Arminianism: divine election is based on foreknowledge of human choices. (this does touch on the Middle Knowledge debate, which will be discussed below). Rutherford responds that this denies God as the author of second causes. Arminians deny that grace determines the decision of free agency; claiming that both act together, this makes both “joint causes, the one not depending on the other…because second causes were denied, God was no longer master of events and altogether sufficient” (Coffey, 119-120). Even worse, Arminianism (and I will put all forms of full-syngerism and semi-Pelagianism under this umbrella for the moment) does not escape the problem of theodicy. True, the Calvinist may have trouble explaining why God predestined some but not others, but the Arminian must explain why God created people whom he knew would reject him and burn forever (120).
- Follow Blog of the Wars of the Lord on WordPress.com
Tagsabraham kuyper alexander dugin alvin plantinga analytic philosophy anthropology athanasius augustine bavinck bruce mccormack cessationism christology continental philosophy continuationism cornelius van til crec divine simplicity donald trump doug wilson duns scotus eastern orthodoxy epistemology ethics federal vision francis turretin free will gadamer gary north geopolitics gnosticism gregory of nazianzus hegel hellenism herman dooyeweerd hermeneutics humor immanuel kant james k a smith john calvin j p moreland julius evola justification karl barth klaas schilder knowledge liberalism martin heidegger matthew raphael johnson maximos the confessor metaphysics neo calvinism new world order nicholas wolterstorff nominalism occult oliver o'donovan orthodox bridge outlines plato politics predestination puritanboard reading lists revelation richard muller samuel rutherford scandal sex soul thomas aquinas thomas reid thomas torrance thomism time trinity vladimir putin