Debate: Daniel Montgomery and Timothy Jones in debate with Brian Zahnd and Austin Fischer
Proposition 1 – Calvinism necessitates unconditional predestination and unconditional predestination is incongruent with the God revealed in Jesus Christ.
Proposition 2 – The cause of repentance and saving faith is not synergistic but monergistic.
Review by Lt. Col. David L Jones – a soldier's analysis of Brian Zahnd's [nonviolent] 'victory'
Christ is in our midst!
Brian Zahnd is a poet. Brian is a song-writer. I am proud to call Brian my friend. A few nights ago Brian participated in a team debate against two Calvinist pastors.
Strategically he owned the ground of the discussion. Tactically Brian held the higher ground as you will see. His arguments were clearly the most reasonable to follow and believe.
Brian and his partner kept the heat to the Calvinists' feet about predestination of the damned/reprobate. The essence or center of the target is not that the God predestines some for glory (or for grace which is another topic) but that He predestines most to Hell. That view is actually a formally declared heresy of the Early Church called Predestinarianism.
Brian's opening remarks were pure poetry. Pointing folks to Bruggerman, Wright, Hauerwas, and Hart showed the audience up front the best thinkers, writers and scholars are on our side.
You know that by mentioning Barth it really stung them. Most New Calvinists really, really dislike the Neo-Orthodoxy of Barth. R.C. Sproul just rails against him. Calvinists though are divided into many camps themselves with very significant differences: (1) the polemical New Calvinists i.e. Sproul, Horton, Piper, etc., (2) the Neo-Calvinists (Dutch) i.e. Kuyper, Bolt, etc., (3) theNeo-Orthodox of Barth, etc., and (4) the Christian Reconstructionists or Theonomists of Rushdoony, Kennedy,Bahnsen, Demar, Wilson, Leithart, etc. There are even various views on grace among Calvinists themselves. What about the great Calvinist debate on Common Grace of the last century?
The image of the dance and dancing with a mannequin was great. Brian captured the imagination of folks listening. That image will stick. That really, really hurt them and they knew it.
The Calvinists tried to respond by talking about total depravity or as Sproul likes to call it "radical depravity." This view of depravity is completely inconsistent with the beliefs of the historic Church as well. What does it mean to be made in the "Image of God"? How does the East approach this topic of Christian anthropology, i.e. ancestral sin? Kallistos (Timothy) Ware is very, very good on this topic by the way. I encourage everyone to read him.
At one point in the debate the Calvinists referred to the bulk of humanity who are the non-elect as "Zombies." That contradicts everything that I know about what it means to be human, a human made in the "Image of God". Frankly their view of humanity is a very depressing one and to be sure, it is not a beautiful one. Love alone is credible. Christ desires all to be saved.
Now the Calvinists also tried to own Bible, especially the writings and thought of Paul, but both Brian and his partner clearly kept it Christocentric and Biblical. Pointing out their Biblicism was a key point to make. Our focus must always remain on Christ. The way we interpret the Bible must always remain consistent with who Jesus Christ is. He is the living and incarnate Word. Everything, including the Bible, must be a witness to Him.
I cannot believe they made no effort to either defend Calvin nor make any historical arguments of their beliefs. Brian's partner's argument that no one believed the Calvinist version of Biblicalinterpretation in the Early Church is a very powerful one.
The point that Calvinism is a minority viewpoint even among Protestants is also an important point. Remember the Classical/Magisterial Reformers can be divided into four (4) major camps: (1) Lutheranism, (2) Calvinism, (3) Anglican, and (4) Anabaptist. Only Calvinism holds the views on predestination of the damned. It is truly the minority viewpoint in the world of Protestantism.
In the larger Christian tradition (Orthodox and Catholic), it is a formally declared heresy. Refer to the canons of the Council of Orange (529). Carthage declared the canon of Sacred Scripture among other things, the Septuagint version of it by the way but that is a discussion for another day. The debates on Pelegianism and Semi-Pelegianism were the Councils of Orange. Refer to the Conclusion, "We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema…"
One other minor point of correction about Brian's partner's comment about Augustine being a monergist. Augustine was no monergist, either early or later Augustine. As the great Calvinist, the "Lion of Princeton", B.B. Warfield himself admitted that Calvinists take a knife to Augustine, separating hissoteriology from his ecclesiology. That is so very true but it is even worse than that. Calvinists get Augustine wrong on grace as well. One of their own Calvinist scholars, Dr. Matthew C. Heckel, wrote a great article in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society called "Is R.C. Sproul Wrong About Martin Luther?" I encourage folks to read it who are interested about what Augustine really believed and taught about grace, faith, and works.
The entire Great Tradition, both Orthodox and Catholic as well as the majority of Protestantism, is one of synergism.
The heat in the room did much good to unfreeze the "Frozen Chosen" or those that follow the Calvinist ideology.
Let us all now dance in the loving embrace of Christ.
—-
Lieutenant Colonel David L. Jones is a Regular Army field grade officer. He was recently deployed from Kabul, Afghanistan. The opinions expressed are solely those of the author and not the U.S. Army. His writings have been published in TRACES, God-Spy, Traditional Catholic Reflections and Reports, The American Catholic, Catholic Online, Il Sussidiario and in his home-town newspaper, The St. Joseph News-Press. He also runs a popular blog entitled la nouvelle theologie. Lieutenant Colonel Jones is married to Becky, lovingly referred to as the "General." They have four children.
“The cause of repentance and saving faith is not synergistic but monergistic.”
Tim Jones: “God working sovereingly to transform our will so that we see Him and love Him for the beautiest (?) being that he is and the plan that He offers.”
“Synergism on the other hand means “working with.” And it is simply that we are saved through a cooperation between our will and God’s grace. Paul argues that salvation is a single-handed work of God in its inception.”
We are saved when we accept God’s grace, but the plan of salvation is complete already. Believing in it doesn’t add to it, but it cannot be appropriated with our believing and receiving it. Why would that simplicity be so quickly obscured by a futile and failed attempt to oppose monergism and synergism? They both apply, one doesn’t exclude the other. It’s just a big misunderstanding.
It is a wonder to me how disjointed the proponents of monergism make the whole experience of salvation to be. Have they themselves experienced it, or have they been taught about a salvation which is a cold almost unemotional process?
Repentance alone does not give us the power to live holy, pure lives. More events are going to unfold for the ones who are responding to the work of grace in their lives. It is a journey. From awakening to salvation, there is certainly a sequence of events, milestones crossed by the soul being touched by God’s grace. It is a maturation with stages of growth not unlike that of the natural life.
To use finite human words, the whole work of salvation doesn’t require us to do anything to add to it. But to be activated in someone’s life, it requires one thing : a response. That response has to be authentic, real, and to be so, it requires that we give something: our ‘yes.’ If we don’t accept the gift of grace, we will not be saved. If we accept it, we will be saved, if we persevere.
On the day of Pentecost, people asked Peter what they should do: “Repent” was Peter’s answer. Calvinism in this sense, is trying to steal God of the one thing He desires of us: wholehearted surrender. And it would be of little value to God if we didn’t have the power to refuse Him, or accept Him.
Tim Jones didn’t convince me that he understands what the human will is. Or how the work of grace makes its way in a person’s mind and heart, leading them to faith in Christ, salvation by grace, surrender to His Lordship and consecration to His ways. God’s grace needs to be allowed to transform the mind so it catches up with the deep seismic work done in the human soul and spirit…
Regards,
Andre Lefebvre
It is being said over and over that Jesus chose us, You did not choose Me but I chose you. I am not real smart, but if everything is context, than the context is of these scriptures John 15:16 are, that He chose some to be His disciples, to be used for a specific reason. This is NOT Him choosing individuals for salvation, but is referenced as though they are. Let me reiterate, He chose these men to be His disciples for a specific reason. To proclaim the Gospel. If I may,it also was stated that there is much mystery being stated from the one side. If that being clear in what they believe than how can they be so dogmatic on there doctrines of the Tulip? One other remark, I to have struggled with the Tulip throughout my walk. I have heard it said over and over that the Word says both regarding both sides. I’ve recently concluded that it can’t say both. It has to be one or the other. For there is one truth and that truth is God He does not contradict Himself. For that would make for a God of confusion and God is not a God of confusion scripture states. So I lean the other way for now. Praise the Lord for HIS mercy. for His grace, for His longsuffering and His Love.
For His Name Sake,
Brother Brandon Judy