tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post309565615327197767..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Knowing the mind of GodRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-78068219898041105012009-08-21T10:06:54.938-04:002009-08-21T10:06:54.938-04:00The deeper problem that many are not seeing is tha...The deeper problem that many are not seeing is that Victor's claim is disingenuous. Victor has stated, on many occasions, that it is <i>impossible</i> to persuade him. He has said if Calvinism can be shown from the Bible then he'll just deny inerrancy. He's said that, with respect to philosophical arguments or defenses of Calvinism, that he has some basic intuitions about the world that he is unwilling to budge on and that are so basic for him that to show them wrong would be akin to showing e=mc2 wrong. It would overturn so much he takes for granted and that is presupposed in much of his thinking, that it's just inconceivable that he is wrong about those things. That's the real problem with what he's said. That and it halts rational debate since I can dig my heels in the ground and play the same trump card.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32250219960596891502009-08-21T09:47:27.798-04:002009-08-21T09:47:27.798-04:00"That was no part of his original statement. ..."That was no part of his original statement. He only introduced that qualification after the fact, in response to my post."<br /><br />You seem to accept the point here, and at least Victor is understood in the dialectic now. However, the word "introduced" is wrongly chosen, as, once again, the opening clause "for me" indicated that the following statement implied something about his perspective specifically. If you understand the meaning of that clause, it is implied that if the statement had instead started "for you," the statement either would have had a different following statement, or the same following statement, and I think it's only sensible to think that Victor would think the same statement would follow for you as well. (i.e. that for you, the Arminian must be persuasive.) <br /><br />The most you could argue is that the statement was ambiguous (while it really wasn't), but even if that were the case, it should have prompted you to ask what it actually meant, rather than assuming that it meant something so arrantly false.<br /><br />The fact that Dahmer actually engaged in cannibalism is irrelevant. I know Christians who see nothing wrong with cannibalism prima facie. To me, cannibalism being wrong seems to be an a priori belief. If not a priori, it at least has some sort of immediate moral grounding that renders it a wrong act in my mind. The statement then applies here. To persuade them it's wrong, I have to present reasons for them to think cannibalism is wrong given Christian assumptions, or by presenting things which would cause them to think that cannibalism is wrong. Likewise, if they want to argue for the permissibility of cannibalism, they have to reel me in from my position. <br /><br />I don't see what the problem is. Sure, I think that they should have accepted the truth of the immorality of cannibalism in the first place, but too bad. Now that we're in this situation, we have to come up with operating principles which govern what beliefs to hold, and there's no reason to think that they should change or discard their beliefs for no reason at all. Each party plays an equal part in that situation as well. <br /><br />(And as for Calvinism and Arminians is concerned, it seems resaonable people land on both sides of the issue from the get-go in the first place, so I don't really think there's any "starting advantage" as it were. There's no grotesque disparity between the reasonableness of the positions, as if one of the sides were akin to a Christian advocating abortion, or something similarly heinous.)philip mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03966414858455732474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37033346948490632852009-08-21T09:07:45.265-04:002009-08-21T09:07:45.265-04:00philip m said...
"Of course his statement of...philip m said...<br /><br />"Of course his statement of it seemed unilateral because the opening clause of the statement was 'For me.' So, perspectively, the statement is true given that he is saying with respect to his belief system that evidence against it is required to defeat his belief."<br /><br />Of course Jeffrey Dahmer's statement of it seemed unilateral because the opening clause of the statement was 'For me.' So, perspectively, the statement is true given that Dahmer is saying with respect to his belief system that evidence against it is required to defeat his belief.<br /><br />"This is a rather banal point that everyone accepts in practice anyway: that we believe our default positions until another view becomes, in our minds, more reasonable/better supported."<br /><br />Jeffrey Dahmer would appreciate your banal point. <br /><br />"Indeed, he points out that this truth is bidirectional in his comment above..."<br /><br />You have a problem with chronology. That was no part of his original statement. He only introduced that qualification after the fact, in response to my post.<br /><br />"You just interpreted what he said uncharitably."<br /><br />You just interpreted what Dahmer said uncharitably.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84694634537690875782009-08-20T23:41:58.152-04:002009-08-20T23:41:58.152-04:00Steve,
Of course his statement of it seemed unila...Steve,<br /><br />Of course his statement of it seemed unilateral because the opening clause of the statement was "For me." So, perspectively, the statement is true given that he is saying <i>with respect to his belief system</i> that evidence against it is required to defeat his belief.<br /><br />His statement does not imply that the inverse is not true. Rather, it implies it is true. Ergo, it would be true for you to say, "For me, the burden of proof is on the Arminian. Why? Because I'm not an Arminian. You have to show me."<br /><br />This is a rather banal point that everyone accepts in practice anyway: that we believe our default positions until another view becomes, in our minds, more reasonable/better supported. <br /><br />Indeed, he points out that this truth is bidirectional in his comment above. ". . .I hold generally, that person(s) have the right to believe what they already do unless good evidence can be given otherwise." <br /><br />Obviously, he does not qualify you out of that statement. He affirms that any dialectic is evenly weighted. You just interpreted what he said uncharitably, which is quite easy to do in any case, and does nothing but obfuscate the actual content of your opponent's beliefs, which is extremely antithetical to useful argumentation.philip mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03966414858455732474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-538001452140039622009-08-20T16:46:44.417-04:002009-08-20T16:46:44.417-04:00Victor Reppert said...
"The statement I made...Victor Reppert said...<br /><br />"The statement I made which you attack was, in its proper context, a statement of something I hold generally, that person have the right to believe what they already do unless good evidence can be given otherwise. So there was no special pleading in this case, on any halfway charitable interpretation."<br /><br />Of course it's special pleading. You don't apply that presumption to Calvinists. You constantly attack Calvinism and try to talk us out of what we believe. So you obviously don't treat Calvinism as a properly basic belief-system which enjoys prima facie warrant. To the contrary, you think Calvinists are unjustified in what they believe. Fine. But don't pretend that you're being even-handed about this.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54727019905403823282009-08-20T16:43:10.781-04:002009-08-20T16:43:10.781-04:00Victor Reppert said...
"John Piper says that...Victor Reppert said...<br /><br />"John Piper says that I Pet 3:9 says that God wants everyone to be saved, which is of course consistent with Arminianism."<br /><br />You seem to labor under the illusion that I accept a given interpretation just becomes it comes from a Calvinist, whereas I reject a contrary interpretation just because it comes from an Arminian (or other non-Calvinist).<br /><br />The fact that a Calvinist like Piper interprets 2 Pet 3:9 a certain way doesn't mean I rubber-stamp his interpretation. <br /><br />As a matter of fact, I prefer the interpretation offered by Bauckham, and he's no Calvinist.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-82756429773086191862009-08-20T16:38:32.900-04:002009-08-20T16:38:32.900-04:00PHILIP M SAID:
"Then what he said was true.&...PHILIP M SAID:<br /><br />"Then what he said was true."<br /><br />You suffer from seriously deficient reasoning skills. What he said was obviously false since he's treating the burden of proof as unilateral rather than bilateral. Try again.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22254532734611591142009-08-20T15:59:11.929-04:002009-08-20T15:59:11.929-04:00John Piper says that I Pet 3:9 says that God wants...John Piper says that I Pet 3:9 says that God wants everyone to be saved, which is of course consistent with Arminianism. He just doesn't draw the conclusion that God carries out his intention. <br /><br />The statement I made which you attack was, in its proper context, a statement of something I hold generally, that person have the right to believe what they already do unless good evidence can be given otherwise. So there was no special pleading in this case, on any halfway charitable interpretation.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26174437336430592712009-08-20T12:47:08.452-04:002009-08-20T12:47:08.452-04:00Then what he said was true.Then what he said was true.philip mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03966414858455732474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-16281581107511373702009-08-20T12:35:53.569-04:002009-08-20T12:35:53.569-04:00As I've often said, both sides have a burden o...As I've often said, both sides have a burden of proof to discharge.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43074245793761023212009-08-20T12:33:14.981-04:002009-08-20T12:33:14.981-04:00"For me, the Calvinist has the burden of proo..."For me, the Calvinist has the burden of proof. Why? I'm not a Calvinist. You've got to show me,"<br /><br />Given that you malign this statement, are you saying that, as a Calvinist, it is <i>not</i> the Arminian who bears the burden of being persuasive argumentatively in conversation with you? You are a Calvinist. Are you saying you become a tabula rasa when entering every single conversation about theology?philip mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03966414858455732474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37706604317168546792009-08-20T10:13:52.431-04:002009-08-20T10:13:52.431-04:00Let's see him do it.Let's see him do it.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47006117043115104302009-08-20T09:25:25.100-04:002009-08-20T09:25:25.100-04:00Steve: "I can cite non-Calvinists who, on th...<b>Steve</b>: <i>"I can cite non-Calvinists who, on this or that verse, offer an interpretation which is consistent with Calvinism."</i><br /><br />Steve, do you know whether the inverse (or is the word converse?) is true?<br /><br />I.e., could Reppert say in response: "I can cite non-Arminians who, on this or that verse, offer an interpretation which is consistent with Arminianism"?Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.com