tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7987384343068617810..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Van Gogh and CalvinismRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43676973244462200142014-01-15T20:37:04.264-05:002014-01-15T20:37:04.264-05:00I see that "I" wrote "now tic"...I see that "I" wrote "now tic" effects of sin in my last response; that's supposed to be "noetic." I wrote the majority of the above on my iPhone. I guess that was the iPhone being "smart."Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52858883956090190892014-01-15T20:31:28.888-05:002014-01-15T20:31:28.888-05:00After you posted this, I just got 5,000 friend req...After you posted this, I just got 5,000 friend requests!Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-82865479322963723282014-01-15T16:49:41.550-05:002014-01-15T16:49:41.550-05:00If all else fails in defending Calvinism, Calvinis...If all else fails in defending Calvinism, Calvinists can always approach it the way some Clarkians and Modified Clarkians do; by defining the problem away. I can accept the following solution as rationally permissible, but admittedly, it's not as philosophically and emotionally satisfying a solution as one could wish for. <br /><br />The solution I'm posting is a rephrasing of the one given from Vincent Cheung's book <a href="http://www.vincentcheung.com/books/authorsin2014.pdf" rel="nofollow">The Author of Sin</a> (page 20 of the 2014 edition). I've also added a bit of commentary.<br /><br />1. Affirm absolute divine determinism.<br /><br />2. Deny all human freedom <b>in relation to God</b>. This allow for the reality of semi-compatibilism, but bypasses the need to appeal to it because we're here dealing with human freedom <b>in relation to God</b>. However, this premise might need a metaphysical theory that can account for how God can guarantee that His decree will come to pass inexorably. Cheung appeals to occasionalism (which seems to depend on the A-theory of time), but I prefer an appeal to the the implications of the B-theory of time and therefore a block view of the universe (though, I'm not dogmatic on B-theory). I suspect there are other possible metaphysical theories that can do the job.<br /><br />3. Base moral responsibility on God's sovereign decree to judge mankind (rather than on man's freedom).<br /><br />4. Answer almost all related logical and moral objections to Calvinism by doing the following:<br /><br /> a. Affirm that God is good, kind, righteous, and just by definition. This renders all "problem of evil" and "author of sin" type of objections inapplicable.<br /><br /> b. Deny the unjustified premise, "responsibility presupposes freedom." This renders human freedom irrelevant to the discussion.<br />ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33291805033166550222014-01-15T16:46:49.327-05:002014-01-15T16:46:49.327-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39292950695175271982014-01-15T16:13:41.997-05:002014-01-15T16:13:41.997-05:00typo correction: "I'm not going to mentio...typo correction: "I'm not going to mention the names of the Calvinist popularizers I'm thinking of because [ <b>I</b> ] respect them too much..."ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48160720505295756822014-01-15T16:11:09.572-05:002014-01-15T16:11:09.572-05:00I'm convinced that discussions (even debates) ...I'm convinced that discussions (even debates) on this level are the kind we need to happen more often in public forums between Calvinists and Arminians because the prominent popularizers of Calvinism often lose the argument against the prominent popularizers of Arminianism like Olson and Walls (IMO). I'm not going to mention the names of the Calvinist popularizers I'm thinking of because respect them too much (and many of you can guess who I'm referring to). It's enough to point out that their strengths are Biblical exegesis and sometimes also knowledge of historical theology. But by themselves, those disciplines cannot answer the philosophical and logical challenges informed Arminians often make. I'm glad there are folks like Paul and Steve who can take on the philosophically sophisticated Arminians and actually win the argument. ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.com