Geisler vs. White

[denn034]

Norman Geisler in his Chosen But Free book and his online "Why I Am Not a Five-Point Calvinist" youtube video on the one hand and James White in his The Potter's Freedom book and several online droakley1689 videos on the other hand are arguing over the nature of salvation. Just wanted people's input on that.

[JR]

I know it turns many off, but I enjoy reading the spirited debates between Calvinists and Arminianists (although Geisler claims to be a basically a moderate Calvinist I think...)

I would HATE to debate James White on anything... even I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt I was in the right and he in the wrong. Agree or disagree with him, the man is as about as smart and articulate as they come these days, in terms of apoligists and teachers.

I am still making up my mind on this issue, although I lean for the most with Calvinism in all areas ezcept Limited Atonement... of which I think they have over-extended a truth of God.

But some other interesting works on the subect was a book called Debating Calvnism, an extremely heated debate between Dave Hunt (author of What Love Is This: Calvinism's Misrepresenation of God) and the aformentioned James White.

Also I was wondering if anyone has read the two piece companion set called "Why I Am Not Arminian" and "Why I Am Not Calvinist" ... Seen them both on Amazon but have yet to make the decision on whether either merits buying.

[GraftedIn73]

Originally Posted by JR

I know it turns many off, but I enjoy reading the spirited debates between Calvinists and Arminianists (although Geisler claims to be a basically a moderate Calvinist I think...)

I would HATE to debate James White on anything... even I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt I was in the right and he in the wrong. Agree or disagree with him, the man is as about as smart and articulate as they come these days, in terms of apoligists and teachers.

I am still making up my mind on this issue, although I lean for the most with Calvinism in all areas ezcept Limited Atonement... of which I think they have over-extended a truth of God.

But some other interesting works on the subect was a book called Debating Calvnism, an extremely heated debate between Dave Hunt (author of What Love Is This: Calvinism's Misrepresenation of God) and the aformentioned James White.

Also I was wondering if anyone has read the two piece companion set called "Why I Am Not Arminian" and "Why I Am Not Calvinist" ... Seen them both on Amazon but have yet to make the decision on whether either merits buying.

Hi JR,

I have not read the books, nor seen the youtube videos referenced in these posts, however I did want to comment on the Limited Atonement issue. The folowing is my understanding of the issue:

The fact of the matter is that, apart from Universalists, we ALL believe in Limited Atonement. We all believe that the full merit of Christ's atoning work is applied only to those who are in fact saved. This is necessarily so. If the Atonement of Christ were applied universally to every sin by every sinner, there would not longer be a basis for anyone to suffer the wrath of God as punishment for sin. This is what the Universalists believe. Arminians and Calvinists alike believe that the APPLICATION of the merits of Christ’s atoning work at upon the sins of those sinners who have been joined to Him though saving faith.

The difference between the two camps is, who does the limiting, God, or man?

In the Arminian view, man, operating under the auspices of his free-will, believes and accepts the offer of forgiveness through Christ Jesus. The merits of Christ are applied to the sin debt of this sinner, and he is forgiven and saved, though not necessarily secured in that state. Since man can freely choose God, man can subsequently freely reject God and perish eternally. This despite the fact that his former sins were in fact forgiven through the merits of Christ’s atonement.

The Calvinist view sees the God as the Author and Finisher of faith, in that man is incapable of responding to the Gospel message without God first imparting new life to him. The result of this new life is faith and acceptance of the Gospel. Christ’s atoning work is applied to this man and his sin debt and he is forgiven. Since the work from start to finish is the work of God, God will so work in his life as to maintain him in his relationship to God, thereby causing him to persevere in all circumstances until his redemption is completed at his death, or being caught up to be with the Lord at His coming.

In the Arminian view, man does the limiting. In the Calvinist view, God does the limiting. Both views see the Atonement limited, in application only, not in capacity, for certainly both camps believe that the Atoning work of Christ is of sufficient merit to cover all sins everywhere by everyone. Since the Atonement applies the innocence of Christ upon those who are the recipient of its merit, both Arminians and Calvinists see the application as limited. Were this not so, and the application of the merits being universal, the result would be either that people who are ‘innocent’ being condemned and punished as ‘guilty’, or, as the Universalists believe, all would be saved for all would be ‘innocent’.

Your thoughts...?

GI73

[JR]

Hello GraftedIn.

I would say that I believe we agree here in substance and in principle, even if it may appear to an onlooker that we may have slightly different perceptions in terms of terminology. To put it as simply as I can, I believe Christ's sacrifice (or Atonement) was limitless in its sufficiency (or adequacy/capability) to save all of mankind, but I would concur that it is ‘limited’ in its efficiency (or effectiveness) only to those that apply it through faith (whether as an act of free will or of God's sovereign choosing or a combination thereof... as admittedly, this is a matter way beyond my present scope of understanding..) just in the same way that a cold gl*** of water is adequate to quench one’s thirst, but powerless to do so until it is imbibed by the drinker (a clumsy ****ogy, but I think it gets general point across).

Nice to meet you and God bless!

[GraftedIn73]

Originally Posted by JR

Hello GraftedIn.

I would say that I believe we agree here in substance and in principle, even if it may appear to an onlooker that we may have slightly different perceptions in terms of terminology. To put it as simply as I can, I believe Christ's sacrifice (or Atonement) was limitless in its sufficiency (or adequacy/capability) to save all of mankind, but I would concur that it is ‘limited’ in its efficiency (or effectiveness) only to those that apply it through faith (whether as an act of free will or of God's sovereign choosing or a combination thereof... as admittedly, this is a matter way beyond my present scope of understanding..) just in the same way that a cold gl*** of water is adequate to quench one’s thirst, but powerless to do so until it is imbibed by the drinker (a clumsy ****ogy, but I think it gets general point across).

Nice to meet you and God bless!

Hi JR,

Nice to meet you too, and you're right, we do agree in many ways. And as for your ****ogy of the cold gl*** of water, I think it is a good ****ogy. Christ said, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be satisfied." MT 5:6 Now being the good Calvinist that I am, I would say that it is God who gives the spiritual thirst in the first place, and then satisfies it Himself!


GI73

[martin1]

yes this book "Why I Am Not a Five-Point Calvinist" is awesome in reading.the wording used by the writer is very attractive but somewhere his wording just wondering about the topic.. anyways beyond this all is well :-)

[ErikErik]

Originally Posted by GraftedIn73

Hi JR,

I have not read the books, nor seen the youtube videos referenced in these posts, however I did want to comment on the Limited Atonement issue. The folowing is my understanding of the issue:

The fact of the matter is that, apart from Universalists, we ALL believe in Limited Atonement. We all believe that the full merit of Christ's atoning work is applied only to those who are in fact saved. This is necessarily so. If the Atonement of Christ were applied universally to every sin by every sinner, there would not longer be a basis for anyone to suffer the wrath of God as punishment for sin. This is what the Universalists believe. Arminians and Calvinists alike believe that the APPLICATION of the merits of Christ’s atoning work at upon the sins of those sinners who have been joined to Him though saving faith.

The difference between the two camps is, who does the limiting, God, or man?

In the Arminian view, man, operating under the auspices of his free-will, believes and accepts the offer of forgiveness through Christ Jesus. The merits of Christ are applied to the sin debt of this sinner, and he is forgiven and saved, though not necessarily secured in that state. Since man can freely choose God, man can subsequently freely reject God and perish eternally. This despite the fact that his former sins were in fact forgiven through the merits of Christ’s atonement.

The Calvinist view sees the God as the Author and Finisher of faith, in that man is incapable of responding to the Gospel message without God first imparting new life to him. The result of this new life is faith and acceptance of the Gospel. Christ’s atoning work is applied to this man and his sin debt and he is forgiven. Since the work from start to finish is the work of God, God will so work in his life as to maintain him in his relationship to God, thereby causing him to persevere in all circumstances until his redemption is completed at his death, or being caught up to be with the Lord at His coming.

In the Arminian view, man does the limiting. In the Calvinist view, God does the limiting. Both views see the Atonement limited, in application only, not in capacity, for certainly both camps believe that the Atoning work of Christ is of sufficient merit to cover all sins everywhere by everyone. Since the Atonement applies the innocence of Christ upon those who are the recipient of its merit, both Arminians and Calvinists see the application as limited. Were this not so, and the application of the merits being universal, the result would be either that people who are ‘innocent’ being condemned and punished as ‘guilty’, or, as the Universalists believe, all would be saved for all would be ‘innocent’.

Your thoughts...?

GI73

Jesus Christ died for the entire world. His atonement is available to all men. But not all men will appropriate it nor turn from their wicked ways. For Calvin's Predestination to be true, God would have to show favoritism and we know that God is NOT a respecter of persons. For God does not desire that any should perish, but for all to come to saving faith.

If Calvin was right, then there would be no hope for salvation in the last days when the anti christ has been fully revealed and in action. Yet, Christians will tell you that some will have a chance at accepting Christ at that time.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by GraftedIn73

Your thoughts...?

GI73

My thoughts are that both sides of the debate have some merit to them.

I believe that Walter Martin took some from one side, and others from the other side in his teachings...I tend to do the same as Walter...