Some actors play themselves in every role they take. Moviegoers see their movies because they like the image which that actor projects.
But other actors are character actors. They disappear into the role. If they play the role of Napoleon, they read biographies of Napoleon to help themselves get into the role. To think like Napoleon. Gesture like Napoleon.
There’s a tension in acting. Many actors try to be realistic. Yet there’s something fundamentally unrealistic about acting. And that’s not just because the actor is pretending to be someone different.
An actor has read the script. He knows what happens next. He knows what will happen in every scene.
An actor has memorized his lines. Frequently, he has also memorized the lines of the costar.
He will practice his lines in front of the mirror. Practice different facial expressions. Practice different intonations.
In a dialogue with his costar, the actor knows what he is going to say next, and he also knows what his costar is going to say next.
Of course, real life isn’t like that. We don’t know what the other person is going to say before they say it. As a result, we don’t know what we’re going to say in response to what they say.
We also don’t know from one day to the next what’s going to happen from one day to the next. We know our own past. We know other bits and pieces of the past. But we’re profoundly ignorant of the future.
Yet an actor ties to immerse himself in his role. Learn everything he can about the character so that he will be in character when the director begins shooting.
Not only does the actor know in advance who will say what when and do what when, but the director rehearses every scene. And he frequently does several takes until the actors get it just right.
But, of course, in real life, we don’t get to go back and reshoot a scene if we’re dissatisfied with how things went the first time around.
So acting is paradoxical. An actor, to be realistic, has to feign ignorance. He must pretend to be wholly unconscious of what he’s acutely conscious of. Part of acting is acting as if he doesn’t know what’s coming next. Acting as if he’s reacting.
And this illustrates the psychological difference between fatalism and the psychology of predestination.
In fatalism, the agent knows what’s going to happen to him before it takes place. And that makes him very self-conscious–as if he’s peering over his own shoulder every step of the way.
By contrast, a Calvinist knows there is a script, but he hasn’t read it. He only learns the plot by living.
An Arminian doesn’t even know there’s a script. He denies it. Ironically, he was scripted to deny the very existence of the script.
An Arminian doesn’t even know there’s a script. He denies it.
ReplyDeleteNot at all. The Arminian believes there is a script, but also believes that God allows some improve within the script.
But what strikes me is that Calvinists, though they know there is a script, and the script comes from God, and they must "act" in perfect conformity to the script, and the writer of the script often scripts for them to desire and commit sins, still want to deny that God is the author of sin, and accuse Arminians of misrepresenting Calvinism in making such observations. But the Calvinist denying the obvious is likewise scripted to do so. Ironic indeed.
Ironically, he was scripted to deny the very existence of the script.
If this is the case, then Arminians should be the most pitied of all people. And if many Arminians are truly God's children, one must wonder why God would script for his children to deny the existence of the script, while revealing this truth to his other Calvinist children? This is especially strange when Calvinists want to claim that Arminians don't trust God to script their lives. So God scripts that some of his children will not trust God to script their lives. But then, the Calvinist who says such things was likewise scripted to say such things, so whatever. Chalk it up to God just scripting more irony into His play.
Is God the "author" of what He "scripts"?
ReplyDeleteMethinks the "author of sin" charge is logically inevitable, and denied only by Special Pleading.
ARMINIANPERSPECTIVES SAID:
ReplyDelete"Not at all. The Arminian believes there is a script, but also believes that God allows some improve within the script."
Yes, God's script is a defective rough draft, badly in need of editorial improvements. The human characters are so much wiser than the divine screenwriter.
"But what strikes me is that Calvinists, though they know there is a script, and the script comes from God, and they must 'act' in perfect conformity to the script."
Yes, it's so terrible to be a creature, isn't it, Ben. If only you could be you're own creator. But here you're stuck with being someone else's creature. It's so demeaning.
"and the writer of the script often scripts for them to desire and commit sins, still want to deny that God is the author of sin, and accuse Arminians of misrepresenting Calvinism in making such observations. But the Calvinist denying the obvious is likewise scripted to do so. Ironic indeed."
But you just told us "the Arminian believes there is a script, but also believes that God allows some improve within the script."
So does that make the Arminian God the author of sin? How does that work, exactly, Ben?
Did the Arminian God script you to commit sin, but one of the editorial improvements you make is to rewrite the script at that point in the teleplay?
Do you think that sin is not a part of God's plan? Is sin an unplanned event?
"If this is the case, then Arminians should be the most pitied of all people."
You and Skarlet keep resorting to this emotive, crybaby rhetoric to deflect principled criticisms of Arminian theology.
"One must wonder why God would script for his children to deny the existence of the script, while revealing this truth to his other Calvinist children? "
God revealed predestination in the Scriptures, which are available to Arminian and Calvinist alike. No private revelation required.
"This is especially strange when Calvinists want to claim that Arminians don't trust God to script their lives."
Except that you keep proving the veracity of the charge.
"Chalk it up to God just scripting more irony into His play."
Why do you find that objectionable, Ben? There's a lot of divine irony in Scripture. Take the Book of Jonah, or 1 Cor 1-3.
Richard Coords said...
ReplyDelete"Is God the 'author' of what He 'scripts' Methinks the 'author of sin' charge is logically inevitable, and denied only by Special Pleading."
Authorship is just a metaphor, with all the ambiguities and limitations of a metaphor.
Are you silly enough to think you can disprove a position by attacking a metaphor?
Richard Coords said...
ReplyDelete"Is God the 'author' of what He 'scripts' Methinks the 'author of sin' charge is logically inevitable, and denied only by Special Pleading."
But Ben, your Arminian cohort, just told us that the Arminian believes there is a script. Does that makes the Arminian God the author of sin?
Or do you think, along with Ben, that libertarian agents must improve on deficiencies in God's script?
Yes, it's so terrible to be a creature, isn't it, Ben. If only you could be you're own creator. But here you're stuck with being someone else's creature. It's so demeaning.
ReplyDeleteNo one said they didn't want to be a creature. “Creature” doesn’t necessarily equal “exhaustively determined creature” now does it? But even if I had a problem with being a creature it would be just as God scripted it, now wouldn't it?
But you just told us "the Arminian believes there is a script, but also believes that God allows some improve within the script."
So does that make the Arminian God the author of sin? How does that work, exactly, Ben?
How does it work exactly that Calvinists like you deny that God is the author of sin while saying He scripts your every sin just as a writer scripts a play? When you answer that, I will answer you, assuming God so scripts me.
Did the Arminian God script you to commit sin, but one of the editorial improvements you make is to rewrite the script at that point in the teleplay?
No. The Arminian God doesn't script for people to sin, though He does know people will sin in accordance with their own free will, a will that He does not script.
You and Skarlet keep resorting to this emotive, crybaby rhetoric to deflect principled criticisms of Arminian theology.
Try to remember that God apparently scripted us to do so.
God revealed predestination in the Scriptures, which are available to Arminian and Calvinist alike. No private revelation required.
God revealed predestination in Scripture but scripted me to take a different view of it than you (the wrong view, according to you), so your point is hardly a point, unless you want to adopt the Arminian LFW view to make it work.
In the end it must be nice to know that God scripted you to be right about everything while scripting me to be so wrong about so many things.
God Bless,
Ben
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI find this rather amusing. Your entire post is metaphor of real life, and the metaphor includes scripts and actors. Richard responds by pointing out a potential problem with the line of reasoning that you put forward in the metaphor, and points out the logical conclusion. You then say "Are you silly enough to think you can disprove a position by attacking a metaphor?"
If you post a metaphor as post to put forward a point, then of course people who disagree are going to disagree with the metaphor. Isn't that rather a given? If it's silly to disprove a position by disproving a metaphor, then perhaps it is silly to try to establish a position by writing a long metaphor.
In all of that, though, you didn't actually address the objection: Namely that if God scripts everything, sin included, then God scripts sin into our lives. That christian guy who struggles with pornography? Scripted (Though perhaps he doesn't know it) That suicidal teen? Scripted.
God tells us that He will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able, but with EVERY temptation provides a way of escape. This is in sharp contrast to the idea that any "way of escape" from the sin that God has decreed will be in our life is just an illusion. We just don't know which sin God has scripted into our lives.
Finally, ben says that "If this is the case, then Arminians should be the most pitied of all people." And then you say "You and Skarlet keep resorting to this emotive, crybaby rhetoric to deflect principled criticisms of Arminian theology."
Now, first of all, I question the truth of such a statement. I have not yet deleted even one of my posts. In which post, precisely, do I say anything similar to the idea that if calvinism is true, that arminians are to be pitied?
Secondly, come on now, seriously? "crybaby rhetoric?" I don't see that as a kind, loving, or respectful response. You are simply resorting to put-downs, which does not actually help win a debate. It kinda reminds me of the mean bunny, who says "I'll be nicer if you'll be smarter. :)"
Steve,
ReplyDeleteIt just dawned on me that you seemed to have misread what I was saying, and that is probably my fault. When I wrote "improve" I meant "improvisation" not to improve or make better. Maybe improve is not the right word, but improv isn't in the dictionary either. I looked up the word and thought I saw the basic definition of "improvisation" under "improve" (which I figured could be pronounced "improv"). Improv does not appear in the dictionary at all. So I should have written "improvisation" and that would have avoided the confusion.
God Bless,
Ben
arminianperspectives said...
ReplyDelete"No one said they didn't want to be a creature. 'Creature' doesn’t necessarily equal 'exhaustively determined creature' now does it? But even if I had a problem with being a creature it would be just as God scripted it, now wouldn't it?"
You seem to think that's a clever, all-purpose comeback, but it's wholly impotent against Calvinism.
A screenwriter may write character who's a buffoon. And that buffoonish character serves his purpose in the sitcom.
Likewise, God uses Jonah as a straight man to score ironic points.
"No. The Arminian God doesn't script for people to sin, though He does know people will sin in accordance with their own free will, a will that He does not script."
But you said "The Arminian believes there is a script, but also believes that God allows some improve within the script."
i) So you don't believe there's a script after all. At most, you seem to think there's a rough draft.
ii) And is the fact that people will sin a part of God's plan? Did that happen according to plan?
"Try to remember that God apparently scripted us to do so."
Try to remember that repeating that little trope doesn't get you anywhere in dealing with Calvinism.
Yes, God scripted you to resort to emotive, crybaby rhetoric to deflect principled criticisms of Arminian theology. God uses the folly of Arminianism as a backdrop to illustrate the wisdom of his decree.
"God revealed predestination in Scripture but scripted me to take a different view of it than you (the wrong view, according to you), so your point is hardly a point, unless you want to adopt the Arminian LFW view to make it work."
Your objection doesn't work since it's vitiated by an equivocation of terms (involving "revelation").
"In the end it must be nice to know that God scripted you to be right about everything while scripting me to be so wrong about so many things."
Once again you take refuge in your emotive, crybaby rhetoric.
And I'm not the one who's talking about me. You are.
Scarlet,
ReplyDeleteYou should know that Steve takes a rather bizarre interpretation of that verse to sidestep the difficulty you rightly point out. He maintains that Paul is only speaking of the sin of idolatrous apostasy in 1 Cor. 10:13 and no other sins. So Paul is just saying that God will not allow His elect to apostatize. It becomes a proof text for eternal security. How do you like that? God will not give the necessary grace to avoid any other sins. Indeed, He scripts that we commit them.
God scripted Steve and I to debate this issue a while back. Embarrassingly for Steve, God also apparently scripted that Steve would mistakenly accuse me of making up a scholar to make my point. He said the scholar was a fictitious candy man, when the scholar (Ardel Caneday) was actually the co-author of the only book Hays could find to support his bizarre interpretation. So I guess God has scripted Steve to be wrong at least once.
Skarlet said...
ReplyDelete"I find this rather amusing. Your entire post is metaphor of real life, and the metaphor includes scripts and actors. Richard responds by pointing out a potential problem with the line of reasoning that you put forward in the metaphor, and points out the logical conclusion."
For someone who levels accusations of dishonesty, it would behoove you to avoid doing what you impute to others.
I've spelled out the limitations of what a metaphor or illustration can and cannot accomplish. You disregard my stated qualifications, then pretend that I've contradicted myself.
BTW, this is also why your touchy-feely rhetoric about loving kindness is so disingenuous.
"In all of that, though, you didn't actually address the objection: Namely that if God scripts everything, sin included, then God scripts sin into our lives. That christian guy who struggles with pornography? Scripted (Though perhaps he doesn't know it) That suicidal teen? Scripted."
Are you speaking figuratively or literally?
Literally, God predestines (decrees, foreordains) whatever occurs. I accept that. I've defended that.
Yes, God predestined the teen suicide. That is not a surd event.
"God tells us that He will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able, but with EVERY temptation provides a way of escape."
You're quoting a stock Arminian prooftext as if I'd never dealt with that passage before. Try again.
"This is in sharp contrast to the idea that any 'way of escape' from the sin that God has decreed will be in our life is just an illusion."
If you think foreordination reduces that to an illusion, then so does foreknowledge.
"Now, first of all, I question the truth of such a statement. I have not yet deleted even one of my posts. In which post, precisely, do I say anything similar to the idea that if calvinism is true, that arminians are to be pitied? "
I've already documented your use of sentimental appeals to deflect principled criticisms.
"Secondly, come on now, seriously? 'crybaby rhetoric?' I don't see that as a kind, loving, or respectful response."
It doesn't have to be "kind." It only has to be true.
i) When he's cornered, Ben uses unethical rhetorical tactics. So I reserve the right to draw attention to Ben's use of unethical ploys.
ii) I also don't submit to your repeated effort to impose your girly-girl code of etiquette on how I'm allowed to address another man (or woman, for that matter). Your standards aren't my standards. Save that for girly-men.
"You are simply resorting to put-downs, which does not actually help win a debate."
This is another example of your dishonesty, and the way you conceal your dishonesty under the guise of touchy-feely rhetoric.
i) To begin with, I don't "simply" resort to put-downs." I use many arguments to support my positions.
But to admit that would weaken your objection, so you disregard the inconvenient truth to score a point.
ii) In addition, Ben has to fallback on emotive, rhetorical ploys when he loses the argument.
That's unethical. And if you were ethical, you would object. But since he's a fellow Arminian, when push comes to shove, you're only kind to your own kind.
arminianperspectives said...
ReplyDelete"You should know that Steve takes a rather bizarre interpretation of that verse to sidestep the difficulty you rightly point out. He maintains that Paul is only speaking of the sin of idolatrous apostasy in 1 Cor. 10:13 and no other sins."
That isn't my "bizarre" interpretation. I quoted leading scholars on that verse, as well as the contextual verses leading up to that verse, to document the focus on idolatrous apostasy.
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteI was just reading Paul Manata's review of Roger Olson's "Arminian Theology". In it, he refers to Paul Helm writing about divine "willing permission" - the gist of it being that God positively ordains those things that are good, but willingly permits evil.
So I guess first of all, do you agree with this notion? And if so, since Helm is more of a philosophical than an exegetical scholar (and it's only a few quotes), he doesn't seem to indicate where in Scripture that this would be the case. Especially since in something like the case of Pharaoh, God seems to actively harden Pharaoh's heart - the language speaks as though God has to positively do something to make Pharaoh be obstinate to Moses.
You seem to think that's a clever, all-purpose comeback, but it's wholly impotent against Calvinism.
ReplyDeleteA screenwriter may write character who's a buffoon. And that buffoonish character serves his purpose in the sitcom.
How does this address my comment at all? It just acknowledges that my observations are correct. Is that what you meant to do? Or should I say: Is that what God meant for you to do? And who said I was trying to attack Calvinism? I’m just drawing out the logical conclusions to your post. And are you now calling me a buffoon?
But you said "The Arminian believes there is a script, but also believes that God allows some improve within the script."
i) So you don't believe there's a script after all. At most, you seem to think there's a rough draft.
ii) And is the fact that people will sin a part of God's plan? Did that happen according to plan?
Again, I will answer this when you explain why Arminians are wrong to say that God author all sin in Calvinism according to your own metaphor of God scripting everything.
Try to remember that repeating that little trope doesn't get you anywhere in dealing with Calvinism.
I can only try to remember such things if God so scripts it. Likewise, try to remember that you have still not addressed the issue of God authoring sin.
Yes, God scripted you to resort to emotive, crybaby rhetoric to deflect principled criticisms of Arminian theology. God uses the folly of Arminianism as a backdrop to illustrate the wisdom of his decree.
So I am just glorifying God's wise decree by being a cry baby because I prove in doing so that God wisely decreed for me to be a cry baby? And how nice it must feel to be the one that God scripted to give correct principled criticisms of my silly Arminianism (oops…should have said God’s silly Arminianism, since He is the one who came up with it in the first place).
Your objection doesn't work since it's vitiated by an equivocation of terms (involving "revelation").
Feel free to explain. God has apparently not scripted me to understand your point here. Sorry.
Once again you take refuge in your emotive, crybaby rhetoric.
Just as God has scripted me, of course. If you think it is silly of me to keep bringing this up, why did you bring it up in your post? I'm just rolling with your clever metaphor.
And I'm not the one who's talking about me. You are.
And your point is...? Are you afraid to admit that you enjoy the fact that God scripted you to be right?
God Bless,
Ben
That isn't my "bizarre" interpretation. I quoted leading scholars on that verse, as well as the contextual verses leading up to that verse, to document the focus on idolatrous apostasy.
ReplyDeleteYou cited scholars who mentioned that apostasy and idolatry were part of what Paul meant by the sins of 1 Cor. 10:13. None of them drew the bizarre conclusion that you did regarding 1 Cor. 10:13, that the verse was only speaking of idolatrous apostasy. The only source you could find for that was a book written by Schreiner and a fictional candy man (according to you)..
i) When he's cornered, Ben uses unethical rhetorical tactics. So I reserve the right to draw attention to Ben's use of unethical ploys.
ReplyDeleteSteve, can you please document when I have done this and explain what makes such comments "unethical"?
i) To begin with, I don't "simply" resort to put-downs." I use many arguments to support my positions.
Including put downs?
ii) In addition, Ben has to fallback on emotive, rhetorical ploys when he loses the argument.
Can you please document my losing of an argument?
Steve,
I have admitted many times that I can get carried away and act in an ungodly manner in debates. I try very hard not to do this, but sometimes I fail (and I believe it is my own fault, and not something God scripted for me). When I realize this I apologize. However, I have never seen such behavior from you. I have never seen you apologize or even admit that you were wrong. This troubles me.
In my discussions with you, you have insinuated that I am a buffoon. You have made reference to my "silly little mind" and my "odd little mind", and the list could go on. I have never said such things to you. I often bring up your mistake about Caneday, because it serves to illustrate the point that you refuse to admit error, even when it is obvious, and even your mistake about Caneday was in the midst of an unprovoked attempt to mock and ridicule me. It backfired, but you have yet to own up to it. As far as I know, you still believe that Ardel Caneday is a fictional candy man. If you don't, I think you should own up to it and apologize to Ardel for saying such things about him, or at least admit that you made a mistake in the midst of childish unprovoked mockery.
I am going to bow out of this conversation now because I don't want to say anything unethical and I don't want this to turn into a back and forth about who is the biggest meanie (I hadn't brought that up, BTW, and I didn't even make an issue of you calling me a crybaby).
I can only hope that when you are corrected, you will admit error. That will go a long ways towards others wanting to listen to you and consider what you have to say. Otherwise, comments about others "losing" arguments do not amount to much, since you have shown that you refuse to admit error even when it is pointed out to you. Therefore, we should not be surprised when you assume that everyone who has ever disagreed with you has "lost" the argument.
God Bless,
Ben
MATHETES SAID:
ReplyDelete"So I guess first of all, do you agree with this notion?"
I'd have to reread his discussion. As a rule, I think "permissive" language is misleading, although it's possible to define permission in a way that's acceptable. But it would be preferable not to use a term that requires so much qualification in the first place.
"Especially since in something like the case of Pharaoh, God seems to actively harden Pharaoh's heart - the language speaks as though God has to positively do something to make Pharaoh be obstinate to Moses."
Well, "hardening" is a metaphor, so even if it were "active," it's active in relation to a metaphor. That, of itself, doesn't tell us much.
I think what's more important than "how" God did it is the promise/fulfillment structure of the Exodus narrative. Clearly Pharaoh wasn't free to do otherwise, for that would defeat God's stated purpose in raising him up and hardening his heart.
arminianperspectives said...
ReplyDelete“How does this address my comment at all? It just acknowledges that my observations are correct. Is that what you meant to do?”
You have difficulty following your own argument. You said: “But even if I had a problem with being a creature it would be just as God scripted it, now wouldn't it?”
How is that an effective rejoinder to my position? It isn’t.
The fact that God were scripted you to say what you did, and scripted me to say what I did in response, is entirely consistent with Calvinism. So that doesn’t refute my point.
“Or should I say: Is that what God meant for you to do?”
Why not?
“And who said I was trying to attack Calvinism?”
Are you trying to play dumb? You’re an Arminian epologist. You attack Calvinism all the time.
“And are you now calling me a buffoon?”
Once again, you can’t follow the argument. You act as if it would be inconsistent for God to decree the actions of an individual who raises objections to the wisdom or justice of divine sovereignty. So I drew a comparison to illustrate the consistency. Simple as that.
Because you want to trump up a pretext to act offended, since that will make you feel justified in bowing out.
“Again, I will answer this when you explain why Arminians are wrong to say that God author all sin in Calvinism according to your own metaphor of God scripting everything.”
Because you’re equivocating. Learn what “author” means in Latin and Middle to early modern French. Then ask yourself if “author” has the same connotations in modern English.
I even did a post on that subject years ago, going through the languages, comparing and contrasting period usage with modern derivatives.
“I can only try to remember such things if God so scripts it.”
Which is not a problem for my position. You still don’t get it. Fine with me. You’re not getting it serves the purpose just as well as getting it.
“Likewise, try to remember that you have still not addressed the issue of God authoring sin.”
Likewise, try to remember that I’ve already addressed that issue on multiple occasions in great detail.
“So I am just glorifying God's wise decree by being a cry baby because I prove in doing so that God wisely decreed for me to be a cry baby?”
Yes, your silly objections to Calvinism serve as a foil to exhibit the wisdom of God’s sovereignty.
“And how nice it must feel to be the one that God scripted to give correct principled criticisms of my silly Arminianism.”
Once again, you’re the one who wants to shift the focus away from God onto me. That’s a transparent tactic of yours.
“(oops…should have said God’s silly Arminianism, since He is the one who came up with it in the first place).”
Once more, you seem to think that’s a clever comeback. You keep missing the point–which unwittingly proves the point.
Yes, God can ordain silly positions to contrast the silliness of men with the wisdom of God. Try reading 1 Cor 1-3. Or look at how God used Jonah.
While this debate is clearly not about acting... I feel I must make something clear about us actors... everything we do is very deliberate. Just like a director, we already have every move, every nuance, every breath in our minds. We know that everything we do must "mean" something. Check out what Sam Rockwell (whom I believe to be one of the greats of this generation) has to say about acting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOQO6HVKlC8
ReplyDeleteCont. “Feel free to explain. God has apparently not scripted me to understand your point here. Sorry.”
ReplyDeleteOnce again, you can’t keep track of your own statements. You said "One must wonder why God would script for his children to deny the existence of the script, while revealing this truth to his other Calvinist children?"
But “revelation” isn’t the differential factor since we both have access to the same revelation. You then substituted the word “scripted” for “revelation,” as if these are synonyms. But they’re not. That’s just a face-saving substitution which you introduced after then fact, then you backdate it as if that’s what you said all along.
“And your point is...? Are you afraid to admit that you enjoy the fact that God scripted you to be right?”
This is another mark of your duplicity. You’re trying to insinuate that Calvinists must suffer from spiritual pride because we are right and you are wrong.
But, of course, Arminians think they are right and Calvinists are wrong.
“Steve, can you please document when I have done this…”
I already did.
“And explain what makes such comments ‘unethical’?”
Because you can’t win the argument, you resort to emotional leverage. You play the victim card. You try to cast the Calvinist in the role of a self-righteous Pharisee.
You are using cynical tactics under the cloak of innocent humility. Try that on someone else.
“Can you please document my losing of an argument?”
Are you asking me to reproduce the entire thread?
“In my discussions with you, you have insinuated that I am a buffoon.”
Wrong.
“I can only hope that when you are corrected, you will admit error. That will go a long ways towards others wanting to listen to you and consider what you have to say.”
I don’t expect fair play from Arminians. You are team players. You are kind to your own kind.
By willing permission Helm means at least: "For X willingly to permit action A is at least for this: for A to be the action of someone other than X; for X to foreknow the occurrence of A and to have been able to prevent A; and for A not to be against X's overall plan."
ReplyDeleteHelm thinks the debate gets messy when we bring in "causation" and "determinism". He doesn't want it to be mechanistic determinism. He says God unconditionaly governs everything "but does not causally determine everything in the sense that he is the efficient cause of everything." Specifically, "Such willing permission has this in common with determinism: that what is physically determined and what is willingly permitted will each, in virtue of the determinism and the occurrence of what is willingly permitted, come to pass."
Helm wants to guard God-causation against ordinary, mundane (and transitive) notions of causion. Thus, "So words like ‘cause’ or ‘decree’ or ‘permit,’ when used of God the uncreated cause, are used in rather different ways, with rather different logical implications, from those in which are ordinary notions of cause are used (ibid, 240)."
another problem is that this [the details of divine determinism and its compatibility with out morally responsibility] doesn't seem to be an exegetical issue. The Bible is underdetermined as to the specifics of divine determinism and its relationship to freedom and moral responsibility (apologies to Gordon Clark). The Bible is inconsistent with libertarianism, and presents a general "determinism," and we can use philosophical models to help make clear the relationship and answer nay-sayers, but none of those models receive a Biblical rubber stamp.
ReplyDeletearminianperspectives said...
ReplyDelete"As far as I know, you still believe that Ardel Caneday is a fictional candy man."
Considering the fact that I credit him as the coauthor of The Race Set Before Us in a 2007 post, I you evidently don't know as much as you think you know:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/admonitions-in-epistle-to-hebrews.html
Considering the fact that I credit him as the coauthor of The Race Set Before Us in a 2007 post, I you evidently don't know as much as you think you know:
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/admonitions-in-epistle-to-hebrews.html
So you are admitting error, based on the fact that in a post written on May 29th, 2009, you wrote:
“Caneday”? Apparently the only way that Ben can document his claims is to invent fictitious scholars like “Caneday.” Is Caneday related to the Gingerbread Man? Do they live in a Sugarcane mansion?
...in mocking response to me saying,
Steve seemed to primarily rely on Schreiner and Caneday as a credible source…since he was not able to produce a single source (outside of Schreiner and Caneday).[???]
Strangely, your mocking response no longer appears on that post. Did you delete it? I trust you will be honest in answering this question and will not respond by deleting my comments here as well.
ARMINIANPERSPECTIVES SAID:
ReplyDelete"So you are admitting error, based on the fact that in a post written on May 29th, 2009, you wrote..."
So are you admitting error, based on the fact that I identified Caneday as the coauthor, back in '07?
"So you are admitting error, based on the fact that in a post written on May 29th, 2009, you wrote..."
ReplyDeleteSo are you admitting error, based on the fact that I identified Caneday as the coauthor, back in '07?
Not at all, since you clearly called Caneday a fictitious scholar two years later. Whether you identified him properly in 07' has little bearing on the fact that two years later, when I brought him up as the co-author of "The Race set Before Us", you mockingly said that I had made him up as a desperate attempt to argue my case; proving only that you were the one who was resorting to desperate rhetorical tactics to salvage your bizarre interpretation of 1 Cor. 10:13.
But you still cannot seem to bring yourself to admit error on your part, since you continue to evade the plain evidence. Worse yet, you went back and deleted that portion of your post in an apparent attempt to hide your embarrassing mistake. Does that seem "ethical" to you?
You continually say that I can’t follow my own argument, which seems to be your favorite rhetorical tactic; but I think it is clear to anyone reading this that you are the one who can’t seem to follow what is being said. This is probably because you are too busy being evasive. So I will give you another chance to give a straight answer to some rather simple questions: Do you deny that you mistakenly called Caneday a fictitious candy man on May 29th 2009? Do you deny that you went back and deleted that portion of your original post? Would you call such behavior ethical?