A New Flower in the Calvinism/Arminianism Debate

Francisco Marín-Sola advances an innovative alternative in the free will/determinism debate in the book, Do Not Resist the Spirit's Call: Francisco Marín-Sola on Sufficient Grace.  He claims his view is Thomism, and I certainly don’t deny that it could be a type of Thomism, though other Thomists like Lagrange are far more determinist than Marín-Sola.  In the spectrum, I would place it here:




Since many theological systems have a flower acronym (TULIP, ROSES, DAISY, POINSETTIA…) I figured I would give Marín-Sola’s system the LOTUS.

Lotus




Laps of Man Foreknown but not Caused by God.  God foreknows the fall, but He does not cause it.  Man is the first cause of all sins. -  While all but Open Theists would agree the fall was foreknown, likely Calvinists and Thomists would object to the idea that man is the first cause of sin or anything else for that matter.

Only by Grace.  God provides sufficient grace for all, which is a physical pre-motion always directed to good and that produces good if not resisted.  This sufficient grace not only enables good acts, but starts them, though it does not actually complete them or produce final perseverance.  So this fallible decree is God's will antecedent to man's resistance or non-resistance, and it's the first cause of all good.  – Open Theists, Arminians and Molinists would likely object to the idea that sufficient grace stops short of final perseverance or that it doesn’t see people all the way through to heaven.  Thomists and Calvinist on the other hand, would object to the idea that given the same grace, one man would resist and another not resist.  Likewise they would object to fallible decrees.  Also Calvinists would object to the idea of the non-elect being brought to true repentance and saving faith. 

Timeless knowledge of who would and wouldn't resist.  God, the eternal now, foreknows if man would freely resist or not resist this sufficient grace.  – All but Molinists would object to this idea, though Thomists and Calvinists might grant it, but not if man is the first cause of resistance and not if the knowledge is prior to God’s decree. 

Unconditional Election.  God unconditionally elects some sinners to glory.  -  All Open Theists and Arminians would reject this, while all Calvinists and Thomists would accept it.  Molinists would be split, with Congruists accepting it and others rejecting it. 

Securing of the Elect.  Via a consequent will, God infallibly decrees to provide efficient grace for the elect to remove resistance, which secures final perseverance.  – While many others could agree with the ethos behind this statement, this view is unique to Marín-Sola, given the way he has configured the other elements.  Calvinists and Thomists would object to the idea that God could find in us a resistance for which we are the first cause.  Molinists would object that were God to remove such resistance, He would destroy the freedom He gave us.


While I enjoyed reading Marin-Sola’s views, and I really like his point on non-resistance, I’m not sure I’m ready to sign up.

Comments

marinir seo said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
November 16, 2014 at 5:02 PM
THEOparadox said…
Daniel,

Thanks for this post. Very interesting and informative stuff!

Blessings,
Derek
November 22, 2014 at 9:14 AM
Unknown said…
Just discovered this LOTUS acronym, and am happy to see a Fre Grace alternative to the Calvinist TULIP, the Arminian DAISY, and the Molinist ROSES.
April 26, 2023 at 6:38 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