tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8389550492145391960..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Belial's consigliereRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68188982897642822602009-08-15T19:49:41.729-04:002009-08-15T19:49:41.729-04:00VICTOR REPPERT SAID:
"On another matter, thi...VICTOR REPPERT SAID:<br /><br />"On another matter, this type of logic leads to the conclusion that my love for my wife would be greater than it is if she were to have an affair and I were to forgive her for it."<br /><br />Actually, the theme of God as the cuckold husband who takes his wife back is one of the master metaphors of Scripture. Reppert must regard the canonicity of Hosea as a major reason to reject the inerrancy of Scripture.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39313678074223092462009-08-15T18:56:32.929-04:002009-08-15T18:56:32.929-04:00VICTOR REPPERT SAID:
"Yes, I understand that...VICTOR REPPERT SAID:<br /><br />"Yes, I understand that on a Molinist view it seems likely God could have actualized a better world. But, we don't know what the counterfactuals of freedom are, do we?"<br /><br />So you're opting for open theism. God can't know in advance what our free choices will be.<br /><br />But in that case you can't very well combine open theism with universalism. To be a universalist you must believe that sooner or later everyone winds up choosing God. But if the countefactuals of freedom can't be known, then that outcome is unknownable.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13322801475041272662009-08-15T18:46:11.022-04:002009-08-15T18:46:11.022-04:00Victor: "On another matter, this type of logi...Victor: "On another matter, this type of logic leads to the conclusion that my love for my wife would be greater than it is if she were to have an affair and I were to forgive her for it."<br /><br />The Dude: Not sure if this was meant to be directed toward The Dude, if so, I simply cited Jesus' own words. Do Jesus's words only count when he speaks of "God so loved the world"?<br /><br />Victor: "It seems to me that someone who knows God face to face would be able to see not only God's actual characteristics, but also those characteristics God would have if circumstances had been different. It seems to me that God can and will reveal everything he wants to reveal at that point. God could easily make someone see that He would be very angry if we were to do what is wrong, even if we did no wrong."<br /><br />The Dude: I for one wonder why the fall ever happened. God couldn't perform these tricks with Adam, or what?<br /><br />Victor: "I whine about the fate of the damned as if they were undeserving victims because I am an incompatibilist"<br /><br />The Dude: So your objection to Calvinism is to say that if we assume a non-Calvinistic world then Calvinism has problems? I must say, the logic is quite compelling. Uninteresting. But compelling.<br /><br />Victor: "Their deeds are, of course, evil, but punishing them, on the assumption of theological determinism, makes about as much sense as Basil Fawlty punishing his car for failing to start."<br /><br />The Dude: I think punishing people for actions they didn't have the proper kind of control over is more faulty than that, and I think libertarianism doesn't provide agents with the control needed. I also think omniscience rules out genuine indeterminisms, and its either open theism or theological fatalism. So I guess two can play your game.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33305043766375713772009-08-15T18:22:31.573-04:002009-08-15T18:22:31.573-04:00I whine about the fate of the damned as if they we...I whine about the fate of the damned as if they were undeserving victims because I am an incompatibilist, and think, ex hypothesi, that they are not responsible for their actions. Their deeds are, of course, evil, but punishing them, on the assumption of theological determinism, makes about as much sense as Basil Fawlty punishing his car for failing to start.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41545794267272136232009-08-15T18:19:38.453-04:002009-08-15T18:19:38.453-04:00Peter: You are leaving out one of the relevant pos...Peter: You are leaving out one of the relevant positions, and that is that God has simple foreknowledge but not middle knowledge. <br /><br />Yes, I understand that on a Molinist view it seems likely God could have actualized a better world. But, we don't know what the counterfactuals of freedom are, do we? <br /><br />On another matter, this type of logic leads to the conclusion that my love for my wife would be greater than it is if she were to have an affair and I were to forgive her for it. <br /><br />It seems to me that someone who knows God face to face would be able to see not only God's actual characteristics, but also those characteristics God would have if circumstances had been different. It seems to me that God can and will reveal everything he wants to reveal at that point. God could easily make someone see that He would be very angry if we were to do what is wrong, even if we did no wrong.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-28022854355690909542009-08-15T17:31:28.581-04:002009-08-15T17:31:28.581-04:00Thanks!Thanks!Matheteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13527032591499860552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63939890955816824862009-08-15T16:45:14.809-04:002009-08-15T16:45:14.809-04:00MATHETES SAID:
“Steve, I'd like to ask a bit ...MATHETES SAID:<br /><br />“Steve, I'd like to ask a bit of an off-topic question if I may. This post touches on the subject of the glory of God. In the past, as I'm sure you know, skeptics claim that God is simply a big egomaniac who demands worship and glory from people.”<br /><br />To take an example, suppose you love opera. Suppose the world’s greatest soprano is your personal friend. She gives you free tickets to all her performances. Is that egotistical?<br /><br />Well, if she really is the world’s greatest opera singer, then she’s doing you a favor. <br /><br />“But there are obviously also passages where God is the recipient of glory (for example, John 9:24, Acts 12:23, Romans 4:20, 1 Corinthians 10:31, Philippians 2:11, 1 Peter 4:11, Revelation 4:9, Revelation 11:13)...so does this have any effect on the original assertion by skeptics? If so, what would be your response to it?”<br /><br />It simply means that we ought to acknowledge God for what he is and does. Our beliefs and attitudes should conform to reality. <br /><br />For example, if a man is a good husband and father, we should honor him as a good husband and father. We should acknowledge what he is and does.<br /><br />It’s a good thing to acknowledge goodness. If someone does you a good turn, it’s a good thing to thank him for what he did. We have an obligation to value the good. To value goodness.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83551437032226974322009-08-15T16:43:27.315-04:002009-08-15T16:43:27.315-04:00Victor Reppert said:
---
First, John looks like an...Victor Reppert said:<br />---<br />First, John looks like an anti-Calvinist troll to me....<br />---<br /><br />Let it never be said that I disagree with EVERYTHING Reppert writes :-)<br /><br />Reppert said:<br />---<br />Steve, what I have a problem with is what God did before the foundation of the world, given Calvinism. He could have created us in such a way that we none of us ever did anything to deserve damnation, and he didn't. He could have chosen World A, in which no one is damned, but chose world B, in which people are damned. And he did this before any of the sinners in world B ever existed.<br />---<br /><br />Isn't this exactly what God did no matter which view you take (other than the Open Theist view)? As Steve wrote in his post, surely there's got to be a world God could have selected that has LESS evil in it then this current world we've got, even if we accept Plantinga's transworld depravity scenario.<br /><br />In any case, I think one of the greatest ironies found in your original post that Steve responded to was your following quote:<br />---<br />Look, people in heaven are in fellowship with God. They know what fellowship with God is like. They know what it was like to lack that fellowship with God, since they experienced that before conversion. And they can tell the difference between the degree of fellowship with God they now experience and the more limited fellowship with God they experienced on earth.<br />---<br /><br />But the only way that the sinner could tell that there was a difference between life without God on Earth and life in heaven is...<i>IF THERE WAS A FALLEN WORLD</i>.<br /><br />In other words, on the one hand you say that the fallen world is sufficient for us to know who God is in heaven without having to worry about Hell, but on the other hand you say that it was unjust for God to have selected for the very world! In short, you seem to be saying, "This world is evil enough so God can save everyone without Hell being used to demonstrate His justice, but God is evil for having decided to make this world in the first place."<br /><br />Seems you've got an internal contradiction going on there.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56790302801072336662009-08-15T14:48:28.965-04:002009-08-15T14:48:28.965-04:00Victor: "Steve, what I have a problem with is...Victor: "Steve, what I have a problem with is what God did before the foundation of the world, given Calvinism. He could have created us in such a way that we none of us ever did anything to deserve damnation, and he didn't."<br /><br />The Dude: But then we would have an unredeemed world. A world at which redemption occurs is better than a world at which it doesn't. Didn't Jesus say that "the greatest love" happens when a man lays down his life for his friends? The context and point here is <i> redemption and salvation</i>. A world where all do right and none fall implies a world <i>without</i> redemption and salvation, which implies a world <i>without</i> the greatest loving being instrantiated. Calvinists are all about having the most loving world, ironic that Arminians would disagree here. To twist something Victor once said: This makes me want to ask the Arminian, "What part of the word 'love' don't you understand?" ;-)Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88000984637411962232009-08-15T14:32:15.488-04:002009-08-15T14:32:15.488-04:00First, John looks like an anti-Calvinist troll to ...First, John looks like an anti-Calvinist troll to me who asserts an unvarnished view of Calvinism free of the sorts of distinctions Calvinists like to make. He holds to Calvinism in the form Arminians think it leads to in the final analysis. <br /><br />Steve, what I have a problem with is what God did before the foundation of the world, given Calvinism. He could have created us in such a way that we none of us ever did anything to deserve damnation, and he didn't. He could have chosen World A, in which no one is damned, but chose world B, in which people are damned. And he did this before any of the sinners in world B ever existed. <br /><br />Even if Moo, Schreiner, and Piper were right about the exegesis of Romans, that would not give me any reason to suppose that a being who did that was worthy of worship, a being who gives his creatures a moral and not just a prudential reason for worshipping Him. It would not show that Yahweh has a justifying reason for actualizing world B, when world A could have been actualized. <br /><br />Yahweh could have created the world, inspired the Bible, and still not be worthy of worship. <br /><br />I still think it absurd that someone who is enjoying the immediate presence of God needs people suffering eternal punishment to show them the graciousness of God's salvation.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66483710491156444972009-08-15T13:29:15.433-04:002009-08-15T13:29:15.433-04:00I don’t know whether John is Anita B Day under a d...I don’t know whether John is Anita B Day under a different screen name, but the nature of his posts is similar. I doubt that you’re deceiving many people, John. Your posts aren’t an accurate representation of Calvinists, those who believe in a traditional view of Hell, or whoever it is you’re criticizing (by pretending to agree with them while presenting their views in a disreputable manner). How many advocates of a traditional view of Hell, for example, would say that God’s “wrath envelops the body and soul of the reprobate in fire that will serve as their shroud for all time”? We’ve argued against such a simplistic view of Hell, so you aren’t accurately criticizing our position. If you were aiming for Steve or anybody else on the Triablogue staff, then you missed your target. And the idea that “God is pleased to consign the vast majority of humanity to never-ending torment” has already been addressed in a recent thread and elsewhere on this blog. Why should anybody be impressed by your ability to make straw man positions seem disreputable by pretending to agree with them? And if you’re the same person who previously used the Anita B Day screen name, then why don’t you choose one screen name and keep using it?Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90871273287615622422009-08-15T11:41:05.085-04:002009-08-15T11:41:05.085-04:00Steve, I'd like to ask a bit of an off-topic q...Steve, I'd like to ask a bit of an off-topic question if I may. This post touches on the subject of the glory of God. In the past, as I'm sure you know, skeptics claim that God is simply a big egomaniac who demands worship and glory from people. And Triablogue has pointed out (primarily in the dialog with Jim Lazarus a while back) that in Scripture, God glorifies the elect - they are the recipients and beneficiaries of God's glory.<br /><br />But there are obviously also passages where God is the recipient of glory (for example, John 9:24, Acts 12:23, Romans 4:20, 1 Corinthians 10:31, Philippians 2:11, 1 Peter 4:11, Revelation 4:9, Revelation 11:13)...so does this have any effect on the original assertion by skeptics? If so, what would be your response to it?Matheteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13527032591499860552noreply@blogger.com