 |
| 
leth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2002
Total Posts : 26
| Posted 7/9/2002 9:38 AM (GMT -6) |   | (o): What do YOU say, Leth?
I do not claim to be experienced in the employment of Presuppositional Apologetics, but given Hilston's website, he clearly is. And further, it seems clear that this is the methodology he is using in these instances of doctrinal debate, albeit adapted from its usual application to unbelievers. I am merely saying that it appears obvious to me that this is the cause of the failure to understand one another.
(o): Leth, if you are saying that everyone besides Hilston is building an idea of God from perceptual and emotional experiences... then I think that you failed to understand their testimony.
I do not believe that this is at all what they intend their statements to mean; I believe that I have understood their intentions correctly. However, I do believe that this is what the methodology supposes to be the case. I am merely attempting to state what seems obviously to be the reason why Hilston continues asking the same questions again and again.
Many have said that we can not have certain knowledge of THE Bible.
For example, I suspect it might be said by a practicioner of this methodology:
* If you do not believe that you can have CERTAIN knowledge of THE interpretation of the self-authenticating Bible, then the Bible can not be your ultimate authority; only your interpretation of it. Therefore, it follows from this that it must be YOU that are your OWN ultimate authority. Thus, there is no reason to find your arguments persuasive or even to accept them as valid, for you have no certain grounds upon which to make an argument. All that can be done is to attempt to cause you to see this failure of your presuppositions.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Magneton
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 7/9/2002 3:49 PM (GMT -6) | | GODesteem,
You make some useful contributions to the “Feeding Master” parable. Incorporation of sin, of the rebellious state of the people, into the picture is important. In the interest of “tuning up” the parable, could you go further and say where this rebelliousness came from? Was it based on rejection of the master by each person’s own free will, or had the master pre-ordained that they would be rebellious, by some sort of training or genetic manipulation? This 2nd option is perhaps a caricature of the “Calvinist” point of view, but I would be interested to learn how you’d describe it in the context of this parable.
Thanks,
Magneton
“Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is.” Francis Bacon
| | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 7/10/2002 6:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Godesteem:
Perhaps you are missing the point of the illustration. Perhaps Greg is submitting a sort of ontological agument agaist the Calvinist portrayal of God as exclusivist- i.e. "A God willing to save all is greater than a God ordaining most to perish (regardless of culpability)." I think it carries some heft.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 7/12/2002 11:16 AM (GMT -6) | | This will be short. Probably TOO short.
What Meph is NOT dealing with?
Meph is NOT dealing with whether or not Romans 9 is a text about divine predestination.
Meph is NOT dealing with whether or not Esau and Jacob were to be understood as individual or nationalities.
Meph is NOT dealing with discerning the MAIN intentions of Romans 9.
What is Meph dealing with?
Meph is trying to assert that, given some biblical statements, Paul and Jesus may NOT have had the serious problem with God ala "the feeding master" that Doc and others obviously have. Meph is trying to suggest that it is genuinely possible that one of Paul's implicit, yet important theological ideas in Romans was that GOD IS JUST...PERIOD. There is NO CONTEXT in which God can be seen as UNJUST...regardless of any "human" existential questions asked of Him. God's justice is not an INDUCTION for Paul...but a DOGMATIC AXIOM from whence he works. Another axiom of Paul's, I believe, was God's sovereignty over his creations. At least this much is clear from the quoted statements. Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists would end up saying that God does what God did salvifically BECAUSE he had complete freedom and sovereignty over humans. And both would affirm, I believe, that Paul would think it utterly FOOLHARDY for someone think that God DIDN'T have the right to distribute grace as He saw fit (however you may think of that).
So, in short, here's the deal...
I'm NOT dealing with Romans 9 per se. I'm dealing with the questioning of God's morality that Doc's analogy presupposes. I'm saying that Doc's implicit questioning of God's morality given the "feeding master" context would most likely be seen as FOOLHARDY to Paul! Paul was NOT a theodicy person, trying to justify God. It seems clear to me that Paul didn't feel that God NEEDED justifying. Regardless to what, God was just...PERIOD...AND God could sovereignly enact salvation HOWEVER he chooses to do so. Paul would NOT be a person who would stick to his "moral wiring" and reject God, if Calvinism were true. Paul would NOT have a problem with the Calvinist idea of God. To me, he'd be the quintessential theistic bootlicker who affirms God's righteousness in all things. This is NOT SAYING that Paul's idea line up with Calvinism necessarily. Doc's thing may be right. What I'm saying is that I honestly don't believe that Paul would have a problem with Doc's "feeding master" dilemma. Though his anguish for his brethren not in Christ would be quite obvious (Rom 9:1-3), I don't think that Paul would every be so about God's apparent capriciousness.
MOREOVER...
With respect to Jesus, it seems to me that at least SOME things in the life of Jesus reflects the idea that it is at least POSSIBLE that the "things of God" can be CONTRARY to what many morally sound human beings would consider "good values". The importance of this cannot be stressed enough...ESPECIALLY given Doc's first (and I believe, MAJOR) consideration. Seems simple, doesn't it? If Jesus is the consummate revelation of God...and Jesus does some things that seem to violate "loving" principles...even though we assume dogmatically that God is love...what could that mean about the Father that Jesus "shows" to us? Uh huh.
Ok. How's that?
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
anewbeginning
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 7/12/2002 1:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi2k:
You wrote:
"Paul would NOT be a person who would stick to his "moral wiring" and reject God, if Calvinism were true."
Isn't that statement a bit of a catch 22, I mean if Calvinism, or any type of theistic determinism, were true, the idea of a morally responsible decision to reject God, by Paul or anyone, is a bit of a farce, no? Wouldn't the said decision ultimately lay in God's hands?
Maybe, as you say:
"the "things of God" can be CONTRARY to what many morally sound human beings would consider "good values"."
but I have a hard time believing God expects more of us than Himself.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 7/12/2002 1:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Anew:
quote:
Isn't that statement a bit of a catch 22, I mean if Calvinism, or any type of theistic determinism, were true, the idea of a morally responsible decision to reject God, by Paul or anyone, is a bit of a farce, no? Wouldn't the said decision ultimately lay in God's hands?
Sure, the ultimate decision would lay in God's hands. Basically all I'm saying is that I believe that if Paul were to have found out that God did ordain who gets kicked into hell, he wouldn't be having as much of a fit as some people here. That's all. Take it phenomenologically, dawg. 
Anew:
quote:
Maybe, as you say:
"the "things of God" can be CONTRARY to what many morally sound human beings would consider "good values"."
but I have a hard time believing God expects more of us than Himself.
Maybe God isn't expecting more of us. Look at little good boy Jesus. I don't think that many people would want to say that a kid duckin' out on his parents for 3 days, causing them no end of worry, then giving them a smart aleck answer is being "nice" or "moral" But lo and behold, Jesus does it. So...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/14/2002 9:47 PM (GMT -6) | | A few quick points:
1) Mag. raised a very important question regarding the objection that my parable left out sin. If its all preordained, appealing to the sin of the starving is problematic. To stretch the parable to incorporate THIS problem, we'd have to say that the "Feeding Master" ordained that the people be starving in the first place. THEN he chose some, but not all, to have a feast. Of course, Godesteem will say "though ordained for them, it is still their own fault." I'd like to have an analogy or parable or something to render THAT response intelligible (how a person is responsible for doing what they are ordained to do) but THAT is a different issue.
2) Awe understood the thrust of the parable. Its a sort of "ontological argument." A Feeding Master who fed ALL he could feed would be more loving than a feeding master who only fed some of those he could feed. But it also drew out the existential import of this. How do we feast on what has been given to US while knowing that the only reason WE are eating and THEY are starving is because the feeding master chose not to give to them what he could have just as easily have given them?
3) Someone (Godesteem or Hilston) asked where we are told to hope for everyone's salvation. There is no specific verse I know of that commands this. But I would think a) the command to love EVERYONE and to hope for all things (I Cor 13) would entail this; b) the command to preach to everyone would entail this; c) the teaching that Jesus died for the sin of everyone entails this (I Jn 2:2); and d) the depiction of God as wanting all to come to repentance (2 Pet 3:8-9) entails this.
4) I disagree with Meph on Paul being a quinteessential bootlicker. Seems to me he is precisely concerned to justify God in Romans 9. I agree his AXIOM is that God is JUST. If God does it, it must be just. But he is willing to go a step further and explore HOW God is just. In Romans 9-11, he does it by showing that God is just because he has the right to choose any who merely believe and harden who does not believe. He is NOT ARBITRARY. Romans 9, in other words, is a testimony to Paul's resistance to the idea that God could be just while being arbitrary.
I really should go to bed now. Thanks for the thoughts everyone. night night  zzzzzzzzz
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
GODesteem
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 34
| Posted 7/15/2002 2:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Mr. Boyd writes:
"Mag. raised a very important question regarding the objection that my parable left out sin. If its all preordained, appealing to the sin of the starving is problematic. To stretch the parable to incorporate THIS problem, we'd have to say that the "Feeding Master" ordained that the people be starving in the first place. THEN he chose some, but not all, to have a feast. Of course, Godesteem will say "though ordained for them, it is still their own fault." I'd like to have an analogy or parable or something to render THAT response intelligible (how a person is responsible for doing what they are ordained to do) but THAT is a different issue."
Benjamin: So the reason you left out that the starving people were sinners under the wrath of the Feeding Master is because you were trying to keep us Calvinists out of a another problem? I honestly am puzzled why you need an "analogy" to explain how God, the Lawgiver, holds us responsible for actions that He decreed would occur according to the nature of secondary causes. Does every concept have to have a story to explain it? My main problem with your supposed accurate parable of the Calvinist view of God's love was that the people looked innocent! You cannot possibly discuss why the Master did not feed everyone if you make it as though everyone really should be fed, and it is just an arbitrary whim on the part of the Master to feed anyone. Once again, as is usually the case with caricatures of Calvinism, emotional pleas do the majority of the argumentation.
My. Boyd:
"A Feeding Master who fed ALL he could feed would be more loving than a feeding master who only fed some of those he could feed. But it also drew out the existential import of this. How do we feast on what has been given to US while knowing that the only reason WE are eating and THEY are starving is because the feeding master chose not to give to them what he could have just as easily have given them?"
Benjamin: Where is the Scripture that states that God is most loving if He is gracious to all? Your speculation is fine - but admit it is only speculation. As to your question, if you appreciate the freedom of God, including His choice to express ALL of the perfections of His glory, then you simply burst forth in praise that He open your own eyes to see Him. The reason everyone was starving in the first place was because we all rejected the food that the Master offered! God is not "responsible" to feed anyone - His is the LAWGIVER, and there is noone over Him to whom He is accountable. If He CHOOSES to feed anyone, on what grounds do I have to hold Him accountable for His freedom? Please provide Scripture, not anecdotes and emotional pleas.
Mr. Boyd:
"Someone (Godesteem or Hilston) asked where we are told to hope for everyone's salvation. There is no specific verse I know of that commands this. But I would think a) the command to love EVERYONE and to hope for all things (I Cor 13) would entail this; b) the command to preach to everyone would entail this; c) the teaching that Jesus died for the sin of everyone entails this (I Jn 2:2); and d) the depiction of God as wanting all to come to repentance (2 Pet 3:8-9) entails this."
Benjamin: It was me (Godesteem) who asked you the question. Thank-you for admitting that the Bible does not explicitly state that we are to hope for everyone's salvation. Obviously, the last two references you gave are disputed passages. You seem to assume I agree that Jesus "died for the sin of everyone" and that God wants the whole world to come to repentance. The context of 2 Peter easily shows that God wants all those who are referred to as "beloved" by Peter to come to repentance. As for 1 John 2:2, the propitiation (atoning sacrifice) of Jesus takes away the wrath of God - thus any person whose sin that has been "paid" for is no longer under the condenmation of God. There is NOTHING left for God to judge a person for, that would lead to eternal judgement. If my sins are atoned for, then I am not guilty for them. Period.
God loves Himself more than anything... He is our greatest treasure! | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/17/2002 5:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Godesteem: I honestly am puzzled why you need an "analogy" to explain how God, the Lawgiver, holds us responsible for actions that He decreed would occur according to the nature of secondary causes. Does every concept have to have a story to explain it?
Doc: My issue is really even more fundamental. I don't know what it MEANS to say someone is guilty for performing an action predestined for them before they were born (let alone before time). My contention is that when we say "John is morally responsible for having done x" we MEAN "John brought about x out of his own volition, and could have done otherwise." If this is not what we mean, what do we mean? But just this is denied when we say "John was predestined to do x."
The purpose for an analogy is to give content to the concept of someone being responsible for what they were predestined to do. When I try to form a concept of this in my mind, NOTHING happens. It is identicle to the concept I get of married bachlers. If something happens in your mind when you entertain this concept, please share it.
Godesteem: You cannot possibly discuss why the Master did not feed everyone if you make it as though everyone really should be fed, and it is just an arbitrary whim on the part of the Master to feed anyone.
Doc: Are you saying it is not arbitrary that you are fed but your sister (perhaps) is not? If it is not arbitrary, what is the reason? Or at least, what would a reason look like. It certainly can't be anything IN the person, for then God's election would be conditional, wouldn't it?
Godesteem: Where is the Scripture that states that God is most loving if He is gracious to all? Your speculation is fine - but admit it is only speculation.
Doc: If five people are downing -- even if it was their own fault -- and I have the capacity to save all five as easily as I can save one, is it speculation to say that I'd be more loving to save all five?
Godesteem: The reason everyone was starving in the first place was because we all rejected the food that the Master offered!
Doc: But the ULTIMATE reason is because God predestined this for them.
Godesteem: God is not "responsible" to feed anyone - His is the LAWGIVER, and there is noone over Him to whom He is accountable.
Doc: Sure, he can run the program however he sees fit. But here we come to an exegetical disagreement, for I hear God telling us he loves all, wants to save all, and that Christ died for all.
Godesttem: If He CHOOSES to feed anyone, on what grounds do I have to hold Him accountable for His freedom? Please provide Scripture, not anecdotes and emotional pleas.
Doc: Let me tell you about the hungry child... just kidding. I don't hold God accountable. What I hold accountable is your view of God on the basis of my view of God.
Benjamin: Obviously, the last two references you gave are disputed passages. You seem to assume I agree that Jesus "died for the sin of everyone" and that God wants the whole world to come to repentance.
Doc: I don't assume you agree with this. I'm just explaining how I came to the conclusion I come to.
Godesteem: The context of 2 Peter easily shows that God wants all those who are referred to as "beloved" by Peter to come to repentance.
Doc: I don't see how its "easy" to see God not desiring any to perish and being patient with them when he's predestined that they be saved adn predestined the exact time they'll be saved. Why would he have to delay his second coming for this?
Opps, I'm late. Gotta run. Peace bro.
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 7/17/2002 8:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Greetings Godesteem!
This topic is much more active than I have time to keep up with, but here is one little observation:
quote:
Godesteem: God is not "responsible" to feed anyone - His is the LAWGIVER, and there is noone over Him to whom He is accountable.
Doc: Sure, he can run the program however he sees fit. But here we come to an exegetical disagreement, for I hear God telling us he loves all, wants to save all, and that Christ died for all.
God is accountable to Himself. God tells us what love is in 1 Cor 13. He tells us he embodies love in 1 John 4:16. He tells us that he loves the world to the point of dying so all may live (John 3:16). God tells us that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they repent (Ezek 33:11).
These are just a fraction of the verses that suggest God desires to save all that will receive his offer of salvation. They suggest that God is love, and they teach us what love is, so we can accurately infer what a loving person should do. "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16-17)
So, based on what God revealed about himself in scripture, we can expect Him to act consistently in this matter. He is NOT accountable to us, but He is accountable to Himself, because he does not lie.
Yours in Christ,
Winghead
"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)
| | Back to Top | | |
| 235 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:06 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|