James White to Debate Bob Enyart on Open Theism

[Nimrod]

Do you believe that when God said the following He meant it?

God is communicating with us humans (Jeremiah) in the present time. Yes He meant it. It also does not change His decree before time.

That is a funny quote. James White book is the Potter's Freedom on Calvinism. Have you read it?

 

[Nimrod]

John Calvin is their Pope.

I know of no one who is the "slave to Calvin" or who thinks Calvin is their Pope. Where did you come up with that conclusion? This questions your history with Reformed theology and I question if you ever were a "5 point Calvinist". If you were, you wouldn't have said that. I'm guessing you just made all that up or heard it from someone outside.

 

[Nimrod]

Seeing how I used to be a full fledged 5 point Calvinist, and a huge proponent of James White, and a few others, I can completely understand their arguments, know them very well, and where they get their references from. I've read the Creeds, Confessions, etc, and used them myself when talking and explaining Reformed Theology to others when I was in that camp. But it wasn't until I was challenged to sit and study Romans 9 - 11 without a "Reformed" lens, did I snap out of it and realize "this doesn't say what they think it does....."

Please tell us exactly how you became a 5 point and when did you decide to leave.

What exactly is a "reformed" lens? And what lens did you replace it with?

Thanks

 

[npatterson85]

I know of no one who is the "slave to Calvin" or who thinks Calvin is their Pope. Where did you come up with that conclusion? This questions your history with Reformed theology and I question if you ever were a "5 point Calvinist". If you were, you wouldn't have said that. I'm guessing you just made all that up or heard it from someone outside.

The amount of times Calvin is quoted, and how he is talked about, as well as Augustine, etc, I drew my conclusion intentionally. I find it amazing how it took 1500+ years after Christ crucified for Calvinism to become an actual theology. And I can say it because I no longer hold to the Reformed Theology.

Look at Geneva, it was like Roman Catholicism all over again. The church was running the state, Calvin was in charge. His way or the high way. Burn em all. :execute:

I've read it all too. The Potter's Freedom, The Doctrines of Grace, Chosen By God, etc. When the only way you can defend your faith and understand what you believe is by quoting a confession or quoting Calvin's institutes, it's pretty apparent who shapes and forms your theology, even if you don't want to admit it. PS. It's not the Bible.

I understand how someone would need God to be all controlling in their life, because they aren't capable of living under the freedom that God has truly given us by His grace. They need to live in a protected box, and put our wonderful, creative, Creator in a box as well.

 

[npatterson85]

Please tell us exactly how you became a 5 point and when did you decide to leave.

What exactly is a "reformed" lens? And what lens did you replace it with?

Thanks

How I became convinced of Reformed Theology and when I was unconvinced anymore does not matter, because it's obvious from your view I was not "Predestined" to remain a Calvinist.

A reformed lens would be the view that God from eternity past, decreed all that would come to pass, good and evil, and is unable to change in any way shape or form, because it is settled in his mind. He has predestined individuals to salvation, and those predestined are whom Christ died for, ie: the elect.

The lens that has replaced that view, is that of God who is much more personal, loving, relational. Who genuinely desires all men to come to repentance, and whom He has enabled through prevenient grace the ability to respond faith upon hearing the Gospel. He has granted us true freedom to make choices and decisions, and most of all to love and experience Him in full, and are co-creators in the future decisions, and that he is not micromanaging us.

I may be wrong in my view though, and I admit that because I am a fallible human being. And we all may be wrong, that much is true. Not one of us has it 100% right, only God does.

 

[Desert Reign]

I understand how someone would need God to be all controlling in their life, because they aren't capable of living under the freedom that God has truly given us by His grace. They need to live in a protected box, and put our wonderful, creative, Creator in a box as well.

Exactly! It's a way of avoiding responsibility.

 

[Stripe]

You missed the point. It is a cross examination of the other persons beliefs. :doh:

Not sticking to the temporary rules of a debate I am not involved in does not render what I said irrelevant.

 

[chatmaggot]

God is communicating with us humans (Jeremiah) in the present time. Yes He meant it. It also does not change His decree before time.

That is a funny quote. James White book is the Potter's Freedom on Calvinism. Have you read it?

Don't need to. I believe God's book and don't need to read another book to tell me that God is unable to say something is going to happen and then not do it.

 

[Nimrod]

When the only way you can defend your faith and understand what you believe is by quoting a confession or quoting Calvin's institutes, it's pretty apparent who shapes and forms your theology, even if you don't want to admit it. PS. It's not the Bible.

Let's take a closer look at what you said. Geneva was run like Rome, Calvin burned someone, Calvinism is quoting confessions or institutes not the Bible.....Yep, I do believe you were never reformed but you do mimic Arminians. Prevenient grace is a term they use. You are obviously new here. I still think you are just saying talking points you heard from someone else. I haven't meet a Calvinist that didn't go by the Bible. It is the Reformed Churches that tend to stick to Scriptures the most.

But keep on posting we will get to the bottom of this sooner or later.

 

[Nimrod]

God who is much more personal, loving, relational.

A God who knew the all the possiblities but did not know Adam would sin. A God head where Jesus can decide not to fulfill the Father's will.

Who genuinely desires all men to come to repentance, and whom He has enabled through prevenient grace the ability to respond faith upon hearing the Gospel.

You guys who are Open Theism. Do you use those terms? I thought these were just Arminian sayings.

 

[Lon]

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.

Let's be honest, I think you have stars in your eyes on this particular. Such is predictable, however, and certainly devotion to one's pastor is commendable, if even to a fault.

It took a LoooOOOOooong time for Bob to admit yes or no regarding Jesus' obedience to the Father.

The answer, however, is "No, absolutely not. 'He cannot disown Himself.'"
Not 'Yes.'

-Jesus is God.

I also believe Open Theists confuse promise (conditional) with prophecy. There is absolutely no prophecy, ever, that went unfulfilled. I think I covered this with Patman in Open Theism 2 however. I believe we line itemed those prophecies together and I showed the ones he thought were unfullfilled, were all fulfilled, including the promises (promises are always fulfilled upon the resulted foreknown actions of the Israelites, for them to learn and grow).

 

[npatterson85]

How else would it be described being able to respond when you are dead in your sins and trespasses outside of the Reformed view of Irresistible Grace? Scripture is quite clear on that aspect. Prevenient Grace is the only term I know of in which God enables one to respond to the Gospel, and isn't forced and stated as we had no other choice.

But I could be wrong admittedly. Anyone else care to chime in? It's not like Open Theists have a systematic theology that explains the process from the Open View. I've had to borrow some phrasings from the Society of Evangelical Arminians.

 

[Lon]

Exactly! It's a way of avoiding responsibility.

:doh: So is OSAS, by that token.

Here is the truth of it:

Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"

Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?

The answer: Nobody. God isn't just 'a player' in the affairs of man. He is owner, completely sovereign (and get this): Whether you say 'okay or not.'

Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"

Answer: Nope. I live, die, or go to hell for His glory. Do you have a say? If He gives you anything like that, thank Him for it and realize it isn't libertarian. There is no such thing as libertarian. Such would be more responsibility than you actually have, and you are correct, I don't take more responsibility than I have been given, whatever that may be. It is not libertarian (iow, not as much as you assume I need to be responsible for, nor you are) either.

 

[Nang]

How else would it be described being able to respond when you are dead in your sins and trespasses outside of the Reformed view of Irresistible Grace? Scripture is quite clear on that aspect. Prevenient Grace is the only term I know of in which God enables one to respond to the Gospel, and isn't forced and stated as we had no other choice.

But I could be wrong admittedly. Anyone else care to chime in? It's not like Open Theists have a systematic theology that explains the process from the Open View. I've had to borrow some phrasings from the Society of Evangelical Arminians.

I, a Reformer, do not believe there is any such thing as "prevenient grace."

The grace of God is always efficacious to save the soul . . . period.

The only power that enables any sinner to respond (savingly) to the gospel, is the power of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, Who changes the heart/mind of the sinner, and gifts him with faith to believe and conviction to repent.

 

[Lighthouse]

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 need to doubt that Jesus would betray Him.

"English dude, English."

In other words, fix your grammar.

He did not get my memo: Showing that some things are set in stone does not prove that all things are predetermined.

:thumb:

Why is it that some people are able to comprehend God as being "outside of time" when "He presents Himself as acting within time so that He can be comprehended"?

I know, right?

Yep. This is nail in their coffin.

Otherwise, the closed theist would have a god who sits motionlessness eternally with his hands folded across his chest, unthinking, uncommitted, uninvolved, and stoic.

Exactly.

They call God immutable and this is exactly what that word means.

God is communicating with us humans (Jeremiah) in the present time. Yes He meant it. It also does not change His decree before time.

:doh:

God decreed before time whether or not these nation would do these things and yet He meant it when He said He would change His mind concerning His promises if they changed their ways...

Calvinism is the theology of contradiction.

 

[Lon]

And this entitles you to say that evil has a good purpose.

:nono: It entitles me nothing, but demands rather my faith and trust in a perfect, righteous, holy God.
And encourages me that these things will work together and that they will one day pass.

If it happpens because it is God's business alone, then how can you say anything about it?

Because I'm not saying it, Romans 9 is saying it. I'm merely repeating it.

I've already told you that open theism doesn't have a problem about evil happening in the world.

I do. I blame myself. ...and you. ...and everybody else.

After all the Bible says that God causes evil in some cases. The fact is that you are embarrassed about the existence of evil because your theology makes God responsible for everything.

:nono: I agree in part, with you we are free agents, but only that it is a stolen free-will AND not a libertarian one and not given. Taken, stolen. However, because we have no place to go with it, we are still in His creation (house). Not very good thieves, are we?

Already you prove that you cannot get your head round this concept and that in open theism God is not responsible. I've already told you. For the record.

'Responsible' can be a slippery word. When I say I'm responsible for what happens in my house, that doesn't mean the same thing as what I think you mean by it. I can't meaningfully argue with your statement, in other words.

And as highlighted above, you need somewhere to run over this. But as there is obviously nowhere to run, you need to invent a place to run to. And that place is 'We cannot know why God causes such evil (or lifts his supposed restraining hand)'. And then realising that 'we cannot know' is actually an admission of failure in your theology, you have to revert to 'we know that evil has a good purpose', thus contradicting yourselves to and fro, running from one corner to another and back again.

That's sad. You, a man, a creation, just made every thought of God accessible to your finite and puny mind, and in-so-doing have recreated Him, the Lord of Glory, in your own image. Why not get back down to my level instead of that elevated lofty position where you may fall and injure yourself? I'm down here, admitting happily and freely, that God knows a lot of things I do not know. Romans 9 has me stumped. I don't know why He can have vessels for honor and dishonor. Romans 9:21
Who am I to talk back to God? Romans 9:20

I'm just giving you scripture. I don't have to explain them adequately for them to be true. I'm not God. I, at least, don't know everything He knows and He doesn't check with me to see what is okay and what is not. That, in particular, is why I'm not an Open Theist. I don't mind it down here on a creaturly level. I'm no longer bothered that my will is stolen rather than a suppose gift I own as if it were a gift. True, I was born with it, but I've no right to it. God owns me. I will no longer elevate the gift (supposedly) over my God. That's the day I stopped struggling with Romans 9. He gets to be God. I get to be man (a creation). I no longer want God to bow to me (still struggle at times) but want to endeavor to bow to Him.
Isaiah 29:15 Ah, you who hide deep from the LORD your counsel, whose deeds are in the dark, and who say, "Who sees us? Who knows us?"
Isaiah 29:16 You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, "He did not make me"; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?

The other place you run to, as exemplified above is 'We can trust God despite these attrocities [sic]' The issue was never about trusting God. The issue was, what is God like? You can trust God as much as you want, I'm all for that. I don't trust God despite the evil in the world. The evil in the world is not a problem for me or for my theology. The fact that you feel you need to go there despite that evil is the conclusive proof that it is a problem for you.

"Despite" is against the accusation. It is that I don't have to worry what anyone accuses a Calvinist (or Paul in Romans 9) of, is because He is not wicked. There is no possible way anyone can accuse me of that kind of theology ever, because 'despite' the accusation, I've never believed God is anything but good, holy, and righteous. A good God cannot be responsible for wickedness (there's that 'responsible' word again, I think I'm using it like you did, here). So, 'despite' what any nonCalvinist thinks of Calvinism, it isn't something that sticks with me. God is good whether you or anybody agrees that I believe so or not. That is the point.

 

[Lon]

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.

Exactly.

They call God immutable and this is exactly what that word means.

:nono: James White said that 'goodness' cannot change. Because God is Good, he will never declare adultery good. THAT'S what immutability means. It means God cannot/will not change His character or His being.
Movement in God does not mean it is something new that wasn't there before, nor a new song. It is like a clock, the face changes, but it is immutable from being anything other than what it is (dislocating entropy from the conversation at the moment).

James White was talking about moving, not change. If I 'move' from here to the next room in my house, have I changed or am I still immutable (unchanged)?

 

[Lighthouse]

:nono: James White said that 'goodness' cannot change. Because God is Good, he will never declare adultery good. THAT'S what immutability means. It means God cannot/will not change His character or His being.
Movement in God does not mean it is something new that wasn't there before, nor a new song. It is like a clock, the face changes, but it is immutable from being anything other than what it is (dislocating entropy from the conversation at the moment).

James White was talking about moving, not change. If I 'move' from here to the next room in my house, have I changed or am I still immutable (unchanged)?

OV does not dispute the immutability of Gods character; it is the immutability of His decisions and/or decrees that is the issue.

 

[Stripe]

The answer, however, is "No, absolutely not. 'He cannot disown Himself.'" Not 'Yes.

I agree.

I also believe Open Theists confuse promise (conditional) with prophecy. There is absolutely no prophecy, ever, that went unfulfilled. I think I covered this with Patman in Open Theism 2 however. I believe we line itemed those prophecies together and I showed the ones he thought were unfullfilled, were all fulfilled, including the promises (promises are always fulfilled upon the resulted foreknown actions of the Israelites, for them to learn and grow).

Is Patman still with us?

"English dude, English."In other words, fix your grammar.

You will have to circle it in red and write the correction for me to see it.

 

[Lon]

Bob Enyart Cross Examines James White found on YouTube also.

Question 1: Was Jesus becoming man a change?

James said this, may have not emphasized enough for Bob (or TOLer's) to understand: Divine immutability refers only to that which was 'divine.' It wasn't a dodge but on point. Bob could have then asked about Jesus Christ the same Yesterday, Today, and Forever, if it refered in any way to His humanity, at that point. The conversation didn't move forward because they were talking about ONLY 'Divine' Immutability.

The second question: Could God have created differently?

James answered 'yes' but for me, I would have said "objection, divine speculation." I might 'think' yes, but who am I that God should confide in me the answer to this specific? I could speculate. I believe James (and I think Enyart) believe God is a Free Agent. Dr. White would say He is the Only free agent.

The reason James White said it was a temporal question, was because there is no time 'before' creation in a timeless theology. There is no 'could God have.' It is basically making a logical premise between two individuals that believe differently about God's existence inside and outside of time. For those who believe God is outside of time, such a question is a paradox because it is trying discern God 'constrained' to a time parameter. I appreciate those who constrain God to a timeline do not fully appreciate the magnitude of difference in asking these kinds of questions. It could not possibly have been a yes/no question though, because you would have to agree, yes or no, whether God was constrained by duration or not. We don't believe He is, so the question is irrelevant: God is not only omnipotent, He is exceedingly omnipotent to the idea of multiverses (and beyond of course, because this is the eternal concept of a finite mind). "There are an infinite # of universes" is a drop in the infinite oceans of the infinite (see my sig, exceedlingly abudantly beyond hope or imagination, even).

Question #3: Isn't it true that the Son did not know the day or the hour?

Is it true? (My answer: Yes)

Dr. James White: "Do you want me to answer? We have a different definition of impassibility." Implied: Yes, "His attributes were veiled in His humanity."

Subquestion: Was He seated at the righthand of the Father while on earth?
My answer: Misunderstanding that Heaven is not 'physical' so 'omnipresent' takes on a unique meaning/questioning. If heaven is not a 'physical place' then omnipresence (a physical appreciation), is talking about the idea of God inhabiting His creation.

Dr. White: "In His humanity" Jesus had human fraility and had laid aside (Philippians 2) some of His attributes.

Question 3: Does God have Foreknowedge or Predetermination?
"Yes"

Bob: God cannot have 'pre' or 'fore' because He is out of time. Only the Open theist could assert God has pre or fore anything.(I think he broke the rule of response)

My response: Correct as it applies to timelessness BUT as it refers to His interaction 'in' time: Yes.