Open Theism and the Goodness of God

Okay, I got a quick second screen flow video to do here in response to Bob Enyart.

I'm going to try to keep this one short because the last one ended up being a lot longer than I hoped it would be. Anyway, there has been a misrepresentation that Bob Enyart has made of me based upon a clip, a context -less clip.

So the reason, if there is confusion, I don't think there really is, but if there is confusion they're to blame for it.

If you just throw clips out without saying what it's from, when it was from, what the context is, you're the one creating the issue.

And that's what they did during the debate. And even then it was very obvious what the context was, but Enyart and his people refused to acknowledge what the context was.

When I first heard it, I assumed it was from my debate with John Sanders. It actually wasn't from a debate at all.

It was from a radio program with Austin Fisher, who wrote a book.

This was back in, what, February on my way over to Kiev. I did the Unbelievable broadcast and I was in the studio with Justin Brierley.

Austin was on the phone. Austin says he's open to open theism even though he is not himself an open theist.

And so the context here is that in the debate they tried to make it sound like I was asserting, like I had publicly admitted that open theism does not lead people to question the goodness of God.

I knew I had never said anything like that because obviously I believe that it does and I've explained why that is.

And to continue to say I've said otherwise is just simply dishonest, reprehensible, and no one with honor would continue to do so.

But when you listen to the actual program, well, let me play a clip from Bob Enyart's radio program where they're talking about this.

And then I'm going to play the actual portion from Unbelievable, make application, and we'll wrap it up.

Yeah, he started out the debate saying I'm misrepresented. James White is the most misrepresented man in America.

James White is the Rodney King of theology. Can't we just all understand what I'm saying? Has to do with that.

We have audio from James White. He said I couldn't provide any references. I have references. I have audio for everything

I've said and we'll post them on opentheism .org slash James White. But let's hear right now clip number two.

When I say the only consistent argument is an open theist is that the questions of God's goodness that are aimed at Calvinists are questions that anyone except an open theist actually has to answer themselves.

Stop the tape. Now that was in a debate with Andy Fisher who is an

Armenian. Okay, it was not a debate and his name is Austin Fisher. And James White for some reason keeps saying that was from his debate with John Sanders.

He likes that debate. Yeah, it was a good debate. It was the only open theist

I've debated so far that was honest, scholarly, and stuck to the issue. The debate with Andy Fisher, he doesn't like that.

He's removed it from his website. There's no reference to him. Wrong.

First, I don't know who Andy Fisher is. Maybe if you got the right name, Bob, and put that into the search engine, you would discover, of course, that there are four references to the

Unbelievable Radio broadcast, including two sermons posted on the website to this very day where I respond to Austin Fisher and direct people to the

Unbelievable webcast. So much for the accuracy of Bob Enyard's research. So, but he stated clearly with a very well -known author.

Austin Fisher has written one book and is less than 30 years old. That with open theism, open theists don't have to defend

God's goodness because they don't claim that God decreed wickedness. Is that what

I said? No, that's not what I said. That's not even close to what I said. And it really does make you wonder, how can someone listen to something, if he even did listen to the whole thing,

I don't know, and come up with such out -of -context conclusions?

Well, let's listen to what was actually said.

Okay? Shall we? Yeah, that and even more so, and I try to make it clear in the book, it's really not about free will.

Free will is needed to explain other things. It's about having a good, loving God who looks like Jesus crucified.

That, for me, is what is at the heart of the issue and why I had to walk away from Calvinism. Now, notice,

Austin is talking about having a good God and why he became an

Arminian as a result of it. That's part of the context. Not, you know, well, I have to have free will. That didn't have anything to do with it.

It was just needed to explain how God is loving, just, and good. Okay, James? I think we just touched on, to me, the primary thing that I took away from the book and the immediate questions that I had as the book finished up went to what was, interestingly enough, raised by Austin just now, and that is,

I've often said the only consistent Arminian is an open theist. Open theism is the concept, and at least one very well -known open theist endorsed the book, and that is

Gregory Boyd. I've debated Dr. Sanders on that subject, but not

Gregory Boyd. And so, when I say the only consistent

Arminian is an open theist, is that the questions of God's goodness that are aimed at Calvinists are questions that anyone except an open theist actually has to answer themselves.

So, what am I saying? I'm saying that Austin has gone to a position that has to answer the same questions that the

Calvinist has to answer. I'm not saying that open, it was the farthest thing from my mind, or anyone else's mind, that I was saying, oh, well, open theism doesn't bring anyone to question the goodness of God.

What I'm saying is, Austin has gone to a position that has to answer the same questions. That the open theist, the questions the open theist has to answer in regards to the goodness of God are a completely different set than the

Calvinist has to answer, and that the Arminian has to answer, and that is brought out in the rest of what

I said, which wasn't played by Enyart and his people. As long as you're a Christian theist, and you believe

God had exhaustive knowledge of future events. That's the next sentence. In the very next sentence,

I identified open theism as non -Christian, and talked about exhaustive knowledge of the future.

That's the next sentence. How can you take that away and call yourself honest?

When he created this universe, then you have to answer the questions about God's goodness. Because, even if you say

God didn't have a decree, even if you say he didn't have a purpose in specifically identifying an elect people and a non -elect people in creation, he knew what the result was going to be.

He knew what evil was going to exist. He knew who was going to be under his wrath, and who was going to be receiving his grace.

Whether it was because of what they did or he did, he still knew what the outcome was going to be when he created.

So, you still have to answer the question. From my perspective, the classical Armenian response really holds no water at all, because you have

God doing all of this, and saying, I'm going to create all these things, I'm going to do these things, and I know the exact outcome.

There's going to be all this evil, and I don't have a single purpose for any bit of it. I'm just doing it so people have free will.

I know all this evil is going to exist. He couldn't have done something else. I mean, this gets us back into the Molinism stuff, but we don't have any

Molinists on the program right now, so we can't go that direction. But that's why I say the consistent

Armenian is the open theist, because he realizes that...

You're not prepared to even call an open theist a Christian. No, I think open theism is a heresy. I do believe it's a heresy.

I do believe that a Christian might flirt with it, maybe on a temporary basis, but I think I'm bringing biblical correction, because it totally destroys any concept of prophecy.

Whereas Armenianism isn't quite a heresy? No. Armenianism, I think, is sub -biblical. I think that consistent

Armenianism, taken out to its nth degree, is eventually going to have to undercut Sola Gratia, Sola Fide.

It has a different doctrine of justification. Historic Armenians do not have a concept of substitutionary atonement.

I'd be interested to know if Asta still believes in substitutionary atonement, because that is a reform. Okay. So, there's the context.

Amazing what context does. You know? How it, you know, sheds so much light on the issue.

So, I do believe that open theism leads men to question the goodness of God. Just not on the same basis and the set of questions that are asked of Calvinism, and the

Armenians just trying to dodge the whole thing, and can't, and just doesn't want to answer those questions themselves, doesn't realize that they're asking, the questions they're asking of Calvinism need to be asked of their own system as well.

And the irony here is that Bob Enyart goes after Armenians on Exhausted Divine Foreknowledge and basically recognizes that they're not accomplishing anything with that either.

So, if he had just honestly represented what was said here, then we wouldn't have a problem.

But this is the problem I'm having, is now from the debate, and then the radio programs afterwards, there's a real issue of just simply, honestly representing context and the facts.

So, now the documentation's been provided, there you get to hear the whole thing, you know what the context is, you can go listen to the unbelievable radio broadcast yourself, see for yourself, it wasn't a debate, his name's not

Andy, and the context says everything that needs to be said, it was misrepresentation, will

I expect an apology? Not from Bob Enyart. But it would be nice if at least they would stop with the accusation at that point, and the mockery and things like that, that we heard about Rodney King and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

That would be a good first step, I suppose. Don't expect it, but we'll see.

So, there's documentation, thanks for watching, and who knows, maybe there might be some more coming up.