Yesterday, I read a blog that quite frankly I found somewhat bothersome. On Steve Camp’s blog he had a link to Dr. James White’s concerning a discussion that he (White) has been having with Dr. Caner of Liberty University.
The topic was Calvinism (White) vs. Arminianism (Caner). White is basically calling out Caner to debate his views in a public forum. That’s the issue.
All this is claimed by White to be under the banner of “apologetics.”
What bothers me most about those who are Calvinists (and I am one) is the blurring of the lines of what they call “apologetics”. Defending our theological stance is not what Peter had in mind when he told us to be ready to make a defense of our faith.(1 Peter 3:15).
At this point, I got a burr under my saddle.
I confess openly that I am a Calvinist, not ashamed, that is how I see Scripture reading. I have dear friends who are not Calvinists. We have discussions and exchanges and “debates” but it is all in an effort to try to get it right. Getting it right is the important part.
But apologetics is NOT trying to convert my Arminian friends to Calvinism!
1 Peter 3:14-17 14 But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled, 15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; 16 and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong.
Apologetic arguments should be with the intention of seeing someone come to saving faith (however you believe that to be—we’ll work out the hows afterward). You cannot do apologetics with someone who already believes. Giving a reasoned defense to those who do not believe you have faith. The 1 Peter 3:15 passage shows that it is more that you should have enough evidence of faith to be convicted that you would be able to not only give a reasoned defense verbally but from physical evidence and eye witness testimony.
Should we study to be ready to make a defense of the Gospel? Yes. Absolutely. But with the intent of leading them TO the One who saves—not for another notch in our Scoffield Bible that says, “I have debated my faith against the Arminians.”
Well that’s precious. You drove a wedge between you and another who claims Christ as Lord. What kind of testimony is that that would, or could be, admitted into a court? What if, as I have had, a non believer, searching the internet because their university prof told them to look at blogs to get an idea of what Christians think, stumbled onto that? Would that give them cause to consider Christ? Would they think that we are one?
I could really care less how many times you have debated someone who holds a different faith (Muslim, Buddhist, or Catholic), what I want to know this. How many of those you have made a “defense” with have come to saving faith? Isn’t that the point?
Now, I admire both men, White and Caner, for what they have done in equipping the saints to be able to give defenses for our faith. Particularly, Dr. Caner for his insight into the Muslim thought and theology by way of his Muslim upbringing, has enlightened many a Christian on how best to effectively share the Gospel with them. I don’t agree with his theology on grace. But is that an issue that should cause me to brand him apostate? No.
The one problem with my Calvinist brothers is that we tend to make more of the issue of Calvinism than that of sharing the Gospel. Doing so is not apologetics. I can’t say that enough.
If we are not sharing our faith as a part of apologetics—then it doesn’t matter if you are Calvinist or Arminian—your doin what the Devil wants you to—argue amongst ourselves and forget the call to “Go ye therefore…”
Lord, get us on our knees with our brothers that think differently about the how, by focusing on the Who that saves.
Sorry, I just had to vent that off.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Aaron “Tree” Landis
Psalm 1.3
d.r.
Thanks for your comment.
Even though I didn't mention the Founder's blog, I did read a good deal of the discussion thread, so I am somewhat familiar with what has been said. Particularly disturbed by the attitude of Dr.'s Caner.
At the same time I am not surprised as there has been no Scripture mentioned from EITHER side as a basis for their opinion.
I am a calvinist. I am disappointed that a debate could not be brought from a Biblical perspective from either side. Rather than giving the "If a prof signs the BFM 2000 yet is not a 5pt or even 4pt, should he be fired?" response.
You cannot "debate" on theology apart from Scripture. On this point, everyone is off.(including myself).
Trying to reason with an Ariminian takes you nowhere. That, afterall is the only thing that they have. Discuss it within the context of Scripture. Show me from Scripture, what does it say?
Since I am a student at swbts, you can guess that I feel lonesome even though I know that I'm not. So I suppose that is why I tire of defending the doctrines of grace to my peers, even though I know of several professors who are like minded.
Again thanks for letting me vent and clarify.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Aaron "Tree" Landis
Aaron,
I agree that it is unfortunate that in this particular discussion, there was no mention of the Bible. I think the problem was that those involved in the discussion allowed the Caner's to dominate the thread. We were all too busy trying to answer the charges of hyper-Calvinism, lack of evangelical fervor, and misunderstanding of Church history. That may have been planned by them, especially in light of the fact that Ergun will now not debate Scripture with White.
I think that what White wants to do is to turn the conversation back to Scripture, but realizes that Caner won't answer Scriptural questions on email, or anywhere else for that matter. That is where Calvinism lives and dies -- in the Scripture. As one of my professors from NOBTS once said, "Without compelling Scriptural evidence, no one would ever have come up with Calvinism from philosophy."
But just to encourage you Aaron, don't quit defending the Doctrines of Grace. It will pay off in the end and God will use you to at the least get point others toward appreciation of God's sovereignty and glory. Before I left NOBTS, it had quite a Calvinist constituancy. And most of that could be traced back to one or two guys and one professor who defended their views and pointed people to Scripture. I honestly think the SBC's future is in the hands of God-centered Calvinists. The reason why all the detrators' rhetoric has been kicked up is because they see that the doctrines of grace are convincing and are having a huge impact on the convention. SW has a great history of Reformed professors and I am certain that will continue. Hang in there.
At 7:31 PM, 
Castusfumus
Aaron,
First, let me say that I completely agree with you that apologetics specifically deals with the defense of the faith, not a theological system. However, I wonder if Dr. White posted it underneath "Apologetics" because of his need to defend Calvinism from the attacks of Ergun Caner and his brother Emir over at the Founder's site (www.founders.org/blog). If you haven't checked this out, I suggest you do so. It was under the heading, "Johnny Hunt to be Nominated for President of the SBC." Your blog seemed to suggest that you may not be familiar with the debate that was begun by the Caner brothers. I just wanted to give you a heads up if that were the case. Have a great weekend.