# My first opportunity to seriously debate Calvinism



## steven-nemes (Apr 20, 2009)

There is a young man who goes to a local church (not Reformed) who I've run into a couple times, the first time he overheard me and my friends discussing speaking in tongues, and the last two times we've run into each other at an In-N-Out my friends and I frequent. I asked him what church he went to and if it was Calvinist; he responded it was not (to this I joked, "We can't all be perfect!") and that his pastor had actually written an article refuting Calvinism. I was interested in reading it, so when I met him by chance again last night, he gave me a copy of it. 

I am going to write a formal response to it and e-mail it to the man, and perhaps he will even forward that to his pastor and we can get a good discussion going.

The article can be read here: The Valley Church of Christ

Do you have any tips for me? Are there any interesting points you read in the article, and how would you reply to them?

Thanks.


----------



## AThornquist (Apr 20, 2009)

I have only read a few paragraphs and am already annoyed. 



> The five points of Calvinism became formalized in the “Westminster Confession of Faith” (1647)



Uhh... Synod of Dort, 1618-1619?


----------



## steven-nemes (Apr 20, 2009)

I know zilch of Calvinist and Reformation history, so I didn't know that, but I'll bring it up. Thanks!


----------



## AThornquist (Apr 20, 2009)

> It also needs to be stated as clearly as possible that perhaps no doctrine or system of theology is more damnable than the heresy of Augustinian-Calvinism.



For this I would ask about a scripture reference. Is this pastor dishing out his own human judgment and opinion as _fact_? The rest of the article is probably much of the same.


----------



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

> What is more, God does not really love or desire to save all men. In fact he actually loves to damn some souls to hell.





> Those elected to damnation will not be called by God’s Spirit and cannot and could not be saved *even if they wanted to*



I would point out these errors and let him know the pastor has an incorrect view of what Calvin, Augustine and those after them believed. 

Then I would go after the easiest points for one to understand from scripture to show his pastor is only presenting part of the truth not all of it. 

ie verses like no one can come to me except the father draws him.
Rom 12- no one can do good, so one seeks God 
Lydia Whose eyes the Lord opened 
As many as were ordained to eternal life believed 
All does not mean all, it means people from all nations and races not just Jews 
Rom 9 
Eph 1

If he can see that his pastor has missed this and has only showed one side and avoided dealing with the other he may be open to further discovering the whole teaching of scriptures. 

I would help Him see how we all deserve hell and god would be fair to send us all. So the fact He has mercy on some is good right?

It can only be bad if we think we all deserve heaven and some don't get it. 

So if e gets that all deserve hell from the fall, then you can begin to show verses that refute the article one by one 

A helpful book is 5 points by Steele and Thomas that show the two side by side. 

And Definite atonement by Gary Long has an appendix dealing with controvesial verses, like all, whole world etc.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Apr 20, 2009)

Read through it and it is pretty "normal" as far as attacks against "Calvinism" goes. The Canons of Dordt pretty much answer all of his points.


----------



## AThornquist (Apr 20, 2009)

In speaking of Unconditional election the pastor says this:


> This doctrine teaches the absolute and complete sovereignty of God in unconditionally electing men to salvation or to damnation apart from their will. This doctrine also calls into questions the possibility of any freedom of human will.



This is a straw man. Men _do_ have the freedom of choice, but in man's state of spiritual deadness he will not choose God. Romans 3 is clear on this.

-----Added 4/20/2009 at 08:42:46 EST-----

lol this guy uses the creation of Adam and Eve to show that hereditary sinful nature is false. Uhh, dude, they were the ones who sinned and caused a hereditary sinful nature! Steven, be sure you check all of his scripture citations; the number of verses he uses to show that man is in someway not depraved may seem powerful to those who don't understand the concept of context.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 20, 2009)

> It should be realized that Augustinian-Calvinism is, in one form or another, the basis for the vast majority of Catholic and Protestant theology and faith.



So the author thinks the Roman system is the 5 points?

(He also believes in "hard" and "soft" Calvinists, and that the Reformation was not reforming the Roman system, because after all, it was part of the same "heresy"- that God is sovereign, but not really...)

This strident brother will need your patience.

You can make quick work of all the inconsistencies, point them out- and then ask if "hard" is worse than "soft"


----------



## CharlieJ (Apr 20, 2009)

I don't think that you will have any success with the formal response route. For one thing, you don't seem to be particularly suited for it. I don't say that to knock you, but it would seem a bit presumptuous for an 18-yo (if I read your profile correctly) to be publishing formal theology papers, much less refutations of pastors. Now, even though I think you could do a pretty good job, I think you would be better off sticking to resources published by actual pastors and professors. That way, you don't come off as an uppity kid.

But, I do think it would be great if you could engage this young man in conversation. I've found that rarely does a person shift theological paradigms in one moment. Usually, it's a long process of questioning, doubting, re-imagining, and then a final climactic change. So, ask him what he personally thinks about the issues. Get him to talk as much as possible. You just listen and show him that you're a fair, logical person. In the meantime, look for a chink. Most Arminians are very inconsistent in their thought processes, so look for a hook you can grab onto. Find something that he is certain of and cares deeply about, and show him how Calvinism makes that work best. 

For example, if he makes a statement about how he is glad that God is in control of everything, ask him what he thinks about God and sin. Then, ask about God and salvation. Most Arminians have really just never considered these issues very deeply. A lot of times you'll find that if you just set people in the right direction, they'll move halfway to Calvinism without even realizing it. After enough of these casual conversations that happen to interact with the themes of salvation, Christ, sin, redemption, etc., one day (Lord willing) he'll open his Bible, read a passage, and realize he's a Calvinist.

I strongly urge you to love your brother and cast the word debate from your mind. If your goal is to love him, encourage him, and build him up in the faith, and if you are willing to talk about everything in the Bible, not just Calvinism, God often uses relationships like that to accomplish His purpose.


----------



## steven-nemes (Apr 20, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> I don't think that you will have any success with the formal response route. For one thing, you don't seem to be particularly suited for it. I don't say that to knock you, but it would seem a bit presumptuous for an 18-yo (if I read your profile correctly) to be publishing formal theology papers, much less refutations of pastors. Now, even though I think you could do a pretty good job, I think you would be better off sticking to resources published by actual pastors and professors. That way, you don't come off as an uppity kid.



I understand what you mean, but all I want to do is start a dialog with _at least_ the kid, if he never ends up showing the email to his pastor. Is it presumptuous to want to start a dialog with a person who has told you you're going to Hell for believing what you believe? I should think not...



> I strongly urge you to love your brother and cast the word debate from your mind. If your goal is to love him, encourage him, and build him up in the faith, and if you are willing to talk about everything in the Bible, not just Calvinism, God often uses relationships like that to accomplish His purpose.



I understand what you are saying, and I thank you for reminding me of this. Often times I simply get caught up in trying to prove a point and forget the importance of the "in love" part of "communicating the truth in love". As far as casting the word debate from my mind, I don't know what else to call a discussion between two parties in which either side tries to refute the other and advance his own position...


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 20, 2009)

A very obvious error is the idea that Calvinists teach that individuals are _elected_ unto damnation. He might be confusing "election" and "predestination." But this shows his gross misunderstanding of the system. And as pointed out above, he is attacking a bunch of straw men.

Your friend probably does need to know this, but it might be more profitable to simply sit down with him and walk him through large portions of Scripture (not just proof texts). Show him passages like John 6, Ephesians 2, Romans 9. Show him what the Scripture says. Words like "predestined" and "elect" actually do appear in Scripture. Show him that.

I'm with BWP above -- no need to reinvent the wheel. Send him a copy of the Canons of Dort. Apparently he's never heard of them.


----------



## steven-nemes (Apr 20, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> Your friend probably does need to know this, but it might be more profitable to simply sit down with him and walk him through large portions of Scripture (not just proof texts). Show him passages like John 6, Ephesians 2, Romans 9. Show him what the Scripture says. Words like "predestined" and "elect" actually do appear in Scripture. Show him that.



Well, he isn't a friend really, he's more of a random person that I've seen three times in my life. I have sat down and discussed things with him, and he brought me the article to read through and see what I think, and so this is my way of responding to it while I might never see him in person again. 



> I'm with BWP above -- no need to reinvent the wheel. Send him a copy of the Canons of Dort. Apparently he's never heard of them.



Where is the fun in that?  Of course it's more interesting for myself if _I_ have to formulate the arguments and provide the scripture support...


----------



## DonP (Apr 20, 2009)

Though I agree with the benefit of the C of D the one draw back in using them or just handing them to a person is that the Pastor has already poisoned him against man made creeds. Speaking for myself when I was arminian and from my experience, I find when you offer them a creed or even use it in study it validates what they have heard that you follow men not he word. It is often much more well received to go through scriptures with them so they see these truths in the very word of God, now the scripture references of a creed can be used.
This is happening as we speak with a young man and a girl he likes on another thread. 
When he asked her to read Rom 9 and asked what she thought she said it sounded like predestination. 

Then let them know it can be used like a commentary their pastor uses as a guide to the scriptures etc. etc.


----------



## CharlieJ (Apr 20, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> As far as casting the word debate from my mind, I don't know what else to call a discussion between two parties in which either side tries to refute the other and advance his own position...



I think your heart is good, and I think that God will use your (and my) imperfect efforts to do a lot of things that we could never have anticipated. My strongest encouragement would be to change the tenor of your relationship from an adversarial one to a friendly one. If you really are trying to advance and refute positions, I think you have already lost the war. Notice that debates are not really for the participants, but for the audience. I have never in my life seen a debate in which one person was convinced of the other side. That's because debaters view themselves as enemies, or at least opponents. It isn't conducive to heart-to-heart straight talk.

Trust is the most important factor in a spiritual relationship. If he thinks that you're trying to "get" him, he won't listen to you no matter how skillfully you argue your case. I might suggest (and it is only a suggestion) that the next time you see him, don't bring up Calvinism. Instead of talking about what you want, serve him by taking a genuine interest in his life. Find out what he is passionate about. You need to make sure that the Friend/Foe identifier in his brain registers "Friend" when he sees you. 

I'm working on a guy right now that I went to college with. He's doing an MA in Church History at Bob Jones University. In the course of a conversation about one of his papers, he confessed that he wasn't sure that immersion was really a big deal. Also, he's doing a paper on Christianity and culture and picked up _The Calvinistic Concept of Culture_ by Henry Van Til. Lots to talk about.

Don't give up praying or working or being patient. My best friend from high school called me a few months ago to tell me he had become a Calvinist.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 20, 2009)

Good points, Don.


----------



## A.J. (Apr 20, 2009)

Steven, that's interesting. 

Re: Total Depravity

Scripture's description of us sinners (Eph. 2:1ff) is that we are dead in our trespasses and sins. Only by the grace of God are we made alive in Christ. Our faith is itself a gift of God. We are dead. We are by nature blind and deaf to the gospel. Our hearts and minds are inclined to evil. So if left to ourselves, we will not respond to the gospel savingly. Neither can we prepare ourselves for it. The article assumes the "free will" it must prove first. This is begging the question. A powerful demonstration of the truth of Total Depravity is seen in the rising from the dead of Jesus' friend, Lazarus (John 11). Lazarus had been dead for days. When Christ came to His tomb, He asked him to come out. The question here is, how could Lazarus come out _if he had been dead_? The Lord gave him life _first_ so that the previously dead man could _then_ respond to His call. The same applies to our conversion. The Holy Spirit would have to regenerate (or make alive) the sinner (who is dead in his sins) before he could willingly, ably and savingly repent of his sins and come to Christ by faith. Regeneration then must precede faith. As sinners dead in our sins, we do not in any way contribute to our being made alive anymore than Lazarus contributed to his rising from the dead. Christians are also described by Scripture as new creation (2 Cor. 5). And we know that as creatures, we do not contribute to our being created. Salvation thus is all of grace from first to last. 

Re: Unconditional Election

One of the best I have read on this doctrine is Dr. James White's exegetical commentary on John 6. He explains that the _ordo salutis_ is _explicitly_ taught in the text (cf. Rom. 8). The Father gives a people to the Son (or draws them). And _because of that_, they come to the Son and believe in Him and are then raised up on the last day. God's work of grace (as properly defined) therefore precedes any response on the part of man to the gospel. The commentary may be read here: John Chapter 6 By James White. 

Re: Particular Redemption

This is obviously the most difficult to accept. In recent months, I have come to discover that the difficulty encountered by many people in explaining the doctrine of Limited Atonement is due to their failure to accept the Covenant Theology taught by the Reformed Confessions. In other words, they are Five Point Calvinists _but remain dispensationalists_. I was in a similar situation. The result is that they (like I was) have deprived themselves of one of the arguments for the particular nature of Christ's atoning work. If a person holds to the one Covenant of Grace, it becomes easier to explain the doctrine of Particular Redemption. We can cite as support of this texts like Gen. 17, Isa. 52-53, Rom. 4-5 and Gal. 3. The promises are made to Abraham's seed, Christ (Gal. 3:16) and by federal headship those who are united to Him by faith (Gal. 3:29). They and they alone are the elect of God. They and they alone are appointed to glory. It is for them for which Christ came (Matt. 1:21; cf. John 6, 10 and 17). The rest are in Adam and remain under God's wrath and condemnation.

The article assumes that "all" must mean "all without exception" in all instances. This is _a priori_ reading of Scripture. Scripture uses the word "all" differently. For textual support, see the following article which explains how the Apostle John for instance uses it in his Gospel and epistles: Reformation Theology: "WORLD" - John's Ten Uses of the Word by Pastor John Samson. This is a must read for Arminians and dispensationalists.

Re: Effectual Calling

The mistake of Arminians is to assume that since God commands people to repent and believe in His Son, then sinners must not be "totally depraved" as Reformed Theology claims them to be. The simple answer to this seeming tension between human inability and human responsibility on the one hand and God's sovereignty and human responsibility on the other is the _Free Offer of the Gospel_. God does command sinners to repent and believe the gospel. But that does not change the unconditional nature of election. We see Paul expaining these great truths side by side in Rom. 9-11. There he explains election and reprobation within the nation of Israel, but also shows that it is his desire and prayer that his countrymen may be saved. One of the books that carefully explains the consistency of the Reformed argument is J.I. Packer's _Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God_. The doctrine of Effectual Calling is also defended in the exegetical commentary by Dr. James White referred to above.

Re: Perseverance of the Saints

As before, it is difficult to defend this doctrine without subscribing to the Covenant Theology of the Reformed Confessions. How on earth does a _dispensationalist_ who claims to be a Five Point Calvinist consistently explain Jer. 31:31-34 (cf. Heb. 8) and Jer. 32:38-40 for example without betraying his dispensational presuppositions? These are texts that demonstrate God's promise of preservation in holiness to His elect. Again, I direct the reader to Dr. White's commentary on John 6 for a defense of this doctrine. Other texts that can be cited for support include (but not limited to) John 6, 10 and 17 as well as Eph. 1 and Rom. 8-11. 

The error of those who reject this doctrine is to assume that since are called in Scripture to persevere in the end, it follows then that there are those who believe but _do_ actually totally and finally fall away. The Biblical truth is that true believers will not totally and finally fall away because of the unchanging nature of election of the Father, the merit and intercession of the Lord Jesus, the seal of the Holy Spirit, and the nature of the Covenant of Grace. These truths are faithfully explained in the Westminster Confession and the Canons of Dort. Some of the texts that would come out in a Reformed-Arminian discussion of the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints are the warning passages of John 15, Rom. 11, Heb. 3-4, and Heb. 6 and 10. What must be kept in mind here is the Reformed distinction between the visible church and the invisible church. (Note that there are specific hermeneutical disagreements between Paedo-Baptists and Reformed Baptists on how exactly these verses are properly understood.) From a Reformed point of view, it is perfectly possible for a person to be a member of the visible church but turn out to be a hypocrite or a reprobate (i.e., not be a member of the invisible church). The best example of this is Simon the Magician (Acts 8). He was baptized and became a member of the visible church. But as Peter noted, his heart was not right before God. Similarly, it is possible for a person to be a "branch" of the vine/olive tree, but be cut off, thrown away and burned if he does not persevere (John 15 and Rom. 11). 

The Arminian friend must also be warned to not confuse the Reformed doctrine with the heretical antinomianism/easy-believism of many people within fundamentalist and evangelical circles. This happens many times. God preserves His saints and they persevere _in holiness_ until the end. We Reformed believers have nothing to do with those who turn the grace of God into a license to sin. We are saved not to sin, but from sin together with its guilt and dominion over us (Matt. 1:21). We are predestined to be holy and blameless and are created for good works (Eph. 1-2). We are the Lord's workmanship. 

 God bless you.

-----Added 4/20/2009 at 09:58:34 EST-----

*P.S.* Steven, I noticed that the church seems to be affiliated with the "Church of Christ" and is not Arminian as historically understood.


----------



## Theoretical (Apr 20, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> steven-nemes said:
> 
> 
> > As far as casting the word debate from my mind, I don't know what else to call a discussion between two parties in which either side tries to refute the other and advance his own position...
> ...


On this point, the more you view it as a debate the less likely you will successfully change this young man's views. 

Besides, in my own circles, the folks who are most calvinistic are those I lost debates to every time but have loved as dear friends in good and bad times.


----------



## cih1355 (Apr 20, 2009)

I would suggest that you talk about the total depravity of man. Man was originally created good. At first, man did not have a sinful nature. After man's fall into sin, he became totally depraved. Romans 3:9-20 teaches that man, by nature, is not righteous and that he does not seek after God. By nature, he does not do good. John 3:19 says that men love darkness rather than light. Hebrews 11:6 says that without faith it is impossible to please God. Unbelievers do not have faith, so it is impossible for them to please God. Romans 6 says that before believers became Christians they were slaves of sin. 

I would point out that the doctrine of election does not mean that God sends people to hell even though they want to come to Christ. Man by nature, does not want to come to Christ. By nature, man hates Christ. They would rather reject Christ, than to follow Him. People are not forced to sin. They sin because they are sinners. If unbelievers mock Christ and reject Christ, they are not forced to do so. They are carrying out the desires of their heart. They take delight in rejecting God. I would point out that if God chose no one to be saved, then everyone would reject Christ. 

All people deserve to go to hell. God does not have the obligation to save anyone. Romans 9:15 says, "For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.'" People do not deserve to be saved. They do not deserve to be the recipients of God's mercy. 

My pastor wrote a 20-page booklet about the doctrine of election and a 57-page booklet about the perseverance of the saints. The booklet about election is called, _Election, God's Unchanging Love for His People_ and the booklet about the perseverance of the saints is called, _Once Saved, Always Changed_. You can go to this link to download them for free: Welcome to Community Bible Church of Vallejo CA - Exalting Christ Bookstore


----------



## Calvinist Cowboy (Apr 20, 2009)

I have many friends and co-workers who are not Calvinist or even Christian. I find that God will bring up opportunities when I least expect it for sharing what I believe. For example, one time a co-worker of mine asked me, out of the blue, what the "Reformed" church is. This led to my speaking with her about the 5 points of Calvinism. I didn't convince her, but she now knows what I believe, and as I continue to serve her, I pray that God would open her eyes to the glorious hope Christians have in Christ.

Also, my brother recently got a taste of defending Calvinism when he and a friend of his were talking about salvation. The friend hadn't even really given the matter any thought. Why? Because he didn't view it as all that important.

Steven, your acquaintance may see Calvinism the same way. I suggest that you don't make it a big issue. If he brings up Calvinism, then discuss it, but do so in a loving way. Above all, seek to model Christ to him and live in such a way that demonstrates your Reformed viewpoint. Many Christians fall to pieces in tragedy or trial because they have a low view of the sovereignty of God. Impress upon this person the immensity of God and the pathetic sinfulness of man.


----------



## AThornquist (Apr 21, 2009)

Good words from Ben. I would add that you should a) emphasize the use of Scripture in understanding the issue and b) give your acquaintance some strong passages to think over. I've found that when people understand that you believe what you believe because you see it in Scripture (and can demonstrate it), they are much more willing to think about it with you. Otherwise it turns into a "God couldn't do that because God is love" vs "Well God does do it no matter what you believe--God chose some for destruction and others for mercy!" match, which is often more emotional than biblical. Stick to the Bible and, in fact, point out how people often judge this issue based on emotions, which causes them to interpret passages in wrong ways to suit their desires. I would suggest quoting Scriptures talking about the deceitfulness of man's heart and his lack of wisdom, etc. Just some things to chew on.


----------



## jogri17 (Apr 21, 2009)

nothing new there. lots of the steryotypical arminians errors you always get.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 21, 2009)

My greatest success begins with demonstrating from Scripture the total depravity of the unregenerate, to wit:

* 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).

Once you can get the listener to thinking about this, and realizing that there is nothing that they can do on their own accord to save themselves, the rest of TULIP necessarily falls into place. Such is the coherence of our faith and its wonderful, Scripture-based, teachings.


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 21, 2009)

You've got your work cut out for you....praying


----------

