Jerry Walls Refuting Calvinistic Soteriology

I thought Walls presented himself well (his argument maybe not so much). IMHO, Picirilli's arguments for Arminianism were better, and more honest to the opposing view.

A few quick observations:

First, Walls’ objection to the Calvinistic belief that men are responsible for their actions “even though they cannot possibly do otherwise” is an error of simplicity. Although he, no doubtedly, takes this from Calvinistic and Arminian doctrines that teach men cannot of themselves do that which is good, his application strips the statement from meaning. The reason men cannot do good is because men desire to do evil. Here “ability” is linked to desire and the human will, not what one is otherwise capable of. It is this freedom to choose that becomes an obstacle preventing men from calling out to God apart from the work of the Spirit.

Second, Walls makes another error as he expounds on John Piper’s explanation of election. He asks if the “biblical God” is a God who would pass over saving people when He could save people while leaving their free-will intact. On the surface this appears to be a legitimate question, but if you look carefully Walls has shifted the argument and redefined definitions. His statement, put honestly, would be if the “biblical God” is a God who would pass over saving people against their will while leaving their free-will intact? The question negates itself and affirms the claim of both Calvinism and Arminianism that God never saves people against their will.

Third, Arminianism teaches that apart from the work of the Spirit no man will be saved (Arminianism affirms the necessity of God to draw men as none will of themselves come – the difference being not the drawing but who is drawn). Christ is lifted up and God draws all men. But even here men cannot say that they turn to God of their own accord (unassisted in the change of direction). Walls is not consistently Arminian, but holds to free-will theology (not saying this is good or bad, just that he is not what the title assumes as he departs from both Calvinism and Arminianism on the subject of human will and human responsibility).

 

I agree with you that Jesus' death made a provision for the sins of mankind (for those who will believe as well as those who will perish in their sins). Those who deny this are guilty of denying the gospel itself as this the "good news" - that redemption has arrived, the kingdom is at hand, and salvation has come to sinners. To preach the unavailability of salvation to even one man is to preach "another gospel".

I sometimes forget that what people often oppose is counterfeit to the genuine article (or "point" ). If you read the five points of Calvinism as originally expressed you will find an affirmation of genuine guilt ascribed to the lost for rejecting salvation legitimately offered. I don't mean there are no Calvinists who deny such a provision, only that the teaching is no more Calvinism than is granting men the freewill to turn to God uninfluenced is Arminianism.

What I see in the video is hybrid-Arminianism confronting hybrid-Calvinism. Walls' arguments are eloquent, but irrelevant.