Rich Davis continues to defend his “C” in Calvinism argument that interacts with R.C. Sproul and shows that despite Sproul’s insistence that conversion is not coercive in Calvinism, by his own definition of coercion Calvinistic conversion is indeed coercive. In this short article he address recent criticism from Dr. Ian Clary.
Here is a re-post of the article on the SEA site: Rich Davis, “Clary’s Ten Concerns”
I appreciate Dr. Davis pointing out repeatedly that Sproul’s view of compatibilism, following Edwards (and I would dare say the standard Calvinist view, despite Clary’s protest), reduces to a mere truism (tautology), making the argument nothing more than a question begging assertion. This is something we have highlighted many times here and seems to me to be painfully self-evident and irrefutable. If all Calvinists like Sproul have to offer is a bare assertion, then a counter assertion is all that is needed to cut the legs off of the so-called “argument.” Here are a few other posts that address this basic concern:
The Doctrine of Necessity by Strongest Motive Force Cannot be Proved
The Necessitarian Calvinist Argument From Strongest Motive Force is Based on Circular Reasoning
Arminian Perspectives 