Index to Daniel Whitby on Grace

Daniel Whitby's Discourses on the 5 Points was, during its day, the definitive Arminian work against Calvinism. Whitby had a commanding knowledge of the scriptures, and his book is a detailed and unrelenting examination of Calvinism. It drew responses from famous Calvinists Jonathan Edwards, Inquiry into the Will and John Gill, the Cause of God and Truth.
Below is an index to Whitby's discourse on Grace. Archaic spellings and words have been updated, sentences broken down into shorter sentences and links to scripture references inserted.
.
.
Chapter 2: Arguments against Irresistible Grace
Chapter 3: Refuting Arguments for Irresistible Grace

Comments

Anonymous said…
is this a book that I can buy currently? I'm sure they reprint some older works, I don't know if they have for this one. I'd read it off your blog but it seems like a valuable reference tool to have; plus my eyes hurt from reading too much text on screen. Thanks.
November 28, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi Jcoolio,

Thanks for reading and commenting. Unfortunately it's been out of print for quite some time and AFAIK it hasn't been republished. It's the type of book that shows up on ebay from time to time. The full softcopy is available on google books, but it's unprintable and even harder to read. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

God be with you,
Dan
November 28, 2008 at 8:47 PM
The Seeking Disciple said…
Thanks for posting this. I had never heard of the book nor the man. His knowledge is incredible and how we need more godly Arminians of his stature.
November 30, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Godismyjudge said…
Thanks for the encouragement Roy. I didn't really know about him either till I read Edwards. Edwards was ***refuting*** Whitby, but I kept saying to myself, Whitby gets it and Edwards doesn't.

God be with you,
Dan
November 30, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more