A clear and consistent biblical response to Mr Gregg.

[Guest]

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.

I never said that Bryson and them do not understand Calvinism, I just stated the obvious that these men are not exegetes. They have commitments and such that make them impotent when discussing Calvinism and such.

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?

Is it really your contention that I must understand terms like "supra" and "infra"? I have no problem responding to James White, but time does not permit me to tackle everything he writes. Steve will do a good job of it. Also, I have been listening to James responses and must say that he is bringing nothing new to the table. Same ole stuff. And I also find it funny that James would even bring up Steves use of sarcasm, James uses sarcasm nearly every dividing line. I hope that a discussion between James and Steve will happen soon, it will be edifying.

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?

You again are misunderstanding me, Or either trying to make it appear that I am not even compitent enough to carry on a conversation. I suspect the latter. I have already told you in the above, these men may understandd Calvinism(it is not all that hard really) but they are in no way exegetes who are capable of giving a clear solid response to Calvinisms claims.

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.

I agree with you. I think the sooner, the better. Before feeling gets involved and this whole thing turns into an emotional battle that bears no fruit.

[Quilter2]

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.

You can call them assumptions all you wish. They are part of the bedrock of reformed thought. If you don't understand that you cannot accurately represent that which you critique. The issue has never been whether or not you agree, of course you don't. We already knew that.

God Bless,

Rich

[Guest]

Hi All,

I have been very busy, and will continue to be for another two weeks. I just returned from teaching a weekend in Oregon, after which I found time to listen to Brother James' critique of some of my comments. I will probably respond in writing to his remarks, but it will not be immediately, as I have to prepare this week for fifteen hours of teaching out-of-town next week (then, next week, I will be occupied with teaching what I have prepared). I would like to respond to James' critique point-by-point, as I did to Norm Geisler, but this takes more time than I have on hand right now.

For those wondering whether I will take up James' suggestion that we interact for a week (I would say, "...or longer") on my program, to be simulcast on his, I think this would be profitable and could be edifying to many people. James and I have different philosophies with reference to how to critique an opponent, so we will have to lay down some ground rules that will allow both of us to adequately state our cases and to educate our listeners in a manner that does not defile the hearers.

I expect to be educated in the process as well. As James has surmised, I am not at all the master of the original languages that he is, and I will count it a privilege to have a professor of Greek and Hebrew like him to educate me in areas where the Greek or Hebrew may shed more light on a passage than I have been able to gather from the resources at my disposal. I do not imagine that an understanding of most of the passages relevant to Calvinism rests upon specialized knowledge of Greek grammar and vocabulary (beyond what can be observed in a good translation with reference books in hand), though some of them may, and I will count myself privileged to be shown such things by a true master of the languages.

I was somewhat embarrassed to have my ignorance of the "lapsarian" controversy exposed--not because I feel any obligation to understand such arcane and impractical matters, but because I had made a few comments trying to explain what the controversy was, and I clearly did not know the material well enough. In the area of knowing the proper names for various theological controversies, James has it over me, probably, by a factor of at least "10." One reason for this fact is that what time I have had available for study, over the years, has been devoted to other matters that I find more germaine to my task as an educator of disciples of Jesus.

Anyway, I wanted to let everyone know that I had not disappeared. I will revisit this matter in due time. Right now more pressing obligations dominate my schedule..

[Quilter2]

I never said that Bryson and them do not understand Calvinism, I just stated the obvious that these men are not exegetes. They have commitments and such that make them impotent when discussing Calvinism and such.

Very well. I stand corrected.

Is it really your contention that I must understand terms like "supra" and "infra"?

No but if Mr. Gregg is going to comment on the matter intelligently, do you not think that he should? Isn't this how an "exegete" does things? Should he not have known that these discussions are not referring to time but rather decrees?

I have no problem responding to James White, but time does not permit me to tackle everything he writes. Steve will do a good job of it.

I believe that remains to be seen given the things that Dr. White has already pointed out. Let's hope that Mr. Gregg has already sharpened his understanding of these examples.

Also, I have been listening to James responses and must say that he is bringing nothing new to the table. Same ole stuff.

You expected otherwise? The gospel hasn't changed for 2000 years. What new were you looking for?

And I also find it funny that James would even bring up Steves use of sarcasm, James uses sarcasm nearly every dividing line.

Brody, this is just another example of what I am objecting to in the dialogue. This was said within a context but you remove the context and make up some sort of objection that wasn't there. Why is this necessary?

You again are misunderstanding me, Or either trying to make it appear that I am not even compitent enough to carry on a conversation. I suspect the latter. I have already told you in the above, these men may understandd Calvinism(it is not all that hard really) but they are in no way exegetes who are capable of giving a clear solid response to Calvinisms claims.

I in no way directed my comments to you in such a way sir. I merely asked that you elevate your dialogue. Further, since this is my first opportunity to reply to this matter I could not have already had the clarification that you made above in this very note. I stand corrected on the matter just as I am above in this same note.

I agree with you. I think the sooner, the better. Before feeling gets involved and this whole thing turns into an emotional battle that bears no fruit.

Well there is no need for this to become emotional. That can start here by staying focused on the issues and avoiding straw man arguments. Such only serves to frustrate others.

[Quilter2]

I would like to respond to James' critique point-by-point, as I did to Norm Geisler, but this takes more time than I have on hand right now.

Mr. Gregg,
One who takes these matters seriously can only respect such an approach. There should never be a need to rush ahead until one knows that he is ready. May the Lord grant you illumination as you prepare.

God Bless,

Rich

P.S. I will be more than happy to provide you with HQ recordings of any of our MP3's when your time permits. Please let me know which ones you would like and I will setup a page for you.

[Guest]

Hello all,

Below I have provided links to Tim Warner's refutation of James' treatment of John 6. After the first two, James responded in length in his blog, but has not responded to the last (part 3). I'm afraid that this is a debate over HOW to approach the Scriptures. Reformed theologians, IMO, do not do a very good job of placing the Scripture in its proper historical context. Enjoy the read:


http://www.pfrs.org/calvinism/calvin10a.html

http://www.pfrs.org/calvinism/calvin10b.html

http://www.pfrs.org/calvinism/calvin10c.html


Brian

[Quilter2]

In the interest of being fair and balanced I provide the links to Dr. White's replies:

http://www.aomin.org/PFRSJohn6.html

http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1452

http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1456

http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1460

http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1471

http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1475

God Bless,

Rich

[Guest]

i love you steve! eventho' you're not a calvinist like me, but i really really love your approach and honesty, so however this thing lays out, i still love ya man!

in Him,
Devin

[Guest]

eventho' you're not a calvinist like me

As a Calvinist, were you not even the "slightest" bit offended with some of Steve's comments about Calvinism that Dr White played on the D/Line?
Just curious.

Mark

[Guest]

eventho' you're not a calvinist like me

As a Calvinist, were you not even the "slightest" bit offended with some of Steve's comments about Calvinism that Dr White played on the D/Line?
Just curious.

Mark

I know that the comments made by Calvinist's about non-Calvinisim don't "offend" me. Becasue I do not define my relationship with God, (or other believers for that matter), by my soteriology, but rather by being a follower of Jesus.

To get offended over this, is to simply say, "I am offended that you disagree with me". Rather childish, don't you think?

That's not to say it's not important. It is. But not important enough to divide Christ's body.

Just my (unsolicited) 2 cents.

God bless,