Did the Early Church Writings Support Monergism?

Watch this short video demonstrating how James White fails to provide any sources to support his interpretations of the Early Church writings, while we (Provisionists) and Dr. Ken Wilson provide sources (not only from our own theological camp, but unbiased sources from the Reformed tradition) to support our claims...

[umkenbv]

What a mocker! I can hardly stand 10 seconds of him.

[juanlmontejo]

One of the reasons I left calvinism was the snobby and arrogant attitude most calvinist have. A true Christian should be humble and not full of pride

[jesset]

White needs to explain why so many other Reformed scholars disagree with his reading of the letter. White has a unique interpretation that he needs ro explain. Enough of this " because I read Greek!"

[OkieAllDay]

Every word James White speaks drips with sarcasm and condescension. Pretty sad, honestly

[monolith]

You should reach out to father Josiah Trenham. He’s a former reformed pastor who became Eastern Orthodox, and is a very strong voice against Calvinism

[KevinThompson]

The term "monergist" didn't exist until after 1891.

[dustinpaulson]

It's usually polite to stop beating a dead horse when it's turned to dust.

And James White is powder by now.

[GR]

As Catholic bishops, the Church fathers were synergists and they taught as Paul taught. As Paul indicates, the cooperation in bestowing the grace must be met with a cooperation on the part of the person receiving the grace. Otherwise (if no action is taken) it will be rendered vain. Thus in biblical language there is a human cooperation needed both in the giving and in the receiving of this grace.
"Working together with (sunergountes) him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain" (2 Corinthians 6:1).

[foolishdrunk]

Whenever a man quotes himself, you know his point has no value

[REDRAGON]

I think the (numerous) interactions with White are interesting, but have little substance. His immaturity doesn’t lend to good material, in my humble opinion

I’d love for you to discuss more issues in soteriology. Issues like atonement theories, discussing recent debates about words like faith, grace, gospel, comparing Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox views of salvation, looking more deeply at concepts like justification, adoption, or the connection of sanctification with salvation. Looking at salvation in the Gospels compared to how James and Paul speak of salvation, or the past, present, and future aspects of salvation, etc.

Just a few topics off the top of my head in soteriology. But if this is “Soteriology 101” and has been an active ministry for years, I would expect these topics to be discussed.

[ricobonifacio]

So i guess white believes stephen was speaking a lie to the ones who stoned him to death when he says, will you always resist the holy spirit as your fathers did? they cant resist according to him! Calvin wasnt alive yet to tell stephen he was wrong!!! acts chapter 7: 51-53

[HonorGod-MakeDisciples.]

Because of many recent scholarly works, JW can no longer easily dupe anyone bent on searching for the truth.

[DrGero]

Is the document you are reading at 3:00 available somewhere? Also what is the book you held up? The light made it impossible to read.

[a.k.]

James White obviously has some "secret knowledge" that the rest of us don't have. Namely, that he is the only unbiased, infallible, all-knowing human to ever walk the earth and thus has no need to cite anyone other than himself.

[lukusmaximus]

James White is not only delusional but intentionally deceptive.

[j.casillas]

Hello Dr. Flowers.
Where can I find the quotes from Herman Bavinck, Louis Berkhof and Lorraine Boettner?

[TimothyFish]

James White seems to think he has the copyright on "inability".

[WilliamJCoes-kphj]

As usual when Leighton’s quotes James White, he gives a segment of what White says and you don’t hear what comes before or after. Now quoting reformed writers he seems to be doing the same thing. I am presently reading Loraine Boettner’s book on the doctrine of predestination and the quote Leighton’s uses doesn’t seem to be complete. Boettner writes in a certain style that lays out what Arminian scholars think and then shows why their thinking is mistaken. Each chapter includes many scriptures to back up his claims. I have also read many Louis Berkhof books on systematic theology, Christian doctrines, New Testament Introduction, the doctrine of God, etc. and some of the quotes sound incomplete. I know God’s sovereignty seems to difficult to understand without believing that God is the creator and we are not, that even though we sometimes have questions about this that we won’t get to know the answer to this side of Heaven. God’s way is not man’s way. We think linearly while God thinks infinitely and eternally. Hear is a quote from Loraine Boettner — “Much of the difficulty in regard to the doctrine of Predestination is due to the finite character of our mind, which can grasp only a few details at a time, and which understands only a part of the relations between these. We are creatures of time, and often fail to take into consideration the fact that God is not limited as we are. That which appears to us as "past, " "present, " and "future, " is all "present" to His mind. It is an eternal "now." He is "the high and lofty One that inhabits eternity, " Isaiah 57:15. "A thousands years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, And as a watch in the night, " Psalm 90:4. Hence the events which we see coming to pass in time are only the events which He appointed and set before Him from eternity. Time is a property of the finite creation and is objective to God. He is above it and sees it, but is not conditioned by it. He is also independent of space, which is another property of the finite creation. Just as He sees at one glance a road leading from New York “to San Francisco, while we see only a small portion of it as we pass over it, so He sees all events in history, past, present, and future at one glance. When we realize that the complete process of history is before Him as an eternal "now, " and that He is the Creator of all finite existence, the doctrine of Predestination at least becomes an easier doctrine.”

Excerpt From
The Reformed Doctrine Of Predestination
Loraine Boettner
This material may be protected by copyright. anyone who wants to know what many scholars say about monergism and why so many believe it, I recommend the site, “monergism.com” where many books and articles are available for download.

[Eloign]

Just for fun decided to read the Epistle to Mathethes and ran across this little gem that puts his view of what it means "If God wills" in further context..

"10:4 And loving Him thou wilt be an imitator of His
goodness. And marvel not that a man can be an imitator
of God. He can, if God willeth it.
10:5 For happiness consisteth not in lordship over
one's neighbours, nor in desiring to have more than
weaker men, nor in possessing wealth and using force
to inferiors; neither can any one imitate God in these
matters; nay, these lie outside His greatness.
10:6 But whosoever taketh upon himself the burden of
his neighbour, whosoever desireth to benefit one that
is worse off in that in which he himself is superior,
whosoever by supplying to those that are in want
possessions which he received from God becomes a God
to those who receive them from him, he is an imitator
of God."

So ones will and actions and decision to do as God commands is how one becomes an imitator of God. It's not about some Decree pertaining to individuals.


Also every explanation of Gods provision for mankind is stated in universal terms, as in available to all and for all, not one is limited to the "elect".

Since the ENTIRE point of Diognetus letter was to give an explanation of the plan of salvation to a willing listener that wants to understand the scope of things (see the intro to the letter) you would think he would have bothered to clarify he didn't mean that Christ died for all. The listener would have had absolutely no way of inserting that assumption into the text.

[greyknight]

David Wood acts hostile toward the ideology of Islam and Muhammad (not Muslims unless they attack him). But his approach is biblical. James White acts hostile to people who disagree with him. His arrogance and mockery isn’t biblical.