tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post330818156421317365..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The Gospel of FeelgoodismRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-29151811081246266162008-06-06T08:48:00.000-04:002008-06-06T08:48:00.000-04:00I AM NOT A BIV SAID:“Forget Matther 5 for a second...I AM NOT A BIV SAID:<BR/><BR/>“Forget Matther 5 for a second. Suppose my syllogism is sound. If it is sound, its conclusion---everyone wicked is my enemy---is true. __Ted Kennedy is wicked (by everyone's admission). If Ted Kennedy is wicked, by my ‘airy-fairy’ conclusion, it follows that he is my enemy. Jesus says ‘pray for your enemies.’ Voila. Pray for Ted Kennedy.”<BR/><BR/>Because you’re annexing your own extratextual definition (of who is my enemy) to Jesus’ command. Jesus didn’t say “pray for your enemies” as you mean it. <BR/><BR/>Frankly, there’s something a bit blasphemous about deifying your own intentions when you take his words and then invest them with your own meaning. <BR/><BR/>And remember that, even on its own terms, your syllogism said nothing about a duty to pray for one’s enemies. It wasn’t a sound argument for that proposition. <BR/><BR/>In addition, I could create a counter-syllogism: God’s enemy is my enemy; God doesn’t forgive all his enemies; therefore, I have no duty to forgive all my enemies.<BR/><BR/>“We should pray for all the wicked.”<BR/><BR/>Since I’m not a universalist, I don’t pray to God to save everyone. I know that such a prayer is contrary to God’s will. <BR/><BR/>Moreover, I don’t find much value in anonymous prayer.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19587612290660925772008-06-05T23:50:00.000-04:002008-06-05T23:50:00.000-04:00Forget Matther 5 for a second. Suppose my syllogis...Forget Matther 5 for a second. Suppose my syllogism is sound. If it is sound, its conclusion---everyone wicked is my enemy---is true. <BR/><BR/>Ted Kennedy is wicked (by everyone's admission). If Ted Kennedy is wicked, by my "airy-fairy" conclusion, it follows that he is my enemy. Jesus says "pray for your enemies." <I>Voila</I>. Pray for Ted Kennedy. <BR/><BR/>Really, this shouldn't have anything to do with the recent revelation that Ted Kennedy has an inoperable brain tumor. As J.M. Keynes once said, "In the long run, we're all dead." We should pray for all the wicked. We should wish them well. We should pray that they turn from their wickedness and love God with all their heart, soul and strength. <BR/><BR/>These are my last words on this subject. I shan't post again here.<BR/><BR/>Peace be with you.I Am Not A BIVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10763146293315263525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85692625744725513242008-06-05T18:50:00.000-04:002008-06-05T18:50:00.000-04:00I AM NOT A BIV SAID:“Let me address your response ...I AM NOT A BIV SAID:<BR/><BR/>“Let me address your response to Rev. Johnson. I take it you think something like the following:<BR/><BR/>(i) I am obligated to pray for Ted Kennedy only if he is an enemy of mine.”<BR/><BR/>A caveat: I’m not saying, as a general proposition, that there couldn’t possibly be another reason which would obligate me to pray for him. Rather, I’m saying that if a Christian is going to adduce Mt 5:44 or the Lucan parallel as his prooftext, then that obligation is contingent on the identity of Kennedy as a “enemy” of mine.<BR/><BR/>“(3) Kennedy is a personal or political enemy of mine only if he personally or politically persecutes me.”<BR/><BR/>Another caveat: “enemy” and “persecutor” aren’t synonymous in my usage. “Persecutor” is a special case, which illustrates the general principle. Same thing with “those who mistreat you.” So an enemy is someone who is a threat to you. Doesn’t have to be persecution, specifically.<BR/><BR/>“You think that Jesus teaches the generalized version of (3) and (4)? Honestly?”<BR/><BR/>Honestly, I think it perverts the original intent of the text to say that Ted Kennedy is my enemy. In its immediate historical setting, this text is alluding to the situation of Jews living under Roman occupation. It also anticipates the situation of Christians who will face Jewish and Roman persecution for their faith.<BR/><BR/>There are Christians around the world today in a similar situation. To apply that text to me in my circumstances would make a mockery of the text.<BR/><BR/>“Moreover, you think that the fact that Kennedy has supported immoral policies doesn't make him your enemy? He has supported things which have harmed my brothers and sisters. But he isn't my enemy because I haven't had to bear any significant harm from him?”<BR/><BR/>This is the sort of thing I have in mind. Suppose Kennedy sponsored a hate-crimes bill in the Senate that outlawed certain forms of Christian expression (such as preaching against sodomy). Assume that Congress passed that bill. As a result, pastors were fined, imprisoned. <BR/><BR/>That would make him a political enemy of the American church. At that point, Mt 5:44 would kick in. That would be analogous to the situation of 1C Christians and Jews, to which Mt 5:44 originally applied.<BR/><BR/>“The Chinese government persecutes Christians in China. They imprison my brothers and sisters. That isn't enough to make the members of the Chinese government my enemy? __It seems like you're saying something like this: if someone is picking on me, then they're my enemy and I'm obligated to pray for them. But if they're picking on someone who is my sibling in Christ, they're not my enemy, and I don't need to pray for them. Why this asymmetry, and why isn't this just a reductio of your position?”<BR/><BR/>You’re trying to ride two different horses:<BR/><BR/>i) On the one hand, why did Christians discovery a duty to pray for Ted Kennedy a few weeks ago? It’s not as if he lacks name recognition. <BR/><BR/>It’s because he was diagnosed with brain cancer. Okay. But he’s already 76 years old. And it’s not as if he’s ever bit a health nut. Watched his diet. Spent time at the gym. He might have dropped dead years ago. <BR/><BR/>He’s not the only geriatric lawmaker in Congress. Quite a few our state and federal lawmakers could stroke out or die of a heart attack tomorrow. Is there is duty to pray for them?<BR/><BR/>In any case, the rationale to pray for Kennedy on these grounds is that we should pray for him for his own sake, his own good, his own benefit. For his immortal soul. So that he doesn’t go to hell when he dies.<BR/><BR/>Of course, that has precisely nothing to do with his being my enemy or yours. He could be the proverbial virtuous pagan and still be in need of salvation. He could be the most helpful, neighborly personal on the block and still be in need of salvation. Never hurt a flea. Kind to kids, dogs, and strangers.<BR/><BR/>ii) On the other hand, if you say we should pray for him because he’s an enemy to people other than ourselves, then we’re praying for their benefit, rather than his. For their sake rather than his. For their good rather than his.<BR/><BR/>That’s really not about loving your enemies. Rather, that’s about loving the victims of your enemies. And praying for their enemies, not for the sake of their enemies, but for the sake of the victims—to give the victims relief from their enemies. It remains in-group love rather than out-group love.<BR/><BR/>And, of course, this is hypothetical since he’s not doing to American Christians what Chinese officials are doing to Chinese Christians. <BR/><BR/>“Interestingly, you say my ‘airy-fairy’ syllogism may be sound. But you can't say that, because if it's sound, your exegesis collapses. At the very best, your dialectical position is severely weakened. You can't grant that my syllogism is sound. You need to reject a premise. I want to know which premise you reject.”<BR/><BR/>A syllogism can be sound and still be irrelevant to the issue at hand. Here’s a sound argument:<BR/><BR/>i) No felons are eligible voters,<BR/>ii) Some politicians are felons.<BR/>iii) Therefore, some politicians are ineligible voters.<BR/><BR/>How does that relate to Mt 5:44? It doesn’t. Same with yours. You’ve given me a swell, self-contained syllogism which remains extraneous to the meaning of Mt 5:44 (or the Lukan parallel). You can’t plug your own meaning into the key terms of your prooftext.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54921231677882503892008-06-05T15:44:00.000-04:002008-06-05T15:44:00.000-04:00Let me address your response to Rev. Johnson. I ta...Let me address your response to Rev. Johnson. I take it you think something like the following:<BR/><BR/>(1) I am obligated to pray for Ted Kennedy only if he is an enemy of mine.<BR/>(2) Ted Kennedy is an enemy of mine only if he is either a personal or political enemy of mine.<BR/>(3) Kennedy is a personal or political enemy of mine only if he personally or politically persecutes me.<BR/>(4) Kennedy doesn't personally or politically persecute me.<BR/>(5) Therefore, I am not obligated to pray for Ted Kennedy. <BR/><BR/>You think that Jesus teaches the generalized version of (3) and (4)? Honestly?<BR/><BR/>Moreover, you think that the fact that Kennedy has supported immoral policies doesn't make him your enemy? He has supported things which have harmed my brothers and sisters. But he isn't my enemy because I haven't had to bear any significant harm from him? The Chinese government persecutes Christians in China. They imprison my brothers and sisters. That isn't enough to make the members of the Chinese government my enemy? <BR/><BR/>It seems like you're saying something like this: if someone is picking on me, then they're my enemy and I'm obligated to pray for them. But if they're picking on someone who is my sibling in Christ, they're not my enemy, and I don't need to pray for them. Why this asymmetry, and why isn't this just a reductio of your position?<BR/><BR/>Interestingly, you say my "airy-fairy" syllogism may be sound. But you can't say that, because if it's sound, your exegesis collapses. At the very best, your dialectical position is severely weakened. You can't grant that my syllogism is sound. You need to reject a premise. I want to know which premise you reject.I Am Not A BIVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10763146293315263525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79362912171520354902008-06-05T15:19:00.000-04:002008-06-05T15:19:00.000-04:00I AM NOT A BIV SAID:“Who ever said my only proofte...I AM NOT A BIV SAID:<BR/><BR/>“Who ever said my only prooftext was Matthew 5:44? What about Luke 6?”<BR/><BR/>I already addressed the synoptic parallel in Luke in my reply to Matthew Johnson. You’d save us both some time if you bothered to read my compete response to BHT rather that rehashing arguments I’ve dealt with before.<BR/><BR/>“My argument is valid. Are you saying it's unsound? If so, which premise is false?”<BR/><BR/>I already explained the problem. You’re substituting a syllogism for exegesis. You need to exegete your prooftext, whether it’s Mt 5, Lk 6, or both. The meaning of “enemy” must derive from the prooftext you adduce to prove your point. From the terms of the prooftext. Not from some extrinsic syllogism which you can cook up on the spot. Contextual Matthean or Lucan usage determines the “enemy” in view.<BR/><BR/>It may be a sound syllogism, but its not *about* the prooftext. It fails to explicate the meaning of the prooftext. <BR/><BR/>“Here's the assumption I've been operating on: those who oppose God's kingdom are wicked. As such, they are God's enemies. But then they are my enemies too, for those opposed to my master are my enemies. If they ain't for us, they're agin' us. Or do you think that is false?”<BR/><BR/>That’s wholly irrelevant to the meaning of Mt 5 or Lk 6. You need to bring some exegetical discipline to your prooftexting. Not import something into the text from outside the text.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88125643872453033702008-06-05T14:00:00.000-04:002008-06-05T14:00:00.000-04:00Who ever said my only prooftext was Matthew 5:44? ...Who ever said my only prooftext was Matthew 5:44? What about Luke 6? "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil." Or maybe this part of Luke is spurious too?<BR/><BR/>You misunderstand my criticism of your definition of "enemy." It is too narrow because it prevents God from ever having enemies. Which is why, at best, <I>x</I>'s being in a position to harm <I>y</I> is a sufficient, not a necessary condition on <I>x</I>'s being <I>y</I>'s enemy. Are you saying that God has no enemies? Oh wait, that can't be right. St. Paul says that you and I were once enemies of God. <BR/><BR/>You say that the argument I provide is "an airy-fairy syllogism." That's funny: I just checked all my logic texts and they all say that there are two (and only two) ways to criticize an argument. An argument fails if it is either unsound or invalid. I'm not sure what the criticism of "airy-fairyness" amounts to. My argument is valid. Are you saying it's unsound? If so, which premise is false?<BR/><BR/>Here's the assumption I've been operating on: those who oppose God's kingdom are wicked. As such, they are God's enemies. But then they are my enemies too, for those opposed to my master are my enemies. If they ain't for us, they're agin' us. Or do you think that is false? <BR/><BR/>As far as who I pray for, I pray for those whom I particularly know need prayer. I do also pray for the general mass of humanity. I am obligated to do both.I Am Not A BIVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10763146293315263525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65240558284701098482008-06-05T13:26:00.000-04:002008-06-05T13:26:00.000-04:00I AM NOT A BIV SAID:“Your definition of wickedness...I AM NOT A BIV SAID:<BR/><BR/>“Your definition of wickedness is far too narrow. For one, it prevents God from ever having any enemies, since God cannot be harmed by any human being.”<BR/><BR/>You’re committing the illicit totality transfer fallacy. It’s illicit to read the entire concept of “wickedness” or “enemies” back into Mt 5:44. For one thing, the verse doesn’t even speak of “wickedness.” That’s your gloss.<BR/><BR/>And what constitutes an “enemy” must be delimited by the textual and contextual data supplied by your prooftext. Mt 5:44 cannot be extended to God. That is nonsensical. God cannot be persecuted. <BR/><BR/>When you introduce a prooftext to establish a claim, you need to interpret your prooftext according to standard principles of exegesis—starting with lexical semantics. <BR/><BR/>“For another, the following argument seems plausible: an enemy of God is my enemy; everyone wicked is an enemy of God; therefore everyone wicked is my enemy.”<BR/><BR/>That’s a nice syllogism, but it’s no way to exegete Mt 5:44. You can’t take exegetical shortcuts with airy-fairy syllogisms. <BR/><BR/>“At best, what you've given as a definition (x is an enemy iff x who harms me) isn't a necessary and sufficient condition, but merely a sufficient one--in which case your argument is fallacious. It is an instance of denying the antecedent.”<BR/><BR/>You’re operating at the wrong plane of abstraction. After you’ve done the exegetical spadework, you can try to turn your exegetical conclusion into a general proposition—but you can’t begin with a general proposition, which you pull out of thin air, then superimpose that on a text of Scripture, as if that supplies the meaning of the verse. <BR/><BR/>“Of course Atilla the Hun isn't your enemy; he doesn't exist anymore. Note the shift in tense in your argument. Atilla the Hun was wicked, but he isn't your enemy. Of course he isn't your enemy; he isn't anything. The dead can't be your enemies, since they can't be anything. Only the living can be your enemies.”<BR/><BR/>Now you’re the one who’s failing to draw a distinction between a necessary and sufficient condition. At best, wickedness is a necessary rather than sufficient condition for someone to be my enemy. <BR/><BR/>It’s not enough that he be wicked. To be my actual enemy, he must be in a position to harm me, and he must either intend to harm me, or unintentionally harm me.<BR/><BR/>Kennedy hasn’t tried to harm me. And he hasn’t harmed me unintentionally—although he has harmed many others.<BR/><BR/>He doesn’t fall within the parameters of Mt 5:44. The problem is that you began with Kennedy, then went casting about for a prooftext—rather than beginning with a prooftext, and then seeing who-all it applies to. <BR/><BR/>“As far as the Biblical attitude towards the wicked is concerned, you're presentation of that attitude is incomplete. What about…”<BR/><BR/>I already dealt with Ezk 18 in my reply to Bob Myers. You’re behind the curve.<BR/><BR/>“What about the fact that you and I were once wicked and deserving of condemnation?”<BR/><BR/>And how does that translate into a duty to pray for Kennedy in particular, rather than 6.6 billion other people on earth? Aren’t you selective in who you pray for? What are you selection criteria?<BR/><BR/>“Didn't Jesus intercede for us in our wickedness before His Father's throne?”<BR/><BR/>Jesus intercedes for the elect. In that respect, I can’t emulate the prayers of Jesus since my prayers can’t target the elect. <BR/><BR/>“My argument from ignorance cuts both ways only if I have no reason to think that God loves even the wicked. But I do have reason to think that God loves the wicked. He loved me when I was wicked.”<BR/><BR/>Which, by your reckoning, would be about 6.6 billion people. How many of them do you pray for? Do you work your way through the NYC white pages, then the LA white pages, then the Beijing white pages, then the Calcutta white pages, &c?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26730119973681686542008-06-05T12:32:00.000-04:002008-06-05T12:32:00.000-04:00Your definition of wickedness is far too narrow. F...Your definition of wickedness is far too narrow. For one, it prevents God from ever having any enemies, since God cannot be harmed by any human being. For another, the following argument seems plausible: an enemy of God is my enemy; everyone wicked is an enemy of God; therefore everyone wicked is my enemy. <BR/><BR/>At best, what you've given as a definition (<I>x</I> is an enemy iff <I>x</I> who harms me) isn't a necessary and sufficient condition, but merely a sufficient one--in which case your argument is fallacious. It is an instance of denying the antecedent.<BR/><BR/>Of course Atilla the Hun isn't your enemy; he doesn't exist anymore. Note the shift in tense in your argument. Atilla the Hun <EM>was</EM> wicked, but he <EM>isn't</EM> your enemy. Of course he isn't your enemy; he isn't anything. The dead can't be your enemies, since they can't be anything. Only the living can be your enemies.<BR/><BR/>As far as the Biblical attitude towards the wicked is concerned, you're presentation of that attitude is incomplete. What about "As I live!' declares the Lord GOD, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?'" Where does that fit in? What about the fact that you and I were once wicked and deserving of condemnation? Didn't Jesus intercede for us in our wickedness before His Father's throne? <BR/><BR/>This should answer your question about what we should pray for Mr. Kennedy about: we should wish him the best, which is to say that we should express our desire to God that He redeem Mr. Kennedy from his sin.<BR/><BR/>As far as whether my argument is distinct from JMR's, that depends on how you interpret the notion of common humanity. You've chosen to view it as some kind of moral equivalence; I haven't. I interpret it differently. But this is mere distraction from the main thread of argument.<BR/><BR/>My argument from ignorance cuts both ways only if I have no reason to think that God loves even the wicked. But I do have reason to think that God loves the wicked. He loved me when I was wicked.I Am Not A BIVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10763146293315263525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-14822924575593446622008-06-05T09:25:00.000-04:002008-06-05T09:25:00.000-04:00Hi Alex. Good to see you in better form this time ...Hi Alex. Good to see you in better form this time around.<BR/><BR/>“Jesus enjoined us to pray for our enemies; certainly the wicked are among our enemies; therefore, we should pray for them.”<BR/><BR/>The fact that someone is wicked doesn’t make him *my* enemy. Attila the Hun was wicked. That doesn’t make him my enemy. He couldn’t be my enemy if he wanted to. He lived and died long before I was born. So he’s in no position to harm me.<BR/><BR/>You’re citing Jesus’ command, but you’re swapping in a different definition. You define an enemy as someone who is wicked; he defines an enemy as someone who does us harm (i.e. those who curse us, mistreat us, persecute us). Your citation is invalidated by a fatal equivocation of terms. <BR/><BR/>“My basic point is this: even if Scripture draws a distinction between the righteous and the wicked, it isn't obvious that this undermines JMR's original argument. You need to show that the distinction between the righteous and the wicked is somehow relevant to determining the class of people for whom Christians are obligated to pray. And then you need to show that it is reasonable to think that Ted Kennedy falls outside this class.”<BR/><BR/>i) It undermines JMR’s original argument. He used a couple of moral arguments: (a) an appeal to our common humanity (what I dubbed moral equivalence) and (b) honoring Kennedy’s life of public service (an implicit appeal to merit, in deeds, if not in character). But if Kennedy is immoral, in character, conduct, or both, then that undermine JMR’s moral arguments. <BR/><BR/>ii) In addition, you’re not using the same argument as JMR. You’re alluding to a passage from the Sermon on the Mount. JRM didn’t cite that passage. That was no part of his original argument. So you’re really substituting your own argument for his.<BR/><BR/>Now, you’re entitled to mount your own independent argument. Obviously you’re not tied to JMR’s framework. But when you shore up his argument by introducing a passage from the Sermon on the Mount, this is a tacit admission that his original argument was inadequate. <BR/><BR/>iii) I don’t need to show that the Scriptural distinction between the righteous and the wicked is relevant to Mt 5:45. Rather, I only need to show that Kennedy falls outside the class of Christian enemies in Mt 5:45. I spent some time on that in reply to Matthew Johnson.<BR/><BR/>“You assume that God does not wish us to pray for Ted Kennedy because Kennedy is wicked.”<BR/><BR/>No, that was never my argument. I merely brought up the Biblical attitude towards the wicked to undermine JMR’s facile appeal to our common humanity, as well as his subsequent appeal to Kennedy’s honorable record of public service.<BR/><BR/>However, I’ll add one personal comment which I also had in mind, but didn’t mention at the time—since I was confining myself to a point/counterpoint reply to JMR: the Bible does take moral satisfaction in the death of the wicked. When the wicked get their just deserts. Some Christians have lost sight of this perspective. They chide that “gleeful,” “gloating” attitude over the misfortune of the wicked as “unchristian.” But it’s not. It’s fundamental to Biblical eschatology and retributive justice.<BR/><BR/>When you say we should pray for Kennedy, you don’t say what we should pray for. For his salvation? Or his healing?<BR/><BR/>If you think we should pray for his healing, then his wickedness is, indeed, a relevant consideration. Because he’s a man who legislates immorality. So, no, I wouldn’t pray for his healing. <BR/><BR/>As for his salvation, if you think he’s a lost soul, then he’s been a lost soul all his life. He’s 76 years old. Why the sudden concern for his salvation? <BR/><BR/>Speaking for myself, I don’t have any inherent objection to praying for his salvation. However, there are billions of unsaved souls in our world. And many people are praying for Kennedy. Frankly, he’s not on my priority list. Being a celebrity doesn’t bump you to the top of my list. I have other lost souls to pray for. I’m a nobody who prays for other nobodies—the subset of nobodies whom God brought into my own life over the years. <BR/><BR/>“The fact is that you have very little idea about how God particularly feels about Ted Kennedy. Because of your ignorance of Kennedy's specific standing before God, you have no reason to think that you incur no obligation to pray for him.”<BR/><BR/>That argument cuts both ways. <BR/><BR/>“I do think that the highlighted remark by JMR is outrageous. The saint prays for everyone, like Jesus did.”<BR/><BR/>Does Jesus pray for everyone? What does Jesus pray for when he prays for everyone? Does he pray for everyone’s healing? Why are so many people sick? Does he pray for everyone’s forgiveness? Why isn’t everyone forgiveness?<BR/><BR/>If Jesus’ prayers go unanswered, it’s futile for me to pray. Will my prayers be heard when his prayers go unheard?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30090972001872726832008-06-04T15:34:00.000-04:002008-06-04T15:34:00.000-04:00Okay. Let's truck in some arguments.(1) That someo...Okay. Let's truck in some arguments.<BR/><BR/>(1) That someone is a human and suffering obligates us to pray for them.<BR/>(2) Ted Kennedy is a human and is suffering.<BR/>(3) Therefore, we are obligated to pray for Ted Kennedy.<BR/><BR/>Pushback: Scripture draws a distinction between the wicked and the righteous. If someone is wicked, then it is permissible not to pray for them. Ted Kennedy is wicked; <I>ergo</I> it is permissible not to pray for him.<BR/><BR/>Problem with the pushback: Jesus certainly prayed (and perhaps still prays) for the wicked. At His crucifixion, He prayed that His Father would forgive His tormentors. <BR/><BR/>Problem with the problem with the pushback: Luke 23:34 is spurious. So you can't appeal to it. *sticks tongue out*<BR/><BR/>Response: Fine. I can grant that Luke 23:34 is spurious, and still maintain my point. Jesus enjoined us to pray for our enemies; certainly the wicked are among our enemies; therefore, we should pray for them. <BR/><BR/>My basic point is this: even if Scripture draws a distinction between the righteous and the wicked, it isn't obvious that this undermines JMR's original argument. You need to show that the distinction between the righteous and the wicked is somehow relevant to determining the class of people for whom Christians are obligated to pray. And then you need to show that it is reasonable to think that Ted Kennedy falls outside this class.<BR/><BR/>My other objection (which is charged with being incoherent) is not incoherent at all. If anything, where the incoherence lies is on your part. You do take the position of God and the prophets as recorded in the OT. You refuse the position of Jesus as recorded in the NT. Why?<BR/><BR/>I said that you seem to want to adopt the attitude of God towards Ted Kennedy; you assume that God does not wish us to pray for Ted Kennedy because Kennedy is wicked. But again, your warrant for this is tenuous, especially in light of Jesus's injunctions to pray for our enemies. The fact is that you have very little idea about how God particularly feels about Ted Kennedy. Because of your ignorance of Kennedy's specific standing before God, you have no reason to think that you incur no obligation to pray for him. <BR/><BR/>I do think that the highlighted remark by JMR is outrageous. The saint prays for everyone, like Jesus did.<BR/><BR/>As far as being intellectually consistent, you can't fault me for that. I apologize for the name-calling and the vitriol. This is not an intellectual failing, but a moral one, which is probably more serious anyway.I Am Not A BIVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10763146293315263525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12883872032545945562008-06-04T12:41:00.000-04:002008-06-04T12:41:00.000-04:00Bruce said:---I am well of what deformed faith tea...Bruce said:<BR/>---<BR/>I am well of what deformed faith teaches.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Tell George Carlin to move aside. He's got brilliant competetion coming along. I can't wait to hear your rendition of "Why is six afraid of seven?"<BR/><BR/>Oh, the anticipation of the coming wit is killing me!!!!Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84826243723555831562008-06-04T11:17:00.000-04:002008-06-04T11:17:00.000-04:00The purpose of prayer is not to inform God about o...The purpose of prayer is not to inform God about our needs (of which He has an infinitely better knowledge than we have) nor does it aim at bringing Him around to satisfy them (His infinite goodness never ceases to want our good) but rather to make our will coincide with His so that His love may find a more perfect answer than ours.annehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13312764428938351529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30569139745329902502008-06-04T04:46:00.000-04:002008-06-04T04:46:00.000-04:00I am well of what deformed faith teaches.I am well of what deformed faith teaches.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34279502169593222862008-06-03T10:06:00.000-04:002008-06-03T10:06:00.000-04:00Lucas said...A question Steve: what constitutes th...Lucas said...<BR/>A question Steve: what constitutes the signs of being reprobate? I've grown up believing (or maybe just inferred) that we can't tell until they die an unbeliever.<BR/><BR/>Just wonderin'.<BR/><BR/>******************<BR/><BR/>Outwardly, there's no fundamental difference between a reprobate, a backslider, and an elect unregenerate. It could all come down to a deathbed conversion or restoration, if not something sooner. <BR/><BR/>Often it's a difference of degree. For an example, an apostate tends to differ from a backslider in the intensity, as well as duration, of his infidelity. But God only knows.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-42122033630239620712008-06-03T10:01:00.000-04:002008-06-03T10:01:00.000-04:00Bruce Gerencser said:Oh I can follow the bouncing ...Bruce Gerencser said:<BR/>Oh I can follow the bouncing ball. Some us have played this game awhile and we know where the ball always ends up.<BR/><BR/>I prefer Adam's fallen race to Calvin's elect race. So, no need to pray. You are off the hook.<BR/><BR/>***************************<BR/>Obviously you can't follow the bouncing ball since you've just given us a classic, ignorant mistatement of the Reformed faith. Election doesn't obviate the means of grace.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64515382756219552192008-06-02T23:21:00.000-04:002008-06-02T23:21:00.000-04:00A question Steve: what constitutes the signs of be...A question Steve: what constitutes the signs of being reprobate? I've grown up believing (or maybe just inferred) that we can't tell until they die an unbeliever.<BR/><BR/>Just wonderin'.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16854131841713405200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55634729893998354612008-06-02T21:50:00.000-04:002008-06-02T21:50:00.000-04:00Oh I can follow the bouncing ball. Some us have pl...Oh I can follow the bouncing ball. Some us have played this game awhile and we know where the ball always ends up.<BR/><BR/>I prefer Adam's fallen race to Calvin's elect race. So, no need to pray. You are off the hook.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61825840675488714902008-06-02T14:05:00.000-04:002008-06-02T14:05:00.000-04:00Regrettably, I did not 'argue' well.I am sorrowful...Regrettably, I did not 'argue' well.<BR/>I am sorrowful for any poor witness I exemplified. I was, in many ways, without grace. <BR/><BR/>I have been devoured as a result.<BR/><BR/>I'll give the floor here because I did a poor job in the first place. <BR/><BR/>Just remember, as I am now reminded and convicted, "those that preach about Grace ought to have some of their own."--David MillerS.J. Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15922550763548455625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91237588384126366832008-06-02T13:54:00.000-04:002008-06-02T13:54:00.000-04:00Bro.Thank you for not including this:"Again friend...Bro.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for not including this:<BR/><BR/>"Again friendly fire has gone both directions here. And I am not without guilt. I apologize for my inflammatory comments. I spoke with zeal but not wisdom."S.J. Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15922550763548455625noreply@blogger.com