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

This is sola ecclesia in glowing letters: Rome's theology precludes the teaching of the text, hence, those portions of the text that contradict Rome's theology are simply removed by ecclesiastical fiat: "the text doesn't say.." or "you can't disprove this."

(131) That's funny. I don't remember mentioning the Catholic Church in my last paragraph. Nevertheless, I and the Catholic Church teach people (1) not to make Scripture say anything more than what it actually says, (2) and make sure you check everything else in the Bible before you make an exegesis of one text of Scripture. Dr. White violates both of these persistently.

Mr. Sungenis can take a passage that speaks with crystal clarity of the Father's sovereignly giving a people to the Son, the infallible coming of those so given to the Son, His perfect work of raising that people to life, and the utter incapacity of man to come to Christ outside of the work of effective drawing, and somehow come up with such things as "free will," and then insist that there is no way I can "disprove" his assertion that it was man's free will response to grace that determined God's "giving."

(132) Notice the qualifiers Dr. White puts in his language: "sovereignly giving" "the infallible coming" "His perfect work of raising" and "utter incapacity of man." Dr. White needs these qualifiers to support his position because John 6 doesn't use any of them.

Of course, we are not told how this comes from the text: it is an assertion from outside, as I have said. But given Mr. Sungenis' failure to even begin to show us how this assertion is derived from the text itself, to ask me to disprove it is meaningless.

(133) As long as Dr. White refuses to "disprove" it, then he will constantly be muddled in the "Predestination syndrome."

JRWPrev: In fact, it is unfair to say that Mr. Sungenis is even offering exegesis here: he is offering Mr. Windsor a way around the offered exegesis, but is not actually exegeting the passage at all.

"I think you will find that, unlike Dr. White, I am not reading into the passage something I would like to see. As far as I'm concerned, the mechanism for how the people are given by the Father is not specified in the text, be it predestination or free will. All it says is that what the Father gives Jesus receives, period."

We have already responded to this claim.

(134) No he hasn't really. He has not shown us how predestination and free will can be incompatible. In fact, he assumes that whenever we see "predestination" (or some similar term) this automatically excludes free will from the discussion. But he hasn't proven that. Let's go back a few thousand years. Dr. White believes Adam had a free will. Yet he must also believe that God foreknew Adam would sin and that God predestined the elect and the damned before Adam's free will decision. So, Dr. White has two seemingly contradictory tenets to his theology: how can God foreknow and predestinate and yet still give Adam a genuine free will? He doesn't have an answer to that anomaly. No one does. Yet he holds both to be true. But when we come to a passage like John 6, Dr. White finds it logically impossible that predestination can coincide with free will. He will claim, of course, that Adam lost his free will when he sinned and thus became "totally depraved." But there is no Scripture which supports that doctrine. There is no Scripture which teaches that God totally withdrew his grace from Adam. There is no passage which says Adam lost his free will (or the equivalent) when he sinned. Dr. White's attempted use of the metaphor "dead" in Eph. 2:1 is not going to prove the point, as we have shown earlier.

JRWPrev: I emphasized the use of the perfect tense with Mr. Windsor because he was inserting into the text his concept of free-willism, and limiting God to the role of responding to the actions of man.

"Mr. Windsor was not "limiting God to the role of responding to the actions of man." Mr. Windsor was saying, as I have said, that God draws men by his grace. Hence the initial action is God's. God does so for all men. Through grace, God even gives man the power to respond to God's drawing. At some point, man has to make a decision, just as Jesus denotes in John 5:40 when He tells the Jews that their decision was to refuse to come to Him. Man either accepts or rejects. In the workings of this decision, we do not know how God's grace and man's volition work together. That is a sublime mystery that no one on this earth is probably ever going to solve. But the point remains that God's role is not "limited to the role of responding," especially since it is God who initiates the whole action."

While this is surely a summary of synergism, it does not comprise either a meaningful exegetical summary, nor does it respond to the actual assertion I made. Anyone can listen to Mr. Windsor's comments and they will surely know that he was subjecting God's decision to man's, even to the point of saying that the "giving" of men to the Son takes place only at the final judgment!

(135) He said it in relation to the perspective of John 6:39, which looks at the ones given to Jesus from the perspective of the final consummation, due to the presence of the Greek perfect tense.

Further, we have surely seen that Mr. Sungenis' position does result in God's decision being determined by the free actions of man, not man's actions being determined by the free actions of God. This is the nature of synergism. No matter how the synergist struggles, man remains the final decision maker.

(136) Obviously, Dr. White refuses to accept the explanation I gave above. I said, mark my words, that "In the workings of this decision, we do not know how God's grace and man's volition work together. That is a sublime mystery that no one on this earth is probably ever going to solve." I didn't say that God's decision precedes, I didn't say that man's decision precedes, yet to make a caricature of my position, Dr. White makes it an either/or issue, and this is precisely why he does not understand the Catholic position. Dr. White is battling Arminians. He's not battling the Catholic Church.

JRWPrev: In fact, he introduced a very unusual, very difficult to understand idea of how men are given to Christ "at the last day." I pointed out this was impossible, since the action of giving by the Father obviously comes before the "last day." Look again at the text: "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. Obviously, "raise up on the last day" is a terminal action: the danger of "losing" then must come before the last day. The giving, therefore, is logically prior to the last day, which contradicts what Mr. Windsor was trying to say. Further, and naturally, the "giving" would precede the experience of danger on the part of any who might otherwise be lost, hence, it precedes (as is seen in 6:37) any action on the part of those who are so given.

I will grant Dr. White that the perfect tense comes before the "losing" and before the "raising" at the last day, but that is all that I will grant him, because that is all that the text says."

I will take that as a, "OK, White was right on that point, and Windsor was wrong."

(137) No, actually it was said to point out that Dr. White's exegesis of John 6:39 is quite wrong, since he was trying to use the Greek perfect tense to teach Calvinistic predestination.

Dr. White keeps working on the false premise that those who come to Jesus by the giving of the Father are secured for eternity, but the text does not say that. The text does say that all who are so given come, are never cast out,

(138) No, Dr. White is going to keep making the same mistake over and over again unless he gets the text right. The text says "I [Jesus] will certainly not cast [him] out," not they will "never [be] cast out." We can see why Dr. White keeps stumbling over these verses. It's due to the fact that he keeps assuming they teach Predestination without Free Will. One of the major tenets of Predestination is that once one enters he can never be cast out. Again, if you can't see it in John 6, read 2 Tim 2:10-13 again to see if the "elect" can "deny" Christ and cast themselves out of His presence.

and the Son loses none of them,

(139) No, it's the Father's "will" that the Son lose none of them, not that the Son will lose none of them. Dr. White first has to prove that "will" refers to an irresistible decree of God rather than God's desire to see man saved that man can refuse. We were discussing this issue a while back. When I used Ezek 33:11 to try to prove that God's will includes desire, not merely a decree, Dr. White told me that that passage was in the Old Testament and was irrelevant to our discussion.

but when you refuse to embrace the theocentrism of Scripture and import the anthropocentrism of Rome into the text, words no longer mean what they used to.

(140) I was wondering when this was going to be restated. He hasn't had one of these comments for at least five paragraphs.

The Father's will is that of those He gives to Jesus none are lost, just as He said He doesn't want any lost in Ezek 33:11; 2 Peter 3:9 and Zech 1:3. Again, the only way Dr. White can fit in the Father's will is by inserting the word elect both in John 6 and 1 Timothy 2:4.

We have already seen that 1 Timothy 2:4 refers to all kinds of men (of which the elect are made up),

(141) Do you see how Dr. White is so used to inserting words and concepts into Scripture that he can glibly say, "We have already seen that 1 Timothy 2:4 refers to all kinds of men," without the slightest pangs of conscience. Even though he is fully aware that "kinds of men" and "all men" are two entirely different ideas, he is cock sure that "kinds" should be in the translation or interpretation. Until Dr. White ceases from making these inordinate insertions into the text, he will never see the truth.

and that it is perfectly consistent to see those given by the Father to the Son as the elect noted in Ephesians and Romans.

(142) Sure Ephesians and Romans are "perfectly consistent" with John. Why would anyone, who believes Scripture is inerrant, claim that they were inconsistent? The problem is not with Paul and John, the problem is with Dr. White's interpretation of Paul and John.

Further, we note that 2 Peter 3:9 does, in context, refer to the elect as those who will indeed repent (see the discussion in TPF), and the other passages are surely not addressing the issue of God's decree of the salvation of His elect people.

(143) The word "elect" is not used in 2 Peter 3.

JRWPrev: Mr. Sungenis divorces this passage from the context. As I noted in my exegesis, 6:38-39 explains the glorious claim of 6:37: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." Why do all who are given by the Father to the Son come to the Son? And why will He not cast out the one who comes to Him? Verses 38 and 39 explain this in the text, but not in the attempted explanation offered by Mr. Sungenis. He joins Mr. Windsor in reversing the order of the action of 6:37 (i.e., he makes the giving of the Father dependent upon the coming of the believer, when the text says it is the other way around).

"I did no such thing. Check what I said. I stated clearly here and in the post I sent to Scott Windsor that the giving of the Father precedes the coming to Jesus. How could I say anything different, since it is clear in the text? I challenge Dr. White to show us where (Scott or) I said that the "coming" of John 6:37 precedes the "giving" of John 6:37."

As the reader will note, Mr. Sungenis has repeatedly asserted that it is the belief or unbelief of men that determines whether the Father gives men to the Son or not. To quote him directly, "The text implies that they were not 'given' to Jesus because of their unbelief, not that they were in unbelief because they were not 'given.'"

(144) Dr. White is confusing two different things. The first issue is that the Father's giving precedes the coming to the Son. The second issue concerns how the unbelief of the Jews relates to God's giving. If Dr. White would keep these things separate, things would go a lot smoother.

Obviously, in my comments I am referring to logical priority and dependency, not temporal: if the Father's giving of men is dependent upon their free will actions, as Sungenis says, these must be foreseen actions. Hence, the actions of man in time determine the actions of God in eternity. This is the simple fact of how synergism works: creatures determining what the Creator can, and will, do. Pots in charge of the Potter.

(145) No, this is where Calvinists continually misrepresent the Catholic Church. What the precise relationship is between God's eternity and man's temporal existence we don't claim to know. All we know, and claim, is that God's election does not exclude man's free will. Dr. White's attempt to make this an issue of "foreseen actions" and free will "determin[ing] the actions of God in eternity" are misplaced and inappropriate. Also, his attempted explanation of his own view as one which deals with "logical priority" as opposed to the "temporal," is convenient for him, but it doesn't really answer the question at issue. If Dr. White wants some real "logical priority," he and the Calvinists better give "priority" to the "logical" fact that God does not lie, and therefore can't ask men to repent who don't have the power to repent.

JRWPrev: The perfect tense makes sense in the context in which it is used: Christ came to do the will of the Father. Surely Christ knew, when He came to earth, what that will was, did He not? Are we to actually believe that what Jesus is saying here is that He came to perform a general salvation of an unknown group, so that the text really should say, "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He will give Me upon the basis of their free will action I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day"? How would that be relevant to the assertion of 6:37?

No, He wouldn't say that, since John 6 is not creating a contest between predestination and free will - - a contest Dr. White desperately wishes to see in the context to support his Calvinistic beliefs.

As I have said before, there is no contest, because "free will" is no more a concern of the text than "the Book of Mormon" or "space aliens." The reason I am addressing it is because Mr. Windsor and Mr. Sungenis keep inserting it! Surely there is no place for it in the text, but the synergist must keep sneaking it in where it doesn't belong. I am addressing the resultant confusion in the text that comes from the very position Mr. Sungenis has already enunciated.

(146) Again, I don't call John 5:40; 6:40; 6:45 (2 Timothy 2:10-13; Zech 1:3) "sneaking in" Free Will. What Dr. White fails to grasp is that John 6 is not a dissertation of predestination, but a narrative explaining that God is giving up on the Jews and thus will cease drawing them to Jesus. That is why the "Free Will" of John 5:40 is so important to the discussion. Without it, one cannot know why God will no longer draw the Jews to Jesus.

JRWPrev: Remember, Jesus is explaining the unbelief of the crowd: how would this explain their unbelief, since such would involve the assertion that they have the very ability to believe that is denied to them in 6:44 and 6:65?

Again, Dr. White reveals his false presuppositions. Dr. White believes that every time he sees a passage which says that a man cannot come to Jesus except by the giving of the Father, that passage teaches predestination. That is an unprovable assertion.

Denial of the obvious does not rid us of the obvious. Note that above Mr. Sungenis failed to even begin to interact with the fact that John 6:44 teaches utter inability and that it teaches that all those who are drawn are also raised up (i.e., that this is not merely prevenient grace, but an effectual calling).

(147) I have interacted with it. John 6:44 does teach man's utter inability unless God draws. I've never even hinted of denying that fact. But what Dr. White misses is that the point of John 6:44 is that the Father will cease His drawing of the Jews because of their persistent unbelief, not to teach a doctrine of absolute predestination. Also, "drawing" is not defined in John 6 as an irresistible force that brings the person to Jesus.

Mr. Sungenis assumes that "giving" means "trying to give, but often failing." If "giving" actually means that the Father will draw that person to the Son effectively, so that Jesus' words are true, "all that the Father gives Me will come to Me," then this "unprovable assertion" is, in fact, proven.

(148) No, the giving is different than the drawing. God draws first. If the person responds, then God gives that person to Jesus. Thus, the "giving" doesn't fail. However, if the person does not continue to believe, then the Father will no longer "give" that person to Jesus.

The passages do not tell us the Father's criteria for giving the people to Jesus.

No, it does not: it simply denies that the criteria lies in the person thus given. That is, the "criteria" is simply the mercy and grace of God, as we are told elsewhere (Eph. 1): Jesus' words tell us clearly that it is not the actions of man that result in the elect being given by the Father to the Son. If it is not the actions of man, then the "criteria" must lie solely in the Sovereign Creator, and that is the consistent biblical truth.

(149) Again, Dr. White is becoming a victim of an acute syndrome. When he reads of a divine action in regards to salvation this automatically excludes a corollary human action. But that is wrong. The only way John 6 could "den[y] that the criteria lies in the person thus given" is for John 6 to say it specifically.

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