# Debate with Bob Wilkin



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 7, 2004)

I've begun my debate with Bob Wilkin of the Grace Evangelical Society. His opening statement and mine are posted here:

http://reachingforchrist.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=627

Either Tue or Wed, we'll be posting rebuttals of each other's opening statements.

Thoughts so far ?

-Kerry


----------



## raderag (Jun 7, 2004)

*Two things.*

Two of his premises are totally false.

1. That the reformations sola fide taught that repentance was not necessary. (read all protestant confessions and 95 thesis). In other words,, he is NOT teaching historic Christianity.

2. Calvinist teach that repentance is part of justification.


Those are easy to refute and will totally crush his argument.

[Edited on 6-7-2004 by raderag]


----------



## raderag (Jun 7, 2004)

Also, I would just hit him with 1 John, let him explain that away, and then show how his hermeneutic is NOT literal, and totally destroys the rest of scripture.


----------



## raderag (Jun 7, 2004)

*Grace Alone*

Also, you might considering throwing in that the reason his sola fide is different from the reformers, including Luthers version, is because he doesn't understand grace alone as meant in the reformation. Calvinist hold the the original intent of both sola gratia and sola fide, he holds neither.


----------



## raderag (Jun 7, 2004)

*I posted this on Wilkins faithalone discussion boards.*

It didn't say if I had to agree, so I went ahead and posted.

[quote:a2a8f8c8a7]I would be happy to debate or discuss any of these points. Mostly, I want to set the record straight on the false notion that the non-Lordship position is a defender of the reformational teaching of sola fide, and will show that it denies sola gratia (grace alone). I also want to dispel the many straw men against the reformed view.

Here it goes:

[b:a2a8f8c8a7]Reformed View:[/b:a2a8f8c8a7]

Does not teach that repentance is part of justification or that infused righteousness is part of faith. (There are some that believe in the new perspective that teach this, but they are being put out as heretics)

Does teach that the only basis for justification is faith.

Does teach the historic Luther, Calvin, and ante-Nicene Church fathers view that obedience is necessary for salvation, and a result of regeneration.

Does teach that salvation is dependant only upon God's grace, and not in any way dependant upon free will. This is what Luther, Calvin, Jerome, and Augustine taught.

Does teach that our new nature is our nature indeed, not dictated by free will, but yet still tainted by sin until glorification.

Does teach that abiding in Christ is the state of ones salvation (1 John).

[b:a2a8f8c8a7]Non-Lordship view:[/b:a2a8f8c8a7]

Teaches a redux view of sola fide that cannot be found in historic orthodox Christianity, including Luther. This view is found in early Gnosticism. It is not the teaching of the reformers.

Does correctly teach that faith does not include works, and that our only basis for justification is faith.

Teaches that there are two types of Christians, spiritual and carnal.

Generally teaches that a saved man has 2 distinct natures (old and new) controlled by ones free will.

Teaches that since free will is the determining factor in sanctification, that it is by works, not grace. Since free will ultimately controls our actions, our works are only our own.

Teaches the Roman Catholic error that salvation is not by Grace alone, but includes free will. Granted, the term grace alone is accepted, as it is in Roman circles, but the traditional Augustinian/Protestant view is strongly rejected in favor of the Arminian/Romish error.

Denies that abiding in Christ is dealing with salvation, and thus denies the natural meaning (the dispensational hermeneutic) of 1 John. Many verses are explained with the classical dispensational view of Scripture, which is also not found in historic orthodox Christianity. Nor is it found in Scripture. 

[/quote:a2a8f8c8a7]


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 7, 2004)

But did anyone notice him shift the topic in his first paragraph from 'repentance is not a condition of salvation' to 'repentance is not required for justification' ?

I took a copy of his statement out with me at lunch today and chopped it apart. I pretty much have my skeleton reply worded out. I almost feel like this is [i:cc83c17466]too easy[/i:cc83c17466]. I'm waiting for the huge BOMB to drop... of some sort.....


----------



## raderag (Jun 7, 2004)

[quote:76926471cb][i:76926471cb]Originally posted by OS_X[/i:76926471cb]
But did anyone notice him shift the topic in his first paragraph from 'repentance is not a condition of salvation' to 'repentance is not required for justification' ?
[/quote:76926471cb]


Salvation and justification are interchangable to most modern evangelicals, and certainly is to him.

The bomb is that he will continue to argue in the same way, and few, if an of his disciples will be convinced. After all, this type of belief had been dispelled many times before.

I have looked into this issue extensively, and would not mind reviewing your response if that is allowed and if you would like.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 9, 2004)

Okay, I posted my reply.

My brain's burned out with getting ready for commencement with these kids 2morrow, though. I have (I think) two good questions out of the five that I have to ask him.

Can someone suggest three more good ones that will get him to admit the illogic and hereticalness (NEW WORD  ) of his position ?


----------



## raderag (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:ac163970f8][i:ac163970f8]Originally posted by OS_X[/i:ac163970f8]
Okay, I posted my reply.

My brain's burned out with getting ready for commencement with these kids 2morrow, though. I have (I think) two good questions out of the five that I have to ask him.

Can someone suggest three more good ones that will get him to admit the illogic and hereticalness (NEW WORD  ) of his position ? [/quote:ac163970f8]

He will never admit it, but here is the thing. His entire arguement rest on the idea that John's use of abiding in Christ (Gospel and epistle) is not the same as the Pauline being &quot;in Christ&quot;.

Get him to admit this with 1 John 2, and then ask him to explain John 15.


[quote:ac163970f8]
1 John 2:3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4He who says, &quot;I know Him,&quot; and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. 6He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. 

John 15:1 &quot;I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away;[1] and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 
5&quot;I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6[b:ac163970f8]If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.[/b:ac163970f8] 7If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will[2] ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples. 
[/quote:ac163970f8]


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 9, 2004)

*snicker*

[quote:4cf94c3ff0]37. They were pricked in heart. Luke doth now declare the fruit of the sermon, to the end we may know that the power of the Holy Ghost was not only showed forth in the diversity of tongues, but also in their hearts which heard. And he noteth a double fruit; first, that they were touched with the feeling of sorrow; and, secondly, that they were obedient to Peter's counsel. This is the beginning of repentance, this is the entrance unto godliness, to be sorry for our sins, and to be wounded with the feeling of our miseries. For so long as men are careless, they cannot take such heed unto doctrine as they ought. And for this cause the word of God is compared to a sword, (Hebrews 4:12,) because it doth mortify our flesh, that we may be offered to God for a sacrifice. But there must be added unto this pricking in heart readiness to obey. Cain and Judas were pricked in heart, but despair did keep them back from submitting themselves unto God, (Genesis 4:13; Matthew 27:3.) For the mind being oppressed with horror, can do nothing else but flee from God. And surely when David affirmeth that a contrite spirit and an humble heart is a sacrifice acceptable to God, he speaketh of voluntary pricking; forasmuch as there is fretting and fuming mixed with the prickings of the wicked. Therefore, we must take a good heart to us, and lift up our mind with this hope of salvation, that we may be ready to addict and give over ourselves unto God, and to follow whatsoever he shall command. We see many oftentimes pricked, who, notwithstanding, do fret and murmur, or else forwardly strive and struggle, and so, consequently, go furiously mad. Yea, this is the cause why they go mad, because they feel such prickings against their will. Those men, therefore, are profitably pricked alone who are willingly sorrowful, and do also seek some remedy at God's hands.[/quote:4cf94c3ff0]

John Calvin on Acts 2:37


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 11, 2004)

Okay, someone go visit the debate page and see if you can decipher his first question to me.

I'm having serious problems here....... uzzled:uzzled:


----------



## raderag (Jun 15, 2004)

I read the lastest question you asked. 

He is being very dishonest. 

First, he acts like he is defending the reformation, then he says he doesn't care. He just cares what the Bible says, not what men say.


----------



## raderag (Jun 15, 2004)

[quote:5a9c09d69b][i:5a9c09d69b]Originally posted by OS_X[/i:5a9c09d69b]
Okay, someone go visit the debate page and see if you can decipher his first question to me.

I'm having serious problems here....... uzzled:uzzled: [/quote:5a9c09d69b]

He is just trying to get you to say that we are justified then regenerate. He is making justification a condition for regeneration. Hit him with Total depravity, regeneration preceeds faith, and that we are given a new heart by the same regeneration.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 15, 2004)

Oh, but check out the tap dancing act on the latest reply!

Look at the skill which he uses to exegete the passages I listed!


----------



## raderag (Jun 15, 2004)

[quote:26d3af8104][i:26d3af8104]Originally posted by OS_X[/i:26d3af8104]
Oh, but check out the tap dancing act on the latest reply!

Look at the skill which he uses to exegete the passages I listed!  [/quote:26d3af8104]


Oh yeah, he is tricky.

BW: I am defending sola fide of the reformation.
you: No you aren't, and here is proof.
BW: Why are you arguing tradition?


----------

