THE PIKE-GUTHRIE DEBATE

Peter Pike  VS.  Shandon L. Guthrie

Unconditional election vs. conditional election: Which way does the evidence point?

The doctrine of unconditional election, generally advocated by those of a Reformed persuasion, have argued for centuries that God's divine election does not take into account anything that the person wills.  In this debate you will see this doctrine under the microscope as a professing Calvinist, Peter Pike, and a non-Calvinist, Shandon Guthrie, argue for their respective views.

The Pike-Guthrie debate took place formally in June, 2000 through e-mail correspondence.  The rules of the debate entailed that opening statements were not to exceed 1,000 words, the rebuttals were not to exceed 750 words, and the conclusions were not to exceed 1,000 words.  That exchange is re-printed here.

Because of the controversy surrounding this issue, I feel that it would be enlightening to see what readers think about the issue of unconditional election.  Simply fill out the form below and your comments/questions will be posted on this page below.  If you have a question, please specify which participant your question is directed toward.

Submit a Question/Comment Now!

Comments/Questions

9/02/01

As I see it, God does set specific
limits on our lives and choices, but
we are free to choose among those choices. Adam gets to freely name the beasts of the earth, i.e., but God creates what he wants.
Consider Acts 17: 26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. [27] God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us." Here is a classic example of
God predestining our choices. Like a menu of predestined choices from which we can choose, God's foreordained choices are there for our benefit. We are free to choose, and God has preset those conditions so that we may come to him. God has not hidden himself. He has set specific conditions in place so that we may find him, if we want to. The question is want, which is choice.
God does not force us to choose; rather, he offers us pre-made choices that we can accept or reject.

Consider 1 Tim. 2:4 God our Saviour
wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

God wishes, desires, hungers, wants all people to be saved. The TULIP policy fails to adress this issue squarely. God wants everyone, not a a handful of predestined people, to be saved. I think that this passage is a strong blow to the TULIP policy.

The two Pauline passages I cited may help you with your ongoing debate. I could cite from Cyprian who argues that all are born with free will to choose God, and that we are not mules
who must be controlled with a bit. I can try and find other early Patristic sources that argue against
the later Augustinian thought. Recall, Augustine did change his mind but the TULIP members do not know this!

Shalom, Fyvush.
God bless you

___________________________________________

8/9/00

Mr. Guthrie,

Enjoyed reading your debate with Mr. Pike.  One question:  What does the
asterisk mean in the following formula:

(3) P(f) * (S v ~S).

In addition, what does the small 'v' represent?  Sorry, but us knuckleheads
are having a hard time with the technical stuff.

Thanks, in advance,
David

Response - Shandon L. Guthrie

David,

I am glad you are taking an interest in the debate.  You had asked what those crazy symbols are in my
comments.  The logical notation I am using is based on a Boolean expression
of algebra.  That doesn't help you, I know.  But, simply, the symbols
re-write the sentences they are made to represent.  So:

 (3) P(f) * (S v ~S).

Really means:

(3) a Person (who is Free) And (who is Saved Or Not Saved)

So the "v" symbol represents "or" and the "*" symbol represents the
conjunctive "and".  I tried to express the sentences before the logical
notation so that readers of all backgrounds would not be confused.  The
notation is meant to undergird the arguments presented.  But I think the
reader could just as easily ignore the notation and still grasp the
essential tenor of the message I am conveying.

-S.L.G.