BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

[Turbo]

Just because I happen to be able to distinguish between "figurative" language and language that is to be taken "literally" I am accused of not believing the Bible.

As RightIdea has pointed out, you tend to take figuratively statements literally and literal narratives figuratively to force-fit it to your Settled-View paradigm.

That is how I am attacked over and over.But when it comes to their ideas they do not hesitate to say that the Lord made prophecies but yet He is unfaithful when it comes to fulfilling those prophecies.

Hypocrite, no Open Viewer has said that any prophecies go unfulfilled because God is unfaithful. Should God have followed through with His promise to destroy Nineveh, despite their repentance, to prove to Jerry Shugart that He is faithful?

They have no answers so they revert to name calling and saying that anyone who does not agree with them does not believe what the Bible says.

Jerry, God says plain as day in Jeremiah 18:1-10 that He will repent of what He thought he would do, and what He said He would do, if people repent of (or turn to) wickedness. (And there are many examples in the Bible of God doing just that!) But like Israel, you don't believe Him when He says this, and you have to rewrite history where He has done this.

 

[novice]

Hypocrite, no Open Viewer has said that any prophecies go unfulfilled because God is unfaithful. Should God have followed through with His promise to destroy Nineveh, despite their repentance, to prove to Jerry Shugart that He is faithful?

Ouch!

Jerry?

 

[Freak]

Freak, you know?

Yes, I do know.

Where did I ever say that? Since it's wrong, if you can quote me on that, you'd have me. (But what's funny is, the two halfs of that quote don't even contradict each other.

You stated (note the bold):

"The key Greek words are εδει (δει, had to) πληρωθηναι (be fulfilled). It’s been twenty years since I took a couple years of Greek, and I’ve lost much of the little skill I had, but I still enjoy struggling with translation."

Bob, you admitted it's been twenty years. You admitted you have lost "much" of the skill. What does this tell YOU? For that matter what does that tell US?

Don't mind me though, I'm sleep deprived!

Okay.

Moving forward...you stated:

"A month later, I dropped out of Arizona State University and left a job designing simulation software for the Apache Helicopter to move my family to Colorado so that I could study Scripture with Bob at his unaccredited Derby School of Theology (which for thirty years has provided unequivocally the strongest Greek education available in Colorado, and in my opinion, the best theological training in America)."

You have resorted to the use of the ancient languages in this debate. Why wouldn't YOU? Did you not tell us that you attended a school "which for thirty years has provided unequivocally the strongest Greek education available in Colorado." But what we found interesting was the admission:

It’s been twenty years since I took a couple years of Greek, and I’ve lost much of the little skill I had.

In my personal opinion (and which Sam is calling you on) you are weak in the area of languauges (this you admit) and yet you continue to turn to your understanding of the Greek text.

You resorting to your understanding of the ancient languages in the debate, in light of these known facts (see above), is strange.

Thanks for the questions.

 

[RightIdea]

That's it????? You gotta be kidding me!

"A month later, I dropped out of Arizona State University and left a job designing simulation software for the Apache Helicopter to move my family to Colorado so that I could study Scripture with Bob at his unaccredited Derby School of Theology (which for thirty years has provided unequivocally the strongest Greek education available in Colorado, and in my opinion, the best theological training in America)."

This is his biography! And nowhere does he say that he studied Greek extensively at Derby! He only said that Derby provides an excellent Greek education!

Later, while actually making arguments, Bob says:

It’s been twenty years since I took a couple years of Greek, and I’ve lost much of the little skill I had.

Making it very clear where he stands on this, so that no one thinks he is lifting himself up as something he is not. Bob avoids any confusion here by saying openly that he doesn't have a strong Greek background! Bob goes out of his way to show humility in regards to his own authority to debate Greek, proceding using context and reason rather than some claim to fame like a degree or something, which would only boil down to saying "because I told you so."

And now you (and Lamerson) are going to make this absurd accusation? Please, you are both embarassing yourself. This is as lame as it gets. :doh:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Freak :nono:

 

[novice]

And now you (and Lamerson) are going to make this absurd accusation? Please, you are both embarassing yourself. This is as lame as it gets. :doh:

They gotta try something! :chuckle:

 

[Bob Enyart]

Yes, I do know.

Freak, no you don't. This will be a good lesson for you on how easy it is to be confused.

You stated (note the bold):
"The key Greek words are εδει (δει, had to) πληρωθηναι (be fulfilled). It’s been twenty years since I took a couple years of Greek, and I’ve lost much of the little skill I had, but I still enjoy struggling with translation."
Bob, you admitted it's been twenty years. You admitted you have lost "much" of the skill. What does this tell YOU? For that matter what does that tell US?
Okay.
Moving forward...you stated:
"A month later, I dropped out of Arizona State University and left a job designing simulation software for the Apache Helicopter to move my family to Colorado so that I could study Scripture with Bob at his unaccredited Derby School of Theology (which for thirty years has provided unequivocally the strongest Greek education available in Colorado, and in my opinion, the best theological training in America)."

It’s been twenty years since I took a couple years of Greek, and I’ve lost much of the little skill I had.

In my personal opinion (and which Sam is calling you on) you are weak in the area of languauges (this you admit) and yet you continue to turn to your understanding of the Greek text.

Freak, my Greek classes from twenty years ago do not equate to Bob Hill providing the best Greek education available for 30 years. I would think after all the fuss, you would have looked at that. I took a year at Nyack College in 1977-78, and rec'd As in both semesters as I recall (from a great professor). Then in 1985 I moved to Colorado, and sat in on a few months worth of Bob Hill's classes, as my work schedule permitted, over a period of two years or so. If you can find a contradiction there, or if there was ANYTHING unclear about what I originally wrote, I'd be interested.

Regarding my argument with Sam over John 13:19, he has not once addressed my point that virtually all Bible translations agree with me, and only one rather loose translation goes with him. That would be a good point for him to respond to, no? And finally, the issue we are debating, the meaning of the absence of a predicate nominative, is an issue for a first semester Greek student. 3,476 years worth of Greek classes would not make the issue more clear than it would be after the first few weeks.

-Bob

 

[Freak]

Freak, my Greek classes from twenty years ago do not equate to Bob Hill providing the best Greek education available for 30 years.

You clearly stated: "I took a couple years of Greek." Then you tell us you studied the Scriptures at Hill's school (where one can receive top Greek training). Studying Scripture formally, would include, the studying of languages. Would it not? That is why we came to this conclusion.

Bob, not to rain on your parade, but two years does not qualify you, I'm afraid, to debate an individual who clearly understands the ancient languages (when probing the Greek text as you both are doing). He has called you on some specifics. Would you like to go over them briefly? It's all in the debate.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Freak, do you ever read the posts that are made here on TOL?

Just curious.

 

[Freak]

Freak, do you ever read the posts that are made here on TOL?

Just curious.

Hello Knight. Making some observations, that's all.

 

[Servo]

Hello Knight. Making some observations, that's all.

About what? About something you didn't really read or a self analysis about how confused you are?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry,
Have you ever read The Plot?... I think Bob does an excellent job showing in The Plot that Jesus actually meant what He said.

chatmaggot,

No,I have not read "The Plot".But perhaps you can answer some questions that I raised in my post on the "Critique"thread.Here is what Bob wrote:

What could Jesus be wrong about? Everything He wanted to be wrong about. While He promised Israel to return to establish their kingdom, He would not be taken for a fool….Jesus repeatedly promised to return soon (giving the apostles the hope they displayed in Acts of His imminent return…[emphasis mine]

I asked:

"Where was Israel ever told by the Lord Jesus that He would return soon?How could He do such a thing since He had told them that He did not know the hour or the season when that would happen (Mt.24:36;Acts1:7)."

Does Bob answer those questions in "The Plot"?

I also said:

"The Apostle Peter knew that His return was dependent on the nation of Israel repenting and turning to the Lord,so the Lord would know the same thing.And unless He had knowledge that Israel was going to repent then He surely would not promise to come soon."

Does Bob say anything in "THe Plot" that might answer these concerns that I have?

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

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Hypocrite, no Open Viewer has said that any prophecies go unfulfilled because God is unfaithful.

If promises go unfulfilled then that in itself means that God is not faithful.

The Scriptures speak of the "faithfulness" of the Lord.

In the OT the Hebrew word ”emuwnah” is translated “faithfulness”,and it means “faithfulness,in fulfilling promises”.

In the NT the Greek word “pistis” is applied to the Lord,and it means means “fidelity,faithfulness,i.e. the character of one who can be relied on….of one who keeps his promises”(”Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

So the Scriptures reveal that the Lord is faithful and we can depend on His faithfulness in fulfilling His promises.But then Bob Enyart says that God does in fact not fulfill His promises.

Bob also says that God has not done anything contrary to His own righteous nature.

But a part of that "righteous nature" is His "faithfulness",and since Bob argues that He does not keep His promises then it is obvious that if Bob is right that HE has in fact done something contrary to His righteous nature.

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

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yeah, sure you can distinguish them.

You take artistic, poetic writings full of hyperbole and you interpret those as literal. And you take historical narratives describing specific events and you take those as figurative.

RightIdea,

Here is a "narrative" that is not to be taken literally:

"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 "literally" then we must believe that until the Lord went down that He did not know whether or not "they have done altogether according to the cry".

But the Scriptures reveal that the Lord sees everything that is going on in the earth:

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

No sins of mankind are hidden from His eyes:

"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).

All things are opened unto His eyes and He beholds the evil of every creature.So it is obvious that Genesis 18:21 is not to be taken "literally".

If He knows all evil because He sees the evil of man then it would not have been necessary for Him to go down to find out whether or not "they have done altogether according to the cry".

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

 

[chatmaggot]

Jerry,

Bob does answer those questions in The Plot. It is an interesting read (and listen...I have his tape series too).

 

[MyshrallBayou]

To Bob's fanclub. Please take notice that the greatest majority of Bob's posts have been rambling (sometimes structured) philosophic thought with very little to no attempt to exegete Scripture. Bob does the same things that many of his supporters do on this site, they rely on their own limited human reasoning. Hitek357 post #220 is a perfect example of this.

It is obvious that Sam was led to believe this would be a true debate centered on Scripture, but Bob has taken it as an opportunity to cut and paste his long-held beliefs in an apparant attempt to bolster his base and hopefully recruit some new followers. It is clear Sam feels betrayed by Bob, which only shows Sam didn't do his homework on his opponent.

Open Theism believes God's omniscience is incompatable with human free-will. It is not. Most OT theologians have an accurate understanding of what the traditional Christian belief of God's omniscience is, though they revel in painting emotional and distorted caricatures of this belief. The great divide appears to be over what "free will" means.

My question to the OT's is, what do you think the "will" is? And, what do you think happened to man's "will" when sin entered the human race through Adam? (i.e. was there any change in that "will"? Is the "will" of man the same after the fall as it was before the fall?).

Bob seems to glory in his belief that the historic/Biblical Christian doctrines he disagrees with have commonalities with Greek philosophy and therefore are wrong. This is absurd. Suppose Bob read about some non-Christian religion as a young man, and now Bob has a belief about God that has some commonalities with that same non-Christian religion. Do I safely assume Bob's beliefs were formed by this non-Christian religion rather than by careful study of the Scriptures? What if that belief is that God is loving, good and kind? (and many non-Christian religions believe this about their god). Do we throw these truths about God out? Of course not! The Socinians in the 18th century also argued that God cannot know the future exhaustively. In that sense they held the same view as OT, but they were heretics. They denied the trinity, the deity of Christ, and a lot of other things. By the way, there are many in the OT camp that do deny many other essential Christian doctrines such as the inspiration and reliability of Scripture, and given the Socinian roots of OT, it is only a matter of time before OT slides into that abyss (though I pray you won't).

In case you are wondering. I do not believe Open Theism is a Christian/Biblical belief, nor do I accept those who fully understand and embrace OT to be brothers in Christ. The god OT believes in is not the same God revealed in the Scriptures. Paul warned Timothy about wolves in sheeps clothing who sneak into the church to ravage the sheep and bring God down to man's level instead of exalting God to his rightful and Biblical place. God is infinitely higher than man, and OT has a problem with this. There are just some things that we won't understand about God until we see Him face-to-face, but we are responsible to embrace those things He has revealed. I do pray that you will all return to the true God of the Bible and refrain from the philosophies of man that make the Word of God of no effect.

.

 

[Turbo]

Bob [and] his supporters... rely on their own limited human reasoning.

So, you don't bother to exercise your God-given ability to reason? Good to know; thanks for the warning.

However,

“Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD... Isaiah 1:18a​

Bob has taken it as an opportunity to cut and paste...

I guess that's a compliment, that Bob's posts, each composed in just a few days, look quite thorough and refined.

in an apparant attempt to bolster his base and hopefully recruit some new followers.

Wait... You mean all this time Bob has been trying to convince people that his position is correct??? THAT JERK!!

...which only shows Sam didn't do his homework on his opponent.

I agree that Sam probably wasn't aware of the skill and effort Bob applies to his debates. I wonder how much of Battle Royale VII he read.

[Open Theists] revel in painting emotional and distorted caricatures of [Settled Viewers'] belief.

Like saying that the opposition believes in a God who is a bumbling, impotent loser? Oh, wait...

By the way, there are many in the OT camp that do deny many other essential Christian doctrines such as the inspiration and reliability of Scripture

Oh.... kay? I've yet to encounter one.

Bob seems to glory in his belief that the historic/Biblical Christian doctrines he disagrees with have commonalities with Greek philosophy and therefore are wrong. This is absurd. Suppose Bob read about some non-Christian religion as a young man, and now Bob has a belief about God that has some commonalities with that same non-Christian religion. Do I safely assume Bob's beliefs were formed by this non-Christian religion rather than by careful study of the Scriptures? What if that belief is that God is loving, good and kind? (and many non-Christian religions believe this about their god). Do we throw these truths about God out? Of course not!

...given the Socinian roots of OT...

Bob established that the Settled View doesn't just have coincidental similarities with pagan Greek philosophy, but that it was actually imported into Christianity by well-known theologians who recognized intuitively that "the Classics" clashed with plainly interpreted Scripture, but they deferred to the pagan Greeks regardless and adjusted their interpretation of Scripture accordingly.

But the Open View doesn't have Socinian roots. You won't find open theists now or ever who build their case based on Socinian writings. All that stuff you said about non-Christian religions getting some things right by happenstance? It just came back to bite you.

MyshrallBayou seems to glory in his belief that the Biblical Christian doctrines he disagrees with have commonalities with Socinian teachings and therefore are wrong. This is absurd. Suppose MyshrallBayou read about some non-Christian religion as a young man, and now MyshrallBayou has a belief about God that has some commonalities with that same non-Christian religion. Do I safely assume MyshrallBayou's beliefs were formed by this non-Christian religion rather than by careful study of the Scriptures? Do we throw these truths about God out? Of course not!​

In case you are wondering. I do not believe Open Theism is a Christian/Biblical belief, nor do I accept those who fully understand and embrace OT to be brothers in Christ.

Thankfully, you are not God.

There are just some things that we won't understand about God until we see Him face-to-face, but we are responsible to embrace those things He has revealed.

Is this your way of saying that we shouldn't expect you to back up your assertions?

I do pray that you will all return to the true God of the Bible and refrain from the philosophies of man that make the Word of God of no effect.

Good news! That is just what we have done. I hope one day you will join us, so that you might better know the True and Living God.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Myshrall, let's explore your ideas! -Bob

Myshrall, let's explore your ideas! -Bob

It is obvious that Sam was led to believe this would be a true debate centered on Scripture, but Bob has taken it as an opportunity to cut and paste his long-held beliefs...

Myshrall, I'm interested in the issue you raise about which side focused more on Scripture. I have a suggestion on how to determine that objectively. Copy the debate into two files, one titled Sam's Posts Only, and the other titled Bob's Posts Only, and from those files, delete the oppositions posts (I've done this from the beginning. It is extremely helpful in remembering and carefully analyzing Sam's arguments. And by the way, I also have files that contain, for example, only the Q&A that Sam and I have traded, and files that collect everything either of us have written, say, on Roosters, or Christ emptying Himself, or JONAH, etc.). Now that you have Sam Only, and Bob Only, then from each file delete everything except for the biblical material. If you leave only the quoted scriptures and verse references, which side do you think relied most heavily on Scripture? (Hint: the answer is inversely related to which side appealed heavily to extra-biblical authority [which Sam answered correctly, by the way, all though most people read his answer exactly backwards. Did you?].) Now, if that's too unfair a test, then try this: delete everything except quoted scriptures, verse references, and comments made directly on and about the text. And then see which side relied most heavily on Scripture! Now if these tests seem unfair to the Settled View side (I have no doubt), then don't declare the winner of these contests by word count (since the Open View has been far more willing to expound on it's position), but rather, divide the biblical material into the total argument presented by each side, and the winner will be the side with the lowest score! Now, I can already hear the Calvinists criticizing this entire scheme, saying, "Bob thinks that if you quote more words from the Bible, you're being more biblical! Ha!" Well, Myshrall, you criticized my posts complaining that, "Sam was led to believe this would be a true debate centered on Scripture." Well, what if you find out that I did quote and reference and directly comment on more Scripture than Sam, and also as a greater percentage of my argument? I perceive that regardless, you would still assert that Sam's posts were more centered on Scripture than were mine! And how would you come to this conclusion? Because you disagreed with my position. So, perhaps you can identify a weakness in the argument of this paragraph, but if not, this is what you first criticism translates into: I will judge whatever side that disagrees with me as not being centered on Scripture.

Of course, that attitude would set you up in your own mind as an authority over the Bible, which I'm sure you would not intentionally do. So... I'll accept a "thanks Bob for pointing that out to me," either in this thread, or when we meet in heaven .

Regarding cutting and pasting, Myshrallm, I guess that's an insult? If I had these posts written earlier, I WOULDN'T HAVE KEPT IT A SECRET! My ministry struggles financially to reach more people. We would have been selling this just like we sell The Plot manuscript! And while I'm at it, I was somewhat suprised when Sam wrote, "Rev. Enyart continues to want to smuggle in whatever paper he has written about Greek philosophy..." Smuggle in? Anyone who has read this debate has also read Sam's 2001 paper on Openness and the Historical Jesus, from which he copied and pasted much into BR X (in rounds 1, 3 and 5). And interestingly, just a couple sentences after Sam accused me of this, he copied lengthy swaths of that paper into Round Five! Huh! Myshrallm, this was your second criteria on which to judge the debate. So, after a bit more reflection, which side wins in the category of Least Smuggled Material?

My question to the OT's is, what do you think the "will" is?

See 2B [BEA-]SLQ3! You could comment on it!

Suppose Bob read about some non-Christian religion as a young man, and now Bob has a belief about God that has some commonalities with that same non-Christian religion. Do I safely assume Bob's beliefs were formed by this non-Christian religion rather than by careful study of the Scriptures? What if that belief is that God is loving, good and kind? (and many non-Christian religions believe this about their god).

Myshrallm: you give false religions too much credit. Firstly, they are all either pagan, polytheistic, pantheistic, or atheistic (except for the monotheistic religions which are perversions of the biblical revelation of the God of Abraham). What other religions acknowledge one true creator personal God who offers to save men from His own righteous judgment of the wicked? (This is what you jsut claimed I might have stumbled upon wading through some false religion not based on the Bible.) But even this does not sufficiently expose your confusion. Because my criticism of immutability and Christian fate is NOT that they are similar to Greek culture and philosophy -- but that they are DEMONSTRABLY IMPORTED from the Greeks.

there are many in the OT camp that do deny many other essential Christian doctrines such as the inspiration and reliability of Scripture...

And are you saving their identities to be used as a secret weapon in the future?

God is infinitely higher than man

Yes. And would you agree that He is not lower than man? Or are you one of the many who think that a homosexual sodomizing a young boy gives pleasure and glory to God?

-Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church (.org)

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Bob Enyart - :first: POTD.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Now, if that's too unfair a test, then try this: delete everything except quoted scriptures, verse references, and comments made directly on and about the text. And then see which side relied most heavily on Scripture!

The important point in the debate is not in regard to how many Scriptures are quoted but instead the veracity of the "comments made directly on and about the text".

Let us take a look at the comments of Bob Enyart in regard to the "knowledge" of God.He said:

What is the true doctrine of God’s knowledge? God knows everything knowable that He wants to know. God does not want to know everything![emphasis mine]

Bob explains what the Lord does not want to remember:

He reveals that He has no desire to retain Memorex memories of endless sadism, sodomy, and rape, and He need not keep infinite charts analyzing the base bodily functions of all animals.[emphasis mine]

However,the Lord would “want” to know about all these crimes,or else He will be unable to “judge” men for their crimes:

”In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel”(Ro.2:16).

If the Lord does not “want” to know about the crimes of men how is He going to judge men at the Great White Throne?:

” And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works”(Rev.20:13).

Bob got one thing right:

The LORD has a purpose for His knowledge.

The Lord does have a purpose for "knowing" the secret crimes of men,and that purpose is so that He can judge men for those crimes.

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