Chrysostom makes a great point. John 6:45 really helps explain John 6:37 and 44. God teaches and we learn, if we choose to, but some choose not to learn. Those that learn from the Father…
Free Will
God’s Sovereignty by the Rules
by Roger Olson Some comments here are so good that I want to make them posts. I hope “Robert” won’t mind if I do that with his recent comment about God abiding by rules in…
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.
Dr. Brian Abasciano Introduces His New Book on Romans 9:10-18
Dr. Brian Abasciano has done a guest post in the blog of his publisher, T&T Clark/Continuum, introducing his new book on Romans 9:10-18. We have reproduced the post below, which was taken from http://tandtclark.typepad.com/ttc/2011/04/a-guest-post-from-brian-j-abasciano.html :
<a href="http://www.continuumbooks.com/books/detail.aspx?BookId=125352&SearchType=Basic
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
Ben Witherington III, Review of Rob Bell, “Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived”
Distinguished Arminian scholar Ben Witherington III has reviewed Rob Bell’s Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived chapter by chapter in a series of posts at…
“The Prodigal Son” and Arminian Theology
One of Jesus’ best known parables is the story of “The Prodigal Son” (Luke 15:11-32). The parable is particularly relevant to Arminian theology. It shows the extent of freedom that God gives to his children.…
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…
James Arminius On the One Will of God
There is a connection between the Understanding of God and His Will that is overlooked or neglected by those who hold to a two wills in God theory. In this post we will discover what Arminius believed about God’s Knowledge or Understanding, and its relation to the one Will of God, with its various distinctives.
THE UNDERSTANDING OF GOD
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…
J. Matthew Pinson, “Will the Real Arminius Please Stand Up? A Study of the Theology of Jacobus Arminius in Light of His Interpreters”
The article was originally published in Integrity 2 (2003) 121-139, and is posted here with permission by the author. Pinson on Arminius
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
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 because our choices have motives and desires that moral responsibility is actually established. Responsibility requires that our acts, of necessity, be intentional….” (Eleven (11) Reasons to Reject Libertarian Free Will, John Hendryx)
