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

I refer the reader to the preceding references.

(15) What "preceding references"? Eph 2:1-5 and Col 2:12-14? The claim by Dr. White that Augustine did not believe in Free Will? What references has Dr. White given us that show Augustine made a de facto statement which denied Free Will or opposed Predestination to Free Will? If he can find such a statement, then he can make a case about Augustine. Until then, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

"This is why passages such as 2 Peter 3:9; Romans 2:4-16 and Acts 17:24-31 can say what they do about post-Adamic man's continuing responsibility to answer the call of God."

Mr. Sungenis seems to believe that the general call of repentance and faith implies a capacity that either remains after the fall, or, is graciously given to all. No such capacity is even hinted at in the first two passages,

(16) Notice how Dr. White qualifies his language. He refers to the "general" call of repentance, I assume in opposition to a "special" call. The distinction is one of the major tenets of Calvinism (Institutes 3:24:8). They desperately need it to make their theology work. They claim that the "general" call is given to all men, yet with one important caveat: God does not give most of these men the ability to repent. The general call is made so that God can cover himself and not be accused of not offering them salvation. The objective here is to get God off the hook because they know their system puts Him on the hook. When men don't respond to the "general" call of repentance, God can say, "Hey, I offered it to you, but you didn't accept it," yet all the while the Reformed Protestant secretly holds that the man didn't respond because God never gave him the ability to respond. What a perverted theology! God calls, but he gives most of mankind no ability to respond to the call, because they weren't chosen beforehand to respond. Calvin himself admitted this was the "Decretum Horribile" (The Horrible Decree) yet one that he whole-heartedly accepted, because the logical rigor of his system forced him to accept it. But can Dr. White tell us where Scripture teaches a distinction between a "general" call and a "special" call? I don't think so. In the end, Dr. White makes God a liar, since God doesn't really mean what he says when He calls the world to repentance. He just pleads with the majority of mankind as a matter of course, because that's what God is supposed to do to preserve His justice. Some God.

and the third refers to the very same universal call Reformed people fully believe in and practice.

(17) Now Dr. White proposes a "universal" call. Is this different than the "general" call? He doesn't tell us.

"As opposed to Dr. White's theology, not only does God issue the call to repentance, He expects man to respond by using the grace God has given him. If man does not respond, it means he has resisted the grace of God. St. Augustine used such passages as Zech 1:3; James 4:8; Luke 11:19; Jeremiah 3:22; 29:13 to prove this point, as did the Council of Trent."

As opposed to Rome's theology, and Mr. Sungenis' interpretation thereof, grace cannot be demanded; it is free, utterly free, and is given on the basis of God's choice and will, nothing more. Repentance, too, is a gift, given by God to His elect people, along with faith, both as part of the work of regeneration.

(18) Notice how Dr. White just asserts the Reformed view without interacting with any of the passages I mentioned in the above quote ( Zech 1:3; James 4:8; Luke 11:19; Jeremiah 3:22; 29:13). He just dismisses them as the rantings of "Rome's theology."

Mr. Sungenis' entire view of salvation, and Scripture, is anthropocentric (centered upon man). The Bible's own view is theocentric (centered upon God). Man's religions are invariably anthropocentric, always including at their very heart various rites and rituals (in Roman Catholicism, sacraments) designed to control God and His power, removing from Him His sovereign freedom and placing the ultimate power of salvation squarely in the hands of man. This is where biblical Christianity differs from the religions of men, including Roman Catholicism and all forms of "Protestantism" that likewise refuse to allow God to be free and man to be the fallen creature.

(19) Dr. White tried to use this ploy in our debate in New York two years ago. Again, rather than answering the verses I gave him, he just categorizes the appeal to them as "anthropocentric." If he can make you think that, whatever verse he is challenged with, the challenger is trying to promote an "anthropocentric religion," then he thinks he has won the battle. But it is Dr. White who has the anthropocentric religion. It is so because his conclusions are based on the logic of men's minds. You see, they can't understand how Predestination and Free Will can work together, so they concoct a whole elaborate scheme of theology which favors the former and rejects the latter, forcing them to make conclusions from their own mind about God's decisions. Calvin believed that God predestined the fall of Adam; that He predestined the sin of man; that He predestined some to bliss but most of the human race to Hell, not because of sin, but because of His sovereign good pleasure. His "good pleasure" is His desire to exhibit merciful qualities by arbitrarily saving a few, but to exhibit qualities of justice by damning the rest. In effect, the Calvinist God is on an advertising campaign to prove His character, all at the expense of man. That, dear reader, is a God of man's making, and is therefore the ultimate anthropocentric theology. Don't fall for the "theocentric/anthropocentric" rhetoric. Catholicism, for 2000 years, has given God His rightful place in the schema of salvation. We fought Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, absolute predestination (proposed by Lucidus in the fifth century and Gottschalk in the ninth century) and absolute Free Will (Arminius, Wesley), and we continue to fight the falsifiers of biblical revelation today.

Mr. Sungenis continues: "The above facts are important, since it seems by everything Dr. White has written that he attributes the obstinance (sic) and unbelief of the Jews in John 6 to the fact that God has predestined them to unbelief and eternal damnation."

Correction: all men, outside of God's gracious act of regeneration, are enemies of God, opposed to Him and to His purposes, rebels with a self-centered cause, one might say. The focus of the passage is not reprobation: the focus of the passage is upon the gracious predestination of Christ's elect, which explains their positive faith. Unbelief is natural to the fallen man: faith is unnatural, and requires a supernatural explanation, which is what this passage provides.

(20) Notice how Dr. White avoids saying that God predestined the unbelief of the Jews. That is the major tenet of Calvinism and Reformed theology, but he's scared to say it because he knows how horrified you would be. Instead, he euphemizes the reality by instead referring to "men outside of God's gracious act of regeneration" (read: "predestined to unbelief"), and actually tries to steer you away from that fact that he believes in double predestination by saying, "the focus of the passage is not reprobation." So if someone raises the logical corollary that if some were arbitrarily chosen to salvation then it logically follows that others were not chosen, we're supposed to put our finger in front of our mouth and say, "Shhhh, don't talk about the reprobation part of it, because that's not the 'focus' of the passage. Just pretend its not there, and you'll be able to accept it a lot faster. Just think positive."

"However, if one looks at the context of the Gospel of John, indeed, the context of the whole Scripture in regards to the Jew's obstinacy, it is due to their continued resistence (sic) to God's grace and call. Passages such as Ezek. 18:21-32; 33:11; Matt 23:37, etc., show that God continually pleads with Israel to repent."

No one questions God's call to repentance: the claim this means that man is not what this passage says he is (unable to come to Christ outside of supernatural enablement which is not given to all, but to those given to the Father by the Son only) is what is in dispute. See TPF pp. 136-139 on Matthew 23:37.

(21) I think Dr. White deserves a "sic" for the whole sentence he wrote above, since I can hardly make sense out of it. What does "the claim this means that man is not what this passage says he is" mean? He claims that "No one questions God's call to repentance," but that is precisely what he is doing. The passages (Ezek. 18:21-32; 33:11; Matt 23:37) clearly state that God really wants Israel to repent. The Hebrew language is even more emphatic. But if, as Dr. White believes, most of them weren't predestined with the power to respond, doesn't that make the pleading of God superfluous?? Dr. White admits that they were not given the power to repent when he says, "enablement which is not given to all." So if they aren't given the "enablement," yet they are called to repent, isn't the call to repentance meaningless? "No," Dr. White will insist, "because they deserve to die in their sins and God doesn't have to give them the power to respond." We'll say: "But then why does God give others the power to respond, considering that they are sinners, too, just like the damned"? Dr. White will conclude: "Because, God can pick whomever he wants in order to show His mercy by saving some, and His justice by damning the rest." Here we have a God that is so unsure about Himself that He has to predestine human beings, arbitrarily, to heaven and hell just so He can have enough evidence that He is merciful and just. Gee, I wonder what He thought of Himself before He created man? Was He ambivalent as to His mercy and justice? Dr. White's theology would make someone think so. That's because the whole schema is anthropocentric - - straight from the mind of Dr. White. It does not represent biblical Christianity at all.

"Unfortunately, it is theologies such as Calvinism which teach that God issues such pleadings but without giving all men the power to respond to those very pleadings."

I.e., God is free to give grace as He sees fit, not as man demands of Him. The freedom of God in dealing with the guilty and vile sinner (Calvinism) vs. the enslavement of God to the alleged powers of the creature who will decide if he/she will allow God to accomplish His purposes in salvation (man's religions).

(22) This is the best Dr. White can do? Notice that he doesn't really refute my statement, he just puts it in different words ("God is free to give grace as He sees fit, not as man demands of Him"). Why does he do this? Because he knows what I said is true, but he can't describe it with my words because he knows people would be repulsed. His is a theology of smoke and mirrors. This theolog holds that God's pleadings, by God's design through predestination, cannot be answered by the majority of men, yet the theology also realizes that this makes God look bad, like an insecure tyrannical despot. So they flower the language to: "God is free to give grace as He sees fit, not as man demands of Him," making it a case of "God's freedom" versus "man's demands." Does Catholicism reject the idea that God is free to give His grace as He sees fit? No, not at all. But does that deny Free Will? No, not at all. Will God give His grace to someone who repents? Yes. Is He forced to do so? Not really, since God owes nothing to anyone (Romans 11:35). Will He give grace? Yes, because God is just and does things that are consistent with His character and promises (Hebrews 6:10). If God said He will give grace for the sinner to repent, then He would be going against His own Word if He didn't give His grace. God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). Hence, God's "freedom" is circumscribed by His divine character. He cannot deny Himself, otherwise He would be a liar. Unfortunately, Dr. White's notion of God's freedom is that He can plead with man to repent but know that He hasn't given most men the power to repent. Therefore, Dr. White makes God a liar, since His pleadings are meaningless for the majority of men. The only freedom Dr. White has given God is the freedom to lie.

"In fact, Calvinism teaches that God pleads with the non-predestined man only because God will eventually use his non-repentance as the evidence for his damnation in the future."

Actually, the basis of condemnation is the same for all: sin. The fact that man in his sin refuses to acknowledge his Creator is, of course, evidence of God's justice in condemning him, but it is not the basis of that condemnation.

(23) Again, this demonstrates the Calvinist's penchant to play with words so as to take the sting out of their theology. They just blame it on man's sin (but don't mention the fact that God predestined the sin). Be that as it may, read what Calvinist Fred Klooster writes of Calvin's view: "Calvin emphatically contended that sinful works are not the cause or basis for God's eternal decree of reprobation...What is the cause of God's decree of reprobation? Calvin's answer is, the sovereign good pleasure of God. No cause other than His sovereign will can be adduced...For Calvin, then, God sovereign will is the ultimate cause of Adam's fall and of reprobation, while human sin is the proximate cause" (Calvin's Doctrine of Predestination, pp. 61, 63, 70). Sounds like either Klooster or Dr. White have put the cart before the horse, since they are saying opposite things. Klooster claims the sovereign will is primary and sin is secondary; Dr. White claims sin is primary and sovereign justice is secondary. These are the kinds of contradictions you will continually find in Reformed theology. And isn't it ironic that just a few paragraphs ago Dr. White was stressing God's sovereignty ("God is free to give grace as He sees fit") as the primary reason some are saved and others damned? Yet in the above statement he says it is now man's sin that determines God's choice. So which is it, Dr. White?

"In other words, Calvinism makes God a liar. God pretends to plead with the majority of mankind, but He doesn't really mean it; in fact, His pleadings are really condemnations in disguise."

Such rhetoric from a graduate of Westminster who admits he never believed what he was studying there anyway is fascinating, to say the least.

(24) The rhetoric is displayed when someone claims that he "never believed what he was studying." Of course I believed it. I used to use the same exegetical machinations that Dr. White is presently using to reinforce my beliefs. How do you think I know what Dr. White is going to say before he says it? But as time went by, I began to question some of the basic assumptions of the Reformed theology - - as even Westminster did itself when it was embroiled in the Shepherd issue in 1980-1981. You can read about that in Not By Faith Alone, pp. 590-593.

But in reality, this kind of accusation is meant solely to inflame emotions, not actually communicate anything. It would be easy to respond with, "Catholicism makes God a liar because God says He accomplishes all His will, yet Rome says otherwise," but is it not far better to simply demonstrate the errors of Rome and allow the reader to decide such things? I surely think so.

(25) No, it wouldn't be the same, since Dr. White is assuming He knows what God's will is. The premise with which Dr. White continually works, but has not proven, is that when Scripture says it is "God's will that this or that happens," it invariably means that nothing can be done by another party to thwart that will, even to the slightest degree. But he can't prove that from Scripture, because for every verse that says God's will is irresistible, there is another verse that says it is not. Dr. White presumes the former because it fits into his theology.

Calvinism says that God's call to repentance goes forth for two reasons: it is used in grace as an instrument in His hands in the effectual salvation of God's people, and for those who are righteously judged for their sin and rebellion (which would include all, outside of grace), the call demonstrates the truth of Paul's words, "they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

(26) Let's splice together what Dr. White has just written to see the reality of it: "Calvinism says that God's call to repentance goes forth...for those who are righteously judged for their sin and rebellion..." Notice that the call of repentance does not go forth to plead with the second group to repent of their sins. It goes forth to righteously judge them for their sin. Now, doesn't it seem reasonable that if God's sole purpose was to righteously judge them for their sin that He would say, "There is no chance of repentance. You will die in your sins and be judged eternally," instead of Him saying what He says in Ezek 33:11: "As I live! declares the Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?" Notice the points of exclamation that the NASB translates from the Hebrew. Have you ever seen such dramatic, pleading language? Have you ever seen a passage in which it clearly tells you that God is waiting for man to repent? But Dr. White would have us believe that Ezek 33:11 is put there only to judge sinners, not to plead with them to repent. Then he wonders why I say that Calvinism makes God a liar.

As for the phrase "they are without excuse" in Romans 1:20, Dr. White is taking this out of context. Already in Romans 1:5 and 1:16-17 Paul said the gospel was going out to the world to call them to repentance and obedience, and part of this gospel is declared in the cosmos, so that they are without excuse. For what? For repentance and obedience - - the very things that are required of a person who is presented with evidence of God's power and might. That is why Paul says in Romans 1:21 that through the cosmos they could "know" God and give Him "honor." That's what God was waiting for, but they didn't give it to Him.

The assumption that causes Mr. Sungenis to use terms like "liar" is that he can somehow see God's purposes in that general call in each person's life, which obviously he cannot.

(27) Dr. White is just proving my point: his theology is based on presuppositions that cannot be violated, no matter how much sense another view makes. When Dr. White says "which obviously he cannot," he expects me to concede that its okay for God to issue a call to repentance to people God knows have no power to repent. But whichever way Dr. White tries to ephemize it, he ends up with the same problem: He makes God demand from people something that they cannot possibly do. In human language we call that double-talk.

John 6:37: Initial Exegesis

I wrote in TPF: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me." These are the first words to come from the Lord in explanation of man's unbelief. We dare not engage in hopscotch across this text and ignore the very order of teaching He provides. The first assertion is one of complete divine sovereignty. Every word speaks volumes. "All that the Father gives Me." The Father gives someone to Christ. The elect are viewed as a single whole, [footnote: The neuter form pa'n is used when the entire group is in view; when each individual person comes into view with reference to their response of faith the masculine participle ejrcovmeno" is used, showing the personal element of faith.] given by the Father to the Son. [footnote: Two tenses are used by the Lord in this passage: here the present tense is used, "all the Father gives (divdwsin) Me.." In verse 39, however, the perfect tense is used, "all that He has given (devdwken) Me.." ] The Father has the right to give a people to the Son. He is the sovereign King, and this is a divine transaction. All that are given by the Father to the Son come to the Son. Not some, not most, but all. All those given by the Father to the Son will come to the Son. It is vital to see the truth that is communicated by this phrase: the giving by the Father to the Son precedes and determines the coming of the person to Christ. The action of giving by the Father comes before the action of coming to Christ by the individual.

To which Mr. Sungenis replied: Robert "Funny as it may seem, there is little with which I disagree here. However, as you read on, it is the Calvinistic doctrine of absolute predestination, which Dr. White tries to assign to these verses that creates the exegetical problem."

But in reality, it is just this section that Mr. Sungenis must disagree with if he is to be at all consistent. The heart of the passage is here laid out: the existence of an elect people; the giving by the Father to the Son resulting in the coming of the elect to Christ;

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