BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 4 thru 7)

[geoff]

Of course, we now know that even the Jews taught that merely "being an Israelite" was not adequate. They still had to enter the covenant by faith in order to be saved.

So that argument fails.

 

[Birdman]

Can you say, "Uh, I don't know nothin about God or righteousness, but I should would like to be happy! I wunder how I's should go aboust makin' my's self happy?" :kookoo:

Well, all I am saying is that God's ultimate purpose for creating anything* was to create happiness. And humankind is the ultimate fulfillment of that happiness. We dont make our SELVES happy - that would be self-centered.

* After creating the universe (via the Big Bang) God was not satisfied - He merely was creating an environment for further creating. The Solar System, and planet earth. Earth was then filled with all sorts of plants and animals - and finally humans. And the final result was that all of the animals and mankind were supposed to be happy for life etc. "But then the Serpent entered.? As the Bible says.
--Doug @ 2005.8.29.0.03.31 PT

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Of course, we now know that even the Jews taught that merely "being an Israelite" was not adequate. They still had to enter the covenant by faith in order to be saved.So that argument fails.

I'd say it proves the argument.

If the Jews were "elect", and they taught that wasn't enough, then election is no evidence of righteousness, godliness, or salvation. That God chooses you, is no evidence of where you will end up. That's a significant argument for the open view.

 

[Clete]

Well, all I am saying is that God's ultimate purpose for creating anything* was to create happiness. And humankind is the ultimate fulfillment of that happiness. We dont make our SELVES happy - that would be self-centered.

You don't say! Self centered is bad eh? What is the opposite of being self-centered? I'm looking for a one word answer and it starts with the letter "R".

* After creating the universe (via the Big Bang) God was not satisfied - He merely was creating an environment for further creating. The Solar System, and planet earth. Earth was then filled with all sorts of plants and animals - and finally humans. And the final result was that all of the animals and mankind were supposed to be happy for life etc. "But then the Serpent entered.? As the Bible says.
--Doug @ 2005.8.29.0.03.31 PT

As the Bible says? Why do you care about what the Bible says about the serpent in the Garden of Eden when you ignore what it says about the rest of creation? Via the Big Bang; what a joke.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Bob Enyart]

Jerry Shugart wrote: "Bob’s answer here is based on the “assumption” that the Lord Jesus would know that Peter would go to the household of Caiaphas. ... And how would the Lord Jesus know that Peter would be asked if he was the Lord’s disciple exactly three times?Since Bob has not answered that perhaps Bob thinks that He just made a good guess."

Jerry, you missed it. I answered both of these objections of yours explicitly in my section titled, "On How to Make a Rooster Crow." If my answers are weak, you should identify the weakness. That would be helpful. Thanks!

-Bob

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, you missed it. I answered both of these objections of yours explicitly in my section titled, "On How to Make a Rooster Crow." If my answers are weak, you should identify the weakness. That would be helpful. Thanks!

-Bob

Bob,the only place where I can see that you attempted to answer my points is your following comment:

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 Satan would likely reinforce such inclinations, adding his influence to pressure Peter to turn on Jesus, as Lucifer had already asked to “sift” Peter (Luke 22:31). emphasis mine

Here you speak of God influencing man.But if you have God influencing man in some way in order to bring about Peter's three denials then you have the Lord doing things in order to "make certain" that the prophecy would come true. You said:

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

You did not answer why the Lord Jesus would think that Peter would not risk his life for the cause.The Scriptual evidence indicates that he did just that when he cut off the ear of one of those who came to seize the Lord Jesus.

I have repeatedly read your words at "How to Make a Rooster Crow" but I see no place where you "explicitly" answered any of these questions.If I am not seeing something that I should be seeing then perhaps you will be kind enough to point those things out to me.

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

 

[Turbo]

And how would the Lord Jesus know that Peter would be asked if he was the Lord’s disciple exactly three times?Since Bob has not answered that perhaps Bob thinks that He just made a good guess.

Jerry, did you miss this?

And I guess the best answer is that God can tell the rooster to crow, as He told Balaam’s donkey to speak.

Does this not explain why from the OV perspective, Peter couldn't have denied the Lord four or six or seventeen times before the rooster crowed?

Once Peter denied the Lord for the third time, God cued a rooster.


In His grace,--Turbo
"Fulfilling Prophecy Made Easy"
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=841658#post841658

 

[Bob Enyart]

Jerry, since you asked...

Jerry, since you asked...

Jerry, what Turbo just said. And also, from my Post 4B:

"Though fearful, Simon was the kind of person who would jump out of a boat in a storm, and then sink from a lack of faith. And during the Passover, Jerusalem swelled to a million people. 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.

Jesus would have been forgiving Peter’s seven denials, if God hadn’t caused the rooster to crow just then. So does God have a reasonable expectation that He can see this prophecy through? Peter was scared but curious; the rooster was in the wings..."

Etc. Jerry, your questions were answered. So, again, if these answers are poor, please identify the weaknesses. For example, if you think that God would be incapable of finding three accussers in Jerusalem (or one, with three accusations), to bring against Peter, say so, and explain why. And if you think that if the circumstances had led to the possiblity of Peter making a fourth denial, that God would have been unable to cue the rooster between the third and fourth denials, please say so, and explain why. (By the way, a retired rancher from Texas phoned me after the fourth round to say that he has roosters, and they're a pain in the neck, because if you turn on the porch light, one will start crowing, and then the whole bunch of 'em come to life and start squawking. So I doubt that God would have had any serious trouble... but here we go again... trying to prove to a Calvinist that God can make a rooster crow!) Or since you seem to think that it is inherently evil to point out a person's weakness by asking them to affirm their belief in Christ, please explain why.

Thanks, -Bob

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Certainly I agree that it should have been no challenge to find any number of people to test Peter's heart, particularly in a crowd that would later shout "crucify him" about Jesus himself.

However, to play the other side of the fence, what about Dr. Lamerson's latest assertion about Peter (some may have missed it since it was not listed in the five questions he listed - which I agree Mr. Enyart addressed). In a newer position, Dr. Lamerson points to a passage that seems to indicate that Jesus knew Peter would repent.

Jesus also predicted Peter’s ultimate repentance from his sin (“when you have turned back”) and the nature of his future ministry (“strengthen your brothers”).

What are some OV's thoughts on this passage. I'm undecided as to whether it is more or less difficult for Jesus to predict Peter's repentance than to predict his denials.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Bob,here is the “weakness” of your argument.First you said that the Lord Jesus knew that Peter would not give his life for the cause.But we see Peter doing just that here:

” And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear”(Mt.26:51).

You have had plently of opportunities to explain this but so far you hsve not even attempted to do so.

Next,if you are right then we are to believe that the Lord Jesus could look at Peter’s heart and know that he would deny Him three times if he was accused of being a disciple of the Lord Jesus three times..

But at the same time the Lord must have known that His prophecy could not come true unless He Himself “produced” three people to accuse Peter.So according to you the Lord produced three accusers so that the prophecy could be fulfilled.Therefore,using our common sense we can see that the Lord arranged the circumstances whereby Peter denied Christ three times.

But you say:

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

According to you the Lord “knew” that Peter would deny the Lord Jesus Christ three times if he was accused three times.And then according to you He arranged to have him accused three times so that Peter would deny Him three times.But somehow you can say that God did nothing to “make certain” that Peter would deny Him three times!

The Lord had to know that by producing three accusers that He was making certain that His prophecy would be fulfilled.But you say that the Lord was not making certain that His prophecy came true.

Also,when Peter denied that he was a disciple of the Lord Jesus he was in fact committing a sin.So according to you the Lord arranged the circumstances that He knew would lead to Peter sinning in this manner.Therefore,there can be no doubt whatsoever that the Lord was “tempting” Peter to sin.But you say:

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. emphasis mine

Here you say that the accusations would not be temptations to sin.But it was those accusations themselves that did in fact tempt Peter to sin.And according to you it was the Lord Himself Who “produced” the accusations.So if you are correct about these things then it is certain that the Lord tempted Peter to sin.However,the Scriptures reveal that He will do no such thing:

” Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil,neither tempteth he any man”(Jas.1:13).

The Greek word translated "tempted" in this verse means "to try or test one's faith,virtue,character,by enticement to sin"("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

If the Lord "produced" those who He knew would accuse Peter,and the Lord knew that those accusations would lead to Peter's sin of denying the Lord Jesus,then it could not be any clearer that the Lord was indeed enticing Peter to sin.

But the Lord will do no such thing.And without that you cannot explain how the Lord would know that Peter would deny the Lord Jesus Christ three times.

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

 

[1Way]

Jerry Shugart,
Christ’s prediction in His prophecy about Peter’s denial concerned the events as they took place, namely, Peter “did” deny knowing and following Jesus! That sort of fear of association is far beneath the bravery of being willing to give your life. Surely you can see the vast difference in willingness to die between the 3 denials and the attack with the sword. Surely you do not deny that Peter denied Christ 3 times, so I see no reason to argue against the established idea that Peter became fearful during Christ’s Crucifixion.

As to Mtt 26:51, Bob need not do away with the rest of Peter’s life and foolhardiness slash bravery. The situation changed greatly, and so did Peter’s outlook, as demonstrated by his denials.

Then you said

But at the same time the Lord must have known that His prophecy could not come true unless He Himself “produced” three people to accuse Peter.So according to you the Lord produced three accusers so that the prophecy could be fulfilled.Therefore,using our common sense we can see that the Lord arranged the circumstances whereby Peter denied Christ three times.

You make it sound like the millions in Jerusalem were not interested in the stories and people involved with that “man” and “His way”. Again, Bob said that the people were both plentiful, and interested in what was going on. Surely it must have been one of the most remarkable times in history, but you seem to think that the people might not have been almost universally interested in these matters (Jesus, king of the Jews, religious factions, followers/desciples of Jesus, His way is the ONLY way to God the Father, etc. etc.). I think that Bob is mostly suggesting that the people actually end up meeting up with Peter, which was again, a very slight thing to invoke.

You also said

According to you the Lord “knew” that Peter would deny the Lord Jesus Christ three times if he was accused three times.And then according to you He arranged to have him accused three times so that Peter would deny Him three times.But somehow you can say that God did nothing to “make certain” that Peter would deny Him three times!

There may be an issue of definitions here. Some things that are “certain” are not absolutely certain, and some are absolutely certain. The two opposing views represented by Bob and Sam are at both poles, absolutely certain, and certain enough, yet not unalterably so, because Bob maintains that if Peter repented, saying, your right Lord, I would do that, then Jesus’ predictive prophesy would also remain true even though Peter might not have done it. Jesus was right about Peter (unless Peter repents). And God is right for making such observations, and is also right to change His mind if and when the circumstances change. (Jonah and Nineveh, the potter and the clay, creation to the flood, the Davidic Kingdom, etc.)

Lastly, you said

Also,when Peter denied that he was a disciple of the Lord Jesus he was in fact committing a sin.

Just presenting an idea does not make it right nor according to scripture. I don’t have any idea why you think that this was necessarily a sin. Please explain.

 

[Bob Enyart]

What about Dr. Lamerson's latest assertion about Peter (some may have missed it since it was not listed in the five questions he listed - which I agree Mr. Enyart addressed). In a newer position, Dr. Lamerson points to a passage that seems to indicate that Jesus knew Peter would repent.

What are some OV's thoughts on this passage. I'm undecided as to whether it is more or less difficult for Jesus to predict Peter's repentance than to predict his denials.

ApologeticJedi, I cut this graph for space limits from 6B: "Please take into account the obvious implications of NOAH and JONAH when attempting to refute my position. For example, regarding your 6A claim that by Openness, if God had to prompt the accusers to question Peter, that “makes God guilty of entrapment,” but far from luring him to sin, asking if Peter was a follower of Christ gives him yet another opportunity to trust God! And as for the Lord’s confidence that Peter would repent, We deny only exhaustive foreknowledge; so please don’t suppose that we think God is dull-witted, since you and I, with our meager doses of godly wisdom, routinely read other people correctly, knowing who loves the Lord (even if weak), and who remains hardhearted. Even many strong Christians are weak in different areas, and knowing their weaknesses does not lead us to suspect that deep down, they are secretly Judas-like haters of God. If we counted all of our wonderful Christian friends (male and female Peters) who have let God down in some significant way in the past year, including ourselves, what percentage of all of us have recovered and still love the Lord? Sam, you'd have to provide the percent of the Christians you know who fit this, but for me, it's somewhere around 100%.

 

[Birdman]

You don't say! Self centered is bad eh? What is the opposite of being self-centered? I'm looking for a one word answer and it starts with the letter "R".


As the Bible says? Why do you care about what the Bible says about the serpent in the Garden of Eden when you ignore what it says about the rest of creation? Via the Big Bang; what a joke.

Resting in Him,
Clete

The opposite of Self-Centered is Agapé Love = Jesus dying on the cross.

The Bible doesnt mention the Big Bang by name - but its in there. Try Gen 1:1

It has become apparent to me that this discussion has degenerated into an argument. Therefore I reject all further discussion.
--Doug @ 2005.8.29.18.54.42 PT

 

[Jerry Shugart]

1Way,

You said:

Just presenting an idea does not make it right nor according to scripture. I don’t have any idea why you think that this was necessarily a sin. Please explain.

Of course Peter’s denial that he was a disciple of the Lord Jesus was a sin.He denied his faith,and ”whatever is not of faith is sin”(Ro.14:23).

I think that Bob is mostly suggesting that the people actually end up meeting up with Peter, which was again, a very slight thing to invoke.

You speak of “absolute certainity” and “reasonable certainity”.How “reasonable” would it be for someone who Bob describes as being “fearful” and not willing to die for the cause to go to any place where he might be identified as being a disciple?

The “reasonable” expectation in regard to a “fearful” man would be for him to go someplace where he would not have to worried about being exposed—with other believers or by himself.There would be no chance of being exposed under those circumstances.

So why would the Lord Jesus have a “reasonable” expectation that Peter would deny him three times that night?

In fact,if Peter would have just mingled with the crowd it would have been very unlikely that he would have been accused of being a disciple even once—much less three times!The great majority of those who came to the Passover were not from Jerusalem and had never seen Peter.

And how “reasonable” would it been for a man “fearful” of his life be expected to go to the very place where he could easily be identified as a believer and therefore put himself in danger of being exposed?So Peter’s actions were not in harmony as to what Bob said was the Lord Jesus’ knowledge of Peter’s heart at the time of the prediction.

As to Mtt 26:51, Bob need not do away with the rest of Peter’s life and foolhardiness slash bravery. The situation changed greatly, and so did Peter’s outlook, as demonstrated by his denials.

Yes,but how was the Lord to know that Peter would change from being brave to being in fear?

After all,according to Bob the Lord did not even know whether or not Abraham feared Him until he took the knife and drew it back in order to slay Isaac.If He could not know if Abraham feared Him until He saw some outward act of that faith then why should anyone believe that the Lord could be “reasonably” sure that Peter would deny Him three times,especially since the first act after the prophecy Peter did indeed risk his life for the cause?

An examination of the Scriptual facts demonstrate that the Lord Jesus would not have a “reasonable” expectation that Peter would deny Him three times before the night was over.The only way that the Lord would have known with a “reasonable” certainty that Peter would do this is by arranging the circumstances so that Peter would deny Him three times.Bob said:

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.

By arranging the circumstances by “producing accusers” to accuse Peter the Lord would be in effect be arranging for Peter an enticement to sin.There is no question about that.If the Lord believed that Peter would deny Him three times then He would be reasonably certain that the accusations would in fact result in Peter’s denial.

Therefore,the Lord would know that He was tempting Peter to sin.But the Scriptures reveal that the Lord would never do such a thing:

” Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil,neither tempteth he any man”(Jas.1:13).

The Greek word translated "tempted" in this verse means "to try or test one's faith,virtue,character,by enticement to sin"("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

The Lord would not be arranging the circumstances in order to test Peter’s faith.But Bob attempts to get around this by saying:

For example, regarding your 6A claim that by Openness, if God had to prompt the accusers to question Peter, that “makes God guilty of entrapment,” but far from luring him to sin, asking if Peter was a follower of Christ gives him yet another opportunity to trust God!

Here we must believe that the Lord had a reasonably certainity that Peter would deny the Lord Jesus three times,but when He went around arranging people to accuse Peter of being a believer it never occurred to Him that these accusations might tempt Peter to deny his beliefs.

It does not matter what the Lord’s motives were in arranging for accusers because the Lord would know with a reasonable certainity that those accusations would in fact act as an temptation to sin.And the Lord will do no such thing regardless of His motive.

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

 

[brockerst]

This debate really isn't working!

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

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

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

The most effective debates would be professor vs professor or "preacher" vs "preacher". Obviously Professor Vs "Preacher" doesn't work.

Professors tend to use logic and proof.
"Preachers" disregard logic and seem to use proofs that are as hollow as bubbles.

Brock

 

[Gerlad]

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

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

JB

 

[David22]

e4e Are You One of the Elect?

e4e Are You One of the Elect?

There in lies your fallacy. You think that just because a person is a CVer that man's choice is somehow over ridden. That sir is a lie to justify your own belief. Will you please stop making this false accusation. It is not true, has never been true and will never be true. You seem to have no concept of what a CVer believes except what some jug head has told you.

After reading some of your comments, I was wondering...Are you one of the elect? If so, how do you know? Why do you bother to debate anyone, if it is predetermined who goes to heaven? It won't change anything, why are you wasting your time? Am I getting you confused with a strict Calvinist? I personally, do not quite understand what CVers believe. :bang: When you say "jug head" are you referring to Bob?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

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

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

JB

interesting :think:

 

[1Way]

Jerry Shugart, (Part 1 of 2)

Anyone can argue against anything if they are simply determined.

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

As to

1Way said
I think that Bob is mostly suggesting that the people actually end up meeting up with Peter, which was again, a very slight thing to invoke.

to which you said

You speak of “absolute certainity” and “reasonable certainity”. (1) How “reasonable” would it be for someone who Bob describes as being “fearful” and not willing to die for the cause to go to any place where he might be identified as being a disciple?

(2) The “reasonable” expectation in regard to a “fearful” man would be for him to go someplace where he would not have to worried about being exposed—with other believers or by himself.There would be no chance of being exposed under those circumstances.

(3) So why would the Lord Jesus have a “reasonable” expectation that Peter would deny him three times that night?

(1) I suppose that it was reasonable enough, after all, it actually did happen. Even though you seem to dislike Peter’s fear response, I prefer scriptures account of what actually happened. Peter was not brave and noble, instead he denied even knowing Jesus.

Do you do accept the biblical record on this matter? If not, why not?

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

(3) Because He is God and can read the hearts of men, and has all available present knowledge of the surrounding events. And God gave Peter hope that after he returns/repents, he’ll be back on track, instead of rejected.
Gotta run.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

1Way,

You said:

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

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

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

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

You evidently do not care to look at these events with an open mind.Of course what Peter did in denying that he was a disciple of Jesus Christ was a sin.You say that I do not have any “support reasoning” but you did not even address the “support reasoning” that I gave—”what is not of faith is sin”(Ro.14:23).

I suppose that it was reasonable enough, after all, it actually did happen. Even though you seem to dislike Peter’s fear response, I prefer scriptures account of what actually happened. Peter was not brave and noble, instead he denied even knowing Jesus.

The subject is what would the Lord Jesus “reasonably” infer by just knowing the heart of Peter at the time when He made His prediction.But since you obviously have no intelligent answer you can only come up with this.I guess that you think that you must say something,even though it is not revelant to the point that I raised.

Do you do accept the biblical record on this matter? If not, why not?

The subject we were discussing is not what happened,but instead what could the Lord Jesus reasonably infer about Peter’s future actions based on what He could know about his heart at the time He made the prediction.

I asked:

So why would the Lord Jesus have a “reasonable” expectation that Peter would deny him three times that night?

To which you replied:

Because He is God and can read the hearts of men, and has all available present knowledge of the surrounding events. And God gave Peter hope that after he returns/repents, he’ll be back on track, instead of rejected.

Yes,according to those who believe the brand of Open Theism taught by Bob Enyart the Lord can only know the “present” heart of a man.These same people also teach that God did not even know if Abraham feared Him until He saw some outward demonstration of that fear.But they deny that the Lord has any knowledge about the “future” state of a man’s heart.But here you do not even address the question that I asked about how the Lord could have a “reasonable” expectation that Peter would deny him three times.

Even Bob Enyart recognizes that according to his brand of “Open Theism” the Lord would have no reasonable expectation that Peter would deny the Lord Jesus three times unless He arranged to have accusers on hand to confront Peter.

Your post answered none of the points that I raised but instead was nothing but an evasion of those points.

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