Thursday, February 26, 2009

What, All of a Sudden You Don't Like Your Argument?

Recently an Arminian taught us such a cool method of debate. Check it out:

"Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will [all things] existed and were created." -Rev. 4:11

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." -John 1-3

"As you do not know the way the spirit comes to( the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything." -Ecc 11:5

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him." -Col. 1:15-16


Dictionary:

all [awl] –adjective

1. the whole of (used in referring to quantity, extent, or duration): all the cake; all the way; all year.
2. the whole number of (used in referring to individuals or particulars, taken collectively): all students.
3. the greatest possible (used in referring to quality or degree): with all due respect; with all speed.
4. every: all kinds; all sorts.


eve⋅ry⋅thing [ev-ree-thing] –pronoun

1. every thing or particular of an aggregate or total; all.

As the common man would understand all, this means that God created all of our beliefs and they are not created ex-nihilo by our "immaterial substance." The only beliefs we have, therefore, are the ones God determined to give is. We don't have the "power" to create a belief to do otherwise. Ergo, libertarianism is false.

Now, watch the Arminians tell us that all doesn't really mean all ;-)

28 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Paul,

    I recommend Freddosso's work on Divine Concurrence.


    http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/conserv.htm
    http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/pitfall.htm
    http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/god-evil.htm

    God be with you,
    Dan

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

    ReplyDelete
  4. That's funny, James, considering that one of the bloggers here happens to be a person living with HIV/AIDS.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I guess it doesn't do a lot of good debating it with us Arminians, Paul, since it was obviously determined from eternity past that we would hold to such a silly man-centered heterodox. How dare us pots question what the potter decided to do! He obviously wanted heterodox pots.

    But maybe this whole debate was determined from eternity past too!? Wow that's a mind bender, huh? :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. bossmanham...now you are getting it... Not a mind bender at all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't always comment on here (I'm not sure I actually have) but by your logic doesn't that make God the creator of sin, General Motors, my Mac Book, and the Koran? I mean, all of those are part of "everything", aren't they? At least as much as our thoughts and beliefs, I would think.

    I'm sorry if I missed the point of this post, but this seems fairly obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Paul is commenting on the way Arminians complain about us Calvinists saying "all" must mean different things in different contexts, eg. "all" is a universal class quantifier. It has a fixed intention, but the extension is variable, depending on the referent..eg. "all" of what?
    Yet on the other hand, suddenly, when it comes to things like the atonement, "all means all." So, if that's really true, then Arminians must concede the things you noted - but they go out of their way to deny that God does those things...so the complaint that they level against us just makes no sense.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Paul is commenting on the way Arminians complain about us Calvinists saying "all" must mean different things in different contexts, eg. "all" is a universal class quantifier.

    How could Paul comment on Arminians and Calvinsits...they didn't come along until thousands of years later.

    I would say the problem with the argument in this post is that it equates belief with the material universe.

    The scriptures you quoted are referring to Creation...the physical world...the order of the universe.

    Belief is not a "thing".

    If you want to say that God created belief then he must also be the creator of disbelief.

    If God creates all good thoughts about him, he must create all bad thoughts about him, also.

    After all, if "all" applies to those cases, then "all" applies to sin and evil also...no?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Boy do some people lack reading comprehension.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "How could Paul comment on Arminians and Calvinsits...they didn't come along until thousands of years later."

    Heh. Terry, check out the author of the post. Paul Manata.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "How dare us pots question what the potter decided to do!"

    Yes, exactly. How dare you.

    Doesn't mocking Scripture by mocking a Scriptural principle in Scripture's language count as an immediate a self-refutation?

    Isaiah 29:16 You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, "He did not make me"; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?

    Romans 9:20-21 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?

    ReplyDelete
  13. oops...heh...that's funny. I guess I shouldn't scan past the author's name!


    I don;t frequent this blog too often.

    I'm so used to Paul, especially in the midst of Bible verses, being "the" Paul.

    Ha!

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Belief is not a "thing"."

    http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/BELIEF

    Belief:

    Noun: belief bi'leef
    Any cognitive content held as true

    A vague idea in which some confidence is placed
    "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"
    - impression, feeling, notion, opinion

    A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
    "he lost his religious belief but not his morality"
    - religion, faith, religious belief



    Thing:

    Noun: thing thing
    A special situation
    "this thing has got to end"; "it is a remarkable thing"

    An action
    "how could you do such a thing?"

    A special abstraction
    "a thing of the spirit"; "things of the heart"

    An artifact
    "how does this thing work?"

    An event
    "a funny thing happened on the way to the..."

    A vaguely specified concern
    "things are going well"
    - matter, affair

    A statement regarded as an object
    "to say the same thing in other terms"; "how can you say such a thing?"

    An entity that is not named specifically
    "I couldn't tell what the thing was"

    Any attribute or quality considered as having its own existence
    "the thing I like about her is ..."

    A special objective
    "the thing is to stay in bounds"

    A persistent illogical feeling of desire or aversion
    "he has a thing about seafood"; "she has a thing about him"

    A separate and self-contained entity.



    Does 'belief' exist? Then it's a thing.

    See above: "Any attribute or quality considered as having its own existence."

    In fact, you could fill in the sentence and say, "the thing I liked about her is her belief."

    This way of arguing is fantastic. After all (no pun intended), all means all.

    "If you want to say that God created belief then he must also be the creator of disbelief.

    If God creates all good thoughts about him, he must create all bad thoughts about him, also.

    After all, if "all" applies to those cases, then "all" applies to sin and evil also...no?"


    See, the irony is that this is the conclusion of the Arminian argument that ALL MEANS ALL: Sin is a thing. It has existence. Unless you're going to say that sin doesn't exist. And God created all things. The common man holds that all means all. The dictionary agrees that all things means all things. Since sin is a thing, God created it. So, your argument, if anything, just refutes the ARMINIAN position.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yay! Some people DON'T lack reading comprehension!!!! :-D

    ReplyDelete
  16. Peter,

    It's nice to see that there is always someone willing to bring the snark into any conversation.

    Mike,

    I think you misjudged my point.

    Is sin a thing?

    Is belief a thing?

    Are they created things?

    You said: See, the irony is that this is the conclusion of the Arminian argument that ALL MEANS ALL

    But my questioning isn't the basis of an Arminian argument...I'm merely drawing conclusions from the post about what that means. I am not representing it as Aminianism, or saying I agree with it.

    What I am saying is that I would rather wrestle with whether belief is something "created" over wrestling with a God who purposely creates evil.

    But, if Calvinism is comfortable with such a concept--a God who is the first mover of evil--then what is there left to say?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mike,

    I wasn't mocking scripture. I love that passage, as I love the rest of scripture also. I was pointing out the inconsistency of the C system. If God is glorified in making pots for destruction, why would you try to convince those pots otherwise? What good does it do? They were determined that way in eternity past. No matter what happens, the pots prepared for destruction are going to be destroyed.

    You'll find a similar cross reference in Jeremiah 18 to the pots and the clay. If you read that, you'll get the context that Paul was using for Romans 9. Then, if perhaps you will take of the C goggles for a second, you'll see Romans 9 is not about individual, unconditional election at all.

    God be with you my friends!

    ReplyDelete
  18. If God is glorified in making pots for destruction, why would you try to convince those pots otherwise?

    To inculpate the pots.

    You'll find a similar cross reference in Jeremiah 18 to the pots and the clay. If you read that, you'll get the context that Paul was using for Romans 9.

    So, OT usage determines NT usage. Uh-huh.

    Then, if perhaps you will take of the C goggles for a second, you'll see Romans 9 is not about individual, unconditional election at all.

    We look forward to your in depth response to Schriener's exegesis.

    While you're at it, please provide an exegetical argument for libertarian freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Beliefs are things. If "thing" must be material, then whence ariseth your soul?

    By 'thing' I mean it "in its most general sense, [as] interchangeable with 'entity' or 'being' and is applicable to any item whose existence is acknowledged by a system of ontology, whether that item be particular, universal, abstract or concrete. In this sense, not only are material bodies but also properties, relations, events, numbers, sets, and propositions are - if tghey are acknowledged as existeing - to be accounted 'things',"


    Dan, Freddosso wasn't writing to the "common man." I referred you to people's work on "choice" etc., and you told me that I was bringing philosophy to Scripture. Sorry to beat you with your own argument. Hence, the title of my post. No cheating now.

    ReplyDelete
  20. sorry, quote on 'thing' taken from Oxford Companion to Philosophy entry on Thing.

    Btw, interesting to hear that arminians are anti-realists about beliefs. Whodda known they had so much in common with eliminativists

    ReplyDelete
  21. James said...

    "There are people being tortured and murdered in many parts of the world. There are children dying of starvation and AIDS. I find it telling that you (and your co-bloggers) expend most of your outrage and energies against those who think God's just a little too friendly (those "dang Arminians"!)

    When are you going to wake up and confront that black hole of a soul of yours?

    ***************

    My reply:

    There are people being tortured and murdered in many parts of the world. There are children dying of starvation and AIDS. I find it telling that you expend most of your outrage and energies against those who think God's just a little too... well, God-like(those "dang Calvinists"!)

    When are you going to wake up and confront that black hole of a soul of yours?

    If your reasoning was valid so was mine. I used the same form of argument and the same controversial and emotive premises.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Bossmanham,

    I guess when you can't refute an argument, bring up another one.

    Furthermore, since it has been stated ad nauseum in the literature that Calvinism holds to means and secondary causation, then these debates can serve the means God uses to change the Arminian. So, strike two.

    Third, try and keep up with your own side of the argument. Reppert is to smart to make the argument you do. That's why he says that he's not saying the AFR works against divine determinists. Just closed system, purposeless universe physicalists. Libertarians Goetz and Taliaferro tell us in their book _Naturalism_ that: "Like Lewis, we believe one must be careful here. It is not the mere existence of a cause for a belief that discredits it. Rather, it is the kind of cause that discredits it. ... In short, it is not the mere fact that [a belief] has a cause that discredits it" (121). They claim that in a physicalist universe you don't have beliefs causing other beliefs, and that's the problem. Obviously, this isn't a propblem given supernaturalism since both these could be true:

    (i) my belief B1 caused a subsaquent belief B2.

    (ii) B1 was decreed by God.

    So, three strikes, and you're out.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Terri said... "But, if Calvinism is comfortable with such a concept--a God who is the first mover of evil--then what is there left to say?"

    I've addressed that claim numerous times, check here:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/01/arminian-theology-myths-and-realities.html

    and here:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/calvinism-vs-arminianism.html

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Then, if perhaps you will take of the C goggles for a second, you'll see Romans 9 is not about individual, unconditional election at all."

    Yess, we all read Scripture with goggles on. You, obviously knowing Greek, Hebrew, ANE and 1st century history for context, read the Bible like a blank slate. A wide-eyed innocent, following the text where ever it leads.

    Ahhhh, how idioms get proved; i.e., ignorance is bliss.

    ReplyDelete
  25. " If God is glorified in making pots for destruction, why would you try to convince those pots otherwise? What good does it do? They were determined that way in eternity past. No matter what happens, the pots prepared for destruction are going to be destroyed."

    If the disciples were going to abandon Jesus, as foretold in the Scriptures, what was the point of Jesus telling them to pray that they wouldn't fall into temptation?

    What good does it do?

    What was the point of God sending a dream to Pilate's wife causing her to tell Pilate not to have anything to do with Jesus? Even though the cross happened exactly according to how God planned it?

    I could go on.

    Here's the thing. When YOU provide a system that is more consistent with the Scriptural data, I'll accept it. As of right now, you're asking me to exchange a Porsche for an 80's Pinto.

    Why would I do that?

    ***

    "But my questioning isn't the basis of an Arminian argument...I'm merely drawing conclusions from the post about what that means. I am not representing it as Aminianism, or saying I agree with it."

    THE POST IS USING ARMINIAN ARGUMENTATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    THAT

    IS

    THE

    OTHER-GUY'S

    ARGUMENT.

    Sigh.

    ***

    ReplyDelete
  26. " If God is glorified in making pots for destruction, why would you try to convince those pots otherwise? What good does it do? They were determined that way in eternity past. No matter what happens, the pots prepared for destruction are going to be destroyed."

    If the disciples were going to abandon Jesus, as foretold in the Scriptures, what was the point of Jesus telling them to pray that they wouldn't fall into temptation?

    What good does it do?

    What was the point of God sending a dream to Pilate's wife causing her to tell Pilate not to have anything to do with Jesus? Even though the cross happened exactly according to how God planned it?

    I could go on.


    Mike I think this shows the weakness of the Arminian position.

    Since Scripture foretold it, it would certainly happen...so why bother? We may as well say this: If God already knows the future with certainty and who will believe, why bother with evangelism?

    The Arminians would be all over anybody who argued this way, but that's precisely what they argue about, well everything else that follows that form of argumentation.

    They can't seem to wrap their heads around these basic ideas:

    1. A command / warning does not entail libertarian freedom in order to be effective.

    2, The difference between ends and means, eg. the reason that Jesus warned the disciples is because the warning itself was a means to the end.

    Likewise, they can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that there is more than one aim in the preaching of the gospel. It calls the elect; it inculpates the reprobate who hear it...blessing for one group, judgment upon the other.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Paul,

    I purposely ignored the argument because it was simply creating a straw-man. :)

    "Furthermore, since it has been stated ad nauseum in the literature that Calvinism holds to means and secondary causation, then these debates can serve the means God uses to change the Arminian. So, strike two."

    You can use all the philosophical mumbo jumbo you like, God is still acting counterintuitively to Himself. So strike...like 15.

    ReplyDelete