In Frederic Louis Godet takes a “National Election” approach in his commentary on Romans 9. He summarizes the flow of Romans 9-11 as follows: “1. That of God’s absolute liberty in regard to every alleged…
Sovereignty of God
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?
The House Fire
The House Fire (Arminian version): Once upon a time there was a house on fire. Inside were three children. The dad was outside, and went in to rescue his children. He helped one child get…
A Word or Two to Consider
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over…
Friday Files: Goodwin on Romans 9
John Goodwin’s 531 page commentary on Romans 9 is the longest and most detailed account of Romans 9 I have read. I loved it. I will try to give a brief overview and highlight what I found to be some of his most insightful points. The structure of his work is as follows: a brief overview of the chapter to show how his view flows with the contours of the text, a detailed exposition of the text, a table of scriptures mentioned with some commentary on them, some general comments on interpretation, and some questions on answers on the broader implications of the text. The work also includes the “Banner of Justification”, which explains justification in detail and it includes “Agreement and Distance of Brethren” which highlights the differences between Calvinists and Arminians.
Overview
Friday Files: Keith Schooley on Romans 9
In Keith Schooley’s Article: Romans 9: An Arminian/New Perspective Reading, he skillfully uses the OT to explain Romans 9. Paul refutes “those Jews who would say that, if Paul’s gospel were correct, then “God’s word…
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…
Dennis McCallum, Exegesis of Romans 9 and Romans 9-11
Lead pastor of Xenos Fellowship [Update on 2/19/2025: Now Dwell Community Church] Dennis McCallum has presented what many consider a fascinating and very well done exegesis of Romans 9. You can find his material on…
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…
Essays on Predestination by John Plaifere, Christopher Potter, Laurence Womock, Thomas Goad, and Louis Chéron
Plaifere & Goad take a Middle Knowledge approach to predestination. Christopher Potter defends his sermons on prevenient grace and coversion. Laurence Womock (or Womack) defends Daniel Tinelus, a critic of the Synod of Dort and…
A COMPARATIVE EXAMINATION OF SEMI-PELAGIANISM WITH THE TEACHINGS OF JAMES ARMINIUS
Born Jacobus Harmenszoon (ca. 1559-1609),[1] James Arminius’s name has been associated with Socinianism, Pelagian- and semi-Pelagianism, Unitarianism, Roman Catholicism, and most notably with the doctrine of conditional perseverance. As a matter of fact, for better…
Robert Hamilton, “Does Arminianism Diminish God’s Glory?”
Does Arminianism Diminish God’s Glory? One charge often heard against Arminianism is that by allowing for human agency to play a significant role in the process of salvation, Arminians decrease the scope of God’s agency…
Robert Chisholm’s Excellent Article on Hardening in the Old Testament
We do not always announce in the the blog the addition of specific articles to the site’s article database. (We regularly add articles to the site, and upon being added they appear in the “Recent…
Norman Geisler, Entry on “Free Will” in the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics
This article was take from http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/theological-dictionary/TD1100W3.htm
Free Will
by Dr. Norman Geisler
(from Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, 1999)
Concepts of the nature of human choice fall within three categories: determinism, indeterminism, and self-determinism. A determinist looks to actions caused by another, an indeterminist to uncaused actions, and a self-determinist to self-caused actions.
Determinism
There are two basic kinds of determinism: naturalistic and theistic. Naturalistic determinism is most readily identified with behavioral psychologist B. F. Skinner. Skinner held that all human behavior is determined by genetic and behavioral factors. Humans simply act according to what has been programmed into them.
I’m Free and God Is Still Soveriegn
Over and over and over again I am told that I do not truly believe that God is sovereign. Sure, I think I believe it, but God cannot really be sovereign if He doesn’t minutely…
Friday Files: Moore’s Commentary on Romans 9
In Bob Moore’s “Calvinism–Ten Little Caveats,” he provides a step-by-step analysis of Romans 9, and he contrasts his view with John Piper’s. He first admits that Romans 9 is difficult to interpret and we need…
Eric Landstrom, The General Theory of Relativity and the Nature of God Pokes Openness in the Eye
It is argued by proponents of Openness as well as Calvinists that claim Openness is the logical conclusion for Arminianism that in order for people to be free the future must be somehow open. Their argument claims that if God’s knowledge of future unactualized contingencies is perfectly known, then creaturely freedom is a farce and whether we like it or not, our Lord has effectively predestinated all of creation. Countering the argument Arminians point out that simply knowing for sure that a person will freely do something is not enough for God to control or predestinate the world. This is because foreknowledge of an event does not imply direct influence or omnicausality, or absolute determination, but merely knows what other wills are doing. In other words, foreknowledge doesn’t mean absolute determination. Yet a fine point should be sharpened at this time: God not only grasps and understands what actually will happen, but also what could happen under varied possible contingencies.
Friday Files: Clarke’s commentary on Romans 9
In Adam Clarke’s commentary on Romans 9, he argues for that God choice of Jacob and Esau were primarily national1, rather than the unconditional individual election and reprobation. The idea is that God chose to…
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…
Recent Posts
Video: David Pallmann, “A Critique of Unconditional Election”
William Burt Pope, “Divine Attributes Related to the Creature Part 3: Omnipresence and Omniscience”
Richard Coords, “2 Kings 20:1-7”
Simon Peter Sutherland, “A 20th century revival of 17th century Tulip Mania”
