Finding Common Ground
Listen to the Debate
Comment on Today’s Dr. Brown’s Debate with Dr. James White Here
182 Comments
Comments are closed.
Finding Common Ground
Listen to the Debate
Comment on Today’s Dr. Brown’s Debate with Dr. James White Here
Comments are closed.
It was a very intellectual debate which was hard for me to keep up with. I do like the sincerity and respect you have with each other though.
In love,
-Eric
Excellent job Dr. Brown!
Dr. Brown I really admire the form and strength of exegesis you displayed in today’s program. I commend you and am absolutely very surprised at how excellent you were in your interpretations of Scripture. I would really like to listen to this segment of the debate again and plan to do so when it becomes available, overall, just to confirm that you did take the debate. I truthfully cannot say enough, however, one of the two optional interpretations that you established for the eigth chapter of Paul’s epistle to the Romans was of high quality, not to mention eye-opening, particularly concerning corporate election, a position that I do not espouse, but would now like to know more of and contemplate to take a lot more seriously. I do believe that if taken in counter-point fashion, you answered all of Dr. White’s cross-examination questions and refuted all of his arguments, by far from the two debates that I’ve encountered in which Dr. White was a participant; namely his correspondence with Dave Hunt and his debate in two thousand eight with Steve Gregg, I do believe that you did best overall, not to say that what Gregg did wasn’t commendable because it was. Overall, I found more comfort in being a Classical Free Will Theist today. Being familiar with Dr. White’s material, and seeing how well you handled God’s word this morning, I hope to see you perform as well, if not better, for the second half of this interaction between the two of you. I will literally pray for you good sir, that you may come out the victor in the future dialogue, as I believe you most likely did today.
-After Darkness, Light
Thanks go to Dr Brown and Dr White once again for a lively discussion. It shows that respect can be maintained while still arguing for ones viewpoint without compromise yet without relying on name calling etc. Great job, looking forward to next weeks exchange as well.
Dr Brown mentioned a verse in the OT, using the same Grk word for draw (but in LXX), but that verse indicated while there was a drawing, the drawing was resisted or refused. I wasn’t sure of how the context there tho, supported Dr Brown’s claim that had to be the same as the spiritual drawing that Jesus does that Reformed folks say is irresistible. The word as used in the NT has usage confirmed the drawing is successful.
For instance the disciples “pulled on” the fishing nets, but were not able to “draw” them to the shore. The enemies of Paul “drew” him out of the city to stone him, if he wasn’t successfully taken out, they didn’t draw him.
Also when it is said Jesus draws, the passage might say draw “unto me”. Unto me doesn’t mean toward but short, it means successfully to Jesus, to salvation. I think many folks read draw, and think of a moth drawn to a light or flame. Very very strong pulling affect but the moth may not come. However, the drawing that Jesus does is effectual. Like if I said I drew water from a well, but the water didn’t come up, it wasn’t drawn, was it? Or a horse “drawn” carriage, if it isn’t “actually” drawn, it isn’t drawn. Also a sword, if I said I drew my sword, but it never came out of the scabbard, it wasn’t drawn at all.
Jesus isn’t saying he “potentially” draws, or I will draw only if man’s free will allows me to.
I think our current word “bring” is the right idea.
Jesus says he will bring those of his to himself. When he changes their hearts, they come willingly, not kicking and screaming as some suppose. The Shepherd calls the sheep, the sheep don’t call the shepherd. Not my sheep potentially hear my voice and potentially come to me. They do come, because they are his sheep. Their coming doesn’t make them sheep, their coming is an evidence they are his sheep.
God Bless!
Bro Pat Quick
Reformed Baptist, Ontario Calif church
Wonderful radio show!
Indeed, our Common Ground is our everlasting Rock – Jesus Christ.
God Bless!
http://bestchristianblogoftheweek.blogspot.com/
Pat,
It was my joy to debate Dr. White today, and since it appears that listeners were edified and challenged to dig deeper into the Word. Wonderful!
As for the meaning of helkuo in Greek and mashak in Hebrew, it’s really quite simple: The words simply mean draw, pull, drag, and there is nothing mystical to that. The context determines the exact translation, but it’s impossible to argue that the word itself means “effectual” or “irresistible” drawing, anymore than the same can be proved for the English words.
My purpose in quoting Neh 9:29-30 (thanks to Prof. Brian Abasciano for the reference) was to say that this was an example of God seeking to draw His people, yet they refused to come — using these very verbs in Hebrew and Greek.
The Shepherd calls the sheep, and those who have humbled themselves and receive His offer come in response. That’s what proves them to be His sheep.
In any case, no time for a lengthy response now, but thanks so much for your kind words and for your passion for God’s truth.
Lucius,
Thanks for your very gracious words, and I certainly respect Dr. White and his clear thinking and debating skills. May truth triumph as we interact!
This article should be very helpful to you: http://evangelicalarminians.org/Abasciano-Clearing-Up-Misconceptions-about-Corporate-Election.
God bless!
Dr. Brown, I enjoyed the debate with excitement! Both you and Mr. White are polished debaters but I believe your position was the better presented and that, convincingly. You did a masterful job of answering directly to Dr. White’s points he presented (although I’m not too sure that was your goal; it seems your goal was just to present your Biblical interpretation of the texts in question…and let the chips fall where they may).
I hope my impression of the debate is seen from an objective view. However, I do remember how he debated on justification with a Catholic once and…shock! I felt the Catholic won the debate. He had presented his points orderly, refuted each and every point Dr. White presented effectively, and had a wellspring of information at his disposal…it seemed more than Wite had.
Anyway…
I did have one concern before the debate started. I have heard a few debates by Dr. White and one thing I have noticed is that he does his homework; he seems to know what his opponent is going to say before they say it! In any case, he has the rebuttal in play in advance. Well, it seems you did yoiur homework also and was able to go head-to-head with the subjecxt matter.
Let me give my observation of the debate:
1. Your presentation of relevant texts for three passages in question was masterful. You started out like a machine gun. I was surprised to hear the way White says he practices his exegesis to the effect that he only looks at the texts and the immediate context to understand it’s meaning. And that was why he had no, shall I say, “ammunition” against your position; he had no reserves stockpiled. Unfortunately, it seems to me that all Dr. White did was read the texts and give his interpretation with hardly any – unless I missed it – reasons why or how it is so meant. I never noticed that in his debates before.
2. I never heard him use the phrase – over and over again – “apostolic interpretation”. I kept on asking myself, what does he mean by that? I can only assume it was in order to make it seem like his understanding/interpretation of the text had more authority or carried more weight than yours. I think you did seem to take him to task on it but I need to listen to the debate again to catch exactly what you said.
3. I must admit, you made my computer jump outta my lap with your final question regarding his own assurance of salvation! And you had him sort of flustered, being very careful with his answer. I can’t remember what he said exactly, but it had to do with his assurance of Jesus’ “perfect work”. Your insistance that he answer directly to the question was appropriate. If he felt that Jesus’ work was so perfect as to be able to keep those whom the Father has given him, then knowing it is impossible for him to apostasize is only the “other side of the coin.” I noticed he tried to evade a direct answer my stating no one can know for sure if another believer is truly the elect but that was not what you asked him. His evasion of the question was quite telling.
Dr. Brown, I know this debate is not for the purpose of winning or showing how wrong is the opponent and how much smarter you are/he is but to bring glory to God and I think that’s done by encouraging people to re-read and re-affirm or change what they believe according to the evidence as they understand it.
But…I must not be that spiritual because I was sure happy that…in my estimation…you won this debate.
Nelson,
Thanks for the kind comments. Your closing words brought a smile to my face. 🙂 May the Lord use Dr. White and you and me (and a host of others) to glorify His name!
“His evasion of the question was quite telling.”
I agree. Nice observation Nelson.
Dr. White,
I do want to thank you so much for debating Dr. James White. I cannot thank you enough for doing so with the respect that you do.
I do want to ask you about your discussion of John 6. I do apreciate that you wish to interpret the passage in context, however I do not understand why you think that the fact that God holds those who do not believble responsable would contradict God’s will being the decisive factor in whether or not a person will be saved. The reason I do not understand your objection is that the calvanist would understand the Scripture to indicate that a person does not believe because of that person does not want to, because that person’s sinful heart can’t see God for who He is. So how would that contradict the understanding that God is the one who opens the person’s eyes spiritually to see Jesus’ beauty?
Also, I don’t think you got a chance to explain so in the debate, but if you do, why do you understand the second “he” in verse 44 to be a different “he” than the first “he”?
The text in verse 44 is just, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent Me draws *him*: and I will raise *him* up on the last day.”
Dr. Brown,
Haha..I did mean to begin my previous post with “Dr. Brown.” So sorry, lol.
Thanks.
Peace and unity to the His body in the love of the Anointed.
Harold,
I think you meant to address me, not Dr. White, correct? 🙂
Yes, God opens the sinner’s eyes, but throughout the Bible, the sinner is required to respond and is held responsible if he refuses to. You just have to ignore the whole Bible to deny that this is the case throughout Scripture. God enables us to respond, and for love to be reciprocal, the response must come from us. God is pleased when we call out to Him and grieved when we turn our backs. Again, to rehash this is to rehash the story of Genesis to Revelation.
As for John 6:44, I believe someone else will be responding to that soon, but you should easily realize that Jesus must be speaking of the one who also comes, correct? Whether the calling is effectual or not must be determined elsewhere.
And be sure to meditate on John 5:38!
Harold,
Amen to peace and unity among God’s people!
Harold,
On John 6:44, Dr. Brown did not say that the second “he” is different than the first, but that they are the same (htough I htikn you probably mean to refer to the two “him’s”). The crucial thing he pointed out is that both “him’s” refer tot he person that has been drawn *and* comes. So while the two “him’s” are indeed the same, both refer to him who has been drawn and come. Think about the statement: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” The “him” is clearly speaking about someone who has been drawn and come. So when Jesus goes on immediately to say, “and I will raise him up on the last day”, he is speaking about someone who has been drawn and come. Those who are drawn and come will be raised up. But the former statement was only affirming that drawing is a necessary condition. It in no way states that it is a sufficient condition (i.e., it does not state that drawing necessarily causes coming, only that it enables it). It does not at all say that all who are drawn come. It says this is necessary to come. But in saying no one can come unless such and such happens to him, “him” is now understood to have both come and been drawn without any affirmation that whoever is drawn comes. One cannot throw away the first half of the sentence (“no one can come to me unless”) and pretend it is not also comprehended in the “him” referred to at the end of the sentence (“the Father who sent me draws him”). Another way to get at this would be to ask, who is the “him” in that statement? I think it would have to be admitted that it is the person who has been drawn and comes. But then we must ask, does it say that everyone who is drawn comes? And the answer is undeniably no. It neither says nor implies this.
Dr. Brown,
Great debate with Dr. James White. The academic level of the conversation was extremely high and was somewhat difficult to follow but I felt you did a wonderful job in explaining your position on the text. As a reformed Christian it encourages me to look deeper into the word.
I also agree with your admonishment regarding being careful with “conservative” media.
In Jesus,
Cesar
Excellent debate. In Ephesians 1, James White misses that it is only “IN CHRIST” that we have these blessings. The prophecy in Isaiah 42 serves as a perfect heading, where the Father says of the Christ ‘Behold, my chosen one, in whom I delight…” Much could be said about this great salvation. By Jesus’ life and atonement, He is the perfect one that the Father chooses and exalts, and as we come by faith and repentance to Him, we are accepted “in Christ”, as Paul so clearly says here, and a number of different writers in different places, such as illustrations of Christ as a vine or an olive tree. Peter even likens Christ to the ark of Noah, a ship that we enter by appealing to Christ for a clean conscience (1 Pet. 3:20ish I think) This great salvation accomplished by God in Christ is the focus in Eph. 1, with no particular attention to who happens to be in this “us”. Despite Mr. White’s insistence and great oratorical skills, his exegesis is just not true (I admire his strong convictions of faith though).
1 John 2:19 does not support calvinism, though they quote it so frequently. John is simply and soberly warning the believers not to mistake these false teachers and Gnostics for Christians. He’s saying it’s not the marking of a Christian to separate themselves from the church and go off and form their own sect. That’s all he’s saying. Nothing to do with perseverence of the saints. He also does not say that they were “never” of us, but that at some point in the past, and now, they are “not” of us. This verse is in the middle of an extended warning against apostasy too.
Dr. Brown,
Thank you for taking the time to debate Dr. White. I listened to your first debate with him also and I found this debate edifying just as the last one was. Upfront, I admit that I adhere to the doctrines of grace and the monorgistic view of salvation, but I was looking forward to your interpretation of the verses that Dr. White was bringing forward. In the same sense, I am looking forward to White’s interpretation of the verses you will be bringing forth next Thursday.
I do have a few questions after hearing the debate and if you (or anybody else) has some time to clarify these, I would appreciate it.
1) In regards to John 6:44 – I understand that you were saying the ones who will be raised up are not only drawn by God but also come, meaning that God draws (presumably everyone) but not everyone comes. If I am wrong there in understanding what you meant, please correct me. Because if that is what you meant, then I think that poses a problem with the following verses (at least). John 6:45 was addressed, but only the first part of it sadly. The second part reads – “Therefore, everyone who has learned and heard from the Father comes to Me”. It says that if God taught them, then they will come to Jesus. It doesn’t say that God taught them and then they chose to reject Him. It also doesn’t say that some of those who God taught will come – it says EVERYONE. How then is Gods drawing not effectual in completing its task? What can man do to resist His teaching. Verse 45 says that His goal will be accomplished. The word “therefore” in verse 45 is very telling in that our Lord is summing up what He meant in the preceding explanation of Gods choice.
Then you mentioned the following verses (46-58) were an “invitation”. That is interesting to me. I definitely think that Jesus was presenting the gospel but I don’t think it was an invitation. Not in the sense that preachers offer invitations in the manner of a Billy Graham or Charles Finney at least. An invitation would hardly offend a person. I have heard many and they are simply not offensive but Jesus asked His disciples if they were offended by what He said, knowing their heart and murmuring. What He says next is also very telling I think. v63 – “It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing”. I know you agree with that statement in a general sense (salvation is by faith, not by works) but in the context of John 6, is it not saying that God accomplishes salvation apart from man coming on his own accord – of his own choice? God draws him and he comes. The Spirit gives life – the man does nothing savingly outside of merely acting in response to Gods teaching which verse 45 says is irresistible.
2) Romans 8,9/Ephesians 1 – I was confused about the idea of corporate election as opposed to an individual/personal election and I will read the link you provided an above commenter later but my question is this – aren’t their individuals within corporates or groups? To me, that stance is rather moot considering that individuals make up the group. Perhaps I am simplifying it….
3) Lastly, at the end of the debate the conversation was sidetracked with discussing assurance of salvation. I’m not sure though how the synergistic view of salvation produces a “more sure assurance” or I guess – how your view does in comparison to Dr. Whites. I ask, how can you be sure at all? If the end result is ultimately up to you, then how can you be really sure. If it is up to your choice, your acceptance of Christ, then surely, you can also then reject Him. It’s not to say that the man can hold God to anything other than Gods own word. If it’s Gods word that you are saved, then you will most assuredly be saved. Yet if it was your responding to Him that made you saved, then how is it that God must honor that? If it was up to you to accept Him, then you can certainly reject Him after the fact. And if you can and do reject Him, then you must not have ever really been saved since those who have been born again will not be lost.
So we all know and agree that the scripture says when you are saved, you are “born again”. This being “born again” is not “by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man but of God”. So wouldn’t you say then that the person who is trusting in the monorgistic work of God unto salvation has assurance in comparison to the synergistic work of God and man in salvation?
Again, I thank you brother Brown for being available to debate your position and I did learn a lot. I hope you or someone else can help to clear up my confusion. May the Lord bless you and your ministry to His glory,
Paul
Mike Brown asked (minute 29:48–30:04):
James White responded:
White seems to think the “you” in 5:34 refers to the elect, or “those that the Spirit is going to [effectually] draw to Him.” In complete contrast, Sam Waldron [a Reformed Baptist/Calvinist] wrote:
White has argued against *every* single passage that even orthodox Calvinists [such as Sam Waldron and Robert Gonzales] have used to substantiate God’s universal saving will, even Ezek. 18:31-32, 33:11 and Matt. 23:37. If Jesus didn’t “mean” His statement “that you may be saved” for *any* of the non-elect, then how is God giving any of them a well-meant offer? Moreover, if there is nothing saving in the provision of Christ’s death for any of the non-elect, what is God offering them in Christ? The hollow part of a donut? If Christ’s death didn’t render any of the non-elect saveable, then how are any of them offerable? Offerability presupposes saveability. If the non-elect are not rendered saveable by means of Christ’s satisfaction of all the legal obsticles/barriers, then they are not offerable. They not only perish for want of an obedient heart, they also perish for want of a remedy in Christ.
White is consistently undermining two essential components of a free offer in his soteriological discussions: 1) an *object* on God’s part to be given [i.e. a suitable provision in Christ for all] and 2) God’s *willingness* to give that which is offered.
I, as a Calvinist, find that quite disturbing and theologically repugnant.
Those that want to listen to the debate you can find it here:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3832
It was a solid debate man. Both sides made good arguments. I love the closing statement of Brown on John 6. He had some interesting takes on Romans 9 too. I don’t like White’s approach on Scripture tho. He says that he wants to “exegete the passages”, yet doesn’t allow people to look elsewhere at other passages for harmonization with the rest of the Scriptures. Although I agree with White that you have to exegete a passage primarily in its immediate context, I don’t agree with his not allowing to go to other passages for reconciliation. For example: in John 6 White insists that you can’t go to the Tanach and to John 12 to make sense out of John 6, as if John 6 is an isolated passage. Of course you have to have eyes for the overall context also. So when Brown goes to other passages to see if his exegesis of John 6 is correct and sees that the drawing of YHWH in the Tanach can be resisted and in the NT the drawing of YHWH is resisted, then you cannot read John 6 as if Yeshua is saying that the drawing of the Father CANNOT be resisted! This is a blatant contradiction. How can Yeshua say in the same Spirit as the Prophets of Old and the apostles after Him, that you cannot resist the drawing of the Father, yet the Prophets of Old and the Apostles following suit, saying that the Father’s drawing can be resisted? See what I’m saying? If you have one passage that you can exegete in two different ways (reformed and arminian), yet one interpretation (reformed) stands in opposition of the rest of the clear passages that say the drawing of YHWH can be resisted and the other interpretation (arminian) stands in harmony with the rest of the clear passages that say the drawing can be resisted, then how can the reformed position be correct? Unless you want to claim that the drawing of YHWH in the Tanach is different than the drawing of the Father in the NT. But then you are on very shaky ground in demonstrating that.
Dr Brown, I would like you to press dr White on the issue that you raised at the end of the cross examination of Ephesians 1. You made the point that since God chooses who saves, he can’t know for sure that he is one of the elect or not and therefore he can’t go around and say that he is saved. This is such a valid and important argument against the Reformed position. Dr White kept saying that he has the testimony FOR HIMSELF that he is part of the elect, but then again, how does he know that he is one of the Elect if the Elect are only known by God. He might have the testimony now, but who says he will have it next week? Bottom line is: He may SEEM to have the assurance now, but since God chooses who will be saved or not, this means that if God wants him to fall away next week (as in Matthew 13:20-21, when someone receives the Gospel with joy, yet falls away, which is a problem for Reformed Theology to begin with) he WILL fall away next week, even though he shows devotion for the Kingdom of God. How does he know he is one of the elect? Because he feels he is? How does he know God chose him? Because he feels the Spirit in him? Who says he is not merely engaging in wishful thinking?
Oh man, I can’t wait for them to clash next week. I HOPE these giants will get together in a public exchange after that. I would like to see that happening.
Nakdimon
Greetings All,
Let me start by saying that I am far from a Biblical scholar or theologian. I’ve listened to the Calvinism/Arminianism debate with something of a different ear. I’ve asked myself the question, “What is the underlying issue that is causing the division between the two camps?”
The conclusion I’m reaching is that the major differences between the 2 camps lie in reconciling God’s sovereignty with man’s “free will”. How does a man, presumably with “free will”, yet unable and unwilling to come to God, get saved?
When I read the tone of the entirety of Scripture, I read that man is hopelessly in SLAVERY to sin. Do slaves have “free will”? I read that man is a prisoner to the devil and in bondage to sin.
Slaves and prisoners can “make decisions”, but they cannot be considered to have “free will”. A prisoner can choose to eat mashed potatoes or nothing, but cannot decide to go to McDonalds or Burger King for his meals.
Since mankind is a slave to sin, someone must unloose the chains. In other words, someone capable of freeing the prisoner must grant a pardon to enable the prisoner to become free. Jesus stands at the door and knocks. And knocks and knocks and knocks. All mankind (the prisoners) can “make a decision” to listen to Jesus or not to listen, but the consequences are to remain in jail or to be “made free”.
“Free will” only comes after being set free from the bondage to sin. In that sense, only Only Jesus can set the captives free. A sinner is a slave to sin, and thus can only make a decision to respond to Jesus or ask to remain in “decision making” mode – a tragic slave to sin.
Tony Byrne,
There is a debate amongst orthodox Calvinists at this point. If you look at Robert Reymond at this point, Reymond would agree with Dr. White.
There are some good points to be made on all sides of this debate amongst Calvinists. I think being “appauled” at this would be kinda like a supralapsarian being appauled at the beliefs of an infralapsarian. As with all debates amongst Calvinists, one must be driven back to the text of scripture to discuss these issues, and not just the quotes of scholars, and ideas of “offerability” that cannot be derived from the text.
God Bless,
Adam
Tony Byrne,
Thanks for your post, and yes, the context of John 5 makes clear that Jesus truly desired the salvation of the people to whom he was speaking. (This, by the way, makes Adam’s argument completely off point, since you’re quoting scholars who are exegeting the biblical text to make your point, not simply quoting scholars.)
I am aware that Dr. White rejects the view of Stonehouse and Murray that “We have found that God himself expresses an ardent desire for the fulfillment of certain things which he has not decreed in his inscrutable counsel to come to pass. This means that there is a will to the realization of what he has not decretively willed, a pleasure towards that which he has not been pleased to decree,” which “is indeed mysterious.”
Of course, I see no need for them to tie themselves into theological knots like this, since it could simply be said that God willingly created a world in which many things would happen contrary to His will but in the end, His ultimate purposes would be accomplished. (I hope to press these issues in part two of our debate next week.)
In any event, I do appreciate your post and your sentiments, and I realize that within Calvinism, there are many sub-divisions (called hypo and hyper by George Bryson). Sadly, I have had to mark publicly on this website one group that claimed that not only were C. S. Lewis, John Wesley, Billy Graham (and I, of course), hell-bound, God-hating, Jesus-blaspheming sinners (since we do not hold to every detail of their of the hyper-Calvinism), but James White was also labeled weak and inconsistent and equally hell-bound as me because he believed I was saved!
So, I’m wondering then what would constitute “Calvinism” in your eyes. (I do not ask this in a challenging way in the least; I’m simply wondering if there are certain, bottom lines truths to which all Calvinists hold.) What do you think would be a statement that would gain universal affirmation from Calvinists and yet would clearly mark it out as distinctive?
I agree with your comments on geting to involved in politics,organations,tv and radio shows that are secular.I would be identified to the world as a conservative.But I am a christian and as one I believe we have to be careful what we get caught upin. These news shows are secular and have an agenda.Many are full of anger,wrath,malice and abusive speech.They breed hatred.Things as christans we should have no part of.And yes that includes some shows on fox news and Rush L..Col 3:8 Dr.brown I enjoy your program.I get my bible and note pad out when I listen.God Bless you.
nakdimon, you make some great points.
White clearly has a double standard here. He says you can’t “jump” to John 12:32 (paraphrase), but he often jumps all over the map to deal with universal passages. In dealing with “world” in John 3:16, he and other Calvinists jump to the use of “world” in completely different contexts in order to gain some wiggle room for their denying the universal sense of the word in the passage at hand. White also likes to jump to Rev. 7:9 to put a spin on passages like 1 Tim. 2:4, etc. So White is quite the “jumper” himself when it suits his purposes.
It should also be pointed out that according to White’s hermeneutic, when we read in John 6:32, 33, that Christ is a provision for the world (and even for “you”- those Jews that He would later rebuke as unable to come), we should not be able to “jump” to John 6 in order to limit that universal provision and intention of God. Rather, we should interpret John 6:37, 44, etc. in light of John 6:32, 33, or even John 3:16 (which comes way before John 6). But Mr. White doesn’t do that. And Jesus, in the midst of his discourse on drawing reiterates yet again that He is the provision for the world in John 6:51. All of this is part of the “context” and is essentially ignored by White’s “exegesis”. It is clear that Mr. White has zeroed in on a few passages in John 6 to try to support his Calvinism, while trying to bar anyone from looking beyond the few verses that he thinks make his case. And why does he do this? The answer seems rather obvious to me. Just my two cents.
Correction: should be,
“…we should not be able to “jump” to John 6[:37, 44, etc.] in order to limit that universal provision and intention of God.”
…in my above post.
Paul,
You wrote,
John 6:45 was addressed, but only the first part of it sadly. The second part reads – “Therefore, everyone who has learned and heard from the Father comes to Me”. It says that if God taught them, then they will come to Jesus.
“They shall all be taught of God” describes the scope of the teaching and God’s teaching can be seen as His drawing. However, not all who are taught necessarily learn from what they hear (receive the teaching or respond to the drawing) and come to Him. For that reason Jesus doesn’t say that all who hear will come, but all who “hear and learn” will come. Jesus is speaking of those who both hear and learn, and they will certainly come. But this says nothing of those who hear and refuse to learn (as many heard and refused to accept what Christ said in that very narrative). John 6:45 doesn’t contradict Dr. Brown’s position. Rather, it supports it.
God Bless,
Ben
A COMMENT ON THE USE OF THE TERM “DOCTRINES OF GRACE” (AND THE INTRODUCTION OF A NEW THEOLOGICAL TERM)
I’m fully aware that “the doctrines of grace” is a terminus technicus (albeit a popular one) for Calvinism, and I know that some of you use it here without the slightest condescension on your part, but as a non-Calvinist, I find the term offensive.
I revel in God’s grace as much as any Calvinist I have ever met or ever read, and every Arminian I have ever met who sang Amazing Grace did so with amazement and astonishment. I fervently hold to the doctrines of grace!
To help balance the discussion, then, I propose here that Arminians consistently say that we hold to the DOCTRINE OF THE GOODNESS OF GOD. This will do two things: 1) It will convey to our Calvinistic friends that, in our eyes, they diminish God’s goodness by their doctrine (just as they believe we diminish God’s grace); and 2) It will make them realize how their use of terms like “the doctrines of grace” (as opposed to the Reformed Faith) and “orthodoxy” make Arminians immediately protest, “But I too hold to the doctrines of grace and I too am orthodox!”
I know that we sometimes describe our beliefs in this way, but let’s do it consistently to level the playing field with the hope that, over time, Calvinists would no longer describe their belief as “the doctrines of grace” without saying, “And, of course, we know that Arminians also hold to the doctrines of grace.” Should they say to us, “But you don’t!,” then we could say, “Neither do you hold to the doctrine of the goodness of God,” thus driving home to the point. (I could make similar points about those, like my friend Dr. White, who like to frame things in terms of monergism vs. synergism.)
Shall we do it? For me, I am NOT saying that a Calvinist doesn’t hold to the goodness of God but rather that their emphases diminish the presentation of His goodness.
Exactly Ben (arminianperspectives post of March 26, 2010 at 11:13 am)! And in fact, even the term “hear” in John 6:45 probably does not refer to merely hearing the teaching, but heeding it, yielding to it. That word for “hear” can readily carry that sense. In English we usually speak of that sense as “listen”. “Listen” to the teacher means to attend carefully to what the teacher says and obey.
Dr.brown, your view was the most clear I’ve heard. however when the bible uses language like ; God desires this ,God wants that, that must be for our human understanding of common grace issues, because a being that knows all things doesn’t desire anything. It’s not logical . Also you said , Jesus saves perfectly , If you allow him to . that’s not perfect if an imperfect man is involved. thanks God bless
Dr. Brown,
Yes I was addressing you lol. (It was a bit late).
I am very thankful that we love the same God and are forgiven by Him so that we can love Him and one another. This is why I think Christians can discuss discuss one another, because we love one another, always trying to be sure of our motivations. I do need to always remind myself of my love for you as a brother bought by the blood of the Anointed Son of God before I can ever begin to discuss important issues.
So I did want to respond shortly to you and “Arminian,” as he called himself:
John 5:38 says that the word is not in people because the do not believe. In fact, verse 40 says that they won’t come come to have life because they’re not willing. So if the sinful will is the problem and what keeps them from God, then why do you think that the will of the person without having been made alive, is going to be able to change in order to have life. The will of spiritually blind people is the problem. This is why Jesus says, “No one can come to me…” The unless is an the Father draws him, not unless they change their will.
Correct me if I misunderstand you, but I don’t think this is what you say. You rather think that no one can come to God unless He draws him. So you’d make the first “him” true of all except those whom the Father draws. It seems that you do make the followning “him” a different person because Jesus says, “…and I will raise him.”
So if Jesus says “No one can come unless the Father…draws him,” how can this not be refering to every human being? Since you say that no one can come without the Father’s drawing, do you not see that this is a universal no one can come without the Father’s drawing. (Unless you think some can come without the Father’s drawing.)
If you agree that this first statement of the “him” must be true of every human being but those the Father draws, why do you not take the second statment, “unles the Father…draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day,” to be true of all who the Father draws?
I truly think what Arminian said brings out the issue when he said, “the former statement was only affirming that drawing is a necessary condition. It in no way states that it is a sufficient condition…”
The question is, If drawing is just necessary but not sufficient, then why is the same “him” who’s drawn also raised up. Of course the person who believes is raised, the question is if whether or not the “him” who is drawn comes depends fundamentally on whether or not he believes, then how is it that the “him” who’s drawn comes, if I have spoken correctly above?
Harold,
Since throughout the Bible, God calls people and they refuse to come, urges them, beckons them, and even draws them (same terminology) and they refuse to come, on what basis do we suddenly come up with an irresistible drawing doctrine? Certainly John 6:44 cannot “prove” that for a moment, as explained in another post.
You must find support for your doctrine in a way that states it as least as clearly as all the passages that indicate that God’s calling and drawing can be resisted. To haggle over this one text is to dishonor the rest of the Word, which I know is not your intent.
Moreover, John 12:32, using identical terminology, cannot be divorced from the discussion, and there it IS clearly that stated that through and since the cross, Jesus is drawing all people to Himself. Those who come with a persevering faith will be raised up on the last day. Simple.
And in fact, even the term “hear” in John 6:45 probably does not refer to merely hearing the teaching, but heeding it, yielding to it. That word for “hear” can readily carry that sense. In English we usually speak of that sense as “listen”. “Listen” to the teacher means to attend carefully to what the teacher says and obey.
In such a case it would basically be “the hearing of faith”, that is hearing unto faith (responding to the teaching unto faith/coming). So the hearing and learning could both have reference to the positive response to teaching/drawing. Everyone is therefore taught (drawn) and yet only those who respond to that drawing come (hear and learn). This is the Arminian position exactly and comports perfectly with Jesus’ further comments in John 12:32.
To help balance the discussion, then, I propose here that Arminians consistently say that we hold to the DOCTRINE OF THE GOODNESS OF GOD. This will do two things: 1) It will convey to our Calvinistic friends that, in our eyes, they diminish God’s goodness by their doctrine (just as they believe we diminish God’s grace); and 2) It will make them realize how their use of terms like “the doctrines of grace” (as opposed to the Reformed Faith) and “orthodoxy” make Arminians immediately protest, “But I too hold to the doctrines of grace and I too am orthodox!”
I love it! I too find it offensive that Calvinists refer to their view as “the doctrines of grace”. Perhaps we should also retort that they hold only to “the doctrines of limited grace” or maybe “the doctrines of unavoidable reprobation” or some such thing.
Arminianperspectives,
Great points!
Harold continues to discuss John 6 and just keeps missing things about both the text and how someone comes to saving faith in Christ.
I think if I briefly describe the order of events in which a person comes to saving faith in Christ it may help clarify where Harold is missing things.
First a person is separated from God due to their sin (i.e. “dead in sin”). Left in this condition they are without hope in the world and lost. Second the Lord draws people to Himself. This is the preconversion work of the Spirit in leading people to faith in Christ by revealing things to them including: their own sinfulness and separation from God, God’s sending Jesus to die for the sins of the world as a provision of atonement for the world, their need for turning from sin and receiving forgiveness of their sins by God, the identity of Jesus, etc. etc. (i.e. “drawing”, referred to in both John 6:44 and John 12:32).This drawing enables but does not necessitate faith on the part of an individual. Third, the person “comes to Jesus” for salvation, meaning they place their trust in Jesus alone for salvation (i.e., in John’s gospel this is referred to as “come to Jesus”). Fourth, Jesus says to the one who has been drawn AND HAS COME, that he will be raised up at the end, etc. So the order is (1) “dead in sin”; (2)drawn; (3)comes to Jesus; and (4)promises to the one who comes to Jesus. With these things in mind we can see how Harold misses things.
Harold writes:
“If you agree that this first statement of the “him” must be true of every human being but those the Father draws, why do you not take the second statment, “unless the Father…draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day,” to be true of all who the Father draws?”
Because not all who are drawn, COME.
Jesus makes the promises only to those who COME (which is those who respond in faith to the work of the Spirit/the drawing). Harold **assumes** based on his Calvinistic system that ALL WHO ARE DRAWN COME. But the text does not say that anywhere. Instead it says you cannot COME unless you have been drawn.
“The question is, If drawing is just necessary but not sufficient, then why is the same “him” who’s drawn also raised up. Of course the person who believes is raised, the question is if whether or not the “him” who is drawn comes depends fundamentally on whether or not he believes, then how is it that the “him” who’s drawn comes, if I have spoken correctly above?”
This is a bit confused but I think the explanation is simple: All are “dead in sin” and all are drawn at some point in their lives. But it is not enough to be drawn, an individual must also COME TO JESUS for salvation (which again means they must choose to trust in the Lord alone for their salvation, no trust = no salvation; no trust = not “coming to Jesus”).
And again what **is** Jesus’ point in John 6:44 about drawing? He says that unless you experience this drawing then you cannot come to Him and be saved. Or put simply: if you have not been drawn then you cannot come.
He doesn’t’ say that **only** the preselected elect are drawn (a very common calvinist error: nowhere stated anywhere in scripture).
Nor does He say that **all**who are drawn will come to faith in Jesus (a very common calvinist error: nowhere stated anywhere in scripture).
He says that all who come to Him in faith HAD TO HAVE BEEN DRAWN (no one can come to me [have faith in me alone for salvation], unless they have been drawn). And in saying this he was not saying that if you had been drawn that you would automatically come to Jesus and be saved.
Once you understand the first three: dead in sin, drawn, and come to Jesus. You then understand to whom he makes the great promises in John 6. If you were dead in sin and drawn and ***have*** come to Jesus (i.e. been saved by faith alone in Jesus) THEN THE PROMISES APPLY TO YOU. But if you are dead in sin have been drawn and yet reject Jesus, choose not to trust in Him alone for salvation, then the promises do not apply to you.
Robert 777
Robert 777,
I would simply like to say to you that I am not getting the idea that he who is drawn is raised from a presumption but seeing it in the words, “No *one* can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws *him*; and I will raise *him* up on the last day.”
I simply think this is the most natural understanding of the text in context of the chapter book and Bible, in that order. I do not wish to jump out of the text as my first step to understanding it. However I think I have stated my point.
I’ve found the debate to be very refreshing. Finally there’s someone who can stand up to James White on this issue!! Don’t take me wrong, I love James White, he’s my favorite Calvinist and listening to him almost persuadeth me to become a Calvinist. Whenever the Arminian/Calvinist issue comes up in debate he always wins imo. So far I’ve heard or read him debating Dave Hunt, George Bryson/Hank Hannagraff, Lou Ruggerio, Steve Gregg, Norm Geisler, and in each instance these people never seem to have an adaquate answer to his exegesis, either because they don’t know how to debate, or never explored the other side of the issue deep enough, or don’t know how to read their Bible without invoking their particular tradition into the text (either knowingly or unknowingly). I’ve learned alot from James White, and have learned how to follow the text and let that speak for itself. From James, I’ve come to know about Michael Brown and now I’m listening to him about as much as I do James White. I think that Michael and James should have a tag team debating event with whoever wants to take them on. They would make a great dynamic duo.
Harold,
You seem to have not grappled with what I said. I would suggest you go back and read my comments again about the fact that the text speaks of those who have both been draw and come. It indicates that drawing is necessary for someone to come, and that everyone who is drawn and comes gets raised up. But it does not at all say or imply that everyone drawn comes.
You show your misunderstanding when you ask, “If drawing is just necessary but not sufficient, then why is the same “him” who’s drawn also raised up.” But again, the text does not say that everyone drawn gets raised, does it? It says that those who have been drawn *and* come get raised (both drawing and coming have t otake place for there to be rasing). Again, please see my previous comments which you attempted to respond to and read through them carefully.
Maybe an example would help you: “No one can come to my party unless my father invites him, and I will show him a good time.” This does not at all imply that everyone invited came to the party or that the invitation gauranteed someone agreeing to come to the party. It merely means that someone needs to be invited to have the ability to come, and that those who decide to accept the invitation and so come will have a good time. It surely does not mean that everyone invited will have a good time, only those who are invited *and* come.
This logic of the text is so basic and obvious, it is somewhat surpriing that Calvinists often assert that the text says that all whom God draws come. It seems to be the result of Calvinists reading their doctrine into the text — eisegesis.
This logic of the text is so basic and obvious, it is somewhat surpriing that Calvinists often assert that the text says that all whom God draws come. It seems to be the result of Calvinists reading their doctrine into the text — eisegesis.
Exactly. The Arminian reading is so natural while the Calvinist reading is extremely strained, reading concepts into the passage that are simply not there. No where does the text say “all who are drawn are raised”, nor does it say “all who are drawn will come”, nor does it even suggest such things. The Calvinist “exegesis” seems desperate.
Dr. Brown,
I of course believe that God beckons, urges, and even draws them to come to Himself when they do not. You ought to know that I, as a Calvinist, do not think that God does not draw openly and in word preached to people for salvation. The call is, “Come, come, come and be satisfied. Stop drinking from broken cisterns which will never satisfy.” This is what I am constantly doing at my college when I speak with athiests, agnostics, and doubters in general. I of course, I believe God loves to save. It brings Him great joy. And conversely, in brings God great sorrow when people who He has made for His glory will not be satisfied in Him. This is God’s heart for His creatures in particular.
I just do not see the contradiction you see of that with the doctrine that God has complete freedom to save those who He wills, not making Himself dependent in some way on the sinful will of man. I have the courage to do what I do because I know that I can give it all I can, yet even that would not be my own work, but the grace of God working through me. We are to “work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling, BECAUSE it is God working in [us] both *to will* and to work for His good pleasure.” The people who do not come to Jesus because of their sinful un-willingness. This unwillingness comes from their own nature and blindness. Thus, God’s will must be the decisive factor in the salvation of people.
So again, I grant that God desires in a real way all people to be saved, but I do not see why this would contradict His hidden will that every single thing that happens is entirely governed by God and intended by Him to glorify Him. This is why Paul says, “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory– 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?”
The reality of the action of the “what if” is seen in the fact that it happened to “us whom he has called.”
Thanks.
Harold,
Hopefully, you’ll abandon the use of John 6:44 to “prove” irresistible calling, since the text simply doesn’t prove it, and when you go to Romans 9, hopefully you’ll keep reading to the conclusion in Romans 11!
I’ll not belabor the point, but your thesis that everything comes down to God’s will — and therefore His will is always and perfectly done by human beings in terms of salvation — violates scores of biblical texts, as I have said repeatedly. And if you can’t see that, I simply leave you to the grace of God to deepen your understanding of the scriptures, something I pray for myself as well.
It genuinely seems futile for me, at least in my limited time frames, to try to prove to you what is everywhere stated so plainly.
Dr. Brown,
Sorry I meant to say, “You ought to know that I, as a Calvinist, do think that God does not draw openly and in word preached to people for salvation.” I so think that God draws everyone openly, but I am just convinced by the Scriptures at large that He also is able to overcome the sinful heart’s evil will so as to amazingly save the poor sinner.
Thanks.
Dr. Brown,
Actually I had it right the first time, lol, “You ought to know that I, as a Calvinist, do not think that God does not draw openly and in word preached to people for salvation.” That is to say that God does draw the non-elect openly along with the elect, and the non-elect are not saved because of their own sin, not because God pushed them away from salvation.
Folks,
A friend just forwarded this to me, consisting of the comments made by Dr. White on his blog regarding our debate yesterday. You can read them here:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3833
I’ll post them here in case you want to weigh in on them as well in this forum.
I see no reason to interact with his comments further here (aside from the fact that, in the space of 8 minutes, I quoted two paraphrases of Eph 1:11 to save time in the discussion, although I was prepared in my notes to go further, but since Dr. White didn’t get into this verse as much as I thought he would in his initial comments, I didn’t in mine).
Ephesians 1:11 and Bible Translation
from Pros Apologian
James White
Yesterday’s encounter with Dr. Michael Brown was very interesting.
My goal had been to provide an opportunity for the listeners to
compare and contrast the exegesis of the text offered by both sides of this important issue. While that was accomplished to some extent, what ended up happening was more of a contrast of differing methods of exegesis itself, which surprised me. If we had been discussing, say, the resurrection, or the deity of Christ, I doubt there would be any difference at all in the approach. There is value, of course, in this observation, as I have always said that consistency is vital, and if your methodology differs from topic to topic, this is a sign of the intrusion of an extra-biblical tradition. I leave that to the listener to decide.
In any case, the contrast was strongest in our discussion of John
6, followed by Romans 8-9, and was the least divergent in our
discussion of Ephesians 1. But in each situation, an over-riding
concept became the norm of interpretation, a concept I believe derived not from the contextual exegesis of the text itself. This was especially the case in reference to John 6, where I do not believe a contextual exegesis was offered by Dr. Brown. Likewise, the “corporate election” concept over-rode the direct words of Ephesians 1 as well, in my opinion.
Next week will be even more problematic, for Dr. Brown has chosen texts that are not overly disputed on the exegetical level. What they mean is not really difficult to determine. The issue is the
application of the text in a systematic way. And while such discussions are useful, it will not fulfill my specific goal for an
explicitly exegetical discussion. Instead, we will have to move away from the specific texts to larger areas of interaction, which is
pretty much what we did on Dr. Brown’s show as well. So, when we talk about the “all” passages the question will not be “what does the text say” but “does ‘all’ always have a universal application,” which it clearly does not, of course. Or if we talk about 1 John 2:2, the issue will not be “does this teach that Jesus’ death is propitiatory” but “what does propitiation mean” and “does emphasis upon the extent of the atonement indicate it is intended to propitiate the wrath of God against every single human individual, past, present, and future?”
Likewise, in dealing with Ezekiel 18 the question will not be “what
does the text say” as much as “do we have warrant to take this text and extend it to a canon-wide concept that overthrows the plain teaching that God’s decree will be accomplished and He will be glorified therein?”
A few things caught my attention yesterday, though I did not comment on them at the time (we really had to focus given the time limits). One was Dr. Brown’s comments on Ephesians 1:11. What struck me, and others, was his use of the Message and the New Living Translation as supports for his denial that this text encompasses the entirety of God’s sovereign decree. Their “rendering” (I use the term loosely) of the text are as follows:
It’s in Christ that we find out who we are and what we are living for. Long before we first heard of Christ and got our hopes up, he had his eye on us, had designs on us for glorious living, part of the overall purpose he is working out in everything and everyone. (The Message)
Furthermore, because we are united with Christ, we have received an inheritance from God, for he chose us in advance, and he makes everything work out according to his plan. (The New Living
Translation)
The Message, of course, is not a translation at all, and the NLT is
really stretching it to use the term “translation” in its name.
Despite this, the NLT is still accurate in having “he makes everything work out according to his plan.” But scholarly translations are consistent in their rendering of the text:
having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, (NASB)
since we were predestined according to the one purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will (NET)
having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will; (ASV)
having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, (ESV)
being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, (NKJV)
predestined according to the purpose of the One who works out
everything in agreement with the decision of His will, (HCSB)
having been destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will, (NRSV)
The underlying text is not overly difficult to translate. The apostle tells us that this predestination, which had been mentioned in verse 5 (a predestination that is clearly personal in nature, as is
shown by the personal direct object), is not the result of fatalism.
It is not an arbitrary thing. It has a sound basis, that being the
purpose or plan of God. God’s eternal decree, by which He governs the universe, stands behind this act of predestination. But to emphasize the point, Paul speaks as the prophets of old in describing the King, the God he serves. His purpose will be accomplished because of who He is: the one working “all things” according to the council of His own will. It is easy to say, “Oh, that does not mean all things, it means some things—those things outside the control of autonomous men,” but how would such an interpretation ground the apostle’s argument? In reality, such a reading would undo the apostle’s point, which has been, from the start of the argument in Ephesians 1:3, to ground the entirety of one’s salvation and status in the work of the divine will and purpose. One hardly needs to mention the depravity and slavery of man’s will (contra the concept of autonomy) in this context, for the apostle has nowhere left room for the insertion of man’s will to begin with. The consistent, contextual reading of these words provides no inherent limitation to the “all things” that lie under His power and sovereign decree. He truly does work all things after the council of His will, which is why the entirety of His work is to the “praise of His glorious grace” (v. 6).
This is the kind of exegetical discussion that I seek when pursuing
this subject, for it is the consistent consideration of the argument
of the Word that drives men and women to bow the knee for the King of Heaven, to whom belongs all glory and power and honor.
Dr. Brown,
I simply am saying that I so not see the contradiction between God’s general call to salvation and His efectual call. I say so because it seems to me that you are not disproving that God has an eternal decree, but simply assuming a contradiction in these two things, and therefore not allowing the text to speak for its self. This is why I ask you to show such a contradiction from the word rather than assuming one.
Anyone may feel free to do so.
It seems as if the Calvinist wants to judge the intention of the heart prematurely, and attrubute such to God’s magnetism so to speak–at least where there is a conversion experience as is professed through the time of death of a saint. If that is reneged earlier, after a faith profession, then it never happened according to this theology. This seems very convenient as to having the process figured out.
Could this be catagorized under the intellectual personality’s valued priority of working from a mind lust for totality, or one human tendency on having explanations for anything and everything, or simply to the need to know? It seems like a core question, no matter what one holds to, is why do we need to know these completely unknowable answers with absolute certainty (where we literally can only know in part until confirmed by a heavenly affirmation of that person’s presence there, as eventually witnessed as such)?
By also advancing attributing the actions involved of the Holy Spirit as foreknowing what God will achieve in seeking and finding a confessing new believer and sustaining that one, or not, aren’t we smart!
“DOCTRINE OF THE GOODNESS OF GOD.”
I like this better, “The doctrine of God’s honorable character.”
What is achieved and answered by either point of view, which wouldn’t be if unexamined?
Harold,
Where do you get the premise that God has a general call
and an effectual call?