I recently purchased a video from Amazon.com of a debate between two Calvinists and two Arminians. The two Calvinists are Bruce Ware and Thomas Schreiner and the two Arminians are Joe Dongell and Jerry Walls. After I watch it, I will post my comments. Here is Amazon's link that describes the video: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Great-Debate-Predestination-Free-Will/dp/B00135OVIS]Amazon.com: The Great Debate: Predestination vs. Free Will: Dr. Bruce A. Ware, Dr. Joe Dongell, Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner, Dr. Jerry Walls, Brian MArshall: Movies & TV[/ame]
Predestination vs. Free Will debate
- Thread starter cih1355
- Start date
- Status
danmpem
Puritan Board Junior
Just don't get the James White & Dave Hunt book. I read that a few years back, when I was first introduced to Calvinism, and all I could see then was Hunt's innumerable ad hominem attacks. In realized that even if I did end up disagreeing with Calvinism, Hunt had absolutely no idea what he was arguing against. In The Five Points of Calvinism, Steele calls it the most lop-sided debate in church history.
I watched the video. I was curious about how Arminians defend their position.
Thomas Schreiner showed from Scripture that all things come from God, both good and evil. People are morally responsible for their sin. The ultimate reason why some people believe the gospel is that they were chosen by God. Bruce Ware gave examples from Scripture where God ordains people doing evil, but that they are morally responsible for it. The examples he gives are the time when Joseph's brothers sold Joseph into slavery, the crucifixion of Christ, and the time when God raised up Assyria to judge Israel, but then punished Assyria for what they did.
Joe Dongell talked about Ephesians 1. He said that blessings do not come from Christ, but they come in Christ. He also said that Christ is the elect One and we stand in His election. I read Ephesians 1 and nowhere does it say that Christ is the elect One. God chose us before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). The "us" in verse four does not refer to Christ. It refers to believers.
Dongell said that the Holy Spirit makes faith possible, that faith has no merit, and that faith does not save. He goes on to say that God wants freely chosen love, not love caused by God. I would ask Dongell, "If God does not cause us to love Him, then what causes us to love Him? Ourselves? Is this not synergism?". I guess he believes that we cause ourselves to love God if God does not cause us to love Him. Later on in the debate, Bruce Ware brought up the point that according to Arminianism, a person's faith is the determining factor of whether or not he is saved. If a person's faith is the determining factor of whether or not he is saved, then his faith is meritorious or it contributes to his right standing before God. I agree with Ware and I would like to add that when Arminians claim that man contributes nothing to his salvation, their teaching that a person's faith is the determining factor of whether or not they are saved undermines that claim. They have beliefs that are inconsistent with each other.
Dongell talked about the book of Romans. He said that Paul’s stern warnings about falling from grace give evidence that we can lose our salvation, but he did not address Romans 8:31-39 where it teaches that nothing can separate us from the love of God. He says that Romans 8:29-30 does not say what the basis of God’s election is. My comment is that there are other passages of Scripture that teach that election is based upon God’s will, not our future faith or good works such as Romans 9 and Ephesians 1. Ephesians 2:8 says that faith is a gift of God. If faith is a gift of God, then election is not the act where God looks into the future to see which people will have faith and which ones will not.
Dongell said that the reason why Paul uses the past tense for the verbs, “predestined”, “called”, “justified”, and “glorified”, in Romans 8:30 is because he is looking at salvation from the perspective of the end of time. Paul is imagining himself at the end of time looking back at what God has done. My response is that the idea of Paul imagining himself at the end of time does not fit the context of Romans 8. Romans 8:30 is using the past tense because the work of God is a done deal. After the work of God is described in Romans 8:30, Romans 8:31-39 teaches that God has already dealt with the charges against us in the atonement of Christ. Nothing can separate us from the love of God.
Dongell says that if look at the context of Romans 9-11, Romans 9 does not teach unconditional election. He says that God’s mercy extends as far as there is sin. Paul is talking about his unbelieving kinsmen and that the hardened Jews are not permanently fixed by God to be that way. My response is that God does not extend His mercy to everyone. The evidence for this is that not everyone is going to be saved. God will soften the hearts of the elect including the elect Jews and grant them faith and repentance. God will not soften the hearts of the non-elect. God’s love for Jacob and God’s hatred of Esau was not based upon their works.
Jerry Walls said that the issue that divides Calvinists and Arminians has to do with the character of God. Does God love everyone and does He want to promote everyone’s well-being? Walls thinks that it is inconsistent for Calvinists to believe that God loves everyone. Walls does not see how God could love someone and at the same time decree that he will not be saved. Bruce Ware pointed out that God loves His elect more than the non-elect. God demonstrates His love for the non-elect by giving them temporal blessings such as food, health, shelter, and so on. In response, Walls said that temporal blessings are nothing compared with spending an eternity in hell. Walls said that giving someone temporal blessings on earth, but ordaining that he will go to hell is not really love at all. My response to Jerry Walls is this: Suppose that God does not love everyone. Suppose He only loves His elect. Would it be right for a person to find fault with God or blame Him for wrongdoing? No, of course not. God does as He pleases and He is accountable to no one. All people deserve damnation. If God chose to condemn everyone, no one could legitimately find fault with Him or say that He is wrong. God has no obligation to save anyone.
Walls made an analogy between a mother bringing her child into this world and God bringing people into this world. I think his point was that God should make an attempt to save everyone just as a mother should provide for her children. I get the impression that Walls thinks that God should make an attempt to save everyone. My response to this is that first of all, God does not merely make an attempt to save someone. He guarantees the salvation of His elect. Second, God has no obligation to save people. He would be perfectly just if He were to save no one. One could not legitimately find fault with God if He chose to save no one. Third, if the Bible teaches that there are some people whom God has not chosen to save, then we should accept that as true. You may not like the idea that God chose not to save some people, but you should believe it if the Bible teaches it.
Walls talked about libertarian freedom and compatibilism. Ware made an objection to libertarian freedom by saying that if libertarian freedom was true then the same reason used to account for an action would be the same reason that accounts for not performing that action.
Thomas Schreiner showed from Scripture that all things come from God, both good and evil. People are morally responsible for their sin. The ultimate reason why some people believe the gospel is that they were chosen by God. Bruce Ware gave examples from Scripture where God ordains people doing evil, but that they are morally responsible for it. The examples he gives are the time when Joseph's brothers sold Joseph into slavery, the crucifixion of Christ, and the time when God raised up Assyria to judge Israel, but then punished Assyria for what they did.
Joe Dongell talked about Ephesians 1. He said that blessings do not come from Christ, but they come in Christ. He also said that Christ is the elect One and we stand in His election. I read Ephesians 1 and nowhere does it say that Christ is the elect One. God chose us before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). The "us" in verse four does not refer to Christ. It refers to believers.
Dongell said that the Holy Spirit makes faith possible, that faith has no merit, and that faith does not save. He goes on to say that God wants freely chosen love, not love caused by God. I would ask Dongell, "If God does not cause us to love Him, then what causes us to love Him? Ourselves? Is this not synergism?". I guess he believes that we cause ourselves to love God if God does not cause us to love Him. Later on in the debate, Bruce Ware brought up the point that according to Arminianism, a person's faith is the determining factor of whether or not he is saved. If a person's faith is the determining factor of whether or not he is saved, then his faith is meritorious or it contributes to his right standing before God. I agree with Ware and I would like to add that when Arminians claim that man contributes nothing to his salvation, their teaching that a person's faith is the determining factor of whether or not they are saved undermines that claim. They have beliefs that are inconsistent with each other.
Dongell talked about the book of Romans. He said that Paul’s stern warnings about falling from grace give evidence that we can lose our salvation, but he did not address Romans 8:31-39 where it teaches that nothing can separate us from the love of God. He says that Romans 8:29-30 does not say what the basis of God’s election is. My comment is that there are other passages of Scripture that teach that election is based upon God’s will, not our future faith or good works such as Romans 9 and Ephesians 1. Ephesians 2:8 says that faith is a gift of God. If faith is a gift of God, then election is not the act where God looks into the future to see which people will have faith and which ones will not.
Dongell said that the reason why Paul uses the past tense for the verbs, “predestined”, “called”, “justified”, and “glorified”, in Romans 8:30 is because he is looking at salvation from the perspective of the end of time. Paul is imagining himself at the end of time looking back at what God has done. My response is that the idea of Paul imagining himself at the end of time does not fit the context of Romans 8. Romans 8:30 is using the past tense because the work of God is a done deal. After the work of God is described in Romans 8:30, Romans 8:31-39 teaches that God has already dealt with the charges against us in the atonement of Christ. Nothing can separate us from the love of God.
Dongell says that if look at the context of Romans 9-11, Romans 9 does not teach unconditional election. He says that God’s mercy extends as far as there is sin. Paul is talking about his unbelieving kinsmen and that the hardened Jews are not permanently fixed by God to be that way. My response is that God does not extend His mercy to everyone. The evidence for this is that not everyone is going to be saved. God will soften the hearts of the elect including the elect Jews and grant them faith and repentance. God will not soften the hearts of the non-elect. God’s love for Jacob and God’s hatred of Esau was not based upon their works.
Jerry Walls said that the issue that divides Calvinists and Arminians has to do with the character of God. Does God love everyone and does He want to promote everyone’s well-being? Walls thinks that it is inconsistent for Calvinists to believe that God loves everyone. Walls does not see how God could love someone and at the same time decree that he will not be saved. Bruce Ware pointed out that God loves His elect more than the non-elect. God demonstrates His love for the non-elect by giving them temporal blessings such as food, health, shelter, and so on. In response, Walls said that temporal blessings are nothing compared with spending an eternity in hell. Walls said that giving someone temporal blessings on earth, but ordaining that he will go to hell is not really love at all. My response to Jerry Walls is this: Suppose that God does not love everyone. Suppose He only loves His elect. Would it be right for a person to find fault with God or blame Him for wrongdoing? No, of course not. God does as He pleases and He is accountable to no one. All people deserve damnation. If God chose to condemn everyone, no one could legitimately find fault with Him or say that He is wrong. God has no obligation to save anyone.
Walls made an analogy between a mother bringing her child into this world and God bringing people into this world. I think his point was that God should make an attempt to save everyone just as a mother should provide for her children. I get the impression that Walls thinks that God should make an attempt to save everyone. My response to this is that first of all, God does not merely make an attempt to save someone. He guarantees the salvation of His elect. Second, God has no obligation to save people. He would be perfectly just if He were to save no one. One could not legitimately find fault with God if He chose to save no one. Third, if the Bible teaches that there are some people whom God has not chosen to save, then we should accept that as true. You may not like the idea that God chose not to save some people, but you should believe it if the Bible teaches it.
Walls talked about libertarian freedom and compatibilism. Ware made an objection to libertarian freedom by saying that if libertarian freedom was true then the same reason used to account for an action would be the same reason that accounts for not performing that action.
James sent me that book as a gift. I agree with the assessment. It was embarassing reading what amounted to be an idiotic obsession with one idea in every response by Dave. He might as well have been rocking back and forth saying: "God is love, God is love, God is love...."
In fact at one point, he made the argument that love is the only attribute in the entire Scriptures that is used as definitional of who God is. I guess he missed Isaiah 6.
I had an exchange with James shortly thereafter to send my regards and my pity that he had to endure what was either rank stubborness or stupidity on the part of Hunt. He didn't seem to grasp when he was talking about Depravity or irresistible Grace. It was all the same response and James kept having to respond with a cursory "...I already handled that argument but now I'll move on to the subject at hand...."
I had friends who had respected Hunt prior to his decision to write on Calvinism who respected him for his books on Roman Catholicism. They lost all respect. As I pointed out to them: if a man cannot demonstrate the intellectual capacity (honesty?) to deal with one view of the Scriptures then why would you trust him with another view?
Frankly, on the basis of some things he wrote, he's likely a Pelagian.
- Status
Similar threads
