Which is more likley?

That Camping could know when Christ will return or that James White could know that if Camping seeks to rescue his reputation, he will end up in hell?

James White:  "I fear if you seek to rescue your reputation, you will end your life under the wrath of God. Your unwillingness to listen to counsel has already caused great damage to the cause of Christ. You have one final chance for redemption, sir. Do not remain stiff-necked. Repent and turn from your ways."  (link)

Comments

Onesimus said…
How can Camping have "one final chance for redemption" if his election (or non-election) has already been determined by God and God alone?

Surely if he remains "stiff-necked" it is because God sovereignly determined that he remains stiff necked?

And surely he can only "repent and turn" if God grants him repentance?

Or maybe this is NOT the Calvinist mouthpiece James White that is being quoted?
May 23, 2011 at 10:37 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hey Onesimus,

That's a good point about election, but Calvinist or otherwise, I was really supprised to hear James White thinks Camping is 'at the point of no return'. That's just something God knows, but we don't.

God be with you,
Dan
May 24, 2011 at 10:30 AM
A.M. Mallett said…
Did I read White correctly to state the man has a "chance" at salvation (and of course only one more chance left)?

... interesting ... "James White Gives camping One More Chance"
May 24, 2011 at 12:49 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Yes, perhaps he counted 490 errors by Campling, so he's about to hit his last one.

God be with you,
Dan
May 24, 2011 at 5:18 PM
drwayman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
May 28, 2011 at 9:29 AM
drwayman said…
Let's try that again.

Unless you read the version that it was really 77 times (Matt 18:22, NIV), which means that Camping's goose is cooked and White can't count.
May 28, 2011 at 9:30 AM
Godismyjudge said…
Good point. That's why his number is up. :-)

God be with you,
Dan
May 29, 2011 at 7:46 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more