Pages

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

If at first you don't succeed, lose, lose again!

KANGAROODORT SAID:

“So now we are on to lifting other comments from my combox.”

And why does that bother you, exactly? Do you think your own comments are indefensible?

“And trying to say that I need to back them up as if the whole world needs to answer to Triablogue.”

To the contrary, it’s fine with me if you’re not up to the task you set for yourself.

“You guys are very predictable.”

That’s a funny accusation coming from a libertarian. Apparently, you don’t believe in the freedom to do otherwise.

Well, that’s progress. Now that you’ve shown yourself to be a closet determinist, I’d encourage you to come out of the closet.

“Just keep making posts and issuing challenges until your opponent is overwelmed and unable to respond to it all.”

I don’t recall issuing a challenge. I guess we have to acquaint you with the dynamics of a public debate.

If you comment on something I say, especially in the form of a criticism, then that’s an open invitation for me to respond. If you can’t take it when people reply to your public criticism of their position, then don’t criticize their position.

You evidently think that criticism is a one-way street. You should be free to criticize Calvinism, but a Calvinist has no right to criticize Arminianism.

Wherever did you get the idea that you can attack someone’s theological position with impunity? I guess you led a very sheltered existence.

“As far as your above claim I have written several posts on the subjects of free will and determinism so your claim that I haven't presented anything is simply false (and some of them are even exegetically derived).”

“Exegetically derived” once you load the dice with your Arminian presuppositions.

“I am not here to please you or cater to your needs.”

Do you ever listen to yourself as you carry on this way? Instead of dealing with the issues, you emote like a schoolgirl who was snubbed at the prom.

I did a high and dry post on the difference between *affecting* and *changing* an outcome. You responded with a me-centered pity-party.

I then did a follow-up post in which I questioned whether, given your Arminian commitment to divine foreknowledge, it was consistent for you to say that prayer has an affect on God. And you respond to that with another round of self-pity.

“I regret having anything to do with you guys.”

Yes, losing the argument can have that affect on a person.

“(And regrets are a strange thing indeed if we do not have the power of contrary choice as you claim).”

What do you think you accomplish when you trot out this schoolboy objection to determinism? Do you think you’ve said something original? Something your Reformed opponent has never thought of before? Do you think this halts us in our tracks?

This sort of objection would be acceptable if you were just a kid who had never taken a course in philosophy. Never read a book on the debate between freewill and determinism.

But there are well-trodden replies to this sort of objection. You don’t help your own position by operating at such a retrograde level.

Let’s take an example: one function of regret, in Reformed theology, is that God uses regret about the past as a means of changing our outlook with a view to the future.

It isn’t about “if only I could do it all over again”—which is backward-looking—but about, “having screwed up my life, I now see my need to turn my life over to Christ”—which is forward-looking. Regret is perfectly consistent with Calvinism.

God decrees that certain people have certain motives, since motives function as an incentive or disincentive to a particular course of action. Regret can be an inducement to evangelical repentance.

“Then why do you guys keep going on and on about it?”

Why does Toto pull the curtain back?

“And this isn't an arbitray statement? I could come up with all kinds of arbitray definitions for what Calvinism is, as could anyone.”

You *say* it’s arbitrary, but you don’t *show* it’s arbitrary.

Moreover, you’re quoting my conclusion without quoting my supporting argument.

“Which is philosophical assertion based on a Biblically unfounded correlation between physical death and spiritual death. It is far from exegetically derived.”

It’s Scripture that uses the metaphor of spiritual death. I didn’t invent that correlation. And it’s Scripture that distinguishes between spiritual death and the new birth.

“You guys feel like you are defending Biblical truth by trying to make a fool out me.”

You’re the one who keeps casting the issue in terms of making you look foolish. Does this reflect a Freudian guilt-complex on your part?

I’ve been endeavoring to discuss the theological issues. But you keep responding by talking about yourself, and how you feel about us, and how you feel we feel about you, and how you feel we feel about how you feel about our feelings…

It’s like a parody of adolescent girl-talk.

“Strangely, it would seem that God has decreed from eternity that I would reject Calvinism and defend Arminianism. If that is the case then I don't know why you are battling me. I am just doing what God wanst me to do. God apparently wants us to disagree and is apparently to blame for all the confusion that this debate generates, which is strange for a God of whom the Bible declares is not the author of confusion.”

That’s a lovely example of ripping a passage out of context. Paul is making the practical point that in a church service, everyone shouldn’t speak at once.

If you want to cite something relevant in 1 Corinthians, try 1:18-3:23, where God is responsible for setting up a number of theological pawns who function as a foil to the gospel. God does that, as Paul explains, to highlight the ironic wisdom of the gospel in contrast to the folly of the worldly-wise.

“But that is just me expecting things to make sense again and you have already pointed out how foolish that expectation is.”

If you were sincere about wanting things to make sense, you’d attempt to explain how, by your own lights, prayer has an “affect on God” even though God foreknows your prayer, foreknows how or whether he will answer your prayer, as well as foreknowing how the answer, assuming it’s answered, will figure in the outcome.

Do you think your prayer can change a foreknown future? How is that possible?

And, if it doesn’t change the future, then how does your position differ from mine—except that I’m able to ground divine foreknowledge in divine foreordination, whereas divine foreknowledge is groundless in Arminian theology.

“I wish I had the luxury of defending an unfalsifiable dogma like you guys.”

Meaning what, exactly? Do you think Christian beliefs should be falsifiable? In what sense?

Do you think Jesus may have been a fraud? Is that the kind of thing you have in mind?

9 comments:

  1. Wow! That was waaaay tooo easy! Nice job Manata. Hey, one problem though, looks like you need some work on your spelling. Fascinating stuff though.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I didn't post this. Looks like you need some work on your reading skills. Fascinating comment, though.

    ReplyDelete
  3. iustitiadei said...

    "Hey, one problem though, looks like you need some work on your spelling. Fascinating stuff though."

    You must mean that Ben needs to work on *his* spelling.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve,

    I don't have time to go back and forth with you forever. That isn't your fault but it is frustrating that I can't even leave a few comments in a combox without it becoming a new critical post.

    You have made a lot of points in your last two posts and I quite honestly want to address them all. But I don't have the time and that is the bottom line. I will keep your comments in mind for future posts at AP, but for now you are welcomed to the final word. Not looking for pity Steve, just being honest.

    God Bless,
    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  5. Actually, you can leave comments without getting a critical response. All you have to do is leave correct comments.

    Seriously though I don't know why you would think we wouldn't respond to errors (even if you don't think they're errors, you know we do).

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't even know where to begin. I have been reading your posts and can not believe how it seems that your desire above all else seems to be to degrate another brother in Christ. This is so baffling to me. refering to the person that you are discussing Christ centered things with as a "little girl" is so out of the realm of seeking to be of one achord that it saddens me.

    This type of thing is not what we should be about. Disagree all you want with each other but we have nothing to be proud of if we seek to tear eachother down.

    this does nothing but discourage me into thinking that we as christians will never be able to unite under the cross. I contniue though to refuse to believe this to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't even know where to begin. I have been reading your posts and can not believe how it seems that your desire above all else seems to be to degrate another brother in Christ. This is so baffling to me. refering to the person that you are discussing Christ centered things with as a "little girl" is so out of the realm of seeking to be of one achord that it saddens me.

    With all due respect, I don't think the problem is Steve word choice, rather it's your imposition of an unbiblical, legalistic speech code. Try thumbing through the Bible, and you'll find strong, very plain speech. Try thumbing through the polemic works of times past, and you'll find the same sort of thing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Obama Pro-Murder-By-Abortion; Pro-Homosexual 'Rights;' OK With Terri Schiavo Murder; Is This Guy Wearing A What-Would-Satan-Do Bracelet?

    Contact: John Lofton, 301-873-4612, 410-760-8885, JLof@aol.com

    MEDIA ADVISORY, March 7 /Christian Newswire/ -- Recovering Republican John Lofton, Editor of TheAmericanView.com and co-host of "The American View" radio show with the Constitution Party's 2004 Presidential candidate Michael Anthony Peroutka, has issued the following statement:

    "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -- Isaiah 5:20:

    "Sen. Barack Obama is OK with the evils of abortion, homosexuality, and the murder of Terri Schiavo and he calls himself a Christian?! And, adding blasphemous insult to injury, he has invoked, of all people, the Lord Jesus Christ and His Sermon On The Mount to justify sodomite/lesbian fornication (civil unions for homosexuals.) For shame!

    "In his 'The Screwtape Letters' C.S. Lewis writes: 'The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid dens of crime that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern.'

    "Or a soft-spoken, smooth-shaven, well-manicured, huge-smiling Presidential candidate such as Barack Obama."

    For more on this disgusting, nauseating topic please listen to the current "The American View" radio show 146 http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=998.

    On this same program, you will hear an interview with Pastor Leon Forte of the Grace Christian Church in Athens, Ohio. Pastor Forte was the person who, at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, asked Obama the questions about his faith, which elicited Obama's anti-Christian statements on homosexuality and abortion. Pastor Forte is not pleased with what Obama had to say.

    If you'd like to interview John Lofton, you may reach him by calling: 301-873-4612; 410-760-8885; or by email: JLof@aol.com.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Apparently Lofton gets no traffic at his website so he has to spam comboxes instead.

    Sad.

    ReplyDelete