And couldn't the same thing be said that the consistent arminian should be an open theist or pelagian (not equating the terms, just two different ditches the arminian must avoid)?
It would be a fair matter for debate, yes. Presumably, if you legitimately believed that that were the case, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to criticize the Arminian position if you believed it necessitated an O.T. view. As long as I don't (for instance) accuse
YOU of "believing" that we should not evangelize the lost (that's straw-man argumentation)...but if I suggest that a consistent Calvinism requires that view, than that is fair debate.
Similarly, as long as you wouldn't argue that Arminianism "teaches" that God only "hopes" that people will become saved (as opposed to knowing it un-equivocally) than you would be perfectly within your rights to argue that an Arminian, if consistent, should believe that God doesn't "know" but rather only "hopes" that someone will become saved....I.E. O.T.
For that matter, couldn't you "logically" say that anyone who believes in justification by faith alone SHOULD be an antinomian?
Well, I think that's a non-sequitor myself....but, it is fair to debate that. It's wrong to say that someone
IS an antinomian on account of that belief, but it would be a fair critique or argument to suggest that they should believe that if they were consistent.
What these "logical" conclusions neglect is the view of Scripture held by each of the orthodox positions.
As long as you debate within an understood framework which is confessionally held by that individual than the "logical conclusions" debates are fair game IMO.
In other words, it may not make sense to you why I hold to limited atonement and unconditional election AND I believe in robust evangelism. In your view, that may even be illogical. Never the less, it is my view. Why? Because that's what I see when I look at the Scripture. I believe that God not only appoints ends, but also means. Any system that leads to disobedience should be abandoned.
Actually, I perfectly understand and can appreciate your argument here. I should have added in my original post, that I find your explanation for evangelizing to be perfectly consistent and reasonable. The "God appoints the ends
and means" argument is I.M.O. perfectly consistent and a fair rejoinder. That's one of those modern Calvinist arguments which I think is a sufficient response to hyper-Calvinism.
I probably
SHOULD have said that a consistent Calvinism leads to a Hyper-view MINUS that caveat.
By the same token, I may not understand your position that atonement is unlimited and yet, God rightly condemns those who don't accept the offered gift. In my view, that's an illogical view, but that doesn't impugn your view of Scripture or the orthodoxy of your view.
You can understand it's tenants and debate against it within the confines of the stated arguments as I would present them.
Allow me to put it this way:
What is wrong is to super-impose one's OWN pre-suppositions on a differing view when critiquing it. We must debate within the confines of what the other person's pre-suppositions are, and not our own. I'll try to give an example of one of the common errors:
1.) The Arminian argues that (acc. to Jonathan) God "forces" the elect to accept him "against their will"-----You've heard it before, some have derisively called it "grace-rape".
a.) The Arminian pre-supposition which results in that is one of super-imposing contra-causal freedom onto the back of the Calvinist belief in "irresistible grace".
b.) Calvinists (most of them) do not believe in contra-causal will however, so the Arminian is wrong to call it "forcing" them "against their will".
Is it fair though to critique the Cal view at all then? Yes... but you critique it within the framework that Calvinism admits
for itself. Namely, that God was the one who pre-determined the set of sinful desires that man's corrupted will would have in the first place, or alternatively, that it was God's decree that all of Adam's progeny would be born so "dead in sin" that they could and would desire nothing else....Thus, an Arminian might be able to critique Irresistible Grace as absurd, but we have to use the Calvinist pre-suppositions to do it.
