James White Amillennialism, Ecumenicism and Curious Habits

Posted: September 3, 2013 in King James Only Debate, Prophecy/Current Events

See also our response to James White’s Critique of Jerry Walls’ “What’s Wrong With Calvinism?”

By Dr. Elisha Weismann

In a recent broadcast by James White, White admitted to being an “amillennialist”, but admitted that he never, ever, debates prophecy, and apparently the amillennial position is of not critical importance to him. James White is also a Calvinist and I believe this is one of the primary reasons he does not take a solid stand on prophecy (and on that note, neither did Martin Luther, nor John Calvin, neither of which wrote a commentary on Revelation). Apparently, the return of Christ is not something of significance in the field of apologetics according to White.

Although there are some Calvinists who are premillennial, White does not appear to be one of them, but does not take the liberty to go into detail as to why. So, we will explain it for him! (We will be accused of “slandering” him because we are “KJVO” anyway, so may as well take some other liberties.)

Although some Calvinists like John MacArthur maintain a premillennial view, any premillennial view destroys the Calvinist interpretation of Romans chapter 9. If premillennialism is true, then Romans 9 must be viewed as a description of God’s plan for a future restoration of Israel instead of an individual scheme for salvation as most Calvinists maintain.  Just because some Calvinists do not accept this but rather opine that Romans 9-11 DOES cover this subject EXCEPT FOR those proof texts in Romans 9 does not discount the above fact. Romans 9-11 is clear from the very beginning of chapter 9 that Paul is making the distinction between those claiming some type of rite or right as a result of physical birth in Abraham as opposed to those who actually were the target of the blessings-those born of Isaac instead of Hagar.  It is almost imperative that a Calvinist MUST reject dispensationalism in order to maintain their view of Romans 9 as addressing individual salvation instead of what it actually teaches-the corporate restoration of Israel. But, since most Calvinists reject dispensationalism and are either post millennial or amillennial, it is much easier for them to avoid a discussion of prophecy because they find it much harder to defend their views of prophecy than the attempts to defend Calvinism. They are more comfortable defending views that can apply philosophical rationalizing in soteriology than to the subject of eschatology which is not so easy to defend at the same time because many of the proof texts used by Calvinists in their TULIP system are in the context of prophecies. Therefore the Calvinist apologist will have us believe that prophecy is not important.

This could not be further from the truth. For every verse in the Bible that deals with Christ’s first coming, there are 8 that deal with His second coming. The very last book of the Bible deals with the second coming of Christ, and Paul spent 2 entire epistles dealing with the subject of prophecy (1 and 2 Thessalonians). Yet, if the Calvinist can avoid the debate over eschatology, they can avoid having to explain how their soteriological views are at odds with a clear premillennial teaching in the Bible. If the Calvinist can successfully deflect an argument about eschatology, then they can maintain that such verses in the Old Testament (OT) that clearly indicate a future restoration of Israel as a nation can be interpreted as fulfilled by the church and therefore the Calvinist can lay an individual salvation emphasis on OT passages such as Ezekiel 36-37, Jeremiah 10, Isaiah 10 and even Romans chapters 9-11, verses that give a clear distinction between Israel and the Church.

This is why a debate over eschatology SHOULD be addressed by Calvinism and those that oppose Calvinism, and those who oppose Calvinism should force Calvinists to address eschatology because failure to do so permits them to get away with interpreting clearly futuristic passages about corporate Israel into a philosophical debate about the sovereignty of God over the individual wills of men.

We will deal with amillennialism in greater detail in a few weeks. Most of our readers are familiar with the difference between pre and a-millennialism but we will give a short explanation.

What is amillennialism? This view was first made popular by  Augustine (following Origin’s allegorical method of interpretation) who popularized the view in his book “City of God” and is now the dominant view of the Roman Catholic Church. Ironically, one Calvinist dating site copies the Catholic definition of amillenialism almost verbatim (See Sovereign Grace Singles  compared to the Catholic Answers explanation of amillennialism).  It is from 2 Greek words “a” meaning against or “none” and “millenia” meaning thousand. Thus amillennial literally means, no thousand, i.e., no 1,000 year reign as opposed to premillennial thought, which takes Revelation 20:4 literally which says:

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

In fact, Revelation 20 mentions “thousand years” six times. It mentions that binding of Satan for 1000 years (v2), what will occur when Satan is released (v3), how long believers will reign with Christ (v4), how long it will be until those who died in the tribulation will be raised (v5), reference again to believers who reign with Christ for a thousand years (6), and mentions Satan’s release again in v7. Now most amillennialists do not take these verses literally. In fact, many do not take any of Revelation literally at all. Many of the full preterist and covenant persuasion hold that all of Revelation was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. (See our article on Problems With Preterism, Historicism and Covenant Theology and our article against Steven Anderson’s “After The Tribulation” ). They believe that the 1,000 years is figurative and could be 2,000 years, or perhaps 6,000, or maybe even 20,000, anything but a literal 1,000 years. They believe that Satan was bound although there is no New Testament support for this. Peter asked believers in Acts 5:4-8 why they had allowed Satan to fill their heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and Paul mentioned Satan hindering him in 1 Thess 1:18, a messenger of Satan being sent to buffet Paul in 2 Cor 12:7, and warns us not to be ignorant of Satan’s devices in 2 Cor 2:11. It is clear from numerous passages in the New Testament that Satan is not bound.

The amillennialists also hold that Christ is now reigning on earth spritually, in our hearts, and thus Revelation is not a physical reigning on earth but a spiritual reigning.  Thus the amillennialist believes that Christ is reigning as King in heaven, and we are His spiritual kingdom here on earth. This means that the amillennialist must ignore or allegorize the lion laying down with the lamb in Isaiah 11:6-9, ignore the borders of Israel given in Genesis 17:7-8, the literal mountains described in Micah 4:2-4, the tree of life in Revelation 2:7, the Lamb feeding us on earth in Revelation 7:17 along with all of our tears being wiped away in verse 16, the fact that Jerusalem will not be occupied by Gentiles or ANY that defile, work abominations or make lies (Rev 21:27) although Jerusalem is now occupied by Muslims and Catholics.  It also ignores the Sabbath rests described in Hebrews 4.  If Christ is reigning here and now, there are numerous events described in Revelation that should be apparent that obviously are not.

The amillennial teaching also leaves unresolved the birthright of Ephraim given in Genesis 49 which includes the land promises to Israel NOT the church. The blessings that the CHURCH inherited are the spiritual blessings that were inhabited from Abraham which were fulfilled in Christ through the line of Judah. However, the birthright to Ephraim was not to be reckoned by the genealogy! 1 Chronicles 5:1-2. This fact alone serves to refute all postmillennial and amillennial heresy and shows that there is yet a future fulfillment for Israel which will be a remnant of literal, physical Jews. Romans 9:27, Revelation 7:4-8. Jesus describes the thousand years as the kingdom of heaven, a literal, physical heaven where Christ will sit on the throne of David ruling from earth. Jeremiah 33:17, Revelation 3:12, Isaiah 9:7:

 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” Luke 1:32-33

Amillennialism is rather simple to refute and thus it is understandable why most Calvinists that hold this view don’t bother spending very much effort defending it and simply hope that it does not become a major topic of discussion in any debate on Calvinism.  But suffice it to say, that there is certainly a valid reason why the Reformers, including Martin Luther and John Calvin, didn’t touch the subject of prophecy with a ten foot pole because rightly dividing the word of truth and putting all of the prophecies concerning Israel in their proper place would rob Calvinism of a hundred  proof texts used to support individual salvation and their views of election and predestination.

OTHER ISSUES WE HAVE WITH WHITE

Ecumenicism

We stumbled on to a website called Defending the Faith, promoting a “Apologetics Cruise” featuring James White and Jerry Johnson. Ironically, the url for the Defending the Faith website is called “SovereingCruises.org”. So now apparently God is not only sovereign over man’s will, but also over $500 cruises  as well.  Jerry Johnson is a member of the Nicene Council organization. The Nicene Council is a NOTORIOUS Roman Catholic council that set the stage for many of the beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. On the Nicene Council website, there follows this statement

NiceneCouncil.com was established in 2005 for the purpose of furthering the cause of the Reformation. Though we are Reformed in our theology we are not restricted to one Christian denomination. In fact, we have in our employment and on our board individuals from different denominational backgrounds. We stand firmly on our Statement of Faith and adhere to the early historic, ecumenical creeds and the later Reformed confessions of faith”

Thus it comes to no surprise to us that James White aligns himself with such ecumenical organizations since he regularly supports their “Bible” versions. It is also no surprise that James White is now attacking Chris Pinto for showing that the ESV and other Bibles are part of a Jesuit conspiracy. Part of his defense of the modern versions is citing that Daniel Wallace “debunked” the allegation that Codex Siniaticus is a forgery. One would do well to thoroughly examine the evidence given in “Tares Among The Wheat” * where much evidence has surfaced that proves that Sinaiticus was in fact, the product of Constantine Simonides and was a forgery edited by Tischendorf and presented to the Pope as an ancient manuscript.

Fund Raising

For what seems to be several months now, James White has advertised the need for funding of a trip to Africa. Of course, the link then takes you to the donation tab, where the explanation of the trip is found at the bottom of the page after an additional “General Travel Fund” is mentioned, where it says his first trip will be to London to debate Roman Catholicism, and then to Africa to “minister to the saints”, and then to debate Islam with Yusuf Ismail who lives in Ethiopia.

Now we get that any ministry has expenses, especially when travelling out of your home country. A flight from Phoenix Arizona to Johannesburg, Africa, costs an average of $2,000. However, Guidestar reports that Alpha & Omega Ministries, Inc, reported a revenue of nearly $190,000 at the end of the 2012 Fiscal Year (and reported nearly $204,000 in expenses). Now we won’t ask how an apparently small radio and online ministry accrues $204k in expenses and $190k in revenue, but find that such a revenue would amount to an average of $15,000 per month. You mean to tell me that as of August 2013, White has NOT YET raised sufficient funds for a debate that has ALREADY BEEN SCHEDULED???

Now, the Calvinists claim that Paul was a Calvinist. If that were true, then perhaps James White should be making tents (Acts 18:3) to support his mission trips, instead of posting the following about his bike rides on his Twitter account:

4theweek: 228 miles, 12,188 ft. of ascent, 13:50 in saddle. For August: 1,038.56 miles, 59:01 in saddle, second 1k+ mile month in a row.

Now I don’t know how many hours are spent riding a bike 1000 miles a month, but personally if I was an apologist that needed an enormous amount of funds that $15,000 a month does not cover, for the sake of defending the gospel, I certainly would not be spending THAT MUCH leisure time riding a bicycle. It is in my opinion poor stewardship of God’s time, as well as the people who are donating to his website. Apostle Paul worked with his own hands to get his funds 2 Cor 11:9, 2 Thess 3:8-17, etc. Now there’s nothing wrong with riding a bike, but when you are short of funds for “spreading the gospel” then your time should be spent working to get your financial needs met before expecting your audience to foot the bill while you enjoy the wind in your face on a mountain side.

For more of our opinions about James White, see the article he acknowledged, but never responded to.  Response to James White.

Be sure to read our critique on James White’s “rebuttal” to Jerry Walls updated 9/3/13

_________________________________________________

*There has been quite a bit more developments since Pinto’s production of this video that has confirmed even moreso now Pinto’s allegations.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. staygold360 says:

    “Now we at Do Right Christians have more than a few issues with Arminianism”

    What are the issues with Arminians..Is their an article or post I that explains these issues?

    • drjamesa says:

      We haven’t posted on that subject quite yet, but may sometime in the future. Our primary issue with Arminianism is conditional security (that you can lose your salvation).

  2. You know how many hours are spent riding a bike 1,000 miles in a month because it says it right in that quote: 59 hours. Hardly a waste of time, since while he bikes he listens to books on audio to prepare for his upcoming debates (he mentions this every episode, yet you left that aspect out). Plus it’s healthy, which I suppose is a God-honoring thing. 59 hours in a 30 day month is the equivalent of 2 hours a day.

    • drjamesa says:

      I don’t listen to his program everyday, rarely at all. But if he seriously mentions that he rides his bike for 59 hours a month every day on his program, then he’s got more issues then we can address here. I don’t speak “bike” so if “59 in saddle” means it took 59 hours, then woopdee doo! Plus, I didn’t actually leave it out, as you admitted, it’s in the quote that I posted.

      But I see you have the typical James White debate logic, find the petty things that are debatable and ignore the bigger issues.

      ~Elisha

      • Tickled: it’s that philosophical debate tactic called ‘straining at gnats, swallowing camels’ at which Calvinism excels & through which many are taken captive by: using cloaking, redefining terms of sophisti-, philoso-speak which are simultaneously intimidating…. God bless you….so glad to find this site. Recommend David Cloud’s article on ‘Calvin’s Camels’….as well as the verses cited there though you’re likely well aware, having the same Book as your authority, & I haven’t perused your site fully yet. The ‘common’ ground of philosophy is an important point ….& one which I’m finally grasping as to the ‘common’ ground of the supposedly distinct & opposite ‘left’ & ‘right’—— it goes right back to the textual issue & the philosophy of Rome. I could NOT figure out what was going on with the Creation science folks who refused to follow the very logical rules they laid out to debunk evolutionary theory when it came to church history & the textual issue & a supposedly ‘evolving’ faith! It seemed so plain to me since I wasn’t ‘schooled’ & conditioned into Calvinist or Lutheran, ‘high’ church theology blindness as I approached the Bible. ————Another thing that confused me was the evolution of the ‘Christian Worldview’ term that cloaked Biologos, old earth views, Wheaton & World Mag for so long in confusion while they incubated in the closet before ‘coming out’ in strength ….what a conundrum. They claimed to be ‘biblical’. Like ‘classical’ education… —but I Corinthians 1-4, Galatians, 2 Corinthians 6 & 11, Psalm 1…. (The aristocratic secret societies & such aren’t so mysterious & ‘conspiratorial’ after all, but very reasonable & logical to expect & explain when you consider Genesis 10&11, Romans 1, 2 Thess 2, Colossians 2:8, & so many other passages! ; as well as pagan mores & the Roman Inquisition & struggle for supreme authority & control in all things…& the Protestant manifestations of the persecuting State churches of dominionism & social justice…) —-Praying Pinto doesn’t arrest his coming out by balking at Truth that spooks many to take up the Calvinist Reformed blinders of heroes such as Paisley, the Puritans, Reformers & such without an honest look at the Anabaptists & Baptists as those building on the Pilgrim Church foundation he speaks so much about. He needs to read some Baptist historians & the Martyrs’ Mirror… Even with his reticence & bias in that area, which troubles me now that I understand it better, his work has been refreshing —and the debate went well as schooled arrogance was met with the attitude of 2 Timothy 2 in a more public forum than White & the intellectuals’ general ivory towers that contribute to dumbing down the flock & leaving many unaware of dangers skulking in the depths of the gnostic empires. Then, trying to see White with the eyes of Christ: It’s hard for the proud with tradition & vested interests to yield. Thinking Felix….but then, there was Cornelius, Nicodemus & that Saul fellow —and praying, praying for God’s will & much eternal fruit as men & women consider the implications of the textual issues. Praying also for Chris Rosebrough who seems to have a more tender heart, though his seemingly fawning & awed response to White, and common nerd ground comments back when I first heard White on his program discussing his book on Islam seriously took me aback. Much more cautious now.

      • drjamesa says:

        Paragraphs are your friend 🙂

  3. […] James White, Amillennialism, Ecumenism, and Curious Habits […]

    • drjamesa says:

      We will respond to this article later this week showing that to be Calvinist and Premillennial is inconsistent Calvinism. I’ll quote some of your articles on Calvinism as well to show exactly what we referred to, how that even Premillennial Calvinists use verses that deal exclusively with prophecy and verses about God’s “decrees” that are not there to prove their views of election and predestination.

      Suffice it to say that just because nations are made up of individuals does not refute the fact that Romans 9 still does not support an individualized view of salvation as you contend. If you have any understanding at all of Revelation, each and every individual in Israel is not going to be saved which would be the necessary interpretation if your view of Romans 9 were to fit your argument that since individuals make up nations, then Romans 9 does not require the Calvinist to abandon Dispensationalism. If Romans 9 proves individual election, and individuals make up nations, then that would mean that Paul’s statement “and so ALL Israel shall be saved” would mean that God would irresistibly save each and every Jew in the tribulation, but that’s not the case.

      Although you seem to admit that Romans 9 is not about individual salvation, you punt to other verses that you did not explain and assume that “any honest reader of the Bible can see unconditional election”. Well that settles it then. All who disagree with unconditional election are not honest readers of the Bible.

      But since you began your article by personally attacking Elisha (a Jew who lives in Israel) then I really can’t take seriously much of what you say. Especially when you call Ruckman’s college a “diploma mill”. Now you may not agree with his attitude or his theology, but to say that his students don’t earn their degrees instead of being handed their degrees is ludicrous. Do you apply that same logic to James White who got HIS degree from an online “diploma mill”?? Do you have an answer for the research Peter Lumpkins did on the colleges White claimed to be a professor at when those same colleges affirmed that he was not?

      And it also appears you side with White’s view about Chris Pinto, and how White lumped us in with “conspiracy theorist mindsets”. White has accused ALL of the evangelical and apologetics community of a “great cover up” because a SMALL HANDFUL of well-known apologists like Norman Geisler defended Caner. So if White believes that the entire evangelical community is participating in a “cover up”, who’s the real conspiracy theorist here? LOL. And speaking of cover ups, ask your friend James White why he refuses to address the statements made publicly by his sister that he threatened her when she tried to tell him about their father molesting her. Oh she’s Roman Catholic so that excuses it. All Roman Catholics lie about being molested. I am opposed to Roman Catholicism just as much as the next person (or not?) but does being in a heretical religion mean they are liars when it comes to sexual abuse?

      Thanks for the comment. We’ll keep in touch.

  4. templeH says:

    Such vitriol here. I’m sure that if you ever actually listened to The Dividing Line, instead of just hearing what you want to hear, many of the points you make here would not be able to be made. For instance, while White is cycling he is listening to books and materials he has recorded at double speed. His time on his bike is not spent idle, but learning and preparing to defend his faith against any number of opposing views.

    • drjamesa says:

      Apparently, if you would READ EVERYTHING we said, you would see that the critique is about how White could have scheduled and promoted a trip BEFORE it was paid for. Does not the Bible say a man sits down and counts the cost BEFORE he builds his house? Luke 14:28.

      Now did you notice, that the banner on his homepage says “Help James Get To Africa”, but when you click on the link, and then view his Google Schedule, the trip actually starts in London, England. Now who in their right mind schedules and promotes at thousand+$$ trip that IS NOT ALREADY PAID FOR??? Are James followers really THAT NAIVE??

      And while you are criticizing us for “not listening” to his radio program, have you see our new article, https://dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/james-whites-response-to-jerry-walls-whats-wrong-with-calvinism/ where we address White’s argument MINUTE BY MINUTE? Of course not. So apparently you have done exactly the same thing you accused us of, hearing what you want to hear (or reading, in this case).

      As many times as White has misrepresented us, frankly I have no sympathy for anyone who thinks we misrepresented him.

  5. Ed says:

    I’d love to see you document the idea the first Council of Nicaea was a Roman Catholic council, particularly in light of Canon 6 of that council. You know, the Canon which gave the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria equal authority with the bishop of Rome.
    On the other hand, given the real purpose of the Council was disproving Arianism, one might think you think the Arians got it right, and that Jesus is not in fact co-equal with G-d the Father.

    • drjamesa says:

      That is about the dumbest comment I’ve ever read. First of all, we are not the Watchtower. Secondly, the doctrine of the Trinity was taught long before a council established by ROMES FIRST POPE, Constantine, by ROMAN GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY.

      If you think White is a worthy apologeticist against the Catholic when he can’t even get this simple fact of history right you’re just a nutty as he is. Show me in the Bible where the GOVERNMENT, especially Rome, was authorized or commissioned to hold a council to establish Christian doctrine? Naturally, with White being a Calvinist that follows the beliefs of John Calvin and Augustine who thought that mixing church and state were legitimate so they could justify murdering “heretics” (like Servetus) since heresy constituted a violation of government law, he would argue that the Council of Nicea was not really Catholic because he needs to prove their is a pattern in church history where Christians used the government to establish church doctrine instead of church authority being invested in the autonomy of the local church.

      Now on to your rant about “show me any document”. Have you ever ACTUALLY READ the Council of Nicea Canons? or just quoted James White without actually having read them? The Canons themselves refer to it as Catholic. The very Canon you cited states:

      “Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy.

      Canon #9 :

      “If any presbyters have been advanced without examination, or if upon examination they have made confession of crime, and men acting in violation of the canon have laid hands upon them, notwithstanding their confession, such the canon does not admit; for the Catholic Church requires that which is blameless”

      The Canons teach the Catholic penance (Canon #8), the Eucharist (Canon #18), and the Nicene Creed that came out of this tradition-over-Bible council clearly established baptismal regeneration ( “we acknowledge one baptism FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS”), and they even made Virgin Mary an official title for Mary.

      I could spend HOURS here proving that the Council of Nicea and the Nicene Creed are decidedly Roman Catholic. Anyone that can’t see this has to be willingly ignorant and BLIND.

  6. fivepointer says:

    Hey. How come you haven’t “approved” my comment? Why the dishonesty here?

    • drjamesa says:

      We don’t approve lengthy comments until we respond to them. We haven’t gotten to yours yet. Be patient grasshopper, our site doesn’t revolve around responding to your comment yet.

  7. Sylar says:

    I dun understand why you cannot have a premillennialism calvanist . A calvanist is only supposed to believe in tulip. In fact I disagree with many of the things John Calvin did

    • Sylar says:

      Why can’t you believe in the predestination of individual as well as nation

      • drjamesa says:

        You can believe in predestination of the individual and a nation, but the question is predestination OF WHAT? The Calvinist interpretation of predestination is the preDETERMINATION of an individuals salvation by an eternal decree that can not be resisted. Predestinated to salvation does not mean pre DETERMINED to salvation. Then you can have predestination of a nation (although that is not technically elaborated on by any specific “predestination” terms) but the predestination of those nations ALWAYS depends on their responses to God, not because He decreed their destiny.

        For example, Psalm 9:17, “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that FORGET GOD”. You see the nations that are turned into hell end up there because they FORGET GOD, not because God decreed them to go there. God “predestinates” that “all Israel shall be saved” (Romans 11:26), but we know that during the tribulation, there are many Jews that reject God (Revelation 2:2, 9, 3:9) and that do not go with God to the mountains when He hides them (Revelation 12:6,14-17). So then you have a “remnant” that are saved (Rom 9:27) which at the end of the tribulation, literally all Israel is saved because believing Jews are all that is left alive (Matt 24:13). Thus God had a destiny pre PLANNED for all of Israel (predestinated) but there were some that rejected it.

        Predestination as taught in the Bible, and the Calvinist casual determinism interpretation are 2 entirely different birds.

    • drjamesa says:

      There ARE premil Calvinists, but they are inconsistent in their theology. I agree with the premil position, but the Calvinist has to apply 2 different standards of interpretation of the elect of Israel and the elect of the church and Romans 9 is a perfect example. The fact is you CAN’T interpret Romans 9 as referring to the elect of Israel (premil) and infuse an individual schema of salvation at the same time (Calvinism). You can’t wrest the Scripture from it’s context and build a private interpretation from it to prove individual salvation. Every passage used to prove premillennialism is a refutation of Calvinism because premillenialism is a dispensational difference between the church and Israel, and it is hermeneutical suicide to use one cluster of texts to demonstrate premil which describe the future of corporate Israel under a different covenant and use those exact same passages to prove individual salvation.

  8. Thankful for Acts 20:18-32…and Colossians 2:8 —seeing demonstrated yet again the impenetrable box & hindrance that human philosophical systems of theology can become: however well intentioned their builders. They do, and must, ‘evolve’ —just as ‘science’/human knowledge & the definitions of any ‘church’ not strictly limited to the descriptive terms of polity & definition given in the Bible. No wonder this is such contended ground —being truly fundamental—-and it’s no wonder the camels get through with so many gnats being lanced so ambitiously & with such passion!

  9. Rick Zman says:

    FYI…Romans 9 doesn’t mention Hagar, nor anything about Ishmael, and in fact does not refer to that in any way. You must read that into the passage, from you’re own vivid imagination. What it DOES say is that not all who are OF ISRAEL (Jacob) are Israel. Next objection…..

Leave Godly Comments

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s