BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

[RobE]

Thanks for your kindness?

Thanks for your kindness?

The Question:

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.

The Answer? (note: All I did is ask you to answer the 'why' in your question)

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

Thanks for opening the can of worms and refusing to put them back in again and please don't ask me any questions if you don't intend to discuss them. What would happen if I really didn't know the answer?

The point is that you DO believe that Jesus could have been mistaken about Peter, but wouldn't be. That's where we diverge in our beliefs. I DON'T, CAN'T, and WON'T believe that JESUS CHRIST might possibly be WRONG/MISTAKEN about anything.

On the other hand, you point out the fact that GOD said Nineveh would be overthrown and wasn't. You see that either God didn't overthrow Nineveh that he either made a change or was a LIAR. You DON'T, CAN'T, and WON'T believe that GOD is a LIAR.

Well, where do we go from here?

Bob hinted at the answer in the debate when he pointed out the attributes of a dynamic, living God; but I outrun myself....

When Bob goes to discipline his kids, he has to decide what punishment is appropriate. It's far easier for God because he made a list(law) to follow. The punishment is universal---death. He foresaw our death when we became as they are with the knowledge of good and evil. Anyway, I digress...

When Bob tells his son to quit a behavior or he's going to spank him; and then, when his son commits the offense he doesn't spank him is Bob a liar? After all, he believed(not foreknowledge) with a certainty that he would the next time his son did whatever it was. He absolutely did not lie.

Now, say Bob was Omniscient for a day and the same events occurred. Then would Bob be a liar? You say 'yes' and I say 'no'. I say 'no' because part of Bob's immutable character is he is merciful. And it should be pointed out that I know Bob loves his son. Would he change the future for mercy's sake? I can say this because I know Bob, have had a personal relationship with him, and rely on the fact that his mercy outweighs(trumps) his judgement in most situations. Bob differs from our Lord in the fact that in our Lord's immutable character: mercy, as expressed through the incarnation, ALWAYS outweighs his judgement.

By the way, this is a point that both you and I hold in common(hopefully).

Now the case of Peter. I would propose to you that it was simply an observation since he didn't say something to the effect of "Peter, you'll deny me three times and go to hell!". He simply stated as a matter of fact what Peter would do with no judgement to it at all. A non-issue only, an observation, period. That's the difference in the parallel you're trying to draw. OK?

Now you see that we agree on God's ability to change---for mercy's sake because of his immutable character(love, grace, mercy).

What you don't seem to understand is that (per Bob) the open view is inviting heresy by attacking the divinity of GOD. Your understanding of the open view itself shows in your above comments:

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

You say, "The point is that I don't believe Jesus...", and, "...you believe God...".

Bob argues in the debate that God divested himself of certain abilities. That God laid down part of himself and essentially changed. The open view must do this to survive!
Examine your own thinking(and your own words, above). What the closed view is unwilling to do is to say God can change his basic nature; all the while, remembering that mercy outweighs and defeats his judgement(as God on the Cross proves).

This is my concern....Did God create man to become gods or did man create God to become man? Is this the 'open' road? Does Jesus change the future or is he subject to it because it's out of his control? If you know everything aren't all outcomes possible? Aren't you responsible for everything if you know everything? Shouldn't you execute summary judgement on Adam and be done with it?.....

...Or show mercy and let Bob, Clete, RobE, Knight, and the ones you can; escape from the wreckage. Are you responsible for all the dead simply because you desired to give them all life? They rejected it and it saddened you, but some survived to become your 'sons' --for your glory. There's only one of you and it's my hope you're in the kingdom. And if that's my hope, what price will the Lord pay for your salvation. He knows, and that's part of the price for your uniqueness and his gift of free will.

Sorry it's so long. I got on a roll. Thanks for you being you.

RobE

 

[Bob Enyart]

In round 6 Bob Enyart gives us His view of God with scriptures from the whole Bible.
This generated many questions. To begin with:

1. If God’s plain A failed and B and C and so on, what plan are we on?
2. Was the Garden of Eden plain A?
3. Was the objective of the Garden completed or was it a failure?
4. Do you see Adam and Eve being better off outside the Garden or inside the Garden (before they sinned)? Why?
5. What lesson do you learn from this garden story that could not be told another way?

Bling is it? I'd like to respond to your questions, so let me do it in a narrative here. God had a plan to create creatures to fellowship with, and if the humans rebelled, God would offer redemption to them (at great expense to Himself). That all happened. The rebellion was a contingency. Plans and hopes are two different things. Perhaps you can respond to this statement, since Sam never did. "Love hopes all things, which exhaustive foreknowledge cannot do." God's "plan" fully anticipated the possibility of sin. So, if that is the meaning of your A in Qs 1 & 2, then, we would still be in plan A. If however, you want to number these by hopes, then God's first hope was for man to obey. Man sinned, now God hopes for each man individually to accept His offer of salvation, which is a new hope. I guess you could call that Hope B if you wanted. Now, the objective of the Garden, was it completed or a failure: the garden functioned as God intended, it could have sustained Adam and Eve indefintely had they not rebelled, and by contingency God planned that if they sinned, He would evict them (and the Garden, by the way, itself played a key role in triggering the Flood, Ezek 31, etc.). So, the Garden was the setting for contingent events which God had anticipated. Is your Q4 clear? I'm not sure I understand it. But I'll try to answer anyway. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve had a worldwide extaordinary paradise they could explore, and the Garden itself was a special treasure above all else. After the fall, God could have prevented them from eating of the Tree of Live (which ends up in the New Creation) in different ways, but He chose to evict them and to leave the Garden itself in tact on Earth until it was destroyed by the Flood ~1650 years later. After sin, they were better off struggling to provide for themselves because the very process of having to work hard to survive is a motivator toward maturing, which is part of the process of people acknolwedging reality (including that they and their world are fallen). The lesson from the Garden story is that it teaches us the actual historical account of the origin of evil, in it's actual historical setting, so that, we could create a metaphor for the Garden and the temptation (as C.S. Lewis did in Out of the Silent Planet), and such a metaphor could instruct us about the principles of God and the consequences of rebellion, but then it would not provide the an actual historical record of the events that led to man's sinful state.

-Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver BIble Church

 

[duel]

Truth be told...

Truth be told...

I previously missplaced this note. I have since updated it.




Bob

I remember when the notions of “The Plot” first touched my theological grasp. I devoured the possibilities. I asked you, "Is there more...?"

More than five years later I have had the pleasure of debating the deep theological arguments for open-dispensationalism. Part of my apologetic has always been to re-define the Omni's by replacing them, with Ultra-niscient, Ultra-present, Ultra-potent. While my efforts may have been accurate they lacked the sweet sense of relationship with the living and loving God that you attempted to teach during the debate. Sweet.

In this debate I learned for the first time how to clearly and effectively describe the character and/or nature of God with the notion of greater and lesser attributes. Amazing. I believe you are bringing light to the dark shadows of Churchianity. Thank You!!!

I also learned the term "special-immutability” as way to clearly and utterly declare that God’s Loving Character is far greater and unchangeable than his magnificent creative power.

Thanks again. :sinapisN:

I did not expect that Sam would offer any great resistance to your so-called sloppy EISEGESIS. While I am saddened that no real effort was made to critically analyze your hermeneutic(s), it is more common than not that any attempt to bring clarity to someone that could hold contradictions like his and not take your approach seriously enough to understand it will miss it entirely. Denying the true loving character of the one true Lord would never come to understand the fresh breath of truth you have presented to us all.

Don’t get me wrong, judgment will come, of that I am sure. But within repentance is the wonderful grace of God.

“If man would repent, the Lord would never have to.” I‘ll stand by that and I would have never come to that conclusion if it were not for you..

I can’t thank you enough for the simple yet powerful charity you bring to the theological table. I wish that we had more time together and I look forward to many more blessings through you and with you.

I am glad that it was predestined before the foundation of the world that we would teach that it wasn’t. May the Lord bless you with His presence NOW, literally and forever. oly:

I can only imagine what a 26 hr day would be like if you had them all to yourself. :doh:

Daniel
GODISNOWHERE.org

 

[duel]

Well, if I may...

God is invincible, unless he fails? Jesus could not be mistaken, expect when he was mistaken? It seems the Open View tries to have it both ways...

Blessings,
Lee

How is hope in the belief that your creation will come to faith, failure?

Does God hope? :kookoo:

 

[chatmaggot]

In the critique thread Bob said...

"I have a surprise to reveal to you right after the final tenth round post! I'll do so in this Critique Thread..."

Was this a reference to the email that he hoped to receive from Sam admitting defeat or is it something else. If it is something else, then where is it? Or did I miss something?

 

[Bob Enyart]

In the critique thread Bob said...
"I have a surprise to reveal to you right after the final tenth round post! I'll do so in this Critique Thread..."
Was this a reference to the email that he hoped to receive from Sam admitting defeat or is it something else. If it is something else, then where is it? Or did I miss something?

CM: No, it's something quite different. I don't have time to post it right now. Tomorrow (Sunday) Columbine dad Brian Rohrbough and I are flying to Ft. Lauderdale to give a presentation on Christian Political Strategy to the director of D. James Kennedy's Reclaiming America. (Yes, coincidentally, this is another group under the same umbrella organization that Dr. Lamerson's Knox Theological Seminary operates under, but the debate and this meeting were arranged by people who don't even know each other, so they have nothing directly to do with each other.)

When I return in the middle of next week, I'll post my surprise for the Calvinists and Settled Viewers. Thanks for asking.

-Bob

 

[Bob Enyart]

So, do any Calvinists/Setters think they won/lost BR X?

So, do any Calvinists/Setters think they won/lost BR X?

So, do any Calvinists or Setted Viewers think that their side lost Battle Royale X?

Now that it's over. Do any think they won?

I'd like to know what you think.

-Bob

 

[Delmar]

So, do any Calvinists or Setted Viewers think that their side lost Battle Royale X?

Now that it's over. Do any think they won?

I'd like to know what you think.

-Bob

I was pretty sure you won but Tye Porter set me straight . He claims you lost in your first post. He didn't explain why all that well though because I have no idea what he was talking about.
here . He claims you lost in your first post. He didn't explain why all that well though because I have no idea what he was talking about.

 

[Leonard A]

Winning or Loosing the BR X Debate

Winning or Loosing the BR X Debate

I became a member of the TOL to follow the debate between Bob Enyart and Sam Lamerson. I read each post. The more I read the clearer it was that Bob Enyart did not come to debate. Battle Royal X was merely a pretext to broadcast his views. He used this pseudo-debate as a springboard and to go off on his condescending ramblings (e.g., his hobby horse to attack Sam Lamerson’s position that God does not change comes from pagan tenets that influenced theology through the ages).

Bob Enyart never dealt substantively with the arguments that Sam Lamerson presented. This made the debate null and void with respect to Bob Enyart’s position and thus Sam Lamerson won, despite his sometimes inadequate or faulty presentation of the truth.

Apparently, Dr. Lamerson does not realize: when an individual holds and truly believes a thing, he does not need to apologize for it. Instead of looking gracious, his repeated apologies, made him appear weak and created questions about his commitment to vigorously challenge the Open View.

Clete is a caricature of the town bully in the old western movies. Attempting to intimidate individuals that are not in agreement with the “party line.” By way of contrast, he obsequiously kowtows to Bob Enyart with servile flatteries. Boorish bluster may work with some people. However, when you remove the myriad rash imprecations which are sprinkled throughout Clete’s posts there is very little if any substance left. If it weren’t for the seriousness of the issues involved, he would be laughable – a mere joke.

Regarding Knight, he is nothing more than another one of Enyart’s coven of lackeys. He does not moderate debates. He is merely a Bob Enyart front man bowing to whatever Bob needs (e.g., when Bob is floundering Knight jumps to salvage him).

Viewing the various posts from different responders, the bulk of the commenting TOL membership must be from Bob Enyart’s church. So, no matter how he is doing in the debate the statistics will show that he is “winning” the debate by popular pole and posts in the form of reply or critique.

I challenge TOL to submit the debate record to an independent group to objectively judge the rounds. I know that you will not.

Remember this, every single individual will appear before God to give an account for all their words and actions.

To any and all individuals who hold to the OV position, I have this to say; if you have truly understood and embraced OV doctrine; if you have rejected the Settled View (after having honestly examined its claims in the light of the Scriptures); if you have continued to fight against the omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, impassibility, and immutability of the Triune God of Scripture until you die; you will appear alone and unaided before the Great White Throne (not the Bemma Seat) to answer for your Luciferian doctrine. Stop and Consider.

With this said, I will leave.

I am hereby requesting that my name be removed from the TOL membership roster and that I be notified by email when this is accomplished.

Leonard A.

 

[Clete]

Clete is a caricature of the town bully in the old western movies. Attempting to intimidate individuals that are not in agreement with the “party line.” By way of contrast, he obsequiously kowtows to Bob Enyart with servile flatteries. Boorish bluster may work with some people. However, when you remove the myriad rash imprecations which are sprinkled throughout Clete’s posts there is very little if any substance left. If it weren’t for the seriousness of the issues involved, he would be laughable – a mere joke.

Before you go, I'd love for you to attempt to objectively establish this little tidbit. I know that you will not.

To any and all individuals who hold to the OV position, I have this to say; if you have truly understood and embraced OV doctrine; if you have rejected the Settled View (after having honestly examined its claims in the light of the Scriptures); if you have continued to fight against the omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, impassibility, and immutability of the Triune God of Scripture until you die; you will appear alone and unaided before the Great White Throne (not the Bemma Seat) to answer for your Luciferian doctrine. Stop and Consider.

I would also like for you to establish Biblically that one must believe that the future is settled in order to be saved. I know that you will not.

With this said, I will leave.

I am hereby requesting that my name be removed from the TOL membership roster and that I be notified by email when this is accomplished.

:wave2:

 

[jhodgeiii]

I would also like for you to establish Biblically that one must believe that the future is settled in order to be saved. I know that you will not.

As Leonard A showed in his post, there have been one or two other Settled View posters who made the disturbing claim that those people who hold the Open View are not saved. I, also, have been wanting to directly ask them who made this rule up? Man (yourself)? Or God (in His Word)? Frankly, I feel it's this very type of thinking (holding doctrine and tradition above the substance) that lead a significant amount of people to despise so-called organized religion. It's because so often you do as the Pharisees and scribes apparently did. I give Matthew 15:1-9 as an example:

Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."

Settled Viewer: Why do you Open Viewers transgress the Church's tradition of the Settled View?

He (Jesus) answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?

For salvation, our Lord requires belief in Him. Yet, people like Leonard A are saying it takes more than belief in Christ for salvation. You must also believe in His "omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, impassibility, and immutability." This standard did NOT come from Christ. Moreover, the heavy weight and focus given to this doctrine is stealing focus from of the real substance: God's love for man. For if God did not love man and there was no redemption of sins, what good would believing in His attributes do? Jumping ahead, Jesus then goes on to admonish the Pharisees and scribes by saying:

Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' "

Leonard A and others who think like him: You need to take to heart that love of God and your neighbor is vastly more important than any man-inspired doctrine!

 

[Delmar]

Before you go, I'd love for you to attempt to objectively establish this little tidbit. I know that you will not.


I would also like for you to establish Biblically that one must believe that the future is settled in order to be saved. I know that you will not.



:wave2:

I find it intresting that a settled viewer ( Tye Porter)
was just accusing Bob of saying you had to be an OVer to be Christian! Somthing Bob did not say and I'm quite sure does not believe.

 

[Clete]

I find it intresting that a settled viewer ( Tye Porter)
was just accusing Bob of saying you had to be an OVer to be Christian! Somthing Bob did not say and I'm quite sure does not believe.

Bob definately does not believe that.

 

[MyshrallBayou]

MyshrallJohn, that's big of you. (I think.)

-Bob

I didn't think you would want to discuss this. But thank you for generous post to my question nonetheless.

 

[bling]

Thank you for taking the time to answer, I am not apposed to what you are saying, just have a lot of questions, since before this month, I did not looked into it or think much about it. I was more familiar with the issues of Calvinism, which generates a lot of questions also.

I'd like to respond to your questions, so let me do it in a narrative here. God had a plan to create creatures to fellowship with, and if the humans rebelled, God would offer redemption to them (at great expense to Himself). That all happened. The rebellion was a contingency. Plans and hopes are two different things. Perhaps you can respond to this statement, since Sam never did. "Love hopes all things, which exhaustive foreknowledge cannot do."

In 1 Corinthians 13 13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
I always took this to mean Love continues to exist in heaven while Faith and Hope are not needed. I define Hope as desired expectation, in heaven you no long need to expect to get anything, since you already have it and you no longer need faith since you have sight (so to speak) of God and Christ. Faith, Hope and Love very much go together on earth.

1. What will we Hope for in heaven?
2. Do we need faith in heaven, also?

God's "plan" fully anticipated the possibility of sin. So, if that is the meaning of your A in Qs 1 & 2, then, we would still be in plan A. If however, you want to number these by hopes, then God's first hope was for man to obey. Man sinned, now God hopes for each man individually to accept His offer of salvation, which is a new hope. I guess you could call that Hope B if you wanted.

We see God as the source of Hope (desired expectation), but does God have desired expectations?

Now, the objective of the Garden, was it completed or a failure: the garden functioned as God intended, it could have sustained Adam and Eve indefintely had they not rebelled, and by contingency God planned that if they sinned, He would evict them (and the Garden, by the way, itself played a key role in triggering the Flood, Ezek 31, etc.). So, the Ga rden was the setting for contingent events which God had anticipated. Is your Q4 clear? I'm not sure I understand it. But I'll try to answer anyway. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve had a worldwide extaordinary paradise they could explore, and the Garden itself was a special treasure above all else. After the fall, God could have prevented them from eating of the Tree of Live (which ends up in the New Creation) in different ways, but He chose to evict them and to leave the Garden itself in tact on Earth until it was destroyed by the Flood ~1650 years later. After sin, they were better off struggling to provide for themselves because the very process of having to work hard to survive is a motivator toward maturing, which is part of the process of people acknolwedging reality (including that they and their world are fallen). The lesson from the Garden story is that it teaches us the actual historical account of the origin of evil, in it's actual historical setting, so that, we could create a metaphor for the Garden and the temptation (as C.S. Lewis did in Out of the Silent Planet), and such a metaphor could instruct us about the principles of God and the consequences of rebellion, but then it would not provide the an actual historical record of the events that led to man's sinful state.

Since Adam was made full grown and preprogrammed to some extent by God, how smart do you think he was?
I see God as having very wonderful desires for all humans (the garden be one desire for all humans) the problem is the Garden, as He should realize will not work.

You understand how people are, if you only had knowledge of people and the power of Satin would you expect a person put in the Garden situation not to sin, by his own power?

In the Garden:
Humans must maintain their eternal close relationship with God by obedience. Outside the Garden they will be dependent on God’s mercy for an eternal relationship. Would you rather be dependent on your obedience or God’s mercy?
In the Garden humans can not experience forgiveness, since they have not sinned, is there a problem with this?
In the garden there are no needy people (those you can help without being helped directly in return) God is providing for all the needs of humans, His agape love is being showered on them, but they can’t be faithful sheep in the example of Matt. 25: 31-46, can they?
We love then we obey, does our developing agape love require needy people?
Adam and Eve can not see the full extent of God’s love without the cross. Does agape love begin with the realization of being forgiven of much for humans Luke 7: 36-50?
Did Adam and Eve have the indwelling Holy Spirit?
Do you think God could not see this as a huge problem, before He made Adam?

Thank you again for responding.

 

[Bob Enyart]

...on a jet plane

...on a jet plane

Bob Enyart never dealt substantively with the arguments that Sam Lamerson presented.

Leonard, I'll pay you $100 for everyone of Sam's 29 official questions that you can list that I did not answer.

And if you object that I left out your qualifier, "substantively," then for a bonus of pure satisfaction, why don't you point out the two questions that I did not so address. Remember, you will not be fully satsified by completing this exercise simply by listing questions for which you disagreed with my answers, but you'll have to list questions for which I did not address the substance.

Hey, perhaps you could offer to donate to DBC a certain sum for every one of my questions that Sam didn't answer? No? Well then, how about this... Why don't you list those questions that Sam didn't answer, and give solid Settled View answers for them? Yes? That would be fun!

I challenge TOL to submit the debate record to an independent group to objectively judge the rounds. I know that you will not.

Leonard, I have a challenge for you. Submit this debate record to an independent group [?] to objectively judge the rounds. I hope that you will!

Remember this, every single individual will appear before God to give an account for all their words and actions.

Leonard, Calvinists believe that God wrote every word of the Open View side of Battle Royale X, eons before I was born. So... if you don't like my posts, you might as well complain to Sam as to me, or yourself for that matter. You know (if Calvinism is correct, and my posts are so ludicrous), it just might be that God had written this entire debate...both sides!, before the ages, just to annoy you!

That would be a hoot, wouldn't it!

Stop and Consider.

With this said, I will leave. I am hereby requesting that my name be removed from the TOL membership roster and that I be notified by email when this is accomplished. Leonard A.

Leonard, if you really had left, then you wouldn't have just read this post of mine. No? And if you had left the last time that you posted that you had left, you wouldn't have written the post I've just quoted from. So, the question is, why have you been predestined to repeatedly write that you are leaving, without you having the strength to really leave?

And finally, aside from all the rather straightforward questions I've asked in the debate, do you think you can answer this really deep one: Why does the Calvinist God desire less glory from toothaches from people who floss? No?

-Bob

 

[Mr. 5020]

I am hereby requesting that my name be removed from the TOL membership roster and that I be notified by email when this is accomplished.

No! It will stay there...


FOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRR

 

[Bob Enyart]

where'd that response go???

where'd that response go???

Bling, of course I cannot insist that you to respond to question. But you started to respond (I think), but then switched to answering some different question. There are always different questions that are interesting. But it's hard to dialogue if we are talking about different things. I asked you:

Perhaps you can respond to this statement, since Sam never did. "Love hopes all things, which exhaustive foreknowledge cannot do."

And you answered...

well...

I wanted to paste your response here --> (<-- actually, right there, in that space between the arrows). But I couldn't find it !

(We haven't been formally introduced, so I'm not even sure that you'd be ok with me making light of this. But it's difficult to discuss important matters without disciplining ourselves to actually respond to each other.)

So, I stopped reading your post right there! (Well, not actually <--- right there, but somewhere up there -----^.) If you'd like, you can re-write that post, starting off by responding to that question (not that you have to, of course, but only if you really want to dialogue). And I'll try to get back here and look for your new post (and for LeonA sneaking around!).

Thanks, -Bob

 

[bling]

I am sorry if I was not direct enough in my answer. I will try to do better and please watch me if I wander and call it to my attention. Let us try again:


Thank you for taking the time to answer, I am not apposed to what you are saying, just have a lot of questions, since before this month, I did not looked into it or think much about it. I was more familiar with the issues of Calvinism, which generates a lot of questions also.

[

QUOTE=Bob Enyart]
Quote:
I'd like to respond to your questions, so let me do it in a narrative here. God had a plan to create creatures to fellowship with, and if the humans rebelled, God would offer redemption to them (at great expense to Himself). That all happened. The rebellion was a contingency. Plans and hopes are two different things. Perhaps you can respond to this statement, since Sam never did. "Love hopes all things, which exhaustive foreknowledge cannot do."

“Love always hopes”

As I see Hope being used (and might always be used for spiritual Hope) is desired expectation. Now if God hopes, it is what He both desires and expects (knows) will happen. Humans can have (spiritual) hope in any of God promises which we can know will happen and what we are asked to hope for.

Quote:
God's "plan" fully anticipated the possibility of sin. So, if that is the meaning of your A in Qs 1 & 2, then, we would still be in plan A. If however, you want to number these by hopes, then God's first hope was for man to obey. Man sinned, now God hopes for each man individually to accept His offer of salvation, which is a new hope. I guess you could call that Hope B if you wanted.

Can God have a burning desire for something and yet have no (logical) expectation of it happening?

Quote:
Now, the objective of the Garden, was it completed or a failure: the garden functioned as God intended, it could have sustained Adam and Eve indefintely had they not rebelled, and by contingency God planned that if they sinned, He would evict them (and the Garden, by the way, itself played a key role in triggering the Flood, Ezek 31, etc.). So, the Ga rden was the setting for contingent events which God had anticipated. Is your Q4 clear? I'm not sure I understand it. But I'll try to answer anyway. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve had a worldwide extaordinary paradise they could explore, and the Garden itself was a special treasure above all else. After the fall, God could have prevented them from eating of the Tree of Live (which ends up in the New Creation) in different ways, but He chose to evict them and to leave the Garden itself in tact on Earth until it was destroyed by the Flood ~1650 years later. After sin, they were better off struggling to provide for themselves because the very process of having to work hard to survive is a motivator toward maturing, which is part of the process of people acknolwedging reality (including that they and their world are fallen). The lesson from the Garden story is that it teaches us the actual historical account of the origin of evil, in it's actual historical setting, so that, we could create a metaphor for the Garden and the temptation (as C.S. Lewis did in Out of the Silent Planet), and such a metaphor could instruct us about the principles of God and the consequences of rebellion, but then it would not provide the an actual historical record of the events that led to man's sinful state.

Since Adam was made full grown and preprogrammed to some extent by God, how smart do you think he was?
I see God as having very wonderful desires for all humans (the garden be one desire for all humans) the problem is the Garden, as He should have realize will not work.

You understand how people are, if you only had knowledge of people and the power of Satin would you expect a person put in the Garden situation for a long period of time not to sin, by his own power?

In the Garden:
Humans must maintain their eternal close relationship with God by obedience. Outside the Garden they will dependent on God’s mercy for an eternal relationship. Would you rather be dependent on your obedience or God’s mercy?
In the Garden humans can not experience forgiveness, since they have not sinned, is there a problem with this?
In the garden there are no needy people (those Adam can help without being helped directly in return) God is providing for all the needs of humans, His agape love is being showered on them, but they can’t be faithful sheep in the example of Matt. 25: 31-46, can they?
We love then we obey, does our developing agape love require needy people?
Adam and Eve can not see the full extent of God’s love without the cross. Does agape love begin with the realization of being forgiven of much (for humans) Luke 7: 36-50?
Did Adam and Eve have the indwelling Holy Spirit?
I see these as huge problems, do you think God could not see these as a huge problem, even before He made Adam?

Thank you again for responding.

 

[Vaquero45]

Stop and Consider.

With this said, I will leave.

I am hereby requesting that my name be removed from the TOL membership roster and that I be notified by email when this is accomplished.

Leonard A.

But he will always be with us, as long as we have his memory.

Thanks for stopping and considering.