Anyone read JP Holding's article on the U?

Status
Not open for further replies.
john_Mark

john_Mark

Puritan Board Freshman
http://www.tektonics.org/tulip/ulip.html

I am wondering what some of you think?

I read through the first part down to his illustrations of his main points. Seems to me just a whole bunch of philosophical constructs without much scripture. He does quote and I believe misuse 1 Kings 19:11-12 though. He simply prooftexts and assumes his position.

One thing I find to be a poor approach is the following.


Yet one cannot falsely generalize from these particulars and assume that God chooses to exercise His right of sovereignty in the same way for things like the moving of a finger. Perhaps He does, but perhaps He does not; perhaps He does at some times, but not at others. Yet to suggest such a thing hardly removes any sovereignty from God, for a simple reason that I have yet to see dealt with by a Calvinist commentator (though I may see it in the future): The decision to do nothing is itself a sovereign decision. If this is not so, why do we blame people for not taking action when we think they should?
Click to expand...

Holding here hasn't even proven the opposite of his question which is offering a proof that God's decision to do nothing is a sovereign decision. We could speculate as to what he means, but if he is unwilling to define and explain his positive position then why ask us to proof the negative? His rhetorical question of blame does not suffice.

I responded to him a little over on theologyweb, but I can't stand their layout over there. There are just too many philosphical assumptions in Holdings article.
 
Holding is a busy man, you got to give him some space. That guy churns out articles and analyses like if he's a sandwhich man at Subway.

Yes he does make a lot of philosophical assumptions, I give credence to his works concerning the area of historical documentation that affirms the Christian Faith. I love his investigations and how he totally delves into history.

But I am skeptical with him concerning the area of certain doctrines. Concerning the statement of Jesus, "No One knows the day or the other only the Father". Holding gives a proposition of the Holy Spirit losing His Omniscience when He comes into Time.

Stuff like that gets me a litttle perturbed of God being subjected to His creation instead of His creation being subjected to Him.

I think he blows it in relation to what you post. Fact is, Jesus proclaimed the Sovereignity of God in the very feeding and the death of Sparrows, and the number of hairs on the head of humans. God is into absolute macromanagement and absolute micromanagement, and yet that which a man does he is responsible for eventhough what a man does ensues on the permission and the ordination of God. Peter said Predeterminate Counsel in the Book of Acts concerning the death of Jesus and yet the Pharisees and the Romans that committed the act were responsible. You can't escape it.

But Calvinism is diametrically opposed to to the remnants of the decaying Enlightenment culture that we are a part of. So in the least we know where Holding is coming from when he suggests, "Perhaps He does, but perhaps He does not".
 
Yet one cannot falsely generalize from these particulars and assume that God chooses to exercise His right of sovereignty in the same way for things like the moving of a finger.
Click to expand...

Oh, so he wants to reason from generals to particulars? How bout this:

"Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." --John 8:47

There ya go. Predestination from a general to a particular. How ya like dem apples, JP?
 
It's easy to make fun of JP (and he's a good friend of mine, BTW) here on a board.... but would you go head to head with him on sarcasm in person ?

Better yet, hop over to theologyweb.com, register and post that same post, Craig. JP's a regular over there (along with a lot LESS Calvinist-friendly folks as well as other Calvinists...).
 
Kelly,

I have been over there as you probably know. :) I think there are so many assumptions in his article on Uncondictional Election that it would take some time to go through and respond. I met a friend of his this weekend who said he talked to JP on the phone and told him that if he used this particular hermeneutic applied to all of Scripture that we'd never know what any of it really means.

I also don't like that he thinks he can hold Dr. White to a certain standard of how and how quickly White must reply to JP's article. I can already hear his choir singing the tune. I suppose that theological journals should not be allowed to have more than a one part response either for the special time frame would be viloated. :D

Why don't you ask your friend to actually quote and exegete scripture to suppport his points? To quote current Calvinist arguements and deal directly with them rather than with phrases that he's "never heard a Calvinist answer?" Maybe it's because I just watched James White debate George Bryson last week on DVD and I have some carry over frustration. :banghead:
 
PS: Theologywebb is one of the most difficult forums to navigate through. I told this to Dee Dee Warren when she visited #prosapologian last week. Don't even get me started about her not understanding Calvinism. She admited as much too, but she still takes JP's position. Interesting isn't it that she admits as to not having a grasp on Calvnism while rejecting it....hhmmmm. :banghead:
 
Theologywebb is one of the most difficult forums to navigate through.
Click to expand...

Now there's an understatement!

It's HORRID. If they can't at least offer you the option of viewing all the forums in FLAT mode I will never read or post there. Maddening I tell ya!

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by houseparent]
 
Originally posted by john_Mark
Kelly,

I have been over there as you probably know. :) I think there are so many assumptions in his article on Uncondictional Election that it would take some time to go through and respond. I met a friend of his this weekend who said he talked to JP on the phone and told him that if he used this particular hermeneutic applied to all of Scripture that we'd never know what any of it really means.

I also don't like that he thinks he can hold Dr. White to a certain standard of how and how quickly White must reply to JP's article. I can already hear his choir singing the tune. I suppose that theological journals should not be allowed to have more than a one part response either for the special time frame would be viloated. :D

Why don't you ask your friend to actually quote and exegete scripture to suppport his points? To quote current Calvinist arguements and deal directly with them rather than with phrases that he's "never heard a Calvinist answer?" Maybe it's because I just watched James White debate George Bryson last week on DVD and I have some carry over frustration. :banghead:
Click to expand...

I didn't say I agreed with JP - I think he's wrong here :) I just wondered what would happen if Craig went and said that to him in a forum where he posts normally..... :D

I've been wanting to 'deal' with his take on Calvinism for a while.... and also Glenn Miller's take on Romans 9 (Corporate Election) over at ChristianThinkTank.com. Just haven't had time.
 
and yes, TW *is* difficult to navigate.... and tooooooooo biiiiiggg. Last night, I was on and there were 81 registered users and 100 guests floating around.

I'm not too cool on huge sites (or overly huge churches as well).
 
Kerry, I can't believe I called you "Kelly" :lol: I was in a hurry earlier. I have known you long enough although I don't often use your first name. Sorry, brother.

I know you don't agree with JP. ;)

Oh, I put your Wilkin debate into Word format so DrO could use it. If you want a copy let me know.
 
Rooster (Andy) sent me a copy of it in Word format already, too. There's actually 2 more questions (one that I still ain't answered yet and one that Bob had to answer) - mine was on Calvin's view of regeneration. The guy who asked it tried to make it look like Calvin said that we aren't wholly regenerated in this lifetime (talking of the spiritual sense) when in actuality, Calvin was speaking of our ENTIRE glorification (including the redemption of our bodies). I'll get to it one of these days.

Don't feel too bad. You're not the only person who's called me 'Kelly' :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

john_Mark
  • Locked
JP Holding's critique of unconditional election
Replies
0
Views
2K
john_Mark
john_Mark
J
  • Locked
Article on Calvinism in "The Baptist Banner"
Replies
12
Views
4K
reformed trucker
R
cupotea
  • Locked
Your Thoughts on This Article, Please
Replies
3
Views
2K
tdowns
tdowns
Backwoods Presbyterian
  • Locked
Excellent Article On the Current Issues Surrounding Sanctification and Justification
2 3 4
Replies
119
Views
21K
Semper Fidelis
Semper Fidelis
Before
A Solid Read on Man’s Depravity?
Replies
3
Views
484
Before
Before
Back
Top