Calvinism and Arminianism: An "in-house" debate?

In 2006, Drs. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries and Tom Ascol of The Founders were all set to debate Drs. Ergun and Emir Caner on the issue of Calvinism. But for various reasons, the debate never took place. You can read what I wrote about the situation here: http://www.geocities.com/johnandursula/nodebate.

I was reminded of this because I recently saw Ergun Caner being interviewed on a Christian television station. During the interview, one question that was put to him was something along the lines of whether or not the devil existed, or how it is that we know that the devil is real. In giving his answer, Dr. Caner began to speak about "forced love," and the fact that forced love is not real love. In other words, the reason there is a devil is because in order for love to be real, it cannot be forced. Thus, Lucifer became the devil because God could not force Lucifer to love him.

I found this kind of argumentation interesting (not to mentioned flawed for various reasons). The reason I found it interesting is because this is the same kind of "logic" that Caner employs when he objects to Calvinism. He thinks that when God raises spiritually dead sinners and graciously gives them ability to freely love Christ, that this is "forced love."

Never mind that Calvinism is careful to clearly maintain the will of man is never forced or coerced by God, and that when God converts a sinner, He does so by freeing him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good (see the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 9, which, ironically enough, is entitled "Of Free Will").

Anyway, I was reminded of the debate that never took place 3 years ago, and just how important the issues that were to be under debate really are. In the article I wrote before the debate was cancelled: http://www.geocities.com/johnandursula/baptistscalvinism, I commented on the importance of the issues. I wanted to provide this quote of mine from that article because I just think it really helps put the issues in perspective:

"The matters being discussed are central to Biblical Christianity. Some people refer to this as an in house debate, but I prefer to call it an "in community" debate. We are in the same community, in that we are united in Christ, believing that salvation is by faith alone in the finished work of Christ. But if we’re honest, these are two completely different houses built upon two totally different foundations. One house is built on the sure foundation of an omnipotent and absolutely sovereign, Triune and perfect God who brings about all of His perfect will without fail, and the blood of a perfect Savior who never fails to save those given to Him by the Father, and the mighty regenerating power and grace of the Holy Spirit of God, who never fails to bring those chosen from before the foundation of the world to saving faith by first removing their stony hearts and giving them hearts of flesh. The other house is built on the sand of human autonomy and vain human philosophy that ultimately places man as the captain of his own ship, and God as the innocent bystander who nervously paces the halls of heaven in hopes that someone…anyone, might “select” Him. One house can rightly say that salvation is by grace alone, because it is a grace that is truly amazing in that it secures, and bestows, all that is necessary for salvation, to include the ability to savingly believe the Gospel and repent from sin. The other house can only say that salvation is by grace, but that grace doesn’t secure or bestow anything except an “opportunity” for the person, in the power of his own flesh, to muster up the moral ability to comply with the command to repent and believe the Gospel."

Soli Deo Gloria,

John