BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)

Status
Not open for further replies.

servent101

New member
godrulz
This is the whole point of the Battle: the nature of the open future,
- this I beleive you have already decided for yourself - but that possibly there may be some more information you could glean from the "Battle Royale" - but I doubt that the contenders are actually discussing the nature of the open future -

you stated
We cannot blame God for everything.

that is true - but what can we blame God for?

With Christ's Love

servent101
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
We can 'blame' God for having the love and wisdom to create free moral agents who can love and relate rather than robotic automatons. Though it involved risk (the Fall), the reward was greater.
 
Jerry Shugart said:
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.

Jerry,

Yes, my computer had some issues, but I answered your questions. We went back and forth, and as usual, you make one point that you hang on to and will not repent (Like God does). Be more like our Lord Jerry and repent! :LoJo:

Jerry Shugart said:
You assume that I was ignorant of the context but you are wrong Jeremy.

...then why didn't you respond to any of my points? Do you disagree with God refusing to curse Israel? Do you disagree that no matter how many times God was bribed, He would not change His mind? Or, are you still holding on to your fantasy that Numbers 23:19 should be ripped out of context as an eternal descriptor of a god who never, ever repents? :LoJo:

Jerry Shugart said:
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).

Jerry... The same principle applies in 1 Samuel 15. CONTEXT! CONTEXT! CONTEXT! As godrulz has already pointed out, God "repents" in verses 11 and 35, but will not repent in verse 29. So Jerry, we should take verse 29 literally and verses 11 and 35 figuratively? I think not... Please consider the following Jerry...

God chooses Saul to be king, and then when Saul disobeys, God takes the throne from Saul and repents concerning making Saul king. Let's read it...

God "chose" Saul to be king over Israel.

1 Samuel 10:19-24 (The New King James Version)
10:19 But you have today rejected your God, who Himself saved you from all your adversities and your tribulations; and you have said to Him, 'No, set a king over us!' Now therefore, present yourselves before the Lord by your tribes and by your clans."
10:20 And when Samuel had caused all the tribes of Israel to come near, the tribe of Benjamin was chosen.
10:21 When he had caused the tribe of Benjamin to come near by their families, the family of Matri was chosen. And Saul the son of Kish was chosen. But when they sought him, he could not be found.
10:22 Therefore they inquired of the Lord further, "Has the man come here yet?" And the Lord answered, "There he is, hidden among the equipment."
10:23 So they ran and brought him from there; and when he stood among the people, he was taller than any of the people from his shoulders upward.
10:24 And Samuel said to all the people, "Do you see him whom the Lord has chosen, that there is no one like him among all the people?" So all the people shouted and said, "Long live the king!"

You see, God chose Saul to be king over Israel. In the 15th chapter, God asks Saul to "utterly destroy" the Amalekites. Saul disobeys God and God "changes His mind" (repents) about Saul being king. Let's read it,

1 Samuel 15:1-35 (The New King James Version)
15:1 Samuel also said to Saul, "The Lord sent me to anoint you king over His people, over Israel. Now therefore, heed the voice of the words of the Lord.
15:2 Thus says the Lord of hosts: 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt.
15:3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "
15:4 So Saul gathered the people together and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men of Judah.
15:5 And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and lay in wait in the valley.
15:6 Then Saul said to the Kenites, "Go, depart, get down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them. For you showed kindness to all the children of Israel when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.
15:7 And Saul attacked the Amalekites, from Havilah all the way to Shur, which is east of Egypt.
15:8 He also took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.
15:9 But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and WERE UNWILLING TO UTTERLY DESTROY THEM. But everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed.
15:10 Now the word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying,
15:11 "I greatly regret ***(NACHAM - REPENT, CHANGE OF MIND) that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments." And it grieved Samuel, and he cried out to the Lord all night.

God makes the decision to take the throne from Saul. He changes His mind about the king that He Himself chose! Now, how does Saul respond to Samuel when Samuel breaks the news to him? Let's read what happens next!

15:12 So when Samuel rose early in the morning to meet Saul, it was told Samuel, saying, "Saul went to Carmel, and indeed, he set up a monument for himself; and he has gone on around, passed by, and gone down to Gilgal."
15:13 Then Samuel went to Saul, and Saul said to him, "Blessed are you of the Lord! I have performed the commandment of the Lord."
15:14 But Samuel said, "What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?"
15:15 And Saul said, "They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and the oxen, to sacrifice to the Lord your God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed."
15:16 Then Samuel said to Saul, "Be quiet! And I will tell you what the Lord said to me last night." And he said to him, "Speak on."
15:17 So Samuel said, "When you were little in your own eyes, were you not head of the tribes of Israel? And did not the Lord anoint you king over Israel?
15:18 Now the Lord sent you on a mission, and said, 'Go, and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.'
15:19 Why then did you NOT OBEY the voice of the Lord? Why did you swoop down on the spoil, and do evil in the sight of the Lord?"
15:20 And Saul said to Samuel, "But I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me, and brought back Agag king of Amalek; I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.

Saul realizes that he is in trouble and tries to squirm his way out of it. He says, "I did what God told me to do!" He lies right to Samuel's face! Then he tries to blame the people for his disobedience! Let's read it!

15:21 But the people took of the plunder, sheep and oxen, the best of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal."
15:22 So Samuel said: "Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams.
15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He also has rejected you from being king."

Here it is! God has changed his mind about Saul being king. This is huge Jerry! God takes the kingdom from Saul! Let's see what happens next!

15:24 Then Saul said to Samuel, "I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice.

Saul lies to Samuel's face again! He has a false repentance and tries to blame his sin "on the people whom he feared!" The king over Israel was afraid of the people? Baloney! Saul is a liar, and God takes the throne from him. Let's keep reading...

15:25 Now therefore, please pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord."
15:26 But Samuel said to Saul, "I will not return with you, for YOU HAVE REJECTED THE WORD OF THE LORD, and THE LORD HAS REJECTED YOU FROM BEING KING OVER ISRAEL."

Saul has a false repentance and begs the Lord to restore the kingdom to him. Will God change His mind about this decision? Let's see if God changes His mind and restores Saul to the throne.

15:27 And as Samuel turned around to go away, Saul seized the edge of his robe, and it tore.
15:28 So Samuel said to him, "The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you.
15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent" ***(NACHAM - REPENT, CHANGE OF MIND). For He is not a man, that He should relent ***(NACHAM - REPENT, CHANGE OF MIND).

Here's your verse Jerry. Do you see how the CONTEXT clearly shows that God will not change His mind in this instance? No matter what lies Saul comes up with, God will not change His mind and restore Saul to the throne.

Jerry says that verse 29 shows that God never repents. In fact, this same passage shows that He does repent (vv. 11, 35). It's not that God never repents, it's that God will not change His mind in this specific instance. God will not change His mind about taking the kingdom from Saul. He made His decision and will stick with it. Perhaps, if Saul would've been truly repentant, then God would've restored Saul to the throne (King Manessah is a great example!). He took the throne from Saul, and would not return it to him. Let's finish our story Jerry...

15:30 Then he said, "I have sinned; yet honor me now, please, before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord your God."
15:31 So Samuel turned back after Saul, and Saul worshiped the Lord.
15:32 Then Samuel said, "Bring Agag king of the Amalekites here to me." So Agag came to him cautiously. And Agag said, "Surely the bitterness of death is past."
15:33 But Samuel said, "As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women." And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal.
***Samuel did what Saul should've done!
15:34 Then Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went up to his house at Gibeah of Saul.
15:35 And Samuel went no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul, and the Lord regretted ***(NACHAM - REPENT, CHANGE OF MIND) that He had made Saul king over Israel.

God changed His mind and was even grieved that He set us Saul as king over Israel. If Saul would've obeyed God, he would've remained king. Could Jerry please explain why God, who supposedly knows all the future, chose Saul to be king. Did He know Saul would disobey? Did He know He would take the throne from Saul? Did God predestine all these actions? I think not! God chose Saul, and Saul freely disobeyed God. If Saul would've been truly repentant, God would've restored him to the throne.

So, to answer your original question Jerry:

Jerry Shugart said:
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?

Again Jerry, God will not change His mind concerning His decision to take the kingdom from the king that He chose... If Saul would have been truly repentant, "his kingdom would have been established forever..." (1 Sam 13:13)

God Bless you Jerry,

--Jeremy Finkenbinder
 
sentientsynth said:
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

SS,

Feel free to impose. :wave2:

I believe you're referring to Genesis 6? I'll take some time tonight or tomorrow if you don't mind waiting...

God Bless, --Jeremy Finkenbinder
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
*Acts9_12Out* said:
Jerry,

Yes, my computer had some issues, but I answered your questions. We went back and forth, and as usual, you make one point that you hang on to and will not repent (Like God does). Be more like our Lord Jerry and repent! :LoJo:



...then why didn't you respond to any of my points? Do you disagree with God refusing to curse Israel? Do you disagree that no matter how many times God was bribed, He would not change His mind? Or, are you still holding on to your fantasy that Numbers 23:19 should be ripped out of context as an eternal descriptor of a god who never, ever repents? :LoJo:



Jerry... The same principle applies in 1 Samuel 15. CONTEXT! CONTEXT! CONTEXT! As godrulz has already pointed out, God "repents" in verses 11 and 35, but will not repent in verse 29. So Jerry, we should take verse 29 literally and verses 11 and 35 figuratively? I think not... Please consider the following Jerry...

God chooses Saul to be king, and then when Saul disobeys, God takes the throne from Saul and repents concerning making Saul king. Let's read it...

God "chose" Saul to be king over Israel.



You see, God chose Saul to be king over Israel. In the 15th chapter, God asks Saul to "utterly destroy" the Amalekites. Saul disobeys God and God "changes His mind" (repents) about Saul being king. Let's read it,



God makes the decision to take the throne from Saul. He changes His mind about the king that He Himself chose! Now, how does Saul respond to Samuel when Samuel breaks the news to him? Let's read what happens next!



Saul realizes that he is in trouble and tries to squirm his way out of it. He says, "I did what God told me to do!" He lies right to Samuel's face! Then he tries to blame the people for his disobedience! Let's read it!



Here it is! God has changed his mind about Saul being king. This is huge Jerry! God takes the kingdom from Saul! Let's see what happens next!



Saul lies to Samuel's face again! He has a false repentance and tries to blame his sin "on the people whom he feared!" The king over Israel was afraid of the people? Baloney! Saul is a liar, and God takes the throne from him. Let's keep reading...



Saul has a false repentance and begs the Lord to restore the kingdom to him. Will God change His mind about this decision? Let's see if God changes His mind and restores Saul to the throne.



Here's your verse Jerry. Do you see how the CONTEXT clearly shows that God will not change His mind in this instance? No matter what lies Saul comes up with, God will not change His mind and restore Saul to the throne.

Jerry says that verse 29 shows that God never repents. In fact, this same passage shows that He does repent (vv. 11, 35). It's not that God never repents, it's that God will not change His mind in this specific instance. God will not change His mind about taking the kingdom from Saul. He made His decision and will stick with it. Perhaps, if Saul would've been truly repentant, then God would've restored Saul to the throne (King Manessah is a great example!). He took the throne from Saul, and would not return it to him. Let's finish our story Jerry...



God changed His mind and was even grieved that He set us Saul as king over Israel. If Saul would've obeyed God, he would've remained king. Could Jerry please explain why God, who supposedly knows all the future, chose Saul to be king. Did He know Saul would disobey? Did He know He would take the throne from Saul? Did God predestine all these actions? I think not! God chose Saul, and Saul freely disobeyed God. If Saul would've been truly repentant, God would've restored him to the throne.

So, to answer your original question Jerry:



Again Jerry, God will not change His mind concerning His decision to take the kingdom from the king that He chose... If Saul would have been truly repentant, "his kingdom would have been established forever..." (1 Sam 13:13)

God Bless you Jerry,

--Jeremy Finkenbinder


Post of the year nomination. Just for the truth smack prensentation of it. That was great Jeremy.
 

RightIdea

New member
In other words, in 1 Sam 13, the thing that God will not repent of... is the fact that He repented of making Saul king! That is what He will not repent of. The fact that He repented!

He will not unrepent! His repentance about Saul will stand. So, even the verse that says He will not repent... is affirming God's repentance!
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Jeremy
spanka.gif
Jerry.
 

Livewire

New member
Just a comment on Bob's first post.

I particularly liked how Bob showed God as being a good and selfless Ruler in that He delegates power. How many good rulers hoard all power to themselves? We would think of this kind of ruler as being twisted and strange. We certainly wouldn't think of him as a good ruler.
 

taoist

New member
Clete said:
The exclusively Christian theology forum is not intended to keep nonchristians from participating but rather is intended to keep the topic confind exclusively to Christian theology. If you feel you have something constructive to add to the discussion that is on the topic being discussed and does derail the discussion into something other than what would be considered Christian theology then I would welcome you to post anything on any thread I'm active on and I'm sure all the other open theists here feel the same way.


This right here is what I think is going to be the best part of this Battle Royale. No one can deny that Bob's opponent is emminently qualified; we even have complete unbelievers acknowledging that he is a true biblical scholar. It's going to be as sweet as it can be when Bob wins this debate just as he's won every other debate I've ever had the privilege of seeing him in.

As for the rest of your post, I'll be content to let you debate open theism with someone else and I'll use this thread to discuss the Battle Royale itself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Thank you, Clete,

I'd actually posted in the exclusively christian open vs. closed threads previously, but only to ask for clarifications as, after all, it's not my ox getting gored in either case.

In peace, Jesse
 

taoist

New member
Turbo said:
:confused: I count five other open vs. closed view threads that are on the active threads page right now and none of them are in the Exclusively Christian forum. (A sixth thread on free will is in the Exclusively Christian forum.)
Admittedly, Turbo, it's been quite a while since I checked out an open vs. closed thread, a couple of years perhaps. And then it was mostly to try to figure out what they were arguing about. Back in my day, we were still calling it free will vs. predestination.
 

RightIdea

New member
taoist said:
Admittedly, Turbo, it's been quite a while since I checked out an open vs. closed thread, a couple of years perhaps. And then it was mostly to try to figure out what they were arguing about. Back in my day, we were still calling it free will vs. predestination.
Not the same debate. Arminians (Simple Foreknowledge) hold to free will, but are classical theists as they believe in exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF).
 

taoist

New member
Knight said:
Don't bother taoist with the facts, he is extremely busy looking up really big words for his next post so that he can present himself as an intellectual. :rolleyes:
Actually, when I've the time, I try to go through my posts eliminating the "big words." That's a fact, Knight. More, I do pay attention to comments directed toward me, though I don't always have the time to respond. I have, on occasion, here on this board, even retracted my opinions when facts or reason have shown I was wrong, as bob b can attest.

"Big words" express thoughts more definitively, and their use by me is a consequence of studies in abstract math, arguably the most nitpicking of specialties. Attacks on intellectuals, qua intellectuals, prevalent among biblical literalists, have the net effect of driving all thinking persons away from your faith, as is easy demonstrated by examining the inverse relationship in demographic studies between fundamentalism and education, or indeed any form of theism and education.

Of course, you might have decided to actually respond to my post, I mean, other than with a single-syllable four-letter comment. Nor did my welcome of Sam Lamerson reflect my own view of spirituality. My own opinions on spirituality force me into what you might consider a "wide open" theology, and it's interesting to me to see how those who feel their god is fated to be triumphant regardless assume that he is blind to the future. It's not that I agree with a closed view perspective, but merely that I find it more consistent with theism as a whole.

As ever, in peace, Jesse
 
Last edited:

taoist

New member
RightIdea said:
Not the same debate. Arminians (Simple Foreknowledge) hold to free will, but are classical theists as they believe in exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF).
Greetings, RightIdea,

Yorzik was trying to explain to me how the debate has shifted, though I'm still not entirely clear on its mechanisms or fine points. Thus my interest in this debate, despite my own expressed atheism. Yorzik, if I understand him rightly, has said that the free will versus predestination question was still fundamentally intramural inside what would now be called the closed view community. I look forward to any clarification from TOL posters.

In peace, Jesse
 

Crow

New member
Tao, free will is basically the argument of the open view community, predestination is basically the argument of the closed view community. I realize that's a very simplistic answer and there's quite a bit more as will be evident as the BR progresses.
 

taoist

New member
Thanks, Crow, but I have to weigh your answer in with those of Yorzik and RightIdea, who both seem to be saying that the debate I remember lies within adherents of what RI calls EDF. There seems to be some contradiction, here.
 

RightIdea

New member
For clarification on Open/Closed, EDF, Free will issues, etc., here's a basic chart of the 4 views in Christianity:


........................ Meticulous providence... EDF .... Libertarian Free Will

Calvinism ................. .X ..............................X

Molinism .................. .X ............................. X .......... X

Arminianism .............................................. X .......... X

Open View ............................................................... X



The Open View considers all other 3 as "closed" or "settled" views. However, as you can see, the Arminian/Simple Foreknowledge view does hold to libertarian free will (LFW).
 
chance said:
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.

Hey Quinn, :wazzup:

Long time, no see! Hope all is well with you... Thanks for linking that article. In fact, doogieduff has been listening to tapes of "Biblical Answers" from when Bob and I were on the radio, and recently listened to that show. It was incredible... When Bob asked what the anthropomorphism really meant, the silence was indeed deafening. About a year later, Bob and I put together another Open View script for the radio show, and Bob used bits and pieces of that show for the article you linked. Thank you for helping spank Jerry with more truth... :box:

God bless,

-Jeremy Finkenbinder
 

Shadowx

New member
I might saith.., but it's conditional..

I might saith.., but it's conditional..

Jerry's quote:

["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).

Hath he said and shall he not do? Yes, or was God lying to Eli to begin with?

1Sa 2:27 And there came a man of God unto Eli, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Did I plainly appear unto the house of thy father, when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh's house?
1Sa 2:28 And did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to offer upon mine altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? and did I give unto the house of thy father all the offerings made by fire of the children of Israel?
1Sa 2:29 Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people?
1Sa 2:30 Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.
1Sa 2:31 Behold, the days come, that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father's house, that there shall not be an old man in thine house.

I know what I said, but now....
Why?, because..Them that honor me..I honor..them that don't, I don't..
I changed my mind Eli, based on your actions..


Danny,

PS: Enyarts post was the better post period.
This doesn't mean he is right, but his initial post is more persuasive..
He is presenting an overview of his openness view and not boyds, building up to answering all of Sam's specific questions, so that when he does people will be more receptive to them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top