Steve Tassi - Rom. 9 non-debate

Theo1689

Theo1689

Well-known member
Wow...
Talk about a dumpster fire in a train wreck.
I know it was 7 years ago, but I can't remember if I saw it before, and I was intrigued by the RFG intro where Tassi is accusing White of being a Molinist.

Tassi: "You need to realize that he's gone from predeterminism, now he's speaking of some kind of middle knowledge, and now has to -"​
White: "I deny, and categorically deny, middle knowledge."​
Tassi: "Then don't beg the question that would, uh, demand me to force you to, uh, embrace it."​

Huh?!

The day before the debate, James found a video of Tassi attacking Calvinism (with incredibly poor arguments, IMO), and decided to make a video about them, addressing them so that hopefully Tassi would avoid such poor argumentation, and the end result might be a far better debate (since historically, Arminians don't do well debating Rom. 9). Well, I can understand Tassi's annoyance, since it was the day before, and that didn't leave a lot of time to modify his presentations (not that he would have, IMO).

So after James' 20 minute opening statement, Tassi spent 20 minutes playing the victim, complaining that White was trying to sabotage the debate, and calling White every name under the sun. He also apparenlty wanted to let the audience know how many names of logical fallacies he knew, as he had an excuse for everything (as he spent the entire 20 minutes personally attacking and insulting White, instead of addressing Rom. 9).

The rest of the debate didn't go much better for Tassi. During the cross-ex, Tassi couldn't give straight answers for what any Scripture (eg. John 6:44) meant, only what it "cannot" mean. He did the same for the audience Q&A at the end.

It made me wonder how much education and background Tassi had. It turns out that Calvary Chapel apparently only requires a 1-year study in their in-house seminary before becoming CC pastors. But at least he knew how to look up and pronounce Greek words (ooh! We're all impressed!)

He clearly didn't have an adequate understanding of Calvinism. He mentioned the WCF and LBCF, as well as Geisler's book, White's response book, and White's and Hunt's "debate" book. So I'm guessing he's never read any irenic presentations of Calvinism, such as the Institutes, or Boettner's book, or something like that.

He showed nothing but contempt and disrespect for Calvinists, both in his presentation to his congregation that James was responding to, but also in the debate itself. And while he falsely accused White of not thinking he was a Christian since he wasn't a Calvinist, he feigned appreciation that James kept calling him, "brother Tassi". Newsflash, James wouldn't call you that if he didn't consider you his brother in Christ.
 
I meant to add...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If someone is going to spend a great deal of time criticizing a position, on a daily basis, for months or even years, it would be wise to actually study a presentation (or 5) of that theology written by proponents of that theology. Not just critiicisms of that theology (like Geisler, Hunt, or Vance), and not just debates (where half the material is criticism of the belief).

I've notice that their is a very strong inverse relationship between knoweldge of a topic, and arrogance towards the topic and lack of charity towards proponents of that topic.

Case in point... Just look at the respect James White shows for his Mormon and Muslim opponents, and the level of study he has gone to in order to fairly represent their positions.
 
Theo1689 said:
Wow...
Talk about a dumpster fire in a train wreck.
I know it was 7 years ago, but I can't remember if I saw it before, and I was intrigued by the RFG intro where Tassi is accusing White of being a Molinist.

Tassi: "You need to realize that he's gone from predeterminism, now he's speaking of some kind of middle knowledge, and now has to -"​
White: "I deny, and categorically deny, middle knowledge."​
Tassi: "Then don't beg the question that would, uh, demand me to force you to, uh, embrace it."​

Huh?!

The day before the debate, James found a video of Tassi attacking Calvinism (with incredibly poor arguments, IMO), and decided to make a video about them, addressing them so that hopefully Tassi would avoid such poor argumentation, and the end result might be a far better debate (since historically, Arminians don't do well debating Rom. 9). Well, I can understand Tassi's annoyance, since it was the day before, and that didn't leave a lot of time to modify his presentations (not that he would have, IMO).
Click to expand...
Although not an Arminian Leighton Flowers did quite well debating James White on Romans 9

seeing as the following debunk unconditional election

Romans 9:30–32 (NIV) — 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

supporting this is

Romans 10:19–21 (NIV) — 19 Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, “I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.” 20 And Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.” 21 But concerning Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.”

Romans 11:19–23 (NIV) — 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Clearly men were elected to the obtaining of righteous or the rejection from it by their faith or their lack of it

and one could change ones status if one remained not in unbelief
 
fltom said:
Although not an Arminian Leighton Flowers did quite well debating James White on Romans 9

seeing as the following debunk unconditional election

Romans 9:30–32 (NIV) — 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

supporting this is

Romans 10:19–21 (NIV) — 19 Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, “I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.” 20 And Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.” 21 But concerning Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.”

Romans 11:19–23 (NIV) — 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Clearly men were elected to the obtaining of righteous or the rejection from it by their faith or their lack of it

and one could change ones status if one remained not in unbelief
Click to expand...
This guy ^^^ is so delusional he sees his master Flower's when this is about Tassi and White.

For the record Flower's got annihilated in the Romans 9 debate, and what did he do? He pits Scripture against Scripture, and so does his disciple flom.

I'm not sure who did more of a miserable job defending their errors between Flower's and Tassi. Flom isn't as bad because he's worse at it.
 
SovereignGrace said:
“and one could change ones status if one remained not in unbelief”

And nary a mention of the supernatural working of the Holy Spirit. ??
Click to expand...

Btw, while looking for info on Tassi's education, I stumbled across a 7-year-old thread on the Baptist board you participated in. And another guy with the nick, "Van", quite the character....

"Foreknow simply means to know in advance. No need to change the lexicons." Sounds like he needs to get updated versions of the lexicons, because many do NOW say, "choose in advance".

That's like saying, "gay doesn't mean homosexual, it simply means happy". Otherwise when the article said, "Bob was gay", the article got it wrong!"
 
Theo1689 said:
Btw, while looking for info on Tassi's education, I stumbled across a 7-year-old thread on the Baptist board you participated in. And another guy with the nick, "Van", quite the character....

"Foreknow simply means to know in advance. No need to change the lexicons." Sounds like he needs to get updated versions of the lexicons, because many do NOW say, "choose in advance".

That's like saying, "gay doesn't mean homosexual, it simply means happy". Otherwise when the article said, "Bob was gay", the article got it wrong!"
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, he’s the character.
 
SovereignGrace said:
“and one could change ones status if one remained not in unbelief”

And nary a mention of the supernatural working of the Holy Spirit. ??
Click to expand...

So I just found a video of Nate Sala (from the "Wise Disciple" podcast), interviewing James White. Nate is a Christian, and used to teach debate, so he's reacted to a number of debates.

During one clip, I'm not sure of the original context, I'm guessing it's about debate preparation, but James White says:

"I want to go into a debate, and if the other guy doesn't show up, I could have given his presentation as well as he could've given it anyway."​

And that's true.
White does a ton of research when prepping for a debate, reading his opponents' books and Internet articles, watching videos of them, so he'll know their position and what arguments they're likely to make, to be prepare for them.

I remember one time, I forget who he was debating, but he quoted from his opponent's book, which was for sale on the book table, and the debater got offended and cried, foul: "Don't quote me, man!"
 
SovereignGrace said:
“and one could change ones status if one remained not in unbelief”

And nary a mention of the supernatural working of the Holy Spirit. ??
Click to expand...
Of course not, it is all in man's ability according to him.

I take the above statement along with his other statement "not some irresistible force" https://forums.carm.org/threads/free-willers-are-often-cheaters.17625/page-23#post-1408345 as mockery of the work of the Spirit, and it being transcended and supplanted by his false teachings of man's magical ability.

That is what @fltom favors, man's ability while he makes a mockery of the work of God. He is heretical and cannot see it, even with all of his "abilities."
 
preacher4truth said:
Of course not, it is all in man's ability according to him.

I take the above statement along with his other statement "not some irresistible force" https://forums.carm.org/threads/free-willers-are-often-cheaters.17625/page-23#post-1408345 as mockery of the work of the Spirit, and it being transcended and supplanted by his false teachings of man's magical ability.

That is what @fltom favors, man's ability while he makes a mockery of the work of God. He is heretical and cannot see it, even with all of his "abilities."
Click to expand...
And one time he stated the cross did not remit sin. :oops: ?
 
SovereignGrace said:
And one time he stated the cross did not remit sin. :oops: ?
Click to expand...
And before I get labeled a liar, here is what Flom stated: "No he died for all, however the question is does atonement of itself remit sin

Romans 3:25–26 (KJV 1900) — 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

without faith it does not appear so"

  - Christ shed his blood even for Judas

:oops: .... God sovereignly chooses not to be sovereign?
forums.carm.org
 
"The bible never states Christ paid for you[sic] sins"
—fltom

John the Baptist has words for you. Paul also has words for you in Galations. A LOT of church fathers, past Paul and John also have words for you. Just what don't you understand about Jesus death? He came to fulfill the law, and He did. What is the fulfillment of the law? Death for sin/breaking the law. Now, if you are going to nitpick, you do God injustice.

You posted nothing at all that states your sins were paid for on the cross

Rather the bible notes Christ sacrifice was necessary that God might remain in remitting the sin of those who believe in Christ

Romans 3:25–26 (ESV) — 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

If your sin debt was paid no need for forgiveness exist"

  - Regenetation

And he is right as he proved from Romans 8 oops Romans 8:9–15 (ESV) — 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead...
forums.carm.org
 
"Ignoring what?

I plainly told him if he reads he should have seen the answer is no

The cross provided for reconciliation and allowed for God to forgive the sins of those who trust in Christ
In other words, the cross while absolutely necessary did not directly remit sin though ins could not be forgiven without it"

  - Did Jesus bear Gods wrath and was He forsaken ?

There you go "moving the goalpost" again. I didn't say anything about PSA. I'm arguing a specific point that you're failing with. You said the ransom was for sin. You admitted that Jesus Christ paid for sin. I knew you would because everyone has to admit this because the Scriptures teach this...
forums.carm.org
 
preacher4truth said:
Of course not, it is all in man's ability according to him.

I take the above statement along with his other statement "not some irresistible force" https://forums.carm.org/threads/free-willers-are-often-cheaters.17625/page-23#post-1408345 as mockery of the work of the Spirit, and it being transcended and supplanted by his false teachings of man's magical ability.

That is what @fltom favors, man's ability while he makes a mockery of the work of God. He is heretical and cannot see it, even with all of his "abilities."
Click to expand...
Not if you believe scripture

Romans 11:23 (NASB 2020) — 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again.

And not mockery of the work of the Spirit but your doctrine of irresistible grace.
 
preacher4truth said:
This guy ^^^ is so delusional he sees his master Flower's when this is about Tassi and White.

For the record Flower's got annihilated in the Romans 9 debate, and what did he do? He pits Scripture against Scripture, and so does his disciple flom.

I'm not sure who did more of a miserable job defending their errors between Flower's and Tassi. Flom isn't as bad because he's worse at it.
Click to expand...
You are so inept you cannot see I was responding to a comment that Arminians do not respond well to Romans 9

Sorry you do not know what pitting scripture against scripture is

Harmonizing scripture is not pitting scripture against scripture. Pitting scripture against scripture is when you interpret a verse out of harmony ccontradictoryto the whole council of God

That is a Calvinist specialty which isseen in their handling of Romans 9-11

and so I note you failed to address the passages in any manner


Romans 9:30–32 (NIV) — 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

supporting this is

Romans 10:19–21 (NIV) — 19 Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, “I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.” 20 And Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.” 21 But concerning Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.”

Romans 11:19–23 (NIV) — 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Clearly men were elected to the obtaining of righteous or the rejection from it by their faith or their lack of it

and one could change ones status if one remained not in unbelief
 
Theo1689 said:
Where's that J.K. Simmons meme when you need it?

:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
Oh?
You're serious?!
Click to expand...
Scripture which you did not respond to shows the seriousness



Romans 9:30–32 (NIV) — 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

supporting this is

Romans 10:19–21 (NIV) — 19 Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, “I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.” 20 And Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.” 21 But concerning Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.”

Romans 11:19–23 (NIV) — 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Clearly men were elected to the obtaining of righteous or the rejection from it by their faith or their lack of it

and one could change ones status if one remained not in unbelief


that is contrary to unconditional election and you did not address it.
 
Let your biscuit sop up this gravy guise and gulls!!

"If sin was paid for then it was not forgiven"

—fltom

"The bible never states Christ paid for you[sic] sins"

—fltom

"As i stated Christ death was absolutely necessary for sin to be forgiven but of itself it did not remit sin."

—fltom

”You will not read in the bible that Christ paid for sins on the cross”

—fltom
 
SovereignGrace said:
Let your biscuit sop up this gravy guise and gulls!!

"If sin was paid for then it was not forgiven"

—fltom

"The bible never states Christ paid for you[sic] sins"

—fltom

"As i stated Christ death was absolutely necessary for sin to be forgiven but of itself it did not remit sin."

—fltom

”You will not read in the bible that Christ paid for sins on the cross”

—fltom
Click to expand...
And where have you posted anything biblically contrary to what I stated?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top