tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post3114638418864081514..comments2024-03-17T08:25:33.806+00:00Comments on Thoughts of Francis Turretin: If not "can" then "could"? Response to LFW ObjectionTurretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-25400961657357278582011-06-17T12:48:38.240+01:002011-06-17T12:48:38.240+01:00Hi Turretinfan,
You wrote: “I'm saying that o...Hi Turretinfan,<br />You wrote: “I'm saying that our will is not as free as some people think. That is to say, it is not free from God's providence. It is not entirely free from outside influences. We do make choices and decisions, but God oversees them.”<br />Of course one’s free will is subject to outside influences; indeed much of human activity is dedicated to influencing the choicesdianilinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06260946618081941962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-58209139696806998872011-06-17T12:41:11.094+01:002011-06-17T12:41:11.094+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.dianilinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06260946618081941962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-36257117999571315552011-06-17T12:03:48.823+01:002011-06-17T12:03:48.823+01:00Hi Turretinfan,
You wrote: “There are many good d...Hi Turretinfan,<br />You wrote: “There are many good descriptions of choice. For example, choice can be described as forming a judgment or making a selection.”<br />I was asking for the one you think pertinent to this discussion, which is compatible with not being able to do otherwise. <br />You wrote: “Sin is an lack of conformity unto the law of God or any transgression of that law.”<br />dianilinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06260946618081941962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-46052675909181754172011-06-16T00:09:45.557+01:002011-06-16T00:09:45.557+01:00diana,
you write:
"... Also that anyone who...diana,<br /><br />you write:<br /><br /><i>"... Also that anyone who comes to faith prior to his deathbed will do good works.<br /><br />The Jews used to be, and still presumably are, saved through the Law."</i><br /><br />When you write about one who comes to faith prior to his deathbed will do good works, what do you mean?<br /><br />Do you mean to say that you have some part to play Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-65108062726880036642011-06-15T14:07:21.724+01:002011-06-15T14:07:21.724+01:00Hi natamllc,
You wrote: "If we are saved by...Hi natamllc,<br /><br />You wrote: "If we are saved by Faith and not by our keeping the requirements of the Law, why does the Apostle ask that question in the last verse?<br /><br />Why uphold the Law if we are not saved by it?"<br /><br />I understand that we are saved by grace through faith. Also that anyone who comes to faith prior to his deathbed will do good works.<br /><br />Thedianilinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06260946618081941962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-19782656082004363832011-06-14T14:05:31.258+01:002011-06-14T14:05:31.258+01:00"I begin to wonder if all you mean by this &q..."I begin to wonder if all you mean by this "determinist" stuff is that God is outside of time and already knows what we are going to do, which I think is obvious."<br /><br />God is both Creator and Provider. Everything that exists exists because God decided that it should. Likewise, everything that happens happens because God deems it best that it should be so. God has Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-82221223804078152122011-06-14T14:05:26.215+01:002011-06-14T14:05:26.215+01:00"Well, what do *you* choose as a definition o..."Well, what do *you* choose as a definition of choice?"<br /><br />Heh. There are many good descriptions of choice. For example, choice can be described as forming a judgment or making a selection.<br /><br />"Also, perhaps you would define for me the concept of sin, in light of your definition of choice."<br /><br />Sin is an lack of conformity unto the law of God or any Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-86820917280797497652011-06-13T19:12:53.621+01:002011-06-13T19:12:53.621+01:00Diane,
you asked: "Does this seem to impact ...Diane,<br /><br />you asked: "<i>Does this seem to impact the discussion of free will?</i><br /><br />Hmmmm, well, does it?<br /><br /><br />If we are saved by Faith and not by our keeping the requirements of the Law, why does the Apostle ask that question in the last verse?<br /><br />Why uphold the Law if we are not saved by it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-42093555723558211582011-06-13T06:59:08.627+01:002011-06-13T06:59:08.627+01:00Hi natamllc,
Thank you for your kind remarks!
In...Hi natamllc,<br /><br />Thank you for your kind remarks!<br /><br />In the letter you cite, Paul is telling the church in Rome that Christians of Jewish origin and Christians of Gentile origin are equally Christians, because God is the God of the Jews and the Gentiles as well, and that this does not undermine but rather upholds the law. <br /><br />Does this seem to impact the discussion of freedianilinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06260946618081941962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-11487601625991570052011-06-12T17:46:14.163+01:002011-06-12T17:46:14.163+01:00Diane
I hope I am not offensive here in commentin...Diane<br /><br />I hope I am not offensive here in commenting and asking you for some understanding of Scripture?<br /><br />First, I would say I marvel at your resiliency!<br /><br />Second, what would you say the Apostle Paul wants us to comprehend when we read this from the Book of Romans:<br /><br /><b><i>Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-15660497718045026312011-06-12T08:01:23.603+01:002011-06-12T08:01:23.603+01:00Hi Turretinfan,
Well, what do *you* choose as a d...Hi Turretinfan,<br /><br />Well, what do *you* choose as a definition of choice?<br /><br />Also, perhaps you would define for me the concept of sin, in light of your definition of choice. <br /><br />Regarding Paul, how exactly do you say that he sinned? <br /><br />You wrote: "What's strange to me is that you can realize that your future is so fixed and definite that it could be dianilinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06260946618081941962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-59952066864384687472011-06-10T19:51:31.796+01:002011-06-10T19:51:31.796+01:00"If you only mean that God takes notes on his..."If you only mean that God takes notes on his own foreknowledge, then the whole concept is irrelevant, though it does seem to confuse some of us into thinking our free choices are somehow determined in advance. :-)"<br /><br />What's strange to me is that you can realize that your future is so fixed and definite that it could be written in stone in advance, and yet you still want toTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-71128363467196922472011-06-10T19:51:16.694+01:002011-06-10T19:51:16.694+01:00"I'm sorry, I assumed we were working in ..."I'm sorry, I assumed we were working in English, where choice does actually mean that."<br /><br />Actually, no. That's not true. I'm tempted to reply in kind, but I'll leave it at that.<br /><br />"If it were impossible for Peter not to have denied Christ, indeed there weren't "the slightest chance or possibility of Peter not denying Christ thrice"Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-30329412299356241632011-06-10T19:07:35.016+01:002011-06-10T19:07:35.016+01:00Following Q->P and P->Q, I wrote: "Sin...Following Q->P and P->Q, I wrote: "Since P is true only if Q, this is equivalent to Q->Q."<br /><br />Paul wrote: "If these are logically equivalent, you can derive one from the other and vice versa (e.g., ¬(P & Q) = EQUIV = ¬P v ¬Q. Can you provide those derivations with P -> Q and Q -> Q?"<br /><br />Remember that we started with Q->P, where Q is 'dianilinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06260946618081941962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-27614404434668987482011-06-10T18:55:18.462+01:002011-06-10T18:55:18.462+01:00I: ""If something else determines John&#...I: ""If something else determines John's "choice", then it is not a choice.""<br /><br />Turretinfan: "I don't accept that definition of choice." <br /><br />I'm sorry, I assumed we were working in English, where choice does actually mean that. <br /><br />Although Henry Ford is purported to have said, of his Model T's buyers, "they dianilinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06260946618081941962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-37557310231603995732011-06-10T13:54:22.106+01:002011-06-10T13:54:22.106+01:00"You have advanced the claim that God's f..."You have advanced the claim that God's foreknowledge constrains the event to happen just as He foreknew it."<br /><br />No, neither Paul nor I have argued that. Both Paul and I have argued that God's foreknowledge demonstrates that the event must inevitably occur. This, in turns, shows that the supposed "ability to do otherwise" is fictional.<br /><br />"This Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-35116399424833546032011-06-10T13:48:04.810+01:002011-06-10T13:48:04.810+01:00"God's foreknowledge comes from His being..."God's foreknowledge comes from His being outside of time. As when you read a book for the second time, you already know what is going to happen."<br /><br />I'll give you this: the future is like a book that's already been written and God's already read it.<br /><br />But characters in a book don't have the ability to do otherwise than what is written. It's notTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-14060194152428278892011-06-10T13:37:29.019+01:002011-06-10T13:37:29.019+01:00Paul wrote, "So I'm afraid you've not...Paul wrote, "So I'm afraid you've not advanced the discussion"<br /><br />You have advanced the claim that God's foreknowledge constrains the event to happen just as He foreknew it. This is wrong, contrary to the Bible, and incidentally is an idea that was explicitly and specifically rejected by John Calvin. Yet when challenged you make no effort to defend the claim. What a Frederickahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071420764901945035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-3742896373375614332011-06-10T04:27:52.378+01:002011-06-10T04:27:52.378+01:00Dan, as providence would have it :-), the SEP just...Dan, as providence would have it :-), the SEP just published an article on future contingents yesterday<br /><br />http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/future-contingents/Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-25818189720077694922011-06-10T03:52:45.141+01:002011-06-10T03:52:45.141+01:00Fredericka,
Hi Paul. So you think it is logically...Fredericka,<br /><br /><i>Hi Paul. So you think it is logically impossible for God" to create any order of beings:-- say, angels,-- gifted with freedom, and also to be aware of what they do? No possible creature, fallen or unfallen, can ever be free, not Adam before the fall, nor the redeemed in glory?</i><br /><br />Not, that's precisely the opposite of what I said. <br /><br />As far Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-42201188992513374132011-06-10T03:49:50.046+01:002011-06-10T03:49:50.046+01:00Diana,
"Since P is true only if Q, this is e...Diana,<br /><br /><i>"Since P is true only if Q, this is equivalent to Q->Q."</i><br /><br />If these are logically equivalent, you can derive one from the other and vice versa (e.g., ¬(P & Q) = EQUIV = ¬P v ¬Q. Can you provide those derivations with P -> Q and Q -> Q?<br /><br /><i>"Your argument goes wrong in supposing that God's foreknowledge impedes the freedomMaul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-70223371520276277132011-06-10T03:00:51.701+01:002011-06-10T03:00:51.701+01:00Hi, Paul,
I believe I've shown you that. God...Hi, Paul, <br />I believe I've shown you that. God's foreknowledge comes from His being outside of time. As when you read a book for the second time, you already know what is going to happen. <br /><br />That doesn't mean you make it happen, or that it could not have been different.<br /><br />So God, having read the whole book, knows what we will do.<br /><br />Even though He hasdianilinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06260946618081941962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-43366963945788935302011-06-10T02:53:52.133+01:002011-06-10T02:53:52.133+01:00Dan,
I'm clear on what s/he said, here's ...Dan,<br /><br />I'm clear on what s/he said, here's a quote: "The basic incompatibilist argument, rather, has this form: Now-unpreventably(P), Nec(If P then Q), therefore, Now-unpreventably(Q), which is logically valid in every system of modal logic."<br /><br /><i>" The pressure, then, is for the incompatibilist to explain why AN doesn’t apply to the putatively past fact Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-34888912446771234172011-06-09T20:07:39.442+01:002011-06-09T20:07:39.442+01:00Paul,
I have it on good authority…that it is vali...Paul,<br /><br /><i>I have it on good authority…that it is valid on every system of modal logic,</i><br /><br />Are you sure that (s)he didn’t say or mean the following argument form is valid on every system?<br /><br />1. Necessarily P<br />2. Necessarily (if P then Q)<br />3. Necessarily Q<br /><br />I’m no logician, but find it incredible that every system implies the validity of your initial Daniel Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14498464180784672367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-77920300300060680622011-06-09T19:25:06.204+01:002011-06-09T19:25:06.204+01:00This whole context conversation, to me, is like th...This whole context conversation, to me, is like the analogy of hearing by wire tapping a particular fiber optic.<br /><br />You have fiber optics joined from point A to point B. A being the beginning. B being the end.<br /><br />Now, using that model, one can realize something about the Word of God and God, I suppose. When reading the Word of God or just listening to His Voice and one listens in Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com