1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Robert Sungenis responds

The following is a response to Dr. James White's rebuttal to my rebuttal posted on March 16, 2001. My current responses, dated March 28, 2001, will be in blue and numbered. My comments from the previous rebuttal will be in gray. Excerpts that I have drawn from later parts of this rebuttal will be in red.

An Excellent Example of Sola Ecclesia: John 6 and Exegesis

James White

(1) By "Sola Ecclesia" I believe Dr. White is trying to say that he thinks I get my information only from the Catholic Church. In response, let me say a few things. First, the Catholic Church believes Scripture, Tradition and the Church are equally coexisting authorities (whereas Protestants believe Scripture alone is inerrant, thus "sola scriptura"). From that premise alone, "sola ecclesia" is inappropriate.

Second, it is a simple fact of history that those who hold to the doctrine I espouse are not only from the Catholic Church. Dr. White has plenty of opponents in his own Protestant denominations who believe something very similar to what the Catholic Church believes regarding Predestination and Free Will. In fact, while Dr. White calls himself a "Reformed Baptist," there is a denomination which calls itself "Free Will Baptist." In fact, the majority of Protestant denominations repudiate Dr. White's view of absolute predestination as being thoroughly unbiblical (Note: "Absolute predestination" is the view that God predestined some men to heaven and the rest to Hell, the former without regard to their Free Will, and in most versions, the latter without regard to their sin).

Third, in my rebuttals to Dr. White, now amassing close to 100 pages, I think I mentioned the Catholic Church only once, which came in a quote from the Catholic Catechism, para. 600: "To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of 'predestination,' he includes in it each person's free response to his grace." So, again, with only one citation to the Church, the use of "sola ecclesia" is not at all applicable to this present discussion. Ninety-nine percent of my rebuttal is based on an exegesis of the biblical text.

Turning the tables, however, I must warn the reader that, throughout his responses, Dr. White is prone to one very serious, persistent, and devastating error. Every time Dr. White reads a passage of Scripture which speaks of divine action in regards to salvation, he automatically assumes that the passage is either denying or excluding man's Free Will. You will see this throughout his writing.

You will also see that another reason Dr. White finds it impossible to accept any other view than the one he now holds is that, apart from any Scripture he brings forth, he thinks it is logically impossible to believe that predestination and free will can coincide. This is noted in an exchange we have later in the debate, but I will give an excerpt from it here:

[[ This is an important point: the problem with Dr. White's theology is that in his attempt to save the sovereignty of God he inadvertently makes God unsovereign. In Dr. White's theology, the only way God can be sovereign is if He overpowers man into believing against his will. The Catholic God is much more sovereign than that, since the Catholic God is the one who remains sovereign and controls all the events of history with respect to, or in spite of, man's free will. As the Catholic Catechism says so aptly, "To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of 'predestination,' he includes in it each person's free response to his grace." (Para 600).

"And parallel railroad tracks "meet" in eternity, too, right? No, parallel railroad tracks, should they ever meet, will result in a train crash. Rome may use high-sounding words to attempt to mix the unmixable, but that doesn't make the result rational. Either God saves perfectly, or He reacts solely to the decisions of finite creatures. Every attempt to rob God of His freedom and subject Him to His creatures has failed, as this one does as well."]]

(2) In answer to Dr. White, I explain later in this paper that such a position is self-refuting, since even Dr. White and the Calvinists must believe that Adam, before he sinned, had a genuine Free Will that coincided with God's foreknowledge and foreordination of all events. The Calvinists cannot explain how this "mixing of the unmixable" is possible, nevertheless, they must believe it exists. Unless Dr. White claims to be a supralapsarian Calvinist (a Calvinist who says that Adam really had no free will, such that Adam committed sin because God foreordained him to commit it, and that God predestined the non-elect to Hell but not based on their sin but on His own choice and pleasure), then he really has no room to say that a theology which seeks to coincide predestination and free will is not "rational." If Dr. White is an infralapsarian, then he believes that God took into account Adam's free will prior to His ordaining of predestination. If so, then Dr. White would have to agree that Predestination and Free Will can be mixed.

Another issue will be helpful in understanding this debate. As you know, Dr. White and I spend a lot of time arguing about the meaning of the Greek verb tenses in John 6. Later in this paper Dr. White and I have an exchange on the use of the Greek perfect tense in John 6:39 ("has given to Me" or "have been given to Me"). Dr. White's contention is that this perfect tense (which, generally speaking, is a tense in Greek that refers to a previous event with continuing effects into the future) refers to the eternal predestination plan of God by which, in the distant past, all the elect and all of the damned were chosen before the earth was ever created and before man was ever created, without regard to free will. I'll pick up the dialogue in the tail end of my remarks:

[[...To claim that the perfect tense is saying that all the people in view, prior to the events in John 6, have already been given is a total distortion of the text. There is simply no referent for the perfect tense that confines its beginning to the primordial past. If such a referent IS there, I challenge Dr. White to show us where it is.

Let's think about it a moment. "It is the boss' will that of all the accounts that have been given to you, Mr. Jones, you lose none of them, but cause them to increase in sales." Is there anyone who would for a moment suggest that what is actually being said here is that these accounts will be given to Mr. Jones at a future point? Remember, Jesus is identifying the Father's will for Him. Is Mr. Sungenis suggesting that the Father's will for the Son was unknown to the Son prior to the Incarnation, for example? If the will was, in fact, known, then does it not follow inevitably that the action of "giving" here carries its normal sense? The perfect tense, especially when used in speech, refers normally to a completed action in the past with abiding results to the present. Upon what principle---contextual or grammatical---does Mr. Sungenis suggest the possibility that we should translate the passage so that it allows for, "of all that shall be given to Me"?

Dr. White still hasn't proven his contention. Let's say that the boss still has accounts to give to Mr. Jones. In fact, the boss will be giving accounts to Mr. Jones until the day the boss' firm goes out of business, which we'll call "the last day." In this case, we can still say, "It is the boss' will that of all the accounts that have been given to you, Mr. Jones, you lose none of them, but turn them in on the last day." (Notice I had to change the last clause to keep it in conformity to the stipulations in John 6:39, and that Dr. White's clause "but cause them to increase in sales" favors the placement of the perfect tense to his own perspective). It is easy to see how the perfect tense ("have been given to you") can change its time reference based on the time referent in which it is placed. If "have been given" is placed in a time-frame that begins in the past but transpires for a long period of time, then obviously we cannot confine it to a one-time act in the past. This is because verb tenses are not independent entities in themselves. They are subject to the other tenses and thoughts that are in the verse they are placed, and in the context of the verses surrounding them. This is especially true, since Jesus, in John 6:37, uses the present tense instead of the perfect tense in John 6:39, showing that the perfect tense in John 6:39 is not absolute by any means. Thus, this is why I keep saying that Dr. White is abusing the perfect tense of the Greek in order to support his Calvinistic beliefs. He cannot prove that it is being used in the way he is claiming that it is being used.]]

(3) One more issue that will be helpful is the interchange Dr. White and I had regarding the "perfection" of Christ. Here it is:

[[ Yes, what a tremendous truth it is that the people of God have been given to the Son. If it weren't for the Father's drawing grace and mercy, none of us would have a chance of salvation, whether it be by predestination or free will.

"Chance of salvation" vs. "a perfect Savior who does the will of the Father without fail." The contrast is striking.

Dr. White keeps confusing Christ's perfection with man's salvation. Can he provide just one verse where Christ's perfection is tied to whether some are saved or lost? No. In fact, 2 Timothy 2:12-13 says just the opposite. It says that Christ cannot deny Himself (which is the same thing as saying He must remain perfect). How does He do so, according to 2 Tim 2:13? By remaining faithful even if we are faithless. How do we become faithless? 2 Tim 2:12 tells us: by denying him. If we deny Him, then He must deny us. If He doesn't deny us when we deny Him, then He will be imperfect, because His nature demands that He deny us if we deny Him. Who is it that can deny Jesus? 2 Tim 2:10 tells us. It is the very "elect." These verses overturn almost every tenet of Calvinism. But what did Dr. White do when I brought up these verses? He said they were "irrelevant."]]

(4) Finally, I think it would be very beneficial for the reader if I gave a quick overview of the narrative in John 6 so that one can better understand the basis for what I am espousing prior to reading the rest of this debate. Here it is. Prior to John 6, the Jews had a long history of unbelief. In fact, the whole tenor of the New Testament is that God is finally rejecting the Jews (except for a remnant) because of their persistent unbelief (cf., 1 Cor 10:1-5; Hebrews 3-4; Romans 9-11; Acts 1-2; Matt 23, and many other passages). John 5:40, that I used in my last rebuttal, says it so succinctly: "you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life." But the unbelief displayed in John 5:40 and John 6 is a product of the unbelief they have had for centuries. This state of unbelief didn't happen overnight. But here is the dynamic fact that issues from the Jews' persistent unbelief: God is giving up on the Jews. In the language of John 6:44, God is no longer going to draw them to Jesus. In fact, God will become active in keeping them in unbelief by blinding them to the truth (Romans 11:8). That is the kind of God we have; a very dynamic God. Despite the grace that God gave them to respond, the Jews, as a whole, never answered the call of Zech 1:3 or Ezk 33:11, so God decides to withdraw His grace, and the Jews will die in their unbelief. As a result, they are no longer coming to Jesus, because the Father will no longer draw or give them to Jesus. Thus, when Jesus says "All the Father gives to me will come to Me" in John 6:37, He is not intending to give a dissertation on election or free will, per se. He is telling the Jews that the reason they don't believe Him is that God is handing them over to unbelief, blinding them to the truth as a punishment for their sins. They will continue in their unbelief, and finally be judged for it, which is precisely what happened to them (Matt 23:37-39; Matt 24:1ff). In giving this synopsis of John 6, I intend to demonstrate that God has a part and man has a part. This is the only way passages such as Zech 1:3; Ezk 33:11; John 5:40; 8:31 can make sense. There is a dynamic relationship going on between God and man. Unless you grasp this dynamic relationship, you will never understand the intent of John 6. Instead, you will constantly be looking at John 6 for proof texts of predestination, but in the process miss the whole point of the passage. With those preliminary remarks, let us continue the debate between Dr. White and myself:

J. Over the years I have often surprised people by asserting that there is one passage of Scripture that is so clear, so perspicuous, that I have never seen a meaningful, coherent, contextually-based interpretation of it that does not teach with clarity the glorious freedom of God in the salvation of His elect people. That passage is John 6:35-45. This passage formed the basis of a recent discussion with Roman Catholic proponent Scott Windsor on our webcast, the Dividing Line. Mr. Windsor's unique "interpretation" of the passage did not fare well in cross-examination. In his attempt to rehabilitate himself, Mr. Windsor contacted Robert Sungenis of Catholic Apologetics International. Mr. Sungenis and I have debated many times in the past, not just in person in formal settings (Boston College, Long Island, Clearwater, Florida), but on line as well. Many of those interactions were rather acrimonious. Over the past few years, however, we have sought to disagree, not so much agreeably, as respectfully. It is not an easy task, of course, but both sides have made good faith efforts. It should be noted that I believe Mr. Sungenis has made many elementary errors in his response: elementary in regards to the Greek language, elementary in regards to the reading of the text, and elementary in regards to Reformed theology, which he presumes to critique. Since post-moderns confuse refutation of error with "hate-speech," let me say up-front: I believe Mr. Sungenis wrong on all these issues. In fact, I believe him ignorant of a number of the areas he is attempting to address. It is not hateful, unkind, or unloving to say these things if documentation and reasoned thinking is provided to substantiate the conclusion. If factual support is provided, the assertions are simply truthful, and truth is not hateful. However, if the accusations are made but no reasonable argumentation is provided to substantiate the assertions, a case can then be made that one is engaging in false argumentation and personal attack. Scott Windsor posted some of Mr. Sungenis' comments on his website, and made sure to let me know about it, repeatedly. I finally took the time to take a look at the web page which documented all my "errors," and found Mr. Sungenis' comments intriguing enough to warrant a response. I firmly believe that the more people struggle against the truths of this passage, the more clearly the truth is vindicated, and as this debate continues, I believe that will become more and more evident. My original response is found here. Mr. Sungenis then responded on his own website, and on Mr. Windsor's. I offer my rejoinder here in the hope that believers will be edified, and the soul-thrilling truth of God's all sufficient work of salvation will be ever more clearly understood in the hearts of minds of His people. Refocusing the Discussion One of the most troubling aspects of many back-and-forth discussions is the fact that they can often grow to such proportions that the reader is lost in a myriad of details that may, or may not, actually be relevant to the topic at hand. So I am going to make an effort to refocus the discussion while responding as fully as possible to Mr. Sungenis' attempted response. To help, allow me to make some general observations and comments up front, and then provide the substantiation for these conclusions in the following material.

Observation #1: Sola ecclesia lives. Mr. Sungenis simply does not provide textually based exegesis. Those who are familiar with the rules of meaningful exegetical study of the text can see, by examining Mr. Sungenis' efforts, that his interpretations do not flow from the text, but are made up of assertions joined with a general, "the word X does not have to mean this or that." The over-riding concern is always the teaching of Rome, which is derived from Mr. Sungenis' own interpretation and understanding of the writings of the Church. This then becomes the lens through which the text is seen, even if this results, as it does here, in the utter reversal of the meaning of the text. This is one of the main reasons why, though almost everything Mr. Sungenis says in his response is fully addressed in The Potter's Freedom, I am taking the time to respond separately: it is an object lesson well worth learning.

(5) I don't consider myself an independent determiner of truth apart from the Church God has given us. It is much too easy to fall into error, as the thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations have proven to us over the last 475 years. Dr. White bases much of his argumentation on the ideas of John Calvin, yet his opponents base theirs on opponents of John Calvin. Each of us has a tradition behind us, whether we want to admit it or not. So its quite disingenuous for Dr. White to color this debate by focusing on my tradition. As for "textually based exegesis," I think we will see that claim of Dr. White's rebutted quite well in this rebuttal.

Observation #2: Mr. Sungenis' handling of the koine Greek language in this article does not present an in-depth, scholarly understanding of syntax. For example, aside from the fact that his original assertion regarding the use of mh in interrogatives has been refuted, his handling of such things as participles is a telling sign of a less-than-full understanding of the language. I have commented to Mr. Sungenis in the past that he needs to engage in a study of syntax that goes beyond mere grammar. Syntax involves the relationship of words and phrases. The mere noting of a word being in the present tense, for example, without recognizing it is also in a participial phrase, shows a fundamental weakness of understanding of syntactical categories and functions. These are issues that are introduced, and mastered, in later study of the language, and would not be covered with sufficient depth in a brief Master's program. I was personally very blessed to have begun my study of Greek before seminary, in college, where I minored in the subject. As I teach Greek in seminary now, I am often distressed at the tremendous speed with which we must cover the material. I know all too well the pressures upon the seminary student and the difficulty in mastering not only the grammar, but then the syntax, of koine Greek. The result of all of this is the simple fact that Mr. Sungenis makes a number of rudimentary errors in his handling of the Greek language in context. These errors are noted below. I also note, briefly, that in light of Scott Windsor's taking Mr. Sungenis' words over the words of three published and established Greek grammars, this information is relevant.

(6) I don't know why Dr. White insists on entering debates by trying to make a case that his opponent is not as knowledgeable as he is. This kind of self-aggrandizing posture really has no place in this debate. Anyone can stand up and tout that he has superior knowledge and experience. I had four years of formal Greek training, and have been studying the language for the last 22 years. As a result, I know when someone is giving a snow-job; I know when someone is trying to make the Greek support a pet idea; and I know when someone is flexing his Greek muscle in front of opponents who don't know Greek.

Observation #3: Mr. Sungenis does not understand Reformed theology. The number of misrepresentations of Reformed thinking in this article (and in his published works) is striking. But, there is a possible explanation. Mr. Sungenis himself admitted, in his personal testimony in Surprised by Truth, p. 111, Not being totally convinced that the militant Calvinistic theology espoused at Westminster was correct, I continued to find myself in theological debates with professors and fellow students. In light of this, it is somewhat understandable how one who graduated from Westminster Seminary could still use such phrases as "God forces men to believe" and the like, caricatures which, while common in anti-Reformed polemics, have likewise been refuted so many times it is amazing.

(7) This is a common contention levied by those of the Reformed persuasion. I can say two things: I was a Reformed Presbyterian for 17 years. I know what they teach. I used to teach it myself. Second, I can tell you that Dr. White and his colleagues are the ones who don't understand Reformed theology, because it's a mass of contradictions and conflicting ideas that have never been resolved. Right from the get-go, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Bucer, et al., disagreed on the very nature of salvation. Calvin critiqued Luther for putting faith before regeneration, and Luther critiqued Calvin for giving regeneration the primacy which he said made him too close to Catholic theology; Melanchthon, while an absolute predestinarian in his tutelage under Luther eventually repudiated the whole idea, accepting free will as a necessary process; the Dutch Reformer, Jacob Arminius, had five opposing views of soteriology to each of Calvinism's Five Points; the Swiss Reformers believed in transformational justifiction much like the Catholics, opposing the mere forensic justification of Luther and Melanchthon. Within Calvinism itself, there are about a half-dozen varieties, everything from surpralapsarians, infralapsarians, sublapsarians, four-point Calvinists, three-point Calvinists, the Zwinglian "God is the sinless author of sin" idea, and a few other wrinkles. To this day they all disagree with one another: Sproul, Boice, MacArthur, Godfrey, Carson, Clowney, Gaffin, Sandlin, Bahnsen, Geisler, et al. Contradictions and oxymorons like this abound in Reformed thought. Read Chapter 9 of Not By Faith Alone for a birds eye view into their conundrum.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12