BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)

[RightIdea]

Well, it is more complicated and convoluted than that... of course! Heck, the Open View is a little more complicated than that. LOL

That's just a very general, nutshell description. For what it's worth. That's what you get if you really boil it down. When they go deeper into it, they start talking about such philosophical concepts as "counterfactuals," and so on. And that's where my headache begins. LOL Personally, I'm not a big fan of philosophy.

 

[godrulz]

Well, it is more complicated and convoluted than that... of course! Heck, the Open View is a little more complicated than that. LOL

That's just a very general, nutshell description. For what it's worth. That's what you get if you really boil it down. When they go deeper into it, they start talking about such philosophical concepts as "counterfactuals," and so on. And that's where my headache begins. LOL Personally, I'm not a big fan of philosophy.

William Lane Craig is a Molinistic view. He is not a dummy, and has some good things to say.

It seems to me that Molinism ends up being like determinism in the end.

Rightidea...your thinking and posts are exceptional. I trust you will contribute as often as possible.

Where do you teach? The Denver college associated with Enyart?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm

http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/molinism.htm

(16th-17th century)

 

[docrob57]

I tentatively give Round 2 to Dr. Sam. His response to Pastor Bob was strong, and I am pretty sure I know what Pastor Bob's reponses will be, and on this issue I disagree, so my tentative score at this point is 1-1.

 

[RightIdea]

William Lane Craig is a Molinistic view. He is not a dummy, and has some good things to say.

It seems to me that Molinism ends up being like determinism in the end.

Rightidea...your thinking and posts are exceptional. I trust you will contribute as often as possible.

Where do you teach? The Denver college associated with Enyart?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm

http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/molinism.htm

(16th-17th century)

I've never set foot in a seminary... much less teach in any formal setting! LOL But thank you for the compliment, I'm humbled.

Sorry to disappoint, but I am only here for this debate, and have actually participated in non-debate threads more than I had planned.

I do a little teaching on occasion with the GODISNOWHERE ministry, but primarily in the area of what we like to call "street level apologetics." Down and dirty, the things that are reall relevant to people on the streets, in the real world. Not high-falutin' intellectual stuff, like "the teleological argument for the existence of a greatest conceivable being," and so on. But not soft, feelings-based junk, either. We are presuppositional and evidential, both. We give free seminars and classes in these things, as well as basic dispensational understanding of scripture (if we can get that far with a group). Most of all, we just rally challenge people hard in their faith, and to back up what they believe wiht a REASON for their faith. Not blind faith, but a reasoned faith. So, in that respect, I've done some teaching.

The last class we did, up in Ft. Collins... only 3 people walked out. LOL So, that went well! :thumb:

"If you won't challenge what you believe... we'll do it for you."

But, no, I dont' teach at Derby School of Theology or anything like that. LOL

 

[Army of One]

I tentatively give Round 2 to Dr. Sam. His response to Pastor Bob was strong, and I am pretty sure I know what Pastor Bob's reponses will be, and on this issue I disagree, so my tentative score at this point is 1-1.

Scoring the round before it's over? :chuckle: I'm going to wait to see how Bob responds. I don't think he will have too much difficulty. Alot of Sam's questions to Bob, as well as his refutations of some of Bob's points seem to be off base. I would say he has set up straw men, but from what I've heard from him so far, he doesn't appear to be the type to do that (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt at least). I think rather, he has just misunderstood parts of Bob's argument. I'll have to wait and see how Bob responds though.

 

[godrulz]

Jesus was a street preacher, not an ivory tower scholar. Good theology is our mandate regardless of our target audience. I still think Rightidea is above average in his posts (even if you are Mid-Acts...I still do not agree with some of its ideas).

 

[Balder]

I tentatively give Round 2 to Dr. Sam. His response to Pastor Bob was strong, and I am pretty sure I know what Pastor Bob's reponses will be, and on this issue I disagree, so my tentative score at this point is 1-1.

I think Sam's response was quite strong too.

 

[godrulz]

I think Sam's response was quite strong too.

Most of it has been credibly answered in simple, readable books like Boyd's "God of the Possible". Like other anti-Open Theists, he has preconceived ideas and a relatively shallow insight into Open Theism.

 

[taoist]

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

Thank you, GuySmiley,

You're essentially correct though apparently misdirected. I don't see any contradictions between the lists myself. I do, however, find both the similarities and differences illuminating. But it's especially the similarities I found notable ... and what those similarities imply about the different mindset inside the christian community.

As an example, consider the "personal" aspect common to both lists. Reading Bob's commentary on this aspect, an aspect he apparently feels is important in framing OV theology, it's clear this is not the standard dictionary definition I would naturally rely upon. As it's a usage that other christians do not find troubling, I, again naturally, assume it forms a basic cultural idea, a "meme", inside the church.

Memes in society are the cultural analogue of genes in biological organisms. This meme, the inside-the-church meaning of "personal", is apparently transmitted almost exclusively inside the church. My reading of works on comparative religion associates this limited meme transmission with the group of "intrinsic" mysteries common to most religions, as differentiated from the "extrinsic" knowledge shared commonly with nonbelievers. "Intrinsic" and "extrinsic", in this sense, are standard terms within the literature.

Now to my actual point.

I've reason to believe the "personal" aspect of god Bob is using here is almost certainly the same aspect he used in the earlier debate with Zakath as well as in the Post-Game show to that debate with Flipper, "the Marxist," and myself. Bob took exception to my adherence to the standard meaning of "personal" when I dismissed it as an organizational aspect not useful in differentiating the divine. Though I read his response a number of times, I was unable to penetrate his meaning, and now I believe I see the reason why.

In peace, Jesse

 

[Turbo]

As an example, consider the "personal" aspect common to both lists. Reading Bob's commentary on this aspect, an aspect he apparently feels is important in framing OV theology, it's clear this is not the standard dictionary definition I would naturally rely upon.

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).

Originally published in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

personal
adj

6. Relating to or having the nature of a person or self-conscious being: belief in a personal God.

 

[Bob Enyart]

It's Mr. Turbo from now on...

It's Mr. Turbo from now on...

Originally published in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
personal
adj
6. Relating to or having the nature of a person or self-conscious being: belief in a personal God.

Turbo, you're my hero.
-Bob

 

[elected4ever]

If God has "exhaustive foreknowledge" would that include His own actions? It would have to, at least in His dealings with us, right? That would mean God's own future, at least concerning us, is already written in stone, and God is reduced to just another puppet following the script in the creation show. And would His "exhaustive foreknowledge" also include the rest of eternity after the second coming? That means the puppet show's script will be followed forever, and God is just along for the ride, no? It doesn't make sense, when we clearly see God interacting with man in the Bible.

For instance, (Exodus 32:9-14) God was going to "consume" all of Israel, save Moses, and start a new nation through Moses, but Moses pleaded with Him, and pointed out that Egypt would mock His action, so God changed His mind by all appearance. A strange thing to put in the Bible if we are suposed to believe God already knew the future. What message could we take from it, other than God was just kidding? I really do not understand your position. Not trying to attack you personally, I'm truely curious how you can accept that belief. I cannot make sense of it.

Jeff

I don't find that all that threatening. Just because we may not understand something does not negate the truth. It is not that God does not know, it is that we do not know and must learn.

Isaiah 55:6 *¶Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:
7 *Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
8 *For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 *For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

It is all about us learning to trust God and His foreknowledge.

 

[godrulz]

A personal being has will (actions), intellect (thoughts), and emotions (feelings). This contrasts with an impersonal being. Personal does not come from impersonal. We are in the spiritual, personal, and moral image of God.

 

[godrulz]

I don't find that all that threatening. Just because we may not understand something does not negate the truth. It is not that God does not know, it is that we do not know and must learn.

Isaiah 55:6 *¶Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:
7 *Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
8 *For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 *For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

It is all about us learning to trust God and His foreknowledge.

This debate is not about not understanding God's ways. The Is. 55 context is reasoning about salvation and God's grace, not metaphysical issues. What is God's self-revelation? What is the nature of the future (open, closed, or both)?

Logically and biblically, exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is an absurdity or logical contradiction. This is what Open Theists must support logically and biblically. It is about the coherence of theism, not believing mysteries that can be made sense of with sound thinking and biblical principles.

 

[jeremiah]

This is something I had to move from the Battle Critique Thread per Knight's instructions so that is why it seems out of context.
To the Moderator: I would now like to make a small "critique of the critiquers," here? and or in the gallery?
If you must delete this part of my post or move it, I fully understand.
When I was a baby Christian I was so excited to go on my first retreat with my Church to a mountain getaway. When I got there all I heard was "and this is what we did last year", or "let's do what we did last year", or worst of all, "it was a LOT better last year." Fortunately, the Holy Spirit was there and at the very end something very different happened, and we all had our "socks blessed off", as we used to say, back then.
Although many of you have heard this type of debate many times before, I have not. So when you say that Bob is going to knock that one out of the ballpark, quite frankly, he has not knocked anything out yet. He has only had one post which was prepatory, and as the Dr. said, "non -responsive." Then you assume that Dr. Lamerson can only respond with answers that you have also already heard. You may be wrong, so please leave room in your thinking, that God may so inspire him with an answer that you may have never heard.
It may not be" just like last year." It may in fact be better, and we may all be edified. I would call that having an "open" view of a live debate. Let's allow God to be God, and work through the debaters, and inside our hearts and minds.

This is not a movie that I have seen before, and you shouldn't try to ruin the ending for those of us who haven't seen it. If you think this is a movie you have seen before, then I would say that you have a "closed" view of debates.
Thanks!

 

[Montana]

The question I like asking people is this: “Where does a book originate, at the end of the printing press or in the mind of its author?” They always answer honestly, “In the mind of its Author.” And that’s true for any creation. It originates in the mind of its creator.

God is the creator of earth. If He foreknew every perverted thing that would happen on earth before creating it, then He would have been the author of that perversity. But God is not the author of sin. Sinners are the authors of sin. The author of a textbook is the author of the textbook. He is not the author of the vulgarities that freethinking public school students scribbled in the margins.

God has always existed. Sinners have not always existed. God did not experience sin until the existence of sinners. God knew that by making freewill beings He was making creatures capable of rebellion (They would not have been freewill beings if He had authored their rebellion for them), but He did not know what their rebellion would entail.

So sinners authored their own sins and God got an education that He regrets. That is why He repented that He made man.

 

[elected4ever]

The question I like asking people is this: “Where does a book originate, at the end of the printing press or in the mind of its author?” They always answer honestly, “In the mind of its Author.” And that’s true for any creation. It originates in the mind of its creator.

God is the creator of earth. If He foreknew every perverted thing that would happen on earth before creating it, then He would have been the author of that perversity. But God is not the author of sin. Sinners are the authors of sin. The author of a textbook is the author of the textbook. He is not the author of the vulgarities that freethinking public school students scribbled in the margins.

God has always existed. Sinners have not always existed. God did not experience sin until the existence of sinners. God knew that by making freewill beings He was making creatures capable of rebellion (They would not have been freewill beings if He had authored their rebellion for them), but He did not know what their rebellion would entail.

So sinners authored their own sins and God got an education that He regrets. That is why He repented that He made man.

Like it or not sin did exist before Adam.

Law is the will of the sovereign. What ever resist the will of the sovereign is in violation of the law. Violation of the will of God is therefore sin. Satan violated the will of God before man was created so sin existed before Adam sinned.God did not author sin.

The free agency of man is part of the creation called man. Man had the ability to disregard the will of God because he had the freedom to do so. God did not suggest that he do so. To suggest that God created man for the express purpose of man to violate His will is sheer idiocy. God could not create man in His image without also giving man free will. Though God knew he did not prevent man from acting but before the foundation of the worlds were laid down God made a plan to redeem man back to Himself. All was known to God before creation and all will be settled according to God's plan.

 

[godrulz]

:shut:

 

[sentientsynth]

I would literally pay money to have that debate happen. I've heard Hanegraaf on the issue and I pretty much disagree with every single point he makes. I would love it if he and Bob could get together and hash it out. There would be major communication hurtles to overcome because of the vastly different dispensational presuppositions that each of them have, but in spite of that it would be a great, great Battle Royale.
And talk about getting coverage! Hanegraaf may as well be the Pope as far as many Christians are concerned. There's no way the debate could not be taken seriously by anyone who knows who either of them are. (Sorry about the double negative there. )

Resting in Him,
Clete

I'm going to contact CRI.







Seriously.

SS

 

[Chileice]

Scoring the round before it's over? :chuckle: I'm going to wait to see how Bob responds. I don't think he will have too much difficulty. Alot of Sam's questions to Bob, as well as his refutations of some of Bob's points seem to be off base. I would say he has set up straw men, but from what I've heard from him so far, he doesn't appear to be the type to do that (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt at least). I think rather, he has just misunderstood parts of Bob's argument. I'll have to wait and see how Bob responds though.

It appears that Doc is omniscient. Or maybe he will allow Bob to have free will but based on his intimate knowledge of Bob, he knows he will lose. This debate appears to apply as much to docrob as it does to God. Or maybe docrob is Bob and will throw round two in order to win the ultimate battle. Wow! the possibilities are mounting along with the tension. Maybe docrob is God?! :king: :chuckle: :bang:

Are you a gambler by any chance?