tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post150546016238167758..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: MantrapRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-460585343607625602016-02-13T15:05:28.381-05:002016-02-13T15:05:28.381-05:00You say you understand, then you say that even if ...You say you understand, then you say that even if that condition is met, it doesn't entail the reprobation/damnation of a sinner because God might forgive him. But that disregards what it means for something to be a necessary condition, and what follows if that condition is met. <br /><br />This is about consistency and concepts. For instance, you can't say the blood of Christ might protect Superman from Kryptonite. That's because the concept of Superman requires vulnerability to Kryptonite. <br /><br />Notice that this isn't a question of whether the concept is true. In this example, we're dealing with a fictional character. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88415737188719372902016-02-13T14:09:46.744-05:002016-02-13T14:09:46.744-05:00The next thing someone might say to me is, "d...The next thing someone might say to me is, "does that mean you do not consider yourself a sinner?" I would say I am <i><a href="http://www.ligonier.org/blog/simul-justus-et-peccator/" rel="nofollow">Sumul Justus et Peccator</a></i>. And link to a very good explanation from R. C. Sproul.Jeff Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17768185709286407477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31649924260221339842016-02-13T12:40:06.933-05:002016-02-13T12:40:06.933-05:00If you say, as you did, that human demerit is a &q...<i> If you say, as you did, that human demerit is a "sufficient condition" of reprobation, then that necessarily entails the damnation of the sinner.</i><br /><br />I know. You have been insisting that I am not aware of this, which has been frustrating, but I know.Jeff Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17768185709286407477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59340545403492229712016-02-13T12:20:03.848-05:002016-02-13T12:20:03.848-05:00You constantly miss the point. The question isn...You constantly miss the point. The question isn't theology, but concepts. If you say, as you did, that human demerit is a "sufficient condition" of reprobation, then that necessarily entails the damnation of the sinner. Appealing to the blood of Jesus is irrelevant, since the question at issue is what a concept entails. It's a logical relation. The only way around this is to deny that demerit is a sufficient condition of reprobation. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90052620236373964532016-02-13T10:12:45.730-05:002016-02-13T10:12:45.730-05:00A sufficient condition for some state of affairs S...<i>A sufficient condition for some state of affairs S is a condition that, if satisfied, guarantees that S obtains.</i><br /><br />OK. Last chance. No bravado. S=guilt. Through Jesus blood, S is blotted out perfectly thoroughly from all time and space such that no trace of S exists anywhere or anywhen. The elect do not meet said conditions.Jeff Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17768185709286407477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12175656036086957622016-02-12T22:26:10.628-05:002016-02-12T22:26:10.628-05:00"“And you, who were dead in your trespasses a...<i>"“And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.”Colossians 2:13–14"</i><br /><br />Amen to this glorious truth, a truth that clearly proves that guilt/sin is not a sufficient condition for reprobation.<br /><br />Thank you for making the case so strongly.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03231394164372721485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-6339958341696937422016-02-12T21:41:54.805-05:002016-02-12T21:41:54.805-05:00"I am trying to think it through, but I am no..."I am trying to think it through, but I am not nearly there. I think our worldviews must be poles apart. To let you know what I am honestly thinking, I imagine you are coming from the perspective of a strangely flat and static Calvinistic universe which leads you to conclusions that are hopelessly foreign to me. Ditto for your reply, steve."<br /><br />This has absolutely nothing to do with worldviews or theology. Rather, it's about concepts. The concept of a necessary condition and what that entails. <br /><br />You've given no evidence that you even bothered to look it up. Instead, you just bluff your way through these debates. <br /><br />Here's a definition: "A sufficient condition for some state of affairs S is a condition that, if satisfied, guarantees that S obtains."<br /><br />According to that definition, if guilt is a sufficient condition for reprobation, then anyone and everyone who is guilty is a reprobate. And since everybody is a sinner, it follows that everybody is hellbound–assuming guilt (or demerit) is a sufficient condition for reprobation/damnation.<br /><br />The question at issue isn't whether you agree with the concept. Rather, that's what the concept means and implies. <br /><br />This is your last chance.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76591241001549877052016-02-12T21:19:19.837-05:002016-02-12T21:19:19.837-05:00Jeff D
"This made absolutely no sense to me....Jeff D<br /><br />"This made absolutely no sense to me. Clearly in my story debt was enough to put people who owe money in debtors' prison. You laid down 'my debt wasn't enough to keep me in prison' like a trump card, puzzlingly right after playing 'if someone paid your debt.' The significance of that appears to be blindingly obvious to you, but I have serious trouble following along. My debt, which was paid, leaving me with no money owed, was not enough to keep me in debtors' prison. Which means that indebtedness was an insufficient condition to imprison me (who owes no money). Therefore... owing money is not a sufficient condition for imprisoning debtors? <br /><br />You're so passive-aggressive. On the one hand, you act like you honestly don't understand and honestly want to understand. But on the other hand, you make borderline antagonistic remarks which overinterpret what's been said, as if you were somehow privy to our thoughts or motives (e.g. "You laid down...like a trump card," "blindingly obvious to you"). Again, you're passive-aggressive.<br /><br />"I am trying to think it through, but I am not nearly there. I think our worldviews must be poles apart. To let you know what I am honestly thinking, I imagine you are coming from the perspective of a strangely flat and static Calvinistic universe which leads you to conclusions that are hopelessly foreign to me."<br /><br />The fact that you say "I imagine you are coming from the perspective of a strangely flat and static Calvinistic universe" is closer to insult or dismissal than attempting to understand. If this is you "honestly thinking," then I'd hate to see what it's like when you're not "honestly thinking"!rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89668199854263889802016-02-12T19:25:08.420-05:002016-02-12T19:25:08.420-05:00rockingwithhawking
Anyway, in your example, if som...<i>rockingwithhawking<br />Anyway, in your example, if someone paid your debt, then your debt wasn't enough to keep you in prison. Your indebtedness was an insufficient condition to imprison you.</i><br /><br />This made absolutely no sense to me. Clearly in my story debt was enough to put people <i>who owe money</i> in debtors' prison. You laid down "my debt wasn't enough to keep me in prison" like a trump card, puzzlingly right after playing "if someone paid your debt." The significance of that appears to be blindingly obvious to you, but I have serious trouble following along. My debt, which was paid, leaving me with no money owed, was not enough to keep me in debtors' prison. Which means that indebtedness was an insufficient condition to imprison me (who owes no money). Therefore... owing money is not a sufficient condition for imprisoning debtors?<br /><br />I am trying to think it through, but I am not nearly there. I think our worldviews must be poles apart. To let you know what I am honestly thinking, I imagine you are coming from the perspective of a strangely flat and static Calvinistic universe which leads you to conclusions that are hopelessly foreign to me.<br /><br />Ditto for your reply, steve.<br /><br /><i>CR<br />Jeff D., honestly you've come across as arrogantly ignorant and impervious to patient repeated correction throughout this exchange.</i><br />Thank you for your honesty. That would certainly explain some of the replies I have gotten. Arrogantly ignorant is not what I am going for. In my mind I try to keep my combox authorship intelligent, concise, brief, and ever so slightly entertaining. The reasons are to avoid confusion and avoid boring people.<br /><br />If I may say in closing, “And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.” Colossians 2:13–14Jeff Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17768185709286407477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72031194372546509052016-02-12T12:26:28.554-05:002016-02-12T12:26:28.554-05:00Jeff D., honestly you've come across as arroga...Jeff D., honestly you've come across as arrogantly ignorant and impervious to patient repeated correction throughout this exchange.<br /><br />You've not demonstrated that you're honoring God with your mind. That's not a virtue, it's a vice.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03231394164372721485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54855664016705935032016-02-12T11:38:30.658-05:002016-02-12T11:38:30.658-05:00But according to your analogy, Jeff, that means de...But according to your analogy, Jeff, that means demerit is not a sufficient condition for reprobation. So you've now reversed yourself. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31887793977753150452016-02-12T09:15:26.729-05:002016-02-12T09:15:26.729-05:00Jeff D
For one thing, metaphors have their limita...Jeff D<br /><br />For one thing, metaphors have their limitations.<br /><br />For another, one can come up with a different metaphor to support a different conclusion.<br /><br />Anyway, in your example, if someone paid your debt, then your debt wasn't enough to keep you in prison. Your indebtedness was an insufficient condition to imprison you.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31054146848667012962016-02-12T07:27:07.379-05:002016-02-12T07:27:07.379-05:00Suppose you live in a country where owing $1000 is...Suppose you live in a country where owing $1000 is enough to get you thrown into debtors' prison. There is a jailer whose job it is to double check the people coming in to see if they belong there. So as you are entering the jail, he checks to see if you owe at least $1000. That's all he has to check. He doesn't have to check anything else. Owing $1000 is a sufficient condition for being thrown into debtors' prison. If you owe $1000, you get escorted to a cozy cell.<br /><br />Suppose before you get to the door, someone pays your debt for you. Once you get to the door, the jailer checks and finds out that you don't owe any money. You don't meet the sufficient conditions for being thrown into debtors' prison and he lets you go.Jeff Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17768185709286407477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60539674067718188052016-02-11T23:28:39.183-05:002016-02-11T23:28:39.183-05:00If his transgressions are forgiven, then demerit w...If his transgressions are forgiven, then demerit was an insufficient condition for reprobation damnation. <br /><br />Either you're too lazy to look up the definition of terms, or you fail to grasp their implications. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80777964323884208542016-02-11T19:02:33.735-05:002016-02-11T19:02:33.735-05:00"...while you deny what that entails."
..."...while you deny what that entails."<br /><br />I did not so deny! Leastways I didn't mean to. Where do you think I did? Let's clear up that misunderstanding.<br /><br />Q: Which person who has had his transgressions removed as far as the east is from the west meets the sufficient condition for punishment which is so defined as human demerit?<br /><br />A: Not one.Jeff Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17768185709286407477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50214937022926572712016-02-10T20:04:36.698-05:002016-02-10T20:04:36.698-05:00Jeff, you clearly don't understand, because yo...Jeff, you clearly don't understand, because you affirm that it's a sufficient condition while you deny what that entails. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11267267767841072872016-02-10T19:21:47.108-05:002016-02-10T19:21:47.108-05:00"Jeff D2/09/2016 6:00 PM☍
I disagree! Yes, h...<i>"Jeff D2/09/2016 6:00 PM☍<br /><br />I disagree! <b>Yes, human demerit is an entirely sufficient condition for punishment</b>. The wages of sin is death.</i>CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03231394164372721485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47391596531681836372016-02-10T17:45:13.168-05:002016-02-10T17:45:13.168-05:00Demerit is a necessary but insufficient condition ...<i>Demerit is a necessary but insufficient condition for reprobation. Only sinners go to hell. Yet not every sinner goes to hell. Hence, that's not a sufficient condition.</i><br /><br />I understand. I understood the first time you said it. It is very logical. A+ for logic. I just asked a follow up question, which you didn't answer.Jeff Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17768185709286407477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77398112639679207272016-02-10T17:40:42.665-05:002016-02-10T17:40:42.665-05:00"If you continue to leave willfully uniformed..."If you continue to leave willfully uniformed comments, you will be banned."<br /><br />You have more patience then me on that :-DPeter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44385857890036144992016-02-10T09:06:37.645-05:002016-02-10T09:06:37.645-05:00Lydia,
Actually that seems *implausible* on its f...Lydia,<br /><br />Actually that seems *implausible* on its face to me... and I would think there are many more who agree with that since natural evils are usually a big talking point in the problem of evil, right?<br /><br />Go with Steve's scenario: suppose a snake found its way into a mailbox and bit a 10 year old boy, killing him. The snake was ordained to do this by God. If the agent who caused the snake to be in the mailbox was anyone other than God wouldn't it be pretty obvious that said agent is responsible for the boy's death? So why not with God?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05690738239872948496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74513151073852515732016-02-10T08:56:33.977-05:002016-02-10T08:56:33.977-05:00But maybe the freewill theist would say it's _...But maybe the freewill theist would say it's _not_ bad for God to ordain natural evil and that freewill theism (unlike Calvinism) has no hint of God's ordaining moral evil. I'd certainly consider saying that. It seems plausible to me on its face.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-40722409767401759472016-02-10T00:04:14.115-05:002016-02-10T00:04:14.115-05:00"How does God determine evil?"
i) In on..."How does God determine evil?"<br /><br />i) In one sense, God determines evil via predestination. God has a plan. Everything happens according to plan.<br /><br />ii) In another sense, God determines evil through providence. That's how the plan is implemented. Usually through second causes. <br /><br />iii) In another sense, God determines evil the way a novelist or cinematographer or video gamer creates an villain or an evil event. It begins with a scenario in the creator's mind. He then creates a situation that matches his idea. He instantiates his idea, objectifies his idea. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69121983175771567022016-02-09T23:32:03.758-05:002016-02-09T23:32:03.758-05:00Jeff,
Demerit is a necessary but insufficient con...Jeff,<br /><br />Demerit is a necessary but insufficient condition for reprobation. Only sinners go to hell. Yet not every sinner goes to hell. Hence, that's not a sufficient condition. <br /><br />If you wish to maintain the privilege of commenting on this blog, you better stop acting like an intellectual deadbeat. You have the screwy notion that you don't need to master essential concepts. You can just go by the seat-of-your-pants. If you continue to leave willfully uniformed comments, you will be banned. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70946755786812728342016-02-09T23:28:01.106-05:002016-02-09T23:28:01.106-05:00"God put a snake in his enemy's mailbox b...<i>"God put a snake in his enemy's mailbox because he is his enemy who ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil."<br /><br />That wasn't my example. You're going off on a tangent.</i><br /><br />What!? I'm really lost. I thought you said the relationship between God and natural evil is like a guy who puts a snake in his neighbor's mailbox. I don't know what you are talking about anymore.Jeff Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17768185709286407477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90452148074808323882016-02-09T23:18:05.409-05:002016-02-09T23:18:05.409-05:00I am not oblivious to the logic of your argument. ...I am not oblivious to the logic of your argument. I see what you are doing. You are logicing up clever sounding arguments to cover perceived gaps in the Biblical logic of salvation and damnation. I'm Lutheran. If someone goes to Hell it is all their fault. If someone goes to heaven it is all Jesus' doing.<br /><br />You didn't answer my question. If human demerit is not a sufficient condition for reprobation, what other condition must a human possess, biblical or otherwise? Jeff Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17768185709286407477noreply@blogger.com