A clear and consistent biblical response to Mr Gregg.

Post by **_tartanarmy** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:52 pm

Greetings all.
I am pleased to announce that a clear response has been and is being provided to Mr Steve Gregg, by Dr James White, from Alpha and Omega ministries, concerning his views upon Calvinism.

I was personally hoping for this exchange for some time, not because Steve has anything "new" to add to the discussion, but that he "may" be willing to openly and publicly stand by his convictions.
Actually getting open discussion/interaction upon the subject of Arminianism/Calvinism is very difficult to arrange.

Dave Hunt will not do it.
Geisler will not do it.
The Caner's will not do it.

Will Steve Gregg step up to the task?
Time will tell, but I hope he and Dr White can come to an agreement and openly debate this most important subject. A DVD presentation for the Church would be an excellent tool, much needed.

http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1943
http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1945
http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1947

I hope this may lead to a series of Public and moderated debates for all the Church to consider.

Regards
Mark

Post by **_brody_in_ga** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:45 pm

I believe they are trying to set up something as we speak. I listened to James' response, and as you can guess....I found it to be quite lacking. James obviously feels that if he can just say that someone doesn't understand the issues, than that makes it concrete. He also has yet to exegete anything. Just statements along these lines "Steve has never read my books, or anything by John Piper" or "Steve doesn't understand the issues" ETC...

James needs to deal with the text of scripture, rather than push his version of reality on his listeners.

Post by **_brody_in_ga** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:49 pm

Clear and consistent?

So when James talks about secondary and primary actions on God's part in the obvious problem that Calvinist face when dealing with evil in mens hearts, and who put it there. Is this something you consider "clear and consistent"? [/b]

Post by **_Rick_C** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:38 pm

I listened to James White's broadcasts and have heard all of Steve Gregg's presentations. I've also heard many online debates such as in Paltalk Messenger (they go on 24/7 almost), lol Among other things, I've found out there are many varieties of Calvinists (that I didnt know about, with some of them calling others "Arminians"). Anyways ....

I also just deleted most of what I earlier posted and started a new thread:
see "Calvinst & Arminian Thought Unbiblical?" (the topic is diff) ....

As far as a potential Gregg V. White debate goes, I like listening to debates, if for nothing else ... to learn stuff people believe & "How did they come up with that?"

Post by **__id_1437** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:36 pm

Dr. White has completed his review of Mr. Gregg's recordings on the subject of Calvinism and added it to his blog.

In addtion to the previous links provided by Tartanarmy above, the 4th part can be found here: http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1949

God Bless,

Rich

Post by **_Mark in South Dakota** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:43 pm

In Dr. White's blog he had the following sentence at the end of a recent post:

Failure to appreciate the deadness of man in sin (along with the difference between God's prescriptive will and His eternal decree) cripples Gregg's criticisms of Reformed theology.

Is Dr. White suggesting that unless you agree with Reformed theology you are unable to critique it?

I have not had a chance yet to listen to Dr. White's programs. In his blog he brought up Steve's interpretation of Romans ch. 9. How has Dr. White gone about responding? Has his response been along the lines of saying that Steve can't be correct since Calvinism is true? Or, has Dr. White tried to demonstrate from the text of Romans chapter 9 that Steve has an incorrect interpretation?

Post by **__id_1437** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:56 pm

Mark in South Dakota wrote:In Dr. White's blog he had the following sentence at the end of a recent post:

Failure to appreciate the deadness of man in sin (along with the difference between God's prescriptive will and His eternal decree) cripples Gregg's criticisms of Reformed theology.

Is Dr. White suggesting that unless you agree with Reformed theology you are unable to critique it?

No, it says what it says. "Failure to appreciate...along with the difference." How can one critque something unless he first understands the thing and then demonstrates that understanding in reply?

Mark in South Dakota wrote:I have not had a chance yet to listen to Dr. White's programs. In his blog he brought up Steve's interpretation of Romans ch. 9. How has Dr. White gone about responding? Has his response been along the lines of saying that Steve can't be correct since Calvinism is true? Or, has Dr. White tried to demonstrate from the text of Romans chapter 9 that Steve has an incorrect interpretation?

Perhaps a listen to the program might be more edifying? Then you can reply to what is actually being said instead of offering replies to your own guesses?

God Bless,

Rich

Post by **_brody_in_ga** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:08 pm

Hi Rich,

Does anyone besides James and reformed folks understand Calvinism? One gets the impression by listening to the dividing line that James feels that he and reformed Christians are the only ones that understand the "doctrines of grace".

Am I missing something?

Post by **__id_1437** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:38 pm

brody_in_ga wrote:Hi Rich,

Does anyone besides James and reformed folks understand Calvinism? One gets the impression by listening to the dividing line that James feels that he and reformed Christians are the only ones that understand the "doctrines of grace".

Am I missing something?

Greetings Brody,
I have met a number who do. I remind you that you called me and complained about the lack of knowledge that Bryson and others have regarding the subject. Is it your contention that only Steve Gregg knows this subject? I doubt it.

Dr. White has provided a great deal for you to interact with. He has not simply made claims without providing examples to back the claims up. Why do you not interact with those examples? Why broad brush with straw man responses like you have here? For instance, Dr. White played Mr. Gregg's comments on what Mr. Gregg called the superlapsarian, (its supra vs infra), controversy and then demonstrated that Mr. Gregg misunderstood what the matter is about. Why not interact with that? Why not interact with Dr. White's correction of Mr. Gregg's use of greek in the last section of the review?

Brody, you called me complaining about Bryson not being a serious contender and your reply is:

Does anyone besides James and reformed folks understand Calvinism?

C'mon Brody you have to do alot better than that to even get to Bryson's level. You have set the bar and we have responded but you need to keep the convo on that level, do you not?

On another matter, it is indeed my hope that a series of discussions will take place just as we discussed on the phone.

To those who think that Dr. White's responses are improper without Steve being there to rebut them, I only point out that the dialogue will only benefit by his so doing. When the discussions take place Steve will have the benefit of knowing, ahead of time, what Dr. White's positions and responses will be. He has done this prior to every debate that I can remember hoping that his opponent will give a careful hearing and be ready with meaningful replies of his own.

God Bless,

Rich

Post by **_Sean** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:59 pm

AOMin1 wrote: No, it says what it says. "Failure to appreciate...along with the difference." How can one critque something unless he first understands the thing and then demonstrates that understanding in reply?

It seems (at least to me) to say:

Failure to appreciate the deadness of man in sin (along with the difference between God's prescriptive will and His eternal decree) cripples Gregg's criticisms of Reformed theology.

So what cripples Steve's ablility to criticize Reformed theology is his failure to appreciate:

1. The deadness of man in sin
2. The prescriptive will and eternal decree's of God.

Unfortunately both of these examples are assumptions made in Reformed theology. If one has examined both points above and found them unbiblical, then why does this position make one unable to criticize Reformed theology?

To assume someone doesn't understand something because they disagree with you about it is the issue. That's what the debate is about. Reformed theology must prove it's foundational assumptions first, and then work up from there. Mr. White has in no way proven total inability or two wills in God. So, until that is done he cannot criticize Steve Gregg. What Mr. White has done is made a straw man argument by assuming something to be true, when that very "something" is what is at the heart of the debate and yet to be decided.

The Narrow Path Ministries