Skip to main content

He Deserves A Real Answer, Part III

If this is not clear, this is the argument:

Here's the argument:

(1) All my sins (past, present, and future) were already forgiven.

(2) My sanctification will be accomplished immediately and painlessly at the moment of my death.

(3) Given the sufficiency of the work of Christ, nothing can make God any more or less pleased with me than He is right now.

(4) Heaven is unimaginably better than here.

(5) At death I instantly enter heaven.

Ergo.... 

(6) Suicide is better than waiting around to die.

 Against the charge that no Reformed person experiences life this way, Bryan helpfully adds: 

 Of course I agree. I'm pointing out a contradiction between that experience of the meaningfulness of our post-salvation temporal life, and a theology that entails post-salvation temporal meaninglessness. That contradiction ought to concern anyone who cares about truth and therefore wishes to eliminate contradictions from his set of beliefs.

So my (temporal nihilism) argument is intended to reveal the contradiction, and then show that the contradiction is a reductio ad absurdum of monergism.
Same thread. And this site is Bryan's personal blog, in case that was unclear.
Labels:

Comments

Timothy R. Butler said…
See my comment in the other post. First, let's tinker with the recipe: (2) would be denied by Reformed theology, which argues for progressive sanctification (yes, completed in glory, but that's not the emphasis). (3) we assume that working from Christ's righteousness is actually meaningful, thought it does nothing to merit salvation (e.g. WCF 16.6). (4) define better: if better is doing what God intends us to do, it might be worse.

The argument is a straw man because assumption (6) would lead to a denial of (1), since saying "I can sin because I'll be happier when I do and it doesn't really matter" suggests a lack of sincerity that likely argues against the presence of the Spirit in the life of the person. I wouldn't say it absolutely denies (1) -- I'm not God and don't know the hearts of men -- but I will say I'd be dubious of the person's confession.

Like I said, these are fun games to play if the point is to feel good about one's own position. But it isn't a serious engagement with monergistic theology, just a caricature with enough of the system out of play to break it. It's like disconnecting the water line and then blaming the faucet for not providing water.

(These arguments are the sort that made me quit reading CtC -- making me less, not more sympathetic to Catholic theology. I've enjoyed talking to Bryan personally, but I don't enjoy his argumentation. I'd note so far in my conversation with Fred he has not jumped to any such arguments though, which is something that I appreciate.)
3:35 PM
Jason said…
It's not a straw man; Bryan deserves to hear challenges to his character personally. It's a reductio ad absurdum; it's meant to be a challenge.
3:52 PM
Timothy R. Butler said…
Comrade, I'm not challenging Bryan's character, I just don't think this is good argumentation. As I said, my goal has always been to challenge my debate opponent's opinions by describing his or her opinion in a way that he or she would say, "yeah, that's right." If they say, "no, that's not right," I may be arguing a straw man.

Reductio ad absurdum has its place, but I think its overuse can cloud your ability to see when you are no longer taking a real argument to its logical extreme. (I'd also argue as Christians, arguments must not only be technically sound, but also winsome. I find this description of monergism neither winsome nor accurate.)

As I noted, I can challenge several of the points in the chain of propositions. You are arguing against a view that simply doesn't exist amongst the major monergistic theologians (I use the qualifier "major," because I know there are those out there that would make the argument, but they are usually considered odd or crazy by everyone else. Shouldn't it bother you that the representative monergistic theologians -- Luther or Calvin; or the Reformed or Lutheran confessions, say -- not only don't argue this, but actually explicitly condemn this argument?
8:08 PM
Jason said…
I'm saying--as is Bryan, and all others at CTC, mind you--that it is not going to be any representative position. It doesn't matter what a majority of "mainstream" Reformed thinkers think about it; indeed, if they thought it was fair, it would not function as intended. It works as a challenge precisely because it is wholly intolerable. It's saying that whatever middle position you carve out is unprincipled and/or ad hoc.
9:43 PM
Timothy R. Butler said…
Or a straw man. That's my point. There's a reason we reject it easily -- it doesn't start where we start. I dare say the Reformed sound a lot more like Thomas or Augustine than the words that are allegedly Reformed. You can't build a reductio ad absurdum off an entirely set of premises that are rejected by those you are describing and have it do anything other than make a larger straw man. The whole argument from start to finish is untenable, and so it is just a cheap shot, not a real critique.

I'm dubious that the best way to argue theology is by logic -- I'm pretty certain theology must necessarily transcend logic games -- but in any case, the problem here is not logic. It is describing your opponent's start point accurately.
4:16 PM
Jason said…
Again, it's not meant to represent your position, so it's not a cheap shot. The only alternative to using logic is fideism, and that's not a reasonable basis for anything, let alone saving doctrine.
4:30 PM
Jason said…
Again, it's not meant to represent your position, so it's not a cheap shot. The only alternative to using logic is fideism, and that's not a reasonable basis for anything, let alone saving doctrine.
4:30 PM
Anonymous said…
I will say with complete confidence that the Reformed sound nothing like St. Thomas Aquinas without doing mortal harm to context.

I will go further and say that the Reformed sound nothing like St. Augustine’s Confessions and absolutely nothing like his On Free Choice of the Will, and they would not like his canon nor the reasons he offers for ignoring what the Jews say about the OT canon (no, they are not anti-Semitic).

Okay, that is all the mental energy I have to spend. :-)

Peace,

Fred
8:37 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

My Thoughts On The Harrison Butker Commencement Speech

Update: I read the whole thing. I’m sorry, but what a weirdo. I thought you [Tom Darrow, of Denver, CO] made a trenchant case for why lockdowns are bad, and I definitely appreciated it. But a graduation speech is *not* the place for that. Secondly, this is an august event. It always is. I would never address the President of the United States in this manner. Never. Even the previous president, though he deserves it, if anyone does. Thirdly, the affirmations of Catholic identity should be more general. He has no authority to propound with specificity on all matters of great consequence. It has all the hallmarks of a culture war broadside, and again, a layman shouldn’t speak like this. The respect and reverence due the clergy is *always due,* even if they are weak, and outright wrong. We just don’t brush them aside like corrupt Mafia dons, to make a point. Fourthly, I don’t know where anyone gets the idea that the TLM is how God demands to be worshipped. The Church doesn’t teach that. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...
Post a Comment
Read more