Theology Club: Is Bob Enyart's Argument Self Contradicting?

[Lighthouse]

We are talking about God here. Just because God can prevent something evil doesn't mean he shares culpability for that evil.

Would you agree with that statement?

We've already established the answer to this and it's irrelevant to my statement.

God is not incapable of doing anything save acting contrary to his attributes. That's why the "can God make a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it" arguments are both silly and illogical.

So you agree that He is capable of not being in complete control if He so desires? Maybe even delegating control to others?

Unfortunately, your statement here shares a lot in common with the "can God make a rock..." argument.

No it doesn't. Stop trying to weasel out of answering.

Because God is omnipotent, there is "nothing" beyond His control. There are things He chooses to allow to happen without His intervention, but He is still in control. There are some things that are part of God's active for-ordination and some things that are part of God's passive for-ordination.

I'm talking about being in control the way a control freak wishes they could be.

But for the record are you admitting that God's control is not beyond His control?

P.S.
The word is "foreordination." The prefix meaning "before" has an "e' on the end. "Predestination" also works in this situation.

In fact, my very understanding of God's predestination of the reprobate is predicated upon this very assumption.

I, and many other Calivinists, believe that God passes over the reprobate and leaves them in their sin while God actively intervenes in the case of the elect.

Nevertheless, nothing escapes God's sovereign oversight. I don't believe that there is anything that is beyond the control of God's sovereignty.

Do you?

Not even His own sovereignty is beyond His sovereign control.

Which is an interesting thought, but its really irrelevant.

If God knew that something "could" happen and did absolutely nothing to prevent it - knowing that He was fully capable of stopping it - and then God saw that it was in the process of occurring - and continued to allow it to happen - then God is just as much "in control" of that event as He would have been had He known for certain that it was going to happen and chose to do nothing to prevent it.

That's a problem for Enyart, because he wants to impugn the settled view for believing that God knew beforehand that something evil would happen but what Enyart hasn't thought through is that the same argument that he thinks impugns the settled view of God, also impugns the open view of God because its not really a critique on God's foreknowledge, its a critique on an omnipotent God allowing evil.

If Bob had this same issue with Arminianists then you'd have an argument. But he doesn't, so you fail.

James White and I have a pretty similar view of God's sovereignty for one. Second, it doesn't matter what flavor of settled view White espouses, Enyart's argument is still self-contradictory.

You have failed to demonstrate that to be so.

 

[musterion]

I am not very at all 'up' on the Open view but I will say, it does offer a more satisfactory view on some aspects of Scripture...for example, God's reaction to the Fall...His trying to reason with Cain...His pleading with rebellious Israel "What more could I have done that I haven't already done?" Had He predestined all these events, as consistent Reformed thinking (and those influenced by it) affirms, these passages and hundreds more are rendered at best meaningless.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I am not very at all 'up' on the Open view but I will say, it does offer a more satisfactory view on some aspects of Scripture...for example, God's reaction to the Fall...His trying to reason with Cain...His pleading with rebellious Israel "What more could I have done that I haven't already done?" Had He predestined all these events, as consistent Reformed thinking (and those influenced by it) affirms, these passages and hundreds more are rendered at best meaningless.

Well, for starters, you could start becoming more informed on the unsettled view by reading this:

http://cdn.desiringgod.org/website_uploads/documents/books/beyond-the-bounds.pdf

Then this:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3415136#post3415136

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I don't, just like I assume that your belief in Open Theism is not the same as all others who call themselves Open Theist.

Indeed. He is way beyond what the open theist would claim.

For example:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1868296#post1868296

Consider him to be a "hyper open-theist". What B57 is to Calvinism, LH is to open theism.

AMR

 

[musterion]

What B57 is to Calvinism

He's one of the most consistent Calvinists I've ever encountered, I'll give him that.

 

[musterion]

Well, for starters, you could start becoming more informed on the unsettled view by reading this:

http://cdn.desiringgod.org/website_uploads/documents/books/beyond-the-bounds.pdf

Then this:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3415136#post3415136

AMR

Thanks for the invite but I'll save those links. I've learned that, if I'm going to go through the trouble of deciding whether a particular view is correct or not, or to what degree it is or isn't, I go to the source first, then I go to its opponents. That's the surest way to avoid deliberate or accidental misinterpretation of someone's position.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

He's one of the most consistent Calvinists I've ever encountered, I'll give him that.

Then you need to broaden your exposure to Calvinists.

He explicitly denies being a Calvinist. And if you read all he has written there is no denial of the same from real Calvinists. Just sayin'.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Thanks for the invite but I'll save those links. I've learned that, if I'm going to go through the trouble of deciding whether a particular view is correct or not, or to what degree it is or isn't, I go to the source first, then I go to its opponents. That's the surest way to avoid deliberate or accidental misinterpretation of someone's position.

Good for you!

I have read all of the primary open theist books, papers, etc., by the likes of Boyd, Sanders, and Pinnock as well as the underlying genesis of this minority view by men such as Whitehead, et al.

It is important to read and study both sides of any argument.

AMR

 

[musterion]

Then you need to broaden your exposure to Calvinists.

He explicitly denies being a Calvinist. And if you read all he has written there is no denial of the same from real Calvinists. Just sayin'.

AMR

Unless I've confused him with someone else herebouts, which I do not think I have, B57 has posted more than a few times his blunt affirmations of election and reprobation that could have come straight out of the Institutes, and did so without no attempt to soften or mitigate anything. I found it quite refreshing...infuriating and disgusting, but refreshingly honest. So if we're talking about the same guy, either he was pretending and just Calvin-trolling me for fun, or the misunderstanding of him is on your end.

 

[resurrected]

"calvin-trolling"

:think:


sounds like fun! :banana:

 

[Lighthouse]

Unless I've confused him with someone else herebouts, which I do not think I have, B57 has posted more than a few times his blunt affirmations of election and reprobation that could have come straight out of the Institutes, and did so without no attempt to soften or mitigate anything. I found it quite refreshing...infuriating and disgusting, but refreshingly honest. So if we're talking about the same guy, either he was pretending and just Calvin-trolling me for fun, or the misunderstanding of him is on your end.

The misunderstanding is on beloved57's end.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Unless I've confused him with someone else herebouts, which I do not think I have, B57 has posted more than a few times his blunt affirmations of election and reprobation that could have come straight out of the Institutes, and did so without no attempt to soften or mitigate anything. I found it quite refreshing...infuriating and disgusting, but refreshingly honest. So if we're talking about the same guy, either he was pretending and just Calvin-trolling me for fun, or the misunderstanding of him is on your end.

The fact that you claim he speaks in alignment with The Institutes only confirms my original observation that you do not know many Calvinists, have read much of Reformed thought, especially The Institutes, and are clearly misunderstanding b57. But, carry on.

If you want to know something about Calvinist, start here. Afterwards read this. Afterwards, you will be better equipped versus drawing your "knowledge" from random snippets on discussion sites.

AMR