A Quick Narrative on the First Act of Sin

Adam freely chooses to sin.

Why did Adam freely decide to sin?

Adam decided to sin because the motive to sin was the greatest motivation at the moment Adam freely chose to sin.

Why was the motive to sin the greatest motivation at the moment Adam freely chose to sin?

Was it because …

(1) Adam determined for himself, as a volitional, moral agent, that he would act upon the motive to sin and thereby made it the greatest motivation?

(2) God determined that He would not give Adam the grace that was necessary and sufficient to make the motive to obey and love God the greatest motive? Such that God intentionally made certain that the motive to sin would be greater than the motive to obey and love God. In other words, God necessitated that Adam would freely decide to sin and He made it impossible for Adam to be capable of deciding to refrain from sinning.

There is no middle ground in this. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If we take (1) then Determinism and, by extension, Calvinism are necessarily false. If we take (2) then God is the author of sin because the only possible way for the motive in Adam to sin to overcome the motive in Adam to obey and love God is for God to intentionally supply insufficient divine grace. Therefore, the Drop explains the Fall. That is, Adam sinned only because God was not faithful to provide the way of escape.

 

On the Atonement by Dominic Tennant

The following articles are especially concise and formidable arguments for unlimited atonement and against limited atonement. These articles were written by Dominic Tennant; however, since it would appear Dominic has cancelled his blog, I have provided links to the archived webpages via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

—————————————————————-

“In this series, I forward a considered case for a universal atonement, presenting what I find to be the most compelling arguments for it, defining what exactly it entails, and interacting with the most common and persuasive objections against it.”

Arguments forwarded

The following four reasons are, in my opinion, the strongest for believing in a universal atonement over and against a particular one:

1. Particular atonement is incongruent with federal headship and forensic imputation;
2. Particular atonement removes all grounds for the universal gospel call (either as a command or as an invitation); and
3. Particular atonement removes the objective grounds for Christian faith.

Objections considered

There are three main objections against the universal position which, in my estimation, are compelling enough to warrant discussion. These are:

4. Universal atonement implies that God’s desires are frustrated in some sense;
5. Universal atonement implies either universal salvation or double payment for sins; and
6. Universal atonement fails to actually accomplish redemption for anyone.

—————————————————————-

On the Atonement: Introduction

On the Atonement, part 1: federal headship and forensic imputation

On the Atonement, part 2: the grounds for the universal gospel call

On the Atonement, part 3: the objective grounds for faith

On the Atonement, part 4: God’s desires frustrated?

On the Atonement, part 5: universal salvation, or double payment

On the Atonement, part 6: universal atonement fails to actually accomplish redemption for anyone