Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Thibochiuhuahua

“I was of course referring to circumstances which God would actually allow, Hays just has no better answer than playing word games.”

http://www.junkyard.indeathorlife.org/

J.C’s objection to Calvinism, as he worded it, was a straw man argument. So I corrected his caricature. If J.C. is too inarticulate to clearly express what he really means, then that’s his problem, not mine.

“Let's examine his argument for consequences as disincentive: If consequence y won't happen until condition x occurs, and one teaches that x will absolutely never occur because God ensures that it won't, then he is also teaching that y can never occur, therefore neither x nor y are genuine possibilities as neither will, nor could ever occur. In teaching so, he undercuts any fear or caution such a consequence would incite, hence making it void by his teaching. And so despite his gimmicks and quaint analogies, Hays' insistence that ‘fear of consequences’ is a ‘means’ to our perseverance runs aground on his own doctrine once again.”

Of course we exercise caution since the divine promise is indexed to our avoidance of y.

Poor Thibodaux keeps confusing Calvinism with fatalism or antinomianism. In Calvinism, the outcome is not irrespective of what you do. You are not preserved in spite of doing y; rather, you were preserved from doing y. And the warning is instrumental in your avoidance of y.

“Sheesh, chock-full of errors. I didn't even mention meaninglessness in the quote he cites.”

J.C. can’t keep track of his own argument. One of his criteria, in his original challenge, is that:

“Any teaching that would make any passage of scripture meaningless or of no effect is a false doctrine.”

http://www.indeathorlife.org/soteriology/calvinism/reformedchallenge.php

“Refraining from eating poisonous mushrooms is not analogous with teaching that your eating them could never occur, and a warning being possible to violate does not render it ineffective.”

One of J.C’s problems is that, despite the rivers of ink he has wasted on the warnings of Scripture, he’s too intellectually shallow to ask himself the fundamental, preliminary question: “what is the function of a divine warning?”

Either:

i) To deter x from doing y.

Or:

ii) To inculpate x for doing y.

In Reformed theology, (i) applies to the elect, while (ii) applies to the reprobate.

a) In cases of (i), where the function of the warning lies in its deterrent value, an ineffective warning would subvert the purpose of the warning.

b) In cases of (ii), where the function is not to deter the sinner, but to either inculpate the sinner or aggravate his guilt, then the warnings serve their purpose when the sinner suffers the consequences of his defiant misbehavior.

“But if our making due use of grace is entirely contingent upon God working in us so that we will do so without fail, then scripture raising the possibility of one of the redeemed falling away effectively would be bringing up the contingency of God failing by the Calvinist paradigm.”

Scripture never raises the possibility that God would fail. Rather, that follows from the Arminian paradigm.

“So if they actually will fall in if they ignore the signs, then is Hays still going to insist that we're teaching doctrinal error if we tell others that it's possible for them to fall if they ignore the warnings? The absurd balancing act Hays puts on has scripture on one hand genuinely warning the saints against falling away, yet on the other hand condemning as false teachers those who teach that saints possibly could ignore the warnings and fall away.”

i) The warnings in Scripture don’t single out the “saints.” They are addressed to Israel or the church. Israel and the church include regenerates and unregenerates, true believers, nominal believers, immature believers, reprobates, and closet apostates. There’s no one-size-fits-all referent.

ii) J.C. both begs the question and oversimplifies the question of what constitutes a “genuine” warning, under what conditions, and for whom. To say that a warning can only be genuine if it’s inutile is tendentious and counterintuitive.

“His evasions cannot get around the obvious problem for his views that's been posed already: “Apparently, warning actual saints against the possibility of falling away is gospel truth when the apostles proclaim it, but now our affirming the viability of that same truth constitutes deep doctrinal error’."

All J.C. has done here is to reiterate his simplistic, tendentious, Arminian interpretation of the data.

“The other problem he has is that the 'warnings as means' argument by itself cannot account for the consequences attached to the warnings should they be violated (why give consequences to a warning that can't be violated by those to whom it was given?).”

The reprobate do suffer the consequences.

“But if he teaches that the purpose of such consequences is to spur us to perseverance, then teaching that it isn't possible for us to suffer such consequences mitigates that purpose (why fear a consequent with an antecedent that could never occur?), and hence he is making them of no effect, as was stated originally.”

Once again, he oversimplifies the issue. To be an Arminian you must be a theological simpleton.

i) Calvinism, unlike Arminianism, doesn’t believe that God issues useless warnings. Divine warnings always have their intended effect, but they also have more than one purpose.

ii) J.C., due to his dogmatic, Arminian precommitments, nullifies the deterrent value of a warning. For him, it must always be possible to violate a warning. Thus, it’s essential to his definition of a warning that it be ineffective.

For him, a warning is pointless unless it’s ineffectual. For him, even a divine warning is meaningless unless it’s nugatory.

iii) Calvinism, by contrast, doesn’t equate functionality with futility. Although not all warnings are meant to deter misconduct, some warnings are meant to deter misconduct, and if, in those cases, the purpose of the warning lies in its deterrent value, then it would subvert the purpose of the warning if it failed to deter the sinner.

iv) In ethics generally, contemplating the consequences of a hypothetical course of action can, of itself, have a deterrent effect. It’s because we fear the hypothetical consequences of that action that we don’t go down that fork in the road.

v)”It’s impossible” in what respect? It’s impossible because the elect will persevere, and they persevere, in part, by taking God’s admonitions to heart.

“He's not even dealt with the difficulties posed in the original challenge.”

Is that an allusion to this?

http://www.indeathorlife.org/soteriology/calvinism/reformedchallenge.php

If so, then I’ve presented a very detailed defense of the Reformed interpretation of Heb 6.

“After we exposed their cheap tactics, the Triahuahuas seem more determined than ever to try and contravene their crushing defeat with sheer volume of yapping.”

Notice how Ben and J.C. are unable to muster the charitable tone which they warmly urge on their opponents. They betray their own cause when libertarians lack the willpower to live according to their own strictures.

20 comments:

  1. They are definitely all talk about having a charitable tone, what they clearly mean when they rant and rave about that is that it does not apply to them. Sad really, but what can be expected when their “challenges” have been clearly refuted. It seems that they just want to issue “challenges”, but not want anyone to take them up on it. If someone does take them up on it they start playing the pity card and poor little me, look how we are being picked on. Also, it seems pretty clear that they never engage any of your rebuttals just your wrong because I said so.

    It is also sad to see how they never engage your thoughts or views. J.C. completely brushed Genebridges response aside in some kind of cheap ploy to try and re-direct the reader from the fact that he has no answer for it. Sad is what it is and yet they will keep plowing along thinking that they are right. BTW the idea that you guys are mean and all of that is shown to be wrong when you interact with other non-Calvinists on your site, a good example is Godismyjudge, or Dan, who has different beliefs and views from you guys yet it is done respectfully and each side interacts with the other’s idea.

    Oh well, I know that you guys need to rebut false teaching and all so that people will not fall for false teachers, but maybe these guys are just not worth it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. An Arminian friend of mine challenged me on this as well..

    "In Reformed theology, (i) applies to the elect, while (ii) applies to the reprobate."

    However, I was a bit stuck at this point. How should Calvinists justify this part of the response?

    Thanks,
    Piperette

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ben,

    Didn't you hear? You're me!

    ReplyDelete
  4. To clarify, what determines whether a particular verse falls under (i) or (ii). Or if its concerning two functionalities of a single particular verse, how should the Calvinist justify that one functionality (i) goes to the elect and the other functionality (ii) goes to the reprobate.

    Thanks
    Piperette

    ReplyDelete
  5. "J.C. completely brushed Genebridges response aside in some kind of cheap ploy to try and re-direct the reader from the fact that he has no answer for it."


    Ben, this may be reading a little too much into his actions... Are you saying that if we read through all of Triablogue's posts we would find that every single post and argument within a post has been responded to?

    Of course not, but that doesn't mean the Triabloggers dont have a response or are trying to avoid a challenge.

    Piperette

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh I forgot P.M. lol

    Even after they said I was the least likely to be you they still kept insinuating that I was you. I did everything short of swear on my first born that I am not you or any of you and they still tried to say that maybe I was you or someone else from here.

    That Robert guy takes the cake though, he is way out there. Oh well, I for one will not read their site again.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Piperette,

    I would say that they respond to the meat of the idea or topic. This was not done by J.C. at all in his response too Hays or Bridges or Manata for that matter.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "J.C., due to his dogmatic, Arminian precommitments, nullifies the deterrent value of a warning. For him, it must always be possible to violate a warning. Thus, it’s essential to his definition of a warning that it be ineffective."


    You possible to be unsuccessful. The way you worded the very last sentence made it seem like they want warning passages to be 100% useless all the time and never succeed. But that wouldnt really fit with their theology either. Its sort of a negative determinism.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ben,

    i see. so AP didnt respond to any of their (Hays Geen or Manata) responses. havent been following too much with the strife lately.

    thanks
    Piperette

    ReplyDelete
  10. maybe it would be better worded:

    "Thus, it’s essential to his definition of a warning that it be possibly unsuccessful."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Piperette,

    They, AP, do not respond to the rebuttals by any of the Triablogue guys in a meaningful way, unless you think that re-stating their view and/or saying that the other side is wrong just because is a valid response.

    Also, if you do get some time to look at their responses please show me where they begin to address genebridges response. Maybe you can see it, good luck:)

    ReplyDelete
  12. BTW Piperette, you may not want to post comments at certain sites since you may be identified as a sock-puppet:)

    After all, it looks like your blog id was created this very month.

    ReplyDelete
  13. yeah what attracted me to creating it was the recent discussions between AP and Triablogue. i've been on blogs before but I always ran into places that enabled you to post anonymously.

    ReplyDelete

  14. “So if they actually will fall in if they ignore the signs, then is Hays still going to insist that we're teaching doctrinal error if we tell others that it's possible for them to fall if they ignore the warnings? The absurd balancing act Hays puts on has scripture on one hand genuinely warning the saints against falling away, yet on the other hand condemning as false teachers those who teach that saints possibly could ignore the warnings and fall away.”


    1. Scripture, as Steve notes, does not single out the elect from the reprobate with respect to the warnings - just as it doesn't single out the elect from the reprobate with respect to the preaching of the Gospel.

    It's Arminians and HyperCalvinists would would frame the warnings and preachings of the Gospel that way. The Arminians act as if, unless the Bible singles out the elect and reprobate, the warnings are meaningless. The Hyper-Calvinist sets about teaching people to find a "warrant to believe" usually found in some sort of subjective sense of their election. Both are built upon the same foundation: the belief that "ability limits responsibility."

    2. To say that a warning is not meaningful unless it is ineffective is a classic case of begging the question.

    It also raises yet another inconsistency in JCT's own muddled argumentation. Earlier, in arguing his position on John 6, he specifically said that the drawing of God was "effectual," not meaning what Calvinists mean, but simply that it accomplished the purpose for which it (UPG) was given.

    But if he can say that with respect to divine drawing, why can't the Calvinist make a similiar argument with respect to the warnings in Scripture?

    We're simply saying that these (as Steve has delineated them) are the purposes and (i) for the elect, they will serve as an effective deterrent and (ii) for the reprobate they will inculpate the reprobate. Indeed, I would argue that the warnings can (iii) harden the reprobate, for in his arrogance he may well decide to sin in defiance of the warning, and find he cannot return over the course of time - thinking himself "elect" he proves himself "reprobate." Indeed the preaching of the Gospel can do the same, for people can decide they can put their response off indefinitely, deceiving themselves until it's too late.

    We find this teaching in our standard confessions: From LBCF2:

    The most wise, righteous, and gracious God doth oftentimes leave for a season his own children to manifold temptations and the corruptions of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled; and to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon himself; and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for other just and holy ends. So that whatsoever befalls any of his elect is by his appointment, for his glory, and their good.
    ( 2 Chronicles 32:25, 26, 31; 2 Corinthians 12:7-9; Romans 8:28 )

    As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as the righteous judge, for former sin doth blind and harden; from them he not only withholdeth his grace, whereby they might have been enlightened in their understanding, and wrought upon their hearts; but sometimes also withdraweth the gifts which they had, and exposeth them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin; and withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan, whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, under those means which God useth for the softening of others.

    ( Romans 1:24-26, 28; Romans 11:7, 8; Deuteronomy 29:4; Matthew 13:12; Deuteronomy 2:30; 2 Kings 8:12, 13; Psalms 81:11, 12; 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12; Exodus 8:15, 32; Isaiah 6:9, 10; 1 Peter 2:7, 8 )

    3. So, we could ask the same question we've been asking him - AND HE HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO ANSWER with respect to why one person believes and not another. Why does one person apostatize and not another?

    His answer to the first question amounted to "because they decide to"- which, as I personally pointed out to him is not an answer to the question, for it merely restates the terms of the question.

    Remember, it's Ben, Kangaroodort that says that "mystery" will not serve as an answer. So, JCT's answers put him at odds with Ben. What's an Arminian to do?

    Piperette,

    The reason that we're not allowing anonymous posting here (and would advise you do not allow it on your blog) was my personal suggestion for these reasons:

    1. Until recently, Blogger didn't allow the Wordpress,AOL names, etc.as options - you had to be registered at Blogger to post that way. The new options allow for more identification.

    2. We were getting a lot of riff-raff around here, particularly the Atheist bloc and a few of our regular miscreants who liked to post by different names.

    3. It also became difficult to know which "Anonymous" one was replying when more than one person using that option commented.

    I've noticed a lot of the riff-raff has disappeared since removed the Anonymous option.

    ReplyDelete
  15. PIPERETTE SAID:

    “You possible to be unsuccessful. The way you worded the very last sentence made it seem like they want warning passages to be 100% useless all the time and never succeed. But that wouldnt really fit with their theology either. Its sort of a negative determinism.”

    I’ll address your other questions in due time. For now: JC has defined his terms in such a way that, as a matter of principle (as well as practice), for a warning to be genuine, it must be possible in each and every case for the warning to be unavailing. That’s a necessary condition of what makes a warning genuine. So a 100% failure rate is consistent with a divine warning.

    A warning can’t be genuine unless it can always fail. If God’s warnings were always successful, then they wouldn’t be genuine.

    By claiming that God’s warnings are always effective, the Calvinist is guilty of making God’s warnings of none effect! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. PIPERETTE SAID:

    “To clarify, what determines whether a particular verse falls under (i) or (ii). Or if its concerning two functionalities of a single particular verse, how should the Calvinist justify that one functionality (i) goes to the elect and the other functionality (ii) goes to the reprobate.”

    Because God has different objectives for the elect and the reprobate. You can see this in the distinction between retributive punishment and remedial punishment. In Heb 12:3-17, for instance, remedial punishment is for the benefit of God’s people. It contributes to their wellbeing. It contributes to their sanctification and perseverance in the faith.

    By contrast, retributive punishment, which, in Scripture, is generally directed at the reprobate, is not beneficial to the reprobate. Rather, God is exacting justice for its own sake, since justice is an end in itself.

    Likewise, warnings serve a different purpose depending on God’s respective purpose for the elect and reprobate. They facilitate different objectives according to the different destinies of the respective parties.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Because God has different objectives for the elect and the reprobate. You can see this in the distinction between retributive punishment and remedial punishment. In Heb 12:3-17, for instance, remedial punishment is for the benefit of God’s people. It contributes to their wellbeing. It contributes to their sanctification and perseverance in the faith.

    We also find this in the OT. I'm
    studying Jeremiah right now for Holy Week. (You know, Jeremiah makes for an interesting Holy Week study, you should try it).

    Jer. 2:19-God says that the nation's own wickedness and apostasies will reprove them.

    a. On the one hand, for the elect, typified in the Restoration, the nation was purified in the Exile and returned to the land.

    b. Yet the Bible also records those who did not repent and remained in Exile, "to this very day." This typifies the reprobate.

    Jeremiah's prophecies also directly foreshadow the cleansing of the Temple and the rejection of Christ during Holy Week.

    The Lord cleanses the Temple and condemns the nation's apostasy.

    The nation condemns Him and calls down the consequences "on us and our children."

    God then turns elsewhere to elect His people - the Gentiles. He decides to save only a remnant of Jews as a consequence. This too is foretold in Jeremiah.

    So, the warning in the Temple serves to harden and consequently is a means to reprobation of a large number of people to this very day.

    Yet the preaching of the Gospel in the Temple Courts in Acts,which is also foreshadowed in the cleansing of the Temple, holds out a promise of mercy to a remnant - elect Jews as well as Gentiles. Read Acts 2, it includes an implicit warning - you killed Jesus, your King, and what is the just response of God for this? You should repent and cast yourself on God's mercy and He will relent.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I have taken a look at his “original” challenge and will perhaps try to email or discuss this with him in the future, but what I found most distressing is where at the end he strings together some Scripture verses that would imply, on the surface, to strengthen his case.

    For instances he uses Colossians 1:23, I assume he thinks this helps him by the way the verse is typically worded, to make the case for conditional security. He is placing a great deal of value on the word If and how it appears to speak to conditional security. However, the phrase in Greek is a first class conditional statement which implies fulfilled and instead of using If one should use Since. He then moves on to quote 1 Timothy 1:6, I would assume to imply again that some have lost the way and hence conditional security is shown to be further established and his case becomes stronger. Of course if one studies the text it will become readily apparent that that is not what is being established at all. In fact, ”swerved” here means to miss the mark; to err; swerve. The Apostle Paul is addressing this to false teachers who missed the mark and failed of the things previously mentioned and turned to meaningless talk. Nowhere does he imply that they ever hit the mark, instead the implication is that they never did. Of course more could be said about both verses, but needless to say just stringing some verses together because on the surface they seem to strengthen ones case seems deceptive at worst and ignorant at best. The sad part is people do this all the time and most people do not know any better so they tend to believe some of these things. May the Holy Spirit guide and enlighten us as we study His word and all praises, honor and glory go to our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus.

    ReplyDelete