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.
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.
Comments
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.)
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?
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.
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