Link to J. White critique of Steve on Romans 9

[Guest]

Steve:

I was sure that you had said, at least three times recently, that you aren't posting here anymore. Have you no self-respect?

Tartan:

Call it a weakness or lack of discerning when one has outlived his welcome.
Sometimes trying to wrap up loose ends can give a false impression, but I think all has been said that needed to be said, so I will "now" no longer post here.

And yet once again, Tartan, you are back and posting your Augustinian-Calvinistic views and now attacking Steve Gregg.

You have clearly demonstrated that you are not a man of your word.
So how can we believe the things that you write?

[Guest]

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!

There is not enough room in my mouth for my occasional foot AND the words that you want to place there. I never said that White wasn't a scholar. But there is a difference between knowing something and practicing it. White practices the Hannity and Combs style of combative apologetics that is anything but gentle. Steve practices a Irenic form of apologetics. They are both knowledgeable scholars, but one actually takes what they know to heart and speaks it with love. People will disagree over whether or not Gregg is right or White is right. That is to be expected. What will be obvious though is that one will clearly be seen as being more Christ-like and loving towards the other.

I mean, this whole thing about "Nations" cannot hold up to the text, from Rom 8 all the way through Ch 9.

You assume that everyone agrees with White and sees Ch 9 as a continuation of Ch 8 instead of a new section. You'd think, based on what White says, that an author can never talk about more than one topic in a letter. That being said, I'm not going to get drawn into some argument with you. You have your mind made up and I have no desire to deal with your style of communication in a goal of trying to change it. It is this style of communication that I was addressing, not the strength or weaknesses of different points or assumptions on either side.
D.

[Guest]

Mark wrote:

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.

"Objective"! Are you sure?

[Guest]

Mark,

Has James White heard all of Steve's Romans series now? I'm asking because you say "he responded to them" and the last I heard; he had only listened to the Romans 9 sections of the Calvinism lectures. (If he hasn't heard them yet you may want to advise him to listen before the debate)....

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!

Steve emphasizes that Romans 9 is about the election of the collective Chosen People. He wasn't denying that the Chosen People are not saved! (as they are composed of all individuals in it).

In the Romans 9 lectures I think Steve phrases it as (the Chosen People, Israel, were elected for) "God's redemptive purposes." And, of course, God's redemptive purposes has to do with saving souls: which Steve, once again, doesn't deny.

I agree with Steve that Romans 9 is about the election of the collective Chosen People; that Paul is not writing about "individuals for salvation." When he said the passage has nothing to do with individuals being elected he didn't mean that the Chosen people are not saved.

Romans 9 is about God's choosing the collective, and elected, people: Israel. Who He chose to carry out his salvific and/or redemptive purposes. He, obviously, could have chosen any nation to accomplish this. But in His sovereign design he picked the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (as Paul elaborates in Romans 9).

And, of course, "Not all who are of Israel are Israel." Paul, in Romans 9-11 explains who these collective people are: the "Israel of God" as in Galatians.

Off-topic:
I think my hard drive is dying.......help!
(could someone PM me on what to do?) lol

Thanks,
Rick

[Guest]

I would love to respond Rick, but trying to find out where I stand at this board is not easy to get a fix on.

Consider Paidons recent post against me posting here. No room given to perhaps stay here and interact, but rather an emphasis upon me to keep my word and cease posting here, and an even earlier post stating that me saying I am not welcome here is me putting out some kind of contradiction. I cannot win.

Listen folks, my reason for posting here is to defend the Word, share my understanding with others and to speak plainly to all and maybe even learn something.

It was not until I called Paidon here a Heretic that there was any real issue with me posting here, and even then, I tried to provide support for my charges from other Christian teachers who have published works upon the subject of Open Theism, but that post was deleted and since then there has been this general mood from others to kind of go and do not post here anymore.

I hinted I was willing to go if that was the express wishes of this place but one or two others expressed a desire for me to stay, so in a sense the door had not been shut on me to leave.

Yes, maybe I should just leave here, but I am divided by my desire to abide by my conviction to stay and plod on as long as there are encouraging comments to stay and my desire to keep my word and perhaps move on and post no further.

I do not think it is really fair for Paidon and others to say that my word is no good based upon this situation as it has unfolded and they are not considering all of the facts pertaining to this situation.
It seems rather convenient in a way, to try and bind me to what I said, not for the purpose of being concerned about me being honest, but rather as a means to simply get rid of me!

I have given enough opportunity for the powers that be to ban me if they wish, and that option is just two mouse clicks away as already stated.

But in the end, I will stick to my word and no longer post here so that banning me is not necessary.
I see that the general mood here is not conducive for critical and logical discussion, and that comments about personal faults and or subjective opinions are taking over the dialogue.

For example, the recent comments here about Steve being more Christ like than James White are not only untrue, but irrelevant.

If that is how things are going to go it would be best for me to post no further as I do not want to add fuel to the possibility of a debate not taking place.

Mark

[Guest]

Mark,

If this is true:

Westminster Confession, CHAPTER X.
Of Effectual Calling.

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

Then why would Paul 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.

Why would Paul need to endure anything to get the gospel to the elect if the elect are going to be regenerated and saved regardless?

Oops! I see you just apparently quit again as I was posting this. I must assure you I do not mind you being here at all. Perhaps you will respond one more time!

[Guest]

Oops! I see you just apparently quit again as I was posting this. I must assure you I do not mind you being here at all. Perhaps you will respond one more time!

Homer and others,

It really wouldn't be that hard to come over to doctrines of grace to discuss some of these things. Believe me, it is a safe place to post and interact (regardless of our differences in understanding Scripture and doctrine).

http://doctrinesofgrace.net/

In Christ,

Haas

[Guest]

I listened to the link Brody put up, about 46mins and 40seconds into the mp3 James says:

If God's choice is based upon him looking down the corridors of time and seeing who is going to be soft hearted enough, kind enough, spiritual enough to choose him then God would be a respecter of persons. but he is not, his choice is free.

If there are any Calvinists left on this forum. I would like to ask this question - what does the phrase "respector of persons" really mean? Suppose God unconditionally elects to one person and reprobates another without regard to anything about that person (ie. their "soft heartedness, kindness, etc,.", Roman 9:15-16). Has God not thus "respected" a particular person over another? Thus, it seems that it must follow that the Calvinist God is a respecter of persons.

Pete

[Guest]

I listened to the link Brody put up, about 46mins and 40seconds into the mp3 James says:

If God's choice is based upon him looking down the corridors of time and seeing who is going to be soft hearted enough, kind enough, spiritual enough to choose him then God would be a respecter of persons. but he is not, his choice is free.

If there are any Calvinists left on this forum. I would like to ask this question - what does the phrase "respector of persons" really mean? Suppose God unconditionally elects to one person and reprobates another without regard to anything about that person (ie. their "soft heartedness, kindness, etc,.", Roman 9:15-16). Has God not thus "respected" a particular person over another? Thus, it seems that it must follow that the Calvinist God is a respecter of persons.

Pete

Hi Pete,

Im no calvinist mind reader, but I bet the response will be that God is not a respector of persons concerning gentiles and Jews. In other words, God elects both jews, and non jews.

They will point to Cornelius and crew as a prooftext. Since Peter used said "God is not a respector of persons" in that Context.

But what they dont realize is, by arguing this way, they are indeed admitting that God is a respector of persons!

[Guest]

True, but James comment here was in regard to individuals rather than Jews and Gentiles.

Pete