Exactly what i have been warning about. It will get worse.think Mr. White does himself no favors by debating Steve without Steve being present. This is exactly what Mr. white is doing on his show. It seems rather cowardly to me. I personal want to see this debate happen, but in the mean time Mr. White is getting in every cheap shot he can.
Thank you,
Robin
"Ordained" to eternal life (Acts 13:48)
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:58 pm
- Location: NC
I
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53 pm
think Mr. White does himself no favors by debating Steve without Steve being present. This is exactly what Mr. white is doing on his show. It seems rather cowardly to me. I personal want to see this debate happen, but in the mean time Mr. White is getting in every cheap shot he can.
Well, I guess we are seeing the fruit of Mr. white.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Robin, it is certainly true that what you just posted attacks Dr White's conclusion. But it does not seem to be even aware of his argument.roblaine wrote:Jugulum,
Yes, I did listen to the broadcast that AOMin posted earlier. The reason I posted the remarks from John Wesley's explanatory notes, is because he attacks Mr. White's whole argument when he wrote:
"13:48 As many as were ordained to eternal life - St. Luke does not say fore - ordained. He is not speaking of what was done from eternity, but of what was then done, through the preaching of the Gospel. He is describing that ordination, and that only, which was at the very time of hearing it. During this sermon those believed, says the apostle, to whom God then gave power to believe. It is as if he had said, "They believed, whose hearts the Lord opened;"
John Wesley points out that the word used is not foreordained or pre-destines, but rather "ordained to eternal life".
The Greek word for ordained (as Mr. White points out) is "tasso".
A prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses); to arrange in an orderly manner, i.e. assign or dispose (to a certain position or lot)
the word for pre-destined is "proorizo".
From pro and horizo; to limit in advance, i.e. (figuratively) predetermine
determine before, ordain, predestinate.
Mr. White offers nothing new under the sun. It’s the typical argument that Calvinists use to defend their position.
What do I mean by that?
The reason I first posted is that I remembered that in the broadcast, he discussed the grammar of the sentence. I just looked it up, and that discussion starts just before the 18 minute mark. He says the whole clause is a "pluperfect periphrastic construction", and this means it's a completed, past action; he says that the grammar means the ordaining/disposing/whatever had happened earlier. (I'm not qualified to judge whether he's correct, I'm just trying to faithfully state what his argument was.)
He did not argue that tasso means predestined.
I want to repeat that. Dr White did not argue that tasso means predestined.
So when you say that tasso isn't the word for pre-destined...Well, fine. How does that tell you that White's argument from the grammar is wrong?
That was why I first posted. Your quote from Wesley does not say anything about the grammar. So I said that White had argued based on the grammar--how does Wesley "take apart the exegesis" when the exegesis is about the grammar and Wesley didn't say anything about the grammar?
I agree that James White isn't doing himself any favors by presenting his arguments before the debate. I do think he's doing favors for Steve and everyone who will listen to the upcoming debate.I think Mr. White does himself no favors by debating Steve without Steve being present. This is exactly what Mr. white is doing on his show. It seems rather cowardly to me. I personal want to see this debate happen, but in the mean time Mr. White is getting in every cheap shot he can.
It might be cowardice if James criticized someone without that person having the opportunity to respond--if he avoided situations where he would be held accountable for his words. But...They have an upcoming debate!
A similar topic came up a couple weeks ago on his show. Dr White has an debate in October with the Muslim apologist Shabir Ally: "Was Jesus Christ Crucified As A Willing Sacrifice For The Sins Of God's People?" He has spent some time on the show playing and responding to excerpts from one of Ally's previous debates on the subject. But he knows that Shabir does tune in to the show, so it's like he's revealing his poker hand. At one point, he says, "The question, then, would be 'Why then tell Shabir Ally what you're going to say?'" (Here's the broadcast, and jump to about 14:20.) He explained, "You want a debate to be between the best of two sides."
In other words, it looks like James and Steve are going to be debating soon--they both want to, and are working out the details. If James kept silent until then, he could try to catch Steve off-guard with "new" arguments that Steve might not have encountered before. (OK, fine, I'm sure you don't think James has presented anything new. I'm not arguing that here.) As it is, Steve can listen, consider, and have the best possible counter-arguments prepared. That's great for all of us! I don't want anyone to "score points" artificially. I want them both to be familiar with each other's arguments beforehand, and I want them to present their best cases, their best efforts at exegesis & critique.
So, I'm glad James isn't trying to cling to the unfair advantage of having listened to Steve's presentation and knowing what he's going to encounter.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
Amen to the above post.
Is it just me or did that last post seem so reasonable and balanced, that anyone could even dare to critique what was said?
Knowing how James prepares for his debates, I am really glad that he gives his opponents every possible opportunity to interact with his arguments!
It is just so "not the norm", and yet he is getting denounced for it by SSS!
Simply amazing. What is wrong with this picture?
The argument regarding Acts above has not been dealt with, but I do look forward to hearing Steve Gregg deal with it in debate.
That is something I look forward to.
I also thank Jugulum for spelling out exactly what I was alluding to. I was asking for a response to what Dr White had stated, to see if "anyone" would actually bother to find out his argument and "then" attempt to take it apart.
Thus far, it hasn't happened.
Mark
Is it just me or did that last post seem so reasonable and balanced, that anyone could even dare to critique what was said?
Knowing how James prepares for his debates, I am really glad that he gives his opponents every possible opportunity to interact with his arguments!
It is just so "not the norm", and yet he is getting denounced for it by SSS!
Simply amazing. What is wrong with this picture?
The argument regarding Acts above has not been dealt with, but I do look forward to hearing Steve Gregg deal with it in debate.
That is something I look forward to.
I also thank Jugulum for spelling out exactly what I was alluding to. I was asking for a response to what Dr White had stated, to see if "anyone" would actually bother to find out his argument and "then" attempt to take it apart.
Thus far, it hasn't happened.
Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:58 pm
- Location: NC
The "argument" was dealt with by a REAL Greek scholar, Dean Henry Alford over 100 years ago! White brings the same old arguments, nothing new, unless he plans on making things up as he goes along. Anyone can do that.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Oh? How did Alford deal with it? If you don't know, do you happen to know where I could find it?Super Sola Scriptura wrote:The "argument" was dealt with by a REAL Greek scholar, Dean Henry Alford over 100 years ago! White brings the same old arguments, nothing new, unless he plans on making things up as he goes along. Anyone can do that.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:58 pm
- Location: NC
I think I remember where it was posted, I'll look and put it up.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
OK. If he argues the verb should be read as a middle (as many as disposed themselves), it will be interesting to see if he addresses the lack of a reflexive pronoun. Or he may say something like Robin & Wesley's comments. Either way, it will be interesting to see if he addresses the time aspects of the grammar--when it happened.Super Sola Scriptura wrote:I think I remember where it was posted, I'll look and put it up.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
You can find Alford's comments here:
http://www.mission.org/jesuspeople/translations.pdf
As pointed out, Augustine erroneously followed the Vulgate whereas the Greek fathers followed the original Greek and did not fall into the errors of Calvinism.
Regarding Acts 13:48, if it supports the Calvinist doctrine, why does Paul previously berate the Jews for rejecting the Gospel? Would he not have recognized that they were prevented from doing so by a decree of God? Why blame the Jews for anything? They were just doing what they were programed to do.
http://www.mission.org/jesuspeople/translations.pdf
As pointed out, Augustine erroneously followed the Vulgate whereas the Greek fathers followed the original Greek and did not fall into the errors of Calvinism.
Regarding Acts 13:48, if it supports the Calvinist doctrine, why does Paul previously berate the Jews for rejecting the Gospel? Would he not have recognized that they were prevented from doing so by a decree of God? Why blame the Jews for anything? They were just doing what they were programed to do.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:58 pm
- Location: NC
That's a good article, but it doesn't give Alford's entire discussion. And I can't seem to find it, but I'll keep looking.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: