tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post5133086445276287962..comments2024-03-21T03:04:18.673-04:00Comments on Unapologetica: Shoulda was a good dogRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-30817776593149259362009-11-24T10:56:28.909-05:002009-11-24T10:56:28.909-05:00Well, I think we just about covered everything we ...Well, I think we just about covered everything we were talking about. I very much appreciate your responses.<br /><br />- ssAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-66898159354638138432009-11-23T13:48:22.389-05:002009-11-23T13:48:22.389-05:00Insofar as His omniscience is grounded in His sove...Insofar as His omniscience is grounded in His sovereignty, yes.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-41551051133588842692009-11-22T21:19:33.869-05:002009-11-22T21:19:33.869-05:00I'm comfused. Is morality the universalizing o...I'm comfused. Is morality the universalizing of God's will or some other thing that God knows about through His omniscience?<br /><br />- ssAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-21424309171006686642009-11-22T04:12:25.275-05:002009-11-22T04:12:25.275-05:00"And what does omniscience have to do with un..."And what does omniscience have to do with universalizing one's will?"<br /><br />You are repeating the same question I answered:<br /><br />//...there is no epistemic foundation others have on which to base their moral claims.//<br /><br />The implication is obvious: God knows that which is moral because He is omniscient.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-60141470820630954612009-11-21T15:18:03.798-05:002009-11-21T15:18:03.798-05:00And what does omniscience have to do with universa...And what does omniscience have to do with universalizing one's will?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-16623070987110612382009-11-20T12:11:33.841-05:002009-11-20T12:11:33.841-05:00"What does causation have to do with this?&qu..."What does causation have to do with this?"<br /><br />It has to do with the basis of God's omniscience, which has to do with one's epistemic foundation:<br /><br />http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2009/11/short-theistic-argument-worth.htmlRyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-73283533638982350402009-11-20T11:53:13.362-05:002009-11-20T11:53:13.362-05:00What does causation have to do with this?
- ssWhat does causation have to do with this?<br /><br />- ssAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-52746270183334202372009-11-19T21:07:59.701-05:002009-11-19T21:07:59.701-05:00He's the cause of all things.He's the cause of all things.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-89470540758525786632009-11-19T15:03:39.268-05:002009-11-19T15:03:39.268-05:00What epistemic foundation does God have that other...What epistemic foundation does God have that others don't?<br /><br />- ssAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-82129876303182948532009-11-18T16:15:44.621-05:002009-11-18T16:15:44.621-05:00"If God can universalize His will, why can..."If God can universalize His will, why can't others?"<br /><br />Others can. But the comparison is disanalogous - there is no epistemic foundation others have on which to base their moral claims.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-50454141071540112632009-11-18T11:32:32.296-05:002009-11-18T11:32:32.296-05:00"Then yes"
If God can universalize His ..."Then yes"<br /><br />If God can universalize His will, why can't others?<br /><br />- ssAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-60886677533812725312009-11-17T15:45:04.212-05:002009-11-17T15:45:04.212-05:00“How would Abraham know, in Genesis 18, about some...“How would Abraham know, in Genesis 18, about something God wouldn't reveal until the New Testament? Or is this revealed in some other verse before then?”<br /><br />Why does it matter if the Old Testament contains how Abraham knew, so long as he knew and such is consistent with latter revelation to us? God could certainly have revealed His character to Abraham by other means than which has been revealed to us in Scripture. In fact, such is implied when we see the adjectives Abraham uses to describe God (cf. Genesis 15 - “sovereign”).<br /><br />”What does "ought" mean if it doesn't mean one should act according to another's likes/preferences/will?”<br /><br />I see. Then yes, ”For an ought-statement to correspond with reality would mean that someone's likes have already been universalized;” namely, God’s will.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-10894118177781163402009-11-17T11:37:14.127-05:002009-11-17T11:37:14.127-05:00"I don’t apply Genesis 2:17 to everyone. It’s..."I don’t apply Genesis 2:17 to everyone. It’s an example of why Romans 3:25-26 (which does apply to everyone) states what it does."<br /><br />How would Abraham know, in Genesis 18, about something God wouldn't reveal until the New Testament? Or is this revealed in some other verse before then?<br /><br />"I’m not sure that follows. You’d have to expound on your reasoning."<br /><br />What does "ought" mean if it doesn't mean one should act according to another's likes/preferences/will?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-70520753141639675672009-11-16T13:22:43.246-05:002009-11-16T13:22:43.246-05:00“I don't see how you can take Genesis 2:17 and...“I don't see how you can take Genesis 2:17 and apply it to everyone. And even if it said that God had an obligation to punish all sinners, that still wouldn't mean that God had an obligation not to punish righteous people.”<br /><br />I don’t apply Genesis 2:17 to everyone. It’s an example of why Romans 3:25-26 (which does apply to everyone) states what it does.<br /><br />God’s obligation not to punish the righteous is for the same reason as why God’s obligated to punish sinners; otherwise, He breaks His word. What did God promise to the covenant keepers of the 10 commandments, for example (Exodus 20:5-6)?<br /><br />”For an ought-statement to correspond with reality would mean that someone's likes have already been universalized, would it not?”<br /><br />I’m not sure that follows. You’d have to expound on your reasoning. What my point is, however, is that the premise “the Bible is the case” leads to the conclusion “the ought statements within the Bible are the case.”Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-23804226914760755262009-11-16T12:41:56.892-05:002009-11-16T12:41:56.892-05:00"He would be unjust for having broken His wor..."He would be unjust for having broken His word, having allowed one to sin with impunity."<br /><br />I don't see how you can take Genesis 2:17 and apply it to everyone. And even if it said that God had an obligation to punish all sinners, that still wouldn't mean that God had an obligation not to punish righteous people.<br /><br />”What does it mean to say an "ought" statement is true?”<br /><br />"The same thing it means for an is-statement to be true: for a statement to be the case, for a statement to accord with the nature of reality. So the statement 'one ought to not murder' means 'it is the case that one ought not to murder' or 'that one ought not to murder accords with the nature of reality.'"<br /><br />For an ought-statement to correspond with reality would mean that someone's likes have already been universalized, would it not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-6471902098549449582009-11-15T23:04:24.201-05:002009-11-15T23:04:24.201-05:00“…if Adam didn't die, God obviously would have...“…if Adam didn't die, God obviously would have broken His word. What does this have to do with not punishing those who have upheld God's glory?”<br /><br />Is the relation not prima facie obvious to you? Adam’s breaking of the covenant means the punishment for Adam’s sin must be enacted. For Adam not to have been punished would mean God has broken His word. The relation to Romans 3:25-26 is that God’s forbearance of punishment of sins (which by definition refers to scorning God’s glory) could imply He has broken His word. He would be unjust for having broken His word, having allowed one to sin with impunity. That’s why Christ’s death was necessary: it propitiated God’s wrath and vindicated His justice by vindicating His word. He did punish our sins – by punishing Christ, to whom our sin was imputed and from whom we access righteousness whereby we are justified (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:21). God’s righteousness is predicated on upholding His glory by “not denying Himself,” by upholding His word (which was given in the first place to uphold His glory).<br /><br />”What does it mean to say an "ought" statement is true?”<br /><br />The same thing it means for an is-statement to be true: for a statement to be the case, for a statement to accord with the nature of reality. So the statement “one ought to not murder” means “it is the case that one ought not to murder” or “that one ought not to murder accords with the nature of reality.”Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-59707587978846480052009-11-15T21:44:17.677-05:002009-11-15T21:44:17.677-05:00"God didn’t wait for the Israelite’s opinions..."God didn’t wait for the Israelite’s opinions when He wrote the 10 commandments, either."<br /><br />You're right. I was forgetting how the word "covenant" is used in the Bible.<br /><br />"If God tells Adam that He will surely die, and Adam does not die, God has failed to follow through on His statement."<br /><br />I always thought the verse was saying that dying would be the natural consequence of (as opposed to the penalty for) eating of the tree. But if Adam didn't die, God obviously would have broken His word. What does this have to do with not punishing those who have upheld God's glory?<br /><br />What does it mean to say an "ought" statement is true?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-45749213297950543792009-11-15T01:18:19.536-05:002009-11-15T01:18:19.536-05:00“I did read through Genesis 2 and 3. I didn't ...“I did read through Genesis 2 and 3. I didn't see any covenant. Adam would have to agree to something for there to be a covenant, right?”<br /><br />No, not at all. The Suzerain is under no obligation to entertain the Vassals opinion. God didn’t wait for the Israelite’s opinions when He wrote the 10 commandments, either.<br /><br />“If this is a covenant, why aren't there obligations places on both sides? How can God possibly break this "covenant"?”<br /><br />If God tells Adam that He will surely die, and Adam does not die, God has failed to follow through on His statement. He would have lied, would have denied Himself, and neither are possible. For God to do that would require God to cease to be Himself. That’s how God would break a covenant. As the author of Hebrews says:<br /><br />“When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself… Men swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.”<br /><br />God’s promise to uphold the conditions and stipulations of the covenant He makes with men is the means by which we He could counter-factually break the covenant and, by extension, how we know God could be unjust.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-5270891139459078752009-11-14T20:07:45.358-05:002009-11-14T20:07:45.358-05:00What are the implications of saying an "ought...What are the implications of saying an "ought" statement is true?<br /><br />- ssAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-71774698499562066632009-11-14T19:58:39.304-05:002009-11-14T19:58:39.304-05:00I did read through Genesis 2 and 3. I didn't s...I did read through Genesis 2 and 3. I didn't see any covenant. Adam would have to agree to something for there to be a covenant, right? I especially don't see a covenant that places any obligations on God. You pointed to Genesis 2:16-17, which reads: "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."<br /><br />If this is a covenant, why aren't there obligations places on both sides? How can God possibly break this "covenant"?<br /><br />- ssAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-39359735870210972672009-11-13T21:43:25.493-05:002009-11-13T21:43:25.493-05:00“Yes, I just said that.”
So then if merely refere...“Yes, I just said that.”<br /><br />So then if merely referencing God’s sovereignty wouldn’t constitute as a satisfactory answer in one context, it wouldn’t in another.<br /><br />”Why should I recognize that, if I don't understand the passages as saying that?”<br /><br />Why don’t you understand that? What about my interpretation is unclear?<br /><br />”This reference to a covenant that Adam transgressed doesn't even say what Adam's obligations were under this covenant, let alone say what God's oblgations were.”<br /><br />You only need to read Genesis 1-2 to know that. Adam covenanted with God not to disobey Him with respect to eating the fruit of the tree. Adam disobeyed; he broke the covenant of works. Had Adam counterfactually subdued the earth and filled it, named the beasts &c., he would have satisfied the conditions of the covenant. Now, however, we need a Savior, one who fulfills that covenant for us as well as bore the punishment on behalf of us. That’s why Christ had to live righteously as well as die for us. God reckons Christ’s active/passive obedience as having been satisfied to those who believe in Him. If God forbears punishment on rebels without propitiation, He has failed to uphold the covenant, viz. Genesis 2:17.<br /><br />”I don't know what you mean. If there's a chasm between "is" statements and "ought" statements that humans cannot logically traverse, then how can we know God's "ought" statements are true, just because His "is" statements are?”<br /><br />I don’t understand the question. Look at it this way:<br /><br />Premise 1: The Bible is God’s word. <br />Premise 2: God’s word is true.<br />Premise 3: Some statements in God’s word are ought statements.<br /><br />From P1, P2, and P3, it follows ought statement God has spoken in the Bible are true.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-61695698427451926922009-11-13T13:23:19.526-05:002009-11-13T13:23:19.526-05:00“That would imply God’s righteousness merely consi...“That would imply God’s righteousness merely consists in the exercise of His sovereignty, which is incompatible with texts like Romans 3:25-26.”<br /><br />Yes, I just said that.<br /><br />“You’re simply repeating yourself.”<br /><br />I think we're both repeating ourselves.<br /><br />“You aren’t being coherent in the last part”<br /><br />Well, regarding the spelling error, there was supposed to be a “nor” where the “not” is.<br /><br />“Instead, you should recognize that for God to forbear punishing sins without propitiation would be unjust BECAUSE [emphasis added] such would be a failure to uphold His glory, honor, and name.”<br /><br />Why should I recognize that, if I don't understand the passages as saying that?<br /><br />“To punish men who have upheld His glory would be a scorning of His glory; it would imply God broke the covenant (the so-called “covenant of works”) He made with... Adam (cf. Hosea 6:7).”<br /><br />This reference to a covenant that Adam transgressed doesn't even say what Adam's obligations were under this covenant, let alone say what God's oblgations were.<br /><br />"Your question implies God is subject to some abstract, moral law. He is not. He decrees what is good in accordance with His character."<br /><br />I don't know what you mean. If there's a chasm between "is" statements and "ought" statements that humans cannot logically travese, then how can we know God's "ought" statements are true, just because His "is" statements are?<br /><br />- ssAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-69643891616243535742009-11-13T01:32:16.584-05:002009-11-13T01:32:16.584-05:00”Not necessarily. Romans 9:13-15 might be saying t...”Not necessarily. Romans 9:13-15 might be saying that the charge of unrighteousness doesn't apply due to God's rightful ownership/sovereignty.”<br /><br />That would imply God’s righteousness merely consists in the exercise of His sovereignty, which is incompatible with texts like Romans 3:25-26. Also, it ignores the original context of Paul’s citation. You’re simply repeating yourself.<br /><br />”As I've been saying, I know that Romans 3:25-26 teach that God's righteousness is contingent on something more than His sovereignty, but the verses don't say what not do Romans 9:13-15 tell us.”<br /><br />You aren’t being coherent in the last part, and the verses do indeed tell us on what God’s justice is coherent. That was the whole point of the quote you just cited: to show that upon which God’s righteousness depends. You’re attempt to separate Exodus 33:19/Romans 9:15 from the context of Exodus 33:15-20 backfires. Instead, you should recognize that for God to forbear punishing sins without propitiation would be unjust because such would be a failure to uphold His glory, honor, and name. He would be allowing men to scorn His glory with impunity. That’s why leaving sins unpunished would be unjust. That’s why leaving sins unpunished means God isn't upholding His glory.<br /><br />”Yes, but what covenant to Abraham are you specifically referring to?”<br /><br />That should read “Adam” (cf. Hosea 6:7).<br /><br />”How does God logically traverse from “is” to “ought”?”<br /><br />Your question implies God is subject to some abstract, moral law. He is not. He decrees what is good in accordance with His character.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-7312286716291968642009-11-12T15:05:20.719-05:002009-11-12T15:05:20.719-05:00“Why is this relevant to the context of Romans 9:1...“Why is this relevant to the context of Romans 9:13-15, given that in question is God’s righteousness? Because the upholding of God’s glory is that upon which God’s righteousness is predicated!”<br /><br />Not necessarily. Romans 9:13-15 might be saying that the charge of unrighteousness doesn't apply due to God's rightful ownership/sovereignty. <br /><br />“Yes he does: “He did this to demonstrate His justice” – what did God do? He presented Christ as propitiation. Why was this necessary to demonstrate His justice? “Because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.” Why is this relevant to God’s righteousness if His righteousness is only contingent on God’s sovereignty? You can’t answer that. I can.”<br /><br />As I've been saying, I know that Romans 3:25-26 teach that God's righteousness is contingent on something more than His sovereignty, but the verses don't say what, not do Romans 9:13-15 tell us. Why would leaving sins unpunished be unjust? Why would leaving sins unpunished mean God isn't upholding His glory?<br /><br />“God makes various covenants with men throughout history.”<br /><br />Yes, but what covenant to Abraham are you specifically referring to?<br /><br />“No; “if the Bible is true, then the ‘should’ statements within the Bible are true” is a logically valid statement.”<br /><br />How does God logically traverse from “is” to “ought”?<br /><br />- ssAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-75099741055184601902009-11-11T15:24:25.272-05:002009-11-11T15:24:25.272-05:00“Honestly, I reread both passages after I read you...“Honestly, I reread both passages after I read your response, and I still don't see any statement that isn't most likely referring to God's sovereignty.”<br /><br />Moses asks God to show him His glory. God’s response is: <br /><br />“I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”<br /><br />God’s glory is revealed in the proclamation of His name and unconditioned nature of His acts. Why is this relevant to the context of Romans 9:13-15, given that in question is God’s righteousness? Because the upholding of God’s glory is that upon which God’s righteousness is predicated!<br /><br />“This is exactly why I treated Romans 3:25-26 as evidence of John Piper's interpretation of Romans 9:13-15. Even if the author of Romans is referring here to an obligation God has to uphold His glory, he doesn't explicitly say this, nor does he give us any way to verify when God is or isn't upholding His glory.”<br /><br />Yes he does: “He did this to demonstrate His justice” – what did God do? He presented Christ as propitiation. Why was this necessary to demonstrate His justice? “Because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.” Why is this relevant to God’s righteousness if His righteousness is only contingent on God’s sovereignty? You can’t answer that. I can.<br /><br />“What are you talking about here?”<br /><br />God makes various covenants with men throughout history. An example of an unjust, sovereign God would be for God to counterfactually have broken a covenant He made.<br /><br />“So “if God likes it, we should like it too” is a logical statement?”<br /><br />No; “if the Bible is true, then the ‘should’ statements within the Bible are true” is a logically valid statement.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.com