rogereolson says:
What is your answer to thedilemma about rooster and Peter’s denial (and David’s census as either inspiredby God or Satan)?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/10/what-do-i-mean-when-i-say-the-bible-is-trustworthy/comment-page-1/#comment-34135
i)Before I get to that, I’d like to make a general observation about the dog thatdidn’t bark. Why aren’t Arminian bloggers defending the Bible against Olson’srepeated aspersions? Why don’t they circulate a petition to have him booted offthe SEA? Why so quiescent? Why so acquiescent? In post after post, Olson tearsdown the Bible. Tries to rationalize his impious attack on God’s word. YetArminian bloggers continue to push the snooze button. Sleeping dogs that lollaround as the burglar ransacks the house.
Is itbecause the defining motivation for Arminians isn’t devotion to Scripture, buthatred of Calvinism?
It’s asif many Arminians entered into a devil’s pact with Roger Olson. As long as he’sattacking Calvinism, they give him a pass for attacking Scripture. Even if theydon’t like it when he attacks the Bible (although I haven’t seen much evidenceto that effect), bashing the Bible is the price they pay to have him bashCalvinism. Openly opposing him on the inerrancy of Scripture would violate theterms of their Faustian bargain. Roger keeps the originals, signed in blood, onfile. If they renege on the deal, he’ll swing by to collect their indenturedsouls. Dispatch the hellhounds.
ii) Ialready addressed his challenge regarding Peter’s denial in another post. Whatabout David’s census?
iii)Why does Olson think the variant accounts of David’s census pose a “dilemma”?On the face of it, there’s a pretty straightforward way of harmonizing the twoaccounts: we simply distinguish between primary and secondary causes. InSamuel, God is the ulterior cause–while in Chronicles, Satan is theinstrumental cause.
Indeed,there are numerous biblical passages in which we see that alternation. God isthe ultimate source of whatever happens, but God typically works throughintermediate agents or agencies, viz., men, angels, demons, and natural forces.
iv) Andthis isn’t just an extraneous harmonization which the dreaded “inerrantist” isimposing on the text. The Chronicler himself is glossing the text in Samuel.This is an intertextual commentary on the earlier account.
v)Incidentally, this may also be the way to harmonize Jas 1:13 with variousBiblical examples in which God incites people to evil. James may be saying Godnever “tempts” anyone directly. Rather, he uses intermediaries.
vi) Butan Arminian might say that doesn’t solve the problem. For in that event, Godwould still be morally complicit.
Indeed,there’s a striking parallel between Arminian objections to predestination and 2Sam 24. Just as Arminians say, how can God condemn what he ordains?–wemight just as well ask, how can God condemn David and punish Israel when Godhimself incited David to conduct the census?
Thetext itself doesn’t answer that question. On the other hand, it wouldn’t beinconsistent for God to do that. For the cycle of temptation and punishmentadvances the narrative to the next stage. God is moving the action forward, tohis appointed end.
vii) Ofcourse, that doesn’t resolve the moral question of how God can justly condemnsomething which he himself incited–whether directly or indirectly. And that, inturn, is parallel to what Arminians find so abhorrent about Calvinism. Yet theBiblical narrator doesn’t share their concern.
We canexplore philosophical models of freedom, determinism, and responsibility, butthat’s after the fact.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder