BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)

[Shadowx]

As I have repeatedly said,when the Lord God is speaking of His nature then those are the words that should guide us in regard to His nature.If a verse from a narrative contrdicts what God says about His nature then we know that the language there is figurative.

The words at Numbers 23:19 are described as being what the Lord spoke (Num.23:17).And there He is describing His nature.


Moses wrote the book of Numbers,and it is there where we read of the nature of God in regard to His changing His mind.

In His grace,--Jerry

Is God speaking in Jeremiah 18 about his nature?
If not please explain.

Jer 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
Jer 18:9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
Jer 18:10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repentof the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them

Danny

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Originally Posted by drbrumley

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

I concur. Very good, clear exegesis.

Thank you gentlemen...

As I have repeatedly said,when the Lord God is speaking of His nature then those are the words that should guide us in regard to His nature.If a verse from a narrative contrdicts what God says about His nature then we know that the language there is figurative.

Let me see if I follow you Jerry...

1 Samuel 15:11 - God, through the prophet Samuel says, "I repent that I set up Saul as king..."

1 Samuel 15:29 - God, through the prophet Samuel says, "I will not repent concerning my decision to take the throne from Saul...

1 Samuel 15:35 - God, through the prophet Samuel says, "I repent that I ever set us Saul as king...

Jerry believes verses 11 and 35 are "figurative" and verse 29 is literal... Same God, same prophet, different intent... Sorry Jerry, you seem to have lost me... again...

--Jeremy

 

[RightIdea]

Jerry, I'll ask you one last time, and then I'm kicking the dust off my feet.


1. True or false? In the 1 Samuel passage, when it says God doesn't repent, the thing He refuses to repent of... is the fact that He just repented of making Saul king? Is that not obviously the specific thing He will not repent of?


2. You claim the Numbers passage is a universal and definitive declaration of God's nature. However, I and others have pointed out that on many occasions, God said He would do X... and then He did not do it. Not the least of which is Jeremiah 18, in which God is explaining something about Himself while speaking in the first person! How do you explain the existence of such passages? Surely you are familiar with such examples. But if you aren't, you have but to ask and any of a dozen people around here would be happy to introduce you to them.


If you don't directly respond to these, you convict yourself of an inability to address such basic issues in this debate. It's up to you.

 

[GodsfreeWill]

I would love one answer from Jerry.

Jerry, when the Bible says "God repents", WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry lacks the epistemic humility needed to discuss interpreting the Bible seriously. All hail the infallible Jerry Sherbert!

Is this an example of one of your "serious" posts?

 

[godrulz]

Is this an example of one of your "serious" posts?

Argumentum ad hominem?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I would love one answer from Jerry.

Jerry, when the Bible says "God repents", WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Again,when the Lord is speaking of His nature we can understand that the interpretation is "literal".

If another verse contradicts what the Lord revealed about His nature then we must take that verse figuratively.

And no one has even attempted to prove that the Lord is not describing His nature at Numbers 23:19.After all,he is contrasting His nature with that of man.He says that He will not lie as does man and he will not change His mind as does man.Another example where the Lord compares His nature to that of man is the following:

""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).

We can know that the Lord does not have to see any "outward appearances" of faith before He can know whether or not a man has faith,and that is because He can look at the heart of man and know.So if we see a verse that seems to be saying that He would not know whether a man feared Him unless He could see an "outward appearance" of that fear,then we know that that verse should not be taken literally. This is an example of such a verse:

"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.

And that directly contradicts what the Lord Himself said about His nature.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[chance]

Reading Jerry's posts is a lot like watching crap being pumped out of a port-a-potty. Yuck!!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If there's anything in particular you would like answered, feel free to ask...

I asked,but you did not answer.Here is the question again:

"Since you specifically said that you would answer my questions in the commentary section I wonder why you never did."

Let me see if I follow you Jerry...

1 Samuel 15:11 - God, through the prophet Samuel says, "I repent that I set up Saul as king..."

1 Samuel 15:29 - God, through the prophet Samuel says, "I will not repent concerning my decision to take the throne from Saul...

1 Samuel 15:35 - God, through the prophet Samuel says, "I repent that I ever set us Saul as king...

Jerry believes verses 11 and 35 are "figurative" and verse 29 is literal... Same God, same prophet, different intent... Sorry Jerry, you seem to have lost me... again...

It is not difficult to understand,Jeremy.If one of God's "actions" in a narrative contradicts what the Lord has revealed about His nature at another place,then God's action in the narrative is not to be taken literally.

Another example where the Lord compares His nature to that of man is the following:

"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).

We can know that the Lord does not have to see any "outward appearances" of faith before He can know whether or not a man has faith,and that is because He can look at the heart of man and know.So if we see a verse that seems to be saying that He would not know if a man feared Him unless He could see an "outward appearance" of that fear,then we know that that verse should not be taken literally. This is an example of such a verse:

"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.

And that directly contradicts what the Lord Himself said about His nature.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[drbrumley]

Your getting incredibly wierd Jerry. I say that respectfully. 1 sam. 16:7 doesn't support you at all and you want to claim it as your prooftext? Man.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Reading Jerry's posts is a lot like watching crap being pumped out of a port-a-potty. Yuck!!

Your getting incredibly wierd Jerry.

Bye-Bye

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

I asked,but you did not answer.Here is the question again:

"Since you specifically said that you would answer my questions in the commentary section I wonder why you never did."

Jerry,

I'm sorry to say that I have wasted entirely too much time with you once again...

I posted concerning prescience and Judas, you never responded...

I posted a lengthy presentation of Numbers 23:19 understood in it's context. Once again, no response...

I posted a lengthy presentation of 1 Samuel 15. Surprise, no response from you...

You accuse me of not responding to your questions from our debate. I wasted almost an hour re-reading our debate and the discussion thread. I responded and re-responded to all of your questions throughout the debate and finally post #66 in the discussion thread. I apologize if you don't like the answers, but I have answered your questions. You continue,

It is not difficult to understand,Jeremy.If one of God's "actions" in a narrative contradicts what the Lord has revealed about His nature at another place,then God's action in the narrative is not to be taken literally.

You would have us to believe (as RI has already noted) that God lies in His Word. God gives us "narratives" that mean completely opposite of what He really intended. I mean no disrespect Jerry, but that's crazy... Doogie's question was a great question...

What does God really mean when He says He repents, if in fact, He never repents?

To add to Doogie's question, "What is God trying to teach us by giving us examples of untruths?" If God doesn't repent, why does He say He does?

Another example where the Lord compares His nature to that of man is the following:

"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).

We can know that the Lord does not have to see any "outward appearances" of faith before He can know whether or not a man has faith,and that is because He can look at the heart of man and know.So if we see a verse that seems to be saying that He would not know if a man feared Him unless He could see an "outward appearance" of that fear,then we know that that verse should not be taken literally. This is an example of such a verse:

"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.

And that directly contradicts what the Lord Himself said about His nature.

In His grace,--Jerry

Jerry, cutting and pasting (which you do quite often) adds nothing to the discussion. Face the issues Jerry and repent!... (God does!)

--Jeremy

 

[sentientsynth]

Battle Royale XI: Bob Enyart vs. Hank Hanegraaff

Topic: Is placing the Great Tribulation in the first century warranted by Scripture?



SS

 

[death2impiety]

Notice that this explanation does not mention human free will. True Openness is based upon God Himself and not upon creaturely free will. Openness exists independent of man’s free will because Openness describes God as He always has been and will be, including throughout eternity past. The Open View cannot be based upon any human factor if in fact it also correctly describes God prior to creation.

This seems obvious enough, but I never thought about it like that. I like it :think:

 

[godrulz]

Battle Royale XI: Bob Enyart vs. Hank Hanegraaff

Topic: Is placing the Great Tribulation in the first century warranted by Scripture?



SS

Who holds to preterism (end time events already fulfilled)?

I think Enyart is pre-tribulational. I would assume Hank is dispensational also.

Revelation 4-22 is yet future to us.

 

[godrulz]

This seems obvious enough, but I never thought about it like that. I like it :think:

Man is a free moral agent in the image of God.

William Lane Craig (Molinist) proposes that God was atemporal before creation and temporal after creation.

The Open View is consistent with God pre and post creation. It mostly focuses on the openness of creation. Scripture does not say much about the eternal relations of the Godhead.

 

[taoist]

Yup, this seems to be a lot of the reason why I've had such trouble following the OV vs CV threads. It's so hard to figure out when the subject has changed if you don't already understand the OV vs CV debate. I was really hoping to get a better grip on the subject from this thread I thought would be heavily moderated.

Would it be possible for a mod to split out the off-topic posts that deserve saving?

 

[Clete]

Battle Royale XI: Bob Enyart vs. Hank Hanegraaff

Topic: Is placing the Great Tribulation in the first century warranted by Scripture?



SS

I would literally pay money to have that debate happen. I've heard Hanegraaf on the issue and I pretty much disagree with every single point he makes. I would love it if he and Bob could get together and hash it out. There would be major communication hurtles to overcome because of the vastly different dispensational presuppositions that each of them have, but in spite of that it would be a great, great Battle Royale.
And talk about getting coverage! Hanegraaf may as well be the Pope as far as many Christians are concerned. There's no way the debate could not be taken seriously by anyone who knows who either of them are. (Sorry about the double negative there. )

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[taoist]

Immutability is not what it used to be.

No lover of Enyartian irony could find a phrase more pleasing.

It's apparent from the first round that Enyart has entered the contest far more prepared, has framed the debate around his own principles, and that he should have been given the opening post in order to generate a more rubust debate. I'm hoping that his references to a "Settled View" is equivalent to the "Closed View" which naturally forms the opposition position I expected to see discussed. For the moment, however, I intend to hold only Bob's framing of OV in its five aspects as agreed, as Dr. Lamerson should naturally be allowed to define his own position.

Do the other OV proponents on TOL agree that it can be adequately framed using Bob's five attributes of god?

The five most fundamental attributes of God are that He is Living, Personal, Relational, Good, and Loving.

It's interesting to see how Bob's attributes of god change when moving from extramural to intramural debate.

 

[RightIdea]

Who holds to preterism (end time events already fulfilled)?

I think Enyart is pre-tribulational. I would assume Hank is dispensational also.

Revelation 4-22 is yet future to us.

Hank "the Canned Answer Man" Hannegraaf a dispensationalist? Heck freakin' no. LOL He is hardcore preterist and is increasingly open about it. He believes the tribulation happened immediately following the resurrection of Christ.

Of course, we Mid-Acts dispensationalists understand it was supposed to happen following the resurrection... and some of us even believe it actually began for about a year or so, while others believe it hadn't begun quite yet. But we pretty much agree that Daniel's "prophecy of weeks" (Daniel 9) clearly depicts the 70th week (the tribulation) following the 69th week (which contains the cutting off of the messiah).

But aaaaanyway! Back to the show. :think:


I definitely agree that framing the Open View from the perspective of setting aside free will and making it strictly about God, Himself, is brilliant. I've never seen it presented like that, either, and it blew my mind! The Open View is always presented as hinging specifically on free will. To take this route is, to the best of my knowledge, groundbreaking. (But if anyone else has already gone this route, by all means let us know. I really don't care who came up with the idea; I just love it. LOL)