tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1424325277375621042..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Esau have I hatedRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-6376438707801278562010-05-15T22:50:53.201-04:002010-05-15T22:50:53.201-04:00Actually, let me revise what I said. Wes did touch...Actually, let me revise what I said. Wes did touch upon it once in the conversation, but he said the slander was how Dr. White declared Wes to be coming from an unbiblical perspective.<br /><br />......<br /><br />And where is the slander and misrepresentation again? Really, I only mentioned this issue to correct myself, but I have to honestly ask how that remark is at all slanderous? Surely Wes is just as adament in his declarations that calvinistic determinism is unbiblical, and if we used this tortured definition of slander and misrepresentation, then are we not responding to each other in all mutuality?Prince Asbelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06084817183123423099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76980811875795861792010-05-14T21:39:39.929-04:002010-05-14T21:39:39.929-04:00This whole exchange smacks of the same attitude We...This whole exchange smacks of the same attitude Wes displayed when he appeared on James White's Dividing Line webcast. What was the purpose of his appearing on the show? To substantiate his accusations of slander and misrepresentation by James White of Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig etc.<br /><br />So what did Wes do? Shift the goal posts. Not once in that entire exchange did he ever touch the subject of Dr. White's alleged slander and misrepresentation, and after James White pointed this out multiple times, he did there what he did here, and said he had already tried to address it, but James White lacked the categories to see it.<br /><br />I guess the logic here is that Wes's refusal to deal with the actual issue is our fault, not his. No wonder we're so inept at debating our Arminian brethren.Prince Asbelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06084817183123423099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83346138885089594572010-05-14T20:44:49.473-04:002010-05-14T20:44:49.473-04:00Wes said:
"how is it a stretch (especially gi...Wes said:<br />"how is it a stretch (especially given the existence of counter-factual statements throughout Scripture) to say that God foreknew what Esau would freely do and that therefore (because we also know God is not arbitrary or unjust) God's rejection of Esau before time began (or, more to the point, before Jacob and Esau were even born) was based on his foreknowledge?"<br /><br />Me:<br />If this were true, then what was the point of Paul adding "though they were not yet born and had done"? Rhetorically, what would that statement add to Paul's argument?<br /><br />Logically, if you isolate this verse from its context, then yes, you could interpret this in Chrysostom's manner (i.e. foreseen works). But in the rhetorical flow of Paul's argument, such an interpretation would make nonsense of Paul's statement. There would be no reason for Paul to add it.<br /><br />Paul adds the temporal statement in order to eliminate the idea that God's choice was based on something that they did during their lives.<br /><br />Secondly, it should be noted that such an interpretation would make Paul agree with the Pharisees, who (according to Acts 15) were Paul's theological opponents.<br /><br />Third, Paul's hypothetical objector in v.19 appeals to the principle of alternative possibility! "If God chooses unconditionally, and his choice irresistibly causes the decisions by which men will be judged, then how can God judge men fairly since they cannot do otherwise?"<br /><br />Paul's opponent sounds exactly like an Arminian!Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10697524145134156232010-05-14T14:50:12.346-04:002010-05-14T14:50:12.346-04:00Oy. Calvinist wins this one.Oy. Calvinist wins this one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com