Bob Enyart vs.Gary DeMar Debate

[Jerry Shugart]

What exactly is your explanation of this? You stated what Gary and Bob believe, what do you believe?

kmoney,

Here is the site address for my study entitled "Last Days Fables: A Futurist's Answer to 'Last Days Madness' by Preterist Gary DeMar":

http://kaydydid.com/lastdays/index.html

Click on Section II-D: "This Generation".

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry,

So Jesus wasn't lying when He said that He was coming back soon. That was the plan. However, Israel rejected Jesus and God isn't fixed into doing something if the people turn wicked. As a result of their wickedness Jesus did not return...even though He said He was going to...and He wasn't lying.

The Father knew the plan because the Lord Jesus said that the Father knew the day and hour when the Lord Jesus would return. And the Father therefore knew that the generation then living would not remain alive when the Son returns.

Therefore,if the Father was telling the generation then living that they would remain alive at the Son's return then that would mean that the Father was telling them something that He knew was not true.

Anyone with just a little common sense can understand this.

You are right about the offer of the kingdom being "conditional". We can see that at Acts 3:19-20. However,that does not rule out the idea that the Father KNEW that Israel would not meet the conditions. Evidently He knew beforehand that they would not meet the conditions because He already knew the day and the hour when the Son would return, and that "day and hour" was NOT during the lifetimes of the generation then living.

So just because the offer of the kingdom was "conditional" does not rule out the idea that the Father KNEW that they would not meet the conditions.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[truebeliever7]

On the "bob enyart LIVE" radio program there was a debate between Bob Enyart (dispensationalist) and Gary DeMar (preterist).

They discussed the following verses:

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory....Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Mt.24:30,34).

Of course Gary DeMar said that these verses were fulfilled in A.D.70 when Jerusalem was destroyed.

Bob Enyart said that Jesus thought that all these things will happen to that generation,but it didn't happen.

In other words,Jesus was wrong.

Any comments?

In His grace,--Jerry

I believe that the key here is the statment "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

I understand that as the generation of Jesus Christ now that doesnt mean 40 years or anyother time frame on the legnth of a generation as man interpets it. we are talking about a spiritual existance.

peace and love.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I believe that the key here is the statment "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

I understand that as the generation of Jesus Christ now that doesnt mean 40 years or anyother time frame on the legnth of a generation as man interpets it. we are talking about a spiritual existance.

peace and love.

Hi truebeliever7,

I answer what the words in regard to "this generation" means in study I did entitled "Last Days Fables: A Futurist's Answer to 'Last Days Madness' by Preterist Gary DeMar":

http://kaydydid.com/lastdays/index.html

Click on Section II-D: "This Generation".

There you will see that the Greek word translated "this" does not always have the meaning which the preterists place on it.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Clete]

Let's count the intentional lies that Jerry seems unable to keep himself from telling, shall we?

Why Clete,so you can run and hide when you don't have an answer?

1

You have a zeal for God,Clete,but not according to knowledge.

You don't know me from Adam!
2

I will explain this to you so that you can run and hide when you have no answer.

Repeated of lie 1.
3

First of all,the Father KNEW the day and the hour when the Son will return.If you deny this then you are denying what the Lord Jesus said here:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mt.24:36).

I deny nothing of the sort and you knew that when you said this.
4

Can you understand that,Clete?

The intentional sarcastic implication that I could not understand, while knowing full well that I not only understand it but fully acknowledge it.
5

At the time when the Lord Jesus spoke the words about His return the Father knew the day and the hour when the Son would return.

The Father knew the specific day and hour, while Jesus knew only that it would be within that generation's life time. It didn't happen at all! That's the point you can't get around without turning the passage into something other than what it plainly says.

And it is obvious that the generation then living would not remain alive to see His return.

It isn't obvious and you knew that when you said this. You were just hoping that I would "run and hide" I suppose.
6

You got that,Clete?

Again, sarcastically implying that I am either a coward or stupid or both, knowing full well that neither is the case.
7

Next we can see that the Father was speaking through the Lord Jesus when the words were spoken about the return of the Son.On the day of Pentecost the Apostle Peter revealed that the Lord Jesus fulilled the following words of Moses:

"For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever He shall say unto you" (Acts 3:22).

Yes, as of Acts 3 Israel had not yet been cut off and God's offer of a kingdom with Christ as their reigning King was still available. It's no surprise that Peter would refer to Israel's prophecies concerning their own Messiah.

Here is the OT prophecy that Peter was referring to:

"The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken…I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in His mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him" (Deut.18:15,18).

We can see that the Lord Jesus' words were not His own but instead were words which the Father put into His mouth. And if the Father was telling the generation then living that they would still be alive when the Lord Jesus returns then He would be telling them a lie. That is because He knew that they would not remain alive when the Lord Jesus returns:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mt.24:36).

You blaspheme God at every opportunity. The fact is that "this generation will not pass away" is specifically and explicitly what Jesus said. As you've already directly quoted multiple times and therefore are without excuse.
8

Now it is time for you to run and hide,Clete.

:kookoo:
9

Why would I run and hide? I have the plain reading of the text and indeed Jesus' own words as well as the divinely recorded events of history and what do you have but your blasphemy, your lies and your personal opinions? Nothing! You have nothing! The only way you can even approach your position is to throw out both sound reason and the plain reading of scripture. And for what? So you can cling to the wacko obviously contrived beliefs of Preterism? Or is it just so you can avoid calling yourself an Open Theist? Either way it's idiotic and frankly beneath someone of your talent and intelligence. You simply have no excuse and should be ashamed of yourself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

The Father knew the plan because the Lord Jesus said that the Father knew the day and hour when the Lord Jesus would return. And the Father therefore knew that the generation then living would not remain alive when the Son returns.

This does not follow. Your error stems simply from your having read your theology into the text. The fact is that the text does not support what you are implying about God and the way His prophecy works. This is blasphemy because the facts are that Jesus said what He said and what He said did not happen. You just cannot get away from the plain and simple facts and by your logic, God would indeed be a liar, which He obviously is not.

Therefore,if the Father was telling the generation then living that they would remain alive at the Son's return then that would mean that the Father was telling them something that He knew was not true.

Therefore? I think you need to take a class on how to use logic! Therefore? On what premise are you basing this conclusion?You cannot deny what Jesus said; His words are recorded for us in every Bible ever printed and now even on this very thread. You have to be a lunatic to believe that Jesus came in His power and glory and the whole world managed to miss it and the only real evidence left behind of this momentous event was the Roman sacking of the city of Jerusalem. And so what are you saying? What could you be saying other than that based on this evidence that God must "therefore" be a liar! Well you got it backward Jerry! It's you who is the liar because you KNEW before you typed a word of this horse crap that this thinking was entirely fallacious and bears no resemblance to anything that any Open Theist (or anyone else who calls themselves a Christian for that matter) believes.

Anyone with just a little common sense can understand this.

This is another intentional lie!
Do you really think that we are all stupid and are unable to see through this sort of crap?

I noticed, by the way, that you just conveniently ignored my questions about whether the same "logic" you are employing here applies to when God said through Jonah, "40 days and Nineveh will be destroyed." and when God said that He would "without fail" drive out Israel's enemies from before them.

Who running now, Jerry? I'm responding to every point you make and you blow smoke up our collective butts. Who's running now?

You are right about the offer of the kingdom being "conditional". We can see that at Acts 3:19-20.

Thank you for conceding the "debate". Nothing else you say has any relevance to the issue. Not that you would ever acknowledge that.

However,that does not rule out the idea that the Father KNEW that Israel would not meet the conditions.

Afraid of the conclusions of your own words! Pathetic.

Evidently He knew beforehand that they would not meet the conditions because He already knew the day and the hour when the Son would return, and that "day and hour" was NOT during the lifetimes of the generation then living.

If you really buy this nonsense, you are stupid.

Haven't you ever planned something in advance Jerry? Haven't ever known in advance when your child's birthday party would start or when you'd next show up for work or at what specific time and date that you would arrive to meet you high school girl friend? Haven't you ever planned something with an accuracy of at least plus or minus one hour? Are all such plans, especially of ours, conditional on perhaps a hundred different things that may or may not be within our ability to control or plan around? If we talked to our spouse about our child's birthday party a month in advance and then something happens to cancel those plans, does that make us a liar because we had that discussion a month earlier?

OF COURSE NOT YOU STUPID BLASPHEMOUS FREAK!!!

So just because the offer of the kingdom was "conditional" does not rule out the idea that the Father KNEW that they would not meet the conditions.

In His grace,--Jerry

No, what rules it out is that fact that Jesus, God the Son, said that that same generation would not pass away before that day and hour came! That's what rules it out Jerry! Again, you simply can't escape the plain and simple facts presented in Scripture.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Jerry Shugart]

OF COURSE NOT YOU STUPID BLASPHEMOUS FREAK!!!

Let us look at your pitiful answer so that others can judge who it is who is stupid.

The following is describing the Lord Jesus as His role as Prophet:

"The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken…I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in His mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him" (Deut.18:15,18).

It is the Father Who is putting His own words into the mouth of the Son. The Son is saying what the Father told Him to say. But you say:

The Father knew the specific day and hour, while Jesus knew only that it would be within that generation's life time. It didn't happen at all! That's the point you can't get around without turning the passage into something other than what it plainly says.[emphasis added]

You base your defense on the idea that "Jesus knew only that it would be in that generation's life time". That proves that you are clueless. It does not matter what the Son knew because He is speaking the words that the Father commanded Him to say. And by your own admission "the Father knew the specific day and hour". So since the Father knew the specific day when the Son would return then He knew that the Son was not going to return during the lifetimes of the generation then living.

So if the Father was telling the Jews, through the Son, that the generation then living would be alive when the Son returned then the Father would be telling them something that He knew was not true.

But that seems perfectly reasonable to you. You don't care how much you must blaspheme the Lord as long as you can cling to your childish ideas.

Let us look more at you ability to delude your mind into believing the most unreasonable things.

I said," The Father knew the plan because the Lord Jesus said that the Father knew the day and hour when the Lord Jesus would return. And the Father therefore knew that the generation then living would not remain alive when the Son returns."

To this you say:

This does not follow. Your error stems simply from your having read your theology into the text. The fact is that the text does not support what you are implying about God and the way His prophecy works.

You yourself admit that "the Father knew the specific day and hour." If you will use a little common sense then it is obvious that the Father knew the plan. The Father knew that the Son's return remained hundreds and hundreds of years in the future. So He knew that the generation then living would not live to see the return of the Father.

But since you have no reasonable answer to this you say that I am reading my theology into the text. I admit that is true. I admit that according to my theology the Lord's return has not yet happened and therefore it remained hundreds of years into the future when the Lord Jesus spoke the words which He did about the generation then living. And according to my theology the Father knew that also. Do you disagree with any of that?

But since you have no reasonable answer all you can think of to say is that I am reading my theology into the text and that " that the text does not support what you are implying about God and the way His prophecy works."

The only difference between what I imply about the way His prophecy works and yours is the fact that you say that His prophecies fail and I say that they do not fail.

You also say:

You cannot deny what Jesus said; His words are recorded for us in every Bible ever printed and now even on this very thread.

I do not deny what He said but I do not put the same interpretation on His words which you do. Let's look at the words:

“So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” (Mt.24:33,34).

The word “this” is translated from the Greek word “houtos”, and one of the meanings of that word is: “It refers to a subject immediately preceding, the one just named” (Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon).

We can see an example of the same meaning of "houtos" used in the following verse when the Lord Jesus spoke about Judas at the Last Supper:

“And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same (houtos) shall betray me” (Mt.26:23).

Here the translators used the words “the same” to translate the Greek word “houtos”.The subject immediately preceding the word “houtos” is “he”--“he that dippeth his hand with me in the dish”.

Therefore Matthew 24:33,34 could be translated in the following way:

“So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, The same generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” (Mt.24:33,34).

So we can see that the word "ye" defines who it will be the ones who will see the return of the Lord Jesus. It will be the ones who see the great tribulation and the signs in the sky.

We also know that the same day when the Lord Jesus spoke these words He used the word "ye" to refer to a future generation of people:

"For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Mt.23:39).

At some time in the future there will be some Jews belonging to a future generation who will say those words. And the Lord used the pronoun “ye” to refer to those who will belong to a future generation.

So the word “ye” in the following verse can refer to those living in a future generation:

“So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, The same generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” (Mt.24:33,34).

Therefore the words of the Lord can be in reference to a future generation. But I am sure that you would rather use an explanation that makes the Lord out to be wrong about the things which He says will come to pass. And in your zeal to defend the indefensible you throw out the following in your attempt to prove that the Lord was wrong about other things in the past:

I noticed, by the way, that you just conveniently ignored my questions about whether the same "logic" you are employing here applies to when God said through Jonah, "40 days and Nineveh will be destroyed."

"And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown" (Jonah 3:4).

These verses are simply "narratives" where a "figure of speech" is being used to describe the actions of the Lord. This figurative language is called anthropopatheia,defined as "ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings,irrational creatures,or inanimate things" (The Companion Bible,Appendix # 6).

The verses which you refer to are ascribing to the Lord attributes of man,in that a man will change his mind,or repent. In these verses the Lord is not saying things that he knows are untrue but instead He is showing a change of mind. However,we know that figurative language is being used because the Lord does not change His mind,as evidenced by the following verse which are describing on of His attributes:

"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? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Num.23:19).

Since the instances you mention are showing that the Lord did in fact repent about what He had earlier said then we can know that figurative language is being employed in these verses. In a note on The New Scofield Study Bible we read the following in regard to the Hebrew word nacham: "…the sacred writers used it in the sense of ‘metanoia’ in the N.T.,meaning ‘a change of mind’….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" (The New Scofield Study Bible,Note at Zech.8:14).

So the verses to which you made reference are not showing that the Lord was wrong in what He said,much less that He deceived anyone. Instead,figurative language is being used depicting the Lord has having an attribute of man,that He will change His mind.

But I am sure that instead of having a reasonable explanation of these verses you would rather cling to your mistaken beliefs that the Lord was just wrong when He said these things.

"Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Ro.3:4).

You got it backwards,Clete.

You believe "Let Clete be true but God is a liar".

You teach that even though the Father knew that the generation then living would not be alive when the Son returns He told them that they would be alive when He returns. According to your theology He told them something that He knew was not true.

And instead of being corrected you still cling to your idea that Clete is true but God is a liar.

 

[Clete]

So if the Father was telling the Jews, through the Son, that the generation then living would be alive when the Son returned then the Father would be telling them something that He knew was not true.

This is the central argument of your position and since you are only repeating yourself and not responding at all except to render everything in the Bible that proves your wrong a figure of speech that apparently must mean the exact opposite of what the words actually say, and to compound what is quickly become a countless litany of intentional lies, I will only repeat this one last time.

(Note also that Jerry turns countless, easy to understand passages of Scripture into mysterious figures of speech for no reason at all other than to maintain his theology. Nothing in the text would indicate such a figure exists nor, according to Jerry's methodology, is there any objective means to determine when a passage is a figure and when it is not other than to say it must be a figure when the plain reading contradicts a point of theology that he counts as more important that the plain reading of the text.)

Jesus' (i.e. God's) prophecy was conditional. He said and meant precisely what the text plainly states but later cut off Israel instead of fulfilling not just that one prophecy but a whole slew of prophecies that are found throughout the Old Testament concerning God giving Israel an Earthly kingdom and the end of Daniel's 70th week.

No one lied, (well except for you of course). God expected, or at the very least hoped that Israel would repent and accept their risen Messiah and prophesied accordingly. Israel, however, did not repent and so in accordance with God's warning, which was given to Israel centuries before in Jeremiah 18, God did not do that which He said He would do. And so your blasphemous charge of God being a liar if we simply read the Bible and take it for what it says is just that, blasphemous.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Clete, why do you just ignore what the Lord Jesus said and then say something that contradict His words?

You say:

God expected, or at the very least hoped that Israel would repent and accept their risen Messiah and prophesied accordingly.

According to what you say here the Father did not know the day and the hour when the Son would return to set up the kingdom.

According to you He "expected" and "hoped" that Israel would repent and accept her Messiah but He really did not know.

But Son had already said that the Father knew the "day and hour" when the Son would return:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mt.24:36).

The Son is saying that the Father alone knew the "day and hour" when the Son will return,but according to you He expected that Israel would repent and then the Son would be sent back. According to you the Father did not have a clue regarding the "day and hour" when the Son would return.

According to you the Father did not know the times or the seasons when these things would happen but He "expected" and hoped" that they would happen during the lifetime of the generation then living. When the Apostles were with the Lord Jesus after His resurrection they asked Him:

"Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6).

And the Lord answered,saying:

"It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by His own authority (Acts 1:7).

The Father, by His own authority, has set the time and date of the return of the Son to set up the kingdom but according to you the Father did not even know the times and dates that those things will occur.

According to you He "expected" and "hoped" that the kingdom would be ushered in during the first century but He really didn't know if it would or not!!!

According to you He cannot declare "the end from the beginning":

"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, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" (Isa. 46:9-10).

You deny what is so plain in Scripture so that you can continue in your blasphemy that even though the Father knew that the kingdom would not come to Israel in the first century He told the Jews that it would.

 

[truebeliever7]

Hi truebeliever7,

I answer what the words in regard to "this generation" means in study I did entitled "Last Days Fables: A Futurist's Answer to 'Last Days Madness' by Preterist Gary DeMar":

http://kaydydid.com/lastdays/index.html

Click on Section II-D: "This Generation".

There you will see that the Greek word translated "this" does not always have the meaning which the preterists place on it.

In His grace,--Jerry

thanks Jerry

since Jesus is the beginning and the end His generation will last alot longer than anything man has ever understood.

peace and love

 

[Clete]

Clete, why do you just ignore what the Lord Jesus said and then say something that contradict His words?

You say:

According to what you say here the Father did not know the day and the hour when the Son would return to set up the kingdom.

Of course He knew. There's is no way you are going to convince me that you are so stupid as to not understand this.

According to you He "expected" and "hoped" that Israel would repent and accept her Messiah but He really did not know.

He knew precisely when it would happen but that knowledge was based upon a conditional promise. He knew it in the same sense that I know when I will show up for work tomorrow morning. There are a lot of things that might prevent me from going to work tomorrow and so my doing so is conditional but that in no way, except in the most woodenly literal sense, means that I don't know when I'm going to show up for work in the morning.

In other words, the phrase, "assuming that God doesn't cut Israel off in the mean time" could legitimately be assumed in Christ's prophecy and comments concerning the Father's knowledge. If this were not so then Jeremiah 18 is a lie.

But Son had already said that the Father knew the "day and hour" when the Son would return:

Exactly! He did know.

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mt.24:36).

The Son is saying that the Father alone knew the "day and hour" when the Son will return,but according to you He expected that Israel would repent and then the Son would be sent back.

Exactly.

According to you the Father did not have a clue regarding the "day and hour" when the Son would return.

This is yet another intentional lie.
If you cannot defend your position without resorting to such sinful statements then why not just drop it?

According to you the Father did not know the times or the seasons when these things would happen but He "expected" and hoped" that they would happen during the lifetime of the generation then living. When the Apostles were with the Lord Jesus after His resurrection they asked Him:

"Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6).

And the Lord answered,saying:

"It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by His own authority (Acts 1:7).

The Father, by His own authority, has set the time and date of the return of the Son to set up the kingdom but according to you the Father did not even know the times and dates that those things will occur.

It's so obvious to everyone but you (well not really, you know as well and so this also counts as a lie) that you are presenting a false dichotomy here. The coming of Christ to set up Israel's kingdom was conditional as Jeremiah 18 blatantly explains in detail and so absolutely firm knowledge of the sort you are insisting that Jesus was talking about is contradictory to the context of the prophecy. If God had absolute knowledge as you are suggesting you would have two problems.

1. The prophecy would not be conditional and Jeremiah 18 is rendered false.
2. The prophecy did not come to pass and so Jesus is rendered a liar and a false prophet.

Once again, you simply cannot escape the plain and simple facts as presented in the pages of Scripture.

According to you He "expected" and "hoped" that the kingdom would be ushered in during the first century but He really didn't know if it would or not!!!

He knew, just not in the sense you are insisting He must. False dichotomy is the operative phrase here.

According to you He cannot declare "the end from the beginning":

You are a liar.

This will be my last post in response to you. Every point has been made and repeated. The only thing left would be for me to enable you to bury yourself in more lies.

"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, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" (Isa. 46:9-10).

Both I, and the whole of the nation of Nineveh (in Jonah's day) say with Paul in response...

AMEN! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written:“ That You may be justified in Your words,And may overcome when You are judged.”

You deny what is so plain in Scripture so that you can continue in your blasphemy that even though the Father knew that the kingdom would not come to Israel in the first century He told the Jews that it would.

I have established your blasphemy and now you think that just because you type the word that somehow I'm guilty of it as well. The problem you have is two fold. First of all, saying it doesn't make it so. And secondly and more importantly, I happen to have also established your inability to keep from telling one lie after another. You credibility is nonexistent.

Further, I've denied no such thing! AND YOU KNEW THAT WHEN YOU WROTE THIS!!!

Do you know what it means to tell a lie Jerry? I mean if you want I can have my six year old daughter explain it to you in simpler terms but basically when you say something that you know is not the truth, you lie. You lie more than anyone I know, Jerry! Literally, and without sarcasm or exaggeration, you lie more than anyone I know! I once worked with a guy named Roger (I don't recall his last name) who was a Satanist and virtually worshiped Marilyn Manson. He cussed like a mad man and hated anyone and anything associated with Christians or Christianity but I never knew him to be even half as prone to outright lying as you are! You need to repent Jerry. Right or wrong, there is just no excuse for such lying from a man who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ! I know a big chunk of it comes as an emotional response to my having exposed your blasphemy but such a response, while expected, should at least be short lived. If you don't like being accused of blasphemy then stop saying things that amount to "If the Bible is understood to mean what it says, God must be a liar.", otherwise, get used to my calling you on it, or else go say it somewhere other than on TOL.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[patman]

Yes,the future is open. But as you say,the Father "knows" the time when the Son will return.

You say that the following verse has nothing to do with any "actual fixed day and time":

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mt.24:36).

The Lortd Jesus said that the Father knows the day and hour when the Son will return but you say that the day does not have an actual fixed day and time!

How could the Father KNOW the day and hour if that time is still up in the air?

In His grace,--Jerry

The same way only a man can know the day and hour that he will is ready to ask his love to marry him... He knows when the time is right. Paul tells us after Israel is compelled to jealousy he will return (this is what I believe the fullness of the gentiles refers to...) Freewill is too unclear for anyone to know when they will freely change their mind to follow Christ.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Clete, you have a difficult time separating fact from fiction. Take the following words which demonstrate that at the time when the Lord Jesus spoke of His return in glory the Father knew the day and hour when that return would happen:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mt.24:36).

You admit that He knew "precisely when it would happen:

He knew precisely when it would happen but that knowledge was based upon a conditional promise.

How can we believe that He "knew precisely when it would happen" with your previous statement in view? You said:

God expected, or at the very least hoped that Israel would repent and accept their risen Messiah and prophesied accordingly.

According to you the Lord did not even know whether or not Israel would repent. How could the Lord know precisely when the Son would return if He did not even know whether or not the nation of Israel would repent?

You talk in circles while speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You say that He "knew precisely when it would happen" but yet you say that He did not have "absolute knowledge". Please explain how knowing the precise day and hour is not the same thing as absolute knowledge.

Here you try to show that the Lord's foreknowledge is not absolute:

He knew it in the same sense that I know when I will show up for work tomorrow morning. There are a lot of things that might prevent me from going to work tomorrow and so my doing so is conditional but that in no way, except in the most woodenly literal sense, means that I don't know when I'm going to show up for work in the morning.

Clete,let me explain something to you. The Lord has foreknowledge. You do not. It is ridiculous to attempt to argue that since your knowledge of things in the future cannot be absolute then the Father's knowledge of the future cannot be absolute.

Your whole argument revolves around the idea that the Father could not have foreknowledge of whether or not the nation of Israel would meet the following conditions for the return of the Son as set forth by Peter:

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you" (Acts 3:19-20).

According to you the Father did not have a foreknowledge of whether or not the nation of Israel would repent. He expected that they would and He hoped that they would but in reality He just did not know.

But that idea is directly contradicted by the following words:

"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, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" (Isa. 46:9-10).

This will be my last post in response to you.

I don't blame you for running and hiding. The deeper you get into this discussion the more you prove that you put more faith in your petty ideas than you do in the Word of God.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[ApologeticJedi]

So Jerry,

Your entire argument is that because the passage says that the Father knew when the return would be, that this proves God's exhaustive knowledge of the future? Is that really the best you have?

I know when my meeting tomorrow is going to be without exhaustive foreknowledge. I can say, in everyday language "I know when tomorrows meeting will occur." Now if the building falls down and the meeting is canceled then my statement has to change to "I knew when the meeting would have been."

God declares the end from the beginning .. he doesn't know the end from the beginning, he declares it ... and he is able to declare it changed as well.

 

[Clete]

I don't blame you for running and hiding. The deeper you get into this discussion the more you prove that you put more faith in your petty ideas than you do in the Word of God.

How predictable. This sort of tactic is all you've got, isn't Jerry. :chuckle:

Notice I'm still here you stupid idiotic jackass! I'll respond again if an when you present something that I haven't already responded too that isn't merely another lie.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[sentientsynth]

The same way only a man can know the day and hour that he will is ready to ask his love to marry him... He knows when the time is right.

Completely foreign to the Hebrew mind. In the those days, the father of the groom announced the day. He told no one what day it would be.

If someone were to ask a betrothed man what day he would be married, the correct response would be, "No man knows, not even me (the son), but only my father knows."

The groom wasn't even the one to ask the woman for marriage. The father of the groom approached the father of the bride.

By the way, when it came to my proposal, I didn't set some day. One day, I decided to propose. I went and bought a ring. It sat there a month before the moment to ask hit me ... out of the blue. (read: no foreknowledge)

 

[sentientsynth]

Hi Jerry.

Thanks for your work in this thread. Seems to me I agree with what you're saying.

I think the prophecy was conditional too. Check out the use of the Greek word "an" (alpha nu) which is left untranslated in the English versions of Matt_10:33, 16:28, 23:39, 24:34. (I don't think that there is a way to express in English the "an" in these verses without adding a whole host of words.)

I also agree that the Father knew the exact day and hour that the Lord would return. That is, the Father knew that Israel would reject their Messiah. Isn't that written in the prophets somewhere? Seems to me the Father has foreknowledge of the fulfillment of contingencies. But I'd say it's even more than foreknowledge. I'd say it was decreed from the foundation of the world.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So Jerry,

Your entire argument is that because the passage says that the Father knew when the return would be, that this proves God's exhaustive knowledge of the future? Is that really the best you have?

Apologetic Jedi,

No,that is not what the argument is about. I am saying that the Father knew the day and hour when the Lord Jesus would return. He therefore knew that the generation then living would not remain alive to see that return. Therefore He would not tell the generation then living that the Lord Jesus would return during their lifetimes.

But Clete says that that is exactly what He did.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Hi Jerry.

Thanks for your work in this thread. Seems to me I agree with what you're saying.

Thanks,SS.

Seems to me the Father has foreknowledge of the fulfillment of contingencies. But I'd say it's even more than foreknowledge. I'd say it was decreed from the foundation of the world.

Most dispensationalists agree that if Israel would have accepted the Lord Jesus then the present "dispensation of the mystery" would never have come into existence. However,the fact that it had always been hidden in God demonstrates that the Lord was aware that Israel would reject the Messiah:

"And to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things" (Eph. 3: 9;ASV).

It is impossible that God did not know that Israel would reject the Messiah. Otherwise the "dispensation of the mystery" would make no sense.

The "blindness" of Israel was another secret that was hidden in God until revealed by Paul:

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Ro.11:25).

It is inconceivable that God did not know that the nation of Israel would reject the promised Messiah before it happened.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[sentientsynth]

Most dispensationalists agree that if Israel would have accepted the Lord Jesus then the present "dispensation of the mystery" would never have come into existence.

I do agree that if Israel would have accepted the Lord Jesus then the present dispensation would never have come into existence. This in itself isn't objectionable.

Thing is, as you say ...

It is inconceivable that God did not know that the nation of Israel would reject the promised Messiah before it happened.

Didn't you know that I'm a smelly ol' 5-pointer?