I just came across a new blog through following some links from Ben’s latest post at Arminian Perspectives. In any event, I came to the most recent post of this new blog and it was in response to an article written by Ben’s partner in crime (for the record, “crime” = sound theological reflection) J.C. Thibodaux. What was so funny was that the guy whose blog it is (Adam Murrell is the name of the one who posted it) began the post by talking about “straw men arguments [that] do little to enhance the real issue to be discussed.” I know, that’s not so funny, but here’s the punchline — He went on to tell J.C.:
Before I clarify what the biblical position acutally is concerning the preservation of the saints, it is of great importance that we should be clear upon the issue that we are really discussing. If we only trade verses for or against the position of the perseverance of the saints, we will never progress in our arguments. It is imperative that we escape this myopic view that dominates many discussions relevant to this topic, and note what the foundation of your position really is - a synergistic concept of salvation based upon grace mingled with works, with the emphasis being upon good works. If we are to engage in an intellectually honest discussion, then you must be sincere in acknowledging that you stand shoulder to shoulder with Rome and against the Protestors of the Reformation on this fundamental position, in that you are embracing a system of salvation that removes grace alone.
Wow! Tell J.C. what he really thinks, why don’tcha? That someone could spout off about straw man arguments against his position and then go on to represent his opponent’s position in the most fallacious way possible is the height of irony. This is decidedly one blog that I won’t be keeping track of.
Oh, and don’t expect to read any responses in his combox. Not only does he truncate comments (750 character limit), but he moderates them as well. And apparently, Ben has not been able to get any of his approved over there. I guess he’s so against synergism that he doesn’t even want two participants in dialogue, he’d rather opt to offer the illusion of choice in allowing comments, but really be the only one speaking. How Calvinistic of him. 
(Please note the tongue-in-cheekiness of that last comment.)
B”H
