Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Will Duffy YouTube Debate v CJ Borns Open Theism 11/23/19

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Will Duffy YouTube Debate v CJ Borns Open Theism 11/23/19

    Sat nite open theism YouTube debate & you're invited! DBC member Will Duffy, after debating popular theologian Matt Slick last year, will again debate Is Open Theism Biblical?, now against newcomer CJ Borns. You can keep updated with any changing details at https://opentheism.org tune and view the live YouTube debate at https://youtu.be/Yjk664I4e4E.

    duffy-borns-open-theism-debate.jpg
    The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

  • #2
    can they both be right ?
    can they both be wrong ?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by way 2 go View Post
      can they both be right ?
      can they both be wrong ?
      No
      "The most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" - Ronald Reagan



      Check out the "rightest" of all right wing moms. FarRightMom


      Upgrade your TOL membership.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by way 2 go View Post
        can they both be right ?
        can they both be wrong ?
        If Will is an Open Theist, and CJ is a Calvinist, then both being wrong should lead one to Arminianism.

        If both are right, it will lead one to confusion (otherwise known as a less-than-5-point Calvinist).

        I suppose that two opposing views can both be wrong, but never both be right. I was presented with such a question once before by a non-believer that said that existence of multiple opposing views on God (like Hinduism vs Paganism vs Islam vs Christianity) mean that none are right, which is an obvious fallacy.

        I listened to the first part of the debate, and Will did a good job. CJ admitted up front that this is his first debate, and it showed. He'll get better, just as Will has gotten better. I just hope he listens more to the opposing view while trying to defend his own. It's pretty rare that anyone in a debate like this ever admits being wrong about anything. And it seems that getting to be stronger debater on a wrong position is actually bad for the holder of such a position, whatever the position is.

        I feel kind of bad arguing Open Theism against Settled Theists, because the Open view is really pretty easy to justify (which was one of Will's arguments). I think I could argue Calvinism, but it would be a hollow victory. Who would be swayed? (Yes, I know, that's a caricature of Calvinism.)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Derf View Post
          If Will is an Open Theist, and CJ is a Calvinist, then both being wrong should lead one to Arminianism.

          If both are right, it will lead one to confusion (otherwise known as a less-than-5-point Calvinist).

          I suppose that two opposing views can both be wrong, but never both be right. I was presented with such a question once before by a non-believer that said that existence of multiple opposing views on God (like Hinduism vs Paganism vs Islam vs Christianity) mean that none are right, which is an obvious fallacy.

          I listened to the first part of the debate, and Will did a good job. CJ admitted up front that this is his first debate, and it showed. He'll get better, just as Will has gotten better. I just hope he listens more to the opposing view while trying to defend his own. It's pretty rare that anyone in a debate like this ever admits being wrong about anything. And it seems that getting to be stronger debater on a wrong position is actually bad for the holder of such a position, whatever the position is.

          I feel kind of bad arguing Open Theism against Settled Theists, because the Open view is really pretty easy to justify (which was one of Will's arguments). I think I could argue Calvinism, but it would be a hollow victory. Who would be swayed? (Yes, I know, that's a caricature of Calvinism.)
          I'm somewhere in between settled & open

          example the book of revelation

          Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial onto the sun. And it was given to him to burn men with fire.
          Rev 16:9 And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory.

          the Judgement God is not guessing at that we all know but

          open theism says God is guessing that "they did not repent" result

          Comment


          • #6
            Ok, I finished listening. I appreciated Will's grasp of the Open Theism arguments. And I appreciated CJ's openness to hear Will's arguments and try to respond to them. I think most books I've read arguing against OT, the authors start out trying to give a good representation of the OT view they disagree with, but then they argue against a different view of it. CJ seemed to genuinely not understand some of Will's argument, and he discussed them well.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by way 2 go View Post
              can they both be right ?
              can they both be wrong ?
              open theist have God in their image who is really smart but guessing .

              Calvinist have God in a box called fate with no choices .

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by way 2 go View Post

                open theist have God in their image who is really smart but guessing .

                Calvinist have God in a box called fate with no choices .
                God does not guess.

                If you're going to reject something, why not reject it for what it actually teaches?

                Calvinists do not object to the concept of fate, in fact I think it was Calvin himself that said so (I'll have to look that up to confirm) but there is not one single Open Theist who teaches or even thinks that God guesses His way through existence. That is a mischaracterization in the extreme. If it was intentional then I count it as a lie (as does God).

                I don't understand the motive of making such statements in the first place. Who is it that you're trying to convince?
                sigpic
                "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Clete View Post

                  God does not guess.

                  If you're going to reject something, why not reject it for what it actually teaches?
                  open theism teaches God guesses

                  open theism accuses calvinism of having a god that is a stone idol
                  while
                  open theism has a god created in mans image

                  sorry I do not agree with open theism or calvinism



                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by way 2 go View Post

                    open theism teaches God guesses
                    No, it absolutely does not!

                    Who told you that? Are you making it up or what?

                    open theism accuses calvinism of having a god that is a stone idol
                    while
                    open theism has a god created in mans image
                    When open theists make such an accusation, it is because Calvinists insist that God cannot change in any way whatsoever. Their entire doctrine is, in fact, built upon that single premise. A notion that I can prove and which they do not deny. Well, some of them do but only because of ignorance not because they disagree with the Calvinist teaching of Immutability.

                    On what premise do you make this ridiculous "God guesses" accusation? Is there any basis for it at all or is it something you just need to make yourself feel better about not being able to refute it's real teachings?

                    sorry I do not agree with open theism or calvinism
                    Whoopy! Want a cookie?!

                    If you're rejecting open theism on the basis that it teaches that "God guesses" then you're haven't rejected Open Theism or any other Christian doctrine that I've ever heard of before.

                    As I said before, if you're going to reject something why not reject it for what it actually teaches?
                    sigpic
                    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      They both had some good points, yet Will was the better speaker. Will Duffy surly won that debate! Anyone disagree?

                      So, what?

                      believe it!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Clete View Post
                        No, it absolutely does not!

                        Who told you that? Are you making it up or what?


                        When open theists make such an accusation, it is because Calvinists insist that God cannot change in any way whatsoever. Their entire doctrine is, in fact, built upon that single premise. A notion that I can prove and which they do not deny. Well, some of them do but only because of ignorance not because they disagree with the Calvinist teaching of Immutability.
                        .

                        the whole premise of open theism is God guesses

                        On what premise do you make this ridiculous "God guesses" accusation? Is there any basis for it at all or is it something you just need to make yourself feel better about not being able to refute it's real teachings?
                        here is a guess in the open theism view , God may have an angel pour out his vial
                        & the people may react the way God is guessing they will open theism isn't sure as the future is open

                        Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial onto the sun. And it was given to him to burn men with fire.
                        Rev 16:9 And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory.




                        Whoopy! Want a cookie?!




                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by way 2 go View Post
                          .

                          the whole premise of open theism is God guesses
                          Saying it doesn't make it so.

                          here is a guess in the open theism view , God may have an angel pour out his vial
                          & the people may react the way God is guessing they will open theism isn't sure as the future is open

                          Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial onto the sun. And it was given to him to burn men with fire.
                          Rev 16:9 And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory.
                          So you're basically just lying then. I could have "guessed" as much.

                          You have at least several problems with this simply silly line of reasoning...

                          1. On just a pure definition of the words being used basis, the fact that not every prophecy will come to pass does not mean that God is guessing. That isn't what the word 'guess' means.

                          2. God doesn't want all of His prophecies to come to pass. In a great many cases, that's the point of making the prophecy.

                          3. There is biblical example after biblical example of God making predictive prophecies that did not come to pass.

                          4. God explicitly explains, in no uncertain terms, that His prophecies may not come to pass and why.

                          5. The fact that some predictive prophecy does not come to pass is in no way "the whole premise of open theism".

                          6. Lying is a sin and when you intentionally misrepresent something so as to deceive your audience into rejecting it based on your deception, that is a lie - by definition.

                          7. When you persist in your deception after having been directly confronted and refuted, as I now "guess" you will gleefully do, your sin is compounded.

                          8. You will give an account for every idle word you speak on judgment day. My recommendation is that if you want to reject open theism, you'd better do so honestly. It will be better for you in the long run.



                          sigpic
                          "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Clete View Post

                            So you're basically just lying then. I could have "guessed" as much.


                            You have at least several problems with this simply silly line of reasoning...

                            1. On just a pure definition of the words being used basis, the fact that not every prophecy will come to pass does not mean that God is guessing. That isn't what the word 'guess' means.

                            2. God doesn't want all of His prophecies to come to pass. In a great many cases, that's the point of making the prophecy.

                            3. There is biblical example after biblical example of God making predictive prophecies that did not come to pass.
                            not lying , just pointing out the fact that open theism has God guessing

                            here is a guess in the open theism view , God may have an angel pour out his vial
                            & the people may react the way God is guessing they will
                            open theism isn't sure as the future is open
                            and your point 3 admits this fact

                            Rev 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial onto the sun. And it was given to him to burn men with fire.
                            Rev 16:9 And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory.










                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Ktoyou View Post
                              They both had some good points, yet Will was the better speaker. Will Duffy surly won that debate! Anyone disagree?
                              I don't think the victory should be awarded based on who's the better speaker. CJ spoke well, but he didn't understand the consequences of his own theology.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X