tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post7874408824862059735..comments2024-02-29T23:54:20.606-08:00Comments on What had happen' was.....: Brennon's Thoughts: The Theological Fatalist's Modal Fallacymmcelhaneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07567242628894011776noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-22034286493711623412010-06-02T01:43:26.904-07:002010-06-02T01:43:26.904-07:00Brennon, we should not presuppose that they could ...Brennon, we should not presuppose that they could have accepted the Gospel because no once can come to Christ unless they are drawn by the Father. I see no reason to assume that they were drawn. Paul was upset because those folks were accountable for their unbelief.mmcelhaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567242628894011776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-82742716142036206922010-05-31T00:10:50.730-07:002010-05-31T00:10:50.730-07:00I think that is the problem that without determini...<i>I think that is the problem that without determinism all you have is fatalism.</i><br /><br />That seems like a false dichotomy to me. You could have a world in which some things are determined and some things are not. This is not strict determinism, but there would be some events that are determined by God. In fatalism, something would be in the driver's seat, namely fate.<br /><br /><i>I'm wondering what is the difference between being prepared and being appointed? God prepares before he appoints.</i><br /><br />I think you recognized the difference right there. Preparation is getting ready for something. Appointment is fixing or setting something as true.<br /><br /><i> It seems to me that pointing that Paul and Barnabas said that the Jews who rejected the message rejected it presupposes that they could have accepted but we know that default position for everyone is that we reject the message. In other words, what else could they have done apart from being drawn by the Father?</i><br /><br />Why shouldn't I presuppose they could have accepted it? Why would Paul be so upset with them for rejecting it? To reject something is to presuppose you were offered it, which they plainly were. The word of God had gone to them first, they rejected it.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-47653242103553313482010-05-30T23:43:55.808-07:002010-05-30T23:43:55.808-07:00Thanks for the response, Brennon. I think that is ...Thanks for the response, Brennon. I think that is the problem that without determinism all you have is fatalism. No one is in the driver's seat. I'm sorry for misunderstanding the point of your post. I do agree that Jesus would not have made the prophecy at all if Peter would not have denied him, but I don't see how it was a part of Peter's ability because Peter himself never intended to deny Christ.<br /><br />As for Acts 13:48, I'm wondering what is the difference between being prepared and being appointed? God prepares before he appoints. It's interesting how you view the passage. It seems to me that pointing that Paul and Barnabas said that the Jews who rejected the message rejected it presupposes that they could have accepted but we know that default position for everyone is that we reject the message. In other words, what else could they have done apart from being drawn by the Father?mmcelhaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567242628894011776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767816867480783958.post-68086769822946423892010-05-30T22:39:05.527-07:002010-05-30T22:39:05.527-07:00Marcus, my post wasn't about determinism, but ...Marcus, my post wasn't about determinism, but fatalism. Determinism has God knowing the future because He decreed the whole future. Fatalism has things fated to happen because they become necessary as a result of God's infallible foreknowledge. I showed the logical fallacy associated with that.<br /><br /><i>The argument is basically, Jesus would not have had to make the prophecy if Peter had exercised his free will not to deny Christ.</i><br /><br />Well, not just that Jesus wouldn't have had to, but that He wouldn't have at all, because He would have foreknown that Peter wouldn't deny Him.<br /><br /><i>Jesus told Peter that he was going to be tested and that he was going to fail that test but he would be restored. We also see that the events were purposely against Peter's will but not God's.</i><br /><br />But why shouldn't we think that Jesus prophesied this because He actually knew what Peter would freely do? Why think that it was necessary that Peter act this way?<br /><br />At most, Acts 13:48 would show one instance where God actualized the salvation of some people. But I see no problem with interpreting the verse to say that "those who had been prepared for eternal life believed," since the Greek word <i>tasso</i> could be translated that way. In fact, the context given in v. 46 ("Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.") seems to show that to be the best translation. But I digress.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.com