tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7815067117949153604..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Lies, damn lies, and statisticsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41049357131844458972008-05-13T15:09:00.000-04:002008-05-13T15:09:00.000-04:00I think a few Biblical examples would show how thi...I think a few Biblical examples would show how this works. The passage in 2 Chronicles 18 (I believe) where God gives permission to the evil spirit to give a false prophecy to the pagan prophet in Ahab's counsel. Ahab listens to the false prophecy that he will win the battle, and as a result, he is killed in the fighting as punishment for his sins.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46891246332244440312008-05-13T11:24:00.000-04:002008-05-13T11:24:00.000-04:00Mathetes,It's not bare permission but *willing* pe...Mathetes,<BR/><BR/>It's not bare permission but *willing* permission.<BR/><BR/>You will find this notion not only in Helm but in Turretin, Shedd, and many others.<BR/><BR/>Helm uses the categories of positive vs. negative government.<BR/><BR/>It's all governed, just depends *how* it is governed.<BR/><BR/>An example of willing permission and negative government might be, for example, when I see my young child going over to stick his wet fingers inside the DVD player. I could intervene and stop it before it happens - hence heading off any punishment for doing what I've told him not to do - or I could allow him to stay on his course. Fail to intervene to stop it. He touches. I punish. His committing that action was within my control, though. I planned that and allowed it. But I didn't positively govern it in the sense that I moved him or prodded him on to touch it.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-82793055358893010792008-05-13T10:38:00.000-04:002008-05-13T10:38:00.000-04:00Gird up thy loins, Robert! If you're right then re...Gird up thy loins, Robert! If you're right then refute these bozos, as I will. What I like best about this place is that you never have to say "Don't worry about offending me. Tell me what you really think."thnuhthnuhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07825488332154700881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18510927958714834942008-05-13T08:40:00.000-04:002008-05-13T08:40:00.000-04:00Helm discusses the category of willing permission ...Helm discusses the category of willing permission in this online article:<BR/><BR/>http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2008/02/evil-love-and-silence_01.htmlstevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57754608834312303482008-05-13T07:27:00.000-04:002008-05-13T07:27:00.000-04:00I find the idea of divine permission a bit confusi...I find the idea of divine permission a bit confusing. It seems to imply that God sort of "looks the other way" while letting things happen, such as in Romans 1:26, I suppose. But if everything comes about by way of eternal decree, then how does this mesh with the idea of permission? On the one hand, God simply lets certain things happen, but on the other hand, God causes everything to happen (either directly or through second causes)...Matheteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13527032591499860552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9467544047967486722008-05-12T15:48:00.000-04:002008-05-12T15:48:00.000-04:00Thank you for the replies.Thank you for the replies.bellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15263644056413736693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71647172668579370922008-05-12T15:31:00.000-04:002008-05-12T15:31:00.000-04:00Most recently, Helm distinguishes between divine c...Most recently, Helm distinguishes between divine causality and divine permission in Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: 4 Views, B. Ware, ed.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87306989684948676332008-05-12T14:51:00.000-04:002008-05-12T14:51:00.000-04:00IS,You can see his book The Providence of God, his...IS,<BR/><BR/>You can see his book The Providence of God, his debate with Hasker in Blackwell's Contemporary Debates in Philosophy Series, or some of his blog entries on this.<BR/><BR/>I take clips from Helm to this effect in one of my blog posts in this recent discussion:<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/but-bill-hasker-said-so.html<BR/><BR/>That's another place you could look.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-82173930623424906572008-05-12T14:16:00.000-04:002008-05-12T14:16:00.000-04:00Steve wrote, "Of course, it’s not that simple. Pau...Steve wrote, "Of course, it’s not that simple. Paul Helm, for one, has explained in some detail why it’s not that simple."<BR/><BR/>Where might one find Helm's detailed explanation of these matters? Thanks.bellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15263644056413736693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76535709756534557802008-05-12T13:40:00.000-04:002008-05-12T13:40:00.000-04:00This is a very good post and thread. I like the t...This is a very good post and thread. I like the triablogue team very, very much. They have the persistency of character to deliberately engage in something that I learned about a year or two ago from frustrating experience to generally avoid. <BR/><BR/>And that is to identify a "tar baby" or "tar baby topics" and avoid them like the plague.<BR/><BR/>Here are some tar babies that I've identified: Emerging church, theological liberals, feminist egalitarians, and generally anyone who emphatically emphasizes the "tone" and the "irenic" conduct of a "conversation" or "dialogue" in a Politically Correct way, almost to the point that the real substance is smothered over and ignored or minimized. These are tar babies.<BR/><BR/>And from an outsider's perspective, Reppert and Arminianism is the tar baby for Br'er Rabbit triabloguers. Every time you land an argument-winning punch or kick, you just end up deeper and deeper into tar baby's trap. <BR/><BR/>I learn by watching and I also watch for intellectual amusement which generates some belly laughs, so continue on!Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-16747304443104787442008-05-12T13:17:00.000-04:002008-05-12T13:17:00.000-04:00Steve,It's clear that Robert is a better person th...Steve,<BR/><BR/>It's clear that Robert is a better person than you. More holy. Does more things for the kingdom. He's more loving. Bears bushels of fruit. Judges rightly. He's got medals waiting for him in heaven. Purple hearts for taking fire from mean Calvinists like you. How dare you critique him? He's a man amongst men. He's a doer. A mover and a shaker. The real deal. Face it, he's a stud. You can't hold a candle to him. That's why he's so upset. You, with your imaginary, behind the computer screen "ministry", had the gall to speak down to someone of his stature. Like a peasant who laughs at the king. That's you Hays. Robert wanted T-bloggers to confront you and your behavior. Well I've taken that first step. Robert's intrinsically more worthy than you. You better check yourself before you wreck yourself, sucka!Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-424662300364301892008-05-12T09:35:00.000-04:002008-05-12T09:35:00.000-04:00robert said...“I have been involved in prison mini...robert said...<BR/><BR/>“I have been involved in prison ministry, preaching, teaching many who have come to Christ and been saved? Hays’ ministry is in his own imagination and sitting behind a computer screen.”<BR/><BR/>“I am the one in the real world doing real ministry seeing the power of God to transform the most hardened sinners, and Hays who sits behind his computer…”<BR/><BR/>And wasn’t Robert sitting behind a computer screen when he typed these words? If Robert thinks that prison ministry is “real ministry,” while blogging is not, why does Robert spend so much time in the blogosphere, posting comments on my blog or Reppert’s blog, &c.? Doesn’t that siphon away precious time from “real world ministry.”<BR/><BR/>Robert is such a fraud. If he does, it’s okay. If someone else doesn’t, it’s not okay.<BR/><BR/>And while we’re on the subject, there are many Christian bloggers, like Joe Carter, Dallas Willard, Doug Groothuis, Darrell Bock, J.P. Moreland, Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, &c. Does Robert think this isn’t a “real” ministry?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41473368541277412122008-05-12T09:06:00.000-04:002008-05-12T09:06:00.000-04:00robert said..." And since when is Steve Hays in th...robert said...<BR/><BR/>" And since when is Steve Hays in the place to determine whether or not Victor is saved or not?" <BR/> <BR/>So, according to this, I should reserve judgment about Reppert's Christian commitment. I was in the wrong because I didn't withhold judgment. <BR/> <BR/>"But even then, if you are talking with another Christian brother or sister, you don't attack them as not pursuing the truth because they think differently than you do." <BR/> <BR/>So, according to this, I shouldn't reserve judgment about Reppert's Christian commitment. Instead, I should presume that he is a fellow believer. I was in the wrong because I did withhold judgment. <BR/> <BR/>Personally speaking, I normally avoid making any public statements about an individual’s Christian commitment. Robert is the one who's forcing the issue, not me. Robert is the one who's framing the debate in those terms, not me. I'm responding to him on his own grounds. <BR/><BR/>And as soon as I answer him on his own grounds, he waxes indignant. Robert has zero capacity for self-criticism. He has one standard for himself, and another standard for his opponents. <BR/> <BR/>"He did this in the past claiming that I was going to hell, and the other Triablogers rather than challenging him on this said nothing, which I take to be their agreement as well." <BR/> <BR/>To the contrary, I never said that Arminians are going to hell. I've explicitly said the opposite. And Gene spent a lot of time documenting that fact. Robert twisted my words to score rhetorical points, and he continues to lie. <BR/><BR/>Robert continues to peddle this falsehood as a cheap and easy way of ginning up prejudicial animus towards the doctrines of grace.<BR/> <BR/>"And that last line here that attacking calvinism necessitates pounding away at other evangelical doctrines, is another false statement by Hays." <BR/> <BR/>To the contrary, I documented exactly what I mean. In order to attack Calvinism, Reppert, by turns, questions Biblical inerrancy, questions penal substitution, questions divine foreknowledge, questions the justice of hell, &c. <BR/> <BR/>"Again, Hays claims that I am not a believer." <BR/> <BR/>I'm just holding him to a "scriptural standard." <BR/> <BR/>" And again, what gives Hays the right to sit in judgment over me and declare me to be hell bound?" <BR/> <BR/>So no one has the right to do this? <BR/> <BR/>"In my old age, :-) I look at people’s character first, beliefs second, especially if they are professing Christians. And if they are not loving people, but seem to hate everybody who thinks differently than them, well . . ." <BR/> <BR/>So only Robert has a "godlike" right to sit in judgment over others and assign eternal destinies. <BR/> <BR/>"The difference between Hays and I apparently is that I can believe that others are Christians even though they hold some different beliefs than I do, while for Hays unless you hold to his version of calvinism, you must not be saved. " <BR/> <BR/>Another damnable lie. <BR/> <BR/>"And if he were to come back and say that he believes that a non-calvinist can be a believer, then why am I hell bound according to Hays?" <BR/> <BR/>Because he's a chronic liar (in the way he constantly misrepresents his Reformed opponents). A point I explicitly made in my post. <BR/> <BR/>Once again, I'm just holding him to "scriptural standards." <BR/> <BR/>"In Hays mind if you attack calvinism you must not be saved and are hell bound." <BR/> <BR/>He keeps repeating the same damnable lie. <BR/> <BR/>"If Victor has never submitted his heart, mind and will to God, then he is not a Christian. And how does Steve Hays know this?" <BR/> <BR/>By Reppert's repudiation of biblical authority. <BR/><BR/>“If I quote scripture out of context and use it the way the JW’s use it, then why do I affirm the trinity, the deity of Christ, salvation by faith alone, things JW’s and other cults deny?”<BR/><BR/>Because he picks and chooses what he’s prepared to believe, depending on whether it’s “gruesome” or “sadistic” or generates “philosophical problems.”<BR/><BR/>Robert’s theological tastes differ from the JW’s in some respects, so he picks a different batch of cherries than they do, but he’s still cherrypicking what he’s prepared to believe—depending on whether it’s “gruesome” or “sadistic” or philosophically problematic. <BR/><BR/>“Keep in mind that I do extensive prison ministry with many inmates who have committed the worst imaginable crimes, and that I have been involved in seeing many of them come to Christ for salvation, so I regularly deal with people that most people want to have nothing to do with.”<BR/><BR/>That’s because they happen to fall within his parameters. He’s more tolerant of a serial killer than a Calvinist. <BR/><BR/>“I am the one in the real world doing real ministry seeing the power of God to transform the most hardened sinners, and Hays who sits behind his computer wants to tell me about intolerance and liking only his kind of people? Hays is the one who only likes people who think just like he does.”<BR/><BR/>Since I’ve also done my share of jail ministry, I could play that trump card as well as Robert. <BR/><BR/>“On the other hand, I will continue to attack the conception of God presented by calvinists. And the fact that this conception of God produces such severe theological and philosophical problems and produces people like Steve Hays tells you all that you need to know about this unbiblical and mistaken conception of God.”<BR/><BR/>So Robert doesn’t feel the need to actually see if the Bible teaches Calvinism. He judges Calvinism by appearances or “philosophical problems.”<BR/><BR/>“Jesus said by their fruits you shall know them.”<BR/><BR/>And if we apply that yardstick to Robert, what are we to make of the fact that he has one set of rules for himself and another set of rules for his Reformed opponents? What does it say about his spiritual fruit-bearing that he is so morally blinkered?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.com