tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2666577734834923539..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Reppert's Latest Try at Undermining CalvinismRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-35947493727441360652008-04-21T01:11:00.000-04:002008-04-21T01:11:00.000-04:00Thnuhthnuh,You're an atheist!? I thought you were...Thnuhthnuh,<BR/><BR/>You're an atheist!? I thought you were a Christian because I've you post on other Christian blogs.<BR/><BR/>You fooled me.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43562209590980554172008-04-20T21:37:00.000-04:002008-04-20T21:37:00.000-04:00"I'm rather unclear here. If the Bible teaches it,..."I'm rather unclear here. If the Bible teaches it, then why don't you believe it? Please clarify, if you will."<BR/><BR/>Thnuhthnuh is an atheist.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84796002823175696312008-04-20T21:36:00.000-04:002008-04-20T21:36:00.000-04:00Pointing out disagreements is to simply point out ...Pointing out disagreements is to simply point out the obvious: people have psychologies.<BR/><BR/>There are *many* reasons why people disagree, and in the case of the Bible, the least of which is the belief that Scripture isn't clear enough.<BR/><BR/>If disagreement meant that something could not be determined due to unclarity of the data, then all debate on everything would cease.<BR/><BR/>To reinforce V.R.'s point above, there are several well-known biologists (and they aren't creationists or IDers) that believe that RM+NS (i.e. neo-Darwinism) is not a powerful enough factor to cause evolution. Instead, they are searching for an alternative [albeit, naturalistic] mechanism. Will our atheist interlocutors believe that this debate over something so fundamental to atheistic materialism destroys the validity of the biological sciences?Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8385307969106836292008-04-20T21:18:00.000-04:002008-04-20T21:18:00.000-04:00Thnuhthnuh: "BTW, I *do* agree that the Bible tea...<B>Thnuhthnuh</B>: <I>"BTW, I *do* agree that the Bible teaches compatibilism, which is another reason I'm glad I don't believe it."</I><BR/><BR/>I'm rather unclear here. If the Bible teaches it, then why don't you believe it? Please clarify, if you will.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-15584878324791913642008-04-20T21:16:00.000-04:002008-04-20T21:16:00.000-04:00thnuhthnuh said: It seems that your point is that...<I>thnuhthnuh said: <BR/> <BR/>It seems that your point is that there are many necessary conditions that go into commission of a sin, so God's decree can't be singled out as the major cause, but it seems to be this is a morally significant factor, so God would be culpable, but Dahmer's parents would not.</I><BR/><BR/>First, I asked a *question* so I could clear on what *Victor's* definition was. You can't critique me for asking a clarifying *question*.<BR/><BR/>Second, all you've done is assert that God is morally culpable. And this assertion in light of the fact that I answered this charge both here and in my other posts. <BR/><BR/>Thus, this comment is unhelpful.<BR/><BR/><I>II d)There is a long theological tradition which speaks of concurrence. <BR/><BR/>That's an appeal to authority. IIRC, William Lane Craig criticized Anthony Flew for believing in that in their debate. So Craig rejects it. He's certainly as authoritative as any other Christian philosopher.</I><BR/><BR/>i) No, it's not an appeal to authority (and, not all appeals to authority are fallacious. See Douglas Walton's _Informal Fallacies_.)<BR/><BR/>ii) I simply mentioned the view, and then showed that it makes God the cause of upholding all things.<BR/><BR/>iii) Flew did not believe in what I presented.<BR/><BR/>iv) If my mention of theologians was an appeal to authority, how was your name dropping of Craig not the same?<BR/><BR/><I>"This threatens to lead into minutiae about interpretation rather than the subject which I thought was "does calvinism offer an adequate response to the problem of evil." The arminian could pull out Molinism to interpret those passages (God placed certain people in certain places (like Pilate & Judas) that he knew would act in certain ways, but they had libertarian free will etc., etc.) Then this would become a discussion about the feasibility of Molinism, etc. I don't see why it's helpful then to bring in these texts. Just argue about whether WCP is a valid "moral axiom" or "intuition" or not.</I><BR/><BR/>The context of this discussion was the WCP.<BR/><BR/>How would Molinist interpretations not be an instance of the WCP?<BR/><BR/>Just *telling* me that there could be other interpretations does absolutely *nothing* to advance an argument or show a problem with my argument.<BR/><BR/>The fact that there can be other interpretations does not mean mine is wrong. We have to get into the mud and wrestle. I have no problem getting dirty.<BR/><BR/><I>"III. WPP<BR/>I don't regard this as valid for the following reason- it seems the Biblical scenario is like God is a judge or prison guard and we are prisoners on death row. Let's say Jeffrey Dahmer, or John Geoghan is killed by a fellow inmate. I do not believe that even if the guard could have prevented this, it would be wrong for him *not* to. But it *would* be wrong if the guard had the capability of *decreeing* Dahmer's will to be evil and he did it years before Dahmer ended up in the pen. So the reason WPP is ok and WPC is *not* ok for God is because his prerogative in letting evil happen to us is because we already *are* sinful (Luke 13- except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish, etc.), but WPC is a different ballpark - that concerns the origin of the sin, not dealing with sinners once sin is a fact."</I><BR/><BR/>i) Guard's can't let people murder other people in an *unlawful* way. You're just evincing ignorance of the system. That’s why they *stop* these sorts of things. That’s why they do cell checks for shanks. That’s why they put people in the hole who are in danger. That’s why Dahmer was on a special watch. They are supposed to uphold the *law* and that means upholding the *lawful* form of execution.<BR/><BR/>ii) You've not shown how "decreeing" is problematic. You've just *asserting* that it is...again.<BR/><BR/>iii) If we are guilty then on the WCP God can use a gang member to, say, kill another person since, as you grant, that person is guilty. So, at best, you've shown that there is no WPP principle and no WCP that affects either.<BR/><BR/>iv) The WPP would apply to the fall too.<BR/><BR/>v) I've discussed the fall before:<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/dialogues-with-infidels.html<BR/><BR/>vi) You've ignored *all* of the requests for specification on what you take the "decree" to be. You're showing *no* familiarity with the Calvinist position. You're *totally* ignoring the explanation I gave.<BR/><BR/><I>"For us humans, who are fellow criminals, we have a moral duty to behave ourselves towards each other therefore WPP is *not* an option for us. Your analogy fails because God stands in a different relation to us than we do to each other."</I><BR/><BR/>Same with the WCP, and I made this point. Totally different levels of causality. You're equivocation. You're leaving out the creator/creature distinction. You're treating God as *just one more fact of the universe*. You're begging the question. You're totally failing to interact with my argument and the developed, systematic approach I took.<BR/><BR/>I also showed an exception to the WCP by my example of the MAVWCP.<BR/><BR/><I>"BTW, I *do* agree that the Bible teaches compatibilism, which is another reason I'm glad I don't believe it."</I><BR/><BR/>I don't get it, so you *don't* believe in compatibilism?<BR/><BR/>You believe in libertarian free will?<BR/><BR/>And that fits in with atheistic naturalism how, exactly?<BR/><BR/>And your answer to the Luck Argument by fellow atheists is *what*, exactly? <BR/><BR/>Your answer tio Dennett is *what* exactly?<BR/><BR/><I>"Victor, I read a link on your page "an arminian exegesis of Rom 9" and stopped at this point: "Those who die in their sin do so by the predetermined counsel and kind intention of God's will. Stop your blubbering, Paul." </I><BR/><BR/>Victor posted some dude's *blog*<BR/>entry. Here's a *scholarly* exegesis of Romans 9 by NT Scholar Dr. Steve Baugh:<BR/><BR/>http://www.glenwoodhills.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=423<BR/><BR/>And here's another good entry by a trained exegete showing the individual nature of Romans 9:<BR/><BR/>http://www.mslick.com/romans9c.htm<BR/><BR/>And Reppert makes a false dichotomy when he views Rom. 9 has either individual *or* corporate.<BR/><BR/>Please read and digest the argument before future interaction so as to save us both time. Thank you.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83571573931672190452008-04-20T20:44:00.000-04:002008-04-20T20:44:00.000-04:00Hi Luke,In the context of this debate, I have put ...Hi Luke,<BR/><BR/>In the context of this debate, I have put forward these:<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/04/reply-to-anti-calvinists.html<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-reppert-cant-unsolve-calvinists.html<BR/><BR/>But I've also posted on it in numerous other instances. A couple examples would be:<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/10/emotional-problem-of-evil_28.html<BR/><BR/>and <BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/02/if-evil-then-god.htmlErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65245482772432915032008-04-20T20:41:00.000-04:002008-04-20T20:41:00.000-04:00I certainly don't endorse any attempt by atheists ...I certainly don't endorse any attempt by atheists to get points for their own view based on our controversy here. Atheists disagree about all sorts of things. For example, evolutionists never tire of reminding critics of evolution that any controversy between advocates of gradualism and advocates of punctuated equalibilium provides any basis for calling evolution into question. Can't we say that same thing to atheists with respect to this debate?Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50623524631443966392008-04-20T20:20:00.000-04:002008-04-20T20:20:00.000-04:00btw, I've no problem with compatibilism to determi...btw, I've no problem with compatibilism to determine guilt (it is a sort of minimal requirement to determine guilt - if you know right from wrong and sin freely, you are guilty end of discussion - no need to appeal to "meta" causes of your will). <BR/><BR/>But I do not think your greater good theodicy (redeemed humanity is a greater good than unfallen) is a justification for God's decree that reprobates exist (although God's decree of *reprobabtion* is reasonable since that deals with sinners as already existing things). An analogy I'd offer is that let's say we could induce some horrible medical condition in someone so our physicians could learn how to cure it. That knowledge of the cure is a greater good, but that doesn't justify bringing about that condition in the person without his will. And if God decrees a spiritual condition of a person by decreeing that person's will be a certain way, he has brought about a horrible condition *without* consulting that person's will. That may be problematic (how can one consult a non-existent will? If it exists - it has a nature, and what determines that nature?), but come on - you must have that same intuition, as I admit the "author" analogy is interesting.thnuhthnuhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07825488332154700881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3731186928021507352008-04-20T20:01:00.000-04:002008-04-20T20:01:00.000-04:00II b) Does it mean a necessary condition? ... In t...<I>II b) Does it mean a necessary condition? ... In this sense of "cause," we should lock up Jeffery Dahmer's parents for giving birth to Dahmer.</I><BR/><BR/>I think there's morally significant necessary conditions & morally insignificant necessary conditions. So if I shoot someone, a MSNC would be my will to kill, but a MINC would be the fact that his skull is too weak and soft to resist the bullet. It seems that your point is that there are many necessary conditions that go into commission of a sin, so God's decree can't be singled out as the major cause, but it seems to be this is a morally significant factor, so God would be culpable, but Dahmer's parents would not.<BR/><BR/><I>II d)There is a long theological tradition which speaks of concurrence. </I><BR/><BR/>That's an appeal to authority. IIRC, William Lane Craig criticized Anthony Flew for believing in that in their debate. So Craig rejects it. He's certainly as authoritative as any other Christian philosopher.<BR/><BR/><I>II iv) Isaiah 10, Acts 4, etc.</I><BR/><BR/>This threatens to lead into minutiae about interpretation rather than the subject which I thought was "does calvinism offer an adequate response to the problem of evil." The arminian could pull out Molinism to interpret those passages (God placed certain people in certain places (like Pilate & Judas) that he knew would act in certain ways, but they had libertarian free will etc., etc.) Then this would become a discussion about the feasibility of Molinism, etc. I don't see why it's helpful then to bring in these texts. Just argue about whether WCP is a valid "moral axiom" or "intuition" or not.<BR/><BR/><I>III. WPP</I><BR/>I don't regard this as valid for the following reason- it seems the Biblical scenario is like God is a judge or prison guard and we are prisoners on death row. Let's say Jeffrey Dahmer, or John Geoghan is killed by a fellow inmate. I do not believe that even if the guard could have prevented this, it would be wrong for him *not* to. But it *would* be wrong if the guard had the capability of *decreeing* Dahmer's will to be evil and he did it years before Dahmer ended up in the pen. So the reason WPP is ok and WPC is *not* ok for God is because his prerogative in letting evil happen to us is because we already *are* sinful (Luke 13- except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish, etc.), but WPC is a different ballpark - that concerns the origin of the sin, not dealing with sinners once sin is a fact.<BR/><BR/>For us humans, who are fellow criminals, we have a moral duty to behave ourselves towards each other therefore WPP is *not* an option for us. Your analogy fails because God stands in a different relation to us than we do to each other.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I *do* agree that the Bible teaches compatibilism, which is another reason I'm glad I don't believe it. Victor, I read a link on your page "an arminian exegesis of Rom 9" and stopped at this point: <I>"Those who die in their sin do so by the predetermined counsel and kind intention of God's will. Stop your blubbering, Paul."</I> This isn't exegesis, this is an emotional reaction against what the chapter is saying. To go back to Jeffrey Dahmer, I'm sure that his family must have been broken hearted over him and wished he'd turned out different. Does that mean they thought he should be set free? That he did no wrong? Victor, if you do not like what Calvinism teaches, maybe you should consider atheism. "Join Us!" as the Evil Dead say.thnuhthnuhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07825488332154700881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26251923779627465172008-04-20T18:47:00.000-04:002008-04-20T18:47:00.000-04:00"There have been some that have said that my argum..."There have been some that have said that my argument is problematic since I am appealing to my "historically conditioned interpretations of the text of Scripture.""<BR/><BR/>Isn't everything historically conditioned?<BR/><BR/>Doesn't this argument like many post-Modernist arguments presuppose epistemic infallibilism?<BR/><BR/>Didn't D.A. Carson deal with this in "The Gagging of God"?Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86215206895299215262008-04-20T18:13:00.000-04:002008-04-20T18:13:00.000-04:00Could you supply the link to your theodicy?Could you supply the link to your theodicy?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08277279792291071201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34662759046013335662008-04-20T10:58:00.000-04:002008-04-20T10:58:00.000-04:00Ed,I fear you're just, like always, trying to get ...Ed,<BR/><BR/>I fear you're just, like always, trying to get off your "talking points." You are showing no familiarity with the discussion Victor and I our having.<BR/>I suggest taking some time today, if you're interested in contributing, that is, and reading all of the posts in this entire dialogue.<BR/><BR/>If you are not willing to do that, then don't bother trying to drag me into a side-debate that really has nothing to do with the conversation presently going on.<BR/><BR/>But next time I want to debate an apostate who simply wants to psychologize the Bible, assume that it is error, interpret it naturalistically, I'll let you know.<BR/><BR/>And the next time I want to see what an apostate thinks about the meaning of Bible passages by psychologizing them rather than exegeting them, I'll be sure to come find you.<BR/><BR/>So, unless you have something relevant to say regarding *this* debate, then you're simply being an annoyance. No offense intended.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-6542299675170481692008-04-20T05:12:00.000-04:002008-04-20T05:12:00.000-04:00Hi Paul,I suspect Vic and yourself are speaking at...Hi Paul,<BR/><BR/>I suspect Vic and yourself are speaking at cross purposes, or lacking some essential level of communication. <BR/><BR/>For instance Vic composed two posts that discussed the way Jesus & Paul both expressed sadness that many were nor listening to Jesus's words nor following the Lord. This disturbed both Paul and Jesus very deeply. It was as though both Jesus and Paul were treating those people as if they had a choice to make and that J&P were extremely sad that those people were making an incorrect choice.<BR/><BR/>A Calvinist might say that is the way God the Author is portraying things for the sake of us, His characters, putting on a show of sadness at people's poor choices, but that didn't matter as much as the Calvinistic fact that Jesus, being God, knew full well that there is only election by God or non-election by God, so the ultimate "choosing" involved is God's, and neither God nor the elect in the next life need ever feel the least bit of sorrow for the non-elect whose names were never written in the book of life, and who were created just so God could be pleased by (not filled with sorrow over) their eternal damnation. <BR/><BR/>So Vic and you don't see eye to eye on whether or not Jesus & Paul's sorrow over people's bad choices was genuine or not. Maybe that's something you need to make clearer to Vic. <BR/><BR/>Personally, I suspect that Jesus & Paul may not have fully grasped nor fully worked out the apparent incongruity between their teachings on election, divine favor (grace) and foreknowledge, and taken that into account when it came to their sorrow and urgency over the need for everyone to choose to follow the Lord. <BR/><BR/>As for alternative feelings there are a few places in the Bible that depict rejoicing over the sight of the "unrighteous" receiving judgment. But when exactly is one supposed to be sorrowful over people's bad choices, and when is one supposed to be rejoicing that God is being glorified by a person's damnation nearing completion? <BR/><BR/>(Of course some theologians interpret passages on the "joy of seeing the unrighteous or non-elect suffer" as being more reflective of the human emotion known as schaedenfreud instead of reflecting a lesson in divine joy over the sorrows and damnation of others.) <BR/><BR/>If I may propose my own view, it is that the mind is such an amazing juggler of concepts and ideas that both Arminians and Calvinists can play round with the Bible's many stories and different depictions of Yahweh and Jesus, juggling them in their minds until both Arminians and Calvinists can find ways to explain away whichever parts of Scripture don't fit their theologies. I've seen it done for instance with passages related to the creation and shape of the cosmos. (See my online piece, "Varieties of Scientific Creationism" Babinski)<BR/><BR/>I also know that there are difficulties when attempting to take ancient stories told about Yahweh, Elohim, over the centuries, and transfer them to a strictly philosophical frame of understanding where "God" has certain unchanging philosophical attributes and by definition is so perfect and infinite in all ways that God needs nothing, not even to create, since by definition perfection needs nothing. And God is everywhere and doesn't have to "come down from heaven" to "see" what men are doing at the tower of Babel, etc. <BR/><BR/>Philo of Alexandria is one such person who attempted to meld the stories of his ancient Jewish people with Greek philosophical definitions of the Theos/Logos. The early church father Origin also attempted such a melding of the Hebrew stories with the Greek philosophical mind, finding a host of "meanings" in the Hebrew stories that the original authors probably had never considered. Other early fathers who were Platonists, neo-Platonists, likewise played with such a mind-meld of ancient stories and Greek philosophical definitions of the Theos/Logos.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, I wonder what J.P. Holding thinks of Calvinism and were his view would fit in between yours and Vic? <BR/><BR/>And I wonder if Vic is willing to go so far in his Arminian view to consider that Open Theism might be true? That would place him quite far from your own view indeed.Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.com