Author/Scholar Index: Calvinist

Edwards on Action

, , No Comment

Outline of Edwards’ arguments in part V.II

  1. Arminians say that without self-determining power, we have no power of action, acts are not our own, and we must be passive.
  2. This isn’t the way people use “action” in common speech.
  3. Used this way action is either causeless or an infinite regression of causes.
  4. When we speak of a first cause, if nothing causes something, nothing could prevent it, so therefore it is necessary.
  5. The common notion of action is the effects of the will.
  6. 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.

    7. Read Post →

Christ Died

, , No Comment

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…

Read Post →

Thomas Ralston on Freedom of the Will Part 7: Is the Doctrine of Free Agency Absurd?

, , 1 Comment

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.

Read Post →

Satisfaction

, , No Comment

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…

Read Post →

JOHN WESLEY AND JONATHAN EDWARDS ON RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

, , 1 Comment

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

Read Post →

Ron Rhodes, “The Extent of the Atonement” : Limited Atonement Versus Unlimited Atonement

, , No Comment

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

Read Post →

Enjoying Consistent Calvinism

, , No Comment

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.

Read Post →

Samuel Telloyan, “Did Christ Die For All?”

, , Comment Closed

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…

Read Post →