When Christians who aren’t from a Calvinist tradition hear about limited atonement, something usually seems entirely wrong about the idea. Indeed, in the face of having no clear biblical data to support such an idea,…
Posts By JC_Thibodaux
Double-Talk From a Double Predestinarian
Dr. John Piper recently responded to the question, “What did the death of Jesus on the cross accomplish for the non-elect? Anything?” His reply, oddly, raises more questions than it answers. Despite his views on unconditional election and reprobation, Piper frames his answer in terms of God giving those who aren’t chosen a “chance” at salvation. Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber, was identified partially by his unusual, but correct use of an oft-misquoted proverb that’s very applicable here: “You can’t eat your cake and have it too.”
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics
Related Fallacies:
Equivocation
Where Calvinism Gets Romans 9 Wrong: “Not of Works” Means “No Conditions”
10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that…
The Transfer of Nonsense Principle
A concept that’s gained some popularity among Determinists is that God’s foreknowledge is incompatible with libertarian free will. One proponent of this idea is Dr. Linda Zagzebski, who has published works arguing this concept based upon the ‘Transfer of Necessity Principle’ (TNP)
Necessarily Non-Transferrable
The basic argument can be understood from a determinist dilemma by Diodorus Cronus, which I provide {translation} for where appropriate.
Let S = the proposition that there will be a sea battle tomorrow.
Where Calvinism Gets Romans 9 Wrong: Who do Jacob and Esau Represent?
After posting my exegesis of Romans 9, I deemed a follow-up series of posts necessary to show why the observations made therein are relevant to the debate on the conditionality of election. Interestingly, I’ve had…
The Contradiction Between “Perseverance of the Saints” and the Scriptural Warnings Against Apostasy
I’ve written plenty on this topic before, this is what I consider the strongest argument against inevitable perseverance/eternal security in a nutshell: The primary purpose of a warning is to provide incentive to avoid its…
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics: The Arminian View of Divine Foreknowledge Attacks God’s Simplicity and Immutability
Original post. Related Fallacies: Conflation Hasty Generalization Oversimplification Tim Prussic attempts to salvage his hopeless case after I pointed out his fallacious reasoning concerning God’s aseity. Tim makes a tenuous appeal to divine simplicity; in…
Romans 9 in Context: God’s Just Prerogative in Confounding All Confidence in the Law of Works
Introduction
Romans 9 is one of the most controversial and often-misinterpreted passages of scripture among evangelicals. Controversy, however, should not make us timid when it comes to the things of God. This inspired chapter is valuable for teaching doctrine, and should not be ignored or glossed over. At the same time, it should not be treated as a comprehensive statement of Christian soteriology by itself, for the chapter is not written in isolation, but is strongly rooted in the context of both Testaments, touching on concepts present in the other Pauline epistles and the gospels, and quoting from the Old Testament frequently. The goal of this writing is a sound, objective exegesis of Romans 9 to explain the principles therein, expound upon its themes, and to show where and how its teachings fit into the contexts of the rest of the book of Romans, and scripture as a whole. All quotes are from the NKJV unless otherwise specified.
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics: The Arminian View of Divine Foreknowledge Attacks God’s Aseity
Original post. Related fallacies: Non Sequitur Equivocation Special Pleading One apparent ramification of holding to both libertarian free will and God’s omniscience is that God (apparently) derives His knowledge of our choices from us, since…
Calvinism’s Bad Check
or: The 5-Pointer’s Impossibility of a Sincere Gospel Offer to All Men
More On the Authorship of Sin (Part 3)
Assuming Determinism to Disprove Free Will
Phil Johnson of John MacArthur’s Grace to You has authored a post entitled “The Problem for Arminians”. Quoting Phil:
If God knows every detail of the future with infallible certainty, then (by definition) the outcome of all things is already determined. And if things are predetermined but God did not ordain whatsoever comes to pass, then you have two choices:
1. A higher sovereignty belongs to some being (or beings) other than God. That is idolatry.
2. Some impersonal force did the determining. That is fatalism.
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics – Fallacy #10: Wait, Now Faith is a “Work?”
Related Fallacies: Equivocation Category Mistake “[Arminianism] denies sola fide (faith alone) by changing the character of faith so that it is basically a work.” (Rev. Richard Phillips [Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals], Is Arminianism a Biblical…
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics – Fallacy #9: Faith is Some Reason to Boast?
Original post Related fallacies: Pettifoggery Category Mistake A charge typically leveled by Calvinists is that Christians who don’t believe in irresistible grace would have some reason to boast in their faith. John Hendryx concisely expresses…
Where Calvinism Gets Romans 9 Wrong: Prerogative Equals Unconditionality
Continuing with the series on Romans 9, we’ll now address the issue of God’s prerogative in saving who He wishes and how Calvinists often misinterpret its implications. God’s Prerogative Reaffirmed When speaking to zealous Calvinists,…
More On the Authorship of Sin (Part 2)
This is the second of a series on the authorship of sin that came about as a result of discussions and observations on this post. Part 1 and the first section of this post address Calvinist claims that Arminians “also make God the author of sin.”
Conflating Origins
When discussing authorship implying the origination of sin, the argument inevitably arises, “but if sin originates in people, people still originate from God, therefore sin originates from God as well!” Not quite. Beings capable of sin originated from within God, it doesn’t follow that their rebellion itself came from within Him.
More On the Authorship of Sin
[Editor’s note: This post was originally posted at http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/, so any time references are no longer applicable.]
A few weeks ago I wrote on a fallacy common to Calvinist apologetics, namely, that they often claim that while they teach exhaustive determinism, they still claim that God isn’t the author of sin. It garnered substantially more responses than I expected. To clarify things and answer some common questions/objections, I’m putting together a synopsis of the relevant arguments (this is part 1).
Moral problems?
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics
Related Fallacies:
Red Herring
Equivocation
“All I have tried to do here is show how clearly, succinctly and simply that Calvinism does NOT charge God with the authorship of sin and so (to employ the somewhat aggressive language of Scripture) to shut the mouths of the gainsayers. If any have a case against Calvinism, then let it be based on truth and not on falsehood and slander.” – Colin Maxwell, Do Calvinists believe and teach that God is the Author of Sin?
Colin Maxwell put up the page linked to above showing various quotes from prominent Calvinist sources indicating that they do not believe or teach that God is the author of sin. His point apparently, judging from the content and page’s title, is to stop non-Calvinists from ‘slandering’ them by claiming they teach such a thing.
Problems with this logic
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics
Related Fallacies:
Oversimplification
Non-Sequitur
Slippery Slope
“The choices are not between Calvinism and Arminianism; it’s between Calvinism and universalism. Arminianism is a self-contradictory mess that can never defend itself.” – James White
This is a favorite rhetorical jab of many Calvinists, but is in fact one of the more obvious fallacies they often employ. The logic behind it is simple and can be summed up with the statement:
“If Christ’s death saves, and Christ died for everyone, then everyone would be saved.”
Seems pretty easy, right?
Problems with this logic
Turns out the simplicity of the argument is its weakness, because it masks a hidden difference in underlying assumptions. The critical distinction lies in the first part of the sentence, “…Christ’s death saves….”
The differences in viewpoint on atonement
Recent Posts
Roy Ingle, “Calvinism and the Atonement”
Why Does God Deny the Opportunity of Choice for or Against Him to Young Children Who Die and the Mentally Impaired?
Mark K. Olson, “Wesley’s ‘Warmed Heart’ at Aldersgate – What Really Happened?”
Adam Roe, “The Crucial Thread of Prevenient Grace: A Wesleyan Perspective on Divine Drawing”
