In considering this article, remember that Compatibilism is the perspective of Calvinism regarding moral freedom and libertarianism is the perspective of Extensivism (non-Calvinism). Many compatibilists argue that what is known as the Frankfurt counterexamples demonstrate the falsehood of the principle of alternative possibilities (PAP) associated with libertarian freedom—that a person, in at least some scenarios, could have chosen differently. Thus, if successful, the Frankfurt counterexamples would minimize the objections libertarians have to compatibilism by demonstrating how true free, otherwise, choice can exist within compatibilism’s determinism. Continue reading →
Here is the path to better understand the Marxist nature of these ideologies. Neo-Marxist Herbert Marcuse and Antonio Gramsci laid the foundation of what is known as cultural Marxism. Mike Gonzalez has written a book, The Plot to Change America: How Identity Politics is Dividing the Land of the Free. He is also a policy expert at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. He explains that Marcuse taught critical race theorist Angela Davis at Brandeis University. Significant as well, Angela Davis was the Communist Party’s candidate for Vice President in 1980 and 1984. Continue reading →
To soften the determinism of Calvinism, Calvinists must decrease the unflinching determinism of compatibilism. Richard Muller seeks to do so through what he calls synchronic contingency. He says synchronic contingency â€œmeans that for one moment of time, there is a true alternative for the state of affairs that actually occurs. Continue reading →
Closely related to Calvinism’s problem with the fall is its problem with the presence of evil (See my articles The Word “Permit” Is As Micro-Determined AS Everything Else; D.A. Carson Fails to Absolve God of Causing Evil, and Calvinism Fails to Absolve God from Causing the Fall ). The reality of evil is very problematic within Calvinism’s compatible determinism, as is the whole issue of sovereignty (as defined by Calvinism) and human freedom and responsibility. Calvinists employ various terms when speaking of these mysteries, which I believe are contradictions within their theological system. J.I. Packer employs antinomy and mystery, G.T. Shedd and others invoke the common phrase, â€œit is a mystery. Similarly used phrases are â€œI have no answer for it, it’s hidden, and two parallel lines that meet in eternity. Extensivism’s (non-Calvinism’s) libertarian freedom does not require gauzily cloaked contradictions. The contradictory problems of Calvinism are quite pronounced when they seek to explain God’s sovereignty (as they define it) and evil. Continue reading →
D.A. Carson says of his position regarding moral freedom, In the realm of philosophical theology, this position is sometimes called compatibilism. It simply means that God’s unconditioned sovereignty and the responsibility of human beings are mutually compatible. Commenting on Carson’s practice of improperly defining compatibilism (as he has done here), philosopher Paul Gould says, Notice, what Carson means by compatibilism’s is just that freedom is compatible with divine sovereignty (not determinism). In other words, he is restating the fact that Scripture upholds both divine sovereignty and human responsibility (and freedom). But, importantly, his compatibilism’s isn’t compatibilism. That is to say, Carson defines compatibilism improperly–inaccurately. Continue reading →
When Calvinists use phrases like God does not desire man to sin, but he does permit sin, it is easy to misconstrue their meaning of the word permit and understand it in the libertarian sense.  The libertarian understanding, which is the normal way the word is used and understood, would simply mean God created Adam and Eve so that they could choose not to sin, and that is what God actually desired for them to do even though He permitted (allowed) them to sin if they so chose; the same is true with people today.
However, in Calvinism, God endowed man with compatible moral freedom, thereby predetermining that man would freely choose to sin. Compatibilism means that man is considered to make a free choice when he chooses according to his greatest desire. What often goes unstated is that while the choice is free, the desire from which it flows is determined by his past or nature; thus, it is precisely accurate to say, according to Calvinism, man makes a predetermined free choice. Continue reading →
The color-blind principle does not mean we do not see a person’s skin color or detect that others are different from us (also referred to as color-indifference). Our church has about ten different ethnicities at any given time, although the particular ethnicities have varied over the years. I assure you that everyone can tell whether we are talking to a Chinese, Indian, black, white, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Korean, or another ethnic person. Continue reading →
Robin DiAngelo’s best-selling book, White Fragility, is used in educational, corporate, and government sensitivity training to advance so-called social justice. White children in schools and white adults in government and businesses are told they are racists because they are white, and they must work at becoming less white. She tells white people to get over their white fragility (unwillingness to admit they are racists) and says, “I strive to be ‘less white.’ To be less white is to be less racially oppressive.” To make it clearer that white people are inherently and, therefore, irredeemably white supremacists, DiAngelo says, “A positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist.” The racism of white people being inherent means it cannot be overcome. Continue reading →
A friend of mine ministers to inmates in a state prison. He recently shared this story an inmate shared with him. The man was in prison a few years ago, and while there, he belonged to a white supremacist gang. He was released from prison but then committed another crime. This time, he was sent to the prison where my friend ministers.
In the fall of 2019, my friend led the inmate to Christ and has been discipling him ever since. Soon after he was saved, the white supremacist gang at this prison saw his tattoo from his former life in a white supremacist gang. They sought to recruit him to help beat up a black inmate. He refused and told them he is now a follower of Jesus Christ. The white supremacists beat him so severely that he spent over a month in the hospital. But he did not compromise, and he is still being discipled and following Christ.
Although he still bears the physical tattooed markings of being a white supremacist, he has become a new creation, he has walked away from his old life, and his sins have been washed away. He has a new heart (John 3:3; 2 Cor 5:17).
“Come now, and let us reason together,” says the Lord, “Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they will be like wool” (Isa 1:18).
The gospel is the great reconciler.
Presidential candidate Mike Stone, along with fifty other original signers, will jointly present the following Resolution against the use of critical race theory and intersectionality (CRT/I) at the Southern Baptist Convention, June 13-16, Nashville, Tenn. This Resolution is to be presented in order to repudiate and lessen the damage done by the 2019 Resolution 9, which affirmed CRT/I as supplemental and helpful “analytical tools” to be used along with the Bible in dealing with the race issues of our day.
I am thankful to have been one of the original signatories of this Resolution, and I am grateful for Mike Stone’s biblical, clear, and courageous leadership.