Saturday, April 07, 2018

For God so loved the world: A Calvinist Response to Richard Brian Davis

https://www.jamesagibson.com/2018/04/07/for-god-so-loved-the-world-a-calvinist-response-to-richard-brian-davis/

13 comments:

  1. World=select few. Got it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It appears that the issues regarding meaning and reference went over your head. That's too bad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We never claim "world" is identical to a select few. If you want to complain about our view, at least get it right.

      Delete
    2. But you DO say "world of the elect."

      Delete
    3. Glenn E. Chatfield

      "But you DO say 'world of the elect.'"

      Who is "you"? James Gibson and/or Guillaume Bignon? If so, I don't see that particular phrase "world of the elect" in their aforementioned post at all.

      Delete
  3. It was a reply to Gibson. The point is, that is how the Calvinists interpret John 3:16.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glenn E. Chatfield

      "It was a reply to Gibson. The point is, that is how the Calvinists interpret John 3:16."

      I hope you're not unjustifiably imputing to Gibson what "Calvinists" in general believe about John 3:16, for what "Calvinists" in general believe about John 3:16 isn't necessarily equivalent or identical to what Gibson believes about John 3:16 (e.g. "Calvinists" in general could include populizers). Did you read Gibson's (and Bignon's) post?

      Delete
    2. I'm just addressing his comments above.

      I began reading the article but found it to be convoluted. My comment was just responding to his claim about "world" not mean "select few." In the Calvinist world it really does mean that. The big "L" in TULIP.

      Delete
    3. No, it doesn't really mean that in the Calvinist world. Calvinism has no official position on the percentage of the elect in relation to the reprobate. That's a popular, ignorant Arminian trope.

      Delete
    4. Glenn E. Chatfield

      "I began reading the article but found it to be convoluted. My comment was just responding to his claim about 'world' not mean 'select few.' In the Calvinist world it really does mean that. The big 'L' in TULIP."

      I think there are a couple of knots to untangle here:

      1. First, the specific question isn't what "world" means in general, but what "world" means in John 3:16. In fact, that's precisely what you have said in your very own comments ("The point is, that is how the Calvinists interpret John 3:16.").

      2. Also, it's not how "Calvinists" in general interpret John 3:16 (e.g. populizers, laypeople), but how Gibson and Bignon interpret John 3:16 in the above cited post.

      Delete
  4. We do not use that expression in our response: world of the elect. That you found the article to be convoluted shows more about you than our article, for the person whose opinion matters most here is Rich Davis, and he has already publicly stated our piece is excellent. Our intended audience is not you,Glenn. You and Jesse seem to think that the only relation that matters is identity. You have not grasped that there are subtle issues in philosophy of language. What you might consider doing is trying to understand Bignon and myself through whatever other reading of Calvinists you have done. As far as I am aware, no Calvinist has made the connections Bignon and I make regarding this passage.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bignon and myself do not use the expression, "world of the elect", in our article. Nor do I use that expression anywhere here. That you, Glenn, attribute that to me is bizarre because it is easily disconfirmed. You say that our piece is convoluted. I think this says more about you than the article, because the most important potential critic of our piece, Rich Davis, has already said publicly that our piece is excellent. What you should have said is that these issues are new to you and they are difficult for you to understand. Both you and Jesse seem to think the only relation that matters in this dispute is identity; it is not. In any case, you are not our intended audience; someone philosophically sophisticated like Rich Davis is. It is because you don't understand that you keep returning to what Calvinists say in general. But I do not care what Calvinists say in general. I care what this Calvinist - myself - says. And as far as I know, no other Calvinist has offered this sort of analysis of John 3:16 with careful attention to the philosophy of language. If you want engage Bignon and myself, get informed. If you want to shadowbox with whatever Calvinists you think of yourself as doing debate with, then go do that.

    ReplyDelete