According to The Oxford American College Dictionary, the word reprehensible means “deserving censure or condemnation.” While there are aspects regarding Calvinism which are orthodox, overall I find its analysis of God’s character, and at times…
Determinism
Chrysostom and Accounting for Differences
Calvinists sometimes argue that the fact that some people are good and others bad is evidence that God predetermines all things. The Calvinist arguments run down two distinct tracts: 1) a forking maneuver and 2)…
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.
Sin & God’s Sovereignty
Here are some edited comments, short but sweet, from a member of our private discussion group:
The following quote is by RC Sproul, SR.
“Every sin is an act of cosmic treason, a futile attempt to dethrone God in His sovereign authority.”
No matter how long I’ve been involved in the A vs. C debate, I absolutely cannot reconcile in my mind how God ISN’T the author of sin if Calvinism is true given Calvinism’s doctrine of exhaustive divine determinism.
In turn, this quote by Sproul would be false if Calvinism is true, since our sins would reinforce God’s sovereignty.
Calvinism and Evangelistic Method
In my Evangelism class at The College at Southeastern, composed of both seminary and college students, the professor had the class form groups of four in order for each group to construct a gospel tract, each group having its own leader (chosen by date of birth). The leader of our group was taking advice from the other members and was very open to suggestions. When he declared that we were nearly finished, except for a few statements which needed to be nuanced, I responded, “Wait, but we have yet to inform the person what to do with this information.” He responded, “Well, I’m against anything like ‘pray this prayer after me.'” I agreed and said, “Is that our only option? We must tell the person to trust in Christ.” He was not fond of that idea.
Josh Thibodaux, “More on the Authorship of Sin (Part 3)”
In parts one and two of the authorship of sin series (as well as the post that kicked it off), we examined some of the Calvinist defenses against the charge of their making God the…
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
Dr. Kyle Roberts, “Tsunamis: Or, Why I’m No Longer a Calvinist”
Dr. Kyle Roberts, “Tsunamis: Or, Why I’m No Longer a Calvinist” Kyle Roberts is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology and Lead Faculty of Christian Thought, Bethel Seminary (St. Paul, MN).
Michael Bird on Calvinistic Synergism
Some good comments from Calvinist Michael Bird, admitting that Calvinism (not just Arminianism) involves synergism (in the context of talking about Universalism): Calvinists like to tout themselves as holding to a form of monergism whereby…
The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart
The LORD said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that…
The Theological Fatalist’s Modal Fallacy
Theological fatalists posit that God’s foreknowledge of future events mean that it is not possible for anything other than what happens to happen. Since God knows every event that will happen, then aren’t those events…
The Arminian’s Doctrine of Divine Concurrence
Concurrence is the cooperation of agents or causes ~ a combined action or effort. When we speak of the doctrine of concurrence, we mean the cooperation of God and a person in a combined effort…
Did You Catch the Calvinist Contradiction Alert?
Recently, we posted an analysis by one of our members (Robert) of a portion of Justin Taylor’s interview of Calvinist scholar, John Feinberg, about his book Ethics for a Brave New World. In that analysis,…
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics – Fallacy #5: Choices Apart From Intent?
Related Fallacies: Strawman Begging the Question “While libertarians uphold the philosophy that “choice without sufficient cause” is what makes one responsible, the compatibilist, on the other hand, looks to Scripture which testifies that it is…
Orthodox Christian Matthew Gallatin on Eastern vs. Western Thinking
In the following YouTube video Matthew Gallatin, of Ancient Faith Radio, highlights the differences between Eastern and Western perceptions about God.
“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,…
God and the Miners
As reported by CNN International, all 33 of the Chilean miners were rescued from their desperate plight. Most of the survivors were released from the hospital yesterday afternoon, 14 October 2010. This event reminded me…
Pascal’s Wager Against Calvinism
Many of you have heard of Pascal’s Wager as a motivator to believe in God, but I think it also applies to the Calvinist/Arminian debate. Here is Pascal’s Wager: Belief in God, if God exists,…
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”
