tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4510910632301953850..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: True ConfessionsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32004676476935747302008-05-04T10:11:00.000-04:002008-05-04T10:11:00.000-04:00I think that's a fine example of ignoratio elenchi...I think that's a fine example of ignoratio elenchi.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57074298603105507272008-05-04T05:34:00.000-04:002008-05-04T05:34:00.000-04:00"Hopefully Seraphim's son doesn't turn a blood-thi..."Hopefully Seraphim's son doesn't turn a blood-thirsty muderer who will kill the moment he is bailed out. Yikes!"<BR/><BR/>Just as well I don't subscribe to the snow-covered dung theory of redemption then.Seraphimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08737627824681084222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13429926346592407482008-05-03T15:18:00.000-04:002008-05-03T15:18:00.000-04:00Hopefully Seraphim's son doesn't turn a blood-thir...Hopefully Seraphim's son doesn't turn a blood-thirsty muderer who will kill the moment he is bailed out. Yikes! All in the name of "wuv", I guess.<BR/><BR/>Victor, I just went ahead and responded to you here:<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/i-dont-get-god.htmlErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79527838397594886872008-05-03T07:46:00.000-04:002008-05-03T07:46:00.000-04:00There's a difference between moral obligation, and...There's a difference between moral obligation, and obligation dictated by nature.<BR/><BR/>I'm not morally obligated to bail my son out of jail, but my nature of loving my son dictates that I will do so.Seraphimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08737627824681084222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11331709241551851082008-05-03T01:51:00.000-04:002008-05-03T01:51:00.000-04:00Paul, it's time to stop confusing a setting aside ...Paul, it's time to stop confusing a setting aside an objection in order to focus on other problems with an admission that the objection is bad. <BR/><BR/>So the damnation of the wicked is supposed to glorify God in the eyes of the blessed in heaven. It shows God recognizes the blackness of sin and his just hatred of it. But, once again, it looks as if God could simply make the blessed aware of this as a possible result without actually damning anyone. There is a downside for people in heaven in having a hell and that is where people in heaven cared deeply about the salvation of those who were lost and had a lifelong desire for their salvation. Of course God can make the blessed "get over it" and praise God forever, but there is still a loss inflicted on the caring blessed. Why inflict that loss, unless there is a good reason for it? <BR/><BR/>I did read this account of "glory" which I note<BR/><BR/>PM: God doesn’t need people to praise him. That’s not the point. It’s not for his own benefit. Rather, it’s for their own benefit to appreciate what is ultimately and truly praiseworthy.<BR/><BR/>VR: Well, OK, how does God's damning people benefit the blessed in heaven. Well, I suppose the response is that since these people deserve it, it's a praiseworthy act which the blessed can recognize as praiseworthy. OK, but the opposite act, saving these people, would also have been just and equally praiseworthy. <BR/><BR/>There are, I take it three stages to reprobation. First, God creates the person in sin. Then, God refuses the person the grace of salvation. Then God damns the person as just punishment for their sin. Step 2, which is what differentiates the saved from the lost, is an inaction on God's part. But at the end of the day God has provided sufficient conditions for that person to sin their way into hell. They act virtuously if God decrees that they act virtuously, they sin if God decrees that they sin (or fails to decree that they receive the grace to avoid sin), and they go to hell if God decrees that they go to hell. I don't see where these distinctions change the bottom line. <BR/><BR/>Why does a failure to explain this cause a problem? First, the loss of a soul imposes a loss on those close to them, and, if we take some passages of Scripture literally, on God himself. God grieves and sorrows over sin, apparently. We're not just asking "Why did God create Jimbo and not Victor" we are asking why God did something that imposes a loss on those who care about them. It seems we should prefer positions that offer something in the direction of an explanation over positions that offer nothing. If you have one scientific theory that says "I have no idea why there are gaps in the fossil record" and someone else says "I have a way of telling you how they got there" the second theory has an advantage.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72446454208424463832008-05-03T00:30:00.000-04:002008-05-03T00:30:00.000-04:00Victor's argument's can be extrapolated to creatio...Victor's argument's can be extrapolated to creation.<BR/><BR/>God is free in creating the world.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, he is free to create a new heart in whoever he pleases.<BR/><BR/>Out of the sinful mass of humaninty, God is free to pass over S and to create a new heart in S*.<BR/><BR/>Victor thinks its some big show stopper to ask, "But, but, I don't get why God passed over S and not S*. Tell me why. You have to tell me why!"<BR/><BR/>To argue how Victor is, is to ask why God chose to pass over variosu possible worlds and create this one?<BR/><BR/>Why did God pass over the one without Victor? Why? God could have made a Jimbo in place of Victor. Why didn't he? Why did he pass over instantiating Jimbo?<BR/><BR/>If Victor can't tell me why, then atheists and Christians are justified to not believe in his version of theism!<BR/><BR/>Silly argument? Et tu.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89701175704556828632008-05-03T00:20:00.000-04:002008-05-03T00:20:00.000-04:00Okay, so "for the sake of argument" you have now c...Okay, so "for the sake of argument" you have now confessed that Calvinism doesn't have a moral problem. The cash value is that "I don't know why God would do that." Sorry, that's not an *objection*, Victor.<BR/><BR/>Did you want to take back what you granted "for the sake of argument," now?<BR/><BR/>Both Steve and I answered your caricature of the "for his Glory" response. Interacting with us would be a good place to start. So, I fail to see how you think you've shown us that we don't have answers given our theology.<BR/><BR/>Again, since God has all-glory, he doesn't get "more" glory. He's not like a bank where you can deposit "laudits" into.<BR/><BR/>So you grant us premises that remove the fangs of your objection but you attribute to us premises that we don't even hold? Tricky, but once unveiled it's less than convincing.<BR/><BR/>You haven't shown that God's interest aren't served in reprobation (and you still, for some reason, refuse to take into account the distinction I made regarding reprobation, why?). Indeed, you said that you weren't arguing from "noseeum" to "thereisnun." You *have to* show that "thereisnun."<BR/><BR/>Your argument is also negated with respect to universalism. And you haven't shown that he "gets more glory" (dubious assumptions aside) by saving S than reprobating S*.<BR/><BR/>Your claims about my theodicy (or defensive answer) don't work because your comments don't show that my answers don’t easily get around your objections. Even if it was a "last resort" (which its not), how does that affect whether I *in fact* answered you or not. If the answer works, it works. Your only come back is to say, "Tell me why." That's ridiculous, Victor. That's not an *argument.*<BR/><BR/>Lastly, I listed off a whole bunch of evils you can't solve or tell me why they happened, even on your own scheme. And, quit saying that you look at things from a Calvinist perspective. You have shown time and time again that you can only offer straw men caricatures of Calvinism. I asked you to write a post defending and explaining the basics of Calvinism as far as the decrees go. Show us you understand it. Cause from where I'm sitting, you made your own Calvinism and attacked it. What else/ You never quote any Calvinists whatsoever. You always say, "Calvinists say," and we sit here and scratch our heads and wonder who these Calvinists are.<BR/><BR/>I, for one, would like to see you, for once, interact with the arguments that both Steve and I have offered you. I mean, tell me now if you're just going to proceed by ignoring what we right and by attacking caricatures. I'll use my time for something else.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24989003106007676312008-05-02T21:50:00.000-04:002008-05-02T21:50:00.000-04:00I haven't confessed anything or conceded anything,...I haven't confessed anything or conceded anything, except for the sake of argument. My argument is this. On the hypothesis that what God is after is His own glory, then he should save all of us. Why? Because we're only going to praise him forever if he saves us. It isn't unjust for him to save us, since he does save at least some of us. The more people in the heavenly choir, the more laudits of glory (like turps of evil) he gets. If he sends those people to hell, he doesn't get the laudits of glory from those people since those people aren't praising him. <BR/><BR/>This arguments isn't saying God wouldn't be nice if he damned people, it is saying that God's interests, *as defined by Calvinist theology* are not served by reprobation. In other words, God shouldn't condemn people to hell because it doesn't serve his own professed interests to do so. It's not that I object to the Calvinistic God's actions on moral grounds (I do of course, but I'm not discussing that here), but rather, I am arguing that even after all sorts of Calvinistic theological points are conceded, points that I am in real life not about to concede, you still don't get to Calvinism. A theology that says that God is out to maximize His own glory is a theology that heads straight for universalism more surely than a theology that says that what He is out to do is love his creatures. If love is the goal, then he might have to give them LFW, and then who knows what the hell will happen. If he's just going for glory, he can get more of that my saving everyone than by reprobating anyone. My claim here isn't that God's actions wouldn't be morally acceptable, my claim is that God's actions make no sense even if they were morally permissible. <BR/><BR/>There is a difference between defense responses to the problem of evil and theodicy responses. Theodicies attempt to provide likley explanations for evils. The general consensus in the problem of evil literature seems to be that you should try to explain what you can, and then minimize the weight of what you can't explain by appealing to an expectation that we don't know all the reasons in play. As I see it, there is an epistemic cost involved in appealing to mystery and unknown or unknowable reasons, and so you want to bring that pitcher in as late in the game as possible. When I read books like Lewis's The Problem of Pain, I get the sense that I can understand why a lot of evils occur, including virtually all of them in my own life, but certainly not all evils. (The suffering of small children is one Lewis doesn't deal with, for example). When I look at it from a Calvinist perspective, it looks to me as if I have no clue why suffering exists, in this life and certainly not in the next life. The proffered explanations fail even on their own terms to make the ways of God intelligible. Is it possible to believe without understanding? Of course. But faith seeks understanding, and prefers theologies that hold out the most hope of providing some explanations.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.com