BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)

[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.

Please reread the post you quoted. If you had read it, it would be impossible to believe I was implying anything of the sort. I was actually arguing with Yorzhik against that implication. In the post before it, which you may be refering to, I found it hard to understand how we had any real choice at all if the outcome was already known. I said nothing about "God picking for us." I accept the distinction between foreknowledge and predestination.

Titan

 

[godrulz]

Titan: In a nutshell, what are the distinctions between foreknowledge and predestination? What, if any, are their similarities/relationships?

It seems to me that the things God predestines (e.g. first/second coming of Messiah) are foreknown. The things that He does not predestine (e.g. what I will eat next year) are not foreknown.

 

[Montana]

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.

Foreseeing sins, does not make God responsible for sin. Inventing sins, now that would make God responsible for sin. Your god invented sin in his mind back when he was the only being in existence. My God recognizes that sins will occur as he watched sinners.

You want every filthy, perverted act that happens in the backrooms of homosexual bathhouses to be part of God’s eternal foreknowledge. It is impossible to separate the stuff that floats around inside someone’s head from them as a person. There is scriptural supporting that obvious truth. Yet you want the righteous God to be courting all that filth in his mind an eternity before it ever happens. Now I think we are starting to define “moronic.”

The Open God is not responsible for sin. He is responsible for creating free-thinking people who have made sinful choices. There is a significant difference, between concoct a sin and being able to detect the sin someone else is in the process of concocting.

I disagree that “before creation God had certain foreknowledge of at least some sins.” What God foresaw was that if he made freewill creatures, they would have the ability to obey or disobey. By the time the world was populated by billions of people the chances of rebellion would be certain.

Sort of related to this, I find that Christians typically make lite of God’s creation – i.e., It usually takes longer to build something than it does to design it. God created in six days. Therefore, “God must have thought up His creation in less than six days,” is the attitude.

I think, however, that designing freewill creatures may have been the easy part. For the loving Father, the difficulty was in responding to human beings once they began sinning. The solution was the cross, where God for the first time in eternity would be separated himself from the Son. I do not think that solution was an afterthought. I suspect that the Trinity pondered the ramifications of such a sacrifice for millenniums prior to creating the world.

That God recognized, prior to creation, that humanity would certainly require a savior is not evidence that He foreknew the sins of the world.

 

[godrulz]

The potential plan of redemption (known in eternity) was implemented after the Fall (certain= Gen. 3). It became actual at the death/resurrection of Christ (Gospels).

 

[DonW]

Foreseeing sins, does not make God responsible for sin.

Thanks for agreeing with me, Montana. QED

Inventing sins, now that would make God responsible for sin... You want every filthy, perverted act that happens in the backrooms of homosexual bathhouses to be part of God’s eternal foreknowledge. It is impossible to separate the stuff that floats around inside someone’s head from them as a person.

So, because you know about "glory holes" and all the perverted stuff in the homosexual bathhouses, you are culpable for such inventions? It is obviously floating around in your head alot, and is therefore impossible to separate from you as a person, so you must be guilty.

Or does your logic only apply when it is convenient for your doctrine? You can be separated from the stuff in your head but God cannot. You can be tempted without it or the knowledge the temptation comes from being sin, but God cannot even know that the sin exists without being guilty.

I disagree that “before creation God had certain foreknowledge of at least some sins.” What God foresaw was that if he made freewill creatures, they would have the ability to obey or disobey. By the time the world was populated by billions of people the chances of rebellion would be certain.

So there are degrees of sin then? Simple disobedience is forgiveable, but not homosexuality? Or is disobedience (heterosexual activity before marriage, for example) "better" than icky homosexuality in the Montana doctrine? Please give us a detailed table of which sins we should watch out for because God didn't see them before creation. Maybe they aren't covered by the blood if God didn't think of them when He designed the sacrifice.

Let's test Montana's teaching. God certainly designed the Garden, including the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. He set it up as the one and only test that Adam and Eve had to pass. The only way to fail was eat the fruit. God only had to see the actions of two people, on one day, six days into the future. Surely that is within the powers of God's foreknowledge and foresight.

Therefore, according to your standard, God invented disobedience. We cannot be held guilty if God is the author of disobedience, according to your doctrine. Or your doctrine is fundamentally flawed, get over it.

That God recognized, prior to creation, that humanity would certainly require a savior is not evidence that He foreknew the sins of the world.

So then there is some other reason besides sin that we would need not only a savior as exemplar, but a sacrifice? No, only for sin which God foreknew. He foreordained His own response, He only foreknew the sin. He authored his response, He did not author the sin.

God is not squeemish, Montana. There is no sin that God is afraid to deal with. Perhaps you project your problems onto God, but please don't expect me to follow your example.

 

[sentientsynth]

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?

I'm with you.

I'll notify CRI, CARM, RZIM, and Insight for Living.

Or better yet, just google ["apologetics" AND "ministries"] and "contanct" them all.

This is gonna be fun!!

 

[DonW]

Let's make a lexicon

Let's make a lexicon

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?

So, then, because I have no foreknowledge and everything is an unknown event I have no responsibility for my actions? I may intend to shoot somebody, but perhaps the bullet will misfire, and therefore if it does fire my intent is secondary to my lack of foreknowledge about the weapon? No intent is essential to the definition of sin.

By definition foreknowledge simply means to know prior to the event. It does not mean, nor can it logically ever mean, cause prior to the event. It does not imply intent on the part of the foreknower for the event to occur, much less preordain that it must happen. That is determinism, not foreknowledge.

It is impossible to debate if terms are not used accurately.

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?

The question you must ask is, did God intend for you to choose A over B? If so then you would have to be aware of God's intent for it to influence your degree of guilt. If God's intent is sufficient to cause you to choose A over B, then you have determinism. If that is what someone believes then use the proper word for it.

If God intends for you to choose A over B but does not exert any further causative action then free will comes into play. If you are aware of God's intent and you choose B, that is sin. If you are ignorant and choose B, you may or may not have sinned. If you choose A in ignorance you are safe from sin but not by definition obedient. If you know God's intent and choose A, then you are obedient.

 

[Delmar]

Thanks for agreeing with me, Montana. QED
So, because you know about "glory holes" and all the perverted stuff in the homosexual bathhouses, you are culpable for such inventions? It is obviously floating around in your head alot, and is therefore impossible to separate from you as a person, so you must be guilty.

Or does your logic only apply when it is convenient for your doctrine? You can be separated from the stuff in your head but God cannot. You can be tempted without it or the knowledge the temptation comes from being sin, but God cannot even know that the sin exists without being guilty.
So there are degrees of sin then? Simple disobedience is forgiveable, but not homosexuality? Or is disobedience (heterosexual activity before marriage, for example) "better" than icky homosexuality in the Montana doctrine? Please give us a detailed table of which sins we should watch out for because God didn't see them before creation. Maybe they aren't covered by the blood if God didn't think of them when He designed the sacrifice.

Let's test Montana's teaching. God certainly designed the Garden, including the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. He set it up as the one and only test that Adam and Eve had to pass. The only way to fail was eat the fruit. God only had to see the actions of two people, on one day, six days into the future. Surely that is within the powers of God's foreknowledge and foresight.

Therefore, according to your standard, God invented disobedience. We cannot be held guilty if God is the author of disobedience, according to your doctrine. Or your doctrine is fundamentally flawed, get over it.
So then there is some other reason besides sin that we would need not only a savior as exemplar, but a sacrifice? No, only for sin which God foreknew. He foreordained His own response, He only foreknew the sin. He authored his response, He did not author the sin.

God is not squeemish, Montana. There is no sin that God is afraid to deal with. Perhaps you project your problems onto God, but please don't expect me to follow your example.

Glad to see that you didn't twist Montana's words at all.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Partial Transcript of Lamerson Interview

Partial Transcript of Lamerson Interview

For those who might me interested, I enjoyed interviewing my Battle Royale X opponent, Professor Samuel Lamerson, of D. James Kennedy's Knox Theological Seminary.

Here's a partial transcript from Aug. 3, 2005.

Dr. Lamerson:
…we are a member of the Presbyterian Church in America which is a very conservative denomination. We would hold to the inerrancy (sp?) of the scripture and we would not ordain women for ministry. Those are the sorts of things you would see as kind of important things in our denomination.

Bob:
Right, and many of these conservative aspects of traditional Christianity are also taught at our Church, Denver Bible Church, and we are a non-denominational Church but we are loosely affiliated with Grace Gospel Fellowship out of Grand Rapids Michigan.

Dr. Lamerson:
So, where we would differ one of the ways is in our understanding of God and his sovereignty. I would believe that God knows everything that has happened and everything that is going to happen, and not only that he knows that, but that he has ordained it. That is in the true sense, in a nutshell what we understand about Calvinism that God is in control of absolutely everything. Which is not to deny that man has free will, but which is to say that free will has to be very carefully defined in terms of what it really is.

Bob:
Because in your perspective, men do what they would choose to do.

Dr. Lamerson:
Right.

Bob:
So that God created us, if a man goes to seminary and becomes a pastor, he is doing what he is choosing to do, but God has created him and ordained him in such a way that God knew that before the foundation of the Earth that is how God made him.

Dr. Lamerson:
Right. Absolutely.

Bob:
Ok, and at Denver Bible Church we teach a very strong free will world view and theology. And, so, you and I have ended up….

 

[sentientsynth]

I've always found the following hard to swallow.

...for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What then shall we say? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! ....So it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will? "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, ... Rom 9:19-23

It is my contention, therefore, that we ought allow God to be a free being, bowing before his sovereignty, placing our faith in His immutable goodness.

It's my understanding that the Bible teaches a sort of tension between the two poles of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. The truth, perhaps, is a perfect amalgamation of the two, however incomprehensible it may be presently.

Just my two cents.

SS

 

[Clete]

I've always found the following hard to swallow.

...for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What then shall we say? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! ....So it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will? "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, ... Rom 9:19-23

It is my contention, therefore, that we ought allow God to be a free being, bowing before his sovereignty, placing our faith in His immutable goodness.

It's my understanding that the Bible teaches a sort of tension between the two poles of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. The truth, perhaps, is a perfect amalgamation of the two, however incomprehensible it may be presently.

Just my two cents.

SS

The ninth chapter of Romans is speaking about the cutting off of Israel. It is quite clear that Paul is making a case that God cut off Israel and turned instead to the gentiles, and that God is justified in having done so. It will become equally clear that this is all that the chapter is about, and that it has nothing to do with predestination at all.

It helps to see it if one looks at the introduction and summation of the chapter. In the first few verses it is clear that Paul is speaking of Israel and that he is upset by their condition of unbelief...

Romans 9:1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my *countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
​

And then in the last few verses Paul sums up the point of what he's just been saying in the previous several verses...

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law *of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, *by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
"Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."

​

Now, that by itself is probably enough to make it clear what Paul is talking about but what really nails it down is his reference in the body of the chapter to a couple of Old Testament passages, those being Jacob and Esau and then the Potter and the clay story.
It's always a good idea to read any Old Testament passage that is quoted or made reference to in the New, in order to maintain the context of what's being said. (Remember the whole "Bible interpreting the Bible" thing.) So let's take a look at them so that we can be on the same page that Paul was on when he made these references. Doing so will undoubtedly shed additional light on the point he was making.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."​

This is a direct quote from Malachi 1:2-3 but even the Malachi passage is not referencing the two boys themselves but the nations which came from them. I won't bother quoting it here but even a surface reading of Malachi 1 will confirm that it is talking about a nation not a person.
Likewise, Paul is talking also about a nation. We can tell this for certain because of what is quoted just before in verse 12...

Romans 9:12 "it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger.""​

This is a direct quote from Genesis chapter 25 where it says explicitly that there are two nations in Rebecca's womb...

Genesis 25:23 "And the LORD said to her: "Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger."​

Additionally, even if it didn't explicitly state that it's talking about two nations we could still know for certain that it is anyway because Esau (the older) never served Jacob (the younger). That did not happen, ever.

This passage is very clearly talking about nations and about how God deals with nations not about individuals or how God deals with individuals and Paul by referencing this material was making the exact same point. That's the reason why he referenced it.

Now let's move on to the Potter and the clay story. It is on the same topic and is found in Jeremiah chapter 18...

Jeremiah 18:1The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause you to hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.​

Okay, that couldn't be any clearer! Jeremiah was making the very point that Paul is making! No wonder Paul referenced this passage, it applies directly to the subject he was dealing with! It IS the subject he was dealing with! Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are making the exact same point; they both use the same analogy for the same reasons. For all intent and purposes Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are the exact same chapter! The only difference is that in Romans 9 Paul is saying that the principle described in Jeremiah 18 has been carried out by God on the nation of Israel.

Romans 9 is not about predestination at all. Paul didn't start talking about Israel and then suddenly change the subject to predestination and then just as suddenly change the subject back again to Israel. The whole chapter is on one issue and one issue only. That issue being God's absolute right to change His mind concerning His blessing of a nation that had done evil in His sight.
It's no more complicated than that. In a nutshell, Paul was simply saying that Israel's promised kingdom wasn't coming because they had rejected the King and Romans 9 is all about how God was justified in having changed His mind about giving them that kingdom. That's all it's about; nothing more, nothing less.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[sentientsynth]

Does Romans 8 talk of predestination?

 

[Clete]

Does Romans 8 talk of predestination?

Not in the Calvinistic sense of the term, no it doesn't.

The Body of Christ has been predestined for glorification and conformity to the image of Christ. It has not, however, been predestined which particular individuals will be members of that Body.

No time for more detail right now.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[taoist]

taoist,
"... [Enyart] should have been given the opening post in order to generate a more rubust debate."

Samuel Lamerson,
I will treat Bob’s post as the start of the debate and deal with his arguments.

taoist,
Sweet.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Does Romans 8 talk of predestination?

Every time that the word "predestination" is used in regard to a person's destiny it is in reference to the time when the believer will put on a glorious body like that of the Lord's glorious body.In other words,it had been predestined that everyone who believes in the present dispensation will meet the Lord in the air when He returns for the Body of Christ.

The Greek word that is translated "predestination" is used only twice in regard to the destiny of men,and in those instances it is used in reference to the believer's special position of blessing to which the believer is predestined.

At Romans 8:29 the Christian is said to be predestinated "to be conformed to the image of His Son".

And at Ephesians 1:5 the Christian is said to be predestinated "unto the adoption as sons".This to is in regard to a believer putting on glorious bodies like the Lord Jesus:

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body"(Ro.8:17-23).

So when the word "predestination" is used in reference to a Christian's destiny,it is used in the sense that the Lord has predetermined that all believers in the present dispensation will put on glorious bodies like His glorious body when He appears.

"For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our lowly body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself"(Phil.3:20,21).

In His grace,--Jerry
"Dispensationalism Made Easy"
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-..._made_easy.html

 

[Clete]

Every time that the word "predestination" is used in regard to a person's destiny it is in reference to the time when the believer will put on a glorious body like that of the Lord's glorious body.In other words,it had been predestined that everyone who believes in the present dispensation will meet the Lord in the air when He returns for the Body of Christ.

The Greek word that is translated "predestination" is used only twice in regard to the destiny of men,and in those instances it is used in reference to the believer's special position of blessing to which the believer is predestined.

At Romans 8:29 the Christian is said to be predestinated "to be conformed to the image of His Son".

And at Ephesians 1:5 the Christian is said to be predestinated "unto the adoption as sons".This to is in regard to a believer putting on glorious bodies like the Lord Jesus:

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body"(Ro.8:17-23).

So when the word "predestination" is used in reference to a Christian's destiny,it is used in the sense that the Lord has predetermined that all believers in the present dispensation will put on glorious bodies like His glorious body when He appears.

"For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our lowly body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself"(Phil.3:20,21).

In His grace,--Jerry
"Dispensationalism Made Easy"
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-..._made_easy.html

:up:

 

[chance]

For those who might me interested, I enjoyed interviewing my Battle Royale X opponent, Professor Samuel Lamerson, of D. James Kennedy's Knox Theological Seminary.

Here's a partial transcript from Aug. 3, 2005.

Dr. Lamerson:
…we are a member of the Presbyterian Church in America which is a very conservative denomination. We would hold to the inerrancy (sp?) of the scripture and we would not ordain women for ministry. Those are the sorts of things you would see as kind of important things in our denomination.

Oh great! Another guy and denomination that does not recognize the revelation of the mystery (Gal 3:28) and thinks that God demands all of His pastors be male. Or is the PUSA view that God demands only his senior pastors be male? Of course, thats even more wrong, but I digress.

Do the heads of the PUSA write letters to Joyce Meyer and other gals that lead big, successful ministries? Hmmmmmm.......................................

 

[Clete]

Oh great! Another guy and denomination that does not recognize the revelation of the mystery (Gal 3:28) and thinks that God demands all of His pastors be male. Or is the PUSA view that God demands only his senior pastors be male? Of course, thats even more wrong, but I digress.

Do the heads of the PUSA write letters to Joyce Meyer and other gals that lead big, successful ministries? Hmmmmmm.......................................

Joyce Meyer is about as far from understanding the revelation of the mystery as the man on the moon. She is a heretical charasmatic blow hard that needs to learn her place and submit herself to the men in her church. She is doing much more harm than good and needs very much to sit down and shut up.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RightIdea]

Amen to that, Clete.

 

[CRASH]

Clete - Amen to that!