Arminian amorality

For example, Hays writes, "Among many internet Arminians, you have this self-reinforcing code of misconduct -- where they automatically cover for each other." Just like what Hays did for Pike.

i) Except for the awkward little fact that I didn’t “automatically” cover for Pike. Rather, I gave a detailed explanation. And, true to form, Birch doesn’t life a finger to show what’s wrong with my explanation.

ii) It’s also the fact that I don’t automatically cover for other Calvinists. I’ve criticized the position of fellow Calvinists from time to time.

Of course, I have less occasion to disagree with my fellow Calvinists than I have with Arminians for the obvious reason that, as a Calvinist, I’m in fundamental agreement with my fellow Calvinists. But the record will show that I don’t give an automatic pass to other Calvinists–and I don’t expect anything less from them in return.

Now, why would anyone think that Calvinists are mean-spirited and nasty? Could it be because when they care called out for their ungodly behavior on the Internet, they retreat to this type of nonsense? God isn't real to Arminians? Christ isn't real to Arminians? Their teammates are real to them? Really?

i) Notice how Birch misrepresents what I said. I didn’t refer to Arminians in general. My first sentence made a narrowly-targeted claim, and the rest of my post stayed within the scope of my initial reference frame: “A moral and spiritual problem with most internet Arminians of my acquaintance…”

ii) Also observe that Birch has yet to make good on his original allegation, when he said:

What Arminians mean is that if converts are given a Bible, and they begin to read the scriptures, they typically do not conclude with any semblance of Calvinism. This is very telling, in that, when a convert, without certain theological presuppositions already in place, concludes with Arminianism in some form, there appears to be an evidence of objectivity that is missing from how most people come to believe in Calvinism, a system which must be taught to believers, as the majority of Calvinist converts will admit. 

Where is Birch’s probative evidence for this sweeping claim? Why does he feel no moral obligation to educe suitable evidence to validate his allegation?

iii) And, yes, when a professing Christian doesn’t feel duty-bound to be truthful; when, in fact, he’s offended at the mere suggestion that he is morally obliged to make an honest effort know what he’s saying is true before he says it, then he’s acting as if Jesus isn’t real to him. Why does Birch think that Christian morality doesn’t apply to him? That that’s somehow beneath him? Why does he become belligerent at the suggestion that when he makes a factual accusation, he ought to have the facts to back up his accusation? And why do his approving Arminian commenters rubberstamp his behavior?

To judge by most internet Arminians I deal with, the cardinal rule of Arminian ethics is that Arminians can break the rules. When Arminians like Birch act as though they’re not answerable to God to be truthful, then, indeed, God doesn’t seem to be a living reality in what they think, say, and do.

How about this: God isn't real to Steve Hays. Christ isn't real to Steve Hays. His teammates are real to him, and nothing else. And when his Calvinist friends apostatize from the Faith, like Michael Sudduth, all Hays truly cares about is defending Calvinism, much more so than Christianity.

One thing you can say about Birch–when he’s dishonest, at least he’s consistently dishonest.

How did I respond to Sudduth’s apostasy (or backsliding, as the case may be)? Did I respond by defending Calvinism? No.

I specifically responded with an ongoing series of posts critiquing Hare Krishna. It was actually an Arminian (Richard Coords) who tried to derail the analysis into a debate over Calvinism.

As for defending Christianity, consider the number of posts I’ve done that are labeled anti-Trinitarianism, canonics, Christology, Darwinism, Hector Avalos, hell, inerrancy, miracles, theodicy, historical Jesus, Peter Enns, Richard Carrier, The Infidel Delusion, village atheist, etc.

Consider the book reviews I’ve done on Bart Ehrman, Christopher Hitchens, John Loftus, and Richard Dawkins.

Consider my review of The Empty Tomb. Consider the review I coauthored with other Tbloggers of The Christian Delusion. Not to mention another massive review (in the pipeline) I coauthored with Jason Engwer) of The End of Christianity.

I invite Birch to compare what he’s written in defense of Christianity with what I’ve written.

William BirchJan 30, 2012 09:53 AM

Hays is high on philosophy, inept at theology, and has, for the last four years I've been reading his posts, not yet shown evidence that he is regenerate. I pray that changes before it's everlastingly too late.

Good thing to know that Arminians aren’t mean and nasty like those mean ol’ Calvinists.