featheredprop, you may find this post interesting -- it was a bit personal of a posting (and a fresh wound at the time) but it sort of relates to your issue and also to perseverance in the context of a funeral for a believer's suicide and how to handle that at the service ...
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=1868
Questions for the discussion with Dr. White
-
_darin-houston
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
- Location: Houston, TX
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_darin-houston
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
- Location: Houston, TX
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I really enjoyed the show today with Dr. White. My suggestion is not for a question, but rather has to do with the format. As interesting as the show was, I would think that it might be even more helpful if it could be in the form of a direct, back-and-forth discussion where you could directly ask each other questions and recieve responses. There were lots of interesting points you made that I would have enjoyed seeing Dr. White respond to (e.g., the point that made a lot of sense to me about the issue having nothing to do with what God could choose to do if He wants, but rather with what He has, in fact, chosen to do in terms of allowing some degree of free agency among His creatures), and conversely there are points Dr. White made that I would have enjoyed seeing you respond to (e.g., some of the discussion of Romans). With long back-and-forth segments, I worry that many of these sorts of points will never be directly addressed, and if they are, there can't be any sort of mutual discussion to hopefully progress toward agreement or at least clarify the issues for the listeners.
Thanks very much for the excellent show, and I'm looking forward to the remaining days.
Regards,
CThomas
Thanks very much for the excellent show, and I'm looking forward to the remaining days.
Regards,
CThomas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
James never answered whether or not God put it the hearts in Joseph's family to do what they did. Would not God's competancy and wisdom be exalted if he did not ordain their acts but instead incorporated them into his general plan to get Joseph into Egypt? If so, then I submit that He would be more glorified in that He is able to mean the evil they did for good without ordaining it by an eternal decree in the sense that the choices followed a script for their life. This would demonstrate God's wisdom, omincompetancy, and omniresourcefulness. It then would make sense that He is the Only Wise God.
He also never answered whether or not God is/was free to create a world where creatures have libertarian freedom.
I think he needs to be put on the spot and answer these questions.
He also never answered whether or not God is/was free to create a world where creatures have libertarian freedom.
I think he needs to be put on the spot and answer these questions.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_darin-houston
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
- Location: Houston, TX
This may be the most important question -- if you don't start with the premise, the rest is likely to be just talking past each other.He also never answered whether or not God is/was free to create a world where creatures have libertarian freedom.
I think he needs to be put on the spot and answer these questions.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_brody_in_ga
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:55 pm
- Location: Richland Ga
Yep.darin-houston wrote:This may be the most important question -- if you don't start with the premise, the rest is likely to be just talking past each other.He also never answered whether or not God is/was free to create a world where creatures have libertarian freedom.
I think he needs to be put on the spot and answer these questions.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
For our God is a consuming fire.
Hebrews 12:29
Hebrews 12:29
Comment & Questions (for both Steve and James to consider).
comment
Due to the theological rift between Reformed/Calvinists and non-Calvinist/Arminians the "borderline of orthodoxy" has been called into question. Though both camps agree on the [very rudimentary] essentials of the Christian faith; they part ways not very long after that....
questions
Would it be good for these two camps come together to make some kind of Joint Resolution as in: some type of formal severance? (along the lines of something similar to the division between to Roman Catholic/Protestant)?
I feel this could be beneficial for all concerned; especially since division already exists and will probably continue on for some time. Even for new believers, it would be helpful for them to know from the very start of their faith that these two camps exist, imo (as in, know what they are getting into).
Either a Joint Agreement on what is agreed upon with the rest left to the category of non-essentials (to quell the constant mean-spirited debates and to honestly and formally acknowledge the differences).
Or a formal severance, though agreement on [bare minimum] essentials remains (as with Catholics/Protestants). This kind of thing could actually help the dialog, imo.
Or what about both? (a Joint Resolution/Statement on agreements and disagreements, as well as a "new reformation of Protestantism")?
I don't know if these kinds of things will be considered in the debate. I just feel it might possibly help (all concerned, especially, new believers who could become disenchanted with their faith due to the mean-spirited debating). Thanks.
comment
Due to the theological rift between Reformed/Calvinists and non-Calvinist/Arminians the "borderline of orthodoxy" has been called into question. Though both camps agree on the [very rudimentary] essentials of the Christian faith; they part ways not very long after that....
questions
Would it be good for these two camps come together to make some kind of Joint Resolution as in: some type of formal severance? (along the lines of something similar to the division between to Roman Catholic/Protestant)?
I feel this could be beneficial for all concerned; especially since division already exists and will probably continue on for some time. Even for new believers, it would be helpful for them to know from the very start of their faith that these two camps exist, imo (as in, know what they are getting into).
Either a Joint Agreement on what is agreed upon with the rest left to the category of non-essentials (to quell the constant mean-spirited debates and to honestly and formally acknowledge the differences).
Or a formal severance, though agreement on [bare minimum] essentials remains (as with Catholics/Protestants). This kind of thing could actually help the dialog, imo.
Or what about both? (a Joint Resolution/Statement on agreements and disagreements, as well as a "new reformation of Protestantism")?
I don't know if these kinds of things will be considered in the debate. I just feel it might possibly help (all concerned, especially, new believers who could become disenchanted with their faith due to the mean-spirited debating). Thanks.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
I've just listened to "day two" and I'd like to share my thoughts.
First, I am amazed that James wants to nullify Steve's explanation of John 6 because of what he (James) deems as bad hermuneutics. At this point, I would love to have firsthand knowledge from standard hemuneutic books used in seminaries, (or at least ones that are undisputedly authoritative). Since I don't have this at the present time, I can't say much about the appropriate methodology for interpreting Scripture. However, I am inclined to think that understanding the context is necessary to fully arrive at the intended message of the particular author of the said text at hand. What's more, understanding the context and/or backround of the people mentioned in a particular text at hand brings clarity to any ambiguity that may exist. Without this, the chances of arriving at an understanding other than the one the author had in mind can potentially sky-rocket.
Knowing this, Steve successfully points out the background and context of the audience mentioned in John six. Well done Steve! I believe James' response to this as a "bad hermuneutic" is simply a smoke screen to hide his inability to disprove Steve's explanation here. I have recently came across an excellent four-part essay of the election passages found in the book of John by a guy named Bob Hamilton. It is called The Order of Faith and Election in John's Gospel: You Do Not Believe Because You Are Not My Sheep.
Concering the issues of the passages appealed to by Calvinists to support their view of election (John 6:37, John 6:44-45, John 6:65, John 8:43-44, 47, John 10:26-29, John 17:1-2, 6, 9, 24), Hamilton writes:
In this essay I will offer a more direct and (I hope) satisfying analysis of the sufficient conditions on coming to faith that are presented by Jesus in the Gospel of John. This analysis will yield conclusions that are fully supportive of an Arminian understanding of the divine-human interaction in salvation, while at the same time recognizing the logical relations entailed in Jesus' statement of the various sufficient conditions for faith (e.g., that "belonging" to God is logically prior to the exercise of faith in Christ, not vice versa). It is my belief that previous analyses--both Calvinist and Arminian--of Jesus' statements in the Gospel of John have failed to give adequate attention to the Jewish context in which these statements were uttered, and, consequently, have mistakenly forced Jesus' words to fit later, inappropriate theological categories.
The crux of my argument will be that the set of individuals who are said by Jesus to "belong" to God as Christ's "sheep," to "listen to the Father and learn from him," and to be "given" by the Father to the Son, refers not to a pretemporally determined set of elect persons as conceived of in the Calvinist Reformed view, but instead primarily to the faithful sons of Abraham who were God's children under the covenant as it was revealed in the Old Testament, and who were already prepared by their voluntary faith and repentance to embrace the promised Messiah at the time of his long-awaited appearance to the nation of Israel. These included the ones whom God had nurtured to repentance under the ministry of John the Baptist, who was appointed to "prepare the way for the Lord" (Isaiah 40:3; Matthew 3:3). In a secondary sense, the set of those who "belong" to the Father also includes God-fearing Gentiles (e.g., Cornelius, Acts 10:2), those who have been receptive to God's prevenient grace leading them to repentance and whom the Father now leads to faith in the Son (John 10:16; 11:52).
The article is a must read when seeking to know the views available other than the Calvinist one in relation to these passages, and, happens to be a further developed explanation of Steve's comments on the passage.
First, I am amazed that James wants to nullify Steve's explanation of John 6 because of what he (James) deems as bad hermuneutics. At this point, I would love to have firsthand knowledge from standard hemuneutic books used in seminaries, (or at least ones that are undisputedly authoritative). Since I don't have this at the present time, I can't say much about the appropriate methodology for interpreting Scripture. However, I am inclined to think that understanding the context is necessary to fully arrive at the intended message of the particular author of the said text at hand. What's more, understanding the context and/or backround of the people mentioned in a particular text at hand brings clarity to any ambiguity that may exist. Without this, the chances of arriving at an understanding other than the one the author had in mind can potentially sky-rocket.
Knowing this, Steve successfully points out the background and context of the audience mentioned in John six. Well done Steve! I believe James' response to this as a "bad hermuneutic" is simply a smoke screen to hide his inability to disprove Steve's explanation here. I have recently came across an excellent four-part essay of the election passages found in the book of John by a guy named Bob Hamilton. It is called The Order of Faith and Election in John's Gospel: You Do Not Believe Because You Are Not My Sheep.
Concering the issues of the passages appealed to by Calvinists to support their view of election (John 6:37, John 6:44-45, John 6:65, John 8:43-44, 47, John 10:26-29, John 17:1-2, 6, 9, 24), Hamilton writes:
In this essay I will offer a more direct and (I hope) satisfying analysis of the sufficient conditions on coming to faith that are presented by Jesus in the Gospel of John. This analysis will yield conclusions that are fully supportive of an Arminian understanding of the divine-human interaction in salvation, while at the same time recognizing the logical relations entailed in Jesus' statement of the various sufficient conditions for faith (e.g., that "belonging" to God is logically prior to the exercise of faith in Christ, not vice versa). It is my belief that previous analyses--both Calvinist and Arminian--of Jesus' statements in the Gospel of John have failed to give adequate attention to the Jewish context in which these statements were uttered, and, consequently, have mistakenly forced Jesus' words to fit later, inappropriate theological categories.
The crux of my argument will be that the set of individuals who are said by Jesus to "belong" to God as Christ's "sheep," to "listen to the Father and learn from him," and to be "given" by the Father to the Son, refers not to a pretemporally determined set of elect persons as conceived of in the Calvinist Reformed view, but instead primarily to the faithful sons of Abraham who were God's children under the covenant as it was revealed in the Old Testament, and who were already prepared by their voluntary faith and repentance to embrace the promised Messiah at the time of his long-awaited appearance to the nation of Israel. These included the ones whom God had nurtured to repentance under the ministry of John the Baptist, who was appointed to "prepare the way for the Lord" (Isaiah 40:3; Matthew 3:3). In a secondary sense, the set of those who "belong" to the Father also includes God-fearing Gentiles (e.g., Cornelius, Acts 10:2), those who have been receptive to God's prevenient grace leading them to repentance and whom the Father now leads to faith in the Son (John 10:16; 11:52).
The article is a must read when seeking to know the views available other than the Calvinist one in relation to these passages, and, happens to be a further developed explanation of Steve's comments on the passage.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I am posting this here because I think the area I posted it in earlier was not a good spot to post as a post show comment.
Hello,
I am compelled to respond to something James White said during today's program (4/4).
He opened the show stating he used a "consistant Hermeneutic". I am sorry, but when he said that my eyes just rolled to the back of my head!
James does not use consistency while interpreting the bible. After observation of some of what he teaches, this becomes evident in the classic "unlimited atonement" passages such as 1Tim 2:3-6, Heb 2:9, John 3:16, Rom 5:18-19, etc.
Here is the crux of what I mean. In the passages that say "all have sinned" (which I believe) and passages that say "the world is guilty" James is quick to jump on the "all have" wagon. Yet in the classic "unlimited atonement" passages as some listed above, suddenly "all men" mysteriously and magically turns into "some men", and the "world"(John 3:16) suddenly doesn't mean the world when he want's to jump on the "limited atonement" wagon! And this is a consistent hermeneutic?? In other words, passages that proclaim all mens guilt, James is quick to jump on, yet passages that clearly say God wants all to be saved-well suddenly all does not mean all, and world does not mean world- and this is consistency? NO, it is selective consistency.
James also said on today's program "he does not like to go to other texts" that are not part of the texts subject. Well, this is inconsistent once again on his part. Just listen to him or another Calvinist explain away passages that clearly say God wills all to be saved. They have to drag other texts into texts to support their view rather than just let the text speak for itself.
In Christ, Greg
Hello,
I am compelled to respond to something James White said during today's program (4/4).
He opened the show stating he used a "consistant Hermeneutic". I am sorry, but when he said that my eyes just rolled to the back of my head!
James does not use consistency while interpreting the bible. After observation of some of what he teaches, this becomes evident in the classic "unlimited atonement" passages such as 1Tim 2:3-6, Heb 2:9, John 3:16, Rom 5:18-19, etc.
Here is the crux of what I mean. In the passages that say "all have sinned" (which I believe) and passages that say "the world is guilty" James is quick to jump on the "all have" wagon. Yet in the classic "unlimited atonement" passages as some listed above, suddenly "all men" mysteriously and magically turns into "some men", and the "world"(John 3:16) suddenly doesn't mean the world when he want's to jump on the "limited atonement" wagon! And this is a consistent hermeneutic?? In other words, passages that proclaim all mens guilt, James is quick to jump on, yet passages that clearly say God wants all to be saved-well suddenly all does not mean all, and world does not mean world- and this is consistency? NO, it is selective consistency.
James also said on today's program "he does not like to go to other texts" that are not part of the texts subject. Well, this is inconsistent once again on his part. Just listen to him or another Calvinist explain away passages that clearly say God wills all to be saved. They have to drag other texts into texts to support their view rather than just let the text speak for itself.
In Christ, Greg
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: