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?
We've already established the answer to this and it's irrelevant to my statement.
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.
So you agree that He is capable of not being in complete control if He so desires? Maybe even delegating control to others?
Unfortunately, your statement here shares a lot in common with the "can God make a rock..." argument.
No it doesn't. Stop trying to weasel out of answering.
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.
I'm talking about being in control the way a control freak wishes they could be.
But for the record are you admitting that God's control is not beyond His control?
P.S.
The word is "for
eordination." The prefix meaning "before" has an "e' on the end. "Predestination" also works in this situation.
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?
Not even His own sovereignty is beyond His sovereign control.
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.
If Bob had this same issue with Arminianists then you'd have an argument. But he doesn't, so you fail.
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.
You have failed to demonstrate that to be so.
