The Narrow Path Ministries

Darin wrote:
I am a friend of Sean Edwards. You discussed an email exchange you had with him on your podcast the other day. You invited folks to comment on whether you seemed to have a mean spirited response to him for which you "might" repent on the witness of several believers -- so, add me to the list. Whether you agree with him or not, I believe Sean was fairly representing and criticizing at least the predominantly main stream of the historic classical Calvinism (whether you hold it in every respect or not). It is one thing to engage him and say, "fair enough critique of that view but that's not what I personally believe. What I personally believe is XYZ -- how does your argument apply to that?" Instead, you blindly and harshly branded him as misrepresenting not your own personal view, but Calvinism itself (as though it's a monolithic view today), and resorted a bit defensively to a reflexive strawman argument instead of interacting honestly with his view as to those who do believe as he assumed and informing him kindly of your differences and looking honestly for ways in which he might modify his arguments after he understands that distinction. Basically, I don't think you dealt with him fairly, and you seemed more interested in defending your view (or, more rightly, criticizing his) than hearing him out and trying to understand his points. That is, sadly, all too common in today's Reformed circles.

That said, I was more interested in interacting with the first half of the program, which dealt with another email exchange. I am not interested in engaging in a debate, but there may be a perspective on these verses that you hadn't considered before. I believe John MacArthur holds a similar view to yours, and I provided this interaction with his commentary recently to a friend of mine and thought it addressed many of the issues you raised in the podcast. Notably, (1) does Helkuō (draws) carry the connotation of irrestibility that you suggestion; and (2) who are those in view that were "given to the Son" in John 6.

Though I don't have the time or inclination for a private debate on the subject, there is an online forum frequented by both myself and Sean which might be a good place to interact with us and others of similar temperament if you are so inclined. It might also be interesting to arrange to have you as a guest on the sponsor's radio program, (Steve Gregg's The Narrow Path) to debate one or more of these topics in a more formal or public manner. I believe we could arrange that if you are interested.

Chris Date wrote: Hi, Darin.


I appreciate you sharing your perspective, and will take it into consideration. I do think it's fair to treat your feedback concerning Sean as suspect, given that you're a) a friend of his, and b) a fellow critic of Calvinism. I will let you know if others who do not know Sean, or who are Reformed, confirm that I spoke harshly.


In the meantime, the simple fact of the matter is that the characterization of Total Depravity which Sean critiqued is not the mainstream, predominant, historic or classical view of Calvinism. It's simply not. You're right that Calvinism is not 100% monolithic; however, the doctrine of Total Depravity has never been that human beings will reject any kind of faith at all. Not even the Reformed theologians he cited taught that, and his quoting them demonstrates that he misunderstands Total Depravity. And so long as Sean continued to insist that his understanding was correct, I wasn't going to debate a misrepresentation of the doctrine.


You see, you can claim that Sean "was fairly representing and critizing at least the predominantly main stream of the historic classical Calvinism," and yet neither of you have have been able to demonstrate that his characterization of TD in fact fits that description. I am, however, open to correction, so if you can provide me with quotes from notable Calvinists through history which demonstrate they believed that unregenerate unbelievers will tend toward atheism specifically, and away from even false faiths, well then I'll be forced to eat my hat (were I the kind of person who wears one). I won't be holding my breath, though, since Calvinists have always been fond of Romans chapter 1 which, as I proved in my email to Sean, militates against his mischaracterization of TD.


Finally, I'll just point out, as I did in the podcast, that I repeatedly indicated that I would like the opportunity to explain what it is I believe and why. My continued responses to his argument, instead of attempting to prove my position, was out of respect for him. I wanted to patiently wait for the invitation to do so, rather than impose it upon him. Clearly, he wasn't interested in my thoughts, and so I believe it was Sean who was disrespectful and disinterested in meaningful dialogue, not me.


As for the doctrines of Irresistible Grace and Unconditional Election, I'm sorry to disappoint you but I am not interested in debating them in a public forum, or on the air, nor am I capable of doing so. I picture a wrestling match between The Rock and the main actor in Diary of a Wimpy Kid. If you want someone who can actually provide a challenge, I can point you to others who can do so better than me.


In the meantime, I very much enjoy private, more intimate conversations like these in email. If you'd like to dialogue with me in this medium, I'd welcome the discussion. As I explained in the podcast, I've changed my views in a number of areas, and do believe I'm open to being proven wrong. In fact, I'll admit that I found Michael Brown's position on John 6 challenging in his debate with James White, and as a result, I am today, more than at any time in the past 6 or 7 years of being a Calvinist, reconsidering opposing views.

So again, I'm sorry to disappoint you by rejecting the offer to debate in public; it's not my forte, and there are far more capable persons you can contact if that's your desire. But if you're interested in an informal, private conversation, I'm your man.

God bless,
Chris

Hi Darin and Sean.

I’m awaiting approval of my registration request at theos.org, but in the event that my request is not approved, I wanted to take this “offline,” so to speak, and reach out to you both personally before responding in public.

First, Sean, in your post you make a good point, which is that I didn’t ask you for permission to read your email. I sincerely apologize for that, and should have either asked you first, or left your name out. Please forgive me, I mean it sincerely.

In the future, however, please come to me first if you believe I’ve done something inappropriate, following the Matthew 18:15 model. And Darin, you were absolutely right to post my correspondence since I didn’t think to ask Sean first, and I do not mind you posting it at all. Even if I did mind (generally I have no problem with my emails being made public), I think it would be hypocritical of me in this case, to be sure.

Second, Darin, I do not “only accept rebuke or correction from one who agrees with [me] doctrinally and who does not know the man being defended.” I understand why it came across that way, but all I said was that your feedback was suspect. We often rush to the defense of those people with whom we agree, as well as to that of those with whom we are friends, whether the defense is legitimate or not. I hope you’d agree that as human beings that’s a tendency we all share.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that your defense wasn’t legitimate, but I wanted to see if there were others whose feedback was less suspect, in that they were not doctrinal opponents, yet who agreed with you and Sean. That is why I wrote, “I will let you know if others who do not know Sean, or who are Reformed, confirm that I spoke harshly.” The point was not that I will only accept feedback from them, but that it would give me additional reason to believe your perception was accurate. I understand that you may not agree with this approach, but I hope you’ll at least understand it.

Finally, all that being said, while I still do not believe my words were inappropriately harsh, on the way to work this morning, before I stumbled upon this post, I did come to the conclusion that you both picked up on what I was feeling when I was typing up my responses to Sean. And so while at this point I am not convinced that I have reason to apologize to you, Sean, for my words, I do believe I owe you an apology for my attitude, one of defensiveness and coldness. Again, please forgive me. There were reasons why I had that attitude, and although I do not want to make excuses, I would appreciate the opportunity to explain why it is I felt the way I did. But I’ll leave that up to you.

Anyway, when my account is activated (assuming it is), I’ll make both of these apologies public, but in the meantime, like I said I wanted to reach out to you both personally. I hope you’ll forgive me for the two things for which I’ve apologized, even if we do not yet agree that my words were inappropriate, and even if we disagree strongly in our soteriology.

Chris