| ACTS Homepage | ACTS Email List | Responses to James White Page | James White Wrong? | Add Your Own Response! |

A Final Challenge/Response In This Discussion

Normally, when I respond to James White, I quote his entire response and add my comments along the way. This time I will not put the reader through that. James' recent "reply" to a discussion I initiated is over 30 pages (if printed) and over 200k of disk space. All this over one, minor part from my initial response, and from a comment that, though I quoted, I did not make.

The reader can decide from themselves who has made an honest attempt to deal with subjects presented, and who has attempted to totally sidetrack and derail the issues (or "refocus" them) at hand.

Roman Catholicism

An Excellent Example of Sola Ecclesia: John 6 and Exegesis

James 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.

My "interpretation?" I presented the words already interpretted. I pointed out how man is still "free" within that context. James refuses to admit his error in "the drawn" argument, and as such is clinging to an errant concept of Calvinistic predestination that truly must be inserted into the text.

The reader will note that one of James' key traits when he starts an argument is to discredit his opponent. This may work on the high school debate team, but in a scholarly debate we must stick to the facts.

I must point out at this time that James has utterly ignored the facts from my initial response. He chooses, instead, to argue the "minor" point of Greek here and focus on Robert Sungenis' comments instead of the (at least) 29 counts of error I pointed out in my initial posting.

The "bait and switch" has been incorporated quite well here. He's made it appear that he's responding to me, when in fact he doesn't deal with a single point I have raised, not one. He's baited you into reading between himself and Sungenis, switching the topic completely away from his own errors, assumably hoping that the initial response of at least 29 errors gets lost in the overwhelming volume of "responses."

I hope the reader will join me in demanding White go back to that intial response and deal with his errors. Face them, admit to them or prove them fallacious.


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.

Well, I'm not sure what James means about "repeatedly" I told him about it when I first posted it, as a courtesy, then when someone asked me about something in it on the ACTS Email List and I responded publically to that person, I notified James of that public response. Besides that, I only mentioned it if asked, and typically in my own chat channel.

This debate has not really "continued," rather it has taken on a whole new thrust, that being James working in an area he considers himself to have expertise (and backing from other scholars) instead of the areas where he truly is challenged. Now, when one mentions that he's been "challenged" James typically laughs and/or scoffs at that - but there are 29 counts only one of which he has attempted to deal with (WC #24) which was a very short snippet from a quote from a telephone conversation between myself and Robert Sungenis. James has totally avoided the real substance of my response and sidetracked the discussion into a debate on Greek syntax and grammar. I agree somewhat to its applicability but this has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime.

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. Well, it is my hope that the believers will read what has transpired and see through the thinly veiled attempt to get away from dealing with the main subject at hand and derail the original discussion into what has transpired. Let us hope that the believers see that they truly have been drawn each and every one of them - and even those who do not believe are drawn because "God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son, and whosoever believes in Him, shall not perish, but have eternal life." THAT, my friends is the nature of the Gospel in a nutshell. The True Gospel is not the Fatalistic approach of Calvinism. Calvinists will deny Fatalism, but truly, how can they? I refer the reader to another site, a Protestant one at that, that lists the inherent flaws of Calvinism http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.net/fbcfouri.htm. How can the true believer accept the "fate" of Calvinism? Why should we persevere? Why go out and evangelize the world if it's all a "done deal" already? You're not a puppet or a preprogrammed robot - God has given you the choice to follow Him, and follow the Church that He created and built upon The Kepha/Rock. Will you accept the responsibility to seek Him, and seek His Truth, especially since you know you are drawn? Why do the Scriptures tell us to seek the kingdom of heaven if nothing we do can or will change the ultimate end?
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.


And that's James' modus operandi isn't it? "Refocusing the discussion." Then criticizes the fact that these responses "grow to such proportions...on details that may, or may not, actually be relevant to the topic at hand." And that is precisely what James White has done - now with this 30+ page response to the original 3 or 4 lines from the original page. All this is what he feels is necessary to convey the Gospel? John 3:16 summarizes the Gospel message quite nicely - in one verse.

God loves the whole world not just part of it. (John 3:16)
God desires all men to be saved, not just the elect. (1 Tim 2:4)

As it has been asked in the past:

  • Does God not love all His creation?
  • When men are condemned to hell, did God fail or did men?
I'll close with that, and not belabor this effort any further. If James wishes to make a real response to my 28 points from the original posting, I will answer him further. If all he wishes to do is brow-beat the reader into submission by reams of a response - well, I'm not into such abuse.

Take care, and may the peace of God which surpasses all understanding, keep you or bring you to the True Faith, in Christ our Lord.


The number of visitors to this page since March 23, 2001 is: