BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)

[godrulz]

Yup, this seems to be a lot of the reason why I've had such trouble following the OV vs CV threads. It's so hard to figure out when the subject has changed if you don't already understand the OV vs CV debate. I was really hoping to get a better grip on the subject from this thread I thought would be heavily moderated.

Would it be possible for a mod to split out the off-topic posts that deserve saving?

The debaters could have given a one paragraph summary of the core beliefs of their views.

 

[godrulz]

Hank "the Canned Answer Man" Hannegraaf a dispensationalist? Heck freakin' no. LOL He is hardcore preterist and is increasingly open about it. He believes the tribulation happened immediately following the resurrection of Christ.

Of course, we Mid-Acts dispensationalists understand it was supposed to happen following the resurrection... and some of us even believe it actually began for about a year or so, while others believe it hadn't begun quite yet. But we pretty much agree that Daniel's "prophecy of weeks" (Daniel 9) clearly depicts the 70th week (the tribulation) following the 69th week (which contains the cutting off of the messiah).

But aaaaanyway! Back to the show. :think:


I definitely agree that framing the Open View from the perspective of setting aside free will and making it strictly about God, Himself, is brilliant. I've never seen it presented like that, either, and it blew my mind! The Open View is always presented as hinging specifically on free will. To take this route is, to the best of my knowledge, groundbreaking. (But if anyone else has already gone this route, by all means let us know. I really don't care who came up with the idea; I just love it. LOL)

Hank's predecessor, Dr. Walter Martin, was Baptist. This is why I thought Hank might be more dispensational. The preterist view is more allegorical. John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, etc. (formerly of Dallas Theological Seminary) refuted the view based on a literal, grammatical, historical, cultural, contextual, theological method.

 

[Clete]

Do the other OV proponents on TOL agree that it can be adequately framed using Bob's five attributes of god?

Absolutely yes! So much so that indeed it is the very issue itself. I don't know how many of my debates you've paid any attention to but these are the very issues that allows come up and I have repeatedly made love the absolute core of my argument in favor of the Open View.
It is an absolute stroke of genius to center the debate on this issues at the outset. Lamerson couldn't have asked a better question when he asked how one determines what is and what isn't figurative language when reading the Bible. The answer to that one question WILL settle the debate because as Lamerson pointed out "Everyone in the debate would agree that there are passages that seem to present God as knowing the future infallibly, as well as passages that seem to present God as changing his mind, repenting, learning, and being surprised. The question, of course, is which set of passages will be used to interpret the other."

It's interesting to see how Bob's attributes of god change when moving from extramural to intramural debate.

What to explain this comment?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Turbo]

I would assume Hank is dispensational also.

RightIdea is spot on. Hank has become more openly preterist in recent years, and he is anti-dispensationalist. He gets especially hostile when someone points out that much of The Prayer of Jesus applied to Israel/kingdom believers and does not apply directly to the Body of Christ (e.g. Forgive us... as we forgive others; Thy kingdom come...on earth.)

 

[godrulz]

Absolutely yes! So much so that indeed it is the very issue itself. I don't know how many of my debates you've paid any attention to but these are the very issues that allows come up and I have repeatedly made love the absolute core of my argument in favor of the Open View.
It is an absolute stroke of genius to center the debate on this issues at the outset. Lamerson couldn't have asked a better question when he asked how one determines what is and what isn't figurative language when reading the Bible. The answer to that one question WILL settle the debate because as Lamerson pointed out "Everyone in the debate would agree that there are passages that seem to present God as knowing the future infallibly, as well as passages that seem to present God as changing his mind, repenting, learning, and being surprised. The question, of course, is which set of passages will be used to interpret the other."


What to explain this comment?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Open Theists do not pit one set of proof texts against one another. Both sets can be taken literally at face value. The key is that some of the future is 'settled' and some of it is unsettled/uncertain. It still only becomes actual when the potential future becomes the fixed past through the present. God foreknew the Messiah would come after the Fall when the potential plan of redemption was implemented. Christ did not come and die until later in space-time history (actual).

 

[taoist]

taoist,
It's interesting to see how Bob's attributes of god change when moving from extramural to intramural debate.

Clete,
Want to explain this comment?

taoist,
During the Battle Royale Does God exist?, Bob defined god as ...

... the supernatural Creator of the natural universe, existing eternally, powerful, wise and knowledgeable, personal, loving, and just.

... while here he describes god by declaring ...

The five most fundamental attributes of God are that He is Living, Personal, Relational, Good, and Loving.

It's the areas where Bob's attributes differ and agree when addressing the issue intrinsically or extrinsically that I found interesting. While I have little trouble following the extrinsic definition, Bob's use of terms such as "living," and "relational" require a good deal of attention for an outsider, as they are clearly based on shared memes inside the community. As the additional attributes inside the community are difficult to penetrate, it makes me wonder how far I truly understand Bob's usage of the shared attributes.

Clete, if I might ask, how much of that Acts9/Shugart exchange was relevant to OV vs. CV? I was sure at first that it was entirely off-topic, but now I'm not as certain. (Though I doubt if you remember that far back, you were actually one of the two or three posters who answered my clarification questions in an Exclusively Christian thread I followed carefully for a while a couple years back, though I couldn't say who originated it.)

In peace, Jesse

 

[godrulz]

Sovereignty and love are not mutually exclusive. The key is to understand sovereingty biblically. Hyper-sovereignty is a distortion of biblical truth. "God is love" is explicit and foundational. God has more than 5 attributes or character qualities. I do not think either debater denies this.

 

[Clete]

During the Battle Royale Does God exist?, Bob defined god as ... ... while here he describes god by declaring ... It's the areas where Bob's attributes differ and agree when addressing the issue intrinsically or extrinsically that I found interesting. While I have little trouble following the extrinsic definition, Bob's use of terms such as "living," and "relational" require a good deal of attention for an outsider, as they are clearly based on shared memes inside the community. As the additional attributes inside the community are difficult to penetrate, it makes me wonder how far I truly understand Bob's usage of the shared attributes.

Did this paragraph makes sense to anyone else?
taoist, I don't mean to belittle you at all but none of this made any sense to me. Maybe you or someone who understood it could translate it into English for me.

Clete, if I might ask, how much of that Acts9/Shugart exchange was relevant to OV vs. CV? I was sure at first that it was entirely off-topic, but now I'm not as certain. (Though I doubt if you remember that far back, you were actually one of the two or three posters who answered my clarification questions in an Exclusively Christian thread I followed carefully for a while a couple years back, though I couldn't say who originated it.)

Well to be honest I didn't read their exchange but if it is the same one note song that the two of them usually sing with eachother, I would say that dispensationalism in general makes very little sense in a closed view theological system and the Bible itself makes very little sense outside of dispensationalism, and so, yes (assuming they were debating dispensationalism) it is related but not directly.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[taoist]

Maybe you or someone who understood it could translate it into English for me.

Sorry, Clete, when I write in a hurry I'm rarely understandable. My intent was to note that Bob identifies attributes of god differently when speaking within the christian community (intrinsically) as compared to when he speaks outside it (extrinsically). I'll try to get back to you on this tomorrow.

Best, Jesse

 

[Clete]

Sorry, Clete, when I write in a hurry I'm rarely understandable. My intent was to note that Bob identifies attributes of god differently when speaking within the christian community (intrinsically) as compared to when he speaks outside it (extrinsically). I'll try to get back to you on this tomorrow.

Best, Jesse

I see.
It seems to me that is to be expected.

 

[GuySmiley]

Did this paragraph makes sense to anyone else?

I think taoist is going to make a point that the list of God's attributes Bob listed in the Does God Exist debate and in this debate are different. But Bob did not claim in either debate that they are exhaustive lists of God's attributes. And the two lists are compatible so if I understand taoists position, I dont see the problem.

Greg

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Well to be honest I didn't read their exchange but if it is the same one note song that the two of them usually sing with eachother, I would say that dispensationalism in general makes very little sense in a closed view theological system and the Bible itself makes very little sense outside of dispensationalism, and so, yes (assuming they were debating dispensationalism) it is related but not directly.
Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete,

Believe it or not, Dispensationalism never came up... :shut:

Our discourse was limited to God repenting. Jerry says God never repents, and I say God does repent... That's it...

We're playing a song with two notes now...

:guitar: :singer: :drum:

--Jeremy

 

[Clete]

Clete,

Believe it or not, Dispensationalism never came up... :shut:

Our discourse was limited to God repenting. Jerry says God never repents, and I say God does repent... That's it...

We're playing a song with two notes now...

:guitar: :singer: :drum:

--Jeremy

All right! :BRAVO:

I didn't mean to be insulting, by the way. It's just that there for a while that seemed to be the only thing you guys ever talk about between the two of you. I'm sure that's not even true but only my perception.
At any rate, the issue of whether or not God repents applies directly to whether or not the future is open because if God repents the future HAS TO BE open and if He does not, it may or may not be and so if it can be established that God repents (and I think it has been repeatedly) then Open Theism is proved.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[GodsfreeWill]

Again,when the Lord is speaking of His nature we can understand that the interpretation is "literal".

If another verse contradicts what the Lord revealed about His nature then we must take that verse figuratively.

And no one has even attempted to prove that the Lord is not describing His nature at Numbers 23:19.After all,he is contrasting His nature with that of man.He says that He will not lie as does man and he will not change His mind as does man.Another example where the Lord compares His nature to that of man is the following:

""But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart"(1Sam.16:7).

We can know that the Lord does not have to see any "outward appearances" of faith before He can know whether or not a man has faith,and that is because He can look at the heart of man and know.So if we see a verse that seems to be saying that He would not know whether a man feared Him unless He could see an "outward appearance" of that fear,then we know that that verse should not be taken literally. This is an example of such a verse:

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me"(Gen.22:12).

If we use our common sense we can know that this narrative is not to be read employing a wooden literalism.If we take it literally then we can see that the Lord did not know whether or not Abraham feared God until He saw the outward act of Abraham taking the knife to slay his son,Isaac.

And that directly contradicts what the Lord Himself said about His nature.

In His grace,--Jerry

Thanks for the response Jerry, but you didn't answer my question brother. For those who missed it, I said,

I would love one answer from Jerry.

Jerry, when the Bible says "God repents", WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Jerry's response is quoted above.

Here's what I'm looking for from you Jerry. I understand that you think it is FIGURATIVE, and I understand WHY you think it is figurative, so you don't need to explain that anymore. Figurative language expresses one thing in terms normally denoting another with which it may be regarded as analogous. With that said, what does the figure "repent" represent?

 

[GuySmiley]

RightIdea, I moved this over from the critique thread.

You assert, as did he, that all he has to do is show one instance in which God foreknew the future as definite. But nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, OVers proudly proclaim that God knows many things in the future in a definite sense!

I don't understand how proving Jesus foreknew something doesn't prove Lamerson's case. If Jesus truly foreknew the future, then the future exists, and is knowable, and is closed! Therefore God can have foreknowledge about any event. I don't know OVers that proudly proclaim that God knows many things in the future in a definite sense. Are you speaking about God proclaiming what he'll do in the future? Or do you really mean that God can see the future? Maybe our disagreement is semantics.

Furthermore, the issue in this debate is not whether God knows at least one thing about your future. The explicit issue is whether God knows your entire future.

Do you believe Lamerson must prove that God knows 100% of all events to take place? What if he only proves that God knows 90% of future events, but the rest Lamerson cant prove? In that case I'd switch to the CV (which I'm not).

Consequently, there are two possible ways to resolve this, when you get down to it. Either Sam proves every single example of foreknowledge in the Bible is definite -- which is for all practical purposes totally unfeasible due to time and space restrictions -- OR all Bob has to do is show just one example in the Bible in which God did not know some future event in a definite sense. That is the real standard, from the get-go.

If Sam can prove one example of God having foreknowledge, in the truest sense (not proclaiming an action, then carrying it through) then I think we have inconsistencies in the Bible. To me, either OV or CV is true, and both cannot be true. So we can't have Sam prove 20 cases of foreknowledge, and Bob only prove one, then say Bob is the winner.

Lamerson can show a hundred examples of God knowing a future event definitely... and it still won't prove his case.

Reguarding this, notice I used the word 'prove' above, not 'show.'

Greg

 

[godrulz]

God does not 'see' the non-existent future, but He can bring some of it to pass by His omnicompetence. There is also a difference between proximal, probable prediction based on perfect past/present knowledge, and foreseeing the remote future (from before creation) of free will contingencies. If something may or may not happen, it is only known as possible until it becomes certain at the point of choice.

 

[Delmar]

... So we can't have Sam prove 20 cases of foreknowledge, and Bob only prove one, then say Bob is the winner...

Why not? Is it not the claim of the settled view that God knows 100% of the future?

 

[Vaquero45]

Just had a thought. If God knew my entire future, that would have to include His own interaction with me. Acceptance, judgement, love, whatever. Might be a big leap here, but... If God knew that, that would mean He knew His own future? If God already knows His own (entire?) future, (which would be infinite) doesnt that make Him akin to a wind up toy or train on a track? It would mean not only are we like "robots" as the common analogy goes, but wouldnt it put Him in the same position? He would never have a new or original idea, and that would have to be from the infinite past? Am I all wet here?

(that is so irreverent, it is scary to type!)

Jeff

 

[STONE]

tell you what stone, let's see some citations for your point of view

Really, it's as simple as googling or picking up the phone and calling a traditional Jewish synagogue. You don't need to take my word for it simply because I have studied Judaism.

 

[STONE]

Free will is diametrically opposed to manipulation/coercion. Just because God 'manipulates' some things, does not mean He micromanages everything. We have genuine, significant freedom, though not unlimited. God is not the only free moral agent in the universe. We cannot blame God for everything.

Are you saying God will manipulate people to make sure His will and prophecies are accomplished?
How about here:
"Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children and refused to be comforted, because they were not. "Jer 31:15 / Mt 2:18"