Listener from Canada: Please pass along to Bob Enyart from Abbotsford, British Columbia our thanks for responding on air to Amber's comments. We thought of another title: "Amber, A Necessary Being." Riveting theology!
* See Below for Her Comments: Scroll or click for Amber's comments. On today's program (and the conclusion two weeks later), Bob Enyart addresses Amber Taillon's disagreement with our producer Darrell Birkey and our video, Rare Televised Predestination and Free Will Debate: Bob Enyart vs Calvinist Pastor. From the discussion below that video on our BEL YouTube channel (which comments are pasted just below), today we broadcast this fascinating thread and left off with Bob's comment that, "Amber, untill without hesitation you can affirm that God the Son changed when He took on a human nature (for the Incarnation is the central doctrine of Christianity), you will not have a solid foundation on which to develop a deeper theological understanding." Program Note: Lord willing, next week we'll conclude today's discussion on an Amber Pt. 2 program. And at the beginning of today's show, Bob comments briefly on the the news headlines that he and Doug McBurney were unable to get to on Monday's program.
For those who claim that God can't change in any way... God became flesh. That was a huge change.
Darrell Birkey incorrect sir.. God took on flesh.. in what way did God change? Did He cease being God? No.. He was still God.. and it’s people like you why we make the distinction
@Amber Taillon Hey Amber. Could you reconsider Darrell's point? When something changes, that doesn't require that it ceases being what it is. A baby's hair grows, and he's still a baby, even though he has changed a bit. When God the Son was raised from the dead, that was a change. Of course we agree with you, that this doesn't mean that He's no longer God. But it is a change. When God the Son humbled Himself, that was a change. (Humble is a change word.) When He took upon Himself a human nature, that was a change. He has become the "Son of Man." He was not eternally the "Son of Man" (His favorite title for Himself) because Man was not eternal. The Incarnation was real. God the Son becoming flesh was a change. God the Father changed too, relating now to His eternal Son who is forevermore now also a Man. And the boy Jesus grew in wisdom and strength and "in favor" with His Father God. That's also a change. (What Father, God most of all, wouldn't increase watching His Son grow up?)
Bob Enyart did the nature of God change..there is a distinction between modes and essence
@Amber Taillon Hi Amber! I will celebrate if you and I can say together, "Regardless of whatever else this may or may not tell us about God, He certainly can change to the extent that God the Son became a Man."
Amber, another thought. Untill you can affirm the above statement without hesitation (for the Incarnation is our central doctrine), you won't have a solid foundation on which to develop a deeper theological understanding.
Bob Enyart lol yes God the son became a man in all parts, yet was without sin, unlike us. So who was God the son before His incarnation? God the Son, right? What you call a change is he took on flesh, yet He remained God. And I’m saying that’s not change. And until you understand what change is you will still be in error when affirming the incarceration
I think that's as far as Amber and I are able to take this. She also wrote, "You say Jesus wasn’t always the Son of Man? Now you are waaaaay outside Christian theology." To others reading this, Amber proves our point that our opponents make God's very existence somehow depenedent upon Man. If Jesus were eternally the Son of Man, then He was eternally, in some way, depenedent upon men for His own identity. Bubt He was not. And worse, and this is true of all non-open theist Christians, if their doctrine of eternal foreknowledge were actually true and an essential attribute of deity, then in order to be God, He was eternally dependent upon Amber. For without knowledge of Amber, He could not have been God. Isn't it great that this is not true, and God was God for eternity past without requiring knowledge of Bob Enyart in order for Him to be God. I'm sure glad of that because I'd crumble to think that the Trinity and even all of existence was somehow dependent upon me. And back to humanity, God the Son, both logically and temporally, couldn't "become" the Son of Man until mankind existed, in order for Him to enter our existence via the Incarnation. Yes, God remained God. But beings can change without them having to no longer exist.
Bob Enyart I deny your accusation that I say God is dependent on me, it’s called Aseity... lol I am utterly surprised at your incompetence to answer my objections, considering I laid them out pretty plainly, and I didn’t have to resort to faulty illustrations...
@Amber Taillon Hey Amber! I pray you are well. Can we test your denial? In your understanding, has God ever existed apart from His knowledge of you?
His “knowledge” is a part of His existence
@Amber Taillon Hey Amber! I take that as a strained, "No." It's understandable, and admirable, that you would have a hard time forming a sentence that says, "God has never existed apart from His knowledge of me, Amber Taillon." This difficulty flows from your humility, and praise God for it. Some day, perhaps soon, your humility may grow to where you can reconsider your classical theology. Classical, that is, as in Greek philosophy, Plato & Aristotle, imported into Christianity primarily by Augustine, with a few proof texts added. See kgov.com/greek-philosophy. Any theological system that requires a man, or knowledge of a man, to be part of God for eternity past, is essentially humanist. And as we demonstrate in debate the admitted humanist, Greek philosophical origins of absolute immutability and other "Christian" doctrines, the source of that humanism in Christian doctrine is no mystery. In Christ, -Bob E.
Bob Enyart LOL
Bob Enyart open theism is a philosophy that’s why you hate using Gods Word
@Amber Taillon Amber, please tell you husband I said hi! Isn't your last comment just a dodge? The debate above is filled with Scriptures I provided, and Will Duffy and I produced the list of hundreds of scriptures at opentheism.org/verses.html. It's titled, "Open Theism Bible Verses in 33 Categories". Anyway, the claim that Amber Taillon was necessarily in the mind of God through eternity past, necessary even for Him to be God, is a false claim. Yet it is an unavoidable consequence of the pagan Greek philosophical false doctrine that many Christians sadly adhere to, calling it exhaustive foreknowledge.
Our friend Amber has replied again, but I don't think we'll post her ongoing comments if she's unwilling to state, as a necessary consequence of her exhaustive foreknowledge doctrine, "God could not have been God without Amber Taillon eternally in His mind."