Triabologna
More Silliness by Steve Hays
J.C. Thibodaux
Triablogue's at it again. As of late they've been trying to harass Kangaroodort, about his assertion that intercessory prayer for the salvation of others is inconsistent with Calvinist theology. I'll let Ben answer them in his own time if he thinks they're even worth the effort. In the meantime, I've been addressing an argument by Paul Manata concerning God drawing people to Himself in response to prayer who don't eventually come, setting straight his silly questions like, "Does God expect different results? Then he's insane according to Einstein." which are cleanly rendered moot by God's foreknowledge and factoring in prayer before it occurs (since He transcends time, He doesn't 'expect' anything different from what will actually occur). Paul countered that the action was still pointless, so I pointed out that God sent the prophets who didn't turn people from their sin (which is obviously not pointless), to which Manata shot back in the combox that the prophets were sent to condemn Israel, but what does scripture say?
Nevertheless they were disobedient And rebelled against You, Cast Your law behind their backs And killed Your prophets, who testified against them
To turn them to Yourself; And they worked great provocations. (Nehemiah 9:26)
Anyway, now Steve Hays is gunning for me (yipee) with regards to my comments about foreknowledge and libertarian free will. He starts off,
"Incorrect, I have the power to instantiate alternative possibilities, God simply knows how I will employ it."
Is that a fact? There’s a possible world in which I take Catherine Deneuve on a date. And back when I was a teenager, I used to dream about taking Catherine Deneuve on a date. But no matter how vividly I imagined that alternative scenario, I was never able to turn my fantasy into reality.
Hays runs off to crazy town right off the bat. Of course I never specified that I could instantiate any alternative I wanted to, which moves Hays' argument firmly into the usual category of 'ridiculous.' He then addresses,
Because He is atemporal, and can know choices before they are instantiated.
by stating,
There are several problems with that move:
i) If God is atemporal, then he cannot know choices *before* they are made, for that would introduce a chronological sequence into God’s knowledge vis-à-vis the object of knowledge which J.C’s stipulation of divine timelessness disallows.
*Yawn* Before the event occurs from our perspective, genius.
ii) If God timelessly knows an outcome, then the outcome cannot be otherwise since that would falsify his foreknowledge.
Put another way, if God is atemporal, then whatever he believes is immutable and if his belief about the future is true, then the future cannot be otherwise.
The old causal foreknowledge canard. The order is not "God believes it -> it will happen," but "it will happen -> God knows it."
iii) How can an agent know a temporal fact?
Because He sees the future even more clearly than we do the present, next superficial objection please.
"Rather like being chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father (1 Peter 1:2)."
There are several problems with that facile appeal. As Greg Welty recently explained:
[gives a quote about foreknowledge]
I deal with the usual Calvie objections to foreknowledge in the articles on my site. Hays tries to address Jeremiah 32:35 by stating,
"They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molech, though I never commanded, nor did it enter my mind, that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin."
i) That man can defy God’s preceptive will is not at odds with Calvinism.
ii) When the text says this outcome 'never entered God’s mind,' how does J. C. or Ben construe that claim?
a) Ben says that Arminians take the Bible at face value. Well, if we take this verse literally, then God is ignorant of the future, or at least this particular outcome.
Yet Ben denies that he’s an open theist. So, to be true to his Arminian belief in God’s foreknowledge, Ben must treat the description as anthropomorphic. But, in that case, Ben must revert the same hermeneutical approach as the Calvinist.
b) J.C. presumably denies that God is ignorant. So he would also revert to the Reformed interpretation.
c) In addition, J. C. is committed to the proposition that God is atemporal. In that case, it’s literally nonsensical to say that something never entered God’s mind.
I would actually say that Hays doesn't recognize a simple expression that God never gave them such a command, nor did He in any way desire them to do such a thing. It doesn't indicate that He didn't know about it, but rather that He didn't ordain it, which would necessitate libertarian free will by the fact that they commited such sin anyway. He goes on to Luke 13:34,
i) If J.C. and Ben are forced to interpret the sentiments in Jer 32:35 as anthropopathetic, then shouldn’t they be consistent and construe the sentiment expressed in Lk 13:34 the same way?
ii) Since J.C. believes that God is atemporal, then he can’t believe that God 'often' desired the repentance of apostate Israel, for frequency is a temporal category.
Is he not catching that Christ was in time while saying this? Also, I never said that God was strictly atemporal, I simply indicated that His omniscience transcends time, He can appear in time as well if He chooses (see Genesis 18 for example).
iii) As commentators point out, v35 alludes to God’s covenant with Israel. Calvinism doesn’t deny that human beings can defy God’s preceptive will. Human begins can be covenant-breakers. Indeed, God decreed their disobedience.
Nowhere does scripture indicate that God unconditionally decreed their disobedience, which was the point in citing Jeremiah 32, which plainly indicates that He didn't. But Hays isn't done: I stated concerning God's drawing being associated with 'wooing,'
Drawing is not mutually exclusive to wooing, take Hosea 11:4 for instance.
Which states,
I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them.
i) Hos 11:4 doesn’t say that God "wooed" his people.
ii) And even if it did, that’s a metaphor.
Duh. Thank you Hays, I was starting to think they were literal bands God was talking about. It's obviously a metaphor for wooing them, which is also shown as Him drawing Israel. Try raising an actual objection next time.
Of course Bridges, Pike and the rest of the crew will continue to raise superficial objections forever in their comboxes if allowed, so if they want any specific issues addressed further, they can just make another post of it. Heh, if libertarian free will gave me the kind of miraculous super powers Hays thinks it should, I'd instantiate a reality in which he actually presented coherent arguments. Sadly, its limitations become quite obvious in light of such unfulfilled wishes.
Do not click under any circumstance.
Copyright © 2005-2008, InDeathorLife.org
The information on this page may not be reproduced or republished on another website, webpage or other printed media without express permission from the author of this site. Other material(s) referenced on this site are the property of their respective authors or copyright holders, and where applicable are used by permission.