A Defense of Calvinism

"Dear Kenny, have you not attacked Calvinism even more so by misrepresenting their theology in your slanderous poems (re: "we won't have heaven crammed")? I can assure you with proof that none of the reformers or puritans had such a horrible idea go through their minds. You should be ashamed of yourself for printing such material. Let me respond to your letter."

Is that the first time you have ever read theological opinions that vary from what you were originally taught?

Actually, I was taught the same Arminianism patchwork theology that you have come to embrace, and through diligent study of the scriptures and a proper interpretation by the Holy Spirit, have come to adore the Doctrines of Grace. The answer to your assumptive question is an emphatic "NO"!

I can name dozens of major Bible scholars who believe in the free will of man and the divine sovereignty of God!

None, indeed. Spend more than 15 seconds thinking about it, and more than 15 minutes reading the Word of God, and you will hopefully realize that only one can have an autonomous will. Either God has to respond out of foreknowledge to man's free will choice (in which case He is not sovereign), or man responds to God's sovereign will of election.  It is indeed one or the other, but it cannot be both. Ephesians 1 say's it is the will of God by which we are saved. Where is man's autonomous will in that? Not once in the entire Bible does scripture refer to the free will choice of man in salvation! What about John 6:44, 6:65, 8:31, 6:37, Luke 12:32, Romans 9? There is not enough time to reference all the scriptures that refer to the sovereign will of God!

It is a small God indeed, whom some believe in, who has to force everything in the universe to occur for His glory.

Who are you, the clay, to judge the potter? He doesn't need to, Kenny, He chose to (see Ephesians 7-9) for His own good pleasure! Have you read Romans 9, which is God's rebuke to those who hold your very ideology of who He is and what He has done? Can you really say the two Words "God needs" and presume to be standing in the presence of the Holy and Triune God? God Needs Nothing! Do you deny the all sufficiency of God? Do you also believe He needed to create mankind to keep him company because He was bored, or that He was in need of our wisdom or strength? Please tell me you don't really believe God needs anything, anything at all. That clearly is what we Calvinists believe, and to say otherwise is to display ignorance or deceit towards those less discerning.

If you would elaborate a little on the theologians who have you hoodwinked in reacting so violently against what I have written in an irenic spirit and elaborate a little on what they have you believing; I might be able to carry on an intelligent conversation with you.

I am sorry if I over reacted, Kenny, and to whatever extent I lashed out at you, I ask your forgiveness and I repent of it. It is not you I despise, it is your teaching and the arrogance with which you attack the very truth of our God, and the atrociousness with which you trample on His Word. You, I love and exhort. They are the very theologians who condemned your teaching as heresy at the Council of Orange in 529 AD, and again at the Synod of Dort in 1619, through the Protestant Reformation, as well as those who continue to do so today. They are Augustine, John Calvin, John Owen, John Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, AW Pink, James Boice, RC Sproul, John Bunyan, shall I go on? These are the people who you grossly misrepresented as haters of the unsaved world in your introductory poem. Those great men of God who would ask God's mercy on people like you who back stab them after they are dead and put words in their mouths that are false, when they are no longer here to defend themselves or their doctrines.

Otherwise, you need to study your Bible a little more or find someone to help you understand it a little more!

I read the Bible every day, Kenny, and study it every day as well. I also let it declare its own truth, which is something you cannot say. You conform the Bible to your own preconceived theology, and that is why you cannot explain the countless contradictions that come your way. Keep talking and I will reveal those contradictions as they appear, straight from scripture. .

I've never encountered a Calvinist who doesn't have an attitude of moral superiority.

How can the theological belief that anything we know comes from God through His Word as the Spirit of God reveals it to us, cause even an ounce of "moral superiority"? How can the belief that we are all fallen creatures unable to seek God result in even one gram of self confidence? You have no argument here and have evidently failed to see this blatant contradiction. It is not Calvinists attitude you really reject, but the doctrines they uphold. Kenny, you reject God's Word!

Where are you coming from?  What Christian church of believers in this world attacks other Christians With such vehemence, who vary in their doctrine?

It is not you I was attacking, Kenny, and the extent to which I did by way of excitement, please forgive me. It is your doctrine that I abhor.  I am not condemning you, either, because I believe many Arminians and semi-Pelagians are truly saved. In Fact, many of my best friends are Arminians. It was the fact that you misrepresent the Calvinistic view and slander dead men that I feel you need to remove alot of pure garbage from your website.

My poems are not slanderous!  The first poem on the page was an old Particular Baptist hymn-I did not write it.  I explained that in the opening lines of the page, so there would be no misunderstanding.  I did not say that Spurgeon had said this, I did not say that Calvin had said this.  I did not even say that Arthur W. Pink had said it.  I said that Particular Baptist's had said it. . . . . .

Yes, Kenny, your poems are very slanderous indeed. Even if you didn't write it, you placed it on your website, thereby giving such things your vote of approval! When you placed a poem on your own personal website, that does not represent any true Calvinists' feelings towards any other person who lives or who ever has, that grossly misrepresents any true calvinist's feelings of love towards his fellow man, that say's that this is what Calvinists believe and feel, you said it about every Calvinist who ever lived, and you said it yourself. Unless you separately mentioned all those Calvinists you feel such a statement didn't apply to, you said it about all of them. In your heart you know this to be the truth, and if you come clean before God, you will repent of such a wicked attack on His saints. Think of all the less discerning people whom you are misleading! How many will assume your preconceived label and never study God's Word objectively as a result? I implore you to come to your senses and discuss the arguments fairly (to everyone, not just me). At this point you cannot separate yourself from what you have done. You can only repent and apologize to your audience. . . . .

Particular Baptists did hold to the "double predestination" belief and my understanding without looking it up in one of my books is that they were very passionate about "some being predestined for Heaven" and "the rest being predestined for Hell".  You may dispute this if you must,

not at all, that's the reformed position, and that is what the Bible teaches (see Romans 9, . . . .

Would you have preferred that I had edited this old hymn to read something like
WE ARE THE LORD'S ELECTED FEW (you do believe this don't you?),
WE ARE SORRY FROM A HUMAN STANDPOINT THAT IN HIS SOVEREIGNTY GOD DID NOT CHOOSE THE REST (could you word this line more delicately without giving away the truth of the matter and sounding as harsh as the original hymn?);
HELL IS WHERE SOME OF YOU WILL END UP (Just be silent as to why?);
HEAVEN WON'T BE FULL OF THOSE WHO WERE NOT CHOSEN BY GOD (a little nicer way of saying the same thing).
Do you see my point here?  Calvinism is split on whether or not "these family secrets" should be revealed to the unelect!  Some Calvinists say do not evangelize with an open invitation and some say do evangelize with an open invitation to "all who would come".  Very few Calvinists are able to be evangelists by saying "if you were chosen, then you will come; otherwise you will go to Hell as we all deserve".

Why do we need to argue these things? Is scripture not clear? Does scripture mention it? Then why would we not? 1 Tim: 3:16 say's ALL SCRIPTURE IS PROFITABLE! This is not a point that is open to discussion. If God wished to withhold such things, and I agree with you that in many instances He does, He would have done so. This is a case where He didn't, and yet you Arminians think for some reason that it should be withheld. On point # 2, the problem Calvinists have with the alter call, the invitation, is that it focuses way too much on man's decision and the emotions of the moment. God's Spirit does not need man to add anything to the equation to reach a nonbeliever Kenny. Does God use the alter call to reach people? Yes! He did me at a promise keepers event. Is that the only way? Of course not. Is it wrong to have an alter call? I would say that it did not occur in the Bible, and it is not necessary. It is a manmade thing. All should be evangelized, however, for that is what we are commanded to do! Anyone who calls himself a calvinist and think anything else is not a Calvinist, and I would seriously question their faith.

You have your supralapsarians and your infralapsarians (sp?); your 5 pointers who believe in limited atonement and your so-called 4 pointers who believe in the unlimited atonement.  And as I stated above, you have your dispensational and premillennial Calvinists and those holding the other positions in this area of theology.  You are not as united under the same flag as you might want others to believe.  But I see nothing wrong with that.  If God had wanted all these points to have been crystal clear, could He have not made them so?  And don't try to make me think that He did; else all good Godly Bible scholars would be in total agreement on every point of doctrine and to think otherwise is to put on the straight jacket of thinking "thou art deceived, whilst I am bathing in the truth!"

I don't know how you got the impression that I think God was clear on all Bible points, Kenny, for "anyone who thinks he knows anything, knows nothing as he ought to know". We know relatively nothing. BUT, where God has made things clear, we are held responsible to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling", and to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Many of the arguments we shall have, God has been clear on. The one's I feel you have compromised in order to defend your "doctrine of reconciliation", I will expose you from God's Word. Anyone denying any of the 5 points of Calvinism is not a Calvinist in my book. There, I just got rid of alot of the people causing much confusion in your mind. Are there still disagreements among those legitimately calling themselves Calvinists? You bet there are. They are in disagreement on those points that God has not made clear, however, in matters that involve degrees of interpretation. The Arminian, on the other hand, has made matters of interpretation out of many that are crystal clear and supported throughout all of scripture. It's amusing to me that you and my beloved friend and pastor, with whom I am in a virtually identical debate, begin your defense of Arminianism by attacking the differences between Reformed theologians. You are like the Liberal Democrats in doing so! Where's your argument? Is not that the centrality of your defense? Furthermore, the so called Reformed theologians who are in disagreement with the traditional Reformed position (don't get confused here, Kenny, I am only talking about those doctrines that are made clear in scripture, not the ones that involve a necessary degree of interpretation) are not reformed at all. You see, even though we reformed theologians are also in the dark when compared to the vast knowledge of God, and hence very ignorant indeed, by upholding the doctrines that the Bible is clear on and refraining from, by the grace of God, imposing our corrupted philosophical interpretations on it, we can be as unified as possible here on earth in the knowledge of the Word. We are not the cause of this, so your "moral superiority" argument is baseless.

I'm a firm believer in the slogan that "Those who do not know their opponent's arguments do not completely understand their own."

I'm afraid that you are getting away from scripture here, Kenny. Where in the world does scripture support such a crazy notion? Does not the Bible say that knowing and doing God's commands is our wisdom (Deut 4:6)? The reason we want to know our opponents argument, as was the case with the apostle Paul, is so that we can relate to them and win them over for Christ! When the understanding of our argument is based on that of others instead of the very Word of God, are we not a house of cards waiting to collapse? Are we not blown about by every wind of doctrine? You are way off base here, and need to get right with your confidence in the Word. This is a very worldly and very corrupted view of truth.

I want to know why you believe as you do to better understand my own position.  I can read all of this in books, but this is an interactive exchange that makes me think more.  We must both stake out our goals in any exchange of thoughts on these matters.  Realistically, neither of us is going to change our current positions.

I have much hope that you will, Kenny. I believe that the first time around you intellectually grasped the "doctrines of grace", but the Spirit of God has yet to place them on your heart. You have not ever embraced them, and I am very much hopefully that you will.  I must say that I disagree with you on this point.

What we do not have in common is that you were once an Arminian; while I was never an Arminian.  Augustine changed his views half-way through his own writings when he defended the doctrine of grace against the semi-pelagians.  I can even understand that!  He felt driven to take the other end of the automaton-freedom spectrum to defend God's sovereignty against what he saw as an attack on the faith by heresy.

That's exactly right. Very fair of you to include this truth.

Some people cling to the first things they were taught and die with those same beliefs without ever seriously considering if they might have been wrong.

God gave me an intense desire to know the truth, and in trying to disprove Calvinism, I came to embrace it!

You indicated that you did change your position.  Of course, this can be good or bad; depending on what position one gives up and what position one adopts as one's modus operandi.

No kidding, that's very true.

You indicated that you went from Arminianism to Calvinism (the only two pure positions laying on your spectrum).  As you said, "it is one or the other".

Pertaining to man's free will and the sovereignty of God, when defined by the true  Biblical meaning of those terms, that's right, Kenny, and I will prove it to you in the end. You will, at the least, have to admit that you have redefined the terms, yet will not be able to find the Biblical support for having done so. At best, you will be a Calvinist, like me!

Has anyone ever explained to you that "predestination" as used in the Bible may have been for those who are saved in the Son to be predestined to conform to the image of their savior amongst other predestined treasures or blessings of salvation?

Hehe. I can't wait to hear this. elaborate.

As far as Romans 9, my remembrance of this passage of Scripture is that many good theologians have interpreted it differently.

Don't remember it, go and read it! I will press you on this, and there are many, many, more verses you will also like to avoid in your current state, but we shall go there and find the truth.

Is it not true that John Calvin did not write a commentary on the book of Revelations, because he simply was not sure how to interpret the information in it?

That's right, Revelations is one of the areas that God was not clear on. It requires "levels of interpretation" for those who dare do so. To try to draw parallels with areas that God is clear on won't work because we have the Word to unscramble our confusion (where the Spirit is willing). I should make a point here: only by the Spirit of God can someone come to understand and embrace the doctrines of grace. The first time around you grasped them intellectually, but that's not the same.

I don't hold that against him; rather I admire him for not commenting on something he did not think God wanted him to comment on.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Since then, many fine Bible teachers have written commentary on Revelation such as William Newell and several Calvinists since John Calvin, but for you to imply that all scripture is easy to interpret

(I did no such thing. I am merely trying to make clear those things that God first made clear. I am taking away the confusion created by the corrupted view of Arminians and semi-Pelagians where scripture is clear, you put those words in my mouth).

for all but the blind is a little presumptuous I would think!

You would think so, for you are accusing me of something I did not do!

Without fearing your charge of "heretic" and being in a free country like America and not in a somewhat theocratic country like Geneva several hundred years ago, I would like to say that it seems to me that God intended for some passages and truths in His word to be indisputable in interpretation amongst His children, while intentionally making other passages and truths somewhat ambiguous for those reading them at some points in time in history.  If you don't feel like burning me at the stake for saying that,

(I don't Kenny, I love you and can see that you are in search of truth brother.)

then I might add that maybe there is a very good reason for the Almighty decreeing it thus?     As I write this letter right now, I don't have my books with me, so I can't go into any detail at this time (for which you might be very thankful), but Norman Geisler in his recent book "Chosen, but Free" sites that the early church fathers embraced divine sovereignty of God and free will of man.  He reprints their words on the issue.  All of this seemed to change drastically when a convert of the Christian faith, who was not raised a Christian, by the name of Augustine, began denying the free will of man.  The early church fathers relied only on scripture for their doctrinal interpretations, without the aid of the professional theologians.  If you want to engage the "historical arguments" to defend Calvinism, that's fine, but they will have to go back before Augustine to carry any weight with me!

(I understand that you would need to reject the very councils that condemned your current position, so rather than having to research the early church, which may or may not have been following God's Word closely at that time, let's use the Word itself ok? Surely you will not object that.

As far as me alluding to the "moral superiority" syndrome of Calvinists, I simply meant that when they encounter a person who adamantly denies to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they walk away thinking that the person is simply not one of the elect and will likely never come to a saving faith in the Lord.

You are so far off base here that I hardly know where to begin. Anyone saying such a thing is extreme and I would question their sincerity in Christ. Could not God go back later to save such a person? He surely could, because He did! Me! I rejected Him adamantly for years, as we all do until the time of true conversion. To say that because at a given opportunity someone declines that they are condemned is very arrogant and presumptuous of knowing the intentions of the spirit! That's blasphemy, and these people should not be confused as Calvinists or Reformed Theologians Kenny. Your understanding of Calvinists is distorted, I can see, and if you continue to share these views I can set you straight, God willing. In most cases they are extreme calvinists (very different from the misleading title Geisler uses), and they are as far from calvinism as they can get. Farther even, perhaps, than Arminians.

I hope you'll reconsider the poem on your website. If people figure out that this does not accurately reflect the Calvinist, you will have lost all credibility, but your fear of the Lord should be the motive. In Christ, your brother.

But when they see another Christian like a DL Moody plead with them to come to Christ if only they will it, they go into apoplectic rage at such "universal open invitations".  I only mentioned Moody to you because I read in a book on him that he once went around with the strict Calvinist John Nelson Darby in the United States and Darby broke the fellowship and walked out on the joint soul saving ministry because Moody offered salvation from the pulpit to everyone who would come!  Moody just didn't present the gospel by crossing all the proper T's and dotting all the proper I's as Darby did.  Guess whose net likely filled up with more of a catch?  Or does any of that matter to you?

It does matter to me, but you are really jumping to conclusions here! First, you don't even seem to have a proper understanding of who a Calvinist is. Second, who are you to judge the extent to which their nets have been filled? You think God judges things the same way you have, by appearance? I have heard that less than 2% of Billy Graham's converts follow through in the faith!!! What say you about that? When we start focusing on the quantity of the harvest instead of the accuracy of the message, Kenny, we have gone wrong, and perhaps this is what Moody has done! You don't even seem concerned that he has brutally massacred a very straight forward verse in sacred scripture! Do we care more about how man would like to receive God and less about what God say's in the Bible to us? This seems to be your message, and I think your loyalties lie in the wrong place. I think you are too interested in pleasing man and not standing enough in awe and fear of the Lord, and your doctrine reflects it!

I also praised Lewis Sperry Chafer as a Calvinist on my main theology page, before I stated my differences with his teachings on soteriology.  I guess the question to you is "can the Lord use a man who does not agree with you on every point of doctrine"?

A sovereign God can use anyone or anything, agreed. He used Satan to test the faith of Job: what more needs be said?

I think your answer would be yes, because you stated in your letter to me that you believe that many Arminians and semi-pelagians are truly saved.  So it would logically seem to follow that you would also concede that these folks can be used of the Lord as instruments to present the gospel to others?  But I may be wrong here!

That's right, Kenny, but does that make their teaching right? Does that somehow let those teaching bad or watered down doctrine off the hook? I think not.

I realize you are not attacking me personally.

Thank you, that's important to me.

I know that what I have written on my website will offend some Calvinists.  I really didn't intend for it to offend.

I have a hard time believing that Kenny.

But if you put together a page on the Internet, I'm sure some of the things you would print would seem offensive to me; especially if you quoted AW Pink very often.

Some things are ok to offend people with, like scripture, or truth, for instance. What is in your poem is slander, and it is false, and it is wrong!

I would think that your objective from this correspondence would be to see me change or remove my poems, which I won't be doing;

I am very sorry to hear that, and I hope you'll reconsider.

or else allow a genuine Calvinist opinion by someone like you to be accessible from this page as a rebuttal of sorts.  The latter would be more likely, as I find you to be an intelligent Christian who is able to articulate your points and do the best expected at defending the positions that you feel compelled to hold to.

That's a compliment, thank you. Fortunately, the glory goes to God. I sneak none. I have made that mistake before, and will hopefully not do so again.

I have shelves and shelves of books of all the theologians who hold to different interpretations of the scriptures.  So if you want to discuss particular scriptures, I will be able to see what Charles Hodge, AA Hodge, L Boettner, AW Pink, Orr, Shedd, Darby, Calvin, Louis Berkhof or any of the others have to say about them. They simply do not all agree in their interpretations on many passages of scripture.

True, but the true Calvinists agree, for the most part, where scripture is clear. Are they therefore perfect in their understanding  of scripture where it is clear? NO! Do not get that impression. We are all still dealing with a fallen nature, and therefore, as the Bible tells  us, and as you mention at the end of your letter, that will not occur until we get across the Jordan! For this reason, we should debate primarily from the Word. Let's let God's Word speak for itself! All true Calvinists agree that man has a will, but that it is subject to his fallen nature; that this free will can act only according to what nature is in man (just like a lion fed hay will starve, it is not in the nature of the lion to eat hay); that this will is confined also by the sovereign will of God (Proverbs 16:9); etc., etc., etc. Singling out subtle differences between Calvinists will not change the fact that they are all one side, crediting God with a truly sovereign will, and you are on the other, crediting it to man (oh yea, I can't say that yet because you haven't had a chance to explain how both can exist simultaneously; sorry).

Regardless of what we try to come up with on our own as laymen, unless you are a Bible scholar with published works to your credit; we are both just laymen.

I am sure, although I consider myself to be even less than a layman; I mean I have just begun to study the Bible two years ago, and dedicatedly even more recently, that many layman knew a whole lot more than the so called experts, so let's not give too much credit to any man ok?

My point is that any scripture can be used for private interpretation if one has a "preconceived" set of theological beliefs.

I believe you have just defined the origin of Arminianism!

Why does God allow this to go on by so many God loving men of good intentions?  I don't know!  If you do know, then let me in on the mystery.

Neither do I Kenny.

Of course we are not able to seek God without the work of the Holy Spirit.  With all the free will in the world, I don't believe a single man would seek out God!  Can I make my belief on this any clearer.  Where we differ dramatically is what I stated in one of my poems.  Calvinists believe that once God chooses to save one of mankind

(see Ephesians 1:4; He chose those people before the foundations of the world),

He leaves no choice what-so-ever in the response from the creature.

(that's right; see Romans 9, John 6:45).

If He did, then He would not be sovereign.  Have you not heard the argument that forced love is not truly love, but it is rape?  Some rapists do believe that their forced love is not rape, but they think the one we would call the victim of their forced love is really the recipient of a gift from the rapist-the recipient just doesn't know it.  Doesn't that sound twisted and perverted?

May God have mercy on you for such words. His love is received by all whom He reveals it to gladly because it is life itself. Nothing can separate us from the love of God, not even our corrupt God hating nature, when He shows us the love He has for us. To liken it to rape is an offense I pray I will never have to answer for. I think this very statement shows very much where you are spiritually Kenny. You reject God's truth and twist it, in order to receive it on your own terms. Romans 9 deals specifically with people like you, need I ask you any more times to prayerfully read it. The fact is that even if you are right, and God does allow for the free will choice of man, IF HE DIDN'T YOU WOULD REJECT IT! You only accept God's plan of redemption on your own terms you see. That is a bias that colors your reading of the Bible does it not? And who are you to say that God's ways could be unfair? Are not yours the ways that are unfair (see Ezekiel 18:25)?

On my website, I have two letters I wrote to the editor of my local newspaper on the question of predestination versus free will and another on the question of why God allows evil in this world (theodicy).  Have you read them?  They are at:  http://www.accs.net/users/wolf/letter51.htm and http://www.accs.net/users/wolf/letter60.htm .  Letter 51 would not be agreed upon by Calvinists or Arminians.  Letter 60 has too much logic in it to appeal to most Calvinists, but I don't know how Arminians would react to it.

No, but perhaps I can get your story in a nutshell during the course of this discussion.

I figure you were predestined to contact me in the first place and I'm predestined to respond with my best reply.

That may be true, but we cannot assume so, can we? Who are we to judge such things? I will say that every single thing that ever occurred that had even a speck of spiritual meaning to it was in fact ordained by God (Ephesians 1:11).

Someday, it will all be clear to us "and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away".  That is a blessed hope of our faith.  We will be conformed to the body of Christ and receive all understanding (Rom:8:29: For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren).  What a joyful gathering will that day be.  Our greatest family reunions here on earth only hint at the joy of that day when there is NO MORE SIN ON US OR IN US!

What a wonderful way to have ended your letter. I have already grown fond of you, and if we had crossed paths in person I would think & hope that we would be great friends. I am concerned about how little you have used scripture to support your arguments, however, and would strongly urge you to rely much less on your own wisdom and much more on the truth of God's Word in the future. It is our final authority, and should be our basis for all truth. Searching for truth together through Jesus our Savior,

I have tried to answer everything you questioned me on.

Kenny, I did not sense any Christian love from your letter;

---It’s called “tough love”; I thought I made that clear in the letter.  I use it with my children, whom I thank God for and love dearly.

you may want to work on that. I sensed a very unacceptable arrogance to say the least. I thought I responded to your last letter out of love, with a strong exhortation to carry on a debate FROM SCRIPTURE.

---I see so much of JN Darby in you!  He accused everyone who did not agree with him on every point of interpretation of scripture of heresy, blasphemy, slander, arrogance.  But I realize it was just his zeal for the Word as he understood it.  I don’t think Darby would have had anyone burned at the stake for disagreeing with him though.  (Assumed from the Calvinist debater:  NO COMMENT on the stake burning)

I challenged you to read and comment on Romans 9, which you ducked ENTIRELY this time (nearly that much last time).

---Romans chapter 9 appears to me to be about the relationship between God and his chosen people (no not Calvinists) of Israel!  I thought we had our hands full discussing God’s relationship with the church, without bringing in the Jewish people.

What shear pompousness to call me a liar when I assured you that I arrived at Calvinism from my own studies of the Word.

---In a text search through the New Testament, I could not find the word “Calvinism”.  My only point here was that I believed you would have had problems accepting these Plato/Augustine/Calvin doctrines if you had not had post-New Testament writings by C A L V I N I S T S to assure you that it was okay to interpret scriptures with an entire allegorical method of interpretation based on the FINDINGS of these theologians?  If that is not true, then I apologize and marvel that you became secure in your conclusions without any outside influence.  I stand corrected!  Oh, and add “pompousness” to my list of words used by Calvinists like Darby charged against mere Christians.
 

I should have known in your present state of thinking that you would not be willing to accept that; nonetheless, you have called me a liar and I forgive you for your offense. It is not my recent teachings that led me to believe that you were not saved, but your slanderous attack on the great saints of God's kingdom in a poem that you chose to put onto your own personal website, voluntarily. My response to your request to rephrase the poem is as follows:

Calvinism in a nutshell (as if such a thing were possible):
  "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags. None can come to me unless the Father who sent Me    draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have   compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth Mercy.  You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given Me, for they are  Thine. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure. For by Grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of   yourselves: it is the gift of God. And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."
(Is:64:6(a), John 6:44, Rom. 9:15-16, John 15:16(a), 17:9, Phil 2:13, Eph 2:8)

---I can put this “Calvinism in a nutshell” writing on my site if you want, but I believe I’ll use quotes from the Baker edition of AW Pink’s “The Sovereignty of God” using the missing chapter (from Banner of Truth edition) to show that this old Particular Baptist Hymn is not exaggerated when looking at Pink’s views of Scripture.  If Pink quotes Scriptures, I’ll state the Scriptures and explain word for word what he knows they are saying about the unfortunate non-elect who don’t have a snowball’s chance of ever entering Heaven.

Now Kenny, my guess is that you would never use scripture to educate your readers on what Calvinism is, because you are trying to persuade them that it is a false teaching.

---the main reason is that I would have to put a lot of work into laying a Calvinist foundation for them to see why all readers need a special understanding of the Reformed faith to know what they thought they were reading using common sense.  I just don’t have that kind of time.  This would be a good project for you to put on your own website, which I would be happy to link to your page when it is up, if you haven’t totally alienated me by that time with charges against my integrity.

You rambled on for 5 more pages about how things are,

---Those ramblings were quoting other saints of God whom I greatly respect regardless of your low estimation of their diligent work in the Word.  I praised John Calvin for his work on my Edwin Palmer review page, but got absolutely no credit from you for doing so.  I’m not going to give you the link to that page here, because it would just increase your wrath. (To the reader of this debate; here is the link to this review of Palmer's book on the 5 points of Calvinism at the bottom of my Theology page).

but my suggestion was that we have a scriptural debate, straight from the Word of God, so that as brothers in Christ we can resolve the matter. So what is your response?

---Rv:22:17: “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”  When I quote Scripture, you simply say that “whosoever will” are those who have been chosen as the elect with no free will of their own to accept God’s offer when God offers salvation to them.  In other words, you will take away every Scripture I use to mean something that is contrary to what the fathers of the faith believed “erroneously” for 500 years before Augustine established the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.  WHAT’S THE POINT IN PLAYING ON A FIELD WHEN THE FIX IS IN?

You decline to look up the one chapter I ask you to research,

---I covered this above when I explained that some Christians confuse God’s covenant with the Jews as being the same covenant he has with gentiles.  This gets into some eschatology and it would just be one more area where you and I could disagree.  I am thankful that JN Darby was premillennial and embraced the pre-tribulation rapture (oh, I should not have gone there!).  Good question for you . . . how could a fellow Calvinist interpret God’s Word from a premillennial perspective, when all your favorite Calvinist saints are ammillennial or post-millennial (I am assuming a little bit here)?  In your view “how could Darby be so right as a 5 point Calvinist and so wrong in his view of eschatology (Bible prophecy)?"  Can I ask something like this of you without throwing in Scripture?  I don’t know the ground rules with you?

and come back with all sorts of accusations without having done so, virtually declaring yourself the winner!!!   HAHAHAHAHA.

---I did laugh a little when I read your reaction to this cute little comment of mine.  I do still have a sense of humor.  I hope you have one as well!

You will have to do better than that my friend. I would think that if you really wanted to defend your moderate Arminianism,

---I consider it a minor victory that you finally put the label “moderate” in front of your Arminian label for me.  Later on you even did me a greater honor of saying “I am very encouraged to hear you say that Kenny; there IS a difference between you and a full scale Arminian!!”  I nearly shouted out loud after reading those refreshing words.  Before long, if you don’t wear me out, I may hear you say that maybe there is more than three theological positions?

you would seek to do so FROM THE WORD OF GOD.

---I explained above the problems with trying to use the Word of God with enthusiastic debaters.  (See, I use descriptive words like “enthusiastic” as opposed to words I have had to hear from you against my character—but not to worry, you will not melt me into submission like you might melt some poor babe in Christ.)

After your last e-mail, I really thought you were in search of the truth, but I am not so sure now.

---Does “in search of truth” mean to you to debate on your terms?  Could anyone “in search of truth” come to any conclusions other than the conclusions you have come to?  (Assumed from the Calvinist debater:  No, Kenny, someone “in search of truth” would come to the very exact conclusions I’ve arrived at!)

My last offer to have the intelligent conversation that you promised is to start over by stating our positions (I believe we've gotten that far), and then by arguing those points from scripture.

---I know that the words “argument” and “arguing” are debating terms, I grant you that; but have you ever thought how cold and unChristian they sound.  And I’m guilty here too.  I’ve used them myself!

Your philosophical argument doesn't interest me in the least Kenny.

---But Augustine’s does?  I’m sorry, you did not comment on that earlier and I should have politely refrained from bringing it up again.

If I wanted to argue philosophically I'd go to the world for that.

---I think you did!  (See note above).

We are believers in and followers of Jesus Christ! He is our Lord!

---You know, I certainly hope that we are both among the elect?  I guess we have Scriptural references that assure us of that . . . right?  Or do we?  Is it arrogance for us to think that we are?  (That brings up another question, “Can we think without free will; or is that just a word we use to describe the thoughts that are programmed into our minds by God?”)  Boy that sounds strange to write, I’m beginning to think like you . . . or should I say express my programming like you?  I know you are not going to address most of this, but it made me feel good (if I can say that in a relative sense?) to write it with the assumption that you will (not in the sense of freewill) read it!

He has given us His Word! Why would we use any other source to make an argument for our theology??

---Why do you have books by the saints of your persuasion and I have books by the saints of my persuasion AND BY THE SAINTS OF YOUR PERSUASION?  We are just human beings, don’t make me feel guilty for enjoying commentaries and studies in systematic theology.  With this line of thinking (thinking . . . there’s an interesting word) we could eliminate the need for pastors and teachers altogether and just read the Bible alone without ever allowing anyone else to influence our thinking.  Does a man sin the moment he puts into print what he thinks Scripture is saying to us.  And to extend this line of reasoning, little saints like you and I should not use commentaries or studies in theology to reference our independent thoughts (if there are such things in your system of theology?).  Don’t comment on this section of my reply to you.  Let’s just say here that we are just acting like human beings by me writing this and you reading it.

You have not even begun to make a case for your theology from God's Word, and yet you throw accusations around like marshmellows accusing everyone else of teaching false doctrine! HEHEHEHEHE.

---Another part of your letter that got a chuckle from me.  I think you do have a sense of humor as well, or this was a scathing counter punch of sarcasm?  I’ll assume “sense of humor” unless you clear this up in a reply to me.

Are you not the one who said that our own argument can only be understood by knowing that of our opponents? How wrong and unscriptural and offensive to God is that?

---Are you not aware that we have a sin nature?  I can’t be spiritual in every thought, deed and utterance.  Cut a little slack here.  God knows we are sinners, even some Calvinists.  And the exact quote is:  "Those who do
not know their opponent's arguments do not completely understand their own."  You were close, but it did lose a little in your translation.

How deceiving is that? Are you telling others that nonsense also?

---Another chuckle.  Again, hoping you are showing that you are not that straight-laced yet.  Even B.B. Warfield wrote a book against “Perfectionism” and the folks who believe they have eradicated their own sin natures.  So I know Calvinists don’t believe this poppycock.  (Yes, I let my guard down a little here by letting you know that even I have been influenced by Calvinism and some Calvinist writers).  I may live to regret ever having stated that here to you in a moment of candor.  Hope you a laughing a little now and this is beginning to seem fun again!

GO TO THE WORD AND DEFEND YOURSELF, MY BROTHER, YOU ARE OFF TRACK AND USING MAN'S LOGIC TO CONVINCE YOURSELF AND OTHERS THAT YOUR THEOLOGY IS CORRECT. I do not deny that there are many different theologies that have deviated from Calvinism and Arminianism, Kenny, but the root of them, as far as I know, is one of the two (as far as Christianity goes).

---I missed this the first time I read it.  You admit that there are more than Calvinists and Arminians who will share Heaven with the Lord.  I am elated to hear you say this.  You even said “as far as you know” (very humble of you to say that this way—I appreciate hearing that).

For instance, the Geislerism that you have been persuaded by is really 4 point Arminianism and 1 point Calvinism. Am I wrong?

---Now, you have not heard me say the word “Geislerism”.  Come on, I admire the mind of Norman L. Geisler, but I would not and he would not and maybe even Calvin himself would not like to see the “ism” added to the end of his name.  For crying out loud, even the Plymouth Brethren (have you ever heard of them?) all used only their first two initials in front of their names when they penned their writings (JN Darby).  How do you get Geisler as 4 point Arminian and only 1 point Calvin?  I don’t believe he has ever said that “as far as I know”.

If it is true, then why go through all the commotion of starting another debate? Why are you redefining the terms? That is called confusionism, and that is exactly what you are involved in.

---Another use of “ism”.  You love to use “ism’s” don’t you?  I am not starting another debate.  I’m not sure how to get through and complete this one without hearing you boast of victory!  I’m just trying to have fun now and see you for what you really are:  “A good Christian man who desires the truth in the Word of God and zealous for the Lord in defending it when you feel any other person has degraded it; be he avowed atheist or avowed Christian”.  I believe you would have “argued” just as passionately for the Arminian position before you converted over to Calvinism.  If you did, have you gone back to all those Christians in “confusionism” which you may have caused and set them straight with your new set of truths?  Don’t take this personal.  I’m just trying to make you think outside the box.

You are essentially an Arminian, and I am an admitted Calvinist.

---Back to square one, just when I thought I was not a “full scale Arminian”.  Have I been demoted back to Arminian in your mind?

And why did you not respond to my accusation that your God has no real sovereignty, meaning that it is merely a part of His foreknowledge? How could you possibly overlook that major point?

---It is simply because with all your logic and the Scriptures you have used with your Calvinist foundation, I still am not going to go into denial about free will.  I believe in it.  Maybe I was predestined by God to believe in it! (There is a thought that could short-circuit the wiring of the brain).  I can’t explain that to you right now.  I know how you think by now that you would say it is because I won’t read the CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR meaning of the Scriptures and reject free will as God made it very clear that man has none.  Texas Instruments could write a simple manual to operate a calculator and make it clear that man has no free will in one of the paragraphs (the manual writer could do it in one sentence) if the author of the manual wanted to express that in print there.  But for some reason, God did not make it clear to all his saints that they don’t have free will in 66 books of the Bible.  If he had, then we would not be having this discussion right now and you would have been a Calvinist the first time you read one piece of Scripture.  But we are and you weren’t, so let’s accept reality (as God has decreed it).

I see it this way, Kenny, I exposed you and you didn't like it.

---Another chuckle here, but I don’t think it is one you were giving me intentionally.  No I don’t like it when one Christian tells me that half the other Christians in the world are off their rockers on their belief that God is a gentleman and that he gave man free will to accept or reject his offer of salvation when they are lovingly approached by the Holy Spirit and offered the water of life.  I think most of these Christians even realize that the Scriptures are clear that no man would come to a saving faith in God if the third person of the trinity did not draw them.  Question for you . . . do you think there is a chance that every one of these “free will” Christians are among the non-elect and they only think they are saved by the Lord or predestined to falsely believe they are saved?  In others words, could maybe the only ones really saved be the ones who do not believe in free will?  Don’t totally brush this off as hyperbole.

What disappoints me is that you did not go to scripture to defend yourself! This is significant!

---Yes it is significant that one does not allow another to use Scripture when they control the playing field.  I explained this above and I know it is driving you bananas, but if you had just a little bit of compassion in you, you would sympathize a little with what you have created.  That is why Christians normally do not get into debates with Calvinists.  It’s also why political conservatives can’t win debates with political liberals. (Hey, go over your earlier letters.  You used this type of a “liberal Democrats” tactic on me and I took it like a man).

Two challenges in closing: respond to my poem and explain to me how these verses fit into your present theology. That's right, comment on them and convince me without contradicting the rest of scripture how your idea of a universal atonement, a sovereignty from mere foreknowledge, a limited depravity of man, a conditional election and a resistible grace are proven from God's Word.

---You’ll have to wait for my comments on your reply to my website letter on how predestination and free will can exist at the same time with a powerful God and not one who can only allow one or the other.

You don't have to stick to these verses, I'll debate you to the end from scripture, I'm just bored with your style of argument.

---Until this letter in reply to your last two, I was getting pretty bored myself.  We shall see how you take this time spent by me to see if there is any future in us going on any longer.  I might add, while I’m in this more cheerful mood, that I have learned more about the way you think than I originally thought I would.  You are not all cookie cut Calvinists.  You are all still individuals with individual personalities.  If you have achieved anything from this, it is that I am more encouraged than ever to quote more of the Scriptures on my website and quote more Calvinists on their view of the doctrine of reprobation (the predestination of some to Hell or the loving passing over some for Hell—whichever way sounds more charitable to attribute to Calvinists)—you may have to purchase the Baker edition of Pink’s book to see what he had to say on this.  From what I remember reading in the past, he regrets having to tell others that they may have been predestined for Hell, but he feels compelled to bare out the true meaning of Scripture on this unseemly doctrinal truth.  Speak now or forever hold your piece on how it should be presented if you were to state it in your own words according to Scripture!

Secondly, stick to scripture. I can go back to Augustine and prove very quickly that he died a Calvinist doctrinally, but why bother when we have the Word of God to resort to?

---Calvin had not been born for another 1000 years after Augustine (give or take 100 years).  He could not have died a Calvinist, but I know what you are saying.  It is my own personal opinion that Augustine left the Roman Catholic Church with all kinds of goofy practices when he got through with it, but I can’t resort to Scriptures to find these goofy beliefs.  But I’m sure that given the time, you could!

As for declaring yourself the winner, it is very unbecoming of you, and I'd have thought that your mother would have taught you better nearly 50 years ago!

---I was only kidding you a little here, you couldn’t see me wink; or maybe you did and you also have a sense of humor.

If you end up winning me over to Arminianism, I'll declare to the whole world that you did so,

---That’s not going to happen and you would be very disingenuous to imply that I thought I would or that I would even try to.  Especially since I find Arminianism as objectionable as you do.  Maybe even more than you do!  If you can entertain that possibility.

but to pat yourself on the back without even swinging the bat yet sounds like that kid Kenny Rodgers sings about.

---I’m not much of a Kenny Rogers fan, so I’m not sure what song you are talking about here, but I would like to hear it now that it has been introduced into a debate.

In search of the truth (from the Word of God),

---I have spent a lot of time doing just that here.

I will look forward to those arguments. Let me comment on a couple of things that you have said on your website (http://www.accs.net/users/wolf/letter51.htm). Regarding: "One such (minor) conflict is the belief that salvation comes by a mixture of one's faith in Jesus Christ along with one's good works, as opposed to salvation by grace through faith alone with good works excluded from the salvation formula. This latter school of thought claims that the good works are merely evidence of salvation, but do nothing toward gaining salvation." You call this a minor doctrine?

---The point of calling it minor is that I didn’t think that one who believed on the Lord as their Savior could then be lost because they then thought that their works kept them saved in addition to their initial salvation.  Like you, I see it as a pathetic and sickening state of living one’s life, but are you saying they could lose their salvation simply because they think they are the one’s maintaining it?  From your perspective, I thought, if they were one of the elect, they would persevere whether they tried to live like perfect beings or sinned normally like other Christians.  I thought the 5th point of the TULIP was Perseverance; is it not?  So isn’t it minor if they go around thinking that way?  And isn’t the major doctrine . . .
Acts:16:31: And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Rom:10:9: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
I quoted Scripture here.  This has to please you a little!  If you don’t comment on any of what I’ve said in this response to you, please comment on me quoting Scripture.  I could use a little encouragement here.

The very components of our salvation as taught in God's Word is a minor doctrine? And you mention it to build a case for your support of man's free will without rightly dividing the Word of Truth on this matter?

---I did not use it to build a case for my support of man’s free will.  I don’t operate like a Calvinist in this way.  I was simply pointing out various areas where Christians disagree with one another before I showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is magnificent enough to allow man free will while maintaining FULLY INTACT His sovereignty.  Maybe Calvinists can’t see how he could do that, but God is the almighty; while Calvinists are just fallible human beings like the rest of us.

Regarding: "God considered (Not "willed" , but looked through time and "foresaw") every possible time, locale and family which he could place each individual free agent at the starting point of their lives. After looking at a near infinite number of possible realities (is there not a single scriptural reference to which you claim to know how almighty God came to decree these things, or do you have a direct tap into the mind of God to be able to declare those things He has not revealed??,

---Let me put the burden on you here.  Show me some Scriptures that clearly (CLEARLY) point out that God is not powerful enough to decree all of reality while leaving man with genuine free will; not the will of dead men which is the only will that Calvinists allow His creatures.  I would just copy and paste the whole Bible here before I sent this . . . .

He chose (at least you agree that He chose these things to be; I am very encouraged to hear you say that Kenny; there IS a difference between you and a full scale Arminian!!)

---If you had been actually reading what I have been saying all along you could have been encouraged a long time ago.  I never said God doesn’t do the choosing.  He chose me!  I would not have chosen Him if left only to my own free will.  My free will was like that of a dead man.  (wow, now that is going to really confuse you).  I recognize that God chooses us—I’m not an Arminian!!!!!  BUT I STILL BELIEVE IN THE GENUINE FREE WILL OF MAN—not just HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY!

that possibility which He decreed as the one which would play out into what we humans call "reality". Therefore, we are all experiencing reality as God decreed it. But our individual free wills are fully intact at every moment (that's exactly right, however, it is a fallen and corrupted will which can chose nothing but hatred towards God except His Spirit give us a heart of flesh and remove the heart of stone that dwells in each of us).

---I just said that same thing to you above.  Are we agreeing on something here?  I asked you to read this letter on the Internet earlier, but you declined and said that whatever I had to say would surely come out in our debate.  Well it did, but it took some doing.  I guess by only printing this link in my letter to you, you graciously went there to see what I had to say.

(Also, we can always entertain good or sinful fantasies, in our own minds, about realities that will never be.)

---Just stating that we have free will in our minds; unless you even think that God predestines our thoughts to maintain His sovereignty.

Where's the scripture references?

---Again I respectfully place the burden on you to find the Scriptures that show that God does not decree everything that happens.  This will be a tough one for you.  Not as easy as it might first look to you.

If you carry on arguments without the use of God's Word, how do you know that you are rightly dividing the Word of Truth?

---Because I’ll have you to tell me.  Also Calvinists have been doing it for over 1500 years (if we count Augustine as a Calvinist as you would have us do.)

If you continue to do so after being questioned about it, are you not doing it intentionally and unbiblically?

---If I’m predestined to do it, am I doing it intentionally and unbiblically?  You tell me?  According to you, I don’t have the free will to make such a decision!

Should you not be labeled a philosopher instead of a theologian?

---Augustine was labeled both a philosopher and a theologian and it didn’t seem to harm his reputation.  Check this in some philosophy books and in Warfield’s writings on Augustine.

USE SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION; WITHOUT IT YOU ARE MERELY BABBLING.

---Here I must agree with you 100%.  I think we are all merely babbling.  Only God is truth.

---Now I’m beginning to grow fond of you.  If you do not answer this letter or answer in full as I have tried to do here with everything you wrote; whether or not you liked my answers, I will not declare victory over you.  Only our Lord and savior Jesus Christ can declare victory over the world.

Jn:16:33: These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

---There is our victory.  “It is Christ's work for us; not Christ's work in us that gives us peace.”—John Nelson Darby

Happy New Year and may peace bring you good cheer.

Let me ask you one thing though: if man can reject God's call to salvation, then so can every man who ever lived, and if they had, then God could have sent His own Son to be crucified for no reason because the only One who ends up in heaven is the very God who started there! You may say: "but He wouldn't have done it unless He knew of those who would accept His offer of grace". Well, there are two problems with this: One, you are saying that His entire creation of heaven and plan of redemption revolves around man's decision and God's foreknowledge (don't bother looking Kenny, because you won't find a single verse in the entire Bible that even remotely eludes to such stupidity). The second problem stems from your belief that man's salvation does in fact require the intercession of the Holy Spirit; well, if the Spirit needs to "specifically" offer salvation, then man is incapable of otherwise "choosing" salvation entirely on his own. That means it requires the "participation" of the Spirit of God. And if man's "free will" can override the coersions of the Spirit (it must be able to by your theology, or he wouldn't have the option to reject the offer of grace), then he can override it again after getting saved and change his mind, right? You cannot support your idea of perseverance of the saints by your own theology! Yet scripturally you can! May this encourage you to search the scriptures more and your own wisdom (or lack thereof, according to those very scriptures) less. Let me respond to your letter, Kenny, and then you can decide whether or not to carry on this debate any longer ok? If you "choose" not to, then let me now thank you for your time and entertainment. I'll see you in heaven brother. By the way, I fully believe in man's free will (that's free and clear) pertaining to non spiritual matters.

Assumed from the Calvinist debater:  NO COMMENT on the stake burning) No, Kenny, I would not burn any person at the stake who professes the name of Jesus Christ as Lord and savior (Romans 10:9, as you quoted)

Romans chapter 9 appears to me to be about the relationship between God and his chosen people (no not Calvinists) of Israel! I thought we had our hands full discussing God's relationship with the church, without bringing in the Jewish people. (read verses 7 & 8 more carefully, Kenny. "the children of the promise are counted as the seed"!  This absolutely applies to Christians of all ages and you are without excuse to further deny that. God is talking to you personally here! It is your exact theology that He condemns here! Does God change? Even if you were right, which you most definitely are not, would it not apply to us anyways since God does not change? You don't even have an argument making the false assumption that you are right!  You see, Kenny, even if it were the Israelites God speaks to here, it is about Himself that He say's these things, and since He doesn't change, it therefore holds true, period. Please re-read this chapter prayerfully brother, I beg you.

I can put this "Calvinism in a nutshell" writing on my site if you want, but I believe I'll use quotes from the Baker edition of AW Pink's "The Sovereignty of God" using the missing chapter (from Banner of Truth edition) to show that this old Particular Baptist Hymn is not exaggerated when looking at Pink's ( I thought you were trying to represent all of Calvinism; why suddenly AW Pink to slander) views of Scripture.  If Pink quotes Scriptures (roughly a thousand times more than do you, my friend) , I'll state the Scriptures and explain word for word what he knows they are saying about the unfortunate non-elect who don't have a snowball's chance of ever entering Heaven. ( and neither did you without the mercy of God, Kenny. You and I both deserve hell and we both know it).

the main reason is that I would have to put a lot of work into laying a Calvinist foundation for them to see why all readers need a special understanding of the Reformed faith (not true; there you go again making excuses why you are relieved of having to use the very Word of God to defend your theological positions; are there really people who buy that rubbish?) to know what they thought they were reading using common sense ( I thought the Holy Spirit interprets scripture! Now you are saying it's common sense? (Read 1 Cor 2:14 and 2 Cor 3:16) Are you crediting the work of the Spirit of God to man here? I'm confused).

how could a fellow Calvinist interpret God's Word from a premillennial perspective, when all your favorite Calvinist saints are ammillennial or post-millennial (I am assuming a little bit here)? Spurgeon did!!!!   hehehehehehehehehe. I got you real good there, you must admit. I am not hung up on eschatology because as far as I can see, God is simply not clear on these matters. That blows a significant portion of your qualms with the reformed faith completely out of the water. GOTCHA!

I explained above the problems with trying to use the Word of God with enthusiastic debaters. (oh Kenny, you're making my ears bleed! may God have mercy on you for making such a statement. Read the first 13 words of that sentence alone, and consider the tremendous reliance on your own understanding you place, and the offensive lack of trust in the work of the Spirit's work in your heart and mind. Let me get this right: you don't have to rely on God's Word because your opponent (by argument, not in life itself. by the way, you needn't feel embarrassed by the term argument, it merely means to discuss. Are we not to work out our salvation?) is trying to use the Word of God to support his own position? I believe that is exactly what you said somewhere in this letter! That is absurd! It is unscriptural and offensive to God!! (what about Colossians 3:16?)  You best come to terms with this verse and now.

you will not melt me into submission like you might melt some poor babe in Christ (is there really such a thing as a poor babe in Christ, Kenny? You may think me meddling here, but it does reveal a sense of distrust in the work of the Spirit and the promises of God).
Does "in search of truth" mean to you to debate on your terms?  (NO!! It means being diligent in the Word, and obeying God's command from 2Tim 2:15!) Could anyone "in search of truth" come to any conclusions other than the conclusions you have come to? (of course, you know I don't claim to "have arrived", don't you? Just because I am so stubborn doesn't mean I presume to know all things, "for whoever thinks he knows anything, knows nothing as he ought to") (Assumed from the Calvinist debater:  No, Kenny, someone "in search of truth" would come to the very exact conclusions I've arrived at!) Wrong, presumptuous and I am hurt by this.

I know that the words "argument" and "arguing" are debating terms, I grant you that; but have you ever thought how cold and unChristian they sound.  (you don't get me going here, Kenny. We are called to test the doctrines of man and rebuke him if necessary according to the word; a biblical exhortation that you somehow missed) And I'm guilty here too.  I've used them myself!

---I think you did!  (See note above (you would, but its you who uses logic and strays from the written Word, and in your ignorance makes excuses as to why he is not obligated to do what God declares that we do!).

You know, I certainly hope that we are both among the elect?  I guess we have Scriptural references that assure us of that . . . right? (This doesn't surprise me frankly, but it saddens me Kenny, that you are questioning your own salvation. See 2 Peter 1:10.
Or do we?  Is it arrogance for us to think that we are?  It is arrogance to question God's reassurances in the matter, and obnoxious in His sight. (That brings up another question, "Can we think without free will; or is that just a word we use to describe the thoughts that are programmed into our minds by God?")  I think you know my position on this by now. Boy that sounds strange to write, I'm beginning to think like you . . . or should I say express my programming like you? That's an insult to God's Word and the work of the Spirit, if you've been in it.  I know you are not going to address most of this, but it made me feel good (if I can say that in a relative sense?) to write it with the assumption that you will (not in the sense of freewill) read it.

Why do you have books by the saints of your persuasion and I have books by the saints of my persuasion AND BY THE SAINTS OF YOUR PERSUASION?  Many, but God's Word comes first, and all of man's books get weighed in the balance thereof.

How do you get Geisler as 4 point Arminian and only 1 point Calvin?  I don't believe he has ever said that "as far as I know". Because that's exactly what he is by the definitions of the 5 points of calvinism and arminianism that have been used for 400 years!!! Just because he authors confusionism and changes the definitions that everyone else has been using means that we have to judge his doctrines by his standard kenny. By the commonly accepted definitions of the two, he is in fact 1 point calvin and 4 points Arminian! See for yourself, but it's not a matter of what he calls himself, he is intentionally creating confusion in his attack on the reformed faith, and I consider him a very dangerous man because he involves a high level of deceit. My very pastor thinks he's a moderate calvinist, and he endears geislers teachings all the way! He doesn't even realize that the man has redefined everything and is essentially an arminian/semi-pelagian!

Question for you . . . do you think there is a chance that every one of these "free will" Christians are among the non-elect and they only think they are saved by the Lord or predestined to falsely believe they are saved?  No, that is what you would have calvinists believe to further condemn their Biblical theology. It is the very Word of God that you in part, reject kenny. These people are saved, as are you, and you cannot put those words into my mouth. In others words, could maybe the only ones really saved be the ones who do not believe in free will?  Don't totally brush this off as hyperbole.

If you carry on arguments without the use of God's Word, how do you know that you are rightly dividing the Word of Truth?

---Because I'll have you to tell me.Also Calvinists have been doing it for over 1500 years (if we count Augustine as a Calvinist as you would have us do.) Your obligation is to use the Word yourself. This is a false slander of Augustine and a lie. He was a man of God who strictly adhered to the Word to develop what he felt was the best attempt he could have made to rightly divide the Word of Truth. Because I'll have you to tell me is a most revealing statement of your present condition, and I pray the Lord's guidance to develop the obedience He requires. It has been a real pleasure Kenny. Happy New Year to you and yours. In Jesus Christ