BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)

[DonW]

God of ignorance?

God of ignorance?

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. ...

... 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.

So your God is a moron? :hammer:

"Gee, I couldn't imagine that they would do that. Dang, I shoulda made them dumber, so they'd only be a little like Me but with so little reasoning ability that they couldn't think of that stuff."


If sinners author their own sin it does not matter whether God has detailed foreknowledge of the sins. If foreknowledge of free will consequences makes God responsible then any sin that is reasonably foreseeable to His infinite intelligence makes God responsible. We know that before creation God had certain foreknowledge of at least some sins that required the sacrifice of the Lamb. How can God then escape responsibility under your theology?

If foreknowledge of sin makes God responsible at what point does this no longer apply? After all, God certainly knew the 9-11 hijackers were going to destroy the WTC Towers even before the planes took off. Therefore, by your reasoning, God was responsible for those thousands of deaths. Every hardened criminal is known to God, so He must then be responsible for every planned violation.

This line of reasoning, carried to its logical conclusion (as you OVers like to say of competing theologies) leads to error.

 

[Yorzhik]

So your God is a moron? :hammer:

"Gee, I couldn't imagine that they would do that. Dang, I shoulda made them dumber, so they'd only be a little like Me but with so little reasoning ability that they couldn't think of that stuff."


If sinners author their own sin it does not matter whether God has detailed foreknowledge of the sins. If foreknowledge of free will consequences makes God responsible then any sin that is reasonably foreseeable to His infinite intelligence makes God responsible. We know that before creation God had certain foreknowledge of at least some sins that required the sacrifice of the Lamb. How can God then escape responsibility under your theology?

If foreknowledge of sin makes God responsible at what point does this no longer apply? After all, God certainly knew the 9-11 hijackers were going to destroy the WTC Towers even before the planes took off. Therefore, by your reasoning, God was responsible for those thousands of deaths. Every hardened criminal is known to God, so He must then be responsible for every planned violation.

This line of reasoning, carried to its logical conclusion (as you OVers like to say of competing theologies) leads to error.

Almost. Exhaustive forknowledge is causal, but partial forknowledge is not.

It works a bit like this: exhaustive forknowledge means that the initial cause is responsible for every cause thereafter. Partial forknowledge is no longer responsible from the point of the first unknown event. Simple enough?

 

[titan]

Jeremiah; Don't sweat it. Now that you know, kindly replace any word "calvanist" with the words "one who believes in the closed view" when talking with a person that believes in the open view. Realize, we just do it save on typing.

Just say CVer! Even less typing and no insult implied.

Titan

 

[titan]

So your God is a moron? :hammer:

"Gee, I couldn't imagine that they would do that. Dang, I shoulda made them dumber, so they'd only be a little like Me but with so little reasoning ability that they couldn't think of that stuff."


If sinners author their own sin it does not matter whether God has detailed foreknowledge of the sins. If foreknowledge of free will consequences makes God responsible then any sin that is reasonably foreseeable to His infinite intelligence makes God responsible. We know that before creation God had certain foreknowledge of at least some sins that required the sacrifice of the Lamb. How can God then escape responsibility under your theology?

If foreknowledge of sin makes God responsible at what point does this no longer apply? After all, God certainly knew the 9-11 hijackers were going to destroy the WTC Towers even before the planes took off. Therefore, by your reasoning, God was responsible for those thousands of deaths. Every hardened criminal is known to God, so He must then be responsible for every planned violation.

This line of reasoning, carried to its logical conclusion (as you OVers like to say of competing theologies) leads to error.

I agree with you that foreknowledge cannot be disproven by "God is good" arguments. Predestination can but not foreknowledge. God may have allowed evil to exist because it was preferable to having no free will. Without free will, God is the only being in the universe, the rest of us would be mere puppets on his hand. Apparently God wanted children rather than puppets. If you want kids you have to agree to change a few diapers.

On the other hand, I find it hard to accomodate exhaustive foreknowledge with free will.
If God knows I will choose A over B, then I never really had the option to choose B did I?

I know I am not God and He is not me. Predestination eliminates the distinction between God and me. As good a definition of "I" as I can come up with is: I am the one who does my actions and thinks my thoughts. If God controls my every action and my every thought, wouldn't he be me? What if he merely knew my every action and thought before I did? Hmmmm.

Titan

 

[titan]

Almost. Exhaustive forknowledge is causal, but partial forknowledge is not.

It works a bit like this: exhaustive forknowledge means that the initial cause is responsible for every cause thereafter. Partial forknowledge is no longer responsible from the point of the first unknown event. Simple enough?

Exhaustive foreknowledge means that God knows everything that is going to happen from the beginning. It says nothing about causation or responsibility. One could say God should have stopped some evil from happening if he knew about it beforehand, but that would only be true if stopping it would not have made matters worse. It is my position that there is something about creating beings with free will that implies those beings will miss the mark. Undoing free will might be the greatest evil of all. Murder kills a body. Destruction of free will kills a soul.

Titan

 

[chance]

Lamerson just doesn't know!

Lamerson just doesn't know!

I read Lamerson's second posting and I gotta say.......Lamerson is about to get a big time lesson in historical theology AND Scriptural interpretation from Bob that he has never heard before hanging around all of those Calvinists his entire life.

In fact, let me give links to some great evidence for Bob's claims in this post so he and anyone else can check out the evidence.

Concerning the historical evidence that Greek pagan philosophy has had a huge impact on the traditional understanding of the doctrine of God, read this article on Augustine's philosophical beliefs and upbringing and how it influenced his reading of Scripture. What Augustine wrote is important since his works were unarguably the biggest influence on church teaching for a long, long time and are still held in high regard by many today. The article detailing Augustine's Greek pagan philosophy and how it controlled his interpretation of Scripture is titled Can God Change Or Be Influenced By Anything?

I noticed Lamerson also brought up Is 40-48. As well as 1 out of 3 passages in 1 Sam 15 that refer to God repenting (he picked the one that says God will not repent regarding a matter and totally ignored the other two that say that He does repent and will not do what He said) That poor old man. The things he will learn from Bob will blow his mind. Can't wait to read Bob's response!

 

[Delmar]

I just want to state clearly about the Molinist View that I do not consider any of its proponents to be dummies. My complaint about Molinism isn't at all that it is stupid; on the contrary, if anything it's too intellectual. It seems overly complicated and philosophically complex to the point that you just start to get the intuitive sense that somethin' aint right about it.
When reading about it I begin to feel the same way I did when I watched the conspiracy theory movie JFK in that it's just so incredibly complex and convoluted that it stretches credibility to the breaking point. But even so, I certainly would never think that any one who holds to that view and actually understands it to be stupid or a "dummy". Heck, you've gotta have some pretty good brain power just to understand it well enough to even articulate it, never mind believe in it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

1 Cr14:33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
I believe that the Bible depicts a God who wants to know and be known by us. Much of the beauty of the open view, for me, is that it isn't rocket surgery to understand it. Knowing God is simply about (to borrow a phrase from Brother Clete) resting in him.

 

[elected4ever]

Exhaustive foreknowledge means that God knows everything that is going to happen from the beginning. It says nothing about causation or responsibility. One could say God should have stopped some evil from happening if he knew about it beforehand, but that would only be true if stopping it would not have made matters worse. It is my position that there is something about creating beings with free will that implies those beings will miss the mark. Undoing free will might be the greatest evil of all. Murder kills a body. Destruction of free will kills a soul.

Titan

The false assumption is that just because God knows, that it prevents free choice. Just because God knows we may pick A or B does not mean that God made the choice of A or B for us. The fact is that we do not know if we will pick A or B. That is not the same think as having God pick A or B for us which is what you are implying.

 

[Berean Todd]

I read Lamerson's second posting and I gotta say.......Lamerson is about to get a big time lesson in historical theology AND Scriptural interpretation from Bob that he has never heard before hanging around all of those Calvinists his entire life.

In fact, let me give links to some great evidence for Bob's claims in this post so he and anyone else can check out the evidence.

Concerning the historical evidence that Greek pagan philosophy has had a huge impact on the traditional understanding of the doctrine of God, read this article on Augustine's philosophical beliefs and upbringing and how it influenced his reading of Scripture. What Augustine wrote is important since his works were unarguably the biggest influence on church teaching for a long, long time and are still held in high regard by many today. The article detailing Augustine's Greek pagan philosophy and how it controlled his interpretation of Scripture is titled Can God Change Or Be Influenced By Anything?

I noticed Lamerson also brought up Is 40-48. As well as 1 out of 3 passages in 1 Sam 15 that refer to God repenting (he picked the one that says God will not repent regarding a matter and totally ignored the other two that say that He does repent and will not do what He said) That poor old man. The things he will learn from Bob will blow his mind. Can't wait to read Bob's response!

Oh please, Lamerson is killing Enyart right now. Bob wouldn't even respond to Lamerson's points in his first post, and Enyart (like all OVers) has hardly touched on Scripture yet. It's all phillosophical, humanistic BS. Lamerson is OWNING Enyart at this point.

 

[godrulz]

The false assumption is that just because God knows, that it prevents free choice. Just because God knows we may pick A or B does not mean that God made the choice of A or B for us. The fact is that we do not know if we will pick A or B. That is not the same think as having God pick A or B for us which is what you are implying.

If we could pick A, B, C,.....Z, then how would God know as a certainty BEFORE we picked? How would He know this from all eternity, before we even exist? How could God know the outcome of the 2010 Superbowl if it has not been played yet? The only way I can think of knowing contingent choices in advance is to control or determine them. Without this, they are uncertain and thus unknowable. Saying God is God does not make it any more coherent. To assume God saw me typing these exact words, mistakes and all (that I just corrected), from all eternity, would assume that the future was already the fixed past. The knowing of a nothing (the future is not yet) is a bald contradiction. The rest of this year is playing out (time is unidirectional) as we speak. December, 2005 is not there to see or know. There are trillions of contingencies that will affect exactly how things pan out. If there is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, things will be different for many people, than if it is thwarted or delayed until next year. God has a history (His story). He is experiencing reality along with us, but to a greater degree (He does not rely on CNN to know what is happening everywhere).

 

[CRASH]

Lets Promote the debate!

Lets Promote the debate!

Crash,

I'll notify CRI about this debate. Really I think that every theological body should be interested in this debate. It's hot, "in-house," and very interesting. Hey, I'm here.

CRI may take note of it. But if one were to take CRI as a whole, it's thoroughly classical. A recent CRI mag has this article which I found pretty insightful. Somewhat brief, but good.

I have a lot of respect for both Dr. Hanegraaff and Pastor Enyart. It is their mutual Biblical knowledge and personality that leads me to believe that they'd make for an interesting debate. And good for all involved. Dr. Hanegraaff to openly debate the thesis of his recent work. Pastor Enyart to demonstrate why a growing number of Christians are listening to him. And TOL for publicity, hits, etc. A few debates of the order of magnitude as BRX and the hopeful BRXI would make TOL THE place for online discussion, debate, community, etc.

I'd like that. I know some other folks that'll like that. And with the proper planning and execution, it can happen.



SS

That article is exactly why they should be following this debate! I think they (CRI) would have a harder time countering Enyart's more biblical, logical positions. I totally agree with your other comments.

We should start sending invitations to this debate to all relevant ministries. I am committed to spending at least a few hours doing exactly that - politely inviting Christian leaders, para-church ministries and others (especially the Calvinist types) to this debate wherever I can find them on the web. I will use a hotlink and the artwork Knight put at the front of the debate! Anybody else game for investing a little time into spreading the Truth and bringing more critical mass to TOL?

 

[chance]

Here's something you didn't know

Here's something you didn't know

Oh please, Lamerson is killing Enyart right now. Bob wouldn't even respond to Lamerson's points in his first post, and Enyart (like all OVers) has hardly touched on Scripture yet. It's all phillosophical, humanistic BS. Lamerson is OWNING Enyart at this point.

And now for some info you didn't know anything about Todd - Enyart and Bob Hill have ALREADY answered ALL of the questions that Lamerson has asked so far. I know precisely because I've read their articles and heard their responses on the radio or through a tape series (like Enyart's Predestination & Free-Will or The Flood). Go to the Predestination & Free-Will section of www.biblicalanswers.com and you can even do a search for specific passages or concepts that you have questions about and get many results where the answer has been supplied or an entire article has been written on the topic.

Here is a taste of the openness response to the so-called "I am God because I have EDF" argument that Closed Viewers attempt to erect using IS 40-48:

Bottom line, these passages point to God's POWER or His ABILITY to BRING ABOUT what He said He would do. What He predicts occurs precisely because He gets involved with his creation and brings His will about through His power. It is NOT some knowledge of the future as totally settled that brings anything about. Such knowledge would make God passive and unable to change anything ever. He would be a captive to His own knowledge. It is God's great power that enables Him to bring about His will, not some passive knowledge of a completely settled future.

Isaiah 46:9-11 Remember the former things of old, For I [am] God, and [there is] no other; [I am] God, and [there is] none like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times [things] that are not [yet] done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,' 11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken [it;] I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed [it;] I will also do it.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry,
You accuse me of not responding to your questions from our debate. I wasted almost an hour re-reading our debate and the discussion thread.

Jeremy,if you spent almost an hour reveiwing our debate and the discussion thread why do you misrepresent what was answered and what was not?You said:

I responded and re-responded to all of your questions throughout the debate and finally post #66 in the discussion thread.

Here are your very last words on post #66:

In my next post, I will respond to Jerry's comments on my questions, and then I will answer his questions...

Jeremy,if you answered my questions on post #66 then why in the world would you say in that same post that you would answer my questions later?

I searched the remaining posts on the discussion thread and you never answered them!

I apologize if you don't like the answers, but I have answered your questions.

You evaded them throughout the debate and even after you promised to answer them you never did.And then when you were brought to task for not answering them you said that you did on post #66.But if you answered them there why did you say at the end of that post that you will answer them later?

And why didn't you answer them later?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

On the critque thread Jeremy said:

I wonder if Dr. Lamerson would argue that a person who has trusted in Jesus Christ as his/her personal Lord and Savior, believes that Christ died for his/her sins, and believes that Christ was raised from the dead, might be condemned to hell if he/she has not yet believed the reality that Jesus Christ is God?

Here is what the Apostle John said about receiving life:

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name"(Jn.20:31).

When the Lord Jesus used the term "Son of God" those who heard him understood that He was making HImself equal with God:

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God"(Jn.10:33).

The Lord's response make it plain that the "blasphemy" of which they were accusing HIm was because He said that he is "the Son of God":

"Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"(Jn.36).

That is why the Jews "sought to kill Him":

"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God"(Jn.5:18).

When the LOrd Jesus was brought before Pilate the unbelieving Jews said that He should die because "He made Himself the Son of God"(Jn.19:7).

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[elected4ever]

If we could pick A, B, C,.....Z, then how would God know as a certainty BEFORE we picked? How would He know this from all eternity, before we even exist? How could God know the outcome of the 2010 Superbowl if it has not been played yet? The only way I can think of knowing contingent choices in advance is to control or determine them. Without this, they are uncertain and thus unknowable. Saying God is God does not make it any more coherent. To assume God saw me typing these exact words, mistakes and all (that I just corrected), from all eternity, would assume that the future was already the fixed past. The knowing of a nothing (the future is not yet) is a bald contradiction. The rest of this year is playing out (time is unidirectional) as we speak. December, 2005 is not there to see or know. There are trillions of contingencies that will affect exactly how things pan out. If there is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, things will be different for many people, than if it is thwarted or delayed until next year. God has a history (His story). He is experiencing reality along with us, but to a greater degree (He does not rely on CNN to know what is happening everywhere).

The effect is not on God's plan but on ours.Just because God knows our plans does not prevent us from making them and just because we have choices does not change God's plan.

 

[Berean Todd]

And now for some info you didn't know anything about Todd - Enyart and Bob Hill have ALREADY answered ALL of the questions that Lamerson has asked so far. I know precisely because I've read their articles and heard their responses on the radio or through a tape series

Ok, two points you miss here.

1. Frankly I don't think that I've EVER read sufficient explanation to these questions from an OV'er.

2. Even if Bob has answered them in papers and tape series elsewhere, that has absolutely nothing to do with his avoidance of the questions here in the debate. This is a debate, points have been raised, and Enyart has dodged, simple as that.

 

[godrulz]

The effect is not on God's plan but on ours.Just because God knows our plans does not prevent us from making them and just because we have choices does not change God's plan.

How do you read Jonah and Hezekiah? God planned for Hezekiah to die and declared it as such. Then, in response to prayer, He changed His mind and added 15 years to His life. Does this sound like a closed, foreknown future or an open, unsettled, uncertain future?

If the Ninevites did not repent, our Bible and history would be different. The future was open until the response was made to God's conditional (contingent, not fixed/foreknown) prophecy.

 

[godrulz]

Ok, two points you miss here.

1. Frankly I don't think that I've EVER read sufficient explanation to these questions from an OV'er.

2. Even if Bob has answered them in papers and tape series elsewhere, that has absolutely nothing to do with his avoidance of the questions here in the debate. This is a debate, points have been raised, and Enyart has dodged, simple as that.

Announced delay is not dodging. There is more than one way to be responsive in a 10 round debate. A foundation can precede detailed answers. Patience, grasshopper.

 

[Turbo]

and Enyart (like all OVers) has hardly touched on Scripture yet.

It's sad to see you resort to circulating false reports.

 

[Delmar]

I quite frankly think that those who think the debate is "in the bag" for one side or the other are just flat wrong. Yes, I do believe that one side is right and the other side is wrong, but it seems to me that the idea of this whole exercise is to learn a little something and for God to be glorified.