tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8740291214750147181..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Nonnegotiable moral intuitionsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68714943650412811582016-04-16T19:43:41.112-04:002016-04-16T19:43:41.112-04:00"The Bible is taken as authoritative in the r..."The Bible is taken as authoritative in the realm of theological truth. But before we can rationally believe such a thing, as human beings privy to general revelation and endowed with the ability to think, we must weigh arguments and draw conclusions, that is, do philosophy (68)." - Walls<br /><br /><br />So he ends grounding his theology on his philosophy. It's the same old "whatever it means it cannot mean that" (i.e, Romans 9, John 6, and so on).Herman AGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12504777486439832654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43303909338184494212016-04-16T15:09:51.369-04:002016-04-16T15:09:51.369-04:00If Steven Nemes tries to modify Jerry Walls' a...If Steven Nemes tries to modify Jerry Walls' argument, such that the basis of his belief is Scripture, then I think he forfeits the critique of Calvinism at that point. <br /><br />Scripture is controlling or defining what it means for God to be love, according to that scheme. In which case, you can't have an a priori objection to whether or not Calvinism is compatible with God being love. If Scripture teaches both Calvinism and that God is love--and if Scripture is controlling and informing our intuitions in regard to the latter--then these clearly shouldn't be cashed out in ways that conflict. So the argument has to be exegetically focused rather than moral or "intuitive".Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05690738239872948496noreply@blogger.com