A Fun Debate I Had Online With A Non-Calvinist

Only you could find somebody to debate the meaning of Psalm 145:17.

I like how he hangs his entire argument on the NIV translation of a single verse from a poetic book. I don’t know if I would call the NIV a spurious translation, but it certainly looks a bit dificient on the translation of this verse. Personally, I don’t know greek or hebrew, but I would never hang my doctrinal hat on a singular phrase or word especially without checking multiple versions, commentaries, and lexicons to determine the actual intended meaning of said phrase or word.

Even if Romans 9 and other passages talk about a nation, how does this show unconditional love? Obviously a nation does not suffer. People who make up the nation suffer.

Ohhhh….I can’t wait to to see the response to this.

Altrilark,

Good job with Gen. 29:30-31. That point didn’t get addressed.

I was going to point them to Matt 5:43-48, which is what “>>” was talking about.

Note that the command to love our enemies is related to god providing sun and rain (i.e. food) to the good and the evil. This association implies that god’s provision is a deliberate act of love [v. 46] toward the unjust.

Yes, it’s important for the unsaved to know that god hates them, in one sense, and is angry with them, and they need to be saved from god’s judgement of hell.

But it’s also important for the unsaved to know that god does not delight in the death of the wicked (Ez. 33:11).

Remember that Scripture interprets Scripture, such that two seemingly contradictory passages can be reconciled with a nuanced interpretation of both [which will not be inconsistent with context of either passage].

Stephen Macasil,

My bad, dood. Freudian slip.

Macasil,

I’ll address your “curiosity”…I never hinted anything remotely close to “restricting the semantic range”—don’t be ridiculous, I never uttered such. This would be true of an interpreter such that, term “y” *ONLY* carries this nuance transcendentally (if I can use this) across the threshold; or equally incorrect, offer the reader an either/or alternative then force such decision. If I recall, don’t think I painted with such a semantic-disjunctive brush. I never declared “hate” as a *terminus technicus* which would reflect an unwarranted restriction of the semantic field. Perhaps you’re fanciful in wanting to smuggle in some invalidation here, but, you will fail in providing your readers here a jot or tittle from my post that I exercise any reductionism of that kind. Had you paid close attention, you would see that I clinched a meaning from syntactical analysis; so it follows that my conclusion is warranted by the syntax of the sentence, irrespective of the broader ranges that potentially might be produced. It seems to me that you have these fields confused. Your responds actually spirals into a reductio: suppose that you’re correct—so what? Even if you’re able to marshal up a pool of live options, the point is moot because you would still have to argue, *through syntactical analysis* which option would better fit the flow of the sentence and the paragraph as a whole! That is, you inevitably will succumb to endeavor in reductionism or particularity at some level, just as any exegete does. If another nuance is tagged on to the term in question in a span of another section, it is because scripture itself parenthetically notes otherwise. Linguistic theory can be quite complex, but it seems that you’re still toddling to get a handle on it.

The reason, I think, you failed to discern this is because you have tacked on medieval spectacles, which don’t allow you to HEAR and LISTEN to a viable-and I would say correct–alternative. Given your 4-step challenge to me, I expected you to be a little sharper—argh, I’m disappointed. However, there’s still a chance to pull your bootstraps. I’ll bite: attempt to *show*, compellingly, through semantic analysis (what interpreter procedes in this way?), how a different meaning, other than what I proposed, would tightly fit the flow of the narrative both in Genesis and the Gospels. If you can demonstrate this (hurdles a’ many through a thicket, to say the least), I’ll be open-minded to reconsider.

BTW, Agilius was just making a civil comment. And he’s correct, that point never gets addressed, and sill needs to be dealt with. And don’t keep Sir Aaron on stand by.

JOHN,

Congrats, give yourself a pat on the back! Your effort in correcting the exposition was fiercely exegetical, and I now see that the correct understanding is not a “less-than, more-than” meaning, but a “love-less” (as you put it) construct surfaces more clearly. Your approach in sweeping aside the Gospels parallel construct as “none-sense” in favor of your evidence (your mere say so) is quite compelling. More spectacular is your ability to capture my “theological stance” through a one-term word study. Overall, your exposition was flawless, to be frank, and I somehow have to deal frontally with the passages you provided. Nous pas! However, a few caveats to hook.

You opined that my comment above is “pretty arrogant.” A many good scholars, however (too numerous to list here) have in fact pointed out, and have shown, this poor liability among Calvinist interpreters. I won’t venture into this task here, only to note that I am not singing solo in the choir. You only reveal, John, your ignorance of the literature

Second, you did not *get* the problem I raised on assurance. You replied that Stephen’s assurance need only to, “…look[s] into the revealed will of God to see that.” You’re grappling with thin air, thus you beg the question against the very problem you think is remedied by a simple appeal to the propositional content of scripture Here it is again, in slow motion…

We all *know* scripture is replete with passages on assurance; all believers are on equal footing on this point. Now, keep in mind these two crucial uncompromising Calvinist’s presuppositions: (1) based on God’s immutable eternal decree, He has elected some and passed over others; (2) Calvin, and many post-Reformed scholastics (Beza, Perkins, et al.) developed the idea that the tasting of grace is *indistinguishable* from the fruit of the elect (Inst. 3.2.11). So, where is the obstinate difficulty? It’s located here: it is an epistemic gap that the Calvinist cannot bridge, providing no certainty with respect to his/their salvation. Based on (1), no Calvinist can be assured of his salvation without claiming to know more about God’s secret counsels than any human being can know! Let me repeat this: Yes, Scripture promises that “*that* is the case “propositionally” in terms of assurance; however, this does not go far enough. The Calvinist, also, is required to come up with an epistemic account of how he *knows* that such assurance is *presently true for HIM*. That is to say, through first-person introspective awareness, or knowledge by acquaintance. Arguably, scripture doesn’t state specifically that such promises pertain to, say, “x”. So the Calvinist will have to find another route, principally apart and outside from scripture to obtain certainty of assurance. Arminians (another system that suffers from major deficiencies) is not affected by this problem since they do not subscribe to a scheme of eternal decrees of the confessional sort, not least from the institutes. From (2), all Calvinists, presuppositionally, suffer from a dreaded perturbation of assurance because the believer’s fruit is *indistinguishable* from the fruit of the reprobate, insists Calvin. Therefore, the foregoing presuppositions, (1) and (2), land the Calvinist in a sea of epistemic skepticism with respect to assurance, given the knotty problem of deciphering among various types of faith. Hence, they are indistinguishable. If the Calvinist is to gasp for air in this argument, at a minimum, he must reverse Calvin’s statement (2), and also knock down the idea of a corpus mixtum along with it, since it is derived from it, to say nothing of turning an entire theological edifice on its head. For, all that you know, John, God can be infusing you with a temporary grace that is *indistinguishable* from one of an electing kind. At the end of the day, you can *not* know if you’re saved under Calvinist presuppositions. You can deny this, but keep this in mind: emoting and sneering is not an argument. En route, you can’t never assure yourself that God loves you with *electing* love given his decrees and the epistemic gap (not propositionally, but by knowledge of acquaintance) in revelation. At best, you’re left with a stubborn epistemic skepticism where scripture does not in any way cognitively confer to YOUR CONSCIOUS an awareness that *YOU* have assurance. Scripture (I keep repeating) gives us this propositional knowledge, but not knowledge by acquaintance—the epistemic burden the Calvinist must shoulder. If this argument is lost on you, then, don’t respond; instead, ask questions for the sake of clarity.

Thirdly you make the suggestion that, “It might be a good idea to realize God can hate righteously, God can put to death righteously.” I don’t know what this means, frankly. You’re tagging nuances to these words, “righteous” and “hate,” that I can’t take for granted. It makes more sense, it seems to me, to suggest God can hate “justifiably” so, and put to death “justifiably” so…I’ll cut to the chase: your conception of God gravitates toward a nominalist or anti-realist approach with respect to essences. Not surprised though, since Calvin himself makes no reference to either fixed essences or an immanent teleology that provides natural ends as the good we should pursue, for, as history shows, he follows the Stoics in a more conceptualist than realist direction (following Scotus, Ockham, et al.). If God is sheer “will,” if I hear you correctly, then, it follows that God does not have a knowable essence according to which he must act. A radical form of voluntarism, which reeks in your response, is a God with no essence, and so, he does things not because they are right; rather, they are right because he does them. God does not have to be good, merciful, loving, etc. He could “hate” if he chooses to, since, God is not bound by any essence to which he must act. He is named from his effects, but he is not to be identified with any of them. In terms of relational properties, they are extrinsic, not intrinsic. Eventually, this view can easily be cut at its knees through a reductio ad absurdum in twirls, not least falling in the bottomless ditch of euthyphro’s dilemma (atheists would have a field day with such concept); for, if no essence, ipso facto, God can *will* anything and everything according to pure will. My stance? God has a nature *according* to which he must act, and so God cannot justifiably “hate” (in the confessional medieval sense!) because his attribute of justice restricts him to act in accordance with (not “from”, mind you), His attribute of justice itself. If God was to “hate” on sheer will alone, his justice would demand he give an account to himself, and this would be *internally incoherent*, to say nothing of how palpably contradictory this is. Therefore, “righteous hate” (again, in the medieval confessional sense) is no more logically coherent, any more than a married-bachelor or a four-sided triangle. Not because I say so, but because logic is identical to God. For, at a conceptual level, God has logic essentially in such a way that it is not even possible that it exist but fail to have it. Your suggestion, therefore, is self-referentially incoherent, not least because it sets up an antithesis among God’s attributes—making quite a garbled up mess here! The upshot I want to get across is: Scripture never characterizes God in this way in Romans 9; in fact, Paul writes in a way to avoid any sort of neo-platonic fatalism.

I really don’t have the time to lecture on church history, logic, nor trace the ideological influences of perennial figures of historic Christianity. If the sarcasm above does not reveal your vexed faux pas in this playground (I’m sorry to say), perhaps John, you would be better off just being a gnat on the wall and cheer and throw confetti when your medieval comrades throw a potential good point, and emote and vent when I raise rejoinders—just keep em’ to yourself. Sadly, your post reflects a discombobulated mixture of incoherent ideas, regurgitation of said views (frustratingly question-begging), and a failure to stick to the subject at hand. Maintain yourself on the sidelines, lest you ramble on ad nauseum. You can earn everyone’s respect here, as in every blog, if you straightforwardly deal with the points that are raised, so long as they are on target.

No offense but, you sound like a “1 yr new-bie.”

hello Altrilark:

Wow, I must have bumped your elbow or something with that nice long post.

I do appreciate such an effort to reduce my post to “discombobulated mixture of incoherent ideas, regurgitation of said views (frustratingly question-begging),” That my friend was kick in the pants with an expensive shoe.

At the risk of sounding 1 yr newbie-ish.. just watch how I answer you on your post.

When it comes to assurance and the peace I have with God, I do not base them upon calvinistic propositions. I base it upon Scripture. I dont have to get a “by your leave from Beza”. I go to Jesus and he says “I will never leave you nor forsake you”. I realize that it ruins alot of good theological posturing and some good argument. But I dont come here to posture. I do come here to read and learn, and I have learned from you as well.
I dont have any bridge to cross, In reality, not in abstracts, I have what God gave to me and I know that I have eternal life. I dont consult a the interweavings of Calvinistic rebuttal and argument, I consult scripture. It tells me that I can know that I have eternal life. It tells me that I can be fruitful, have my prayers answered and be joyful. Those things I have received of God and do receive them even today.

I do realize that for you and George and others to punch as many holes in Calvinism as you can, an intense effort to analyze Calvin and Beza, BB and Owens is going to be a hefty piece of homework.

There is one inherent flaw in your eloquent argument my friend. The flaw is that you assume of me Calvinisitic abstracts of thought that do not determine my decisions or my own epistemology for that matter. I do need my teachers, but I dont need them to supply what God alone must supply. I have faith in God, not because of the minutia of Calvinistic argument and rebuttal are all seamlessly woven together, but because I am responsible to my God to believe what He alone has said.

Here’s an essence..Im saying that I dont have any necessity to prove a complex theological proposition that runs me through the gambit of your arguments, The faith I have and the scripture God has revealed to me secures my postion with him. I do not have to learn a complex thelogical posture to obtain the grace of God given to me.

Again, I dont suffer from a lack of assurance, I dont suffer from dread or some incongruity of my theology. LOL…I realize I have incongruities, I have my own calvies to show me that and eloquent armins like yourself to make sure I see them. But incongruities in my theology do not damn my soul, no matter how much you might want to weigh down the necessity of producing a coherent answer from a combination of Beza and Calvin I probably couldnt do so to your liking anyway. Should I doubt the gift of God because the false prophets can imitate a learned theology and act in humility to obtain what they want? I do not concern myself with the ability of the false to imitate the truth, I concern myself with my own relationship to Christ and my imitation of Him.

With the false fruits and false teachings, the essential element of error is consistent. With the false, Jesus Christ is a means to an end. With the true, Jesus Christ is the end. This monumental difference helps me to weed out false and errant motives and plans that can arise in my own mind and heart.

As to God hating, I dont pretend to know the infinite mind of God, I do read the scripture and if it tells me that God hates…and that all Gods works are righteous, then I conclude that God’s hating anything is consistent with his person and is apart of the holiness of God. I do not see God as an impersonal will or any other such abstract. I know God, I know him as a person. If God hates sin and hates the wicked, I know that if God is hating it, he hates it because his own perfections speak loudly and clearly to Him. Essentially, God hates what is inconsistent with his person or with anything that conceals his glory.

Lastly, I know that if I dont answer you on a level of academia where complex Calvinistic thought is proffered, I might be a poor calvinist. I might not be representing Calvinism well, or I might even be considered a know-nothing that should be a gnat on the wall. God forbid that I the great John of Biblicalthought.com should ever eat humble pie in my own back yard..LOL..but thats ok for me. I think I answered you in the way you needed answered…hows that for pride? yes, I know God hates it. But I hope you see it as jest as it was intended.

I realize my post is a huge let down cause its not on the level of academia you are used to. So, happily I will take the 1 yr newbie tag and wear it among you all. On this website they all know I am the lowest common denominator here. Although you just now found out.

Thanks for the long reply and for the thoughtful argument.

John

Hello again Altrilark:

Yea, I did have to look up Fideism. Thanks for the kind response by the way.
I dont look at God with the blind faith minus reason to know what the God of the bible is saying. I disagree with fideism, at least the way it is supposed to answer a difficult question with “well thats what the bible says” so any dumb unlearned response will fit. Im hoping by the grace of God to get way past that. I am trying to learn to use a grammatico historical hermeneutic in all of my exegesis…and hermeneutical exposition. So that when I say “Thats what the bible says”, It is actually what the bible does say instead of what I hope it says or want it to say. Failures have occured…so beware.

As to the “hate of God”, God hating evil. I dont see this as a metaphor or analogous to something other than an actual disposition toward sin. I believe God hates perfectly and righteously as I said before. I believe according to scripture that God does things simply. He is perfect and since perfection has the best economy, God does his hating with pure righteous indignation. I believe God’s wrath and anger are displayed in perfect righteous acts. Hating the idol and hating the abominations of the wicked seem axiomatic when it comes to God rejecting something contrary or in rebellion to his person or kingdom. To me its perfectly reasonable.

So, I dont place God’s hatred in a metaphorical catagory like I would “four corners of the earth”…”on eagles wings”…”like a chicken” etc. I deny fideism…but that doesnt prove anything, it only means I didnt arrive at such a conclusion by cliff-jumping off scripture.

Here again I have to display my “lack of knowledge”. I love Calvin, and I really enjoy BB and John Owen. I have spent alot of time in Jonathan Edwards and for edification I like to read Thomas Watson. I think I answer similarly to them. But I must confess that they are the masters and I am “grasshoppa”. So, even if I do not answer technically as well as they could, I still attempt to hold their hands as I present my answers. From what I ve read of the reformers I am consistent with how they would answer concerning God’s hatred of sin and sinner or God’s hatred of Esau.

Concerning scripture revelation, I believe God has given the greatest amount of writings on the subjects that are of the most importance to us as we relate to God. Lots of texts on sin, sacrifice and atonement. Lots of info on God’s holiness and righteousness, God’s mercies and power. But little on settling supra and infra lapsarian debates and little on why that Devil had pride in him. I dont think the Calvies can nail down Calvin in supra or infra since that debate came later. …sorry rambling…..

To get back to the specifics of the Calvy armin debate…Esau…Why didnt he just make his own stew? Would it have made a difference?
Jesus said whats in the heart of a man is what defiles him. Esau little esteemed God, the covenant of his Father, his birthright…and that poor estimation of what is most important displayed what was in his heart.
Though God is said to have hated Esau, Esau didnt need a divine decree to do all that dispising of what is good. Now God did set forth a plan for Esau, Esau representing the carnal mindedness of man, the sinful flesh is another way of saying it; warred against Israel at every opportunity. Esau and his generations (Amalekites) after him were known to rise up and afflict the people of God as soon as they got in the clear. As they did with David, Solomon, Samuel, etc. We have a picture of not only the rejected of God but the activities and afflictions that these tribes brought upon Israel. What they did God hated and God would be at war with them forever.

I brought all this up so that I could at least say that Esau was not simply the target of divine misfortune as George is like to say, but when left to himself, he and his descendents all follow the same tendencies to afflict the righteous and make idols for themselves.
God didnt have to go to the expense of a miracle to get Esau to despise spiritual things. Until God in his mercy saves us, we are all like Esau. It takes grace from God to transform us into Israels. We all know Jacob was just as much a scammer as Esau was a despiser. But God made his choice. We cant get away from that fact, its the fact which stares us all in the face no matter who we are.

Laying all the blame at Esau’s feet doesnt solve the problem with this story of two men who as far as we can tell are equally guilty of sins against God and man. Paul answers it for us….”God chose”. Not only Jacob and Esau but the Elect Israel within the blood Israel. Then the gentiles, among the masses of pagans God brings out a people to himself as a praise to his glory and grace.

Well, this ought to get you started…

John

Hi Brad:

Im with you on the decision thing. When we are converted decisions need to be made. I just cant take the credit for making that decision. I give glory to God for sending the Spirit of God to regenerate me, I give him credit for converting me. When I was young I made a big deal about I chose, I believed, I trusted, I prayed, I asked, I repented…now I make a big deal about God who brought me to a place so that I could do all those things in obedience to the gospel. Nope, I didnt know it then, but now I see, was lost but now Im found, was blind but now I see.

It seems sometimes that for all the preaching of repentance, faith and belief, it hides the God that does all his wonders anonymously. I mean we should begin to see the God that works because the Spirit of God opens our eyes to the length breadth depth and height, to know the love of God. I say knowing the love of God is seeing and rejoicing in that God that worked anonymously behind the scenes to bring us to Christ..as Jesus said the “wind blows where it wants, we cannot tell where its going but only where its been”..paraphrased…so are those that are born of the Spirit. Jesus speaking of the mystery and hiddenness of God’s working in a person. That working brings the new birth.

Brad, I dont agree with the free-grace proponents that seem to want to isolate any conditions of discipleship that Jesus placed upon those who follow Him. Its all of grace, but grace is not inert, it brings forth fruit, good fruit in good trees, 30-60-100 fold in good soil, it creates a love that casts out fear, its a grace that causes us to yield our members unto righteousness.

To me, it might be odd, but the basis for assurance is not a simple belief in the doctrine of eternal security, assurance and eternal security are known and experienced by a deeper and clearer faith in the God that purchased us for Himself. I dont get more mature and then look at my works and say..”well Im secure now”, I look at the Lord Jesus working in me and say “I am his son, his beloved and when he shall appear I shall be like him, I shall see him as he is. Its a purifying hope that continues to purify me until that day. It starts as a doctrinal positon to hold, it ends with faith working by love.

Our sanctification is a litmus test for our selves to see if we are in the faith, because sanctification deals with the purging of what God will not purify. But our sanctification is not necessary for God, God knows his own, the foundation of God stands sure….He knows who are his.
If we name the name of Christ, we depart from evil. God went to an incredible length to purchase sinners and bring an acquittal to the wicked. God is able to keep what is commited to Him, He is able to bring us before him blameless, that is music to my ears. Its the joy and thrill of my heart to stand before him blameless without any evil to rob God of his glory and me of my joy.

John

John, allow me to note a point for clarity sake. I never denied the idea of “God hating evil,” and “God’s hatred of sin.” What sane believer would deny this? So you need not emphasize this as if it were, from the beginning, a point of contention. A textual argument was made as to why “hate” is a Semitic Hebrew idiom for a “less than” love right out of the very context where the apostle derives his theought, but a “love” nevertheless. I appreciate your proposal: “love-less”. That’s great. But you need to do two things to make the dialogue productive: (1) Show where my analysis takes a wrong turn; and (2) argue for your proposal from the text, not just assert it. Then, I would either reconsider or raise objections. God it? You really, John, have to deal head-on when an argument is presented and not just sideswipe it by pontificating. You don’t want come off as fideistic.

Same goes to Brad…”but I think it’s disputable…”, you protest, but you too need to get on task of properly following steps (1) and (2), and you’ll be way on your way to receiving an adequate reply. The closest—to say this is an understatement—you come to a reply, he’s “pulling a fast one over on us.” What a petty cop-out of a response to avoid direct engagement!…If there is anything resembling semi-Pelagianism here is your relational concept to how you view assurance. God’s revealed Word is reflective of knowledge that is perfect, exhausted, and infinite in a qualitative sense. There is no room in God’s revelation for “degrees” or escalate to “higher levels” as if God can learn anything. The notions of “levels” and “degrees” of obtaining knowledge of assurance are categories that reside, not in the divine, but within the power of the individual to discern it given the limited scope of his knowledge—so what does your “assurance odometer read today: 35%, 46%, are you above 50%?. So, Brad, to register assurance on “degrees” and “levels” locates assurance in an autonomous epistemology—never have I ever heard anything so humanistically-centered!…If you can distinguish signs “of possible reprobation”, how could you, when Calvin (along with puritan scholasticism) argues that such knowledge is *INdistinguishable*?? (you need to engage, and see documented source above)…lastly, your insatiable misguided obsession to deprecate semi-pelagianism (despite the fact that your epistemology caves into the very philosophy you blacklist) has you protesting autonomous “decisions”, when in fact, I never blurted a scant of autonomous “decision” making of any kind (What am I missing here?). So your question is quite irrelevant. Here’s my question to you:

Where in scripture does it speak that the certainty of the believer’s knowledge of assurance is based on *HIS* obtaining “degrees” and “higher levels”? We know that GOD KNOWS PERFECTLY, but, show me the passage(s) whence *your* role is to figure your “degree” or when you reach “higher levels” of said assurance? On average, how many increments do you gain each day? And don’t forget to tell your readers where you are on the scale, and when you think you’ll reach 100%?

You reinforce my point all the more when you say that assurance is based “only [in] his confidence as he examines himself…” My sentiments exactium! Assurance—at least the epistemology of it—is human centered in the Calvinistic scheme of things. It still begs the question: “*HOW* “confident” are you, and to what *EXTENT*? I’ll try this from another angle. You need to read Calvin’s own remarks on this; the signs are obscured not for others externally, but *within*. So it is NOT distinguishable. Calvin is assuming (repeating myself here) a corpus mixtum, for, within the batch you have tares that remarkably resemble the fruits of the elect, from what you see externally, it makes it more difficult to tell from“WITHIN” if you are wheat or tare, sheep or goat—get it? These two categories are not mutually exclusive, since one informs the other and conversely. You think I’m misinterpreting Calvin (“making the statement say something it ought not”), fine, *show me*. You’re being presumptuousness, Brad, and this is careless on your part. If you cannot grasp my previous post, why don’t you try asking questions such as: What is the difference between propositional knowledge, and knowledge by acquaintance? Which Puritans struggled with the alleged problem you lay above?, etc…I’ll rehearse this only once, but you will have to do your own homework. Obviously, the point is lost on you because you’re not familiar with this discussion in Reformed scholasticism.

The problem is an epistemic one, whether you have temporary or genuine faith. Now, this is a notion first formulated by Calvin but later developed by Beza and Perkins, which further intensified the problem of assurance in Calvinist and Puritan theology. They argued that God gives to the reprobate, whom He never intended to save in the first place, a “taste” of His grace. Perkins (who is often called the father of Puritanism) propounded a system in which the reprobate might experience five degrees of ineffectual grace that is indistinguishable from a genuine convert. John Bunyan’s “Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners,” is disturbing because he recounts how in his seemingly endless search for assurance of salvation, he was haunted by the question, “How can I tell if am elected? (Bunyan 1959: 26). Kendall and Bell documented the pastorally damaging results of the Puritan approach to assurance. Perkins wrote extensively and almost exclusively on the subject of assurance, having devoted 2500 pages to the topic. Ironically, Perkins, like so many other Puritans of his day, died without a clear assurance of his own salvation (Kendall 1994: 423; Bell 1985: 7). So powerful was the angst of having assurance that the Puritans try all sorts of attempts by way of logical deduction to ascertain assurance–*syllogismus practicus*. The problem, ‘til this day, runs the gamut of anxiety among Calvinist believers. Gerald Borchert, for instance, chalks it up to an irreconcilable tension (Borchert; 1987: 194), and D.A. Carson (I presume you’re familiar with), takes the same route. But then, others such as Schreiner and Hodges are not impressed with a hasty appeal to antinomies or compatibilsitic mystery. The terms “tension” and “mystery” can be codes for “contradiction.” Assurance based on mystery is not much of an assurance at all. Hodges remarks,

“If ‘assurance’ were indeed a mystery, then it would be a deeply disquieting mystery to those who need assurance the most. Does Dr. Carson know beyond question that he himself is regenerate? If so, let him tell us *HOW* he knows. The compatibillist cannot have a mystery and a confident answer, too! (“The New Puritanism Part 1: Carson on Christian Assurance” @ http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1993i/Hodges.htm.).

The reason, Brad, I think you’ve reached an impasse is because you are not familiar with this crucial discussion. As you can see a serious theological problem emerges for the Calvinist, and for you to answer in the way you do, only shows your lack of understanding. At the end of the day, it is *you* who has a lot of catching up to do, and tune in to what the historic dispute is all about. I hope this clarifies things!

Brad,

As far as I’m concern, it is a settled issue that neither one of us here can establish assurance of salvation within a Calvinist framework. My argument goes unanswered; worse, it’s baffled everyone here because the medievalists here are not studied up. At least, no one here can be pretend to claim assurance since I’ve demonstrated above that there is a viable discussion where great Reformed theologians themselves (Bunyan, Perkins, Beza, Carson, et al.) experienced anxiety over this. This is a settled issue. It’s too bad…I had higher expectations. Sadly, no one even wants to ask questions for clarity, but just run away and say “I’ll check around…” There is no need to run away; the argument is cashed out above clearly….w-h-a-t a’ blogsite for “truth!”

Your comment that “…assurance is sensed from within…” reeks of Joel Osteen’s “self-help therapeutic moralism, you-can-find-it-within-you” sort of Gnostic deism. Really?…When you speak of **sensed within**, it is by what MEANS exactly? Autonomous rationalism?; or some form of spiritual mystic introspection? How would you answer this without being dangerously subjective? You did say, **did you not,** that your assurance if based on your “confidence”? I’m still waiting for you to produce, for all of us here, a passage(s) of scripture that grounds your idea of “higher levels” and self-help “confidence?” Do not disappoint your audience by giving a response without scriptural warrant— proceed clearly and exegetically meticulously.

Hi Altrilark, where did I say exactly that my assurance is based in my confidence? I did not construct a sentence or statement like that. To suggest that I’m saying that a person is elect if he is confident of it enough is just not true. Saying that assurance is *based* in ones confidence is altogether foreign to what I’ve intended. In the posts above, I used the words, true, but not to mean what you are accusing me of saying. Confidence is related to obedience, notwithstanding the clear condition of saved man, that his place is not in jeopardy.

Assurance from the mans perspective, when he’s ignoring the truth which he will do while disobeying God,[which he will do at times], is shaken to some degree or another. Until such time as he repents of his disobedience, his sense of assurance will most likely remain shaken.

Hi Stephen, how was Montclair?

Whooahh….wait a sec.? You mean to presume, Masacil, that you have a solution to this historic age old problem??? Really?…hmmm, well, it’s possible…after all, many have made incredible innovations…wait, is this “your” solution or someone you’ve read up? You know, Masacil, your claim is quite fantastical; meaning, you propose to solve a problem that Beza, Perkins, Bunyan, Carson, and the like, could not resolve. Interesting…OK(!), let’s hear it:

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes and
4. Yes (This “commitment” thing is very bizarre. For, you are still duty bound, in good faith, to difuse every bomb that anyone may drop here and defend your post (get it!), despite commitments).

You give the impression that you are above all others here. I don’t mean to pick on people smaller than I am. It’s just that they have a big mouth for spewing incredible assertions. So before you respond, you need to answer me this: What is “your” epistemology? Are you a Cartesian foundationalist? Internalist? Externalist? Deontologist? Coherentist?; or other? I’d like to know which, who do you follow, and why? Sounds fair, I hope…oh, and uh, I don’t care about “victories.” Being corrected is the only way I learn and grow…

Macasil,

In your last response, sorry to say you’ve lost me. ‘Bout midway point downwards, I can’t make sense of what you are getting at. It’s roughly stated, and I see internal contradictions…let’s try this, I’ll pose this to you: According to Luke 14:26, do you “hate” your family? If so, in what **sense**? Be hermeneutical precise so I can understand. Then, re-phrase your argument from another angel how assuming Matthew and Luke as parallel texts creates a tension….I can’t respond or affirm unless I get a grip on what you’re getting accross here. (sigghh, the problem with this forum, rather than face to face dialogue).

Stephen Macasil,

Jesus, himself, said to love your enemies; What kind of “hate” allows you to love your enemies?

Altrilark’s point is not that the Gen. passage bears *directly* on the interpretation of the Luke passage; Rather, his point is that since the Bible has used the term “hate” in a nuanced sense in the past, then that should allow you to at least consider the argument that the Luke passage may not mean “hate” in the most literal sense, given the problems it causes with other passages.

But, in that the Bible uses language, understand that it may utilize the conveniences of language, such as nuance, etc.

It will still remain to argue that “hate” has a nuanced meaning in the Luke passage; but I think you should at least be able to grant that “hate” has, in the Bible, been used to convey something other than the literal meaning (e.g. the Gen. passage).

Just to play by the rules … I’ve never studied DeCarte, but, from what I’ve heard, I would suppose my epistemology is Cartesian, to some degree.

Also, is this really necessary? I don’t think you’re gaining anything by requiring the good faith commitment. I suppose you wish to be able to hold him accountable to a proper form of reasoning, in the event he leaves the conversation; But you have his arguments on record, so you can argue that point after the fact, if necessary.

1. Are you willing to discuss the original languages?
I don’t know the original languages, so I may have to refer to other sources; But, yes.

2. Are you willing to discuss hermeneutics?
Yes.

3. Do you agree to define your terms?
Yes.

…sssiiiggghhh, WOULD YOU PLEASE LABEL THE 2-3 FALACIES THAT I ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED, AND TELL US WHAT IS YOUR EPISTEMOLOGY, WHO DO YOU FOLLOW, AND WHY?! This is the fifth time I have asked you. If you are going to accuse someone of being irrational, at least have the descency to follow it up.

I am, and have been, ready to offer replies. We must answer questions in the order in which they develop in the course of this conversation, otherwise things can get very entagled and confusing.

You completely misread what I was asking! By asking you, “In what sense do you hate your family” you sidewiped it by saying it is a “red herring.” Then, in your response to Agilius you recalled what the topic at hand, “I am simply challenging the assertion that “hate” is an idiomatic expression…” Well, **make up your mind?** Is “hate”, or not, on target in this discussion? It’s not as though I asked something so way off base such as, “What is your take on how the European Englightnment interpreted ‘hate’?” **THAT** would be a red herring!

As it turns out, Macasil, you throw labels to show-boat but here we have an instance that you have no clue as to what red-herring means. It’s like you trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Don’t be so absent-minded. We **are** discussing the hermeneutical nuances of “hate.” And my question was right on target.

Look, you do say above that “the issue” is “what the text of scripture says above”. Duh…of course!!! But there are “senses” in which it can be interpreted (hopefully you’re starting to tune in). My question was to help me in in coming to grips with the hermeneutical question of in what “sense” you are taking this. Don’t assume it, just come right out and say it. Unless you clear this, I cannot accurately respond to a, b, c, and.

And, Agilius, it is not your place here to disclose your epistemology (though it would be fun to discuss it, since there are serious-serious problems with foundationalism).

Macasil, again, you misunderstood Agilius or he mispoke–one of the two. His last line was, “That is, Jacob’s lack of love for Leah was quite substantial.” You misunderstood his point. By “lack of love” he doesn’t mean totally absent. That is why he said “quite substantial.” That is, presupposing a lower degree of love, but there’s love, nevertheless.

…this post was shooting from the hip. Give us those fallacies, and we’ll be way on our way to advance the discussion.

Macasil,

Correct. I did “divert” attention away from the original issue by attempting to talk about “personal ^^relationships^^.” Moreover, I agree with you above when you say the text has nothing to do with “familial ^^relationship^^-identifying language”…so I don’t have to worry about addressing those questions!

Indeed, you know when a discussion is prolonged when one begins to sound incoherent–you tend to forget what you said previously. If you were a bit more clear-headed–because of your unfamiliarity to speak in technical terms to facilitate this discussion–I asked a question of *application* to see how is that you are viewing “hate.” Since you won’t (or cannot) provide a hermeneutical tag for us, I figured maybe I can get it out of you by asking a question of application, or as it is often said in the literature, “contextualization”. But leave that aside for moment.

Your accusations of my committing fallacies are known now to be a farce. I asked you several times (ad nauseum), and you cannot provide technical labels to help move the discussion further. In my estimation, *that issue is settled*–there are no fallacies, you just exposed yourself to being a show-boat fraud. Moreover, your silence on disclosing your theory of knowledge is defening; and so, you give the impression that you don’t even know what you hold to. Maybe you just got a pop sense of this field, and feel you can be flamboyant about it. What’s hard, or time consuming, of simply saying, for instance,

“I hold a third-person scientific view of knowledge. I follow Quine, among others, and it’s viable because I’m persuaded that no one can access the external world.” Now, *that* is “simple.”…o.k. that’s settled. Any denial of this, I would consider it outright lies, and a dreaded failure to live up to your own standards.

We can move on as soon as you provide a hermeneutical tag for the interpretive option that you adopt.

Hi Altrilark, I dont own anything by Calvin, have read or tried to read from the Institues only a handful of times. My studies are limited to Reformed peoples, Edwards, Hodge, Boettner, Sproul, some Agustinian stuff along with Horton. Prior to that, the less esteemed modern Evangelical mushy guys who’re somewhat schizophrenicly Protestant/Roman Catholic depending on what day it is–too long ago and too forgetable to list.

This is all just foreplay anyway, it’s your presuppostions that lead you to your diligent search to justify what your prior commitments demand. Likewise for us. You are married to an idea of sovereignty that is different from Reformed scholars, so why dance around with your exegesis and formal argumentation when even if we elevate to your plane or greatness in critical analysis, we’ll STILL disagree.

You can list your credibility qualifications, name the list of articles, books, differing views, quantity of volumns and manuscripts and ask the same from us “ad nauseum” [to borrow from your vocab.], and it’ll still come down to whether or not your or our presuppositions will stand. I believe that the Reformed got it right on God’s absolute sovereignty over man and all creation for that matter.

I assume that you and we agree on inerrancy and infallibility, so the Bible if corrrectly understood IS able to deliver self justifying [internally coherent] propositions, right? From there, we might wrestle with sovereignty as it relates to salvation to really settle something. As it is now, we’ll possibly learn a little about each others view, but really gain nothing. If you want to convince us that you are on to something about us “Calvinists”, attack the root, so all of our unsustainable presuppositions will be exposed. 2 cents from the playpen

….”Jesuitical”…that’s cute, as well as your “Myspace” metaphors, but corny…well, again, I see that you’re having a memory lapse—btw, I was not aware that your 4 points were meant to be followed in the ordered you put them; you should have emphasized this. Anyhow, ordering epist. as #4 is wholefully irrelevant. Any topic in theology that is discussed, an epistemology will always be assumed by first-order knowing…on the accusation, that I refused your points, this is an outright lie. I never “refused”—a lie. In fact, I said, “Yes” to all four. You never asked me to define anything, or ask me what hermeneutic I’m operating, etc.

It is, also, not true at all that I have ignored your posts. Your memory fails you here. You jumped in to give a response to the gospel accounts that are tied to Gen. 29. I followed up by asking you to provide a hermeneutical tag for your understanding of “hate” in Luke 14:26, and said that you lost me with “a, b, c, and d.” You just spurted this, and it needs to be written more clearly. I already said, remember, “I am, and have been, ready to respond to your posts.” But how can I accurately, if you don’t further clarify things for me. I can’t respond to something which I am not clear on.

At least, you’ve finally done a great job, through a shot-gun approach, of disclosing to the audience here the fallacies you alleged. Time and again, as I’ve stated: the audience here is not impressed by you just simply snorting these out there. You must *show* analytically how you’ve arrived at these category errors. And tell your audience what you *refer* to and not just scatter them irresponsibly. The “red herring” evaporates since I qualified above that you misunderstood me. On “bare assertion” you might be referring to, say…well, sticking to the topic at hand, my “assertion” of idiomatic language. But you concede as much when you said that my hyperbolic suggestion “may be nuanced” in Gen. 29. Actually, is more than nuanced, and I’ll expand on that in my response.

All in all, I’m not “ducking and dodging,” this gives the audience here the false impression that I’m stalling–actually, the shoe is on the other foot. By the way, on naming the fallacies, What took you sooo long??…let’s move on, and clarify some things so that you can receive an adequate response without “*misrepresentation*.

Hi Altrilark, your assumption that the authors I’ve read haven’t dealt with the opposing view is just wrong. You’ll most likely say that they could not have been thorough and fairminded, but at what point would you stop.

As far as presuppositions being correct, this is what I asked that be discussed, I’m not asking you to just believe them. And, I beat you to the punch about not discussing Rom 9-11 with you since I already know that your view of sovereignty includes some limitations on God in regards to mans role in salvation, and mine doesn’t. For this reason, we’ll simply not come to any consensus on the understanding of these scripture verses.

Macasil,

Yes, definately, that’s the point of them being called the “synoptic gospels.” So would it be fair to say that you take Jesus’ statement in Luke 14.26 *literally*, correct?

Also I need to get a handle on something: Provide the core difference in this discussion between “confirmation” and “justification.” You say I got “confirmation”; so what should be expected of the text in order to adduce “justification.” What must be there in the text? Explain, or you can provide another example off topic.

Hey Stephen,

I often come across these types online as well. Interesting to ask them that if “hate” always means “love less”, as they want it to mean, then they’d have to also say the same about God loving sin less (versus “God loves the sinner but “hates” the sin”).

I suppose God “loves less” Satan and his minions too. And does their type of humanistic love (vs. agape love), destroy people as God does in Ps. 11:6 (or is that merely poetic language again)? And is poetic language on “love” then, not revealing the truth about love? It doesn’t mean what it says either way regarding love or hate? Doesn’t this end up going down the Post-Modern road?

What they end up doing is destroying the real meaning of love, hate, righteousness, and the character of God.

Romans 9 on Esau is quoting from Mal. 1:2 and the word there IS to absolutely hate. Its the same word used in Ps. 5:5 where “hate” means nothing less than “hate”. So “love less” can’t work in either case here.

Then there’s the pesky verse about God being a jealous God. I suppose that doesn’t really mean jealous either? Jealous, love and hate are used in Ex. 20:5-6. Love is in contrast to hate. If its the same idea, then there’s no contrast, just a different level, right? “But” shows a difference or contrast.

Do unbelievers merely love God less?

When they call for figurative language (ie poetry) (when convenient), they end up also dumping the doctrine found in “poetry”. How is it that Jesus taught of Himself using the Psalms if the Pslams are mere poetic language? Obviously there is poetry in Psalms, but it seems “poetry” is used by this guy to deny the clear doctrine taught; he’s lowering the absolute and clear truth to something less.

People do this with parts of Genesis also. Poetic language alleviates (sp) them to believe in a literal Satan, literal six day creation, the Fall, total depravity, the Flood, literal sinless divine Savior, imputed sin, justification, hell, etc.

Anyway, in the end, their humanistic love is applied to God even while rejecting God’s definition of love (1Cor. 13 for instance). What many want is a god that loves like them: tolerates the wicked people and their sin. This is reflected in lack of church discipline, btw. This isn’t a pure agape love, nor is it righteous (the two MUST be haromnious). David seemed to show that righteous hatred for the wicked BECAUSE of his love for God, caused him to behave in particular manner:

Psa 139:21 Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? 22 I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies. 23 Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts!

Psa 26:4 I do not sit with men of falsehood, nor do I consort with hypocrites. 5 I hate the assembly of evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked.

Consider this in direct contrast to what the Corinthians did with the man who was commiting incest with his step-mother in 1Cor. 5. Paul said they were proud of their tolerance of such evil. Is this not the type of ‘love” “Christians” claim to have and thus put onto God? Does this not show in their lack of being separate and distinct and exercising church discipline?

Hi Altrilark, you assume that I haven’t read any opposing views at all[dont forget that I'm only a few years out of an Arminian worldview], and it seems to me that you cannot just discount these Reformed writers out of hand, because this also assumes that they haven’t fairly read the opposition. I’ll grant that it is a legitimate question, but Boettner and Hodge in particular have demonstrated extreme care in understanding the opposition view accurately by posing the accurate doctrine fairly with thier scripture proofs prior to offering the Reformed position. Maybe this is not to your standard, which I cant help nor to I think is necessary to engage in discussion with you anyway.

It’s simple enough, [and I see Denise also addressed this question], what gain do you get to emply wordsmithing with “hate”/”love less” since the result of either term levels the same penalty for those souls? This is a simple quesiton since I cannot see how in any far reach of imagination you’ll escape contextually from Rom.9’s dealing with vessels of wrath and vessels of glory. The vessels of wrath are loved less{?}, they might as well be hated.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY STEVE!!!
LOVE YOU!!

Hi Altrilark, in your “if” scenario, I dont see an accurate model to compare with our discussion, but you must so I’ll be your huckleberry and answer. It could be BUT is most likely would not be reasonable to expect that the opposition would have done a complete and fair job of representing the other view.

I have read both also, and like I stated it was mostly a forgetable list of characters and in fact I know they’d not pass your muster. I think that the Roman Catholic folks I discuss things with currently are more of a challenge than those of the modern Evangelical genre.

Brad,

You are a fun fellow…so now we’re going to get into piecemeals of controlling to what *degree* (e.g., “fullest expression) we ought to “hate”…give me a break!

So then, you agree that if I were to get a good handle of Calvinism, it should be right out of the horse’s mouth, and not through second-hand presentations? RIGHT?

Macasil,

The question of contexualzation is an inevitable follow-up question when someone takes a hardline *literal* interpretation….it would not have any bearing on my response, but in the event that I reconsider, I would like to know *how* would you apply the passage in Luke? What is the harm here? Do you “hate” the question? You very well understood it the first time, and you went to Matt. 12, which begged the question. If you think the passage does not have any trans-cultural validity, then say that.

Suppose you were discipling a group of new believers. You shouldn’t shy away from educating your readers here on *how* you would apply Jesus’ telling us to “hate” family that is at odds with your core Christian beliefs…It would be a service to your readers here, in good conscious faith, to provide us with some contexualization…my response is, and has been, written…well, at least mentally. You can rest assure that I won’t shy away.

…so now we’re discussing the nature of “apotasso”…siigghhh! What am I suppose to do here? This is some of the frustrations experienced dialoguing with someone behind a screen…siigghh.

Your suggestion that an alpha functions as a prefix for negation is linguistic nonsense. That’s tantamount to saying (in Gk.) that “a-gapao” and “a-postello”, assuming they have cognates without the “a”, are in a negative state by default. This is ludicrous. I’m aware there are instances of prefixes (e.g., “sun”). A negative in Gk. is indicated by “ou me” plus the aorist subjunctive or, less frequently “ou me” plus the future indicative. None of the passages you cited has “potasso.” What exactly are you trying to do here?…Luke has a specific theme that he carries throughout his gospel; and, “possessions” in the politico-sociological setting in the Mediterranean world has culturally conditioned customs that are unintelligible and unfulfillable to a Western individualistic culture such as ours. (I’m not going to begin lecturing here.) All this is smoke and mirrors. Why can you not answer a simple question??

You add all this sorts of variegated conditions under which you must “hate.” I did not ask this; neither does Luke 14:26 give contrived conditions, for that matter! Despite any and all conditions, would you, or would you not, hate and detest them unconditionally by default—irrespective of any such conditions? Your example presupposes and pictures you in some sort of relational-tie to some degree. I see, so you can “hate” your family, while loving them in a less substantial way in order to keep some relational-tie. Otherwise, why would they be “inviting” you on “fishing trips” in the first place? Just what sane person invites someone with whom they are at emnity with?

But wasn’t it you who asked this question: “Furthermore, if your rendering is correct, how do you explain the contradiction between loving family members with a lesser love and them being your enemies (echthroi)?” Didn’t you ask this?? Everytime you give a response, it just brings more and more confusion to where you actually stand.

(What is it with you, and asking you up to the umph-teen time to finally get a clear answer from you?)

Altrilark,

You are the master of the red herring. Now the issue has been switched to how new Christians interact with their “neighbors???”

I have the patience. I have the energy. The question is how long I will have the desire. If you were my disciple I would teach you why red herrings are fallacious.

But my disciples now have a cleanly executed Jesuitical diversion tactic to avoid the elephant in the room: your inability to sustain your main thesis that Jacob loved Leah.

Your logical fallacies are adding up, and your time is running out.

…I can tell that you have absolutely no handling of any form of epistemology–insipient though it may be.

Give me your thoughts of the following (1st attempt)
—–
The difference is hugely important. S(1) says that “p” which is void of propositional content that p*. Therefore, The former was never my argument, rather the latter. If you follow the law of indiscernibility of identicals (L = for all x, and y, if x is identical to y, then necessarily x is identical to y. So everthing is what it is, and not something else. If S(1) and (2) were identical, then in reality, then it would only be one premise. The synopsis shows it its most raw form the gargantuan difference between the two. Yet, even in your reprisal, you still conflate the two.

Then you agree that God did not love Esau?

Good, at least there is some beacon of light for progress in this discussion. You are just still confused on one hugely important point—don’t get me wrong, you’re there, you’ve just haven’t planted both feet yet. Here is where your confusion stems, and in the field of epistemology the difference is assumed if there is to be any discussion.

You agree that “S(1) and (2) and not identical in propositional content.” So far so good; excellent! Now, this is where you go off field when you say “(2) does contain the proposition ‘Jacob loved ‘Leah.’” So far so good; o.k. But, what does it mean to say “(2) does contain the proposition ‘Jacob loved Leah.’” Is that to say, then, that S(1) and (2) are *identical*? If so, this contravenes what you said earlier. For, if by “contain” you mean there is similar overlapping content, then I agree—a miniscule observation. On the other hand, if by “contain” you mean they are *identical*, then hoila(!), there is the error. Let me give you a thought experiment, see if this helps.

Suppose you wanted to know whether Brad is identical to Gordon Clark. If “they” are identical, given “L”, then in reality there is only one person. Brad *is* identical to Clark. Likewise, S(1) and (2) are identical, and so (2) becomes superfluous, and in reality, it is really only one premise (Your understanding collapses the two into one premise, really). On the other hand, for any property “p”, p will be true of x, but it is not true of y. For, everything is what it is and not something else. Everything is identical to itself and thus shares all properties in common with itself. So in cases where there is a test for nonidentity or differences, then x is not identical to y. Therefore, given the difference in propositional exemplification, S(2) can be true and S(1) can be false at the same time. For, it is the qualifier “more than” that does not make them identical.

The upshot of what I’m saying here is, Brad can have, by way of property exemplification, various series of overlapping properties with Gordon Clark. However, in the event that Brad has that “p”, that is, he is 6 inches taller than Gordon Clark, then, no matter what overlapping properties come into play, ultimately the law of indescernibility of identicals demonstrates they are not one and the same. So it is completely feasible that S(2) can be true, while S(1) can be false at the same time, if we take “all” content into account.

I have to run, hopefully I didn’t loose you.

Brad,

Why did you not follow up in what I asked you a few posts back?
——
So then, you agree that if I were to get a good handle of Calvinism, it should be right out of the horse’s mouth, and not through second-hand presentations? RIGHT?
——
Be a gent. and tell me if you agree that prudence and outirght fairness tells us that we should always derive our understanding from strong Calvinists themselves, and not through their critics?

P.S. I have been on the brink to respond to Macasil’s petty rebuttal, but he’s just too slow in *getting* things. For, as I see it, in the event that I respond to his supposed usage of *hate*, more than likely, he’ll sidestep my response by shouting: “That is not what I mean by *hate*!” Surely, you’ve heard the maxim: It is not until you *see* how someone lives out his worldivew in reality, that it becomes clear exactly what he espouses…the response is long over due, and I’m hoping that we can begin some preliminaries before the weekend hits.

Macasil,

No apologies are necessary, I guess we all post as we can along the way. (If things go well, I want to post a response by the end of the day. And, I’m not uncomfortable, but confident).

Anyhow, are you *SURE* you will not easily turn around and dismiss my response like, say: “Well, you missed it by an inch, but that is not what I mean by “hate.” I don’t think so! Unless I get a clear answer on how you “live out” your understanding, then and only then, can I hit the bullzeye to what would otherwise be an obscure and hazy response–essentially strawman. You already made an attempt, but your answer is one of displaying *priorities* and therefore “hate” is figurative in that scenario. But, that does not correspond to a *literal* take. Did you not read what I said to Brad…
———
Surely, you’ve heard the maxim: It is not until you *see* how someone lives out his worldivew in reality, that it becomes clear exactly what he means in theory…the response is long over due, and I’m hoping that we can begin some preliminaries before the weekend hits.
———
I changed it a bit, but you get the point. What say you?

Exactium! The phrase “preferential treatment” (displayed glaringly in your scenario) presupposes a hierarchy of commitment, i.e., priorities. It does not *literally* mean to “detest” someone as you defined earlier for us from Bauer. According to “The American Heritage College Dictionary,” “in English”, hate means “to feel hostility or animosity” (or “detest”) towards–*literally*! Webster adds “extreme dislike” and “loathing.” The scenario you gave fits more with Matthews version, e.g., loves mother *more than me*. The phrase “more than” presupposes “preference,” “hierarchy,” “priorities,” etc. But if you’re scenario was originally intended (and it was) to explicate Luke 14:26, then we are in agreement that Matthew explains Luke’s usage and vice versa.

Macasil: “…way to articulate a literal use of “miseo” in English is to so disregard in contrast to preferential treatment”

But *disregard* is ambiguous and obscure, and so you continue to beg the question, namely, WHY do you *disregard*? Because you either “hate” “loathe” “detest” (your definition) or have “hostility” towards someone?; or you just have specific priorities? Case in point: A friend of mine and I made plans to go to Laguna beach last weekend. That morning, his grandmother bruised her legs by tripping and falling down the stairs. I received a phone call that he had to cancel the outing. Now, what impression do I get from his canceling the trip. Simply: family comes *first*, i.e., preferential treatment. In no way shape or form, not even in a split second, would I ever get the idea that from his canceling the trip that my friend “hates” “detest” loathes” and has “hostility” over me. So he can *disregard* me while, still being my best friend. (You’re really confused!)

Macasil: “I have already stated that miseo does not have to have the affective connotations that you continue to force upon its usage.”

It was *YOU* who define it as *to detest* from Bauer earlier on. Why don’t you, then, tell us what it means *to detest* someone! If “detest” has nothing to do, or is not a property of one’s state of mind, then why do you label “hate” as literal? My friend is not going to call me up and say, “Hey I have to *detest* you for today?”, that is, if “detest” means to *disregard*, then, he’s using it figuratively. Who do you know that uses “detest”, “hate,” in this way? Again, you’re palpably confused.

Macasil: “Furthermore, my usage has zero relevance to your response, or what your response should be.”

This is the third time I repeat this, and it needs your comment.
———
Surely, you’ve heard the maxim: It is not until you *see* how someone lives out his worldivew in reality, that it becomes clear exactly what he means in theory…the response is long over due, and I’m hoping that we can begin some preliminaries before the weekend hits.
——–
I think you have saved me from responding since you take it figuratively as I’ve been saying the whole time.

Question (1st attempt): Take Luke 6:22, 27 and 14:26 as a test case. Both use the term “hate.”

(1) Do “hate” in both instances mean the same thing?

(2) If not, why not? Which passage from the two is using affective connotations, or our modern English usage of it?

(2) Ho would you categorize the difference in order to facilitate understanding and not confusion between the two?

It’s a red herring. My interpretation has nothing to do with your bare assertion that there exists somewhere out there, a rule that I’ve violated that establishes “hate” as a Hebraic idiomatic expression for “love less.”

Macasil: Altrilark said: “In other words, the tone is softer (toned down from its more *literal* usage (1); hence, allegorized somewhat)”

Altrilark: One professor of hermeneutics explains figurative usage this way: “Generally an expression is figurative when it is out of character with the subject discussed, or is contrary to fact, experience, or observation. He adds that figurative speech is a picturesque, out-of-the-ordinary way of presenting literary facts that might otherwise be stated in a normal, plain, ordinary way.

Another imminent interpretive expert says: “It may be asked, ‘How are we to know, then, when words are to be taken in their simple, original (i.e., literally), and when they are to be taken in some other and peculiar form (i.e., as a Figure). The answer is that, whenever and wherever it is possible, the words of Scripture are to be understood literally, but when a statement appears to be contrary to our experience, or to known fact, or revealed truth; or seems to be at variance with the general teaching of the Scriptures, then we may reasonably expect that some figure is employed….From non-attention to these Figures, translators have made blunders as serious as they are foolish.”

And I think that this last sentence well describes you.

(1) Why don’t you then enlighten us all here for once: Explain why isn’t Luke 14:26 register under Bauer’s foremost reading, i.e., (1)?

(2) What would happen if we take “hate” in Luke 14:26 to mean *to detest* as you erroneously cited? Would it go contrary to the general teaching of Scripture?

Explain, but remain consistent and literal in your interpretation.

Macasil,

I don’t *hate* (oh, wait, *disregard*) Calvinists? I loath the system of thought because it is flawed.

Formal debates require to have advanced degrees either in theology, philosophy, or have taken advanced courses in exegetical methodology, and even having been published. Do you claim to have such criteria, I’m wondering? Moreover, a formal debate requires preparing opening statements whose writing should be at a publishable level? Can you say you also meet this criterion?

The discussion thus far is informal, and perhaps we should keep it that way, and a personal discussion can be fruitful in a way for educational purposes and get more clarity than agreement–a task that, undeniably, we’re having trouble obtaining.

Maybe we can meet in order to get past this contextualization issue, get more clarity, and I can hand you a formal-written response in person, and then, I can post it. If this sounds good, I can work on a formal response immediately so you can have a copy.

I think it would be awesome, and I don’t take anything personal since, blogs always tend to become somewhat heated. I’m willing to meet you along with whomever you would like to join in on the discussion. My colleagues are professional theologians and exegetes. To be frank with you, they usually discourage me from having these sorts of talks because they are convinced that the system doesn’t merit the dignity of even being challenged. Maybe is becaused they’re very well read and studied. But to their attitude I, in turn, respond by saying that that is being closed and narrow-minded, but they will only join in unless something innovative can be offered. Anyhow, my attitude is quite different, and my willingness to always interact with Calvinist has enabled me to be much less prone to caricature.

I am a Christian by God’s mercy, and sorry I can’t pinpoint you to any view I would specifically espouse. Would you believe it if I told you that I follow Joel Osteen? Nah, kidding! But I’ve been raised Pentecostal; though, even in that tradition, I have monumental reservations.

We either make arrangements to meet, or you can continue to tackle some of my questions.

Macasil: The debate does not have to be formal. That’s why I suggested a coffee shop, or other informal venue where we can have two camera’s (I have access to nice HD video cams), one on each, and two lapels, one one each. We can mix and edit the talk into sections and them post them according to category for others to join in the comments.

Altrilark: I prefer no cameras. I do not perceive the idea to be exploited (positively or negatively) wise or beneficial. I would like to aim for a congenial and irenic discussion for personal edification, perhaps with the goal of establishing a friendship, if God so wills.

Macasil: But you are free to use my contextualized pagan kin-brother example since it is a fair representation of my position. I understand that it is difficult for you to accept, but I am disappointed in your lack of asking the right questions. You never even came close to achieving the potential progression of a resolution because you launched into a trajectory that was destructive at the start.

Altrilark: Au contraire, I do accept it. It is you who won’t accept the *implications* of your example. Recall the example was reduced to displayed priorities, which would in turn presuppose degrees of preferential loyalty. And this aligns well with Matthews “more than” explanation. That’s why I said, inescapably, you will end up offering an explanation of preferentiality.

Macasil: From the start I have maintained that hate is not a lesser love, but a literal hate. From there, you imported your own presupposed connotations of hate into my literal meaning.

Altrilark: Let’s be transparent and honest here. You citied Bauer’s (1) which means *to detest*, did you not? The examples it cites are clearly one of affective connotations (e.g., Luke 6:22). Therefore, I presupposed (1) because you cited (1). And you did not tell the audience that Luke 14:26 is not registered under (1). Fair enough?

Macsil: BDAG’s second usage is fine to define my literal use of miseo, not merely because it is BDAG, but because I consider the collection of citations to be accurately categorized as distinct.

Altrilark: “…is fine”? So then, do you retract your statement of citing Bauer’s (1) *to detest* as a tag to Luke 14:26, which Bauer doesn’t register? If you trust Bauer’s categorization, then, as I see it, you must relinquish your original citation.

Macasil: My position is that both (1) and (2) are literal, and there is more than one literal meaning.

Altrilark: On (2), I’ve argued that *disregard* is ambiguous, and you need to supplement nuances, which in turn, as I’ve argued, will land you in a category of “priorities” “hierarchy”, “preferences” comparative-degree, etc., aligning yourself with Matthews version. I’m willing to hear an alternative, though, that would escape it. Moreover, scholars always go beyond Bauer, and I simply want to press the question: What does it mean to “disregard” someone?

Macasil: That is why early on I mentioned that miseo did not require the animosity and hostility you were forcing on it.

Altrilark: “Forcing on it”? Again, you cited *to detest*, which is Bauer’s (1)., which lead me to believe one of “animosity”! Again, I ask you in a fair way to make some progression: Do you retract your statement, therefore? And, do you retract your statement that it was I who forced it on you?

And, did you knowlingly lump (1) and (2) together when Luke 14:26 is listered only under (2) and not (1). Explain.

Macasil: That is why early on I mentioned that miseo did not require the animosity and hostility you were forcing on it.

Altrilark: But your original argument necessitated you equating miseo in terms of hostility. Here is your original argument unvarnished-unaltered:
—–
Marcasil (original argument): If Jesus said he came to bring about this kind of *HOSTILITY* to the family, wouldn’t the “hate” in Luke 14 fit better if taken literal?
—–
Altrilark: Originally, you assumed “hate” to mean one of *hostility*. Those are *YOUR* words! Hence, why you took up Bauer’s (1) usage. Now, however, you want to dupe the readers here into thinking that I “forced” on that meaning. What gives?

Don’t just change your mind by sleight of hand, say clearly you denounce your original argument and clarifies things. Please explain.

Brad: You asked for a response to the question, and I am generally in agreement with you that the sources are the best place to understand a system of doctrines.

Altrilark: Alright, so we agree that if I’m going to learn about Calvinism, best place to start is from primary sources, that is, the very advocates themselves, and not through their critics. Great!

Brad: So, if your point is to have me agree that I’m possibly off base and that there is another just as logical and reasonable system that is contrary to the Reformed, I get it.

Altrilark: The issue is not whether it “is just as logical and reasonable” a system. Many theories can be logical well reasoned but unbiblical. And, Reformed doctrine is what it is, not because it’s logical or reasonable (allegedly), but because it’s biblical. The real question is, at rock-bottom, if one’s most fundamental presuppositions, from which a doctrinal point stands, are biblical and not one of question begging.

Brad: I haven’t seen it yet, but I’m reading with interest to see whether you are just educated above and beyond common sense, or are really on to something profitable to consider. Being Reformed and always reforming allows for this.

Altrilark: When you say “always Reforming”, seems that you are willing to question your own position, which in turn can have a beneficial payoff. It’s the only way to grow, and I commend you for that—just not the vociferous vitriol you’ve slammed against Bryson.

Hi Altrilark, like I said, I’m suspisious of your position, but not unwilling to drop my presuppositions to allow for a view of it that’s unburdend right from the get go because my own view simply wont allow it. I wouldn’t be truthful if I didn’t say that I seriously doubt that you’re as free to drop your presuppositions, since one who’s driven to make a point in the way you are is usually possessed by it. These long rows to hoe to impose certain subtle meanings which in some kind of strange math add up to more weight than the literal meaning [I mean literal in the sense that it is the intended meaning by the author] makes me suspicious. Time will tell and your attitude about meriting discussion may be your crow at some future meal. I’ve read these NPP and FV views and other contrary to Reformed view, so if your trajectory on Romans is anything like those, I will be disappointed. By the way, I dont have to be your equal on the academic scoreboard, there’s nothing you can say that I cant understand even if I have to call on help to do it.

As far as my comments to Bryson, he’s a hireling, or even worse, a wolf in sheeps clothing keeping people in the dark and I’ll treat him as an enemy of the truth til I see reason to not. My “vitriol” to him is nowhere near as condesending as yours is, but I look at it this way [and I urge others to use the same reasoning], if you are right, I need to thank you for delivering the truth, and if you are wrong, there no need to take offense since you have exposed yourself as a fool–either way, no need for me to get hurt feelings no matter which is the case.

I’m looking at Luke 6 against Luke 14 and see an aspect that disqualifies any kind of comparison to the words “hate” between the Luke passages. In Luke 6:22, the word is an action by unbelievers toward saints, this is God haters showing the fruit of the vine that they are from [an expected emotion]. And following up on that act is God pronouncing a similiar hate with a list of woes to those men. Later in the chapter, Jesus tells those who’re hated to “love the enemies”, because He will do the “hating” later on for them–”vengenance is mine” says the Lord. This is the only one of the two that should be compared to Romans 9 since it is a like comparison. Tha is, this is a Godly hate [Luke 6] compared with a Godly hate, done righteously [Rom 9].

As far as Luke 14 goes, it would most likely be better compared to Luke 16:13 since it defines the terms in it’s own way in what is an example of what Luke 14 is talking about. Here it is:

“No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”

It seems to me that whatever Lexicon is used, this verse ought to help define the usage of Luke 14:26 in that reference material. This is scripture interpreting scripture is it not? In other words, cannot Luke 14:26 mean

“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate[despise] his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.”

I think Stephen is correct.

Brad: “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate[despise] his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.”

Altrilark: You’re just confusing things all the more. Both Macasil and I would say that “hate” has nothing to do with affective connotations, i.e., “despise.” Here, I’ll give it to you in his own words.

Macasil: That is why early on I mentioned that miseo did not require the animosity and hostility you were forcing on it.

Altrilark: Don’t be a “bonehead” and try to advance the discussion, not set it back.

Brad: So, for Stephen to “despise” any unbeliever[even blood relatives], it might look like kindness to the unknowledgable, or uninformed. So, Altrilark your question of how does one live out this theology, how would you know a difference from the outside? I dont think you could judge this at all with any certainty. If he offers kindness, it could be heaping hot coals in reality.

Altrilark: This statement is a slough-chain of passages where your autonomy is doing the interweaving, not scripture itself—so humanistic. The chain is so astronomically warped, that it even takes God aback of the knotty jumble that you created. Now **that**, is “boneheaded” to the core…tell you what, find at least 3 commentators that argue for “hate” in the maze-like-labyrinth-twisted way that you’ve done here, and I’ll recant my statements; that is, using all of the exact passages you used. Otherwise, this is nothing more than your sheer prejudices, to say nothing of the fact that you don’t even know what Macasil has stated.

Don’t repeat yourself, lest you sound more “boneheaded.” Just give us some credible sources—back it up!

Altrilark: Told you so! This next comment was even more “boneheaded”, moving right into skullduggery. In actuality, I don’t want to speak to you in this way; it’s to give you a dose of your own medicine. Calling people “bonehead” is not an argument—comprende?!

Brad: It seems to me that you’re guilty of not citing at least 3 commentators using exactly the same verses you’ve used. Why drop this requirement on me?

Altrilark: But you should see this as an opportunity to buttress your comment, and not see it as something to scramble about in retreat. This should always be a welcoming endeavor…oh, wait…ah, I see. You take it in a negative way because, frankly, you know you strung up a smorgasbord that you can’t back up–just as you can’t prove that you are assured of salvation. Moreover, seems that you’re having trouble reading these posts. I’ll repeat myself here: jot down your email, as Macasil did, and I will send you a formal response with at least 3 commentaries.

Brad: I admit on the top that I’m reading the plain meaning of these verses in context and if you think they are strung together in error, show it to me.

Altrilark: The person who makes a claim must always shoulder the burden of proof. I said that you are stringing all those passages independently and autonomously, apart from scripture itself. If you don’t get this objection, then seems you’re not familiar with Thieselton, House, Thomas, Swanson, Longenecker, et al….you keep demonstrating your ignorance, and it’s getting annoying. Don’t call for help, like you clamored, just camp out at a library and come back with an answer on how can you know to an absolute certainty, that you are one of the elect. Once you can prove you have assurance, then we can talk about Romans 9.

HOW MANY TIMES AM I GOING TO ASK YOU TO OWN UP FOR CONFOUNDING THE DISCUSSION?
——
Macasil: I am not making an argument for the nature of the family tension…

Altrilark: Memory lapses can, and do, happen. With crystal clarity, you provided for us all here what you mean by hate earlier on.

Macasil (original citation): Since miseo (hate) means to have a strong aversion to, to detest, and to disregard in contrast to preferential treatment, then that is how family is to be treated.

Altrilark: So “family is to be treated” by detesting them. Fine. Frustratingly, I keep pointing out here that, you garbled up Bauer’s (1) and (2) usages, and you still are not integral enough to own up to this contortion, to say nothing of bad “ethical habits.” Interestingly, you subsequently denied what you said originally.

Macasil (later denial): That is why early on I mentioned that miseo did not require the animosity and hostility you were forcing on it.

Altrilark: The memory failure runs so afowl here such that, now, out of all things, I was the one that forced it! Incredible, to say the least.
In order to make progress, explain to the audience why you originally cited “hate” as “to detest” from Bauer (1) if “you are not making an argument for family tension?” Which you are record denying later;…seems you are either having a serious mental meltdown, or you just want to cover up the change in trajectory you’ve had along the way in this discussion.

We will be waiting to see if you will ever own up to the spinning confusion that you have thrown here. Conflating Bauer’s (1) and (2) usages; and then later denying you defined “hate” as “to detest”. Please explain, your credibility depends on it.

I’ll try this only once, if it isn’t objectively clear, then your biasedness blinds you.

On June 6th, I repeatedly kept pressing Macasil to illustrate how he would apply Luke 14:26 in his every day living. Here is my original post.

Altrilark: The question of contexualzation is an inevitable follow-up question when someone takes a hardline *literal* interpretation….it would not have any bearing on my response, but in the event that I reconsider, I would like to know *how* would you apply the passage in Luke? What is the harm here? Do you “hate” the question? You very well understood it the first time, and you went to Matt. 12, which begged the question. If you think the passage does not have any trans-cultural validity, then say that.

Notice, that this is the second time I’ve asked, and is not until the next day he attempts to give a more precise definition from Bauer.

Macasil (orig. citation): Since miseo (hate) means to have a strong aversion to, to detest, and to disregard in contrast to preferential treatment, then that is how family is to be treated. When called by God into the army of his kingdom, a soldier cannot become or remain entangled in civilian affairs. His mindset is to be one of sober focus on Christ to the point that “all things” become forsaken for his sake (family, sin, even your own life).

Notice that when he says “since,” he is making a deduction, providing a definition from Bauer’s lexicon, and strings together Bauer’s (1) and (2) usages. (In scholarly circles, this is simply unacceptable, sloppy, and the author always must inform his readers the distinct categories, because, in this instance, Bauer lists Luke 14:26 under category (2) and not (1). The listing is crucial!) Now, Bauer categorically lists usage (1) as intense animosity and lists e.g., Luke 6:22,27. If Macasil wanted to avoid a nuance such as one used in Luke 6:22, he would have told us. But he leaves that impression because that is the definition he originally gave.

Now when I pressed him during the course of the dialogue, he figured the absurdities that it would lead if he adopted category (1), and in like manner he unconfessedly repented of jumbling (1) and (2) together. That is why he ends up saying this on July 11:

Macasil: BDAG’s second usage is fine to define my literal use of miseo, not merely because it is BDAG, but because I consider the collection of citations to be accurately categorized as distinct.

But notice, he doesn’t explain the switch. I guess he finally got it! He says that the “citations to be accurately categorized as distinct.” Do you see that? If so, then why did he gives us (1), originally, under which Luke 14:26 is not even listed? And since he avoids a definition of strong tension (well, not until later he does), then why did he cite Bauer’s “to detest” when this is exemplified in places such as Luke 6:22. Hope you follow.

I am asking for answers to these changes. This is the best I can do.

Brad: It doesn’t *have to* look like fighting between the members for there to be hate/detesting/strong aversion.

Altrilark: See, that is the problem with you. Your personal autonomy is just out of control–runs amuck. The text is under no compulsion to follow *your* whim. My alleged imposition is strictly from Bauer (1). Macasil chose it, and I wanted to press him as to how he shows this animosity, period. At any rate, you have no basis, except through the bowels of your autonomy, to underming what “detesting” is like. Bauer categorizes “detesting” under (1), and gives Luke 6:27 as a primary example.

If you still are compelled that you can “detest” people like in Luke 6:27, and as Bauer (1) lists it, then you can be considered an “enemy” of the gospel for whom Christ commanded His to respond to with love.

Macasil: Before our audience begins to believe that your charges against me are valid, please provide all of us the proof that I cited Bauer.

Altrilark: Oy vey…Macasil’s asks this because he’s apt to a poached egg with a software crutch. (wink to Lewis). What took you so long to come up this McDermish stratagem? But don’t suppose your audience to be so hobble-headed. It is no secret that you and I assumed Bauer as source from the get-go, that is until, *now* you want to hoodwink into thinking you really had another in mind. Psst: The punch loses its aura after many days hence. Here’s some advice for ya’: Immediately disavow any ascription, otherwise the impression is contiguous. If the audience here, as you intimate, are nothing but a herd of schlemiels, then you can rebuff the Bauer conflation charge, and gimmick play your audience that you actually used another lexicon. And, that’s right, many don’t have BW7 anyway, so you can flee the scene unscathed…but, don’t know if you want me to play along…
————
Macasil: An antagonistic and abhorrent hatred is not required when the verb “miseo” is taken literal.” Jul. 6.

Altrilark: Then, you’ve dropped the daff ball at some point. On July 7, you strongly abrogated and overdeterminated your July 6 statement and said:

Macasil (July 7, next day): Since miseo (hate) means to have a strong aversion to, to detest, and to disregard in contrast to preferential treatment, then that is how family is to be treated.”

Altrilark: Well, which is it? Why so ambivalent in Calvie-schitzo flux? Since this was your statement from Bauer (see prev. post), then I knew “how family is to be treated”, namely, by “detesting” them as in Luke 6:27 (Bauer’s primary categorization). After all, you acknowledge that Bauer “accurately categorize[s]” Luke 6:27. Take a gander at the passage; Congrats! You are an official enemy of the Gospel. In good service, despite your “destesting”, the audience will love you in obedience to Christ….if this is wrongheaded, then, either publically denounce what you said on July 7, and confess you jumbled and distorted Bauer (1) and (2) ranges of meaning.

Macasil (July 11): That is why early on I mentioned that miseo did not require the animosity and hostility you were forcing on it.

Altrilark: So which earlier statement are you referring to: the latest (July 7)? Or July 6? For any statement P, P or not-P must be true. You figure it out…oh, btw, the mixed dates are oversights–typos…but then again, like a medieval vulture, you scavenge for whatever mistake you can pompously feed off of.

Altrilark: I see; now, you’re adopting my dialogue format since your communication is thin and is having no traction whatsoever.

Macasil: Did I ask for proof that I *plagiarized* Bauer, or did I ask for proof that I *cited* Bauer? HELLO!

Altrilark: Don’t be a fool. You plagiarized Bauer and you also cited Bauer as well. Your confusing *citation* with *documentation*. I never said you *documented* (e.g., “Bauer says…”) Bauer or you documented your source. But I knew it was Bauer because the content itself is cited. The definition, which is the content itself, is cited. C’mon, how naïve do you take your audience to be?

Macasil: So we agree! I never cited Bauer!

Altrilark: Now your foolery absorbs you; You did *CITE* Bauer (irrefutably proved above), you just didn’t *DOCUMENT* him, therefore, you plagiarized, period. The parallel statements above demonstrably evidences it was Bauer and no other Lexicon you cited. You took my words out of context as well. Here’s the latter part that you suppressed: “….but identity word-per-word analysis leads to trace the original source.” So then, through identity word analysis, that’s how I knew you plagiarized-cited Bauer. It makes perfect sense to say you cited a reference, while not documenting it! But what you say next is you sinking to your lowest.

Macasil: Gingrich, pg. 129. Please do those unfortunate folks that do not have BW7 a favor and provide Gingrich’s lexical entry for miseo on pg. 129.

Altrilark: Here: I’ll cite Gingrich’s entry on miseo, and let’s see if it matches up with what you said on July 7: “miseo, hate detest, abhor” (Gingrich, 129). Yup, that’s it folks, and gosh by jolly, it cites Luke 14:26 as an example! And, poor ol’ Macasil, it doesn’t match up with the definition he gave us on July 7, namely, “to have a strong aversion to” and, “to disregard in contrast to preferential treatment.” Worse, on July 6 he said: “An antagonistic and *ABHORENT* hatred is not required when the verb “miseo” is taken literal.” But this is *EXACTLY* what Gingrich says, namely, *ABHOR*. You are in a chaotic mess here!!!

But sorry; Gingrich doesn’t match up with the definitions you gave on July 7th. Thanks for taking a gamble though, but feel free to play again.

Macasil: You forgot about Gincrich’s, you know, the other lexicon that irrefutably shows that I used it both in exact verbiage, i.e., detest, as well as verse reference, i.e., Lk. 14:26.

Altrilark: “…exact verbiage” (chuckles)!? What part of my statement: “But sorry; Gingrich doesn’t match up with the definitions you gave on July 7th. Thanks for taking a gamble though, but feel free to play again,” slipped over your head?? I’m pressing you to account for the *WHOLE ENTIRETY*, not just a part, of the def. you gave on July 7: “Since miseo (hate) means to have a strong aversion to, to detest, and to disregard in contrast to preferential treatment, then that is how family is to be treated” (Macasil, July 7). Just because you find a slight dab of identity overlap (i.e., “to detest”) doesn’t account for that whole line you gave. In fact, you couldn’t have used Gingrich because your July 7 def. doesn’t have the term “abhor”, period. So it doesn’t follow that just because Gingrich and Bauer shares “to detest” that you used Gingrich. The evidence demonstrably and irrefutably shows you *CITED* Bauer. Once again (sighhhh!), I’ll reproduce it here, and, this is perhaps the 7th time you ignore this, mind you.
————
Macasil: to have a strong aversion to…”

Bauer: 1. to have a strong aversion to (pp. 652-53)

Macasil: ….disregard in contrast to preferential treatment…

Bauer: 2. disregard in contrast to preferential treatment (pp. 652-53)
————
So, your definition is anything but “exact verbiage” of your July 7th def.! And your taking advantage of a slight identify overlap with “to detest” is desperate and sophomoric. So, stop stalling and *ACCOUNT* for these definitions. Where did they come from???

Macasil: Nope, you’re confusing citation with quotation. Huge difference…

Altrilark: Geez-wiz, how could I have missed such “drastic” difference!? I already knew that you were going to try to slither your way out through this wordplay. Who are you kidding? In fact, this is all the more damaging for you because your original July 7 def. doesn’t have the necessary “quotations” to call it a *quote* in the first place. Therefore, you *DID NOT* quote these definitions! So why bring it up? The evidence above shows you cited a source, without putting it in proper quotations—that’s black and white plagiarism.

Macasil: You can’t charge someone with plagiarizing and citing at the same time. Plagiarism first of all, occurs when sources aren’t *cited* in academic works, journalism, etc., not when someone else’s published content is merely repeated loosely in discussion.

Altrilark: “…loosely.” That’s the point of plagiarizing “genius!” You have to throw off your detractors but being a little “loose” with the citation and not glaringly cite a source word-per-word, unless you want to get caught. But if this is your way of saying you’re sloppy, shoddy, and irresponsible with sources, then I accept it. And, to plagiarize means to cite a source without quoting it (i.e., ascribing proper credit). Citing a source without proper quotations AND documentation *is* plagiarism.

Macasil: You forgot about Gincrich’s, you know, the other lexicon that irrefutably shows that I used it both in exact verbiage, i.e., detest, as well as verse reference, i.e., Lk. 14:26.

Altrilark: You are desperately clinging by a razor’s edge to a dingle slab of overlap, and that doesn’t ACCOUNT for the WHOLE original statement. It remains unaccounted for!

Macasil: It is perfectly normal for one to have a collection of lexicons and not agree with all of them on every word. It is also perfectly normal for one to disagree with a particular lexicon’s treatment of a particular word and instead only use it as a guide to get a wrap on the depth of meaning for a particular word.

Altrilark: This keeps getting better and better. You say you “disagree” now on lexical sources because it’s convenient for you not to. When the evidence stacks up against you, if extremely stubborn, you must now resort to subjectivity. But as a friend once said: “If you change the rules in the middle of the game, anyone can win that way.”

Macasil: When I said, “An antagonistic and *ABHORENT* hatred is not required when the verb “miseo” is taken literal,” I was emphasizing that although “to abhor” is required when miseo is taken literal, it is not required to abhor antagonistically (an attribute forced by Altrilark). Antagonistic hatred is an active hatred that continually pursues it’s object to express it’s abhorrence, whereas to abhor (without antagonism) is to loathe and detest, dispositions that can be expressed passively.

Altrilark: This is fun; here is where you sound all the more desperate. First, you originally used “antagonistic” as an independent adverb separated by the conjunction “and” (i.e., “antagonistic *and* abhorrent”), which is self-evident in terms of behavior. Now, however, you changed its meaning and function, omitting the conjunction (“and”), so “antagonistic” is used as an adverbial modifier of “abhor” (i.e., “abhor antagonistically”). I took the lexical evidence seriously! You provided these definitions on July 7; and, since your peculiar-Island interpretation cannot handle the entries, now you have to tweak it to fit . That is the difficulty with you here: your thinking is sloppy and cobbled, you raise more questions than clarify things, and only a simpleton can fall for these subconscious tricks. On what objective basis do you weasel out these tailored configurations to fit your preconceived scheme here? FYI: even if you assert that one can “detest” in a “expressed passively” manner, irrelevant. Evil is most rampant in internal hatred, antagonizing, abhorish, thoughts “passively”, even if they are not actualized. The question is whether Jesus taught us to do this “passively”, and resist the temptation to actualize them externally. I would say absolutely not, much less find evidence that such hate-filled dispositions are the fruit of the spirit. You actually sound more like a disciple of the hate-filled Louis Farakhan than Jesus.

I will respond to your contrived and self-tailored-concocted commentary on the gospels in my official response. I will just say for the moment: throughout the discussion, you have vacillated back and forth between definitions with subtle changes. When specific questions are pressed to you, you begin to modify what you said to escape the implied charge of the question if answered honestly and appropriately.

I have to agree Stephen, there most likely will not be anything more substantive than the opening 2 cents to press this discussion forward. There has been discourse going on for nearly a month and I cant say that I know anything of Altrilarks systematic theology except that it is contrary to Calvinism, yet he/she is calling for me to escape the “Calvinistic coke bottle” for some mystery alternative. Leap before looking? I dont know about that.

Macasil: I am willing to meet.

Altrilark: I too need a committment for you to schedule a date, before I send the “substance” response you’d been waiting for. You’ll have the opportunity to cross-examine in person, and respond directly to what I’ve written. After you read it, you’ll be glad to talk about this at length in person. I have one question: how much time do you wish to invest? And, oh, one paper deals exclusively with the Gen. 29 passage, while there is still work to be done on Luke 14:26, since you added more substance as of late (every detail will be taken into account).

It’s completely up to you at this point, I’ll be on hold.

Macasil,

…perhaps you are skeptical that there is any response whatsoever. The best thing I can do is email you a sample reading; then, if you want to continue to read, then you follow it up with the arragements. How does that sound?

Stephen,
It appear she likes to chase rabbits for fun and exercise.

Overcommittad2theworld: It appear she likes to chase rabbits for fun and exercise.

Altrilark: I chase ‘em, but you were the fastest. Be a kiwi, and see if you can show some responsibility to defend your chronicia and not run away this time.
————–
Overcommit: “…Does this make God immoral in your eyes?

Altrilark: Back up the Calvie-medieval locomotive here…admittedly, the pseudo-fanciful argument, at surface, entertains for only a wink-dink, but it’s thinness makes it evaporate.

Overcommit: Does this make God immoral in your eyes?

Altrilark: It has nothing to do with a subjective response (i.e., “in your eyes?”), so much as whether an answer is logically and coherently deduced from the first question. Which was…

Overcommit: Would it be immoral if an innocent man was put to death? I think we’d all say yes.

Altrilark: I concur; for, there is a strong moral intuitive appeal that underpins an affirmative response simply because we are moral beings via the imago dei. God is the ultimate standard of goodness; and, neither can God commit that which goes against his attribute of goodness. God’s moral perfection is what it is in view of His own consistency and immutability.

Overcommit: God decreed that Jesus, an innocent, sinless man would be put to death. Does this make God immoral in your eyes?

Altriliark: Again, relative subjectivism is the wrong question. The real question is one of deduction: For, in the event that it is wrong for an innocent man to be put to death (1), then, so too, it would follow that it would be immoral for God (likewise as a personal agent) to put an innocent man to death (2). This follows, logically and inescapably, from the first question. On close inspection, the argument is reduced to absurdity. What Overcommit’ needs, is a real over-commitment to gives us a third premise(s) that bridges the gap between (1) and (2), so as to remove the immoral sting from God. Otherwise, the only logical answer is: Yes to (2). Your job is only a half morsel, hardly giving anyone here a mouthful. It seriously begs the question against God having abstract particulars inexplicable through any knowable essence.

Seems you’re not as “overcommit[ed]” as you impress.

Macasil: Is “medieval” a pejorative? And if so, why?

Altrilark: Irrelevant…Your task is to provide an account of the miscue you committed in handling the “S(1) and S(2)” sets of propositions (see earlier post). It was your “isolating” tactics that caused you to make a fallacious inference, which in turn deluded you into an empty-headed bigoted victory (i.e., “What can you possibly offer in this discussion?”). That post most assuredly demonstrates, contrary to your deluded mistake, there is something to talk about.

Macasil: Macasil: Why don’t we do this. Let’s debate this in person at a local Orange County coffee shop or something, we can have two cameras and two lapels, and we can posit it either here on BT or on another site if you’d like…I am willing to meet…Are you able to commit to discussing your June 25th “2 Cents?”

Altrilark: What exactly was the purpose of this statement? Was it serious? Specify your intention. If you were serious, I can email a response.

Macasil (later): They seem to be saying the **same** thing.

Altrilark, you’re consistently dishonest and I have no desire to play games with you any longer. Anyone can see as plain as day that you selectively and intentionally misquote me and twist my words to your own advantage. This reveals a deeper issue, the issue that causes you to twist Scripture to your own destruction. Your mind is too heavily influenced by your father, the devil, to participate in a calm, rational, Christian dialogue.

Macasil: Your mind is too heavily influenced by your father, the devil, to participate in a calm, rational, Christian dialogue.

Altrilark: I see you’ve finally popped…“calm, rational…”Your emoted-tantrums are anything but “calm”. But what you do next leaves us all a’ twitter.

I’ll simply call your set, discombobulated as it is, M(1) and M(2). So let us not even pretend that this reflects my original set, not by a long shot.

Macasil: M(3) Jacob loved Leah
M(4) Jacob loved Leah

Altrilark: Guess what? In the order you catalogued them, I found a pair that is identical, ipso facto, M(3) and M(4). However your tactics continue to compound from “massacre” to now “atrocious.” In trying to refute an argument, an individual (whether through lack of comprehension of his opponent’s views or through conscious deception) sets up a less than accurate caricature of his opponent’s views or statements which are much easier to refute than his *actual* views or statements, and then proceeds with aplomb to demolish them. Most strawmans I encounter attempt to be inconspicuous, this one is as naked as it could be—with no shame.

For, you have to resort to smoke and mirrors because you cannot, and will not, deal with my actual original refutation that via “isolation” they do appear to be the “same thing.” My simple challenge is that you will search in vain to find any text on epistemology that does this atrocious de-construction. If anything, it would be an example of reductionism and vexed caricature. And, even in your own setup, you can’t find parallel identity that matches with my set.
——————
Altrilark: FYI: merely because “(2) does contain” S(1) has no logical bearing on the co-identity of S(1) and S(2), to which you agree they are not. This just confuses things. You *isolated* (hence, your legacy) a clause from the whole of S(2), which in turn, caused you to make a fallacious inference that no first year student of epistemology will ever make; namely in the following way: Since Altrilark denies S(1), and since S(2) contains a snippet of S(1), therefore, S(2) is also denied and so it follows that on both counts, it is false that S(1). So this is what you are excellent at: isolationist massacre citationist. If this doesn’t show that you have no training in epistemology, then I don’t know what does.
—————-
Try harder.

Macasil: … because you’re Jesuitical…

Altrilark: The reason you mutter “Jesuitical” is because you’ve been scripted for what you want your opponent to argue. Hence, the naked strawman. However, when you encounter a live non-Calvinist you get frustrated when they don’t follow along the role you have ‘em pigeonholed in your wishful preset program. This may come as a surprise, outside your scope of apologetic, there are Christians that are not necessarily Roman Catholic. It doesn’t matter how much atrocious smoke and mirrors you deploy, you might as well just press the reset button on that script, and see if you can think for yourself for once.

Macasil: If S(1) is validly deduced from S(2), which I am arguing it is, then S(2) as a proposition cannot be (wholly) true if S(1) is (wholly) false.

Altrilark: Ah, there’s the spoiler. As I said literacy and epistemology is not your forte. …”validly deduced…”? Where in this blogsphere did I ever come within an inch of implying that my propositions were instead *premises* such that, its consequent was true based on either entailment or deduction? Were it intended to be modus ponens, then deduction is protocol. But even if I called them premises (I didn’t!) to “deduced” a conclusion, I still don’t imply modus ponens, not by a stretch, because it’s form would necessitate S(3), which I never provided. The form:

If P, therefore Q.
P.
Therefore Q.

It seems *you* even get this when you give such argument in the OP by way of A, B, and C on Hebrews 12. That is, two premises (following the form), and a necessary conclusion. So it’s no brainer; the strawman you set up was consciously deceptive to obtain a cheap self-proclaim bigoted victory. But where did you get the idea that I supplied an S(3), for which you mistakenly thought it was an argument from deduction? If I intended deduction, S(1) cannot be false while S(2) true. But they were intended to be scrutinized epistemologically not as a deductive argument.

This is either another conscious deceptive strawman, or you have zero literacy in epistemology. How’s that for a false dichotomy!

I don’t have time to give you a tutorial on propositional logic, premises, and arguments. So do you think you can drop the deluded self-proclaim victory and get back to be open-minded to accept the response in the terms you provoked them?
——–
Altrilark: FYI: merely because “(2) does contain” S(1) has no logical bearing on the co-identity of S(1) and S(2), to which you agree they are not. This just confuses things. You *isolated* (hence, your legacy) a clause from the whole of S(2), which in turn, caused you to make a fallacious inference that no first year student of epistemology will ever make; namely in the following way: Since Altrilark denies S(1), and since S(2) contains a snippet of S(1), therefore, S(2) is also denied and so it follows that on both counts, it is false that S(1). So this is what you are excellent at: isolationist massacre citationist. If this doesn’t show that you have no training in epistemology, then I don’t know what does.
——————
Try again. DEAL WITH IT—justify your clause-”isolation” tactic.

Macasil,

Justify the following:

(a) Using a farmer’s scythe to horrendously chop up a set of propositions which were incontrovertibly intended to be scrutinized in epistemological terms, from which we get a de-constructed: M(1) and M(2). Provide at least one text book in epistemology that resorts in this sort of pseudo method.

(b) You used modus ponens before. Justify your turning my set of propositions as an argument of entailment or deduction (i.e., “validly deduced”), when in fact, no third premise was given, and, the fact that I never explicated them in terms of *premises* per se, much less mention anything close to “deduction.”

(c) In light of my criticisms, justify your “isolation” tactic to cut out a clause from S(2), and run with it so far to the point where it took on a life on its own, thereby swallowing up the S(2) as a *whole* from which you conveniently, but erroneously, changed your mind and said they were identical, which in turn, you get your self-proclaim-bloated-bigoted victory?

I won’t press the discrepancies if you simply take my word which I have been repeating ad nauseum, “That wasn’t my argument.” We can pick it up after you tried to contextualize Luke 14.26, and where you still assumed the ball was in my court to offer a rebuttal. If you otherwise continue to harp on the very thing I keep denying because of an epistemological misunderstanding, then, it’s obvious you want to smuggle in a self-declared victory anyway you can because you can’t deal with an official rebuttal. If not, cast your bigotry to the side for a moment, and try requesting “O.k., prove that “hate” is an ANE Semitic hyperbole in both Genesis and Luke, while providing rebuttals to my responses.”

It’s your call.