Jan 22, 2016
Rich Pierce of Alpha and Omega Ministry has a 3 part rebuttal of Prof. Flowers handling of Romans 9 in the debate with Dr. James White. Today's episode is Professor Flowers' very thorough response, which gives greater clarity into his perspective of Romans 9. Let's dive in.
The rebuttal to Rich's first dividing line is in a recent podcast and the second one is on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/soteriology101/
Rich Pierce just posted part 2 of his critique over my handling of Scripture in the Romans 9 debate. Below is a link to my podcast rebuttal of his first part, but for part 2, I thought I'd just take a few notes and give some commentary here for those who may be interested:
1) Paul's self sacrificial love expressed in vs 1-3: Rich accuses me of using this as an "escape hatch" or a "jumping off point" to "escape the text." In my commentary (which I don't believe White or Rich has actually read) I clearly show how Paul's (and later Moses') self sacrificial expressions are reflective of God Himself, which is PROVEN LATER IN THE CONTEXT (4-5, 10:1, 21 etc)
5 Point Calvinists insist the reason not all Israel are accepting their Messiah is because God doesn't really love and want all of them to come to faith and be saved. Yet, not only does Paul express His own self-sacrificial love for the hardened Jews (under inspiration), but he reflects on God's expressions of the same:
10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation... But as for Israel He says, "ALL THE DAY LONG I HAVE STRETCHED OUT MY HANDS TO A DISOBEDIENT AND OBSTINATE PEOPLE." (1,21)
And in the context of the Hosea quote at the end of chapter nine we find this, "as the LORD loves the sons of Israel, though they turn to other gods..." (Hos. 3:1)
How are these facts not relevant to our points of contention in a debate over this subject? And more striking, why won't Rich or White just answer the question being posed instead of dancing around it?
2) Noble Purposes: Rich, like White, hammers my use of this term from the NIV. If prior to my debate, I had any idea how these men would so focus on this semantical argument and make it such a means of diversion and distraction from the actual point at hand, I would have gladly changed it to "honorable" and "dishonorable." Why?
BECAUSE THE POINT IS THE SAME. IT DOESN'T MATTER. (not yelling, just emphasizing)
If it helps, go back and everytime I use the word "noble" just insert the word "honorable," okay? Nothing changes.
As I noted in my first response after the debate, when Dr. White first inquired about the "noble purpose," I wish I had referenced verses 4 and 5 because there Paul lists the "honorable purposes" for which the nation was chosen.
One could also go to Romans 3:1-2 to demonstrate what set Israel apart:
1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.
or
2 Tim. 2:20-21: "Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor (NOBLE) and some to dishonor. Therefore,*** if anyone cleanses himself*** from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work.
Now, can we stop focusing on semantics and deal with the argument, please?
3) Leap Frog: When I go to the clay analogy I'm seeking to answer the question posed by verse 6, which White and I agreed is the "key to understand the whole passage." Has God's word failed in saving the 'lump of clay' (Israel)?
In my commentary (my full exegetical work, not merely my debate presentation) I do go line by line through all these points.
4) Chamber Pot: Rich refers to the non-elect as the "chamber pots" or those pot for dishonorable use, yet ignore verses like Jeremiah 18 or 2 Tim. 2:21 which clearly indicate the responsibility of the pot to cleanse himself (see quote above)
5) "We don't know who the elect are so we should preach to all." But that doesn't answer the problem regarding the fact that Calvinists interpret Paul as teaching the "hardened" in this passage (those he self-sycrifically loves 1-3) are supposedly the non-elect reprobates rejected before the world began. Yet, we know they were cut off for their unbelief (not unconditionally, see Rm 11:20) and they may be grafted back in IF they leave that unbelief (11:23).
6)What about, "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." Lk 14:26
Rich appealed to this verse as being "difficult" just like Romans 9 and acts as if I'm not willing to deal with it, which only proves my speculation above that Rich hasn't read my commentary. Scholars from my perspective often appeal to this passage to explain God's choice or preference of one over another, which is not reflective of a literal hatred (otherwise Lk 14:26 would stand in contrast with Eph. 6 where we are told to love and honor our parents.)
7) As in the first part, Rich lumps together all the verses I used and dismissed them out of hand. He never reads through those texts and explain how they do not speak to the historical context (and thus the right understanding) of Romans 9.
8) Rich argues that "Judicial hardening is a totally different topic than the spiritual deadness of man in sin." Then he accuses me of just forcing together the two concepts to confuse the issue.
Rich, or any Calvinist, can you explain to me a distinction with a difference between "the fallen unregenerate man" and the "totally hardened man" with regard to their ability 'to see, hear, understand and turn to God for healing.' (John 12:39f, Acts 28:27-28, etc)?
Can either man (the hardened one or unregenerate one) see, hear, understand and/or turn to God for healing? No. Not according to your systematics teaching. So, what is the practical difference between the two, Rich?
9) Rich said to me, "I don't take you seriously" Yet, you and White reference Patterson, David Allen, Yarnell, Vines, Hankins, Harwood, Lemke and a host of others who believe and teach very similarly to what I've presented. And you expect them to take you all seriously when you challenge them to a debate. Give respect to get it my friend.
And then you implied I might not take you seriously because you're a layman, which is not at all reflective of my behavior or words toward you or other laymen. My appeal to Drs. Hunter and Pritchett's podcast was to give another perspective, not to suggest your opinion on the subject doesn't matter.
10) The book of Acts contains both narrative and didactic texts. Even White said this in reference to Acts 4, so I'll let that one go...
11) Rich doesn't answer Acts 28 or explain it from his perspective. He just says is a "transitional book" and thus a narrative not didactic (as if that makes the point less valid). Then he tells his audience to go back and read chapters 27 and 28 and ask the question, "Does this have anything to do with Romans 9?"
Then he accuses me of appealing to emotion... "the babies..the babies...the babies" (crying face).
Notice he never explains anything. He doesn't answer my argument. He doesn't address the HISTORICAL CONTEXT of the nation of Israel becoming calloused and thus unable to "see, hear, understand and turn." That point is avoided, just as it was with White in the debate.
12) Rich argues that babies grow up to like Hitler...and I should be ashamed of myself for painting them as completely innocent in order to appeal to the heart strings. Yet, in the clip he played (and regularly in my podcasts and other sermons) I acknowledge that we are born sinners, but NOT totally disabled (i.e. hardened). I never once 'pull at heart strings' by appealing to the 'innocent babies.' Rich may be projecting this onto me from his experience with other Arminians, I guess?
With regard to emotion. Paul begins this chapter with one of the most emotional heartfelt cries of self-sacrificial love known to mankind. Should he "know better" too, Rich?
13) Rich argues that "not all Jews rejected their Messiah," as if that somehow is a problem for my perspective. He even goes so far as to say that White challenged me on this point and I dismissed it "out of hand?" Can you provide the time stamp of that discourse Rich?
Why on earth would I dismiss the fact that some from Israel didn't reject their messiah when that is the very point I argue for why they were preferred (set apart) to be those used for the honorable purpose for which the nation was elected to begin with? Again, this just more clearly reveals Rich's lack of understanding when it comes to how Traditionalists understand these passages.
No one, laymen or scholar, is qualified to rebut an interpretation they have yet to understand.
14) All your arguments about the preacher having the right over the text and not rightly handling God's word, etc... they are all question begging fallacies. If our interpretation is correct then its White who is subverting the text for his own (or Calvinism's) "agenda." That is why we have a debate, brother.
15) Rich argues that my appeal to Romans 9:6, "Has God's word failed" is a tactic. Yet, this is the verse White appealed to over and again in his online teaching over Romans 9 prior to our debate.
16) In White's opener, he begins speaking of "the great privelidges" which are the Israelites...and the incarnate Word which comes through them... (i.e. the 'noble' or 'honorable' purpose for which they were chosen...) He said nothing with which I disagree in that first section. He doesn't hit on our points of contention.
17) Rich, like White, asked, "Is this the method you would use with a muslim?" I argued that the people who came to the DEBATE came to hear our points of contention in Romans 9, not a full exegetical commentary on all the points for which we stand in agreement.
Our debate presentation is a DEFENSE of our exegetical commentary in contrast to the interpretation of the opponent. Our debate presentations are NOT a full exegetical commentary of the entire passage. As demonstrated by the texts between RedGrace and myself, the agreement was NEVER to do a full exegesis of Romans 9 in our opener. I would have never agreed to that because it would be a very poor exegesis indeed. My exegetical work was done to prepare my debate presentation. It was made available to all.
Instead of engaging with the points of our contention, White chose to focus on my methods and pretending as if we agreed to present a full exegisis of an entire chapter in 20 minutes.
Hermenutics requires you to establish the setting and circumstances first, which is what I did. Both White and now Pierce ignore the context of Israel's hardening out of hand while pretending it couldn't affect one's understanding of Paul's discourse over why Israel (the nation being hardened) might not recongize their own messiah. That is baffling to me still.
(pardon typos, I just typed this as I listened and haven't read back over it to make corrections...)