Pages

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Why the Arminian God Is Not Just a Pansy but Is Also Just Plain Stupid

While most non-atheists do think I’m a fairly intelligent person, I am the first to point out that I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, nor the brightest bulb in the socket. Even if I were the smartest person in the world, as I was recently given permission to be, most Christians would fully agree that God must be much, much smarter than I. Or me. (God would know which word to use there, for instance.)

But if the Arminian God happens to be the real God, it turns out that God isn’t really all that intelligent after all. Our recent discussions with EgoMarkarios have highlighted the importance of freedom in the Arminian universe, and I won’t go over those details again. Instead, I will now point out a few simple things, starting with an analogy.

Suppose there is a young college student, Bill, who is studying in the library one day when he spots a young female college student likewise studying. Bill is immediately attracted to this woman, and he goes over to introduce himself. Since he’s never seen the inside of a Gap and is instead wearing a John Loftus cowboy hat, she naturally tells him to get lost.

This obviously disappoints our poor college student, but he’s a clever individual. He sees that the young woman’s friends are with her and he recognizes one of them as someone from his 20th Century Postmodern Feminist Shakespearean Hermeneutics class. He meets with the friend of his crush the very next day and asks her for details on the woman, who’s name turns out to be Sue (only fitting as she is a lawyer). It turns out that Sue prefers men who bring her flowers, who dress in Armani, and who believe Dennis Kucinich really saw a UFO.

Bill really wants to go out with Sue. As a result, he ditches his Loftusian cowboy hat and buys an Armani suit. He purchases a dozen roses, and he tries as hard as he can to believe Kucinich saw a UFO. He gives up and decides that he can at least lie about that. Bill returns to the woman.

Sue rejects him yet again, but this time she says, “Nice try” without the sneer.

“What more can I do to get you to like me?” Bill asks.

“You can help me with my Abacus class.”

Bill doesn’t know anything about abacuses, but he decides right there that by the next day he will be the world’s expert on abacuses. And sure enough, he succeeds. Sue gets an A on her test, and slowly she begins to realize that Bill is a nice individual after all.

Eventually they marry, have 2.3 kids, and live happily ever after in a house with 1.7 bathrooms.

Class Discussion: In what way were homosexuals discriminated against in this example?

Now as ought to be plain to see, Bill really wanted Sue to fall in love with him. But Sue initially rejected Bill. If Bill were the Arminian God, he would have given up at this point as Sue’s free will could not be overcome. Instead, Bill reasoned that he could present himself attractively to Sue until she finally saw that he was exactly what she wanted in a man. So he did just that.

Bill learned things about Sue from Sue’s friend, and he used what he learned to slowly change Sue’s mind. Sue’s will was originally to shun Bill forever, but eventually she became persuaded to marry him. Bill could do that…why can’t God?

In fact, doesn’t God know who we are even better than we do ourselves? Isn’t it true that the Creator who formed us in the womb and knows us intimately would know exactly what was needed to convince us that He is real? Ask atheists and most of them will say, “If God rearranged the stars in the sky to spell Jesus Is Lord, I’d believe.” Yet God doesn’t do so.

Why not? God has the power, and simply acquiescing to such a request would not be a violation of the atheist’s free will. He would, in fact, be doing what the atheist requested of his own free will, wouldn’t He?

Now surely if I am smart enough to see this is true, God must know it too, for He is wiser than I am. He knows what everyone needs, and He is able to present Himself to everyone exactly as they are needed. Why, then, doesn’t He do so?

Apparently the Arminian God is either too stupid to understand this…or He doesn’t actually care about saving all (means all!) the world after all (still means all!). Surely God isn’t an omnipotent Forest Gump, so what’s the explanation?

Perhaps men are simply so evil that God knows rearranging the stars wouldn’t convince atheists He existed…but no, that’s too much like total depravity, and we can’t have that if we want to preserve freedom.

So we must conclude that the Arminian God really is just plain ol’ stupid is as stupid does.

43 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. All gods are stupid, even Peter Pike's.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Ask atheists and most of them will say, “If God rearranged the stars in the sky to spell Jesus Is Lord, I’d believe.” Yet God doesn’t do so."

    I've actually seen a deist insist that if there was a God who sent people to hell because they didn't know Him, then He would have written the Ten Commandments on the moon.

    That just cemented Calvinist soteriology to me. In fact, if God really did want every single last human being to be saved, then He would have sent down His entire host of angels to preach the gospel to the entire world immediately after Christ's ascension with signs and wonders accompanying.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What exactly is the argument here? That Arminians say God is under obligation to rearrange the stars if an atheist wants it done? I don't know any Arminians who believe that.

    "I've actually seen a deist insist that if there was a God who sent people to hell because they didn't know Him, then He would have written the Ten Commandments on the moon. That just cemented Calvinist soteriology to me."

    Say what?...Maybe I'm at a disadvantage as far as understanding what you guys are talking about being that I'm not Arminian (although that's what you want to call me). So, how does a lune Atheist saying God ought to write the 10 commandments on the moon prove Calvinism? Again, I've never heard an Arminian claim that God should (or did) write the 10 commandments on the moon. Sounds to me like you are making a strawman argument from Atheist to Arminian. You've got your A's confused.

    By the way, I also don't see where you got the idea that I said that God is under obligation to let people do whatever they want and that he can't stop them from doing anything or he'd be violating their free will. Free will doesn't mean that if someone is about to kill their neighbor God can't give someone a heart attack right there on the stop. Rather, it means that God did not decree them to hell but they damned themself. The parable of the farmer who built the barns and said "soul take thine ease" is proof that God can stop someone from doing what they intend to do - he intended to live to a ripe old age as a rich man, and God required his life that night. The question of free will (to me anyway) is not whether God had to let him do what he wanted, but for what was he damned? Was he damned because God decreed he would be then fated him to unrepentant sin? or did he choose to continue in sin although able to repent? Obviously, the latter, or else God would be the author of sin and an unjust judge. This is what I mean by free will. But as you persist in wanting to label what I beleive as "libertarian free will" you have misunderstand (because you chose to, not because God fated you to).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ego said:
    ---
    What exactly is the argument here?
    ---

    Given that it includes words with multiple syllables I'm not surprised you can't follow it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's just nonsensical jibberish. You think you're real educated, but clearly you are not.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I almost wish fatalism were true so I didn't have to feel so sorry for you Calvislamics. If you were just puppets or robots doing what a tyrant god programmed you to, then at least in hell you could say "God made me do it." But since you by your free will blaspheme God and assert that he gave you no free will but made you puppets, when you burn for eternity in hell you won't be able to say "God made me do it" because God will make you to know that it was all your free will.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm not Arminian (although that's what you want to call me).

    By "Arminian" on this blog, we refer, as a rule, to Libertarians as a whole, unless we are specifically referring to a specific sort of Libertarian.

    So, how does a lune Atheist saying God ought to write the 10 commandments on the moon prove Calvinism?

    I believe the point is that atheists are famous for the "if God would (insert act here) I would believe argument." In making this argument, they are saying that such an act would constitute sufficient reason for them to believe.

    Well, if that's really true, and God doesn't do this, then God does NOT want everyone to be saved, contrary to standard Arminian objections to the contrary.

    Sounds to me like you are making a strawman argument from Atheist to Arminian. You've got your A's confused

    Then pull out the Q-Tips, because that's not what he wrote. That said, it is rather telling that some Arminians answer the atheist with respect to the problem of evil by conceding the point. If it's not planned, there is such a thing as gratuitous evil. That's a key atheist argument. So, it seems like Arminianism is, at times, synonymous with atheism.

    By the way, I also don't see where you got the idea that I said that God is under obligation to let people do whatever they want and that he can't stop them from doing anything or he'd be violating their free will.

    "Can't" and "won't" are not interchangeable terms. So, you're misrepresenting what's being said, yet again, but, as we know, this is a regular feature of your argumentation. In the Arminian scheme, by their own admission, the freedom to do otherwise must always obtain. This is the logical end of your own argument.

    The parable of the farmer who built the barns and said "soul take thine ease" is proof that God can stop someone from doing what they intend to do - he intended to live to a ripe old age as a rich man, and God required his life that night. T

    Here's the text:

    16And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:

    17And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits?

    18And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.

    19And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.

    20But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?

    21So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.

    Where, pray tell, is there a statement about God intending to give him a long life as a rich old man with great wealth in this text?

    Rather, it means that God did not decree them to hell but they damned themself.

    Of course, Calvinism states that the reprobate are to blame for their damnation. We've been over this many times, and yet you continue to pretend as if we haven't. Rather, you just repeat your assertion.

    The question of free will (to me anyway) is not whether God had to let him do what he wanted, but for what was he damned?

    Actually, they go together, or is it your position that the damned are not willing when they sin? They are damned for sin, and they do what they desire to do. We do not teach that they sin unwillingly. They get what they want.

    Was he damned because God decreed he would be then fated him to unrepentant sin?

    No, because "predestination" and "fate" are not convertible terms. It would help you if you would avoid category errors of this kind.

    ONE MORE TIME: Decrees do NOTHING apart from PROVIDENCE. Apparently, you can't grasp the difference between certainty (a decree) and causality (providence). Of course, you regularly have to look things up and study them, so this doesn't surprise me. This is to be commended, but it would help you if you would actually learn your way around these concepts so you can accurately portray the opposing position. Problem is, I myself have told you this no less than 3 times, and you still persist. So, I am left to conclude you are either incompetent or a chronic liar.

    But as you persist in wanting to label what I beleive as "libertarian free will" you have misunderstand (because you chose to, not because God fated you to).

    Your view of free will is incoherent then, for you're left with a conundrum.

    a. If men's motives/desires are sufficient reasons/causes for blame, then that's not a Libertarian argument. You have elsewhere denied causeless choices. Fine, not problem.

    b. According to you, with respect to men's acts, the freedom to do otherwise must always obtain. Otherwise, you're left with decrees, which you adamantly deny. Indeed, you have attributed such an idea to the devil himself, which is blasphemy, but that's another discussion. If the freedom to do otherwise must always obtain, that assumes LFW, and you're using "free will" to argue against Calvinism,since you are using the Free Will Defense. The FWD must entail LFW or else it has no foundation.

    You don't understand the position you are articulating. If a is true, then b is false. If b is true, then a is false. You're trying to hold onto both. Apparently, binary logic escapes you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Since Ego isn't smart enough to grasp content, I shall explain it for him.

    God writing things in the sky is merely one (1) way that God could do things differently than He is currently doing them in order to demonstrate evidence that an atheist specifically asks for such that the atheists will not have his precious free will violated and yet will know that God is real.

    Now let's spell out the implications of that, EgoManiac. I know this will use numbers and logic, but please read it at least five times before you respond to it. This is for your benefit, lest you prove yourself a fool yet again.

    Note: the "GIVEN" statements are those that are assumed correct for the argument. (Hey, Ego gets an object lesson in internal critiques too!)

    Implications of the Arminian Argument:

    1. GIVEN: God loves every single person on the Earth.

    2. GIVEN: This means that God wants to save every single person on the Earth.

    3. GIVEN: God cannot violate free will.

    4. God will do whatever He can to save every single person on the Earth (due to 2), so long as it does not violate free will (due to 3).

    5. There are plenty of things that I can think up that would enable God to get His point across without violating free will, such as the example I mentioned in this post you ignored.

    6. If God did not know about the example in 5 beforehand, then God is stupider than I am for I have thought up something that He never did. (Not only that, but my thoughts were better than His thoughts.)

    7. If God did know about the example in 5 beforehand and yet He has not acted on it, then 4 is false.

    8. Since God now knows about the example in 5 regardless of whether He knew about it in the past, and yet nothing has changed, 4 is false.

    9. Conclusion 1: 4 is absolutely false (due to 6, 7, & 8 covering all possibilities).

    Therefore, it is NOT the case that God will do whatever He can to save every single person on the Earth so long as it does not violate free will.

    With this truth in mind, let us look at the GIVEN statements from earlier.

    10. Given 9, God must:

    10A. Not love everyone on Earth.

    or

    10B. Not wish everyone on Earth to be saved.

    or

    10C. Save people by violating their free will.

    or

    10D. Any combination of the above.

    11. Conclusion 2: Regardless of which option(s) in 10 is/are correct, the Arminian position is logically incoherent, and therefore false.

    All this is seen from Arminianism alone. I don't even have to present a single Calvinistic argument. Arminianism is self-refuting.

    ReplyDelete
  10. But since you by your free will blaspheme God and assert that he gave you no free will but made you puppets, when you burn for eternity in hell you won't be able to say "God made me do it" because God will make you to know that it was all your free will.

    Since we do not deny free will, but we deny libertarian free will, this is yet another scurrilous lie. Since we don't teach men are puppets, we can add this to your strings of lies. Tell me, do you know that your fingers type these words, or are they autonomous with respect to higher cortical functions?

    You really are a piece of work, EM. When in doubt, employ the Neener! Neener! Defense. When answered, repeat the assertions. Beg the question; repeat.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ego said:
    ---
    But since you by your free will blaspheme God and assert that he gave you no free will but made you puppets
    ---

    No, that's YOUR assertion, and you've repeatedly been corrected on it. Each time you repeat it, you lie yet again.

    What does God say about liars, Ego? Who did Christ say the Father of Lies was?

    ReplyDelete
  12. DISCLAIMER - This post is in no way endorsing or defending Egomakarios.

    The problem with your argument Peter is that God doesn't just need people to acknowledge his existence, he also would need them to turn to him in repentance and love. Big difference.

    While an infinite intelligence may be able to persuade someone of the truth of something (although maybe not - what if they REALLY don't want to believe?), I don't think you can infallibly "persuade" someone to love you. So I don't think this argument is very good.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mark said:
    ---
    The problem with your argument Peter is that God doesn't just need people to acknowledge his existence, he also would need them to turn to him in repentance and love. Big difference.
    ---

    Only if you accept Calvinistic concepts (such as Total Depravity). If one denies the fundamental evil of man, then there is no reason to think God couldn't come up with any vast number of ways to get people to love him.

    Think of your own friends. You weren't born friends, but you became friends because there was something about your friends and yourself that "clicked." You friends will do things for you that others won't, etc.

    You said:
    ---
    While an infinite intelligence may be able to persuade someone of the truth of something (although maybe not - what if they REALLY don't want to believe?), I don't think you can infallibly "persuade" someone to love you.
    ---

    Again, that is because you are coming from a standpoint that deals with the depravity of man, which Arminians deny.

    Let us start with the issue of people who just REALLY don't want to believe. How evil must that person be in order to be in that place? If a person is that evil, how is it possible for him to freely choose anything but evil? (Already, I see the case won by the Calvinist in this argument.)

    But think about it from a non-religious perspective. It is possible that there are some people who are insane who would refuse to accept the obvious (Kucinich comes to mind). But is an insane person morally culpable for his actions? Most Arminians would not thinks so (think age of accountability arguments). Thus, someone who would deny the obvious in such a manner could only be insane (rather than wicked; that is the Calvinist's answer), and therefore would be saved anyway.

    In the end, I think you have valid criticisms of the argument I have presented here, but those criticisms rely on presupposing Calvinism. Arminianism doesn't have the answer within itself, so Arminianism remains self-refuting.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I almost wish fatalism were true so I didn't have to feel so sorry for you Calvislamics. If you were just puppets or robots doing what a tyrant god programmed you to, then at least in hell you could say "God made me do it." But since you by your free will blaspheme God and assert that he gave you no free will but made you puppets, when you burn for eternity in hell you won't be able to say "God made me do it" because God will make you to know that it was all your free will.

    There we go. There are the EgoM comments I have enjoyed at Beggars All.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 8. Since God now knows about the example in 5 regardless of whether He knew about it in the past, and yet nothing has changed, 4 is false.

    Wow. You think God reads your blog?

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wow! Strong words, but very true ones at that! One things for sure, atheists may say they would believe that "If God would moved the stars around to say Jesus Christ is Lord" they would believe. God's word says something very different. Not quite the same as moving the stars but the same idea. Just read Luke 16:19-31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:19-31;&version=47;

    ReplyDelete
  17. Your misunderstanding of Arminianism shows in this post. You would have better to label it semi-Pelagainism rather than Arminianism. If you read the works of Arminius you would find that his focus is not on free will nor is his focus on the power of mankind but on the sovereign decrees of God and particularly the love of God.

    While I enjoy your blog, you missed the mark on this post.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The Seeking Disciple said:
    ---
    Your misunderstanding of Arminianism shows in this post. You would have better to label it semi-Pelagainism rather than Arminianism.
    ---

    Actually, Gene has already commented on the term, although I guess I should still point out that I agree with him.

    ReplyDelete
  19. EGOMAKARIOS SAID:
    "I almost wish fatalism were true so I didn't have to feel so sorry for you Calvislamics. If you were just puppets or robots doing what a tyrant god programmed you to, then at least in hell you could say "God made me do it." But since you by your free will blaspheme God and assert that he gave you no free will but made you puppets, when you burn for eternity in hell you won't be able to say "God made me do it" because God will make you to know that it was all your free will."

    Well now, a “new” standard to receive the gift of eternal life: One must assent to LFW and not just any LFW, but that defined by Egomakarios. But I would not be so bold as to pronounce an anathama on Ego for his foolish unbiblical belief in LFW as he is on those who disagree with him. Rather, I hope, that in spite of his foolishness, he is trusting on the work of Christ for eternal life.
    I don’t think that one’s theological position on monergism v. synergism is the determining factor of whether at the final judgment Jesus places him on the right or on the left.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I had to deal with ego's rudeness at my own blog until I banned him. He is a classic Campbellite. That explains the ease at which he condemns all those outside the UCC to hell's eternal flames.

    I commend your efforts to reason with him (whoever he is) but reason clearly escapes him. At this point I think you can safely assume you are casting your pearls before swine.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Mark,

    "The problem with your argument Peter is that God doesn't just need people to acknowledge his existence, he also would need them to turn to him in repentance and love. Big difference.
    While an infinite intelligence may be able to persuade someone of the truth of something (although maybe not - what if they REALLY don't want to believe?), I don't think you can infallibly "persuade" someone to love you. So I don't think this argument is very good."

    This goes beyond the question of the atheist to the question of the heathen at large. I frequently hear the question asked, "What about those who have never heard the gospel?"

    The answer that is frequently given by non-Calvinists is that God cannot hold those people responsible since they never had a chance to choose or reject Jesus (contra. Rom. 1:18-21). Thus, it is implied that there are many of these heathen who have not heard who would have accepted if they had only heard.

    And then there's Peter's point that (according to many if not most non-Calvinists), there are many people who are on the verge of faith who only need a little more evidence.

    Lastly, there's always the fact that there are many "smart" people who look at the same evidence and yet reject the faith.

    Total depravity takes care of all this nonsense. Libertarian Free-Will only exacerbates these problems.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Well, if that's really true, and God doesn't do this, then God does NOT want everyone to be saved, contrary to standard Arminian objections to the contrary."

    God wants everyone to be saved in the sense that he desires all to come to repentance, not in the sense that he will spoonfeed salvation to everyone. When you lit your strawman, you set your foot on fire.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Well now, a “new” standard to receive the gift of eternal life: One must assent to LFW and not just any LFW, but that defined by Egomakarios."

    You can take the L off. And, yes, those who assert that they were born that way unable to do any better are calling God the author of sin, and God will not put up with their mancentric idiocy. He will not allow a smart-allec Calvislamic who says he is the author of sin and that he fated them to it to enter his presence. He will send them down to hell where they can worship Satan who is much more like the god they beleive in anyway in that he is arbitrary and hates men for no good reason.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Total depravity takes care of all this nonsense."

    I do believe that Calvislamics are totally depraved, but they weren't born that way - they became that way through their Satanic religion.

    ReplyDelete
  25. egomarkios, you so crazy.

    Pike:"But is an insane person morally culpable for his actions?"

    I thought there was a post earlier this year on this blog saying that infants and insane people would be saved.

    Saint:"The answer that is frequently given by non-Calvinists is that God cannot hold those people responsible since they never had a chance to choose or reject Jesus"

    William L Craig says:"... it is possible that God has created a world having an optimal balance between saved and lost and that God has so providentially ordered the world that those who fail to hear the gospel and be saved would not have freely responded affirmatively to it even if they had heard it."

    Craig is definitely a libertarian 'Arminian' (and by the way, Arminius did not deny total depravity) and he doesn't think that people who don't hear the gospel will be saved. You also have to remember that the vast majority of people in the pews believe in both 'Arminianism' and the exclusivity of salvation. Also a lot of them believe the Holy Spirit had a role in melting their heart.

    Another problem with arguments used to defend 5 point Calvinism is that they're often circular

    For example Calvinists claim that faith is sometimes a work.

    Such as here we're informed that:
    "You are correct that the Bible teaches that faith is not a work, but we make it into a work as soon as we view it as something we can autonomously come up with, apart from any (straw man) work of the Holy Spirit. Those who believe we can, from our own resources, change our naturally unregenerate hardened hearts in some way that is independent of God are promoting rank Pelagianism."

    Here it is asserted (without any Biblical evidence) that if you believe that what separates the unbeliever from the believer is synergistic faith, then you've 'turned faith into a work'. This is just obviously a circular argument, and I would submit implausible on its face.

    I get the impression that many Calvinists have built their ramshackle house on the foundation of Romans 9. All their other arguments are completely circular.

    What if the non-Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 is correct? What then?

    CRASH

    ReplyDelete
  26. I appreciate the point - our wills aren't really free in the sense of being completely random, and unpredictable. Even people can see this about other people.
    I've thought about it from the opposite end. Remember Hamlet plotting not to kill Polonius when he was at prayer since then he would go to heaven? Arminianism allows for people to have more control over the salvation over other people than God which is clearly absurd (although a Molinist could probably find some way around this).

    ReplyDelete
  27. I think a point has been reached that any further engagement with egomakarios will simply be gratuitous. He is clearly in way over his head. He possesses neither the training nor the intellectual capacity to engage in a thoughtful debate effectively.

    Of course, one benefit to engaging him is that he is a bit of a history lesson. There are not many campbellites around anymore. That, of course, is a good thing. He is clearly outside the bounds of historic Christian orthodoxy.

    To make matters worse, however, egomakarios is prideful and ignorant. He will not receive instruction. So I suggest that the best course of action is to shun him. How else are we to deal with someone who consigns to hell such men as Johnathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and Charles Spurgeon for worshipping satan!?

    He will continue to throw bombs because he loves to fight. He doesn't even know that he is losing the debate.

    The problem with egomakarios is less in his mind as it is in his heart. He refuses to bow to or even acknowledge the God who has revealed himself in Scripture. He refuses this God out of loyalty to his sect. He simply cannot afford to believe in a God who is sovereign, who decrees what comes to pass, and who overwhelms sinners with sovereign grace. This is why his exegesis and his logic are so tortured.

    My humble suggestion is to shun this one who refuses to listen and learn. To continue to engage him is, I think, a waste of time. Perhaps God will graciously lead him to repentance.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I love how you "I wan born that way" Calvislamics engage in so much transference. You say of me "He refuses to bow to or even acknowledge the God who has revealed himself in Scripture." LOL! I love how you talk about yourself and say "egomakarios." You reject that God of Scripture who so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, for a monster invented by Augustine and copied by Mohammed, who damned men prior to creating the world on something as flimsy and random as a dice roll, who fates everything, and who has no real love, only simulated love based on his dice roll. Your god would burn in hell with you if he weren't a phantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I am not sure what a "phantasy" is. Can anyone supply a definition?

    I truly believe that shunning is the only right response to one who claims the name of Christ but blasphemes God.

    I find it ironic that one who spews forth such venom claims to be defending God's love.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "William L Craig says:"... it is possible that God has created a world having an optimal balance between saved and lost and that God has so providentially ordered the world that those who fail to hear the gospel and be saved would not have freely responded affirmatively to it even if they had heard it.""

    So, in other words, God could have created a possible world in which more people would have freely responded in accepting the gospel. So, in other words, God didn't want "all" (and of course, all means all all the time) to be saved.

    So, God deterministically chooses who would freely choose Christ or not. That sounds a lot like particular redemption to me.

    In the end, if God has knowledge of the future, and He has freedom to create any possible world, then it follows that He has foreordained all that comes to pass.

    On one point I agree with the Open Theists: the only consistent non-Calvinist is an Open Theist. Libertarian free-will presupposes the ancient pagan chaos-order/form-matter dialectic.

    Oh, and lastly, Calvinism is not based on Romans 9 alone, but of course, you knew that.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Notice how EM just waltzes right by and repeats himself.

    Fate is not determinism or predestination. But he's too stupid or lazy to look it up.

    He tries to tar Calvinism with Mancheanism. Where are the direct quotes.

    He parallels Calvinism with Islam. No supporting argument.

    "Dice roll." Never mind that is not what we affirm.

    EM is a liar, pure and simple. He has no arguments, only ad homineum invective and blasphemy.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "You are correct that the Bible teaches that faith is not a work, but we make it into a work as soon as we view it as something we can autonomously come up with, apart from any (straw man) work of the Holy Spirit. Those who believe we can, from our own resources, change our naturally unregenerate hardened hearts in some way that is independent of God are promoting rank Pelagianism."

    Here it is asserted (without any Biblical evidence) that if you believe that what separates the unbeliever from the believer is synergistic faith, then you've 'turned faith into a work'. This is just obviously a circular argument, and I would submit implausible on its face.



    I can't help but notice that in the article you cited, John was replying to the way the interloctuer framed the issue himself:

    "Why do you call our belief that faith precedes regeneration synergistic? How can this be, unless faith is understood to be a work? Faith is not a meritorious work, by definition. In essence, the two are mutually exclusive. Accepting a gift is not a work, therefore it can't be considered synergism. If salvation is by faith, then works are nowhere to be found in the process. Again, to argue that faith precedes regeneration is synergistic would only be valid if faith = works."

    1. LFW is not derived from the exegesis of Scripture, so we're framing this objection on philosophical and logical grounds - the very grounds laid out by Arminians with respect to LFW, so we're only answering them on their own level. So, you're wanting a "biblical" argument while employing another that is not itself biblical. I find that unintentionally humorous.

    2. Who here lacks a biblical argument? You are assuming, without benefit of argument, that grace is quantitative, not qualitative. A little bit of synergism will do ya! Where is the supporting argument?

    3. In our theology, grace is both necessary and sufficient to save. Sola Fide is a species of Sola Gratia. In Arminian theology, grace is necessary but insufficient to save. In another thread (the one below this one), an Arminian has further frankly admitted that there are no sufficient causes to persons' choices.

    4. So, you're left with the proposition that grace is necessary, but insufficient and that an agent's LFW choice that leads to their justification. So, yes, that turns faith into a work, because people believe for different reasons, and it arises not from grace alone, but from a state of LFW. Further, Arminians frankly admit that election's ground is foreseen faith. So, election is dependent on man.

    Craig is definitely a libertarian 'Arminian' (and by the way, Arminius did not deny total depravity) and he doesn't think that people who don't hear the gospel will be saved.

    Yes, he is a libertarian Arminian, and he yet argues that God (a) only instantiates this one world to the exclusion of all others, (b) cannot overcome the grounding objection to his theory of Middle Knowledge, and (c) presents an incoherent view of divine foreknowledge that runs contrary to libertarian freedom, for, in his view of Middle Knowledge, the world that God instantiates is also a world that is so organized that the outcomes are determined in advance. God is also manipulating externals, like circumstances, so a particular outcome obtains, and only that outcome. That's NOT libertarian agent causation, because there are in built defeaters for LFW, for if anything determines the outcome, then freedom is no longer indeterminate.

    I would also add that John is able to defend himself. If you have a problem with something he wrote, then there happens to be a comment thread in that post.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Todd Said:
    ---
    I am not sure what a "phantasy" is. Can anyone supply a definition?
    ---

    I'm still waiting to see how "fate" became a verb. As in "God fates everything." Why is it that the little boy who accuses me of burning strawmen has to invent word forms in order to refute Calvinism? You'd think if Calvinism were actually wrong he'd be able to present the actual Calvinist position and refute that.

    I propose from now on we make EgoMakarios into a verb. As in: "I EgoMarkariosed John 3:16 and faithed that God fated nothing, because if you Greeked the text you obviously see you couldn't have been fated to do that."

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Oh, and lastly, Calvinism is not based on Romans 9 alone, but of course, you knew that."

    Never said it was.

    "So, in other words, God could have created a possible world in which more people would have freely responded in accepting the gospel"

    No, I think Craig's point was that this world has the 'optimal' balance between saved and lost, in that he means that he made a world where as many people would be in a position to accept him, as would accept him

    "You are assuming, without benefit of argument, that grace is quantitative, not qualitative."

    OK fine, I'm probably in weigh over my head but I'll take the bait.

    If by defining it as 'qualitative' you mean grace can either be on or off, either entirely salvific or not salvific at all, then this seems a bit circular.

    I do believe that if God starts a good work in you he'll finish it, and that no one can work up saving faith on their own, that the Holy Spirit sanctifies the believer, that we'll be perfected in heaven etc. Why this is logically inconsistent with libertarian free will I don't understand.

    So therefore I do believe God's grace is qualitative. If He saves someone then they'll be saved, if someone chooses to reject Christ then they won't be saved at all.

    "I would also add that John is able to defend himself. If you have a problem with something he wrote, then there happens to be a comment thread in that post"

    Actually I was trying to preempt you using the exact same argument since I think it's been used here before. I just searched the internet to find someone making it. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  35. Let's change this brilliant senerio just a bit:

    Let's say that Bill has complete and total control over Sue's will. Now lets say that Bill pursues Sue and tells her that he loves her and wants the best for her. She rejects him. Why? Because Bill, who is in perfect control of her will, has denied her the ability to respond in love. Bill continues to pursue her, reason with her and court her, all the while denying her the ability to respond, and knowing full well that she will never respond unless he turns her will.

    What would you think of Bill in such a situation? Would you call him intelligent?

    "Hear and pay attention, do not be arrogant, for the LORD has spoken. Give glory to the LORD your God before he brings the darkness...But if you do not listen, I will weep in secret because of your pride; my eyes will weep bitterly, overflowing with tears, because the LORD’s flock will be taken captive.” Jeremiah 13:15-17

    "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." Matt. 23:37

    "As I live", declares the Lord, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die O house of Israel?" Ez. 33:11

    "All day long I have stretched out my hands to a disobedient and obstinant people." Rom. 10:21

    As far as stupid people go I think I must take the cake for taking the time to leave a comment on one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read.

    ReplyDelete
  36. roo, the distinction between God's decretive & perceptive will is a fact you must deal with (ex. Pharaoh's heart being hardened, the sacrifice of Isaac, etc.).

    ReplyDelete
  37. kangeroodort,

    "Let's say that Bill has complete and total control over Sue's will."

    Straw-man. That would be hard determinism. Calvinism is a form of soft determinism. God's control over men is in someways passive and someways active. Primary and secondary causes.

    "Now lets say that Bill pursues Sue and tells her that he loves her and wants the best for her."

    Straw-man. God loves all men but not all equally. (Luke 2:14, Romans 8:28, etc.)

    "Because Bill, who is in perfect control of her will, has denied her the ability to respond in love."

    Straw-man. That ability was denied to her because her federal head, Adam, made her choice of rejection for her.

    "Bill continues to pursue her, reason with her and court her, all the while denying her the ability to respond, and knowing full well that she will never respond unless he turns her will."

    Straw-man. God never pursues the non-elect. The gospel call is made to all men by those who don't know who the elect are. As Spurgeon would say, if a yellow stripe were painted down the backs of the elect, then I'd go around lifting up coat-tails.

    "Jeremiah 13:15-17"

    God weeps because of evil, yes. He hates sin and does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. In one sense, He does love all men.

    "Matt. 23:37"

    Christ wanted to gather their (i.e. the religious leaders') children (i.e. the Jews) together. You're reading the verse as if the "you" = "your children", but obviously, He is distinguishing the "you" from "your children".

    If your purpose in citing this verse is to argue that people have wills, then you have again committed the straw-man fallacy. Calvinists do not deny the will (or even "free" will) of man. What we deny is libertarian freedom. The fact that "they" were not willing fits in perfectly with total depravity.

    "Ez. 33:11"

    (See the above two comments)

    "Rom. 10:21"

    God was pleading with Israel as a whole. People can give a repentance that is out of fear (i.e. non-regenerate).

    Of course, there are two sides of this coin. Frequently in the prophets, God sends a prophet to call Israel to repentance, but God's goal of the call to repentance is not to bring them to repentance. Rather, it is to harden their heart so that God can judge and destroy them:

    “Why, O LORD, do You cause us to stray from Your ways and harden our heart from fearing You? Return for the sake of Your servants, the tribes of Your heritage.” (Isaiah 63:17)

    “But if the prophet is prevailed upon to speak a word, it is I, the LORD, who have prevailed upon that prophet, and I will stretch out My hand against him and destroy him from among My people Israel.” (Ezekiel 14:9)

    “Woe to him who builds a city with bloodshed and founds a town with violence! Is it not indeed from the LORD of hosts that peoples toil for fire, and nations grow weary for nothing?” (Habakkuk 2:12-13)

    “For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, “HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM.”” (John 12:39-40)

    (See also Romans 11:7-10, etc., etc., etc.)

    Your brother in Christ,
    S&S

    ReplyDelete
  38. kangaroodort said:
    ---
    As far as stupid people go I think I must take the cake for taking the time to leave a comment on one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read.
    ---

    I agree with the first 13 words there.

    You do realize that my analogy was predicated on Arminian presuppositions, don't you? I mean, I even said as much to Mark Pendray already. If you're going to post comments, it might help if you read the relevant background first.

    In any case, your altering of the analogy isn't equivalent to Calvinism in the first place. You say:
    ---
    Let's say that Bill has complete and total control over Sue's will.
    ---

    Of course you don't give us enough to know what you mean by that. You ought to be aware that Calvinists tend to be Compatiblists, although given your analogy I'm pretty sure you didn't know that.

    You continued:
    ---
    Now lets say that Bill pursues Sue and tells her that he loves her and wants the best for her.
    ---

    But since God never says that He wants the best for non-believers, nor does He ever say that He persues them, your analogy is already false.

    You continue:
    ---
    She rejects him. Why? Because Bill, who is in perfect control of her will, has denied her the ability to respond in love.
    ---

    You say that Bill "has denied her the ability to respond in love." Think about that phrase for a minute. You're saying that unless God grants you an ability you don't otherwise have, it's God's fault that you can't do something. If so, then the opposite must be true too: that if you have the ability to do something you otherwise couldn't do, then it's only due to God. In other words, you can't take credit for it.

    So if God gives you free will, then God must be responsible for your decisions, since you wouldn't have free will if He hadn't given it to you. Ergo, by your own standards, God becomes the author of evil. He has given you something that you wouldn't otherwise have, which means its His fault.

    How does this help you out any?

    You said:
    ---
    Bill continues to pursue her, reason with her and court her, all the while denying her the ability to respond, and knowing full well that she will never respond unless he turns her will.

    What would you think of Bill in such a situation? Would you call him intelligent?
    ---

    Ah, but here's the kicker for you. Wouldn't it depend on WHY Bill was behaving in the manner your listed above before I could determine whether his actions were intelligent or not?

    Suppose that Bill wants to prove to Mary that Sue is so dense that no matter how much Bill persues Sue, Sue will reject him? Since Bill's behavior is no longer predicated on how SUE perceives Bill, but instead on how MARY perceives Bill then Bill's actions are perfectly reasonable, even given your faulty presuppositions.

    In other words, you are arguing that God persues the reprobate because He wants to save them, when I counter that God gives the offer of salvation to the reprobate so that all can see how wicked the reprobate actaully are.

    Since we are looking at two different goals here, your analogy is disanalogous.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Notice that in Arminianism, UPG is given because, if none was given, men wouldn't have any ability to choose Christ at all. Not only that, Arminianism has a doctrine of decrees, whereby the fall was permitted.

    There are two ways to view this: The decree is effacious. In which case, that's Amyraldian, Infralapsarian, or Supra, all of which Arminians seek to avoid. Alternatively, the decree is really permitting the possibility of the fall. In that case, since the Fall occurred, Redemptive History is the Plan B Pill. One wonders why Arminians aren't pro-choice.

    Now, some Arminians say UPG is applied to all people without exception. Some say that it applicable only to those who hear the gospel.

    If the latter, then how can it be said that God really wants those who don't hear the gospel to be saved? In either case, why does one man believe and not another?

    And notice that they like to throw around concepts like, "If Bill has complete control over Sue's will." That's cute, but it lacks explanatory power. What does the Arminian mean? Is that what the Calvinist means? Does the Calvinist teach that God believes for man or that God puts fresh disobedience and sin into men's hearts?

    The underlying assumption, I suppose, is that, unless LFW is true, Calvinism's doctrine of "free will" leads to men doing things that they otherwise would not do, but where's the supporting argument? If that's true, then Arminians don't really believe in total depravity like they say they do, for UPG is given to overcome TD.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Sorry it took me so long to respond to these wonderful comments. I only have access to the internet at work.

    Saint and Sinner wrote:

    Straw-man. That would be hard determinism. Calvinism is a form of soft determinism. God's control over men is in someways passive and someways active. Primary and secondary causes.

    Which has no explanatory power. Either God causes all things or He does not. If He causes all things then He causes sin. To say that He only permits sin is to appeal to LFW, which you deny. It does not help to say that we choose according to our strongest desire, or motive, if that desire or motive is caused by God. Compatibilism is still determinism, and there is no "softening" that. It is very interesting to me that you are concerned about strawmen, when that is what the entire post amounts to.

    Straw-man. God loves all men but not all equally. (Luke 2:14, Romans 8:28, etc.)

    And how does God love the reprobate again? Oh, yes, I remember, He loves the reprobate by giving him a few fleeting pleasures in this temporal world.

    It is interesting that Jesus said of Judas that, "It would have been better that he had not been born." He also said, "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and yet forfeits his soul?" This other "love" of Calvinism amounts to the love I show a fish by feeding it the worm on my hook.

    If anything, the temporal pleasures of this world will only serve to multiply the misery of the reprobate in hell. The rich man's anguish was intensified as he remembered the cooling properties of water and longed for just the smallest drop to be applied to his tongue. Is that what you meant by love?

    Straw-man. God never pursues the non-elect. The gospel call is made to all men by those who don't know who the elect are.

    Really? God never pursues the non-elect? That is quite a bold statement. Have you ever read the parable of the wedding feast? Did not the king prepare a feast and send out his servants to call those who would reject that invitation? Isn't that pursuing the non-elect? To make matters worse for your position, Jesus made it clear that the feast was prepared and genuinely offered to them. He was angered that they rejected his invitation. Why?

    Your system has God condemning sinners for rejecting something that was never provided for them, nor intended for them. Thankfully,
    God's word does not agree with you or your system.

    Christ wanted to gather their (i.e. the religious leaders') children (i.e. the Jews) together. You're reading the verse as if the "you" = "your children", but obviously, He is distinguishing the "you" from "your children".

    This is garbage exegesis. See the following post where I address this ridiculous attempt to dodge the clear implications of this passage.

    http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/09/calvinism-and-free-will-exegetical.html

    If your purpose in citing this verse is to argue that people have wills, then you have again committed the straw-man fallacy. Calvinists do not deny the will (or even "free" will) of man.

    Ah yes, the "freedom" of determinism. We are "free" to do just as God pre-programmed us to do. We are free to do just as God decreed we should do. We are free to act in accordance with our desires, which God has complete control over, etc.

    God was pleading with Israel as a whole.

    The text says He was specifically stretching out His hands to the rebellious people of Israel.

    People can give a repentance that is out of fear (i.e. non-regenerate).

    It wouldn't be genuine repentance then would it? Does God desire anything other than genuine repentance? What does this have to do with Rom. 10:21 anyway?

    Of course, there are two sides of this coin. Frequently in the prophets, God sends a prophet to call Israel to repentance, but God's goal of the call to repentance is not to bring them to repentance. Rather, it is to harden their heart so that God can judge and destroy them:

    The call to repentance is not to bring them to repentance? Keep in mind that in your system God causes all things; indeed you say that such is the very definition of sovereignty. If God does not meticulously control everything, then He is not "sovereign", right? If that is the case then it follows that God is the one who hardens the hearts of men and makes it impossible for them to repent. Men will not repent because God has made it impossible to repent.

    Why then the need to send prophets to further harden their hearts by calling them to repentance? You say: "so that God can judge and destroy them". On what basis does God need to do this so that He can judge and destroy them? Are they not already judged by their rebellious hearts? Were thay not condemned and judged from the womb? From eternity? Are you saying that God cannot justly destroy them until he calls them to repentence and further hardens their hearts?

    If God is just to destroy them without first calling them to repentance and hardening their hearts [as your theology plainly teaches], then your answer here amounts to nothing.

    You then cite the following passages:

    “Why, O LORD, do You cause us to stray from Your ways and harden our heart from fearing You? Return for the sake of Your servants, the tribes of Your heritage.” (Isaiah 63:17)

    The Lord hardens hearts in response to human rejection. The Lord had hardened the peoples hearts because they had stubbornly refused His continual calls to repentance. He gives them over to their stubbornness and their just condemnation according to Rom. 1:18-32. It is a passive hardening. The more we reject God's grace, the harder our hearts become.

    Are you suggesting that God actively hardens peoples hearts? That is usually a position held only by hyper-Calvinists. If you are a hyper-Calvinist, please let me know so I know what I am dealing with here.

    “But if the prophet is prevailed upon to speak a word, it is I, the LORD, who have prevailed upon that prophet, and I will stretch out My hand against him and destroy him from among My people Israel.” (Ezekiel 14:9)

    Read verses 1-4 and you will see why this passage does not help your cause.

    “Woe to him who builds a city with bloodshed and founds a town with violence! Is it not indeed from the LORD of hosts that peoples toil for fire, and nations grow weary for nothing?” (Habakkuk 2:12-13)

    You are going to have to explain how this passage helps your position. I'm kinda stupid remember?

    “For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, “HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM.”” (John 12:39-40)

    They were hardened due to their unbelief and continual rejection. That is why the Jews did not recognize Christ. They had rejected the Father and could therefore not receive the Son [the perfect revelation of the Father].

    Look at how Matthew quotes Isaiah:

    "For the heart of this people has become dull, with their hearts they scarecly hear, and they have closed their eyes..."

    The Jews were to blame for their hardening. God gave them over to it. It is also true that after the cross many of these hardened Jews came to faith. Paul also holds out hope for the hardened Jews in Rom. 11:23-32 if "they do not persist in unbelief". That God hardened their hearts does not mean that they never had a genuine opportunity to respond to His grace prior to that hardening. It is also clear that this hardening did not mean that they would necessarily be denied further opportunity to respond to God's grace as Rom. 11 illustrates.

    God Bless,
    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  41. Peter Pike wrote:

    I agree with the first 13 words there.

    Please don't ever make me have to count words again.

    Of course you don't give us enough to know what you mean by that. You ought to be aware that Calvinists tend to be Compatiblists, although given your analogy I'm pretty sure you didn't know that.

    Yes I know that Calvinists tend to be compatibilists, I just don't think compatibilism is coherent. God still controls the will in compatibilism, whether through second causes or otherwise, He is still in perfect control. Compatibilism is still determinism.

    But since God never says that He wants the best for non-believers, nor does He ever say that He persues them, your analogy is already false.

    Again, my stupidity is confirmed by responding to such things. Do you really believe that the Scriptures do not teach that God loves the world [which includes non-believers]? I provided other passages which demonstrate that this is indeed the case. I would also ask you to review the comments I just made to S and S concerning the wedding banquet.

    You say that Bill "has denied her the ability to respond in love." Think about that phrase for a minute.

    OK

    You're saying that unless God grants you an ability you don't otherwise have, it's God's fault that you can't do something.

    Actually, I did not say this. I questioned Bill's intelligence if he were to pursue the love of another all the while denying that person the ability to love him.

    If so, then the opposite must be true too: that if you have the ability to do something you otherwise couldn't do, then it's only due to God. In other words, you can't take credit for it.

    Ability is something quite different then necessitated action. Are you suggesting that Arminians try to take credit for salvation?

    So if God gives you free will, then God must be responsible for your decisions, since you wouldn't have free will if He hadn't given it to you.

    Does not follow. God is responsible for giving us free will. We are responsible for the use of that will. You beg the question of determinism.

    Ergo, by your own standards, God becomes the author of evil.

    Not at all. If I gave you a car and you wrecked it into a tree, would it be my fault because I gave you the car? I guess you could sue me for the wreck and injuries, right? Please tell me this is not the extent of your reasoning skills.

    He has given you something that you wouldn't otherwise have, which means its His fault.

    See above.

    How does this help you out any?

    I should ask you the same thing.

    Suppose that Bill wants to prove to Mary that Sue is so dense that no matter how much Bill persues Sue, Sue will reject him?

    Let's forget for a moment that Sue is not rejecting Bill because she is dense, but because Bill will not enable her to respond.

    Since Bill's behavior is no longer predicated on how SUE perceives Bill, but instead on how MARY perceives Bill then Bill's actions are perfectly reasonable, even given your faulty presuppositions.

    So Bill's purpose is to demonstrate to Mary how silly Sue is for rejecting him, when Bill, himself, is the reason Sue is rejecting him?

    In other words, you are arguing that God persues the reprobate because He wants to save them, when I counter that God gives the offer of salvation to the reprobate so that all can see how wicked the reprobate actaully are.

    Brilliant. So God pursues the reprobate, calls them, and tells them that He has no desire that they should perish, all the while denying them the grace they need to respond so that He can impress the elect who cannot possibly be impressed by such things unless God first irresistibly regenerates them anyway. Is that what you meant?

    Thanks for setting me straight.

    God Bless,
    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  42. Wow!! I cannot believe the wacko anti Calvinists who have posted here! Kangeroo has come to our site before, but this Egomaniac is insane...I think I might begin to agree with Bill Harrell on his resolution on blogging if these wackos keep posting comments.

    ReplyDelete