November 4, 2009
November 4, 2009 | 39 Comments
Calvinism vs. Arminianism – Part 1
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Is Digital Technology Causing Mental Atrophy?
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Comments
39 Responses to “November 4, 2009”
Leave a Reply
Listen Live 2-4
E-Newsletter Signup
Ask Dr. Brown
Subscribe to the Podcast
Station List
November 5th, 2009 @ 11:05 pm
Hi Dr. Brown,
It’s about time you got around to this one!
Anyway, I would like to request that you try to get Dr. James White on to talk about Calvinism. I think you might have your hands full if you do. Just a thought.
November 6th, 2009 @ 11:58 am
What a pleasant surprise–I was going to say just the same thing! James White would give an excellent balance to the show.
http://www.aomin.org
November 6th, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
Guys,
I definitely plan to invited James to be on the show, since he will give a very strong presentation of Calvinism. So, at some point, that should happen!
On my end, I haven’t sought to present my own views very strongly so far, except my strong objection to once saved always saved (as opposed to perseverance of the saints), which James would reject as well.
November 7th, 2009 @ 1:07 am
For those that support predestination or double predestination:
1) Do you believe God predesintines based on foreknowledge? If not, how do you respond to 1 Pet 1:2.
November 7th, 2009 @ 1:42 am
Continuing on with my post above,
2) What is your definition of foreknowledge.
November 7th, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
I have a question for those who hold to predestination. How do you know that YOU are not predestined to hell? How fo you know that God’s plan is for you to fall away? You could have been predestined to go to hell after serving him.
That’s why I don’t follow that teaching. When I read through my Bible the first time when I was 15, I never got the idea that some were predestined. The whole Bible tells us to choose Jesus, to choose life. Jesus says follow me, it’s all about personal choice and commitment. That and I agree with Brown and eternal salvation, The Bible tells us clearly not to fall away!
November 9th, 2009 @ 12:40 am
Greetings,
I wrestled with the topic of monergism vs. synergism for two years before I embraced the Doctrines of Grace (TULIP). Having been raised in a staunchly Arminian home, my primary source of theology was philosophy. During these two years of research–which involved listening to Dr. White’s presentations–I was completely blown away by the amount of textual support there is for God’s unlimited sovereignty.
For anyone interested in doing a little study on their own, the topic of predestination is pretty wide–systematic, theoretical, exegetical, and practical. I would suggest reading two books on the subject: The Potters Freedom and Debating Calvinism; both are authored by James White but the second is coauthored with Norman Geisler.
November 9th, 2009 @ 8:37 am
Rob,
Do you support the double predestination view?
November 9th, 2009 @ 10:51 am
Kyle,
Paul says “Examine yourself, test yourself to see you are in the faith”
And you can find it in 1 John.
“I write these things to you so that you may know you have eternal life.”
Historically the beatitudes was also a list that marked characteristics of a christian.
Assurance is a glorious gift from God.
November 9th, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
Ben,
Yes. It is an implication of predestination but I would place a lengthy footnote on it. I think double predestination goes a bit too far into the realm of logicizing. The narrative of scripture is that election is part of God’s redemptive plan to use unlikely vessels for his glory–it is not presented as one facet in a pair of destinies.
November 9th, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
Rob,
I appreciate your being open about your convictions to the doctrines of grace. I too have spent many unnumbered hours listening to Dr. James White’s presentations on Calvinism; notwithstanding, I’ve had the opportunity to have debated both he and his associate online some years back. Additionally, I have had the opportunity to read both of the books that you have previously cited; hence, I do have a pretty good idea of where he stands.
It has been through listening to his presentations, reading other credible authors, and more importantly, the Word of God, that I have come to a clear conclusion that salvation – as consistently demonstrated in scripture – stands on the grounds of synergism. I would love to recommend to you Dr. Robert Shank’s excellent motif on synergism and refutation of Calvinism, entitled “Elect in the Son.” There are a host of other resources as well, but I will leave you with just this one.
Finally, I would appreciate it if you would exegete the below passage for me please, 2 Peter 2:1, a verse that Dr. White has carefully and inadequately danced around, and that totally rejects the doctrine of a limited atonement.
“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even DENYING THE LORD WHO BOUGHT THEM, and bring on themselves swift destruction.” 2 Peter 2:1 (emphasis mine)
Shalom,
Brian
November 10th, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
Thanks for the response Reynolds. Apologies ahead of time for the short response. I’m in a hurry to get to work.
As a general rule, the doctrine of election is so broad that it can only be responded to systematically if any response is to have a degree of faithfulness. I think Dr. White is correct when he states that proof text ping-pong is analogous to repairing your cars’ lights using the manual while avoiding the chapter on lights; instead choosing to scrutinize the rest of the manual for off-hand references to lights.
With that being said, 2 Peter 2:1 is not a treatise on the atonement like Romans or Hebrews. It is a passage dealing with false prophets and apostasy, and as such, it carries about as much weight in dealing the atonement as Peter’s speech in Acts 2:39b, where he refers to the promise of faith as being for “as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”
So while I think it is in poor taste to see 2 Peter 2:1 as a passage on atonement, admittedly it does deal with a subject and theme (apostasy) that is difficult. Ultimately, however, I don’t think that apostasy undermines the Doctrines of Grace since the doctrine of Election speaks to a grand narrative in God’s redemption, and is found in virtually every book of the Bible.
2 Peter 2:1 is not even the most difficult passage for the doctrine of limited atonement. I think 1 Timothy 4:10 and 1 John 2:2 are actually more problematic for people like myself. On this point I agree with Mark Driscoll in that the cross has a redeeming effect on the entire world, as the wrath of God has been satisfied. But we need to remember that this is especially true concerning the elect (1 Timothy 4:10; 1 John 2:2), and those purchased by god (2 Peter 2:1). An illustrative but imperfect foreshadowing of this would be the mixed-multitude who were liberated along with the Israelites during the exodus, even though the intended party was Israel.
Anyway, I’m off to work. I’d love to get a link to the article that you mentioned. Send it my way.
In Christ,
Rob
November 10th, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
Brian and Rob S.,
Just a very quick note: One of the reasons I left Calvinism back in 1982 was because of the exegetical gymnastics necessary to explain away passages like 2 Pet 2:1 and others mentioned here — and I bought the many books that attempted to do just so. There is a good reason that the doctrine of “limited atonement” was a totally foreign idea to so many believers throughout history.
The fact is that atonement was truly made every year for national Israel on Yom Kippur, but not everyone benefited from it, due to choices of they made to refuse God’s grace. It remains the same to this day with the cross.
November 10th, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
Hi Kyle,
Why do you believe according to Calvinism that you can’t know you are saved?
As far as I’m aware, both Arminians and Calvinists hold to the first two verses below without a radically different interpretation.
1 John 5:6-13:
“These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life”.
Those who walk strong in the Lord, have God’s own Spirit witnessing with their spirits to tell them they belong to God.
Romans 8:16:
“The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children”.
(1) Our assurance of salvation is outside of us, it solely rests upon the Words, works and promises made by Christ.
(2) If a person has any love for the Biblical God, then that is proof that he / she is one of God’s children. One could not in his old nature, while he is dead in sins and trespasses, without being changed by the power of the Holy Spirit have any genuine love for the Biblical God.
(3) “For unto you IT IS GIVEN in the behalf of Christ, NOT ONLY TO BELIEVE ON HIM, but also to suffer for his sake; (Philippians 1:29 – Capitalized for added emphasis).
-The very fact that one has saving faith (which was given by God John 6:44, Heb. 12:2, Eph. 2:8-9, Rom. 12:3) is another proof.
*You wrote:
“You could have been predestined to go to hell after serving him”.
Calvinism does not teach that there are some people out in the world who just want to be saved from sin and repent and serve God their whole life that will not be able to enter heaven because God doesn’t want them to. No, the Reformed doctrine teaches that if a person is truly seeking after God (emphasis on truly seeking) that it is because they are regenerate and will eventually find Him.
Jesus himself said, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out”.-(John 6:37)
Furthermore, we believe God considered the human race as guilty sinners, all of which are deserving of hell. But by grace, He predestines some to heaven, and leaves the rest to their own just destruction. The Bible teaches that all men are by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3.) and are on their way to hell. And God sovereignly chose to rescue some and He endured the others who are headed that way not because of a decree that God made individually for them, but because they continue in sin and are guilty, haters of God, who deserve immediate justice and wrath. In other words, people will be in hell because they love their sin, and people will be in heaven because God’s grace changed their hearts.
(5) The issue isn’t that you believe or put your trust in Christ. The Calvinist / Arminian issue here is *WHY* do some seek Him, while others don’t? Because you’re smarter, more spiritual, more moral?
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day”. -(John 6:44)
-To be brief (and I will give you Scriptural support on my part below), I believe that people choose God, but it is only because He chose us first.
IT IS GOD WHO:
- draws people to Himself (John 6:44,65).
- creates a clean heart (Psalm 51:10).
- appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48).
- works faith in the believer (John 6:28-29).
- chooses who is to be holy and blameless (Eph. 1:4).
- chooses us for salvation (2 Thess. 2:13-14).
- grants the act of believing (Phil. 1:29).
- grants repentance (2 Tim. 2:24-26).
- calls according to His purpose (2 Tim. 1:9).
- causes us to be born again (1 Pet. 1:3).
- predestines us to salvation (Rom. 8:29-30).
- predestines us to adoption (Eph. 1:5).
- predestines us according to His purpose (Eph. 1:11).
- makes us born again not by our will but by His will (John 1:12-13).
IT IS MAN WHO:
- is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9).
- is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23).
- loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19).
- is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12).
- is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6).
- is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1).
- is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3).
- cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14).
- is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).
November 10th, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
Nicole,
Thanks so much for your detailed and gracious response to Kyle. Much appreciated!
One immediate question for you when you have some time: Why does God in Scripture often commend those who humbled themselves or kept their hearts pure or chose to do what was right in His sight, making it clear that this was something they chose to do and it was important to Him, while at the same time rebuking and punishing those who did the opposite, making it clear that they had no one but themselves to blame?
In keeping with this, it struck me that you quoted John 3:19, to the effect that people loved darkness rather than light but then didn’t mention John 3:21 which speaks of those who love the truth and come into the light? And what of prevenient grace?
Again, thanks for taking the time to post at such length and to reach out out Kyle.
November 11th, 2009 @ 10:55 am
John 6:37 – “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.”
I take this to mean that those who put their trust in Jesus by their own free will are considered as those the Father has accepted into the Kingdom and “given” to Jesus. I don’t believe this means that the Father has shown favoritism towards some for no reason to give to Jesus. Jesus also mentioned he will never drive them away. While this statement is true, we are prone to drive ourselves away. So it is us who are capable of turning from God, while God remains faithful to those who abide in Him.
John 6:44 – “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day”.
I take this to be a general truth of the Gospel, simply that if we are to freely decide to follow Jesus, we have to have evidence of his truth. The evidence the Father shows us through His truth will either “draw” us to Him or away from Him, depending on whether we want to follow or not.
Also consider that any verses referring to predestination doesn’t mean we will follow the destiny God desired for us.
November 11th, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
Dr. Brown,
Calvinism is a very systematic doctrine; it does not find its support in a handful of passages. There are a plethora of proof text ping-pong verses that can be cited to support both Calvinism and Arminianism, but at what point do we see the futility in engaging in this kind of argumentation?
I see validity in reworking certain tenets of Calvinism–such as the extent of the atonement–when there is a consistency testimony in scripture to support it. But with Arminianism there tends to be very little of this. There is a downplaying of the forcefulness and grandiosity of passages such as Romans 9 and Isaiah 45.
November 11th, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
Dr. Brown,
Thank you for your response. These are the very sentiments that I intended to express, noting that, in my experiences it has been a common pattern from my Calvinist friends to belittle such passages as insignificant, or simply refuse to answer such verses with multiplied words and explanations which directly contradict their theological viewpoint.
Shalom,
Brian
November 12th, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
I wait patiently for James White to be a guest on the broadcast
November 12th, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
Hello Dr. Brown,
You wrote:
“The fact is that atonement was truly made every year for national Israel on Yom Kippur, but not everyone benefited from it, due to choices of they made to refuse God’s grace. It remains the same to this day with the cross.”
One major and important reason for rejecting Calvinism is that the Old Testament does not teach it at all. For example the elements of TULIP are absent from the OT (nowhere is unconditional election, or perseverance of the saints, or limited atonement or irresistible grace presented). But it gets worse, if you take the statements in the OT seriously then God is constantly reaching out to people, some who repeatedly reject him and yet He desires for them to turn from their evil ways and return to him (see especially the example of Israel throughout the OT).
Dr. Brown your statements above remind me of another way in which the OT contradicts Calvinism. As you rightly point out the Day of Atonement was intended for all of the Israelites but in fact only saved those who trusted the Lord. This seems to be the constant pattern of the OT sacrificial system, it is for all of them but only applies to, only saves those who trust Him.
I am also reminded of this in that Jesus in Jn. 3 references the snake on the pole story in the OT. If we examine that story carefully we find the same dynamics as were present with the OT sacrifices as well as the ultimate and perfect sacrifice of Christ.
In that story those bitten by the poisonous snakes will die unless saved from the snake bites. The people cannot save themselves from the bites, their only hope is if God provides a way of deliverance from the bites. And God does so with the snake on the pole. Those who look up at the snake on the pole: live (which is a great picture of faith in God’s method or way of deliverance), those who do not look up: do not live. With those who look up, it is not their merely looking up that actually saves them, it is God miraculously saving and healing those who trust him, which is those who look up. The snake on the pole deliverance was not earned by the Israelites but is given to them by God through grace and mercy. The snake on the pole is given to **all** of the Israelites, though it will only save those who look up.
The same dynamics apply with Jesus on the cross. Sin has “bitten everyone” and all are worthy of death and eternal separation from God. God out of love and mercy provides a way of escape from the effects of sin, namely, Jesus on the cross. Those who look up at Jesus on the cross in faith are saved; those who do not are not saved. The cross is given for all, serves as a provision for all, though it will save only those who trust in the Lord. Our faith itself is not what saves us, rather, God does the saving of those who trust Him.
It seems to me that if the OT sacrificial system was meant to picture the later perfect sacrifice of Christ and if the sacrifice of Christ involves the same dynamics as the snake on the pole story (why else is Jesus himself citing that story as an example of how the cross would work?), then the OT clearly and explicitly teaches what is popularly called “unlimited atonement”.
Robert
November 12th, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
Rob S.,
Keep waiting patiently, but I’ll certainly contact James and invite him on in the coming months.
As for your statement about Arminians and taking in the full weight of certain passages, I strongly disagree. For me, I read Romans 9 in teh light of Romans 9-11, all of Romans, all of the NT, and all of the Bible. The same with Isaiah 45. I affirm every syllable of both of those chapters!
Calvinism, in my judgment, focuses on one or two key points and then tries to build a logical system out of that, to the detriment of the massive, overall testimony of the Word.
November 12th, 2009 @ 6:58 pm
Hello Dr. Brown,
I disagree with Rob S about having interaction with James White. I have listened to White when discussing non-calvinists and he is sarcastic, abrasive, rude, and engages in some real uncalled for caricatures and straw men of non-Calvinists.
Rather, than interacting with White, why not instead choose to interact with an intelligent, civil and irenic calvinist such as Vern Poythress. Poythress is a calvinist who is extremely smart, knowledgeable, firmly convinced of his Calvinism and yet even when disagreeing with others he does so in an agreeable manner. Interacting with a person of the character of Poythress would be a pleasant discussion and much more fruitful than getting into an acrimonious and rancorous debate with a professional debater.
White in contrast to Poythress seems incapable of disagreeing with others in a civil manner. James White and his followers seem to search out debates and they are not interested in a rational and biblical and civil discussion. They just want to “win” and humiliate the other side (hence the sarcasm and intentional misrepresentation of non-Calvinist views). You are going to do what you are going to choose to do, but I believe you need to carefully consider what calvinists you choose to “debate” with and that there are much better candidates than James White.
Robert
November 12th, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
Robert,
Thanks for your concerns. Obviously, I’m very comfortable in a debate setting and, in fact, if someone is sarcastic or negative in tone, countering with grace and truth is the best antidote. That being said, could you supply me any links where you feel James White’s debating style is truly offensive?
My goal on these shows is to educate and equip the Body, rather than to win a debate, so the key will be a good, serious interaction that will help people sort through the issues. And it’s possible that I’ll have several such debates over the months, God willing.
November 13th, 2009 @ 12:11 am
M.B. PhD,
You have mentioned your seasoned abiding heart debate posture and process. It is admired indeed; in recently contributing to a blog debate in a line of fire comments section, my position became extended in remarks to interpersonal dynamics challenges made for the opposition: involving some interpersonal proding about the style and manner of that person due to the unbending, unhearing, unyielding, and disrespectful posture that person asserted constantly with contempt toward Yeshua (e.g., he called Yeshua a ba*****d).
The literal Torah, Tenach, and Talmud answer requirements that that non New Testament believing person was constantly demanding of his New Covenant believing blog responders too–by further questions offered him–was then placed into the blog process: made with alike demands as were placed upon him. It was hoped that such indirect confrontation of the lack of grace and respect extended to his opponents, and their beliefs, would spark recognition of dysfuntion and insistence in the manner of the opposing person’s interpersonal posture.
As the debate progressed, or regressed, it became clearer and clearer that hatred and nilhism were components of that Jewish person’s challenge to adherents here to a New Testament outlook. The actual ongoing interchange became very wearying for many taking his positions and manner to task. What thoughts can you offer on debating, as to when to confront in such an indirect way, and when to follow what you have mentioned above?
I read again and again of Yeshua himself debating his questioners sent from various Jewish religious leaders and schools, usually from Jerusalem and the related Temple Yeshiva schools or groups (excluding, appatently, the actual daily administering priests, as such). He even goes so far as a calling his detractors a “generation of vipers,” “whited walls,”, “blind guides”, etc. He often answers questions with questions when his opponents are attempting to trap him into their judgment pronouncements over him or his answers of by the method of their approach. In John 8 that all seems to come to a head, prior to the illegal trial of Yeshua.
The question I have for you is about today’s debates, oppositional parties, and detractors. When such folks cross a line continually as to their own contempt of others holding to a NT belief, reference, and confession: what advice can you offer as to confrontation, direct vs. indirect interpersonal references during a debate, and keeping it all upright in the process?
November 13th, 2009 @ 7:08 am
Apologies for my usual typographical errors in the above. If any questions arise as a result, please inquire for further clarification of me on this matter here.
November 13th, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
Hello Dr. Brown,
“Obviously, I’m very comfortable in a debate setting and, in fact, if someone is sarcastic or negative in tone, countering with grace and truth is the best antidote.”
Sounds good and you are quite correct that we are called to respond in a certain way regardless of how the other person is behaving.
“That being said, could you supply me any links where you feel James White’s debating style is truly offensive?”
I have listened to him on his radio talk show so I do not have specific links to provide for you, but I will give a few examples to show what I mean.
Presumably the “debate” between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is an “in-house” debate (similar to when people debate eschatological positions like millennial views, they already hold essentials such as the trinity, the deity of Christ, etc. in common but disagree in an area where godly men have and do disagree). James White repeatedly engages in what I would call “framing tricks” (i.e. you present things in such a way, frame them so that your position seems reasonable while the other position seems completely untenable and foolish and completely off base). Take the way Calvinists and Arminians interpret bible passages. I would say that they interpret the passages differently based upon differing presuppositions (with the calvinist specifically operating from presuppositions that are part of his/her system of theology). That is not how White repeatedly presents it. Instead, he says that calvinists such as him engage in “exegesis” while the non-Calvinists are simply enamored with the “traditions of men”. Well let’s see if the choice is between **exegesis** and man-made and of course false traditions of men, which ought we to choose? But this way of framing things is misleading in multiple ways. One way you could fairly present things is that **both** Arminians and Calvinists are coming from well developed traditions in church history. Another thing is that White’s supposed objective exegesis is **itself** a man made and developed tradition. Prior to Augustine in about 400 A.D. between the writings of the New Testament and Augustine no one was espousing Calvinism or TULIP (both the system and the acronym developed centuries later through the efforts of man-made traditions).
Here is another framing trick: when discussing the non-Calvinist view of free will versus his own Calvinistic view. White speaks of the non-Calvinist view as “worshipping the almighty will of man”. Well I don’t know about you Dr. Brown but only God is almighty and I personally do not worship free will (though White repeatedly suggests that a non-Calvinist such as myself does so). Furthermore, if non-Calvinists are worshipping **anything** other than the one true God of the bible then we are idolaters! Is that really what White wants people to believe: that the Arminian rather than worshipping Jesus worships free will? And then regarding free will I do not know of any bible believing non-Calvinist who believes that the will of man is **almighty**. As I like to remind even Calvinists, ask Nebuchadnezzar as he was eating grass like an animal whether his will was “almighty”? And he was the king of a then powerful empire!
Another commonly repeated claim by White is that consistent Arminianism leads to Open theism. Now I know a lot of pastors and other church leaders, many of them are non-Calvinists, and none of them that holds to Arminian theology turned into open theists. In fact the common Arminian claim that election is based upon foreknowledge presupposes that God must know the future (if he did not then how could God be electing those he foreknows will have faith?). If you were a consistent Arminian holding to election based upon foreknowledge then you could never become an open theist!
Now I could multiply the examples but my point is that someone who supposedly knows church history, knows the beliefs and practices of non-Calvinists, knows the interpretations of non-Calvinists, knows better than to make these kinds of claims. The fact he keeps repeating these claims and appealing to these straw men and caricatures and engaging in these misleading “framing tricks” rather than dealing fairly with “the other side” indicates some real problems. White is a zealous evangelist for Calvinism and the way he paints things is not fair, not accurate, and borders on downright dishonesty.
It is similar to dealing with a non-Christian cultist who has these stock phrases and put downs of Christians and Christian theology (e.g. JW’s have told me many times that the trinity is “man’s tradition rather than the Word of God”). The cultist is not interested in the truth but in defending his erroneous system of theology at all costs. And in their minds this justifies all sorts of “framing tricks” that can be used against Christianity. Now I expect this kind of thing, these kinds of offensive remarks and phrases from a cultist attacking the Christian faith, I don’t expect or appreciate this kind of thing when coming in the context of a supposedly “in-house” debate among believers.
Robert
November 13th, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
Framing and reframing, even of what another one upheld in a debate, seems to be the most common presumption even the well regarded of Christian persuasion bring into play. Another one, in addition to straw men, is to use false syllogisms and questionable logic. Going back to the premise for the argument seems an always appropriate and fair rebuttal.
There are websites on common argumentation errors and fallicies.
November 13th, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
fallacies that is.
November 15th, 2009 @ 4:53 am
I am not a calvinist supporter but have a question for those who support single predestination view.
Calvinists view on predestination says, “God’s predestining decision is based on the knowledge of His own will rather than foreknowledge.”
Single predistination view says, “Those God saves have been predestined from eternity in Christ. Those who are condemned are condemned because of their fallen will.”
Question for those who support single predestination: If God predestines those to be saved based on His own will, how could he not predestines those not to be saved? It wouldnt make sense to say God determined who would be saved but doesnt determine who would not be saved.
November 15th, 2009 @ 5:00 am
Robert,
I agree there are calvinists who paint a false picture of Arminians which leads to straw man arguments.
November 15th, 2009 @ 5:09 am
Dr. Brown,
You should revive the good ol days when you set the debate demonstation with Bob Gladstone. Have Bob or Steve Alt on the radio as you debate them from the calvinistic view.
November 17th, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
[...] Calvinism vs. Arminianism Part 1 [...]
November 17th, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
Hi Dr. Brown (and Robert),
Below is a link where James White recently debated Roger and Faith Forster about predestination. Roger is co-author of the book “God’s Strategy in Human History”.
http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable?mod_page=1
Go to “listen on demand” and the August 1, 2009 episode “Calvinism & Predestination”. August 8th also has them debating.
Three things I notice about White – First he will speak until cut off (by either the host or the Forsters). Second is that he incorrectly imputes positions to his opponents that they obviously wouldn’t agree with. Mrs Forster was pretty capable and called him on this a few of times. The third is that he is a machine gun debater – he can cover an amazing number of points in a limited amount of time. This has a tendency to overwhelm his opponents.
Anyway, that will give you an idea of what you will be in for Dr. Brown.
If you do debate him, it would be well to do it on your show (he cuts off guests on his) and also set time rules (like each person has a turn for 5 minutes or something like that).
Here’s another debate series he did with a non-Calvinist guy named Steve Gregg. It is a bit longer and ran for five days. They did the time rule thing, which was helpful for Gregg I think, although White still won the debate (in my opinion). It is here http://www.thenarrowpath.com/apr08_archive.html (April 3,4,7,8,9)
November 17th, 2009 @ 11:05 pm
Kevin,
Thanks! I’ll listen with interest.
November 19th, 2009 @ 11:09 am
Dr. Brown,
If interested Dr. White has a verse by verse teaching through Romans 9 available for free download on his website http://www.aomin.org
It’s in the middle column. Also, I can tell you right now that one of the things Dr. White always says is that Arminians cannot go through John 6 verse by verse. He says they always have to jump off to other verses (i.e. Jn 12). He speaks much of the exegesis of the text and one of his biggest criticisms of Arminians is that they don’t do solid contextual exegesis. Though Arminian, for the most part I agree with him. There are of course exceptions to this: I. Howard Marshall, Grant Osborne, and Ben Witherington III to name a few. He spends a lot of time on the Greek usually so you should probably be ready for that. Lately on his radio show he’s been speaking much of the Greek of Jn 3:16 having a delimiter. In all what I’m trying to say is that I encourage you to take the time to prepare for the discussion / debate.
December 19th, 2009 @ 1:29 am
Are the Calvinism series ones available in mp3, for download?
Great series!!!
December 19th, 2009 @ 8:24 am
Michael,
Thank you for contacting us. The shows can be downloaded here http://feeds.feedburner.com/LineOfFireRadio.
Thank you,
LOF Staff
May 6th, 2010 @ 10:25 pm
shoes that tone…
Very good post. Made me realize I was totally wrong about this issue. I figure that one learns something new everyday. Mrs Right learned her lesson! Nice, informative website by the way. I’m linking because I think my readers will enjoy it as much as …
September 5th, 2011 @ 9:50 am
is this available to be downloaded?