This is a response to an article entitled 'Arminian Perspectives' by Bernabe Belvedere, retrieved from the URL http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/arminian-perspectives.html , which was in response to an article I wrote on Prevenient Grace and Libertarian Free Will.
All I can say is, "Wow!" Bernabe Belvedere thinks my name is interesting. I'm flattered. Apparently, my simple description of prevenient grace and its relation to libertarian free will got under the skin of a few Calvinists. Must have dispelled one too many of the widespread misconceptions they spread about Arminian/Synergist theology. Militant Calvinists hate that. So now one of the headstrong Triabloguers has decided to open fire on my article, but as I'll demonstrate below, it would certainly help his case if he could aim in the right direction.
The first portion of his response he wastes by rehashing the Calvinist position on total depravity, then insists that my position "dissolves into incoherence" because, "an option that is do-able must be truly choose-able." And then states,
But trusting in Christ, although do-able, isn't truly choose-able given the Reformed view of Total Depravity. Arminianism, at this point, reveals itself as profoundly incoherent. Depravity influences the chooser to such a degree that a do-able option becomes unchoose-able. And this is incompatible (pun intended) with Libertarian Free Will.
I agree that by ourselves, choosing what is good is impossible, and stated as much clearly in my article. And so, only punching at shadows thus far in his critique, the only element lacking coherency is Mr. Belvedere's own eccentric accusations of incoherency. First question then: How are my statements incoherent?
Taking a brief break from his mud-slinging, Mr. Belvedere decides to actually address the issue,
At this point Thibodaux can deflect all of this by arguing that Prevenient Grace introduces LFW into the picture. But he must concede that were it not for Prevenient Grace, human freedom would be Compatibilistic--free yet determined.
The will would still be Libertarian in that it would be free to choose from its available options. Without grace it would indeed be bent only on sin, but what kind would still be of our own volition, not God's. Mr. Belvedere continues,
Prevenient Grace is necessary to off-set the fixed disposition humans have towards evil. It is necessary to "level the playing field," or to "neutralize," if you prefer. And here we have a God who is playing with dialectic schemes of freedom.
Why this assertion is necessarily so or where any inherent problems lie he never really specifies, but blindly he ploughs on,
This can be avoided by the Arminian by rejecting Total Depravity, yet Thibodaux wants to hang on. Internally, however, the inconsistencies are furiously colliding and forcing an implosion.
Wonderfully illustrative language, now all you need is some actual substance behind it. Second question: How exactly is my position inconsistent?
In the next section of his rant-- er, response, Mr. Belvedere opens with hurling an unparalleled volume of strawmen and misconceptions, which proves entertaining in the fact that it is so laughable. Mind you, this is all in one paragraph:
...because now we see that if it weren't for God's grace, the human race would be determined to fail, though it wouldn't be their faults, because they didn't have the freedom to succeed in the Libertarian sense.
No, it would still be our faults: Grace or no grace, we have all willingly chosen to sin and deserve condemnation.
And this is inviolable for every Arminian.
More awful logic. How would he know? Has he interviewed every Arminian?
Now God is unjust in punishing man unless he gives grace. And the implications are that God is forced to "award" grace in order to justly punish the ones who reject him.
Wrong again, if God were forced to give it, it would not be grace. God didn't have to give grace to anyone, He could have just as easily chosen to let us all rot in sin.
But God being forced to award grace in order to introduce Libertarian Free Will reduces grace to something God had to do. And grace no longer becomes grace but obligation.
At last we finally agree on something. That shot was straight on with only one difficulty: he is, as I stated above, firing in the wrong direction entirely. I never said anything in my article about God having to give us grace, nor do I believe such a thing. In order to try to find a leg to stand on, Mr. Belvedere is forced to try to put words into my mouth and make sweeping assumptions about what I believe. Incredible demonstration of the cluster-strawman, the DoD will doubtless be interested.
Mr. Belvedere renders his conclusion based on his misconceptions,
Thus, Libertarian Free Will and the Reformed view of Total Depravity cannot be held together. And when push comes to shove, the Arminian will unfailingly affirm LFW, leaving Total Depravity behind. What ends up happening is the Arminian defaults to a Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian anthropology. This is the standard position, yet recently wide-eyed cherry-pickers like Thibodaux seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. But one of these must go.
Ah yes, and now he employs a slippery-slope, because when the pressure is on, he knows for a fact that I'll espouse Pelagianism. I love rabid Calvinist logic, tune in next week when they discover that I somehow remind them of an Open Theist. The premises he employs about my beliefs being obviously incorrect, I pose question three: Why are total depravity and libertarian free will with the factor of grace incompatible?
Then he presents a short series of arguments.
Thibodaux mentions that Prevenient Grace is "stronger than sin," yet if grace contains properties that are more powerful than human depravity, then why isn't everybody saved?
Despite being stronger than sin and able to save from it, grace is still resistible; stronger does not mean irresistible. I believe I already covered that in my article.
Amazingly, Thibodaux quotes John 6:44. But where is the exegesis? Has Thibodaux bothered to consult the other side here?
"Hey, James 4:6 just quotes Proverbs 3:34 only briefly, where's the exegesis?!?" This guy's a hoot. And yes, I've bothered to consult quite a few Calvinists on their views of John 6, much more so than Mr. Belvedere has bothered to consult me on my views, as is obvious from his writing.
Those that go to Jesus do so because they have been drawn by the Father. And these God raises up at the last day. But Prevenient Grace is present in every person.
Yes, those that come to Christ do so because they have been drawn by the Father, but this does not indicate that every person drawn will necessarily come, "for many are called and few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14 -- 10 bonus points if you can find any place the Bible that talks about an ineffectual gospel call that has no actual backing). But Mr. Belvedere is going to operate under the begged question of irresistible drawing anyway, so let's humor him with a reply.
Two options appear here for Thibodaux.
I) The ones that God raises up at the last day include everyone, the heaven-bound and the hell-bound. Jesus is talking about the general resurrection.
But this doesn't make sense given 6:39-40:
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Verse 40 rephrases verse 39, and it becomes obvious that those destined to eternal life are in view here, not every single person.
Also this view rips verse 44 out of its context, which finds Jesus explaining the unbelief of some and the belief of others. Their defection isn't evidence that he isn't the Messiah, it is confirmation, since only those given to him by God will "remain in light," as the Talking Heads would say.
II) The ones that God raises up at the last day include everyone, and everyone is heaven-bound. But then Thibodaux would be a Universalist.
Or perhaps I would choose option three, God draws, some heed and receive Christ, others do not. Read what it says, "No one can come to Me unless the Father that sent Me draws him," not, "everyone who My Father draws will inevitably come to Me." Those who do receive His grace, hear, and are taught by God are given to Christ and come to Him, but Mr. Belvedere's argument against prevenient grace here falls apart without support for his assumption of irresistible grace. He rightly guesses that I was thinking,
"III) The ones that God raises up at the last day include only Christians, and only Christians will be heaven-bound."
But wrongly argues,
Yet above he states that Prevenient Grace is the grace of 6:44, and Prevenient Grace is given to all men. Since the text establishes the chain between the drawn ones and the resurrected ones, this view is deeply incoherent as well.
And this is where his argument breaks down, for there is indeed a correlation between being drawn and resurrected, as one must be drawn to come to Christ to partake in the resurrection, yet there is nothing in the text implying that the drawing to Christ is irresistible. Mr. Belvedere goes on in the same grain of error by attacking my use of Titus 2:11-12 (in saying that the grace of God has appeared to all men); he notes that the previous verses mention people in the church from varying stations in life, from which he gives his first objection,
1) It eschews surrounding context. The context doesn't indicate that every person has received "the grace of God that brings salvation." He lists certain stations in life and teaches that God has awarded grace to people in all of these positions, and not merely for younger men, or for younger women, but for all.
But he fails to establish why Paul can't be speaking in a broader scope than just the previously mentioned people in the church when he mentions 'all men' in verses 11 & 12 (the church that he wrote to obviously still being included), as it is not contradictory to make a statement to the effect that all of us in the church should live godly lives because the grace of God has appeared to all men. He also states,
2) The grace "brings salvation." If grace brings salvation, then salvation occurs. If grace doesn't bring salvation, like common grace, then salvation doesn't occur. If Thibodaux rejects this reading and wishes to argue that "brings salvation" means "brings [the possibility] of salvation" then he should provide the supporting argument.
*YAWN* Mr. Belvedere again argues (as he does above) under the errant assumption that grace must be irresistible. It simply says that the grace of God brings salvation, which it does in that any who receive it are saved. Prevenient grace does bring salvation, even if some do reject it, it is already bringing salvation for those who believe. To argue that resistible grace does not bring salvation, one would have to show that it saved no one, not that it doesn't save everyone. Mr. Belvedere's argument is little more than over-simplistic nonsense. Despite already being burned to cinders, he vainly continues to try and light his strawman.
Thibodaux is downplaying the implications I've outlined above. Unless God's grace appears to all men without qualification, then men are vindicated from charge of sin or evil on an Arminian scheme since they couldn't do anything but sin or evil.
Funny how extensively his argument is based on a concept that a.) I made no mention of, b.) I didn't imply, c.) he didn't bother to ask about. He then gets to his zinger,
Can Thibodaux explain the following for us: (1) If man is Totally Depraved, yet has been given (2) Prevenient Grace which enables him to repent and believe, then what exactly accounts for the decision to either remain in 1 or act upon 2? What separates Person A who selects 1 and Person B who selects option 2?
Yes. It's called (drumroll) libertarian free will...my article actually makes reference to the concept in such inconspicuous places as, say, the title. We are able to choose between the two choices offered, to assume that the decision must be caused or that something external must make a person choose option 1 & 2 is to beg the question of determinism. Allow me to turn the two-dimensional tables on this one-dimensional argument: God (for every believer) gives a way of escape from every temptation (1 Corinthians 10:13), yet one believer may fall into it while the other resists and overcomes that very same temptation; given that God gave them both a means of escape, why is there a difference in their decisions?
He closes his fallacious arguments with,
By the way, in this post I've responded to Thibodaux's own statements. Additionally, (and more importantly), for Thibodaux to be taken seriously he needs to provide an argument for LFW from the Bible.
The article I wrote wasn't meant to be an extensive argument, simply a description of my view of free will and prevenient grace. Though I might add that scriptural commands to continue in the grace of God and warnings to look carefully lest we fall short of it (which I did list) constitute strong evidence of libertarian free will concerning grace in and of themselves.
Sadly, our esteemed Triabloguer's attempt at a sound response is little more than a loosely-connected string of logical fallacies and faulty assumptions. If Mr. Belvedere is interested in stepping out of the kiddie-pool of trying to nit-pick simple position descriptions and get into actually seriously debating a subject, then I present to him and the rest of Triablogue The Challenge to Reformed Theology by Scriptural Fact. I await a response.
This is a response to an article entitled 'Arminian Perspectives' by Bernabe Belvedere, retrieved from the URL http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/arminian-perspectives.html , which was in response to an article I wrote on Prevenient Grace and Libertarian Free Will.
All I can say is, "Wow!" Bernabe Belvedere thinks my name is interesting. I'm flattered. Apparently, my simple description of prevenient grace and its relation to libertarian free will got under the skin of a few Calvinists. Must have dispelled one too many of the widespread misconceptions they spread about Arminian/Synergist theology. Militant Calvinists hate that. So now one of the headstrong Triabloguers has decided to open fire on my article, but as I'll demonstrate below, it would certainly help his case if he could aim in the right direction.
The first portion of his response he wastes by rehashing the Calvinist position on total depravity, then insists that my position "dissolves into incoherence" because, "an option that is do-able must be truly choose-able." And then states,
But trusting in Christ, although do-able, isn't truly choose-able given the Reformed view of Total Depravity. Arminianism, at this point, reveals itself as profoundly incoherent. Depravity influences the chooser to such a degree that a do-able option becomes unchoose-able. And this is incompatible (pun intended) with Libertarian Free Will.
I agree that by ourselves, choosing what is good is impossible, and stated as much clearly in my article. And so, only punching at shadows thus far in his critique, the only element lacking coherency is Mr. Belvedere's own eccentric accusations of incoherency. First question then: How are my statements incoherent?
Taking a brief break from his mud-slinging, Mr. Belvedere decides to actually address the issue,
At this point Thibodaux can deflect all of this by arguing that Prevenient Grace introduces LFW into the picture. But he must concede that were it not for Prevenient Grace, human freedom would be Compatibilistic--free yet determined.
The will would still be Libertarian in that it would be free to choose from its available options. Without grace it would indeed be bent only on sin, but what kind would still be of our own volition, not God's. Mr. Belvedere continues,
Prevenient Grace is necessary to off-set the fixed disposition humans have towards evil. It is necessary to "level the playing field," or to "neutralize," if you prefer. And here we have a God who is playing with dialectic schemes of freedom.
Why this assertion is necessarily so or where any inherent problems lie he never really specifies, but blindly he ploughs on,
This can be avoided by the Arminian by rejecting Total Depravity, yet Thibodaux wants to hang on. Internally, however, the inconsistencies are furiously colliding and forcing an implosion.
Wonderfully illustrative language, now all you need is some actual substance behind it. Second question: How exactly is my position inconsistent?
In the next section of his rant-- er, response, Mr. Belvedere opens with hurling an unparalleled volume of strawmen and misconceptions, which proves entertaining in the fact that it is so laughable. Mind you, this is all in one paragraph:
...because now we see that if it weren't for God's grace, the human race would be determined to fail, though it wouldn't be their faults, because they didn't have the freedom to succeed in the Libertarian sense.
No, it would still be our faults: Grace or no grace, we have all willingly chosen to sin and deserve condemnation.
And this is inviolable for every Arminian.
More awful logic. How would he know? Has he interviewed every Arminian?
Now God is unjust in punishing man unless he gives grace. And the implications are that God is forced to "award" grace in order to justly punish the ones who reject him.
Wrong again, if God were forced to give it, it would not be grace. God didn't have to give grace to anyone, He could have just as easily chosen to let us all rot in sin.
But God being forced to award grace in order to introduce Libertarian Free Will reduces grace to something God had to do. And grace no longer becomes grace but obligation.
At last we finally agree on something. That shot was straight on with only one difficulty: he is, as I stated above, firing in the wrong direction entirely. I never said anything in my article about God having to give us grace, nor do I believe such a thing. In order to try to find a leg to stand on, Mr. Belvedere is forced to try to put words into my mouth and make sweeping assumptions about what I believe. Incredible demonstration of the cluster-strawman, the DoD will doubtless be interested.
Mr. Belvedere renders his conclusion based on his misconceptions,
Thus, Libertarian Free Will and the Reformed view of Total Depravity cannot be held together. And when push comes to shove, the Arminian will unfailingly affirm LFW, leaving Total Depravity behind. What ends up happening is the Arminian defaults to a Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian anthropology. This is the standard position, yet recently wide-eyed cherry-pickers like Thibodaux seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. But one of these must go.
Ah yes, and now he employs a slippery-slope, because when the pressure is on, he knows for a fact that I'll espouse Pelagianism. I love rabid Calvinist logic, tune in next week when they discover that I somehow remind them of an Open Theist. The premises he employs about my beliefs being obviously incorrect, I pose question three: Why are total depravity and libertarian free will with the factor of grace incompatible?
Then he presents a short series of arguments.
Thibodaux mentions that Prevenient Grace is "stronger than sin," yet if grace contains properties that are more powerful than human depravity, then why isn't everybody saved?
Despite being stronger than sin and able to save from it, grace is still resistible; stronger does not mean irresistible. I believe I already covered that in my article.
Amazingly, Thibodaux quotes John 6:44. But where is the exegesis? Has Thibodaux bothered to consult the other side here?
"Hey, James 4:6 just quotes Proverbs 3:34 only briefly, where's the exegesis?!?" This guy's a hoot. And yes, I've bothered to consult quite a few Calvinists on their views of John 6, much more so than Mr. Belvedere has bothered to consult me on my views, as is obvious from his writing.
Those that go to Jesus do so because they have been drawn by the Father. And these God raises up at the last day. But Prevenient Grace is present in every person.
Yes, those that come to Christ do so because they have been drawn by the Father, but this does not indicate that every person drawn will necessarily come, "for many are called and few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14 -- 10 bonus points if you can find any place the Bible that talks about an ineffectual gospel call that has no actual backing). But Mr. Belvedere is going to operate under the begged question of irresistible drawing anyway, so let's humor him with a reply.
Two options appear here for Thibodaux.
I) The ones that God raises up at the last day include everyone, the heaven-bound and the hell-bound. Jesus is talking about the general resurrection.
But this doesn't make sense given 6:39-40: 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Verse 40 rephrases verse 39, and it becomes obvious that those destined to eternal life are in view here, not every single person.
Also this view rips verse 44 out of its context, which finds Jesus explaining the unbelief of some and the belief of others. Their defection isn't evidence that he isn't the Messiah, it is confirmation, since only those given to him by God will "remain in light," as the Talking Heads would say.
II) The ones that God raises up at the last day include everyone, and everyone is heaven-bound. But then Thibodaux would be a Universalist.
Or perhaps I would choose option three, God draws, some heed and receive Christ, others do not. Read what it says, "No one can come to Me unless the Father that sent Me draws him," not, "everyone who My Father draws will inevitably come to Me." Those who do receive His grace, hear, and are taught by God are given to Christ and come to Him, but Mr. Belvedere's argument against prevenient grace here falls apart without support for his assumption of irresistible grace. He rightly guesses that I was thinking,
"III) The ones that God raises up at the last day include only Christians, and only Christians will be heaven-bound."
But wrongly argues,
Yet above he states that Prevenient Grace is the grace of 6:44, and Prevenient Grace is given to all men. Since the text establishes the chain between the drawn ones and the resurrected ones, this view is deeply incoherent as well.
And this is where his argument breaks down, for there is indeed a correlation between being drawn and resurrected, as one must be drawn to come to Christ to partake in the resurrection, yet there is nothing in the text implying that the drawing to Christ is irresistible. Mr. Belvedere goes on in the same grain of error by attacking my use of Titus 2:11-12 (in saying that the grace of God has appeared to all men); he notes that the previous verses mention people in the church from varying stations in life, from which he gives his first objection,
1) It eschews surrounding context. The context doesn't indicate that every person has received "the grace of God that brings salvation." He lists certain stations in life and teaches that God has awarded grace to people in all of these positions, and not merely for younger men, or for younger women, but for all.
But he fails to establish why Paul can't be speaking in a broader scope than just the previously mentioned people in the church when he mentions 'all men' in verses 11 & 12 (the church that he wrote to obviously still being included), as it is not contradictory to make a statement to the effect that all of us in the church should live godly lives because the grace of God has appeared to all men. He also states,
2) The grace "brings salvation." If grace brings salvation, then salvation occurs. If grace doesn't bring salvation, like common grace, then salvation doesn't occur. If Thibodaux rejects this reading and wishes to argue that "brings salvation" means "brings [the possibility] of salvation" then he should provide the supporting argument.
*YAWN* Mr. Belvedere again argues (as he does above) under the errant assumption that grace must be irresistible. It simply says that the grace of God brings salvation, which it does in that any who receive it are saved. Prevenient grace does bring salvation, even if some do reject it, it is already bringing salvation for those who believe. To argue that resistible grace does not bring salvation, one would have to show that it saved no one, not that it doesn't save everyone. Mr. Belvedere's argument is little more than over-simplistic nonsense. Despite already being burned to cinders, he vainly continues to try and light his strawman.
Thibodaux is downplaying the implications I've outlined above. Unless God's grace appears to all men without qualification, then men are vindicated from charge of sin or evil on an Arminian scheme since they couldn't do anything but sin or evil.
Funny how extensively his argument is based on a concept that a.) I made no mention of, b.) I didn't imply, c.) he didn't bother to ask about. He then gets to his zinger,
Can Thibodaux explain the following for us: (1) If man is Totally Depraved, yet has been given (2) Prevenient Grace which enables him to repent and believe, then what exactly accounts for the decision to either remain in 1 or act upon 2? What separates Person A who selects 1 and Person B who selects option 2?
Yes. It's called (drumroll) libertarian free will...my article actually makes reference to the concept in such inconspicuous places as, say, the title. We are able to choose between the two choices offered, to assume that the decision must be caused or that something external must make a person choose option 1 & 2 is to beg the question of determinism. Allow me to turn the two-dimensional tables on this one-dimensional argument: God (for every believer) gives a way of escape from every temptation (1 Corinthians 10:13), yet one believer may fall into it while the other resists and overcomes that very same temptation; given that God gave them both a means of escape, why is there a difference in their decisions?
He closes his fallacious arguments with,
By the way, in this post I've responded to Thibodaux's own statements. Additionally, (and more importantly), for Thibodaux to be taken seriously he needs to provide an argument for LFW from the Bible.
The article I wrote wasn't meant to be an extensive argument, simply a description of my view of free will and prevenient grace. Though I might add that scriptural commands to continue in the grace of God and warnings to look carefully lest we fall short of it (which I did list) constitute strong evidence of libertarian free will concerning grace in and of themselves.
Sadly, our esteemed Triabloguer's attempt at a sound response is little more than a loosely-connected string of logical fallacies and faulty assumptions. If Mr. Belvedere is interested in stepping out of the kiddie-pool of trying to nit-pick simple position descriptions and get into actually seriously debating a subject, then I present to him and the rest of Triablogue The Challenge to Reformed Theology by Scriptural Fact. I await a response.