Before responding, notice Arminian priorities. A philosopher of religion, who’s been a professing Christian up until now, converts to the Hare Krishna cult. The Hindu convert makes a public case to justify his defection from Christianity, and conversion to the Hare Krishna cult.
How does the Arminian respond? Does he argue against the Hare Krishna cult? Does he critique the reasoning of the Hindu convert?
No. He launches an attack on...Calvinism.
RICHARD COORDS SAID:
However, I had detected in Steve’s comments a sense of *complaint* insomuch that people were lauding tolerance, instead of denouncing apostasy. So my question is, why the complaint all, even if we grant that such is made without emotion?
Assuming (arguendo) that my post amounted to a “complaint,” that’s perfectly consistent with predestination. On that view, God predestined my “complaint.”
So my question is, why the complaint all, even if we grant that such is made without emotion? In other words, if Michael is a divine puppet (which I discuss further in a moment), as well as everyone else being puppets, then to complain against God’s sock-puppetry is to complain against the divine sock-puppeteer.
i) Of course, I don’t grant the puppet metaphor.
ii) But even if I did play along with the puppet metaphor for the sake of argument, in puppet shows, puppets often complain about the conduct of their fellow puppets. They reflect the viewpoint of a puppet character, within the little world of their puppet stage. Their viewpoint well may be distinct from the viewpoint of the puppet master, who is not a puppet character sharing the same stage as his puppets.
Now, you could say that God complains…
That’s not my argument.
In other words, with Determinism, with all things being scripted by God, the saying holds, ‘It’s all good.’
Once again, even if we play along with the puppet metaphor for the sake of argument, in a puppet show, some puppet characters play the hero or heroine while other puppet characters play the villain.
The play is good. The script is good. That doesn’t mean everything the characters do is good. It’s a question of how the villain functions in the story. If he’s a foil character, then his badness serves a good purpose.
How such a paradigm could avoid an impression of puppetry, I cannot fathom.
Depends on how you tweak the metaphor. In a puppet show, the puppets are mindless. Not conscious, deliberative agents.
To take another comparison, Arminians are also captivated by the robot metaphor. Indeed, they use the puppet/robot metaphors interchangeably. But in Asimov’s classic story (I, Robot), the robot is artificially intelligent. The accused robot is psychologically indistinguishable from a human being. So at that point the metaphor breaks down.
He scripted it, in order to have knowledge *of* it, in order to maintain omniscience.
Actually, Calvinism doesn’t say that God predestined the future in order to know the future. It’s true that God knows the future because he predestined the future. Which doesn’t mean that’s why he predestined the future.
The demonic realm relies upon God for its each and every successive thought, from eternity past to eternity future.
i) Demons don’t have an eternal past.
ii) According to Arminianism, the demonic realm relies on God’s providential collaboration with everything the demons do.
How does one distinguish the works of God from the works of the devil if the devil thinks only and precisely the complete set of thoughts that God gives him?
That’s simplistic. It confuses two distinct propositions:
i) The devil does whatever God intends him to do.
ii) The devil intentionally does whatever God intends him to do.
To take a comparison: suppose a terrorist courier is headed to a rendezvous with a terrorist leader. Suppose, unbeknownst to the courier, a counterterrorist agency plants a remote detonatable bomb on the courier. When the courier arrives at the hideout, the counterterrorist agency detonates the bomb, thereby killing the terrorist leader.
The courier unintentionally carries out what the counterterrorist agency intends him to do. The courier intends to deliver a message to the terrorist leader. He didn’t intend to do what the counterterrorist agency intended for him to do. He unwittingly does their bidding.