- May 28, 2018
- 14,251
- 6,342
- 69
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Hopefully we can de-escalate the virulence of this conversation. I have no wish to be contentious.
You said:
"Then you accept my characterization of your view, which says that when God killed millions of innocent Jews in the Shoah he was not committing an evil act? When Hitler did it he committed evil, but when God did it he did not commit evil.
That's correct, is it not? Am I or am I not correctly characterizing your view?"
That characterization of what I believe is not true if you mean (or if it can be taken by another reader to mean) something I do not intend. I thought I had explained the matter well enough, when I answered with something along the lines of, "yes, except..."
After I explained that, you said you considered the matter settled, but now you bring it up again. (Lol, unless I have the sequence of posts, wrong, which I agree is possible. It's not worth it to me to go through it all and find everything to be sure. You were wrong in the following, so I'm guessing you were also wrong in pressing the matter here.) If you are trying a lawyer's trick in a courtroom, it's not going to work, as either "yes" or "no" is not a completely truthful answer. (Like I said, I've had years of not being pinned down by my wife to a false presupposition that she might draw from either a 'yes' or 'no' answer, and you have nowhere near her skill nor force of an immediate answer! (I'm not trying to be mean here, but funny, but yes, there is a point to it. I'm not trying to be contentious —that was her speciality!))
But, again, I admit it is possible you are not referring to the matter you said you considered settled, but to the below. Please let me know which it is.
Neither in your post #55 which I am answering to here, nor in #41, (which you credit as having the links), do you quote me as I originally wrote, since you wrote combining two things I did say, but you quote them without context. Go to #41; It contains two links, one to #31, which I wrote, and which contains quotes from your post #27, neither of which, again, quote the two phrases as I originally used them. Again, the two phrases you mistakenly combine to mischaracterize what I said, only both show up in the same post in #26, which you did not link to in #41. I had to chase it down to find it, and I see no typo in my explanation, nor can I see how you come up with the notion that you garner by mistakenly combining the two phrases, to wit: 1) that "God is not subject to the laws he obligates us to"; and 2) that "God is not "subject to any principle from outside himself." " The notion you draw of what I believe, is, by your mistakenly combining them, sans context, mistaken.
Besides that, you make another mistake. (Even though you make the mistake of quoting them out of context), you apparently make the logical mistake of claiming that if proposition 1 is true: God is not subject to the laws he gave us; and that if proposition 2 is true: God is not subject to principles from outside himself, that these automatically and necessarily imply conclusion (3) is true: that anything he is not subject to is therefore from outside himself. Bad logic.
But God's will is NOT from outside himself, nor did I claim it was, but you mistakenly concluded that I had claimed it.
Why did you lump the two together, (when I did not), in order to extrapolate something that I had not at all intended?
How did lumping the two of them together make his law/ his will something which is from 'outside himself'? I can't make sense of your explanations. You seem to jump logical points, thinking something you said necessarily and obviously imply something, that it did not. I have already (above) shown how you use bad logic.
Note that your "bullet point" quote there is of your own derivation, not mine. You are quoting yourself. I hope a passing reader does not become confused at this point. If you have described Voluntarism correctly, then it is not a teaching of Calvinism, or at least it is certainly not what I teach, nor is it a logical implication of what I say Calvinism teaches, nor of what I teach. Again, the phrase, "There is no principle from outside of God, to which God is subject", does not at all imply that his will, nor that his law, is from outside himself.
God is not "a person" in the sense that we are, a human creature. He is the one and only Omnipotent, Creator. That gives him the logical right of ownership, to command as he tells us, and to do as he will. But besides that, it implies that he is far above us, so that his commands apply to us, but not to him. What is behind those commands, that is, to love the Lord your God with all your being, and to love your neighbor as yourself —of course his whole being loves himself, and he has no neighbors. He tells us not to murder, but he has the absolute right to destroy anything he has made, by whatever means he chooses. We know he has chosen old age for most of us, and we die. If he decides to use Hitler for his purposes, he needn't justify it. He used Satan, after all.
Your consternation is ill conceived; I did not compare Hitler's Holocaust to a parent going to bed after 8:00. I compared God not being subject to his commands for us, (i.e. God's innate right to tell us one thing while he does another), to parents telling their child to go to bed by 8:00, while they themselves need not go to bed by 8:00. Thus, the notion of God being a hypocrite doesn't even come into question. He has no obligation to do as he commands us.
So, the question of my view of him being the first cause behind all effects, including Hitler's Holocaust, doesn't imply that God is a hypocrite. But I'm glad you think those humans who make laws for us ought to abide by them! Let Congress hear your consternation concerning their hypocrisy!
I wouldn't know about Calvinists "getting angry when their views are accurately characterized and brought into the light". I have rarely seen (or heard) their views accurately characterized publicly in any way that angers them. You have been a very distorted 'mirror', but I give you credit for trying, and I applaud you for wanting God vindicated of all charges. But usually, Calvinists are almost inordinately pleased when their views are characterized accurately because Calvinism at its base is about the Gospel of GRACE, and not of any work of man, and it is a very happy and sure Gospel, full of joy at the sovereign power, purity and beauty, and love of God, and his mercy toward his undeserving elect ones.
You said:
"Then you accept my characterization of your view, which says that when God killed millions of innocent Jews in the Shoah he was not committing an evil act? When Hitler did it he committed evil, but when God did it he did not commit evil.
That's correct, is it not? Am I or am I not correctly characterizing your view?"
That characterization of what I believe is not true if you mean (or if it can be taken by another reader to mean) something I do not intend. I thought I had explained the matter well enough, when I answered with something along the lines of, "yes, except..."
After I explained that, you said you considered the matter settled, but now you bring it up again. (Lol, unless I have the sequence of posts, wrong, which I agree is possible. It's not worth it to me to go through it all and find everything to be sure. You were wrong in the following, so I'm guessing you were also wrong in pressing the matter here.) If you are trying a lawyer's trick in a courtroom, it's not going to work, as either "yes" or "no" is not a completely truthful answer. (Like I said, I've had years of not being pinned down by my wife to a false presupposition that she might draw from either a 'yes' or 'no' answer, and you have nowhere near her skill nor force of an immediate answer! (I'm not trying to be mean here, but funny, but yes, there is a point to it. I'm not trying to be contentious —that was her speciality!))
But, again, I admit it is possible you are not referring to the matter you said you considered settled, but to the below. Please let me know which it is.
Neither in your post #55 which I am answering to here, nor in #41, (which you credit as having the links), do you quote me as I originally wrote, since you wrote combining two things I did say, but you quote them without context. Go to #41; It contains two links, one to #31, which I wrote, and which contains quotes from your post #27, neither of which, again, quote the two phrases as I originally used them. Again, the two phrases you mistakenly combine to mischaracterize what I said, only both show up in the same post in #26, which you did not link to in #41. I had to chase it down to find it, and I see no typo in my explanation, nor can I see how you come up with the notion that you garner by mistakenly combining the two phrases, to wit: 1) that "God is not subject to the laws he obligates us to"; and 2) that "God is not "subject to any principle from outside himself." " The notion you draw of what I believe, is, by your mistakenly combining them, sans context, mistaken.
Besides that, you make another mistake. (Even though you make the mistake of quoting them out of context), you apparently make the logical mistake of claiming that if proposition 1 is true: God is not subject to the laws he gave us; and that if proposition 2 is true: God is not subject to principles from outside himself, that these automatically and necessarily imply conclusion (3) is true: that anything he is not subject to is therefore from outside himself. Bad logic.
But God's will is NOT from outside himself, nor did I claim it was, but you mistakenly concluded that I had claimed it.
Why did you lump the two together, (when I did not), in order to extrapolate something that I had not at all intended?
How did lumping the two of them together make his law/ his will something which is from 'outside himself'? I can't make sense of your explanations. You seem to jump logical points, thinking something you said necessarily and obviously imply something, that it did not. I have already (above) shown how you use bad logic.
Note that your "bullet point" quote there is of your own derivation, not mine. You are quoting yourself. I hope a passing reader does not become confused at this point. If you have described Voluntarism correctly, then it is not a teaching of Calvinism, or at least it is certainly not what I teach, nor is it a logical implication of what I say Calvinism teaches, nor of what I teach. Again, the phrase, "There is no principle from outside of God, to which God is subject", does not at all imply that his will, nor that his law, is from outside himself.
Right. The notion that God is subject to things from beyond himself necessarily implies that he did not cause them, and that denies that he is first cause, which the Bible obviously claims. Therefore, blasphemy. I am not saying that anyone who claims freewill is blaspheming, but that they may not realize the logical implications of what they are saying. After all, I do know that, in general, they depend on the attribute of God's Omnipotence, more strongly than they do that God has given us the sort of free will that is independent of causation.
God is not "a person" in the sense that we are, a human creature. He is the one and only Omnipotent, Creator. That gives him the logical right of ownership, to command as he tells us, and to do as he will. But besides that, it implies that he is far above us, so that his commands apply to us, but not to him. What is behind those commands, that is, to love the Lord your God with all your being, and to love your neighbor as yourself —of course his whole being loves himself, and he has no neighbors. He tells us not to murder, but he has the absolute right to destroy anything he has made, by whatever means he chooses. We know he has chosen old age for most of us, and we die. If he decides to use Hitler for his purposes, he needn't justify it. He used Satan, after all.
Your consternation is ill conceived; I did not compare Hitler's Holocaust to a parent going to bed after 8:00. I compared God not being subject to his commands for us, (i.e. God's innate right to tell us one thing while he does another), to parents telling their child to go to bed by 8:00, while they themselves need not go to bed by 8:00. Thus, the notion of God being a hypocrite doesn't even come into question. He has no obligation to do as he commands us.
So, the question of my view of him being the first cause behind all effects, including Hitler's Holocaust, doesn't imply that God is a hypocrite. But I'm glad you think those humans who make laws for us ought to abide by them! Let Congress hear your consternation concerning their hypocrisy!
I wouldn't know about Calvinists "getting angry when their views are accurately characterized and brought into the light". I have rarely seen (or heard) their views accurately characterized publicly in any way that angers them. You have been a very distorted 'mirror', but I give you credit for trying, and I applaud you for wanting God vindicated of all charges. But usually, Calvinists are almost inordinately pleased when their views are characterized accurately because Calvinism at its base is about the Gospel of GRACE, and not of any work of man, and it is a very happy and sure Gospel, full of joy at the sovereign power, purity and beauty, and love of God, and his mercy toward his undeserving elect ones.
Upvote
0