BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)

Status
Not open for further replies.

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
I have a feeling that Pastor Enyart is going to rip up Sam on his definition of free will. He asks Bob what he defines it as and then gives his own answer:
3. Would you mind defining free-will? In fairness I will state that I believe free will indicates that an agent will always be free to do what he or she chooses.
Free will isn't the ability to DO what he/she chooses. I can choose to do whatever I want, but I am obviously constricted by people, natural laws, etc.
 

RightIdea

New member
kmoney said:
I have a feeling that Pastor Enyart is going to rip up Sam on his definition of free will. He asks Bob what he defines it as and then gives his own answer:

Free will isn't the ability to DO what he/she chooses. I can choose to do whatever I want, but I am obviously constricted by people, natural laws, etc.
I know! Wasn't that hilarious?

I choose to go to work this morning, but someone hits me with a car. I'm not free to go to work, even though I chose it.

What a wacky definition of free will! That isn't free will.... It's free action! Two very different things!

I have the free will to fly unaided. But I don't have the free action.

I have the free action to speak Portuguese... but not the free will because I don't know that language.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I think he was trying to say libertarian free will means one can chose or not chose in any given choice (alternatives). It is assumed that contingency may have restrictions in an absolute sense (we cannot fly to the moon with our arms).
 

RightIdea

New member
Nevertheless, his definition of free will is the power to DO. And that is a completely incorrect definition.
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
godrulz said:
I think he was trying to say libertarian free will means one can chose or not chose in any given choice (alternatives). It is assumed that contingency may have restrictions in an absolute sense (we cannot fly to the moon with our arms).
Yeah, Sam maybe meant something other than what he said, but in any case he should clarify his definition.
 

Ecumenicist

New member
godrulz said:
Suggest another definition.

The power to do within the constraints of the human condition?

Hey, does God limit free will by creating the human condition in the first place?
 

RightIdea

New member
godrulz said:
Suggest another definition.
You agree with his definition? That free will is the ability to do that which you choose?



Libertarian free will is the genuine ability to choose one alternative or another. Not just free action, as so many Calvinists like to equivocate. Not a physical ability to do X or Y, but the ability to choose X or Y.

Just because you choose something doesn't mean you actually have the power to do it.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I am not familiar with 'free action' semantics. The key is the ability to chose between alternatives without coercion/causation. There are limitations. I cannot chose to be the President of the U.S. (I am Canadian).
 

Christine

New member
I was a bit surprised when I read in Dr. Lamersons post, "If the exegete can determine the view of Jesus on divine foreknowledge, she may then have strong warrant for her hermeneutical decisions about the rest of the Bible." (emphasis mine) Did Dr. Lamerson really mean to refer to God in the feminine?
 

BChristianK

New member
Christine said:
I was a bit surprised when I read in Dr. Lamersons post, "If the exegete can determine the view of Jesus on divine foreknowledge, she may then have strong warrant for her hermeneutical decisions about the rest of the Bible." (emphasis mine) Did Dr. Lamerson really mean to refer to God in the feminine?
I'm pretty sure she is the pronoun that reflects "the exegete" not Jesus...
 

RightIdea

New member
Agreed, I'm sure he was refering to the exegete. Although I did find it a bit disruptively PC, and unnecessarily so. But it was a minor detail.

Btw, hi Bob! I know you're peeking in here. LOL :thumb: (It's Jim.)
 

Ecumenicist

New member
RightIdea said:
Agreed, I'm sure he was refering to the exegete. Although I did find it a bit disruptively PC, and unnecessarily so. But it was a minor detail.

Btw, hi Bob! I know you're peeking in here. LOL :thumb: (It's Jim.)

Yeah, you know, acknowledging that women are able to read and think and all,
very PC, very disruptive.
 

Christine

New member
RightIdea said:
Agreed, I'm sure he was refering to the exegete. Although I did find it a bit disruptively PC, and unnecessarily so. But it was a minor detail.

I realize and agree that it indeed is a minor detail, but I wondered what Dr. Lamerson meant by it. However, it is comforting to hear others say that they don't feel Dr. Lamerson was referring to God. :)
 
I'm very excited for this debate! What gets me is, why do determinists always run to Peter and Judas? If I'm stealing any of Bob's thunder, please delete this post (Lion or Knight, feel free!). I'll let Bob handle Peter, as I'm sure he'll do just fine. I hope Bob will add to my comments in his response to Lamerson's question concerning Judas.

First off, Judas was a believer who fell away. Read the context of Matthew 13 and John 2. Jesus is speaking to His disciples (Judas was there!). Jesus says that Judas is a believer...

Matthew 13
13:16 "But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear;

John 2
2:11 This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him.

If God foreordained Judas to betray Jesus Christ, how can this be reconciled with other Scripture? Judas’s actions seem to have been ordained by God because they are prophesied. But, the betrayal of Christ was never foretold in the prophets.

If the betrayal of Christ by Judas was foreknown and foreordained, how could Matthew 26:24 be true?

Matthew 26
24 “The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

Judas would have had no choice. Therefore, God would have predestined a man to damnation. I know John Calvin taught this idea, but I must ask, “Does God do evil that good may come?” James 1:13-17 says God doesn’t even tempt men with evil let alone predestine them to do it.

What does, “That it might be fulfilled,” mean?

Matthew 2
15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”
23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene.” (What OT Scripture?)

Notice, Matthew 2:15 references Hosea 11:1.

Hosea 11
11:1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son. ”

Matthew 2:15 is a supposed “fulfillment” of Hosea 11:1. However, Hosea 11:1 does not refer to Christ, but rather the nation of Israel. These are not “fulfillments” of prophecy, but rather illustrations. Matthew offers another supposed “fulfillment” of prophecy. Here, Matthew shows us another illustration.

Matthew 1
23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us."

Was the Immanuel prophecy actually fulfilled? Matthew refers to Isaiah 7:14,

Isaiah 7
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

Did this actually come to pass? Let’s take a look. Who was the promise made to?

Isaiah 7
10 Moreover the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying,
11 "Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; ask it either in the depth or in the height above."
12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!"
13 Then he said, "Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good.
16 For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.

The Lord was to give Ahaz a sign. “Immanuel” was not a sign to Ahaz, but rather, an illustration applied to the Christ Child. Again, this was not an actual fulfillment since Ahaz did not receive the sign.

Now, back to Judas… Gospel Scripture to consider:

Matthew 27
9 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced,
10 and gave them for the potter’s field, as the LORD directed me.”

Guess what? There is no Jeremiah passage. We do have, Zechariah 11:12-13

Zecheriah 11
12 Then I said to them, “If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain.” So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver.
13 And the LORD said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD for the potter.

Now, I ask, how does this refer specifically to Judas? It doesn’t. Let's look at a few more examples...

John 13
18 “I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.’”

Most attempt to offer Psalm 41:9 as a proof text.

Psalm 41
9 “Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.”

Many believe this refers to Judas. Many believe this is a specific “predictive prophecy” concerning Judas. Let’s take a look at what David has to say…

In Ps 41:4-10 David’s prayer had been one for healing after confessing his sin (v. 4). However, he lamented the fact that his enemies took advantage of his condition. Wanting him to die (v. 5), they feigned friendship while slandering him (v. 6), saying that he would never survive (vv. 7-8). Even his trusted friend betrayed (lifted up his heel against) him (v. 9). These words, of course, were quoted by Jesus concerning Judas (John 13:18). But here David had in mind the treachery of his friend Ahithophel, who betrayed him, and then hanged himself (2 Sam. 16:20-17:3, 23).

David was not referring to Judas!!

Now, here’s another passage attributed to Judas.

John 17
12 “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Unfortunately, no OT Scripture says this.

Now here is some Scripture in Acts to consider:

Acts 1
16 “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled (What Scripture?), which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus
17 for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry.”

David didn’t say this about Judas. He said it about his “own familiar friend” Ahithophel.

Psa 41:9 “Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.”

These scriptures were fulfilled in the sense of illustration by Judas.

Acts 1
20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms: ‘Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it’; and, ‘Let another take his office.’

The book of Psalms does not say that about Judas.

Psalm 109
8 Let his days be few, And let another take his office.

Psalm 6
25 Let their dwelling place be desolate; Let no one live in their tents.

Peter in Acts 1 said that David prophesied of Judas. But when did David discuss Judas Iscariot? Certainly he did not refer to him directly or name him. The Psalms often anticipate Christ. Likewise the enemies of the royal psalmist became the enemies of the Messiah. Therefore, someone was predicted in Psalms 69:25 and 109:8. Both of these Psalms are royal imprecatory psalms, but the prophecy is very general. Acts 1:20 applies them to Judas. These are not specific “predictive prophecies,” but rather, illustrations of OT examples.

I sure hope Sam has more to offer for us in the "Battle Royal X" !!!!!

God Bless, --Jeremy Finkenbinder
 

RightIdea

New member
Dave Miller said:
Yeah, you know, acknowledging that women are able to read and think and all,
very PC, very disruptive.
Not at all. We are all one in Christ. It's just that it's a cliche PC thing to say, in the eyes of a lot of people, myself included. It distracts from the discussion. Most readers will hit that and in their mind pause for a moment and think about the fact that the author decided to use a feminine pronoun there. In that sense, yes, it is distracting.

Now, on to my more complete appraisal of Lamerson's first post.


First, I'd like to say that I think Lamerson's trying to restrict the discussion to Jesus' earthly ministry... is a wonderful thing to do!

On one condition... That we can rephrase that just a tiny bit to say "the Son." If this debate focuses on the Son's perspective on this issue, then I think Bob would be exceedingly happy with that. Why? Because the Son is very active in the Old Testament. From the Garden to Abraham to Jacob to Moses to Joshua to the kings and prophets... the Son appears numerous times on earth in bodily form, personally and very relationally interacting with His people, meeting with them face to face, even to as many as 72 at one time. This is very "anthropomorphic" in the same sense that Lamerson refers to from Sanders' comment. And so, upon reflection, it occurs to me that if the conversation is restricted to the Son, then surely Bob would have no problem with this, as it wouldn't exclude the OT at all.

Of course, if Lamerson insists on restricting things to Jesus' earthly ministry, excluding the 4,000 years prior to that and everything after the ascension, well... I'd agree with others here that this would be unreasonable.


One particular criticism I have of his initial post is that he agrees to a standard - one put forth even in the very agreed-upon rules themselves - that both will focus on God's perspective rather than man's. And then what does Lamerson do for at least half his post? Focus on man's perspective.

I have found nothing in second-temple literature which would lead me to believe that a first-century Jewish person listening to this saying of Jesus would have thought anything but that God knows the future. This is not to say the evidence does not exist, but only that the burden of proof must rest upon the openness proponents to provide second-temple evidence that points to a belief in a limited knowledge of the future on the part of God. What I am arguing here is that the burden of proof must rest with Bob. If he is to show us that the understanding of the church about God is mistaken, then he must have strong evidence.

So since those fallible people tended to assume that as true about God, therefore the burden of proof is on the Open View's side? We should assume that majority opinion back then was the absolute truth, unless we can prove otherwise? Huh? Our default position should be the traditions and opinions of fallible men? This demand for "second temple evidence" seems to me to violate the very rules of this debate, and he hasn't even finished his first post at that point.


Referencing the "Gospel" of Thomas was a huge mistake, imho, and brings him immediate discredit. Can we even say with certainty it was written within the time frame of the authorship of the New Testament, rather than being fraudulently composed much later? Even if it did originate in the 1st century, we have here a work of spiritual teaching that claims that women can't have eternal life, that a woman must effectively become a man in order to have eternal life. Is that the type of source he wants to go to for a picture of the 1st century biblical view of God? Really?


He seems to portray the Peter & the Chicken issue as if we Open Creationists want to use it as evidence for our view. Nothing could be further from the truth. Is it (on the surface anyway) a problem text for us? Sure. And we can explain how it can be interpreted within the Open View, in light of a plethora of other scriptures. But I don't know of a single Open Creationist who would use this as evidence for our view, even on a bad day. LOL Our contention is simply that it isn't conclusive for either view.


As far as I can see, Lamerson made one halfway decent point in his whole post:

The so-called “ignorant son” passages (Matt 24:36; Mark 13:32) would indicate that Jesus felt no shame in admitting that his knowledge was limited in at least one area. Yet he makes a very specific prediction here. If Jesus had been unsure it seems that he would not have made such a prediction.

Now that's a good point! It's by no means significantly persuasive to me in the greater scheme of things; I'm certainly not going to flip over one little point like that, but I do look forward to Bob's response.


Finally, I'd reiterate that his definition of free will is completely unusable. It's just flatly wrong on its face. Free will isn't about the power to do. It's about the genuine ability to choose.

Choice is internal. Action is external. Two different things.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Oh man! :jump:

Judging from this first post of Dr. Lamerson's, this is going to be a whopper of a debate!

I wonder how shocked Lamerson will be to find out that Bob disagrees with Boyd on a lot a major issues? :shocked:

I understand why he did, and I agree that Lamerson couldn't have done any better than to open the debate by addressing open theistic issues as presented by Boyd but I think that he's in for a shock when Bob joins him in undermining some of what Boyd teaches.

I can't wait for Bob's response!

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Montana

New member
Lamerson is right in pointing out that Jesus is God. But he shoots himself in the foot by arguing that Jesus must have known everything. How could Jesus have become man and remained all knowing? Does Lamerson really expect to argue that Jesus knew everything there is to know, past, present, and future, as a zigot or infant? Did he coo at his mother's breast for months, and baby-talk for years all the while hiding his bottomless knowledge of not only Hebrew, but every other language of the world? I imagine he asked Jacob, his father, about the proper use of a hammer and nail. I guess that was all a fraud too. How about spelling? Did Jesus ever misspell a word and if so was it intentional? It must have been if he is "all knowing." Did he see an unusual animal for the first time and ask, "What's that?" Not according to Lamerson. At least not honestly so.
 

Freak

New member
Montana said:
Lamerson is right in pointing out that Jesus is God. But he shoots himself in the foot by arguing that Jesus must have known everything. How could Jesus have become man and remained all knowing? Does Lamerson really expect to argue that Jesus knew everything there is to know, past, present, and future, as a zigot or infant?.
Sam embraces the dual nature of Christ, Montana. The God-man even as an infant had "all-knowledge" as He was God even as a baby.
 
Freak said:
Sam embraces the dual nature of Christ, Montana. The God-man even as an infant had "all-knowledge" as He was God even as a baby.

Sorry Freak... Doogie already pointed out,

doogieduff said:
Jesus grew in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52)

:readthis:

Luke
2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

What say ye and Sammy? :dead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top