Hear Will Duffy's Debate Opening Statement: "Is Open Theism Biblical?" - Sept 25 2023

[Sherman]

Hear Will Duffy's Debate Opening Statement: "Is Open Theism Biblical?"

* Hear Will Duffy's Opening Statement: from...



* Duffy Debates/Introduces Open Theism to a Novice Calvinist: This event provides an insight that many other debates cannot. Have you ever wondered about the average Calvinist, that is, the non-theologian, who dutifully believes what he's been told about God and the Bible? Will Duffy's debate here provides insight into thousands or perhaps millions of Calvinist believers who themselves have minimal familiarity even with their own belief system and only have a distorted caricature, based on what they've been told, of the view that the future cannot be settled but most be open, because God is free and inexhaustibly creative. Of course, Duffy was respectful and gracious toward CJ Borns.

* Only Trusting God's Inabilities; Can't Trust Him If He's Free: Something apparent in most of our debates was present in this one also. You can hear the non-open theist say that if God had a truly free and functioning "will" that He could not be trustworthy. We've noticed how this false doctrine undermines a believer's relationship with the Lord. Calvinists trust God's inabilities but not His abilities. They should be trusting His active love and commitment to righteousness. Yet they ask, incredulously, "How can you possibly trust God if God is free?" Will Duffy's answer paraphrased Scripture. "God demonstrated His love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." That is how we know that we can trust Him. Not because of any supposed attributes of impassibility, immutability, impecability (which are inabilities and the attributes of a stone idol) but we can trust Him because God has demonstrated His trustworthiness and faithfulness, which are not inabilities but positive attributes. (See this discussed in Bob's reply in the comments on YouTube under Duffy's open theism debate with Matt Slick.)

* For More BEL Discussion of this Educational Event: Tune in to...
- Duffy's Opening Statement (this program)
- Will's Cross Examination
- Continuing
- Duffy being Cross Examined
- Continuing
-A Most Comprehensive Closing Statement
- And you can see the discussion on YouTube.

* Today's Resource: Check out the format and perspective that's most helpful to your desire to evaluate these issues. At our KGOV Store: we have presentations, downloadable or on disc, called Chosen: It's Not What You Think, Bob's 3-DVD or downloadable seminar on Open Theism, and another on Predestination & Free Will and a moderated P&FW Debate! Also, you can get the P&FW seminar in an audio format on a single MP3 CD). And you can also call 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278) to order or to talk with us about which of our DVDs, books, or CD audio teachings may interest you!

 

[Clete]

I listened through the entire debate. I say "listened" because I can't sit and watch a debate. I fall asleep. I played the video in the background and listened to the audio while I played a video game. The following post is just my, sort of meandering, thoughts about what I heard.

The three biggest takeaways are...

1. I'm renewed in my conviction that Open Theism is the only rational "flavor" of Christian doctrine that exists.​

2. I need to start utilizing the materials available at OpenTheism.org.​

3. I need to start listening to Will Duffy teach more regularly because he's brilliant and articulate and very well informed.​

CJ, the young man arguing the Calvinist position was clearly inexperienced and nervous and often found himself without any ability to respond in any coherent way to Will's questions. I'm being as gracious there as I know how to be because there was more than once where he demonstrated a simple lack of intelligence that cannot be sloughed off as nervousness or lack of debate experience. I got annoyed by his complete inability to comprehend that the future doesn't exist YET; that until tomorrow becomes today, it only exists conceptually. He reacted to Will's assertion that the future doesn't exist as though he was saying that there would be no tomorrow. He couldn't figure out on his own that the past is what used to exist, now is what does exist and the future is what will exist. That comes off to me as a simply lack of intelligence.

Having said that, the debate was very one sided when it comes to answering the question, "Is Open Theism Biblical?" CJ didn't even try to answer that question! He was answering the question, "Is Open Theism consistent with Calvinism?" and hoping the audience wouldn't notice. I was playing a video game with the audio of the debate playing in the back ground and I noticed it immediately! Will noticed it too and was smart enough to point it out more than once.

The reason CJ was taken so decidely to the cleaners with this debate was, in addition to his youthful lack of debate experience and obvious nervousness, he showed up to the debate not knowing what Open Theism teaches! It felt like his primary exposure to the doctrinal system was when he watched Will Duffy's debate with Matt Slick. You could tell that he hadn't ever read any material written by open theists or, if he had, he'd forgotten practically all of it. Aside from his bringing up specific points that Will had made in that previous debate, every "argument" he made was against a characatured distortion of what Open Theism teaches.

I have to also point out that CJ's primary argument against Open Theism in general is based on the belief that if God can lie then He can't be trusted not to lie; that if God is capable of doing evil, He can't be trusted not to be evil - eventually. The fact that God has existed FOREVER and hasn't done a single evil thing is insufficient evidence to persude CJ to trust a God who has the ability to choose. Note also that HE DOES NOT CARE what this implies about whether it's meaningful to call God good. All of that sort of thing, according to CJ, is "semantics", which was his favorite trump card to play, of course, without any explanation as what he meant by that accusation. This, I suspect, is what very nearly every single Christian who isn't an open theist believes, by the way. Christians seem to intinctively believe that anything that can sin, will sin. The fact that there are angels in heaven who could have but did not rebell with Lucifer doesn't seem to ever occur to them. Not to mention all of the philosophical implications of believing in a God who is incapable to choosing but that is somehow still righteous.

I'm reminded of the philosophy class that I took during my first year of college. The prophesor asked whether God was capable of doing evil and I instinctively answered, "YES!" and emphatically so. The whole class errupted into a debate where I was berated from every direction by people who thought that I was crazy. The prophesor told me afterwards that he was impressed that I didn't back down and that I made good arguments. I don't even remember what arguments I made but it turns out, I suppose, that I was an open theist in the making long before I had ever heard of such a thing.

At any rate, while it is unfortunate that he was facing such a weak opponent, Will's typical brilliance, especially his opening and closing statements, makes the debate worth listening to or reading.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

I listened to (and mostly watched) the entire video and here are my takes:

• Will made the case that the future does not currently exist, whereas CJ kept speaking as if Will was saying that the future would never exist.
• Like far too many here on TOL, CJ simply waves his magic wand to make any verse that disagrees with his view into figure of speech when they are actually quite literal.
• I liked Will's pointing out that "foreknowledge" is explained by the Open View and not the Settled View.

Will did a fabulous job... CJ not so much...

 

[Clete]

I listened to (and mostly watched) the entire video and here are my takes:

• Will made the case that the future does not currently exist, whereas CJ kept speaking as if Will was saying that the future would never exist.

It was literally, it seemed to me, like he couldn't grasp the concept. As if, when we say that the future (or the past) doesn't exist, we are therefore prohibited from using the concepts without contradicting ourselves.

• Like far too many here on TOL, CJ simply waves his magic wand to make any verse that disagrees with his view into figure of speech when they are actually quite literal.

Not just here on TOL. I don't know of any Calvinist anywhere that doesn't do this exact same thing. Not only that, but they seam genuinely satisfied with it. It isn't that they don't see it as an ad hoc explanation for any problem text that comes along. They do see it. They just don't care because ANY irrational thing imaginable is preferable to accepting that God has the ability to choose or to change His mind. ANYTHING but that!

The same Christian that is perfectly fine with the ad hoc "figure of speech" explanation to save Calvinism, might very well jump all over (and rightly so) some scientist who invents another ad hoc explanation of some observed phenomena in order to save the Big Bang Theory. The incongruity never occurs to them.

• I liked Will's pointing out that "foreknowledge" is explained by the Open View and not the Settled View.

I would have liked for him to go into more detail on that particular point.

I really loved the point he made about if God could not have made the universe differently than he did, then CJ was a logical necessity. CJ pulled out that "semantics" trump card that he used any time he didn't follow the logic or understand the ramifications of the argument.

Will did a fabulous job... CJ not so much...

Agreed!

 

[Right Divider]

I really loved the point he made about if God could not have made the universe differently than he did, then CJ was a logical necessity. CJ pulled out that "semantics" trump card that he used any time he didn't follow the logic or understand the ramifications of the argument.

Yes, the "semantics" thing was annoying. Just another "out" to avoid actual interaction.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I would have liked for him to go into more detail on that particular point.

He went into some detail in his debate with Matt Slick.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

I really loved the point he made about if God could not have made the universe differently than he did, then CJ was a logical necessity.

Amber the Necessary Being | KGOV.com

kgov.com