I've warned him for the last time to stop doing this and to limit his replies here to single points...since narrowing the issues down that far works wonders at preventing deceived apologists from wiggling out of an argument. If you doubt that, ask yourself how many liars are cheerful at the thought of being grilled on the witness stand by an experienced prosecutor.
For example, while
"how do you know the bible is the word of God"
is rather easy for an apologist to tackle, a more nuanced challenge can cause apologists to have a bad day. Consider:
"what rule of hermeneutics am I violating when I use Galatians 1:1, 11-12
to clarify Paul's unqualified "received" in 1st Corinthians 15:3?"
or
"aren't you putting just as much faith in mere human tradition as Roman
Catholics do,when you treat the historical evidence in favor of the Protestant
NT canonas if it revealed God's intentions equally as strongly as biblical evidence?"
Catholics do,when you treat the historical evidence in favor of the Protestant
NT canonas if it revealed God's intentions equally as strongly as biblical evidence?"
I trust that the reader is satisfied that I correctly refute AP on this point: forcing the questions at issue to be narrowly drawn dramatically increases the probability that the person in error will not be able to save face when their errors are exposed.
However, somebody may fall into the same error AP does, and perhaps think that because AP posted all that crap here, it "refutes" whatever i believe unless I offer a point by point rebuttal.
I now respond to most of AP's assertions. Hopefully AP will learn to argue more succinctly so that the reader will be more easily enabled to detect which of us is in the wrong:
a) the Christian interpretation of something is the only reasonable one, or
b) the atheist viewpoint is unreasonable.
Those apologists are all high on crack. They don't have a robust understanding of "reasonable", they think it is a synonym for "biblical". That would most especially be true for the Calvinists, the presuppositionalists and mostly the Van Tilians. Jeff Durbin and Sye Ten Bruggencate are examples of the latter. Steve Hays might deny being in the same group, but his fanatical committment to bible inerracy makes it reasonable to lump him into the group anyway. He's still going to say any concept is crazy unless it harmonizes with the bible.
This is a powerful argument, since you refuse to say that the only reason 2 Christians disagree on bible interpretation is because one of them is unsaved or insincere or has unconfessed sin, etc. You know full well that equally saved, equally sincere, equally smart, equally Christ-walking Christians can disagree with each other, for decades, lifetimes and centuries, about how to interpret something in the bible. Since at least one such person in every such debate logically has to be in the wrong, they become a supporting evidence that a Christian's attempt to learn hermeneutics will never suffice to make them see actual biblical truth. If there is any person who actually does have the correct interpretation, they cannot demonstrate they have it. Apparently, there's nothing more special about the bible than there is in any other similarly ancient piece of theological sophistry: the meaning of all those other ancient religious tracts can also be endlessly debated.
I hope everybody goes to jail.
Furthermore, the fact that Christians have disagreed on biblical theology for so many centuries sounds more like a case of the bible making ambiguous statements about unprovable premises, another justification for skeptics to give the bible the middle finger and consider earning a living and raising a family more important than trifling with somebody on the internet about things nobody can ever nail down with any reasonable certainty...like god's "will"...a thing Christians could not be in more disagreement about, despite the presumed authenticity of their salvation, sincerity of purpose, and respect for context, genre and bible "inerrancy".
And contrary to your predictable excuse, no, you don't do anything by invoking god's mysterious ways or "well maybe god...", except demonstrate that you have lost the debate. Since heretics appeal to such excuses and you find them unpersuasive, logic dictates that YOU not be allowed to benefit from this cop-out either.
Hume said it best: Commit it to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
But yes, this is how apostle Paul and Jesus thought, so there's no compelling reason to distinguish them from typical cultists and fanatics who employ the same excuse in the effort to facilitate a fallacious-yet-useful "us v them" herd-mentality in their group. That kind of mentality is intentionally designed to shelter one from the rigors of logic and argumentation. You don't believe in Jesus because you aren't spiritual. Quick, easy, and let's get back to saying grace over dinner for 5 hours because the infinite God is worthy of so much more.
If any human being secretly willed for his subjects to disobey his revealed will, we'd call that idiot a sadist. You will say human analogies break down with God, but perhaps they do because god is like every other concept for which human logic is insufficient; both are false theories. yoru god's allege being "inscrutible" and "incomprehensible" might actually suggest that literally NOTHING about him can be reasonably deduced...whether that threatens your sense of theological security or not.
I've snipped the bible quotations you posted. Probably because your god infallibly predestined me to...which means I didn't have a choice...which means the only way God could still blame me for failing to deviate from infallible predestination decree is for him to be a sadistic lunatic.
And then you want me to think the only 'true' love is the love from this god?
snip
That's important because if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, he was a false prophet at best, and his followers who composed the NT book certainly were false witnesses, which would then mean the only thing you gain by defaulting to the OT YHWH is his calling for your death for having followed a worker of miracles who wasn't preaching the truth. Deuteronomy 13 and 18.
Hopefully, then, you can understand why I agree with Paul that Christianity's veracity cannot be rescued if Jesus didn't rise from the dead. You lose the resurrection, you lose the significance of Calvinism, debating god's sovereignty, refuting the Arminians, the transcendental argument and your motive to post trainloads of old hat to other people's blogs.
If you are concerned about my soul, you might consider answering my objections to the historicity of Jesus resurrection...like the fact that 1st Corinthians 15:3-4 is not historical evidence of early resurrection belief among the apostles, because it is not a 'creed' in the first place. And numerous other objections.
If you wish to prove me wrong, I'll start a new blog piece where I confront you, one point at a time, with my objections to the resurrection of Jesus, and we'll just see how long you last.
The sad fact is that Jesus was nowhere near the loudmouth today's Calvinists are in stuffing the scriptures down the throats of Gentiles, or warning them about hell fire.
So you might consider that the only reason you are concerned for my soul is because you have allowed later NT authors to pervert the original gospel of Jesus. And of course I assume you know that I designate apostle Paul as a heretic...and I think using bible inerrancy as a hermeneutic does little more than facilitate misunderstanding.
ANNOYED PINOYNovember 25, 2019 at 9:34 PMThat's because many prominent Christian apologists, like Frank Turek, overstate their case and insist either
It seems a reoccurring theme in all your blogs is about about "reasonableness".
a) the Christian interpretation of something is the only reasonable one, or
b) the atheist viewpoint is unreasonable.
Those apologists are all high on crack. They don't have a robust understanding of "reasonable", they think it is a synonym for "biblical". That would most especially be true for the Calvinists, the presuppositionalists and mostly the Van Tilians. Jeff Durbin and Sye Ten Bruggencate are examples of the latter. Steve Hays might deny being in the same group, but his fanatical committment to bible inerracy makes it reasonable to lump him into the group anyway. He's still going to say any concept is crazy unless it harmonizes with the bible.
So, in answer to that I've written the following.No, it only assumes what is plainly obvious, that even if somebody earned advanced degrees in biblical theology, or took a course in "hermeneutics", this does precisely nothing to ensure that the way they interpret the bible is "correct". They are prevented from babyish errors, perhaps, but that's all. And if you foolishly insist that "bible inerrancy" be used as a herrmeneutic, you further harm the whole purpose of interpretation.
----//If even Calvinists can disagree with each other over what the bible is teaching, then ----apparently learning hermenutics is an exercise in futility. //
That seems to assume that the Bible has to have been written so that every reader would come the exact same conclusions.
This is a powerful argument, since you refuse to say that the only reason 2 Christians disagree on bible interpretation is because one of them is unsaved or insincere or has unconfessed sin, etc. You know full well that equally saved, equally sincere, equally smart, equally Christ-walking Christians can disagree with each other, for decades, lifetimes and centuries, about how to interpret something in the bible. Since at least one such person in every such debate logically has to be in the wrong, they become a supporting evidence that a Christian's attempt to learn hermeneutics will never suffice to make them see actual biblical truth. If there is any person who actually does have the correct interpretation, they cannot demonstrate they have it. Apparently, there's nothing more special about the bible than there is in any other similarly ancient piece of theological sophistry: the meaning of all those other ancient religious tracts can also be endlessly debated.
But God didn't inspire the Bible to be completely understood upon first reading.I was talking about Christians, who have been reading the bible for years, still disagreeing with each other. Nobody said anything about correctly interpreting the whole thing at the first reading.
Or even multiple reading throughout a lifetime.The irony is that many Christians, all of them Arminian to one degree or other, would disagree, and say God always desires the genuinely born-again, sin-confessing, light-walking sincere Christian to correctly understand whatever part of the bible that they ask God to guide their understanding of. Therefore, while my argument might not faze YOU, a Calvinist, my argument about why this 'god' doesn't do for us today what he allegedly did in biblical times and MAKE us believe either infallibly or with forceful presentation, remains a legitimate rebuttal to the Arminians...who stand a chance of taking my argument, bypassing Calvinism and other modes of Christianity, and going straight to skeptical jail, don't collect $200.
I hope everybody goes to jail.
The subjects involved are too lofty/august/transcendent to exhaust the topics in a single book of any size.That's funny, I thought Christians had a "holy spirit" who not only "teaches" them (John 14:26) but CAUSES them and others to understand or else do and believe whatever he wants them to do and believe (Exodus 4:21, Numbers 22:35, 38, 1st Kings 22:19-23, Ezra 1:1, Jeremiah 20:9, Acts 9:3-8, Acts 16:14, Revelation 17:17)? See especially Ezekiel 38-39, where God characterizes a future army's attack on Israel as the army being a fish on a hook, and god is drawing them against Israel. If God then chooses whether or not he will cause a person to correctly discern truth, he can hardly blame those whom he wishes to keep ignorant. But because the biblical answer is "who are you to answer back to god" (Romans 9:20), I'm pretty sure this particular fictional character is merely a sadistic lunatic.
Furthermore, the fact that Christians have disagreed on biblical theology for so many centuries sounds more like a case of the bible making ambiguous statements about unprovable premises, another justification for skeptics to give the bible the middle finger and consider earning a living and raising a family more important than trifling with somebody on the internet about things nobody can ever nail down with any reasonable certainty...like god's "will"...a thing Christians could not be in more disagreement about, despite the presumed authenticity of their salvation, sincerity of purpose, and respect for context, genre and bible "inerrancy".
And contrary to your predictable excuse, no, you don't do anything by invoking god's mysterious ways or "well maybe god...", except demonstrate that you have lost the debate. Since heretics appeal to such excuses and you find them unpersuasive, logic dictates that YOU not be allowed to benefit from this cop-out either.
Hume said it best: Commit it to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
Morever, it's providentially inspired in such a way that it takes the Spirit of God to understand it, perceive it spiritually and believe it.That's the same excuse non-Calvinists use to explain the "error" of Calvinism when they are asked how they explain that Calvinists can be true Christains yet adopt that heresy. Many Arminians insist that Calvinism cannot quality as heterodox, it is purely unorthodox and is worthy dividing fellowship over. Remember Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel?. Apparently, "you just aren't spiritual" is a false excuse that could be employed by anybody to get away from having to actually justify their bible-interpretation on the merits.
To those who have spiritual eyes and ears.How conveniently useless to argumentation: see above.
But yes, this is how apostle Paul and Jesus thought, so there's no compelling reason to distinguish them from typical cultists and fanatics who employ the same excuse in the effort to facilitate a fallacious-yet-useful "us v them" herd-mentality in their group. That kind of mentality is intentionally designed to shelter one from the rigors of logic and argumentation. You don't believe in Jesus because you aren't spiritual. Quick, easy, and let's get back to saying grace over dinner for 5 hours because the infinite God is worthy of so much more.
Just as Jesus spoke in parables not to elucidate, but to veil His meaning [Mark 4:11ff.; Matt. 13:10ff.; Luke 8:10ff.; John 12:39ff.].That doesn't get rid of the problem, he also told the disciples to reveal whatever hidden things he formerly told them. Matthew 10:27. See also Matthew 28:20, the part of the great commission most Christians miss. So Jesus' intention to veil his teachings before the crucifixion isn't supposed to be used to justify continued veiling after he issued the Great Commission. But I suppose your presupposition of biblical inerrancy will motivate you to simply combine your theory with something apostle Paul said, and presto, look how many rainbows we can created by drawing with all the crayons in the box at the same time.
And in such a way that as people fallibly read it down through the centuries God's providential plan in & for HIStory unfolds as He predetermined it.Why should anybody find study of biblical hermeneutics as helping them to figure out how to avoid misinterpreting the bible? After all, you will not credit their getting something right in the bible to their study, you will simply say God predestined them to get it right. If they get something wrong in the bible, you will not credit this to their misunderstanding of hermeneutics, or the limited nature of the evidence, you will conclude God predestined them to get it wrong. Your problem still exists: We don't have to worry about anything, ever, because nothing can possibly happen except what God has infallibly predestined...including sin. That's Calvinism, stripped of all the car-salesman pitch that James White constantly smothers it with. See Steve Hays' admission that God secretly wills ALL disobedience to his revealed will. Link. Which can only mean that when God gets angry over somebody's sin, he is getting angry that they did exactly what he wanted, when he wanted, where he wanted, why he wanted and how he wanted.
If any human being secretly willed for his subjects to disobey his revealed will, we'd call that idiot a sadist. You will say human analogies break down with God, but perhaps they do because god is like every other concept for which human logic is insufficient; both are false theories. yoru god's allege being "inscrutible" and "incomprehensible" might actually suggest that literally NOTHING about him can be reasonably deduced...whether that threatens your sense of theological security or not.
I've snipped the bible quotations you posted. Probably because your god infallibly predestined me to...which means I didn't have a choice...which means the only way God could still blame me for failing to deviate from infallible predestination decree is for him to be a sadistic lunatic.
And then you want me to think the only 'true' love is the love from this god?
Not when you have an all-powerful God who allegedly has the ability to MAKE people believe whatever he wants them to believe. Exodus 4:21, Numbers 22:35, 38, 1st Kings 22:19-23, Ezra 1:1, Jeremiah 20:9, Acts 9:3-8, Acts 16:14, Revelation 17:17. Your objection is frivolous; your Calvinist god can make ANYBODY understand ANYTHING he wishes for them to understand. So the problem of why equally saved equally sincere Christians disagree for centuries on how to interpret biblical phrases remains. Of course, you offer one solution: God causes everything, including misunderstanding, but you have to remember that I also preach my skeptical arguments to Arminians, that is: some of the power of my skeptical arguments draws from presumptions about God that are Arminian (i.e., god wants everybody to get saved and avoid teaching heresy).
ANNOYED PINOYNovember 25, 2019 at 9:34 PM
Moreover, it's difficult for ANY document on an important and involved topic to be written in such a way that multiple interpretations are precluded.
Including non-religious documents. Even an error free book on math can be misunderstood by humans.Not if the author the power to make humans correctly understand it.
Also, other things contribute to differing interpretations like:But since as a Calvinist you are forced to believe that all this misunderstanding is ULTIMATELY caused by God's infallible predestining decree, all you are doing with the above is wasting time on secondary causation. Truth is not served solely by focus on secondary causation. And once again, my skeptical position speaks mostly to Arminian Christians and their assumption that God wants everybody to get saved and avoid heresy.
level of intelligence/aptitude;
level of education;
knowledge of cultural background;
human traditions and presuppositions brought to the text;
amount of time studying the document. A man who has studied the U.S. Constitution (or the Bible) for 50 years will understand it better than someone who has only studied it for 2 years.;
opportunity and access to resources and available time can hinder people. For example, a simple missionary in the 17th century didn't have access to 21st century Logos Bible software; archaeological and textual discoveries etc.;
degree of sinfulness, rebellion and attitudes brought to the text;
As Blaise Pascal wrote in his Pensées:God predestined me to snip your quote.
That IF is so big that I deny its legitimacy.
ANNOYED PINOYNovember 25, 2019 at 9:35 PM
If the Christian God exists, then it's not reasonable to read the Bible, and to expect it to have been written as if the Christian God were the one on trial.
Rather, it's reasonable to expect it to be inspired as if we're on trial and being judged by our attitude toward the God behind the text and the subjects addressed in the book.But only "if" the Christian god exists. That hypothetical is too extreme.
snip
That's old news to me. But more importantly none of it overcomes my interpretation of the biblical evidence Christians typically cite in favor of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection.
ANNOYED PINOYNovember 25, 2019 at 9:47 PM
And all that sets aside the positive evidence for God and the weakness against belief in the Christian God.
Evidence for God
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/12/im-going-to-list-and-summarize-what-i.html
Required reading for atheists
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/11/required-reading-for-atheists.html
Making a case for Christianity
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/12/making-case-for-christianity.html
A case for Christ
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/01/a-case-for-christ.html
Common Objections to Christianity from Skeptics
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/qa_steve_hays.html
Book Reviews of Recent Atheist Authors by Christian Apologists https://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/09/book-reviews-of-recent-atheist-authors.html
That's important because if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, he was a false prophet at best, and his followers who composed the NT book certainly were false witnesses, which would then mean the only thing you gain by defaulting to the OT YHWH is his calling for your death for having followed a worker of miracles who wasn't preaching the truth. Deuteronomy 13 and 18.
Hopefully, then, you can understand why I agree with Paul that Christianity's veracity cannot be rescued if Jesus didn't rise from the dead. You lose the resurrection, you lose the significance of Calvinism, debating god's sovereignty, refuting the Arminians, the transcendental argument and your motive to post trainloads of old hat to other people's blogs.
I posted the above things because I'm concerned for your soul.But only because God infallibly predestined you to care. If God predestined you to be apathetic toward my soul, you would be. Hence, Calvinist theology steals the soul out of human compassion by turning everything into robots. Your caring attitude thus isn't really your own individual creation. That's not a true friend.
If you are concerned about my soul, you might consider answering my objections to the historicity of Jesus resurrection...like the fact that 1st Corinthians 15:3-4 is not historical evidence of early resurrection belief among the apostles, because it is not a 'creed' in the first place. And numerous other objections.
Not because I'm trying to overwhelm you with information.I'm sorry, Mr. Pinoy, but you've demonstrated, at your own blog and here, that you do indeed happily mistake quantity for quality. You simply do not like being required to limit your replies to singular issues. I suspect it is because you realize that when the issues are narrowed, it makes it much more difficult for you to escape a rebuttal. That is exactly what happened when you tried to argue narrowed issues of bible inerrancy with me.
If you wish to prove me wrong, I'll start a new blog piece where I confront you, one point at a time, with my objections to the resurrection of Jesus, and we'll just see how long you last.
I'm just trying to fill in some of the lacunae in your knowledge.Then God must have infallibly predestined you to be misinformed...the material you linked me to is stuff I already know and stuff I've already rebutted in the draft for my book, not yet published.
And in hopes that you might eventually come to embrace the Savior as your own hope and joy one day.Except that because Jesus didn't preach hell-fire to Gentiles, I have a very reasonable basis to accuse the later NT authors of expanding his message far beyond what he intended, and therefore, your Jesus probably doesn't concern himself with becoming my daily lord anymore than he concerned himself to be the daily lord of the Gentiles he interacted with. For example:
33 And the demons came out of the man and entered the swine; and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and was drowned.What I'm not seeing is any sign that Jesus wanted that guy to do what you think Jesus wants today's Gentiles to do: study the scriptures, or "get saved". Jesus exorcised the demons out of that man. That's not evidence that he "got saved". That man sat at the feet of Jesus. You have no fucking clue what Jesus and that man talked about. That's not evidence that he "got saved". But since in context Jesus wants that man to go away, we can be god-damn sure that Jesus rejects MacArthur's "lordship salvation" doctrine, a doctrine that Calvinists tightly embrace.
34 When the herdsmen saw what had happened, they ran away and reported it in the city and out in the country.
35 The people went out to see what had happened; and they came to Jesus, and found the man from whom the demons had gone out, sitting down at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind; and they became frightened.
36 Those who had seen it reported to them how the man who was demon-possessed had been made well.
37 And all the people of the country of the Gerasenes and the surrounding district asked Him to leave them, for they were gripped with great fear; and He got into a boat and returned.
38 But the man from whom the demons had gone out was begging Him that he might accompany Him; but He sent him away, saying,
39 "Return to your house and describe what great things God has done for you." So he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city what great things Jesus had done for him.
(Lk. 8:33-39 NAU)
The sad fact is that Jesus was nowhere near the loudmouth today's Calvinists are in stuffing the scriptures down the throats of Gentiles, or warning them about hell fire.
So you might consider that the only reason you are concerned for my soul is because you have allowed later NT authors to pervert the original gospel of Jesus. And of course I assume you know that I designate apostle Paul as a heretic...and I think using bible inerrancy as a hermeneutic does little more than facilitate misunderstanding.
I would really like to engage you more deeply. Unfortunately, other obligations prevent me from doing so. I do wish and pray good things for you. I hope you have a more blessed life in all areas. The following will be quick responses to some issues you brought up that I don't think are actually problematic to my Calvinistic position. Or are cases of misunderstanding on your part. Or need clarification. I'm not arguing or debating in the following comments. Just pointing out that you don't really understand our Calvinistic view(s). Which is understandable. Calvinists are a minority in the church.
ReplyDelete//"aren't you putting just as much faith in mere human tradition as Roman Catholics do,//
Historically, Protestant have acknowledged our dependence on tradition, history, patristics (etc.) for various aspect of our beliefs (e.g. the canon). Our beef with Catholics is not tradition per se, but the claim of alleged *INfallible* Tradition with a capital "T". A good introduction to that is in William Webster's lectures HERE.
//That's because many prominent Christian apologists, like Frank Turek, overstate their case...//
And I too dislike it when they do that. Or don't given enough qualification. Turek, Durbin and Sye Ten Bruggencate are popularists. Not scholars or among the more sophisticated apologists.
//No, it only assumes what is plainly obvious, that even if somebody earned advanced degrees in biblical theology, or took a course in "hermeneutics", this does precisely nothing to ensure that the way they interpret the bible is "correct".
I don't make that assumption or claim. Nothing "ensures" or guarantees one will interpret the Bible correctly. Good hermeneutics helps us get closer to truth and avoid errors.
//This is a powerful argument, since you refuse to say that the only reason 2 Christians disagree on bible interpretation is because one of them is unsaved or insincere or has unconfessed sin, etc.//
I don't say it because I don't believe it and it would be ridiculous to think so.
//You know full well that equally saved, equally sincere, equally smart, equally Christ-walking Christians can disagree with each other, for decades, lifetimes and centuries, about how to interpret something in the bible. Since at least one such person in every such debate logically has to be in the wrong,//
Despite the 1. promise of John 16:13 [cf. 14:26], the leading of the Holy Spirit and 3. His inner testimony, those things are not meant to lead people to only and all truth, infallibly and free from error. First off, the "you" in John 14:26 & 16:13 are plural. So, it's not talking about individuals. It's talking about believers or "the church" generally and corporately. The Upper Room Discourse (chapter 13-17) records Jesus' final concerns and teachings before His crucifixion and deals with future church history when the church will no longer have Him to personally teach her down through the centuries. Similar to how I cited Paul in Eph. 4 regarding the church's progressive and growing understanding of truth down through history till the return of Christ.
//but CAUSES them and others to understand or else do and believe whatever he wants them to do and believe//
DeleteYes, and God in His providence also "causes" [often indirectly] all people (including Christians) to believe the partial truths they aquire AS WELL AS the errors that they come believe. One doesn't need perfect doctrine to be saved. And God is sovereign over our errors as well. As it says in Job 12:16b, "...the deceived and the deceiver are His."
//If God then chooses whether or not he will cause a person to correctly discern truth, he can hardly blame those whom he wishes to keep ignorant.//
The first part is true. But the second part is false. There are cases when we can be culpably ignorant or deceived. Again, you're conflating the metaphysical *causes* of belief with the epistemological *reasons* for our beliefs which can often involve our personal desires and motives. We can be guilty of various forms of confirmation bias (etc.). And I already linked to Paul Manata's introduction how Calvinists can understand human free will and responsibility.
//That doesn't get rid of the problem, he also told the disciples to reveal whatever hidden things he formerly told them.... So Jesus' intention to veil his teachings before the crucifixion isn't supposed to be used to justify continued veiling after he issued the Great Commission.//
I wasn't using that to justify CHRISTIANS intentionally veiling things. I was talking about the Bible itself and how it was inspired. I agree Christians are supposed to unveil things and openly/publicly teach what He taught in private now that Jesus has been resurrected and gave us the Great Commission. That doesn't preclude the possibility that the Bible is still an enigmatic book and underdeterminitive on various issues it doesn't address specifically or thoroughly. Think for example how Christians disagree on infant baptism. Baptism is a basic issue, yet we can disagree. And we do, in God's intentional providence. The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura doesn't mean the Bible addresses everything so that all Christians will come to full agreement. In fact, the NT teaches that Christian do and will disagree [1 Cor. 1; 11:19; 13:12; Eph. 4; Phil. 3:12ff. etc.].
//After all, you will not credit their getting something right in the bible to their study, you will simply say God predestined them to get it right.//
See Manata's book. That doesn't address the rational reasons why we might hold to positions. God's providence takes into account our reasons and our exposure to (or avoidance of) evidence and arguments. We aren't unthinking robots. We usually have reasons and motives for our right and wrong beliefs.
//If they get something wrong in the bible, you will not credit this to their misunderstanding of hermeneutics, or the limited nature of the evidence, you will conclude God predestined them to get it wrong. //
False. Both can be true.
//See Steve Hays' admission that God secretly wills ALL disobedience to his revealed will.
DeleteAll knowledgeable Calvinists believes God decretively wills a;; disobedience. Even James White. Calvinists also often distinguish between 1. God's Will of Decree and 2. God's Prescriptive/Revealed/Preceptive Will. You seem to be confusing the two kinds. I personally have 6 senses of God's will.
//Which can only mean that when God gets angry over somebody's sin, he is getting angry that they did exactly what he wanted, when he wanted, where he wanted, why he wanted and how he wanted.//
That doesn't address the various ways Calvinist understand God's Impassibility. There's more than one view. Either way, you're thinking of God in an overly anthropomorphic way. Some Calvinists virtually hold that God doesn't have emotions. While others think God's emotional life is real but analogous (rather than univocal) to ours.
//yoru god's allege being "inscrutible" and "incomprehensible" might actually suggest that literally NOTHING about him can be reasonably deduced...whether that threatens your sense of theological security or not.//
Again, doesn't address what Calvinists have written on the subject. You're not even anticipating our responses to such basic objections.
//And then you want me to think the only 'true' love is the love from this god?//
More Calvinists (since as some do) need to make clear that our understanding of omnibenevolence is different than non-Calvinist understandings.
//...your Calvinist god can make ANYBODY understand ANYTHING he wishes for them to understand..........Of course, you offer one solution: God causes everything, including misunderstanding //
Agreed.
//but you have to remember that I also preach my skeptical arguments to Arminians, that is: some of the power of my skeptical arguments draws from presumptions about God that are Arminian//
And I agree with your that their Arminianism often can't handle those problems. That's nothing new for us Calvinists.
//...all you are doing with the above is wasting time on secondary causation.//
It's not a waste at all. Since, our rational and psychological reasons as sinful and fallible human beings are real and usually have some [often imperfect] logic to them. And again, there is a category of culpable ignorance and error. INDIRECT Doxastic Voluntarism is likely true, and we're culpable for our sinful employment of (varous kinds of) confirmation bias to support or precommitments. That's why, for example, people who don't want Christianity to be true focus on skeptical arguments and literature. To insulate them from having to believe Christianity. The Pascal quotes I gave come into play.
Regarding the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. We Van Tillians understand that ultimately, history can't be done apart from Christian presuppositions. Though, it's not inconsistent for Calvinists like myself and Steve to use evidences. We just reject evidentialISM. Christian can provide for the preconditions of intelligibility, science and history. Atheism has a difficult or impossible time.
Delete//Hence, Calvinist theology steals the soul out of human compassion by turning everything into robots. Your caring attitude thus isn't really your own individual creation. That's not a true friend.//
Again, that doesn't factor in what Calvinists like Manata have written. Nor with the problems with indeterministism and a libertarian view of the will.
//You simply do not like being required to limit your replies to singular issues.//
I went on tangents because you went on tangents.
//Except that because Jesus didn't preach hell-fire to Gentiles, I have a very reasonable basis to accuse the later NT authors of expanding his message far beyond what he intended, and therefore, your Jesus probably doesn't concern himself with becoming my daily lord anymore than he concerned himself to be the daily lord of the Gentiles he interacted with. //
Jesus' mission was first to Israel (Matt. 15:24; cf. Rom. 1:16). All four gospels teach that the Gospel would eventually go to the Gentiles. Using the various criteria of authenticity, even secular scholars agree that Jesus' favorite self-designation in the gospels is likely authentic Jesus tradition going back to the historical Jesus. Jesus' use of "Son of Man" alludes to Dan. 7:13-14 which states in verse 14, "And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." Even non-Messianic Jews recognize that the Messiah will have relevance for the goyim. It's unavoidable given the prophecies in Isaiah and other OT books.
//But since in context Jesus wants that man to go away, we can be god-damn sure that Jesus rejects MacArthur's "lordship salvation" doctrine, a doctrine that Calvinists tightly embrace.//
Non-sequitur. Jesus wasn't openly and publicly proclaiming His messiahship at that time, which was only officially announced at Palm Sunday. Previous to that, they were veiled by innuendo, parables, etc. He mostly allowed his deeds and miracles to speak for His Messiahship prior to Passion Week. See for example Fruchtenbaum's lectures on the Jewish Life of Christ.
May God bless you. Have a great Holiday season and a Happy New Year, barry. :-)
typo correction:
Delete//All knowledgeable Calvinists believes God decretively wills a;; [all] disobedience.//
//Historically, Protestant [ProtestantS] have acknowledged our dependence on tradition, history, patristics (etc.) for various aspect of our beliefs (e.g. the canon).//
aquire = acquire
I forgot to add to other comments to your statement here:
Delete////...all you are doing with the above is wasting time on secondary causation.////
In addition to what I wrote, I should have also pointed out that God not only ordains WHAT will happen [i.e. "ends"], but also HOW they will happen [i.e. "means"]. God's predestination and providence involves a causal nexus. God doesn't normally ordain things causually disconnected to previous states of mind or from discursive ratiocination. God doesn't normally cause us to randomly and disjointedly think and believe things out of nowhere. Causally unhinged from anything else. Evidences and arguments play a part. So, from a rational and subjectively psychological point of view, our reasoning/thinking and decision making is indistinguishable from a libertarian view of the will. Calvinists usually hold to a compatibilist view of human will. So, we still ought to act responsibly knowing we'll be judged by how we think, decide and behave.
//While others think God's emotional life is real but analogous (rather than univocal) to ours.//
DeleteI should have added, "Given His mode of being. Which is likely timeless rather than temporal. As well as God's mode of knowing which isn't discursive, but non-derivative, direct, immediate and intuitive."
Here's my blogpost on God's Impassibility [not to be confused with Immutability].
// 38 But the man from whom the demons had gone out was begging Him that he might accompany Him; but He sent him away, saying,//
Again, Jesus' primary mission was to the House of Israel. He knew that after His resurrection that His disciples would reach out to the Gentiles. Even to the people group that Gentile (and former demoniac) belonged to. So, the Gospel would likely eventually reach that demoniac.
Some, like Robert Price, might argue that the Great Commission of Matt. 28 contradicts Acts because the church in Acts seemed to not know that the Gospel was supposed to go to the Gentiles. I addressed that HERE.
BTW, I'm no longer fully convinced that salvation for cognitively normal adults absolutely requires their conscious acceptance of the Gospel prior to their deaths. That's clearly God's normative and endorsed way. But IF some are saved some other way, Christians aren't commanded or allowed to advocate any other way than through the normative way of the preaching and accepting of the Gospel. We ought to leave to God how He might sovereign save some other ways. The normative way makes all humans who are exposed to the Gospel (at the very least) culpable for their rejection of the Gospel. Could they be saved by God nevertheless? That's up to God. But if He doesn't save them, they clearly are blameworthy for their rejection.
I came across the following quotes. I'm not sure if they're accurate. If they are, then these other folk have similar sentiments as myself.
Delete"We can safely say (i) if any good pagan reached the point of throwing himself on His Maker's mercy for pardon, it was grace that brought him there; (ii) God will surely save anyone he brings thus far; (iii) anyone thus saved would learn in the next world that he was saved through Christ" ^[7]^
? J. I. Packer, God’s Words, p. 210.
"God can illuminate whom and when he will, even without the external ministry, which is a thing appertaining to his power." ^ [9]^
? Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter 1 (1566)
"elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth." "So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word." ^ [10]^
? Westminister Confession 10.3 (1647 A.D.)
"That some unevangelized men are saved, in the present life, by an extraordinary exercise of redeeming grace in Christ, has been the hope and belief of Christendom. It was the hope and belief of the elder Calvinists, as of the later."
William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology vol. 2 (1888), p. 706.
John Stott - "I have never been able to conjure up (as some great Evangelical missionaries have) the appalling vision of the millions who are not only perishing but will inevitably perish. On the other hand… I am not and cannot be a universalist. Between these extremes I cherish and hope that the majority of the human race will be saved. And I have a solid biblical basis for this belief." ^[15]^
? http://regions.ivcf.org/evangelism/2908#_ftn31
Here's a quote I came across about 15 years ago by Boettner that shaped my thinking:
The Scriptures, then, are plain in declaring that under ordinary conditions those who have not Christ and the Gospel are lost.
And in accordance with this the Westminster Confession, after stating that those who reject Christ cannot be saved, adds: "Much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess . . ." (X:4).
In fact the belief that the heathens without the Gospel are lost has been one of the strongest arguments in favor of foreign missions. If we believe that their own religions contain enough light and truth to save them, the importance of preaching the Gospel to them is greatly lessened. Our attitude toward foreign missions is determined pretty largely by the answer which we give to this question.
*We do not deny that God can save some even of the adult heathen people if He chooses to do so, for His Spirit works when and where and how He pleases, with means or without means. If any such are saved, however, it is by a miracle of pure grace. Certainly God's ordinary method is to gather His elect from the evangelized portion of mankind, although we must admit the possibility that by an extraordinary method some few of His elect may be gathered from the unevangelized portion.* (The fate of those who die in infancy in heathen lands will be discussed under the subject, "Infant Salvation.")
- Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, chaper 11
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.iv.iii.v.html
I hope you realize that I wasn't debating or arguing in the above comments. I was just clarifying what we Calvinists actually believe, as well as some things I particularly believe that might not be standard Calvinistic teaching. Regarding some of those seemingly Inclusivistic quotes, notice that some of them were from Calvinists. John Stott wasn't a Calvinist. But J.I. Packer is, and the late Loraine Boettner and William G. T. Shedd were Calvinists. The Second Helvetic Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith are are both Reformed/Calvinistic.
DeleteThese will be my final comments till next year. Happy Holidays, and may you also have a Joyous and Prosperous New Year. Cheers!!!
Delete