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

Finally, Mr. Sungenis decided to spend a good deal of time focusing upon Augustine in his response. I believe the citation I offered was clear and compelling, and I still do. I simply remind the reader that Augustine changed his views over time on this issue, becoming ever more forceful in his annunciation of the divine decree of the salvation of the elect. Anyone who reads his later works well knows the force of his statements. It is quite easy to quote Augustine against Augustine by ignoring the development of his thought through the Pelagian controversy. The fact that he identified saving faith as a gift of God given only to the elect is truly without question. But I shall not clutter this reply with further discussions of Augustine's changing theology over time: the issue is the divine teaching of Christ in the synagogue at Capernaum, to which I now turn.

(8) The poor Augustine, tossed to and fro by the Calvinists. The fact is that Augustine did not "change his mind." Many of the statements Augustine wrote supporting Free Will were written in Against Julian, just a few years before his death. Moreover, you will never find one statement in Augustine that opposes Predestination to Free Will, but you will find many which coalesce Predestination with Free Will, as the quotes I gave in my last rebuttal show very clearly. If Dr. White can produce passages from Augustine that oppose Predestination to Free Will, he has an argument, but I don't think he is going to be able to find any. Read the sections about Augustine and Calvin in Not By Faith Alone.

First Issue: mh Does Indicate a Negative Response:

In the web cast discussion with Mr. Windsor the matter of whether Jesus' asking the disciples, "You do not want to go away also, do you" (John 6:67, NASB) came up. Mr. Windsor attempted to read free will into these words, assuming that Jesus was "giving them a choice" and that this implied the existence of free will. In response I pointed out that the form of the question in Greek uses the particle mh, and that this indicates an assumed negative answer, just as the NASB translates it. Mr. Windsor contacted Mr. Sungenis, who commented that the wording did not fit a "rhetorical question." Now, I have no idea what that means, and I do not know if Mr. Sungenis was responding to Mr. Windsor's errant communication to him of what I said, or if Mr. Sungenis just missed the point (I nowhere indicated the question was rhetorical, but that it expected a negative answer, which, obviously, is not the same thing). Mr. Windsor simply failed to provide any meaningful basis for reading "free will" into John 6:67, and seemingly citing Mr. Sungenis' comment was enough to provide him with another "error" on my part. So I wrote to Mr. Sungenis and asked him to explain what I had said that was in error regarding the fact that John 6:67 is a question using mh that expects a negative answer. When he replied, on March 4, 2001, he attempted to assert that mh does not have to indicate a negative answer, and provided examples. I refuted each example, and noted the most glaring one in my previous response. His specific assertion had been: "1) MH before the main verb does not always expect a negative answer. For example, in John 7:31, MH before POIEESEI expects an affirmative answer, not a negative one. In other words, the implied answer to the question of whether the Christ will do more signs than Jesus is affirmative." I pointed out that, in fact, the only meaningful way of understanding the passage is to understand that the crowd is saying just the opposite: that the expected answer is a negative. I even cited A.T. Robertson's comments that specifically note the use of mh, indicating a negative answer. While it is hardly central to the issue at hand, it does speak to Mr. Sungenis knowledge of basic Greek grammar and to his general approach to exegesis and interpretation. The simple fact of the matter is that I said nothing wrong in the cited comments. No meaningful scholarship would argue I did. The issue is interpretation of the meaning of John 6:67, and the attempt on Mr. Windsor's part to turn the question into a positive support of "free will." In light of this background, note his response:

" For clarification, it is certainly possible that the use of MH in John 7:31 expects a negative answer. Nevertheless, a few things need to be said. Since Dr. White appeals to the statement "many of the multitude believed in Him" in John 7:31, he is inferring that the belief of these people was so strong that they would be able to determine whether Jesus was the Messiah, and thus answer the question of John 7:31 negatively. I don't think that assessment is provable, since we do not know that kind of belief the people had. For all we know their belief could be like the people of John 8:31, who are finally told by Jesus in verse 44 that their father is the devil. This chapter is in close proximity to John 7:31, the verse in question, and thus would have great impact on determining the type of belief present among them."

Comment: This is mere misdirection; Mr. Sungenis said X in his e-mail (quoted above); now he is saying non-X. He seems to be admitting he was in error, but without actually saying it. In either case, the issue is not, as I pointed out, whether these were true believers or not. Personally, I don't believe they were. The point is that they said they believed, and they were arguing in the light of that profession. It simply makes no sense whatsoever to read the text as Mr. Sungenis originally suggested, for you would then have the following: "Then many in the crowd believed in Him and they were saying, "Surely the Christ will do more signs than this man when he comes!" That makes no sense at all! We here have Mr. Sungenis ignoring the context and attempting to over-turn a simple rule of grammar. Granted, he may well have simply provided a brief response without seriously considering the text. But in any case, he has here been shown to be in complete error on the issue. Instead of dealing with this, Mr. Sungenis continues on with a different topic:

" Furthermore, we know that the crowd is not sure of Jesus' identity, since in John 7:27 they make a declarative statement, "However we know where this man [Jesus] is from; but whenever the Christ may come, no one knows where He is from." Obviously, the people are not certain who Jesus is, which is apparent by their doubt about the origins of the Christ. Thus, when a few verses later the question of John 7:31 is asked ("When Christ comes, will he not do more signs than which this man [Jesus] did"), the uncertainty described in John 7:27, along with the uncertainty suggested in John 8:31-44 regarding the kind of belief the crowd possessed, although still plausible, a negative answer to the question of John 7:31 is not at all certain. Indeed, if a negative response were the only one expected, then we would expect to find such a negative answer somewhere in the context (which is usually the case when questions are introduced by the Greek MH), but we do not find any here, thus the matter remains indefinite. Speaking of proximity, I think I will also add Dr. White's own assessment of the "belief" of the people in John 6, which is stated just one chapter earlier than the people of John 7:31. In a later paragraph of this document, Dr. White writes the following of John 6's people: "The blessed Lord was quite blunt with His audience. He knew they did not possess real faith. 'But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe' (v. 36)."

As kindly as it can be put, that is obfuscation. I made no error regarding mh; its meaning is clear in the passage, despite all the attempts to say otherwise. Let the reader decide.

(9) Suffice it to say, I am not saying X and then saying non-X. When I said, "For clarification, it is certainly possible that the use of MH in John 7:31 expects a negative answer..." I was implying that the Greek is ambiguous here. Second, Dr. White now asserts that my going to the context to answer the question is "obfuscation." Earlier he complained that "Mr. Sungenis makes a number of rudimentary errors in his handling of the Greek language in context..." but now he insists that my appeal to the context is inappropriate. I exposed Dr. White's premise as false. Dr. White was trying to claim that the people of John 7 would answer negatively because they were "believers." By this he meant "true believers," a distinction he made in a later part of his rebuttal. But the context shows that we can't know if they were "true believers," and, in fact, it shows that they were probably just casual believers. Thus, a negative answer to the question in John 7:31 cannot be as definite as Dr. White would like it to be.

But that is not the main issue here. Scott Windsor used John 7:31 to support Free Will. Dr. White said that Scott could not do so because the Greek MH shows that the people will answer negatively. Dr. White's reasoning was that, because they would have answered the question of John 7:31 negatively, then this means that they were showing the fruit of the fact that they had been predestined. That is a blatant abuse of Greek grammar to support one's pet doctrine. I don't know of anyone in all my study of Greek who has ever made such an audacious claim. It's similar to someone claiming that because a stop sign expects a person to bring his car to a halt, that this can be interpreted to mean that people are predestined automatons who are forced to obey stop signs, with no free will for them to run through the stop sign if they choose. Of course, that is a ridiculous idea, but that is very similar to what Dr. White is trying to ascribe to the Greek MH of John 7:31 - - that the Jews of John 7 really had no choice BUT to give a negative answer to the question, because they were predestined to do so.

The Potter's Freedom

At this point I provided the exegetical section of my book, The Potter's Freedom, regarding John 6:35-45. I will simply point out that at times Mr. Sungenis seems to forget that I did not write this section following my discussion with Mr. Windsor, so he faults me for not addressing things as if I were writing it in response to his own comments.

(10) No, I fault him for not addressing issues that Mr. Windsor brought up. The Potter's Freedom is not part of this discussion.

Right at the start, however, we encounter a fascinating discussion by Mr. Sungenis regarding the fact that I have written an entire work refuting the Arminianism of Dr. Norman Geisler. Note his words: "Since Dr. White has brought up the name of Norman Geisler, I think it is worth mentioning here that Norman Geisler is one of the most respected and well-known theologian/philosphers in the Evangelical world. He appears on the same radio programs that Dr. White appears (The Bible Answer Man; Janet Parcell's America, etc), but on these programs he teaches an almost totally opposite view of John 6 and Predestination than Dr. White. It is ironic that two men, with two entirely different views on Salvation, can appear on the same program with the same hosts, and yet both be touted as faithful interpreters of the Bible."

There is, of course, one major flaw in Mr. Sungenis' reasoning: it assumes Norman Geisler offered a "faithful interpretation" of the passage at hand. As anyone knows who read Chosen But Free or my response, The Potter's Freedom, Dr. Geisler did not offer any kind of exegetical interpretation of the passage. It was one of the more amazing elements of the discussion offered in Chosen But Free. Hence, it is not a matter of "dueling interpretations" regarding this passage, and even when it is, is the suggestion being made that since there is disagreement, that the text is therefore unclear? Those who have read The Potter's Freedom realize that the exegetical argument is, in fact, the most compelling argument put forward by the Reformed side.

(11) Whether or not Dr. Geisler offered a "faithful interpretation" is a matter of opinion. Certainly Dr. White has a bias in judging Dr. Geisler's work, since he disagrees with it. Again, notice how Dr. White first attacks the credibility of his opponent (just as he did with me above) and only then does he proceed to answer the specific charges. But the main point is this: Dr. Geisler and Dr. White are both touted by Hank Hanegraeff and Janet Parcell as experts in their fields of endeavor, but these hosts never point out, even when confronted, that Dr. Geisler and Dr. White disagree on the most fundamental doctrine in Christendom.

Sungenis goes on to make a very telling statement:

" It may also be worth mentioning that Norman Geisler's view of Predestination and the interpretation of the pertinent passages in John 6 are much closer to the Catholic view than Dr. White's. Catholicism would applaud Norman Geisler for his balanced view of Predestination and Free Will, whereas Dr. White ascribes to the traditional Calvinist view, which believes that God predestined men to Hell without regard to Free Will. I would suggest that, if anyone is interested in a refutation of the Calvinist view of Predestination, consult Chapter 7 of the book "Not By Faith Alone.""

As Mr. Sungenis' attempted "refutation" of predestination partakes of the same common category and context errors as this reply, I believe the reader will be helped by what follows here. But it is quite interesting to note the fact that Mr. Sungenis is quite right. In fact, I spent an entire chapter in The Potter's Freedom documenting what Mr. Sungenis here notes. Arminianism is, in fact, very much in harmony with Rome on matters of the nature of the will, God's sovereignty, and the nature of grace. I even provided quotations from the Catholic Catechism that closely parallel, down to the choice of words, the assertions of Norman Geisler. This is surely nothing new to anyone who is Reformed and is aware of the historical and theological realities.

(12) I'll only stop long enough here to say that the Catholic Church teaches both Predestination and Free Will. Jacob Arminius taught Free Will only. His Remonstrants countered the Five Points of Calvinism with Five Points of Arminianism. I would ask Dr. White to get it right. Catholicism is not Arminianism.

At this point Mr. Sungenis begins to provide a point-by-point response to my exegesis in The Potter's Freedom. The reader is strongly urged to consider one main issue: who presents a contextually-based presentation, and who uses a "scatter-gun" approach? Whose conclusions flow from the text, and whose come from pre-existing commitments to external authorities? We believe the answer to that question is clear. The Context: Unbelief I wrote in The Potter's Freedom (hereafter TPF): The blessed Lord was quite blunt with His audience. He knew they did not possess real faith. "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe" (v. 36). They had seen Him with their eyes, but unless physical sight is joined with spiritual enlightenment, it profits nothing. Often the importance of this statement is overlooked. Verse 36 is a turning point in the chapter. Jesus now explains their unbelief. How is it that these men could stand before the very Son of God, the Word made flesh, and not believe? Anyone who does not take seriously the deadness of man in sin should contemplate this scene. The very Creator in human form stands before men who are schooled in the Scriptures and points to their unbelief. He then explains the why, and yet so few today will listen and believe. Mr. Sungenis replied:

" I need to interject here that, by an appeal to the "deadness of man in sin," Dr. White is priming his audience to one of Calvinism's major premises - - the total depravity of man.

To which I reply: The phrase "dead in sin" is completely biblical (Eph. 2:1-4, Col. 2:13), and in point of fact, in the context of my book, I had already established the biblical testimony to the deadness of man in sin and total depravity (TPF chapter 4, see especially pp. 100f) through a discussion of such passages as Romans 8:7-8, John 12:39-40, 1 Cor. 2:14, John 8:34-48, etc. I was "priming" no one, but making reference to those who deny man's deadness in sin.

(13) This is the major flaw in the Calvinistic exegesis of Eph 2:1-4 and Col 2:13. Both passages are using metaphors, not providing precise theological definitions. The metaphor is of a dead person who has no life. Metaphors can have any number of meanings, but Dr. White invariably makes the metaphor apply in only one way - - his way, but it is unprovable from the context. The context of Eph 2 or Col 2 does not teach the doctrine of "total depravity" (that Adam had no free will after he sinned). The passages use "dead" as a metaphor of the condition of man before he exercises faith and is baptized (Col 2:12). The context says only that "dead" is a state of not "having forgiveness," of "walking according to the course of this world" (Eph 2:2-4), and not being "made alive together with Christ" (Col 2:13). The passage does not say anything about man's will, or free will, or predestination, yet Dr. White continually sees the one negated and the other supported. Why? Because this is what he has been taught to see by his Reformed heritage. I used to do the same thing as a Reformed Protestant, without even being aware I was doing it. I simply saw the word "dead" and figured that it could only mean that man had no free will. Later, I realized that the context did not support such a conclusion. That is why Augustine, as much as he referred to Eph 2:1, never said that it meant man had no free will. I also saw passages such as Luke 15:32 in which the Prodigal Son, who made the decision to came back to his father, was called "dead," yet the context said nothing about Predestination and a lot about Free Will.

This doctrine teaches that, after Adam sinned, man lost his free will. Actually, it teaches that after Adam sinned, he and his followers have a corrupt nature which results in the enslavement of the will to a sinful nature. The will, of course, remains fully intact: it is simply enslaved to a corrupt and fallen nature, resulting in the clear biblical teaching on the inabilities of the natural man outside of Christ, outside of regeneration.

(14) R. Dr. White is confusing the issue. Catholicism agrees that, outside of God's grace, Adam has no ability within himself to obey God. That condition was true even before Adam sinned. Only by God's grace did Adam have the power to resist the devil (a belief which John Calvin did not hold. He believed that Adam had natural ability - Free Will - to resist the devil, which shows you the definition of Free Will with which Calvin worked, and why he was so confused; INT 1:15:8)). The difference in our views is this: Dr. White believes that when Christ regenerates, the man is irresistibly drawn and cannot refuse Christ, ever. Christ regenerates men arbitrarily. He just picks certain men, avoids others, without any recourse to what they desire. Catholicism believes that, after Adam's sin, Christ draws all men by his grace (John 12:32; Acts 17:24-31). We call this Actual grace. They can accept or reject Christ based on that grace. If they accept Him, Christ will give them saving grace, in baptism, as Col 2:12 says. We call this Sanctifying grace.

"St. Augustine taught, and the Catholic Church has followed his teaching, that man was NOT totally depraved after the Fall. St. Augustine taught that, although estranged from God and marred in his nature, Adam retained a residual grace and thus an ability to respond to God's call."

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