tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2140594106613088199..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Is evil a pseudoproblem?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71855878850882267902009-11-10T08:23:29.377-05:002009-11-10T08:23:29.377-05:00Victor,
If you say Calvinism treats evil as pseud...Victor,<br /><br />If you say Calvinism treats evil as pseudoproblem, then, of course, you're raising an objection to Calvinism. Don't play dumb. And don't play me for a fool.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2423415453245568172009-11-10T01:29:08.413-05:002009-11-10T01:29:08.413-05:00You are reacting to an explanation on my part of C...You are reacting to an explanation on my part of Calvinism. There is nothing in what I said that says that Calvinism is false. Nothing. I am just trying to spell out the position to the best of my understanding. <br /><br />I mean really. Do I have to put a big red sign on everything I say on the subject of Calvinism that says "This is not an attack on Calvinism" if, in fact, I am not attacking Calvinism? I've actually dont that a time or two, but that it gets a little tiresome. I'm trying to explicate some of the implications of Calvinist theology, in much the way I would explicate Islamic philosophy or theology if I were to be doing a class presentation on it.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80555464489620210112009-11-09T18:30:32.108-05:002009-11-09T18:30:32.108-05:00JOHN SAID:
"However, if God does not have a ...JOHN SAID:<br /><br />"However, if God does not have a moral motive or imperative to alleviate suffering, then do we? To do so could be to attempt to nullify something that He Himself has ordained, no?"<br /><br />If we can nullify it, then God didn't ordain it. If God ordained it, then we can't nullify it. So there's nothing to lose by trying.<br /><br />"Further, if there's really no amount of suffering that can be visited upon a sinner that would be proportionately "too much", why would it not be the right (if not duty) of the believer to not only ignore suffering but to increase it?"<br /><br />Suppose that, hypothetically speaking, a certain degree of suffering would be disproportionate? Unless you can demonstrate that this hypothetical is more than purely hypothetical, so what?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60937133487050994622009-11-09T18:02:09.882-05:002009-11-09T18:02:09.882-05:00"If, according to Reppert, God has a moral mo..."If, according to Reppert, God has a moral motive to alleviate suffering, then why doesn’t God alleviate suffering? Hasn’t Reppert just proposed a defeater for belief in God?"<br /><br />Perhaps.<br /><br />However, if God does not have a moral motive or imperative to alleviate suffering, then do we? To do so could be to attempt to nullify something that He Himself has ordained, no? <br /><br />Further, if there's really no amount of suffering that can be visited upon a sinner that would be proportionately "too much", why would it not be the right (if not duty) of the believer to not only ignore suffering but to <i>increase</i> it?<br /><br />That is unless the evil endured is only willed by Him so that some secondary good can be accomplished. I don't think that's necessarily the view here, though.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04361879638625626574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-17600273813039185212009-11-09T13:40:53.956-05:002009-11-09T13:40:53.956-05:00To digress because of you, Brett, yeah, you, I hav...To digress because of you, Brett, yeah, you, I have a couple of my own.<br /><br />On some days I want them. On other days my wife doesn't!<br /><br />Hmmmmm?<br /><br />The one thing I never taught them, the word or meaning, that they got all on their own was the word "MINE".<br /><br />It just utterly amazes me how selective those boys are. Will they ever grow out of such sin? :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79930596567318281702009-11-09T10:25:41.142-05:002009-11-09T10:25:41.142-05:00Does Reppert not have kids? I have 7 of them and I...Does Reppert not have kids? I have 7 of them and I love them all intensely. But their first thought in the morning (as infants or otherwise) is not "How can I serve mom and dad this morning?" Nor is it, "How can I serve my siblings?" They are cute, but completely self-absorbed, un-thankful, impatient creatures. They are amazing and I love them with all my heart, but they are definitely sinful. As soon as they have control of their limbs they are steeling toys from one another (I have twins). It is only their inability that keeps them from displaying their sinfulness more.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15914126628566132517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64627314520813277402009-11-09T08:47:12.069-05:002009-11-09T08:47:12.069-05:00Good question.
In When Cultists Ask he says of th...Good question.<br /><br />In When Cultists Ask he says of this verse, "From these [5:18-19] verses universalists infer that Christ’s death “for all” guarantees salvation “for all.” This conclusion, however, is contrary to <b>the context</b> here and in Romans as a whole as well as to the rest of Scripture" (215; emphasis mine).<br /><br />(However, in Roman Catholics and Evangelicals he uses the verse to prove universal atonement: "The sacrifice of Christ on the cross completely satisfied God’s justice on behalf of the sins of the entire human race (Rom. 3:21–26; 5:18–19; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 John 2:2)" (346). He uses it the same way in When Critics Ask on page 441.)<br /><br />So I suppose he would admit that the context can dictate how it's understood and the debate would go from there.Red Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11126230836580816821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76684179524029412932009-11-09T08:21:03.440-05:002009-11-09T08:21:03.440-05:00How would Geisler deal with Rom 5:18?How would Geisler deal with Rom 5:18?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86347228668877661972009-11-08T22:40:51.771-05:002009-11-08T22:40:51.771-05:00Geisler would probably say that we should assume R...Geisler would probably say that we should assume Rom. 5:6 is universal:<br /><br />"Universal propositions generally have the word All or No at the beginning. If the proposition refers to only part of the subject group, it is called particular. Propositions of this kind start with words like some and not all. <b>If no quantifier is given, then we assume that the proposition is universal</b>"(Come Let Us Reason 28; emphasis mine).Red Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11126230836580816821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54079400689859311712009-11-08T21:33:17.696-05:002009-11-08T21:33:17.696-05:00I didn't think it would be that simple.
Thank...I didn't think it would be that simple.<br /><br />Thanks!Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34659768168291280922009-11-08T21:27:59.808-05:002009-11-08T21:27:59.808-05:00How about a fallacy of equivocation?
The syllogis...How about a fallacy of equivocation?<br /><br />The syllogism would only be valid if the major premise (#1) said "all" sinners. <br /><br />But, of course, that would beg the question.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3768920233716123832009-11-08T21:25:02.857-05:002009-11-08T21:25:02.857-05:00Somewhat off-topic (but somewhat not since we'...Somewhat off-topic (but somewhat not since we're talking about the illogical):<br /><br />What is this fallacy called? I heard Norman Geisler use it in a speech (played on the DL):<br /><br />1. Scripture says that Christ died for sinners (Romans 5:6).<br />2. Everyone is a sinner, aren't they?<br />3. Therefore, Christ died for everyone.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.com