So, the Calvinist's prayer is 'pointless' and 'a waste of time.'
Okay, let's ignore that for now, as its been answered ad nauseum recently.
Now, Arminians admit God knows everything. He foreknew all who would be saved.
Take the set of all people who God knew would be saved, call it S.
Take the set of all people God knew would be unsaved, call it U.
Now, for every person, God knows whether they are a member of S or U.
Take Sarah, a member of S. Sarah has an Arminian friend, Bill. Bill prays for Sarah. This, as has been recently told, has an effect of God. God moves obsticles, etc. Sarah eventually goes down for an 'alter call', says 'the prayer,' and 'gets saved.' This wasn't a waste of time, or pointless, for God. Or Bill, our Arminian friend. Fine and dandy.
Take Frank, a meber of U. Bill, our friendly Arminian, is also Frank's friend. Bill prays for Frank. Then God does all sorts of things, removes obsticles, whatever, all the while knowing that Frank will not get saved. Seems pointless. Seems a waste of time.
Now, Fank has another Arminian friend, Jim. Jim prays for Frank. God does all sorts of things, yet again, to 'get Frank saved,' and yet knows none of it will come to fruition.
We can multiply Arminian friends, and the above situations. Say that Frank has 150 Arminian friends who all pray for him. God does all sorts of things to get Frank saved. He does the same thing over and over again. Albert Einstein once quipped that, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Does God expect different results? Then he's insane according to Einstein. Does he not expect anything to happen yet goes through the motions of a futile endeavor? Then what he does is pointless. It's a waste of time.
Now, I suppose it could be countered that God doesn't do anything. He knows Frank will not get saved, and so doesn't waste his time. Okay, then the Arminian wastes his time. His prayers, in light of his very critiques against us, are pointless. Wasted time.
Wouldn't the Arminian argue that they can influence God through prayer so they would argue that through prayer God can save this person and God could still be all knowing if not limited to a a+b=c dimension
ReplyDeleteHi Jagis,
ReplyDeleteIf God knows that Frank will not be saved, then it is true that Frank will not be saved.
One cannot know something that is false.
If it is true that Frank will not be saved, God cannot make it false that Frank will not be saved.
If he could, then he would not have know that Frank would not be saved.
But he did.
Therefore he couldn't.
Therefore, either he wasts his time if he does anything, or the Arminian wastes his time if God doesn't do anything,
I'm using 'wastes his time' in the same broad, vague, undefined and unrefined way the Arminians have been.
ReplyDeleteWhat's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Why shouldn't God "waste time"? Jesus wasted time getting baptized even though he didn't need it. He and Satan went through the highly artificial temptation scenario even though both must have known it was a complete waste. In fact you could say God is obligated to waste time to "fulfill all righteousness", ie. to give Frank a fair shot even though God through simple foreknowledge knows it won't lead to anything.
ReplyDeletePaul,
ReplyDeleteThis is random. My name is Greg, I'm a former student of Horton at wscal, then Frame, and now Bahnsen (thanks to CMF). I serve at a church in Albuquerque New Mexico and am looking into a variety of programs for further study in apologetics. I know you're super busy, but I'd love to talk with you about the possibility of an academic debate out here. I just listened to your debate with D. Barker and want to contact you. Please write me when you get a sec, gregschnee (at) gmaildotcom.
Thanks for you time man.
THN,
ReplyDeletePerhaps that can be dealt with in another post. You're off-topic and are not grasping the fuller context and the reductio ad absurdem of this post.
So, maybe you think God should waste his time, but why would you think that you should? Because you are. Why? Because I'll delete all off-topic comments.
So, save your 'devastating' objections for when I post on atheism.
As is my perogative, I'll answer your questions, but remember my comment and don't 'waste your time' like how you say the God you mock is.
"Why shouldn't God "waste time"?"
Is this an ethical question? Why shouldn't he? One reason is that he has a purpose for everything he does.
"Jesus wasted time getting baptized even though he didn't need it."
I don't know of any theologians who said that Jesus "needed" baptism (especially how you intimate). So, you're wasting your time and ours with equiovocations and ignorant remarks. Go read some commentaries, show that you interact with the best, and post your response. Or, is that a waste of time?
"He and Satan went through the highly artificial temptation scenario even though both must have known it was a complete waste."
I don't think it was. This is an assertion minus attendant argument. And, I suspect you're leaving out his full human nature, which would negate your assumptions.
"In fact you could say God is obligated to waste time to "fulfill all righteousness", ie. to give Frank a fair shot even though God through simple foreknowledge knows it won't lead to anything."
I wouldn't say that because (a) you're eisogeting that verse, (b) I'm not an Arminian, and (c) this isn't my view of Salvation. So, if you want to defend Arminian theology, be my guest. Seems to me that in the other thread you denied libertarian free will, so you won't get too far.
It was fun finally getting to interact with you THN. Don't complain, because I know your mom told you about playing with Adults. Run along now before you get seriously hurt. Buh-bye.
Hi Greg, I'll email you.
ReplyDeletePaul, this kind of stuff is what forces Arminians into Open Theism.
ReplyDeleteBut such examples are merely the outworkings of the thoughts of men. Such an example is not to be found in the Bible. Arminians pray for people to be saved because first, we believe that salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9), secondly, because we believe that Jesus came to save all who would believe (2 Peter 3:9), and then third, we pray for the lost because the Scriptures command us to do so (1 Timothy 2:1-6).
ReplyDeleteIf you flip this arguement around, the Calvinist should not bother praying for the lost either since God has predestined some to eternal life and others to eternal damnation. Logically, both arguments make little sense but thankfully they are not based on Scripture.
The solution isn't difficult. If the members included in group S are contingent on prayer in any way, then said future prayer and its effects have already been foreknown and factored in to God's knowledge of the makeup of group S.
ReplyDeleteI agree with seeking disciple, both sides make little sense. We all agree that salvation is of the Lord, that all who believe will be saved and that we are commanded to pray for all.
ReplyDeleteWhen J.C. writes The solution isn't difficult. If the members included in group S are contingent on prayer in any way, then said future prayer and its effects have already been foreknown and factored in to God's knowledge of the makeup of group S. It does not answer the issue at all. The same argument could be and has been made about Christ’s murder. It was foreknown and already factored into God’s knowledge, but God still holds them responsible. They were the “means” of the decree. Simply put, the “means” are what God uses to execute His decree’s. Hopefully I have represented the Calvinist view adequately, if not, I am sure it will be corrected.
JC said:
ReplyDelete---
The solution isn't difficult. If the members included in group S are contingent on prayer in any way, then said future prayer and its effects have already been foreknown and factored in to God's knowledge of the makeup of group S.
---
Then the prayers are not voluntary. They are necessary. They must happen, else God would know a lie.
BTW: why do you object to the Calvinist statement that God ordains means as well as ends if you actually hold to the paragraph you put above? Why is it logically erroneous for a Calvinist to say that God has ordained that a person will be saved by means of another's prayer when you think that those future prayers are foreseen anyway?
Not that an inconsistent Arminian is in any way shocking, but I do wonder how you can live so two-faced.
It does not answer the issue at all. The same argument could be and has been made about Christ’s murder. It was foreknown and already factored into God’s knowledge, but God still holds them responsible.
ReplyDeleteYes, because they did so freely; the fact that they performed such an action freely does not preclude God from knowing it or holding them accountable for it.
Then the prayers are not voluntary. They are necessary. They must happen, else God would know a lie.
They are voluntary and not forced, as God transcends time and foreknows what we will voluntarily do.
JC said:
ReplyDelete---
They are voluntary and not forced, as God transcends time and foreknows what we will voluntarily do.
---
Of course this means that:
1) You do not hold to freedom of choice as being "the ability to do otherwise." Instead, you must agree with the Calvinist that freedom is: "Doing what you want to do." As such, you have no logical reason to disagree with the Calvinist definition of free will. As such, you've slit your throat in the philosophical argument against Calvinism.
2) God's knowledge is irrelevant to determining where a sinner will end up. God's knowledge is completely passive here. Either someone will choose or not choose. As such, "predestination" is meaningless, as God does not need to "predestine" what will happen anyway. God is relegated to a film viewer, watching events unfold on a screen. He can know the ending in advance because He already saw the movie, but He cannot change the ending. As a result, you've Biblically cut your throat because the Bible shows us that God is sovereign.
J.C.
ReplyDeleteIt does not answer the issue at all. The same argument could be and has been made about Christ’s murder. It was foreknown and already factored into God’s knowledge, but God still holds them responsible.
Yes, because they did so freely; the fact that they performed such an action freely does not preclude God from knowing it or holding them accountable for it.
That is the same with prayer… we perform the action freely. Again, you fail to see that the “means” are what God uses to bring about His decrees.
Did God transcend time and foreknow that they would crucify His Son? I would hope that you answer no, but maybe that is your view. Everything that happened to Christ was prophesied hundreds of years before it happened, yes the people were “free” to choose, but they did exactly what was decreed by God. Why? Because He also decreed the “means” that would bring the decrees about. Did that make them any less guilty or responsible?
Peter,
ReplyDeleteNo, we do have contrary choice (as opposed to compatibilist freedom), God simply knows which choices we will make. Secondly, God's knowledge is not passive, as it is framed within the context of His actively bestowal of grace upon sinners, not sinners apart from His working; and He is sovereign in that He reserves the right to change whatever He wishes (hardening/opening hearts, etc).
Ben,
ReplyDeleteDid God transcend time and foreknow that they would crucify His Son?
Yes.
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.... (Acts 2:23)
Not simply foreordination, but foreknowledge. They freely performed what God knew that they would do, which God used to His own ends.
JC said:
ReplyDelete---
No, we do have contrary choice (as opposed to compatibilist freedom), God simply knows which choices we will make.
---
No, you don't have contrary choice because you can only choose that which God knows you're going to choose. Otherwise, God cannot know what you're going to choose.
JC said:
---
Secondly, God's knowledge is not passive, as it is framed within the context of His actively bestowal of grace upon sinners, not sinners apart from His working; and He is sovereign in that He reserves the right to change whatever He wishes (hardening/opening hearts, etc).
---
So what's your beef with Calvinism then? We say God bestows grace on some sinners and not on others, He hardens some but not others, and so forth. What you've stated above would agree with that. So why do you disagree with Calvinism?
Oh, because you don't actually believe that, you just know you need to say it because the Bible says it. That's a good first step. Step 2 is: believe what the Bible says.
By the way, how exactly does this "bestowal of grace" thing work for JC? God knows who will believe in Him, and He bestows grace upon them so that they believe in Him like they would anyway?
ReplyDeleteOr does God bestow grace on everybody, but not everybody will believe in Him? (What, then, does the "bestowal of grace" actually do?)
In either case, how does the bestowal of grace make God active? Either He gives it to all, in which case He's not active in what choices occur, or He only gives it to some in which case JC should be a Calvinist.
The Seeking Disciple said:
ReplyDeleteBut such examples are merely the outworkings of the thoughts of men. Such an example is not to be found in the Bible. Arminians pray for people to be saved because first, we believe that salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9), secondly, because we believe that Jesus came to save all who would believe (2 Peter 3:9), and then third, we pray for the lost because the Scriptures command us to do so (1 Timothy 2:1-6).
But you're ignoring the context of the conversation. I gave essentially those same answers (among others), yet Ben said the prayer of the Calvinist, on the Calvinist assumptions, was 'pointless' and 'a waste of time.'
"If you flip this arguement around, the Calvinist should not bother praying for the lost either since God has predestined some to eternal life and others to eternal damnation. Logically, both arguments make little sense but thankfully they are not based on Scripture."
The argument was made from the Arminian that we shouldn't be praying. We had an inconsistency. I am answering Ben on his own terms.
But, since I did answer him, and iremove the inconsistency, then since my argument has not been answered, and you admitted his was illogical, then we have an Arminian who has sided with me!
Lastly, you totally missed the point. My argument here was that GOD was wastng his time. So all your comments about the ARMINIAN don't answer the argument
So God uses the free choices of man to bring about His decrees that were determined before the foundation of the world.
ReplyDeleteThe “means” are the free choices of man that God uses to bring about His decrees. Since you agree, I assume, that the number of the elect is set and cannot change, how exactly are you making the Arminian case?
J.C. Thibodaux said...
ReplyDeleteThe solution isn't difficult. If the members included in group S are contingent on prayer in any way, then said future prayer and its effects have already been foreknown and factored in to God's knowledge of the makeup of group S.
3/05/2008 2:57 PM
********
Uhhhh, I granted you that group S didn't have the problem. My critique was with set U.
Back to the drawing board, Thibodaux.
And, you gave my answer for means: It's a simple modul tollens:
If ends, then means to end.
No means to end.
No end.
So, not only didn;t you escape my argument in this post, you showed how my answer to you guys actually work.
So, we now have two arminians who have agreed with my argument.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePeter,
ReplyDeleteNo, you don't have contrary choice because you can only choose that which God knows you're going to choose. Otherwise, God cannot know what you're going to choose.
Incorrect, God's foreknowledge of free will decisions is based on the future free will choices themselves, not vice-versa. Please cite any evidence that God cannot know free will choices He did not irresistibly foreordain.
So what's your beef with Calvinism then?
I don't believe God hardens people unconditionally, nor that election is unconditional, nor that grace is irresistible, for starters.
By the way, how exactly does this "bestowal of grace" thing work for JC? God knows who will believe in Him, and He bestows grace upon them so that they believe in Him like they would anyway?
Again incorrect. As I indicated, God foreknows the future in the context of His grace -- what actually will happen, not what would hypothetically happen apart from His grace. In other words, we would not have believed anyway without grace.
(What, then, does the "bestowal of grace" actually do?)
Draws one to faith in Christ.
In either case, how does the bestowal of grace make God active?
Um, because bestowal is an action.
Either He gives it to all, in which case He's not active in what choices occur, or He only gives it to some in which case JC should be a Calvinist.
Another error, God giving something to everyone is still an active role.
Paul, set U is simply the remainder of all people minus set S, your dilemma is solved. I didn't say anything about means.
Thibs,
ReplyDelete"Paul, set U is simply the remainder of all people minus set S, your dilemma is solved. I didn't say anything about means."
That's not solving the dilemma. I'd like to see how you think you solved anything. When you pray for someone in U, either God does something or he does not.
If he does not, then your prayer was pointless.
If he does, then he does something he knows is futile.
So, dilemma remains. Back to the drawing board.
I didn;t say you used the *word* 'means.' But your comments were *functionally* equivolent to our argument.
In any case.
My argument from emans is in the form of a valid argument.
Calvinism accepts the premises.
So, on Calvinisms terms, there is no inconsistency.
Tell me you guys didn't rest your hopes on an argument of this form:
CALVINISM HAS BIG PROBLEMS BEING CONSISTENT. THEY ARE INCONSISTENT WITH ARMINAIN THEOLOGY!
Well alert the press, J.C. Calvinists and Arminians don't agree. Wake me when you unearth more earth shattering finds, Indiana Jones.
Incorrect, God's foreknowledge of free will decisions is based on the future free will choices themselves, not vice-versa.
ReplyDelete1. Where can we find LFW taught in the Bible?
2. You've just said that God's foreknowledge of free will decisions is based on the choices themselves.
a. That directly attacks the Independence of God, the first of his incommunicable attributes.
b. It's a vicious regress. What grounds God's foreknowledge? The choices of men. Okay, what grounds those choices?
c. How can God know those choices if they are libertarian choices, since they could not be known until instantiated? Are you advocating a Molinist Model? If so, how do you overcome the grounding objection?
"Incorrect, God's foreknowledge of free will decisions is based on the future free will choices themselves, not vice-versa."
ReplyDeleteAnd then God says that he "chose them."
That's like me reading the answers in the back of the book, and then I "choose" the right ones.
And, God still knows that they will do things, therefore they will do them since God cannot be wrong. He chose to create after he "saw" (in his crystal ball) what they did. Then, in actuality, he effectively determined their courses of actions. You think you make choices. But, when you choose, you won't ever choose otherwise. You don;t really have the power to instantiate alternative possibilities. Why? Yoiu don;t have the power to make God's knowledge false. At best your imaginary self had the power when God "saw" you do it in his crystal ball. But the real flesh and blood you, doesn't.
No, we do have contrary choice (as opposed to compatibilist freedom), God simply knows which choices we will make.
ReplyDeleteI amazes me how Arminians themselves don't think through their own objections on this.
You say you believe in "Total Depravity" and agree with Calvinism on this point.
If that's true, then you can't very well say we don't have compatibilist freedom, because once you agree with T.D., you've agreed that we are born with compatibilist freedom. People don't have the power of contrary choice apart from UPG. If they don't have that sort of power, they don't have indeterminate freedom at all, for their wills are in bondage to sin.
That's why you need UPG in your system. It's UPG that gives men LFW.
So, what happens is that you move from a compatibilist to an incompatibilist model due to UPG.
You can't very well object to compatibilist freedom while accepting it. That's ad hocery.
But I'll take your blunder and confusion as a tacit admission that our objection to Arminianism is indeed valid: UPG makes Total Depravity cease to be a functional category. You only believe it on paper; in practice, it's utterly superfluous. This is precisely why Arminians get tarred with Semi-Pelagianism. You're only Semi-Augusitinians on paper. We'll keep this in mind the next time we see you objecting to Turretinfan and others over this moniker. It's a real timesaver.
(What, then, does the "bestowal of grace" actually do?)
Draws one to faith in Christ.
This is disingenuous.
1. It frees the will into a Libertarian state.
2. Therefore it "draws" men ineffectually.
3. The Bible does not recognize this sort of drawing. One does not "woo" water from a well, to take just one example of the use of the verb for "draw."
4. Indeed, John 6:44,45 directly contradicts your version of drawing. If everyone is drawn, everyone is saved. Yet you're no universalist.
YIKES!!! What a complete beat down these poor Arminians have taken. Of course, they will claim victory and fan base will comfort them and tell them how great they were going against the mean Calvinist’s at Triablogue.
ReplyDeleteThis has been very informative and I thank all of you for the work that you do. It is hard for someone like me to argue since I am new to the faith, but man you guys know your stuff.
J.C. THIBODAUX SAID:
ReplyDelete"Incorrect, God's foreknowledge of free will decisions is based on the future free will choices themselves, not vice-versa."
Truth by stimpulation. Quite a time-saver!
"Please cite any evidence that God cannot know free will choices He did not irresistibly foreordain."
What a beautifully question-begging attempt to shift the burden of proof. Thibodaux postulates, without benefit of argument, that:
i) There are freewill (i.e. libertarian) choices to be known, and
ii) These frewill choices are knowable.
Where's the supporting argument for either postulate?
If an agent could do otherwise, then his future choice is not a determinate object of knowledge (since it could go either way).
To the T-bloggers:
ReplyDeleteCould one of you guys lay out the Open Theist argument against the compatibility of LFW and Divine Foreknowledge and comment on it?
I think that would be helpful, here.
That's not solving the dilemma. I'd like to see how you think you solved anything. When you pray for someone in U, either God does something or he does not.
ReplyDeleteGod 'doing something' does not necessitate a person being saved; even if this is the case then it is not futile of fatal necessity, as it has genuine power to save (and certainly no more 'futile' than sending prophets to people that God knew would not receive them). Your dilemma was shown to be non-existent since prayer has already been factored into S, and hence S does not change when prayer actually occurs. This is far from equivalent to what you are saying, since prayer is not an unconditionally ordained means.
That's like me reading the answers in the back of the book, and then I "choose" the right ones.
Rather like being chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father (1 Peter 1:2).
You don;t really have the power to instantiate alternative possibilities. Why? Yoiu don;t have the power to make God's knowledge false.
Incorrect, I have the power to instantiate alternative possibilities, God simply knows how I will employ it.
Where can we find LFW taught in the Bible?
Jeremiah 32:35 and Luke 13:34 for starters.
That directly attacks the Independence of God, the first of his incommunicable attributes.
How so?
What grounds God's foreknowledge? The choices of men. Okay, what grounds those choices?
Clarfiy.
How can God know those choices if they are libertarian choices, since they could not be known until instantiated?
Because He is atemporal, and can know choices before they are instantiated.
You can't very well object to compatibilist freedom while accepting it. That's ad hocery.
I don't accept it, because we are depraved by nature, LFW apart from the grace of God can only allow choices between sinful actions. Inevitably sinful, but still libertarian. Whine away about what you think I consider$ 'functional categories' Gene, you're incapable of judging motives with any reliability.
This is disingenuous.
1. It frees the will into a Libertarian state.
2. Therefore it "draws" men ineffectually.
No, if it were ineffectual then there would be no possibility of it drawing men to Christ; it is simply not irresistible.
The Bible does not recognize this sort of drawing. One does not "woo" water from a well, to take just one example of the use of the verb for "draw."
Drawing is not mutually exclusive to wooing, take Hosea 11:4 for instance.
Indeed, John 6:44,45 directly contradicts your version of drawing. If everyone is drawn, everyone is saved.
But it does not state that all who are drawn are saved, simply that no one can come to Christ unless drawn by God the Father.
If an agent could do otherwise, then his future choice is not a determinate object of knowledge (since it could go either way).
Nonsense, you're not taking into account the fact that God isn't bound by time.
I see others already responded, but I'll do so as well.
ReplyDeleteJC said:
---
Incorrect, God's foreknowledge of free will decisions is based on the future free will choices themselves, not vice-versa. Please cite any evidence that God cannot know free will choices He did not irresistibly foreordain.
---
In addition to the other points already raised, it is not my responsbility to prove that God cannot know free will choices--it is your responsibility to prove that God can. You're the one making the assertion. Simple logic here.
In any case, you start off with the assertion: "God's foreknowledge of free will decisions is based on the future free will choices themselves, not vice-versa." In other words, God cannot know what a future free will choice is until after the future free will choice is already made. That's the only possible way to read this.
How does God know anything then? It doesn't help you to say, "God is outside of time" at this point, because you are the one who imported the concept of time into the problem in the first place. If you say, "God is outside of time" then God cannot know "future" free will choices because there is no such thing as a future free will choice.
Furthermore, you are still left with the incredible problem that all this does is make God nothing more than a passive oracle.
Furthermore, foreknowledge is not predestination. Does the fact that I know Jesus Christ will come again mean I've predestined the Second Coming? No. Does the fact that God knows what you will do mean He's predestined what you will do? No. But the Bible says God does do just that: He predestines people. So it cannot be bare foreknowledge at work here.
Indeed, the Arminian cannot explain how God knows anything. The Calvinist can state: "God foreknows because God foreordains." It's simple. God has decreed what will happen, and therefore He knows what will happen. In Arminianism, God observes what will happen and that's what He wanted anyway.
To which I say God just watched the DVD to the end before we did. Big whoop.
JC said:
---
I don't believe God hardens people unconditionally, nor that election is unconditional, nor that grace is irresistible, for starters.
---
I don't believe God hardens people unconditionally either, nor that grace is irresistible (only regeneration is). But election has to be unconditional due to Ephesians 2:8-9 and Acts 10:34.
JC said:
---
As I indicated, God foreknows the future in the context of His grace -- what actually will happen, not what would hypothetically happen apart from His grace. In other words, we would not have believed anyway without grace.
---
But the part you keep forgetting is that grace is insufficient. There is something in addition to the grace of God that makes it so that one person believes and another does not. This is why you consider election to be conditional. There is something about Sinner A that enables him to believe but Sinner B cannot believe.
If grace was sufficient to make all believe, why then do some not believe? Is it a physical problem? If so, how is it "fair" that God did not cure them of that physical problem? Is it a spiritual problem? What, then, is the purpose of grace if not to fix the spiritual problem? Is it an intellectual problem? Again, why couldn't God fix this problem?
Your views of grace only sound good until you try to cash them out. And this harkens back to the previous problem about the misunderstanding of spiritual death.
What does grace actually accomplish in your view? Apparently it only makes it "possible" for someone to believe in God; but how does it make it possible to believe in God? What does it actually do? In what way is the sinner changed by grace? And if he can be changed a little bit by grace, why not all the way?
JC said:
---
God giving something to everyone is still an active role.
---
Except the "something" is really nothing. You've just used a word because you know the word is in the Bible. But you've stripped it of all meaning. God doesn't actually do anything because your version of grace is completely impotent. Your God's "action" is simply to watch what unfolds.
You can call that action if you want. The rest of us will call it heresy.
JC said:
ReplyDelete---
But it does not state that all who are drawn are saved
---
But John says:
---
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
---
Furthermore, we have the specific rejection of JC's view in verse 65-65:
---
"But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
---
The reason they don't believe is because it wasn't granted.
By the way, how does JC explain the fact that Jesus says: "No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father" if the Father grants it to all? Isn't this a meaningless statement?
"Where can we find LFW taught in the Bible?
ReplyDeleteJeremiah 32:35 and Luke 13:34 for starters."
How does Jer. 32:35 prove LFW? How does sinning against God's prescriptive will disprove His providential will?
Luke 13:34 actually proves Total Depravity rather than LFW.
Another example of Arminian spooftexting.
"But it does not state that all who are drawn are saved, simply that no one can come to Christ unless drawn by God the Father."
ReplyDeleteExcept for the fact that this statement is being used as the explanatory device for His hearer's unbelief. Thus, not all are drawn. [It seems that Peter already beat me to it.]
If only Arminians would actually exegete the verse from its surrounding context instead of interpreting verses individually!
J.C. Thibs,
ReplyDelete"God 'doing something' does not necessitate a person being saved; even if this is the case then it is not futile of fatal necessity, as it has genuine power to save (and certainly no more 'futile' than sending prophets to people that God knew would not receive them)."
I didn't say it did. But, if HE DOES SOMETHING TO SAVE, IN ANSWER TO YOUR PRAYER, AND HE KNOWS THAT THE SINNER WILL NOT BE SAVED, WILL NOT CHOOSE GOD, WILL NOT RESPOND TO THOSE THINGS GOD DOES TO TRY TO SAVE HIM IN ANSWER TO YOUR PRAYER, THEN HE DOES THOSE THINGS **IN FUTILITY**.
Frankly, I don't know why you can't 'get' this, let alone respond properly.
Your reply that God just 'goes throught the motions' and that his actions has genuine power to save people, is flat out false.
And, God sent prophets to people who would not hear him IN ORDER TO CONDEMN THEM! Thus it was not a waste of time. So, your point is disanalogous.
At any rate,
When you pray for someone in U, either God does something or he does not.
If he does not, then your prayer was pointless.
If he does, then he does something he knows is futile.
So, dilemma remains. Back to the drawing board.
J.C. this is THE SAME kind of argument you guys gave me. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
"Your dilemma was shown to be non-existent since prayer has already been factored into S, and hence S does not change when prayer actually occurs. This is far from equivalent to what you are saying, since prayer is not an unconditionally ordained means."
What Calvinists use 'unconditionally ordained' in instances other than unconditional election?
Anyway, our prayers were factored into God's saving S at t1.
I have a modus tollens argument for it.
It is valid.
On our terms the premises are true.
And so THEREFORE we are CONSISTENT with our own beliefs.
Unless, of course, your argument is:
CALVINISTS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH ARMINIAN BELIEFS
But, who cares. Everyone knew *that.*
Again, when you pray for God to save someone in U, then God 'goes through the motions,' in order to 'answer' a prayer that he knows will never be answered. Or, he does nothing, since he doesn't waste his time, and then you waste your time.
""But it does not state that all who are drawn are saved, simply that no one can come to Christ unless drawn by God the Father."
ReplyDeleteThe 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?
So, no one can come unless the father draw *him*, AND Jesus will raise *him* up on the last day.
Hi J.C. Thibodaux,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "God 'doing something' does not necessitate a person being saved; even if this is the case then it is not futile of fatal necessity as it has genuine power to save"
I ask: So God "does something" that has "genuine power to save" for someone he knows will not be saved or take advantage of his "doings"?
I'm not quite sure how that isn't a waste of time? Can you spell it out differently.
You wrote: "Incorrect, I have the power to instantiate alternative possibilities, God simply knows how I will employ it."
I ask: Would you mind showing us all how, say if God told us you would do X, you could do not-X. I'd like some verification of your powers to instantiate the opposite of a knowledge claim, that is, something false.
Gene asked: "Where can we find LFW taught in the Bible?"
You responded: Jeremiah 32:35 and Luke 13:34 for starters.
I ask: How, exactly, does that teach LFW? I didn't see "principles of alternative possibility" in there. I didn't see anything, actually, that would lead me to believe that those two verses actually *taught* LFW. Now, I grant that you might *read* those verses that way. But to say that they *teach* LFW is over reaching, to say the least, my fine feathered friend.
Rather like being chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father (1 Peter 1:2).
ReplyDeleteThat's the noun form of "foreknow" it refers not to election grounded on foreseen faith, but election according to the determinate plan of God. Try cracking a standard lexicon.
Jeremiah 32:35 and Luke 13:34 for starters.
5"They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
34"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
How marvelously question begging. Where do either of these verses say these persons have contracausal freedom? You're assuming what you need to prove.
Clarfiy. Why do people choose x and not y given the contraints of LFW? Put another way, why does one person believe and not another?
Because He is atemporal, and can know choices before they are instantiated.
"Before" implies temporality drawn from a spatial metaphor, so this contradicts what you say about the atemporal nature of God, but I understand what you're trying to convey, so I'll let that pass.
It's also a category error, you've conflated ontology and telelogy.
How does the timelessness of God mean He knows our choices if those choices only exist as possibilities in the mind of the agent and aren't knowable until instantiated?
Apparently you can't follow your own argument, so we'll have to do it for you:
You said: God's foreknowledge of free will decisions is based on the future free will choices themselves..
This means, JC, that God depends on the agent to make his choice in order for Him to know what that choice is.
But a Libertarian choice is not a determinate object of knowledge until after it is instantiated, because the agent could choice either A or B right up until that time.
So, no, God could not know our free will decisions before they are instantiated. He could only know them, according to your own line of argument (God's foreknowledge of free will decisions is based on the future free will choices themselves. as a result of them being instantiated, ergo He could only know them after they are instantiated. So, appealing to the timelessness of God doesn't really help you.
You're the one that makes God a passive agent. You're also changing your argument. Originally, you argued that God's foreknowledge of free will decisions is based on the future free will choices themselves. Now you're grounding his foreknowledge in His own timelessness.
So now you need to explain how the timelessness of God means our Libertarian choices are knowable.
I don't accept it, because we are depraved by nature, LFW apart from the grace of God can only allow choices between sinful actions. I
Then you don't understand your own theology and theologians. As soon as you say that men's wills are bound to sin, you've accepted compatibilist freedom because you've rejected libertarian freedom. In order to have LFW, they'd have to have the freedom to sin or not to sin, but now you've admitted men are free only to sin, and that's compatibilist freedom, for you're saying men's sinful desires are sufficient causes for their choices, apart from grace.
You're intellectually confused too. You're now defining LFW as if it refers to being able to choose between options. That's not a sufficient defintion. LFW or CFW refers to what lies behind the choices between those options. Are our desires sufficient causes to what we choose or not? If not, please demonstrate that action theory from Scripture.
Whine away about what you think I consider$ 'functional categories' Gene, you're incapable of judging motives with any reliability.
You're the one whittering away about feelings and motives not me. I'm merely demonstrating that Arminian theology talks out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand you say we're bound to our sinful natures, yet, with UPG, we're not so bound. Then you turn around and whitter on about the implausibility of compatibilist freedom.
a. UPG makes Total Depravity superfluous in practice, which gets you fairly charged with Semi-Pelagianism.
b. Your argument is incoherent, for you're deny compatibilist freedom against us, yet on paper accepting it when you accept Total Depravity. Which is it? Make up your mind.
No, if it were ineffectual then there would be no possibility of it drawing men to Christ; it is simply not irresistible The fact that it is resistible means its ineffectual.
Drawing is not mutually exclusive to wooing, take Hosea 11:4 for instance. What's the relationship between John 6 and Hosea 11?
But it does not state that all who are drawn are saved, simply that no one can come to Christ unless drawn by God the Father.
No, it says:
44: No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, "And they shall be taught of God." Everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to me.
45 is epexegetical to 44. So, the choice here is between Calvinism and universalism, if it's true that all people are drawn, as you say, yet you are no universalist.
http://www.christianlogic.com/brianbosse/wp-content/uploads/john-644.pdf
let A represent the set of song titles from the Jethro Tull album, 'Washing My Hands of the Bloody Church of England."
ReplyDeletelet B represent the number of instruments i played at my Shea Stadium gig opening for Grand Funk July 9, 1971.
let C represent the outcomes of all decisions to accept or reject Jesus on Easter, 2010, not counting the ones classified as "asking Jesus into my heart," "joining the church," or "join John Calvin's one [tired] song band."
let D represent God's answers for sets A, B and C.
let the binary flag E represent whether or not you go back in time if you put instant coffee in a microwave (apologies to Steven Wright...).
let F represent the grade on the test you get if you really believe "omniscience" includes knowledge of things which don't even exist.
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
http://mikerucker.wordpress.com
Man I want to be an Arminian, here is why:
ReplyDeleteI don't accept it, because we are depraved by nature, LFW apart from the grace of God can only allow choices between sinful actions. Inevitably sinful, but still libertarian
See if I am not Arminian then I do not have LFW, because they only choices I have are between sinful actions. Yet when I become a Christian I will be able to make choices either sinful or good, but then when I go to heaven I can only make good choices:(
So only for this short period of time on earth when I am a Christian am I truly capable of making sinful or good choices. WOW!
Why would I even want to be glorified? I mean the only time that I will be able to have this “LFW” is while on earth and a born again Christian.
This exchange should be read by all those who struggle with Arminianism and Calvinism; it would spare them the heartache of believing something one way only to come to realize that it was all built on sand.
Thank all of you for teaching a humble heart and for exposing the errors of Arminianism.
On the internet there are certain sites, I say
ReplyDeleteWhen all the opposition should retire to tear their clothes off and perspire.
It's one of the rules that the greatest fools obey,
Because the blog is much too cultured
And one must avoid its ultry-violet ray.
The readers grieve when the Arminians attempt to rebut,
Because they're obviously, definitely nuts!
Mad dogs and Arminians argue with Manata, which should never be done,
The Japanese don´t care to, the Chinese wouldn´t dare to,
Hindus and Argentines sleep firmly when his posts are on,
But Arminians detest-a siesta.
In the Philippines they have lovely screens to protect you from his stare.
In the Malay States, there are hats like plates which the Arminians won't wear.
When Manata looms the the atheists swoon and no further work is done,
But mad dogs and Arminians go out to get overrun.
It's such a surprise for the Eastern Orthodox to see,
that though the Arminans are effete, they're quite impervious to heat,
When the incompatablist rides every Catholic hides in glee,
Because the simple creatures hope he will have Gene Bridges' posts break his knees.
It seems such a shame when the Arminians claim the earth,
They give rise to such hilarity and mirth.
Ha ha ha ha hoo hoo hoo hoo hee hee hee hee ......
Mad dogs and Arminians argue when they really should just enjoy the sun.
The toughest Burmese bandit can never understand it.
In Rangoon the opposition of Steve is just what the natives shun,
They put their Scotch or Rye down, and lie down.
On Triablogue where the Arminans get a beatdown to the acknowledgement of man and beast
The Arminian argument of the Arminian dullard merely gets a bit more creased.
In Bangkok at twelve o'clock they foam at the mouth and run,
But mad dogs and Arminians start fights they have never won.
Mad dogs and Arminians get beaten by Triablogue for fun.
The smallest Malay rabbit deplores this foolish habit.
In Hong Kong they strike a gong and fire off a noonday gun,
To reprimand each inmate who's in late.
In the mangrove swamps where Calvindude romps
there is peace from twelve till two.
Even caribous lie around and snooze, for there's nothing else to do.
In Bengal to move at all is seldom ever done,
But mad dogs and Arminians must be really dumb.
...it is not my responsbility to prove that God cannot know free will choices--it is your responsibility to prove that God can.
ReplyDeleteHis omniscience transcends time.
He predestines people. So it cannot be bare foreknowledge at work here.
I never said it was.
But the part you keep forgetting is that grace is insufficient.
I missed that verse.
If grace was sufficient to make all believe, why then do some not believe?
Because they do not choose to.
Your reply that God just 'goes throught the motions' and that his actions has genuine power to save people, is flat out false.
No, it simply means that people will not accept His grace.
And, God sent prophets to people who would not hear him IN ORDER TO CONDEMN THEM! Thus it was not a waste of time.
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)
When you pray for someone in U, either God does something or he does not. If he does not, then your prayer was pointless. If he does, then he does something he knows is futile. So, dilemma remains. Back to the drawing board.
God doesn't HAVE to do anything when we pray, for we make our requests known to Him; since we cannot know who is included in set S, then it behooves us to pray for all men. It never says that God has to answer every prayer. For your futility argument, you can refer back to the prophets.
"But it 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?
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.
That's the noun form of "foreknow" it refers not to election grounded on foreseen faith, but election according to the determinate plan of God.
Yes I know, and that's merely an assumption, respectively.
Where do either of these verses say these persons have contracausal freedom?
In the fact that they are doing something that God did not ordain (and indeed did not desire), which necessitates libertarian free will on some level.
Why do people choose x and not y given the contraints of LFW? Put another way, why does one person believe and not another?
Because they make a decision to given the choices, it wouldn't be LFW if they couldn't.
"Before" implies temporality drawn from a spatial metaphor, so this contradicts what you say about the atemporal nature of God
No it doesn't, as I'm speaking of God's omniscience from a temporal, human perspective when I say 'before.'
But a Libertarian choice is not a determinate object of knowledge until after it is instantiated, because the agent could choice either A or B right up until that time.
Negative, to one whose knowledge transcends time, they are knowable outside of their being instantiated, as He sees the end as clearly as the beginning.
You're also changing your argument. Originally, you argued that God's foreknowledge of free will decisions is based on the future free will choices themselves. Now you're grounding his foreknowledge in His own timelessness.
You're confusing the issue, as God's timelessness is what enables Him to know decisions before they are made.
So now you need to explain how the timelessness of God means our Libertarian choices are knowable.
Just as soon as you explain how God creates matter from nothing. The fact that we as finite beings can't understand exactly how God does a thing does not preclude Him from doing so, and I think it a pretty sticky position to call something unknowable for a completely omniscient God. If He can foreknow something that did not enter into His heart that Israel should do, then He can foreknow any libertarian decision.
The fact that it is resistible means its ineffectual.
Yeah, there's bullet-resistant vests, which makes bullets ineffectual weapons. Great logic. For the record Gene, I consider TD very much a 'functional category;' I'd explain the rest of my beliefs to you, but you appear to have your mind made up about them already, so I won't confuse you with the facts. You can direct any further complaints, vague accusations, or insistence that an omniscient God can't know something to my site. Seeya!
"In the fact that they are doing something that God did not ordain (and indeed did not desire), which necessitates libertarian free will on some level."
ReplyDeleteWell, J.C. displays more of his ignorance of Calvinism by making no distinction between God's prescriptive and decretive wills. I wonder what he would do with this:
Psalm 105:25
“He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal craftily with His servants.”
or this:
Isaiah 63:17
“Why, O LORD, do You cause us to stray from Your ways and harden our heart from fearing You? Return for the sake of Your servants, the tribes of Your heritage.”
The list could go on and on...
"Just as soon as you explain how God creates matter from nothing. The fact that we as finite beings can't understand exactly how God does a thing does not preclude Him from doing so, and I think it a pretty sticky position to call something unknowable for a completely omniscient God."
Well, with that statement J.C. has given up all of his philosophical arguments against compatibilism (as well as his "intuitive" arguments for LFW).
"If He can foreknow something that did not enter into His heart that Israel should do, then He can foreknow any libertarian decision."
Again, he fails to make the distinction between the prescriptive and decretive wills. God never ordered them to do it but did ordain it through secondary means.
"You can direct any further complaints, vague accusations, or insistence that an omniscient God can't know something to..."
There's a reason why the Open Theists believe that LFW is incompatible with Divine foreknowledge. In fact, they call themselves "consistent Arminians".
"And, God sent prophets to people who would not hear him IN ORDER TO CONDEMN THEM! Thus it was not a waste of time.
ReplyDeleteReally now?"
Yes, really now:
“For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, “HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM.”” (John 12:39-40)
Prescriptively, God's purpose in the prophets was to call Israel to repentance.
Providentially, the prophets were a means unto an end so that rebellious Israel would be destroyed. Thus, the purpose of Isaiah's ministry:
"He said, "Go, and tell this people: 'Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand. Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed." Then I said, "Lord, how long?" And He answered, "Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant, Houses are without people And the land is utterly desolate," (Isaiah 6:9-11)
The Arminian can account for the Nehemiah passage, but the Calvinist can account for both.
I answer J.C's rebuttall with this post:
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/03/jc-thibodauxs-chasezs-boy-band-theology.html