Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
This is the typical argumentation of anti-cals. Indefensible in my opinion.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Defend Steve Tassi? James White?
- Thread starter Internet Theologian
- Start date
- Status
James White does an excellent job of exegesis of Romans 9.
One of the most difficult points of TULIP for most who hold to the 5 points to defend is "Irresistible Grace" but James White does a great job of pointing out Romans 9:19, "For who can resist His will?" The rhetorical answer, expounded in verses 20 & 21, is "nobody."
Good stuff.
One of the most difficult points of TULIP for most who hold to the 5 points to defend is "Irresistible Grace" but James White does a great job of pointing out Romans 9:19, "For who can resist His will?" The rhetorical answer, expounded in verses 20 & 21, is "nobody."
Good stuff.
Steve Tassi said one thing that is completely true.
He said "I don't know what (ad hominem) is."
He sure doesn't!
Then he spends his entire time of rebuttal to snivel about James White saying he was ignorant of what Calvinism actually is.
Of course, James White is right. Tassi is amazingly ignorant on the subject he has decided to "debate."
He said "I don't know what (ad hominem) is."
He sure doesn't!
Then he spends his entire time of rebuttal to snivel about James White saying he was ignorant of what Calvinism actually is.
Of course, James White is right. Tassi is amazingly ignorant on the subject he has decided to "debate."
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Here is Steve Tassi's take on John 6:44 when asked by Dr. White to explain it:
'It means that everybody that has ever done any act evil or otherwise has been drawn into it by the decrees of God and it, it, it's, it is intellectual suicide to say that now He's not drawing everything that comes to pass, are you saying that He does not cause those decrees...'
He does not properly exegete any text of Scripture in the debate. In fact, his initial remarks simply attack White and erect many straw man arguments and caricatures of the faith.
'It means that everybody that has ever done any act evil or otherwise has been drawn into it by the decrees of God and it, it, it's, it is intellectual suicide to say that now He's not drawing everything that comes to pass, are you saying that He does not cause those decrees...'
He does not properly exegete any text of Scripture in the debate. In fact, his initial remarks simply attack White and erect many straw man arguments and caricatures of the faith.
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.
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.
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
Last edited:
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.
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 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,
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.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Yes Tassi was a no show and it is sad to behold. This need be a warning to all who subscribe to his anti-cal/anti-sovereign grace rhetoric, there is no real biblically exegeted defense of that failed system.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,
- Status