Hour two is mostly the Calvinist successfully refuting doctrines that Open Theists do not teach. He does this by, once again, redefining really easily understood English words. No one rightly believes, for example, that a decision that was made BECAUSE of something else was therefore not made freely. To have a will does not mean that your decisions are causeless, it merely means that you could have decided otherwise and that the final "cause" was your will. It's even something of a quagmire to even discuss it in those terms because to make decisions is what it means to have a will. It doesn't make a lot of sense to discuss your decisions and your will as though they are two separate things.
In order for the Calvinist's argument to even be partially effective against the Open Theist, he'd have to establish or get the Open Theist to concede that there is only one possible effect for any particular set of causes and that one's will is one of those effects. The Calvinist here doesn't even ask a question on that topic but instead presupposes the answer in the formulation of his argument. The problem he really has, however, is that if that supposition is true then it traps God just as much as it does the Open Theist. Sure, the Calvinist can claim that only God's will is uncaused but claiming is not proving and the bible never even makes the claim.
Also, the Calvinist seems to like to accuse Will of committing logical fallacies, pausing only long enough to associating Open Theism with Mormonism, Zeus and whatever other pagan thing he can think of to name.
Guilt by Association Fallacy
He also commits several appeal to fear fallacies. Very dishonest but unfortunately effective tactics.
I will say that Will made the error of trusting the Calvinist enough to simply answer his questions. He should have refused to answer the question about whether God's holy triune nature ever changes. He should default with the opposite of whatever answer he thinks the Calvinist is expecting him to say or make him make his point before offering an answer. You always have to remember that English words mean something different in the Calvinist's mind than they mean in every day usage.
I'll also say that this Calvinist is, as they seemingly universally are, a condescending jerk. "It wouldn't be fair" to talk about the Greek and "I'll teach you about" this or that later. This guy's breath must smell like methane.
Clete
lain: I'd say you're mixing apples and oranges (pretty profoundly also), but you literally mentioned those yourself, so I'm at a loss . . . . :idunno:
