BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)

[chance]

Hey Jerry!

If what Fink shared above is not enough to make you see the light, then you may wanna check out the article Bob Hill wrote concerning the matter here in his article Does God Repent? http://www.biblicalanswers.com/predestination/Does God Repent.htm

If that does not make things abundantly clear to you then there is no hope.

 

[chance]

Incoherent and Irrational

Incoherent and Irrational

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!

You will agree with Bob at the end of this debate.

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?

No. If you are a Calvinist then you believe, by definition, that the future is completely settled or closed. There are no future decisions/actions/events that remain to transfrom from a possibility to an actuality. Get it?

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?

It makes you irrational and incoherent.

 

[chance]

Sanders' Response to Sam's first posting

Sanders' Response to Sam's first posting

This is what Sanders had to say concerning Sam's first post:

Thanks Quinn. I read a little bit. First, open theists should say that God knows all the “future” there is to know. The question is what actually exists to be known. Second, he does not quite get Boyd’s point on the first page. Boyd is not backtracking when he says later in the book that God cannot know with certainty the future actions of a creature acting with libertarian freedom. For Boyd, determined events are knowable and these can include some human actions such as Peter’s denial if (!) that action is not a libertarianly free one. If God removes Peter’s libertarian freedom in this instance then the action is quite predictable within openness theology. These are subtle points and I don’t blame the guy for not getting them straight for I sense that he really wants to understand.

Couldn't agree more! The debate is about the nature of the future - all settled realities OR partly settled and partly unsettled?

 

[sentientsynth]

Hey Jerry!

If what Fink shared above is not enough to make you see the light, then you may wanna check out the article Bob Hill wrote concerning the matter here in his article Does God Repent? http://www.biblicalanswers.com/predestination/Does God Repent.htm

If that does not make things abundantly clear to you then there is no hope.

Great article!! Quite worth the read.


SS

 

[Clete]

This is what Sanders had to say concerning Sam's first post:

Thanks Quinn. I read a little bit. First, open theists should say that God knows all the “future” there is to know. The question is what actually exists to be known. Second, he does not quite get Boyd’s point on the first page. Boyd is not backtracking when he says later in the book that God cannot know with certainty the future actions of a creature acting with libertarian freedom. For Boyd, determined events are knowable and these can include some human actions such as Peter’s denial if (!) that action is not a libertarianly free one. If God removes Peter’s libertarian freedom in this instance then the action is quite predictable within openness theology. These are subtle points and I don’t blame the guy for not getting them straight for I sense that he really wants to understand.

Couldn't agree more! The debate is about the nature of the future - all settled realities OR partly settled and partly unsettled?

Are you saying that this is a quote about the opening post of Battle Royale X from the Dr. John Sanders; the author of The God Who Risks?

If so, you should edit your post on the critique thread so as to make that more obvious.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[GodsfreeWill]

How can you speak about "logic" if you can't even see that the literal interpretation of Ex.32:14 does not contradict Num.23:19.

When the Scriptures are descibing the nature of God then that should over-rule any verses that are used merely in a narraitive.

Says who Jerry? You?! Can the Scriptures not describe the nature of God in a narrative? I am doubting your belief in the innerrant, infallible, inspired word of God.

Despite the fact that Numbers 23:19 says in no uncertain terms that God will not repent.And we know that these verses are speaking of the "nature" of God,because He cannot lie.

This goes along with other Scriptures that say the same thing about His "nature":

"In hope of eternal life,which God,Who cannot lie,promised before the world began"(Titus 1:2).

Jerry Jerry. In my past discussions with you, I realized you know no greek, so for the benefit of the listening audience, we'll discuss Titus 1:2. Titus 1:2 does NOT say "God who CANNOT lie," rather, it's the negative form of lie, and therefore should be translated 'the unlying God." I love how OV'ers are accused of limiting God, yet it's Jerry the calvinist who says CANNOT lie, CANNOT repent, etc. My God is all-powerful.

I do not even think anyone who suscribes to the "Open Theism" promoted by Bob Enyart would argue that the Lord God could lie.But even though the words that He will not repent are used in the very same verse and in the very same context they have no problem asserting that He can indeed repent.

I am an open theist and I do believe God can lie. Again, I don't limit God Jerry. (Please note, lying and repenting fall under two categories. Lying is laid out biblically as a sin, and repenting is laid out biblically as a good and necessary thing. Lying would go against the character of our God, and repenting is actually something God MUST do in order to remain true to His holy and just character.)

Which is it?Can He repent or can He not repent?It can't be both.

Yes, He CAN do both Jerry, why do you limit God? Can God both create and not create? YES! Why do you fail to respond to half of my original post to you? If you'd understand the point I made with Hosea 11:9, you'd understand that God does and does not do things in certain circumstances.

It is quite a simple answer.The words at Jonah 2:4 are not the words of the Lord describing Himself.Instead,they are the words of a man.The words at Numbers 23:19 are actually the words of the Lord (Num.23:16).

I think you've fallen off the deep end with this statement Jerry. Do you mean to tell me that ALL scripture written by man cannot be taken as true? The Holy Spirit inspired the men who authored the Bible. What do you hold as true Jerry? Further, God HIMSELF said He was weary of repenting!

Jeremiah 15:6
6 You have forsaken Me," says the Lord, "You have gone backward. Therefore I will stretch out My hand against you and destroy you; I am weary of repenting!

So I'm faced with a tough decision here, Jerry says "GOD DOES NOT REPENT!" and the Lord HIMSELF says, "I AM WEARY OF REPENTING!" Who do I believe?

Please respond to the Hosea scripture, and answer one question for me, was Jonah wrong calling God "One who repents"?

 

[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.

:chuckle:
That's very clever! I love puns!

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?

I was thinking about this earlier this morning and it would probably be more accurate to say that most CVer's are Augustinian to one degree or another and so since Calvinism is basically revised Augustinianism therein lies the confusion. That along with the fact that most OVer's, myself included, tend to render our opponents positions in light of the logical conclusions to which their positions lead and more often than not that means Calvinism (Augustinianism). Because of this we are often accused of misrepresenting our opponents views and creating straw men to knock down but it isn't really true. At worst we are guilty of jumping the gun and racing to quickly to the end of things without taking the time to establish what it is we are reacting too.
At any rate, this open theist knows that not everyone who disagrees with me would call themselves a Calvinist whether they unwittingly support his theology or not and I do try not to insist that they are a Calvinist although I don't always succeed.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Turbo]

Great post, doogieduff!

I am an open theist and I do believe God can lie. Again, I don't limit God Jerry. (Please note... Lying is laid out biblically as a sin, and repenting is laid out biblically as a good and necessary thing. Lying would go against the character of our God...

This is a bit of an overstatement since God endorses lying to deceive the wicked and thwart their plans, and takes part in that sort of lying from time to time. God blessed the Hebrew midwives of Exodus 1 for lying to Pharoah. God was pleased that David's wife repeatedly lied to her father, Saul, to protect David (and herself).

This story also comes to mind:

Micaiah continued, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD : I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?'
"One suggested this, and another that. Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'

" 'By what means?' the LORD asked.
" 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said.
" 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.' 1 Kings 22:19-22​

 

[elected4ever]

To my understanding, God's foreknowledge does not limit man's free choice. Just because God knows what our choices will be does not mean that God dictated our choices. That is what prophecy is all about. God's knowledge of what man does in the future and what He will do in the future does not limit man's choices in responses to current and future events.It is not that God does not know but that we do not know. Indeed our whole existence depends upon the foreknowledge of God and our reliance upon it. We are reactive and God is proactive. God acts in response to his own will and not responsive to man's will. We have trouble when our will is not in line with God's will and this does not prevent God from knowing what our will is even when our will is in conflict with His.

 

[godrulz]

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?

Depending on the issues and focus, Open Theism can be seen as a sub-type of Arminianism (more Arminians lean to Open Theism than do Calvinists) or Arminianism can be seen as a sub-type of Calvinism. Generally, Calvinists oppose OT and Arminianism with the same force and similar arguments.

I agree with Clete that Calvinism and Arminianism are problematic in similar ways, but Calvinism is far more deterministic.

If I could summarize some issues again:

1. Did God from all eternity decree whatever will come to pass?

Yes= Calvinism (no contingencies; no uncertainties)

No= Arminian
Alternative (open theism) (contingencies)

2. Is everything certain in God's mind from all eternity?

Yes= Calvinism (decree)

Arminian (simple foreknowledge) (certainties)

No= Open Theism (uncertainties)


God is resourceful, creative, responsive, and omnicompetent. He is not a meticulous control freak. The bottom line is that exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is an absurdity/logical contradiction. Open Theism is the least problematic, and most biblical resolution of the tension Scripture portrays between God's sovereignty and man's free will. Some of the future is settled and knowable, while much of the future is genuinely open and unsettled. The issue is the type of creation God chose, not God's omniscience. We all agree that God knows all that is knowable. The future does not exist, so God correctly knows it as possible rather than actual.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry,

You still following the story Jerry?

You still with me Jerry?

Jeremy,I know what is going on here so you do not have to act as if it might be over my head.And by the way,you never answered my questions in our last debate.If you remember your computer crashed right before your last post in our debate but you promised to answer my questions sometime later.

But you never answered them,Jeremy.I answered every single one of your questions but I am still waiting for your answers.

Please take the time to read the context Jerry.

You assume that I was ignorant of the context but you are wrong Jeremy.

You will see that there is a specific reason God does not lie or repent in this instance.

So the Lord God will lie but only not in this instance.And if the words I quoted were only for "this instance" then why would Samuel say the very same thing in regard to an another entirely different instance?:

"And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent,for He is not a man,that He should repent"(1Sam.15:29).

Jeremy,are you saying that the Lord will tell lies but He will remain truthful only in "this instance"?

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[godrulz]

This is what Sanders had to say concerning Sam's first post:



Couldn't agree more! The debate is about the nature of the future - all settled realities OR partly settled and partly unsettled?

This is the key. If one just looks at the settled verses (and they are there), then one thinks the future is closed and knowable. If one just looks at the open verses, one might minimize God's superintending of human history. Unfortunately, if one has a preconceived theology that God's knowledge must be exhaustive/immutable, then libertarian free will is watered down (determinism in the worse case scenario), or God's self-revelation must be seen as figurative and less meaningful (God changing His mind verses, etc.).

Boyd does a masterful job of clarifying these two motifs (with proof texts for settled/unsettled) in "God of the Possible" and "Is God to blame?" and other books.

I still feel the nature of time vs eternity is another key factor. It helps elucidate why the future is open and unknowable. "God and time: 4 views" IVP is a good primer. I believe N. Wolterstorff's defense is the most coherent and biblical.

 

[godrulz]

To my understanding, God's foreknowledge does not limit man's free choice. Just because God knows what our choices will be does not mean that God dictated our choices. That is what prophecy is all about. God's knowledge of what man does in the future and what He will do in the future does not limit man's choices in responses to current and future events.It is not that God does not know but that we do not know. Indeed our whole existence depends upon the foreknowledge of God and our reliance upon it. We are reactive and God is proactive. God acts in response to his own will and not responsive to man's will. We have trouble when our will is not in line with God's will and this does not prevent God from knowing what our will is even when our will is in conflict with His.

The way God knows some of the future as certain is that He has the ABILITY (omnicompetence) to purpose and bring it to pass (read Is. 46 and 48 carefully). It is not based on His foreknowledge. A chessmaster responds to contingencies with knowledge, insight, and wisdom. He would not be a master if he knew every move in advance or mind-controlled the other player's moves. God is responsive and creative. He is not locked into a fatalistic, closed scenario.

Simple foreknowledge is assumed, but is not explainable nor defensible. Determinism would be more coherent, but at the expense of genuine love and freedom (it would also make God responsible for heinous evil). Exhaustive foreknowlege of future free will contingencies is logically incoherent (not to mention biblically). I realize this is not self-evident due to the preconceptions most have from the Augustinian/Anselmian/Aquinas views.

 

[godrulz]

Jeremy,I know what is going on here so you do not have to act as if it might be over my head.And by the way,you never answered my questions in our last debate.If you remember your computer crashed right before your last post in our debate but you promised to answer my questions sometime later.

But you never answered them,Jeremy.I answered every single one of your questions but I am still waiting for your answers.

You assume that I was ignorant of the context but you are wrong Jeremy.

So the Lord God will lie but only not in this instance.And if the words I quoted were only for "this instance" then why would Samuel say the very same thing in regard to an another entirely different instance?:

"And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent,for He is not a man,that He should repent"(1Sam.15:29).

Jeremy,are you saying that the Lord will tell lies but He will remain truthful only in "this instance"?

In His grace,--Jerry

I Sam. 15 is another example of not changing His mind in a specific instance/context. It is sheer proof texting and eisegesis to extrapolate it to mean that God cannot vs will not change His mind. The few texts that show He does not change His mind in specific cases cannot be pitted against the many verses that show that He does change His mind in other circumstances (just not in a capricious, fickle way). You are forced into a wooden literalism for a few verses at the expense of wrongly making other verses figurative that should be taken at face value.

You are not a dummy, but you cannot seem to think outside the traditional box on this issue. Let us know when the lights go on.

Is our explanation plausible? Probable? Are you dogmatically sure that your view is the only way to skin this cat?

(Hint: strong vs weak immutability and impassibility are issues being re-thought by the most traditional/classical theologians...you are stuck in the Dark Ages...see Jay Wesley Richards in "The Untamed God" IVP).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I am doubting your belief in the innerrant, infallible, inspired word of God.

Just because I can recognize "figurative" language and you cannot does not mean that I do not believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

I love how OV'ers are accused of limiting God, yet it's Jerry the calvinist who says CANNOT lie, CANNOT repent, etc. My God is all-powerful.

That I why I cannot understand why you people say that God does not know the future.

"I am God,and there is none like Me,Declaring the end from the beginning,and from ancient times the things that are not yet done..."(Isa.46:9,10).

I am an open theist and I do believe God can lie. Again, I don't limit God Jerry.

So you say that God can lie.

Lying is laid out biblically as a sin... Lying would go against the character of our God...

So even though lying is a sin and lying would go against the character of God you still believe that God can sin.

I think you've fallen off the deep end with this statement Jerry. Do you mean to tell me that ALL scripture written by man cannot be taken as true?

I am saying that in some instances the narrative in the Scriptures contain "figurative" language.

Here are the words from the "New Scofield Study Bible" in regard to the verses where the Scriptures speak of God "repenting":

"When applied to God,the word is used phenomenally,according to O.T. custom.God seems to change His mind.The phenomena are such as,in the case of a man,would indicate a change of mind"(Note at Zech.8:14).

To give you another example,in the Scriptures the sun is said to be "rising".To man's point of view the sun does indeed seem to be rising.However,we know that the sun is not rising but instead the earth is rotating.

The Holy Spirit inspired the men who authored the Bible. What do you hold as true Jerry? Further, God HIMSELF said He was weary of repenting!

So the Lord Himself sometimes speaks phenomenally.

Please respond to the Hosea scripture, and answer one question for me, was Jonah wrong calling God "One who repents"?

Was Mark wrong when he wrote of the sun rising at Mark 16:2?

The sun seems to be "rising" and to man God seems to change His mind.But He does not change His mind.When He describes His very nature He says that He will not lie and He will not change His mind:

"God is not a man,that HE should lie,neither the son of man,that He should repent"(Num.23:19).

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[godrulz]

Open Theists also interpret figuratively when the context makes it evident to do so. Quoting a blatantly figurative passage to argue against a literal one that can be taken at face value (except in contradicts your preconceptions) is disingenuous.

Is. 46 is a favorite open theist proof text. It correctly shows that some of the future is settled. You make the mistake of ignoring the verses that show the other motif that some of the future is unsettled/open/uncertain. The context shows the reason God's predictions will come true: it is due to His ABILITY, not his so-called foreknowledge (read 46:11 that you missed "What I have said, that I will bring about; what I have planned, that will I DO = ability, not foreknowledge...you wrongly assume that God plans and brings everything about...this ignores contingencies and free will and makes God responsible for heinous evil).

cf. Is. 48:3 What He declares (He does not meticulously decree/declare every moral and mundane detail in the universe), He will bring about. This is based on His power, not 'foreknowledge'. His divine intentions will come to pass due to His sovereign ability. "Suddenly I ACTED, and they came to pass).

It is an exegetical error to take a verse that is talking about specific judgments and to extrapolate it to mean that God must control and know all of the future (vs some).

We need the illumination of the Holy Spirit and sound exegetical principles.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I still feel the nature of time vs eternity is another key factor. It helps elucidate why the future is open and unknowable.

If the future is "unknowable" then how do you explain the following:

"I am God,and there is none like Me,Declaring the end from the beginning,and from ancient times the things that are not yet done..."(Isa.46:9,10).

I Sam. 15 is another example of not changing His mind in a specific instance/context.

I contend that it is for all instances.He will never tell a lie:

And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent,for He is not a man,that He should repent"(1Sam.15:29).

If you are correct and these words are only in regard to this particular instances then in other instances He will indeed "repent" and He will lie.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Aimiel]

How could Jesus have become man and remained all knowing?

The same way that John said is available to you, and 'unction' or anointing (The Holy Ghost) from The Lord:

I John 2:20
But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Open Theists also interpret figuratively when the context makes it evident to do so.

The following verse is clearly not to be taken literally but despite this fact those who follow Bob Enyart's version of "Open Theology" interpret it literally:

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me"(Gen.22:12).

If we use our common sense we can know that this narrative is not to be read employing a wooden literalism.If we take it literally then we can see that the Lord did not know whether or not Abraham feared God until He saw the outward act of Abraham taking the knife to slay his son,Isaac.

However,when the Lord describes His own attributes we can see that HE does not need to see outward acts to know whether a man fears Him or not:

"But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart"(1Sam.16:7).

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[godrulz]

I Sam. 15

see vv. 11, 35 God was grieved that He made Saul king. This does not sound like a closed, knowable future. God had a change of mind an inner disposition as contingencies changed. This is not figurative language, but a window into the heart of God.

If God changed His mind in this case it would be a lie and capricious/fickle. God is faithful to His Word. He will not change his mind and lie when He unconditionally states something. Other contexts are explicitly conditional. God purposes one thing, but will change course if contingent circumstances change. You would have to make a liar of God when He says that Hezekiah will die, period. Then He does change His mind and adds 15 years. This makes no sense if the future is closed. God responded to prayer and changed His mind. Not all mind changes are lies. If I initially ask for chocolate ice cream, and then change my mind to vanilla, this is not a moral issue.

If God says that He will judge a nation due to their present state, this does not preclude Him changing His mind and relenting if they repent. In fact, He would be lying in this case if He did not change His mind since He promised He would judge if they do not repent, but would change His mind/purpose if they do repent (cf. Jonah). Why not read things at face value instead of using mental gymnastics to support the closed view?

I answered Is. 46 on another thread in detail. The key is that this is a verse about a specific judgment that God will bring to pass by His ability. Foreknowledge is not causative or the issue. God knows the end from the beginning because He is able to initiate and conclude the judgments He is talking about in Isaiah. This is a verse about some of the future being settled/foreknown. It cannot be pitted against other verses that show an openness/uncertainty. Regrettably, you are forced to make these figurative to retain your closed theism.

Open Theism, rightly understood, does not compromise God's glorious attributes. It simply reflects the type of creation (open vs determinism) that God wisely chose in His sovereignty.