-
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
We have Van, a fly-by-night bible thumper, much like myself, vs Dr. White and Dr. Cassidy, both who have had YEARS of Greek studies, and Van thinks he is right? Lullz. I don't want to be on an airplane with Van. He'd be trying to tell the pilot he is doing it wrong. 
Dr. White said it correctly, 'foreknow' is what God does.
Dr. White said it correctly, 'foreknow' is what God does.
Last edited:
I already told him that. It went in one ear and out the other.
I already told him that. It went in one ear and out the other.
This sums up Mr. Tassi as well. He would not stay on the topic of the debate. I am surprised Mr. Tassi did not try to exegete Matthew 23:13, too.
Hi SG, I answered your question, just read my posts.
Note the number of posts addressing my character and qualifications, rather than the topic?
Dr. White's opening address has been addressed.
Note the number of posts addressing my character and qualifications, rather than the topic?
Dr. White's opening address has been addressed.
1) He does not understand the Golden Chain.
2) He does not understand Romans 9.
3)Foreknew means to know beforehand.
2) He does not understand Romans 9.
3)Foreknew means to know beforehand.
Your expositional support for this assertion?
Your expositional support for this assertion?
Your expositional support for this assertion?
Let's take a look at the implication of an active verb.
Genesis 4:1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD."
Now, did Adam just know something about Eve, or did Adam DO something to/with Eve?
If you think Adam just knew something but didn't do anything you have a very limited understanding of human pro-creation.
This is probably the worst "debate" I've seen. I disagree, however, that this is the typical argumentation of anti-Cals (Steve Tassi seems to be in a class all his own). That said, Tassi is what I refer to as ignorantly indoctrinated, and I've seen this across camps.
What I would like to see is James White actually find someone who will debate Romans 9. Are there any out there?
I addressed all three areas in my posts - so obfuscation.
Let's take a look at the implication of an active verb.
Genesis 4:1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD."
Now, did Adam just know something about Eve, or did Adam DO something to/with Eve?
If you think Adam just knew something but didn't do anything you have a very limited understanding of human pro-creation.[/QUOTE]
You would think the verb was knew rather than foreknew. It means, as used in Romans 8:29, to know something beforehand - and all the active voice indicates is that it is God who is doing the foreknowing.
Note the pathetic effort to change the subject from Dr. White's flawed presentation? All these efforts to address me, even capitalizing YOU.
Bottom line Romans 9 provides no support whatsoever for Calvinism. Foreknew means know beforehand, not predestined. You can look it up.
Bottom line Romans 9 provides no support whatsoever for Calvinism. Foreknew means know beforehand, not predestined. You can look it up.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
I hear ya. Tassi reflects to me the majority of anti-cals in his accusations, shallow theology and arguments.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
To 'know' is an intimate encounter with someone. God 'foreknew' us in an intimate relationship as He set His love upon us and giving our sins to the Lamb to atone for our sins. Who God 'foreknew' He predestined, them He predestined, He called, them He called, He justified, those He justified, He glorified. That is the 'golden chain of redemption' and is what Dr. White holds to. You, on the other hand...Folks, do a search of all scripture and let me know when you find that verse that says Adam foreknew Eve and she conceived. Tick tock
proginōskō
to have knowledge before hand, to foreknow, of those whom God elected to salvation, to predestinate.
Yes, God knew beforehand those who would be saved. Now Van, how did He foreknow those who would be saved?
to have knowledge before hand, to foreknow, of those whom God elected to salvation, to predestinate.
Yes, God knew beforehand those who would be saved. Now Van, how did He foreknow those who would be saved?
But lets return to the bogus 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.
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.
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.
- Status