BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)

[elected4ever]

In other words.... [Groucho Marx Voice] whatever it is . . . I am against it! [/Groucho Marx Voice]

Does it hurt to consider you might be wrong?

Never hurt me in the past and it wont now. Just prove that God's foreknowledge prevents free will. You must also consider that you may also be wrong and then we can grow together.

 

[godrulz]

Again Bob makes a fatal error as do most OTs. God's foreknowledge does not prevent man's free choice. From the very beginning God knew ever choice man would make and God knew every response He would make. If believing that makes me a Calvinist then I will just have to be one. When I was saved I did not know that I would be saved before I was saved and nether did you. Nothing I have ever done in my life or nothing you have done in your life has surprised God. God does not respond according to mans goodness or badness but according to his character. In short man has no control over God at all. No created thing can derail God's plan that has been set from the foundation of the world. This debate has firmed my belief. I did not know what I was before and was willing to accept other points of view.and even articulated them at times. So Godrulz was right. I am a Calvinist theologically.

I agree that nothing we do 'surprises' God. He sees and knows our past and present perfectly. He anticipates the future. He is able to respond to any contingency whether He has exhaustive foreknowledge or not. He is omnicompetent. In either view, we agre that no man has control over God. This does not mean that He is the only free moral agent with creative, impactful choices. Nothing will derail His plan, but this does not necessitate meticulous control of our bodily functions.

I see nothing in Scripture nor logic that necessitates that God knows trillions of years in advance whether I will eat steak or vegetables today. If I could truly eat one or the other, how can this be known from before my existence? The future is not the fixed past.

I do not see the future Superbowls as fixed, certain objects of knowledge. The only way this is coherent is if they have already been played in another dimension or if God is going to micromanage the player's very moves and thoughts. If you watch sports, surely you see that there are many contingencies that are simply unknowable/uncertain, even to an omniscient God.

It is no threat to God's rulership to not know or control every moral and mundane choice in the universe. Calvinism is more problematic than Open Theism.

 

[godrulz]

Contengencies only apply in man's world view.

Did God have a choice whether to create or to create this possible world out of many possible worlds? Earth was not necessitated in eternity. We could also have been green martians if God wanted to. Scripture portrays God has responsive with will, intellect, and emotions. These things can and do change and are contingent. God genuinely responded to changing contingencies. The future was not closed or fixed (for us and God). He is personal/dynamic, not static/impersonal. You give man more freedom than you allow for God.

 

[elected4ever]

Did God have a choice whether to create or to create this possible world out of many possible worlds? Earth was not necessitated in eternity. We could also have been green martians if God wanted to. Scripture portrays God has responsive with will, intellect, and emotions. These things can and do change and are contingent. God genuinely responded to changing contingencies. The future was not closed or fixed (for us and God). He is personal/dynamic, not static/impersonal. You give man more freedom than you allow for God.

That is some pretty lame reasoning there, fellow. We must deal with what is not what is a would have , could have or should have. What we must deal with is what is.

Fact is God chose this plan before the foundation of the world and all the contingencies of the plan were dealt with at that time. Then God implemented the plan. What gets me is that man thinks that he is manipulating God and God is manipulating man when all the time this is the plan God chose.

We have contingencies because we do not know the future. We make choices based on our circumstance. We deal with the here and now. We make plans basted on what we think will happen in the future and our plans change because what we thought would happen changes. God is not so encumbered. God's plan has not changed and will not change.

 

[RightIdea]

Never hurt me in the past and it wont now. Just prove that God's foreknowledge prevents free will. You must also consider that you may also be wrong and then we can grow together.

E4E, all I've ever seen from you is rhetoric without a shred or even a shadow of evidence. When will you back anything up?

Unfortunately, you have the issue backward. The real issue is how you can possibly believe that something that happens second... cause somethign that happened first???

How can the later thing (our act or decision) cause the former thing (God's foreknowledge of it)? Such reverse causality is irrational on its face. And for you to make such an absurd claim demands evidence.

That's like saying the aspirin I just took ... caused my headache. And the bill I got in the mail caused me to receive electricity all month.



Only 2 things are possible. Either the future is open to God.... or God meticulously foreordained every detail of every event. That foreknowledge is based on His foreordination, not on "looking" at the future at all. And indeed it doesn't have anything at all to do with the especially ludicrous notion of God being "outside of time," or something. The Calvinist idea of God works far better if He is temporal, like the Open View's idea of God. An atemporal God just can't possibly work, unless you subscribe to Process Theology, which I know you don't.

 

[godrulz]

That is some pretty lame reasoning there, fellow. We must deal with what is not what is a would have , could have or should have. What we must deal with is what is.

Fact is God chose this plan before the foundation of the world and all the contingencies of the plan were dealt with at that time. Then God implemented the plan. What gets me is that man thinks that he is manipulating God and God is manipulating man when all the time this is the plan God chose.

We have contingencies because we do not know the future. We make choices based on our circumstance. We deal with the here and now. We make plans basted on what we think will happen in the future and our plans change because what we thought would happen changes. God is not so encumbered. God's plan has not changed and will not change.

I agree that God's plan did not change. What did change was the possible becoming certain and actual. God correctly knows and distinguished possible from actual, future from past/present. He sees and knows reality as it is. This is omniscience. He does not see the Superbowl as completed before creation. He sees the contingencies unfold in the present (presentism vs eternalism).

 

[RightIdea]

That is some pretty lame reasoning there, fellow. We must deal with what is not what is a would have , could have or should have. What we must deal with is what is.

Fact is God chose this plan before the foundation of the world and all the contingencies of the plan were dealt with at that time. Then God implemented the plan. What gets me is that man thinks that he is manipulating God and God is manipulating man when all the time this is the plan God chose.

We have contingencies because we do not know the future. We make choices based on our circumstance. We deal with the here and now. We make plans basted on what we think will happen in the future and our plans change because what we thought would happen changes. God is not so encumbered. God's plan has not changed and will not change.

I see.

So... when God told Moses in the wilderness that He would wipe out the Israelites and start over with him.... He knew all along this wasn't the case, at all. He was, in fact, lying.

When God told Hezekiah that he would not recover, He knew that wasn't true... Rather, He was lying.

When God said He would "surely" destroy Ninevah on that particular day, He knew that wasn't true at all. He told a bald-faced lie... for the greater good. Indeed, for His greater glory!

I guess you could say it's been His plan from the very beginning to repeatedly lie to both believing and unbelieving people, all for His greater glory! That's the plan.... eh?

 

[Yorzhik]

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.

Although we haven't brought it up before, you correctly identified intent as the key. "Intend" and "will" are functionally the same - let's take a look at it: "I may have the will to shoot somebody, but perhaps the bullet will misfire, and therefore if it does fire my will to have shot them is secondary to my lack of foreknowledge about the weapon?". Both sentences are identical in meaning. The question is one of wills.

Not having foreknowledge if your plans will work out has nothing to do with your will/intent - as creatures without foreknowledge. The plans you will/devise/intend are the plans you are be responsible for. You won't be responsible for plans that other people will/devise/think of/intend.

Now let's take your example, but this time let's look at it and imagine that you have exhaustive foreknowledge. If you can devise a plan with exhaustive foreknowledge to kill that person, that means you can kill the person you intended to kill and make it look like an accident; you could create a cascade of events , especially involving a free-will agent at the final step, that would result in the death of the person you intend. Would you still be responsible for the death? Of course. Would you be responsible for the actions of the free-will agents that were involved in the cascade of events you created? Obviously. Don't you agree? If not, why not?

In the same way, God would be responsible for all the events that cascaded from his creation if He knew of every event that would result from His initial set of conditions. And there is nothing wrong with this except that God has said there are certain things He isn't responsible for. So either God is lying, or He didn't create the cascade of events that resulted in an outcome that He did not want.

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.

Yes, yes, I understand the difference between determinism and foreknowledge. However, you fail to see the implications of creating an initial set of conditions knowing exactly what those conditions will result in.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Sam, just so you know . . . we walk a fine line here at TOL.

We try to let people be somewhat free in their thoughts and what they post, yet at the same time we do try to moderate these threads as best we can for the occaisional nut-ball comment. You may have read a few pages back a poster named "Chance" made some really un-fair comments about you and I apologize if you happened to read them.

We actually left the post there just to show why he was suspended from TOL for 3 days. If he makes any further posts like that when his ban is over we will just ban him permanently.

 

[taoist]

We actually left the post there just to show why he was suspended from TOL for 3 days.

A policy I most heartily endorse whenever practical.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Also note, Chance is an open theist and therefore one might think TOL would cut him some "slack". No sir-ee!

I don't care what flavor you are, if you are an idiot you're gone!

 

[Truppenzwei]

Also note, Chance is an open theist and therefore one might think TOL would cut him some "slack". No sir-ee!

I don't care what flavor you are, if you are an idiot you're gone!

Wow, I'm curious to see how well a zero-tolerance policy against idiots works on the internet, you must have to put in some loooong shifts Knight.

And with so many americans as well........

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Wow, I'm curious to see how well a zero-tolerance policy against idiots works on the internet, you must have to put in some loooong shifts Knight.

And with so many americans as well........

Let me clarify . . . we do not have a zero tolerance policy against idiots, for if we did we would only have about a third of the participating members that we have.

Yet we do have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to crass and rude statements made towards others without cause.

Please do not respond to this post, lets stay on topic.

 

[Clete]

Bob's latest post has me dumbfounded! I literally don't know what to say except that the argument was basically perfect!
Boy am I glad I'm not Dr. Lamerson!

 

[elected4ever]

I see.

So... when God told Moses in the wilderness that He would wipe out the Israelites and start over with him.... He knew all along this wasn't the case, at all. He was, in fact, lying.

When God told Hezekiah that he would not recover, He knew that wasn't true... Rather, He was lying.

When God said He would "surely" destroy Ninevah on that particular day, He knew that wasn't true at all. He told a bald-faced lie... for the greater good. Indeed, for His greater glory!

I guess you could say it's been His plan from the very beginning to repeatedly lie to both believing and unbelieving people, all for His greater glory! That's the plan.... eh?

Sense most objections to what I have stated are basically the same as yours i will respond to yours in hopes that the rest will consider theirs answered.

First of all attacking the messenger wont work. That is easy. You may not like my style but be that as it may. I have a particular disgust for Bible thumps who do nothing but thump the Bible. All they do is use the word to justify the unjustifiable. I try to answerer out of what flows from the heart and not brow beat someone with the scripture. I try not to rely on what someone else has said in some commentary however I must confess the scripture and what our forefathers have written do have their impact upon my thinking. When you talk to me, you talk to me not some programed Bible thumper. I am a Baptist so believe me I know what a program is. We got them for everything. I hope that answers your question as to why offering evidence is not my strong suit.

When we consider God and the plan of God and someone offers a closed view. The first to be attacked is God and the second is the messenger.

Complaint # 1-------In a closed view, such as mine, the first objection from the opponents is that God authored sin. This of course is not true and you and I know it. If man is to be in the likeness of God then that means that man must be as God is. When man was created he could not passably be in the likeness of God in character and being. So to be in the likeness of God we must become as God is. No created being is as God is. Man was not a finished product even in the Garden of Eden. He was complete only in form and function but he remained a creation. God is in the habit of calling what is not as thought it is and so it is with man as He stated in Genesis 1:27 *So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. God is not finished with us yet.

Revelation 13:8 *And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. When was the Lamb of God slain? We all know that Jesus is the Lamb of God and that the His crucification was almost 2000 years ago, yet, the scriptures declare that He was slain from the foundation of the world. The plan was made before man was created so if God did not know that man would chose against Him then why make the plan. Sin existed before man and man had the freedom to chose it. God knew that man would choose it. Man is so enamored with himself that he thinks God did not know because he did not know. Man thinks God thinks like a man Man is so wrong.

Isaiah 55:8 *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.

God never changed His mind about anything. God responds to good and evil the same way He always has.Isaiah 55:7 *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.

 

[Z Man]

Bob's last post was a joke! It was a fantasy of his that I personally do not think is befitting for the debate. This isn't "What do you think should've happened Mr. Enyart"? This debate is about whether or not God knows our future or not. The Dr. cut right to the chase from the very get go, staying on topic, by presenting 2 cases from Scripture that seem to indicate yes, God does know our future. And yet, after 2 posts, Enyart has yet to respond to them! Give me a break!

Just so you know you're not alone Dr. Lamerson, this is the same behavior I have come to know from all open-theists that I have debated on this website.

Mr. Enyart, for you to believe that it would have been better for Judas to repent, and God to be delivered to the Gentiles to be crucified another way, is a slap in the face to God's wisdom. You're basically saying you know better than God.

Here's a news flash for all of you Open Theists out there: It's not about you.

 

[novice]

The following was posted on the BR X critique thread:

It's obvious on this forum what the majority believe.

Bob's 2nd post could not have been a more horrible example of debate that I have ever seen. He still has not answered Dr. Lamerson's points made about Jesus's predictions of Peter and the Scripture of Matt. 6:8. In fact, Bob's entire 2nd post was mostly a figment of his imagination; a what-if scenario! This debate is not interested in fantasies Mr. Enyart. I for one, and I'm sure many other's reading this Battle, are a little more interested in down-to-earth answers that deal directly with the problems presented against your view by Dr. Lamerson in his very first post.

I find it very, very difficult for anyone to believe that Jesus could have been wrong about Judas, or any of his prophecies for that matter. And I find it very, very selfish to believe that God was more interested, and would have been more pleased to see Judas repent, than to see him fulfill Scripture, and deliver Jesus into the hands of the Gentiles, so that the world may be saved. Mr. Enyart, your assumptions that God could of found another way to be crucified without the betrayal of Judas undermines God's wisdom. In other words, if God wanted it done the way you so vividly explained, then it would of been done that way. Until God places you by His side for eternity and asks for your 'divine' wisdom on planning extremely important events in the history of humanity, I think you need to keep your irrational fantasies out of this debate.

ROTFL!!! :rotfl:

Z Man a true 5 pointer yet not a single one is sharp. :hammer:

If Z Man were a character in the Bible he would be crying to God because He didn't destroy Nineveh. Z Man, God isn't as fragile as you think.

Z Man states, "I find it very, very selfish to believe that God was more interested, and would have been more pleased to see Judas repent, than to see him fulfill Scripture"

That pretty much sums it up. A perfect example of Bob's point that Calvinist's lift up knowledge and sovereignty above love and mercy. Newcomers reading this post may wonder why I am so harsh towards Z Man but I know what Z Man really believes and therefore I know what a wacko Z Man is.

Z Man believes that Adolf Hitler and the apostle Paul were equally faithful in executing God's will. :vomit: Z Man, if you have such strong feelings about your disgust towards Bob's post why don't you take it up with God?

 

[novice]

Bob's last post was a joke! It was a fantasy of his that I personally do not think is befitting for the debate. This isn't "What do you think should've happened Mr. Enyart"?

It's great when fools open their mouths. All you have to do is listen to what they say (or type) and there isn't any need to mock them because they mock themselves.

Z Man, next time try to comprehend the post before you make such foolish and false accusations.

Now let's see if you are an honest man or not.

Did Bob state in his round 2 post that his hypothetical regarding Judas is what "should have" happened?

A Yes or No would be great.

 

[elected4ever]

It's great when fools open their mouths. All you have to do is listen to what they say (or type) and there isn't any need to mock them because they mock themselves.

Z Man, next time try to comprehend the post before you make such foolish and false accusations.

Now let's see if you are an honest man or not.

Did Bob state in his round 2 post that his hypothetical regarding Judas is what "should have" happened?

A Yes or No would be great.

Would-a, could-a, should-a, is that all you got. What should have happened did happen and it was planed from the foundation of the world. The answerer to your stupid question is a resounding NO! :chz4brnz:

 

[BeHim]

Bob Enyart's Meology.

Bob Enyart's Meology.

This debate is onsided Theology on the side of Lamerson and Enyart's simply presenting every concept and text he can outside of the Bible.

Bob Enyart has yet to stand on the Authority of The Word, his basis for Openness is anything but the Bible.

100% victory to Mr. Lamerson.