So far we’ve explored three external conceptual problems for the soft determinist/Calvinist view of freedom, and, thus the Calvinist view of election. Yet there are still two more external conceptual problems we must consider before drawing a final conclusion.
3 CommentsDr. Stan W. Wallace Posts
Last week I suggested our common experience of character formation is incompatible with the soft determinist view of freedom. Since Calvinism depends on soft determinism being true, this is another external conceptual problem for Calvinism. Yet the Calvinist may object on theological grounds. I’ll explore this response today.
Leave a CommentWe all desire to become better people. And so we work toward this goal. This includes choosing the beliefs and desires we will embrace and act upon. These choices in turn form our character. This common experience must fit our view of freedom. Yet, this reality doesn’t fit well with the soft determinist’s understanding of freedom. This is another external conceptual problem for soft determinism, and therefore, for Calvinism, which depends on soft determinism’s definition of freedom being true.
4 Comments(I’m interrupting my series on Predestination vs. Free Will to share some thoughts on the events of the past few weeks.) The horrific murder of George Floyd once again causes us to stop and ask hard questions about our culture. As Christians we are called to be agents of peace, truth, and justice. But doing so requires an understanding of how to think Christianity about this responsibility in our current cultural moment.
2 CommentsAfter 34 years in ministry, I had the opportunity to take a sabbatical these past three months in order to be renewed, refreshed, and retooled for the next season of ministry. Little did I know a global pandemic would play a defining role in what God wanted me to learn. My sabbatical ended April 30, and as I look back over the past three months I find three lessons the Lord taught (or retaught) me during this time.
5 CommentsLast week I argued that two truths–the goodness of God and the reality of Hell–taken together are an internal conceptual problem for the Calvinist, but not for the Arminian. Two objections can be raised against my argument. I think these two objections fail. If so, this is further reason to embrace the Arminian view of our salvation: God’s election of us is conditional, based on His foreknowledge of our future (Libertarian) free choice to accept Christ as our Savior.
5 CommentsTo answer this question we must determine the nature of our freedom—is it of the Libertarian or Soft Determinist variety? We must also answer a second question: are we predestined unconditionally (by God’s unconditional election) or conditionally (based on God’s knowledge of our choice to trust Christ)?
2 Comments