Calvinism -- Something bad happens, God will work all things together for the good of those who love Him.
Open theism -- Something bad happens, God will work all things together for the good of those who love Him.
James White to Debate Bob Enyart on Open Theism
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Calvinism -- Something bad happens, God will work all things together for the good of those who love Him.
Open theism -- Something bad happens, God will work all things together for the good of those who love Him.
Correct statement of Calvinism.
Incorrect statement.
Open Theism = Something bad happens: God, and those who love Him, will bring about good things.
Incorrect. I'm an Open Theist and I've never believed that God was shocked that Adam sinned. I believe that God would have been shocked if Adam didn't sin.
Could you elaborate on the difference?
Yes. According to Romans 8:28, God works together with us to bring about good things.
The way the Calvinists read it, God is doing all the work.
In the real world though, it makes sense that God, a free being, would work together with free beings to bring about good.
OK.
However, to be fair, my statement was not incorrect -- just a little lacking in details.
OK.
However, to be fair, my statement was not incorrect -- just a little lacking in details.
:thumb:
He made a whole bunch of accusations in that video without providing much in the way of rational arguments.
Perhaps he was more forthcoming in the debate. :idunno:
npatterson85
New member
Really looking forward to listening to the debate. I actually like James White. He has some really good stuff outside of Calvinism. His videos that I've seen explaining the Trinity, especially his debate w/ Michael Brown against Sir Anthony Buzzard and Joe Good really helped me when I was wrestling with the Trinity.
Admittedly, I haven't listened to Bob Enyart debate outside of reading about 1/2 of his Battle Royale X w/ Sam L. A lot of it went over my head initially because I was just dipping my big toe into the pool of Open Theism to try and understand it better, outside of just listening to Greg Boyd all of the time. I did listen to the Plot, and read part of it (haven't finished it yet), but that seemed to be much more geared towards MAD rather than Open Theism. I learn better by audio listening, and watching sides go back and forth.
Knight's final tally after listening to the debate seems very promising. I'm especially looking forward to the cross-examination portion where he said that Bob Enyart did extremely well vs. James White.
Admittedly, I haven't listened to Bob Enyart debate outside of reading about 1/2 of his Battle Royale X w/ Sam L. A lot of it went over my head initially because I was just dipping my big toe into the pool of Open Theism to try and understand it better, outside of just listening to Greg Boyd all of the time. I did listen to the Plot, and read part of it (haven't finished it yet), but that seemed to be much more geared towards MAD rather than Open Theism. I learn better by audio listening, and watching sides go back and forth.
Knight's final tally after listening to the debate seems very promising. I'm especially looking forward to the cross-examination portion where he said that Bob Enyart did extremely well vs. James White.
A summary of James Whites answers....
"Yes, the Bible says that, but what it really means is..."
"Yes, the Bible says that, but what it really means is..."
I think this was the strongest segment for Bob. He didn't obfuscate like White did during his cross examination. He answered the questions plain, concise, and to the point.
It was weird that White acknowledged there was a time before God ordained everything and that God was planning what to do. That would indicate there was a time when the future was indeed open. That's an astonishing admission.
In this clip, we see what happens many times when asked to give a yes/no or true/false answer to a question. Answering with a yes/no or true/false is avoided.
Here we see James White avoiding to answer with yes/no or true/false.
And yet, we have seen James White require a yes/no or true/false answer with questions he asks.
(BTW, I am not saying that James White is the only one that does this.)
That is what attracted me to the OT position. In thinking about bible passages, OT allows the plain meaning to be retained. When a passages says that God repented, there is no need to believe the word does not apply.
Nimrod
Member
Bob are you a molinist? lol
The final question.
"Was it a risk God took, that the godhead might come undone?"
I would answer, "No," because God the father had no reason to think that Jesus would betray Him.
Last edited:
npatterson85
New member
When Bob cross examines James White, I find it fascinating that James refuses to use the word "change" like when Bob asked if God changed when he took on flesh in the flesh of Christ. And James just keeps saying "God took an action, if you understand the hypostatic union... blah blah blah." And I like James White! But Bob definitely was drilling him.
The two natures change was a good argument as well. Bob - "Do you believe that Jesus had 1 nature in eternity past, but now has 2 natures?" James - "Yes."
The two natures change was a good argument as well. Bob - "Do you believe that Jesus had 1 nature in eternity past, but now has 2 natures?" James - "Yes."