Does Libertarian Free Will Imply That We Can Stop Sinning Altogether?: A Response to Monergism Books
Monergism Books (hereafter, MB) posted the following on Facebook: Source: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10150964832184949&id=15086969948 Just in case MB’s Facebook post gets compromised I will reproduce their statement here: “You think you have a free will? Then demonstrate it: in your own power, stop sinning altogether. The fact that no person can choose to live a sinless life is … Continue reading Does Libertarian Free Will Imply That We Can Stop Sinning Altogether?: A Response to Monergism Books
Abstract: In the movie Calvinist the interviewees (ostensibly) argue in favor of the doctrine of total depravity and that it precludes libertarian free will (hereafter LFW). In this essay I demonstrate that the interviewees beg the question in favor of total depravity and for the idea that it is at odds with LFW. Introduction The … Continue reading Responding to the Movie “Calvinist” (Part 1): Total Depravity
Abstract: In Matt Slick’s “Why Write About Molinism?” he raises two major complaints. The first is that Molinism is eisegetical. I understand Slick’s second complaint to be that the Molinist hermeneutic undermines sola scriptura. Here I argue that Molinists who are consistently committed to the idea that Molinism is underdetermined by Scripture cannot possibly be … Continue reading Does Molinism Undermine Sola Scriptura?: A Response to CARM.org’s “Why Write About Molinism?”
Abstract: Paul Helm, a Calvinist theologian, has contributed an article to Ligonier.org in which he presents two noteworthy objections to Molinism. First, Helm presents an internal critique of Molinism purporting to show that Libertarian Free Will (LFW) undermines God’s providential control over the world. Second, Helm argues that Molinism is incompatible with the doctrine of … Continue reading Paul Helm Misses The Mark on Molinism: A Response to Ligonier.org’s “Molinism 101”
Abstract: In my essay “A Molinist Perspective on 1 Peter 1:3” I defend the thesis that the relevant verse is underdeterminative with respect to whether it teaches Libertarian Free Will (LFW) or Divine Causal Determinism (DCD). One attempt that has been made to resolve this epistemic standoff has been through the employment of Ockham’s razor. … Continue reading Does Ockham’s Razor Preclude a Libertarian Interpretation of 1 Peter 1:3?
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. . .” 1 Pet. 1:3 (ESV) For the Divine Causal Determinist, this verse would seem to pose a … Continue reading A Molinist Perspective on 1 Peter 1:3
An Unfortunate Appraisal of Molinism: A Response to CARM.org’s “What Is Molinism and is it Biblical?”
Abstract: CARM, a Reformed ministry, has given a negative appraisal of Molinism. I lay out 9 issues with their explanation and critique of the doctrine, undercutting/rebutting their claims by showing that they either rely on comprehensional errors, dictional ambiguity, or question begging (or some medley of these).1 Source: http://carm.org/what-molinism Issue 1: CARM Misrepresents Libertarian Free … Continue reading An Unfortunate Appraisal of Molinism: A Response to CARM.org’s “What Is Molinism and is it Biblical?”
Special pleading (also known as a double standard) is an informal fallacy that occurs when an exception is created to a principle, law, rule, generalization, or something roughly similar to these when we would expect that principle (or whatever it may be) to apply to whatever is being excluded and no rational justification is given … Continue reading What is Special Pleading?
Understanding the differences between internal and external critiques is critical for Christian apologists since any and every objection they will face will fall into one of these two categories. Moreover, if one has not sufficiently grasped these concepts, then one will be prone to conflating them or else might have trouble identifying when others commit … Continue reading The Difference Between Internal & External Critiques
Experientially speaking, one of the most common reasons popular-level atheists give for their rejection of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (from hereon, KCA) is their belief that the argument relies on its defender committing the fallacy of special pleading. Special pleading occurs when an exception is given to a principle (or something roughly equivalent such as … Continue reading Special Pleading With the Kalam Cosmological Argument?
LORD,” the psalmist declares, “thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting thou art God. Thou turnest man back to the dust, and sayest, Turn back, O children of men! For a thousand years … Continue reading Who Created God?
Becoming a Christian apologist proficient at the popular, much less, the academic level, requires dozens of hours, even years of intellectual involvement depending on how deep one is willing to study. I remember when first reading “Time and Eternity”, a popular-level book by Dr. William Lane Craig. It took me two entire days to get … Continue reading How To Combat The Apologetic Apathy In The Church
“I only need the Bible, not man’s philosophy!”, “We don’t need to use philosophy since we have the Holy Spirit!”, “My beliefs are exegetically driven, yours are philosophical!” Many statements like the ones just mentioned sound reverential and benign to the religious ear, but these statements need to be refined. Often when one presses these … Continue reading What Are Some Of The Problems With “Philosophy-Free” Theology?