Archive | Open Theism

RSS feed for this section

Shameless Papist Pretensions Followed by Foundational Issues with Mike Licona

A tale of two programs today: I was going to briefly address a Roman Catholic on Twitter and that “briefly” became fifty minutes.  But then I switched over to a review of an interview with Dr. Mike Licona for a total of about 1:40 for the program today.

Here is the YouTube link:

A Wide Ranging Mega-Sized Edition of the Dividing Line

Started off with a discussion of President Obama’s recent actions promoting ungodliness in the land, then discussed the recent WHO guidelines demonstrating that homosexuality is unnatural and devastating to human flourishing.  Discussed briefly the upcoming preaching by Ergun Caner at First Baptist Woodstock, and gave some guidelines to anyone who will be attending.  Then we moved on to talk about Walid Shoebat’s strange (seeming) conversion to Roman Catholicism, and an article in which he ranted and raved about Evangelicals in typical Romanist fashion.  In the last hour we turned to Bob Enyart’s recent attempts to do damage control after our debate in Denver, and hence got to discuss Christology and a number of fields in apologetics.  A full two hours!

Here is the YouTube link:

The Tremendous Dishonesty of Bob Enyart

I was told about Bob Enyart’s “review” of the debate, and so I took the time to download three programs last evening, and listened to them while doing this ride today.  Bob Enyart is in serious damage control mode. He is spinning the debate madly, throwing out an amazing amount of ad-hominem, misrepresentation, and simple dishonesty. I have seen a number of my past opponents engage in degrees of self-preservation after a poor performance in a debate (and Bob well knows he did poorly in the debate), but Enyart is vying for the top spot in “spin” and smoke. And to compound the problem, he has decided to accuse me of heresy (an irony, given he is the one promoting finite godism and is more than happy to throw the entirety of Christian history and orthodoxy into the wastebasket of “Greek philosophy”), all based upon his maddening willingness to redefine terms in accordance with his own idiosyncratic little system (a common action of cult leaders). The reality is, Enyart is a full-blown Eutychian (along with other Christological and theological heresies).

By the way—Enyart is grossly and purposefully twisting the words of RC Sproul Jr and myself. Both of us have affirmed the historic doctrine of the hypostatic union, which properly and necessarily guards the distinction of the natures while affirming their union in the one person of Jesus the Messiah. We often speak of the Son “becoming flesh,” and what Christians have meant by that is that the hypostatic union was real, and that the one person of Jesus of Nazareth was fully God and fully man *without confusing or mixing the natures.* Hence, precise language (which we do not always use) would be that the Son *took on a human nature* (that’s the point of Phil. 2:5-7) in the Incarnation, NOT that the Son *as a divine person* confused His nature, mixed His nature, altered His nature to become a mixture of natures. This is the very thing the hypostatic union guards against, and it evidently is something Enyart is more than willing to dismiss so as to pursue his finite godism paradigm. Enyart is now dishonestly accusing Sproul Jr. and myself of denying what all Christians believe, that “God sent His Son, born of a woman” etc. This is absurd and reprehensible, of course, as anyone with any honesty can tell. Enyart should be ashamed of himself.

I hope to post a screen flow video later today documenting the misrepresentation of Enyart regarding falsely asserting that I have said Open Theism does not lead men to question God’s goodness. Even though Enyart PLAYED THE CLIP, he simply refuses to “hear” anything other than what fits his cultic views: specifically, what I said (I assumed the clip was from my debate with Sanders—it was from the Unbelievable program with Austin Fischer who describes himself as “open” to open theism) was that Open theists do not have to answer the same questions about God’s goodness that Calvinists do. Now, how can you twist that into saying open theism does not lead men to question God’s goodness? All I said was the questions are different: we Calvinists have to answer questions regarding God’s decree and agency and primary and secondary causes; open theists have a completely different set of questions to answer, such as God creating in ignorance and related responsibility questions. But to twist my statement into an assertion that open theism does not lead men to question God’s goodness is dishonest at its best, and is illustrative of the cultic mentality of Enyartism.

The Open Theism Debate Audio Has Been Posted

I have been remiss over the last few days in getting this linked to out there but Bob Enyart’s guys have posted the audio to the debate up on YouTube. You can give it a listen here:

I am still holding out for the video and already have the titles and branding setup and ready to go. Once I get the footage I will process it and rush it to YouTube. Stay tuned

James White Cross Examines Bob Enyart

Updated, there was more:
As we await the full video footage from Denver some members of the audience posted clips of the cross examinations last night.

Enjoy:

Here is James’ opening remarks:

Here is Bob Cross examining James:

Here is James cross examining Bob:

Here is James’ closing remarks: