Baptists and Calvinism: An Open Debate
Plans for the much-discussed debate involving Drs. Ergun Caner, Emir Caner, James White and me have taken many turns over the last few months. I am happy to announce that the debate has been slightly restructured and is now confirmed by all four participants (yes, including me) for October 16, 2006 in Lynchburg, Virginia. Below is a statement that the four participants are jointly issuing to those who have shown interest in these events. Please note our request that you would join us in prayer as we move toward the debate. After the statement, I have a few more comments of a personal nature to add.
Secondly, I want to acknowledge publicly one particularly egregious and harmful contribution that I made to the breakdown of our previous discussions. The email exchange between Ergun and me that I posted on June 26, 2006 contained a letter that I sent to him that, sadly, added fuel to an already raging fire, rather than helping to calm that fire. The tone of the letter was unkind and one metaphor I employed was particularly ungracious and inappropriate for followers of Jesus Christ. Paul tells us to "let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers" (Ephesians 4:29). My email failed miserably on both points. For that I am profoundly sorry. I have expressed my repentance to both Emir and Ergun and they have been gracious in their responses. Now, I am asking for your forgiveness as well.
Please join me in praying that this debate, that some would like to see turn into a type of "smack down," will instead be an occasion to highlight real differences in a manner that will advance not only the cause of truth but also the commitment to love and humility within the SBC and beyond.
On a personal note, I first want to express gratitude to our Lord for the graciousness and humility that Ergun, Emir and James have shown as we negotiated these final arrangements. These men have been models to me in how to work through awkward and difficult relationships.A Public Statement
Since February 27th of this year, plans have been underway to schedule a debate on Baptists and Calvinism. Drs. James White, Ergun Caner, Emir Caner and Tom Ascol initially agreed to participate in this event which was scheduled to be held at Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia on October 16, 2006. Over the last five months, efforts to negotiate the terms of the debate at times degenerated into heated, antagonistic exchanges between the four participants. In both speech and tone too much of the communication has been perceived and/or characterized by sinful attitudes that have not honored the Lord Jesus Christ. We acknowledge our responsibility in this and deeply regret that we allowed it to happen. Each of us longs to represent Christ honorably and our intent is to conduct further negotiations in ways that will do so.
Through ongoing communication out of the public eye we have come to terms regarding the debate. It remains scheduled on October 16th and will involve all four of us. The topic will be, "Baptists and Calvinism: An Open Debate." The length will be three hours. The format will be modified Parliamentary. The place will be Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia.
We are committed to engaging in a debate that will highlight the significant differences that exist between our respective views of how the Gospel of God works in bringing salvation to sinners. We believe that such debate can be conducted in a lively, vigorous exchange that need not violate the standard for Christian conduct that God has given us in His Word. Our goal is to do exactly this. The issues on which we disagree are important. It is because of our love for Christ and His truth that we believe these issues are worth debating. However, we regard this as a fraternal debate and intend to approach it not as antagonists, but as brothers with strong disagreements.
To that end we are asking those who have followed the issues surrounding this debate to join us in prayer that the Lord will guide us as final preparations are being made and that He will help us to conduct ourselves in a manner "worthy of the calling with which [we] have been called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:1-3).
Sincerely in Christ,
Ergun Caner
Emir Caner
James White
Tom Ascol
Secondly, I want to acknowledge publicly one particularly egregious and harmful contribution that I made to the breakdown of our previous discussions. The email exchange between Ergun and me that I posted on June 26, 2006 contained a letter that I sent to him that, sadly, added fuel to an already raging fire, rather than helping to calm that fire. The tone of the letter was unkind and one metaphor I employed was particularly ungracious and inappropriate for followers of Jesus Christ. Paul tells us to "let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers" (Ephesians 4:29). My email failed miserably on both points. For that I am profoundly sorry. I have expressed my repentance to both Emir and Ergun and they have been gracious in their responses. Now, I am asking for your forgiveness as well.
Please join me in praying that this debate, that some would like to see turn into a type of "smack down," will instead be an occasion to highlight real differences in a manner that will advance not only the cause of truth but also the commitment to love and humility within the SBC and beyond.

106 Comments:
i am happy to see this statement released and details of the debate set. although i have been in agreement with drs. white and ascol, i felt that it was very unfortunate that the exchanges had become so heated. i hope that this debate will be a blessing to all those who are seeking truth. i look forward to it.
Hello Tom,
What a salutary development! I am so glad to read this post, and I appreciate what must have had to transpire between you four (and perhaps others) to bring it about. Our fellowship here in Lynchburg will be praying much for the glory of God in the upcoming fraternal debate. If we can be of any help here, let us know.
...and "smack downs" aren't all bad, if YHWH is the One doing the smacking...he he.
Grace and peace to you all,
Timotheos
This is a post I did not expect to read this week. To God be the Glory!
I am amazed, shocked, thrilled, and whatever other creative words are out there, to have read this recent development. I had lost all hope in this debate, especially when Tom (rightfully so) dropped out. This just reminds me of how gracious our Lord is and how He prevails even when man in his sin, does everything in his power to stop it. God is powerful. And I will be praying for all of you that the Lord Jesus will be glorified and His truth proclaimed.
On a side note, I can't wait till Ergun is confronted on his outrageous and eisegetical remarks regarding Romans 9...muuuaaahhhaahhaaaaa
God is awesome!
After watching you speak on my dvd, Amazing Grace, it would be hilarious to hear you say "smack down" at all. But all joking aside, I wish you the best on this upcoming debate.
Seriously... praise God. I have thought and prayed and hoped that all of the heat would be drained out of this, and that things would proceed in humility, meekness, and respect amongst all involved. This is really great news.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
It is a joy to read this post. I am happy too see that both 'sides' have come to such an agreement.
One one word to those of us who leave comments. Let's follow in humility and not make undue comments.
Wonderful news. It is good to see humility on all sides.
John 13:34-35, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love one for another."
God is good and the truth will prevail! I pray sovereign blessings and grace for Dr.'s Caner!
CR
I am very happy to see this debate take place. I believe that these type of discussions can only serve to strengthen us as Southern Baptists.As a Calvinist, I will be "pulling for" Drs. White and Ascol...but I will pray for all to conduct themselves in a manner worthy of the Gospel.
I pray and hope that the debate will be as congenial as the agreement that you posted.
Can you tell us if there will be a DVD or recording of this debate available for those of us who will not be able to attend?
slmayes:
The debate will be recorded and made available.
James White has encouraged those who read his site not to travel to attend the debate since it is primarily for Liberty students. I live in NC and it would not be a far drive for me. Is there a way to register for the debate in any way? Or does everyone simply show up?
Tom -
Do you think you may be able to work it out to have a webcast of this? This is wonderful news for people of all different stances on Calvinism. I pray Proverbs 27:17 for this debate.
Very good news!
Expect many requests for recorded (audio, video, and printed) copies of this historic encounter!
I look forward to watching the debate and hope and pray that God will be glorified through it. God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
I'd love to know HOW this came about. This seems like a 180 degree turn from the way things were going.
I could be wrong, but my guess is that this resolution didn't come about by email, but someone had to make some phone calls.
Many times while reading the archive of correspondance at aomin
I thought to myself, "Someone pick up a phone."
People, myself included, are typically more humble on the phone or in person, as opposed to behind the keyboard.
Glad to hear the good news.
For those who have read the many posts, thousands of comments, and the infamous PDF, the news of this change is truly remarkable and encouraging.
Whether Ergun or Emir read this post and comments I know not (I hope they do), but I want to thank them as well for their willingness to change their original positions to work for a debate that will be edifying to the church and profitable for the future discussion of Calvinism in Baptist life. May the Lord be pleased to use this to glorify Himself not only in the presentation of His truth, but also in the character and humility of those presenting that truth.
My only question left is, "What are we to do with onmnibenevolence?"
Interesting - I was skimming through Charles Finney's Systematic Theology and actually saw him use the term "Omnibenevolence". I couldn't believe it!
I certainly hope that the Dr.'s Caner do not want to be associated with the theology of Charles Finney!
(For those interested, pull of his Systematic Theology and read the section on "Election")
BTW - I am not wanting to detract from the spirit of humility and respect within Tom's post.
CR
Terrific news!!! Can't wait for the DVD...This turn of events is just one more piece of evidence for the overwhelming reality of God's sovereignty in all things.
Tom,
It is a blessing to hear that the debate will go forward. I believe this could be an incredible teachable moment for many in Baptist life, and especially within the SBC.
As for your very gracious words of apology to Dr. Caner, you become a teacher to us all even before the debate takes place.
May God be with you.
John
Minot, ND
Amen, AMen, AMEN,
I was just amazed and encoraged by this post. It is such a testimony to the grace of God. Most people(including myself) did not think this was possible. Do to the nature of the emails. The only thing I can say anything is possible with God, and to Him be the glory. Tom Press on I will continue to pray on this and you other endeverous.
In Him whom all things are posible,
Sam Bell
FGBC, San Antonio, TX
Wonderful news.
I pray the Lord's blessing in this debate.
Mark
God is awesome in how He uses us in spite of ourselves eh?
If nothing else, the four of you working things out this far in humility and repentance are a mighty testimony to Him.
I will be praying for you all and for His glory in this.
Phi 2:1 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy,
Phi 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.
Phi 2:3 Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.
May I suggest that we all chip in and pay for Tim Challies to be there to blog live. He did a masterful job for both the Shepherd's Conference and the Together for the Gospel Conference. Just a thought . . . .
caddiechaplin,
According to James Whites website, the intention of Liberty holding the debate on their turf was to make it available to their tens of thousands of students. Apparently there is no admission cost or guarantee that anybody outside of Liberty students will be allowed to attend. Maybe Tom can confirm this.
I am pleased that this debate will continue. Thank you gentlemen for your efforts in getting past those rather difficult beginnings. I'm confident that Christ will be honored in your new spirit of cooperation.
Good news Tom. I am praying about the debate.
Dear Dr. A,
This is great news for all of us. Thank you for your great attitude. I will join you in praying over this whole thing.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Oh how there've been too many times I've had to retract a word, tone or deed. It's humbling. I'm often redirected to James' instruction in 3:18, "The seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace."
"May the peace of Christ rule in your heart" and the other 3 participants as well.
It's my prayer that God is seen as glorious in this and that His truth about grace will be clearly understood by all listening.
Soley His by His divine grace...
I don't have any more details on the debate than what I have posted. James is correct that there will no tickets for it. I think Liberty will begin publicizing this in the near future. Perhaps the folks there can answer questions about these matters better than I can. I would guess that the new TRBC auditorium would have abilities for webcasting. But whether or not that will be offered...again, I am ignorant.
Tom,
I think it is doubly good that you are back in the debate. Your knowledge of the historical/theological roots of not only the SBC, but of Baptists in general, will be, I'm sure, an eye-opening corrective for many listening in the audience who otherwise would not be so educated.
Will you be bringing any Founders booklets with you, like "From the Protestant Reformation to the Southern Baptist Convention" or "A Foundation for the Future?"
I don't know if that would be "allowed," but it could be a nice setting for further exposure to Baptist heritage. Just wondering.
I actually was looking forward to James White taking on the Caner brothers by himself.
Too bad.
I guess civility and Christian curtesy is the right thing, but it sure has thrown cold water on my lust for controversy.
TOM,
AMEN This is GREAT news!!!
Who is going to be the moderator???
A Brother in CHRIST
Tom,
I am pleased to see the spirit of graciousness & humility lead to such an agreement.
Joe Thorn;
I was overwhelmed by the sermon you preached at the Founders conference. Thank You. I suggest that all four in the debate (as well as anybody else) get a copy of this CD.
boy, yall seem almost giddy over this debate taking place. lol. do you really think that if white and ascol win the arguement that this will make everyone suddenly turn into five pointers.lol.
the campbellites love to debate as well....and, they are very good at it. they win many an arguement due to thier debating skills. they are still wrong, and people dont convert to thier arminian, legalistic theology just because they win some debate.
the very fact that so many of yall are so giddy over this debate happening just shows me once again what a tangent and extreme yall are on. you seem to be more excited over this than you do over anything else. wow!
love and peace,
volfan007
Amen. Let God be glorified.
volfan:
As opposed to your, um, charitable comments here. Very convincing -- and loving.
I dont think I can add to anything that has already been said by others. I do hope that the debate will be meaningful and that those are not "Calvinist" will at least have a correct understanding of what we beleive concerning the work of Christ and the ability of man. Above may Christ be glorified in this debate and Hid word honoured.
Praise God for the Spirit that now resides in the hearts of these men. I look forward to the debate and the Doctrines of Grace, once again, being represented and proven in a Christ honoring way. Thank you, Dr. Ascol, for your humility in this most difficult situation.
Volfan, by the sound of your post, it seems to me that you proabably are a student (probably from Liberty) and a Canerite. Am I correct in asuming this? And what does it matter if people are a little excited to see this debate take place? Your probably a little giddy too.
i am not a canerite..lol...and i am not a liberty student. and really, i could care less that this debate is taking place. it's a complete waste of time and money and energy. i wish yall would get this excited about soulwinning. oh, i forgot...yall are scared that you may lead someone to the Lord who wasnt supposed to be....forgive me.
the very fact that you all are so excited over a debate...well, let's just say that it shows where your heart is....ok?
God bless everyone one of you....i love you,
volfan007
Dear Volfan007:
boy, yall seem almost giddy over this debate taking place. lol.
I would say yes, we are, but not for the reasons you later suggest. I for one am "giddy" over this debate for at least two excellent reasons. First, I see in this the evidence of at least some reconciliation of Christian brethren in the bonds of love and Christ-likeness. I honestly believe that all four gentlemen in this public statement seek to honor Christ and His Word, and display true Christian character even in the face of their disagreements. For that I rejoice. Second, this is an issue of the truth becoming known and defended. Though my convictions fall squarely on the "Calvinist" side of the fence as it were, I do not consider this an "us vs. them" issue but a peaceful dialogue and Scriptural interaction among Christian brethren. At least, these are my hopes.
do you really think that if white and ascol win the arguement that this will make everyone suddenly turn into five pointers.lol.
No, of course not, and winning the debate or proving a theological system is not the ultimate issue. As Christians we should seek first to see Christ glorified, and His inerrant Word defended and obeyed. My personal belief is that sincere Scriptural study irresistibly draws believers towards Reformed Theology, but that is simply my opinion (and anyone is welcome to it for what it is worth). My personal hope is for believers to grow and be strengthened in the Word as a result, and that our disagreements will not be focused on the personalities involved but on the actual teachings of Scripture on these matters.
the very fact that so many of yall are so giddy over this debate happening just shows me once again what a tangent and extreme yall are on. you seem to be more excited over this than you do over anything else. wow!
Volfan007, I mean you no disrespect and I harbor no ill will towards you, but I must ask, is any of this really necessary (or helpful, for that matter)? Remember that words really do carry weight. And they can be used carelessly and/or maliciously to much regret later (a painful truth I have personally experienced in Christian walk through life).
Here in Texas our barbed-wire fences are harmless only at a distance. Getting up close and personal with a barbed-wire fence is often ill-advised, and barbed-edges are difficult to soften. Likewise, words with barbed edges are not easily softened by adding window dressings such as "love and peace" at the end, and they are not humorous or good-natured, either. I believe attacking the character and motives, even implicitly, of those you disagree with is not warranted here. And Volfan007, though you are my brother in Christ and I happily treat you as such, from one brother to another I must assure you that your accusations here are completely unfounded for at least the majority of those present.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Byroniac
Let's be clear about something here. This is not about "winning a debate." This is NOT a competition/contest. It is about having the opportunity to present the case for Reformed theology in a public setting in a fair and open way in which both sides can debate the issues. The excitement comes, in part, because of the fact that so many uninformed preachers today have falsely labeled Calvinists (as extreme or hyper) and not accurately presented the beliefs we hold. Furthermore, there is sufficient reason to be excited that this would even take place, given the history of all this drama over recent months.
It is my belief that neither the brothers Caner nor White/Ascol would entertain this debate if they didn't believe that first and foremost that this debate would be profitable for the Church and glorifying to God. Let's not go back to the past of shameful and baseless rhetoric. The recent comments made by volfan007 are exactly the type of unhelpful statements that prevent any meaningful discourse of biblical truth. To respond to such comments who only bring dishonor to the name of Christ and discord among the brethren, regardless of what theological stripe you wear.
I'm sure Volfan is only speaking on relative terms, using his own experiences as normative.
Thus, when he states that we are "giddy" about theology, he means in respect to his own attitude toward doctrine, which is normative or less than the giddiness showed here.
Likewise, he comments that we are not as equally "giddy" about soulwinning reveal that he is overly giddy about soulwinning than the average poster in this blog.
I personally cannot comment on the level of giddiness, nor the doctrinal or soulwinning habits of anyone on this site, since for 99% of you, I have no knowledge of you outside of this website.
However, congratulations to Volfan for being more giddy about soulwinning than the average Founders reader.
Volfan, the real reason people are "giddy" is not because this debate is going forward necessarily but because of the reconciliation that has taken place between these four men. Instead of trying to cause division, try giving God praise for the work that He is doing in bringing people together.
Bro. Tom
Thank you for your humility and Christ honoring revealing of a wrong you have done. I have been in your position before and I know what it takes to admit a wrong done. Outside of being a brother in Christ, you have shown yourself to be a humble person worthy of respect. I will pray for you and all the participants.
God Bless.
Bro. Robin
This is the happiest news I have seen on the blogosphere in some time. Tom, once again, I salute your graciousness and spirit (even though I am not a Calvinist).
I pray that this debate will be interesting, informative, and most of all edifying.
"the very fact that you all are so excited over a debate...well, let's just say that it shows where your heart is....ok?"
I think what people get excited over when it comes to this debate Volfan is the fact that truth triumphs over ambiguity every time. One thing you notice when it comes to debates on election is the side that believes in unconditional election uses the Bible to defend its position while the side that believes election is conditional relies on emotion to defends their view. It's always an interesting thing to behold.
as i read the posts...i see people who are giddy about the debate. they think that this debate is somehow going to confirm that what they believe is absolutely the truth, and it might convince more to join thier ranks. i would say that some of you are thrilled about the reconciliation of the four men...fine.
i would tell you that my theology is based on the bible....and, it has led me to not be a five pointer. my theology is not based on emotional feelings...it's based on what the bible teaches. i know that it's hard for some of you to understand this concept....people out in left or right field often have trouble seeing beyond thier perspective. i understand that...really. beleive me when i tell you that i know what yall beleive and why you believe it. i seriously considered becoming a five pointer at one time in my younger days. i had several friends who had been persuaded by doc nettles to go that direction and they tried to get me to go that way too...boy, did they try!
after careful examination of five pointism and the bible....i found five pointism to be lacking. you emphasize on one side so much that you miss the other side.....equally true side. i thank God for keeping me from the extreme and for helping me stay in the truth. therefore, i can believe in romans 9 as well as john 3:16 without trying to explain away either.
God bless yall,
volfan007
Volfan,
if you say this...
after careful examination of five pointism and the bible...
but then yesterday you said this...
oh, i forgot...yall are scared that you may lead someone to the Lord who wasnt supposed to be....
then there is a VERY serious problem with how you read and understand what you've read.
As a result of your careful examination, could you please refer me to one five-point Calvinist who ever said either a single elect person will not be saved, or a single non-elect person will be saved?
This shows a very fundamental misunderstanding of a very basic part of the doctrine of election.
I hope you are inconsistent in your study. I sincerely hope your approach to understanding the bible is different from the approach you take to understanding Calvinism.
john,
take a deep, cleansing breath. count to 10. everything will be ok.
it's just like you five pointers to knit pick every word...every phrase...even something said with tongue in cheek....and then, debate it to death.
see yall.....God bless you,
volfan007
Volfan, shouldn't you be out soulwinning instead of blogging here and "debating" us over whether we should get excited about debating? You seem to "debate" (if by "debate" we mean ad hominem and strawman arguments) your middle ground view every time these subjects come up.
I would also like to know what your view of "soulwinning" is? Mine is that God wins them through the truth of Scripture (the whole truth) from a man-centered mindset in all things to a God-centered one. This is what I think salvation is. Salvation from self to Christ. Your claim is a dead one then in light of Calvinistic theology. It is a part of our salvation. It is a part of our redemption from the man-centered mindset to a God-centered one. Friend, we are soulwinning. We just don't stop at the Four Spiritual Laws.
I just want to add then, that since this debate is about "soulwinning," I for one am SUPER GIDDY about it. :)
"after careful examination of five pointism and the bible....i found five pointism to be lacking. you emphasize on one side so much that you miss the other side.....equally true side. i thank God for keeping me from the extreme and for helping me stay in the truth. therefore, i can believe in romans 9 as well as john 3:16 without trying to explain away either."
This has emotion written all over it;
emotion, emotion, emotion...
Do you know what follows "carful examination" Volfan? A careful analysis of your conclusion. Meaning an explanation as to why you accept or reject an idea/phylosophy/theology, etc. But since you are led by emotion, you cannot even give an example of what you feel is found wanting.
For you to give us your feelings about "five pointism" and not explain what you disagree with is like a 6th grade math student looking over a college level math book and not only saying "I don't agree with that" but going further to say "and I'm not tellin' you why!"
"...and you can't make me!"
brist,
soulwinning is taking the gospel to those who are lost and sharing it with them and trying to win them to Jesus. God uses His word to call and convict them. and, when they are willing to respond, then He gives them the ability to repent and the faith to be saved. but,you must go and try to win them. you and i must go and preach the gospel.
c and a,
my rejection of five point calvinism was based upon the bible. i have shared many, many times the verses that shoot five pointism in the foot. and, i have shared many, many times the verses that yall think proves your position, but in reality, you dont see it correctly. and, since these things have been talked about and talked about so many times that you know what i am going to say(as a biblicist), and i know what you are going to say(as a five pointer)....what's the use? all i can hope is that i encourage someone in here to come out of the extreme and get on the right road again. all i can i hope is that i can encourage all of you to think about where you are in your theological thinking and can encourage you to come out of the extreme. that is my prayer. that is my reason for even coming in here. if you dont wanna come out of it...well, God bless you. at least you are preaching God's Word and trying to live for the Lord...no matter how short sighted it is. and, i thank God for any good that you all might do for the glory of God.
God bless you...i love yall,
volfan007
Volfan, isn't it true that your rejection of "Calvinism" is simply your rejection of election? Your view is that man has free-will to accept or reject Christ. When all Calvinism does is reject that philosophy and explain how the Bible teaches that God elects unconditionally, isn't true that your argument is basically "no it doesn't"?
Calvinism = the belief in the doctrine of unconditional election.
Volfan's view = the belief that the doctrine of unconditional election is wrong because is leaves no room for soul winning and therefore those who believe this are not on "the right road."
put your five point spins on what i said all you want to. i just pray that the Lord will open your eyes. you ought to read peter lumpkins thoughts on his website...sbctomorrow.com....they are very helpful.
i believe in election. i believe the bible teaches that God chose to save me before the world began. halelujah! but, that does not negate the choice of man. election does not do away with whosoever will.
btw, i believe that yall's view of election is wrong because you negate the other side of the mountain. you emphasize on the election side of the mountain, and you do away with whosoever and man's free will to choose. that's where i depart with yall. and, that's where i think you are wrong....off the deep end. i didnt say that your view of election doesnt leave room for soulwinning...please dont put words into my mouth. but, i do think it causes yall to not be very evangelistic....thats been my personal experience with the five pointers i know...and i know many. they dont hardly ever witness, nor do they do things at thier church to try to lead people to the Lord. they are ususally too busy trying to convert christians to calvinism. sorry, but that's the way i see it. in fact, most of the five pointers i know who are pastors...their churches are either going down in attendance...or either, they went into a church that was not a five point church and they tried to convert them and they caused much strife and division and split several of the churches i know of. that's my observation, and like i said, i know of many five pointers.
anyhoooo, God bless yall,
your humble servant,
volfan007
Volfan, answer my question please.
If you say this...
after careful examination of five pointism and the bible...
but then yesterday you said this...
oh, i forgot...yall are scared that you may lead someone to the Lord who wasnt supposed to be....
then there is a VERY serious problem with how you read and understand what you've read.
As a result of your careful examination, could you please refer me to one five-point Calvinist who ever said either a single elect person will not be saved, or a single non-elect person will be saved?
I don't want to debate you or anyone else. But I can't take much more of your "extreme" rhetoric, then your dodging and hiding from answering from your ridiculous statements.
Just one reference from one point out of your careful examination of Calvinism and Scripture.
That's all I ask.
i believe in election. i believe the bible teaches that God chose to save me before the world began. halelujah! but, that does not negate the choice of man. election does not do away with whosoever will.
Here's another point where you're misunderstanding Calvinism.
Spurgeon one said, "But mark thee, sinner, it says, "whosoever." What a big word that is! Whosoever! There is no standard height here. It is of any height and any size. Little sinners, big sinners, black sinners, fair sinners, sinners double dyed, old sinners, aggravated sinners, sinners who have committed every crime in the whole catalogue,—whosoever. Doth this exempt one? Who can be excluded from this whosoever? It mattereth not who thou mayest be, nor what thou mayest have been, if thou art willing to be saved; free as the air thou breathest is the love and grace of God. "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."
I'm not trying to debate. I'm just pointing out that before you decide to warn us about our unbiblical beliefs, you should understand what our beliefs are.
Are you familiar with what Calvinism teached about compatibilism? Or the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility in salvation?
I don't know what you did during your "careful examination" of Calvinism and the Bible, but it seems you missed this part.
I know most folks just want to go with the majority of people in the mainstream SBC. There's strength and comfort in large numbers, and you don't have to do most of the theological grunt work for yourself. You can just listen and memorize a few soundbites from big-named preachers, then pretend like you understanding something as massive and complex as Calvinism.
But every once in a while, it's nice to find out what people you disagree with really believe and see if there just might be truth in something outside the mainstream.
OH yeah, in my experience, I witnessed countless dead churches, nasty church splits, divisions, decreasing church attendance, strife, anger, hatred, and so-called christians who never witnessed, and were against evangelism and missions. That was all before my 18th birthday, and long before I ever read anything about theology. None of those folks were Calvinists. They all believed in free will. They were just average, mainstream SBC churches. Just my observations and experiences, and I've know a lot of them.
while it's true that churches do have strife and split over a number of issues....they are all usually bad and wrong and destructive. five pointism is another one that causes such things. just because other bad things cause strife and division and church splits doesnt make it right for five pointism to be excused. five pointism does cause strife and division, and i know of at least two churches personally that it caused them to split. does that glorify God? does that lift up Jesus? to go into a church that's not a five pointer and try to convert it and cause such division?
also, i did study calvinism extensively...whether you beleive it or not. i love to read spurgeon. like, i know that you dont sincerely believe that God really desires that all men be saved. i know that you dont believe that the death of Jesus was for all people everywhere ....not really. i know that you all believe that there are people out there that really have no hope whatsoever...because Jesus didnt really die for them. and, God does not work in thier hearts to bring them to salvation. john, you need to read peter lumpkins blog at sbctomorrow.com...that will explain what i am trying to convey to you.
if you want to know what i believe about all this...i believe really close to dr. criswell's view of predestination and the sovereignty of God and man's free will and whosoever will. predestination and election are true...and they are looking at it from God's view, from heaven's perspective. whosoever will and mans choice and responsibility are looking at it from man's perspective...from an earthly view. they both are true. one does not negate the other. there is where i have the most trouble with todays five pointers. they seem to negate the choice of man and the whosoever will and the responsibility of man. now, i already know the five pointer rhetoric about this. i can almost quote what most of you five pointers are gonna say. but, i am not just saying that man could get saved if he would come to God...i am saying that the Lord really does desire for all men to be saved...all men...not just people from all parts of the world...but all..every....all. and, i believe that the bible clearly teaches that the Lord is working to bring all men to repentance, and to bring them all to a knowledge of the truth. i beleive that the Lord sincerely wants to save all and that His death can cover the sins of everyone....not just people from all races and sizes and nationalities...but all...everyone....all.
well, to say that i did not study the five pointism of today is not right. i read book after book about it. i attended the founders conference on year in memphis, tn. i had dr. nettles for several classes. i had two or three friends who tried to convert me. i know all about who you are and what you believe and why. i reject the extreme of it. i believe in election...predestination...the sovereignty of God....but i reject five pointism. and, i reject it due to my study of calvinism and my study of the bible....it just doesnt line up.
well, now that that's off my shoulders...i need to cool drink of sweet tea.
volfan007
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tom,
I look forward to the debate. I'm glad things were worked out.
Volfan,
You are giving all Vol fans and East Tennesseeans a bad name. I was raised just across the state line and most people don't use "yall" in every sentence (especially when they are communicating through the written word.) Besides, it’s irritating and comes across rather condescending from you.
You seem to be repeating yourself. Why don't you answer straightforward one of the questions that have been asked of you? For instance, name a well-known Calvinist that has written something that doesn't believe in active evangelism. Your in-depth study of Calvinism has surely manifested at least one example.
"in fact, most of the five pointers I know who are pastors...their churches are either going down in attendance..."
Another generalization. Have you ever seen a church go down in attendance for the right reasons? A preacher being faithful to the scriptures could cause some to leave. Church discipline being practiced could be another reason. Other churches are not growing and losing some because it is God who always gives the increase. Your assessment of those pastors you know lacks depth. Someone could probably come along and give a similar assessment of the fruit of your church if it was during a pruning period.
Folks...please be obiedent to scripture!!!! Proverbs 26:4
Volfan, you keep calling people you don't know "five-pointers." To be fair, can I call you a "five-pointer" as well? The reason I ask is because many Arminians reject point #5 (fallen from grace). So, based on what you've written thus far which demonstrates at least 4 points of Arminianism, I would like to know if you are a "four pointer" or a "five pointer" yourself?
(If you say neither Volfan, just know that you will be asked to explain how, for example, you can believe that Jesus died for the sins of every man, women and child who ever lived, and not be said to agree with the 3rd point of Arminianism.)
There are only 2 views for the believer, Volfan, before going down the dead-end road of Universalism...or denialism.
FYI to anyone interested...Ergun Caner will be on Issues Etc. August 13. The show runs from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. CST. The subject is Islam. Perhaps a creative person here on the blog can create a reformed theology question disguised as a question about Islam?
Wayne
As an LU student, I can tell you no one has to worry about seeting. I expect there will be thousands of empty seats if this debate is held in the auditorium. Serioulsy, if you want to come, come. The student body is 10,000, and the church seats 6,000. I would be shocked if more than 2,000 students attended. Remember, a large majority are not interested.
Lynchburgva, tell that to James, he's got everyone believing all of Virginia is going to want in!
boy, yall sure do get fired up when i write something. wheeeww doggies!
well, i agree with lynchburg...there will probably be a lot of empty seats there. i wont be there. what's the use? we will just hear the same ole same ole.
also, i am not an arminian...lol...far from it....and i am certainly no five point calvinist. i am a biblicist. i am just an average, everyday, normal christian who believes God's word.
see yall,
volfan007
Volfan, this isn't rocket science. You believe that man has free will to choose or reject Christ, "the choice of man" as you call it.
Well that's point #1 of Arminianism.
You also have said that the Holy Spirit does not convinct a select few and can be rejected, right? That's point #4.
You believe that Jesus died for everyone.
That is point #3.
And finally, if you ever get cornered to a wall by the youth group of your church to explain to them how predestination works, you will no doubt tell them all about God's foreknowledge.
Point #2
Now, I realize this might be the first time you are learning about the five points of Arminians since most Arminian-deniers have never been taught or shown what the 5 points of Arminianism is. Most not only get surprised to see their view already defined for them but never knew that that was what Arminianism was.
I am still curious, Volfan, are you a four pointer or a five pointer? Remember if you are a four pointer it is because you reject the Arminian doctrine of losing your salvation.
i am whatever you want to call me...just be sure to call me for supper. i am just a christian who believes equally in predestination as i do in whosoever will. i believe in election as much as i do in the choice of man.
call me what you will. i just prefer bible beleiving christian.
volfan007
Here's a question for Caner:
Can you explain to me the difference between the Reformed doctrine of predestination (as a Calvinist would hold) and Islamic determinism?
That should show everyone that he either confuses the two, and it may even cause him to think hard about the distinction between nihilistic determinism and Calvinism.
Volfan, I would prefer you call me a Bible believing Christian as well.
I echo the words of Elias.
This reminds me of my problem with the word, Biblicist, which speaks of someone's fidelity to the Scriptures. That's great. But when people call themselves biblicists, they are speaking about personal motives much more than scriptural accuracy. Some call themselves Biblicists, and I believe the sincerity in that and admire the motives communicated in the usage of the term. However, many people on both sides of the soteriological divide of Calvinism versus Arminianism can sincerely claim to be Biblicists. That doesn't manifestly make it so, however. It is unhelpful and often used in false dichotomies. Biblicist vs. Five-pointer is an example of unfair characterization (the kind you would expect on a political survey, for example) and assumes what it has yet to prove.
biblicists just believe the bible and seek to know it better and live by it. they do not sell out to system of believing. we are not arminians and we are not calvinists....nor are we other ism's and tangents. i know that yall cant understand this due mainly to the type of personalities that you are. i just pray that the Lord will continue to help yall grow in knowledge and understanding...and i pray that He will help me to keep growing as well. i want to be all that the Lord wants me to be. i know that being a five pointer is not one of those things.....neither is being an arminian. thank the Lord.
grace and peace to yall,
volfan007
I agree with you, Volfan. I'm just a Biblicist, not a five-pointer. I believe the Bible, like the Total Inability, Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace and Perseverence of the Saints taught by John 6. Thanks for the reminder that we all need to set aside anthropocentric traditions (like free will---nowhere mentioned in the Bible) and take the theocentricism of John 6 (the Bible) seriously.
brist,
you are still wearing your five point sunglasses, my friend.
volfan007
Tom,
I just saw this post and was delighted to read the joint statement. May God be glorified through it all. And He will be, of course, no matter the powers that rage.
Thinking of Ephesians 6, I reflect upon how the enemy of our souls most assuredly has desired the descent of brotherly interaction into his cruel domain of anti-brotherly thinking, speech, and behavior. But God is merciful; the faithfulness and lovingkindness bound up in the strength of our Mighty Christ will overcome. And in the end, when all is said and done, the church, scarred, worn, and bloody, triumphant will rise.
To this end, we fight on. The calibre of the battle makes the victory's flavor. Once we look back with clearer eyes, this battle for truth will be sweet indeed.
Blessings,
Garvis