Consistent Hermeneutics (??)

Post by **__id_2620** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 5:34 pm

Hello,

I am compelled to respond to something James White said during today's program (4/4).

He opened the show stating he used a "consistant Hermeneutic". I am sorry, but when he said that my eyes just rolled to the back of my head!

James does not use consistency while interpreting the bible. After observation of some of what he teaches, this becomes evident in the classic "unlimited atonement" passages such as 1Tim 2:3-6, Heb 2:9, John 3:16, Rom 5:18-19, etc.

Here is the crux of what I mean. In the passages that say "all have sinned" (which I believe) and passages that say "the world is guilty" James is quick to jump on the "all have" wagon. Yet in the classic "unlimited atonement" passages as some listed above, suddenly "all men" mysteriously and magically turns into "some men", and the "world"(John 3:16) suddenly doesn't mean the world when he want's to jump on the "limited atonement" wagon! And this is a consistent hermeneutic?? In other words, passages that proclaim all mens guilt, James is quick to jump on, yet passages that clearly say God wants all to be saved-well suddenly all does not mean all, and world does not mean world- and this is consistency? NO, it is selective consistency.

James also said on today's program "he does not like to go to other texts" that are not part of the texts subject. Well, this is inconsistent once again on his part. Just listen to him or another Calvinist explain away passages that clearly say God wills all to be saved. They have to drag other texts into texts to support their view rather than just let the text speak for itself.

In Christ, Greg

Post by **_Allyn** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:02 am

I listened to the April 4 broadcast today and a thought struck me that may side with Calvinism (although I do not hold to that doctrine). It concerns the general purpose of creation being God brings glory to Himself through the things He has made. It struck me that God really was taking a calculated risk that mankind would not bring glory to Him because of free choice. If not one single person choose to obey and love God and His Son then there could not be any glory to Him. Therefore it seems logical to me that God forordained that a select number would always be before Him in obedience and faithfulness therefore demonstrating to the whole world that God is love, He is just, and that by His creation glory will perpetually be His through His creation from one generation to the next.

Post by **_darin-houston** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:27 am

Therefore it seems logical to me that God forordained that a select number would always be before Him in obedience and faithfulness therefore demonstrating to the whole world that God is love, He is just, and that by His creation glory will perpetually be His through His creation from one generation to the next.

This is a common criticism from Calvinists -- and I have dwelt on this topic considerably. I think it's possible that there may have been a small group of decreed elect, but that it's not the normative way God deals with His people.

That said, I don't think it's a necessary position -- one could also say that view is not as respectful of God's sovereignty and Holiness as the Arminian view since it doesn't "trust" the attractiveness of God's grace. With billions of people, only one who doesn't think God's grace is "likely" to be responded to (even if resistable) just doesn't have a very high view of God in my opinion. God may take chances, but so does the house in Vegas (the chances are theoretical only since the odds are so stacked).

God also has the option to compel people if it's not "working out" though I don't think that's necessary (though one could argue that Paul's conversion might come close).

Post by **_Michelle** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 12:29 pm

Allyn and Darin,

I should probably know this but I don't, so I'm asking. Why would God's glory be diminished if no one chose to obey God? At the time of Noah there were only 8 and when Eve reached out an took the fruit and then later gave some to Adam, that was everyone, right? No one was left at that moment who obeyed God.

Post by **_darin-houston** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:29 pm

I should probably know this but I don't, so I'm asking. Why would God's glory be diminished if no one chose to obey God?

The concern they would express is that if God's ultimate plans for creation could be thwarted (even in theory), then God isn't very powerful.

Post by **_Paidion** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:41 pm

Great point, Michelle!

Yes, God created for His glory. It was risky to create man with a free will, even as He had a free will. It is theoretically possible for all people to reject Him, and in reality a small minority submit to Christ, and glorify God. Even if no more do so, God gets glory.

But if all things are eventually reconciled to God, as I believe the Scriptures teach, then God will receive the greatest glory of all! When this great plan of the ages is realized, all will glorify God for his ultimate transcendent achievement!

Post by **_Homer** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:16 pm

Paidion wrote:

But if all things are eventually reconciled to God, as I believe the Scriptures teach, then God will receive the greatest glory of all! When this great plan of the ages is realized, all will glorify God for his ultimate transcendent achievement!

In Steve's replies to Dr. White I was stuck by the thought that his rebuttal applied equally well to Calvinism and Universalism. Both are deterministic systems. In Calvinism, its the elect, in Universalism, its everyone.

By the way, Steve has a huge advantage in the debate. White made a blunder from the get-go that great debaters of times past took great care to avoid. Anyone guess what it is? I do not want to let the "cat out of the bag" before the debate is over.

Post by **__id_2620** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:57 am

By the way, Steve has a huge advantage in the debate. White made a blunder from the get-go that great debaters of times past took great care to avoid. Anyone guess what it is? I do not want to let the "cat out of the bag" before the debate is over.

Hmmmmmm? You have me curious on this one.

Post by **_Allyn** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:03 am

MichelleM wrote:Allyn and Darin,

I should probably know this but I don't, so I'm asking. Why would God's glory be diminished if no one chose to obey God? At the time of Noah there were only 8 and when Eve reached out an took the fruit and then later gave some to Adam, that was everyone, right? No one was left at that moment who obeyed God.

I don't believe His glory diminishes at all on anything that even remotely looks like a failure for God. Instead It is increased. God is truth and He tells us what happens when people sin. When they sin then His glory is revealed because of His truth. It gopes on and on like this.

My statement was to simply show that the arguement can, and has been made that unles He has a remnant His glory cannot be shown. I said I did not believe this doctrine but was pointing it out that it is used.

I agree with Paidion, it was a great question, Michelle.

Post by **_darin-houston** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:50 pm

By the way, Steve has a huge advantage in the debate. White made a blunder from the get-go that great debaters of times past took great care to avoid. Anyone guess what it is? I do not want to let the "cat out of the bag" before the debate is over.

I think it's fair to say it wouldn't hurt at this point to tell us what you're talking about.