tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3271524872195011511..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Pointless PredestinationRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45872740172466112462015-02-19T09:39:06.682-05:002015-02-19T09:39:06.682-05:00Those are some good points too. If God is the way...Those are some good points too. If God is the way the Arminian thinks, then He definitely is working at cross-purposes with Himself. (E.g., wanting to save all people everywhere, but then not even doing the basics tasks that you and I would do without even having omnipotence--including things that wouldn't even be close to violating someone's free will!)Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22401538812409528832015-02-19T06:17:09.582-05:002015-02-19T06:17:09.582-05:00In times past I've said that it's not only...In times past I've said that it's not only pointless, but detrimental given Arminianism. There are many people who have rejected Christianity (either by leaving it or dismissing it) precisely because it seemed (to them) to teach unconditional election. Anthony Flew is just one of many examples of people who rejected Christianity because of the Bible's teaching on predestination (and this is after he left atheism and became a deist/theist). So we have here an example of the Arminian God who, despite His alleged universal love, is lacking enough wisdom to realize that it's in His and man's best interest not to mention predestination in His written revelation. Even if it's conditional rather than unconditional. But if it is conditional, why not inspire Scripture to CLEARLY teach it's conditional rather than making it vague or seem (as Calvinists believe) to clearly teach it's UNconditional?<br /><br />In another sense, given the Arminian view of human free will, accidents in inspiration shouldn't be unexpected. There's a kind of consistency in saying that the Arminian God couldn't prevent human error from entering the Bible (i.e. not sovereign or powerful enough). On that view, the Biblical writer's erroneous views of unconditional election unfortunately seeped into Scripture. Presumably Paul and the other NT writers unconsciously drank too much of the milk of the Stoicism that pervaded the Hellenistic culture in which they lived. While the OT writers accepted by osmosis the tyrannical conception of deity that was common in the surrounding Semitic cultures of their day.<br /><br />It is any wonder that many modern Arminians are rejecting doctrines like inerrancy, penal substitutionary atonement, the historicity of the OT, the justice of OT law etc. etc. et cetera?ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.com