ED: I see absolutely no reason why Calvinism's conception of sovereignty is "stronger" than an libertarian's.
SH: Existdissolve gets sillier with each passing comment. Logically speaking, a libertarian can’t have a doctrine of divine sovereignty.
As most he can believe in Geach’s Olympian Grand Master, where God doesn’t know his opponent’s next move, but knows all possible moves and can always outmaneuver his opponent.
Inspiration is a deterministic process—otherwise it wouldn’t be inspirational. Indeterministic inspiration is an oxymoron.
Indeed, Existdissolve admits as much himself. That’s why he doesn’t really believe in the inspiration of Scripture. It’s too deterministic for his libertarian pretensions.
ED: Of course, this gets back to the issue of how human language infuses words with meaning--you have chosen to say that your conception of sovereignty is "Strong." This, however, by no means establishes the point.
Again, you are presupposing a certain value for "providence" that may or not be an actual reality. That you interpret your conception of "providence" to be strong by no means mitigates against the antithetical viewpoint claiming the exact same thing.
SH: The “antithetical viewpoint” is self-refuting. So we can mount a transcendental argument for providence due to the impossibility of the contrary.
Your outlook is unable to ground successful communication.
You relativize meaning while conveniently exempting your own propositional statements.
I have to admit I'm confused by this guy. He spends a lot of time refuting Reformed theology, then wants to play this game about the meaning of words as if we can't determine the meaning of anything (I guess this means he's irrefutable). If that's the case, why is he hopping on the reformed blog train? Why not just pontificate about the meaninglessness of words and the Bible, and his own thoughts about this stuff on his own blog?
ReplyDeleteIs it possible for you guys to arrange all your posts into a ordered book that can be downloaded by pdf? I find that you guys have such a wealth of information here and yet I feel I am missing out on stuff because I can't find it, or maybe because I don't know what I am looking for exactly.
ReplyDeletesteve--
ReplyDeleteSH: Existdissolve gets sillier with each passing comment.
Masterful rhetorical style. My hat is off to you, sir.
Logically speaking, a libertarian can’t have a doctrine of divine sovereignty.
I hardly see why this is a necessary conclusion. THe only way in which this is a necessary conclusion is if one presupposes that God's sovereignty must be materially reducible to the physical outworkings of the universe. As I happen to think that God's sovereignty is not delimited by such considerations, your conclusion is simply wrong. There is nothing logically necessary about your assumption, unless of course you expect me to operate within the pantheistic framework which you propose for the universe in which we live and the God who [supposedly] created it.
As most he can believe in Geach’s Olympian Grand Master, where God doesn’t know his opponent’s next move, but knows all possible moves and can always outmaneuver his opponent.
This is, again, hardly a necessary conclusion. The alternative which you "allow" for my position still operates within a materalist conception of God's relationship to creation, a viewpoint which I patently reject. Just because you cannot conceive of "sovereignty" outside of the boundaries of your divine physicalism does not mean that such a conception is impossible nor improbable.
Inspiration is a deterministic process—otherwise it wouldn’t be inspirational. Indeterministic inspiration is an oxymoron.
Are you kidding me? So you are saying that divine inspiration--which is divine by virtue of being "other" than that which is common to the universe--can be explicated on the basis of the very thing over and against which it is supposed to be "other?" As usual, you fully prove my contention about your materialist conception of God and the divine relationship to the created order.
Indeed, Existdissolve admits as much himself. That’s why he doesn’t really believe in the inspiration of Scripture. It’s too deterministic for his libertarian pretensions.
I fully believe in the inspiration of Scripture. I simply deny that the notion of inspiration can be adjudicated on the basis of physicalism, as you assume that it can be.
SH: The “antithetical viewpoint” is self-refuting. So we can mount a transcendental argument for providence due to the impossibility of the contrary.
Why is it self-refuting? You incessantly accuse me of making claims without "showing" the proofs, yet you continue to do the exact same thing. Why don't you show me how "inspiration" cannot be conceived of in any other way than the conclusions to which your presuppositions about the material relationship of God to creation lead you...
Your outlook is unable to ground successful communication.
Why? Why should we assume that successful communication is possible? ANd if it is, what does it look like? Against what standard would you judge such a thing? (I'm really interested to see the answer for this...).
You relativize meaning while conveniently exempting your own propositional statements.
I don't exempt them. I have never denied my presuppositional loyalties, nor have I ever claimed that they are somehow immune from criticism nor that they are infallible. You are the one who insists upon absolutizing them, an approach which I specifically reject.
Can you imagine this guy writing a devotional? Just think about it...
ReplyDeleteI just spent way too long reading that mess of comments over at the Calvinist Gadfly's site and I noticed that Exist~Dissolve and some guy named "Deviant Monk" never use pronouns when referring to God. Care to explain that ED?
ReplyDeletesola fidei--
ReplyDeleteI just spent way too long reading that mess of comments over at the Calvinist Gadfly's site and I noticed that Exist~Dissolve and some guy named "Deviant Monk" never use pronouns when referring to God. Care to explain that ED?
I don't use pronouns when referring to God because all of the singular, personal pronouns in our language are gendered. As God is not encapsulated in the divine nature by a particular gender; and because i do not wish to keep track of masculine vs. feminine usages of my pronouns (which I think are perfectly fine, either way); I choose to use nouns to refer to God, both regular and reflexive. It's not nearly as suspicious as one would assume, any more than my usage of "one" instead of "his" is suspect.