tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5577789921234222383..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The Arminian Counter ArgumentRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51035498114477816672008-04-28T15:59:00.000-04:002008-04-28T15:59:00.000-04:00From The Princess Bride:Vizzini: Let me put it thi...From The Princess Bride:<BR/><BR/>Vizzini: Let me put it this way: have you ever heard of Plato? Aristotle? Socrates?<BR/><BR/>Westley: Yes.<BR/><BR/>Vizzini: Morons.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56903943286558847352008-04-28T10:55:00.000-04:002008-04-28T10:55:00.000-04:00“And here's the problem. Let's allow the the origi...“And here's the problem. Let's allow the the original autographs are infallible. We don't have those. We have a Greek and Hebrew text which has not been inerrantly copied.”<BR/><BR/>Now he’s desperate. Dan Wallace just debated Bart Ehrman and there was no doubt (even amongst those who were undecided before the debate) that Wallace proved that the New Testament text was indeed reliable.<BR/><BR/>“The "big leaguers" in Biblical scholarship are divided.”<BR/><BR/>Not so fast. If you pick up Ehrman’s “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” and compare its conclusions to that of his “Misquoting Jesus”, you will quickly find out that Ehrman says one thing to the public and another to the scholarly community.<BR/><BR/>“The inerrancy of Scripture, which is itself a doctrine open to debate amongst genuine Christians, (though Paul may deny this) does not confer certainty to doctrinal conclusions derived from Scripture, if the derivation is produced by fallible processes.”<BR/><BR/>Yeah, but the other side doesn’t have much of a case.<BR/><BR/>“Exegesis is not a hard science, like physics.”<BR/><BR/>Theories of physics change from decade to decade, but Scripture stays the same. Based on that, which do you think is a better foundation for knowledge?<BR/><BR/>“Faced with what I take to be a strong Calvinist exegetical argument from, say, James White about Romans, alongside a deeply held moral conviction that a God who behaves like a Calvinistic God does would not be good, why am I obligated to follow the exegetical argument instead of the evidence of my moral intuitions?”<BR/><BR/>Because you also have a sinful nature that is informing your intuitions (not to mention the fact that Reppert probably still doesn’t get what the Doctrine of Reprobation actually is). Oh, and by the way, I intuit that you’re wrong.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74132983155492818822008-04-28T01:39:00.000-04:002008-04-28T01:39:00.000-04:00Victor,You are still not even addressing the argum...Victor,<BR/><BR/>You are still not even addressing the arguments I've given you. Why are you focusing on this point? I even went to lengths to explain its role in the broader argument. Aren't you even going to take my comments into account?<BR/><BR/>I would also like to know what your comment has to do with "how the calvinist can't solve the problem of evil."? <BR/><BR/>And, there's more than just simply your assertion of what is assumed.<BR/><BR/>There's that whole thing called the Protestant Reformation.<BR/><BR/>Since when did you become Catholic? I need the magisterium to interpret the Bible for me?<BR/><BR/>What about the Spirit's role?<BR/><BR/>There's much history behind these points. The assumptions behind it is what, for instance, what spurred Protestants to invent the printing press. Get the Bible into the hands of the lay people!<BR/><BR/>Translation of the Bible into the common tongue is also underwritten by the presupposition that the common man can understand Scripture.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, your assumption isn't even correct, philosophically.<BR/><BR/>Since my reading of the experts functions as a case of knowledge by testimony, and my cognitive faculties are functioning properly, I don't see the problem.<BR/><BR/>Testimonial knowledge is transitive.<BR/><BR/>The warrant transfers.<BR/><BR/>Here's a part of my review of the book _Paradox in Christian Theology_:<BR/><BR/>Therefore, scriptural teaching can function as a basis for warranted belief in Christian doctrine. Now Anderson wants to explore how individual Christians can be warranted in believing the statements of the Trinity and the Incarnation found in the respective orthodox creeds. Anderson proposes four paradigmatic ways in which doctrinal beliefs can be warranted. The boundaries are not sharp, and some Christians may exhibit elements of more than one way:<BR/><BR/>[1] The first way provides the epistemic basis for the other three. A Christian studies the text of Scripture, accurately interprets the texts, and comes to the warranted conclusion that some set of propositions is in harmony with some Christian doctrine. The Holy Spirit is no doubt involved in this process. The believer also makes use of good exegetical tools, e.g., background study of the culture, history, writings, and other exegetical desiderata, makes use of commentaries, logic textbooks, etc., in order to better interpret the text of Scripture. On this first case, a Christian is warranted in believing Christian doctrine because he has directly studied the text of Scripture in a scholarly way, and he can explain and defend his reasoning to others.<BR/><BR/>[2] The second paradigm case is this: A person with a warranted belief in the inspiration of the Bible is presented with the Scriptural basis for a doctrine by someone falling under heading [1].This person reflects on the teaching and has a grasp of the reasoning involved.32<BR/><BR/>[3] This case is simpler still, and is still dependent on [1]. A Christian with a warranted belief in the inspiration of Scripture is warranted based on trustworthy testimony by a parent, professor, or church leader that a certain doctrine is taught in Scripture, and so infers that this doctrine is true. Knowledge by testimony is transitive. That is, if the testifier here knows what he testifies (say that his knowledge transferred over from someone in [1] (or [2]), and [1] came from studying the testimony of an infallible God), and then the testifiee knows what has been testified to. The warrant transfers. The Holy Spirit could also play a role, removing sinful tendencies to doubt, and strengthening beliefs.33<BR/><BR/>[4] This is the simplest case. One Christian accepts a doctrine as true purely based on reliable testimony from another Christian with a warranted belief in that same doctrine. This belief is not held by inference from other beliefs, but is warranted nonetheless. Children learning from their parents fit this bill.34<BR/><BR/>On these four ways taken together, we can account for the principle way in which warranted beliefs in Christian doctrine are formed, on the assumption that belief in inspiration is also warranted (which Anderson has argued that it is). This view also includes the warrant strengthening activity of the Holy Spirit. Thus, there really is not anything novel in this approach, says Anderson. Thus, if fundamental Christian beliefs can be warranted, so can beliefs in Christian doctrine based on this extended-extended A/C model.<BR/><BR/>Pretty clearly, I could be in situation [2] or [3] and, with other factors, can be strongly warranted in believing the conclusions of the experts.<BR/><BR/>An expert would be in case [1]. His warrant would transfer to my positiojn in [2] or [3].<BR/><BR/>So, you're not only historically incorrect, theologically incorrect, I think you're philosophically incorrect as well.<BR/><BR/>This argument is where you are trying to make a stand. It's actually a fallacious shifting of the burden and also an ignoratio elenchi.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68258433684715300382008-04-28T01:31:00.000-04:002008-04-28T01:31:00.000-04:00Reppert is now grasping at straws.Incidentally, I ...Reppert is now grasping at straws.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, I was formerly a strong Arminian for the same reasons Reppert relies upon. I am now a strong supralapsarian - for exegetical reasons- but my intuitions are honestly now strongly aligned with that position.AMChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03173461337957626248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76273316789286505852008-04-28T00:40:00.000-04:002008-04-28T00:40:00.000-04:00One of the assumptions here is that the exegetical...One of the assumptions here is that the exegetical analyses of laypersons are sufficiently competent to provide, let us say, I high degree of probability that certain conclusions are correct.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.com