Just out of curiosity, what do you have such strong a strong dislike of Calvinism? I mean, I'm a Calvinist and see all Arminians as my brothers in the faith. When I come to your blog I feel like you would rather be with one who rejected Christ in heaven than a Calvinist. Did you ever have a particularly bad experience with a Calvinist? I'm just having a hard time understanding what is fueling your disgust.
Mr Ivy, You're not *really* a Calvinist ... any more than any 'materialist' one will ever encouonter really is a materialist.
The reason I say this is because the very question you ask of Mr Reppert presupposes that he possesses "libertarian free will" ... which Calvinism denies anyone but God possesses.
If you *really* believed that Calvinism states essentially the truth about human beings, then you'd not ask such questions. Ergo, you don't *really* believe what you think you believe.
And now that you *know* that you don't believe what you formerly thought you believed, does it not behoove you to figure out just what you do believe? (And, of course, try to ensure that those beliefs are not erroneous).
ilion is still pushing that stupid argument that got shot to pieces way back, I see.
and, his libertarian free will would have us believe that a man could, with the *exact same history* (reasoning, causes, etc), choose something different. So,if the man chose A the first time around, rewind the tape, play it again, and given the *exact same past up to the moment of choice* he could have chosen otherwise. Thus, if all his reasons were for A, he could still have chosen B. What accounts for the different between man 1 and man 2 choice? Must be luck.
So, it's only by luck, mere chance, that ilion is a Arminian.
ilion, when a Calvinist asks the *reason* that *caused* one to hold a belief he does, he's acting like a *determinust* and not a *libertarian*. Get it? When he debates he also recognizes that people are responsive to reasons. Go read some books by your own libertarians and see that they even recognize the reasons-responsiveness view of compatibilists (like Fisher, Watson, Riviazza, et. al.).
As a Christian, you could *at least* represent your fellow Christians correctly. Or is lying just one of those things that you have no control over, like all libertarian choices?
Anonymouse: "ilion is still pushing that stupid argument that got shot to pieces way back, I see."
Ilíon kindly translates: "The most direct refutation of *any* argument is to show that it refutes itself. Almost as good (though not a refutation of an argument, per se) is to show a person that there is an inherent and intractable contradiction amongst the specific beliefs/positions he holds.
Combining these two methods against The TrVth of Determinism (whether materialistic/atheistic or "theistic") clearly results in a "stupid argument that got shot to pieces way back!" Right?"
It's sad, but true, Gentle Reader: Little Mouse is either not very bright or not very honest.
Little Mouse is essentially a materialist (thus both prongs of the prior assessment) ... and thus the implication of being a Christian is window-dressing.
Little Mouse's primary intellectual committment is to materialism/determinism ... AND, since it really isn't intellectually coherent to combine materialism/determinism and Christianity, it follows that when push comes to shove, Little Mouse will drop the Christianity to hold onto the materialism/determinism.
Does someone who posts anonymously and takes shots at you in order to do so, have Christian integrity or manifest honesty?
By not being forthright about his identity this allows “Anonymous” to slam and insult you while hiding behind his anonymity. Ilion consider the slams this person hits you with and then has the gall to talk about how a Christian ought to behave.
“Anonymous said... ilion is still pushing that stupid argument that got shot to pieces way back, I see.”
And that argument that supposedly got shot to pieces is quite intact, it sits like an axe over Anonymous’determinism.
“and, his libertarian free will would have us believe that a man could, with the *exact same history* (reasoning, causes, etc), choose something different. So, if the man chose A the first time around, rewind the tape, play it again, and given the *exact same past up to the moment of choice* he could have chosen otherwise. Thus, if all his reasons were for A, he could still have chosen B. What accounts for the different between man 1 and man 2 choice? Must be luck.”
A guy named Paul Manata likes this argument, which has been shot down so many times and yet he continues to use it (that shows someone not wanting the truth but just wanting to argue).
The most competent libertarians that I know, including John Searle and J. P. Moreland, say that when we perform intentional actions we do so for reasons. There is seldom a situation where “all of his reasons were for A”. Rather, what we usually find is that we have reasons for doing A and reasons for doing B and reasons for doing C (i.e., each alternative possibility has reasons for doing it). And whichever we end up choosing is not without reason, but is for specific reasons. Luck on the other hand usually means an event occurs without our conscious planning or “without reasons”. Conscious intentional actions done for reasons (which is the position of libertarians who hold to agent causation) is the opposite of “luck”. And yet “Anonymous” having been told this before repeatedly, keeps bringing up his objection over and over. He only wants to caricature the libertarian view, not honestly deal with it.
“So, it's only by luck, mere chance, that ilion is a Arminian.”
I know Ilion has said in the past that determinism eliminates reasoning and free will is necessary for reasoning to occur. If Ilion is an Arminian it is for definite reasons, so it is not luck. I guess “Anonymous” does not know the difference between intentional actions where we are doing things for reasons and lucky events. We could even for the sake of the argument claim that Ilion’s belief in libertarian free will is mistaken. That does not mean that he does not have reasons for his belief in libertarian free will. Actually if calvinism is true, and you are saved, you got lucky (since it had nothing to do with who you are or what you do, the fortuitous event of being saved then is just “luck”, you got lucky and got picked others not so lucky did not get picked).
“ilion, when a Calvinist asks the *reason* that *caused* one to hold a belief he does, he's acting like a *determinust* and not a *libertarian*. Get it? When he debates he also recognizes that people are responsive to reasons. Go read some books by your own libertarians and see that they even recognize the reasons-responsiveness view of compatibilists (like Fisher, Watson, Riviazza, et. al.).”
That reference to Fischer’s “reasons-responsive” version of compatibilism. Paul Manata loves that view and often cites it as well. Perhaps Manata is posting again anonymously?
Ilion remember Manata from your past dealings with him?
“As a Christian, you could *at least* represent your fellow Christians correctly. Or is lying just one of those things that you have no control over, like all libertarian choices?”
Note that Anonymous is saying he is a “fellow Christian”. I have lots of “fellow Christian” friends, including some that post on web sites, and they do not write anonymously so that they can insult other Christians as “Anonymous” does here.
And “Anonymous” wants to attack **you** as **lying**. Consider the source, “Anonymous” doesn’t have the guts to post in a forthright manner. He prefers to hide and then attack other Christians from the bushes. And he wants to attack you as a liar?
Robert
PS – Victor if you read this, I am again wondering why you allow anonymous posting on your site? There is good and intelligent discussion on this site that too frequently gets marred by anonymous posters who use their anonymity to take shots at others.
There, "Robert," now I'm not anonymous anymore. Just like "you" aren't.
Ilion, I gave arguments against your argument to Robert Ivy. Your response was to giggle and and mock me.
I ask again, is that the best you got? Or do you just toss out ignorant jabs at Calvinists and refuse to back them up?
Robert, why is ilion so mean? Is it Christain love to call people "little mouse?" How would you feel if a triablogger said that to you? Oh, btw, don't act like you're not anonymous. If you're not, then I'm not.
"That reference to Fischer’s “reasons-responsive” version of compatibilism. Paul Manata loves that view and often cites it as well. Perhaps Manata is posting again anonymously?"
So does every contemporary compatibilist, Robert.
When you read a Robert Kane book do you think Kane is a pseudonym for Manata too?
And, can you find ONE quote where Manata has mentioned "reasons-responsive"? Or are you a liar?
Btw, speaking about Manata, didn't he ask you some piercing questions that you are avoiding like the plague? You've been proven to be a dishonest debater, Robert. You've been proven to hold people to a different standard than you hold yourself to. Since you are dishonest, why do you care if anonymous posters are dishonest? You bring this all on yourself, Robert.
"PS – Victor if you read this, I am again wondering why you allow anonymous posting on your site? There is good and intelligent discussion on this site that too frequently gets marred by anonymous posters who use their anonymity to take shots at others."
That goes for you too, "Robert."
Are you blind to your behavior? Does your pastor know how you treat people?
Devastating, nevertheless. You're the man, the myth, the legend.
A compatibilist asking for *reasons* that were *prior* to and *caused* that decision is contradicting determinism, what a hoot!
Notice Robert Ivy said,
"Did you ever have a particularly bad experience with a Calvinist?"
Isn't that what determinists have said?
Pretending that looking and asking for reasons contradicts compatibilism when one of the most popular compatibilist positions is a reasons-responsive one, what a hoot. Even libertarians like Kane, O'conner, etc, recognize this.
Your "refutation" is laughable and all the top-notch libertarians would tell you so.
Your entire "big" argument against compatibilists is simply the expression of compatibilism!
If God only saves the elect. Then why does the bible say that the Lord came so that all should have everlasting life referring to the 2nd death hell. Not some but all should have ever lasting life my bible and the Bible of a Calvinist must not read the same way. So it seems to me that God gives us free will except Him or reject him you can not ignore Him. The choice is yours
Rondal: "If God only saves the elect. Then why does the bible say that the Lord came so that all should have everlasting life ..."
I think the problem may lie in that Calvinists ... as do Arminians ... (*) tend to forget that God is not time-bound as we are (**). Well, it is exceeding difficult for those who are time-bound to conceive an existence which is not; might as well ask the fish to conceive life out of the water. And, of course, there is that all-too-common error of emphasizing those verses which can be made to support one's "conclusion" and ignoring those which show that one has made an error.
God desires that all be saved, that none be lost; the Bible is unequivocal on this point. The Bible is also unequivocal in stating that nevertheless some shall be lost ... and that it is because they *refuse* to be saved, they *refuse* to believe/obey (these two English words typically represent a single Greek word).
God *chooses* (elects) to save us all his Creation ... he is a *jealous* God, after all ... but not all of his Creation *chooses* (elects) to saved.
God knows from the beginning who will accept salvation and who will refuse it. But, until we each make our own choice, then we have not made it.
And, the truth is not merely that God knows the end from the beginning, but that he knows all possible endings from the beginning. At the Creation, there existed a vast multiplicity of potential histories of the world (***), and God knows them all. As we have over time freely made our choices, we have "pruned" off most of those potential histories of the world (though, there exist still a vast number of potential histories from this point in time).
(*) On the other other hand, as near as I can tell, the "open theists" don't merely forget that God is (for lack of better words) "outside time," but actively try to make him subject to it.
(**) What I mean is that we all tend to forget that God is no more limited to plodding along in time as we, instant by instant, than we are limited to reading a book word by word, sentence by sentence. Much as the whole book is open to us now (especially if we have already read it entirely), so all of time's instances are open to God now; it is all now to God.
(***) For instance, obviously had Adam not sinned, then all of history would have been different from that which is actual. But, likewise, had Cain not murdered Abel, than all of history from that point would have been different from that which is actual.
As far as time is concerned that is a different subject, God is the begging and the end. How ever a true Calvinist believes man has no choice no free will, God decides who is going to heaven or hell and nothing we do can change that. Its true we can not save our selves we must except that Jesus came as the God man born of a virgin dyed on the cross for the world sin and was raised on the 3 day. If it were not for free will we would be a bunch of robots and could not show God love nor could we receive love from Him it would men nothing. It is better to write and speak in simple terms when speaking of Gods word neither above our audience nor talking down to them, and brother I have know idea what you tried to tell me. I am a simple minister and I speak in simple terms. Hay you may have said the same thing I don’t know. Trying to show how smart we are is all about me and not about teaching Gods word. If I’m wrong about my hypothesis I apologies.
19 comments:
Just out of curiosity, what do you have such strong a strong dislike of Calvinism? I mean, I'm a Calvinist and see all Arminians as my brothers in the faith. When I come to your blog I feel like you would rather be with one who rejected Christ in heaven than a Calvinist. Did you ever have a particularly bad experience with a Calvinist? I'm just having a hard time understanding what is fueling your disgust.
Victor, this is probably your best argument against Calvinism to date.
Mr Ivy,
You're not *really* a Calvinist ... any more than any 'materialist' one will ever encouonter really is a materialist.
The reason I say this is because the very question you ask of Mr Reppert presupposes that he possesses "libertarian free will" ... which Calvinism denies anyone but God possesses.
If you *really* believed that Calvinism states essentially the truth about human beings, then you'd not ask such questions. Ergo, you don't *really* believe what you think you believe.
And now that you *know* that you don't believe what you formerly thought you believed, does it not behoove you to figure out just what you do believe? (And, of course, try to ensure that those beliefs are not erroneous).
ilion is still pushing that stupid argument that got shot to pieces way back, I see.
and, his libertarian free will would have us believe that a man could, with the *exact same history* (reasoning, causes, etc), choose something different. So,if the man chose A the first time around, rewind the tape, play it again, and given the *exact same past up to the moment of choice* he could have chosen otherwise. Thus, if all his reasons were for A, he could still have chosen B. What accounts for the different between man 1 and man 2 choice? Must be luck.
So, it's only by luck, mere chance, that ilion is a Arminian.
ilion, when a Calvinist asks the *reason* that *caused* one to hold a belief he does, he's acting like a *determinust* and not a *libertarian*. Get it? When he debates he also recognizes that people are responsive to reasons. Go read some books by your own libertarians and see that they even recognize the reasons-responsiveness view of compatibilists (like Fisher, Watson, Riviazza, et. al.).
As a Christian, you could *at least* represent your fellow Christians correctly. Or is lying just one of those things that you have no control over, like all libertarian choices?
Anonymouse: "ilion is still pushing that stupid argument that got shot to pieces way back, I see."
Ilíon kindly translates: "The most direct refutation of *any* argument is to show that it refutes itself. Almost as good (though not a refutation of an argument, per se) is to show a person that there is an inherent and intractable contradiction amongst the specific beliefs/positions he holds.
Combining these two methods against The TrVth of Determinism (whether materialistic/atheistic or "theistic") clearly results in a "stupid argument that got shot to pieces way back!" Right?"
Anonymouse: "blah, blah, blah"
Ilíon kindly translates: "(incoherent) blah, blah, blah" ... incoherent, unless, of course, it's intentional misrepresentation.
It's sad, but true, Gentle Reader: Little Mouse is either not very bright or not very honest.
Little Mouse is essentially a materialist (thus both prongs of the prior assessment) ... and thus the implication of being a Christian is window-dressing.
Little Mouse's primary intellectual committment is to materialism/determinism ... AND, since it really isn't intellectually coherent to combine materialism/determinism and Christianity, it follows that when push comes to shove, Little Mouse will drop the Christianity to hold onto the materialism/determinism.
Thanks for the link. :)
-Kevin
that the best you got, ilion?
Little Mouse,
What makes you imagine I think your silly comments are worth more than that?
Hello Ilion,
Does someone who posts anonymously and takes shots at you in order to do so, have Christian integrity or manifest honesty?
By not being forthright about his identity this allows “Anonymous” to slam and insult you while hiding behind his anonymity. Ilion consider the slams this person hits you with and then has the gall to talk about how a Christian ought to behave.
“Anonymous said...
ilion is still pushing that stupid argument that got shot to pieces way back, I see.”
And that argument that supposedly got shot to pieces is quite intact, it sits like an axe over Anonymous’determinism.
“and, his libertarian free will would have us believe that a man could, with the *exact same history* (reasoning, causes, etc), choose something different. So, if the man chose A the first time around, rewind the tape, play it again, and given the *exact same past up to the moment of choice* he could have chosen otherwise. Thus, if all his reasons were for A, he could still have chosen B. What accounts for the different between man 1 and man 2 choice? Must be luck.”
A guy named Paul Manata likes this argument, which has been shot down so many times and yet he continues to use it (that shows someone not wanting the truth but just wanting to argue).
The most competent libertarians that I know, including John Searle and J. P. Moreland, say that when we perform intentional actions we do so for reasons. There is seldom a situation where “all of his reasons were for A”. Rather, what we usually find is that we have reasons for doing A and reasons for doing B and reasons for doing C (i.e., each alternative possibility has reasons for doing it). And whichever we end up choosing is not without reason, but is for specific reasons. Luck on the other hand usually means an event occurs without our conscious planning or “without reasons”. Conscious intentional actions done for reasons (which is the position of libertarians who hold to agent causation) is the opposite of “luck”. And yet “Anonymous” having been told this before repeatedly, keeps bringing up his objection over and over. He only wants to caricature the libertarian view, not honestly deal with it.
“So, it's only by luck, mere chance, that ilion is a Arminian.”
I know Ilion has said in the past that determinism eliminates reasoning and free will is necessary for reasoning to occur. If Ilion is an Arminian it is for definite reasons, so it is not luck. I guess “Anonymous” does not know the difference between intentional actions where we are doing things for reasons and lucky events. We could even for the sake of the argument claim that Ilion’s belief in libertarian free will is mistaken. That does not mean that he does not have reasons for his belief in libertarian free will. Actually if calvinism is true, and you are saved, you got lucky (since it had nothing to do with who you are or what you do, the fortuitous event of being saved then is just “luck”, you got lucky and got picked others not so lucky did not get picked).
“ilion, when a Calvinist asks the *reason* that *caused* one to hold a belief he does, he's acting like a *determinust* and not a *libertarian*. Get it? When he debates he also recognizes that people are responsive to reasons. Go read some books by your own libertarians and see that they even recognize the reasons-responsiveness view of compatibilists (like Fisher, Watson, Riviazza, et. al.).”
That reference to Fischer’s “reasons-responsive” version of compatibilism. Paul Manata loves that view and often cites it as well. Perhaps Manata is posting again anonymously?
Ilion remember Manata from your past dealings with him?
“As a Christian, you could *at least* represent your fellow Christians correctly. Or is lying just one of those things that you have no control over, like all libertarian choices?”
Note that Anonymous is saying he is a “fellow Christian”. I have lots of “fellow Christian” friends, including some that post on web sites, and they do not write anonymously so that they can insult other Christians as “Anonymous” does here.
And “Anonymous” wants to attack **you** as **lying**. Consider the source, “Anonymous” doesn’t have the guts to post in a forthright manner. He prefers to hide and then attack other Christians from the bushes. And he wants to attack you as a liar?
Robert
PS – Victor if you read this, I am again wondering why you allow anonymous posting on your site? There is good and intelligent discussion on this site that too frequently gets marred by anonymous posters who use their anonymity to take shots at others.
There, "Robert," now I'm not anonymous anymore. Just like "you" aren't.
Ilion, I gave arguments against your argument to Robert Ivy. Your response was to giggle and and mock me.
I ask again, is that the best you got? Or do you just toss out ignorant jabs at Calvinists and refuse to back them up?
Robert, why is ilion so mean? Is it Christain love to call people "little mouse?" How would you feel if a triablogger said that to you? Oh, btw, don't act like you're not anonymous. If you're not, then I'm not.
John Smith.
"That reference to Fischer’s “reasons-responsive” version of compatibilism. Paul Manata loves that view and often cites it as well. Perhaps Manata is posting again anonymously?"
So does every contemporary compatibilist, Robert.
When you read a Robert Kane book do you think Kane is a pseudonym for Manata too?
And, can you find ONE quote where Manata has mentioned "reasons-responsive"? Or are you a liar?
Btw, speaking about Manata, didn't he ask you some piercing questions that you are avoiding like the plague? You've been proven to be a dishonest debater, Robert. You've been proven to hold people to a different standard than you hold yourself to. Since you are dishonest, why do you care if anonymous posters are dishonest? You bring this all on yourself, Robert.
Robert,
"PS – Victor if you read this, I am again wondering why you allow anonymous posting on your site? There is good and intelligent discussion on this site that too frequently gets marred by anonymous posters who use their anonymity to take shots at others."
That goes for you too, "Robert."
Are you blind to your behavior? Does your pastor know how you treat people?
Mr Manata,
Oops, I mean, Anonymouse:
You really are pathetic. You know that, don't you?
Yes, ilion, I know that.
I fully admit that I am a loser, nerd, geek, dork, retard, etc.
So since you don't need to convince me of my low stature anymore, I expect I'll only receive substantive interactions from you from now on, right?
And, do you have an answer for the first "anonymous" post? I thought he or she made some good comments.
...
Oh, wait, I see that you answered. Utterly devastating. You called him or her "little mouse."
Can I follow you around the desert and learn your mighty argument ways, oh master? Can you call me "grasshoppa?"
I don't want to be pathetic anymore. I want to be like you.
I'm certain I called *you* "Little Mouse."
Devastating, nevertheless. You're the man, the myth, the legend.
A compatibilist asking for *reasons* that were *prior* to and *caused* that decision is contradicting determinism, what a hoot!
Notice Robert Ivy said,
"Did you ever have a particularly bad experience with a Calvinist?"
Isn't that what determinists have said?
Pretending that looking and asking for reasons contradicts compatibilism when one of the most popular compatibilist positions is a reasons-responsive one, what a hoot. Even libertarians like Kane, O'conner, etc, recognize this.
Your "refutation" is laughable and all the top-notch libertarians would tell you so.
Your entire "big" argument against compatibilists is simply the expression of compatibilism!
If God only saves the elect. Then why does the bible say that the Lord came so that all should have everlasting life referring to the 2nd death hell. Not some but all should have ever lasting life my bible and the Bible of a Calvinist must not read the same way. So it seems to me that God gives us free will except Him or reject him you can not ignore Him. The choice is yours
Rondal: "If God only saves the elect. Then why does the bible say that the Lord came so that all should have everlasting life ..."
I think the problem may lie in that Calvinists ... as do Arminians ... (*) tend to forget that God is not time-bound as we are (**). Well, it is exceeding difficult for those who are time-bound to conceive an existence which is not; might as well ask the fish to conceive life out of the water. And, of course, there is that all-too-common error of emphasizing those verses which can be made to support one's "conclusion" and ignoring those which show that one has made an error.
God desires that all be saved, that none be lost; the Bible is unequivocal on this point. The Bible is also unequivocal in stating that nevertheless some shall be lost ... and that it is because they *refuse* to be saved, they *refuse* to believe/obey (these two English words typically represent a single Greek word).
God *chooses* (elects) to save us all his Creation ... he is a *jealous* God, after all ... but not all of his Creation *chooses* (elects) to saved.
God knows from the beginning who will accept salvation and who will refuse it. But, until we each make our own choice, then we have not made it.
And, the truth is not merely that God knows the end from the beginning, but that he knows all possible endings from the beginning. At the Creation, there existed a vast multiplicity of potential histories of the world (***), and God knows them all. As we have over time freely made our choices, we have "pruned" off most of those potential histories of the world (though, there exist still a vast number of potential histories from this point in time).
(*) On the other other hand, as near as I can tell, the "open theists" don't merely forget that God is (for lack of better words) "outside time," but actively try to make him subject to it.
(**) What I mean is that we all tend to forget that God is no more limited to plodding along in time as we, instant by instant, than we are limited to reading a book word by word, sentence by sentence. Much as the whole book is open to us now (especially if we have already read it entirely), so all of time's instances are open to God now; it is all now to God.
(***) For instance, obviously had Adam not sinned, then all of history would have been different from that which is actual. But, likewise, had Cain not murdered Abel, than all of history from that point would have been different from that which is actual.
As far as time is concerned that is a different subject, God is the begging and the end. How ever a true Calvinist believes man has no choice no free will, God decides who is going to heaven or hell and nothing we do can change that. Its true we can not save our selves we must except that Jesus came as the God man born of a virgin dyed on the cross for the world sin and was raised on the 3 day. If it were not for free will we would be a bunch of robots and could not show God love nor could we receive love from Him it would men nothing. It is better to write and speak in simple terms when speaking of Gods word neither above our audience nor talking down to them, and brother I have know idea what you tried to tell me. I am a simple minister and I speak in simple terms. Hay you may have said the same thing I don’t know. Trying to show how smart we are is all about me and not about teaching Gods word. If I’m wrong about my hypothesis I apologies.
Post a Comment