Outline of Edwards’ arguments in part V.II

1. Arminians say that without self-determining power, we have no power of action, acts are not our own, and we must be passive.
2. This isn’t the way people use “action” in common speech.
3. Used this way action is either causeless or an infinite regression of causes.
4. When we speak of a first cause, if nothing causes something, nothing could prevent it, so therefore it is necessary.
5. The common notion of action is the effects of the will.
6. Arminians think of action as self-determination, because the motion of our bodies is caused by our wills – so they assume the same applies to the motion of our wills.

Edwards’ arguments in part V.III and part V.IV

Edwards splits necessity into two categories: natural and moral. Natural necessity relates to our actions, moral necessity relates to our wills. If an act is naturally necessary, it is either against or without our will, and whether we will or not the result is the same. Edwards says that natural necessity is the common meaning of necessity and moral necessity is philosophical. Natural necessity (common necessity) is a sense wholly different than that used in the Calvinist/Arminian debate. Most people go through their whole lives without thinking about moral necessity (philosophical necessity) and its relationship with responsibility.

Libertarian Free Will (LFW) is the idea that man is able to choose otherwise than he will choose. It’s contrasted with Compatiblism Free Will (CFW), the idea that free will and determinism are compatible. These are alternative views of the will; both can’t be true about a persons’ will at the same time.

The descriptions “libertarian” and “free” distinguish LFW from CFW, but are otherwise redundant. For those holding to LFW, the will is always at liberty, and is always free, else it’s not a will. Arminius put it: “the will cannot be forced”.

This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Peter is prophesying about a falling away. He speaks of false teachers who deny the Lord that bought them.

My argument is simple.

P1: Christ bought the false teachers
P2: the false teachers ultimately perish
C1: therefore Christ bought those that ultimately perish

This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

This argument is based on Judas and the Lord's supper.

Luke 22:
17And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
21But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.

This passage is the institution of the Lord’s supper. Christ gives the bread to the disciples (including Judas) and says that it’s given for you. My argument is simple:

This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

There are several passages of the word of God that teach that Christ died for those that ultimately perish. These passages don't teach that Christ died for all, because they only talk about specific groups or even one individual. Never-the-less, these are powerful arguments that Christ died for all, because they disprove substantially every Calvinist argument for limited atonement.

I plan on examining three passages starting with Hebrews 10.

Hebrews 10:

26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Everything is about God in one way shape or form. So my biggest problem with Edwards’ arguments regards the nature of God.

Outline of Edwards' Arguments About the Necessity of the God's Will - Part IV.VII

This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

Owen’s Argument 15:

P1: The biblical expression “Christ died for us” means Christ’s death substituted for the death others should have died
P2: Both Christ and a person cannot die for the same sins
P3: Some die for their sins
C1: Therefore, Christ didn’t die for all

(link)

Scriptures Cited by Owen

Hebrews 2:9 “That he by the grace of God should taste death for every man,”

This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

The doctrine of justification by faith is the teaching that God pronounces sinners, who are believers, not guilty, based on what Christ has done. God counts our faith as righteousness, based on Christ.

Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

by James M. Leonard
Arminian Baptist

Roger Olson has written a helpful volume entitled, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Basically, he sets the record straight on a number of issues where Calvinist polemic has falsely depicted Arminian theology. He does this in a consistent and systematic way, first by detailing the false and extreme allegations made by mainstream Calvinists, and then refuting them by examining the theological trajectory on the given topic beginning with Arminius and passing through his earliest followers, then Wesley, and then the 19th century Wesleyan theologians, and then concluding with contemporary Arminian theologians.*

This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

Owen's Argument 13:

P1: Christ death satisfied the debt for all those He died for
P2: God cannot justly require satisfaction of one debt from two parties (i.e. us and Christ)
C1: Therefore, God cannot require satisfaction of the sin debt for anyone Christ died for
P3: God requires satisfaction of the sin debt of some people in Hell
C2: therefore, Christ did not die for everyone

(link)

Scripture Cited by Owen

“he oweth the ten thousand talents” Matthew 18:24
“Forgive us our debts” Matthew 6:12

This article defines Libertarian Free Will (LFW) and then reviews Jonathan Edwards' arguments against LFW based both on causation and divine foreknowledge.

DEFINITION OF LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL

LFW is the idea that man is able to choose otherwise than he will choose. It’s contrasted with Compatiblism Free Will (CFW), the idea that free will and determinism are compatible. These are alternative views of the will; both can’t be true about a persons’ will at the same time.

The descriptions “libertarian” and “free” distinguish LFW from CFW, but are otherwise redundant. For those holding to LFW, the will is always at liberty, and is always free, else it’s not a will. Arminius put it: “the will cannot be forced”.

Arminianism; Book Reviews; General

Pinson, J. Matthew. "Review of *Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities* by Roger E. Olson" published in the Dec. 2006 issue of *JETS*.

Calvinism; General; Book Reviews

Please click on the attachment to view Vance, Laurence M. "A CRITIQUE OF THE POTTER’S FREEDOM BY JAMES WHITE" (published in the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society [Spring 2003])

If Dr. Keith Stanglin's book, Arminius on the Assurance of Salvation, isn't the best book out there on Arminius, it’s certainly in the top five. Stanglin's description of Arminius' views has a historic flare, similar to books like God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of James Arminius by Richard Muller, or Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation by Carl Bangs.

Stanglin's book has several unique features. First, it uses some of the 35 untranslated, unpublished Public Disputations by Arminius. Second, it examines Arminius' fellow professors at Leiden and the teaching styles and methods common at the university. Third, Stanglin retranslates Arminius from Latin, making some important corrections to Nichols' translation. This focus on primary materials, original language and context sets the stage for clearly understanding what Arminius had to say about assurance.