Author/Scholar Index: Other or unknown

Jack Cottrell on “Whether God Has Free Will If He Can’t Sin And What This Means For Human Free Will”

, posted by SEA

Taken from http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/2010/06/jack-cottrell-on-free-will.html

QUESTION: Many (usually Arminians) argue that without free will in a significant (libertarian) sense, i.e., the ability to choose between good and evil, human actions would not be worthy of praise or blame. Thus in order to preserve moral responsibility, human beings must have free will in the libertarian sense—the freedom of opposite moral choice. But is this consistent with the freedom of God Himself, whom we assume to be the ultimate model for freedom? The following are said to be true of God:

1. God is surely the freest being in the universe. He is free to do whatever he pleases (Psalm 115:3), and all his choices are surely praiseworthy.

Read Post →

God’s Foreknowledge – Peter, Judas and Christ

, posted by Godismyjudge

I recently read Greg Boyd’s explanation of Christ’s foretelling Judas’s betrayal and Peter’s denial. The basic issue is that in open theism, a free choice cannot be foreknown. Boyd states that at the time of…

Read Post →

Ironside on Calvinism

, posted by SEA

Taken from: http://www.thebereancall.org/node/8145 Ironside on Calvinism “Turn to your Bible and read for yourself in the only two chapters in which this word predestinate or predestinated is found. The first is Romans 8:29-30, the other…

Read Post →

Book Review: The Shack

, posted by Kevin Jackson

(Warning: this review contains spoilers)

What would you do if you were invited to spend a weekend with God? What questions would you ask him? Maybe, why does evil exist? Why is there pain? That is the background for the book “The Shack” (Author: William P. Young).

“The Shack” has become a phenomenon. As of today (9-24-09) it is ranked #11 in sales on Amazon.com, and has over 3700 reviews.

There is a dual reaction to the book in Christian circles: people either love it or despise it. I fall into the former category, with a reservation. I enjoyed the story. It brought me to tears a number of times. As a father of two girls, I empathized with the main character, “Mack”.

Read Post →

Norman Geisler, Entry on “Free Will” in the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics

, posted by SEA

This article was take from http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/theological-dictionary/TD1100W3.htm

Free Will
by Dr. Norman Geisler
(from Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, 1999)

Concepts of the nature of human choice fall within three categories: determinism, indeterminism, and self-determinism. A determinist looks to actions caused by another, an indeterminist to uncaused actions, and a self-determinist to self-caused actions.

Determinism

There are two basic kinds of determinism: naturalistic and theistic. Naturalistic determinism is most readily identified with behavioral psychologist B. F. Skinner. Skinner held that all human behavior is determined by genetic and behavioral factors. Humans simply act according to what has been programmed into them.

Read Post →

The Farmer, the Boys, and the Pond

, posted by Kevin Jackson

In his book “Chosen but Free“, Dr. Norman Geisler* gives an illustration that vividly explains the problem with the Calvinistic teaching of Limited Atonement. Here is a paraphrase of the story: There was a farmer…

Read Post →

The Savior of All Men (1 Tim. 4:10)

, posted by Ben Henshaw

This article seems to be written from a moderate Calvinist (4-point) position but still does a nice job showing that a proper exegesis of 1 Tim. 4:10 teaches unlimited atonement. Click on link below to…

Read Post →

Molina, Arminius, Plaifere, Goad, and Wesley On Human Free-will, Divine Omniscience, and Middle Knowledge

, posted by Kevin Jackson

Molina, Arminus, Plaifere, Goad, and Wesley On Human Free-will, Divine Omniscience, and Middle Knowledge

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Barry E. Bryant

Upon first glance the title of this paper contains a strange mix of individuals, one or two of whom are perhaps more obscure than the others. What each has in common with the others is a vested interest in the issue of free-will. What they also have in common is the realization that arising from the doctrine of free-will is the paradox of omniscience.

Read Post →