Friday, September 02, 2011

Offerability

Tony Byrne says:
September 2, 2011 at 10:22 am

1) Only the died for are legally saveable.
2) Judas was not died for. (On the presupposition of LA)
3) Therefore, Judas was not legally saveable.
1) Only the legally saveable are offerable by God.
2) Judas was not legally saveable.
3) Therefore, Judas was not offerable by God.
These syllogisms are both valid. The only question is, are they sound? I say yes.
It seems obvious to me that offerability presupposes legal salvability, and legal salvability presupposes that one is satisfied for. This is one reason why it would be absurd to “offer” salvation to devils. They are not died for and they are therefore not legally saveable. There is a legal barrier that remains in the way since they have no substitutionary satisfaction for their sins. There is no well of life-giving water that has been opened for them.


1) Only the elect are decretally saveable.
2) Judas was not elect. (On the presupposition of unconditional election)
3) Therefore, Judas was not decretally saveable.

1) Only the decretally saveable are offerable by God.
2) Judas was not decretally saveable.
3) Therefore, Judas was not offerable by God.

These syllogisms are both valid. The only question is, are they sound? I say yes.

It seems obvious to me that offerability presupposes decretal salvability, and decretal savability presupposes that one is elect. This is one reason why it would be absurd to “offer” salvation to reprobates. They are not elect and they are therefore not decretally saveable. There is a decretal barrier that remains in the way since they have no elect status. There is no elective well of life-giving water that has been opened for them.

4 comments:

  1. Well, as stated these aren't valid, but they could be made to be valid. But let's put that, as well as the inserted 4-point premise securing a begging of the question, aside. Here's another one (using Byrne's formulation):

    1. Only those able to express faith are legally savable. (Acts 16:30-31 etc)
    2. Judas was not able to express faith. (Judas cannot do other than the decree)
    3. Therefore, Judas was not legally savable. (issues aside: from (1) and (2) by MT).

    Hence, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  2. True. Both Tony's argument and mine are fallacious. Mine is the mirror-image of his. If I win and I win, and if I lose I still win!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Should 2) read "Judas was not elect"?

    ReplyDelete
  4. This has been an excellent series, Steve. Thanks for taking up Ponter's pet topic.

    Tradition is truly blinding.

    In Him,
    CD

    ReplyDelete