I’ve posted on illegal immigration in the past, so I’m not going to repeat everything I’ve said before. However, in light of Arizona’s law, I’ve been reading some commentary by “evangelical leaders” or ministers who oppose the law and support amnesty. For the most part I’m going to pick on Richard Land’s article, which is representative of the current fare. I’ll also say something briefly about Prof. Carroll’s biased review of Hoffmeier’s book.
But before that I’d like to make a general observation. Evangelical “leaders” and ministers often cast themselves in the role of saner heads who must calm the restive masses lest the rabble be swept away by the passion the moment and degenerate into a fearful mobocracy.
I’d just say that this reflects a very patronizing and self-important attitude on the part of evangelical “leaders” and ministers. They seem to view the sheep as a bunch of hotheads and immature children who must be kept in check.
Now for Land’s article.
“It is imperative that we find an acceptable solution to the plight of the millions of undocumented immigrants living in our nation.”
http://townhall.com/columnists/RichardLand/2010/05/13/a_moral_and_just_response_to_the_immigration_crisis?page=full&comments=true
This isn’t the only time that Land uses the “undocumented” euphemism. I have to wonder if that euphemism isn’t counterproductive. I imagine that euphemism antagonizes many Americans, which is the very opposite of its intended effect.
“Attorneys I trust and respect tell me that if the law survives the manifold court challenges it faces and goes into effect, it will be abused by genuinely bad people (like drug dealers and human traffickers) whose unscrupulous lawyers will claim falsely that they were victims of racial profiling and prejudice when they were arrested legitimately.”
i) Because liberals are intellectually vacuous, they resort to rhetorical intimidation. They try to shame us into silence by using scary words. We’re supposed to stop dead in our tracks at the sound of “Homophobia!” or “Racial profiling!”
Christians need to defy this emotional extortion.
ii) If some demographic group breaks the law at a disproportionate rate, who are they to put law-abiding citizens on the defensive? If anybody should be on the defensive, it’s the lawbreakers.
We’ve seen this with Muslims. They scream “racial profiling.” As a result, cringing authorities frisk everyone who is not a Muslim while going out of their way to wave the jihadis through the line–just to prove how tolerant they are.
iii) Suppose there was a law cracking down on the KKK. Should police target white dudes donning bed sheets, or would that be illegal profiling? Should police should be allowed to check the driver's license of any driver who appears to be underage? Would that be agist profiling? Would that unfairly discriminate against older teens who look younger than their true age.
Likewise, should liquor store cashiers should be allowed to demand ID from customers who appear to be underage? Should we abolish statutory rape in case enforcing the age of consent is agist profiling?
“To force those who are here illegally to leave is neither politically viable nor humanitarian…There is neither the political nor economic will in the U.S. population for forcibly rounding up 12 million people—many of them who have children who are American citizens—and shipping them back to their country of origin.”
I’ll have more to say about this momentarily, but for now I’d simply note that when people uses this argument, what this reveals to me is a lack of good faith. The reason illegal immigrants come here is for the benefits. If we put a stop to the gravy train, many or most of them would self-deport. Remove the incentive to come and you remove the incentive to stay.
“I have joined with other Evangelicals in calling for bipartisan immigration reform that: Protects the unity of the immediate family.”
There are several problems with this stock objection:
i) Is it inherently wrong to divide families? Should we never incarcerate a father or mother or son or daughter who commits a serious crime on the grounds that this would divide the family?
What about a man who commits a heinous crime, skips the country, and starts a new life for himself? Should we make no effort to extradite him on the grounds that we might be dividing the family he started while he was out on the lam?
ii) Land himself says that it is proper to deport illegal aliens who spurn the terms of his “path to citizenship.” But wouldn’t that divide families?
iii) This appeal is akin claiming that if a man steals my car, and if he eludes the authorities for enough time, then it becomes his car. And it would be terribly unfair of me to demand my car back.
I don’t see that getting away with breaking the law for a long time is somehow exculpatory. If anything, I view that as an aggravating circumstances rather than a mitigating circumstance. For a long time you got the benefit of something that didn’t belong to you. If one man enjoys a 5-year profit from his ill-gotten gain while another man enjoys a 10-year profit, is the latter less guilty than the former? If anything, wouldn’t that worsen his crime?
“As people of faith we must lead our churches to engage in multi-faceted human needs ministries on a massive scale to meet the physical and spiritual needs of millions of men, women and children living in the shadows of society…”
Sigh. “Living in the shadows” is such a cliché. If some people break reasonable laws, then they ought to live in fear. Do we want our laws to have that deterrent effect?
Now, we can debate whether or not our current immigration laws or just or unjust. But that’s a different debate.
“The millions of undocumented workers living among us suffer as outcasts without the full protections of the law or full access to the opportunities this nation offers to all to fulfill their God-given potential…We should, and we will, always have room in this great nation for those who are willing to embrace the American dream and the American ideals that both inspired that dream and define it.”
It is not the duty of the US to open its doors to everyone who wants to come here. That’s totally unrealistic.
“Proper reform should consist of a program that provides an earned pathway that requires an illegal immigrant who desires to remain legally in the U.S. to undergo a criminal background check, pay a fine, agree to pay back taxes, learn to speak, write and read English and get in line behind those who are legally migrating into this country in order to apply for permanent residence after a probationary period of years.”
i) That’s a popular metaphor: go around to the back of the line. But what does that mean? Is Land suggesting that illegal aliens return to their country of origin, then apply for legal residence or citizenship? But that would involve mass deportation, which he opposes. Likewise, would they be learning English in their country of origin? How would that work, exactly?
ii) Or does he mean they would stay on US soil? But if that’s the case, then in what sense are they getting in line behind those who came here legally? And if they can stay here during the process, then what incentive do they have to pay a fine, back taxes, learn English, &c?
iii) Learn English? Permit me a personal anecdote. Back when I was living in San Diego County I once went to a food market which was basically a Mexican establishment this side of the border. I showed one of the employees an ad, in Spanish, for an item they had on sale. He drew a blank. It dawned in me that he was illiterate.
How could we require him to learn English when he didn’t even know how to read and write in his mother tongue?
Now maybe that’s an isolated incident. But it makes me wonder if Land has any concrete grasp of the issues.
iv) Actually, I'm not sure if I even agree with him about requiring immigrants to learn English. I'm inclined to take a more libertarian position on that issue. On the one hand I don't think the gov't is obligated to issue official forms in foreign languages, or conduct bilingual classes. On the other hand, there are ethnic communities in this country where an immigrant can get by in his own language.
“They must also acknowledge and pledge allegiance to America’s governmental structure, the duties of citizenship and our core values as embodied in the Declaration of Independence.”
What about illegal aliens who riot when duly elected representatives pass laws like Arizona’s? Should they be summarily deported in view of their evident disloyalty to the democratic process of the host country?
“People who fail background checks or who refuse to comply with this generous opportunity to earn legal status should be deported immediately.”
But I thought that Land was opposed to “rounding up” and “forcibly deporting” illegal aliens? I mean, wouldn’t that divide families?
And here’s a statement by Prof. Carroll regarding:
“…the possible complicity of the U.S. in some of these conditions (e.g., the impact of NAFTA on Mexican agriculture)—that has resulted in up to 200 million people migrating worldwide today looking for food, work, and safety.”
http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/the-immigration-crisis-immigrants-aliens-and-the-bible/
I have no opinion on the pros and cons of NAFTA. I’m not a businessman or economist.
However, it’s absurd to pin the blame for NAFTA on our gov’t when the Mexican gov’t was a signatory to the same treaty.
But there’s another issue concerning Carroll’s long, hostile review. Carroll panned the book. But when I click on his academic webpage, this is what I find:
Dr. M. Daniel Carroll Rodas, who celebrates his heritage from both Guatemala and the United States, joined the faculty in 1996. He currently is Distinguished Professor of Old Testament. He is affiliated with the Evangelical Theological Society, Institute of Biblical Research, Society of Biblical Literature, Society for Old Testament Study (Great Britain), Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana, Latin American Studies Association, and Evangelicals for Social Action. He serves on the international editorial boards of Religion & Theology (South Africa) and DavarLogos (Argentina), is a contributing editor to Prism (the journal of Evangelicals for Social Action), and is an editorial consultant for Perspectivas (of the Hispanic Theological Initiative) and Ex Auditu.
Prior to his appointment to Denver Seminary, he was professor of Old Testament and ethics and director of graduate studies at El Seminario Teológico Centroamericano in Guatemala City, Guatemala. He remains an adjunct professor there. Dr. Carroll also maintains connections to Latin American theological education through his continuing participation in the accreditation commission of AETAL (Asociación Evangélica de Educación Teológica en América Latina). He was instrumental in the establishment of IDEAL (Instituto para el Desarrollo y Adiestramiento de Líderes), a Spanish language training program at Denver Seminary, and regularly teaches in that program.
http://www.denverseminary.edu/about-us/our-faculty/dr-m-daniel-carroll-r/
i) In the interests of full disclosure, wasn’t it incumbent on Carroll to say at the outset of his review that he has a vested interest in the issue? I’m not suggesting that we dismiss his review out of hand just because he has an ax to grind. At the same time, as I read his highly partisan review, other comparisons spring to mind–like A Defense of Virginia and the South by Robert Lewis Dabney, "The Christian Doctrine of Slavery" by James Henley Thornwell, and A Short History of the Confederate States of America by Jefferson Davis.
It’s the same thing in reverse.
ii) This conflict of interest also exposes a basic tension in his review: On the one hand we’re supposed to treat illegal aliens as fellow human beings, made in God’s image. Indeed, we’re supposed to treat some of them as our brothers and sisters in Christ.
On the other hand, Carroll’s review is clearly driven by identity politics. His ardent sense of ethic solidarity with his own people-group. So his Christian vision is diluted by his astringent chauvinism.
iii) I'd add that, as someone who grew up in the Mideast, who continues to conduct field archeology in that region, Hoffmeier is no stranger to Third World poverty.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
On God Hating Esau
I have recently been involved in an email discussion with an Arminian on the issue of God’s hatred of Esau in Malachi 1:2-3. One of the key issues to resolve is just what the word “hate” meant to the Hebrew people. This is especially relevant in light of the fact that my Arminian correspondent quoted from a pastor who argued that hate was not the opposite of love, but rather apathy was the opposite of love, and further a claim was made that God could both love and hate the same individual at the same time.
Malachi 1:2-3 states:
What I take away from this is that, since God is using what He did to Esau and saying, “Because I didn’t do that to you, that’s proof I love you” then it seems to almost necessitate the opposite, “Because I did do that to Esau, that’s proof I do not love him.” In other words, God is saying: “You do not lay waste to a person’s hill country and leave his heritage to the jackals of the desert if you love that person.”
That was my main argument. Now I want to further buttress it by showing how the Hebrew word sane’ (hate) in verse 3 is used throughout the Old Testament. I believe that it will clearly show that love and hate are opposites, and further that “hate” is a much stronger word than Arminians are comfortable acknowledging of God.
If you look at the resource I have compiled, you’ll see all the verses where the word sane’ appears in Scripture. In every instance, save one, if the word “love” also appears in the verse, the Hebrew word for “love” is ’ahab (the exception is Hosea 9:15, which uses the obviously related word ’ahabah). Thus, whenever we see “love” and “hate” in the same verse (in the list), it is a comparison between ’ahab and sane’.
And what do we see? We see that the two terms are in contradistinction to each other. They are polar opposites. One of the most obvious examples is found in 2 Samuel 19:6. After David’s son, Absalom, revolted and was killed by David’s general, Joab, David wept bitterly at the death of his son. Joab was angered, and chastised David by saying: “You have today covered with shame the faces of all your servants, who have this day saved your life and the lives of your sons and your daughters and the lives of your wives and your concubines, because you love those who hate you and hate those who love you. For you have made it clear today that commanders and servants are nothing to you, for today I know that if Absalom were alive and all of us were dead today, then you would be pleased.”
This passage links the opposites. Love is the opposite of hate. This is why Joab was so mad that David would “love those who hate [him] and hate those who love [him].” (Note that we are not concerned with whether or not David’s behavior was accurately described by Joab, nor are we concerned with whether or not either of them was acting justly. Rather, what matters is what the words mean. And it is clear in this context that love and hate were considered opposites.
To give another example, Proverbs 9:8 says: “Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you.” This passage shows a double parallel. There is the parallel between the “scoffer” and the “wise man” and there is a parallel between their reactions. Just as a “scoffer” is the opposite of a “wise man”, so too is “hate” the opposite of “love.”
Proverbs is full of similar contrasts. To take just one more, Proverbs 13:24 says “Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.” Again, the love/hate polarity is displayed.
To give one final example, in Ecclesiastes 3 we are treated to a long list of opposites. The passage states:
The second aspect of the word sane’ includes the concept of “enemy.” In fact, there are a couple of passages where the word is translated exactly that way (as either “enemy” or “foe”). A couple of those passages are:
So to hate someone is to be their enemy. When we return to Malachi 1:2-3, it is important to note that God is the actor. He is the subject. Jacob and Esau are the objects. So when it says, “Esau I have hated” then, if the term “hate” is linked to being an enemy, then this passage is saying that God is Esau’s enemy; it is not saying that Esau is God’s enemy, although we know from other passages that that is also true.
Finally, let us look at further action that goes along with hatred. That is, many verses deal with hatred and include more concepts of what goes along with hate. So we see in Genesis 26:27, “Isaac said to them, ‘Why have you come to me, seeing that you hate me and have sent me away from you?’” So to hate is to drive someone away. See also Judges 11:7 and Isaiah 66:5
In Genesis 37:4, Joseph’s brothers saw their father loved Joseph more than them, and “they hated him and could not speak peacefully to him.” So hatred means one cannot speak peaceably.
In Deuteronomy 12:31 we see “every abominable thing that the LORD hates they have done for their gods”, showing that to hate something is to consider it an abomination. See also Proverbs 6:16 (“There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him”) and Jeremiah 44:4.
Psalm 41:7 says “All who hate me whisper together about me; they imagine the worst for me.” So to hate someone is to plot the worst outcome for that person.
Amos 5:21 says, “I hate, I despise your feasts” showing that to despise something is to hate it. See also Isaiah 1:14.
Amos 6:8 says, “I abhor the pride of Jacob and hate his strongholds” linking hatred and abhorrence.
So putting these together, we see that hatred encompasses driving someone away, not speaking peaceably to them, considering them an abomination, despising them, considering them abhorrent, and wishing the worst for them. And it is this word, that contains these shades of meaning, that God uses of Esau.
So we’ve seen that the Old Testament clearly used “hate” as an opposite of “love”, and we’ve seen that to hate someone is to be their enemy, and further we’ve seen that “hate” holds all of the negative connotations one would expect. And we’ve further seen that God uses this very word to describe His attitude toward Esau.
Malachi 1:2-3 states:
"I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How have you loved us?" "Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert."In my e-mail exchange, I made the point that God is setting up “love” and “hate” as direct polar opposites in this passage. He loves Jacob, yet He hates Esau. And it is the very existence of that hate the proves His love for Jacob, in this passage. In other words, God says: “I have loved you.” The people then ask God to prove it, by questioning: “How have you loved us?” and God’s proof is, essentially, “I loved Jacob and I hated Esau. Look what I did to Esau. I didn’t do that to you. Therefore, that’s proof I love you.”
What I take away from this is that, since God is using what He did to Esau and saying, “Because I didn’t do that to you, that’s proof I love you” then it seems to almost necessitate the opposite, “Because I did do that to Esau, that’s proof I do not love him.” In other words, God is saying: “You do not lay waste to a person’s hill country and leave his heritage to the jackals of the desert if you love that person.”
That was my main argument. Now I want to further buttress it by showing how the Hebrew word sane’ (hate) in verse 3 is used throughout the Old Testament. I believe that it will clearly show that love and hate are opposites, and further that “hate” is a much stronger word than Arminians are comfortable acknowledging of God.
If you look at the resource I have compiled, you’ll see all the verses where the word sane’ appears in Scripture. In every instance, save one, if the word “love” also appears in the verse, the Hebrew word for “love” is ’ahab (the exception is Hosea 9:15, which uses the obviously related word ’ahabah). Thus, whenever we see “love” and “hate” in the same verse (in the list), it is a comparison between ’ahab and sane’.
And what do we see? We see that the two terms are in contradistinction to each other. They are polar opposites. One of the most obvious examples is found in 2 Samuel 19:6. After David’s son, Absalom, revolted and was killed by David’s general, Joab, David wept bitterly at the death of his son. Joab was angered, and chastised David by saying: “You have today covered with shame the faces of all your servants, who have this day saved your life and the lives of your sons and your daughters and the lives of your wives and your concubines, because you love those who hate you and hate those who love you. For you have made it clear today that commanders and servants are nothing to you, for today I know that if Absalom were alive and all of us were dead today, then you would be pleased.”
This passage links the opposites. Love is the opposite of hate. This is why Joab was so mad that David would “love those who hate [him] and hate those who love [him].” (Note that we are not concerned with whether or not David’s behavior was accurately described by Joab, nor are we concerned with whether or not either of them was acting justly. Rather, what matters is what the words mean. And it is clear in this context that love and hate were considered opposites.
To give another example, Proverbs 9:8 says: “Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you.” This passage shows a double parallel. There is the parallel between the “scoffer” and the “wise man” and there is a parallel between their reactions. Just as a “scoffer” is the opposite of a “wise man”, so too is “hate” the opposite of “love.”
Proverbs is full of similar contrasts. To take just one more, Proverbs 13:24 says “Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.” Again, the love/hate polarity is displayed.
To give one final example, in Ecclesiastes 3 we are treated to a long list of opposites. The passage states:
There is a time for everything,In so much as “born” is the opposite of “die”, “plant” is the opposite of “uproot”, “kill” is the opposite of “heal”, “tear down” is the opposite of “build”, “weep” is the opposite of “laugh”, “mourn” is the opposite of “dance,” “scatter” is the opposite of “gather”, “embrace” is the opposite of “refraining from embracing”, “searching” is the opposite of “giving up”, “keep” is the opposite of “throw away”, “tear” is the opposite of “mend”, “silence” is the opposite of “speak”, and “war” is the opposite of “peace”; so too is “love” the opposite of “hate.”
and a season for every activity under heaven:
a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
The second aspect of the word sane’ includes the concept of “enemy.” In fact, there are a couple of passages where the word is translated exactly that way (as either “enemy” or “foe”). A couple of those passages are:
Exodus 1:10 “Come, let us deal shrewedly with them, lest they multiply, and, if war breaks out, they join our enemies [sane’] and fight against us and escape from the land.”Additionally, in Scripture “hate” is itself often linked with “enemy” even when a different word for “enemy” is used. Some examples are:
Deuteronomy 30:7 “And the LORD your God will put all these curses on your foes [sane’] and enemies who persecute you.”
Proverbs 25:21 “If your enemy [sane’] is hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink…”
Leviticus 26:17a “I will set my face against you, and you shall be struck down before your enemies. Those who hate you shall rule over you…”The Psalms are especially interesting in that they often use parallelisms, stating the same thing in different ways. Hence, in Psalm 68:1 (above), we have “his enemies shall be scattered” in parallel with “those who hate him shall flee.” Similar concepts repeated in different ways. The same is also stated in Number 10:35, where Moses says :”Arise, O LORD, and let your enemies be scattered, and let those who hate you flee before you.” One final example from Psalm 21:8 (above) should suffice: “Your hand will find out all your enemies” is coupled with “Your right hand will find out those who hate you.”
Psalm 21:8 “Your hand will find out all your enemies; your right hand will find out those who hate you.”
Psalm 44:7 “You have saved us from our foes and have put to shame those who hate us.”
Psalm 68:1 “God shall arise, his enemies shall be scattered; and those who hate him shall flee before him!”
Psalm 139:22 “I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies.”
So to hate someone is to be their enemy. When we return to Malachi 1:2-3, it is important to note that God is the actor. He is the subject. Jacob and Esau are the objects. So when it says, “Esau I have hated” then, if the term “hate” is linked to being an enemy, then this passage is saying that God is Esau’s enemy; it is not saying that Esau is God’s enemy, although we know from other passages that that is also true.
Finally, let us look at further action that goes along with hatred. That is, many verses deal with hatred and include more concepts of what goes along with hate. So we see in Genesis 26:27, “Isaac said to them, ‘Why have you come to me, seeing that you hate me and have sent me away from you?’” So to hate is to drive someone away. See also Judges 11:7 and Isaiah 66:5
In Genesis 37:4, Joseph’s brothers saw their father loved Joseph more than them, and “they hated him and could not speak peacefully to him.” So hatred means one cannot speak peaceably.
In Deuteronomy 12:31 we see “every abominable thing that the LORD hates they have done for their gods”, showing that to hate something is to consider it an abomination. See also Proverbs 6:16 (“There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him”) and Jeremiah 44:4.
Psalm 41:7 says “All who hate me whisper together about me; they imagine the worst for me.” So to hate someone is to plot the worst outcome for that person.
Amos 5:21 says, “I hate, I despise your feasts” showing that to despise something is to hate it. See also Isaiah 1:14.
Amos 6:8 says, “I abhor the pride of Jacob and hate his strongholds” linking hatred and abhorrence.
So putting these together, we see that hatred encompasses driving someone away, not speaking peaceably to them, considering them an abomination, despising them, considering them abhorrent, and wishing the worst for them. And it is this word, that contains these shades of meaning, that God uses of Esau.
So we’ve seen that the Old Testament clearly used “hate” as an opposite of “love”, and we’ve seen that to hate someone is to be their enemy, and further we’ve seen that “hate” holds all of the negative connotations one would expect. And we’ve further seen that God uses this very word to describe His attitude toward Esau.
Verses containing the Hebrew word sane'
A search of one of the Hebrew words for “hate”, sane' (Strong’s number H8130):
Genesis 24:60
And they blessed Rebekah and said to her,
"Our sister, may you become
thousands of ten thousands,
and may your offspring possess
the gate of those who hate him!"
Genesis 26:27
Isaac said to them, "Why have you come to me, seeing that you hate me and have sent me away from you?"
Genesis 29:31
When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren.
Genesis 29:33
She conceived again and bore a son, and said, "Because the LORD has heard that I am hated, he has given me this son also." And she called his name Simeon.
Genesis 37:4
But when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him and could not speak peacefully to him.
Genesis 37:5
Now Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers they hated him even more.
Genesis 37:8
His brothers said to him, "Are you indeed to reign over us? Or are you indeed to rule over us?" So they hated him even more for his dreams and for his words.
Exodus 1:10
Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and, if war breaks out, they join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land."
Exodus 18:21
Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.
Exodus 20:5
You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me
Exodus 23:5
If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying down under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall rescue it with him.
Leviticus 19:17
"You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him.
Leviticus 26:17
I will set my face against you, and you shall be struck down before your enemies. Those who hate you shall rule over you, and you shall flee when none pursues you.
Numbers 10:35
And whenever the ark set out, Moses said, "Arise, O LORD, and let your enemies be scattered, and let those who hate you flee before you."
Deuteronomy 4:42
that the manslayer might flee there, anyone who kills his neighbor unintentionally, without being at enmity with him in time past; he may flee to one of these cities and save his life:
Deuteronomy 5:9
You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
Deuteronomy 7:10
and repays to their face those who hate him, by destroying them. He will not be slack with one who hates him. He will repay him to his face.
Deuteronomy 7:15
And the LORD will take away from you all sickness, and none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which you knew, will he inflict on you, but he will lay them on all who hate you.
Deuteronomy 12:31
You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the LORD hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.
Deuteronomy 16:22
And you shall not set up a pillar, which the LORD your God hates.
Deuteronomy 19:4
"This is the provision for the manslayer, who by fleeing there may save his life. If anyone kills his neighbor unintentionally without having hated him in the past?
Deuteronomy 19:6
lest the avenger of blood in hot anger pursue the manslayer and overtake him, because the way is long, and strike him fatally, though the man did not deserve to die, since he had not hated his neighbor in the past.
Deuteronomy 19:11
"But if anyone hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and attacks him and strikes him fatally so that he dies, and he flees into one of these cities,
Deuteronomy 21:15-17
"If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him children, and if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn, but he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the firstfruits of his strength. The right of the firstborn is his.
Deuteronomy 22:13
"If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her
Deuteronomy 22:16
And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her;
Deuteronomy 24:3
and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife,
Deuteronomy 30:7
And the LORD your God will put all these curses on your foes and enemies who persecuted you.
Deuteronomy 32:41
if I sharpen my flashing sword
and my hand takes hold on judgment,
I will take vengeance on my adversaries
and will repay those who hate me.
Deuteronomy 33:11
Bless, O LORD, his substance,
and accept the work of his hands;
crush the loins of his adversaries,
of those who hate him, that they rise not again."
Joshua 20:5
And if the avenger of blood pursues him, they shall not give up the manslayer into his hand, because he struck his neighbor unknowingly, and did not hate him in the past.
Judges 11:7
But Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, "Did you not hate me and drive me out of my father’s house? Why have you come to me now when you are in distress?"
Judges 14:16
And Samson’s wife wept over him and said, "You only hate me; you do not love me. You have put a riddle to my people, and you have not told me what it is." And he said to her, "Behold, I have not told my father nor my mother, and shall I tell you?"
Judges 15:2
And her father said, "I really thought that you utterly hated her, so I gave her to your companion. Is not her younger sister more beautiful than she? Please take her instead."
2 Samuel 5:8
And David said on that day, "Whoever would strike the Jebusites, let him get up the water shaft to attack 'the lame and the blind,' who are hated by David’s soul." Therefore it is said, "The blind and the lame shall not come into the house."
2 Samuel 13:15
Then Amnon hated her with very great hatred, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her. And Amnon said to her, "Get up! Go!"
2 Samuel 13:22
But Absalom spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad, for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had violated his sister Tamar.
2 Samuel 19:6
because you love those who hate you and hate those who love you. For you have made it clear today that commanders and servants are nothing to you, for today I know that if Absalom were alive and all of us were dead today, then you would be pleased.
2 Samuel 22:18
He rescued me from my strong enemy,
from those who hated me,
for they were too mighty for me.
2 Samuel 22:41
You made my enemies turn their backs to me,
those who hated me, and I destroyed them.
Kings 22:8
And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the LORD, Micaiah the son of Imlah, but I hate him, for he never prophesies good concerning me, but evil." And Jehoshaphat said, "Let not the king say so."
2 Chronicles 1:11
God answered Solomon, "Because this was in your heart, and you have not asked possessions, wealth, honor, or the life of those who hate you, and have not even asked long life, but have asked wisdom and knowledge for yourself that you may govern my people over whom I have made you king,
2 Chronicles 18:7
And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the LORD, Micaiah the son of Imlah; but I hate him, for he never prophesies good concerning me, but always evil." And Jehoshaphat said, "Let not the king say so."
2 Chronicles 19:2
But Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him and said to King Jehoshaphat, "Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD? Because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the LORD.
Esther 9:1
Now in the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, on the thirteenth day of the same, when the king’s command and edict were about to be carried out, on the very day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to gain the mastery over them, the reverse occurred: the Jews gained mastery over those who hated them.
Esther 9:16
Now the rest of the Jews who were in the king’s provinces also gathered to defend their lives, and got relief from their enemies and killed 75,000 of those who hated them, but they laid no hands on the plunder.
Job 8:22
Those who hate you will be clothed with shame,
and the tent of the wicked will be no more."
Job 31:29
"If I have rejoiced at the ruin of him who hated me,
or exulted when evil overtook him
Job 34:17
Shall one who hates justice govern?
Will you condemn him who is righteous and mighty,
Psalm 5:5
The boastful shall not stand before your eyes;
you hate all evildoers.
Psalm 9:13
Be gracious to me, O LORD!
See my affliction from those who hate me,
O you who lift me up from the gates of death,
Psalm 11:5
The LORD tests the righteous,
but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.
Psalm 18:17
He rescued me from my strong enemy
and from those who hated me,
for they were too mighty for me.
Psalm 18:40
You made my enemies turn their backs to me,
and those who hated me I destroyed.
Psalm 21:8
Your hand will find out all your enemies;
your right hand will find out those who hate you.
Psalm 25:19
Consider how many are my foes,
and with what violent hatred they hate me.
Psalm 26:5
I hate the assembly of evildoers,
and I will not sit with the wicked.
Psalm 31:6
I hate those who pay regard to worthless idols,
but I trust in the LORD.
Psalm 34:21
Affliction will slay the wicked,
and those who hate the righteous will be condemned.
Psalm 35:19
Let not those rejoice over me
who are wrongfully my foes,
and let not those wink the eye
who hate me without cause.
Psalm 36:2
For he flatters himself in his own eyes
that his iniquity cannot be found out and hated.
Psalm 38:19
But my foes are vigorous, they are mighty,
and many are those who hate me wrongfully.
Psalm 41:7
All who hate me whisper together about me;
they imagine the worst for me.
Psalm 44:7
But you have saved us from our foes
and have put to shame those who hate us.
Psalm 44:10
You have made us turn back from the foe,
and those who hate us have gotten spoil.
Psalm 45:7
you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness.
Therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;
Psalm 50:17
For you hate discipline,
and you cast my words behind you.
Psalm 55:12
For it is not an enemy who taunts me?
then I could bear it;
it is not an adversary who deals insolently with me?
then I could hide from him.
Psalm 68:1
God shall arise, his enemies shall be scattered;
and those who hate him shall flee before him!
Psalm 69:4
More in number than the hairs of my head
are those who hate me without cause;
mighty are those who would destroy me,
those who attack me with lies.
What I did not steal
must I now restore?
Psalm 69:14
Deliver me
from sinking in the mire;
let me be delivered from my enemies
and from the deep waters.
Psalm 81:15
Those who hate the LORD would cringe toward him,
and their fate would last forever.
Psalm 83:2
For behold, your enemies make an uproar;
those who hate you have raised their heads.
Psalm 86:17
Show me a sign of your favor,
that those who hate me may see and be put to shame
because you, LORD, have helped me and comforted me.
Psalm 89:23
I will crush his foes before him
and strike down those who hate him.
Psalm 97:10
O you who love the LORD, hate evil!
He preserves the lives of his saints;
He delivers them from the hand of the wicked.
Psalm 101:3
I will not set before my eyes
anything that is worthless.
I hate the work of those who fall away;
it shall not cling to me.
Psalm 105:25
He turned their hearts to hate his people,
to deal craftily with his servants.
Psalm 106:10
So he saved them from the hand of the foe
and redeemed them from the power of the enemy.
Psalm 106:41
he gave them into the hand of the nations,
so that those who hated them ruled over them.
Psalm 118:7
The LORD is on my side as my helper;
I shall look in triumph on those who hate me.
Psalm 119:104
Through your precepts I get understanding;
therefore I hate every false way.
Psalm 119:113
I hate the double-minded,
but I love your law.
Psalm 119:128
Therefore I consider all your precepts to be right;
I hate every false way.
Psalm 119:163
I hate and abhor falsehood,
but I love your law.
Psalm 120:6
Too long have I had my dwelling
among those who hate peace.
Psalm 129:5
May all who hate Zion
be put to shame and turned backward!
Psalm 139:21-22
Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?
I hate them with complete hatred;
I count them my enemies.
Proverbs 1:22
"How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
and fools hate knowledge?
Proverbs 1:29
Because they hated knowledge
and did not choose the fear of the LORD,
Proverbs 5:12
and you say, "How I hated discipline,
and my heart despised reproof!
Proverbs 6:16
There are six things that the LORD hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
Proverbs 8:13
The fear of the LORD is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil
And perverted speech I hate.
Proverbs 8:36
but he who fails to find me injures himself;
all who hate me love death."
Proverbs 9:8
Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you;
reprove a wise man, and he will love you.
Proverbs 11:15
Whoever puts up security for a stranger will surely suffer harm,
but he who hates striking hands in pledge is secure.
Proverbs 12:1
Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge,
but he who hates reproof is stupid.
Proverbs 13:5
The righteous hates falsehood,
but the wicked brings shame and disgrace.
Proverbs 13:24
Whoever spares the rod hates his son,
but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.
Proverbs 14:17
A man of quick temper acts foolishly,
and a man of evil devices is hated.
Proverbs 14:20
The poor is disliked even by his neighbor,
but the rich has many friends.
Proverbs 15:10
There is severe discipline for him who forsakes the way;
whoever hates reproof will die.
Proverbs 15:27
Whoever is greedy for unjust gain troubles his own household,
but he who hates bribes will live.
Proverbs 19:7
All a poor man’s brothers hate him;
how much more do his friends go far from him!
He pursues them with words, but does not have them.
Proverbs 25:17
Let your foot be seldom in your neighbor’s house,
lest he have his fill of you and hate you.
Proverbs 25:21
If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat,
and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink,
Proverbs 26:24
Whoever hates disguises himself with his lips
and harbors deceit in his heart;
Proverbs 26:28
A lying tongue hates its victims,
and a flattering mouth works ruin.
Proverbs 27:6
Faithful are the wounds of a friend;
profuse are the kisses of an enemy.
Proverbs 28:16
A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor,
but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.
Proverbs 29:10
Bloodthirsty men hate one who is blameless
and seek the life of the upright.
Proverbs 29:24
The partner of a thief hates his own life;
he hears the curse, but discloses nothing.
Proverbs 30:23
an unloved woman when she gets a husband,
and a maidservant when she displaces her mistress.
Ecclesiastes 2:17-18
So I hated life, because what is done under the sun was grievous to me, for all is vanity and a striving after wind. I hated all my toil in which I toil under the sun, seeing that I must leave it to the man who will come after me,
Ecclesiastes 3:8
a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.
Isaiah 1:14
Your new moons and your appointed feasts
my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
Isaiah 60:15
Whereas you have been forsaken and hated,
with no one passing through,
I will make you majestic forever,
a joy from age to age.
Isaiah 61:8
For I the LORD love justice;
I hate robbery and wrong;
I will faithfully give them their recompense,
and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.
Isaiah 66:5
Hear the word of the LORD,
you who tremble at his word:
"Your brothers who hate you
and cast you out for my name’s sake
have said, 'Let the LORD be glorified,
that we may see your joy';
but it is they who shall be put to shame.
Jeremiah 12:8
My heritage has become to me
like a lion in the forest;
she has lifted up her voice against me;
therefore I hate her.
Jeremiah 44:4
Yet I persistently sent to you all my servants the prophets, saying, 'Oh, do not do this abomination that I hate!'
Ezekiel 16:27
Behold, therefore, I stretched out my hand against you and diminished your allotted portion and delivered you to the greed of your enemies, the daughters of the Philistines, who were ashamed of your lewd behavior.
Ezekiel 16:37
therefore, behold, I will gather all your lovers with whom you took pleasure, all those you loved and all those you hated. I will gather them against you from every side and will uncover your nakedness to them, that they may see all your nakedness.
Ezekiel 23:28
"For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will deliver you into the hands of those whom you hate, into the hands of those from whom you turned in disgust,
Ezekiel 35:6
therefore, as I live, declares the Lord GOD, I will prepare you for blood, and blood shall pursue you; because you did not hate bloodshed, therefore blood shall pursue you.
Hosea 9:15
Every evil of theirs is in Gilgal;
there I began to hate them.
Because of the wickedness of their deeds
I will drive them out of my house.
I will love them no more;
all their princes are rebels.
Amos 5:10
They hate him who reproves in the gate,
and they abhor him who speaks the truth.
Amos 5:15
Hate evil, and love good,
and establish justice in the gate;
it may be that the LORD, the God of hosts,
will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.
Amos 5:21
"I hate, I despise your feasts,
and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.
Amos 6:8
The Lord GOD has sworn by himself, declares the LORD, the God of hosts:
"I abhor the pride of Jacob
and hate his strongholds,
and I will deliver up the city and all that is in it."
Micah 3:2
you who hate the good and love the evil,
who tear the skin from off my people
and their flesh from off their bones,
Zechariah 8:17
do not devise evil in your hearts against one another, and love no false oath, for all these things I hate, declares the LORD."
Malachi 1:3
but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert."
Malachi 2:16
"For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless."
[This passage was differently stated in the KJV.]
Malachi 2:16 (King James Version)
For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
Genesis 24:60
And they blessed Rebekah and said to her,
"Our sister, may you become
thousands of ten thousands,
and may your offspring possess
the gate of those who hate him!"
Genesis 26:27
Isaac said to them, "Why have you come to me, seeing that you hate me and have sent me away from you?"
Genesis 29:31
When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren.
Genesis 29:33
She conceived again and bore a son, and said, "Because the LORD has heard that I am hated, he has given me this son also." And she called his name Simeon.
Genesis 37:4
But when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him and could not speak peacefully to him.
Genesis 37:5
Now Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers they hated him even more.
Genesis 37:8
His brothers said to him, "Are you indeed to reign over us? Or are you indeed to rule over us?" So they hated him even more for his dreams and for his words.
Exodus 1:10
Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and, if war breaks out, they join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land."
Exodus 18:21
Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.
Exodus 20:5
You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me
Exodus 23:5
If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying down under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall rescue it with him.
Leviticus 19:17
"You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him.
Leviticus 26:17
I will set my face against you, and you shall be struck down before your enemies. Those who hate you shall rule over you, and you shall flee when none pursues you.
Numbers 10:35
And whenever the ark set out, Moses said, "Arise, O LORD, and let your enemies be scattered, and let those who hate you flee before you."
Deuteronomy 4:42
that the manslayer might flee there, anyone who kills his neighbor unintentionally, without being at enmity with him in time past; he may flee to one of these cities and save his life:
Deuteronomy 5:9
You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
Deuteronomy 7:10
and repays to their face those who hate him, by destroying them. He will not be slack with one who hates him. He will repay him to his face.
Deuteronomy 7:15
And the LORD will take away from you all sickness, and none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which you knew, will he inflict on you, but he will lay them on all who hate you.
Deuteronomy 12:31
You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the LORD hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.
Deuteronomy 16:22
And you shall not set up a pillar, which the LORD your God hates.
Deuteronomy 19:4
"This is the provision for the manslayer, who by fleeing there may save his life. If anyone kills his neighbor unintentionally without having hated him in the past?
Deuteronomy 19:6
lest the avenger of blood in hot anger pursue the manslayer and overtake him, because the way is long, and strike him fatally, though the man did not deserve to die, since he had not hated his neighbor in the past.
Deuteronomy 19:11
"But if anyone hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and attacks him and strikes him fatally so that he dies, and he flees into one of these cities,
Deuteronomy 21:15-17
"If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him children, and if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn, but he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the firstfruits of his strength. The right of the firstborn is his.
Deuteronomy 22:13
"If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her
Deuteronomy 22:16
And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her;
Deuteronomy 24:3
and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife,
Deuteronomy 30:7
And the LORD your God will put all these curses on your foes and enemies who persecuted you.
Deuteronomy 32:41
if I sharpen my flashing sword
and my hand takes hold on judgment,
I will take vengeance on my adversaries
and will repay those who hate me.
Deuteronomy 33:11
Bless, O LORD, his substance,
and accept the work of his hands;
crush the loins of his adversaries,
of those who hate him, that they rise not again."
Joshua 20:5
And if the avenger of blood pursues him, they shall not give up the manslayer into his hand, because he struck his neighbor unknowingly, and did not hate him in the past.
Judges 11:7
But Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, "Did you not hate me and drive me out of my father’s house? Why have you come to me now when you are in distress?"
Judges 14:16
And Samson’s wife wept over him and said, "You only hate me; you do not love me. You have put a riddle to my people, and you have not told me what it is." And he said to her, "Behold, I have not told my father nor my mother, and shall I tell you?"
Judges 15:2
And her father said, "I really thought that you utterly hated her, so I gave her to your companion. Is not her younger sister more beautiful than she? Please take her instead."
2 Samuel 5:8
And David said on that day, "Whoever would strike the Jebusites, let him get up the water shaft to attack 'the lame and the blind,' who are hated by David’s soul." Therefore it is said, "The blind and the lame shall not come into the house."
2 Samuel 13:15
Then Amnon hated her with very great hatred, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her. And Amnon said to her, "Get up! Go!"
2 Samuel 13:22
But Absalom spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad, for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had violated his sister Tamar.
2 Samuel 19:6
because you love those who hate you and hate those who love you. For you have made it clear today that commanders and servants are nothing to you, for today I know that if Absalom were alive and all of us were dead today, then you would be pleased.
2 Samuel 22:18
He rescued me from my strong enemy,
from those who hated me,
for they were too mighty for me.
2 Samuel 22:41
You made my enemies turn their backs to me,
those who hated me, and I destroyed them.
Kings 22:8
And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the LORD, Micaiah the son of Imlah, but I hate him, for he never prophesies good concerning me, but evil." And Jehoshaphat said, "Let not the king say so."
2 Chronicles 1:11
God answered Solomon, "Because this was in your heart, and you have not asked possessions, wealth, honor, or the life of those who hate you, and have not even asked long life, but have asked wisdom and knowledge for yourself that you may govern my people over whom I have made you king,
2 Chronicles 18:7
And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the LORD, Micaiah the son of Imlah; but I hate him, for he never prophesies good concerning me, but always evil." And Jehoshaphat said, "Let not the king say so."
2 Chronicles 19:2
But Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him and said to King Jehoshaphat, "Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD? Because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the LORD.
Esther 9:1
Now in the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, on the thirteenth day of the same, when the king’s command and edict were about to be carried out, on the very day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to gain the mastery over them, the reverse occurred: the Jews gained mastery over those who hated them.
Esther 9:16
Now the rest of the Jews who were in the king’s provinces also gathered to defend their lives, and got relief from their enemies and killed 75,000 of those who hated them, but they laid no hands on the plunder.
Job 8:22
Those who hate you will be clothed with shame,
and the tent of the wicked will be no more."
Job 31:29
"If I have rejoiced at the ruin of him who hated me,
or exulted when evil overtook him
Job 34:17
Shall one who hates justice govern?
Will you condemn him who is righteous and mighty,
Psalm 5:5
The boastful shall not stand before your eyes;
you hate all evildoers.
Psalm 9:13
Be gracious to me, O LORD!
See my affliction from those who hate me,
O you who lift me up from the gates of death,
Psalm 11:5
The LORD tests the righteous,
but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.
Psalm 18:17
He rescued me from my strong enemy
and from those who hated me,
for they were too mighty for me.
Psalm 18:40
You made my enemies turn their backs to me,
and those who hated me I destroyed.
Psalm 21:8
Your hand will find out all your enemies;
your right hand will find out those who hate you.
Psalm 25:19
Consider how many are my foes,
and with what violent hatred they hate me.
Psalm 26:5
I hate the assembly of evildoers,
and I will not sit with the wicked.
Psalm 31:6
I hate those who pay regard to worthless idols,
but I trust in the LORD.
Psalm 34:21
Affliction will slay the wicked,
and those who hate the righteous will be condemned.
Psalm 35:19
Let not those rejoice over me
who are wrongfully my foes,
and let not those wink the eye
who hate me without cause.
Psalm 36:2
For he flatters himself in his own eyes
that his iniquity cannot be found out and hated.
Psalm 38:19
But my foes are vigorous, they are mighty,
and many are those who hate me wrongfully.
Psalm 41:7
All who hate me whisper together about me;
they imagine the worst for me.
Psalm 44:7
But you have saved us from our foes
and have put to shame those who hate us.
Psalm 44:10
You have made us turn back from the foe,
and those who hate us have gotten spoil.
Psalm 45:7
you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness.
Therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;
Psalm 50:17
For you hate discipline,
and you cast my words behind you.
Psalm 55:12
For it is not an enemy who taunts me?
then I could bear it;
it is not an adversary who deals insolently with me?
then I could hide from him.
Psalm 68:1
God shall arise, his enemies shall be scattered;
and those who hate him shall flee before him!
Psalm 69:4
More in number than the hairs of my head
are those who hate me without cause;
mighty are those who would destroy me,
those who attack me with lies.
What I did not steal
must I now restore?
Psalm 69:14
Deliver me
from sinking in the mire;
let me be delivered from my enemies
and from the deep waters.
Psalm 81:15
Those who hate the LORD would cringe toward him,
and their fate would last forever.
Psalm 83:2
For behold, your enemies make an uproar;
those who hate you have raised their heads.
Psalm 86:17
Show me a sign of your favor,
that those who hate me may see and be put to shame
because you, LORD, have helped me and comforted me.
Psalm 89:23
I will crush his foes before him
and strike down those who hate him.
Psalm 97:10
O you who love the LORD, hate evil!
He preserves the lives of his saints;
He delivers them from the hand of the wicked.
Psalm 101:3
I will not set before my eyes
anything that is worthless.
I hate the work of those who fall away;
it shall not cling to me.
Psalm 105:25
He turned their hearts to hate his people,
to deal craftily with his servants.
Psalm 106:10
So he saved them from the hand of the foe
and redeemed them from the power of the enemy.
Psalm 106:41
he gave them into the hand of the nations,
so that those who hated them ruled over them.
Psalm 118:7
The LORD is on my side as my helper;
I shall look in triumph on those who hate me.
Psalm 119:104
Through your precepts I get understanding;
therefore I hate every false way.
Psalm 119:113
I hate the double-minded,
but I love your law.
Psalm 119:128
Therefore I consider all your precepts to be right;
I hate every false way.
Psalm 119:163
I hate and abhor falsehood,
but I love your law.
Psalm 120:6
Too long have I had my dwelling
among those who hate peace.
Psalm 129:5
May all who hate Zion
be put to shame and turned backward!
Psalm 139:21-22
Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?
I hate them with complete hatred;
I count them my enemies.
Proverbs 1:22
"How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
and fools hate knowledge?
Proverbs 1:29
Because they hated knowledge
and did not choose the fear of the LORD,
Proverbs 5:12
and you say, "How I hated discipline,
and my heart despised reproof!
Proverbs 6:16
There are six things that the LORD hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
Proverbs 8:13
The fear of the LORD is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil
And perverted speech I hate.
Proverbs 8:36
but he who fails to find me injures himself;
all who hate me love death."
Proverbs 9:8
Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you;
reprove a wise man, and he will love you.
Proverbs 11:15
Whoever puts up security for a stranger will surely suffer harm,
but he who hates striking hands in pledge is secure.
Proverbs 12:1
Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge,
but he who hates reproof is stupid.
Proverbs 13:5
The righteous hates falsehood,
but the wicked brings shame and disgrace.
Proverbs 13:24
Whoever spares the rod hates his son,
but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.
Proverbs 14:17
A man of quick temper acts foolishly,
and a man of evil devices is hated.
Proverbs 14:20
The poor is disliked even by his neighbor,
but the rich has many friends.
Proverbs 15:10
There is severe discipline for him who forsakes the way;
whoever hates reproof will die.
Proverbs 15:27
Whoever is greedy for unjust gain troubles his own household,
but he who hates bribes will live.
Proverbs 19:7
All a poor man’s brothers hate him;
how much more do his friends go far from him!
He pursues them with words, but does not have them.
Proverbs 25:17
Let your foot be seldom in your neighbor’s house,
lest he have his fill of you and hate you.
Proverbs 25:21
If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat,
and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink,
Proverbs 26:24
Whoever hates disguises himself with his lips
and harbors deceit in his heart;
Proverbs 26:28
A lying tongue hates its victims,
and a flattering mouth works ruin.
Proverbs 27:6
Faithful are the wounds of a friend;
profuse are the kisses of an enemy.
Proverbs 28:16
A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor,
but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.
Proverbs 29:10
Bloodthirsty men hate one who is blameless
and seek the life of the upright.
Proverbs 29:24
The partner of a thief hates his own life;
he hears the curse, but discloses nothing.
Proverbs 30:23
an unloved woman when she gets a husband,
and a maidservant when she displaces her mistress.
Ecclesiastes 2:17-18
So I hated life, because what is done under the sun was grievous to me, for all is vanity and a striving after wind. I hated all my toil in which I toil under the sun, seeing that I must leave it to the man who will come after me,
Ecclesiastes 3:8
a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.
Isaiah 1:14
Your new moons and your appointed feasts
my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
Isaiah 60:15
Whereas you have been forsaken and hated,
with no one passing through,
I will make you majestic forever,
a joy from age to age.
Isaiah 61:8
For I the LORD love justice;
I hate robbery and wrong;
I will faithfully give them their recompense,
and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.
Isaiah 66:5
Hear the word of the LORD,
you who tremble at his word:
"Your brothers who hate you
and cast you out for my name’s sake
have said, 'Let the LORD be glorified,
that we may see your joy';
but it is they who shall be put to shame.
Jeremiah 12:8
My heritage has become to me
like a lion in the forest;
she has lifted up her voice against me;
therefore I hate her.
Jeremiah 44:4
Yet I persistently sent to you all my servants the prophets, saying, 'Oh, do not do this abomination that I hate!'
Ezekiel 16:27
Behold, therefore, I stretched out my hand against you and diminished your allotted portion and delivered you to the greed of your enemies, the daughters of the Philistines, who were ashamed of your lewd behavior.
Ezekiel 16:37
therefore, behold, I will gather all your lovers with whom you took pleasure, all those you loved and all those you hated. I will gather them against you from every side and will uncover your nakedness to them, that they may see all your nakedness.
Ezekiel 23:28
"For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will deliver you into the hands of those whom you hate, into the hands of those from whom you turned in disgust,
Ezekiel 35:6
therefore, as I live, declares the Lord GOD, I will prepare you for blood, and blood shall pursue you; because you did not hate bloodshed, therefore blood shall pursue you.
Hosea 9:15
Every evil of theirs is in Gilgal;
there I began to hate them.
Because of the wickedness of their deeds
I will drive them out of my house.
I will love them no more;
all their princes are rebels.
Amos 5:10
They hate him who reproves in the gate,
and they abhor him who speaks the truth.
Amos 5:15
Hate evil, and love good,
and establish justice in the gate;
it may be that the LORD, the God of hosts,
will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.
Amos 5:21
"I hate, I despise your feasts,
and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.
Amos 6:8
The Lord GOD has sworn by himself, declares the LORD, the God of hosts:
"I abhor the pride of Jacob
and hate his strongholds,
and I will deliver up the city and all that is in it."
Micah 3:2
you who hate the good and love the evil,
who tear the skin from off my people
and their flesh from off their bones,
Zechariah 8:17
do not devise evil in your hearts against one another, and love no false oath, for all these things I hate, declares the LORD."
Malachi 1:3
but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert."
Malachi 2:16
"For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless."
[This passage was differently stated in the KJV.]
Malachi 2:16 (King James Version)
For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
Arminian apologetics in action
BOSSMANHAM SAID:
Um.......yes.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/05/arminians-twice-confounded.html#6335238497165099994
bossmanham said...
Ummm...no.
http://steven-n.blogspot.com/2010/05/does-god-desire-everything-that-happens.html?showComment=1273709627921#c3150156421937690833
bossmanham said...
I'm honestly interested here. Good responses wouldn't change my mind, but...
http://steven-n.blogspot.com/2010/05/does-god-desire-everything-that-happens.html?showComment=1273710028861#c3422318699875720207
Um.......yes.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/05/arminians-twice-confounded.html#6335238497165099994
bossmanham said...
Ummm...no.
http://steven-n.blogspot.com/2010/05/does-god-desire-everything-that-happens.html?showComment=1273709627921#c3150156421937690833
bossmanham said...
I'm honestly interested here. Good responses wouldn't change my mind, but...
http://steven-n.blogspot.com/2010/05/does-god-desire-everything-that-happens.html?showComment=1273710028861#c3422318699875720207
Reasons Why Not to Have a Facebook Account
Update: Here are a few other related articles that have been brought to my attention.
Top Ten Reasons You Should Quit Facebook
How to Quit Facebook Without Actually Quitting Facebook
Fed Up With Facebook? Delete it, and Here's How
Reclaiming Privacy
Kent Brandenburg is someone that I rarely agree with. I once was a fundamentalist as he is. But I still share some concerns that they have about worldliness. I don't always agree on their specifics of what constitutes worldliness. But here he gives good reasons why not to have a Facebook account. Certainly, some of these reasons can be applied to other orbits of the Internet (I don't even believe in Powerpoint Preaching).
Facebook (and addiction to it) is pervasive in the Evangelical church. My first concern about it happened when I attended seminary. Yes, I said seminary. I noticed that scores of seminarians were addicted to it -- spending 2–5 hours a day on it. I have no idea how they managed their studies by being consumed by this social network. I never asked. But maybe I should have. That was over three years ago. I cannot imagine how more prevalent it is today. Should seminaries crack down on facebook addiction with students? Should God's people finance tens of thousands of dollars to send their young men to seminary so they can play on facebook all day and night?
I think we can have a beneficial discussion on this topic. What are your thoughts after you have read all of Kent's reasons.
Top Ten Reasons You Should Quit Facebook
How to Quit Facebook Without Actually Quitting Facebook
Fed Up With Facebook? Delete it, and Here's How
Reclaiming Privacy
Kent Brandenburg is someone that I rarely agree with. I once was a fundamentalist as he is. But I still share some concerns that they have about worldliness. I don't always agree on their specifics of what constitutes worldliness. But here he gives good reasons why not to have a Facebook account. Certainly, some of these reasons can be applied to other orbits of the Internet (I don't even believe in Powerpoint Preaching).
Facebook (and addiction to it) is pervasive in the Evangelical church. My first concern about it happened when I attended seminary. Yes, I said seminary. I noticed that scores of seminarians were addicted to it -- spending 2–5 hours a day on it. I have no idea how they managed their studies by being consumed by this social network. I never asked. But maybe I should have. That was over three years ago. I cannot imagine how more prevalent it is today. Should seminaries crack down on facebook addiction with students? Should God's people finance tens of thousands of dollars to send their young men to seminary so they can play on facebook all day and night?
I think we can have a beneficial discussion on this topic. What are your thoughts after you have read all of Kent's reasons.
Arminians twice confounded
J.C. Thibodaux, on May 13, 2010 at 1:18 pm Said:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-–-fallacy-6-is-god-cruel-if-he-lets-a-believer-fall-away/#comment-4530
Thibo keeps making the same mistake. The question at issue is not whether this behavior violates God's nature as revealed in Scripture, but in Arminianism. Is this consistent with God's universal love and universal grace? Does God intend the best for all his fallen creatures? Does he always act in their best interests?
Which the Arminian God foresaw in saving the would-be apostate.
Every time Thibo swings the bat, he misses the ball. I take God's severity against apostates as a defeater for Arminian theism. Yes, the apostate is more deserving of condemnation. And therein lies a problem for Arminian theism.
Since that dire outcome was a foreseeable and avoidable outcome of God's action (avoidable if God refrained from ever saving the would-be apostate), God is making the would-be apostate more deserving of condemnation by saving him in the first place, knowing all the while that by so doing, the would-be apostate will be more deserving of condemnation than if God simply left him alone to perish in his unregenerate state. Therefore, on Arminian assumptions, God always intended to do the would-be apostate harm. Maximal harm. His grace was ill-meant rather than well-meant when directed at the would-be apostate. Saving grace was just a way to aggravate the would-be apostate's guilt and condemnation. A necessary, preliminary, and transitional phase to make the would-be apostate worse off in the long run. A set-up to intensify his punishment.
I already dealt with that objection. Moreover, Thibo's objection only pushes the question back a step. Given apostasy, God condemns the apostate. But why did the Arminian God save him at the outset to later condemn him? And tighten the screws in the process? Why isn't that action exquisitely cruel by Arminian standards?
Brennon, the only way one would be able to use such an appeal effectively is to show that the behavior would violate God’s nature as He’s revealed in the Bible.
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-–-fallacy-6-is-god-cruel-if-he-lets-a-believer-fall-away/#comment-4530
Thibo keeps making the same mistake. The question at issue is not whether this behavior violates God's nature as revealed in Scripture, but in Arminianism. Is this consistent with God's universal love and universal grace? Does God intend the best for all his fallen creatures? Does he always act in their best interests?
To be sure, God isn’t cruel in any objective sense, but it’s beyond argument from scripture that He’s very harsh with those who turn against Him.
Which the Arminian God foresaw in saving the would-be apostate.
Hays’ argument consists of taking God’s severity against people who rebel despite His goodness (and are thus more deserving of condemnation), then framing Him as being cruel for it.
Every time Thibo swings the bat, he misses the ball. I take God's severity against apostates as a defeater for Arminian theism. Yes, the apostate is more deserving of condemnation. And therein lies a problem for Arminian theism.
Since that dire outcome was a foreseeable and avoidable outcome of God's action (avoidable if God refrained from ever saving the would-be apostate), God is making the would-be apostate more deserving of condemnation by saving him in the first place, knowing all the while that by so doing, the would-be apostate will be more deserving of condemnation than if God simply left him alone to perish in his unregenerate state. Therefore, on Arminian assumptions, God always intended to do the would-be apostate harm. Maximal harm. His grace was ill-meant rather than well-meant when directed at the would-be apostate. Saving grace was just a way to aggravate the would-be apostate's guilt and condemnation. A necessary, preliminary, and transitional phase to make the would-be apostate worse off in the long run. A set-up to intensify his punishment.
For his caricature, he might also be charged with oversimplification since his fishing trip example altogether excludes the main reason God condemns the apostate.
I already dealt with that objection. Moreover, Thibo's objection only pushes the question back a step. Given apostasy, God condemns the apostate. But why did the Arminian God save him at the outset to later condemn him? And tighten the screws in the process? Why isn't that action exquisitely cruel by Arminian standards?
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Is He Evil?
There was once a woman who was terribly injured in a car accident. Due to her injuries she could not move a muscle, she couldn't even blink an eye.
However, a kind and loving grandfatherly-looking man loved this woman.
Knowing that the poor, injured woman had evolved from the stars, he loved her because she was fearfully and wonderfully made.
It so happened that the kind and loving old man was also highly intelligent. He had constructed a machine, The Lifegiver5000.The Lifegiver5000 could uphold anyone by the surge of its power. The only hitch, the man had to keep his finger on the upholding button. The button had power with the current produced by The Lifegiver5000, so he named the button con-current. Thus, the kind and loving grandfatherly-looking man gave new life to the woman.
The man also had a camera planted in the woman's eye so that he could see everything she saw. He was basically omniscient with respect to her life.
Having loved the woman with an amazing love, the kind and loving old man vowed never to interfere with her free will. He would hold the button no matter what. The old man hoped she would seek him, and if she happened to knock on his door, he would open it for her. He had to allow her to knock on his door by her own free will, otherwise she would be a puppet, and who could love a puppet.
The woman, however, did not appreciate her gift of life. She became angry and bitter towards her fellow man--who the kind and loving grandfatherly-looking man also loved. But the man kept his finger on the button, upholding her by the surge of his power. If he took his finger off the button, she would immediately fall to the ground, unable to move, even to blink an eye.
Incidentally, the woman could not have children, and so she hated children. One day her hatred took hold of her and she plotted to kill the little boy who lived next door. She invited the child over for milk and cookies. Upon hearing the invitation, the little boy's big blue eyes lit up and he jumped up and down with joy. Once she had the child in her house, she led him into the basement, where the milk and cookies supposedly were.
As soon as they were in the basement, the woman grabbed the child and picked him up, shaking him while yelling at him, "I hate you, I am going to kill you." The little boy started crying, pleading for his life. He screamed, "Mommy, mommy, help! Mommy, help!" The woman laughed an evil laugh. She then pulled out a butcher knife . . .
The details don't need to be reported, it's enough to know that she stabbed the boy 47 times. The kind and loving giver of life watched the entire thing; his finger remained on con-current.
The woman was eventually caught. Scientists inspected her and found signs of intelligence that led them to the kind and loving old man. The trial shined a global spotlight on the details of the case. The world found out about The Lifegiver5000 and the button concurrent.
At the trial, the kind and loving man was put in the dock. The question the prosecutor put to him was this: "If you are as kind and loving as you say you are, why did you keep your finger on the button con-current? You only had to remove your finger and the woman, who would have ceased to exist had you not gave her life, would have fallen motionless to the floor. Why did you uphold her by the surge of your power and use con-current?"
The reply still baffles most, and people debate it to this day. The kind and loving old man said that he would not violate her free will in case she ever knocked on his door. He also said that he merely allowed her to brutally murder the young child and that people were ignorant for thinking him morally culpable. After all, he said, "It's not like I determined her to do it."
The question debated to this day is this: Is he evil?
There are those who argue that if we would call fellow man evil for the same thing, we must call the saintly grandfather evil too. They say, "If he is not evil, then we do not know what the terms 'good' and 'evil' mean."
Others argue that he is not evil because he merely allowed the murder to occur. They argue that keeping your finger on con-current does not implicate you in the murder, but ordaining that the murder happen does so implicate.
Most wonder if that's a distinction without a morally relevant difference.
However, a kind and loving grandfatherly-looking man loved this woman.
Knowing that the poor, injured woman had evolved from the stars, he loved her because she was fearfully and wonderfully made.
It so happened that the kind and loving old man was also highly intelligent. He had constructed a machine, The Lifegiver5000.The Lifegiver5000 could uphold anyone by the surge of its power. The only hitch, the man had to keep his finger on the upholding button. The button had power with the current produced by The Lifegiver5000, so he named the button con-current. Thus, the kind and loving grandfatherly-looking man gave new life to the woman.
The man also had a camera planted in the woman's eye so that he could see everything she saw. He was basically omniscient with respect to her life.
Having loved the woman with an amazing love, the kind and loving old man vowed never to interfere with her free will. He would hold the button no matter what. The old man hoped she would seek him, and if she happened to knock on his door, he would open it for her. He had to allow her to knock on his door by her own free will, otherwise she would be a puppet, and who could love a puppet.
The woman, however, did not appreciate her gift of life. She became angry and bitter towards her fellow man--who the kind and loving grandfatherly-looking man also loved. But the man kept his finger on the button, upholding her by the surge of his power. If he took his finger off the button, she would immediately fall to the ground, unable to move, even to blink an eye.
Incidentally, the woman could not have children, and so she hated children. One day her hatred took hold of her and she plotted to kill the little boy who lived next door. She invited the child over for milk and cookies. Upon hearing the invitation, the little boy's big blue eyes lit up and he jumped up and down with joy. Once she had the child in her house, she led him into the basement, where the milk and cookies supposedly were.
As soon as they were in the basement, the woman grabbed the child and picked him up, shaking him while yelling at him, "I hate you, I am going to kill you." The little boy started crying, pleading for his life. He screamed, "Mommy, mommy, help! Mommy, help!" The woman laughed an evil laugh. She then pulled out a butcher knife . . .
The details don't need to be reported, it's enough to know that she stabbed the boy 47 times. The kind and loving giver of life watched the entire thing; his finger remained on con-current.
The woman was eventually caught. Scientists inspected her and found signs of intelligence that led them to the kind and loving old man. The trial shined a global spotlight on the details of the case. The world found out about The Lifegiver5000 and the button concurrent.
At the trial, the kind and loving man was put in the dock. The question the prosecutor put to him was this: "If you are as kind and loving as you say you are, why did you keep your finger on the button con-current? You only had to remove your finger and the woman, who would have ceased to exist had you not gave her life, would have fallen motionless to the floor. Why did you uphold her by the surge of your power and use con-current?"
The reply still baffles most, and people debate it to this day. The kind and loving old man said that he would not violate her free will in case she ever knocked on his door. He also said that he merely allowed her to brutally murder the young child and that people were ignorant for thinking him morally culpable. After all, he said, "It's not like I determined her to do it."
The question debated to this day is this: Is he evil?
There are those who argue that if we would call fellow man evil for the same thing, we must call the saintly grandfather evil too. They say, "If he is not evil, then we do not know what the terms 'good' and 'evil' mean."
Others argue that he is not evil because he merely allowed the murder to occur. They argue that keeping your finger on con-current does not implicate you in the murder, but ordaining that the murder happen does so implicate.
Most wonder if that's a distinction without a morally relevant difference.
How much worse!
After his recent, ill-fated bout with Steven Nemes (in the “Transference of Nonsense Principle”), Thibodaux was carried out of the Octagon on a stretcher and medevaced to a Level I trauma center to recuperate from his injuries. A hospital spokesman says he may never be the same.
But from his hospital bed in the STICU he was able to dictate a brief post responding to something I wrote.
Actually, it can’t. For the question at issue is not what Scripture teaches, but what Arminianism teaches.
Thibo then produces a little chart comparing and contrasting Calvinism and Arminianism. Needless to say, you can’t accurately describe the differences in a word or sentence. But that doesn’t stop Thibo from trying to oversimplify the issues.
However, let’s address him at his own level. He says, for example, that in Calvinism, “God not only permitted their rebellion, but actually wanted them to fall”–in contrast to Arminianism.
But is it really that simple?
i) Per Calvinism, God doesn’t “want” every event for its own sake. Rather, he “wants” many events because they facilitate other events.
ii) Per Arminianism, if God didn’t want apostates to fall, then why did he create them with that foreseeable consequence in mind? Presumably Thibo doesn’t think that something or someone necessitated God to make them. If the consequence was both avoidable and undesirable, then why did God go ahead and make them?
Yes, you can say they weren’t apostates at the time he made them, but that’s irrelevant to God’s intentions. If God foreknew that his creative action would have that end-result, then God intended the end-result. Does Thibo think that God is forced to do things against his will? Why did God do something he didn’t want to do? Does Thibo think that God was acting at gunpoint? Is God a hostage? Was God confronted with a Sophie’s choice scenario?
Who’s in charge of the Arminian universe, exactly?
Thibo also attributes apostasy to “the rebels’ independent free will.” But that begs the question.
Thibo will ring the changes on this counterargument. However, this is inept. I drew an analogy between Arminianism and what Arminians find so odious in Calvinism. He responds by trying to create a parallel with Calvinism! How does that rebut my argument?
My argument was based on a parallel! So how does his attempt to say that Calvinism is analogous refute my comparison? It doesn’t! It simply says the same thing in reverse.
It doesn't seem to occur to him that I was using a tu quoque argument. As such, that doesn’t mean I happen to agree with all the assumptions feeding into the argument. Rather, I took Arminian assumptions for granted for the sake of argument, then constructed a morally analogous situation in Arminianism.
I don’t have a problem with the suggestion that God set them up for the fall. It’s Arminians who find that problematic, not me.
But my point is that Arminian theology commits them to an analogous situation.
i) Thibo is equivocating over the term “saved.” There’s a basic difference between “salvation” in the sense of delivering the Israelites from Egypt, and “salvation” in the sense of delivering somebody from a hellish fate.
In Calvinism, unlike Arminianism, God never saves someone to damn him. If God elect, redeems, regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and adopts a person then that person cannot lose his salvation. It’s a package deal.
By contrast, there are, in Arminian theology, people whom God saved at an earlier date, only to damn at a later date. And God knows that in saving them, he will later damn them.
ii) Thibo is also trying to change the subject. That is already a sure sign that he lost the argument before he ever came into the debate.
The question at issue is not the ultimate origin of their apostasy. The question at issue is whether it is merciful for God to save someone to damn him.
Introducing libertarian freewill into the discussion is a diversionary tactic. For it makes no difference to my argument. I wasn’t arguing on Calvinist assumptions. I was arguing on Arminian assumptions.
My argument takes libertarian freewill for granted. Even if a born-again Christian lost his salvation of his own free will (in the libertarian sense), how is it merciful for God to save him in the first place?
Isn’t the apostate worse off than he was before God saved him? Don’t Arminians concede that an apostate is worse off than he was before God saved him?
So, according to Arminian theology, God is doing something to that individual which will worsen his situation the long run. God is not acting in the best interests of the individual. To the contrary, the Arminian must admit, consistent with his own theology, that God is acting to the detriment of the individual. Making him better off in the short-term tomake him worse off in the long-term.
iii) Also notice that Thibo has failed to rebut my argument. Indeed, he makes no attempt to rebut my argument I pointed out that, given divine foreknowledge, if God saves somebody who will later lose his salvation, then salvation is a set-up for apostasy. According to Arminian theology, salvation is a prerequisite for apostasy. You can’t lose your salvation if you have nothing to lose.
Does Thibo rebut my charge? No. Rather, he tries to deflect the reader’s attention away from my argument by arguing that Calvinism is guilty of doing the same thing. Well, so what?
That doesn’t let Arminianism off the hook. What is more, I baited the hook with Arminian assumptions.
How does that rebut the argument? If you give somebody a “genuine opportunity” when you know in advance that he will blow the opportunity and be even worse off than before, were you doing him any favors?
This is just another decoy. The question at issue is not what Scripture teaches, but what Arminianism teaches.
Arminians accuse the Calvinist God of being monstrous, cruel, bloodthirsty, diabolical, &c. The question, though, is whether their objections boomerang. Quoting Scripture does nothing to resolve the self-contradictions in Arminian theism.
i) How is “allowing” evil ipso facto exculpatory? Aren’t there many situations in which allowing evil is culpable?
ii) And, of course, the Arminian God does more than merely “allow” evil. For starters, what about the Arminian doctrine of divine creation. God created a world with these foreseeable consequences. So that’s a set-up.
Moreover, Arminianism also has a doctrine of divine concurrence. God must enable the evildoer. Empower the evildoer. Sustain the evildoer.
Alluding to a Scriptural passage does nothing to harmonize Arminianism with Scripture, or resolve its internal tensions.
If the Arminian God doesn’t take pleasure in the death of the wicked, then why do they die? Why does the Arminian God send the flood to kill evildoers? Why does the Arminian God command the Israelites to kill evildoers? Why does the Arminian God make evildoers die of illness or old age?
Why does the Arminian God do things and command things to be done which he finds “unpleasant” (to work with Thibo’s adjective)? Does Thibo think this world was a fait accompli? Was God fated to play the hand that ill-fortune dealt him?
Have you ever noticed that Arminian theodicy resembles Greek mythology? The gods are subservient to the Fates. Zeus would like to save so-and-so, but if the Fates have doomed him, then Zeus is powerless to intervene. Arminians so often act as if God’s hands are tied.
I didn’t bring that up because it’s irrelevant to the argument:
i) To begin with, that factor is not a differential factor between Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism would also say the apostate is guilty. Calvinism would also say the apostate got his just deserts.
ii) Even more to the point, this does nothing to salvage Thibo’s case. If God punishes the apostate, then that’s an act of justice rather than mercy.
So in what sense was the Arminian God gracious and loving in his treatment of the would-be apostate? Sure, you can say the apostate got what was coming to him, but how is that loving?
If the Arminian God knew from the outset that by saving John Doe, he would damn John Doe, then how does Arminianism extricate its God from the charge that he is merely toying with the lost? Leaving them worse off than if he never made them or saved them in the first place?
Hebrews 10:29
How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
2 Peter 2:20-21
For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.
But from his hospital bed in the STICU he was able to dictate a brief post responding to something I wrote.
“This critical failure at critical thinking can be easily answered with a simple scriptural example.”
Actually, it can’t. For the question at issue is not what Scripture teaches, but what Arminianism teaches.
“How each systematic theology interprets the events of Israel’s fall in the wilderness reveals much.”
Thibo then produces a little chart comparing and contrasting Calvinism and Arminianism. Needless to say, you can’t accurately describe the differences in a word or sentence. But that doesn’t stop Thibo from trying to oversimplify the issues.
However, let’s address him at his own level. He says, for example, that in Calvinism, “God not only permitted their rebellion, but actually wanted them to fall”–in contrast to Arminianism.
But is it really that simple?
i) Per Calvinism, God doesn’t “want” every event for its own sake. Rather, he “wants” many events because they facilitate other events.
ii) Per Arminianism, if God didn’t want apostates to fall, then why did he create them with that foreseeable consequence in mind? Presumably Thibo doesn’t think that something or someone necessitated God to make them. If the consequence was both avoidable and undesirable, then why did God go ahead and make them?
Yes, you can say they weren’t apostates at the time he made them, but that’s irrelevant to God’s intentions. If God foreknew that his creative action would have that end-result, then God intended the end-result. Does Thibo think that God is forced to do things against his will? Why did God do something he didn’t want to do? Does Thibo think that God was acting at gunpoint? Is God a hostage? Was God confronted with a Sophie’s choice scenario?
Who’s in charge of the Arminian universe, exactly?
Thibo also attributes apostasy to “the rebels’ independent free will.” But that begs the question.
“If the Arminian view is that God didn’t want the children of Israel to fall, but the Calvinist view is that their fall was His perfect will, who then is framing God as setting them up for their demise?”
Thibo will ring the changes on this counterargument. However, this is inept. I drew an analogy between Arminianism and what Arminians find so odious in Calvinism. He responds by trying to create a parallel with Calvinism! How does that rebut my argument?
My argument was based on a parallel! So how does his attempt to say that Calvinism is analogous refute my comparison? It doesn’t! It simply says the same thing in reverse.
It doesn't seem to occur to him that I was using a tu quoque argument. As such, that doesn’t mean I happen to agree with all the assumptions feeding into the argument. Rather, I took Arminian assumptions for granted for the sake of argument, then constructed a morally analogous situation in Arminianism.
I don’t have a problem with the suggestion that God set them up for the fall. It’s Arminians who find that problematic, not me.
But my point is that Arminian theology commits them to an analogous situation.
“From where did their rebellious downfall ultimately originate? Note again that in the Arminian view, this was the Israelites’ own doing and not necessitated by the will of God; in the Calvinist view their rebellion was necessary due to God’s decree. So who then is portraying God as orchestrating the downfall of the people He had saved?”
i) Thibo is equivocating over the term “saved.” There’s a basic difference between “salvation” in the sense of delivering the Israelites from Egypt, and “salvation” in the sense of delivering somebody from a hellish fate.
In Calvinism, unlike Arminianism, God never saves someone to damn him. If God elect, redeems, regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and adopts a person then that person cannot lose his salvation. It’s a package deal.
By contrast, there are, in Arminian theology, people whom God saved at an earlier date, only to damn at a later date. And God knows that in saving them, he will later damn them.
ii) Thibo is also trying to change the subject. That is already a sure sign that he lost the argument before he ever came into the debate.
The question at issue is not the ultimate origin of their apostasy. The question at issue is whether it is merciful for God to save someone to damn him.
Introducing libertarian freewill into the discussion is a diversionary tactic. For it makes no difference to my argument. I wasn’t arguing on Calvinist assumptions. I was arguing on Arminian assumptions.
My argument takes libertarian freewill for granted. Even if a born-again Christian lost his salvation of his own free will (in the libertarian sense), how is it merciful for God to save him in the first place?
Isn’t the apostate worse off than he was before God saved him? Don’t Arminians concede that an apostate is worse off than he was before God saved him?
So, according to Arminian theology, God is doing something to that individual which will worsen his situation the long run. God is not acting in the best interests of the individual. To the contrary, the Arminian must admit, consistent with his own theology, that God is acting to the detriment of the individual. Making him better off in the short-term tomake him worse off in the long-term.
iii) Also notice that Thibo has failed to rebut my argument. Indeed, he makes no attempt to rebut my argument I pointed out that, given divine foreknowledge, if God saves somebody who will later lose his salvation, then salvation is a set-up for apostasy. According to Arminian theology, salvation is a prerequisite for apostasy. You can’t lose your salvation if you have nothing to lose.
Does Thibo rebut my charge? No. Rather, he tries to deflect the reader’s attention away from my argument by arguing that Calvinism is guilty of doing the same thing. Well, so what?
That doesn’t let Arminianism off the hook. What is more, I baited the hook with Arminian assumptions.
“Is it cruel of God to save people from destruction and give them a genuine opportunity to obtain the promise, even though He knows they will ultimately die in a self-started rebellion?”
How does that rebut the argument? If you give somebody a “genuine opportunity” when you know in advance that he will blow the opportunity and be even worse off than before, were you doing him any favors?
“The fact that God shows His continued kindness to men on a conditional basis is well-established in scripture (e.g. 2 Chronicles 16:6-9). So the logic of this argument then breaks down to the ridiculous position of condemning God as ‘cruel’ if He saves someone, but later lets him suffer the destructive consequences of his own free choices; and at the same time lauding Him as good and just if He saves someone, then later destroys him for choices that God decreed he make. That’s special pleading at its most absurd.”
This is just another decoy. The question at issue is not what Scripture teaches, but what Arminianism teaches.
Arminians accuse the Calvinist God of being monstrous, cruel, bloodthirsty, diabolical, &c. The question, though, is whether their objections boomerang. Quoting Scripture does nothing to resolve the self-contradictions in Arminian theism.
“Further, the author confuses and equivocates God merely allowing the evil to occur (the Arminian view) with God ‘setting up’ and ‘orchestrating’ the event (which better reflects his own exhaustively deterministic views).”
i) How is “allowing” evil ipso facto exculpatory? Aren’t there many situations in which allowing evil is culpable?
ii) And, of course, the Arminian God does more than merely “allow” evil. For starters, what about the Arminian doctrine of divine creation. God created a world with these foreseeable consequences. So that’s a set-up.
Moreover, Arminianism also has a doctrine of divine concurrence. God must enable the evildoer. Empower the evildoer. Sustain the evildoer.
“The comparison of God to a serial killer in that He’s eager to deliver the death blow is also a complete mischaracterization, since He doesn’t take pleasure in the death of the wicked (or their wickedness for that matter).”
Alluding to a Scriptural passage does nothing to harmonize Arminianism with Scripture, or resolve its internal tensions.
If the Arminian God doesn’t take pleasure in the death of the wicked, then why do they die? Why does the Arminian God send the flood to kill evildoers? Why does the Arminian God command the Israelites to kill evildoers? Why does the Arminian God make evildoers die of illness or old age?
Why does the Arminian God do things and command things to be done which he finds “unpleasant” (to work with Thibo’s adjective)? Does Thibo think this world was a fait accompli? Was God fated to play the hand that ill-fortune dealt him?
Have you ever noticed that Arminian theodicy resembles Greek mythology? The gods are subservient to the Fates. Zeus would like to save so-and-so, but if the Fates have doomed him, then Zeus is powerless to intervene. Arminians so often act as if God’s hands are tied.
“Missing from the weak and badly misplaced ‘fishing trip’ analogy is any reference to the factor of willful rebellion against the Savior. Apostasy isn’t something that people suddenly just fall into by accident and without warning. The apostate isn’t some poor kid flailing in the water and crying for help to an uncaring and indifferent God.”
I didn’t bring that up because it’s irrelevant to the argument:
i) To begin with, that factor is not a differential factor between Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism would also say the apostate is guilty. Calvinism would also say the apostate got his just deserts.
ii) Even more to the point, this does nothing to salvage Thibo’s case. If God punishes the apostate, then that’s an act of justice rather than mercy.
So in what sense was the Arminian God gracious and loving in his treatment of the would-be apostate? Sure, you can say the apostate got what was coming to him, but how is that loving?
If the Arminian God knew from the outset that by saving John Doe, he would damn John Doe, then how does Arminianism extricate its God from the charge that he is merely toying with the lost? Leaving them worse off than if he never made them or saved them in the first place?
Hebrews 10:29
How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
2 Peter 2:20-21
For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Prepositional Orthodoxy
According to Perry Robinson, the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy is reducible to prepositions:
In Christology, in following Calvin, they take the person of Christ (the persona mediatoris) to be *out of* the two natures of Christ (Calvin, Inst 2.14.5) such that the *person* of Christ is both human and divine (WCF 8.2) This contradicts Chalcedon in which the person is the divine person of the Logos and not a human and divine person since the person is not out of, but rather IN the two natures. This is evidenced and claimed as being superior to Chalcedon by Reformed authors like Richard Muller and Bruce McCormack.
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/determining-the-doctrine-of-the-church/#comment-74205
If you use the wrong spatial preposition, that makes you a damnable heretic. The sheep use "in" while the goats use "out" of. (I shudder to ask whether "from" is better or worse than "out of.")
In Christology, in following Calvin, they take the person of Christ (the persona mediatoris) to be *out of* the two natures of Christ (Calvin, Inst 2.14.5) such that the *person* of Christ is both human and divine (WCF 8.2) This contradicts Chalcedon in which the person is the divine person of the Logos and not a human and divine person since the person is not out of, but rather IN the two natures. This is evidenced and claimed as being superior to Chalcedon by Reformed authors like Richard Muller and Bruce McCormack.
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/determining-the-doctrine-of-the-church/#comment-74205
If you use the wrong spatial preposition, that makes you a damnable heretic. The sheep use "in" while the goats use "out" of. (I shudder to ask whether "from" is better or worse than "out of.")
Blowback
I haven’t attempted to follow every twist and turn of the Caner scandal. It’s something I encounter in passing because I frequent certain blogs.
There may be exceptions that I’m unaware of, but from what I’ve seen, the Calvinists are Caner’s opponents of Caner while the anti-Calvinists are his supporters. It’s like a play in which all of the actors are typecast.
Incidentally, if anti-Calvinists really have the freedom to do otherwise, you have to wonder why they’re so predictable in situations like this. But I digress.
Anyway, one of the attempts to deflect attention away from Caner’s conduct is to say that criticism of Caner is driven by a theological agenda, or even a personal vendetta. So let’s evaluate that charge:
1.In a fallen world we frequently see a competitive group dynamic at work. Each team is apt to automatically excuse the conduct of its own players while it attacks the real or alleged misconduct of the opposing team.
In one sense this is unfortunate. It reflects blind group loyalty.
On the other hand, it has the fringe benefit of providing an informal system of checks and balances. To the extent that one team refuses to police its own players, it’s useful to have unsympathetic outsiders who provide a counterbalance.
A dramatic case in point is the Catholic abuse scandal. Catholic apologists complain about how the liberal media is using this scandal as a pretext to either discredit the church of Rome or liberalize its policies. And, to some degree, that is undoubtedly true. But imagine how much worse the situation would be if you left it up to the hierarchy to patrol its own. We’ve all see how that works out.
If would be preferable if most folks weren’t so partisan, but as long as that’s the case, then it’s better to have partisans who keep an eye on each other’s affairs rather than have each side occupy secret compounds where you can get away with anything behind closed doors.
2.Apropos (1), it is duplicitous of anti-Calvinists to blame Calvinists for doing what the anti-Calvinists refuse to do. If the anti-Calvinists refuse to police their own, then, of course, that task will fall to unsympathetic outsiders.
Let’s to back to the example of the Catholic abuse scandal. It’s duplicitous for “good Catholics” to do nothing meaningful to rectify the problem, then complain when outsiders take advantage of their negligence. If you are derelict in your duty, then you’re in no position to object case somebody else sounds the alarm. If you don’t want outsiders to exploit the situation, then fix it yourself.
3.I wouldn’t be surprised if there is an element of payback in this situation. Assuming that’s the case, is that wrong?
I suppose that hovering in the background of this allegation is the suggestion that White is being vindictive, which violates the Biblical prohibitions against private vengeance. If that’s the insinuation, let’s consider that for a moment.
4.First of all, we need to guard against the temptation of trivializing what the Bible forbids. This isn’t a literal blood feud. So let’s be clear on what the Bible actually prohibits. It’s not a case of: “You done me wrong, so now I’m gonna kidnap your children to exact revenge!”
5.In addition, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that personal motives figure in this dispute, that’s not all there is to it by any means.
After negotiations over the ill-fated debate fell through, Caner and his supporters couldn’t let it go. They’d periodically taunt and attack White, Ascol, et al.
If Caner and his supporters had left White (and other participants) alone, that might well have been reciprocated. But if you continue to provoke and attack the other side, then they can’t leave you alone even if they want to since you refuse to leave them alone. It takes two to play tit-for-tat. Unless you break it off, you are spoiling for blowback.
6.Finally, this is a theological dispute, and–what is more–this a dispute which spills over into church politics. The future of the SBC is at stake.
So there’s more to it than rhetorically volleys back and forth. Take Paige Patterson. He uses his official position to actively persecute Calvinists. Power politics. Winners and losers. The destruction of careers.
There may be exceptions that I’m unaware of, but from what I’ve seen, the Calvinists are Caner’s opponents of Caner while the anti-Calvinists are his supporters. It’s like a play in which all of the actors are typecast.
Incidentally, if anti-Calvinists really have the freedom to do otherwise, you have to wonder why they’re so predictable in situations like this. But I digress.
Anyway, one of the attempts to deflect attention away from Caner’s conduct is to say that criticism of Caner is driven by a theological agenda, or even a personal vendetta. So let’s evaluate that charge:
1.In a fallen world we frequently see a competitive group dynamic at work. Each team is apt to automatically excuse the conduct of its own players while it attacks the real or alleged misconduct of the opposing team.
In one sense this is unfortunate. It reflects blind group loyalty.
On the other hand, it has the fringe benefit of providing an informal system of checks and balances. To the extent that one team refuses to police its own players, it’s useful to have unsympathetic outsiders who provide a counterbalance.
A dramatic case in point is the Catholic abuse scandal. Catholic apologists complain about how the liberal media is using this scandal as a pretext to either discredit the church of Rome or liberalize its policies. And, to some degree, that is undoubtedly true. But imagine how much worse the situation would be if you left it up to the hierarchy to patrol its own. We’ve all see how that works out.
If would be preferable if most folks weren’t so partisan, but as long as that’s the case, then it’s better to have partisans who keep an eye on each other’s affairs rather than have each side occupy secret compounds where you can get away with anything behind closed doors.
2.Apropos (1), it is duplicitous of anti-Calvinists to blame Calvinists for doing what the anti-Calvinists refuse to do. If the anti-Calvinists refuse to police their own, then, of course, that task will fall to unsympathetic outsiders.
Let’s to back to the example of the Catholic abuse scandal. It’s duplicitous for “good Catholics” to do nothing meaningful to rectify the problem, then complain when outsiders take advantage of their negligence. If you are derelict in your duty, then you’re in no position to object case somebody else sounds the alarm. If you don’t want outsiders to exploit the situation, then fix it yourself.
3.I wouldn’t be surprised if there is an element of payback in this situation. Assuming that’s the case, is that wrong?
I suppose that hovering in the background of this allegation is the suggestion that White is being vindictive, which violates the Biblical prohibitions against private vengeance. If that’s the insinuation, let’s consider that for a moment.
4.First of all, we need to guard against the temptation of trivializing what the Bible forbids. This isn’t a literal blood feud. So let’s be clear on what the Bible actually prohibits. It’s not a case of: “You done me wrong, so now I’m gonna kidnap your children to exact revenge!”
5.In addition, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that personal motives figure in this dispute, that’s not all there is to it by any means.
After negotiations over the ill-fated debate fell through, Caner and his supporters couldn’t let it go. They’d periodically taunt and attack White, Ascol, et al.
If Caner and his supporters had left White (and other participants) alone, that might well have been reciprocated. But if you continue to provoke and attack the other side, then they can’t leave you alone even if they want to since you refuse to leave them alone. It takes two to play tit-for-tat. Unless you break it off, you are spoiling for blowback.
6.Finally, this is a theological dispute, and–what is more–this a dispute which spills over into church politics. The future of the SBC is at stake.
So there’s more to it than rhetorically volleys back and forth. Take Paige Patterson. He uses his official position to actively persecute Calvinists. Power politics. Winners and losers. The destruction of careers.
God's "two" wills
"But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the LORD to put them to death" (1 Samuel 2:25).
Implication: Eli's sons were doing God's will.
"And I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who shall do according to what is in my heart and in my mind" (1 Samuel 2:35)
Implication: Eli's sons were not doing God's will.
Implication: Eli's sons were doing God's will.
"And I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who shall do according to what is in my heart and in my mind" (1 Samuel 2:35)
Implication: Eli's sons were not doing God's will.
Out of Africa
Every now and then, apostate Ed Babinski favors me with a core dump. I'm reposting my side of the correspondence:
Creationist admits at AIG website that humans (dispersing from Tower of Babel [sic]) began shorter and small brained (H. habilis and H. rudolfensis) BOOKZ
To answer this challenge specifically with humanlike animals (or ape-like humans) in mind, we must develop a new understanding of biological similarity, one that embraces common design and creation but that also explains the meaning of the similarities, which admittedly is a theological problem as much as a scientific one.
Gee, Ed, that's impressive!
While we're on the subject:
1. Asian-Americans are generally taller than native Asians. And since there's a rough correlation between brain size and body length (e.g. pygmies), it is evident that Asian-Americans evolved from protohuman hominids in 19C Japan, China, &c.
By the same token, Northern Europeans are generally taller than South Americans. Therefore, Northern Europeans evolved from South Americans.
2. Salamanders have fish-like properties and lizard-like properties. Therefore, salamanders evolved from fish–unless salamanders evolved from lizards, or lizards evolved from fish, or fish evolved from lizards.
By the same token, the Thylacine has lupine properties and marsupian properties. Therefore, the Thylacine evolved from wolves, unless wolves evolved from marsupials.
“You don't see Prof. Todd Wood of Bryan College as straining to accommodate data that clearly fits evolution?”
That begs the question by treating evolution as the standard of comparison.
“Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation.”
Then why did we witness all that internecine warfare between Gould, Dawkins, Ruse, Piker, and John Maynard Smith? Looks like a fight to the death.
“There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power.”
That’s a nice string of assertions.
Of course macroevolution is speculation. At best, evolution is underdetermined by the evidence. It extrapolates from bits and pieces of trace evidence from the past, or extrapolates from the present into the distant past.
“There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution.”
Then why do Eugenie Scott et al. turn to the courts to censure dissent in the classroom?
“Behe at the Discovery Institute also has come out in favor of common ancestry based on the genomic evidence, including not just overall similarity but based on shared non-functioning genes (for creating vitamin C for example, that are still there but no longer functioning in both chimps and humans), and shared non-functioning genes from retroviruses that have inserted themselves into the same regions of human and chimpanzee genomes.”
Thanks for telling me something I already know. I can always count on you to arrive right after closing time.
I own Behe’s book, in which he says that. (I also own Collins’ book in which he makes the same claim.)
As a matter of fact I emailed Behe and asked him about an alternative explanation, and he agreed with me.
I notice that you don’t interact with the arguments of Dembski and Wells to the contrary (in The Design of Life).
“As with most YEC treatments of this issue, Wood fails to explain why, as one goes back in time (stratigraphically lower) the less like us the most advanced hominds look.”
Of course, on a YEC timescale, “going back in time” would be going back a few thousand years. So what does more or less “advanced” mean within that tight chronological framework?
The commenter seems to be subconsciously superimposing his own timescales onto YEC, then attempting to generate a problem. But, of course, that’s incoherent. It conflates some elements of an internal critique with some elements of an external critique. But that’s for documenting the incompetence of the opposition.
“Neither the ‘common designer’ argument nor Flood geology begins to account for this, or the similar patterns for countless other animal and plant groups.”
Since YECs don’t generally view “less advanced” hominids as precursors to modern man in the first place, they don’t view this as a more primitive stage of the same hominid line. So what is there to account for?
“YECs also fail to grasp that debating whether ‘humans’ are descended from ‘apes’ is largely moot in view of the fact that biologically and taxonomically we _are_ apes. Humans are members of the family hominidae (great apes) which includes gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and several extinct genera.”
Of course, these taxonomies are merely human constructs.
There are different ways to group various biological organisms, depending on which features you wish to single out (to the exclusion of other features).
“Then there is the contradiction between YECs denying evolution (at least macro-evolution), and their suggestion that major genetic changes (including the creation of new allelles--essentially ‘new information’ ) took place since the Ark landed a few thousand years ago. That would require more rapid and dramatic evolution than even mainstream scientists allow, but they pretend to not notice these glaring inconsistencies, as they talk out of both sides of their mouth.”
Of course, that objection confuses macroevolution with accelerated microevolution.
Creationist admits at AIG website that humans (dispersing from Tower of Babel [sic]) began shorter and small brained (H. habilis and H. rudolfensis) BOOKZ
To answer this challenge specifically with humanlike animals (or ape-like humans) in mind, we must develop a new understanding of biological similarity, one that embraces common design and creation but that also explains the meaning of the similarities, which admittedly is a theological problem as much as a scientific one.
Gee, Ed, that's impressive!
While we're on the subject:
1. Asian-Americans are generally taller than native Asians. And since there's a rough correlation between brain size and body length (e.g. pygmies), it is evident that Asian-Americans evolved from protohuman hominids in 19C Japan, China, &c.
By the same token, Northern Europeans are generally taller than South Americans. Therefore, Northern Europeans evolved from South Americans.
2. Salamanders have fish-like properties and lizard-like properties. Therefore, salamanders evolved from fish–unless salamanders evolved from lizards, or lizards evolved from fish, or fish evolved from lizards.
By the same token, the Thylacine has lupine properties and marsupian properties. Therefore, the Thylacine evolved from wolves, unless wolves evolved from marsupials.
“You don't see Prof. Todd Wood of Bryan College as straining to accommodate data that clearly fits evolution?”
That begs the question by treating evolution as the standard of comparison.
“Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation.”
Then why did we witness all that internecine warfare between Gould, Dawkins, Ruse, Piker, and John Maynard Smith? Looks like a fight to the death.
“There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power.”
That’s a nice string of assertions.
Of course macroevolution is speculation. At best, evolution is underdetermined by the evidence. It extrapolates from bits and pieces of trace evidence from the past, or extrapolates from the present into the distant past.
“There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution.”
Then why do Eugenie Scott et al. turn to the courts to censure dissent in the classroom?
“Behe at the Discovery Institute also has come out in favor of common ancestry based on the genomic evidence, including not just overall similarity but based on shared non-functioning genes (for creating vitamin C for example, that are still there but no longer functioning in both chimps and humans), and shared non-functioning genes from retroviruses that have inserted themselves into the same regions of human and chimpanzee genomes.”
Thanks for telling me something I already know. I can always count on you to arrive right after closing time.
I own Behe’s book, in which he says that. (I also own Collins’ book in which he makes the same claim.)
As a matter of fact I emailed Behe and asked him about an alternative explanation, and he agreed with me.
I notice that you don’t interact with the arguments of Dembski and Wells to the contrary (in The Design of Life).
“As with most YEC treatments of this issue, Wood fails to explain why, as one goes back in time (stratigraphically lower) the less like us the most advanced hominds look.”
Of course, on a YEC timescale, “going back in time” would be going back a few thousand years. So what does more or less “advanced” mean within that tight chronological framework?
The commenter seems to be subconsciously superimposing his own timescales onto YEC, then attempting to generate a problem. But, of course, that’s incoherent. It conflates some elements of an internal critique with some elements of an external critique. But that’s for documenting the incompetence of the opposition.
“Neither the ‘common designer’ argument nor Flood geology begins to account for this, or the similar patterns for countless other animal and plant groups.”
Since YECs don’t generally view “less advanced” hominids as precursors to modern man in the first place, they don’t view this as a more primitive stage of the same hominid line. So what is there to account for?
“YECs also fail to grasp that debating whether ‘humans’ are descended from ‘apes’ is largely moot in view of the fact that biologically and taxonomically we _are_ apes. Humans are members of the family hominidae (great apes) which includes gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and several extinct genera.”
Of course, these taxonomies are merely human constructs.
There are different ways to group various biological organisms, depending on which features you wish to single out (to the exclusion of other features).
“Then there is the contradiction between YECs denying evolution (at least macro-evolution), and their suggestion that major genetic changes (including the creation of new allelles--essentially ‘new information’ ) took place since the Ark landed a few thousand years ago. That would require more rapid and dramatic evolution than even mainstream scientists allow, but they pretend to not notice these glaring inconsistencies, as they talk out of both sides of their mouth.”
Of course, that objection confuses macroevolution with accelerated microevolution.
Monday, May 10, 2010
God's VCR
STEVE SAID:
GODISMYJUDGE SAID:
"In Molinism, we can choose otherwise."
i) Of course, that's equivocal. We can choose otherwise in what setting? In possible worlds? Or the actual world?
ii) And it's not as if the Molinist agent chooses which possible world will become the actual world. God makes that final decision in that regard.
BTW, I once ran that question by Alfred Freddoso, and he agreed with me.
iii) It's not as if, in Molinism, God shows possible Judas two different scenarios, then lets Judas choose one or the other. He doesn't say to possible Judas, Look, Judas, if I instantiate this possible world, you will betray Christ and go to hell, but if I instantiate that possible world, you will stay faithful to Christ (or repent) and go to heaven. So, Judas, which scenario would you like me to realize?
There is no possible Judas who stands over and above his counterparts in different possible worlds, and gets to choose which scenario actually plays out. Rather, each possible Judas is a worldbound individual. He only knows one possible world at a time (so to speak).
4/23/2010 3:10 PM
STEVE SAID:
Godismyjudge said...
"Using the author analogy, you said...Seem like you are trying to have your cake and eat it too."
Are you really that confused? There's an obvious equivocation.
When the phrase "author of sin" is used in historical theology, is that being used as a literary metaphor? Or is that being used in the literal Latin (or Middle French) sense of "authorship"?
You're confusing the lexical meaning of a word with the metaphorical meaning of a word. They are hardly synonymous.
Try to think clearly.
4/23/2010 3:16 PM
STEVE SAID:
Godismyjudge said...
"In Molinism, God is not ultimately responsible for evil, since He does not start a causal chain that predetermines evil will occur. Sure, God is a necessary cause of all things, including evil, but not a sufficient cause of all things."
How is that a morally salient distinction? How is that exculpatory?
Suppose I see a toddler wander into a busy intersection. I didn't cause the intersection. I'm not even a necessary cause of the intersection, much less a sufficient cause.
Does this let me off the hook if I allow the toddler to be run over? After all, I didn't start the causal chain leading to his death. I merely stood by as I saw a speeding car approach and mow him down–even though it lay within my power to rescue the child.
Drawing metaphysical distinctions is not the same as drawing moral distinctions. Why don't you try to offer a serious response?
Why is it that Arminians are so morally complacent? Why are they satisfied with such shallow, inadequate responses?
STEVE SAID:
GODISMYJUDGE SAID:
"Of course, I agree with that too. But you fail to either understand or take into account the difference between this and what I said."
To say I fail to understand doesn't begin to demonstrate that I fail to understand.
"Again, I agree. But this does not mean Judas' damnation is inevitable or Judas is unable to choose otherwise (in the sense I describe above)."
But if you agree, as you just admitted, that possible Judas doesn't get to decide which one of the possible worlds containing him will become the actual world, then he is unable to choose which outcome becomes the real outcome.
His freedom to do otherwise is a freedom between one possible world and another possible world, not a freedom within the actual world, or a freedom to choose which possible world, with its attendant outcomes, is actualized.
And, yes, if God instantiates the possible world in which Judas goes to hell, then his damnation is inevitable in the real world.
4/23/2010 4:39 PM
STEVE SAID:
Godismyjudge said...
"You said 'authorship of sin' is equivocal and asked for a definition. I provided one."
It would help if you could follow your own usage. Try to pay attention to you just said. It saves time. You gave to different definitions back-to-back:
i) "Using the author analogy, the author of evil, would be the author that writes evil into the storyline."
That's a figurative definition.
ii) "The author of something is the person The author of something is the person ultimately responsible for it or in other words the agent that initiates the causal sequence that predetermines and necessitates evil’s occurrence.
That's a literal definition.
Why can't you tell the difference between a figurative definition and a literal definition?
"Now you seem to think it's not equivocal and you have the one true historic sense of the phrase."
Did I say if I had the historic sense? No. I didn't say what I think it means, although I have discussed that in the past.
When Arminians like you use a phrase from historical theology, you need to define the term in historical terms. Do you have any documentary evidence that when "authorship" is used in historical theology, it denotes "the person ultimately responsible for it or in other words the agent that initiates the causal sequence that predetermines and necessitates evil’s occurrence."?
Or is this just your made-up definition?
When Reformed confessions and theologians deny that God is the "author of sin," what definition do you think they are using? Or do you even care?
If you're going to allege that, contrary to the denial of Reformed confessions and theologians, Calvinism makes God is the "author of sin," you first need to define the term the same way they did, then show that God is the author of sin on their own terms.
"By all means, provide the one and only understanding; noting that Edwards said God is the author of sin."
Gee, that's cute. If you're going to cite Edwards as an example of what you mean, then need to explain what you think he meant by that term.
Keep in mind that Edwards' metaphysical outlook was pretty idiosyncratic. He was either an idealist or occasionalist. So that's hardly representative of mainstream Reformed metaphysics.
4/23/2010 4:55 PM
STEVE SAID:
Godismyjudge said...
"A greater good would get you off the hook for not helping."
And Calvinism helps itself to the same consideration.
"But of course, not helping is an omission, not a comission and a greater good doesn't get you off the hook for comissions (we are not to do evil that good may come)."
Was the Molinist God doing evil by instantiating a world with evil agents?
"Further, how did you wind up in that situtiation? IOW, how is sin even possible, if man isn't ultimately responsible?"
Since when does someone have to be ultimately responsible to be sinful? In the film Double Indemnity, which character is ultimately responsible for murdering the husband: the adulterous boyfriend or the adulterous wife?
If a Mafia Don orders a hit, who is ultimately responsible: the trigger man or the Don?
And if only one is ultimately responsible, then is the other one innocent?
4/23/2010 5:03 PM
STEVE SAID:
Godismyjudge said...
"You said 'authorship of sin' is equivocal and asked for a definition. I provided one."
What you did was to take my *figurative* use of divine authorship, come up with your own *literal* definition, then impute *your* definition to my literary metaphor.
Do you lack the critical detachment to see how fallacious that is?
"The author of something is the person The author of something is the person ultimately responsible for it or in other words the agent that initiates the causal sequence that predetermines and necessitates evil’s occurrence."
i) I don't treat responsibility and culpability as synonyms. One party to a transaction can be *ultimately* responsible without being either *solely* responsible or *blameworthy*.
ii) You Arminians are the ones who keep recasting *predestination* or *foreordination* or the *decree* in *causal* and/or *determinist* categories.
I'm not the only who constantly frames my theology in those terms, although I sometimes use that terminology in response to somebody else who frames the issue in those terms.
iii) Apropos (ii), it is sufficient for my Calvinism to say that:
a) God has a complete plan for the world.
b) God's plan for the world doesn't derive from the world.
c) God creates the world according to his plan.
c) God's plan for the world doesn't derive from the world.
d) Everything happens according to plan.
e) Everything happens in the way it does on account of God's plan.
f) There are no unplanned events.
g) Nothing can happen contrary to God's plan.
iv) If you're going to use "causal" categories, then you need to define your terms. For instance, on a counterfactual theory of causation, both God and Judas were causal factors in the Crucifixion. And that's true whether you're Calvinist, Molinist, or non-Molinist Arminian.
If you think a different theory of causation is preferable, make your case.
v) If you're using "predetermine" and "necessitate" as synonyms for the absence of libertarian freedom, and you deem that to make God culpable, then your definition is a tendentious definition which takes Arminian action theory for granted.
STEVE SAID:
GODISMYJUDGE SAID:
"That does not follow."
Since you don't even attempt to say anything responsive to what I wrote, there's nothing I need to reply to.
You also seem to suffer from an inability to distinguish between what this or that Molinist may claim, and whether his claims are internally consistent.
I'm not merely dealing with the claims of Molinism, but the implications of Molinism, which may not be consistent with everything a Molinist would like to claim for his position–in the event that Molinism is incoherent in some respects.
Unless and until you're prepared to deal with my arguments, instead of posing as some expert on Molinism, whose bare ipse dixit settles all disputes, there's nothing further to discuss.
STEVE SAID:
GODISMYJUDGE SAID:
"Right. In an Arminian schema of responsibility, if God were to predetermine sin, He would be culpable. In a Calvinists schema, he would not. But then the question is God’s character. Does He really hate sin?"
Does the Arminian/Molinist God really hate sin? Sin was avoidable? Was he forced to make a world in which sin occurs? Do you think a fallen world is necessitated?
If no, then it what sense does God hate sin if he makes a fallen world, even though that sinful consequence was divinely foreseeable and avoidable?
5/04/2010 7:56 PM
STEVE SAID:
Godismyjudge said...
"Fair enough, but if you want to argue against the internal consistency of Molinism, you should at least present Molinism in a way recognizable and acceptable to Molinists."
You keep falling back on that intellectual shortcut. Why is that? Surely you don't think that's convincing, do you?
Since you're evidently impervious to the obvious, I guess I will have to spell it out to you: people who are deeply invested in a given position have a disincentive to "recognize" a critical statement of their position.
The mere fact that they claim that a critical statement of their position is "unrecognizable" is not a serious response. Indeed, it's frequently an evasive maneuver. They don't ever have to deal with a challenge to their position because they can always claim that so-and-so's statement of their position is "unrecognizable."
Are you capable of having a serious debate? Or will you continue to fall back on these "you-just-don't-understand" cop-outs?
You're not the world authority on Molinism, Dan. I've corresponded with Alfred Freddoso and Thomas Flint. Learn a little humility.
"The object of Judas’s choice is to betray Christ or not, and his choice actualizes that specific aspect of history."
Really? How does that work, exactly? After all, his choice is intertwined with other parties as well, such as members of the Sanhedrin. Does his choice actualize the Sanhedrin? Is the existence of the complicit members of the Sanhedrin contingent on his choice?
You keep asserting that Judas had the freedom to do otherwise. In what sense did possible Judas have the freedom to do otherwise? Is possible Judas a conscious agent? Did God present possible Judas with a range of possible timelines, then ask him which one he'd like to see realized?
Is possible Judas privy to all the possible worlds in which possible Judas exists? Did Judas give informed consent?
"But this does not mean Judas' damnation is inevitable or Judas is unable to choose otherwise (in the sense I describe above)."
Sure about that? As a friend of my recently said,
"It's hard for Molinism to avoid making God the author of evil. But the reason, I think, is that 'God's decree to actualize a world plus his knowledge of what would ensue if he were to do so' is both necessary and sufficient for evil to come to pass. It's necessary, because the evil can't come to pass unless God decrees to actualize the feasible world in which it would come to pass. It's sufficient, because the decree embraces all the means to the chosen end. (In addition, deciding to actualize a feasible world, while knowing infallibly what would happen if that world gets actualized, *is* sufficient for the evil to come to pass. After all, it's sufficient for the free choice to be actually made, and that's sufficient for the evil itself.)"
STEVE SAID:
GODISMYJUDGE SAID:
“Yes, God hates sin. I doubt that evil was necessary; that seems to imply God had to create.”
So the Molinist God instantiates a sinful world even though he hates sin, and sin is unnecessary.
Doesn’t sound very coherent to me. Much less a promising theodicy.
“Certainly in the sense that He is not ultimately responsible for sin.”
What’s the theodicean value of the adjective (“ultimately”) in relation to the noun (“sin”)? How does the adjective magically exculpate God on Molinist grounds?
You don’t have to be “ultimately” responsible to be partially responsible. You don’t have to be “ultimately” responsible to be culpable. So how does your distinction automatically exonerate the Molinist God?
“It seems that the greater good God is able to bring out of sin in this world, makes the world we live in at least as desirable to God as not creating, dispite His hatred of sin.”
If that’s your argument, then sin is a necessary means to a second-order good. Felix culpa. Very supralapsarian of you.
“In reducto ad absurdum argument, both the minor and major premise must be acceptable your opponent.”
Really? Says who? You’re confusing the soundness of an argument with person-variable persuasion.
“I consider choices as mental resolutions, to they can’t physically bump into each other.”
i) Well, when I defined choice as a mental resolution (quoting Kane), you took exception.
ii) How is “physically bumping into each other” the least bit responsive to what I said? This is what I said: “After all, his choice is intertwined with other parties as well, such as members of the Sanhedrin. Does his choice actualize the Sanhedrin? Is the existence of the complicit members of the Sanhedrin contingent on his choice?”
How did you manage to miss the point? The libertarian choices of Judas have real world consequences for the existence and choices of other libertarian agents. So do his libertarian choices actualize other agents in the transaction? Do his choices instantiate the network of consequences, including all of the other parties to the same transaction?
Try again.
5/10/2010 8:29 AM
STEVE SAID:
Cont.
“Causally possible and logically, in a divided sense.”
What is “causally” possible for merely possible Judas? Does Judas cause things to happen in a possible world? In what sense? Aren’t possible worlds timeless objects? So there is no actual cause/effect sequence in play. Do you simply mean “cause” in the sense that one fictional character causes something to happen in the narrative?
“Possible Judas is possible conscious agent; of course, he is not an actual conscious agent.”
So possible Judas didn’t consciously choose to be instantiated in a world where he betrays Christ. If so, then in what sense is his choice a “real” choice? Do merely possible, unconscious agents make “real” choices?
“Not timelines or whole worlds, but in some sense God ran hypothetical Judas (not to be confused with his ugly stepfather possible Judas) through a hypothetical senario.”
That’s not responsive to my question. The question is not whether the Molinist God ran hypothetical Judas through a battery of hypothetical scenarios.
The question, rather, is whether the Molinist God ran a battery of hypothetical scenarios past hypothetical Judas so that Judas had a say as to which possible world God would instantiate. Unless hypothetical Judas was shown the options, how was he in any position to give informed consent?
But, of course, you’re forced to admit that this isn’t tenable, for a merely possible agent is not a conscious agent. Therefore, Judas didn’t get to vote on which real world he’d find himself in. It was the luck of the draw (as Arminian critics of Calvinism are wont to say), and he had the ill-fortune to wind up on a world where he betrays Christ and presumably goes to hell. Not his lucky day.
Explain how that’s an improvement over what Arminians and Molinists find so odious in Calvinism.
“It’s as if God created multiple actual worlds in multiple dimensions and sees how things turn out, except, God doesn’t actually have create those worlds and yet His knowledge corresponds to what they would have been if He had.”
i) And how is the Molinist God in a position to see how things turn out? Is he just a spectator who watches what nonexistent agents would do in any given situation? Why is there anything at all, much less anything in particular, that a nonexistent agent would do? Where do you think possible agents come from in Molinism? You act as if they preexist in some static modality, like a DVD, with all of their choices in place. And God simply decides which DVD to put into the player.
ii) Even if Molinism were coherent, why should we believe it? Molinism is not a revealed truth. At most, the Bible reveals that God has counterfactual knowledge, not middle knowledge.
So what evidence do you have that Molinism is true? It’s not a truth of reason. It’s not entailed by a truth of reason. It’s not an empirical fact.
“While the decree embraces all the means it does so in nuanced ways; some things directly, other indirectly via permission.”
Traditionally, Calvinism also “nuances” the decree the same way.
“In Molinism, the decree (in conditions with MK and FK) are sufficient conditions for our choices but not sufficient causes for our choices.”
i) How do you define a “cause”? What’s your theory of causation?
ii) Even if your metaphysical distinction were tenable, how is that morally germane? How does your metaphysical distinction between sufficient conditionality and sufficient causality ipso facto exonerate the Molinist God?
iii) How does that stand in contrast to Calvinism? What theory of causation do you attribute to Calvinism?
iv) Apropos (iii), why is Molinism able to distinguish between sufficient conditionality and sufficient causality, but Calvinism is not?
GODISMYJUDGE SAID:
"In Molinism, we can choose otherwise."
i) Of course, that's equivocal. We can choose otherwise in what setting? In possible worlds? Or the actual world?
ii) And it's not as if the Molinist agent chooses which possible world will become the actual world. God makes that final decision in that regard.
BTW, I once ran that question by Alfred Freddoso, and he agreed with me.
iii) It's not as if, in Molinism, God shows possible Judas two different scenarios, then lets Judas choose one or the other. He doesn't say to possible Judas, Look, Judas, if I instantiate this possible world, you will betray Christ and go to hell, but if I instantiate that possible world, you will stay faithful to Christ (or repent) and go to heaven. So, Judas, which scenario would you like me to realize?
There is no possible Judas who stands over and above his counterparts in different possible worlds, and gets to choose which scenario actually plays out. Rather, each possible Judas is a worldbound individual. He only knows one possible world at a time (so to speak).
4/23/2010 3:10 PM
STEVE SAID:
Godismyjudge said...
"Using the author analogy, you said...Seem like you are trying to have your cake and eat it too."
Are you really that confused? There's an obvious equivocation.
When the phrase "author of sin" is used in historical theology, is that being used as a literary metaphor? Or is that being used in the literal Latin (or Middle French) sense of "authorship"?
You're confusing the lexical meaning of a word with the metaphorical meaning of a word. They are hardly synonymous.
Try to think clearly.
4/23/2010 3:16 PM
STEVE SAID:
Godismyjudge said...
"In Molinism, God is not ultimately responsible for evil, since He does not start a causal chain that predetermines evil will occur. Sure, God is a necessary cause of all things, including evil, but not a sufficient cause of all things."
How is that a morally salient distinction? How is that exculpatory?
Suppose I see a toddler wander into a busy intersection. I didn't cause the intersection. I'm not even a necessary cause of the intersection, much less a sufficient cause.
Does this let me off the hook if I allow the toddler to be run over? After all, I didn't start the causal chain leading to his death. I merely stood by as I saw a speeding car approach and mow him down–even though it lay within my power to rescue the child.
Drawing metaphysical distinctions is not the same as drawing moral distinctions. Why don't you try to offer a serious response?
Why is it that Arminians are so morally complacent? Why are they satisfied with such shallow, inadequate responses?
STEVE SAID:
GODISMYJUDGE SAID:
"Of course, I agree with that too. But you fail to either understand or take into account the difference between this and what I said."
To say I fail to understand doesn't begin to demonstrate that I fail to understand.
"Again, I agree. But this does not mean Judas' damnation is inevitable or Judas is unable to choose otherwise (in the sense I describe above)."
But if you agree, as you just admitted, that possible Judas doesn't get to decide which one of the possible worlds containing him will become the actual world, then he is unable to choose which outcome becomes the real outcome.
His freedom to do otherwise is a freedom between one possible world and another possible world, not a freedom within the actual world, or a freedom to choose which possible world, with its attendant outcomes, is actualized.
And, yes, if God instantiates the possible world in which Judas goes to hell, then his damnation is inevitable in the real world.
4/23/2010 4:39 PM
STEVE SAID:
Godismyjudge said...
"You said 'authorship of sin' is equivocal and asked for a definition. I provided one."
It would help if you could follow your own usage. Try to pay attention to you just said. It saves time. You gave to different definitions back-to-back:
i) "Using the author analogy, the author of evil, would be the author that writes evil into the storyline."
That's a figurative definition.
ii) "The author of something is the person The author of something is the person ultimately responsible for it or in other words the agent that initiates the causal sequence that predetermines and necessitates evil’s occurrence.
That's a literal definition.
Why can't you tell the difference between a figurative definition and a literal definition?
"Now you seem to think it's not equivocal and you have the one true historic sense of the phrase."
Did I say if I had the historic sense? No. I didn't say what I think it means, although I have discussed that in the past.
When Arminians like you use a phrase from historical theology, you need to define the term in historical terms. Do you have any documentary evidence that when "authorship" is used in historical theology, it denotes "the person ultimately responsible for it or in other words the agent that initiates the causal sequence that predetermines and necessitates evil’s occurrence."?
Or is this just your made-up definition?
When Reformed confessions and theologians deny that God is the "author of sin," what definition do you think they are using? Or do you even care?
If you're going to allege that, contrary to the denial of Reformed confessions and theologians, Calvinism makes God is the "author of sin," you first need to define the term the same way they did, then show that God is the author of sin on their own terms.
"By all means, provide the one and only understanding; noting that Edwards said God is the author of sin."
Gee, that's cute. If you're going to cite Edwards as an example of what you mean, then need to explain what you think he meant by that term.
Keep in mind that Edwards' metaphysical outlook was pretty idiosyncratic. He was either an idealist or occasionalist. So that's hardly representative of mainstream Reformed metaphysics.
4/23/2010 4:55 PM
STEVE SAID:
Godismyjudge said...
"A greater good would get you off the hook for not helping."
And Calvinism helps itself to the same consideration.
"But of course, not helping is an omission, not a comission and a greater good doesn't get you off the hook for comissions (we are not to do evil that good may come)."
Was the Molinist God doing evil by instantiating a world with evil agents?
"Further, how did you wind up in that situtiation? IOW, how is sin even possible, if man isn't ultimately responsible?"
Since when does someone have to be ultimately responsible to be sinful? In the film Double Indemnity, which character is ultimately responsible for murdering the husband: the adulterous boyfriend or the adulterous wife?
If a Mafia Don orders a hit, who is ultimately responsible: the trigger man or the Don?
And if only one is ultimately responsible, then is the other one innocent?
4/23/2010 5:03 PM
STEVE SAID:
Godismyjudge said...
"You said 'authorship of sin' is equivocal and asked for a definition. I provided one."
What you did was to take my *figurative* use of divine authorship, come up with your own *literal* definition, then impute *your* definition to my literary metaphor.
Do you lack the critical detachment to see how fallacious that is?
"The author of something is the person The author of something is the person ultimately responsible for it or in other words the agent that initiates the causal sequence that predetermines and necessitates evil’s occurrence."
i) I don't treat responsibility and culpability as synonyms. One party to a transaction can be *ultimately* responsible without being either *solely* responsible or *blameworthy*.
ii) You Arminians are the ones who keep recasting *predestination* or *foreordination* or the *decree* in *causal* and/or *determinist* categories.
I'm not the only who constantly frames my theology in those terms, although I sometimes use that terminology in response to somebody else who frames the issue in those terms.
iii) Apropos (ii), it is sufficient for my Calvinism to say that:
a) God has a complete plan for the world.
b) God's plan for the world doesn't derive from the world.
c) God creates the world according to his plan.
c) God's plan for the world doesn't derive from the world.
d) Everything happens according to plan.
e) Everything happens in the way it does on account of God's plan.
f) There are no unplanned events.
g) Nothing can happen contrary to God's plan.
iv) If you're going to use "causal" categories, then you need to define your terms. For instance, on a counterfactual theory of causation, both God and Judas were causal factors in the Crucifixion. And that's true whether you're Calvinist, Molinist, or non-Molinist Arminian.
If you think a different theory of causation is preferable, make your case.
v) If you're using "predetermine" and "necessitate" as synonyms for the absence of libertarian freedom, and you deem that to make God culpable, then your definition is a tendentious definition which takes Arminian action theory for granted.
STEVE SAID:
GODISMYJUDGE SAID:
"That does not follow."
Since you don't even attempt to say anything responsive to what I wrote, there's nothing I need to reply to.
You also seem to suffer from an inability to distinguish between what this or that Molinist may claim, and whether his claims are internally consistent.
I'm not merely dealing with the claims of Molinism, but the implications of Molinism, which may not be consistent with everything a Molinist would like to claim for his position–in the event that Molinism is incoherent in some respects.
Unless and until you're prepared to deal with my arguments, instead of posing as some expert on Molinism, whose bare ipse dixit settles all disputes, there's nothing further to discuss.
STEVE SAID:
GODISMYJUDGE SAID:
"Right. In an Arminian schema of responsibility, if God were to predetermine sin, He would be culpable. In a Calvinists schema, he would not. But then the question is God’s character. Does He really hate sin?"
Does the Arminian/Molinist God really hate sin? Sin was avoidable? Was he forced to make a world in which sin occurs? Do you think a fallen world is necessitated?
If no, then it what sense does God hate sin if he makes a fallen world, even though that sinful consequence was divinely foreseeable and avoidable?
5/04/2010 7:56 PM
STEVE SAID:
Godismyjudge said...
"Fair enough, but if you want to argue against the internal consistency of Molinism, you should at least present Molinism in a way recognizable and acceptable to Molinists."
You keep falling back on that intellectual shortcut. Why is that? Surely you don't think that's convincing, do you?
Since you're evidently impervious to the obvious, I guess I will have to spell it out to you: people who are deeply invested in a given position have a disincentive to "recognize" a critical statement of their position.
The mere fact that they claim that a critical statement of their position is "unrecognizable" is not a serious response. Indeed, it's frequently an evasive maneuver. They don't ever have to deal with a challenge to their position because they can always claim that so-and-so's statement of their position is "unrecognizable."
Are you capable of having a serious debate? Or will you continue to fall back on these "you-just-don't-understand" cop-outs?
You're not the world authority on Molinism, Dan. I've corresponded with Alfred Freddoso and Thomas Flint. Learn a little humility.
"The object of Judas’s choice is to betray Christ or not, and his choice actualizes that specific aspect of history."
Really? How does that work, exactly? After all, his choice is intertwined with other parties as well, such as members of the Sanhedrin. Does his choice actualize the Sanhedrin? Is the existence of the complicit members of the Sanhedrin contingent on his choice?
You keep asserting that Judas had the freedom to do otherwise. In what sense did possible Judas have the freedom to do otherwise? Is possible Judas a conscious agent? Did God present possible Judas with a range of possible timelines, then ask him which one he'd like to see realized?
Is possible Judas privy to all the possible worlds in which possible Judas exists? Did Judas give informed consent?
"But this does not mean Judas' damnation is inevitable or Judas is unable to choose otherwise (in the sense I describe above)."
Sure about that? As a friend of my recently said,
"It's hard for Molinism to avoid making God the author of evil. But the reason, I think, is that 'God's decree to actualize a world plus his knowledge of what would ensue if he were to do so' is both necessary and sufficient for evil to come to pass. It's necessary, because the evil can't come to pass unless God decrees to actualize the feasible world in which it would come to pass. It's sufficient, because the decree embraces all the means to the chosen end. (In addition, deciding to actualize a feasible world, while knowing infallibly what would happen if that world gets actualized, *is* sufficient for the evil to come to pass. After all, it's sufficient for the free choice to be actually made, and that's sufficient for the evil itself.)"
STEVE SAID:
GODISMYJUDGE SAID:
“Yes, God hates sin. I doubt that evil was necessary; that seems to imply God had to create.”
So the Molinist God instantiates a sinful world even though he hates sin, and sin is unnecessary.
Doesn’t sound very coherent to me. Much less a promising theodicy.
“Certainly in the sense that He is not ultimately responsible for sin.”
What’s the theodicean value of the adjective (“ultimately”) in relation to the noun (“sin”)? How does the adjective magically exculpate God on Molinist grounds?
You don’t have to be “ultimately” responsible to be partially responsible. You don’t have to be “ultimately” responsible to be culpable. So how does your distinction automatically exonerate the Molinist God?
“It seems that the greater good God is able to bring out of sin in this world, makes the world we live in at least as desirable to God as not creating, dispite His hatred of sin.”
If that’s your argument, then sin is a necessary means to a second-order good. Felix culpa. Very supralapsarian of you.
“In reducto ad absurdum argument, both the minor and major premise must be acceptable your opponent.”
Really? Says who? You’re confusing the soundness of an argument with person-variable persuasion.
“I consider choices as mental resolutions, to they can’t physically bump into each other.”
i) Well, when I defined choice as a mental resolution (quoting Kane), you took exception.
ii) How is “physically bumping into each other” the least bit responsive to what I said? This is what I said: “After all, his choice is intertwined with other parties as well, such as members of the Sanhedrin. Does his choice actualize the Sanhedrin? Is the existence of the complicit members of the Sanhedrin contingent on his choice?”
How did you manage to miss the point? The libertarian choices of Judas have real world consequences for the existence and choices of other libertarian agents. So do his libertarian choices actualize other agents in the transaction? Do his choices instantiate the network of consequences, including all of the other parties to the same transaction?
Try again.
5/10/2010 8:29 AM
STEVE SAID:
Cont.
“Causally possible and logically, in a divided sense.”
What is “causally” possible for merely possible Judas? Does Judas cause things to happen in a possible world? In what sense? Aren’t possible worlds timeless objects? So there is no actual cause/effect sequence in play. Do you simply mean “cause” in the sense that one fictional character causes something to happen in the narrative?
“Possible Judas is possible conscious agent; of course, he is not an actual conscious agent.”
So possible Judas didn’t consciously choose to be instantiated in a world where he betrays Christ. If so, then in what sense is his choice a “real” choice? Do merely possible, unconscious agents make “real” choices?
“Not timelines or whole worlds, but in some sense God ran hypothetical Judas (not to be confused with his ugly stepfather possible Judas) through a hypothetical senario.”
That’s not responsive to my question. The question is not whether the Molinist God ran hypothetical Judas through a battery of hypothetical scenarios.
The question, rather, is whether the Molinist God ran a battery of hypothetical scenarios past hypothetical Judas so that Judas had a say as to which possible world God would instantiate. Unless hypothetical Judas was shown the options, how was he in any position to give informed consent?
But, of course, you’re forced to admit that this isn’t tenable, for a merely possible agent is not a conscious agent. Therefore, Judas didn’t get to vote on which real world he’d find himself in. It was the luck of the draw (as Arminian critics of Calvinism are wont to say), and he had the ill-fortune to wind up on a world where he betrays Christ and presumably goes to hell. Not his lucky day.
Explain how that’s an improvement over what Arminians and Molinists find so odious in Calvinism.
“It’s as if God created multiple actual worlds in multiple dimensions and sees how things turn out, except, God doesn’t actually have create those worlds and yet His knowledge corresponds to what they would have been if He had.”
i) And how is the Molinist God in a position to see how things turn out? Is he just a spectator who watches what nonexistent agents would do in any given situation? Why is there anything at all, much less anything in particular, that a nonexistent agent would do? Where do you think possible agents come from in Molinism? You act as if they preexist in some static modality, like a DVD, with all of their choices in place. And God simply decides which DVD to put into the player.
ii) Even if Molinism were coherent, why should we believe it? Molinism is not a revealed truth. At most, the Bible reveals that God has counterfactual knowledge, not middle knowledge.
So what evidence do you have that Molinism is true? It’s not a truth of reason. It’s not entailed by a truth of reason. It’s not an empirical fact.
“While the decree embraces all the means it does so in nuanced ways; some things directly, other indirectly via permission.”
Traditionally, Calvinism also “nuances” the decree the same way.
“In Molinism, the decree (in conditions with MK and FK) are sufficient conditions for our choices but not sufficient causes for our choices.”
i) How do you define a “cause”? What’s your theory of causation?
ii) Even if your metaphysical distinction were tenable, how is that morally germane? How does your metaphysical distinction between sufficient conditionality and sufficient causality ipso facto exonerate the Molinist God?
iii) How does that stand in contrast to Calvinism? What theory of causation do you attribute to Calvinism?
iv) Apropos (iii), why is Molinism able to distinguish between sufficient conditionality and sufficient causality, but Calvinism is not?
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Top Gun or Top Goon?
[From] A friend of the Catholic Legate Director John Pacheco, Nick, sent John this e-mail:
Hi John,
I'm sure you're tired of this subject, but in case you missed it, one of Eric Svendsen's top goons has posted this on his blog. It appears Svendsen has officially gone out of business, just like the Hollywood Video chain.
from: http://www.catholic-legate.com/
Yes, I've long suspected that James Swan is Svendsen's muscle. I assume he pays Mr. Swan in non-sequential C-notes, delivered in manilla envelopes to a PO Box. I always envision Swan seated in a 1968 black Dodge Charger (R/T 440 Magnum), with black gloves and dark glasses, a la Bullitt.
Hi John,
I'm sure you're tired of this subject, but in case you missed it, one of Eric Svendsen's top goons has posted this on his blog. It appears Svendsen has officially gone out of business, just like the Hollywood Video chain.
from: http://www.catholic-legate.com/
Yes, I've long suspected that James Swan is Svendsen's muscle. I assume he pays Mr. Swan in non-sequential C-notes, delivered in manilla envelopes to a PO Box. I always envision Swan seated in a 1968 black Dodge Charger (R/T 440 Magnum), with black gloves and dark glasses, a la Bullitt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)