I wish to share the resources that I have in response to John Cranman. Here are the resources: TheCouncil: Cranman’s Covenant Traditionalist and Eisegesis Cranman’s Achilles Leighton Flowers on Romans 8 Pots, Potters, and Flowers James White vs John Cranman … Continue reading A Cranman Story
A good discussion between Eli and Bignon. Continue reading Bignon Discussion
Another post on the infamous Philip Jackson’s attempt to take down Compatibilism. This time we have a special answer from Grant Hageman: Philip Jackson: My argument against the Compatibilist view of “free will” 1. If the only criterion for human freedom is that a person acts in accordance with their strongest desire even if the desire itself is determined by another person, then Bob must be considered to be free in the case where I put a chip in his brain that determines him to desire to torture an infinite amount of infinitely sentient beings. 2. The only criterion(given Compatibilism) … Continue reading Philip Jackson and the Search for Compatibilist Answers
I recently discussed the issue of 1 Cor. 10:13 again with John Cranman: John Cranman TheSire, the first paragraph is not what I’m arguing. All I’m saying is that this verse affirms PAP/CCFW, and is thus incompatible with compatibilist determinism. I am not arguing for moral responsibility. I am only arguing that it supports the idea that believing agents had two or more options they could’ve chosen – which falsifies compatibilist determinism. TheSire: The article argues the freedom Paul writes is that of believers. But usually, your side maintains all mankind has LFW. So, unbelievers would lack LFW. John Cranman: … Continue reading ‘Provide the way of escape’
There was a thread on Facebook that I participated in discussing Calvinism. Here is my edited helpful form of a confused conversation: Leighton Flowers: If you redefine human freedom to mean “doing as one desires when those desires are theistically determined,” then sure. But normal people don’t do that. Just Calvinists. Brian Knapp: Leighton Flowers actually no – not all compatibilists are calvinists. And to say “redefine” is to beg the question. And to use the word “normal” as you did is to poison the well. Congrats – you’re 0 for 3. Phillip Jackson: Brian Knapp what poor refutation, my … Continue reading Traditionalist Intuitions
The man that shall not be named wrote a little response to me. I found the time and the will to torture myself through another one of his bitter sad attempts to undermine what I’ve said. Not much left from our dearest objector. All he’s got now is a parting shot on how the Arminian view of free will is kind of like Open Theism (gasp!) -as long as you discount the central difference of whether God can know our choices beforehand. Well, that’s because they both are indeterminist. There is no significant difference between them regarding the issue of … Continue reading Left Twix and Right Twix
The answer to the trilemma is fairly trivial: While refusal to believe is indeed a sin, the reason it keeps one from salvation is not due to it being a sin, but because unbelief, by definition, precludes belief in Christ, without which no one can be saved (Heb 11:6). As with all sins Christ died for, forgiveness for unbelief is only obtained through subsequent belief in Him. While Owen’s argument is trifling at best, his sophomoric reasoning isn’t the biggest problem here. While unstated, there is a premise both insidious and heretical that one must hold to make this argument … Continue reading Owen’s Argument
These will contain all my responses to the Arminian Perspectives website and possibly other responses to the website. Provided in chronological and subject order. TheCouncil: [Topic: Aseity/Transcendental Critique] Arminianism and Aseity Thibodaux’s Cooked Goose Thibodaux: The Saga Continues Libertarian Foreknowledge … Continue reading The Thibodaux Saga
The Council 
You must be logged in to post a comment.