Who won rd #1 of Battle Royale X?

[kmoney]

For me it's tough to say, the posts were basically disjoint. If Bob had responded to more of what Sam said I could judge more, but it was basically like 2 original posts instead of 1 original post and 1 response to that post.

 

[drbrumley]

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:

You cite Eph 1:4.. God did not predestine “us to become sons of God, holy and blameless.” Let’s read what it really says. Eph 1:3-5 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.”

Here we see: (1) “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blame before Him in love.” First, God chose in Christ. He didn’t choose us to be in Christ. That’s only implied if you have a strong Calvinistic philosophical background. God chose the body of Christ to be holy and blameless. (2) It doesn’t say He chose us to be saved. Once we believed, the Holy Spirit baptized us into the body of Christ. The body of Christ, as a corporate body, was chosen to be blameless before God.

 

[godrulz]

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

What is a buggy man? Is it a fly or bee?

 

[godrulz]

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:

Corporate vs individual election. This is not a proof text for exhaustive foreknowledge of all future free will contingencies.

 

[DEVO]

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.

Bob tends to give scriptural references rather than posting the entire passage each and every time.

Personally I like that technique.

But clearly Bob cited more scripture in his first post than Sam cited in rounds one and two combined.

 

[Balder]

I think it's too early to say. Since Bob's contribution was largely non-responsive (postponing direct answers till later), it also isn't really possible to say who gave the strongest argument, since they weren't talking about the same thing. Yet.

 

[DEVO]

I think it's too early to say. Since Bob's contribution was largely non-responsive (postponing direct answers till later), it also isn't really possible to say who gave the strongest argument, since they weren't talking about the same thing. Yet.

Oh Balder-dash!

Both parties made an opening post, who's was better?

Is that so hard to understand?

 

[elected4ever]

Corporate vs individual election. This is not a proof text for exhaustive foreknowledge of all future free will contingencies.

Just because God knows does not prevent our free choice. God chose the plan and we chose to participate or not. Our participation is not coerced.

 

[Delmar]

Just because God knows does not prevent our free choice. God chose the plan and we chose to participate or not. Our participation is not coerced.

It does if it means we could not choose otherwise.

 

[elected4ever]

It does if it means we could not choose otherwise.

It is our knowledge that is not infinite, not God's. We make choices of our own free will. Just because our choice was made freely does not prevent God from knowing that choice.

 

[godrulz]

It is our knowledge that is not infinite, not God's. We make choices of our own free will. Just because our choice was made freely does not prevent God from knowing that choice.

Simple foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is not possible. We are both making opposite statements. The debate is to show if and why God knows all of the future. A contingent choice is uncertain before it is made. It is correctly known as one of many possibles before it becomes actual. God knows all that is knowable. He knows the past and present exhaustively. Since the future is not there and is not fixed like the past, He does not 'see' it as if it is the fixed past already.

 

[elected4ever]

Simple foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is not possible. We are both making opposite statements. The debate is to show if and why God knows all of the future. A contingent choice is uncertain before it is made. It is correctly known as one of many possibles before it becomes actual. God knows all that is knowable. He knows the past and present exhaustively. Since the future is not there and is not fixed like the past, He does not 'see' it as if it is the fixed past already.

says you. You are not God. Though things are imposable with man they are possible with God.

 

[godrulz]

says you. You are not God. Though things are imposable with man they are possible with God.

Is there anything impossible for God? Can God make a cat be a cow at the same time? Can He logically make square circles? Can He will Himself out of existence? Can He turn Himself into a car and remain that way forever? Can He create a rock too heavy to lift?

Most thinkers and theologians recognize that some things are self-contradictory, mutually exclusive, absurd. It is not a limitation on the infinite God to not do these things. They are nonsensical. It is a non-starter. 2+2=4 within our logic and God's logic. Unless He/we redefine self-evident math that reflects His intelligence, there is no way He can make 2+2=4 and 2+2=1,933,433.256 at the same time in any universe. Language and reality would become arbitrary and meaningless. The Trinity could then be the Hindu pantheon of gods. Reality is truth. Somethings are make believe. God cannot save Yogi the Bear to eternal life. He is fiction!

This issues surrounding this debate on omniscience are similar. You do not understand it well enough to realize that there are logical contradictions and absurdities to say that an all-knowing God can exhaustively know all future free will contingencies. Saying nothing is impossible for God does not remove the biblical issues (you must take a set of passages as figurative since they show an open, unknowable future), nor the logical issues that are a stumbling block to those who understand modal logic, etc. (logic reflects the wisdom of God).

 

[elected4ever]

Is there anything impossible for God? Can God make a cat be a cow at the same time? Can He logically make square circles? Can He will Himself out of existence? Can He turn Himself into a car and remain that way forever? Can He create a rock too heavy to lift?

Most thinkers and theologians recognize that some things are self-contradictory, mutually exclusive, absurd. It is not a limitation on the infinite God to not do these things. They are nonsensical. It is a non-starter. 2+2=4 within our logic and God's logic. Unless He/we redefine self-evident math that reflects His intelligence, there is no way He can make 2+2=4 and 2+2=1,933,433.256 at the same time in any universe. Language and reality would become arbitrary and meaningless. The Trinity could then be the Hindu pantheon of gods. Reality is truth. Somethings are make believe. God cannot save Yogi the Bear to eternal life. He is fiction!

This issues surrounding this debate on omniscience are similar. You do not understand it well enough to realize that there are logical contradictions and absurdities to say that an all-knowing God can exhaustively know all future free will contingencies. Saying nothing is impossible for God does not remove the biblical issues (you must take a set of passages as figurative since they show an open, unknowable future), nor the logical issues that are a stumbling block to those who understand modal logic, etc. (logic reflects the wisdom of God).

There you go again.Limiting God to the logic of man. Will you ever stop reducing God to the level of man. God gave His only Son to elevate us to a higher standard unachievable by man. As Christ is so are we in this world. Where is your faith man? Oh yea, you don't have any.

 

[godrulz]

There you go again.Limiting God to the logic of man. Will you ever stop reducing God to the level of man. God gave His only Son to elevate us to a higher standard unachievable by man. As Christ is so are we in this world. Where is your faith man? Oh yea, you don't have any.

It is important that we represent God and His ways as they are. If we believe and present a straw man caricature of God, we dishonor Him. It is the glory of a king to search out a matter. His revelation must be taken seriously. If it presents the future as partially open and partially settled, we must submit to this. You do not accept this and wrongly take the openness passages as figurative. This is not defensible or you can negate much of God's self-revelation. We can know things about God truthfully. We do not know them exhaustively. We are in His image and have intellect and reason. You believe He is uncreated triune Creator because of revelation perceived through reason. The nature of time, eternity, freedom, omniscience, etc. are partially in the realm of biblical theology and partially in the realm of philosophical theology. Without God's logic, we cannot know anything about Him or creation. Uncritically accepting bad, traditional theology is not something to be proud of.

If you really believe that God can create square circles, then we cannot intelligently communicate. :wave2:

P.S. We are off the topic of this thread. Visit Battletalk and other threads to hash this out.

 

[Redfin]

Bob has a chance to redeem himself if he responds in his 2nd post to Sam's 1st :readthis: and 2nd posts. :readthis:

 

[Clete]

I hope for two things in the remainder of the debate.

1. That Bob continues to show Open Theism to be both Biblical and intellectually sound.

2. That Dr. Lamerson kicks it up about 3 notches (no matter what it takes to make that happen) and turns this a debate to remember.

Resting in Him,
Clete