Goodness, such insinuations of unscholarliness. And on the grounds that responding to Steve's material aimed at Calvinism is an insufficient way to defend Calvinism against Steve's arguments!
Oh, and FYI, Dr White has never called anyone heretical for not being a Calvinist. (I just verified with him on his chat channel.) Nor, as far as I know, has anyone in this forum.
At any rate, tonight's show is now online: 7-26-07
I got a reference at the beginning, though not by name. So did Rick and SoaringEagle, actually.
Anyway, this show goes back and includes the half hour of material from the 9th lecture. He starts out quoting John Piper's The Justification of God, where Piper responds to Steve's "Who are YOU" suggestion. Then he plays the half hour of Steve's material, pausing it to respond as he goes. He takes a couple calls, one asking about Jeremiah 18 and Luke 7:30, and the other questioning the coherence of Steve's understanding of the two sentences in Romans 9:20.
Link to J. White critique of Steve on Romans 9
-
_tartanarmy
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
Seriously folks.
James has played whole sections of Steve's stuff on Romans 9, without pause, and then provided a response to him.
And yet, some would have the nerve to attack James as being less than a scholar etc!
What is wrong with you?
I would fall off my chair if whole sections of Dr Whites exegesis was played, uninterrupted on any Non Calvinist program, I really would!
And for the record, I have never accused anyone of being a heretic because they are not a Calvinist!
Also, those who think that Open Theism is merely just some idea about how God interacts in "time" etc, are severely misinformed.
If that is what it is all about, then sure, no big deal, and I look harsh , mean, unloving etc!, but that is not the whole story, and I truly have to wonder if those saying such things have ever really interacted with the Open Theist material that is out there.
Mark
James has played whole sections of Steve's stuff on Romans 9, without pause, and then provided a response to him.
And yet, some would have the nerve to attack James as being less than a scholar etc!
What is wrong with you?
I would fall off my chair if whole sections of Dr Whites exegesis was played, uninterrupted on any Non Calvinist program, I really would!
And for the record, I have never accused anyone of being a heretic because they are not a Calvinist!
Also, those who think that Open Theism is merely just some idea about how God interacts in "time" etc, are severely misinformed.
If that is what it is all about, then sure, no big deal, and I look harsh , mean, unloving etc!, but that is not the whole story, and I truly have to wonder if those saying such things have ever really interacted with the Open Theist material that is out there.
Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Or, could it be possible that not all open-theists are identical in doctrine? 
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I agree with the second part (se7en)
Heresy!It's not the stuff James responded to that is the issue, it's that James railed against Steve for failing to exegete every verse of Romans 9. If James wanted to hear Steve's teaching on Romans 9, all he has to do is download and listen to it (as Rick already said). If James doesn't want to do that, then he's got nothing to complain about.tartanarmy wrote:Seriously folks.
James has played whole sections of Steve's stuff on Romans 9, without pause, and then provided a response to him.
And yet, some would have the nerve to attack James as being less than a scholar etc!
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of Godtartanarmy wrote: What is wrong with you?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
-
_tartanarmy
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Amen.
Btw, How many kinds of Open Theists are there?
Mark
Amen.
Btw, How many kinds of Open Theists are there?
Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_PAULESPINO
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm
Mark wrote:
Definition: noun
1. a learned person someone who by long study has gained mastery in one or more disciplines
I believe base on the definition of scholar that anyone can become a scholar such as Steve Greg because has master the Bible therefore James White is also a scholar in his own way.
Mark what is the message you are trying to say about Romans 3:23?
Word : ScholarAnd yet, some would have the nerve to attack James as being less than a scholar etc!
What is wrong with you?
Definition: noun
1. a learned person someone who by long study has gained mastery in one or more disciplines
I believe base on the definition of scholar that anyone can become a scholar such as Steve Greg because has master the Bible therefore James White is also a scholar in his own way.
Mark what is the message you are trying to say about Romans 3:23?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Only one of them practices what they, as scholars, have learned about what "gentleness and respect" means when in apologetic discussion though. White doesn't seem to know how to make a point without inferring that you are a total idiot to believe otherwise and seems to take much glee in butchering an opponent. Funny though, since I see defensive armor in the armor of God.PAULESPINO wrote:I believe base on the definition of scholar that anyone can become a scholar such as Steve Greg because has master the Bible therefore James White is also a scholar in his own way.
D.
Last edited by _Rick_C on Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_PAULESPINO
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm
I agree with you DJ that is why I also said that James is a scholar
in his own way.
in his own way.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_tartanarmy
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
I see, only if you meet some kind of "subjective" criteria, based upon some "subjective" opinion about what it is to be "gentle" and "meek" etc, are you then "in some kind of way" a Scholar!
Incredible.
Anyway, I have listened to all of Steve's lectures upon Romans 9, and have listened to James responses to them, and it is quite obvious to me from an "objective" perspective, that Steve's views have little to do with exegesis of the text.
I mean, this whole thing about "Nations" cannot hold up to the text, from Rom 8 all the way through Ch 9.
It amazes me the lengths in which he goes to present his case, or rather re-present the views of others (Forster/Marsten) in that the inconsistency cannot be harmonized at all with an exegetical reading of Romans 9.
John Piper has documented this in his work which I believe was his dissertation, a work I highly recommend others to read.
If you transfer this understanding of "Nations" and try and apply it all the way through Romans 9, it makes zero sense whatsoever. Try it for yourselves, going line by line all the way through, and see if it can be done with the intent of the author Paul!
I noticed that Steve goes out of his way to teach that Rom 9 has nothing whatsoever to do with "Individuals" and salvation, but rather Nations and how God is using them for "blessing" etc, and I cannot believe he is really being serious!
I mean, if he were defending some other idea like the "Trinity" or some such thing, he would never treat the text in such a fashion as he does with Rom 9, never.
Also, I have to wonder if Steve has a doctrine on "regeneration" that you can pin down.
Apparently, there are just believers who happen to get blessed by God. There just happens to be some people disposed to receive blessing, and if you listen toSteve's teaching about who gets blessings, there is no doctrine of regeneration. There is no doctrine of people being unbelievers and getting converted!
There is no "while we were yet sinners Christ died for the ungodly" being saved!
I have listened to Steve over and over on this idea, and I do not hear him teach this at all.
He reads John 6 and John 17 as if the application is only to the Disciples at that time, and expressly states that these were the ones coming into the faith, who were Chosen as part of this "remnant" he calls the elect within Israel, yet those passages whilst relevant to what the Bible teaches about the elect, are not merely relevant to those believers at that time, but in fact inclusive of all the elect (remnant) from every age and time, even to the very end.
He is very selective and artificial with some of his distinctions, that I find strenuous to consistently read with what the texts themselves plainly say.
It is obvious that he is bringing in so much baggage and a system to his interpretations.
He is simply not consistent.
Some of his statements as James White points out are straight up "Open Theist" ideas, and I wonder if Steve is aware of this.
I said two years ago that Mr Gregg was heading in that direction, and it certainly appears from my participation here at this board and what I have been saying about Open Theism that I am correct.
The bottom line is that Mr Gregg has a very skewed doctrine of God, and that fellow believers is a major concern.
I am listening to him and have major problems with how he understands the God presented in the Bible. His Doctrine of God.
Sometimes he says that if God wants to do whatever He wants, then that is fine, who am I to tell God what to do etc, but then he presents a false misrepresentation of Calvinistic thought in order to preach his understanding of God. He does that over and over in his lectures on Rom 9.
Somewhere in his view, he believes that Calvinism teaches that God makes people sinners and therefore free will is not there, and that God sets up things with no view to things already established, like the nature of man, human depravity, God's purposes etc etc.
It is a mish-mash theology that he presents when one tries to pin down precisely what his doctrine of God actually is.
Another thing I can't quite understand logically, is that Arminians like Steve can present all this Unconditional election of God with regards to Nations etc, and then he presents all of this as to "blessings" and not to salvation, and you are simply left wondering how any of this fits in with a line by line exegesis of Romans 9, when clearly "individuals" are in view, and are in fact, the very reason objections come which Paul has to deal with, which he himself anticipates.
I could not believe that Steve actually thinks that the response to God's will always being done and not ever resisted, was the affirmation or proof that Paul was responding to in his objector, meaning that the objection itself proves that there are those who resist God!
That was amazing interpretation, and one wonders what such an interpretation means when fully fleshed out. Think about it.
How can Steve deal with all the "singular" and "individual" references in Rom 9 that Paul uses in his presentation?
Does he think the "Nations" idea just simply answers all of that?
Surely not?
Now, James White has answered all of this, and has done so very carefully, and I look forward to Steve having to deal with that.
Please cease from trying to malign his motives etc and trying to paint Dr White as some kind of semi-scholar who is rude, crude and nasty.
Such is simply not true, and such lends no credibility nor help to this important debate.
We can disagree, but let us disagree with the arguments and cease from maligning the persons.
I actually respect Mr Gregg, even though I do not agree with hardly anything he teaches on this subject and for whatever reason, he decided to not allow me to post links in a thread here about Open Theism that was pointing to those who reject it as heresy, when I was asked to back up my charges against Open Theism. Perhaps he wants to avoid the implications of what others are currently saying about Open Theism as that would cause others to examine what he himself is teaching, I do not know for sure.
And that is not Ad Hom, as I am simply connecting why he would delete my post in a thread asking me for proof of my charges, and when I attempted to do so, I was deleted and since then have been unwelcome here by him.
But I will just finish this post with a scripture that just keeps coming to my mind.
In trying to defend a system that essentially is saying, that Unconditional election has to do more with "blessings" etc, the WORD OF GOD teaches that individuals (who I suppose are in Nations) are certainly elected by God to salvation, FOR
2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brothers beloved of the Lord, because God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth,
And with Paul I say,
2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
Incredible.
Anyway, I have listened to all of Steve's lectures upon Romans 9, and have listened to James responses to them, and it is quite obvious to me from an "objective" perspective, that Steve's views have little to do with exegesis of the text.
I mean, this whole thing about "Nations" cannot hold up to the text, from Rom 8 all the way through Ch 9.
It amazes me the lengths in which he goes to present his case, or rather re-present the views of others (Forster/Marsten) in that the inconsistency cannot be harmonized at all with an exegetical reading of Romans 9.
John Piper has documented this in his work which I believe was his dissertation, a work I highly recommend others to read.
If you transfer this understanding of "Nations" and try and apply it all the way through Romans 9, it makes zero sense whatsoever. Try it for yourselves, going line by line all the way through, and see if it can be done with the intent of the author Paul!
I noticed that Steve goes out of his way to teach that Rom 9 has nothing whatsoever to do with "Individuals" and salvation, but rather Nations and how God is using them for "blessing" etc, and I cannot believe he is really being serious!
I mean, if he were defending some other idea like the "Trinity" or some such thing, he would never treat the text in such a fashion as he does with Rom 9, never.
Also, I have to wonder if Steve has a doctrine on "regeneration" that you can pin down.
Apparently, there are just believers who happen to get blessed by God. There just happens to be some people disposed to receive blessing, and if you listen toSteve's teaching about who gets blessings, there is no doctrine of regeneration. There is no doctrine of people being unbelievers and getting converted!
There is no "while we were yet sinners Christ died for the ungodly" being saved!
I have listened to Steve over and over on this idea, and I do not hear him teach this at all.
He reads John 6 and John 17 as if the application is only to the Disciples at that time, and expressly states that these were the ones coming into the faith, who were Chosen as part of this "remnant" he calls the elect within Israel, yet those passages whilst relevant to what the Bible teaches about the elect, are not merely relevant to those believers at that time, but in fact inclusive of all the elect (remnant) from every age and time, even to the very end.
He is very selective and artificial with some of his distinctions, that I find strenuous to consistently read with what the texts themselves plainly say.
It is obvious that he is bringing in so much baggage and a system to his interpretations.
He is simply not consistent.
Some of his statements as James White points out are straight up "Open Theist" ideas, and I wonder if Steve is aware of this.
I said two years ago that Mr Gregg was heading in that direction, and it certainly appears from my participation here at this board and what I have been saying about Open Theism that I am correct.
The bottom line is that Mr Gregg has a very skewed doctrine of God, and that fellow believers is a major concern.
I am listening to him and have major problems with how he understands the God presented in the Bible. His Doctrine of God.
Sometimes he says that if God wants to do whatever He wants, then that is fine, who am I to tell God what to do etc, but then he presents a false misrepresentation of Calvinistic thought in order to preach his understanding of God. He does that over and over in his lectures on Rom 9.
Somewhere in his view, he believes that Calvinism teaches that God makes people sinners and therefore free will is not there, and that God sets up things with no view to things already established, like the nature of man, human depravity, God's purposes etc etc.
It is a mish-mash theology that he presents when one tries to pin down precisely what his doctrine of God actually is.
Another thing I can't quite understand logically, is that Arminians like Steve can present all this Unconditional election of God with regards to Nations etc, and then he presents all of this as to "blessings" and not to salvation, and you are simply left wondering how any of this fits in with a line by line exegesis of Romans 9, when clearly "individuals" are in view, and are in fact, the very reason objections come which Paul has to deal with, which he himself anticipates.
I could not believe that Steve actually thinks that the response to God's will always being done and not ever resisted, was the affirmation or proof that Paul was responding to in his objector, meaning that the objection itself proves that there are those who resist God!
That was amazing interpretation, and one wonders what such an interpretation means when fully fleshed out. Think about it.
How can Steve deal with all the "singular" and "individual" references in Rom 9 that Paul uses in his presentation?
Does he think the "Nations" idea just simply answers all of that?
Surely not?
Now, James White has answered all of this, and has done so very carefully, and I look forward to Steve having to deal with that.
Please cease from trying to malign his motives etc and trying to paint Dr White as some kind of semi-scholar who is rude, crude and nasty.
Such is simply not true, and such lends no credibility nor help to this important debate.
We can disagree, but let us disagree with the arguments and cease from maligning the persons.
I actually respect Mr Gregg, even though I do not agree with hardly anything he teaches on this subject and for whatever reason, he decided to not allow me to post links in a thread here about Open Theism that was pointing to those who reject it as heresy, when I was asked to back up my charges against Open Theism. Perhaps he wants to avoid the implications of what others are currently saying about Open Theism as that would cause others to examine what he himself is teaching, I do not know for sure.
And that is not Ad Hom, as I am simply connecting why he would delete my post in a thread asking me for proof of my charges, and when I attempted to do so, I was deleted and since then have been unwelcome here by him.
But I will just finish this post with a scripture that just keeps coming to my mind.
In trying to defend a system that essentially is saying, that Unconditional election has to do more with "blessings" etc, the WORD OF GOD teaches that individuals (who I suppose are in Nations) are certainly elected by God to salvation, FOR
2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brothers beloved of the Lord, because God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth,
And with Paul I say,
2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: