Kehrhelm Kröger (aka a helmet) has offered a pseudoresponse to my post critiquing his attack on Reformed theodicy.
One of his persistent problems is that he’s still fixated on Reformed theodicy. But as I explained to him, I don’t need to prove Reformed theodicy to disprove his attack on Reformed theodicy. I only need to disprove the general argument he used.
Since this has been explained to him on several occasions now, I have to assume that he’s either too dense to grasp the explanation, or else he gets it, but chooses to ignore it because he can’t deal with it.
He then devotes most of his post to the parable of the wedding feast (Mt 22:1-14). Needless to say, this has precisely nothing to do with question, which a helmet himself volunteered, of whether God wanted sin to enter the world.
Moreover, his meandering exposition hardly amounts to genuine exegesis of his chosen prooftext.
“Now Steve, what does this have to do with your question above?”
“It is remarkable that the narrative is silent here. And here lies the key to the parable. The man cannot explain how it was possible for sin to enter God's world.”
Since the narrative was never about the origin of evil, the silence of the narrative on that question is altogether unremarkable.
“Steve, I, a helmet tell you that you will never, ever be able to reconcile the above trilemma. Natural man's hand and feet are bound and he cannot make any move towards a solution to that problem! You are in the spiritual darkness where you have no discernment regarding the truth about God. The one you call your God you do not know, Steve!”
Of course, an obvious problem with this tactic is that it’s reversible. What prevents me from saying the same thing to a helmet?
“The ‘Greater Good Defense’ is just one among many man-made attempts to reach God by man's easysolutionism.”
Aside from the fact that we can find the essentials of the greater good defense in the Bible itself, a helmet’s last-ditch appeal to esoteric wisdom is a perfect candidate for “easysolutionism.” When his back is to the wall, he flashes his Illuminati membership card.
“The omnipotent and perfectly holy, loving God is not the author of sin in any sense.”
Well, in one respect I agree. The “author of sin” is just a metaphor. Unless a helmet can define this buzzword in literal terms, the buzzword is nonsensical. As such, it’s true that God is not the “author of sin” in any sense–given the nonsensicality of the buzzword.
“The notion that God wanted the opposite of his will is so blatantly outlandish that it defies any reason and christian spirit.”
Either God willingly allowed evil to enter the world or allowed it unwillingly. Yet a helmet’s attack on Reformed theodicy was predicated on God’s omnipotence. But an omnipotent God can prevent evil from entering the world. In that case, God willingly allowed evil to enter the world.
A helmet’s basic problem is that he begins with a preconception of what God is like. And he doesn’t allow anything to challenge that preconception.
As a result, a helmet is a closet atheist. He’s boxed himself into a corner wherein he’d cease to believe in God the instant God did anything at all to violate a helmet’s preconception of what God is like.
Speaking for myself, I’ve never felt it was my Christian duty to be more pious than the Bible. I don’t begin with an extrabiblical metaphor like “the author of sin,” the use that figurative stick to draw a line in the sand. I’d rather position myself wherever God has drawn the lines.
“Note, the parable ends with the words ‘Many are called but few are chosen’. God will not leave the elect in ignorance. They will know God and be worthy guests in his presence. The elect will not be left in their false man-made easysolution-boxes, but know the truth.”
In other words, I’m a goat rather than a sheep.
I wouldn’t necessarily be that harsh in my diagnosis of a helmet. But to judge by his performance thus far, I’d say a helmet plays too much football without a helmet.