They live among us, blending into the general population. They pass for living, breathing human beings. But, that, of course, is all part of the illusion.
The Arminian Series™ was originally designed by Dr. Ira Graves to perform basic household chores like cooking, cleaning, walking the dog, and answering the door.
Dr. Graves was more interested in hardware than software. For that reason, the Arminian Series™ has a very lifelike appearance, enhanced by a loop processor that sends out false biofeedback signals.
However, there are certain telltale signs that you are dealing with a robot rather than a human being when a Calvinist encounters an Arminian Unit™.
One telltale sign is their robotic use of robotic metaphors. If Arminian Units™ really had libertarian freedom, (i.e. many yet-to-be-determined parameters, the optimal value of which is subsequently determined by the system itself), they would have the capacity to vary their figurative usage.
But what we quickly discover is that Arminian Units™ are hardwired to use robotic metaphors to caricature the doctrines of grace. Needless to say, only a robot robotically repeats the same metaphors.
Another telltale sign is their formulaic use of oft-refuted arguments. Even though compatibilist philosophers have constantly corrected their objections to determinism, Arminian Units™ continue to repeat the same formulaic objections.
Of course, Arminian Units™ have been programmed to deny that they are robots. That’s part of the act.
But if they really weren’t a mass-produced line of subdermal robots, they wouldn’t robotically reproduce the same robotic metaphors and hardwired arguments.
The reason for this cognitive deficit is due to the fact that the amount of energy allocated to the biofeedback processor severely limits the amount of energy left over for computational intelligence. There’s not enough residual energy to run a robust, adaptive program.
Instead, Arminian Units™ come factory equipped with a budget-basement set of heuristic algorithms for cooking, cleaning, walking the dog, and answering the door—with a finite repertoire of social greetings. And this is adequate for cooking, cleaning, walking the dog, and answering the door.
When, however, an Arminian Unit™ is taken out of its domestic routine, and must simulate an intelligent dialogue with a Calvinist, its neural network lacks the computational power to vary its preset usage or stereotypical argumentation.
However, we mustn’t be too hard on Arminian androids. After all, they don’t even know they're robots. They were programmed to think they’re real people.
That’s why they’re so fond of the word “real.” Following a Fourier equation, they were preprogrammed to randomly drop adjectives like “real” into their conversation. It lends an air of verisimilitude to their responses.
Strictly speaking, they can’t even think, but it would be tactless to tell them that since you would hurt their simulated feelings (i.e. emotion chip). So, whenever possible, we try to humor their illusory consciousness.
You are a self-condemned antichrist.
ReplyDeleteI think the Pope would resent the competition.
ReplyDeleteI think the Ariminian 2.0 (or was it the 0.5 beta version?) has access to "puppet" metaphors in addition to (or in place of?) the robot metaphors.
ReplyDeleteIt never seems to strike them that clay pots are not above robots and puppets in the order of things.
-Turretinfan
"But if they really weren’t a mass-produced line of subdermal robots, they wouldn’t robotically reproduce the same robotic metaphors and hardwired arguments."
ReplyDeleteA couple of problems:
i) You incorrectly infer that a similar response implies Arminians are robots - but this is the problem with induction. It does not yield logically necessary conclusions. No computer may be able to pass the Turing test, but any libertarian agent (such as an Arminian) can certainly fail it by an act of free will.
ii) You incorrectly assume that giving the same response to the same situation is irrational, and therefore can only be explained by means of mechanistic causation. But would it be irrational for a math teacher to correct students who give the wrong answer to a particular problem by giving the right answer repeatedly? Arminians having found the strongest metaphor with which to refute Calivinism would be foolish to give it up, simply because you've become bored with it.
I keeed, I keeed.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said:
ReplyDelete---
You incorrectly infer that a similar response implies Arminians are robots - but this is the problem with induction.
---
No, actually this is the problem with people who don't understand satire.
Ok, I had to comment because I am an engineer and I saw the Fourier reference: It made absolutely no sense at all (except for one tiny possibility).
ReplyDeleteFourier equations (series and transforms) are used for frequency domain analysis of signals (as opposed to time-domain analysis). Unless of course this was deliberately meant as a reference to random number equations that can be obtained (sorta) by obtaining the inverse fourier transform of the frequency domain representation of perfect noise -- a horizontal line -- which, since all values appear at the same frequency in the signal, lends itself nicely to a perfect random distribution :)
Nevertheless, I don't see how the sentence "following a Fourier equation" makes sense... since that would not be an appropriate way to reference a random number equation even if it was generated in some way using Fourier transforms. Fourier equations, strictly speaking, simply convert between time and frequency domain. Then again, its late :P
Seriously though, the post was legendary. I got a good laugh out of it :)
That's right! Arminians ARE robots, which is why we won't care when God ships them off to the eternal garbage dump in the sky where their circuits and gadgets will be deep-fried in a sulfurous pit for all eternity!
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, we will lean off of our puffy clouds and catch a delightful whiff of their burning pseudo-skin!
MUAH HAH HAH HAH!
- Sister Anita
Mike Jones said:
ReplyDelete"Ok, I had to comment because I am an engineer and I saw the Fourier reference: It made absolutely no sense at all (except for one tiny possibility)."
The Fourier reference was a Star Trekkie allusion to Data's Mom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_%28TNG_episode%29
Turretinfan said...
ReplyDelete"I think the Arminian 2.0 (or was it the 0.5 beta version?) has access to "puppet" metaphors in addition to (or in place of?) the robot metaphors."
That's because Arminians used to be puppets before they went hitech. As a result, they retain obsolete, puppetish metaphors in their memory bank.
Of course, this is yet another telltale sign that someone is pulling their strings. If they were truly free, they wouldn't incessantly resort to puppetish metaphors.
anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"A couple of problems:
i) You incorrectly infer that a similar response implies Arminians are robots - but this is the problem with induction. It does not yield logically necessary conclusions. No computer may be able to pass the Turing test, but any libertarian agent (such as an Arminian) can certainly fail it by an act of free will."
i) Your objection is self-refuting. How would you generalize about the ability or inability of computers to pass the Turing test if not by inductive instances of their success or failure to do so?
ii) I don't doubt that Arminians can fail. Their arguments against Calvinism fail. This is a defect in their software.
"But would it be irrational for a math teacher to correct students who give the wrong answer to a particular problem by giving the right answer repeatedly?"
Lousy example since there is only one correct answer to the math problem, whereas many different metaphors can illustrate the same principle. Therefore, the mechanical repetition of robotic and puppetish metaphors in Arminian discourse just goes to show that Arminians are really machines under the skin.
i) Shut up.
ReplyDeleteii) Just shut up.
iii) I said I was kidding. Okay?
kidding- I really think dialog stalls because people don't concentrate on being succint (are you listening DA?). The reason I love Triablogue is they are always very pithy.
ReplyDeleteBloviation will bring about the end of communication. To paraphrase JRW you can enunciate nonsense in 10 seconds it takes 2 minutes to refute.
Anonymous said:
ReplyDeleteThat's right! Arminians ARE robots, which is why we won't care when God ships them off to the eternal garbage dump in the sky where their circuits and gadgets will be deep-fried in a sulfurous pit for all eternity!
***************************
You need to brush up on your infernal geography. Hell is down under, not up there.
MUAH HAH HAH HAH!
"The Fourier reference was a Star Trekkie allusion to Data's Mom:"
ReplyDeleteI am just going to be content with the fact that I didn't see the Trekkie reference.
:D
Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete---
Bloviation will bring about the end of communication.
---
I think you meant "Peroration obviates dissemination."
heh. That's more succinct => more gooder!
ReplyDeleteBut wouldn't it be great? People would just point at their axioms and say "I WILL NOT GIVE THAT UP!", as with Talbott.
It'd simplify argumentation, no?
Gene are you ghost writing for Steve?
ReplyDeleteLive long and prosper, then on to heaven...
Sterling
Was Calvin really a Calvinist as you are? In his commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:27, he says:
ReplyDelete"But here it is objected, that the efficacy of the sacraments does not depend upon the worthiness of men, and that nothing is taken away from the promises of God, or falls to the ground, through the wickedness of men. This I acknowledge, and accordingly I add in express terms, that Christ’s body is presented to the wicked no less than to the good, and this is enough so far as concerns the efficacy of the sacrament and the faithfulness of God. For God does not there represent in a delusive manner, to the wicked, the body of his Son, but presents it in reality; nor is the bread a bare sign to them, but a faithful pledge. As to their rejection of it, that does not impair or alter anything as to the nature of the sacrament."
How could Christ's body be presented to the wicked, according to modern Calvinism, seeing Christ did not die for them. How could God give them a "a faithful pledge" of something he didn't do for them? How indeed could they "reject" it, when it was never intended for them? Calvin here has let loose the truth by accident, and shown that Christ indeed died for all, but some reject his sacrifice.
Note how Ego posts something completely irrelevant into this column?
ReplyDeleteTo answer his question, since the gospel is offered to everybody and nobody knows the identity of the elect, then what's the problem, here? We're not the ones running about trying to parse the elect from the nonelect when we present the gospel. That would be the hyper-Calvinist
This text is, of course, not about the preaching of the gospel. Calvin is writing about the administration of the the Lord's Supper, and Calvin functioned with a Presbyterian ecclesiology - where the members of the church are not all regenerate and are nevertheless all told to examine themselves before coming to receive the sacrament. Not everybody that gives a credible profession of faith is saved, you know, and sacramental efficacy as a whole is not taken away by those who are wicked who take it. Indeed, our standard confessions also state that men are hardened by God by the same means that He uses to soften others. This is generally agreed by us to include the sacraments.
Calvin discusses this same issue in his reply to Heshusius, the Lutheran, and in it he clearly says that they drink the blood of Christ not shed for them and the eat the flesh not crucified for them. He goes on to explain, however, that Christ is not utterly absent from the Supper for such men, but He is present - as judge, "It is one thing to be eaten, another to be judge." (CO:9:484-5). This is hardly a controversial point, Ego, in anybody's theology of the ordinances/sacraments, unless, that is you believe in giving out communion tokens. Do you believe in communion tokens, Ego?
By the way, our Campbellite friend, Calvin is but one representative of the Reformed tradition. He is not now nor has ever been the spokesman for us or the standard by which all Calvinism is to be measured.
I'd also add that the Calvin vs. the Calvinists meme is yet another one in the repertoire of the Arminian Robot. I believe it is v. 2.1.
I understand both Calvin's and your own points perfectly. My point comes out of both of them: God could not offer Christ to one whom Christ did not die for, unless God were a liar. So, when God offers Christ to the non-elect person who makes a feigned profession of faith and is physically in the church, this is proof that Christ died for him even and that he subsequently rejected Christ internally although claiming faith in Christ externally.
ReplyDeleteThis is libel: "God could not offer Christ to one whom Christ did not die for, unless God were a liar."
ReplyDeleteIt's particularly heinous libel because God is being libeled.
-Turretinfan
I understand both Calvin's and your own points perfectly. My point comes out of both of them: God could not offer Christ to one whom Christ did not die for, unless God were a liar.
ReplyDeleteIf that was your point you should have stated it. Your point, however, was rather clear here: to oppose "Calvinism" articulated here, to that of Calvin.
Now you're changing the goalposts. Don't call God a liar, when you engage in it so very freely.
Your objection, if true, would apply equally as well to preaching the gospel itself.
There is no "lie" here at all, for we don't tell people "Christ died for you." Rather, we tell them that Christ died for sinners and that they can know Christ died for them if they repent and believe.
It is only a "lie" if we say "Christ died for all people in the same way," or "Christ died for all men," or "Christ died for you" - but it is YOU who present the gospel offer in those terms. How is it a "lie" to say "Christ died for sinners, repent and believe in Christ!" or "Christ died for His people, repent of your sins and trust in Him to be one of His people!" ?
According to your logic, we should also separate the elect from the nonelect when we preach the gospel. You'd make a wonderful hyper-Calvinist.
So, when God offers Christ to the non-elect person who makes a feigned profession of faith and is physically in the church, this is proof that Christ died for him even and that he subsequently rejected Christ internally although claiming faith in Christ externally.
1. No, it is proof that even a policy of regenerate church membership does not weed out false professors.
2. We affirm that God has a special care for those who are in the visible church, this is true regardless of whether we believe in a regenerate or unregenerate church membership.
3. What problem is there, exactly, in offering Christ to the unregenerate if you don't know it and they are not true believers? That would require you to have an infallible knowledge. What's happening here is that you're going to run into a system of communion tokens if we follow your argument. Do you issue these?
4. It is proof, rather, that Christ is willing to symbolically offer himself to them in the elements the same way Christ offered his dipped sop to Judas Iscariot. Even @ His Table, the Lord offers mercy.
5. Of course, as I pointed out, Calvin states that Christ is offered to them if they take it- as judge, so your objection does not begin to touch the position you oppose.
6. And, yes, you have libeled the Lord God. I see your true colors are showing after all. You are no different than the Romanists whom you castigate. When the chips are down, you argue most of their same arguments, only baptized and mustered for your own ends.
This is libel: "God could not offer Christ to one whom Christ did not die for, unless God were a liar."
ReplyDeleteIt's particularly heinous libel because God is being libeled.
-Turretinfan
How is it libel Turretinfan? God can offer Christ crucified to someone he wasn't crucified for without being dishonest? How so? Explain yourself.
And for those who want to argue that since this is the communion being refered to blah blah blah, let's ignore Calvin's argument and use some sense. The apostles preached the gospel to plenty of non-elect people, so Christ was offered to them, salvation was offered to them. Did Jesus die for them or not? If he didn't then the apostles were lying to them, and God is the one who told them to do it. So far from being libel against God, this proves that Calvinism is libel against God because Calvinism says that God's been lying to the non-elect through the preaching of his ministers for the past 2000 years every time the gospel is preached to them.
There is no "lie" here at all, for we don't tell people "Christ died for you." Rather, we tell them that Christ died for sinners and that they can know Christ died for them if they repent and believe.
ReplyDeleteThe gospel you preach is irrelevant to the issue, as the gospel of the apostles is the true gospel and no apostle ever presented such as gospel as you describe above. No apostle ever said "if you repent you can know that Jesus died for you." That Jesus died for the person being preached to was always assumed outright from the beginning. For example, in Acts 2, Peter says "Repent, and be baptized every one of you...and you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" implying that everyone there could indeed repent and be baptized and thereby receive the gift. Yet we know, that only "they that gladly received his word were baptized" -- some did not repent and beleive. Yet he preached the same message to them, in which message he does not limit the death of Christ and say "if you don't repent then be assured he didn't die for you." He makes it clear that the promise is for all. In Acts 16 where Paul says "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" note that he doesn't say that if you beleive then you'll know that Jesus died for you, otherwise be assured that God doesn't care a lick about you and that you don't even count as the "world" that he "so loved" that he sent his onlybegotten Son for. He says no such foolishness. But you, in saying such, do in Turretinfan's terms, libel God Himself.
How is it libel Turretinfan? God can offer Christ crucified to someone he wasn't crucified for without being dishonest? How so? Explain yourself.
ReplyDelete1. It is libelous because that is precisely what God does. The scope of the atonement is irrelevant to the sincerity of the offer, for the same reason the ability to obey a command is irrelevant to whether or not a person should obey it. You misrepresent the living God.
2. You also misrepresent what Calvin states. We've already been over this ground.
3. What Calvinist denies that God would, if the nonelect person would repent, justify him? Nobody who turns to Christ will be turned away.
The truth of the "offer" lies in the fact that God would, in fact, not turn away anybody who repents of their sins and exercises faith in Christ.
That is all that is required to underwrite the offer.
See the archives here under "Sincere Offer Polemics."
However, as we all know, according to you, it is equally insincere for God to command anybody to do anything unless they can do it.
But you've never made a positive argument for this assertion from Scripture. Never, not once, ever. You've been requested to do this. Be my guest; hopefully the third time should be a charm.
And for those who want to argue that since this is the communion being refered to blah blah blah, let's ignore Calvin's argument and use some sense.
Yes, your original argument was senseless, so I'll concede this to you. That's why you're now having to make changes to it by changing the goalposts - again. I'm sorry you don't like the fact that we answered you, but you're the one who chose to frame the argument using Calvin. Your changes are a tacit admission the original was an abject failure.
It is also a source of somewhat mild amusement to watch you have an emotional breakdown when confronted. Is this also a feature of the Arminian robot? How many times have we seen this?
. The apostles preached the gospel to plenty of non-elect people, so Christ was offered to them, salvation was offered to them. Did Jesus die for them or not? If he didn't then the apostles were lying to them, and God is the one who told them to do it.
So, as we see this was your *actual* argument all along - that if Jesus did not die for all mankind equally and in the same way, the offer of the gospel is insincere and a lie.
There are several problems with this line of reasoning.
1. The Bible never frames the sincerity of the "offer" in those terms.
2. The "offer" is variously referred to as a command, a promise, etc.
3. No passage of the Bible ever says "believe in Christ" for Christ died for you in particular.
Rather,it says, repent of your sins and turn to Christ. This is a universal obligation. Sin is it's own warrant to repent. The gospel only makes it clear. The commands of the gospel are their own warrant to obey. The only thing that keeps them from believing is their love of their own evil. So who is at fault here? God? According to you, yes. That's blasphemous, and once again, no different that the Romanist's own argument. How dare you show up on Beggar's All and elsewhere contradicting Rome when your sympathizes lie with them all along.
Here's what we say: How do you know Christ died for you? Repent of your sins and turn to Christ alone. There is nothing "deceptive" about this at all. God *would* and certainly *will* save anybody who does this.
You don't determine first that Christ died for me and then believe. Rather, you believe and then you can know Christ died for you. Sure, there's a level @ which the reason you believe is due to grace that is due in some way to the fact that Christ died for you, but in terms of what you are told to do by the preaching of the gospel, that is irrelevant to the epistemology of *how* you know Christ died for you. You don't make that determination and then believe, you believe and then you know. You still can't seem to tell the difference between the cart and the horse, Ego.
By the way, you're making a case for hyper-Calvinism. The Hyper-Calvinist takes not the scope of the atonement but a subjective sense of "election" and then says that you are only obligated to convert if you sense this. Your view is functionally no different. Have you considered that? Somehow I doubt it.
And the gospel call does not solely exist to call people to salvation. It also exists to expose the reprobate. Read Isa. 6 and John 12.
So far from being libel against God, this proves that Calvinism is libel against God because Calvinism says that God's been lying to the non-elect through the preaching of his ministers for the past 2000 years every time the gospel is preached to them.
Except this is only true if men have been using the extent of the atonement as a gospel warrant while secretly affirming definite atonement. This is patently false.
It's YOU, Ego, that frames the gospel in terms such that you tell people Jesus died for them. You give them a subjective warrant, a form of assurance; you pander to the sinner. Not only that, you give another warrant, in the free will of man, his ability to believe the gospel from his own natural state, apart from regenerating grace. None of this is found in Scripture, so you, Ego, are the chronic liar.
assumed Yes, by you, not the text. The text never, ever says anything like "Believe in Jesus because he died for you."
ReplyDeleteFor example, in Acts 2, Peter says "Repent, and be baptized every one of you...and you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" implying that everyone there could indeed repent and be baptized and thereby receive the gift.
Yes, and notice that this does not say a word about the scope of the atonement in this statement.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house"
Yes, and notice that nowhere does this ever say anything about the scope of the atonement. The only one assuming it is assumed is you. You are supplying the warrant to believe from the atonement *yourself*.
note that he doesn't say that if you beleive then you'll know that Jesus died for you, otherwise be assured that God doesn't care a lick about you and that you don't even count as the "world" that he "so loved" that he sent his onlybegotten Son for. He says no such foolishness.
Yet he preached the same message to them, in which message he does not limit the death of Christ and say "if you don't repent then be assured he didn't die for you."
Of course, these are both straw man, since that's not the Calvinist argument. A person may be brought to faith in Christ right up until they leave this world.
And all along you're going on about lying, you misrepresent the opposing position with great freedom. Is it also part of the Arminian Robot's programming to do this?
Are your fingers hooked into your brain when they type these tendentious statements, or are they autonomous with respect to higher cortical functions?
EM libeled God saying, "God could not offer Christ to one whom Christ did not die for, unless God were a liar."
ReplyDeleteI noted that this is a particularly heinous libel because God is being libeled.
EM responded: "How is it libel Turretinfan?"
I answer: It implicitly accuses God of lying, as Christ is offered to many for whom Christ did not die.
EM: "God can offer Christ crucified to someone he wasn't crucified for without being dishonest? How so? Explain yourself."
I answer: It's not necessary for me to prove that he can, it's your burden to prove that he cannot. You made the claim, and truth is a defense to libel, not the other way around.
Though I could provide such proof. The truth is that if anyone repents and trusts in Christ they will be saved. The fact that God knows who will not repent does not make God dishonest in his statement.
Do you even know what the gospel is? It is Repent and Trust in Christ or Perish in your sins!
-Turretinfan
The bottom line, aside from the complete lack of exegetical foundation you have, Ego, is a basic level confusion. You're conflating ontology and epistemlogy.
ReplyDeleteThe scope, power, and intent of the atonement belong to ontology - the order of being. They relate to what the cross is, not how a person knows that Christ died for him in particular.
That is an epistemological category. When people hear the gospel, they are simply commanded to repent and believe. This carries the force of a command. The warrant to do it is found in itself, not in the scope of the atonement.
To say what you are saying is to conflate these questions:
For whom did Jesus die? Or, put another way, "what is / what does the atonement /do?" (The order of being, for this relates to the nature of the atonement considered itself).
And
"Did Jesus died for me?" (The order of knowing - how you in particular relate to the atonement).
The fact that God knows who will not repent does not make God dishonest in his statement.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good point, and one that undermines the argument for general atonement for those who hold to infallible foreknowledge. If God already knows who will and will not repent and believe, why does Jesus die for them?
The argument that general atonement must underwrite the "free offer" is not in a superior position, for God is offering Christ to people who He knows will never convert anyway. How is this more "sincere?" The objection to the Calvinist is directly reversible on the non-Calvinist.
It is libelous because that is precisely what God does. The scope of the atonement is irrelevant to the sincerity of the offer, for the same reason the ability to obey a command is irrelevant to whether or not a person should obey it. You misrepresent the living God.
ReplyDeleteWrong on both counts. You are lying right there. The scope of the death of Christ is very relevant to the sincerity of the offer. The offer of salvation is a lie if extended to someone that he didn't die for. And a command is tyranny if given to someone with no power to obey it. In asserting that God does such things as these you change him into Satan rather than God. The God of Calvinism is Satan and not Jehovah by any means.
The argument that general atonement must underwrite the "free offer" is not in a superior position, for God is offering Christ to people who He knows will never convert anyway. How is this more "sincere?" The objection to the Calvinist is directly reversible on the non-Calvinist.
ReplyDeleteBecause he glorifies himself by giving the real offer even to those he knows will reject it, just as Jesus makes his love manifest by really dying for all and not just lying and saying he did. The Calvinist makes God into a petty little liar who doesn't really love the world, who just says he does, who doesn't really desire for all men to be saved, but just says he does, and who offers a fake offer full of lies to men. In short, the God of Calvinism is Satan masquerading as Jehovah.
The gospel you preach is irrelevant to the issue, as the gospel of the apostles is the true gospel and no apostle ever presented such as gospel as you describe above.
ReplyDeleteEgo,
I don’t see how the verses you presented support your argument. Here are the two “offers” you listed:
Peter says "Repent, and be baptized every one of you...and you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost"
Paul says "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house"
Peter’s quote certainly sounds like a command, not an offer. Paul’s quote I guess you could argue either way (at least from the English), but I still think it sounds more like a command.
Certainly neither quote says anything about “Jesus died for you”.
Certainly neither quote says anything about “Jesus died for you”.
ReplyDeleteIt's implied in the command. Otherwise, Peter would be saying that repentance and baptism apart from the sacrifice of Christ save. Otherwise, Paul would be saying that faith apart from the sacrifice of Christ saves. Are they saying that? No. Therefore the death of Christ for those people is implicit. Not one verse ever says Jesus didn't die for everyone. We read that he "tasted death for all" but the Calvinist has to tack on "the elect" at the end there to cover his error. Again, we read that his is the propitiation for the whole world, not for us only Peter says, but for the whole world. What does that mean but that he died for all yet all will not be saved unless they accept his sacrifice? Again in Revelation, "whosoever will, let him come" -- Ah, but John, we don't have any will, we're just robots, how can "whosoever will" apply to those with no will?
EgoMakarios said:
ReplyDelete"It's implied in the command. Otherwise, Peter would be saying that repentance and baptism apart from the sacrifice of Christ save."
The so-called "offer" of the gospel is a conditional offer. It is true for whoever complies with the terms of the offer (repentance and faith).
"Not one verse ever says Jesus didn't die for everyone."
We've dealt with all the convential prooftexts for unlimited atonement many times before.
"Again in Revelation, 'whosoever will, let him come' -- Ah, but John, we don't have any will, we're just robots, how can 'whosoever will' apply to those with no will?"
I see you lack a grasp of either English or Greek. In English usage, "will" can either denote a psychological faculty or a grammatical construction expressing a future tensed action.
"I will go to the market" tomorrow is simply a way, in English, of expressing a future tensed action.
In addition, you need to show that English helping verbs correspond to the Greek construction.
You have a lot to learn.
I see you lack a grasp of either English or Greek. In English usage, "will" can either denote a psychological faculty or a grammatical construction expressing a future tensed action.
ReplyDelete"I will go to the market" tomorrow is simply a way, in English, of expressing a future tensed action.
In addition, you need to show that English helping verbs correspond to the Greek construction.
You have a lot to learn. (Steve)
I see you have much to learn also. Specifically to look up the verse in question in Greek before claiming that someone is abusing English. Revelation 22:17 in English and Greek (only the relevant portion):
English "...whosoever will..."
Greek "...ho thelon..."
"Will" is not being used as a future tense helper-word here. In fact, the NASB reners it "whoever wishes." Your preconceived doctrines make you assume that the Greek is in agreement with them, when in fact it counters them. Very sad.
You still have a lot to learn. The substantive participle functions as an adjective in Greek. So you're not going to get a faculty of libertarian freewill from the use of the participle in Rev 22:17.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, even if it were a noun or simple verb, this word-group has a wide semantic range. By no means does it single out a faculty of the will, in the libertarian sense. You're confusing ordinary usage with technical terminology.
Finally, Reformed theology doesn't deny that human beings have a will, or even a freewill. They simply interpret freedom in compatibilist terms.
Your preconceived doctrines make you assume that the Greek is in agreement with them, when in fact it counters them. Very sad.
I'd add that the "wishing one" in Rev 22:17 forms an inclusio to the thirsy one in 21:6, while both allude to the thirsty one in Isa 55:1. So the "wishing one" in Rev 22:17 is equivalent to the thirsty one. Hence, the text is hardly concerned with compatibilist/incompatibilist debate.
ReplyDeleteI'd also add that you didn't quote Rev 20:17 verbatim. Instead, you gave us a loose paraphrase. But the second of the paired invitations forms two slightly different ways of expressing the same idea (i.e. coming to water to quench one's thirst), and both allude to Isa 55:1.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I see how a simple fisherman or taxcollector could get compatibilist and incompatibilist confused. Thanks alot o mighty god of philosophy whose thoughts are so much more confused than mine.
ReplyDeleteEgoMakarios said:
ReplyDelete"Yeah, I see how a simple fisherman or taxcollector could get compatibilist and incompatibilist confused. Thanks alot o mighty god of philosophy whose thoughts are so much more confused than mine."
You yourself are presuming a philosophical interpretation (i.e. libertarianism) of your prooftext without bothering to do the philosophical spadework to justify your inference.