 |
Battle Royale X: Is the Future Settled or Open? (Book)
Bob Enyart, pastor of Denver Bible Church, debates Professor SamLamerson of D. James Kennedy's Knox Theological Seminar in Ft.Lauderdale, Florida.
TheologyOnline.com (TOL) hosteda debate on Openness because of the popularity of the issue, and becauseof the centrality of the matter. The Open View holds that the future isnot settled, but open, and therefore unknowable. The Settled View is aconvenient name for the divergent theological positions that agree intheir opposition to the Open View. Most Christians, regardless of theirstand on predestination and free will, believe that the future isexhaustively foreknown and settled, and therefore not open.
TOL hasbecome one of the more popular web sites for discussing the Bible,evangelizing unbelievers, and debating creation, morality, currentevents, and theology. Founded by elders of Colorado’s Denver BibleChurch, over the years, thousands of TOL members have posted millions ofquestions and comments, and thousands more people read the boards (theforums, discussion threads, and Battle Royales). So, we expect thatduring the debate and for years to come, a significant audience willread and evaluate Battle Royale X on Openness Theology.
Samuel Lamerson, Ph.D.
Bob Jones University, B.A.; Knox Theological Seminary, M.Div.,magnacumlaude; Trinity International University, Ph.D.
As a Knox graduate, Professor Lamerson is uniquely qualified to sharefirst-hand experiences with students. Additionally, he brings with him16 years of pastoral experience ranging from senior pastor to directorof children's ministries. Prior to coming to Knox, Professor Lamersonpreviously taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
As a member of several scholarly societies, he is a frequent lecturerand has presented papers on various topics including the parables,contextualization of the Gospel, and ethics. His areas of specialinterest include the synoptic Gospels, the historical Jesus, forgivenessin Second-Temple Judaism, and the parables.
Publications: - English Grammar to Ace New Testament Greek. Zondervan, 2004.
- "The Openness of God and the Historical Jesus" presented to the annual meeting, Evangelical Theological Society, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 2001.
- "Excommunication" in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible; "En-Dor" in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible.
- "The Relationship Between Eschatology and the Ethics in the Gospel of Matthew" presented to the annual meeting, Evangelical Theological Society, Boston, Massachusetts, 1999.
- "Evangelicals and the Quest for the Historical Jesus," in Currents in Research: Biblical Studies, Fall 2002.
- Reviews in such noted publications as The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, The Journal of Biblical Literature and Trinity Journal.
Show table of contents Hide table of contents
Open View Debate: Table of Contents
Introduction
Web Announcement
Participant Biographies
Let the Battle Begin
Settled View Post 1A: Opening Statement Against the Open View with Arguments fromMat. 6:8 and Prophecy about Peter
Open View Post 1B: Opening StatementSupporting the Open View Contrasting the Philosophical Versus theBiblical Attributes of God.
Settled View Post 2A: Rebuttal to Enyart’s Divine Attributes Argument
Open View Post 2B: Answering Propheciesabout Judas; Presentation of Non-prophecies Concept
Settled View Post 3A: Reply to Enyart’s Judas Argument; Reply to Non-prophecyConcept
Open View Post 3B: Assessment of theDebate Progress; Columbine dad’s letter to Lamerson; How to falsifyopenness; Isaiah settled view.
Settled View Post 4A: Q&A Only.
Open View Post 4B: Conditional Prophecy;Problem of Evil; On How to Make a Rooster Crow (about Peter); OnDeclaring Victory.
Settled View Post 5A: Reintroduction of Mat. 6:8 Argument; Reintroduction ofPeter Argument; Reintroduction of Judas Argument
Open View Post 5B: Assessment of theDebate Progress; Exhaustive Foreknowledge and General ImmutabilityConcepts come from Greek Philosophy.
Settled View Post 6A: Author’s Intent Hermeneutic; Reintroduction of Mat. 6:8;Reintroduction of Peter Argument; Reintroduction of Judas Argument
Open View Post 6B: JONAH Hermeneutic:Jehovah’s Obvious Nativity Attributes Hermeneutic; Openness through theEntire Bible (in thirds)
Settled View Post 7A: Enyart is Unresponsive and Misunderstands the LinguisticEvidence...
Open View Post 7B: Lamerson Appeals to 16Non-Scriptural Authorities; Almost all References to God are NotMetaphors; Three Proof-Texts Deal; JONAH and NOAH.
Settled View Post 8A: Defending Use of Non-Scriptural Authorities; EnyartUnresponsive on Peter and Judas Arguments; Historical GrammaticalHermeneutic; Micah 5:2; 1 Peter 1:2; Matthew 25:34; Defense of TolleLege Signature.
Open View Post 8B: Lamerson Denies thatGod’s Goodness takes Precedence over Quantitative Attribute ofKnowledge; Proof of Openness; Three Openness Proof Texts; Openness inthe Gospels; Contingency of the Second Coming; Lamerson Admits HisSettled View Side Often Appeals to Extra-Biblical Authorities.
Settled View Post 9A: OnJesus’ ‘Mistakes;’ On Jesus’ Divesting Himself of Attributes;Reintroduction of Peter Argument; Reintroduction of Judas Argument
Open View Post 9B: On Sam DefendingInfluence from Greek Philosophy; On Noah’s Name and Repentance; Psalm139:16 is about Fetology; On Peter and Judas; On Foreknowing Individuals
Settled View Post 10A: Paul IS Influenced by Pagans; Hebrews IS Influenced byPlato; Openness Has Jesus Making Mistakes; Openness Apparently Teachesthat Evil Happens for No Reason
Open View Post 10B: Living, Personal,Relational, Good, and Loving; Settled View Lost the Debate on its OwnTerms; Summarizing the Mat. 6:8, Peter and Judas Arguments; Settled ViewBias Regarding the Son of Man Title; Winning on Scriptural Terms; BobRole Plays Sam to Answer Remaining Questions
Appendix 1: Battle Royale General Rules
Appendix 2: Pool of Siloam
Appendix 3: The Fetology of Ps. 139:16
Hyperlink Index: List of Online Hyperlinks
| |
 |
lost your password?
