He Will Save His People from Their Sins: How Calvinists Don’t Bother Looking from the Other Side One of the more inane proof-texts for Calvinism is Matthew 1:21: “…for he will save his people from…
Recent Posts
Matt 1:21: How Calvinists Blind Side a Text
I John 5:12-13; A Devotional
The one who has the Son has life; the one who does not have the Son of God has no life. These things I have written to you so that you will know that you…
Friday Files: Picirilli
In Robert E. Picirilli’s article Foreknowledge, Freedom, and the Future, he explains that Reformation Arminians hold that God knows what we will freely choose in the future, whereas Neo-Arminians (a.k.a. Open Theists) disagree. With a little help from Arminius and Richard Watson, Pircirilli carefully defends his thesis that “there is nothing about the certainty of the future that is in conflict with the ability of human beings to make free, moral decisions” by defining certainty, necessity and contingency and demonstrating how contingency and certainty don’t conflict. Picirilli explains that the difference between Calvinists and Arminians is foreordination, not foreknowledge.
Brenda B. Colijn, “Let Us Approach: Soteriology In The Epistle To The Hebrews”
Please click on the attachment to view Brenda B. Colijn, “‘LET US APPROACH’: SOTERIOLOGY IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39/4 (December 1996) 571–586. Soteriology in Hebrews (PDF)
Freedom of the Will (Part Three)
In his book Primitive Theology, John Gerstner, in the chapter entitled “A Primer on Free Will,” writes, “Dear reader, you have in your hands a booklet entitled A Primer on Free Will. I don’t know you, but I know a good deal about you. One thing I know is that you did not pick up this book of your own free will.
“You have picked it up and have started to read it, and now continue to read it, because you must do so. There is absolutely no possibility, you being the kind of person you are, that you would not be reading this book at this time.”1
So, at the outset today, let me also say to you, dear reader, I do not know you, but I do know some things about you. One thing I know is that you did in fact choose to visit this site of your own free will.
Freedom of the Will (Part Two)
In their book Why I am not an Arminian, Peterson and Williams writes, “That God sovereignly superintends and controls all things and that human beings are responsible for their choices and actions is repeatedly taught and demonstrated throughout the biblical record. God is sovereignly active in every moment.
“Yet that sovereign agency does not annul or limit human responsibility. Conversely, human agency is affirmed. We are not automatons. Human actions are not coerced or programmed at every moment by mysterious forces such that we wact contrary to our natures and desires. Yet this human freedom does not negate or limit God’s agency” (emphases mine).1
Freedom of the Will (Part One)
In his blogpost on The Absolute Sovereignty of God, John Piper recalls a time in seminary when his notion of free will was challenged. According to Piper, this experience was one of “two experiences in…
I John 5:11-12; A devotional
And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does…
Friday Files: Brian Abasciano’s “Corporate Election in Romans 9: A Reply to Thomas Schreiner”
In Brian Abasciano’s article Corporate Election in Romans 9: A Reply to Thomas Schreiner, Abasciano corrects Schreiner’s mistaken notion that corporate election denies any place to the individual. He argues that election is primarily corporate…
The Sin-Bearer: Free at Last!
This post is an excerpt from the book review of John Owen’s Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Without question, one of Owen’s favorite themes in the atonement is that of Christ as…
For the Sins of the Whole World
This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.
I plan on 1) presenting the passages that teach Christ died for the world, 2) presenting my argument for unlimited atonement, 3) explaining 1 John 2:1-2, 4) going into some detail on the word “world”, and 5) addressing John Owen’s counter definition.
The Text
The New Testament has 10 passages which teach Christ died for the world. 1 John 2:1-2 is one of them.
1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
All Means All
This post is an excerpt from the book review of John Owen’s Death of Death in the Death of Christ. What else would all mean? Just kidding. While Arminians are aware that all can be…
John MacArthur Libels Arminianism as Semi-Pelagianism
John MacArthur, speaking to hundreds of pastors at the 2008 Together for the Gospel (T4G) conference, in his message entitled, “The Sinner Neither Able Nor Willing,” said, “The contemporary idea today is that there’s some…
I John 5:9-10;A Devotional
If we accept human testimony, then God’s testimony should be greater, since God’s testimony is what testifies to His Son. Those believing in the Son of God have this testimony through Him, but those who…
Friday Files: Martin Glynn
In Martin Glynn’s critique of the Articles of the Remonstrants, he provides a brief and helpful historical introduction and then dissects each of the five articles. Glynn notes the two surprises in the pile: article…
Jim Leonard, “Eternal Security and Exegetical Overview of Hebrews”
This article derives from: http://jmleonardfamily.googlepages.com/eternalsecurityandexegeticaloverviewofhe2 and may be viewed there (where the formatting is better) or by clicking on the pdf attachment: Leonard. Eternal Security and Exegetical Overview of Hebrews.
Critique of Edwards
This article is a brief critique of Jonathan Edwards’ views on the will and freedom. I won’t be presenting the alternative view, LFW, nor will I attempt to demonstrate the logical outcomes of Edwards’ view (i.e. God is the author of sin, God’s offer is insincere…). Instead I will just be looking at the internal consistency of Edwards’ view. I really think that the more people understand Edwards, the less they will agree with him.
Brief Outline of Edwards’ view of Freedom
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 Impeccability and Hardening
In part 3, scections III.I, III.II, and III.III, Edwards argues against the link between LFW and responsibility by appealing to divine impeccability as well as judicial hardening. He argues if God cannot sin, and a…
Edwards’ Arguments against Libertarian Free Will Based on Divine Foreknowledge
In part 2 section 12, Edwards attempts three demonstrations of the incompatibility of LFW and God’s foreknowledge: 1) based on the connection between foreknowledge and the event, 2) based on the impossibility of knowing things without evidence and 3) based on knowing a contingent event with certainty.
The Connection between Foreknowledge and the Event
Edwards’ Argument:
P1: Things in the past are now necessary
P2: In the past, God infallibly foreknew our future choices
C1: therefore, God’s foreknowledge of our future choices is now necessary
P3: if something necessary is infallibly connected with something else, that something else is also necessary
P4: God’s necessary foreknowledge is infallibly connected with our future choices
C2: therefore, our future choices are necessary
My Response
Recent Posts
Roy Ingle, “Set Free From Sin Or To Sin?”
Richard Coords, “Purpose”
Mark K. Olson: Famous Sermons of John Wesley 5: The Spirit of Bondage and of Adoption
Video: Arminian Denominations & Arminius’ Lutheran & Anabaptist Influences: “Who Are the Arminians?” Part 1
