Phew, is THAT ever a Truth!

steve over on the extreme Calvinist blog site Triablogue wrote ...

Scurrilous opponents of Calvinism sometimes try to tar Calvinism by associating Calvinism with the infamous Fred Phelps. But keep in mind that according to Calvinism, it's quite possible to profess the doctrines of grace without possessing the grace of the doctrines. So even if he were a professing Calvinist, that wouldn't mean his life is a reflection of his creed. 

According to Calvinism, it's quite possible that God just might be fooling you into thinking you are of Christ, whether you are Fred Phelps or steve. What difference is there between the pea on the right and the one on the left but position within the same pod?

Since we cannot judge the state of another's soul (even though a few tribunals have tried and burned a few thinking they could) we pretty much have to go on what somebody professes to believe. Phelps strikes me as the kind of soul who would certainly have participated in the burning alive of Servetus, for example. Add that to his Calvinist doctrine and, well, you have a pretty consistent extreme Calvinist. What is steve complaining about?

Triabloke Cartoon Network

Mean, angry and unloving A.M Mallett wrote a while back on the Triabloke Cartoon Network ...

The quandary exists among both Calvinists and Arminians. For the Arminian, the tension is with explaining why one turns to the LORD and another resists. We do not know. However, with the Calvinist, the antinomy is irreconcilable. Divine determinism is excused from responsibility. From the Arminian perspective, the Calvinist conflict between divine determination and human accountability does far more damage to God's character and goodness than our lack of comprehension for why a man resists the grace of God and another does not resist.


The Triabloke cartoon character says to another Triabloke cartoon character ... "This here is an infamously bad argument against Calvinism. We better censor and delete it before anybody reads it."

Breaking News …. Well, not really.

Breaking News …. Well, not really.

Triabloke calls A.M. Mallett mean, angry and unloving and infamous for bad arguments against Calvinism. Oh woe is me. It's not on the 6 0clock tonight.


update: Triabloke Cartoon Network Accuses Christian of using illegal drugs

A Triabloke Molests 1 John 2:16

A Triabloke wrote the following that I thought was interesting.

Some Arminian epologists have been using 1 John 2:16 to argue that in no sense can the origination of a sinful action be determined by God. That is because John says those things don't come "from" the father. 

That is an odd statement. While I certainly cannot account for all Arminian arguments regarding the passage, I do not think I have ever encountered that argument. The source for the statement was not provided so I can only work with the Triabloke claim which strikes me as a straw man set up solely for the purpose of burning in some perverse joy. Here is the passage in full context.

"I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake. I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." (1Jo 2:12-17 AV)

Rather than a discussion of the Calvinist philosophy of determinism, the passage in question is contrasting the carnal desires of the world with that of the love of the Father. Wesley framed verse 16 as:

…The desire of the flesh - Of the pleasure of the outward senses, whether of the taste, smell, or touch. The desire of the eye - Of the pleasures of imagination, to which the eye chiefly is subservient; of that internal sense whereby we relish whatever is grand, new, or beautiful. The pride of life - All that pomp in clothes, houses, furniture, equipage, manner of living, which generally procure honour from the bulk of mankind, and so gratify pride and vanity. It therefore directly includes the desire of praise, and, remotely, covetousness. All these desires are not from God, but from the prince of this world…

http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/1John.htm#Chapter+II

While some Calvinist eisegesis practitioners may wish to make hay over a far fetched application and strawman of their own construction, they tend to look foolish doing so. The contrast between the world (outside of Christ) and abiding in Christ is what is intended with the passage. It is how most Arminians understand the passage and teach it.

 

Censored by a Triabloke … drat, what will I ever do?

I generally avoid wasting bandwidth at a couple of internet sites run by some of the knuckleheaded extreme Calvinists out there. Marc Carpenter's "Outside The Camp" craziness and the Triabloke blogspot site run by a guy named Hays are a couple of them. Occasionally I will browse and toy with a response to a comment but I generally do so with fairly low expectations of receiving anything of merit to note. I jumped into the comment section of the latter site to reply to an inquiry made by a poor visitor who seemed unaware of what lurked in the Triabloke bushes.

He wrote:

Is there any mystery to the relationship between God's sovereignty and human action?
As you know, W.L. Craig cited Turretin to show that Reformed theologians are "self-confessedly left with a mystery." When I read your material, I get the impression that you don't think there is any mystery involved.

I replied with the following:

The quandary exists among both Calvinists and Arminians. For the Arminian, the tension is with explaining why one turns to the LORD and another resists. We do not know. However, with the Calvinist, the antinomy is irreconcilable. Divine determinism is excused from responsibility. From the Arminian perspective, the Calvinist conflict between divine determination and human accountability does far more damage to God's character and goodness than our lack of comprehension for why a man resists the grace of God and another does not resist.

I guess it was too much to throw at the poor soul because Hays censored my remark to avoid giving him that kind of dangerous information. It's too bad the guy who made the inquiry didn't have an email or blog contact. I would have avoided the post.

Kangaroo Attacked By Angry Observer

Ben (kangaroodort) over at Arminian Perspectives linked into a Calvinist "critique" ( Triablogue: Captain Kangaroo ) of one of his posts I thought was interesting. It is unfortunate that our Calvinist brother chose such a sanctimonious manner in addressing Ben's well thought out address. I am not sure I can take the time to respond in this spat but it is a sad reflection on the state of Calvinist apologetics to witness such a callous disregard for scriptural humility. It is my hope that we Arminians can reflect on this example and take the high road in our methods and seasoning lest we find ourselves measured by the same response given to brother Ben.