James White to Debate Bob Enyart on Open Theism

[Lighthouse]

2 Tim 2:13

Not the verse of which I was thinking, but a good one.

:think: I could think of several you 'might' use, only relating to the Son in the Flesh. I know of none where the Father is.

Irrelevant as to the person of the Godhead as if one of them can do it then they can all do it.

Yes, and does. There is a LOT we don't know about the finite universe.

Idiot. Moron. Obtuse rubber goose.

It doesn't matter what we know of that which exists. Regardless that which exists cannot exist beyond itself; existence cannot exist beyond its own existence. God cannot exist beyond Himself, nor can He exist in a place that does not exist.

It is a collision of different times, come together.

We've already established this.

Yessir. I'll try.

Interesting:

Rev 1:19Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this.

For me, that's significantly clear.

Showing him what is to take place does not require any time travel, and you have not provided any verses to back up your assertion that John's host was from the future.:nono:

Perhaps. Should I start using a spell-check when I'm talking with you?
(I read brits so will be inconsistent on this particular).

For the most part I recognize the British spelling of words. But my eye is drawn to the words underlined in red by my own spell check.

:think: Then you don't dream? My dreams are real. I 'really' dream.

The fact that you dream does not make the "world" of your dreams a reality.:nono:

Ofuscate? :nono: I 'directly' disagreed and told you why.

If you think dreams are reality because you really do dream then you're an idiot.

Agreed, but similar logic applies. Since I can show how neither eliminates choice.

No, you can't.

I don't believe that matters, it is illustrative is all, of the concept that my knowledge does not affect your choice. I, believe that is clear.

And I never argued that the knowledge itself affected choice.

Where are you heading with this? It looks, to me, like you are lost in details. I'm saying it doesn't matter where it came from, not even an Almanac. I simply believe it explains well as an analogy why definite foreknowledge doesn't eliminate your choice.

:doh:

It is that which allows foreknowledge to be definite that eliminates choice. If I cannot choose otherwise then there is no choice.

I disagree. Let's say it is you, coming to visit me from the future instead, telling me what you chose. Can you eliminate your own ability to choose? I don't believe you did, you only verified it and validated it.

Can I choose otherwise than what I told you I would?

No, not at all, just using the hypothetical to show why knowledge of a future thing does not negate your choice.

Again, it is not the knowledge that is the issue, but rather the initial cause of the knowledge being available.

However, if you write the script of a person's life that he has no choice but to act out, that makes you the author of his every deed.

Yup.

 

[Jefferson]

The complete audio of the entire debate is located here: http://opentheism.org/james-white

 

[Lon]

Can I choose otherwise than what I told you I would?

No. It is time constrained. You cannot go back to the store yesterday, and buy 1% instead of whole. It has nothing to do with what you chose or your ability to choose it. That is the problem with all time pardoxes and your limitation from being able to logically assert. If forward motion is all you understand, you'll never understand an eternal past nor appropriate language to convey it. Time is more than bidurational, but this is an absolute about the nature of God neither you nor I can change, no matter how hard one might try: Cannot be done.

 

[Stripe]

If you ignore the metaphysical aspects this would be true.

What metaphysical aspects? And I'm a fundamentalist, we usually just stick with the biblical aspects.

Considering them makes for an entirely different situation, especially when finite creatures seek metaphysical equality with their Maker.

There are metaphysical aspects which are the same for creator and created. Both are alive.

The complete audio of the entire debate is located here: http://opentheism.org/james-white

:thumb:

 

[Stripe]

The complete audio of the entire debate is located here: http://opentheism.org/james-white

I just finished the whole thing.

I think the key proposition for the open theist in such debates should be that the future is not exhaustively settled, which demands that the settled theist show how the future is exhaustively settled.

The debate is unbalanced: it is not sufficient for the settled view to show how one, seven or even a thousand issues are settled in God's mind, it is necessary for the settled theist to show how everything is settled. However, it is sufficient for the open theist to show just one issue to be open.

The open theist must not baulk at questions about the future where the answer might very well be that it is settled. An open theist can safely answer "perhaps" or even "yes" to questions about some events' settledness.

This puts the burden of proof directly upon the settled theist, who must be pressed to quote the verses that show that every event has been predetermined.

I know these verses exist, but they can then be put up against the verses that show some things are not settled

And Pastor Enyart in his opening showed a pair of these verses and their contrast in his opening, which was excellent.

Take home point: Not everything is settled. This notion is not defeated by showing one example of an issue that is settled.

 

[Lighthouse]

No. It is time constrained. You cannot go back to the store yesterday, and buy 1% instead of whole. It has nothing to do with what you chose or your ability to choose it. That is the problem with all time pardoxes and your limitation from being able to logically assert. If forward motion is all you understand, you'll never understand an eternal past nor appropriate language to convey it. Time is more than bidurational, but this is an absolute about the nature of God neither you nor I can change, no matter how hard one might try: Cannot be done.

Can you support this idea of bidurational time?

And your example of being unable to change the past simply supports my argument. I do not have freedom of will to change the past. I cannot do other than what I have already done. So, if the future is settled then I cannot do other than what is already settled, therefore I do not have freedom of will to change it.

 

[Lon]

Can you support this idea of bidurational time?

And your example of being unable to change the past simply supports my argument. I do not have freedom of will to change the past. I cannot do other than what I have already done. So, if the future is settled then I cannot do other than what is already settled, therefore I do not have freedom of will to change it.

Rather, you'd already made it by the time you came to me. You get to make that same decision again. By choosing, we always cancel the other choice. The other choice is never made.

Bidurational (at the least) is a necessity for science, philosophers, and theology, because it is given by intellect, by scripture, and by evidence. Logically, something has always existed into eternity past (never began). In our limited language, it is important to say God's past is "still proceeding beyond us," else He is a created being as you and I. To assert otherwise is to agree with Mormons that God is finite.

 

[Lighthouse]

Rather, you'd already made it by the time you came to me. You get to make that same decision again. By choosing, we always cancel the other choice. The other choice is never made.

It is amazing that you don't see the circles you have to go in in order to defend and explain your position.

Bidurational (at the least) is a necessity for science, philosophers, and theology, because it is given by intellect, by scripture, and by evidence. Logically, something has always existed into eternity past (never began). In our limited language, it is important to say God's past is "still proceeding beyond us," else He is a created being as you and I. To assert otherwise is to agree with Mormons that God is finite.

Just because God has always been does not mean that time has to flow in both directions.:nono:

 

[Lon]

Just because God has always been does not mean that time has to flow in both directions.:nono:

Then He had a beginning. That is the only way you can have only one direction to time. "His past is still going to infinity."

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

What metaphysical aspects? And I'm a fundamentalist, we usually just stick with the biblical aspects.

Indeed, we should stick to them.

The fundamental idea of God’s holiness is that of a position or relationship existing between God and some person or thing. In its original sense it denotes that He is absolutely distinct from all his creatures, and is exalted above them in infinite majesty.

Sadly not a few have virtually passed out of the worship life of the contemporary church as we have made God too familiar to us—we have made him “the man upstairs,” our “buddy” and our “pal”—which familiarity has bred contempt for his aweful character and transcendence. Today a good meal, a fancy sports play on the field, or even a nice automobile is declared "awesome". Awe is now nothing more than a pedestrian notion.

God is also ethically or morally holy. For just as he, the infinite Creator, is transcendentally separate from men as creatures, so also God is ethically separate from them as sinful creatures. He is morally pure—infinitely, eternally, and unchangeably so—with respect to his nature, his thoughts, and his actions. There is not the slightest taint of evil desire, impure motive, or unholy inclination in him. His ethical holiness is the very antithesis of all moral blemish or defilement.

And mankind's sin and transgression—coextensive with the race but which some individuals among us have developed to a frightful enormity—God regards as unmitigatingly inexcusable, utterly indefensible, and fully deserving of his punishment. God views our sins—the violation of his holy law and rebellious self-deification—as not only real evil, morally wrong, and therefore, in his sight detestable, odious, ugly, disgusting, filthy, loathsome, liable to punishment, with no right to be, but they are also the contradiction of his perfections, cannot but meet with his undiluted disapproval and wrath, and are damnable in the strongest sense of the word because they so dreadfully dishonor him. God must react with holy indignation against sinners. He cannot do otherwise. (Psalm 5:4-6; Psalm 11:5-7; Habakkuk 1:13; 1 John 1:5).

Because of His complete uniqueness and sovereignty, God is able to declare, “Truly I am God, I have no peer; I am God, and there is none like me, who announces the end from the beginning and reveals beforehand what has not yet occurred, who says, 'My plan will be realized; I will accomplish what I desire ….'’’ (Isa. 46:9-10; see also Isa. 14:24; 43:13).

God’s sovereignty is self-determined, and this fact is emphasized three times (Ephesians 1:5,9,11). In God’s loving purpose, all things have been designed to lead “to the praise of the glory of his grace” (Ephesians 1:6,12,14). It is best that God works in all things, for only in this way will all things ultimately glorify God. This glorification is consistent with God’s love and kindness because He alone is worthy of ultimate glorification. Nevertheless, God will also glorify all believers at the resurrection when He finally conforms us to the image of His Son. But even God’s act of glorifying others will bring greater glory to Himself.

God’s sovereign purpose extends to all things in His creation and is not limited by space or time. This plan is so complete that we read in Scripture the declaration, “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD” (Prov. 16:33). Consider the implications of this statement. Ultimately there is no chance in this universe because even the workings of probability and statistics are controlled by God. There are no real accidents and God is surprised by nothing, contrary to the unsettled theists' notions who would even declare the abominable notion that meaningless acts of evil exist.

Scripture teaches that, as King, God orders and controls all things, human action among them, in accordance with his own eternal purpose. Scripture also teaches that, as Judge, God holds every man responsible for the choices he makes and the courses of action he pursues. God is not playing catch up to the actions of his moral agents, learning what they do when they do it. God does not accrete knowledge, else the God of Moses was less knowledgeable than the God of Paul, or even the very God we worship every Sabbath day. Should we go about thinking, "Well, I will wait another day and perhaps God will have learned something more that will better help me"? What foolishness is this? :AMR:

Yes, as demonstrated above metaphysics is not foreign to God's special revelation, the Bible, and we would do well to study and meditate on these things. For example, here is a starter for you: View attachment 18903

AMR

 

[Stripe]

The fundamental idea of God’s holiness is that of a position or relationship existing between God and some person or thing. In its original sense it denotes that He is absolutely distinct from all his creatures, and is exalted above them in infinite majesty.

God is also ethically or morally holy. For just as he, the infinite Creator, is transcendentally separate from men as creatures, so also God is ethically separate from them as sinful creatures. He is morally pure—infinitely, eternally, and unchangeably so—with respect to his nature, his thoughts, and his actions. There is not the slightest taint of evil desire, impure motive, or unholy inclination in him. His ethical holiness is the very antithesis of all moral blemish or defilement.

And yet He is alive, just like us. So that is not a distinction.

Sadly not a few have virtually passed out of the worship life of the contemporary church as we have made God too familiar to us—we have made him “the man upstairs,” our “buddy” and our “pal”—which familiarity has bred contempt for his aweful character and transcendence. Today a good meal, a fancy sports play on the field, or even a nice automobile is declared "awesome". Awe is now nothing more than a pedestrian notion.

This is not a charge that can be levelled at anyone in this discussion.

And mankind's sin and transgression—coextensive with the race but which some individuals among us have developed to a frightful enormity—God regards as unmitigatingly inexcusable, utterly indefensible, and fully deserving of his punishment. God views our sins—the violation of his holy law and rebellious self-deification—as not only real evil, morally wrong, and therefore, in his sight detestable, odious, ugly, disgusting, filthy, loathsome, liable to punishment, with no right to be, but they are also the contradiction of his perfections, cannot but meet with his undiluted disapproval and wrath, and are damnable in the strongest sense of the word because they so dreadfully dishonor him. God must react with holy indignation against sinners. He cannot do otherwise. (Psalm 5:4-6; Psalm 11:5-7; Habakkuk 1:13; 1 John 1:5).

Because of His complete uniqueness and sovereignty, God is able to declare, “Truly I am God, I have no peer; I am God, and there is none like me, who announces the end from the beginning and reveals beforehand what has not yet occurred, who says, 'My plan will be realized; I will accomplish what I desire ….'’’ (Isa. 46:9-10; see also Isa. 14:24; 43:13).

God’s sovereignty is self-determined, and this fact is emphasized three times (Ephesians 1:5,9,11). In God’s loving purpose, all things have been designed to lead “to the praise of the glory of his grace” (Ephesians 1:6,12,14). It is best that God works in all things, for only in this way will all things ultimately glorify God. This glorification is consistent with God’s love and kindness because He alone is worthy of ultimate glorification. Nevertheless, God will also glorify all believers at the resurrection when He finally conforms us to the image of His Son. But even God’s act of glorifying others will bring greater glory to Himself.

This is all unresponsive. How does this counter my statement: "If you write the script of a person's life that he has no choice but to act out, that makes you the author of his every deed."

God’s sovereign purpose extends to all things in His creation and is not limited by space or time. This plan is so complete that we read in Scripture the declaration, “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD” (Prov. 16:33). Consider the implications of this statement. Ultimately there is no chance in this universe because even the workings of probability and statistics are controlled by God. There are no real accidents and God is surprised by nothing, contrary to the unsettled theists' notions who would even declare the abominable notion that meaningless acts of evil exist.

Or you might just be reading a lot more into that verse than is there.

Scripture teaches that, as King, God orders and controls all things, human action among them, in accordance with his own eternal purpose. Scripture also teaches that, as Judge, God holds every man responsible for the choices he makes and the courses of action he pursues. God is not playing catch up to the actions of his moral agents, learning what they do when they do it. God does not accrete knowledge, else the God of Moses was less knowledgeable than the God of Paul, or even the very God we worship every Sabbath day. Should we go about thinking, "Well, I will wait another day and perhaps God will have learned something more that will better help me"? What foolishness is this? :AMR:

Jesus learned and grew. Jesus is God.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

James White is weak.
Jimmy Akin mopped the floor with him:

http://shop.catholic.com/the-bible-answer-man-debate.html


Its the only protestant product sold by Catholic Answers.
That's because James White lost, big time.

 

[Lighthouse]

Then He had a beginning. That is the only way you can have only one direction to time. "His past is still going to infinity."

Just because you assume God must have a beginning if time only flows one way doesn't make it true.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

And yet He is alive, just like us. So that is not a distinction.

Not relevant, too. God's existence and essence is not our existence and essence. Hence metaphysics.

This is all unresponsive. How does this counter my statement: "If you write the script of a person's life that he has no choice but to act out, that makes you the author of his every deed."

Metaphysics counters. Q.E.D

Or you might just be reading a lot more into that verse than is there.

Or I am not, and am not.

Jesus learned and grew. Jesus is God.

Yikes! Explain in the face of...

Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

The hypostatic union is not:

1. a denial that Christ was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);
3. a denial that Christ had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);
4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);
7. two distinct persons (Nestorianism);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and
11. a view that Jesus existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).

AMR

 

[Stripe]

Metaphysics counters. Q.E.D

Nothing you have said about metaphysics shows that what I say is not the case.

Explain in the face of...Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.The hypostatic union is not:1. a denial that Christ was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);3. a denial that Christ had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);7. two distinct persons (Nestorianism);8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and11. a view that Jesus existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).AMR

Jesus grew up and learned stuff. He was always God while doing so.

This utterly refutes the notion that God cannot learn.

 

[Stripe]

Not relevant.

So the metaphysical aspects we have in common with God are not relevant to your idea that we are utterly distinct from God metaphysically?

 

[glorydaz]

Just because you assume God must have a beginning if time only flows one way doesn't make it true.

I see time as circular, like the seasons. That flows one way but has no beginning. :idunno:

 

[chatmaggot]

Nothing you have said about metaphysics shows that what I say is not the case.


Jesus grew up and learned stuff. He was always God while doing so.

This utterly refutes the notion that God cannot learn.

I agree. We read in Hebrews 5 the following:

...who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear, though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,...

This shows that Jesus learned and He became something that He was not previously.

James White would say: "Yes, but what it really means..." or "You don't understand the Hypostatic Union."

 

[Stripe]

"You don't understand the Hypostatic Union."

If the Calvinist could show "hypostatic union" in scripture -- those words, not the derived ideas -- that might have some sway.

However, those words are not there.

The words plainly presented in scripture generally take precedence over words that are not in scripture.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If the Calvinist could show "hypostatic union" in scripture -- those words, not the derived ideas -- that might have some sway.

However, those words are not there.

The words plainly presented in scripture generally take precedence over words that are not in scripture.

Poisoning the well notwithstanding, it is not a Calvinist idea, but the voice of all orthodox Christendom.

AMR