Pages

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

The Arminian nursery

One of the impediments to having a rational debate with Arminians is their intellectual reliance on metaphors. They can’t think outside their metaphors. They keep resorting to the same figurative objections to Calvinism:

Calvinism makes God the “author” of sin.

Calvinism turns men into “robots.”

Calvinism turns men into “puppets.”

It’s as if they equate Christianity with Hans Christian Andersen or the Brothers Grimm.

It should be unnecessary to point out that a merely figurative objection to Calvinism carries no argumentative force.

It makes no more sense to frame the debate over Calvinism in terms of “authors,” “robots,” and “puppets,” than it does to frame a Christological debate in terms of The Little Mermaid or Little Snow White.

Why do so many Arminians operate at the intellectual level of a small child who sees the world through a bedtime story?

Indeed, that raises an intriguing question: Are they so childish because they’re Arminian? Or are they Arminian because they’re so childish?

14 comments:

  1. Sorry, but i don't understand what you are saying is childish here. Is it:

    1. The use of metaphor.
    2. The frequency and number of metaphors.
    3. The lack of using anything other than metaphor.
    4. Some combination of the above.

    Thanks,

    BJ
    Stupid Scholar

    ReplyDelete
  2. He's just sating Arminians are stupid because he says so. Some people apparently think that's an effective debate tactic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think Steve's point is that metaphors can only go so far...they can be useful in instructing, but carry no argumental force.

    Further, the metaphors Arminians use aren't even accurate...so they not only fail to make an argument, but they also create a caricature.

    For Arminians having trouble following me, let me speak in your terms:
    Arminians are like a color blind child with dyslexia trying to use a color by numbers coloring book.

    ReplyDelete
  4. BJ BURACKER SAID:

    "Sorry, but i don't understand what you are saying is childish here."

    It's childish to use a metaphor as a substitute for making an argument. A metaphor should illustrate an argument, not take it's place.

    bossmanham said...

    "He's just sating Arminians are stupid because he says so."

    I didn't say "stupid," I said "childish." But if you think "stupid" is a more accurate description of your fellow Arminians, then who am I to take issue with your experience?

    And, no, I didn't merely state they were childish–I gave a reason for saying so.

    "Some people apparently think that's an effective debate tactic."

    Since you yourself resort to merely figurative objections, it's worth while to draw attention to the deficiencies of your own tactics.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Are we saying metaphors should never be used when referring to Calvinism, or should they only be avoided when there's a negative connotation involved?

    Metaphors are often useful, the question is whether they're valid and accurate or not.

    If we insist that man has no "free will" (and some do say this), that he has no capacity or ability to do anything other than what God has decreed he do for good or evil, then I think the robot metaphor is apt, even if incomplete.

    Robots can do only that which they were created to do by some external source. There is no originality there, in the sense that no impulse of a robot arises out of the ground of its own being.

    The Calvinist "man"'s impulses arise either out of the sin nature inherited at conception or the nature given to him by God at regeneration. There is no primitive impulse which arises purely from his own being that cannot be traced back to one of these two original sources.

    ReplyDelete
  6. John,

    "Are we saying metaphors should never be used when referring to Calvinism, or should they only be avoided when there's a negative connotation involved?"

    I thought Steve was pretty clear with "It's childish to use a metaphor as a substitute for making an argument. A metaphor should illustrate an argument, not take it's place."

    But then, I see that you posted 4 minutes after him. Perhaps you missed his comment.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There is no primitive impulse which arises purely from his own being that cannot be traced back to one of these two original sources.

    That would be a result of the fact that God is the only ontologically necessary being. All other beings are exhaustively ontologically dependent on him. So it's incoherent, in a Christian context, to speak of something arising from one's own being in an exclusive sense that can't be traced back to God. If it arises at all, it can be traced back to God. That's what it means for God to be God.

    ReplyDelete
  8. John,

    By the way, I'm not clear on how to distinguish being a man's nature and his being.

    If you think there is something "more me" than "my nature"--a source of decisions that is more fundamentally "me"--then that's something you should draw out. Don't leave it as an assumption--if you're right, it'll help your argument have more force. And if you're wrong, it'll help show it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dominic,

    Interestingly, I was recently reading some science fiction from Orson Scott Card, a Mormon. He included the idea that true free will is impossible if there is not a part of us that is uncreated & eternal.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dominic,

    Interestingly, I was recently reading some science fiction from Orson Scott Card, a Mormon. He included the idea that true free will is impossible if there is not a part of us that is uncreated & eternal.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What could be more inept regarding one's argument than the constant ad hominem you make in this post and most of the content on this site?

    ReplyDelete
  12. A.M. Mallett said...

    "What could be more inept regarding one's argument than the constant ad hominem you make in this post and most of the content on this site?"

    What could be more inept than your consistent failure to engage the arguments on this site?

    And I notice that you have no problems with Arminian ad hominem. You're just another Arminian respecter of persons.

    ReplyDelete
  13. A.M. Mallett said:

    What could be more inept regarding one's argument than the constant ad hominem you make in this post and most of the content on this site?

    Yet another drive-by comment from Mallett. See here for background.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am a member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians, which means I prefer and accept the Arminian points of view regarding salvation, justification and election over those of Calvin.

    Both Arminius and Calvin have made significant contributions to theology and understanding the requirements of God in regards to our lives and praxis. I wonder however at the debate that rages across the internet via blogs and websites propogating one view or the other. Does it Glorify God or does it denigrate God and Christians in general?

    If we believe that we are to be salt and light as Christ instructed, we have to debate on a level different to the secular world, we need to discuss variant theologies with patience, understanding and compassion.

    Having been guilty of not displaying any of these traits myself this has prompted me to stay out of them as much as I can and lately to examine my own motivations in engagement, this led me to wondering where do we Glorify God in these debates.

    Personal attacks against ones education, integrity, hopes and desires have become the norm, rather than just a solid exegetical look at each sides views. Self righteousness and self aggrandizement have crept in, in a major way. I am guilty of it and I have noticed that many of Calvins adherents resort to personal attacks rather than responding in a Christ like manner. We as a community have adopted the tools of the world to engage with one another, demonstrating to the world that for all lofty ideals and self proclaimed righteousness we are no better than those without Jesus. If anything we are worse as the level of attacks is spiteful and malicious.

    Are we adherents to Christ, Arminius or Calvin?

    1 Corinthians 3:3-5 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men? 5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe– as the Lord has assigned to each his task.

    We are still guilty of the same sins that Paul reminded the Corinthians of. We are debasing ourselves and Christ by stooping to tactics that are unworthy of us and more importantly of Christ. Showing this to the world we are not being salt and light nor are we advancing the kingdom. We are showing that we are weak and small minded and are more concerned with debate and being “right” than showing love as Jesus instructed us.

    It is surely easier to be destructive than loving, this again reflects our own falleness and participation in sin by holding onto our own natures rather than being renewed in the nature of Christ. We need to engage in a better manner and reflect Christ in our engagement, and demonstrate to the world that belief and faith in Christ changes our natures and the ways we relate with each other. Relating from love and understanding is being salt and light. I will continue to ponder this and pray for my own redemption in this matter as well as other participants. I would also ask that we each humbly seek the will of the Lord in this matter and behave as fellow believers towards one another no matter how divergent our theologies are.

    God Bless You.

    ReplyDelete