He did not get my memo: Showing that some things are set in stone does not prove that all things are predetermined.
James White to Debate Bob Enyart on Open Theism
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
He did not get my memo: Showing that some things are set in stone does not prove that all things are predetermined.
npatterson85
New member
Bob Enyart: Beginning with God’s freedom, and whether or not God has libertarian free will, this question asks: Jesus said he could call on the Father to save him from the cross. Do you believe that the Father could have saved Jesus from the cross?
James White: If he eternally decreed to do so, yes.
BE: At the moment Jesus said that he could call on the Father to save him from this hour. Do you believe that the Father could have saved Jesus?
JW: Well again, you’re asking a question about a decision that was made before the creation of time playing out within time, and this is something I’ve tried to explain to you [talking to Bob Enyart]; and so the divine decree will NOT be changed if God had chosen to do things differently when he created, then he could have done things differently. But once time is created that’s the way it’s going to be.
BE: Could God have decreed it differently when he decreed the way things would go? Could he have decreed it differently?
JW: God was absolutely free to glorify.. the Triune God, Father, Son and Spirit could have chosen to glorify themselves in whatever way they find best.
BE: So God was free, the future was not exhaustively settled in eternity past until God decreed how many weeds would be outside in the parking lot?
JW: Of course.
BE: Ok, so, you reject that eternal, exhaustive foreknowledge, is an eternal attribute of God, because God was free to decree whichever way he wanted to.
JW: *insert stunned nonsense here and other information about how systematic theologians have decided for us how it all should be interpreted because we are too stupid on our own*
*high fives Bob Enyart* I literally busted out laughing after BE's comment and James White seeming to try and gather himself with after taking a blow like that.
James White: If he eternally decreed to do so, yes.
BE: At the moment Jesus said that he could call on the Father to save him from this hour. Do you believe that the Father could have saved Jesus?
JW: Well again, you’re asking a question about a decision that was made before the creation of time playing out within time, and this is something I’ve tried to explain to you [talking to Bob Enyart]; and so the divine decree will NOT be changed if God had chosen to do things differently when he created, then he could have done things differently. But once time is created that’s the way it’s going to be.
BE: Could God have decreed it differently when he decreed the way things would go? Could he have decreed it differently?
JW: God was absolutely free to glorify.. the Triune God, Father, Son and Spirit could have chosen to glorify themselves in whatever way they find best.
BE: So God was free, the future was not exhaustively settled in eternity past until God decreed how many weeds would be outside in the parking lot?
JW: Of course.
BE: Ok, so, you reject that eternal, exhaustive foreknowledge, is an eternal attribute of God, because God was free to decree whichever way he wanted to.
JW: *insert stunned nonsense here and other information about how systematic theologians have decided for us how it all should be interpreted because we are too stupid on our own*
*high fives Bob Enyart* I literally busted out laughing after BE's comment and James White seeming to try and gather himself with after taking a blow like that.
Yes, that was an extremely powerful segment of the debate for Bob.
Yeah, it was.
I now wonder if White thinks the 2nd nature was/is completely separate from God (ie. that the 2nd nature was not God in any way, shape, or form).
npatterson85
New member
All I'm going to say is Bob Enyart can cross examine! He's REALLY good! I listened to White's cross examination first, and felt it was really weak, and he was trying to corner Bob, but Bob maintained his posture and didn't submit to James White's tactics. Well done!
Nimrod
Member
Actually, if you go to the video, James said "no sir, you misunderstood"
This is what James talked about before the debate. Bob insists God is within time, and the questions keep coming to James as if God is within time. Calvinists believe God is outside time, God created time.
:dizzy:
And the assertion of the Calvinist is that God is outside of time.
It cuts both ways. James cannot escape challenges from scripture to what he believes by asserting his concept of God.
npatterson85
New member
James White flat out admitted to God putting HIMSELF into a box, and has to forever remain in that box, and cannot do otherwise because it is not part of the divine decree. That is absurd.
Enyart makes some excellent points that if God is in a box basically, He can't be creative, and do something new, because if it's not something He decreed before eternity past, then it's not possible, ever, in any way shape or form. I want to know who sold God the box? Kind of like White asks of William Lane Craig w/ his card dealer analogy, "Who dealt God the cards?"
And this entitles you to say that evil has a good purpose. If it happpens because it is God's business alone, then how can you say anything about it? I've already told you that open theism doesn't have a problem about evil happening in the world. After all the Bible says that God causes evil in some cases. The fact is that you are embarrassed about the existence of evil because your theology makes God responsible for everything. Already you prove that you cannot get your head round this concept and that in open theism God is not responsible. I've already told you. For the record.
And as highlighted above, you need somewhere to run over this. But as there is obviously nowhere to run, you need to invent a place to run to. And that place is 'We cannot know why God causes such evil (or lifts his supposed restraining hand)'. And then realising that 'we cannot know' is actually an admission of failure in your theology, you have to revert to 'we know that evil has a good purpose', thus contradicting yourselves to and fro, running from one corner to another and back again. The other place you run to, as exemplified above is 'We can trust God despite these attrocities [sic]' The issue was never about trusting God. The issue was, what is God like? You can trust God as much as you want, I'm all for that. I don't trust God despite the evil in the world. The evil in the world is not a problem for me or for my theology. The fact that you feel you need to go there despite that evil is the conclusive proof that it is a problem for you.
Nimrod
Member
You missed the point. It is a cross examination of the other persons beliefs. :doh:
Nimrod
Member
This all assumes God's decree are not perfect in every way that suits Him.
It would be absurd to have to change them.
npatterson85
New member
chatmaggot, I am going to guess that he will respond that is part of God's "prescriptive will". :doh:
The good old prescriptive and decretive will.
Knight had a go-around with that many years ago in the thread below.
God's prescriptive will and His decretive will
npatterson85
New member
Seeing how I used to be a full fledged 5 point Calvinist, and a huge proponent of James White, and a few others, I can completely understand their arguments, know them very well, and where they get their references from. I've read the Creeds, Confessions, etc, and used them myself when talking and explaining Reformed Theology to others when I was in that camp. But it wasn't until I was challenged to sit and study Romans 9 - 11 without a "Reformed" lens, did I snap out of it and realize "this doesn't say what they think it does....."
So anything a Calvinist throws at me is just recycled material that can be found in their Creeds, Confessions, etc. Almost sounds like Roman Catholicism to me, and John Calvin is their Pope.
So anything a Calvinist throws at me is just recycled material that can be found in their Creeds, Confessions, etc. Almost sounds like Roman Catholicism to me, and John Calvin is their Pope.
Yep. This is nail in their coffin.
Otherwise, the closed theist would have a god who sits motionlessness eternally with his hands folded across his chest, unthinking, uncommitted, uninvolved, and stoic.
npatterson85
New member
I completely agree with you brother! Well stated! When God took upon flesh and began to tabernacle among us in Jesus, He changed. It wasn't an action. It was a change in God in how He relates to us. He became extremely intimate in the most personal, relational, living, loving, and good way.
Thanks for the trip down memory lane.