You Sunk My Arminian Battleship!

How Arminianism Allows Calvinism to Escape the Charge of 'Author of Evil'

Did God allow sin to occur? Yes.
Is God committing some moral wrong by allowing sin to occur? No, God is free to allow anything He wishes (take it up with Him if you disagree).

http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-fallacy-8-calvinism-doesnt-charge-god-with-the-authorship-of-sin/#comment-4757

Did God determine sin to occur? Yes.

Is God committing some moral wrong by determining sin to occur? No, God is free to determine anything he wishes (take it up with him if you disagree).

How Arminianism Makes God the Author of Evil

That’s confusing different kinds of sources; I’m using ‘source’ in an originative sense. Look under ‘What is meant by ‘author of sin?’’

http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-fallacy-8-calvinism-doesnt-charge-god-with-the-authorship-of-sin/#comment-4754

Consider the damage caused by this tornado:



Obviously, the tornado isn't an agent with indeterministic free will. Clearly, the ultimate originator of the tornado's action is God. In fact, we can't even say the tornado caused the damage. It's like a puppet. As the Bible makes clear, the weather originates with God. He determines and controls the weather. The evil and destruction caused by tornadoes &c are not ultimately originated by some immaterial tornado self that creates its destructive path ex nihilo.

Rather:

Psalm. 148:8 lightning and hail, snow and clouds,
stormy winds that do his bidding,

Jonah 1:4 Then the LORD sent a great wind on the sea, and such a violent storm arose that the ship threatened to break up.

Psalm 42:7 in the roar of your waterfalls;
all your waves and breakers
have swept over me.

Amos 3:6 When a trumpet sounds in a city,
do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city,
has not the LORD caused it?

Since Arminians consider humans on the Calvinist understanding to be similar to lightning bolts, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc., in that they lack personhood and ultimate originative abilities, as well as ability to do or think otherwise, then the Arminians must call God the author of evil since there is no doubt that children dying from starvation (every day, almost 16000 children die from hunger-related causes) due to droughts God determined is an evil:



And God is the agent who originated this (if a human had the ability to control weather and caused a drought, killing many children, he would be morally culpable) evil, and since origination of evil means author of evil, then God is the author of evil on Arminianism. On Arminian assumptions, humans are no different than the above phenomena under the assumption of what Arminians' claim Calvinism teaches about humans vis-a-vis God's providential control. So what's the morally relevant distinction between God using a impersonal "human" to create destruction and an impersonal tornado? So, there's a similar thing going on in Arminianism that they claim is going on in Calvinism. And it is that thing that Arminians claim makes God the author of evil.

Of course, Arminians can respond that God has good reasons for the evil he allows, and thus isn't the author of evil in a morally culpable way, but then he gives up the argument against Calvinism.

Or, perhaps Arminians can admit that humans-on-Calvinism are quite different than weather phenomena (i.e., they have originative powers in the morally relevant way, they are personal, they act, they intend, and they can be held responsible for it even if they have been determined to act or intend how they do, etc), but then (again!) he gives up the argument against Calvinism.

Or, I suppose they can deny what looks to be the clear biblical teaching about God's relationship of control and determiner of the weather. But apart from the ad hoc nature of this move, the demoted (even for Arminians) status of God and his providential governing, the Arminian loses his appeal to the "clear" sounding passages about God's saving love for all whoever and Jesus' death for all whoever. Much of their arguments here rest on "the clear" teaching of Scripture. Lastly, they have argued that the Bible uses common sense terms that presuppose what common man would assume about those terms. If so, the above passages read by a common man would be read that God controls the weather like a manipulator controls a marionette.

Is He Evil?

There was once a woman who was terribly injured in a car accident. Due to her injuries she could not move a muscle, she couldn't even blink an eye.

However, a kind and loving grandfatherly-looking man loved this woman.

Knowing that the poor, injured woman had evolved from the stars, he loved her because she was fearfully and wonderfully made.

It so happened that the kind and loving old man was also highly intelligent. He had constructed a machine, The Lifegiver5000.The Lifegiver5000 could uphold anyone by the surge of its power. The only hitch, the man had to keep his finger on the upholding button. The button had power with the current produced by The Lifegiver5000, so he named the button con-current. Thus, the kind and loving grandfatherly-looking man gave new life to the woman.

The man also had a camera planted in the woman's eye so that he could see everything she saw. He was basically omniscient with respect to her life.

Having loved the woman with an amazing love, the kind and loving old man vowed never to interfere with her free will. He would hold the button no matter what. The old man hoped she would seek him, and if she happened to knock on his door, he would open it for her. He had to allow her to knock on his door by her own free will, otherwise she would be a puppet, and who could love a puppet.

The woman, however, did not appreciate her gift of life. She became angry and bitter towards her fellow man--who the kind and loving grandfatherly-looking man also loved. But the man kept his finger on the button, upholding her by the surge of his power. If he took his finger off the button, she would immediately fall to the ground, unable to move, even to blink an eye.

Incidentally, the woman could not have children, and so she hated children. One day her hatred took hold of her and she plotted to kill the little boy who lived next door. She invited the child over for milk and cookies. Upon hearing the invitation, the little boy's big blue eyes lit up and he jumped up and down with joy. Once she had the child in her house, she led him into the basement, where the milk and cookies supposedly were.

As soon as they were in the basement, the woman grabbed the child and picked him up, shaking him while yelling at him, "I hate you, I am going to kill you." The little boy started crying, pleading for his life. He screamed, "Mommy, mommy, help! Mommy, help!" The woman laughed an evil laugh. She then pulled out a butcher knife . . .

The details don't need to be reported, it's enough to know that she stabbed the boy 47 times. The kind and loving giver of life watched the entire thing; his finger remained on con-current.

The woman was eventually caught. Scientists inspected her and found signs of intelligence that led them to the kind and loving old man. The trial shined a global spotlight on the details of the case. The world found out about The Lifegiver5000 and the button concurrent.

At the trial, the kind and loving man was put in the dock. The question the prosecutor put to him was this: "If you are as kind and loving as you say you are, why did you keep your finger on the button con-current? You only had to remove your finger and the woman, who would have ceased to exist had you not gave her life, would have fallen motionless to the floor. Why did you uphold her by the surge of your power and use con-current?"

The reply still baffles most, and people debate it to this day. The kind and loving old man said that he would not violate her free will in case she ever knocked on his door. He also said that he merely allowed her to brutally murder the young child and that people were ignorant for thinking him morally culpable. After all, he said, "It's not like I determined her to do it."

The question debated to this day is this: Is he evil?

There are those who argue that if we would call fellow man evil for the same thing, we must call the saintly grandfather evil too. They say, "If he is not evil, then we do not know what the terms 'good' and 'evil' mean."

Others argue that he is not evil because he merely allowed the murder to occur. They argue that keeping your finger on con-current does not implicate you in the murder, but ordaining that the murder happen does so implicate.

Most wonder if that's a distinction without a morally relevant difference.