Link to J. White critique of Steve on Romans 9

[Guest]

In Pete's (alias, thrombomodulin) first post on page one of this thread, he quotes James using this phrase—apparently on his most recent show (which I have not yet heard). If Pete is quoting accurately (he gives the precise spot in the recording where it is found), then James did use this phrase in the same manner as did Mark. In fact, it was this quote from Dr. White (and Mark's attempt to defend White's use of it by presenting his own novel opinion of its meaning) that launched this phrase into prominence in the present discussion.

[Guest]

I have given my understanding of "repecter of persons" and I do not know what James has said on that, or even if I have heard him explain it.
I kinda hope he would broadly agree with my understanding there.

Remember, I affirm that God is not a respecter of Persons, and I am addressing that element connected with Unconditional election. I am saying that to be a respecter of persons is to show partiality based upon something in the person, whatever the something might be.

God does not do that. He freely chooses according to His own pleasure and purposes, and therefore is not a respector of persons.

I am surprised some Calvinists here are not agreeing with what I have said.
But, it wouldn't be the first time.

Under Arminian presupositions, election is based upon forseen faith, and therefore, an argument can be made that God does indeed show partiality, in the person who was forseen to have faith, and then God elects based upon such foreknowledge.

I am not bringing any new ideas to the Calvinist understanding regarding God being a respecter of persons in the way I have raised the matter here.

Mark

[Guest]

In Pete's (alias, thrombomodulin) first post on page one of this thread, he quotes James using this phrase—apparently on his most recent show (which I have not yet heard). If Pete is quoting accurately (he gives the precise spot in the recording where it is found), then James did use this phrase in the same manner as did Mark. In fact, it was this quote from Dr. White (and Mark's attempt to defend White's use of it by presenting his own novel opinion of its meaning) that launched this phrase into prominence in the present discussion.

Whoops, you're right. Sorry about that. I missed it the first time. (That is, I remember reading the post, but by the time I read Mark's post, I'd forgotten that the original question had a quote from Dr. White.)

In that case, then, I disagree with Dr. White, and I'm a bit surprised he said it. I hope it was something he said off-the-cuff.


Edited to add: Hmm, I just listened to the segment in question.

"..God's choice has always been free and it's always been gracious. It's never been based upon, well...God being a respecter of persons. 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, insightful enough, spiritual enough to choose him then God would be a respecter of persons. but he is not, his choice is free."

At the part I bolded, from his tone of voice it sounded to me like the thought just occurred to him. So that idea might not be part of his long-standing, considered argumentation. Or it might be, I don't know. Either way, again, I do disagree.

[Guest]

Jugulum, your are just simply in error, and that is why I had stated that I was wondering why Calvinist's here were disagreeing with me.
And for Steve, even though I am here supporting James Whites views, I was not, when I first posted here on "respector of persons" defending anything James had stated about respector of persons, but I am glad to hear that you at least understand me to be saying the same as James.

Dr White has responded on his blog to this thread and he has even preached recently upon it to his Church.

Next, I note that the folks over at Steve Gregg's board are highly confused as to the meaning of the phrase "respecter of persons" (KJV) or one "showing partiality" (most modern translations) in reference to a comment I made in my replies to Gregg on Romans 9.

I will actually be speaking on this particular issue this evening in our Wednesday evening service, and will bring my mp3 player along, record it, and post it, to provide a fuller discussion.

In brief, look at James 2 for a great example of what it means to show respect for persons, to act in partiality. My point was simple: if God responds to men due to their being better, more spiritually sensitive, pliable, etc., than others, then He is showing partiality; that is, His response to man is based upon something in the man.

This is the essential nature of synergism: the final decision as to who will, and who will not, experience forgiveness and eternal life, is man's, not God's. Therefore, there is something in the man that determines the final outcome of salvation.

Only in monergism (Calvinism) do you have God's mercy and grace acting freely and without being bound by the actions and dispositions of man. Hence, when the accusation is made that Calvinists make God out to be a respecter of persons, the ones making the accusation are simply not thinking through what the phrase actually means, and how it applies to synergists such as themselves, not to monergists.
James White

http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=2157

And here is the link to the sermon/message

http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=2158

[Guest]

if Mark does think there's merit in his definition, I'll consider his defense. But my present view is as you say, Steve--it's a somewhat backwards definition.

And unless you know otherwise, I would caution you against assuming that "the Calvinists" use it that way. As far as I know, it's just Mark.

And if it is more than just Mark, that only means some Calvinists argue that way, not necessarily a large number or a majority. I rather doubt it's a view with a significant following.

As I said, my understanding is the normative Calvinistic understanding. Has anyone listened to Dr Whites sermon upon this subject linked above?

He is way more bold than me when saying that it is the Synergist who makes God a respecter of persons, not the Monergist (Consistent Calvinism)

Mark