TF and Ben Witherington

Turretinfan recently commented (link) on a post by Ben Witherington (link). It’s related to our ongoing discussion of divine freedom which I last commented on here. TF said some things I agree with, and some I do not. Since Turretinfan holds two false premises: 1) LFW does not exist and 2) CFW exists, of course many false conclusions follow, and TF’s response to Ben are no exception to this. To me, it makes most sense to discuss the premises firsts, so to that end I will wait for TF to respond to my question to him: Given whatever existed before the first act, was it absolutely impossible for God to create a world which didn’t include rain on May 31, 2008 in the afternoon?

Comments

Turretinfan said…
I have to take a bit of umbrage with your comment: "Since Turretinfan holds two false premises: 1) LFW does not exist and 2) CFW exists, "

a) I don't hold to LFW's non-existence as a premise - it's simply a default position (we don't believe in things without a reason to do so) coupled with a continue lack of reason to believe in its existence; and

b) The existence of CFW has been more or less admitted by the LFW position ... how could it not be?

I'm still ruminating on your clarifications ... which (and perhaps you will be surprised) did not really make the issue clearer for me.

-TurretinFan
June 11, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Dear TF,

You grace my blog with your curly presence. Umbrage noted. As to LFW's existence, I take it as a basic point of faith, but then again I don't see another way of interpreting Gen 1:1 (and other passages). Maybe you can provide one (your response to my question may help), but right now I sure don't see it.

As to CFW's existence, I will hold off on discussions till we get past LFW.

Regarding my question, I tried to make it as straight foreword as I could, and to cover all the basis. In areas where there is flexibility I tried to give you all the flexibility you might want. If it's helpful, please see this exchange between TJ and myself. (link)

Our discussion basically ended at roughly the same point, but he did come at things from slightly a different angle, so perhaps you may be able to see what I am getting at. Beyond that, feel free to ask questions for further clarification.

God be with you,
Dan
June 11, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,
Read more

Hodge on Ephesians 1:17-19

Hodge argues for effectual calling based on Ephesians 1:17-19. He claims that the passage teaches the regeneration is monergistic , so it proves God's call is effectual. Here's the passage: Ephesians 1:17-19 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power. Hodge has several problems. First, the passage teaches sanctification, not regeneration. It's dealing with living the Christian life and growing in grace, not conversion. Second, even if the passage were teaching that regeneration is monergistic , this wouldn't prove that God's call is effectual. I agree regeneration, strictly defi
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens
Read more