tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post216642851738719858..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Reply to the CalvinistsVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13205459893188895652008-04-16T17:54:00.000-07:002008-04-16T17:54:00.000-07:00Victor, my apologies for not responding to your re...Victor, my apologies for not responding to your reply sooner. Since you have specifically addressed my own argument, I think it is reasonable and polite that I defend it. However, having just had our first child, I've been somewhat pressed for time until now.<BR/><BR/>I've had some spare moments free over the past couple of days, though, so if you're still interested, I've written up a response at <A HREF="http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/?p=66" REL="nofollow">http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/?p=66</A>.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>BnonnDominic Bnonn Tennanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03103838704540924679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59518106118744683642008-04-12T20:17:00.000-07:002008-04-12T20:17:00.000-07:00Ilíon: "Are you objecting to injustice? Or to jus...<B>Ilíon:</B> "<I>Are you objecting to injustice? Or to justice?</I>"<BR/><BR/><B>VR:</B> "<I>No. If you have someone freely choosing to "reign in hell rather than serve in heaven", and persists in that choice, you have a problem as to how that choice can be reversed, as it must be if the person is to enjoy God's heaven. ...</I>"<BR/><BR/>Mr Reppert,<BR/>As I was trying to make clear, before I finished reading it, I was a bit confused as to just what you were arguing. Quite a bit, actually.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps I'm mis-reading, which does happen from time to time. It seems to me that you're intending to present a "proof by contradiction" type argument (i.e. to argue from strictly Calvinist premises, and from a logical contradiction show that there is some critical flaw in Calvinism) ... but that you keep slipping back and forth between Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic internal (to the argument) critiques.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75732718850121514862008-04-12T16:18:00.000-07:002008-04-12T16:18:00.000-07:001. So, one of your objections to Calvinism seems t...1. So, one of your objections to Calvinism seems to be the old canard that "people are damned due to a decree."<BR/><BR/>That sounds cute, but it's a category mistake. Decrees only make things certain. The decrees are worked out by Providence. So, your objection is ultimately to certainty, for no construal of the decrees by our representative theologians, even the few Supras, construes the the permission of the fall as brought about by God's direct efficiency, nor the classic Supras state that men are reprobated apart from sin.<BR/><BR/>2. The classic general objection runs this way:<BR/><BR/>Calvinism affirms that God decreed the fall. This was certain and effacious. It was not ineffacious (as in Arminianism), bare permission. Since the Fall results in eternal condemnation, men are "damned due to the decree." Since the decree to elect/reprobate keeps them out of salvation, men are still damned due to a decree. The objection to Supralapsarianism falls on similar grounds, only slightly different depending on the Supra position one critiques. (However, if you're going to run to Platinga, you should acknowledge that his theodicy is, itself, Supralapsarian.)<BR/><BR/>Overall this objection to decrees is facile for a number of reasons:<BR/><BR/>1. Where's the exegetical argument? You, yourself, say Scripture will correct you, but Scripture says that God has created everything for it's own purpose even the wicked for the day of evil. Scripture says that there are those who have been marked out long beforehand for condemnation, viz in Jude 4. So, if you really believed the Bible, you'd at least try to mount an exegetical argument.<BR/><BR/>2. The decree to fall is a decree to *permit* the fall. So, we can use the FWD to tell us *how* the fall happened, and it doesn't require LFW.<BR/><BR/>3. Arminians also have orders of decrees. Since you're no theologian, you may not realize this. How does God decreeing the possibility of evil (to take just one example of a distinction Arminians try to make) get God "off the hook?" If they affirm that He has infallible foreknowledge, then God still creates man knowing this is inevitable.<BR/><BR/>4. Molinism has God decreeing this and only this universe by picking one from any number of infallibly,immutablly foreseen outcomes.<BR/><BR/>5. Open Theists might deny the foreknowledge, but then they must concede there is unplanned evil. That's conceding the problem of evil to atheism.<BR/><BR/>So, how is the Arminian really in a better position than the Calvinist? The FWD implicit in their own decree of the fall is intended to accentuate man's responsibility over God's, but how does that accomplish the purpose? The issue isn't "Is God responsible?" the issue is "Is God to blame?" And if the Bible says God is responsible *in any way* then we as Christians are obligated to accept its word over our intuition - which you,sir, do not appear prepared to do.<BR/><BR/>As a matter of fact, it's the Amyraldian and Arminian who have the hardest problem with the objection that men are damned due to a decree. Nobody ever takes the time to look at that:<BR/><BR/>Here's basic Amyraldianism:<BR/><BR/>Creation<BR/>Permission of fall<BR/>Atonement for all<BR/>Election/reprobation<BR/>Application<BR/><BR/>Because the third decree is construed as a real desire to atone for the sin of everybody, the 4th decree works @ cross purposes. It manifests a contradictory desire.<BR/><BR/>Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism don't have this problem. So the problem that you're trying to address is really *a nonCalvinist* problem, not ours, even on an Arminian order. It's only a pseudoproblem for us. It's really a problem for others, including you. Like many an objector to Calvinism, you are mirror-reading.<BR/><BR/>It's a problem for the Arminian and Amyraldian alike, for it's a problem for any order of decrees that construes the atonement in general terms then includes a decree to elect - no matter how election is contrued - will fall prey to this problem. The atonement manifests a real desire to save everybody. The decree to elect - or recognize the elect by their faith (Arminianism) is construed as desire *not* to save everybody - for everybody is not saved. The Molinist would say God decreed this universe knowing that very outcome, and the Arminian must say that not everybody will believe the Gospel - for not everyone will hear the Gospel.<BR/><BR/>The inherent conflict in the Arminian order of decrees is readily admitted by Arminians, even Arminius himself:<BR/><BR/>ON THE DECREES OF GOD WHICH CONCERN THE SALVATION OF SINFUL MEN,<BR/>ACCORDING TO HIS OWN SENSE<BR/><BR/>The first decree concerning the salvation of sinful men, as that by which God resolves to appoint<BR/>his Son Jesus Christ as a saviour, mediator, redeemer, high priest, and one who may expiate sins,<BR/>by the merit of his own obedience may recover lost salvation, and dispense it by his efficacy. 2.<BR/>The SECOND DECREE is that by which God resolves to receive into favour those who repent and<BR/>believe, and to save in Christ, on account of Christ, and through Christ, those who persevere, but<BR/>to leave under sin and wrath those who are impenitent and unbelievers, and to condemn them as<BR/>aliens from Christ. 3. The THIRD DECREE is that by which God resolves to administer such means<BR/>for repentance and faith as are necessary, sufficient, and efficacious. And this administration is<BR/>directed according to the wisdom of God, by which he knows what is suitable or becoming to mercy<BR/>and severity; it is also according to his righteousness, by which he is prepared to follow and execute<BR/>[the directions] of his wisdom. 4. From these follows a FOURTH DECREE, concerning the salvation<BR/>of these particular persons, and the damnation of those. This rests or depends on the prescience and foresight of God, by which he foreknew from all eternity what men would, through such<BR/>administration, believe by the aid of preventing or preceding grace, and would persevere by the<BR/>aid of subsequent or following grace, and who would not believe and persevere. 5. Hence, God is<BR/>said to "know those who are his;" and the number both of those who are to be saved, and of those<BR/>who are to be damned, is certain and fixed, and the quod and the qui, [the substance and the parties<BR/>of whom it is composed,] or, as the phrase of the schools is, both materially and formally. 6. The<BR/>second decree [described in § 2] is predestination to salvation, which is the foundation of Christianity,salvation, and of the assurance of salvation; it is also the matter of the gospel, and the substance of the doctrine taught by the apostles. 7. But that predestination by which God is said to have decreed to save particular creatures and persons and to endue them with faith, is neither the foundation of Christianity, of salvation, nor of the assurance of salvation.<BR/><BR/><BR/>So, we're left with universalism - and that is pure unbridled, unvarnished heresy despite your protests, without a scintilla of exegesis given to support it. Good job, Dr. Reppert. Your problem isn't with Calvinism, it's really with any consideration of any sort of decree emanating from God, for decrees, at the very least, get us to some sort of certainty, and that's going to involve God creating with certain damnation in mind, if you believe in any sort of hell at all. That smacks of being a sin problem on your part, nothing more.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34905468995760499322008-04-11T20:16:00.000-07:002008-04-11T20:16:00.000-07:00No. If you have someone freely choosing to "reign ...No. If you have someone freely choosing to "reign in hell rather than serve in heaven", and persists in that choice, you have a problem as to how that choice can be reversed, as it must be if the person is to enjoy God's heaven. The Hell of the Great Divorce, the Hell which is a natural consequences of the use of free choice to choose the self over God, in untouched by this line of argument.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61165265461323396612008-04-11T05:27:00.000-07:002008-04-11T05:27:00.000-07:00V.Reppert: "Now if someone went to hell as a resul...<B>V.Reppert:</B> "<I>Now if someone went to hell as a result of divine decree who could have been saved, and I say that isn’t something a good God could permit, which one of these mistakes could I be making? It’s a final result for someone’s soul. We see all the causes and effects, at least so far is this particular life is concerned. The long-term consequences are known, even the eternal consequences are known, and the alternative possibility of God’s saving that person is also known. So my error can’t be traced to any of these four sources. So where did I go wrong if I thought this would be wrong for God to do, but it really isn’t? It must be that my conception of goodness is dead wrong. That’s all that’s left.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Also, but the time we get to this point, it's difficult (for me, at any rate) to tell whether your question is rooted in objecting to Calvinistic predestinaton or in objecting to *anyone* being damned.<BR/><BR/>Are you objecting to injustice? Or to justice?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7785755514231149082008-04-11T05:04:00.000-07:002008-04-11T05:04:00.000-07:00V.Reppert: "Now if someone went to hell as a resul...<B>V.Reppert:</B> "<I>Now if someone went to hell as a result of divine decree who could have been saved, and I say that isn’t something a good God could permit, which one of these mistakes could I be making?</I>"<BR/><BR/>You're making the most common human mistake, the same one that the Calvinists make, the same one that the Open Theologists make: you're absolutizing time ... you're turning our subjective experience of time into Time, you're forgetting that time is a component of the creation, not a "container" in which the creation rests/floats.<BR/><BR/>Once again I ask (and once again I expect no response): "<I>What does it *mean* to speak of everlasting punishment in hell?</I>" (or everlasting bliss in God's presence) Can we really understand eternity? Or is it that "everlasting" is the closest that human language/concepts can come to the reality we're trying to think about?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38996483342388426032008-04-11T00:24:00.000-07:002008-04-11T00:24:00.000-07:00Hi Dr. Reppert,http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008...Hi Dr. Reppert,<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/04/reply-to-anti-calvinists.htmlErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87174048525527504612008-04-10T15:38:00.000-07:002008-04-10T15:38:00.000-07:00"Morality consists of the demands which one person..."Morality consists of the demands which one person may justly (which concept is also tied up into morality) make of another. (Real) Moral obligations are obligatory precisely because one person owes to the other to do the thing demanded."<BR/><BR/>This works well in the world of legal contracts (and covenants) but the morality of Jesus has to add a second story. If we are to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, we are no longer fulfilling demands, but we are anticipating needs and desires. This coincides with the challenge that if we know good that we can do and fail to do it, we have missed the mark. The opportunity to do good is way beyond the fulfillment of an obligation. It is when this level of goodness is applied to God, He is accused of failing to do what He asks of us. I am offering a justification for God's failure to act. He must delegate these activities to humans so that we have the opportunity to participate in this level of righteousness.<BR/><BR/>Aaah, iSpell is working now.Mike Darushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06669617343235073078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34785404167792569352008-04-10T15:27:00.000-07:002008-04-10T15:27:00.000-07:00"The foundations of Calvinism include the fundamen..."The foundations of Calvinism include the fundamental error of denying the reality of human moral agency (i.e. "free will"). Calvinist falsely believe that if we are indeed free then God is diminished."<BR/><BR/>Is this the claim of Calvinism or the accusation of Calvinism's critics? The Calvin I read affirms that Adam was truly free and created in God's image. Our lack of freedom and diminished reflection of the image of God is due to the affect of sin on us, not our nature. The idea that God's nature is diminished by man's freedom is usually in the context of discussion of Open Theism where the omniscience of God is lessoned by unpredictable human choices especially in the context of relationships.Mike Darushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06669617343235073078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32502487163705980992008-04-10T11:59:00.000-07:002008-04-10T11:59:00.000-07:00Mike Darus: (addressing VR's argument) "Goodness a...<B>Mike Darus:</B> (addressing VR's argument) "<I>Goodness as a controlling feature of God's actions cannot be the same as goodness applied to human actions.</I>"<BR/><BR/>The foundations of Calvinism include the fundamental error of denying the reality of human moral agency (i.e. "free will"). Calvinist falsely believe that if we are indeed free then God is diminished.<BR/><BR/>To put it bluntly (and, one hopes, thereby induce someone to stop and actually think about the content and meaning of his beliefs), the Calvinists are so concerned to uphold God's honor (as though we even can do that!) as the <I>Sovereign Lord</I> that they essential call him a liar (on top of calling hin unjust); for they effectively deny that we are made in his image.<BR/><BR/><BR/>At the same time, Arminians make serious errors, too (though, I think the error(s) are due to human nature, rather than to the affirmation of human freedom).<BR/><BR/>For instance, and while I doubt it's intentional (and while I doubt it will be acknowledged), Mr Reppert is effectively denying that God *is* the <I>Sovereign Lord</I>; Mr Reppert is effectively asserting that Man is the moral equal with God, that we and God are on the same moral plane.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Mike Darus:</B> "<I>1) God requires humans to prevent harm from happening to another human being if they have the ability and opportunity to intervene.</I>"<BR/><BR/>It's too bad that the words 'subjective' and 'objective' have the meaning they have.<BR/><BR/>Morality, all morality, pertains to <I>subjects</I> (aka '<I>agents</I>' or '<I>persons</I>'). But, because 'subjective' and 'objective' have quite the senses of meaning they have, it will not do to say "<I>Morality is 'subjective'</I>."<BR/><BR/>So, in lieu, let us say that "<I>Morality is 'personal'</I>."<BR/><BR/>Morality consists of the demands which one person may justly (which concept is also tied up into morality) make of another. (Real) Moral obligations are obligatory precisely because one person owes to the other to do the thing demanded.<BR/><BR/>God ... because he is our Creator, because he sustains our very existence ... has the right (which concept is also tied up into morality) to place moral obligations upon us. We do not have the right, nor the ability, to place moral obligations upon him. What does he owe us? We owe him everything!Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18735223559557918922008-04-10T10:16:00.000-07:002008-04-10T10:16:00.000-07:00Goodness as a controlling feature of God's actions...Goodness as a controlling feature of God's actions cannot be the same as goodness applied to human actions. <BR/>1) God requires humans to prevent harm from happening to another human being if they have the ability and opportunity to intervene.<BR/>2) If God were required to prevent harm from happening to a human being if He had the ability and opportunity to intervene, all occurances of harm would be prevented by God.<BR/>3) God could not require this action of humans since there would be no opportunities available for humans.Mike Darushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06669617343235073078noreply@blogger.com