AndyMartin
Active Member
Those who have ears, let them hear and learn. Jerry Walls completely destroys "Calvinistic Soteriology", which is unbiblical.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Jerry Walls Refuting Calvinistic Soteriology
- Thread starter AndyMartin
- Start date
- Status
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).
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).
AndyMartin
Active Member
One of the main problems that Calvinism has, as I have found over the years through many conversations. This they believe that Mark 16:15, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.", means just that. The Gospel message is to be given to every human being, "without exception". According to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, "Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures" (verses 1-3). If the Gospel is indeed, "that Christ died for our sins", and this is to be preached to "all creation"; then it can only mean that Jesus in His Atonement has made provision for the sins of "all creation (mankind)". Or else, we have the problem of God not being sincere with the offer through the preaching of the Gospel to all mankind. This of course cannot be the case.
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.
@AndyMartin:
You don't resolve your problem. Either the human will is greater than God's will or God's will is greater than the human will. Which one is it?
You don't resolve your problem. Either the human will is greater than God's will or God's will is greater than the human will. Which one is it?
Calv1
Active Member
Oh yeah he did a great job. This guy, first, doesn't understand Reformed Theology, second He doesn't understand Arminian Theology, what a joke, want something quality? Watch Dr. James White debate a Arminian, this way you get two scholars, why listen to jokes like this? Listen to the best, surely you can invest an hour to watch a scholarly debate right?
AndyMartin
Active Member
Guess what, and Calvinists don't understand Calvin's theology. Read John 3:16 in Calvin, and you will see that he calearly says that Jesus' death was for "everyone without exception"! "Calvinists" hold "everyone without distinction"!!!
God is sincere in having the Gospel peached to all, yet sinful man will refuse/reject it due to their sin natures 'free will"
He does a great job refuting what he thinks it means though! Too bad not what reformed/calvinists actually teach!
AndyMartin
Active Member
I don't think that reformed/calvinists themselves know what they believe!
We do, its just our critics would be knocking us for what think we hold with, not actually believe in!
AndyMartin
Active Member
Calvinists, can preach their messages, and write their books, but when they are confronted with the Bible that disagrees with them, they fail. The fact is that there is much inconsistency in Calvinism that is not in other groups.
Actually, our system makes the most biblical sense!
I don't understand your objection here. Are you saying that Calvinists do not preach the Gospel to all mankind?
AndyMartin
Active Member
AndyMartin
Active Member
No, Calvinists believe in preaching the Gospel to all mankind. But, for this to be a sincere "offer of salvation" to mankind, Jesus Christ would have had to have died for "all mankind". If as Calvinism teaches, that He died only for the elect, then the preaching of salvation in the Gospel, is nothing more than a sham!
Unfortunate that you feel that way, but your misunderstanding won't stop us from carrying out Christ's instructions.
AndyMartin
Active Member
Then enlighten me...
Why?
You've already been corrected by other posters.
But, in your hatred for what you wrongly believe Calvinism to be, you prefer ignorance over truth.
Why don't you go over to OnlineBaptist and hang out with the ignorant bigots over there.
AndyMartin
Active Member
Typical answer from a Calvinist!
- Status