Determinism

Contradiction Alert: Calvinist Scholar John Feinberg on Ethics

, , Comment Closed

One of our members, named Robert, recently made some comments in our private discussion group about an interview that Justin Taylor did with Calvinist scholar John Feinberg, pointing out how they contradict Calvinist doctrine and draw on Arminian doctrine when they talk about ethics. His comments have been edited a little and pasted in below:

I listened to Justin Taylor’s recently posted interview with John Feinberg and heard some real contradictions between Feinberg’s views in the area of ethics and his views on compatibilism/soft determinism.

To set the stage, John Feinberg is a Calvinist who calls himself a
soft determinist/compatibilist and he presented the Calvinist view in
the famous PREDESTINATION & FREE WILL: FOUR VIEWS OF DIVINE
SOVEREIGNTY & HUMAN FREEDOM (other contributors included Pinnock,

Read Post →

Supercalvinisticexpialidocious

, , Comment Closed

One of our memnbers commented that Bob Passantino was a great apologist for the Christian faith, extremely well read and knowledgeable, who died prematurely and that he was also an outspoken critic of Calvinism. Here…

Read Post →

Daniel L. Migliore on Election as Corporate

, , Comment Closed

The following quotes are from Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). The Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, states that by God’s secret decrees…

Read Post →

Do Arminians Believe in the Sovereignty of God?

, , No Comment

Do Arminians believe in the sovereignty of God? If one has only ever read Calvinistic books, the answer would seem to be a no-brainer, for according to most Calvinists, an Arminian is by definition someone who denies God’s sovereignty. For example, notable Calvinist exponent Edwin H. Palmer (1922 – 1980) explicitly declared that “the Arminian denies the sovereignty of God”.1

Funny though it may seem, there are even those who reject the tenets of Calvinism, yet try and take a middle road between Calvinism and Arminianism. These so-called ‘non-Calvinists’ are usually known by the maxim, “I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian, but simply a Bible-believer.” I should know; I used to be one.

Read Post →

Arminius on the Will of God

, , No Comment

Arminius on the will of God

provided by SEA member, Roy Ingle

DISPUTATION XVIII

ON THE WILL OF GOD

I. The will of God is spoken of in three ways: First, the faculty itself of willing. Secondly, the act of willing. Thirdly, the object willed. The first signification is the principal and proper one, the two others are secondary and figurative.

II. It may be thus described: It is the second faculty of the life of God, flowing through the understanding from the life that has an ulterior tendency; by which faculty God is borne towards a known good — towards a good, because this is an adequate object of every will — towards a known good, not only with regard to it as a being, but likewise as a good, whether in reality or only in the act of the divine understanding. Both, however, are shown by the understanding. But the evil which is called that of culpability, God does not simply and absolutely will.

Read Post →

Molinism, Calvinism, and I Corinthians

, , No Comment

I just finished Dr. Olson’s book Against Calvinism (It is really difficult to find time to read when you have a one year old). In appendix 1, Dr. Olson goes over several attempts by Calvinists to protect God’s character despite their theology. One particular argument caught my eye: the use of middle knowledge.
Roger Olson explains:

Molinism… is the belief that God possesses “middle knowledge” — knowledge of what any creature would do freely in any possible set of circumstances. The creature may possess libertarian freedom — freedom not compatible with determinism and able to do other than it does — but God knows what he or she wold do with that ability in an conceivable situation. [Roger Olson, Against Calvinism, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2011), 184]

Read Post →

Refutation of Jonathan Edwards

, , Comment Closed

Following up on Roger Olson’s post about Jonathan Edwards, I would like to draw attention to some resources we have that refute Edwards’ influential Calvinistic views on free will. First, we have a list of…

Read Post →

Double-Talk From a Double Predestinarian

, , No Comment

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.”

Read Post →

James Emery White, “The Joker”

, , Comment Closed

Dr. James Emery White considers God’s relationship to evil in light of the deadly shooting that took place at a showing of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado: http://www.christianity.com/blogs/JWhite/11674264/?utm_source=Christian%20Living%20Connection%20-%20Christianity.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=07/24/2012/

Read Post →

Allowing is not commanding

, , No Comment

This reprint of a blog post by Randal Rauser, PhD is placed here due to his accurate reflection of the Arminian position on the allowing vs commanding controversy. Note that Dr. Rauser is not a member of SEA and does not necessarily claim an Arminian stance.

ALLOWING IS NOT COMMANDING

Over the last week I have heard on at least three different occasions claims made to the moral equivalency of God allowing x and God commanding x. The argument has been made by Christians to demonstrate that if I accept that God providentially allows evils like genocide and infant sacrifice, I should have no problem if God also commands genocide and infant sacrifice. The argument has also been made by non-Christians to argue that if I have a problem with God commanding genocide and infant sacrifice, I should also have a problem with God allowing genocide and infant sacrifice.

Read Post →

Why Does One Person Accept Christ, While Another Rejects Him?

, , No Comment

Why does one person accept Christ, while another rejects Him?

Notwithstanding God’s prevenient, enabling and intervening grace, free will is reasonably the cause of the aforementioned divergence, and which certainly requires greater explanation, and I believe that there is one. However, the first thing that Arminians point out is Adam and Eve, because the equation of total depravity no longer applies in their situation, and which begs the question: Why did they choose the way that they did? Arminians argue that God presented them with the opportunity to choose well, and by choosing well, to form good moral character. The same matter of free choice also applies to the angels as well, pre-Fall. No issues of depravity applies to their equation either. It is to this point that Calvinists, even such as R.C. Sproul, state the following:

Read Post →

Free Will in Heaven?

, , No Comment

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…

Read Post →

Playing With Dolls

, , 1 Comment

A question that I was recently considering was whether or not God could truly love us if we did not have free will. Clearly He could care about us like I care about my grandfather’s jacket or my car, but could one really say that He loved us? I think the answer is both yes and no.

For context let us consider the kind of love that we are dealing with. In the Bible, it uses the analogy of marriage to define God’s love for His elect people. However, it uses the analogy of a parent and child to define His relationship with creation. When we are talking about free will, we are naturally talking about how God designed us. Therefore the parent/child relationship is at the forefront and so it is this kind of love that I am going to be addressing.

Read Post →