CalvinDude.com

Since the fine folks over at BHT have suffered a complete meltdown (despite what you’re thinking, this happened years ago—the effects are merely continuing through today) and do not allow thinking on their blog, it is rather fun to argue with them. It’s not much unlike discussing anything with any other liberal. You give them a fact and they emote. You give them reason, they whine. I did honestly try to see things from their point of view, but I just couldn’t get my head that far up my rectum.

Steve and I have offered several posts on prayer since Ted Kennedy was touched by an angel. We’ve actually put forth exegesis of Scripture as well as logical arguments using propositions. The response that BHT has given us is less than underwhelming.

In comments on this post, Randy McRoberts of the BHT said:

The thing is, Peter, that you don’t realize that arguments don’t always matter. It’s character and integrity and love that matter more. You can win arguments all day long against me. So what? You can speak with the tongue of men and angels, too, for all I care.

I don’t care to mount an argument. That’s not what I’m all about. If it works for you, have a ball with it. Don’t expect most people to care a whole lot. You might win the argument, but it’s an empty win.

Think about that for a moment. Randy has admitted that he doesn’t care about thinking, about intellectual consistency, about truth. It’s all about “character and integrity and love” not whether or not you’re actually, you know, correct and all. Mormons probably feel the same way, and I have to say they’re a heck of a lot nicer than the BHT folks are.

Reality has this weird property though. It’s real. It doesn’t change because you’re a nice person. It doesn’t change because you feel warm fuzzies.

So I responded with the following parable:

Once upon a time, there was a little boy named Randy. Randy loved everyone and everything as much as possible. If his cruel, cold-hearted Dad was about to crush a spider, Randy would rescue the spider and lovingly toss it outdoors where it had a chance to live.

One day, an early spring day, Randy was walking down the sidewalk with his evil father when they saw a baby bird lying on the ground. It had obviously fallen from its nest.

“Leave it,” the wicked adult said. “It’s mother will come for it.”

But that was unacceptable for Randy, who loved the poor little bird. So when the demon-in-human-form wasn’t looking, Randy scooped up the baby bird and put it in his pocket.

When they got home, Randy rushed straight to his room. He took out the bird and placed it in an old shoe box. The bird chirped because it was very hungry. So Randy decided to feed the bird.

He asked his less-wicked-but-still-not-quite-loving-because-she-was-a-Presbyterian mother what baby birds ate. She said they ate worms. But Randy knew that couldn’t be the case–worms were icky little creatures (that still deserved to live, mind you–that was why Randy would rescue them before his diabolical father went fishing).

There was a better solution. Randy liked Butterfinger candybars and Dr Pepper to wash them down with. They were his favorite treats. Because he loved the bird so much, Randy shared his favorite things with the bird.

The next morning he awoke to find a very dead bird in the shoe box. Because, you see, poor Randy never grasped the concept that love without knowledge is dangerous. If you love someone or something but you have no clue what they need then you will not be able to satisfy their needs and your love will condemn them to death.

Sadly, this episode did not teach Randy his lesson. Later, he would grow up to believe that it did not matter if a sinner was hell-bound. The important thing was the love them, not to argue with them. The important thing was to make sure the had a sugar buzz before they spent eternity in hell.

And as a result, Randy decided to attack those who were trying to rescue sinners by calling those apologists intellectual elitists in a Big-Brained Blog. And lo, he felt good about himself, and those who were hell-bound enjoyed his taunts. And merrily they continued on the path to destruction.

At least on the day of judgment Randy can say, “I loved everyone I ever put in hell, unlike those bastards at Triablogue who actually convinced a few sinners to change direction by using arguments.”

Naturally, Randy didn’t bother to respond to this here on the T-Blog because he’s a coward and knows he’d get shredded. Instead, he retreated to the BHT (where comments are not allowed because Groupthink must prevail) and whined:

This is a response to a comment I made over there. (Should have known better.) See? I have love, but no knowledge. I’m putting people in hell by loving them. I don’t know what birds eat. I’m attacking those who rescue sinners by arguing with them. I feel good about myself for all this. I’ve learned a lot about myself today.

I don’t think it would take more than about three verses of “Just As I Am” to get me down front. I feel so bad about myself for feeling so good about myself.

Oh, yeah. In another comment I learned that for me to say that there are other ways to converse without putting forth an argument is “in itself an argument”. Now, that’s heavy. I’m not sure I get it, since I’m not intellectual at all.

Well it is obvious that Randy is no intellectual since he cannot grasp a simple parable. Instead, he thinks he needs to read everything literally. Frankly, I would be ashamed to speak in public if I was as dumb as Randy brags about being.

But to clear up the record, when Randy says “I have love, but no knowledge” he is wrong. He has just as much love as he has knowledge: none.

I, for one, have never read a loving remark from Randy about me. No, I just get his hate poured out upon me. (These are the same people who complain about us when we debate Arminians because “we should treat brothers in Christ better than non-believers” yet they have no qualms treating the “TR”, as they call us, as badly as possible. Then again, you shouldn’t expect consistency from those who hate intelligence in the first place.)

Secondly, I wouldn’t say that Randy is attacking apologists by arguing with us because nothing Randy’s ever said could be misconstrued as an argument.

Naturally, the other bored skulls acted shocked by what went on. For instance, JS Bangs said:

Wow. I mean, wow.

To which I respond: “Like totally! I mean, TOTALLY!

Bangs continued:

What exactly gave any of them the impression that we don’t care about the salvation of the lost?

The fact that you’re not trying to convince the lost they’re on the wrong path is a great indication that you don’t care where they’re headed. Then again, I use logic.

The fact that several people admitted they had trouble grokking the concept of Hell?

Well, it is kinda hard to see how someone not going to Hell needs to worry about going to Hell. Then again, I use logic.

Or the fact that we actually pray for the unsaved?

Except I don’t believe you. You claim to pray for the unsaved, yet you do everything in your power to impede those who are seeking the unsaved. What exactly do you pray regarding the unsaved? And frankly a general prayer “Lord save the unsaved” is no substitute for genuine prayer either. Then again, I use logic.

I have zero interest in reading any TR blogs, so I honestly don’t know what they’re trying to say.

And this, of course, is the first sign that you’re dealing with a moron. Ask questions, and then say, “I’m not going to listen to the answer.” This works when you’re three years old, but we expect more from adults. Then again, I use logic.

Not content to leave it at that, Strawfoot said:

Is he actually saying that he and his BBB fellows have actually talked people into becoming Christians?

Yes, I am.

WHAT?! How can this be? Well, Strawfoot, it’s really quite simple if you actually cared about what the wicked TRs believed (which you don’t, cuz God forbid you’d actually have to talk with one!). God uses…are you ready for this now?…MEANS to enact His will.

I know, revolutionary concept. Not found in any Reformed literature except for all of it.

And since I get e-mails sent to me, I know that there do indeed exist people who’ve been convinced of the truth of Christianity by way of some of the arguments that I’ve presented. God’s used me to bring some to Himself, and I am honored to be of use to Him.

The BHT is a great example of what happens when Politically Correct thinking runs amok. They preach tolerance by being intolerant of everyone who disagrees with them. They teach that love is most important by being as unloving as possible toward other Christians. They think that something’s wrong with you if you use the brain God gave you.

Frankly, if their version of Christianity was true, I’d be an atheist. And that’s something that Randy and other BHTers don’t get. They think that everyone is as emotive as they are and that no one cares about thinking correctly. But I do. My mere existence refutes their notion that everyone agrees with them. I do enjoy thinking, I am intellectually oriented, I do study, I do use my brain. And because of that, I can actually interact with the atheists in our world who are likewise intellectually oriented.

That’s something that none of Randy’s self-serving emotive bleating will ever be able to accomplish.

In keeping with Gene’s recent theme on Triablogue about reasons why we’re not Arminians, I’m going to add another one. I was looking at YouTube today (it was Saint & Sinner’s fault for providing the link to the Machine Video) and happened to stumble upon Ten Questions That Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer. It was put forth by http://whywontgodhealamputees.com. After the philosophical naivety that led off the video wherein we are told how wonderful our college education is and how it enables us all to think wonderfully (I really must wonder what this guy would do if he ran into a nihilist, let alone an empirical skeptic), we finally get to the questions which are, indeed, rather devastating.

If you’re an Arminian.

But for Calvinists there’s not a single problem with any of the questions posed by the video. In fact, the basic gist of the argument can be defused by one simple point: sin is real.

Arminians do understand this to some extent (thankfully), but it does take a Calvinist to understand just how bad sin is. We have this built in with the doctrine of Total Depravity. Sin is serious, and as a result a sinful world gets what a sinful world deserves.

Despite the fact that atheists will use it as an excuse that I’m avoiding the other “hard” questions, I’m only going to look at the main question, as found here. Why won’t God heal amputees?

The claim is made:

Does God answer prayers? According to believers, the answer is certainly yes.

For example, at any Christian bookstore you can find hundreds of books about the power of prayer. On the Internet you can find thousands of testimonials to the many ways that God works in our lives today. Even large city newspapers and national magazines run stories about answered prayers. God seems to be interacting with our world and answering millions of prayers on planet Earth every day.

It is indeed true that God answers prayers. However, I must point out from the start that most of the claims of answered prayers in the world are not true. That’s right, all those Internet testimonials and national news magazines…Christians shouldn’t put any more stock in them than atheists do.

In fact, God most certainly does not seem to be “interacting with our world and answering millions of prayers on planet Earth every day.” And logically no Christian should assume this is the case. After all, God has never promised to answer the prayers of the non-believer.

And this brings up another point. In the video, the last question asked was “Why do Christians divorce at the same rate as non-Christians?” The answer to this question is relevant here: they don’t. Instead, what you have is professed Christians divorcing at the same rate as non-professing Christians. If you instead correlate the divorce rate to how mature a Christian is in his or her faith (as evidenced by Church attendance, reading of the Bible, etc.) the divorce rate is far less. But given the fact that every American is de facto a Christian, this will automatically skew the data since everyone is a “Christian” even when they only attended Church once in 6th grade.

So already we see the question is posited on a false understanding of why God would answer prayers in the first place. The site continues, giving the example of Jeanna Giese, the first (known) person ever to recover from rabies without a vaccine. We’re told:

According to the article, a global prayer circle helped Jeanna survive. Once she got sick, Jeanna’s father called friends and asked them to pray for Jeanna. People around the world heard about her story through the press and by word of mouth. They prayed. They sent emails. They passed the word along. Millions of people heard about Jeanna’s plight and they said prayers for her.

And the prayer circle worked. Through the power of God, Jeanna recovered. Jeanna was the first human to survive rabies without the vaccine.

Of course, the “global prayer circle” didn’t work. Whether God was active in healing Jeanna or not is irrelevant to the number of people who were praying for her. God either did or did not heal Jeanna for His own purposes, which He is under no obligation to inform us about.

Now I do not blame the atheists for thinking that Christians believe the above. If I went by the tripe that was published in the Christian book stores and by those same articles on the Internet I’d come to the same conclusion that this is what Christians believe. Thankfully, however, I get my prayer theology from the Bible and not from Family Christian Bookstore. As a result, the proposed experiment that Why Won’t God Heal Amputees? proposes doesn’t phase me. The experiment is this:

For this experiment, we need to find a deserving person who has had both of his legs amputated. For example, find a sincere, devout veteran of the Iraqi war, or a person who was involved in a tragic automobile accident.

Now create a prayer circle like the one created for Jeanna Giese. The job of this prayer circle is simple: pray to God to restore the amputated legs of this deserving person. I do not mean to pray for a team of renowned surgeons to somehow graft the legs of a cadaver onto the soldier, nor for a team of renowned scientists to craft mechanical legs for him. Pray that God spontaneously and miraculously restores the soldier’s legs overnight, in the same way that God spontaneously and miraculously cured Jeanna Giese and Marilyn Hickey’s mother.

If possible, get millions of people all over the planet to join the prayer circle and pray their most fervent prayers. Get millions of people praying in unison for a single miracle for this one deserving amputee. Then stand back and watch.

Now the first problem with this experiment is of course the fact that it is a logical fallacy to assume that because God does one thing one time that means that He must do the same thing another time. This is the same problem that we find in The Prayer of Jabez (just because God answered Jabez doesn’t mean He’ll answer you in the same way), so again the atheists can be excused for their misunderstanding. The experiment is flawed because it doesn’t treat God as an agent, but instead as a scientific law. That is, the experiment is predicated on the belief that God must be mechanistic and must respond to all prayers in the same way at the same time.

But think about people instead of laws. Suppose that you were told, “I e-mailed Bill Gates and asked for $100 and he gave it to me.” You say: “I don’t believe you. And I’ll prove you’re wrong by e-mailing Bill Gates and asking for $100 and showing he won’t give it to me.” You then e-mail Bill Gates and he does not give you $100. Does that prove Bill Gates did not give the other person $100?

Of course not. So the logic of the experiment is already flawed. But there is a deeper problem that Calvinists can immediately spot. The experiment is based on finding “a deserving person” for the healing. Now we’re dealing not only with groups of non-Christians whom God has never promised to answer, but we’re also dealing with a non-existent entity in a “deserving person.”

No one deserves healing from God. The fact of the matter is that the wages of sin is death, and part of death is the decay of our bodies in illness. A whole and complete body is not owed to anyone. God does not have to heal anyone at any time. If He does, it’s because of His mercy. But if He does not, He has not done any injustice. In fact, by simply using illnesses to slowly kill us, God is already acting mercifully by not instantly doling out justice. Instead, He is patient and slow, such that no one has an excuse for continuing in evil.

And it is this fact that healing is not owed to anyone wherein the atheist has made his largest mistake:

God has no reason to discriminate against amputees. If he is answering millions of other prayers like Jeanna’s every day, God should be answering the prayers of amputees too.

God should be answering the prayers of amputees too? Such language is grating on the nerves of the Calvinist!

So we see yet another reason why it’s a good thing to not be an Arminian.

Since these comments have fallen into the purgatory that is Non-Main-Page, and since I think it’s important for Christians to have a grounding in the ordo salutis I’ve decided to respond with a new post, giving the appropriate background here.

Dan (GodIsMyJudge) originally wrote to Gene:

Regarding the “new covenant” and Isaiah 54:13 (cross ref Jer 33, Mathew 26, Hebrews 8, Hebrews 10, …) One of the blessings of the new covenant is regeneration, but another is forgiveness of sins. Do you believe people are forgiven before they come to Christ? Doesn’t this view contradict much of the NT? But you seem to be arguing that teaching, hearing & learning are part of the new covenant and precede coming to Christ.

I responded:

First of all, the temperal speed at which everything happens can vary. Many of the steps of salvation occur simultaneous to one another. There remains, however, a logical order. Ignoring the logical order of the decree of God and focusing only on what happens to the sinner during salvation, what you have is:

1. A sinner begins spiritually dead.

2. God regenerates that sinner. The ordinary means by which this occurs is through the proclamation of the Gospel. Sometimes the temporal moment between the proclamation of the Gospel and God’s regeneration of the sinner is instantaneous; sometimes it can take years and the sinner is reminded of the previously heard proclamation at a later date. In both cases, however, God must regenerate the sinner so that he is no longer spiritually dead so that he can respond to the message he has heard.

3. That response–the response of the regenerated man–is faith in what was proclaimed by the Gospel.

4. On the basis of that faith, God imputes the righteousness of Christ to the sinner and imputes the sins of the sinner to Christ. The sinner is justified before God.

5. The regenerated man produces fruit and continues along the path of sanctification.

Because this chain is certain (that is, once God regenerates an individual that individual will, inevitably, proceed to step 5), Scripture talks about salvation as step 2 (regeneration, not bare proclamation), 3, 4, 5 and all steps combined. We know that if somoene is at step 3, he is saved because steps 4 and 5 must follow. Likewise if he is at step 4, step 5 must follow.

Of course, as humans we do not have the omniscience that God has. We can only make our best judgment as to whether someone is a genuine believer or not based on the fruits we see in that person’s life.

So, with that in mind, the question was asked:
—
Do you believe people are forgiven before they come to Christ?
—

“Before” is the wrong term here. “Before” implies we look at this temporally; but these events could happen instantaneously and simultaneously.

In any case, logically the claim would be: Regeneration -> Faith -> Justification -> Sanctification. Justification entails the forgiveness of sins, sins our sins are imputed at that point.

In the logical order, therefore, faith preceeds justification; but regeneration preceeds faith. If you define faith as “coming to Jesus” and forgiveness as “justification” then yes, one “comes to Jesus” before one is “forgiven.” But this is still after one is made a new spiritual creation that is able to come to Christ.

Finally it was said:
—
But you seem to be arguing that teaching, hearing & learning are part of the new covenant and precede coming to Christ.
—

Teaching, hearing, and learning do come before faith. How does one have faith in what one has not heard, and how can one hear unless someone has preached it? (I’m pretty sure someone asked that question once….) The fallacy with the question is thinking that knowing about Christ is equivalent to having faith in Christ. Yet we know from James that the demons believe plenty of truthful propositions about Christ, and that doesn’t help them at all. One can know every fact about Christ that is possible for humans to know and still be spiritually dead.

However, one cannot have faith in Christ unless one knows who He is. And God has chosen the proclamation of the Gospel as His first means of bringing about salvation.

Now God could still save someone in a different manner if He so chose to do so; but we have no Scriptural warrant to believe He ever does otherwise. He has only revealed to us that this is the method He uses.

I hope that helps clarify it a bit.

Dan responded by stating:

Thanks for your comments. Your thoughts about “dead faith” are interesting. I took your comments to mean, you interpret the phrase “they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father” as speaking of knowledge of Christ without trust in Him.

No, that’s not how I would have taken it (and I don’t think that’s how Gene meant it either, although he can respond for sure). In any case, that aspect of knowledge is not what is being taught by Isaiah or Jeremiah. These passages do not refer to the bare knowledge of Christ at all, as part of the New Covenant; instead, it is the promise of redemptive faith. Salvation is pictured as something God does. He is the active party, ensuring that those who are saved know Him. In this context, the knowledge of God isn’t “brute” knowledge or “bare facts” but rather the intimate knowledge of the personal relationship with God.

Therefore, the passage isn’t really speaking in terms of knowledge qua knowledge, but rather in terms of how God will ensure the salvation of His people by being proactive. In other words, in this passage the knowledge being talked about is redemptive knowledge in His elect.

This is slightly different from what I understood your first question to be.

And to clarify, I wasn’t speaking so much of “dead faith” (at least not in the way that James uses the term, which is a faith without works) but instead I was speaking of having no faith despite having knowledge. This is something that does happen quite frequently. There are people who know many facts about Christ, and who may even believe those facts to be true, yet who do not have faith in Christ Himself. While I cannot go into detail, I know one person who would actually evangelize nonbelievers while remaining convinced that Christ could not forgive the sins in her own life. She did not have faith in Christ despite knowing enough about Him to try to convince others to put their faith in Him. But even if this individual is an extreme example (I don’t really think that’s the case), there are many self-proclaimed atheists who know more about Christ than some believers.

Dan said:

I agree that knowledge is the foundation of saving faith, and shouldn’t be confused with saving faith. This viewpoint seems to fit the passage well. Knowledge comes before faith and the passage says hearing and learning precedes coming to Christ. Also, the quotation from Isaiah does seem be talking about the spread of the Gospel.

Again, I do think at this point we had a little cross-communication, wherein I misunderstood your first question and you misunderstood my response since it wasn’t referring specifically to what you had asked originally. I would maintain, as I mentioned in my first response, that it is still a mistake to think of this temporally. Knowledge and faith can both occur simultaneously, though they can also occur distinct from one another. But the passages regarding the New Covenant are not speaking so much of how one gets into the covenant as they are speaking of what happens to those already in that covenant. These passages do more to assure us that A) salvation in the New Covenant cannot be lost, for God is the proactive party rather than man; and B) sanctification must follow after justification, for God is proactive in teaching and shaping His people.

Dan said:

But the idea that people could have dead faith seems to favor an Arminian viewpoint on the passage. Unless I miss my guess, the Calvinist viewpoint depends on God’s teaching as being effectual. If some that He teaches don’t come to Christ, then the Calvinist viewpoint fails.

Again, this is probably indicative of the misunderstanding of your first question and my first response. If we are speaking of teaching in general terms, then it is quite consistent within Calvinism to argue that those who are Elect will be effectively taught while those who are reprobate will be hardened by that teaching. The teaching then serves two purposes: to bring the believer closer to God and to heap judgment upon the non-believer. This second kind is seen in the atheists who know facts about Christ yet disbelieve, etc.

However, this is not the same kind of teaching being referred to by Isaiah & Jeremiah, wherein those who are already the people of God are taught by God. In that case, they are those who, as God spoke through Jeremiah: “shall be my people, and I will be their God” (Jer. 32:38). They are those whom God says: “I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me” (Jer. 32:39-40). This is all stated just 18 verses before the portion you referenced in Jer. 33, too.

This same thought is expressed in Isaiah, since before he talks of the children being taught by God, he states: “‘For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed,’ says the LORD, who has compassion on you” (Is. 54:10). Again, those who are taught are those who are already in the covenant. As such, these passages are not referring to how one gets into the covenant, but instead are the promises given to those in the covenant.

Perry, our Orthodox friend, has written a post about me titled Piking Peter. I’ll assume he’s trying to clever here, but Dawson Bethrick already beat Perry when he titled a post Pike’s Pique. Kinda takes the wind out of Perry’s attempt, doncha think? Even so, nice try, Perry!

Perhaps the title was written because Perry had nothing else to say and he was itching to look brilliant on the internet. We shall see, I suppose. Nothing in Perry’s post is very original, so I’ll not spend much time on it. Simple argumentation requires simple refutation.

Anyway, Perry has already been refuted (by Steve and others) a multitude of times. Gotta give him kudos for plugging away though. Again. If you ever needed a definition for “indefatigable” look no further than Perry! Nothing will change his mind, not even facts!

(By the way, I should point out to Touchstone that there’s a secret code in the above. Happy hunting. Now on to Perry’s post.)

I had asked Robert, since Robert acknowledges there are restrictions on free will (that man is not omnipotent), how many restrictions need to be in place before the will can no longer be considered free in the libertarian sense. Perry, in his infinite wisdom, said:

Per the missed point, too many restrictions would be positing conditions inconsistent with the idea. So far I can’t see how any of the restrictions you posited preclude LFW.

That’s so helpful. Aperrylently (see, I can pun too!) Perry doesn’t grasp the reason for the question, which is that I’m trying to grasp where, according to Libertarians, too many restrictions are too many restrictions. I gave specific examples here: a mugger who robs you has reduced your options to two. Yet two options are not one option. So that means when you choose to hand over your wallet, this is a libertarian free will choice, right?

I trust everyone who doesn’t have a libertarian axe to grind can already see where this one is headed.

Perry continues:

Given that the power to do otherwise is glossed counter-factually, I don’t see how this makes it illusory.

“I don’t see how” only shows you’re blind, Perry. But again, it’s been illustrated numerous times to you. You have no power to do otherwise. You can only do one (1) thing and one (1) thing only whenever you make a choice. You cannot go back in time and get a re-do. Therefore, you do not have the “power to do otherwise” at all. You have the power to do one (1) thing.

I hope that helps.

Perry says:

Deliberation has plenty to do with PAP and lots of philosophers have thought so.

Lots of philosophers have thought that God doesn’t exist too. But nice job on the vague appeal to authority there. I see no logical problems with that tactic at all.

You may not think so, but that just tells me that you’re not a Libertarian (or you need to read more professional philosophical literature and fewer villiage atheists) but we already knew that so at best you’re only begging the question.

You mean begging the question like saying: “In deliberation, I am staving off from making a decision, which on its face seems to require that I am choosing not to choose between alternatives, which also seems to entail PAP.” How is it that you can beg the question for PAP, but suddenly you get all up in arms when I point out that I don’t buy your philosophy?

You said:

In deliberation I have chosen between choosing and not choosing and I have here chosen between alternatives.

You have chosen between hypotheticals, yes. But on what basis do you choose? You weigh alternatives, but in the end your choice is going to be whatever you want to do with the most desire. You are incapable of doing otherwise, which means your choice is…ahem…necessary.

You said:

It doesn’t follow that simply because I can only choose one among many that the one I select is rendered inevitable by antecedent conditions.

Let us look at this logically for a moment. Suppose that whatever the decision making mechanism is inside you is simply labeled X. Is X the same in all people?

Well, Perry is Orthodox. I am a Calvinist. Why do we differ? If it is because the X is different, then our choices are made because of inevitable antecedent conditions. Our X is actually different, and those actual differences require us to choose different beliefs.

Is it something other than X? Suppose it’s because I learned exegesis while Perry only had tradition. This means that while our X remains the same, we both experienced antecedent conditions that were different and those differences resulted in our choosing differently from one another.

The only way that Perry can consistently argue that there are no antecedent conditions is if Perry argues that X is completely random. Only a random X can result in choices not based on antecedent conditions, via either the intrinsic design of X or the conditions by which X is used. But if our decision making is completely random, then A) that doesn’t fit the idea of deliberation at all and B) there can be no morality.

If desires and reasons were causes, one wouldn’t be weighing them.

An assertion in lieu of an argument. Desires have different intensities, that is why they are weighed mentally. I may want to eat an ice cream bar, but I may want to stay warm in the middle of a blizzard more than I want ice cream.

And if the choice simply is the strongest desire that wins out, why even talk about decisions?

Because desires are not behind-the-scenes. They are experienced. It’s not like these desires occur without the knowledge of the agent.

A decision occurs when various desires are examined and the strongest desire wins out. This can be difficult at times because often we can have two desires of nearly equal weight. Indeed, sometimes they can be of equal weight (which results in the paralysis of the agent).

It may be true that I am unable to deliberate without reasons and desires, but showing that the latter are necessary conditions for the former isn’t tantamount to showing that the conflict between desires and reasons just is deliberation.

At least I’ve shown necessary conditions for deliberation, whereas all you’ve done is assert that there must be something more. Why? Because otherwise you’d be wrong. And your strongest desire is to be right, so you’d rather not contemplate that…

Experience seems to indicate to me at least that my deliberation is more than a conflict, it is a putting them down and comparing options and contrasting them in a variety of ways.

You can compare and contrast all the live long day, and you’ll still do that which is your strongest desire.

Of course you could prove me wrong by demonstrating even one occurrence where the desire that wasn’t the strongest is the one that prevailed. C’mon, Perry. Own up.

It is true that there are many antecedents states that carry me along the wave of life, but I am not a mere conduit for them.

So again I ask what is it that makes you different than me? You say that there is something else besides these antecedent states. How is that not itself an antecedent state? And why should whatever that is be different in you than it is in me?

Moreover, such conditions may circumscribe options available to me, but while my genes dispose and incline me to consume food, I don’t have to eat. I can choose to die. Lots of people have done it. Jesus fasted after all. Don’t you?

Yes, and they do so because they desire to abstain from food more than they desire food. What is fasting if not an outward expression of your desire to hold God more important than bodily need? If you fasted for no reason, then you have no reason to fast (apparently the reason you don’t grasp this tautology is because it’s blindingly obvious). Do you seriously think Jesus fasted because He randomly decided to fast one day? Of course not: He had a purpose for it. He had a desire for a particular end, and He acted toward that end.

In this case, the antecedent spiritual desire overwhelms the antecedent physical desire. Really, Perry, this isn’t as difficult as you make it out to be.

If you think that moral responsibility is compatible with determinism, I’d really like to see a coherent sketch from you personally on how moral responsibility is incompatible with cases of external covert manipulation of an agents choices.

I have done so in the past already. I will do so again…as soon as you show me how an arbitrary random decision can have moral weight.

Well, Spencer has already responded to my previous post. He says in essence that he doesn’t want to get involved in a discussion with me on the topic.

Hey, if you don’t want to get in a discussion, don’t accuse me of hubris and condescension in the first place, Michael.

In any case, he quotes someone from Australia named Lynn. It begins thus:

Sorry, but I just had to comment on this .. it’s in a whole class of its own! Is Peter Pike seriously suggesting that Arminians don’t believe in the sovereignty of God? Well, I suppose if you turn over every rock you’ll find one somewhere that fits his criteria, but, at least round here, it’s gonna take a LOT of digging!

I cannot figure out what blog post Lynn read. It obviously wasn’t the one that I penned, as anyone who understands context and syntax could easily see. Allow me to re-quote the relevant portion of my first post.

Thankfully, most Arminians have a faith that is inconsistent with their stated beliefs. They know that God is sovereign, even though their beliefs logically must lead them to a non-sovereign Lord.

I added the emphasis above. The second sentence begins with the word “They.” This pronoun refers back to the latest people group mentioned, which just so happens to be “Arminians.” I fail to see how it is so difficult to understand that I specifically said that Arminians “know that God is sovereign.”

Hello. How much clearer do I need to be?

And yes, the Arminian belief in sovereignty is inconsistent with Arminianism as a whole, something that Lynn admits: “God has a different motivation — love! He actually constrains His sovereignty for a higher purpose when it comes to dealing with the human soul” (emphasis added). Tell me again where my post missed the mark on Arminianism and God’s sovereignty?

No one has yet responded to the reasons and the rationale given by my argument. Instead, I am simply accused of hubris. I can only conclude that if you had any arguments you would have presented them by now. No arguments have been presented. Therefore, you don’t have any arguments.

Instead I have pointed out a truthful statement and, because you wish to deny the charge, you have to put up a smokescreen and pretended that somehow I was slighting the victims of New Life Church. This is a pathetic dodge on your part, and as I pointed out earlier it is you, not me, who is using the tragedy for argumentative gain. You use the dead bodies as a shield to keep you from having to defend your weak position. It is you, Michael Spencer and Lynn from Australia, who are behaving despicably here.

I should preface this post by pointing out that I enjoy playing chess. But while I enjoy chess, I’m not the greatest at the game. Chess aficionados know that there are two types of chess strategies, and the masters can do both with ease. There is the methodical calculator who can add up 16 moves in his head. They are able to map out various moves and the ramifications of those moves, all in their head. Then there are positional players, who can look at a board and have an intuitive “feel” that black’s position is better than white’s. It doesn’t mean black will win, because the end game is all about calculations. But it does mean that black should win, all things being equal.

When I write blog posts, I do it from a positional standpoint. I write so that my main point is well-defended, but also so that alternate points of attack are secured. I write trying to anticipate objections, and sometimes I write hoping that someone will make a specific challenge to my position.

It’s called setting a trap. Today, I caught a wild boar.

Michael Spencer, at the Boar’s Head Tavern, took umbrage with my recent posts on Calvinism and Arminianism. Here is the totality of his statement:

Peter Pike at Triablogue says prayer only makes sense in reformed theology. This follows his post that the shootings at New Life Church- now revealed to be by a disgruntled ex-YWAM member- should make you a Calvinist.

Is there any astonishment left for the hubris and condescension in these kinds of statements? When an Arminian or non-Calvinist says the reverse of these sorts of things, the walls come down under the crush of internet theologians trying to get their 2 cents in to show how offended they are.

Now first I must note that I never said the shootings at New Life Church “should make you a Calvinist.” If Spencer is going to get upset at me, he should at least get upset for something I actually wrote. I said that the response to the shootings at New Life Church demonstrated that Arminians were closet Calvinists. It didn’t make them Calvinists, it demonstrated that they held Calvinists views without realizing it.

Again, anyone can refer to my posts to see I actually presented an argument. Spencer gave us feigned indignation, as if that were a valid response. All Spencer offers is ad hominem, but that’s to be expected from the iMonk.

Spencer claims that I have exerted “hubris and condescension in these kind of statements” yet he offers no evidence as to why that would be the case. I guess my fatal flaw was looking at an event and stating what I thought was true about it. I guess we’re not supposed to worry about truth these days, since apparently keeping the offended in Hell is more important.

Anyone can look at my argument and see that New Life Church played no part in it. It set the stage for what I wrote, but it had nothing to do with the reasons I provided. Indeed, the tragedy involved could have been anything, and as such was an objective argument that was not limited to any one particular event. I only mentioned New Life because A) it just happened and B) it happened near me.

In fact, it is Spencer who bends to hubris here. Notice how Spencer goes out of his way to inform us that the shooter has been revealed to be a former YWAM member? I only ask: why does this information matter? Why should your argument change depending on who the shooter was? If what you stand for changes because of something as trivial as this, then how pathetic is your argument in the first place?

It certainly didn’t matter to my argument who the shooter was. It could have been Dick Cheney for all it would have affected my position. Spencer brings this up because it is he who is attempting to use the violence at New Life in a hubristic and condescending manner. He is using the murders there to stifle the presentation of the truth.

I should note that I have Biblical precedent for using a tragedy as a lunching point for a theological discussion. Jesus Himself said:

And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:2-5)

Oh, the hubris and condescension Christ displayed toward those 18 victims when that tower fell! How dare He “exploit” this tragedy in such a manner.

One final note should be brought forth. Michael Spencer has himself recently stated of John Piper: “There’s something about that level of rhetoric that always makes me think of the zealous rhetoric of Islam, and I have to wonder at what point the tone of things becomes a clue to how the Bible is being used and how Jesus Christ himself is being proclaimed” (emphasis added).

Centuri0n has gone over this in great detail already. But one must seriously wonder how it is possible for my pointing out (with actual argumentation!) that Arminians had to retreat to Calvinistic positions is “hubris” and “condescending” and yet comparing John Piper to “the zealous rhetoric of Islam” is cotton candy.

But I’ll give Spencer another chance. Since he didn’t bother to look at any of the arguments I presented the first time around, why doesn’t he do so now? I would have gladly left a comment on his blog asking him to do just that, but apparently he’s too afraid of those who deign to disagree with the mighty boar’s head to suffer comments. Well we’ve unmasked your boar’s head, Michael, and it’s the Lord of the Flies.

I would like to piggy-back off some of my earlier comments to clarify what I mean about how Arminians become Calvinists during times of crisis. In reality, it is more often than that: it occurs almost every time prayers are offered.

In order to demonstrate this, it is necessary for me to first go through a quick overview of the purpose and design of prayer so as to keep the atheist detractors at bay. Prayer is not a cosmic wish-list of wants. God is not Santa Claus, nor is He a genie in the bottle who will grant us our three wishes so long as we use the magic phrase “In Jesus’ Name” at the end. Prayer is first and foremost an act of worship.

Jesus gives us some instructions on prayer. We know from the Lord’s Prayer, found in Matthew 6 and Luke 11, that before we pray for “our daily bread” we first pray “thy will be done.” Indeed, the focus on the will of God being done is exemplified when Christ prayed in the garden before His death, saying: “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done” (Matthew 26:42).

Proper prayer, therefore, must begin with its roots in the sovereign will of God. Indeed, no matter what we plan, it is God’s will that shall prevail:

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”— yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that” (James 4:13-15).
Prayer does not inform God of new information. In fact, immediately before presenting us with the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus tells us: “your Father knows what you need before you ask him” (Matthew 6:8). Indeed, this is repeated in verse 32 of the same chapter, when Christ tells us not to worry over our basic needs: “your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.”

What is the purpose of prayer then? Again, it is primarily our act of worship whereby we acknowledge the source of all that we have and are. We acknowledge the sovereignty of God by admitting our dependence upon Him.

But prayer is also a means that God uses to enact His will. For instance, James informs us: “You do not have, because you do not ask” (James 4:2). However, he also cautions: “You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions” (James 4:3). God uses prayers to bless His people, but He will not do so with wrongly motivated prayers. Again, prayer is not a magic formula to get rich quick. It is worship first, and asking for things out of wrongful passion will not gain you anything.

When we ask God for anything, we must always temper it with “thy will be done.” That God uses prayer as a means to His ordained ends does not mean He will grant you everything you wish willy-nilly. In the end, His will is done, and we, as godly Christians, must submit to His plans and purposes.

The sovereignty of God is absolute, and this is where we find the inconsistency in Arminianism. While virtually all Arminians will gladly say they believe in a sovereign God, they likewise maintain that God cannot do certain things unless we do things first. For instance, God cannot save someone unless that person, of his own volition, desires to be saved first. And while many Arminians temper this by saying it is not that God can not, it is that He will not, the fact remains that if the Arminian argument is right, then if God wills to save despite man’s heart then God violates man’s freedom and God becomes the author of evil while man becomes a robot. In other words, the argument that Arminians use only makes sense if God literally cannot save people He desires to save, and therefore it is a case that God cannot save those whom He desires to save.

Yet despite this stated argument, Arminians (in general) have no problem at all praying that God save lost people. I work with many Arminians, as I’ve mentioned before, and none of them have a problem praying: “Lord, open the hearts of those who are ministering to that they may turn toward you.”

They do not realize that this prayer only makes sense in a Calvinist framework. God cannot “open the hearts” of anyone without violating their libertarian free will, if the Arminian position is correct. And He certainly cannot do it if the prayer comes from someone else.

In short, the above prayer (so common even in the most stringent of Arminian churches) is a prayer that God violate free will. It is a Calvinistic prayer, one that acknowledges that God is sovereign and “The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps” (Proverbs 16:9).

As most already know, there was a shooting earlier today at New Life Church here in Colorado Springs. Because I work for a Christian non-profit organization, I happen to work with quite a few people who attend New Life. Thus far, the reports say that there is one fatality as well as the shooter, and between three and five wounded. Naturally, my thoughts run to co-workers who go there.

The church is quite large–around 10,000 members, and according to reports there were 7,000 people there at the time of the shooting. Odds are that no one I knew personally was killed or wounded. But I also know people who are high in the leadership staff of that church, and regardless of whether they were injured or not they will be dealing with this issue now.

The New Life community will be going through a major process now, to put it mildly. Everyone will try to make sense of the issue as best they can. Sadly, for many, this will be a much more difficult task than it ought to be.

I know at times that readers may wonder why I choose to dwell on a certain theological point when I write blog entries. Sometimes the theological issues appear to be quite minor quibbles (and sometimes they are). But the fact remains that it is times like these that the theological points that seem trivial bear their full weight.

I am a Calvinist. While I have a great number of friends who are not (indeed, one of my best friends is a Wesleyan), I simply do not understand how anyone who is not Reformed could deal with this situation without falling into despair. Without the sure knowledge of the overall sovereignty of God, how can one rest in the promise of Romans 8 that all things will work for the good of those who love Christ and are called according to His purposes? It is easy for all Christians to acknowledge God’s sovereignty when good things happen (although all too often they do not acknowledge it even then), but as soon as a situation such as this occurs we hear: “God did not want this to happen.”

But if things can happen that God did not want, at some level, to have happen, how can we trust anything He has promised? How is He able to bring about His plan if events like this can thwart His purposes?

Thankfully, most Arminians have a faith that is inconsistent with their stated beliefs. They know that God is sovereign, even though their beliefs logically must lead them to a non-sovereign Lord. And when a crime such as this one comes about, we see many Arminians fall back onto their Calvinistic heritage.

“Pray for New Life,” they say, and rightly so.

We do pray for New Life. We pray because we do believe in a sovereign God who can do as He pleases in His world. And we pray because we know that He will make all things work out for the good of His people, just as He has promised.

The distinctions between Calvinists and Arminians are not just minor quibbles. In times like this, Arminians become Calvinists or they jettison the faith altogether. Being rooted in the truth of Reformed Doctrine is the only way to make sense of what is insensible to the Arminian.

If only it didn’t take incidents like this one to demonstrate it.

WHEREAS Libertarian Freewill (LF) followers maintain that the ability to make a free choice is the most important moral attribute that God has given man, such that it is more important that man be free than that God’s will be done upon Earth;

WHEREAS God refrains from interfering with man’s LF because it would be sinful for God to put restrictions upon man;

WHEREAS God furthermore calls us to be like Him, to be Holy as He is Holy, and to derive our moral precepts from Him;

AND WHEREAS Egomakarios claims LF

I HEREBY DO PROPOSE that sanctions be set forth against Egomakarios for violating LF concepts, as demonstrated:

1. When comment moderation is in effect, man’s free will to post whatsoever he chooses to post is infringed.

2. If it is a sin for God to restrict freedom, it is likewise a sin for man to restrict freedom.

3. Egomakarios is therefore sinning by placing comment moderation on his blog (http://egomakarios.blogspot.com/) for he restricts man’s ability to post in freedom on his blog.

FURTHERMORE, WHEREAS Compatiblist Freewill (CF) is consistent with the idea that man can be free to do some things so long as he is not in conflict with a will that trumps his own;

WHEREAS Egomakarios imposes his will in a manner that trumps LF;

I HEREBY DO PROPOSE that Egomakarios no longer be considered a LF at all, but instead publicly admit he is CF like every other rational person.

FINALLY, I HEREBY DO PROPOSE that if Egomakarios does not submit to this proposal the Committee to Form Proposals prefix his name with “the liar” such that all references to Egomakarios from this point on would be “the liar Egomakarios.”

I was just catching up on the comments on Triablogue’s Sincere Offer Polemics post and saw this quote by Steve.

He [the libertarian] believes that hellbound sinners have freedom of choice for the first 70 years of life, give or take, but lose their freedom of choice for the remainder of eternity.

I think this perfectly hit the nail on the head, although I would expand it slightly. Not only is this the case for the hellbound sinner, but also for the heavenbound redeemed. For, if Arminianism is true, then we have freewill on Earth for our lives, but as soon as we die we lose our freewill. In heaven, we will never sin and fall from grace; in hell, we can never choose to trust in Christ.

Why is this the case? Why is it that libertarian freewill plays such an important role for such a meaningless insignificant portion of time? The argument that God must really respect libertarian freewill rings hollow when we realize that He only “respects” it for a glimpse of time under the most common Arminian theological systems. Indeed, the fact that God doesn’t respect it in the future under most Arminian schemes is a death nail for that system: If God can make it so that the Arminian cannot sin in heaven, then why could God not make it so Adam would never sin in the Garden? The argument is that God cannot violate liberatarian freewill so Adam had to be free to choose–but if this is the case, then the Arminian can never be assured of his salvation for he must always be free to choose to leave heaven too.

On the other hand, the Calvinistic view is consistent both in this life and in eternity. Our natural state is to hate God. We do not need to teach men to sin, it comes naturally. Only the changing of a person with the God’s merciful regeneration can alter this state. If God does not act to alter someone’s nature, that man will always remain a sinner. Thus, Hell will be eternal for the unregenerate. On the other hand, if God regenerates someone, His justification is an eternal decree. In heaven, we will not sin for God will complete our sanctification and make it impossible for us to sin. At no point in the Calvinistic scheme does libertarianism come into play (although compatiblism does), and thus Calvinism remains consistent through both the present and the future.

Arminianism isn’t.