Taking the Triablogue Out
J.C. Thibodaux
12/07/2007
When we last left Triablogue, they were dragging out their blatantly cheap smear tactic even further. They were apparently trying to lay some sort of verbal trap for me (at least according to them), which I must admit exceeded all expectations: Once I called them on their silliness and immaturity at the end of my second reply to Mr. Manata and on a post at Armininan Perspectives, they got even more indignant and started making up even crazier allegations. We get to see an lucid demonstration of their nutty logic and panicked zeal for ad hominem-laced goading after I briefly responded to Paul Manata, Gene Bridges, and Steve Hays on their blog. My comments threw Manata and Hays into a frenzy of hurling randomly-generated heresy accusations, and Bridges completely collapsed into a full-blown fit about all the caveats he thinks he's entitled to when I call Arminius a mortal man, getting even more worked up at the idea that I consider myself to be nothing more than simply a Bible-believing Christian. to which I could only laugh as I let their trademark Triabluster hang in the air. Check out their comments at this post. Some trap indeed.
After their wave of rash insults and slander, it's quite apparent that Triablogue is on the ropes, but they put together a combined effort to catch up. I'll now address Mr. Manata's rebuttal, with a small reply to another article by Steve Hays at the end.
Universal "Proof" by Example
For starters, he makes a huge deal out of his analogy from Hebrews 6,
Those who have believed "enter that rest." Those who have Christ as their high priest are those who have intercession made for them. Those who have intercession made for them are those who will be saved completely (7:25). This high priest actually saves his people. Anyway, Thibodaux has not proven anything. There is not one instance where we ever read of an apostate as one who ever had true faith.
Hebrews says that THEY ARE OF A DIFFERENT KIND OF SOIL THAT THE SAINTS WHO PERSERVERE. It's not as if they were of the same kind, but one just persevered whereas the other didn't. The saint and the apostate are of different natures!
Do you get that Thibodaux? The apostate - land which was burned - was a DIFFERENT KIND OF LAND that the believer - land that drinks the rain often and produces crop- who made it into heaven. One NEVER produced crop. One DID. Thus apostasy is an evidence-indicator (a root to fruit inference) of NEVER HAVING BEEN A TRUE BELIEVER IN THE FIRST PLACE. Thus NO ONE who have ever produced fruit can be said to be an apostate! The Reformed doctrine is that only those who produce fruit will persevere. You CANNOT show that ONE OF THEM apostatized since I JUST SHOWED that apostates NEVER DID produce even ONE STINKEN BLUEBERRY.
This is why we can say of the apostate that, 1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." The apostate was NEVER "of us." Had they been "of us" then they WOULD HAVE CONTINUED WITH US! Continuing to the end is proof of being a true believer. An "us."
Thus in Hebrews the apostate is never viewed as one of the elect, a true believer.
And asserts,
I proved that EVERY apostate is referred to as BARREN LAND. I proved that if one is of the fertile ground then he CAN NEVER be said to have been the other kind of ground; because, that ground was NEVER fertile. So, I ask again, can Thibodaux give any example or argument, from the Bible, which treats those who fell away as those who truly believed? Can he? Even one?
For starters, the example from Hebrews 6 was rather poor for what he's trying to prove. It doesn't say the land never bore any good fruit or that it was always barren, simply that it bore thorns and briers.
But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. (Hebrews 6:8)
Secondly, an example of how a thing can work does not prove that it universally operates in like manner. Using such 'proof' it's easy to 'prove' that addition and multiplication work exactly the same way.
2 + 2 = 4
2 * 2 = 4
Need another example?
0 + 0 = 0
0 * 0 = 0
But citing an example or two isn't really proof. Citing billions of examples isn't proof. The silly premise I mentioned is of course easily disproven by counter-example.
1 + 1 = 2
1 * 1 = 1
Basic logical principles. So even if the description of one falling away in Hebrews 6 (or the wheat and tares, 1 John 2, etc.) did indeed describe one who was never saved, such an example wouldn't prove that every apostate in all cases was never really saved, or render the warnings void.
To Whom are the Warnings Addressed?
Mr. Manata goes on a bit about foreknowledge and the address of the warnings. When I indicated that God had foreknowledge of who would persevere or not, he replied,
See that. Thibodaux says that God can guarantee THESE PEOPLE that they will make it into heaven because God KNOWS THAT THEY WILL. ....The warnings are ADDRESSED TO EVERYONE. So, as Thibodaux has pointed out more than once, "For the warning to be real or genuine, those to who it is given have to be able to actualize the state of affairs warned against. It is a real and genuine live option." But this could not be if God KNOWS that they will not fall. For if God knows that P, then P is true. And so Thibodaux has God saying, "I know that not-P, but watch out for P anyway!" But according to Thibologic, "this is meaningless."
Which he has backwards, the correct form is P, then God knows P is true; therefore the warnings are speaking against actual possibilities to which God knows the outcome.
As far as the warnings' address, I've already shown that while they are read and spoken in the hearing of many, they are addressed specifically to the saints, since it makes no difference in relation to escaping hell fire if a sinner fights sin (Matthew 5), those addressed in Hebrews 4 have a heavenly High Priest, and the unsaved don't have a part in the holy city (Revelation 22).
Going Against God's Will
Another basic flawed premise that Mr. Manata holds is that God determines every event in the universe. He shoots back at me,
MY CHALLENGE:
Since it is true that God determines every jot and tittle of his universe, and since it is true that he determined who will be saved and who will not, then I challenge you to show me how all men have the genuine possibility of actuating the state of affairs by which they would be heaven bound.
While God does indeed work things together for His purpose, He does not determine some matters of free will, especially concerning sin.
And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through [the fire] unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. (Jeremiah 32:35)
Or consider Christ's lament over Jerusalem,
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! (Luke 13:34)
God does indeed allow some freedom of will. Hence Mr. Manata's other arguments fall flat straight out of the gate.
Assurance vs Conditionality
Manata writes,
Will any (internal) New Covenant member break God's covenant? Let's see what Hebrews states,
Hebrews 8:6 But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.
7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said: "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 9 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful [they broke, says Jeremiah] to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. 10 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 11 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."
It appears that the members of THIS COVENANT cannot break it. It will not be like the last one. Why? Because they BROKE that one. It is GOD who keeps this new covenant. Jesus keeps and fulfills the terms of it. This is imputed to those who have faith in him. God then causes them to walk in his ways.
God won't break His covenant with the body of Christ or cease to send the gospel call to the house of Israel, but that's not to say that individual members cannot be cut off from it, as is also stated in Romans 11.
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in His goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. (Romans 11:22)
What do we read of the new covenant members?
Ezekiel 36:25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
None of which I disagree with. Notice God also states,
Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? (Ezekiel 18:31)
Manata brings up another point,
Notice the failure god Thibodaux serves. Jesus says this:
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
The Father sends the Son to earth on a mission, but Jesus fails. Notice that the Father "gives" a people to the Son. So, what does the God-man say about those the Father "gives" Jesus?
37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
So, EVERYONE given by the Father comes to Jesus. What happens if you come to Jesus?
44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Thus if one comes, one is raised. Jesus tells us that IF ONE COMES, then he will raise that one. There is no warrant to draw a disjunct between the HIM who comes and the HIM who is raised. Thus, ALL the father gives will come, and ALL who come will be raised.
He accuses the God I worship of being a failure. And he wonders why I call him a militant. His supposed difficulty with the will of God is dealt with above. Yes, this is a description of what happens when one is saved. But Christ speaking in the general terms of all the Father gives Him coming to Him and being raised at the last day does not preclude the possibility of exceptions for those who go against God's counsel for them. As it is also written,
But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. (Luke 7:30)
Hebrews describes believers in terms that imply permanent status: those who shall inherit salvation (1:14), God's sons (2:10; 12:5-11), Christ's brethren (2:12, 17; 3:1), God-given children (*2:13; cf. John 17:2, 6, 9, 11, 12), the seed of Abraham (2:16), God's people (2:17; 4:9; 8:10), the partakers of the heavily calling (3:1) and of Christ (3:14), Christ's house (3:6), the heirs of the promise (6:17; 8:6; 9:15), those who have been sanctified once for all (10:10, 14; 13:12, 21), the assembly of the first-born enrolled in heaven.
Of course it's permanent, provided we abide in Christ.
Hebrews describes salvation in terms that do not admit of defection or termination: the sons are brought to glory (2:10), the people of God enter God's rest (4:3, 9), the hope is well-grounded (6:18, 19), the new covenant is one where members do not fail (8:10, cf. 10:15-17), the saints are perfected forever (10:14; 12:2), the kingdom cannot be shaken (12:28), the salvation is to the uttermost (7:25), eternal (5:9; 9:12) and marked by endless life (7:16)." -- Roger Nicole, "Some Comments on Hebrews 6:4-6, And The Doctrine of The Perseverance of God With The Saints," in "Standing Forth: Collected Writings of Roger Nicole," p. 441-42.
Nicole's assertion that they do not admit of defection or termination has no bearing on the issue, since they need not do so if conditionality is already indicated in the text. Indeed, one in very good position with God can still despise His grace and incur His wrath,
As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence.... (Jeremiah 22:24)
Indeed, who are those addressed? 10:39 "But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.
Though since he is warning the same to be diligent in chapter 4, then this would not preclude them from falling away at a later time.
Hebrews describes the ministry of Christ, not in terms of what it might perform if only men should be willing, but rather in terms of what it does and will certainly accomplish. Christ is viewed as the one who leads his sons to glory (2:10), who brings to naught the devil (2:14), who delivers all ... the seed of Abraham (2:15), who propitiates for the sins of his people (2:17, 12:24) so that no divine wrath remains against them. He is the surety of the better covenant (7:22; 12:24); the perfected of the faith (12:2); the shepherd of the sheep (13:20) - and what shepherd worthy of the name would feel that all his job entails is to protect the sheep from enemies on the outside, but he is not responsible for sheep slipping away from the flock?; the High priest, representing his people and interceding for them (7:25) - and what kind of intercession would this be that would not even protect them from ultimate apostasy?
Describing what Christ will do is no difficulty if factoring in exhaustive foreknowledge. As I'd pointed out from John 15 and Romans 11, Christ doesn't lose sheep or fail to protect them, but rather the Father cuts off those who do not remain.
Faith
To the examples of the synergistic aspect of holding to the faith,
Watch, stand fast in the faith, be brave, be strong. (1 Corinthians 16:13)
But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. (1 Timothy 5:11-12)
Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1 Timothy 1:19-20)
he replies,
Boy, I sure hope you can "hold to it" by your strength. You're a better man that I.
There wouldn't be a synergistic aspect of it if it were but by my own strength.
Anyway, the reformed have always said that God does not guard is APART FROM our faith, but only working THROUGH our faith so that he enables us to continue to believe in him. Also, the apostles addressed groups of people in the churches, and throughout the world. There was no way to know if every single member of the audience ws saved. Thus they took their PROFESSION of faith in the judgment of charity, telling them that they needed to always profess faith in Jesus. He also does not want to give false assurance to those who may be unregenerate and self-deceived. Lastly, the Bible makes a distinction between saving faith and a non-saving faith (cf. James). So, just because someone is referred to as "having faith" that doesn't mean that they have "saving faith." A faith the produces, what(?), FRUIT! If one has a faith that produces FRUIT then what have we seen? They are pruned to bear more fruit (John 15). They receive the blessings of God (Heb. 6). Thus if someone has saving faith they will have fruit and if they have fruit the CANNOT BE an apostate, as I have proved above.
This explanation runs into a few problems, as the widows described would hardly come under condemnation for casting off a dead faith; and Paul would not be telling Timothy to hold fast to an ineffective and unsaving faith which others had fallen from, as there is no distinction between different kinds of faith here.
Logical Errors
When he asserted that they didn't take God's warnings lightly, I responded,
"I didn't say that you did, but neither should you make the word void by writing off the warnings that God gives to the saints as impossibilities."
Well then, if we don't, and if you didn't say we did, then you admit that we take the warnings seriously.
This of course does not follow, since not affirming one thing does not automatically affirm its opposite.
When I cited John 15 and Romans 11 concerning those who do not remain being cut off, he responded,
I didn't miss your point. I've already argued against the assumption that apostates and believers are cut from the same mold. Recall that we have proved that apostates NEVER BORE FRUIT and that true believers YIELDED A CROP. Now, with that in mind, let's look at John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful."
Again, it does not say that the branches never bore fruit, but speaks of what happens if they do not bear fruit. Romans 11 is even clearer, as the branches stand by faith (vs 20) and are remaining in God's goodness (vs 22). Yet Paul warns that, "otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."
The point of Romans 8 is that NOTHING can keep those called from reaching the end.
28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Thus we have:
[13] All those justified will be glorified.
[14] All saints (elect, true believers, fruit bearers) were justified (upon their placing faith in Jesus Christ at a moment in time).
[15] Therefore, all saints WILL BE glorified.
[16] If all saints will be glorified, then all saints will persevere.
[17] All saints will be glorified.
[18] Therefore all saints will persevere.
Premise 15 indicates what is appointed under the covenant for one who believes, it doesn't express lack of conditionality. So as shown above, if one who is engrafted and on the way to glorification does not remain in covenant with Christ, then God will cut him off; hence Romans 8:38-39 poses no difficulty for conditional security.
He goes again after my warning against splitting the earth with a hammer parallel,
This is wild. There have been meteors that have hit the earth and not split it asunder. I know of no hammer in existence that could do what he says, and I know of no human that could muster a force stronger than the meteors that have collided with earth.
And likewise, he knows of no saint that could possibly fall away.
Not even the A-bomb we dropped on Hiroshima split the earth, yet Thibodaux things that a mere man could take a Stanley Fat Max hickory handled hammer and split the earth asunder!
But I don't, which is exactly why I called it ridiculous.
Perhaps he would respond by saying, "Yes, but if such a man and such a hammer existed, then" But then if such a man and such a hammer existed we would have a disanalogy.
But since one doesn't exist, we don't.
This would be a real possibility, he could instantiate the antecedent of the conditional: If you hit the earth with this hammer, then it will split. Our position is that no saint will instantiate the antecedent of a warning. His counter is disanalagous.
If there were such a man and such a hammer (Thor? Thor??). As there is not, the possibility parallels their position on the possibility of a saint violating the biblical warnings extremely well.
Furthermore, what purpose would his hammer warning serve?
Thank you! My point exactly!
I’ve already given a reason for the warning passages. His counter-argument is simply disanalagous.
Which I'll deal with at the conclusion.
Paul goes on to demonstrate his excellent grasp of logical principles. When I pointed out that a premise to his argument was flawed, he stated,
I asked what his problem with premise 4 of my 6-premise argument above was. Usually if someone has a problem with an argument, they critique its validity or its soundness.
Part of its validity being the validity of its premises (Doh!).
What’s wrong with premise 4? I asked if it were false and he responds like a Douxdoux bird:
"It's a not necessarily true premise, which does not necessitate that it be false. Pretty basic logic."
So what? We want to know if it is false or not.
This guy can't be serious. Even a Douxdoux can get that concept.
Let's re-phrase 4:
4* If the warning you give someone is true in that if they did X, then Y would indeed happen, then it isn't pointless.
What's wrong with 4*? Is it false? How so?
It's meaningless if stated as a literal condition and if X and Y are impossible, as it would be a warning against something that could never occur, and therefore meaningless to the one given. He then buries his head in the sand and spouts a series of questions demanding that I prove such fundamental logic directly from the Bible. I would simply counter that he should show me where in scripture it states that God gives warnings that are impossible to violate.
Most humorously he argues,
If your assumption were true, then if you were on the boat with Paul, and he gave you a warning after he had just told you that God promised that you would make it through, you would have to laugh at him and tell him that his warning was pointless!
No, I would take such an assurance of my life being saved as being conditional, knowing that my promised security was contingent on heeding the warning given, since a promise doesn't negate its own conditions, even if they're not stated in the same sentence.
There is danger involved. If you do X, then Y will happen. And, if you do X, you show yourself to be an apostate. I have proven that ALL apostates were NEVER believers. They NEVER abided in Christ. So, if you want to avoid apostasy, heed the warnings!
Such overwhelming 'proof.' The problem is that what it says will happen (take the admonition in Revelation 22) is something that could only happen to one who believes.
Other Errors
He makes the argument from God using ridiculous conditions, such as in Genesis 15, when God made His covenant with Abraham.
But if Abraham were Thibraham, we would hear him say, "That is meaningless, God! You can't kill yourself, so why say that if you violated the terms of the covenant you would kill yourself. Don't you know that if someone makes a hypothetical claim in which the antecedent is impossible to instantiate, he has made a meaningless claim?"
And likewise with God's promise employing a similar idiom in Jeremiah 32:20, asking if it's a meaningless claim. He seems to have missed that I cited exactly the same kind of idiom from Jeremiah 31 (in my first response) with a manifestly impossible condition to express the impossibility of God ceasing to be faithful, also noting that since falling into sin and failing to persevere aren't manifestly impossible, that such a usage could not apply to the warning passages cited.
He puts out a bit of blather that talks to my argument concerning Jesus' admonition from Matthew 5, but doesn't really answer it.
When I mentioned that 1 Corinthians 10:4 talks about the Israelites who left Egypt drinking of Christ, he states,
Yeah, and their livestock "drank of Christ" too! Do you think cows will be in heaven, saved by the blood of Christ from their fallen bovine nature? Anyway, no one doubts that some people who partake in external graces which are given to God's people may apostatize from their profession of faith. And my particular tradition recognizes the existence of an external covenant community, just like that within Israel. Thus not all who are Israel are Israel. A true Jew is one who is one inwardly. So, at best you show that external covenant members fail to enter into God's rest. This says nothing of the elect, though. Remember, the elect and the apostate are not even in the same league. One is revealed to have never been in possession of what the other had.
If you will note, it was a spiritual rock, not literal (1 Corinthians 10:4); and the assurance by having a heavenly High Priest that he argues earlier defeats his argument here; since those very ones are warned not to fall as Israel did (Hebrews 4:11), the parallel has much weight.
Concerning my response to his rather lame 'perfect tense' argument, he replies,
Uh, the "perfect tense" and "present participle." A.B. Davidson says of these present participles "the words are timeless designations of the two parties, taken from the part characteristic of each." "He has perfected" (v.14) is perfect tense. The link is between the SACRIFICE and being made perfect. The sacrifice of Christ was a one time, timeless, once for all, unrepeatable, sacrifice. Anyway, I'll side with eminent scholars Bruce and Davidson over you.
Guess he missed the counter-example from Galatians 1:4, which states,
Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
The perfect participle translated as 'present' indicates that the evil world in which we now live is ongoing, but it is will certainly meet its end, which demonstrates clearly that a perfect tense participle indicates in and of itself only currently ongoing effect, not irrevocable effect.
When I answered,
"While there is no one who never sins, such a command is not impossible for a Christian to presently keep at any given time, hence it's relevance is still very great. It's not impossible for the condition of fulfilling the command to be true, but rather for it to be always and invariably true." he replied,
I'll just let John speak for me: 1 John 1:8 "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." No one can be PERFECT at any given time.
Which I already answered thoroghly in my first reply, noting that we still have a sinful nature.
Only when we are in heaven. And, the command is to ALWAYS be perfect. We CANNOT do this. Therefore on Thibodauxian assumptions, Jesus' claims are meaningless. Pointless.
It doesn't say 'always,' but simply, 'be perfect.' I'd also defeated this argument previously by citing that it does find total fulfillment in Christ.
Secondly, unbelievers are commanded to be perfect, right now. They cannot. Hence the command is pointless.
How is that? If a sinner will come to trust in Christ, then such a command is quite meaningful, in contrast to the way Mr. Manata is framing the warnings as totally impossible for any believer ever to violate.
He also still can't get past the fact that I used the word 'believers' to describe Christians in everyday language, and despite a similar usage of the term in Acts, still wants to bellyache about it. He of course appeals to Matthew to clarify Luke's words, but a better strategy would be to get over it.
He states,
The Father, Christ, believers, and salvation are described differently by the author of Hebrews than by you. So says Dr. Roger Nicole:
"Hebrews describes God as all-powerful (1:3; 2:10) and fulfilling the designs of his will (2:4). His counsels are immutable (1:12; 6:17, 18) and his faithfulness is the ground of the confidence of believers (2:17; 6:10; 10:23; 11:6, 11). These are precisely the divine perfections in evidence in the doctrine of sovereign grace!
Sorry, I'm not a Nicolatian either. God fulfilling His will and being faithful are no evidence of monergism, to say such would be to make several unfounded assumptions as to how God chooses to fulfill His purpose.
When I had pointed out that statements of assurance don't negate conditional statements, he replied,
Right, and Reformed believe that Christ will grant all of his the ability to abide in him. YOU JUST ANSWERED YOUR OWN CHALLENGE!! Quit beating a straw man.
Ability, not irresistibility.
Purpose of Warnings
Here's the pivotal point:
The warnings serve as one of the very means God uses to keep the elect from falling. They incite us to greater prayer and watchfulness. To say that if POS were true, we would not need to be watchful is to beg the question. If one is not watchful, one is giving an evidence-indicator that he is not a saint. I just reverse his argument, then:
[10] If the elect will persevere, then they will take heed of the warnings; tremble at the threatenings.
[11] Calvinism states that the elect will persevere.
[12] Therefore there we will take heed of the warnings; tremble at the threatenings.
The minute you don't think you need to take heed of the warnings is the minute you provide evidence you may not be a saint. Thus I'd argue that POS presupposes taking the warnings seriously.
Steve Hays also chimes in with a post that I must admit is at least somewhat respectable, comparing the warnings to signs for a washed out bridge.
Suppose, though, the libertarian will object that while, as a matter of fact, no driver disregarded the sign, that unless a driver was free to disregard the sign, then the sign would be pointless.
But how does that follow in the least? Suppose the drivers have been brainwashed. Their psychological conditioning is so overpowering that every time they see a warning sign, they take the warning to heart. They are unable to resist their conditioning.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we assume that the warning sign has this coercively deterrent effect on the drivers, how would that render the stimulus pointless?
His arguments are pretty good, but he fails to fully account for the presence of the consequences listed in the warnings (though he does give it a go):
Even in this case, the sign is still meaningful. Indeed, what the sign says is true. If you were in a position to disregard the sign, and you did so, you would suffer the stated consequences. Conditional statements can be true statements, even if they’re counterfactual statements.
The fact that a hypothetical may never be realized hardly renders it either unintelligible or pointless. Indeed, counterfactuals are a basic feature of moral deliberation. It’s because a hypothetical course of action has certain consequences that we avoid it.
I never disagreed with the point about conditionals, I argued its usage for comparative idiom previously. He argues that it is because of the stated consequence that we avoid apostasy, but this raises several major difficulties. The view that the members of Triablogue espouse puts them in a rather awkward position, as when God states 'heed or I shall revoke your part in my kingdom,' their reply is, 'Therefore having our part in God's kingdom revoked is not actually possible under any circumstance by virtue of the fact that God has threatened to do that very thing.' Perhaps as Hays' parallel of stimulus suggests, God preserves the saints by fear of falling away. But if such fear or coercion is His intended purpose in these warnings, then why do Calvinists teach a doctrine that goes directly against any such fear or coercion, which tries to reduce it to no effect in stating that it is not possible for the saints to fall away? I agree that God does indeed spur we who are His on to glory with warnings, but not with hollow threats of Him committing things He would never actually do based on things He won't let happen.
They point out that even in their doctrinal scheme, 'if' a true Christian could violate the warnings, then God would carry out the stated consequences. But the 'if' tears a rift in their doctrine, since another aspect of Calvinism is that the idea that a saint could perish is a major doctrinal error (some Calvinists would say heresy), which they believe would constitute something akin to a failure or lapse of faithfulness on God's part in preserving us. The very fact that being cut off from Christ is listed as a consequence for not abiding in Him (which is not an obvious impossibility) suggests its possibility; so if scripture makes it so plain that our perseverance is not dependent upon us in the least, and God cannot fail to uphold His end, then why would scripture even bring up the contingency of His failure or unfaithfulness? Why tack on a consequence that plainly constitutes 'heresy?' That is quite beyond incredulity. Are we to seriously believe that God's holy word is touting false and misleading doctrine for the sake of our good practice? When I saw The Matrix back in 1999, I took note of something one of the characters stated concerning the words of 'the Oracle,' "Don't think of it in terms of right and wrong", implying to the protagonist that her words weren't necessarily true, but simply 'what he needed to hear.' Such is not the manner of the God revealed in scripture. When He gives a warning with a dreadful consequence, He's not babbling absurd or heretical impossibilities into the air for shock value or mere coercive deterrence. Paul does not state in the manner that many Calvinists would have us accept, "He will definitely spare you despite any of His threats," but straightforwardly writes,
"For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either." (Romans 11:21)
Yet I'm suddenly teaching false doctrine for propounding the same possibility? My friends, God does indeed tell us what we need to hear to endure, but what we need to hear is truth. The Savior declares,
Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth. (John 17:17)
Copyright © 2005-2007, 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.