Arminian ethics and other oxymorons

It's always revealing to see what passes for moral discernment among Arminian epologists. For instance:

A.M. Mallett said...

I noticed that the Triablokes attempted a hatchet job on Dr. Olsen's comments regarding open theism as result of this post. I do not think they grasped the intention or context of Olsen's comments though.

July 3, 2010 12:39 PM

http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2010/07/are-you-liberal-am-i-is-arminianism.html#comment-90405030629232988

Notice that Mallett doesn't lift a finger to actually show that I did a hatchet job on Olsen, or that I failed to grasp the intention of context of his comments on open theism. But then, integrity has never been Mallett's strong suit.

Moving along:

William Watson Birch said...

You can't expect Hays to be fair. Look at his recent attack out of the blue on Dave Armstrong. Was that necessary?

http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2010/07/are-you-liberal-am-i-is-arminianism.html#comment-6606484109468354990

Let's see. I pointed out that some upscale Catholic epologists don't have Armstrong on their blogroll. How is it unfair to judge Armstrong by his peers?

Continuing with Birch:

Plus, Hays is not a careful reader. It was my comment concerning Open Theism, not Olson's. I see how he wants to make the connection, but it's just another one of his Christlike smear campaigns. Oh wait, no, it's not Christlike at all.

Just to set the record straight, Billy did a post in which he denied that Arminians are liberals. And he cited open theism as a paradigm-case of liberalism. He accused Calvinists of pedaling "misinformation" about Arminianism. He said they ought to be "embarrassed." He said Arminians have no more in common with open theism than Calvinism does. And he cited Roger Olson in support of his general contention.

I quoted Birch verbatim. Then I quoted Olson verbatim, in which Olson goes out of his way to defend open theists. In the course of which Olson also says that Arminianism has more in common with open theism than it does with Calvinism.

Birch fails the ink-blot test. When you quote somebody verbatim, as well as quoting somebody else verbatim whom he cited in support of his position, and he then accuses you of an "unChristlike smear campaign," he's simply smearing himself. He's staring into the mirror, then accusing the mirror company of character assassination. Well, all I did was hold up the mirror to his own statements. So what does his reaction tell you about his own character?

N.B. Never turn to Billy Birch for tips on how to be Christlike.