Rekindling Owen

Our objector raises a few more confused objections, positing a nonsensical idea that the atonement somehow makes men ‘neutral,’ which I do not believe at all, nor know of anyone who does. @Either Christ atones for the sins of people when they believe and thus limited atonement is true in some regard. This is understood by the idea that the imputation both ways only occur when someone believes. But Christ died 2000 years ago for the sins of all as Thibodaux states. Christ atoned for the sins of all, but such that forgiveness is contingent upon faith in Him. Who … Continue reading Rekindling Owen

Thibodaux’s Atonement and Legal Fictions

Thibodaux has written a response to me in his comments on his “Arminianism is cancer” article. Here are my thoughts: We have a little more from the same objector on Owen: @He argues that if you believe Christ dealt with sin/sin guilt or whatever makes mankind guilty before God, then it follows that all men must be saved. That follows if an only if the arguer assumes that the atonement saves people apart from faith. @It never states the people will be saved apart from faith. Indeed, it doesn’t state it outright, but he necessarily must presuppose as much for … Continue reading Thibodaux’s Atonement and Legal Fictions

Parsed Classical Theism

Here are some quotes Hays took from various sources on classical theism: 8. God’s knowledge is inderivative: While classical theists typically say that God knows all history by being its maker, theistic personalists are more likely to assert that God’s knowledge of history may partly be acquired by him as history unfolds. On their picture, God’s knowledge of the world, especially the world of human affairs, is capable of increase…God’s knowledge is caused by things other than himself (12).  And here’s an exposition by Brian Leftow: According to classical theism, God is: A se – wholly independent of all else. God is … Continue reading Parsed Classical Theism

Left Twix and Right Twix

The man that shall not be named wrote a little response to me. I found the time and the will to torture myself through another one of his bitter sad attempts to undermine what I’ve said. Not much left from our dearest objector. All he’s got now is a parting shot on how the Arminian view of free will is kind of like Open Theism (gasp!) -as long as you discount the central difference of whether God can know our choices beforehand. Well, that’s because they both are indeterminist. There is no significant difference between them regarding the issue of … Continue reading Left Twix and Right Twix

Owen’s Argument

The answer to the trilemma is fairly trivial: While refusal to believe is indeed a sin, the reason it keeps one from salvation is not due to it being a sin, but because unbelief, by definition, precludes belief in Christ, without which no one can be saved (Heb 11:6). As with all sins Christ died for, forgiveness for unbelief is only obtained through subsequent belief in Him. While Owen’s argument is trifling at best, his sophomoric reasoning isn’t the biggest problem here. While unstated, there is a premise both insidious and heretical that one must hold to make this argument … Continue reading Owen’s Argument

The Thibodaux Saga

These will contain all my responses to the Arminian Perspectives website and possibly other responses to the website. Provided in chronological and subject order. TheCouncil: [Topic: Aseity/Transcendental Critique] Arminianism and Aseity Thibodaux’s Cooked Goose Thibodaux: The Saga Continues Libertarian Foreknowledge … Continue reading The Thibodaux Saga

The Cult of Arminianism

I have been engaging in an exchange with the writer over at Arminian confusions website. Thibodaux has struggled to understand the most basic and simple points. His whining about self-imposed dependencies was a waste of time and his views are quite shallow. Here is the latest installment of his failure: @God isn’t the ultimate arbiter of what is correct on your view. When the n00b’s reasoning skills fail him, outright lies are the his weapon of choice. That was because of an argument that God couldn’t be the basis of all truth because certain facts are beyond the control of … Continue reading The Cult of Arminianism

Reading Comprehension

Thibodaux refuses to accept the fact that he is wrong. So, he has another attempt to show us why he is wrong again: Our dearest n00b objector shows amazing endurance in shoveling out more silliness. It’s just as easily dismissed. He means he ignores it because he doesn’t have any meaningful response to it. @So, you have to further explain where the fault is with my argument. Already done in showing that God is the Arbiter of what is correct (see above). Any variance from the Arbiter’s definition, by definition, would be incorrect. God isn’t the ultimate arbiter of what … Continue reading Reading Comprehension

Effectually Caused

26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Most Freewill theists find it a repulsive notion that God “effectually” causes us to make choices. Notice that the conclusion from this passage would be that anyone God causes to walk according to His statutes must be robots and not culpable for their deeds.   Continue reading Effectually Caused