Dominic Bnonn Tennant

Arminians object to determinism because it makes God the “author of evil”—but does their own system avoid it? In this post, I argue that although they disagree with Calvinists about the nature of God’s sovereignty, their own theology commits them to an equally deterministic view.

What is the purpose of regeneration, if God can direct the will of man in any direction he chooses? Why must God regenerate a sinner to create faith in him—could he not just control his will so that he believes? A question from Ben at Arminian Perspectives, answered.

In this series, I consider the competing doctrines of libertarian and compatibilist free will, arguing that the former is unbiblical and incoherent, and that the latter is necessary for upholding God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.

This is part 2 of 6, in which I compare determinism and indeterminism to clarify their differences.

In this series, I consider the competing doctrines of libertarian and compatibilist free will, arguing that the former is unbiblical and incoherent, and that the latter is necessary for upholding God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.

This is part 1 of 6, in which I present a simple argument showing that the Bible’s teaching about God’s action upon creation logically entails that nothing occurs without his actually causing it.

This post is part of a correspondence with kiwi blogger Rhett Snell on Calvinism. In it, I respond to some questions he has about (I) the nature and extent of the atonement; (II) total depravity and the nature of faith; and (III) God’s sovereignty and relationship to sin.

I have recently been focusing a fair amount on God’s sovereignty and its relationship to, and implications for, human actions and ability. The gist of this can be summarized by saying that God is active in every conceivable and actual relationship, while man is passive in his relationship to God, but active in his relationship [...]