James White to Debate Bob Enyart on Open Theism

[S0ZO]

You are trying to play fast and loose with "change" when it is clear that Bob Enyart wanted to make this change something substantive in the debate with White for it is the stated position of the open theist that God can and does change His mind as He learns more from the actions of His created moral agents. Backpeddling in hopes of rehabilitating this "God is becoming" position to mean something innocuous cannot acquit the open theist from their very public positions.

If that is the view and agenda of open theism (and I'm not convinced it is), then it would be a grave error.

 

[Tambora]

The English language is killing the Gospel

Untrue.

I've watched you criticize the English language as being inadequate in several of your posts.

Perhaps it is you that is inadequate at communicating your views of scripture to English speaking folks in their own language, so you blame the language as being the poor communicator, rather than yourself.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Untrue.

I've watched you criticize the English language as being inadequate in several of your posts.

Perhaps it is you that is inadequate at communicating your views of scripture to English speaking folks in their own language, so you blame the language as being the poor communicator, rather than yourself.

Incorrect. And I'm an English-speaker. But I don't expect you to understand. I demonstrate and prove it almost every day in multiple teaching settings.

How would you even know? And your response is a classic example. Your own logos (thought and speech) has been sculpted by language literally since before birth.

And I'm not saying the truth can't be presented in English. There just has to be a low-context framework for doing so, and it starts with the precise semantics of Greek.

You truly don't and can't know what I'm talking about. It took me years to uncover it and develop the teaching to correct it.

This whole thread topic is a perfect example. Multiple contexts defining a concept, rather than the depth of semantics defining a literal context that needs no conceptual understanding.

You can't know what you don't know and don't want to know.

 

[Stripe]

You are trying to play fast and loose with "change."

Nope.

I just think that the state the Godhead was in before the incarnation was different to the state afterward.

That I reckon is reasonable to call a change. I'm not saying God's fundamental properties and characteristics changed.

At the very least, He had shifted to Earth.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Nope.

I just think that the state the Godhead was in before the incarnation was different to the state afterward.

That I reckon is reasonable to call a change. I'm not saying God's fundamental properties and characteristics changed.

At the very least, He had shifted to Earth.

This is a non-Christian belief. You just can't and don't realize it.

It's all your own logic processes (logos), not God's Rhema.

 

[Dialogos]

Nope.

I just think that the state the Godhead was in before the incarnation was different to the state afterward.

That I reckon is reasonable to call a change. I'm not saying God's fundamental properties and characteristics changed.

At the very least, He had shifted to Earth.

Would it be accurate to say that you deny God's Omnipresence then?

If God had "shifted" to earth that seems to imply that God's presence was not on earth prior to the incarnation.

Am I reading you right here?

 

[Dialogos]

It doesn't matter what kind of change the incarnation was, as long as it was some kind of change.

Sure it does, if you are hoping to say anything of substance then it matters a great deal what kind of change the incarnation was because answering the question wrongly leads to all sorts of heresies that have been condemned throughout the history of Christian doctrinal formation.

If it is a change in the character, plan, purpose or will of God, then you've actually said something. If it is a change in the way God is interacting with His creation, then Calvinists have believed this for centuries.

You haven't made a statement that challenges anything really.

Consider the definition of Immutability from CARM, for example.

CARM[/URL]
Immutability
Immutability means unchangeable. It is the divine attribute of unchangeableness. God said in Exodus 3:14, "I AM that I AM"; signifying his eternal sameness and his sovereignty. He cannot change his moral character, his love, his omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc. God is "From everlasting to everlasting," (Psalm 90:2).

Immutability does not mean that God does not vary. The incarnation is an example of variation. Also, God's attitude toward a person is changed when the person becomes a Christian. For example, the enmity between God and man is removed (Rom. 5:10).

Arguing that the incarnation is somehow a rebuttal of Calvinism is a non-starter as "strong" immutability is not an essential element of Calvinism.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Sure it does, if you are hoping to say anything of substance then it matters a great deal what kind of change the incarnation was because answering the question wrongly leads to all sorts of heresies that have been condemned throughout the history of Christian doctrinal formation.

If it is a change in the character, plan, purpose or will of God, then you've actually said something. If it is a change in the way God is interacting with His creation, then Calvinists have believed this for centuries.

You haven't made a statement that challenges anything really.

Consider the definition of Immutability from CARM, for example.

Arguing that the incarnation is somehow a rebuttal of Calvinism is a non-starter as "strong" immutability is not an essential element of Calvinism.

Yes, and this really is as simple as essence of being (ousia) and doing of substance/s (hypostasis/es).

Becoming is not being. Being is not becoming. And becoming IS doing. Activity. Econcomy. Energies (not essence).

Doing is not being. Doing doesn't determine being. All doing must come from being.

That's why grace is superior to the law. But most are living by law rather than grace.

 

[GuySmiley]

Better re-read my post, which clearly implies claiming "neutral change" is a fool's errand--tilting at windmills.

When you all get around to detailing what a change means in this sense you will be on your way to real discussion. As I have stated, change means something accreted or diminished. Change cannot mean a no-thing as if nothing took place.

Ridiculous, change does not mean accreted or diminished.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/change

When God institutes a change in His dealings with men, He describes His course of conduct as "repenting" to accommodate our finite understanding of His perfections and transcendence.

But you have figured it out anyway, despite finite understanding. Bravo! Since I don't believe God underestimated you, why would he need to accommodate finite understanding when you, and others, seem to be able to communicate what it 'really means' just fine?

A contingent God, learning daily from other creatures whose actions He does not genuinely know beforehand,, is not the Scriptural expression of the perfect being, rather but one of the many in the Greek Pantheon. sigh.

AMR

But again, He tell us in Scripture that He changes His mind and learns. That must be due to our finite understanding again? You seem capable of communicating it just fine, why couldn't God?

Where is the Scriptural expression of the perfect being who doesn't learn or change His mind?

 

[Nang]

He tell us in Scripture that He changes His mind and learns.

Where?

 

[Nang]

Where is the Scriptural expression of the perfect being who doesn't learn or change His mind?

Numbers 23:19; James 1:17

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

At the very least, He had shifted to Earth.

So the Divine Logos, the second Person of the Trinity, was no longer omnipresent, but confined to the geographical location of Jesus Christ?

Yikes!

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If that is the view and agenda of open theism (and I'm not convinced it is), then it would be a grave error.

It is simple to determine.

Does God know (not predicting because He is really, really smart, but actually knows) what I will do before I do it?
If He does not, then welcome open theism.

Since God is learning new things daily, per the open theist, then the God of today is smarter than the God of tomorrow. Sigh. In fact, some of your most ardent supporters will argue when God "went down to Sodom" to see what was going on, He actually did not know beforehand. Yikes!

See also (small extract in spoiler below):
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3985410#post3985410

Spoiler

Commitment to Immutability

DB: My reply: I do have a commitment to God's utter immutability

This philosophical commitment, Dr. Bray, is the basis of Calvinism. Just as the Scriptures overwhelmingly show that Romans is about nations (not babies), so too the Bible shows that God changes, immeasurably:

GOD THE SON was not always a man. He "became flesh" (John 1:14). "Became" is a change word. We don't want to deny the fundamental reality of the Incarnation. Further, the Incarnation is not just a figure of speech, and shows that God changes. He changes because He is alive. The biblical attributes of God being living, personal, relational, good, and loving openly embrace God's changes. The quantitative OMNIs and IMs can hardly stand to admit that God changes. To prove that God changes, we don't need an obscure verse from Nahum, but the Gospel itself: the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection. The Living God differs from an utterly immutable one and from an unchanging stone idol. God the Son took "the form of a servant, and… humbled Himself" (Phil. 2:7-8). Humbled is a change word. God the Son lowered Himself beneath His previous stature to become the Son of Man. He was not eternally the son of Man. And that's good because then His existence would depend upon Man. Calvinists struggle with the Incarnation (Phil. 2). They've argued that it was Christ's human nature that changed, not His divine nature. But it wasn't Christ's humanity that "became flesh," nor His humanness that emptied itself to become man. "God was manifested in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16). The pagan Greeks argued that anything perfect cannot change. That's foolishness. For God the Son became something greater still! For He must increase. Then Christ, true man and true God, suffered for us (Heb. 2:18; 5:7-8). Actually. Calvinists claim that vast portions of Scripture are only symbolic and figures of speech. Dr. Bray, you agree that the Son's suffering was not a figure of speech. And it was the "Son" who "suffered" (Heb. 5:8), who "endured the cross" (Heb. 12:2). For "the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (Is 53:6). Really. The Father "made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us" 2 Co 5:21. That was a change. And "Christ has redeemed us… having become a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13). That was terribly new. And Jesus experienced death, that is, separation, for He died (Mat. 27:50). And this was the "only begotten Son" whom God gave to save us (John 3:16; Zech. 12:10). For "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" (2 Cor. 5:19). The cross was a singularity. No other event will ever reach that level of change. Dr. Bray, as you interpret the Bible, you admit your commitment to the quantitative, philosophical concept of utter immutability, which concept, if true, would disprove the entire story of the Bible.

GOD THE FATHER "increased" His "favor" as Jesus grew (Luke 2:52). He later sacrificed His Son for our sin. That was change. The Holy Spirit was called upon to vindicate Jesus, who was "justified [by] the Spirit" (1 Tim. 3:16). That's new. Then, "God the Father… raised Him from the dead" (Gal. 1:1). These real changes save us! Change is a necessary part of life. And since God is alive, and calls Himself the "Living God" (NKJ, 30x), He must be able to change, as He does! The definitions for "living" include active, moving, animation, growth, response. And He can change in any and all ways that He wants to change, while He always remains committed to righteousness. The epitome of limiting God is for a Calvinist to deny that He can change.

GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT experiences change when, by our sin, we "grieve the Holy Spirit" (Eph. 4:30). All of Scripture repudiates this quantitative doctrine of impassibility that claims that God has no emotion. Trying to prop up utter immutability, which is their foundational doctrine, Calvinists have long taught impassibility. Open theism is enabling Christians everywhere to discover an actual two-way relationship with God. Open Theism is gradually doing away with a nagging question, a question never raised by reading the Bible's teachings on prayer, but is ALWAYS raised by Calvinist teaching: "Then why pray?" Just as the printing press weakened the hold of priests over parishioners who now had Bibles, so too Open Theism benefits from the information age. For previously theologians cloistered themselves in ivory towers but now they have to actually defend their Greek philosophy before those in the pews who can Google biblical rebuttals. As Open Theism helps Christians rediscover our Relational God, impassibility will itself pass away, as fewer and fewer theologians will be willing to defend it. In our debate I'm quoting only the Bible to defend Open Theism. But to illustrate the damage done by the OMNIs and IMs, consider C.S. Lewis, who I love, but sadly he wrote in "Miracles" (1960, p. 92) that, "We correctly deny that God has passions… He cannot be affected by love…" Where in the world did Lewis get this from? From the greatest commandment? From the second? No. Not from Scripture. But from a commitment to Greek philosophy that turns God into a mathematical equation with pluses and minuses, how much, and how little, requiring yet more swaths of Scripture to be viewed as figurative. The Father and the Holy Spirit eternally change also as they think, act, and relate to each other. God changed when He became the Creator; and in relating to His creatures. And the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and fertilized one of her eggs so that true God would become true man. He had never done that before. In the most extraordinary of ways, God changes. For "He became their Savior" (Isa. 63:8).

AMR

 

[Stripe]

Would it be accurate to say that you deny God's Omnipresence then?

Jesus is God. He was not everywhere when He was in the manger.

If God had "shifted" to earth that seems to imply that God's presence was not on earth prior to the incarnation.

Jesus wasn't on Earth as a man.

Sure it does, if you are hoping to say anything of substance then it matters a great deal what kind of change the incarnation was because answering the question wrongly leads to all sorts of heresies that have been condemned throughout the history of Christian doctrinal formation.

Nope.

I've not committed one of the many heresies that have been chucked my way.

Before Jesus was a baby in the manger, He was not a baby in the manger. Going from one state to the other can reasonably be described as a change.

If it is a change in the way God is interacting with His creation, then Calvinists have believed this for centuries.

So when you say immutable, that has a special, limited meaning. It is not the one we read in the dictionary. Correct?

Arguing that the incarnation is somehow a rebuttal of Calvinism is a non-starter as "strong" immutability is not an essential element of Calvinism.

As I say, I haven't been trying to rebut Calvinism. I'm trying to come to a shared understanding of our creator.

So the Divine Logos, the second Person of the Trinity, was no longer omnipresent, but confined to the geographical location of Jesus Christ?

Jesus is God.

When He was in the manger, He was not somewhere else.

 

[Nang]

Jesus is God.

When He was in the manger, He was not somewhere else.

So the second Person of the Trinity just evaporated?

No . . . this is an extreme example of "kenosis" heresy.

http://carm.org/kenosis

 

[Nang]

"The Kenosis theory is a dangerous doctrine because if it were true, then it would mean that Jesus was not fully divine. If Jesus was not fully divine, then His atoning work would not be sufficient to atone for the sins of the world.

The correct doctrine is the Hypostatic Union--that Jesus is both fully God and fully man (Col. 2:9) and did not give up any divine attributes while as a man on earth."

(From the above link.)

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Jesus is God.

When He was in the manger, He was not somewhere else.

Yikes!

Such is the terrible error of the radical Kenoticist. Jesus's emptying of Himself was not one of giving up his divinity, but one of humbling Himself and His divine prerogatives of glory, authority, voluntary exercise of some of His divine attributes, eternal riches, and the unique, intimate, and face-to-face relationship with His heavenly Father. See also:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1535845#post1535845

Your view has the creator of the universe confined to a specific location on earth for thirty-three years.

AMR

 

[glorydaz]

I'm not looking to impress anyone. I'm a corpse, my old man reckoned dead by faith and crucified with Christ. I've been translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son. Seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. I'm not waiting for the sweet by and by.

But why do you have to presume someone "uppity" if they learn the original language of scripture with definitions that English can't touch for clarity?

The English language is a huge obstacle for understanding. It's a pattern thing, not a content thing. It needs to be presented in a low-context format.

This thread is a perfect example. Open Theists are compelled and controlled by language and concept more than any ability to search for truth beyond those limitations.

It's well worth the effort to access what I'm saying, even with the off-putting nature of the vocab in Greek, etc.

It's about Babel... today. You'd be livid if you knew how mind-sculpting language is. You'd feel violated, and rightly so. But everyone loves their native tongue because it's familiar.

Nonsense. The Scriptures are revealed to us by the Holy Spirit....what isn't, is nothing but man's wisdom. That's why you can read a verse and I can read a verse and both of us can be void of true understanding. Haven't you ever read a verse and thought you understood it quite well, and then one day the Holy Spirit makes that verse COME ALIVE?

Since I'm literally conformed to God's Rhema, it's difficult for me to go back to shallow and nebulous English expression. It's maddening enough to see the logistical patterns of others and see the "ceiling" for their understanding.

You are a man filled with PRIDE. I don't even need to understand Greek to see that. :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

Jesus's emptying of Himself was not one of giving up his divinity.

Luckily, I made it very clear that Jesus is God -- even when He was a baby in a manger.

Assuming the truth of your assertion and using it to accuse me of heresy is no way to conduct a rational discussion.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Luckily, I made it very clear that Jesus is God -- even when He was a baby in a manger.

Assuming the truth of your assertion and using it to accuse me of heresy is no way to conduct a rational discussion.

You misunderstand my implications. There is nothing divine about a supposed divinity inexplicably confined to a small region of this planet in a universe created by said divinity. I have made no assumption other than your public statement: "When He {God} was in the manger, He {God} was not somewhere else." Such a statement is a grievous error and declared heresy at Chalcedon. I urge you to re-think this view of yours.

AMR