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.