Svendsen is correct in noticing that I do not list the heirs of the Radical Reformation among the congregations of Christ’s visible Catholic Church on earth. Svendsen and his evangelical brethren do indeed have a noble tradition of their own, stemming backwards in time to Smith Wigglesworth, Billy Sunday and Charles Finney, and further still to the Prophet Joseph Smith, Fausto Socinus, Michael Servetus, Caspar Schwenckfeld, Menno Simons, Conrad Grebel, Balthasar Hubmaier and the Zwickau Prophets, and yet beyond to the Montanists, Novatians, Donatists and various Gnostic sects of the early centuries of the Church. But it is a trajectory of figures and movements of varying doctrinal orthodoxy outside the Catholic Church (though of course containing many faithful believers in Jesus within their ranks).

Dr. White,
   Hello James. I enjoyed the read of Spurgeon but I'm sure you noticed a few inconsistencies in his sermon. Yes, he rightly rejects the "love less" view and he also notes that divine hatred here is a statment of Esau's non-elect status (Rom 9:13). He also notes rightly that this chapter deals with individual not national election. This is a profitable area of the sermon. But, I think Spurgeon gets off track on the Esau issue. Romans 9 says God hated [did not elect] Esau "even before they were born or had done anything good or bad (so that God's purpose in election would stand, not by works but by his calling.)" (NET Bible). Thus we would hold Paul teaches that God elects eternally and unconditionally, that is, based on absolutely no merit actual or forseen in an individual but purely out of his own good pleasure where he arbitrarily chooses some and passes over others. That God chooses any for salvation is pure grace. The flip side of this act of choosing is not choosing others thereby guaranteeing that those unchosen will be damned. Thus by the one act of eternal and unconditional election, God predestines both the elect to salvation by positively securing their salvation in the atonement and the non-elect to damnation by negatively passing over them in election (reprobation) and not providing salvation for them. This is double-predestination. Those who say that double-predestination elects some to damnation seriously misrepresent the position. No one is elected to damnation; they are predestined to damnation by not being elected to salvation, and justly so.
   But when Spurgeon goes into the life of Esau, he attempts to point out issues in the OT narrative that would bring God's derserved hatred. See the problem? This is after Esau is born and based on works precisely the opposite of what Paul says. Finally, Spurgeon fails outright to understand (or at least appreciate) the issue of double-predestination. As a pastor, I can see why he avoids this but as an exegete this is inexcusable. He translates the Greek perfect participle as middle and not passive in Rom 9:22 (passive: "the objects of wrath prepared for destruction" [NET Bible].). Instead, he says, "But it does not say anything about fitting men for destruction; they fitted themselves. They did that: God had nothing to do with it. But when men are saved, God fits them for that. All the glory to God in salvation; all the blame to men in damnation." Romans 9 says the very thing Spurgeon denies: the non-elect individual is "fitted [by God] for destruction." The passive voice is divine and thus he is prepared by God. How God does this is via preterition (passing over the non-elect) unto reprobation. So double-predestination is asymmetrical for sure, that is, God does not elect to salvation and elect to damnation but rather he elects some to salvation and passes over the rest to certain damnation---hence asymmetrical double-predestination. But there is no doubt in Romans 9 of the double in double-predestination. Spurgeon's middle voice interpretation ("they fitted themselves") is easily refuted when given the context of the potter and the clay as well as upon examining the lexical issue. Does clay form itself? No. This sermon, however, is a good example of a five-point Calvinist that shys away from the harsher elements of biblical theology, exegetical precision, and consistent theism. But it is this kind of inconsistency that gives non-Calvinists a foot in the door in a manner of speaking.
   One final matter. That hell was created for the devil and his angels supposedly rules out this double-predestination interpretation. But all that the text may be said to imply about preparing hell for angels and not man is that hell was created before man fell; not that certain men were not ordained to eternal punishment or as Paul says here, "destruction." Again, one could wish Spurgeon was more consistent here given the fact that he is indeed a five-point Calvinist.
All the best,
Don Hartley, Ph.D.

The definition of revisionist history is often as simple as someone wanting it to be true.

As I have the entire Reformed community up in arms over my statement concerning the debate, I would simply like to put an end to the speculation.

On Friday as I was flying to a speaking engagement I was informed by my office that Drs. White and Ascol (either one or both of them) objected to the rules established by the moderator, Brett O'Donnell.

I am standing right here.
I am ready for the debate.
Just because JW has a problem with authority, and cannot manipulate the situation, he backs out.
Sad.
Anyone who holds to predestination to hell, and the possibility of infant damnation, even in theory, is a hyper Calvinist.
He is hyper Calvinist. Now everyone knows it.
ergun

I have taken the liberty to go back over Ergun's email from May 11 and have tried to adjust times to fit into a 3-hour allotment. Following are the results. Please let me know if this is acceptable or if we need to make further adjustments. If this is acceptable then we can all begin making preparations accordingly. If it is not, please make adjustments as soon as possible. Thanks!

Thanks, Emir. I will plan accordingly.
-tom

Calvinist Debate Cancelled by Hyper-calvinist
James White backs out of the debate. Refused to submit to moderator rules. Details will follow tonight.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have spoken truthfully about Jehovah’s knowledge. But more can be said to define and defend what they have taught. The “Reformers” and those who have followed in their footsteps have not spoken truthfully about God’s knowledge. More must be said to undo the damage that they have done. They have also not spoken truthfully about man and his standing before God.

Thus, I agree with and will defend Jehovah’s Witnesses’ view of the salvation of mankind through a living faith and their belief in the existence of human free will, a will that must turn to God who will accept us and have mercy upon us all:

It is time to crush the “Reformers” view of God and their misleading and even false teachings respecting his nature and his knowledge....As I said, John Calvin was a murderer and a false prophet, a rotten tree who produced rotten fruit. I pray that Jehovah crushes Calvinism. I pray that he gives me a part in crushing it along with any of the variety of fruit it has produced.

Gentlemen:
   Thank you for finally writing, Dr. Caner. I believe a quicker reply would have saved us all a lot of trouble, but that is water under the bridge.
   In essence, Emir, you have just said that while you worked with Tom to arrive at an agreement, you are willing to renege, less than two weeks prior to that debate, on the agreement, throwing out the very heart of the requests Tom brought to you in good faith, all because Dr. O'Donnell does not like them? Sir, could I please ask you how we can trust anything that is said to us when your word can be changed by someone with an allegedly "higher" authority? What if someone decides that the debate needs to be two hours, and that on Monday night the 16th of October? Will that then be what happens?
   Further, Emir, if Dr. O'Donnell is to be given ultimate, final, and complete authority over the debate (something that was never requested, let alone granted, by us), why did you come to us and ask what we would have to do to make this work? Why not have Dr. O'Donnell do this, since, if you are being consistent now, you did not have the authority to negotiate anyway? If you were negotiating in good faith then, how can you renege on that negotiation now? If you were not negotiating in good faith then, what was your purpose? I cannot begin to understand this behavior on your part.
   I have to ask you all. If this is not breach of contract, at least in the realm of one's word and honor, what would, in fact, constitute this?
   Well, this saga will certainly go down in history. It will do so because I will continue to arrange meaningful, scholarly debates with leading proponents of other viewpoints, just as I will be debating John Shelby Spong in November, and we will continue to demonstrate the highest standards in honestly seeking to fairly and openly defend the Christian faith in those situations. And if Dr. Ergun Caner would like to arrange a one-on-one debate at a neutral location in the future, I would dearly love to do so. But as it stands now, you have reneged upon our agreement unilaterally; you refuse to allow for sufficient time for a four-man debate and for the agreed to cross-examination; you likewise have claimed, through O'Donnell's actions, the advantage of speaking first and last despite the thesis statement not requiring that advantage to the affirmative side. Since the video taping rights issue likewise has not been completely settled, and given that Dr. O'Donnell has disqualified himself by his demeanor and behavior from moderating, it is obvious that there is no good faith being exercised by your side in this event. The ability to trust that the others will do what they say they will do is necessary to have a meaningful event.
   Therefore, in light of the knowing and unilateral abandonment of the settled agreement on the part of Brett O'Donnell, and your support of this, there will be no debate on October 16th in Lynchburg, Virginia. Immediately before your e-mail arrived Dr. Ascol called me from Sao Paulo, Brazil, and I confirmed with him that we would not accept the unilateral rejection of our agreement. Then, I sent this e-mail to him for his approval, and he managed to get an internet connection from the airport, and he stands with me. There can be no debate without debaters, and the behavior of your side in openly reneging upon your word has made any further attempts to make this work, despite months of struggle, worthless. My personal challenge to Ergun Caner stands for a one-on-one debate, but now with the stipulation that it take place in a neutral location with a neutral moderator.
   Any suggestions or assertions that this debate ended for any other reason than the truth, i.e., that twelve days prior to the debate the agreement upon which it was based was unilaterally thrown out by Brett O'Donnell with the support of Emir Caner, will be met with full and complete documentation of the facts. It is bad enough that this has happened. Please, do not add to this with any campaign to make it look like we pulled out of this. Everyone in this group knows otherwise.
   James White