Brennon, the only way one would be able to use such an appeal effectively is to show that the behavior would violate God’s nature as He’s revealed in the Bible.
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-–-fallacy-6-is-god-cruel-if-he-lets-a-believer-fall-away/#comment-4530
Thibo keeps making the same mistake. The question at issue is not whether this behavior violates God's nature as revealed in Scripture, but in Arminianism. Is this consistent with God's universal love and universal grace? Does God intend the best for all his fallen creatures? Does he always act in their best interests?
To be sure, God isn’t cruel in any objective sense, but it’s beyond argument from scripture that He’s very harsh with those who turn against Him.
Which the Arminian God foresaw in saving the would-be apostate.
Hays’ argument consists of taking God’s severity against people who rebel despite His goodness (and are thus more deserving of condemnation), then framing Him as being cruel for it.
Every time Thibo swings the bat, he misses the ball. I take God's severity against apostates as a defeater for Arminian theism. Yes, the apostate is more deserving of condemnation. And therein lies a problem for Arminian theism.
Since that dire outcome was a foreseeable and avoidable outcome of God's action (avoidable if God refrained from ever saving the would-be apostate), God is making the would-be apostate more deserving of condemnation by saving him in the first place, knowing all the while that by so doing, the would-be apostate will be more deserving of condemnation than if God simply left him alone to perish in his unregenerate state. Therefore, on Arminian assumptions, God always intended to do the would-be apostate harm. Maximal harm. His grace was ill-meant rather than well-meant when directed at the would-be apostate. Saving grace was just a way to aggravate the would-be apostate's guilt and condemnation. A necessary, preliminary, and transitional phase to make the would-be apostate worse off in the long run. A set-up to intensify his punishment.
For his caricature, he might also be charged with oversimplification since his fishing trip example altogether excludes the main reason God condemns the apostate.
I already dealt with that objection. Moreover, Thibo's objection only pushes the question back a step. Given apostasy, God condemns the apostate. But why did the Arminian God save him at the outset to later condemn him? And tighten the screws in the process? Why isn't that action exquisitely cruel by Arminian standards?
A couple of things.
ReplyDeleteA comment based on your response and an exploration of an assertion of yours:
"....but in Arminianism....".
Yes. I do not consider myself a "Calvinist". I have not read to any depth his Institutes. I have read some commentary. I read with interest in here the perspectives displayed. Your understanding seems to be premiere of the others of your group of intellectuals that make up Triablogue.
When I read that I said to myself, yes, it is a fight between two opinions. It appears both opinions speak for God. Both opinions are opposed to the other opinion.
When I spend time in the Presence of the Lord as I have been continually now for over thirty five years and then come from a deep refreshing sense of His Presence and Love "in the closet" and then come to this blog and read this stuff, I conclude, based on those three words, the opinion these Arminians are holding too is just false and it holds out no hope for me.
I don't find any "hope" in the Arminian perspectives; the God of Hope, in their conclusions or observations or opinions about your views is not there. It is obvious to me.
Arminianism kills "Hope" in a person's will to come to Salvation. God puts that Will of Salvation in us and then calls us to rest and enjoy the ride.
They give over a hope alright, but the trail ends at their doorstep where there is something God leaves for them to do about their salvation. That doesn't square with my read of Scripture nor of my personal relationship with the God of Scripture:
Act 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
From where I sit, Arminianism kills any hope within me about being saved with that as the proposition from Above!
It contradicts sound doctrine, such as this quib of the Apostle in passing from one great vista of Grace to another, here:
Rom 15:13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.
Now for the exploration. You commented this way:
"....Every time Thibo swings the bat, he misses the ball. I take God's severity against apostates as a defeater for Arminian theism. Yes, the apostate is more deserving of condemnation. And therein lies a problem for Arminian theism....".
Yes, I agree that everytime Thibo swings he is swinging his bat through the air and I am not even sure he should have a bat to swing cause the game seems to be different to me than that of a ball game?
But the point is the next part: "....the apostate is more deserving ....", to which I pause and go, hmmmmm? "more" deserving?
Here is where I stop. I don't see that that way. I would like to learn something here so kindly help me understand why you say it that way and not this way:
"From the time of Adam til now, we are all deserving condemnation. The Grace and Mercy and Peace of God has ...."
Why make that distinction?
Thanks
Is this consistent with God's universal love and universal grace? Does God intend the best for all his fallen creatures? Does he always act in their best interests?
ReplyDeleteUm.......yes.
BOSSMANHAM SAID:
ReplyDelete"Um.......yes."
Which conveniently ignores my specific arguments to the contrary. But thanks for your backdoor admission that my post was spot on.
When an Arminian apologist is reduced to cutesy "um...yes" replies, that's a tacit act of surrender.