Libertarian Foreknowledge

Jimmy Stephens recently stated something that I have been arguing with J. C. Thibodaux. Here is a relevant part of the conversation: TheQuestioner: In a discussion with a fellow believer, I brought up the fact that Jesus declared to Peter that He would deny Him as an example against the PAP. I said that because Jesus knew in advance what Peter would do, Peter couldn’t have done otherwise. They said that this doesn’t suggest that Peter couldn’t have done otherwise, but would not do otherwise. Would you say that God’s knowledge of what we will do means that we could … Continue reading Libertarian Foreknowledge

Bridled Tongues

I was in a recent conversation about whether profanity is inherently immoral. Here are some of the statements and questions that arose: If you can’t read this in violation of Matthew 15:10-20, Ephesians 4:29, Ephesians 5, and James 1:26, there is no rational grounds to reject ANY curseword given the “neutral” context. I hope you realize that when you reject bad words, then all words are now good? This means that he commits himself to the notion that words are inherently immoral. That certain words are immoral in any given circumstances to use. I think an example would show the … Continue reading Bridled Tongues

Thibodaux: The Saga Continues

J.C. Thibodaux has responded to my refutation: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2019/08/01/calvinist-debate-talking-past-the-argument/ Before we get to that, his big objection in his initial post was that the Arminian view of free will would somehow ‘explain’ God’s attributes. Though I expressed that his objection about people ‘explaining’ God’s attributes wasn’t clear, instead of any clarification we get this: The problem with the second point is that it is clearly incorrect. It is relevant because it still shows that Arminians have tensions in their worldview. He’s still not clear what he means by this, but suffice to say that complaining about creation ‘explaining’ God’s attributes without even defining his … Continue reading Thibodaux: The Saga Continues

Thibodaux’s Cooked Goose

J.C. Thibodaux has responded to an article I wrote against his view of aseity. https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2019/07/26/calvinisms-inconsistencies-on-gods-attributes/ The first of his objections involves people ‘explaining’ God. Van Til thinks of aseity as God being self-contained. Nothing can further explain God other than himself but on Thibodaux scheme, God being is explained by creatures. But how can a being that is a se or self-explained be further explained by created things(people and their choice)? It isn’t really clear what he’s asking. If he’s talking about how we define God, He most certainly is, in some ways, defined by His creation. “God, furthermore, said … Continue reading Thibodaux’s Cooked Goose