Pages

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Roo Stew

What follows is a systematic refutation of one particular Arminian's, Ben Kangaroo, flacid attempt at undermining Calvinism via internal inconsisetncy. Enjoy.

INTRODUCTION (Part 1)

Pulling the stuffing out

Ben Kangaroo's first post:

http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/02/examining-inconsistencies-in.html

My response:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/02/captain-kangaroo.html

His response:

http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/02/clarifications-and-rebuttal-responding.html

Before I begin, I guess I should point out that Mr. Kangaroo (and some of his Arminian peanut gallery members) commented about my loooooooooong posts. So, I'll make this short than his latest response to me. Three pages shorter, to be exact. Any whining and complaining about comments I didn't interact with are thus rendered moot. You can't have it both ways, that is.

I should also point out that my main beef has to do with Roo's assertion that Calvinists have an inconsistency between the propositions:

(CI1) Monergism is the case.

and,

(CI2) Calvinists think prayer for the lost is not pointless.

I will demonstrate, as I did earlier, that there is no inconsistency.

So, I'll briefly discuss some tangential points, and then I'll end by arguing that Mr. Roo hasn’t met his burden. Remember, he asserted. Not me. He made a strong assertion. One of inconsistency. I'll demonstrate that he has not shown any such inconsistency. If I succeed here, no matter what else has been debated, the score will be: Calvinists - 1, Arminians - 0. It would be nice to discuss all the other things Mr. Roo wants to discuss, but given my current situation, and the level of his arguments (They don't cause any Calvinist I know to lose sleep. They are actually means God uses for creating laughter in his people.), and that fact that all his comments have been (better) expressed elsewhere, as well as responded to elsewhere, I'll pass up the opportunity. Besides, if I were to take it on, I have plenty of pages of material I could write (due to the multi-layered errors), they'd complain about 'how much he writes.' You can't win with these guys!

So, let me take a few pot shots before I show that Ben has not met his burden. That he has not achieved what he set out to do. Remember, showing this constitutes a failure in the very heart of Mr. Roo's post, no matter what else he wants to discuss. I will thus expect at least an admission of error. Possibly he'll change his line of attack, but the specific one I got out of bed to respond to will have rendered impotent. I should say one last thing. Much hay was made by Mr. Roo about me not "letting him know about my first post." As I knew that he has a link feature on his blog, indicating him every time someone links to a blog entry of his, I thought this sufficient. What did he want me to do. Send a carrier pigeon? Maybe he'll say that he doesn't check his comboxes in order to see the links? But then (i) why does he post in them and (ii) how else would I inform him? Not by positing a message in his combox. I don't do carrier pigeons. And I'm not going to email him informing him that I responded to one of his precious posts. So, this gives people a taste of the types being dealt with here. They love to get involved with numerous side debates and charge you with all sorts of moral fallings: "At least you could have the common decency to let me know you dedicated a post to me!" Their childish behavior (childish since I indirectly let him know that I responded) is more reason why I hope this is the last exchange between us. I'm not in the mood to get a manners lesson from Martha Rooert, or be told that I have "hellfire awaiting me at the judgment," or to deal with weak and sloppy arguments. For all the above reasons, this will probably me my last response to them.

The meatiest and most substantial section, and most relevant to the stated purpose of Ben's post will be covered in Part 3 below. If you want to skip to there and read that section, that will be all you need to see that Kangaroo's argument is to no avail. (I include pictures for our Arminian readers.) (I also employ sarcasm for purposes of levity.) (As is my wont, all of his comments will appear in red.)

SOME SNIPING (Part 2)


Kangaroo Poaching!

Roo made a claim that monergism was inconsistent with Calvinists praying to God for someone's salvation. But, he said the terms were ambiguous. I pointed out to him that he lost from the beginning since one cannot draw an actual inconsistency from ambiguous terms. His response:

"Well, if Paul would have followed the two links I provided in the section of the first paragraph he neglected to quote, he would have gotten quite a bit of clarification as to how I understand the difference between synergism and monergism. He would have also discovered that I believe the term “synergism” does not properly convey the Arminian understanding of conditional salvation since synergism literally means “to work together” and Arminians deny salvation by works."

Unfortunately for Ben, I did look at his links. My question wasn't about how you "understood the difference between synergism and monergism." If Ben followed the bouncing ball (like a good little Roo), he'd note that my question had to do with the single term monergism. For my purposes, I give two hoots about how he 'underst[ands] the difference between monergism and synergism.' Much less did my comment have to do with whether or not he thinks the term 'synergism' 'properly convey[s] the Arminian understanding of ________.' In his first link, 'Is Arminianism Synergistic," Ben does nothing to provide the necessary and sufficient conditions that apply to 'monergism.' His second link was to a post he titled 'The Nature of Saving Faith.' In it he uses the adjective 'monergistic' twice (I think), and offers no specific definition of that word. Thus I am at a loss as to how Ben thinks his above response (the one in red) effectively counters my point. His cocky comment was nothing but a sophistic debate trick given with the intention of snowing his readers into thinking that I didn't do the simple footwork that would have negated my comments in response to his comments. This is cheap, and is another reason why, given my situation especially, I don't want to waste my time with these guys. If my above comments (that totally rebut the grounds by which he made his snide remark to me) weren't enough, the simple fact remains that he said the term 'monergism' was ambiguous. Either it is or it isn't. Either he thinks his previous links offered a precise understanding of the term in terms of which he could draw out the inconsistency, or he doesn't. If he doesn’t, why did he point me to the two links? If he does, then why did he say the term was too ambiguous? Either way you slice it, Ben Kangaroo has been poached.

Mr. Roo sez,

"All of salvation is conditioned on faith. We are justified, regenerated, and sanctified by faith. Glorification takes place after death but only for those who die in the faith. So, there is a sense in which even glorification can be said to be by faith, though not in the same way as the other necessary components of salvation pre-glorification."

Assertions.

"I suppose we could think of such things, but for the believer who is not immediately “struck dead” sanctification is certainly a necessary component of the salvation process, and anyone who ceases to remain in this process will fall short of final salvation (Heb. 10:29, 36-39; Rom. 6:16, 21-22; 8:12-14; Gal. 5:17-25; 6:7-9; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Eph. 4:20-24; 5:3-16, etc.). We could just as well say that infants are not necessarily justified by faith but are unconditionally saved by God’s grace, while adults must meet the condition of faith to receive the gift of God’s salvation. Such speculations and hypotheticals are hardly relevant to the discussion at hand and can really serve only as deflections by which the main issues are obscured. (emphasis added)"

Yeah, that's right, when talking about necessities then brining in hypotheticals and thought experiments are crucial. For example, if being two-armed was necessary to being a human, one could talk about possible worlds with three-armed humans and ask how this changes anything of essence rather than accident. I would have thought Ben was familiar with at least elementary points like this. If he is, then he goes for cheap debate tricks, minimizing rather crucial distinctions I made.

"Or perhaps Paul’s sloppy reading skills and inability to comprehend fairly simple theological definitions with which most who are familiar with the debate do not seem to have difficulty."

Notice how nice ole Ben is. Now, given how sanctimonious he's acted, chastising me for calling my last post "Captain Kangaroo," then how does he explain this double standard. Well, you see, Ben and the boys aren’t serious when they chastise me and my Calvinist brothers. That is a debate tactic of theirs. Intended to draw pity for their side. In actuality, they're no better then us sorry sinners on the Reformed side of the fence; protests to the contrary aside. I cite this not because I'm going to cry about how Mr. Roo hurt my feewings, but simply to point out that Mr. Roo can't live up to his own standards. In other words, he's a hypocrite.

I wrote, "And, we are not saved by faith. We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in the person and work of Jesus Christ alone." Mr. Roo responded:

"I agree. However, I don’t think Paul is wise to get hung up on the difference between “through faith” and “by faith”. They mean essentially the same thing and there are plenty of Scriptures that indicate that all of salvation is “by” or “through” faith, and not just justification proper. For instance, we become God’s children (adoption) through faith (Gal. 3:26). Peter tells us that we are receiving “salvation” as the outcome of our faith (1 Peter 1:8, 9). Christ dwells in our hearts “by faith” (Eph. 3:17, cf. 2 Cor. 13:5). We receive the Holy Spirit by faith (Gal. 3:2; 3:14). We are sanctified by faith (Acts 26:18), and it doesn’t take much reading from John’s gospel before we realize that eternal life is received by faith as well (e.g. John 19:31). That seems to pretty much cover all the bases as far as I am concerned."

So you "agree" that "we are not saved by faith" but rather "saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus?" But then you seem to argue that "you don't agree." More conceptual muddles at the hands of "Ben."

And, pretty much only the KJV says "by" in Eph. 3:17. But, that doesn't even matter since Eph. 3:17 is not talking about salvation!

It is a fact that in Pauline thought we are "saved by grace, through faith."

But, my point is, it is Jesus who saves, not your faith. Your faith is but an instrument!

He sez,

"Even worse for Paul is that the passage he seems to quote above indicates that the whole of salvation, including regeneration, is conditioned on faith:

“But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together [regeneration] with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him [regeneration] and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus (in whom alone are all spiritual blessings which would include regeneration, Eph. 1:3)…for by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it [i.e. salvation] is the gift of God; not as the result of works, that no one should boast.” (Eph. 2:4-9 Emphasis mine)"

i) Nothing in this text says "all salvation is condition of faith."

ii) Ben just assumes his libertarianism in his interpretation that he got from Olsen and Geisler.

iii) And all salvation couldn't be condition on faith if Jesus says that no one can come to him unless the Father draws that person. John 6:44 is best formally expressed as: (~p --> ~q) & r. Logically, John 6:44 teaches that the Father's drawing is a necessary condition required before someone is able to come to Jesus by faith. The Arminian should agree. The problem is that if he agrees with the first half of the conjunct ((~p --> ~q)), then he must agree with the second. Let 'r' = 'raise him on the last day.' The Arminian is thus forced to accept universalism, or deny that the father must draw someone S before S comes to Jesus in faith.

I wrote, "Yes, the promises come in the form of a conditional, but Reformed theology teaches that Christ has met any and all conditions man must meet in order to have everlasting life--either by his work, or by securing for us what we need. So, in regards the former, Christ lived a perfect life in our place, he met that condition for us. In regards the latter, he did not have saving faith for us. But, he purchased, or acquired them for us. The Holy Spirit then applies this all to us."

Ben Kangaroo responds,

"This seems like a lot of assertion and is very confusing. I am not familiar with any passages of Scripture which say that Jesus purchased or acquired our personal faith."

Here, let's use a page out of Ben's book (I'm just switching some words around): "I am a little surprised that [Ben] finds things so confusing. I thought he had been defending [Arminianism] and “dismantling” [Calvinism] for quite some time now. So, if Ben's response to me was good, then this was. If this wasn't, his wasn't. Either way I'm sitting pretty.

Anyway, my comments were pretty standard fair for Reformed theologians. One could easily read our commentaries and systematics for an explication of this basic belief.

Suffice it to say, Reformed theologians have always acknowledged that Christ's redemptive work expitiates, propitiates, reconciliates, but also merits the application of redemption to the sinner as well (regeneration, sanctification and glorification). I would have thought that a basic understanding of Reformed theology would lead one to notice that we take faith to be a spiritual blessing. Christ purchased all the spiritual graces for His people. God "has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ" (Eph. 1:33). My comments flow directly from the basics of Reformed theology. You may disagree, but simply parading your ignorance of Reformed teachings isn't a theological, exegetical, or even a philosophical objection to what I stated.

I had said, "Our faith is not the ground of our salvation, but is but an instrument for receiving all of Christ."

Ben responded,

"I agree completely, and that is why all grounds of boasting are cut off since faith is the receiving of a free gift and total reliance on another. The “grounds” of salvation are the work of Christ and the gracious gift of God resulting from that work. Faith is the condition for receiving that salvation which is grounded solely in Christ’s atoning work. I never claimed otherwise; so maybe we should again ask, with Paul, what all the hubbub is about?"

I guess Ben doesn't see how this admission hurts him. Of course the Reformed believing that faith is an instrumental condition. So what's the hubbub about? He acts as if we disagree, but then he agrees with me.

I had wrote, "But, I can grant that in the Bible we see a hypothetical statement, technically called a 'conditional.'"

Mr. Roo strangely asserts,

"Paul just can’t seem to get through a post defending Calvinism without some sort of appeal to 'hypotheticals.'"

Sorry, first let me take a moment while I rip out all the sections on conditionals in my logic texts, this will take a while.....

.....

....

Okay, Ben, I did it, now I'm back. Next, per your prodding, let me rip out all the hypotheticals in the Bible. I start with these:

Heb. 6:4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

Rom. 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

And if you hold on, I'll cut out some more verses....

.....

.....

Okay, whew!, I'm back. There, now neither will I seem like I can't get through a defense of Calvinism without reference to hypotheticals, neither will my logic textbooks, and neither will all my Bible's! Good thing you came along, I was tired of not being able to get through my Bible without it mentioning hypotheticals!

I had said, "A dead men doesn't "recognize our inability to save ourselves and cast ourselves on God’s mercy."

Ben Kangaroo responded:

"Arminians agree; hence, the doctrine of prevenient grace. I am sure that Paul finds this doctrine un-Biblical but he should at least acknowledge its existence within Arminian theology, especially seeing that he has made it his purpose to criticize that theology."


i) I already showed that prevenient grace leads to universalism. So, I do acknowledge it but immediately disregard it when speaking to an Arminian who I assume denies universalism wrt salvation.

ii) I wonder what it is that accounts for one man "choosing" God over against another. What, is Ben 'better' than all those filthy sinners who don't exercise 'faith?'

iii) How would he select or demarcate his universal grace passages from universal salvation passages?

I had said, "But, yes, the Reformed would agree that men actually do the believing."

He responded,

"In the same way that a man hooked to a respirator does the “breathing” I suppose. Notice again how Paul essentially contradicts his previous statement that, “If it may be called a condition, it is not something we must do, it is something that has been done for us.”

Notice he substitutes fallacious arguments from ridicule in lieu of objective arguments.

And, his dishonest claim about ‘faith' being 'done for us' is flat out false since I specified, very clearly, that those things Christ did not do for us, he purchased for us. Remember Ben Roo himself said that my comment was 'confusing' and 'didn't know where Scripture said that Christ purchased faith for us.' So, either he's playing dumb or he is dumb.

Lastly, let me end this section by pointing out yet another double standard Ben employs in these debates.

BEN SAID: "Some Calvinists will go so far as to say that Arminians believe that man has the capability to save themselves."

I RESPONDED: "No, you have the capacity, as you admit, to 'meet' the lifeguard part way there."

BEN RESPONDED: "You are only speaking for yourself here Paul. You may not agree with those Calvinists who have said such things to me, but it doesn’t change the fact that they said them. And again, Arminians do not believe that we have the natural capacity to meet the life guard part way there; at least this Arminian doesn’t and neither did James Arminius himself."

By way of reply:

i) Where did I say 'natural ability?' And, you have the ability because 'prevenient grace.' But that's given to all. So, whence ariseth your faith yet not another man's?

ii) Note what Ben said in response to my quoting Arminian Jerry Falwell:

"So it is my duty to make sure guys like Falwell don’t say dumb things? I would think Paul might need to do plenty of backyard cleaning himself in that case."

So, Ben doesn't want to be held responsible to the 'dumb things' that Arminians say, yet when it comes to debating Calvinists he takes every stupid thing they have said (granting he's being honest here, I have my doubts, though), he uses them ubiquitously and then justifies his hamstringing us to his un-named Calvinists.

iii) I hope to have at least established prima facie evidence that Ben is yet another Arminian jokster. Big on talk, little by way of rational argumentation. I have shown him to be dishonest, hypocritical, ignorant of basic Reformed theology, and even ignorant of some of the things he's written and pointed me to. Thus justified, I'll move on....

The Death of the Initial Argument (Part 3)

R.I.P.

Okay, recall the set of Calvinist Inconsistencies above:

(CI1) Monergism is the case.

and,

(CI2) Calvinists think prayer for the lost is not pointless.

I thought I showed how (CI1) and (CI2) were not inconsistent in my initial post. But maybe I was too abstract for Ben to follow. Let's be real clear.

I take it that this definition for inconsistency is agreed on by both of us:

inconsistency = df Someone asserts more than one proposition such that the propositions cannot all be true. In such a case, the propositions may be contradictories or they may be contraries.

Now, there are (roughly) three ways the above could happen: (i) explicit inconsistency, (ii) formal inconsistency, and (iii) implicit inconsistency. (i) is to two propositions that assert p and ~p (e.g., to affirm and deny the same proposition). (ii) is a where a set of propositions is affirmed from which an explicit (sense (i)) inconsistency is logically deduced (typically via first-order logic with identity). And (iii) is a set of propositions to which are added some necessary truths so that a formal contradiction can be brought out.

According to (CI1) and (CI2), which of the above seem to fit, if one does? Definitely not (i) or (ii). So, if we have an inconsistency, it would be along the lines of (iii). Certainly there’s nothing obviously inconsistent between (CI1) and (CI2). Nothing like:

[1] Sam is the father of Frank.

and,

[2] Sam is not the father of Frank.

So, Roo has done nothing like draw out an inconsistency that is plain for all to see.

Before I look at the (alleged) inconsistency between monergism and intercessory prayer for the lost, I should comment on some of Ben Kangaroo’s remarks about intercessory prayer being ‘pointless’ on the Calvinist scheme. Last time I used one simply word to skirt around his ‘argument:’ means. But apparently this didn’t carry the force I had hoped since, come to find out, Ben is more ignorant of Reformed theology than a Barry Bond’s fan is of the outward symptoms of steroid use. So we must go slower for our Arminian friends. Let me try to lay this out. Here are the relevant quotes from Ben:

"Calvinism teaches that one is saved or lost on the sole basis of an eternal and irrevocable decree. Nothing can effectively change that decree. It is fixed. It is permanent."

and,

"The Arminian contends that intercessory prayer within a Calvinistic framework is pointless. Our prayers cannot have any effect on the eternal destiny of any individual. That destiny was fixed from eternity. No lack of prayer can prevent God from saving the elect and no amount of prayer can help the reprobate. Worse yet, the believer might waste countless hours praying for a reprobate who has no chance at heaven without realizing it."

It’s hard to make out what is even being argued here. Yes, nothing can change God’s decree. Does he think we think our prayers are ‘changing God’s decree?’ Does he think that we think we can affect a non-elect person into becoming elect? We don’t think any of that. We are not trying to ‘change the decree.’ An ‘inconsistency’ might look something like this, then:

[3] Nothing can change God’s eternal decree.

[4] By prayer the Calvinist thinks he can change God’s eternal decree.

But this is an absurd caricature! We deny [4]. So perhaps he is thinking something like this:

[5] If God has decreed that someone S will be saved, then if you pray for S to be saved it will be pointless.

[6] If God has not decreed that S will be saved, then if you pray for say to be saved it will be a waste of time.

[7] Either God has decreed for S to be saved or he has not.

[8] So, either the Calvinist’s prayer will be pointless or it will be a waste of time.

[9] But, the Calvinist does not think his prayer is either pointless or a waste of time.

[10] Thus, there is an inconsistency between his beliefs in a God who decrees S’s salvation (or does not), and his belief that prayer is not pointless or a waste of time. If the Calvinist sufficiently reflected on his epistemic situation, then he would need to drop either his belief in God’s eternal decree regarding the salvation of sinners, or his belief in a meaningful and productive prayer life.

I take it I have faithfully portrayed Ben Kangaroo’s argument, albeit with more rigor and precision than Ben himself. All that is left now is to examine the premises. Obviously there is vague and ambiguous terms employed. What is meant by ‘pointless?’ What is meant by ‘waste of time?’ Maybe it is pointless is some senses, but not others. Recall propositions [1] and [2] above. We could easily remove the inconsistency by indicating unarticulated equivocations. So,

[1*] Sam is the father1 of Frank.

and,

[2*] Sam is not the father2 of Frank.

The 1 and 2 are, respectively, biological and adoptive. And so I take it that Ben has the job of getting a wee bit more detailed than he’s used to over at ‘Arminian Perspectives.’ Time to dust off the old synapses. Since I don’t know for sure how these terms are being employed, and so know that we don’t have any unarticulated equivocations, I can only offer some brief comments. But, I take it that they will be enough to show that we have no problems of inconsistency (at least any interesting ones), and it will certainly be enough to render a prima facie verdict in our favor. Having thus qualified, let’s look at some of the premises (again, the qualification is that the terms are vague and ambiguous and I don’t know precisely how Ben Kangaroo is using them):

I grant [7], [8] and [9]. [5] and [6] are false. Not only is prayer a (a) means (I discuss this concept in fuller detail below) used for God to grant S salvation, but here are some ‘points:’

(b) God commands prayer for all things and so the Calvinist is obeying a command. This is enough to demolish his claim, but let’s look at more ‘points.’

(c) The Calvinist recognizes that he is powerless in himself to ‘win’ the lost into God’s kingdom. We must rely on God for everything. That we can’t argue, force, or otherwise manipulate someone into the kingdom, even if we are the best debater, the most imposing force, or the slickest salesman, we can’t convince a dead sinner to change his ways, even though we would love to. So prayer forces us to recognize our inability, our weakness, our dependence upon God, and thus is an exercise in humility. It is an expression of an attitude of faith. This works whether the prayer is answered or not.

(d) Prayer is also communication with the living God. It is a means of grace for the believer and allows us to grow in our sanctification. It shows that we trust the Bible and are not ‘anxious’ about the salvation of the lost. It also changes our heat toward our fellow man. Calvinists do not believe that we should just pray for our friends and family (though I have noticed this trend with Arminians for some reason), but we pray for our enemies, for those who wrong us. (I am even in the process of doing this right now, for someone who wronged me, and isn’t a friend or family member.) The ‘point’ here is that our attitude changes in how we think about that person.

(e) Another point is that in praying for someone, especially for years, we are so much more appreciative of our salvation by grace alone. I pray for my brother who is intelligent, and one of the ‘nicest’ people you will ever meet. He even agrees that Jesus is God, that he resurrected, that the Bible is reliable, that he is a sinner, that Jesus is the savior, and many other truths. But he refuses to submit to God. He loves his sin too much. There’s nothing much different between us. Indeed, he is ‘nicer’ and more ‘people friendly’ than I am, yet I believe and trust in God while he does not. Thus I can only attribute that to grace alone. The sovereign choice of God to do radical, life-saving heart surgery on me.

(f) it’s a form of worship for the Christian.

(g) It forces us to know more about God since one would like to know the person he is talking to.

(h) It’s a form of praise. We praise the giver of biological and spiritual life.

(i) It strengthens our relationship with God. Time spend communicating with someone else, especially intimately, strengthens a growing relationship.

(j) It gives us cause to rejoice. I take it that it is true that: If we pray that God do X, and God does X, then he answered our prayer. We thus rejoice in answered prayer.

(k) Here are many more ‘points’ by one of the modern-day giants of the Reformed faith, Ed Clowney :

http://www.beginningwithmoses.org/articles/btprayer.pdf

And so I take it that I have effectively removed his assumption in [5] (that prayer is ‘pointless’ if God has ordained the salvation of S). Since I have shown that [5] is false, then Ben Kangaroo’s argument us unsound. I technically don’t have to continue on, but I will.

Next, look at [6]. First, almost everything said in (a) - (k) is applicable here. Therefore, I have now shown [6] to be false. But, there are some things to say.

(l) It was pre-ordained that Christ should die. Indeed, he was “the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” His death was prophesied in the Old Testament, and God cannot be shown a liar. Nevertheless, Jesus prayed for hours before he was taken by Jewish authorities.

(m) Frankly, it is blasphemous to call communion time with God a ‘waste of time.’

(n) How is developing trust, reliance, and exhibiting traits of obedience a ‘waste of time.’ All of these are present even if S was not ordained unto eternal life.

(o) God could use our prayers as a means to condemn S all the more on judgment day. Thus they wouldn’t have been a ‘waste of time.’

Though I could keep going, I’ll simply move on in this demonstration of the poor argumentation and thinking skills frequently employed by Arminians in debates like these.

Recall that I had argued that prayer was a means God uses to bring his elect in in history. This point alone serves to demolish the whole ‘meaninglessness’ argument Ben employs. But, he didn’t like my invocation of the concept of ‘means.’ Below I look at some of his objections to this fact. I will quote Mr. Roo and offer running commentary:

“But prayer really has no affect on God in Calvinism. He is going to save the elect no matter what.”

Not true. This is a straw man. Calvinists believe that God ordains the ends as well as the means. The ‘no matter what’ clause attributes Greek fatalism to biblical Calvinism. This comment can also be shown to be absurd. It was prophesied that Christ would not break any of his bones. Now, since God cannot be proven a liar, this had to come true. But, do we really want to say that: “Hitting Jesus’ legs with a sledgehammer would have no effect on his bones?” What, does Ben believe that Jesus had unbreakable bones? That’s right out of an M. Night Shyamalan movie! How about Jesus “predetermined” death? Would that happen even if no one arrested him, tried him, and crucified him? If God predestined that something happen in answer to prayer, it won't happen without prayer. Now, Benny might not agree with this, he might not like it, but disagreement and unlike aren’t normally cogent objections. It stands, however, that this is what Reformed theology teaches, despite Benny’s strawy straw man.

“He is not moved by our prayers because He has already unconditionally decreed from eternity to save “S” without reference to any prayers, so what “X” does amounts to nothing more than a show of sorts which doesn’t really accomplish anything.”

That God decreed S ‘without reference to prayer’ is your assertion, not ours. Anyone can beat up a straw man. And, how is ‘moved’ being used. Again that’s another vague and ambiguous term. I may determine a punishment for my child. I know I will not relent. But, I am still ‘moved’ by his cries. Or, perhaps Benny means ‘moved’ like one ‘moves’ a book from the shelf to the table. But, God Isn’t a physical object, so of course he can’t be moved like that. All we have here is more of Ben’s display of how to be sloppy and imprecise. Lastly, how could Benjamin possibly know that our prayer wouldn’t accomplish anything? How much would you have to know to know a proposition like that? Again, Ben’s arguments are like a puddle that all the Reformed kids can stomp through with ease. The depth of the puddle is analogous to the depth of his shallow arguments.

“Perhaps Paul is saying that God decreed from eternity that the prayers of “X” would irresistibly move God to save in time. That would seem to indicate that the believer can force God to do things, which strikes me as quite contrary to Paul’s position.”

Ben tries to act like a philosopher with all his ‘perhapses’ and faux anticipation of ‘objections’ I might offer. God may have ordained the prayer of one elect person to serve as the reason he saves another elect person, in history. Also, given (a) - (o) above, the careful reader can think of dozens of other answers. I also don’t think it can be logically shown that (granting his terms) if S ‘irresistibly moves G, then S forced G.” Seems like a non-sequitur to me. ‘Forcing’ S to * usually implies that S was made to * against S’s will. That same point isn’t necessitated by ‘irresistibly move.’ So, he’s offering nothing but a non-sequitur.

“That is not to say that God could not have decreed that “X” pray for “S” but those prayers would not really be “means” at all; just the inevitable result of God’s sovereign decree.”

So let’s apply this to an unambiguous case of decree/means—Jesus death on the cross. It was decreed that Jesus would be hung upon a cross, but does this mean that the cross was not a means of Jesus execution? And, furthermore, since ‘inevitable result’ is not contradictory to ‘means,’ then Benjamin is arguing via a false dichotomy.

“The prayers of “X” can have no real influence on God since God made the infallible decision to save “S” without any consideration for the prayers that “X” would eventually make.”

Again, this is untrue and is contradictory to what almost all Reformed theologians have said concerning the subject. Ben may not like our answers, but he can at least recognize them.

“If He had, which I don’t even think is logically possible,”

Boy, that’s a tall order, care to show the logical impossibility of God decreeing that he would save S given consideration to S*’s prayers.

“then God’s choice of election was actually based on the eventual prayers of “X” which I can’t imagine any Calvinist being comfortable affirming.”

Again, this is simply sloppy and illogical. Recall that Ben speaks above about ‘any considerations for prayer’ but then says this would mean that prayer was ‘the ground’ of his election. But again, those two are not synonymous! Why would God decreeing S’s salvation by some consideration of S*’s prayer imply that S*’s prayer was the ground of S’s election?! He moves from a vague and undefined set of ‘considerations’ to a specific concept of ‘grounding.’ This is sloppy. This is, unfortunately, all to typical of Ben (and J.C. Thibodaux’s) method of arguing. Anyone with a modicum of patience can easily dismantle their specious arguments.

Now, Ben had said,

“Let us then call on the Calvinist to define ‘means.’ "

I said that I thought this was obvious. I then gave an example: “I would think the concept fairly simple to understand. If you want your friend to give you a bite of his tasty burger, you must communicate somehow. The end is the ingesting the burger, the communication of that desire was a means.”

Ben responded,

“This example is not analogous since there is no third party as in intercessory prayer."

But that doesn’t matter at all. The point was to define ‘means.’ A means is an agency, instrument, or method used to attain an end.

Now, after Mr. Roo gives the ‘pointless’ and ‘waste of time’ argument, he anticipates the ‘means’ answer and thus responds:

“Do “means” have reference to the process by which God accomplishes something? If it does then the Calvinist must still admit that believers contribute to the salvation of the elect by way of intercessory prayer. Their prayer is part of the means and therefore a contribution. If that is the case, then salvation is not monergistic as Calvinism defines it.”

Now recall that Ben doesn’t do the job of defining what ‘monergism’ is. Remember, the term is ‘ambiguous.’ But he throws caution to the wind and decides to carry on anyway. We can thus draw out what he takes to be the ‘inconsistency’ this way:

[11] Monergism states that nothing other than God contributes to someone’s salvation.

[12] Intercessory prayer contributes to someone’s salvation.

(To be more precise I guess we could add: [13] Intercessory prayer is not God. But, I hope the point is clear in my two above).

Again, I take it to have faithfully represented the thrust of Ben Kangaroo’s argument. Right off the bat, as with the others, the terms are not precise. ‘Contribute’ is pretty vague. For example:

[14] Tom contributed to the magazine.

[15] Tom does not contribute to the magazine.

Again, we can show unarticulated equivocations.

[14*] Tom contributed1 to the magazine.

[15*] Tom does not contribute2 to the magazine.

1 means: ‘give monetarily. 2 means: writes articles for. Now, I’m not saying that either sense his how he uses the term, I’m just pointing out that we’d need to get much more precise; which Ben is either unable, or unwilling to do.

Let’s move along. Let us offer a more precise definition, one Reformed theologians would agree with.

[16] Monergism: The view that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who effects regeneration of Christians. (Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms)

And we can easily see that [12] is not obviously inconsistent with [16] (I'm forgetting [12]'s vagueness for the moment). We can also note some distinctions. For example, the efficient cause is not the same as the final cause—the praise of His glory. So, Ben needs an argument to the effect that ‘intercessory prayer effects the salvation of a sinner.' I don’t see how this is possible, minus straw men and mischaracterizations. By way of analogy. Say I was an artist. I could mold beautiful clay pots. Say I had a child and I told him, ‘All you have to do is ask, and I will make you the pot.’ Now, one day the child musters up the courage and asks me to make him a glazed piggy bank. I then go into my pottery shop and make the piggy bank. Ben Kangaroo’s argument would be that my son effected the making of the pot. But this is absurd. His request was a means or a reason for why I chose to effect that particular pot (and, indeed, I had always planned on making it but wouldn’t until he asked me!). Or another analogy: The mail man is 'part of the process' in the whole 'filing your income taxes process' (at least he always was 20 years ago!, I trust the point analogy stands). But, they are not the effecting cause in my (say in my case) getting a return depostied into my bank account. Same with my tax agent. They are 'part of the process.' But, they are not the effective cause of, say, what I owe. The Reformed argument has never been that there is no other thing whatever that is 'involved' or 'part of the process' in our regeneration etc. We don't even deny that there is no other cause whatever involved since we believe that faith is an instrumental cause. Ben has only succeeded to argue against a made-up version of Calvinism. That's all he's done in the past, done with me, and will continue to do.

Conclusion

Yum, that was tasty!

The fact of the matter is, there’s no inconsistency between the propositions Ben wants to say exist an inconsistency. Ben said, “Since monergism means ‘to work alone’ then I fail to see how this is ‘assumption.’” Indeed, I went into the shop and ‘worked alone’ (I’m working with his imprecise definitions) when making the clay pottery for my son. Furthermore, in (c) above I demonstrated that prayer was an expression of faith, and Ben says faith isn't a work! So, on his own terms, he's refuted himself...again. Actually, he’s committing a root word fallacy (Cf. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies). There’s more to the term than the root of its parts.) Unfortunately Ben and his cronies offer a lot of rhetoric and simplistic sophisms in lieu of rational, cogent argumentation. Their hatred of Calvinism causes their many errors. Running on emotion, trying to see through a blinding haze of antipathy towards the God of the Bible, the frequently run into brick wall after brick wall. In conclusion, I issue a public challenge to Ben, since the above obviously, objectively, and decisively shows that your charge of inconsistency has not (and I say cannot) be established, will you admit that what you set out to prove (via the very title of your post) has not been proved, and indeed has been outright refuted? You can at least show that you are objective and are humble enough to admit when you are wrong. Your refusal to admit this should cause all sides—both Arminians and Calvinists—to read your posts with a high degree of suspicion towards any idea that you (a) even understand your Calvinist opponent and (b) that you’re intellectually honest with the facts. And, lastly, I know you will continue to hold to your Arminian theology, but note that it’s not because of any alleged stellar reasons in favor if it. Calvinism is the position that fits best with all the data of Scripture. It even explains Arminianism, viz., man’s hatred of a truly sovereign God and his impossible law.

59 comments:

  1. KD said:
    "This seems like a lot of assertion and is very confusing. I am not familiar with any passages of Scripture which say that Jesus purchased or acquired our personal faith."


    I was hoping you'd mention this, Paul. I thought KD was a defender of Arminianism. Apparently, he's unfamilar with his own theology.

    Prevenient Grace (UPG), in Arminian theology is often construed as a benefit of the cross. To quote Schriener in his critique of UPG: A second argument employed by Wesleyans is that prevenient grace is granted in the atonement of Christ (e.g., Tit. 2:11; John 12:32).[35] This argument is bound up with the universality of Christ’s atonement. His death for all necessarily implies that grace is given to some extent to all. The argument is that Christ would not die for all unless all were granted the opportunity to accept or reject him. John 12:32 can be understood as supporting this theory. Jesus says, ”But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” Henry Thiessen says about this verse, ”There issues a power from the cross of Christ that goes out to all men, though many continue to resist that power.”[36] In the death of Christ grace is operative so that all people are ”drawn” (helkuo) to him. The drawing does not guarantee salvation but makes it possible,[37] supporting the idea that grace is given in the atonement that reverses the total inability of people to choose God. In addition, it should be pointed out that John 12:32 refers to ”all people” (pantas). The grace given in the atonement is not limited to some but is universally distributed, giving all people everywhere the opportunity to respond or reject it.

    [35] So, e.g., Miley, Systematic Theology, 2:247; Wiley, Christian Theology, 2:353; Adam Clarke, Christian Theology (New York: Eaton and Mams, 1835), 117; Wood, ”Theology of Grace,” 216; Langford, Practical Divinity, 34; Smith, ”Prevenient Grace,” 75; Lindstrom, Wesley and Sanctification, 49; Dunning, Grace, Faith, and Holiness, 339.

    [36] Thiessen, Systematic Theology, 261.

    [37] Cf. Grant R. Osborne, ”Sotenology in the Gospel of John,” in The Grace of God, the Will of Man: A Case for Armmianism, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989),
    249.

    Let's carefully present this:

    According to Calvinism, this grace is particular, not universal, effacious, not ineffacious. It is manifested as regeneration/effectual calling, creates the disposition to believe when presented with the right object (Christ), and faith is the inevitable and, according to most of our theologians, immediate result.

    According to his own theology, the cross purchases UPG. UPG frees men's wills from the bondage of sin. Ergo, in order to avoid the charge that faith is made into a work (eg. meritorious condition), the Arminian ascribes faith to UPG.

    In both theologies, this grace is a benefit of the atonement and is applied by the Spirit. It's purchased, to use KD's own words, by Christ via the cross. This shouldn't even be a point of contention, so if he's unaware of these Scriptures and the corresponding arguments, I strongly suggest he familarize himself with his own theologians.

    So now who is being inconsistent? If he'd like to admit that faith arises not from UPG, which is, in turn rightly described as a benefit of the atonement, I'm sure Paul, Steve, Bernabe, Pike, and I will accept that admission.

    "I agree completely, and that is why all grounds of boasting are cut off since faith is the receiving of a free gift and total reliance on another.

    Wrong precisely because of UPG. Remember, you can't have faith apart from UPG. Again, KD, follow the bouncing ball. You're an Arminian, and you're an Arminian committed to the concept of UPG.

    1. UPG makes the Arminian category of total inability, which they claim to hold in common with Calvinists, cease to be a functional category. It's UNIVERSAL prevenient grace,and it is generally construed to be given to all men without exception and in equal measure.

    2. As a result men are, they say, freed from the bondage of sin upon their wills. But this freedom only goes so far, for it means that their wills are now free in a libertarian sense.

    3. LFW is really just another way of saying "ability limits responsibility," and Arminians are committed to LFW.

    4. It's therefore true, according to you, that if men don't have LFW, then they cannot be held accountable to God for rejecting the Gospel.


    5. Let's follow the argument then: If LFW is necessary for men to be held accountable on the basis that "ability limits responsibility," and UPG is necessary for men to have LFW, then if men do not have LFW, they can demand it or hold God accountable for injustice. So, if that's so, God MUST provide the means (LFW by way of UPG) for man to have the ability to believe or not believe, given the command to repent and believe.

    6. Therefore, man has right to demand such means, which thereby negates the Arminian statement that they cannot boast due to UPG. The means (UPG) to the means to believe or disbelieve (LFW) in the agents (men) is no longer properly called grace. Why? Because grace is not something that we can demand. I like the way Turretinfan has recently stated this: if the question is whether God provides the means, then the question is whether God must provide such means, given the command. If so, then He does not provide the means freely, and consequently it is not properly called grace, since man would have a right to demand such means.

    7. Therefore, faith derived from LFW is no longer a simple instrumental condition that must be fulfilled, even if it is construed simply as "trusting completely in another." At best, it is implicitly a meritorious condition, at worst, explicitly so, for it is conditioned upon UPG, which is not properly called grace, for it is something men can demand from God, or else they can charge God with injustice.

    KD, you keep repeating the mantra that faith is not a work and then you cite the definition of faith. Here's the problem with that argument: You're misunderstanding the Calvinist objection. We do not object to you over the definition of faith. Rather, we raise this objection due to the source of faith according to your theology.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I haven't seen someone worked over like that since I last watched the Godfather. Good post!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Two things stand out in this post for me. One, alot of blather.
    Two, the amusing concept (the sniping picture) that Calvinists are happy to portray themselves as "militant".

    Please, don't make us all laugh.

    Maybe one of you guys (starting with Mr. Hays) would like to assemble a list (blog roll if you will) of those nibble fingered zealots who actually donned a uniform and served their country (in other words: a guy who actually walked the tough talk).

    We'll all be waiting with baited breath, I'm sure, for the result to see just how patriotic and stand up you folks really are.

    Take your time with the list.

    On the other hand if you apply the term militant just as it relates soley to Christ and not of a secular nature (a wish to help defend our country) then we'll let you off the hook and you can then go ahead and puff out your collective chests and pretend to talk tough (like little boys in a back yard with BB guns).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Honestly, Rick -- what a stupid reply. This guy writes a huge essay about monergism vs. synergism, and the only thing you can think of to say is to sneer that Calvinists aren't in the army. This is the sort of foolishness that makes people not take the average Arminian debater seriously. It's George Bryson-quality-level bad.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rick,

    It's even worse than you thought. If you skim Paul's article without reading it again, you'll notice that he also included a picture of a kangaroo carcass. I'd like to see Steve Hays present a list of all of the Triablogue staff who have hunted kangaroo. I doubt that any of them have. They like having the image of kangaroo hunters, but they don't walk the walk. How can we trust anything they say about Calvinism (or any other subject, for that matter)?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rick,

    'a lot of blather' isn't a philosophical criticism.

    Speaking for myself, I was a Navy Corpsman, injured my knee while going through Navy SEAL training, evenetually causing my discharge (honorible).

    So, if you'd like, I can, in the spirit of helping my neighbor, pay for a dentist to dislodge your foot from your mouth? Only if you want, that is. I'd be more than happy having your chest pouding, tough-guy-behind-the-keyboard, self-righteous and pompous internet Chuch Norris keeping silent.

    Oh, by the way, the picture was intended (a) to liven up the post and (b) to illustrate *hunting.* Hunting Kangaroos, that is. So, I take it that you're also against 'hunting.' In this case, hunting for food (if you take the title into account). So, either you're a vegitarian, or you'd rather pay a hit man to do your dirty work. So, what is it, are you a militant member of PETA, infiltrating our blog in order to condemn poaching Kangaroo's for purposes of making stew, or did you not take the time to attach the tidea in my post to the picture? That is, you lack the virtues of patience and self-control?

    And, lastly, since my post made clear that the guy was not militray, but was hunting Roo (he was hunting Roo from a half mile away, given he's using a 50 cal. sniper rifle, of course!), why did you jump on the 'military' thing so quickly? Looks like you're the one infatuated with the military.

    Run along now Rick, your comments are off topic for my blog post, and I'm not going to serve as ythe soapbox and mouthpiece for your 'agenda.' Tired of radicals and their 'agendas.'

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rick said:

    "Maybe one of you guys (starting with Mr. Hays) would like to assemble a list (blog roll if you will) of those nibble fingered zealots who actually donned a uniform and served their country (in other words: a guy who actually walked the tough talk)."

    Well, that's a very intriguing theological criterion. Are you saying that we can dismiss any Arminian theologian or Bible commentator unless he did his tour of duty in the armed forces?

    What about Ben Witherington? Or Jerry Walls? Or John Wesley?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Speaking for me....

    I've played Call of Duty 4.

    :-P

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It was still a long post, but worth it. Excellent response.

    Roo said:"“Do “means” have reference to the process by which God accomplishes something? If it does then the Calvinist must still admit that believers contribute to the salvation of the elect by way of intercessory prayer. Their prayer is part of the means and therefore a contribution. If that is the case, then salvation is not monergistic as Calvinism defines it.”

    Does Ben actually think that his prayers contribute to someone else's salvation?

    In other words, my salvation is not just dependent on my free choice to accept God's gift, but I may not be saved if no one has prayed that I will? So now my salvation isn't just dependent on my cooperation but the cooperation of others (or, I could end up in hell partly b/c no one ever prayed for me). Since Arminians are so fond of the "fairness" of these situations, I wonder how that type of method is fair?

    I can't imagine he thinks his prayers are saving others who may not have been saved otherwise. Hopefully this was just a poor argument to try and refute Calvinism.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  12. John Lofton, your copy and paste job had absolutely nothing to do with my post. You don't get to use my combox for your soapbox, especially if your comments have zero in common with the thoughts expressed in my post. Future irrelevant comments will also be deleated. Have a nice day.

    ReplyDelete
  13. it seems at this point almost to be an impossible task to post a comment on here without sounding sarcastic or passive aggressive so you will just have to take my word for it that I am sincere in my desire to understand and not to argue one way or another. as lame as it sounds I do strive for unity. my question is if God commands us to pray for the loss yet he has already decided who will and will not be saved, why? I don't know God to be a God who wants us to walk through the motions for the sake of walking through the motions. I get the power of prayer in building intimacy with God and reliance, but I don't see how that would be anything other than semantics. I work towards obedience in scripture so if that was God's desire for me I would and will do it. I just think I need to ask the question behind the motive to understand the calvinistic point of view as I am not willing to stick my flag in either camp.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jagas,

    'my question is if God commands us to pray for the loss yet he has already decided who will and will not be saved, why?'

    I'm not sure if you read the post or not, but, among other things, this is precisely one of the questions I answer. You can start with (a) -- (o). You can also read the comments on means.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I read most of it including (a)-(o). I follow the point you are making which I think answers the bigger question of importance in praying for all things and the benifits to the christian in doing so. What I am still wrestling with is specifically why pray "Lord S is not redeemed. I ask Father that you redeem is soul, transform his heart...and so on" What benefit to S is there in me praying for him if God has already decided his fate?

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. ok, but wouldn't one argue that when we pray we are asking God to take into consideration his childrens petitions in a way that He might not without us having done so? if that is the case:

    "Think of it like praying for healing. We don't know in advance if God will heal. But we pray that it would happen. If it doesn't happen, we can rest that it was God's will that it not happen."

    wouldn't that again mean that God is interacting with US through prayer but our prayers have no benifit to the sick or lost?

    I guess this is where I am missing the boat, from the calvinistic point of view I totally get the benifits for me to pray in regards to my walk, but I don't get how my prayers help others if it has been predetermined what will happen to them? By definition that would mean regardless of whether or not I pray God is going to do to others what He is going to do.

    what am I missing?

    ReplyDelete
  19. "I guess this is where I am missing the boat, from the calvinistic point of view I totally get the benifits for me to pray in regards to my walk, but I don't get how my prayers help others if it has been predetermined what will happen to them? By definition that would mean regardless of whether or not I pray God is going to do to others what He is going to do.
    what am I missing?"

    Calvinism teaches that God ordains both the ends and the means to those ends. That means that your prayer was ordained to come to pass.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "That means that your prayer was ordained to come to pass."

    but so would my lack there of also then.

    truly I am not trying to argue just to argue. I am just trying to grasp this from a calvanist point of view.

    so as a calvanist I would say, "I pray because something is leading me to pray (whether that is the Holy Spirit or emotions) and what God does with it has been predetermined so I can take comfort in knowing that God's will be done?

    does not seem very interactive to be honest. It seems like you just throw the prayers up and if they stick then it was God's will and if they don't then it was God's will. I feel like this misses the feverent passion that comes with "wrestling" with God. Again this is in the context of praying for others. not trying to denigrate your pray life or anything hard core like that :) just trying to think of what it would feel like for me

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Jagis,

    "I read most of it including (a)-(o). I follow the point you are making which I think answers the bigger question of importance in praying for all things and the benifits to the christian in doing so. What I am still wrestling with is specifically why pray "Lord S is not redeemed. I ask Father that you redeem is soul, transform his heart...and so on" What benefit to S is there in me praying for him if God has already decided his fate?"

    The terms are vague. For example, it might be 'benefit' S (the sinner) to know that, even though she disagrees, someone cares enough for her to, if it were true, offer supplications on her behalf to God.

    I'm not sure how you're using 'benefit.' Are you asking how it would 'benefit' S *salvifically?* Well, it wouldn't. But so what. How do your prayers benefit someone *slavifically* if they never because saved?

    I'd also point out that it was prophesied that Judas would betray Jesus. This was predetermined. Do you think, then, Jesus never prayed for Judas? Also, Jesus had to be murdured. What benefit did his prayers for all those who murdered him have for them?

    Anyway, at the very least, I'd say you need to get a lot more specific.

    I'll also add that I pointed out that it is possible that God could use our prayers for the lost as a means to heap judgment on them. To point show that they had no excuse for rejecting him. So, it could 'benefit' them 'judgemtally.' I know we might not like to think like that, but of course the God of the Bible is not the weak and wimpy god of many Americans---the nice grandfatherly type.

    "but I don't get how my prayers help others if it has been predetermined what will happen to them? By definition that would mean regardless of whether or not I pray God is going to do to others what He is going to do.
    what am I missing?"


    I specifically answered this 'regardless of whether I pray' quip in my post. I suggest printing it off, picking up a coffee, and reading it so that the discussion can be more profitable.

    ReplyDelete
  23. by the way I am really appreciating the dialogue...

    ReplyDelete
  24. Jagas,

    ""That means that your prayer was ordained to come to pass."

    but so would my lack there of also then."


    That's a non-sequitur.

    "so as a calvanist I would say, "I pray because something is leading me to pray (whether that is the Holy Spirit or emotions) and what God does with it has been predetermined so I can take comfort in knowing that God's will be done?"

    No, again, my post would answer many of these questions you have. I even pray when nothing is 'leading' me to pray. We are commanded to pray. And, we are to pray for and about all things...whether we have a 'feeling' or not.

    "does not seem very interactive to be honest. It seems like you just throw the prayers up and if they stick then it was God's will and if they don't then it was God's will."

    Argument by 'seems to me.' Argument by caricature.

    "I feel like this misses the feverent passion that comes with "wrestling" with God. Again this is in the context of praying for others. not trying to denigrate your pray life or anything hard core like that :) just trying to think of what it would feel like for me"

    God can ordain that S be saved through a *multitued* of prayers. So this objection falls flat.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "but so would my lack there of also then.
    truly I am not trying to argue just to argue. I am just trying to grasp this from a calvanist point of view."

    I think BB and Paul have covered this in their last few comments, but just to make sure you get it...

    Whenever, you are trying to comprehend the Calvinist system, remember that Calvinism is a compatibilist belief (freedom and determinism are compatible). So, don't think in the either/or categories of libertarian free-will OR robot determinism.

    God's ordaining something to come to pass does not, of itself, cause the event to occur. Most of God's Providence happens through secondary means (Acts 2 & 4 I forgot the exact verses). In those two verses, the men who crucified Jesus are called "wicked", and in the same breath, Peter tells them that God "predestined" the event to occur.

    So, while God ordained your prayer from eternity past (and that without fail), you freely chose to pray it. [Again, when you think "free", don't think of LFW. Think in terms of compatibilist or semi-compatibilist freedom. If you don't know what those are, then I'm sure that BB or Paul will be able to guide you through it.]

    ReplyDelete
  27. Jagis,


    You are only wasting your time asking "strict monergists" why they pray for others to be saved. They don't know.

    It is better to ask a synergist or a soft monergist.


    It is pointless to pray for the lost if you are a strict monergist.......infact, if you are a strict monergist then the only reason why one would pray is only because it's a duty to do so........you know, you have to do it because that's what a christian is suppose to do ......I don't think they pray because they really believe it helps in any way.

    scripture says:

    2nd Corinthians 1:11

    "as you help us by your prayers. Then many will give thanks on our behalf for the gracious favor granted us in answer to the prayers of many."

    1.) Our prayers actually help

    2.) God actually answers our Prayer


    A strict monergist can't really believe that our prayers can help save someone.




    JNORM888

    ReplyDelete
  28. Jnorm888 said...

    Jagis,

    You are only wasting your time asking "strict monergists" why they pray for others to be saved. They don't know.


    These are comments that addressed in my post. I'll trust Jagis can see who is actually trying to honestly deal with his questions and who isn't. And it aint the Calvinist whi isn't!

    "It is better to ask a synergist or a soft monergist."

    Knowing *why* you pray isn't that interesting of a question in the context of our discussion. Indeed, Jagis isn't even asking *why* we pray. You could at least do him the common courtesy of actually taking the time to understand what he's asking. Again, I hope Jagis is struck by how one side answers and interacts with his questions and how the other side does(n't).

    "It is pointless to pray for the lost if you are a strict monergist.......infact, if you are a strict monergist then the only reason why one would pray is only because it's a duty to do so........you know, you have to do it because that's what a christian is suppose to do ......I don't think they pray because they really believe it helps in any way."

    Again, comments that would have been answered had my post been consulted. I wonder if Jnorm888 is the same guy who leaves all those reviews on Amazon criticizing books that he has obviously never read.

    "2nd Corinthians 1:11

    "as you help us by your prayers. Then many will give thanks on our behalf for the gracious favor granted us in answer to the prayers of many."

    1.) Our prayers actually help

    2.) God actually answers our Prayer

    A strict monergist can't really believe that our prayers can help save someone."


    Again, comments my post answered. You're doing nothing to build my confidence that internet Arminians can comprehend what they read, construct a decent argument, and face real opponents rather than caricatures.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I read the first half of your post.

    You lost me halfway through so I jumped down to the last part.


    I'll go back and read it again. It's hard to get through your smart remarks.


    Jagis said:

    "What I am still wrestling with is specifically why pray "Lord S is not redeemed. I ask Father that you redeem is soul, transform his heart...and so on" What benefit to S is there in me praying for him if God has already decided his fate?"


    and


    "does not seem very interactive to be honest. It seems like you just throw the prayers up and if they stick then it was God's will and if they don't then it was God's will. I feel like this misses the feverent passion that comes with "wrestling" with God. Again this is in the context of praying for others. not trying to denigrate your pray life or anything hard core like that :) just trying to think of what it would feel like for me"

    As well as

    "I guess this is where I am missing the boat, from the calvinistic point of view I totally get the benifits for me to pray in regards to my walk, but I don't get how my prayers help others if it has been predetermined what will happen to them? By definition that would mean regardless of whether or not I pray God is going to do to others what He is going to do."



    This is why I said what I said.




    Oh, and I only did about 2 or 3 reviews on Amazon.com and yes I have read all the books I reviewed.....as well the books I didn't review.




    But you said:

    "God can ordain that S be saved through a *multitued* of prayers. So this objection falls flat."


    Why do you feel that God will ordain that S be saved through a "multitude" of prayers?

    What do you mean by "multitude"?

    Do you mean by the one person? Or by many people?


    Why can't God do it with one prayer by the person? Why can't God do it for one person?


    And even if God did ordain that S be saved through a "multitude" of prayers.....I don't see how that answers he question.


    But I'll go back and reread your post.



    JNORM888

    ReplyDelete
  30. "You are only wasting your time asking "strict monergists" why they pray for others to be saved. They don't know."

    Or perhaps you're ignorant since you conflate soft determinism with hard determinism.

    "if you are a strict monergist then the only reason why one would pray is only because it's a duty to do so"

    Even if that were the case (which its not), then that would still be a good enough reason.

    "1.) Our prayers actually help
    2.) God actually answers our Prayer
    A strict monergist can't really believe that our prayers can help save someone."

    Again, the false antithesis between LFW and hard determinism. There is no acknowledgment that the Calvinist believes that while God ordains the ends and the means, God providentially brings about the means (ie, prayer) throught the freely chosen actions of His creatures. To assume that this cannot happen simply begs the very question under dispute.

    ReplyDelete
  31. A strict monergist can't really believe that our prayers can help save someone.

    This is a boldfaced lie. You're confusing monergism with fate. In fate, the determined outcome happens no matter what you do. Predestination and fate are not convertible. For a person who claims to be able to refute Calvinism, you display a manifest inability to grasp that simple truth.
    This is no better than saying that since persons have been elected from eternity past there is no use in preaching the gospel to them. That's hyper-Calvinist logic.

    In case you haven't noticed, Arminians/Libertarians and Hyper-Calvinists are in common cause. I find it mildly amusing that Arminians try to tar Calvinism with HyperCalvinist thinking, when, in point of fact, Hyperism and Arminianism both accept the axiom that ability limits responsibility.

    If you think that LFW is required for prayers to be effective, let's see the supporting argument. How can prayers be effective if people have LFW? According to that action theory, the best God can do is "woo" a person's salvation. He can't and actually won't save anybody at all. So, all the prayers in the world to change a man's heart won't do anything. God won't actually change a man's heart. He'll "woo" his heart.

    Jagis said: "What I am still wrestling with is specifically why pray "Lord S is not redeemed. I ask Father that you redeem is soul, transform his heart...and so on" What benefit to S is there in me praying for him if God has already decided his fate?

    Jagis, perhaps what you're missing is the difference between God's secret will and God's preceptive will (Deut. 29:29). God ordains all things that come to pass. This is his secret or decretive will. His decrees are often undisclosed, like the decree of election.

    God makes His decrees come about by way of providence. Providence speaks to means, causality. Decrees speak to certainty, nothing more. Like a blueprint, a decree does nothing by itself. God's decrees are never undone. He does not have a "Plan A" and a "Plan B" that are constantly changing.

    Now, with that in mind, we can answer your question by comparing and contrasting the concept of predestination with the concept of fate.


    This is fatalism:
    • If it is fated for you to recover from your illness, then you will recover whether you call a doctor or not.
    • Likewise, if you are fated not to recover, you will not do so even if you call a doctor.
    • So, calling a doctor makes no difference, even if God has commanded sick people to call doctors.

    Fatalism says all events will happen, regardless of our choices. Calvinism is not the same as fatalism. In fatalism, Oedipus cannot escape his fate, try as he might. Indeed, he fulfills his fate by trying to avoid it. He is at the mercy of the impersonal forces of the universe. In Calvinism, the reprobate are not trying to escape their fate. Indeed, they regard themselves as masters of their own destiny. In short, fatalism says that God accomplishes his purpose apart from the will of man. In other words, the ends occur regardless of the means. God fulfills his plan regardless of the will of man. But this is not Calvinism. Calvinism, however, states that God accomplishes his will through the will of man; God controls both the ends and the means.

    Calvinism looks like this:
    • If it is determined for you to recover from your illness, then you will call for a doctor.
    • Likewise, if you are fated not to recover, you will not call a doctor.
    • So, calling a doctor makes a difference, and we have a command from God: if you are sick, call a doctor.

    Ron Hanko rightly notes:

    The [fatalist], then, makes the same mistake as the Arminians and free-willists, only he draws a different conclusion. Both think that to command or demand repentance and faith of dead sinners must imply that such sinners are not dead and have in themselves the ability to repent and believe. The free-willist says, then: "To command must imply ability, therefore, men have the ability." The [fatalist] says: "To command must imply ability, therefore we will not command any but the elect."

    ReplyDelete
  32. Wow! That was quite a 'fonging'!!!

    I warned Ben that this was going to happen!

    LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ok I read it all. Your arguments about personal benefits in regards to the one that prays has nothing to do with what Ben was talking about.

    This would make it seem as if a Calvinist prays for the lost because of personal benefits, and not because he/she really wants that person to be saved.

    But you didn't stop there. Which was a good thing. You went on to say that God ordains the means as well as the end. I think Ben's post was from a free will perspective.

    Now this is the tricky part. If you believe that your prayer is the process by which God saves a lost person then

    "believers contribute to the salvation of the elect"

    You say that this is only a "means" and not an effect. If you helped in the process of someone being saved then you were part of the cause......part of the influence.



    Paul,

    How do you understand monergism in regards to "you" being part of the process?

    Is it "God working for you"?

    or

    "God working in you"?


    If it's "God working in you", is His working in you "resistible" or "irresistible"?


    If iressistible then how are you authentically part of the process?

    And if ressistible then how can you still call it "monergy"?




    JNORM888

    ReplyDelete
  34. Saint and sinner,


    There are diferent kinds of Calvinists.


    It's not my fault you all don't believe the same.


    But yes, it was my fault for not reading the whole post. I admit that and I am sorry for rushing.


    I should have more respect for the Calvinists at Triablogue. I should be more patient.


    Please forgive me. I was trying to defend Ben. Next time I will take my time.




    JNORM888

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Please forgive me. I was trying to defend Ben. Next time I will take my time."

    Thanks. I'll try not to get so irritated next time. Sorry.

    "There are diferent kinds of Calvinists."

    I'm aware that there are Amyraldians, but they would hold to compatibilism as well. I'm also aware that there are hyper-Calvinists, but I (and Calvin as well!) would not say that they are Calvinist in any sense of the word except semantically. [In fact, some hyper-Calvinists consider Calvin to be a heretic!]

    Other than that, I don't know what you're talking about.

    "How do you understand monergism in regards to "you" being part of the process?"

    Paul can give his own answers to these questions, but I'll answer a few of them myself.

    When the Calvinist says "Monergism", he is specifically referring to Election, Regeneration, and Perseverance. [If I left anything out, someone please tell me.]

    Regeneration restores the Imago Dei in man to its pre-lapsarian, un-marred state and convicts man of his sin. As a result, the believer freely believes (though without fail). This results in justification which, in turn, results in union with Christ. This is why some Calvinists refer to faith as a "gift" even though it is actually *our* faith which *we* actually believe.

    Sanctification, on the other hand, is synergistic. [However, sanctification in Protestant theology is not the same as justification or deification in RC and EO theology, respectively.] It can go backwards or forwards.

    "You say that this is only a "means" and not an effect. If you helped in the process of someone being saved then you were part of the cause......part of the influence."

    Yes, but God ordained this part of the influence.

    Remember, this is compatibilism you are trying to critique, here. The claim is both that God alone ordains that a certain group be saved (originating this selection of men from within Himself) AND that believers' freely-made (again, defined in terms of compatibilist freedom) prayers contribute to the salvation of others.

    "If iressistible then how are you authentically part of the process?"

    You're going to have to define "authentically". If what you mean by authentically refers to LFW, then you're begging the question against compatibilist freedom since we would say that compatibilist freedom is just as "authentic" (if not more) than LFW.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Jnorm888 said...
    I read the first half of your post.

    You lost me halfway through so I jumped down to the last part.


    I'll go back and read it again. It's hard to get through your smart remarks."


    It's hard to get through your straw men and bald faced lies. It's hard to get through your smart alec comments about 'don't ask them why they pray, they don't even know.' Why are all you Arminians so high and mighty about how we treat you when you guys do exactly the same? You're not gaining any sympathy, and your stupid comments only invite even smarter comments.


    [snip quotes from Jagis]

    "This is why I said what I said."


    Jnorm, none of his quotes had anything to do with 'why we pray.' They had to do with 'how does your prayer for someone else benefit that someone else?'. You've shown that you don't understand Calvinism, my arguments in my post, or Jagis' questions. You're 0 for 3. Next batter!

    "But you said:

    'God can ordain that S be saved through a *multitude* of prayers. So this objection falls flat.'

    Why do you feel that God will ordain that S be saved through a "multitude" of prayers?"


    Follow the bouncing ball: Jagis implied that we just throw up a single prayer and hope it stick rather than wrestling, via myriad prayers. Now, if God ordained that he would save a sinner via many prayers, then we would experience the 'wrestling' (whatever he means by that, I assume constant prayer even in the face of many seeming 'No's'.

    Next, I don't understand what you mean by why I *feel* that God will ordain that a sinner will be saved through many prayers. I think it is obvious since most people I've heard of, including myself, were prayed for many, many times. So, if my position is correct, God ordained that the sinner be saved via all those prayers. This also has the effect of causing the Christian to continue in faith to pray to God, continue to trust him, continue to come to him, commune with him. This removes the slot machine concept many Arminians seem to have. So, given that I 'feel' that Calvinism is true, and that I 'feel' that God saves people usually after many prayers, I thus 'feel' that he use a multitude of prayers as means for his bringing about the sinner's conversion. Your objection simply confuses *de jure* categories with *de facto* ones, then.

    "What do you mean by "multitude"?"

    Well, we can start with: more than one.

    "Do you mean by the one person? Or by many people?"

    Do you frequently commit the fallacy of false dichotomy? It could be one person. Or many. Or by the one and many others. One person could prayer many prayers. Or, many people could pray one prayer. Or, one person could pray many while many prayed one. But I'm not too bothered with how God chose to plan it all out. I kinda trust that he picks the best plan to instantiate.

    "Why can't God do it with one prayer by the person? Why can't God do it for one person?"

    He can do any thing he wants. Why didn't God make Adam and Eve like we will be in heaven. or, do you think we will still be able actualize a sinful alternative possibility in heaven? Why, why, why? And, my comment simply was in the context of Jagis' question about wrestling. If God does decree that a sinner is saved by my many hours of prayer, then the objection fell flat. It seems to me that this is how things go (I don't know about you, but I don't just pray once and the next day get a call that so and so converted), and so the objection fell flat.

    "And even if God did ordain that S be saved through a "multitude" of prayers.....I don't see how that answers he question."

    Well, that's because you need to get that hamster in your noggin to start running on the wheel a little faster. If I pray for hours and hours, pleading with God to save some sinner S, constantly coming to him like the widow in Luke 18, then I've hardly 'thrown up a prayer and hope it stuck.' That's how it answered the question.

    "Jnorm888 said...
    Ok I read it all. Your arguments about personal benefits in regards to the one that prays has nothing to do with what Ben was talking about."


    I don't believe that you read it. And, you cite me not once, you don't interact with any of my arguments, you make a vague reference to 'benefits' and what 'Ben was talking about.' I don't think I specifically mentioned the word 'benefits' and Ben talked about a lot of things. At any rate, if you read rather than skimmed (at best), then you'd note that all my comments pointed out that his terms were sloppy and vague and ambiguous. Given their level of abstractness, I definitely showed how prayer was (a) not pointless and (b) not a waste of time. That's what I intended to show, and that's what I did show. If you think that my (a) --> (o) points still make prayer 'pointless' and 'a waste of time' then I feel sorry for you.

    "This would make it seem as if a Calvinist prays for the lost because of personal benefits, and not because he/she really wants that person to be saved."

    That's not at all the case, and it is also a flat-out lie. I did say that we want the lost to be saved. Indeed, that's one of the reasons we pray. Prayer actually causes things to happen. We don't believe God is the only cause in the universe. You are plain ignorant of Reformed theology. Let me quote from a standard confession:

    Chapter III
    Of God's Eternal Decree
    I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

    Prayer changes things. Prayer causes things to happen. This is what the Reformed have always believed and argued voluminously about. See our systematics texts. See specific books we've written on the subject.

    You're a dishonest debater Jnorm. Is this how bad off Arminianism is? They have to sink to the level of flat out lies and complete ignorancy?

    "But you didn't stop there. Which was a good thing. You went on to say that God ordains the means as well as the end. I think Ben's post was from a free will perspective."

    I don’t care what perspective his post was from. Your comment proves how lost you are. 'Wake up, McFly! You're a slacker.' Ben was arguing for an INCONSISTENCY. See that? That is, he tried to argue that from withIN our position, we don't have CONSISTENCY. So, your attempt to be a messiah for Ben only made his argument look worse, if what you say is correct. But I don't even think Ben is that bad a thinker to argue externally when trying to prove internal tension.

    "Now this is the tricky part. If you believe that your prayer is the process by which God saves a lost person then

    "believers contribute to the salvation of the elect"


    Right, just like I thought. You didn't read my post. I utterly refuted this vague, sloppy, ambiguous, 'contribute' nonsense. I laid out the premises with precision and showed how now inconsistency could be drawn. Show where my work was wrong. Don’t just re-assert Ben's poor argument as if I said NOTHING in response to it.

    "You say that this is only a "means" and not an effect. If you helped in the process of someone being saved then you were part of the cause......part of the influence."

    Reformed have never denied any of this. For example, faith is an instrumental cause in our justification. We've always said these things. You're arguing against a straw man. Makes you feel good to beat up on those weaker then you, huh?

    "Paul,

    How do you understand monergism in regards to "you" being part of the process?


    I defined 'monergism' in my post.

    "Is it "God working for you"? or "God working in you"? If it's "God working in you", is His working in you "resistible" or "irresistible"? If iressistible then how are you authentically part of the process? And if ressistible then how can you still call it "monergy"?

    What are you even talking about now? We were talking about prayer for someone else. And how *that* was inconsistent with monergism. Now you've switched to talking about me. In what respect? Are we done with the prayer thing now? You really need to start taking your time and being more precise. You're all over the map. And, I also pointed out the flaw in your guys' stupid argument from the root words of monergism. There's much more to it than simply saying 'one worker.' As we define it, in the sense we use it, there is only one effective cause in regeneration. Oh, why not drop the vague terminology. 'Part of the process.' the 'mail man' is 'part of the process' in my sending my income tax return to the IRS, are they then the effective cause in my return from the IRS? QED Seriously Jnorm, don't even bother if you can't afford us the courtesy of thinking clearly.

    Thanks for showing the sad state of affairs Arminian internet apologists are in.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Wow, not only was Ben soundly refuted but now JNORM888 has come to be shown his erroneous views as well. What is amazing to witness in all of this is that the Arminian just keeps coming saying the same things over and over. I have not seen them address Manata's post and Genebridges first comment put the final nail in their coffin, yet they still can not see.

    This is good stuff, thank you for showing their error to people.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Actually, if I recall correctly, JNORM888 is EO.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Thanks for the clarification Saint. I didn't think it was possible to lower my expectations of EO internet apologists, but thanks to Jnorm888, he's done that with style.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I said: "Oh, why not drop the vague terminology. 'Part of the process.' the 'mail man' is 'part of the process' in my sending my income tax return to the IRS, are they then the effective cause in my return from the IRS? QED"

    Let me remove some of my own vagueness.

    The mail man is 'part of the process' in the whole 'filing your income taxes process' (at least he always was 20 years ago!, I trust the analogy stays). But, they are not the effecting cause in my (say in my case) getting a return this year. Same with my tax agent. They are 'part of the process.' But, they are not the effective cause of my moneys deposted into my account due to overtaxing.

    I take it that this is a decisive rebuttal

    ReplyDelete
  41. It is always interesting to read these discussions as the Arminian argument usually boils down to a rejection of God's sovereignty. I don't think they would admit to that flat out, but that is what they are resisting.

    As I read the opposing comments I hear "I want my prayers to be the cause of the effect". It is a control issue and I think it is just human nature. Being a part of God's purpose, being a "means" is just not good enough for us, we want to be in charge. However, that leaves us effectively with a God who isn't in control and that idea is frightening.

    I can sympathesize with the Arminian struggle grasping this stuff, I still struggle with the concepts. It is a very different way of thinking and we have to be submissive to the truth and not our own need for autonomy. As I have seen Gene ask many a time, where is the scriptural support for LFW? I have yet to see anyone attempt to answer that question.

    From a personal POV, applying a Calvinist perspective to praying for the lost and its effect, I take joy in the fact that God has chosen to use me to effective the salvation of others. I don't need to "wrestle" with God and win - I am in awe that he would even use me and am very thankful that he is in complete control of everything that happens. But most importantly, this is about accepting God as he has revealed himself through scripture as difficult as that can be at times.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Paul manata,

    you said:
    "It's hard to get through your straw men and bald faced lies."


    Bald face lies?


    You said:
    "It's hard to get through your smart alec comments about 'don't ask them why they pray, they don't even know.'"


    You started it. But you are right. I shouldn't stoop to your level of meanness. Please forgive me for acting like you. Who knows, maybe I can help you change your attitude.


    You said:
    "Why are all you Arminians so high and mighty about how we treat you when you guys do exactly the same?"


    Bad company ruins good morals. Seeing you act bad influenced me to act in the same manor, but I am a man so I take full responsibility for my ill behavior.

    Yes, I was rude and I was wrong.


    You said:
    "You're not gaining any sympathy, and your stupid comments only invite even smarter comments."

    After reading your posts I doubt if you are able to give sympathy to anyone. But who knows......maybe you can change your ways.

    And if you need me to help you then I will be more than happy to pray for you and hold you accountable.


    You said:
    "Jnorm, none of his quotes had anything to do with 'why we pray.' They had to do with 'how does your prayer for someone else benefit that someone else?'. You've shown that you don't understand Calvinism, my arguments in my post, or Jagis' questions. You're 0 for 3. Next batter!"


    I'm not here to win points. I didn't know this was an "official" debate. I'm not even here for myself. I came because I wanted to help someone else. Now I admit I started out awful. I should have been better prepared. One of the quotes dealt with wrestling with God so I saw "why we pray" as being connected with the question of "how do they benefit others".


    You said:
    "Follow the bouncing ball: Jagis implied that we just throw up a single prayer and hope it stick rather than wrestling, via myriad prayers. Now, if God ordained that he would save a sinner via many prayers, then we would experience the 'wrestling' (whatever he means by that, I assume constant prayer even in the face of many seeming 'No's'."


    I follow


    You said:
    "Next, I don't understand what you mean by why I *feel* that God will ordain that a sinner will be saved through many prayers. I think it is obvious since most people I've heard of, including myself, were prayed for many, many times. So, if my position is correct, God ordained that the sinner be saved via all those prayers. This also has the effect of causing the Christian to continue in faith to pray to God, continue to trust him, continue to come to him, commune with him. This removes the slot machine concept many Arminians seem to have. So, given that I 'feel' that Calvinism is true, and that I 'feel' that God saves people usually after many prayers, I thus 'feel' that he use a multitude of prayers as means for his bringing about the sinner's conversion. Your objection simply confuses *de jure* categories with *de facto* ones, then."


    I see what you're saying.




    You said:
    "I don't believe that you read it. And, you cite me not once, you don't interact with any of my arguments, you make a vague reference to 'benefits' and what 'Ben was talking about.' I don't think I specifically mentioned the word 'benefits' and Ben talked about a lot of things."


    I did read it.

    In the last part of (c) you said:

    "So prayer forces us to recognize our inability, our weakness, our dependence upon God, and thus is an exercise in humility. It is an expression of an attitude of faith. This works whether the prayer is answered or not."

    You said this in (D)

    "Prayer is also communication with the living God. It is a means of grace for the believer and allows us to grow in our sanctification. It shows that we trust the Bible and are not ‘anxious’ about the salvation of the lost. It also changes our heat toward our fellow man."

    As well as this

    "The ‘point’ here is that our attitude changes in how we think about that person."

    You also said this in (E)

    "Another point is that in praying for someone, especially for years, we are so much more appreciative of our salvation by grace alone."


    This is why I used the word "Benefits". I used that word to describe what you were talking about.

    If Our prayers don't influence God to act or not act then they are pointless in that regard.


    What you showed was "personal benefits" of "intercessory prayer".


    You said:
    "At any rate, if you read rather than skimmed (at best), then you'd note that all my comments pointed out that his terms were sloppy and vague and ambiguous. Given their level of abstractness, I definitely showed how prayer was (a) not pointless and (b) not a waste of time. That's what I intended to show, and that's what I did show. If you think that my (a) --> (o) points still make prayer 'pointless' and 'a waste of time' then I feel sorry for you."


    What you seemed to show was that "intercessory prayer" was not pointless because of the "personal benefits" one gets from prayer. You showed that it wasn't a waste of time because of "personal benefits".

    In (o) you said:

    "God could use our prayers as a means to condemn S all the more on judgment day. Thus they wouldn’t have been a ‘waste of time.’"

    How can God use our prayers as a means to condemn S if S never had a chance to believe in the first place Because God never "unconditionally preordain" him to be saved"?



    You proved your point that prayer as a means was also ordained by God, but in proving your point you run into more trouble because that "prayer" can't really be called an "intercessory" prayer since God irresistibly caused it in the first place.

    There was no "influencing" God to act or not act since God met all the conditions by preordaining both.


    You said:
    "That's not at all the case, and it is also a flat-out lie. I did say that we want the lost to be saved. Indeed, that's one of the reasons we pray. Prayer actually causes things to happen. We don't believe God is the only cause in the universe. You are plain ignorant of Reformed theology. Let me quote from a standard confession:"


    IF God pre-ordains the means then prayer didn't cause anything to happen. Only God caused it to happen since He unconditionally pre-ordained both.





    JNORM888

    ReplyDelete
  43. Paul,


    please forgive me for the long post. I hate long posts......I see I am becoming much like you.


    Please pray for me.....for I hate long posts.




    JNORM888

    ReplyDelete
  44. JNORM,

    I think Genembridges has already answered everything that you wrote in your latest reply. Perhaps you should take some time to read that, it is much shorter than Manata's post. It should take you little time to read it, if you understand what he is saying than I am sure that you will have your answer's.

    On another note, I doubt if J.C. and/or Ben would ever say that they had lost or that they were in error. That tells me that they are not interested in learning, but in trying to puff themselves up.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Saint and sinner,


    Thank you for your post. It's been a long time since I talked to a Calvinist that believes the process of Sanctification is synergistic.


    To be honest I really don't have a problem with what you said.

    At least not now.



    I will have to chop it up with you another time.


    Your thoughts in this regard will not be forgotten. What you said was very interesting.

    And thanks for being charitable.



    JNORM888

    ReplyDelete
  46. JNORM,

    "You started it. But you are right. I shouldn't stoop to your level of meanness. Please forgive me for acting like you. Who knows, maybe I can help you change your attitude."

    'You started it?' So, I was right, you are 10.

    "Bad company ruins good morals. Seeing you act bad influenced me to act in the same manor, but I am a man so I take full responsibility for my ill behavior."

    Then why aren't my posts dumb when in the presence of your dumbness?

    "After reading your posts I doubt if you are able to give sympathy to anyone. But who knows......maybe you can change your ways."

    We can start with you. I feel very sorry for you. Sympathetic.

    "I'm not here to win points. I didn't know this was an "official" debate. I'm not even here for myself. I came because I wanted to help someone else. Now I admit I started out awful. I should have been better prepared."

    I'm not mentioning formal debate points. I mentioned three things you were wrong about, and nothing was right. That made you 0 for 3. And, you started out awful, continued awful, and ended awful.

    "This is why I used the word "Benefits". I used that word to describe what you were talking about. If Our prayers don't influence God to act or not act then they are pointless in that regard. What you showed was "personal benefits" of "intercessory prayer".


    i) But you still don't get it. I showed 'a point.' If I showed 'a point' then Ben is wrong for saying they were 'pointless,' so your objection STILL doesn't save Ben---and that's what you admitted that you were trying to do.

    ii) *Some* of the stuff I pointed out were things that benefited us, yes, but (a) I address this in (i) and (b) not EVERYTHING I mentioned were things that 'benefited us.'

    iii) If you had read my post (rather than mere skimming and quote mining), and my last comment to you, then you'd note that IK argued that our prayers do influence God and cause things to happen. So, keep beating up those straw men, tough guy.

    "How can God use our prayers as a means to condemn S if S never had a chance to believe in the first place Because God never "unconditionally preordain" him to be saved"?"

    Again you exhibit your gross ignorance of those you're trying to 'refute.' First, S 'had a chance' to believe. Every time he is confronted with the Gospel demands he as a chance to believe. Second, again, God works through means, and so decrees the ends AND the means. Your question is like asking---how could nails and spears, and beatings, have killed Jesus when God decreed that he would die 'from the foundation of the world.' The ENDS DON'T HAPPEN WITHOUT THE MEANS. Keep beating up on that fatalism straw man, JNORM. And, Gene already corrected you on this, yet you continue to ignore correction. You know what the Bible says about wise men? They heed correction. You don't. Hence, you're not wise. Which premise is wrong. ;-)

    "What you seemed to show was that "intercessory prayer" was not pointless because of the "personal benefits" one gets from prayer. You showed that it wasn't a waste of time because of "personal benefits"."

    Well, I showed more than *just* that, but, if that IS what I showed, then you must admit I refuted Ben on your own terms, since Ben said that our prayers are pointless. You said I showed that they weren't. Hence, I showed that Ben was wrong! Again, on your own terms I showed this You came here to 'defend someone one' and ended up agreeing with me that I refuted him. Thanks, buddy!

    "You proved your point that prayer as a means was also ordained by God, but in proving your point you run into more trouble because that "prayer" can't really be called an "intercessory" prayer since God irresistibly caused it in the first place."

    That's what is called an ASSERTION, not an argument. You do know the difference, right? God irresistibly caused the men to kill Jesus, yet they were still the means to his death. God irresistibly caused Jesus bones not to break, yet the early death of Jesus (so the soldiers wouldn’t have to break the legs to inhibit his breathing) was the means to this end. You're not arguing with me, JNORM, you're now arguing with the Bible.

    "IF God pre-ordains the means then prayer didn't cause anything to happen. Only God caused it to happen since He unconditionally pre-ordained both."

    That, again, is another ASSERTION.

    And, it's like arguing: God pre-ordained that plants would grow by means of sunlight (among other things), therefore the sunlight doesn't cause plants to grow! What, do you think that God just created the matter and then all the rest worked itself out by chance, for no reason?

    "please forgive me for the long post. I hate long posts......I see I am becoming much like you."

    Well, you're halfway there. Next time, make sure you include good arguments with your length. Then you can be like me and every other Calvinist on this blog (and any non-Calvinist too). So, you're not quite there yet. But, perk up 'lil camper, I trust when you hit puberty you start to think better.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I don't know who got it worse, Ben, or the severe 'fonging' JNORM888 is receiving? Anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Paul Manata,


    I'm gonna ignore your immature behavior. You see, one of the good things about having a "free will" is that one can learn from past mistakes.


    You said:
    "i) But you still don't get it. I showed 'a point.' If I showed 'a point' then Ben is wrong for saying they were 'pointless,' so your objection STILL doesn't save Ben---and that's what you admitted that you were trying to do."


    So it all comes down to a technicality?


    You said:
    "ii) *Some* of the stuff I pointed out were things that benefited us, yes, but (a) I address this in (i) and (b) not EVERYTHING I mentioned were things that 'benefited us.'"

    I know which is why I said you "moved on" and spoke about other things. I saw that.


    You said:
    "iii) If you had read my post (rather than mere skimming and quote mining), and my last comment to you, then you'd note that IK argued that our prayers do influence God and cause things to happen. So, keep beating up those straw men, tough guy."


    Just because you "said it" doesn't mean I believe it. How can you (A calvinist) believe that your prayers influence God and cause things to happen? You can't really believe that.

    If God ordains the means as well as the end then your prayers can't influence God. They can't cause things to happen because they in and of themselves are nothing more than an automatic responce of what God did.

    God is the irresistible cause and influence of your prayers. So you can't believe that.


    So yeah, you said it but it's not true.

    I may be wrong but I think this is what Ben was getting at. About it being "meaningless".

    The onlything you seemed to care about was a "technicality".


    You said:
    "Again you exhibit your gross ignorance of those you're trying to 'refute.' First, S 'had a chance' to believe. Every time he is confronted with the Gospel demands he as a chance to believe."


    He doesn't have a chance to believe if the "Gospel demands" he is confronted with doesn't enable him to believe.


    You said:
    "Second, again, God works through means, and so decrees the ends AND the means. Your question is like asking---how could nails and spears, and beatings, have killed Jesus when God decreed that he would die 'from the foundation of the world.' The ENDS DON'T HAPPEN WITHOUT THE MEANS."


    Nails, spears, and beatings are not moral agents. They don't have responsibility.

    People are moral agents. We are held responsible for our actions.....or lack thereof.

    So if God unconditionally ordained the means then you can't talk about humans having "true liberty and contingency".


    You said:
    "Keep beating up on that fatalism straw man, JNORM. And, Gene already corrected you on this, yet you continue to ignore correction. You know what the Bible says about wise men? They heed correction. You don't. Hence, you're not wise. Which premise is wrong. ;-)"


    I am talking about God ordaining the means as well as the end. What I said at first was just God ordaining the end. I been took note of what Gene said.

    Correct me if I am wrong.

    Fatalism = God ordaining the end not the means.

    Determinism = God ordaining the end as well as the means.


    If this is correct then I fixed my error a long time ago.



    You said:
    "Well, I showed more than *just* that, but, if that IS what I showed, then you must admit I refuted Ben on your own terms, since Ben said that our prayers are pointless. You said I showed that they weren't. Hence, I showed that Ben was wrong! Again, on your own terms I showed this You came here to 'defend someone one' and ended up agreeing with me that I refuted him. Thanks, buddy!"


    On a technicality. At least on the surface, but beneath the surface Ben's point still stands. If the means were ordained then even the "personal benefits" one receives are nothing but an illusion. They are meaningless.
    It is deception because you really didn't make those choices. You didn't have contingency in regards to those choices. What was done was done out of necessity.



    You said:
    "That's what is called an ASSERTION, not an argument. You do know the difference, right? God irresistibly caused the men to kill Jesus, yet they were still the means to his death. God irresistibly caused Jesus bones not to break, yet the early death of Jesus (so the soldiers wouldn’t have to break the legs to inhibit his breathing) was the means to this end. You're not arguing with me, JNORM, you're now arguing with the Bible."


    It's a logical deduction from God ordaining both the end as well as the means. This is the meat of the issue. Right here!!!

    I am arguing with the philosophical presuppositions of Calvinism.

    But this is the heart of the issue and I'm glad we got to it.


    You said:
    "And, it's like arguing: God pre-ordained that plants would grow by means of sunlight (among other things), therefore the sunlight doesn't cause plants to grow! What, do you think that God just created the matter and then all the rest worked itself out by chance, for no reason?"

    Plants are not moral agents. They can't choose either or.

    God created matter and through His Providence controls it. The fact that humans can resist some of the things that God wants us to do shows that Everything God does isn't "irresistible".





    I still hate long posts. Please forgive me.

    JNROM888

    ReplyDelete
  49. Hi JNORM888!

    "I'm gonna ignore your immature behavior. You see, one of the good things about having a "free will" is that one can learn from past mistakes."

    Good, now I can just make you look bad in or objective debate rather than in both the objective debate and the use of rhetoric debate. That's the way I'd rather have it.

    I said: "i) But you still don't get it. I showed 'a point.' If I showed 'a point' then Ben is wrong for saying they were 'pointless,' so your objection STILL doesn't save Ben---and that's what you admitted that you were trying to do."

    JNORM said: So it all comes down to a technicality?

    I don't know what you mean by that. He said A, I demonstrated not-A. I can only work with what I'm given.

    So, let's see what you said above which started this:

    JNORM: "Your arguments about personal benefits in regards to the one that prays has nothing to do with what Ben was talking about."

    So, I guess you'd say that, technically, you were wrong.

    Moving on...

    JNORM said: "Just because you "said it" doesn't mean I believe it. How can you (A calvinist) believe that your prayers influence God and cause things to happen? You can't really believe that."

    I don't care if you 'believe it.' Plenty of people don't 'believe' in God too. That doesn't make him not real. So, I can really believe that. And, you've not given an ARGUMENT to the effect that I can't. Do you have one? Or is: 'You can't really believe that' all you got?

    JNORM said: "If God ordains the means as well as the end then your prayers can't influence God. They can't cause things to happen because they in and of themselves are nothing more than an automatic responce of what God did."

    These aren't arguments. They are assertions. Got an argument. (Remember, we're done with the name calling. Done with the tough guy asserting act. It's all objective now. Straight arguments now. Hard critical thinking now. You don't get to get away with this when you want to drop the fun and games of smart alec comments.)

    At best, your argument is:

    [1] If X is an automatic response to some previous action, then X can't cause anything to happen.

    [2] Prayer is an automatic response to some previous action.

    [3] Therefore it doesn't cause anything to happen.

    Well, I deny both [1] and [2]. I deny that prayer is an 'automatic response', and I deny that things that automatically respond don't themselves cause things to happen. The use of the term 'automatic response' is loaded with robotic, fatalistic assumptions. Like we're action figures who 'automatically respond' when someone who presses the 'talk' button on our back. My slap on the face of someone causes an automatic response in the nerve endings of that person, in turn these cause a subjective experience of pain for that person. So, get to work and present me with an actual argument. One that doesn't beg the question against us and make downright false assumptions.

    "God is the irresistible cause and influence of your prayers. So you can't believe that."

    Not an argument. Got one?

    JNORM said: "I may be wrong but I think this is what Ben was getting at. About it being "meaningless".

    Right, and among other things, I pointed out that to imply that communion with God is 'meaningless' is blasphemy. And, Jesus was determined to go to the cross to die for his people. Yet, he PRAYED about this.

    JNORM said: "He doesn't have a chance to believe if the "Gospel demands" he is confronted with doesn't enable him to believe."

    Sure he does. Got an actual argument here, though?

    JNORM said: "Nails, spears, and beatings are not moral agents. They don't have responsibility. People are moral agents. We are held responsible for our actions.....or lack thereof. So if God unconditionally ordained the means then you can't talk about humans having "true liberty and contingency".

    Yeah, I know that nails are not moral agents. Same with beating et al. So what? The point stands and your sophistic counter does nothing to change it. The above only assumes libertarian notions of responsibility. I deny those assumptions. So, keep begging questions in lieu of argument.

    JNORM said: "On a technicality. At least on the surface, but beneath the surface Ben's point still stands. If the means were ordained then even the "personal benefits" one receives are nothing but an illusion. They are meaningless.
    It is deception because you really didn't make those choices. You didn't have contingency in regards to those choices. What was done was done out of necessity."


    Again, these are assertions. Got an actual argument. Or is self-serving, question begging arguments all you have at this point?

    I said: "That's what is called an ASSERTION, not an argument. You do know the difference, right? God irresistibly caused the men to kill Jesus, yet they were still the means to his death. God irresistibly caused Jesus bones not to break, yet the early death of Jesus (so the soldiers wouldn’t have to break the legs to inhibit his breathing) was the means to this end. You're not arguing with me, JNORM, you're now arguing with the Bible."

    JNORM said: 'It's a logical deduction from God ordaining both the end as well as the means. This is the meat of the issue. Right here!!!

    I am arguing with the philosophical presuppositions of Calvinism."


    This isn't a refutation. Your argument was that something can't be a means if God irresistibly caused it. If so, then those things weren't means to Jesus' not breaking his bones. But, they were. Therefore things can be means even though God ordained them.

    And, you're not arguing against our presuppositions. You're arguing against YOUR CHARICYERIZATION of our presuppositions. I deny all your question begging assertions about what I believe. I'll be waiting for an actual argument in the future.

    God ordaining the means doesn't mean that they are 'illusion.' The spear that stuck Jesus was no illusion!

    I said: "You said:
    "And, it's like arguing: God pre-ordained that plants would grow by means of sunlight (among other things), therefore the sunlight doesn't cause plants to grow! What, do you think that God just created the matter and then all the rest worked itself out by chance, for no reason?"

    JNORM replied: "Plants are not moral agents. They can't choose either or."

    That's irrelevant to my argument. The argument was that THE MEANS CAUSED SOMETHING EVEN THOUGH GOD ORDAINED THEM!!!

    Get it?

    Your quip about 'persons' is irrelevant unless you want to make this assumption:

    If God ordains the means and the ends then the means only cause things to happen if they are not-persons.

    But how would one argue for an arbitrary distinction like that!? And, all without begging the question against the Calvinist.

    JNORM said: "God created matter and through His Providence controls it. The fact that humans can resist some of the things that God wants us to do shows that Everything God does isn't "irresistible".

    This is a caricature of what we mean by 'irresistible' then.

    So, basically all this time spent arguing can be boiled down to this:

    IF WE ASSUME THAT CALVINISM IS FALSE, THEN I CAN SHOW THAT IT IS FALSE.

    Oh boy, forgive me if I'm not impressed.

    Whadda jokester you are JNORM.

    As I don't have time to continue, future comments without arguments behind them will be deleted and this comments thread will be shut down so I can get on with my life.

    ReplyDelete
  50. One other example that I have thought of (though I am not the first):

    God the Father has fixed the day of Christ's return by *His own authority* (not influenced by external factors). (Acts 1:7)

    And yet, our prayers for Christ's return hasten His second coming.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I am arguing with the philosophical presuppositions of Calvinism."

    I am arguing with the philosophical presuppositions of Calvinism."

    1. What exactly are those "presuppositions?" Are you saying we begin with our ideas about Providence and then deduce a system of decrees from it? If so, before you go there, you should show which of our theologians are guilty of that, and you should, at the very least (a) outline these presuppositions and (b) demonstrate how these function as "presuppositions" in our theology, for in saying this, what you seem to be saying is that we read the Bible through those presuppositions. Where's the supporting argument?

    2. What you're implicitly doing is imputing the Orthodox theological method to ours. In Orthodoxy, Christology is the controlling concept. In Arminianism, "the love of God" and LFW are controlling concepts. Those facts are no secret. If you think that Calvinism takes Predestination as a controlling concept you'll need to demonstrate that to be the case. Orthodoxy and Arminianism admit to this sort of methodology.

    3. In our theology, it's true that we begin with two principia: God and Scripture. One is the ontological principle, the other is the epistemological principle. The former is only known by way of the latter. So, we begin not with philosophy but exegesis.

    4. In our major systematics, you won't find the Doctrine of Predestination anywhere near the top tier ideas discussed. You'll find it either under Questions of Predication about God (eg. Does God predestinate? The answer is "Yes.") and then it's subsumed under the Acts of God. Alternatively, you'll find it under Soteriology, which is even further down the tree. So, if you're going to charge us with using Predestination as a rationalistic controlling presupposition, you'll need to show us that we do this and account for this, for, if we really did this, Providence/Predestination would be one of the principia or it would be high up the tree in our systematics.

    5. In fact, we're not at all committed to philosophical determinism/compatibilism the way the Arminians are committed to Libertarianism or the Orthodox are committed to Libertarianism. We only employ it as a philosophical answer to philosophical objections.Laced throughout your objections and those of the Arminians is a presupposition: LFW. But, as Carrie has noted well that I have asked repeatedly on this blog and have yet to get an answer from a Libertarian, where does Scripture teach LFW? If Scripture doesn't teach LFW, your objections are, in fact, utterly worthless.

    6. If you really want to refute our position, you should do so from exegesis. We get our doctrines of Providence, Predestination, and Prayer not from our "philosophical presuppositions" but from the exegesis of the Bible, so, here's a novel idea, give us a series of exegetical objections that disprove our position.

    For once, it would help the Orthodox and Arminians who visit this blog if they would actually object to Reformed theology on exegetical grounds. So far, all you and the Arminians have done is show us the truth of the old adage that there are no exegetical objections to Calvinism that hold water. There are only philosophical and ethical objections.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Saint and Sinner said:
    One other example that I have thought of (though I am not the first):

    God the Father has fixed the day of Christ's return by *His own authority* (not influenced by external factors). (Acts 1:7)

    And yet, our prayers for Christ's return hasten His second coming.

    *********

    Of course we can multiply these sorts of things.

    It was prophesied (and God can't be made a liar) that Jesus would be born of a virgin. And angel to Mary that she would bear Immanuel. So, I take it that JNORM888 would say that prayers for a safe delivery offered by Mary and Joseph were 'meaningless.'

    Or, how about Paul on the boat:

    ===============

    ACTS 27:21After the men had gone a long time without food, Paul stood up before them and said: "Men, you should have taken my advice not to sail from Crete; then you would have spared yourselves this damage and loss. 22But now I urge you to keep up your courage, because not one of you will be lost; only the ship will be destroyed. 23Last night an angel of the God whose I am and whom I serve stood beside me 24and said, 'Do not be afraid, Paul. You must stand trial before Caesar; and God has graciously given you the lives of all who sail with you.' 25So keep up your courage, men, for I have faith in God that it will happen just as he told me. 26Nevertheless, we must run aground on some island."

    The Shipwreck
    27On the fourteenth night we were still being driven across the Adriatic Sea, when about midnight the sailors sensed they were approaching land. 28They took soundings and found that the water was a hundred and twenty feet deep. A short time later they took soundings again and found it was ninety feet deep. 29Fearing that we would be dashed against the rocks, they dropped four anchors from the stern and prayed for daylight. 30In an attempt to escape from the ship, the sailors let the lifeboat down into the sea, pretending they were going to lower some anchors from the bow. 31Then Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, "Unless these men stay with the ship, you cannot be saved." 32So the soldiers cut the ropes that held the lifeboat and let it fall away.

    ===============

    Wow. Notice that God promised that they would all live.

    Notice that they prayed.

    Notice that Paul told them to stay with the ship or they would die.

    [Scratches head]

    Why would they 'pray?' That was meaningless. God said they would live. So they would regardless of their prayer, right.

    And, why did Paul tell them to stay on the ship? They would live regardless of if they left the ship or not, right? God ordained the ends, and the means of staying on the ship couldn;t possibly have caused them to keep their life, right?

    I mean, I can keep going with this stuff all night long. JNORM's (and Ben's, and J.C. Thibodaux's) arguments are not only illogical and philosophically sloppy, they are at odds with the revealed biblcial data. If what they say were the case, then what I cite in Acts 27 would make Paul into an ignoramous and an 'inconsistent' person just like us Calvinists (allegedly) are!

    QED

    Got any more brain busters for us JNORM?

    ReplyDelete
  53. btw, in response to JNORM's idea of moral responsibility and PAPs, I adress that here:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/02/heavenly-doorman.html

    ReplyDelete
  54. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  55. JNORM--"So your point comes down to a technicality?"

    The Apostle Paul in debate with Judaizers--Galatians 3:16
    The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ.

    If JNORM were a Judaizer---"So your point comes down to a technicality?"

    ReplyDelete
  56. Paul Manata,


    If you believe that God unconditionaly ordain both the end as well as the means then why do you disagree with this?



    "[1] If X is an automatic response to some previous action, then X can't cause anything to happen.

    [2] Prayer is an automatic response to some previous action."

    [3] [3] Therefore it doesn't cause anything to happen.

    It would seem that one and two would naturally flow from such a view.

    So why do you deny [1] & [2]?


    You said:
    "The use of the term 'automatic response' is loaded with robotic, fatalistic assumptions. Like we're action figures who 'automatically respond' when someone who presses the 'talk' button on our back. My slap on the face of someone causes an automatic response in the nerve endings of that person, in turn these cause a subjective experience of pain for that person."



    Why would you deny this?

    If the means is also unconditional then how can you see it differently?

    Also I would like to ask you a question.


    Do you believe Sanctification is synergistic?

    If so then how can you believe the means is "unconditionaly" pre-ordained?

    I a only asking because the implications of such a view doesn't leave room for synergy.

    I may be wrong, but how can one resist something that's "unconditional"?


    I'm sorry Gene, I would like to chop it up with you some other time. You seem more grounded so I will have to be prepared to chop it up with you.

    I'm shooting at the hip right now and doing such a thing with you would be extremely dangerous.

    No, I would have to give your posts some thought. So maybe next time.







    JNORM888

    ReplyDelete
  57. Do you believe Sanctification is synergistic?

    If so then how can you believe the means is "unconditionaly" pre-ordained?

    I a only asking because the implications of such a view doesn't leave room for synergy.

    I may be wrong, but how can one resist something that's "unconditional"?


    We affirm that sanctification is cooperative, not "synergistic" in, for example, the Arminian sense.
    To the extent that salvation has a conditional aspect, God still ensures the satisfaction of those conditions in the lives of the elect. Conditionality does not entail uncertainty - and this presupposition (that conditionality must entail uncertainty) seems to underwrite your objections. Where is the supporting argument? We're going to get back to LFW, so where's the exegetical argument for LFW?

    "Monergism" refers to regeneration. Regeneration is irresistible, that is, conversion inevitably and infallibly results. Sanctification is cooperative, but the results are ensured insofar that the elect will all persevere to the end, and the elect will be conformed to Christ's image, but they will not all persevere to end at the same level of maturity.

    ReplyDelete
  58. JNORM:

    "So why do you deny [1] & [2]?"

    I told you why in my post.

    I said: "The use of the term 'automatic response' is loaded with robotic, fatalistic assumptions. Like we're action figures who 'automatically respond' when someone who presses the 'talk' button on our back. My slap on the face of someone causes an automatic response in the nerve endings of that person, in turn these cause a subjective experience of pain for that person."

    JNORM responded: "Why would you deny this?"

    Because that's not my position. I have a tendency to deny those premises I don't hold to...call me weird.

    JNORM said: "If the means is also unconditional then how can you see it differently?

    Because (i) the Bible affirms determinism and moral responsibility and the reality of choices and (ii) because, philosophically, I am a semi-compatibilist and we have loads and loads of books on the subject which answer and explain these very purile and sophomoric assumptions you have about us.

    JNORM asked: "Also I would like to ask you a question. Do you believe Sanctification is synergistic?

    Gene explained it, though some Calvinists have used the term 'syngerism' in explaining this view (Cf. Sproul, and there's others). I stand in that line. I do not believe that we 'let go and let God,' (as I explained in my first post to Ben, had you read that one). I believe we are active in our sanctification. Not like our regeneration. I must make use of the means of grace, I must put to death sin, etc. I don't just live like hell and expect to make it to heaven. But, if I do not cooperate in my sanctification I do not lose my salvation or justification or regeneration. I prove I was never saved in the first place. This would be a fruit-to-root inference. I would show I was, per Heb. 6, part of the soil that NEVER produced fruit.

    Btw, let me add that you never bothered to respond to my post above, or most of my arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Let me add that my comment that:

    "My slap on the face of someone causes an automatic response in the nerve endings of that person, in turn these cause a subjective experience of pain for that person."

    rendered your assumption that: if something is automatically caused, it itself can't cause anything, false.

    Since I so rendered your assumption, your argument (which you don't deny is your argument) is unsound.

    Look, you may *believe* that we have all these problems, JNORM888, but your problem is when you try to actually *argue* for your belief. So, you'll pardon me if I don't take your unarged biases as problematic as you seem to think they are.

    ReplyDelete