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.

For the Calvinist, the "doctrines of grace" is a synonym for TULIP theology. So, do the Biblical Doctrines of Grace of Arminianism also follow a system, such as TULIP? Arminianism proper has not historically employed an acronym as the one used for nearly four centuries by Calvinists.

Let it be stated, however, that if it had not been for the followers of Arminius (the Remonstrants) presenting their five arguments to the state to be approved as orthodox consent, then the TULIP would have never been constructed. And the original order of the Remonstrants was Conditional Election (to those in Christ), Unlimited Atonement, Total Depravity, Resistible Grace, and Conditional Perseverance.

If the Calvinists had strictly followed the Arminian system, it would have spelled ULTIP, which is a bad acronym, considering Ultip is not a word. Worse off, the Arminian acronym would have been CUTRC. The best sense which we could make out of that construct is TRUCC, also not a word.

The word grace, from Genesis 6:8 to Revelation 22:21, is a word meaning "graciousness of manner or act" (literally), or "the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life" (figuratively).1

Grace is a special favor bestowed upon an undeserving individual. Thus when a Christian minister quotes Paul as saying, "For it is by grace you have been saved" (Eph. 2:8), he or she means that the one saved was saved not by merit but by grace, undeserved favor. This is how to use the word grace biblically. In this we do not go beyond its clear meaning, nor do we fall short of what the Bible teaches.

For everything born out of God conquers the world and this is the conquest, the conquering of the world: our faith. What is the conquering of the world if not faith that Jesus is the Son of God?

The above is my own translation. I wanted to point out a few grammatical things in the Greek. I think most of the translations miss the power and passion that is there in the Greek, and I hoped to bring that out a bit more.

This passage is a powerful testimony about faith. I recently heard atheist Richard Dawkins say that faith is a dangerous thing, something which threatens the world. This is only partitially true. Faith is a powerful thing, something which can tame the world. Faith drives people to action, even actions which otherwise seem impossible. It is what we have faith in which determines whether it threatens or restores.

This week, we are starting something new that I intend to do from here on out once a week. For those who may not know, this is not intended to be a blog site. The point of this website is to be a repository of Arminian resources, and a resource itself when debating Calvinists. The purpose of the blog is to draw attention to the many Arminian bloggers that are out there, as well as providing a consistant stream of true Arminian thought.

However, since this is not meant to be a blog site, we wanted to point you to some of the articles that we have here, since they are more dear to the hearts of those of us at SEA. So, every Friday, I'm going to be pointing out a particular article that we have on file here for your review. Articles are longer, and are often far more scholarly.

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.

1 John 5:1-3 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God; and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

I think it is hard for us to remember that keeping the commandments of God is an aspect of loving Him. We Protestants are often so afraid of Pelagianism that we don't talk or teach about being righteous. This is a huge mistake. Though good works do not save us, we still are commanded to be good. The one who is not good is not a child of God.

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

The discussion concerning God's sovereignty usually spurs more arguments than decent dialogue. Place a Calvinist and an Arminian in a room to discuss God's sovereignty and an hour later nothing was settled except the agreement to disagree. Why is this so?

I have no hope whatsoever that Calvinists and Arminians will ever reach an agreement on determining the boundaries of the definition of God's sovereignty. Most Calvinists will not budge from defining the term as meaning God's absolute control over every event in the known universe, including the choices which human beings make.

On the other hand, Arminians are determined (no pun intended) to maintain that God can remain sovereign (in control) over His creatures even while granting them the freedom to make their own choices. After all, the Arminian will argue, where is it written that, in order for God to be sovereign, He must control the choices which people make?

The "invitation" or "altar call" is a common tradition in many "low church" bodies. Invitations to accept Christ are not new, however, the specific form of invitation known as an "altar call" is a relatively new practice. It started with the evangelist Charles Finney, back in the 1830's. Other evangelists who have popularized the practice include D.L Moody, Billy Sunday, Corrie ten Boom, and Billy Graham.