Related Fallacies:
Special Pleading (Double Standard)
Equivocation
Straw man
“Of course, this raises the question, why does their God save a person to damn him? Why not simply leave him in his unsaved state?” – Steve Hays, ‘Tender Mercies‘
To get a better view of this fallacy, let’s examine the author’s argument more fully from the analogy he gives:
Related Fallacies:
Strawman
Begging the Question
“While libertarians uphold the philosophy that “choice without sufficient cause” is what makes one responsible, the compatibilist, on the other hand, looks to Scripture which testifies that it is because our choices have motives and desires that moral responsibility is actually established. Responsibility requires that our acts, of necessity, be intentional….” (Eleven (11) Reasons to Reject Libertarian Free Will, John Hendryx)
Related Fallacies: Strawman Begging the Question “While libertarians uphold the philosophy that “choice without sufficient cause” is what makes one responsible, the compatibilist, on the other hand, looks to Scripture which testifies that it is…
(Editor’s Note: Some Calvinists try to claim that if Cavlinist theology makes God the author of sin [a classic charge Arminians have made about the logical implications of Calvinist theology], then so does Arminian theology…
In our frequent exchanges with those who accept the idea of exhaustive determinism, we often hear that it’s not a fair comparison to say that their philosophy makes people into robots, radio controlled planes, puppets (to include sockpuppets), or some similar deterministic automaton. They insist, despite every aspect of our being and our decisions having been meticulously crafted due to the ‘Potter’s freedom,’ people actually do things of their own free will and are thus themselves still responsible for their own actions. For anyone who believes this to be a viable line of reasoning, we present a special offer….
Announcer:
“Ever had that urge to accomplish something truly vile, but don’t want to be held responsible? Well your wait is over! Introducing:
Radio-controlled, flying free-agent ceramic sock-bots!
“The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” (Deuteronomy 29:29)…
By J.C. Thibodaux Related Fallacies: Oversimplification Strawman False Dilemma One of the most telling signs of the fallacious nature of Calvinist apologetics in general is its heavy reliance upon caricatures and misrepresentation of the beliefs…
Related Fallacies:
Begging the Question
Special Pleading [given that God has power of contrary choice]
False Dichotomy
If all men are neutral in prevenient grace was it by chance that one believed and not another? – [A Prayer That a Synergist Won’t Pray (An Open Challenge to All Synergists) – yet another winner by John Hendryx]
Related Fallacies: Strawman “Bait and Switch” “Why are you a Christian and your friends aren’t? … Is it because you are smarter than your friend?” (The Pelagian Captivity of the Church, R.C. Sproul) …I believe…
Central to the debate over inevitable perseverance are the the numerous warnings in scripture cautioning the saints against falling away. A prominent explanation offered as to why the scriptures would say such things, if falling away is not truly possible for a believer, is that God uses such warnings as a means to spur Christians on to perseverance. Despite these efforts, the scriptural warnings addressed to genuine believers, some of which pronounce eternal destruction for violating certain commandments of God, constitute an airtight argument against the Calvinist teaching of inevitable perseverance of the saints, in that teaching that what the scriptures warn against could not truly occur strips the divine warnings of all relevance, making them of no effect.
The following is an analysis and response to the article, What is the biblical evidence for the imputation of Adam’s Sin?, by Desiring God Ministries, retrieved from,
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/2006/1451_What_is_the_biblical_evidence_for_the_imputation_of_Adams_Sin/
I’ve recently been debating the issue of original sin. I do hold very firmly that it is by Adam’s sin that sin entered into the world and has tainted the nature of his descendants, but am much against the idea that all men are guilty of Adam’s sin. I recently debated the subject on Reformed Mafia, and now take on an article written by the staff of John Piper’s ‘Desiring God’ ministries. We go over their primary pieces of evidence with rebuttal. Piper opens his case for the Calvinist view of original sin with:
Several common accusations we hear from Calvinists are that a Synergistic view of faith (as opposed to regeneration) ‘robs God of the glory;’ “It’s man-centered,” they say, “and gives man room to boast in saving…
A claim made by many Calvinist authors concerns the terms used in Acts 2:23, “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and…
Calvinists reject the idea that God bases His divine election on His foreknowledge of people, as well as the idea that God has given men free will. One tactic used to refute these concepts is to try to confuse the issue:
“For example, before the foundation of the world, God knew that Joe would make a free decision to become a Christian. Somehow, then, before Joe was born, God knew of his free decision. So even at that time, Joe’s free decision must have been inevitable. Why was it inevitable? Not because of Joe’s free will, for Joe was not yet born. Not because of God’s predestination, because the Arminian denies that possibility from the outset. It would seem that the inevitability in question had some source other than either Joe or God.”
Excerpt From Apologetics to the Glory of God by John Frame pp. 44-45 (P & R Publishing)
One of the questions we invariably get from Determinists is “But HOW does God know the future??” Determinists often seize upon the difficulty of understanding God’s knowledge, and insist that if God didn’t cause the future, then He could not have known it. Besides being a rather silly stretch, this claim requires several unfounded assumptions about the nature of God.
The Basic Views
Now before I jump in any deeper, let’s define what the major views of God’s knowledge in relation to free will are (this is just a basic list, variations of these views exist):
1. Determinism: God determines absolutely all that will be, making absolute foreknowledge trivial. There is no such things as libertarian free will, and our choices cannot be otherwise.
Affirms foreknowledge, but has the very unfortunate side-effect of making absolutely everything that occurs the will of God, and possibly essential to His nature, as we’ll touch on below.
Please click on the attachment to view Brian J. Abasciano, “Corporate Election in Romans 9: A Reply to Thomas Schreiner” (This article was published in JETS 49/2 (June 2006) 351-71.) Article. CORPORATE ELECTION IN ROMANS…
