Theology Club: Is Bob Enyart's Argument Self Contradicting?

[Dialogos]

It doesn't even phase you that Calvinists had to make up a word to reconcile their contradictions?

Compatible is not a made up word.

But this is...

Snardblot!

:chuckle:

Moron.

You don't have any clue as to why God allows these things, do you?

Yes, Ephesians 1:11. Open Theists, on the other hand, can't affirm that God works all things according to the council of His will.

In the settled view God made The Fall happen.

Wrong.

"Reformed theology has maintained consistently that Scripture teaches God’s exhaustive sovereignty and human responsibility. God does not cause evil. In fact, God does not force anyone to do anything against his or her will. And yet, nothing lies outside of the wise, loving, good, and just plan “of him who works all things after the council of his own will” (Eph 1:11). That God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are true, no serious student of Scripture can deny. (From "Is God a Moral Monster, "White Horse Inn")


Do you ever get tired of pushing down straw men?

The open view doesn't have a problem with God allowing these things to happen; because we understand that it was necessary for Him to allow it. We know why.

So you agree that Enyart's objections to Calvinism is really disingenuous, right?

And you don't know why, but it will be entertaining to see you try and tell us why, so go ahead, you know you want to.

:chuckle:

Calvinism says God made it happen through predestination which makes Him directly responsible for the evil acts themselves rather than responsible simply for allowing them to happen.

Wrong.

Calvinism says that God predestined to allow them to happen which maintains both God's sovereignty and human responsibility.

 

[Dialogos]

Can't you see the self-contradictory nature in the statements?

No, because they aren't self contradictory.

The quotes you provided state God has ordained everything and decreed everything that will ever come to pass...

Yes, but as AMR has already said, probably ad nauseum on these boards, God does not ordain everything the same way.

There are some things that God ordains to bring to pass and some things that God ordains to allow.

Incidentally, even in Open Theism God ordains everything and decrees everything that will come to pass. That which an omnipotent being can prevent, but doesn't, He decrees and ordains.

 

[Lighthouse]

Compatible is not a made up word.

No, but "compatabilism" is.

But this is...

:chuckle:

Inside joke.

Moron.

:AMR:

Yes, Ephesians 1:11. Open Theists, on the other hand, can't affirm that God works all things according to the council of His will.

I affirm it every day of my life.

Wrong.

"Reformed theology has maintained consistently that Scripture teaches God’s exhaustive sovereignty and human responsibility. God does not cause evil. In fact, God does not force anyone to do anything against his or her will. And yet, nothing lies outside of the wise, loving, good, and just plan “of him who works all things after the council of his own will” (Eph 1:11). That God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are true, no serious student of Scripture can deny. (From "Is God a Moral Monster, "White Horse Inn")

Was The Fall God's plan or not?

Do you ever get tired of pushing down straw men?

It's funny you call it a straw man but your words can never burn it down.

So you agree that Enyart's objections to Calvinism is really disingenuous, right?

No, idiot.

And you don't know why, but it will be entertaining to see you try and tell us why, so go ahead, you know you want to.

Tell you what? Why God allows evil? Because if we couldn't choose evil then we couldn't choose whom we will serve? And if we couldn't choose that we couldn't choose to serve Him. And therefore anyone who served Him would be doing so because they were made to, which is truly disingenuous.

:chuckle:

Laughing at your own jokes?

Wrong.

Calvinism says that God predestined to allow them to happen which maintains both God's sovereignty and human responsibility.

Whose Calvinism?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

would you explain this verse

Joh 7:6 Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here.

If you back up in the chapter you will see that our Lord's brothers did not believe him. Here Jesus gives an explanation why they had bad judgment--they were projecting onto our Lord what they would have done in the same circumstances all the while not understanding the uniqueness of Jesus. Jesus tells them the time for his going to Jerusalem for the feast of the tabernacles is not yet at hand, whereas the brothers, not under special restraint like Jesus (see two verses later) can go up to Jerusalem at any time they want. The brothers know nothing of God's agenda, unlike our Lord.

AMR

 

[glorydaz]

Tell you what? Why God allows evil? Because if we couldn't choose evil then we couldn't choose whom we will serve? And if we couldn't choose that we couldn't choose to serve Him. And therefore anyone who served Him would be doing so because they were made to, which is truly disingenuous.

:first:

 

[way 2 go]

If you back up in the chapter you will see that our Lord's brothers did not believe him. Here Jesus gives an explanation why they had bad judgment--they were projecting onto our Lord what they would have done in the same circumstances all the while not understanding the uniqueness of Jesus. Jesus tells them the time for his going to Jerusalem for the feast of the tabernacles is not yet at hand, whereas the brothers, not under special restraint like Jesus (see two verses later) can go up to Jerusalem at any time they want. The brothers know nothing of God's agenda, unlike our Lord.

AMR

:AMR1:

i hope you not seriously expecting me to believe that .

like you said go back in the chapter

Joh 7:1 After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He would not go about in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him.

Joh 7:6 Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here.

"My time has not yet come" refers to Jesus crucifixion

"but your time is always here." means a person can die anytime :smack:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

:AMR1:

i hope you not seriously expecting me to believe that .

like you said go back in the chapter

Joh 7:1 After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He would not go about in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him.

Joh 7:6 Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here.

"My time has not yet come" refers to Jesus crucifixion

"but your time is always here." means a person can die anytime

Why did you ask if you think you have it all figured out?

I dislike these sort of games. If a person has an agenda they should just get on with it and state it plainly rather than playing twenty questions.

Moving the discussion onward now, let me plainly state you are wrong. This verse is a good example of why having some facility with the ancient languages is useful.

The right time (kairos) for me has not yet come; for you any time is right (literally: but your time [kairos] is always ready).​

The Greek word for ‘hour’ (hōra) often rendered ‘time’, always bears the theological content just indicated, provided it is not modified by a number (as in ‘the tenth hour’ or the like). Chronos, another word rendered ‘time’, always focuses on the extent of time, not the point or specific hour of time (the word is used in John only in 5:6; 7:33; 12:35; 14:9).

The word kairos, found in verses 6 and 8, unlike chronos but like hōra, refers in John's Gospel to a point of time, but unlike hōra does not refer to Christ’s "being lifted up", to his glorification by way of the cross. If that were the case, then unlike John 2:4, Jesus is not saying that the time for unrestrained messianic blessings has not yet dawned because the ‘time’ of his glorification is not yet at hand (the final Passover was still more than six months away). Instead Jesus is saying that the ‘time’ for his going up to Jerusalem for this Feast of Tabernacles is not yet at hand.

This interpretation is very clearly necessitated by the final words of the verse John 7:6: "for you any time (kairos) is right". In this reading, kairos makes sense: that is, as I have noted, Jesus’ brothers are free to go up to Jerusalem for the Feast any time they like, while Jesus is under special constraint (See John 7:8).

AMR

 

[Lighthouse]

:first:

Thank you.

Why did you ask if you think you have it all figured out?

I dislike these sort of games. If a person has an agenda they should just get on with it and state it plainly rather than playing twenty questions.

Apparently you don't know the number one rule of lawyers: Never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer.

 

[chatmaggot]

Incidentally, even in Open Theism God ordains everything and decrees everything that will come to pass. That which an omnipotent being can prevent, but doesn't, He decrees and ordains.

Not true.

 

[way 2 go]

Joh 7:6 Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here.

Why did you ask if you think you have it all figured out?

I dislike these sort of games. If a person has an agenda they should just get on with it and state it plainly rather than playing twenty questions.

:chuckle:
just wanted to see how you would answer .

it is a very simple verse but because of calvinism you can't interpret it correctly.

Moving the discussion onward now, let me plainly state you are wrong. This verse is a good example of why having some facility with the ancient languages is useful.

The right time (kairos) for me has not yet come; for you any time is right (literally: but your time [kairos] is always ready).​

The Greek word for ‘hour’ (hōra) often rendered ‘time’, always bears the theological content just indicated, provided it is not modified by a number (as in ‘the tenth hour’ or the like). Chronos, another word rendered ‘time’, always focuses on the extent of time, not the point or specific hour of time (the word is used in John only in 5:6; 7:33; 12:35; 14:9).

The word kairos, found in verses 6 and 8, unlike chronos but like hōra, refers in John's Gospel to a point of time, but unlike hōra does not refer to Christ’s "being lifted up", to his glorification by way of the cross. If that were the case, then unlike John 2:4, Jesus is not saying that the time for unrestrained messianic blessings has not yet dawned because the ‘time’ of his glorification is not yet at hand (the final Passover was still more than six months away). Instead Jesus is saying that the ‘time’ for his going up to Jerusalem for this Feast of Tabernacles is not yet at hand.

This interpretation is very clearly necessitated by the final words of the verse John 7:6: "for you any time (kairos) is right". In this reading, kairos makes sense: that is, as I have noted, Jesus’ brothers are free to go up to Jerusalem for the Feast any time they like, while

i missed it :doh:
something tells me you have problem with this verse too which is maybe why your ignoring it.
God being constrained by the Jews.

Joh 7:1 ... He would not go about in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him.

Jesus is under special constraint (See John 7:8).

AMR

ya like getting killed before his kairos

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

just wanted to see how you would answer .

Then you have the answer. In the interest of us all being good stewards of our time, please do not ask me any questions unless you are sincerely open to learning and/or correction.

AMR

 

[Lighthouse]

Not true.

It's the illogical workings of the Calvinist mind.

 

[Lighthouse]

Spoiler

Interior:

 

[way 2 go]

Then you have the answer. In the interest of us all being good stewards of our time, please do not ask me any questions unless you are sincerely open to learning and/or correction.

AMR

i have learned that

Joh 7:6 Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here.

is a problem verse for calvinist

I have learned you are incorrect on your interpretation of Joh 7:6



thank you for your time

:carryon:

 

[Dialogos]

Was The Fall God's plan or not?

Yes, God planned to allow the fall.

Incidentally, the fall was part of God's plan in Open Theism if Enyart understands open theism correctly.

It was part of His "contingency" plan.

It's funny you call it a straw man but your words can never burn it down.

Moron.

Its called a straw man because its a misrepresentation that is easy to push down.

Tell you what? Why God allows evil? Because if we couldn't choose evil then we couldn't choose whom we will serve? And if we couldn't choose that we couldn't choose to serve Him. And therefore anyone who served Him would be doing so because they were made to, which is truly disingenuous.

So Evil is a necessary byproduct of choice in Open Theism, right?

Whose Calvinism?

Well, the Calvinism of the sources I quoted, for starters.

 

[Dialogos]

Not true.

So Enyart is wrong and God had no "contingency plan" in case His Creation rebelled against Him?

 

[Lighthouse]

Yes, God planned to allow the fall.

That's not what I asked.

Did God plan, as in predestine/foreordain, the Fall? Did He make it happen?

Incidentally, the fall was part of God's plan in Open Theism if Enyart understands open theism correctly.

You don't understand the word "contingency" correctly.

It was part of His "contingency" plan.

Having a contingency plan in case it happened doesn't make it part of the contingency plan, nitwit.

Moron.

Name calling without cause is against the rules.

Its called a straw man because its a misrepresentation that is easy to push down.

Are you seriously so stupid as not to understand figurative speech? Or do you, like me, have Asperger's?

So Evil is a necessary byproduct of choice in Open Theism, right?

No. It's a necessary possibility of freedom of will and choice.

Well, the Calvinism of the sources I quoted, for starters.

Why do you assume that your belief in Calvinism is the same as all others who call themselves Calvinists?

 

[Dialogos]

That's not what I asked.

Did God plan, as in predestine/foreordain, the Fall? Did He make it happen?

God predestines everything that comes to pass. You misunderstand the nature of predestination as do most calvinist critics.

God does not predestine everything in the same way.

God predestines the elect to come to salvation. He does so by actively foreordaining their regeneration. God also predestines the reprobate to damnation. He does so by passing over them and leaving them in their fallen and sinful state.

Most critiques of Calvinism consistently foist the error of equal ultimacy upon Calvinists thereby misrepresenting most.

Having a contingency plan in case it happened doesn't make it part of the contingency plan, nitwit.

You misunderstand the nature of God, nitwit.

We humans make contingency plans because we aren't omnipotent. We plan for potential circumstances beyond our control, we call those kind of plans "contingency plans." Nobody makes a contingency plan for an eventuality they could otherwise prevent.

An omnipotent God really doesn't make "contingency plans" in the same way we do, He just makes plans because there is nothing that is beyond His control. There is nothing that happens that God could not have prevented from happening. Therefore the fall is something that God either knew would happen (settled view) or could happen (open view). In either situation, He resolved beforehand to permit it.

Why do you assume that your belief in Calvinism is the same as all others who call themselves Calvinists?

I don't, just like I assume that your belief in Open Theism is not the same as all others who call themselves Open Theist.

 

[Lighthouse]

God predestines everything that comes to pass. You misunderstand the nature of predestination as do most calvinist critics.

God does not predestine everything in the same way.

God predestines the elect to come to salvation. He does so by actively foreordaining their regeneration. God also predestines the reprobate to damnation. He does so by passing over them and leaving them in their fallen and sinful state.

Most critiques of Calvinism consistently foist the error of equal ultimacy upon Calvinists thereby misrepresenting most.

You misunderstand the nature of God, nitwit.

We humans make contingency plans because we aren't omnipotent. We plan for potential circumstances beyond our control, we call those kind of plans "contingency plans." Nobody makes a contingency plan for an eventuality they could otherwise prevent.

An omnipotent God really doesn't make "contingency plans" in the same way we do, He just makes plans because there is nothing that is beyond His control. There is nothing that happens that God could not have prevented from happening. Therefore the fall is something that God either knew would happen (settled view) or could happen (open view). In either situation, He resolved beforehand to permit it.

Just because you can prevent something from happening does not mean that you must. You deny God's power by claiming He is incapable of choosing to not control that which He desires not to.

Even if He decided to permit it if it did happen without knowing for certain that it would His plan for how to resolve the issue if it happened after the fact and the lesson has been learned [or He has been longsuffering long enough] is still a contingency plan, because He still doesn't know for certain if it will happen, only that it could.

Your other mistake is in assuming there is only one reason God would allow something to happen that is contrary to His ordainment.

I don't, just like I assume that your belief in Open Theism is not the same as all others who call themselves Open Theist.

Then your entire argument in this thread is built on a false premise, as you are arguing as though from the assumption that Bob was critiquing your view while he was in a debate with a completely different Calvinist.

 

[Dialogos]

Just because you can prevent something from happening does not mean that you must.

We are talking about God here. Just because God can prevent something evil doesn't mean he shares culpability for that evil.

Would you agree with that statement?

You deny God's power by claiming He is incapable of choosing to not control that which He desires not to.

God is not incapable of doing anything save acting contrary to his attributes. That's why the "can God make a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it" arguments are both silly and illogical.

Unfortunately, your statement here shares a lot in common with the "can God make a rock..." argument.

Because God is omnipotent, there is "nothing" beyond His control. There are things He chooses to allow to happen without His intervention, but He is still in control. There are some things that are part of God's active for-ordination and some things that are part of God's passive for-ordination.


In fact, my very understanding of God's predestination of the reprobate is predicated upon this very assumption.

I, and many other Calivinists, believe that God passes over the reprobate and leaves them in their sin while God actively intervenes in the case of the elect.

Nevertheless, nothing escapes God's sovereign oversight. I don't believe that there is anything that is beyond the control of God's sovereignty.

Do you?

Even if He decided to permit it if it did happen without knowing for certain that it would His plan for how to resolve the issue if it happened after the fact and the lesson has been learned [or He has been longsuffering long enough] is still a contingency plan, because He still doesn't know for certain if it will happen, only that it could.

Which is an interesting thought, but its really irrelevant.

If God knew that something "could" happen and did absolutely nothing to prevent it - knowing that He was fully capable of stopping it - and then God saw that it was in the process of occurring - and continued to allow it to happen - then God is just as much "in control" of that event as He would have been had He known for certain that it was going to happen and chose to do nothing to prevent it.

That's a problem for Enyart, because he wants to impugn the settled view for believing that God knew beforehand that something evil would happen but what Enyart hasn't thought through is that the same argument that he thinks impugns the settled view of God, also impugns the open view of God because its not really a critique on God's foreknowledge, its a critique on an omnipotent God allowing evil.

Then your entire argument in this thread is built on a false premise, as you are arguing as though from the assumption that Bob was critiquing your view while he was in a debate with a completely different Calvinist.

James White and I have a pretty similar view of God's sovereignty for one. Second, it doesn't matter what flavor of settled view White espouses, Enyart's argument is still self-contradictory.