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

Mirrored Reality

The whole point of the Boethian solution was that God’s timeless knowledge is partially comprised of what happens within time, what is temporal in part constitutes what is timeless. Since we can plainly see from the above counter-example that current action can make something timelessly true, I would counter we have no reason to think that God couldn’t base His timeless knowledge on what occurs within time. This is not our reaching into a timeless realm to affect God, but rather He reaching into His creation with and for His understanding. “…for the Lord searches all hearts and understands every … Continue reading Mirrored Reality

Thibo Dabble

I’ll comment on the things Thibodaux asked: [“You can see his additional commentary here, though I’d recommend it for entertainment purposes only. On why he thinks choices are random:] Yes, other than the irony that some of these words apply to each article he has written in response to me. I appreciate his ability to be wrong.  [@But his article gives no explanation for why they aren’t blips of chance. Besides the fact that there’s no reason to buy his counter-intuitive assertion in the first place, free will being random (as I point out in the article) would imply that … Continue reading Thibo Dabble

Innate vs Self-Imposed Dependencies

I am responding to this response to one of my articles from Thibodaux, again: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2019/08/19/innate-vs-self-imposed-dependencies/ Does God depend upon anything in creation? Everyone agrees that God has no need of things like food, water, shelter, rest, etc. We often refer to this as God’s aseity –His independence of His creation. I suppose that his readers blindly accept his view on the issue of aseity. I’m sure that his dictionary definition is compelling but the topic is a proper philosophical understanding of aseity. Aseity is broader than God being independent of creation. If Thibodaux was correct, then God could be dependent upon many things. … Continue reading Innate vs Self-Imposed Dependencies

Eternal Frustration

Here are some recent thoughts that I have had about the topic of eternal generation. I was dialoguing with a Latin trinitarian. He stated that the Father possesses a property that causes him to emanate the Son.  So, naturally, I asked if the Son possesses that same property then it seems like he should emanate a son aswell.  This was his thoughts about that problem: Every property of the divine essence is firstly a hypostatic property of the Father; but each property which is communicated is instantiated distinctly by the distinct hypostases. Ergo, when you say “is THIS life-givingness, etc.” … Continue reading Eternal Frustration

Thibodaux: A Dependent Independence

Thibodaux has written a response to my article. So, let’s review it: http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2019/08/06/thibodaux-the-saga-continues/ https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2019/08/09/tackling-calvinist-errors-on-omniscience-aseity-plus-a-deductive-proof/ I’ve been pretty clear since the beginning of our dialogue that God doesn’t derive His attributes from creation. Quoting previous posts: Does Thibodaux not distinguish between a person professed position and the implications of the position? Sure, he denies that that is his position but that is the implication of his position. He doesn’t do anything to dispell us of that argument. To sum up the heretofore poorly-explained objection, the objector makes the error of conflating the attribute of omniscience with the specifics of God’s knowledge. … Continue reading Thibodaux: A Dependent Independence

Thibodaux: The Saga Continues

J.C. Thibodaux has responded to my refutation: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2019/08/01/calvinist-debate-talking-past-the-argument/ Before we get to that, his big objection in his initial post was that the Arminian view of free will would somehow ‘explain’ God’s attributes. Though I expressed that his objection about people ‘explaining’ God’s attributes wasn’t clear, instead of any clarification we get this: The problem with the second point is that it is clearly incorrect. It is relevant because it still shows that Arminians have tensions in their worldview. He’s still not clear what he means by this, but suffice to say that complaining about creation ‘explaining’ God’s attributes without even defining his … Continue reading Thibodaux: The Saga Continues

Kenotic Christology

6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to exploit 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, … Continue reading Kenotic Christology

Arminianism and Aseity

I’ll be looking at another article from the Arminian perspectives website. Aseity is defined as, “existence originating from and having no source other than itself.” God, according to all branches of orthodox Christian theology, is the only Being who is self-existent. The issue at hand, briefly, is that if God has endowed His creations with a measure of free will, then the creatures’ own actions come from themselves (i.e. from their own self-determination) and hence the transcendent God’s knowledge of what they will do apparently is also rooted in that self-determination. Determinists such as Mr. Prussic contend that God’s knowledge … Continue reading Arminianism and Aseity