Defend Steve Tassi? James White?

[SovereignGrace]

"in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."[Romans 8:4]

Now, where in that verse does it even allude to us having a choice to walk in the flesh or Spirit? Van, you are slowly revealing yourself with every post you make. Those who walk according to the Spirit are the saved, those who walk according to the flesh are the unregenerate. The unregenerate can no more choose to walk in the Spirit than I can choose to breathe under water without scuba gear.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Okay guys, I apologize...Van will not focus on Romans 9(just like his twin Steve Tassi), and I apologize I followed his rabbit trail.

 

[JonC]

I hear ya. Tassi reflects to me the majority of anti-cals in his accusations, shallow theology and arguments.

There are people, of course, who hold non-Calvinistic doctrine in opposition to Calvinism but are not anti-Calvinists. I think it would be interesting to see a debate with James White and someone like Robert Picirilli (a younger Picirilli). The debate needs to be between people who can understand and deal with both views respectfully. This was not the case in the last two "debates" discussed here. I watched Tassi's comments after the fact, and one of his supporters. Both came across ignorant (I'm not sure White should have even entertained the debate).

Can you recommend one that actually deals with the topic of Romans 9 (or has no challenger stepped up to the challenge)?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Hi SG, not what the word means. It means to know beforehand, because the knowledge was acquired in the past. Like a redemption plan formulated before creation, would include those the Redeemer would redeem. This refers to our corporate election of Ephesians 1:4.

No Van...

 

[SovereignGrace]

I see we have our next candidate to debate White who allegedly doesn't even remotely understand Romans 8 & 9.

Step up to the plate Van. I'm sure you can make the last 2 debates White had on Romans 9 look like the 2nd and 3rd worst debates in history. Those 2 fellows will be eternally indebted to you for taking over 1st place worst, and that my erroneous doctrine spewing friend would be a huge feat.

Oh my. I would LOVE to see this train wreck happen. Dr. White would mop the floor with him.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Oh my. I would LOVE to see this train wreck happen. Dr. White would mop the floor with him.

Unrealistic goal here, but I would like to see Van shown and convinced he is in grave error.

 

[Iconoclast]

Unrealistic goal here, but I would like to see Van shown and convinced he is in grave error.

When someone has a pattern of making up their own idea of truth, the Greek text,history, they aren't going to be interested in the truth and we see that in every thread.
The Apostles could post on a thread and he will explain to them how they were.mistaken.
I will not forget how Archangel patiently dismantled these vain reasoning about a year ago but he ignored the offered help.
Now T.C. does the same thing but he ignores that which everyone can see, so apart from Divine intervention we will not see this.
It is like this Steve Tassimo fiasco. He opens by telling Dr. WHITE that no one likes to debate him.....
Of course not.....because he is going to bring and open up the scripture which Tassi could not do....he was the proverbial deer in the headlights....
When asked to explain jn 6:44 his first words he said James White.....lol James White said just explain the text without using my name....lolbUT he had no ability to even begin as he has no understanding.

 

[Internet Theologian]

When someone has a pattern of making up their own idea of truth, the Greek text,history, they aren't going to be interested in the truth and we see that in every thread.
The Apostles could post on a thread and he will explain to them how they were.mistaken.
I will not forget how Archangel patiently dismantled these vain reasoning about a year ago but he ignored the offered help.
Now T.C. does the same thing but he ignores that which everyone can see, so apart from Divine intervention we will not see this.
It is like this Steve Tassimo fiasco. He opens by telling Dr. WHITE that no one likes to debate him.....
Of course not.....because he is going to bring and open up the scripture which Tassi could not do....he was the proverbial deer in the headlights....
When asked to explain jn 6:44 his first words he said James White.....lol James White said just explain the text without using my name....lolbUT he had no ability to even begin as he has no understanding.

It's anything but exegesis on the part of anti-cals when defending their position or attacking the DoG.

The same boring tactics were employed by Tassi that are typically employed in most debates against Sovereign Grace; 'You're an ________ , a ________, or, as in Tassi's case White is an Arminian, Open Theist, Universalist, Synergist' among other misapplied and misunderstood labels.

It appears to me that these types simply pick up a big word and then sling it around, and unfortunately too many people hear it and the person being accused is automatically guilty prior to investigation.

The most amazing thing though, IMO, is that the plain and clear teachings of Scriptures, as White conveyed throughout the debate are completely missed by the opponents of DoG. It looks to me that they just do not want these truths to be true, and frankly I believe they don't. The God of Scriptures must be vitiated and man exalted no matter that the contrary is shown throughout Scripture.

 

[Van]

Hi SG, you are every bit as much an Open Theist as I am. You do not believe God is the author of sin.

Did anyone see any argument in support of the bogus views of Dr. White? Nope.

Will they post another pathetic attempt to change the subject to my character and qualifications, rather than address the topic? Wait and see.

 

[Van]

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, 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.

 

[Iconoclast]

Van, .

Thus His plan is to choose those whose faith He credits

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

God only chooses those who bring Him glory by repenting autonomously while in a fallen state.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.


7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.


8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

 

[Van]

I am sure there was supposed to be a point to post 71.
Now referring to Romans 9:11, as I noted, God chose the younger over the older, thus based His election on 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.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I am sure there was supposed to be a point to post 71..

There was and there is a point -- the clear teaching of the Scriptures he presented refuted your errant theology.

 

[Iconoclast]

There was and there is a point -- the clear teaching of the Scriptures he presented refute your errant theology.

Yes I.T.- The natural man cannot welcome the things of God. When a person wrests and distorts scripture it is evidence they do not have a grasp of truth at all. Romans 8 cannot be written clearer than it is. False teachers change the wording to no longer have the word of God. Romans 8 shows two men.....men of flesh, men of the Spirit. Some posters cannot seem to understand ,just like Steve Tassi.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Van,

]I am sure there was supposed to be a point to post 71.

I am sure everyone but you can understand the point.

Now referring to Romans 9:11, as I noted, God chose the younger over the older, thus based His election on characteristics of the babies.

Where do you dream up this stuff....

And this election was not for salvation.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I am sure there was supposed to be a point to post 71.

There was and is. It was Scripturally based, therefore you missed it.

Now referring to Romans 9:11, as I noted,

Ah, the problem is notated.

God chose the younger over the older, thus based His election on characteristics of the babies.

If only you could rewrite Scripture, then you could make it say the above. And, elected to what specifically? Please elaborate on your erroneous view.

And this election was not for salvation.

The passage is soteriological and was God's intent.

Election for salvation is through faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

Faith is evidence of salvation, not the cause. But then again, you're rewriting the narrative.

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.

The comparison is not of believers among believers, but of the believer and the lost. But you know this and carry on while ignoring the evident.

 

[Iconoclast]

[QUOTE="Van,\

Now turning to Romans 8:6, for the mindset of the flesh... is how it reads.

No...wrong again;

More literally (as there are no verbs in the original) the Greek reads…

For the thinking of the flesh -- death, the thinking of the Spirit -- life and peace.

Wuest expands the Greek…

For to have the mind dominated by the sinful nature is death, but to have the mind dominated by the Spirit is life and peace (Eerdmans)
Phronema refers to one's "way of thinking". The direction or orientation of human thought is warped by sin. Human beings without the Spirit are both unable and unwilling to grasp spiritual realities, and so they rebel against God. In short, they don't really know how to "think straight"! Keep in mind this refers to spiritual truth, not algebra, web design or writing a symphony, etc (1Co 2:14). What Paul is saying is that the direction or orientation of human thought is warped by sin. Human beings without the Spirit are both unable and unwilling to grasp spiritual realities, and so they rebel against God.

 

[Van]

Folks, Dr. White's presentation has been shredded. All the posters have is "taint so" and you are mistaken. IT has no idea what post 71 attempted to demonstrate. Icon says 1 Cor. 3:1 does not mean what it says. The Icon says Romans 8 says what it does not say. Next he denies God chose so the older would serve the younger (verse 12). Next the claim is made that the election of the twins was for salvation. Never-mind "Esau I hated." The actual idea is that God can choose one baby for one purpose and another baby for another purpose, He has the creators right. Next with scripture saying we were chosen through faith in the truth, the claim is made faith is evidence of salvation. Never-mind Romans 5:2 where faith provides our access to the grace in which we stand. Finally, they attempt to rewrite Romans 8:6.

Now turning to Romans 8:6, for the mindset of the flesh... is how it reads (NASB). 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.​

 

[Iconoclast]

No Van...

Is it deja vu all over again?

SG answered these false ideas already,Van...maybe you missed it-

"in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."[Romans 8:4]

Now, where in that verse does it even allude to us having a choice to walk in the flesh or Spirit? Van, you are slowly revealing yourself with every post you make. Those who walk according to the Spirit are the saved, those who walk according to the flesh are the unregenerate. The unregenerate can no more choose to walk in the Spirit than I can choose to breathe under water without scuba gear.

Now, where in that verse does it even allude to us having a choice to walk in the flesh or Spirit? Van,

That is the beauty of it SG......in Vanology you do not have to be concerned about what the text actually teaches,which words are used, how the church has understood it. No worries.....you just invent your own version of whatever is on your mind.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Internet Theologian,

It looks as if you and SG are the only other people who read these misguided posts....

There was and is. It was Scripturally based, therefore you missed it.

If only you could rewrite Scripture, then you could make it say the above. And, elected to what specifically? Please elaborate on your erroneous view.

The passage is soteriological and was God's intent.

You offer help and correction that is not read ....

Faith is evidence of salvation, not the cause. But then again, you're rewriting the narrative.

Yes...this is the same thing we see in most of his posts....rewriting, so he no longer deals with the text.


The comparison is not of believers among believers, but of the believer and the lost. But you know this and carry on while ignoring the evident.[/QUOTE]

correct....