Thoughts on Last Night’s Debate
Oct 3rd, 2008 | By Douglas K. Adu-Boahen | Category: UncategorizedWell, by now, in the minds of most of Revelation TV’s audience, last night’s discussion on Calvinism and Arminianism is now a memory. Not for me though – no, it has bothered me all night and all day. You see, that discussion, despite the good efforts of my friend Rev. Angus Stewart of Covenant Protestant Reformed Fellowship, in Ballymena, N. Ireland, was doomed to meaninglessness last night, and here are my reasons as to why:
-
Revelation TV is Pentecostal/Charismatic, and that means they are single-issue voters, if you will pardon the political expression. For those of us who watched it in full (I got up at 7.45am to catch the whole debate from start to finish online), Yemi asked three meaningless questions:
(1) Do you believe in speaking in tongues? When I heard that this morning, I yelled out “What the Hades does it matter???”
(2) Do you believe in the laying on of hands? Again, who gives a stuff about that? We are discussing Calvinism and Arminianism, not cessationism and continuationism. Rev. Stewart has already one that debate on Revelation TV over a year ago, Yemi. (Yes I am addressing Yemi, since he was the “moderator”)
(3) Do you believe in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit? All Christians do, Yemi. What a stupid question!
This is nothing new. My dad gets so ticked off when he sees me reading Baptist authors since many of them are not involved with speaking in tongues. I ask all Pentecostals and Charismatics who will read this either on my blog or Facebook: What does it matter if he doesn’t believe in all that??? In fact, allow me to digress and talk to the Pentecostals in the room. Tongues is not the theological shibboleth that will determine whether a teaching is sound or not. Healing is the experiential password to all that God has. If you cannot see that, then ladies and gentlemen, you need to re-study your Bibles. I would say more on this point, but this is a public forum and getting sued is rampant these days
-
Related to that point, Yemi Balogun was the wrong choice for moderating that debate, and this is why. On the bus, I remembered watching Dr. James White doing this same debate on Revelation TV a while back. The moderator was Gordon Pettie, a nice man and rather more astute than Yemi Balogun in my honest opinion. In that debate, Mr. Pettie took no one side, he was kind to all three of the participant and it was a much more free-flowing discussion. Now think of Mr. Balogun. Those of us who choose to occasionally watch Revelation TV may remember when Justin Peters was on there, and once again Yemi was chairing. He didn’t take Rev. Peters’ point seriously and kept justifying the opposition.
One of the many things I have done in my short life was to be part of a debate team. One thing I know about any good debate is that the moderator is NEVER to espouse his views or opinion while the debate is underway. I have seen it happen once, and the moderator was removed and replaced. Yemi is not Biblically based enough to moderate a debate of that nature aright. That may well sound cruel, but it is honest. How for the life of you can you openly mock your guest and then have the nerve to say, “Well that settles it then” after doing so. At the risk of turning the blogosphere against me, I ask: Who the seven shades do you think you are? Revelation TV ruined a perfectly good opportunity for debate and discussion by getting him to do it, and if I were them, I’d never pick him for something as vital as that ever again.
-
On a more theological level, last night’s debate confirmed something that I have been saying for a long time now. Arminianism is a theology which humanizes God and deifies man. You see, in the Arminian scheme, God has done 99% of the work required in salvation, but you have to do that last 1% and believe. My Bible says that faith and repentance are gifts from God (I will not go into the finer details of that in this post, though I am working on a series of teachings on “Just What is Calvinism and Reformed Theology?”, where I will address this question in Biblical detail), yet the fundamental pre-supposition that was fuelling the Arminian case and all those ridiculous e-mails was these two things: (1) Man deserves salvation – which is inane when you consider that the heart is deceitful above all else, and totally wicked (Jeremiah 17:9), that man is dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1-3) and that man loves the darkness more than light (John 3:16-21) and (2) God is all loving – again the Bible affirms that God hates the incorrigible wicked (Psalm 51:5) and that he will not leave sin unpunished (Exodus 34:6 et al.). People need to understand that God’s love is not a blanket which puts out his justice or his sovereignty.
-
Pentecostalism is a problem in this country which needs to be uprooted. Many of the e-mails I saw yesterday did not deal with the content of Rev. Stewart’s presentation. Much rather, they were besotted with defending the gifts, rather than engaging the Scripture. Further, even the rather asinine host (love the new word right there – you know who you are who introduced me to it) tried to use that age-old pound-shop argument that the letter kills, taken from the following passage:
2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Now anyone who reads the context of that passage can clearly see what Paul was getting at:
2Co 3:1-5 ESV Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you? (2) You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all. (3) And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. (4) Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. (5) Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God,
I will leave you to do your own study with that.
In the final analysis, this debacle has only affirmed my desire to teach and defend God’s Word. As James White says, “The Gospel is ours to proclaim, not to edit”. Arminianism is an edition of the Gospel, not the real thing, and Pentecostalism is just another child of that system. Get in God’s Word and steer clear of stations like Revelation TV. I won’t be watching there anymore until they decide they want to give the Word of God a balanced hearing and not a traditional one.
For the 5 Solas,
Doug
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Hey, Douglas, right on for point number 3! Most people are under the presumption that God has to give everyone, or no one a chance at salvation. This totally flies in the face of Israel’s election, as well as Jacob’s election over Esau. Passages such as Deut 7:6-8, 10:15, make it abundantly clear that God, NOT man does the choosing. This is part of a series dealing with the Arminian view of God’s justice that I am doing right now on my blog. I just finished with several OT passages and my next will begin to dive into the NT making connections bact to the OT.
You said:
People need to understand that God’s love is not a blanket which puts out his justice or his sovereignty.
Again, that was right on the money! I get sick of hearing the ‘God must be fair to everyone’ theory. Basically what they are ultimately saying is that if God does not have THEIR sense of justice then it is not fair. That is definitely bringing God down to man’s level.
One more thought and I’m done: I saw your post on Facebook about the Ghana parents. Are your parents originally from Ghana? My family and I are raising support to go to Ghana. We are missionaries who will be working in the Northern regions of Ghana with the Muslims. Anyway, I thought I would ask.
Steven,
shai linne, one of my favourite musicians, puts it best: “God is not subject to fallen notions of fairness”.
Yes my folks are from Ghana. Dad’s from the capital, Accra, and Mum’s from our second city, Kumasi. Northern Ghana needs more of the Gospel, and if you do decide to go ahead, it would be an honour to support that work as best I can.
Hi, Douglas.
I’m an ex-Pentecostal Reformed Christian like yourself, and I do share your angst for the state of the Evangelical Church these days. But, since more then 80% of my country is overwhelmingly Roman-Catholic, I have other worries to steal my sleep and deprive me of my apetite then just that old Renaissance-bred humanistic Arminianism, if you know what I mean.
Nevertheless, I’ve watched the debate, and while it was obvious that the moderator wasn’t moderate at all, I was mostly worried for the sheer lack of discernement and intelectual honesty and even the plainest of good-manners from the non-Calvinists.
You know, Douglas, the reason that I don’t lash out and call all free-willers heretics and say that Arminian gospel is a ‘lie-from-the-pits-of-Hell’, is due to the humility and reverence that God demands of us while debating His Word – the same humility and the same reverence that enable me to concede the hypothesis that I might be wrong. If so, at least I will not have called my brother a heretic and the Gospel a lie. Those who’ve taken part in the show, with exception to Rev. Angus, lacked this. A lot.
You see, I’m forced to admit that most Arminians are holding to an idol called tradition – since they are incapable of reasonably defend their interpretation of the doctrines of God’s Soverein Grace, Election, Predestination, Eternal Decree, etc.
It was against tradition that Reformers protested, and let me tell you something, dear Douglas – I fear that in the face of this evergrowing mystical, mysterious, idolatrous, neo-gnostic Pentecostalism, which is Arminianism on steroids and Roman-Catholicism 2.0, really – we must pray for a Reformation right now within Evangelicalism.
Semper Reformanda.
Soli Deo Gloria.
That’s awesome! My family and I will be extreme North; Wa, Tamale, or perhaps Tumu. I look forward to the day when the Lord will finally take us there. Good talking to you, brother.
Bro. Nuno,
Thank you for your insightful comments. While I admit that at times, I have been a firebrand in regards to Calvinism and Arminianism, I agree – just like the original Reformation happened from within Rome, though it left Rome real quick, so the modern Reformation will need to happen from within.
Hey Everyone,
I just wanted to point out three distinct groups of people which are the Achilles heal of the Arminian. I will address each group with the Arminian response verses the Monergist response. When you delve into this you will find it is NOT Monergist who have a cruel God but rather the Arminian.
#1. Abortion/Children
Whether Arminian or Monergist we all believe that God being a loving God would not condemn Children or babies who have been aborted into hell. Thankfully we can agree on this. However, this creates a paradox for the Arminian. You see, according to the Arminian salvation is a synergistic mechanism requiring two parties in agreement to establish salvation. If this is true then how could a aborted baby or a 3 year old fulfill this synergistic requirement? They can’t. Neither examples have the capability to accept the gospel due to their development. Now the Arminian would immediately exclaim that God would not allow such examples to perish in the pits of hell. And as Monergist we agree. However, we see the first example that Arminian’s would have to admit that God had to Chose these individuals because they in no way could fulfill the requirement of synergism which the Arminian holds so near and dear. In essence the Arminian would either
A: Claim that ALL individuals who didn’t accept the gospel are going to hell.
B: God would have to “choose” some as in this case, while adults who had heard the Gospel would have to be bound to the “Free Will”
Lets look at this paradox. If the Arminian chooses A then they are intellectually honest in their conviction of Free will. However, as a Monergist I would never want to worship the cruel God of Arminian that sends little children to hell because they couldn’t accept the gospel.
If the Arminian chooses B then they are quasi Arminian/Monergist depending on the situation. In other words they are intellectually dishonest with their dogma of Free Will as a means to salvation.
#2. Mentally Retarded
let’s look at those who are mentally retarded. Because of the similarities between this group and the afore mentioned example of children, for brevity sake the same A B paradox applies. So there is no need to present the same situation just insert mentally retarded in place of children and you get the same results.
#3. Those who have not heard the Gospel.
This is probably the most complex. Let me first say that Billy Graham on TV openly said that even those who have NOT heard of Jesus Christ will be in Heaven based on their works and sincerity. This creates another problem. But before let me say that Billy Graham is an Arminian. So here is the Arminian problem in this situation.
A: If Billy Graham believes this than he is denying the very foundation of Arminianism which is synergy between God and man.
B: He is instituting a works based salvation for those who have not heard the gospel based on their own religion.
However, what is the Monergist response. Well, God being Sovereign and one who chooses is the ONLY way those who have not “physically” heard the Gospel via preaching could be saved. What do I mean. Well, lets take Paul for example. Paul was a devout Pharisee, a Jew, and a Roman. He was chosen by God not of his own will but of Gods. The Arminian on the other hand would have to come up with some hokey response like Billy Graham. But not us. God being Sovereign did not have to wait for technology,time, or translation of the Gospel to save people. God in his Sovereignty if he so willed could have saved American Indians, Aborigines, Northern Europeans, and Southern Africans long before they ever had the opportunity to hear the gospel. In essence, the afore mentioned peoples never heard the gospel for centuries after Christ. Should they be under the same yolk as Arminianism? Did not Christ come for All? Should that apply only to All who have heard? Or could God in his Sovereignty like he did to Paul save even those who were not Christian? Could God, after the Cross interject himself in the life of the pagan in South America and reveal Himself? Yes he could if he so willed. But to you the Arminian God would have sent them all to hell until the 1600s when they finally had the opportunity to hear the Gospel. OR you would supply the same answer as Billy Graham and completely deny Christ?
Kyle
Greetings All,
As part of the debate/discussion whatever you want to call it!
I would have to agree that Yemi as a chair was not the most unbiased of people but I also found that out in the discussion with Justin Peters.
I did not wish to do the debate but was called in as a last minute replacment because my viewpoint falls more closely to the Arminians interpretation of those partricular doctrines
However what ensued reinforced why I try to stay out of such discussions. The divisive nature of these 2 schools of thought have been rampant for generations and I dont believe it edifies the body of our Lord at all.
On both sides generalisations are made and the discussion become black and white, you’re wrong and I’m right, when clearly it is not simple.
If we read the Scripture with particular shades on it is certain that our presuppositions will be inferred in the text.
I respect greatly Rev Angus Stewart and the body of the reformed for their appreciation to God’s Word and Study, However you are not the be all and end all of Scriptural correctness and neither are the Arminians, Evangelicals, Pentecostals or whatever other denomination we have added to the Oneness of Christ.
Well I have had my vent, hope you see my heart in this matter.
I am open to build but never divide.
Agape
Timothy Ramsay
Timothy Ramsay ,
Bro, no offense that was the longest no answer, answer I have ever read. But really, look at my points above regarding three distinct groups of people and let me know how Arminianism could be valid.
Kyle
Kyle I didnt come here to answer your questions
For one they show a gross misunderstanding of the Arminian position or what Scripture says in general.
Secondly ask a true Arminian and they may entertain your alleged “Achilles heel”
I merely posted to state that both sides can be and have been argued every well and I could just as easily post an alledged “achilles heel” to Calvinism that will no doubt be answered but the answer would never be sufficient enough for a thoroughbred Arminian…so my point is. If Calvinism works for you, to me fine, If Arminianism works for you, fine, The CHOICE is yours, but it should not serve to divide the Body of our Lord
Timothy
Brother Timothy, once again your no answers baffle me.
How does Kyles question show a gross misunderstanding of the Arminian position or what Scripture says in general? Is it right to come on a blog and say, “you’re wrong” and then run off without saying why scripturally?
Of course both sides can and have been argued very well, but doesn’t make both sides correct. Either one is right, the other is wrong, or both are wrong.
Where is there a division of the body here? No one here has a personal hell to throw Arminians in. There are many Arminians who are good theologians, now and in times past. We have nothing against them personally, we just don’t agree with them when it comes to Soteriology and as I’m sure you will agree, doctrine matters.
Blessings
Greetings Stephen!
Ok maybe I went a little overboard with “gross” misunderstanding. A misunderstanding none the less.
case in point
“If the Arminian chooses B then they are quasi Arminian/Monergist depending on the situation. In other words they are intellectually dishonest with their dogma of Free Will as a means to salvation.”
INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST WITH THE DOGMA OF FREE WILL – Think about that one. Is it a true account of the Arminian position?
Another thing these “questions” were posted on “Contemplations of Calvinist” with arguments (answers) already laid forth. I am not going to change a Calvinists mind about these things! I realise that and can live with it.
It was clear from my posting I didn’t come to answer anything or state that someone was wrong, yet in true Calvinist fashion (I love you, I do) I must answer the paradoxical, heretical, …etc fallicies of an Arminian belief system and when I dont…its a “no answer”. I say go ask a true Arminian..its a “no answer”. Whats a brother to do!? I know I walked into that one (just answer the mans questions)
From what I understand the synergist position of the Arminian is to the effect that God soveriegnly set the condition of man “believing by faith” in relation to to the sacrifice of Christ.
As a righteous judge if man (baby, mental issues) never had opportunity to “believe by faith” then, God would still judge righteously as He wills – The judge of the earth shall do right (Gen 18:2)
He understands when someone has not had the mental faculty to know the difference between good and evil Deut 1:39, Romans 9:11, Jonah 4:11
If the dead will be judged in Rev 20:11-15 according to “their works,” how can those who have no knowledge of good or evil (infants, young children) and those who have not yet done any “good or evil” (the unborn) be held accountable for their lack of understanding?
I dont believe this presents a problem to the synergist position if they keep it Scriptural because any position one holds must conform to the Word of God
Now in response to q3, Those who have not heard the Gospel.
Is it possible for them to go heaven? – Well any answer to this would be speculation, even the Monergist position that you stated Kyle. Not to say that God couldnt do it, however it is still speculation. Paul heard the Gospel before his conversion experience as indicated by what Jesus said to him (Acts 9:5
This much is clear – The Gentiles of Paul’s day were lost because of their ungodliness and unrighteousness and for their dishonor of God by idolatry, for which there was no excuse (Romans 1:18-21). Even without a written law from God, they violated his moral law. They sinned without the law (i.e., a written code like Moses’ law) and their own conscience condemned them for it (Romans 2:11-15). In every human heart there is a sense of “ought and ought not.” Most societies have a set of moral precepts that to some degree resemble God’s written moral code. When even the primitive pagan violates these rules he sins against his conscience and God holds him accountable for it. The men of Sodom broke this law, being guilty of grievous sin, even though they had no written statutes (Genesis 18:20). So did the cruel men of Nineveh (Jonah 1:2). When man knows to do good and does it not, he sins (James 4:17).
Could someone who never heard the Gospel go to heaven -Its possible however would would still be through Christ(John 14:6) As the Scripture is not clear on it I no-one can say for sure, what the Scripture is clear about is our responsibilty to preach the Gospel to as many as we can to give them ample opportunity to respond to the drawing of Holy Spirit and the faith that comes from the Word. In the Words of Jesus the Harvest is great but the labourers are few, pray that the Lord will send labourers – “Now this is a true no answer”
Stephen, you really dont want me to comb through this site and its comments to find examples of division? That would not be a good look!
Blessings
Timothy
Well as the owner of the website, I would like to wade in at this point. Pastor Ramsay, take the comb and run it through. It’s been almost a year since I started – you find division, list it in this format:
URL – quote – why it’s division.
Best of luck to you (Romans 16:17)
Greetings Douglas.
I will do one due to time. You may not view it as such however is a certain type of Christian encountered this statement it certainly would not convey brotherhood in Christ.
“Pentecostalism is a problem in this country which needs to be uprooted.”
Really? So Pentecostalism has not been good in any shape or form in the United Kingdom and is a problem that must be taken out of the country.
This statement was based on a small number of people calling to a debate on Revelation TV of all places.
Blanket statements like these divide full stop.
Of course you have right to your opinion, but it is of my opinion that if a brother/sister from a Pentecostal denomination read that statement well I think fellowship with a mind to edify would be out of the question.
Timothy
Timothy,
I stand by that statement till I die or get taken off WordPress. From 1906 to the present day, Pentecostalism, and its more widespread cousin, the Charismatic movement has served to cause nothing but widespread dissension and division in the Church. Its teaching of a two-tier Christianity (those with the Baptism and those without) has served to cause bitter splits in families, churches and denominations.
Through Pentecostalism, we got to where we are today where the “Word of Faith” (which in my opinion does more to destroy one’s faith) runs rampant in the church and morons like Todd Bentley get to kick folks in the gut and yet aren’t arrested or locked in an asylum. I am not some embittered Baptist spin doctor, making a problem look worse than it is – I am a concerned Christian trying everything in my power to wake people up to the reality that experiences do not determine the validity or truth of anything – the Bible ALONE, BY ITSELF AND IN OF ITSELF determines if something is good.
I’m sorry but that example is weak – next…
Here’s the promised article…
http://blackreformingkid.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/my-issues-with-pentecostalism-an-insiders-story/
Douglas,
See this is where your limited perspective (limited in a sense of, its based on your experience and doctrinal bias) on the history of pentecostalism and its benefit, not only in the UK but to the world since the late 1800s, comes into play.
Sure there has been, division and dissention in the particular movement but no more as we have seen in the History of the Church. This is what happens when you deal with people.
Has what we seen happen in the last 100+ years concerning Pentecostalism and the Charasmatic movement been worse than the division, dissention, heresy hunting etc that occured in the Reformation? I think not yet I am sure that you agree the Reformation and what it sprouted provided great benefit to Christianity.
The evidence of the benefits of Pentecostalism/ Charismatic/Word of Faith etc is apparent all across the world and in the UK.
I’ve seen it and been a part of it and will continue doing so. It really depends on what side you are looking from.
Or what stance you are looking from.
I totally agree with your statement.
“the reality that experiences do not determine the validity or truth of anything – the Bible ALONE, BY ITSELF AND IN OF ITSELF determines if something is good.”
If “experiences” are Bible based experiences then it is the Bible that determines it is good. Not mans opinion.
A solid Word of Faith church (unlike many what you see on TV) will emphasise that the Word is the final authority and if its not found in the Word then we have no basis for attributing it to God.
The work of the Spirit (internally and externally), manifestaion of spiritual gifts as the Spirit wills, lifting of holy hands, Holy Spirit involved in worship, Holy Ghost giving man “rhema” direction etc are real scriptural experiences and to deny The Spirit and “ALL” of his workings, based on the fleshy, sensual antics of men, to me, is like a Pentecostal denying sound doctrine. Its just as wrong!
Your article is interesting, however I believe your main positions are again too blanketed from the side I am sitting on, and many a Pentecostal/Charasmatic, who love the Word of God would be offended by the statements.
Timothy
You see, we soon get back to “Bible plus” reasoning. The Bible is good…but we need “rhema” and signs and all these editions to just the Bible in and of itself. I grew up Pentecostal, played in several praise bands, and even taught Bible study, so I have more than enough experience as to what I mean.
Further I do not believe that division is bad. Romans 16:17 calls for division on the basis of doctrine, and I for one will gladly be called a divider of the Body if it means folks wake up and find the old path of the Bible ALONE.
Ok Douglas.
Well its been good talking. Keep up on your path
Blessings
Timothy
oug,
Tim is trying to avoid an argument and avoid dissension in the body. Although this is admirable, it nonetheless never answers the question and sadly we Monergist are left standing with our Bibles open and ready to quote scripture and verse with no one to debate us.
Of course I don’t blame them. How many times have you seen James White debate the Arminian. Yikes! I wouldn’t want to be an Arminian either when peppered with scripture, exegesis, and Church history. I use to like watching James White debate them but now I cringe because its like watching a professional boxer beat an eleven year old. Ouch!
Kyle