tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8627958742973277620..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Etched spectaclesRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51426072320459054452012-12-21T18:37:54.132-05:002012-12-21T18:37:54.132-05:00Cont. “Irrelevant to the point.”
It’s directly re...Cont. “Irrelevant to the point.”<br /><br />It’s directly relevant. Abstract objects are both timeless and spaceless. Angels are not. Therefore, Drake’s comparison is equivocal.<br /><br />“There is also a series in God’s thinking, it is not chronological but logical (Study Lapsarianism); therefore your dialectic fails.”<br /><br />Another equivocation. Human thoughts are temporally successive, God’s are not. Therefore, Drake’s claim that thoughts are note temporal parts is a hasty generalization.<br /><br />“I FINALLY GOT ONE TO ADMIT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”<br /><br />To admit what? That Scripture names Jesus as Yahweh as well as naming the Father as Yahweh.<br /><br />“You are playing Jesuit semantic games. You clearly just acknowledged that there is a difference in the meaning.”<br /><br />Not at all. It’s just a stylistic variation. I could say they share the same attributes except for a distinguishing attribute, or I could say they share the same properties except for a distinguishing property. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49815290822691500302012-12-21T18:37:07.009-05:002012-12-21T18:37:07.009-05:00Drake Shelton:
“Notice he thinks that a nature-pe...Drake Shelton:<br /><br />“Notice he thinks that a nature-person distinction is a dichotomy.” <br /><br />This illustrates Drake’s lack of basic reading skills. Drake is the one who drove a wedge between persons and attributes when he said: “Notice Steve defines God by attributes. God is then not a person.”<br /><br />I rejected the dichotomy.<br /><br />“And where is God defined as a set of attributes…”<br /><br />By how Scripture identifies the true God and distinguishes him from false gods. <br /><br />“…or a nature or a monad?”<br /><br />I didn’t define God as a “monad.” That is Drake’s broken record.<br /><br />“Wow! This is amazing. A Van Tilian refusing the structure of his own philosopher.”<br /><br />Once again, this illustrates the fact that Drake simply makes assumptions about his opponents rather than responding to what they actually say. I never claimed Van Til as “my own philosopher.” I use him for spare parts.<br /><br />“No, it is not irrelevant. Eph 4:11-12 clearly states that God has given teachers to the Church for her perfection.”<br /><br />Teachers who include critics of Nicene orthodoxy like Calvin, Warfield, Helm, et al. Teachers who include Frame, Bahnsen, Van Til et al. <br /><br />Drake is highly selective in his appeal to Eph 4:11-12.<br /><br />“This is incredible. Steve thinks that he has no obligations to the history of Christianity.”<br /><br />Since Christian history speaks with many conflicting voices, we couldn’t have obligations to Christian history even if we tried.<br /><br />And, no, we have no obligation to an abstraction called “the history of Christianity.” Rather, we have an obligation to God’s true, which is intermittently reflected in Christian history.<br /><br />“He is making things up as he goes.”<br /><br />Just like the church fathers.<br /><br />“The man has clearly defended and operated off of Van Tilism for years and is he now pretending to be a progenitor of a new philosophy?”<br /><br />No, I’ve been very selective in my appropriation of Van Tilianism. And that’s been combined with many other things.<br /><br />Most of the time I never frame my arguments in Van Tilian terms. <br /><br />“So then where in the history of Christianity did the analogical knowledge theory come to Steve?”<br /><br />Irrelevant. The Bible is chockfull of theological analogies. That’s a proper starting-point.<br /><br />“I UDERSTAND THAT Steve. The point is, you cannot contrast an abstract OBJECT with something concrete. You can only do that with an abstract CONCEPT.”<br /><br />Of course you can draw attention to similarities and dissimilarities between abstract objects and their concrete analogues.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51627513971191322082012-12-20T01:47:48.146-05:002012-12-20T01:47:48.146-05:00http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/12/2...http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/a-little-bit-more-for-steve-hays/Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.com