“I don’t see how anyone could read the Old Testament and not conclude that Calvinism is right,” was the assessment of one Calvinist professor recently. By “Calvinism” he meant the notion of God’s exhaustive predeterminism…
Fatalism
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…
David P. Hunt, “Contra Hasker: Why Simple Foreknowledge Is Still Useful”
Please click on the link to view David P. Hunt, “Contra Hasker: Why Simple Foreknowledge Is Still Useful”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (Sept 2009) 545-550. This article responds to William Hasker’s critique (“Why Simple…
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…
Outcomes, Foreknowledge, and Free Will
Posted by Robert (submitted to SEA on 10-21-09). I believe that I have come upon an insight that, though very simple to understand, does a great job of unlocking the supposed problem of the compatibility…
The Jealousy of God and Calvinism
Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. –Exodus 34:14 A disturbing aspect of Calvinism is how it does damage to God’s character. By improperly defining…
Interesting Links 11-01-09
The Spokane Examiner has an article entitled: A Methodist’s Take on Predestination and Free Will. (HT: Wesley Wong) Richard Coords takes a look at a dissertation that explores the potential Gnostic influence on Augustine’s doctrine…
Friday Files: Cottrell “Sovereignty and Free Will”
In Jack Cottrell’s article, Sovereignty and Free Will, he discusses the question: is there a logical incompatibility between the sovereignty of God and the free will of man? He points out that every detail may…
The Funniest Anti-Arminian Post I Have Ever Seen
OK, this post by Triablogue is so absolutely ridiculous that I find it comical and wanted to share it. Here Steve Hays actually tries to claim that Arminianism is a form of Manichaeism . Wow. Just wow. For those not familiar with what Manichaeism is, let me say that this would be akin to Michael Moore calling Republicans Communist. Seriously.
Calvin and Hobbes on Fatalism
The ever insightful Calvin: :
Free Will and the Why of Creation
Free Will and the Why of Creation
I am not a big fan of arguing for free will. In general, I think it is a given for the moral character of humanity. Even Calvinists postulate some degree of freedom through the concept of secondary agency to present some kind of intelligible concept of morality. So generally, we are debating what everyone seems to really accept when we look at it rationally. But a conversation prompted me to post the following.
An acquaintance was listening to a Youtube presentation by a popular Calvinist concerning God’s knowledge of the future and its relationship to sin and free will. The Calvinist posed the common question posed by many Calvinists, which I have paraphrased below.
- If, as Arminians believe, God infallibly knew exactly what was going to happen when he created, and knew that sin would occur as a result of his creation, then why did he create in the first place?
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…
Getting Past Monergism to Helping a Perishing World
For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord…
Causeless Cause or Infinite Regression of Causes
Brief Outline of Edwards’ Arguments in Part II of Freedom of the Will
Edwards attacks LFW in two broad categories: causation and divine foreknowledge. Under causation, Edwards argues that LFW either leads to an infinite regression of causes or is an action without a cause. Edwards then argues that actions without causes are absurd because: 1) they would violate the common sense idea that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause, 2) then we wouldn’t be able to reason from cause to effect, 3) all proof of God’s existence is taken away, and 4) actions produced by a causeless cause would be both random and irrational, and therefore not a basis of moral accountability.
Infinite Regression of Causes or Causeless
Edwards on Responsibility
Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility…
Thomas Ralston on Freedom of the Will Part 9: The Doctrine of Motives
This post completes our series on Ralston’s defense of the Arminian belief in self-determinism. This is the grand finale where Ralston tackles the favorite argument against free-will, the doctrine of motives as presented primarily by…
Thomas Ralston on Freedom of the Will Part 8: Can Free Agency be Harmonized With Divine Foreknowledge?
Thomas Ralston now tackles the necessitarian objection that God’s foreknowledge of our actions renders the power of self-determination impossible. My comments are in bold print.
II. The next grand objection to the doctrine of free agency is, that it is supposed to be irreconcilable with the Scripture account of the divine prescience.
Necessitarians argue that free agency, in the proper sense, implies contingency; and that contingency cannot be reconciled with the divine foreknowledge. It is admitted by Arminians, and the advocates of free agency generally, that the foreknowledge of God extends to all things great and small, whether necessary or contingent – that it is perfect and certain.
Thomas Ralston on Freedom of the Will Part 7: Is the Doctrine of Free Agency Absurd?
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.
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”
