Update on my debate with Turretinfan

Turretinfan and I have worked out a resolution and process for the debate. Here's the resolution:

Romans 9-11 teaches unconditional individual election to salvation.

Turretinfan will be affirmative and I will be negative. Further, we have worked out some of the rules. Here's what we have:


1AC - 2k words
Neg C-X of Aff (three simple questions (i.e. not multipart or highly argumentative) - answers limited to 500 words)
1NC - 2k words
Aff C-X of Neg (same as Neg C-X)
1st Neg Rebuttal (2k words)
1st Aff Rebuttal (2k words)
Audience Questions (person to whom question is directed gets 500 words, other side gets 150 word followup)
Neg Conclusion - 1k words
Aff Conclusion - 1k words


That's the visible part. Before the debate gets started we are going to do a few things.


1) I am going to update the paper I put out on Romans 9


The original, which started this whole debate, is here:



http://www.geocities.com/freewilltheology/romans9.html


2) Turretinfan will write his own paper on Romans 9-11


3) I will give Turretinfan my comments on his paper


4) he will give me his thoughts on my paper


5) the debate will begin...



This prework is needed to focus the debate on the key issues. We don't want to talk past each other. So it's important for us to really understand each other first. But the debate will be self contained. We will be discussion what Paul had to say in Romans 9-11, not each others papers.


So that's the plan anyway. It will take a while to get to the public part of the debate, so I will provide updates as things progress.

Comments

Jnorm said…
I can't wait to see this go down. Last year I was confronted about this issue by a bunch of John Piper fans.

They read his book "The Justification of God"

And ran with it. It took me about 6 months to gather half of the information I needed in order to go through Romans 9 with them. But by that time most of them were no longer interested.

I went through Romans 9 a long time ago back in 2000 and 2001. But my focus back then was to blend the two views of "individual conditional election" with "class election"

Based on what I saw from both St. Mathew and St. Paul in regards to Jesus being Israel and the Church being the Israel of God. Back then I said that the first half of Romans chapter 9 was about who was going to carry the chosen seed in their lineage.....whereas the second half of Romans chapter 9 was about the manifestation of the promise seed. And all those who believe in the Promise seed would become citizens of His Kingdom.

From this set up the class election is in regards to the Nation of ISRAEL. Old Testament ISRAEL was a carnal type of the real spiritual ISRAEL....who Happens to be Christ Jesus. All those who are in Christ are in ISRAEL.

At the time I thought I solved the indivdual election thing, but I don't think I have. At this point in time I think the individual election issue deals with the Father engrafting each person into the Son. But how to blend the two is still unknown to me at this time.

Back in 2000 and 2001 I was heavily influenced by Origen and how he understood Romans chapter 9. So the way I understood Pharough, and God's will was the same as that of Origen. I don't rely on Origen as much anymore.....but Origen's understanding of ROmans chapter 9 is what changed my single unconditional election view(1997/1998) into a double conditional(1997/1998) election view. So I thank God for that.



I have Piper's book. The Justification of God and he is a "double unconditional election" advocate. Your friend Turretinfan is a "single unconditional election" advocate.

So I'm wondering who he is relying on? I only bought Piper's book because I wanted to know what the otherside would throw at me. I needed to see if Piper said anything I never faced before.

I bought F. Leroy Forlines (free will Baptist) commentary to Romans as well as the Ancient Christian Commentary (Thomas Oden) on Romans as well.
And my molinistic friend Phatcatholic allowed me to copy three or 4 of the commentaries He had on the book of Romans from chapter 8 to chapter 11. I also bought a book with both Erasmus and Luther going at it about free will. And they touch on some of the passages found in Romans chapter 9.

And from my Eastern ORthodox source I gathered what I could from the fathers by buying a commentary to our Lexicon. It has alot of quotes by Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Augustin and maybe some other Fathers on the scriptures that we read everyday throughout the year.

Since then I added a book that would help with my process of exegesis as well as a book to help me learn New Testament greek.

Other than that All I need at this point is C. E. B. Cranfield's critical and exegetical commentary to Romans.
I might be wrong but I think C.E.B. Cranfield is a single unconditional election advocate.

With his commentary I will have both the single and double unconditional election views at my disposal. I would also like to get the Fundamental Wesleyan Methodist commentary that Vic Reasoner put out.

I will watch this debate closely! I wish you well, and I pray that you do an awsome job.




Oh one last thing. The last set of verses in ROmans chapter 8 is crucial to Romans chapter 9. What the Calvinists call the Golden Chain/unbroken chain in Romans chapter 8 can be used in Romans chapter 9.



It is my belief that it can be used to prove "conditional election" in chapter 9. But you guys already set the parameters for the debate.

But even with that already sealed in stone I see no reason why one can't leave Romans chapters 9 to 11 in order to explain a passage in Romans chapters 9 to 11.



Take care and God bless.




JNORM888
January 1, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi JNORM,

If by single vs. double you mean both election and reprobation, Turretinfan's view is double. He's also supra-lapsarian. IE He thinks God decreed election before He decreed the fall.

Looks like you have a long reading list already. It seems you are more well read than I am. But I would recommend Arminius' commentary on Romans 9.

Arminius on Romans 9


It's complex, but quite good.

I would like to learn more about your thoughts on the connection between Romans 8 & 9, if you have the time. Fell free to put something up on your site and I will swing by for a visit. BTW, I liked the vid that you just posted.

Happy New Year,
Dan
January 1, 2008 at 5:52 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more