My email correspondence with a Calvinist tunred into podcast

[Sean]

I had some correspondence with Calvinist Chris Date about some comments I made on Dee Dee Warren's facebook page about her reasons for becoming a Calvinist. Chris invited me to correspond via email and after a few back and forth emails I didn't see it worth the effort to pursue any further, partly based on his attitude (or is it my attitude?) and partly because I don't really feel like debating like I used to (and I lack the spare time I used to have). It just seems like a waste of time. I actually wanted to continue, and maybe sometime I will. But I just didn't feel peace about it. I used to just debate anything not caring if I felt peace about it or not. But now my attitude has changed, hopefully for the better (I don't know).

Chris decided (without asking) to read a condensed version of our email correspondence on his podcast called Theopologetics.
If you want to hear it the link is: http://theopologetics.podbean.com/2011/ ... call-time/

I also wanted to add that there was more information in the emails than the issue of total depravity discussed. After considering the totality of his responses and how he deals with the text itself, I didn't see continued debate fruitful.

Also, there's another of Chris Date's podcasts where he covers the dispensational preterist view. He had a guest on and they cover all the normal passages brought up to show the Church is Israel and try to show how Israel is not the Church. So if you are interested in some dispensational explanations that are at least new to me for passages like Phil 3:3, Ephesians 2 and several others, then it's certainly worth listening to. Here is the link:
http://theopologetics.podbean.com/2011/ ... y-beloved/

[brody196]

Hi Sean,

I listened to the podcast and can see where your frustration came from. It seems to me that no one understands Calvinism except the Calvinist themselves! They constantly say things like "that's a strawman!".."You're misrepresenting us!"...It gets kinda annoying after awhile.

[Sean]

I fail to see how Romans 1 makes his case or refutes my assertion that Luke 8:13 is talking about genuine faith.

[steve]

Romans 1 does not make a case for total depravity. It makes a case for God's wrath being manifested against all "who suppress the truth in unrighteousness." It never says that all people do this. Furthermore, the people it describes were not reprobated from birth, but were given over to that state as a result of rejecting God when they earlier had the chance to know Him. What has any of this to do with the doctrine of total depravity?

[darinhouston]

I sent him an email, taking him up on his offer that brothers correct him if he was too harsh -- should be an interesting response. My substantive response was primarily on the earlier email discussion on "those that the Father gave Jesus" and being "drawn" like a tractor beam.

[darinhouston]

I got an unsurprising response from Date. He seems to only accept rebuke or correction from one who agrees with him doctrinally and who does not know the man being defended (no doubt a highly improbable event).

I am providing the exchange here because I am hopeful to provide a substantive response on the "maintstream" or "classic" view and, though somewhat reluctant to post a private exchange online note that he had no qualms about podcasting the email exchange from Sean and others which precipitated this exchange. He made a public offer for correction, so I suppose a public correction is reasonable. If anyone thinks otherwise, let me know and I'll delete this.

I am a friend of Sean Edwards. You discussed an email exchange you had with him on your podcast the other day. You invited folks to comment on whether you seemed to have a mean spirited response to him for which you "might" repent on the witness of several believers -- so, add me to the list. Whether you agree with him or not, I believe Sean was fairly representing and criticizing at least the predominantly main stream of the historic classical Calvinism (whether you hold it in every respect or not). It is one thing to engage him and say, "fair enough critique of that view but that's not what I personally believe. What I personally believe is XYZ -- how does your argument apply to that?" Instead, you blindly and harshly branded him as misrepresenting not your own personal view, but Calvinism itself (as though it's a monolithic view today), and resorted a bit defensively to a reflexive strawman argument instead of interacting honestly with his view as to those who do believe as he assumed and informing him kindly of your differences and looking honestly for ways in which he might modify his arguments after he understands that distinction. Basically, I don't think you dealt with him fairly, and you seemed more interested in defending your view (or, more rightly, criticizing his) than hearing him out and trying to understand his points. That is, sadly, all too common in today's Reformed circles.

That said, I was more interested in interacting with the first half of the program, which dealt with another email exchange. I am not interested in engaging in a debate, but there may be a perspective on these verses that you hadn't considered before. I believe John MacArthur holds a similar view to yours, and I provided this interaction with his commentary recently to a friend of mine and thought it addressed many of the issues you raised in the podcast. Notably, (1) does Helkuō (draws) carry the connotation of irrestibility that you suggestion; and (2) who are those in view that were "given to the Son" in John 6.

Though I don't have the time or inclination for a private debate on the subject, there is an online forum frequented by both myself and Sean which might be a good place to interact with us and others of similar temperament if you are so inclined. It might also be interesting to arrange to have you as a guest on the sponsor's radio program, (Steve Gregg's The Narrow Path) to debate one or more of these topics in a more formal or public manner. I believe we could arrange that if you are interested.

Hi, Darin.


I appreciate you sharing your perspective, and will take it into consideration. I do think it's fair to treat your feedback concerning Sean as suspect, given that you're a) a friend of his, and b) a fellow critic of Calvinism. I will let you know if others who do not know Sean, or who are Reformed, confirm that I spoke harshly.


In the meantime, the simple fact of the matter is that the characterization of Total Depravity which Sean critiqued is not the mainstream, predominant, historic or classical view of Calvinism. It's simply not. You're right that Calvinism is not 100% monolithic; however, the doctrine of Total Depravity has never been that human beings will reject any kind of faith at all. Not even the Reformed theologians he cited taught that, and his quoting them demonstrates that he misunderstands Total Depravity. And so long as Sean continued to insist that his understanding was correct, I wasn't going to debate a misrepresentation of the doctrine.


You see, you can claim that Sean "was fairly representing and critizing at least the predominantly main stream of the historic classical Calvinism," and yet neither of you have have been able to demonstrate that his characterization of TD in fact fits that description. I am, however, open to correction, so if you can provide me with quotes from notable Calvinists through history which demonstrate they believed that unregenerate unbelievers will tend toward atheism specifically, and away from even false faiths, well then I'll be forced to eat my hat (were I the kind of person who wears one). I won't be holding my breath, though, since Calvinists have always been fond of Romans chapter 1 which, as I proved in my email to Sean, militates against his mischaracterization of TD.


Finally, I'll just point out, as I did in the podcast, that I repeatedly indicated that I would like the opportunity to explain what it is I believe and why. My continued responses to his argument, instead of attempting to prove my position, was out of respect for him. I wanted to patiently wait for the invitation to do so, rather than impose it upon him. Clearly, he wasn't interested in my thoughts, and so I believe it was Sean who was disrespectful and disinterested in meaningful dialogue, not me.


As for the doctrines of Irresistible Grace and Unconditional Election, I'm sorry to disappoint you but I am not interested in debating them in a public forum, or on the air, nor am I capable of doing so. I picture a wrestling match between The Rock and the main actor in Diary of a Wimpy Kid. If you want someone who can actually provide a challenge, I can point you to others who can do so better than me.


In the meantime, I very much enjoy private, more intimate conversations like these in email. If you'd like to dialogue with me in this medium, I'd welcome the discussion. As I explained in the podcast, I've changed my views in a number of areas, and do believe I'm open to being proven wrong. In fact, I'll admit that I found Michael Brown's position on John 6 challenging in his debate with James White, and as a result, I am today, more than at any time in the past 6 or 7 years of being a Calvinist, reconsidering opposing views.

So again, I'm sorry to disappoint you by rejecting the offer to debate in public; it's not my forte, and there are far more capable persons you can contact if that's your desire. But if you're interested in an informal, private conversation, I'm your man.

God bless,
Chris

[chrisdate]

I sent this email to Darin and to Sean before my account here was activated:

Hi Darin and Sean.

I’m awaiting approval of my registration request at theos.org, but in the event that my request is not approved, I wanted to take this “offline,” so to speak, and reach out to you both personally before responding in public.

First, Sean, in your post you make a good point, which is that I didn’t ask you for permission to read your email. I sincerely apologize for that, and should have either asked you first, or left your name out. Please forgive me, I mean it sincerely.

In the future, however, please come to me first if you believe I’ve done something inappropriate, following the Matthew 18:15 model. And Darin, you were absolutely right to post my correspondence since I didn’t think to ask Sean first, and I do not mind you posting it at all. Even if I did mind (generally I have no problem with my emails being made public), I think it would be hypocritical of me in this case, to be sure.

Second, Darin, I do not “only accept rebuke or correction from one who agrees with [me] doctrinally and who does not know the man being defended.” I understand why it came across that way, but all I said was that your feedback was suspect. We often rush to the defense of those people with whom we agree, as well as to that of those with whom we are friends, whether the defense is legitimate or not. I hope you’d agree that as human beings that’s a tendency we all share.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that your defense wasn’t legitimate, but I wanted to see if there were others whose feedback was less suspect, in that they were not doctrinal opponents, yet who agreed with you and Sean. That is why I wrote, “I will let you know if others who do not know Sean, or who are Reformed, confirm that I spoke harshly.” The point was not that I will only accept feedback from them, but that it would give me additional reason to believe your perception was accurate. I understand that you may not agree with this approach, but I hope you’ll at least understand it.

Finally, all that being said, while I still do not believe my words were inappropriately harsh, on the way to work this morning, before I stumbled upon this post, I did come to the conclusion that you both picked up on what I was feeling when I was typing up my responses to Sean. And so while at this point I am not convinced that I have reason to apologize to you, Sean, for my words, I do believe I owe you an apology for my attitude, one of defensiveness and coldness. Again, please forgive me. There were reasons why I had that attitude, and although I do not want to make excuses, I would appreciate the opportunity to explain why it is I felt the way I did. But I’ll leave that up to you.

Anyway, when my account is activated (assuming it is), I’ll make both of these apologies public, but in the meantime, like I said I wanted to reach out to you both personally. I hope you’ll forgive me for the two things for which I’ve apologized, even if we do not yet agree that my words were inappropriate, and even if we disagree strongly in our soteriology.

Chris

I understand that for many of you, either my apologies come across as insincere, or I am not apologizing for what you think I may have done wrong. Or, perhaps, you think I only apologized because I was called out publicly. Unfortunately I can't help that, but I'll have that discussion with Sean and Darin offline.

In the meantime, thanks, Sean, for posting links to my podcast, in particular episode 43. Just to be clear, I didn't talk about "dispensational preterism" in that episode, I just said that as a preterist (orthodox) I'm an enigma because I hold to a more dispensational view of Israel. And certainly in other episodes I do discuss preterism, but I don't believe I've yet discussed "on the air" (so to speak) how my dispensational view of Israel meets my preteristic view of the so-called "end times." Still, I appreciate that you think it was an episode worth listening to.

God bless,
Chris

[steve]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for signing up and posting. I want to welcome you here to these discussions.

For the record, I listened to the podcast, and (maybe my skin is too thick!) I did not hear you say anything about Sean that I would have taken offense to, had you said it about me...and I am a friend of Sean's, in agreement with his theology.

I appreciate your apology, and do not think that it sounds insincere at all. I hope you will frequent these boards. You will find mostly non-Calvinists here, but this is not uniformly the case. We need articulate Calvinists involved to keep us honest.

God bless you for communicating with us, and for desiring to champion the truth. I hope we may sharpen one another here.

You mentioned that Michael Brown had gotten you thinking about John 6 differently. Out of curiosity (because of that remark), I listened to that Brown-White debate (I have debated Dr. White on my radio program myself, a couple of years ago). From hearing the debate, my impression is that the only new thing you may have heard from Michael Brown was that those "given" to Christ are not some set of pre-elected persons living throughout history, but that they are the remnant of Israel who were already faithful to God before Jesus arrived, whom God handed over to Jesus.

Though I had never heard Dr. Brown, or anyone else make this point previously, I made the same observation in my lectures on the subject. One scripture (which Dr. Brown did not mention) that confirms this identification is John 17:6, where Jesus speaks of "the men whom you have given me" and clarifies "They were yours, and you gave them to me." Jesus says that the ones the Father gave to Him were the ones who already belonged to the Father (i.e., the Jewish remnant). When I brought this up in debate with Dr. White, he simply gave me a "you-can't-be-serious!" type of response.

Blessings!

[chrisdate]

Hi, Steve.

Thank you for giving me your perspective on the language I used in responding to Sean. Of course I want your perception, which agrees with mine, to be the accurate one But I'll try to be fair and not assume that it is. Oh, and thanks so much for listening! I hope you'll listen to other episodes if you've the time to do so, even if you don't agree with many of my positions.

I may or may not frequent this board. I've tried doing so with other boards like CARM and TheologyWeb, but I always find myself spending more time than I ought to interacting on them. You see, I LOVE to argue (lovingly, at least in intention), and when someone challenges a position about which I feel strongly, I tend to want to respond immediately and thoroughly, and I end up taking time away from higher priorities, such as my family. Until I can learn some discipline in this area, I will probably be an infrequent poster.

As for the Brown/White debate, yes Dr. Brown's response to John 6:37 was one of the things which I had not heard before, but it was more than that. Overall, he just came across as presenting the most plausible non-Calvinist interpretations of this and other texts that I had ever heard. I don't think that's because non-Calvinists have not historically made those points; I just think I've got more reading and listening to do Of course, his treatment of other texts was, in my opinion, sub-par. Still, despite agreeing with Dr. White, overall I think this particular debate was at best a stalemate, and at worst a win for Dr. Brown.

As a result of this, as I mentioned in the email to Darin, I am reconsidering my soteriology. I'm still about 90% "sold" on Calvinism (all 5 points), but I'm definitely no longer certain as I was when I interacted with Sean. For example, in a follow-up email to Darin which he hasn't (yet) posted here, I wrote to him because of what might have seemed to be duplicity on my part. In one of my final emails to Sean I had told him I was interested, if he was, in discussing our disagreement publicly, but when Darin asked me if I'd be interested in doing so with him or on The Narrow Path, I told him no. Anticipating that I might have seemed disingenuous by saying one thing to one of them and another to the other, I wrote to Darin, saying, "Incidentally, I had offered to do something more public with Sean, but that was before I heard the Brown/White debate, which, as I mentioned, has me reconsidering. I trust you can appreciate why my willingness to debate publicly might disappear with my certainty."

So yeah, I'm reconsidering things. That having been said, I don't think I have the discipline to dialogue in a public forum like this. So if anybody wants to email me, feel free to do so--I'll try not to come across so harshly

[chrisdate]

Oh, one more thing: while I haven't the discipline to debate Calvinism here on this forum right now, I would be interested in any evidence that the historic doctrine of Total Depravity has ever predominantly been something which asserts that unregenerate man will tend toward atheism specifically, and not additionally (or perhaps primarily) toward false faiths. Understand, I'm not asking for an argument against Total Depravity; for that, contact me via email. Rather, I'm interested in historical declarations from Reformed theologians which support Sean's understanding of the doctrine.

The precursor to the TULIP acronym, the Canons of Dort, say this: "without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform...There is, to be sure, a certain light of nature remaining in man after the fall, by virtue of which he retains some notions about God, natural things, and the difference between what is moral and immoral, and demonstrates a certain eagerness for virtue and for good outward behavior. But this light of nature is far from enabling man to come to a saving knowledge of God and conversion to him - so far, in fact, that man does not use it rightly even in matters of nature and society. Instead, in various ways he completely distorts this light, whatever its precise character, and suppresses it in unrighteousness. In doing so he renders himself without excuse before God." So Dort did not say man does not seek after God at all, but that man does not seek after God as He truly is. Dort said man retains some notions about God, but distorts that light willfully.

Neither in the 7 years or so I've been a Calvinist, nor in the 2 years or so prior to that during which time I was a non-Calvinist, have I ever heard Reformed theologians describe Total Depravity as being the belief that man will tend toward atheism. I'm open to proof that this is now, or has ever been, the predominant view, but as I mentioned to Darin, I won't be holding my breath