James White to Debate Bob Enyart on Open Theism

[Nathon Detroit]

Wow Bob is awesome the cross examination portion of the debate.

This is a disaster for Dr. White.


Posted from the TOL App!

 

[Lighthouse]

James White prep video for the debate

I didn't feel like listening to an almost half hour video that I can mostly predict and was most likely mostly useless.

But now I know Mr. White is a mountain biker and we all know what they're like...

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.

Typical Calvinism.

: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.

Foolishness.

 

[Lon]

I didn't feel like listening to an almost half hour video that I can mostly predict and was most likely mostly useless.

But now I know Mr. White is a mountain biker and we all know what they're like...


Typical Calvinism.


Foolishness.

Not at all, and I've shown why in the next post above.

 

[Lighthouse]

Not at all, and I've shown why in the next post above.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Nimrod]

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

I liked the part about Open Theism where God was shocked Adam sinned. WoW!

 

[Nimrod]

Yes, exactly. It fuddles my brain how God can somehow protect the good by allowing more evil,

Please define who is the good.

Is it soccer moms? Little old ladies? Children? Who decides who is "good"?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Bob's closing statement was excellent.


Posted from the TOL App!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

White's closing statement was lame.


Posted from the TOL App!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Here's my view of the winners of each round:

Opening Statement: Bob Enyart
Rebuttal: James White
Second Rebuttal: James White
Cross Examination: Bob Enyart
Closing Statement: Bob Enyart


Posted from the TOL App!

 

[Nimrod]

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.

1 Sam. 25 "Now then, my lord, as the Lord lives, and as your soul lives, because the Lord has restrained you from bloodguilt "

 

[Desert Reign]

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.

Lon, we've been through this before. You keep repeating the same thing and I keep rebutting it. You keep telling us that open theism has to answer the same question 'Why does God allow evil?' as Calvinism does. You keep telling us that 'even by OV standards' God still allows evil.

Sorry, but it's getting wearing. God is responsible for what he does. He is not responsible for what he doesn't do. Unless he has published a specific promise to do something. I do not have the same problem as you or James White have. It is because you claim that God controls everything that you must answer this question. I don't make that claim so I don't have the problem. This is the OV standard. In an open universe, God is not responsible for everything just because he made it.
Do you understand or are we to expect lots more posts in the future repeating that we 'share the same axiom'? We don't. Calvinism and open theism are different. We do not share the same axioms. We are not trying to answer the same questions. These problem questions arise because of your own faulty presuppositions, not because of ours. That's why when people like James White tell us that we are misrepresenting Calvinism and if only we would understand how you poor people believe such nice things really then we would all be very happy, or when AMR posts on this forum his pre-recorded complaint that none of us have ever read the Westminster Confession (he really does think we are imbeciles) and if only we would read it we would become Calvinists straightaway, we just have to laugh. There's nothing else for it.

 

[Desert Reign]

1 Sam. 25 "Now then, my lord, as the Lord lives, and as your soul lives, because the Lord has restrained you from bloodguilt "

So was that the best scripture you could find in the search engine with the word 'restrain' in it? Do you seriously think that this has anything to do with the discussion?

 

[Tambora]

Please define who is the good.

Is it soccer moms? Little old ladies? Children? Who decides who is "good"?

The yellow highlighted.

 

[Nang]

The yellow highlighted.

Only God is good . . .

 

[Nimrod]

So was that the best scripture you could find in the search engine with the word 'restrain' in it? Do you seriously think that this has anything to do with the discussion?

You said

If James White is right, then we don't ever see God restraining the expression of evil.

Scripture tells us He did. Your statement "If James White...." is wrong.
Try again....Wait, I doubt you want to understand Calvinism ever. You have your preconceived ideas and will stick to them, never wanting to properly describe Calvinism from a Reformed position.

2 Thess 2:11 "Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false"

 

[Nimrod]

That's why when people like James White tell us that we are misrepresenting Calvinism and if only we would understand how you poor people believe such nice things really then we would all be very happy,

Did James White say that? Or are you misrepresenting him? hmmmmmmmmm

 

[Nimrod]

My realist philosophy prevents that from happening.

Exactly. When speaking with Calvinist, we stick to Scripture. When dealing with OV the talk goes to philosophy. :blabla:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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.
​

..... James White has no business second guessing either of the above statements.
So why does he?

No. You presume second guessing is at work when the special revelation of God is clear on the matter that man is free, just not as free as he would like to assume. Nowhere in Scripture do we find the libertarian free will assumed by so many folks. The second guessing going on is when folks start to claim God limited Himself in favor of libertarian free will and is thus at the mercy of the actions of these "libertarian free will" moral agents to the point of not even being able to truly know with 100% certainty what they will do until they do it. That tactic seeks to redefine omniscience to something diluted, omnibenevolent, as the open theist likes to opine. The Bible on the other hand teaches us that knowledge without power is weak, and power without knowledge is dangerous. God is neither.

Are you embracing open theism, Tambora?

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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!

You must have watched something different. The example was a scenario posed by an atheist debating White who wondered why God did not save the child. White had already noted that we finite creatures are not omniscient and cannot know why God does not act to stop every evil act. It is certainly not because God is incapable or does not know what is going on the the world He created. So, White stops the atheist in his tracks with a simple "Well, what if that child was the next Hitler?". It is a fair retort to the nonsensical argument being posed by the atheist. White does not imply that this is the only answer, only an answer that might be speculated upon. As White had already implied, God has perfectly moral reasons for the existence of evil and His will to not jump in and stop every evil act. If you continue listening White also speaks to the utter lack of pastoral response of the open theist along the same lines, esp. given that open theists have argued that meaningless evil exists.

White says that statements like this comfort people who question evil.

Wiffenpoofle. White makes no such claim. Rather White states that God has promised that He will bring about the greater good out of the evil in this world. White notes that the open theist can make no such claim, but can only wave his arms about claiming God did not know what was going to happen and is just doing the best He can.

Re-watch the video as you are making the same kind of gross mis-characterizations that White is speaking to in the video.

AMR

 

[Lon]

It is because you claim that God controls everything that you must answer this question.

You don't believe this?
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

That sounds like absolute sovereignty in control to me.

Open Theist or not, you don't believe this?
Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

I don't make that claim so I don't have the problem. This is the OV standard. In an open universe, God is not responsible for everything just because he made it.

But can intervene. Has He left us alone? Better question: Can we exist or breathe, if He left us, any of us, alone? Is it possible? If God started the ball rolling and let us all go off on our own, He isn't as relational as Open Theism would have us believe and less than virtually any other theological position. Making a random/sin universe is evolution. I thought you guys were against that for the most part. The OV version has God not in control, a new song evolving without God's direction or sustaining power. That's an odd theology. It isn't as logical as imagined.

Do you understand or are we to expect lots more posts in the future repeating that we 'share the same axiom'?

More. You haven't addressed it unless you believe as I've just described, otherwise you are just varying amounts and aren't really open either.

We don't. Calvinism and open theism are different. We do not share the same axioms. We are not trying to answer the same questions.

Right, that's the scapegoat. You either have God completely without involvement such that you are completely open, or you really aren't open and thus really are with the same axioms, just trying to dodge and weave and misdirect at a Calvinist (or any other denomination, about, but an Open Theist).

These problem questions arise because of your own faulty presuppositions, not because of ours.

:nono: Let's go back up a moment. I gave scriptures that say God is in Control. How much isn't important at the moment. What is important is the extent our theologies are alike, and they are OR you have God totally separate from His creation. If He interacts...at all...you have Him in partial control answering prayer that necessarily has Him making choices FOR the one you are praying for. It has Him involved and making plans to ensure men and women come to Him through His Son. So we are both arguing over the amount of control at that point, but such puts both of us using exactly (or near) the same axiom, in this case why attrocity happens. "God didn't know" would mean He isn't involved, isn't all knowing of even past and present, and cannot read minds, isn't omnipotent but instead has limited Himself and is not involved with man and his/their decisions. That means you point at a Calvinist, all the while sweeping these leavings under the rug when someone isn't looking (thus scapegoating, misdirection).

That's why when people like James White tell us that we are misrepresenting Calvinism and if only we would understand how you poor people believe such nice things really then we would all be very happy, or when AMR posts on this forum his pre-recorded complaint that none of us have ever read the Westminster Confession (he really does think we are imbeciles) and if only we would read it we would become Calvinists straightaway, we just have to laugh. There's nothing else for it.

I've seen that, yes. I do not want you to be a Calvinist unless/until God wants you to be one. I just want 1) for you to recognize an accusation isn't an escape from the same problems that remain anyway and 2) that it is a slight of hand, misdirection to do so.
I've said this too, before and will repeat it: The only difference between us on this particular between knowledge and foreknowledge.
It doesn't matter, for instance, if I know a bank robbery is going to happen without reporting it, as it is to not report it 'when' it is happening.
You can say foreknowledge then 'controlled' it but such does not erase the other. If there are two guys, one knows before hand, and one learns at the time and neither of them try to stop it, they are both guilty by association (same or close enough axiom). What I've always said, rather is that the answer is God is good. He has made promises we can count on and bank on. etc.