Banner

"...if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10). (Council of Orange: Canon 6)

Contributors

  • Rev. John Samson
  • Rev. David Thommen (URC)
  • John Hendryx
  • Marco Gonzalez

    We are a community of confessing believers who love the gospel of Jesus Christ, affirm the Biblical and Christ-exalting truths of the Reformation such as the five solas, the doctrines of grace, monergistic regeneration, and the redemptive historical approach to interpreting the Scriptures.

    top250.jpg

    Community Websites

    Monergism Books on Facebook

    Blogroll

    Latest Posts

    Categories

    Archives

    Ministry Links

  • « Dr. James White - "Does Reformed Theology Matter?" | Main | DVD Review: Does the Bible Misquote Jesus?, Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. James White (Debate) »

    Arminianism's Depersonalization of the Gospel

    Below, in a youtube video (lasting approximately 20 minutes), here is Dr. James White teaching a class from Romans 8:31ff, asking the question, who is being referred to as the "us" in this passage?... nameless faceless people? Is it everyone who lives or has ever lived? Is it a specific group? Is Paul referring to the same group all the way through the passage? What are the implications? Who is Christ interceding for? Is it a group that has people entering and leaving (gaining salvation and then losing it)? Is it "me" IF I fulfill certain conditions? Does Christ fail to save some of those He is interceding for? An interesting unveiling concerning the impersonal nature of Arminian theology and salvation showing the huge implications of a man centered theology and the great cost of losing the personal promises and the deep and abiding assurance this passage is meant to bring to the people of God:

    Posted by John Samson on August 28, 2009 11:40 AM

    Comments

    James White seems to have not grasped William Craig's position at all. Craig is not a classical Arminian but a Molinistic Arminian. White's 'depersonalization' argument works only against certain forms of classical Arminianism but certainly not Craig's position. Craig has no problem affirming that God knows the elect individually before the creation of the world. He even affirms that once a person is saved, God will successfully see to it that he perseveres to the end. His molinistic understanding of election allows for that. Moreover, Craig is against the classical Arminian position. He thinks that it is simply unattainable in light of the Scriptural witness. It's disappointing to hear White criticize Craig on grounds of a position Craig himself is against!!

    Post a comment

    Please enter the letter "z" in the field below: