2 Audio Files Addressed to Moderate Calvinism

Here's a lecture by Ken Keathley (a Molinist) and one by Angus Stewart (a Classic Calvinist) addressed at moderate Calvinism. They cover topics such as supra vs. infra-lapsarianism, single vs. double predestination, a 'well meant offer', and defining hyper-Calvinism. Both find moderate Calvinism inconsistent and invite moderate Calvinists to consider their own positions. Both give excellent historical backgrounds for their views.

Comments

Kevin Jackson said…
Thanks for the audio link.
June 4, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Robert said…
Hello Dan,

I know Keathley personally so I think I know what he will say in that audio message (so I will put him on the back burner). On the other hand, I did listen to Angus Stewart’s audio message. I urge every Arminian or other non-calvinist to listen to that message. There you will clearly see that what some modern “calvinists” try to distance themselves from, what they try to label as “hyper-calvinism”, IS IN REALITY WHAT CALVIN ACTUALLY BELIEVED AND TAUGHT!!

The message is actually quite sad because you’ve got this consistent and committed to the actual teachings of Calvin calvinist **exulting** in the false doctrine of reprobation (i.e., that God from eternity chose many human persons to be nonbelievers throughout their lives, that He ensured they be like this, do what they do, and then He punishes them eternally for being and doing exactly what He necessitated that they be and do). This is a great example of what Calvinism really is and really teaches. It is abominable doctrine, it makes God into a morally sick person, who hates the reprobates from eternity, while they are on earth and then into eternity, and he delights in reprobating them and eternally punishing them.

At one point Stewart says regarding Calvin’s doctrine of reprobation that there: could not be a greater demonstration of hatred then reprobation. He is absolutely correct, the “god” who hates human persons like Calvin mistakenly believed and then reprobates them in the way that Calvin believed that he does, you really ****can’t be more hateful than that****. That is also not the God of the Bible the God who reveals Himself to be very different from Calvin’s conception of God.

I have to say again for non-Calvinists if you really want to hear what Calvin really believed and taught about reprobation, you will find no better representation than that provided by Stewart in this audio message. I wish (I had the money) or that we could send out thousands of copies of this tape to Christians it would work like an antidote against the false teachings of Calvinism.

For example, imagine if the Southern Baptists (SBC) as a whole got a hold of this tape, they would want the calvinists out of their denomination. Currently, calvinism is working in a stealth manner to be acceptable and not seen as a threat within the SBC. A tape like this could blow the roof off these covert operations.

Robert
June 4, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Thanks Kevin and Robert. I don't know Keathley, but I really did enjoy his lecture. I think it was at the building bridges conference.

God be with you,
Dan
June 4, 2009 at 7:00 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