Final remarks on 1 John 4

http://www.jamesagibson.com/2016/11/03/final-remarks-on-the-1-john-4-dispute-pertaining-to-calvin-and-his-glaring-omission/

For the love of God

Under what conditions and in what context can one justifiably expect a Christian theologian to discuss these texts? If, as a universalist, I should try to construct an exhaustive biblical case for a doctrine of universal reconciliation, one could justifiably expect that I would give at least some account of Matthew 25:46 and 2 Thessalonians 1:9; and similarly, given that Calvin tried to present an exhaustive biblical case for his understanding of limited election, we can justifiably complain that he did not even mention 1 John 4:8 and 16 in that context. 

https://www.facebook.com/notes/tom-talbott-sr/a-case-of-theological-obfuscation/1495732387123488

A basic problem with Talbott's comparison is this: What theological alternatives stood in contrast to Calvin's position at that time and place? Arminianism didn't exist. Although the Eastern Orthodox might give an "Arminian" interpretation to 1 Jn 4:8,16, that's not the framework within which Calvin and his theological opponents operated.  He was a Western European Christian writing to, for, and against other Western European Christians.

To my knowledge, the primary theological alternatives in the church of Rome–which was Calvin's primary foil–were Thomism and Augustinianism. But there's no reason to think a Thomist or Augustinian would offer a significantly different interpretation of 1 Jn 4:8,16 than Calvin. For instance, here's how Aquinas glosses God's love for the "world" in Jn 3:16:

from the condition of the one who is loved, because it is man, a bodily creature of the world, i.e., existing in sin: “God shows his love for us, because while we were still his enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son” (Rom 5:8). Thus he says, the world.  

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/John3.htm

But that's consistent with limited atonement. 

It's my impression that Luther and Calvin co-opted Augustinianism to such an extent that it delegitimated the Augustinian tradition as a viable option in Catholicism. Prior to the Reformation, that had been a major, honorable option. But when the post-Reformed Jansenists tried to go that route, it was too late. Catholicism had narrowed in reaction to the Protestant Reformation. 

A Rejoinder to Thomas Talbott on Calvin and the Love of God in 1 John

http://www.jamesagibson.com/2016/09/27/a-rejoinder-to-thomas-talbott-on-calvin-and-the-love-of-god-in-1-john/

John Loftus vs. Thomas Talbott

Philosopher Thomas Talbott recently criticized John Loftus' "challenge" for theists, dubbed the Outsider Test for Faith. In one of Loftus' many responses to Talbott (he's milking the critique for all it's worth), he makes this silly little claim,

"Talbott, if you want people to respect the philosophical disciplines then please, do it better than you do. You're making the rest of us look bad."

Given most of Loftus' argument against Christianity, this is ridiculous. Consider this coming from the guy who thinks it is a serious challenge to Christianity that God didn't make him with wings so that he could fly and drop poop bombs on people from 1,000 feet in the sky. Oh, no, sorry, that wasn't it; it was so he couldn't fall to his death. Or recall Loftus' claim that he'd rather be a dog in his wife's house than a human in God's world, and that he isn't shows that God isn't good. Apparently, he's unhappy that God hasn't neutered him or made him flexible enough to clean those hard to reach areas. Yes, these are the kinds of arguments Talbott should be giving. The kind atheologians should be giving. These arguments don't make atheologians look bad.

Anywho, enough of picking of Loftus—though he makes it so tempting and easy. Here I'll (again) point out a problem with Loftus outsider test (an issue I've pointed out before and hasn't been rebutted). Loftus writes,

"For Talbott or anyone else to suggest that I might possibility be wrong about an external world then all I can say is "so what?" Probability is the only thing that matters. Until he gives me a reason to think I am probably wrong then I'm not changing anything I think. "

As I've pointed out before, this makes the OTF superfluous. For example, I, like Loftus, will not take the OT for Christianity (or, in his case, for the external world) merely because of the possibility that I might be wrong. Loftus needs to show me that I am probably wrong. But if he can show that Christianity is probably wrong, there's no need, use, or purpose for and to the OTF. It's just a stupid waste of time when Loftus could use that time showing us that Christianity is probably false. But, if Loftus says that the mere fact that my belief in Christianity is at least partly due to where I was raised, and that this shows that Christianity is probably false, then (and besides the fact that it doesn't show this) the same applies, mutantis mutandis, to his belief in an external world EW.

The upshot is: If on the one hand Loftus claims that he doesn't have to take the OTEW until it is shown that his belief in the EW is "probably" false, then the OT is superfluous since once it is shown that some X is probably false, there's no need to take the OTX. On the other hand, if Loftus claims that the "accident of birth" into some culture show that the beliefs of members of that culture are "probably" false and so an OT must be taken (even though it needn't be taken, for supposedly it's already been shown that the beliefs are probably false), then Loftus' belief in an external world is "probably" false and so he needs to take the OTEW. So if Loftus wants us to take his response to Talbott seriously, then he must admit that no Christian should take his OTF until he shows that our belief is "probably" false, or he must admit that his OTF leads to OTEW, OT moral beliefs, OT western logic, OT other minds, OT science, OT etc. And if so, then Loftus is way too busy taking tests to be lecturing us about the tests we need to take. Indeed, him not taking his tests shows me I shouldn't take the ones he wants me to take.

Which horn does Loftus want to be impaled on?