An Arminian Response to the Calvinist Claim That Acts 4:27-28 Proves Compatibilism

Another passage Piper makes use of to demonstrate that God decrees sin is Acts 4:27, 28.  He quotes Edwards to make his point. The death of Jesus offers another example of how God’s sovereign will ordains that a sinful act come to pass. Edwards says, ‘The crucifying of Christ was a great sin; and as …

An Arminian Response to the Calvinist use of Genesis 50:20 as a Prooftext for Compatibilism

[Excerpt from John Piper on God Ordaining All Sin And Evil Part 1: An Arminian Response to Piper’s First “Question”] "Piper quotes numerous passages of Scripture that he believes support his contention that God controls all evil (natural, animal and moral).  It seems to me that all of these passages could just as well fit …

Great Quotes: Thomas Ralston on Calvinist Arguments Against Free Will Based on Greatest Motive Force

Let us now contemplate these motives which are said to act upon the mind so as necessarily to influence the will. Let us look them full in the face, and ask the question, What are they? Are they intelligent beings, capable of locomotion? Are they endued with a self-moving energy? Yea, more: Are they capable …

Another Great Post From Rich Davis on the Problems of Calvinism

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 …

No Real Choice in Calvinism

Here is a good post that looks at some of the major difficulties in Calvinist accounting of free will and choice (below),  It also does a good job concisely pointing out how Irresistible Grace is indeed coercive, even on some Calvinist definitions: The "C" in Calvinism? Excerpt: The Coercion Problem First, the Sproul-Edwards account of …

Another Nice Short Post on Problems in Calvinism and the Calvinist Use of Language

Janis Joplin, Calvinism and More Words w/ Multiple Meanings Excerpt: I think Jonathan Edwards & Co are looking too much to the hard sciences to explain spiritual realities and therein lies their mistake. They also would deny God the sovereign prerogative to delegate the power of contrary choice to everyone born in sin. In this …

Is God Like a Black Hole in Calvinism? Ex-Calvinist Austin Fischer Responds to John Piper

Austin Fischer Responds to John Piper About Leaving Calvinism I think Mr. Fischer makes a valid point about how Piper's claims do seem to plainly paint God in a way that seems at odds with Scripture and seems to threaten His aseity. Here are a few other posts that make similar observations: Dr. Thomas McCall …

The Necessitarian Calvinist Argument From Strongest Motive Force is Based on Circular Reasoning

Indeed, the whole treatise of Edwards, in which he has written three hundred pages on the human will, is based upon this blunder. His almost interminable chain of metaphysical lore, when clearly seen in all its links, is most palpably an argument in a circle. He assumes that the mind is similar to matter, in …

John Piper on God Ordaining All Sin And Evil Part 1: An Arminian Response to Piper’s First “Question”

John Piper preached a sermon on God’s sovereign control over all things.  In this sermon, Piper highly praises the works of Jonathan Edwards and relies heavily on his accounting of sovereignty to explain how God can decree and ordain all evil in this world, and yet not be rightly called the author of all sin and …

Some New Must Read Articles at SEA (Abasciano and McCall)

SEA has been diligently providing its readers with excellent Arminian resources.  Recently Dr. Brian Abasciano's newest theological article on corporate election was made available.  Here is the write-up from SEA [Introducing Dr. Brian Abasciano's "Clearing Up Misconceptions About Corporate Election"]: SEA is excited to announce the addition to our site of Dr. Brian Abasciano’s recently published article …

Edward’s Doctrine of Necessity by Strongest Motive Force Cannot be Proved (Part 2)

Building on my previous post on the subject,  Albert Taylor Bledsoe well documented the circular reasoning involved in Edwards' primary assertion that the strongest motive force determines the will.  Below is an excerpt: The great doctrine of the Inquiry seems to go round in a vicious circle, to run into an insignificant truism...In the first …

Edwards’ Doctrine of Necessity by Strongest Motive Force Cannot be Proved

Truly, this grand assumption is nothing more than circular reasoning as Ransom Dunn points out: The affirmation, that the greatest motive invariably governs, is a mere assumption, incapable of proof. We ask, how does any one know that he is governed by the greatest motive? The answer, and the only answer possible, is, that he …

Challenging Jonathan Edwards’ Compatibilistic Arguments

SEA has provided a more comprehensive list of resources that challenge/refute Edwardsian Compatibilism. Refuting Edwards and Calvinist Compatibilism and Arguments against Genuine Free Will

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 Jonathan Edwards.  This is especially relevant since Calvinists continue to argue along these same lines today and often hold up …