Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Asked and answered very well:
http://www.amazon.com/Potters-Freedom-Reformation-Rebuttal-Geislers-ebook/dp/B008517ZBI
AMR
James White to Debate Bob Enyart on Open Theism
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
http://www.amazon.com/Potters-Freedom-Reformation-Rebuttal-Geislers-ebook/dp/B008517ZBI
AMR
So you want to provide a link to a book to try and explain the no answer to a yes/no question. You are still a vile pervert, no matter how big you try and talk theologically.
Neopatriarch
Member
I am so looking forward to THIS debate! Michael Brown did a great job, but he is a little too friendly with James White. I have confidence in Bob Enyart.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Huh?
White answered the question you posed, hence my answer. In the spirit of your latter insult, if you want the details, tolle lege. :AMR:
AMR
"So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." Romans 5:18.
See the above verse. So is the first all communicating "all men without exception" and the second communicating "not all men without exception?" It seems that James White would have to conclude such. But being that Paul is drawing a contrasting picture in the same thought, it seems very unlikely that he change the scope of all so quickly. Both all's must be referring to the same scope.
See the above verse. So is the first all communicating "all men without exception" and the second communicating "not all men without exception?" It seems that James White would have to conclude such. But being that Paul is drawing a contrasting picture in the same thought, it seems very unlikely that he change the scope of all so quickly. Both all's must be referring to the same scope.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No. White and others will be discerning enough to note the argument Paul started in Rom. 5:12 concludes here ("therefore") in verse 18.
Your view is a misreading of Paul, as already he has said that it is "those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness" who will "reign in life" (Rom. 5:17). The "all people" of the latter part of the phrase is best understood to mean all who receive the gift of grace, whether they are Jews or Gentiles.
AMR
James White seems to be saying:
"We can't second guess the 'why?' of God's actions"
If that is the case, then ......
A. God is sovereign and chose not to give man free will.
B. God is sovereign and chose to give man free will.
B. God is sovereign and chose to give man free will.
..... James White has no business second guessing either of the above statements.
So why does he?
After a long diatribe against Bob Enyart and how he persistently misrepresents Calvinism or how he sees everything as a Greek issue, at about 12:30 he says that the things we see as evil events are simply God lifting his restraining hand every so often to show what life would be like if he wasn't restraining all the evil in the world.
It isn't usually long before a Calvinist openly and honestly discloses a view of God which is morally repugnant. Let alone inconsistent: after all, how can he say that God's decree includes this act of lifting his hand of restraint every so often, whilst ignoring that the underlying propensity of man to commit evil continually, is likewise only in accordance with the decree of God?
No. You judge a person by his actions. If James White is right, then we don't ever see God restraining the expression of evil. There can by definition be no possible evidence of this ever happening. It is purely an axiom of belief that has no possible real world expression or repercussions.
So we are left with judging God by his actions of lifting this supposed hand of restraint whenever there is an evil act performed!
Mr White is asking us to believe that God is revealed as good when we see evil acts taking place. And when we see these evil acts, we are being expected to praise God on the basis that more evil could have taken place but didn't.
Lon
Well-known member
:nono: It is actually your axiom as well. You determine that man has freewill and 'allowing' that freewill is God lifting His hand, by even OV standards. Dr. White is rightly saying you are second guessing the actions of God and so determining He doesn't know, rather than is in control and competent over His creation, regardless of it's current state.
The parable of the wheat and tares specifically says that God is protecting wheat, that is why evil is allowed, so I believe He does tell us, at least partially, and in that likewise, to trust in Him. That by far is the best answer to someone going through an attrocity. It is for the sake of saving wheat, that tares are allowed to grow.
My axiom is not that man is inherently evil and that if God wasn't around the world would be a much worse place than it is. I would never think of such an axiom for the simple reason that my philosophy is realistic. I don't ask 'What if?'
So no, you are wrong, I do not share this same axiom with James White.
Once again I am not second guessing. My realist philosophy prevents that from happening. I have consistently maintained that Calvinists confuse sovereignty with control. I have never denied God's sovereignty and indeed I uphold it. And if you look closely at my various statements I am no strong supporter of freewill. I often look as if I am because in a debate there is no point in making things more complicated than they need be. So quite a few straw men and misrepresentation on your part there (and indeed on his part inasmuch as he speaks of open theists generally.)
This parable definitely does not support any view that evil is when God lifts his restraining hand. Please can you point me to the phrases where it says or even remotely implies this? All I can find is the bolded part. It sounds like God was unaware of what was happening. In fact it doesn't just sound like it. That's what it says. He was alseep when it happened. No doubt you are going to explain it away! 'The farmer sleeping is an anthropomorphism for God lifting his restraining hand...?' Or something like that?
Nope. The parable is answering a quite different question - why does God not bring the world to judgement sooner? And the answer is so as to allow all those who are good to grow to their full stature. Nothing to do with lifting a restraining hand. God is not protecting the wheat at all. There is never an issue that the tares might stifle the wheat. The owner indeed allows the two to grow together. The idea of the servants cutting the wheat down is a reference to the judgement - that in the judgement all things will be judged.
“The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’
And White's dreaded example is of a child who died in a fire. He states that God let that child die because perhaps they were the next Hitler!
White says that statements like this comfort people who question evil. But what about the parents of the child who died? How is it comforting for them to know that their child might have been the next enslaver of mankind?
Bob shouldn't have tried to play audio clips of previous James White comments.
Posted from the TOL App!
Posted from the TOL App!
Yes, exactly. It fuddles my brain how God can somehow protect the good by allowing more evil, as Lon suggests. Well, that is what Lon says. White says simply that God lifts his restraining hand to show man's wickedness up for what it really is. It probably amounts to the same thing anyway.
But whichever way you cook it, it is morally repugnant. Even if you take White's idea as stated, it means that in the normal course man is completely wicked but this doesn't get revealed for what it is until God lifts his restraining hand. Everything you see is really an illusion. What you see as normal is really just God holding back a boat load of evil and what is evil is God showing you the real thing.
We are at the break.
Recap so far.....
Bob's opening statement was great.
White's opening statement was predictable.
The rebuttal segment was semi disastrous for Bob as the audio clips he tried to play didn't work properly nor did they make sense in the debate.
Bob should just stick to the debate points.
Let's see how the cross examination segment goes.
Posted from the TOL App!
Recap so far.....
Bob's opening statement was great.
White's opening statement was predictable.
The rebuttal segment was semi disastrous for Bob as the audio clips he tried to play didn't work properly nor did they make sense in the debate.
Bob should just stick to the debate points.
Let's see how the cross examination segment goes.
Posted from the TOL App!
James White to Debate Bob Enyart on Open Theism
Okay Bob is destroying White in the Cross Examination
This is Bob's strength.
Posted from the TOL App!
Okay Bob is destroying White in the Cross Examination
This is Bob's strength.
Posted from the TOL App!
Lon
Well-known member
Marginalizing will make facts go away. By any logicians reckoning, God surely sees attrocity as it happens, and doesn't stop it. The why is God's business. It really doesn't matter who you are, what your theology is, or if you happen to be wrong or right - God's business is His alone and His counsel is His alone. We have indications in scripture that we can trust God despite these attrocities (no matter who you are or what you believe). Marginalizing even an opposing theology does not make the problem go away. It is simply scapegoating. Dr. White called that on the carpet, but I'd not bin all Open Theists together, but we have to take his words to Enyart and so if you are attacking his position, it must be taken in light of where you and DenverBC would part. It will become a confusing three-way conversation though.
As I said, I don't think it matters at all, because in every.single.one. of our observations, God still allows the attrocity to happen without exception (other than the hypothetical that you or another would have a finite god).
"Do not lay a hand to the tares because you may harm the wheat."
I would suggest Dr. White is arguing God's sovereignty, such that it isn't just a one day direction. As the wheat grows, we deduct His passion for the wheat, that not one should perish, which also coincides with other scriptures. Other than that, I'm not sure.
Don't be too hung up on however vaguely we see His purposes. We know clearly that He makes all things work for good and know that He is able to save to the uttermost. The comfort for attrocity is to know God cares and is not idle; that He gave promises to sustain us through all storms. Trying to answer 'what is the purpose of this attrocity' is forgetting all the truths we already have been told, that He loses none, that He is a righteous judge, and that He has rights over even our loved ones. I told my kids, when we almost lost my dear wife to cancer, that she is on loan to us, not owned by us. She belongs to God. That we should thank Him for what we have and cherish it all the more. That happened about 6 years ago and she is with us in remiscion. A brother of mine, in AK, lost his daughter to cancer that same year. What purpose? That is in the counsel of God. For us, the right question is how do I live with this? and the answer is to trust God. All things will work together for good. He will see her again. 4 years ago, we lost my mother-in-law. I do not the purpose, that belongs to God. She died young, but died peacefully in her sleep. God is good, in Him is no darkness at all. It doesn't matter if we are Calvinist or Open Theist on this: God saw, could have changed it for good as it was happening if we are wrong and not before. Such then, changes nothing, it is simply a scapegoating to avoid scrutiny and confrontation from a world asking questions. In the Garden, Adam scapegoated his wife. She scapegoated the serpent. When it comes to a hard question none of us can escape; smoke and mirrors is a parlor trick and some day the masses will start wondering at the slight of hand. We need point to the truths and comforts of scripture, given for our benefit, and believe them, amidst every imaginable crisis. "It is well with my soul" and "Blessed Be Your Name" were both written during tragedy of family loss. Both thrust themselves upon the truths and promises of scripture to sustain.