Parel, It is my observation that with any disagreement, but importantly on debates over the most vital matters, the argumentation can crescendo to where the truth is staring both sides in the face. And if that moment passes, the debate will degenerate into comparatively unimportant matters. (For BRX: It is denying some of the most basic truths of the Incarnation vs. Can Jesus really know that Peter is too weak to risk His life? Can the Holy Spirit really prompt three people to remember Peter? Can God get a rooster to crow on cue? Or is that too difficult for Him, since maybe the farmer will eat the rooster the night before? And isn’t it wildly inconceivable that God could do all these three things simultaneously?) Debates are won and lost all the time with the losing side unaware of what has happened (ask
Zakath). If your position is correct, and you hope to instruct and demonstrate the truth, then you should seize the moment and point it out, and just bear the criticism.
Once it became obvious that Sam was sticking with his position which denied some of the basic truths of the Incarnation, it was crucial to declare victory, because most readers would probably not perceive what had just happened. I’m sorry that I flaunted my position in the way that I put it; if I could edit my post, I would tone that down; Sam surprised me by posting almost a day early, and he thereby robbed me (permissibly) of my expected weekend; so I worked through most of the next two nights (I am a very slow writer, and really need all of my opponents time to catch up on his remaining questions), and well, sleep deprivation lowers my inhibitions, so that while I fully stand by my assessment, I wish I could tone down the bragging.
And the reason I pointed out Sam’s credentials twice while making these points is this: it is not the newcomers to Calvinism that most resist these simple truths of God’s nature, but it’s the theologians, the authors, the senior pastors, the professors, the standard-bearers. The argument that the attributes of goodness, etc. take precedence over power, etc. is so utterly true on the face of it. Yet a Calvinist resists such fundamental truth, because he intuitively sees that it will undermine his theology. For THIS IS THE ULTIMATE HERMENEUTIC for deciding between the Calvinist ordination of evil, and God’s creation of human will. (The matters of God being in or out of time, and exhaustive foreknowledge, are mere symptoms of the human philosophical idea of utter immutability.) For Calvinist theology originates in and depends upon the primacy of the Greek-influenced OMNIs and IMs, over the attributes that Christ retained as a man. Of God’s attributes, Sam “rejects… that one is more important or takes precedence over another,” which claim lost him the debate, partly for being therefore theologically unqualified to judge the more complex matters of truth and righteousness that flow from an understanding of God’s nature. Further, whereas I admit that my theology results from giving preeminence to some of God’s attributes, Sam denies that He does the same (although it is utterly obvious). For the Calvinist has elevated the wrong attributes, influenced by Calvin, who couldn’t agree more with Augustine, who bragged about importing Greek philosophy (primarily utter immutability) into Christian theology. Thus Sam argues that all attributes are equal, but the Settled View (including Arminians) has accepted conclusions that result from exaggerating God’s immutability and knowledge. As an aside, thankfully, the Arminian Settled Viewers do stop short of accepting the additional Calvinist elevation of power (control, sovereignty) over His being relational.
Once you prove that God’s attributes do have a divine order of priority, through the Incarnation, that relationship, righteousness and love take precedence over omniscience and omnipotence, etc., and your opponent rejects that, he has lost, and you have won. Let Sam admit that God’s being relational, good, and loving take precedence over power and knowledge, and then together we can begin to go through the relevant passages with this hermeneutic, and then all can see that the declaration of victory was made at the right moment.
-Bob
