The essay is mostly philosophical blather, which asserts much and proves very little.
I could, with the weapons of a rigorous and precise Logic, easily enough dissect each and every paragraph of the author's locquacious flim-flammery -- as though to gorge myself in a feast upon his thousand logical vulnerabilities.
But it seems to me, that same rigorous Logic impels me to (at least temporarily) ignore the adiaphora of the author's many other weaknesses, and strike directly at the heart of what I adjudge to be the most Heretical and Damning Error in his entire convoluted chain of thought:
Milton has most beautifully commented upon this subject, supposing God to speak in reference to man: "I made him just and right; Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall. Such I created all the ethereal powers— Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell. Not free, what proof could they have given sincere Of true allegiance, constant faith, or love, Where only what they needs must do appeared, Not what they would? What praise could they receive? What pleasure I, from such obedience paid, When will and reason, (reason also is choice,) Useless and vain, of freedom both despoiled, Made passive both, had served necessity, Not me? They therefore, as to right belonged, So were created —— So, without least impulse or shadow of fate, Or aught by me immutably foreseen, They trespass; authors to themselves in all Both what they judge, and what they choose; for so I formed them free; and free they must remain, Till they enthrall themselves. I else must change Their nature, and reverse the high decree. Unchangeable, eternal, which ordained Their freedom; they themselves ordained their fall."
Hmmm.... Yet again we see the truth of the matter: Scratch the surface of an Arminian heretic, and underneath you are all-too-likely to find a sacrilegious "Open Theist". Do you agree, with the author, that "the most beautiful comment" made in support of his thesis is the contention that God DID NOT FORESEE the Fall of Man?
THIS is your "option C"?? Egads. Like Arminianism itself, it is Blasphemy most foul.
If NOT, then I would remind you: you have a question to answer:
- A.) The dead-spirited natural Man, while unregenerate, does HATE God.
- B.) The dead-spirited natural Man, while unregenerate, does NOT HATE God.
A, or B. Pick one, and we'll proceed.
ROFL! So the most damning and heretical error in the piece was Ralston's quotation of the Puritan (ergo, Calvinist) John Milton's Paradise Lost?
A related question:
- Does God justify the ungodly?
- Does God justify the godly?
ungodly ~ destitute of reverential awe towards God, condemning God, impious
P.S. this whole thing got started when gram asserted that man is on moral probation. After we slammed it pretty hard, he came up with this article.
Yet again we see the truth of the matter: Scratch the surface of an Arminian heretic, and underneath you are all-too-likely to find a sacrilegious "Open Theist". Grammarian has already pointed out your historical astigmatism in asserting that the Puritan John Milton was an "Arminian heretic", but I personally love the fact that you now credit Milton with the founding of Open Theism, a view which was not to surface until 300 years after his death. Some guy, that Milton.
But I'm certainly happy that you won't let a little history get in the way of your varsity name-calling routine. After all, how could one possibly defend the vicious construct if he were to be deprived of his name-calling 'tools'?