Determinism

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 →

An Explanation of Simple Foreknowledge

, , No Comment

In the book Against Calvinism, Roger Olson asserts that Calvinism damages God’s reputation, and that it (unintentionally) turns God into a moral monster who is hardly distinguishable from the devil. Olson doesn’t argue that Calvinists affirm that God is like the devil. Rather, in his view it is the logical implication of Calvinism. It’s a strong assertion, but I agree. John Wesley did also.

Read Post →

Roger Olson, “Strong Meat, Not Milk: Are Some Things Impossible to Believe?”

, , No Comment

Are Some Things Impossible to Believe?

written by Roger E. Olson, PhD

Lewis Carroll’s White Queen tells Alice that sometimes she has believed six impossible things before breakfast. That led some later wits to quip that faith is believing six impossible things before breakfast.

Lately I’ve been re-reading Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology (having read it many years ago).The first volume was first published in the early 1870s. I wonder if Hodge had read Through the Looking Glass which was published in 1871?

Or perhaps Dodgson (Carroll’s real name) and Hodge had read the same source? Perhaps someone associated with the Scottish Common Sense Philosophy?

In any case, interestingly, and I dare say surprisingly to many of his admirers, Hodge believed there are things it is impossible to believe.

Read Post →

The Transfer of Nonsense Principle

, , No Comment

A concept that’s gained some popularity among Determinists is that God’s foreknowledge is incompatible with libertarian free will. One proponent of this idea is Dr. Linda Zagzebski, who has published works arguing this concept based upon the ‘Transfer of Necessity Principle’ (TNP)

Necessarily Non-Transferrable
The basic argument can be understood from a determinist dilemma by Diodorus Cronus, which I provide {translation} for where appropriate.

Let S = the proposition that there will be a sea battle tomorrow.

Read Post →

Roger Olson, Some Thoughts about My Conversation with Michael Horton

, , No Comment

Posted on February 4, 2012 by rogereolson

Some Thoughts about My Conversation with Michael Horton

I spoke about why I am “Against Calvinism” for about 15 minutes focusing on the goodness of God and how classical, “high Calvinism” is inconsistent with any meaning of “good” and “love” known to us. Then Mike spoke for about 15 minutes focusing on humanity’s depravity and God’s mercy in electing some to salvation. In other words, he also said that God is good even if not in terms of our “fairness” (because he doesn’t save everyone).

Read Post →

Where I Have a Problem with Calvinism

, , No Comment

Posted on February 1, 2012 by rogereolson

One commenter has raised a question about my statement that I have no problem with Calvinism in confessionally Reformed circles (churches, denominations, etc.). I made that statement in my previous post about my public conversation with Mike Horton.

So, let me clarify that.

First, by “no problem with” I don’t mean “agree with!” What I mean is, I don’t object to Reformed folks holding to their Calvinism within their own ecclesiastical settings that are confessionally bound. The same is true of many other doctrines with which I disagree in other confessional traditions (or non-confessional but with unwritten or supposedly non-binding statements of faith).

Read Post →

Appalling Examples of Evil that Imply the Incoherence of Calvinism # 3: The Satanic Power of Pornography

, , Comment Closed

Here is a quote from Calvinist Al Mohler provided by Calvinist Justin Taylor on “The Satanic Power of Porn”(http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/01/23/the-satanic-power-of-porn/). Russell Moore ( http://www.russellmoore.com/2012/01/23/should-i-marry-a-man-with-pornography-struggles-my-response/ ): Pornography is a universal temptation precisely because it does exactly what…

Read Post →

The Westminster Confession of Faith: Handwaving

, , No Comment

Randolph Sinks Foster, in his book, Objections to Calvinism (1852) writes:

[The Confession of Faith states,] “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; [and now your disclaimer,] yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature.”

But this disclaimer [God is not the author of sin] by no means relieves my embarrassment — it greatly increases it, by placing you [Calvinist brother] in the attitude, to my mind, of believing a palpable contradiction, namely, that God did cause all things, sin included, yet in such a way that he did not cause sin.”

Read Post →