Calvinism/Arminianism Forum - Finally Imploded?

[whetstone]

Originally posted by JohnB:
I have raised this challenge before, and I will raise it again, could any Calvinist here cite one book where you feel the author adequately understands and represents Calvinism, yet makes a cogent argument against it?

If it has not been met- it is a self defeating offer. Since no such book has been found, your position is found lacking.

 

[JohnB]

Whetstone,

I, as a non-Calvinist, would not hesitate to recommend Piper, Sproul, MacAuther, Boettner, etc. as adequate primers on Calvinism despite the fact that they are all replete with misrepresentation (or, to be generous, misunderstanding) of the non-Calvinist position on soteriology.

In fact, if someone wanted to understand Calvinism, I would recommend, first and foremost, an unabridged copy of Pink's "Sovereignty of God." (If you can find one, since the "Calvinistic" publisher Banner of Truth cuts out all the naughty bits.)

Or, for free online articles, I would highly recommend www.pristinegrace.org.

And no Calvinist will offer the same courtesy of non-Calvinist book or website recommendations?

 

[webdog]

Excellent points, JohnB. Calvinists automatically think that non calvinists do not know there position, not because of views that differ within the Bible, but because we "don't know" calvinism. The fact remains, as you stated, that calvinists themselves "don't know" even their own doctrine. A sound theological stance would not have so many differing conclusions within the system.

 

[JohnB]

Would you Calvinists not even recommend little ole John Wesley? Bosom buddy of George Whitefield? A man Spurgeon considered worthy to be the 13th apostle? C'mon - give it up for John Wesley!!

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by JohnB:
Whetstone,

I, as a non-Calvinist, would not hesitate to recommend Piper, Sproul, MacAuther, Boettner, etc. as adequate primers on Calvinism despite the fact that they are all replete with misrepresentation (or, to be generous, misunderstanding) of the non-Calvinist position on soteriology.

In fact, if someone wanted to understand Calvinism, I would recommend, first and foremost, an unabridged copy of Pink's "Sovereignty of God." (If you can find one, since the "Calvinistic" publisher Banner of Truth cuts out all the naughty bits.)

Or, for free online articles, I would highly recommend www.pristinegrace.org.

And no Calvinist will offer the same courtesy of non-Calvinist book or website recommendations?

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it sounds like that since you would recommend Calvinists' defenses of Calvinism then we should recommend non-Calvinists' works in opposition of Calvinism. That's not equivalent, though. Are there any Calvinists whose critique of non-Calvinism you would recommend as fair and accurate?

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I was showing that exposing the ramifications of your opponents opinions, whether he accepts them or not, is a fair, honest, and Scriptural debate tactic.

This is true ... but only if those ramifications are legitimate. In many cases, they were not. They were built from faulty foundations and thus were illegitimate. </font>[/QUOTE]Larry,

1. That is not what you originally said. You originally said you should not make any assertion about your opponent that he himself would not make. If you were true to your originally stated principle, you would never again charge a non-Calvinist with denying God's sovreignty because you have never heard one say that he doesn't believe in God's sovreignty.

2. But, whereas you have now renounced your orignial principle, your only real objection is that the non-Calvinists would not agree with Calvinism. That is a fair objection to make, if you could prove Calvinism to be the true position. That you have failed to do and so I will maintain the honesty and accuracy of my characterizations of the Calvinist system.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Scott J]

Mark, With all due respect, there was only so much I could tolerate of several of the non-calvinists on that forum.

I went to great lengths on several occasions to refute interpretations of my position that I had said nothing to foster. The refutations were ignored and not dealt with. But later, the same mischaracterizations of my position would be recycled.

In debate, we all extend the positions of others to what we think their logical conclusions are and sometimes use those to demonstrate that the other position is untenable. However, when I and most calvinists did this and received a response, we dealt with the response and the flaws we saw in it. Only when the other side reached a point where their arguments failed would I normally go back to my initial assertion and claim it was true.

It is frustrating when you state your position, someone mischaracterizes it so that they can defeat their re-creation rather than your real argument, to then correct that mischaracterization only to have the opponent ignore the correction without qualification. I do believe that that method was common to several non-calvinists and that it isn't honest.

 

[JohnB]

Whatever -

In their defense of Calvinism, Sproul et al. also refute non-Calvinism. Non-Calvinists, like Shank or Lightner, defend non-Calvinist soteriology while likewise refuting Calvinism. In most theology that I have read, defense and refutation always go hand in hand.

Perhaps, as I suggested to Larry, true fairness and accuracy is too much to expect from sin-hindered men on either side.

My point is, if I would recommend Sproul et al.(with their flaws,) would you extend the courtesy of likewise recommending Wesley, Shank, Lightner (with their flaws?)

 

[whatever]

JohnB,

Thanks, I see where you're coming from now.

I've enjoyed Lightner, though if I remember correctly he is a little weak as far as his view of the atonement. I think (and I could verify this if I weren't so lazy) that he goes for the "sufficient for all, efficient for believers" view. The problem I have is that I (a Calvinist) agree with that 100%, and I know of Arminians who would also agree with the statement. So Lightner ends up not really addressing that which makes Calvinism distinct from his view (nor from Arminianism).

This is pretty typical of non-Calvinists' arguments that I am familiar with. If a person cannot get beyond "sufficient for all and efficient for the elect/believers" into the heart of what we disagree on then they really don't add much to the debate.

Admittedly some self-proclaimed "Calvinists" would disagree, and say that the atonement is sufficient only for those who believe. To that I would just say that most Calvinists that I know of, in history and the present, believe that the merit of Christ's blood is enough to cover all of the sins of humanity. And remember that not all Arminians agree with one another (not even about whether salvation can be lost!), and not all Republicans agree with one another, and not all Baptists agree with one another, so expecting all Calvinists to agree with one another is unreasonable.

I really haven't read much of Wesley, and I'm not sure who Shank is, so I should not say anything else. Except this - stay away from Hunt / Geisler / etc.

 

[JohnB]

But Geisler is a self-proclaimed Calvinist whose book defends moderate Calvinism!

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by JohnB:
But Geisler is a self-proclaimed Calvinist whose book defends moderate Calvinism!

That's the best reason I could think of to stay away from him, on soteriology anyway. He's done lots of good work in other areas.

 

[Kiffen]

Kiffen said :

"I will say, it has been my observation in the C vs A debate that many (Not All) Non Calvinists especially don't know their subject, in attacking Calvinism and have probably read little by Calvinist authors."

This is a comment that typifies my frustration in dealing with "Calvinists." It goes like this:
"Once you truly understand Calvinism, you will accept it. (like effectual grace.) If you don't accept it, it is because you don't adequately understand it."

And you read more into my comments than you should. My point is If you are going to criticize a Theology, you should know what it teaches. Even Calvinists are guilty at times as believing if you are not Calvinist, you are Arminian, which is not a completely fair statement. Many Protestants who criticize Roman Catholicism often don't know what Catholicism teaches because they have read Dave Hunt, Jack Chick or outdated books on the subject. My point is, if you are going to debate a subject, know what you are talking about.

It's not hard to be accused of lacking understanding when there are such a wide range of Calvinists who don't even agree with each other. Pink vs Calvin vs Sproul vs. Piper vs MacArthur vs. Spurgeon. Supra, infra, equal ultimacy, asymmetrical reprobabtion, single, double predestination, the sincere offer vs no sincere offer, comon grace, no common grace, etc. One's head spins with all the variations within "Calvinism." ."

Good point and I see you do understand something….Calvinism has diversity in it. All Calvinists affirm TULIP but there is plenty of diversity within those 5 points. I do think you are trying to be fair and you seem to understand Calvinism though you may disagree with it.

I have raised this challenge before, and I will raise it again, could any Calvinist here cite one book where you feel the author adequately understands and represents Calvinism, yet makes a cogent argument against it?

I wish I could think of one. A British theologian by the name of Dr. Alan C Clifford who is a critic of Calvinism seems to understand it. Of course he is what is often called a Amyrald Calvinist (4.5 Calvinist) and seems to disagree with only Limited Atonement. I am sure there is someone out there.

I have no problem anyone criticizing Calvinism in a debate forum BUT I do have problems when “Calvinists are Heretics” or even “Arminians are Heretics” is used. That will send the debate into the gutter. I consider Arminians to be fellow Christians as well as many other Non Calvinists. Heretic is a strong word that implies those who teach it are lost people. It has been my observation that Baptists often use the word Heresy and Heretic in too light of manner.

 

[JohnB]

Kiffen said:

"If you are going to criticize a Theology, you should know what it teaches... Many Protestants who criticize Roman Catholicism often don't know what Catholicism teaches because they have read Dave Hunt, Jack Chick or outdated books on the subject."

Regarding understanding your opponent, let's use this example.

I understand RC's dogmas of Mary from a Catholic perspective, (veneration, not worship,dulia vs. latria, the new Eve, Queen of Heaven, Mother of God, Co-Redemptrix, assumption, immaculate conception and all that.)

I've read Catholic articles, and listened to Catholic radio, watched Journey Home on EWTN, but, for all my undertanding of every nuance, I still consider the Catholoic dogma of Mary false, blasphemous doctrines.

How would you respond to an RC who said "If you still don't accept the dogmas of Mary, you just don't understand them well enough?"

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Kiffen:

Kiffen said :Heretic is a strong word that implies those who teach it are lost people. It has been my observation that Baptists often use the word Heresy and Heretic in too light of manner.

The book of Galatians proves this statement totally false. The Galatians were definately saved people because Paul said they had "begun in the Spirit". And yet they had fallen into a heresy which Paul condemned in the strongest terms.

The only way to maintain the accuracy of the above statement in light of Galatians is to assert that the Galatians lost their salvation.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
The book of Galatians proves this statement totally false. The Galatians were definately saved people because Paul said they had "begun in the Spirit". And yet they had fallen into a heresy which Paul condemned in the strongest terms.

The only way to maintain the accuracy of the above statement in light of Galatians is to assert that the Galatians lost their salvation.

Mark Osgatharp

Mark,

It's one thing for an Apostle writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to question the salvation of those to whom he is a minister but who have strayed from the gospel. It's a completely different thing for one to assert that others, whom one does not even know, are heretics. Your implication that "Paul did it so I can too" is a good example of Kiffen's point about judging others too lightly, IMO.

I believe that Christ died for my sins and rose again for my justification. I believe that His blood is suficient to cover all of the sins of all of those who have ever lived. I believe that all of those, and only those, who turn to Christ in faith are and will finally be saved. I believe that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone from start to finish. Based on what I have seen of your postings here I believe that you are saved. Yet you believe I am a heretic.

 

[Bruce Reeves]

[deleted -- non-Baptist posting in Baptist Only Forum]

[ November 25, 2005, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

You originally said you should not make any assertion about your opponent that he himself would not make.

No, what I said was In any debate, one should say about his opponent only what his opponent would say about himself. In other words, if you are going to refute a position, make sure you refute the position that your opponent actually holds.

If you were true to your originally stated principle, you would never again charge a non-Calvinist with denying God's sovreignty because you have never heard one say that he doesn't believe in God's sovreignty.

I am not sure I make that charge often, and usually when I do, I believe I characterize it as "It seems to me that ... " or some such thing.

But, whereas you have now renounced your orignial principle,

And what was my "original principle" that I renounced? Are you sure you didn't misunderstand something I said?

your only real objection is that the non-Calvinists would not agree with Calvinism.

Actually, that has never been my objection.

That is a fair objection to make, if you could prove Calvinism to be the true position.

I, and others, showed many times that Calvinism was solidly grounded in accurate biblical exegesis. Many disagreed with that exegesis and that is fine.

...I will maintain the honesty and accuracy of my characterizations of the Calvinist system.

But that will not make them right, nor will it make it a legitimate way to debate. You can certainly maintain whatever you would like, but truth is not measured by what you maintain.

In the end, there needs to be a serious rise in the level of conversation and in the characterization of opponents' arguments.

I have freely admitted many times that there are seeming inconsistencies in my position and I am find with that because it is what the Bible teaches. I have not made my mind teh test of truth and thus, whether something fits into my little box or not, when the Bible says it, I believe it.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />[Mark]You originally said you should not make any assertion about your opponent that he himself would not make.

No, what I said was In any debate, one should say about his opponent only what his opponent would say about himself.</font>[/QUOTE]Larry, you just said exactly the same thing I said.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by whatever:
It's one thing for an Apostle writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to question the salvation of those to whom he is a minister but who have strayed from the gospel. It's a completely different thing for one to assert that others, whom one does not even know, are heretics.

Paul did not question the salvation of the Galatians. Paul explicitly said the Galatians were saved, and yet judged them for embracing a heresy.

That proves that saved people can (and in fact do) embrace heresies. I never said that the Calvinists are not saved, I only said that they have embraced a heresy.

The commonly taught idea that saved people can't fall into heresy is, well, just plain heresy.

;0)

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Dr. Bob]

"Heretic" is a word that simply means "schizmatic" or "divisive".

"But [you BELIEVERS] avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is a heretic [schismastic] after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."