BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

[RobE]

Actually, Bob hasn't denied the fact that God is immutable- He's only denied that the traditional omnis aren't part of his character. He insists that his loving, etc... are immutable and shown to be immutable by the incarnation of Christ. He isn't opposed to immutability as a concept... only to pagan Greek philosophy which includeds the ims.

This still doesn't answer my question which addresses how God behaves, thinks, or rationalizes. My point was --- If God makes decisions, as time progresses, without foreknowledge; isn't he just like Zeus seeing the current situation and acting based on his emotion at the time. We all agree that there is a plan. It's how that plan is put into action that we're talking about here. Wouldn't you consider God from the OV perception to be more Zeus-like than from the CV perception. And if not, why not?

You guys are missing the point! Good greif people! Is it really this difficult to follow someone's very simple train of thought?

He has never denied that the Greek gods happen to have some attributes that are similar to the true and living God of the Bible, in fact it would be impossible for this not to be the case regardless of what Bob believed. What he has denied is that the God of the Bible is immutable, immpassible, etc

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Actually, Bob hasn't denied the fact that God is immutable- He's only denied that the traditional omnis aren't part of his character. He insists that his loving, etc... are immutable and shown to be immutable by the incarnation of Christ. He isn't opposed to immutability as a concept... only to pagan Greek philosophy which includes the ims.

You have either misworded this or you are flatly wrong or both. The incarnation proves that the only thing immutable about God is His character. He can change in dramatic, fundamental and permanent ways. The doctrine of immutability flatly denies this as does the definition of the word.

This still doesn't answer my question which addresses how God behaves, thinks, or rationalizes. My point was --- If God makes decisions, as time progresses, without foreknowledge; isn't he just like Zeus seeing the current situation and acting based on his emotion at the time.

It differs in at least the ways in which I have already listed which are that the God who, unlike Zeus, actually exists, reacts, not based on His emotions, but rather upon His righteousness, His holiness, His justice, etc.

We all agree that there is a plan.

A plan? Like what? This terminology is usually loaded with meaning that I will almost certainly disagree with. I agree that there is an over all plan, sort of big picture type plan, but there is no specific plan that God has for my life or yours aside from his desire to see us do rightly and to love Him and His righteousness.

It's how that plan is put into action that we're talking about here. Wouldn't you consider God from the OV perception to be more Zeus-like than from the CV perception. And if not, why not?

I would consider it to be a moot point. There is no linkage, historical or otherwise between Zeus and Christian open theism. In regards to Calvinism’s links to Greek philosophy, one can connect the historical dots right down the line all the way to Aristotle. No such historical connection can be made with the modern open view movement within Christian circles. Open Theism was born out of an attempt to evacuate Greek influence from Biblical theology and so similarities to the Biblical God in whatever ancient god you want to pick mean nothing. What is the point in even drawing such a parallel if there is no historical linkage between the two? It misses the whole point, as I've said. The point isn't about what is or isn't Greek but what is or isn't Biblical.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Servo]

This whole worried about the word count thing is majoring in the minors.

The substance being presented in the debate is what matters. All are guilty of it, but leave it to Christians to argue about details that DO NOT matter. Now can we get back to our study of a better understanding of GOD???

 

[RobE]

I was directly speaking to God's immutable character. I even used that word. Thanks for agreeing.

And I was speaking of an overall plan. Again, thanks.

Your comment did make me wonder about Saul, Peter, Abraham, Jacob, Mary, Joseph, John the Baptist, and even Nebawhosit the Babylonian King("there is no specific plan that God has for my life or yours aside from his desire to see us do rightly and to love Him and His righteousness").

The historical links between Christianity and false religions is immense since Satan has tried throughout history to pervert the truth by washing it out or watering it down. Just remember that Jesus, THE CHRIST, was preceded by an inumerable amount of false messiahs. What we can see from false religions is how Satan has tried to 'head the truth off at the pass'. My primary concern is the same as yours --- Is it Biblical. Do ancient false religions frame their gods in a way that makes them more temporal or not?

:idea:

You have either misworded this or you are flatly wrong or both. The incarnation proves that the only thing immutable about God is His character.

A plan? Like what? This terminology is usually loaded with meaning that I will almost certainly disagree with. I agree that there is an over all plan, sort of big picture type plan, but there is no specific plan that God has for my life or yours aside from his desire to see us do rightly and to love Him and His righteousness.


I would consider it to be a moot point. There is no linkage, historical or otherwise between Zeus and Christian open theism. In regards to Calvinism’s links to Greek philosophy, one can connect the historical dots right down the line all the way to Aristotle. No such historical connection can be made with the modern open view movement within Christian circles. Open Theism was born out of an attempt to evacuate Greek influence from Biblical theology and so similarities to the Biblical God in whatever ancient god you want to pick mean nothing. What is the point in even drawing such a parallel if there is no historical linkage between the two? It misses the whole point, as I've said. The point isn't about what is or isn't Greek but what is or isn't Biblical.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Jerry Shugart,

In response to this.

Bob does not deny that Jesus can predict the future and that He can do so with terrific accuracy for a variety of reasons. There is more than one problem with your line of reasoning in the above post but even if we assume that your arguments are sound (which they are not) then all you've done is shown that God could not have "tempted" Peter, which no one denies in the first place. But that, by itself, does your position no good because you forget that we find out just before Jesus makes this prophecy that Satan had asked to sift (tempt) Peter. So in this case it isn't even necessary for God to have intervened at all. All that would be needed for Jesus to be able to predict this event would be to have known, for example, that God gave Satan permission to tempt Peter to sin three times sometime between when Jesus made the prediction and the moment a rooster would crow the following morning.

Basically your entire argument misses the point of the Open View's position on this passage and others like it. Any thing we say about how such prophecies were brought to pass is speculation, we do not pretend to know for certain how it was pulled off in any sort of detail. All we do know is that it would not be necessary for God to know the future in order to accurately make such a prediction. There are any number of ways that Jesus could have known enough to be able to confidently make such a prediction. And more importantly, had the prediction not come true, it would not have falsified Jesus' deity because there are other very similar prophecies in Scripture which were not fulfilled and rightly so because God prizes repentance above fulfilled prophecy, which is the whole point of Jeremiah chapter 18.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Thank you Sam Lamerson!

 

[GuySmiley]

My point was --- If God makes decisions, as time progresses, without foreknowledge; isn't he just like Zeus seeing the current situation and acting based on his emotion at the time.

God is just like Zeus in the same sense a corvette is just like a tricycle because they both have wheels. So God makes decisions as time progresses, and so does the mythical zeus. But Bob already pointed out the DIFFERENCES between God and the mythical zeus which you seem to ignore so that you can keep repeating this claim.

 

[Clete]

Thank you Sam Lamerson!

I second that! :thumb:

Thank you very much Dr. for not only being willing to participate in the Battle Royale but for sticking with it to the end. I would say that of the all the debates that Bob has been in, that I have had the privilege to be witness too, you've been as good or better an opponent as any Calvinist has ever been. In fact, I think you've done about as well as any Calvinist could do in presenting a case against Open Theism. That probably sounds sarcastic coming from me but I don't intend it that way; seriously I don't.

I think that had you been more familiar with the style of debate that is common here on TOL, that the debate would have flowed better than it did and perhaps there would have been more "clash", as you call it, but, all in all, I think both sides presented the case that they sought to present for all to see and so, as far as I am concerned, it has been a terrific success (or will be as soon as Bob posts the final post ).

God bless you Dr. I hope this won't actually be the last time we hear from you.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry Shugart,
Bob does not deny that Jesus can predict the future and that He can do so with terrific accuracy for a variety of reasons.

Yes,the "variety" of reasons is that God will make it happen.

There is more than one problem with your line of reasoning in the above post but even if we assume that your arguments are sound (which they are not) then all you've done is shown that God could not have "tempted" Peter, which no one denies in the first place.

You say that my "reasoning" is wrong,but you don't even attempt to prove it!

But that, by itself, does your position no good because you forget that we find out just before Jesus makes this prophecy that Satan had asked to sift (tempt) Peter. So in this case it isn't even necessary for God to have intervened at all.

The words of the Lord Jesus in regard to the "sifting" by Satan are in about all the Apostles (the "you" is in the plural),meaning that Satan would put them all through difficult times.

All that would be needed for Jesus to be able to predict this event would be to have known, for example, that God gave Satan permission to tempt Peter to sin three times sometime between when Jesus made the prediction and the moment a rooster would crow the following morning.

Where is your Scriptual support for your bold assertion that God gave Satan permission to tempt Peter to sin three times?

You just made that up,didn't you?

Basically your entire argument misses the point of the Open View's position on this passage and others like it.

We can see that there is no Scriptual support for your assertion concerning this passage.

Any thing we say about how such prophecies were brought to pass is speculation, we do not pretend to know for certain how it was pulled off in any sort of detail.

Details or no details you prove that you will not hesitate to speculate if it suits your purposes.

All we do know is that it would not be necessary for God to know the future in order to accurately make such a prediction.

Yes,that is what Bob Enyart said.He says that God will make it happen.And then he says that it is possible that the Lord Jesus could have been wrong about that prediction.

There are any number of ways that Jesus could have known enough to be able to confidently make such a prediction.

Then why don't you tell us those number of ways?

And more importantly, had the prediction not come true, it would not have falsified Jesus' deity because there are other very similar prophecies in Scripture which were not fulfilled and rightly so because God prizes repentance above fulfilled prophecy, which is the whole point of Jeremiah chapter 18.[emphasis mine]

Here we go again.

The Open View presented by Bob Enyart cannot be defended apart from the idea that God can be wrong.

But when asked if any of the God's beliefs can be wrong,Bob Enyart answered,"No".

Sam asked him:

"Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?"

And Bob answered:

"No."

So we see that your theology is based on the idea that God can make predictions that are in error,but at the same time God does not hold any ideas that might prove to be false.

If you cannot see that this is contradictory then I am just wasting my time trying to show you that Bob Enyart is in error.

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

 

[RobE]

Thanks for your post.

Thanks for your post.

:thumb:

 

[Clete]

If you cannot see that this is contradictory then I am just wasting my time trying to show you that Bob Enyart is in error.

They are only contradictory when one intentionally misses the point being made, which I am now convinced is exactly what you are doing. You are perhaps the biggest waste of time currently on TOL. It's as if you don't know how to read! :bang:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[novice]

They are only contradictory when one intentionally misses the point being made, which I am now convinced is exactly what you are doing. You are perhaps the biggest waste of time currently on TOL. It's as if you don't know how to read! :bang:

Resting in Him,
Clete

Jerry is a joke and always has been.

 

[Clete]

RobE,

This might seem like I'm bringing up a new topic, but I'm not. Just indulge me by answering one question. Jerry, I suppose I would entertain an answer from you on this as well...

Was God wrong when He said through Jonah, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”?

Yes or no, please.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RobE]

I'll bite.

I'll bite.

RobE,

This might seem like I'm bringing up a new topic, but I'm not. Just indulge me by answering one question. Jerry, I suppose I would entertain an answer from you on this as well...

Was God wrong when He said through Jonah, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”?

Yes or no, please.


Resting in Him,
Clete

No, do you know why he wasn't wrong, Clete?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

They are only contradictory when one intentionally misses the point being made, which I am now convinced is exactly what you are doing.

Clete,the point that Bob made is simple and cannot be misunderstood by anyone with an open mind.

He says that God can make predictions that turn out to be wrong but at the same time He cannot hold any beliefs that might turn out to be wrong.

And just because I point out that this is contradictory I am accused of "intentionally" missing the point being made.

You are perhaps the biggest waste of time currently on TOL. It's as if you don't know how to read!

It is you who proves over and over that you can throw your reason to the wind so that you can continue to believe the fable that God can make predictions that prove to be false.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, I suppose I would entertain an answer from you on this as well...

Was God wrong when He said through Jonah, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”?

Clete,

If God was wrong about that then it is obvious that God did have a belief that turned out to be false.But Sam asked Bob the following question:

"Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?"

To which Bob replied,"No.

Are you saying that Bob is wrong,that God did indeed held a belief that turned out to be false?

The passage concerning Nineveh is not to be taken literally,any more than is the following verse:

"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 are to take this verse literally then we must believe that God did not know what was going on in the wicked cities until He went to those cities to see.

Are you now willing to argue that God is wrong sometimes and that He didn't even know what was happening on the earth at Genesis 18:21?

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

 

[Clete]

Clete,

If God was wrong about that then it is obvious that God did have a belief that turned out to be false.But Sam asked Bob the following question:

"Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?"

To which Bob replied,"No.

Are you saying that Bob is wrong,that God did indeed held a belief that turned out to be false?

The passage concerning Nineveh is not to be taken literally,any more than is the following verse:

"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 are to take this verse literally then we must believe that God did not know what was going on in the wicked cities until He went to those cities to see.

Are you now willing to argue that God is wrong sometimes and that He didn't even know what was happening on the earth at Genesis 18:21?

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

Did you miss the part where I asked for a simple yes or no? Don't assume you know where I'm going with this, just answer the question. Do you, in your own opinion beleive that God was wrong when he said through the prophet Jonah, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”?

 

[Clete]

No, do you know why he wasn't wrong, Clete?

Yes! I do know!

It's the same reason Jesus would not have been wrong had Peter remained faithful and not denied Christ three times.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RobE]

And....

And....

Yes! I do know!

It's the same reason Jesus would not have been wrong had Peter remained faithful and not denied Christ three times.

Resting in Him,
Clete

That reason is......:drum:????

I won't see your post until Friday.....

 

[Clete]

That reason is......:drum:????

I won't see your post until Friday.....

You tell me. I don't even want to open that can of worms. That wasn't the point of asking the question. The point is that I don't believe Jesus would have been mistaken about Peter any more than you believe God was mistaken about Ninevah and that there is therefore no contradiction in what we or Bob have said.

Resting in Him,
Clete