# Debating an Arminian who Used to be a Calvinist...



## Jared (Jun 7, 2010)

I have been debating an Arminian on another message board who used to be a Calvinist. He was reformed for 20 years but he renounced reformed theology five years ago. It's probably one of the most difficult debates I've ever undertaken, because he knows exactly what I'm thinking since he used to be reformed. I was wondering if I could get some advice from some of you guys. 

One of the main things that has come up is that he is trying to assert that God has libertarian freewill instead of compatibilist freewill. 

The other two main issues are that none of the scriptures that I've presented for regeneration preceding faith has been satisfactory for him. Then, the issue of irresistible grace.

I would appreciate some help here. If you want, you can ask me questions and I'll tell you more about some of his arguments. Thanks.


----------



## Skyler (Jun 7, 2010)

God has libertarian freewill, i.e., he can choose to violate his character (commit sin)?

And you should expect that your references won't be satisfactory to him, especially if he's a convinced Arminian. He'd be more likely, in my humble opinion, to stop thinking rather than give up the position he worked so hard to attain. Only God can change his heart. Content yourself with answering his objections--if he rejects a scripture, make sure he explains why.


----------



## Hilasmos (Jun 7, 2010)

Without you providing more of his arguments, it is hard to see how I would proceed, but I would second what skyler said above:

Put God's libertarian free will next to the notion that this same God "cannot lie" (Titus 1:2). He literally lacks the ability, how does this fit in?

Secondly, the area where I often find myself arguing against libertarian free will, apart from scripture even, is that it results in a causeless/reasonless choice. Since motive, desire, personality cannot ultimately determine the will (and be libertarian), one is left stating that the volitions of the will are random. 

1. If person A in world X chooses option 1
2. And, person A in world Y (an exact replica to X) chooses option 2 (which must be a possibility in liberterianism)
3. Then, there is no account for choice 1 or 2 (since all conditions, motives, desires, and external conditions are the same in both worlds). That is, the only explanation is to attribute of meaningless randomness to volition. 

Or, in the words of Dave Hunt, why does one person choose Christ and another does not: "because that's what they chose." Exactly, there is no reason or explanation apart from the observation that the choice exists; therefore, in a large respect, there is no virtue in the choice.

As regards to regeneration preceeding faith, I often use Rom. 8:6-8.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jared (Jun 7, 2010)

Yeah, libertarian freewill made sense to me until I read the first half of Jonathan Edwards' book on the freedom of the will.

I explained libertarian freedom this way:

If I choose A over B, then I could repeat that process without changing anything (including my lack of knowledge of having already chosen A over B, and my inclination to choose A over B) and choose B instead of A. If everything was the same including my inclination, then I would choose A every time.

Compatibilist freedom on the other hand says that I do whatever I most want to do, which makes a lot more sense.

Libertarian freewill is absurd when you think about it. Especially considering the fact that in order to have it, your inclination has to be entirely neutral until the moment you make a choice. If your inclination is neutral, you won't a choice. You'll be indecisive. But that in and of itself is in fact making a choice if you choose not to make a choice, and that was also what you most wanted to do. 

---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------




> As regards to regeneration preceeding faith, I often use Rom. 8:6-8.



6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

I would use that one, but what they would say is that people are setting their minds on the flesh until they decide to give their lives to Christ. Unless, I'm missing something, I think this one would be refuted quite easily.


----------



## Skyler (Jun 7, 2010)

Jared104 said:


> > As regards to regeneration preceeding faith, I often use Rom. 8:6-8.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
But since they cannot please God, and deciding to follow Christ would please God, they cannot decide to follow Christ.

A cannot do B; C is B; therefore A cannot do C.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jared (Jun 7, 2010)

Skyler said:


> Jared104 said:
> 
> 
> > > As regards to regeneration preceeding faith, I often use Rom. 8:6-8.
> ...



Is it okay if I use this?


----------



## Skyler (Jun 7, 2010)

Jared104 said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > Jared104 said:
> ...


 
Sure, go ahead. Though I can't claim originality, I adapted it from a friend's comment. This was actually one of the arguments that convinced me, believe it or not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MarieP (Jun 7, 2010)

Jared104 said:


> I have been debating an Arminian on another message board who used to be a Calvinist. He was reformed for 20 years but he renounced reformed theology five years ago. It's probably one of the most difficult debates I've ever undertaken, because he knows exactly what I'm thinking since he used to be reformed. I was wondering if I could get some advice from some of you guys.
> 
> One of the main things that has come up is that he is trying to assert that God has libertarian freewill instead of compatibilist freewill.
> 
> ...


 
Do you know why he reverted? My guess is one of two reasons:

1. That he saw verses in Scripture that didn't fit his systematic (ie his own understanding of Calvinism) in a way that satisfied him, and thus he wasn't willing to hold the tension of certain doctrines (sovereignty of God/responsibility of man) and Scripture passages (Romans 8/Hebrews 6)

2. Something happened in his life that made him doubt God was in control because he couldn't understand it (which is obviously wrong because we walk by FAITH and not by sight- if we could see, it wouldn't be faith!) Or perhaps he saw some people who fit the description of Hebrews 6 and made his decision based upon that.

And Skyler is absolutely right that only God can change his heart. It was God who showed him the doctrines of grace in his Bible in the first place!


----------



## Jared (Jun 7, 2010)

Thanks.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 7, 2010)

Don't have a whole lot of time to offer specific "pointers". The problem with debates is that they focus on the use of texts as if everybody's hermeneutical principle is the same. That is to say that texts, by themselves, don't carry arguments when the person has already lifted them from their syntactical, biblical, and systematic context.

That said, if you want to see how the Reformed Church responded to the errors of the Remonstrants and why they rejected their errors then the Canons of Dordt provide a great overview of the salient points:

The Canons of Dordt - The PuritanBoard


----------



## Jared (Jun 7, 2010)

I have a copy of the Canons of Dort in the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible edited by Richard L. Pratt. 

I might just look through those when I get home.


----------



## JM (Jun 7, 2010)

Link? I'd like to read the debate.


----------



## Jared (Jun 7, 2010)

JM said:


> Link? I'd like to read the debate.



Okay. Note that I disagree with much of what these people believe. I think that will become evident as you read some of what I wrote. Also, I do listen to preachers that I disagree with, partially to hear what they're saying so that I know what other's are hearing, and partially from more of a sociological standpoint. Just wanted to give you a heads up so that you don't think I'm a heretic because I mentioned listening to someone who is a heretic that I disagree with.

Hope that makes sense.

Anyway, here's the link:

Jeff Doles...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 7, 2010)

***ADMIN Hat On***

Don't mind you linking to the discussion but keep in mind that we have a rule against "Board Wars" here. Do not start using this thread to respond to the points that the gentleman makes in the other thread and carry on the debate, point by point, here.


----------



## Whitefield (Jun 7, 2010)

My suggestion is that you should attack his presuppositions. I don't think you can parry and thrust with him as though he was an equal fencer. Go for the heart of his presuppositions and show that any conclusions based on his presuppositions about God and man result in nonsense. Take him out before he can get out of the starting-blocks with a series of argumentum ad absurdum.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 8, 2010)

He asserts the T in TULIP, yet embraces LFW. How he deals with the clear cognitive dissonance of such a position escapes me.  The unregenerate, per total depravity, can only sin more or sin less. There is no _liberty of indifference_, that is LFW, if one embraces total depravity. If he genuinely embraces total depravity, then he cannot escape the monergistic necessity of re-birth. Once, total depravity is assented to, the rest of the TULIP acrostic necessarily must follow. The logical coherence is inescapable.

AMR


----------



## RandPhoenix (Jun 8, 2010)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it so that in libertarian free will, you can't even use logic in making a decision, as logic\reason will inhibit the freedom of your will in choosing? Same with preferences, biases, etc? 

So...essentially, the only libertarian free person is a completely insane person. They are even free from the constraints of sanity and society.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kiffin (Jun 8, 2010)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> He asserts the T in TULIP, yet embraces LFW. How he deals with the clear cognitive dissonance of such a position escapes me.  The unregenerate, per total depravity, can only sin more or sin less. There is no _liberty of indifference_, that is LFW, if one embraces total depravity. If he genuinely embraces total depravity, then he cannot escape the monergistic necessity of re-birth. Once, total depravity is assented to, the rest of the TULIP acrostic necessarily must follow. The logical coherence is inescapable.
> 
> AMR



Smart Arminians (or non-Calvinists) believe in Total Depravity as we do--that man cannot respond in faith because they are dead. Faith and repentence are divine acts. They maintain a monergistic regeneration. To them, God works "salvifically" in all men, but that men can RESIST this grace.

It's very sticky.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 9, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > He asserts the T in TULIP, yet embraces LFW. How he deals with the clear cognitive dissonance of such a position escapes me.  The unregenerate, per total depravity, can only sin more or sin less. There is no _liberty of indifference_, that is LFW, if one embraces total depravity. If he genuinely embraces total depravity, then he cannot escape the monergistic necessity of re-birth. Once, total depravity is assented to, the rest of the TULIP acrostic necessarily must follow. The logical coherence is inescapable.
> ...


No, it's mushy. _Resisting _and _monergism_, as the reformers understood it, cannot be used in the same sentence implying agreement with both terms, Roger Olson, notwithstanding. 

AMR


----------



## Jared (Jun 9, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > He asserts the T in TULIP, yet embraces LFW. How he deals with the clear cognitive dissonance of such a position escapes me.  The unregenerate, per total depravity, can only sin more or sin less. There is no _liberty of indifference_, that is LFW, if one embraces total depravity. If he genuinely embraces total depravity, then he cannot escape the monergistic necessity of re-birth. Once, total depravity is assented to, the rest of the TULIP acrostic necessarily must follow. The logical coherence is inescapable.
> ...



Now I'm thoroughly confused.


----------



## Whitefield (Jun 9, 2010)

Jared104 said:


> Kiffin said:
> 
> 
> > Ask Mr. Religion said:
> ...


 
Arminians (especially Wesley) invented a concept of prevenient grace which allows them to logically (they think) bring together total depravity and decisional regeneration. There is an excellent article by Thomas Schreiner about prevenient grace here.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 12, 2010)

The way to 'fix' the Romans 8:6-8 problem is to point out in v. 9 that Paul tells his folk that they are NOT in the flesh if the Spirit of God dwells in them (that eliminates the whole "holy life vs unholy life" argument).


----------



## Jared (Jun 26, 2010)

I have gotten into some very heated discussions with some of the other members of that forum as of late, and one of them said that the God of Calvinism is a monster, so I said that logically He hates God. Needless to say, that didn't bode well for me and I got a warning. It's strange how things can be totally different on another forum. That's why I appreciate the PuritanBoard because people like that couldn't even join the PB, and if they did lie and get in, they would probably get kicked off immediately after making a statement like that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jun 26, 2010)

Jared104 said:


> I have been debating an Arminian on another message board who used to be a Calvinist. He was reformed for 20 years but he renounced reformed theology five years ago. It's probably one of the most difficult debates I've ever undertaken, because he knows exactly what I'm thinking since he used to be reformed. I was wondering if I could get some advice from some of you guys.
> 
> One of the main things that has come up is that he is trying to assert that God has libertarian freewill instead of compatibilist freewill.
> 
> ...



I've never met someone who was a Calvinist and then became Arminian. This strikes me as being a very bad fruit. He went backwards in this aspect of his sanctification, which is very worrysome. The closest I've come to debating someone like that was in my debates with one of my Seminary professors, a die hard Arminian who had been instructed by Calvinist theologians and Bible scholars such as Greg Beale (but this professor never bought into Calvinism, as far as I know.)

God's will is more free than ours. Hence, he is the Creator and we are the creatures. That is a big manifestation of the Creator/creature distinction. Is this "libertarian free will"? I suppose I need a definition of that before answering.

What specific passages are you debating which talk about regeneration and faith?


----------



## Jared (Jun 26, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> Jared104 said:
> 
> 
> > I have been debating an Arminian on another message board who used to be a Calvinist. He was reformed for 20 years but he renounced reformed theology five years ago. It's probably one of the most difficult debates I've ever undertaken, because he knows exactly what I'm thinking since he used to be reformed. I was wondering if I could get some advice from some of you guys.
> ...



He keeps bringing up Titus 2:11

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,

He claims that this passage teaches prevenient grace.

I pointed out to him that later on in the same chapter, Paul uses the language of limited atonement,

waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.
Titus 2:13-14

He just ignored that and went right back to verse 11. I pointed out to him that verse 11 merely says that salvation is available to all, not that God has overcome the hardness of everyone's hearts so that they can come to Him by a volitional act of libertarian freewill. He didn't buy that either.


----------



## Hilasmos (Jun 26, 2010)

Jared104 said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> > Jared104 said:
> ...


 
Then ask him what the "for" is for in v. 11. 

It points back to 2:1-10. The reason we are not to make a distinction in whom we teach, such as the young, old, men, women, husband, wives, slaves, and masters, is because the grace of God does not make a distinction in those people groups.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jun 26, 2010)

Jared104 said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> > Jared104 said:
> ...


 
Titus 2:11 doesn't even say that salvation is available to all. It merely states that the grace of God brings salvation, and that it has appeared to all men. In other words, they have heard the grace of God preached. It has appeared to them. And it is that grace which brings salvation. That's all it is saying on my reading. I suppose you are quoting from the NASB? Check the alternate rendering in the footnote on that one, which is closer to the translation I would favor. Also check the KJV/NKJV.


----------

