My impressions of the debate in progress

[Guest]

Our brother Matt Rose also has a wonderful article concerning Israel. I present it here in its entirety:


The Mystery of Israel
by Matthew Rose

For many years and from many teachers I'd been told that the phrase in Romans 11:26a "And so all Israel will be saved" meant that prior to the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ remaining national Israelites will be converted to Christianity. In light of the context, what was Paul communicating with this phrase?
I think of Romans 9-11 as a unified argument against anti-semitism in the Church at Rome. Paul's passion for his biological brothers is impossible to ignore. He wants them to be saved, but he recognizes that being 'in Israel' is meaningless unless one is 'in' the true 'Israelite', namely, Jesus Christ. And so he re-defines Israel. He says not everyone from one of the 12 tribes is an Israelite (9:6). He says it's not by natural means that we are considered God's children (9:8 ). In other words, it's not about genetics. Now, then, Paul is working with 2 definitions for the term 'Israel' (national Israel & spiritual Israel).

He uses these definitions side by side throughout the argument. For instance, in 9:27 he says not all the Israelites will be saved, but only the remnant. The first group must be national Israel since part of it is saved and part of it is unsaved. The latter 'remnant' must refer to spiritual Israel since it is a completely saved entity.

Paul builds on his argument, arguing that there is really no difference between Jew and Gentile when it comes to salvation (10:12). Not all Israelites (must be national) accepted the good news, just like not all gentiles accepted the good news (10:16). Paul's hope is that, by his ministry to the gentiles, he will arouse national Israel to envy and see 'some' of them be saved (11:14). The 'some' of course, would be spiritual Israel. His point is that any national Israelite can become a spiritual Israelite 'if they do not persist in unbelief' (11:23).

That brings us to Romans 11:25-26a and the great 'mystery' of history:

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved
Paul is dealing, it seems, with arrogant (or, at least, potentially arrogant) believers. The arrogance is directed against the Jews (anti-semitism). So what is the mystery that will keep them from being arrogant? I am persuaded that we should read Israel as 'national Israel'. Part of national Israel was hardened against the Gospel (the other part, ie Paul (11:1), believed). National Israel will be partly hardened all throughout the time that gentiles are being saved.
So what of 'so all Israel' in 11:26a? Each word is important.

First, the word 'so' is not the same as the word 'then'. Paul isn't saying that after the fulness of the gentiles comes in, all national Israelites will finally believe in Christ. He's saying that the 'part' of national Israel that is un-hardened and all the gentiles who believe, together, make up spiritual Israel. The 'result' of the remnant Jews and the believing Gentiles is the collective people of God. Second, the word 'all' means just that. It can't refer to national Israel because Paul just quoted Isaiah in order to echo his prophecy that only the remnant of national Israel would be saved. Whoever 'Israel' is in verse 26a, it can't be national Israel. Third, the word 'Israel' is key and should be read as 'spiritual Israel'. If Paul is not talking about national Israel here, he must be talking about his new definition of the term, spiritual Israel. Can 'all' of spiritual Israel be saved? Yes, by definition they are all saved.

How does this teaching mesh with the other passages in Scripture that discuss the 'mystery' of the Gospel? Perfectly! In Ephesians Paul describes the 'mystery' as being that which brings all things together under one head, Christ (1:10). He says bluntly that 'this mystery is that through the Gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus' (Eph. 3:6). The only difference between Paul's description of the mystery in Romans and Ephesians is that in the former letter he's speaking against conceited believers and in the latter letter he's speaking to discouraged believers. The former needed to hear that Jews were still welcome in, the latter needed to hear that they, themselves, were full members along with believing Jews!

In other words, there are no second class citizens of the kingdom. There are not 2 groups in the people of God. God's purpose was to take believing Jews and belieiving gentiles and not only make them loving brothers, but to actually make them 1 new man (Eph. 1:15)!

The 'Mystery of Israel', then, is the beautiful truth that salvation knows nothing of geography or race. We don't need to travel to Jerusalem to be saved or be circumcised. Likewise, being in Jerusalem and being circumcised won't prevent us from being saved. The mystery of the gospel, most deeply communicated by Paul in Colossians, is that Christ (the true Israelite) lives in us! That is our hope of glory (Col. 1:27). And anyone who is 'in Christ' (notice, not 'in Israel') can take part in this wonderful hope and all the wonderful promises (Gal. 3:29).

[Guest]

Wow, today's segment just ended and I'm thoroughly depressed. As I've noted in the Calvinism forum, I'm a relatively new Christian who is very interested in digging more deeply into these issues to arrive at the truth about them, whatever the right outcome. I resolve to do my best not to let Dr. White's conduct this afternoon prejudice me against Calvinism in that search.

CThomas

[Guest]

Hello to All,

I want to preface what I am about to say by saying in no way do I mean to come accross negative or snide, because I truly am not. I want to submit something I have noticed about James White which came to light during today's TNP broadcast. Please remember, I am not trying to be snide.

Having said that, I had noticed something (well a few things) about James debating style that in my observation became evident today.That is, he is so used to playing by his own rules and being dominent in conversations that when the tables are turned it catches him off guard. In the second half of TNP today this was made clear. Steve clearly caught him off guard and called him out on Romans chapter 1. From which James proceeded to use the "gatling gun approach" to make a point that was really not relevant, just regurgitating the same things he always does (Calvinistically). It seems he needs to do this to gain the upper hand to somehow justify an argument that is not really made.

I do NOT think Steve was out of line in any way in his questioning. I do think however that Steve had a line of reasoning that James was not prepared for, therefore caught off guard. The way Steve was handling James was not inconsistant in any way to how James treats those whom he questions when he does himself!

I believe Steve was showing a great line of critical thinking which made the point very very clearly. James own logic was used against him and he did not know how to respond, which was partially the issue today.

Steve had a line of reason which was clear, warranted, logical, and yes exegetical. More could be said, but today James had to play with someone else's ball, and did not like it very well. It seems evident to me that James does not want to reason, he just wants to be right. Please remember I am not being snide, just observant.

In Christ, Greg

[_Steve]

I feel a need to apologize for Dr. White's behavior, because I am the one who brought him to our airwaves.

[Update: At his blog, Dr. White quotes the above apology and says, " Mr. Gregg, I have no interest in your apologizing for me. I will not apologize for refusing to mud-wrestle with you on our respective programs." However, it doesn't matter whether he is interested in my apology or not. It is not to him, but to our listeners, that I am apologizing. If you bring a guest with you into your friend's house, and he acts unseemly, it is incumbent upon you to apologize to your host for your guest's behavior.]

I am hoping that, by tomorrow, he will have had time to consider what he did today, and how negatively it reflected on his position—and how it would make any thinking skeptic in our audience evaluate the intellectual honesty of Christian apologists.

I can't imagine, if asked a question whose true answer would damage my case, that I could simply pout like a child and refuse to answer! I am afraid this provides a rather obvious illustration of the difference between an advocate who is interested in the truth and one whose agenda is to deny any weakness in his position so that he might appear to win the debate at all costs.

I was really looking forward to some invigorating and meaningful give-and-take with Dr. White today. I am deeply saddened.

I remember, back in the mid-seventies, witnessing to a hippie in Santa Cruz, who told me that he thought every man should just "follow his heart."

I responded with my ready "pat" answer: "But the Bible says the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?"

I had used this answer dozens of times before, and was quite confident that I had won my point, until he said to me, "Yeah, but who was that talking about?"

My basic integrity, and my commitment to let the Bible determine my views caused me to realize that I had never asked myself that question, but that, now that it has come up, I could not honestly use that scripture that way anymore. I have never used that tactic since. I also determined, from that point on, to do more thorough and responsible exegesis of any passage that I intended to use to defend a viewpoint.

I would have assumed that any man of God, upon having it pointed out to him that Romans one contains no statements about the birth condition of every man, would wish to say, "You know, no one has ever pointed that out to me before. I will stop misusing this text to make this point, even though it is a favorite of mine."

I was intending to ask similar questions about Romans 3:10-18; 8:5-7; Eph.2:1-2; 4:17-19 and other texts. I actually believed Dr. White would be honest enough (not an ideologue) to answer without evasion, even if the truth were to prove damaging to his arguments. This is what anyone would do who loves the truth, rather than his own theories and opinions.

I almost choked when he came on afterward and said that he would never stoop to such a tactic as asking me big questions demanding a yes or no answer (like "Does Jesus intercede for the non-elect?"). I really had believed the man would participate in honest dialogue. I am saddened.

[Guest]

The audio file of today's program along with Dr. White's version of events are now available at http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2615

[_Rick_C]

Till today I thought the debate has been civil and pretty good overall, considering the time limitation, and so on.

However, Session 4 revealed that James White is not interested in an open exchange of ideas. His refusal to answer Steve's questions succinctly showed he wants to be in total control of the debate criteria, which has been a chief characteristic of Calvinists in debate. This is nothing new, yet remains an ongoing fact.

James made a comment about how he wants a "high level" dialog, which came across as his flaunting his formal education at Steve. While formal theological credentials can equip one to engage in theology; if one refuses to participate, the credentials don't mean anything, imo, (and I'm speaking as one who has had formal theological education).

Steve attempted get into high level dialog and James' "Are you talking to me?" was not only a low level comment, but sarcastic and uncalled for, especially coming from a man with his credentials.

Steve, I encourage you to avoid asking James questions (as it was a waste of your time today). Rather, I think you may do better to give a presentation based on what James has said or written.

You did all you could to make discussion happen and were patient. And what you said about we listeners following-up and using our own judgment---since James refused dialog---was a great advice! Use tomorrow to get out as many ideas as you can. And take all of your time for yourself, with no questions, imo. Questions would probably just give another opportunity to sidestep the very issues you bring up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acts 10:48.
James White's knowledge of Greek and the case he presented using it was unconvincing. Non-Calvinists who argue for "disposed themselves" miss the mark also, imo.

Acts in context provides the correct interpretation: Luke wasn't discussing "the nature of predestination". He was recording the spread of the Kingdom of God, reporting the Gentiles believed, which puts them into the predestined People of God: the true Israel, whom God has ordained would be His Own. Luke doesn't say a single thing about determinism or the free will of these Gentile believers; such ideas are imported over the text. (Why I said earlier we must read the authors in terms of their own context, intention, and meaning).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lastly on Session 4.
Though things took a bad turn today, I'm still glad you (Steve) and James
have debated. It has confirmed what I've thought about some, but not all, Calvinists. Confirmed what? To wit, dialog is impossible. Thanks.

[_Steve]

I like Dr. White's suggestion about the format tomorrow (given at the above link). I had suggested the same to Paul Spurlock after today's show, but we weren't sure Dr. White would agree to that. This will be a huge improvement over today's show!

[Guest]

I feel a need to apologize for Dr. White's behavior, because I am the one who brought him to our airwaves. I am hoping that, by tomorrow, he will have had time to consider what he did today, and how negatively it reflected on his position—and how it would make any thinking skeptic in our audience evaluate the intellectual honesty of Christian apologists.

Not a chance in free will well he admit to being wrong in his reaction. He will have the free will to consider it but my bet is he will choose to not.

I can't imagine, if asked a question whose true answer would damage my case, that I could simply pout like a child and refuse to answer! I am afraid this provides a rather obvious illustration of the difference between an advocate who is interested in the truth and one whose agenda is to deny any weakness in his position so that he might appear to win the debate at all costs.

I actually expected him to hang up on the exchange. However he wouldn't dare because of how it would make him look and the fact he had no choice in the matter.

I was really looking forward to some invigorating and meaningful give-and-take with Dr. White today. I am deeply saddened.

It was inevitable that it went the way it did. It is obvious that he is held under the power of another and will not be able to refuse that power.

I remember, back in the mid-seventies, witnessing to a hippie in Santa Cruz, who told me that he thought every man should just "follow his heart."

I responded with my ready "pat" answer: "But the Bible says the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?"

I had used this answer dozens of times before, and was quite confident that I had won my point, until he said to me, "Yeah, but who was that talking about?"


My basic integrity, and my commitment to let the Bible determine my views caused me to realize that I had never asked myself that question, but that, now that it has come up, I could not honestly use that scripture that way anymore. I have never used that tactic since. I also determined, from that point on, to do more thorough and responsible exegesis of any passage that I intended to use to defend a viewpoint.

I would have assumed that any man of God, upon having it pointed out to him that Romans one contains no statements about the birth condition of every man, would wish to say, "You know, no one has ever pointed that out to me before. I will stop misusing this text to make this point, even though it is a favorite of mine."

I was intending to ask similar questions about Romans 3:10-18; 8:5-7; Eph.2:1-2; 4:17-19 and other texts. I actually believed Dr. White would be honest enough (not an ideologue) to answer without evasion, even if the truth were to prove damaging to his arguments. This is what anyone would do who loves the truth, rather than his own theories and opinions.

I almost choked when he came on afterward and said that he would never stoop to such a tactic as asking me big questions demanding a yes or no answer (like "Does Jesus intercede for the non-elect?"). I really had believed the man would participate in honest dialogue. I am saddened.

He obviously had a predetermined answer to your question

[_Rick_C]

a quick double-dip

I would have assumed that any man of God, upon having it pointed out to him that Romans one contains no statements about the birth condition of every man, would wish to say, "You know, no one has ever pointed that out to me before. I will stop misusing this text to make this point, even though it is a favorite of mine."

I'd think that if one had not seen this before, at least something like, "I see. So what is your next point?" You know, hear the argument, weigh things out....

Even if a point or some points go against what one believes; well, I, myself, want to hear them out and examine them. If for nothing else is, (if I'm not proven wrong), I would be able to develop a defense of my positions from the ideas (arguments) that were presented.

Like I said: Sometimes dialog is impossible.... Thanks.

[Guest]

I just pulled up, literally at random, the first debate I came across on my computer and listened to the beginning of Dr. White's cross-examination of Tim Staples. I transcribe that beginning verbatim. This occurs, for anyone interested at 15:05 in the fourth sound file of the Staples debate, as purchased from the Alpha and Omega Ministries web site:

Dr. White: Let me ask you a few questions. Mr. Staples, does Pope Agatho use the name Honorius in his letter, yes or no?

Mr. Staples: He says, can I quote him?

Dr. White: You just did. Can you answer the quetsion yes or no. Does Pope Agatho make reference to Honorius in his letter to the sixth ecumenical council? Yes or no?

Mr. Staples: No, he says the bishop of Rome and, uh . . .

Dr. White: So the answer is no sir?

Mr. Staples: . . . [unintelligible] the apostolic pontiff and my predecessors. That means . . .

Dr. White: Does he say, okay thank you.

Mr. Staples: . . . he does include . . .

Dr. White: Okay, may I continue?

Mr. Staples: Mr. White, you can't . . .

Dr. White: May I continue, sir? Did the sixth ecumenical council write to Pope Agatho and say the following words, "[quotation of epistle omitted]." Did the council say that?

The cross-examination goes on in a similar vein. I post this because Dr. White plainly recognized the validity of pressing for a yes or no question on a narrow point even if the other side has a broader answer regarding its implications. And I cheered Dr. White in that debate. Sometimes yes or no answers are called for. But to read Dr. White now decry demanding "yes or no" questions as mudwrestling saddens me. Yes, Dr. White said that Mr. Gregg was smuggling in hidden assumptions, but all Mr. Gregg asked was whether Romans 1 expressly included everyone by its terms or whether you need to use the broader context of Romans 1-3 to infer that. No unfair assumptions smuggled in at all. I'm sorry, this whole exchange is simply sad, and I say that as an admirer of Dr. White, and one who has defended him against charges of mean-spiritedness in the past.

Best regards,

CThomas