Dr. White's Video Presentation

[Van]

In a recent thread, a video of Dr. White presenting his understanding of Romans 8 and 9 was discussed. Here is the gist of what was said in rebuttal to Dr. White's attempt to support Calvinism from scripture.

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, the believer’s will be conformed to the image of His Son. 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.

The above analysis of the Golden Chain refutes Dr. White's assertion that the "Golden Chain" indicates individuals are predestined to be saved.

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.

The above analysis of Romans 9 demonstrates Dr. White's bogus assertion that God chooses individuals for salvation unconditionally is mistaken.

Now here is an outline of what Romans 9 actually teaches:

1-5 Paul is sorry the nation of Israel is separated from Christ.
6-8 Israel is not made up of blood line descendants, but of believing Jews.
9-14 God's choice is always according to His purpose, sometimes with or without regard for the characteristics of those chosen.
15-19 God chooses to have mercy on some and harden others according to His purpose.
20-21 God has the right of creator to choose some for mercy and pass over others.
22-26 God can choose from among Jews and non-Jews to have mercy.
27-29 Only a remnant of believing Jews remains, although a large number of blood line Jews are alive.
30-33 Those that believe (Jews and Gentiles) did not stumble over the snare of works based salvation, but trusted in the work of Christ.​

[continued next post]

 

[Van]

[continued from opening post]

The meaning of “For those whom He foreknew….”

There are a lot of theories concerning the meaning of the phrase, but two biggies are those of the Calvinists and Arminians.

The Calvinists will tell you it means “for those foreseen individuals whom God preferred or loved or elected.” Two inferences are made, the time of the “foreknowing” is in the past, before creation, and what is foreknown concerns foreseen individuals that will exist in the future.

The Arminians will tell you very much the same thing, only God foresees individuals who will freely choose to believe.

Lets deal with these ideas first. Both of course just happen to be consistent with their respective theology. But it is an open question as to whether initially their understanding informed their theology or whether they had formed their theology and arrived at an understanding of this passage necessarily consistent with it.

Does foreknew mean forelove? Certainly many times in scripture the term “knew” is used to allude to an intimate, individual, loving relationship. But it is also used many times just to refer to cognition, some fact or other possessed in the mind of someone including God, or some group. If we look at how the term is used in the New Testament, the most likely meaning is to know something now, some fact or plan, that was acquired or formulated in the past. Hence, Christ’s death, foretold in Isaiah 53, was carried out by the predestined plan and foreknowledge of God, Acts 2:23.

Similarly foreknew does not mean to look through the veil of time into an existent future and see who will choose to believe in Christ. Foreknow does not mean foresee, it means to know something now, in the present, that was acquired or formulated in the past.

So if both these mainstream views miss the message entirely, what is Paul actually trying to tell us? The “whom” refers back to verse 28, those who love God and are called according to His purpose. Thus the “whom” does not refer to individuals foreseen, but to all those who during their physical life love God and respond to the gospel. Now what did God know beforehand concerning this group of individuals? That they were the target group of God’s plan of salvation! God formulated His plan before creation, in the past as it were, and now things are happening in accordance with that plan. So “for whom He foreknew” means “anyone redeemed by God’s plan of salvation, because God knew before creation when He anointed the Word to be the Christ, that Christ would redeem those who love God during their lifetime. So the individuals existing at the time of Paul’s writing were foreknown because they were part of the target group of God’s redemption plan. These are the same folks who were chosen in Him, Ephesians 1:4, where before creation God chose Christ to be our Redeemer, and so in effect everyone redeemed was chosen in Him corporately as part of His plan’s target group, before the foundation of the world.

Why a corporately chosen target group, and not foreseen individuals? Because God’s plan was to save individuals by grace through faith, and individual selection before creation followed by irresistible compulsion does not bring glory to God. Only by fallen individuals turning to God and trusting in Christ is God glorified. Pulling the string on a doll that says “I love you” does not glorify the string puller.

But lets return to the mistaken arguments of Dr. White once more. Does scripture say "those who are according to the flesh cannot please God" Dr White cites this at about 50:46 in the video. Flip open your bible to Romans 8:4 where we have a choice to walk according to the flesh or according to the spirit. So from this we can say we cannot fulfill the requirements of the Law if we walk according to the flesh. Now in verse 5, we learn that people who "are" according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh. This means if we are walking according to the flesh we have set our minds on the things of the flesh. Then in verse 8 we see that those who are "in the flesh" cannot please God. These would be those who have set their minds on fleshly things and are therefore walking according to the flesh.

Now where Dr. White and Calvinism go off the rails is to assert if a person is unregenerate, they are unable to grasp the milk of the gospel. But Paul teaches us that men of flesh can receive spiritual milk, 1 Cor. 3:1. So the assumption that unregenerates cannot at some time set their minds of some spiritual things, spiritual milk, is in error.

But what about 1 Corinthians 2:14? "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. - 1 Corinthians 2:14.

Which things, all things, or some things? The answer is found in 1 Corinthians 3:1, where Paul speaks to new Christians as to men of flesh. Thus the men of flesh can indeed understand some spiritual things, spiritual milk.

Turning once again to Dr. White's bogus assertions, at 54:00 on the video, he indicated that God tries but fails without the cooperation of the lost according to the Arminians view. Does anyone believe man can thwart the plan of God? Of course not. So God does not fail, He accomplishes His goal in a different manner than the bogus assertion of Calvinism. God chooses people for salvation through faith in the truth. Thus His plan is to choose those whose faith He credits as righteousness. So God desires all people to be saved, but His desire is for them to be saved according to His purpose and plan. Thus God does not fail when folks reject Christ. Or accept Christ superficially. Or accept Christ but continue to treasure things of this world. Or have so hardened their hearts they do not even understand the gospel. God only chooses those who bring Him glory by repenting autonomously while in a fallen state.

Now referring to Romans 9:11-12, God chose the younger over the older, thus based His election on the characteristics of the babies. And this election was not for salvation. Election for salvation is through faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

Now turning to Romans 8:6, for the mindset of the flesh... is how it reads. The idea is that if we set our mind on fleshly desires, the result is death. But if we set our minds on spiritual things, life and peace. Thus if we set our mind on fleshly desires we cannot please God. However if we set our minds on spiritual milk, life and peace.

Bottom line, there is absolutely no support in Romans 8 or 9 for the bogus doctrines of Calvinism.
1) Election for salvation is conditional, through faith in the truth.
2) God has the right of Creator to choose those whose faith He has credited as righteousness.
3) People "in the flesh" (with their minds set on fleshly desires) cannot please God, but men of flesh (unregenerate) can set their minds on spiritual milk.

The above 3 points shred Dr. White's presentation of the bogus doctrines of Calvinism.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Bottom line, there is absolutely no support in Romans 8 or 9 for the bogus doctrines of Calvinism.
1) Election for salvation is conditional, through faith in the truth.
2) God has the right of Creator to choose those whose faith He has credited as righteousness.
3) People "in the flesh" (with their minds set on fleshly desires) cannot please God, but men of flesh (unregenerate) can set their minds on spiritual milk.

The above 3 points shred Dr. White's presentation of the bogus doctrines of Calvinism.

Bzzzzz!! Wrong!!

1) Before Jacob or Esau had done anything good or bad, God chose Jacob so that His electing purposes would stand. It was not based on anything goo(Jacob) or bad(Esau) that God chose Jacob over Esau. He loved Esau and hated Jacob per Romans 9:13.

2) God does not need anything from man. His electing purposes are not based upon some ill-conceived notion that man has anything worth crediting to begin with. God has chosen to love some and hate others. It's that plain-and-simple...well, it is to some...

3) The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.[1 Corinthians 2:14] Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.[Romans 8:8] These two verses alone refute the ideology that the man devoid of the Spirit of God can understand 'the sincere milk of the gospel'. Only newborn babes in Christ receive this milk to begin with. The lost are not newborn 'anything' to begin with. The dead can not drink milk.

 

[Internet Theologian]

In a recent thread

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.

Really now? Show us where an exegeted portion of Scripture supports your false teaching.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I sent Dr. White a tweet telling him about Van bashing his view of Romans 8-9 as being bogus. I invited him to join and debate him. Oh how I hope he joins. Probably won't, but one can hope.

 

[Iconoclast]

I sent Dr. White a tweet telling him about Van bashing his view of Romans 8-9 as being bogus. I invited him to join and debate him. Oh how I hope he joins. Probably won't, but one can hope.

Dr.White is too busy to deal with such nonsense.
He deals with real biblical positions....not fantasy.
The poster who invents these absurdities cannot even get the folks to help out

 

[SovereignGrace]

Dr.White is too busy to deal with such nonsense.
He deals with real biblical positions....not fantasy.
The poster who invents these absurdities cannot even get the folks to help out

He started this mess, was shown how easily I refuted his ideologies and fled like a roach when the light comes on.

 

[Iconoclast]

He started this mess, was shown how easily I refuted his ideologies and fled like a roach when the light comes on.

Hello cuts and pastes these absurd ideas as if anyone holds to them. He must be joking. No one reads them anymore unless they want to read bizarre ideas like one one who reads the national inquirer.

 

[Rippon]

Dr.White is too busy to deal with such nonsense.
He deals with real biblical positions....not fantasy.
The poster who invents these absurdities cannot even get the folks to help out

"The folks" --indeed. ;-)

 

[Yeshua1]

Bottom line then here is just why would someone come to Jesus by their own efforts, when God calls them at war against Himself in their flesh, and that none seeks God on their own?

What is it then that causes 2 sinners to hear same message, and one accepts, while anothers stays rejecting it?

 

[Van]

No one is transferred into Christ by his own efforts.
God calls those who faith He has credited as righteousness out of darkness and into His light.
Scripture does not say none seek after God at any time. Some do not, but others, the 2-4 soils do.

Bottom line, there is absolutely no support in Romans 8 or 9 for the bogus doctrines of Calvinism.
1) Election for salvation is conditional, through faith in the truth. 2 Thessalonians 2:13
2) God has the right of Creator to choose those whose faith He has credited as righteousness. Romans 4:5, 23-24.
3) People "in the flesh" (with their minds set on fleshly desires) cannot please God, but men of flesh (unregenerate) can set their minds on spiritual milk. 1 Corinthians 3:1

 

[Yeshua1]

No one is transferred into Christ by his own efforts.
God calls those who faith He has credited as righteousness out of darkness and into His light.
Scripture does not say none seek after God at any time. Some do not, but others, the 2-4 soils do.

Bottom line, there is absolutely no support in Romans 8 or 9 for the bogus doctrines of Calvinism.
1) Election for salvation is conditional, through faith in the truth. 2 Thessalonians 2:13
2) God has the right of Creator to choose those whose faith He has credited as righteousness. Romans 4:5, 23-24.
3) People "in the flesh" (with their minds set on fleshly desires) cannot please God, but men of flesh (unregenerate) can set their minds on spiritual milk. 1 Corinthians 3:1

So Paul Peter Isaiah were all wrong then? As they were all pretty sure that none come after God by their own accord!

And paul knew of 3 classes of persons
Unsaved no desire to seek God
babes in christ just content with milk of the word
Maturing desiring to grow up and learn deeper things in word

NO sinner still lost in sins fits either spiritual milk/meat!

 

[Van]

Why say Peter, Paul and Isaiah were wrong. What is wrong is the denial of their scripture.
No verse says the unsaved never desire to be saved. The opposite is true, see Romans 9:16.
No verse says only new Christians can understand spiritual milk. Just read 1 Cor. 3:1
Only born anew (and therefore indwelt) believers can understand spiritual meat. 1 Cor. 2:14

Men of flesh are the unregenerate folks that can understand spiritual milk.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why say Peter, Paul and Isaiah were wrong. What is wrong is the denial of their scripture.
No verse says the unsaved never desire to be saved. The opposite is true, see Romans 9:16.
No verse says only new Christians can understand spiritual milk. Just read 1 Cor. 3:1
Only born anew (and therefore indwelt) believers can understand spiritual meat. 1 Cor. 2:14

Men of flesh are the unregenerate folks that can understand spiritual milk.

Romans states salvation is not due to will of man, but of God....
Corinthians states that the spiritual dead cannot receive things of God
Babes in Chrsit are NOT unsaved, saved who are stuck on baby food
Maturing saints desire meat of the word

You seem to be forcing backing into scripture your own pet doctrines still!

 

[Internet Theologian]

Why say Peter, Paul and Isaiah were wrong. What is wrong is the denial of their scripture.

Agreed concerning the denial of Scripture, and we shall witness you do exactly this below:

No verse says the unsaved never desire to be saved. The opposite is true, see Romans 9:16.

This would be funny if it weren't for the fact that you consistently miss plain teachings and continuously misinterpret and misrepresent Scriptures.

Formerly you made a (false) argument that Romans 9 is not soteriological and it doesn't follow the Golden Chain of Redemption in another thread. But now you claim it is soteriological with your implications. Very interesting, as it cannot be both, yet this is how you twist and manipulate the Word. You need a huge dose of 2 Timothy 2:15 my friend.

The fact is, as seen here, is that your hermeneutic (so-called) is inconsistent and off track as you speak out of both sides of your mouth and continue to wrest Scripture, changing its intent to opposite ends of the spectrum from one thread to another.

Scripture is replete with the fact that the lost hate God. Even those who make pretense to 'seek God' really are not, they are seeking their own concept of God, not God Himself as revealed in Scripture. This is part of what Jesus meant when He said 'The World hated him', John 15:18; 1 John 3:13.

No verse says only new Christians can understand spiritual milk. Just read 1 Cor. 3:1

You've completely misapplied this text as it says nothing of the sort. Here is the actual text, ESV -- "But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ."

Nowhere in that Scripture does it support what you are saying.

You're wrong.

Again.

Only born anew (and therefore indwelt) believers can understand spiritual meat." 1 Cor. 2:14

Wrong. Still. Nowhere in the 1 Corinthians 2:14 does it speak of meat, it speaks of spiritual things.

Men of flesh are the unregenerate folks that can understand spiritual milk.

Still wrong, no person can understand the things of the Spirit unless they are born from above, and only if He opens their hearts, Acts 16:14. 1 Corinthians 2:14 refutes your above error. Also John 3:3ff also, as no person can even see the Kingdom of God unless they are born from above.

 

[Van]

Romans states salvation is not due to will of man, but of God....
Corinthians states that the spiritual dead cannot receive things of God
Babes in Chrsit are NOT unsaved, saved who are stuck on baby food
Maturing saints desire meat of the word
You seem to be forcing backing into scripture your own pet doctrines still!

Romans states that unsaved people can will to be saved, demonstrating Total Spiritual Inability is bogus.
Men of flesh are unsaved, and Paul spoke to the new Christians "as to men of flesh."
Those not indwelt cannot handle spiritual meat.

I am just presenting scripture, scripture which demonstrates the nameless doctrines are unbiblical.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Romans states that unsaved people can will to be saved,

There you have it, folks...

 

[SovereignGrace]

Why say Peter, Paul and Isaiah were wrong.

You're the one wrong, per usual. Where are your fellow free will camp believers to assist you? You're on an island with your heretical teachings and even Friday left you on that island Mr. Crusoe

What is wrong is the denial of their scripture.

You continually deny them Mr. Crusoe.

No verse says the unsaved never desire to be saved. The opposite is true, see Romans 9:16.

Let's investigate that verse...It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

Wrong again Mr. Crusoe...wrong again.

No verse says only new Christians can understand spiritual milk. Just read 1 Cor. 3:1
Only born anew (and therefore indwelt) believers can understand spiritual meat. 1 Cor. 2:14

Let's investigate that verse again Mr. Crusoe...The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

Wrong again Mr. Crusoe...wrong again...

Men of flesh are the unregenerate folks that can understand spiritual milk.

Requoting heresy over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over will never make it correct.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Formerly you made a (false) argument that Romans 9 is not soteriological and it doesn't follow the Golden Chain of Redemption in another thread. But now you claim it is soteriological with your implications. Very interesting, as it cannot be both, yet this is how you twist and manipulate the Word. You need a huge dose of 2 Timothy 2:15 my friend.

Care to answer this one Van? Or, do you want to pretend it never happened and hide from it?

You claimed the passage was not soteriological in the past, then argue later that it is.

Totally inconsistent and an abuse of Scripture on your part.

2 Timothy 2:15 perhaps?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Care to answer this one Van? Or, do you want to pretend it never happened and hide from it?

You claimed the passage was not soteriological in the past, then argue later that it is.

Totally inconsistent and an abuse of Scripture on your part.

2 Timothy 2:15 perhaps?

He started this thread and is now tucking tail it seems.