Well, I noticed that no response article was provided but I saw on his post and noticed that he responded in the comments. Well, let’s see what Thibodaux has to offer:

The dearest Objector gives a few more replies. They’re honestly so vacuous and inane that I won’t even dignify them with another post, but I can dismantle his few remaining points here:

This wouldn’t be merely him pandering if he had intelligent points. He hasn’t shown anything I’ve stated to be vacuous or inane.   

@That means anyone’s interpretation of the facts if reality could by chance be equally valid to God’s interpretation of the facts. So, the true Arminian is a relativist.

How could that be, since God is the Law-Giver, and thus by definition the Arbiter of what is correct? That’s just sophist nonsense.

This wasn’t my full argument. So, let’s take a gander:

If we posit that God’s plan is merely one that by chance be correct, then we have an issue of subjectivism. It may come to pass where humans would act contrary to his plan or interpretation(because they possess LFW). That means anyone’s interpretation of the facts if reality could by chance be equally valid to God’s interpretation of the facts. So, the true Arminian is a relativist.

So, you have to further explain where the fault is with my argument. I think God is the law-giver because his mind is the source of the rational foundations of the world. It provides the content and context for these things to have meaning and significance. It doesn’t just so happen to correspond to the world but makes the world what it is. Dr. James Anderson draws this perspective of Van Til’s view out in his article on the trinity:

In other words, there must be one absolute consciousness which underwrites a unified interpretation of all reality. (Compare, in this regard, Van Til’s description of Yahweh as the “All-Conditioner” and “All-Conscious One” — note the numerical singularity — in his apologetic pamphlet, Why I Believe in God.) If the unity of the Godhead (i.e. the divine essence) is non-personal, then that which unites the Father, Son, and Spirit (and a fortiori underwrites the unity of the created order) is intrinsically neither rational nor moral.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/08/van-tils-serious-trinitarian-theology.html

@Aseity is broader than God being independent of creation. … To deny God’s knowledge is coterminous with his being leads to a denial of aseity and simplicity.

Much as Calvinists abuse the word ‘sovereignty’ to mean far more than sovereignty actually entails, so determinists do with God’s aseity. I believe in God’s innate independence of creation, not some n00b’s redefinition of terms.

Now, I presented quotations from a Ph.D. philosophical theologian to vindicate my understanding and respected common Christian thinkers. Names of Leftow, Frame, and Van Til. Those are men that all agreed with the points I provided from them. So, Thibodaux is a doofus to think I’m redefining something. [Watch later for how this is turned around on him]

@The authorship of evil argument lacks sufficient definition.

Already defined in the article I linked to on the Authorship of Sin (https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-fallacy-8-calvinism-doesnt-charge-god-with-the-authorship-of-sin/) [see the heading “What is meant by ‘author of sin?’”].

Let’s quote the article:

The term ‘author‘ as employed by Arminians/Synergists in this case, is used in an originative sense to describe where the evil ultimately arose from. If we can identify, “whose idea was this?“, then we’ve found the author. Calvinists will often equivocate and say that it means “actually committing the sin,” or some such, but the ‘author’ of an action doesn’t necessarily describe someone directly committing that action, rather it denotes the one who came up with the action to begin with. A reasonable summary of how decree and authorship are related might be worded:

If a decree is made and its intentions carried out as a result, then the author of the decree is the author of the decree’s fulfilled intentions.

Doesn’t everything ultimately result because God chose to create? That is, that God ultimately came up with this possible world and instantiated it knowing that every evil that would occur in it would come to pass. So, reductio, Arminianism core tenents entail God is the author of sin. But I don’t think God causes things to occur like human agents cause things. The question becomes whether determinism requires God to be morally responsible for the evils that he caused to exists. I don’t think it does.

@The reason we suppose that they are blips of chance is that no explanation other than randomness can explain why one makes a choice at all on such a scheme.
[Quoting Frame]: “On the open theists’ libertarian concept of freedom, human free decisions have no cause: not God, not the natural order, not even their own desires. But if my decision is not caused by my desire, then it is something I don’t want to do. So even I do not cause my free decisions. They are random, arbitrary, irrational events, like the realm of Prime Matter among the Greeks. Not only does this view fail to give a rational account of free choice, it makes any such account impossible.”

Frame is attacking the Open Theist view of libertarian freedom, not mine. I can’t speak for Open Theists, but I believe free will decisions are caused by a person’s will (which is free…hence the name), and have already linked to the refutation for his objection: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-%E2%80%93-fallacy-3-we-choose-by-chance/ So again, we have no evidence for the counter-intuitive, irrational, and logically baseless claim that free will can only be the result of randomness.

I guess it is time to tell you the sad truth. There is no difference between your view of Libertarian Freedom and that of an Open Theist. You are both libertarians holding probably the principle of alternative possibilities or ultimate sourcehood versions of LFW. Here is a video where an actual Arminian meets an Open Theist:

[in answer to my syllogism about Calvinism making God innately dependent upon creation]
@The ultimate truth of the matter is that Divine Freedom is mysterious.

Translation: “I can’t wiggle out of this argument.” Point proven. High Calvinism makes God innately dependent upon creation.
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2019/08/09/tackling-calvinist-errors-on-omniscience-aseity-plus-a-deductive-proof/

Well, that’s one interpretation.

@What has been stated is that God’s manifestations must reflect who he is or he would be different. So what? Did anyone argue that? No. But the difference is that God’s foreknowledge isn’t a worldly manifestation of the good character of God but deals with the being of God(his omniscience).

But keeping His promises is still a self-imposed dependency, thus refuting our objector’s made-up definition of aseity.

Notice the irony of this objection. He criticizes me for a made-up definition of aseity but you can pour through all my books containing the topic of aseity and notice that none of them have the made-up distinction of self-imposed dependencies and it’s a distinction from innate independence. But notice that I quote John Frame(which these ideas are in Bosserman, Bahnsen, and Van Til). I’ve already explained to Thibodaux the irrelevance of his made-up distinction in an earlier article. We are discussing theology proper. Thibodaux is probably unfamiliar with what that is. But that deals with what is known as our doctrine of God. It centers around the ontology of God. So, here is an argument to show Thibodaux is wrong or irrelevant. So, here is a little dilemma:

P1. Either Self-Imposed Dependacies deal with the ontology of God or they do not.
P2. If they don’t, then they are irrelevant to conversations about the onology of God.
P3. If they do, then he is stating a contradiction. God would be both ontologically dependent(not a se) and ontologically independent(a se) of the world(hence aseity and simplicity).

This is like arguing with someone that believes that God is omniscience but has self-imposed ignorance upon himself(like many JW’s believe) but still is completely omniscient. This same dilemma can be applied to his next complaints:

My second response to the Objector (Calvinist Debate: Talking Past the Argument) pointed out that our dearest n00b repeatedly fails to interact with what I’ve written in any meaningful way. He’s only gotten worse, not only insinuating I believe things that I never argued, but even things I explicitly rejected.

@These acts of faithfulness don’t make God faithful. God’s acts of love don’t make God-loving. … God’s creation doesn’t make him what he is.

I very clearly stated the opposite. https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2019/08/01/calvinist-debate-talking-past-the-argument/

Okay, dude, you either think it is relevant to a conversation about the ontology of God or you don’t. I keep reiterating this point because it seems like you actually think it is relevant. Notice how my argument hasn’t been responded to but simply ignored for a second or third time. Here is the original quote:

This is either irrelevant to what I’ve stated or it is incoherent(see above). These acts of faithfulness don’t make God faithful. God’s acts of love don’t make God-loving. These are manifestations of his attributes and not identical to them(unless these acts are just God himself). So, no ontological dependence has been shown by Thibodaux. God’s creation doesn’t make him what he is. So, are Thibodaux’s points about the ontology of God or not? If so, how? If not, then keep eating red herring. What has been stated is that God’s manifestations must reflect who he is or he would be different. So what? Did anyone argue that? No. But the difference is that God’s foreknowledge isn’t a worldly manifestation of the good character of God but deals with the being of God(his omniscience).

Thibodaux can only quote mine my statements and ignore the broader point. He dodged the important questions that I’ve asked and simply continues to state that I’ve attributed a position to him. I haven’t but I’ve given him his options. I’ve just pointed out the problem with one of his options because his distinction being irrelevant is self-explanatory.

@He may think God-knowledge isn’t innate to him(God consults facts or something) but that seems to concede qualities of God are dependent upon the world. But if God’s qualities are dependent upon the world then it implies the world is necessary as well because God wouldn’t be himself if he hadn’t created. … @How can we attribute both immutablity and mutablity you the same nature?

God’s nature doesn’t change. What one knows is not equivalent to one’s nature. Already refuted. https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2019/07/26/calvinisms-inconsistencies-on-gods-attributes/

How can God’s nature not change and him be temporal? But either you think God is a collection of a set of abstract properties or you hold to the idea that God is essentially personal. That each of his attributes is more functional or modes. God plays the role of his attributes. So, as someone once said it to me, “Divine Wisdom” and “God” are co-referential. To speak about God’s omniscience is just to speak about God.

@By positing another notion where God isn’t self-contained but is explained by something other than himself, you are thus stating God isn’t ultimate in your worldview.
…

@The first argument is that if we understand God as being simple then it follows that these attributes all are applicable to God’s entire nature. So, this undermines the notion that God’s foreknowledge is caused by the things God creates. Why? It would leave God with modes of being a se and not a se. The conflict would make God contradictory.

Both points already refuted. https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2019/08/09/tackling-calvinist-errors-on-omniscience-aseity-plus-a-deductive-proof/

Besides being no challenge to defeat in debate, and his inability to even follow what’s being said, his slurs such as accusing me of believing that God isn’t ultimate, have already been proven baseless, and are therefore outright lies.

I make it a point not to discuss theology with dishonest people, in keeping with Matthew 7:6. Theology is to enrich our understanding of God, people who don’t fear God enough to obey Him have no part in it. I exhort him instead to repent and turn from such carnal works.

Stating you refuted my argument is nice but where in this article have you done that that I’ve not already responded to and shown that you were wrong? Matthew 7:6 is about people in civil discourse that provide logical arguments and quotes from reliable sources.

The rest is so bad that I’m not going to respond to this but quoting the foolishness and laziness of this is its self-refutation of Thibodaux:

BONUS: NAME THAT FALLACY!

@This notion of God being the ultimate explanation of all things is essential to aseity.

God needs to meticulously determine our choices to be independent of creation? Non-sequitur.

@He makes God so immanent in the world that he no longer transcends it and becomes another fact needing an explanation.

This doesn’t follow from my beliefs. Non-sequitur.

@The very notion that God has libertarian freedom entails that God may act contrary to his reason and character.

Freedoms have limits.
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/the-fallacies-of-calvinist-apologetics-%e2%80%93-fallacy-4-free-will-is-the-power-to-do-anything/ Oh yeah, non-sequitur.

@I’ve explained that that [all of God being incarnate] is the only plausible view where God is both timeless and temporal.

Temporal =/= incarnate. Someone needs learn some basic definitions. Non-sequitur.

@It may come to pass where humans would act contrary to his plan or interpretation(because they possess LFW).

Which assumes that God can’t foreknow free will choices and plan accordingly. Question-begging.

@I just suppose he doesn’t understand the motives that people have for creating his position.

Note: I came to my own position based upon what I read in scripture, not positions created by other people.
Also, attacking an idea based upon the supposed motives of its creators is genetic fallacy.

@I don’t think God’s promises entail that he becomes ontologically dependent upon the world

I never argued anything about God having ontological dependencies. I have consistently argued that God is who He is regardless of whether the world exists or not, but that God does now depend upon some entities in the world to remain faithful to who He is.
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2019/08/19/innate-vs-self-imposed-dependencies/
Strawman.

@You posit some abstract impersonal thing like the notion of chance in place of God being ultimate because even God is explained by chance.

Look through anything I’ve written, I’ve never said argued anything remotely like God being explained by chance. Strawman.

@…if the world has divine qualities then the world is divine.

I’ve never argued anything like this. Strawman.

@How can one reconcile that God changes his mind and doesn’t change his mind?

I’ve never argued this. Strawman.

Despite all this, he has the gall to assert:

@it is your responsibility to accurately represent the objections I present to your readers.

Lol.