Posted on 01/22/2003 3:16:06 PM PST by RnMomof7
I saw it; I just wasn't very impressed (sorry for the dismissive review, but I humbly reserve the right to be dismayed at sub-par Logic).
IMHO it's a case of the Non-Predestinarian school of philosophy attempting desperately to evade the obvious logical consequences of Perfect Omniscience.
Let's take the "Modal Fallacy" argument against Aristotle's sea battle -- which at least our good Author is honest enough to admit is "considerably embellished":
Uh huh. Suuuuure, Beavis.
Except that's not what the Predestinarian School proposes of Future truth-values at all. The Predestinarian School (whether sourced upon "deliberate causation" OR "permitted Free Will") would say that "The future will be what it will be, as a perfectly-foreknown dependent-contingent consequent of our foreknown planning, intentions, etc".
In other words (adopting the "free-will predestinarian" line of thought), Future truth-values are FIXED as a dependent logical consequent of our foreknown Free Will choices; but given that these Free Will choices are foreknown, then the Future truth-values are "contingent" only in the sense that the consequent Answer to a mathematical Equation is "contingent" upon the Variables. IF the Variables are certain (that is, the Free Will choices are perfectly foreknown), then the consequent Answer to that equation is inexorable and unavoidable.
If the Author can't do any better than this (and maybe he can, but this example is certainly unconvincing), then the "Modal Fallacy" asserted against the Predestinarian School (whether sourced upon "deliberate causation" OR "permitted Free Will") is not so much a Fallacy as a groundless assertion of fallacy predicated upon Logical Misdirection.
And respectfully, that ain't the way we play 52-card poker here in Tombstone, Ike Clanton.
Perfect foreknowledge makes things certain before they occur. They occur for different reasons than perfect predetermination, but there is no violating the perfect foreknowledge of God.
That's my sense too. I sincerely believe that I could (were I not convinced of the Biblical Truth of Calvinism) construct a purely-Arminian reading of Matthew 11 (God dispensed "enough" grace to permit a "fair" free choice; God did not compel their choice, but allowed it to be "free"; God allowed their choice to determine their destiny, and respected their choice); I could be, I think, a fair "Arminian apologist" if I really wanted to.
But unless I deny the facts of Matthew 11 (God could have dispensed additional Graces; He was under no obligation to do so, but it was His Right to do so if He saw fit as in the cases of Nineveh and saint Paul)....
...Then I still end up with a form of Absolute Predestination in which God "allows" a "fair free choice" by dispensing sufficient graces to all (as defined by the five points of Classical Arminianism) but still reserves to Himself the Sovereign Right to dispense extraordinary graces towards the specific accomplishment of His Exact Plan.
Well, did "Arminius overthrow his whole case in adding a predestination of individuals on the basis of a necessary foreknowledge of future things"?? It depends on what the "Classical Arminian" is trying to accomplish.
Did Arminius overthrow his own case? Well, that depends on what the Arminian is trying to accomplish -- to propose a different formula of Absolute Predestination than that of the Calvinist, or to attempt the overthrow Absolute Predestination entirely??
Now On the one hand, I should be probably be dismayed if an Arminian stuck to Classical Arminianism, accepted the Fact of Absolute Predestination of Individuals in Matthew 11, and merely sought to uphold the Five Points of the Remonstrants as a "more free and more fair" operation of Absolute Predestination. Since I view Arminianism as a theological cancer on the Body of Christ, I should probably be unhappy to see Arminians stick with the Five Classical Remonstrances and yet maintain a robust affirmation of Absolute Predestination -- according to their own contrived Arminian formula. They would still be teaching falsehoods, but would not be so easy for me to attack as "Blasphemers" against Isaiah 45-46, Matthew 11, Romans 9, and Ephesians 1. As a Debater, that would make my job a little more difficult.
However, most so-called "Arminians" are obviously not intent upon making my Apologetic job that difficult. They're not really interested in affirming a "more free and more fair" Arminian Formula of Absolute Predestination; they would really prefer to deny the Absolute Predestination of Individuals entirely (just judging by virtually every "arminian" whom I have encountered). They aren't really interested in the Logic of Arminius, so much (or that of Wesley, whose "logic" is -- without denying his gifts as a Parish Pastor, to which he was far better suited than playing the Theologian -- even more atrocious than that of Arminius, if I am entitled to my opinion); if... and when... they discover that one can affirm all Five Points of Arminianism and still end up an Pre-Creation Absolute Predestinarian, they are happy to go far beyond anything Arminius would have imagined. I think that they are just predestination-denying Socinians wearing orthodox-Christian pelts; without giving any credit to Arminius (whom I believe to have been wrong even in what he did teach), Arminius is really just their Anti-Predestinarian stalking-horse of convenience.
I speak from Bias, but that is my (nigh-universal) impression.
Don't forget Taiwan, also.
However, I don't deny the historical interest of cultural factors.
(Heck, God is always in control)
That's why I don't much cotton to faux elitist attempts to disguise one's arguments beneath a plethora of esoteric terminology and other such duplicitous haberdashery. When the Austrian-Libertarian school of Economics describes Government Welfare as "administering a blood transfusion from the same patient's right arm to his left arm, and spilling a lot of blood on the floor in the process", it isn't because their homespun aphorisms are any less "intelligent" than the high-falutin' loquacious verbiage of the High Priests of Keynesian Interventionist Economics... it is because they are confident enough to know both that their logic is correct, and that Economics really is nothing more than "the science of common sense" -- and therefore, ought to be rationally intelligible to the commonsensical US Army combat surgeon.
To wit:
Did you see the final episode of the ethan clive osgoode conversation over on calvinism/arminianism thread? We agreed to disagree, I think. He kept saying I violated modal fallacy. I still don't know what it is. Check it out and tell me what you think.
Logical Judgment of the asserted "Modal Fallacy" of Predestinarianism: Beavis, you're an idiot.
That's like saying that if your Predestinarian Opponent says that the Answer to a mathematical equation is 7, then the Predestinarian is asserting that "The Answer will be what it will be, irrespective of our Variables".
No, that isn't what the Predestinarian School is saying.
The Predestinarian School is saying that:
That ain't a "Modal Fallacy", Beavis. That's just common sense.
Read the link I gave you.
The most common manifestation of the modal fallacy is when the necessity of the consequence magically becomes the necessity of the consequent. For instance, the following argument uses the modal fallacy:
(1) Necessarily, if A then B. Example. Here the term "necessarily" means "necessarily so", in the sense that it is not possible to be otherwise (inexorable, no other possible choice, deck of one card, etc.)(2) A
(conclusion) Necessarily B.
(1) Necessarily, if God knows you will be a fireman, you will be a fireman.Finally, a logically valid argument which avoids the modal fallacy is:(2) God knows you will be a fireman.
(conclusion) Necessarily, you will be a fireman.
(1) Necessarily, if God knows you will be a fireman, you will be a fireman.But notice there is no longer the nonsense about having no possible choices, and so on.(2) God knows you will be a fireman.
(conclusion) You will be a fireman.
The alleged "nonsense about having no possible choices" never existed in the Predestinarian argument in the first place.
The implied definition of "Necessity" employed here in assertion of a "Modal Fallacy" is flawed from the get-go. See if you can figure out why.
Or, not. It's no skin off my nose.
But unless I deny the facts of Matthew 11 (God could have dispensed additional Graces; He was under no obligation to do so, but it was His Right to do so if He saw fit as in the cases of Nineveh and saint Paul)....
...Then I still end up with a form of Absolute Predestination in which God "allows" a "fair free choice" by dispensing sufficient graces to all (as defined by the five points of Classical Arminianism) but still reserves to Himself the Sovereign Right to dispense extraordinary graces towards the specific accomplishment of His Exact Plan.
This sounds suspiciously like Jonathan Edwards explanation of the fall of man in the Garden. Quoting from Miscellany 290:
If it be enquired how man came to sin, seeing he had no sinful inclinations in him, except God took away his grace from him that he had been wont to give him and so let him fall, I answer there was no need of taking away any that had been given him, but he sin'd under that temptation because God did not give him more. He did not take away that grace from him while he was perfectly innocent which grace was his original righteousness, but he only withheld his confirming grace given now in heaven, grace as shall surmount every temptation....
It is late, and i shall not go into the chain of logic that i must slow down to understand at this late hour, but suffice it to say, that if one follows the chain of logic, (s)he ends up in a position where man cannot be held responsible for his fall
It may interest you to know that Edwards was never able to extricate himself from the quagmire that he got stuck in, and never could answer the objections. This is where the Arminian Free-will Predestination ends up, denying the same responsibility of man for his choice that it affirms, hence, a contradiction.
I think that we may need to separate the Ideas of Innocence and Perfection. Believe it, or not.
There is a developing Orthodox Presbyterian argument... not really so much an argument as a theological investigation... that Adam's WORSHIP of God Logos-Theophany (the Word in his midst, as opposed to the Word Incarnate in the flesh of Mary sometime later) in the Garden was INNOCENT of the actually-forbidden Sin of Commission regarding the Fruit of Trial, but was nonetheless even then not PERFECT in the sense of perfect Worship, as later exemplified by the Christ.
This is NOT what God said!! But from whom did Eve hear this Teaching? She did not hear it from God. She did not hear it from the Serpent. She heard it from Adam.
If Eve heard this Teaching from Adam, then it may very possibly mean that....
Adam himself had already engaged in a form of "worship" which was NOT PERFECT. For as God has later declared to the Sons of Adam (and the Law of the Lord is Perfect):
But if Adam was permitted to engage in a form of "worship" which God foreknew to be Imperfect, thereby setting the stage for Eve's transgression ("I have touched, yet I do not die", perhaps??), whereas the Christ performed the Worship of God perfectly...
Then this implies a conclusion which few but Calvinists are willing to contemplate:
It's a deep, knotty subject.
It is hard, and thick, and (almost, I think) inquires where angels fear to tread.
I know no other way with which to speak thereof.
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
This is NOT what God said!! But from whom did Eve hear this Teaching? She did not hear it from God. She did not hear it from the Serpent. She heard it from Adam.
Well, i must first tell you that due to the lateness of the hour, and prior sleep-deprovation, my higher faculties (such as they exist!), are not capable of a discussion of the logic of either one of our respective points...perhaps later? That aside, the only flaw that i can see in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church investigation is that they are presuming that God gave no such instruction. It is however, factual that the scriptures do not record such instruction.
It is, as the topic of immediate imputation an argument from silence. It also seems inconsistent with the idea of the woman first being decieved in I Timothy.
As i have said above, i simply cannot reason it out at this time, but the investigation does sound interesting. Keep me appraised on developments ok?
i'm going to wimp out and call it a night, so see you later
Well, that's the thing: it actually IS NOT a pure "argument from silence".
Here's the Scoop:
Holy invented commandment, BatMan!!
Suddenly we are not in "argument from silence" territory anymore.
Suddenly, the discussion just got a heckuva lot more interesting.
(If you see what I mean).
Chew on it, brother. I tell ya, I sure haven't figured it out yet.
Later.... OP
I'm sorry to intrude. I have been in luke mode for quite a while and am nervous to emerge for several reasons. But, quickly, I really do need to ask, where do you get that she heard this false teaching from Adam. Why couldn't she have came up with this idea herself?
pony
btw: I have been copying and pasting the entire "why do babies go to heaven thread" for further study (Mongo ain't that bright to digest it all in one viewing.) Good, good stuff, but I am loath to print it all out (500+ pages so far!) to really give my full attention to it. Someday...
This is the direction I was going as we prepared our propositions a few weeks back, if you remember. Absolute foreknowledge truly does lock things into an irreversible pattern. This is obvious both by the appearance of "open theism" and by the "God doesn't look" schools of theology.
After reading some of the open theists, the problem I had with it is simply biblical and personal. Everything was premised on "perfect knowledge of contingencies." This was supposed to preserve "free choice." The problem was Cain and Abel and Seth arising from Adam and Eve. They were contingencies of billions of sperm swimming their various directions. And their children upon their children upon..... The result is that every human today was a contingency who was not necessarily known by God.
It clearly contradicts...."those he foreknew he predestined." It would mean that He never foreknew anyone. Romans would have to have read "contingencies came about and those unnamed ones he predestined."
The bible testimony is that God knew us and loved us, IMHO.
Perfect foreknowledge clearly creates limits. I don't know enough about Arminius' intentions to speak to them, but a number of authors have said that his approach was not adversarial but was rather speculative. This is clearly seen in his perspective on eternal security.
Those who don't admit that perfect foreknowledge creates limits are being shallow.
Moon IS a presbyterian versus Moon WAS a presbyterian.
The question is where they launched from into their personal little heresies.
Moon, Mary Baker Eddy, and Russel all launched from calvinist roots.
God bless you and your wife.
We celebrate with you!!
;^)
Well GOOD!
From Moon: the Destiny of Restoration Acts 3:13-24 ...there may be many people who come to church on Sundays as a matter of course, through habit or as an established custom, thinking that because this is Sunday, they should come to the Father's temple and attend a service. You must understand that this place in which you are sitting should not be taken so lightly. This gathering materialized through some unknown background connection of which you are not aware. From the viewpoint of your individual being, as the center, your position and connection relate with the front and the rear and the left and the right. It is also a connection related to above and below. You must deeply remember this. ..... The Background of Jesus' Coming and the Result of the Chosen People's Disbelief The fact of the emergence of the one person Jesus within history was not a chance accident. It was the result of the predetermined will of the heavenly principles. That is, Jesus came to materialize the connections of history, the current age of that time, and the future.
Destiny is a stronger force than is choice. See the following from Moon's writings.
Where will Unification Church members go? Where will you go? The many colors of one's own bag of fate is all personal fate, but if you belong to the Unification Church then you have to go the way of the fate of the Unification Church. Is that right or wrong? [It's right] Come on, you all, it's wrong. Is that really right? [Yes] OK, then let's talk about how it is really right. It is right. It will be clear after listening to the following. The way of destiny of the Unification Church is different than the individual way of destiny that you carry in your bag. But you can't say, "Since I'm wearing blue glasses Unification Church members have to wear blue glasses." Many religions exist in order for individuals to get into heaven and to receive blessings. The way of destiny of the Unification Church is different. It's not a way of receiving blessings; it's a way of receiving punishment. What can we do about it; it's destiny. Do you understand? We'd like to receive blessings and go on our way, but the destiny is to receive punishment. What can we do about it? So, what are you tied to? Are you tied to the way of your own destiny, or tied to the way of destiny of the Unification Church? [The way of destiny of the Unification Church] The way of destiny of the Unification Church. Are the minutes tied to the hour or are the hours tied to the minutes? To the minutes? [the hour] I guess you know it. Also, are the hours tied to the day or the day tied to the hours? The hours are tied to the day. Also are the days tied to the month or the month tied to the days? [The days are tied to the month] I guess you know it after all. It is that way. (120-25 2)
What this shows is the buddhist quality of Moon's belief system. Destiny or karma or fate is a force that overcomes all.
1. The Will of God God's Will came before me. God is the beginning of the Will, content of the Will and purpose of the Will. * * * The Will is the basis of all our happiness, our pride, our authority and our knowledge. Man may live and die in vain, but the Will can never perish. It must reach fruition and be consummated without fail. * * * I never yield even an inch for the Will. To accomplish the Will I do not avoid the path of sacrifice, no matter what sacrifice may have to be made. * * * We should not be satisfied with today if we have not completed the path which we should go. Instead, let us pioneer a new history with a greater will that can enable us to cut off any worldly attachment.
Destiny is so much a part of moonism that one must ask how Moon can even talk of "free will." It's this. Buddhist karma allows a sense of "free will" within the notion of unavoidable destiny.
Moon is no christian....no arminian...no calvinist. He is very, very Korean.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.