tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post641031573559631380..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Reply to the Anti-CalvinistsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48385000338518916142008-04-28T01:41:00.000-04:002008-04-28T01:41:00.000-04:00This doesn't look like a theodicy. This looks like...This doesn't look like a theodicy. This looks like an argument saying we there could be reasons we don't understand. That is, as I understand it, a defense and not a theodicy.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38664589831242046152008-04-17T00:47:00.000-04:002008-04-17T00:47:00.000-04:00For what it's worth, since Victor was interacting ...For what it's worth, since Victor was interacting directly with my arguments, I have now taken the time to respond to him as well. I would have done it sooner, but I'm a new father.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/?p=66" REL="nofollow">God and goodness: a reply to Victor Reppert</A><BR/><BR/>Thanks for your own interaction on this—especially Paul. It's been helpful in clarifying my own response, and it's always encouraging to be defended by someone else.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>BnonnDominic Bnonn Tennanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03103838704540924679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66124338143646024162008-04-13T18:58:00.000-04:002008-04-13T18:58:00.000-04:006. Buh-bye6. Buh-byeErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37290674660019089532008-04-13T17:15:00.000-04:002008-04-13T17:15:00.000-04:005. FLUSH5. FLUSHnormajeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612628618334389249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22370564216940571572008-04-13T15:56:00.000-04:002008-04-13T15:56:00.000-04:001. Lol. 2. It's Hays not Hayes, and I read your co...1. Lol. 2. It's Hays not Hayes, and I read your comment in response to S&S and noticed immediately who the jokster was. 3. Yes they do, and there's philosophical objections too. 4. Try reading the scriptures through the lens of someone other than Witherington or Wright, perhaps Paul or an early Jew.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70581238460208662292008-04-13T12:31:00.000-04:002008-04-13T12:31:00.000-04:001. Lol 2. “Tilting at windmills”? I read the Haye...1. Lol 2. “Tilting at windmills”? I read the Hayes to Witherington response and noticed immediately who the scholar was. 3. The scriptures have no conflict with Craig’s use of middle knowledge in the same way the scriptures have no conflict with reason. 4. Try reading the scriptures through the lens of someone other than Calvin, perhaps Paul or an early Jew.normajeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612628618334389249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70251176670879532092008-04-12T23:33:00.000-04:002008-04-12T23:33:00.000-04:00To add to what Paul and Gene have said:1. Witherin...To add to what Paul and Gene have said:<BR/><BR/>1. Witherington has been dealt with on this blog. Search "Tilting at Windmills" in the blog search engine.<BR/><BR/>2. Craig is your typical philosopher just like Reppert. He doesn't really care what Scripture says. His vehicle of knowledge is philosophical rationalism.<BR/><BR/>3. If Wright's arguments against Calvinism are of the same caliber as his arguments for his New Perspective on Paul, then we 'Calvies' don't have much to worry about.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31008574873583453182008-04-12T22:27:00.000-04:002008-04-12T22:27:00.000-04:00"But I'm not worried a bit since Witherington with...<I>"But I'm not worried a bit since Witherington with a dash of Wright and Bill Craig suffice to kibbosh the new school Calvies!"</I><BR/><BR/>1. Steve has interacted with Witherington's work in the past, and it's demonstrably facile. I look forward to your improvements on Witherington.<BR/><BR/>2. Craig admits that his theory of Middle Knowledge lacks much, if any exegetical support.<BR/><BR/>So, the exegetical case for Arminianism coming from either of these persons is severely lacking. <BR/><BR/>I've said this before: If LFW is not an action theory Scripture teaches (and if it is contradicted by Scripture), then Arminianism is false before it can even make the first exegetical case, for LFW is central to Armininianism in a way our theory of agency is not central to Calvinism. So, where's the exegetical argument for LFW?GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27414734579147635252008-04-12T22:14:00.000-04:002008-04-12T22:14:00.000-04:00"But I'm not worried a bit since Witherington with..."But I'm not worried a bit since Witherington with a dash of Wright and Bill Craig suffice to kibbosh the new school Calvies!"<BR/><BR/>But I'm not worried a bit since Schreiner with a dash of Carson and Paul Heml suffice to kibbosh the new school Armininies!<BR/><BR/>(I just tried to stay contemporary)Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7035942821785292022008-04-12T20:16:00.000-04:002008-04-12T20:16:00.000-04:00While I love the Reppert, I too am a bit confused ...While I love the Reppert, I too am a bit confused with what he is attempting top accomplish. But I'm not worried a bit since Witherington with a dash of Wright and Bill Craig suffice to kibbosh the new school Calvies!normajeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612628618334389249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12423633758320607332008-04-12T17:05:00.000-04:002008-04-12T17:05:00.000-04:00Gene,"So, we're left with universalism - and that ...Gene,<BR/><BR/>"So, we're left with universalism - and that is pure unbridled, unvarnished heresy. Good job, Dr. Reppert. I guess we have yet another theologian who has lost his mind in his old age."<BR/><BR/>1. Reppert is indeed a universalist. (But he doesn't think it's heresy. He follows much of Talbott's--who, btw, isn't libertarian--arguments.<BR/><BR/>2. Reppert isn't a "theologian." That's part of his problem in this debate.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41058610779558725432008-04-12T16:45:00.000-04:002008-04-12T16:45:00.000-04:00One of Reppert's consistent problems is that he do...One of Reppert's consistent problems is that he doesn't actually bother to deal with the orders of decrees fairly because he gets, like all Arminians, hung up over the *idea* of the decree.<BR/><BR/>1. For starters, the very objection that people are damned due to the decree would only be true if you conflate a decree with the outworking of the decree. The decree to elect does not occur apart from the decree of means: the gospel preaching, regeneration, etc. - and even the Supras of old deny that the decree to fall is to be construed to make God the author of sin. Which gets us to:<BR/><BR/>2. The decree to fall is a decree to *permit* the fall. So, we can use the FWD to tell us *how* the fall happened, and it doesn't require LFW.<BR/><BR/>3. Arminians also have orders of decrees. How does God decreeing the possibility of evil (to take just one example of a distinction Arminians try to make) get God "off the hook?" If they affirm that He has infallible foreknowledge, then God still creates man knowing this is inevitable.<BR/><BR/>4. And the Molinist has God decreeing this and only this universe.<BR/><BR/>5. And the Open Theist might deny the foreknowledge, but then he has to concede there is unplanned, therefore gratuitous evil. OT's generally wind up as universalists of some kind. More below.<BR/><BR/>So, if Reppert appeals to any of these, he's got to explain the tradeoff - namely how his Arminian position is better. <BR/><BR/>And where would the exegetical argument be for any of them be?<BR/><BR/>As a matter of fact, it's the Amyraldian and Arminian who have the hardest problem with the objection that men are damned due to a decree. Nobody ever takes the time to look at that:<BR/><BR/>Here's basic Amyraldianism:<BR/><BR/>Creation<BR/>Permission of fall<BR/>Atonement for all <BR/>Election/reprobation<BR/>Application<BR/><BR/>Because the third decree is construed as a real desire to atone for the sin of everybody, the 4th decree works @ cross purposes. It manifests a contradictory desire.<BR/><BR/>Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism don't have this problem. So the problem that Reppert is trying to address is really *his* problem, not ours, even on an Arminian order. It's only a pseudoproblem for us. It's really a problem for him. He's mirror-reading.<BR/><BR/>It's a problem for the Arminian for it's a problem for any order of decrees that construes the atonement in general terms then includes a decree to elect - no matter how election is contrued - will fall prey to this problem. The atonement manifests a real desire to save everybody. The decree to elect - or recognize the elect by their faith (Arminianism) is construed as desire *not* to save everybody - for everybody is not saved. The Molinist would say God decreed this universe knowing that very outcome, and the Arminian must say that not everybody will believe the Gospel - for not everyone will hear the Gospel.<BR/><BR/>So, we're left with universalism - and that is pure unbridled, unvarnished heresy. Good job, Dr. Reppert. I guess we have yet another theologian who has lost his mind in his old age.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-78534857319212782292008-04-12T08:31:00.000-04:002008-04-12T08:31:00.000-04:00"is sending criminals to their just desserts."Yum!..."is sending criminals to their just desserts."<BR/><BR/>Yum!Claudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16705428441316701050noreply@blogger.com