Background - LFW and responsibility

Under LFW, we are the causal source of our choices (i.e. nothing causally predetermines our choices); we are responsible for our choices. There’s nowhere else to go to. We can’t back track to something else - we are responsible. Under CFW, since our actions are causally predetermined, we can trace back the cause of our actions to something outside of us. Thus, we keep searching for the source of our actions to find out what’s ultimately responsible. When Calvinists say God is the ultimate source, we say they make God ultimately responsible for sin. Even if God establishes a system in which only secondary causes get punished and the primary cause does not (as Calvinists suppose), that doesn’t change the fact that God is ultimately responsible for sin. The issue isn’t one of God’s power or sovereignty, it’s a matter of His goodness and holiness.

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I

1. Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible.
2. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices
3. 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 leaves 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.

Outline of Edwards’ arguments in part V.II

1. Arminians say that without self-determining power, we have no power of action, acts are not our own, and we must be passive.
2. This isn’t the way people use “action” in common speech.
3. Used this way action is either causeless or an infinite regression of causes.
4. When we speak of a first cause, if nothing causes something, nothing could prevent it, so therefore it is necessary.
5. The common notion of action is the effects of the will.
6. Arminians think of action as self-determination, because the motion of our bodies is caused by our wills – so they assume the same applies to the motion of our wills.

Edwards’ arguments in part V.III and part V.IV

Edwards splits necessity into two categories: natural and moral. Natural necessity relates to our actions, moral necessity relates to our wills. If an act is naturally necessary, it is either against or without our will, and whether we will or not the result is the same. Edwards says that natural necessity is the common meaning of necessity and moral necessity is philosophical. Natural necessity (common necessity) is a sense wholly different than that used in the Calvinist/Arminian debate. Most people go through their whole lives without thinking about moral necessity (philosophical necessity) and its relationship with responsibility.

Everything is about God in one way shape or form. So my biggest problem with Edwards’ arguments regards the nature of God.

Outline of Edwards' Arguments About the Necessity of the God's Will - Part IV.VII

The "invitation" or "altar call" is a common tradition in many "low church" bodies. Invitations to accept Christ are not new, however, the specific form of invitation known as an "altar call" is a relatively new practice. It started with the evangelist Charles Finney, back in the 1830's. Other evangelists who have popularized the practice include D.L Moody, Billy Sunday, Corrie ten Boom, and Billy Graham.

The 400th anniversary of Arminius' "Declaration of Sentiments" occurred last week. We missed the opportunity to mark the anniversary on its exact day here at our site. But it is still worth drawing attention to the anniversary, and more importantly, the declaration it marks. (See below for a link to the document itself.)

Here are some comments from Dr. Keith Stanglin about this important treatise:

"On Oct. 30, 1608, Jacobus Arminius delivered his now famous
Declaration of Sentiments. On Oct. 20, he was summoned to the Hague to present his views to the States of Holland on the controversial doctrines of the day. He spent most of the speech deconstructing the Calvinist view of predestination later known as supralapsarianism. He then presented his positive view of predestination, and briefly addressed other important topics.

Today, 449 years ago, on October 10, 1559, Jacobus Arminius was born. At least, this is the date given by most critical scholars. Donald M. Lake wrote an excellent article entitled, "Jacob Arminius' Contribution to a Theology of Grace," in the book Grace Unlimited, edited by Clark Pinnock. The following is a small excerpt from that article, in honor of Arminius' birthday.

"Few leaders in the Christian Church have been more neglected than this 16th century theologian and pastor . . . In the light of two recent studies on Arminius and his contribution to theology and after a reexamination of his major writings, I want to suggest that his importance for Christians living in the last half of the 20th century lies in three major areas.

The Synod of Dort was a regional conference that was primarily motivated by political powerbrokers. Theodore Beza, John Calvin's direct successor and first systematizer of Calvinism sent Arminius, the brightest bulb in the Calvinist box himself educated by Theodore Beza, to Holland in 1589 to put down the theological arguments of Koornheert, an educated layman, who had been writing and publicly arguing against Beza's supralapsarian theory of divine decrees. Significant to the context of the period is understanding that as Rome's grip on the lowland countries eased, Calvinism as a political power gained influence and political power. As such, a challenge to Beza who defined orthodox Calvinism became not only a theological challenge but a political challenge as well. Although forgotten by many, the political context of Dort cannot be understated in the state church system so prevalent at the time.

Molina, Arminus, Plaifere, Goad, and Wesley On Human Free-will, Divine Omniscience, and Middle Knowledge

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Barry E. Bryant

Upon first glance the title of this paper contains a strange mix of individuals, one or two of whom are perhaps more obscure than the others. What each has in common with the others is a vested interest in the issue of free-will. What they also have in common is the realization that arising from the doctrine of free-will is the paradox of omniscience.

JOHN WESLEY AND JONATHAN EDWARDS ON RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Robert Doyle Smith

Introduction

The tone of the eighteenth-century debate between Arminians and Calvinists finds apt description in John Wesley's observation that to say, "This man is an Arminian," was, to some, much the same thing as saying, "This man is a mad dog."1

JOHN WESLEY: PRACTICAL THEOLOGIAN?

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Randy L. Maddox
FOR: Dr. J. Kenneth Grider 1

When one reads secondary treatments of Wesley one repeatedly comes across disclaimers of his being a "systematic" theologian. If an alternative characterization is listed, among the more common is "practical" theologian. One of our goals in this paper is to demonstrate the warrant for such a construal of Wesley as a practical theologian.

A more important goal is to overcome prevalent caricatures of what this entails. For example, it often appears that classification of Wesley as a practical theologian is intended to imply that he "dabbles" in theology when it fits his pastoral or evangelistic purposes but does not take doctrinal reflection seriously. We hope to demonstrate that this and related implications are distortions of Wesley's practical theology.

JOHN FLETCHER'S METHODOLOGY IN THE ANTINOMIAN CONTROVERSY OF 1770-76

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
ROBERT A. MATTKE, B.D., M.A.
(Head of Religion Department, Miltonvale College)

For over two centuries, the name of John Wesley has been highly honored. He is the acknowledged leader of the Evangelical Revival and is credited with founding the Methodist Church and giving to it a distinctive theology. Many other deserving tributes could be paid this man. With-out detracting from Wesley's accomplishments, it needs to be remembered that he had some very able assistants who made helpful contributions to his success. Today's evangelistic association is not wholly a twentieth century phenomenon.

JOHN FLETCHER'S INFLUENCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF WESLEYAN THEOLOGY IN AMERICA

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
By John A. Knight

Introduction

Not until recent years has the significance of John Fletcher's theology been assessed by interpreters of the history of Christian doctrine. For almost two hundred years his work was eclipsed by the Wesleys and by some in the Calvinistic wing of the 18th century Evangelical Revival in England, except for occasional references by historians and biographers of his contemporaries.

David C. Shipley's perceptive study, "Methodist Arminianism in the Theology of John Fletcher," unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Yale, 1942, was a pioneer work in this country. Particularly in the last two decades others have begun to recognize the importance of Fletcher to the development of Wesleyan theology.1