BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)

[godrulz]

Jerry:


Post #50 Boyd vs #49? Comments? How would God have communicated that He could change His mind?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry:

How would God have communicated that He could change His mind?

Like this:

"God is not a man,that He should lie.However,like the son of man He may repent."

But that is not what He said,is it?Instead He said:

"God is not a man,that He should lie.Neither the son of man,that He should repent.Hath He said,and shall He not do it?"(Num.23:19).

Godrulz,Post #50:
"If His saying "I may change my mind" in Scripture isn't enough to convince us that God may in fact change His mind, then nothing would be."

Why isn't the following enough to convince Godrulz that God will not change His mind?

"God is not a man,that He should lie.Neither the son of man,that He should repent.Hath He said,and shall He not do it?"(Num.23:19).

Godrulz: "The burden of proof is on those who refuse to take God's revelation at face value when there is no hint it is figurative.

I have alrady offered "proof".If both verses (Num.23:19 and Ex.32:14) are to be taken literally then we must throw our reason to the wind somehow force our minds to believe that He cannot change His mind but despite this He does change His mind.

The solution is simple.Only Numbers 23:19 can be taken literally.The other verse is clearly "figurative"and the figure is:

"An-throp'-o-path-ei'-a; or, Condescension. (Genesis 1:2; 8:21. Psalm 74:11. Jeremiah 2:13. Hosea 11:10). Ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings, irrational creatures, or inanimate things"("The Companion Bible",Appendix 6).

Those who are adherents to Bob Enyart's ideas on the Open view offer no solutions.They seem to be able to believe that God can say that He will not change His mind but then turn around and do that very thing!

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Ecumenicist]

So, um, is Bob out there? I hope he's not writing, like, a whole book or anything, you know?

 

[godrulz]

Like this:

"God is not a man,that He should lie.However,like the son of man He may repent."

But that is not what He said,is it?Instead He said:

"God is not a man,that He should lie.Neither the son of man,that He should repent.Hath He said,and shall He not do it?"(Num.23:19).

Why isn't the following enough to convince Godrulz that God will not change His mind?

"God is not a man,that He should lie.Neither the son of man,that He should repent.Hath He said,and shall He not do it?"(Num.23:19).

I have alrady offered "proof".If both verses (Num.23:19 and Ex.32:14) are to be taken literally then we must throw our reason to the wind somehow force our minds to believe that He cannot change His mind but despite this He does change His mind.

The solution is simple.Only Numbers 23:19 can be taken literally.The other verse is clearly "figurative"and the figure is:

"An-throp'-o-path-ei'-a; or, Condescension. (Genesis 1:2; 8:21. Psalm 74:11. Jeremiah 2:13. Hosea 11:10). Ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings, irrational creatures, or inanimate things"("The Companion Bible",Appendix 6).

Those who are adherents to Bob Enyart's ideas on the Open view offer no solutions.They seem to be able to believe that God can say that He will not change His mind but then turn around and do that very thing!

In His grace,--Jerry

Early I showed how both verses can be taken literally from an Open perspective. Numbers is not a proof text for strong immutability (this would create a contradiction with other verses or force a figurative loop hole). In the specific case and context, God will not change His mind and purposes. In other contexts, the prophecy is conditional. God intends something based on present circumstances, and could respond to future contingencies with a change of intent. God does not change in a fickle or capricious way. You are wrong to extrapolate that will not means cannot in an absolute sense.

God and man are personal with creative, self-determining wills. I could tell my child that I will not take him to the movie if he does not do his homework (thinking it improbable that he will get it done in time). If the homework is not done, I will stay the original course. If the homework is completed, I could change my mind and take him to the movie (or make excuses not to). Hopefully, I will not be arbitrary in my change, but play by the conditional rules. Certainly, if God changes His mind, it is based on His faithfulness and truth. The change will be defensible and the right thing to do in light of new contingencies.

Why cling to a static model of God (Greek pagan philosophy) when the Hebraic view is clearly a responsive, dynamic, creative revelation?

 

[Ecumenicist]

God and man are personal with creative, self-determining wills. I could tell my child that I will not take him to the movie if he does not do his homework (thinking it improbable that he will get it done in time). If the homework is not done, I will stay the original course. If the homework is completed, I could change my mind and take him to the movie (or make excuses not to). Hopefully, I will not be arbitrary in my change, but play by the conditional rules. Certainly, if God changes His mind, it is based on His faithfulness and truth. The change will be defensible and the right thing to do in light of new contingencies.

Why cling to a static model of God (Greek pagan philosophy) when the Hebraic view is clearly a responsive, dynamic, creative revelation?

Herein lieth the problem, you use the example of yourself, your logic, human logic,
as a model from which to understand God...

At least Sam uses Jesus Christ, One closer to God than anyone, to seek an understanding
of God.

 

[Yorzhik]

Herein lieth the problem, you use the example of yourself, your logic, human logic,
as a model from which to understand God...

At least Sam uses Jesus Christ, One closer to God than anyone, to seek an understanding
of God.

Dave, do you think Dr. Lamerson uses human logic or God's logic?

Can you explain the difference between "God's logic" and "human logic"?

 

[Ecumenicist]

Dave, do you think Dr. Lamerson uses human logic or God's logic?

Can you explain the difference between "God's logic" and "human logic"?

Human logic, but looking to the example of Christ, rather than his own experience.

I can't explain God's Logic, its far beyond me, but I can look to Christ's example to
try and perceive how God's greater purpose applies to me.

Dave

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Herein lieth the problem, you use the example of yourself, your logic, human logic, as a model from which to understand God...

At least Sam uses Jesus Christ, One closer to God than anyone, to seek an understanding of God.

And how exactly does he make use of that if not with his own human reasoning?Your statement sounds grand, but in truth doesn't solve the issue that we are all saddled with human powers of reasoning.

 

[godrulz]

Herein lieth the problem, you use the example of yourself, your logic, human logic,
as a model from which to understand God...

At least Sam uses Jesus Christ, One closer to God than anyone, to seek an understanding
of God.

I have used biblical examples before. I was trying to illustrate it with a limited analogy for simple clarification.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Did Dr. Lamerson over-play his hand insisting on the narrow focus of Jesus’ life?

Obviously the debate will go beyond just the gospels, and typical debates have a give and take. Stand-offs and “ties” are common on some points, so that you must move on to another point. Did Dr. Lamerson position himself such that he must win the argument that a look at Jesus reveals only the Closed position? Would a “draw” on this point, after having thrown down the gauntlet, now look badly for his position?

While it’s not the typical heavy artillery of the Open camp, the Open concept is not defenseless in the gospels. Jesus mentions chance happenings many times, and in many occassions predicts His own return within the lifetime of His apostles.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

OK, I am switching things up a bit. I apologize in advance for any confusion this may cause but this thread is now open for debate and side-tracks, rabbit trails etc.

I have created a new thread for BRX post critiques ONLY wich is located here. In the new thread only stand alone critiques of the BRX posts will be allowed.

Thanks for all the participation!

Battle Royale X post critique thread.

 

[Clete]

OK, I am switching things up a bit. I apologize in advance for any confusion this may cause but this thread is now open for debate and side-tracks, rabbit trails etc.

I have created a new thread for BRX post critiques ONLY wich is located here. In the new thread only stand alone critiques of the BRX posts will be allowed.

Thannks for all the participation!

Battle Royale X post critique thread.

Terrific idea! :thumb:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Terrific idea! :thumb:

Bob Enyart made this suggestion so thumbs up go to him!

 

[jeremiah]

I just read Dr. Lamerson's first post and all five pages of this thread. I am currently patting myself on the back for having done so.
My first impression is that it is an excellent idea to focus upon Jesus, on the good DR's part. I love Bob Enyart but I am not an open theist, and I do not agree with his views regarding the subject. Nonetheless they are intruiging, but I am certainly rooting for Dr. Lamerson, and as he said, that the "truth" will win out!
I am definately not a Calvinist, yet it seems to me that many OVer's try to insinuate being a CVer makes you one. Whether or not all Calvinists are CV or not, does not make all CVer's, Calvinists.
Would anyone like to concede, and clarify that point?
I think that God is omniscient and knows the future and that we still have free will, as defined by God. What does that make me?

P.S. The Doctor said that he was a "terrible" speller. So when he typed "she" it was supposed to be "he" and "her" was supposed to be "him". Therefore I do not think it is necessary to accuse the DR. of any attempt at gender neutrality or political correctness, and I am sure, since it does not win ANY debating points with this crowd, he won't misspell those words again. Will you!

 

[Clete]

I am definately not a Calvinist, yet it seems to me that many OVer's try to insinuate being a CVer makes you one. Whether or not all Calvinists are CV or not, does not make all CVer's, Calvinists.
Would anyone like to concede, and clarify that point?
I think that God is omniscient and knows the future and that we still have free will, as defined by God. What does that make me?

An Arminian most likely. And yes, it is true that most of the OVer's on this site consider Arminianism to be too Calvinistic for their tastes but be that as it may, I think we all acknowledge that not every person who is opposed to the open view is a Calvinist, it's just that it get's to seeming that way when everyone who debates you on it is either a Calvinist or uses Calvinistic theology in their attempt to refute it.
Believe it or not, you are probably more of a Calvinist than you realize. Basically if you are not a Catholic and not an open theist, there's very little else one could be aside from an Arminian of one form or another which as far as I am concerned is really just a subset of Calvinism, although there's not an Arminian in the world that would ever concede such a thing.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[jeremiah]

An Arminian most likely. And yes, it is true that most of the OVer's on this site consider Arminianism to be too Calvinistic for their tastes but be that as it may, I think we all acknowledge that not every person who is opposed to the open view is a Calvinist, it's just that it get's to seeming that way when everyone who debates you on it is either a Calvinist or uses Calvinistic theology in their attempt to refute it.
Believe it or not, you are probably more of a Calvinist than you realize. Basically if you are not a Catholic and not an open theist, there's very little else one could be aside from an Arminian of one form or another which as far as I am concerned is really just a subset of Calvinism, although there's not an Arminian in the world that would ever concede such a thing.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Thanks for the explanation. Whether it is fair or not is another question. So my instinct was right. Many would say if you are a CVer you are either a Calvinist. or an Arminian, and an Arminian is a Calvinist. Therefore you ARE a Calvinist. Sounds like a rather closed view, pun intended.
I can equate it with my Jewish friends, who say do you believe in one God?
No matter how I explain the trinity, their answer always remains the same, "So then you believe in three Gods!
No matter how I explain God's omniscience, I will always be a Calvinist to an OVer?

 

[Yorzhik]

Human logic, but looking to the example of Christ, rather than his own experience.

I can't explain God's Logic, its far beyond me, but I can look to Christ's example to
try and perceive how God's greater purpose applies to me.

Dave

So according to Dave Miller, God's logic could very well dictate that Dave Miller is damned to hell for eternity. According to Dave Miller, God's logic could very well dictate that Christ's example on earth is the opposite of what we humans should do. According to Dave Miller God may not have a greater purpose for Dave Miller and all of Dave Miller's attemps to perceive, even if he attains that perception, is for naught.

Dave, whereas I can say that "God's ways are higher than our ways", you must say "God's ways are higher than our ways... or lower depending on God's logic"

 

[Yorzhik]

Thanks for the explanation. Whether it is fair or not is another question. So my instinct was right. Many would say if you are a CVer you are either a Calvinist. or an Arminian, and an Arminian is a Calvinist. Therefore you ARE a Calvinist. Sounds like a rather closed view, pun intended.
I can equate it with my Jewish friends, who say do you believe in one God?
No matter how I explain the trinity, their answer always remains the same, "So then you believe in three Gods!
No matter how I explain God's omniscience, I will always be a Calvinist to an OVer?

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.

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Jerry,

You said,

I have alrady offered "proof".If both verses (Num.23:19 and Ex.32:14) are to be taken literally then we must throw our reason to the wind somehow force our minds to believe that He cannot change His mind but despite this He does change His mind.

The solution is simple.Only Numbers 23:19 can be taken literally.The other verse is clearly "figurative"

Have you considered the following?

Jerry referred to Numbers 23:19 as a proof text that God does not repent, ever. Here’s the verse…

Numbers 23
19 “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

This seems pretty obvious doesn’t it? God never repents, right? That’s what Jerry would like you to believe. Let’s look at the passage in context. Don't you think that's important Jerry? In Numbers 22, Balak, the king of the Moabites, was afraid when he saw what Israel had done to the Amorites.

Numbers 22
1 Then the children of Israel moved, and camped in the plains of Moab on the side of the Jordan across from Jericho.
2 Now Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites.
3And Moab was exceedingly afraid of the people because they were many, and Moab was sick with dread because of the children of Israel.
4 So Moab said to the elders of Midian, “Now this company will lick up everything around us, as an ox licks up the grass of the field.” And Balak the son of Zippor was king of the Moabites at that time.

So he sent messengers to his homeland in Mesopotamia to have the soothsayer, Balaam, come and curse Israel.

Numbers 22
5 Then he sent messengers to Balaam the son of Beor at Pethor, which is near the River in the land of the sons of his people, to call him, saying: “Look, a people has come from Egypt. See, they cover the face of the earth, and are settling next to me!
6 “Therefore please come at once, curse this people for me, for they are too mighty for me. Perhaps I shall be able to defeat them and drive them out of the land, for I know that he whom you bless is blessed, and he whom you curse is cursed.”
7 So the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed with the diviner’s fee in their hand, and they came to Balaam and spoke to him the words of Balak.
8 And he said to them, “Lodge here tonight, and I will bring back word to you, as the LORD speaks to me.” So the princes of Moab stayed with Balaam.
9 Then God came to Balaam and said, “Who are these men with you?”
10 So Balaam said to God, “Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, has sent to me, saying,
11 ‘Look, a people has come out of Egypt, and they cover the face of the earth. Come now, curse them for me; perhaps I shall be able to overpower them and drive them out.’ ”

But God told Balaam not to go.

Numbers 22
12 And God said to Balaam, “You shall not go with them; you shall not curse the people, for they are blessed.”
13 So Balaam rose in the morning and said to the princes of Balak, “Go back to your land, for the LORD has refused to give me permission to go with you.”
14 And the princes of Moab rose and went to Balak, and said, “Balaam refuses to come with us.”

So King Balak tried again, promising great honor to Balaam.

Numbers 22
15 Then Balak again sent princes, more numerous and more honorable than they.
16 And they came to Balaam and said to him, “Thus says Balak the son of Zippor: ‘Please let nothing hinder you from coming to me;
17 ‘for I will certainly honor you greatly, and I will do whatever you say to me. Therefore please come, curse this people for me.’ ”

Then Balaam said he could not go “beyond the word of the LORD my God” (Numbers 22:18).

I might add that his heart was not really sincere in following Yahweh, for 2 Peter 2:15,16 and Jude 11 say,

2 Peter 2
15 “They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
16 but he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking with a man’s voice restrained the madness of the prophet.”

Jude 11 “Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.”

He then told them to wait and see what the LORD would say to him.

Numbers 22
18 Then Balaam answered and said to the servants of Balak, “Though Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not go beyond the word of the LORD my God, to do less or more.
19 “Now therefore, please, you also stay here tonight, that I may know what more the LORD will say to me.”

God let Balaam go to Balak, but He ordered him to say only what He told him (Numbers 22:20,21). That’s why “the Angel of the Lord took His stand in the way as an adversary against him”

You still following the story Jerry? :readthis:

Numbers 22
22 Then God’s anger was aroused because he went, and the Angel of the LORD took His stand in the way as an adversary against him. And he was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him.

After Balaam’s encounter, verse 35 says,

Numbers 22
35 “Then the Angel of the LORD said to Balaam, Go with the men, but only the word that I speak to you, that you shall speak.”

So King Balak welcomed Balaam, but Balaam had gotten the message. He told the king he could only speak what God put in his mouth.

Numbers 22
36 Now when Balak heard that Balaam was coming, he went out to meet him at the city of Moab, which is on the border at the Arnon, the boundary of the territory.
37 Then Balak said to Balaam, “Did I not earnestly send to you, calling for you? Why did you not come to me? Am I not able to honor you?”
38 And Balaam said to Balak, “Look, I have come to you! Now, have I any power at all to say anything? The word that God puts in my mouth, that I must speak.”
39 So Balaam went with Balak, and they came to Kirjath Huzoth.

So Balak offered oxen and sheep to Yahweh, to have God look favorable on him, that is, to bribe Him. So he took Balaam up “to the high places of Baal” for a better view, so he could see the Israelites to better curse them.

Numbers 22
40 Then Balak offered oxen and sheep, and he sent some to Balaam and to the princes who were with him.
41 So it was the next day, that Balak took Balaam and brought him up to the high places of Baal, that from there he might observe the extent of the people.

Balaam also got into the act by telling him to “build seven altars for me here”. Balaam wanted to bribe Yahweh also for he said, “perhaps the LORD will come to meet me”. Yahweh did,

Numbers 23
1 Then Balaam said to Balak, “Build seven altars for me here, and prepare for me here seven bulls and seven rams.”
2 And Balak did just as Balaam had spoken, and Balak and Balaam offered a bull and a ram on each altar.
3 Then Balaam said to Balak, “Stand by your burnt offering, and I will go; perhaps the LORD will come to meet me, and whatever He shows me I will tell you.” So he went to a desolate height.
4 And God met Balaam, and he said to Him, “I have prepared the seven altars, and I have offered on each altar a bull and a ram.”
5 Then the LORD put a word in Balaam’s mouth, and said, “Return to Balak, and thus you shall speak.”
6 So he returned to him, and there he was, standing by his burnt offering, he and all the princes of Moab.

You still with me Jerry? Again, the context determines the point of God's statement in Numbers 23:19... We're almost there!

…but He caused Balaam to bless Israel.

Numbers 23
7 And he took up his oracle and said: “Balak the king of Moab has brought me from Aram, From the mountains of the east. ‘Come, curse Jacob for me, And come, denounce Israel!’
8 “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed? And how shall I denounce whom the LORD has not denounced?
9 For from the top of the rocks I see him, And from the hills I behold him; There! A people dwelling alone, Not reckoning itself among the nations.
10 “Who can count the dust of Jacob, Or number one-fourth of Israel? Let me die the death of the righteous, And let my end be like his!”

Balak got angry.

Numbers 23
11 Then Balak said to Balaam, “What have you done to me? I took you to curse my enemies, and look, you have blessed them bountifully!”
12 So he answered and said, “Must I not take heed to speak what the LORD has put in my mouth?”
13 Then Balak said to him, “Please come with me to another place from which you may see them; you shall see only the outer part of them, and shall not see them all; curse them for me from there.”

Then, in verses 14-18 it says,

Numbers 23
14 So he brought him to the field of Zophim, to the top of Pisgah, and built seven altars, and offered a bull and a ram on each altar
15 And he said to Balak, Stand here by your burnt offering while I meet the LORD over there
16 Then the LORD met Balaam, and put a word in his mouth, and said, Go back to Balak, and thus you shall speak
17 So he came to him, and there he was, standing by his burnt offering, and the princes of Moab were with him And Balak said to him, What has the LORD spoken?
18 Then he took up his oracle and said: Rise up, Balak, and hear! Listen to me, son of Zippor!

Now we must realize this is the third time Balak has offered sacrifices to Yahweh, trying to bribe Him to curse Israel. God has gotten fed up with this stuff. “You’re trying to bribe me? Don’t you know who I am?” Well, let’s read what God put in Balaam’s mouth. He caused Balaam to prophesy that wonderful statement, Numbers 23:19,20.

Numbers 23
19 God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
20 Behold, I have received a command to bless; He has blessed, and I cannot reverse it.

Notice verse 20 Jerry... Verse 20 helps us to understand verse 19 in conjunction with the previous context.

From this, we can see that God would not lie. He has already blessed Israel twice. Now, just because they sacrifice all these sacrifices, is that going to change God? He is not like a man who can be bribed. Every man may have his price, but our wonderful God isn’t swayed by bribes. The point here is, God chose to bless Israel. No matter how many sacrifices or bribes Balak offered, God would not repent concerning Israel’s blessings. Now, I know Jerry would like us to believe that God never repents, but we know that is not true. God did not repent in this specific situation.

Please take the time to read the context Jerry. You will see that there is a specific reason God does not lie or repent in this instance. God cannot be bribed like a mere man...

God bless,
--Jeremy Finkenbinder

 

[sentientsynth]

Mr. Finkenbinder,

I enjoyed reading your post.

If I could impose upon your patience, would you perform the same form of analysis of when God repented of creating man?


Sincerely,

SS