The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum A Refutation of The Other Side of Calvinism -LONG

Marie,
If he calls again, ask him about that five letters equalling death thing. I would be curious to hear if he really believes that. Of course, you could always invite him here for a little discussion time.

Concerning Joe's rebuttal to Vance. I too realize that his book is extremely long and boring, but I am amazed that so many Christians who are studying the doctrines of Grace for the first time, or that hear about Calvinism for the first time, will pick up his book for the purposes of finding out about it. I have had a troubling number of Christians who actually think this kook is a reputable scholar.

I was actually wondering if a better approach to his book is a website that has a variety of articles that specifically rebute the chapters in his book. They could be written by a variety of people, that way, one person is not doing all the work. The site could be named something really fun, like www.VanceLies.com or www.larryvanceisaliar.com, or just, www.theothersideofcalvinsim.com. At least with a website like that, Joe's research wouldn't go to waste, and other capable men could participate in writing on specialized areas of Calvinism, particularly the history.

Just a thought. Maybe it will happen DV.

Fred

I didn't expect to hear from Vance again, so I was doubting it at first, but apparently God planned (predestined, sovereignly decreed, before the foundations of the world, who can resist His will) otherwise <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I asked him about the five points=number of death thing. He chuckled and said, "Just look at Genesis 5:5." After the conversation, I looked it up, and it reads: "So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died."

I replied (with a grin), "I hate to break this to you, but Vance has five letters, and so does Jesus." He said, "Well that's certainly true."

I asked if he'd read James White and James Montgomery Boice, to which he said yes. He's working on a response to James White's most recent book, and he's responded to White's The Potter's Freedom and Dave Hunt's What Love is This. We have the journal they were in, so I'm interested in how he responded to them (probably agreed with Hunt, or maybe thought Hunt tread "too softly" upon the tulips.)

Anyway, he's sending a catalog of his books to acquisitions (with my name on it <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />). Also, he said that he had friends in Louisville, so he'd stop by the library to say thanks again.

Maybe the Sovereign Lord will have me to be wearing my Reformation shirt on that day <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

By the way, I didn't mention this discussion board, but, if you want me to, I could email him. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/coffee2.gif" alt="" />

What does Genesis 5:5 have to do with anything? Geesh.
If he calls back, ask him if he would debate any reformed individual on the charges presented in his book. I would be curious as to why or why not.

Fred

Marie,

His book has similar answers throughout it. It makes me wonder if one should really take the time to refute it as it does stem on the side of being ridiculous in places. But, note there are some "somewhat serious" places that need to be refuted.

I recalled this incident while talking to a friend at church today, and he said something that I thought was very funny (though I would not have said it to Vance).

My friend said "Maybe you should have said you were a 7-point Calvinist and that 7 is the number of perfection"

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Joe, though I think Pilgrim gave good advice, I never the less like your approach to the matter. Your approach in my opinion does not compromise the Word of God, yet it shows that you can do so in a respectful manner.
I am not sure if you read my recent thread called 'Our Justification', but I tried to use that approach, yet I don't think I did so in a compromising way.
In fact I am fairly certain that when I do give it out to people, I may get an earful. This if you know anything about me, is something that I absolutely hate.

On that note, please pray for me as I am praying for you.

Tom

He deserves an "A" for long rambling sentences.

Don't know if it will be much help to you but here are my thoughts on your preface. My suggested corrections are within brackets.
Timmopussycat

My Preface

The one sole sentence in Laurence M. Vance’s book, The Other Side of Calvinism, I find completely true and meaningful for this refutation of his work is, “The first and only resource, as well as the final authority for everything said herein, is of course the Holy Bible.” Yes, there are some other parts of his book that are entertaining.

(The previous sentence is unnecessary and a backhanded compliment that could be easily read as sarcasm. Sarcasm is best used not in introductory material, but has a better effect when you are actually demonstrating the error of the proposition you wish to correct.)

But he alone departs from the Scriptures and fails to use it first and only as his authority.

(The word "alone" creates a problem. Is Vance the only theologian who departs from Scripture….? You seem to be trying to say that Vance departs from Scripture alone which is something quite different.)

His attempt to discredit the truth stands not in Sola Scriptura, that is the Scriptures Alone, but Scriptura Sola Vance-ology, or the Scripture, plus Vance-ology Alone. His book would better be named A Dance with Vance, because and he side-steps and spins his reader into waltzes and jigs (confusion, 1 Tim 1:3-4) instead of being transformed and renewed by the truth (Rom 12:2). He asks the reader to consider incomplete histories, his present-day interpretations of words written thousands of years ago,

(His "present day interpretations of words" is ambiguous. Does Vance propose totally novel translations of key words. If yes, a couple of pertinent questions might be "Why do the standard lexicons not give these meanings? And whether the answer to my first question is yes or no, it will be good to ask why Vance's proposed alternative translations are better than the ones usually accepted? Then demonstrate that they are not.)

and his dogma of theories and philosophies that support Arminianism and other works of heresy (i.e. Semi-Pelagianism).

What I will ask the reader to do in this book is to consider the Biblical interpretations of the Scripture as interpreted in and of itself (2 Tim 3:16-17). For this we will need to explore some of the original languages, because biblical words have defined meanings as meant by their usage, history, and context. For instance the KJV of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians states:

1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Some well meaning soles (sp - souls) have preached that it is important and necessary to marry another or else they would burn in Hell. One may immediately ask, what then would be the case for Christ, since He did not marry another? Is He in Hell? God Forbid the thought! No! A hundred times, no!. (delete unnecessary period after exclamation mark) Positively Not (not), another would say! What then is our answer? A simple exploration into the Greek meaning for the word burn here will suffice. The Greek word for burn is ‘puroo’ (purovw). ‘Puroo’ means, to burn with fire, to set on fire, kindle, to be on fire, to burn, to be incensed, indignant and is used ‘fugitively,’ meaning it is better to marry than to burn with passion. John McArthur states it this way:

The term means “to be inflamed,” and is best understood as referring to strong passion (cf. Rom. 1:27). A person cannot live a happy life, much less serve the Lord, if he is continually burning with sexual desire—even if the desire never results in actual immorality. And in a society such as Corinth’s, or ours, in which immorality is so prevalent and accepted, it is especially difficult not to succumb to temptation.

As John Calvin states, “And to retain Paul’s metaphor, it is one thing to burn and another to feel heat. Hence what Paul here calls burning, is not a mere slight feeling, but a boiling with lust, so that you cannot resist.” As one can see the meaning of the terms, the way they are meant in context and usage, are quite different than what some have interpreted the verse to actually mean (to burn in Hell vs. to burn with passion). Thus, our study shall allow the Scripture to teach us. At times we will need assistance as in the verse above. But always, our meanings will be established by the Bible’s usage of terms and not man’s inclinations of what he may think they mean.

In Vance’s preface of The Other Side of Calvinism he suggests there is a shortage of works against Calvinism. While I would state that I do not agree with all forms of Calvinism, and to those I write against also, (While I do not agree that all that calls itself Calvinism is true Calvinism and write against those perversions of it with which I disagree,) true Calvinism need not have one word written against it, because it is the Bible. I do not agree with everything John Calvin, Martin Luther, and others have written about the faith once delivered to the saints. But I do agree with the synopsis of the five points of Calvinism, commonly called TULIP, against the five points of Arminianism. Vance defends the heresy of Arminianism. I will defend the truth of Calvinism. I will defend the Bible. I must be for Christ (Mat 12:30). I must be for His Word (John 1:1).

Where, Dr. Laurence Vance criticizes certain saints and finds their shortcomings, I will contend for their forgiveness and understanding (1 John 8-10).

(Your intent is not clear. If Vance has found genuine shortcomings in the writings of certain saints then those writings are in error. In such a case they need not forgiveness but correction. If Vance errs in his critiques, the writers he misjudges need not forgiveness but defense.)

Where, Vance admits not writing his work from a neutral perspective (Preface), I will contend for the truth, whether for or against the Calvinist viewpoint. It is only the truth of Christ that will set us free (John 8:36). Where Vance stretches for labeling (to label) everyone associated with Calvinism, I will call doctrines, theories, and philosophies not consistent with the Scripture what Paul called them in Galatians, “another gospel,” (Gal 1:6).

(How does Vance stretch to label everyone associated with Calvinism? Does he include 3 point, 4 point, 5 point and hyper Calvinists under the label Calvinism? You don't say)

Where Vance says Calvinism is a weak doctrine, I say I have two weapons. One, the errors of those that think they are strong (Gal 6:3). Two, and more important, the truth of that which is strong, the Word of God (Heb 4:12). Lastly, where Vance states and fantasizes that his work is balanced (Preface), I will show the real weight of it as a doctrine that is so heavy with untruth that it is accursed of God Himself (Gal 1:9). The issues at hand are that important! As Jude writes;

Jude 3-4 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Some may say that I am too hard on Laurence Vance. I will state now for the record that I am not against Dr. Vance, but I am against what he contends is truth. I pray for Dr. Vance that his eyes may be opened unto the truth of the Holy Writ (Eph 1:15-22). While I have reason to believe Dr. Vance to be a sincere Christian, by some of what he has written, I do believe in the same voice (written, I also believe) that he is also sincerely wrong in his theological approach and interpretation of the Holy Scripture. Whether he is or is not a Christian though is not for me to judge (John 7:24). I ask Dr. Vance to judge his own work (1 Cor 11:31). I do believe though, and thus I pray for Dr. Vance, if one denies the Holy Scripture, if he contends for another gospel, if he spreads untruth, he denies Christ (John 1:1), and he is accursed (Gal 1:9). The Scripture expressly tells us:

Matthew 7:15-21 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

I ask the reader to judge the fruit of Vance’s work not as compared to how he has/is living his life, or even I in my life. That is far too low of a standard. I ask that you raise the standard to the highest level. Compare it with Scripture (Prov 3:5-6; Mat 11:28-30).

God, I pray for Thy wisdom and direction that this work may glorify Thee in the fulness of Thy glory (Eph 1; 3:14-21). I pray that this work will heal the brokenhearted, deliver the captives, give sight to the blind, and set at liberty them that are bruised, that it be acceptable to you Oh, Lord (Luke 4:18-19). May you open thus my eyes that I may speak and be understood and put aside all foolishness (1 Cor 1:17-21). I pray that I may have the same Spirit Paul had when he wrote:

Acts 20:26-30 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Nevertheless, Thy will be done Oh, Lord (Luke 11:2).