“The gentlemen at Triablogue are apparently hurting for material. For someone as dumb as I apparently am, who is defending an obviously indefensible sorteriological position, they sure seem to give me a lot of attention. Why do they feel like they need to addrsss my arguments if they are not a threat to their position? Do they really believe that someone might be taken in by my foolishness? They have even lifted comments written by commenters in my comboxes and dedicated entire posts to ‘refuting’ those threatening comments. Just what has gotten these gentlemen so freaked out and rattled?”
http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/03/leaving-play-ground-for-now.html
Would Ben say the same thing about Christ when he defended himself against false allegations? Would Ben say the same thing abut St. Paul when he defended the gospel, or defends his apostolic credentials?
Does Ben say the same thing about Christians who defend the divinity of Christ against Jehovah’s Witnesses? Does Ben say the same thing about Christians who defend the Bible against the aspersions of Bart Ehrman or the Jesus Seminar or Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens?
For that matter, isn’t Ben’s own tone pretty defensive? Doesn’t he (and his sidekick—Thibodaux) spend a lot of time defending Arminian theology?
Yes, it’s possible that someone might be taken in by his “foolishness.” Right off the bat, I can think of at two least people who’ve been taken in by his foolishness—Ben and Thibodaux.
“For some reason they have targeted me for the purpose of throwing their theological eggs at.”
How does my post on the analogy between prayer and time travel amount to throwing eggs at Ben?
“Instead, Paul became more insulting and put pictures up all over his post of things like dead kangaroos.”
Since Ben has plastered his own blog with pictures of kangaroos, why does he get so irate when Manata does the same thing in a post responding to Ben?
“I am amazed that I have somehow managed to get them so riled up.”
Reading through Ben’s post, which is pure ad hominem invective from start to finish, it sounds to me like Ben is the one who’s “riled up.”
“The games continue as Steve Hays chimed in with his own post correlating Calvinistic prayer with theoretical issues relating to time travel (which only demonstrates how difficult it is for Calvinists to ‘make sense’ of simple things like intercessory prayer).”
How is my post a “game,” exactly?
“I might even explore the mysteries of time travel with Steve Hays, but these things are not my priority right now.”
Which was not the point of my post. As I explained in my post, I was using time travel to illustrate the distinction between *changing* an outcome and *affecting* an outcome.
The libertarian objection to the Reformed doctrine of prayer is that, since God has already decreed the outcome, our prayers are ineffective.
I simply drew on Dainton’s distinction to show that this objection is intellectually confused. It’s possible to contribute to an unalterable outcome.
Our prayers don’t change the outcome precisely because, in case of answered prayer, our prayers already figured in the outcome. They were built into the outcome.
God has decreed the future, and God has decreed our prayers. God has decreed our prayers to function as a factor in the outcome. Our prayers *affect* the outcome without *changing* the outcome. And I quoted Dainton’s discussion of time travel to illustrate that distinction.
(Notice, I didn’t say that our prayers have an affect on God.)
What is Ben’s alternative? Is Ben an open theist? Does he deny that God knows the future?
For the moment, let’s bracket foreordination and simply play along with foreknowledge. What does a classic Arminian think that prayer does? Does he think that prayer is a way of changing God’s mind?
But according to classic Arminianism, God foreknows our prayer. So if God answers our prayer, then he’s already factored the answer into the outcome before we, as timebound creatures, ever prayed to God.
Or does Ben believe, not that God changes his mind in answer to prayer, but that he hasn’t made up his mind before we pray?
But how is that consistent with divine foreknowledge? If God knows the future, then God foreknows our prayer, and foreknows how or whether he will answer our prayer. God doesn’t have to wait until we pray to hear our prayer.
Notice that I’m arguing on Arminian assumptions.
kangaroodort said...
“As far as sticking to exegesis you have apparently not read much from Triablogue as they are often all about philosophy.”
Apparently Ben hasn’t read much of Triablogue. We respond to philosophical objections on philosophical grounds, ethical objections on ethical grounds, and exegetical objections on exegetical grounds.
“I personally think that the Bible is quite clear that our prayers have a genuine affect on God.”
What affect? To change his mind? How can a God who changes his mind all the time answer prayer?
There’s a drought. Joe is a farmer. He prays for rain to save his crops. God was planning to have another sunny day tomorrow, but in answer to Joe, he changes his mind and decides to make it rain. On TV, Joe hears the weatherman say it’s going to rain tomorrow.
But Mary has a wedding tomorrow. She prays for sunshine since rain would spoil the outdoor reception. God hears her prayer. So God scraps plan B to make it rain and reverts to plan A—in answer to her prayer.
When Joe switches on the TV, later in the day, he hears the weatherman now say it’s going to be sunny and dry.
So he prays for rain again. God hears his prayer and changes his mind again.
Ted is a banker. He prays for drought so that he can foreclose the mortgage on Joe’s farm in order to pay for his daughter’s tuition. God hears his prayer and…
“The burden rests on those whose theology (or philosophy, if you will) would undermine what the Bible seems to plainly pre-suppose.”
Okay, so, by his own admission, Ben doesn’t have exegetical argument for his position. Rather, it’s a question of what presuppositions he brings to the Bible.
Guess, what, Ben, that’s a *philosophical* question.
“The Bible seems to plainly pre-suppose that man has the feedom to choose in the sense that people have always understood ‘free will’, etc.”
“Plainly presuppose”? What’s that suppose to be, exactly?
If something is plainly stated, then it isn’t presupposed. Rather, it’s explicit.
For Ben to claim that his interpretation turns on a “presupposition” is actually a backdoor admission that his interpretation doesn’t derive from what is plainly stated in the text. Rather, this is something he brings to the text.
Something can’t be plainly presupposed. It’s either one or the other.
“The burden of proof rests with those who wish to calim otherwise.”
No, the onus is not on a Calvinist to disprove Ben’s philosophical presuppositions. On the one hand, Ben isn’t even attempting to do exegesis since, by his own admission, this is not about something asserted in the text of Scripture—but an extrascriptural presupposition which he imports into the sacred text “to make sense of” Scripture.
On the other hand, Ben is not attempting to defend his extrascriptural presupposition, either. So he hasn’t presented any argument for his position. Not from Scripture. And not from philosophy.
It’s not up to the Calvinist to offer a counterargument to Ben’s nonexistent argument. Unless and until Ben can muster a supporting argument for his claim, there’s nothing for us to disprove.
“Calvinists affirm monergism and determinism. They should therefore explain how intercessory prayer makes sense within such philosophical assumptions.”
Been there, done that.
“Arminianism doesn't need to engage in 'philosophy' to make sense of intercessory prayer because intercessory paryer fits perfectly within an Arminian framework.”
Actually, it doesn’t even fit within an Arminian framework, for reasons I just gave.
But assuming that it did, that begs the question in favor of the Arminian framework.
Murdering your political opponents fits perfectly within a Marxist framework. Does that make it true?
“Arminianism is rather simple and takes the Bible at face value.”
No, Mormonism takes the Bible at “face value.”
At one end of the spectrum, Calvinism has a consistent hermeneutic, with its doctrine of divine accommodation. That’s why we treat certain descriptions of God as anthropomorphic rather than literal.
At the other end of the spectrum is Mormonisn, which takes every description literally. This is the basic continuum:
Calvinism>Arminianism>neotheism>Mormonism.
Arminian hermeneutics is an ad hoc compromise—to the left of Calvinism, but to the right of neotheism and Mormonism.
“But you then either make sanctification unneccessary for salvation, or you admit that ‘salvation’ is not monergistic.”
Calvinism never said that ‘”salvation” is monergistic. Elements of salvation are monergistic, like election and regeneration.
“And by your own definitions you make sanctification a ‘work’ of man because you also claim that unless God unconditionally and irresistibly regenerates the sinner, then faith as a condition would really be a ‘work’. Why not say the same with respect to sanctification?”
i) We don’t say the same thing with respect to sanctification between the regenerate are no longer dead in sin. The unregenerate are passive in regeneration because they are dead in sin. Once regenerated, their spiritual condition is different.
ii) Calvinism doesn’t deny that Christians perform good works. But these are gracious works.
“If God alone keeps you, then how is sanctification synergistic as you say? According to you, if you are at all responsible for your spiritual progress, then you will fail, so how can you say that sanctification is co-operative as you did above?”
“Synergism” is a term of art. A technical term.
In traditional usage, it means more than it’s etymological compound (“work with”).
Consider, for example, what it means in Catholic theology, a la supererogatory merit or congruent merit. Or consider what “works of the law” mean in Pauline usage.
“The Bible seems to plainly pre-suppose that man has the feedom to choose in the sense that people have always understood ‘free will’, etc.”
ReplyDeleteI. Really? Have people *always* understood "free will" in Libertarian terms? Where's the supporting argument?
2. If people have always understood "free will" in those terms, what about the WCF, Savoy, and LBCF2 on "Free Will?"
3. LFW is a *philosophical* position, not an *exegetical* position - that's why Ben has to say the Bible "presupposes" it. This is frankly admitted by Arminian theologians, or are Walls and Dongell not representative of Arminians? Fact for Ben: LFW is prized not because it is exegetically taught in Scripture, but because of it's intuitive value. Most Libertarians don't even try to substantiate LFW from Scripture, but if Ben is up to the challenge, he's welcome to try.
4. Ben says: “As far as sticking to exegesis you have apparently not read much from Triablogue as they are often all about philosophy.”
Ben, I have lost count of the number of times I have asked Arminians like yourself on the pages of this blog in articles and comboxes alike to prove LFW exegetically from Scripture. I've also presented an exegetical argument for our position many times. Get a clue, search the archives. Where is Ben's exegetical argument for LFW?
All that is needed to overturn LFW is a single text of Scripture like this one:
" You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
Or
"From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."
Or
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
14But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
15Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.
or
So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
18"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
We lie because we want to lie. We sin because we are sinners. Bad trees bear bad fruit. We speak from our natures. Our desires are sufficient causes for our choices and therefore our actions.
Why, Ben, does one man believe, and not another, within the constraints of LFW? We've asked you this before, please answer the question.
I'd also point out that Ben's belief in LFW is little more than ad hocery, for in affirming "Total depravity" he's affirming compatibilism, for the will is not free in the Libertarian sense if T.D. is true.
It's his doctrine of UPG that results in LFW once applied. So, he can hardly object to compatibilism, since Arminians are supposed to believe in T.D. But, if he'd like to admit that our criticism of UPG - that it makes T.D. a superfluous category - is true, we'll gladly take that admission. You can't
object, Ben, to compatibilism on the one hand while claiming to hold to Total Depravity on the other, and you have to account for why some believe and others do not, if UPG frees their wills in a Libertarian sense.
Funny, they make an argument critiquing Calvinism. I respond. The exchange doesn't turn out in their favor. Check their comboxes, even Arminian commenters pointed this out to Ben. They then complain that I'm infatuated with them (and they're the ones whose attack on Calvinism I was responding to). Okay, so they don't want me to respond to their posts anymore. I see their point. I wouldn't want to be in their position either. So, I can leave them alone, per their underlying request. They just want to be able to critique Calvinism without any reprocussions
ReplyDeletePaul Manata said: "Funny, they make an argument critiquing Calvinism. I respond. The exchange doesn't turn out in their favor. Check their comboxes, even Arminian commenters pointed this out to Ben."
ReplyDelete***This is blatantly false. Not one Arminian commenter said any such a thing. I do remember seeing Arminian commenters remarking that Ben successfully refuted you. (Hopefully you're not referring to JNORM who briefly thought you proved your point when you and he interacted, but then came to see that you *appeared* to prove a technical and superficial point that was really empty. That would really be straining to try and find some shred of support.)
Yes, Arminian, there were (or, they at least weren't committed either way). Even Ben pointed this out, but thought is was 'convenient' that they sided with me. Anyway, still waiting for an actual refutation of how I logically demonstrated no inconsistency.
ReplyDeleteAnd, even though I did much more than JNORM gives credit, what you guys seem to not be able to get is that I have shown, even wiht the "technicality" that Ben has not met his burden. He can't show any "inconsistency" with vague and ambiguous terms.
PM said: "Yes, Arminian, there were (or, they at least weren't committed either way)."
ReplyDelete***Well, that's muih different than saying Arminians were siding with you, isn't it? But then even the claim that there were uncommitted posters siding with you is false, and that there was even one is questionable. The one poster who sided with you that one might think was neutral was an anonymous poster who used the name "Not ArminianorCalvinist", which is not even necessarily a claim to being neutral. Frankly, his comment comes off as rather fishy: "I dunno Ben, looks to be a landslide victory for Manata...though I hate to admit that. I think "Out of your league" is the term that applies here."
Does someone who is neutral really talk like that, a landslide victory, really? Out of your league? And if he's not an Arminian or Calvinist, then why hate to admit who won? It just seems odd. I have seen people with basically Calvinist beliefs deny being Calvinists and people with basically Arminian beliefs deny being Arminian. For all we know, this person has basically Calvinist beliefs but doesn't like Triablogue because he's a hyper-Calvinist or has had bad experiences with you. To use his turn of phrase, I dunno, Paul, it's just an odd comment from an anonymous poster (and by that I mean that the name he used is not his regular blogger posting name, just one he chose for this post) and it's the only one that *might* fit into someone neutral thinking you won.
I know I thought Ben won the debate, as do others. But then some posters at your site think you won. But you should realize that it is not a matter of people who think Ben made the best case not getting it, but that he made a compelling case.
Arminian, feel free to actually analyze the debate and back up your comments. Otherwise, put down your pom poms. You look silly in a skirt.
ReplyDelete"But you should realize that it is not a matter of people who think Ben made the best case not getting it, but that he made a compelling case."
ReplyDeleteYeah, compelling to other Arminaisn who already by that position. Real compelling to "convince" your own side. My post, on the other hand, actually proceeded via logical argumentation, objectively showing, to any side, that Ben failed in his attempt. I laid our *precisely* how Ben failed to prove his point. My arguments are such that any side can easily evaluate the objective merits of my cause. Indeed, it didn't even matter if you don't *agree* with my side, all that matters is that I faithfully shows how that *within our system* we can avoid his charge. That is all I needed to show since Ben argued from an *IN*consistency. Tell me that his "convincing" argument wasn't this:
"Calvinism is onconsistent with Arminian assumptions about prayer, freedom, and causation."
Unfortunately, what you're too blind or biased to see, is that that WAS his argument.
Better run a long before you go the way of the Thibo daux daux.
On the other hand, Ben is not attempting to defend his extrascriptural presupposition, either. So he hasn’t presented any argument for his position. Not from Scripture. And not from philosophy.
ReplyDeleteSo now we are on to lifting other comments from my combox and trying to say that I need to back them up as if the whole world needs to answer to Triablogue.
You guys are very predictible. Just keep making posts and issuing challenges until your opponent is overwelmed and unable to respond to it all.
As far as your above claim I have written several posts on the subjects of free will and determinism so your claim that I haven't presented anything is simply false (and some of them are even exegetically derived).
I am not here to please you or cater to your needs. I regret having anything to do with you guys (and regrets are a strange thing indeed if we do not have the power of contrary choice as you claim). I wouldn't even respond to Paul's posts if I hadn't foolishly said I would, but I will do it when I get around to it.
It’s not up to the Calvinist to offer a counterargument to Ben’s nonexistent argument. Unless and until Ben can muster a supporting argument for his claim, there’s nothing for us to disprove.
Then why do you guys keep going on and on about it?
Arminian hermeneutics is an ad hoc compromise—to the left of Calvinism, but to the right of neotheism and Mormonism.
And this isn't an arbitray statement? I could come up with all kinds of arbitray definitions for what Calvinism is, as could anyone.
i) We don’t say the same thing with respect to sanctification between the regenerate are no longer dead in sin. The unregenerate are passive in regeneration because they are dead in sin. Once regenerated, their spiritual condition is different.
Which is philosophical assertion based on a Biblically unfounded correlation between physical death and spiritual death. It is far from exegetically derived. I have done quite a bit of exegetically derived work on the ordo salutis and other topics related to depravity, etc.
ii) Calvinism doesn’t deny that Christians perform good works. But these are gracious works.
Which is not really relevant to my arguments.
“Synergism” is a term of art. A technical term.
In traditional usage, it means more than it’s etymological compound (“work with”).
Where were you when I was trying to explain this to Paul?
Steve, I understand that you disagree with me on key issues and that you guys feel like you are defending Biblical truth by trying to make a fool out me and critique just about everything that comes out of my mouth. I respect your passion for Calvinism and that you believe it is Biblical. Strangely, it would seem that God has decreed from eternity that I would reject Calvinism and defend Arminianism. If that is the case then I don't know why you are battling me. I am just doing what God wanst me to do. God apparently wants us to disagree and is apparently to blame for all the confusion that this debate generates, which is strange for a God of whom the Bible declares is not the author of confusion. But that is just me expecting things to make sense again and you have already pointed out how foolish that expectation is. I wish I had the luxury of defending an unfalsifiable dogma like you guys. It would sure make things easier on me.
God Bless,
Ben
Better run a long before you go the way of the Thibo daux daux.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, otherwise he may also decisively refute your claims.
PM said: "Yeah, compelling to other Arminaisn who already by that position. Real compelling to "convince" your own side."
ReplyDelete***And this is not the case with your post? That's why you were trying to claim some sort of objective favor for your position by falsely claiming some Arminians expressed to Ben that they thought you won. Now I am not saying you lied, that you knew they hadn't and said they did anyway. I would guess that in your blind zeal and overconfidence in your own position you quickly jumped to the wrong conclusion without checking the fatcs and ran with it. I just wanted to set the record straight and not grant you a free ride on that claim nor try to score rhretorical points from it.
PM said: "My post, on the other hand, actually proceeded via logical argumentation, objectively showing, to any side, that Ben failed in his attempt. I laid our *precisely* how Ben failed to prove his point. My arguments are such that any side can easily evaluate the objective merits of my cause. Indeed, it didn't even matter if you don't *agree* with my side, all that matters is that I faithfully shows how that *within our system* we can avoid his charge. That is all I needed to show since Ben argued from an *IN*consistency."
***Hopefully you can probably see now why I took issue with your comments. You are trying to paint your arguments as somehow more objectively credible, but it is all mere assertion at this point. Some of your crowd think you successfully defended your position whereas several who commented at AP thought Ben's argument prevailed. But you just declaring your arguments superior does not make it so. It sound like trying to win by shouting. I could lend you my pom poms if you like.
PM said: "Tell me that his "convincing" argument wasn't this:
"Calvinism is onconsistent with Arminian assumptions about prayer, freedom, and causation." "
***That was not his argument.
PM said: "Unfortunately, what you're too blind or biased to see, is that that WAS his argument."
***Perhaps because you are a participant you are too blind to see what has actually transpired in the exchange and that you have not interacted closely enough with Ben's arguments.
PM: "Better run a long before you go the way of the Thibo daux daux."
***Yeah, I thought he ruled the roost of your debate with him as well. Can we credit you with bringing back what was thought to be an extinct species?
PM said: "Arminian, feel free to actually analyze the debate and back up your comments. Otherwise, put down your pom poms. You look silly in a skirt."
ReplyDelete***I really was just debunking your claim that even Arminians thought you won in your attempt to try and claim some sort of objective superiority for your arguments.
As for analyzing the debate, that has already been happening in the com boxes at AP, where your argument has been effectively skewered IMO with very little effort.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI smell a rat
ReplyDelete"As for analyzing the debate, that has already been happening in the com boxes at AP, where your argument has been effectively skewered IMO with very little effort."
ReplyDeleteHi Arminian! I looked in both the posts put up since my last email and hardly any one spent any time analyzing my extended and detailed argument.
Anyway, unfortunately, this, as always with you guys, is turning into an emotinal temper tantrum session. You guys never fail to point out the failings and meaness in the Calvinists. Garner pity and support for your side, and waste hours and hours of your time and ours with emotive outbursts.
Ben could have had a response up by now. You could use your time be actually critiquing my argument instead of lying about it being analyzed and skwered.
I am honestly sorry I ever used sarcasm and smack talk (like you guys do as well) with you guys, given the thin-skinned, babyish outlash I'm subjected to.
And, Ben, go ahead and write a response, I'll just respond to it and we'll be right where we are now. Why not save the time?
Kangaroo said:
ReplyDelete---
You guys are very predictible. Just keep making posts and issuing challenges until your opponent is overwelmed and unable to respond to it all.
---
Given that you're unable to respond to anything we write, everything we post on Arminianism satisfies the claim that you're "overwelmed and unable to respond to it all." But thanks for admitting what everyone else already knows.
Kangaroo said:
---
I regret having anything to do with you guys (and regrets are a strange thing indeed if we do not have the power of contrary choice as you claim).
---
It's statements such as this that demonstrate you haven't even begun to study the issue in the first place. All these types of comments do is demonstrate your ignorance of the Reformed position.
Of course you'd rather go tilting at windmills and burning strawmen. I don't blame you. If my position was as weak as yours the last thing I'd want to do is accurately represent my opponent.
Kangaroo said:
---
Then why do you guys keep going on and on about it?
---
Given that Steve answered this very objection in the post you're commenting on, you're doing a wonderful job at demonstrating your grasp of linguistics and logic. Tell me again why I should trust your philosophical deductions when you cannot even tell when a question's already been answered on a blog post?
Kangaroo said:
---
Which is philosophical assertion based on a Biblically unfounded correlation between physical death and spiritual death.
---
Regardless of how you want to twist it, there's a difference between the man with the heart of stone and the man with the heart of flesh (re: Ezekiel). Yet what is the actual difference between the regenerated and the unregenerated in the Arminian scheme? Nothing. You have the same level of freedom before regeneration as you do after regeneration in Arminianism. Conversion doesn't change anyone at all.
In Arminianism, the sinner is not a slave to sin before conversion, and therefore he is only liberated from punishment. He's not altered at all. He's the same person as he was before with the same faculties he had before. His heart of stone remains a heart of stone, it's just stone that can mimic flesh or something.
Or did Kangaroo forget that it's not just the living/death metaphor employed?
And need I point out that nowhere is LFW claimed by Scripture. About the closest you can come to is by arguing that one cannot be held responsible unless one has a choice in the matter. I merely point out that you will not find that claim in Scripture.
Kangaroo said:
---
I understand that you disagree with me on key issues and that you guys feel like you are defending Biblical truth by trying to make a fool out me and critique just about everything that comes out of my mouth.
---
We don't make a fool out of you. You make a fool out of you. We merely point it out to you so that you can cease.
You're like the guy who walks around with his fly open making a fool of himself who then has the audacity to get mad at the person who tries to spare his dignity by saying, "You need to zip it."
Kangaroo said:
---
Strangely, it would seem that God has decreed from eternity that I would reject Calvinism and defend Arminianism. If that is the case then I don't know why you are battling me. I am just doing what God wanst me to do.
---
I wonder why Paul never responded to this exact question by saying: "Why then does God still blame us, for who resists his will? But who are you, o man, to talk back to God?" If only Paul had done that, why we'd be able to respond to the Kangaroo.
"I understand that you disagree with me on key issues and that you guys feel like you are defending Biblical truth by trying to make a fool out me and critique just about everything that comes out of my mouth."
ReplyDeleteFunny, this si the response I get after *responding* to *your* post critiquing *us*!
"Strangely, it would seem that God has decreed from eternity that I would reject Calvinism and defend Arminianism. If that is the case then I don't know why you are battling me. I am just doing what God wanst me to do."
Right, and you understand our position. No straw men here.
First, you make a composition fallacy, assuming that since the entire plan is good, each part is.
Second, perhaps God decreed you write this stuff so we could respond and show errors n Arminianism. God uses you as a means.
Third, God set and planned in advance, ordained, and determiend that Jesus would die for his people's sins. So, we shouldn't say that murdering him was wrong, right?
PM said: "Hi Arminian! I looked in both the posts put up since my last email and hardly any one spent any time analyzing my extended and detailed argument."
ReplyDelete***Hi Paul. I didn't say that anyone put much time into analyzing your argument. I pointed out that IMO your argument had been effectively skewered *with very little effort*. It was pointed out that given a deterministic system, that prayer is not really a means to the end of what is asked for. That very simple and short observation overturns the heart of your argument. The point was elaborated on in the com box in another post. I believe that it is the point that changed JNORM's mind that you had even proven that point about prayer being a means in your system.
PM: "Anyway, unfortunately, this, as always with you guys, is turning into an emotinal temper tantrum session. You guys never fail to point out the failings and meaness in the Calvinists. Garner pity and support for your side, and waste hours and hours of your time and ours with emotive outbursts."
***These comments are strange. I don't see any emotional temper tantrum or outbursts from me. I just pointed out that you falsely claimed that some Arminians agreed with you against Ben in an attempt to portray your argument as objectively superior. And I made my opinion known that I believe that Ben had the more compelling argument, that others agreed with that assessment, and that I thought the heart of your argument had been overturned simply and easily in the com box discussion at AP.
If anyone in our conversation is going the way of emotive outburst, I would say it is you, accusing me of lying. Is that necessary or helpful? When you made a false claim about Arminians siding with you in the AP com boxes, I didn't accuse you of lying, but gave you the benefit of the doubt as a Christian brother who let his zeal to promote his position get the better of him and lead him to jump to hasty and false conclusions.
God bless brother.
Hi Arminian!
ReplyDelete"Hi Paul. I didn't say that anyone put much time into analyzing your argument. I pointed out that IMO your argument had been effectively skewered *with very little effort*. It was pointed out that given a deterministic system, that prayer is not really a means to the end of what is asked for. That very simple and short observation overturns the heart of your argument. The point was elaborated on in the com box in another post. I believe that it is the point that changed JNORM's mind that you had even proven that point about prayer being a means in your system."
Right, that's a RE-ASSERTION of the claim I was responding to. I answered this. No one interacted with my answer. So, I'm still waiting for a rebuttal, indeed, for *any* skewering.
"If anyone in our conversation is going the way of emotive outburst, I would say it is you, accusing me of lying. Is that necessary or helpful? When you made a false claim about Arminians siding with you in the AP com boxes, I didn't accuse you of lying, but gave you the benefit of the doubt as a Christian brother who let his zeal to promote his position get the better of him and lead him to jump to hasty and false conclusions."
Let's quote you:
"And this is not the case with your post? That's why you were trying to claim some sort of objective favor for your position by falsely claiming some Arminians expressed to Ben that they thought you won."
Seems like you charged me with lying.
I charge you with the same. No one skewered anything. I showed exactly how it was a means. So, I'll awaie future rebutal. I'm sure you don't have a problem ending this back and forth bickering, and neither do I.
To clarify, I claimed that if God determiend that S be saved in time by the prayers of S*, then the *whole package* comes together. So, it *does matter* if we pray. Now, it may not make sense ON ARMINIAN ASSUMPTIONS, but surely you guys weren't arguing:
ReplyDeleteCALVINISM IS INCONSISTENT WITH ARMINIANISM.
And, JNORM was shown his argument to be unsound. That's what I do. Distill your guys' arguments, and show the errors.
And, btw, I have no reason to think that you aren't Ben or J.C. Thibodaux, as well as 90% of the commenters being Arminian plants too.
PM said: "Right, that's a RE-ASSERTION of the claim I was responding to. I answered this. No one interacted with my answer. So, I'm still waiting for a rebuttal, indeed, for *any* skewering."
ReplyDelete***Would you mind providing me with the comments that addressed that objection or pointing to exactly where those comments are (if they are buried in a long post, and you don't want to excerpt it for me, maybe you could give me the section or key words to search on)?
PM said: "Let's quote you:
"And this is not the case with your post? That's why you were trying to claim some sort of objective favor for your position by falsely claiming some Arminians expressed to Ben that they thought you won."
Seems like you charged me with lying.
I charge you with the same."
***Paul, reading in context is very important. This is one of those instances that invites saying something like "if you read Scripture like you read my comments--out of context--then no wonder you're a Calvinist!" I just kidding of course; we all make simple mistakes at times. But I explicitly said I didn't think you were lying in the very next sentence that follows what you quote of me! Let's put my comments back into comtext of what I actually said (I tried to emphasize the sentence to pay attention to with @ signs):
"That's why you were trying to claim some sort of objective favor for your position by falsely claiming some Arminians expressed to Ben that they thought you won. @@@Now I am not saying you lied, that you knew they hadn't and said they did anyway.@@@ I would guess that in your blind zeal and overconfidence in your own position you quickly jumped to the wrong conclusion without checking the fatcs and ran with it. I just wanted to set the record straight and not grant you a free ride on that claim nor try to score rhretorical points from it."
I did not accuse you of lying but said I did not think you were lying. You were just wrong, probably revealing some lack of objectivity in evaluating the echange.
Thanks for mentioning your response. You anticipated my request. I don't have time to address it now, but will consider it.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I am neither Ben nor J.C.
Arminian,
ReplyDeleteI don't think you're lying. Your response indicates your biases and explains why you jumped the gun.
As for my post, you can read all of part 3, it's not that long, probably 3-4 pages. It's a drawn out argument, and as you know, you must pay attention to context!
:-)
Paul,
ReplyDeleteIf you don't think I am lying, then why did you accuse me of lying? :(
I looked over your part 3 again, and I also take note of your basic argument as represented here:
PM: "To clarify, I claimed that if God determiend that S be saved in time by the prayers of S*, then the *whole package* comes together. So, it *does matter* if we pray."
This rerally does not rescue your claim. First, you are begging the question by trying to define intercessory prayer as a means in your argument. The point is that if God decides to irresistibly cause someone to get saved, and therefore irresisibly causes someone to pray for the person to get saved, that request God irresistibly caused to be asked to himself cannot reasonably be caused a means to the person getting saved. Determining both things in a package does not cause them to be related as means and end. Someone can plan all sorts of thimgs together as a package of what they want to happen, but that does not render the individual parts to relate as means and end. Nor does arbitrarily assigning something a role as means make it one unless it actually serves as an instrument to bring about the end.
Rather than trying to recreate the wheel, I just pulled out relevant comments from the com box at AP. I think the comments there still show that prayer is not a means in a deterministic system. The comments use the word monergistic, and I believe that you think that as not applicable to this aspect of the debate. (BTW, you do realize that by your definition of monergism that Arminian regeneration is also monergistic, right?) So just replace any reference to monergism and cognates to determinism and cognates. There is much much more that could be said. But honestly, I do not have the time to get into all the details. I htought your response to Ben was riddled with problems. But this one point of claiming prayer as a means is one simple issue that does in your argument as a whole.
Ok, here are the comments I took from the comments of one thread at AP.
But Ben addressed the argument that God ordains the means, and I think he did so effectively. His basic point seems to be that this argument is a mere charade in the case of intercessory prayer if all has been predetermined since intercessory prayer has influencing God as its focus. So to iilustrate: if someone decides that he will irresitibly cause someone to accept his offer to accept a free check from him (suppose he administers a drug that makes him willing to do whatever he is told), but that he will only do this upon irresitibly causing someone else to ask him to irresistibly cause the other person to accept his offer, that person asking him cannot properly be called a means used to bring that person to accept the check. It does not genuinely influence the check giver except that he wants to cause the intercessor to ask him to do something he was already set on doing. It does not actually affect the check giver who is determining everything everyone is doing in the situation. And it does not affect the check receiver. It would be different if the check giver irresitibly caused another to go and ask the person to receive the check and then irresistibly caused ther person to receive the check. In that case, the check offerer would really be a means used to give the person the check. But the situation that relates to intercessory prayer is more like someone who decides he is going to brush his teeth, but he will only brush his teeth after he first says "bonzo". Saying "bonzo" is not a means to brushing his teeth. It is simply something he has determined he wants to be a prerequisite, though it is arbitrarily chosen as a prerequisite. It is not necessary for it to be so.
So I think that Ben has showed that in the case of intercessory prayer in a monergistic system, prayer cannot be properly considered a means to the accomplishment of what is prayed for, since God has already decided to certainly cause such and such to happen and to certainly cause someone to ask him to make it happen.
But Scripture portrays God as actually influneced by prayer. This only seems to be possible in a synergistic system. So I don't think that Paul proved even that point about God ordaining the means.
JNORM said: "I agree, but if it can't properly be called a means then what can it be called?"
My response: I don't think it matters what one calls it. If it is not a means, then Paul's argument unravels. And I think it is pretty certain it cannot be properly called a means. I don't know if there is a one word label one could call such things. But one could describe it by saying that it is something that the agent wants to do (or have done) before he accomplishes the end, but is not necessary for the accomplishment of that end. To illustrate again, If someone purposes to stop and get a cup of coffee on his way to work because he wants one, going to get a cup of coffee is not a means to him getting to work. It is just something he wants to do before he goes to work or on his way to work. The car however is a means of him getting to work. In the case of intercessory prayer, which is basically a person asking God to do something, if God determines the end (saving soemone or healing someone), and then determines that someone is going to ask him to do this thing, their request is not a means helping accomplish the end. God irresitibly caused it all in that circumstance, and the request did not influence him whatsoever. It's just something he wants to make happen before he accomplishes the end, but not something he has to make happen to accomplish the end or is in any way integrally involved in him accomplishing the end (it's about as much so as stopping to get a cup of coffee is for the end of gooing to work; granted, some people find coffee necessary to get their day going!, but even that exalted status of coffee in our culture doesn't really raise it to the level of a means for people getting to work!).
One in particular is a fundamental point of Paul's presentation that, if false, would unravel is overall case. And that is his claim that prayer is a means to the end of accomplishing what is asked for. I believe I have shown that this claim is false in a monergistic system such as Paul is representing. Now I am not saying that if his claim were true, then his case would be established necessarily. But it is true that if his claim is false, then his case falls apart. And it is false. As I pinted out to JNORM, prayer cannot properly be called a means to the end of accomplishment of what the prayer asks for in a monergistic system, in which God purposes to irresistibly cause the end, and then therefore purposes to irresistibly cause someone to ask him to accomplish the end.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteSo as I said, I believe your argument has been effectively skewered by a very small but critical point.
BTW, I was the one who posted the comments I pulled from the com box of AP as "Jason A." I explain why I posted as "Jason A." in the com box of the most recent post at AP (http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/03/pauls-sock-puppet-show.html).
PM: "Josh, Ben, or whoever,"
ReplyDelete***Are you back to accusing me of lying? I already told you that I am not Josh or Ben. But that does raise the question again you never answered: if you didn't think I am lying, why did you accuse me of lying?
It was strange that you shut down comments in the post in which you seemed to be claiming victory (I say "seems" because I think you said you were not claiming victory) and I challenged you on this, that you never responded to my comments (which you implicitly invited when you said, "No one skewered anything. I showed exactly how it was a means. So, I'll awaie future rebutal.")
PM: "I did address your chomment. I pointed out you made classic straw men blunders regarding determinism."
***You didn't address my comments specifically, and as we shall see, do not even seem to understand them.
PM: "You don't think it is a means because God ordained it."
***This is not true, and suggests you do not understand my comments. God's ordination of it is not what makes it not a means. I acknowledged that various things that are ordained (in the sense you are apparently using the term, i.e., predetermiend and irresistibly caused) can be a means. The point I made is that intercessory prayer is a different sort of thing because of the nature of it. Intercessory prayer is asking God to do something. If God decides to irresistibly cause something to happen (such as cause someone to get saved), and therefore irresisibly causes someone to pray for that thing to happen (such as to pray for the person to get saved), that request God irresistibly caused to be asked to himself cannot reasonably be called a means to the thing happening. I gave some illustrations of this point. I won't repeat them all, but would encourage you to go back and look at them, since you seem to not have understood the point. But I will repeat one of them here:
if someone decides that he will irresitibly cause someone to accept his offer to accept a free check from him (suppose he administers a drug that makes him willing to do whatever he is told), but that he will only do this upon irresitibly causing someone else to ask him to irresistibly cause the other person to accept his offer, that person asking him cannot properly be called a means used to bring that person to accept the check. It does not genuinely influence the check giver except that he wants to cause the intercessor to ask him to do something he was already set on doing. It does not actually affect the check giver who is determining everything everyone is doing in the situation. And it does not affect the check receiver. It would be different if the check giver irresitibly caused another to go and ask the person to receive the check and then irresistibly caused the person to receive the check. In that case, the check offerer would really be a means used to give the person the check. But the situation that relates to intercessory prayer is more like someone who decides he is going to brush his teeth, but he will only brush his teeth after he first says "bonzo". Saying "bonzo" is not a means to brushing his teeth. It is simply something he has determined he wants to be a prerequisite, though it is arbitrarily chosen as a prerequisite. It is not necessary for it to be so.
So what you miss is that intercessory prayer is asking God to do something. So the whole means to an end argument falls apart when all is irresistibly predetermined by God. It is not simply that it is irresistibly predetermined that makes prayer not a means, but the nature of intercessory prayer itself when it is irresistibly caused combined with an irresitibly predetermined/caused end which supposedly dictates the request as a means.
PM: "All you were doing is *repeating* libertarian assumptions."
***Hopefully you see now that this is not the case.
PM: "You can't "defeat" my argument by saying, "First, you are begging the question by trying to define intercessory prayer as a means in your argument." If you don't know why, let me explain.
I am not begging the question, as you said, since they were offering an INTERNAL critique. You you guys keep missing is that I answered Ben on his own terms. if you want to move the goal posts and make your argument this:
"Arminian is inconsistent with Calvinism."
Then I gladly conceed. You have beat me straight up.
But since that *wasn't* the initial critique, I am allows to use MY SYSTEM to answer it. If I have to individually prove all the parts then don't call it an inconsistency BETWEEN two of my beliefs. The one argument is:
"Prove Calvinism."
The other is:
"Prove HOW Calvinism has the resources to address what looks to be an internal tension."
I hope you're starting to get an inkling of why your "response" was ridiculous. I mean, perhaps that kind of response would work in OTHER areas, but not the specific context I was opperating in.
There, I hope that clears things up for you."
***You act as if "means" is defined differently by Calvinism and Arminianism. But it isn't. And that's why it is perfectly acceptable for me to challenge your assertion that intercessory prayer is a means to accomplishing what the prayer asks for in a deterministic system. This is why you indeed beg the question by up front assuming intercessory prayer is a means. What I am saying is that saying it is a means is invalid, and I have given reason for that. A means must actually serve as an instrument for accomplishing the end. But in a case in which someone has the ability, and decides to irresistibly cause something to happen, but to first irresistibly cause himself to be asked to do the thing, that request does not serve as an instrument to bringing about the thing that is requested. To take your tasty burger analogy and make it reflect the intercessory prayer situation, you have to add someone asking you to irresitibly cause the person to give you a bite of his tasty burger. So you decide you want a bite of the tasty burger your friend has, and you have the power to irresistibly cause others to act however you choose. So you irresistibly cause a third friend to ask you to irresistibly cause your friend with the tasty burger to give you bite of the tasty burger. Your third friend therefore asks you to do this; you then do it. Your friend asking you to irresistibly cause your friend to give you a bite of the tasty burger is simply not a means to you causing your friend with the tasty burger to give you a bite. It is just something you wanted to have happen before you irresistibly caused your friend to give you a bite of the tasty burger. It did not serve as an instrument to you doing that. It might even be related to the whole tasty burger situation. But it cannot properly be said to have been an instrument to the bringing about of what was asked for; it was not instrumental in that case. As I mentioned to Josh, there really is little difference between someone absolutely determining to do something but will only do it when he first irresistibly causes someone to ask him to do it, and someone absolutely determining to do something but will only do it when he first puts a sock puppet on his hand and irresistibly causes it to ask him to do what he has already determined he will do (i.e., asks himself to do it by means of the sock puppet), and in fact is having himself be asked to do it because he has already determined to do the thing! Having the sock puppet ask him to do it is not a means to him doing it.
PM: You wrote: "The point is that if God decides to irresistibly cause someone to get saved, and therefore irresisibly causes someone to pray for the person to get saved, that request God irresistibly caused to be asked to himself cannot reasonably be caused a means to the person getting saved."
This is an *assertion.* I have covered this objection NUMEROUS times in the archives. So has Steve. So has Gene. In fact, oh master of the self-refutation, YOU just begged the question. SInce this wasn't an *argument,* you just *assumed* libertarian assumptions to disprove my argument!
***I don't read Triablogue posts too often, but I assume you have treated the whole means to an end issue often. But perhaps you have not considered the special case of intercessory prayer. All the examples you gave in your post to Ben were of a different sort, not the situation of a third party being irresistibly caused to ask the causer to irresistibly cause something he already had decided to do, and in fact irrersistibly causes himself to be asked to do the thing because he has already determined to do the thing.
PM: Same with the rest of your comments. You simply 8assume* libertarianism. You simply fail to place the dialogue in its proper context. And, you gusy should re-name your objection. Rather than saying:
(a) "Calvinis has internal problems within itssystem."
(b) You should have just said,
"We disagree with Calvinism. It is wrong for external reasons."
You can't set the debate up according to (a), then when I appropriately answer by the terms of (a), you switch to (b)!
So, I have not "declared victory" (even though you have (see your comments) and both Ben and J.C. have), I simply said you guys are chosing to not answwer my question, I am right about that, and I am letting you guys bow out.
For those who read the exchanges, all of them (even though I doubt even any one Arminian has read the entirety of my responses), there can be no question of who got the better of who.
Look, at this point, when one denies the logical translation of Jesus' statements, does not address my reasons, and repeats blunders, I am not under an obligation to carry on.
Look, I'm find ending the discussion as it stands.
I have offered about 85% substance to their 15% substance coming back at me. But they focus on the 15% "trash talk" and the discussion has no degenerated to nonsense.
If you guys are not fine where the discussion stands at this point, I fully understand. I would too if I were in your shoes. But, I do not have to continue when at this point nothing has been said to advance the discussioon, my points have not been refuted, etc. I mean, I know you may *think* you have refuted my points, but as I showed you above with your own points, perception does not = reality. I am under no obligation to try to continue to prove something to people who can't keept the argument straight, and can't seem to muster proper responses to my arguments. Indeed, I never wrote these post for you guys. I was under no allusion that you guys would try to seriously interact with the arguments. I wrote it more for Calvinists and those non-Calvinists who come here. Seems to me that goal has been fulfilled. Whining about it won't do anything. You saw how I dealt with your objection quickly and decisively. I could have done that on the main page. But I didn't. Because I'm done. I got out of this what I intended."
***So given what I have said, it really is not a matter of assuming libertarianism nor failing to show Calvinism internally inconsistent. It has been shown (I believe) that your claim that intercessory prayer is a means to the end of God doing what was asked of him, that this claim is false on just about anyone's definition of means. Therefore, your whole argument falls apart. Even if you were correct about it being a means, that would not prove your overall argument necessarily. But you are wrong about this little thing. And it does your argument in as a whole.
Pulling a play from your book, I observe again that you shut down comments in the other thread in which I challenged you to respond to my comments and that you have said you are done with this. That is fine. I would want to be too if my argument was overturned by such a small yet critical point as yours is.
God bless.
Oh, I forgot about this coment of yours:
ReplyDelete"BTW, Ben, Josh, or whoever,
You would notice if you had read everything that some of the same points Josh used to say that prayer was "meaningful" or had a "point" on his scheme, were things I also said. This showed that I answered the original argument (even though I went way beyond all of that). If those things were not "points" or "meanings" for me, then they weren't for Josh and Ben and thus you guys still have the problem that prayer for you gusy is useless and pointless.
That you guys couldn't be honest enough to recognize that I answered the original argument, and then I set up Josh and got him to use some of the same answers that I did, is another reason why I do not feel compelled to continue going round 'n round with you guys.
So, glad I could answer your comment."
***I have limited my involvement to your debate with Ben. Josh's comments really are irrelevant to that. I am not saying you refuted Josh. But I have focused on one small aspect of your debate with Ben, and that because it is a small issue, making it relatively easy and convenient to address, yet--and this is really the kicker--it overturns your argument as a whole. On my reading, ben's argument is pretty tight. He is not making the claim that intercessory prayer in a deterministic system is pointeless in every way. It is pointless for bringing about the accomplishment of what is asked for. In the Arminian system, it is not. It is actually able to be viewed biblically, to actually be able to bring about change and affect things.
It is fine if you want to leave the discussion now. I don't think you did answer the original argument effectively. And as I mentioned in my last post, I think you have misunderstood the force of my (and Ben's for that matter) argument.
God bless.