Finding Common Ground
Listen to the Debate
Comment on Today’s Dr. Brown’s Debate with Dr. James White Here
182 Comments
Comments are closed.
Finding Common Ground
Listen to the Debate
Comment on Today’s Dr. Brown’s Debate with Dr. James White Here
Comments are closed.
A couple things…
Dr., Greg, Nelson: If you listen to the end of the broadcast again you will clearly hear confusion in regards to assurance of salvation. Dr. White’s personal salvation and the salvation of others got mixed together in the conversation and to me it clearly sounded like Dr. White wasn’t sure which was being spoken off. To say Dr. White had to evade the question on the assurance of salvation is absurd if you have listened to or read his work at all. You really should retract your statements on this.
Dr. Brown: I have heard many say that if election as held by the reformed position is true then “they could never love a god like that”. Would that be true for you?…thanks for doing the debates!
Doug
This was fantastic!
It reminded me of a recent sermon this past Sunday by Danny Silk (Bethel Church, Redding, CA) …
Check it out:
http://www.ibethel.tv/watch/522:3:8
-or-
http://www.ibethel.org/site/sermon-of-the-week
Heavenly Blessings all!
Harold,
Since: 1) the Scriptures make no distinction between an alleged general and effectual call in terms of vocabulary used; 2) God is genuinely grieved when His people refuse to heed His call, to the point that He says things, “If only you would listen”; 3) God commends those who do come, consistently offering His grace to “whoever will” receive it; and 4) nowhere do we read of a specific, effectual call in a biblical text, the onus of proof is entirely on you, just like it would be on me if I tried to claim that Jesus had a twin brother.
Dr. Brown (and all others for that matter),
Please, please, please accept my sincere apology for using the term “doctrines of grace”. In my use of the term, I in no way meant to diminish another’s view of grace. I know that you would claim you are saved by grace (just as I would) and that you don’t deny Gods grace as so very essential. I used the term (which I thought Dr. White brought up – didn’t know I was “introducing a new theological term”) because I don’t consider myself to be a Calvinist. Since I have known Christ, I have only desired to adhere to the label of a follower of Christ. I attend an evangelical church that has ties to the Southern Baptist Convention and the majority of the bretheren there lean to a synergistic or Arminian view of salvation. Currently, I am reading a book called “What Love is This” by Dave Hunt with the pastoral staff. In case you don’t know, that work is heavily anti-calvinist so my telling you this is to hopefully make clear that my questions are genuine and that my apology is heart felt. I won’t use that term any longer as my desire is not to put more strain on an already tense matter.
Recently read a book called “Did Calvin Murder Servetus” by Stanford Rives.
Is Dr. White aware of this book and the arguments for John Calvin [whom I believe is a hero to Dr. White] being an Arian?
Here are excerts from the book you can read in full free here: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=MlPrYQ5srKEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=did+calvin+murder+servetus&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
I thought Dr. White was inconsistent in his response to Romans 11:32. His main reply to why he doesn’t take “all” to actually mean “all” was “I’m not a universalist”. This is inconsistent because he previously took issue with Dr. Brown’s more systematic approach, saying that they were there to do exegesis, by which he apparently meant dealing with the specific texts at hand, and not using any broader context for clarification. “I’m not a universalist” is an appeal to systematic theology, and has nothing to do with taking the text in question at face value.
This is a common tactic used in this debate. There is always this claim that “we’re just sticking to the text, you’re bringing in extra-biblical philosophical arguments.” And yet when a doctrine like limited atonement is defended, it is almost always defended on “philosophical” grounds. “Oh, then there would be a double payment for sin!” or “then that means that God tried but failed!”
Now, I have no problem with appealing to logical inferences or “philosophy”, but we need to have a consistent set of rules to play by.
What did you think about this book Chuck? Was it merely an opinion piece or was it well cited and documented? I’d love to hear your thoughts as I am thinking of purchasing it.
Ben (Arminianperspectives),
Thanks for responding but I still would like some clarification because I think my point has been missed. Perhaps if I give an example – that will help. First off, here is what you said (so you or I both don’t have to keep scrolling up)-
““They shall all be taught of God” describes the scope of the teaching and God’s teaching can be seen as His drawing. However, not all who are taught necessarily learn from what they hear (receive the teaching or respond to the drawing) and come to Him. For that reason Jesus doesn’t say that all who hear will come, but all who “hear and learn” will come. Jesus is speaking of those who both hear and learn, and they will certainly come. But this says nothing of those who hear and refuse to learn (as many heard and refused to accept what Christ said in that very narrative). John 6:45 doesn’t contradict Dr. Brown’s position. Rather, it supports it.”
There must be two kinds of people first off. Those who are taught by God and then those who are not taught by God. So the gospel goes out and people hear it. Some respond with repentance and others don’t. Some respond with what seems like repentance by time reveals that their response was not genuine. Think of the four soils which our Lord mentions in the parable of the sower (Matthew 13). So some of the people who heard the preaching of the gospel believed it and they were saved. Others heard it and didn’t believe it or only believed it for a season and they are not saved. So then what is the difference then in those groups of people. We are still dealing with only two classes really – those taught by God and those not taught by God.
Even though they all “heard” the same message only some “learned”
John 6:45 ” It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”
I agree with you when you say “all who hear and learn will come”. That is certainly true. Yet those who learn must have been taught by God. Surely you would not claim credit for a sinners conversion if you were the one who preached the gospel to a person would you? Nor would you attribute the individuals salvation to some ability that the sinner had would you? You couldn’t say, “good job sinner – you were humble/smart/whatever enough to accept the gospel when these other guys who heard the exact same message rejected it”. No, you would say something along the lines of “praise God, we are thankful for His grace, that He had mercy on you”.
So those who were “taught by God” – the ones who “learned” (logically, to learn [which has to mean come to faith], you must hear as well – Romans 10:17) will come to Christ and those who come to Christ, Jesus Himself said that the Father had to draw them. So no one could come apart from God drawing them and nobody could have learned apart from God teaching them. God can allow them to hear it with their ears but to understand it and believe it, that is not mans domain.
Again, the word “therefore” in verse 45 is very telling. That word means that the things said previously will result in the things said next. And again it says “they shall be taught of God” and those who are taught by God (the ones who “hear and learn”) will come to Jesus. And I know we both agree that Jesus will by no means reject anybody who comes.
I think your confusion lies this statement – “not all those who are taught, necessarily learn from what they hear” What it should read is this – not all those who hear, necessarily learn from what they hear. Gods not a failure. Who He teaches, they will come. Verse 63 – It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing…
Paul,
Apologies fully accepted, from the heart, and I never assumed that most Calvinists meant anything condescending in their use of the term “doctrines of grace.” All clear, and thanks!
In my post, I was not calling this a new term; rather, I was suggesting that Arminians use the term “The Doctrine of God’s Goodness” to awaken Calvinists to how their terms strikes us.
Again, all clear, and thanks for having a sensitive heart here.
Dear Dr.Brown,
I have listened yesterday to your debate with Dr.White. I am reformed in my understanding of the faith as you might recall from my past posts here and I am reformed for one and simple reason and that is Reformed Faith presents the most consistent and clear exposition of the whole counsel of God. Listening to your interaction with the Word of God and Dr.James White convinced me about it again and highlighted the consistent and perspicuous nature of Reformed exposition of the truth.
I found multiple problems with your presentation and your argumentation. Let me just mention two really big ones. First, I found it very troublesome when in attempt to exegete an assigned and agreed upon portion of the text from John chapter six you have proceeded to mention approximately thirty different texts from all over the bible in no less than eight minutes of time…
I really do not know what was your purpose in doing that. This could not possibly be of any value if seriously attempting to exegete the text at hand from John 6 nor could possibly be of value in understanding any of those texts mentioned by you and their correlation as perceived by you. Certainly not in the amount of eight minutes… This can only create a volume of information but does it really help in proper analysis of mentioned texts and their content? I do not think so and from what I heard from different folks (not reformed) from UK to New Zealand it was not helpful for them either and in fact they perceived it rather as a tactic and not at depth attempt to exegete text from John 6.
Second issue. I do not know if somebody presented this already in above posts but I am seriously puzzled and perplexed by your usage of a paraphrase The Message and a very imprecise translation of NLT while attempting to exegete another text, this time from Ephesians 1:11. I must say with all the respect due that this is quite shocking. I find it very troublesome for a scholar like you to go to a paraphrase and imprecise translation when the discussion was so detailed and revolved around every word in original languages. Again, I found it rather a tell tale sign and I know that you can easily dismiss me and my critique as coming from a Reformed person but I am honestly telling you that other people who are non reformed in their understanding of the deposit of the Scripture saw the same thing and were puzzled and concerned as well.
It is my deep hope and desire that you will take this critique as a building up remark and this will help you to avoid this in the next debate and beyond. Thank you.
Respectfully,
SDG
Christophe
I believe Dr. White began speaking of the key context in John 6 earlier than 6:44, and rightly so.
John 6:37
Jesus’ words are plain and simple:
All that the Father gives me shall come to me.
(we learn later that those that are given and come will also be drawn in coming, we learn of their inability to come without the drawing, which is not an alteration of this truth, only an additional fact).
All, not some
shall come, not maybe come, not might come
to me, not toward me, not almost to me but short, but to me
The Father’s giving is the origin, His giving is the cause and source of what occurs – their coming.
Plain deduction: if a person comes to Jesus, if he came to Christ, he came because he was given to Christ of the Father.
Now, in 6:44 we learn of man’s inability. No man *can* come except being drawn. The coming is the same. If a person comes, they must also have been drawn. There is no category of supposed folks who are / were drawn but don’t / didnt’ come.
John 6:44 is a parallel to John 6:65, Jesus links them together specifically by saying “Therefore said I unto you”
Both start off exactly the same way
“No man can come to me, except . . . the Father which hath sent me” and unto me, except – but this time Jesus clarifies or defines what he had said earlier in 6:44 “except it were given unto him of my Father”
Plain deduction: if a person comes to Christ (yes by way of drawing), it’s because it was given to Christ for them to come, and we already know in direct context they shall come.
I believe the posts are in error as well that attempted to separate teaching, hearing and learning. They all go together. There is no warrant for supposed folks who only hear but don’t learn.
This comports with John’s understanding, when some folks were questioning John’s baptizing and the Jews. John plainly states in John 3:27 A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. And when Jesus was being questioned by Pilate, in John 19:11, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above.
God Bless,
Brother Pat
grampaquick@yahoo.com
Greg
Are you the Greg Boyd from http://gregboyd.blogspot.com/2007/11/did-calvin-kill-servetus.html?
Stives’ book makes a strong argument for Calvin’s motivation in killing Servetus being more than based on theological reasons. For example, he provides alot of historical research [correspondence, court transcripts, etc] that would lead the average historian to conclude that it was a simple matter of personal disdane.
The book is chock full of historical by-notes and research on the topic of trinitarianism and anti-trinitarians during the Reformation period and even before then, all the way back to Nicea and the instituion of the Catholic creedal statements such as the Athanasian Creed.
The book is very long, but worth every word. I would recommend the reader to investigate carefuly all the claims being made though. Although the writer does provide very detailed footnotes and references. Took me a while to get through the book since I had to stop almost at every sentence to check the claims this writer was making.
Have you read it Greg? What did you think?
Anyone else?
Pat Quick,
Please be kind enough to find some prior biblical precedent in the Scriptures (before John 6) that speaks of a predestined group, based on no decision or response in themselves, being “given” to the Messiah. If you can’t produce this, you have no reason to read it into the context from out of thin air, especially when it is so easy to read the verses in John 6:37-45 quite differently, as was easily demonstrated in the debate with Dr. White yesterday.
So, would you be please give me the scriptural evidence that would satisfy my request? Thanks!
Hi Dr. Brown. I just want to share with you a message I sent to Dr. White in response to his blog. I had to send it in 4 sections (I hope he doesn’t think I’m a nutcase stalking his website). I warn you, it’s kind of long. Anyway, I thought you might be interested. If there is any way I misrepresented you, please let me know. Or if i appear condenscending or disrespectful, please correct me. Thanks.
My message to Dr. White is as follows:
Dr White, you stated. “While that was accomplished to some extent, what ended up happening was more of a contrast of differing methods of exegesis itself, which surprised me. If we had been discussing, say, the resurrection, or the deity of Christ, I doubt there would be any difference at all in the approach.”
Why would an approach of an exegetical debate on the resurrection have been any different and in what way would it be different?
I believe Dr. Brown presented a viable exegetical method of interpreting the text (his overall exegesis seemed a more convincing argument). He did use texts outside the immediate context but, from what I heard, he also brought out the text itself and its immediate context. It seems the exegetical method you are pursuing is to look merely at the text itself (and possibly the immediate context) while ignoring other exegetical factors – e.g. philological, historical, etc. – necessary in order to determine and confirm one’s understanding of the text.
A Bible dictionary in my possession states that “Exegesis utilizes all the methods of Biblical criticism”. In addition, under “hermeneutics”, it states as one of the principles to follow is “Awareness of Hebraisms in both OT and NT. Although written in Greek, the NT is basically a Hebraic writing, and its characteristic thought forms are those of the OT” (Beacon Bible Dictionary). Citing principles of hermeneutics, Reymond notes that “the doctrine of inspiration means the entirety of Scripture…that there is an organic unity between the Old and New Testaments, and that Scripture can and should be interpreted by Scripture (Scriptura Scripturae interpres). Indeed, Scripture is the only infallible interpreter of Scripture (Westminster Confession of Faith, I/ix)” (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p.49-50).
Rather than surprised, you ought to have been better prepared to explain your position in accordance with Scripture as a whole and the particular texts involved (for that, it seems to me, would be a proper exegetical debate of the texts in question). Of course, not all exegetical principles are expected to be supplied in such a short time, but at least those more pertinent to the discussion out to have been applied and expected. I have heard you debate a few times before and you always seemed to have been ahead of your debating opponent, however, in the case regarding Dr. Brown, it appeared as if you had lost your balance. I believe Dr. Brown gained the advantage because he did not limit the tools of exegesis available for use resulting in a more convincing argument.
Now, if your goal was to “provide an opportunity for the listeners to compare and contrast the exegesis of the text offered by both sides of this important issue,” I can honestly say, you did achieve it. Regardless of whose understanding of texts discussed are in reality correct, Dr. Brown has shown that his method, as opposed to your preferred method, is better suited to show the viability, if nothing else, of his interpretation of passages debated.
Dr. White, you also claimed that, in Dr. Brown’s case, “an over-riding concept became the norm of interpretation, a concept I believe derived not from the contextual exegesis of the text itself.” However, you also seemed to have an “over-riding concept,” which seemd to be “derived not from the contextual exegesis of the text itself”: that is, the notion of “irresistible grace”, and under such a presupposition, you interpreted the text. In any case, it seems to me that Dr. Brown convincingly showed that his “over-riding concept” was a Biblical concept well supported, not only by the text itself and the immediate surrounding context but, by an overall review of the Biblical testimony.
Furthermore, you stated that for reasons regarding the exegetical nature of the texts, the next debate “will not fulfill my specific goal for an explicitly exegetical discussion.” I respectfully submit two comments: (1) It seems to me that you are seeking a debate ruled on your terms, which terms you may see as advantageous to your argument and, (2) It seems you are pre-admitting some measure of defeat, a defeat you might insist resulting from a debate that did not follow, in your view, “correct” rules of exegesis.
Dr. White, with all due respect, (1) If a text is to be properly understood, then all tools of exegesis appropriate to the need ought to be applied. (2) You ought to be prepared for any and all exegetical arguments that may or may not be brought to bear on the subject.
I think your protest on the texts you mention Dr. Brown will bring to the debate is invalid because (1) these texts, from my experience, are, if not overly then adequately disputed so as to require a more careful analysis, which a debate my provide; and, (2) the brief analysis you provided seems faulty because it is questioned through the lens of certain presuppositions rather than an objective – as objective as one can be – read of the text.
That Dr. Brown used Bible paraphrases was, as I understood him, not geared to undergird his position as to clarify it, especially for those unscholarly hearers of the broadcast (like myself). It is a method I use when sharing the Bible with those either unfamiliar with it or new to it. As such, there ought not to have been an objection.
Also, I don’t remember the basic argument Dr. Brown provided but it seems to me that your argument is misplaced. I do not think anyone would argue Eph 1:11 “encompasses the entirety of God’s decree” (or, as I understand it, the entirety of God’s purpose). However, the question should be, in what way does the text show (if it does) how God encompasses the entirety of His purpose? Does he do it via a minute and exhaustive predestination in the Calvinistic mode? I do not see that in Eph 1:11. Every text you cited, however different in emphasis, does not read that God causes all things but that God works all things.
My purpose in addressing myself to you was just to encourage you to use all available tools of exegesis at your command; do not limit yourself.
Thank you.
Dr.Brown,
I read most of the comments posted on your web site and I would like to quickly comment on your remark as below:
“To help balance the discussion, then, I propose here that Arminians consistently say that we hold to the DOCTRINE OF THE GOODNESS OF GOD. This will do two things: 1) It will convey to our Calvinistic friends that, in our eyes, they diminish God’s goodness by their doctrine (just as they believe we diminish God’s grace); and 2) It will make them realize how their use of terms like “the doctrines of grace” (as opposed to the Reformed Faith) and “orthodoxy” make Arminians immediately protest, “But I too hold to the doctrines of grace and I too am orthodox!”
I found this comment and your below proposition of a departing nature from frequently expressed by you spirit of respect, understanding and communication with the theological deposit of the Reformed Faith and believers who uphold it. You are reading too much of a conflict and insecurity for your position in the historic theological term of the Doctrines of Grace. Dr.Brown you could not be possibly surprised by this theological description as a former Calvinist in the 80s and the timing of finding it now as “offensive” is rather peculiar given that you are in the midst of the debate with the theological view widely and historically known as the Doctrines of Grace among with terms of Calvinism or Augustinianism. So the million dollar question is why now?
Your proposition of coining a new term just to create some friction and frustration with Reformed believers so they would stop using term which preceding them believers have used as you say here:
“Should they say to us, “But you don’t!,” then we could say, “Neither do you hold to the doctrine of the goodness of God,” thus driving home to the point.”
This proposal is rather antagonistic in nature and rather indifferent to a long historical heritage of this term and what it represents.
I am very sorry that now you do find this term offensive but even if it would be so creating something new with a sole design to make others feel offended as well as you mentioned is not the answer nor is it the right way. Thank you.
Respectfully,
SDG
Christophe
Christophe,
Once again, as in past posts, you’re taking things in a more personal way than was intended, and I continue to operate with respect towards my Calvinistic colleagues.
So, in short, do you believe that you hold to doctrines of grace anymore than I do as a non-Calvinist?
Nelson,
Thanks for your well thought-out post in terms of the issue of exegesis. With regard to Ephesians 1:11, as I mentioned earlier, because Dr. White did not put as much as stress on the verse as I expected him to, for time’s sake, I did not read all my notes on the passage and, as you quite rightly observed, I cited two paraphrases to summarize the point I was making.
Prof. William Klein on Denver Seminary adequately exegeted the passage: “Compounding synonyms, Paul affirms that God predestines in a very purposeful way. The outcomes do not occur randomly, nor are they in any doubt, for the follow from the prothesis (“plan, purpose, resolve”) of God, who accomplishes what he does (“all things”) according to the boulē (“resolution, decision”) of his thelēma (“will, desire”). . . . In Christ God is accomplishing a very carefully worked-out plan for his people.”
I find it interesting that Calvinists disregard the possibility of election by way of foreseen faith, but don’t seem to have any problem with foreseen sin (according to unconditional election).
Dr.Brown,
I am sorry Sir but I find your statements of a contradictory nature. On one hand you imply that it is me who takes things personally where nowhere do I say anything about me and my personal feelings about the matter. All I speak about is the historical heritage of the term of the Doctrines of Grace as I said here:
“…the historic theological term of the Doctrines of Grace. ”
Nowhere in my post you will find a reference to my personal feelings about the matter only reference to factual and historic usage of this term. Yet, this is exactly what we find in your statement Dr.Brown as said here:
“I’m fully aware that “the doctrines of grace” is a terminus technicus (albeit a popular one) for Calvinism, and I know that some of you use it here without the slightest condescension on your part, but as a non-Calvinist, I find the term offensive.”
It is clearly personal (“I’m” and “I find…”) so your assertion about me and my personal take is clearly imprecise to say at least. Also, I really do not understand why you bring up anything about my past posts as if that would be of any substance for this issue at hand even if that would be the case…
To answer your question here:
“So, in short, do you believe that you hold to doctrines of grace anymore than I do as a non-Calvinist?”
What I do believe about it is absolutely meaningless Sir. This is a historical theological term widely used and accepted this is a fact and that is how I see it This is how I treat it and this is how theologians and scholars see it as well. That is all there is to it and there really is no need to make something personal out of it for anyone.
Thank you kindly and have a good night.
Respectfully,
SDG
Christophe
Christophe
Christophe,
If you recall, you chose to drop out of the forum some months back because of the way you overly personalized things. I do hope you don’t make that mistake again, and I would encourage you to take to heart the point I was making in my initial post.
Grace to you, sir, from one who holds deeply to the doctrines of grace.
“Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger,” Eph.4:26 🙂
PLEASE READ THIS BLOG FROM DR. JAMES WHITE
I just spotted this on his website and wanted to thank James for both the tone and content of his post. It is entitled “Thanks to Michael Brown.” May God continue to bless my friend and fellow-worker James White.
03/26/2010 – James White
I’ve been pretty busy since yesterday’s DL. Only had a small amount of time this morning to comment on Ephesians 1:11, and just got into the office. I fired up Michael Brown’s program that he did just over 20 minutes after our mini-debate from yesterday. I could tell his voice wasn’t doing too well—hard to do a program after the concentration it takes to do even a short debate like we did. Good ol’ Johnny from California called in with his Melchizedek question (hey, at least I warned Michael it was coming!).
His theme was having common ground with believers with whom you have disagreements. It was an interesting program to listen to. I’m sure many on both sides find the relationship Michael and I have been able to attempt to model during this process hard to understand. On my side, I know many of my Reformed brothers dismiss someone like Michael out of hand. It is bad enough he’s a synergist, but a Charismatic synergist? How bad is that? And, of course, I well know how the synergists view me and the “great danger” of Calvinism. I have had many dismiss my profession of faith merely based upon eschatology or some other such standard of fellowship.
I do not believe any honest-minded person can accuse me of compromising in my exchanges with Michael Brown–unless, that is, you define compromise as some do, that being a willingness to believe that inconsistency in theology means you are an unregenerate hypocrite, and that attitude leads rather quickly to the realm of real hyper-Calvinism (not the faux kind thrown about by certain Amyraldians and Arminians as a means to avoid dealing with the real issues). For some, if I say, “Michael Brown’s work in defense of the deity of Christ and the Messiahship of Jesus is of great value,” I have of necessity compromised my own beliefs about the sovereignty of God in salvation, for, in their minds, no one who would disagree with me on that topic could possibly do good work in any area of Christian theology or apologetics. It is this “all or nothing” kind of thinking that gets folks in trouble, since they fail to put proper thought into establishing when that is appropriate (you won’t see me calling someone who denies the deity of Christ my “brother”) and when it is not.
I know this exchange is a bit uncomfortable for zealous folks on both sides of this issue. I’m glad it is. We need the discomfort. I may make it even worse by asking if Michael would join me to discuss some of the key prophetic texts relating to the person of Jesus, and maybe I could reprise my time on his show to discuss some topics like the reliability of the text of the New Testament, or key texts in the Qur’an Christians should know. In any case, I look forward to next Thursday, when you will hear–over and over again, “But Michael, you really, really need to allow the whole of Scripture to speak here, and to realize that since God has not chosen to reveal the identity of the elect, which even you must admit, given your view of foreknowledge, God possesses, then we must accept the distinction between the prescriptive will of God, found in His law, and the decretive will of God, which envisions the existence of evil, and all the corollaries that flow therefrom.” Maybe I won’t use those exact words, but you will hear that theme over and over again. But, what you won’t hear, Lord willing, will be any caricaturing of the positions by either side, and hopefully, in so doing, we will encourage others who engage the topic to strive for a high standard in the effort.
Dr.Brown,
You have not answered my questions nor do I need these answers as those answers are really for you. I did not “dropped out” I simply came, interacted, read others and left. All of that in connection of your dialog with Reformed Faith just as it is now. I really have no idea why would you see this as a “mistake”?
I never had an intention to stay on nor do I have it now. I appreciate your discussion with Dr.White and I also do hope that you will take into heart and mind two points I made in my original post tonight.
Grace, peace and love of the Savior for you and yours.
Respectfully,
SDG
Christophe
Greg,
Sometimes when you do not have anything of substance to say it is better to not to say anything…Otherwise you just projecting what is there.
Peace,
Christophe
You’re “Peace” seems rather insincere; kinda like when God tells all men everywhere to repent, but hasn’t made repentance possible to all of them.
Blessings on you, Christophe!
Nice blog from James White, Dr. Brown. It is great to see that you guys differ so much on this particular topic of Calvinism but yet such great friends. I must admit, for me.. It is confusing how you are both educated scholarly people, and I consider you both brothers in the Lord, yet you believe what you do 100% and so does he, so you guys read the Scriptures in their original languages and make very very convincing arguments (on both sides).
So for a person like me, an 18 year old just graduating high school this year, I don’t have nearly as much experience as either of you and don’t know where to lean (based on both of your arguments, seems like you both get nearly opposite beliefs from reading the same thing). So instead of me just stop listening to you both, I hunger to listen more and more until I can see the truth come out. So I listened to your debate live and once more on iTunes. I felt like I understood both sides better after the second time I listened to it, yet still left me really confused. The debate was an eye-opener in the sense of helping me understand both positions better, a lot better.
For me, it seems kind of contradicting that the Bible teaches both of these theologies. I’ve dealt with similar stuff like this before and it’s never really effected me this much, where it’s hurting my faith and I just really want to find the truth. I have prayed a lot about it and the only truth I see is, the Bible teaches both. This kind of forced me into a confusing position where I have, well it seems like, lost a lot of faith – I think it effected me so much because I was like 100% sure this was it, and now I don’t know, I mean I know Scripture teaches Jesus died for the whole world, God loves every single person, God does truly want all to be saved, and all to repent, but Scripture it also supports Calvinism!
So I honestly want to say good job on both sides, and because you guys both did such a good job…., well.. I just hope everything gets cleared up please pray for me.
Eric,
Let me strongly encourage you to concentrate all your efforts on getting closer to the Lord, becoming like Jesus in thought, word, and deed, enjoying His goodness, blessing His people, and reaching out to the Lord — and NOT getting worried about sorting out the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. Just say to the Lord, “As I continue to walk with You, give me insight and understanding so I can know and serve You better,” and don’t get sidetracked with the debate.
Keep first things first! Grace on you!
Thank you so much for that, after I wrote my comment I felt better I guess I just had to share how I felt. I felt the peace of the Lord and I will focus on all those things you mentioned. I need to get my priorities straight. I pray that God blesses you, thanks again Michael.
Dear Dr. Brown,
I believe to think that Arminianism and Calvinism as the only option in regards to the issue of predestination or human responsibility vs God’s sovereignty is a tertium non datur fallacy. I believe there is a 3rd view and that is the Lutheran view.
I have commented to you about this before but you never published my comments. I would appreciate it if you could inform me why you have rejected my comments wherein my comments I do not think were offensive nor insulting to both parties.
This is your blog and I respect your decision to filter your comments, I am just puzzled why twice I wrote and you rejected my comments.
Since my email is know to you through this comment, may I please have information as to why you might not like to publish this comment?
Thank you,
LPC
LPC,
I don’t see which comments are posted and which are not, so I have no idea why your previous posts didn’t make it. (There are others in our ministry responsible for that.) Feel free to post any view you please, as long as it ties in with the discussion, which appears to be the case.
I look forward to hearing your position.
Hi Dr. Brown,
Of course, the whole Bible is full of passages that teach God has predestined the elect, I could cite them all and you would dismiss them. But, off the top of my head I can think of a couple that pertain from my perspective at least.
In fact, similar phraseology is used as in John 6. The ones “given”.
We are told in Hebrews 2:13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. These are the same given ones in John 6. You asked for some reference prior, although quoted from Hebrews, Hebrews is referring to concepts such as found in Isaiah 8:18, prior to John, I’m sure you would agree. I doubt the writer of Hebrews read into it from out of thin air, as you accuse us of doing. 🙂
Dr Brown, you wrote the following, in part:
2) God is genuinely grieved when His people refuse to heed His call, to the point that He says things, “If only you would listen”; 3) God commends those who do come, consistently offering His grace to “whoever will” receive it;
We reformed folk adhere to the standard statements of faith,- called Confessions such as the WCF or the LBCF1689 – which speak of God in these terms (WCF Chap II:1)
There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, *without body, parts or *passions;* We understand passages that speak of God being grieved as anthropomorphic – we on purpose do not ascribe men’s passions in the same sense. God is not disappointed ever, God always knows and is never surprised. I am wondering if you seriously think God is grieved and disappointed in his creatures.
Dr White has stated a really consistent Arminian will end up being an Open Theist, I pray to God that will not happen to you and you will remain an inconsistent Arminian 🙂
God does not merely *offer* grace. But as Dr. White correctly pointed out, the Scripture teaches God doesn’t simply *offer* mercy, or an opportunity for mercy…He actuates mercy on behalf of that person, it’s a verb. “He Mercies who He wills… in Exodus 23:6-8 we are told that God is merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, *keeping mercy* for thousands.
With respect for you, praying for the
Blessings of God to richly bless your ministry . . . .
Love in our Common Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
Bro Pat
Dr. Brown,
Thank you for your invitation for me to post so more.
A bit of historical theology is in order. Please remember that Arminianism was a reaction to the strict Calvinism of Beza and his company.
Arminianism is not a reaction within Lutheranism. The Lutherans never had that controversy. In the very beginning they never had such a controversy because the held to mystery. Predestiantion firstly as a term found in the Bible is never used toward non believers. It is supposed to be a comforting doctrine and it is not to be used to explain what happens to those who would wind up condemned. It is only used for those who believer. The Lutheran confessions like the Formula of Concord and Solid Declarations clearly document what Lutherans believe about this. The mystery they hold on to is this – if you are saved, it is because of God, if you are damned, it is because of you.
Lutheran view of justification and sanctification is monergistic. But they differ in that they view the Means of Grace – Word/Sacrament as the vehicle God uses to bring faith to sinners. This aspect is the most crucial bit as to why Lutherans are monergistic – the believe though God saves, he does not save anyone without the Means of Grace.
More needs to be said no doubt. Just note the Calvin signed a version of the Augsburg Confession, he was for a while a Lutheran until he viewed it his calling to become the via media between Zwingli and Luther, he did not succeed.
More later if needed.
Blessings,
LPC
Hello Dr Brown
First, don’t laugh — I have only just heard the FIRST debate with James White, since I was catching up on old shows as a new listener. I know that you have already addressed how the Bible’s portrait of God consistently challenges Calvinism, so I don’t want to comment on that. Instead, this is a question for you to mull over: Are the challenges of life the greatest problem for proper pukka Calvinists?
Let me explain: Calvinists claim that their witnessing is more umble and Godly and does not rely on techniques or tricks, because God does the work. So why do their talks and discipling materials focus on how to communicate more effectively? They witness as non-Calvinists in real life.
As a mother, another thing has really struck me. Dr White has been honest and said that his own relatives could have been selected for perdition, and he’s fine with that. I appreciate his honesty. What about young adults who reject Christ? I have heard other Calvinists say, “Well, they weren’t even Christians to begin with,” and sort of leave it there. They seemed almost smugly happy to see the P and U of TULIP confirmed. But I have noticed that the people who say that are a)parents of very little children or b) all of their adult children are saved. So they haven’t actually had to face the prospect that their OWN kids were chosen for damnation.
However, now that about 80% (80%!!) of children from Christian homes are walking away from the faith, it’s getting scary for all of us. And the script is changing. “This is terrible,” say the Calvinist websites, radio show and books, “What can we do to prevent it?” Hold on, why are they trying to prevent the will of God from coming to pass? Shouldn’t they be celebrating the separation of the elect from the unelect? According to Calvinism, those young people were not chosen for salvation, so why obstruct what is meant to be? It’s not consistent with what they say they believe.
Dr Brown, I am not trying to be clever (I don’t know enough Greek to play that game). I am just running something by you. You care about revival and love to see people turn to Jesus. I have been reflecting and think that the realities of life in the US and UK – especially apostate youth – dictate that those who talk as Calvinists end up living and witnessing as non-Calvinists.
Dr. Brown asked me:
Hi Dr. Brown,
Sorry for the delayed response. As you know and also rightly noted, there are varieties of Calvinism, and my own analysis of the history comports with that fact. First, I would distinguish between being “Calvinistic” and “Reformed.” I take the former to reference those soteriological doctrines expounded at Dort, which are sloppily summed up by “TULIP.” The latter label, “Reformed,” I use to refer to a position that is *not less than* 1) confessional, 2) soteriologically Calvinistic, and 3) covenantal. As you may know, some within the “Reformed” camp don’t want to use that label for credo-baptists who meet that threefold criteria. I am inclined to disagree, so long as they just refer to themselves as “Reformed Baptists.” Since I do not consider myself covenantal, I do not call myself “Reformed,” even though it is Christian tradition that I respect. I do, however, consider myself “Calvinistic.” I had to clarify this distinction before answering your question.
So, what do I think constitutes “Calvinism”? It is *at least* a theological position that affirms 1) the pervasive depravity or moral inability of the natural man, 2) God’s unconditional election of some to eternal life, and 3) the preservation and perseverance of all those genuinely converted by God. With respect to “irresistable grace,” I think the Augustinian tradition can allow for some differences or quibbling in that area, even though I think the former three doctrines [along with scripture] necessarily result in an “effectual calling” at some point in history in the case of those God has unconditionally appointed to eternal life. Also, with respect to extent of Christ’s satisfaction, there is significant diversity among Calvinists on that point, and it is nothing new. Heated debate on the point took place even at the Synod of Dort, since several from the English and Bremen delegations took a moderate view, and advocated a form of universal redemption. As Dagg notes:
Notice that there are some who call themselves “particular redemptionists” who yet believe that the death of Christ was an atonement for the sins of all men. That’s a distinct form of “particular redemption” than John Owen’s, which has become so popular today. Owen, and most calling themselves “5 pointers,” think that Christ only satisfied for the sins of the elect, and hence they chiefly use the “double payment argument” to sustain their case. These strict particularists place every non-Owenic position in the “Amyraldian” basket, which allows them to quickly dismiss it as sub-orthodox. This is a flawed view of history, as many outstanding Reformed historians are realizing. Dr. Richard Muller, for example, recognizes the fact that the moderate views of such men as Zanchi, Musculus, Bullinger, Ursinus, Ussher, Preston, Davenant, and Bunyan are distinct from the Saumur school [Cameron, Daille, Amyraut, Testard, etc.]. Also, in his Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Muller even calls the Amyraldian position orthodox and Reformed, viewing as within confessional boundaries. As you can see, the “Reformed” or “Calvinistic” position(s) on the “Limited Atonement”/”Particular Redemption” is more complicated than many realize. According to Muller, there are *at least* three positions on the extent of Christ’s atonement: 1) the Bezan/Turretinian/Owen trajectory, 2) the Zanchi/Musculus/Bullinger/Ursinus/Ussher/Preston/Davenant model, and 3) the Cameron/Amyraut school. Although the latter two groups share much in common [like Christ satisfying for the sins of all men], the Amyraldian school has distinct expressions and covenantal categories that the other moderates do not share. These categories get even more historically complicated when there is the rise of hyper-Calvinism. Some of them hold to an “equivalentist” view of Christ’s death, such that He suffered so much for so many sins, as if there is a commercial ratio between the degree of His sufferings and the quantity of the elects sins transferred [as distinct from “imputed”] to him. Even those within the strict camp try to distance themselves from that view.
Given the historical data, I distinguish between “Hyper,” “High,” and “Classical/Moderate” Calvinism. The “High” and “Moderate” labels are nothing new. They are at least as old as 1692, as articulated by John Humfrey, who wrote:
Like Humfrey, I distinguish between the “High” sort and “Moderate” sort based on the atonement views of the *Calvinistic* rejector of Arminianism. If they maintain that Christ only satisfied for the sins of the elect, like Owen, then I classify them as “High.” If they think that Christ atoned for the sins of all men [whether they call that notion a “universal redemption” or not], I call them “Moderate.” A nickname in Humfrey’s day for the moderate position was “middle-way” men. I am a moderate Calvinist, since I believe that Christ died for the sins of all men.
To be continued…
Hi Doug,
I must disagree that things got confused. I thought Dr. Brown was quite clear with the question. I did not mean to say that Dr. White does not know whether or not he is saved, that he purposely evaded to answer, nor did I imply he has not a fully developed understanding of it, at least, from a Calvinistic perspective. I just mean, it seemed to me, that he got flustered a bit not knowing how to answer. At least, that was my impression.
But as soon as I get the time today, I listen to that part again and let you know if there was confusion on both sides.
Also, just quickly, Dr. White’s last blog was gracious and seemed very true with respect to things mentioned about debating.
Thanks…
Anthy,
I don’t know if I may be helpful, but I would like, as a calvanist, to answer.
A common question of calvanists is how could God allow terrible things to happen to believers, like allow a child to walk away from the Faith of the Christian parents.
I must admit that I would be sad beyond measure a child of mine were to not become a Christian. I would like simply to say that I believe that an understanding of the complete sovereignty of God gives the Christian far more hope than would the understanding that the person’s sinful will is the decisive and determining factor in the salvation. The reason is that all the non-calvinist may hope in God for is that God make this or that situation work out so that the child would perhaps have a change of mind. However, such a person must fundamentally hope in the child’s sinful will changing its self. The calvinist can pray, “God, I know that you can do all things, so if it would work out for your will of my joy and your glory, save this child.” Praying, the Calvinist is left to hope in nothing or no one but the good and kind pleasure.
If a child is to glorify God by rejecting God, the God of all goodness will do what is right, and most for my joy and His glory. So there is always a reason for this heartbreaking events. I believe that God is grieved by the will of such a God-regecting child, because that child is the one from the child’s own sinful will choosing to drink from broken cisterns, rather than being satisfied by the living water. I hope God would give me the grace to entrust myself to Him as to a faithful Creator, as Peter said to when it is God’s will that we as Christians suffer.
I must admit that I do not know how a non-calvanist must take such a reality of a child rejecting God. I say so because if I were not a calvinist in such a situation I don’t know what I’d do, because if I weren’t a calvanist then I would feel no hope that such a terrible thing was ment for good even if the child ment it for evil. It would feel like senseless, pointless evil. The best I could hope for would be that God try to maybe bring some good out of it, even if the action its self just terriblly meaningless.
So that’s my consideration of it as a calvanist. I’d be very much interested in your thoughts on that.
Thanks,
God’s peace to you.
Unlike others, I do not think the dividing line between high’s and moderates necessarily involve lapsarian views, or between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. That categorization has several problems. First, there are supralapsarians, like William Twisse, who taught that Christ died for all men. Second, there are some Calvinists, like Herman Bavinck and Robert Lewis Dabney who reject lapsarian speculation. Where do they place *non-lapsarian* Calvinists? They usually don’t talk about them, as if all Calvinists have and must hold to lapsarian speculation. To further complicate things, Bavinck held to a strict form or particular redemption and Dabney held to a less strict view [or Dagg’s second form of “particular redemption”], maintaining that Christ expiated for every man. Unlike these people, I don’t use lapsarian views to necessarily place one in the “Hyper,” “High” or “Moderate” camps. There are some supralapsarians that are “hyper” and some who are not. There are some supralapsarians who may even be “moderate,” but most are “high.” In order for me to think one is “hyper,” I think they must 1) deny God’s love for all humanity, and/or 2) deny God’s grace toward all humanity [or general grace], and/or 3) deny the well-meant offer [or God’s willingness/desire to save all men], and/or 4) deny that all men are duty-bound/responsible to evangelically believe the gospel when they hear it [or duty-faith]. Not all supralapsarians, infralapsarians or “high” Calvinists go that far in their “Calvinism.” If they do, then I think it is fair to call them “hyper-Calvinists.” I rely on such scholars as Curt Daniel and Iain Murray [among other orthodox Calvinists], in addition to my own historical research/documentation. For more on my classification system, I would encourage you to read this:
An Explanation of a Few Calvinistic Labels
Also, at the John 3:16 Conference, which involved several “non-Calvinists” addressing Calvinism, Dr. David Allen distributed a chart that I made for him. It can be obtained here:
Conference Chart
I think that might be really helpful. I also helped with Dr. Allen’s [a “non-Calvinist”] research for his article on “Limited Atonement,” that was printed in the new book “Whosoever Will.” You can read most of that article [from pages 61-98] in the Google books preview here [click]. He references my name in one of the footnotes here [click].
As you noted, James White disagrees with the position of John Murray on the universal saving will of God, and that is no small matter, in my estimation. Murray was a “High” Calvinist, maintaining that Christ only suffered for the sins of the elect [a limited imputation of sin to Christ]. White has gone significantly further, even endorsing Robert Reymond’s rejection of John Murray’s articulation of the well-meant gospel offer, when most well-known Reformed Baptists [Erroll Hulse, Walter Chantry, Al Martin, Sam Waldron, Robert Gonzales] staunchly agree with Murray. Phil Johnson and Tom Ascol are even in Murray’s camp. Robert Reymond even endorses John Gill’s interpretations of the controversial passages to which Murray appeals. It’s no wonder, then, why James White is systematically undermining every single passage that Calvinists have historically used to sustain belief in God’s universal saving will. Even though White disagrees, his position is *in fact* outside of the mainstream. Reymond is arguing for the John Gill/Gordon Clark/Herman Hoeksema view of the will of God, and there are only a handful of us Calvinists who are voicing our biblical and theological problems with that. Dr. Robert Gonzales is virtually a singular voice that has come out against White’s “caricatures,” “ad hominems,” and “rejection of the well-meant offer.” When John Gerstner, later in life, eventually sided with the Hoeksemian/Clarkian take on the will of God, Al Martin [a Reformed Baptist] cautioned the church, saying “Dr. Gerstner strays from the mainstream of historic calvinistic teaching regarding the free offer of the Gospel.” Martin also said in that same cautionary letter that “We in fact commend the writing of Stonehouse and Murray on the Free Offer of the Gospel.” Almost no voices are similarly cautioning against White’s rejection of the Murray position.
With respect to the doctrine of God’s willingness to save all men in the revealed will as taught by John Murray, I totally agree. I am saying nothing more or less than John Murray *on that subject*, even though I take the moderate/minority Calvinistic view of the extent of Christ’s death. Murray’s position on the will of God is mainstream historic/orthodox Calvinism. That’s a fact. Therefore, as Al Martin said of Gerstner’s later views, I would say that “James White strays from the mainstream of historic calvinistic teaching regarding the free offer of the Gospel.” This is why he is actively undermining *every* text to which orthodox Calvinists appeal to sustain belief in God’s universal saving will.
I hope that helps for some of the historical distinctions, and to clarify why I am disturbed by White’s hermeneutical/theological activity on the topic of God’s will and His gospel offer.
Grace to you,
Tony
Pat Quick,
Please re-read my question, and you’ll see that you have no answer for it. If you do, please supply the verses — but only after you re-read my challenge to you.
As for the Reformed Faith (or, the Arminian Faith for that matter), I’d prefer to stay with the Scriptures, and when they speak of God’s joy or grief, to believe the Word and not the confession. After all, Jesus shows us exactly what the Father is like, doesn’t He?
Grace to you!
Tony Byrne,
Thanks so much for taking the time to post so meticulously. I’m sure this will help many, especially those who are newer to the discussion.
When I was a Calvinist, I of course gloried in Owen’s Death of Death in the Death of Christ (without reading all of it, however), and I went along with the view that if you pulled out any of the five points, the others went to, and if you accepted the U of TULIP, everything else followed. Nonetheless, my home church believed that we could safely say that Christ’s death was sufficient for the entire world and efficient only for the elect.
In any case, thanks for the post, and I do hope others here will read it and interact with it, and I’m also sure that Dr. White would have much to say regarding it as well.
That being said, I’d like to throw this out for discussion: It appears to me that Arminians think much more in terms of sola Scriptura than do Calvinists, since we’re not quoting Confessions or theological terms (for the most part), neither are we beholden to certain theological giants of the past (for better or worse; e.g., we’re not prone to quote Arminius or Wesley), and we tend not to *glory* in doctrine or boast of a *system*. This is not to say that Calvinists don’t love the Word, but they seem to be much more into their theological terms and names and distinctions than Arminians.
Does this seem to be a fair observation to you, or do you feel that it is a gross caricature?
Tony,
So, what do I think constitutes “Calvinism”? It is *at least* a theological position that affirms 1) the pervasive depravity or moral inability of the natural man, 2) God’s unconditional election of some to eternal life, and 3) the preservation and perseverance of all those genuinely converted by God. With respect to “irresistable grace,”
Which, unsuprisingly, allows for Amyraldianism, of which both of your posts reek.
I would invite people to read the doctoral dissertation of Jonathan Rainbow The Will of God and the Cross, for a historical refutation of Amyraldian arguments on Calvin. There is no justification for calling yourself a “Calvinist” in your soteriology if Calvin did not believe what you teach.
Not only that, for most people, calling yourself a “Calvinist” means that you believe in the five points of Calvinism. Since you deny the five points of Calvinism as your foundational definition, then shouldn’t you make us aware that you are using an odd definition from the beginning?
Also, you have a very strange definition of “hypercalvinist” too. Most of us believe that hypercalvinism is a denial of the need to proclaim the gospel. To include in that the denial that God wants everyone saved [ in the sense that Murray said] is, again, misleading.
Amyraldianism is an inconsistent form of Calvinism trying to hold to all points of Calvinism except for particular redemption. The problem is that you can take all of their arguments against particular redemption, and use them against unconditional election. Calvinism was made to be a systematic theology, and, when you deny one point along the line, the whole thing becomes inconsistent.
God Bless,
Adam
Hello Dr Brown
I a question/comment during US breakfast time 7 am, it’s quite a long way up the page now — did you see it?
Der– typo! I should have typed:
I posted a question/comment during US breakfast time 7 am, it’s quite a long way up the page now — did you see it?
Anthy,
I’m unable to read all the posts here, so I may have missed it. Can you repost the question, in short?
Thanks!
Adam’s post illustrates something I have frequently seen among Calvinists: Group 1 accuses others of being “hyper” Calvinists, while Group 2 calls GRoup 1 hyper, and on and on.
So, again, much appreciation to Tony Byrne for laying out some of the issues, which, not surprisingly, are already drawing a reaction from other Calvinists.
As for the “name calling” (Amyraldian, etc.), in keeping with my last post to Tony (at the end), this is really much more of a Calvinist practice than an Arminian one. Very interesting.
Hello Dr Brown
Here’s my message from this morning:
First, don’t laugh — I have only just heard the FIRST debate with James White, since I was catching up on old shows as a new listener. I know that you have already addressed how the Bible’s portrait of God consistently challenges Calvinism, so I don’t want to comment on that. Instead, this is a question for you to mull over: Are the challenges of life the greatest problem for proper pukka Calvinists?
Let me explain: Calvinists claim that their witnessing is more umble and Godly and does not rely on techniques or tricks, because God does the work. So why do their talks and discipling materials focus on how to communicate more effectively? They witness as non-Calvinists in real life.
As a mother, another thing has really struck me. Dr White has been honest and said that his own relatives could have been selected for perdition, and he’s fine with that. I appreciate his honesty. What about young adults who reject Christ? I have heard other Calvinists say, “Well, they weren’t even Christians to begin with,” and sort of leave it there. They seemed almost smugly happy to see the P and U of TULIP confirmed. But I have noticed that the people who say that are a)parents of very little children or b) all of their adult children are saved. So they haven’t actually had to face the prospect that their OWN kids were chosen for damnation.
However, now that about 80% (80%!!) of children from Christian homes are walking away from the faith, it’s getting scary for all of us. And the script is changing. “This is terrible,” say the Calvinist websites, radio show and books, “What can we do to prevent it?” Hold on, why are they trying to prevent the will of God from coming to pass? Shouldn’t they be celebrating the separation of the elect from the unelect? According to Calvinism, those young people were not chosen for salvation, so why obstruct what is meant to be? It’s not consistent with what they say they believe.
Dr Brown, I am not trying to be clever (I don’t know enough Greek to play that game). I am just running something by you. You care about revival and love to see people turn to Jesus. I have been reflecting and think that the realities of life in the US and UK – especially apostate youth – dictate that those who talk as Calvinists end up living and witnessing as non-Calvinists.
Dr. Brown,
First of all, I never called Tony Byrne a “hyper” at all. My point was that he is departing from the traditional terminology, and, while he is free to do so, he should let us know that up front, so that massive confusion doesn’t result.
Also, have you ready anything regarding the Amyraldian controversy Dr. Brown? Just look it up in any theological dictionary. It is clearly there. It is not “name calling;” it is the name given to the theological teachings of Moses Amyraut (1596-1664).
Also, we have to have define terminology for this discussion. If Calvinists are not able to define what we mean by “Calvinist,” and we must accept anyone and everyone who says they are a “Calvinist,” whether they use the common definition or not, then how are we going to ever be able to have a discussion?
Would you like it if someone of the Amyraldian scheme came along, and tried to label themselves as an Arminian? Would you like it if someone who denied free will came along, and tried to label themselves as an arminian? Why not? Because it departs from the traditional usage of terms, and confuses people.
God Bless,
Adam
Adam,
Did I say you called Tony hyper? (In fact, you would say the opposite.) Please step back and take a look at the point I was making, especially at the end of my last post to Tony, OK?
The fact is, in most Arminian “camps” (if such can be said), if you labeled someone an “Amyraldian,” they would have no clue what you were talking about. So, your post illustrated my point, for better (in your eyes) or for worse (in my eyes). Fair enough?
With respect to soteriology, I don’t believe you find the level of division and strife that you have among Calvinists within non-Calvinists perspectives.
Also, I really loved your comment regarding sola Scriptura Dr. Brown. This (Canons, Confessions, articles) is a result (IMHO) of not being “willing” to interpret the text as it’s plainly written (whosoever, all, whole-world, any…)
Dr. Brown,
Then please explain yourself here:
Adam’s post illustrates something I have frequently seen among Calvinists: Group 1 accuses others of being “hyper” Calvinists, while Group 2 calls GRoup 1 hyper, and on and on.
Am I not group 2? And if I am not group 2, how does this illustrate what you have said?
The fact is, in most Arminian “camps” (if such can be said), if you labeled someone an “Amyraldian,” they would have no clue what you were talking about. So, your post illustrated my point, for better (in your eyes) or for worse (in my eyes). Fair enough?
However, they would understand what “free will” is, right? Would they accept someone as an arminian who denies free will?
Again, words have meaning. If we are not able to define our terminology, then there is no possible way to have our discussion. I have no problem with accepting Amyraldians as my brothers and sisters in Christ. I have no problems in being close to them, as I have had several close friends of the Amyraldian persuasion. That is not the issue. The issue is definition of terms for this discussion.
Also, you need to understand the background to all of this discussion. I would recommend that you go here to read a discussion of these very issues that Dr. White has already written:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?amount=0&blogid=1&query=Tony+Byrne
The problem is, Dr. Brown, you are not understanding that, because hypercalvinism is a term that has always been used to describe heresy, Tony Byrne has redefined that term to refer to people who believe like Dr. White. This is not an issue of theology; it is a political game. Go ask Dr. White about all of this, and he will tell you the same thing. It all comes out of the anticalvinistic politics of the SBC, as was illustrated by the John 3:16 conference.
God Bless,
Adam