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

"This is why, as I pointed out above, that Calvinists such as Dr. White will insert the word "elect" into 1 Timothy 2:4, since they are working from the premise that God's will to save "all" cannot be thwarted. The only way they can maintain this premise is by saying that Paul's "all" can refer only to the "elect." If not, then their whole theology crumbles."

And as I pointed out, and as Mr. Sungenis should know, the consistent Reformed (and contextually accurate) assertion regarding that passage is that it refers to all kinds of men (as in Revelation 5:9-10), not merely to "the elect."

" As I said before, I would suggest that the reader consult such passages as Ezekiel 18:21-29 and 33:11 where God pleads with the wicked to repent and declares that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Does that sound like God's will cannot be thwarted? If not, then I think you would have to conclude that God pleads with crocodile tears. I think it should also be pointed out that a position like Dr. White's would have to say that, contrary to Ezek 33:11, God DOES have pleasure in the death of the wicked, because by their death, God's will, which did not predestine them to salvation, is satisfied. If, in that respect, God's will is satisfied, then He must have pleasure in it."

The reader will, it is truly hoped, see the direct parallel between this kind of rhetoric and that offered by the general Arminianism of Protestant evangelicalism. And it should speak to all that rather than dealing with the plain words of Jesus regarding the specific subject of His salvation of His own people, Mr. Sungenis is reduced to quoting passages from the Old Testament in a foreign context, assuming a particular meaning, and then attempting to use that to blunt the force of the clear didactic teaching of the Lord.

(90) This is usually what happens to the Calvinist position. They get into the unending trap of classifying other Scriptures as irrelevant to the issue. I used to do the same thing when I was a Calvinist. You'll remember that Dr. White did the same thing with the New Testament passage of 2 Timothy 2:12-13 ("if we deny him he will deny us"). He said it wasn't applicable to John 6:37-39. Yet, a few paragraphs later, he had the ironic experience of citing 2 Timothy 2:10 to prove election but forgot that just two verses away in 2 Timothy 2:12-13 those very elect are told that if they deny Christ he will deny them. Be that as it may, I wonder if the Jews gave Paul the same argument Dr. White just gave me about the Old Testament. In Romans, for example, Paul quotes from the OT about three dozen times or so in order to support his doctrines, some of them are quoted in order to support Predestination in Romans 9-11. Yet Dr. White insists I can't use Ezek 33:11 or Ezek 18:23 to shed a little light on the nature of God's will in John 6:37-39 because according to Dr. White it is not "didactic teaching." Tell that to Ezekiel. Before you do, check Ezekiel's context in Ezekiel 18:1-32 and you will see that its theme is very similar to that in John 6.

I continued in TPF: And does this not force us to believe that the Son is able to save without introducing the will of man as the final authority in the matter? Can any synergist (one who teaches, as Dr. Geisler does, that God's grace works "synergistically" and that man's free will is a vitally important part of the salvation process, and that no man is saved unless that man wills it) believe these words? Can one who says that God tries to save as many as "possible" but cannot save any man without that man's cooperation fully believe what this verse teaches?

Sungenis replies: "We have seen that John 6 does not make a contest between Free Will and Election, but such a contest Dr. White invariably sees in almost every verse."

Actually, of course, my point is that there is no contest at all: there is no such thing as creaturely autonomy in the semi-Pelagian idea.

(91) In other words, Dr. White believes there is no contest only because his presuppositions demand it of him, not because the text of John 6 opposes Election and Free Will.

Man is dead in sin, incapable of seeking God, the enemy of God, unable to come to Christ outside of the effective work of drawing on the part of the Father (John 6:44). No person reading the text in its native context, as those in the synagogue that day long ago in Capernaum would have heard the words as they were spoken, would for a moment think of such ideas as "free will" or "synergism."

(92) The false analogy meter is red-lining again. Do you see how Dr. White couples the idea that man has no power to come to God with the idea that there can be no free will or synergism? Really think about this. Dr. White has made an assumption. The assumption is that (a) man is incapable of seeking after God without God's power is the same thing as saying (b) man has no free will. Is that what people who include free will into the schema of salvation believe? No, not at all. Like Dr. White, those who believe in Free Will say that God gives us Free Will and the power to use that Free Will. If it weren't for God's power, we would not even have a Free Will, let alone use it independently of God's grace. Thus, does John 6:44 deny that man has a Free Will? No, of course not. All it says is that no man comes to Jesus unless he is drawn by the Father. Its only when Dr. White's Calvinism is applied to the verse is it then made to teach absolute predestination.

In fact, it was the strong proclamation of the sovereignty of God in drawing men to Christ, and the fact that He alone is the source of true spiritual nourishment, that offended them so!

"This is the problem with Calvinistic interpretation of Scripture: passages which seem to support their doctrines are invariably set on the highest plateau, and those verses which give an opposite view are subsumed. In the end, the subsuming of the verses they don't like shows that they have misunderstood the verses they wish to put on the highest plateau. As Dr. White has shown, they consistently add extraneous thoughts and qualifications to the text that are simply not there."

Each assertion of "adding" to the text has been thoroughly refuted, and I leave it to the reader to determine who it is who is allowing the text to stand on its own, and who is allowing external authorities to determine interpretation. Almost every paragraph of Mr. Sungenis' response gives evidence of this.

(93) No, Dr. White is "adding," because the verses don't deny free will, but Dr. White is denying free will from his interpretation of the verses. If Dr. White would just teach what the passage says, and not what his presuppositions about the workings of election are, then we could get somewhere in this discussion. But as long as he posits that election and free will are mutually exclusive, then he will invariably interpret John 6:37 and other such verses to his own liking.

I continued in TPF: "Is it not the Father's will that Christ try to save but that He save a particular people perfectly? He is to lose nothing of all that He is given." The anthropocentrism of the Roman Catholic position continues unabated in the response:

"Notice again how Dr. White inserts premises from his Calvinistic theology. The verse does not say "He IS to lose nothing" but "It is the Father's WILL that...I should lose nothing." Before Dr. White can insert the word "IS" into John 6:39, he must prove from Scripture that, in regards to God's desire to save all (cf., 1 Timothy 2:4; 4:10; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2; Acts 17:25-31, et al), that the Father's "will" does not seek or need the cooperation of man. In doing so, Dr. White cannot just point to his favorite predestinarian verses, such as Romans 8:29-30 or Ephesians 1:5-11, which speak only in general terms, but he must answer all the passages in Scripture which show that God is waiting for man's cooperation (eg., Zech 1:3; James 4:8; Acts 17:25-26; Luke 11:19; Matt 11:21; Jeremiah 3:22; 29:13; Matt 6:33; 7:7-8; Luke 12:31; 17:33; Rom 2:7; Col 3:1; John 1:12; 5:40; Rom 10:9-13; 10:16-21, and many other such passages). He cannot reply by giving the standard Calvinist answer: "God only asks for man's cooperation so that he can have evidence to convict them at judgment day," since that would incriminate God for telling falsehoods."

The reader is invited to re-read this response and consider well the ideas that underlie it. First, whether it is Mr. Sungenis inserting his Roman Catholic ideas at the expense of the biblical text or I inserting Calvinistic ideas must be determined on the basis of something more than mere assertion. Thus far we have found precious little solid evidence that the text says anything other than its plain meaning.

(94) Notice how Dr. White just avoids the passages I cite above, a passage that will give us a balanced view of this situation. He just resorts to mere assertions that John 6 is "plain," and thus he is at the point of circular reasoning to defend his position.

Next, is there truly some kind of difference in summarizing the Father's will for the Son by using the term "is"? Surely not! The text says, "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." Such is accurately summarized as I wrote it.

(95) Is Dr. White now going to engage in a Clintonian quibble about the meaning of the word IS in order to make his point? Surely Dr. White must realize that the "is" he is using in "This IS the Father's will" is in a different syntactical position than saying "he IS to lose nothing," but "is" has no variation in meaning as does the word "will." The word "is" denotes existence, an existence that is undeniable. If I say, "The sky IS blue" that means it exists as a blue sky. It is not green or red or purple. But if I say, "It is my WILL that the sky is blue," that may or may not come true, depending on what we mean by the word "will." If I take "will" to mean that I have power to make the sky blue even when it is gray, then that is one meaning. If I take "will" to mean it is my desire to have the sky blue but I cannot force it to be so, then that is a totally different meaning. Again, Dr. White's Calvinism has settled on only one meaning of "will" in John 6:37-39, the one that turns the sky blue. But he can't prove that definition from the text, especially in light of passages such as John 5:40; 2 Timothy 2:10-13; Ezek 18:23, 1 Timothy 2:4, without doing violence to the "plain" meaning of these verses.

But note that Mr. Sungenis then gives us a glowing example of eisegesis by simply refusing to believe that Jesus could, in fact, fulfill the Father's will without the assistance of man!

(96) I did no such thing. I only refuse what the Scripture tells me to refuse. If it doesn't refuse free will in John 6:37-40, who am I to refuse it? Again, if Dr. White can find one Scripture which opposes election to free will, I'll listen to it and he wins the debate.

Rather than dealing with the text, he instead lists his favorite allegedly non-predestinarian verses (none of which even begin to support his assertions, see the relevant discussions in TPF)

(97) Deal with the passages, Dr. White. Just don't dismiss them.

and then makes the accusation that Reformed theologians engage in over-weighting some passages at the expense of others. Just a few observations: first, this provides us with no meaningful exegesis of John six. As such, it is primarily misdirection.

(98) I gave a "meaningful" exegesis of John 6 already. Here it is again: 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).

Secondly, while it would be profitable to go through each and every listed verse and demonstrate that each is fully compatible with the Reformed position, the main problem here is that Mr. Sungenis does not understand the Reformed position to begin with, making the effort a waste of time.

(99) The only thing that is a waste of time is when someone keeps making the same tired old excuses that his opponent somehow doesn't understand his position. I understand Dr. White's position thoroughly. He just pretends I don't because that will make it appear to the reader that I'm just missing something.

It is truly difficult to understand how someone can hold a Master's degree from Westminster Seminary and list Matthew 6:33 as if it is relevant to the topic at hand.

(100) Well, Dr. White has finally addressed one of the 17 passages I listed a few paragraphs ago. Actually, he doesn't really address Matt 6:33, he just dismisses it as irrelevant, just as he did with Ezk 33:11 and 2 Tim 2:12-13 a while back. But for the sake of you, the reader, here's why I included Matt 6:33. It says "seek first His kingdom and all these things shall be added to you." This is just one of many passages which show the same principle as that in Zech 1:3 ("Return to Me....that I may return to you"). God is not going to force or impose Himself upon us for either salvation or His blessings. We have to cooperate with His grace and use our wills.

But such an endeavor would take us far a field, and this response is already far longer than most but the most hardy individuals can handle as it is. I had continued in TPF: How can this be if, in fact, the final decision lies with man, not with God? It is the Father's will that results in the resurrection to life of any individual. This is election in the strongest terms, and it is taught with clarity in the reddest letters in Scripture. Sungenis replies: "It is inappropriate to say "the final decision lies with man." No one in all of Christian history has been able to plumb the depths of the workings of predestination/foreknowledge and free will/responsibility. We simply don't know how they work together, any more than we know how the Trinity is 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 at the same time. All we know is that Scripture speaks of both, not only with Adam but with those after him. To deny one and exalt the other is doing injustice to both Scripture and God."

We know how God is three Persons in one Being: Being and Person are not synonymous terms. Such is not a parallel at all.

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