tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1336191575457690799..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Roo StewRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57183149858297143762008-03-04T15:47:00.000-05:002008-03-04T15:47:00.000-05:00Let me add that my comment that:"My slap on the fa...Let me add that my comment that:<BR/><BR/>"My slap on the face of someone causes an automatic response in the nerve endings of that person, in turn these cause a subjective experience of pain for that person."<BR/><BR/>rendered your assumption that: if something is automatically caused, it itself can't cause anything, false.<BR/><BR/>Since I so rendered your assumption, your argument (which you don't deny is your argument) is unsound.<BR/><BR/>Look, you may *believe* that we have all these problems, JNORM888, but your problem is when you try to actually *argue* for your belief. So, you'll pardon me if I don't take your unarged biases as problematic as you seem to think they are.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1806973629851909182008-03-04T11:59:00.000-05:002008-03-04T11:59:00.000-05:00JNORM:"So why do you deny [1] & [2]?"I told you wh...JNORM:<BR/><BR/><I>"So why do you deny [1] & [2]?"</I><BR/><BR/>I told you why in my post.<BR/><BR/>I said: "The use of the term 'automatic response' is loaded with robotic, fatalistic assumptions. Like we're action figures who 'automatically respond' when someone who presses the 'talk' button on our back. My slap on the face of someone causes an automatic response in the nerve endings of that person, in turn these cause a subjective experience of pain for that person."<BR/><BR/><I>JNORM responded: "Why would you deny this?"</I><BR/><BR/>Because that's not my position. I have a tendency to deny those premises I don't hold to...call me weird.<BR/><BR/><I>JNORM said: "If the means is also unconditional then how can you see it differently?</I><BR/><BR/>Because (i) the Bible affirms determinism and moral responsibility and the reality of choices and (ii) because, philosophically, I am a semi-compatibilist and we have loads and loads of books on the subject which answer and explain these very purile and sophomoric assumptions you have about us.<BR/><BR/><I>JNORM asked: "Also I would like to ask you a question. Do you believe Sanctification is synergistic?</I><BR/><BR/>Gene explained it, though some Calvinists have used the term 'syngerism' in explaining this view (Cf. Sproul, and there's others). I stand in that line. I do not believe that we 'let go and let God,' (as I explained in my first post to Ben, had you read that one). I believe we are active in our sanctification. Not like our regeneration. I must make use of the means of grace, I must put to death sin, etc. I don't just live like hell and expect to make it to heaven. But, if I do not cooperate in my sanctification I do not lose my salvation or justification or regeneration. I prove I was never saved in the first place. This would be a fruit-to-root inference. I would show I was, per Heb. 6, part of the soil that NEVER produced fruit.<BR/><BR/>Btw, let me add that you never bothered to respond to my post above, or most of my arguments.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7346172370471019502008-03-03T17:22:00.000-05:002008-03-03T17:22:00.000-05:00Do you believe Sanctification is synergistic?If so...<I>Do you believe Sanctification is synergistic?<BR/><BR/>If so then how can you believe the means is "unconditionaly" pre-ordained?<BR/><BR/>I a only asking because the implications of such a view doesn't leave room for synergy.<BR/><BR/>I may be wrong, but how can one resist something that's "unconditional"?</I><BR/><BR/>We affirm that sanctification is cooperative, not "synergistic" in, for example, the Arminian sense.<BR/>To the extent that salvation has a conditional aspect, God still ensures the satisfaction of those conditions in the lives of the elect. Conditionality does not entail uncertainty - and this presupposition (that conditionality must entail uncertainty) seems to underwrite your objections. Where is the supporting argument? We're going to get back to LFW, so where's the exegetical argument for LFW?<BR/><BR/>"Monergism" refers to regeneration. Regeneration is irresistible, that is, conversion inevitably and infallibly results. Sanctification is cooperative, but the results are ensured insofar that the elect will all persevere to the end, and the elect will be conformed to Christ's image, but they will not all persevere to end at the same level of maturity.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51895483546716251482008-03-03T15:43:00.000-05:002008-03-03T15:43:00.000-05:00Paul Manata,If you believe that God unconditionaly...Paul Manata,<BR/><BR/><BR/>If you believe that God unconditionaly ordain both the end as well as the means then why do you disagree with this?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>"[1] If X is an automatic response to some previous action, then X can't cause anything to happen.<BR/><BR/>[2] Prayer is an automatic response to some previous action."<BR/><BR/>[3] [3] Therefore it doesn't cause anything to happen.<BR/><BR/>It would seem that one and two would naturally flow from such a view.<BR/><BR/>So why do you deny [1] & [2]?<BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>"The use of the term 'automatic response' is loaded with robotic, fatalistic assumptions. Like we're action figures who 'automatically respond' when someone who presses the 'talk' button on our back. My slap on the face of someone causes an automatic response in the nerve endings of that person, in turn these cause a subjective experience of pain for that person."<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Why would you deny this?<BR/><BR/>If the means is also unconditional then how can you see it differently?<BR/><BR/>Also I would like to ask you a question.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Do you believe Sanctification is synergistic?<BR/><BR/>If so then how can you believe the means is "unconditionaly" pre-ordained?<BR/><BR/>I a only asking because the implications of such a view doesn't leave room for synergy.<BR/><BR/>I may be wrong, but how can one resist something that's "unconditional"?<BR/><BR/><BR/>I'm sorry Gene, I would like to chop it up with you some other time. You seem more grounded so I will have to be prepared to chop it up with you. <BR/><BR/>I'm shooting at the hip right now and doing such a thing with you would be extremely dangerous.<BR/><BR/>No, I would have to give your posts some thought. So maybe next time.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>JNORM888Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-62545162419960934462008-03-02T10:05:00.000-05:002008-03-02T10:05:00.000-05:00JNORM--"So your point comes down to a technicality...<B>JNORM--</B>"So your point comes down to a technicality?"<BR/><BR/><B>The Apostle Paul in debate with Judaizers--</B>Galatians 3:16<BR/>The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ.<BR/><BR/><B>If JNORM were a Judaizer---</B>"So your point comes down to a technicality?"Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76345396063545322162008-03-02T10:03:00.000-05:002008-03-02T10:03:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-75284242810682124802008-03-02T03:24:00.000-05:002008-03-02T03:24:00.000-05:00btw, in response to JNORM's idea of moral responsi...btw, in response to JNORM's idea of moral responsibility and PAPs, I adress that here:<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/02/heavenly-doorman.htmlErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49609261954457553022008-03-02T03:04:00.000-05:002008-03-02T03:04:00.000-05:00Saint and Sinner said: One other example that I ha...Saint and Sinner said: <BR/>One other example that I have thought of (though I am not the first):<BR/><BR/>God the Father has fixed the day of Christ's return by *His own authority* (not influenced by external factors). (Acts 1:7)<BR/><BR/>And yet, our prayers for Christ's return hasten His second coming.<BR/><BR/>*********<BR/><BR/>Of course we can multiply these sorts of things.<BR/><BR/>It was prophesied (and God can't be made a liar) that Jesus would be born of a virgin. And angel to Mary that she would bear Immanuel. So, I take it that JNORM888 would say that prayers for a safe delivery offered by Mary and Joseph were 'meaningless.'<BR/><BR/>Or, how about Paul on the boat:<BR/><BR/>===============<BR/><BR/>ACTS 27:21After the men had gone a long time without food, Paul stood up before them and said: "Men, you should have taken my advice not to sail from Crete; then you would have spared yourselves this damage and loss. 22But now I urge you to keep up your courage, <B>because not one of you will be lost; only the ship will be destroyed. 23Last night an angel of the God whose I am and whom I serve stood beside me 24and said, 'Do not be afraid, Paul. You must stand trial before Caesar; and God has graciously given you the lives of all who sail with you</B>.' 25So keep up your courage, men, for I have faith in God that it will happen just as he told me. 26Nevertheless, we must run aground on some island."<BR/><BR/>The Shipwreck <BR/> 27On the fourteenth night we were still being driven across the Adriatic Sea, when about midnight the sailors sensed they were approaching land. 28They took soundings and found that the water was a hundred and twenty feet deep. A short time later they took soundings again and found it was ninety feet deep. <B>29Fearing that we would be dashed against the rocks, they dropped four anchors from the stern and prayed for daylight</B>. 30In an attempt to escape from the ship, the sailors let the lifeboat down into the sea, pretending they were going to lower some anchors from the bow. <B>31Then Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, "Unless these men stay with the ship, you cannot be saved." 32So the soldiers cut the ropes that held the lifeboat and let it fall away.</B><BR/><BR/>===============<BR/><BR/>Wow. Notice that God promised that they would all live.<BR/><BR/>Notice that they prayed.<BR/><BR/>Notice that Paul told them to stay with the ship or they would die.<BR/><BR/>[Scratches head]<BR/><BR/>Why would they 'pray?' That was meaningless. God said they would live. So they would regardless of their prayer, right.<BR/><BR/>And, why did Paul tell them to stay on the ship? They would live regardless of if they left the ship or not, right? God ordained the ends, and the means of staying on the ship couldn;t possibly have caused them to keep their life, right?<BR/><BR/>I mean, I can keep going with this stuff all night long. JNORM's (and Ben's, and J.C. Thibodaux's) arguments are not only illogical and philosophically sloppy, they are at odds with the revealed biblcial data. If what they say were the case, then what I cite in Acts 27 would make Paul into an ignoramous and an 'inconsistent' person just like us Calvinists (allegedly) are!<BR/><BR/>QED<BR/><BR/>Got any more brain busters for us JNORM?Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74032635347937837612008-03-02T02:20:00.000-05:002008-03-02T02:20:00.000-05:00I am arguing with the philosophical presupposition...<I>I am arguing with the philosophical presuppositions of Calvinism."</I><BR/><BR/>I am arguing with the philosophical presuppositions of Calvinism."<BR/><BR/>1. What exactly are those "presuppositions?" Are you saying we begin with our ideas about Providence and then deduce a system of decrees from it? If so, before you go there, you should show which of our theologians are guilty of that, and you should, at the very least (a) outline these presuppositions and (b) demonstrate how these function as "presuppositions" in our theology, for in saying this, what you seem to be saying is that we read the Bible through those presuppositions. Where's the supporting argument? <BR/><BR/>2. What you're implicitly doing is imputing the Orthodox theological method to ours. In Orthodoxy, Christology is the controlling concept. In Arminianism, "the love of God" and LFW are controlling concepts. Those facts are no secret. If you think that Calvinism takes Predestination as a controlling concept you'll need to demonstrate that to be the case. Orthodoxy and Arminianism admit to this sort of methodology. <BR/><BR/>3. In our theology, it's true that we begin with two principia: God and Scripture. One is the ontological principle, the other is the epistemological principle. The former is only known by way of the latter. So, we begin not with philosophy but exegesis.<BR/><BR/>4. In our major systematics, you won't find the Doctrine of Predestination anywhere near the top tier ideas discussed. You'll find it either under Questions of Predication about God (eg. Does God predestinate? The answer is "Yes.") and then it's subsumed under the Acts of God. Alternatively, you'll find it under Soteriology, which is even further down the tree. So, if you're going to charge us with using Predestination as a rationalistic controlling presupposition, you'll need to show us that we do this and account for this, for, if we really did this, Providence/Predestination would be one of the principia or it would be high up the tree in our systematics.<BR/><BR/>5. In fact, we're not at all committed to philosophical determinism/compatibilism the way the Arminians are committed to Libertarianism or the Orthodox are committed to Libertarianism. We only employ it as a philosophical answer to philosophical objections.Laced throughout your objections and those of the Arminians is a presupposition: LFW. But, as Carrie has noted well that I have asked repeatedly on this blog and have yet to get an answer from a Libertarian, where does Scripture teach LFW? If Scripture doesn't teach LFW, your objections are, in fact, utterly worthless. <BR/><BR/>6. If you really want to refute our position, you should do so from exegesis. We get our doctrines of Providence, Predestination, and Prayer not from our "philosophical presuppositions" but from the exegesis of the Bible, so, here's a novel idea, give us a series of exegetical objections that disprove our position.<BR/><BR/> For once, it would help the Orthodox and Arminians who visit this blog if they would actually object to Reformed theology on exegetical grounds. So far, all you and the Arminians have done is show us the truth of the old adage that there are no exegetical objections to Calvinism that hold water. There are only philosophical and ethical objections.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77531000768680128322008-03-02T00:14:00.000-05:002008-03-02T00:14:00.000-05:00One other example that I have thought of (though I...One other example that I have thought of (though I am not the first):<BR/><BR/>God the Father has fixed the day of Christ's return by *His own authority* (not influenced by external factors). (Acts 1:7)<BR/><BR/>And yet, our prayers for Christ's return hasten His second coming.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18643249688668139442008-03-01T22:49:00.000-05:002008-03-01T22:49:00.000-05:00Hi JNORM888!"I'm gonna ignore your immature behavi...Hi JNORM888!<BR/><BR/><I>"I'm gonna ignore your immature behavior. You see, one of the good things about having a "free will" is that one can learn from past mistakes."</I><BR/><BR/>Good, now I can just make you look bad in or objective debate rather than in both the objective debate and the use of rhetoric debate. That's the way I'd rather have it.<BR/><BR/>I said: "i) But you still don't get it. I showed 'a point.' If I showed 'a point' then Ben is wrong for saying they were 'pointless,' so your objection STILL doesn't save Ben---and that's what you admitted that you were trying to do."<BR/><BR/><I>JNORM said: So it all comes down to a technicality?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know what you mean by that. He said A, I demonstrated not-A. I can only work with what I'm given. <BR/><BR/>So, let's see what you said above which started this:<BR/><BR/>JNORM: "Your arguments about personal benefits in regards to the one that prays has nothing to do with what Ben was talking about."<BR/><BR/>So, I guess you'd say that, technically, you were wrong. <BR/><BR/>Moving on...<BR/><BR/><I>JNORM said: "Just because you "said it" doesn't mean I believe it. How can you (A calvinist) believe that your prayers influence God and cause things to happen? You can't really believe that."</I><BR/><BR/>I don't care if you 'believe it.' Plenty of people don't 'believe' in God too. That doesn't make him not real. So, I can really believe that. And, you've not given an ARGUMENT to the effect that I can't. Do you have one? Or is: 'You can't really believe that' all you got?<BR/><BR/><I>JNORM said: "If God ordains the means as well as the end then your prayers can't influence God. They can't cause things to happen because they in and of themselves are nothing more than an automatic responce of what God did."</I><BR/><BR/>These aren't arguments. They are assertions. Got an argument. (Remember, we're done with the name calling. Done with the tough guy asserting act. It's all objective now. Straight arguments now. Hard critical thinking now. You don't get to get away with this when you want to drop the fun and games of smart alec comments.)<BR/><BR/>At best, your argument is:<BR/><BR/>[1] If X is an automatic response to some previous action, then X can't cause anything to happen.<BR/><BR/>[2] Prayer is an automatic response to some previous action.<BR/><BR/>[3] Therefore it doesn't cause anything to happen.<BR/><BR/>Well, I deny both [1] and [2]. I deny that prayer is an 'automatic response', and I deny that things that automatically respond don't themselves cause things to happen. The use of the term 'automatic response' is loaded with robotic, fatalistic assumptions. Like we're action figures who 'automatically respond' when someone who presses the 'talk' button on our back. My slap on the face of someone causes an automatic response in the nerve endings of that person, in turn these cause a subjective experience of pain for that person. So, get to work and present me with an actual argument. One that doesn't beg the question against us and make downright false assumptions.<BR/><BR/><I>"God is the irresistible cause and influence of your prayers. So you can't believe that."</I><BR/><BR/>Not an argument. Got one?<BR/><BR/><I>JNORM said: "I may be wrong but I think this is what Ben was getting at. About it being "meaningless".</I><BR/><BR/>Right, and among other things, I pointed out that to imply that communion with God is 'meaningless' is blasphemy. And, Jesus was determined to go to the cross to die for his people. Yet, he PRAYED about this.<BR/><BR/><I>JNORM said: "He doesn't have a chance to believe if the "Gospel demands" he is confronted with doesn't enable him to believe."</I><BR/><BR/>Sure he does. Got an actual argument here, though?<BR/><BR/><I>JNORM said: "Nails, spears, and beatings are not moral agents. They don't have responsibility. People are moral agents. We are held responsible for our actions.....or lack thereof. So if God unconditionally ordained the means then you can't talk about humans having "true liberty and contingency".</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, I know that nails are not moral agents. Same with beating et al. So what? The point stands and your sophistic counter does nothing to change it. The above only assumes libertarian notions of responsibility. I deny those assumptions. So, keep begging questions in lieu of argument.<BR/><BR/><I>JNORM said: "On a technicality. At least on the surface, but beneath the surface Ben's point still stands. If the means were ordained then even the "personal benefits" one receives are nothing but an illusion. They are meaningless. <BR/>It is deception because you really didn't make those choices. You didn't have contingency in regards to those choices. What was done was done out of necessity."</I><BR/><BR/>Again, these are assertions. Got an actual argument. Or is self-serving, question begging arguments all you have at this point?<BR/><BR/>I said: "That's what is called an ASSERTION, not an argument. You do know the difference, right? God irresistibly caused the men to kill Jesus, yet they were still the means to his death. God irresistibly caused Jesus bones not to break, yet the early death of Jesus (so the soldiers wouldn’t have to break the legs to inhibit his breathing) was the means to this end. You're not arguing with me, JNORM, you're now arguing with the Bible."<BR/><BR/><I>JNORM said: 'It's a logical deduction from God ordaining both the end as well as the means. This is the meat of the issue. Right here!!!<BR/><BR/>I am arguing with the philosophical presuppositions of Calvinism."</I><BR/><BR/>This isn't a refutation. Your argument was that something can't be a means if God irresistibly caused it. If so, then those things weren't means to Jesus' not breaking his bones. But, they were. Therefore things can be means even though God ordained them.<BR/><BR/>And, you're not arguing against our presuppositions. You're arguing against YOUR CHARICYERIZATION of our presuppositions. I deny all your question begging assertions about what I believe. I'll be waiting for an actual argument in the future.<BR/> <BR/>God ordaining the means doesn't mean that they are 'illusion.' The spear that stuck Jesus was no illusion!<BR/><BR/>I said: "You said:<BR/>"And, it's like arguing: God pre-ordained that plants would grow by means of sunlight (among other things), therefore the sunlight doesn't cause plants to grow! What, do you think that God just created the matter and then all the rest worked itself out by chance, for no reason?"<BR/><BR/><I>JNORM replied: "Plants are not moral agents. They can't choose either or."</I><BR/><BR/>That's irrelevant to my argument. The argument was that THE MEANS CAUSED SOMETHING EVEN THOUGH GOD ORDAINED THEM!!!<BR/><BR/>Get it?<BR/><BR/>Your quip about 'persons' is irrelevant unless you want to make this assumption:<BR/><BR/>If God ordains the means and the ends then the means only cause things to happen if they are not-persons.<BR/><BR/>But how would one argue for an arbitrary distinction like that!? And, all without begging the question against the Calvinist.<BR/><BR/><I>JNORM said: "God created matter and through His Providence controls it. The fact that humans can resist some of the things that God wants us to do shows that Everything God does isn't "irresistible".</I><BR/><BR/>This is a caricature of what we mean by 'irresistible' then.<BR/><BR/>So, basically all this time spent arguing can be boiled down to this:<BR/><BR/>IF WE ASSUME THAT CALVINISM IS FALSE, THEN I CAN SHOW THAT IT IS FALSE.<BR/><BR/>Oh boy, forgive me if I'm not impressed.<BR/><BR/>Whadda jokester you are JNORM.<BR/><BR/>As I don't have time to continue, future comments without arguments behind them will be deleted and this comments thread will be shut down so I can get on with my life.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30504634404578313822008-03-01T21:27:00.000-05:002008-03-01T21:27:00.000-05:00Paul Manata,I'm gonna ignore your immature behavio...Paul Manata,<BR/><BR/><BR/>I'm gonna ignore your immature behavior. You see, one of the good things about having a "free will" is that one can learn from past mistakes.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>"i) But you still don't get it. I showed 'a point.' If I showed 'a point' then Ben is wrong for saying they were 'pointless,' so your objection STILL doesn't save Ben---and that's what you admitted that you were trying to do."<BR/><BR/><BR/>So it all comes down to a technicality?<BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>"ii) *Some* of the stuff I pointed out were things that benefited us, yes, but (a) I address this in (i) and (b) not EVERYTHING I mentioned were things that 'benefited us.'"<BR/><BR/>I know which is why I said you "moved on" and spoke about other things. I saw that.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>"iii) If you had read my post (rather than mere skimming and quote mining), and my last comment to you, then you'd note that IK argued that our prayers do influence God and cause things to happen. So, keep beating up those straw men, tough guy."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Just because you "said it" doesn't mean I believe it. How can you (A calvinist) believe that your prayers influence God and cause things to happen? You can't really believe that.<BR/><BR/>If God ordains the means as well as the end then your prayers can't influence God. They can't cause things to happen because they in and of themselves are nothing more than an automatic responce of what God did.<BR/><BR/>God is the irresistible cause and influence of your prayers. So you can't believe that.<BR/><BR/><BR/>So yeah, you said it but it's not true.<BR/><BR/>I may be wrong but I think this is what Ben was getting at. About it being "meaningless".<BR/><BR/>The onlything you seemed to care about was a "technicality".<BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>"Again you exhibit your gross ignorance of those you're trying to 'refute.' First, S 'had a chance' to believe. Every time he is confronted with the Gospel demands he as a chance to believe."<BR/><BR/><BR/>He doesn't have a chance to believe if the "Gospel demands" he is confronted with doesn't enable him to believe.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>"Second, again, God works through means, and so decrees the ends AND the means. Your question is like asking---how could nails and spears, and beatings, have killed Jesus when God decreed that he would die 'from the foundation of the world.' The ENDS DON'T HAPPEN WITHOUT THE MEANS."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Nails, spears, and beatings are not moral agents. They don't have responsibility.<BR/><BR/>People are moral agents. We are held responsible for our actions.....or lack thereof. <BR/><BR/>So if God unconditionally ordained the means then you can't talk about humans having "true liberty and contingency".<BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>"Keep beating up on that fatalism straw man, JNORM. And, Gene already corrected you on this, yet you continue to ignore correction. You know what the Bible says about wise men? They heed correction. You don't. Hence, you're not wise. Which premise is wrong. ;-)"<BR/><BR/><BR/>I am talking about God ordaining the means as well as the end. What I said at first was just God ordaining the end. I been took note of what Gene said.<BR/><BR/>Correct me if I am wrong.<BR/><BR/>Fatalism = God ordaining the end not the means.<BR/><BR/>Determinism = God ordaining the end as well as the means.<BR/><BR/><BR/>If this is correct then I fixed my error a long time ago.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>"Well, I showed more than *just* that, but, if that IS what I showed, then you must admit I refuted Ben on your own terms, since Ben said that our prayers are pointless. You said I showed that they weren't. Hence, I showed that Ben was wrong! Again, on your own terms I showed this You came here to 'defend someone one' and ended up agreeing with me that I refuted him. Thanks, buddy!"<BR/><BR/><BR/>On a technicality. At least on the surface, but beneath the surface Ben's point still stands. If the means were ordained then even the "personal benefits" one receives are nothing but an illusion. They are meaningless. <BR/>It is deception because you really didn't make those choices. You didn't have contingency in regards to those choices. What was done was done out of necessity.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>"That's what is called an ASSERTION, not an argument. You do know the difference, right? God irresistibly caused the men to kill Jesus, yet they were still the means to his death. God irresistibly caused Jesus bones not to break, yet the early death of Jesus (so the soldiers wouldn’t have to break the legs to inhibit his breathing) was the means to this end. You're not arguing with me, JNORM, you're now arguing with the Bible."<BR/><BR/><BR/>It's a logical deduction from God ordaining both the end as well as the means. This is the meat of the issue. Right here!!!<BR/><BR/> I am arguing with the philosophical presuppositions of Calvinism.<BR/><BR/>But this is the heart of the issue and I'm glad we got to it.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>"And, it's like arguing: God pre-ordained that plants would grow by means of sunlight (among other things), therefore the sunlight doesn't cause plants to grow! What, do you think that God just created the matter and then all the rest worked itself out by chance, for no reason?"<BR/><BR/>Plants are not moral agents. They can't choose either or.<BR/><BR/>God created matter and through His Providence controls it. The fact that humans can resist some of the things that God wants us to do shows that Everything God does isn't "irresistible". <BR/><BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/><BR/>I still hate long posts. Please forgive me.<BR/><BR/>JNROM888Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91950584745088807152008-03-01T15:46:00.000-05:002008-03-01T15:46:00.000-05:00I don't know who got it worse, Ben, or the severe ...I don't know who got it worse, Ben, or the severe 'fonging' JNORM888 is receiving? Anyone?Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60529015269854528492008-03-01T15:35:00.000-05:002008-03-01T15:35:00.000-05:00JNORM,"You started it. But you are right. I should...JNORM,<BR/><BR/><I>"You started it. But you are right. I shouldn't stoop to your level of meanness. Please forgive me for acting like you. Who knows, maybe I can help you change your attitude."</I><BR/><BR/>'You started it?' So, I was right, you are 10.<BR/><BR/><I>"Bad company ruins good morals. Seeing you act bad influenced me to act in the same manor, but I am a man so I take full responsibility for my ill behavior."</I><BR/><BR/>Then why aren't my posts dumb when in the presence of your dumbness?<BR/><BR/><I>"After reading your posts I doubt if you are able to give sympathy to anyone. But who knows......maybe you can change your ways."</I><BR/><BR/>We can start with you. I feel very sorry for you. Sympathetic.<BR/><BR/><I>"I'm not here to win points. I didn't know this was an "official" debate. I'm not even here for myself. I came because I wanted to help someone else. Now I admit I started out awful. I should have been better prepared."</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not mentioning formal debate points. I mentioned three things you were wrong about, and nothing was right. That made you 0 for 3. And, you started out awful, continued awful, and ended awful.<BR/><BR/><I>"This is why I used the word "Benefits". I used that word to describe what you were talking about. If Our prayers don't influence God to act or not act then they are pointless in that regard. What you showed was "personal benefits" of "intercessory prayer".<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>i) But you still don't get it. I showed 'a point.' If I showed 'a point' then Ben is wrong for saying they were 'pointless,' so your objection STILL doesn't save Ben---and that's what you admitted that you were trying to do.<BR/><BR/>ii) *Some* of the stuff I pointed out were things that benefited us, yes, but (a) I address this in (i) and (b) not EVERYTHING I mentioned were things that 'benefited us.'<BR/><BR/>iii) If you had read my post (rather than mere skimming and quote mining), and my last comment to you, then you'd note that IK argued that our prayers do influence God and cause things to happen. So, keep beating up those straw men, tough guy.<BR/><BR/><I>"How can God use our prayers as a means to condemn S if S never had a chance to believe in the first place Because God never "unconditionally preordain" him to be saved"?"</I><BR/><BR/>Again you exhibit your gross ignorance of those you're trying to 'refute.' First, S 'had a chance' to believe. Every time he is confronted with the Gospel demands he as a chance to believe. Second, again, God works through means, and so decrees the ends AND the means. Your question is like asking---how could nails and spears, and beatings, have killed Jesus when God decreed that he would die 'from the foundation of the world.' The ENDS DON'T HAPPEN WITHOUT THE MEANS. Keep beating up on that fatalism straw man, JNORM. And, Gene already corrected you on this, yet you continue to ignore correction. You know what the Bible says about wise men? They heed correction. You don't. Hence, you're not wise. Which premise is wrong. ;-)<BR/><BR/><I>"What you seemed to show was that "intercessory prayer" was not pointless because of the "personal benefits" one gets from prayer. You showed that it wasn't a waste of time because of "personal benefits"."</I><BR/><BR/>Well, I showed more than *just* that, <B>but, if that IS what I showed, then you must admit I refuted Ben on your own terms, since Ben said that our prayers are pointless. You said I showed that they weren't. Hence, I showed that Ben was wrong! Again, on your own terms I showed this</B> You came here to 'defend someone one' and ended up agreeing with me that I refuted him. Thanks, buddy!<BR/><BR/><I>"You proved your point that prayer as a means was also ordained by God, but in proving your point you run into more trouble because that "prayer" can't really be called an "intercessory" prayer since God irresistibly caused it in the first place."</I><BR/><BR/>That's what is called an ASSERTION, not an argument. You do know the difference, right? God irresistibly caused the men to kill Jesus, yet they were still the means to his death. God irresistibly caused Jesus bones not to break, yet the early death of Jesus (so the soldiers wouldn’t have to break the legs to inhibit his breathing) was the means to this end. You're not arguing with me, JNORM, you're now arguing with the Bible.<BR/><BR/><I>"IF God pre-ordains the means then prayer didn't cause anything to happen. Only God caused it to happen since He unconditionally pre-ordained both."</I><BR/><BR/>That, again, is another ASSERTION.<BR/><BR/><B>And, it's like arguing: God pre-ordained that plants would grow by means of sunlight (among other things), therefore the sunlight doesn't cause plants to grow!</B> What, do you think that God just created the matter and then all the rest worked itself out by chance, for no reason? <BR/><BR/><I>"please forgive me for the long post. I hate long posts......I see I am becoming much like you."</I><BR/><BR/>Well, you're halfway there. Next time, make sure you include good arguments with your length. Then you can be like me and every other Calvinist on this blog (and any non-Calvinist too). So, you're not quite there yet. But, perk up 'lil camper, I trust when you hit puberty you start to think better.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48426545388912817342008-03-01T14:06:00.000-05:002008-03-01T14:06:00.000-05:00Saint and sinner,Thank you for your post. It's bee...Saint and sinner,<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thank you for your post. It's been a long time since I talked to a Calvinist that believes the process of Sanctification is synergistic.<BR/><BR/><BR/>To be honest I really don't have a problem with what you said.<BR/><BR/>At least not now.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>I will have to chop it up with you another time.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Your thoughts in this regard will not be forgotten. What you said was very interesting.<BR/><BR/>And thanks for being charitable.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>JNORM888Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8294857994833613022008-03-01T14:01:00.000-05:002008-03-01T14:01:00.000-05:00JNORM,I think Genembridges has already answered ev...JNORM,<BR/><BR/>I think Genembridges has already answered everything that you wrote in your latest reply. Perhaps you should take some time to read that, it is much shorter than Manata's post. It should take you little time to read it, if you understand what he is saying than I am sure that you will have your answer's.<BR/><BR/>On another note, I doubt if J.C. and/or Ben would ever say that they had lost or that they were in error. That tells me that they are not interested in learning, but in trying to puff themselves up.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07822172330383243446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3153125256695815232008-03-01T13:48:00.000-05:002008-03-01T13:48:00.000-05:00Paul,please forgive me for the long post. I hate l...Paul,<BR/><BR/><BR/>please forgive me for the long post. I hate long posts......I see I am becoming much like you.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Please pray for me.....for I hate long posts.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>JNORM888Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-40632887836987177792008-03-01T13:39:00.000-05:002008-03-01T13:39:00.000-05:00Paul manata,you said:"It's hard to get through you...Paul manata,<BR/><BR/>you said:<BR/>"It's hard to get through your straw men and bald faced lies."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Bald face lies? <BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>"It's hard to get through your smart alec comments about 'don't ask them why they pray, they don't even know.'" <BR/><BR/><BR/>You started it. But you are right. I shouldn't stoop to your level of meanness. Please forgive me for acting like you. Who knows, maybe I can help you change your attitude.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>"Why are all you Arminians so high and mighty about how we treat you when you guys do exactly the same?"<BR/><BR/><BR/>Bad company ruins good morals. Seeing you act bad influenced me to act in the same manor, but I am a man so I take full responsibility for my ill behavior.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I was rude and I was wrong.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>"You're not gaining any sympathy, and your stupid comments only invite even smarter comments."<BR/><BR/>After reading your posts I doubt if you are able to give sympathy to anyone. But who knows......maybe you can change your ways.<BR/><BR/>And if you need me to help you then I will be more than happy to pray for you and hold you accountable.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>"Jnorm, none of his quotes had anything to do with 'why we pray.' They had to do with 'how does your prayer for someone else benefit that someone else?'. You've shown that you don't understand Calvinism, my arguments in my post, or Jagis' questions. You're 0 for 3. Next batter!"<BR/><BR/><BR/>I'm not here to win points. I didn't know this was an "official" debate. I'm not even here for myself. I came because I wanted to help someone else. Now I admit I started out awful. I should have been better prepared. One of the quotes dealt with wrestling with God so I saw "why we pray" as being connected with the question of "how do they benefit others".<BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>"Follow the bouncing ball: Jagis implied that we just throw up a single prayer and hope it stick rather than wrestling, via myriad prayers. Now, if God ordained that he would save a sinner via many prayers, then we would experience the 'wrestling' (whatever he means by that, I assume constant prayer even in the face of many seeming 'No's'."<BR/><BR/><BR/>I follow<BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>"Next, I don't understand what you mean by why I *feel* that God will ordain that a sinner will be saved through many prayers. I think it is obvious since most people I've heard of, including myself, were prayed for many, many times. So, if my position is correct, God ordained that the sinner be saved via all those prayers. This also has the effect of causing the Christian to continue in faith to pray to God, continue to trust him, continue to come to him, commune with him. This removes the slot machine concept many Arminians seem to have. So, given that I 'feel' that Calvinism is true, and that I 'feel' that God saves people usually after many prayers, I thus 'feel' that he use a multitude of prayers as means for his bringing about the sinner's conversion. Your objection simply confuses *de jure* categories with *de facto* ones, then."<BR/><BR/><BR/>I see what you're saying.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>"I don't believe that you read it. And, you cite me not once, you don't interact with any of my arguments, you make a vague reference to 'benefits' and what 'Ben was talking about.' I don't think I specifically mentioned the word 'benefits' and Ben talked about a lot of things."<BR/><BR/><BR/>I did read it.<BR/><BR/>In the last part of (c) you said:<BR/><BR/>"So prayer forces us to recognize our inability, our weakness, our dependence upon God, and thus is an exercise in humility. It is an expression of an attitude of faith. This works whether the prayer is answered or not."<BR/><BR/>You said this in (D)<BR/><BR/>"Prayer is also communication with the living God. It is a means of grace for the believer and allows us to grow in our sanctification. It shows that we trust the Bible and are not ‘anxious’ about the salvation of the lost. It also changes our heat toward our fellow man."<BR/><BR/>As well as this<BR/><BR/>"The ‘point’ here is that our attitude changes in how we think about that person."<BR/><BR/>You also said this in (E)<BR/><BR/>"Another point is that in praying for someone, especially for years, we are so much more appreciative of our salvation by grace alone."<BR/><BR/><BR/>This is why I used the word "Benefits". I used that word to describe what you were talking about.<BR/><BR/>If Our prayers don't influence God to act or not act then they are pointless in that regard.<BR/><BR/><BR/>What you showed was "personal benefits" of "intercessory prayer".<BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>"At any rate, if you read rather than skimmed (at best), then you'd note that all my comments pointed out that his terms were sloppy and vague and ambiguous. Given their level of abstractness, I definitely showed how prayer was (a) not pointless and (b) not a waste of time. That's what I intended to show, and that's what I did show. If you think that my (a) --> (o) points still make prayer 'pointless' and 'a waste of time' then I feel sorry for you."<BR/><BR/><BR/>What you seemed to show was that "intercessory prayer" was not pointless because of the "personal benefits" one gets from prayer. You showed that it wasn't a waste of time because of "personal benefits".<BR/><BR/>In (o) you said:<BR/><BR/> "God could use our prayers as a means to condemn S all the more on judgment day. Thus they wouldn’t have been a ‘waste of time.’"<BR/><BR/>How can God use our prayers as a means to condemn S if S never had a chance to believe in the first place Because God never "unconditionally preordain" him to be saved"?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>You proved your point that prayer as a means was also ordained by God, but in proving your point you run into more trouble because that "prayer" can't really be called an "intercessory" prayer since God irresistibly caused it in the first place.<BR/><BR/>There was no "influencing" God to act or not act since God met all the conditions by preordaining both.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>"That's not at all the case, and it is also a flat-out lie. I did say that we want the lost to be saved. Indeed, that's one of the reasons we pray. Prayer actually causes things to happen. We don't believe God is the only cause in the universe. You are plain ignorant of Reformed theology. Let me quote from a standard confession:"<BR/><BR/><BR/>IF God pre-ordains the means then prayer didn't cause anything to happen. Only God caused it to happen since He unconditionally pre-ordained both.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>JNORM888Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89489818540794726862008-03-01T08:12:00.000-05:002008-03-01T08:12:00.000-05:00It is always interesting to read these discussions...It is always interesting to read these discussions as the Arminian argument usually boils down to a rejection of God's sovereignty. I don't think they would admit to that flat out, but that is what they are resisting. <BR/><BR/>As I read the opposing comments I hear "I want my prayers to be the cause of the effect". It is a control issue and I think it is just human nature. Being a part of God's purpose, being a "means" is just not good enough for us, we want to be in charge. However, that leaves us effectively with a God who isn't in control and that idea is frightening.<BR/><BR/>I can sympathesize with the Arminian struggle grasping this stuff, I still struggle with the concepts. It is a very different way of thinking and we have to be submissive to the truth and not our own need for autonomy. As I have seen Gene ask many a time, where is the scriptural support for LFW? I have yet to see anyone attempt to answer that question.<BR/><BR/>From a personal POV, applying a Calvinist perspective to praying for the lost and its effect, I take joy in the fact that God has chosen to use me to effective the salvation of others. I don't need to "wrestle" with God and win - I am in awe that he would even use me and am very thankful that he is in complete control of everything that happens. But most importantly, this is about accepting God as he has revealed himself through scripture as difficult as that can be at times.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7615534258667226692008-03-01T02:32:00.000-05:002008-03-01T02:32:00.000-05:00I said: "Oh, why not drop the vague terminology. ...I said: "Oh, why not drop the vague terminology. 'Part of the process.' the 'mail man' is 'part of the process' in my sending my income tax return to the IRS, are they then the effective cause in my return from the IRS? QED"<BR/><BR/>Let me remove some of my own vagueness.<BR/><BR/>The mail man is 'part of the process' in the whole 'filing your income taxes process' (at least he always was 20 years ago!, I trust the analogy stays). But, they are not the effecting cause in my (say in my case) getting a return this year. Same with my tax agent. They are 'part of the process.' But, they are not the effective cause of my moneys deposted into my account due to overtaxing.<BR/><BR/>I take it that this is a decisive rebuttalErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71724814935283551112008-03-01T02:25:00.000-05:002008-03-01T02:25:00.000-05:00Thanks for the clarification Saint. I didn't thin...Thanks for the clarification Saint. I didn't think it was possible to lower my expectations of EO internet apologists, but thanks to Jnorm888, he's done that with style.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12403339551301129522008-03-01T00:34:00.000-05:002008-03-01T00:34:00.000-05:00Actually, if I recall correctly, JNORM888 is EO.Actually, if I recall correctly, JNORM888 is EO.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-58430231223920744162008-03-01T00:06:00.000-05:002008-03-01T00:06:00.000-05:00Wow, not only was Ben soundly refuted but now JNOR...Wow, not only was Ben soundly refuted but now JNORM888 has come to be shown his erroneous views as well. What is amazing to witness in all of this is that the Arminian just keeps coming saying the same things over and over. I have not seen them address Manata's post and Genebridges first comment put the final nail in their coffin, yet they still can not see. <BR/><BR/>This is good stuff, thank you for showing their error to people.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07822172330383243446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63735464245529804522008-02-29T23:58:00.000-05:002008-02-29T23:58:00.000-05:00"Jnorm888 said... I read the first half of your po...<I>"Jnorm888 said... <BR/>I read the first half of your post.<BR/><BR/>You lost me halfway through so I jumped down to the last part.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I'll go back and read it again. It's hard to get through your smart remarks."</I><BR/><BR/>It's hard to get through your straw men and bald faced lies. It's hard to get through your smart alec comments about 'don't ask them why they pray, they don't even know.' Why are all you Arminians so high and mighty about how we treat you when you guys do exactly the same? You're not gaining any sympathy, and your stupid comments only invite even smarter comments.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>[snip quotes from Jagis]<BR/><BR/>"This is why I said what I said."</I><BR/><BR/>Jnorm, none of his quotes had anything to do with 'why we pray.' They had to do with 'how does your prayer for someone else benefit that someone else?'. You've shown that you don't understand Calvinism, my arguments in my post, or Jagis' questions. You're 0 for 3. Next batter!<BR/><BR/><I>"But you said:<BR/><BR/>'God can ordain that S be saved through a *multitude* of prayers. So this objection falls flat.'<BR/><BR/>Why do you feel that God will ordain that S be saved through a "multitude" of prayers?"</I><BR/><BR/>Follow the bouncing ball: Jagis implied that we just throw up a single prayer and hope it stick rather than wrestling, via myriad prayers. Now, if God ordained that he would save a sinner via many prayers, then we would experience the 'wrestling' (whatever he means by that, I assume constant prayer even in the face of many seeming 'No's'.<BR/><BR/>Next, I don't understand what you mean by why I *feel* that God will ordain that a sinner will be saved through many prayers. I think it is obvious since most people I've heard of, including myself, were prayed for many, many times. So, if my position is correct, God ordained that the sinner be saved via all those prayers. This also has the effect of causing the Christian to continue in faith to pray to God, continue to trust him, continue to come to him, commune with him. This removes the slot machine concept many Arminians seem to have. So, given that I 'feel' that Calvinism is true, and that I 'feel' that God saves people usually after many prayers, I thus 'feel' that he use a multitude of prayers as means for his bringing about the sinner's conversion. Your objection simply confuses *de jure* categories with *de facto* ones, then.<BR/><BR/><I>"What do you mean by "multitude"?"</I><BR/><BR/>Well, we can start with: more than one.<BR/><BR/><I>"Do you mean by the one person? Or by many people?"</I><BR/><BR/>Do you frequently commit the fallacy of false dichotomy? It could be one person. Or many. Or by the one and many others. One person could prayer many prayers. Or, many people could pray one prayer. Or, one person could pray many while many prayed one. But I'm not too bothered with how God chose to plan it all out. I kinda trust that he picks the best plan to instantiate.<BR/><BR/><I>"Why can't God do it with one prayer by the person? Why can't God do it for one person?"</I><BR/><BR/>He can do any thing he wants. Why didn't God make Adam and Eve like we will be in heaven. or, do you think we will still be able actualize a sinful alternative possibility in heaven? Why, why, why? And, my comment simply was in the context of Jagis' question about wrestling. If God does decree that a sinner is saved by my many hours of prayer, then the objection fell flat. It seems to me that this is how things go (I don't know about you, but I don't just pray once and the next day get a call that so and so converted), and so the objection fell flat.<BR/><BR/><I>"And even if God did ordain that S be saved through a "multitude" of prayers.....I don't see how that answers he question."</I><BR/><BR/>Well, that's because you need to get that hamster in your noggin to start running on the wheel a little faster. If I pray for hours and hours, pleading with God to save some sinner S, constantly coming to him like the widow in Luke 18, then I've hardly 'thrown up a prayer and hope it stuck.' That's how it answered the question.<BR/><BR/><I>"Jnorm888 said... <BR/>Ok I read it all. Your arguments about personal benefits in regards to the one that prays has nothing to do with what Ben was talking about."</I><BR/><BR/>I don't believe that you read it. And, you cite me not once, you don't interact with any of my arguments, you make a vague reference to 'benefits' and what 'Ben was talking about.' I don't think I specifically mentioned the word 'benefits' and Ben talked about a lot of things. At any rate, if you read rather than skimmed (at best), then you'd note that all my comments pointed out that his terms were sloppy and vague and ambiguous. Given their level of abstractness, I definitely showed how prayer was (a) not pointless and (b) not a waste of time. That's what I intended to show, and that's what I did show. If you think that my (a) --> (o) points still make prayer 'pointless' and 'a waste of time' then I feel sorry for you.<BR/><BR/><I>"This would make it seem as if a Calvinist prays for the lost because of personal benefits, and not because he/she really wants that person to be saved."</I><BR/><BR/>That's not at all the case, and it is also a flat-out lie. I did say that we want the lost to be saved. Indeed, that's one of the reasons we pray. Prayer actually causes things to happen. We don't believe God is the only cause in the universe. You are plain ignorant of Reformed theology. Let me quote from a standard confession:<BR/><BR/>Chapter III<BR/>Of God's Eternal Decree<BR/>I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; <B>nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.</B><BR/><BR/>Prayer changes things. Prayer causes things to happen. This is what the Reformed have always believed and argued voluminously about. See our systematics texts. See specific books we've written on the subject.<BR/><BR/>You're a dishonest debater Jnorm. Is this how bad off Arminianism is? They have to sink to the level of flat out lies and complete ignorancy?<BR/><BR/><I>"But you didn't stop there. Which was a good thing. You went on to say that God ordains the means as well as the end. I think Ben's post was from a free will perspective."</I><BR/><BR/>I don’t care what perspective his post was from. Your comment proves how lost you are. 'Wake up, McFly! You're a slacker.' Ben was arguing for an INCONSISTENCY. See that? That is, he tried to argue that from with<B>IN</B> our position, we don't have <B>CONSISTENCY.</B> So, your attempt to be a messiah for Ben only made his argument look worse, if what you say is correct. But I don't even think Ben is that bad a thinker to argue externally when trying to prove internal tension. <BR/><BR/><I>"Now this is the tricky part. If you believe that your prayer is the process by which God saves a lost person then<BR/><BR/>"believers contribute to the salvation of the elect"</I><BR/><BR/>Right, just like I thought. You didn't read my post. I utterly refuted this vague, sloppy, ambiguous, 'contribute' nonsense. I laid out the premises with precision and showed how now inconsistency could be drawn. Show where my work was wrong. Don’t just re-assert Ben's poor argument as if I said NOTHING in response to it.<BR/><BR/><I>"You say that this is only a "means" and not an effect. If you helped in the process of someone being saved then you were part of the cause......part of the influence."</I><BR/><BR/>Reformed have never denied any of this. For example, faith is an <I>instrumental cause</I> in our justification. We've always said these things. You're arguing against a straw man. Makes you feel good to beat up on those weaker then you, huh? <BR/><BR/><I>"Paul,<BR/><BR/>How do you understand monergism in regards to "you" being part of the process?</I><BR/><BR/>I defined 'monergism' in my post.<BR/><BR/><I>"Is it "God working for you"? or "God working in you"? If it's "God working in you", is His working in you "resistible" or "irresistible"? If iressistible then how are you authentically part of the process? And if ressistible then how can you still call it "monergy"?</I><BR/><BR/>What are you even talking about now? We were talking about prayer for someone else. And how *that* was inconsistent with monergism. Now you've switched to talking about me. In what respect? Are we done with the prayer thing now? You really need to start taking your time and being more precise. You're all over the map. <B>And, I also pointed out the flaw in your guys' stupid argument from the root words of monergism. There's much more to it than simply saying 'one worker.' As we define it, in the sense we use it, there is only one effective cause in regeneration. Oh, why not drop the vague terminology. 'Part of the process.' the 'mail man' is 'part of the process' in my sending my income tax return to the IRS, are they then the effective cause in my return from the IRS?</B> QED Seriously Jnorm, don't even bother if you can't afford us the courtesy of thinking clearly.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for showing the sad state of affairs Arminian internet apologists are in.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20681611498898953492008-02-29T23:47:00.000-05:002008-02-29T23:47:00.000-05:00"Please forgive me. I was trying to defend Ben. Ne..."Please forgive me. I was trying to defend Ben. Next time I will take my time."<BR/><BR/>Thanks. I'll try not to get so irritated next time. Sorry.<BR/><BR/>"There are diferent kinds of Calvinists."<BR/><BR/>I'm aware that there are Amyraldians, but they would hold to compatibilism as well. I'm also aware that there are hyper-Calvinists, but I (and Calvin as well!) would not say that they are Calvinist in any sense of the word except semantically. [In fact, some hyper-Calvinists consider Calvin to be a heretic!]<BR/><BR/>Other than that, I don't know what you're talking about.<BR/><BR/>"How do you understand monergism in regards to "you" being part of the process?"<BR/><BR/>Paul can give his own answers to these questions, but I'll answer a few of them myself.<BR/><BR/>When the Calvinist says "Monergism", he is specifically referring to Election, Regeneration, and Perseverance. [If I left anything out, someone please tell me.]<BR/><BR/>Regeneration restores the Imago Dei in man to its pre-lapsarian, un-marred state and convicts man of his sin. As a result, the believer freely believes (though without fail). This results in justification which, in turn, results in union with Christ. This is why some Calvinists refer to faith as a "gift" even though it is actually *our* faith which *we* actually believe.<BR/><BR/>Sanctification, on the other hand, is synergistic. [However, sanctification in Protestant theology is not the same as justification or deification in RC and EO theology, respectively.] It can go backwards or forwards. <BR/><BR/>"You say that this is only a "means" and not an effect. If you helped in the process of someone being saved then you were part of the cause......part of the influence."<BR/><BR/>Yes, but God ordained this part of the influence.<BR/><BR/>Remember, this is compatibilism you are trying to critique, here. The claim is both that God alone ordains that a certain group be saved (originating this selection of men from within Himself) AND that believers' freely-made (again, defined in terms of compatibilist freedom) prayers contribute to the salvation of others.<BR/><BR/>"If iressistible then how are you authentically part of the process?"<BR/><BR/>You're going to have to define "authentically". If what you mean by authentically refers to LFW, then you're begging the question against compatibilist freedom since we would say that compatibilist freedom is just as "authentic" (if not more) than LFW.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.com