Is Calvinism Biblical? A Debate

Douglas Wilson and Steve Gregg debate the question "Is Calvinism Biblical?"

[josiahpulemau]

The angel asked:
On what basis are you here (Heaven)? The thief that was on the cross responded:
The man on the middle cross said “I can come”

- Alistair Begg

[savanahbustle]

Kindest debate I’ve ever listened to. Lol if only every debate could be between two men who respect each other even though they disagree.

[guitarmusic]

I was just reading Proverbs 16 this morning and see 4-5 verses that clearly show his sovereignty. A man plans his way but the LORD directs his steps, The LORD works out everything to its proper end— even the wicked for a day of disaster. In their hearts humans plan their course, but the LORD establishes their steps.The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD

Over and over throughout scripture shows the absolute sovereignty of God

[slimpickens]

I listened to some debate by a guy, I think his name was James White..LOL

[enaykalyk]

This is fascinating (and a little humorous) to listen through, having been listening to James White dealing with another Wilson (Ken) on the idea of Manichaeism and Augustine.

[michaelkelleypoetry]

1:15:34
Doug, "So basically my will is something that can negate every protection in this chapter."
Craig: "Yes."
Doug: "So what good is the chapter? What comfort is it?"
Craig: "It's a great comfort to me because _I_ don't expect any of those things to overpower _MY_ will because _I_ have the choice, _I_ don't have to renounce Christ."

That's not a comfort to me at all because if it's up to me and my choices through life to continue in salvation, well, I don't know what I'll be thinking 5 or 10 or 50 years down the road. I'm fickle and change my thinking about different things within one day - God is the unchanging though, the same yesterday, today, and forever. I'm only comforted if I'm saved by His choice alone.

[davidmcneill]

This arminian guy is incredible. He can look at white and say "look! It's black!". Absolutely astounding.

[chrismcmorrow]

“Calvinism is the Gospel and nothing else.” - Charles Spurgeon

[n.a.garciafamily]

I was just listening to this on the Cannon app. The full one isn't there. Do I still need to purchase it or is there a full version there somewhere?

[trialbyicecream]

Maybe it goes south fast, as I'm only an hour in, but I love the Christian brotherhood displayed by these two men! They are cordial, yet disagreeing. They crack jokes, but respect each other. I wish the stuff going on between flowers and white would be this loving and helpful. The guys in this debate aren't talking past each other, but to each other.

[ryangallmeier]

Anyone complaining about Calvinists/Reformed Christians asserting the Absolute Predestination of God, simply ask yourselves ONE QUESTION:
How does God know stuff?

That is, if God is Omni-prescient (knowing all things beforehand; His exhaustive foreknowledge being infallible) HOW is it that God possess this attribute?

Molinists assert that God's omni-presience is DEPENDENT upon the creation and the decisions that creatures make, for His knowledge! 
Dr. William Lane Craig has explicitly assert this nonsense...so has Pastor Mike Winger (both Molinists).

What about the "God is outside of time" view of God's omni-prescience?
This doesn't answer the question about how God knows stuff.  
More information must be given.
Typically, these folks will answer by claiming an Empiricist Epistemology on the part of God.
That is, their answer is that 'God knows stuff because He sees, looks on, or, observes all things as one "eternal now"'.
This is pure Empiricism at its worst: that God knows stuff through sensory perception.
This view also makes God's knowledge DEPENDENT upon His creation for His knowledge of it; because, without the object of one's sensory perception the subject [God, in this case] could NOT know it.

Again, BOTH Molinism and the "eternal now" view assert that God's knowledge is DEPENDENT upon His creation/creatures for His knowledge of it/them.

The Reformed, however, have answered the question as to 'how God knows stuff' sufficiently, by stating that omni-prescience in God is an essential attribute of His. And, like all the essential attributes of God, it stems from HIMSELF ALONE!

God knows all things that would happen in His creation because He chose it to be so...He foreordained whatsoever would come to pass in His creation.
God was never dependent upon His creation/creatures for His knowledge of it/them. Rather, it is the creation which is completely and utterly dependent upon Him for their knowledge of any true thing.

Hope this helps.

*Soli Deo Gloria*

[majorintherepublick]

Spiritually and intellectually stimulating, thank you….I’m still a Calvinist, 😎

[TheSMEAC]

Steve Gregg dug himself hole after hole in this one.

[mixedupjo]

White has spent a great deal of time on the Augustinian Manichaeism alleged here. Then at 1:13 and forward, listen as Doug allows his opponent to tangle himself up in his inconsistencies. I had to laugh, smh, and yell "YA JUST WON'T LET GO, WILL YA?!!" Doug: "So basically MY WILL is something that can negate every protection in this chapter? So what good's the chapter? What comfort is it? Is it a faith in God or a faith in your will?" Nice respectful debate. Thank you, gentlemen!

[toddcote]

For a guy that only wants to exegete and not use philosophical reasoning, Gregg sure does use a lot of reasoning to hold to "free will" during the cross examination.

How about citing veres that say man has a neutral free will? Good luck finding that needle.

[daleb.]

Very good debate. Doug's presentation was very helpful.

[billyr]

The debate was won at 1:16:20

Wilson
Your faith is in you believing in Christ.

Greg
If you wish to put it that way but that's not what The Bible says.

Wilson ... right.

He believes in his faith in himself to have believe. And The Bible definitely doesn't say that.

[bibletruthreformed]

If Calvinism is not biblical I don’t know what is!

[timothy]

I finally was able to listen to this whole debate; very cordial and both men did their best to present their positions. Though I don't like every way Wilson presented his side, I believe his view is more Biblical than Gregg's because of many things Gregg said that violates scripture. If I misrepresent him, then I apologize, but this is a quick summary of some things I heard him say:

1) God creates all things (Genesis 1:1, Colossians 1:15-17), but he doesn't determine all things. Yet a prayerful reading of Isaiah 46:9-11 shows that God declares the beginning from the end and in that same verses says His counsel will stand and He will do all His pleasure. In verse 11 gives two examples of an animal (bird) and a man being called to do His counsel and ends with "I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it." (verse 11) Notice the cause and effect. God speaks and He brings it to pass. He purposed and He will do it. All of the verb and verb phrases are done by God, showing He is the first cause. There are many other verses that say this as well, but Gregg basically dismissed them because (in his mind) the Bible doesn't "say that" based on the objections to the verses more so than what the verses say. He says the Calvinist system is man-made, but he actually leans on his own understanding or relies on man-made philosophies to avoid what many verses say, and this violates Proverbs 3:5 and Colossians 2:8.

2) He says man is predestined to the "airplane" of salvation. In other words, the airplane has a destination, but we have to get on board. So God is only the captain or pilot of the plane, but it is up to us to jump on it with our own free will. This is the reason he could ask about a verse in Ephesians 1:4-13 and say that we're not predestined to salvation, but only predestined to adoption, etc. What he is missing is that these set of verses are actually one whole statement in the Greek and are interconnected. So when verse 4 says God chose us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, everything from then on is a work of God. He begins by choosing us in Christ (which is salvation) and everything else, predestinating us to adoption, redeeming us, sealing us, etc. is all part of God choosing us to salvation. Even Acts 13:48 ends with "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." God did the ordaining that led to the belief.

3) When pressed about man's will (particularly about the comforting promise of Romans 8:35-39), he basically dodged the question by not telling us if he could be separated by God's love of his own will? This is crucial. If man has the libertarian free will that I hear so much about, then based on that view man should have the freedom to leave Christ. You can't say man is free to do whatever he wants before salvation, but that doesn't stick after salvation. And notice our assurance in Christ is not based on us, but by Christ and God the Father according to Jesus' own words in John 10:27-29. In fact, we are not even able to come to Christ without the Father drawing us (John 6:36-44), without us first being His sheep (John 10:26 clearly says the audience Jesus spoke to believed not because they were not His sheep; again cause and effect), and our godly sorrow that leads to repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10) is a repentance given/granted by God (Acts 5:31, 11:18, 2 Timothy 2:25). Just asserting these verses don't say what they say doesn't make it true if the content, context, and grammar dictates it.

Gregg is articulate and uses logic based on his objections, but not based on scripture. His faulty premise of his logic is "I don't like what that says, so it can't be true because I think it makes God the author of evil and man a puppet." These are arguments that many objectors have, but when you start with your objections and own logic (based on that premise), you either have to ignore many verses, redefine many verses, or just make blanket assertions that they're not true. And in doing so, we belittle God's attributes (to fit our reasoning) and elevate finite man to abilities the Bible says he doesn't possess. It eventually leads to open theism or molinism to find an "escape."

[Saratogan]

Steve Gregg's definition of sovereignty is from a human perspective and therefore very limited. As Solomon relays to us: "The king’s heart in the hand of Jehovah is as brooks of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." Nebuchadnezzar also grew to understand the same as he testifies in the 4th chapter of Daniel: "This sentence is by the decree of the watchers, and the decision by the word of the holy ones: that the living may know that the Most High ruleth over the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men." So that head of gold on the image that he saw in his vision, the highest possible sovereign in all of time among human beings, learned that his sovereignty was nothing when compared with Divine sovereignty.