ECT Open Theism debate

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
[h=3]
open-theism-vs-calvinism-slick-vs-duffy-debate.jpg


The Will Duffy / Matt Slick Calvinist vs Open Theism Debates[/h]December 1st & 2nd, 2017
The first debate is in! Is Open Theism a Proper Representation of the God of Scripture?






Open for discussion.
Will post part 2 when it is available.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I'm listening to part 2 live.
(Will post the youtube link as soon as the finished debate become available.)
Since I am watching it live (and cannot rewind to get the exact phrasing, I will paraphrase.

An analogy was brought up in part 2 .........
Father and child in the yard.
Father warns child of the danger of not staying in the yard and stepping into the street.
(Is that a loving father?)

Child decides to step into street in front of speeding car.
Father grabs child and pulls him back to safety.
(Is that a MORE loving father?)​



This question was asked to support the notion that it was because of GOD's decision, not the child's decision, that saved the child.

Will Duffy's answered the question that it was more loving to grab the child to safety.
And then, followed it with a responsive question.
Which is a more loving father, one that has the capacity to grab both his 2 children and does, or one that has the capacity to grab both but only grabs one?


Touche.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
The Bible tells us many times that God hears our prayers. Does that mean that God knew that we would pray and what we would pray for? In Isiah 65:2 KJV - I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;

We have "our own thoughts" but does God know what they will be before we think them?

Isaiah 65:24 KJV -
And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.
 
Last edited:

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Part 2 is now available on youtube

[h=1]Matt Slick vs Will Duffy: Does Calvinism Present God as Good and Loving?[/h]
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I certainly disagree that God could sin. God has the knowledge of good and evil but cannot decide to sin at some point.
That's a point in which I don't think offers an argument.
Neither side thinks GOD will ever sin.

And in the hypothetical "if He did" ...... well, who would punish Him?
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Here is a written list of the categories and verses Will Duffy mentions in his


LIST OF TYPES OF OPEN THEISM VERSES which show...
1 - God Wants His Prophecies of Judgment to Fail
I say will destroy a nation so repent Jer. 18:7,11; 26:3; repent so God can repent of the doom He pronounced; Jer. 26:13; Jonah ? (plus all the repent verses); I will judge you, so repent, because why should you die Ezek. 18:30-31; I say you shall die, but turn so you won’t Ezek. 33:14-15

2 - God Exists in Time through duration
Jesus is waiting until His enemies are made His footstool Heb. 10:13 with the related passages Ps. 110:1; Mat. 22:44; Luke 20:43; Acts 2:35; Heb. 1:13; John 1:14; weary of repenting Jer. 15:6. See also is - and was - and is to come - Whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting - Forever and ever - The Ancient of Days - From before the ages of the ages - From ancient times - the everlasting God - He continues forever - From of old - Remains forever - Immortal - The Lord shall endure forever - Who lives forever - God’s years - manifest in His own time - Everlasting Father - Alive forevermore - Always lives - Forever - Continually - God’s years never end - From everlasting to everlasting - From that time forward, even forever - And of His kingdom there will be no end.

3 - God has qualities that can only be had if He exists in time, like patience, slow to anger, and hope.
Patience: 1 Peter 3:20; Ex. 34:6; Num. 14:18; Ps. 86:15; Rom. 2:4; 9:22; 1 Tim. 1:16; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:9, 15; etc.
Endurance: God endures His people’s cries Luke 18:7
Slow to anger and long suffering: Neh. 9:17; Ps. 103:8; 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nah. 1:3;
Sustain emotion: I will not remain angry forever Jer. 3:12
Hope: for hope that is seen is not hope, yet God hopes Romans 8:24 & 15:13 (and all the “expectation” verses like Isa. 5:1-4; Jer. 3:7; Zeph. 3:7; Jer. 18)

4 - God Acting In Sequence (showing He’s in time)
Gen. 2:1; God waited while ark was being prepared 1 Peter 3:20; speaks in heaven 1 Kings 22:19-20; [when He allegedly enters into time Gen - Rev]; the Son waits in heaven till his enemies are subdued Heb. 10:13; God the Son went from not having a body John 4:24, to indwelling a form Gen. 3:8; 18:1-3; etc., to taking on a human body Luke 1:31, to having a glorified body Phil 3:21


It's a bit long, so I put the rest in spoiler.
There are 33 categories.

Spoiler
5 - Sequence Within the Godhead
Spoiler
Spoiler
relationship; sharing glory; planning things; humbling Himself; becoming things; becoming the Father of a Son with two natures; Father increasing, as in favor with His Son
6 - God Says Certain Things Happened that Never Entered His Mind
Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 32:35

7 - God Indicates the Future is Uncertain (by saying perhaps, etc.)
Perhaps everyone will repent so that I can repent of the destruction that I purposed to bring upon them. Jer. 26:1-3; Lest perhaps the people change their mind and return to Egypt Ex. 13:17; if Egyptians don’t believe Moses’ first sign Ex. 4:8-9; now nothing they propose to do Gen. 11:6; perhaps Israel will repent; Israel might repent Ezek. 12:3; [Mark 6:48-49; Luke 24:28]

8 - God Says He Changes His Mind (He says that He repents, not from sin of course, but from an intention)
Gen. 6:4-6; Ex. 32; Num. 14; Ex. 32:14 (including ); Judges 2:18 (in the Hebrew); the repent sandwich with Saul (1 Sam. 15:11, 29, 35); 2 Sam. 24:16; 1 Chr. 21:15; Ps. 106:45; 135:14 (in the Hebrew); Jonah 3:10; 4:2; weary of repenting Jer. 15:6; 18:8; perhaps Israel will repent so I can repent 26:3, 13, 19; 42:10; Destroy Jerusalem by Micah’s prophecy Micah 3:12 with Jer. 26-18-19; Joel 2:13; the Lord repented Amos 7:3, 6; repents from judgment Jonah 4:2

9 - God Says Things Are Possible that’d be Impossible If the Future Were Settled or Decreed
Lest God consume Israel on the way Ex. 33:3; call for 12 legions of Angels Mat. 26:53; resist any temptation 1 Cor. 10:13; creating children from stones; destroy Israel and raise up a new nation Num. 14:12; Destroy Nineveh; God doesn’t bring the people by a certain route, so they don’t go back to Egypt Ex. 13:17; I could come up in one moment and consume you Ex. 33:5; destroy the land Ezek. 22:30; Eli’s sons could have ministered forever 1 Sam. 2:30; Saul’s perpetual dynasty 1 Sam. 13:13-14 & 2 Sam. 7:15; totally destroy Jerusalem 1 Chr. 21:11-12, 15; destroy a nation that later repented Jer. 18:7-8, bless a nation that later does evil 18:9-10; Jer. 26:6?; bake really gross cake Ezek. 4:12; destroy the Israelites while still in Egypt Ezek. 20:8, and in the wilderness 20:13-14, 17; He says He will give the the righteous shall surely live, but he shall die Ezek. 33:12; and then the children in the wilderness 20:21-22; destroy Jerusalem by Micah’s prophecy Micah 3:12 with Jer. 26-18-19; Hezekiah is about to die Isa. 38:1; 2 Kings 20:1; God hardens people’s hearts, but so that they wouldn’t do the things that they couldn’t do Ex. 4:21; 9:12; 10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17; Deut. 2:30; Josh. 11:20; 1 Sam. 6:6; John 12:40; (Jesus even said that something was “better”, if they such men were never born Mat. 18:6?); etc. (plus anything else in the God Said He’d Do Something Never Done category and plus all the Repent verses)

10 - God Says He Will Do Something that He Never Does
Without fail cast out the Canaanites Josh 3:10 with Deut. 7:1, 23, Jud. 2:1, 20-23, 3:5, 10; Ex. 32:10; 33:2, 3; Deut. 12:29; Judges 2:3; 10:13; calamity on Ahab 1 Kings 21:21 & 29; said He would destroy Israelites but did not Ps. 106:23; destroy a nation Jer. 18:7-8; destroy the Hebrews while still in Egypt Ezek. 20:8, and while in the wilderness 20:13-14, 17, and then the children in the wilderness 20:21-22; destroy Jerusalem by Micah’s prophecy Micah 3:12 with Jer. 26-18-19

11 - God Expects Something That Doesn’t Happen
Israel would repent; Isa. 5:1-4 (What more could I have done? decreed it?); Jer. 3:7 Israel will return to Me Jer. 3:7 (in the Hebrew); Zeph. 3:7; Jer. 18 destruction I thought I would do; Surely they are (would act like) My people Isa. 63:8-10; Jer. 18:7-8

12 - God Increases and Learns (for He must increase)
The Father’s favor grows toward His son Luke 2:52; the Son increases in natures John 1:14, He learned obedience Heb. 5:8; He was tempted Heb. 4:15 (within the constraints of James 1:13); He must increase John 3:30

13 - God Shows Regret
I greatly regret making Saul king 1 Sam. 16; making man Gen. 6

14 - God Wants to See What Man Will Do Wants to Test Man / Didn’t Know What Men Would Do
Gen. 2:19; 22:12; Ex. 16:4; Deut. 8:2; 13:3; Judges 2:22; 3:4; Ex. 20:20; 2 Chr. 32:31; Ps. 17:3; Jonah 3:10

15 - God Does Not Have All Present Knowledge
Son of Man doesn’t know something the Father knows (day or hour) Mark 13:32; [Mat. 24:36]; God in a Christophany will go down to Sodom Gen. 18 (see experiential knowledge, below)

16 - God Intervenes to Prevent what would Otherwise Happen
Tree of life cherubim Gen. 3:22-24; Babel Gen. 11:5-8; Ex. 13:17

17 - God Indicates Certain Prophecies Will Go Unfulfilled (God Says What Will Happen, But It Doesn’t Happen)
Tyre & Egypt Ezek. 26:12; 29:18; etc. Without fail cast out the Canaanites Josh 3:10 with Deut. 7:1, 23, Jud. 2:1, 20-23, 3:5, 10; Ex. 32:10; 33:2, 3; Deut. 12:29; Judges 2:3; 10:13;

18 - God Gives Men Options and Recognizes that They Can Choose Among Them
Life or Death Deut. 30:19; Gen. 2:16? optional punishments to David 2 Sam. 24:12 & 1 Chr. 21:11-12; Ezek.18:30-32

19 - God Says He Does Not Know What Will Happen (similar to the perhaps category above)
Ex. 13:17; perhaps Israel will repent so that I can repent Jer. 26:3; how long until Israel repents Hos. 8:5;

20 - God Says He Will No Longer Do Something He Said He Would Do
Isa. 5:1-6; Jer. 18; Drive out nations Joshua 23:13; Judge 2:21; Jonah

21 - God Did Things Before the Creation, Showing Sequence (Before the Foundation of the World / Before He Allegedly Created time)
Shared glory John 17:5, 24; Eph. 1:4-5 choose us in Him (planned!); 1 Peter 1:20 Christ foreknown before the foundation [even though we’re told, wrongly, that God can’t do anything in sequence]

22 - Things That God Became (i.e., He was not always these things) So, He can become other things to, if He wants to)
Man, God the Son “became flesh” John 1:14 (after saying He is not a man Hos. 11:9; 1 Sam. 15:29; Job 9:32; [Ps. 146:3]); Creator Gen. 1; Sovereign (by creating); Became obedient to the point of death Phil. 2:8; “I became your Savior” Isa. 63:8; Perfected (as a Man) Heb. 5:9; Author of eternal salvation Heb. 5:9; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit 1 Cor. 15:45; Possessor of a glorified body Phil. 3:21; etc.

23 - God’s People Believe God Can Change His Mind
Ex. 32:11-13; Sodom and Gomorrah Gen. 18: ; Moses Ps. 106:23

24 - God’s People Believed They Can Change God’s Mind (including as Jesus teaches)
Moses 32:11-13; Deut. 9:19; Moses Ps. 106:23; persistent widow Luke 18:4-7; Abraham with Lot and Sodom Gen. 18

25 - God’s People Believe a Prophecy Does Not Have to Come To Pass and the Future is Not Settled
Acts 21:11-12; Hezekiah 2 Kings 20; Moses Ex. 33:15-16; Acts 21:11-12

26 - The Bible Says Things Happen By Chance
By chance a certain priest Luke 10:31; Time and chance happen to them all Eccl. 9:11; Ruth by chance (see the Hebrew) happened upon the field Ruth 2:3; Paul reasoned with those who happened (see the Greek: chancing) to be there Acts 17:17

27 - The Bible Describes Men as Sovereign, Omniscient, and Having Foreknowledge (so these don’t require a settled future)
As Sovereign, Saul; as having All Knowledge Jn 2:20, and as Having Foreknowledge

28 - The Bible Shows that Time is in Heaven
half hour; plus God speaking in heaven 1 Kings 22?

29 - Prayer Can Change What Would Otherwise Be the Future
Jehoahaz pleaded and God listened 2 Kings 13:4

30 - The Bible Shows that Men Limit God
Ps. 78:41 they limited the Holy One of Israel; Jesus could do no miracles

31 - The Bible Shows Certain Prophecies Will Not Be Fulfilled (unfulfilled prophecy)
Canaanites; Nebuchadnezzar taking Egypt?; etc. soon return verses (not have time to go through the villages of Israel; some standing here will not die until they see the Son of Man returning in power in His kingdom; this generation shall not pass until all these things take place; etc. (so the believers sold their land in early Acts)

32 - The Bible Shows Things Could Have Been Different
Saul’s throne 1 Sam. 13:13; Aaron’s two sons called to serve God forever Deut. 18:5 with Ex. 28:1 & Num. 26:61; Lev. 10 killed; Jerusalem totally destroyed by God’s angel 1 Chr. 21:15

33 - God Says What He Wants to Do, But Can’t or Doesn’t Do [or fit under other categories]

Sought a man who would, but I found no one Ezek. 22:30; Ex. 4:24 sought to kill Moses; kill Israel and start over with Moses; Wants Moses to speak but lets Aaron instead; to have Ezekiel eat gross bread Ezek. 4:12


He also adds the following:

List of Top Seven Categories of Verses that Don’t Exist
- That say God is outside of Time (timeless, in an eternal now, not was nor will be but only is, has no past, has no future)
- That say God knows everything that will ever happen
- That God can intervene in the past
- That God has decreed everything that will ever happen
- That God created time
- God exists in the past and or the future
- That God knew us before we were conceived.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
That's a point in which I don't think offers an argument.
Neither side thinks GOD will ever sin.

And in the hypothetical "if He did" ...... well, who would punish Him?
Actually, in part 1 the open theist says more than once that God can sin and Jesus could have sinned on earth. Will also says God could decide not to be righteous. Also that God learns.
 
Last edited:

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Actually, in part 1 the open theist says more than once that God can sin and Jesus could have sinned on earth. Will also says God could decide not to be righteous. Also that God learns.
Yes, but saying 'He can" does not mean "He does".

It is hard to imagine how Christ (God) could choose not to fall for temptations if He has no choice in what He can and cannot do.
If He has no choice then it is impossible for Him to make a choice.
That eliminates resisting temptation and makes resisting moot.
Right?
I mean how can you choose to resist or not if you are incapable of making that choice?
The only way you can merit a thumbs up for making the right choice towards temptation is if you have the choice to resist or not.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Yes, but saying 'He can" does not mean "He does".

It is hard to imagine how Christ (God) could choose not to fall for temptations if He has no choice in what He can and cannot do.
If He has no choice then it is impossible for Him to make a choice.
That eliminates resisting temptation and makes resisting moot.
Right?
I mean how can you choose to resist or not if you are incapable of making that choice?
The only way you can merit a thumbs up for making the right choice towards temptation is if you have the choice to resist or not.
I'm going to watch part 2 later today/evening. Can God choose to lie and sin?
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I'm going to watch part 2 later today/evening. Can God choose to lie and sin?
I haven't watched either in their entirety yet.

But the difference in the particular argument of whether GOD has the choice to sin or not seems to boil down to at least 2 options.
1. GOD is sinless because He is incapable of choosing whether to resist sin or not (ie. has no choice to make).
2. GOD is sinless because He always chooses to resist sin.

To me, #1 indicates that GOD runs as an unconscious automated being (can only run one way) and therefore His conscious wisdom has nothing to do with what He does.
I lean toward the view that GOD's vast wisdom is the means of Him resisting sin, and not because He's just running on autopilot where His wisdom plays no part.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The Bible tells us many times that God hears our prayers. Does that mean that God knew that we would pray and what we would pray for?
Prayer is a means by which we draw nearer to God. God states that we should pray for the following reasons:

1. That the Lord God Himself should be honored through worship. (Isaiah 57:15; Jonah 2:9)
2. For our spiritual blessing, as a means for our growth in grace. (Psalms 116:1)
3. For our seeking from Him the things which we are in need. (James 4:2)

But here (reason #3 above) a difficulty to some presents itself. If God has foreordained, and given that ordaining decree, God knows what will happen before it happens, what is the use of prayer? If it is true that God is sovereign, that is "of Him and through Him and to Him are all things" (Romans 11:30), then why pray?

Prayer is to acknowledge that God does know of what we are in need. Prayer is not required to inform of God with the knowledge of what we need, but is designed for us to confess to God of our sense of need. In this, as in everything, God's thoughts are not like our thoughts. God requires that His gifts should be sought after. God desires to be honored by our asking, just as He is to be thanked by us after He has bestowed His blessing upon us.

However, the question still remains, If God is sovereign, ordaining everything that will happen, and regulating all events, then isn’t prayer a profitless exercise?

One sufficient answer to these questions is that God admonishes us to pray, "Pray without ceasing" (1 Thess. 5:17). And again, "men ought always to pray" (Luke 18:1). Moreover, the Scriptures declare that "the prayer of faith shall save the sick," and "the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much" (James 5:15-16); and Christ, our perfect Example in all things, was foremost a Person of Prayer. Thus, it is evident, that prayer is neither meaningless nor valueless. But this still does not remove the difficulty nor answer the question: What then is the relationship between God's Sovereignty and Christian prayer?

To begin, I would assert from the teachings of Scripture that prayer is not intended to change God's purpose, nor is it to move Him to form fresh purposes. God has decreed that certain events shall come to pass through the means He has appointed for their accomplishment. God has elected certain ones to be saved, but He has also decreed that these shall be converted through the preaching the Gospel. The Gospel, then, is one of the appointed means for the working out of the eternal counsel of the Lord; and prayer is another. God has decreed the means as well as the ends, and among the means of God is prayer. Even the prayers of His people (along with the fact that these prayers would be lifted up by the free will of the ones praying) are included in God's eternal decree. Therefore, instead of prayers being in vain they are one the means through which God actualizes His decree.

That prayers for the execution of the very things decreed by God are not meaningless is clearly taught in the Scriptures. Elijah knew that God was about to give rain, but that did not prevent him from at once taking himself to prayer (James 5:17-18). Daniel "understood" by the writings of the prophets that the captivity was to last but seventy years, yet when these seventy years were almost ended we are told that he set his face "unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes" (Daniel 9:2-3). God told the prophet Jeremiah “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you.” (Jeremiah 29:11-12).

Here then is the design of prayer: not that God's will may be altered (for it cannot), but that God's will may be accomplished in His own good time and way that He has decreed it to be so. It is because God has promised certain things that we can ask for them with the full assurance of faith. It is God's purpose that His will is brought about by His own appointed means, and that He may do His people good upon His own terms, and that is, by the 'means' and 'terms' of entreaty and supplication. Did not Christ know for certain that after His death and resurrection He would be exalted by the Father? Of course He did. Yet we find Christ asking for this very thing in John 17:5: "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." Did not Christ know that none of His people could perish? Yet He sought God the Father to "keep" them (John 17:11).

It should be remembered that God's will is immutable, and cannot be altered by our pleas. When the mind of God is not toward a people to do them good, it cannot be turned to them by the most fervent and troublesome prayer of those who have the greatest interest in Him: "Then the LORD said to me, "Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people. Send them out of my sight, and let them go!" (Jeremiah 15:1). Similarly, the prayers of Moses to enter the Promised Land are another example.

So, in summary, we have the answer, namely, that our prayers are in the ordaining, and that God has as much ordained His people's prayers as anything else He has ordained, and when we pray we are producing links in the chain of ordained facts. God decrees that we should pray—we pray; God decrees that we shall be answered, and the answer comes to us.

AMR
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Impeccability of Our Lord

Impeccability of Our Lord

We have to somehow square Christ' impeccability when we do Christology.

He "did no sin" (1 Pet. 2:22), "in Him is no sin" (1 John 3:5 and contrast 1:8), He "knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21), He was "without sin" (Heb. 4:15). He was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Heb. 7:26).

The truth of Christ's impeccability is sometimes objected to along the lines that is inconsistent with His temptability. The argument is along the lines: A person who cannot sin cannot be tempted to sin. Those that make this argument might just as well reason that because an army cannot be defeated, it cannot be attacked.

Temptability depends upon the constitutional susceptibility, while impeccability depends upon the will. So far as Our Lord's natural susceptibility, both physical and mental, was concerned, Jesus Christ was open to all forms of human temptation, excepting those that spring out of lust, or corruption of nature. But His peccability, or the possibility of being overcome by these temptations, would depend upon the amount of voluntary resistance which He was able to bring to bear against them. Those temptations were very strong, but if the self-determination of His holy will was stronger than they, then they could not induce Him to sin, and He would be impeccable. And yet plainly He would be temptable.

The impeccability of Christ is proved by the relation of the two wills in His person to each other. Each nature, in order to be complete, entire, and wanting nothing, has its own will; but the finite will never antagonizes the infinite will, but obeys it invariably and perfectly. Those two wills in the God-Man were never out of accord.

If this should for an instant cease to be the case, there would be a conflict in the self-consciousness of Jesus Christ similar to that in the self-consciousness of His apostle Paul. If so, Jesus too would say, ‘The good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do. It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me?’ (Rom 7:19, 20, 24).

Of course, there is no such utterance as this from the lips of the God-man. On the contrary, there is the calm inquiry of Our Lord: ‘Which of you convinceth me of sin?’ (John 8:46); and the confident affirmation of John: ‘In him was no sin.’ (1 John 3:5). There is an utter absence of personal confession of sin, in any form whatever, either in the conversation or the prayers of Jesus Christ. There is no sense of indwelling sin. He could not describe his religious experience as his apostle does, and his people do: ‘The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh,’ (Gal 5:17).

AMR
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The Friday evening and Saturday afternoon debates were entertaining and frustrating.

Entertaining in the sense that to watch how both sides were quite ill-equipped and stumbled around in nonsensical hypotheticals much too often.

Frustrating in the sense that Matt Slick was simply terrible at defending orthodox Calvinism (which he clearly is not an adherent), much less Reformed thought, and was not very steeped in open theism. Mr. Slick admitted to not being well read of the Reformers and it showed. Also his tendency to come across arrogant and dismissive, in contrast with Mr. Duffy's milquetoast demeanor, was not lost on the audience. Nicely done, Will. :AMR1:

Matt's stated and startling admission that he views God as not really atemporal (pleading ignorance about what that actually means) basically conceded the bulk of the open theist's arguments. When confronted with articles from CARM where Matt says otherwise, he weakly opined that he would have to go back and make some changes to that content. Best that Mr. Slick stay focused upon evangelization efforts with Mormons. Sigh.


Nevertheless, I sincerely appreciate Rev. Enyart and his team for hosting the debates. It was a professional effort and went off online without any real hitches. Wonderful job there, Denver Bible Church!

At present, the gold standard for live debates with openists remains White's debate with Bob Enyart:

Note to Jefferson, et al.: If you snag the above for your usual spin-doctoring, please do me the courtesy of grabbing all of the above and not just what suits your obvious motives. :AMR:

AMR
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
:wave:
Thanks for joining in this discussion thread, AMR.

We have to somehow square Christ' impeccability when we do Christology.

He "did no sin" (1 Pet. 2:22), "in Him is no sin" (1 John 3:5 and contrast 1:8), He "knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21), He was "without sin" (Heb. 4:15). He was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Heb. 7:26).
One could be sinless by never sinning.
It does not have to be because sin was impossible.
Christ did not sin.



The truth of Christ's impeccability is sometimes objected to along the lines that is inconsistent with His temptability. The argument is along the lines: A person who cannot sin cannot be tempted to sin.
Temptation presents a choice to be made (I'm going to resist, or not resist).
If you have no choice, then there was no temptation.
The whole point of tempting someone is to force them to make a choice (resist or don't resist).


Those that make this argument might just as well reason that because an army cannot be defeated, it cannot be attacked.
An army can be attacked whether they will always be the winning army or not.
GOD assured Israel of a victory of battle (making it impossible for them to lose), and yet they were still attacked.
So even a guaranteed victory does not prevent the possibility of your army being attacked.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
The Friday evening and Saturday afternoon debates were entertaining and frustrating.

Entertaining in the sense that to watch how both sides were quite ill-equipped and stumbled around in nonsensical hypotheticals much too often.

Frustrating in the sense that Matt Slick was simply terrible at defending orthodox Calvinism (which he clearly is not an adherent), much less Reformed thought, and was not very steeped in open theism. Mr. Slick admitted to not being well read of the Reformers and it showed. Also his tendency to come across arrogant and dismissive, in contrast with Mr. Duffy's milquetoast demeanor, was not lost on the audience. Nicely done, Will. :AMR1:

Matt's stated and startling admission that he views God as not really atemporal (pleading ignorance about what that actually means) basically conceded the bulk of the open theist's arguments. When confronted with articles from CARM where Matt says otherwise, he weakly opined that he would have to go back and make some changes to that content. Best that Mr. Slick stay focused upon evangelization efforts with Mormons. Sigh.


Nevertheless, I sincerely appreciate Rev. Enyart and his team for hosting the debates. It was a professional effort and went off online without any real hitches. Wonderful job there, Denver Bible Church!

At present, the gold standard for live debates with openists remains White's debate with Bob Enyart:

Note to Jefferson, et al.: If you snag the above for your usual spin-doctoring, please do me the courtesy of grabbing all of the above and not just what suits your obvious motives. :AMR:

AMR
In the first video, I could only see Matt due to half the screen being cut off. There were some unproductive periods and irrational comparisons by Duffy. Duffy seemed glaringly unprepared more so than Matt Slick. I thought of good questions and answers to some of their questions throughout but I didn't take notes and I'm just giving an overall opinion right now. I may watch them again or search for more substantive debates on this.

I do understand Calvinism better after watching but I thought several times that you would possibly do better on some serious issues raised. I plan to check it out more. There was a lot of attacking of Calvinism by Will and the audience which included long hypothetical questions with broad sweeping statements, unrealistic leaps of logic and accusatory declarations. Some questions are unanswerable. Romans 11:33 KJV - O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and His ways past finding out!

In summary, I think I had more disagreements with Open Theism but I'm just guessing. That's why I might watch again and research both doctrines more than I have in the past. I'm glad they agreed that both sides were Christian. :chuckle:
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
We have to somehow square Christ' impeccability when we do Christology.

He "did no sin" (1 Pet. 2:22), "in Him is no sin" (1 John 3:5 and contrast 1:8), He "knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21), He was "without sin" (Heb. 4:15). He was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Heb. 7:26).

The truth of Christ's impeccability is sometimes objected to along the lines that is inconsistent with His temptability. The argument is along the lines: A person who cannot sin cannot be tempted to sin. Those that make this argument might just as well reason that because an army cannot be defeated, it cannot be attacked.

Temptability depends upon the constitutional susceptibility, while impeccability depends upon the will. So far as Our Lord's natural susceptibility, both physical and mental, was concerned, Jesus Christ was open to all forms of human temptation, excepting those that spring out of lust, or corruption of nature. But His peccability, or the possibility of being overcome by these temptations, would depend upon the amount of voluntary resistance which He was able to bring to bear against them. Those temptations were very strong, but if the self-determination of His holy will was stronger than they, then they could not induce Him to sin, and He would be impeccable. And yet plainly He would be temptable.

The impeccability of Christ is proved by the relation of the two wills in His person to each other. Each nature, in order to be complete, entire, and wanting nothing, has its own will; but the finite will never antagonizes the infinite will, but obeys it invariably and perfectly. Those two wills in the God-Man were never out of accord.

If this should for an instant cease to be the case, there would be a conflict in the self-consciousness of Jesus Christ similar to that in the self-consciousness of His apostle Paul. If so, Jesus too would say, ‘The good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do. It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me?’ (Rom 7:19, 20, 24).

Of course, there is no such utterance as this from the lips of the God-man. On the contrary, there is the calm inquiry of Our Lord: ‘Which of you convinceth me of sin?’ (John 8:46); and the confident affirmation of John: ‘In him was no sin.’ (1 John 3:5). There is an utter absence of personal confession of sin, in any form whatever, either in the conversation or the prayers of Jesus Christ. There is no sense of indwelling sin. He could not describe his religious experience as his apostle does, and his people do: ‘The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh,’ (Gal 5:17).

AMR
One argument I heard was that Jesus could have sinned because he was tempted. Without looking it up, I think of temptation as an offer or an opportunity to do or choose something.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Yes, but saying 'He can" does not mean "He does".

It is hard to imagine how Christ (God) could choose not to fall for temptations if He has no choice in what He can and cannot do.
If He has no choice then it is impossible for Him to make a choice.
That eliminates resisting temptation and makes resisting moot.
Right?
I mean how can you choose to resist or not if you are incapable of making that choice?
The only way you can merit a thumbs up for making the right choice towards temptation is if you have the choice to resist or not.

I think of our Lord's temptations in the wilderness. He was hungry and wielded the sword of the Spirit by quoting Scripture. What a victory that would have been. His defense was ever ready, and what could be better to fight off temptation....especially when He understood well the power of that sword? We have the same defense if we just think to use it.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
One argument I heard was that Jesus could have sinned because he was tempted. Without looking it up, I think of temptation as an offer or an opportunity to do or choose something.
Temptation implies possibility of sin in general (humans) but not in specific (Christ). For instance, the testing of gold implies the possibility of things not being gold in general, but not the possibility of pure gold not being pure gold. The end of testing gold is to distinguish true gold from false gold. Thus, Christ's not falling in sin proves He could not sin. Since, Jesus is God and sin is rebellion against God, Jesus could not sin, for it is impossible for Him to rebel against Himself, unless His omniscience and omnipotence were brought into question. Thus, being human, He was tempted, but being divine and undivided in His moral nature, He was essentially holy and so could not sin.

Jesus is one Person. That person cannot sin, because divinity is sinless, and Jesus has a divine nature. Nor is it proper to say that Jesus "might have been able to sin in his human nature," because persons Will (or Act); natures Are.

Two wills implies two natures. Again, Persons ACT. Natures ARE. There is nothing strange about two wills acting in harmony. Your will and my will can be two wills acting in harmony. If your will is subservient to my will, or is guided by my will, that doesn't make it any less your will. The unique thing about Jesus is that it was one Person having two wills, each according to its nature: one human, the other divine.

For a temptation to be "real" it should be sufficient that it has an apparent advantage or attraction. So, for example, Satan suggests to Jesus the opportunity to "inherit the world" but in a way that avoids the very real agonies of the cross. How could this not have obvious attraction? In other words, how could this not be an actual temptation?

If it be objected that Jesus knew there was a better (best) option available by obedience to God, therefore no other options held any attraction, I respond that this view does not give due weight to the full human nature possessed by Jesus. The same objection could have been raised to Adam's sin. The same objection can be raised to the Christian's sin today. And even (to a much less degree) to the unregenerate in those cases where the "right" thing is plain and obvious, but people still choose the sinful option over one better.

No one who falls to temptation ever knows its "full" weight. Only those people who successfully resist a temptation know that temptation's full power. For they have exhausted its strength, and resisted. Jesus NEVER lost a battle.

As the many discussions of hypotheticals in the debates showed, you have to define impossibility as relates to Jesus and temptation. But here's the simple fact. It was decretally impossible for Christ to sin, for God had from all eternity decreed that He would not sin. The fact that Jesus did not sin establishes the preceding decree that He would not sin.

So questions about the intrinsic peccability or impeccability of Christ's human nature are all firmly committed into the realm of the theoretical. While they can be discussed in that realm, I think it should be kept in mind that it is only as a counterfactual hypothetical that they even arise; not only because Christ did never actually sin, but also because it was infallibly foreordained that He never would.

If we may aver that the elect angels will never sin, as did those who did not keep their first estate, and thus they are by God's decree unable to sin, we must further observe that their inability to sin is not intrinsic. It is God who sovereignly keeps them.

Christ however, is intrinsically unable to sin. Satan approaches to tempt but has nothing in Him (John 14:30). The Man Christ Jesus not only came forth from the womb sinless but He came forth from the womb as the Theanthropos. Jesus, the Person, having both divine and human natures, cannot personally sin.

Even the redeemed in glory will then be non posse peccare, will be so not by intrinsic power but by the will and power of God. With the God-man it is otherwise. He is self constitutionally unable to sin; He is God.

AMR
 
Top