Thiboredux

Thibodaux’s return fire was loud and smoky, though when the smoke cleared and the sounds died down, his shots were exposed as blanks.

Thibodaux wrote:

The first portion of his response he wastes by rehashing the Calvinist position on total depravity, then insists that my position "dissolves into incoherence" because, "an option that is do-able must be truly choose-able." And then states,

“But trusting in Christ, although do-able, isn't truly choose-able given the Reformed view of Total Depravity. Arminianism, at this point, reveals itself as profoundly incoherent. Depravity influences the chooser to such a degree that a do-able option becomes unchoose-able. And this is incompatible (pun intended) with Libertarian Free Will.”

I agree that by ourselves, choosing what is good is impossible, and stated as much clearly in my article. And so, only punching at shadows thus far in his critique, the only element lacking coherency is Mr. Belvedere's own eccentric accusations of incoherency. First question then: How are my statements incoherent?

It appears as though my entire argument went over your head. In order to continue you’ll need to be able to keep track of the discussion. This means that you’ll need to respond to the arguments I’ve dealt your position.

Once again:

I) You affirm Total Depravity above and state “by ourselves, choosing what is good is impossible.”
II) You also affirm Libertarian Free Will, which holds that every do-able thing must be choose-able.
III) Converting to Christianity involves the desire to repent and believe.
IV) Since point 1 precludes point 3, point 2 is destroyed.

You need to address the argument above. I’ve even outlined your point of escape. You can either eject Total Depravity or LFW, or you can provide argumentation that clears you from the charge of incoherence. So far you’ve done nothing but launch silly little remarks about punching at shadows. Time to mount a counterargument or take a seat.

Continuing:

Taking a brief break from his mud-slinging, Mr. Belvedere decides to actually address the issue,

“At this point Thibodaux can deflect all of this by arguing that Prevenient Grace introduces LFW into the picture. But he must concede that were it not for Prevenient Grace, human freedom would be Compatibilistic--free yet determined.”

The will would still be Libertarian in that it would be free to choose from its available options.

But I’ve argued above that converting to Christianity is an “available option,” that is, it’s do-able. That is precisely why LFW collapses when paired with Total Depravity, which states that converting to Christianity is unchooseable, given the fixed disposition of the agent.

Thibodaux quotes me and offers commentary:

Mr. Belvedere continues,

"Prevenient Grace is necessary to off-set the fixed disposition humans have towards evil. It is necessary to "level the playing field," or to "neutralize," if you prefer. And here we have a God who is playing with dialectic schemes of freedom."

Why this assertion is necessarily so or where any inherent problems lie he never really specifies, but blindly he ploughs on,

"This can be avoided by the Arminian by rejecting Total Depravity, yet Thibodaux wants to hang on. Internally, however, the inconsistencies are furiously colliding and forcing an implosion."

Wonderfully illustrative language, now all you need is some actual substance behind it. Second question: How exactly is my position inconsistent?

Sigh. Thibodaux must have reading incomprehension.

I’ve leveled an argument in the first post that I’ve since reproduced for Godismyjudge. Here it is once again.

I) Man must be able to freely choose an act in order to be held responsible for rejecting it.
II) Total Depravity states that man in his depraved state will always reject Christ.
III) Prevenient Grace enables man to emerge out of his depravity and accept Christ.
IV) Therefore, God must give grace to every man in order to judge those that reject him.

These are derived from the standard definitions of Prevenient Grace and Libertarian Free Will. If you’d like to hold on, you’ll have to modify these positions and alter them in order to avoid inconsistency, or you’ll have to abandon one of these altogether. The argument is above, please respond to it.

Thibodaux moves on:

In the next section of his rant-- er, response, Mr. Belvedere opens with hurling an unparalleled volume of strawmen and misconceptions, which proves entertaining in the fact that it is so laughable. Mind you, this is all in one paragraph:

“...because now we see that if it weren't for God's grace, the human race would be determined to fail, though it wouldn't be their faults, because they didn't have the freedom to succeed in the Libertarian sense.”

No, it would still be our faults: Grace or no grace, we have all willingly chosen to sin and deserve condemnation.

If I’ve issued a strawman then you need to provide evidence that I’ve misrepresented your position. But I fear that since you’re unable to keep track of my argument, you’re unable to provide anything but obnoxious invective devoid of substance.

Yes, I’m well aware that man is guilty of sin. The point is that without Prevenient Grace, man would be determined to fail given Total Depravity, which has a doctrine of Original Sin built inside.

You’ve stated that “by ourselves, choosing what is good is impossible,” yet as Godismyjudge has admitted, LFW is required in order for God to be able to hold man responsible for rejecting him. And what must happen for LFW to be introduced? The giving of Prevenient Grace. Thus grace is required from God, not freely given.

Throughout the entire article Thibodaux fails to grapple with the arguments. Instead, he resorts to saying things like “That’s not what I said,” or “I don’t believe that.” Obviously he’s never stated outright “I believe in contradictory things.” What I’m doing is launching an internal critique aimed at exposing inconsistencies within his own position. When Thibodaux is ready to respond to the charges laid against his position we’ll be able to continue.