Due to the contradictory and confusing nature of Calvinism, Calvinists often struggle to articulate their own arguments. So Arminians with whom they are in dialogue, are often found having to first unscramble their own logic…
Compatibilism
Assigning Responsibility for Sin: Calvinism and the Theory of Secondary Causes
The Reformed Assertion: “God can determine a specific outcome, a person can have no other option but to do the outcome, and that person can be held up to moral judgment while God is blameless.”…
Letting the Dog Out and Compatibilism
This morning I slept in. It was delightful. Unfortunately while I was sleeping in, our dog Largo was following his nature. He needed to be let outside so that he could take care of business.…
William Lane Craig on Universal, Divine, Causal Determinism
What objections can be raised against the Reformed view of Universal, Divine, Causal Determinism? William Lane Craig answers: “At least five come immediately to mind: 1. Universal, divine, causal determinism cannot offer a coherent interpretation…
Book Review: Whedon’s Freedom of the Will
John Wagner recently edited and republished Daniel Whedon’s Freedom of the Will: A Wesleyan response to Jonathan Edwards. The book is an outstanding refutation of Edward’s Inquiry into the Will. Whedon seeks and engages top authors and arguments like Hobbs’ argument (later adopted by Locke and Edwards) that free will is incoherent, because it either amounts to a causeless cause or infinite regression of causes. Whedon responds by pointing out 1) the will is the cause of choice (74); 2) defining indeterministic causes (38-39); and 3) explaining that indeterministic causes account for either choice (71-72). In other words, indeterministic causes explain the goal of our choices (or reason for our choices), but the will is the cause we choose this goal, not that goal. This is essentially agent causation.
“When in Rome” and Irresistible Grace
I recently saw the movie When In Rome. What’s fascinating about the movie is that the plot bears a lot of similarity to the Calvinistic concept of irresistible grace. [Warning, spoilers ahead] In the movie,…
J.P. Moreland on Complementarity, Agency Theory, and the God-of-the-Gaps
Though the article is not primarily concerned with free will or defending free will, it does contain a good comparison between libertarian free will and compatibilism from a top notch and well respected Christian philosopher.…
Refuting Edwards and Calvinist Compatibilism and Arguments against Genuine Free Will
We have recently added a few book length resources that advance the Arminian view of free will and take on Calvinist arguments against genuine free will, especially the view that has become the dominant view…
The Lazy Man’s Guide to Refuting Edwards and Compatibilism
Recently we posted a list of resources that refute Jonathan Edwards and Calvinistic compatibilism and defend genuine free will (http://evangelicalarminians.org/refuting-edwards-and-calvinist-compatibilism-and-arguments-against-genuine-free-will/). Some of them are pretty hefty. So if you would like to get to the…
Al Jolson vs. Toby Mac Theology
1) Calvinist theology found in the opening lyrics to a famous song by Al Jolson: YOU MADE ME LOVE YOU You made me love you I didn’t want to do it I didn’t want to…
Friday Files: Dunn, A DISCOURSE ON THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL
In Dunn’s article, A Discourse on the Freedom of the Will he dispatches Jonathan Edwards two main arguments in a quick and decisive manor. He responds to Edwards’ cause of a volition dilemma (infinite regression…
Brennon Hartshorn, “Proof-texting without Context: A closer Look at 2 Timothy 2:25”
Some well-meaning Christians make the mistake of using proof texts to prove a theological point without considering the context of the larger passage that the proof text comes from. It is important to keep in…
Albert Taylor Bledsoe, *Examination of President Edwards’ Inquiry Into the Freedom of the Will*
Please click on the link to view Albert Taylor Bledsoe, Examination of President Edwards’ Inquiry Into the Freedom of the Will (1845). Bledsoe’s takeout of Edward’s argument seems accurate.
Henry Philip Tappan, *A Review of Edwards’ Inquiry into the Freedom of the Will*
Please click on the link to view Henry Philip Tappan, A Review of Edwards’ Inquiry into the Freedom of the Will (New York: John S. Taylor, 1839). Daniel Whedon uses some of Tappan’s material and Tappan’s takeout…
Daniel D. Whedon, *The Freedom of the Will as a Basis of Human Responsibility and a Divine Government*
Wesleyan-Armininan Daniel Denison Whedon’s response to Jonathan Edwards’ The Freedom of the Will is wonderful; both complete and acurate. (link) [This links to the original book available for free viewing or download.] The book has…
Freedom of the Will (Part Three)
In his book Primitive Theology, John Gerstner, in the chapter entitled “A Primer on Free Will,” writes, “Dear reader, you have in your hands a booklet entitled A Primer on Free Will. I don’t know you, but I know a good deal about you. One thing I know is that you did not pick up this book of your own free will.
“You have picked it up and have started to read it, and now continue to read it, because you must do so. There is absolutely no possibility, you being the kind of person you are, that you would not be reading this book at this time.”1
So, at the outset today, let me also say to you, dear reader, I do not know you, but I do know some things about you. One thing I know is that you did in fact choose to visit this site of your own free will.
Freedom of the Will (Part Two)
In their book Why I am not an Arminian, Peterson and Williams writes, “That God sovereignly superintends and controls all things and that human beings are responsible for their choices and actions is repeatedly taught and demonstrated throughout the biblical record. God is sovereignly active in every moment.
“Yet that sovereign agency does not annul or limit human responsibility. Conversely, human agency is affirmed. We are not automatons. Human actions are not coerced or programmed at every moment by mysterious forces such that we wact contrary to our natures and desires. Yet this human freedom does not negate or limit God’s agency” (emphases mine).1
Commands and Invitations for the Impossible
Outline of Edwards’ Arguments in Part III.IV Commands inconsistent with LFW God commands the acts of the will, not the acts of the body executing the will’s commands. If there’s a sequence of acts of…
Desire Isn’t Good Enough
Outline of Edwards’ arguments in part III.V Some falsely argue we can’t perform our spiritual duties, but desire these things, so they are excusable. This entails the contradiction that we are inclined and disinclined to…
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.
Recent Posts
How Do You Deal with the Limited Atonement Argument that If Jesus Paid the Penalty for All, Then People Sent to Hell Would Be Paying the Penalty a Second Time?
Roy Ingle, “Preach Perseverance”
X-Calvinist Corner Files: Testimony # 41
Richard Coords, “Regeneration”
