James White to Debate Bob Enyart on Open Theism

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Couldn't let this go unchallenged. Is ice in some way objectively better or worse than liquid water?
Of course it is on both counts. Think about it and it will come to you. Desperately seeking neutral change is tilting at windmills.

AMR
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Change is ultimately for the better or for the worse. How can that which is absolute perfection, God, change as improvement and deterioration are both equally impossible?

I think you are confusing movement of God with change. The divine immutability should not be understood as implying immobility (the Unmoved Mover), as if there were no movement in God. It is even customary in theology to speak of God as actus purus, a God who is always in action. See also Exodus 3:14; Psalm 102:26-28; Isaiah 41:4; 48:12; Malachi 3:6; Romans 1:23; Hebrews 1:11,12; James 1:17.

The Scripture teaches us that God enters into manifold relations with man and, as it were, lives their life with them. There is change round about God, change in the relations of men to Him, but there is no change in His Being, His attributes, His purpose, His motives of action, or His promises.

The purpose to create was eternal with Him, and there was no change in Him when this purpose was realized by a single eternal act of His will.

The incarnation brought no change in the Being or perfections of God, nor in His purpose, for it was His eternal good pleasure to send the Son of His love into the world.

And if Scripture speaks of His repenting, changing His intention, and altering His relation to sinners when they repent, we should remember that this is only an anthropopathic way of speaking In reality the change is not in God, but in man and in man's relations to God.

It is important to maintain the immutability of God over against the Pelagian and Arminian doctrine that God is subject to change, not indeed in His Being, but in His knowledge and will, so that His decisions are to a great extent dependent on the actions of man; over against the pantheistic notion that God is an eternal becoming rather than an absolute Being, and that the unconscious Absolute is gradually developing into conscious personality in man; and over against the present tendency of some to speak of a finite, struggling, and gradually growing God.

The unsettled theist has God accreting knowledge at every moment. Per the unsettled theist, God therefore is more knowledgeable today than yesterday, and will be more knowledgeable tomorrow. Who is to say, then, that God in the future will learn so much that He will completely change on vital matters? To those that will say, no, God will remain true, how do they reconcile this with God's learning every moment? Why then is He learning anything if "no" is the answer? Well, the objector will state, that these new facts being learned are simply confirming God's perfect understanding. To which I would reply, being 99.9999 percent certain is not the same as being 100 percent certain. Only in the latter case do we find God knowing. If less than that then God is becoming, never ultimately knowing. The alternative is God who is always revising His "decision tree of possibilities" to achieve His ends based upon new accreted knowledge gained as his autonomous moral agents act and He learns of these actions. Common sense dictates this is an unreasonable view of the God who is.

AMR

Yessir.

God IS. Any becoming is not being. Any being is not becoming. Becoming is action/movement/economy, not essence.

Essence versus energies, even though you don't evidently like those terms.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
AMR, do you have any idea what PneumaticPsycho is on about? :idunno:

Stripper, he's evidently not answering.

I'm saying virtually the same as he's saying. Being is not becoming. Becoming is not being. Doing is not being.

Becoming is not change. Becoming is economy of action and movement.

To insist that God becomes in any sense of change is to impugn His very being.

You're captivated by a high-context language (English) that forces you to think conceptually rather than in a low-context manner. It's one of the results of the Tower of Babel that's influencing hearts and minds at the very language level of thought.

The reason you don't understand is because you haven't come out of that Babelian confusion. But that's the very mind and logic you're employing to assign things about God with "ideas".

You have no idea how vulnerable you are and how influenced and patterned you are by various means. And you're not alone.
 

S0ZO

New member
"God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not counting our trespasses against us".

Was the world not reconciled to God?

Did God once count our sins against us?

Sounds like God changed what He does by what He did.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
"God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not counting our trespasses against us".

Was the world not reconciled to God?

Did God once count our sins against us?

Sounds like God changed what He does by what He did.



Sounds to me that God changed us, by what He did.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
God had not previously tasted death or conquered death.

The triune Godhead did not experience death.

The divine Son of Man, provided by the triune Godhead, tasted and conquered death in the stead of His spiritual offspring.
 

S0ZO

New member
The triune Godhead did not experience death.
Jesus is God. God tasted death. Do you deny that Jesus is God? Do you deny that Jesus tasted death?

The divine Son of Man, provided by the triune Godhead, tasted and conquered death in the stead of His spiritual offspring.
What???

Are you saying that Jesus ceased being God?
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Jesus is God. God tasted death. Do you deny that Jesus is God? Do you deny that Jesus tasted death?


I am saying that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit did not experience what God the Son experienced in the physical death of Jesus.

What???

Are you saying that Jesus ceased being God?

No.

I am only saying Jesus, whose Person was the Son of God, who was also the Son of Man provided by the triune God, was sent from God to atone for the sins of His brethren.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
God had not previously tasted death or conquered death.

Excellent point. In fact, God had never known what it actually felt like to be one of those humans He created. Which is what "tasted death" describes very well. I have no doubt, when He created Adam, He did it understanding He would become flesh and dwell among us. What a Great God we serve.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
A created human being can change their minds and purposes, because creatures/creation are mutable in essence.

But God is Creator; not "creature."

Open Theists contend Immutable God changes His mind and even His intentions, essentially just like creatures.

Q. If God could/would change what He is . . . what would He then be?
A. Mutable like His creatures. No longer God.

No way :noway:

What? Like the creatures created in His image? :sherlock:
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Change is ultimately for the better or for the worse.
You say this as if you're including any possible change, but then in response to Vinny, you speak of neutral change. So, ultimately, no -- you have contradicted yourself.

The incarnation brought no change in the Being or perfections of God, nor in His purpose, for it was His eternal good pleasure to send the Son of His love into the world.

As has been said many times, we do not claim the incarnation changed God's being or perfection -- just that it is a change.

And any change means the literal sense of immutability does not apply.

Hence my question about the Calvinist's special definition for immutability that excludes certain kinds of changes.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
The Scripture teaches us that God enters into manifold relations with man and, as it were, lives their life with them. There is change round about God, change in the relations of men to Him, but there is no change in His Being, His attributes, His purpose, His motives of action, or His promises.

The purpose to create was eternal with Him, and there was no change in Him when this purpose was realized by a single eternal act of His will.


And if Scripture speaks of His repenting, changing His intention, and altering His relation to sinners when they repent, we should remember that this is only an anthropopathic way of speaking In reality the change is not in God, but in man and in man's relations to God.

It is important to maintain the immutability of God over against the Pelagian and Arminian doctrine that God is subject to change, not indeed in His Being, but in His knowledge and will, so that His decisions are to a great extent dependent on the actions of man; over against the pantheistic notion that God is an eternal becoming rather than an absolute Being, and that the unconscious Absolute is gradually developing into conscious personality in man; and over against the present tendency of some to speak of a finite, struggling, and gradually growing God.

So, are you saying God does change His mind depending on the actions of men OR it's important not do think that?
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
The reason you don't understand is because you haven't come out of that Babelian confusion. But that's the very mind and logic you're employing to assign things about God with "ideas".

You have no idea how vulnerable you are and how influenced and patterned you are by various means. And you're not alone.

Vulnerable? I'd be more worried about spiritual pride if I were you. Nothing beats the simple faith of a child, and no child would buy some of the stuff you're selling.

1 Corinthians 1:25-27
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

All things are possible with God, and I seem to be hearing from the most learned among us that it isn't possible for God to change. Seems like what man claims is impossible is perhaps just so much hot air.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Vulnerable? I'd be more worried about spiritual pride if I were you.

Since love, which is not puffed up (like gnosis knowledge), abounds in epignosis knowledge, it can't be puffed up. Confident absolute assurance and persuasion (pistis faith) is not pride.

Nothing beats the simple faith of a child, and no child would buy some of the stuff you're selling.

When I became a man, I put away childish things. No child would understand what hypostasis and ousia and prosopon mean. That doesn't mean we shouldn't mature in the faith.

The simplistic childlikeness is about a type of faith, not to have us forever eschewing any pursuit of the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the epignosis knowledge of him.

I've certainly never regarding you as a child. I've always seen spiritual maturity.

1 Corinthians 1:25-27
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

I'm not wise after the flesh. Oida and epignosis knowledge are of the spirit. I've just spent the time to have dianoia and suneimi understanding because scripture insists we do.

All things are possible with God, and I seem to be hearing from the most learned among us that it isn't possible for God to change. Seems like what man claims is impossible is perhaps just so much hot air.

Is it possible or impossible for God to lie?

Your answer is really in the Luke 1 passage where the angel is addressing Mary. "With God, nothing (no rhema) shall be impossible."

Rhema stands for the thing thought and spoken about. The subject matter, content, or substance of all though and speech. There is no Logos without Rhema.

"With God, no thing spoken about shall be impossible." And Mary replied, "Be it unto me according to thy rhema (word)."

To not know and understand the distinction between God's inherent essence and His economy in energies, is to not understand Theology Proper at all.

All these concepts from human logos aren't God's Rhema. They aren't the thing spoken about. And that thing was His very substance (hypostasis) that became flesh.

That was procession and conception. The economy of God's substance, not His essence.

You and your peers are arguing from a perspective that is devoid of much information and understanding. Open Theism is the substitute for that information and understanding, and the means of placing humanity in the role of God to varying extent.

It's the Edenic lie penetrating to hybridize and minimize the true Christian faith. And it means someone doesn't even understand their own Theology Proper and likely doesn't adhere to it, believing in "another" Trinity.

None of this is beyond God's grace and mercy, but for few/some/many/most it could be a salvific issue. I can't know those hearts, but the doctrine is completely fallacious for reasons Open Theists can't even fathom in their gnosis that isn't epignosis.

Gnosis is what's puffed up, and presumes others are. I'm actually shocked you're an Open Theist. I didn't know, cuz I don't spend much time on the topic.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Where or when?

Her views on sin and redemption, though I've not read much.


I haven't ever visited ANY of the Open Theism threads until this one. I have no idea who is and isn't an Open Theist, but I'm learning.

Open Theism is literally impossible. It's a concept of man's mind, and largely from the high-context nature of the English language that passively promotes a human logos without it being grounded in God's Rhema.

That's a whole 'nudder teaching, but it's vital.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Her views on sin and redemption, though I've not read much.



I haven't ever visited ANY of the Open Theism threads until this one. I have no idea who is and isn't an Open Theist, but I'm learning.

Open Theism is literally impossible. It's a concept of man's mind, and largely from the high-context nature of the English language that passively promotes a human logos without it being grounded in God's Rhema.

That's a whole 'nudder teaching, but it's vital.

Well, I recommend you personally test GD's responsive spirit to the gospel of grace, plus her words against the saints, as instructed. . . I John 4:1 . . . and discern whether her beliefs conform to the world or to the truths held by the saints of God. John 4:5-6

It won't be a lengthly inquiry . . .
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
The reason you don't understand is because you haven't come out of that Babelian confusion. But that's the very mind and logic you're employing to assign things about God with "ideas".

You have no idea how vulnerable you are and how influenced and patterned you are by various means. And you're not alone.

Since love, which is not puffed up (like gnosis knowledge), abounds in epignosis knowledge, it can't be puffed up. Confident absolute assurance and persuasion (pistis faith) is not pride.

Ah, so you think you are not able to exhibit some PRIDE on occasion? What about when you make assumptions about another's understanding. What about when you assume you know the very logic another employs. You never make mistakes? Really?



When I became a man, I put away childish things. No child would understand what hypostasis and ousia and prosopon mean. That doesn't mean we shouldn't mature in the faith.

The simplistic childlikeness is about a type of faith, not to have us forever eschewing any pursuit of the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the epignosis knowledge of him.

I've certainly never regarding you as a child. I've always seen spiritual maturity.

That's nice. Perhaps knowing the big words doesn't mean we don't know the truth behind those big words. :think:



I'm not wise after the flesh. Oida and epignosis knowledge are of the spirit. I've just spent the time to have dianoia and suneimi understanding because scripture insists we do.

Okay, now I can confirm you need to fight that old spiritual pride.....lest you be given a thorn in the flesh, as Paul was. Put it off, and you'd be very interesting to talk to. Until then, the rest of your post is nothing more than a drip drip drip in the middle of the night. ;)
 
Top