Of Repentance Granted, and Disallowed

My blessing for a hot meal?

Heb 12:14-17

¹⁴ Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord: ¹⁵ looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled; ¹⁶ lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright. ¹⁷ For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears.

In 2006 a local preacher explained this passage to his congregation in the context that God will not always accept someone back to Him, that He has a time limit on His offer. There's more than a little truth to the concept the preacher was trying to get across, but he ended up missing the mark. The preacher went on to explain that Esau wasn't able to repent, though he wanted to so badly he was moved to tears.

The preacher's view of repentance being turning from your sins, or stopping your sins, informed his view of the passage. He explained that since Esau couldn't change the fact that he had exchanged his blessing for a hot meal that he could not repent of it. He couldn't stop it, no matter how much he wanted to once the end result was realized.

But, what "repentance" did Esau seek after with tears? Read Gen 27:30-40. Esau wept for want of his father's repentance about which son he blessed. There was no place for repentance however, because Isaac his father had already blessed Jacob. Isaac, Esau and Jacob's father, explained that his brother Jacob would be blessed, and Esau would serve him. This has absolutely nothing to do with Esau being unable to repent, or needing God to gift him repentance.

It is an example of repentance unto blessing being disallowed, because the blessing was no longer available. What had been done had been done. It didn't matter that Isaac regretted what happened, his blessing had been given. God would honor the blessing and would not allow Isaac repentance to change what would happen. It didn't matter that Esau had repented about selling the blessing, the blessing was no longer available. It's interesting that in Rom 9:10-12 we find out that this was by design. God had chosen Jacob for the position of Firstborn. God actually disallowed repentance. He would not allow it to change His plan.

It is clear that God will accomplish all He sets out to do, that there are specific things He has intended to complete and that these same will be accomplished. Isa 46:8-11 tells us as much. Yet is is also clear that God does change His mind, He repents and or relents, in response to repentance and or faith of mankind.

We read in 1Cor 5:1-13 of a young man engaged in sexual immorality that the local assembly had not put out of fellowship. Paul instructs them to put him out where he'll suffer at the hands of Satan, "that he might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Which speaks of Judgment of works, not Eternal Salvation  We read about the shame of failure some will at His appearing in 1Jn 2:28 Here is more on the Judgment Seat of Christ before which all Believers will stand. Later Paul writes in 2Cor 2:3-11 instructing the assembly to welcome him back into fellowship. Here, repentance was granted by God, demanded by Paul, and actioned by the assembly. Not the young man's repentance, but the repentance of the assembly to welcome him back in. Paul explained that it is our duty to God to keep our assemblies pure. It is God who allows this young man to return, who grants the repentance of the assembly. Not who "gifts repentance to him or them" but Who grants or allows it. It was right to relent on the young man's punishment because God has allowed them to bring him back in. For this man repentance unto fellowship, and all that entails, was finally granted.

We run into a similar pattern over a very different issue in 2Tim 2:25. Taken by itself, and with a dose of preconceived theology, the verse may appear to say that God may "gift" repentance to "those in opposition." But does it really? Paul is telling Timothy how to minister, saying a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition. This last is conditioned on what God does however, if God grants them repentance so that they may know the truth and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will. 2Tim 2:24-26.

This is just like 1Cor 5 & 2Cor 2 again, these disorderly Brethren had become false teachers and had to be marked and separated from. Just like the young man, they were to be put out into the snare of Satan to teach them not to live by the flesh. In 2Tim 1 Paul talks about his ministry and how he has held fast his doctrine about the grace of God. In 2Tim 2:1-2 Paul tells Timothy to therefore be strong in the grace of Jesus Christ and to entrust this doctrine to faithful men who will also be able to teach it.  He continues with warnings to Timothy of the price to be paid to preach the Gospel, that he will also be treated like an evil doer, that he is to realize he is like a soldier in a war who will suffer at the hands of the opposition. 2Tim 2:3-13

Then in 2Tim 2:14-26 Paul talks about how to minister to the Elect, the Believers in Christ, warning them to stay away from error. He warns that tiny errors will grow like cancer! He even warns Timothy himself to be a workman in the Scriptures ensuring he rightly divides the Word of Truth. Paul is warning Timothy to be ware of even his own doctrine! Paul names Hymenaeus and Philetus saying their strange doctrine had over thrown the faith of many! Timothy is told to "shun" such vain babblings.

In 2Tim 2:20-25 Paul explains this shunning. He says that even in a great house there are vessels of honor and dishonour. There are faithful men to which teaching is to be entrusted, and their are unfaithful men who's words are to be shunned, and who are to be put out of the fellowship. He says "Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter (the vessels of dishonour) they will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work." Paul then says to "flee also" youthful lusts, and to avoid foolish and ignorant disputes... this is Biblical Separation at work. Other reference verses would be: 1Tim 6:3-5, Titus 3:9-11, Rom 16:17, 2Jn 1:9-11

Finally, Timothy is to be able to teach these opposers of the truth, should God grant them repentance. Or like the young man in Corinth who had been sexually immoral, if God should allow Timothy to allow them back into fellowship, that they may learn the truth and be freed from the same snare of the devil that the young man in Corinth suffered.

If this passage were about God giving repentance and the knowledge of the truth to these opposers - as is often taught of the passage - then Timothy would not need to be instructed "And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel bu be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition..." For if God "gave" them repentance so that they knew the truth, then Timothy would not be the one tasked with correcting them. It is apparently possible that God will either grant them repentance, or allow them to return to fellowship, or He may not. Yet, Timothy is to be prepared for God to allow it. While Acts 11:18 talks about granting repentance unto life, here we could say that God is granting repentance unto correction.

I'm well aware that many Calvinist readers will think I'm abusing the Text. I ask those same readers to examine the Text without their theology informing them. Does the Text say that God may "gift" repentance or that He may "grant" or "allow" it? The word didomi has a range of meanings which include both senses. Which does the Text support? Giving someone the truth and having them be corrected? Or allowing them to be brought back in safe from the snare of the Devil where they can be corrected? There is a third option which I must mention, out of integrity, but I fear some Calvinist interpreters will find appealing: Or is Paul ignoring all of his instruction to separate from false teachers, and saying that Timothy is to be such a minister that God can use him to correct the opposers and at the same time giving them this repentance. The only non-convoluted option, which does not add to the Text, matches Paul's instructions and does not assume the answer is that Paul is telling Timothy to be prepared to work with these people if God allows him to welcome them back into fellowship.

Israel is a very high profile example. When the Lord came to them He preached the Gospel of the Kingdom, repentance was granted. They were allowed to enter in to the promises given them. When they rejected the King, they were turned over and blinded as a nation. Individually they may be saved, but their is no opportunity for the Nation of Israel to be welcomed back in now. The Lord has set appart a time to bring them to their own repentance. This time is known as the Time of Jacob's Trouble, or the Great Tribulation. This time will bring the Nation of Israel to repentance, and repentance will be granted to them. They will then have the opportunity to say "Blessed is He Who comes in the Name of the LORD!" and be welcomed back in. Ps 118, Jer 30:1-24, Mat 23:37-39, Luk 13:34-35, Luk 19:41-44, Rom 9, Rom 10, Rom 11... among many other passages. National repentance for Israel is not granted right now, but will be again soon.

Some extreme cases of repentance being disallowed include Ananias and Sapphira who lied to the Holy Spirit and were immediately killed by God. Acts 5:1-11 Moses is even an example of the same! After he struck the Rock a second time God told him to go up on a mountain and die. Deut 32:48-51. You can read more about this example in the article Faith in the Flinty Rock.

What's true of all the above examples is that given particular conditions repentance is granted, and under different conditions repentance is disallowed. This brings us to our second last issue, and a passage some use to describe repentance as a gift from God.

Acts 11:18 is a similar pattern but an altogether different situation. Again, if you read it by itself and insert some theology into it you can get the impression that God is gifting repentance to people. I've heard it taught that this is an example of God gifting repentance to sinners several times, but is that what's going on here?

Israel is God's chosen nation. Deut 7:6-8 Even Jesus says that "Salvation is of the Jews" Jn 4:22 Throughout the NT the issue the Jews have is that God might fellowship with, and use people other than the Jews. It is an unthinkable thought to the mind of the Israelite. Jews could not even themselves fellowship with Gentiles. Throughout Israel's history anyone who would be saved would have to convert to Judaism and become part of Israel in order to do so. There was no access to God except through the Nation of Israel. Rom 9:4-5, Ruth 1:15-18 (for example), and so on.. The idea that the Gentiles could be reconciled to God without becoming Jews was astounding.

This is exactly the kind of opposition Peter faced when he returned to Jerusalem with news of his ministry among the Gentiles. He explains how he struggled with the same fears and thoughts, but that God convinced him to go to the Gentiles. Then he talks about the Gentiles conversion and it is then clear to his opposers that God indeed had allowed the Gentiles to be born again. He had granted repentance unto life to the Gentiles. This isn't gifting each of the people with repentance, it is allowing it to bring Gentiles to life directly without them becoming Jews. Such had not ever happened in all the history of Israel up to the Cross. But, by Peter's testimony of what had happened it was obvious, even to these Israelites, that God had indeed granted repentance unto life to the Gentiles.

I could go into detail about other passages on the subject of Repentance being granted, not given, but these two will suffice for now. First God commands all men everywhere to repent. It is God's command, not God's gift. Further, when Believers are judgmental about others being saved the Apostle Paul reminds us that it is the goodness of God that "leads" people to repentance. Rom 2:4. You don't lead someone to a gift. However, you might lead them to something you've commanded them to do, and that will have a result.


Finally we come to the most immediate, and currently important, issue: repentance granted to each individual in the world. 

Currently, repentance IS granted - we may enter in by the Door which is Jesus Christ, but that Door will be shut all too soon for many. Then repentance unto life will no longer be granted. Mat 25:10, Jn 10:9, Luk 13:24-27, Gen 7:1-24 Pay close attention to Gen 7:16 noting that the Lord shut the door to the ark and no one else could then get in. The next thing that happened was the flood. Repentance unto salvation was no longer granted, it was disallowed. The people could repent about their sin, but there was nothing left to save them even if they did. There is soon coming a moment where the Lord will remove the Church which is His Body from the face of the Earth and He will turn His attention to the Time of Jacob's Trouble which will draw Israel to national repentance. At that time, just like the national repentance of Israel is disallowed right now, everyone who has disbelieved in this age will be blinded. God will send them a strong delusion, and they will believe the lies of Satan and his anti-Christ. 2Thes 2:1-12

Now is the accepted time. Today is the day of Salvation. There may be no other for you. 2Cor 6:2

The Debater's Potter - Part 13 - Chapter 8

Welcome again to this series in which I interact and respond to Dr. James R. White's The Potter's Freedom(TPF), which he intends as a defense of the Reformation (or his view of it anyway) and "the" rebuttal of Dr. Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free(CBF). as a non-Calvinist Non-Arminian.  I took some time away from White's book this last week in order to clear my head. It's been nice! However, we need to get cracking because we're right about half way through!

If you're just jumping in here please go back to The Introduction. Each of the articles are very long and so I won't have space to restate previous information. So, if you think I'm making a bold unsupported claim and you haven't read from the beginning, don't blame me! :) 

These articles are long enough without long introductions being added to them, so let's get at it!

Chapter 8 - Unconditional Election 

"We have already lamented the fact that CBF is long on assertions, but very short on exegesis." 

I'm starting my response with a giggle for a great friend: Pot, meet Kettle. Yes, as always Dr. White's complaints about CBF would be better made in response to his own work. There are some attempts at exegesis in TPF, but they are thus far few and far between, and to say they are exegetical would be to ignore how exegesis works. They are attempts however, and more importantly they are consistent with Calvinism's hermeneutic which a local preacher identified for me this week past. Dr. White and I have an entirely different definition of exegesis but at least he is attempting to be exegetical using his theology trumping hermeneutic. 

As I've been reviewing this chapter of TPF I've been wondering who or what Dr. White is arguing against. It's apparent that either Dr. White or some member or associate at least has actually read CBF, but it is just as apparent that he has chosen to attempt to rebut arguments that are not made in CBF. Dr. White has suggested that Dr. Geisler got his students to write an appendix to the latest revision of CBF which is a response to TPF. Based on my reading of TPF, it seems that someone read CBF and provided quotes to insert among Dr. White's usual arguments. I've watched a few videos of Dr. White and they all sound exactly like TPF no matter who he is arguing against.

Now I'm not playing the classic Calvinist roll of crying "Misrepresentation!" and "Straw-man!" and then moving on as though the claim has been rebutted. I've already demonstrated that Dr. White has horribly misrepresented CBF by going through two chapters of the book in Part 7 A Brief View of Chosen But Free. Before I comment on the rest of Dr. White's 8th chapter we need to take another look at Chosen But Free. The understanding of God's Election of Believers is the primary issue being addressed in CBF. As we noted in Part 7, the primary question of the book is: How can we both chosen and free?
It seems that Dr. White would like his readers to forget the title of Dr. Geisler's book includes the word "chosen" in it. Dr. Geisler, as we saw in Part 7, uses a multitude of Scripture to build his defense of the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. After that work is done Dr. Geisler offers a scenario to help the reader see how it all works more easily. Here is an extended quotation, of which Dr. White quotes merely the first two sentences. 

CBF Discussion of Romans 8:28 starting on Page 69 (according to my Kindle)

     "That these and like texts show the unconditional nature of election from God's point of view is not challenged. But the question is not whether election is unconditional from the vantage point of the Giver but whether there are any conditions for the receiver.      This and other Scriptures reveal that election is related to foreknowledge. Romans 8:29, the very next verse, says "Those God foreknew He also predestined." And 1Peter 1:2 proclaims that the elect "have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." This affirms that God is the unconditional source of the election, and that the election is done with full foreknowledge of all things. But we have demonstrated that the elect will freely choose to believe. Election is not based on or dependent on foreknowldege. Rather it is merely in accord with it (see chapter 3).      An illustration is in order. Suppose a young man (whom we will call Jim) is contemplating marriage, and knows two young ladies (whom we will call Joan and Betty), either of whom would make a good wife for him. As a Christian, he has three basic choices: (1) to propose to neither of them; (2) to propose to Joan; or (3) to propose to Betty. Bear in mind that the young man is under no compulsion. There is nothing outside his own will that places demands on him to choose any one of the three options (or any other one).      Suppose further that the young man happens to know that if he proposes to Joan she will say yes and if he proposes to Betty she will say no. Suppose then, in accordance with this foreknowledge of how she will freely respond, that Jim chooses to propose to Joan. Suppose even that he knew she would be reluctant at first but with persistent and loving persuasion she would eventually--freely--accept his offer. The decision on his part was entirely free, uncoerced, and not based on anything outside himself. But it was also a decision that was with full knowledge of the response and which respected the free choice of the person to whom he decided to propose. This is analogous to what the moderate Calvinists believe about God's unconditional election." 

When I read CBF I found this illustrative overview of the concept he had explained to be most compelling and I still do. This illustration isn't what convinced me, it is the working through the Scriptures that lead up to this that did. This illustration however allowed me to see it all come together. As I have noted briefly here and there in this series of articles Geisler makes a number of mistakes in CBF. It is hard for me to look past these and still find his argument to be true. However, if we restrict our conversation to the passages of Scripture that speak about Election unto Salvation, and the the conditions on the sinner to become saved Geisler's view of Election is inescapable. It is my position that only extra-biblical ideas derail Geisler's view. In fact, in the debate between White and Geisler, only Geisler can read his view directly from the Scriptures without redefining the words. 

Back to TPF we find White complaining that CBF has a "response" to Eph 1 that is merely 8 sentences long, whereas Reformed Theologians have volumes written about the chapter.  He brings up Geisler's note about Rom 9:16 (We'll get into Romans 9 in the next article of this series) where Geisler states that just about everyone believe that God is the one who initiated salvation, even before the world began. White jumps all over this, and makes out as though Geisler's argument in CBF is that God merely initiates salvation. As has been demonstrated over and over this is not the argument of CBF and a book seeking to rebut CBF ought to fixate on arguments that are actually in CBF.

White quotes Geisler discussing Eph 1:4 with 8 sentences that discuss how the giving of Salvation is unconditional but the reception of salvation is conditioned on faith. In these 8 sentences Geisler quotes(not just references) Rom 5:1, Acts 16:31, and Heb 11:6 (strangely) in support of his view. If I were writing CBF I would note that the Bible conditions the reception of Eternal Life on faith (alone) some 150 times. White complains:

"We can hardly be charged with exaggeration when we say that a work that seeks to provide reasons to "avoid" the historic Reformed position would have to provide some kind of meaningful interaction with such a central passage as this.To dismiss this passage of Scripture with the argument, "Well sure God chose to save freely, but man still has to believe to be saved" is to completely miss the heart and soul of the position being attacked." 

Where does White get the idea that CBF seeks to provide reasons to avoid the historic Reformed position? The stated purpose of the book is to provide understanding of how Believers can be both chosen and free. What's more, while Dr. White is saying that Dr. Geisler dismisses this passage (strangely while responding to his discussion of the very same passage...) Dr. White completely ducks Geisler's argument, the 3 quoted verses and by extension the 150 passages that condition the reception of Eternal Life on faith. Is this a rebuttal or a distraction? Why would Dr. White be surprised by Dr. Geisler not wishing to debate him. 
Dr. White skips the discussion at hand and returns to attacking Arminianism, not CBF, then makes this statement:

"There is no real difference between saying God elects on the basis of foreknowledge or in accordance with it if, in the final analysis, it is the free choice of man, not the free choice of God that determines who the elect are! CBF clearly says that God elects based upon His knowledge that those so elected "could be persuaded to freely accept His grace." The final, ultimate deciding factor in election is the free acceptance of the human being. This is glaringly obvious. And it is fully Arminian." 

What is glaringly obvious is that White doesn't expect his readers to bother reading CBF. He continues to complain saying:

"...if the decree of "election" is not specific and based solely upon the will of God, it must become a decree to save based upon what man does in time, nothing else. ...That is, it becomes impersonal. It becomes a decree to save those who fulfill certain obligations (no matter how many or how few those conditions might be), not a decree to save anyone in particular."

First, it is only White who is saying that Geisler says that it is man who determines who the elect are. As demonstrated in Part 7 and above in the illustrative scenario, Geisler teaches that God chooses. Secondly, where is this "decree" that Dr. White discusses? Where is this official documented order given by the Sovereign? Where is the Scripture that says anything different than what Geisler discusses? If this were a rebuttal of CBF, and if the Scriptures actually said something other than what Geisler suggests then Dr. White could simply quote the Text and let is speak for itself. Dr. White is fond of saying that the Text can speak for itself, but not so fond it seems of letting it do so.

As to the issue of specificity Dr. White quotes Dr. Geisler:

"Why, then, does one person go to heaven and another not? Because God willed that all who receive His grace will be saved and that all who reject it will be lost. And since God knew infallibly just who this would be, both the elect and non-elect were determined from all eternity. And this determination was not based on anything in man, including their free choice. Rather, it was determined on God's choice to save all who would accept his unconditional grace." 

Here's the part immediately preceding this that White does not quote:

     "If Salvation is conditioned wholly on God's grace and not on man's will, then how can man's free choice play any part in his salvation? The answer to this question is found in an important distinction between two sense of the word "condition." There are no conditions for God's giving of salvation; it is wholly of grace. But there is one (and only one) condition for receiving this gift--true saving faith.     There is absolutely nothing in man that is the basis for God saving him. But there was something in God (love) that is the basis for man's salvation. It was not because of any merit in man but only because of grace in God that salvation was initiated toward man. Man does not initiate salvation (Rom 3:11) and he cannot attain it (Rom 4:5). But he can and must receive it (John 1:12). Salvation is an unconditional act of God's election. Man's faith is not a condition for God giving salvation, but it is for man receiving it. Nonetheless, the act of faith (free choice) by which man receives salvation is not meritorious. It is the Giver who ges credit for the gift, not the receiver."

I've discussed the fact that Paul explicitly states that faith is not meritorious and that in fact in Rom 4:16 he says that salvation HAD to be accessed by faith alone in order for it to be given by grace. For more on this check out Well Done Abram? (note: Dr. Geisler is not building a doctrine that God only initiates salvation. Please don't read Dr. White's argument into CBF.)

White complains about Geisler being carefully confusing... and says:

"Nowhere in this quote, or in CBF, will you find the elect as individuals being chosen by God solely upon the basis of His will."

Now I would say this is a carefully crafted statement in itself. I will remind the reader of what I quoted from CBF above "The decision on his part was entirely free, uncoerced, and not based on anything outside himself." Also check the section that White did not quote again. Geisler also adds note 77 adding to his comment of John 15:16 saying:
"It is clear of course, that God chose us before we chose to accept Him. And our decision to accept His offer of salvation is not the basis for His choice of us. We did not choose Him--either first or as the basis of His choice of us. We merely responded to His gracious offer of salvation based solely on His unconditional grace. But we do have a choice in receiving this unconditional gift of salvation for "All who received Him, to those who believed in His name He gave the right to become children of God.(John 1:12)"
Yet White continues:

"God wills to save those who believe, and who believes is not the result of the decree but of the "free choices" of men. Again, this is pure Arminianism." 

There is so much wrong with these two sentences that I could write a whole article on just them. Where is "the decree"? Geisler says over and over and over again that the free choices of men don't determine their salvation. He states it explicitly, shows it from the Scripture, gives a scenario to help us understand. What more does he have to do to get Dr. White to understand? Perhaps what White is arguing against is Arminianism. Yet how does calling CBF "pure Arminianism" rebut CBF?  Simply calling something Arminianism doesn't prove it is wrong.

If you're wondering why this bothers me so much consider how many people have heaped praise on Dr. White for this book. Isn't this praise beginning to seem absolutely absurd? If this were some obscure book by someone without influence, and whom wasn't held up as a defender of the faith then it would be laughable. However, the man has a platform and that makes his influence dangerous if he is not able to actually interact with opposition faithfully. Calvinists may be upset with my reaction to TPF, but they cannot honestly suggest I have misrepresented it.

Dr. White then quotes Eph 1:3-11. He states several things about the passage, but doesn't explain why his quotation doesn't include the last half of the last sentence, verse 12, and the completion of the teaching verses 13 & 14. He says that God acts and Believers are the recipients. As an aside; one wonders why Paul calls Believers "Believers" instead of recipients if they don't actually "believe" but are given their faith as a gift. White then writes:

"Throughout this passage we will see the phrase "in Christ" or "in Him" repeated over and over again, all to emphasize the uniqueness of the Christian gospel, where God saves men in Christ and in no other way."

This is an interesting thing for White to conclude from the passage. On one hand, I could neither argue with the fact that the Christian Gospel is unique, nor that God saves men in Christ only. Yet what I challenge is White's assertion that these statements are included in this passage "all to emphasize the uniqueness of the Christian gospel." Where does he get this idea from? He doesn't explain, and I cannot find the concept addressed, implied, concluded, or required by Paul in this passage. This is vitally important for the reader to catch. Instead of getting his view on the usage of these words from the Text, he's inserting his view into it.

White continues noting that election here is God's choice and explains that the rest of the passage gives us three vital pieces of information: the object of the choice, the sphere of the choice and the time frame of the choice.  He says that the first person plural pronoun "us" is the object of the choice and continues:

"If certain theories were correct we might expect something like "to save" so that the passage would simply be "God chose to save, or make salvation possible, before the foundation of the world." But instead Paul provides a personal direct object, making the choice personal and distinct. He chose "us" not a nameless, faceless class or group but "us." 

I thought the whole - if the author wanted to say that he could have written that - argument was a "weak argument" according to Dr. White. Perhaps it's only weak when levelled against Calvinism. :) However, since the he used it here I will return the favour. Dr. White keeps saying that Election is about INDIVIDUALS being specifically chosen to believe, while other specific individuals are not. While I think there is truth to this belief, Dr. White forces it into the Text where it is not found, like for instance this passage. If God were talking about specific individuals then the object of the choice would not be "us" it would be "each of us." What White is arguing against is the doctrine of Corporate Election, yet for what reason one cannot be sure. Dr. Geisler isn't arguing for the doctrine of Corporate Election. Dr. Geiler's work explains Election as a personal thing, each individual is Elected to Eternal Life. 

He moves on...

"This choice, by necessity, must take place in Christ. Christ is not the one here chosen, but thoes who are chosen are chosen in Christ. There is no election outside of union with Christ." 

Except that God elected, or chose, Judas Iscariot Jn 6:70 who was not in Christ for example... See the word election in the verse here. Now I could suppose that Dr. White is suggesting that there is no salvation outside of union with Christ, but that's not what he wrote.

He then goes on to talk about how Christianity is neither pluralistic nor syncretistic. I knew what pluralistic meant, having more than one God, but syncretistic is new to me. Once again, who or what exactly is Dr. White arguing against? Nevertheless he continues with this interesting point:

"But this choice is timeless. It is made "before the foundation of the world," before creation itself. The choice is wholly divine and wholly based upon the will of God for at the time of the election of us in Christ nothing else but God existed. Election is wholly of Him."

Did God have no foreknowledge of what was going to happen in History inside of His creation before He created it? Was He so in the dark that He had to make a decision based on nothing but Himself? This is not what the Scriptures say. White doesn't leave this argument here either. He returns to how man makes choices in Time and that God made His election prior to Time, and this is the reason His election could not be in accordance with God's foreknowledge of man. 

The Scripture says that God knew, and knows all. That He elected in accordance with His foreknowledge. Frankly, Paul & Geisler are completely in agreement for Geisler merely quotes Paul. Further this business about God electing based on His will might make us wonder what the will of God with regard to Salvation actually is. We need to go to ground the Calvinist claims to find this stated by the Lord Himself. All whom the Father have given Him He should loose none of us, and that all who believe shall be given Eternal Life and be raised up on the last day. Jn 6:39-40 The will of the Father is Eternal Security and the giving of Eternal Life to all who believe. If you missed my discussion of John 6 please go back and read Part 11 where I go verse by verse through the chapter.

White continues:

"But to what were Christians predestined? Adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself." God predestined not simply a plan but an end, just as we saw in verse 4. Those who are chosen in eternity are predestined to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself... And since adoption is always personal (God does not adopt plans nor nameless, faceless masses of humans, but persons), this is saying exactly what the Baptist Confession of Faith asserted in the previous chapter: personal, specific election of the people of God."

Here's the thing though. What were we predestined to? Adoption. Not to belief. What is being born into the family conditioned on? Faith. Who have been predestined to to adoption? Those who believe. As to the nonsense about adoption always being personal... where did this come from? Is this an exegetical handling of the Text?

Next we find the reason for the abruptly cut off quotation of Paul in mid sentence at Eph 1:11.

"It should be noted that at this point all of the verbs in the passage have had God as their subject. Men have not added an iota to the discussion outside of being adopted into the family of God... He is not controlled by the whims and will of creatures He has yet to bring into existence."

Who said that God is controlled by the whims and will of creatures? Does Dr. White expect to be taken seriously when he writes like this? Here's the whole sentence that Dr. White cut in the middle. 

Eph 1:11-12

¹¹ In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, ¹² that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.

See Dr. White is "correct" in saying that "at this point all of the verbs in the passage have had God as their subject." But does this even have any importance at all, given that in order to be able to make such a statement Dr. White had to cut the Apostle off mid sentence?

See the fact that God does acts and that they are not done by men IS important. It does carry meaning. However, abusing the Text to make it appear to mean something it doesn't is a practice that I cannot condone. It doesn't get any better for Dr. White if we finish quoting the Apostle to the end of his thought.

Eph 1:13-14

¹³ In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, ¹⁴ who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Here we find that the Reformed Theology of pre-faith regeneration is (again) refuted in the Text by a simple reading. Not to mention, once again we see that salvation is conditioned on Faith, and specifically faith that happens prior to someone being given the Holy Spirit.

Dr. White continues:

"What is the basis of God's act of predestination? It is "according to the kind intention of His will." Each word is important. It is His will, not our will.... The basis of this specific decree is God's will. No mention is found of man's will." 

What specific "decree"? Who said predestination was based on man's will? I'm including some of these types of quotes repeatedly because this really is the thrust of the book. It doesn't matter that it's completely bunk, he has chosen to argue against the idea that salvation is based on man's will... He continues now into something philosophical, which I am going to challenge philosophically.

"We need to remember that first and foremost God's action of saving man is an act of Grace. His will is not some dark and foreboding thing." 

Tell that to the people who are predestined to Hell. He continues:

"The emphasis in Scripture is always on the wonder that God would save at all, never upon the idea that God chooses not to save a particular individual, leaving them to perfect justice. It is the "kind intention" of His will that lies at the base of His action of choosing a people in Christ."

Always? Where does the Scripture emphasize wonder that God would save at all? Where? If God is Almighty, limitless in power, then He is able to save every individual. By definition then, if He chooses only some out of the whole to be saved He is also choosing the remainder to be damned. He is not merely leaving people to face justice, He is violating justice.

Suppose an infinitely rich court Judge took up the practice of paying the fines for some criminals but not others. Calling them not just "not guilty" but "justified" based on payment that the Judge himself had made to the court. Would it be just of him? Of course it would not be just! It would be a travesty of justice! What worse thing would the criminal who must suffer in jail have done than the one who was set free? Nothing! Is this grace? It may appear to be grace to the one who gets set free, but it is not grace. It is a violation of justice. Some form of favoritism, even if how the choice is made is not revealed. How long do you suppose a judge who randomly sets criminals free would stay on the bench? If you were convicted by him and sent to jail would you not protest? "The last guilty man through here you set free! Yet I am sentenced to jail!" You would yell much worse I am sure. Your lawyer would have a field day with the judge.

In order for grace to be grace it has to be selflessly loving. When I'm graceful it isn't about me, or for me. God cannot be "graceful" unless He is always graceful. A child isn't "obedient" if he only disobeys once a week. He's mostly obedient. Is God "mostly graceful"?

White moves on to the ever present bunk Calvinist argument about man getting praise if he believes... and says something interesting while he's at it.

"Is God's grace to be praised because we can be saved or because we are saved?"

It's a tiresome question because it is just going back over all the stuff we've already covered but here's a question. Who said we should praise God's grace? Are we not to praise God only? How would you accurately answer this specific question from the Scripture? Go ahead give it a try.

He finishes talking about Eph 1 with:

"It is clear, then, why Reformed believers understand the Bible to teach God's eternal decree of unconditional election." 

Not to me it isn't. I get that they do... believe me I get that they do. Why though? Where is this decree? Where does Scripture say that it works the way Reformed Theologians say it does?

I suppose I should go through Eph 1:3-6. Here it is:

³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, ⁴ just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, ⁵ having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, ⁶ to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.

The Pedestrian Christian blog goes into detail on the passage, so I'm going to keep it short and simple here. We are chose us in Christ, the choice happened in Christ, not that we were chosen to be in Christ. We, the "us who first believed" and "you also who believed after hearing the Gospel in Verse 12-13, are predestined to adoption as sons. It is to those who believe that God gives the right to be sons. John 1:12-13. We are not predestinated to belief, and our adoption as sons is conditioned on belief. This is why the predestination must be in accordance with God's foreknowledge 1Pet 1:2. Neither Dr. Geisler or myself have any issue at all with the fact that God chose, or Elected, us in Eternity Past. What CBF and I argue is that this choice was made in accordance with God's foreknowledge, like Peter and Paul  teach. Not blindly like Dr. White teaches, having been made before God created man so man's actions cannot have anything to do with it...

See Eph 1:3-14 isn't explaining why people who do. It's explaining why God saves those who do. Because it is the "kind intention" of the Father that all who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved. And those who will believe have been predestined to enjoy that Salvation since Eternity Past. There is a physical and technical reason for why it works this way. God is in Eternity. He's not waiting for people to get saved. No matter when in History you step out of Time, you enter Eternity in the exact same spot. Eternity isn't lots of Time it is the absence of Time. No matter when you leave Time to enter Eternity, there you are. You'll be there the same instant your Great Great Great Grand Father is.

Dr. White moves on to respond to what he calls "some" and I would call "very few of the" verses cited in CBF. 

With regard to John 1:12-13 he writes:

"In the midst of introducing the Word, John cannot help but speak of the Word in redemption." 

Dr. White seems to think that the Scriptures are authored by men in an emotional frenzy. Several times he explains why a particular penman of Scripture wrote particular passages, or how they wrote them because of some desire they had. It seems to me that Jude shows that the penmen of Scripture didn't write in accordance with their desires but in accordance with the direction of the Holy Spirit. He continues though, and makes an astonishing admission.

"It is to these, and these alone, that the right to become children of God is given. Specifically, those who believe in His name."

This is, however, completely in opposition to what Dr. White has been arguing all along. His explanation of pre-faith regeneration is that the right, ability, inkling, desire, and so on, to believe in His name is given only to those who have already been born again (regenerated) into God's family.  This is MOST CERTAINLY Dr. Geisler's point when citing this verse in CBF, yet instead of addressing the actual point of CBF Dr. White decides to argue an entirely different topic. This is the pattern of TPF, I ought not be surprised any more but somehow I still am. 

NOTE: Because I've suddenly and inexplicably lost all my TPF notes in my Kindle copy of TPF the rest of this article is going to be much less detailed.

Writing of the passage the Apostle penned:

"He speaks of the "birth" of believers and specifically denies certain assertions about their birth. They were not born of blood nor the will of the flesh nor the will of man.... Divine birth can have only one origin: God. It is not a matter of human will, human decision."

Then, as if to ensure his readers don't pick up on the misdirection, Dr. White quotes Calvin at length on the same subject, and coming to the conclusion that John is saying that the unsaved cannot believe unless he is first regenerated. Not content to appeal only to Calvin, Dr. White then cites Spurgeon with the accolade:

"Spurgeon, as only he could, put the passage in a context that speaks volumes:"

I don't mean to cast stones at the so called "The Prince of Preachers" but I think I'll take the context of the Text over the context it is preached in any day.

Then Dr. White writes something plainly astounding to me! 

"Dr. Geisler properly understands, and rejects, the reformed view of the passage." 

I feel like calling a friend! :) Unfortunately he doesn't exactly portray Dr. Geisler's view properly. Dr. Geisler agrees with plain reading of the Text. That the New Birth is sourced by God, by His will, and given to those who believe. Not as a result of their will, but as a result of the will of God who has willed to save all those who believe. Jn 6:40.

I could go on with White's argument, but read Jn 1:12-13 your self. Belief was not given to those who had been born according to the will of God, but those who believe were born by the will of God. These people didn't will to save themselves, they were not saved because of their lineage, they were not saved because of their performance - they were born into the family of God because God the Father has willed to save all those who believe in His Son.

Dr. White then moves on to Acts 13:46-48 writing:

"This passage is not cited in CBF as one that is used by "extreme Calvinists" and hence requires a response. Instead, it is listed as a passage that allegedly shows "Salvation: both ordained to it and persuaded into it." This idea is based upon citing Acts 13:48 and then noting that just a few verses later (Acts 14:1) the disciples spoke "in such a manner" that large people believed." Note: "that large people believed" is a direct quote from TPF. "We would hope that it is not being suggested that the quality of the apostles' speech is being credited with the faith  of the multitude: men are not converted by words of wisdom or the persuasive abilities of any man." 

One may well ask "Who is this "we" you speak of Dr. White?" but I'll leave that for now. If one were to listen to Dr. White alone one might well forget that Dr. Geisler's book is entitled "Chosen But Free" for a reason. This reader is not inclined to forget that Dr. Geisler believes God chooses, or elects, from Eternity past and has predestined all those who will believe to Eternal Life. This is what the passage states. It states they were ordained to Eternal Life, not to belief. It doesn't say they were regenerated so they could and would believe - of course there is not a single passage in all of Scripture that says, suggests or requires any such thing so that's no surprise. 

Further, I've done a search in CBF and have not found "in such manner" in it. We do find similar language in Dr. Luke's book we call Acts. Acts 14:1 to be specific. So are the words of concern that Dr. White offers directed at Dr. Luke? Of course I feel I must ask if Dr. White would believe the preaching of a false gospel can result in conversion? For if it cannot then even Dr. White agrees that the way a man preaches can allow for salvation to occur or deny it. Thus we find Luke's purpose in Acts 14:1 it is not that they were so persuasive, but that they were so "effective" (as Geisler puts it) because they preached the very same message as had just been expounded in Acts 13. How "effective" was Paul in Acts 13? Well, I preached from that passage a few years ago. I barely scratched the surface and it took me some 55 minutes. The message I gave was entitled In Accordance With the Scriptures. Give it a listen, I was amazed at how much Paul packed into his preaching.

It must be noted that Dr. Geisler does offer a similar argument to what Dr. White is protesting against, and Dr. Geisler is in error for doing so. This false argument even goes against the main argument of CBF. Nonetheless Dr. White argues his theology instead of letting the Text speak for itself. Acts 13:18 says that as many as were appointed to Eternal Life are the ones who believe. It's not more complicated than that. God has chosen those who will receive Eternal Life in accordance with His foreknowledge and predestined us to Eternal Life and conformance to the image of Jesus Christ. As much as Dr. White would like it to, this passage does no violence to the position of CBF, nor to the position held by myself. Likewise, it offers no assistance to his extra-biblical views.

Dr. White then moves on to Matt 11:25-27. He says that the idea that Jesus had just condemned several cities for their lack of belief but that God had hidden what they should have believed from them is the preceding context for verse 27. I'm not convinced that Dr. White is entirely accurate in his understanding. It seems to me that the whole of the 11th chapter should be considered. In verse 1 we find that Jesus had finished "commanding" his disciples and departed to teach and preach in cities. We then find that John heard about His works and, for some reason, started to doubt that Jesus was the Christ.

It's interesting isn't it that the neither the Lord nor the Apostle bring up the whole "present tense" believing that "true believers" supposedly have? Isn't interesting that the Lord doesn't note that John couldn't believe because it hadn't been given to him to believe? What does the Lord do? He talks about John's character in glowing regard. He details specific signs that the Lord had performed and tells His disciples to remind John that these things are happening - Jesus is the Christ.

The Lord then describes the generation of people surrounding Him. They complained about John who came neither eating nor drinking saying he had a demon. They complained about the Son of Man (the Lord's kingly title) because He HAS come eating and drinking. This is the context of the chapter. It is about disbelief, doubt and rejection. He proclaims "Woe to you.." to the cities who had disbelieved.

Then in Matt 11:25 the Lord starts His "answer" to the disbelief, doubt and rejection. Note that the Lord says who He reveals truth to - not to the wise, but to the babes. Not to those who think they have all the answers, but those who want the truth.

Dr. White makes a great deal about Matt 11:27, but he divorces it from the preceding verses, and the following. He seems to have a habit of cutting people off at particularly advantageous points in their discourse, whether Dr. Geisler, Dr. Luke, the Apostle Paul or even the Lord Himself. Thus he uses the verse as a proof-text for his theology. Here is the whole of the Lord's "answer" to this disbelief, doubt and rejection:
Matt 11:25-30: 

²⁵ At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. ²⁶ Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. ²⁷ All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. ²⁸ Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.²⁹ Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. ³⁰ For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

If you think you have the answers, if you don't feel the burden then don't come - you're not welcome. The Lord chooses to reveal Himself to those who are not proud. James 4:6 This isn't the Lord explaining Unconditional Election, it is the Lord saying that He chooses not to reveal Himself to those who are proud in their own wisdom who think they are righteous. It's an open call - anyone who labours, who is heavy laden COME! 

From there Dr. White moves on to John 5:21 writing:

"Literally the text says, "He enlivens whom He wishes.

The verb is enlivens is active. This is something the Son does, and the objects of the active verb are human beings raised to spiritual life. The Arminian would have to limit this to saying that Christ freely wills to save based upon the action of faith in man.... Christ gives life to whom He wills, not to those who first will it thus allowing Him to save."

One wonders how Dr. White interprets the multitude of verses in the Bible that says someone believed, or had faith and the verb is "active." Ever consistent, Dr. White continues to argue against things not argued for in CBF. Also consistently, Dr. White appeals to a long list of commentators to show that it is God who wills "enliven" whom He chooses. Does Dr. Geisler argue against this? No. So what is the purpose of this list of commentators? One surmises that it is important to make it appear as though your opponent is going against what is commonly established. My concern is for my belief to be in line with the Text, not with a list of some carefully selected commentators.

White continues:

"So how does CBF handle this passage? Interestingly, it does so in the context of denying particular redemption, not unconditional election. As we will see when we discuss the atoning work of Christ, the vast majority of Arminian objections to particular redemption are actually confused objections to unconditional election. The same is true here."

What Dr. Geisler actually says is:

"This vers is sometimes used by extreme Calvinists in an attempt to prove limited atonement whereby Christ gives spiritual life only to the elect." Which he references from Steel & Thomas "Five Points of Calvinism." First of all, if this interpretation were true it would contradict the clear teaching of other texts in John (Jn 3:16) and elsewhere (1Jn 2:2; 2Pet 2:1). And all true Calvinists, following Calvin, believe the Bible is the Word of God and does not contradict itself. Second, the use of "just as" in this text indicates the Son is doing the same thing as the Father, and the Father "raises the dead." So it is not a reference to salvation but to resurrection of the dead. Finally, the resurrection in this very chapter of John refers to "all who are in the graves" (5:28), both saved and unsaved (vs .29). Hence, the resurrection life given is not limited to the elect: both saved and unsaved are resurrected." 

It is not Dr. Geisler confusing the subject, but Calvinists Steel & Thomas who are, he is merely responding to them. At least on the surface I have some issues with how Dr. Geisler has handled this passage, but I'm not going to dig into his argument to any great extent. I think the "life" the Lord is speaking of giving has it's context in the healing of the sick man, not so much the resurrection of the saved and unsaved. Still, I'm more interested in the Apostle's argument and whether it lines up with Calvinism. So, does John 5:21 actually speak of Unconditional Election?

As is my pattern, actually my rule of study, we need to look at the entirety of the Lord's answer to the Jews who sought to kill Him because He had healed a man on the Sabbath. Please read John 5:1-47. What I find is a message in stark opposition to Calvinism's doctrine of Total Inability. There is a veritable quote mine of things that go against that extra biblical doctrine in this chapter. But with regard to Unconditional Election we find the following:

Jn 5:5-7

⁵ Now a certain man was there who had an infirmity thirty-eight years. ⁶ When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he already had been in that condition a long time, He said to him, “Do you want to be made well?”

This is an odd question for the Lord to ask if He is actually going to use this as an example of Unconditional Election isn't it?

Dr. White starts his discussion of Jn 5:21 by saying that this verse is much like Matt 11:27, and he's right it is. Of course Dr. White doesn't mean what I mean by that statement. What I mean is, the emphasis isn't on the fact that the Lord chooses, but it is on who He chooses. Of course the Lord is in control. Neither myself nor Geisler argue against that; no matter what Dr. White claims over and over again. Who does He choose? That's the important question the Lord is answering.

Finally Dr. White gets to what many have called the "Golden Chain of Redemption," Romans 8:28-30 of which Dr. White states:

"Few texts of Scripture are so clear, so forceful, in asserting the absolute freedom of God in saving His elect people than these. Every attempt to undermine their testimony truly rings hollow. Simple fairness drives the mind to recognize that these verses speak of God's wrok, not man's. God saves, from beginning to end."

One continually wonders who Dr. White is arguing against, and if he is arguing against someone in particular why doesn't their name appear in the subtitle of TPF instead of Dr. Geisler's name. He continues:

"Providing an exegesis of this text would be superfluous  as so many fine examples exist. The reader is directed to the work of John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans for an example of the ease with which the Reformed exegete can work with this text by simply allowing it to speak for itself. We are truly on "home court" in Romans 8 and 9."

Why should someone who has paid money to read Dr. White's "defence of the reformation" and "refutation of Chosen But Free" have to purchase another book to get understanding of this passage? We have already seen in a couple of the earlier articles in this series that Dr. White is plainly wrong with regard to Romans 8:6-8. I'm not sure I would be citing a "home court" advantage if I were him. Also, as Dr. White is fond of saying without actually allowing, how about you just let the passage "speak for itself" then? Before I even get started interacting with his text of this passage let's just let the passage speak for itself.

Rom 8:28-30

²⁸ And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. ²⁹ For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. ³⁰ Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Pretty straight forward isn't it? Who are predestined? Those whom God foreknew. What are we predestined to? Conformance to the image of Christ. Is God waiting to see what man will say? No. Vs 30. Is man predestined to belief? Not according to this passage - or any other for that matter.

"How does CBF attempt to defuse this keystone of the Reformed faith? One should not be surprised that a slight variant of the classic Arminian approach is utilized."

The Reformed faith? Really? He goes on to complain that there is little mention of verse 28 in CBF, and nothing of what he considers "exegetical comment" and... 

"The attempted response to verse 29 focuses upon denying that "foreknown" carries the concept of "fore-loved" or "chosen." 

Dr. White will fill the remainder of his 8th chapter with a discussion about how "foreknown" means "fore-loved" so I think Dr. Geisler chose well to attack that particular fallacy. Fallacy is a strong word is it not? Earlier in TPF Dr. White makes quite a substantial deal about Dr. Geisler using another passage in the book of John to explain the drawing of Jn 6. Instead of interacting with the argument Dr. White dismissed it saying that Dr. Geisler was using a completely different passage and forcing it onto Jn 6.

So what does Dr. White do with the word "foreknew" in Rom 8:29? Well he starts out discussing how election is personal. He builds a false dilema by saying we have two choices - God's election of persons in accordance with Calvinism or His election of a plan of salvation.

I must be somewhat generous however because Dr. Geisler falls down in his argumentation on this subject. He does argue for a "plan" here. However, both arguments ignore what the Text says, which is simply that God foreknew people. Yes it is personal. No it is not "foreloved." Let's simplify White's argument. 

"Every time (in the New Testament) God is portrayed as "foreknowing" the object of the verb is personal." Therefore, to say that God foreknows acts, faith, behavior, choices, etc. is to assume something about the term that is not witnessed in the biblical text. God foreknows persons not things."

OK I have to interrupt... God doesn't foreknow things? He didn't know about His creation and what would happen in it before He created it? Really? Let's continue:

"This New Testament usage then decides for us which elements of the Old Testament stream most informs these passages. That is the Hebrew term yada is used in many different ways. Is there a discernable usage in the Old Testament that comes through to the New Testament that would see this as an action that has only persons as its object?" 

This would be insanely amusing if it were not insanely tragic. He just basically wrote "Is there any use of a Hebrew word meaning "to know" that is used in any place the way I'm trying to prove Paul uses "foreknow"? Is this how he finds justification for his theology? Hello!?!

He finds some! Jer 1:5, Exodus 33:17. He goes on in an attempt to build a case that knowing equals choosing by using Amos 3:2. He states:

"Here the NASB actually translates yada as "chosen," so strongly is this element found in the context of this passage." 

He goes on to talk about how Adam "knew" his wife, noting the result was a child... 

"Therefore the use of the verbal concept of "foreknowing" in the New Testament, together with these testimonies from the Old Testament, are more than sufficient basis for asserting that when Paul says "and those whom He foreknew" Paul is speaking about an action on God's part that is just as solitary, just as God-centered, and just as personal as ever other action in the string..."

After going off on Dr. Geisler for using the Apostle John to explain how the Apostle John uses the word "draw" in the very same book, in VERY similar context THIS is Dr. White's argument for his redefinition of the word "foreknow"? Thayer says it means "to have knowledge before hand." I think I'll go with the Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutic on this.  How exactly does this fly as "exegesis" in Dr. White's circles?

The word means to have knowledge before hand. The rest of the chapter is filled with calling Dr. Geisler's view "Arminian" and then baiting the reader to keep going because the next chapter will be about a "key passage" Romans 9.

What can I say? I've been studying Dr. White's work months now, since June, and I've been studying it deeply. He has yet to be correct in even a single argument. I had expected to find more agreement with the man than this. Next time we'll look at Romans 9. I won't be doing a paragraph by paragraph review. I'll present Dr. White's argument in simplified form and then go through the Scripture to see if it lines up or not. 

My Kindle erased all my TPF notes

I purchased two books yesterday on my Kindle account, as I've done many times before. This time however it somehow erased all my notes and highlighted passages from The Potter's Freedom.

I'm mostly done writing the lastest instalment of the "The Debater's Potter" series which will cover Chapter 8 of The Potter's Freedom. This is a major setback, as I've lost some 10 hours of work and many notes.

I'm not a particularly happy camper right now, but I'll work it out.

SoF Update

I've put in very rough descriptions of each of the points of the OMW Statement of Faith. Am I missing any topic that you think I should cover? I know there is missing detail but are there any topics that are important to you that I haven't listed?

On My Walk 101: The Basic Difference

Is your theology saddled by your hermeneutic,
or is your hermeneutic saddled by your theology?

My wife and I have been looking for a new place to fellowship since Easter of this year. The search has gone from disheartening to infuriating to sicking and back again... we've been learning some very important lessons though. I've also been loosing my appetite for argument.

I've always enjoyed banter. You know, good hearted strong discussion with lots of back and forth, good points, intensity and laughter. I also very much enjoy a good "argument" that is a well made persuasive case for a position, idea, opinion or theory. I love to be challenged to think about things. I love to experience how other people think about things. I'm fascinated by the the very process of learning and that of the forming of opinions.  I've been willing to argue with people in order to pull an "argument" out of them. Or to help them see how something isn't actually true. I'm tired of it though. I'm not tired of critically examining things, or of deep discussions but the plain truth is the Bible tells us how to deal with false teachers: mark them and separate from them. I don't need to argue with anyone. If they have false theology and they are not open to discussion then my only responsibility is to protect myself and those whom I care for from their teaching. That's it.

So that's been my state of mind for the last week or so, and it is the state of mind I was in when I had the opportunity to communicate with a Reformed Calvinist Pastor of a local assembly which I was interested in based on their website. The website had a reasonable enough statement of faith, and many sermons but nothing that really stated what they believe the Gospel is or how someone comes to be saved. So I emailed the Pastor with a few questions. While I was waiting to hear back from him I kept digging for answers about his theology. Google + perseverance revealed that he was in fact a Reformed Calvinist of the Lordship Salvation flavour. I was a bit ticked off. I complained to my good friend about how it is frustrating that one has to be a private investigator to find out what Pastors preach at their pulpits. I went on complaining about how if they really believe something is true why don't they clearly say so and let everyone know about it easily on their website. My frustration was actually about how we really want to find a place to fellowship and not having one is eating away at me. My dear friend told me that he knew of this Pastor and that I could expect clear and straight forward answers to my questions from the man. And that's exactly what I got from him. I'm pleased to state he gave me exactly that. Yet he gave me much more than just that. He gave me a simple and clear explanation of why I do not agree with the Reformed Calvinist Lordship Salvation proponents; I am very, very, thankful.

I had explained that we hold to the Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutic exclusively, from cover to cover of the bible. In his email he explained his hermeneutic this way:

We are passionately committed to a Grammatical-Historical-Theological approach to interpretation. Meaning is to be derived from context and the overall unfolding of God's plan of redemption.

It may be a subtle difference: I develop my theology and my view of "God's plan of redemption" by using the Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutic. That is: grammar and the meaning(s) of the words from the period of history they were written in (not today's meanings and usage) tell me what the context is, and this determines my theology and doctrine. Whereas the Reformed Calvinist Lordship Salvation proponent uses their theology and doctrine to inform the grammar and to select which meaning the words have.

I simply cannot imagine a reasonable excuse to use my theology to control my interpretation of the Text. How could I hope to objectively find truth? How could I prove my own theology false? It sure would make studying the Bible easier though... easier but I'd never be able to tell if what I'm learning is actually true or not. What if I were a new believer and didn't have any theology? How could I study the Bible in that case?

Using the Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutic is hard work. I don't have any easy answers I can reference from a Systematic Theology book. I have to work each thing out line by line, precept by precept. You know what though? I wouldn't have it any other way.

The truth is however, that many of the most controversial topics are plainly explained in the Text. I love when I can read my theology straight out of the Bible without explanation, such as:

• What's the true saving Gospel? 1Cor 15:1-11. 
• What is true saving faith? Rom 4:1-25.  
• Will all truly saved people live godly, fruitful lives and persevere until the end? 2Pet 1:5-9. 
• Did Christ die for everyone or just for the Elect? 1Jn 2:2 
• If Christ died for everyone doesn't that make Universalism true? Lev 16:1-34. 
• Does God only save those who submit to the mastery of Christ over their lives? John 3:14-17. 
• Does regeneration precede faith? John 1:10-13. 
• Doesn't one need to first be regenerated in order to believe? John 3:3-17, Num 21:8-9. 
• Do we have access to faith by grace or access to grace by faith? Rom 5:1-5 
• Is the Believer eternally secure or can we loose our salvation? Jn 5:24, Jn 6:40, Jn 10:27-30, Phil 1:6, Eph 1:13-14
• Does Repentance mean to "turn from sin" and have a "changed life"? Luke 17:3-4 

These are just a few of the easy answers we have directly from Scripture. No deep study required. Are these not the very same questions that the "Grammatical-Historical-Theological approach to interpretation" make very complicated to answer? Check out the list of things that the author of the book of Hebrews calls "elementary principles of Christ" or the very basics of our Faith. Paul calls these things "milk" that is all the immature can tolerate and make use of. Heb 6:1-2 Are these things elementary work using your hermeneutic? If they are not the things that a babe in Christ can study easily using your hermeneutic then I suggest that is a big sign that there's a problem with it.

This is the basic difference between myself and most of the churches we checked out over this past Summer. Not all are Reformed Calvinist or Lordship Salvation, though most are, but all that we've found so far put their theology into, or onto their hermeneutic.

So here's my question for you today: Has your hermeneutic put a saddle on your theology, or has your theology put a saddle on your hermeneutic?

The Gospel is a Message

I've just posted a short article at my blog which is dedicated to The Gospel of the Christ entitled The Demonstration.

Here's a short quote:

The Gospel of the Christ is a message. It is not merely a list of facts. It is a message that is conveyed by a particular list of facts which can be neither added to nor taken from. These facts, as important and non-negotiable as they are, are not themselves the message they convey. The Gospel is the only message that conveys how the only salvation available was provided for, and this message alone is the power of God unto that salvation.

On My Walk #100

By my count this is the 100th post at OMW with the label/tag "On My Walk" attached to it. I hadn't been counting until today, but it's interesting in some strange way.

As I've been writing the series entitled "The Debater's Potter" I've been wondering about how hardcore Calvinists might receive it if they came across it mid series. Would they write it off as being something from a nut case? A half-wit theologian? It seems I should put a "Statement of Faith" here on the blog, and so I'm going to.

Now, statements of faith shouldn't convince readers that the source is orthodox or to be regarded as faithful and reasonable. Why not? Because very few people/organizations actually follow their statements of faith. I'm currently looking for a place to fellowship and I can tell you from vast experience this is sadly true. Statements of Faith offer readers the ability to quickly and easily disqualify sources of information. If someone puts something false in their statement of faith they may not actually be following it now, that' true. However, at the very least, it shows they have a disregard for the truth. 

So my own Statement of Faith will be a resource for readers with two purposes. One to disqualify me easily, for those who choose to believe something other than I do. The other purpose is to be a resource for understanding where I'm coming from when I write something that may be seen as inflammatory by some. I don't know if people will use the statement as I intend it to be used, but I think it's time to have one nonetheless.

That's what's in the path on my walk this week.

Just that simple

The Debater's Potter - Part 12 - Chapter 7

So I've made it all the way to Chapter 7. I have to admit that during the first few articles I had it in mind that I was done with the book already. Two things kept me going. As frustrating as the book was it was not convincing and I didn't want readers to think I was ducking some hard argument. More importantly though, a good close Brother in the Lord is investigating Calvinism openly and honestly and I didn't want to let him down. So here we are in Part 12, and all the way to Chapter 7 of my reaction to and interaction with Dr. James R. White's The Potter's Freedom(TPF), which he intends as a defense of the Reformation (or his view of it anyway) and "the" rebuttal of Dr. Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free(CBF).

I've been going into great detail, but I truly hope that the readers of this series either have, or will purchase both books. I wouldn't say that TPF is a great book, but it is seen as great by those who agree with it. So for that reason I think it is important to know what it says, and not just from a blog series. Likewise, I wouldn't say that CBF is the best written rebuttal of Calvinism. It is actually not a rebuttal of Calvinism at all. Much to Dr. White's frustration Geisler doesn't interact with many of his Reformed heros. What CBF is good for, is explaining how one could be both Elected, or "chosen" and yet still be "free." Hense the title of the book is "Chosen But Free" and not a long winded description of the various possible reasons for buying or writing it.  I recommend reading both of these books because this is the only way to truly know where each of these men stand.

Please see the introduction to this series to find out what it is, and what it isn't. While you're at it, you'll also find a handy table of contents with links to each of the articles posted (so far) in this series.

Last time we looked at the 6th chapter of TPF and I gave a verse by verse reading of John 6 explained primarily from John 6 and supported by a couple of other passages from the book of John in context. This time we're going to look at how Dr. White says that "Jesus teaches extreme Calvinism" in John 6.

Here we go!

Chapter 7 - Jesus Teaches "Extreme Calvinism"

"If believing that man is "so dead" in sin that he is incapable of coming to Christ on his own is "extreme Calvinism," then the Lord Jesus beat Calvin to the punch by 1500 years with His preaching in the synagogue in Capernaum recorded in John 6." 

After this opening statement White makes the following claims about John 6:
Jesus teaches that:

• God is sovereign and acts independently of the "free choices" of men. 
• That man is incapable of saving faith outside of the enablement *by which White means pre-faith regeneration* of the Father.
• Limits this drawing *by which White means pre-faith regeneration* to the same individuals given by the Father to the Son. 
• Irresistible Grace on the Elect (not on the "willing"). 

White makes these claims, but as we saw last time John 6 says nothing of the kind. At least not without putting on your Calvinism-Hermeneutics Glasses*TM?*

"John 6:37-45 is the clearest exposition of what CBF calls "extreme Calvinism" in the Bible."

If that's the clearest exposition of White's Calvinism in the Bible, then Part 11 of this series demonstrates that not only is White's Calvinism not "profoundly biblical" as he is so fond of saying it is, it is not biblical at all. White continues:

"And yet, CBF ignores the vast majority of the passage... There is a good reason why CBF stumbles at this point: there is no meaningful non-Reformed exegesis of the passage available."

Really? I'm the very first non-Reformed person to do a "meaningful" exegesis on the passage? I bet you the reader feel overwhelmed at your privilege to find the very first ever meaningful exegesis of John 6 by a non-Reformed Believer.  Dr. White is definitely over the top at times.

"As numerous as the attempts of Arminian exegetes to find some way around the testimony of these verse has been, not even a plausible solution has been offered that does not require the complete dismantling of the text, redefinition of words, or the insertion of utterly foreign concepts." 

I think Dr. White is confused. It is he who changes what passages are about to being about Calvinism, who redefines words like "all" into "all kinds of men" and inserts utterly foreign Calvinistic concepts into passages like John 3:16. If you don't know what examples I'm citing, please read this long series from the start. Sorry.. there's no way to paraphrase. Of course I could just quote what Dr. White thinks is an excellent "exegesis" of John 3:16 and be done with it. Find a full explanation in Part 3.

"God so loved his elect throughout the world, that he gave His Son with this intention, that by him believers might be saved."

In this example we see, what I would call a "complete dismantling of the Text." The word "kosmos" or "world" has been redefined to mean "his elect throughout the world" and the concept of Calvinism, a concept "utterly foreign" to the passage, into it. Pot, meet Kettle once again.

In this chapter once again Dr. White chooses to argue against his presentation of Arminianism instead of Dr. Geisler. The only reason I can fathom for him to do this, but not necessarily the only reason possible or even the actual reason Dr. White choose this, is that he actually read some of CBF and realizes that it accurately presents the sovereignty of God, and His election of people to Salvation.

With the exception of arguing against the Arminian doctrine that a person can loose their salvation there is really nothing new here about John 6. Nothing that overturns or challenges what I have previously written about John 6. So, I will leave my previous explanation of the Text stand in Part 11 and I'm not going to interact with his treatment of this chapter. If someone finds some argument of his challenging then please let me know in the comments. I just don't want to duplicate previous work.

Now however, is a good time to discuss a presupposition that Dr. White brings to his "exegesis" of the Text. He writes:

"They are coming to Christ. This is a personal relationship, personal faith, and, given that the ones who come are described throughout the passage by the present tense participle, it is not just a coming that happens once. This is an on-going faith, an on-going looking to Christ as the source of spiritual life. The men to whom the Lord was speaking had "come" to Him for a season: they would soon walk away and follow Him no more. The true believer is coming to Christ, always.This is the nature of saving faith. 

"And the one who comes to Me I will never cast out." The true believer, the one "coming" to the Son, has this promise of the Lord: using the strongest form of denial possible.... He promises that there is no possibility whatsoever that any one who is coming to Him in true faith could ever find Him unwilling to save.... This promise is to those ho are given by the Father to the Son and to no one else... but there are surely those who, like many in that audience in Capernaum, are willing to follow for a while, willing to believe for a season. This promise is not theirs. 

Since Christ is able to save perfectly (He is not dependant upon man's will, man's cooperation), His promise means the elect cannot ever be lost... If it were, in fact, a synergistic relationship, there could never be any ground for absolute confidence and security." 

Now that is a lot to ingest. I was going to break it up and comment on each section, but I wanted to preserve his argument. Many find this argument very strong. Here read it this way:

1. Present Tense = on going.
2. Only those who have an on going "present tense" faith (including following apparently) have really believed in the Lord.
3. People can be willing to follow & believe for a while, for a season, but they will eventually leave. 
4. If there was any cooperation the part of the Believer then there could be no assurance because it wasn't secured in Christ alone. 

Convincing right?

1. Present Tense = on going. 

The players passing the ball are throwing a ball toward the person they intend to catch it. 

Are these players always and forever passing the ball? Or is it talking about something when it is happening? That's a cool example, but here's an actual definition of the Greek Present Tense:

The present tense represents a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. In most cases this corresponds directly with the English present tense.Some phrases which might be rendered as past tense in English will often occur in the present tense in Greek. 

These are termed "historical presents," and such occurrences dramatize the event described as if the reader were there watching the event occur. Some English translations render such historical presents in the English past tense, while others permit the tense to remain in the present.

This redefinition of the Present Tense in Greek is a vital component of Lordship Salvation theology.

2. Only those who have an on-going "present tense" faith (including following apparently) have really believed in the Lord.

1Jn 5:13

These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

I guess that's all we really need to say about that isn't it.... well OK. Those who "believe" is present tense. Actually it is Present Active Participle. Which can mean "believed" or "are believing", an action which has or is actually occurring. Of note the action is "active" in that the person believing is the one who is believing - it's not a gift.  The second believe is slightly different. It is Present Active Subjunctive and what that means is it is an action which MAY OR MAY NOT happen. Thus John is writing to "true believers" (present tense faith....) that they may CONTINUE to believe. Probably a a more litteral translation than "continue to" would be that "you will" believe. The context of the passage was taken into account when "continue" was chosen. It conveys the thought that John was presenting, if not the actual words he used. Sorry Dr. White but your doctrine is not biblical.

3. People can be willing to follow & believe for a while, for a season, but they will eventually leave.

Really? I thought the unregenerate suffered from Total Inability to believe, to be willing, to follow... I thought that Jesus said they were UNABLE to do so? Isn't it amazing how fast parts of Calvinism are just dropped when they don't fit with the current theological point being made.

4. If there was any cooperation the part of the Believer then there could be no assurance because it wasn't secured in Christ alone.

OK this is too sad to laugh at. Not only does Dr. Geisler rip this appart in CBF, but other than those who think they can loose their salvation at any moment NO ONE has less assurance than the Calvinist. Did you catch what the Dr. wrote? People can follow for a while. Are you following? Are you truly saved? How do you know? Calvinists, especially of the Lordship Salvation flavour are famous for their "tests" of Salvation. Are you really saved? I haven't been able to find Dr. White's teaching on assurance but I did a series of articles called Testing the Test of John MacArthur's Lordship Salvation & Calvinism based assurance teaching. I also did an in depth examination of Pastor Millar of Harvest Bible Chapel London, Ontario's teaching about how to know if you're really saved called 'BUT' Theology. Shockingly, the Cross was not even mentioned but turning to serve "a Living God" was.

The fact is no one is more fearful about their salvation than someone who thinks that God doesn't save all who believe in His Son, but only those who "really" believe because their faith has been given to them through regeneration. Such people must constantly take tests to see if they are "really" saved.

Frankly, I'll never doubt that my salvation is secured by the payment made for me at the Cross. Why? Because God IS faithful to save all who believe. It doesn't matter that I was willing to believe. I am baptized into Christ; His death, burial and resurrection.

Dr. White would rather play word games and build straw-man arguments but the fact is the Scriptures declare security. Not because I "really" believed and continue to believe and follow and whatever else the Lordship Salvation people say "truly saved people really do"... but because Christ died for me, and it was accepted by the Father on my behalf. Done. Sealed. 'nuff said.

Dr. White closes the chapter with:

"CBF fails completely to provide an answer to this glorious passage that teaches sovereign grace with grand simplicity. And given the misuse of other passages already cited (Matt 23:37, 1Tim 2:4, Peter 3:9), it can truly be said that CBF has no exegetical basis upon which to stand."

Perhaps Dr. White should be less interested in providing "an answer to" passages in the Bible and more concerned with letting them provide the answer to him.

This is the shortest instalment in the series so far, but that is only because I chose not to interact with arguments that I have already dealt with. How does Chapter 7 of TPF read to me? More of the same.