Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Calvinism and Open Theism Debate Today

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Calvinism and Open Theism Debate Today

    Calvinism and Open Theism Debate Today with Matt Slick and Will Duffy: https://goo.gl/HkA3xM
    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    Faculty, Puritan Reformed Biblical Seminary
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, Presbyterian
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained
    Lex orandi, lex credenda : all are Calvinists on their knees

  • #2
    Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Calvinism and Open Theism Debate Today with Matt Slick and Will Duffy: https://goo.gl/HkA3xM
    Thanks...
    New-Protestant Reformation ~ Dec 2009 - ____

    I'm a Christian. An Evangelical, Reformed, Independent Fundamental Baptist; a New Calvinist...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
      Calvinism and Open Theism Debate Today with Matt Slick and Will Duffy: https://goo.gl/HkA3xM
      I watched both debates...the second one first then the first.

      IMO, I think Matt Slick did an excellent job both scripturally and logically. Seemed like Will Duffy learned a lot from Matt...but at this time didn't change his opinion.

      I see too many challenges to the biblical text to accept the Open Theism doctrine. Matt did point out their view of God was similar to the views Mormonism have about God.

      There is something like a 6 hour investment in time needed to watch both debates.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by CrowCross View Post

        I see too many challenges to the biblical text to accept the Open Theism doctrine. Matt did point out their view of God was similar to the views Mormonism have about God.

        There is something like a 6 hour investment in time needed to watch both debates.

        To be perfectly up front, like Mr. Duffy, I too was once a settled view holder and now have shifted to the open view -- so I'm biased in that regard.

        I am curious how you think Open Theism is like Mormonism. I heard the comparison by Matt slick, but it seemed a lot more like the logical fallacy of poisoning the well than an actual argument.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
          Calvinism and Open Theism Debate Today with Matt Slick and Will Duffy: https://goo.gl/HkA3xM
          Great debate, and I think Slick does a great job of deciphering between the different senses of terms that get debated when discussing scripture. One place in which he kind of kicked the can down the road was when the open theist brought up Isaiah 5:2 in which God "expected" Israel to bring forth good grapes.....

          Isaiah 5:2 ".......it should bring forth (strong's 6213).......grapes......and it brought forth (strong's 6213) ....wild grapes."

          I think "expected" could only be used for a translation here in the same sense that God wrote the Mosaic law "expecting" ....or "to bring forth" righteousness from Israel. God wrote the Mosaic law to expose sin, in the same sense He planted the vineyard in Isaiah 5:2 to expose wild grapes. He uses the analogy in Isaiah as a yardstick so that Israel can look back at their behavior to decipher exactly where God has set the bar....which has been set at perfection.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ApologeticJedi View Post


            To be perfectly up front, like Mr. Duffy, I too was once a settled view holder and now have shifted to the open view -- so I'm biased in that regard.

            I am curious how you think Open Theism is like Mormonism. I heard the comparison by Matt slick, but it seemed a lot more like the logical fallacy of poisoning the well than an actual argument.
            It's in the way they present God. You've heard the comparison so i don't think we have to go over those points.

            Comment


            • #7
              I do wish the guy didn't insult Matt with the question about sending the lying spirit....I would have loved to hear Matts view.
              For those who haven't seen the debate it was during the Q and A at the end of the first debate.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by CrowCross View Post
                It's in the way they present God. You've heard the comparison so i don't think we have to go over those points.
                He didn't really go over it, just dumped the poison in. Mormons' believe God was once a man and ascended to godhood. Mormon's believe God used to live on a different planet. Are you under the impression that Open View Theologians believe this as well?



                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ApologeticJedi View Post

                  He didn't really go over it, just dumped the poison in. Mormons' believe God was once a man and ascended to godhood. Mormon's believe God used to live on a different planet. Are you under the impression that Open View Theologians believe this as well?


                  No. I believe Matt also said he didn't believe Open View Theologians believe that as well.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Nebekednezzar View Post

                    Great debate, and I think Slick does a great job of deciphering between the different senses of terms that get debated when discussing scripture. One place in which he kind of kicked the can down the road was when the open theist brought up Isaiah 5:2 in which God "expected" Israel to bring forth good grapes.....

                    Isaiah 5:2 ".......it should bring forth (strong's 6213).......grapes......and it brought forth (strong's 6213) ....wild grapes."

                    I think "expected" could only be used for a translation here in the same sense that God wrote the Mosaic law "expecting" ....or "to bring forth" righteousness from Israel. God wrote the Mosaic law to expose sin, in the same sense He planted the vineyard in Isaiah 5:2 to expose wild grapes. He uses the analogy in Isaiah as a yardstick so that Israel can look back at their behavior to decipher exactly where God has set the bar....which has been set at perfection.
                    If as Calvinists we find one of their verses troubling, all we have to do is remember if we find even one verse in the Bible which says that God Providentially Works in Creation, that verse is no longer troubling; right?

                    Many beliefs are not ruined by just one troubling verse; but Open Theism by definition would have to be utterly destroyed by even just one Verse which overtly says that God operates in his Creation. IE Immanuel God with us...


                    Probably the topic of tomorrows Gospel Tract...
                    Last edited by bruisermiller; 12-04-17, 06:07 PM.
                    New-Protestant Reformation ~ Dec 2009 - ____

                    I'm a Christian. An Evangelical, Reformed, Independent Fundamental Baptist; a New Calvinist...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by bruisermiller View Post

                      If as Calvinists we find one of their verses troubling, all we have to do is remember if we find even one verse in the Bible which says that God Providentially Works in Creation, that verse is no longer troubling; right?

                      Many beliefs are not ruined by just one troubling verse; but Open Theism by definition would have to be utterly destroyed by even just one Verse which overtly says that God operates in his Creation. IE Immanuel God with us...


                      Probably the topic of tomorrows Gospel Tract...
                      Yes, and I believe it's problematic attempting to refute a didactic N/T verse such as Ephesians 1:11 with O/T verses in which the refutation can only be implied such as Isaiah 5:2.....particularly when "expected" can't even be found in the original Hebrew script, but instead is only a translators judgment call.....

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by bruisermiller View Post

                        Thanks...
                        Haven't watched the second debate yet, but I'm not a fan of the format of this first debate. No rebuttals - just opening statements, cross-examination, and closing statements plus Q & A.

                        I was really frustrated that Matt didn't use his cross-examination time to ask questions more and resist falling into preaching/teaching/correction mode. But maybe that was the agreed upon rule for cross-ex in this debate. It's just not the way I am used to it working. Though Matt did correct himself a couple of times for asking questions during Will's time.

                        In the end, I was hoping for more exegesis of the key passages than simply an explanation of views. Not to say the debate wasn't beneficial - in fact, Will actually got me to look up the Greek of Titus 1:2, and now I want to look at it deeper.

                        Kudos to Matt, however, for continually pointing out that nearly all of Will's arguments are founded on equivocation of God's ability when used as His power and His eternal decree.
                        ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου ἐστιν
                        (Jesus is the Light of the World)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by carpenter View Post

                          Haven't watched the second debate yet, but I'm not a fan of the format of this first debate. No rebuttals - just opening statements, cross-examination, and closing statements plus Q & A.

                          I was really frustrated that Matt didn't use his cross-examination time to ask questions more and resist falling into preaching/teaching/correction mode. But maybe that was the agreed upon rule for cross-ex in this debate. It's just not the way I am used to it working. Though Matt did correct himself a couple of times for asking questions during Will's time.

                          In the end, I was hoping for more exegesis of the key passages than simply an explanation of views. Not to say the debate wasn't beneficial - in fact, Will actually got me to look up the Greek of Titus 1:2, and now I want to look at it deeper.

                          Kudos to Matt, however, for continually pointing out that nearly all of Will's arguments are founded on equivocation of God's ability when used as His power and His eternal decree.
                          I'm still trying to watch the first one. When it comes to debates, I get frustrated when a Calvinist doesn't say that we believe both sides (not Open Theism though). I watched James White and Leighton Flowers; Leighton said that we need to be able to say "Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost.". I wanted the first rebuttal from James White to be "Do you believe that we don't agree with that and don't think that way?" Strawmen all over the place. I think that when we debate, we should always clarify that we believe like them; a 'both/and' instead of an 'either/or'. It wouldn't have taken Leighton long to admit that we believe the words of Isaiah, then James could have gotten to where he shows that Leighton doesn't believe Romans 9. I know I used an example from another Debate, but you mentioned things that peeve you; so that's why I said it...

                          Arm chair Debaters
                          Last edited by bruisermiller; 12-06-17, 08:54 AM.
                          New-Protestant Reformation ~ Dec 2009 - ____

                          I'm a Christian. An Evangelical, Reformed, Independent Fundamental Baptist; a New Calvinist...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                            Calvinism and Open Theism Debate Today with Matt Slick and Will Duffy: https://goo.gl/HkA3xM
                            Its been a long time...

                            Neither are without fault. Open Theists are too concerned with humanizing God and Calvinists ignore how their theology destroys the Divine Character of God.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by CrowCross View Post
                              No. I believe Matt also said he didn't believe Open View Theologians believe that as well.
                              Ergo my criticism of his emotionally based argument.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X