Turretinfan's Questions for Dan: The Bible Teaches Libertarian Free Will Debate (Part 3 of 12)


TF: Thank you very much for your affirmative constructive speech.  My first question is did you really just quote Judas in Mt 26:9 to support your case?

Dan: Yes I did.

TF: Ha Ha.  OK, I thought so, I just wanted to make sure.  So the point of that was what?

Dan: That Judas believe something else could have happened with the perfume.  Mary poured the perfume out on Christ’s feet but Judas believed something else was possible; namely that it could have been sold.

TF: Isn’t what Judas was actually trying to convey was that the item was very valuable?

Dan: That’s what enabled Mary.  That opened up that alternative for Mary.  Yes, Mary was able to sell it for lots of money because it was worth that.

TF:  Was his point that the thing was a valuable item and it was being wasted?

Dan: That was not his whole point.  But yes that’s a part of it.

TF: What was the whole point?

Dan: That the perfume could have been sold.

TF: And his point with regard to that was not that there was a philosophically sturdy basis for saying this was a possibility that could have happened.  But rather simply that she made an unwise and wasteful choice, right?

Dan: Yes, his point was exactly what he said.  It could have been sold.  I am not sure how more specific I can get.

TF: He wasn’t trying to make a philosophical point. 

Dan: Not particular, no.  Obviously there’s a lot predicated on it.  He assumes that there’s a market to sell it; he assumes that Mary exists.  So if you want to call those philosophical points, sure.  But the basic statement in scripture is she could have sold it and I believe that’s true.

TF: Turning to a different topic, you mentioned in your affirmative constructive that 17 times the dictionaries defined choose as to prefer or decide or to select and that these are synonyms rather than definitions.  Is that an accurate statement of what you said?

Dan: yes, that’s correct.

TF: Which definition was the one you went with?

Dan: To select from a number of possibilities and I was also OK with to select from a number of alternatives. 

TF: Both of those definitions use the word select.  Is that correct?

Dan: That’s correct.

TF: And that’s one of those words that’s a synonym. 

Dan: That’s right.

TF: So how do you escape your own criticism that those are synonyms rather than definitons?

Dan: Because it’s more complete.  It adds more.  We are almost out of time.

TF: If you would like to complete your answer it’s OK with me.

Dan:  Ok fair enough.  Synonyms do kind of work as definitions but they are not complete in a verbal sense.  What completes them is that they refer to something we know and experience in everyday life.  So if it’s something you deal with all the time there’s almost an implied understanding of what it is.  Let’s take an armadillo.  Just saying the word armadillo calls to mind the creature with a hard shell and a little tail that walks around.  So you don’t need a full description if it’s something like that.  On the other hand, it’s incomplete, and what you want is a real description; he’s grey; he’s got toenails and all that stuff. So synonyms are somewhat helpful, but they are abbreviated. 

TF: Alright.  Thank you very much.

Comments

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