tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post6356444459530589903..comments2023-06-29T03:45:18.969-07:00Comments on The Constellation Hypothesis: "Think & argue about it, but at the end of the day come to the conclusion that God is sovereign and man is responsible." - T. S. (paraphrased)Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07276304333361151814noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-76009040474680727782008-10-18T13:24:00.000-07:002008-10-18T13:24:00.000-07:00Sounds good. Take your time, I look forward to it....Sounds good. Take your time, I look forward to it.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-91103939794570943762008-10-18T13:15:00.000-07:002008-10-18T13:15:00.000-07:00@ BrandonI supposed I owe it to you, don't I. I h...@ Brandon<BR/>I supposed I owe it to you, don't I. I have a lot to do this weekend, but I will be thinking about the best way to summarize my extant theory and the warrant for belief in it the best I can over the next week or so, and hopefully I can hop back on and lay it out for your consumption and critique.Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07276304333361151814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-75468073151455070372008-10-15T10:11:00.000-07:002008-10-15T10:11:00.000-07:00That's the second time you've alluded to the fact ...That's the second time you've alluded to the fact that you hold a nuanced view of election. I'm curious, do you mind summarizing it?Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-23606176968852606482008-10-14T19:21:00.000-07:002008-10-14T19:21:00.000-07:00Being one converted by your efforts Derek, I sympa...Being one converted by your efforts Derek, I sympathize with your line of reasoning.<BR/><BR/>However I think that even if Brandon succeeds in defending the interpretation or understanding of this particular verse that he espouses, he has a lot of work to do if he wants to exegetically demonstrate that the Bible teaches a characteristically Calvinistic (permit the anachronism) <I>model</I> of election.<BR/><BR/>So a non-Calvinist like myself could easily grant his interpretation of John 3:16 (which is not immediately established, or without toil, given the conventional Johannine use of "kosmos"), and yet still maintain that the <I>mechanism</I> by which God elects is altogether different than any Calvinistic one.Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07276304333361151814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-87479733905820422682008-10-07T12:25:00.000-07:002008-10-07T12:25:00.000-07:00God's omnipotence does not outweigh his holiness. ...God's omnipotence does not outweigh his holiness. Your argument seems to be akin to saying that God is not omnipotent because He can't create a square circle. God's omnipotence is not bound by anything outside of Him. Whatever He desires to do He can do. He does not desire to sin.<BR/><BR/>You also seem to be misunderstanding the argument. (C1) is in reference to His responsibility. (C2) is in reference to His sinfulness.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-52244630061023062822008-10-07T12:04:00.000-07:002008-10-07T12:04:00.000-07:00My point of contention is the following:(C1) There...My point of contention is the following:<BR/><BR/>(C1) <I>There are no laws which He could disobey.</I><BR/><BR/>and,<BR/><BR/>(C2) <I>because by definition whatever God does is just and right. </I><BR/><BR/>Now consider the following:<BR/><BR/>(1) God is omnipotent<BR/><BR/>If God is omnipotent, and “by definition whatever God does is just and right” and “There is no law(s) which He could disobey”, it follows that God can possibly do <I>anything</I>, for there is no action that is morally prohibited. So, if we are to accept this, it is entirely possible that Jesus could have tortured Mary. If you deny this, you must say that there are some things God cannot do, because they are immoral. But this commits you to the denial of C1 and C2.Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12421656514032288339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-17107051912898961092008-10-07T11:20:00.000-07:002008-10-07T11:20:00.000-07:00No it's not entirely possible that Jesus could hav...No it's not entirely possible that Jesus could have tortured Mary. You are ignoring secondary causes and interpreting that summary to say that God is the direct cause of evil, which is not what it's saying.<BR/><BR/>WCF III.I<BR/><I>"I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."</I>Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-69053881356207655062008-10-03T15:24:00.000-07:002008-10-03T15:24:00.000-07:00Finally, God is neither responsible nor sinful, be...<I>Finally, God is neither responsible nor sinful, because there are no superior entities that God can be responsible to or laws that He can be held accountable to. He cannot be sinful, because by definition whatever God does is just and right. God cannot sin, and because he causes man to sin does not mean that God sins. There is no law above God that judges Him or states that decreeing sinful acts is sinful. Man is responsible because God calls him to account. Man is responsible because God can punish or reward him for his actions. God, on the other hand, cannot be held responsible because there is nothing higher than God. There are no laws which He could disobey. </I><BR/><BR/>Synopsis on Clark’s “God and Evil: Problem Solved” (sic)<BR/><BR/>If this is true, it’s entirely possible that Jesus could have tortured Mary. Do you think this is true, Brandon?Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12421656514032288339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-31577714537892114422008-10-03T14:58:00.000-07:002008-10-03T14:58:00.000-07:00Of course I'm begging the question- but that's wha...Of course I'm begging the question- but that's what happens when you try to prove the self-evident via the not self-evident.<BR/><BR/><I>What you call prima facie, I call conditioned by years of Arminianism.</I><BR/><BR/>There's no way that "Arminianism" has anything to do with the common usage of the word "world", nor the common syntax of sentences. <BR/><BR/>Do you honestly believe that if there had not been any such thing as "Arminianism" the prima facie reading would have been:<BR/><BR/>"For God so loved the Elect, that he gave his only son, that whoever of the elect who believe will not perish but have eternal life." ?Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12421656514032288339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-37690970464802703072008-10-02T11:04:00.000-07:002008-10-02T11:04:00.000-07:00Derek,Thanks for the opportunity to sharpen some i...Derek,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the opportunity to sharpen some iron.<BR/><BR/>When you say "If Calvin is right..." Are you referring to his commentary, or what are you referring to?<BR/><BR/>First, you keep trying to phrase the verse in a way that I haven't, in order to try to knock it down.<BR/><BR/>"For God loved all types of people in this way, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."<BR/><BR/>I don't see any problem with this understanding.<BR/><BR/>Second, if you want to phrase it as:<BR/><BR/>“…For God loved the elected Jews and Gentiles in this way, that he gave his only son, that [those who] believe in him should not perish but have eternal life.”<BR/><BR/>It still does not create a problem. It is explaining the way in which the elect are saved, following the description of the way Israelites were saved when Moses lifted the serpent. <BR/><BR/><I>It’s clear that “whoever” is a limiting clause to the “world”.</I><BR/><BR/>You are assuming what you are supposed to be proving (that world refers to every man without exception). The only reason you think it creates a problem is because you think it has to be read according to your understanding. What you call prima facie, I call conditioned by years of Arminianism.<BR/><BR/>And yes, I think that's a decent summary of Clark's book.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-19794046296428597372008-10-02T05:29:00.000-07:002008-10-02T05:29:00.000-07:00PS- would you say this is an accurate summary of G...PS- would you say <A HREF="http://theologyandsteak.wordpress.com/2007/11/15/book-review-god-and-evil-the-problem-solved-by-gordon-h-clark/" REL="nofollow">this</A> is an accurate summary of Gordon Clark's book?Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12421656514032288339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-65568906162315734052008-10-02T05:10:00.000-07:002008-10-02T05:10:00.000-07:00Or perhaps, to put the point in a less roundabout ...Or perhaps, to put the point in a less roundabout way, when Jesus says:<BR/><BR/>“…For God so loved the world, the he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”<BR/><BR/>It’s clear that “whoever” is a limiting clause to the “world”. But if Calvin is right, we need to qualify Jesus’ words from its straightforward reading and make it so “whoever” is not a limiting clause at all. But this is doing violence to the text.Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12421656514032288339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-84720420088411612242008-10-02T04:56:00.000-07:002008-10-02T04:56:00.000-07:00So the proper interpretation (not translation) ac...So the proper <I>interpretation</I> (not translation) according to you, is:<BR/><BR/>“...For God so loved the elected Jews and Gentiles, that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”<BR/><BR/>My next question concerns the “whoever” clause. Clearly Jesus means by “whoever” simply “those that believe”, for it’s clear that only “those that believe” in [the son] are the ones who will not perish but have eternal life. <BR/><BR/>So, since we’re at least clear on what “whoever” is denoting, we should put it in its clarified sense back into our interpretation and see what happens:<BR/><BR/>“…For God so loved the elected Jews and Gentiles, that he gave his only son, that [those who] believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”<BR/><BR/><BR/>But [those who believe…] = [the elected Jews and Gentiles], which renders Jesus’ teaching redundant, and clearly this does violence to the text, for it alters its <I> prima facie</I> meaning, viz.:<BR/><BR/>“…For God so loved [inclusively all mankind], that he gave his only son, that [the exclusive set of mankind who believe] in him should not perish but have eternal life.”Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12421656514032288339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-76510585898728318842008-09-30T19:55:00.000-07:002008-09-30T19:55:00.000-07:00No, the proper translation would be as it appears ...No, the proper translation would be as it appears in every bible. <BR/><BR/>The proper understanding that we arrive at by comparing Scripture with Scripture is that God sent His only Son that whosoever (be he Jew or Gentile) believes (which only the elect who have been regenerate will do), will have everlasting life, because he does not just love Jews, but the whole world.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-22258037789708177512008-09-30T19:45:00.000-07:002008-09-30T19:45:00.000-07:00I suppose I can put the point in a less round-a-bo...I suppose I can put the point in a less round-a-bout way. Your interpretation reads:<BR/><BR/>For God loved both Jews and Gentiles in this way, that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.<BR/><BR/>Where “Jews and Gentiles” is synonymous with “world”. But surely Jesus couldn’t have meant the all inclusive “all Jews and Gentiles” because, as you say we can’t read it as “all [Jews and Gentiles] without exception.” For God only loves some of all the Jews and Gentiles, viz. exclusively the elect. <BR/><BR/>So your proper translation must read:<BR/><BR/>“...For God so loved the elected Jews and Gentiles, that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”<BR/><BR/>Have I missed the mark?Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12421656514032288339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-15377033135776784842008-09-30T19:43:00.000-07:002008-09-30T19:43:00.000-07:00He loves only the elect.John 17:9 I am praying for...He loves only the elect.<BR/><BR/>John 17:9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours...20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-69753385126391021762008-09-30T19:31:00.000-07:002008-09-30T19:31:00.000-07:00“World here means all men without distinction, not...“World here means all men without distinction, not all men without exception.”<BR/><BR/>So you mean “without distinction” in the sense there’s no distinction between the <I>kind</I> of human (e.g. it’s not a matter of Jew vs. Gentile); but rather with exception to some <I>other</I> kind of distinction. For surely to say that “world” does <I>not</I> mean “all men without exception” there must be some qualifying mark that makes some men the exception. And the only thing that’s going to that work for you is by saying the exceptional is the damned. For God only loves the elect, correct? <BR/><BR/>Again, does God love all men without exception? Or does he love only the elect?Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12421656514032288339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-26130540606840391852008-09-30T18:39:00.000-07:002008-09-30T18:39:00.000-07:00A proper interpretation would be:And as Moses lift...A proper interpretation would be:<BR/><BR/>And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God loved both Jews and Gentiles in this way, that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.<BR/><BR/>Remember the Jewish context in which for a thousand years Gentiles were enemies of God and were to be kept out of the covenant. The word world is used in different ways throughout Scripture. World here means all men without distinction, not all men without exception.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-77537510287017917512008-09-30T18:21:00.000-07:002008-09-30T18:21:00.000-07:00...so a proper interpretation, Brandon, seems to b......so a proper interpretation, Brandon, seems to be "For God so loved the elect.."?Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12421656514032288339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-20691953762594310902008-09-30T01:07:00.000-07:002008-09-30T01:07:00.000-07:00Thanks, I feel cared for.I don't remember if that ...Thanks, I feel cared for.<BR/><BR/>I don't remember if that article mentions it, but people generally read 3:16 as "For God loved the world so much" when really it should be read as the NET translates it:<BR/><BR/><EM>For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.</EM>Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-17492468129773369612008-09-30T00:57:00.000-07:002008-09-30T00:57:00.000-07:00Haha, thanks. I was totally kidding. I am very f...Haha, thanks. I was totally kidding. I am very familiar with the arguments. I will go ahead and read this link anyway. For you.Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07276304333361151814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-23128521692167913092008-09-30T00:50:00.000-07:002008-09-30T00:50:00.000-07:00http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_52.html<A HREF="http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_52.html" REL="nofollow">http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_52.html</A>Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-51252057190436048472008-09-30T00:40:00.001-07:002008-09-30T00:40:00.001-07:00Are you interested in me actually respond to that?...Are you interested in me actually respond to that? I would be glad to if you are not being facetious.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-42740868361019348482008-09-30T00:40:00.000-07:002008-09-30T00:40:00.000-07:00TOTALLY kiddingTOTALLY kiddingLouishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07276304333361151814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-63193460043374999832008-09-30T00:39:00.000-07:002008-09-30T00:39:00.000-07:00Incidentally, have you ever read John 3:16? Super...Incidentally, have you ever read John 3:16? Super short verse, but very illuminating on the matter?Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07276304333361151814noreply@blogger.com