Earliest televised free will debate, now on radio Pt. 2

[Jefferson]

[URL="https://kgov.com/bel/20200506"]Earliest televised free will debate, now on radio Pt. 2[/url]


This is the show from Wednesday, May 6th, 2020


SUMMARY:


BEL continues airing the 1990s predestination debate between Bob Enyart and Calvinist pastor Brian Schwertley on whether or not God can change, whether or not He has decreed everything that happens, and whether your life follows a script completed before you were born. Michigan talk show host John Mangopoulos moderates on his long-running Battle of Ideas. Has it been decided in advance which if any of a person's children will go to heaven or hell? Sadly, but predictively, in his first comments, Bob said, "Does the Calvinist deny that God the Son became flesh? I would hope not." Bob worried that Calvinists, even well known ones, may start denying Christianity's central doctrine, the Incarnation, to defend pagan Greek absolute immutability. Sadly, in 2014 that fear became justified when R.C. Sproul Jr. and Dr. James Write repeatedly denied that God the Son took on a human nature. See kgov.com/sproul-and-white-deny-incarnation.


Today's Resource: Predestination & Free Will Debate


Bob Enyart vs. Brian Schwertly


Can God change? Does He change? Has God pre-planned all events? Is your life following a complete script, written before you were born? Has it been decided in advance which, if any, of your children will go to heaven or hell?

 

[Lon]

There is a problem if any theologian denies Jesus had a human nature!

Ephesians 3:18 is Paul's prayer that we discover the 'height, depth, and width' of God's love but he completely undoes this in the next verse: which is 'beyond' these measures.

There is nothing that came to be that came to be, without Him. John 1:3, Colossians 1:17
When the Lord Jesus took on a human nature Philippians 2:6-11, this is part of His own sustaining power, resources, and nature. There is nothing outside of Himself that produced the incarnation, thus we have to be careful and clear what we mean by 'new.'

I do believe theologians need to agree that a least something is 'new' having, to us, never have happened before, but in this sense, I hope all can see, 'new' is held within the confines of the finite.

Logically, whatever is infinite ALREADY contains (poor word, because infinite has none) everything 'new.' Does this make sense? Have I explained this adequately to see the problem?

Philippians2: ^5b Have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

⁶ Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
⁷ rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant...




Thus, the idea of new comes from 'emptying' not adding.

Example: A disabled person writes a computer program to travel through the Holy Lands, having never been there and perhaps unable. He next goes into the program and experiences the Holy Lands (wouldn't that be an awesome program?).

Where the example breaks down: The man didn't create the Holy Lands. There are aspects 'outside' of himself for his endeavor.

Where the example holds up: Nothing is 'new' to him as far as the program, yet interacting with it, he has created an environment where he can see the Holy Lands.

In this sense, the man is enriched, but Philippians 2 says the Lord Jesus Christ 'emptied,' to take part.


When we try to analyze this, we cross between everything coming from Him, and then Him taking part of that same creation from His already 'infinite.' Infinite would/does already contain 'new.' For me, the problem (on both sides of the argument) is a genuine inability to quantify or qualify infinite, as finite-moving-toward-infinity-beings. IOW, we truly only understand things from a limited ability specifically because we are not infinite. However, we can grasp, at least the parameters of our finiteness, when discussing infinite matters.

Let me try this: "There is no 'new' in infinite because that which 'is' infinite (an odd concept giving that it is already beyond 'is') already includes everything.

I do believe most every theologian grasps some of the complexity. We are often 'all' of us, arguing a vacuum we have no capacity (scope of, not prowess) for grasping let alone arguing infinite reality. We must simply rely on scripture and take whatever cues from it. To me, Colossians 1:17 and John 1:3 coupled with Philippians 2:5-11 make a necessary caveat, not Greek, but scripturally mandated, in qualifying 'new' i.e. "new" must already be conceptualized within (poor word) the context (poor because it too places a finite idea upon infinite) infinity. By definition, anything that exists (will exist, again poor for conveyance) is already within infinite and God, Who is, by scripture and definition, infinite. Psalm 147:5

Philippians2: ^5b Have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

⁶ Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
⁷ rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
⁸ And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!