In and Out of Calvinism

[Download MP3]

Dr. Brown talks with Austin Fischer about his book Young, Restless, No Longer Reformed and talks about what draws some people into Calvinism today and why some are leaving Calvinism. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.


Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Be faithful to God and the Word of God; whatever the costs, whatever the consequences, do it!

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Why do you believe what you believe? Are you sure? You better be!



More than 25 years ago, Dr. Brown taught an 8-week, 12-hour class on spiritual warfare, and that class has stood the test of time as the very best teaching he has ever done on the subject. The audio CD for this series is $20, plus postage, but you can download the entire series for just $10 this week.!

Call 1-800-278-9978 or Order Online!

Other Resources:

Calvinists Call-in Day

The Question of Hell and Eternal Punishment

Reflections on the Calvinism Debate with James White

  1. Bill,

    This will be my final posting to you as well.

    When you engage in dialoge please don’t conclude that your opponent is not as sincere as you. Such statements as:

    “Maybe you do understand the issues and that your just playing games with me; but, I am trying to follow what you have said, and I don’t think you are interested in hearing what I have to say at all, but are just using my responses to mock me and what you don’t believe in.”

    There is no need for you to judge my motives, espeically when you are wrong. I have sincerely sought to dialogue with you and to hear your responses to fundamental questions that appear to contradict your theological position. If, in fact, what you state reconciles the offer, then I will embrace that position. I am opposed to Calvinism, because, in my mind, it just doesn’t make any sense. Thus, I offered you an opportunity to address the areas and passages, in my mind, that run completely against it, but once again, they have remained unaddressed from yet another individual coming from the Reformed persuasion. In any case, many blessings to you.


  2. (1) Total dogmatism

    (2) Unparalleled superiority complex

    (3) Limited tunnel vision hermeneutics

    (4) Irony of “assurance” (no assurance really, because you can only be sure if one thing – if God did not elect you nothing you can do to change that fact. In fact, God may have elected you to apostasize just like Barker, Loftus, Ehrman an the rest. How’s that for assurance?)

    (5) Perseverance of “aints”. This ain’t no Christian if he’s not a Calvinist, and that ain’t no truth if it doesn’t align with Reformed theology.

    I’m kidding, but couldn’t resist temptation to create this joke. In fact, it was irresistible. 😀

  3. Bill I love your statement about White “…who is an apologist, and not a Scholar.”

    Gives me a lot of enthusiasm when it comes to majoring in apologetics 🙂 I see a lot if bright future in front of me. I spend my time on non-scholarly subjects 🙂

    On a serious note, on the back cover if “New Testament theology” written by Howard Marshall there’s a quote by Moo. He says, “Marshall surveys the issue s and themes of New Testament theology as only the dean of New Testament scholars could do”.
    Now, if he calls Marshall a “dean” of NT scholars that means he respects him, right? But Marshall is not Calvinist.
    For example, on p. 381 in the footnote Marshall explains election in Eph. 1:
    “I take minority view that the passage dies not actually say that God chose beforehand which specific individuals he would adopt as his children in thus way to the exclusion of others whom he did not choose. Nothing is said here about individuals, but Paul simply says that God chose to have a holy people, consisting of adopted children. The explanation of why he says that God chose “us” is that he is writing from the standpoint of those who have experienced grace and adoption, that is, the people in whose case the divine plan has been effective”

    Now, of course this may not, and probably does not, mean that Moo agrees with Marshall on everything, but it means that the person whom he respects views election quite differently from him.
    My point is simply that there are NT scholars who are not Calvinists. It’s a fact 🙂

  4. Now shall the ‘Prince’ be case out (next, “I will draw ALL…). Post moderns especially continue in debate (Calvinism, Arminianism, especially) using ‘italics’ used KJV, all versions printed with KJV ‘permissions’, etc., et al “men” unto ME ? It takes a reformer, regardless of followers past, present, future, or pre, mid, post (EITHER of Calvinian or Arminian) to continue argue still seemingly ‘unending’, within themselves, also of others USING one ‘word’ in ‘italics’ ? AUTHORIZED by earthly, ‘earthy’ king ? obviously not of ANY understanding, nor seemingly wanting to know true CONTEXT by which John was writing his ‘gospel’ (& not this earthly ‘king’s gospel’). Those PEOPLE who “LOOKED” (not were ‘drawn’) LIVED. ‘Princes’ under ‘one’ Prince of this world being ‘drawn’ brought forth the actuality of this ‘one’ Prince TO BE CAST OUT of this world ! Context, context, context !

  5. It certainly understandable for an earthy only, earthly ‘king’, with princes under him, in this life, initial only, & FOR ALL from Adam’s ‘Eve’, including ‘earthly, EARTHY only in ruling over the people, kings, ‘princes’ under them, under such decrees of any ‘king’ down here (who down here “IS” considered ‘the law’), would insist on this ‘inserting’ of word ‘men’, yet knowingly inserted in ‘italics’ only, as to those who were being ‘drawn’ to the cross, and as a ‘self’ only, declared ‘catholic’ REFORMER, might point in use of the cross, for EXCUSE for himself also, as for not ‘taking up OWN’ cross, and following HIM only even as HE, in HIS OWN obedience to the F-ther, Source of all, ‘kings’ & ‘men’ EVERYWHERE must !

Comments are closed.