“The problem is this ‘raises the bar’. Calvinists must now shoulder the difficult task of proving a negative – they must specifically take out Arminianism. So instead of showing XYZ is taught in scripture (or the preponderance of evidence leans that way), which is all the Arminian must do; Calvinist must show ABC is denied in scripture (not just ‘not taught’, but explicitly denied). In short, internal disagreements within Calvinism require them to shoulder an a-symmetrical burden of proof in comparison to Arminianism.”
http://www.arminianchronicles.com/2009/08/enemy-of-my-enemy.html
There’s no asymmetry here.
An Arminian must prove conditional election to the exclusion of unconditional election, while a Calvinist must do the reverse.
An Arminian must prove corporate election to the exclusion of individual election, while a Calvinist has to prove individual election (although he doesn’t have to disprove corporate election).
And that applies to other issues as well, viz. limited/unlimited atonement.
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteJust because we race to the top of the same mountain doesn't mean your path doesn't have more and greater obstacles. Nor is unlimited atonement "a negative" in the same way unconditional election is. Unliminited atonement cashes out as the positive - Christ died for all - but unconditional election doesn't have a corresponding 'positive'.
To see what I mean in action, take Romans 9:21: Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
Explain what 'the lump' is in a manor distinct to Calvinism without ruling out sublapsarianism or taking the enemy of my enemy approach.
God be with you,
Dan
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThere is a real debate between supra- and infra-lapsarians, but your approach seems to imagine that if there is any debate among Calvinists there cannot be any agreement between them.
The major point of the potter-clay metaphor is that God has the freedom to make men the way he wants to make them - whether as one kind of vessel or another. Whether the logical order of his decrees is one way or the other is an order of magnitude smaller in significance.
-TurretinFan
Dear TF,
ReplyDeletebut your approach seems to imagine that if there is any debate among Calvinists there cannot be any agreement between them.
Not at all. I am simply agreeing with Welty that an "uncondition" is a denial.
The major point of the potter-clay metaphor is that God has the freedom to make men the way he wants to make them - whether as one kind of vessel or another. Whether the logical order of his decrees is one way or the other is an order of magnitude smaller in significance.
Agreed. But of course, that's not unique to Calvinism.
God be with you,
Dan
"Agreed. But of course, that's not unique to Calvinism."
ReplyDeleteArminians don't usually claim that God makes men for mercy/glory or for destruction, and frequently accuse God of various kinds of malfeasance on the condition that He does.
I did, however, leave one important feature of the metaphor out: the lump is undifferentiated - nothing distinguishes the two vessels from one another before God's election.
-TurretinFan
Context, context, context brother Turretinfan! You would hear far lest complaints if you sticked to the lingo of scriptures as you did above. Speaking of context, I am still game for a Romans 9 debate if you are.
ReplyDeleteGod be with you,
Dan
Sticking with the lingo of Scriptures would prevent me from using words like hypostatic union and trinity, though, Dan.
ReplyDeleteYes, I do still hope to have that Romans 9 debate with you.
-TurretinFan
I will make you a deal. You can use those terms, but just not any I don't like. :-)
ReplyDeleteGod be with you,
Dan