Conversations in Calvinism

We briefly revisited last episode and covered David Lewis's comments on John 6:46. Then we launched into Ephesians 2, where we agreed that the passage teaches total depravity, likely refers to original sin in verse 3 and that, while the grammar of verse 8 doesn't say faith is a gift, faith is in general a gift. We briefly touched on whether 'dead' implies a requirement for pre-faith regeneration and disconcurred of the implications of being made alive "in Christ".  We disconcurred if we can reject the gift of faith or not.  We agreed that salvation is by grace but disconcurred on how to avoid taking credit for part of salvation. I argued that God saves believers, and that if He didn't save believers, they would go to hell, and that is the answer.  Turretinfan argued that irresistible grace is also needed to avoid taking credit for salvation, but we disconcurred.

Turretinfan and I discussed John 6. We agreed that John 6:44 teaches not just the lack of opportunity, but the natural inability to believe the gospel (i.e. total inability). We disconcurred that drawing or the Father’s teaching were effectual (John 6:44-45), and that faith rather than enablement is the gift of God in John 6:65 and that the giving of some to the Father is based in eternal election or in prior reception to the Father’s teaching through Moses and other means.

Turretinfan and I discussed John 10:26: “you do not believe because you are not my sheep”.  I mapped out various non-Calvinist explanations, including, “faithful Jews”, inclusivism, and prevenient grace and then defend the prevenient grace view.  The main points of disconcurrance were: 1) are sheep considered as “the elect” or rather does sheep being predisposed to follow make election irrelevant, 2) can sheep be considered as the elect, given they sometimes ignore Christ and follow false teachers before conversion, 3) is saying you are not my sheep a rebuke, 4) do verses 37-38 indicate some people resist the Father preparing them to believe the Son? We agreed that John 10 teaches some form of perseverance of the saints.

The main points of disconcurrance were “whosover”, “world” and the lifting up of the bronze serpent.  Regarding “whoever”, the disconcurrance was if it’s indefinite and a general offer of salvation to everyone, or not.  Here we touch on James White’s rendering of “all the believing ones” compared to Bill Mounce’s article on “indefinite construction”.  The most important disconcurrance was over the meaning of “world”.  Regarding “world”, the disconcurrance was how world relates to people and if world includes non-elect people, such as the “light rejectors” in John 3:19.  Regarding the “lifting up of the bronze serpent and the Son of Man, the disconcurrance was if the lifting up has to be for everyone to explain the offer of salvation for everyone and the added guilt of those who reject.  I hope you enjoy!

Dan (Arminian) and Turretinfan (Calvinist) briefly review Dan's discussion with Leighton Flowers, then dig in to 1 Timothy 2:4:6.  The main points of discucurrance were talking "all men" to mean everyone or not, does Christ's being the Mediator and ransom guarantee effectual mediation and freedom or not, should we pray for everyone and is the reference to testification related to preaching the gospel to everyone?

Dan (Arminian) and Turretinfan (Calvinist) discuss 1 Tim 4:10, and briefly answer a question from the David Pallmann/Derick Murrell debate regarding foreknowledge and the atonement. The main points of disconcurrance on 1 Tim 4:10 were the meaning of "savior" and "especially".

Dan (Arminian) and Turretinfan (Calvinist) discuss 1 John 2:2 and unlimited atonement.