Showing posts with label James White. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James White. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Friday, August 9, 2013
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Limited Atonement in Hebrews: A Continued Response to James White
On today's program, I continued the discussion of limited atonement by finishing my review of a lecture by Dr. James White on the subject. The discussion centered on the book of Hebrews, and the high priestly prayer of John 17.
Here is the program.
James White is director of Alpha and Omega ministries and elder at Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. His website can be found here.
Here is the program.
James White is director of Alpha and Omega ministries and elder at Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. His website can be found here.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Response to James White on Limited Atonement
Response to James White
On today's program, I continued my refutation of Limited Atonement by responding to a lecture on the issue by Dr. James White. James White is a Reformed baptist theologian, apologist, and elder and the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries.
There were some issues with the sound, and my voice was sped up in some places. For someone who does Podcasting and blogging, I am not very technologically savvy, so I apologize for that.
On today's program, I continued my refutation of Limited Atonement by responding to a lecture on the issue by Dr. James White. James White is a Reformed baptist theologian, apologist, and elder and the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries.
There were some issues with the sound, and my voice was sped up in some places. For someone who does Podcasting and blogging, I am not very technologically savvy, so I apologize for that.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
A Response to James White on 2 Peter 2:1
"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves." (2 Peter 2:1)
This verse, as claimed by Michael Brown, is saying that these false teachers, according to Peter, deny Jesus Christ who bought them through the cross. This seems to be the obvious meaning of the text. Dr. White initially had two responses to this interpretation of the text.
1. The word despotes is not used in reference to Jesus Christ. It is a term referring to the Father. While I admit that this is a common term in reference to the Father in the Septuagint, it is false to assert that this is never a reference to Jesus. There is another reference in the book of Jude, "For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." (Jude 4) The word translated as "Sovereign" is despoten.
It is worth pointing out that Peter and Jude have almost identical language in many places. They are likely writing against the same group of false teachers. All New Testament scholars agree that either Jude relied heavily on the text of 2 Peter, or 2 Peter relied on Jude.
Not only is this word used in an epistle addressing the same or a similar matter; it is in fact in a parallel statement. They are both writing an introduction to these false teachers who have secretly introduced heresy into the fellowship. Peter refers to those who "deny the Lord who bought them", while Jude refers to those who, "deny Jesus Christ our only sovereign and Lord." If Jude wrote after Peter, which is most likely, he had Peter's epistle in front of him as he used the same term. If Peter was referring to the Father, Jude most likely misread Peter.
2. It is claimed that the term "bought" is a referencing to the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt. Deuteronomy 32:6 refers to God as the one who "bought" them. However, the term used in the Septuagint in this verse is not agorazo, the term used by Peter. There is no direct parallel here. Observe the other instances of this word through out the New Testament:
1 Cor. 6:20 - you have been bought with a price
1 Cor. 7:23 - you were bought with a price
Rev. 5:9 - Thou . . . didst purchase. . . men from every tribe, tongue and people
Rev. 14:3 - who had been purchased from the earth
Rev. 14:4 - These have been purchased from among men
These verses refer to the atonement, not to deliverance from the Exodus. The argument that James makes regarding this, is that all the other times the word is used in reference to the atonement, there is a price included. This argument does not hold water. It would not be necessary for Peter to include "for a price" for his readers to understand his meaning. They would have automatically thought of the redemption bought by Christ. Here are three reasons why:
1. Peter's audience was not exclusively Jewish. Thus, the Jews redemption from Egypt would not have been on their mind.
2. Exodus language was now used in early Christian tradition to refer to the death of Christ and the age of the church. Peter for examples refers to Christians as exiles, priests, etc. Paul uses the crossing of the Red Sea as a symbol of redemption bought by Christ.
3. The heresy that these men brought does not seem to be "denying the Father" but denying Jesus. This is why Peter has to remind his readers that what he told them about Christ was not a "cleverly devised myth." (1:16) They apparently denied the majesty of Christ. (1:17) He also needs to defend the fact that Christ is actually coming back in chapter 3, thus they also denied his return.
There is simply no reason to assume that Peter was making a reference to the Exodus here. It can only be read into the text because of a preexisting theological system. We all come to the text with presuppositions Dr. White, even you.
This verse, as claimed by Michael Brown, is saying that these false teachers, according to Peter, deny Jesus Christ who bought them through the cross. This seems to be the obvious meaning of the text. Dr. White initially had two responses to this interpretation of the text.
1. The word despotes is not used in reference to Jesus Christ. It is a term referring to the Father. While I admit that this is a common term in reference to the Father in the Septuagint, it is false to assert that this is never a reference to Jesus. There is another reference in the book of Jude, "For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." (Jude 4) The word translated as "Sovereign" is despoten.
It is worth pointing out that Peter and Jude have almost identical language in many places. They are likely writing against the same group of false teachers. All New Testament scholars agree that either Jude relied heavily on the text of 2 Peter, or 2 Peter relied on Jude.
Not only is this word used in an epistle addressing the same or a similar matter; it is in fact in a parallel statement. They are both writing an introduction to these false teachers who have secretly introduced heresy into the fellowship. Peter refers to those who "deny the Lord who bought them", while Jude refers to those who, "deny Jesus Christ our only sovereign and Lord." If Jude wrote after Peter, which is most likely, he had Peter's epistle in front of him as he used the same term. If Peter was referring to the Father, Jude most likely misread Peter.
2. It is claimed that the term "bought" is a referencing to the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt. Deuteronomy 32:6 refers to God as the one who "bought" them. However, the term used in the Septuagint in this verse is not agorazo, the term used by Peter. There is no direct parallel here. Observe the other instances of this word through out the New Testament:
1 Cor. 6:20 - you have been bought with a price
1 Cor. 7:23 - you were bought with a price
Rev. 5:9 - Thou . . . didst purchase. . . men from every tribe, tongue and people
Rev. 14:3 - who had been purchased from the earth
Rev. 14:4 - These have been purchased from among men
These verses refer to the atonement, not to deliverance from the Exodus. The argument that James makes regarding this, is that all the other times the word is used in reference to the atonement, there is a price included. This argument does not hold water. It would not be necessary for Peter to include "for a price" for his readers to understand his meaning. They would have automatically thought of the redemption bought by Christ. Here are three reasons why:
1. Peter's audience was not exclusively Jewish. Thus, the Jews redemption from Egypt would not have been on their mind.
2. Exodus language was now used in early Christian tradition to refer to the death of Christ and the age of the church. Peter for examples refers to Christians as exiles, priests, etc. Paul uses the crossing of the Red Sea as a symbol of redemption bought by Christ.
3. The heresy that these men brought does not seem to be "denying the Father" but denying Jesus. This is why Peter has to remind his readers that what he told them about Christ was not a "cleverly devised myth." (1:16) They apparently denied the majesty of Christ. (1:17) He also needs to defend the fact that Christ is actually coming back in chapter 3, thus they also denied his return.
There is simply no reason to assume that Peter was making a reference to the Exodus here. It can only be read into the text because of a preexisting theological system. We all come to the text with presuppositions Dr. White, even you.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
A Response to James White on 1 John 2:2
Last week James White had a radio debate with Arminian Pentecostal scholar Dr. Michael Brown over the subject of Calvinism. Through out most of the debate, I found myself cheering on Dr. White. However, when Dr. Brown presented a couple of texts, 1 John 2:2 "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." and 2 Peter 2:1 "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves."
Dr. Brown brought up the point that the term world never means "the elect" in the many times John uses the word through out this epistle. While I don't think Dr. White was saying that world means specifically "the elect" Dr. Brown made a good argument. Through out the epistle, the word "world" means either the sin of the present age, the present evil age itself, or the people belonging to this evil age. Thus, why, in this one place would John mean "all ethnicities" or "many people through out all time?"
When presented with this argument, Dr. White said that the definition of the word "world" was irrelevant for his argument. This is because the term propitiation means the turning away of wrath, thus it must refer only to specific people, or else God has no wrath toward anyone and ultimately everyone will be saved.
I was disappointed that Dr. White did not deal with the term "world." I do not believe it is irrelevant to the argument, and I would like to hear how he, in the context, would interpret this term as meaning only some people of all ethnicities. In the text, "world" is contrasted with "us." Thus, the "world" must be different from the "us." So who is John writing to? One argument says to Jews. Thus, John would be saying that Christ died not only for the sins of Jews, but for the sins of gentiles. However, there is no evidence in the text that John was writing to only Jews. This is why it is considered one of the "catholic epistles." David Wells argues that "world" means "Christians of all times." However, I see no evidence that kosmos could have this type of meaning. If this is really a catholic epistle, the "us" must refer to all believers, thus "world" must refer to unbelievers.
As for Dr. White's argument for the term propitiation; I do not believe that it would necessitate universalism. Can one have Christ as their propitiator and yet be under the wrath of God? I would argue yes, and that Dr. White believes this as well. I would like to ask Dr. White, before the Spirit created saving faith in his heart, was he under the wrath and curse of God? Unless he believed in eternal justification, which he does not, he must admit that he was at one time under God's wrath. Was God's wrath against him propitiated? If he is one of the elect, then he must answer in the affirmative. I would ask Dr. White, how can Christ propitiate the wrath of God for you if you were at some point still under the wrath of God? Is this just because you did not have faith? But isn't unbelief one of the sins that Christ died for?
My point is, even Dr. White must admit that the redemption accomplished by Christ must be applied through faith before it benefits the one for whom it was paid. Thus, in the same way, Christ propitiated the wrath of God for the sins of all men. However, the benefit of that must be received by faith. Thus, if one does not have Spirit created faith, he does not benefit from the work of Christ, though it may have been given for him.
Think about the sacrifices of the old covenant. The sacrifices were given for the nation as a whole. However, only those who drew near would benefit from its blessings. It was objectively given for the entire nation, however, it had to be received subjectively for one to receive the benefits. Now, with the death and resurrection of Christ, the objective work he performed on earth is given for all people of all nations objectively. However, as in the old covenant, one must draw near to God through faith to receive its benefits.
Dr. Brown brought up the point that the term world never means "the elect" in the many times John uses the word through out this epistle. While I don't think Dr. White was saying that world means specifically "the elect" Dr. Brown made a good argument. Through out the epistle, the word "world" means either the sin of the present age, the present evil age itself, or the people belonging to this evil age. Thus, why, in this one place would John mean "all ethnicities" or "many people through out all time?"
When presented with this argument, Dr. White said that the definition of the word "world" was irrelevant for his argument. This is because the term propitiation means the turning away of wrath, thus it must refer only to specific people, or else God has no wrath toward anyone and ultimately everyone will be saved.
I was disappointed that Dr. White did not deal with the term "world." I do not believe it is irrelevant to the argument, and I would like to hear how he, in the context, would interpret this term as meaning only some people of all ethnicities. In the text, "world" is contrasted with "us." Thus, the "world" must be different from the "us." So who is John writing to? One argument says to Jews. Thus, John would be saying that Christ died not only for the sins of Jews, but for the sins of gentiles. However, there is no evidence in the text that John was writing to only Jews. This is why it is considered one of the "catholic epistles." David Wells argues that "world" means "Christians of all times." However, I see no evidence that kosmos could have this type of meaning. If this is really a catholic epistle, the "us" must refer to all believers, thus "world" must refer to unbelievers.
As for Dr. White's argument for the term propitiation; I do not believe that it would necessitate universalism. Can one have Christ as their propitiator and yet be under the wrath of God? I would argue yes, and that Dr. White believes this as well. I would like to ask Dr. White, before the Spirit created saving faith in his heart, was he under the wrath and curse of God? Unless he believed in eternal justification, which he does not, he must admit that he was at one time under God's wrath. Was God's wrath against him propitiated? If he is one of the elect, then he must answer in the affirmative. I would ask Dr. White, how can Christ propitiate the wrath of God for you if you were at some point still under the wrath of God? Is this just because you did not have faith? But isn't unbelief one of the sins that Christ died for?
My point is, even Dr. White must admit that the redemption accomplished by Christ must be applied through faith before it benefits the one for whom it was paid. Thus, in the same way, Christ propitiated the wrath of God for the sins of all men. However, the benefit of that must be received by faith. Thus, if one does not have Spirit created faith, he does not benefit from the work of Christ, though it may have been given for him.
Think about the sacrifices of the old covenant. The sacrifices were given for the nation as a whole. However, only those who drew near would benefit from its blessings. It was objectively given for the entire nation, however, it had to be received subjectively for one to receive the benefits. Now, with the death and resurrection of Christ, the objective work he performed on earth is given for all people of all nations objectively. However, as in the old covenant, one must draw near to God through faith to receive its benefits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)