A Great Disturbance in the Force

http://theojunkie.blogspot.com/ has been removed. I wonder why. Long ago, Theojunkie and I used to discuss Calvinism on crosswalk.com. Now Theojunkie might not be as read up on philosophy as Paul Manata, as knowledgeable of the church fathers as Turretinfan or as rhetorically effective as Steve Hays, but he did have some rare strengths. First, he always kept the big picture in view, we didn't debate details for the sake of it, we only ever got into the weeds as it related to the big picture. Second, he has a very logical mind. Third, Theojunkie didn't use strawman arguments, nor did he "sell to the crowd". If you were talking theology with Theojunkie, it was a legit conversation. Fourth and most importantly, Theojunkie is passionate, sincere and very kind Christian. Finally, he has a good sense of humor. I will miss Theojunkie’s blog.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Well, because I do not have a blog, I have to stand with you in yours! I wonder what happened to TJ? Maybe the rapture and we are left behind? Oh no!

All kidding aside, I heartily agree with you on your observation of him. I found I was leaving comments on his blog combox routinely and he was routinely allowing them to be published!

Was it me? Oh no! Maybe not and maybe I am the one who caused him to fall off the sphere?

If so, I am deeply sorry! :(

Well, thanks for your remarks about him, in any event.
July 22, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Thanks Michael, and I doubt you were the reason he left blogging.

God be with you,
Dan
July 23, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Anonymous said…
Dan,

hopefully you gathered that that was tease perhaps TJ would see it and come in here and set the record straight!

No patrimony on my part and thanks for that confidence from you, which means a lot to me, even though you can be stern with me at times! :)
July 24, 2009 at 8:16 PM
J.C. Thibodaux said…
If you want to contact him, he's apparently still alive at Twitter.
July 28, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Odeliya said…
Even if Apostle Paul was still alive on Twitter, I wouldnt go there, but glad to know he is going well! :)Glad to hear that, thank you, Sir.

It was ,indeed, always a pleasure to talk to Theo. Maybe he just got tired of running a blog, or too busy to do it right now.

God bless him in all he does,
Odeliya
July 29, 2009 at 5:49 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

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

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more