Robert Sungenis: The following is a response to Dr. James White's rebuttal to my rebuttal posted on March 16, 2001.

My current responses, dated March 28, 2001, will be prefaced by "R. Sungenis 2," will be in blue and numbered.

My comments from the previous rebuttal will be in gray.

Excerpts that I have drawn from later parts of this rebuttal will be in red.

An Excellent Example of Sola Ecclesia: John 6 and Exegesis

James White

(1) R. Sungenis 2: By "Sola Ecclesia" I believe Dr. White is trying to say that he thinks I get my information only from the Catholic Church. In response, let me say a few things. First, the Catholic Church believes Scripture, Tradition and the Church are equally coexisting authorities (whereas Protestants believe Scripture alone is inerrant, thus "sola scriptura"). From that premise alone, "sola ecclesia" is inappropriate.

Second, it is a simple fact of history that those who hold to the doctrine I espouse are not only from the Catholic Church. Dr. White has plenty of opponents in his own Protestant denominations who believe something very similar to what the Catholic Church believes regarding Predestination and Free Will. In fact, while Dr. White calls himself a "Reformed Baptist," there is a denomination which calls itself "Free Will Baptist." In fact, the majority of Protestant denominations repudiate Dr. White's view of absolute predestination as being thoroughly unbiblical (Note: "Absolute predestination" is the view that God predestined some men to heaven and the rest to Hell, the former without regard to their Free Will, and in most versions, the latter without regard to their sin).

Third, in my rebuttals to Dr. White, now amassing close to 100 pages, I think I mentioned the Catholic Church only once, which came in a quote from the Catholic Catechism, para. 600: "To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination,' he includes in it each person's free response to his grace." So, again, with only one citation to the Church, the use of "sola ecclesia" is not at all applicable to this present discussion. Ninety-nine percent of me rebuttal is based on an exegesis of the biblical text.

Turning the tables, however, I must warn the reader that, throughout his responses, Dr. White is prone to one very serious, persistent, and devastating error. Every time Dr. White reads a passage of Scripture which speaks of divine action in regards to salvation, he automatically assumes that the passage is either denying or excluding man's Free Will. You will see this throughout his writing. You will also see that another reason Dr. White finds it impossible to accept any other view than the one he now holds is that, apart from any Scripture he brings forth, he thinks it is logically impossible to believe that predestination and free will can coincide. This is noted in an exchange we have later in the debate, but I will give an excerpt from it here:

[[Sungenis: This is an important point: the problem with Dr. White's theology is that in his attempt to save the sovereignty of God he inadvertently makes God unsovereign. In Dr. White's theology, the only way God can be sovereign is if He overpowers man into believing against his will. The Catholic God is much more sovereign than that, since the Catholic God is the one who remains sovereign and controls all the events of history with respect to, or in spite of, man's free will. As the Catholic Catechism says so aptly, "To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of 'predestination,' he includes in it each person's free response to his grace." (Para 600).

White: "And parallel railroad tracks "meet" in eternity, too, right? No, parallel railroad tracks, should they ever meet, will result in a train crash. Rome may use high-sounding words to attempt to mix the unmixable, but that doesn't make the result rational. Either God saves perfectly, or He reacts solely to the decisions of finite creatures. Every attempt to rob God of His freedom and subject Him to His creatures has failed, as this one does as well."]]

(2) In answer to Dr. White, I explain later in this paper that such a position is self-refuting, since even Dr. White and the Calvinists must believe that Adam, before he sinned, had a genuine Free Will that coincided with God's foreknowledge and foreordination of all events. The Calvinists cannot explain how this "mixing of the unmixable" is possible, nevertheless, they must believe it exists. Unless Dr. White claims to be a supralapsarian Calvinist (a Calvinist who says that Adam really had no free will, such that Adam committed sin because God foreordained him to commit it, and that God predestined the non-elect to Hell but not based on their sin but on His own choice and pleasure), then he really has no room to say that a theology which seeks to coincide predestination and free will is not "rational." If Dr. White is an infralapsarian, then he believes that God took into account Adam's free will prior to His ordaining of predestination. If so, then Dr. White would have to agree that predestination and free will can be mixed.

Another issue will be helpful in understanding this debate. As you know, Dr. White and I spend a lot of time arguing about the meaning of the Greek verb tenses in John 6. Later in this paper Dr. White and I have an exchange on the use of the Greek perfect tense in John 6:39 ("has given to Me" or "have been given to Me"). Dr. White's contention is that this perfect tense (which, generally speaking, is a tense in Greek that refers to a previous event with continuing effects into the future) refers to the eternal predestination plan of God by which, in the distant past, all the elect and all of the damned were chosen before the earth was ever created and before man was ever created, without regard to free will. I'll pick up the dialogue in the tail end of my remarks:

Sungenis: [[...To claim that the perfect tense is saying that all the people in view, prior to the events in John 6, have already been given is a total distortion of the text. There is simply no referent for the perfect tense that confines its beginning to the primordial past. If such a referent IS there, I challenge Dr. White to show us where it is.

White: Let's think about it a moment. "It is the boss' will that of all the accounts that have been given to you, Mr. Jones, you lose none of them, but cause them to increase in sales." Is there anyone who would for a moment suggest that what is actually being said here is that these accounts will be given to Mr. Jones at a future point? Remember, Jesus is identifying the Father's will for Him. Is Mr. Sungenis suggesting that the Father's will for the Son was unknown to the Son prior to the Incarnation, for example? If the will was, in fact, known, then does it not follow inevitably that the action of "giving" here carries its normal sense? The perfect tense, especially when used in speech, refers normally to a completed action in the past with abiding results to the present. Upon what principle---contextual or grammatical---does Mr. Sungenis suggest the possibility that we should translate the passage so that it allows for, "of all that shall be given to Me"?

Sungenis: Dr. White still hasn't proven his contention. Let's say that the boss still has accounts to give to Mr. Jones. In fact, the boss will be giving accounts to Mr. Jones until the day the boss' firm goes out of business, which we'll call "the last day." In this case, we can still say, "It is the boss' will that of all the accounts that have been given to you, Mr. Jones, you lose none of them, but turn them in on the last day." (Notice I had to change the last clause to keep it in conformity to the stipulations in John 6:39, and that Dr. White's clause "but cause them to increase in sales" favors the placement of the perfect tense to his own perspective). It is easy to see how the perfect tense ("have been given to you") can change its time reference based on the time referent in which it is placed. If "have been given" is placed in a time-frame that begins in the past but transpires for a long period of time, then obviously we cannot confine it to a one-time act in the past. This is because verb tenses are not independent entities in themselves. They are subject to the other tenses and thoughts that are in the verse they are placed, and in the context of the verses surrounding them. This is especially true, since Jesus, in John 6:37, uses the present tense instead of the perfect tense in John 6:39, showing that the perfect tense in John 6:39 is not absolute by any means. Thus, this is why I keep saying that Dr. White is abusing the perfect tense of the Greek in order to support his Calvinistic beliefs. He cannot prove that it is being used in the way he is claiming that it is being used.]]

(3) One more issue that will be helpful is the interchange Dr. White and I had regarding the "perfection" of Christ. Here it is:

[[Sungenis: Yes, what a tremendous truth it is that the people of God have been given to the Son. If it weren't for the Father's drawing grace and mercy, none of us would have a chance of salvation, whether it be by predestination or free will.

White: "Chance of salvation" vs. "a perfect Savior who does the will of the Father without fail." The contrast is striking.

R. Sungenis 2: Dr. White keeps confusing Christ's perfection with man's salvation. Can he provide just one verse where Christ's perfection is tied to whether some are saved or lost? No. In fact, 2 Timothy 2:12-13 says just the opposite. It says that Christ cannot deny Himself (which is the same thing as saying He must remain perfect). How does He do so, according to 2 Tim 2:13? By remaining faithful even if we are faithless. How do we become faithless? 2 Tim 2:12 tells us: by denying him. If we deny Him, then He must deny us. If He doesn't deny us when we deny Him, then He will be imperfect, because His nature demands that He deny us if we deny Him. Who is it that can deny Jesus? 2 Tim 2:10 tells us. It is the very "elect." These verses overturn almost every tenet of Calvinism. But what did Dr. White do when I brought up these verses? He said they were "irrelevant."]]

(4) Finally, I think it would be very beneficial for the reader if I gave a quick overview of the narrative in John 6 so that one can better understand the basis for what I am espousing prior to reading the rest of this debate. Here it is. Prior to John 6, the Jews had a long history of unbelief. In fact, the whole tenor of the New Testament is that God is finally rejecting the Jews (except for a remnant) because of their persistent unbelief (cf., 1 Cor 10:1-5; Hebrews 3-4; Romans 9-11; Acts 1-2; Matt 23, and many other passages). John 5:40, that I used in my last rebuttal, says it so succinctly: "you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life." But the unbelief displayed in John 5:40 and John 6 is a product of the unbelief they have had for centuries. This state of unbelief didn't happen overnight. But here is the dynamic fact that issues from the Jews' persistent unbelief: God is giving up on the Jews. In the language of John 6:44, God is no longer going to draw them to Jesus. In fact, God will become active in keeping them in unbelief by blinding them to the truth (Romans 11:8). That is the kind of God we have; a very dynamic God. Despite the grace that God gave them to respond, the Jews, as a whole, never answered the call of Zech 1:3 or Ezk 33:11, so God decides to withdraw His grace, and the Jews will die in their unbelief. As a result, they are no longer coming to Jesus, because the Father will no longer draw or give them to Jesus. Thus, when Jesus says "All the Father gives to me will come to Me" in John 6:37, He is not intending to give a dissertation on election or free will, per se. He is telling the Jews that the reason they don't believe Him is that God is handing them over to unbelief, blinding them to the truth as a punishment for their sins. They will continue in their unbelief, and finally be judged for it, which is precisely what happened to them (Matt 23:37-39; Matt 24:1ff). In giving this synopsis of John 6, I intend to demonstrate that God has a part and man has a part. This is the only way passages such as Zech 1:3; Ezk 33:11; John 5:40; 8:31 can make sense. There is a dynamic relationship going on between God and man. Unless you grasp this dynamic relationship, you will never understand the intent of John 6. Instead, you will constantly be looking at John 6 for proof texts of predestination, but in the process miss the whole point of the passage. With those preliminary remarks, let us continue the debate between Dr. White and myself: END

J. White: Over the years I have often surprised people by asserting that there is one passage of Scripture that is so clear, so perspicuous, that I have never seen a meaningful, coherent, contextually-based interpretation of it that does not teach with clarity the glorious freedom of God in the salvation of His elect people. That passage is John 6:35-45. This passage formed the basis of a recent discussion with Roman Catholic proponent Scott Windsor on our webcast, the Dividing Line. Mr. Windsor's unique "interpretation" of the passage did not fare well in cross-examination. In his attempt to rehabilitate himself, Mr. Windsor contacted Robert Sungenis of Catholic Apologetics International. Mr. Sungenis and I have debated many times in the past, not just in person in formal settings (Boston College, Long Island, Clearwater, Florida), but on line as well. Many of those interactions were rather acrimonious. Over the past few years, however, we have sought to disagree, not so much agreeably, as respectfully. It is not an easy task, of course, but both sides have made good faith efforts. It should be noted that I believe Mr. Sungenis has made many elementary errors in his response: elementary in regards to the Greek language, elementary in regards to the reading of the text, and elementary in regards to Reformed theology, which he presumes to critique. Since post-moderns confuse refutation of error with "hate-speech," let me say up-front: I believe Mr. Sungenis wrong on all these issues. In fact, I believe him ignorant of a number of the areas he is attempting to address. It is not hateful, unkind, or unloving to say these things if documentation and reasoned thinking is provided to substantiate the conclusion. If factual support is provided, the assertions are simply truthful, and truth is not hateful. However, if the accusations are made but no reasonable argumentation is provided to substantiate the assertions, a case can then be made that one is engaging in false argumentation and personal attack. Scott Windsor posted some of Mr. Sungenis' comments on his website, and made sure to let me know about it, repeatedly. I finally took the time to take a look at the web page which documented all my "errors," and found Mr. Sungenis' comments intriguing enough to warrant a response. I firmly believe that the more people struggle against the truths of this passage, the more clearly the truth is vindicated, and as this debate continues, I believe that will become more and more evident. My original response is found here. Mr. Sungenis then responded on his own website, and on Mr. Windsor's. I offer my rejoinder here in the hope that believers will be edified, and the soul-thrilling truth of God's all sufficient work of salvation will be ever more clearly understood in the hearts of minds of His people. Refocusing the Discussion One of the most troubling aspects of many back-and-forth discussions is the fact that they can often grow to such proportions that the reader is lost in a myriad of details that may, or may not, actually be relevant to the topic at hand. So I am going to make an effort to refocus the discussion while responding as fully as possible to Mr. Sungenis' attempted response. To help, allow me to make some general observations and comments up front, and then provide the substantiation for these conclusions in the following material.

Observation #1: Sola ecclesia lives. Mr. Sungenis simply does not provide textually based exegesis. Those who are familiar with the rules of meaningful exegetical study of the text can see, by examining Mr. Sungenis' efforts, that his interpretations do not flow from the text, but are made up of assertions joined with a general, "the word X does not have to mean this or that." The over-riding concern is always the teaching of Rome, which is derived from Mr. Sungenis' own interpretation and understanding of the writings of the Church. This then becomes the lens through which the text is seen, even if this results, as it does here, in the utter reversal of the meaning of the text. This is one of the main reasons why, though almost everything Mr. Sungenis says in his response is fully addressed in The Potter's Freedom, I am taking the time to respond separately: it is an object lesson well worth learning.

(5) R. Sungenis 2: I don't consider myself an independent determiner of truth apart from the Church God has given us. It is much too easy to fall into error, as the thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations have proven to us over the last 475 years. Dr. White bases much of his argumentation on the ideas of John Calvin, yet his opponents base theirs on opponents of John Calvin. Each of us has a tradition behind us, whether we want to admit it or not. So its quite disingenuous for Dr. White to color this debate by focusing on my tradition. As for "textually based exegesis," I think we will see that claim of Dr. White's rebutted quite well in this rebuttal. END

Observation #2: Mr. Sungenis' handling of the koine Greek language in this article does not present an in-depth, scholarly understanding of syntax. For example, aside from the fact that his original assertion regarding the use of mh in interrogatives has been refuted, his handling of such things as participles is a telling sign of a less-than-full understanding of the language. I have commented to Mr. Sungenis in the past that he needs to engage in a study of syntax that goes beyond mere grammar. Syntax involves the relationship of words and phrases. The mere noting of a word being in the present tense, for example, without recognizing it is also in a participial phrase, shows a fundamental weakness of understanding of syntactical categories and functions. These are issues that are introduced, and mastered, in later study of the language, and would not be covered with sufficient depth in a brief Master's program. I was personally very blessed to have begun my study of Greek before seminary, in college, where I minored in the subject. As I teach Greek in seminary now, I am often distressed at the tremendous speed with which we must cover the material. I know all too well the pressures upon the seminary student and the difficulty in mastering not only the grammar, but then the syntax, of koine Greek. The result of all of this is the simple fact that Mr. Sungenis makes a number of rudimentary errors in his handling of the Greek language in context. These errors are noted below. I also note, briefly, that in light of Scott Windsor's taking Mr. Sungenis' words over the words of three published and established Greek grammars, this information is relevant.

(6) R. Sungenis 2: I don't know why Dr. White insists on entering debates by trying to make a case that his opponent is not as knowledgeable as he is. This kind of self-aggrandizing posture really has no place in this debate. Anyone can stand up and tout that he has superior knowledge and experience. I had four years of formal Greek training, and have been studying the language for the last 22 years. As a result, I know when someone is giving a snow-job; I know when someone is trying to make the Greek support a pet idea; and I know when someone is flexing his Greek muscle in front of opponents who don't know Greek. END

Observation #3: Mr. Sungenis does not understand Reformed theology. The number of misrepresentations of Reformed thinking in this article (and in his published works) is striking. But, there is a possible explanation. Mr. Sungenis himself admitted, in his personal testimony in Surprised by Truth, p. 111, Not being totally convinced that the militant Calvinistic theology espoused at Westminster was correct, I continued to find myself in theological debates with professors and fellow students. In light of this, it is somewhat understandable how one who graduated from Westminster Seminary could still use such phrases as "God forces men to believe" and the like, caricatures which, while common in anti-Reformed polemics, have likewise been refuted so many times it is amazing.

(7) R. Sungenis 2: This is a common contention levied by those of the Reformed persuasion. I can say two things: I was a Reformed Presbyterian for 17 years. I know what they teach. I used to teach it myself. Second, I can tell you that Dr. White and his colleagues are the ones who don't understand Reformed theology, because it's a mass of contradictions and conflicting ideas that have never been resolved. Right from the get-go, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Bucer, et al., disagreed on the very nature of salvation. Calvin critiqued Luther for putting faith before regeneration, and Luther critiqued Calvin for giving regeneration the primacy which he said made him too close to Catholic theology; Melanchthon, while an absolute predestinarian in his tutelage under Luther eventually repudiated the whole idea, accepting free will as a necessary process; the Dutch Reformer, Jacob Arminius countered each of Calvinism's Five Points with Five Points of his own; the Swiss Reformers believed in transformational justifiction much like the Catholics, opposing the mere forensic justification of Luther and Melanchthon. Within Calvinism itself, there are about a half-dozen varieties, everything from surpralapsarians, infralapsarians, sublapsarians, four-point Calvinists, three-point Calvinists, the Zwinglian "God is the sinless author of sin" idea, and a few other wrinkles. To this day they all disagree with one another: Sproul, Boice, MacArthur, Godfrey, Carson, Clowney, Gaffin, Sandlin, Bahnsen, Geisler, et al. Contradictions and oxymorons like this abound in Reformed thought. Read Chapter 9 of Not By Faith Alone for a birds eye view into their conundrum. END

James White: Finally, Mr. Sungenis decided to spend a good deal of time focusing upon Augustine in his response. I believe the citation I offered was clear and compelling, and I still do. I simply remind the reader that Augustine changed his views over time on this issue, becoming ever more forceful in his annunciation of the divine decree of the salvation of the elect. Anyone who reads his later works well knows the force of his statements. It is quite easy to quote Augustine against Augustine by ignoring the development of his thought through the Pelagian controversy. The fact that he identified saving faith as a gift of God given only to the elect is truly without question. But I shall not clutter this reply with further discussions of Augustine's changing theology over time: the issue is the divine teaching of Christ in the synagogue at Capernaum, to which I now turn.

(8) R. Sungenis 2: The poor Augustine, tossed to and fro by the Calvinists. The fact is that Augustine did not "change his mind." Many of the statements Augustine wrote supporting Free Will were written in Against Julian, just a few years before his death. Moreover, you will never find one statement in Augustine that opposes Predestination to Free Will, but you will find many which coalesce Predestination with Free Will, as the quotes I gave in my last rebuttal show very clearly. If Dr. White can produce passages from Augustine that oppose Predestination to Free Will, he has an argument, but I don't think he is going to be able to find any. Read the sections about Augustine and Calvin in Not By Faith Alone. END

First Issue: mh Does Indicate a Negative Response:

In the web cast discussion with Mr. Windsor the matter of whether Jesus' asking the disciples, "You do not want to go away also, do you" (John 6:67, NASB) came up. Mr. Windsor attempted to read free will into these words, assuming that Jesus was "giving them a choice" and that this implied the existence of free will. In response I pointed out that the form of the question in Greek uses the particle mh, and that this indicates an assumed negative answer, just as the NASB translates it. Mr. Windsor contacted Mr. Sungenis, who commented that the wording did not fit a "rhetorical question." Now, I have no idea what that means, and I do not know if Mr. Sungenis was responding to Mr. Windsor's errant communication to him of what I said, or if Mr. Sungenis just missed the point (I nowhere indicated the question was rhetorical, but that it expected a negative answer, which, obviously, is not the same thing). Mr. Windsor simply failed to provide any meaningful basis for reading "free will" into John 6:67, and seemingly citing Mr. Sungenis' comment was enough to provide him with another "error" on my part. So I wrote to Mr. Sungenis and asked him to explain what I had said that was in error regarding the fact that John 6:67 is a question using mh that expects a negative answer. When he replied, on March 4, 2001, he attempted to assert that mh does not have to indicate a negative answer, and provided examples. I refuted each example, and noted the most glaring one in my previous response. His specific assertion had been: "1) MH before the main verb does not always expect a negative answer. For example, in John 7:31, MH before POIEESEI expects an affirmative answer, not a negative one. In other words, the implied answer to the question of whether the Christ will do more signs than Jesus is affirmative." I pointed out that, in fact, the only meaningful way of understanding the passage is to understand that the crowd is saying just the opposite: that the expected answer is a negative. I even cited A.T. Robertson's comments that specifically note the use of mh, indicating a negative answer. While it is hardly central to the issue at hand, it does speak to Mr. Sungenis knowledge of basic Greek grammar and to his general approach to exegesis and interpretation. The simple fact of the matter is that I said nothing wrong in the cited comments. No meaningful scholarship would argue I did. The issue is interpretation of the meaning of John 6:67, and the attempt on Mr. Windsor's part to turn the question into a positive support of "free will." In light of this background, note his response:

" For clarification, it is certainly possible that the use of MH in John 7:31 expects a negative answer. Nevertheless, a few things need to be said. Since Dr. White appeals to the statement "many of the multitude believed in Him" in John 7:31, he is inferring that the belief of these people was so strong that they would be able to determine whether Jesus was the Messiah, and thus answer the question of John 7:31 negatively. I don't think that assessment is provable, since we do not know that kind of belief the people had. For all we know their belief could be like the people of John 8:31, who are finally told by Jesus in verse 44 that their father is the devil. This chapter is in close proximity to John 7:31, the verse in question, and thus would have great impact on determining the type of belief present among them."

Comment: This is mere misdirection; Mr. Sungenis said X in his e-mail (quoted above); now he is saying non-X. He seems to be admitting he was in error, but without actually saying it. In either case, the issue is not, as I pointed out, whether these were true believers or not. Personally, I don't believe they were. The point is that they said they believed, and they were arguing in the light of that profession. It simply makes no sense whatsoever to read the text as Mr. Sungenis originally suggested, for you would then have the following: "Then many in the crowd believed in Him and they were saying, "Surely the Christ will do more signs than this man when he comes!" That makes no sense at all! We here have Mr. Sungenis ignoring the context and attempting to over-turn a simple rule of grammar. Granted, he may well have simply provided a brief response without seriously considering the text. But in any case, he has here been shown to be in complete error on the issue. Instead of dealing with this, Mr. Sungenis continues on with a different topic:

" Furthermore, we know that the crowd is not sure of Jesus' identity, since in John 7:27 they make a declarative statement, "However we know where this man [Jesus] is from; but whenever the Christ may come, no one knows where He is from." Obviously, the people are not certain who Jesus is, which is apparent by their doubt about the origins of the Christ. Thus, when a few verses later the question of John 7:31 is asked ("When Christ comes, will he not do more signs than which this man [Jesus] did"), the uncertainty described in John 7:27, along with the uncertainty suggested in John 8:31-44 regarding the kind of belief the crowd possessed, although still plausible, a negative answer to the question of John 7:31 is not at all certain. Indeed, if a negative response were the only one expected, then we would expect to find such a negative answer somewhere in the context (which is usually the case when questions are introduced by the Greek MH), but we do not find any here, thus the matter remains indefinite. Speaking of proximity, I think I will also add Dr. White's own assessment of the "belief" of the people in John 6, which is stated just one chapter earlier than the people of John 7:31. In a later paragraph of this document, Dr. White writes the following of John 6's people: "The blessed Lord was quite blunt with His audience. He knew they did not possess real faith. 'But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe' (v. 36)."

As kindly as it can be put, that is obfuscation. I made no error regarding mh; its meaning is clear in the passage, despite all the attempts to say otherwise. Let the reader decide.

(9) R. Sungenis 2: Suffice it to say, I am not saying X and then saying non-X. When I said, "For clarification, it is certainly possible that the use of MH in John 7:31 expects a negative answer..." I was implying that the Greek is ambiguous here. Second, Dr. White now asserts that my going to the context to answer the question is "obfuscation." Earlier he complained that "Mr. Sungenis makes a number of rudimentary errors in his handling of the Greek language in context..." but now he insists that my appeal to the context is inappropriate. I exposed Dr. White's premise as false. Dr. White was trying to claim that the people of John 7 would answer negatively because they were "believers." By this he meant "true believers," a distinction he made in a later part of his rebuttal. But the context shows that we can't know if they were "true believers," and, in fact, it shows that they were probably just casual believers. Thus, a negative answer to the question in John 7:31 cannot be as definite as Dr. White would like it to be. But that is not the main issue here. Scott Windsor used John 7:31 to support Free Will. Dr. White said that Scott could not do so because the Greek MH shows that the people will answer negatively. Dr. White's reasoning was that, because they would have answered the question of John 7:31 negatively, then this means that they were showing the fruit of the fact that they had been predestined. That is a blatant abuse of Greek grammar to support one's pet doctrine. I don't know of anyone in all my study of Greek who has ever made such an audacious claim. It's similar to someone claiming that because a stop sign expects a person to bring his car to a halt, that this can be interpreted to mean that people are predestined automatons who are forced to obey stop signs, with no free will for them to run through the stop sign if they choose. Of course, that is a ridiculous idea, but that is very similar to what Dr. White is trying to ascribe to the Greek MH of John 7:31 - - that the Jews of John 7 really had no choice BUT to give a negative answer to the question, because they were predestined to do so. END

The Potter's Freedom

At this point I provided the exegetical section of my book, The Potter's Freedom, regarding John 6:35-45. I will simply point out that at times Mr. Sungenis seems to forget that I did not write this section following my discussion with Mr. Windsor, so he faults me for not addressing things as if I were writing it in response to his own comments.

(10) R. Sungenis 2: No, I fault him for not addressing issues that Mr. Windsor brought up. The Potter's Freedom is not part of this discussion. END

Right at the start, however, we encounter a fascinating discussion by Mr. Sungenis regarding the fact that I have written an entire work refuting the Arminianism of Dr. Norman Geisler. Note his words: "Since Dr. White has brought up the name of Norman Geisler, I think it is worth mentioning here that Norman Geisler is one of the most respected and well-known theologian/philosphers in the Evangelical world. He appears on the same radio programs that Dr. White appears (The Bible Answer Man; Janet Parcell's America, etc), but on these programs he teaches an almost totally opposite view of John 6 and Predestination than Dr. White. It is ironic that two men, with two entirely different views on Salvation, can appear on the same program with the same hosts, and yet both be touted as faithful interpreters of the Bible."

There is, of course, one major flaw in Mr. Sungenis' reasoning: it assumes Norman Geisler offered a "faithful interpretation" of the passage at hand. As anyone knows who read Chosen But Free or my response, The Potter's Freedom, Dr. Geisler did not offer any kind of exegetical interpretation of the passage. It was one of the more amazing elements of the discussion offered in Chosen But Free. Hence, it is not a matter of "dueling interpretations" regarding this passage, and even when it is, is the suggestion being made that since there is disagreement, that the text is therefore unclear? Those who have read The Potter's Freedom realize that the exegetical argument is, in fact, the most compelling argument put forward by the Reformed side.

(11) R. Sungenis 2: Whether or not Dr. Geisler offered a "faithful interpretation" is a matter of opinion. Certainly Dr. White has a bias in judging Dr. Geisler's work, since he disagrees with it. Again, notice how Dr. White first attacks the credibility of his opponent (just as he did with me above) and only then does he proceed to answer the specific charges. But the main point is this: Dr. Geisler and Dr. White are both touted by Hank Hanegraeff and Janet Parcell as experts in their fields of endeavor, but these hosts never point out, even when confronted, that Dr. Geisler and Dr. White disagree on the most fundamental doctrine in Christendom. END

Sungenis goes on to make a very telling statement:

" It may also be worth mentioning that Norman Geisler's view of Predestination and the interpretation of the pertinent passages in John 6 are much closer to the Catholic view than Dr. White's. Catholicism would applaud Norman Geisler for his balanced view of Predestination and Free Will, whereas Dr. White ascribes to the traditional Calvinist view, which believes that God predestined men to Hell without regard to Free Will. I would suggest that, if anyone is interested in a refutation of the Calvinist view of Predestination, consult Chapter 7 of the book "Not By Faith Alone.""

As Mr. Sungenis' attempted "refutation" of predestination partakes of the same common category and context errors as this reply, I believe the reader will be helped by what follows here. But it is quite interesting to note the fact that Mr. Sungenis is quite right. In fact, I spent an entire chapter in The Potter's Freedom documenting what Mr. Sungenis here notes. Arminianism is, in fact, very much in harmony with Rome on matters of the nature of the will, God's sovereignty, and the nature of grace. I even provided quotations from the Catholic Catechism that closely parallel, down to the choice of words, the assertions of Norman Geisler. This is surely nothing new to anyone who is Reformed and is aware of the historical and theological realities.

(12) R. Sungenis 2: I'll only stop long enough here to say that the Catholic Church teaches both Predestination and Free Will. Jacob Arminius taught Free Will only. His Remonstrants countered the Five Points of Calvinism with Five Points of Arminianism. I would ask Dr. White to get it right. Catholicism is not Arminianism. END

At this point Mr. Sungenis begins to provide a point-by-point response to my exegesis in The Potter's Freedom. The reader is strongly urged to consider one main issue: who presents a contextually-based presentation, and who uses a "scatter-gun" approach? Whose conclusions flow from the text, and whose come from pre-existing commitments to external authorities? We believe the answer to that question is clear. The Context: Unbelief I wrote in The Potter's Freedom (hereafter TPF): The blessed Lord was quite blunt with His audience. He knew they did not possess real faith. "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe" (v. 36). They had seen Him with their eyes, but unless physical sight is joined with spiritual enlightenment, it profits nothing. Often the importance of this statement is overlooked. Verse 36 is a turning point in the chapter. Jesus now explains their unbelief. How is it that these men could stand before the very Son of God, the Word made flesh, and not believe? Anyone who does not take seriously the deadness of man in sin should contemplate this scene. The very Creator in human form stands before men who are schooled in the Scriptures and points to their unbelief. He then explains the why, and yet so few today will listen and believe. Mr. Sungenis replied:

"Sungenis: I need to interject here that, by an appeal to the "deadness of man in sin," Dr. White is priming his audience to one of Calvinism's major premises - - the total depravity of man.

To which I reply: The phrase "dead in sin" is completely biblical (Eph. 2:1-4, Col. 2:13), and in point of fact, in the context of my book, I had already established the biblical testimony to the deadness of man in sin and total depravity (TPF chapter 4, see especially pp. 100f) through a discussion of such passages as Romans 8:7-8, John 12:39-40, 1 Cor. 2:14, John 8:34-48, etc. I was "priming" no one, but making reference to those who deny man's deadness in sin.

(13) R. Sungenis 2: This is the major flaw in the Calvinistic exegesis of Eph 2:1-4 and Col 2:13. Both passages are using metaphors, not providing precise theological definitions. The metaphor is of a dead person who has no life. Metaphors can have any number of meanings, but Dr. White invariably makes the metaphor apply in only one way - - his way, but it is unprovable from the context. The context of Eph 2 or Col 2 does not teach the doctrine of "total depravity" (that Adam had no free will after he sinned). The passages use "dead" as a metaphor of the condition of man before he exercises faith and is baptized (Col 2:12). The context says only that "dead" is a state of not "having forgiveness," of "walking according to the course of this world" (Eph 2:2-4), and not being "made alive together with Christ" (Col 2:13). The passage does not say anything about man's will, or free will, or predestination, yet Dr. White continually sees the one negated and the other supported. Why? Because this is what he has been taught to see by his Reformed heritage. I used to do the same thing as a Reformed Protestant, without even being aware I was doing it. I simply saw the word "dead" and figured that it could only mean that man had no free will. Later, I realized that the context did not support such a conclusion. That is why Augustine, as much as he referred to Eph 2:1, never said that it meant man had no free will. I also saw passages such as Luke 15:32 in which the Prodigal Son, who made the decision to came back to his father, was called "dead," yet the context said nothing about Predestination and a lot about Free Will. END

This doctrine teaches that, after Adam sinned, man lost his free will. Actually, it teaches that after Adam sinned, he and his followers have a corrupt nature which results in the enslavement of the will to a sinful nature. The will, of course, remains fully intact: it is simply enslaved to a corrupt and fallen nature, resulting in the clear biblical teaching on the inabilities of the natural man outside of Christ, outside of regeneration.

(14) R. Sungenis: Dr. White is confusing the issue. Catholicism agrees that, outside of God's grace, Adam has no ability within himself to obey God. That condition was true even before Adam sinned. Only by God's grace did Adam have the power to resist the devil (a belief which John Calvin did not hold. He believed that Adam had natural ability - Free Will - to resist the devil, which shows you the definition of Free Will Calvin worked with, and why he was so confused; INT 1:15:8)). The difference in our views is this: Dr. White believes that when Christ regenerates, the man is irresistibly drawn and cannot refuse Christ, ever. Christ regenerates men arbitrarily. He just picks certain men, avoids others, without any recourse to what they desire. Catholicism believes that, after Adam's sin, Christ draws all men by his grace (John 12:32; Acts 17:24-31). We call this Actual grace. They can accept or reject Christ based on that grace. If they accept Him, Christ will give them saving grace, in baptism, as Col 2:12 says. We call this Sanctifying grace. END

"St. Augustine taught, and the Catholic Church has followed his teaching, that man was NOT totally depraved after the Fall. St. Augustine taught that, although estranged from God and marred in his nature, Adam retained a residual grace and thus an ability to respond to God's call."

I refer the reader to the preceding references.

(15) R. Sungenis 2: What "preceding references"? Eph 2:1-5 and Col 2:12-14? The claim by Dr. White that Augustine did not believe in Free Will? What references has Dr. White given us that show that Augustine made a de facto statement which denied Free Will or opposed Predestination to Free Will? If he can find such a statement, then he can make a case about Augustine. Until then, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. END

"This is why passages such as 2 Peter 3:9; Romans 2:4-16 and Acts 17:24-31 can say what they do about post-Adamic man's continuing responsibility to answer the call of God."

Mr. Sungenis seems to believe that the general call of repentance and faith implies a capacity that either remains after the fall, or, is graciously given to all. No such capacity is even hinted at in the first two passages,

(16) R. Sungenis 2: Notice how Dr. White qualifies his language. He refers to the "general" call of repentance, I assume in opposition to a "special" call. The distinction is one of the major tenets of Calvinism (Institutes 3:24:8). They desperately need it to make their theology work. They claim that the "general" call is given to all men, yet with one important caveat: God does not give most of these men the ability to repent. The general call is made so that God can cover himself and not be accused of not offering them salvation. The objective here is to get God off the hook because they know their system puts Him on the hook. When men don't respond to the "general" call of repentance, God can say, "Hey, I offered it to you, but you didn't accept it," yet all the while the Reformed Protestant secretly holds that the man didn't respond because God never gave him the ability to respond. What a perverted theology! God calls, but he gives most of mankind no ability to respond to the call, because they weren't chosen beforehand to respond. Calvin himself admitted this was the "Decretum Horribile" (The Horrible Decree) yet one that he whole-heartedly accepted, because the logical rigor of his system forced him to accept it. But can Dr. White tell us where Scripture teaches a distinction between a "general" call and a "special" call? I don't think so. In the end, Dr. White makes God a liar, since God doesn't really mean what he says when He calls the world to repentance. He just pleads with the majority of mankind as a matter of course, because that's what God is supposed to do to preserve His justice. Some God. END

and the third refers to the very same universal call Reformed people fully believe in and practice.

(17) R. Sungenis 2: Now Dr. White proposes a "universal" call. Is this different than the "general" call? He doesn't tell us. END

"As opposed to Dr. White's theology, not only does God issue the call to repentance, He expects man to respond by using the grace God has given him. If man does not respond, it means he has resisted the grace of God. St. Augustine used such passages as Zech 1:3; James 4:8; Luke 11:19; Jeremiah 3:22; 29:13 to prove this point, as did the Council of Trent."

As opposed to Rome's theology, and Mr. Sungenis' interpretation thereof, grace cannot be demanded; it is free, utterly free, and is given on the basis of God's choice and will, nothing more. Repentance, too, is a gift, given by God to His elect people, along with faith, both as part of the work of regeneration.

(18) R. Sungenis 2: Notice how Dr. White just asserts the Reformed view without interacting with any of the passages I mentioned in the above quote ( Zech 1:3; James 4:8; Luke 11:19; Jeremiah 3:22; 29:13). He just dismisses them as the rantings of "Rome's theology." END

Mr. Sungenis' entire view of salvation, and Scripture, is anthropocentric (centered upon man). The Bible's own view is theocentric (centered upon God). Man's religions are invariably anthropocentric, always including at their very heart various rites and rituals (in Roman Catholicism, sacraments) designed to control God and His power, removing from Him His sovereign freedom and placing the ultimate power of salvation squarely in the hands of man. This is where biblical Christianity differs from the religions of men, including Roman Catholicism and all forms of "Protestantism" that likewise refuse to allow God to be free and man to be the fallen creature.

(19) R. Sungenis 2: Dr. White tried to use this ploy in our debate in New York two years ago. Again, rather than answering the verses I gave him, he just categorizes the appeal to them as "anthropocentric." If he can make you think that, whatever verse he is challenged with, the challenger is trying to promote an "anthropocentric religion," then he thinks he has won the battle. But it is Dr. White who has the anthropocentric religion. It is so because his conclusions are based on the logic of men's minds. You see, they can't understand how Predestination and Free Will can work together, so they concoct a whole elaborate scheme of theology which favors the former and rejects the latter, forcing them to make conclusions from their own mind about God's decisions. Calvin believed that God predestined the fall of Adam; that He predestined the sin of man; that He predestined some to bliss but most of the human race to Hell, not because of sin, but because of His sovereign good pleasure. His "good pleasure" is His desire to exhibit merciful qualities by arbitrarily saving a few, but to exhibit qualities of justice by damning the rest. In effect, the Calvinist God is on an advertising campaign to prove His character, all at the expense of man. That, dear reader, is a God of man's making, and is therefore the ultimate anthropocentric theology. Don't fall for the "theocentric/anthropocentric" rhetoric. Catholicism, for 2000 years, has given God His rightful place in the schema of salvation. We fought Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, absolute predestination (proposed by Lucidus in the fifth century and Gottschalk in the ninth century) and absolute Free Will (Arminius, Wesley), and we continue to fight the falsifiers of biblical revelation today. END

Mr. Sungenis continues: "The above facts are important, since it seems by everything Dr. White has written that he attributes the obstinance (sic) and unbelief of the Jews in John 6 to the fact that God has predestined them to unbelief and eternal damnation."

Correction: all men, outside of God's gracious act of regeneration, are enemies of God, opposed to Him and to His purposes, rebels with a self-centered cause, one might say. The focus of the passage is not reprobation: the focus of the passage is upon the gracious predestination of Christ's elect, which explains their positive faith. Unbelief is natural to the fallen man: faith is unnatural, and requires a supernatural explanation, which is what this passage provides.

(20) R. Sungenis 2: Notice how Dr. White avoids saying that God predestined the unbelief of the Jews. That is the major tenet of Calvinism and Reformed theology, but he's scared to say it because he knows how horrified you would be. Instead, he euphemizes the reality by instead referring to "men outside of God's gracious act of regeneration" (read: "predestined to unbelief"), and actually tries to steer you away from that fact that he believes in double predestination by saying, "the focus of the passage is not reprobation." So if someone raises the logical corollary that if some were arbitrarily chosen to salvation then others were not chosen, we're supposed to put our finger in front of our mouth and say, "Shhhh, don't talk about the reprobation part of it, because that's not the ‘focus' of the passage. Just pretend its not there, and you'll be able to accept it a lot faster. Just think positive." END

"However, if one looks at the context of the Gospel of John, indeed, the context of the whole Scripture in regards to the Jew's obstinacy, it is due to their continued resistence (sic) to God's grace and call. Passages such as Ezek. 18:21-32; 33:11; Matt 23:37, etc., show that God continually pleads with Israel to repent."

No one questions God's call to repentance: the claim this means that man is not what this passage says he is (unable to come to Christ outside of supernatural enablement which is not given to all, but to those given to the Father by the Son only) is what is in dispute. See TPF pp. 136-139 on Matthew 23:37.

(21) R. Sungenis 2: I think Dr. White deserves a "sic" for the whole sentence he wrote above, since I can hardly make sense out of it. What does "the claim this means that man is not what this passage says he is" mean? He claims that "No one questions God's call to repentance," but that is precisely what he is doing. The passages (Ezek. 18:21-32; 33:11; Matt 23:37) clearly state that God really wants Israel to repent. The Hebrew language is even more emphatic. But if, as Dr. White believes, most of them weren't predestined with the power to respond, doesn't that make the pleading of God superfluous?? Dr. White admits that they were not given the power to repent when he says, "enablement which is not given to all." So if they aren't given the "enablement," yet they are called to repent, isn't the call to repentance meaningless? "No," Dr. White will insist, "because they deserve to die in their sins and God doesn't have to give them the power to respond." We'll say: "But then why does God give others the power to respond, considering that they are sinners, too, just like the damned"? Dr. White will conclude: "Because, God can pick whomever he wants in order to show His mercy by saving some, and His justice by damning the rest." Here we have a God that is so unsure about Himself that He has to predestine human beings, arbitrarily, to heaven and hell just so He can have enough evidence that He is merciful and just. Gee, I wonder what He thought of Himself before He created man? Was He ambivalent as to His mercy and justice? Dr. White's theology would make someone think so. That's because the whole schema is anthropocentric - - straight from the mind of Dr. White. It does not represent biblical Christianity at all. END

"Unfortunately, it is theologies such as Calvinism which teach that God issues such pleadings but without giving all men the power to respond to those very pleadings."

I.e., God is free to give grace as He sees fit, not as man demands of Him. The freedom of God in dealing with the guilty and vile sinner (Calvinism) vs. the enslavement of God to the alleged powers of the creature who will decide if he/she will allow God to accomplish His purposes in salvation (man's religions).

(22) R. Sungenis 2: This is the best Dr. White can do? Notice that he doesn't really refute my statement, he just puts it in different words ("God is free to give grace as He sees fit, not as man demands of Him"). Why does he do this? Because he knows what I said is true, but he can't describe it with my words because he knows people would be repulsed. His is a theology of smoke and mirrors. They hold that God's pleadings, by God's design through predestination, cannot be answered by the majority of men, yet they also realize that this makes God look bad, like an insecure tyrannical despot. So they flower the language to: "God is free to give grace as He sees fit, not as man demands of Him," making it a case of "God's freedom" versus "man's demands." Does Catholicism reject the idea that God is free to give His grace as He sees fit? No, not at all. But does that deny Free Will? No, not at all. Will God give His grace to someone who repents? Yes. Is He forced to do so? Not really, since God owes nothing to anyone (Romans 11:35). Will He give grace? Yes, because God is just and does things that are consistent with His character and promises (Hebrews 6:10). If God said He will give grace for the sinner to repent, then He would be going against His own Word if He didn't give His grace. God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). Hence, God's "freedom" is circumscribed by His divine character. He cannot deny Himself, otherwise He would be a liar. Unfortunately, Dr. White's notion of God's freedom is that He can plead with man to repent but know that He hasn't given most men the power to repent. Therefore, Dr. White makes God a liar, since His pleadings are meaningless for the majority of men. The only freedom Dr. White has given God is the freedom to lie. END

"In fact, Calvinism teaches that God pleads with the non-predestined man only because God will eventually use his non-repentance as the evidence for his damnation in the future."

Actually, the basis of condemnation is the same for all: sin. The fact that man in his sin refuses to acknowledge his Creator is, of course, evidence of God's justice in condemning him, but it is not the basis of that condemnation.

(23) R. Sungenis 2: Again, this demonstrates the Calvinist's penchant to play with words so as to take the sting out of their theology. They just blame it on man's sin (but don't mention the fact that God predestined the sin). Be that as it may, read what Calvinist Fred Klooster writes of Calvin's view: "Calvin emphatically contended that sinful works are not the cause or basis for God's eternal decree of reprobation...What is the cause of God's decree of reprobation? Calvin's answer is, the sovereign good pleasure of God. No cause other than His sovereign will can be adduced...For Calvin, then, God sovereign will is the ultimate cause of Adam's fall and of reprobation, while human sin is the proximate cause" (Calvin's Doctrine of Predestination, pp. 61, 63, 70). Sounds like either Klooster or Dr. White have put the cart before the horse, since they are saying opposite things. Klooster claims the sovereign will is primary and sin is secondary; Dr. White claims sin is primary and sovereign justice is secondary. These are the kinds of contradictions you will continually find in Reformed theology. And isn't it ironic that just a few paragraphs ago Dr. White was stressing God's sovereignty ("God is free to give grace as He sees fit") as the primary reason some are saved and other damned? Yet in the above statement he says it is now man's sin that determines God's choice. So which is it, Dr. White? END

"In other words, Calvinism makes God a liar. God pretends to plead with the majority of mankind, but He doesn't really mean it; in fact, His pleadings are really condemnations in disguise."

Such rhetoric from a graduate of Westminster who admits he never believed what he was studying there anyway is fascinating, to say the least.

(24) R. Sungenis 2: The rhetoric is displayed when someone claims that he "never believed what he was studying." Of course I believed it. I used to use the same exegetical machinations that Dr. White is presently using to reinforce my beliefs. How do you think I know what Dr. White is going to say before he says it? But as time went by, I began to question some of the basic assumptions of the Reformed theology - - as even Westminster did itself when it was embroiled in the Shepherd issue in 1980-1981. You can read about that in Not By Faith Alone, pp. 590-593. END

But in reality, this kind of accusation is meant solely to inflame emotions, not actually communicate anything. It would be easy to respond with, "Catholicism makes God a liar because God says He accomplishes all His will, yet Rome says otherwise," but is it not far better to simply demonstrate the errors of Rome and allow the reader to decide such things? I surely think so.

(25) R. Sungenis 2: No, it wouldn't be the same, since Dr. White is assuming He knows what God's will is. The premise with which Dr. White continually works, but has not proven, is that when Scripture says it is "God's will that this or that happens," it invariably means that nothing can be done by another party to thwart that will, even to the slightest degree. But he can't prove that from Scripture, because for every verse that says God's will is irresistible, there is another verse that says it is not. Dr. White presumes the former because it fits into his theology. END

Calvinism says that God's call to repentance goes forth for two reasons: it is used in grace as an instrument in His hands in the effectual salvation of God's people, and for those who are righteously judged for their sin and rebellion (which would include all, outside of grace), the call demonstrates the truth of Paul's words, "they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

(26) R. Sungenis 2: Let's splice together what Dr. White has just written to see the reality of it: "Calvinism says that God's call to repentance goes forth...for those who are righteously judged for their sin and rebellion..." Notice that the call of repentance does not go forth to plead with the second group to repent of their sins. It goes forth to righteously judge them for their sin. Now, doesn't it seem reasonable that if God's sole purpose was to righteously judge them for their sin that He would say, "There is no chance of repentance. You will die in your sins and be judged eternally," instead of Him saying what He says in Ezek 33:11: "As I live! declares the Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?" Notice the points of exclamation that the NASB translates from the Hebrew. Have you ever seen such dramatic pleading language? Have you ever seen a passage in which it clearly tells you that God is waiting for man to repent? But Dr. White would have us believe that Ezek 33:11 is put there only to judge sinners, not to plead with them to repent. Then he wonders why I say that Calvinism makes God a liar. As for the phrase "they are without excuse" in Romans 1:20, Dr. White is taking this out of context. Already in Romans 1:5 and 1:16-17 Paul said the gospel was going out to the world to call them to repentance and obedience, and part of this gospel is declared in the cosmos, so that they are without excuse. For what? For repentance and obedience - - the very things that are required of a person who is presented with evidence of God's power and might. That is why Paul says in Romans 1:21 that through the cosmos they could "know" God and give Him "honor." That's what God was waiting for, but they didn't give it to Him. END

The assumption that causes Mr. Sungenis to use terms like "liar" is that he can somehow see God's purposes in that general call in each person's life, which obviously he cannot.

(27) R. Sungenis 2: Dr. White is just proving my point: his theology is based on presuppositions that cannot be violated, not matter how much sense another view makes. When Dr. White says "which obviously he cannot," he expects me to concede that its okay for God to issue a call to repentance to people God knows have no power to repent. But whichever way Dr. White tries to ephemize it he ends up with the same problem: He makes God demand of people something that they cannot possibly do. In human language we call that double-talk. END

John 6:37: Initial Exegesis

I wrote in TPF: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me." These are the first words to come from the Lord in explanation of man's unbelief. We dare not engage in hopscotch across this text and ignore the very order of teaching He provides. The first assertion is one of complete divine sovereignty. Every word speaks volumes. "All that the Father gives Me." The Father gives someone to Christ. The elect are viewed as a single whole, [footnote: The neuter form pa'n is used when the entire group is in view; when each individual person comes into view with reference to their response of faith the masculine participle ejrcovmeno" is used, showing the personal element of faith.] given by the Father to the Son. [footnote: Two tenses are used by the Lord in this passage: here the present tense is used, "all the Father gives (divdwsin) Me…." In verse 39, however, the perfect tense is used, "all that He has given (devdwken) Me…." ] The Father has the right to give a people to the Son. He is the sovereign King, and this is a divine transaction. All that are given by the Father to the Son come to the Son. Not some, not most, but all. All those given by the Father to the Son will come to the Son. It is vital to see the truth that is communicated by this phrase: the giving by the Father to the Son precedes and determines the coming of the person to Christ. The action of giving by the Father comes before the action of coming to Christ by the individual.

To which Mr. Sungenis replied: Robert Sungenis: "Funny as it may seem, there is little with which I disagree here. However, as you read on, it is the Calvinistic doctrine of absolute predestination, which Dr. White tries to assign to these verses that creates the exegetical problem."

But in reality, it is just this section that Mr. Sungenis must disagree with if he is to be at all consistent. The heart of the passage is here laid out: the existence of an elect people; the giving by the Father to the Son resulting in the coming of the elect to Christ;

(28) R. Sungenis 2: No, I do agree. But I disagree that the passage contains the word "elect" (Dr. White used it twice in the above sentence, but its not there). By throwing in the word "elect" Dr. White wants you to assume that those who come to Christ are forever saved, will persevere to the end, no questions asked. But he can't prove that. I again implore Dr. White to take that passage only for what it actually states. It says only that all those who come to Christ are given to Him by the Father. It teaches that no one can come to Jesus on their own initiative. The Father is the one who brings them. That's it. Finale. But Dr. White keeps reading his Calvinistic doctrine into the verse. END

the use of the masculine participle showing the personal faith that results from the work of grace in the heart; the initial discussion of the present and perfect tense uses of "give"; and the perfection of the work of God in that all who are given come to Christ. The words are plain, as is the meaning. I continued in TPF: And since all of those so given infallibly come, we have here both unconditional election as well as irresistible grace, and that in the space of nine words! It becomes an obvious exercise in eisegesis to say, "Well, what the Lord really means is that all that the Father has seen will believe in Christ will come to Christ." That is a meaningless statement. Since the action of coming is dependent upon the action of giving, we can see that it is simply not exegetically possible to say that we cannot determine the relationship between the two actions. God's giving results in man's coming. Salvation is of the Lord.

To which Mr. Sungenis replies: "I would agree with Dr. White that we cannot say that 'we cannot determine the relationship between the two actions,' but whether Dr. White's 'determination" is the correct one is something that he can't prove.' There is no question, truly, concerning the relationship of the giving of the Father and the coming of the elect.

(29) R. Sungenis 2: You see how Dr. White keeps throwing in the word "elect," even after I pointed this out to him almost a dozen times in my previous rebuttal? Everything he says is colored by his doctrine of absolute Predestination. END

Of course, all of man's religions, that refuse to give to God the authority to freely bestow His grace as He sees fit, must find some way to reverse this order,

(30) R. Sungenis 2: No, this is a misdirection attempt. Catholicism is not "refusing to give to God the authority to freely bestow His grace as He sees fit." It is disagreeing with the criteria and mechanism Calvinism proports God is using, and its resulting implications. Catholicism says God is free, insofar as His character allows Him to be. But God cannot lie. The opposite of this would be Nominalist theology, which says God can do anything He wants, even make a square circle, or have a donkey procure the atonement. If God cannot lie, then He is not free to plead with all men to repent, yet know that He has predestined the majority of them not to repent. God is not free to do that, because Scripture is clear that there is one thing that is impossible for God, and that is to lie. This should end the argument, if only Dr. White would see reason. END

for if it is the giving of the Father that determines the coming of any human, then salvation is theocentric, all to His glory, and is not under the control of man. As to being able to prove that the giving precedes the coming, that is not even disputable. No argument can be presented that can overthrow the simple grammar of the verse: those given, come. Period.

(31) R. Sungenis 2: No one here is "overthrow[ing] the simple grammar of the verse." Those given, come. Period. If Dr. White wants to call that "theocentric" that's his prerogative, but it doesn't disprove Free Will; it doesn't specify the criteria for how God gave them to Christ. Dr. White keeps working under the false premise that if Free Will is involved that somehow it is no longer theocentric. Theocentric is not defined as God's prerogative to save some and damn the rest, arbitrarily. That is despotism, not theocentricity. END

Although we can agree that those whom the Father gives will come to Jesus, there is simply nothing in the passage that says their coming was based on an "unconditional election," nor that, once they come to Jesus, they will remain there "irresistibly" without any chance of falling away.

As we will see, Mr. Sungenis bases the identity of those given upon their "free will" act of coming; this reverses the text, and makes the giving of the Father conditional upon human action (standard Arminianism makes the same mistake).

(32) R. Sungenis 2: False. The verse does not eliminate any conditions for the Father's choice. It only says that all those that come to Christ were given by the Father. Period. You can see how blinded Dr. White is to his own theology. He keeps assuming that "giving" or "given" means absolute predestination, but the verse doesn't say that. It only says that the Father gave. What the criterion for the "giving" is the text does not tell us. END Hence, the "condition" he adds is human action (faith), which this passage says is actually the result of the election, not the means. R. Sungenis 2: No, neither John 6:37 nor John 6:39 nor John 6:44 mention the words "faith" or "belief," so it is not correct to say that those words are the "result," nor is it proper to throw in the word "election" again. We can say this much, however: when "belief" is mentioned in John 6:40, we notice that the verse does NOT say that the "belief" is a result of the Father's "giving." END

Therefore, unless he wishes to suggest some other "condition," the election is, in fact, unconditional and free.

(33) R. Sungenis 2: John 6:37, 39, 44 do not address the issue of conditions, so it is wrong to assume that they are conditionless. If any of the verses had said, "All that the Father has predestined, without the free will of man, to come to Jesus, will come to Jesus," then Dr. White would have a case - - the passage would be teaching the unconditional, irresistible election of those who come to Jesus. Unfortunately for Dr. White, the passage doesn't say such. END

Secondly, it seems Mr. Sungenis is confused regarding the term "irresistible grace." The phrase refers to God's gracious act of regenerating a dead sinner and granting new life. It is not a term referring to the truth that Christ does not lose any of those given to Him. That truth is plainly and without question referred to in 6:38-39.

(34) R. Sungenis 2: I know what irresistible grace is. I also know that it must work in conjunction with the other 4 points in Calvinism, which means that irresistible grace leads to "not losing any." One cannot be true without the other. END

Those two thoughts are put there by Dr. White, but they are not in the text. If read carefully, the text says only that those who come to Jesus were given to Him by the Father.

Correction: it says much more. It says ALL who are given to the Son by the Father will come to the Father, and every one who comes is never cast out.

(35) R. Sungenis 2: Dr. White is making it appear as if I've never noticed the word "all" in the passage. If you check my previous rebuttal, and this rebuttal in earlier paragraphs, you will see that I always include the word "all" in my exegesis. It just happens to be left out of the above statement, but not for any particular reason. The word "all" does nothing for Dr. White's case. Would we say that only half of those the Father gives come to Christ? Of course not. The criterion God used to decide how He was going to give the people to Jesus is not stated in verses 37, 39, or 44. Dr. White keeps assuming that absolute predestination is the criterion (because his Calvinism forces him to), but that is not in the text. We do know that whatever criterion God used, once He has the people, He will give them all to Jesus, without exception, therefore "all" will come.

Speaking of putting words into John's mouth, look at what Dr. White did to the last part of the verse. The verse actually says, "I will certainly not cast out." Dr. White's version says, "is never cast out." There is a big difference between the two. The Bible's version is qualified. It only says that Christ will not cast out; Dr. White's version is absolutistic. It says that one is NEVER cast out. Now you can see how Dr. White keeps reading his Calvinism into the verses, since Calvinism teaches that once in, one can NEVER be cast out. The Bible is clear, however, that when we sin without repentance we cast ourselves out of Christ (2 Tim. 2:12-13; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; and many, many other passages). END

The priority of the Father's giving to the coming of the one given introduces election and sovereignty; the "all" introduces election and irresistible grace; the promise of the Son never to cast out any who come to Him introduces the security of the elect in Christ, which is then expanded upon in 6:38-39 where the reason for His never casting anyone out is fully explained in light of the Father's will. So, nothing has been inserted into the text at all.

(36) R. Sungenis 2: I am continually amazed to see at all the Calvinist terms that Dr. White finds in such simple verses: "election and sovereignty," "security of the elect," "election and irresistible grace," and yet he claims that "nothing has been inserted into the text at all"! END

"There should be no argument here, since the alternative is to say that the people themselves, without the Father's power, brought themselves to Jesus. Catholic theology has never taught such a thing."

Note that by not dealing with the appearance of "all" in the text, Mr. Sungenis is able to avoid the actual force of Jesus' words. Surely it is a different thing to say "Some general folks the Father gives the Son will come to the Son" than "ALL that the Father gives Me will come to Me." The one involves the necessity of the effectiveness of the drawing of the Father to the Son, the other does not. One leaves room for synergism (as in Roman Catholicism), the other does not.

(37) R. Sungenis 2: I've dealt with the word "all," here and in my previous rebuttal. Again, it does nothing for Dr. White's case, except show his desperate attempt to salvage Calvinism. END

"Also, the passage says that, once they come, Jesus will not cast them out. It doesn't say that the people cannot take themselves out of Jesus. Dr. White is simply reading into the verse what his theology has dictated to him."

In reality, of course, the reader can see this is untrue. Verses 38-39 will explain that the one who is given by the Father to the Son is the same one the Son will raise up on the last day in perfect harmony with the Father's will for Him.

(38) R. Sungenis 2: How does this prove Dr. White's point? Of course those who are given by the Father are the ones the Father wills to be raised on the last day. Why would He desire otherwise? If He gives them He wants them to be raised. But Dr. White is assuming that God's "will" means that there is no possibility that someone could fall out of God's will through unrepentant sin, but he hasn't offered any proof for that contention, other than his own Calvinistic belief that it has to be that way. Again, read Ezek 33:11and ask yourself: Was it the Father's will that all of Israel repent? If you answer No, you're calling God a liar. In the rest of Ezekiel and you'll notice that not all of Israel repented. So how could one conclude that God's "will" for them in Ezek 33:11 was realized? The only way Dr. White answers this is to say that God's pleading for them to repent was only for the purpose of bringing them to judgment, not to repentance. In the end, Dr. White's attempt to save God's will from being frustrated only turns out to making God a disingenuous despot. END

To posit the idea that the object of the combined love of the Father, Son, and Spirit can be lost by the exercise of man's almighty will is to say that the Son can fail to do the will of the Father, the very thing the text precludes.

(39) R. Sungenis 2: Dr. White thinks that if he can emphasize God's power enough then it will seem ludicrous for someone to claim that God's will can be curtailed by the sin of man. But the text does not get into the degree of God's power. We know God is all powerful. That is not the issue. The issue is HOW does God use that power: to overpower man into believing or to give him the Free Will to work in concert with God's grace. That is the only issue at stake here. END

The only way to read these words and not see the perfection of Christ's work and the resulting security of the believer is to reject the theocentricity of the text, and adopt, a-priori, a man-centered standard that then allows you to ignore those elements of the text that indicate otherwise.

(40) R. Sungenis 2: More rhetoric to make the reader think that if he considers the Catholic position then he is going to have a man-centered gospel. Nothing could be further from the truth. The real theocentric theology is the one that says God remains sovereign even though he gives man Free Will. Calvinism teaches that God can only be sovereign when man doesn't have a Free Will. It doesn't sound like the Calvinist God is very powerful to me. END

I had written in TPF: But note as well that it is to the Son that they come. They do not come to a religious system. They are coming to Christ. This is a personal relationship, personal faith, and, given that the ones who come are described throughout the passage by the present tense participle, it is not just a coming that happens once. This is an on-going faith, an on-going looking to Christ as the source of spiritual life. The men to whom the Lord was speaking had "come" to Him for a season: they would soon walk away and follow Him no more. The true believer is coming to Christ, always.

This is the nature of saving faith. Sungenis responded:

"Again, Dr. White is reading more into the verse than what is there. I don't desire to make a big issue of the Greek present tense participle, but I should add that Dr. White's interpretation of it is conveniently applied to his Calvinistic theology, which teaches that once a person starts on the road to faith he will never lose his faith and he will inevitably reach heaven."

Mr. Sungenis has completely missed the point. Yes, saving faith is on-going, as I said: but the reason for the security of the believer is not based upon the actions of the believer, but upon the faithfulness of Christ the Savior. I am not, in the above cited words, addressing what Mr. Sungenis assumes. I am, however, pointing out something that is well known to students of John's gospel: he regularly describes saving faith through the use of present tense participles and verbs (especially the use of the present tense substantival participle "the one believing," oJ pisteuvwn), while describing surface-level, fleeting faith through the use of the aorist. My application in the above words is direct and simple: saving faith is not a one-time, surface level thing, but is an on-going faith that keeps looking, keeps believing, keeps trusting. Again, the only way such words can make sense is within the context of a theocentric reading of the text: they are meaningless within the context of Rome's man-centeredness.

(41) R. Sungenis 2: I didn't miss the point at all. I know what Dr. White is saying, and what he is not saying. Pay attention to Dr. White's use of "true believer" in the sentence "The true believer is coming to Christ, always." By this Dr. White means that the believer has no choice but to keep coming, since he is irresistibly drawn till he dies. He has no choice in the matter. It was all pre-programmed out for him. If for some reason he no longer "comes" to Christ then, according to the Calvinist system, he was never "coming" in the first place. Calvinism is a system that tries to cover all the bases. That is what is behind Dr. White's statement above, though he has not admitted that to you. He would rather have you make it an issue of theocentricism versus anthropocentrism, when that is not the issue at all. Dr White says, "Yes, saving faith is on-going, as I said: but the reason for the security of the believer is not based upon the actions of the believer, but upon the faithfulness of Christ the Savior." When did I ever say id that Christ was going to be unfaithful? That is the whole point of John 6:37, 39, 44; John 10:28-29. If Christ wasn't faithful then we wouldn't be able to come for one second, let alone for a lifetime. But how does this prove predestination, election, eternal security, irresistible grace and the lot? No at all. It only comes into play when one comes to the text with a presupposition that "Christ's faithfulness" means "predestination, election, eternal security, irresistible grace." END

"That application is not provable from the text. The present participle is merely telling us that the one who comes to Jesus will not be stopped from coming. In other words, if one attempts to come to Jesus, Jesus will not pull the rug out from under him and say, "Sorry, I changed my mind, I don't really want you to come after all," like the Greek and Roman gods used to do. Jesus is faithful. The question is whether we will be faithful to Him. That is why 2 Timothy 2:12 says: "If we deny Him, He will also deny us. If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.""

There is one problem in the above paragraph: coming and believing are parallel phrases in John chapter six and elsewhere. "The one coming" is "the one believing." Is Mr. Sungenis consistent in his assertion? Would he say that in verse 40 the only meaning to the substantival participle "the one believing" is that it is "merely telling us that the one who believes in Jesus will not be stopped from believing"?

(42) R. Sungenis 2: No, since John 6:37 ends with "I will certainly not cast out" whereas John 6:40 ends with "I Myself will raise him up at the last day," they are two different thought structures with two different meanings. Obviously, there is no issue about "stopping the one believing" in John 6:40 since there is no issue of "casting out" to confront. John 6:40 is merely saying that the one believing will be raised. John 6:37 says the one coming will not be cast out. Or John 6:37 could say, "the one believing will not be cast out," since as long as he maintains his belief he has the promise that Christ will not cast him out. But what happens when he stops believing? That is the $64,000 question. In John 5:40 Jesus uses the word "come" also, yet He says, "you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life." Notice how the responsibility to "come" is put in the hands of the Jews, not merely in the hands of the Father. But Dr. White has eliminated that question from his repertoire, since he presupposes that a "true believer" cannot, under any circumstance, fall from belief. (By the way, "come" in John 5:40 is an aorist infinitive, which counters Dr. White's theory above that aorists refer to "fleeting faith." END

I wrote in TPF: "And the one who comes to Me I will never cast out." The true believer, the one "coming" to the Son, has this promise of the Lord: using the strongest form of denial possible, [footnote: Here the aorist subjunctive of strong denial, ouj mh; ejkbavlw e[xw, "I will never cast out." The idea is the emphatic denial of the possibility of a future event.]

Mr. Sungenis replied: "So far so good. There is definitely a strong denial here. I have already said above that Jesus is faithful. He will not pull the rug out from anyone. But watch what Dr. White makes of this "strong denial.""

The reader should note again the difference between viewing salvation as the work of God, where it is Christ who actually saves His people (Matthew 1:21) and viewing it as the cooperative effort of man and God where Christ makes salvation possible but does not actually save.

(43) R. Sungenis 2: As Yogi Bera said: This is like de javu all over again. I used to use the same verses, like Matthew 1:21 above, to try to prove Calvinism, but you'll notice that the verse only says that Christ saves His people, not that they are predestined without regard to their Free Will. Who else would Christ save? END

There is simply no basis in a synergistic, man-centered religion for a belief in the security of the believer, since there is no foundation capable of sustaining the doctrine. In other words, without a Savior capable of saving, you can't have security!

(44) R. Sungenis 2: Notice how Dr. White keeps basing his conclusions on his presuppositions. He has already concluded that eternal security is a reality. Thus, he defines what it means to be a Savior in terms of that presupposed definition. That's why he says, "You can't have security!" with an exclamation point, because security is the real issue for him. He can't imagine not having security of never falling away. Unfortunately for Dr. White, there is no verse in the Bible that teaches that a believer can never fall away from the faith, and plenty that say just the opposite. END

At this point I had then concluded, "Jesus affirms the eternal security of the believer." Sungenis responds:

"Again, Dr. White has read into the verse a precept from his Calvinistic theology. The verse doesn't mention anything about whether the believer will be eternally secure from losing his salvation (which is what Dr. White means by "eternal security"). It only says that Jesus will not cast him out if he comes to Jesus. The verse teaches that Jesus is faithful, not that the believer need never worry that he could make himself fall from Jesus. I can't impress this upon the reader enough. Dr. White's interpretation is a classic example of reading a passage with one's own colored glasses."

Let's remember a few things. First, it is very easy to dismiss what someone else says as merely their own projection of their pre-existing beliefs onto the text. It takes a positive demonstration of the assertion to make it meaningful.

(45) R. Sungenis 2: Agreed. Since John 6 says nothing about whether the believer can take himself out, then let's not assume that John 6 is denying it. Is that not fair, especially when you compare it to a passage such as John 5:40 which says that it is the Jews who "refuse to come to" Christ? END

Second, if salvation is a solely divine work then the accusation of eisegesis made here collapses. John 6:37a speaks of the Father's giving of a people to the Son---it does not mention man's "free will" as determining that divine act. In other words, the action of giving is fully divine.

(46) R. Sungenis 2: As I pointed out earlier, every time Dr. White sees a passage that speaks of divine action he concludes that it is the only action allowed, or even in the realm of possibility. Let me illustrate. Let's say we are reading John 5-6 chronologically. In John 5:40 we find that truth that the reason the Jews don't "come" to Jesus is that they, according to Jesus' own words, "refuse" to do so. That speaks of their will. Then we read a passage such as John 6:37 that all the Father gives will come to Jesus. Can we not conclude, then, that because of the Jews' decision not to come to Jesus in John 5:40 that the Father will not give them to Jesus in John 6:37? Yes, I think that is a reasonable conclusion. In deference to Dr. White, it might also be true that they don't come to Jesus because the Father hasn't given them to Jesus. But the point in fact is that the verse doesn't tell us which one is correct, or if both of them are correct. But Dr. White keeps insisting that only the latter can be true, but he can't prove that. If anything both are true. John 5:40 and John 6:40 show us one side of the equation; while John 6:37, 39, 44 show us the other side of the equation. Our task is to put them both together and not deny one for the other. That is what Catholicism does. Dr. White, on the other hand, is forced by his Calvinistic system to side with absolute predestination, and then read this doctrine into John 6:37, 39, 44 to the exclusion of any other solution. END

Then immediately after this statement of the Lord we find the direct assertion of the Father's will for the Son in saving all those who are so given, and again the actions are entirely divine, not human. So, given that this phrase sits between two clearly theocentric assertions concerning salvation, who, in fact, is separating it from its context and reading into it a meaning that is not there in the original text?

(47) R. Sungenis 2: I think this proves my point. Dr. White assumes that divine action precludes human action, but he hasn't proven that assertion, either principially or exegetically. END

You see, to deny the ability of Christ to save perfectly any and all who are entrusted to Him by the Father is to make a positive assertion: and upon what basis does Mr. Sungenis ground his claim that Christ is unable to save outside of human cooperation? Surely nothing in this text. He must go elsewhere to attempt to make that claim.

(48) R. Sungenis 2: I never said Christ can't save without human cooperation. Christ can set up the salvation program the way He sees fit. If predestination without Free Will was the way Christ designed it, then salvation without human cooperation would have to be the plan. But the question is: did He set it up that way? Dr. White just can't assume that He did and then castigate everyone who disagrees with him as believing in an "anthropocentric" religion. If Christ designed salvation to be a cooperation of man's will with God's grace, yet someone, like Dr. White, denied it, then the one with the "anthropocentric" religion would be Dr. White, since he would be making up his own salvation design. END

So when Mr. Sungenis says I'm reading the text with "colored glasses," this is about the only positive evidence offered for the insertion, on his part, of a completely foreign concept into the text at hand:

(49) R. Sungenis 2: No, its not foreign. I already answered this in my previous rebuttal. I pointed to John 5:40, just one chapter earlier than John 6. In John 5:40 Jesus says the Jews refused to come to Him. Now, am I just inventing this doctrine, or did John already set the stage for us before he came to John 6? I think the latter has to be true, especially since we have an almost identical assertion of the element of Free Will in John 6:40. END

the idea that Jesus can attempt to save a person, and fail at it due to that person's choice.

(50) R. Sungenis 2: That's not the way Jesus sees it in 2 Timothy 2:12-13, or John 6:40. Jesus doesn't consider it His failure. Only Dr. White assumes it would be Jesus' failure. END

And is this not just the over-riding assumption of free-will that I identified in my previous article? Of course it is. Hence, Mr. Sungenis is engaging in circular argumentation, assuming the conclusion of his argument before he has in fact proven his argument. That assumption, I believe, comes from his highest authority (Rome), not from the text of Scripture.

(51) R. Sungenis 2: No, I don't think that is the full story. If John 6 had made some definitive statement about eternal security I would be the first to accept it. I have no intention of playing with Scripture. But I am warning that simple clauses such as "All that the Father gives to Me will come to Me," does not, in its specific choice of words and syntax, teach eternal security. It only teaches that all that the Father gives to Jesus will come to Jesus. Only someone who has already decided that eternal security is true will superimpose that belief upon John 6:37. But that is a theological opretext, not an exegetical argument. Here we are only concerned with the exegesis of the text. Let's say what the text says, and no more. Otherwise, one or both of us is going to go into heresy. END

So, the "colored glasses" are firmly planted not on my exegetical eyes, but upon his, placed there by the authority of the Pope in Rome. This is borne out by what comes next. I had written, "Jesus is the one who gives life and raises His own up at the last day. He promises that there is no possibility whatsoever that any one who is coming to Him in true faith could ever find Him unwilling to save."

Sungenis replies, "No problem here, for this is precisely what I am contending. Jesus, because He is faithful, will never be unwilling to save those who come to Him. But I hasten to add that this present statement by Dr. White is not the same as his previous statement concerning "eternal security.""

I truly hope the reader can see the issue: for Robert Sungenis and the Roman Church, Jesus is more than willing to save, but is incapable of doing so outside of the cooperation of those He is trying to save.

(52) R. Sungenis 2: The only thing the reader should see is that Dr. White has already presumed that a salvation plan that includes man's cooperation is principially wrong. But from where does that premise come? From John Calvin and Martin Luther. They were the first to say (outside of Lucidus and Gottschalk) that man's cooperation could not be involved in salvation. END

So Christ's willingness does not, in Rome's system, translate into the accomplished fact of salvation. The text, however, says just the opposite: Christ's willingness results in the perfection of the work because Christ is a perfect Savior who is able to save!

(53) R. Sungenis 2: Dr. White would first have to prove that "willingness" means that man's sins cannot curtail Christ's desire to see all men saved, but he hasn't shown that to us yet. He just keeps assuming its true, and then shifts to "Rome" and her influence. Dr. White and the Calvinists don't believe that Christ desires to save all men; never did, never will. He believes Christ created them for eternal damnation. That is the only way Dr. White can have a God who "saves perfectly," as he calls it, since only those He predestines without their free will will be saved, and those he predestines without their free will to Hell will not be saved. END

I continued in TPF: But this tremendous promise is the second half of a sentence. It is based upon the truth that was first proclaimed. This promise is to those who are given by the Father to the Son and to no one else. Of course, we will see in verse 44 that no one but those who are so given will be coming to Christ in faith anyway: but there are surely those who, like many in that audience in Capernaum, are willing to follow for a while, willing to believe for a season.

This promise is not theirs. Sungenis responds: "Dr. White implies that he has made an important statement above, but there is nothing of real significance here."

The only way I can translate this statement is, "It is not significant to note that the promise of Christ not to cast out any who come to Him is based upon the divine sovereignty of the Father in entrusting His people to the Son, and that despite the fact that Jesus then spent the next two verses explaining that very relationship, so that He obviously felt that it was most important to do so." Of course, those who are not given to Jesus by the Father do not have the promise that Jesus will not cast them out. The reason they don't have that promise is because they have never come to Jesus. According to the verse's premise, you can't have the promise that Jesus will not cast you out unless you come to Jesus. In logic, the condition of the category must be fulfilled in order for the category to enact its stipulations. In effect, Dr. White is making an issue of a non-issue. Please note that Mr. Sungenis forgot that the only ones who come to the Son are those given to Him by the Father, hence the connection I described above.

(54) R. Sungenis 2: I forgot? I Don't think so. I've been saying that the Father gave them to Jesus since this debate started. END

I continued and brought out the theocentricity of the passage in these words: The promise to the elect, however, could not be more precious. Since Christ is able to save perfectly (He is not dependent upon man's will, man's cooperation), His promise means the elect cannot ever be lost. To which Sungenis replied:

Again, Dr. White keeps adding things to the passage that the passage does not address. Where does the passage mention, let alone deny, "man's will, man's cooperation"??

One is hard pressed to respond to such a question. When the passage presents the Father's divine gift to the Son and preceding and determining the very identity of every single one who, as a result of being given, come to the Son, and then goes on to reveal the Father's will for the Son to save every single one of those given by the Father to the Son, the issue is not "where does the passage deny" synergism, the issue is, how in the world could anyone read synergism into the passage as Mr. Sungenis does at every turn?

(55) R. Sungenis 2: I don't "read synergism" into the passage, because its not there. But I also don't read "election" into the passage because its not there either. The only thing I read is that all that the Father gives the Son will come to the Son. It is the theology of Dr. White which is making the verse one which teaches a monergistic salvation. END

Where does the passage conclude that those who come can never be lost?? It does so by stating that 1) all who are given come, and 2) the Son raises up all those who are given to Him in perfection (i.e., He loses none). This is simple contextual reading.

(56) R. Sungenis 2: Correction. The passage says it is the Father's "will" that these people are not lost. It doesn't say that some will not be lost. But obviously, to Dr. White, the Father's will and the idea that they will never be lost are one in the same thing. That is because Dr. White comes to the text with a presupposed idea of God's will. That presupposed idea is that, whenever you read of "God's will" in Scripture it refers to a will that cannot be frustrated by the devil or man. Now let me qualify this a little before I go on to rebut it. In one sense, we can say that God's will will be done. God knows the devil and man are going to sin of their own Free Will and thus God makes His ultimate plans accordingly. That is why the passage I earlier quoted from the Catholic Catechism, para 600: "To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination,' he includes in it each person's free response to his grace." So in that sense, and that sense only, God's will cannot be frustrated. But that is not Dr. White's view. His view is that God's will cannot be frustrated in any sense of the word. For example, Dr. White believes that the Devil's rebellion and Adam's sin were willed by God's decree, that is, they were both predestined to fall into sin. Thus, their sin didn't frustrate God's will, rather, they fulfilled God's will. Similarly, Dr. White believes that God wills that only certain people will be saved, arbitrarily, without any recourse to their Free Will (and if we follow F. Klooster's remarks of true Calvinism, without any regard to their sin). Thus, when Dr. White reads a passage such as John 6:39, it can have only one meaning for him: Since it is God's will that nothing will be lost, then nothing will be lost. Now, considering that I have proposed two understandings of God's will, is Dr. White's version a plausible interpretation of the passage? Yes, it is plausible. But whether it is the correct interpretation of the passage is another story altogether. The point in fact is that we don't know which understanding of God's will is displayed in this passage, and that's what makes discussions of predestination and free will so difficult sometimes. The temptation is to side with one version of God's will at the expense of the other, which is what Dr. White and the Calvinists are prone to do. That is why they interpret a passage such as 1 Tim 2:4 to mean "God desires to save all the elect (or all kinds of men)" rather than as the text says, "God desire to save all men." They've already presumed that the definition of "God's will" we must work with is the one that cannot be frustrated. In effect, they put God in a box of their own liking. And when it comes to interpreting passages such as Ezek 33:11, they will ignore the plain sense of the passage and claim that God's pleading is only for the purpose of judging the people for their sin, not for seeking their repentance, as we saw in Dr. White's explanation earlier. END

"Those thoughts are simply not there. Granted, "Christ is able to save perfectly," because He is God and does everything perfectly. Would we want a savior who is imperfect? Of course not. But how does Dr. White get from Christ's perfection to the conclusion that Christ does not anticipate "man's will, man's cooperation."

Does not anticipate? Is this stated in the context of accusing me of eisegetical insertions into the text? If Christ saves perfectly, Mr. Sungenis, are you seriously suggesting that He only saves perfectly those who enable Him to do so? The text ostensibly under consideration says that Christ saves perfectly those that the Father gives Him, and that those who come to Him are, in fact, those that are given by the Father (remember, this whole section is about why those who see Jesus do not believe while the Apostles, as we will see by the end of the discourse, do).

(57) R. Sungenis 2: The text does not speak of Christ "saving perfectly," whatever Dr. White intends to mean by that phrase. It is Dr. White who keeps throwing the word "perfectly" into the mix, and then using this insertion to prove that "perfectly" means that man's will is not involved in salvation. Here again we have the problem of "will." Dr. White is assuming there can be no fallout from the raising, since God's will to save them cannot be frustrated. But he hasn't proven that such a definition of "God's will" is being used in the text. END

I had written in TPF: Since He will not cast out, and there is no power greater than His own, the one who comes to Christ will find Him an all-sufficient and perfect Savior. This is the only basis of "eternal security" or the perseverance of the saints: they look to a perfect Savior who is able to save. It is Christ's ability to save that means the redeemed cannot be lost. If it were, in fact, a synergistic relationship, there could never be any ground for absolute confidence and security.

Sungenis replies: "Without restating the obvious, you can again see how Dr. White has confused Christ's perfection and all-sufficiency with "eternal security.""

The contrast of theocentric and anthropocentric systems is now clear: if Christ is a perfect Savior then He is able to accomplish salvation in the Scriptural view. But in Rome's view, Christ has a lesser task: making salvation possible but not actually accomplishing it. Hence, from Rome's view, Christ can be a perfect Savior by making men savable, while as we will see in this text of Scripture, the reality is that Christ is a perfect Savior because He actually saves those who are given to Him.

(58) R. Sungenis 2: No, the issue is not theocentric versus anthropocentric. That polarity is a red-herring. The issue is how we understand God's will? You'll notice in the above paragraph that Dr. White is working with only one understanding of God's will - - the one he favors for his Calvinistic viewpoint. But that is short-sighted, since he will then eliminate all the other passages in Scripture which speak of God's will differently. That is why the Catholic Church says that the context for interpreting a verse of Scripture is the whole Bible. We have to understand all of what the Bible says before we settle on only one particular viewpoint of God. END

"Moreover, we can easily turn the tables here and say that, in being perfect, Christ has an obligation to reject those who, once having come to Him, become faithless and remain so. If He didn't reject them, then he wouldn't be true to Himself, as 2 Timothy 2:12-13 tells us so clearly."

Note that in Mr. Sungenis' view, faith is not the work of Christ either: that is, faith that truly brings a person to Christ can in essence "go bad" (the truth is many come not to Christ but to religion on the basis of a non-saving "faith" in something other than the Savior), resulting in the above scenario.

(59) R. Sungenis 2: Faith is a gift of God. But that doesn't mean faith does not involve man's cooperation with God's grace. Again, we have Dr. White falling into the same trap. Every time he reads of a divine action, this means that man's cooperation cannot be involved. He hasn't proved that assertion, he just assumes it to be true. END

However, are we not told that Christ is the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:1-2)?

(60) R. Sungenis 2: He is the author and finisher of our faith, but what Dr. White failed to do was look at this verse in context. He just throws the verse out there, one which refers to God's action, and then implies, "See, does this not teach that it is all God's action and none of man's?" The answer is No. It only says that Christ is the author and finisher of our faith. Similarly, we can both agree that God is the "author" of the Bible. Does that mean that man is not involved at all in the writing of the Bible? That man's will is not involved in the writing of the Bible? Of course not. We have a mysterious synergism between God and man in the writing of the Bible, something that cannot be explained by our limited understanding. Moreover, if Dr. White had quoted Hebrews 12:1 he would have seen man's cooperation. The writer says, "let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us." Now, why would the writer plead with them to do such things if they were all predetermined eventualities? Again, Dr. White's view is that these are not pleadings, they are declarative sentences, ie., "you WILL lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin does NOT so easily entangle us, and you WILL run with endurance the race set before us." This is what Dr. White's view does with the whole Bible - - any verse that portrays man's involvement is reworded and reworked to eliminate man's involvement.

Not only that, look at Hebrews 12:15-17: "See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled; that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears." Now you can see why the writer warns them in verse 1 to "lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles them." If not, they will end up like Esau, despised and cursed. But you can depend upon it that Dr. White will come back and say, "Yes, but people like Esau were never truly saved in the first place, so naturally they are going to fall away." So in this case, instead of turning the pleadings into declarative sentences, Dr. White will keep them as pleadings, but with one caveat - - they are not pleadings to get the people to repent (since if they are not "truly saved" they can't repent no matter how hard they try) but they are pleadings to convict them in sin and bring them to judgment, as we have seen him say before. Either way, Scripture is twisted to conform to the wax nose of Calvinism. END

The divine nature of saving faith is here denied by Mr. Sungenis. The person who has been drawn by the Father to the Son (John 6:44-45) hears and learns from God and does not deny Christ, hence 2 Timothy 2:12-13 is not making reference to such a person. Keep these statements by Mr. Sungenis in mind as we come to the discussion of 6:38-39 and the will of the Father for the Son.

(61) R. Sungenis 2: Dr. White has proven my point about his siding with only one understanding of "God's will" in John 6. To maintain this understanding of God's will, Dr. White dismisses 2 Timothy 2:12-13 (which gives a different understanding of God's will than the one Dr. White sees in John 6) as not relevant to the discussion. Even at that, notice that Dr. White has not explained 2 Tim 2:12-13 even in its own context, rather, he just ignores the impact of the passage altogether. END

I had addressed this tremendous passage in TPF in these words: Many stop at verse 37 and miss the tremendous revelation we are privileged to receive in the following verses. Why will Christ never cast out those who come to Him? Verse 38 begins with a connective that indicates a continuation of the thought: verses 38 and 39 explain verse 37. Christ keeps all those who come to Him for He is fulfilling the WILL of the Father. "I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." The divine Messiah always does the WILL of the Father. The preceding chapter in John's Gospel had made this very clear. There is perfect harmony between the work of the Father and the Son. And what is the WILL of the Father for the Son? In simple terms, it is the Father's WILL that the Son save perfectly. "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day." It is vital to remember that this continues the explanation of why He does not cast out the one coming to Him. We must see this for some might be tempted to say that the Father has entrusted all things into the hands of the Son, and that this passage is saying nothing more than the Son will act properly in regards to what the Father has given Him. But the context is clear: v. 37 speaks of the Father "giving" the elect to the Son, and v. 39 continues the same thought. Those who are given infallibly come to the Son in v. 37, and it is these same ones, the elect, [footnote: Jesus uses the neuter pa'n again to refer to the elect as an entire group, though the fact that this group is made up of individuals is seen in their being raised to life and in their individually coming to Him.] who are raised up at the last day.

(62) R. Sungenis 2: Notice how many times Dr. White refers to the WILL of the Father. (I have capitalized them). Again, Dr. White is working on the unproven premise that John 6 is using "God's will" such that it cannot be frustrated by man's sin. END

Sungenis replies: Notice how Dr. White inserts the word "elect" into John 6:37, but the verse does not mention the word elect. It only says, "ALL that the Father gives to me..." The neuter of pa'n does not mean anything crucial he