On your web site, you have a post entitled "Hyper Calvinism Revisited" (21 February) in which you misrepresent me (and, by extension, misrepresent those with whom I fellowship). If you are going to refute what I say, then at least refute what I say, rather than your misrepresentations of me. If you are a man of integrity, you will post my defense on your web site or at least tell your readers where you falsely accused me and publicly recant your false accusations. However, since I do not believe you are a man of integrity, I'm not holding my breath.

I have never said that Christians must be willing to condemn these people to the fires of hell itself and if they don't they're not Christians. I myself don't condemn them to the fires of hell! So if what you said were true, I'd have to say that I'm not a Christian! I have never condemned anyone to the fires of hell itself. Give evidence for your accusation or tell everyone that you have falsely accused me. Among the unregenerate, we do not know who is and who is not elect. It is not for us to know or to judge whether an unregenerate person is going to go to heaven or to hell. And among those who used to be heretics who have died, I don't know if God saved them later on in their lives before they died. So I don't know if they are in heaven or hell. I do not know if anyone in the "Heterodoxy Hall of Shame" is in hell right now. God could have saved them after they made the quotes I mentioned. What I do know is that they were unregenerate. And what I do know is that those people who are alive right now who believe in universal atonement are unregenerate. Christians do not judge whether or not unregenerate people are going to hell. They do not condemn anyone to hell. What they do do is judge a person who confesses a false gospel to be currently unregenerate. That's a far cry from condemning them to hell. So will you tell everyone you have falsely accused me?

   how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 20:20-21) How do you separate repentance toward God and faith in Christ in this passage?

   For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. (Titus 2:11-14) Saving grace teaches us to live sensibly and righteously; and the people of God in Christ are without question described as "zealous for good deeds."

The Bubba Club Broken
An Atomistic Exegesis of Romans 9
James Patrick Holding

Seeing as how certain Calvinist alpha males and their junior apes have chosen to make monkeys of themselves responding to our material, it seemed judicious to provide what they think is not present, and hoist their own rug of "exegesis" out from under them. The following is our exegesis of Romans 9 in "bubba club" format -- showing that it does not support the Calvinist view, and melds hand in glove with the scholarship we have been consulting for the subject. This is a draft that will be added to as we avail ourselves of further resources.

   In this book Mr. White merely asserts his private opinion about the nature of the Bible but fails to give a single complelling (sic) reason for accepting his views other than theolgical (sic) preference. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. White provides none of this.
   he (sic) whole book acan (sic) be summmed (sic) up as follows: "If you want to beleive (sic) my theological conclusions, then you have to accept my premises." Using this he tries to confirm people in their prejudices and does not allow for any disageement within the house of faith.
   Mr. White assumes a lot about the Bible without any grounding or proof. There is a good reason for this. In typical Protestant fashion, he has divorced himself from historic Christianity and its witness to the Scritures (sic). Consequently, he cannot with integrity appeal to the authroity (sic) of tradition in support of his views. He makes some mention of the authority of the Bible in the pre-Deformation Church but fails to give the corresponding evidence that Tradition and the "Regula Fidei" were also held to be norms of faith by the very people he quotes.
   A far better treatment of this topic is an appendix on 'sola scriptura' in the book "Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants" by Dr. Daniel H. Williams. Dr. Williams is an acknowledged international expert on the Arian Controversy and has a REAL doctorate from an accredited university. His short appendix totally undermines the idea that 'sola scriptura' ever represented sound Christian teaching.

The blind man said to Jesus, "Lord, I believe!" And he worshipped Jesus. Jesus said, "I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see may see, and so that those who see may become blind." Some of the Pharisees who followed Him around heard what He said, and said to Him, "We are not blind as well, are we?" Jesus said to them, "If you were really blind, you would not be guilty of sin. But since you claim that you can see, your sin remains."

72. Certainly they have disbelieved who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Maryam (Mary)." While Christ himself said: "O children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Rabb and your Rabb." Whoever commits shirk (joins partners with Allah), Allah will deny him the paradise, and the hellfire will be his home. There will be no helper for the wrongdoers.
73. Certainly they are unbelievers who say: "Allah is one of three in a Trinity." There is no god except One Allah. If they do not stop saying what they say, a painful punishment will befall the disbelievers among them.
74. Will they not then turn to Allah and seek His forgiveness? Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
75. Christ, the son of Maryam, was no more than a Rasool; many Rasools had already passed away before him. His mother was a truthful woman; they both ate earthly food like other human beings. See how the Revelations are made clear to them to know reality; yet see how they ignore the truth!
76. Ask them: "Would you worship besides Allah someone who can neither harm nor benefit you? While Allah is He who hears all and knows all."

Col. 3:12 So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; 13 bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you.

Heck, for that matter Piper and his take on the LXX is incorrect, since it is the OG and not the LXX. In addition, the translation of the Greek is incorrect since the a? particle shows it should be understood as subjunctive instead of as indicative, something which Piper (IIRC) misses. THEY ARE NOT ALL FUTURES, they are conditionals.
How can election in a Calvinist sense be based on subjunctives with conditional particles?

...it was precisely the extrabiblical (especially apocalyptic) elements of Pharisaical Judaism that New Testament Christianity adopted and developed for its own---doctrines such as resurrection, the soul, the afterlife, eternal reward or damnation, and angelology and demonology (all of which the Sadducees rejected).

   10. "Sorry, but White clearly does not have his exegetical ducks in a row. I recommend he read Kasemann, Fitzmyer, Esler, and Witherington. That should run the gauntlet for him, and maybe throw in a healthy dose of Cranfield for the grammar."

   Well, it would be quite a trick for Dr. White to line up all these ducks in a row. Kasemann is a liberal Lutheran duck, Fitzmyer is a liberal Catholic duck, Witherington is an Evangelical Arminian duck, Esler is another liberal duck (subspecies: Anatidae Sanders), while Cranfield is a Barthian duck.
   In addition, only two of the five (Esler, Witherington) belong to the sociorhetorical school of criticism. So it would, indeed, be no small feat to point all these ducks in the same direction. However, a quack like Holding may have just the right birdcall to make it happen.

By grace I'm saved, grace free and boundless;
My soul, believe and doubt it not.
Why stagger at this word of promise?
Hath Scripture ever falsehood taught?
Nay; then this word must true remain:
By grace thou, too, shalt heav'n obtain.

By grace! None dare lay claim to merit;
Our works and conduct have no worth.
God in his love sent our Redeemer,
Christ Jesus, to this sinful earth;
His death did for our sins atone,
And we are saved by grace alone.

By grace! O, mark this word of promise
When thou art by thy sins oppressed,
When Satan plagues thy troubled conscience,
And when thy heart is seeking rest.
What reason cannot comprehend
God by his grace to thee doth send.

By grace! This ground of faith is certain;
So long as God is true, it stands.
What saints have penned by inspiration,
What in his Word our God commands,
What our whole faith must rest upon,
Is grace alone, grace in his Son.

Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority, based on Moses' seat, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishna, where a sort of teaching succession from Moses on down is taught. Thus, apostolic succession, whereby the Catholic Church, in its priests and bishops and popes, claims to be merely the custodian of an inherited apostolic Tradition, is also prefigured by Jewish oral tradition, as approved (at least partially) by Jesus himself....Thirdly, because they had the authority and no indication is given that Jesus thought they had it only when simply reading Scripture, it would follow that Christians were, therefore, bound to elements of Pharisaical teaching that were not only nonscriptural, but based on oral tradition, for this is what the Pharisees believed. (43-44, 49)

Matthew 17:17-21 17 And Jesus answered and said, "You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to Me." 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured at once. 19 Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Why could we not drive it out?" 20 And He said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you. 21 "But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting."
Mark 9:25-29 25 When Jesus saw that a crowd was rapidly gathering, He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, "You deaf and mute spirit, I command you, come out of him and do not enter him again." 26 After crying out and throwing him into terrible convulsions, it came out; and the boy became so much like a corpse that most of them said, "He is dead!" 27 But Jesus took him by the hand and raised him; and he got up. 28 When He came into the house, His disciples began questioning Him privately, "Why could we not drive it out?" 29 And He said to them, "This kind cannot come out by anything but prayer."

Thirdly, because they had the authority and no indication is given that Jesus thought they had it only when simply reading Scripture, it would follow that Christians were, therefore, bound to elements of Pharisaical teaching that were not only nonscriptural, but based on oral tradition, for this is what the Pharisees believed. (p. 49)

. provides that knowingly approaching within eight feet of a person for the purpose of passing out literature, displaying an object, or engaging in protest or counseling without the other person's consent is a class B misdemeanor if the person is within 100 feet of an entrance door to a health care facility or place of worship;
. permits recovery of civil damages and injunctive relief against a person who violates the above provisions or who incites another person to violate the above provisions;

4 Now in that day the glory of Jacob will fade, And the fatness of his flesh will become lean. 5 It will be even like the reaper gathering the standing grain, As his arm harvests the ears, Or it will be like one gleaning ears of grain In the valley of Rephaim. 6 Yet gleanings will be left in it like the shaking of an olive tree, Two or three olives on the topmost bough, Four or five on the branches of a fruitful tree, Declares the LORD, the God of Israel. 7 In that day man will have regard for his Maker And his eyes will look to the Holy One of Israel. 8 He will not have regard for the altars, the work of his hands, Nor will he look to that which his fingers have made, Even the Asherim and incense stands. 9 In that day their strong cities will be like forsaken places in the forest, Or like branches which they abandoned before the sons of Israel; And the land will be a desolation. 10 For you have forgotten the God of your salvation And have not remembered the rock of your refuge.

The evidence of the manuscript from Mount Sinai was proving more and more difficult to digest. In the received text, Luke chapter 24, verse 51, tells how Jesus left his disciples after his resurrection. He blessed them, was parted from them, 'and was carried up into heaven'. Sinaiticus omits the final clause. As the textual critic C.S.C. Williams observed, if this omission is correct, 'there is no reference at all to the Ascension in the original text of the Gospels'.

Now through Feb. 31: Give to help support the Society for the Preservation of Calvinists Displaced by Social Science Scholarship. For details see http://www.aomin.org

Is there unrighteousness with God? Hardly. "Why not choose me?" -- Esau. At the very least it may be said in reply, "Because look what happens if you do!" Now obviously we are using mere number of saved here as an exemplary hypothesis -- the multiplicity of possibilities and events is much, much more involved, to a degree that blows Job out of the water and into the orbit of Pluto and beyond. Only God can manage the multiplicity! That's why Paul's final answer is the same as it was to Job: "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" In other words, what do you know?
But we have not covered every aspect as yet. The crux of election is Romans 9:16 --

So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.

It is our contention that Romans 9 may be better understood in terms of the rubric of primary causality. But we anticipate the objection that we would be thereby reading into the text a concept not found therein. Our answer is that we would not expect it to be found within Romans 9 or any explanation offered by Paul -- because such an "explanation expectation" would be the product of a Western low-context mind rather than a Hebrew high-context one, like Paul's.

This is yet another disappointing answer, amounting to the braying of "how do we know" with as yet no actual answer to the concept in question. A proper answer to these points would be, such as, "Hebrew block logic does not exist in reality, because..." or, "Hebrew block logic does not apply to these particular passages, because..." That it is poetry frankly makes not an ounce of difference, unless White wishes to produce some argument from credentialed social-science sources showing that expressions of mind shifted in poetic format. It remains that Paul is not making a logical argument, any more than God made one (or had to) before Job.

Some well-loved stories also disappeared in the text so carefully and long preserved on Mount Sinai. The eighth chapter of St John's Gospel, in the received text, contains the story of a woman who had been caught committing adultery. The scribes and the Pharisees wish to stone her to death, following, as they say, the law of Moses. Jesus says, 'He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her'. One by one the woman's accusers slip away, until she and Jesus are alone together. Then he asks her, 'Where are your accusers? Has no-one condemned you?' She answers, 'No-one, my Lord'. Jesus responds, 'Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more.'
   We now know that some ancient manuscripts transfer this story elsewhere in the New Testament, to the Gospel of Luke. In some manuscripts the scribes have indicated that they doubt its authenticity. It nowhere appears in either Vaticanus or Sinaiticus.

Surely Allah does not forgive shirk (associating any partner with Him); and may forgive sins other than that if He so pleases. This is because one who commits shirk with Allah, does indeed invent a great sinful lie. (Surah 4:48, F. Malik Translation)

It reminds me of the old silly Protestant tale that the popes speak infallibly and ex cathedra (cathedra is the Greek word for seat in Matthew 23:2) only when sitting in a certain chair in the Vatican --- because the phrase means literally "from the bishop's chair" --- whereas it was a figurative and idiomatic usage). (sic)

"And these are ancient things."
--1 Chronicles 4:22
Yet not so ancient as those precious things which are the delight of our souls. Let us for a moment recount them, telling them over as misers count their gold. The sovereign choice of the Father, by which He elected us unto eternal life, or ever the earth was, is a matter of vast antiquity, since no date can be conceived for it by the mind of man. We were chosen from before the foundations of the world. Everlasting love went with the choice, for it was not a bare act of divine will by which we were set apart, but the divine affections were concerned. The Father loved us in and from the beginning. Here is a theme for daily contemplation. The eternal purpose to redeem us from our foreseen ruin, to cleanse and sanctify us, and at last to glorify us, was of infinite antiquity, and runs side by side with immutable love and absolute sovereignty. The covenant is always described as being everlasting, and Jesus, the second party in it, had His goings forth of old; He struck hands in sacred suretyship long ere the first of the stars began to shine, and it was in Him that the elect were ordained unto eternal life. Thus in the divine purpose a most blessed covenant union was established between the Son of God and His elect people, which will remain as the foundation of their safety when time shall be no more. Is it not well to be conversant with these ancient things? Is it not shameful that they should be so much neglected and even rejected by the bulk of professors? If they knew more of their own sin, would they not be more ready to adore distinguishing grace? Let us both admire and adore tonight, as we sing--

"A monument of grace,
A sinner saved by blood;
The streams of love I trace
Up to the Fountain, God;
And in His sacred bosom see
Eternal thoughts of Love to me."

Anyone who says that people who believe in universal atonement are saved is taking sides with Satan, calling God a liar and is not a Christian.

After reminding him of these favors, Allah will say: "O Isa (Jesus) son of Maryam (Marry), Did you ever say to the people, "worship me and my mother as gods beside Allah?" He will answer: "Glory to You! How could I say what I had no right to say? If I had ever said so, you would have certainly known it. You know what is in my heart, but I know not what is in Yours; for You have full knowledge of all the unseen. (Surah 5:116, Al-Maida, F. Malik Translation)

"All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him" (Matthew 11:27).

What really outraged men like Dean Burgon was principally that, however learnedly Codex Sinaiticus was edited, it revealed a text of the Bible that again and again differed from what they had revered and loved as Holy Writ. Take, for example, the Lord's Prayer. Generations of Englishmen had been accustomed to the version, in Luke chapter 11, verses 2 to 4:

Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth
Give us day by day our daily bread.
And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive everyone that is indebted to us.
And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

They learned to accept this as an alternative to the more familiar version in Matthew chapter 6, verses 9 to 13.
   Now they were presented with an even more truncated version. The Lord's Prayer of Codex Sinaiticus reads simply:

Father, Hallowed be thy name,
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done, as in heaven, so upon earth.
Give us day by day our daily bread
And forgive us our sins, as we ourselves also forgive everyone that is indebted to us.
And bring us not into temptation

Islam is the final revelation, therefore those believing in it submit to Allah—the only One worthy of obedience in every sphere of life. To understand 9/11, we must go back to Tawhid— the exclusive worship of God in every sphere—religious, political, social, etc. Every human action must relate to this. 9/11 was undoubtedly an unpleasant moment for its targets or their relatives (Muslims and non-Muslim), but those committing it acted as a result of the predestined divine decree (although God does give man free will).

   There are no footnotes attached. No names given. But a paragraph has been added into the middle of Dave Hunt's desperate attempt to escape Acts 13:48 that, when you consider what it says, is one of the most amazing examples of "destroy the foundations of your entire life's work just because you detest the freedom of God that is proclaimed in 'Calvinism'" I've ever seen. When I read it I had to sit back and catch my breath. Yes, the following paragraph appears in the second edition of WLIT?

   The Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as comments from early church writers, indicate that the first 15 chapters of Acts were probably written first in Hebrew. The Greek would be a translation. Some scholars claim that going back to a "redacted Hebrew" version, based upon word-for-word Greek-Hebrew equivalents, would render Acts 13:48 more like "as many as submitted to, needed, or wanted salvation, were saved." Furthermore, even if "ordained" were the correct meaning, these Greeks still would have had to believe the gospel and accept Christ by an act of their own faith and will, as all of Scripture testifies (p. 264)

The proper social definition of "mercy" brings an interesting twist to, for example, the great Calvinist keystone in Romans 9: "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." Understood as the NT writers wrote it, this means: "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that pays His debt of personal obligation to us as our patron."