BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 4 thru 7)

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, you missed my entire point. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the Lord as a man is omnipresent to which I don't think you can.

doggieduff,

The question is in regard to the Lord's "knowledge":

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).

If we take this verse literally then we must believe that the Lord had no "knowledge" of whether or not "they have done altogether according to the cry of it"

In other words,we must believe that the Lord did not know what was going on in those cities until He went to investigate.

When the Lord made that statement in Gen. 18, He was not omnipresent and thus needed to go to Sodom and Gomorrah.

I have already quoted the following verse to you but yet it seems to mean nothing to you:

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

This is obviously saying that He sees everything that is going on in the earth.

And again,the following verse that I provided also seems to mean nothing to you:

""Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do"(Heb 4:13).

Here is the translation from the NASB:

"And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do"(Heb.4:13).

If there is no creature hidden from His sight and He sees everything,then how in the world could He not "know" what was going on in the wicked cities?

I never said God is ignorant of what is going on in the earth. Please don't misquote me.

OK,doggieduff,if the Lord is not ignorant of what is going on in the earth then why would He have to go down to see whether or not "they have done altogether according to the cry of it"?

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

 

[GodsfreeWill]

doggieduff,

The question is in regard to the Lord's "knowledge":

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).

If we take this verse literally then we must believe that the Lord had no "knowledge" of whether or not "they have done altogether according to the cry of it"

In other words,we must believe that the Lord did not know what was going on in those cities until He went to investigate.

I have already quoted the following verse to you but yet it seems to mean nothing to you:

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

This is obviously saying that He sees everything that is going on in the earth.

And again,the following verse that I provided also seems to mean nothing to you:

""Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do"(Heb 4:13).

Here is the translation from the NASB:

"And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do"(Heb.4:13).

If there is no creature hidden from His sight and He sees everything,then how in the world could He not "know" what was going on in the wicked cities?

OK,doggieduff,if the Lord is not ignorant of what is going on in the earth then why would He have to go down to see whether or not "they have done altogether according to the cry of it"?

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

Jerry, you have yet to respond to my main point on this issue, that the LORD was speaking as a man! The man Christ's eyes were not in every place while he was on earth. In the same manner, the Lord's eyes were not in every place in Gen. 18. Hence, He needed to see their PRESENT state, which involved Him "going down" to Sodom and Gomorrah. Ripping a passage out fo Proverbs doesn't help us in this argument. You responding to EACH of my points would.

 

[Turbo]

If you will read the account at 1King 22:20-33 you will see that God lied to no one.Instead,He allowed others to decive the wicked,but He never lied.

Micaiah continued, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD : I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?'
"One suggested this, and another that. Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'

" 'By what means?' the LORD asked.
" 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said.
" 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.' 1 Kings 22:19-22​

Jerry, in lying to Ahab, did this spirit sin? Did the spirit do wrongly?

Is a man who hires a hitmen not guilty of murder? Has he not sinned?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, you have yet to respond to my main point on this issue, that the LORD was speaking as a man!

doggieduff,

The Lord Jesus is now sitting at the right hand of God as a Man.Does that mean that now He does not know what is going on in the earth?

The man Christ's eyes were not in every place while he was on earth.

He was not made a "little lower than the angels" until Bethelem.There is no evidence that He was limited in anyway before that.

In the same manner, the Lord's eyes were not in every place in Gen. 18.

Based on your faulty reasoning they were not.

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

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Micaiah continued, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD : I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?'
"One suggested this, and another that. Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'

" 'By what means?' the LORD asked.
" 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said.
" 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.' 1 Kings 22:19-22​

Jerry, in lying to Ahab, did this spirit sin? Did the spirit do wrongly?

Is a man who hires a hitmen not guilty of murder? Has he not sinned?

Turbo,

The question is whether or not God Himself ever lies.No one has yet to provide a verse that proves He ever told a lie.

It is immposible for God to lie and God cannot lie.

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

 

[GodsfreeWill]

doggieduff,

The Lord Jesus is now sitting at the right hand of God as a Man.Does that mean that now He does not know what is going on in the earth?

Nope.

He was not made a "little lower than the angels" until Bethelem.There is no evidence that He was limited in anyway before that.

Sure there is. Gen. 18.

Based on your faulty reasoning they were not.

Jerry, I just realized that your Proverbs verse doesn't work because it is a figure of speech and we don't know what it means. Are you telling me thast God has literal "eyes"? C'mon! :LoJo:

 

[Turbo]

Turbo,

The question is whether or not God Himself ever lies.No one has yet to provide a verse that proves He ever told a lie.

It is immposible for God to lie and God cannot lie.

Why not just answer my questions?

Jerry, in lying to Ahab, did this spirit sin? Did the spirit do wrongly?

Is a man who hires a hitmen not guilty of murder? Has he not sinned?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, you have yet to respond to my main point on this issue, that the LORD was speaking as a man! The man Christ's eyes were not in every place while he was on earth. In the same manner, the Lord's eyes were not in every place in Gen. 18.

doggieduff,

So the Lord was speaking as a man.So what?The same Man was able to raise the dead.Just because He is a Man does not mean that He does not possess supernatural qualities.You say that because He is a Man He would not know what was happening in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah unless He went there personally to find out.

The Lord was not there when Nathenael was sitting under the fig tree,but the Lord Jesus said that He saw Him nonetheless:

"Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel"(Jn.1:48,49).

This superatural ability displayed by the Lord Jesus caused Nathanael to exclaim that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah of Israel.

But you say that as a Man that He would not have power like that.

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

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Why not just answer my questions?

Jerry, in lying to Ahab, did this spirit sin? Did the spirit do wrongly?

Is a man who hires a hitmen not guilty of murder? Has he not sinned?

Turbo,

Why are you so intent on making the Lord out to be a liar?

As I said,the Scriptures state that it is impossible for God to lie and that God cannot lie.

The verses that you quoted can be better translated the following way:

"How will you do this?' the LORD asked."And the spirit replied, `I will go out and inspire all Ahab's prophets to speak lies.'"`You will succeed,' said the LORD. `Go ahead and do it.' "(1Ki.22:22 NLT).

Turbo,are you so blind that you do not see the mistakes of Bob Enyart's version of Open Theology?In order to teach it you must show that God makes mistakes and that He lies and that He makes promises and then breaks them.

The God you worship is not that much different from old Joe who lives down the street!

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

 

[Turbo]

Still no answers to those questions. :chicken:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Why not just answer my questions?

Jerry, in lying to Ahab, did this spirit sin? Did the spirit do wrongly?

Is a man who hires a hitmen not guilty of murder? Has he not sinned?

Turbo,

Let us look at the verse:

"How will you do this?' the LORD asked."And the spirit replied, `I will go out and inspire all Ahab's prophets to speak lies.'"`You will succeed,' said the LORD. `Go ahead and do it.' "(1Ki.22:22 NLT).

There is no evidence that anyone was lied to.A person can be decived without being lied to.And since there is no evidence that anyone was lied to then there is no evidence that the Lord was an accomplice in the act of lying.

Despite the fact that the Scriptures reveal that it is impossible for God to lie and that He cannot lie you attempt to prove that He does lie.

And I asked you to give even one instance where He told someone something that is not true you have yet to provide any evidence that He did lie.

You are so intent to undermine the very character of God that you accuse Him of lying despite the fact that you cannot cite even one verse where He tells anyone something that is not true.

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

 

[chatmaggot]

Earlier I made a comment about Hilston. Hilston has since contacted me to set the records straight. A few years ago I had a few conversations with him concerning holidays and I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION that he didn't celebrate anything. He informed me that I was mistaken. He graciously let me know that he has currently celebrated his sons birthday. For some reason he felt it necessary to point out that he also celebrated Labor Day with a few kegs, cigars, etc...(how sad that our culture feels the need to ruin holidays with drugs.)

He did clarify that it is just religious holidays he doesn't celebrate (such as the birth of God's son). At least not on December 25. So to Hilston I say sorry. Sorry I was under the impression that you didn't celebrate anything...but rather you do celebrate things (like labor day with drugs) but you just don't celebrate religious holidays with good food and family.

 

[Leonard A]

The Battle Of Words????

The Battle Of Words????

Greeting All,

Theology On Line had rules in place for the Battle Royal X debate. One of which was the number of words that each participant was to use. The debate could not begin until Bob Enyart and Sam Lamerson agreed to the rules and in particular the number of words to be used in the debate. Please read the definition below.

Agreement: a : the act or fact of agreeing b : harmony of opinion, action, or character : CONCORD
2 a : an arrangement as to a course of action b : COMPACT, TREATY
3 a : a contract duly executed and legally binding b : the language or instrument embodying such a contract

From: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Now that it comes to the end of the debate and Bob Enyart has nearly used up his allotment of words for the debate there is a great yell to put aside the agreement.

This is Bob Enyart’s problem. He chose what strategy to use and now he has to live with it.

The moderator should quell these “spoil sports” by addressing the forum in writing for these to cease and desist from such remarks. It lessens the integrity of the debate and by extension the reputation of Theology On Line.

Stop and Consider,

Leonard A

 

[Clete]

Leonard,

Don't be an idiot, alright?

Bob Enyart isn't as stupid as you might think. He's perfectly aware of the rules and how many more words he has to use. Probably the only question in his mind is whether or not he can legitimately reclaim the 800+ words he used requoting the rules to Dr. Lamerson, which I think is a no brainer but whether it is or not, the decision is completely up to Knight and Knight alone.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Besides, who here has called for the rules to be "put aside" anyway?

 

[Leonard A]

The Battle Of Words????

The Battle Of Words????

Clete,

Don't be an idiot, alright?

Is this how you address a civil, logical, and polite observation to the point revising the number of words that will be assigned to Bob Enyart?

Col 4:6 Let your speech [be] alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

I would suggest the you review James 3 about controlling the tongue and its application to our written communications.

Bob Enyart isn't as stupid as you might think. He's perfectly aware of the rules and how many more words he has to use. Probably the only question in his mind is whether or not he can legitimately reclaim the 800+ words he used requoting the rules to Dr. Lamerson, which I think is a no brainer but whether it is or not, the decision is completely up to Knight and Knight alone.

As you said “ the decision is completely up to Knight and Knight alone.”

Bob Enyart, as you said used 800 + words. However, he could have referenced the rules which would have taken no more that a dozen or so words. Again, this was part of Bob Enyart’s choice to the debate to be verbose in the explanation of the rules.

The moderator is the one who has the serious task to enforce the rules no matter how unpopular they my be the majority or minority of the group. Honesty and integrity must be the hallmark of his decision. If it not, it will have grave consequences.

Besides, who here has called for the rules to be "put aside" anyway?

You did. Please review your words

. . . Further, the word limit rules read as follows...

The debate will last for ten rounds. The recommended maximum word limit for the average post is 6,000 words, but any or all posts could be much briefer.

That sounds to me like it could easily be interpreted to mean that we have a ten round debate, two posts per round for a total of 20 posts with an average word length of 6000 words per post. That's a total word limit for the entire debate of 120,000 words, which we are nowhere remotely close to reaching because Dr. Lamerson has basically chosen to barely participate since round three. In fact, according to my count there have been approximately 87,719 words used thus far in the debate. That means that unless all three of the remaining posts exceed 10,760 each, the word limit for this debate will not have been exceeded.

Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not but my point is that it is laughable that Dr. Lamerson wants to hold the rules over Bob's head after Bob was required to expend nearly a thousand words explaining the rules to him.

Any unilateral slanted request to change even one iota of an agreement is “putting aside” said agreement. It is up to the participants along with the moderator to come to a consensus.

Stop and Consider.

Leonard A.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Any unilateral slanted request to change even one iota of an agreement is “putting aside” said agreement.

Leonard, how can a request be a "putting aside?"

Stop and Consider.

Bob E.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Now that it comes to the end of the debate and Bob Enyart has nearly used up his allotment of words for the debate there is a great yell to put aside the agreement.

This is Bob Enyart’s problem. He chose what strategy to use and now he has to live with it.

The moderator should quell these “spoil sports” by addressing the forum in writing for these to cease and desist from such remarks. It lessens the integrity of the debate and by extension the reputation of Theology On Line.

What a cool surprise turn of events this has become! I know it's poor form to revel in the misery of someone else, but this makes an otherwise landslide victory somehow become more interesting. The Dr. Lamerson has sought to quell any responses Mr. Enyart could make by asserting a restriction in the rules. Actually it's quite brilliant as Dr. Lamerson was loosing badly otherwise. This gives his side some hope (even if it is on a technicality) and makes for an interesting finish.

It has already, of course, been pointed out that Dr. Lamerson didn’t exactly stick by the rules (“the agreement” as Leonard A says it) of the debate when he refused to put in questions in a summarized section for the first part of the debate, and then labeled them differently a little later on (forgoing the agreed upon SLQ1 format for a PETER1 format that he invented himself).

On the one hand, if we are interested in finding truth in subject, I would like for both men to extend their remarks if possible for the study of the subject matter’s sake. On the other hand, solely for the event’s sake, I think it would bring a little more interest to the final outcome if Mr. Enyart was handicapped somehow (sorry Mr. Enyart - I hope you understand what I mean here).

 

[ApologeticJedi]

There is no evidence that anyone was lied to.A person can be decived without being lied to.And since there is no evidence that anyone was lied to then there is no evidence that the Lord was an accomplice in the act of lying.

Jerry,

In an effort to defend a bad position, you’ve thrown your lot in with miscreant children (and bad translations). Suddenly you hope to defend the idea that deceiving someone is not the same as lying. Bratty children everywhere have used this same defense.

“But I didn’t say the words exactly…. “ (Shrugging rebelliously).

To which, the parent points out that intentional deception is the same thing as a lie.

Don’t get me wrong, I expected you would fight tooth and nail for this lost cause because after all, if “neither can He lie” is just a rule of thumb (which I think is obvious to all after my post), then it is only reasonable to think other things in this passage “God does not repent” is also a rule of thumb. For this reason, I did not expect you to agree no matter how obvious or many verses were given to you. You will hold out your disagreement beyond all reason on this point.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry,
Don’t get me wrong, I expected you would fight tooth and nail for this lost cause because after all, if “neither can He lie” is just a rule of thumb (which I think is obvious to all after my post), then it is only reasonable to think other things in this passage “God does not repent” is also a rule of thumb.

ApologeticJedi,

It is unfortunate that it could come to this.In order to defend the indefensible you do your very best to make God out to be a liar.

Just as Bob Enyart has to make God out to be unfaithful in fulfilling His promises,you have to make God out to be a liar.

For this reason, I did not expect you to agree no matter how obvious or many verses were given to you. You will hold out your disagreement beyond all reason on this point.

I find it funny that you speak of verses that were given to me,especially considereing the following verses that were given to you:

"In hope of eternal life, which God, Who cannot lie, promised before the world began"(Titus1:2).

"That by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us"(Heb.6:18).

The Lord cannot lie because it is impossible for Him to lie!

And despite the fact that these verses teach that it is impossible for Him to lie and despite the fact that you cannot give even one instance where He actually lied you still accuse the Lord of lying.

You accuse Him of lying and Bob says that He does not keep His promises.

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

 

[GodsfreeWill]

ApologeticJedi,
"In hope of eternal life, which God, Who cannot lie, promised before the world began"(Titus1:2).

You should take a greek course Jerry. It would really help your theology. This verse does not say "which God who cannot lie" but rather is properly translated "the unlying God." See AT Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament.

"That by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us"(Heb.6:18).

The Lord cannot lie because it is impossible for Him to lie!

Impossible for God to lie? HA!

Mark 10:27
But Jesus looked at them and said, "With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible."

It's not impossible for God to lie, my God can do anything, including lie or repent. He DOESN'T lie because that would obviously go against His character. As to your Hebrews verse...

Heb. 6:18
18 that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie,

you need to read the context Jerry!

Heb. 6:13
For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself,

God swore His promise, and what are the implications of this? We read on...

14 saying, "Surely blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply you."
15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
16 For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute.

An oath on a promise is a seal of that promise, it is unchangeable.

17 Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath,

God confirmed His promise with an oath, showing the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel.

18 that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie,

THEREFORE, that by TWO immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lie...What TWO things is it impossible for God to lie about Jerry? His counsel and His oath.

Why do I feel like a kindergarten teacher? :bang: