tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post689051591640290373..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Termites in the Birch treeRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83902974093435315542009-08-22T09:27:51.265-04:002009-08-22T09:27:51.265-04:00“He doesn't cause evil to come to pass "b...“He doesn't cause evil to come to pass "by setting into motion a chain-reaction which inevitably led to that outcome," as you have sugggested.”<br /><br />By creating Adam, Eve, Lucifer, and the process of procreation, God sets into motion a chain-reaction with an inevitable outcome resulting in evil.<br /><br />God knew the end-result, and he created the initial conditions which yield that outcome.<br /><br />And the outcome was inevitable on two grounds: <br /><br />i) Since the outcome was foreknown, the outcome was certain.<br /><br />ii) God also made the outcome inevitable by creating the world in which that foreseeable consequence occurs. In that world, no other outcome is possible. He created the world in which Lucifer falls. He created the world in which Adam falls. He created the world in which sinners beget sinners. By creating that world, it’s evitable that the all those events will transpire.<br /><br />The fact that you try to deny this doesn’t make your denial coherent. My description is logically entailed by Arminian assumptions.<br /><br />”And still you avoid answering my question outright. I'll ask it again, for this is the sole issue here - this is how the whole discussion was born.”<br /><br />You are not entitled to unilaterally dictate the terms of the debate. I realize you’d like to rig the debate so that we only discuss the issues you think are damaging to Calvinism while avoiding all discussion of the issues which are damaging to Arminianism. That’s a backdoor admission that you can’t defend your own position. You can try to attack Calvinism, but your own position is indefensible.<br /><br />“Did God foreordain Adam's sin by means of his foreknowledge of Adam's free choice, or by a mere decree? ”<br /><br />i) Since “foreordination” is synonymous with the “decree,” your question is tautologous. <br /><br />ii) If libertarianism were true, then the outcome would be unknowable–since it could go either way. Therefore, your assumption is incoherent.<br /><br />“Or do you fear that by admitting that it was by God's mere decree (and thus not by foreknowledge), you are forced to agree with Sproul Jr. and recant your short post on his view?”<br /><br />i) To draw that conclusion, you need to present a set of specific counterarguments in response to my critique of R. C. Jr. <br /><br />http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/is-god-source-of-sin.html<br /><br />ii) As a libertarian, you’re in no position to say I’d be “forced” to do anything. That would violate my freedom of choice.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31430621179668095802009-08-22T09:27:04.536-04:002009-08-22T09:27:04.536-04:00WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:
“So far, so good. God ...WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:<br /><br />“So far, so good. God ‘brought that foreseen outcome to pass.’ Not good. That is not at all what Arminianism declares. The action belongs to man, not to God ‘bringing it to pass’."<br /><br />God brought it to pass by making a world in which it occurs. Even on Arminianism, man’s action depends on God’s prior action.’<br /><br />“"Intended." Interseting choice of words. This doesn't allow for ‘permittance.’ Then, ‘whatosever comes to pass’ does so by God's ‘intention.’ And yet Jesus taught us to pray for God's ‘will’ to be done on earth ‘as it is in heaven.’ But I digress…By ‘allowing’ or ‘permitting’ a thing to come to pass does not mean it was his desire, something that he wanted to come to pass. Clearly, he doesn't desire for us to sin, and yet we do. Thus he ‘permits’ us to freely sin.”<br /><br />i) You’re substituting “desire” for “intent.” <br /><br />ii) It’s not as if God merely allows evil to occur, as though evil would occur all by itself, absent divine participation–and it’s up to God whether or not to intervene. <br /><br />Rather, God knowingly created a world in which evil takes place. Since all that was preventable, God intended the outcome. <br /><br />Do you think God did not intend that outcome? It just happened all by itself apart from prior divine action and consent? <br /><br />“Because God does not proactively cause sin.”<br /><br />You act as if that’s morally significant. But if an agent sets into motion a chain of events which result in a foreseeable outcome, then he is responsible for the outcome.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4798037763330421222009-08-22T08:00:05.156-04:002009-08-22T08:00:05.156-04:00Billy,
Billy - "So, which is it? How did God...Billy,<br /><br /><i>Billy - "So, which is it? How did God "permit" the fall? Since God "decrees nothing because he foresaw it as future," then what are you saying? Did God strictly foreordain the fall? How? What do you mean by "permit?</i>"<br /><br />I don't know what you mean "which is it." You obviously see some sort of a problem that I don't see. Instead of explaining what the problem is you ask a series of questions. It's both, Billy. Decreeing or ordaining is not causing or bringing about, that's applied to governing. God governs negatively or positively. With respect to sin and evil he governs it negatively, by <i>willingly</i> permitting it. <br /><br />For God, G, to willingly permit an action, A, is for A to be the action of someone other than G; say, S. For G to foreknow the occurance of A and to have been able to prevent it, and for A to not be against the overall plan of G, inded, A may be an integral part of the plan. So Augustine:<br /><br />‘In a way unspeakably strange and wonderful, even what is done in opposition to His will does not defeat His will. For it would not be done if he did not permit it (and of course his permission is not unwilling but willing); nor would a Good being permit evil to be done only that in his omnipotence He can turn evil into good.’ - Augustine<br /><br /><i>Billy - "To say that God is the "author of evil" is to say that God proactively brought about evil. Since nothing is decreed by foreknowledge, then it must be brought about by some other means?</i>"<br /><br />Well, this is still unhelpful since I don't know what is meant by "proactively brought about evil." On some readings this could be read as God <i>doing</i> evil, but then Reformed Theology teaches or implies no such thing. Anyway, my definitions above suggest that God did not "proactively bring about evil." God willingly permitted evil. God did so with the aim to accomplishing a great end. Indeed, willingly permitting evil may have been a necessary condition to bringing about some greater and (without permitting it) unrealizable good, like the redemption of sinners. So, I deny this "proactive bringing about" business and actually find it contrary to what almost every Reformed theologian has taught (and let's remember you still need to come with with a rigorous and clear definition of what you mean by 'proactively bring about').<br /><br /><i>Billy - "If God brought about evil, then he is responsible for the evil that ensues and is also culpable (to blame). If God "permitted" evil to happen, not by bringing it about, but by allowing man to bring it about, then God is not the "author of evil.</i>"<br /><br />But since this is so vague I could see "bring about" by "permitting." Apparently you think they are not the same. So you must mean something by "brought about" like "God did the evil act." But of course this is not the Reformed position and your insinuation simply begs the question against Reformed theology. Anyway, since my position is that God willingly permitted evil, as its part in the plan was required to bring about good unattainable without it, then on your definition Reformed theology does not make God the author of sin. Indeed, our Confessions, both the WCF and the LBC say that God <i>permitted</i> the fall. You can still be an Arminian, of course, but charity and scholarly integrity (to say nothing of Christian integrity) require that you post a public retraction of your slander of Reformed theology. Something tells me I should hold my breath. :-)<br /><br /><i>Billy - "Am I now being any more clear than when I first began at 3:38 this afternoon?</i>"<br /><br />You'll just have to trust me when I say that I wish I could say, "Yes", but I can't.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24246826169982657922009-08-21T23:48:27.138-04:002009-08-21T23:48:27.138-04:00What does it mean for God to foreordain an event w...What does it mean for God to foreordain an event without a decree by means of foreknowledge? Does God need to foreordain a free action, when that action is metaphysiscaly independent of God's ordination?Vytautashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563655929016752682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86879539481070302022009-08-21T23:40:25.516-04:002009-08-21T23:40:25.516-04:00Vytautas,
God is able to have "passive knowl...Vytautas,<br /><br />God is able to have "passive knowledge" of what is going to happen but <em>must</em> ordain what <em>shall</em> happen? <br /><br /><em>Because, as Arminians say, knowing something does not cause it to happen.</em><br /><br />Who said "knowing something" causes it to happen? God foreknows every future choice because of his own omniscience - out of his own nature. To say that God cannot foreknow future free will choices is to agree with Open Theists. <br /><br />And, of course, to say that God cannot foreknow future free will choices without foreordaining those choices is to make God the "author of sin," which we have been discussing all day.<br /><br />And BTW, when I speak of free will with regard to choice, I am not speaking of the "free will" to choose to believe in Christ Jesus apart from the operative prevenient grace and work of the Spirit of God in the mind of the sinner.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76631970338494231822009-08-21T23:32:23.330-04:002009-08-21T23:32:23.330-04:00Birch - Perhaps you cannot [foreordain an event by...Birch - Perhaps you cannot [foreordain an event by means of foreknowledge], but how do you know that God cannot? <br /><br />Vytautas - Because as Arminians say, knowing something does not cause it to happen.<br /><br />Birch - I did not say (nor does the Arminian position suggest) that God "chooses" what is "going to happen," but that he ordains what he freely foreknows creatures will do.<br /><br />Vytautas - But God's ordaination did not bring things about because the creatures with free will chose what will happen. God mearly has passive knowledge of what is going to happen.Vytautashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563655929016752682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53188099511087839202009-08-21T23:27:20.554-04:002009-08-21T23:27:20.554-04:00Hays,
God foresaw that outcome, God brought that ...Hays,<br /><br /><em>God foresaw that outcome, God brought that foreseen outcome to pass by setting into motion a chain-reaction which inevitably led to that outcome</em> . . .<br /><br />God foresaw that outcome. So far, so good. God "brought that foreseen outcome to pass." Not good. That is not at all what Arminianism declares. The action belongs to man, not to God "bringing it to pass."<br /><br />. . .<em>and God also intended that outcome</em> . . .<br /><br />"Intended." Interseting choice of words. This doesn't allow for "permittance." Then, "whatosever comes to pass" does so by God's "intention." And yet Jesus taught us to pray for God's "will" to be done on earth "as it is in heaven." But I digress. <br /><br />. . . <em>(since he was free to prevent it).</em> <br /><br />By "allowing" or "permitting" a thing to come to pass does not mean it was his desire, something that he wanted to come to pass. Clearly, he doesn't desire for us to sin, and yet we do. Thus he "permits" us to freely sin.<br /><br /><em>So how do you avoid the conclusion that God is the author of sin?</em><br /><br />Because God does not proactively <em>cause</em> sin. He doesn't <em>cause</em> evil to come to pass "by setting into motion a chain-reaction which inevitably led to that outcome," as you have sugggested.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-62299735319973751392009-08-21T22:59:20.301-04:002009-08-21T22:59:20.301-04:00WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:
"For one to admit...WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:<br /><br />"For one to admit that because God created human beings (even foreknowing that they would sin) makes him the "author" of sin is just stupid."<br /><br />Calling something "just stupid" is not a counterargument. If, according to Arminian theology, God instantiates a sinful outcome, then how does escape escape the charge of authoring sin? <br /><br />God foresaw that outcome, God brought that foreseen outcome to pass by setting into motion a chain-reaction which inevitably led to that outcome, and God also intended that outcome (since he was free to prevent it). So how do you avoid the conclusion that God is the author of sin?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64695906920927394172009-08-21T22:50:40.370-04:002009-08-21T22:50:40.370-04:00"The Dude,"
Now: What is it to be the &..."The Dude,"<br /><br /><em>Now: What is it to be the "author of" something? If being the "author of" evil is evil, why is it? Why does Reformed theology make God the "author of" evil if it is evil to be the "author of" evil? If you can, please make the last answer as a formally valid argument.</em><br /><br />To say that God is the "author of evil" is to say that God proactively brought about evil. Since nothing is decreed by foreknowledge, then it must be brought about by some other means? <br /><br />If God brought about evil, then he is responsible for the evil that ensues and is also culpable (to blame). If God "permitted" evil to happen, not by bringing it about, but by allowing man to bring it about, then God is not the "author of evil." <br /><br />Am I now being any more clear than when I first began at 3:38 this afternoon?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-40084549588564102512009-08-21T22:46:40.098-04:002009-08-21T22:46:40.098-04:00"Vytautas,"
One cannot foreordain an ev..."Vytautas,"<br /><br /><em>One cannot foreordain an event by means of foreknowledge.</em><br /><br />Perhaps <em>you</em> cannot, but how do you <em>know</em> that God cannot? <br /><br /><em>I can know ahead of time that tommorow will be Saturday, but I did not ordain it.</em><br /><br />Nor <em>can</em> you ordain it, for you, my friend, are not God. <br /><br /><em>If God mearly chooses what is going to heppen, then it is not much of a choice.</em><br /><br />I did not say (nor does the Arminian position suggest) that God "chooses" what is "going to happen," but that he ordains what he freely foreknows creatures will do.<br /><br />"The Dude,"<br /><br /><em>Why did you address a post to me and use it to critique Hays? And why the unloving turn towards the uncivil, claiming things people say are "just plain stupid"?</em><br /><br />I addressed the same exact question to both you and Hays because there is really only one issue we're dealing with, and that is whether or not is the "author" of sin. But due to a semantics war, we can't get anywhere. So, I put it as plainly as I knew how. <br /><br /><em>Why the demand that I answer your questions when you don't answer mine and claim that you don't "have the time"?</em><br /><br />Uh, because I had to go. I had made plans with a friend. I'm back now. <br /><br /><em>Perhaps you are overly worked up over this? Maybe you should come back when you're less emotional?</em><br /><br />No, I'm fine. Maybe I should have used the word <em>absurd</em> instead of <em>stupid</em>.<br /><br />You said that "God willingly permitted the fall (as our Confession of Faith says, 6.1)" and "God decrees nothing because he foresaw it as future." <br /><br />So, which is it? How did God "permit" the fall? Since God "decrees nothing because he foresaw it as future," then what are you saying? Did God strictly foreordain the fall? How? What do you mean by "permit"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9510992193161187482009-08-21T22:30:13.135-04:002009-08-21T22:30:13.135-04:00WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:
“Once again (I'll ...WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:<br /><br />“Once again (I'll start at the beginning): to say that God is the ‘author’ of Adam, Eve, and Lucifer is not to suggest that God caused either of them to sin. For God to be the ‘author’ of sin is to suggest that God caused them to sin.”<br /><br />Which is not what “originate” means. To “cause” is not synonymous with “to cause to arise” or “initiate.” To merely “cause” something could either denote mediate or immediate causation, but to “cause to arise” or “initiate” is a case of mediate causation. <br /><br />On that definition, if you use “to originate” as a synonym for “to author,” then God is the author of sin by causing sin to arise or initiating the conditions which inevitably yield that sinful result. <br /><br />“To equate God as ‘author’ of Adam et al. as Creator with God as ‘author’ of their sin is a fallacy.”<br /><br />If that’s a fallacy, then it’s a fallacy on your grounds, not ours. Feel free to withdraw your fallacious allegation against Calvinism at any time.<br /><br />“Using Hays' OED definition…Is that what you're suggesting? Did God bring sin into existence? This is what I'm asking when I ask, Is God the author of sin?”<br /><br />I used the OED definition because you defined authorship in terms of origination, so I turned to a standard definition of origination. <br /><br />Paul and I aren’t suggesting anything with respect to Calvinism. We’re simply responding to you within your chosen framework. <br /><br />As far as I’m concerned, casting the issue in terms of “authorship” is not a smart way to frame the issue. You’re getting carried away with an extrabiblical metaphor. That’s up to you. But I don’t have to share your fixation with an extrabiblical metaphor. Debating an extrabiblical metaphor is not one of my priorities. That’s of no exegetical or philosophical relevance to the issue at hand.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70640633687601130992009-08-21T22:29:56.613-04:002009-08-21T22:29:56.613-04:00Birch - Did God foreordain Adam's sin by means...Birch - Did God foreordain Adam's sin by means of his foreknowledge of Adam's free choice, or by a mere decree?<br /><br />Vytautas - One cannot foreordain an event by means of foreknowledge. I can know ahead of time that tommorow will be Saturday, but I did not ordain it. If God mearly chooses what is going to heppen, then it is not much of a choice.Vytautashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563655929016752682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37057197558965733222009-08-21T22:29:16.583-04:002009-08-21T22:29:16.583-04:00BTW, God decrees nothing because he foresaw it as ...BTW, God decrees nothing because he foresaw it as future.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1537481603453773752009-08-21T22:27:41.989-04:002009-08-21T22:27:41.989-04:00Billy,
Why did you address a post to me and use...Billy, <br /><br />Why did you address a post to me and use it to critique Hays? And why the unloving turn towards the uncivil, claiming things people say are "just plain stupid"? Why the demand that I answer your questions when you don't answer mine and claim that you don't "have the time"? Perhaps you are overly worked up over this? Maybe you should come back when you're less emotional?<br /><br />To answer your question: God willingly permitted the fall (as our Confession of Faith says, 6.1).<br /><br />Now: What is it to be the "author of" something? If being the "author of" evil is evil, why is it? Why does Reformed theology make God the "author of" evil if it is evil to be the "author of" evil? If you can, please make the last answer as a formally valid argument.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-58063628851599879172009-08-21T21:43:30.092-04:002009-08-21T21:43:30.092-04:00"The Dude,"
Hays responded: In Arminian..."The Dude,"<br /><br />Hays responded: <em>In Arminian theology, God is the Creator. He originated Adam, Eve, and Lucifer. He originated the environment they inhabit. And he originated procreation–which propagates sinners. So, on Billy’s definition, Arminian theology makes God the author of sin.</em><br /><br />Once again (I'll start at the beginning): to say that God is the "author" of Adam, Eve, and Lucifer is not to suggest that God <em>caused</em> either of them to sin. For God to be the "author" of sin is to suggest that God <em>caused</em> them to sin (as in, he originated sin, instigated them to sin, initiated them toward sin). To equate God as "author" of Adam et al. as Creator with God as "author" of their sin is a fallacy. <br /><br />For one to admit that because God created human beings (even foreknowing that they would sin) makes him the "author" of sin is just stupid. <br /><br />Using Hays' OED definition (i.e. "To give origin to, give rise to, cause to arise or begin, initiate, bring into existence"), to suggest that God is the "author" of sin is to say that God "gave origin to" sin, "gave rise to" or "began" sin, "initiated" sin, "brought [sin] into existence" etc. Is that what you're suggesting? Did God bring sin into existence? This is what I'm asking when I ask, Is God the author of sin?<br /><br />The reason why Calvinism must admit that God is the author of sin (hence, brought it about) is because of his foreordination of sin, not by foreknowledge, but by mere decree. <br /><br />That is what all of this is about. So, answer the same question that I posed to Hays: Did God foreordain Adam's sin by means of his foreknowledge of Adam's free choice, or by a mere decree?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43943594740307801052009-08-21T21:34:18.293-04:002009-08-21T21:34:18.293-04:00Hays,
And still you avoid answering my question o...Hays,<br /><br />And still you avoid answering my question outright. <br /><br />I'll ask it again, for this is the sole issue here - this is how the whole discussion was born: Did God foreordain Adam's sin by means of his foreknowledge of Adam's free choice, or by a mere decree? <br /><br />Or do you fear that by admitting that it was by God's mere decree (and thus not by foreknowledge), you are <em>forced</em> to agree with Sproul Jr. and recant your short post on his view?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52935487429694983272009-08-21T19:47:06.660-04:002009-08-21T19:47:06.660-04:00WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:
“I see, so because God...WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:<br /><br />“I see, so because God is the author of Adam in Creation, he is also the author, originator, instigator of his sin?”<br /><br />I’m not stating my own position. To me, framing the issue in terms of a extrabiblical metaphor (“author of sin”) is not a serious way to analyze the issue in the first place. I’m just answering you on your own terms.<br /><br />“The issue of God being Adam's ‘author’ is not being contested here. Has then been taxing for you to follow?”<br /><br />You’re the one who refuses to follow your own argument.<br /><br />i) You defined “authorship” in terms of “origination.”<br /><br />ii) You said that Calvinism, makes God the author of sin while Arminianism avoids that consequence.<br /><br />iii) I, based on standard usage (from the OED), showed that Arminianism makes God the author (i.e. originator) of sin.<br /><br />iv) You responded with a made-up definition of “origination.”<br /><br />v) If you use “to originate” as a synonym for “to author,” and if “to originate” is defined by standard usage, then it follows that by originating Adam, God is the originator of Adam’s sin.<br /><br />vi) Finally, my argument was never limited to the meaning of words. I can beat you on those grounds. Indeed, I’ve done so.<br /><br />But, additionally, I also showed that if God creates a world with a foreseen consequence (a la Arminianism), then Adam (Lucifer, Hitler, &c.) cannot do otherwise in that world. The outcome is inevitable as a result of divine foreknowledge as well as divine creation. And it’s an outcome which God intended.<br /><br />All this follows from Arminian assumptions. You need to explain how, given that set of facts, you can still inculpate the God of Reformed theism while you exculpate the God of Arminian theism.<br /><br />“The issue is whether or not God strictly foreordained sin by decree or by foreknowledge. What say you?”<br /><br />You yourself did not restrict yourself to that issue alone. Rather, you’re trying to argue that Reformed theism is morally repugnant.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79212650510477182142009-08-21T19:43:32.169-04:002009-08-21T19:43:32.169-04:00Billy,
"I simply do not have the time. If I ...Billy,<br /><br /><i>"I simply do not have the time. If I ever free up some more time, perhaps we can pick this back up. I simply do not know how some people have so much time on their hands. (Jealous)</i>"<br /><br />I see.<br /><br /><i>"And concerning my rebuttal of Hays' misuse of logic, I was referring to my blogpost, not to the comment thread.</i>"<br /><br />But I wasn't. I quoted your comment in this comments section and asked for you to lay out the implications, via rules of entailment, from Steve's statements to other statements, showing the "misuse of logic" in this most recent post, the one you claimed "misuse[d] logic." It seems to me that you frequently use over the top rhetoric and then are forced to scale back your claims to more manageable ones. This makes for a frustrating dialog, as I'm sure you'd be bound to agree.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50408520633427919892009-08-21T19:36:11.703-04:002009-08-21T19:36:11.703-04:00The Dude,
I simply do not have the time. If I eve...The Dude,<br /><br />I simply do not have the time. If I ever free up some more time, perhaps we can pick this back up. I simply do not know how some people have so much time on their hands. (Jealous)<br /><br />And concerning my rebuttal of Hays' misuse of logic, I was referring to my blogpost, not to the comment thread.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54756290766303485182009-08-21T19:22:53.783-04:002009-08-21T19:22:53.783-04:00Billy,
Your response to Steve seems to say, "...Billy,<br /><br />Your response to Steve seems to say, "Nevermind the details God just is the author of sin and this is bad even though I can't define what it means to be the "author of" or show what is supposed to be "bad" about it and how Calvinism implies that which is bad about it.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60621692341779275602009-08-21T19:19:45.491-04:002009-08-21T19:19:45.491-04:00Billy:
"What you have stated about Open Thei...Billy:<br /><br /><i>"What you have stated about Open Theism and Classical Arminianism (noting those similarities) can work against you if we use Hyper-Calvinism and Classical Calvinism. Do you really want to go down that road</i>."<br /><br />Is that a threat? Okay, yes, I do. In other words, I'm your Huckleberry.<br /><br /><i>"Hays' "misuse" of logic was pointed out in my post. I don't really have the time to repeat myself"</i>.<br /><br />You said it here, in Hays' meta. I'm sorry, would you mind pointing it out since it wasn't clear to me? I read your comment here four times and I did not see where you showed via formal logic the <i>implications</i>. You simply <i>asserted</i> a misuse of logic and then asked a question, i.e., "Are you serious?" This was in your 8/21/2009 3:38 PM post.<br /><br /><i>"The subject we're addressing is God being the author of sin, so we need to stick with that subject and not wonder off into God's common grace and what he does with the category of "good.</i>"<br /><br />Billy, this is a dodge. The subject I am addressing is what it means to say "author of". Given your definition of "author of" my argument seems to follow. Or, is it your claim that "author of" means something different if you merely switch from "author of" good to "author of" evil? But that seems arbitrary. How is it not? <br /><br /><i>"If God, not foreseeing evil, and upon that foreknowledge of future free will actions foreordaining them, but strictly decrees them, then God is the author of sin"</i><br /><br />I'm not sure I even understand what this is supposed to mean. On your view I showed that from implications in your statements you must hold to either physicalism or traducianism; indeed, you must say that Arminianism is <i>linked</i> to them such that of the latter falls so does Arminianism. Do you really want to argue for such a strong claim or would you like a do over on your definition of "author of"?<br /><br /><i>"How could it be otherwise, since nothing, and Calvinists emphasize NOTHING, can come about without God's ordination</i>?"<br /><br />What can come about apart from God's creating the world and upholding it, right down the the rapist needs to rape a woman? What can come about apart from God's desire to let it happen and not stop it, like a molestation of a little girl?<br /><br /><i>"If God could not foresee future free will actions but must have strictly, freely, and unchangeably decree them, in order for them to come about, as stated in my post, then God is the author of sin"</i>.<br /><br />But I showed that <i>given your definitions</i> God was "the author of" sin.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76864866293936447362009-08-21T19:15:43.353-04:002009-08-21T19:15:43.353-04:00Hays,
I see, so because God is the author of Adam...Hays,<br /><br />I see, so because God is the author of Adam in Creation, he is also the author, originator, instigator of his sin? The issue of God being Adam's "author" is not being contested here. Has then been taxing for you to follow?<br /><br />The issue is whether or not God strictly foreordained sin by decree or by foreknowledge. What say you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73284958160659961082009-08-21T19:02:12.071-04:002009-08-21T19:02:12.071-04:00WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:
“But that does not mak...WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:<br /><br />“But that does not make God the author of sin, for God did not force or coerce Adam to sin.”<br /><br />1.In your original post, this is how you defined “authorship”: “I was under the impression that any amateur scholar would understand the phrase ‘author of sin,’ historical or otherwise; but alas, I was wrong. The word author denotes originality. Thus for someone accused of being the author of something, it connotes that he or she is the originator of that thing.”<br /><br />Observe that you were very emphatic about this definition. It’s something that “any amateur scholar” would understand. <br /><br />I also notice that you used the Oxford English Dictionary to define “responsibility” and “culpability.”<br /><br />So how does the OED define “originate”? My copy gives these definitions: <br /><br />Trans. To give origin to, give rise to, cause to arise or begin, initiate, bring into existence.<br /><br />Intr. To take its origin or rise; to arise, come into existence, having its beginning, commence; to spring, be derive.<br /><br />To “force” or “coerce” is not a proper definition of “originate.”<br /><br />Rather, that’s a made-up definition of your own coinage. Moreover, it’s a made-up definition which you interpolate after the fact in response to my post.<br /><br />So you are now backpedaling. What is more, you're also inventing tendentious definitions to salvage your original claim. That’s not a scholarly procedure–especially for someone with your academic ambitions. <br /><br />2.Notice that in the definition of “originate” supplied by the OED, there’s a distinction between the initial conditions and subsequent developments. To “originate” involves mediate rather than immediate causation. The agent creates the initial conditions. To be the “author” of the outcome, the agent doesn’t have to directly cause the outcome. It’s sufficient that he put the initial conditions in place.<br /><br />So if we define “authorship” in terms of “originator,” then creating Adam, Eve, and Lucifer, as well as the process of procreation, amounts to “authoring” the end-result. <br /><br />I’m answering you on your own terms. When I do, you response with bluster–like a cat trying to stare down a dog. <br /><br />3.In addition, there is nothing in predestination which “forces” or “coerces” the human agent. It’s quite maladroit of you to level that accusation. That’s not an honest attempt to accurately describe the Reformed position. The WCF goes out of its way to define freedom as the absence of coercion.<br /><br />You’re indulging in a hack caricature of Reformed theology. <br /><br />You never miss a chance to corroborate my charge that you lack the temperament to be a church historian. You’re just a partisan advocate sailing under the false colors of a church historian.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2363734132930163062009-08-21T19:01:17.286-04:002009-08-21T19:01:17.286-04:00The Dude,
I do not have the time to respond to ea...The Dude,<br /><br />I do not have the time to respond to each and every comment, but I'll choose the following:<br /><br />What you have stated about Open Theism and Classical Arminianism (noting those similarities) can work against you if we use Hyper-Calvinism and Classical Calvinism. Do you really want to go down that road?<br /><br />Hays' "misuse" of logic was pointed out in my post. I don't really have the time to repeat myself. <br /><br /><em>So for God to "be the author" of something means that he "forced or coerced" that to happen.</em><br /><br />The subject we're addressing is God being the author of sin, so we need to stick with that subject and not wonder off into God's common grace and what he does with the category of "good." <br /><br />If God, not foreseeing evil, and upon that foreknowledge of future free will actions foreordaining them, but <em>strictly decrees</em> them, then God is the author of sin.<br /><br />How could it be otherwise, since nothing, and Calvinists emphasize NOTHING, can come about without God's ordination? If God <em>could not</em> foresee future free will actions but must have strictly, freely, and unchangeably decree them, <em>in order for them to come about</em>, as stated in my post, then God is the author of sin. <br /><br />Calvinists have two choices; 1) God foreordained what he foreknew would come about, given knowable infinite circumstances, or 2) he merely decreed whatsoever comes to pass, not by foreknowledge of anything, but merely by decree. The first one does not charge God as the author of sin. The second one does.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4359542251630954222009-08-21T18:48:31.103-04:002009-08-21T18:48:31.103-04:00Billy:
"“Again, however, we cannot allow Hay...Billy:<br /><br /><i>"“Again, however, we cannot allow Hays (or any Calvinist) to distract us from the main point of what God has foreordained and why by insisting that in the Arminian tradition God could have prevented the rape by divine intervention. That is not the point here, and it is nothing more than a smoke screen to disguise and conceal the fact that the Calvinist's view of God is that he foreordained the rape, not by foreknowledge of free will action but by decree!</i>"<br /><br />Why? If you knew the proposition that {my neighbor will murder and rape his wife unless I intervene}, and you did not intervene to stop it, would you not be morally responsible? Would a jury perhaps let you off the hook with the defense that you were respecting your neighbor's free will? You would be guilty and all humans would say so. Couple that with what Victor Reppert has taught us, i.e., "I cannot call what all men would call black when applied to men white when applied to God."Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.com