Thibochiuhuahua

“I was of course referring to circumstances which God would actually allow, Hays just has no better answer than playing word games.”

http://www.junkyard.indeathorlife.org/

J.C’s objection to Calvinism, as he worded it, was a straw man argument. So I corrected his caricature. If J.C. is too inarticulate to clearly express what he really means, then that’s his problem, not mine.

“Let's examine his argument for consequences as disincentive: If consequence y won't happen until condition x occurs, and one teaches that x will absolutely never occur because God ensures that it won't, then he is also teaching that y can never occur, therefore neither x nor y are genuine possibilities as neither will, nor could ever occur. In teaching so, he undercuts any fear or caution such a consequence would incite, hence making it void by his teaching. And so despite his gimmicks and quaint analogies, Hays' insistence that ‘fear of consequences’ is a ‘means’ to our perseverance runs aground on his own doctrine once again.”

Of course we exercise caution since the divine promise is indexed to our avoidance of y.

Poor Thibodaux keeps confusing Calvinism with fatalism or antinomianism. In Calvinism, the outcome is not irrespective of what you do. You are not preserved in spite of doing y; rather, you were preserved from doing y. And the warning is instrumental in your avoidance of y.

“Sheesh, chock-full of errors. I didn't even mention meaninglessness in the quote he cites.”

J.C. can’t keep track of his own argument. One of his criteria, in his original challenge, is that:

“Any teaching that would make any passage of scripture meaningless or of no effect is a false doctrine.”

http://www.indeathorlife.org/soteriology/calvinism/reformedchallenge.php

“Refraining from eating poisonous mushrooms is not analogous with teaching that your eating them could never occur, and a warning being possible to violate does not render it ineffective.”

One of J.C’s problems is that, despite the rivers of ink he has wasted on the warnings of Scripture, he’s too intellectually shallow to ask himself the fundamental, preliminary question: “what is the function of a divine warning?”

Either:

i) To deter x from doing y.

Or:

ii) To inculpate x for doing y.

In Reformed theology, (i) applies to the elect, while (ii) applies to the reprobate.

a) In cases of (i), where the function of the warning lies in its deterrent value, an ineffective warning would subvert the purpose of the warning.

b) In cases of (ii), where the function is not to deter the sinner, but to either inculpate the sinner or aggravate his guilt, then the warnings serve their purpose when the sinner suffers the consequences of his defiant misbehavior.

“But if our making due use of grace is entirely contingent upon God working in us so that we will do so without fail, then scripture raising the possibility of one of the redeemed falling away effectively would be bringing up the contingency of God failing by the Calvinist paradigm.”

Scripture never raises the possibility that God would fail. Rather, that follows from the Arminian paradigm.

“So if they actually will fall in if they ignore the signs, then is Hays still going to insist that we're teaching doctrinal error if we tell others that it's possible for them to fall if they ignore the warnings? The absurd balancing act Hays puts on has scripture on one hand genuinely warning the saints against falling away, yet on the other hand condemning as false teachers those who teach that saints possibly could ignore the warnings and fall away.”

i) The warnings in Scripture don’t single out the “saints.” They are addressed to Israel or the church. Israel and the church include regenerates and unregenerates, true believers, nominal believers, immature believers, reprobates, and closet apostates. There’s no one-size-fits-all referent.

ii) J.C. both begs the question and oversimplifies the question of what constitutes a “genuine” warning, under what conditions, and for whom. To say that a warning can only be genuine if it’s inutile is tendentious and counterintuitive.

“His evasions cannot get around the obvious problem for his views that's been posed already: “Apparently, warning actual saints against the possibility of falling away is gospel truth when the apostles proclaim it, but now our affirming the viability of that same truth constitutes deep doctrinal error’."

All J.C. has done here is to reiterate his simplistic, tendentious, Arminian interpretation of the data.

“The other problem he has is that the 'warnings as means' argument by itself cannot account for the consequences attached to the warnings should they be violated (why give consequences to a warning that can't be violated by those to whom it was given?).”

The reprobate do suffer the consequences.

“But if he teaches that the purpose of such consequences is to spur us to perseverance, then teaching that it isn't possible for us to suffer such consequences mitigates that purpose (why fear a consequent with an antecedent that could never occur?), and hence he is making them of no effect, as was stated originally.”

Once again, he oversimplifies the issue. To be an Arminian you must be a theological simpleton.

i) Calvinism, unlike Arminianism, doesn’t believe that God issues useless warnings. Divine warnings always have their intended effect, but they also have more than one purpose.

ii) J.C., due to his dogmatic, Arminian precommitments, nullifies the deterrent value of a warning. For him, it must always be possible to violate a warning. Thus, it’s essential to his definition of a warning that it be ineffective.

For him, a warning is pointless unless it’s ineffectual. For him, even a divine warning is meaningless unless it’s nugatory.

iii) Calvinism, by contrast, doesn’t equate functionality with futility. Although not all warnings are meant to deter misconduct, some warnings are meant to deter misconduct, and if, in those cases, the purpose of the warning lies in its deterrent value, then it would subvert the purpose of the warning if it failed to deter the sinner.

iv) In ethics generally, contemplating the consequences of a hypothetical course of action can, of itself, have a deterrent effect. It’s because we fear the hypothetical consequences of that action that we don’t go down that fork in the road.

v)”It’s impossible” in what respect? It’s impossible because the elect will persevere, and they persevere, in part, by taking God’s admonitions to heart.

“He's not even dealt with the difficulties posed in the original challenge.”

Is that an allusion to this?

http://www.indeathorlife.org/soteriology/calvinism/reformedchallenge.php

If so, then I’ve presented a very detailed defense of the Reformed interpretation of Heb 6.

“After we exposed their cheap tactics, the Triahuahuas seem more determined than ever to try and contravene their crushing defeat with sheer volume of yapping.”

Notice how Ben and J.C. are unable to muster the charitable tone which they warmly urge on their opponents. They betray their own cause when libertarians lack the willpower to live according to their own strictures.