Pages

Friday, September 25, 2009

Arminian dualism

When I did my little post on the logical parallels between Arminianism and Manichean/Zoroastrian dualism, I clearly got under the skin of many thin-skinned Arminians.

What’s ironic about their indignant, overheated reaction is that I was simply playing the game by their own rules. I’m using their very own set-up.

When Arminians attack Calvinism on moralistic grounds, they frame the problem of evil in terms of authorship. Calvinism allegedly makes God the “author of sin.”

So authorship is their paradigm. And, given that paradigm, they reject unitary authorship. God is not the only author of the story.

If, therefore, we play along with their favorite metaphor, then the story (i.e. the world) was coauthored by a virtuous novelist or playwright in conjunction with a wicked novelist or playwright. The virtuous author authored the good stuff while the fiendish author authored the bad stuff. God is the author of all the good stuff, while someone else authored all the bad stuff.

Well, isn’t that bedrock dualism? Arminians bifurcate the story into good and evil, assigning the heroes to one author while they assign the villains to another author. An honorable author authors honorable characters while a dishonorable author authors dishonorable characters.

It’s like saying Sir Arthur Conan Doyle authored the noble character of Sherlock Holmes, but someone else authored the ignoble character of Prof. Moriarty.

I suppose they would tweak the metaphor a bit in terms of composite authorship rather than coauthorship. Different authors wrote different parts of the story.

But the underlying principle remains dualistic. Good has one source while evil has a different source. Two antithetical, opposing sources.

7 comments:

  1. Hence a helmet's claim that there are two potters referred to in Romans 9:21. He protests too much to the charge of dualism. Where else does one find two potters where the text only mentions "the potter" who has the right to make two different kinds of vessels from the same lump? It can only come from his apriori dualistic assumptions, and the text must be made to fit those assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve: "What’s ironic about their indignant, overheated reaction is that I was simply playing the game by their own rules. I’m using their very own set-up."

    Arminians try and do the same thing to Calvinists. But it doesn't stick.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's dualistic to say "Good has one source while evil has a different source"?

    So you are suggesting that God is the source of evil, then, as He is the First Cause.

    Let me ask this, then (although this will probably sound a bit metaphysical): does God dwell within those who are evil and, in the afterlife, the damned?
    Further, is God present in Hell?

    If God is truly the source and origin of evil, then I'd think there should be no opposition to the notion that His spirit resides in the damned as well as the saved, and that He is present in the outer reaches of Hell as He is in the center of Heaven.

    So then, from where comes the sense of torment that inflicts those in Hell? From God? From the damned themselves? What elements are eternally in opposition to each other? The element within each reprobate that God Himself created?

    So God is eternally wrestling and fighting Himself? It would seem so.

    ReplyDelete
  4. JOHN SAID:

    "So you are suggesting that God is the source of evil, then, as He is the First Cause."

    God created Adam, Eve, and Lucifer. All creatures, fallen or otherwise, have their source in God.

    That, of itself, doesn't make God blameworthy for the outcome.

    "Does God dwell within those who are evil and, in the afterlife, the damned? Further, is God present in Hell? If God is truly the source and origin of evil, then I'd think there should be no opposition to the notion that His spirit resides."

    Literally speaking, words like "dwell," "present," and "reside" involve spatial relations. Since God is a spirit, he doesn't actually occupy space. You're getting carried way with spatial metaphors. Therefore, even if your conclusion were a valid deduction from your premise, your premise is false.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'd add that even in terms of spatial proximity, Jesus lived on earth for 33 years. Jesus was a sinless, impeccable person. His spatial proximity to evil didn't generate any sort of moral, logical, or psychological antinomy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there." - Psalm 139:7-8

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi John,

    Good questions there.

    Dealt with that a little on my blog here- http://brandatthebrink.blogspot.com/2009/07/baileys-pearly-gate.html

    Links there to Jonathan Edwards and John Gerstner that were adamant that God will also be in Hell.

    Norm Geisler would disagree but...

    Also really liked your "author" analogy there Steve!

    If C.S.Lewis authored Mere Christianity does that make him a mere Christian?

    Or if he authored the Screwtape Letters- does that make him screwy?

    ReplyDelete