Dumpster Diving

J.C. Thibodaux has come out of hiding and exposed his true identity.

I love trash.

Oscar has a green body, has no nose, and lives in a garbage can. His favorite thing in life is trash. His favorite song is "I love Trash."

Oh, I love trash!
Anything dirty or dingy or dusty
Anything ragged or rotten or rusty
Yes, I love trash

I have here a sneaker that's tattered and worn
It's all full of holes and the laces are torn
A gift from my mother the day I was born
I love it because it's trash

Oh, I love trash!
Anything dirty or dingy or dusty
Anything ragged or rotten or rusty
Yes, I love trash

I have here some newspaper thirteen months old
I wrapped fish inside it; it's smelly and cold
But I wouldn't trade it for a big pot o' gold!
I love it because it's trash

Oh, I love trash!
Anything dirty or dingy or dusty
Anything ragged or rotten or rusty
Yes, I love trash

I've a clock that won't work
And an old telephone
A broken umbrella, a rusty trombone
And I am delighted to call them my own!
I love them because they're trash

Oh, I love trash!
Anything dirty or dingy or dusty
Anything ragged or rotten or rusty
Yes, I love, I love, I love trash!

He recently responded to both Steve and I (see link above). My P.I. happened to be in the right place at the right time and snapped this picture of Ben and J.C. rummaging through the trash:

Ben and J.C.

People warned J.C. and Ben about the T-blog team. They didn't listen. Now they've been reduced to throwing a public temper tantrum after someone actually responded to their critiques of Calvinism. They just want to post critiques and have no responses given in return. They first attempted to take the moral high ground by claiming how mean and nasty we were. But they have only exposed themselves as hypocrites. They have been rattled and so now must resort to "trash talk" of their own. But they justify this by the undefeatable playground get out of jail free card: "But they started it!" Not only have the been shown to offer inept arguments, they have been shown to be hypocrites. They should have listened to those who tried to warn them:

Don't go a messin' with T-bloggers

Though the world sits by and laughs, the divers remain undaunted. Locked up within the confines of their own mind, blind to the reality of the situation, with a deaf ear to the pleas to stop and save face, they take pride in their dumpster diving. They started a team. Even have their own t-shirt:


$9.99; sizes: S, M, L, XL, XXL; colors: White, Grey, Black, and Pink

Leaving aside the above and how even their own cut downs get turned against them, let me briefly respond to Oscar's latest response to my argument.

I have been arguing that on the Arminian scheme either God wastes his time by "answering" a prayer he knows he cannot answer, or the Arminian does by praying to a God who refuses to do anything that he knows is futile. I'm specifically talking about when an Arminian prays for one of "the lost." One of "the lost" who will never get saved, that is. Oscar Thibodaux has been desperately trying to answer this argument. The funny thing is, when he shows "a point" then he will have also vindicated the Calvinist position which both he and Ben tried to critique! That's the beauty of my argument, if I'm wrong I win, if I right I win. Oscar Thibodaux has missed this subtlety.

The Argument in a Nutshell

God knows who will be saved and who will be unsaved. Call the first group S and the last U.

If an Arminian prays for God to save a member of U, then when he does whatever it is that he does to answer the prayer, he is involved in a futile activity. Goes through the motions. Wastes his time. Does something he knows will not come to fruition. If God could save U, then the number of elect, the fixed number that he knew, would grow, and God wouldn't be omniscient. He would have been wrong about the set of S as consisting of n number of people. Rather it, contrary to his claim to knowledge, now consists n + 1. Or, if it doesn't add to God's knowledge then we don't have a real member of U.

If the Arminian says that God doesn't actively engage in going through the motions to 'save' those he knows will not be saved, then the Arminian's prayers are a waste of time, and pointless (again, these terms are used in their vague, ambiguous, sloppy, and undefined way that they were used on me. No complaining now.)

The argument is in the form of a dilemma:

Let S = God does something to save who he knows will not be saved.

Let W = God wastes his time.

Let A = Arminian wastes his time.

1. S-->W

2. ~S-->A

3. S v ~S

4. :. W v A

Oscar Thibodaux has been trying and trying to come up with different ways around this rebuttal.

All his attempted rebuttals were shot down, and he was forced to go back to the drawing board. So, his latest was to say to God trying to 'save' someone he knew he could not save, would not be saved, was not futile just like it was "no more 'futile' than sending prophets to people that God knew would not receive them."

I responded that for those people, sending the prophets wasn't futile since if they didn't listen, they prophets words served as a basis for judgment.

Oscar Thibodaux's response was:

"Really now?

Nevertheless they were disobedient And rebelled against You, Cast Your law behind their backs And killed Your prophets, who testified against them To turn them to Yourself; And they worked great provocations. (Nehemiah 9:26)"

I fully answer his sloppy proot-texting in this post.

Now, the point to keep in mind is that I attempted to show that God has a point, purpose, or reason for everything he does. Therefore, nothing he does is futile. If I show that he "had a point" to sending prophets to those who would not listen, then I have shown that God did not "waste his time" or engage in something "pointless."

Now, is Oscar Thibodaux actually arguing that God was trying to bring back someone he knew wouldn't come back? I know that I can't bring back the dead, so I don't try it. I know I can't fly, so I don't try it. Trying to do something you know (and in God's case, he knows with certainty) will not happen, is a mark of irrationality. If Oscar Thibodaux is arguing this, then let's see an actual argument. But, it turns out, that he isn't. He is actually so out of it that he doesn't even know what he's trying to argue against.

First, he says, "Paul still can't get over the fact that the prophets were sent to turn the people back to God." I don't have a problem with this. Oscar is resorting to lies in order to bolster his case.

"Obviously, He sends His word to save men, but if they won't listen, it will serve to condemn them, or as Christ said,"

Right, so as I said, the prophets words to those God knows will not turn back serve as evidence to judge them. This is my argument.

I think Manata's found his own 'futility' solution.

Oscar Thibodaux can't even keep track of the discussion, and he actually ends up granting me a point. I didn't "find" my own solution, this was my "solution" from the very start. From word one. Oscar Thibodaux then tried to refute this. Now, he agrees with my original point!

Second, I had argued that God could use the prayers of his people to serve as means to condemn the non-elect. That is, if Oscar Thibodaux gets to use this point to show that there is "a point," and that the prayer is not "futile," then so do I. Oscar Thibodaux has just granted that I answered Ben Kangaroodort's argument!

Third, the point here is that God is not trying to bring back these people. He doesn't engage in means-end irrationality. Likewise, God doesn't try to save the people he knows will not be saved. So are J.C. and Ben "wasting their time" when they pray for those people? They still have the problem.

Now, one thing Oscar Thibodaux could say it, "Well, for one thing, we are not 'wasting our time' because we are in communion with God. And communion with God is no 'waste of time,' no matter which way you slice it." Okay, but that is what the Calvinist does to. So again J.C. Thibodaux is bound to say, by canons of logical consistency, that I have answered Ben Kangaroo's "inconsistency argument." I have employed J.C. to beat Ben! Welcome to my parlor said the spider to the fly



Thibodaux continues to dig his own grave:

"I didn't say it was, but neither does heaping condemnation on them for not listening negate the fact that they were sent to turn Israel back to God -- it can serve as either depending on the response; saving primarily, and condemning if not heeded."

Right, so you agree with me. Remember, we have been talking about those God knew would not turn or get saved! I never once said that serving as means for condemnation was the only reason God send prophets, preachers, evangelists, and even apologists. I was specifically talking about the people God knew would not turn back, or get saved. Thibodaux is simply trying to save his sinking ship. Running around like a chicken with his head cut off. Desperately trying to save face.

Moving on to John 6:44

I wrote: "But John 6:44 does not state that all who are drawn are saved, simply that no one can come to Christ unless drawn by God the Father."

The statement is in the form of a conjunction. Logically, it can be translated thus:

(~p --> ~q) & r

You cannot accept the first part of the conjunction and not the second (r = raise him up on the last day). Or, did you skip that part in your logic readings?

J.C. responded: "No one can come unless the Father draws him does not imply that everyone drawn will come, simply that they can come. Speaking in relation to those who come is what the raising refers to, not all who are drawn."

i) Wow, no one has the power to instantiate alternative possibilities? So, all men are unable to come unless the Father draw him, got it. So in respects to salvation, libertarian free will ceases to be a functional category. You can say all men are drawn, and some make libertarian choices to come, but then you have universalism (see below). And, you must explain why one comes and not another. To simply say, "Because one chooses to" is a non-answer.

ii) The text says: No one is able to come unless the father draws him and I will raise him up on the last day. Are those hims the same him or not? If they are the same, all drawn are raised. It's really rather simple.

iii) Jesus disagrees with your claim: John6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

iv) And, I never said that John 6:44 alone teaches that the Father's drawing is sufficient for someone to come, only that it is necessary. You're not even engaging my point. Again, the point is in the conjunction. John 6:44 is saying (~p --> ~q) & r. This is logically equivalent to (q-->p) & r. Thus,

[1] If he is able to come, then the father drew him, and Jesus will raise him up on the last day.

[2] He is able to come (notice, I never said he did. We just sticking with what the verse says).

[3] Therefore the father drew him and Jesus will raise him up on the last day.

Premise [2] for you is 'all men.' The logic of the case forces you to accept the conclusion of universalism. That is, all men whoever will be saved.

Now, I'm giving an argument. It is valid, and if the premises are true, the conclusion follows with necessity and must be true. Oscar Thibodaux hasn't challenged even one of those premises. Until he does, my conclusion stands, and he must accept universalism.

At any rate, let's see how he tries to respond to the above argument:

In answer to (ii) above he writes,

It potentially can be the same him, hence it's stated that he can come.

Care to demonstrate that exegetically? You're cheating. You're taking the last him as one who does come. But, if we stick with the text, we would note the text says nothing about those who actually comes, only those who are drawn or able to come. Since you take it that all men are both drawn and able to come, then you must, by the force of the logic, take it that all men will be raised (this was proven by the modus ponens argument above). The referent of the last "him" can only be the referent spoken of in the verse. Your "out" is an exegetical nightmare.

In answer to (iii) above, Oscar Thibodaux says,

"Equating drawing with being given. No dice."

Funny stuff coming from a guy who tried to equate "drawing" with being "wooed!" Not only do these guys have a double-standard morality, they have a double-standard when it comes to their own positive cases versus the positive cases of the opposition. Oscar Thiboduax is all over the place.

"All the Father gives will come....no one can come unless the father draws."

And, how could Jesus say this? Does the Father peer into the future and see who "comes" by their own undetermined free will, and then "give" these people to Jesus and say, "Here, I am giving you these people?" That seems stupid. If they "came," to Jesus on their own then it seems as if the "coming" would have been prior to the "giving;" yet, Jesus says the "giving" is prior to the coming!

Also, I have logically demonstrated that those raised are those drawn and hence able to come. Jesus links the drawing and giving for us:

39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

Since my argument above stands undefeated, then I have just shown the link between drawing and giving.

Thibodaux needs to actually start arguing rather than his throwing out pithy little quips without attendant arguments or exegesis. He's just being a sophist. Trying to slip out of the trouble he's in.

I WROTE: You're not even engaging my point. Again, the point is in the conjunction. John 6:44 is saying (~p --> ~q) & r. This is logically equivalent to (q-->p) & r.

OSCAR RESPONDS: Because the starting premise on which he bases his logic is unsubstantiated. Paul tries his equation again, expecting a different outcome. As usual, he's stuck with no way of inextricably tying the resurrection with being drawn rather than coming to Christ; or as Steve Witzki notes,

Jesus could have said, "No one can believe in me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and the one who believes in Me (in response to this drawing), I will raise him up on the last day." But since he already affirmed to his listeners that they must come to or believe in Him in order to receive the promises, it was not necessary to emphasize it here. Jesus' concern was to emphasize God's sovereign initiative that precedes and enables the human response of faith.

i) What do you mean the premise is unsubstantiated? I showed how Jesus words can be translated into formal logical language. What? can we no longer apply logic to the Bible? When Jesus says,

"Whoever believes in me shall not perish"

we can't say that that can be translated to something like this:

(x)(Px & Bxj) --> ~(3y) (Byj & Dy)

?

ii) I tied the resurrection to the one being drawn. If Oscar Thibodaux thinks a premise is wrong, then let him show it. My syllogism says everything the verse says and leaves nothing out. Again, THE VERSE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY COMES TO CHRIST. Oscar Thibodaux is forced to eisogete the verse in order to get around the compelling logic.

iii) His "theologian" brought in for support makes a similar error. He says, "and the one who believes in Me (in response to this drawing)..." But the text doesn't even speak about the one who actually comes, or actually believes. They are forced to cheat in order to answer the Calvinist argument. Yes, Jesus previously said that people must come to him. But this begs the question. What we have here is Jesus explaining who will be able to come. And then, by the force of the logic, the text reads those all those able to come, and all those drawn, will be raied up. I'm not making this stuff up. This is just the logic of the situation. Complaining about logic won’t get you anywhere, Thibodaux. The more you try to hammer logic, the more it hammers you. So, you'll have to go another route other then the eisogetical and anti-intellectual route.

Time for J.C. Thibodaux to go back home:



Bye J.C., have a good night sleep.