tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5845477289153250639..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: J.C. Thibodaux, The Bully of the BayouRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67439427625780199722007-11-28T22:47:00.000-05:002007-11-28T22:47:00.000-05:00Paul, as I point out, his point is about at the le...Paul, as I point out, his point is about at the level of this:<BR/><BR/>Since we cannot be perfect, it is worthless to command us to be perfect. You can't command the impossible. It would be like commanding a rock to roll around the room.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49736040311741259742007-11-28T22:45:00.000-05:002007-11-28T22:45:00.000-05:00Paul,That was part of his response, but note that ...Paul,<BR/><BR/>That was part of his response, but note that this is an appeal to an extra-biblical premise and he framed the debate as pitting "perserverance of the saintsd against what the Bible clearly teaches."<BR/><BR/>I address his responses here:<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/pillbury-thibodaux-boy-hee-hee.htmlErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84225553387336091182007-11-28T17:47:00.000-05:002007-11-28T17:47:00.000-05:00If I understand Thibodaux position it is that man ...If I understand Thibodaux position it is that man does not have libertarian free will in that he can choose on his own, but that he needs prevenient grace to help him come to Christ. He then holds to total depravity and says that man is free to choose only sinful options unless God gives him this PG. He also confirms that god is under no obligation to provide this PG to anyone and in fact that it may not be offered to ALL people. <BR/><BR/>I think the problem comes in where he uses the term libertarian free will but does not define it as one would normally do. This then gives him the ability to say that he believes in TD and “limited” libertarian free will and that the Calvinist’s have it all wrong. If PG is not offered to all men though how does that square with the fairness issue? I could see me saying on judgment day “God I know that I am sinner worthy of my punishment, but unlike these blokes I was never given this PG to see if I would respond to you if you freed my will to such a degree that I could voluntarily choose you.” I believe that the previous poster had it right when he said that this is very man centered theology. <BR/><BR/>I believe that he also pointed to Ezekiel 18:30 – 32 where Israel is told to get a new heart and a new spirit. I am glad that he thinks that he can give himself this new heart and spirit he will probably say it only with God’s help. However, the chapter talks more about what they can not do then what they can, he only needs to keep reading to Ezekiel 36:26,27 and see that it is God that gives the new heart and spirit and not because they have met a condition. I fear that Thibodaux also is under the belief that he can circumcise his own heart as was commanded to do in Deut. 10:16, sad how we are more and more self centered then God centered these days.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31768451782260883222007-11-28T17:08:00.000-05:002007-11-28T17:08:00.000-05:00I would think that Thibodaux’s response would be t...I would think that Thibodaux’s response would be that it is not a valid warning then. Something along the lines of if the impossible occurred then this will happen. I would think that would be his reasoning, I could be completely wrong though.<BR/><BR/>My problem with Arminianism in general is that its advocates will say that Calvinist are to God centered where they are more Christ centered. Yet if you look at their beliefs it is easy to see how misconstrued they are in applying said belief. They think that Christ's work on the cross was not complete; rather it gave man the possibility of salvation. Same with perseverance, Christ no longer is the one that saves them; rather it is them that save themselves. How much further from Christ centered can you be, seems that when push comes to shove they are more self centered then anything else. That is why their system is heretical in nature imoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70686504063647678382007-11-27T14:51:00.000-05:002007-11-27T14:51:00.000-05:001.Underwriting a number of his exegetical assumpti...1.Underwriting a number of his exegetical assumptions is the unspoken argument that "A warning text to a Christian, to be a 'real' warning, must mean that he really can fall away." Once again, this is just the ability limits responsibility argument dressed up in a different outfit. Its the logic that lies behind warrants to believe. It's the same logic that underlies hyperCalvinism, and various versions of general atonement or arguments for the free offer being "real" based on its sufficiency. I feel like I'm watching a fashion show on Project Runway. Where's Nina Garcia when we need her? This is all very "one note." Where is the supporting argument for this assumption?<BR/><BR/>2. He writes; A doctrine that has been circulating in the church for some time now is the belief that it is not possible for one who is redeemed in Christ to fall from God's grace and thereby be lost, the formal name of it being 'Perseverance of the Saints,' and often called, 'Eternal Security of the Believer.' <BR/><BR/>Uh, no, these two doctrines are not interchangeable. The fact that he would equate them should send a clear signal, and it's unintentionally comical to see him write this considering he's the one who droned on about Bernabe's alleged straw man tactics.<BR/><BR/>Eternal security is associated with antinomianism and fundamentalism. According to Bob Wilkin, there are three views regarding perseverance within it, and of those only one is what we call "perseverance of the saints."<BR/><BR/>In Eternal Security, as a general rule, all are secure but not all persevere.<BR/><BR/>In Perseverance of the saints, all are secure and all persevere to the end.<BR/><BR/>Not every argument against the perseverance is an argument against eternal security; not every argument against eternal security is an argument against perseverance. In Reformed Theology, perseverance of the saints is not an either/or proposition. Rather it is a both/and proposition.<BR/><BR/>3. Within the trajectory of Hebrews, the author takes the OT cases as his paradigm for examples. <BR/><BR/>Throughout this letter, the author’s emphasis is on the phenomenology rather than psychology of faith. His few references to the work of the Spirit are confined to the Spirit’s agency in inspiration and the charismata or sign-gifts. <BR/><BR/>What does it mean, then, to the author of Hebrews, to have tasted of the Spirit? It isn’t enough to say that they tasted of the Holy Spirit. You have to ask how the work of the Spirit is delineated in the Book of Hebrews. Is this equivalent to regeneration—or inspiration? Is this about the New Birth? Or is it related to the agency of the Holy Spirit in the authorship of Scripture? Are they resisting the grace of regeneration? Or are they resisting the voice of the Spirit speaking in Scripture? The text never mentions the psychology of faith, only the externals of believing. To taste of the Spirit is to partake but at the same time to taste, not to imbibe the whole meal internally. The people are resisting the grace of the inspiration of Scripture, the evidences of miracles, and the offer of the gospel to them, not their own internal regeneration and salvation. The author is indexing this text to a specific OT example from Deuteronomy/Joshua, where all the referents are also external, not internal. <BR/><BR/>In terms of the trajectory and flow of the argument, the leading theme in Hebrews is not the danger of apostasy, but the supremacy of Christ. The author mounts a spiral argument to show that Christ is superior to the prophets and the angels, to Moses and Aaron. Arminians end up refocusing the argument away from Christ to the danger of apostasy. These admonitions come within a larger framework, the supremacy of Christ. If Christ, as the high priest of his people, cannot save his people from apostasy, then how is he superior to the prophets and the angels, to Moses and Aaron? What does the high priestly intercession of Christ amount to if he cannot preserve his people from damnation?<BR/><BR/>The Arminian is, at the core of the objections from Hebrews assuming that the mere presence of a command must mean it is possible for persons to comply with their conditions. In the case of falling away, s/he is assuming these texts only apply to true believers if they can really apostatize. Not only can you not deduce anything from the presence of a command, but it is also possible that a warning can be issued in order to have a salutary effect. A coach may yell at his best players to win the game and threaten them with penalties even in a mismatched game that he knows they cannot lose, not because they might actually fail to play well or win, but because that is the means that will spur them on to victory with the proper attitude.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32380046963644228542007-11-27T13:34:00.000-05:002007-11-27T13:34:00.000-05:00yeah this is no different from Calvinist Gadfly of...yeah this is no different from Calvinist Gadfly offering a james white debate challenge, or else they are a heretic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45201604359595506432007-11-27T12:22:00.000-05:002007-11-27T12:22:00.000-05:00Sam Storms has written a number of articles on the...Sam Storms has written a number of articles on the so-called conditional security passages.<BR/><BR/>http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/studies/eternal-security/<BR/><BR/>Thibodaux's main error, as Paul pointed out, was in assuming that a conditional statement asserts something indicatively, a basic error in logic.<BR/><BR/>"If you commit apostasy, then you will not be saved" does not indicate whether the person was a regenerate believer to begin with.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.com