A response to On an Unsound Argument Against Calvinism

I'm responding to this article and you can read it here https://medium.com/@kayakayayak233/on-an-unsound-argument-against-calvinism-e8c18ff79629 


 First he lays out a argument that Arminians would give 
(1) Either God willfully determined the original sin or the original sin is of Adam’s (Libertarian) Free Will

(2) If God willfully determined the original sin, then God is morally responsible for the original sin.

(3) God is not morally responsible for the original sin.

(4) God did not willfully determine the original sin.

(5) The original sin is of Adam’s (Libertarian) Free Will.

The argument he gives is what Arminians would use against Calvinism. He rejects premise 2 and says "There is a greater intuition than the initial intuition for the principle that if you are actively willing a greater good by willing a lesser evil, that you aren’t morally responsible for the lesser evil." So for him the fall would be God willing a lesser evil for a greater good. Now the question will be what is the greater good that God is willing since we know from Genesis 1:31 that God viewed creation as a good thing? So it would make no sense then for God to determine the fall since it would corrupt his creation and bring sin and death in the world that God views as good. So since we don't know what the "greater good" is for God determining the fall God would still be responsible for original sin. So I would like to know what he views as a greater good than creation excluding God since He is goodness itself.

Now the next argument he gives is
(1). If Adam never decided to do evil, then, given an infinite amount of time, he will have another decision to choose good or evil.
(2). If LFW is true, then the objective probability that Adam chooses evil is greater than 0.01.
(3) If (1) and the objective probability that Adam choose evil is greater than 0.01, then there will be at least 500 chances for Adam to choose evil.
(4) If God gave Adam LFW, then the probability that Adam never chooses evil given 500 chances is 0.65% minimum.


I disagree with premise 1 since I would reject that Adam would have another decision to sin. Since this was a test to see if Adam would keep God's command if he passed he would never be tempted by another creature. Since the only reason Adam will ever will sin is because he was tempted by something and preformed the action to sin. So if there is nothing trying to trick or tempt Adam to sin he won't will sin. Since we know Adams nature was "good, righteous, and holy, capable in all things to will agreeably to the will of God."(Belgic confession) He won't just randomly sin for no reason there has to be a temptation for Adam to sin. Since he is control of himself and he knows God's command not to sin so he would have no reason to sin.

Then in the last part he says "While technically not a literal determination of the fall, this is functionally identical to determining the fall." So he would say that under the Arminian view "God would still be responsible for bringing about a state of affairs conducive to the original sin." I would disagree here since in the Arminian view God never had a intention for the fall to happen. While the Calvinist view says that God intended for the fall to happen and sin to enter into the world. Also in the Arminian view Adam would still be responsible for his LFW decision while in the Calvinist view he cannot be held responsible. Since it was determined to happen Adam was just following the plan of God he has to sin since it was God's plan for the fall to happen. So no this two aren't identical since one says it's determined infallible and God's plan for the fall to happen. While the other view says that God permitted the fall to happen while it was Adams choice to sin freely.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Are Arminians closer to Provisionists than the Reformed? No

  There has been question floating around twitter on if Arminians are close to the Provisionists in soteriology. When I see the question, I already answer without a second thought that we aren't are close to them. But I want to explain my reasoning on why I say this since some would think because we aren't Reformed, we should be close in our soteriology. Man After the Fall This is where any talk about soteriology should start since our view of man will impact areas like man's will, grace and most importantly the Holy Spirit's role in salvation of man. Now first we need to cover the Arminian view on man and as article 7&8 of the 25 articles of religion explains about man it says "Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to ...
Read more

Adam Clarke's Baptismal Theology

Image
In this blog post I'm will argue that Adam Clarke one of the chief Methodist commentators within the tradition held to baptismal regeneration. Now the definition is very important when it comes to this topic and how I'm defining baptismal regeneration is a follows that through the water if baptism the Holy Spirit gives newness of life, forgiveness of sins and makes the recipient a new creation. Of course I'm gonna be looking at the most important passages that are commonly cited when it comes to baptismal regeneration and those are John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Titus 3:5 and 1st Peter 3:21  I would say the main verses that Clarke comments that sets forward his baptismal theology will be in John 3, Acts 2:38, Titus 3:5 and 1st Peter 3:21. From these verses we see that Clarke is precise on what baptism does and the relationship between the water and Holy Spirit. So in John 3:5 Clarke says "But the water which was used on the occasion was only an emblem of the Holy Spi...
Read more

William Sherlock on Acts 2:23

Image
 "DECREES. Acts ii: 23. What does St. Peter say was done by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God? Did they take him, and by wicked hands crucify and slay him by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God? This is not said: but he was delivered, that is, put into their power, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God? and then they took him and with wicked hands slew him: And then we must observe, that here are two distinct acts of God relating to this event; the determinate counsel, and the foreknowledge of God. The will or counsel of God, which he had fore-ordained, and predetermined, the Boule Proorismene was, that Christ should die an Expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the world, which was a work of such stupendous wisdom, goodness, holiness, and justice, that nothing could more become God, than such counsels and decrees. But then by his Infinite prescience and foreknowledge he saw by what means this would be done, if he thought fit to p...
Read more