I see a bunch of back and forth from both extremes of the debate, but I am curious to hear what Dr. White would say to those who are frim on the thier middle of the road stance i.e. Chuch Smith of Calvary Chapel...
Excelent handling of the text, the best I have ever come over so far. Though I will include what C. Spurgeon said: "If it were not just to choose a person, it would be far more unjust to choose a nation; since nations are but the union of multitudes of persons; and to choose a nation seems to be a more gigantic crime- if election be a crime- than to choose one person. Surly, to choose ten thousand would be reconed to be worse than choosing one...what are nations but men?"
I don't think this revelation is true hear. Go see Romans 9, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament . You will get a whole new view. Don't let Dr. Whites view be your only source of "truth".
@MRGV7373 Well in that case get Luther's Commentary on Romans & Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, and don't stop there but get some Augustine's Treatise on Grace & Free Will.
why would God "call" someone and then not give them a choice? To give the feeling they have a choice. Is Dr. White saying that God can not handle giving some a choice?? God's Ego can handle the Ego of man. No lesser proclamation is needed. Man never controls God, and God never controls man. Love is shown in the choice to pick Love. God is God and God is free to choose. By Dr. White is saying God has no choice to make a structure of Choice. I do reject Dr. Whites text.
God did not say to Pharaoh that he had raised him up in order to destroy him, or to drown his army in the Red Sea, but that God had raised him up for the purpose of showing his power in Pharaoh and of having God's name published throughout the earth. Just HOW God's purpose would be fulfilled in Pharaoh, at the time God spoke, still remained within the circumference of Pharaoh's free will to choose, whether by his own submission to God commands or by his rebellion.
God want all to come to Him. If I choose that you will go to hell is that not unjust?? God is not forced to punish but will do so if you turn your back on HIS offer to you of Love and Friendship. God let's us choose and your actions will have consequences. God set up the plan, and we need to live with in the plan. Dr. White is my opinion is off on this area. God could show God's Power either way of Pharaoh behaviors. God's does the harding's because the behaviors justify the hardenin
@candiceevans1 you have obviously never seen his ridiculous banner ads for his debates, he plasters "Dr." in every venue where people are slow/naive enough to just take his word for it.
@quickkickz Whether or not you like the title "doctor," it is still a fallacy to use it against someone. Through all technicalities, he still has degrees. What you should be more concerned with is the substance of his claims in his DEBATES.
@quickkickz The irony here is that White has repeatedly sought to debate these people in an organized and public fashion, with cross examination so that their positions can be probed, and they refuse to do it. James White openly debates people and allows his position to be publicly criticized. William will not debate Christians. Have you read the Potter's Freedom?
His degree legally makes him a doctor of philosophy/theology, doesn't it? : /
"His degree legally makes him a doctor of philosophy/theology, doesn't it? : /"
I can change my name to Sergeant Major Powers and you would have to LEGALLY call me Sergeant Major Powers. that doesnt mean I'm a recognized legit Sergeant Major
but wait! i wrote a book about shooting guns and stepping over trip-wires and about being a sergeant major.ND THEN a long time ago a few people used my book in their criminal justice class. BAM! I'm a sergeant major!
@quickkickz Regardless of you fallacious analogy, White is considered a Dr. of theology. He actually studied. I'd like to know where you got your degree from. What sort of school would accept someone who refuses to listen to a man articulate his argument before he responds, and refuses to speak with the man he disagrees with, instead flaming him on the internet? It couldn't have been a school very concerned with honest discourse. Don't actually understand another person's position. Brilliant.
no he didn't, he submitted a book as a thesis. by that merit let's give out a doctorate to anyone who can research enough to write a beginners book.
"White is considered a Dr. of theology"
yea just like "Dr" Lee Stroble and "Dr" Josh McDowell! btw these guys wrote beginners books too.
you and white would do well to read Witherington's "Is there a Doctor in the House?: An Insider's Story and Advice on becoming a Bible Scholar". standards matter
@quickkickz Where did you get your degree, and why do you believe you are more qualified than White to criticize or teach anyone, when you have publicly admitted that you will not understand your opponents and listen to what they have to say? Why should anyone take you seriously? Is it cowardice?Are you afraid to call White and take him to task? Or just have a dialogue with him? I honestly can't take you seriously at all.
@RockSprites Ive never claimed be a doctor, or plastered a false title across every bit of propaganda to bolster my reputation and create a false sense of legitimacy.
and I told you ive listened to what White says and its nothing in comparison to the 1400 years of orthodox christian interpretation for romans 9. then there was a brief hiccup when christian thought was polluted by fatalistic Bezaism. by the grace of God, Arminius emerged from the school of Calvin and brought us back to truth.
@RockSprites Ive never claimed be a doctor, or plastered a false title across every bit of propaganda to bolster my reputation and create a false sense of legitimacy.
and I told you ive listened to what White says and its nothing in comparison to the 1400 years of orthodox christian interpretation for romans 9. then there was a brief hiccup when christian thought was polluted by fatalistic Bezaism. by the grace of God, Arminius emerged from the school of Calvin and brought us back to truth.
@quickkickz "why would I call in to a webcast I don't even care to listen to?...I steer clean of amateur webcasts."
Where did you get a degree from? You don't have one? I'd also just love to know where you got your information from regarding White's school and degree.
@RockSprites Amen! Well spoken!! Me thinks quickkickz is jealous... James White scores very high on the integrity meter with the rest of us...precisely because he presents EVIDENCE when refuting someone...unlike the aformentioned commenter, who merely tosses out character assignations.
@88momart Yes, to White's credit, he spends a great deal of time and energy pouring over what his opponent has said and written, and it is reflected in his presentation. He is also studying Islam and the Koran in depth and learning the language necessarily to do so. Why? So he can accurately represent his opponent. Quik also does not understand the diff between a diploma mill and a degree mill. While a degree mill is not accredited, the point is fostering education.
Is this person saying that men do not CHOSE to serve God? That some men are damned and have NO HOPE if God has "preordained" his destruction because God knew their choice? Therefore, man's heart cannot be changed unless God manipulates it to do so? Sorry if I'm oversimplifying this but I would love it if someone would answer this question plainly. Thanks!
@DeadManWalking2Day Some people position it like that but its not the reality. God hasn't hardened man's heart, man has. As far as "NO HOPE", that is all mankind, we have no hope as we are in sin and boung by it. God had to move on our part to bring us to him otherwise none would choose God. Romans 3 tells us there is none who seek God.
@bigJguitar So just listening to this again..The VERB foreknew as he explains it means a personal action on God's behalf can be interpreted that what He is doing is where the emphasis is, on being conformed in the image of Christ. The "us" does not have to mean that all men are justified, except that they accept Christ as saviour, not all men by default. His intercession is not fruitless just because he came for all men. The Old Test establishes His pattern of salvation & we see in the NT.
@bigJguitar So listening to this again..The VERB foreknew as he explains it means a personal action on God's behalf can be interpreted that what He is doing is where the emphasis is, on being conformed in the image of Christ. The "us" does not have to mean that all men are justified, except that they accept Christ as saviour, not all men by default. His intercession is not fruitless just because he came for all men. The Old Test establishes His pattern of salvation & we see in the NT.
why would I call in to a webcast I don't even care to listen to? and I just found out his 'doctorate' isn't even real, it comes from an unaccredited degree mill.
I steer clear of amateur webcasts and fake doctors.
@quickkickz I mean, right in this comment, I see no point in anyone having a dialogue with you. You don't listen to people before you criticize them and you are not interested in learning what people actually believe and having them respond to you in an open manner. James White would take your call during his podcast. It's no surprise to me that you used Craig and Geisler as examples of men who have "refuted" White. What a joke. I steer clear of those who love to remain ignorant. Good day.
@quickkickz The reason you won't call is because you are a coward. It is so easy to hide behind your avatar and get your "quick kicks" on the internet; it's an entirely different story when you have to take someone to task in conversation. Please, call his podcast and take him to task on his Greek. Or you could send him an email about it and he will address it. Are you afraid to be proven wrong?
what would that change? I have read both sides of the issue most of my life and the reformed side has been found wanting. a call or an email to anybody I disagree with on this issue wont change the truth about the evils of calvinism. btw ive read white's transcripts, he is petty and his snideness reeks in his exchanges, he is not worth the time to debate.
"Do you know Greek?"
no and neither does White. so at least we've got that in common.
@quickkickz First of all, White has never claimed to know modern Greek. He knows the Greek of the NT, and has TAUGHT it at actual accredited universities. So you might want to take your assertions up with his students. But even if you did, you would not be able to tell, because you've just admitted that you do not know any form of Greek. Yet you pretend to know whether or not someone else does. Is that arrogant?
@RockSprites "has TAUGHT it at actual accredited universities. "
let me fix that for you:
"has (,with no future plans to be offer a new contract,) TAUGHT (a handful of random classes in the last 20 years) at (a small seminary and a satellite campus of an even smaller seminary)."
you are trying to justify his means of acquiring a degree-mill degree by offering his sparse teaching stint at an ACCREDITED school! He COULDN'T teach there UNLESS he EARNED an ACCREDITED masters! Doublethink!!!
@quickkickz I don't think I've ever spoken to someone on the internet this ignorant. White has earned degrees at a few different universities. Only one of them was unaccredited, and it was a seminary with a focus on mentoring. White has studied and earned degrees at other places. But if all you do is base you information on what your favorite teachers say, or what you want to believe is true, you're just going to continue making yourself look foolish.
@quickkickz I don't think I've ever spoken to someone on the internet this ignorant. White has earned degrees at a few different universities. Only one of them was unaccredited, and it was a seminary with a focus on mentoring. White has studied and earned degrees at other places. But if all you do is base you information on what your favorite teachers say, or what you want to believe is true, you're just going to continue making yourself look foolish.
And quickkickz, where have you earned your degree, and in what? Have you even studied at a university? Have you ever taught? How on earth can you justify criticizing anyone if you don't have an education? Why should anyone take you seriously?
And even if someone has studied at a school I find less than satisfactory, that does not justify going after them. I look at people based on the merit of their argumentation. I don't care if you're self-taught of school-taught. It's an elitist farce.
You say this "How on earth can you justify criticizing anyone if you don't have an education?" and THEN this "I don't care if you're self-taught of school-taught."
"where have you earned your degree"
IT DOESNT MATTER because I am not the one claiming to be a doctor using an unaccredited correspondence degree! Does that finally make sense to you now?
I have clearly owned you in this dialogue about degree standards, so getting back to the terrible video above i will leave you with this;
read Chrystom's homily on Romans 9 and you will see where white's ridiculous eisgesis massacres any semblance of coherent christian thought. If you are not moved by the ACTUAL exegesis of Romans 9 by Chrystom or any other QUALIFIED scholar. Then you, like white, are blinded by your traditions and may God have mercy on your soul.
@quickkickz First of all, White has never claimed to know modern Greek. He knows the Greek of the NT, and has TAUGHT it at actual accredited universities. So you might want to take your assertions up with his students. But even if you did, you would not be able to tell, because you've just admitted that you do not know any form of Greek. Yet you pretend to know whether or not someone else does. Is that arrogant?
His exegesis is completely off. Paul wrote this letter when the Jews were experiencing antisemitism. And he's using his own human knowledge and logic to analyze these scriptures instead of reading the true references that Paul made. Try reading Jeremiah 18:6-10 to get the real illustration of the potter and the pot analogy that Paul uses. Oh yeah, Jacob I loved, and Esau I hate was something God said in spite of Israel because they were unfaithful to him and God was judging them.
His exegesis is completely on. Now are you convinced by my merely saying that? No? Than what was the point of your comment?
-
"Try reading Jeremiah"
-
Paul uses the potter/clay imagery in a different way. Let Paul say what HE wants to say. In keeping consistently with your method, when you come to Revelation where Jesus is called the bright and morning star, you need to run to Isaiah where the same is said about Satan and conclude that Jesus is...
@AgApE010 Lol. Your off again. Satan is called the morning star and Jesus is called the bright morning star. Two very different. The word "bright" makes a clear distinction. Paul's imagery of the potter and the clay is making reference to the Old Testament for a reason. Go back to Jeremiah 18:1-10.
Great! And Paul's context, flow of thought, and argument in general makes a clear distinction between himself and Jeremiah's message concerning potter and clay.
@AgApE010 Nope. You're off again. I was talking about the Biblical error you made with human philosophy. You assumed that Jesus and Satan went by the same title (which is blasphemy). Jesus is called The Bright Morning Start. Satan is only the Morning Star. This is consistent throughout the rest of scripture, the same being the Potter and the Clay interpretation. They have not changed. Let scripture interpret scripture my friend.
I didn't equate Jesus with Satan and blaspheme. Don't misrepresent my case. My argument was that your method of interpretation logically leads to exegetical errors. Be honest in your words as a Christian; you know very well that's not what I meant.
-
"Let scripture interpret scripture"
-
Tell me another comment you heard apart from actually learning exegesis. Scripture does interpret Scripture, but FIRST you interpret the Scripture in question in its own context... continued
...in its own context. You don't take a phrase from Paul in Romans and run with it to Jeremiah and then feed Jeremiah back in to Romans. No. You follow the author's flow of thought in Romans first. When you do that, you'll see that what Paul was talking about and what Jeremiah was talking about were two different things. You mesh the two together merely on the grounds of them using the same analogy (although for different purposes)... continued
...Then I pointed out that that is as absurd as making a connection between Isaiah and Rev with regard to Jesus and Satan being called by a similar title. It does not follow. Call it "human philosophy" if you want, but it's just a matter of reading Scripture the way it was meant to be read.
@AgApE010 "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." Proverbs 3:5 (KJV). I am justing doing my best to stick to that verse. If we are to be honest Christians, we must know that "For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrew 4:12. Let scripture interpret scripture.
May God bless you in your walk to trust in Him with all your heart, as Proverbs 3 says. While you're trusting in God and growing in Christ, it is essential, not optional, that you grow in His Word as well. That involves understanding His Word which involves knowing how to study it. If you take anything away from this discussion, let it be to remember to mind the context of the passages you read: Who is the audience? What's being addressed? What was said before/what's said after? etc
@AgApE010 Yeah. And in Romans 9 Paul is struggling with the fact that God had made certain promises in the scriptures concerning Israel, many of which he sees as fulfilled in and through Christ. Yet Israel as a whole has not come to Christ. What does this mean for Israel, for the veracity of the Scriptures, and for Paul’s gospel? These questions dominate Paul’s mind in Romans 9-11, and his statements about election in Romans 9 must be evaluated in terms of them.
Exactly! For in Romans 8 he stated that the elect are eternally secure. That brings up the question of Israel: they were God's elect and they rejected their own Messiah. Paul answers this by stating "They are not all Israel who are of Israel", meaning they are not all elect who are of the nation of Israel. He goes to show what he means by giving examples of God electing one over the other, concluding that "it is not of him who, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy..."contd
...As he expands on this he emphasizes God's sovereign role in history in that He chose even Pharaoh for His sovereign purposes: "For this purpose I have raised you up..." which leads Paul to conclude "therefore He has mercy on whom He wills and He hardens whom He wills." He goes on to state that He elected for salvation vessels of mercy "not from among Jews only, but also Gentiles." This is also White's exegesis of the text. So where do you disagree?
@AgApE010 This is where I have a problem with Calvinism. You will never find phrases like Sovereign role, sovereign purpose, sovereign grace, and sovereign will in the Bible. They only go as far as sovereign Lord. But what does it mean to be sovereign? If God is truly sovereign, cannot He not make the sovereign choice to give His creation a choice? Maybe our definition of sovereign is shallow, but the contextually consistent message of scripture is all we need. Scripture interpreting scripture.
The word "Trinity" isn't in the Bible either, but the doctrine is there. Can God sovereignly decide to not be sovereign? That seems to present a little bit of a problem, doesn't it? We do indeed have a choice. Calvinism doesn't strip us of choice. It simply states, with regard to the will, that since we are depraved sinners we can never choose outside of our natures, namely choose Christ, apart from God supernaturally enabling us to.
@AgApE010 Lol. I have always wondered why there are so many parallels between atheism and Calvinism. The atheistic argument says, "if God is omnipotent, can he make a rock bigger and stronger than himself?" The Calvinist says "if God is sovereign, then can he not be sovereign at the same time?" Sovereignty only means having the authority to take control of everything. But does God take control of everything? If he can abandon a nation or a person, I would say, no, he does not.
God can abandon a nation or person, as far as removing His grace and protection from them(as He did in the Old Testament with Israel)but that doesn't mean He is not still sovereignly in control. For example, when He announces to Jeremiah that Israel will be captive, He says reassuringly "For I know the plans that I have for you...to give you a future and a hope." So then God was even in control of what was happening with Israel even after He "abandoned" her.
@AgApE010 Hmmm... not according to your definition of sovereignty. Your definition of sovereignty says that God controls everything even down to the every fibre of our beings, but in Jeremiah 29:23 it says, "Because they have committed villany in Israel, and have committed adultery with their neighbours' wives, and have spoken lying words in my name, which I have not commanded them; even I know, and [am] a witness, saith the LORD." Oh, that was KJV by the way. Certainly not God's will for them.
Daniel said to the pagan Belshazzar, son of Nebuchadnezzar, "your life-breath and all your ways are in God's hand" (Daniel 5:23). So yes, God is in control of even every fiber of our being.
-
There's a distinction between God's command to not sin and His sovereign control of the events of our lives. For example, God's hand "predetermined" the death of Christ by the hands of sinful men, says Acts. But the men were still responsible for their actions. This requires further discussion.
@AgApE010 Firstly, that is one passage out of the whole Bible. Secondly, it says God has his breath and his ways in God's hands. It does not say, God forces his breath and his ways. You're reading something into the text that is not there. Thirdly, God uses the libertarian free will of man to accomplish His acts, because He is that omniscient. To say that he controls there actions would take away from his omniscience.
I'm not reading anything into the text. You seemingly scoffed at the idea that God is in control of the very fiber of our beings. I responded by showing you where Scripture says to a pagan king that HIS WAYS and HIS LIFE-BREATH are in God's hand and control. What am I reading into the text? Please don't slanderously accuse me of such things. Furthermore, Calvinism doesn't say God "forces" anything either. Careful not to set up a straw-man.
Wow, first you object that the verse I provided is just "one passage out of the whole Bible" (which doesn't refute its truthfulness anyways) but then you violate your own criteria and argue from "one verse out of the entire Bible." However, your self-contradiction notwithstanding, you take that verse out of context. Paul was specifically speaking of a father and the nature of his choice of keeping his daughter a virgin. Read the entire passage.
@AgApE010 Do you believe that God causes people to sin? If He is in control of everything, even the very fibre of our beings, what would that logically suggest? When Daniel said that, he meant that God sustains us, not that He causes us to do these things.
The king's ways were said to be in God's hand. This king was a pagan. He took the holy things of God's temple and defiled them. He worshiped pagan deities. The king's ways were in God's hand. Does that strip the king of responsibility for his sin? No, because the king made real choices to be a heathen. Was God nevertheless in control of the king (albeit in a way so that God Himself is blameless from the king's sins)? Yes. Let me support... continued
...Let me support this with some Scripture: "And if the prophet is induced to speak anything, I the LORD have induced that prophet, and I will stretch out My hand against him and destroy him from among My people Israel." (Ez 14:9). The false prophet was speaking falsely. God said that He was in ultimate control of what the prophet said. Yet the prophet nonetheless chose to speak falsely and was thus guilty of his sin, which is why God "stretched out His hand and destroyed him" contd
So you acknowledge that God, in a sense, persuaded the false prophet to speak falsely? I never said God controlled the false prophet as in to make him do something that he didn't want to do. The false prophet did what he wanted to do and chose to speak falsely but the text is clear that God was the one in charge of the whole thing.
@AgApE010 Not really. If the Pharisees in Luke 7:30 can resist God's divine will for them, what was stopping the false prophet from speaking false prophecies? It goes to show you that the false prophet wanted to speak false prophecy, so God made an example out of him. Read Jeremiah 18:1-10. Much like the potter and clay illustration. Try again.
You're misunderstanding Luke 7. Stick to these texts for now instead of jumping elsewhere.
-
"it goes to show you that the false prophet wanted to speak falsely"
-
I said that very thing myself. Are you even reading my comments? I said that the false prophet was doing what he willed which is why God was able to justly destroy him. It is also true that God was the one prevailing upon the false prophet to speak falsely. You're trying hard to swerve around this text.
@AgApE010 Am I misunderstanding Luke 7:30? Let us see what it says; "But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." (KJV) Care to interpret this one, oh elect one?
No, as exegesis is a time-consuming endeavor in text and you're not even following the two passages from Ezekiel and Jeremiah. Thus I will hold you to these texts for the time being before going to another text.
-
"oh elect one"
-
Such patronizing and sarcasm is a sign that you are frustrated and your love is growing cold towards one whom Christ commanded you to love as your brother. Such scoffing is inappropriate and unbecoming of a Christian.
@AgApE010 1. Right. So you agree that it is possible for a human being to resist the will of God. You just told me I am resisting the will of Jesus Christ. 2. It is God's sovereignty that is causing me to do this, why have you judged me? 3. No I'm growing cold towards you. I'm actually interested in understanding what you believe. I tend to do that because it baffles me that such people can exalt themselves over others. And you refuse to exegete that passage? Why?
As I said, there's a distinction between God's sovereign decrees and His universal command to keep His laws. Jesus said love one another. If you don't, while it is true that God is in sovereign control of that choice, you are also making a real choice (you're not being forced to not love) and thus responsibility and blame is on you, not God, as per the examples given of Assyria and the false prophet.
Then please refrain from patronizing me and let's keep this discussion in love :)
-
"you refuse to exegete the passage? Why?"
-
If we are to have a mature and organized discussion, it is imperative that you take the time to read my posts. I explained to you why in that comment. Either you ignored reading my reason or you simply don't acknowledge it; either one is inappropriate.
@AgApE010 I apologize for insulting. Please forgive me. Let's move on but I don't think we're convincing each other about anything. Anyway, I have studied compatabilism and it does not make sense to me.
For the record, when Joshua says "choose whom you will serve" he is telling the Israelites to choose which false god they will serve. But he says "As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Concerning Deut. 30:19, I think that despite my explanations you are still under the assumption that Calvinism strips man of will. Perhaps the meat of the word is too difficult at this stage in your walk. I don't say that boastfully. I'm just trying to look at this situation Scripturally.
It's a mockery if God acted Fatalistically or if dangling a carrot in front of people desperately trying to grab at it while He pulls the carrot away (or pushes the person away). But God acts Compatabilistically. Man still makes real choices. If man chooses death, he made a real choice to choose death. If man chooses life, assisted by God's grace, he made a real choice to choose life. I don't know if you've read Calvin, but look over the section where he deals with this. Bye for now
@AgApE010 We agree on something. "Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well." 1 Corinthians 7:37 (KJV). Wow, a verse that says that it is possible for a man to have power over his own will. Compatibilism seems to be incompatible with the Bible.
I explained what 1 Corinthians 7:37 was saying by putting it in its proper context. Since you're going back and repeating yourself over things we have already covered, I can see that this debate is over.
@AgApE010 In my defense of total moral free agency, I will quote excerpts from the works of Thomas Ralston. "In Deuteronomy 30:19, we read: “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.” And in Joshua 24:15: “Choose you this day whom ye will serve.”
"Now, to choose is to determine or fix the will; but men are here called upon to choose for themselves, which, upon the supposition that their will is, in all cases, fixed necessarily by antecedent causes beyond their control, is nothing better than solemn mockery." (Thomas Ralston)
...Here's a clearer example: "Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hand is My indignation. I will send him against an ungodly nation, And against the people of My wrath I will give him charge, To seize the spoil, to take the prey, And to tread them down like the mire of the streets. Yet he does not mean so, Nor does his heart think so; But it is in his heart to destroy, And cut off not a few nations." (Isaiah 10:5-7). Here God sends out... continued
...Here God sends out Assyria to punish Israel; they are the rod in God's hand that He's going to punish Israel with. But God says "Yet he does not mean so" meaning that Assyria isn't trying to be a rod of correction in God's hand; they are simply choosing to be evil and destroy Israel and take her possessions... continued
continued ....take her possessions. Thus, even though God was the one who sent Assyria and was in control of what they were doing in destroying Israel, Assyria still did what they wanted to do and were thus guilty of sin. This is a difficult doctrine that you need to spend time with. But, it is Biblical. Would you like examples of this from the New Testament as well?
@AgApE010 Again, King David killed Uriah, but did he personally take a spear and kill him? Or was it vicarious language that God was using? Still reading into the text something that was not there.
David is not an absolute sovereign whose ways can be legitimately compared with God's. The language God uses in Ezekiel and Isaiah is not merely vicarious language; that doesn't even make sense in these contexts. God is directly claiming control of sovereignty over what is happening.
Oh, and God made it clear that there evil was coming from within and not from them so God just used their evil intentions inside their heart and persuaded them to go. Again, persuasion not imposed will.
"God just used their evil inside their heart and persuaded them to go"
-
No, He didn't. There you have God tempting the person to sin. God didn't tempt the false prophet to do evil. He was in transcendent, sovereign control of what the prophet was doing.
@AgApE010 What??? So you're saying then that God is not a sinner when he controls a man to rape a woman but He is when He uses the choices of that man to his advantage? Maybe I should change my language. God used the choices that the Assyrians made to His advantage. How did He do this? We have no idea because in His omniscience He is incomprehensible.
That's not what you said. You said God persuaded the man to sin. But God does not tempt man to sin.
-
God didn't passively see that the Assyrians would do this anyways and said "let Me see how I can use this." The text says that God Himself raised them up and sent them out; He was in control of their actions. God even gives the imagery of the Assyrians being a rod in His hand that He was using to beat Israel with...
@AgApE010 Ok so how is it that God at the same time, can have complete control over Assyria, even down to the very fibre of their beings, but Assyria be evil without God being the cause of that evil?? Hmmmm...secret decretive will that only the Calvinists knows. Sounds like gnosticism to me... After all, look at Augustine's background...
Good question, despite the sarcasm that followed. It's because man still makes real choices. Assyria was not dragged to Israel by God kicking and screaming. They were doing what they wanted to do and at the same time God was in control of it. It's a difficult doctrine, I know, but it is what Scripture teaches and if you accept Scripture as the word of God it is true.
I'm sure you haven't studied Gnosticism, so I'll just point out that they believed in Fatalism and we believe in Compatabilism. I'll leave you to do some research there in your free time.
Oh I love how you are so desperately using Christianity to feed your intellect and how much you try to rationalize an incomprehensible God. God is so omniscient that He even knows all despite the fact that we have complete libertarian free will. Now that is an omniscient God.
@l0v3truth Lol. I know. Doesn't it sound so ironic that these people seem to have this higher enlightenment much like the atheists on youtube? Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is filled with pagan Greek philosophy from men who hated and did not believe in the Judeo-Christian God. If it is impossible for a bad tree to produce good fruit, then it is even more impossible for bad roots to produce a good tree.
@icepac15 - Augustine the venerated mixed the pagan philosophies of Neo-platonism and Manichaenism with Christianity. And this is what is called "the historic orthodox Christian faith" of Calvinists. Its the poisoned well.
Augustine actually wrote extensively against Manichaeism and the only neo-Platonic doctrine he really held to was the pre-existence of the soul. But way to go, spitting venom like that in the eyes of a departed brother in Christ.
@AgApE010 I really don't understand you. You insult my stance as a Christian and yet when I try to prove a point and bring scripture to prove my case, you always say to focus on the scripture you give me and I faithfully oblige. I went back and read the verse and it means exactly what Paul is portraying. Some people have control over their will. That is the exact definition of libertarian free will. If it is not the proper context, please explain...or are you using this as a scapegoat?
@AgApE010 - Its not a matter of spitting venom, history is history. These philosophies affected his view of things, that just the way it is. But your spitting venom comment just shows how Calvinism has venerated a man and that's a problem. I am making no accusations in reference to his salvation, but he was wrong doctrinally on a lot of things, not least of which is amillenialism.
Augustine certainly wasn't dead-on accurate on all things (which theologian ever is?), but to say his doctrines, like his views on election and predestination, are influenced by Gnosticism or paganism is simply untrue. Actually, Gnostics would disagree with Augustine's views on election and predestination; you probably didn't know that or don't know what the Gnostics actually believed. As far as neo-Platonic thinking, it has nothing to do with either of those doctrines.
@AgApE010- like it or not Augustine made some significant changes to the orthodox faith of the actual church fathers. There is no doubting it, unless you just don't want to see it. These changes allowed for further changes straying away from the truth. But you just go on insisting you are right about everything. The reformation was good for what was achieved, but didn't go far enough. Why go back to the teachings of Augustine, who paved the way for some of the Roman Churches false doctrine?
Again, you are slandering him out of ignorance. His teachings were contrary to Romanism. That's why the Papists watered down his theology to fit their own, as was done in the later Council of Orange.
-
True enough, Augustine was not a perfect theologian. But if you're going to make accusations against him, back them up with examples. I'll be the first to tell you Augustine struggled with the relation between faith and works, for example. But he was solid in almost everything else.
@AgApE010 - whatever. OK its slander and spitting venom to state facts. I'm finished with this anyhow, because unfortunately you are indoctrinated with Calvinism and all that goes with it. Amillenialism is solid please! Allegorising scriptures to suit your preconceived beliefs instead of letting the whole counsel of God speak for itself is solid also. There is no room here to give detailed examples. Also the Papist's did much worse, but Augustine's errors made the inroads for them.
"OK its slander and spitting venom to state facts"
-
WHAT facts??? Lol. I've asked you to provide examples of what Augustine taught that was so wrong ccording to your own claims. For example, you would say "in chapter ___ in his book ____ Augustine taught _____ which is heresy." Can you do that? No, because you have not read Augustine and you are speaking from ignorance. And yes, you've been finished before you even started this discussion. Good day.
@AgApE010 - I just want to see if you always have to have the last say on everything. As I stated there is no room here to document the errors of Augustine as the space is not sufficient. I could give you examples and you still wouldn't even be able to understand, because you are blinded to it by your defective hermeneutic, which can be traced all the way back to guess who. You will go on defending you view because it was what you have been taught and can't and won't think outside of it.
More presumptuous slander and a total cop-out that you're using to avoid admitting you are totally ignorant of Augustine. I already said "good day" and you responded back accusing ME of having the last say. You're just illogical all around, aren't you?
-
Admit it, you can't back up your nonsense cause you don't know what you're talking about. Admitting it would at least be respectable. What you're doing now is just disgraceful.
@AgApE010 - There is a connection between the secular philosopher Plato and Augustine, and it is something you must consider! B.B. Warfield (a well repsected Calvinist) saw no problem with stating that Augustine’s Christian philosophy he sought to construct was “built largely out of Platonic materials.” Not that any example would actually make 1 bit of difference to you.
I am sorry that you have become so upset and "venomous" towards me over this, but I am just stating facts. Search yourself
Which doctrines does Warfield state were influenced by Plato? I already stated the pre-existence of souls; what else? You have to be specific or else you're not saying anything that I haven't already said.
-
"Search yourself" is still a cop out. I have no burden to search for myself. YOU made the claims and YOU have to back up YOUR OWN claims, not roll over the burden on me. I won't accept it.
Lol, and you can't bear the burden of backing up your claims because you speak from utter ignorance as evidenced by you folding under the pressure of having to prove your words. Thus, the words you spoke were presumptuous at best and lies at worst.
@AgApE010 1 more quote from history. This statement from Calvin on the Servetus affair is a 1561 letter from Calvin to the Marquis Paet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre, in which he says: “Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spainiard Benedict.“ Gasp. Murder.
In the 70s, John Wayne Gacy was put to death for murder(s). Did those who exercised the death penalty, as per the law, commit murder by putting him to death? Don't dance around the question please.
AgApE010 - Of course no one comes to Jesus unless the Father calls Him. I have difficulty with Calvinism for example -If God is not willing that any perish but that all come to repentance 2 Peter 3:9, then to say that election is based on the eternal decrees of God seems to violate what 2 Peter 3:9 directly says IS GOD'S WILL, that ALL would COME TO REPENTANCE. Elect/Chosen according to the foreknowledge of God - YES but foreknowledge does not seem to equal foreordaination.
There's also a video on YouTube in which White provides a solid exegesis of2 Peter 3:9. It isn't saying what you think, but rather than having me type it our here over 3-4 comments, I urge you to see the video and see what you think of the study on 2 Peter 3.
@AgApE010 - That is such a strained explanation, that shows that defending a system of theology is more important than Biblical truth. Come one. The "you" mean us, and we are all people. He is long suffering towards us - you can't take v. 8 and make the you/us of v. 9 apply to believers only. An since believers have already come to repentance make this argument even more strained. This argument seems plain silly to me, but it has to be done because this one verse does tear Calvinism down.
You didn't pay attention to neither the video nor to Peter, for Peter himself states that he's addressing the "beloved" and he contrasts "the beloved" with those scoffers for whom "the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire" (3:7).
@AgApE010 - Also, John 3:16 Does not read for God so loved the elect, BUT... For God so loved THE WORLD, that he gave His only begotten Son,so THAT WHOSOEVER believes in Him, will not perish but have eternal life. As I've stated before Rev 22:17c "whosoever will, let him take from the water of life freely." Whosoever believes, whosoever will - God is calling all to repentance - to believe. He foreknows who will believe, but it is not foreordained.
Just because John 3:16 says whosoever will doesn't mean that every one can. Those who believe are the ones God has chosen. Furthermore, "world" does not mean "each and every single person ever." You need to understand, the Jews, like Nicodemus, thought that salvation was only for THEM. Jesus contradicts that false view by saying God loves the world, meaning nations of all people i.e., not just Israel as the Jews/Pharisees thought.
James White is a Rich guy , he travells the world , stays in the the best hotels , eats the best food and who pays for all that ? the poor people wjo are looking for answers to their lives
So you don't believe in Paul's apostleship? What about Peter? Was he also a false apostle? Or what of James? Or Luke? Do you believe Luke was a true servant of the Lord?
Yeah, cause Dr. White is rolling in the dough, right? You idiot. I've met him personally and he's an extremely humble, yet extremely educated man. If he was after money, he would have done his schooling in something other than this. Think before you spit venom at people.
@AgApE010 Oh hes humble alright,anyone would be humble making hes money..It make me laugh so much that they are some sad eejits around willing to hand over money for nothing..How weak minded you are,you are fooled so easy by all theses religious head da balls..Its just so funny..
PREACH IT BROTHER! Romans 9 & Ephesions 1 & 2 are my favortites letters of Paul. Jesus claims the same in John 3,6,10,17. YOU DONT BELIEVE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT OF MY SHEEP! Not because you dont ask, or that you are not willing.
This is a video of Dr. White presenting his exegesis on Romans 9. The week after this he interacted with Steve Gregg's refutation of the Calvinist understanding of this passage. You can watch the whole series on my youtube channel.
rev 22:17c "And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. "
whosoever will - thelō
1) to will, have in mind, intend
a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose
b) to desire, to wish
c) to love
Though I agree with much of what you said, I am not convinced you are totally correct. We can have a free will, and be predestined as God knows the end from the beginning. God knows those that will respond to him because it has already happened.
But who indeed CAN respond to God apart from God first choosing him/her? That is why Jesus said "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" and the Apostle similarly states "there is none who seeks for God" (John 6:44 and Romans 3:11, respectively).
Have you read Romans 9:1-3, where Paul said "I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren"?
The fact that calvinists use Romans 9 to support their position just shows that they are ignoring the beginning of Romans 9. It does not support their position, but refutes it, as many other verses throuout the Bible do.
For more info, check out a page on my site titled Resources on Calvinism. You can click of my profile for a link to my site.
hail ' his holiness pope james white I' lol the man is infallable, all knowing , all powerful, all mighty etc.... sadly he misses that one cardinal point. the simplicity of the gospel, to be obedient and faithful to the call of Christ to follow Him . there goes the gong again lol
A simple reading through the first 20 pages of the King James Only Controversy would show that you are an ignorant individual who doesn't like to do research or just ignores it before he speaks.
I see a bunch of back and forth from both extremes of the debate, but I am curious to hear what Dr. White would say to those who are frim on the thier middle of the road stance i.e. Chuch Smith of Calvary Chapel...
2010ksaul 7 months ago in playlist "What is Calvinism?" (James White)
Excelent handling of the text, the best I have ever come over so far. Though I will include what C. Spurgeon said: "If it were not just to choose a person, it would be far more unjust to choose a nation; since nations are but the union of multitudes of persons; and to choose a nation seems to be a more gigantic crime- if election be a crime- than to choose one person. Surly, to choose ten thousand would be reconed to be worse than choosing one...what are nations but men?"
Aslak1Simonsen 8 months ago
I don't think this revelation is true hear. Go see Romans 9, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament . You will get a whole new view. Don't let Dr. Whites view be your only source of "truth".
MRGV7373 10 months ago
@MRGV7373 Well in that case get Luther's Commentary on Romans & Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, and don't stop there but get some Augustine's Treatise on Grace & Free Will.
NB3K 8 months ago
why would God "call" someone and then not give them a choice? To give the feeling they have a choice. Is Dr. White saying that God can not handle giving some a choice?? God's Ego can handle the Ego of man. No lesser proclamation is needed. Man never controls God, and God never controls man. Love is shown in the choice to pick Love. God is God and God is free to choose. By Dr. White is saying God has no choice to make a structure of Choice. I do reject Dr. Whites text.
MRGV7373 10 months ago
God did not say to Pharaoh that he had raised him up in order to destroy him, or to drown his army in the Red Sea, but that God had raised him up for the purpose of showing his power in Pharaoh and of having God's name published throughout the earth. Just HOW God's purpose would be fulfilled in Pharaoh, at the time God spoke, still remained within the circumference of Pharaoh's free will to choose, whether by his own submission to God commands or by his rebellion.
MRGV7373 10 months ago
God want all to come to Him. If I choose that you will go to hell is that not unjust?? God is not forced to punish but will do so if you turn your back on HIS offer to you of Love and Friendship. God let's us choose and your actions will have consequences. God set up the plan, and we need to live with in the plan. Dr. White is my opinion is off on this area. God could show God's Power either way of Pharaoh behaviors. God's does the harding's because the behaviors justify the hardenin
MRGV7373 10 months ago
@candiceevans1 you have obviously never seen his ridiculous banner ads for his debates, he plasters "Dr." in every venue where people are slow/naive enough to just take his word for it.
quickkickz 10 months ago
@quickkickz He has a Th.M and a Th. D.
RockSprites 6 months ago
Comment removed
quickkickz 5 months ago
@quickkickz Whether or not you like the title "doctor," it is still a fallacy to use it against someone. Through all technicalities, he still has degrees. What you should be more concerned with is the substance of his claims in his DEBATES.
RockSprites 5 months ago
@RockSprites
his substance HAS been thoroughly refuted by William Lane Craig, Ben WItherington, Norm Geisler, et. al ad nauseam…
His abuse of the "Dr." title is without defense. If he has other degrees, then let him put MA or BS or AA behind his name.
quickkickz 5 months ago
@quickkickz The irony here is that White has repeatedly sought to debate these people in an organized and public fashion, with cross examination so that their positions can be probed, and they refuse to do it. James White openly debates people and allows his position to be publicly criticized. William will not debate Christians. Have you read the Potter's Freedom?
His degree legally makes him a doctor of philosophy/theology, doesn't it? : /
RockSprites 5 months ago
@RockSprites @RockSprites
"His degree legally makes him a doctor of philosophy/theology, doesn't it? : /"
I can change my name to Sergeant Major Powers and you would have to LEGALLY call me Sergeant Major Powers. that doesnt mean I'm a recognized legit Sergeant Major
but wait! i wrote a book about shooting guns and stepping over trip-wires and about being a sergeant major.ND THEN a long time ago a few people used my book in their criminal justice class. BAM! I'm a sergeant major!
quickkickz 5 months ago
@quickkickz Regardless of you fallacious analogy, White is considered a Dr. of theology. He actually studied. I'd like to know where you got your degree from. What sort of school would accept someone who refuses to listen to a man articulate his argument before he responds, and refuses to speak with the man he disagrees with, instead flaming him on the internet? It couldn't have been a school very concerned with honest discourse. Don't actually understand another person's position. Brilliant.
RockSprites 5 months ago
@RockSprites "He actually studied."
no he didn't, he submitted a book as a thesis. by that merit let's give out a doctorate to anyone who can research enough to write a beginners book.
"White is considered a Dr. of theology"
yea just like "Dr" Lee Stroble and "Dr" Josh McDowell! btw these guys wrote beginners books too.
you and white would do well to read Witherington's "Is there a Doctor in the House?: An Insider's Story and Advice on becoming a Bible Scholar". standards matter
quickkickz 5 months ago
@quickkickz Where did you get your degree, and why do you believe you are more qualified than White to criticize or teach anyone, when you have publicly admitted that you will not understand your opponents and listen to what they have to say? Why should anyone take you seriously? Is it cowardice?Are you afraid to call White and take him to task? Or just have a dialogue with him? I honestly can't take you seriously at all.
RockSprites 5 months ago
@RockSprites Ive never claimed be a doctor, or plastered a false title across every bit of propaganda to bolster my reputation and create a false sense of legitimacy.
and I told you ive listened to what White says and its nothing in comparison to the 1400 years of orthodox christian interpretation for romans 9. then there was a brief hiccup when christian thought was polluted by fatalistic Bezaism. by the grace of God, Arminius emerged from the school of Calvin and brought us back to truth.
quickkickz 5 months ago
@RockSprites Ive never claimed be a doctor, or plastered a false title across every bit of propaganda to bolster my reputation and create a false sense of legitimacy.
and I told you ive listened to what White says and its nothing in comparison to the 1400 years of orthodox christian interpretation for romans 9. then there was a brief hiccup when christian thought was polluted by fatalistic Bezaism. by the grace of God, Arminius emerged from the school of Calvin and brought us back to truth.
quickkickz 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quickkickz "why would I call in to a webcast I don't even care to listen to?...I steer clean of amateur webcasts."
Where did you get a degree from? You don't have one? I'd also just love to know where you got your information from regarding White's school and degree.
RockSprites 5 months ago
@RockSprites Amen! Well spoken!! Me thinks quickkickz is jealous... James White scores very high on the integrity meter with the rest of us...precisely because he presents EVIDENCE when refuting someone...unlike the aformentioned commenter, who merely tosses out character assignations.
88momart 5 months ago in playlist *James White*
@88momart Yes, to White's credit, he spends a great deal of time and energy pouring over what his opponent has said and written, and it is reflected in his presentation. He is also studying Islam and the Koran in depth and learning the language necessarily to do so. Why? So he can accurately represent his opponent. Quik also does not understand the diff between a diploma mill and a degree mill. While a degree mill is not accredited, the point is fostering education.
RockSprites 5 months ago
@88momart "presents EVIDENCE when refuting someone"
I have linked evidence, Ill link it again:
shields-research. org/Novak/CES/ces. htm
thats the school that gave him a doctorate for writing a commoners throw-away book on theology.
quickkickz 5 months ago
Is this person saying that men do not CHOSE to serve God? That some men are damned and have NO HOPE if God has "preordained" his destruction because God knew their choice? Therefore, man's heart cannot be changed unless God manipulates it to do so? Sorry if I'm oversimplifying this but I would love it if someone would answer this question plainly. Thanks!
DeadManWalking2Day 10 months ago
@DeadManWalking2Day Some people position it like that but its not the reality. God hasn't hardened man's heart, man has. As far as "NO HOPE", that is all mankind, we have no hope as we are in sin and boung by it. God had to move on our part to bring us to him otherwise none would choose God. Romans 3 tells us there is none who seek God.
bigJguitar 10 months ago
@bigJguitar So just listening to this again..The VERB foreknew as he explains it means a personal action on God's behalf can be interpreted that what He is doing is where the emphasis is, on being conformed in the image of Christ. The "us" does not have to mean that all men are justified, except that they accept Christ as saviour, not all men by default. His intercession is not fruitless just because he came for all men. The Old Test establishes His pattern of salvation & we see in the NT.
DeadManWalking2Day 9 months ago
@bigJguitar So listening to this again..The VERB foreknew as he explains it means a personal action on God's behalf can be interpreted that what He is doing is where the emphasis is, on being conformed in the image of Christ. The "us" does not have to mean that all men are justified, except that they accept Christ as saviour, not all men by default. His intercession is not fruitless just because he came for all men. The Old Test establishes His pattern of salvation & we see in the NT.
DeadManWalking2Day 9 months ago
Long Live Dave Hunt!
trackguy2 11 months ago
@PracticalVlogging
why would I call in to a webcast I don't even care to listen to? and I just found out his 'doctorate' isn't even real, it comes from an unaccredited degree mill.
I steer clear of amateur webcasts and fake doctors.
quickkickz 1 year ago
@quickkickz could you give me a link to his resume/education? I'd be interested to see where he studied.
wanastunt 1 year ago
@wanastunt google 'columbia evangelical seminary pictures' and look at the first picture, thats where he got his degree mill 'doctorate'
quickkickz 10 months ago
@quickkickz I mean, right in this comment, I see no point in anyone having a dialogue with you. You don't listen to people before you criticize them and you are not interested in learning what people actually believe and having them respond to you in an open manner. James White would take your call during his podcast. It's no surprise to me that you used Craig and Geisler as examples of men who have "refuted" White. What a joke. I steer clear of those who love to remain ignorant. Good day.
RockSprites 5 months ago
@RockSprites i think you're my hero...
88momart 4 months ago
@quickkickz The reason you won't call is because you are a coward. It is so easy to hide behind your avatar and get your "quick kicks" on the internet; it's an entirely different story when you have to take someone to task in conversation. Please, call his podcast and take him to task on his Greek. Or you could send him an email about it and he will address it. Are you afraid to be proven wrong?
RockSprites 5 months ago
@RockSprites "call" "email" "afraid"
what would that change? I have read both sides of the issue most of my life and the reformed side has been found wanting. a call or an email to anybody I disagree with on this issue wont change the truth about the evils of calvinism. btw ive read white's transcripts, he is petty and his snideness reeks in his exchanges, he is not worth the time to debate.
"Do you know Greek?"
no and neither does White. so at least we've got that in common.
quickkickz 5 months ago
@quickkickz First of all, White has never claimed to know modern Greek. He knows the Greek of the NT, and has TAUGHT it at actual accredited universities. So you might want to take your assertions up with his students. But even if you did, you would not be able to tell, because you've just admitted that you do not know any form of Greek. Yet you pretend to know whether or not someone else does. Is that arrogant?
RockSprites 5 months ago
@RockSprites "has TAUGHT it at actual accredited universities. "
let me fix that for you:
"has (,with no future plans to be offer a new contract,) TAUGHT (a handful of random classes in the last 20 years) at (a small seminary and a satellite campus of an even smaller seminary)."
you are trying to justify his means of acquiring a degree-mill degree by offering his sparse teaching stint at an ACCREDITED school! He COULDN'T teach there UNLESS he EARNED an ACCREDITED masters! Doublethink!!!
quickkickz 5 months ago
@quickkickz I don't think I've ever spoken to someone on the internet this ignorant. White has earned degrees at a few different universities. Only one of them was unaccredited, and it was a seminary with a focus on mentoring. White has studied and earned degrees at other places. But if all you do is base you information on what your favorite teachers say, or what you want to believe is true, you're just going to continue making yourself look foolish.
RockSprites 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quickkickz I don't think I've ever spoken to someone on the internet this ignorant. White has earned degrees at a few different universities. Only one of them was unaccredited, and it was a seminary with a focus on mentoring. White has studied and earned degrees at other places. But if all you do is base you information on what your favorite teachers say, or what you want to believe is true, you're just going to continue making yourself look foolish.
RockSprites 5 months ago
And quickkickz, where have you earned your degree, and in what? Have you even studied at a university? Have you ever taught? How on earth can you justify criticizing anyone if you don't have an education? Why should anyone take you seriously?
And even if someone has studied at a school I find less than satisfactory, that does not justify going after them. I look at people based on the merit of their argumentation. I don't care if you're self-taught of school-taught. It's an elitist farce.
RockSprites 5 months ago
@RockSprites
Wow, You're spouting more and more "Double-think"
You say this "How on earth can you justify criticizing anyone if you don't have an education?" and THEN this "I don't care if you're self-taught of school-taught."
"where have you earned your degree"
IT DOESNT MATTER because I am not the one claiming to be a doctor using an unaccredited correspondence degree! Does that finally make sense to you now?
quickkickz 5 months ago
@RockSprites btw:
Why do you think White cares to have a title thats just an "elitist farce" ;) MORE AND MORE HYPOCRISY
quickkickz 5 months ago
@RockSprites
I have clearly owned you in this dialogue about degree standards, so getting back to the terrible video above i will leave you with this;
read Chrystom's homily on Romans 9 and you will see where white's ridiculous eisgesis massacres any semblance of coherent christian thought. If you are not moved by the ACTUAL exegesis of Romans 9 by Chrystom or any other QUALIFIED scholar. Then you, like white, are blinded by your traditions and may God have mercy on your soul.
quickkickz 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quickkickz First of all, White has never claimed to know modern Greek. He knows the Greek of the NT, and has TAUGHT it at actual accredited universities. So you might want to take your assertions up with his students. But even if you did, you would not be able to tell, because you've just admitted that you do not know any form of Greek. Yet you pretend to know whether or not someone else does. Is that arrogant?
RockSprites 5 months ago
Hmm this has been helpful.
TheCarydal 1 year ago
such eisegesis, its obvious he doesn't even know greek
quickkickz 1 year ago
@quickkickz Do you know Greek?
RockSprites 5 months ago
@quickkickz Do you know Greek?
RockSprites 5 months ago
Thank You 4 this!! :)
luckybAdam 1 year ago
His exegesis is completely off. Paul wrote this letter when the Jews were experiencing antisemitism. And he's using his own human knowledge and logic to analyze these scriptures instead of reading the true references that Paul made. Try reading Jeremiah 18:6-10 to get the real illustration of the potter and the pot analogy that Paul uses. Oh yeah, Jacob I loved, and Esau I hate was something God said in spite of Israel because they were unfaithful to him and God was judging them.
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
"His exegesis is completely off"
-
His exegesis is completely on. Now are you convinced by my merely saying that? No? Than what was the point of your comment?
-
"Try reading Jeremiah"
-
Paul uses the potter/clay imagery in a different way. Let Paul say what HE wants to say. In keeping consistently with your method, when you come to Revelation where Jesus is called the bright and morning star, you need to run to Isaiah where the same is said about Satan and conclude that Jesus is...
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Lol. Your off again. Satan is called the morning star and Jesus is called the bright morning star. Two very different. The word "bright" makes a clear distinction. Paul's imagery of the potter and the clay is making reference to the Old Testament for a reason. Go back to Jeremiah 18:1-10.
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
"makes a clear distinction"
-
Great! And Paul's context, flow of thought, and argument in general makes a clear distinction between himself and Jeremiah's message concerning potter and clay.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Nope. You're off again. I was talking about the Biblical error you made with human philosophy. You assumed that Jesus and Satan went by the same title (which is blasphemy). Jesus is called The Bright Morning Start. Satan is only the Morning Star. This is consistent throughout the rest of scripture, the same being the Potter and the Clay interpretation. They have not changed. Let scripture interpret scripture my friend.
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15 *Bright Morning Star
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
I didn't equate Jesus with Satan and blaspheme. Don't misrepresent my case. My argument was that your method of interpretation logically leads to exegetical errors. Be honest in your words as a Christian; you know very well that's not what I meant.
-
"Let scripture interpret scripture"
-
Tell me another comment you heard apart from actually learning exegesis. Scripture does interpret Scripture, but FIRST you interpret the Scripture in question in its own context... continued
AgApE010 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
...in its own context. You don't take a phrase from Paul in Romans and run with it to Jeremiah and then feed Jeremiah back in to Romans. No. You follow the author's flow of thought in Romans first. When you do that, you'll see that what Paul was talking about and what Jeremiah was talking about were two different things. You mesh the two together merely on the grounds of them using the same analogy (although for different purposes)... continued
AgApE010 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
...Then I pointed out that that is as absurd as making a connection between Isaiah and Rev with regard to Jesus and Satan being called by a similar title. It does not follow. Call it "human philosophy" if you want, but it's just a matter of reading Scripture the way it was meant to be read.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." Proverbs 3:5 (KJV). I am justing doing my best to stick to that verse. If we are to be honest Christians, we must know that "For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrew 4:12. Let scripture interpret scripture.
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
May God bless you in your walk to trust in Him with all your heart, as Proverbs 3 says. While you're trusting in God and growing in Christ, it is essential, not optional, that you grow in His Word as well. That involves understanding His Word which involves knowing how to study it. If you take anything away from this discussion, let it be to remember to mind the context of the passages you read: Who is the audience? What's being addressed? What was said before/what's said after? etc
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Yeah. And in Romans 9 Paul is struggling with the fact that God had made certain promises in the scriptures concerning Israel, many of which he sees as fulfilled in and through Christ. Yet Israel as a whole has not come to Christ. What does this mean for Israel, for the veracity of the Scriptures, and for Paul’s gospel? These questions dominate Paul’s mind in Romans 9-11, and his statements about election in Romans 9 must be evaluated in terms of them.
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
Exactly! For in Romans 8 he stated that the elect are eternally secure. That brings up the question of Israel: they were God's elect and they rejected their own Messiah. Paul answers this by stating "They are not all Israel who are of Israel", meaning they are not all elect who are of the nation of Israel. He goes to show what he means by giving examples of God electing one over the other, concluding that "it is not of him who, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy..."contd
AgApE010 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
continued
-
...As he expands on this he emphasizes God's sovereign role in history in that He chose even Pharaoh for His sovereign purposes: "For this purpose I have raised you up..." which leads Paul to conclude "therefore He has mercy on whom He wills and He hardens whom He wills." He goes on to state that He elected for salvation vessels of mercy "not from among Jews only, but also Gentiles." This is also White's exegesis of the text. So where do you disagree?
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 This is where I have a problem with Calvinism. You will never find phrases like Sovereign role, sovereign purpose, sovereign grace, and sovereign will in the Bible. They only go as far as sovereign Lord. But what does it mean to be sovereign? If God is truly sovereign, cannot He not make the sovereign choice to give His creation a choice? Maybe our definition of sovereign is shallow, but the contextually consistent message of scripture is all we need. Scripture interpreting scripture.
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
The word "Trinity" isn't in the Bible either, but the doctrine is there. Can God sovereignly decide to not be sovereign? That seems to present a little bit of a problem, doesn't it? We do indeed have a choice. Calvinism doesn't strip us of choice. It simply states, with regard to the will, that since we are depraved sinners we can never choose outside of our natures, namely choose Christ, apart from God supernaturally enabling us to.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Lol. I have always wondered why there are so many parallels between atheism and Calvinism. The atheistic argument says, "if God is omnipotent, can he make a rock bigger and stronger than himself?" The Calvinist says "if God is sovereign, then can he not be sovereign at the same time?" Sovereignty only means having the authority to take control of everything. But does God take control of everything? If he can abandon a nation or a person, I would say, no, he does not.
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
God can abandon a nation or person, as far as removing His grace and protection from them(as He did in the Old Testament with Israel)but that doesn't mean He is not still sovereignly in control. For example, when He announces to Jeremiah that Israel will be captive, He says reassuringly "For I know the plans that I have for you...to give you a future and a hope." So then God was even in control of what was happening with Israel even after He "abandoned" her.
-
Bible wins every time.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Hmmm... not according to your definition of sovereignty. Your definition of sovereignty says that God controls everything even down to the every fibre of our beings, but in Jeremiah 29:23 it says, "Because they have committed villany in Israel, and have committed adultery with their neighbours' wives, and have spoken lying words in my name, which I have not commanded them; even I know, and [am] a witness, saith the LORD." Oh, that was KJV by the way. Certainly not God's will for them.
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
Daniel said to the pagan Belshazzar, son of Nebuchadnezzar, "your life-breath and all your ways are in God's hand" (Daniel 5:23). So yes, God is in control of even every fiber of our being.
-
There's a distinction between God's command to not sin and His sovereign control of the events of our lives. For example, God's hand "predetermined" the death of Christ by the hands of sinful men, says Acts. But the men were still responsible for their actions. This requires further discussion.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Firstly, that is one passage out of the whole Bible. Secondly, it says God has his breath and his ways in God's hands. It does not say, God forces his breath and his ways. You're reading something into the text that is not there. Thirdly, God uses the libertarian free will of man to accomplish His acts, because He is that omniscient. To say that he controls there actions would take away from his omniscience.
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
I'm not reading anything into the text. You seemingly scoffed at the idea that God is in control of the very fiber of our beings. I responded by showing you where Scripture says to a pagan king that HIS WAYS and HIS LIFE-BREATH are in God's hand and control. What am I reading into the text? Please don't slanderously accuse me of such things. Furthermore, Calvinism doesn't say God "forces" anything either. Careful not to set up a straw-man.
AgApE010 1 year ago
1 Corinthians 7:37 - very definition of libertarian free will.
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
Wow, first you object that the verse I provided is just "one passage out of the whole Bible" (which doesn't refute its truthfulness anyways) but then you violate your own criteria and argue from "one verse out of the entire Bible." However, your self-contradiction notwithstanding, you take that verse out of context. Paul was specifically speaking of a father and the nature of his choice of keeping his daughter a virgin. Read the entire passage.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Do you believe that God causes people to sin? If He is in control of everything, even the very fibre of our beings, what would that logically suggest? When Daniel said that, he meant that God sustains us, not that He causes us to do these things.
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
"When Daniel said that..."
-
The king's ways were said to be in God's hand. This king was a pagan. He took the holy things of God's temple and defiled them. He worshiped pagan deities. The king's ways were in God's hand. Does that strip the king of responsibility for his sin? No, because the king made real choices to be a heathen. Was God nevertheless in control of the king (albeit in a way so that God Himself is blameless from the king's sins)? Yes. Let me support... continued
AgApE010 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
...Let me support this with some Scripture: "And if the prophet is induced to speak anything, I the LORD have induced that prophet, and I will stretch out My hand against him and destroy him from among My people Israel." (Ez 14:9). The false prophet was speaking falsely. God said that He was in ultimate control of what the prophet said. Yet the prophet nonetheless chose to speak falsely and was thus guilty of his sin, which is why God "stretched out His hand and destroyed him" contd
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Induce means to persuade not to control...funny enough that is how God works in salvation. Persuasion not imposed will.
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
So you acknowledge that God, in a sense, persuaded the false prophet to speak falsely? I never said God controlled the false prophet as in to make him do something that he didn't want to do. The false prophet did what he wanted to do and chose to speak falsely but the text is clear that God was the one in charge of the whole thing.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Not really. If the Pharisees in Luke 7:30 can resist God's divine will for them, what was stopping the false prophet from speaking false prophecies? It goes to show you that the false prophet wanted to speak false prophecy, so God made an example out of him. Read Jeremiah 18:1-10. Much like the potter and clay illustration. Try again.
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
You're misunderstanding Luke 7. Stick to these texts for now instead of jumping elsewhere.
-
"it goes to show you that the false prophet wanted to speak falsely"
-
I said that very thing myself. Are you even reading my comments? I said that the false prophet was doing what he willed which is why God was able to justly destroy him. It is also true that God was the one prevailing upon the false prophet to speak falsely. You're trying hard to swerve around this text.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Am I misunderstanding Luke 7:30? Let us see what it says; "But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." (KJV) Care to interpret this one, oh elect one?
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
"care to interpret this one"
-
No, as exegesis is a time-consuming endeavor in text and you're not even following the two passages from Ezekiel and Jeremiah. Thus I will hold you to these texts for the time being before going to another text.
-
"oh elect one"
-
Such patronizing and sarcasm is a sign that you are frustrated and your love is growing cold towards one whom Christ commanded you to love as your brother. Such scoffing is inappropriate and unbecoming of a Christian.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 1. Right. So you agree that it is possible for a human being to resist the will of God. You just told me I am resisting the will of Jesus Christ. 2. It is God's sovereignty that is causing me to do this, why have you judged me? 3. No I'm growing cold towards you. I'm actually interested in understanding what you believe. I tend to do that because it baffles me that such people can exalt themselves over others. And you refuse to exegete that passage? Why?
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
As I said, there's a distinction between God's sovereign decrees and His universal command to keep His laws. Jesus said love one another. If you don't, while it is true that God is in sovereign control of that choice, you are also making a real choice (you're not being forced to not love) and thus responsibility and blame is on you, not God, as per the examples given of Assyria and the false prophet.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
"No I'm not growing cold towards you"
-
Then please refrain from patronizing me and let's keep this discussion in love :)
-
"you refuse to exegete the passage? Why?"
-
If we are to have a mature and organized discussion, it is imperative that you take the time to read my posts. I explained to you why in that comment. Either you ignored reading my reason or you simply don't acknowledge it; either one is inappropriate.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 I apologize for insulting. Please forgive me. Let's move on but I don't think we're convincing each other about anything. Anyway, I have studied compatabilism and it does not make sense to me.
icepac15 1 year ago
Comment removed
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
For the record, when Joshua says "choose whom you will serve" he is telling the Israelites to choose which false god they will serve. But he says "As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Concerning Deut. 30:19, I think that despite my explanations you are still under the assumption that Calvinism strips man of will. Perhaps the meat of the word is too difficult at this stage in your walk. I don't say that boastfully. I'm just trying to look at this situation Scripturally.
AgApE010 1 year ago
Comment removed
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
It's a mockery if God acted Fatalistically or if dangling a carrot in front of people desperately trying to grab at it while He pulls the carrot away (or pushes the person away). But God acts Compatabilistically. Man still makes real choices. If man chooses death, he made a real choice to choose death. If man chooses life, assisted by God's grace, he made a real choice to choose life. I don't know if you've read Calvin, but look over the section where he deals with this. Bye for now
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 We agree on something. "Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well." 1 Corinthians 7:37 (KJV). Wow, a verse that says that it is possible for a man to have power over his own will. Compatibilism seems to be incompatible with the Bible.
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
I explained what 1 Corinthians 7:37 was saying by putting it in its proper context. Since you're going back and repeating yourself over things we have already covered, I can see that this debate is over.
-
You take care of yourself, friend.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 In my defense of total moral free agency, I will quote excerpts from the works of Thomas Ralston. "In Deuteronomy 30:19, we read: “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.” And in Joshua 24:15: “Choose you this day whom ye will serve.”
icepac15 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Now, to choose is to determine or fix the will; but men are here called upon to choose for themselves, which, upon the supposition that their will is, in all cases, fixed necessarily by antecedent causes beyond their control, is nothing better than solemn mockery." (Thomas Ralston)
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
...Here's a clearer example: "Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hand is My indignation. I will send him against an ungodly nation, And against the people of My wrath I will give him charge, To seize the spoil, to take the prey, And to tread them down like the mire of the streets. Yet he does not mean so, Nor does his heart think so; But it is in his heart to destroy, And cut off not a few nations." (Isaiah 10:5-7). Here God sends out... continued
AgApE010 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
...Here God sends out Assyria to punish Israel; they are the rod in God's hand that He's going to punish Israel with. But God says "Yet he does not mean so" meaning that Assyria isn't trying to be a rod of correction in God's hand; they are simply choosing to be evil and destroy Israel and take her possessions... continued
AgApE010 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
continued ....take her possessions. Thus, even though God was the one who sent Assyria and was in control of what they were doing in destroying Israel, Assyria still did what they wanted to do and were thus guilty of sin. This is a difficult doctrine that you need to spend time with. But, it is Biblical. Would you like examples of this from the New Testament as well?
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Again, King David killed Uriah, but did he personally take a spear and kill him? Or was it vicarious language that God was using? Still reading into the text something that was not there.
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
David is not an absolute sovereign whose ways can be legitimately compared with God's. The language God uses in Ezekiel and Isaiah is not merely vicarious language; that doesn't even make sense in these contexts. God is directly claiming control of sovereignty over what is happening.
AgApE010 1 year ago
Oh, and God made it clear that there evil was coming from within and not from them so God just used their evil intentions inside their heart and persuaded them to go. Again, persuasion not imposed will.
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
"God just used their evil inside their heart and persuaded them to go"
-
No, He didn't. There you have God tempting the person to sin. God didn't tempt the false prophet to do evil. He was in transcendent, sovereign control of what the prophet was doing.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 What??? So you're saying then that God is not a sinner when he controls a man to rape a woman but He is when He uses the choices of that man to his advantage? Maybe I should change my language. God used the choices that the Assyrians made to His advantage. How did He do this? We have no idea because in His omniscience He is incomprehensible.
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
"when He uses the choice"
-
That's not what you said. You said God persuaded the man to sin. But God does not tempt man to sin.
-
God didn't passively see that the Assyrians would do this anyways and said "let Me see how I can use this." The text says that God Himself raised them up and sent them out; He was in control of their actions. God even gives the imagery of the Assyrians being a rod in His hand that He was using to beat Israel with...
AgApE010 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
...Yet, again, the text says that Assyria didn't will to be a righteous rod in God's hand. "It does not so intend." They were evil in their intent.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Ok so how is it that God at the same time, can have complete control over Assyria, even down to the very fibre of their beings, but Assyria be evil without God being the cause of that evil?? Hmmmm...secret decretive will that only the Calvinists knows. Sounds like gnosticism to me... After all, look at Augustine's background...
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
Good question, despite the sarcasm that followed. It's because man still makes real choices. Assyria was not dragged to Israel by God kicking and screaming. They were doing what they wanted to do and at the same time God was in control of it. It's a difficult doctrine, I know, but it is what Scripture teaches and if you accept Scripture as the word of God it is true.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@icepac15
-
I'm sure you haven't studied Gnosticism, so I'll just point out that they believed in Fatalism and we believe in Compatabilism. I'll leave you to do some research there in your free time.
AgApE010 1 year ago
Oh I love how you are so desperately using Christianity to feed your intellect and how much you try to rationalize an incomprehensible God. God is so omniscient that He even knows all despite the fact that we have complete libertarian free will. Now that is an omniscient God.
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15 - Calvinists have more highly evolved brains that ours. We just don't get it. :)
l0v3truth 1 year ago
@l0v3truth Lol. I know. Doesn't it sound so ironic that these people seem to have this higher enlightenment much like the atheists on youtube? Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is filled with pagan Greek philosophy from men who hated and did not believe in the Judeo-Christian God. If it is impossible for a bad tree to produce good fruit, then it is even more impossible for bad roots to produce a good tree.
icepac15 1 year ago
@icepac15 - Augustine the venerated mixed the pagan philosophies of Neo-platonism and Manichaenism with Christianity. And this is what is called "the historic orthodox Christian faith" of Calvinists. Its the poisoned well.
l0v3truth 1 year ago
@l0v3truth
-
Augustine actually wrote extensively against Manichaeism and the only neo-Platonic doctrine he really held to was the pre-existence of the soul. But way to go, spitting venom like that in the eyes of a departed brother in Christ.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 I really don't understand you. You insult my stance as a Christian and yet when I try to prove a point and bring scripture to prove my case, you always say to focus on the scripture you give me and I faithfully oblige. I went back and read the verse and it means exactly what Paul is portraying. Some people have control over their will. That is the exact definition of libertarian free will. If it is not the proper context, please explain...or are you using this as a scapegoat?
icepac15 1 year ago
@AgApE010 - Its not a matter of spitting venom, history is history. These philosophies affected his view of things, that just the way it is. But your spitting venom comment just shows how Calvinism has venerated a man and that's a problem. I am making no accusations in reference to his salvation, but he was wrong doctrinally on a lot of things, not least of which is amillenialism.
l0v3truth 1 year ago
@l0v3truth
-
Augustine certainly wasn't dead-on accurate on all things (which theologian ever is?), but to say his doctrines, like his views on election and predestination, are influenced by Gnosticism or paganism is simply untrue. Actually, Gnostics would disagree with Augustine's views on election and predestination; you probably didn't know that or don't know what the Gnostics actually believed. As far as neo-Platonic thinking, it has nothing to do with either of those doctrines.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010- like it or not Augustine made some significant changes to the orthodox faith of the actual church fathers. There is no doubting it, unless you just don't want to see it. These changes allowed for further changes straying away from the truth. But you just go on insisting you are right about everything. The reformation was good for what was achieved, but didn't go far enough. Why go back to the teachings of Augustine, who paved the way for some of the Roman Churches false doctrine?
l0v3truth 1 year ago
@l0v3truth
-
Again, you are slandering him out of ignorance. His teachings were contrary to Romanism. That's why the Papists watered down his theology to fit their own, as was done in the later Council of Orange.
-
True enough, Augustine was not a perfect theologian. But if you're going to make accusations against him, back them up with examples. I'll be the first to tell you Augustine struggled with the relation between faith and works, for example. But he was solid in almost everything else.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 - whatever. OK its slander and spitting venom to state facts. I'm finished with this anyhow, because unfortunately you are indoctrinated with Calvinism and all that goes with it. Amillenialism is solid please! Allegorising scriptures to suit your preconceived beliefs instead of letting the whole counsel of God speak for itself is solid also. There is no room here to give detailed examples. Also the Papist's did much worse, but Augustine's errors made the inroads for them.
l0v3truth 1 year ago
@l0v3truth
-
"OK its slander and spitting venom to state facts"
-
WHAT facts??? Lol. I've asked you to provide examples of what Augustine taught that was so wrong ccording to your own claims. For example, you would say "in chapter ___ in his book ____ Augustine taught _____ which is heresy." Can you do that? No, because you have not read Augustine and you are speaking from ignorance. And yes, you've been finished before you even started this discussion. Good day.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 - I just want to see if you always have to have the last say on everything. As I stated there is no room here to document the errors of Augustine as the space is not sufficient. I could give you examples and you still wouldn't even be able to understand, because you are blinded to it by your defective hermeneutic, which can be traced all the way back to guess who. You will go on defending you view because it was what you have been taught and can't and won't think outside of it.
l0v3truth 1 year ago
@l0v3truth
-
More presumptuous slander and a total cop-out that you're using to avoid admitting you are totally ignorant of Augustine. I already said "good day" and you responded back accusing ME of having the last say. You're just illogical all around, aren't you?
-
Admit it, you can't back up your nonsense cause you don't know what you're talking about. Admitting it would at least be respectable. What you're doing now is just disgraceful.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 - There is a connection between the secular philosopher Plato and Augustine, and it is something you must consider! B.B. Warfield (a well repsected Calvinist) saw no problem with stating that Augustine’s Christian philosophy he sought to construct was “built largely out of Platonic materials.” Not that any example would actually make 1 bit of difference to you.
I am sorry that you have become so upset and "venomous" towards me over this, but I am just stating facts. Search yourself
l0v3truth 1 year ago
@AgApE010 - That quote I gave was from B.B Warfield's Calvin and Augustine pg 319.
Warfield was a Calvinist and was a well qualified and respected source on Augustine.
l0v3truth 1 year ago
@l0v3truth
-
Which doctrines does Warfield state were influenced by Plato? I already stated the pre-existence of souls; what else? You have to be specific or else you're not saying anything that I haven't already said.
-
"Search yourself" is still a cop out. I have no burden to search for myself. YOU made the claims and YOU have to back up YOUR OWN claims, not roll over the burden on me. I won't accept it.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 - l won't be wasting any more time with you. You ARE BLINDED by Calvinism.
l0v3truth 1 year ago
@l0v3truth
-
Lol, and you can't bear the burden of backing up your claims because you speak from utter ignorance as evidenced by you folding under the pressure of having to prove your words. Thus, the words you spoke were presumptuous at best and lies at worst.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 1 more quote from history. This statement from Calvin on the Servetus affair is a 1561 letter from Calvin to the Marquis Paet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre, in which he says: “Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spainiard Benedict.“ Gasp. Murder.
l0v3truth 1 year ago
@l0v3truth
-
"Gasp. Murder."
-
In the 70s, John Wayne Gacy was put to death for murder(s). Did those who exercised the death penalty, as per the law, commit murder by putting him to death? Don't dance around the question please.
AgApE010 1 year ago
AgApE010 - Of course no one comes to Jesus unless the Father calls Him. I have difficulty with Calvinism for example -If God is not willing that any perish but that all come to repentance 2 Peter 3:9, then to say that election is based on the eternal decrees of God seems to violate what 2 Peter 3:9 directly says IS GOD'S WILL, that ALL would COME TO REPENTANCE. Elect/Chosen according to the foreknowledge of God - YES but foreknowledge does not seem to equal foreordaination.
l0v3truth 1 year ago
@l0v3truth
-
There's also a video on YouTube in which White provides a solid exegesis of2 Peter 3:9. It isn't saying what you think, but rather than having me type it our here over 3-4 comments, I urge you to see the video and see what you think of the study on 2 Peter 3.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 - That is such a strained explanation, that shows that defending a system of theology is more important than Biblical truth. Come one. The "you" mean us, and we are all people. He is long suffering towards us - you can't take v. 8 and make the you/us of v. 9 apply to believers only. An since believers have already come to repentance make this argument even more strained. This argument seems plain silly to me, but it has to be done because this one verse does tear Calvinism down.
l0v3truth 1 year ago
@l0v3truth
-
You didn't pay attention to neither the video nor to Peter, for Peter himself states that he's addressing the "beloved" and he contrasts "the beloved" with those scoffers for whom "the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire" (3:7).
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 - Also, John 3:16 Does not read for God so loved the elect, BUT... For God so loved THE WORLD, that he gave His only begotten Son,so THAT WHOSOEVER believes in Him, will not perish but have eternal life. As I've stated before Rev 22:17c "whosoever will, let him take from the water of life freely." Whosoever believes, whosoever will - God is calling all to repentance - to believe. He foreknows who will believe, but it is not foreordained.
l0v3truth 1 year ago
@l0v3truth
-
Just because John 3:16 says whosoever will doesn't mean that every one can. Those who believe are the ones God has chosen. Furthermore, "world" does not mean "each and every single person ever." You need to understand, the Jews, like Nicodemus, thought that salvation was only for THEM. Jesus contradicts that false view by saying God loves the world, meaning nations of all people i.e., not just Israel as the Jews/Pharisees thought.
AgApE010 1 year ago
Comment removed
l0v3truth 1 year ago
LaneCh, thanks for sharing the video.
benhuey 1 year ago
who pays for James white private tutoring in arabic and greek and other languages ?
ogilby5 1 year ago
James White is a Rich guy , he travells the world , stays in the the best hotels , eats the best food and who pays for all that ? the poor people wjo are looking for answers to their lives
ogilby5 1 year ago
I wih james white stop explaining the scripture the way it suites his desires
ogilby5 1 year ago
does James White follow Paul or Jesus ?
Pauline christianity is mixed with paganism , Jesus christianity is the law
ogilby5 1 year ago
@ogilby5
-
So you don't believe in Paul's apostleship? What about Peter? Was he also a false apostle? Or what of James? Or Luke? Do you believe Luke was a true servant of the Lord?
AgApE010 1 year ago
All you believe is making money preaching about some god or another.
coirpeach1 1 year ago
@coirpeach1
-
Yeah, cause Dr. White is rolling in the dough, right? You idiot. I've met him personally and he's an extremely humble, yet extremely educated man. If he was after money, he would have done his schooling in something other than this. Think before you spit venom at people.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 Oh hes humble alright,anyone would be humble making hes money..It make me laugh so much that they are some sad eejits around willing to hand over money for nothing..How weak minded you are,you are fooled so easy by all theses religious head da balls..Its just so funny..
coirpeach1 1 year ago
This and RC Sprouls take on Romans 9 is the best I've heard so far...thanks Lane..
labeef1 1 year ago
PREACH IT BROTHER! Romans 9 & Ephesions 1 & 2 are my favortites letters of Paul. Jesus claims the same in John 3,6,10,17. YOU DONT BELIEVE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT OF MY SHEEP! Not because you dont ask, or that you are not willing.
NB3K 1 year ago
This is a video of Dr. White presenting his exegesis on Romans 9. The week after this he interacted with Steve Gregg's refutation of the Calvinist understanding of this passage. You can watch the whole series on my youtube channel.
iahm87 1 year ago
@iahm87
-
Oh? How exactly did Steve Gregg refute the Calvinist understanding of this passage?
AgApE010 1 year ago
If God is MOST Glorified in US when we are MOST satisfied in HIM, then why does God DAMN most of the human race?
apollos6640 1 year ago
rev 22:17c "And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. "
whosoever will - thelō
1) to will, have in mind, intend
a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose
b) to desire, to wish
c) to love
Though I agree with much of what you said, I am not convinced you are totally correct. We can have a free will, and be predestined as God knows the end from the beginning. God knows those that will respond to him because it has already happened.
l0v3truth 1 year ago 3
@l0v3truth would u please site the verse that says we have an autonomous "free will" and please define "free" & please define "will".
jeffpoet 1 year ago
@l0v3truth
-
"God knows those that will respond to Him..."
-
But who indeed CAN respond to God apart from God first choosing him/her? That is why Jesus said "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" and the Apostle similarly states "there is none who seeks for God" (John 6:44 and Romans 3:11, respectively).
AgApE010 1 year ago
Psalm 119:165
*Great peace have they who love your law, and nothing can make them stumble.
MODERATECALVINISM 1 year ago
Hallelujah! I love Romans chapter 9.
Many are missing out by not undrstanding this chapter.
INTHEFATHERSHAND 1 year ago
Have you read Romans 9:1-3, where Paul said "I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren"?
The fact that calvinists use Romans 9 to support their position just shows that they are ignoring the beginning of Romans 9. It does not support their position, but refutes it, as many other verses throuout the Bible do.
For more info, check out a page on my site titled Resources on Calvinism. You can click of my profile for a link to my site.
Jesse859 1 year ago
@Jesse859
-
Jesse, how does that verse refute Calvinism again?
AgApE010 1 year ago
Glory to God!
jamesglory1 2 years ago
hail ' his holiness pope james white I' lol the man is infallable, all knowing , all powerful, all mighty etc.... sadly he misses that one cardinal point. the simplicity of the gospel, to be obedient and faithful to the call of Christ to follow Him . there goes the gong again lol
jphairy 2 years ago
Did you know that IF you prefer to read the Authorized Version, you are an "Onlyist", just ask White, you're headed to hell.
mark1tex 2 years ago
A simple reading through the first 20 pages of the King James Only Controversy would show that you are an ignorant individual who doesn't like to do research or just ignores it before he speaks.
LaneCh 2 years ago