Triablogue Demands Rematch For Duel, Packs Squirt Gun
J.C. Thibodaux
This is a response to an article entitled 'Thiboredux' by B. Belvedere, retrieved from the URL http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/thiboredux.html , which was part of an ongoing dialect following an article I wrote on Prevenient Grace and Libertarian Free Will.
Mr. Belvedere's at it again. Not content with being completely stopped in his tracks the first go-around, he attempts a rebuttal to save face...only he's apparently trying to use his face as a bludgeon. Much of it is spent trying to tell me what I believe and why what he's telling me what I believe is inconsistent. He also makes several interesting assertions:
1. That his arguments went 'over my head,' and insinuates that I must have reading incomprehension
2. That I did not address his arguments and provided nothing of substance in my answers
Let's take a look at both his accusations and the responses I've given to see if I'm being inconsistent, if I've failed to address his arguments, or if I'm not understanding him.
As for the first argument,
I) You affirm Total Depravity above and state "by ourselves, choosing what is good is impossible."
II) You also affirm Libertarian Free Will, which holds that every do-able thing must be choose-able.
III) Converting to Christianity involves the desire to repent and believe.
IV) Since point 1 precludes point 3, point 2 is destroyed.
Premise II of the argument is incorrect. Doing what is good is only possible via God's grace, not by our volition alone, as I've repeatedly stated. Look at my original post:
So while we do acknowledge that libertarian free will does play a key role in salvation, there can be no willing obedience to the gospel apart from God's grace, for salvation and saving faith can't be wrought by force of an already enslaved will
and in my first response,
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.
Also note that I argued in my original essay directly against unlimited free will (Libertarian free will in this theological context is not unlimited, the term 'Libertarian' is simply a contrast for 'Compatibilistic'), wherein men can choose to do good apart from God's grace (look under Free Will is Not). Point 1 does not then preclude point 3 as we would not be choosing what is good by ourselves, but by God's grace. His charges are moot at this point, as I've understood him fully and addressed the issue head-on even before he raised it.
Mr. Belvedere continues,
But I've argued above that converting to Christianity is an "available option," that is, it's do-able. That is precisely why LFW collapses when paired with Total Depravity, which states that converting to Christianity is unchooseable, given the fixed disposition of the agent.
Here he equivocates the term 'available options.' Something that is technically 'do-able' but not 'choose-able' is not an available option where the will is concerned. Since the power of the will has primarily to do with choosing, it cannot function towards an option that is not choose-able, eliminating said option as an available option. Elementary really. I rather have a clearer understanding of the issue than he does at this point, and for substance my counter-argument is airtight.
He then argues,
I) Man must be able to freely choose an act in order to be held responsible for rejecting it.
II) Total Depravity states that man in his depraved state will always reject Christ.
III) Prevenient Grace enables man to emerge out of his depravity and accept Christ.
IV) Therefore, God must give grace to every man in order to judge those that reject him.
These are derived from the standard definitions of Prevenient Grace and Libertarian Free Will. If you'd like to hold on, you'll have to modify these positions and alter them in order to avoid inconsistency, or you'll have to abandon one of these altogether. The argument is above, please respond to it.
I never stated that "must be able to freely choose an act in order to be held responsible for rejecting it." As I already written in my previous response,
God didn't have to give grace to anyone, He could have just as easily chosen to let us all rot in sin.
The reason I said 'I don't believe that' and 'I never said that' is simply because I don't and I haven't. Mr. Belvedere can try to redefine my beliefs for me all day if that's what he enjoys doing, such a venture will prove as fruitless as his other arguments. There's nothing that needs be modified for consistency there. A major starting premise being destroyed, Mr. Belvedere's argument hasn't a leg to stand on, merely feverish insistence about what he wants to think I believe.
If I've issued a strawman then you need to provide evidence that I've misrepresented your position.
As I've just demonstrated above, Mr. Belvedere's arguments in places revolve around the idea that (in my beliefs) man must be given grace in order to be condemned (making grace an effectively an obligation). I see no reason to believe that, I do not believe that, and I did not state that anywhere in my writings. He has argued against my case by arguing against a belief that I do not hold nor have said anything about. That is commonly called 'burning a straw man.' For his charges of inconsistency to stand, he would have to show how my other beliefs would necessitate the incorrect premises he holds concerning them.
Though I'd already addressed the issue in both writings, Mr. Belvedere continues to errantly insist,
And what must happen for LFW to be introduced? The giving of Prevenient Grace.
Incorrect again, we have free will to choose between available options, grace or no grace. I stated as much in my original post:
Thus it must be noted that the exercise of the will towards good does not and cannot exist apart from the grace of God, for without grace there would be nought to pick but our own choice between devilish poisons.
as well as in my response, which I cited above against premise II of his first argument. Yet he still insists that I am not dealing with his objections, despite the fact that they had already been adequately addressed even before his initial reply.
In his final charge, which would have made the Light Brigade blush, he asserts,
You can either eject Total Depravity or LFW, or you can provide argumentation that clears you from the charge of incoherence.
To the contrary, it is on the accuser, not the accused upon whom the burden of proof rests (unless you're talking about Kangaroo Dordt). His charges having proven baseless thus far, they cannot stand.
As is quite evident, I've well understood and withstood all of Mr. Belvedere's charges of error and inconsistency, some of the objections he raises even being succinctly addressed before he raised them; yet still he accuses me of reading incomprehension. Go figure. Due to the fact that some of his arguments (the extent of LFW and its existence apart from prevenient grace specifically) were already rendered moot by my initial post, I can only conclude that he did not even fully comprehend it, much less is he able to accurately comment thereon.
I'm almost positive that Mr. Belvedere will refuse to realize that he lost this fight before he picked it. I anticipate a very valiant effort from him at biting my legs off. In any case, the Challenge I issued to Triablogue still stands open, are any of you up for it?
Omake!! Just for fun: Mr. Belvedere at one point calls my response "obnoxious invective devoid of substance." Now while I have been known to give my opponents the occasional friendly poke to the proverbial ribs, his accusation is hysterical considering that the very blog he posts on ran a piece just five days prior entitled, 'Why the Arminian God Is Not Just a Pansy but Is Also Just Plain Stupid.' (No kidding, see: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-arminian-god-is-not-just-pansy-but.html) You can just feel the agape love there! These guys are a trip.
Copyright © 2007, InDeathorLife.org
The information on this page may not be reproduced or republished on another website, webpage or other printed media without express permission from the author of this site. Other material(s) referenced on this site are the property of their respective authors or copyright holders, and where applicable are used by permission.