Paul's Passing Thoughts

Totally Unexpected: Dr. James White Backs Down From Public Debate; Susan Weighs In

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on December 6, 2013

ppt-jpeg4“No Calvinist, including John MacArthur, can win a debate on Calvinism with ANY Christian who can read. Why? Because Calvin makes anti-gospel statements in the Institutes that cannot be defended. Truth be known, these guys are not going to debate anybody who is familiar with the Calvin Institutes. On this wise, they couldn’t even win a debate against Forrest Gump, and they all know it.”    

How surprised was I that Dr. James White backed down from a public debate with me? I was working on an introduction. The Introduction that will never be spoken follows, but I have some thoughts first. Actually, the thoughts come from my better half, Susan Dohse. Susan was totally taken aback by the in-your-face elitism from Dr. James White and Dr. Allen both, and weighed in with the following ideas:

Why do you need any credentials at all? Why pass on a public discussion between two brothers on any subject? If he is a leader, would that not at least be an opportunity to model proper dialogue between Christians? Furthermore, your challenge is unique, why would he not seize the opportunity? What is he afraid of?

Well, Susan and I don’t agree on everything, I cannot assert that this man is a brother, I don’t know that, and he backed down from a definitive, outlined rebuttal against the gospel he believes in. Basically, I am stating publically that he believes in a false gospel, and he will not defend it. This makes me 2/0/0 on Calvinists backing down from a public debate with me. The first agreed initially, but negotiations broke down when I was told I couldn’t read from the Calvin Institutes. And that my friends is the crux of the issue. No Calvinist, including John MacArthur, can win a debate on Calvinism with ANY Christian who can read. Why? Because Calvin makes anti-gospel statements in the Institutes that cannot be defended. Truth be known, these guys are not going to debate anybody who is familiar with the Calvin Institutes. On this wise, they couldn’t even win a debate against Forrest Gump, and they all know it.

Here is the introduction I was working on before the big surprise:

I am not here tonight to debate the doctrine of election or the five points of Calvinism. In case anyone hasn’t noticed, that debate hasn’t solved anything and precious few have been persuaded either way. That is a debate where people come already convinced, one way or the other, and are simply looking for permission to remain where they are.

To the contrary, Calvin’s soteriology is against what is clearly stated in the Bible. It is a brazen affront to the biblical gospel and Pauline soteriology in particular. Said another way, there is very little theory here and many facts. The devil in the Reformation gospel is in the details.

Ironically, Calvinists don’t really believe in the doctrine that they have effectively hidden behind for more than 500 years—the doctrine of election. As one saved out of Calvinism myself, I always rejoiced in the idea that God had chosen me before the foundation of the earth, well before I was even born, and therefore, nothing could separate me from the love of God. When I joyfully shared this with other Calvinists, I was puzzled by the flat response. I am no longer puzzled.

Election, in the Calvinist construct, only qualifies us to enter the race. From there, we have to keep ourselves saved by faith alone in the Christian life. It reminds me of the rock and roll hit, “Taking Care of Business” by Bachman-Turner Overdrive: “we work hard at doing nothing all day…taking care of business [by being re-saved every day].” This is the simplistic and powerfully deceptive false gospel of Calvinism; it requires us to keep ourselves saved by not doing works in the Christian life. Yes, there is much more to the jingle, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday” than most are aware of. That is not a Calvinist prescription for a more apt way to be sanctified in the Christian life, it is a prescription for keeping ourselves saved.

“We must.” When those two words are anywhere in the Christian life, it begs the question: for justification, or sanctification? If for justification, it must be works salvation. The Reformation crowd often speaks of “the golden chain of salvation” in context of objective, subjective, and final justification. What they call “progressive sanctification” is really, “subjective justification.” That’s a huge problem. It requires us to remain saved by continually revisiting the same gospel that saved us. We enter a race where the reward is salvation, not rewards for Christian obedience to a risen Savior. This begs the eschatological question as well, “How many resurrections, and how many judgments?” It begs the question of dichotomy between justification and sanctification. Is justification a onetime finished work while sanctification only is progressive? Why did Calvin state that justification is “progressive”?

And why did the Reformers insist that the Christian life is a New Testament expression of the Old Testament Sabbath? The idea that works in sanctification brings Sabbath death?

Yes indeed, the fusion of justification and sanctification makes Christian living a minefield on the way to glorification. It requires a careful consideration of what is works in sanctification and what is not works in sanctification. It is a formula for “keeping ourselves in the love of God” and instruction on how Calvin’s gospel continues to “save believers.”

It is often the masterful exposition of sanctification in a justification way. Calvin’s soteriology of works salvation clothed in antinomianism. It posits an unfinished work of the cross, a rejection of the new birth, and a law that gives life.

paul

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. paulspassingthoughts said, on December 6, 2013 at 9:44 AM

    Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.

    Like

  2. Christian said, on December 6, 2013 at 9:58 AM

    Have you tried to contact Mr. Albert Mohler? I would love to see that happen. And you couldn’t read from the Institutes? That is so funny!

    Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: