I apologize to any readers who are getting tired of the back-and-forth betwixt Godismyjudge (Dan) and myself. Dan has a new 43 minute audio response (link) to my latest blog post (link). I really don't like that format of response for several reasons: it takes longer to listen to him speak than to read what he writes, going back to find something is easier when scanning through text, and putting it in writing makes it easier to locate using Internet search engines, for the edification of others.
I didn't really appreciate Dan's suggestions that I am "shifting the question." I'm simply looking for clarification from Dan about what he means by "absolutely impossible." I also didn't really agree with Dan's characterizations of Edwards' discussion of the will, and I didn't particularly agree with his attempted three-fold division of Calvinistic thought on the subject.
Frankly, all those things are tangents, and I'd rather get past them to the meat of the matter. Here's my proposal going forward. To be clear, I'm not trying to "shift [any] question[s]" but simply to clarify.
For the sake of discussion, let's take the following model of God from my previous post (which, unless I missed it in the 3/4 hour presentation, Dan failed to address):
1. God exists;
2. God has a nature/attributes;
3. God acts based on his nature/attributes;
4. Among God's timeless acts, God decrees to create;
5. God, logically subsequent to the decree to act, knows that (and what) he will create; and
6. Among God's acts, and as the first temporal act, and logically subsequent to the decree and knowledge, God creates.
Question of clarification: What is the reference point that Dan has in mind for his question about absolute impossibility?
My best guess based on listening to his gabcast is between (2) and (3).
But perhaps Dan has some other point in the logical order in mind. Thus, I will respectfully request that he just point out what he has in mind, in terms of the order above, or to explain why that order is unacceptable etc., rather than try to provide a comprehensive answer for each question.
I also want to again direct Dan to consider what Turretin himself has to say about this topic, which can be found at pages 218-220 of the English printed edition of Volume 1 of Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Pars Prima, Locus Tertia, Quae. XIV).
Finally, I have a question for Dan, is God loving himself and/or his creation an action of God's in terms of the question that Dan is trying to ask? In other words, is Dan asking me to answer the question about absolute impossibility without reference to the Love of God for Himself and/or his creation?
-TurretinFan
Saturday, July 12, 2008
6 comments:
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.
TF,
ReplyDeletenot to patronize you in any way, I find it remarkable that I just got done requesting Dan to come back to writing his debate out or convince you to start a gabcast so that there is equality. I opened his blog first.
You, in my judgment, have the advantage simply because it is much easier to follow what one reads than when one listens, even in the privacy and quietness of ones domain.
It also makes it harder to defend a position.
In any event, in the present world each of us finds ourselves in participating in this debate by comments, together betwixt you two, when will we get to the substance of the matter at hand?
Christ is not being lifted up to lost souls, Elect in every way as we, yet, because of the lack of preachers being sent to proclaim the Gospel, they endure hardships unnecessary to the necessary to which we are all called! Not a fault, just a fact put forth!
Having written that I hasten to say I have not stayed out of this debate. I have made comments in here and you graciously have admitted my comments and by virture of Dan's not filtering comments has graciously admitted my comments at his blog too.
The merit herein seems to me that both of you are sharpening my ability to be less ignorant and more knowledgeable which is helpful for me all the while I am living the Gospel and when necessary using words to define it to the hearers I am called to live and preach the Gospel to.
This Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached to every creature and the end shall come!
michael
TF,
ReplyDeleteI couldn't pull up Dan's audio with the link that you provided, am I doing something wrong?
Dear Zog,
ReplyDeleteNo, that was my mistake. It looks like a made a bad link. I think I've fixed it now.
-TurretinFan
It seems that the main problem now is that you are not answering the question they way that he wants you too:)
ReplyDeleteIt is becoming clearer and clearer to me that by holding to LFW you make man a completely independent autonomous agent, this of course goes counter the Bible which states that this applies ONLY TO GOD.
One more thing, if we have LFW and we make choices independent of everything (external and internal) then what exactly does God control? Would God control the repercussions of those choices? Probably not being clear here, say that someone named “Robert” uses his LFW to kill someone, where does God’s control kick in? I’m assuming that “Robert” would say that no external or internal conditions caused his choice and that God had no control over it, so where would God’s control start?
Mag
Magnus,
ReplyDeleteThe idea that God lacks control over anything is a serious error that leads to heresy.
I hope that those who hold to LFW (whatever that term is supposed to mean) would not assert that God lacks control over the free acts of men.
Of course, as we see, the primary to try to adopt LFW appears to be desire to take God out of the picture. On this, though, I think that many of the advocates preserve themselves to a degree simply by being inconsistent.
-TurretinFan
I agree that most people who hold to LFW are inconsistent in their view. When we read in Daniel that our breath is in God’s hand and so are all our ways I wonder how a LFW advocate interprets that. When I hear the LFW side claim that man is independent of external & internal factors and is the self-cause of his actions and then read in Jeremiah that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man to walketh to direct his steps I see just how foolish the LFW view is in light of the Bible.
ReplyDeleteGod help me, I think I’m becoming more and more Reformed everyday.
Mag