Proving My Claim: Unprecedented Refutation of #Calvinism to @DrOakley1689


Many of you have understandably requested for me to give an example of what I said was an "Unprecedented Refutation of #Calvinism Offered to Dr. James White @DrOakley1689". I think it is certainly a reasonable request to at least see some example, since even I agree that it is a VERY bold claim that I myself would meet with great skepticism if offered by someone I did not know. So let me attempt to do what I have claimed.

First we must establish what I have to do in order to "prove" what I have claimed.
1) It must be "unprecedented". Dictionary.com defines "unprecedented" as: without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled:

So if my example is used by any of the opponents James has debated Calvinism with, then my claim fails (This would include his debates with George Bryson, Michael Brown, James Baker, Dr. Sugenis, Dave Hunt, and all the others that only God and James White know! If it appears in any of the writings of these men or others, such as Norman Geisler, etc... I will consider that I failed proving my claim or at the very least overstated it.

Now I have to be honest a say that even I would be amazed if the argument is not found at least somewhere, and in reality I did not mean "unprecedented" to an unlimited degree. For to make that claim would just be stupid! I simply mean that if it is found in refutations of Calvinism it is at least very uncommon. And even if it is found it does nothing to weaken the strength of the argument, it only shows that someone else presented the same point.

2. It must "refute" at least one major doctrine of Calvinism. Again, Dictionary.com defines refute as: to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge.

I will attempt to refute two doctrines of Calvinism in this example of an unprecedented refutation:
1) Total Depravity/Inability
2) Irresistible Grace.

I will not take the time to give detailed explanations of each of these points. For these you can easily use google or buy one of Dr. White's books on the subject. He has at least 3. For now a brief explanation of each should suffice.

Total Depravity/Inability: This teaches that man is entirely unable to respond to the offer of the gospel in a saving way (having faith to be saved) because he is "dead in sin". As James states in his debate with Dr. Michael Brown - man is not like the guy drowning in the frigid waters of the sea while calling out for someone to throw him a life-preserver. No. Instead, he is like a man who has been in the frigid water for hours, even days -stiff, lifeless, no pulse, no breath! He is dead! If someone were to throw him a life-preserver he could not move his hand an inch to reach out or take a hold of it, because he is dead. In another debate, I believe against Dr. Sugenis, James states that often the gospel message is inaccurately presented by the example of a man drowning in a deep well. The gospel message being preached is like someone sending down a rope saying "take a hold of the rope and I will save you! I will pull you out. So the man grabs the rope and is pulled out an saved! (Which I agree that this is NOT a good analogy of the gospel regarding salvation.)
Dr. White points out in the debate that an accurate example would be that the man at the bottom of the well is NOT calling out for help and that even if a rope were lowered down to him, it would be in vain because the man could not take a hold of it! Why??? Because he is dead!! Dead in sin and completely and entirely unable to respond in a saving way! In almost every debate on Calvinism that I have heard with Dr. White, he uses the story of Lazarus being dead as a analogy of man's inability to respond to the gospel. Lazarus was dead, so until he was raised (i.e. regenerated / born-again / made alive) he could not respond to anything. However, are these accurate applications of the state of man? I will argue that they are not! and the "unprecedented" verses that I will use to refute this are:

1 Tim 2:4; Matt 23:37; and 2 Pet 3:9

Just kidding! :) - If you don't get that joke, don't worry, it was intended for Dr. White.

Actually, I will use only one verse (Lk 8:12). But to get the context let me quote more than just that verse. This is a very well known passage about the sower and the soil. But I trust my point will be unique. First the passage:

I will use the Holman Christian Standard Bible Translation. Though the parable goes until verse 18, we can end our examination at verse 12 for the purpose of our discussion. So here is the passage

Luk 8:4 As a large crowd was gathering, and people were flocking to Him from every town, He said in a parable:
Luk 8:5 "A sower went out to sow his seed. As he was sowing, some fell along the path; it was trampled on, and the birds of the sky ate it up.
Luk 8:6 Other seed fell on the rock; when it sprang up, it withered, since it lacked moisture.
Luk 8:7 Other seed fell among thorns; the thorns sprang up with it and choked it.
Luk 8:8 Still other seed fell on good ground; when it sprang up, it produced a crop: 100 times what was sown." As He said this, He called out, "Anyone who has ears to hear should listen!"
Luk 8:9 Then His disciples asked Him, "What does this parable mean?"
Luk 8:10 So He said, "The secrets of the kingdom of God have been given for you to know, but to the rest it is in parables, so that Looking they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.
Luk 8:11 "This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God.
Luk 8:12 The seeds along the path are those who have heard. Then the Devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.

Pay particular attention to verses 5 and 11-12

Luk 8:5 "A sower went out to sow his seed. As he was sowing, some fell along the path; it was trampled on, and the birds of the sky ate it up.

Luk 8:11 "This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God.
Luk 8:12 The seeds along the path are those who have heard. Then the Devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.

I want to point out a few important facts for you to notice:

1. Jesus is the one not only telling the parable but explaining it. Thus we can conclude that he is correct in what he is teaching.
2. The seed being sown is the word of God.
3. The Devil comes to take the word out of the people's hearts.
4. He does so that they may not believe and be saved.

Are these points agreed upon by all you reading this?? I have to suppose they are because the points are exactly what Jesus said.

Yet upon examination, one has to ask if Calvinism is true, how in the world can this make sense? Here is why I don't believe it can - in case it is not already obvious.

Since James loves to use the Lazarus story let me use it also.

Suppose after Lazarus had died, his sisters, Mary and Martha were getting ready to have the stone rolled in front of the tomb to seal his grave while he lay there dead. Yet just before they put the stone in place Mary notices that someone had left a loaf of bread on the floor of the tomb. So she goes and picks it up stating, "oh my, I need to be sure to take this." Martha responds by asking, "Why?" Mary replies, " Oh Martha seriously? Why would you ask such a silly question? Obviously, we don't want Lazarus to eat it!" Martha, looks puzzled and walks out not knowing how to respond.

If Calvinism is true, then like Martha, I have no idea how to respond to this passage. After all, if men are dead in sin like Dr. White and other Calvinists teach, then why would Satan need to steal the seed out of their heart? Can dead men eat bread?? If they can't eat bread, then how can they eat the seed? After all they are DEAD! Yet Jesus, the very Son of God, God manifest in the flesh, states he knows the reason why Satan steals the word out of their heart! He says it is to prevent them from believing and being saved! What?? How is that possible?? Does Jesus need to attend classes on Calvinism to get his theology corrected?? Does he not know that until He gives the person life, they will not believe and be saved? If Calvinism is true then not only does Satan not need to steal the word to prevent people from believing it, but he could actually surround people with the word! He could seal them in with bibles! They are dead! They can't respond in a saving way no matter how much of the seed they get! If they are not first made alive, no amount of seed aids to the slightest degree whatsoever!!

So Dr. White, my first question is, If un-regenerated men are utterly, totally, and completely unable to respond to the gospel presented in any fashion until first being born-again, then why would Satan steal the word from their heart to prevent them from believing and being saved (like Jesus said) if they are totally unable to do so? Why would Mary take the bread from Lazarus so he didn't eat it, if he is dead?!

Why does Satan steal the word?? Jesus' answer - "so that they may not believe and be saved."

Only someone desperate to hold on to what is clearly an un-biblical position would argue that this verse makes sense if Calvinism is true. After all, why steal the Word from a dead man? He is dead, he has no ability to respond to the gospel whatsoever!! You could have him surrounded by Bibles stacked a thousand feet high while the gospel is being preached by the apostle Paul himself! Yet he is dead and unable to respond!

The truth is, this clearly shows that being "dead in sin" does not mean that man has no ability to believe the gospel and be saved. Jesus is without question clearly teaching the opposite of that!! He is teaching that man has that ability and it is EXACTLY why Satan steals to the word - to prevent him from believing and being saved! So not only does this verse refute Total Inability but it also refutes Irresistible Grace, because Jesus is clearly teaching that by Satan stealing the word out of a person's heart he can prevent them from being saved. If Satan can prevent someone from being saved God's grace is not irresistible!

James, I want to point out that in my exegesis of this passage, I
a. Let the passage explain itself.
b. I did not have to go to other verses to try to get my theology to fit. (Which is what so often happens when a verse clearly teaches something contrary to a person's theology.
c. I simply accepted that what Jesus taught was the way it is.

If you disagree with what I have stated (and I suppose you will) I hope you will do as I have, and seek to exegete the passage without redirecting the discussion.

Oh, one other thing James, if you attempt to argue that the reason that Satan steals the word is because it is the means by which a person is saved, let me ask you this: According to Calvinism, If he did not steal the word would any more people be saved than otherwise? After all Jesus said it was to prevent men from believing and being saved. So if he did not steal the word, would any more men believe and be saved? If not, then what did he prevent? If not, then again I ask, Why does he steal the word? and was Jesus wrong about why he did it?

So please give your exegete of the passage and answer these questions which I asked above: ( I am simply repeating the questions again to make sure you are clear as to what questions I wish for you to answer regarding this passage.)

If un-regenerated men are utterly, totally, and completely unable to respond to the gospel presented in any fashion until first being born-again, then why would Satan steal the word from their heart to prevent them from believing and being saved (like Jesus said) if they are totally unable to do so?

According to Calvinism, If he did not steal the word, would any more people be saved than otherwise? After all Jesus said it was to prevent men from believing and being saved. So if he did not steal the word, would any more men believe and be saved? If not, then what did he prevent? If not, then again I ask, Why does he steal the word? and was Jesus wrong about why he did it?


Unprecedented? If you disagree please state the debate or the book written by any of your previous opponents where they state this argument. If you cannot, then I suppose the claim holds true.

Refutation? James you and any other Calvinist have the opportunity to supply a clear and concise refutation of my argument.

I look forward to your response.

Reply · Report Post