Why Debate Calvinists?

As some may know, I have been on break from blogging while I re-write my analysis on Romans 9-11. I am doing so in preparation for my debate with Turretinfan. I look forward to getting back and finishing up the Owen/Atonement topic, but I realized I couldn't effectively blog and prepare for the debate simultaneously. But I thought I would pop in and mention why I debate Calvinists. I have debated Calvinists either in person or over the web for many years.

It's not to convince Calvinists to switch to Arminianism. If that happens, God be praised, but that's not my goal. I don't debate them to clear up misconceptions about Arminianism. Many hold mistaken notions of Arminianism, which I am happy to correct, but that's not why I debate. It's not because I think Calvinism is dangerous, walking a tight rope over hell with banana peels for shoes. While I would like the reformed to reform a tad bit more, I am happy to say they are dead center in the middle of orthodoxy. It's certainly not that I dislike Calvinists. If these debates can't be done in love, we dishonor the gift Christ gave, and I want none of it. It's not because I think I am smarter than Calvinists, or want to show off my amazing mental powers. The Lord has gifted many Calvinists with abilities and education I couldn't dream of, Turretinfan being a chart topper.

So why do it? My discussions with Calvinists have challenged me to reflect on the many aspects of God's word. What do it get out of debating Calvinists? God's standard gift: rare enlightenment.

Comments

Juan said…
Just found you site via Billy's blog. Looking forward to reading and learning!

Juan
February 18, 2008 at 9:06 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi Juan,

Thanks for stopping by. Enjoy and if you have any questions, ask away.

God be with you,
Dan
February 18, 2008 at 10:10 PM
kangaroodort said…
I am in full agreement with you on this Dan.

God Bless,
Ben
February 19, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Jnorm said…
I wish you well in your debate. I know how hard it is to focus on more than one thing.



JNORM888
February 19, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Godismyjudge said…
Dear Jnorm,

Same to you and your defining/defense of Eastern Orthodoxy.

God be with you,
Dan
February 19, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Dear Ben,

Glad to hear God is blessing you through discussions with Calvinists as well.

God be with you,
Dan
February 19, 2008 at 8:09 PM
R.A. Servin said…
Dan, I'm don't really like to label myself as a Calvinist because I don't agree with everything he taught, but to make it simple I'm a Calvinist. I've read a couple of your posts today and I appreciate your exegesis of the texts that you have gone over. Well written brother. It'd be interesting to read your thoughts on a post that I wrote yesterday on my blog. ("Are we victims or God haters prior to regeneration?") looking forward to reading more...

~Roger
February 28, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Dear Rodger,

You should try calling yourself an Arminian! Labels are an easy way to identify ourselves, but can sure carry a lot of baggage.

Thank you for stopping by. I will take a peek at your post.

God be with you,
Dan
February 28, 2008 at 5:39 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

John Owen - Death of Death in the Death of Christ

For those who may have suffered through my review of John Owen's classic work the Death of Death in the Death of Christ, I have wonderful news. You get to do it all over again!!! I compiled it into 5 articles available here . I also added a link on the left side of my blog. I also now have a left side of my blog. :-) God be with you, Dan
Read more

The Equivocation of Regeneration

In the order of salvation, which comes first, faith or regeneration? Before we can answer that, don't we first need to understand what regeneration is? In this post I plan on contrasting Hodge's view with Arminius'. Hopefully, in the process we can clarify the issue of monergism vs. synergism. Hodge’s Order of Salvation Common Grace – a “moral suasion” that brings good works, but is insufficient to enable justifying faith Regeneration – God’s supernatural and immediate change of a person’s nature Vocation – same Gospel as the one in common grace, but it’s effectual on the changed man. Conversion – faith and repentance “first conscious exercise of the renewed soul” Justification Two Definitions of Regeneration Hodges provides two alternative definitions of regeneration. Sometimes regeneration means just the imparting of life, other times it means the whole process including the things coming before and after the imparting of life. 1 Hodge says these two difference sense
Read more