When I first read Antonio da Rosa’s latest attack against the doctrines of grace, I thought I might make an attempt at responding to it. But I honestly did not know where to start! Should I start with his misuse of Romans 2:14-15? Or his misrepresentation of evangelism in light of the doctrines of grace? Or his common eisegetical errors concerning John 1:7-9 or John 12:31-32? Or his mockery of the Biblical doctrine of deadness and inability? Or his misrepresentation of the doctrine of reprobation? Or perhaps I would simply address his false statement that “the Bible conclusively shows that unregenerate man seeks God” (I notice that in his reading of Romans 2, he forget to look one chapter further).
Suffice to say, this isn’t the normal, focused, organized work of Antonio that at least remains concerned with the passage at hand. Rather, Antonio offers us here the usual grocery list of out-of-context-prooftext bombs that are unleashed in most common “verse wars,” coupled with century-old canards and misrepresentations. So I figured I’d just let the reader decide on this one. Antonio offers us the same non-arguments that have been addressed here or elsewhere in the past. What do you guys have to say about the article that is linked above?
On a related note, the debate blog is up and running and awaiting interaction.
I can't believe my first response to him was met with such, um, hoopla.
ReplyDeleteWere the rules really so hard to understand?
centuri0n:
ReplyDeleteRemember...for them, it isn't enough to state, "On the matter of certainty, 1 John 5:13 states this...and this is what Calvinists affirm." If it does not meet the Sandemanian dogmatic standards of assurance, it somehow does not suffice as an adequate answer.