1. Because Baptists do not think in biblical terms about the covenant, they fail to see how Jesus’ allusion to Jeremiah 31:34 in 6:45 enlightens the full scope of 6:37. Some prefer to see here a reference to Isaiah 54:13, but it makes no difference. In either case, it is clear that the entire nation of Israel is being spoken of. And the entire nation of Israel, in both its OT and NT forms, includes elect and reprobate within its number. In either case, it is a reference to every member of the visible Church. The “least of them to the greatest” (Jer. 31:34) is equivalent to the house of Israel (v. 33), and “all your sons” (Isa. 54:13) means ALL the sons of Israel. Therefore, the “drawing” of John 6:44 cannot be limited to the elect, but includes all who are brought by the Spirit into the visible Church through profession of faith (or baptism in the case of their children). Therefore, those whom the Father gives to the Son (6:37) cannot be limited to those who are predestined to glory.

God actually makes promises to people, and gives benefits to people, who fail to receive the benefit in a true and lasting manner due to apostasy. This is why Matthew 13:41 says that some reprobates will be gathered “out of” Christ’s kingdom in the final judgment. To be gathered “out of” a kingdom, you of course have to have first entered “into” the kingdom. So some reprobates do enter the kingdom of heaven for a season.

This is also why Paul says in Romans 9:4 that adoption as sons, the covenants and the promises (sealed in covenant signs) still belong to the Jewish people (cf. 11:28), though only the elect within Israel receive the benefits of those promises (9:6f.). The rest of the Jews, who reject Christ, are viewed by Paul as apostates, who have been broken off from the benefits of the covenant of grace (11:20). And what is more, it is clear that Paul continues to maintain this same framework in the Church of the New Covenant, for he warns those who have now been grafted into the covenant: “if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off” (Rom. 11:21-22).

White states that "the doctrine of sola scriptura is based on the nature of the Scriptures as the Word of God" (62). To demonstrate that this doctrine was held in the church prior to the Reformation, he quotes from Basil of Caesarea (c. A.D. 330-379) (55). Unfortunately, many evangelicals, intent on protecting sola scriptura from its Catholic alternative, have embraced who [sic] Keith A. Mathison terms "solo" scriptura. This is the attempt to interpret without recourse to the ecumenical councils and creeds, classically called the regula fidei ("rule of faith").

In two previous posts, I have argued (against Calvin’s exegesis, though not his theological system) that John 6:37 and 10:26-28 make better sense as covenantal statements than statements about the elect (in the sense of those secretly predestined to glory).

Bob Funk refused to live inside such boundaries or to accept such limitations. He seems to have agreed with my great teacher, Clifford Stanley, who was fond of saying, "Any God who can be killed ought to be killed." He had little patience "for suffering fools," either long or gladly.

Despite these storms, Funk persevered in his lonely but compelling task. Established old-line religious leaders such as the evangelical N. T. (Tom) Wright of England and the Roman Catholic Luke Timothy Johnson of Atlanta built their careers attacking his initiatives. Perfuming their irrational conclusions with the odor of respectability, Wright defended the literal accuracy of the details of the biblical story and Johnson defended the authority of an infallible papacy. Each reacted to Funk with the hysteria of a stuck and squealing pig.

Catholics, however, use the term "justification" to cover the entire salvific process. But they do distinguish between "initial" and "progressive" justification, the former resembling justification "proper" for evangelicals, while the latter sanctification. I believe the Catholic position to be an error not a heresy. Their view is similar to the error of "Galatianism." "Paul's warning to them clearly related to their sanctification. His fear was not that they would lose their initial (forensic) justification, but that they would fall back into bondage to the law (Galatians 2:4)." (Geisler and MacKenzie, p. 236). It is interesting that while White doesn't address this distinction, Akin does.

4. I do not believe that the argument, sure they believe in a Jesus, but not the Jesus, applies to the Mormons. The accusation of preaching “another Jesus” (2 Cor. 11:4) is directed at false teachers who knowingly deny the authority of the apostle Paul, and who intentionally proclaim a different Jesus from the one Paul claimed to have met on the Damascus Road. The Mormons do not intend to worship a Jesus who differs from the apostolic testimony, as Paul’s opponents did. Their intention is to worship the Jesus who spoke through all the apostles. Christian apologists, in their zeal to latch onto a prooftext, have misapplied Paul’s strong words here, and wrongly applied them to Mormons, who intend to affirm what Paul, and all the apostles taught pertaining to Christ, but who misunderstand some of those teachings. That, in itself, is not damnable. I take their claim to have faith in Jesus at face value. The problem is, it is a defective faith, because the Mormons do not affirm the true substance of the faith as it has been summarized in the consensual affirmations of the Church. The problem with the Mormons is not that they do not believe the Bible (many of them do); it is that they do not believe in the testimony of the Church as to the content of the faith once for all committed to the saints (Jude 3). In short, the problem with the Mormons is not that they are not Evangelicals, but that they are not Catholic Christians.

White states that "the doctrine of sola scriptura is based on the nature of the Scriptures as the Word of God" (62). To demonstrate that this doctrine was held in the church prior to the Reformation, he quotes from Basil of Caesarea (c. A.D. 330-379) (55). Unfortunately, many evangelicals, intent on protecting sola scriptura form its Catholic alternative, have embraced who [sic] Keith A. Mathison terms "solo" scriptura. This is the attempt to interpret without recourse to the ecumenical councils and creeds, classically called the regula fidei ("rule of faith").

In his book The Shape of Sola Scriptura, Keith Mathison contrasts sola scriptura with what he calls solo scriptura. Many of the criticisms Mathison aims at solo scriptura have already been enumerated above. It is quite true that there are non-Catholics who wave the banner of sola scriptura as a cloak to hide their dislike of the Bible’s teaching about the church, authority, and Christian truth. That is why it has properly been said that to hold to sola scriptura one must likewise firmly hold to tota scriptura, a belief in, and acceptance of, all the Bible reveals. Sola scriptura is mocked when the entirety of the God-breathed revelation is not obediently read and followed. And since the Scriptures speak of the church, teaching in the church, exhortation, rebuke, and the like, those who seek to make sola scriptura an excuse for being anti-church or simply heretical have no basis in the doctrine for their position. So I can join in this portion of the criticism of solo scriptura. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

01:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Today on the Dividing Line

09/13/2005 - James White

   Where else on the web can you get a webcast including: half an hour of review of the Crossan debate cross-examination (played clips and discussed) followed by a phone call touching on the emergent church, Calvinism and its opponents, and Greg Stafford and Jehovah's Witnesses? Nowhere but here!

18:02:38 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Owen on Mormonism: A Warning to the Discerning

09/13/2005 - James White

   Paul Owen, a name well known to anyone who has read this blog with any regularity, has one again demonstrated an incredible double-standard in how he deals with theological issues and movements. We know what the young Dr. Owen thinks of Baptists: his language is as harsh as can be and the accusations, insults, and basic ad-hominem flows freely from his keyboard when anything "Baptist" is discussed (though, of course, he throws all Baptists into one big lump to do so, often resulting in embarrassingly simplistic misrepresentations). But almost no one else receives the same kind of banal opprobrium from Owen's vaunted and exalted scholarship, including, obviously, the Mormons. This should be important to a wide variety of our readers, since Owen has snagged the attention of Christian publishers and has edited one volume already relevant to the topic of Mormonism. One would think that many of those involved with those publishing projects would wish to be aware of Owen's constant denigration of anything "Baptist" coupled with his willingness to "spin" the most horrific heresies for everyone else. I refer to some "clarifications" he has posted regarding Mormonism, in which we read the following:

2. I have never advocated accepting the self-professed Christian status of the Mormon Church. There is such a thing as the visible church, united around a common faith which is articulated in the Nicene Creed and similar ecumenical statements of faith, and entered into by Trinitarian baptism. The Mormon Church does not formally give their assent to the Creed, does not accept the doctrine of the Trinity as it has been historically understood, and hence does not validly baptize its converts. I view no unbaptized person as a Christian (which is not to say that God is not free to do so).

   Let's make sure we fully understand this assertion, for it is a long way from why the vast majority of believers have rejected Mormonism as a "Christian religion." Why have Christians rejected Mormonism from the start and sought to evangelize them? Because Mormonism and Christianity differ at the most fundamental level. Mormonism's God is not the God of Christianity. Mormonism's God became a god at a time in the distant past through a process of progression and exaltation; men and God are of the same species, just at different points in their progression. When Joseph Smith, the self-proclaimed prophet through whom the entire Christian faith was "restored," informed us that his God had not been God from all eternity, he forever separated his followers from the Christian faith. All the rest of Mormonism's errors---their errors about Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, man, sin, salvation, the Scriptures, priesthood, etc.---all flow from this basic error: that Christianity is monotheistic and believes that God is God and man is His creature; Mormonism is polytheistic and believes God and man are of the same species. Faith in a false god, no matter what names you use for that god, is a false faith that cannot save, and since the work of the Spirit is to sanctify us in the truth, God does not save His people through such false worship. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

00:01:00 - Category: Mormonism - Link to this article -

Christian Apologetics Journal Book Review: A Response

09/12/2005 - James White

   I was informed recently that Ralph MacKenzie, co-author of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences along with Norman Geisler, wrote a book review of The Roman Catholic Controversy in the "Christian Apologetics Journal" published by Geisler's organization. I found that somewhat odd, given that my book is nearly a decade old now. In any case, I would like to respond to some of the comments made by MacKenzie.

White is articulate and a vigorous (although often quite strident) debater.

   Some of you may recall the encounter I had with Mr. MacKenzie in the pages of the CRI Journal back in 2000 when we wrote a point/counter-point article on the Catholic/Lutheran accord, the one that sought to foster agreement by in essence ignoring the key issues of the Reformation itself. You can guess which side I took. MacKenzie has often referred to me as a "hard-nose," and that is because, in essence, we approach the issue of Roman Catholicism (and, I would imagine, all "boundary issues" regarding the gospel) from different perspectives. As he indicated in an article he wrote for This Rock magazine in 2003 (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0311fea2.asp):

There was no latent anti-Catholicism in the Protestant faith of my youth, and so I read Catholic as well as Protestant sources. I was Evangelical in my theology (and still am) but I soon realized that—as distasteful as the notion is to some Protestants—prior to the Reformation, if we were Christians, we were members of the Catholic Church (unless of course we lived in the East and were Orthodox).

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

01:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

When It Works, It Works

09/09/2005 - James White

   On my travels last week four technological items (and one program) worked so flawlessly, so perfectly, that I thought I should mention them. Instead of complaints, time to give some kudos to items and programs that actually do what they are supposed to do, and do it well.
   First, the Palm Tungsten T5. I read my opening statement on it. I used it as my Bible. I used it as my Greek text (at one point checking a claim by Dr. Crossan and finding him in error on the term used, though, of course, he wasn't looking at the text himself). I used a great program on it to store quotes and my cross-examination questions, a program that is easy to use and is simply perfect for storing data in a form that you can access quickly and easily. It is called Note Studio. It isn't cheap. But it works, and works well. Best organization/note card program I've ever encountered. Highly recommended.
   Now, let me warn you about something...if you have used the earlier Tungsten Palm devices (Tungsten, T3), and liked, as I did, the aluminum hard case Palm sells (I noted Tom Ascol had a T3 with a hard case with him on the cruise), whatever you do, do not get the T5 hard case. It is worthless. Talk about missing the point! The earlier hard case made sense: it was easy to get the unit in and out of it; you could turn it on, beam with it, plug in a headphone jack, etc., all while it was still in the case. But the genius who designed the new hard case for the T5 obviously has never actually used the T5, or any other Palm device. Getting the unit in and out of the new case is a chore, but more importantly, once it is in the case, you cannot beam; you cannot plug anything in; you cannot even get the stylus out or even turn it on and off without having to try to pull the device up and out of the portion it lies in (which isn't easy either). A complete example of how to take a good idea and make it stupid in one fell swoop. Thankfully, Vaja makes a gorgeous case for the T5 that is functional and oh so wonderful (especially if you love the smell of Argentinian leather).
   Next, I have had the Dell Inspiron 8600 for about a year now. Aside from the touch pad, which simply does not like my attempts at double tapping, this laptop is the best I've ever owned (and I've owned quite a few). Bullet proof. Gorgeous display, excellent battery life, accessories work well...it just does what it is supposed to do. Dell gets blasted a lot, but I have never had a problem at all, and this one has proven a real workhorse, traveling all over the US, England, Scotland, and Italy, without a single problem.
   Next, I love my digital camera. It is the Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-W1 5.1 Mega Pixel unit (looks like mine is gone, but this is the current version). Again, it simply works, and what I love about it is that it has a very large screen that actually allows you to see the picture you have just taken with some meaningful level of resolution. Again, a unit that does what it claims to do. The gorgeous Alaska pictures I've posted came from that camera. A great investment.
   Finally, one more piece of technology I took with me that I can very, very highly recommend: the Canon iP90 portable printer. We bought this little unit for me when I was in St. Louis back in February. It is very portable (fits in one of my Oakley backpacks along with our digital projector with room to spare), produces gorgeous, high-quality documents, even after being lugged around and shoved under airplane seats and run through security-point screening machines, and rolling down the rollers and running into other luggage---you get the idea---and that on the first sheet of paper. This crazy little unit also prints color, vibrant, high-quality color pictures, at like 1400 dpi or something along those lines. And it communicates with my laptop via the infrared port (i.e., I don't have to carry yet another proprietary USB cable around). Talk about a blessing in a hotel room, where I can print out my boarding pass for the early, early flight in the morning, or a copy of my sermon notes or debate notes (always good to have a back up should my Palm take a dive). I have been tremendously pleased with the quality of this printer, and couldn't recommend it more highly.
   So, there's your tech fix for the...month, or something. :-)

16:22:19 - Category: Technology - Link to this article -

Phil Johnson on Mormonism, Millet, Mosser & Owen

09/08/2005 - James White

   Phil Johnson's last two blog articles are most interesting not only on the subject of Mormonism and the media-oriented use of meetings by LDS scholars with evangelical leaders but, for those of us who have watched Owen undermining anything and everything that is good and godly for years now, for the insight it gives us into just how long he's been at it. It is so very odd to see a "former Mormon" telling Phil Johnson to "repent" of his attitude toward Mormons. Really makes you wonder....

21:59:15 - Category: Mormonism - Link to this article -

God is Sovereign in the Natural Realm

09/08/2005 - James White

   Commented today on Katrina and the simple fact that if you believe the Bible and follow its teachings, things like Katrina cannot be sloughed off into the "it happens" category. That was the first half hour, then the calls came in pretty strong today, and that took up the second portion of the program. Here it is.

20:01:24 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Update on Sovereign Grace Fellowship Relief Fund

09/08/2005 - Rich Pierce

Sovereign Grace Fellowship of New Orleans has now set up a bank account where you can donate directly. Checks or Money Orders can be sent to:

Sovereign Grace Fellowship Relief Fund
AmSouth Bank
Natchez Main Branch
320 Franklin Street
Natchez, MS 39120
Phone: 601-445-2601

If you want to contact the bank via phone I am sure that they can handle bank to bank funds transfers as well.

12:23:57 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Catching Up...

09/07/2005 - James White

   The fresh, crisp air of Alaska, normally in the mid 50's, was quite the contrast to the current 102 degrees here in Phoenix, as I knew it would be. But, such joyous experiences only last so long, and now it is back to so many other projects and tasks. My next trip will take me up to speak in the chapel services of Moody Bible Institute in just a few weeks, something I am truly looking forward to.
   So I start trying to catch up with what has been going on while I'm gone, and once again I am struck by the fact that some folks just can't stand me, no matter what I am saying or doing. For the past few months I have been focused upon one particular topic, that being the debates with John Dominic Crossan and all the issues related to apologetic response to the most extreme forms of destructive criticism (i.e., the Jesus Seminar), such as the Synoptic field. And so I haven't mentioned men like Timothy Enloe in quite some time (last notice was simply a long recounting of his own vitriolic posting on a Catholic web board), and it has been months since I dared type the name "Internet Monk" on this blog. Yet, while I was away defending the historicity of the gospels and the resurrection of Christ, both made either direct, or veiled, references to yours truly.
   Others have already documented, once again, the inconsistencies and repetitive chanting endemic to Enloe's materials. But one thing that keeps catching my attention in his voluminous chatter is his deep, deep insecurity regarding how to handle and interpret the Word of God. He obviously has no facility in the field, knows it, and hence has decided it is a bad thing to be trained to do so; and what is worse, he has decided that he will dishonestly misrepresent the study of exegesis in almost every single thing he writes as a cover for his own incapacities. No matter how many times he is exposed on this matter, he has adopted the mindset of men like Art Sippo, or Dave Hunt, both of whom likewise cover over their inability to deal with exegetical issues with the same straw-man hysterics. The shrill rhetoric he employs is so transparently fallacious it is no wonder he only uses it in contexts where he knows he is in friendly company: you will never see Enloe facing myself or Eric Svendsen or David King or anyone else in public. This kind of bravado only exists behind a keyboard that is located in the wilderness of Idaho: ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

18:09:40 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

This is Perfect

09/07/2005 - James White

   For those of you who have heard me speak on the Da Vinci Code and Dan Brown's inability to figure out which centuries are which, this comic is perfect.

12:02:13 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Robert Funk Dies September 3

09/07/2005 - James White

   I cannot help but noting the irony: on August 26th during the evening session of our national conference I played clips from my 1989 encounter with Robert Funk, the co-founder, along with John Dominic Crossan, of the Jesus Seminar, illustrating the bias very plainly found in Funk's position (and in his concluding the interview by telling us all to "go to hell" because it is a "nice place to go"). Just over a week later, when we were in Glacier Bay in Alaska, Robert Funk died at age 79. One can only shudder at the thought of standing before God and hearing his Twenty-one Theses for the Coming Radical Reformation read out. How very strange that this would take place exactly one week after our debate in Seattle. Definitely one for the "odd providences" list.

09:33:03 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Special DL Today!

09/07/2005 - James White

   Special live edition of the DL today at 2pm EDT. If you missed it, here it is. And we will be back on the web Thursday at 7pm EDT.

00:01:00 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

A Word of Thanks

09/06/2005 - James White

   Before we move on to all the issues facing us in the future, allow me to once again express my sincere thanks to two men without whom the recent conference and debate simply could not have taken place. You will soon begin to see video clips, and soon be able to listen to, and watch, the debates, and I believe those with a knowledge of the subject at hand will see just how valuable and useful these debates will be for years to come. I prepared long and hard, but things of this size cannot be done alone. It takes teamwork.
   Here you see a picture of myself along with Steve Camp (on the left of the picture...and yes, he's standing on a step) and Mike O'Fallon (to my right). Yes, we were the three who engaged in a competition to lose the most weight, percentage wise, between June 14th and August 23rd. And yes, Steve Camp won by 0.1% over Mike O'Fallon, and I was a lowly third. However, unless I'm missing my guess, neither of my brothers lost another two pounds during the cruise, as I did. We will see whose methodology has longer lasting impact! Anyway, when I last saw Mike last evening, late, in Anchorage, he was looking pretty tired. He had worked so very hard during the entire conference and cruise to make things "work" for us all. He was the one who arranged the debate with Dr. Crossan (and with Doug Wilson and with Greg Stafford, for that matter). He makes the cruises work. He and his wife Sau do far more than anyone knows. Keep that in mind when you get a chance to start hearing the debates and the conference presentations.
   But of course, as all of you know who listen to the Dividing Line, the day-in, day-out workhorse of the ministry is Rich Pierce. I looked through all the pictures I have from the conference and could not find one of Rich and I together, which makes sense, I guess. If I am up front, he's in the back making sure the cameras are rolling and the sound is being recorded, etc. That's what he was doing here (and my son Josh is doing the "don't take that picture" look, it seems). But this seems a fitting picture, because Rich is doing what Rich does: working with his "stuff," his tools, here, cameras and sound boards and connections and cables and the like. And that is why you will get to listen to the debate or watch it or, eventually, all the Conference presentations as well.
   So surely this past adventure proved once again the appropriateness of Paul's analogy of the Body: each with different gifts. I may be the "out front" guy doing the debate, engaging in the cross-examination, asking the questions, but we have a place to hold the debate, and it is being recorded, and will be distributed, because of believers like Mike O'Fallon and Rich Pierce and the many others who work with them who do not insist upon being "out front." That is the attitude of servanthood.

18:58:08 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Woops, Sorry, A Bit Optimistic There

09/05/2005 - James White

   Sorry, false alarm...I sorta forgot to ask the powers that be about the Dividing Line, and they had assumed that since I don't get home till the morning, we wouldn't be doing the program. So maybe a Wednesday version, we will see, just not today. :-)

23:57:53 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Greetings from Anchorage

09/05/2005 - James White

   Just wanted to pop up a few more pictures while I have wi-fi here in Anchorage before we try to catch our flight home late this evening. First is a little better picture of a pre-debate conversation between myself and John Dominic Crossan from last Saturday evening. Once again, let me reiterate how amiable and kind Dr. Crossan was during the debates and the entirety of the cruise. That was much appreciated.
   Next, here is a picture Scott Schaeffer took that gives you a good idea of the kind of work and set up that goes into a debate, and the folks who did the lion's share of the work. In the center is Rich Pierce; my son Josh is on the right camera, our friend Larry on the left; Mike O'Fallon is at the podium, and of course Dr. Crossan is on the left, I am on the right of the podium. You can't see all the volunteers who helped to make things happen that night, but the two who did most of the legwork in the months beforehand, Rich and Mike, are there. To the right would be our book table, and surely Dave Gere, who didn't get to go, but who ran most of the DVD's and CD's and the like, should be thanked for his work as well.
   Finally, we visited Glacier Bay a few days ago, and the Lord was kind enough to lift the clouds when we got a chance to see the Johns Hopkins Glacier. I have never seen a more beautiful sight, and this time up to Glacier Bay I had my 5 megapixel camera, so I have some simply gorgeous shots now.
   Lord willing and our flight is on time we will do the Dividing Line live tomorrow and I will report on the events of the past two weeks.

16:46:27 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Predestined: Personal or Generic? (Part III)

09/05/2005 - James White

Concluding Thoughts
   God has no obligation to predestine anyone in the first place. The astonishing reality is not that God has only elected some to be saved but that he would elect anyone in the first place! So, if God has no obligation to save anyone, then why are there folks that object to God's gracious choice in election? I will let you in on a little secret: These folks down deep inside believe that grace is only grace if its given to all people. Yes, I know what you are thinking, 'But that defeats the very meaning of grace.' Exactly, grace is undeserved. So, if God chooses to give one person electing grace, he is not required to give someone else this same grace. 'But thats not fair!' someone may object. That's right, its not fair--its called grace. We don't want God to be fair! We want him to be merciful. If God was fair with us, we would all get our just due: to perish eternally in our sins.
   It is like the guilty man who was just pardoned from death row; rather than praising and thanking the governor for his mercy, he points his finger at him and says, 'How dare you pardon me and not everyone else!' What would we say about such an individual? We would say that person is a fool in the most serious sense of the term. Likewise, the Christian is foolish to point his finger at God and demand that he have the same salvific grace on everyone.
   Just as the word pardon should be the sweetest of all words for a guilty person on death row, so should it be for the Christian who hears the Biblical words election or predestination. They should be the sweetest and most joyful words to the Christian's ears! It was for the apostle Paul. And yet, sadly, these precious Biblical words such as election and predestination are disdained by many Christians.
   Either God's freedom in salvation to bestow grace to whomever he chooses is such that is crushes the pride of man, or this truth hardens mans detestation for God's freedom and builds his pride up even more--there is no neutral effect on any person who encounters this truth (or reading this article).
   Most churches (traditions) ignore this most awesome truth, or at best, give lip service to it. But when an individual Christian meets this truth head on, they are either humbled in such a way that they will never see the Creator and themselves the same way ever again, or, they will stiffen their knees and refuse to bow to the freedom of God by making desperate arguments to protect their own so called libertarian free-will.
   One day when we are all around the throne of God, there will not be anyone standing up saying, I am so glad that I chose God. My friends, on that day everyone will know who chose who---and they will be on their faces worshiping that One.

01:00:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Predestined: Personal or Generic? (Part II)

09/04/2005 - James White

Biblical Data that Teaches God Predestined Individuals
   Does Scripture only teach that God predestined a plan and purpose and not individuals? Lets jump into the Biblical evidence,

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

   Here in the clearest of terms, Paul is telling the Thessalonians that the cause of their salvation is the action of God choosing them. Notice it says, "God chose you [individuals] to be saved." It does not say, "God chose only a plan of salvation with the hopes that one day you would be part of this plan." And yet, there are those that would want us to believe this, contrary to the plain meaning of Paul's words.
   The English translation here properly reflects the underlying Greek. The personal pronoun 'you' is in the accusative case, which means it is the object of the action of the verb 'chose.' God is the subject and the 'you' is the direct object receiving the action of 'chose.'
   Further, notice that salvation is 'through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.' Let me stop here a moment and explain an important truth. Paul understands that salvation involves all the work of the Spirit in regeneration, conversion, justification, sanctification, glorification, etc. Salvation or election is not equated with 'justification' (being declared righteous before God). Though justification is part of our salvation it is not the whole of our salvation.
   I have heard it said, 'If God predestines people to be saved then why live a holy life?' That question demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of what election means. That is like asking, 'If God predestined us to live holy, then why live holy?' Election once again is not simply the initial work of God in justification but involves all the stages of our salvation, including sanctification. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

01:00:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Sovereign Grace Fellowship Relief Update

09/03/2005 - Rich Pierce

Eddie has updated his blog with an on scene report. Click Here for the update

How to help SGF

08:30:00 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Predestined: Personal or Generic? (Part I)

09/03/2005 - James White

   Guest blogger Alan Kurschner addresses "How to Refute the God only predestined a planof salvation and not a people objection to Election."
Placing this Objection in a Context
   Many people are comfortable with allowing God to be sovereign in matters such as nature, answering prayer, ordaining a plan of salvation, etc. But for some reason they are averse to the thought of a sovereign God penetrating the will of man. They think that it is unjust for God to use the will of man for his purposes. God, I am glad that you are sovereign and in control of things, but you have no right to touch the will of man. It is usually not said this bluntly, but essentially this is what they are saying.
   So, these folks have a dilemma when they come across terms in the Bible such as 'predestination,' 'election,' and 'chosen.' How do they explain away these terms to protect their so-called autonomous will? Sometimes they may phrase it this way, God predestined a plan (or purpose) so that people can be saved. Notice the "so that." People are not actually saved but salvation is only made possible. I have also heard it said ambiguously, God predestined salvation. Now, does this mean that God predestined salvation as a plan, or does this also include individuals in that plan? We are not told. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

01:00:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Dishonest Dave Strikes Again

09/02/2005 - James White

   Even the great distance of being in Skagway, Alaska, cannot protect me from rolling my eyes in simple disbelief and, I admit, no small amount of disgust, at the utter unwillingness of Dave Hunt to simply be honest in his continued attacks upon the sovereign kingship and freedom of God in salvation. I pull down my e-mail here on the ship and find Hunt's newsletter, and what do I find, but another "lets beat up this strawman I have built of Calvinism" piece once again. Nothing new, of course---Dave knows better than to actually try to engage the refutations of his work, since he knows he has no answers---but instead of just shutting up and moving on to other areas, he keeps wacking away at the cartoon he has made and calls Calvinism. Here's just one portion of his diatribe:

You cite Eph 2:8-9, but faith there is not the gift -- salvation (the subject of the entire passage) is the gift of God. Faith is a feminine noun, while the demonstrative pronoun that ("it is" is not in the Greek) is neuter and could not refer to faith. The Greek will not permit "faith" to be the gift. Moreover, "your faith" ("according to your faith" - Mt 9:29; Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 15:17, etc.) is found 24 times; "thy faith" 11 times; and the disciples are rebuked for not having faith, etc. These are odd expressions, if faith is not one's own but only from God.

   What is simply amazing here is that the following appeared in Debating Calvinism. Did Hunt even bother to read what I wrote? At times, I seriously doubt it. But if he did, how can he ignore the following which appeared in that very book? ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

14:47:22 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

An Insight from Tom Ascol

09/02/2005 - James White

   Last evening Tom Ascol of Founders Ministries led our "theology talk" time. At one point he mentioned a text that I had never seen in the light in which he placed it. Possibly that is because it is often passed over because it is in the "end stuff" of 1 Corinthians, I don't know. But here's the passage:

1 Corinthians 16:8-9 But I will stay in Ephesus until Pentecost, for a wide door for effective work has opened to me, and there are many adversaries.

   Paul has been in Ephesus for quite some time, but he planned on staying, for a "wide door for effective work has opened to me." That part we can understand. The Lord had opened a door, had given Paul success in reaching people and in establishing the church in Ephesus (as we can clearly see later in Acts 20 when the elders of that well-established church meet with him, and decades later, that same church is addressed by the Lord Jesus in Revelation 2:1-7). It is easy to stay in a place when things are going well. But is that really all Paul is referring to? Not at all, for directly connected to these words we find, "and there are many adversaries." The term used here, avntikei,menoi, can just as easily be translated "enemies." This is the same term Paul used in writing to the Philippians:

Philippians 1:27-28 Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I will hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel; in no way alarmed by your opponents-- which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you, and that too, from God.

   For many today, it is the lack of adversaries, opponents, or enemies, that indicates one is being effective. But Paul has no such view of the Christian ministry. He well knew the response the gospel receives from the unregenerate man and how there can be no neutrality regarding the claims of Christ. And so when he speaks of a door wide open, he is not saying there are no obstacles to going through that door; he is not saying that he has found a nice, peaceful place to work where no one objects and no one attacks and no one opposes. Instead, he has truly come to a point of Christian maturity in ministry: he realizes that where there are many opponents, the gospel is being clearly understood and proclaimed. He embraced those opponents, he did not flee from them.
   I could not help but thinking about how easy it is to find opponents a reason to complain to God. Surely the Psalmist did many times, but normally that was in reference to their unjustly accusing him of evil. Paul stayed right where he knew the enemy was most active, for where else can the soldier give due service in the cause of the truth? I am sure in his flesh Paul desired to "get away" just like anyone else: but he stayed in Ephesus, he pursued the open door of ministry, he faced his many opponents, his many enemies. He refused to turn tail and run. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

13:58:21 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Sovereign Grace Fellowship of New Orleans Has Setup A Blog

09/01/2005 - Rich Pierce

Here's The Link Katrinacus Rex

08:54:58 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

<< Previous Month Next Month >> Blog Archives