by J.C. Thibodaux
TF hurls a few elephants in claiming that I contradict scriptural principles, yet can cite no clear evidence as to how specifically. Apostasy wouldn't require that God be less-than-omnipotent, merely that He allow its occurrence. His 'reasonable explanations' of the passages cited collide with problems I've already presented:
- His interpetation of Matthew 5 explains nothing of how avoiding sin helps one enter into life (Matthew 18, Mark 9).
- His suggestion that I'm confused concerning Hebrews 4 is confuted by his admission that conditions for Christian and heavenly life aren't mutually exclusive (second response). He also grossly misrepresents my view as, '[by] works,' which was nowhere suggested.
- His view of Revelation 22 is self-contradictory: The unsaved aren't being told what awaits them, since he denies that anyone's part in New Jerusalem will ever really be taken.
His answer to the last question (which follows through with his 'hypothetical' interpretation), destroys his argument's credibility entirely when he states, Hypothetical questions are dangerous, especially when they contradict reality. A 'logical connection' to a consequence that 'contradicts reality' won't spur anyone on to anything. People aren't motivated by what they're told are hypothetical bluffs, they don't strive to serve God for the sake of what they think is a hollow myth, and they aren't driven to persevere by 'logical connections' to fairy-tales with no connection to reality --which is exactly what Calvinism makes the consequences of the warnings out to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment