tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2359602581917231160..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Two go in, one comes out: John Calvin and Grizzly Adams in the OctogonRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39488533277746728872012-12-11T14:43:03.210-05:002012-12-11T14:43:03.210-05:00I have never quite understood the free-will defens...I have never quite understood the free-will defense. Suppose there are two agents, a rapist who desires to rape and a young girl who desires not to be raped. Why does it seem that God upholds the free will of the rapist and allows the free will of the young girl to be violated? If a free will is going to be violated, why does God not protect the potential victim?<br />Why is the rapist’s free will more precious than the girl’s well-being? Why doesn’t God temporarily make the rapist a kindly “robot” for that moment in time that he would have raped? I’m sure the girl and her loved ones would prefer that to the rapist’s free will being unhindered.<br />It is also easy to see how there could be less evil or pain. Suppose a thug wants to beat down some poor soul. But when that moment comes God turns the physical characteristics of the baseball bat into that of a wet noodle. The thug still has his evil desires and still acts upon them, but the effects are minimized.<br /><i>“we can only answer that God wanted evil. Since there were no external constraints on his action, we cannot say he wanted the lesser of two evils or that he wanted to turn someone else's evil intention into a good end.”</i><br />It seems that his very first paragraph did allow that in Calvinism God does not save everyone for a good end, namely his own glory. Indeed, in both Calvinism and Arminianism God could have saved everybody but there were alternate goals that conflicted with that end. In Arminiamism God desired free-will more than he desired the salvation of all men. Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15914126628566132517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13048600798005162972012-12-11T11:43:16.156-05:002012-12-11T11:43:16.156-05:00Very interesting! Thanks for your input. I'll ...Very interesting! Thanks for your input. I'll have to study those issues a bit more now.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53264738931905086902012-12-11T11:42:44.878-05:002012-12-11T11:42:44.878-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19161519106598331742012-12-11T11:30:47.442-05:002012-12-11T11:30:47.442-05:00I think the exegetical arguments for the two-wills...I think the exegetical arguments for the two-wills view (a la Murray, Piper, Ware) are hard to distinguish from open-theist hermeneutics. Since I reject the latter, I reject the former. <br /><br />I also think it's inconsistent with Reformed theism to say God suffers from conflicted feelings towards the reprobate. Indeed, even Murray admitted the apparent tension. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12808178530613510412012-12-11T10:45:07.507-05:002012-12-11T10:45:07.507-05:00iii) As you know, there are Calvinists who do thin...<i>iii) As you know, there are Calvinists who do think God loves the reprobate in some sense. That’s not my own position.</i><br /><br />Curious, Steve, is that because:<br /><br />1. You find Positive Scriptural evidence for, or have superior arguments for your position? For example, evidence that God only hates or doesn't love the non-elect.<br /><br />2. You find Negative Scriptural evidence for, or have stronger arguments against those alternative Calvinist positions that believe God loves the non-elect (in some sense)?<br /><br />3. Lack of evidence for the alternatives and therefore believe yours should be the default position?<br /><br />I've always been open to either position as true, but I'm not sophisticated enough to determine which is more likely. <br /><br />The reason my default position is the alternative one is because (as you said) <br /><br />1. God loving (in some sense) the non-elect is consistent with Calvinism. <br /><br />2. In some senses it's easier to defend apologetically<br /><br />3.It's easier to live out and proclaim evangelistically<br /><br />Would you disagree with #2 and #3 (i.e. it's easier apologetically and evangelistically)? I can imagine you with you greater knowledge and ability seeing the alternative view(s) having apologetical disadvantages.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77293053148064133372012-12-11T10:39:10.525-05:002012-12-11T10:39:10.525-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.com