cap for a change.Can you not see a "change" in regard to what He was thinking to strike the children of Israel from the time when He pardoned them.If you cannot see a change of mind then I am afraid that you are totally lost!

Let me put it simply.

First,He was thinking that He would strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them.

Then He pardoned them;therefore He had changed His mind in regard to how He was going to treat them.

A change of mind,Jeremy.

Or do you think that He first thought that He would strike them and then He decided otherwise and pardoned them,but at the same time He never had a change of mind in regard to what He was thinking to do to them?

Jerry,

You baffle me... I used Numbers 14 to show that God changed His mind. My point was, the word "nacham" was not used there... God stated His purpose, then changed His mind. This destroys (by your own words) the belief that God foreknows / predestines every event. You agree that God stated His purpose, then changed His mind.

Case Closed.

 

[GodsfreeWill]

I did not say that Exodus 32 should not be taken literally because of something in Genesis.I merely pointed out that the Scriptures employ "figurative" language when speaking of God.


Here is your question:

The "figure" is decribed in the "Companion Bible":

"An-throp'-o-path-ei'-a; or, Condescension (Gen. 1:2; 8:21. Ps. 74:11. Jer. 2:13. Hos. 11:10). Ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings, irrational creatures, or inanimate things."

The "New Scofield Study Bible" has this to say about the word translated "repent":

"When applied to God,the word is used phenomenally,according to O.T. custom.God seems to change His mind."(Note at Zech.8:14).

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

Jerry, you still won't answer my question. Am I not speaking clearly? Should I speak in figures of speech? You seem to like those a lot. I am going to assume for the argument that when it says God repents, it is a figure of speech, just like when it says the "sun rises." We know that the figure of speech, "the sun rises" REPRESENTS what it looks like when the earth rotates around the sun. What does the figure of speech "God repents" REPRESENT? Please fill out this sentence for me:

When the Bible says the "sun rises", it doesn't mean the sun actually "rises", but that it looks like the sun rises because the earth rotates around the sun.
In the same manner, when it says God "repents", He is really not repenting, but rather God is trying to tell us that He _____________________________________________.

Jerry, I'm not looking for anything right now but for you to fill out the rest of the sentence. You've avoided this question time and time again, and I'm beginning to think you do not have an answer. If you do not have an answer, you are stuck with a big problem because 2 Tim 3:16 says that ALL scripture is given for my instruction in righteousness. Unless you can fill out my sentence, this verse gives me no profit in instruction in righteousness, and therefore 2 Tim. 3:16 is not true. Please hold on saying anything to me until you've filled out my sentence above, and please make sure it's a complete sentence. Thanks a bunch.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry,
You baffle me... I used Numbers 14 to show that God changed His mind.

Jeremy,

If you used Numbers 14 to show that God changed Him mind then why did you say the following?:

The third reference refers to Numbers 14. The word "nacham" or repent was not used there. God Himself said, "I have pardoned according to your word." That's why I said, "God did not repent there" Jerry... Pay attention.

And there are your comments on Numbers 14:

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.

Previously when speaking about Numbers 24 you said that "God did not repent there",but now you are saying that you used Numbers 14 "to show that God changed His mind".

Are you not aware that to "repent" means to change one's mind?

And then you say that I baffle you.You say:

You agree that God stated His purpose, then changed His mind.

I said that if we are to take these verses "literally" then they show that God changes His mind.Leave it to you to take what I said out of its context.

And of course you did not answer the fact that if they are taken literally then they also teach that Moses was wiser than God.All you have to say is:

Case Closed.

Here is the problem with a "literal" reading of those verses,Jeremy.Perhaps you will address that problem instead of just ignoring it.You said:

You have provided no reason as to why God's language is figurative here. Please answer the question.

If we take the verses at Exodus 32 and Ezekiel 20 "literally" then we must believe that Moses had more wisdom than the Lord.If we take a literal reading of the verses then we must believe that the Lord did not realize the consequences would be if He destroyed the children of Israel.After He makes His threat we read:

"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.32:11,12,14).

Then we see that is was not until Moses told the Lord these things that He repented.And the Lord tells us exactly why He repented:

"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 these verses are to be taken literally then we must believe that the Lord was not aware that if He destroyed Israel that His Name would be profaned among the Gentiles for the mischief He would do for bringing them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth.

But the Lord was not wise enough to realize this,and it was not until Moses explained this to Him did He understand.That is what we must believe if we take these verses in a literal manner.

Jeremy,since you say that these verses should be read literally then you must believe that the Lord was not as wise as Moses.

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

 

[Jerry Shugart]

1Way,

Earlier you asked:

If you see things differently, please explain the difference!

When law was given to man it was not given in order to tempt man to sin.The Lord did not make a prophecy saying that man would sin and then give them law in order to tempt them to sin.

However,if we read Bob Enyart’s comments on the prophecy of Peter denying the Lord three times then there can be no doubt that he is saying that the Lord went about arranging a circumstance whereby Peter would sin by making his denials.

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 known that if confronted with accusations that he was a disciple of the Lord Jesus 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

 

[Jerry Shugart]

doggieduff,

You say:

I am going to assume for the argument that when it says God repents, it is a figure of speech, just like when it says the "sun rises." We know that the figure of speech, "the sun rises" REPRESENTS what it looks like when the earth rotates around the sun. What does the figure of speech "God repents" REPRESENT?

I have already quoted from the “New Scofield Study Bible” that in “figurative” language the meaning of God repenting means that “God seems to change His mind”.

You want to take figurative verses from the Bible and then expect someone to give a “literal” meaning to things which are figurative.

Perhaps the following verses about Abraham and Isaac together with Bob Enyart’s comments will help explain:

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

If we take a “literal” reading of this verse we must believe that the Lord did not even know if Abraham feared God until Abraham took a knife and drew it back.But even Bob admits that the Lord knew that Abraham had “faith” in God:

God therefore asked Abraham to do just what He Himself planned to do: to offer His own Son on Mount Moriah!
• God knew of His friend’s deep faith, but tested whether Abraham loved his own son Isaac more than God.[emphasis mine]

If God knew of Abraham’s “deep” faith,then He would certainly know that he had a “fear” of Him.The Hebrew word translated “fear” is “yare' “,and in this instance it means “reverent”.According to the “New Scofield Study Bible” ”The ‘fear of the Lord’ is an O.T.expression meaning ‘reverential trust’”(note at Ps.19:9).So if Abraham had a “deep faith” in God then he obviously had a “reverential trust” in God.

So the narrative at Genesis 22:12 is not to be taken “literally” or else we must believe that God did not even know if Abraham had a “reverential trust” in Him despite Bob’s own words that Abraham already had a “deep faith” in Him.

And when a narritive is “figurative” we cannot expect to answer everything in that narrative in a “literal” sense.

(By the way,this was not in regard to “whether Abraham loved his own son more than God,[as Bob says],but instead ” Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure”—Heb.11:19.)

Jerry, I'm not looking for anything right now but for you to fill out the rest of the sentence:

When the Bible says the "sun rises", it doesn't mean the sun actually "rises", but that it looks like the sun rises because the earth rotates around the sun.
In the same manner, when it says God "repents", He is really not repenting, but rather God is trying to tell us that He _____________________________________________.

I will ask the same question in regard to Abraham and Isaac:

"In the same manner,when it says that God did not know whether or not Abraham feared Him until he took the knife and drew it back,He really already knew,but rather God is trying to tell us the He............."?

How would you fill that out,doggieduff?

The point that I am making is the fact that when the Scriptures employ “figurative” language that ascribes to God that which belongs to man (anthropopatheia) and also figurative language that describes how things “appear to man”(phenomenal ) then you cannot always answer exactly what this “figurative” language means.

Unless you can fill out my sentence, this verse gives me no profit in instruction in righteousness, and therefore 2 Tim. 3:16 is not true. Please hold on saying anything to me until you've filled out my sentence above, and please make sure it's a complete sentence.

Then perhaps you will fill in the blank in regard to the narrative of Abraham and Isaac.

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

 

[GodsfreeWill]

doggieduff,

You say:

I have already quoted from the “New Scofield Study Bible” that in “figurative” language the meaning of God repenting means that “God seems to change His mind”.

You want to take figurative verses from the Bible and then expect someone to give a “literal” meaning to things which are figurative.

Perhaps the following verses about Abraham and Isaac together with Bob Enyart’s comments will help explain:

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

If we take a “literal” reading of this verse we must believe that the Lord did not even know if Abraham feared God until Abraham took a knife and drew it back.But even Bob admits that the Lord knew that Abraham had “faith” in God:

If God knew of Abraham’s “deep” faith,then He would certainly know that he had a “fear” of Him.The Hebrew word translated “fear” is “yare' “,and in this instance it means “reverent”.According to the “New Scofield Study Bible” ”The ‘fear of the Lord’ is an O.T.expression meaning ‘reverential trust’”(note at Ps.19:9).So if Abraham had a “deep faith” in God then he obviously had a “reverential trust” in God.

So the narrative at Genesis 22:12 is not to be taken “literally” or else we must believe that God did not even know if Abraham had a “reverential trust” in Him despite Bob’s own words that Abraham already had a “deep faith” in Him.

And when a narritive is “figurative” we cannot expect to answer everything in that narrative in a “literal” sense.

(By the way,this was not in regard to “whether Abraham loved his own son more than God,[as Bob says],but instead ” Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure”—Heb.11:19.)

I will ask the same question in regard to Abraham and Isaac:

"In the same manner,when it says that God did not know whether or not Abraham feared Him until he took the knife and drew it back,He really already knew,but rather God is trying to tell us the He............."?

How would you fill that out,doggieduff?

The point that I am making is the fact that when the Scriptures employ “figurative” language that ascribes to God that which belongs to man (anthropopatheia) and also figurative language that describes how things “appear to man”(phenomenal ) then you cannot always answer exactly what this “figurative” language means.

Then perhaps you will fill in the blank in regard to the narrative of Abraham and Isaac.

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

Jerry, I'm disappointed, you did not fill in my sentence. I will respond to Abraham and Isaac as soon as you do us all the favor of saying "I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS WHEN IT SAYS GOD REPENTS." That would be the truth right Jerry? If you'll admit that you don't know what it means, or come up with you do think it means, we can move on.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, I'm disappointed, you did not fill in my sentence. I will respond to Abraham and Isaac as soon as you do us all the favor of saying "I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS WHEN IT SAYS GOD REPENTS." That would be the truth right Jerry? If you'll admit that you don't know what it means, or come up with you do think it means, we can move on.

doggieduff,

I have already explained the "figurative" language that speaks of God repenting.It means that God appears to repent.

You seem to think that we should be able to explain all "figurative" language literally,but when given a chance to do just that you decline!

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

 

[RightIdea]

Ahhh, so the Bible teaches us man's perspective about God, rather than the truth. But, of course, Calvinists have the supernatural ability to see past that and see what the Bible really means, when the Bible tells us the exact opposite of the truth, such as here with this "figurative" language.

Jerry, you are telling us that God divinely inspired the Bible to tell us doctrinal claims that are the opposite of the truth about God, all so that we can read man's perspective about God.


Frankly, if I want to read man's perspective about God, I will pick up the Bagavad Gita, or the Book of Mormon. But when I want to read man's perspective, I don't generally think of picking up the Bible. Rather, I go there to find out God's perspective about God.

Thus, Jerry, you are revealing for all to see... the humanist underpinnings of the settled view that Bob has been referencing repeatedly in this debate. And God is talking to us in "baby talk," but of course the Calvinists and the other settled viewers have the amazing ability to know what is baby talk and what isn't.... which of course you can only do if you're an adult. Baby's cant' tell the difference! Problem is, Jerry.... that you're one of the babies, like the rest of us! So, for you to claim you understand the baby talk... is to put yourself on a level with God.

Humanism in the church, there you have it.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Ahhh, so the Bible teaches us man's perspective about God, rather than the truth. But, of course, Calvinists have the supernatural ability to see past that and see what the Bible really means, when the Bible tells us the exact opposite of the truth, such as here with this "figurative" language.

Jerry, you are telling us that God divinely inspired the Bible to tell us doctrinal claims that are the opposite of the truth about God, all so that we can read man's perspective about God.

Rightidea,

I am saying that God gave us a brain that enables us to tell "figurative" language" from "literal" language.If some people refuse to use their brains then that is their problem.

For example,if we take a "literal" view of the verses that Jeremy provided at Exodus then we can only conclude that Moses was wiser than God Himself.I do not believe that that is true therefore I say that we must not take it literally but instead realize that it is to be interpreted in a "figurative" sense.

Frankly, if I want to read man's perspective about God, I will pick up the Bagavad Gita, or the Book of Mormon. But when I want to read man's perspective, I don't generally think of picking up the Bible. Rather, I go there to find out God's perspective about God.

Here is God telling Himself about Himself:

"I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know"(Gen.18:21).

Are to believe that God really went down to earth in order so that He could know whether or not the people had repented of their evil deeds?

Of course not!

"The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good"(Prov.15:3).

The Lord did not have to come down to earth to see if the people had repented.Genesis 18:21 is not to be taken literally nor are we to believe that this is saying that God literally came down to earth.

But you would accuse me of teaching exactly opposite of the trurh!

Thus, Jerry, you are revealing for all to see... the humanist underpinnings of the settled view that Bob has been referencing repeatedly in this debate.

It is you who is showing that you cannot tell the difference between figurative language and language that is to be taken literally.

Problem is, Jerry.... that you're one of the babies, like the rest of us! So, for you to claim you understand the baby talk... is to put yourself on a level with God.

Just because I know that some verses are used "figuratively" does not mean that I am putting myself on a level with God.

I would say that those who cannot see the diffference between figuraitve language and language that is to be taken literally more closely resemble "babes" than I do.They have no need of "solid food" because they are content with their "milk".

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

 

[GodsfreeWill]

doggieduff,

I have already explained the "figurative" language that speaks of God repenting.It means that God appears to repent.

Jerry, as I said before, 2 Tim. 3:16 says ALL scripture is for instruction in righteousness. What can I learn from a verse that says God repents? To this you have no answer, and a big problem. What if I said:

"God does repent because the Bible says so, but the verses that say God doesn't repent MUST be read as figurative in light of those verses. I don't know what it means when He says He doesn't repent, I just know it's figurative because I used my brain."

What saith Jerry of that argument? Not much you can say, since it's exactly what you're saying. The verses that I hold to as figurative are verses that I realize what God is trying to teach through the use of a metaphor or figure. But you can't even give me that. WHAT DO I DO WITH A VERSE THAT SAYS GOD IS WEARY OF REPENTING? WHY DID GOD PUT THAT VERSE IN THE BIBLE? HOW CAN I BE INSTRUCTED IN RIGHTEOSNESS WITH THAT VERSE JERRY? Please answer any or all of the capital questions. Face the facts. If God is weary, that shows emotion and the OV is true. If God repents, then the OV is true. The Bible says God is weary of repenting, but Jerry says, "God does not repent!" Who do I believe?

You seem to think that we should be able to explain all "figurative" language literally,but when given a chance to do just that you decline!

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

I didn't decline. I asked you to fill out my simple sentence which you've admitted now that you cannot. THANK YOU. That's the only right answer Jerry. You don't know. How do you know that the "sun riseth" is a figure? Science. Do you think in the OT, the audience knew that? Of course not. Hence the figure. NOW we know what's going on with the sun because of scientific advancements and technological growths in this century. Guess what? Not only do I know God repents, but they knew in the OT as well. Moses asked God to repent, and Jonah said God repents. Either Moses was crazy in the head and Jonah a liar, or you're wrong Jerry. I'll take the latter. God needn't use a figure because they fully knew God repented as stated above. Jeremiah and Ezekiel knew as well. (See Chapter 18 in each book.) More biblical authors disagreeing with Jerry Shugart. Why does all this OT scripture say God repents, when indeed He never repents according to you?

Genesis 22:12 is not a figure and now I'll explain to you since you admitted to having no idea what it means when it says God repents. God was testing Abraham. (Why the test if Calvinism is true?) Abraham proved himself faithful in Genesis 15, but went straight downhill from there. He lied twice about his wife being his sister in fear of his death. (Wouldn't God protect the one whom He promised a seed too? Abraham didn't believe.) Then Abraham had a "flesh" trip with Hagar, because he again didn't believe God would follow through with his unconditional promise. Now, God must put Abraham to the ultimate test, to find out how much Abraham trusted God. Would he walk the walk to the very end, to the point of killing his son, whom God promised seed like the start sof the sky? Only time would tell. It's obvious Abraham waivered in his faith, so it matters not Abraham's present heart state, but future heart state. It's one thing for Abraham to say, "Sure God, I'd sacrifice my son" and it's another to actually do it. Not until Abraham was about to plunge the knife in his sons chest did God know he would walk the walk. Abraham could have climbed half way up the mountain, "chickened" out and ran back. But he did not. Abraham believed God would raise his son from the dead, so he followed through. No figure of speech here Jerry. Why is this so hard?

 

[RightIdea]

Jerry wants us to choose not to believe God when He says (in the first person!) that He is weary of repenting.

Hmmmm.... believe Jerry, or believe God? I pick God.


Jerry, here's part of the problem. There is no value whatsoever in God using such figurative language, if that's what it is! What could God possibly trying to communicate? That's what Will is driving at!

If God wants to communicate that He always intended to do X, what on earth would be the value of Him speaking to humanity in the first person and saying, "I repent of____" or "I am weary of repenting!" if the exact opposite is true?

It makes not the least bit of sense for you to claim God would be so deceitful! You make Him out to be a God of confusion.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry wants us to choose not to believe God when He says (in the first person!) that He is weary of repenting.

Hmmmm.... believe Jerry, or believe God? I pick God.

RightIdea,

You just ignored the verse that I gave that demonstrates that God uses figurative language when describing His actions:

"I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know"(Gen.18:21).

Do you take this literaly,RightIdea,or are you just going to ignore this verse again?

If you take it literally then how do you explain the following verses?:

"Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me"(Ps.139:7-9).

It makes not the least bit of sense for you to claim God would be so deceitful! You make Him out to be a God of confusion.

If you hold that both Genesis 18:21 and Psalms 139:7-9 are to be taken literally then it is you who makes God out to be a God of confusion.

In His grace,--Jerry

”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html