I guess this is the place to post this. If not, please move it where it belongs, mods.

I have been alerted by 3 people that James White (author of The Potter's Freedom) has taken offense to my article at

http://www.tektonics.org/tulip/ulip.html

and has "blogged" a response available from the front of

http://www.aomin.org

Unfortunately it is (as of this typing) only partly done and cuts off at a crucial point. Any thoughts would be appreciated. I have my own but am withholding comment until it is finished.

So far, he doesn't answer anything.

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 αν 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?

Can someone post at least in part here what he said?

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

Can someone post at least in part here what he said?

From http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=192

01 February

Holding Onto Hebraisms: James Patrick Holding's Odd Take on Election and Exegesis (Part 1)

I have found the various attempts to respond to the exegetically-based defense of Calvinism I offered in The Potter's Freedom both educational and at times troubling. Most responses are tradition driven, but then there are the philosophical ones. These are the ones that only touch on exegesis long enough to find some way of introducing some novelty or some question as to whether a word really means that or if there is some other way of seeing it. The philosophically-driven replies disdain the hard work of actually working through a text from start to finish and applying their often unique claims about a particular verse to all such verses.
It wasn't long after The Potter's Freedom came out that I ran into an early response from James Patrick Holding of tektonics.org. Ever since then I have seen references to various files at tektonics, most especially one titled "Un Conditioning." Recently some folks posted some segments of it in channel, and so I took a look at it. I was taken aback by much of it, to be honest, and especially the odd, sweeping claims made about "Hebrew thought" and the like. There is probably nothing more common on the Internet these days than people making claims about "the Hebrew would indicate this," and yet most of those making those claims could not translate their way out of a paper bag, and if you were to collect all of their conclusions based upon these alleged "Hebraisms," the resultant mish-mash would implode from utter inconsistency and self-contradiction. The original question asked in channel was about the "negation idiom" being applied to Romans 9:16, and then about "Hebrew block thought," and finally I ran into the quote that convinced me to at least invest a tiny portion of my non-existant time to this response:

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."


When I saw this claim, I decided to squeeze just one more item onto the plate, because that is simply ridiculous. But first things first. The text (Rom. 9:15-16) reads:

For he says to Moses [Exo. 33:19], "I will mercy [this is a verb] whoever I mercy, and I will compassion [this is a verb] whoever I compassion." So then, it is not of the one willing, nor of the one exerting himself, but of the mercying [present active participle] God.
The passage cited in v. 15 is from Exodus 33:19. John Piper wrote an article found in the September, 1979 issue of JETS (22/3), "Prolegomena To Understanding Romans 9:14-15: An Interpretation Of Exodus 33:19" wherein he provides the following translation of the verse:

19a And he [Yahweh] said, "I will cause to pass before your face all my goodness (MT ybiWj; LXX do,xh| mou ).
19b And I will proclaim the name Yahweh before you.
19c And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious (MT !xoêa' rv<åa]-ta, ‘ytiNOx;w> ; LXX kai. evleh,sw o]n a'n evlew/),
19d and I will be merciful to whom I will be merciful" (MT ~xe(r:a] rv<ïa]-ta, yTiÞm.x;rIw> ; LXX kai. oivktirh,sw o]n a'n oivkti,rw).

One will notice that Paul quotes the LXX of Exodus 33:19 directly and without alteration in Romans 9:15. We are then offered what might be called an "apostolic interpretation" of this text in v. 16, which continues the thought that began all the way back in the "theme verse" of the section, Romans 9:6, "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are from Israel." [continued]

posted at 02:00:00 on 02/01/05 by James R. White - Category: Reformed Apologetics

---

© source where applicable

White puts 'Hebrew Thought' in quotes, as if it were an unfamiliar concept to him...? I can't wait to see how this turns out.

and finally I ran into the quote that convinced me to at least invest a tiny portion of my non-existant time to this response:

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."



When I saw this claim, I decided to squeeze just one more item onto the plate, because that is simply ridiculous. But first things first. The text (Rom. 9:15-16) reads:

For he says to Moses [Exo. 33:19], "I will mercy [this is a verb] whoever I mercy, and I will compassion [this is a verb] whoever I compassion." So then, it is not of the one willing, nor of the one exerting himself, but of the mercying [present active participle] God.

The passage cited in v. 15 is from Exodus 33:19. John Piper wrote an article found in the September, 1979 issue of JETS (22/3), "Prolegomena To Understanding Romans 9:14-15: An Interpretation Of Exodus 33:19" wherein he provides the following translation of the verse:

19a And he [Yahweh] said, "I will cause to pass before your face all my goodness (MT ---; LXX δοξη μου ).
19b And I will proclaim the name Yahweh before you.
19c And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious (MT ----; LXX και ελεησω ον αν ελεω),
19d and I will be merciful to whom I will be merciful" (MT ---- ; LXX και οικτιρησω ον αν οιvκτιρω).

One will notice that Paul quotes the LXX of Exodus 33:19 directly and without alteration in Romans 9:15. We are then offered what might be called an "apostolic interpretation" of this text in v. 16, which continues the thought that began all the way back in the "theme verse" of the section, Romans 9:6, "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are from Israel." [continued]

This is what James White has offered so far.

Interesting. It would be even more interesting if he would post in defense, but that will never happen (lack of time). Maybe I will have to go to his IRC channel and let them know about the thread.

Originally posted by jpholding

I guess this is the place to post this. If not, please move it where it belongs, mods.

I have been alerted by 3 people that James White (author of The Potter's Freedom) has taken offense to my article at

http://www.tektonics.org/tulip/ulip.html

and has "blogged" a response available from the front of

http://www.aomin.org

Unfortunately it is (as of this typing) only partly done and cuts off at a crucial point. Any thoughts would be appreciated. I have my own but am withholding comment until it is finished.

jph is my hero for this month.

Originally posted by yxboom

jph is my hero for this month.

Careful, boom. One man's "hero" is another man's "blight on the church."

If I were a betting man, my money would be on James White.

Originally posted by Apologist4Him

If I were a betting man, my money would be on James White.

Why? Just curious.

Originally posted by TuckEverlasting

Why? Just curious.

Originally posted by yxboom

jph is my hero for this month.

Originally posted by yxboom

jph is my hero for this month.

Originally posted by Jaltus

How can election in a Calvinist sense be based on subjunctives with conditional particles?

Yeah!

Originally posted by Jaltus

How can election in a Calvinist sense be based on subjunctives with conditional particles?

If you wouldn't mind putting that into plainer English, I might take a bite.

Originally posted by Apologist4Him

If you wouldn't mind putting that into plainer English, I might take a bite.

Sorry, but he is making a grammatical point (it is all futures) when it is clearly not all futures.

However, I'd say just let it go for now. My argument will not make sense until he finishes his.