tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post4009770124087551286..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: The explanation that doesn't explain: Hays on the argument from appreciationVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80717151357056051572009-09-28T18:20:32.018-07:002009-09-28T18:20:32.018-07:00It's a little unfortunate when every post I do...It's a little unfortunate when every post I do on Calvinism ends up getting mixed up in a debate about anonymous posting. People on Triblogue irritate me in various ways, but the mere fact that someone posts anonymously, and who is writing what posts, should not be the issue that it is.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55564968392419081622009-08-25T06:15:53.544-07:002009-08-25T06:15:53.544-07:00Steve,
I had the privilage of reading the article...Steve,<br /><br />I had the privilage of reading the article before publishing. I have read the entire exchange to date (starting with Schreiner's essay in Still Sovereign, Brians's response, Schreiner's response to Brian's critique, and Brian's newest unpublished essay- which is not primarily a direct response to Schreiner, but contains several direct responses), and yes, I do think it will prove to be definitive on the matter (though his first critique of Schreiner was really definitive as well, since Schreiner's response was so weak and didn't even seem to grasp Brian's position or arguments- which will be pointed out in the newer article).<br /><br />God Bless,<br />BenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11270307100150514722009-08-22T05:24:46.211-07:002009-08-22T05:24:46.211-07:00Victor,
I think the Calvs consider Robert to have...Victor,<br /><br />I think the Calvs consider Robert to have been posting as a false Calvinist (Henry) trying to make Calvinists look bad. (It's hard to make out, though, since they aren't providing details or evidence. They may mean to be claiming Robert occasionally posts as someone named 'Henry' in order to flame Calvinists more harshly or something like that.)<br /><br />Robert on the other hand claims that someone has been pretending to be him posting harsh language against evil T-bloggers who go around pretending to be him because Calvinism causes this attitude. (I think I understood that correctly: the idea is that Robert is claiming a sock-puppet pretending to be Robert excoriated Calvinists in general and T-bloggers in particular for going around pretending to be Robert.)<br /><br />However, if they're going to persist in making these claims on a public board, they should provide links showing Robert engaging in that deception. Otherwise they're only promoting what amounts (for all we know otherwise) as ungrounded slander.<br /><br />I'm sure Steve and the others wouldn't want us to just take someone else's ungrounded word that <i>they</i> had been behaving that way, and would appreciate it if we called down what appears (without actual evidence provided along the way) to be ungrounded slander against <i>them</i>.<br /><br /><br />(Which is not to say that Robert <i>must</i> be innocent of the charges. But when we don't know otherwise ourselves, we have a charitable obligation to consider him innocent until actually proven guilty. The same as we would with Steve or anyone else if people were launching such accusations against them instead.)<br /><br /><br />Meanwhile, if Robert wants to reduce the chances of someone just signing on with Name/URL to sock-puppet him on blogger (here or anywhere else), he should register with Blogger and set up numerous details in his registration pointing back to the real 'him'. That will instantly eliminate casual sock-puppet attempts at least.<br /><br />(I see Robert--or someone pretending to be Robert?--has now minimially registered with blogger. But minimally registering with blogger is almost the same as signing in for one-time comment with a mere name.)<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68566555045992739672009-08-21T20:09:00.032-07:002009-08-21T20:09:00.032-07:00Victor Reppert said...
"Do we have any good ...Victor Reppert said...<br /><br />"Do we have any good reason to suppose that Robert is a sock puppet?"<br /><br />In the past he's denied being "Henry," yet we caught him posting a comment as "Henry," using the same google account as "Henry." That's one line of evidence, among others.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15250466102536777622009-08-21T20:00:42.596-07:002009-08-21T20:00:42.596-07:00Do we have any good reason to suppose that Robert ...Do we have any good reason to suppose that Robert is a sock puppet? A closet Calvinist trying to make Arminians look bad? <br /><br />These charges don't help.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34961687798283779262009-08-21T12:29:56.294-07:002009-08-21T12:29:56.294-07:00arminianperspectives said...
"Personally, I ...arminianperspectives said...<br /><br />"Personally, I think his response will be definitive in the matter and demonstrate that Schreiner's response was extremely weak; mainly consisting of continually misunderstanding the position he was trying to critique and numerous instances of question begging. I look forward to the publication."<br /><br />So you personally think an article you've never read will be definitive. Is that it?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73981832492805414132009-08-21T11:01:17.674-07:002009-08-21T11:01:17.674-07:00Robert/Henry, try and keep up. The article I linke...<i>Robert/Henry, try and keep up. The article I linked to is Tom's response to Brian. Brian didn't respond to this one where Tom showed that the *individual* view was the best reading of the text.</i><br /><br />Not sure who wrote this, but I thought it would be worth pointing out that Dr. Brian Abasciano immediately sought to write a further response in that same theological journal, but the rules of the journal do not allow for follow-up rebuttals on responses. Brian has, however, written a response that will soon be published in another theological journal.<br /><br />Personally, I think his response will be definitive in the matter and demonstrate that Schreiner's response was extremely weak; mainly consisting of continually misunderstanding the position he was trying to critique and numerous instances of question begging. I look forward to the publication.<br /><br />God Bless,<br />BenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14173446721725879402009-08-20T08:13:06.867-07:002009-08-20T08:13:06.867-07:00“The Arminian view is that God desires the salvati...“The Arminian view is that God desires the salvation of all and provides for the salvation of all…”<br /><br />Really? Didn’t Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet just tell us that “If God decides that that is the way things will be, then as He is sovereign, then that is the way things will be (and He has said that first death comes and then the judgment with no hint of any second chance or final chance to repent).”<br /><br />By Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet’s own admission, God won’t allow anyone to repent after death. So God has a deadline which prevents some sinners from being saved whom he could save if he allowed them to repent after death. <br /><br />Therefore, God doesn’t desire the salvation of all. He doesn’t provide for the salvation of all. Were that the case, then his provision would extend beyond the grave. According to Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet, God has established an arbitrary expiration date on the offer of the gospel. Whether you’re saved or damned depends on which side of the deadline you find yourself. Clearly, then, God does not desire the salvation of all. For that cut-off-point preempts any opportunity for postmortem salvation.<br /><br />“If Hays wants to believe that human persons not responding to the gospel with faith makes God a ‘failure’…”<br /><br />Notice the blatant equivocation. I said that’s a failure on Arminian terms. Arminian assumptions.<br /><br />By contrast, if God decrees that some people disbelieve the gospel, and they do what he decreed (i.e. disbelieve the gospel), then God succeeded in achieving his aim. <br /><br />“Hays is merely trying to attack Arminian theology with his argument that it makes God a ‘failure’. But let’s turn it around and look at how under Calvinism God is always ‘successful’. Hays believes that everything is prescripted by God. God conceived of a story and every detail of that story in eternity, he then brings that story to pass in time (what we call history). So everything that happens is exactly what God desired to happen and God’s will (the sovereign plan, the total plan, the story preconceived in eternity) is **always** done. This is the secret will of God that is always ‘successful’. But then there is the expressed will of God in scripture, which while fully and visibly stated in the bible for all to see, nevertheless is constantly violated by human persons (but God is not a ‘failure’ because God’s secret will, the one that really counts is always being done).”<br /><br />The law of God establishes a standard by which the reprobate will be judged. Hardly a problem for Calvinism.<br /><br />“So while the bible expresses God’s desires that the Christian is to be holy, to resist temptation…”<br /><br />Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet is assuming, without benefit of argument, that the law of God is an expression of God’s desires. <br /><br />That’s a problem for Arminianism. On the one hand, the law of God contains the death penalty for various crimes. Therefore, by Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet’s logic, God desires the death of the offender. On the other hand, Arminians constantly cite verses like Ezk 18:23 to prove that God does not desire the death of sinners. <br /><br />“But that is **just** what God says in the bible, that is not really what God wants, what God planned from eternity.”<br /><br />False dichotomy since the Bible also speaks of God’s eternal plan.<br /><br />“A God who says one thing in the bible but then constantly brings about things that directly contradicts the bible.”<br /><br />Really? What about God’s command to sacrifice Isaac?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8757882789349377622009-08-20T08:12:31.482-07:002009-08-20T08:12:31.482-07:00“So the bible is BOTH INPOTENT AND INCOMPETENT to ...“So the bible is BOTH INPOTENT AND INCOMPETENT to COUNTER UNIVERSALISM????????”<br /><br />Is that what I said? No. Either Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet is dense or dishonest.<br /><br />What I said, rather, is that his explanation is both impotent and incompetent.<br /><br />“If another calvinist had written that the bible sufficiently counters universalism…”<br /><br />Of course, when another Calvinist does that, he presents interpretations consistent with Calvinism to prove his point. That’s hardly comparable to Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet’s situation. <br /><br />“I have to admit that I have a certain assumption, perhaps you disagree with it. I believe we should limit our conclusions to conclusions derived from biblical texts. There are no biblical texts which speak of a post-mortem second chance or last chance to be saved. We have to limit our conclusions to the available data. If someone wants to **claim** a post mortem opportunity then the burden of proof is upon them to show from the biblical data where this is present. I do not believe they can do so as there is no data like this in the bible.”<br /><br />It’s clear that Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet has no hands-on experience debating astute universalists. I do.<br /><br />I’d also note that Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet ducks the counterargument of Jason Pratt.<br /><br />“If God decides that that is the way things will be, then as He is sovereign, then that is the way things will be (and He has said that first death comes and then the judgment with no hint of any second chance or final chance to repent).”<br /><br />Notice that when Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet tries to argue down a universalist, he falls back on Reformed appeals to God’s sovereign prerogative. How very Calvinistic!<br /><br />“The first all is not a universal all then? No one argues that the first all is not universal. And it is **arbitrary** and **driven by** the calvinistic system not by the text, to conclude that the second all is not universal as well.”<br /><br />Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet continues to miss the point. Evidently, he’s ignorant of the sense/reference distinction, even though that’s a rudimentary distinction in lexical semantics. Nothing uniquely “Calvinist” about that distinction.<br /><br />“It is not a semantic fallacy to see both alls in Romans 11:32 meaning all. It is special pleading by the calvinist to argue the first all is universal while the second all is not.”<br /><br />What the quantifier means is not the issue. The issue is the identity of the referent. <br /><br />“For the Arminian God’s plan of salvation is to provide an atonement for the world (i.e. the atonement of Christ) and have this atonement **only** applied to those who respond in faith. In this view ‘God saves those he wants to save’ (i.e., those who have a faith response, those who trust Him for salvation).”<br /><br />And why does the provision exceed the application? That’s a useless provision. <br /><br />It’s like erecting a silo in West Antarctica. A silo full of wheat which no one eats. What’s the point?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66293939050242772632009-08-20T08:11:33.731-07:002009-08-20T08:11:33.731-07:00Robert said...
“Now consider whom Hays cites as t...Robert said...<br /><br />“Now consider whom Hays cites as the experts who supposedly have interpreted the Romans 9:22-23 section correctly. All three are staunch calvinists, and Piper and Schreiner in particular are **militant** calvinists (both have published a lot of material arguing for and supporting Calvinism, Piper began as an Arminian but then **converted** to calvinism based upon his coming to a calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9 which he did his doctorate on and subsequently published as a book entirely on his calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9). Piper and Schreiner go out of their way to propagate Calvinism. Vested interests of these experts, you bet.”<br /><br />i) Of course, Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet is ignoring the obvious. If he’s going to use that objection to dismiss Reformed scholars out of hand, then, by the same token, I can dismiss Arminian scholars like Ben Witherington and I. H. Marshall out of hand.<br /><br />ii) For that matter, Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet is using the same tactic which unbelievers use to dismiss the NT witness to the Resurrection. The NT writers were believers. They have a “vested interest” in what they say. Therefore, we can discount their testimony. <br /><br />iii) And notice that Robert says nothing to counter the exegesis of Piper, Schreiner, and Moo.<br /><br />“I thought it was humorous that Hays appealed to his “expert” on hardening (i.e. Beale another staunch calvinist) and Victor countered with an essay by a non-Calvinist on hardening. So we can all play this game of citing experts in support of our view.”<br /><br />My appeal to Piper, Schreiner, and Moo was not an appeal to authority. I didn’t treat them as expert witnesses. Rather, I quoted their exegetical arguments. And Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet offers no counterargument.<br /><br />Instead, he assails the motives of Piper, Schreiner, and Moo. But, of course, that cuts both ways. Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet also has a personal stake in this debate. He’s hardly a disinterested party.<br /><br />“Calvinists like Moo present a false dilemma here (i.e. it is either take the second all as meaning all and so ending up a universalist OR reject the second all as meaning all and take the calvinist position.”<br /><br />A universal quantifier can have the same meaning in both occurrences without having the same referent. I cited 1 Cor 15 to underscore that point. “All” die and Adam” while “all” are made alive in Christ. But the second case has reference to Christians, not to humanity in general. And I notice that Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet dodges that example. <br /><br />“The text [Rom 11:32] does not say He saves all.”<br /><br />I already anticipated that move. I pointed out that even if this move works for 11:32, the same move won’t work for 5:18. <br /><br />“Again no problem. The biblical texts say that Jesus was given or offered for the world as an atonement for all. This speaks of the provision of the atonement which is in fact universal (as the universal texts clearly state).”<br /><br />No. There are verses in Scripture which go beyond mere provision. Rom 5:18 is a case it point. That talks about the end-result. <br /><br />Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet has yet to explain how he can reconcile 5:18 with his denial of universal salvation without adopting Reformed exegesis.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47974995801237672112009-08-19T10:17:55.998-07:002009-08-19T10:17:55.998-07:00[Response to Hays part 6]
So take the example o...[Response to Hays part 6]<br /> <br /><br />So take the example of “Joe” who is first a nonbeliever. But “Joe” got **lucky** in the divine lottery (he was preselected for salvation completely independently of who he is as a person, his character or any of his actions, he just got lucky and got chosen). “Joe” comes to a situation where he faces a serious temptation which would involve him being unfaithful to his wife. “Joe” is conscientious about his faith and does not want to give into the temptation, he prays about it and asks help to resist the temptation (he even appeals to 1 Cor. 10:13 in prayer, the verse about God always providing a way of escape when facing temptation). But of course unknown to “Joe” in God’s **secret will** he is predetermined to sin to give into that temptation. So while the bible expresses God’s desires that the Christian is to be holy, to resist temptation, that God will provide a way of escape when the temptation comes, etc.. But that is **just** what God says in the bible, that is not really what God wants, what God planned from eternity. What God really wanted, what God predetermined in eternity, was for “Joe” to give into the temptation to commit adultery (I know God says that Adultery is wrong, that it is one of the ten commandments, but again that is **just** the expressed will of God, what the bible says, that is not the secret will that actually determines reality). “Joe” then ends up getting a divorce from his act of indiscretion, doesn’t get to see his kids much anymore and in some churches he will be shunned for what he did. <br /><br />AND IN ALL OF THIS GOD WAS COMPLETELY ****SUCCESSFUL****, HIS SOVEREIGN SECRET WILL WAS DONE PERFECTLY. <br /><br />**That** is what calvinism and its two will doctrine leads to. If that is “success” on the part of God, then you can have it. A God who says one thing in the bible but then constantly brings about things that directly contradicts the bible, IS NOT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE. He is the invention of calvinism, he is the person who results if God has these two wills (the secret and the revealed wills) as John Piper and other calvinists claim. I think that I would rather have the Arminian God’s “failure” than the calvinist God’s “success”.<br /><br />RobertRoberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16907838048020669875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66896381007680228412009-08-19T10:16:32.463-07:002009-08-19T10:16:32.463-07:00[response to Hays part 5]
I wrote:
“We know t...[response to Hays part 5] <br /><br />I wrote: <br /><br /><br />“We know that calvinists believe that God only wants to save some (the elect) while he really does not want to save the others (the non-elect, nonbelievers, ‘reprobates’).”<br /><br />Hays responded:<br /><br /><br />“Calvinists believe that God saves those he wants to save. Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet believes that God fails to save many he wants to save. For him, God’s universal love is ineffectual.”<br /><br />This is a common calvinistic “spin” on things. For the Arminian God’s plan of salvation is to provide an atonement for the world (i.e. the atonement of Christ) and have this atonement **only** applied to those who respond in faith. In this view “God saves those he wants to save” (i.e., those who have a faith response, those who trust Him for salvation). It is an intentional misrepresentation by Hays aimed at maligning the Arminian view to state that “Robert/Henry?Sockpuppet believes that God fails to save many he wants to save.”<br /> Hays knows Arminian beliefs well enough so that for him to make this statement is simply his intentional aim to misrepresent Arminian beliefs with the aim to put the spin on it that if Arminianism is true, then God **fails**. But it is easy to see how false this is. Again, the Arminian view is that God desires the salvation of all and provides for the salvation of all and a major part of this plan is that God will only save those who trust Him for salvation (i.e. salvation involves a condition, the individual must have faith, if he/she does not then God will not save them). So God was perfectly “successful” in developing **his** plan: He provided an atonement for the world in the death of Christ on the cross (check), this atonement is only applied to those who respond in faith (check) and it will save all of those who do in fact respond with faith (check). Where has God “failed” in any of this?<br /><br />If Hays wants to believe that human persons not responding to the gospel with faith makes God a “failure”. Then God also failed every time that He desired for Israel to be a holy nation and be obedient to Him (on numerous occasions they chose not to obey, so according to Hays’ “logic” that makes God a “failure” every time that this occurred). If I have a big party and invite everyone and enable them to come, but then some choose not to come to the party, have I “failed”? I desired for all of them to come, sent out the invitations, did what was necessary for them to attend, but then **they** chose not to come. In what way have I “failed” here? Or what about when Christians sin, have we then made God a “failure” each time that we freely choose to sin? God desires for the Christian to be holy and not to sin, he gives us the Holy Spirit and His Word to enable us to live righteously, but we sometimes still choose to sin. Has God failed every time we make the choice to sin?<br /><br />Hays is merely trying to attack Arminian theology with his argument that it makes God a “failure”. But let’s turn it around and look at how under Calvinism God is always “successful”. Hays believes that everything is prescripted by God. God conceived of a story and every detail of that story in eternity, he then brings that story to pass in time (what we call history). So everything that happens is exactly what God desired to happen and God’s will (the sovereign plan, the total plan, the story preconceived in eternity) is **always** done. This is the secret will of God that is always “successful”. But then there is the expressed will of God in scripture, which while fully and visibly stated in the bible for all to see, nevertheless is constantly violated by human persons (but God is not a “failure” because God’s secret will, the one that really counts is always being done).<br /><br />RobertRoberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16907838048020669875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45549302090424804322009-08-19T10:13:14.685-07:002009-08-19T10:13:14.685-07:00[response to Hays part 4]
I wrote:
“Recall that ...[response to Hays part 4]<br /><br />I wrote:<br /><br />“Recall that Romans 11:32 says that God shut up ALL in disobedience in order that he might have mercy on ALL. Note there are two ‘alls’ there. . . . .And non-calvinists see the second ‘all’ (call that all(B)) as also referring to all people. That seems clear and simple, that seems to fit precisely what Paul intended by this text.”<br /><br />Hays responded:<br /><br />“i) The problem with this contention is that the referent of a universal quantifier is not a fixed variable.”<br /><br />The first all is not a universal all then? No one argues that the first all is not universal. And it is **arbitrary** and **driven by** the calvinistic system not by the text, to conclude that the second all is not universal as well. <br /><br /><br />“ii) Moreover, in his various responses to me, notice how often Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet alternates between the “meaning” of all and the “referent” of all, as if these were interchangeable concepts. But they’re not. The meaning of “all” can be invariable even though the reference is variable. Basic lexical semantics. Yet Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet’s semantic fallacy runs throughout his response to me, Moo, and Schreiner.”<br /><br />It is not a semantic fallacy to see both alls in Romans 11:32 meaning all. It is special pleading by the calvinist to argue the first all is universal while the second all is not.<br /><br />RobertRoberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16907838048020669875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82062723399535642162009-08-19T10:10:46.198-07:002009-08-19T10:10:46.198-07:00[response to Hays part 3]
I gave my reason for r...[response to Hays part 3]<br /><br /><br />I gave my reason for rejecting universalism when I wrote:<br /> <br />“Easy, just look at the rest of the Romans 9-11 unit (and after that just look at the rest of the New Testament, look at Jesus’ statements about hell, statements that led Bertrand Russell to declare that Jesus was not a moral person because he believed in hell) where Paul makes it clear that in order to be saved one must put their faith in Christ (whether Jew or Gentile) and if one does not one is not saved. Paul and the other New Testament writers are agreed: no individual faith in Christ for salvation = no salvation.”<br /><br /> <br />Allow me to explain these words further and make my meaning clear: the answer to universalism is to just look at other bible verses in the Romans 9-11 unit and after that look at other bible verses, basically the rest of the New Testament, look in particular at Jesus' statements/teachings about hell, even an atheist like Bertrand Russell understood this well enough. <br /> <br />In other words, my reason for rejecting universalism is that the bible properly interpreted **contradicts it**. <br /><br />Note Hays’ response to my claim:<br /><br /><br />"i) As a counter to universalism, this is both impotent and incompetent. Universalism subscribes to postmortem conversion. Therefore, a univeralist can easily harmonize the precondition of faith with universal salvation. For a universalist has no deadline on when a sinner must exercise faith in Christ. Death is not the expiration date."<br /> <br />So the bible is BOTH INPOTENT AND INCOMPETENT to COUNTER UNIVERSALISM???????? <br /><br />If another calvinist had written that the bible sufficiently counters universalism would Hays have said that the bible as a counter to universalism was BOTH IMPOTENT AND INCOMPETENT??? I strongly doubt it. But Hays' hatred for me is so intense that he attacks the truth even though I say it. And it is the truth that the bible is sufficient to counter universalism.<br /><br /> <br />I have to admit that I have a certain assumption, perhaps you disagree with it. I believe we should limit our conclusions to conclusions derived from biblical texts. There are no biblical texts which speak of a post-mortem second chance or last chance to be saved. We have to limit our conclusions to the available data. If someone wants to **claim** a post mortem opportunity then the burden of proof is upon them to show from the biblical data where this is present. I do not believe they can do so as there is no data like this in the bible. <br /><br />It is like if someone claims there is an existing planet beyond our most powerful telescopes or instrumentation. You can make that claim all you want and even persuade those predisposed to believe it (the Planet Xenon fan club) but it goes beyond the available data and must be seen for what it is: speculation in the absence of data. There is also them more severe problem for the Universalist, that the available data that we do have directly contradicts universalism (again for example even Bertrand Russell recognized that from his reading of the New Testament).<br /> <br /><br />“ii) And this is more of a problem for Arminianism than Calvinism. If God really wants to save everyone, then why would he foreclose the opportunity at death? On the face of it, that’s an arbitrary deadline.”<br /><br /><br />If God decides that that is the way things will be, then as He is sovereign, then that is the way things will be (and He has said that first death comes and then the judgment with no hint of any second chance or final chance to repent). God decided that salvation would be through faith and that those who hear the gospel and reject it will not be saved. And this decision to trust the Lord for salvation must occur during the person’s lifetime. This has been the orthodox Christian teaching across all theological traditions. God makes the rules not me, so this answer is sufficient for me.<br /><br />RobertRoberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16907838048020669875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89862775050539543342009-08-19T10:07:34.824-07:002009-08-19T10:07:34.824-07:00[response to Hays part 2]
A second issue is univ...[response to Hays part 2]<br /><br /><br />A second issue is universalism and the meaning of “all” in Romans 11:32.<br /><br />I had written:<br /><br />“Anyone familiar with calvinist tactics for **reinterpreting** bible texts is aware that when a bible text presents what explicitly and plainly and clearly suggests that God loves ALL people or that God desires the salvation of ALL people or that Jesus was given for the WORLD/ALL people, that calvinists reinterpret these passages…Non-calvinists see these maneuvers as evasive maneuvers to get away from, get around the plain meaning of biblical texts.”<br /><br />Hays responded:<br /><br />“This is one of the problems with being a single-issue troll like Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet. He’s posting this comment at Dangerous Idea. Yet Reppert clearly regards universalism as a viable option or fallback position. And Jason Pratt, who is part of this debate, is a universalist.<br /><br /><br />I am well aware that Romans 11:32 is a proof text for Universalists. And I gave my reason for rejecting the universalist interpretation of this text (it does not fit with the rest of the Romans 9-11 unit, nor with the rest of the New Testament where some clear statements about eternal punishment/hell are made).<br /><br /><br />“But Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet’s doesn’t believe in universal salvation. So if anyone has a prima facie claim on the “plain” and “clear” meaning of these passages, it’s not the Arminian, but the universalist.”<br /><br />Actually I think that Romans 11:32 is absolutely clear: it says that all have sinned and God allowed this in order that He might have mercy on all. Calvinists like Moo present a false dilemma here (i.e. it is either take the second all as meaning all and so ending up a universalist OR reject the second all as meaning all and take the calvinist position. <br /><br />The third alternative, and the alternative that I and many others hold is this: the second all does mean all, but it does not lead to universalism. And as I said in my earlier post, a point completely ignored by Hays: we have to think this through; the text says that God wants to have mercy on all, so HOW does He do so? The text does not say He saves all (no Greek word for salvation is present, if it did say that He saves all then universalism would be true [and in fact there is no passage anywhere that says that God will in fact save all persons, with many saying that not all will be saved, and the text actually says mercy not saves). <br /><br /><br />“A universalist would regard Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet’s attempt to “reinterpret” these passages so that they fall short of universal salvation as an evasive maneuver on his part. But Robert/Henry/Sockpuppet is too preoccupied with Calvinism to see the irony of his situation.’”<br /><br />I am not evading the meaning of the text it says that He wants to have mercy on all. And that is precisely how I take it. <br /><br />And again the question then becomes and HOW DOES HE HAVE MERCY ON ALL?? <br /><br />“And this is more of a problem for Arminians than Calvinists. Calvinists have a consistent approach to cosmic/universalistic terms in Scripture. Arminians, by contrast, affirm unlimited atonement, but deny unlimited salvation. Therefore, they have to oscillate in their treatment of cosmic/universalistic terminology.”<br /><br />Again no problem. The biblical texts say that Jesus was given or offered for the world as an atonement for all. This speaks of the provision of the atonement which is in fact universal (as the universal texts clearly state). On the other hand, the atonement must be applied to an individual and the New Testament is equally clear that this only occurs with individuals who have a faith response to the gospel.<br /><br />RobertRoberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16907838048020669875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69889716438724108282009-08-19T10:06:36.288-07:002009-08-19T10:06:36.288-07:00[Response to Hays part 1]
I do not have the time ...[Response to Hays part 1]<br /><br />I do not have the time to respond to all of what Steve Hays has said. I am going to ignore the personal attacks and will choose to address just a few issues. First there is the issue of appeal to authority.<br /><br />Steve Hays wrote about Romans 9:22-23 and then appealed to his authorities:<br /><br /><br />“We could go into more detail, but Piper, Schreiner, and Moo have already done into great detail.”<br /><br /><br />I was just reading a new book that I have on logic and fallacies called: “A SHORT COURSE IN INTELLECTUAL SELF DEFENSE” by Normand Baillargeon.<br /><br />And I happened to look at his section where he discusses the fallacy of appeal to authority. He gives three cases to be concerned about as improper appeals to authority, one has direct relevance here: “The second is when the expert has vested interests in the topic he or she is addressing. At that point, it is reasonable to think that these interests are orienting or, more radically driving his or her judgment.” (p. 66)<br /><br />Now consider whom Hays cites as the experts who supposedly have interpreted the Romans 9:22-23 section correctly. All three are staunch calvinists, and Piper and Schreiner in particular are **militant** calvinists (both have published a lot of material arguing for and supporting Calvinism, Piper began as an Arminian but then **converted** to calvinism based upon his coming to a calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9 which he did his doctorate on and subsequently published as a book entirely on his calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9). Piper and Schreiner go out of their way to propagate Calvinism. Vested interests of these experts, you bet. And any informed person on this issue knows that other experts taking the non-calvinist position could be presented here as well. <br /><br />I thought it was humorous that Hays appealed to his “expert” on hardening (i.e. Beale another staunch calvinist) and Victor countered with an essay by a non-Calvinist on hardening. So we can all play this game of citing experts in support of our view. When it comes to the interpretation of Romans 9 there is the Calvinistic interpretation which is mistaken and forced upon the text and the non-calvinistic interpretation which better fits the text and does not require any forcing of square pegs into round holes.<br /><br />RobertRoberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16907838048020669875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77321728916444227992009-08-15T10:16:35.978-07:002009-08-15T10:16:35.978-07:00Thanks for the link, Helmut! (I think much of what...Thanks for the link, Helmut! (I think much of what I disagree with in that article has been mentioned somewhere here in my comments already; but there are some points worth noting, too.)<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19724314483671069092009-08-15T10:11:15.870-07:002009-08-15T10:11:15.870-07:00Steve: {{Arminianism is a dinosaur. In the surviva...Steve: {{Arminianism is a dinosaur. In the survival of the fittest, Armininism has been squeezed out by univeralism. The Arminian/Calvinist debate has been superseded by the universalist/Calvinist debate.}}<br /><br />I wouldn’t put it like that. Arminians have their positive doctrinal contribution to make, just as Calvinists do.<br /><br />I will apply an analogy I've used before: some Christians are very apt at recognizing and pointing out scriptural testimony, OT and NT both (though naturally more in the NT due to the nature of the case) concerning the distinction between the persons of the Father and the Son (and maybe even the Holy Spirit compared to either other person, though that’s rarer to find among such Christians. {s}) Some Christians are very apt at recognizing and pointing out scriptural testimony (OT and NT both) concerning the identification of the Son (and various manifestations in the OT) with God Most High Alone, beside Whom there is none.<br /><br />And there are those among each set of Christians who would insist that the other is dead wrong (even blasphemously so), and who would insist that I must choose between one or the other of them.<br /><br />{shrug} But I don’t believe I have to choose between them. I can affirm both sets of data, though admittedly in a way that doesn’t make much immediate sense to either party. Moreover, I find that this double-affirmation makes excellently superior, even logically necessary, metaphysical sense (though again it’s far from immediately obvious).<br /><br />True, I’ll have to dispute with one kind of Christian who denies the ultimate divinity of Christ personally; and I’ll have to dispute with the other kind of Chrisitan who denies the distinction of the persons (though in this present day there aren’t very many such Christians). But I wouldn’t diss either one (even the one of whom there aren’t many around right now) as being merely a dinosaur squeezed out. Each side has some important things to say, that I agree they are doing rightly and competently as far as they go.<br /><br />Which is why I’m a trinitarian theist. {s}<br /><br />Similarly, Calvs and Arms both are doing some things wrong, I find, but both are doing some things very aptly, too. Which I especially appreciate because first I am a trinitarian theist: I find that universalism (not every kind, but a particular kind or small subset of kinds) is a logically corollary to orthodox trinitarian theism (including especially the western pro-filioque kind.)<br /><br /><br />Anyway, knowledgable and experienced (and fair) exegetes from all three sides, admit that there are prooftext snips scattered here and yon which would seem, when taken in isolation, to testify to all three soteriological positions; which cannot all three be equally true. (The same happens when the focus is shifted a bit to the debate between annihilationism, neverending condemnation, and universalism, which is a different kind of soteriological debate.) And knowledgeable and experienced exegetes from all three sides all admit and insist that larger and larger levels of context are important for systematic theology, as well as logical coherence: mere snippet prooftexting, though convenient (and maybe necessary when giving a brief exposition), is ultimately worthless.<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84865590532649170712009-08-15T10:10:24.457-07:002009-08-15T10:10:24.457-07:00Steve,
{{Yet it’s not Paul’s contention in 1 Cor ...Steve,<br /><br />{{Yet it’s not Paul’s contention in 1 Cor 15 that everyone will be raised in Christ.}}<br /><br />True, an Armininan (per se) will have to grant this. (Depending on what they’re willing to allow “being raised in Christ” to mean.)<br /><br />I certainly don’t have to grant this, though; but rather that “as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive; yet each in his own order.” The last will be those whom Christ has put under His feet, subordinating them to Himself as He shall subordinate Himself to the Father so that God may be all in all. I think we can be reasonably sure that Christ is not subjecting Himself to the Father in an impenitently rebellious fashion of grudging technical acknowledgement. {g}<br /><br />But very much more could be said about this throughout scripture. To give an immediately pertinent example:<br /><br />{{There’s more to it than that. There’s also Rom 5:18. If all he had to deal with is 11:32, Robert could try to weasel out of universalism by claiming that, although God is merciful to everyone, everyone is free to resist his mercy. However, 5:18 is stronger. It describes, not merely an opportunity, but an outcome. The end-result.}}<br /><br />I wouldn’t appeal to this on ground of simply plugging in universal qualifiers, of course. But it’s true that unless a rationale is imported into the text from elsewhere (which is not necessarily an illegitimate process in principle), the straightforward reading of this text, as with 1 Cor 15, is that all shall be justified through Christ and shall be loyally faithful to Christ (as the Son loyally subjects Himself to the Father).<br /><br />Incidentally, the “universal qualifier” plug-in strategy is kind-of mooted by the subsequent verse, 5:19; which says essentially the same thing as 5:18 but uses the term “the many” in both cases.<br /><br />Which is not to say that “the many” always means “all”, though knowledgeable Calv and Arm exegetes are both aware that sometimes “the many” is a euphamism for “all” in terms of a corporate unity. (Certainly Calvs and Arms both typically agree that “the many” is being used in this sense in regard to sin and disobedience throughout Rom 5, for example.)Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74010069853158547562009-08-15T10:09:01.803-07:002009-08-15T10:09:01.803-07:00(Still in reply to Robert),
I will note that the ...(Still in reply to Robert),<br /><br />I will note that the rhetorical antithesis of verse 11:32 involves action by God in each case; and the first clause involves God locking up all into stubbornness. God is the one responsible for this; He is the one responsible for showing mercy to all as well. The action and the responsibility is God’s in either case; but the rhetorical answer to God imprisoning all is God freeing all. Each plays a part in the history of salvation, and not a part of merit; none, whether Jew or pagan, has ethical preeminence so that they may claim they have more right to salvation. The mercy of God, as routinely demonstrated throughout the OT verses being quoted by Paul in this section (especially the ones dealing with the potter, the clay, and the pottery answering back to the potter), involves God freeing the punished prisoner, putting their sins away, and restoring the punished one to fellowship with Him.<br /><br />And yes, responsible repentance on the part of the sinner is part of that process; which God continues acting to lead the sinner to do. Historically, God partially restored Israel (whom no one can say had done more than partially repented, whether individually or corporately) in order to move the story along, so to speak; and also because “there is no wrath in Me” (as Isaiah reports of God) and He takes no delight in the suffering of Israel’s punishment but suffers their punishment along with them (as Isaiah also reports, though other prophets, too).<br /><br />It is Christ, God Himself in action, Who completes the atonement, reconciling with all (and reconciling all to each other); only Christ can do that. The final result is not supposed to be only another partial salvation of the people. When the pottery is ruined, the potter reforms the lump; destroying (in a manner of speaking) the ruined pottery along the way, but creating something that will no longer be ruined pottery. (Which is the point to Jer 18:1-10 and following verses: reform, Judah, or God will destroy you. But He destroys for this purpose, as He has the right to do. The three places in Isaiah where the same language is used, at least two of which were certainly in Paul’s mind when composing Rom 9-11, have much the same point. What purpose is that? The purpose of the potter reforming the pottery.)<br /><br /><br />So, in point of fact, I <i>do</i> look at the rest of Rom 9-11 unit, which I could discuss in much more detail still. (Nor do I ignore “the rest of the New Testament”, including Jesus’ statements about hell, about which I could write exceeding amounts of material.)<br /><br /><br />Btw, {lol!} for the TULIP retort to the anonymous flamebaiter. {ggg!} {bow!}<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52519870801458710672009-08-15T10:07:56.396-07:002009-08-15T10:07:56.396-07:00Robert: {{If Romans 9-11 is interpreted as a unit,...Robert: {{If Romans 9-11 is interpreted as a unit, the answer is that for both Jews and Gentiles the HOW is done through Christ and his crucifixion. **That** is HOW God has mercy on all.}}<br /><br />No disagreement here; but neither is God’s mercy through Christ a static mercy that sits around waiting for people to choose or not choose. Calvinists are right to point out that most (even all?) of the choosing going on in Rom 9-11 is by God. The remnant comes to exist at the present time (of Paul’s writing) by God’s gracious choice; those who have been chosen by grace have obtained (at that time) what Israel is seeking for, the rest were hardened--hardened so as to stumble. (Stumbling so as to fall?--”May it never be!” And if their transgression be riches for the world and their failure be riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulness be! For if their rejection be the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?)<br /><br />True, so long as they continue in their unbelief they will not be grafted in again; but Paul fully expects, trusting in God (not trusting in the stumblers!) that those who have stumbled will not always be continuing in their unbelief. Thus will all Israel be saved. They did not all heed the glad tidings, but neither does anyone have to go up to heaven to bring Christ down nor down into the Abyss to bring Christ up from the dead in order that Christ, the Logos, the Word of Faith, will witness to them. He does this Himself; we are to join faithfully with Him, but it is not of us and our works. So, faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes by the Word--this is concerning Christ.<br /><br />(It also helps when reading Romans 10 to be aware of the rabbinic tradition regarding Isaiah 52:8, that the feet who bring glad tidings of good things, are the feet first and foremost of the Messiah.)<br /><br />True, it is the remnant which shall be saved from the punishment of Gehenna. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that God shall fail to bring them home: the branch grafting analogy of Rom 11: 17-24, following the hope of the salvation of the stumbling ones (11-15, plus the transition at verse 16 which refers to Christ) metaphorically applies the agricultural practice known as kolasis, which is used elsewhere in the NT as a term for the punishment of Gehenna. (But this could be expanded upon at very great length.)Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7076118563338878322009-08-15T10:06:40.202-07:002009-08-15T10:06:40.202-07:00Robert,
Actually, I not only keep in mind the who...Robert,<br /><br />Actually, I not only keep in mind the whole of the context of Rom 9-11, I also keep in mind (insofar as possible--it’s a huge topic) the context of the OT quotes being given by St. Paul.<br /><br />{{But in talking about salvation he has made it clear that if you trust in Jesus you are saved and if you do not you are not saved. So there is no hint endorsing universalism in the text previous to Romans 11:32.}}<br /><br />I agree with the first sentence; but disagree with the second. (Mainly because I do in fact keep in mind your simple point, which I also agree with. {g})<br /><br />For example, I keep in mind that those Jews who have stumbled over the stumbling stone have not stumbled so as to fall--have they? “May it never be!” as Paul exclaims. He is quite insistent that God shall also lead them to salvation through Christ; and again, there is no third category of Jews who have stumbled over the stumbling stone whom God refuses to lead to salvation. Those who are grafted out, can be grafted back in again; those who have been grafted in, can be grafted back out again (especially if, as Paul warns, they insist on being uncharitable toward those who are currently grafted out.)<br /><br />As fares Israel, corporately, so God intends for the Gentiles, too (which is the point to verses 28-32, culminating in a set of alls which mean all.)Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40370558783740394922009-08-15T09:50:49.679-07:002009-08-15T09:50:49.679-07:00I posted a commentary on Piper's article abou...I posted a commentary on Piper's article about Romans 9,22-23 "Fitted for destruction" --<br /><br />found here <br /><br />combatingcalvinism.blogspot.com<br /><br />You might check out<br /><br />-a helmeta helmethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10159557031242847451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25809507386556295092009-08-15T09:07:14.672-07:002009-08-15T09:07:14.672-07:00I'd also note that N. T. Wright, in his commen...I'd also note that N. T. Wright, in his commentary on Romans (New Interpreter's Bible, 10:676-77) argues against the notion of a merely temporary hardening (of Israel) in 11:7ff. And Wright is no Calvinist.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12992777474981973162009-08-15T08:45:56.395-07:002009-08-15T08:45:56.395-07:00Robert said...
“Now allow me to make a simple poi...Robert said...<br /><br />“Now allow me to make a simple point here that I believe gets largely ignored in the interpretation of Romans 11:32 (by calvinists and also by universalists). I have already said that you have to interpret Romans 9-11 as a unit.”<br /><br />Largely ignored by which Calvinists? Piper? Schreiner? O. P. Robertson? I think not!<br /><br />As long as we’re making simple points, I’ll make a simple point as well. Paul talks about divine hardening in Rom 9:18. He revisits this theme in 11:7ff. <br /><br />The only way to avoid the principle of reprobation is to equate the “hardened” with the vessels of wrath,” and also claim that hardening is temporary. But there are two or three impenetrable obstacles to that move:<br /><br />i) Since the vessels of mercy were “prepared for destruction” their fate is irreversible. <br /><br />ii) O. P. Roberson has argued that the hardening is not a temporary condition. Cf. The Israel of God, chap. 6.<br /><br />iii) Even if you think the hardening is temporary, to be lifted at some future point–like a premil/postmill revival of messianic Judaism–the fact remains that, for 2000 years and counting, the vast majority of Jews have repudiated the messiahship of Jesus. <br /><br />Therefore, God’s hardening, even if temporary, isn’t temporary for each individual or each generation. To the contrary, it has deliberately and successfully hindered most Jews for the last 2000 years from coming to Christ.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.com