Caller Debate: Is God Free to Alter the Pre-scripted Future

[Jefferson]

Caller Debate: Is God Free to Alter the Pre-scripted Future

Wednesday April 5th, 2006. This is show # 68.

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

When you intellectually agreed with the concept that man can do nothing to alter the prescripted future, what you didn't realize you were buying into was that God can do nothing to alter the prescripted future.

Summary:
* Public School Ban: (We wish!) More public schools ban patriotic clothing. 1st: Pull your kids out! 2nd: Don't side with the ACLU on this in their attempt to use this issue to further undermine adult authority over children.
* ACLU: Anti Christ Legions of the Underworld
* Libertarian Party: Immoral pseudo-conservatives support legal abortion, crack cocaine and heroin, prostitution, homosexuality, homosexual adoption, bestiality, euthanasia, suicide, etc., etc., and would criminalize the heroic paramedic who breaks into a home to save a young woman committing suicide, and would permit an employer to fire or not hire a saleswoman who will not accept their customers' sexual advances.
* Sex for Rent Ads: Our Christian leaders will expect all judges to uphold this also if our process "requires" such of them. And websites say they can't possibly find such ads to remove them (but the AP could).
* David from Greeley, CO talks to Bob about juveniles and the death penalty, and Bob calls for abolishing a minimum age for execution to reverse the liberal's lowering of the threshold for kids to become murderers.
* Caller of the Week: Yes, it's only Wednesday, but this call from David from Boone, IA is destined to be our caller of the week! (We love debates here at BEL!) David is extremely hesitant to answer questions regarding whether or not God is free and able to change anything that will ever happen in the future, and the reason is that David, like millions of other Christians, believes that God is just as unable as man to alter the pre-scripted eternal future. Why would anyone believe this? Because they've been taught that God is utterly unchangeable, and now, with this second call, David is beginning to more readily admit that God the Son "became flesh," and that God the father is NOT continually pouring our wrath on His Son as He did during the crucifixion. Of course, these great truths shows that yes, God does change, and of course, yes, just as God has changed Himself and other things in the past, He is still free and able to change in the future, and thus, the future is not settled, but open!
Today's Resource: A lot can change in two weeks! Now, we recommend that David read Bob's debate on Open Theism (and you too)! If you want to better understand the dynamics at work in Bob's discussion with David about God being alive, free, and able to change what would otherwise occur in the future, then you will absolutely love reading Battle Royale X, Is the Future Settled, or Open, between Bob and D. James Kennedy's professor Samuel Lamerson! And remember, there's a money-back guarantee! Read it for free, online at TOL, or purchase the debate in its more comfortable and helpful 240-page manuscript form!

 

[Servo]

Wow! Another great call!

I like when Bob gets callers who disagree, makes for a very interesting show.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yikes!!! What an awesome show!!!

Settled viewers may not want to listen to this show. :chuckle:

 

[Saintopher]

I listened to the show and personally I find that [for the particular discussion] that Bob's argument of Jesus taking on human flesh argument really lacks the substance that he thinks it has. I believe this in light of the fact that other scriptures seem to teach very plainly that even though becoming flesh wasn't spelled out beyond question, that it was still a part of the plan in the spiritual realm.

I have also been doing more research on the Open View and find that it also really lacks in other areas of spiritual discernment. What I mean by this is that many of the [primarily] Old Testament references, where men are trying to relay history as they understand it, are see as completely concrete evidences for a literalist interpretation, while other passages can be glossed over concerning what seems to be God's foreknowledge and predestination of certain things.

Most importantly it seems to me that the whole argumentation of Open Theism hinges on things that cannot be known. It is all speculation of supposed future events that man has absolutely no way of knowing either way what God can/cannot, will/will not do. Even when they are looked at after the fact, there is no way to know with certainty what happened spiritually and why.

In addition, as a partial preterist I was particularly tickled by Bob's question to David about whether nor not the actions of Believer's can have any effect on the shortening or lengthening of the "Tribulation" that is supposedly coming. I found this to be particularly humourous in light of the fact that Bob seems to believe in such future eschatology. There is always so much criticism that I hear coming from him concerning all the ways that Christians have "bought into" erroneous teachings because of culture and tradition.

My answer to him would have been this-

Q: "Do you believe that there is anything that Believers can do to shorten the coming Tribulation or more quickly usher in the Kingdom of God?" {paraphrase}
A: "No. I believe like the early Church believed that the "Great Tribulation" that Jesus spoke of happened with the destruction of Jerusalem around 70AD, and consequently that this "end time" delusion is a product of one woman's supposed vision of Jesus around 1800 being accepted by John Nelson Darby who then influenced C.I. Scofield, who then was endorsed by Charles Ryrie. It is a new theology that is only around 130 years old.

I usually like to consider myself to be a fairly open minded person when it comes to the study of theology and the consideration of various views, but I personally have come to the belief that the Open View leaves God powerless, impotent, and unknowable.

And much like Dispensationalism, Open Theism is a new theology that cannot really be trusted.

 

[Clete]

I listened to the show and personally I find that [for the particular discussion] that Bob's argument of Jesus taking on human flesh argument really lacks the substance that he thinks it has. I believe this in light of the fact that other scriptures seem to teach very plainly that even though becoming flesh wasn't spelled out beyond question, that it was still a part of the plan in the spiritual realm.

I have also been doing more research on the Open View and find that it also really lacks in other areas of spiritual discernment. What I mean by this is that many of the [primarily] Old Testament references, where men are trying to relay history as they understand it, are see as completely concrete evidences for a literalist interpretation, while other passages can be glossed over concerning what seems to be God's foreknowledge and predestination of certain things.

Most importantly it seems to me that the whole argumentation of Open Theism hinges on things that cannot be known. It is all speculation of supposed future events that man has absolutely no way of knowing either way what God can/cannot, will/will not do. Even when they are looked at after the fact, there is no way to know with certainty what happened spiritually and why.

In addition, as a partial preterist I was particularly tickled by Bob's question to David about whether nor not the actions of Believer's can have any effect on the shortening or lengthening of the "Tribulation" that is supposedly coming. I found this to be particularly humourous in light of the fact that Bob seems to believe in such future eschatology. There is always so much criticism that I hear coming from him concerning all the ways that Christians have "bought into" erroneous teachings because of culture and tradition.

My answer to him would have been this-

Q: "Do you believe that there is anything that Believers can do to shorten the coming Tribulation or more quickly usher in the Kingdom of God?" {paraphrase}
A: "No. I believe like the early Church believed that the "Great Tribulation" that Jesus spoke of happened with the destruction of Jerusalem around 70AD, and consequently that this "end time" delusion is a product of one woman's supposed vision of Jesus around 1800 being accepted by John Nelson Darby who then influenced C.I. Scofield, who then was endorsed by Charles Ryrie. It is a new theology that is only around 130 years old.

I usually like to consider myself to be a fairly open minded person when it comes to the study of theology and the consideration of various views, but I personally have come to the belief that the Open View leaves God powerless, impotent, and unknowable.

And much like Dispensationalism, Open Theism is a new theology that cannot really be trusted.

Saintopher,

First of all, welcome to TOL! :up:

Your post here sounds like you might have some comparatively substantive things to say concerning Open Theism. I encourage you to start a thread and attempt to substantiate some of the claims you've made here. I'm particularly interested in this claim about open theism being based on things that we cannot know. I believe that open theism is the only rationally defensible theological system in existence and I attempt to substantiate everything I say and believe with both Scripture and sound reason and so an epistemological challenge to the open view would not only be of interest to me but I think it would present a fresh angle from which to discuss the topic that I don't think has been tackled before on TOL (at least not directly anyway).

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Saintopher]

Hi Clete

Hi Clete

Saintopher,

First of all, welcome to TOL! :up:

Your post here sounds like you might have some comparatively substantive things to say concerning Open Theism. I encourage you to start a thread and attempt to substantiate some of the claims you've made here. I'm particularly interested in this claim about open theism being based on things that we cannot know. I believe that open theism is the only rationally defensible theological system in existence and I attempt to substantiate everything I say and believe with both Scripture and sound reason and so an epistemological challenge to the open view would not only be of interest to me but I think it would present a fresh angle from which to discuss the topic that I don't think has been tackled before on TOL (at least not directly anyway).

Resting in Him,
Clete

I appreciate your interest. I can respect your position on Open Theism and actually have to admit that if it weren't for the healthy skeptic in me, the Open View would probably be the most appealing to me...however, my pursuit of a bigger picture prevents me from settling there. However, I can also say though that I am not a confessing Calvinist either. I do not believe that God has everything nailed down to the number of mosquito bites I receive in my life. I personally have problems with both sides, but I find more error (or perhaps the better term would be "questions left unanswered") on the side of the Open View.

You'll have to give me a few days to put my thoughts together on this, but I look forward to the discussion.

 

[Clete]

I appreciate your interest. I can respect your position on Open Theism and actually have to admit that if it weren't for the healthy skeptic in me, the Open View would probably be the most appealing to me...however, my pursuit of a bigger picture prevents me from settling there. However, I can also say though that I am not a confessing Calvinist either. I do not believe that God has everything nailed down to the number of mosquito bites I receive in my life. I personally have problems with both sides, but I find more error (or perhaps the better term would be "questions left unanswered") on the side of the Open View.

You'll have to give me a few days to put my thoughts together on this, but I look forward to the discussion.

Cool!

Just send me a private message when you start the thread so I'll know it exists, or else you can post a link to the thread here if you want, either way is fine.

 

[Saintopher]

Cool!

Just send me a private message when you start the thread so I'll know it exists, or else you can post a link to the thread here if you want, either way is fine.

Hi Clete,
I just wanted to let you know that I have not forgotten about this. Things at work and home have been very busy and this weekend looks like it will also be busy. I hope to start working on this very soon. I will see if I can squeeze in some time on Friday or Saturday to get started. I will let you know when it is posted.
Thanks for your patience.