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

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