Dr. Brown and Dr. James White Debate Calvinism (Part 2)
111 Comments
Excellent and so powerful comment by Dr.White: “We evangelize based on great apostolic commission and not on the knowledge we have or can have”
Who argues with that?
Dr.Brown,
Some Arminians would argue with that claiming that this evangelization is disgenuine because there are reprobate who hear the good news proclaimed…
I think you’re misunderstanding their position, and quite profoundly at that. The point is that apostolic preaching reflects genuineness on God’s part, not duplicity.
Only Calvinists can consistently exegete Romans 9 from beginning to end!
Dr.Brown,
Thank you for this well made point. I am sure we can find both of these opinions expressed by Arminians but your are right that I need to pay attention which one is actually presented at any given time.
Regards,
Christophe
The issue, for me at least, stems from the motive behind proclaiming the Gospel message as taught by Christ. If our impetus is simply driven by the ‘Because I told you to’ Great Commission directive, we lose sight of where our heart should be in proclaiming the truth. However, based on genuiness of heart we share the Gospel because it is the only way man can be saved, we then have a motivation not based on a checklist but based upon the heart of God to save. The same motivation can and is shared by those on both side of the issue, but like Dr. Brown, I have trouble with the idea of how genuine I can truly be in saying God desires that a particular sinner be saved if in fact I do not know the decree of God specifically. In effect how can I determine God wants to save that individual unless I KNOW, from a factual standpoint, God does indeed want the indiviual saved.
Jamie,
Hardly! The bigger problem, however, is that many Calvinists fail to read Paul’s whole point, which is found in Romans 9-11. Missing that, everything is missed.
“but like Dr. Brown, I have trouble with the idea of how genuine I can truly be in saying God desires that a particular sinner be saved if in fact I do not know the decree of God specifically. In effect how can I determine God wants to save that individual unless I KNOW, from a factual standpoint, God does indeed want the indiviual saved.”
Michael S. Hornbeck II
Dr.Brown,
As you can see above I don’t think I am profoundly misunderstanding the issue when I say that SOME Arminians will claim that this would be disgenuine evangelization…
Regards,
Christophe
I agree with that Dr. Brown about the main point in Romans 9-11, I do believe in the Doctrines of Grace, though not a believer in Covenant Theology; but one cannot get by the fact that Romans 9:11-13 discusses the sovereign choice that God bestowed on Jacob, before Jacob was even born. I greatly respect both you and Dr. White, but in this issue I must side with Dr. White. God Bless.
Thank you for the two days of good listening. I would love to listen in again when Dr. White does his show.
Kind Regards DeeperStill
Please re-read my post. You’re still missing the point. I don’t need to know about the state of the person I’m talking to. I need to know that the apostolic message is truthful and genuine. Period. If God truly said it, I will certainly proclaim it.
To reach out to you here, though, I’ll just assume that in your paradigm, you’re hearing one thing, even though I and others are saying something very different.
In any case, I know far more Arminians who preach and pray with urgency because of their beliefs than Calvinists who do the same. In fact, I’ve seen Calvinism have a deadening effect on many in terms of prayer and evangelism. You, in turn, will say that is their fault rather than the fruit of their beliefs, which leads us back to this: What does the Word say?
Dr. Brown mentioned on the radio that Calvinist most of time seem arrogant. This can be true on both sides. From my recent experience with the Calvinistic circle this seemed to be very true. I recently got out of this whole Calvinism doctrine! Praise God and am just going back to reading the bible and having intimate fellowship with the Holy Spirit. It seemed like the Calvinist we associated with thought they were all right and everyone else was wrong and were heretics. I saw no love and no humbleness but in their eyes they were very loving and humble. It was all about debating scripture and they even lost their focus on evangelizing the lost just so they could debate and prove everyone else wrong. Now that I no longer hold to Calvinism doctrine, they call me a heretic.
Dr. Brown,
I as a reformed believer have found none reformed believers have a deep anger for the reformed believers. I don’t feel the same way towards them, but I feel they just don’t understand what we really believe. They think we are arrogant because we think God chose us, not the other way around (which seems to me to be more arrogant). The humbleness I feel as a reformed believer is towards God for saving me in spite of my trying to avoid God like the plague. I was the same as any none believer why did he chose to save me and not them? That is humbling and gives me compassion to preach the gospel for the past 12 years open air. I don’t concern myself with who is or is not elect or who will be saved or can be saved; I leave that part up to God. My duty is just to preach and let the Holy Spirit do the saving as He chooses.
Dr. Brown,
I was not taking the issue with you as it is obvious and I agree with you as the same is valid for Reformed position. I was merely stating to you that there are other opinions expressed by Arminians that are different from yours as proven by the quote from Mr. Michael S. Hornbeck II post.
I would not even go as to begin to quantify of qualify the number of praying Armininans versus number of praying Calvinists or quality of their prayer. I do not think that anyone can say that objectively as these are issue deep in the heart and soul of every believer.
As far as the missions I would present to you that some of the greatest missionaries were Calvinists. Charles Spurgeon is estimated to preach to close to 20 million in his life time the age without the net, radio an tv…
Reformed Church of Geneva under John Calvin was directly responsible for seeding 2,000 churches all over France in 7 year period plus additional ones in places like Poland and even one mission to Brazil according to Dr.Frank A. James III. Some of those churches in France had membership in thousands…
Dr. Brown can you mention any Arminian Church that can come close to this figure of over 2,000 new church plants in seven years? I would like to know.
Thank you.
Regards,
Christophe
This is the issue. The offer of the Gospel is not genuine, well-meant, or sincere if the following points are not the case:
1) God desires to give to all what He offers to all. 2) There is an adequate provision for all those offered to. 3) There is an ability on the part of the creature to take what is offered.
James White at least has a problem with the first two necessary components of an offer.
1) Concerning the first issue, James concurred in the first show that God desires all men to repent, but he stopped short of saying God desires all men to be saved, which is the consequent of such repentance. It’s not only incoherent, but it is also unbiblical, to say that God desires that all men repent but doesn’t desire all men to be saved. If God wants men to keep all his commandments and White infers that God therefore wants all men to repent, then he must logically agree that God desires all men to be saved as well, since “be saved” is also commanded of all men [Isa. 45:22]. Brown’s presupposition in this category is that God must *equally* desire all men to be saved if the offer is to be genuine and sincere. But that presupposition needs to be sustained biblically and logically, as White attempted to bring out in the discussion, but White failed to deal with his own erroneous assumption [God *only* desires the elect *to be saved*] in the process.
2) Concerning the second issue, or the adequate provision for all, Brown has no problem, in that he believes Christ satisfied for all men in the death he died, thus Christ’s death is applicable to every man. If Christ didn’t substitute for every man, then those not substituted for cannot be saved, even if they were to believe, as Brown pointed out. James White, given his strictly limited view of Christ’s penal satisfaction, cannot say the death of Christ is provisional for any of the non-elect, thus they are no more saveable than the non-elect angels. God is supposedly offering them something in the Gospel offer, but there is nothing really there for them, hence Brown’s charge of duplicity towards White’s theology. White has God offering nothing to the non-elect, since there is nothing in Christ for them. If White prefers the term “call” instead of “offer,” then the question still obtains. What is God calling the non-elect *to* if there’s nothing in Christ for them? Nothing. A non-entity. No suitable provision.
3) Regarding the third issue, Brown assumes that all men must have the *moral* ability [in addition to the *natural* ability] to believe in order for the offer to be genuine. White has not yet made the distinction between *moral* and *natural* ability in his verbal responses, so people are therefore left with the confusing notion that the unregenerate have *no capacity at all* to respond, even though White obviously believes that all the unregenerate have minds and wills that choose. This is why White finds himself having to correct the straw man argument, as if he believes unregenerate men do not choose. Distinguish between *moral* and *natural* ability and the problem is solved. A man can receive a genuine offer by God if he has mental and volitional capacities [having the imago dei], and God need not overcome the fixed and determined stubborness of a morally enslaved sinner in order for His offer to be sincere. This is what Brown, unfortunately, hasn’t heard distinguished yet, even though it is contained in the writings of Jonathan Edwards and Andrew Fuller.
Rick,
I’m sure there is misunderstanding on both sides, which is one of the reasons I wanted to have these debates.
One question: Are you saying that non-Calvinists feel they deserve something from God? Are not equally humbled by His grace when we were running from Him?
Ronnie,
Praise God! You did the right thing. Count it all for joy that you’re being labeled a heretic by Calvinists.
Hallelujah!
Greg
Christophe,
Are you trying to equate more numbers church plant = correct doctrine?
When people ask me; but if I am not chosen how can I be saved? I tell them, chose Jesus, and if you are not chosen you will leave the faith and that will be the answer to your question. I believe it says somewhere in the bible I forget where it is, “they left us because they were not of us”.
Ben KC,
I was not the one who brought up issues of numbers and “far more” Arminians or Calvinists doing this or that comparing to other theological camp. Since that was brought up, I also wanted to present a fairly unknown facts about missionary efforts of Calvin and Calvinists and the numbers speak for themselves so so much for “a deadening effect of Calvinism in terms of prayer and evangelism.”
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
Dr. Brown,
What do you do with something like John chapter 10. Jesus said to some, “you do not believe because you are not my sheep…
26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.[b] 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”
Thank you in advance for your reply.
Christophe,
Please reveal how mine and Dr. Browns quote are far off. Also, I am not Arminian, and do not adhere or agree with all pricepals, it is not oneor the other. As I stated, “The same motivation can and is shared by those on both side of the issue.” To quote Dr. Brown , “The point is that apostolic preaching reflects genuineness on God’s part, not duplicity.” One must preach from a genuine belief the hearer of the word CAN be saved. If, from a Calvinist perspective, we have no idea that they are or are not elect, one cannot truly state God desires you to be saved, because we in fact do not know.
If my thoughts are foreign from Dr. Brown, please illuminate.
Thanks,
-Michael
Michael,
We don’t need to know the elect or non-elect status of an unbeliever in order to assure them that God desires to save them. We evangelize out of *knowledge* of God’s *revealed will*, not out of *ignorance* of his *decretive will*, and His revealed desire is for all men to repent and be saved. As John Frame has said, in concurrence with John Murray and Ned Stonehouse, “”If God desires people to repent of sin, then certainly he desires them to be saved, for salvation is the fruit of such repentance.” John Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2002), 534.
But, even though we can assure all the lost Gospel hearers that God in fact loves them and desires to save them, that is not the whole story. They also need to know that they stand condemned under God’s wrath, and *as sinners* God also hates them. Therefore, they must repent and believe into Christ if they are to be saved.
Dr. Brown, None believers seem think if there is a God he owes them something. Non-Calvinists seem to want to put God in a place that they can agree with His will or He will do as they think He should. What is fair in their minds is what they think God should do or be like. They say they cannot worship a God that’s will is not to save everyone, yet why do some accept grace and others don’t? Are those that accept any less sinless than those that accept? Only God can cause someone to chose Him because they are dead spiritually in their sins. Until He does something to change them, they are not able to choose Him. Romans 8:7.
Dr. Brown,
I appreciate you and your ministry and I am highly grieved at the fact that some Calvinists are treating you in a nasty way (as you mentioned on the program today). I think some of us are still in the “cage stage” and some of us just don’t understand the practical implications of Reformed Theology as Dr. White said. There are many of us out there that have a great amount of respect for Arminians even though we don’t agree with them on this issue.
Can’t wait to hear you and Dr. White on his program and then Lord willing, a face to face debate.
God bless.
Incidentally, I appreciated the “tone” of Brown and White during the show. There was no hint of condescension, disrespect or the demeaning of the other person in any way. It seemed mutually respectful and friendly, which is too often lacking in these discussions. If we cannot agree, then let us at least strive toward a mutual understanding as we clarify *what* and *why* we believe the way we do.
Thanks for the *nature* of this radio conversation. May it persist elsewhere in all of us, especially in through the medium of the typically scrappy and ill-natured Internet environment.
Michael,
Let Dr.Brown’s words be my response also:
“I don’t need to know about the state of the person I’m talking to. I need to know that the apostolic message is truthful and genuine. Period. If God truly said it, I will certainly proclaim it.”
This valid valid for Dr.Brown, valid for me and I would assume that it would be valid for Dr.White as well.
Mike,
Jesus’ words in John 10 should motivate a non-sheep to become one of his sheep! See also John 6:44, which is then further explained through 6:45. At one time I was not one of his sheep; through faith in his gracious offer of salvation, I became one of his sheep.
Michael Lofton,
Yes, all of us are works in progress, and I certainly take no personal offense if someone else — whatever their theology — is acting in an immature way.
Thanks for your kind words, and may all of us continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord.
“At one time I was not one of his sheep; through faith in his gracious offer of salvation, I became one of his sheep.”
Dr.Brown,
From God’s perspective you were always His sheep, even when this world was not even in existence as His Word proclaims:
“even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,”
Ephesians 1:4-5 ESV
Regards,
Christophe
Dr. Brown,
Excellent job on the Tyra Banks show today! Thank you for being a light in the midst of darkness.
TJ,
Thanks for the good word. Light is made for the darkness!
Michael, You are right that we should preach the wrath of God along with the grace of God, and in that order. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Work out your salvation in fear and trembling. Fear not him that can kill the body and do no more….. ets. … Just a few of the hundreds of fear verses.
For an Arminian view of John 10 and similar passages, see the excellent article by Robert Hamilton, “The Order of Faith and Election in John’s Gospel: You Do Not Believe Because You Are Not My Sheep” (http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/282), which makes much better sense of the text of John in its own context and emphases than Calvinist interpretations. I should add that the position of this excellent article could be strengthened significantly through even more evidence available in John, but is amply demonstrated by Hamilton.
I love to hear Calvinists and Arminians try to explain their position without defining their terms. It’s like apples vs oranges, ney apples vs. couches. There is so much we agree on but without defining terms then we appear to speak two different languages.
We agree so much with each other.
Total Depravity -> Men are born dead. Yup both agree. Unconditional Election -> God has an elect. Limited Atonement -> Not all will be saved. Irresistible Grace -> We’ll never make it without His grace. Perseverance of the Saints -> Those that persevere until the end will be saved.
Double Predestination (point 6) – Some will be lost and some saved and that’s how God set it up. Best of all possible worlds (point 7) – okay maybe that’s a stretch.
John Piper helped me understand TULIP and the Calvinist position the best – it’s all about being God-centered and God-glorified.
This is the equation: -Everything God does is glorious. -The more God does the more glory He gets. -God is most glorified if He does everything.
(So if God gives people faith to believe, softens hearts so people will live His love, hardens people’s hearts or leaves them to their hardened state, heals whenever He wants and doesn’t heal whenever He wants, sends people He wants to heaven and the people He chooses to hell and just judgment – He is most glorified for His Sovereign purposes.)
It all logically fits. It really does. If you buy in completely to T then logically it’s not a stretch to acknowledge ULIP and maybe even point 6 & 7 with John Piper and Jonathan Edwards, I believe.
Wait, only one problem… it’s not what the Bible means. (My opinion) Have a new believer that doesn’t know anything about Calvinism a Bible and see if they come up with Calvinism. The bottom line is: You have to start with Calvinist definitions to get to a Calvinist system.
So I look forward to Dr. Brown and Dr. White looking at what the definition of faith is and free-will limits and such. This is where I believe the battle is fought and won – defining what we understand it to mean. Often whoever gets to define the terms wins the argument.
I have inspired by men like John Fletcher and pray that we may may continue to encourage such a cry for unity. I mean we Christians, especially on these issues, are an embarrassment to the unbelievers. It is a well known fact that some of the most vicious discussions on the internet are Christians arguing out what they believe about Calvinism and Arminianism and what they believe about those that oppose their view.
I urge you brothers to continue, as you have been demonstrating, love, forbearance and a continual desire to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
Brad
There is no real assurance of salvation in Calvinism because salvation is not so much based upon whether or not you have believed in the One that God has sent, but whether or not God has elected you for salvation.
Many Christians enter the faith with a great deal of spiritual baggage (New Age practices, great sexual immorality, drugs & alcohol, false religions, etc) and their road to sanctification is difficult and lengthy. The Calvinistic method of determining true salvation is through evidence of spiritual fruit – not through the sincerity of someone’s mental assent that Christ died as their substitute.
Thus, some people have difficulties with assurance of salvation and assume that they must not be one of the elect because they are still battling one or more strongholds of sin in their lives.
Calvinism masquerades as a doctrine of grace, but it’s really a works based doctrine. One must keep bearing fruit in order to prove their election to salvation. Otherwise, they are one of the many unfortunates that God has “passed over” that will be punished and tormented for eternity.
Hey folks,
Just a quick note on godly Calvinists through history: I have often pointed out that some of the greatest evangelists, missionaries, and revivalists of all time have been Calvinists, using this to challenge contemporary Calvinists to follow in their shoes, since I have so often seen the opposite effect on those who have embraced Calvinism in recent decades (i.e., less fervor to reach the lost, less sacrificial passion for missions, less hunger for revival, etc.).
Would to God that all Calvinists today had the fire of Whitefield, the saintliness of M’Cheyne, the burden of Judson, and the vision for revival of Edwards! I’m not saying this doesn’t exist (and there are plenty of lethargic and compromised and flaky Arminians!), but as a Calvinist (1977-1982), I always wondered why there was such a difference in the fruit of the Calvinism of old compared with the Calvinism so prevalent today.
My observations over almost forty years are that Calvinists often stray towards theological pride and spiritual coldness whereas Arminians often stray towards bizarre doctrines (especially in the Charismatic world — and I say that as a Charismatic) and spiritual flakiness.
“My observations over almost forty years are that Calvinists often stray towards theological pride and spiritual coldness whereas Arminians often stray towards bizarre doctrines (especially in the Charismatic world — and I say that as a Charismatic) and spiritual flakiness.”
Dr.Brown,
There are extremes in both camps no question about it. As far as visibility I would argue that Armininan extremes are more visible simply due to the fact that at least 90% of the Church is Armininan in its orientation.
SDG,
Christophe
“Calvinism masquerades as a doctrine of grace, but it’s really a works based doctrine. One must keep bearing fruit in order to prove their election to salvation. Otherwise, they are one of the many unfortunates that God has “passed over” that will be punished and tormented for eternity.”
Greg,
This above statement is simply untrue and and encroaching on the border of…
SDG,
Christophe
The method of exegesis that I use to defend the Deity of Christ, against Socinians like Anthony Buzzard…forces me to be conclusive [regarding Calvinism] Dr White
Part of his problem…’nuff said!
Dr. Brown,
Thanks for taking up this topic and speaking the truth in love.
Greg says: Thus, some people have difficulties with assurance of salvation and assume that they must not be one of the elect because they are still battling one or more strongholds of sin in their lives. Calvinism masquerades as a doctrine of grace, but it’s really a works based doctrine. One must keep bearing fruit in order to prove their election to salvation. Otherwise, they are one of the many unfortunates that God has “passed over” that will be punished and tormented for eternity.
Rick says:
Battling the sin in one’s life is a sign of being saved and that takes works no matter if you are a Calvinist or not. It is when a person stops battling sin the fear of loss of his salvation comes to bear. He realizes he is helpless over his flesh and must lean on Christ to perfect him, and that brings him to repentance and obedience, (2Cor 13:5) more works. A Calvinist knows the battle is the Lord’s through the Holy Spirit and the Lord cannot lose His elect (Jn 6: 39). A Calvinist has faith in the Lord that he will complete the task that He has started (Php 1:6), because He is faithful even when the believer is not. That is my belief and experience as a Reformed Christian so far.
White’s comment regarding whether the call of God is genuine or not, unless I heard it wrong, was quite ingenious. He said (in effect if not verbatim), “For anyone who turns to God, the call is genuine.”
He seems to be basing the genuineness of the call, not on the caller but, rather, on the callee. That baffles me. Since when are one’s motives judged by the responses of another? Forget whether or not it’s Biblical; it’s a position that fails common sense.
If I misunderstood his comment, please advise?
I think one can exegete the Bible to the point where he fails to apply common sense and, if I have correctly understood Dr. White, this is a good example.
Dr. Brown, is there any way I can get a transcript of the debate? It would really help me to correctly assess Dr. White’s position. You can Email it to me at nbanuchi6@hotmail.com. Or, if you can only mail it, just let me know by Email and I’ll send you my address.
I also want to make my own responses to Dr. White’s assertions for my benefit.
In addition, I think Dr. White’s idea to pick 3 verses for you both to “exegete” is a great idea. I hope that can be done…and made into book form! Do it! Do it! Do it!
I am so happy that this debate went on. I had an exciting two days!!
Happy! Happy! Nelson Banuchi
P.S. Dr. Brown or anyone else, please let me know if I misunderstood Dr. White regarding the divine call to salvation. Thanks!
“I don’t need to know about the state of the person I’m talking to. I need to know that the apostolic message is truthful and genuine. Period. If God truly said it, I will certainly proclaim it.”
I agree totally; however, my question is can you truly tell a lost person (from a Calvinist perspective) that God desires them to be saved. If you do not know if he is indeed elect, which I understand does not negate God’s decree, can you confidently agree that God wishes him to be saved. From my understanding and study of TULIP, Calvinism, Doctrines of Grace you cannot. Please correct me if my assumptions are faulty. Again just to clarify, I am not arguing whether or not the Gospel be preached to the non-elect, just whether or not you might say God desires to save you from your sinful state?
Thanks,
Michael
Michael,
I do not think that the dilemma you present is exclusive to Reformed position it might just as well apply to Arminian position.
I mean can you truly tell a lost person that God wants them to be saved but if they say no they will not be saved? The lost will laugh in your face and say God either does not really want it or He is not God if their “no” closes the matter… So in the end in this scenario neither you nor the recipient of the message can have any assurance as well.
As far as being Reformed about this I can confidently say to the recipient that I do not know if he is going to be saved but God does and if this is His will there is no human or any other power that can prevent that from happening.
Which one is more powerful, more hopeful and more glorifying to God? I propose that the second, the Reformed position.
God desires all to be saved but none can come to Him without His initial action and for His reason He chooses to enable some and not the others. That is His Divine, Creator and Kingly prerogative and who are we to argue with God?
Thank you.
SDG,
Christophe
Dr. Brown: “Jesus’ words in John 10 should motivate a non-sheep to become one of his sheep! See also John 6:44, which is then further explained through 6:45. At one time I was not one of his sheep; through faith in his gracious offer of salvation, I became one of his sheep.”
Dr. Brown, that is exactly the opposite of what John 10 says. You don’t become one of his sheep by having faith. On the contrary, you have faith because you are already one of his sheep. In verse 26, it explicitly says, “But you do not believe because you are not my sheep.” It’s very clear. It is because they are not his sheep that they do not believe. You have to be his sheep BEFORE you can believe. A few verses down, it even tells us how we become Jesus’ sheep. It says in verse 29, “My Father, who has given them to me…” The Father gives people to Jesus. That is how they become his sheep. And his sheep hear his voice and follow him. This is also consistent with John 6:37 where Jesus says, “All that the Father gives me will come to me.” The giving precedes the coming. Have you noticed that in John 10:16, Jesus HAS sheep who WILL hear his voice? Those “other sheep” already belong to Jesus before they have heard him and exercised faith in him. I don’t see how it could be more clear. We do not become Jesus’ sheep by having faith in him. Rather, the Father gives people to Jesus, and as a result, those people inevitably come to Jesus for salvation.
God elected His Son – Isaiah 42. All those who are found in Christ are His chosen ones as well. He does not choose arbitrarily. We become chosen by being found in Christ.
Romans 9-11 would be better understood by Calvinists if they understood it to refer to the choice of Israel rather than applying it to the choice of who would or not be saved.
God chooses Israel for His service. He chooses all nations and all peoples to salvation. It is their choice to respond to His Elect one – Jesus.
Excellent and so powerful comment by Dr.White:
“We evangelize based on great apostolic commission and not on the knowledge we have or can have”
Who argues with that?
Dr.Brown,
Some Arminians would argue with that claiming that this evangelization is disgenuine because there are reprobate who hear the good news proclaimed…
I think you’re misunderstanding their position, and quite profoundly at that. The point is that apostolic preaching reflects genuineness on God’s part, not duplicity.
Only Calvinists can consistently exegete Romans 9 from beginning to end!
Dr.Brown,
Thank you for this well made point. I am sure we can find both of these opinions expressed by Arminians but your are right that I need to pay attention which one is actually presented at any given time.
Regards,
Christophe
The issue, for me at least, stems from the motive behind proclaiming the Gospel message as taught by Christ. If our impetus is simply driven by the ‘Because I told you to’ Great Commission directive, we lose sight of where our heart should be in proclaiming the truth. However, based on genuiness of heart we share the Gospel because it is the only way man can be saved, we then have a motivation not based on a checklist but based upon the heart of God to save. The same motivation can and is shared by those on both side of the issue, but like Dr. Brown, I have trouble with the idea of how genuine I can truly be in saying God desires that a particular sinner be saved if in fact I do not know the decree of God specifically. In effect how can I determine God wants to save that individual unless I KNOW, from a factual standpoint, God does indeed want the indiviual saved.
Jamie,
Hardly! The bigger problem, however, is that many Calvinists fail to read Paul’s whole point, which is found in Romans 9-11. Missing that, everything is missed.
“but like Dr. Brown, I have trouble with the idea of how genuine I can truly be in saying God desires that a particular sinner be saved if in fact I do not know the decree of God specifically. In effect how can I determine God wants to save that individual unless I KNOW, from a factual standpoint, God does indeed want the indiviual saved.”
Michael S. Hornbeck II
Dr.Brown,
As you can see above I don’t think I am profoundly misunderstanding the issue when I say that SOME Arminians will claim that this would be disgenuine evangelization…
Regards,
Christophe
I agree with that Dr. Brown about the main point in Romans 9-11, I do believe in the Doctrines of Grace, though not a believer in Covenant Theology; but one cannot get by the fact that Romans 9:11-13 discusses the sovereign choice that God bestowed on Jacob, before Jacob was even born. I greatly respect both you and Dr. White, but in this issue I must side with Dr. White. God Bless.
Thank you for the two days of good listening. I would love to listen in again when Dr. White does his show.
Kind Regards
DeeperStill
Please re-read my post. You’re still missing the point. I don’t need to know about the state of the person I’m talking to. I need to know that the apostolic message is truthful and genuine. Period. If God truly said it, I will certainly proclaim it.
To reach out to you here, though, I’ll just assume that in your paradigm, you’re hearing one thing, even though I and others are saying something very different.
In any case, I know far more Arminians who preach and pray with urgency because of their beliefs than Calvinists who do the same. In fact, I’ve seen Calvinism have a deadening effect on many in terms of prayer and evangelism. You, in turn, will say that is their fault rather than the fruit of their beliefs, which leads us back to this: What does the Word say?
Dr. Brown mentioned on the radio that Calvinist most of time seem arrogant. This can be true on both sides. From my recent experience with the Calvinistic circle this seemed to be very true. I recently got out of this whole Calvinism doctrine! Praise God and am just going back to reading the bible and having intimate fellowship with the Holy Spirit. It seemed like the Calvinist we associated with thought they were all right and everyone else was wrong and were heretics. I saw no love and no humbleness but in their eyes they were very loving and humble. It was all about debating scripture and they even lost their focus on evangelizing the lost just so they could debate and prove everyone else wrong. Now that I no longer hold to Calvinism doctrine, they call me a heretic.
Dr. Brown,
I as a reformed believer have found none reformed believers have a deep anger for the reformed believers. I don’t feel the same way towards them, but I feel they just don’t understand what we really believe. They think we are arrogant because we think God chose us, not the other way around (which seems to me to be more arrogant). The humbleness I feel as a reformed believer is towards God for saving me in spite of my trying to avoid God like the plague. I was the same as any none believer why did he chose to save me and not them? That is humbling and gives me compassion to preach the gospel for the past 12 years open air. I don’t concern myself with who is or is not elect or who will be saved or can be saved; I leave that part up to God. My duty is just to preach and let the Holy Spirit do the saving as He chooses.
Dr. Brown,
I was not taking the issue with you as it is obvious and I agree with you as the same is valid for Reformed position. I was merely stating to you that there are other opinions expressed by Arminians that are different from yours as proven by the quote from Mr. Michael S. Hornbeck II post.
I would not even go as to begin to quantify of qualify the number of praying Armininans versus number of praying Calvinists or quality of their prayer. I do not think that anyone can say that objectively as these are issue deep in the heart and soul of every believer.
As far as the missions I would present to you that some of the greatest missionaries were Calvinists. Charles Spurgeon is estimated to preach to close to 20 million in his life time the age without the net, radio an tv…
Reformed Church of Geneva under John Calvin was directly responsible for seeding 2,000 churches all over France in 7 year period plus additional ones in places like Poland and even one mission to Brazil according to Dr.Frank A. James III. Some of those churches in France had membership in thousands…
Dr. Brown can you mention any Arminian Church that can come close to this figure of over 2,000 new church plants in seven years? I would like to know.
Thank you.
Regards,
Christophe
This is the issue. The offer of the Gospel is not genuine, well-meant, or sincere if the following points are not the case:
1) God desires to give to all what He offers to all.
2) There is an adequate provision for all those offered to.
3) There is an ability on the part of the creature to take what is offered.
James White at least has a problem with the first two necessary components of an offer.
1) Concerning the first issue, James concurred in the first show that God desires all men to repent, but he stopped short of saying God desires all men to be saved, which is the consequent of such repentance. It’s not only incoherent, but it is also unbiblical, to say that God desires that all men repent but doesn’t desire all men to be saved. If God wants men to keep all his commandments and White infers that God therefore wants all men to repent, then he must logically agree that God desires all men to be saved as well, since “be saved” is also commanded of all men [Isa. 45:22]. Brown’s presupposition in this category is that God must *equally* desire all men to be saved if the offer is to be genuine and sincere. But that presupposition needs to be sustained biblically and logically, as White attempted to bring out in the discussion, but White failed to deal with his own erroneous assumption [God *only* desires the elect *to be saved*] in the process.
2) Concerning the second issue, or the adequate provision for all, Brown has no problem, in that he believes Christ satisfied for all men in the death he died, thus Christ’s death is applicable to every man. If Christ didn’t substitute for every man, then those not substituted for cannot be saved, even if they were to believe, as Brown pointed out. James White, given his strictly limited view of Christ’s penal satisfaction, cannot say the death of Christ is provisional for any of the non-elect, thus they are no more saveable than the non-elect angels. God is supposedly offering them something in the Gospel offer, but there is nothing really there for them, hence Brown’s charge of duplicity towards White’s theology. White has God offering nothing to the non-elect, since there is nothing in Christ for them. If White prefers the term “call” instead of “offer,” then the question still obtains. What is God calling the non-elect *to* if there’s nothing in Christ for them? Nothing. A non-entity. No suitable provision.
3) Regarding the third issue, Brown assumes that all men must have the *moral* ability [in addition to the *natural* ability] to believe in order for the offer to be genuine. White has not yet made the distinction between *moral* and *natural* ability in his verbal responses, so people are therefore left with the confusing notion that the unregenerate have *no capacity at all* to respond, even though White obviously believes that all the unregenerate have minds and wills that choose. This is why White finds himself having to correct the straw man argument, as if he believes unregenerate men do not choose. Distinguish between *moral* and *natural* ability and the problem is solved. A man can receive a genuine offer by God if he has mental and volitional capacities [having the imago dei], and God need not overcome the fixed and determined stubborness of a morally enslaved sinner in order for His offer to be sincere. This is what Brown, unfortunately, hasn’t heard distinguished yet, even though it is contained in the writings of Jonathan Edwards and Andrew Fuller.
Rick,
I’m sure there is misunderstanding on both sides, which is one of the reasons I wanted to have these debates.
One question: Are you saying that non-Calvinists feel they deserve something from God? Are not equally humbled by His grace when we were running from Him?
Ronnie,
Praise God! You did the right thing. Count it all for joy that you’re being labeled a heretic by Calvinists.
Hallelujah!
Greg
Christophe,
Are you trying to equate more numbers church plant = correct doctrine?
When people ask me; but if I am not chosen how can I be saved? I tell them, chose Jesus, and if you are not chosen you will leave the faith and that will be the answer to your question. I believe it says somewhere in the bible I forget where it is, “they left us because they were not of us”.
Ben KC,
I was not the one who brought up issues of numbers and “far more” Arminians or Calvinists doing this or that comparing to other theological camp. Since that was brought up, I also wanted to present a fairly unknown facts about missionary efforts of Calvin and Calvinists and the numbers speak for themselves so so much for “a deadening effect of Calvinism in terms of prayer and evangelism.”
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
Dr. Brown,
What do you do with something like John chapter 10. Jesus said to some, “you do not believe because you are not my sheep…
26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.[b] 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”
Thank you in advance for your reply.
Christophe,
Please reveal how mine and Dr. Browns quote are far off. Also, I am not Arminian, and do not adhere or agree with all pricepals, it is not oneor the other. As I stated, “The same motivation can and is shared by those on both side of the issue.” To quote Dr. Brown , “The point is that apostolic preaching reflects genuineness on God’s part, not duplicity.” One must preach from a genuine belief the hearer of the word CAN be saved. If, from a Calvinist perspective, we have no idea that they are or are not elect, one cannot truly state God desires you to be saved, because we in fact do not know.
If my thoughts are foreign from Dr. Brown, please illuminate.
Thanks,
-Michael
Michael,
We don’t need to know the elect or non-elect status of an unbeliever in order to assure them that God desires to save them. We evangelize out of *knowledge* of God’s *revealed will*, not out of *ignorance* of his *decretive will*, and His revealed desire is for all men to repent and be saved. As John Frame has said, in concurrence with John Murray and Ned Stonehouse, “”If God desires people to repent of sin, then certainly he desires them to be saved, for salvation is the fruit of such repentance.” John Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2002), 534.
But, even though we can assure all the lost Gospel hearers that God in fact loves them and desires to save them, that is not the whole story. They also need to know that they stand condemned under God’s wrath, and *as sinners* God also hates them. Therefore, they must repent and believe into Christ if they are to be saved.
Dr. Brown,
None believers seem think if there is a God he owes them something. Non-Calvinists seem to want to put God in a place that they can agree with His will or He will do as they think He should. What is fair in their minds is what they think God should do or be like. They say they cannot worship a God that’s will is not to save everyone, yet why do some accept grace and others don’t? Are those that accept any less sinless than those that accept? Only God can cause someone to chose Him because they are dead spiritually in their sins. Until He does something to change them, they are not able to choose Him. Romans 8:7.
Dr. Brown,
I appreciate you and your ministry and I am highly grieved at the fact that some Calvinists are treating you in a nasty way (as you mentioned on the program today). I think some of us are still in the “cage stage” and some of us just don’t understand the practical implications of Reformed Theology as Dr. White said. There are many of us out there that have a great amount of respect for Arminians even though we don’t agree with them on this issue.
Can’t wait to hear you and Dr. White on his program and then Lord willing, a face to face debate.
God bless.
Incidentally, I appreciated the “tone” of Brown and White during the show. There was no hint of condescension, disrespect or the demeaning of the other person in any way. It seemed mutually respectful and friendly, which is too often lacking in these discussions. If we cannot agree, then let us at least strive toward a mutual understanding as we clarify *what* and *why* we believe the way we do.
Thanks for the *nature* of this radio conversation. May it persist elsewhere in all of us, especially in through the medium of the typically scrappy and ill-natured Internet environment.
Michael,
Let Dr.Brown’s words be my response also:
“I don’t need to know about the state of the person I’m talking to. I need to know that the apostolic message is truthful and genuine. Period. If God truly said it, I will certainly proclaim it.”
This valid valid for Dr.Brown, valid for me and I would assume that it would be valid for Dr.White as well.
Mike,
Jesus’ words in John 10 should motivate a non-sheep to become one of his sheep! See also John 6:44, which is then further explained through 6:45. At one time I was not one of his sheep; through faith in his gracious offer of salvation, I became one of his sheep.
Michael Lofton,
Yes, all of us are works in progress, and I certainly take no personal offense if someone else — whatever their theology — is acting in an immature way.
Thanks for your kind words, and may all of us continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord.
“At one time I was not one of his sheep; through faith in his gracious offer of salvation, I became one of his sheep.”
Dr.Brown,
From God’s perspective you were always His sheep, even when this world was not even in existence as His Word proclaims:
“even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,”
Ephesians 1:4-5 ESV
Regards,
Christophe
Dr. Brown,
Excellent job on the Tyra Banks show today! Thank you for being a light in the midst of darkness.
TJ,
Thanks for the good word. Light is made for the darkness!
Michael,
You are right that we should preach the wrath of God along with the grace of God, and in that order. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Work out your salvation in fear and trembling. Fear not him that can kill the body and do no more….. ets. … Just a few of the hundreds of fear verses.
For an Arminian view of John 10 and similar passages, see the excellent article by Robert Hamilton, “The Order of Faith and Election in John’s Gospel: You Do Not Believe Because You Are Not My Sheep” (http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/282), which makes much better sense of the text of John in its own context and emphases than Calvinist interpretations. I should add that the position of this excellent article could be strengthened significantly through even more evidence available in John, but is amply demonstrated by Hamilton.
The link to the Hamilton article did not come through rihgt in my previous post. Here it is again: http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/282
I love to hear Calvinists and Arminians try to explain their position without defining their terms. It’s like apples vs oranges, ney apples vs. couches. There is so much we agree on but without defining terms then we appear to speak two different languages.
We agree so much with each other.
Total Depravity -> Men are born dead. Yup both agree.
Unconditional Election -> God has an elect.
Limited Atonement -> Not all will be saved.
Irresistible Grace -> We’ll never make it without His grace.
Perseverance of the Saints -> Those that persevere until the end will be saved.
Double Predestination (point 6) – Some will be lost and some saved and that’s how God set it up.
Best of all possible worlds (point 7) – okay maybe that’s a stretch.
John Piper helped me understand TULIP and the Calvinist position the best – it’s all about being God-centered and God-glorified.
This is the equation:
-Everything God does is glorious.
-The more God does the more glory He gets.
-God is most glorified if He does everything.
(So if God gives people faith to believe, softens hearts so people will live His love, hardens people’s hearts or leaves them to their hardened state, heals whenever He wants and doesn’t heal whenever He wants, sends people He wants to heaven and the people He chooses to hell and just judgment – He is most glorified for His Sovereign purposes.)
It all logically fits. It really does. If you buy in completely to T then logically it’s not a stretch to acknowledge ULIP and maybe even point 6 & 7 with John Piper and Jonathan Edwards, I believe.
Wait, only one problem… it’s not what the Bible means. (My opinion) Have a new believer that doesn’t know anything about Calvinism a Bible and see if they come up with Calvinism. The bottom line is: You have to start with Calvinist definitions to get to a Calvinist system.
So I look forward to Dr. Brown and Dr. White looking at what the definition of faith is and free-will limits and such. This is where I believe the battle is fought and won – defining what we understand it to mean. Often whoever gets to define the terms wins the argument.
I have inspired by men like John Fletcher and pray that we may may continue to encourage such a cry for unity. I mean we Christians, especially on these issues, are an embarrassment to the unbelievers. It is a well known fact that some of the most vicious discussions on the internet are Christians arguing out what they believe about Calvinism and Arminianism and what they believe about those that oppose their view.
I urge you brothers to continue, as you have been demonstrating, love, forbearance and a continual desire to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
Brad
There is no real assurance of salvation in Calvinism because salvation is not so much based upon whether or not you have believed in the One that God has sent, but whether or not God has elected you for salvation.
Many Christians enter the faith with a great deal of spiritual baggage (New Age practices, great sexual immorality, drugs & alcohol, false religions, etc) and their road to sanctification is difficult and lengthy. The Calvinistic method of determining true salvation is through evidence of spiritual fruit – not through the sincerity of someone’s mental assent that Christ died as their substitute.
Thus, some people have difficulties with assurance of salvation and assume that they must not be one of the elect because they are still battling one or more strongholds of sin in their lives.
Calvinism masquerades as a doctrine of grace, but it’s really a works based doctrine. One must keep bearing fruit in order to prove their election to salvation. Otherwise, they are one of the many unfortunates that God has “passed over” that will be punished and tormented for eternity.
Hey folks,
Just a quick note on godly Calvinists through history: I have often pointed out that some of the greatest evangelists, missionaries, and revivalists of all time have been Calvinists, using this to challenge contemporary Calvinists to follow in their shoes, since I have so often seen the opposite effect on those who have embraced Calvinism in recent decades (i.e., less fervor to reach the lost, less sacrificial passion for missions, less hunger for revival, etc.).
Would to God that all Calvinists today had the fire of Whitefield, the saintliness of M’Cheyne, the burden of Judson, and the vision for revival of Edwards! I’m not saying this doesn’t exist (and there are plenty of lethargic and compromised and flaky Arminians!), but as a Calvinist (1977-1982), I always wondered why there was such a difference in the fruit of the Calvinism of old compared with the Calvinism so prevalent today.
My observations over almost forty years are that Calvinists often stray towards theological pride and spiritual coldness whereas Arminians often stray towards bizarre doctrines (especially in the Charismatic world — and I say that as a Charismatic) and spiritual flakiness.
“My observations over almost forty years are that Calvinists often stray towards theological pride and spiritual coldness whereas Arminians often stray towards bizarre doctrines (especially in the Charismatic world — and I say that as a Charismatic) and spiritual flakiness.”
Dr.Brown,
There are extremes in both camps no question about it. As far as visibility I would argue that Armininan extremes are more visible simply due to the fact that at least 90% of the Church is Armininan in its orientation.
SDG,
Christophe
“Calvinism masquerades as a doctrine of grace, but it’s really a works based doctrine. One must keep bearing fruit in order to prove their election to salvation. Otherwise, they are one of the many unfortunates that God has “passed over” that will be punished and tormented for eternity.”
Greg,
This above statement is simply untrue and and encroaching on the border of…
SDG,
Christophe
Part of his problem…’nuff said!
Dr. Brown,
Thanks for taking up this topic and speaking the truth in love.
Greg says:
Thus, some people have difficulties with assurance of salvation and assume that they must not be one of the elect because they are still battling one or more strongholds of sin in their lives.
Calvinism masquerades as a doctrine of grace, but it’s really a works based doctrine. One must keep bearing fruit in order to prove their election to salvation. Otherwise, they are one of the many unfortunates that God has “passed over” that will be punished and tormented for eternity.
Rick says:
Battling the sin in one’s life is a sign of being saved and that takes works no matter if you are a Calvinist or not. It is when a person stops battling sin the fear of loss of his salvation comes to bear. He realizes he is helpless over his flesh and must lean on Christ to perfect him, and that brings him to repentance and obedience, (2Cor 13:5) more works. A Calvinist knows the battle is the Lord’s through the Holy Spirit and the Lord cannot lose His elect (Jn 6: 39). A Calvinist has faith in the Lord that he will complete the task that He has started (Php 1:6), because He is faithful even when the believer is not. That is my belief and experience as a Reformed Christian so far.
White’s comment regarding whether the call of God is genuine or not, unless I heard it wrong, was quite ingenious. He said (in effect if not verbatim), “For anyone who turns to God, the call is genuine.”
He seems to be basing the genuineness of the call, not on the caller but, rather, on the callee. That baffles me. Since when are one’s motives judged by the responses of another? Forget whether or not it’s Biblical; it’s a position that fails common sense.
If I misunderstood his comment, please advise?
I think one can exegete the Bible to the point where he fails to apply common sense and, if I have correctly understood Dr. White, this is a good example.
Dr. Brown, is there any way I can get a transcript of the debate? It would really help me to correctly assess Dr. White’s position. You can Email it to me at nbanuchi6@hotmail.com. Or, if you can only mail it, just let me know by Email and I’ll send you my address.
I also want to make my own responses to Dr. White’s assertions for my benefit.
In addition, I think Dr. White’s idea to pick 3 verses for you both to “exegete” is a great idea. I hope that can be done…and made into book form! Do it! Do it! Do it!
I am so happy that this debate went on. I had an exciting two days!!
Happy! Happy! Nelson Banuchi
P.S. Dr. Brown or anyone else, please let me know if I misunderstood Dr. White regarding the divine call to salvation. Thanks!
Oh man, wrong Email address. It should be nbanuchi@gmail.com. Sorry…
Christophe,
“I don’t need to know about the state of the person I’m talking to. I need to know that the apostolic message is truthful and genuine. Period. If God truly said it, I will certainly proclaim it.”
I agree totally; however, my question is can you truly tell a lost person (from a Calvinist perspective) that God desires them to be saved. If you do not know if he is indeed elect, which I understand does not negate God’s decree, can you confidently agree that God wishes him to be saved. From my understanding and study of TULIP, Calvinism, Doctrines of Grace you cannot. Please correct me if my assumptions are faulty. Again just to clarify, I am not arguing whether or not the Gospel be preached to the non-elect, just whether or not you might say God desires to save you from your sinful state?
Thanks,
Michael
Michael,
I do not think that the dilemma you present is exclusive to Reformed position it might just as well apply to Arminian position.
I mean can you truly tell a lost person that God wants them to be saved but if they say no they will not be saved? The lost will laugh in your face and say God either does not really want it or He is not God if their “no” closes the matter… So in the end in this scenario neither you nor the recipient of the message can have any assurance as well.
As far as being Reformed about this I can confidently say to the recipient that I do not know if he is going to be saved but God does and if this is His will there is no human or any other power that can prevent that from happening.
Which one is more powerful, more hopeful and more glorifying to God? I propose that the second, the Reformed position.
God desires all to be saved but none can come to Him without His initial action and for His reason He chooses to enable some and not the others. That is His Divine, Creator and Kingly prerogative and who are we to argue with God?
Thank you.
SDG,
Christophe
Dr. Brown: “Jesus’ words in John 10 should motivate a non-sheep to become one of his sheep! See also John 6:44, which is then further explained through 6:45. At one time I was not one of his sheep; through faith in his gracious offer of salvation, I became one of his sheep.”
Dr. Brown, that is exactly the opposite of what John 10 says. You don’t become one of his sheep by having faith. On the contrary, you have faith because you are already one of his sheep. In verse 26, it explicitly says, “But you do not believe because you are not my sheep.” It’s very clear. It is because they are not his sheep that they do not believe. You have to be his sheep BEFORE you can believe. A few verses down, it even tells us how we become Jesus’ sheep. It says in verse 29, “My Father, who has given them to me…” The Father gives people to Jesus. That is how they become his sheep. And his sheep hear his voice and follow him. This is also consistent with John 6:37 where Jesus says, “All that the Father gives me will come to me.” The giving precedes the coming. Have you noticed that in John 10:16, Jesus HAS sheep who WILL hear his voice? Those “other sheep” already belong to Jesus before they have heard him and exercised faith in him. I don’t see how it could be more clear. We do not become Jesus’ sheep by having faith in him. Rather, the Father gives people to Jesus, and as a result, those people inevitably come to Jesus for salvation.
God elected His Son – Isaiah 42. All those who are found in Christ are His chosen ones as well. He does not choose arbitrarily. We become chosen by being found in Christ.
Romans 9-11 would be better understood by Calvinists if they understood it to refer to the choice of Israel rather than applying it to the choice of who would or not be saved.
God chooses Israel for His service. He chooses all nations and all peoples to salvation. It is their choice to respond to His Elect one – Jesus.