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.

This article is taken from a chapter in Hoodwinked and Happy?: Evangelicals, Calvinism , and Why No One’s Answering the Problem of Evil, by Daniel Gracely, published by Grandma’s Attic Press, © 2006.

Please note that the author of this article is not an Arminian, but that we have made the article available because it has some good material related to the Arminian/Calvinist debate. SEA does not necessarily endorse everything in the article

Please click on the attachment to view Daniel Gracely, "Divine Sovereignty"

The Southern Baptist Convention has been perhaps the greatest means by which the Gospel has been presented to the world, at least during the history of the United States. No other Protestant denomination has achieved as much in their 163 years of existence. Thus, all Disciples of Jesus should consider important the developments that occur within the Convention. If your particular groups or movements aren’t going through what the Convention has, they either already have or likely they will.

That is why a conference held last week was, in my view, important enough to for me to attend. The “John 3:16 Conference” was held Thursday, November 6 and Friday, November 7, 2008, at First Baptist Church, Woodstock, Georgia. The purpose of “John 3:16” was to construct a theological answer to the burgeoning resurgence of Calvinism within the Southern Baptist Convention.

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.

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

The 400th anniversary of Arminius' "Declaration of Sentiments" occurred last week. We missed the opportunity to mark the anniversary on its exact day here at our site. But it is still worth drawing attention to the anniversary, and more importantly, the declaration it marks. (See below for a link to the document itself.)

Here are some comments from Dr. Keith Stanglin about this important treatise:

"On Oct. 30, 1608, Jacobus Arminius delivered his now famous
Declaration of Sentiments. On Oct. 20, he was summoned to the Hague to present his views to the States of Holland on the controversial doctrines of the day. He spent most of the speech deconstructing the Calvinist view of predestination later known as supralapsarianism. He then presented his positive view of predestination, and briefly addressed other important topics.

Please click on the attachment to view James Arminius, "A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius".

This treatise is an accessible introduction to Arminius' thought. It treats predestination, divine providence, the freedom of the will, the grace of God, the divinity of the Son of God, and the justification of man before God. Written less than a year before his death, this work represents Arminius' mature opinions on the topics he treats.

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,”

I grew up in a Southern Baptist church that was focused on the gospel. The issues of Calvinism and Arminianism never came up. I had never even heard that there was a debate until 1998 when John MacArthur’s Study Bible came out. That’s when I accepted Calvinism (to the utter disappointment of my parents).

I joined a (PCA) Presbyterian church (Christ’s Community Presbyterian Chuch ~ now Providence Presbyterian Church in Salisbury, MD). I still believed in bapism by immersion (believer’s only, not infants), and the pastor didn’t care one way or the other. I swallowed Calvinism hook, line, and sinker; and I couldn’t believe that everyone wasn’t a Calvinist: it all seemed so clear to me!

Sometimes theology can make us frustrated, and the Calvinism / Arminian controversy has been making Christians frustrated for centuries. But this can be a good thing if it drives us closer to God in seeking Him.

Be forewarned, this is going to be an odd post, because it’s going to deal with hypotheticals.