Finishing off the painfully fun Wilson/White Soteriology video

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Finishing off the painfully fun Wilson/White Soteriology video


This is the show from Wednesday, April 22nd, 2020


SUMMARY:


* Soteriology 101, Ken Wilson, and James White: Boy this can get confusing. :) But it's so enlightening. The information age has not been easy on Calvinists. Join Bob as he looks at a painfully fun and educational video from Leighton Flower's group Soteriology 101 on behalf of Dr. Ken Wilson responding to our old nemesis James White. The old reformed claim about church history is false, that the early Christians taught the various Calvinist doctrines, though under different terminology, including irresistible grace, election, and bondage of the will. Leading church historians, even from the reformed tradition, agree with Ken Wilson's Oxford thesis that these ideas were introduced by Augustine around the beginning of the fifth century. By the way, Bob Enyart debated James White on whether God can think new thoughts (reformed and many other theologians answer, no) and whether the future is settled or open (and they answer, settled). So we're not neutral but nonetheless, wow, it would be wise for James White to apologize to Dr. Wilson and retract his video.


* Related Resources: For those interested, please see...

- the conclusion of our look at this painfully fun video is at kgov.com/wilson-white-soteriology-102

- kgov.com/leighton-flowers for our interview of the great theologian who founded Soteriology 101

- kgov.com/300 for Christians Taught Free Will for their First 300 Years from Marston & Forster

- R.C. Sproul Jr. & White basically deny the incarnation in the Enyart/White debate aftermath

- opentheism.org/james-white-vs-bob-enyart-debate

- and then, brace yourself, for this...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyUo...ature=youtu.be


* Augustinian Sympathizer: As noted by Marston & Forster, Oxford professor of historical theology Alister McGrath, an Augustinian sympathizer, nonetheless admits that:


The pre-Augustinian theological tradition is practically of one voice in asserting the freedom of the human will.

- Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 1998, p. 20


Today's Resource: Predestination & Free Will Debate


Bob Enyart vs. Brian Schwertly



Can God change? Does He change? Has God pre-planned all events? Is your life following a complete script, written before you were born? Has it been decided in advance which, if any, of your children will go to heaven or hell?


WARNING: We strongly urge you to watch Bob’'s Predestination and Free Will Video Seminar before watching this video. Remember, we warned you... seriously!


* White and Sproul Effectively Deny the Incarnation: In the immediate debate aftermath James White and R.C. Sproul Jr. both denied that God the Son took upon Himself a human nature. James White said, "God the Son does not have two natures. I did not 'admit' that He did/does/will etc. Jesus of Nazareth was one Person with two natures." R.C. Sproul Jr. added, "God the Son didn't go from one nature to two. God the Son didn't have a human nature. God the Son does not now nor has He ever had two natures."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLiP...ature=youtu.be
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lon

Active member
Link problem: "Invalid Page URL. If this is an error and the page should exist, please contact the system administrator and tell them how you got this message."

From what I can see, it is simply a matter of eliminating "Theologyonline.com" from the links.

I have to agree with you and Bob, James needs to clarify and retract one of two of his statements. We've all had to be corrected at times, and grace allows us to admit our faults. Not too long ago, I wrote a correction for Bob regarding Augustine and the colliseum, where it wasn't Augustine but one of his students. While I don't know if Bob ever recanted or acknowledged, to me, it doesn't matter but whether the inaccuracy was corrected and thus not repeated. At the very least, we'd hope James doesn't repeat the same. The nature of the Lord Jesus Christ is fully God, fully man, indivisible, as far as man's ability to qualify Him. Ligoniers says "His two natures are perfectly united in such a way that they are not confused or mixed, divided or separated."

While I realize there is a 'new nature' discussion with Open Theists, how close would they align with the above? I'm not sure if Calvinists agree with me, but 'man' is created from God, thus 'becoming man' is already found in Him. There is a sense that relational takes place at incarnation to ascension where there is a whole lot to discuss, but how significant was James' conflict to the Calvinist/Open conversation? -Lon
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Link problem: "Invalid Page URL. If this is an error and the page should exist, please contact the system administrator and tell them how you got this message."

From what I can see, it is simply a matter of eliminating "Theologyonline.com" from the links.

It worked! Thanks Lon!:jump:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon
Top