Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility…
Author/Scholar Index: Calvinist
Edwards on Action
Outline of Edwards’ arguments in part V.II
- Arminians say that without self-determining power, we have no power of action, acts are not our own, and we must be passive.
- This isn’t the way people use “action” in common speech.
- Used this way action is either causeless or an infinite regression of causes.
- When we speak of a first cause, if nothing causes something, nothing could prevent it, so therefore it is necessary.
- The common notion of action is the effects of the will.
- Arminians think of action as self-determination, because the motion of our bodies is caused by our wills – so they assume the same applies to the motion of our wills.
Edwards on Common and Philosophical Necessity
Edwards’ arguments in part V.III and part V.IV Edwards splits necessity into two categories: natural and moral. Natural necessity relates to our actions, moral necessity relates to our wills. If an act is naturally necessary,…
What is Libertarian Free Will?
Libertarian Free Will (LFW) is the idea that man is able to choose otherwise than he will choose. It’s contrasted with Compatiblism Free Will (CFW), the idea that free will and determinism are compatible. These…
Christ Died for those who Ultimately Perish – Part 3/3
This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ. 2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be…
Christ died for those who ultimately perish – Part 2/3
This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ. This argument is based on Judas and the Lord’s supper. Luke 22: 17And he took the cup,…
Christ died for those who ultimately perish – Part 1/3
This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ. There are several passages of the word of God that teach that Christ died for those that…
Necessity of the Divine Will
Everything is about God in one way shape or form. So my biggest problem with Edwards’ arguments regards the nature of God. Outline of Edwards’ Arguments About the Necessity of God’s Will – Part IV.VII…
Christ Died
This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Owen’s Argument 15: P1: The biblical expression “Christ died for us” means Christ’s death substituted for the…
The Arminian Confession of 1621: The Remonstrants on Election
On the benefits and promises of God, and principally of election to grace, or calling to faith. “1. But that man may not just perform the commandments of God thus far explained, but also willingly…
Thomas Ralston on Freedom of the Will Part 9: The Doctrine of Motives
This post completes our series on Ralston’s defense of the Arminian belief in self-determinism. This is the grand finale where Ralston tackles the favorite argument against free-will, the doctrine of motives as presented primarily by…
Thomas Ralston on Freedom of the Will Part 7: Is the Doctrine of Free Agency Absurd?
Thomas Ralston now begins to examine and respond to various objections posed by “necessitarians” against the Arminian view of self-determinism. My comments are in bold print.
WE propose in this chapter, to examine some of the principal objections which have been urged against the view taken in the preceding chapter of the freedom of the will. Those most worthy of notice are the following, viz.:
I. It is said to be absurd in itself.
II. It is said to be irreconcilable with the Scripture account of the divine prescience.
III. It is said to conflict with the doctrine of motives.
We propose a respectful attention to each of these grand objections.
I. It is alleged that the view we have taken of the proper freedom of the will is absurd in itself.
Thomas Ralston on Freedom of the Will Part 6: Conclusions to the Positive Argument
Thomas Ralston now concludes his positive arguments in favor of self-determinism. My comments are in bold print.
(4) In conclusion, upon this part of the subject, we think it proper briefly to notice the absurdity of attempting to reconcile the doctrines of necessity with the proper freedom and accountability of man.
Satisfaction
This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Owen’s Argument 13: P1: Christ death satisfied the debt for all those He died for P2: God…
Eric Landstrom, Political Powerbrokers, Authority, and the Road to Dort
The Synod of Dort was a regional conference that was primarily motivated by political powerbrokers. Theodore Beza, John Calvin’s direct successor and first systematizer of Calvinism sent Arminius, the brightest bulb in the Calvinist box…
7 Reasons NOT to ask Jesus into your heart???
Dennis M. Rokser is the pastor of Duluth Bible Church in Duluth, Minnesota, and has authored a publication entitled: “Seven Reasons NOT to ask Jesus into your heart.” Here is a link to his article,…
JOHN WESLEY AND JONATHAN EDWARDS ON RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
JOHN WESLEY AND JONATHAN EDWARDS ON RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Robert Doyle Smith
Introduction
The tone of the eighteenth-century debate between Arminians and Calvinists finds apt description in John Wesley’s observation that to say, “This man is an Arminian,” was, to some, much the same thing as saying, “This man is a mad dog.”1
Ron Rhodes, “The Extent of the Atonement” : Limited Atonement Versus Unlimited Atonement
Taken from http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Atonement.html
This article is not written by an Arminian, but from a “moderate Calvinist” perspective. We include it because it argues for unlimited atonement, a doctrine that is so obviously biblical that many who consider themselves Calvinists embrace it.
The Extent of the Atonement: Limited Atonement Versus Unlimited Atonement
by Ron Rhodes
Enjoying Consistent Calvinism
The content of this post was authored by Ben Henshaw and is posted on his behalf.
I have recently been accused of being an inconsistent Arminian because I reject Open Theism. I find it interesting that Calvinists are so concerned with consistency seeing as how they both affirm that God causes all things and is yet somehow not the author of sin.
I admit that I love consistency. I reject Calvinism primarily because I find no support for it in the pages of Scripture, and secondarily because it is so internally inconsistent. I admire Calvinists who are not afraid to “take it in the face”, so to speak, and call God the author of sin. “Traditional” Calvinists call these types “hyper” Calvinists, but in the spirit of my recent conversation, I think it is more accurate to just call them “consistent” Calvinists.
Samuel Telloyan, “Did Christ Die For All?”
Taken from https://www.galaxie.com/article/cenq10-4-03 This article is not written by an Arminian, but from a “moderate Calvinist” perspective. We include it because it argues for unlimited atonement, a doctrine that is so obviously biblical that many…
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”
