Divine Permission w/ J.D. Martin (Exploring Theology)

[@exploringtheologychannel1697]

I really enjoyed this conversation.

[@DrewMack316]

23:00 Not a pejorative just a Straw man of the Free will theodicy

[@briancross9571]

It was a completely unhelpful thought train that represented no one.

[@DrewMack316]

25:03 What is “FULL BLOWN COMPATIBILISM”!??

[@joshuadavidson7985]

He never did answer where the Compatiblism freedom is supposed to end and libertarian freedom would begin. Because he acknowledged that Compatiblism is insufficient to support justice/blame/praise/culpability. So what is left? That will be something for a part 2 as well. Only unbelievers are determined? And only their decision to reject Christ is determined? Or are all their choices determined by those greatest desires? This is a big hole to fill.

[@exploringtheologychannel1697]

@@joshuadavidson7985 We should talk through this next time. You are correct that wasn't addressed.

[@DrewMack316]

@@exploringtheologychannel1697 you seemed to mean that the rest of reality could be described as compatibilism but the first choice (ours and Adam’s) was LFW? Is that right? And if compatibilism doesn’t accurately describe reality, do you hold to LFW?

[@DrewMack316]

31:10 i agree with Bro JD here re: debunking Romans 9 etc. But it’s important to show that most Calvinist scholars are determinists and to refute them.

[@Soteriology101]

If Compatiblism’s foundational point is not true, as JD seems to rightly suggest, then how would he defend the TU and I of TULIP in such a way that is consistent with any historic form of Calvinistic doctrine? Is any Calvinistic scholar on record doing this or is JD forging new paths for the “common man” Calvinist? I enjoyed the conversation! Thanks guys.

[@exploringtheologychannel1697]

The TU of the TULIP have no logical connection with determinism. If someone, exegetically believes the Scripture teaches the TU and the I there is no reason for them to then go on to become a determinist. More could be said, but that is my short answer.

[@DrewMack316]

@@exploringtheologychannel1697 you said yourself that Unconditional Election means that our salvation is “determined”. While I think this is a bit of an equivocation, this explains why most Calvinists believe that “You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”” is describing the fact that God’s will is ALWAYS done (ie determinism).

[@DrewMack316]

7:00 There’s a question as to whether Calvin himself or the early Reformers were deterministic? This is news to me! 🧐

[@exploringtheologychannel1697]

Yes, that is a scholarly question.

[@DrewMack316]

@@exploringtheologychannel1697 do you have sources for this claim that you’d care to share? I’d be interested in reading them.

[@exploringtheologychannel1697]

@@DrewMack316 Look up Richard Muller

[@DrewMack316]

22:00 Is JD not a compatibilist (ie soft determinist)? Does he affirm LFW? I’m continuing to listen but it doesn’t seem like he’s answering Josh’s question here

[@DrewMack316]

36:00 So JD is agreeing with Bro. Leighton that determinism is false and undermines God’s holiness…

[@DrewMack316]

30:10 re:unconditional election in Romans 9 “That was determined by God” ≠ determinism After that, JD strawmans the libertarian position as a kind of deism. That’s not what anyone believes about the free will theodicy

[@joshuadavidson7985]

I agree, but I chose to leave that bit undiscussed because I saw it as a tangent away from the clarity questions I was trying to ask. Maybe we can touch on that if there is a part 2.

[@exploringtheologychannel1697]

People do believe that about the free will theodicy. I have heard this many times.

[@exploringtheologychannel1697]

@@joshuadavidson7985 Always willing to discuss anything with you. I really enjoyed the talk.

[@DrewMack316]

@@exploringtheologychannel1697 no one who holds to the FWT would say “God created everything and then leaves it alone saying ‘ok good luck cya later!’” That’s a strawman, JD.

[@exploringtheologychannel1697]

@@DrewMack316 Yes, many essentially do say that. Perhaps we could talk about this sometime.

[@Soteriology101]

If Compatiblism’s foundational point is not true, as JD seems to rightly suggest, then how would he defend the TU and I of TULIP in such a way that is consistent with any historic form of Calvinistic doctrine? Is any Calvinistic scholar on record doing this or is JD forging new paths for the “common man” Calvinist? I enjoyed the conversation! Thanks guys

[@joshuadavidson7985]

Right. That was one of my main takeaway too. How is the systematic interpretation still viable if the philosophical underpinning of that interpretation is admittedly indefensible and also admittedly dissolves moral responsibility. Why then retain Calvinism? He tried to illustrate a seperate-ness between the fruit of the view from the roots of it's growth but I find this to reduce Calvinism to symbolic imagery.

[@exploringtheologychannel1697]

@@joshuadavidson7985 This is a fantastic question. I should be fully answered.

[@billyr9162]

I remember you teaching about all the scholars in church history that taught corporate election. Could you just refresh me on which ones they were? I forgot.