Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: James White Declines Rebuttal to 6 Questions

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,216
    Blog Entries
    18
    Rep Power
    17

    Default James White Declines Rebuttal to 6 Questions

    I have just finished reading Dave Hunt's, What Love is This? and have read all of Watchman Nee's writings from Christian Fellowship Publishers. They are what is called osas arminians and uttermost spiritual Christians. I am curious to see what answer a higher learned calvinist gives to these questions, because thus far, I have not seen an adequate answer that makes sense by common calvinists.

    1) If Jesus died for just the elect (and does not die for all, e.g. "the world"), then why give the gospel to all, for wouldn't that be misleading to some, misrepresenting and giving them false hope?

    2) If God pleads with all, then is this not vain since it is not their choice anyway?

    3) God does not regenerate some (in the calvinist context) so why berate or blame others for that which is not their fault?

    4) Is it right to save someone who does not want to be saved and force your will upon them as though like robots?

    5) Why doesn't the calvinist God save everyone if he can, since it is not about predestinating by foreknowing your free-choice?

    6) Why do you take all the verses in the Bible about propensity to sin and turn them into total depravity, for is it not true David was called "perfect" though he still sinned?

    7) Do you think the belief of total depravity read into Scripture stems from the predisposition of the human being to believe such a thing or their soteriology is caused by the initial assumption of total depravity and because man can't fathom how God can let man be a sovereign being made in His image with free-will without God causing man's choices?

    8) Why don't you think God can have the ability to predestinate by foreknowing your free-choice: a conditional election, unlimited atonement, resistible grace, for preservation of the saints?

    9) Do you believe the image of God was destroyed when man fell into sin?

    10) Some calvinists believe in free will, others do not. Can it really be free will if some are selected against their will and some are not given the opportunity, for to receive a gift a person must be a willing recipient?

    11) Some calvinists have said they believe in unlimited atonement, while others believe in limited atonement, and still others have expressed both views (e.g. Spurgeon). Is this not contradictory?

    12) I feel the true calvinist is one who honestly comes right out and says they are a robot and free-will is not really free-will, but just appears to be. The rest are clinging to some aspect of calvinism that is still nonetheless false. Do you see why I could think this way based on Calvin's Institutes, and therefore, all 5 points of calvinism would crumble if total depravity were false?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,216
    Blog Entries
    18
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    JOHN 3.16-17 REVISITED

    If there is one Bible verse that every child who ever attended an evangelical Sunday school is sure to know, that is John 3.16. What child encountered this verse for the first time, without a Calvinist teacher, would conclude that "world" did not mean the whole world of mankind but a limited number of individuals chosen by God? None would, of course.

    Calvin himself, in his commentary on John 3.16, stated that "world" included "all men without exception." Luther also said it meant "the entire human race." But White, realizing that such an admission does away with Limited Atonement, manages a desperate end run around on John 3.16. He suggests that sound exegesis requires "that whosoever believeth on him should not perish" actually means "in order that everyone believing in him should not perish..." That slight twist allows White to suggest that Calvinism's elect alone believe (God having caused them to do so), and thus Christ died only for them.

    To prevent such a twisting of His Word, Christ himself explains this passage unequivocally: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3.14-15). There is no question that just as the law and the entire Levitical sacrificial system were for "all Israel" (2 Chron. 29.24; Ezra 6.17; Mal. 4.4, etc.), so was God's provision of the upraised serpent: "...every one...any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived" (Num. 21.8-9).

    In one look of simple faith, healing flowed to each and every Israelite without exception. The precise connection Christ reveals between this Old Testament type and His crucifixion for sin ("as Moses lifted up the servant...so must the Son of man be lifted up") cannot be escaped. "...that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" is a promise for all.

    Every Old Testament type of the cross was for every Israelite. There was no special elect among them whom alone the Passover, manna, water out of the rock, the Day of Atonement, or general offerings for sin applied. Significantly, any check of the list of scriptures used in Calvinist books will reveal an avoidance of references to Old Testament types of Christ and His sacrifice on the Cross. The reason needs no explanation.

    Like most Calvinists, White avoids John 3.14-15 and doesn't even attempt to deal with 3.17 which unequivocally states "that the world through him might be saved" (to which his explanation of John 3.16 couldn't possibly apply). This further comment by Jesus explains the meaning of the entire section (John 3.14-18) that His death on the Cross makes it very clear that God gave His Son for the salvation of the entire world. Amazingly, in the book Still Sovereign, of its 13 contributors, not one addresses this point.

    Of course, White's interpretation of John 3.16 must agree with his argument that 1 John 2.2 couldn't possibly mean "that Christ's death is a satisfaction for the whole world." He justifies that view by the fact that John goes on to tell us "not to love the world!" How does the fact that we are not to love the world prove that Christ did not die for the sins of the whole world? Obviously, John is using "world" in two different ways: the people of the world, and the world system.

    Recognizing that fact, White rightly declares that in 1 John 2.15 "world" means "the present evil system, not the universal population of mankind" (emphasis in the original). White is now caught in a web of his own making. If the fact that "world" in verse 15 means "the present evil system" refutes the claim that in verse 2 it means all the people of the world, why would it not also refute White's view that it means all "Christians throughout the world...at all times and in all places"?

    There is no way to escape the straightforward meaning: in 1 John 2.2, "world" means all unsaved mankind.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,216
    Blog Entries
    18
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Six Questions Posed to James White

    James White's 20 minute youtube response ("Calvinists are Not Christians?") to 6 key questions posed by Troy Brooks about calvinism, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiUdSnAXay8, or on White's site, http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3056

    My Rather Lengthy Response to James White's Video

    This is a video by James White, crying out for help because he does want to know the truth to know if he is wrong, so I intend to help you with these as simple words as possible and let him know if he searches God out with all his heart and soul, He shall surely find Him. He has not done so yet, for there are things in his life he is still clinging to, whatever those may be.

    I think in this video White has a double standard, because he is coming quite close to calling the osas arminian unsaved by using words such as heretical. Likewise we believe he is unsaved, not just with conviction, but proof, by these responses.

    1) What love is this not to provide opportunity for salvation for some (sending them to hell without recourse, making the god of calvinism the author of evil rather than using evil for good)?

    In response to "opportunity for salvation," White just declares that no such opportunity is given, despite the verses that Jesus died for all. He also says our choice is a work, when the Bible clearly distinguishes our choice to believe by faith from that of a work. He is against God's obligation to do this, when it would be God's mercy, love and desire to save all whosoever is willing to receive His love. He says such opportunity for salvation would not be salvation, as though God can't save, because He gives us opportunity. He further claims God is being enabled by our choice. Since God set it up this way to give salvation to whosoever believeth, then we are not enabling Him, for He has already enabled it all by predestinating according to the foreknowledge of our free-choice, like any good planner, but to God His planning is easily and intuitively implemented. God is the Great Designer! God's saving is suggested under arminianism not to be divine, but why is it not divine when God saves upon the condition He Himself supplies? White does not explain that theory.

    Get this! White then says God would be perfectly pure, holy and loving not to save anyone, because He is not constrained against His holiness. God is not constrained against doing the right thing? Wow! I would think God is abiding in His own love, sense of justice, purity, righteousness and holiness ALWAYS! I think God can stand for no less than saving every possible soul He can to populate eternity with as many as possible while minimizing the number of unsaved. For God to save only one person, White says is so wonderful! I think God saving only one person is a disgrace for it is far less than His very nature and holiness would desire to do so. Of course for a totally negative depravist, one being saved is quite wonderful, but pales in comparison the God of osas arminianism who would think this is not that great at all!

    There is a point to be made about being born into sin. Nobody born into sin is to be blamed for this, but certainly they are to be blamed for rejecting the solution. Adam was not born into sin. If our standard as humans would be to save as many as can possibly be saved from a burning fire, why should God's standard be any less? But White says there is something less than human love in the arminian view about God, but he doesn't state (in the video) how he comes to that assessment? White says there cannot be a differentiation of love with human love in arminianism, but where does he come up with this? I just gave an example how God at the very least has a standard that meets our own, and above! Where we may only be able to save 3 people out of the natural fire, God saves people from hell to the uttermost (optimally!).

    He argues that any person who is saved is because Jesus is our substitute. That doesn't explain the full picture, for underneath this claim there is a rabbit hole of calvinism. Where does an arminian deny Jesus is our substitute? How silly! Likewise, he says people who are not saved belong in hell. Where do arminians deny this? The question is not the fact of the matter, but how they get there. Since total depravity is false (otherwise David would not be called "perfect" since he sinned) it is not propensity that sends a person to hell, but since man is not the cause of being born into sin, this is why all children before the age of accountability are saved, since they did not have the choice yet. So many things can be explained in osas arminianism that just are left wanting in the construct of calvinism. The sickness of White is to berate and blame the presently unsaved because they wanted nothing but hell (speaking of the non-elect) because under calvinism they have no recourse, admittedly, for salvation. But under the lovingness of God of the Bible, some can be saved, because God does have mercy upon them and provides them the mercy to be saved by grace through faith.

    Next, White uses the usual tactic of calling the arminian pelagian, which is defined as denying original sin. Since God requires your choice, how is this pelagian? God is the one still doing the saving. Little does White realize he himself is pelagian denying the original sin, because original sin does not make you totally deprave; it does make you prone and to have propensity to sin. It does not make you unable to receive the cross. God's grace is always enough to lead a person to Christ. He never supplies man not enough grace. To refuse Christ then is your own fault. Do not believe in the robots of calvinism to robotically pick some without consideration for their choice, able to accept the cross under God's drawing.

    He mentions Gen. 50.20 as God's act of decree for evil, but where does this verse say God causes evil? God certainly allows evil to stem from first disobedience, but He certainly does not cause it--such as putting people in Hell without recourse. White mentions Is. 10 and Acts 4.27-28, but they hold to the same standard Gen. 50.20. Why then assume more than what is said here in these verses that God be the author of evil? He asks me if my God (God of the Bible) created the universe knowing evil would exist? Yes. He predestinates by foreknowing our free-choices. He permits sin for awhile and lets the natural realistic course of it finally be defeated which is finally reached at the end of the millennial reign of Christ on earth in Person. He asked if I am an open theist. My answer is emphatically NO! since God is all-knowing for eternity. Open theists believe God can't foreknow all things.

    White contends there are two choices. Either (1) God allows for evil and therefore has purpose for it and is in control of it. He calls this God's creative decree. Yet osas arminians believe this as well; what we don't believe is that God is the author of evil sending people to Hell without an opportunity to be saved, for God died for all. Or (2) God is not in control of evil, does not have a purpose for it. MY ANSWER: I choose the first option, since obviously God is in control (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent). I think White is avoiding the central issue about sending to people to Hell without recourse. He is grasping for straws and does not sense the unlovingness of a god to send people to Hell without any provision whatsoever.

    It's clear the whole ideology of a calvinist is skewed by the assumption of the man-made legalism of total depravity to replace propensity to sin. This occurs in a man because he ultimately wants to be saved without first repenting, so it is not real salvation, but an "easy-believism." White says of John chapter 8, man is "slave of sin"; but is this not propensity to sin? Nothing about a total depravity/total inability! Can you help an old lady across the street or are you totally unable to do so? Such a simple thought destroys calvinism. We can, therefore, say man is deprave or partially deprave, but not totally deprave! God forbid, otherwise, Jesus death on the cross would be in vain, and none could freely obtain avail this offer by faith.

    2) What love is this to save someone against their will (like robots) and without requiring from them an ability to repent first? (There is no genuine repentance, therefore, in calvinism which then would be unsalvation-a salvation without repentance.)

    His argument against this problem is to say man is dead in their sins, to which one easily replies, being dead in sins means you are on the road to perdition, not that you are unable to receive the grace by faith. Dead physically does not equal dead spiritually. We need to draw this important distinction otherwise, same old errors will be made. As new creations, we are not only forgiven for all our sins, but given power over sin by the power of the cross and indwelling Holy Spirit which was unavailable before, because we refuse to come to the cross and repent as helpless sinners. Where then is the repentance in calvinism necessary to come to faith? I can't find it, so how can they be saved? Is there a connection between our co-death on the cross with Christ and a calvinists unwillingly to have a repentance that precedes regeneration? No authentic repentance, God does not bring the calvinist to His sure death on the cross with Christ. God has His conditions. The hardest folk are calvinists in my experience due to their predispositions, but calvinism hardens them more.

    Then White goes to Romans 8 and says man can not submit to His will and do good in His sight. Man's general condition doesn't disallow him the opportunity to be saved! The same issue crops up, this is propensity to sin, not a total depravity. Isn't it amazing one massive legalism misrepresents God as a false fruit not of God, and so we shall know them by their fruit! Should we read the Bible like an unethical lawyer looking for legalistic language to get the client off the hook on some perceived technicality that deceives the judge? "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son" (Rom. 8.29). What does God foreknow? He foreknows all things obviously, not the least of which is our freewill offerings, by our freewill. Is freewill not freewill? If freewill offerings could be given by those under the law, why can't we freely come to the cross as well? No explanation by a calvinist can handle this. Paul encourages you, "For I am persuaded..." (Rom. 8.38). You too can be persuaded to repent, but God will not coerce you as are those in calvinism coerced because they receive a Christ without first repenting.

    White claims the calvinism gospel is one of repentance and faith as gifts from God, but what gift is this really when it was given without your choice in the matter to repent? It was forced on you, hardly seems like true repentance. True gift of repentance and faith can be obtained following the gift of your free-choice to receive it unto salvation by grace.

    He takes offense to the term robots of calvinism, but he just fluffs it off instead of seeing the real problem being without the choice (a choice that can, in actuality, receive the cross), you are robotically and mindlessly selected. If you were pulled out of your home and taken into outer space or taken out of your home (never able to escape going to Siberia) and sent to Siberia, what sick system would that be?

    He goes after Geisler. Geisler finds fault with calvinism in it requiring man be "rewired" as though man is no longer made in God's image with his constituent parts of spirit, soul and body and some alteration of his will so he turns into an evil robot that can now only go one direction. Of course, White just fluffs it off instead of dealing with it as a real substantial problem with his own faith. Man does not need rewiring (in the sense described by calvinists), but by that very gift of being made in His image can obtain faith to believe in Christ on the cross. God lets the old man die on the cross and gives the man a new life-a new spirit which can be indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Not by his own planning or passions, but by a conscious choice to receive the grace offered to him and work of the Holy Spirit, man can be saved by God.

    It's kind of funny actually, because instead of dealing with this real problem of calvinism, White just accuses Geisler (and myself) of God's judgment; something he dare not put himself in a position with God. Are we being dismissive? Of course not. We have identified a really substantial problem with calvinism, and White is dismissing it (saying nothing about it really), so he shall be judged by God for the judgment he places on others, but we are not judged the same because we are not dismissing it, but presenting a real substantial problem. Then having avoided the matter like a slippery snake, he goes to the next question just like that...

    3) Why confuse all the Scriptures (creating a false legalism) that refer to propensity to sin as total inability and total depravity, for we can still choose the good and are still made in God's image? (Was David called "perfect" to mean sinless, of course not! "...perfect with the LORD his God, as the heart of David" 1 Kings 11.4)

    White says he has no idea what this reference to David meant. David was called "perfect" in God's eyes, but was David sinless at that point? Of course not, he still sinned. Therefore, just because man is a sinner does not mean he is unable to do good, even the good of accepting what Jesus did on the cross by His good graces.

    The approach White uses is to say John 6.44 says no man has the capacity to come to Him. But this is a clear misreading of Scripture, which reads, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." It doesn't say no man can come to the Father, but no man can come to the Father except God who draws him. It does not say how God draws, only that God draws. God draws by convincing and convicting, providing the full measure of both general and special grace upon all. If God were to draw nobody, none would receive Christ. But because I was drawn (convicted and convinced), I am a child of God. God's drawing is His part in the salvation of those who end up becoming saved. Never do we read in the Bible God draws by selecting some and not others in spite of their will. Such a simple error, yet such drastic eternal consequences. So Jesus encourages people to believe, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life" (John 6.47), and not just believe, but learn first so you know what you are getting into: "Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me" (6.45). God doesn't want you to even blindly accept Him. Various other verses encourages the person to believe. What vanity is this to mention that you must believe and receive Him, yet God was going to choose them anyway. What belligerent acidity calvinism is! It's an amazing thing to see an unsaved person try to convince himself he is saved, especially in the context of Christianity by misrepresenting God. Was everyone in Israel saved? No. The sacrifices and laws were for all of Israel, not just an elect of Israel.

    Satan's greatest trick to my knowledge is convincing a person he is saved when he is clearly not then remaining in that condition all his life after which time it is too late for that lost soul. I dare say it would be harder for a hardened calvinist to be born-again than a person on some remote island who never even heard of Christ.

    God draws the elect why? Because it is these conditionally elected who receive God's drawing so not a single person drawn is lost.

    White argues that it is not merely only a propensity to sin but a total inability to receive Christ. What verse though supports this claim? None thus far have been presented or discovered. He goes back to Romans 8 which we have covered already and then mentions Jeremiah who talks about the depravity of the human heart. Yes, man is deprave, but not totally deprave. Where is the verse? The burden is on the one who wants to make such a wild claim, for we have seen man can give freewill offerings. Therefore, he is not totally deprave.

    What White precedes to try next is that common old technique to say such total depravity is clearly shown in his products for sale, but I ask where? He says his books. Ah! Why not show it in your 20 minute video response instead of vaguely claiming it is in one of your books somewhere which you yourself can't even quote evidence for. Sounds like you are selling books, not life. You're selling people a bill of goods which nobody can afford. Nobody can life like that...to just assume salvation without first repentance. As goes the false salvation so goes the life in that false salvation.

    He doesn't understand what this legalism is of calvinism, but was it not already stated the legalism is claiming total depravity? Where is the verse? Waiting. He blames Hunt, where I enjoy wonderful fulfillment and clarity by Hunt's consummate work. This in our day is the treatise of the Bible on why calvinism is not of God by one of the most widely respected scholars in church history. In fact I know of only one other authority in the work for the Church of such lofty acclaim whose words are just exacting and spiritually effective...Watchman Nee. "He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward" (Matt. 10.41). Here the Lord reveals the depth of the human heart. The decision one makes concerning a truth will be expressed by him before God. In receiving a prophet or righteous man, your spirit unites with the prophecy of the prophet or the morals of a righteous man. Hence you will receive a prophet's or a righteous man's reward. Whatever is done for the Lord will be rewarded." "Freely ye received, freely give" (Matt. 10.8). "The prophet is a watchman for my God over Israel, yet traps are laid in front of him wherever he goes. He faces hostility even in the house of God" (Hosea 9.8).

    The only thing I disagree with Hunt about is his view of pretribulation rapture onlyism. I am a partial rapture believer because Rev. 3.10, Luke 21.36, and Matt. 24.42 are clear conditional statements for first rapture according to readiness, not a forgone conclusion for everyone in the church (that's left for another discussion).

    4) Why plead for everyone's salvation if Jesus only died for some? That is mocking and berating. I tell you that you are fool for not walking to the store when you have no legs (no opportunity).

    White responds with the claim he does not know who all the elect are as the reason why you should give the gospel to all. Nonetheless, he would be lying to people and giving them false hope for telling them Jesus died for them. There is simply no way around this lunacy of calvinism. It's hard to get White to pause (conscience convicting him) because he is so talented (or perhaps keyed in on his his calvinism), but he stuttered on this question, because he knows it is a blatant contradiction to give the gospel to all when it is not for all according to calvinism. God never saves a person based on their talents or their intensity of obsession.

    The approach next used is to suggest that the arminian is blaming God. How is this blaming God by finding the fault with calvinism? It's man's fault, not God's for rejecting salvation. Whereas a calvinist blames God for not saving those He could save, since apparently He can save all. He goes back to saying arminians deny original sin when above we showed that is not the case, but White denies original sin (Rom. 5), since original sin does not make you totally deprave. Where is the verse for that? He says Adam's headship makes you totally deprave. How so? Then he says this is rejecting Christ's headship. How so? Strange leaps. Christians are not blaming God, but recognizing the god of calvinism for being a liar and an idol for calvinists, for what love is this to send people to Hell without recourse; even save people without the option to refuse Him? I see coercion.

    White said as an elect sinner he does not know who the elect sinners are. Say that again? Does that mean he doesn't know he is an elect sinner or others are elect sinners, so how does he fellowship with members of the body of Christ if he doesn't know? If prior to salvation he doesn't know, he would not need to know such a thing if God doesn't die only for the elect.

    White verily says as an elect sinner he ought to try to bring people to Christ not knowing if they are saved or not. So even though one of these he is trying to lead to Christ is a non-elect, he unwittingly lies to that man by telling something to him that is absolutely false for he can never be saved. There is no excuse for this behavior, this pretentious and misleading gospel.

    White insists he does not have to grant upon people the right of capacity to turn to God. Oh yes you do! Otherwise you are a false teacher and vanity would be your hallmark! So much is centered on the gospel of salvation, but it doesn't matter anyway? He says with his own experience he can use that and apply it to others, but how can he? What if that person he is trying to save into calvinism is not allowed to have that same experience of being selected since he was chosen to be non-elected?

    White says God is an utter failure for not saving someone because man rejects His saving grace. Why is God an utter failure? He does everything within His righteousness and holiness to purchase a person unto salvation, but as a sovereign being, man can refuse it. The blame is not on the Triune God therefore, it is on man, even the calvinists who refuses to repent to the cross first, but prefers to assume his Arian selection into the superior race. God wants repentant sinners, not unrepentant assumer's. Man is not a "mighty creature" negatively, he is made in God's image with freewill positively and that will never change. God doesn't want robot selection, He wants those who love Him to receive Him. Everyone in the Adamic race is made in God's image, for His image can never cease.

    Is Jesus a weak and beggarly miser trying to get someone saved? Of course not. He is simply doing all that is righteous and holy. No more, no less. White considers the Jesus of arminianism a weak god. I consider the greatness of God to be able to make man in His image to have the choice to receive the cross which many do. Do you want a god who is unable to create such a man in His image? Or do you want a God who does not coerce repentance and salvation, but commands it and comes all the way to the edge for us, but we must lay down upon that cross through repentance and receive by faith His precious gift and let Him nail our members. What gift is real if not freely received? Can there ever be any greatness in a god who can only perform a non-synergistic asymmetric selection with no input from His creation? Greatness is seen in allowing others to have certain unalienable rights. If no less is true of the societies of men, it is no less true of God's providential care and desire to commune with man.

    White says the arminian is just taking Christ up on his offer, but is that all God the Father and God the Son do? Do they just offer? Or do they do all they can to convince and plead with man for His acceptance of the ransom paid? Do not misconstrue causing a person to be saved against their will and not giving others an opportunity to be saved as being better than an offer, but it goes so far as to coerce people into that which they had no choice. What love is this?

    5) Why do some calvinists teach unlimited atonement and at the same time teach limited atonement? Seems like a blatant contradiction or embarrassment, concealed by this doubletongue (so the two-will contradiction is used to rationalize it).

    White responds by saying he has no idea what I am talking about and "no way of responding to it." But Hunt uses the same argument against various calvinists such as Spurgeon; we know exactly what we are asking, so if White has no idea what I am talking about, why does he answer this question by saying read his books. It's always, read his books. How can he answer the question adequately in his books if he doesn't even understand the question? Every osas arminian I talk to can easily understand this problem of calvinism, so what's the problem? It shows there is a blockage in James White's mental processes. Somewhere Satan has got him, because all this time, he hasn't examined this question?

    Since White is 100% against unlimited atonement, then he ought not to give the gospel to everyone, only those he knows are the elect who will receive it, but how could he ever know such a thing; so he has to sin in telling some people they will be saved which is impossible according to calvinism. Coocoo! To compound this problem, it appears he has to commit evil acts or sin to achieve his aim, like Calvin did in murdering osas arminians in Geneva (or Arians in Germany). To rationalize this, White says God uses evil for good; but, God never meant for White to be the cause of evil. He would prefer White stop this sinful behavior.

    Instead of dealing with the contradiction of the two wills we are left dumbfounded by such bipolarness that God would desire all to be saved but decrees He only dies for some. He desires everyone to be saved, but He causes without an option, or explanation, those to be saved or condemned? If God could save everyone as He desires, then why not do so? What love is this?

    Prescriptive will in the law (which White equates to desire) and decretive will is his answer, but that is like answering the question by repeating the facts of the question. The contradiction still remains. He says this is acceptable because the prescriptive will (desire for all to be saved) doesn't have sin in it, but His decreed will is in light of sin. Where does the law being given not in light of sin? The law brings out sin because man can't keep the law and knows his sin, therefore, all too well. Sin or no sin, God wants all to be blessed so He would not go beyond His holiness but certainly at least do that much to save any who would receive His grace. Calvinism falls short in the salvation of souls, and does too much, saving souls that ought not to be saved through coercion.

    Because there is sin, the god of calvinism will not die for everyone (not very loving) or is impotent and incapable of doing so. He only dies for those he wants to save (no reason given). That's like a parent wanting 2 of her children to go to school, but the rest will need to live like animals. No reason given. Because some people are not worth saving apparently, they don't even get the choice. Those who are saved don't get the choice either, but are just made to believe like robots. It is all quite immoral to operate this way and reflects the calvinist way of being. If God desires all to be saved, He will do all possible within His righteousness and holiness to save a soul, but if the person still refuses, so be it! God forces Himself on no one.

    White says these questions are entirely inconsistent, but I am glad I could show that they are consistent and the reason they are asked is because the inconsistency of calvinism remains the issue. Christians (osas arminians) are very concerned with all things of God, consistence, theodicy and the decrees of God (a decree of God is not claiming someone is saved who need not repent first). It seems more reasonable to me to say that a Calvinist, projecting his own condition, is not so concerned about such things, because his answer is it's a "mystery"-he doesn't know why God picks some and not others. Whereas an osas arminian has an answer as clearly laid out in Scripture.

    6) If the god of calvinism could save all why doesn't he? What love is this! In osas arminian, God doesn't save all because some refuse the cross of salvation.

    The answer White gives is god chose. Period. Why? Because he wanted to show the full range of his attributes. How is that wonderful by making people go to hell without recourse? How convenient for White to be of the Arian nation who are not one of those that were made for hell. Surely, God can do better than this and provide grace to everyone so that whosoever believeth will be saved. Ultimately, the aim is not just to keep White unsaved, but to turn non-Christians off of Christianity. Several times I have heard atheists and the like say Christianity is false because Calvinism is false. Don't underestimate the wiles of the Devil in Calvinism.

    White thinks this is grace and mercy to save people against their will in total depravity. Perhaps, but man is not totally deprave. Even if here were, to create a man whom God knowingly would become totally deprave is quite evil indeed.

    He says God's justice and holiness is in sending people to hell who were born into sin, not of their own doing had no possibility of being saved. Should not God's standard at least be better than our standard? If some people were caught in a terrible situation and if you had the means to rescue them, would you just say, sorry, I think I will show you how great I am by letting you all suffer permanently. What evil that would be! This should convince people quite easily that calvinists worship Satan.

    God wants a people who accept His design, not a people who want to alter His design into something else. Now I am not saying every last calvinist is unsaved, but surely the vast bulk of them are, though may yet receive the cross of salvation before they leave their bodies of flesh and blood.

    The next argument goes as follows: God can save some, none or all. God has no freedom if He can't save anyone. He has no freedom if He saves everyone. Only in saving the elect, those He freely chooses to extend His mercy and grace to is there any freedom left to God.

    Of course such thinking is specious. Why would God not have any freedom if He gives you the choice? It is because God is truly free that He can give you the choice. He is that wonderful and great! If He wast not truly free, He would have to force some to be saved and force some not to be saved by disallowing them any opportunity whatsoever; He could not foreknow anything except that which He predestinates. That is no different than predestinating everyone to be saved or predestinating everyone to be unsaved.

    Whereas a Christians believes in the God who can predestinate that which He foreknows, even our free-choices, even free choice that can receive the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Next, White says Arminians are more interested in the freedom of man than the freedom of God. How so? An Arminian is abiding in God's design and the way to be saved He provides. Whereas a Calvinist is more interested in merely presuming his own salvation, shirking God's provision, and never repenting to the cross first to be saved (regenerated) by grace through faith. A Calvinist achieves this escapism by the entrance of the teaching of total depravity. From this grounding, he is grounded in a pathway that can never lead to salvation, unless he willingly comes off that path. Most people to be saved don't have to come off such a path because they are not on that particular path, but for calvinists, their coming off that path is their repentance to the cross.

    Calvinism is not only man centered, but Satan centered, opening oneself up to further suggestions by the evil spirit as sin begets sin and assumption (God picks people without specific reason) leads to the next assumption (total depravity) and to the next (they are the Arian nation). You saw what happened when Germany held that view. This is the power of man and ability of man.

    I can say osas arminians are concerned with our relationship with God because it was not imposed on us as it was for calvinists. A relationship takes two, not one. And this is exactly what God wants is to have a relationship with us so we learn of His will and as He guides us by leading of the Holy Spirit. We learn of the dividing of our spirit, soul and body to walk by the spirit, and God gives us another cross to bear which further separates our outer man from our inner man to listen to the still small voice and inner registrations. We are led to build the body of Christ, share the gospel to all whomever is willing to learn of it and receive it. In calvinism, I could have never had this communion in my spirit because the god of calvinism forces himself upon people, and there is simply no way to reject it or opportunity to receive it. This leads to the pride of life and self-exaltation, centered on the person pridefully thinking he was one of those selected who never even had to repent first. There is no morality in the saving because there is no conditional election and no resistible grace.

    It is clear what a calvinist thinks is holy and just and righteous is not what an arminian thinks is. Was I willing to hear your answer as shown in my detailed response to you Mr. White? I am sure you will agree I gave quite an explanatory response to all your many points you raised. White suggests some people come to calvinism when they were previously osas arminian. I don't know any personally who have and don't think Hunt will ever become a calvinist, nor do I think my friends who are osas arminians will ever become calvinists. There must be some exception to the rule, for even a couple osas arminians out there could be false Christians, never born-again, who could take up calvinism's "easy-believism" and "stacking the deck" as it were.

    As I stated from the outset James White you are not a Christian. By seeing your response to these questions and my response to your response, it only strengthens one's conviction you never were a Christian and likely never will be. Just as White thinks when people get to see the two sides they will surely accept calvinism, I think just the opposite will be the result if and this is a big if, you come to God with an honest heart.

    Have you ever wondered something about calvinism that is related to generational indoctrination? You can really sense it with Mormons, but I can't help but think the same thing about Calvinism exists as well as Mr. White alluded to his long past with calvinism.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,216
    Blog Entries
    18
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Thursday, January 1, 2009

    Youtube clip, Calvinist James White, responds to an OSAS Arminian, Troy Brooks, who presents 6 issues to address.

    Richard Coords examines James White's response to the questions posed by Troy Brooks,
    http://examiningcalvinism.blogspot.com/2009/01/james-white-responds-to-troy-brooks.html

    1a) Troy’s first question deals with the Calvinist doctrine of Preterition in lieu of God’s universal saving love. In other words, how can God love everyone if He has allegedly “passed by” most, as per “Westminster” terminology.

    James White responded by stating that a) God has differentiated degrees of love, and b) is not required to provide an “opportunity” for anyone to be saved, and if God saved even as little as just one person, then that would be an amazing display of grace.

    My thought would be to first target the concept of “kinds, levels and types” of love. Turn to Luke 10:30-37 and ask yourself whether the priest and Levite demonstrated a “kind, level or type” of love to the Samaritan, whom they “passed by.” Surely, the answer would have to be “no,” and that would be significant, because the debate would therefore no longer center on whether God has undifferentiated “kinds, levels and types” of love, but whether Preterition is any kind of love at all. This will eliminate the “degrees of love” defense, and reduce it to a more straightforward matter of “loving vs. not loving.” Once that’s done, James White can never go back to a “kinds of love” defense. Now he’s left with two classes: Those God sovereignly elects to love vs. those God sovereignly elects to hate, and it’s not a matter of “dead, rebel sinners” first hating God, because according to the Westminster, God first hated them by deterministically scripting whatsoever comes to pass, whatsoever they should ever say and do. Once that’s set in place, it’s time for John 3:16. James White states that the “reason for the giving [of the Son] was so that believers might be saved.” However, in actuality, the reason for the Father’s giving of His Son was so that “the world” (whom He loves) would have a Savior, and on that account, whosoever in the world that should believe in Him, would not perish but have eternal life. It’s fairly straightforward stuff, but White must play a shell-game with John 3:16 in order shift the object of the Father’s love from “the world” to “believers,” and by extension, those elected to believe.

    So that’s the issue. First establish the basis of love (by dispatching the “kinds of love” defense), and then apply Scripture, in terms of who God said that He loved. From there, it’s just a matter of James White having to spin John 3:16, and then ultimately retreat to Romans 9:13, in which he stated in Debating Calvinism: “No matter how one understands ‘JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED’ (Romans 9:13), this verse alone should be enough to refute such an errant view of God’s love.” (Debating Calvinism, p.268) From there, you can simply point out that Paul was quoting Malachi 1:2-4, and the rest is academic, as “Esau” was defined as “Edom,” in whom God said that He was “indignant forever” on account of their betrayal of Israel during the Babylonian captivity, as recorded in the book of Obadiah, rather than an arbitrary, sovereign election to hatred, and besides, no matter how far we get from God, He has still made a provision for our redemption through His Son, in which even the worst of us can be redeemed, as the apostle Paul had confessed to being the worst of the worst on account of having murdered Christians. (1st Corinthians 15:9)

    1b) The next issue raised is whether God needs evil to accomplish good, or whether God simply uses evil to accomplish good.

    James White responds by deferring to his Westminster “traditions” by assuming an all-encompassing “creative decree.” He then states that “God does not force anyone to commit evil,” and explains how God is “restraining evil” which he “permits to come into existence,” but which is little more than double-talk, when he just finished describing an all-encompassing decree of Determinism! That’s what I find particularly fascinating with his approach. The consistent theme of James White is that he is not straightforward in how he articulates his theology.

    James White then responds with the question of whether God, with His exhaustive omniscience, foreknowing that by creating the fact of freedom, will someday result in the acts of sin, means that by proceeding ahead with such a future anyway, means that God has a specific “purpose” for sin. First of all, it should be pointed out, that if God has a purpose for sin-A, then He does not have a purpose for sins B through Z, and hence a depraved person’s freedom to commit sins B through Z, stands in opposition to the alleged “purpose” of sin-A, and thus the freedom of a depraved person to commit sins B through Z, must be eliminated, and reduced down to only the desire to commit sin-A, and thus the “free will” of Compatibilism is really nothing more than the freedom to do that which is scripted, to the exclusion of all other “free” choices, and hence, Compatibilism, in that sense, is reduced to nothing more than a thorough-going Hard Determinism, and in fact, is why some Calvinists indeed reject Compatibilism in favor of Hard Determinism. For more on this point, see here.

    James White asks, “Which is it? Does God create with a purpose for sin, or not?” The answer is no. It first needs to be pointed out that there are things in which God specifically stated that He did not decree, such as the command to commit child sacrifice, as recorded at Jeremiah 32:35. For more on this verse, see here.

    Second, as Norman Geisler stated, “God made the fact of freedom; we are responsible for the acts of freedom.” (Chosen But Free, p.23) For more on this point, see here.

    So God has created a world with the fact of freedom, which has resulted in the acts of freedom, and God uses our acts of freedom, even the sinful ones, in order to bring about good, namely Calvary, as recorded at Acts 2:23. This stands opposed to the perspective that God has scripted sin “by necessity” in order to bring about a scripted good, in order for God to be able to display His various attributes. The difference is that either God foreknows our acts of freedom and determines His interaction accordingly, or God scripts whatsoever comes to pass. Usually the Calvinist complaint is “how” God could then know the future, without having determined it, which is a question that White asked in Debating Calvinism on p.163. For more on this point, see here.

    His perspective, then, is that God must script everything, in order to foreknow anything. This represents a rather odd presentation of the omniscience of an eternal Being, who exists independent of time. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, for such an eternal Being, all time must seem as one “eternal now,” and on that account, God can know the future self-determined choices of others, possessing the power of contrary choice, without having to determine them, because He is present in what we call “the future,” and such knowledge is not merely “passive knowledge,” because God is interacting. God can relay such prophecy as Revelation 20:7-9, in terms of what others do, and then state what He does in response. So it’s by no means merely passive.

    Traditionally, Calvinists have defended the “author of sin” charge on the basis that God uses “secondary causes,” but once again, even this defense is refuted by Scripture, when God rejected King David’s secondary-causes when bringing about the murder of Uriah. For more on that point, see here.

    2) The next issue by Troy Brooks concerns a salvation without repentance. Yes, Calvinists do believe that God regenerates without repentance, but then White attempts to distinguish “regeneration” from “salvation” in Debating Calvinism on p.293.

    White responds by calling Troy Brooks “ignorant.” This is classic White-speak. Geisler did a fantastic job of exposing White-speak in the appendix of Chosen But Free. It should be noted that this methodology is directly in contrast to the apostle Paul, who instructs: “The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” (2nd Timothy 2:24-26)

    James White explains: “they are changed…they are made ‘new creatures.’” White raises this point in Debating Calvinism on p.191, which is also something that I quote extensively: “When the time comes in God’s sovereign providence to bring to spiritual life each of those for whom Christ died, the Spirit of God will not only effectively accomplish that work of regeneration but that new creature in Christ will, unfailingly, believe in Jesus Christ (‘all that the Father gives Me will come to Me’). Hence, we are not saved ‘without’ faith, but at the same time, Christ’s atonement is not rendered useless and vain without the addition of libertarian free will.” (Debating Calvinism, p.191)

    The fundamental issue is that according to the theology of James White, a person must become preemptively birthed “in Christ” in order to unfailingly come to Christ. In other words, all that which is in Christ, namely regeneration, a new heart, a new spirit, a new nature, ect., is the vehicle by which a person may freely come to Christ initially, just as a seasoned Christian freely comes to Christ repeatedly. For they ride in the same vehicle, the vehicle of Regeneration. The problem is that it’s impossible for an unbeliever to be “in Christ.” Unbelievers, we are told by Christ, remain condemned, as per John 3:18. In contrast, those who are in Christ, are “now no longer under condemnation,” as per Romans 8:1. So there is no such animal as an unbeliever in Christ, and moreover, Ephesians 1:13 outlines the order of operations in becoming sealed in Christ: Hears the Gospel, believes in the Gospel and then is sealed in Christ. Moreover, Romans 8:33 marks the identity of the New Covenant “elect” by confirming that they are free from condemnation, which we know as a distinguishing feature of those in Christ, that is, Christians. That means that there is no such animal as an “elect unbeliever.” On that account, the methodology of James White is severely challenged, whether he chooses to recognize it or not.

    3) Taking on Total Inability, Troy Brooks then explains that man has the ability to “choose” good. Arminianism would agree, only insomuch that God’s grace makes it possible (i.e. the Holy Spirit seeking, drawing, knocking, convicting, pricking, piercing and even opening unregenerate hearts to respond to His call). It should be noted that both Arminians and Calvinists stand in agreement on the fundamental necessity of God’s preceding grace (i.e. Prevenient Grace), though the difference is that Arminianism holds such Prevenient Grace as resistible, whereas Calvinism holds it as irresistible. However, the argument of R.C. Sproul is that such Arminianism, becomes a “distinction without a difference” (What is Reformed Theology?, p.187), when contrasted with Pelagianism, since both require that with the appropriation of such preceding grace, it is still ultimately left to the individual to respond to God, and why does one respond and not another? For more, see here. Obviously the common denominator is “Free Will,” and it is fair for Calvinists to point that out. However, Arminians prefer that Calvinists instead refer to it as “Freed Will,” that is, freed by grace to believe, and honestly, who are the Calvinists to say that God cannot condescend to man on this level? Is God not sovereign enough to deal with mankind in any manner that He chooses? So what if God should give man the ability to make a freed choice? White warns Brooks about standing before God someday after using such rhetoric as “robots,” but I would warn Calvinists about using rhetoric like calling God a “feeble” “impotent” “lackey,” and a “cosmic bellhop,” and in White’s own words, “a weak and beggarly miser,” if God chose to condescend to man in a non-Calvinistic manner, and.regardless, God still gets the last word anyway, when every knee shall bow. (Philippians 2:10-11) Whether man takes the “way of escape” or not, as per 1st Corinthians 10:13, God is no less sovereign, and God still remains in control since He perpetually limits our range of choices, insomuch that He does not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able to handle.

    4) Troy Brooks raises the question of why God would plead for the salvation of some, if He has no intention of granting them any opportunity to receive His offer? This is actually a fantastic point, because Calvinism makes a mockery of the patience of God. For in “what” is God being patient, if He has appointed an irresistible grace for some, while withholding the means of repentance for others? This is just another example of Scripture being incompatible with Calvinism.

    James White’s defense is that the “command to repent is extended to all people.” As a 5-Point Calvinist, that’s a major flaw on his part. For to even tell someone to repent, is to imply that they have a Savior to whom such repentance will be received, and hence you are essentially telling them that Jesus died for them. This is why careful Calvinists are noted for saying that Jesus died “for sin” (not necessarily yours, unless you are one of the Calvinistically elect), rather than to stand with the apostle Paul and affirm that Jesus died for “our sins,” according to the “gospel” that he described at 1st Corinthians 15:3. For more on this point, see here.

    James White then states that “there is not a single person who wants to be saved who will not be saved. The problem is that there is none who want to be saved, until God, by His Spirit, grants spiritual life.” I would just love for him to try to explain that to the Jehovah’s Witnesses with whom he debates. Believe me, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who we would recognize as being lost, absolutely do “want” to be saved, which is why they work so hard for it. It is said that when a Jehovah’s Witness goes door to door, it is not to save you, but to save themselves. For they are told by their Watchtower elders that unless they put in the approved amount of time in field work, they will not be spared at Armageddon. So they want to be saved, but the problem is that they are putting their trust in men (the Watchtower organization), rather than putting their trust in Christ. For more on this point, see here.

    White adds the familiar phrase of “I do not know who the elect are,” and hence he preaches to “all men,” but not “all men” (of course) in the individual and distributive sense, but only in terms of “groups” of men. (sarcasm off). I’m going to add a rather radical thought. I know who the elect are. The elect are redeemed, born again Christians. After all, Romans 8:33 tells us that they are free from condemnation, which we know to be a distinguishing feature of those who are in Christ, that is, believers (i.e. Christians). Essentially, White’s comment echoes the traditional rhetoric of Calvinists who state, “we don’t know who the elect are.”

    Next, White gets a little animated by saying that God, as depicted by Arminians, has “failed,” if men should reject and spurn His grace. I wonder if White has ever contemplated his “tradition” with Matthew 22:2, in terms of Jesus’ parable of the king who gave a mass invitation to a wedding feast, but which was rejected by many. For more on this point, see here.

    5) Troy Brooks next raises his concern over the “contradictory,” dual willed, secrecy theories of Calvinism.

    White responds by affirming that God has two wills, but does White acknowledge that according to his theology, these wills, at times, contradict one another? Take for instance, Ezekiel 33:7-11, in which God states that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Now by the Calvinistic “script” theory, in which God’s “creative decree” predetermines whatsoever comes to pass, you would have the apparent contradiction between what God says that He takes no pleasure in, versus what Calvinists insist that God has secretly decreed. This is perhaps what Troy Brooks had intended, by his charge that Calvinism espouses a form of Dualism, in which God’s will is set apart as double and contradictory.

    6) The final issue raised by Troy Brooks is that if, according to Calvinism, that God could save all (unilaterally and monergistically with an Irresistible Grace), then why doesn’t He, or is the God according to Calvinists, less loving than men?

    White answers by stating that God has chosen not to give all men an Irresistible Grace, because “God chose to demonstrate the full range of His attributes.”

    I find it amazing that, according to Calvinists like James White, God needs to send people to Hell (viz. the “immutable script,” the “creative decree”), in order for God to be able to show everyone just how good He is. I wonder if James White has ever contemplated whether God would have gotten more glory by decreeing him to Hell, rather than some other poor “arbitrary soul” viz. Unconditional Reprobation. Perhaps he thinks it’s “the other guy” who makes a better fit for helping God display His attributes. It’s like the old Calvinist saying:

    We are the Lord’s elected few, Let all the rest be damned; There’s room enough in hell for you, We won’t have heaven crammed!” (The Other Side of Calvinism, p.300)

    Posted by Richard Coords at 10:34 AM, January 1, 2009

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,216
    Blog Entries
    18
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James White
    When the time comes in God’s sovereign providence to bring to spiritual life each of those for whom Christ died, the Spirit of God will not only effectively accomplish that work of regeneration but that new creature in Christ will, unfailingly, believe in Jesus Christ (‘all that the Father gives Me will come to Me’). Hence, we are not saved ‘without’ faith, but at the same time, Christ’s atonement is not rendered useless and vain without the addition of libertarian free will.” (Debating Calvinism, p.191)
    For a calvinist salvation comes after faith and faith comes after regeneration, but repentance for a calvinist does not come before regeneration so they don't have to repent to the cross to be regenerated even though the Bible teaches repentance first like John the Baptist taught. I get confused by double negatives or possible double negatives. Christ's atonement is NOT rendered useless WITHOUT libertarian free will...meaning, I suppose, Christ atonement is rendered useless with libertarian free will. "Arminians don't believe in libertarian free will, defined as "belief that human beings possess free will, that free will is incompatible with determinism, and that determinism is false." Arminians believe determinism is true and that free will is compatible with determinism. Determinism is defined as "every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences." This is how God can foreknow our free-choices, because God can see all possible worlds, but only actualizes the world with the free-choices in this world we have; hence, He can foresees all causal influences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Coords
    Calvinism espouses a form of Dualism, in which God’s will is set apart as double and contradictory.

    Honestly, I think that God loathes Calvinism more than most people think. That's my general feeling. I think it’s demeaning towards Christ when Calvinists (who are supposed Christians) tell him that He is a “weak and beggarly miser” (James White’s words in the youtube clip), but worse yet, Calvinism discourages Invitations and Alter Calls. Jesus said, “Come unto Me.” (Matthew 11:28) That’s an invitation. Jesus gave an Alter Call. He wants people to come to Him, and "whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13) But when Calvinists vehemently oppose Invitations on “doctrinal grounds” that it would result in “decisional regeneration,” then they exalted theology above Christ's passion to save souls.

    Worse yet, Paul said that whoever preaches “another gospel” is cursed (Galatians 1:6-9), and how does Paul define that “gospel”? See 1st Corinthians 15:3. The Gospel is telling people that Jesus "died for our sins, according to the Scriptures." That means that the “gospel” includes telling people that Jesus died for them, something that Limited Atonement flatly rejects. Sometimes I find Calvinists cleverly rewording the Gospel to state that Jesus died “for sin” (not necessarily yours, unless you are one of the elect). This is simply not the Gospel. I caught Jeff Noblit doing this at the Building Bridges Conference last year. I have the quote. Jay Adams plainly states that as a "Reformed" Christian, he does not believe in indiscriminately telling people that Jesus died for them, because he doesn't know if they are elect or not. That shows that he doesn't preach the gospel, and in fact, is opposed to it. That's why I believe that Calvinism is a false gospel that is under the curse, spoken of by the apostle Paul. So I think that God hates “Calvinism” more than most people realize. However, God loves the sinner, and although He wants for us to preach the truth, he wants for us to do it in a loving manner, because that's who He is. He is longsuffering and patient.
    Excellent point, that is what dualism is: "a theory that considers reality to consist of two irreducible elements or modes; the quality or state of being dual or of having a dual nature; doctrine that the universe is under the dominion of two opposing principles one of which is good and the other evil."

    Thank you Richard for your conscientious words.

    We are the Lord’s elected few, Let all the rest be damned; There’s room enough in hell for you, We won’t have heaven crammed!” (The Other Side of Calvinism, p.300) Calvinism is truly evil, full of self-exaltation and pride. Little do they realize they are on their way to Hell, helping uncrowd heaven by removing themselves from the book of life.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,216
    Blog Entries
    18
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    James White declined to respond to the problems I have cited in his video response. His video response to my 6 questions posed to him is where he cuts off the line of communication and just appeals to buying his books as the answer. If he spent 20 minutes in a video unable to present any viable challenge to these 6 questions-as evident by my response to his video-then why appeal vaguely and mysteriously he has even thought about a rebuttal. I am sure Dave Hunt met the same brick wall of James White also.

    Mr. White also refuses to call me to discuss this further and has as well cut off all lines of communication except of course promoting his radio station and buying anything he is selling.

  7. #7
    CmRoddy Guest

    Default

    Are you forgetting the fact that Dr. White has told you to call in? I mean, you challenge him and somehow he is expected to call you?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,216
    Blog Entries
    18
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    I told White to call me, or at least respond in writing, since the burden is on him. He refused to either reply or give me a call.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,216
    Blog Entries
    18
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Dave Hunt writes on page 457 of What Love is This?

    "White avoids them [verses pertaining to how OT typology including manna, rock, sacrifices, serpent on a pole for all Israel as Christ's atonement for all mankind] in his book The Potter's Freedom. And in my debate with him in book form, Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views, he refuses to respond to any of these powerful pictures that I pointed out from the Old Testament-even daring to declare that they were 'irrelevant.' And that included the brazen serpent!"

    The 3rd edition of What Love Is This? is 2006, whereas Debating Calvinism is 2004.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,216
    Blog Entries
    18
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Are Calvinists Christians?

    Defending Troy Brooks showing Calvinists are not born-again.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56uSE...eature=related (note Providential1611 in this video is not saved, since he is Wesleyan, that is, he thinks he could lose salvation tomorrow).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. A Quote from James White
    By Parture in forum Totally Depraved
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-01-2011, 07:06 PM
  2. If James White is Saved, You'll Want to Go to Hell
    By Parture in forum Totally Depraved
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-05-2011, 12:22 PM
  3. Is James White Going to Hell?
    By Parture in forum Totally Depraved
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-15-2010, 02:47 PM
  4. James White Misuses Revelation 2.22
    By Churchwork in forum Partial Rapture
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-11-2009, 06:33 PM
  5. James White is a Bad Man Who is Going to Hell
    By Churchwork in forum Totally Depraved
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-31-2009, 01:34 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •