Lou Ruggiero and John 6

Sometimes we get some pretty interesting emails around here. In fact, thankfully Rich doesn't send me most of the emails we get.

That would be rather depressing. But we got one just recently, in fact, just a couple days ago, from a gentleman that I sort of had an online debate with.

In fact, we had it on the dividing line in March of 2003, I think. Louis Ruggiero is his name, or Lou Rugg, as he's better known in PalTalk.

And Lou is an interesting fellow. In the debate we had, well, Lou thinks he won.

I think Lou's the only person who thinks he won, but Lou thinks he won. In fact, he sent this particular email to me.

Hello, Dr. White. Long time no see. I stop by your website every once in a while to see how many times you repeat yourself while attempting to convince your followers how terrified non -Calvinists are to debate you.

I must admit you are one of the greatest self -proclaimed debaters of all time. Speaking of debates, you might want to go to my website and listen to a recent debate

I had with an acquaintance of yours, a Mr. Stephen Atkins, on the subject of whether God ordains all things, including evil.

If you think you might want to show everyone how much you know or don't know, I'd be happy to consider any reasonable challenge you might present on the doctrinal worthiness of your tulip.

I apologize for this rather short letter, but I get pretty sick and tired hearing Calvinist reformers say that nobody can stand up to their man -made belief system using scripture.

Then witness them falling apart like you did almost five years ago when you blew up and resorted to ad homs because you didn't have an answer for the fear of the

Lord. You should have come better prepared. If you want an opportunity to get even, just let me know.

Sincerely, Louis Ruggiero. Well, like I said, obviously

Lou believes he won that debate. It was supposed to be a debate in which we exegeted

John chapter 6, but that's not what he did. So what I'd like to do is I'd like to play a portion of the cross -examination.

You can get this from our website. It's in the bookstore. But I'd like to play just a portion of the cross -examination and let you decide who you really think did the best and see if you detect any ad hominems or anything like that, as Lou indicated in his email.

It might be an interesting study. Could you explain the relationship of the giving of the

Father and the coming to the Son that is described in the first section of John 637, please?

All that the Father give me will come to me? Yes. Yes, all that fear the Lord will come the

Father gives to the Son. Where do you find the phrase fear the Lord in John 637? I don't.

It's not there. Okay. But it's certainly inherent in Psalm 2514 and Proverbs 129.

So do you believe Jesus was drawing from those passages in John 637? Absolutely. Okay. So the fearing of the

Lord then becomes the basis upon which the Father chooses those He's going to give to the

Son? Could you repeat that question, please? The fearing of the Lord. The Lord, God sees who fears

Him, and on that basis He gives people to the Son? Yes. Okay.

And so you can fear the Lord but not come to Christ until the Father gives you?

You can fear the Lord and be guaranteed that you're going to come to the Son, because the Father will draw you.

Okay. If you truly fear the Lord. If you truly fear the Lord, only God knows the heart. Okay.

I guess I just have to ask a direct question. Why did you agree to do a debate on John 637 -45 when you didn't give an exegesis of John 637 -45?

Well, you claimed in Paltalk that John 635 -45 is the core of Calvinism and that it's the very heart and soul of Calvinism.

And I said to you in Paltalk last week that John 635 -45 doesn't support

Calvinism at all. And I would prove that using the scriptures, and I can do that on the basis of 2

Timothy 3 -16, that all scriptures are to be given by inspiration of God for correction.

So based on 2 Timothy 3 -16, I'm challenging your position on John 635 -45.

So you didn't understand that I was asking you to give an exegesis of John 635 -45? Absolutely not.

You never asked me to. So I said I would respond to your position on John 635 -45 using the scriptures to support my position.

Okay. Verse 44 of John 6, you actually said that the one who comes to Christ is the one who chooses and exercises his free will, right?

John 644 reads, Except the Father which hath sent me, draw him.

That's correct. Based on your fear of the Lord, the Father will draw you to the Son. And Psalm 25 -14 is my support for that.

Okay. So what does no one can come to me mean? What does it mean? No one can come to me until they exercise their free will to fear the

Lord. And you don't see that that is an incredible example of exegesis reading into the text something that's completely and totally absent from the text?

Not at all. Because Psalm 25 -14 gives me the authority to connect fearing the

Lord to God showing you his covenant. I see. So... And so there's Acts chapter 13, verse...

Acts chapter 13, let me go get the verse here, verse 23 -26 and Acts chapter 10, verse 34 -35.

So you go to all these passages and do you interpret any of them in their context?

Sure. But you're not interpreting John 6 in its context? I'm interpreting the entire Bible within...

See, scripture interprets scripture and verse interprets verse. But... I've always been taught that. Yes, and I teach that myself.

Absolutely. But don't you start with the immediate context and follow a thought through? I mean, you say that Jesus' words in John 6 -44, no one can come to me unless they exercise their free will to fear the

Lord and as a result the Father who sent me will draw them. Isn't that what you just basically said?

That's what the scriptures teach. I'm not saying it, the scriptures are saying it. Okay, why would that have offended the

Jews? That's what they believed. Well, the Jews thought that who is this man thinking that he has any part in eternal salvation?

Actually... Who is he, God? In verse 65 he keeps repeating this and says, no one can come to me unless it has been granted to him from the

Father. That's why they turned around and left. Can you find anywhere in the

Bible the phrase free will decision? Yes, Proverbs 1 -29.

Could you quote the phrase free will decision there? Choice. Choice is free will. So you interpret that, but if I disagree with that then and point out to you that there's...

For example, how do you understand Romans chapter 3? It says, there is no fear of God before their eyes.

The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. There's no fear of God before their eyes. How can they make right choices? Well, what verse is that in Romans chapter 3?

Romans chapter 3 verses 17 and 18. Oh, Romans chapter 3 verses 17 and 18 are referring to all those who do evil.

Romans chapter 3 verses 17 and 18 are also referring to all those who don't fear the Lord, who do evil.

So you don't believe that that is all mankind? No, it refers to all those who do not choose to fear the

Lord. Look what it says in verse 18, there is no fear of God before their eyes. Obviously, some men have feared the

Lord and have exercised their free will to fear the Lord, correct? Do you realize, I don't believe in free will, sir.

I believe the only people who fear the Lord and make right choices are those who have been regenerated by the grace of God.

So how then, if you believe that Romans 3, 10 through 18 is not about all men, then how do you then connect that with verses 19 and 20 and the presentation of justification?

For people who fear the Lord, there's no need of justification, is there? I'm sorry? For the people who fear the

Lord, there's no need of justification. They already have their right to self -help. Well, verse 18 tells us that it's regarding those who do not fear the

Lord. Obviously, there are men who do fear the Lord, who did fear the Lord, who weren't regenerated.

Job is a perfect example, Job 1 .1. So Job was a spiritually dead man who feared the

Lord. What does Job 1 .1 say? I'll ask you that during my course examination.

Glad to. So are you aware, sir, that the position you're presenting is historically known as Pelagianism?

The position I'm displaying is scriptural. Whatever name you want to give it, that's up to you.

So you're not familiar with those issues? I don't need to be familiar with those issues. I'm familiar with what the scriptures teach.

That's all I need to be made familiar with. And how would you test whether your view of free will, which you're inserting into all these passages, what if you were wrong about that?

Well, then the Bible's wrong about it, and I don't think the Bible is wrong about that. So your understanding and the Bible are the same thing?

You couldn't be wrong. Well, unless you show me wrong. I mean, I haven't seen you challenge the Jewish issue in Proverbs 1 .29.

How could someone show you that you're wrong? Upon what basis, given what you've said here, if I were to go to Proverbs 1 .29

and say everyone that I know of believes that we make choices. The problem is that he who commits sin is a slave of sin, and therefore the choices he's going to make are going to be dependent upon his corrupted will and therefore not free choices.

If I were to say that, how could you test that, given that you've established your own position as your final authority?

Well, I'm not here to establish a position. I'm just here to illustrate to those listening in that they have their own choice with respect to their own eternal salvation.