Dan Chapa

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”. The bible says people we have wills and make choices. Since LFW and CFW are alternative views and LFW is reducible to biblical phrase, “the will”, the question is which is right: LFW or CFW? If LFW is coherent and CFW is incoherent, LFW is biblical and CFW isn’t. Jonathan Edwards realized that the converse is true as well, and that’s why the bulk of “ the Freedom of the Will ” attempts to demonstrate the incoherence of LFW. I argued that Edwards’

This post is a follow on to Turretinfan’s comments here and here . Calvinists, in the Synod of Dordt, said that Christ’s death is sufficient for all. But they also say Christ’s death paid for this many, no more. But this is inconsistent. If Christ’s death didn’t pay for someone, in what sense is it sufficient for them? TF states: God has shown favor on some of mankind. He has provided for them His Son's blood - blood of infinite intrinsic efficacy. Yes, the blood WILL not do the reprobate any eternal good, but it WOULD do the reprobate good if the reprobate turned from his sin and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, it WOULD do the reprobate good if Christ had offered it for the reprobate, in short it WOULD work for the purpose of expiating the sins of the reprobate if it were applied to that use. Let’s look at this first portion: Christ’s blood would do the reprobate good if the reprobate turned from his sins and believed. That sounds good to me. If the Calvinist could consi

In this section I will be critiquing Edwards' views on the will and freedom. I won't be presenting the alternative view, LFW , nor will I attempt to demonstrate the logical outcomes of Edwards view (i.e. God is the author of sin, God's offer is insincere…). Instead I will just be looking at the internal consistency of Edwards' view. I really think that the more people understand Edwards, the less they will agree with him. Brief Outline of Edwards' view of Freedom Except where specifically cited, all quotes taken from Part 1 . The Will Edwards defines the will as "that by which the mind chooses any thing" and describes it as "for in every act of will whatsoever, the mind chooses one thing rather than another; it chooses something rather than the contrary or rather than the want or non-existence of that thing." What Determines the Will? Edwards goes on to ask the question "What determines the will?" Edwards responds that the will is deter

Jonathan Edwards’ book, the Freedom of the Will, is often cited by Calvinists as the definitive work on the topic. I enjoyed reading it. Edwards demonstrates in depth knowledge of scripture, church fathers, scholastics, and Arminian theologians on the topics of freewill, putting him in an ideal position to address the subject. Although I disagree with Edwards’ conclusions, I have no hesitation in recommending the book as an excellent primary source for understanding the Calvinist position on the will. Edwards’ book on the Will and Owen’s book on Christ’s death are considered key pillars within Calvinist systematic theology. Unlike Owen, Edwards’ style is quite readable. Sure, at times he’s long winded and repetitive, but he’s not as tough a read as Owen. For the most part he’s articulate and engaging. Additionally, unlike Owen, Edwards is not hostile towards Arminians, just Arminianism. Edwards broke his book down into 4 parts, with multiple sections each. The first part defines some

I am pleased to announce that the Society of Evangelical Arminians (SEA) just launched a new website ( link ) with the intention of growing it into a comprehensive resource on Arminianism, which includes but is not limited to the Calvinist/Arminian debate. The site will, D. V., provide a bit of balance to the vast sea of Calvinistic resources on the web, such as monergism.com, apuritansmind.com and reformed.org. This site is a central aspect of SEA’s overall purpose of offsetting the recent resurgence of Calvinism, by defining and defending Arminianism. Many non-Arminians have a mistaken notion of Arminianism, as do many Arminians. We are here to change that! Even though the site is just getting started, there will be plenty of goodies you’ll want to check out. Not to us, not to us… …but to You oh Lord be the glory.

It's the offseason, but there's still a lot brewing... We have the draft coming up, free agency, and the possibility of picking up Packman Jones. Free Agency In free agency we protected our tackle Flozel Adams and put a franchise tag on safety Ken Hamlin, but that used up most of the salary cap. We lost 3 non-starting defensive backs, Keith Davis a safety, Reeves and Jones two backup cornerbacks. We traded Jason Fergason for a late round pick - he was injured last year and we have too many Defensive Tackles now that we picked up Tank. The big loss this year was Julius Jones our starting running back. I'll miss Julius, I never thought he quite got a fair shake, although I have to admit he didn't live up to his potential over the past two years. So long Julius!!! Interestingly, we picked up Zach Thomas from Miami. Zach's an experienced inside linebacker and tough run stopper. Unless we are going to keep 8 linebackers on the team this year, I think this is bad news for

Odeliya had asked for a link to Plantinga’s article “Advice to Christian Philosophers”. It contains some great stuff on determinism, but its value goes far beyond that. Enjoy!!! http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth10.html