J.C. Thibodaux, on May 20, 2010 at 6:06 pm Said:
The sovereign God holds power of life and death for His creations, and therefore has no obligations to stop evil from being committed or prevent His creations from destroying each other, and is therefore not responsible for their actions in any moral sense.
J.C. Thibodaux, on May 23, 2010 at 6:46 pm Said:
Then I would have to conclude that definition of moral responsibility can’t be applied to God for allowing evil. He isn’t an eligible candidate for blame simply by His allowing the event to occur regardless of His reasons, as He has no obligation to keep it from occurring, and hence there’s no basis on which He can be blamed.
It's ironic to see what Arminians must resort to to construct a libertarian theodicy. The standard appeal of Arminianism is that God is so loving and caring and equitable.
But in order to defend their conception of God against the argument from evil, Arminians are now taking the position that God has no moral obligations to his rational creatures. That's reminiscent of Medieval voluntarism and nominalism. The very thing that Calvin inveighed against.
In so doing, they have done a 180 from the sales' pitch of Arminianism. Indeed, this makes supralapsarian Calvinism positively cuddly by comparison.
In fact, they are casting God in the role of viviparous snakes that abandon their young at birth to fend for themselves. "You're on your own now, kiddies! I'm outta here! If you're eaten before you make it to your first birthday, tough luck!"