Summer Wonderland at BEL

[chatmaggot]

The debate was about Open Theism. Bob Enyart is a talented debater, I do not question that. Ones ability to debate does not make for ones ability to discern theological positions CORRECTLY.

Open Theism was not invented until around the 1980's with Seventh-day Adventist theologian Richard Rice's book The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will. I question Rice's ability to even understand the Bible, because as a 7th Day Adventists, he doesn't even know the basics of the gospel and our program today.

Rice was the only person to debate O.T. at the ETS. If Rice cannot even discern the law from grace being a 7th Day Adventist, how much more credible is he in regards to discerning who God is and His attributes. The foundation of Rice is built on sand and Bob Enyart built his house on that same sand. Watch how they sink, watch how they sink!

The concept of Open Theism is only 28 years old. I need not say anything further except that I disagree with it and it is only 28 years old.

Did I mention that Open Theism was invented around 28 years ago?

Dr. Norman Geisler's book ‘’Creating God in the Image of Man?’’ shows that Open Theism is a heresy and that the traditional attributes of God are true.

Did I mention that Open Theism was invented around 28 years ago?

I will leave the Open Theism debate for another place. The point of this was that IF Bob Enyart is a Bible scholar then he needs to join the ETS and debate others over at ETS.

He can apply here: http://www.etsjets.org/

Also, he needs to have more than just O.T. positions to debate.

Did I mention that Open Theism is around 28 years old and Dr. Rice is the first person to bring this concept over to the ETS for debate? Mind you, Rice is a 7th Day Adventist, who cannot even understand the basics of law and grace. Who is he to comment on God's attributes? The same goes for Enyart.

You seem stuck on this 28 year time span. Did you know that Jonah was an Open Theist? I think he lived more than 28 year ago.

Did you know that Moses and Abraham were Open Theists? I think they lived a little more than 28 years ago.

Did you know that God was an Open Theist? We even have His written Word where He tells us that He changes His "mind". He tells us that just because He says that something is going to happen doesn't mean it's going to happen. He has the option to NOT do what He said He was going to do.

That sound pretty open to me.

I even found some books that are older than 28 years old that express Open Theist ideas. Here's one:

Gordon C. Olson's The Foreknowledge of God was printed in 1941. I think that is older the 28 years old?

Could you at least admit that Open Theism is older than 28 years old and that you were in error?

 

[Nightsongs]

You seem stuck on this 28 year time span. Did you know that Jonah was an Open Theist? I think he lived more than 28 year ago.

This is ridiculous. The calvanist can say the same thing, but just replace the word.

Jonah was an ______________(fill in the blank)

Did you know that God was an Open Theist?
That sound pretty open to me.

Your examples are ridiculous. If you walked into an ETS debate forum and stated the above, you would be laughed at and asked to leave because your examples and statements are beyond ludicrous and have no basis in intellectual reasoning.

The above statements of yours actually hurts your position and cause, for your benefit, please do not repeat them again. Your repetition of the above in a theological forum will brand you as being a fool. Please, for your own sake and that of your fellow men and woman that are open theists, do not utter such silly statements.

Gordon C. Olson's The Foreknowledge of God was printed in 1941. I think that is older the 28 years old?

Could you at least admit that Open Theism is older than 28 years old and that you were in error?

Open Theism is a recently invented theological position on the attributes of God. Gordon Olson was a "Lordship salvation" proponent, I hope you know that "Lordship salvation" is viewed by many, including myself and hopefully yourself, as a heresy.

Even with its publication in 1941, Gordon Olson described his belief in the open view as "extreme Arminianism". It was not until Richard Rice's book 'The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will' in 1980 that introduced the term "open theism" and gave it recognition.

Need I remind you that Richard Rice claims to know the intricate and "finite" attributes of God and he is a Seventh-day Adventist.

Are you a 7th Day Adventist? I hope not. I find that if a man cannot even understand the salvation message and the difference between law and grace (which 7th day Adventists believe salvation comes by observing the Sabbath), how can I trust this man in understanding who and what attributes God has.

Not until 1994, was open theism given broader articulation when 5 essays were published by Evangelical scholars (including Rice) under the title 'The Openness of God.'

You are an open theist because you follow Bob Enyart. A bold but correct statement. I have observed that if one is a proponent of Enyart, they are 99% of the time, also an open theist. Coincidence? I think NOT.

 

[Nightsongs]

Wouldn't it be better for the masses for someone at ETS to debate Open Theism here on TOL? At least that way everyone would get to learn from the debates.

Open theism is a new philosophy about the attributes of God. I hold to the position that not until Rice wrote his book in the 1980's, was it even recognized as even being a position that could be explained properly. Gordon Olson's writings were all over the place but Rice finally pieced them together into a coherent book.

So the burden is put upon YOU. It is YOU who hold to this position and therefore you should gather your best scholars and make a case at the ETS. Remember, almost 2,000 years have transpired in church history and not until 28 years ago did this theory arise. The burden of proof is upon you.

If someone came out today and said that we are all wrong and that salvation is by grace through faith plus climbing Mt. Sinai on the 25th of each month, it would not be out-of-line to find such a person and statement, skeptical to say the least, heretical and insane most likely.

 

[Nightsongs]

Are you prepared to debate your accusations against us? You had better be because, guess what Nightsongs? This is a debate forum, not a hit-and-run forum.

A better term would be "observation" and not "accusation".

 

[chatmaggot]

This is ridiculous. The calvanist can say the same thing, but just replace the word.

Jonah was an ______________(fill in the blank)

And they would be wrong unless they inserted "Open Theist".

Your examples are ridiculous. If you walked into an ETS debate forum and stated the above, you would be laughed at and asked to leave because your examples and statements are beyond ludicrous and have no basis in intellectual reasoning.

I never provided any examples. Do you want me to? In regards to be laughed at...do you mean in the same manner we are laughing at you?

The above statements of yours actually hurts your position and cause, for your benefit, please do not repeat them again. Your repetition of the above in a theological forum will brand you as being a fool. Please, for your own sake and that of your fellow men and woman that are open theists, do not utter such silly statements.

This literally makes no sense whatsoever. You repeated garbage about 28 years over and over and over. I have repeated nothing. I made several statements, none of which was a repetition of the other.

Open Theism is a recently invented theological position on the attributes of God. Gordon Olson was a "Lordship salvation" proponent, I hope you know that "Lordship salvation" is viewed by many, including myself and hopefully yourself, as a heresy.

No it isn't. I am familiar with Lordship Salvation. There is even a thread about it. In that thread I posted a link to a book about it that I read. Maybe you should read it.

Even with its publication in 1941, Gordon Olson described his belief in the open view as "extreme Arminianism". It was not until Richard Rice's book 'The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will' in 1980 that introduced the term "open theism" and gave it recognition.

This is an odd statement. First you claim that Open Theism was invented 28 years ago. Now you say that in 1980 it was given recognition. Are you conceding that Open Theism is older than 28 years old?

Need I remind you that Richard Rice claims to know the intricate and "finite" attributes of God and he is a Seventh-day Adventist.

Are you a 7th Day Adventist? I hope not. I find that if a man cannot even understand the salvation message and the difference between law and grace (which 7th day Adventists believe salvation comes by observing the Sabbath), how can I trust this man in understanding who and what attributes God has.

Not until 1994, was open theism given broader articulation when 5 essays were published by Evangelical scholars (including Rice) under the title 'The Openness of God.'

You are really stuck on 7th day Adventists. I am not a 7th Day Adventist. Can someone be wrong about one topic yet correct about another? Do you think that is possible?

You are an open theist because you follow Bob Enyart. A bold but correct statement. I have observed that if one is a proponent of Enyart, they are 99% of the time, also an open theist. Coincidence? I think NOT

No I'm not.

Read the following passage from Jeremiah 18:

2Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.

3Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.

4And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

5Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,

6O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

7At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

8If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

9And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;

10If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Are these the words of Bob Enyart...or God Almighty?

God says that even if He says that He is going to do something...He doesn't have to do it. If that ISN'T what this is saying...please enlighten me as to what it IS saying so the people at ETS will stop laughing at me.

You are hung up on several things:

(1) Hating Bob

(2) ETS

(3) 28 years

(4) 7th Day Adventist

(5) Laughing at people

You have yet to add one ounce of useful information to this thread.

 

[Jefferson]

If someone came out today and said that we are all wrong and that salvation is by grace through faith plus climbing Mt. Sinai on the 25th of each month, it would not be out-of-line to find such a person and statement, skeptical to say the least, heretical and insane most likely.

And should the debate on the issue be kept out of public view?

 

[Jefferson]

A better term would be "observation" and not "accusation".

So are you willing to debate your "observation" against us? You had better be, because this is a debate forum, not a hit-and-run forum.

 

[Nightsongs]

And should the debate on the issue be kept out of public view?

You have to realize that forums like this are not considered serious venues for such discussions. Maybe they will one day, for now, they are not considered proper and serious venues for said debates.

A neutral third party site would be more likely accepted. As this site is run by the party in favor of open theism. It is not a neutral party, it has a bias.

So are you willing to debate your "observation" against us? You had better be, because this is a debate forum, not a hit-and-run forum.

Sure.

I ask you this, is being involved in politics a critical duty of a Christian?

 

[chatmaggot]

You have to realize that forums like this are not considered serious venues for such discussions.

I'll translate what you just said for those of us who have difficulty reading "whine-ese":

"I cannot back up any of my claims therefore I am going to use condescending words to try and convince you that I know what I am talking about when I really don't."

 

[Nightsongs]

First you claim that Open Theism was invented 28 years ago. Now you say that in 1980 it was given recognition. Are you conceding that Open Theism is older than 28 years old?

As I said before, open theism was not even a vocabulary term before 1980. It was not until 1980 that the term "open theism" was invented and assigned to the belief system of yours. Evangelical circles did not even recognize or define your belief system as being a coherent and explainable belief system prior to 1980 & Rice's book.

Rice is your "leader" in that he broke the door open on this belief system. You can thank Rice for that. He approached the ETS with the case for open theism.

Can someone be wrong about one topic yet correct about another? Do you think that is possible?

Sure, but their credibility and ability drop significantly. If someone (Rice) believes that salvation is by faith plus obeying the law and the Sabbath, then they are not even saved. So, YOU take this unsaved mans belief about God and His attributes and believe it.

Think about that. The man who gave you open theism, is not even saved, yet you swallow hook, line and sinker, his beliefs about who God is and His attributes. A man who cannot even understand the most important message in the Bible, who is not even Holy Spirit indwelt, you take his theology and swallow it whole.

In regards to Enyart, I disagree with him, it is not about "hate". What you are doing is classical. When someone disagrees with someone, you make the claim that they "hate" that person. A lame tactic.

Enyart's theology is sorely lacking. I am sure he understands that because of open theism being such a new theological position, it is a hard uphill battle. Most theological circles believe open theism is heresy. The burden of proof is on him to prove otherwise due to the position being so new.

 

[chatmaggot]

As I said before, open theism was not even a vocabulary term before 1980. It was not until 1980 that the term "open theism" was invented and assigned to the belief system of yours. Evangelical circles did not even recognize or define your belief system as being a coherent and explainable belief system prior to 1980 & Rice's book.

Rice is your "leader" in that he broke the door open on this belief system. You can thank Rice for that. He approached the ETS with the case for open theism.



Sure, but their credibility and ability drop significantly. If someone (Rice) believes that salvation is by faith plus obeying the law and the Sabbath, then they are not even saved. So, YOU take this unsaved mans belief about God and His attributes and believe it.

Think about that. The man who gave you open theism, is not even saved, yet you swallow hook, line and sinker, his beliefs about who God is and His attributes. A man who cannot even understand the most important message in the Bible, who is not even Holy Spirit indwelt, you take his theology and swallow it whole.

In regards to Enyart, I disagree with him, it is not about "hate". What you are doing is classical. When someone disagrees with someone, you make the claim that they "hate" that person. A lame tactic.

Enyart's theology is sorely lacking. I am sure he understands that because of open theism being such a new theological position, it is a hard uphill battle. Most theological circles believe open theism is heresy. The burden of proof is on him to prove otherwise due to the position being so new.

I have shown you that your claims are false.

Did you even read my post with Jeremiah?

God predates any mans theology.

 

[Lighthouse]

You have made Christianity into a political activist entity. That is where you are seriously wrong.

You're only whining because you're a left-wing liberal communist.

 

[Jefferson]

You have to realize that forums like this are not considered serious venues for such discussions. Maybe they will one day, for now, they are not considered proper and serious venues for said debates.

Wherever the debate is held, don't you think it should be as public as possible?

A neutral third party site would be more likely accepted. As this site is run by the party in favor of open theism. It is not a neutral party, it has a bias.

And ETS is neutral?

I asked, "So are you willing to debate your "observation" against us?"

You replied...

Sure.

Great. Please start a thread expounding upon the reasons why you think Open Theism is unbiblical.

I ask you this, is being involved in politics a critical duty of a Christian?

Why do you think abortion is a political issue and not a moral issue? The bible says, "Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, 'But we knew nothing about this,' does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?" (Proverbs 24:11,12) Why do you think abortion is just a mere political issue and not a biblical issue like the verses quoted above show?

 

[Delmar]

As I said before, open theism was not even a vocabulary term before 1980...

Very true! Before that we simply called ourselves Bible believing Christians. A term that is really more fitting than open theists anyway!

 

[Nightsongs]

You're only whining because you're a left-wing liberal communist.

Go away, you act like a 5-year old child.

 

[Nightsongs]

Why do you think abortion is a political issue and not a moral issue? The bible says, "Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, 'But we knew nothing about this,' does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?" (Proverbs 24:11,12) Why do you think abortion is just a mere political issue and not a biblical issue like the verses quoted above show?

You are taking Proverbs 24 out of context. Just like when people quote Proverbs 22:6,
"Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it."

But many parents know that despite their best "training," some children choose to turn away from God. Many studies show that pastors kids have a high rate of rebellion and live immoral lives as adults. Maybe the last comment hit a "little to close to home" but it is the truth.

You should have continued with verse 13, why did you stop?

13 Eat honey, my son, for it is good;honey from the comb is sweet to your taste.

or how about Proverbs 25:21?

21 If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.

Have you given your enemies like Planned Parenthood, food to eat and water to drink?

Are you Israel and Solomon your king?
I THINK NOT.

 

[Delmar]

Go away, you act like a 5-year old child.

Nightsongs
You still have not addressed the fact that I believed in 1969, that the entire future was not settled in advance. Long before I ever heard of Bob Enyart, or the 7th day Adventist that you claim "invented" the open view, by the way. Your argument is swiss cheese!

 

[The Graphite]

Of course, Calvinism didn't exist until sometime after Calvin himself died, because the term didn't exist until then.

Arminianism, same thing. Both views didn't exist until relatively recently in the history of the church.

Interesting, isn't it, that Calvinism, Molinism and Arminianism are all named after mere men, while the Open View is named after an attribute or characteristic of God described in scripture, itself.

 

[Jefferson]

You are taking Proverbs 24 out of context.

I'll simplify this for you. If you saw a man come up from behind a woman with a raised knife with a clear intent to murder her, would you try to stop him, or would you think that trying to stop him would be a nonchristian political act?

Churches were engaged in the civil rights battles in America. Were they out of God's will because civil rights was a political issue?

Churches played a major role in the underground railroad helping black slaves to escape to the north. Were those churches out of God's will because emancipation was a political issue?

Did the Christians who hid Jews from the Germans sin because such actions fought against the political desires of Germany?

Or is it only today in America that we should not ever dare to be so unpopular?

 

[Lighthouse]

Go away, you act like a 5-year old child.

I'm trying to relate to you on terms you understand.

You are taking Proverbs 24 out of context. Just like when people quote Proverbs 22:6,
"Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it."

But many parents know that despite their best "training," some children choose to turn away from God. Many studies show that pastors kids have a high rate of rebellion and live immoral lives as adults. Maybe the last comment hit a "little to close to home" but it is the truth.

What you, and others fail to understand, is that those children who turn away were not trained up in the way they should go.:nono: They were trained in lies, as you were.