God must keep His restraining power on each and everyone of us,if not man would destroy himself very quickly.During the tribulation God will remove His restraining power and man will absolutely lose his mind committing evil and if those days aren't shortened for the sake of the elect,there would be no flesh left alive.
Bob Enyart is Armenian! I'm crushed. Enyart is one of the coolest Christians on the planet, but he's wrong here.
Armenians, understand that Calvinists are not talking about surface issues. Yes, of course, a saved man has a will that desires and freely chooses Christ. But ask the question: WHY? Why does he want what he wants?
Man is powerless over sin; yet he is responsible for it. Both are true. Yet, it's not really discernable if you stay on a surface level.
@RomansGalatians You should talk about it with Enyart on his show he does 5 days a week. I'm sure he'd be glad to devote an entire half hour show to it to show you that God reveals that the future is open to Him and that He actually responds to what men do.
@OBAMAINFANTICIDE Probably one of the most misstated points about Calvinism is: Calvinists believe that men do not have wills. That is not Calvinism.
Christians love, desire and choose Christ because that is what they want. Condemned people hate and reject Christ because that is what they want. Both Arminians and Calvinists agree on this point; this is not the issue.
The issue is WHY? Why do you want what you want? Because you changed your OWN heart to love what you didn't love before?
@OBAMAINFANTICIDE Men cannot change their own hearts. Humanists trust in the strength of their own hands to change their hearts. Christians trust in Christ.
Do we make choices independent of our hearts? "Free will" means free from external forces, NOT detached and separate from our own hearts! Man, a choice independent of my OWN SELF wouldn't even be MY choice.
I don't understand how you can read the bible and not think that God has created and knows the future. Like, honestly? I mean...I don't think that there is a book in the bible that doesn't either mention or fulfill prophecy. You have to throw out, pretty much the entire bible after Genesis 5 or 6, with the aftermath of the fall. I just don't get it.
@mad6andchili There's a gazillion passages in the bible that show God responding to what men do and recognizing real options for God to take along with some prophecies that DON'T COME TO PASS due to future circumstances/conditions.
Call into Bob Enyart's show and discuss it with him and he'll school you on it and you'll have that lesson on audio for yourself and others to listen to in the future.
@OBAMAINFANTICIDE I have talked Open Theism with Pastor Bob to his face, he didn't really point to anything. haha. I guess if you can point to one passage in the bible where God reacts to humanity where God reacts to humanity in context I will hand it to you. I can point out one where God says Jesus will come to stomp the devil Gen. 3:5, that was 6 thousand years before it happened man. What do you do with that?
Emeralds222, Why are you so bitter and angry? Would you believe if you had proof? No, you wouldn't. Your heart is very hard and cold. You are a sinner and unless you repent you will go to hell after you die.
Bitter and Angry is what you are taught to place on anyone who calls your bluff.
Of course, everyone would believe if there was proof. The animals would believe if there was proof. But... there isn't.
When you make unfounded claims, such as "Your heart is very hard and cold" "You are a sinner,... etc" , you turn yourself into a false teacher, false prophet, and ravenous wolf in sheeps clothing. You know nothing more about supernatural anything, than anyone else. TRUTH RULES!
@emeralds222 You are blah blah blah idiot. Even the greatest skeptics today admit that there was a person named "Jesus" who lived. They admit he was crucified, that he was buried in a tomb and that it was found empty. What conclusions we all draw from that are different, but you do not know history at all.
Yeah, I remember you...... And there isn't a world population problem and it's climate change versus global warming right?
The problem is, you cannot admit anything that you say is wrong.. and oddly enough... 90% of it is.
Please NAME ME historians today that declare this tomb was found empty. Please NAME ME a historian and skeptics that think you know one iota of reality.
Here's a thought.. watch Christopher HItchens.... Just a few of the things he has to say on the subject.
why are you guys arguing this? You're all right with quotes but you're wrong to shove it other peoples faces pretending it's proof of your own personal beliefs. I guess if someone believes in something enough it becomes real to them, and there is nothing wrong with that but, Bob Enyart is a turd, and with a dangerous weapon...HIS MOUTH!
God said, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me. God says he is not in all places at all times. For example, he is not in hell, where RJLoki is going.
@punchurtowes Yes, a machine can be manipulated, changed, rebuilt and improved by the hands of man. Only an infinite God can restore the heart of man. To say that our hearts are in the hands of God is not saying that we are machines. Though, it is saying that we are created.
When the Humanists fancy that they can change their own hearts, really they are deluded that they are god. Humility does not confess that we are machines, but that we indeed, are clay in the hands of God. (not man)
Clearly the idea that God knows the future exhaustively is something the Bible doesn't specifically say. This is something posited on the text, either because we detect an inferance, or because that's how we've determined God should be like.
That's right. Many think that God knows the future as completely settled because that is how they think God ought to be. What is usually referred to as Dignum Deo - what it is dignified for God to be.
You can't start with that. You must start with God revealed in scripture.
"It is true that according to the open view things can happen in our lives that God didn't plan or even foreknow with certainty... This means that in the open view things can happen to us that have no overarching divine purpose. ..."trusting in God" provides no assurance that everything that happens to us will reflect his divine purposes, for there are other agents who also have power to affect us... This, it must be admitted, can for some be a scary thought." - Boyd
See, Jesus didn't have to say "by chance" or "by accident" when giving this parable. If there is no such thing as "chance" then Christ is choosing His words poorly in communicating the lesson in this parable.
Open theism's beliefs concerning the foreknowledge of God implies many things about the character of God. God literally changes his mind, continues to learn, and is even said to take risks (hence John Sanders' book The God Who Risks). Gregory Boyd, an open theist, notes that "In a cosmos populated by free agents, the outcome of things -- even divine decisions -- is often uncertain." (Boyd, God of the Possible, p. 58).
That's correct. God chooses to condition some of His decisions He makes in response to what men or nations do. That is what Jeremiah 18:1-10 is all about.
That's right Mr. Enyart. Calvinism teaches that babies go to hell. How 'bout teach that "some" Calvinists believe that, not "all" (you know how Arminians get tripped up over those two terms) just like some Open Theists (John Sanders) believe that God had a beginning and is not an Eternal Being.
That right there tells me Enyart is not an honest man, as if he didn't know that most Calvinists, like Spurgeon, believe that all babies who die speed their way to the eternal throne.
John Sanders is a friend of mine and I know for a FACT that he does not believe that God had a beginning. He does not believe that and you cannot get that impression from anything he has written.
You may be right. I might be thinking of someone else as it has been a while since I've read any of their works. Regardless, it is the logical outworking of positing that God is temporal.
Those interested in responses to Bob and Open Theism might want to look at Bruce Ware's book on the subject, Their God is too Small. As J.I.Packer notes, ""Open theism supports its reducing of God's sovereignty by denying his full knowledge of the future. If any doubt remains as to whether this falls short of the Bible's teaching and waters down Christian faith and hope, Bruce Ware's pastoral reasoning will surely dispel it."
--J. I. Packer, Professor of Theology, Regent College
Nobody gives a rip about what J I Packer says or thinks anymore. And Bruce Ware is not interested in any kind of meaningful discussion. John Sanders buried Ware at the ETS Annual Conference in Colorado Springs, CO in 2001. Since then Ware has not provided and new arguments for us to respond to.
I'm fairly humble. Humble enough to admit that I know what I know and I don't know what I don't know.
For example, I know that God says that He MIGHT do something. that He says "perhaps" Ex 13:17; Ezek 12:3; Jer 26:3; Jer 36:3
Check out all of Jeremiah 26. It shows the people understanding that what was prophesied might now come to pass on account of the people's repentance relating it to a pervious experience.
I don't take the "relational" passages of Scripture and then argue backwards to abolish the Scriptural teachings on Sovereignty, Election and Predestination. Those are foundational.
And I was an Open Theist for 8 to 9 years. I have all of Boyd, Pinnock and Sanders' works for the most part. All of them are leaving the reservation on more than just this issue. Pinnock is close to becoming a universalist. Greg has come close to embracing annihilationism. Doctrine matters.
OK then, let's have a debate online that people can read. We can have a good moderated debate on TheologyOnline in the Battle Royale forum with clear debate rules laid out where a winner will be apparent at the end of the debate.
Yes, we're sure. Come on Bob Enyart LIVE for a debate for the entire half hour show or even two of the shows if you like and we'll put the facts and arguments out there for people to hear.
The winner is the one who promotes the show after it has aired.
If this is some of the best that Open Theism has to offer, I am not impressed. Bob should read Luther's Bondage of the Will. With all due respect, I don't believe that he can match Luther's erudition or his understanding of Scripture. If you are a Christian, you have to believe that God is in control of the universe. It is that simple.
Enyart has read Bondage of the Will and has referenced it in one or more of his written work (referenced in The Plot more than once).
Enyart has also referenced Luther's many anti-semitic writings. Enyart is far better and more impressive than Luther when it comes to reason and using Scripture (specificly what the Greek and Hebrew say) to back up his view and crush the determinist opposition.
If you want to see Enyart destroy a determinist check out TheologyOnLine.
I am pleased to learn that Bob has read Luther's Bondage of the Will. As for Enyart being more impressive than Luther, perhaps we should leave that question to the church historians. Perhaps in the eyes of a few, Luther is no match for Enyart, but I suspect those few are few indeed. Enyart may be able to outsmart determinism, as you call it, but I fear that the Biblical notion of God's control and soveriegnty has too much Scripture to support it.
BTW, have you seen Piper's edited book, Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity? Piper claims that "Open theism--denying God's knowledge of the future--is an attempt to change the way Christians think about God and is a growing challenge to orthodox belief." Accordingly, the book "explains why the God of open theism is not the God of biblical Christianity." This is Piper's take, and I tend to agree. Check it out.
Piper is comletely UNimpressive in his arguments. If he has a good argument to bring forth then he should do so. He has yet to bring forth even one good argument from Scripture, so as of now God saying "perhaps" and "I would have" and "I repent" stand strong showing that God responds to what men do and that the future for God is partly open for Him to take one of several options in bringing about His will.
Have you ever heard the argument that there are two wills in God? It's quite easy to see... check out desiringgod[dot]org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1580_Are_There_Two_Wills_in_God/
Yeah, I've heard of such an argument and it is false. God wants ALL men to obey and love Him above everything else. Jesus Christ died so that ALL would be able to put their trust in God and be saved. When someone rejects God and does not obey His will that is not them doing what God wants them to do.
Dr. James R White has just posted a segment of his debate against John Sanders, one of the inventors of 'Open Theism'. Do yourself a favor - listen to 'watch?v=A8gtjNhpr5I' on youtube.
I am familiar with that debate. Not a very helpful debate compared to the others out there/ Enyart's debate with Sam Lamerson on TheologyOnline is one of the richest as far as content goes.
God says "perhaps" and "maybe" or "it may be". Do those passages misrepresent God or do you explain them away as "anthropomorphisms" that tell us nothing about what God is REALLY like.
Check out Jer 26 where God's RESPONSIVENESS is highlighted.
He had to do more than make a rooster crow. He *knew* with certainty Peter would deny him, which is either because of his decree (Calvinism) or because of his foreknowledge (Arminianism/Molinism). But open theism is not an option here.
Jer 18:7-10 describes God's eternal, immutable decrees *as they appear to us*. Passages like Is 46:9-10 define God's characteristics. How would you harmonize these 2 passages on the open theist assumption?
Is 46 is all about God's power as is clear from reading it:
11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken [it;] I WILL ALSO BRING IT TO PASS. I have purposed [it;] I WILL ALSO DO IT. 12 " Listen to Me, you stubborn-hearted, Who [are] far from righteousness: 13 I bring My righteousness near, it shall not be far off; My salvation shall not linger. And I will place salvation in Zion, For Israel My glory.
In other words, God can foretell part of the future because He makes the decision to bring specific events about. That's exactly what Is 46 says. It does NOT say that God knows the future because He has exhaustive definite foreknowledge.
One thing I have leanred when talking with determinists over the years is that they lack the imagination to even consider a view different then their own and act like high school kids when making arguments
There are plenty of old heresies out there. Why do humans feel the need to continuously invent new heresies? Did Jesus say, "Peter, I strongly suspect that you might be inclined to deny me several times, if the rooster decides to crow. Maybe."
Its not a heresy in any way. Its what the bible itself says, which is that God takes into account the actions of men in His bringing about His will. God will repent of what He said He would do if men respond to Him a certain way. See Jer 18:7-10
All Jesus had to do was make a rooster crow when He told Peter that He would deny Him three times. Do you think God is able to make a rooster crow?
God must keep His restraining power on each and everyone of us,if not man would destroy himself very quickly.During the tribulation God will remove His restraining power and man will absolutely lose his mind committing evil and if those days aren't shortened for the sake of the elect,there would be no flesh left alive.
CBALLEN 11 months ago
Bob Enyart is Armenian! I'm crushed. Enyart is one of the coolest Christians on the planet, but he's wrong here.
Armenians, understand that Calvinists are not talking about surface issues. Yes, of course, a saved man has a will that desires and freely chooses Christ. But ask the question: WHY? Why does he want what he wants?
Man is powerless over sin; yet he is responsible for it. Both are true. Yet, it's not really discernable if you stay on a surface level.
RomansGalatians 1 year ago
@RomansGalatians You should talk about it with Enyart on his show he does 5 days a week. I'm sure he'd be glad to devote an entire half hour show to it to show you that God reveals that the future is open to Him and that He actually responds to what men do.
OBAMAINFANTICIDE 1 year ago
@OBAMAINFANTICIDE Probably one of the most misstated points about Calvinism is: Calvinists believe that men do not have wills. That is not Calvinism.
Christians love, desire and choose Christ because that is what they want. Condemned people hate and reject Christ because that is what they want. Both Arminians and Calvinists agree on this point; this is not the issue.
The issue is WHY? Why do you want what you want? Because you changed your OWN heart to love what you didn't love before?
RomansGalatians 1 year ago
@OBAMAINFANTICIDE Men cannot change their own hearts. Humanists trust in the strength of their own hands to change their hearts. Christians trust in Christ.
Do we make choices independent of our hearts? "Free will" means free from external forces, NOT detached and separate from our own hearts! Man, a choice independent of my OWN SELF wouldn't even be MY choice.
RomansGalatians 1 year ago
I don't understand how you can read the bible and not think that God has created and knows the future. Like, honestly? I mean...I don't think that there is a book in the bible that doesn't either mention or fulfill prophecy. You have to throw out, pretty much the entire bible after Genesis 5 or 6, with the aftermath of the fall. I just don't get it.
mad6andchili 1 year ago
@mad6andchili There's a gazillion passages in the bible that show God responding to what men do and recognizing real options for God to take along with some prophecies that DON'T COME TO PASS due to future circumstances/conditions.
Call into Bob Enyart's show and discuss it with him and he'll school you on it and you'll have that lesson on audio for yourself and others to listen to in the future.
OBAMAINFANTICIDE 1 year ago
@OBAMAINFANTICIDE I have talked Open Theism with Pastor Bob to his face, he didn't really point to anything. haha. I guess if you can point to one passage in the bible where God reacts to humanity where God reacts to humanity in context I will hand it to you. I can point out one where God says Jesus will come to stomp the devil Gen. 3:5, that was 6 thousand years before it happened man. What do you do with that?
mad6andchili 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You can't go to church if your testicles are damaged or your penis has been cut off. (Read Deuteronomy 23:1
There: I can#t even go to church anymore.
lizazoon 2 years ago
Another moron preaching junk.
There is no credible evidence outside of the religious tract collection we call the bible, that "Jesus" ever existed.
And we have proof today that a human cannot fly out into space in bodily form without a space suit and a rocket, without exploding.
All this moronic blah blah blah is geared toward wrecking the minds of youth.
emeralds222 2 years ago
Emeralds222, Why are you so bitter and angry? Would you believe if you had proof? No, you wouldn't. Your heart is very hard and cold. You are a sinner and unless you repent you will go to hell after you die.
mrshamblin 2 years ago
Bitter and Angry is what you are taught to place on anyone who calls your bluff.
Of course, everyone would believe if there was proof. The animals would believe if there was proof. But... there isn't.
When you make unfounded claims, such as "Your heart is very hard and cold" "You are a sinner,... etc" , you turn yourself into a false teacher, false prophet, and ravenous wolf in sheeps clothing. You know nothing more about supernatural anything, than anyone else. TRUTH RULES!
emeralds222 2 years ago
@emeralds222 You are blah blah blah idiot. Even the greatest skeptics today admit that there was a person named "Jesus" who lived. They admit he was crucified, that he was buried in a tomb and that it was found empty. What conclusions we all draw from that are different, but you do not know history at all.
LawrenceKennard 2 years ago
Yeah, I remember you...... And there isn't a world population problem and it's climate change versus global warming right?
The problem is, you cannot admit anything that you say is wrong.. and oddly enough... 90% of it is.
Please NAME ME historians today that declare this tomb was found empty. Please NAME ME a historian and skeptics that think you know one iota of reality.
Here's a thought.. watch Christopher HItchens.... Just a few of the things he has to say on the subject.
emeralds222 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fuck your bleeding cunt fuck snuff film porn star fucking savior jesus fucking christ
rimrimree 3 years ago
why are you guys arguing this? You're all right with quotes but you're wrong to shove it other peoples faces pretending it's proof of your own personal beliefs. I guess if someone believes in something enough it becomes real to them, and there is nothing wrong with that but, Bob Enyart is a turd, and with a dangerous weapon...HIS MOUTH!
man will corrupt everything he touches.
dasboot27 3 years ago
spoon bending sopipoera disporia gliding smoothily in hills of fuck so hard so da so coon will nine fuck your fuck you bleed not pray hard when ;l;
pataphysicalism 3 years ago
sophistry.
pataphysicalism 3 years ago
God said, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me. God says he is not in all places at all times. For example, he is not in hell, where RJLoki is going.
punchurtowes 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Open theists might as well be atheists. A God who is no All-Powerful, All-Knowing, and Omnipresent is no God at all.
RJLoki247 4 years ago
God said to Abraham, "NOW, I know that you fear me". Deal with it, he is a person, not a machine.
punchurtowes 3 years ago 4
@punchurtowes Yes, a machine can be manipulated, changed, rebuilt and improved by the hands of man. Only an infinite God can restore the heart of man. To say that our hearts are in the hands of God is not saying that we are machines. Though, it is saying that we are created.
When the Humanists fancy that they can change their own hearts, really they are deluded that they are god. Humility does not confess that we are machines, but that we indeed, are clay in the hands of God. (not man)
RomansGalatians 1 year ago
Clearly the idea that God knows the future exhaustively is something the Bible doesn't specifically say. This is something posited on the text, either because we detect an inferance, or because that's how we've determined God should be like.
OUSoonerJedi 4 years ago
That's right. Many think that God knows the future as completely settled because that is how they think God ought to be. What is usually referred to as Dignum Deo - what it is dignified for God to be.
You can't start with that. You must start with God revealed in scripture.
SurvivorsIndiana 4 years ago
Related Video
Christians Debate : Calvinists V. Anglicans on Atonement and the Nature of G_d
Ecothearcy 4 years ago
"It is true that according to the open view things can happen in our lives that God didn't plan or even foreknow with certainty... This means that in the open view things can happen to us that have no overarching divine purpose. ..."trusting in God" provides no assurance that everything that happens to us will reflect his divine purposes, for there are other agents who also have power to affect us... This, it must be admitted, can for some be a scary thought." - Boyd
ChurchOfTheWay 4 years ago
Jesus Christ explicitly taught that there are chance events.
Luke 10:31 "Now BY CHANCE a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. -- Jesus Christ
This definitively shows that God does not teach that every event if ordained by Him.
SurvivorsIndiana 4 years ago
Luke 10:30-31
31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.
(from New International Version)
I thought open theists taught that parables and poetic passages were not to be taken literally, but only "narrative" passages.
ChurchOfTheWay 4 years ago
See, Jesus didn't have to say "by chance" or "by accident" when giving this parable. If there is no such thing as "chance" then Christ is choosing His words poorly in communicating the lesson in this parable.
SurvivorsIndiana 4 years ago
Open theism's beliefs concerning the foreknowledge of God implies many things about the character of God. God literally changes his mind, continues to learn, and is even said to take risks (hence John Sanders' book The God Who Risks). Gregory Boyd, an open theist, notes that "In a cosmos populated by free agents, the outcome of things -- even divine decisions -- is often uncertain." (Boyd, God of the Possible, p. 58).
ChurchOfTheWay 4 years ago
That's correct. God chooses to condition some of His decisions He makes in response to what men or nations do. That is what Jeremiah 18:1-10 is all about.
SurvivorsIndiana 4 years ago
That's right Mr. Enyart. Calvinism teaches that babies go to hell. How 'bout teach that "some" Calvinists believe that, not "all" (you know how Arminians get tripped up over those two terms) just like some Open Theists (John Sanders) believe that God had a beginning and is not an Eternal Being.
That right there tells me Enyart is not an honest man, as if he didn't know that most Calvinists, like Spurgeon, believe that all babies who die speed their way to the eternal throne.
ChurchOfTheWay 4 years ago
John Sanders is a friend of mine and I know for a FACT that he does not believe that God had a beginning. He does not believe that and you cannot get that impression from anything he has written.
SurvivorsIndiana 4 years ago
You may be right. I might be thinking of someone else as it has been a while since I've read any of their works. Regardless, it is the logical outworking of positing that God is temporal.
ChurchOfTheWay 4 years ago
No its not. There is no need for God to have a beginning just as their is no need for their to be a beginning of "time".
God has always existed and that's why there has always been time or duration or existence.
SurvivorsIndiana 4 years ago
Isn't it interesting how Open Theists trash Arminianism and then when attacked as heretics promoting novel doctrine, hide behind Arminianism?
ChurchOfTheWay 4 years ago
"God is a concept by which we measure our pain" - John Lennon
PS. God created me. If you delete my comment you reject God's creation.
BSAlert 4 years ago
You're a friggin moron and John Lennon is in Hell with Ghandi
SurvivorsIndiana 4 years ago
Those interested in responses to Bob and Open Theism might want to look at Bruce Ware's book on the subject, Their God is too Small. As J.I.Packer notes, ""Open theism supports its reducing of God's sovereignty by denying his full knowledge of the future. If any doubt remains as to whether this falls short of the Bible's teaching and waters down Christian faith and hope, Bruce Ware's pastoral reasoning will surely dispel it."
--J. I. Packer, Professor of Theology, Regent College
SteveMcKinzie 4 years ago
Nobody gives a rip about what J I Packer says or thinks anymore. And Bruce Ware is not interested in any kind of meaningful discussion. John Sanders buried Ware at the ETS Annual Conference in Colorado Springs, CO in 2001. Since then Ware has not provided and new arguments for us to respond to.
SurvivorsIndiana 4 years ago
It's clear that the doctrine of "open theism" has produced in you the fruit of humility. What a mighty god you serve...
ChurchOfTheWay 4 years ago
I'm fairly humble. Humble enough to admit that I know what I know and I don't know what I don't know.
For example, I know that God says that He MIGHT do something. that He says "perhaps" Ex 13:17; Ezek 12:3; Jer 26:3; Jer 36:3
Check out all of Jeremiah 26. It shows the people understanding that what was prophesied might now come to pass on account of the people's repentance relating it to a pervious experience.
SurvivorsIndiana 4 years ago
I don't take the "relational" passages of Scripture and then argue backwards to abolish the Scriptural teachings on Sovereignty, Election and Predestination. Those are foundational.
And I was an Open Theist for 8 to 9 years. I have all of Boyd, Pinnock and Sanders' works for the most part. All of them are leaving the reservation on more than just this issue. Pinnock is close to becoming a universalist. Greg has come close to embracing annihilationism. Doctrine matters.
ChurchOfTheWay 4 years ago
OK then, let's have a debate online that people can read. We can have a good moderated debate on TheologyOnline in the Battle Royale forum with clear debate rules laid out where a winner will be apparent at the end of the debate.
SurvivorsIndiana 4 years ago
Or, fell free to call into Enyart's radio show between 3-3:30 Mountain Time Monday-Friday
1-800-8ENYART
KGOVdotCzOM
SurvivorsIndiana 4 years ago
Has Bob Enyart debated James White? Would he?
ChurchOfTheWay 4 years ago
He debated Lamerson of Knox Seminary and that debate is on TheologyOnLine in the Battle Royale section.
Enyart would make James White look like an ignorant fool. I know that much.
SurvivorsIndiana 4 years ago
Ah, more of that Open Theism Christian humility shining through. Are you sure you're not cross-enrolled in Moral Government Theology?
ChurchOfTheWay 4 years ago
Yes, we're sure. Come on Bob Enyart LIVE for a debate for the entire half hour show or even two of the shows if you like and we'll put the facts and arguments out there for people to hear.
The winner is the one who promotes the show after it has aired.
SurvivorsIndiana 4 years ago
If this is some of the best that Open Theism has to offer, I am not impressed. Bob should read Luther's Bondage of the Will. With all due respect, I don't believe that he can match Luther's erudition or his understanding of Scripture. If you are a Christian, you have to believe that God is in control of the universe. It is that simple.
SteveMcKinzie 4 years ago
Enyart has read Bondage of the Will and has referenced it in one or more of his written work (referenced in The Plot more than once).
Enyart has also referenced Luther's many anti-semitic writings. Enyart is far better and more impressive than Luther when it comes to reason and using Scripture (specificly what the Greek and Hebrew say) to back up his view and crush the determinist opposition.
If you want to see Enyart destroy a determinist check out TheologyOnLine.
SurvivorsIndiana 4 years ago
I am pleased to learn that Bob has read Luther's Bondage of the Will. As for Enyart being more impressive than Luther, perhaps we should leave that question to the church historians. Perhaps in the eyes of a few, Luther is no match for Enyart, but I suspect those few are few indeed. Enyart may be able to outsmart determinism, as you call it, but I fear that the Biblical notion of God's control and soveriegnty has too much Scripture to support it.
SteveMcKinzie 4 years ago
God says "perhaps" and "It may be" (Jer 26:3; 36:3; Ezek 12:3; Ex 13:17).
God tells us what He "would have" done (1 Sam 13:13-14).
God responds to what men do and grieves over what men do when they act contrary to His one, unified, non-schizophrenic will (Eph 4:30).
God has spoken so loudly and clearly about how He relates to His creation that Luther's Greek-inspired and non-biblical view can only be laughed at.
If you wanna debate Bob then call into his radio show today between 5-5:30 ET
SurvivorsIndiana 4 years ago
BTW, have you seen Piper's edited book, Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity? Piper claims that "Open theism--denying God's knowledge of the future--is an attempt to change the way Christians think about God and is a growing challenge to orthodox belief." Accordingly, the book "explains why the God of open theism is not the God of biblical Christianity." This is Piper's take, and I tend to agree. Check it out.
SteveMcKinzie 4 years ago
Piper is comletely UNimpressive in his arguments. If he has a good argument to bring forth then he should do so. He has yet to bring forth even one good argument from Scripture, so as of now God saying "perhaps" and "I would have" and "I repent" stand strong showing that God responds to what men do and that the future for God is partly open for Him to take one of several options in bringing about His will.
SurvivorsIndiana 4 years ago
Have you ever heard the argument that there are two wills in God? It's quite easy to see... check out desiringgod[dot]org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1580_Are_There_Two_Wills_in_God/
Daninkorea 4 years ago
Yeah, I've heard of such an argument and it is false. God wants ALL men to obey and love Him above everything else. Jesus Christ died so that ALL would be able to put their trust in God and be saved. When someone rejects God and does not obey His will that is not them doing what God wants them to do.
The Holy Spirit can be grieved (Eph 4:30).
Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers REJECTED THE WILL OF GOD for themselves, not having been baptized by him.
SurvivorsIndiana 4 years ago
Cool video, I've hardly ever seen any video of Bob.
Tekka 5 years ago
Dr. James R White has just posted a segment of his debate against John Sanders, one of the inventors of 'Open Theism'. Do yourself a favor - listen to 'watch?v=A8gtjNhpr5I' on youtube.
AQuinault 5 years ago
I am familiar with that debate. Not a very helpful debate compared to the others out there/ Enyart's debate with Sam Lamerson on TheologyOnline is one of the richest as far as content goes.
God says "perhaps" and "maybe" or "it may be". Do those passages misrepresent God or do you explain them away as "anthropomorphisms" that tell us nothing about what God is REALLY like.
Check out Jer 26 where God's RESPONSIVENESS is highlighted.
SurvivorsIndiana 5 years ago
He had to do more than make a rooster crow. He *knew* with certainty Peter would deny him, which is either because of his decree (Calvinism) or because of his foreknowledge (Arminianism/Molinism). But open theism is not an option here.
Jer 18:7-10 describes God's eternal, immutable decrees *as they appear to us*. Passages like Is 46:9-10 define God's characteristics. How would you harmonize these 2 passages on the open theist assumption?
AQuinault 5 years ago
Is 46 is all about God's power as is clear from reading it:
11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken [it;] I WILL ALSO BRING IT TO PASS. I have purposed [it;] I WILL ALSO DO IT. 12 " Listen to Me, you stubborn-hearted, Who [are] far from righteousness: 13 I bring My righteousness near, it shall not be far off; My salvation shall not linger. And I will place salvation in Zion, For Israel My glory.
SurvivorsIndiana 5 years ago
In other words, God can foretell part of the future because He makes the decision to bring specific events about. That's exactly what Is 46 says. It does NOT say that God knows the future because He has exhaustive definite foreknowledge.
One thing I have leanred when talking with determinists over the years is that they lack the imagination to even consider a view different then their own and act like high school kids when making arguments
SurvivorsIndiana 5 years ago
There are plenty of old heresies out there. Why do humans feel the need to continuously invent new heresies? Did Jesus say, "Peter, I strongly suspect that you might be inclined to deny me several times, if the rooster decides to crow. Maybe."
AQuinault 5 years ago
Its not a heresy in any way. Its what the bible itself says, which is that God takes into account the actions of men in His bringing about His will. God will repent of what He said He would do if men respond to Him a certain way. See Jer 18:7-10
All Jesus had to do was make a rooster crow when He told Peter that He would deny Him three times. Do you think God is able to make a rooster crow?
SurvivorsIndiana 5 years ago