Determinism
Arminian Minute: Eye of the Tiger & Romans 9
Submitted by postpre on Tue, 07/20/2010 - 8:58amShare with us in a little humor over the importance that Calvinists place on Romans 9, with a revealing comment from John Piper for no extra charge :-)
Arminian Minute: Is Unconditional Election Good News for the Despairing Soul?
Submitted by postpre on Tue, 07/13/2010 - 7:30amDoes Calvinism (with its upholding of unconditional election) really have good news for the despairing sinner? At most, a Calvinist can tell a disturbed soul that they could be among God's elect. But, is such a response sufficient enough to engender hope in the heart of the broken? No, it is not. Nothing short of full assurance (no "could be's") that one can turn to God for relief from guilt will do.
The following YouTube video interacts with a 2003 sermon of John Piper's and seriously questions whether the belief in unconditional election is good news for the despairing soul.
John Piper on the Relationship between God's Sovereignty and Tragedy
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Wed, 06/23/2010 - 6:56amJohn Piper was asked by Cathy Grossman, from USA Today, what he would tell the children who lost their parents on 9/11. She understood Piper to be suggesting that a victim should concentrate on the greater opportunities that God had granted to the children now, instead of focusing on their past loss. Piper responded that he did not suggest that scenario. Instead, he offered the following:
Jack Cottrell on whether God Has Free Will if He Can't Sin and What This Means for Human Free Will
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.
James White says He could have Chosen Otherwise
Submitted by Godismyjudge on Wed, 06/09/2010 - 4:59amI had previously listened to James White's refutation of Molinism on the dividing line, but I just had a chance to listen to the full presentation on youtube. For the most part, it's the same information, with one exception that caught my attention. In the dividing line presentation, James White argued that Molininism conflicts with mans' freewill. However, the youtube clip (around 35 min. in) James White claims Calvinism provides greater freedom than Molinism; that Molinism makes man robots and Calvinism does not.
A cell phone goes off right in the middle of Dr. White's speech. He makes a joke about it, then asks if he had to make that joke and claims he could have chosen not to. He then argues that in Molinism, such an ability is a problem.
Another Chilling Calvinist Quote
Submitted by SEA on Mon, 05/31/2010 - 8:17amThe sovereign God “decides who will believe and undeservingly be saved and who will rebel and deservingly perish.”
—John Piper, “How God Makes Known the Riches of His Glory to the Vessels of Mercy,” sermon on Rom 9:19–23 (February 16, 2003). [Quote taken from http://andynaselli.com/framing-the-doctrine-of-election ]
Did you catch that Piper claims that God decides who will rebel? And then, those who rebel because God decided they would, somehow deserve to perish for that God-caused rebellion? And this does not make God the author of sin?
We know that many Calvinists believe such unbiblical and seemingly heinous things. But thankfully, it remains shocking to hear them state it so plainly. Otherwise, perhaps we should Recover a Sense of Incredulity over Calvinism as Jim Leonard has suggested here.
ANSWERING COLIN MAXWELL, A FREE PRESBYTERIAN IN NORTHERN IRELAND
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Thu, 05/20/2010 - 9:33amColin Maxwell informed the Society of Evangelical Arminians, of which I, William Birch, am a member, that he had "robustly . . . answered Mr. Birch's satire," entitled "Reinterpreting Cain and Abel: A Disturbing Satire." The following is my response to his response, Answering an Evangelical Society of Arminians Satire of Calvinism."
A Dialogue Between a Predestinarian and His Friend
A Dialogue Between a Predestinarian and His Friend
Out of thine own mouth!
The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., Volume 10, 1872, pp. 259-266
TO ALL PREDESTINARIANS
1. I AM informed, some of you have said, that the following quotations are false; that these words were not spoken by these authors; others, that they were not spoken in this sense; and others, that neither you yourself, nor any true Predestinarian, ever did, or ever would, speak so.
2. My friends, the authors here quoted are well known, in whom you may read the words with your own eyes. And you who have read them know in your own conscience, they were spoken in this sense, and no other; nay, that this sense of them is professedly defended throughout the whole treatises whence they are taken.
Making God a Liar?
Submitted by Martin Glynn on Fri, 05/14/2010 - 9:11amThis was a question that was sent into SEA, and I thought it would be a good idea to share my thoughts on the subject more publicly. The question is as follows:
- If human beings have libertarian free will, it is within their power to make God a liar.
- It is not within their power to make God a liar.
- Therefore, human beings do not have free will.
The troublesome premise is probably the first one, so I'll explain what I mean. Imagine a scenario where God makes a promise to one person which requires for its fulfillment the cooperation of another person who is free in the libertarian sense (I take freedom in the libertarian sense to mean that in any circumstance, a person's choice is free if he has two options to choose from [acting or refraining from acting, for example] and his choice isn't coerced, and so on).
The Calvinist View of Foreknowledge Makes God the Cause and Author of All Sin and Evil
Submitted by SEA on Thu, 04/22/2010 - 7:27amOne of our members commented concisely and incisively in our private discussion group (slightly revised here):
In Calvinism God cannot see into the future. He only knows what will happen because He will make it all happen. This again leads to the inevitable conclusion that God is the cause and author of all sin and evil in the universe. He makes sin and evil happen just as He makes everything else happen. One cannot appeal to "secondary causes" because God must make them happen as well. God directly controls everything in accordance with His all encompassing eternal decree. Some Calvinists find the Calvinist account of foreknowledge compelling precisely because it explains how God can foreknow the future, while the Arminian account doesn't care so much how God can know the future, satisfied simply to affirm that God is capable of doing such things, just as He can create out of nothing, etc.
