User Tag List

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 52

Thread: Is Bob Enyart's Argument Self Contradicting?

  1. #1
    Over 750 post club Dialogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    770
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 32 Times in 14 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    457385

    Is Bob Enyart's Argument Self Contradicting?

    Bob Enyart wrote the following reply to Tambora in this thread.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Enyart
    Tambora, I see that a lot. He decrees everything; doesn't decree the really bad stuff. The criminal acts by his own will -- but he could not have done otherwise. God could have decreed any way He wanted to -- but He eternally had foreknowledge of the way He decreed. Etc., etc., etc.
    Bob,
    My reply was the following:

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Cavinism has developed some biblical answers to your philosophical challenges.

    One of those is the notion of compatibilism, which (as you probably already know) claims that the criminal makes his own decision according to the dictates of his own will yet cannot violate God's active or permissive will.

    Furthermore, Calvinism can and does tolerate the notion that God actively decrees some things (like the creation of man) and passively permits other things (like the fall).

    Your argument here, and arguments you have made on your show and during the White debate about the character of the God (as Calvinism teaches) is really nothing more then the problem of evil rewarmed for Open Theist consumption.

    My question is, how does removing God's exhaustive foreknowledge bail God out (so to speak)?

    It doesn't.

    In Calvinism (at least the kind I hold to), God passively decrees to allow the criminal to commit his evil act. In Arminianism, God knows that the criminal will do so but still allows it. In Open Theism, God doesn't know from before the foundation of the world, but surely knows seconds before it will happen, right?

    So how is it that your emotionally charged arguments against the Calvinist don't similarly fall on the Open Theist?

    God could have stopped the criminal but chose not to. Isn't it true that in Him we live and move and have our being? Couldn't God have stopped the violent criminal from committing the crime? Couldn't God have given the criminal a massive coronary and stopped him from murdering an innocent person.

    If God is, (as you rightly say) Omnicompetent, then God cannot be unable to prevent evil even if God is in time and can only see the current actions of a criminal and know the current state of his heart.

    God sees the man taking the gun out of the dresser drawer, He sees the man raising the gun to use it violently, He sees the man aiming the gun. Isn't an omnicompetent God capable of interrupting the process and saving the life of the victim?

    So even in Open Theism, if the criminal kills the innocent victim, it is because God decreed in the moment to allow it, isn't it?

    Bob, the reality is that everything you criticize about a God Who foreknew and who decreed to permit evil in eternity past is true of a God who is only capable of knowing the current state of affairs and current motives of a criminals heart. Your own argument ends up being a critique on your own theology. The only different is the amount of time God has had to contemplate the actions he decrees to permit.

    Surely you won't arguing that God would have made a better decision in the case of a killer if He had more time to think about it, are you?

    Bob, The real distinction is that the Calvinist can confidently assert the truth of Romans 8:28 even in the case of violent crime whereas the Open Theist has to claim that God knows no such thing to be true. We know that even in the most heinous of actions, God planned from eternity past to make that work for the good of those who love Him.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I am wondering if any Open Theists have an answer or are open Theists, and perhaps Bob Enyart, willing to drop the argument..?
    αξιον εστιν το αρνιον
    Worthy is the Lamb

  2. #2
    Over 750 post club Dialogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    770
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 32 Times in 14 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    457385
    Chirp....Chirp....Chirp.....

    I guess the sound of crickets means that the OT camp is abandoning this line of argumentation then?


    ....probably a good idea.

    αξιον εστιν το αρνιον
    Worthy is the Lamb

  3. #3
    Over 2000 post club way 2 go's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,222
    Thanks
    2,158
    Thanked 1,456 Times in 823 Posts

    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    420608
    calvinism has God decree everything, good and bad

    open theism has an open future where anything can happen
    nothing decreed \ foreordained

    decree=
    Theology. one of the eternal purposes of God, by which events are foreordained.

    foreordained=
    to predestine; predetermine

  4. #4
    Over 750 post club Dialogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    770
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 32 Times in 14 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    457385
    Quote Originally Posted by way 2 go View Post
    calvinism has God decree everything, good and bad.
    ...but not in the same way.

    This is the error of equal ultimacy applied to the problem of evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by way 2 go
    open theism has an open future where anything can happen
    nothing decreed \ foreordained
    Which makes a difference how?

    Really, this argument doesn't hold up under close scrutiny.

    Do open theists really think that God was totally ignorant of the possibility that some people might do evil things to other people?

    Even given open theism's philosophical constraint on God, couldn't an "omni-competent" God have made the decision to prevent those evil things from occurring?

    And since He didn't decree to prevent them, He decreed to allow them.
    αξιον εστιν το αρνιον
    Worthy is the Lamb

  5. #5
    Does Whatever A Light-House Can Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    20,725
    Thanks
    1,182
    Thanked 13,385 Times in 10,249 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147886
    Quote Originally Posted by Dialogos View Post
    Bob Enyart wrote the following reply to Tambora in this thread.

    My reply was the following:

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Cavinism has developed some biblical answers to your philosophical challenges.

    One of those is the notion of compatibilism, which (as you probably already know) claims that the criminal makes his own decision according to the dictates of his own will yet cannot violate God's active or permissive will.
    Calvinism developed Biblical answers? That's a bit contradictory, don't you think? Either Calvinism developed them or they're Biblical. They can't be both. And as the Bible doesn't support them it's obviously the former.

    Now I know you'll disagree, so I'll wait for your response with the relevant Scripture passages to show that "compatabilism" is Biblical.

    P.S.
    Snardblot!

    Furthermore, Calvinism can and does tolerate the notion that God actively decrees some things (like the creation of man) and passively permits other things (like the fall).
    But did He ordain/predestine that which He permits?

    Or is it your argument that God's active will did not produce the Fall and was therefore violated by His permissive will?

    Or are you saying His active will did not have a plan for anything to happen at the time the Fall took place, and by default for anything that took place after that, at least until the Fall?

    Your argument here, and arguments you have made on your show and during the White debate about the character of the God (as Calvinism teaches) is really nothing more then the problem of evil rewarmed for Open Theist consumption.
    There is no problem of evil for the open view.

    My question is, how does removing God's exhaustive foreknowledge bail God out (so to speak)?
    Bail Him out of what?

    It doesn't.
    I assume this means that it doesn't bail Him out, but again I ask "of what?"

    In Calvinism (at least the kind I hold to), God passively decrees to allow the criminal to commit his evil act. In Arminianism, God knows that the criminal will do so but still allows it. In Open Theism, God doesn't know from before the foundation of the world, but surely knows seconds before it will happen, right?
    How does one passively decree something?

    God didn't know if Abraham would sacrifice Isaac until the knife was on it's way down.

    So how is it that your emotionally charged arguments against the Calvinist don't similarly fall on the Open Theist?
    We don't argue that God decreed/foreordained/predestined, etc. that evil would take place.

    God could have stopped the criminal but chose not to. Isn't it true that in Him we live and move and have our being? Couldn't God have stopped the violent criminal from committing the crime? Couldn't God have given the criminal a massive coronary and stopped him from murdering an innocent person.
    Yes, He could have stopped it, but why? Why should God step in and stop every evil act from ever happening? What purpose would that serve?

    Also, your last sentence there should have a question mark.

    If God is, (as you rightly say) Omnicompetent, then God cannot be unable to prevent evil even if God is in time and can only see the current actions of a criminal and know the current state of his heart.
    And yet the very argument of Calvinism is that God is unable to stop these things from happening. That is also the argument of the Arminianist.
    But, hey, if you want to contradict yourself by calling God omnicompetent while you argue He couldn't stop it, go right ahead. That's the very essence of Calvinism.

    God sees the man taking the gun out of the dresser drawer, He sees the man raising the gun to use it violently, He sees the man aiming the gun. Isn't an omnicompetent God capable of interrupting the process and saving the life of the victim?
    Yes. So what?

    So even in Open Theism, if the criminal kills the innocent victim, it is because God decreed in the moment to allow it, isn't it?
    It isn't necessary for God to decree anything for evil to happen. He does not need to decree that He allows it. He simply has to allow it. And I've already made my point on that subject above.

    Bob, the reality is that everything you criticize about a God Who foreknew and who decreed to permit evil in eternity past is true of a God who is only capable of knowing the current state of affairs and current motives of a criminals heart. Your own argument ends up being a critique on your own theology. The only different is the amount of time God has had to contemplate the actions he decrees to permit.
    You're arguing a fallacy by assuming god must necessarily decree that He allows evil to happen.

    Surely you won't arguing that God would have made a better decision in the case of a killer if He had more time to think about it, are you?
    God allowing evil to take place has made the right decision. Do you know why?

    Bob, The real distinction is that the Calvinist can confidently assert the truth of Romans 8:28 even in the case of violent crime whereas the Open Theist has to claim that God knows no such thing to be true. We know that even in the most heinous of actions, God planned from eternity past to make that work for the good of those who love Him.
    It is arrogance and ignorance that lead you to the false conclusions, based on false assumptions [which can only lead one direction], that the OV view of God disallows for Romans 8:28 to be true. God being omnicompetent can and will do as Paul wrote, regardless of the evil that happens; and He doesn't even have to know about the evil until it happens. He is powerful enough to do His will regardless of our actions or His foreknowledge of them. Because He is God. Too bad you don't think you serve a God powerful enough to do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialogos View Post
    Chirp....Chirp....Chirp.....

    I guess the sound of crickets means that the OT camp is abandoning this line of argumentation then?


    ....probably a good idea.

    I am not surprised you couldn't even wait 24 hours. You are a dishonest coward.


  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lighthouse For Your Post:

    LoneStar (April 23rd, 2016),Tambora (April 23rd, 2016)

  7. #6
    Over 750 post club Dialogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    770
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 32 Times in 14 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    457385
    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse
    Now I know you'll disagree, so I'll wait for your response with the relevant Scripture passages to show that "compatabilism" is Biblical.
    Here's two biblical examples.

    God predestined the crucifixion of Jesus, yet Pilate wussed out and gave the city of Jerusalem Barabas instead.

    God brought destruction to the city of Jerusalem and tore down the city and the temple, yet the Babylonian army willingly carried out God's judgment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse
    But did He ordain/predestine that which He permits?
    Did He decide beforehand (ordain/predestine) what He would allow and what He would not allow?

    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse
    Or is it your argument that God's active will did not produce the Fall and was therefore violated by His permissive will?
    I don't understand the question the way it is phrased. God's permissive will and active will just describe what God actively causes (like the fact that He causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good...) and what God allows to happen (like God giving them up in the lust of their hearts to impurity).

    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse
    Or are you saying His active will did not have a plan for anything to happen at the time the Fall took place, and by default for anything that took place after that, at least until the Fall?
    No.

    Even the Open Theist says God planned for the fall, right?

    Enyart refers to it as God's contingency plan.

    Don't you think that God is smart enough to know that if the fall occurred, evil would follow?

    Which is why your statement here is just wishful thinking?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse
    There is no problem of evil for the open view.
    Of course there is. A God who has forethought (forget foreknowledge for the sake of discussion) could surely realize that if man took of the fruit of the forbidden tree, then evil would follow and that means men doing evil toward one another.

    God had to either plan to allow the fall or prevent it and we both know what happened, right?

    So when I say "bail God out" I mean that Enyart's argument doesn't make God any less "in charge" of letting evil things happen.

    God let Adam and Eve fall.

    He could have plucked the tree right out of the ground when Eve and the serpent were conversing. He could have killed the serpent, or at least stopped it from talking (if God can make a donkey talk, surely He can make a snake shut-up). He could have sent an eagle to snatch the fruit away from Eve before she had a chance to bite, or He could have put the tree in a place where they couldn't get to it in the first place.

    Whether you are a Calvinist or an Open Theist, the scripture forces you to conclude that Adam and Eve fell because God let them.

    And that is the same answer for all the terrible things Enyart talks about when he criticizes Calvinism.

    There isn't a single tragic, vile, disgusting perpetration of evil that man undertakes that God couldn't have prevented from happening which means that every one of them happened because God let them happen.

    I know that can be sobering, but its the only biblical answer other than attacking God's competence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse
    How does one passively decree something?
    By saying that if something happens, it will not be prevented.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse
    God didn't know if Abraham would sacrifice Isaac until the knife was on it's way down.
    We've debated this example before. But lets take your take on it, for argument's sake. Was God, at any moment during that whole process, unable to stop Abraham?

    If Abraham had chosen to disregard the Angel of the Lord, would God have been impotent to stop Abraham from sacrificing Isaac?

    Clearly you understand that He would not have been. In fact, when I spoke of evil you say:
    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse
    Yes, He could have stopped it, but why? Why should God step in and stop every evil act from ever happening? What purpose would that serve?
    Your questions put you exactly on the right track. We don't know why God allows evil to happen, what we do know is that God is never powerless to stop it, He lets it happen, and if you are a Calvinist, you can affirm that God had a plan and purpose to work that for good to those who love Him and are called by His purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse
    And yet the very argument of Calvinism is that God is unable to stop these things from happening. That is also the argument of the Arminianist.
    The argument of the Calvinist is that God can, but didn't choose to.

    If what you mean is that God doesn't change His mind about His eternal decree, then I would agree that this is a distinctive of Calvinism but it makes no difference insofar as the moral argument is concerned, does it?

    Calvinism: "God, in His eternal decree, allowed a morally corrupt evil to occur."

    Open Theism: "God, in His traversing experience through time, allowed a morally corrupt evil to occur."

    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse
    But, hey, if you want to contradict yourself by calling God omnicompetent while you argue He couldn't stop it, go right ahead. That's the very essence of Calvinism.
    Not really, the Calvinistic conception that God acts consistently with His eternal purpose and decree just means He isn't bumbling and fumbling His way through time constantly contradicting Himself and chasing His own tail. But this is really an evasion of Enyart's emotional argument against James White's assertion that all wickedness is meaningful rather than meaningless.

    Enyart argues that some wicked actions are meaningless, the problem is that Enyart must concede then that God allows meaningless actions to occur.


    Now for some odds and ends.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse
    You're arguing a fallacy by assuming god must necessarily decree that He allows evil to happen.
    A God who knows something could happen, or will happen, makes a decision to either allow it or to prevent it.

    That's a decree, you may not like the verbiage, but a decree is really just a decision made by someone with the power to carry it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse
    God allowing evil to take place has made the right decision. Do you know why?
    Wrong.

    An omnipotent or omnicompetent being either makes a decision to allow something to happen or decides to prevent it from happening because an omnicompetent being always has the power to prevent it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse
    I am not surprised you couldn't even wait 24 hours. You are a dishonest coward.
    Unnecessary.
    αξιον εστιν το αρνιον
    Worthy is the Lamb

  8. #7
    Does Whatever A Light-House Can Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    20,725
    Thanks
    1,182
    Thanked 13,385 Times in 10,249 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147886
    Quote Originally Posted by Dialogos View Post
    Here's two biblical examples.

    God predestined the crucifixion of Jesus, yet Pilate wussed out and gave the city of Jerusalem Barabas instead.

    God brought destruction to the city of Jerusalem and tore down the city and the temple, yet the Babylonian army willingly carried out God's judgment.
    How are either of those compatabilism?

    Did He decide beforehand (ordain/predestine) what He would allow and what He would not allow?

    Yes.
    Which means it was not passive, but actively willed.

    I don't understand the question the way it is phrased. God's permissive will and active will just describe what God actively causes (like the fact that He causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good...) and what God allows to happen (like God giving them up in the lust of their hearts to impurity).
    Of course you don't understand it, you're an idiot.

    No.
    So God planned for something other than the Fall to take place and yet the Fall took place instead, violating His plan?

    Even the Open Theist says God planned for the fall, right?

    Enyart refers to it as God's contingency plan.
    God planned for the contingency, as He had given Adam and Eve wills of their own and thus knew them capable of both obedience and disobedience.

    Don't you think that God is smart enough to know that if the fall occurred, evil would follow?
    So?

    Which is why your statement here is just wishful thinking?

    Of course there is. A God who has forethought (forget foreknowledge for the sake of discussion) could surely realize that if man took of the fruit of the forbidden tree, then evil would follow and that means men doing evil toward one another.
    So?

    God had to either plan to allow the fall or prevent it and we both know what happened, right?
    So?

    So when I say "bail God out" I mean that Enyart's argument doesn't make God any less "in charge" of letting evil things happen.
    So?

    God let Adam and Eve fall.
    So?

    He could have plucked the tree right out of the ground when Eve and the serpent were conversing. He could have killed the serpent, or at least stopped it from talking (if God can make a donkey talk, surely He can make a snake shut-up). He could have sent an eagle to snatch the fruit away from Eve before she had a chance to bite, or He could have put the tree in a place where they couldn't get to it in the first place.
    Or He could have not put it in the garden at all. I'm not surprised you were too dumb to think of that.

    But God put it there so Adam and Eve would have a real choice. And He allowed them to choose, regardless of the consequences, because He gave them wills of their own and if He had not let them use them that would have defeated the purpose.

    Whether you are a Calvinist or an Open Theist, the scripture forces you to conclude that Adam and Eve fell because God let them.
    Except that Calvinists tend to say God predestined them to disobey.

    As for the open view this is not a problem.

    And that is the same answer for all the terrible things Enyart talks about when he criticizes Calvinism.

    There isn't a single tragic, vile, disgusting perpetration of evil that man undertakes that God couldn't have prevented from happening which means that every one of them happened because God let them happen.

    I know that can be sobering, but its the only biblical answer other than attacking God's competence.
    Again, this is not a problem for the open view.

    Of course God let them happen. Because we were created with freedom of will, and not allowing us to use that would defeat the purpose.

    By saying that if something happens, it will not be prevented.
    "If"? Are Calvinists allowed to use that word?

    We've debated this example before. But lets take your take on it, for argument's sake. Was God, at any moment during that whole process, unable to stop Abraham?
    Clearly not. So?

    If Abraham had chosen to disregard the Angel of the Lord, would God have been impotent to stop Abraham from sacrificing Isaac?
    Didn't the angel grab Abraham's hand?

    Clearly you understand that He would not have been. In fact, when I spoke of evil you say:

    Your questions put you exactly on the right track. We don't know why God allows evil to happen, what we do know is that God is never powerless to stop it, He lets it happen, and if you are a Calvinist, you can affirm that God had a plan and purpose to work that for good to those who love Him and are called by His purpose.
    As an open viewer I don't deny that God has a plan or that He will work all things together for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.

    The argument of the Calvinist is that God can, but didn't choose to.
    That's the argument of the open view. That argument of Calvinism is that God decreed it and thus cannot do anything to make something else happen instead.

    If what you mean is that God doesn't change His mind about His eternal decree, then I would agree that this is a distinctive of Calvinism but it makes no difference insofar as the moral argument is concerned, does it?

    Calvinism: "God, in His eternal decree, allowed a morally corrupt evil to occur."

    Open Theism: "God, in His traversing experience through time, allowed a morally corrupt evil to occur."
    Calvinism makes God more culpable than allowing it.

    Not really, the Calvinistic conception that God acts consistently with His eternal purpose and decree just means He isn't bumbling and fumbling His way through time constantly contradicting Himself and chasing His own tail. But this is really an evasion of Enyart's emotional argument against James White's assertion that all wickedness is meaningful rather than meaningless.
    Accusatory implications and nothing more.

    Enyart argues that some wicked actions are meaningless, the problem is that Enyart must concede then that God allows meaningless actions to occur.
    Not a problem.

    Now for some odds and ends.

    A God who knows something could happen, or will happen, makes a decision to either allow it or to prevent it.

    That's a decree, you may not like the verbiage, but a decree is really just a decision made by someone with the power to carry it out.
    You need to look up the word "decree."

    Wrong.

    An omnipotent or omnicompetent being either makes a decision to allow something to happen or decides to prevent it from happening because an omnicompetent being always has the power to prevent it.
    You clear;ly didn't understand what I posted. No surprise there, moron.

    Unnecessary.
    The truth hurts, eh?


  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lighthouse For Your Post:

    LoneStar (April 23rd, 2016),Tambora (April 23rd, 2016)

  10. #8
    Over 750 post club Dialogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    770
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 32 Times in 14 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    457385
    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
    How are either of those compatabilism?
    Do some research, you are clearly clueless about compatibilism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse
    Which means it was not passive, but actively willed.
    Define it however you like. Both the Calvinist and the Open Theist believe that God decide beforehand to allow evil to happen. And even in Open Theism God decides to allow specific evil actions to occur before they happen or as they are happening.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse
    So God planned for something other than the Fall to take place and yet the Fall took place instead, violating His plan?
    Uh, maybe in Open Theism, not the settled view. In the settled view God planned to allow the fall to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse
    God planned for the contingency, as He had given Adam and Eve wills of their own and thus knew them capable of both obedience and disobedience.
    And so, even in Open Theism, God planned for their disobedience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse
    Quote Originally Posted by me
    Don't you think that God is smart enough to know that if the fall occurred, evil would follow?
    So?

    Quote Originally Posted by me
    A God who has forethought (forget foreknowledge for the sake of discussion) could surely realize that if man took of the fruit of the forbidden tree, then evil would follow and that means men doing evil toward one another.
    So?

    Quote Originally Posted by me
    God had to either plan to allow the fall or prevent it and we both know what happened, right?
    So?
    Thanks for helping me make my point.

    So far your answers of "so?" have illustrated that in Open Theism, God knew that the fall was possible and that men doing evil toward one another would follow from the fall.

    Now you basically concede my argument when you reply as follows:
    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse
    Quote Originally Posted by me
    So when I say "bail God out" I mean that Enyart's argument doesn't make God any less "in charge" of letting evil things happen.
    So?
    So..., Enyart's statement during his debate with James is incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Enyart
    James White constantly says that all wickedness is meaningful, because even though He doesn’t want to be held to it, like Augustine, He traces all evil directly to the OMNIs and IMs. And that’s another thing about open theism, which James White has admitted, even on its face, that unlike Calvinism, open theism does not bring men to question the goodness of God.
    (Bob Enyart, Enyart/White Debate)
    There is no material difference between God decreeing to allow evil men to harm others before the foundation of the world and God decreeing to allow men to harm others 15 seconds before it happens.

    We either say that God upheld His character of righteousness and Justice and Holiness in that decision or we compromise our belief in the Holiness of God.

    Case closed.
    αξιον εστιν το αρνιον
    Worthy is the Lamb

  11. #9
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,334 Times in 1,100 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1097774
    Quote Originally Posted by Dialogos View Post
    God sees the man taking the gun out of the dresser drawer, He sees the man raising the gun to use it violently, He sees the man aiming the gun. Isn't an omnicompetent God capable of interrupting the process and saving the life of the victim?

    So even in Open Theism, if the criminal kills the innocent victim, it is because God decreed in the moment to allow it, isn't it?
    Of course not.

    That doesn't even make sense.

    When you allow your child to ride his bike in the park alone for the first time are you decreeing the specific events that will happen to him on his maiden journey? Did you plan that he would slide on some gravel and skin his knee? Did you decree that he would run over the thorn and get a flat tire?? Of course not! The only thing you decreed was that he would be free to ride his bike to the park without you.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  12. #10
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,334 Times in 1,100 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1097774
    Quote Originally Posted by Dialogos View Post
    There is no material difference between God decreeing to allow evil men to harm others before the foundation of the world and God decreeing to allow men to harm others 15 seconds before it happens.
    That's true!!

    But that isn't Calvinism.

    In Calvinism God is not just allowing men to do evil... He's orchestrating men to do evil.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  13. #11
    Over 750 post club Dialogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    770
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 32 Times in 14 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    457385
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight View Post
    That's true!!

    But that isn't Calvinism.

    In Calvinism God is not just allowing men to do evil... He's orchestrating men to do evil.
    Wrong.

    This article from CARM disproves that misrepresentation.


    "Decrees of God
    The Decrees of God are His eternal purpose, according to His will, whereby He has foreordained whatever comes to pass. His Decrees do not negate the responsibility of people for their sins, nor does it mean that God is responsible for sin. But, it necessarily is true that God knows all things actual as well as potential and that which exists exists due to His creative effort. It also follows that God has eternally known all events that have occurred, are occurring, and will occur in this creation including the fall, redemption, glorification, etc. Yet, God is not the one responsible for the sin in the world but has decreed, by His permission, that it be allowed to exist. Isaiah 46:9-10 says,

    "Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, ‘My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure."


    God's efficacious decrees are those decrees which God has purposed and determined to occur, i.e., Acts 2:23 "this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." God's permissive decrees are those decrees where He permits things to occur such as evil.
    (CARM.org, "Decrees of God")


    Matt Slick is a thoroughgoing Calvinist apologist.

    And So does the Westminster Confession of Faith:

    I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

    (Westminster Confession of Faith)

    The Westminster Confession denies flatly that God is the author of sin.

    ANd So does the 1689 London Baptist Confession
    God has decreed in Himself from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things which shall ever come to pass.
    - Yet in such a way that God is neither the author of sin nor does He have fellowship with any in the committing of sins, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature , nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.


    (1689 Baptist Confession, Spurgeon Revised)

    Spurgeon was also a thoroughgoing Calvinist and everyone recognizes the 1869 London Baptist Confession as Calvinistic

    And so does John MacArthur:
    "But God's role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things-including all the fruits of all the evil of all time-work together for a greater good (Romans 8:28).
    (John MacArthur, GTY archives, "Is God Responsible for Evil?")

    Nobody would accuse John MacArthur of being anything other than a Calvinist.

    And so does Johnathan Edwards:

    Thus in one sense God wills that what he hates come to pass, as well as what he loves. Edwards says,

    God may hate a thing as it is in itself, and considered simply as evil, and yet . . . it may be his will it should come to pass, considering all consequences. . . . God doesn't will sin as sin or for the sake of anything evil; though it be his pleasure so to order things, that he permitting, sin will come to pass; for the sake of the great good that by his disposal shall be the consequence. His willing to order things so that evil should come to pass, for the sake of the contrary good, is no argument that he doesn't hate evil, as evil: and if so, then it is no reason why he may not reasonably forbid evil as evil, and punish it as such.

    A quote from Johnathan Edwards quoted by John Piper, desiringgod.com

    Nobody would dispute Edward's Calvinism nor John Piper's commitment to Calvinism.

    When you let Calvinists tell you what Calvinists believe it pretty well dispels the misrepresentations that are common around here.
    αξιον εστιν το αρνιον
    Worthy is the Lamb

  14. #12
    TOL Subscriber Nang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    7,886
    Thanks
    1,251
    Thanked 2,287 Times in 1,644 Posts

    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    277390
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight View Post
    That's true!!

    But that isn't Calvinism.

    In Calvinism God is not just allowing men to do evil... He's orchestrating men to do evil.
    I truly regret whatever exposure you had in the past to "Calvinism," because you just cannot seem to get past false notions planted in your mind and heart that are inaccurate.

    Reformers such as myself, deny that God "orchestrates" or is the "author" of sin. The word of God Himself clearly blames Adam for sin and death in this world. Romans 5:12

    When God decreed to create this universe and all creatures within it, He had complete foreknowledge that He was not creating gods and that all things created would fall short of His goodness and glory.

    God cannot create God.

    To find fault with God then, for creating less than perfect creatures, you are telling God He should have never created anything at all. You are demanding all things must be Godly and perfect, or they should not exist at all.

    Which means, you are spitting in the face of God, for creating you, and being patient with you in your sinfulness and failings, and for showing you mercy and grace through the sacrifice of His Son on your behalf.

    Do you really wish none of this heaven, and earth, and all things created never existed?

    Do you really wish none of us were ever given the revelation and incarnation of God in the flesh?

    Do you really wish an everlasting life in the kingdom of God was never decreed for created mankind?

    Do you really think God should have just created the kingdom for the universal enjoyment of all creatures, even though they would never be perfect enough to inhabit such glory?

    Do you really think God has been wrong to promise all evil, sin, and death will be destroyed through the accomplishments in time of Jesus Christ?

    Are you really unwilling to persevere and wait for that glorious day when all things will be judged and set right, and hell will swallow all wickedness?

    Nang
    "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

    " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
    Gordon H. Clark

    "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
    Charles Spurgeon

  15. #13
    Does Whatever A Light-House Can Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    20,725
    Thanks
    1,182
    Thanked 13,385 Times in 10,249 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147886
    Quote Originally Posted by Dialogos View Post
    Do some research, you are clearly clueless about compatibilism.
    It doesn't even phase you that Calvinists had to make up a word to reconcile their contradictions?

    Snardblot!

    Define it however you like. Both the Calvinist and the Open Theist believe that God decide beforehand to allow evil to happen. And even in Open Theism God decides to allow specific evil actions to occur before they happen or as they are happening.
    You don't have any clue as to why God allows these things, do you?

    Uh, maybe in Open Theism, not the settled view. In the settled view God planned to allow the fall to happen.
    In the settled view God made The Fall happen.

    And so, even in Open Theism, God planned for their disobedience.
    For the contingency, as it was unknown when, or even if, it would ever happen.

    Thanks for helping me make my point.

    So far your answers of "so?" have illustrated that in Open Theism, God knew that the fall was possible and that men doing evil toward one another would follow from the fall.

    Now you basically concede my argument when you reply as follows:

    So..., Enyart's statement during his debate with James is incorrect.

    There is no material difference between God decreeing to allow evil men to harm others before the foundation of the world and God decreeing to allow men to harm others 15 seconds before it happens.

    We either say that God upheld His character of righteousness and Justice and Holiness in that decision or we compromise our belief in the Holiness of God.

    Case closed.
    No.

    The open view doesn't have a problem with God allowing these things to happen; because we understand that it was necessary for Him to allow it. We know why.

    Calvinism says God made it happen through predestination which makes Him directly responsible for the evil acts themselves rather than responsible simply for allowing them to happen.

    And as an open theist I have absolutely no problem with god allowing evil, because I understand why He did so.


  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lighthouse For Your Post:

    LoneStar (April 23rd, 2016),Tambora (April 23rd, 2016)

  17. #14
    Over 750 post club Dialogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    770
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 32 Times in 14 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    457385
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight View Post
    When you allow your child to ride his bike in the park alone for the first time are you decreeing the specific events that will happen to him on his maiden journey? Did you plan that he would slide on some gravel and skin his knee? Did you decree that he would run over the thorn and get a flat tire?? Of course not! The only thing you decreed was that he would be free to ride his bike to the park without you.
    So now God isn't omnipresent anymore either!?

    Your example hinges on my kid being outside of my reach, is that how evil happens? God could have stopped it if He were there but He didn't because He wasn't?
    αξιον εστιν το αρνιον
    Worthy is the Lamb

  18. #15
    TOL Subscriber chatmaggot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,098
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    29930
    Your provided quotes contradict your own conclusion.

    Follow this:

    Knight stated...

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight View Post
    That's true!!

    But that isn't Calvinism.

    In Calvinism God is not just allowing men to do evil... He's orchestrating men to do evil.
    You then replied...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialogos View Post
    Wrong.
    But the quotes you provide say...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialogos View Post
    The Decrees of God are His eternal purpose, according to His will, whereby He has foreordained whatever comes to pass.,,and that which exists exists due to His creative effort.

    God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass...

    The Westminster Confession denies flatly that God is the author of sin.

    God has decreed in Himself from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things which shall ever come to pass.

    When you let Calvinists tell you what Calvinists believe it pretty well dispels the misrepresentations that are common around here.
    Can't you see the self-contradictory nature in the statements? You highlighted the portion of your quotes that said God is not responsible for sin...I highlighted those that say that He is.

    Your own quotes substantiate Knight's initial statement.

    The quotes you provided state God has ordained everything and decreed everything that will ever come to pass...but then state that doesn't mean God is responsible for what comes to pass.

    This should be an example of madness.
    fidelis usque ad mortem

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us