Featured Defend Steve Tassi? James White?

Lets backup to Romans 8 and the "Golden Chain."
1) God causes all things to work together for good for those who love God and were called according to His purpose.
2) Now those who He foreknew, or knew beforehand, refers to His corporate election of those His Redeemer would redeem, the target group of His redemption plan. So the Golden Chain actually refers to God rolling out His redemption plan according to His foreknowledge or pre-established plan.
3) What was the predestination? To be chosen by God? Nope. Once chosen, to be conformed to the image of His Son. Right. Thus as siblings of Christ, we would be children of God.
4) Now these (those to be redeemed by Christ) He also called. Here Paul is using "called" to refer to those "called out" and thus refers to individuals God relocated. Called out of darkness and into His light.
5) Now those He relocated spiritually into Christ, He also justified.
6) And those He justified,those that underwent the washing of regeneration, He glorified spiritually. We were made blameless, perfect and the righteousness of God.

 

James White did not enjoy this "debate". It was awful.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

I had never heard this person before...[steve tassi] I listened to this yesterday
It is hard to imagine people would listen to him about anything biblical at all.
He was given several chances to exegete several texts and he was a no-show. He could not begin to do it. It reminded me of the last time a non cal said they would debate Romans 9 ....they failed to show up also. Two pathetic displays for sure.

His intellectual suicide comment was an admission of his total inability to understand any of the texts in truth. He understood enough to know if he answered the question he would be admitting to the error he held.
Did you notice the same denials of clear statements with the usual"begging the question" excuse and tactic to avoid answering,.....the same philosophical language of "compatibilism".....etc

 

Did you notice his complete misunderstanding of the Decree, suggesting God was the author of evil?

 

No need to rewrite the lexicon "proginōskō" G4267 means to "know beforehand."

 

Turning now to Romans 9, lets focus in on verse 16. "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." (NASB)

According to Reformed doctrine, no one would be "willing" to be chosen for salvation. Yet scripture tells us a person can be willing and even do his or her best to get selected through works (run) but to no avail. So according to scripture from Romans 9, total spiritual inability is bogus.

Sometimes God elects people for a particular purpose based on the characteristics of the individual. The younger baby was selected over the older baby. or Pharaoh was selected and raised up to demonstrate God's power. Judas was selected to be the betrayer, and he was well suited, known from the beginning to not really believe.

Paul's point is that God has the creator's right to choose people for whatever reason He has, whether it is based on faith in the truth, or before the person has done anything good or bad. You cannot override 2 Thessalonians 2:13, by claiming God always chooses unconditionally. That dog will not hunt.

 

Yeppers. He jumped all over the place in that 'debate' He said that Dr. White was an Arminian, an open theist, a compatibilist, &c.

When give the chance to exegete John 6:44, he did not drop the ball, he did not even touch it.

 

He knew he was dead in the water from the get go. All he did was duck, dodge and hide.

 

I noticed his complete misunderstanding of Romans 9(said it was not soteriological but dispensational), of John 6:44, of what ad hominem is, of how a debate works, &c. IOW, I noticed his complete misunderstanding of the WHOLE event.

 

***Off topic*** Folks, do fall for this shuck and jive.

Now, either defend Steve Tassi or James White. That is the topic of the OP. It is not if total spiritual inability is bogus or not.

 

***Off topic*** Folks, do not fall for this shuck and jive.

It is not about 2 Thessalonians 2:13, either. Defend either White or Tassi. That is the topic in the OP.

 

***Off topic*** Folks, do not fall for this shuck and jive.

Either defend Tassi or White. That is the topic of the OP.

It is not about Romans 8, but Romans 9, and defending either Steve Tassi or James White's view of Romans 9.