Who won rd #1 of Battle Royale X?

Who won rd #1 of Battle Royale X?

  • Dr. Lamerson

    Votes: 18 36.0%
  • Bob Enyart

    Votes: 32 64.0%

  • Total voters
    50

novice

Who is the stooge now?
Sam seems like a really great guy and I am sure his best is yet to come but round one was all Bob.
 

theo_victis

New member
I give props to Bob Enyart. I am not even an open thiest but his beginning arguments were real good. I think Sam's arguments were good too, but i have to give props to Bob for right now.
 

Truppenzwei

Supreme Goombah of the Goombahs
LIFETIME MEMBER
I would have to say that sam won round one because his post seemed more on-topic.
 

docrob57

New member
theo_victis said:
I give props to Bob Enyart. I am not even an open thiest but his beginning arguments were real good. I think Sam's arguments were good too, but i have to give props to Bob for right now.

Ditto
 

jeremiah

BANNED
Banned
I thought Dr. Lamerson clearly won round one, because he gave definate biblical examples that lead one to think that God does know our entire future.
I think that Bob conceded Round one so that he could set up his overall view of this topic. I think even Bob would admit that?
Having never heard Bob's complete presentation of Open theism or Omniscience, there is no way to conclude that he won this round, especially since he didn't answer the questions asked of him, or, in any specific way, of this debate topic, YET.
I think that people with "esoteric" knowledge of this topic are conceding that Bob won round one. Instead I restate what I just said. Bob has conceded round one, in order to build his overall case.
That is the way I see it.
 

Truppenzwei

Supreme Goombah of the Goombahs
LIFETIME MEMBER
jeremiah said:
I thought Dr. Lamerson clearly won round one, because he gave definate biblical examples that lead one to think that God does know our entire future.
I think that Bob conceded Round one so that he could set up his overall view of this topic. I think even Bob would admit that?
Having never heard Bob's complete presentation of Open theism or Omniscience, there is no way to conclude that he won this round, especially since he didn't answer the questions asked of him, or, in any specific way, of this debate topic, YET.
I think that people with "esoteric" knowledge of this topic are conceding that Bob won round one. Instead I restate what I just said. Bob has conceded round one, in order to build his overall case.
That is the way I see it.
yeah, what he said ;)
 

elected4ever

New member
I thought that Bob sat a false primes in that free will cannot exist in a closed view. Bob set up his own buggy man and attack that.Most disingenuous
 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I am a big fan of Bob's and I really like the groundwork he has laid, but I am not really in favor of declaring a leader this early. Besides I don't know where Sam is headed yet!
 

docrob57

New member
deardelmar said:
I am a big fan of Bob's and I really like the groundwork he has laid, but I am not really in favor of declaring a leader this early. Besides I don't know where Sam is headed yet!

That sounds like a random thought to me! :)
 

Chileice

New member
I think it is very early to say who won. Sam was at a disadvantage because he had no one to argue with. Yet Bob did not take advantage of his position. He failed to deal with the issues laid out by Sam. I think Bob was more organized in his thinking and presentation but he did fail to give any clear scriptural mandate for his presentation. He talked in biblical generalities rather than in biblical specifics. For book writing Bob would be ahead. But for debating I give Sam the round one advantage. But as I said, it is very early in the game. I look forward to the next round because I expect Sam will deal directly with Bob's presentation and I hope Bob will do the same with Sam's.
 

death2impiety

Maximeee's Husband
jeremiah said:
I thought Dr. Lamerson clearly won round one, because he gave definate biblical examples that lead one to think that God does know our entire future.
I think that Bob conceded Round one so that he could set up his overall view of this topic. I think even Bob would admit that?
Having never heard Bob's complete presentation of Open theism or Omniscience, there is no way to conclude that he won this round, especially since he didn't answer the questions asked of him, or, in any specific way, of this debate topic, YET.
I think that people with "esoteric" knowledge of this topic are conceding that Bob won round one. Instead I restate what I just said. Bob has conceded round one, in order to build his overall case.
That is the way I see it.

Bob's post was Biblical, but in a more inductive sort of way. Sam's post built off of individual verse interpretation. I think Bob took this one :thumb:
 

Imrahil

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
elected4ever said:
I thought that Bob sat a false primes in that free will cannot exist in a closed view. Bob set up his own buggy man and attack that.Most disingenuous
Um, so who won? :)
 

Berean Todd

New member
Sam clearly had the better, more Biblicaly grounded argument. Bobs was too much speculative, give us scripture to support your points; this is a Christian debate not a philosophical one. If you want to convince me you must do so from Holy Scripture.
 

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Berean Todd said:
Bobs was too much speculative, give us scripture to support your points... If you want to convince me you must do so from Holy Scripture.
:confused: Are you kidding?

Bob Enyart in his first round post said:
Anthropomorphism is a kind of figure of speech, and in theology, that term means attributing to God human characteristics as a way of illustrating some truth. “The LORD’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save” (Isa. 59:1) At other times, the meaning comes through the immediate context of the chapter: “the light shines in the darkness,” (John 1:5). Sometimes the entire context of the book is needed to properly understand a phrase: “Follow Me,” (John 21:19). And at other times, the meaning comes through knowing the true nature of God, and the overall message of the entire Bible: “I said, ‘You are gods,’” (John 10:34). Thus if we take Christ’s words here literally, we would exaggerate His point, and reinforce a Mormon-like polytheism.
In the context of our “adoption as sons,” Paul writes that believers are “predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11). Yet he also writes that: “God… desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim 2:3-4
With majesty and courage, God became the Creator, who made humans and also the angelic “spirituals hosts” whom Scripture identifies as Thrones, Dominions, Powers, Principalities, Rulers, and Authorities (Rom. 8:38; Eph. 3:10; etc.).

“God is love,” and love is giving, for love “does not seek its own.”

He “emptied Himself” (Phil. 2:7 ASV; Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich; etc.) of qualities such as power, presence, and knowledge, but not of love. Christ’s selflessness (Phil. 2:5-8) indisputably exalts Him.

Impassibility

However, He is the Living God, relational, responsive, and loving, who created man for fellowship (1 John 1:3; 1 Cor. 1:9). Because God is love, Jesus said that the greatest commandment is to love the LORD (Mat. 22:36-38), which God decreed both for our good (Rom. 8:28), and for His pleasure (Ps. 149:4; etc.).

The Holy Spirit “grieves,” Jesus wept, and the Father will “rejoice” (Eph. 4:30; John 11:35; Deut. 30:9). Love does affect God (Deut. 7:9)!

Omnipresence

To the wicked He says, “I… will cast you out of My presence” (Jer. 23:39).

But yes, even before the cross, God’s Spirit accompanied the righteous after death (Ps. 139:8). And God inhabits praise (Ps. 22:3, KJV), but not curses, and yet the wicked cannot hide or get away from God.

Omniscience

“You have burdened Me with your sins, you have wearied Me with your iniquities” (Isa. 43:24).

“I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins” (Isa. 43:25; etc.).

When God says to the wicked, “I, even I, will utterly forget you” (Jer. 23:39), we rightly constrain this as a figure of speech, not meaning that God will no longer even recall men like Esau or Judas, but that His mercy toward the wicked will not endure forever.

God’s ways are higher than our ways (Isa. 55:9), but they are not lower.

Immutability

God is immutable, that is, unchanging (Mal. 3:6; Ps. 102:27; Heb. 1:12; 13:8; James 1:17), not absolutely but in His goodness. “The goodness of God endures continually” (Ps. 52:1), because of His commitment to righteousness (Jer. 9:24; Ps. 33:5). Thus His counsel (His will) is immutably good (Heb. 6:17-18), and unlike the Greek gods, we can therefore depend upon Him, because He is not arbitrary, biased, partial, or capricious.

He “became flesh” (John 1:14). Became is a change word… And it was not His flesh which “became flesh;” nor did His humanness empty itself to become man.

The Father “laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (Isa 53:6) and Christ has “become a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13).

God’s Attributes: Open View

Children can understand the most important aspects of God. For “out of the mouth of babes… You have perfected praise” (Mat. 21:16) for “of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Mat. 19:14). Whereas adults wrestling with the metaphysical conjectures of intellectuals must first learn even how to pronounce omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, immutability, and impassibility. Thus Scripture warns us against human philosophy over substance (Col. 2:8), and who can deny the Calvinist emphasis on the writings and traditions of men.

For God takes “no pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Ezek. 33:11), and love “does not rejoice in iniquity” (1 Cor. 13:6).

Now, let me demonstrate the answer to SLQ2, by interpreting “God… desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim 2:3-4), twice, first by the philosophical attributes and then by biblical attributes.

Settled Interpretation: If the fundamental description of your God is utter immutability, i.e. no change, then you interpret “God… desires all men to be saved” as referring only to the elect who eventually do get saved. Regarding the others whom He created without any actual hope for salvation, considerations such as His love and His justice are theologically subordinated to His utter immutability. If for eternity past God has known (or even decreed) the certain damnation of everyone, by name, who will ever be lost, then He would not proclaim His desire for their salvation. Therefore we constrain all declarations of God’s good will toward men so that they do not undermine His immutability (as per Augustine).

Open Interpretation: On the other hand, if the fundamental description of your God is that He is Living, Personal, Relational, Good, and Loving, then “God… desires all men to be saved.” Really. We need not subordinate this declaration of God’s love to any philosophical tradition. We can let John 3:16 and this passage speak unencumbered of God’s love for the world. The primacy of His attributes as Living, Personal, Relational, Good, and Loving require that all beings created in His “likeness” were made to live in a personal, good and loving relationship with Him.

Replacing the biblical attributes of God with a philosophical construct, tradition has replaced the Living God of justice who “shows no partiality” (Deut. 10:17), with the static God who only shows partiality.

Living: Scripture repeatedly mentions the “living God” (Mat. 16:16) as opposed to the stone-cold, relatively immutable “lifeless forms of your idols” (Lev. 26:30).

Personal: Christ is “the express image of His person” (Heb. 1:3) so God could say, “Let Us make man in Our image” (Gen. 1:26).

Relational: God is Father and Son; and the Trinity is the very fount of relationship, for it is “the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, ‘Abba, Father’” (Rom. 8:15). And Boaz as a type of Christ, our kinsman redeemer, says, “it is true that I am a close relative” (Ruth 3:12).

Good: “Good and upright is the LORD” (Ps. 25:8), and “They shall utter the memory of Your great goodness, and shall sing of Your righteousness” (Ps. 145:7).

Loving: “Your [God’s] lovingkindness is better than life” (Ps. 63:3), so John declared, writing of “the love that God has for us [that] God is love…” (1 John 4:16).

Openness celebrates the true power of God, and His realistic knowledge, and actual presence, all as in Scripture. But adding to God’s Word does not improve it [Rev. 22:18]

Psalms, the lengthiest book in Scripture with 150 chapters, provides an inspired record of how to properly glorify God. And Psalms ignores or downplays the Greek and Roman philosophical attributes of the OMNIs and IMs, and even of Sovereignty, while emphasizing the Openness biblical attributes of God. For example, omnipotence speaks of power, and yes, creation and miracles do give testimony to God’s power. However the Psalms downplay God’s power as compared to His goodness and justice! Regarding power, the psalmists credit God for creation in only 45 verses, and praise Him for miracles in only 100. Most of the remaining 94 percent of the 2,461 verses in Psalms emphasize the theme of God’s righteousness, and its corollary of warning to His enemies. (My book, The Plot, documents this.) Psalms does not make pre-eminent God’s location (omnipresence), or His lack of emotion (impassibility), or His omniscience (what did He know, and when did He know it). Further, Psalms even indicates that Sovereignty, which speaks of God’s rule over creation, is not a foundational attribute of God, for it is His goodness which provides the basis for God’s rule. For “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne” (Ps. 97:2)!

I pray that this Battle Royale X will deter Christians from exaggerating lesser divine attributes (of location, control, knowledge, and power) and from fabricating others (like emotional sterility and utter immutability). For as in Psalm 107:8, I pray, “Oh, that men would give thanks to the LORD for His goodness.”

BEA-SLQ2: We should interpret the Bible’s figures of speech, including anthropomorphisms, through the greater context, which is found foremost in a correct understanding of the nature of God (living, personal, relational, good, and loving), and secondarily in the overall plot of the story in His Word (creation, the ongoing rebellion, God’s work of reconciliation, and the eternal consequences). And we should reject interpretations driven by humanist philosophical constructs, especially when they produce tension with the divine attributes as repeatedly emphasized in Scripture.
 

death2impiety

Maximeee's Husband
People tend to ignore things that put their belief into question. Good cite Turbo :thumb:

"Why is it that people are willing to embrace any perposterous dellusion rather than accept the occassional bleak truth?"
~Calvin, Calvin & Hobbes
 

elected4ever

New member
Berean Todd said:
Sam clearly had the better, more Biblicaly grounded argument. Bobs was too much speculative, give us scripture to support your points; this is a Christian debate not a philosophical one. If you want to convince me you must do so from Holy Scripture.
A signature scripture for me is Eph 1:4. It tells me that God's plan was set in motion before the foundation of the world. It does not bother me that God knew my decision. Fact is I didn't know. It was my choice to believe so God's foreknowledge does not lesson my ability to chose freely.

Ephesians 1:4 *According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
 
Top