Boyd from Vegas=Epic fail*

[brody196]

Why would you accuse someone of using "philosophy" with no scripture and then rattle off 2-3 minutes of philosophy with no scripture? I find it harder and harder these days to stomach this type of stuff. I consider myself a fair minded person, and I love to listen to many different bible teachers, many of whom are Calvinist. But I have a hard time listening to people who seem to not have a teachable spirit, and think they have it all figured out. Many Arminians are guilty of this too, so I am not pointing the finger at any one particular group. But it seems to me that most of the Calvinist I listen to and read, put forth this type of behavior.

Not to bash James White, but he is the champion of this very type of behavior. 98% of his shows are dedicated to tearing apart other men who disagree with him on Calvinism. His mocking and branding everyone a "heretic" or "semi-pelagian" gets down right silly at times. Why do I continue to listen, you may ask?....I am not sure...Maybe it amuses me.

And why do most Calvinist assume they "know" what a person thinks? Boyd told Steve several times what Steve thought....Why not let Steve tell you what he thinks?... I remember not long ago listening to a program where 2 Calvinist brought a major Jehovah Witness apologist on to debate him on the Divinity of Jesus, and wouldn't you know it...the Calvinist did not get two minutes into the program before they brought up "God's sovereignty", and the entire program was spent talking about that!!! Much to the Jehovah Witnesses displeasure, if I might add.

The caller right after Boyd brought up a good point, these guys sorta hang themselves when they talk, because anybody can see the logical flaws from a mile away.

Discuss.

*By epic fail, I am not insulting the person Boyd, rather I am giving what I think of his type of argumentation*

[sjsnjc]

I happened to catch the replay of that conversation driving home from work last night. To be honest, I don't know what I am...pre-this or post-this or this-ist or that-ist...what I do know I am is someone who reads the Bible and listens to what God has to say to me. That said, so anyone knows I am not taking "sides" in the issue, I found it quite interesting how the person calling became more and more agitated as the conversation went on. Having known Steve since the beginning of my walk, I would never dare to call in and challenge him with so little ammo and even less patience. It was interesting as Steve would just calmly ask "how" or "what" and you could feel the tension level rise. I have seen this in counseling, where you keep asking a person "why" until you either get to the crux of the problem or the person becomes madder than a wet hen.

My question is this, and bear with me because I am a "new" (about 4 years) follower of Christ. Does it really matter matter, other than being fodder for debate, what our personal views of scripture are? I mean, they must be personal because why would God reveal one thing to one person and another thing to another? And the confusing thing to me is how each issue can garner so many advocates and point the finger and say we are right and you are wrong. It is interesting because I read somewhere that God is not the author of confusion. I have had people tell me everything from I read the wrong Bible to I listen to the wrong teachers because only the old guys are good or only the new guys are good. The same people who tell me it is a sin to smoke tobacco are followers of Spurgeon who smoked like a freight train. I left a church because I finally figured out what legalism was and the hypocrisy from the pulpit. Now, I can't find a church because if they don't look at me like I am a cootie because of the Bible I use, they are more interested in accumulating souls than saving souls and everything in between. I even had someone tell me I am not saved because I don't talk in tongues. Someone told me never to listen to John MacArthur and another told me never to listen to that hippie Gregg.

Somewhere in here is a question

I suppose the question is, does it really matter when we get swept up or when our knee bows, or if we are going to get swept and what we will have to say when our knee bows?

God: Well?
Steve: Well, God...I did this part, but not this part because someone told me it wasn't right. I figured since you were a good guy, you would give a pass on that.

[Jason]

After listening to the beginning of that discussion I actually fast-forwarded (thank you podcast) to the next call. I don't remember ever doing that before. Those types of discussions are so far from the spirit of Christ that I actually get embarrassed as a listener. Nothing against Steve, he doesn't choose his callers. Wish he would've hung up sooner though.

[brody196]

I remember a few years back when I invited some local JW's into my home for a "bible study". It was a husband, wife, and there young daughter. I noticed immediately that the wife was very hostile to anything that would challenge her view. So I tried to be as patient with her as possible, even her own husband had to calm her down a few times. My wife(who was in another room folding clothes and listening even commented to me later that day that she could not believe that woman's attitude)

So I continued on asking questions and trying to understand their viewpoint in light of the scriptures, and the lady kept blurting out "honey lets just go!" and then she would look over at her daughter and say "Look at him contradicting himself" and many other foolish things. Finally, I asked...."What if I had a recording of everything that has transpired here this morning ?"...The husband looked at me and said "Well you would probably just try to use that against us!"......

[Michelle]

Although I have a few Calvinistic friends who are exceptions to what I'm about to say, for the most part when I read or listen to a debate between Calvinists and Arminians, it seems that the Calvinists are the strident ones, like Boyd, yesterday, who seemed to get very worked up about making his points. This seems odd to me. It seems like it should be the other way around. I would think that Calvinists would have more of a "so what" attitude since their doctrines seem to teach that you can't believe until you are regenerated and unless you are elect, so anyone who has what they consider a false belief must be non-regenerated and non-elect — and what's the use of arguing with them? And it seems like Arminians would be the ones who should be sounding slightly frantic warning their brothers not to become complacent in their walk (although I don't mean to make it sound like Calvinists have ever given me an impression that they subscribe to "easy grace.") It just seems odd to me.

[Jill]

.

[mattrose]

As an aside, someone in our church asked me to teach about Calvinism (since they were distressed over some things John Macarthur has been saying on the radio). So I spent a few weeks in Sunday School presenting the TULIP. I stressed that we are all brothers/sisters in Christ and that this was an in-house debate. I even tried to play calvin's-advocate a bit. But I was really surprised, in a class of 30ish people, not to receive ANY sympathy for the calvinist persuasion. Everyone seemed to think it sounded quite ridiculous despite my efforts to present calvinism in as positive a light as possible. We still have the P remaining, though, so maybe that will be a little more controversial. And then I am presenting a PEACE acrostic I came up with for arminianism.

[Jess]

I guess what bothered me most about Boyd was his ad hominem attacks, "You're an Arminian, Steve, and that was declared heretical by the church centuries ago." Guilt by association. (Actually, I wasn't aware that Arminius was declared a heritc. As far as I have heard, although he had some differences with Calvin, he remained in good standing with his peers etc.)

Matt, I'd love to have you flesh out your PEACE acrostic if you have time.

Jess

[mattrose]

Matt, I'd love to have you flesh out your PEACE acrostic if you have time.

Jess

Hey Jess... I'd be glad to share it

Prevenient Grace
Elect in Christ
Available Atonement
Cooperation
Eternal Life in Christ

And so, like other Arminian acrostics, mine stands in opposition to TULIP.

Total Depravity is not dismissed completely, but the idea that God has initiated a worldwide strategy toward reconciliation is added to that. Even Calvinists have a doctrine of 'common' grace. Prevenient grace is that and more. God meets us in our depravity, lostness, and wickedness and makes us aware of Himself through creation, conscience, etc.

Unconditional Election is not dismissed completely either, but instead of thinking of it as God unconditionally electing all eventual believers, God unconditionally elects a body. In the Old Covenant that body was Israel, but individual humans could come into or exit Israel. In the New Covenant that body is Christ, but individuals may come into Christ or exit Christ. Therefore, we are elect in Christ, not as individuals. (this is my take on things, other arminians take it differently)

Limited Atonement is almost entirely dismissed. I believe the work of the atonement is available to all people, though not all receive it.

Irresistable Grace is entirely dismissed, as I feel it inevitably makes the process of salvation mechanistic. It is replaced with a belief that God requires a co-operation. God initiates and does the work of salvation, but we must co-operate in faith and submission to His will. Grace is enabling. Grace makes us able to respond to God's call on our lives and therefore makes us responsible to do so (if we are not response-able, we cannot be considered responsible).

Perseverance of Saints is not entirely dismissed. In fact, the term, in and of itself, is a pretty good one. Saints DO persevere. But is it impossible for a saint to reject Christ? Quite obviously not. We do have eternal security 'in Christ,' but there is nothing which dictates that we can cease to cooperate with God's work.

[Douglas]

I have to admit I "cringe" when listening to Steve talk with someone like Boyd. I did the same thing when I heard the debate with I think it was James White or Matt Slick, I can't remember.

Steve, you have an awesome amount of patience in keeping your cool with someone like that. I particularly liked it when Boyd asked if you cut him off so you could talk, and you said "Absolutely!".... I got a good chuckle out of that one.

Keep up the excellent work Steve, I hope someday I can have the patience to converse with someone like that without losing my cool like you did.

Doug