Dave Hunt on Romans 9: Tradition-Driven Eisegesis Once Again

Romans 9 exegesis has shown up on my blog before. IT confounds me how so many people can agree with how I read most of scripture except in this case! I'm also amazed by the attacks on James White's person and scholarship because I don't see how he is wrong in how he exegetes this text and most of scripture that I have followed him as he read and expounded on them. I'd be interested in hearing why the following text that White posted on his blog is incorrect.

The Berean Call put out their monthly newsletter a few days ago, and I could not help but noticing the following paragraph. If you are not intimately familiar with the argument of Romans 9, and especially its insistence that the choice of Jacob and the rejection of Esau was not in any way, shape, or form, based upon the actions of Jacob or Esau, foreseen or otherwise, but was instead based solely upon God's "purpose in election," you might wish to review the text before reading this tradition-laden means of getting around the text:

Regarding Romans 9:19, we know that it is not wise to single out one verse apart from full context. The issue of Jacob and Esau and their being loved or hated by God before their birth has occupied more than one discussion throughout history. If one confines the argument to portions of Romans 9, it does sound like God arbitrarily selects some for salvation and others for damnation, but Romans 9 does not occur in a vacuum, and the rest of Scripture furnishes the balance. God's foreknowledge enters into the equation at this point. Some theologians have stated that it would be accurate to translate the passage, "Jacob have I chosen, but Esau have I rejected." Specifically, in the case of Esau, the implication of "rejected" is a judgment based upon knowledge of his actions. God, who declares "the end from the beginning," (Isaiah 46:10) knew, before they were born, the course each child would take.


1) How many times people have rebelled against this truth over the course of church history is, of course, irrelevant to the biblical teaching itself.
2) Whenever you find someone (and Dave Hunt has made a living off of this) going to the "rest of Scripture" argument before exegeting the text in context, you know you have found someone's tradition.
3) Notice that in essence this paragraph admits that, contextually speaking, if you just let Romans 9 speak for Romans 9, it teaches God's sovereignty (misidentified as "arbitrary" when, in fact, it is based upon the good pleasure of God's will, His eternal purpose, which is anything but arbitrary).
4) Whenever you find anyone from the Berean Call citing un-named "scholars," beware. Remember, these are the same folks who drew from a Yahwist cult to try to get around Acts 13:48, suggesting that the first fifteen chapters of Acts were written in Hebrew!
5) There is no doubt that "chosen/rejected" is part of the meaning of the text, but there are plain, easily chosen words that have those meanings, and Paul did not use them. Loved and hated are words with meanings. People may not like what they mean, but that does not change their meaning.
So compare, then, the words of Scripture with the words of the Berean Call and remember, once again, the grave error enunciated by Dave Hunt nearly a decade ago now, "James, I have no traditions."

Scripture states: though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad---in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls---(Romans 9:11)


But the Berean Call says,

Specifically, in the case of Esau, the implication of "rejected" is a judgment based upon knowledge of his actions. God, who declares "the end from the beginning," (Isaiah 46:10) knew, before they were born, the course each child would take.


The result? Paul's entire argument is turned on its head. How much more plainly can the Apostle state "and had not yet done anything good or bad"? But, when wedded to a tradition that you refuse to see, even the plain words on the page cannot dissuade you from pursuing your goals. Another great example provided by the folks up at the Berean Call.

Dave Hunt on Romans 9: Tradition-Driven Eisegesis Once Again

Black SuperHero Blog: Shades of Grey

Here is a great documentary about Racism in Comic books.

Shades of Grey - An Examination of Race Relations in Comic Books from jaystealth on Vimeo.

Black SuperHero Blog: Shades of Grey

My Easter 2010 Sermon - Director's Cut

April 4, 2010 I had the opportunity to preach as an official minister at my Church. It was a much different experience than teach Sunday School or any other time that I have ever spoken in public. It was Easter Sunday and thanks to my Pastor I realized that I can't do exactly what I would have normally do. I had to cut and condense what I had originally intended. I like to do power point slide presentations and I like to write out my thoughts in an ordered way and use these as a guide. Because I had to change a lot at the last minute, it didn't turn out as I expected but I think it turned out the way God wanted it to and what I was supposed to say was said.  I had no control and I was literally depending on God for what was coming out of my mouth. Fortunately, He never disappoints to do what is needed. Here is the document I wrote and the original slide presentation. I only used the first movie and the actual content of the presentation was abbreviated to just about 20 minutes.  This is my director's cut...much of this I can present later in another form. See the slides for the multimedia content and music track is at the end.


Easter 2010

Resurrection Power Online

See more presentations by mmcelhaney | Upload your own PowerPoint presentations

Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA

Does the Bible condone Rape?

In discussion the following assertion seems to always comes up when people want to object to the bible and morality it demands: The Bible Condones rape! It's usually made as if it is a fact and every educated person knows that it's true. It's usually made with an air of arrogance and pride as if it invites capitulation of everything Christians hold dear. It comes up so often I think it's a good idea to have a post of links to resources that explains why this is such a stupid statement. No need to reinvent the wheel - it's been refuted ad nauseum. Of course the Bible does not condone rape anymore than it condones adultery, slavery, lying, or stealing.

Third Millennium Ministries
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/search/label/rape
atheism-essays-particular-to-rape

Debunking Loftus: Setting John Straight: Loftus Logic (Part 1)

Atheist, John W. Loftus fancies himself a debunker of Christianity. "Lofty" aim, huh. Too bad he falls amusingly short. There is a competing blog dedicated to setting John Loftus straight. Someone must really love him in order to take the time...amusing as well. there has been a series of articles critiquing Loftus' logic.

Debunking Loftus: Setting John Straight: Loftus Logic (Part 1)

Frank Pastore Show - Wed5pmHr_03-31-2010.mp3 (audio/mpeg Object)

This was an awesome radio debate on old earth and young earth creationism. I liked it enough. There was some interaction on the question that I have not posted before. I like Hugh Ross' approach best. The Bible and natural science must agree. If they don't then our understanding of one of them or both of them has to be flawed!

FrankPastoreShow-Wed5pmHr_03-31-2010.mp3 (audio/mpeg Object)

4 Little Girls (1997)

Back in 1997, Spike Lee did a documentary about the church bombing in Birmingham, AL during the Civil Rights Movement. The movie is amazing. Interviews are done and the those 4 girls really almost come back alive as they are remembered and celebrated for the sacrifices they and their families made. You cannot watch this with dry eyes.




4 Little Girls (1997)