Romans 9-Calvinism Debate

So we pray that this event will be organized in full for everyone here.

I hope you have a good time, enjoy it, and God bless you. Thank you. Welcome, everybody.

This is a nice debate entitled, Does Romans 9 Teach Calvinism? We have two debaters tonight,

Dr. James White and Pastor Steve Tassie. Pastor Tassie is a senior pastor of Calvary Fellowship Norwalk, which is an outreach ministry at Calvary Chapel, La Mirada.

You can find more info about Calvary over at calvaryfellowshipnorwalk .com, his

YouTube channel, youtube .com, backslash GBF Norwalk. And his

Facebook page, or actually the church's Facebook page, GBF Norwalk. Dr.

James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian -based apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona.

He is the author of 24 books, a professor, an accomplished debater, having engaged in more than 150 moderated debates.

He is also an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The format for tonight's debate is the following.

So Dr. James White will be taking the affirmative. He will start with a 20 -minute opening. Then Pastor Tassie will go to the negative opening, which will also be 20 minutes.

There will be a rebuttal for the affirmative, 10 minutes, negative rebuttal for 10 minutes. We'll go into our first cross -examination, which will be affirmative to the negative for 10 minutes, and then the negative to the affirmative for 10 minutes.

After that period, we'll have a short 10 -minute break. We ask that you please be back in your seats right around the end of that break so we can get started on time.

The next will be a second cross -examination, which will start, again, affirmative to negative, and then negative to affirmative.

Those both last 10 minutes each. We'll have a closing affirmative, which will be 10 minutes, closing negative, which will be 10 minutes, and then we'll have audience questions.

For the audience questions, we're going to open up this mic at the front, and we ask that you come up as basically first -come, first -served, and we will go over those for 30 minutes.

The way that'll work is whoever the question is addressed to, so whenever you come up here and ask a question, let us know who you are addressing the question to.

So if it's to Dr. White, he would get two minutes to answer. Pastor Tassi would get one minute to respond, and vice versa if it's addressed to Pastor Tassi.

So I will be moderating tonight's debate, some of the rules. A bell will sound at the end of each segment, letting each debater know that their time is up and they must cease at that moment.

Again, we express that we know that people are very passionate about this issue, but we really would like for you to do no clapping, booing, any of the above whenever a debater makes a point that you may or may not agree with.

And those are the main things, so without further ado, I'd like to ask Dr. James White to come up to the front, and we will start.

Well, greetings and welcome. It is great to have you here this evening. I guess I need to talk a little bit more quietly. It's good to have you here this evening.

Those of you who got in, we will be having a hike afterwards when we get back to our cars, and hopefully you brought your backpack for that.

This evening, we are focusing upon the Word of God. If you have come here to see one side beat up on the other side or vice versa,

I hope you're sorely disappointed. Instead, I hope what we have this evening is a focus upon the

Scriptures, and I hope you brought your Bible because I'd like you to turn to the Book of Romans. And I do need to establish somewhat of a context.

Romans 9 does not exist unto itself. It is the part of a continuation of a presentation by the

Apostle Paul, and in chapter 8, he has established what subject it is that he is specifically addressing.

We know about what's called the golden chain of redemption, beginning in Romans 8 .28, but please notice the terminology that is used there.

We have introduced to us there the purpose of God, and we have the calling of God, specifically a certain people who are called according to His purpose, who are foreknown, predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

And then please notice the terminology that is used. For those whom He predestined these,

He also called. Please notice that that particular term is going to become important again later on, demonstrating that we have a consistent argument here, we have a consistent context.

These He called, and whom He called, these He also what? Justified. This is soteriological language.

This is language that is in reference to the doctrine of salvation. If we can justify nations or things like that, then we can start talking about nations.

But specifically here, the Apostle is talking about soteriology, the salvation of God's people, the justification of God's people.

And those whom He justified, these He also glorified. Then we have the beautiful presentation in verses 31 and following of the law court.

And no one is able to bring a charge against whom? Against God's elect, because God is the one who justifies, verse 33.

This is the one for whom Jesus Christ has given Himself up. He is now interceding for them before the

Father. There is very specifically, right here, soteriological salvation language.

And having announced this tremendous blessing, chapter 9 then begins with Paul answering what must have been one of the major objections against his own perspective.

And that is Paul. And that all sounds wonderful. But the problem is the vast majority of your own

Jewish brethren reject your message. In fact, they're trying to kill you. They want you dead.

How do you explain this? And so Paul begins at the beginning of the chapter by confessing the fact that he has deep and abiding pain in his heart.

He can wish to be separated from Christ in behalf of his brethren, the

Israelites. He can wish that he could literally be anathema from them. And he then lists the great benefits that they have.

He talks in verse 4 about the adoption of sons, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the temple worship, and the promises.

These are all given to them. And then he finishes up in verse 5, And most people believe that's actually a reference to the very deity of Christ.

That it was through them that God actually entered into his own creation in the incarnation.

What a tremendous blessing has been given to the Jewish people. But then you have the key issue in understanding what

Romans 9 is talking about. It is not as though the word of God literally has fallen, has failed.

That's what verse 6 begins by saying. For they are not, not all those who are from Israel are

Israel. And so the point is that God has exercised a sovereign choice in guiding the promises, guiding the blessings, all the way through the history of Israel.

Israel cannot object to the fact that the gospel is now going out in all the world. Because their own history demonstrates that God has always had that freedom in the giving of his blessing.

And that blessing going back to the fullness of that blessing in chapter 8. Salvation itself.

And so he specifically points out in verse 7, that not all the children of Abraham are the seed, but in Isaac shall your seed be called.

And so God sovereignly chose that those promises, those blessings, would go in one direction.

Abraham had other children, but that's not where the blessing was to go. This was God's purpose.

And so he specifically says that not all the children of the flesh, the children of God, but the children of promise are to be reckoned as seed.

And this is the fulfillment of the promise that was given to Sarah. And then he illustrates this. And he has a series of illustrations that we need to understand.

Verse 10, not only this, but also Rebekah. When she had conceived twins by the one man,

Isaac our father, before those twins were born, or had done anything good or bad, in order that the purpose of God in election might stand.

So before they could do anything, and obviously what Paul is doing here is he's saying, God's choice was not based upon looking at these individuals, foreseeing what they would do, or anything.

Before they could do anything good or bad, God has a purpose in election. It must stand, not by works, but by the one calling.

I don't know how the apostle could have been any clearer in his saying, it is not by works, but by him who's calling.

Now wait a minute, we saw the word calling just a little while ago, didn't we? Yeah, back in chapter 8, what was it about?

It was about soteriology, it was about salvation. What has changed? Has something changed? If someone's going to allege that something has changed, you need to demonstrate it from the text.

Otherwise, Paul is continuing to argue the exact same point. And so, not of works, but from the one calling, it was said to her, that the greater will serve the lesser, just as it's been written,

Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. So you have two quotations from Genesis 25. One from Genesis 25, one from Malachi chapter 1.

And it's the apostle who must give us the interpretation of his use of these texts.

He gives us his own apostolic interpretation. We can't run off to the original text and say, well, it can only mean this.

No, it's going to mean exactly what the apostle Paul applies it to mean. And so, what does he mean when he says in verse 13, just as it's been written,

Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. And may I suggest one thing to you? The biblically trained mind, in hearing that citation from Malachi chapter 1, in the context of which is being placed here, which is specifically the context of Jacob and Esau, should immediately be struck not by the phrase,

Esau I hated. What should shock us is the phrase, Jacob I loved. If you think that God owes that to someone, then you don't seem to understand who

Jacob was, and you don't seem to understand who God was. That love was an act of grace on God's part.

That was a choice that he was making. That is the potter's freedom being exercised right there.

Now, when we read the apostle Paul, he helps us to understand what he's saying by raising objections.

And if you find yourself raising the same objections that Paul answers, that means you're disagreeing with the apostle.

That's not a good place to be. And so, in verse 14, what shall we say then?

Is there unrighteousness with God? May it never be. And so, immediately

Paul recognizes that whatever it is he just said, on the part of many people, the response is, well, that's unrighteous, that's unfair.

And Paul's response is, no, you don't seem to understand the truth of God's freedom, in this matter of the giving of his blessings, the sinfulness of man, the justice of his punishment of man, etc.,

etc. Is there unrighteousness with God? May there never be. For he says to Moses, I will mercy whom

I mercy, and I will compassion whom I compassion. Now, we in English don't have verbs that match the

Greek verbs at this particular point in time. We talk about having compassion, having mercy, but they are active verbs in the original language, just something that God does.

And he quotes from Exodus 33, that tremendous encounter with Moses, where he freely reveals himself to Moses, and he reveals the freedom that is his to reveal himself to whom he will.

He will have mercy on whom he has mercy, he will have compassion on whom he has compassion. God's mercy and compassion cannot be demanded.

They must be free to be truly rich and to be truly biblical. God's grace is always free.

It cannot be demanded. And that was the case in the encounter with Moses in Exodus 33.

And so he quotes from Exodus 33, and then he gives us, again, the inspired apostolic interpretation.

Therefore, it is not of the one willing, that's the very Greek term fellow, will, if you want to talk about free will, creaturely will, autonomous will, whatever you want to talk about, there is the word.

It is not of the one willing, neither of the one literally running or engaging in activity, so doing works, engaging in activity, but from the mercying

God. Again, I don't know how the apostle could have been any clearer. He wants to draw a distinct contrast between the will of man, the activities of man, and the mercying of God.

It's not of the will, it's not of the activity, but of the mercying God. It all has to go back to him.

Then he gives more biblical foundation. For the scriptures say to Pharaoh, that for this very reason

I raised you up, that thus I might demonstrate my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.

And we think about what that meant. That meant the destruction of Pharaoh. It meant the destruction of his army.

It meant the destruction of the firstborn of Egypt. That's what it meant.

And I have often asked my fellow believers, how high on your priority list is the demonstration of God's power, and the proclamation of his name throughout all the earth?

In many instances, we're much more concerned about God fulfilling our desires, and the happiness of our life, than anything in regards to such broad concepts as this.

So what is the inspired interpretation of these words to Pharaoh? Verse 18. Therefore, whom he wills, he mercies, and whom he wills, he hardens.

And of course, the term hardening there, drawn directly from the Greek Septuagint, the story of the hardening of Pharaoh. Over and over again,

Pharaoh was in a position, where if he had been smart, he would have given in, but God hardened his heart, because he had a purpose in the destruction of the gods of Egypt.

He had a purpose in what he was doing. And so, very clearly, you have mercy being given to those whom

God wills, and hardening being given to whom God wills. And who is in charge in all of this?

God. God is the one doing all of these actions. God is the one doing all of these actions.

Now once again, if you're going to say, well, it didn't have anything to do with Pharaoh, it didn't have to...

Look at the objection that is then raised in verse 19. Therefore you will say to me, why does he yet find fault?

For who is able to literally resist or to stand against his will?

So the objection that Paul himself had heard to his own teaching and preaching more than once was, well, think about it.

How can God still find fault? How can God judge if God is free in all of these things?

If he is so sovereign in all of these things, then there's no basis for judgment. He's being unfair, there's unrighteousness here.

Who can stand against his will? And again, I remind you, that is the objection against the

Christian position, as expressed in the scriptures themselves. And yet, each one of us in this room, upon hearing what

Romans 9 is actually talking about, understands the objector. We understand the objector.

And I firmly believe that unless the Spirit of God reveals to us who God is and who we are as his creatures and his absolute sovereign right to use us as he pleases according to his personal justice and unchanging nature, until we really realize who he is and who we are, we will never embrace what

Romans 9 has to say. It won't happen. It won't happen. Now, the answer that is given, some people, even reformed authors, don't necessarily believe that Paul gives an answer.

I think that he does. Because the very first two words of verse 20 are, O man, who are you to answer back to God?

And I think that's the answer. We are a creature. We are God's creation. He is our creator.

Every breath of our mouth, every beat of our heart comes from his hand. And who are we to answer back to the one who made us?

And then he gives the illustration. The thing formed will not say to the one who formed it, why did you make me like this, will it?

And that's a question we have to ask because we live in a secular age and that's exactly what secular man does say.

That's exactly what our society teaches us to say. Our society teaches us to question God and to question his word.

And yet it's foolishness when you truly think about what it means. And then it's specifically said to us in verse 21, does not the potter have authority from the same lump of clay to make indeed one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

Is that not the potter's right, the potter's freedom to do that? He can take the same lump of clay and he can say,

I'm gonna make a beautiful vessel. And he can take the same lump of clay and say, ah, you know, I need something to spit into and he can create both of those things.

And that is his right to do it. And most of us, if we really thought about it, don't believe he has that right.

Most of us think there's some type of constitutional something that would restrict God's rights along those lines. There's certainly a federal judge, especially in California, who would come up with someone.

I mean, this stuff does not preach in Sacramento, but then again, nothing saying does. Then the apostle interprets this for us.

What if God, though willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience, vessels prepared beforehand, vessels of wrath prepared beforehand for destruction?

Now, some people would try to say, well, you know, that prepared, that doesn't necessarily mean prepared by God. No, the whole illustration is potter, clay, vessels of honor, vessels of dishonor.

Now we have vessels of wrath and vessels of glory. It's, you have to absolutely destroy the parallel that is being drawn by the author himself.

God endured with much patience. Look at the history of Israel. With much patience, vessels of wrath prepared beforehand for dishonor.

Why? Well, he was making his wrath known. He was demonstrating his wrath.

He was making his power known. Again, if those are not important things to us, then we are not going to understand this text.

If those are not important things to us, then we're not going to understand this text. But then he says, also in order that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, prepared beforehand for glory.

So there you have his purposes. There you have what God is doing. He is demonstrating his power and he's making known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory.

And again, it was the freedom of the potter to choose which are which. And now he makes the application.

Who is he talking about? Those whom he called us, whom he called not only from amongst

Jews, but also amongst Gentiles. Who is the body in the New Testament made up of Jews and Gentiles that have been called by God?

It's called the church. The church, the redeemed, the elect. And here is the exact same verb in verse 8.

This involves soteriology. This involves God's blessing of eternal life.

The context has not changed. The application has been made and he has now made it very clear to us.

This is who has been called. Jews and Gentiles. These are the vessels of mercy.

And please know very quickly, verse 27, when he's talking about the fulfillment of this from various passages of scripture.

Notice it's the remnant that shall be saved. This was always God's purpose. This was always how

God had acted. And there is the very term for which we get soteriology. A remnant shall be saved in verse 27.

And so then it wraps up in saying at the end of the chapter.

You see, the Gentiles, they have received righteousness because they are seeking after it by faith.

And Israel has missed this because they sought after it as if it were by works.

The way of salvation, it's always about grace. It's always about faith. But you see, that flows from the recognition of God's absolute sovereignty in His willingness to now bring the

Gospel to all the nations and to draw it together into that one body, the church. The same ones that are seen in Revelation 5, whereby the death of the

Lamb, He has made them a kingdom of priests, men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.

This is the consistent teaching of what the Word of God says. It may step upon our traditions at times, but it certainly is the consistent teaching of what

God's Word says. A little bit quick, a little bit fast, but it's only 20 minutes. Let's discuss what this text says.

Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you all for coming out today.

There's a few seats up here in the front. There's no more safe seats, so please fill them if you'd like.

I want to thank James White for coming out. I know he traveled to come here and I appreciate that.

We are not professionals at putting on events like this, so I apologize for it's warm in here.

There's not enough seats and we had to turn people away, but I greatly appreciate you coming out.

In this discussion, I've been given the task of, in the opposition of Romans 9, being taught as a soteriological argument.

I have said in the past, and this might confuse some, but I have said that I believe that this passage even is dispensational.

I might be able to get into some of the reasons for that. One thing

I wanted to mention before I start, and I hope you have grace with me on this, is yesterday

I was sent a video and it was made by Mr. White.

It was a critique about the video that I made about him about five years ago.

It was a question about, I actually called it the freedom to blame the potter.

In this, I discussed things that I do use some hyperbole, but I want to cry foul a little bit that the debate actually started yesterday.

If I would have known that there was going to be a YouTube debate before,

I would have presented one as well. The opening statements, I believe, began yesterday and continued today.

I would ask for some grace to address a couple of points here. I will get into Romans 9 and the discussion of it, even to the point that if I have to go into my closing statements.

The debate was speaking about me as if my arguments were attacks on James White himself.

I was said to have used ad hominem attacks on James White.

To me, that is like the pot calling the kettle black because most of the things that I've studied read and watched on YouTube from James White are many ad hominem attacks.

I think that there needs to be a standard that is at least equally fair.

One of the reasons I pursued this debate is that James White has a video on YouTube and it says

Calvary Chapel and their ignorance fest on Calvinism. Now, if that's not a red herring, or if that's not an ad hominem,

I don't know what is. The things that have been said about Chuck Smith and Brian Broderson and many others, many things that have been said about, for example,

Norman Geisler. There's this theme that's taking place in the church that Calvary Chapel don't use their

Bibles, we don't know how to study them, we don't exegete our Bibles, and this,

I believe, is done by James White. I think that starting a day early in this debate was a little unfair.

What we need to keep in mind is that for years this has been taking place, things about George Bryson, for example, and when listening to James White, it's talking down to us as if we are second -class

Christians. He said in the debate that I was a kindergarten -type thinking and that I appealed to television as my sources of authority, and of course that's not what

I was doing, and in turn he said that anything that I said was kindergarten.

Now, I don't think people like to debate James White, and I think that this is one of the reasons, because the debate won't take place in the hours that are here tonight.

It began yesterday, and it will continue on for days on afterwards in monologues on the radio program and on YouTube, and I think that's why people don't like to debate

James White, is because you're going to be attacked, as I will even today, for bringing this up.

Actually, I didn't bring it up. It was brought up yesterday. James White had said in my kindergarten -type teachings that I am mistaken about the great truths of the

Christian faith because you must compartmentalize them, and I argued in the debate that there's a difference between the predeterminism of Calvinism compared to as he moves into compatibilism, and I will also,

I believe, show that at times James White and all Calvinists will use

Arminianism and even at times open theism, and these are actually red herrings in order to change the subject.

If you are a predeterminist, you need to remain a predeterminist.

If you are a compatibilist, that is your view on sovereignty. There is not room for...

Compatibilism is not a subcategory of predeterminism. They're two separate categories on the sovereignty of God, and he said that I would have to compartmentalize even in the doctrine of the

Trinity, and I would say, no, it's very different. The teaching of the

Trinity does not include contradictions. The teaching of the hypostatic union does not include contradictions such as the contradictions that are found in Calvinism as they move from different views of sovereignty at will depending on the topic that's brought up.

For example, if you have to compartmentalize in the doctrine of the

Trinity, it should be said that the Trinity needs to be explained as one God in three compartments, and that's not the teaching of the

Trinity, but he said in order to unpack the Trinity, I would have to do these same compartments that I say you can't do in the doctrines of Calvinism.

I don't even think you can be saved if you believe that there is one God in three compartments.

In the hypostatic union, there is not one Jesus that is one compartment man and one compartment

God. That is not the true teaching of the hypostatic union, and I would not use the same contradictions that James White says he uses in exegesis for the same exegesis he uses for the doctrine of the

Trinity he uses for the teachings on Calvinism. This just isn't the case.

There is no contradiction in the hypostatic union. There is no contradiction in the

Trinity, although there's a mystery that there's something that we must admit is incomprehensible, but what is not the case is that it is in contradiction.

There is not one God in three compartments. That would be completely different than what

I am saying about Calvinism. What am I saying about Calvinism?

What Calvinists do is they hold to several doctrines of sovereignty and they change them as things go.

If you leave with anything, I would hope that you would be able to see that that takes place.

If you press on the doctrine of predeterminism and God's sovereignty in all things, then that you must stay in, and there are

Calvinists that do stay there. You would call them hyper -Calvinists, but they stay in their view of sovereignty called predeterminism, and compatibilism is not a subcategory of predeterminism.

It is a different view of sovereignty, and you can't move from one to the other.

Arminianism or the doctrines of permission, sometimes they're called in the views of sovereignty.

The Calvinist feels like that they can use those at times, but in other times, they'll use predeterminism.

In other times, they'll use compatibilism, and then other times, such as perhaps in the fall, they'll use decrees of permission.

Molinism, all of the categories, open theism, we are constrained to hold to one view of sovereignty, but the

Calvinist believes that they can use all of them, and they do them as if you can.

We need to think of the doctrine of predeterminism as one thing, and if you are a predeterminist, you cannot be a compatibilist.

Compatibilism is synergism. The only true monergism would be the predeterminist or actually the universalist is the strongest monergism, and Calvinists are really proud of that word monergism, but the truth is,

Christian universalism is the only true monergism because they don't believe you don't even have to receive

Christ. That's a true monergism, but if you in any way believe that you are a vessel that's containing the

Holy Spirit of God, you are synergistically working with God, even if you're just a vessel in which

God placed his Holy Spirit in you and sealed you for the day of redemption, you are in fact a synergism.

So the rest of us hold, and when we debate Calvinists, we struggle to hold to our one position because you can't switch them.

We struggle to hold to them. The Calvinist changes them, and we get caught in these confusions, and we need to realize, and I want to ask you as you debate

Calvinism in the future to watch how this takes place. There's a change that takes place, a change that takes place if you press them on the sovereignty of God and the logical conclusions on the sovereignty of God in a universal determinism which is found only in predeterminism.

You will find that God is the author of evil. He is caused all the evil in the world, and it does not establish secondary causes as is the claim in Calvinism such as in the

Reformed Confessions of Faith. We need to keep that in mind.

Calvinism has two of everything. They have an effectual call, and they have a general call.

They have, you know, there's two of everything, and what they are, they are red herrings in order to, if you start to make way with them in one of these positions, they can change to the other one and go, oh no, it's a compatibilist free will.

I would ask James White, even in the video yesterday, admitted that synergism does occur, and he said in sanctification, which

I agree, but also it occurs in Romans 8, 28 that God works all things out for good and this synergism is occurring within evil as well.

And I would ask if it is true that he does hold to synergism and that he does hold that the will is free, the question must be asked, does

James White believe that we are chosen but free? Because he will say the will is free.

And there's another contradiction built into that, that the will is free to only do evil.

There is no, that is a blatant contradiction. You are never free to only do evil.

James White will get, change views of sovereignty at these times.

In fact, James White will, and I've heard him say, and I have the quotations, that God is actually restraining evil.

And what he's doing is he's saying, God, one, predetermines and he causes all the evil that comes to pass,

God does, and he causes all the evil that comes to pass, and now he gets out in front of evil, this is a different view of sovereignty, and he is keeping people from doing the evil that he caused them to do in the first place.

The question is, which is it? Does God cause everything that comes to pass?

Does he cause and decree all evil that James White even believes and has stated that God causes everything that comes to pass, and then now

God has to get out in front and restrain the evil that he's causing? And somehow people can't see these contradictions.

I would put that in the category of now he's gone into open theism. Another reason, when doctrines of permission, speaking about perhaps in the fall,

Adam falls by permission, it's a decree of permission, there's two different decrees, positive and negative decrees, and the question must be asked, was in that very short period of time, was

God looking down the tunnel of time, and if it's permission, was he waiting to see what

God would do? But he passively decrees it. Well, that's what Arminians believe.

I believe that in the fall God allows evil, and James White would believe that God allows all of the evil that takes place in the world by fallen men doing whatever they want, and then he must get out in front and restrain it.

These contradictions must be taken serious. Martin Luther said that in his posting at the

Diet of Worms, his refusal to recant in his writings, he said,

I cannot, this is a paraphrase, I have it, but the paraphrase would be, I can't by the word of God and by reason, and then he goes on to explain,

I can't recant because of the Catholic contradictions, and yet we move into a new set of contradictions that are taught in Reformed theology.

So in Romans 9, and I would beg some grace on that because James White has actually already had an hour and a half opening yesterday.

I would like to then say that Romans 9,

I do believe that it does teach election, and I do believe that it establishes something that we must also consider, the audiences that are being spoken to.

We know that the names that are mentioned here, these names such as Pharaoh, such as Moses, such as Isaac and Rebecca, these are

Old Testament names that are mentioned here in Romans 9, and the

Apostle Paul, it's as if, if it is soteriological, it's as if he didn't write it.

Every time the Apostle Paul writes about salvation, he uses terms like the blood of Jesus.

He uses things like the cross, and he always is using these very glorious words about salvation that are not used in Romans 9.

You almost would have to ask yourself, is this Pauline? Because everywhere else he writes about salvation, he's writing as if these terms of the blood sacrifice, the grace, and we need to ask ourselves, is the mercy here being spoken of?

Is this mercy speaking of salvation? None of the times that this chapter goes back into the

Old Testament, none of these times can you go back to where those proof texts are from the

Old Testament. Are they speaking about salvation? So, Apostle Paul is reaching back into the

Old Testament, teaching about these quotations used for Israel as a nation, and that he's going to, for example, in verse 25, in Hosea, I will call them my people who are not my people, and her beloved who was not my beloved, and we go back and look at the context of those passages, and they're not salvation passages.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that all of these passages, speaking not of the church,

James White put together that it's the church, but these passages, if you were to read

Jeremiah chapter 18, verses one through 10, you would discover that these very same words about the apostle, about vessels and the potter and the clay are used in the discussion of Israel, and I do apologize that I know

I will be critiqued for not exegeting Romans 9.

I'm going to be glad to do that, but the debate started yesterday, and I'm just giving a response to what was said already in an attempt to poison the well before we even get here today.

Let me begin with my sincere apologies. I had hoped we had a debate this evening.

The debate is obviously over. The debate was ended within the first 60 seconds of Brother Tassie's opening statement.

This debate did not begin yesterday, any more than it began five years ago when he posted his video. It is simply absurd, beyond all levels of absurdity, to decide to change the topic, break all the rules, and violate your agreements based upon the fact that what

I did yesterday... How many of you heard my program yesterday? All right. Every one of you knows that what the gentleman just said was a gross misrepresentation of what

I attempted to do yesterday. What I wanted to do was I wanted to try to remove many of the canards and misrepresentations and misunderstandings.

Why? What did I say over and over again so we could focus specifically on Romans 9?

No one, no one who listened to that with a scintilla of fairness believes

I was trying to poison the well, believes I was trying to get a head start, or that I was changing the topic of this debate.

I wanted it to finally be a debate specifically on Romans 9. It will not be that.

The 20 minutes has passed, and we have been given almost nothing on Romans chapter 9.

That debate is over. I don't know what we're going to do the rest of the evening, but we'll try to rescue something.

But I am deeply disappointed. I have never seen anyone violate the rules of debate in 155 public -moderated debates the way this was just done.

And that includes a number of very interesting Muslim people that I've debated with as well, so very, very interesting.

I will, in the eight minutes that I have left, respond to the only things that were said about Romans chapter 9.

Glorious words about salvation not found in Romans 9. Folks, remember something. The chapter and verse divisions of the

Bible are modern innovations. And what did I demonstrate? That there is a consistent flow of terminology directly from the highest, most glorious revelation of soteriology in Romans 8 directly into the end of Romans 9.

It's right there. You can't isolate Romans 9 from Romans 8. There were no chapter and verse divisions when

Paul wrote that, so that argument is completely invalid. Did the

Old Testament text refer to salvation? What did I say in my presentation? Now remember, folks, some of you have heard the debate

I did with Layton Flowers. There was nothing new in my presentation because Romans 9 didn't change since last summer.

And if you're going to exegete it consistently, it's going to say the same thing now it did last June, even in Dallas, amazingly enough.

And what did I point out? Paul provides his own apostolic interpretation of the reasons he's citing these texts.

So if you want to say, oh, this isn't soteriological, this isn't about salvation, well, tell Paul that. He's making the application.

He's giving the interpretation. He's using the terms of calling and saving and everything else.

And can you really look at the Hosea text, the people who are not my people? Isn't that exactly why the gospel goes to the

Gentiles, so they can become the people of God? Doesn't that require their salvation? That's all that was said in Romans 9.

That was it. So on any debate level, the debate's done. It's over, and one side has capitulated from the beginning.

So the problem is that when someone does something like this, it changes the subject of debate, and now

I have to respond to this range of statements.

All of a sudden, I became the subject of the debate. I couldn't believe how many times James White was said in a 20 -minute period.

And unfortunately, it requires, it leaves you considerably less edified than you would have been otherwise.

And again, my sincere apologies. I did not expect it. Let me just simply say this.

What Brother Tassie has failed to understand in my criticism of his presentations is the fact that he commits consistent and egregious category errors.

He refuses to allow for any meaningful utilization of category errors by Calvinists.

He simply squishes down everything we believe into stuff that he can call contradictions. What I had said, actually, was that I am certain that in talking about things such as a hypostatic union, that Brother Tassie will allow, will demand the right to make appropriate category distinctions.

You have to make category distinctions to talk about the hypostatic union. You have to be able to talk about such things as what a human nature is and a divine nature is and what incarnation means.

You have to have appropriate categories for the discussion. I've debated many Muslims that would deny the appropriateness of those categories, and we can't get anywhere because of that.

But if you're going to use appropriate categories in talking about the Trinity, about the hypostatic union, about things like that, then you cannot then just simply turn around and turn everything that we say, when we talk about, for example, the difference between God's autonomous divine will and man's creaturely free will.

I act according to the desires of my nature, but I fell in Adam, and I lost spiritual life in Adam, and the

Bible says that those who are according to the flesh are not able to do what is pleasing to God.

Now, you can deny it all you want, but the reality is you have to come up with categories that will allow you to explain the biblical teaching of the nature of man,

Jesus' own statement, that no one is able to come to me unless the

Father who sent me draws him, together with Romans chapter 8 and its specific statement of man's inability to do what is pleasing to God.

You must allow the Bible to be rich enough and full enough and deep enough to require you to have categories to understand what the nature of the fallen will is, what the nature of the will redeemed in the presence of the

Holy Spirit is, what God's purposes in all of that are. If you deny us the ability to have meaningful categories, we will not be able to make heads or tails at what the

Bible is saying. And so when I criticized what was being said, and there's a lot of misunderstanding in the world about what ad hominem is.

Ad hominem would be saying that Brother Tassie is wearing an untucked shirt, therefore he's wrong.

It would be an argument. Simply saying that what someone said, for example, that I should start a ministry going to the parents of people whose daughters have been raped and killed and tell them that that was all

God's purpose, which is what he said in that video. To identify complete misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the

Reformed position, that's not ad hominem, especially if I substantiated what

I said, and I did. And I think a majority of the folks in here raised your hand when you said you heard that presentation yesterday.

So you know what I did. And you know that the purpose, my desire was the exact opposite of how it was interpreted.

My desire was to set those things aside. I said more than once, can we leave this stuff out so we can finally have a meaningful, in -depth debate on the meaning of Romans chapter 9.

And though that was my purpose, that purpose was completely rejected this evening.

And again, I am sincerely apologetic to you if you have traveled a long way and that's what you wanted to hear.

You wanted to have that kind of interaction. I'm afraid that's not going to be able to happen. Let me just define one last thing in the last 90 seconds

I have. Maybe it'll be useful to us as we do something. I'm not sure what the rest of the evening is going to be, to be perfectly honest with you.

When I speak of compatibilistic freedom, I'm using specific categories that Brother Tafsi will not allow me to use.

When I speak of synergism, I'm talking specifically in regards to bringing about the regeneration of the sinful soul.

And that in many religious systems, there is a cooperation of the human and the divine.

And that the success of God's desire to bring about that salvation is dependent upon the cooperation of the human and divine.

And without the human cooperation, God tries, but he does not succeed.

Brother Tafsi refuses to allow us to have that category. He applies it to everything else, but not to the category that we actually, ourselves, intend to utilize it in.

And so when I'm talking about man's free will, of course I'm talking about whether man is redeemed or not redeemed.

I'm talking about acting upon our desires when I talk about compatibilism, I'm talking about the fact that from God's creative decree, his divine decree, and man's responsibility are compatible with one another in how

God judges. Now, if you want me to go through the Bible verses and talk about that, well, that's where we should have started.

We were supposed to do Romans 9. We didn't do Romans 9. My apologies for that.

But thank you for being here this evening. Yes, I did predict that that wouldn't go over well.

And I would, therefore, not have posted a video the day before on this.

He reached back into many years and decided the day before the debate to bring this up.

But I've made that point. But, again, I've heard this inconsistency in this short rebuttal.

James White on sovereignty has written, God has wisely and perfectly decreed whatever comes to pass in the universe, nothing is outside of his control, nothing is without purpose.

This extends to every aspect of human history, personal relationships, and most importantly, the life of every man, woman, and child.

That is very specific. This is not leaving room for this compatibilism that he will move into.

Because then it moves into a responsibility on man that man could,

I guess he's now outside of God's decrees. Because he's doing his creaturely freedom, and yet James White says that God decrees everything that comes to pass.

Is everything everything, or is it only the things that he likes to say about God's sovereignty and then equivocates when it comes to this position on compatibilism.

Now man is a free creature. He will admit he's not autonomous, so God is causing the actions of the person that does the evil, as evil as you could possibly think.

God does cause these things, and I believe that is what Romans 9 is teaching.

In fact, in Romans 9, you're not going to find any of this compatibilist free will.

You're not even going to find the fall in Romans 9 discussed.

Because it says, so that election may stand. This eliminates anything that man, it's not of man that wills.

It's of God that makes and hardens. In Romans, in chapter 9, it's clear that in verse,

I want to focus in on 9, verse 21 through 23. It says,

Does not the potter have the power over the clay from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

So we see that there's no distinction in which God makes these vessels. It's not saying that God makes one vessel for honor and leaves the other to their compatibilist free will.

It actually says he actively hardens the hearts of those that are in, if it's a soteriological argument, he hardens their hearts.

So there's, how do you bring that into Romans 9, this compatibilist free will?

Man is acting in his free will, only doing evil, as if God's not causing everything to come to pass.

Romans 9 clearly tells us that he is causing everything that comes to pass.

James White even makes, for the Arminian, the objection, who are you to question

God? Well, if it is true that man is working on any type of free will,

I would not question God. The fact is that this passage teaches that they're not working on any fallen nature.

They're not working on any compatibilist free will to do only evil.

So that election might stand, God is making one vessel for honor and another for dishonor.

This has nothing to do with the will of man. James White even said it. He makes them.

This is one lump of clay in one verse, and he says he makes one for honor and another for dishonor.

The word is make. It's aorist active infinitive, and it means the author of, to cause, to prepare, to fashion for.

This indicates grammatically and exegetically both vessels are made the same way and under the same power.

There's no discussion for this other stuff about trying to now back off.

I would ask if this passage does in fact teach a positive -positive double predestination, then who are you to question

God to say that it does not? This passage, if it is soteriological, it's an equal ultimacy.

There's nothing in here that God is backing off. He's using the same lump and the same verse of clay, and he makes them using the same tense of the word make for each, both vessels of honor and vessels of mercy.

If God wanted to communicate in salvation that it was, he acted passively one way, and he acted causally in a universally deterministic way, he would have not used the same word and the same sentence.

From this verse, Calvinists would argue that God has irresistibly and unconditionally elected man to salvation.

I would argue it's by necessity that God has elected the reprobate the same way, considering that in the same verse,

God being the same potter, uses the same lump, the same clay, the same word poial, we can ask

James White how to say that, is in the same tense. This is an equal ultimacy.

If you want to have it as a soteriological election, then we see this analogy in the vessels.

They're treated the same way. There's not one that's passively reprobated, as the

Calvinist believes. It's active reprobation. There's no place for compatibilism or the fall, because it's so that election might stand.

It has nothing to do with God pulling out a people. He has caused everything that comes to pass.

Even as the Calvinist would so much like to use John 6, the truth is that God has drawn everybody.

He hasn't left people at their own will to do evil freely.

He has drawn everything that comes to pass. You can't have it both ways. Statement after statement from Calvinist scholars in Calvin himself do not allow for this equivocation.

He was honest enough to say that God made them for their own end.

In Romans 9, 21, it clearly states this. And as we move forward, any power that God demonstrates or any fitting

God does is so fixed and determined by God that there is no possible outcome for either vessel of either kind to turn out otherwise.

You can make it as nice as you want. You can object to what

God's saying here about a soteriological election by saying, oh no, that would be really bad if God positively decreed them to damnation.

But that's what the passage says. And if we're going to truly be honest to the text, that that is what's taking place in the text.

In 22 and 23, it would if God wanting to show his wrath to make his power known endure long -suffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.

For you single predestination, you John MacArthur Calvinists, God doesn't leave you in your sin.

It doesn't say that. And he holds that Romans 9 is soteriological. He doesn't leave you in your sin.

It says he, through much long -suffering, prepared these vessels for destruction.

That he might make known the power and the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory.

The vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, we see the tense and the voice, the strong and the complete word study

Bible shows that the word fitted or prepared is katartio and is the perfect passive.

The perfect tense in Greek responds to the perfect tense in English and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past.

Once and for all, not needing to be repeated. The passive voice represents the subject as being the recipient of the action.

In the sentence, for example, the boy was hit by the ball. It doesn't mean that God acted passively in the

Calvinist passive decrees. It just denotes whether he's received it after or before and that's what the passive does.

Okay, we will now have a 20 -minute cross -examination period. We'll have 10 minutes of the affirmative, questioning the negative and then vice versa after that, after which we'll have a short 10 -minute break.

Brother Tassi, you just were attempting to, I think, establish the idea of equal ultimacy.

Could you show me any place the term kaleo -calling is used in regards to the reprobate or to those who are destroyed in Romans 8 or 9?

In Romans 9, in verse 22, we have the active cause being

God in reprobation. It says, What if God, wanting to show his wrath to make his power known?

So we know that these three times in this verse, it tells us who's the cause of the action as it relates to the vessels prepared for destruction.

So the term kaleo is not actually used of the reprobate?

Establish the relevance of that question. Because equal ultimacy, sir, means that the exact same, that in the election of the elect, you have the expression of God's mercy and grace and power.

Equal ultimacy would mean that you have the same kind of expression in regards to the reprobate.

And those who reject equal ultimacy explain that that's an absurdity, that it takes far more grace, mercy, and power to bring about the salvation of an unrepentant sinner than it does the judgment of one who loves his sin.

That's the error of equal ultimacy. You just said that we have to present it. I'm simply asking you to establish that from the text.

Since the term kaleo means to call, then there would have to be a calling of the reprobate for it to be equal ultimacy.

Could you show us where that's in the text? It's established. It doesn't have to use the word calling.

The use of the explanations that you so went through to show, and you even posed the objection, that I would be questioning

God if God hardened the same way. And yes,

I would question it, but that's what the passage is doing. Is it possible, Brother Tassi, that you have any errors in your understanding of Reformed theology?

Yes, it's possible, but I reject the notion that is often stated that I know nothing about Reformed theology.

How would you recognize that you have errors in your understanding of Reformed theology? Well, I would test the comments and the doctrines of Reformed theology as Luther stated with scriptures and reason.

And I find that using the scriptures and reason, that it falls short of this being

God acting passively. Can you demonstrate the passive action of God in this passage?

Didn't you just make a category error in what you just said? I asked you how you would know if you made an error in defining

Reformed theology and you said by scripture and reason. Wouldn't it be by reference to standard works of Reformed theology?

I don't know how much more Reformed. I've read Bushwell. I've read

Grudman. I've read Ryrie. I've studied Reformed theology. I've...

Did you just say Ryrie? I believe so. Do you think he's a Reformed theologian?

I could be mistaken, but... Yes, I think you are. Yeah. Okay. Let's get back to the text then.

How much time does need to be spent in studying Reformed theology to come to a conclusion that it's wrong?

Okay. You have an opportunity of asking me questions in the next 10 minutes. I'm asking you questions during this time.

Do you agree that in verse 29 of chapter 8 that the terms...

I'm sorry, verse 30, that terms such as calling, justification, and glorification are soteriological terms?

Yes. Do you believe that that soteriological context continues into chapter 9, and if not, where does it break?

I believe that from verses 9, 1, through verses 5, the

Apostle Paul does in fact break into an emotional response to what's been said before, and therefore, yes, he can move into a national argument or a dispensational argument, and back in Romans 9, 10, into a soteriological argument.

So chapter 9, even though it uses the same terminology, is a different context, but then chapter 10 goes back to the context of chapter 8 and soteriology.

So only chapter 9 is non -soteriological. I believe it's an appeal to the nation of Israel for the hardening that's taken place to the nation of Israel.

If there is an unconditional election, I do believe that it's an unconditional promise to Israel, but it is, and again,

I would ask you the implications if it is not to accept the non -compatibilistic arguments found so that election might stand.

In verse 24, when it says, whom also he called, us, not only from the

Jews, but also from the Gentiles, who is called in verse 24? Us.

Yeah, who's that? I would believe that is Jew and Gentile. Right, that's what it says, and would that be the church?

The people mentioned here are not the church, no. So we are not the church in verse 24?

I would say that Jacob, Moses, Pharaoh, or any,

Rebecca, anyone that's mentioned here, are you saying is the church? Verse 24 says, us, whom he called, not only from amongst the

Jews, but also from amongst the Gentiles. It begs the question that are the

Jews part of this salvation message that you're saying is taking place from these quotations thousands of years before?

It's something else I would like to get into. How would the Romans have understood these words when they were written to them nearly 2 ,000 years ago?

That God has turned from the national hardening of Israel into something that has taken place, for example, with Jacob and Esau, the firstborn was not the chosen.

I think the examples here are of people that cannot be said are part of the church.

Is Jacob part of the church? What does

Jacob have to do with verse 24? You're trying to establish that this is a soteriological argument and nothing about us, if the us includes

Israel, you would have to ask yourself the question, is Jacob the church?

It says from Israel and from the Gentiles. Is that not the church in the days of Paul writing to the

Romans? James White, in your books, you go to great lengths to explain that all never means all people.

I've never said that. Not once. In John 3, 16, that all is only the elect.

I never said that either. If anyone's read, I read around John 3, 16. Sir, you hear what you want to hear.

You do not hear what's actually being said to you. It's an amazing thing. I'm asking a simple question here. What does it say when it says not only from Jews and from Gentiles in verse 24?

The word all is not there, so I don't know how we jumped off the track there. So us is not all?

It's not speaking of Jews and Gentiles meaning all? What one is it meaning then? Okay.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere. I don't see how I'm accomplishing anything, so I'll go ahead with this time.

Can it be... Can it be said about the names that are mentioned in Romans 9 that they were washed in the blood of Jesus?

Can it be said about those of Israel that even with Abraham that his faith, by the way, was accounted to him for righteousness?

Is this a question? Yes, it's going into a question, yes. If I could finish, please.

The question is are these people mentioned here by name?

Are you saying that in the covenant of works that they were saved by the same grace that is offered at the period of time when

Jesus came and visited the earth to pay for sins? I have no idea what the covenant of works has to do with any of this.

It's called the covenant of grace and every person who has ever been saved has always been saved by the exact same way and that is by faith.

That is Paul's point in Romans chapter 3 that those who believed in God in the four times they were believing in the very

God who had justified the ungodly based upon the work that he would accomplish in Jesus Christ that is how anyone has ever been saved or ever will be saved.

So you are saying that in the old covenant that Jacob was saved by faith and went into the presence of God in the old covenant to part from Jesus Christ paying for his sins?

Of course not. This again if you understood the terminology you are using you would understand what we believe about the covenant of grace and you would understand that in Romans chapter 3 the apostles specific teaching is that let's go back to Romans chapter 3 since it's in the same book anyways that we are supposed to be looking at.

But now apart from the law the righteous God has been manifested testified by the law and the prophets even the righteousness of God by faith in Jesus Christ unto all those who believe for there is no distinction for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God being justified freely as His grace through the redemption through which was in Christ Jesus whom

God set forth as a hilasterion the atonement through faith in His blood the demonstration of His righteousness and then notice that he then talks about the forbearance of God the very forbearance of God in verse 26 in times past but now the demonstration that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus so the reason that God could attribute the faith of Abraham as a saving faith that brings

Him salvation was because of the certainty of the work of Jesus Christ and that's why all of us stand on the exact same level before God we don't have us up here and the

Old Testament saints down here I am not a dispensationalist and neither was Paul so in Romans 11 verse 13 it says these all died in faith not having received the promise but having seen them afar off and were persuaded of them

I'm sorry, do you mean Hebrews 11? yes, Hebrews 11 okay, you said Romans 11 yes, go ahead these all died in faith not having received the promises but seeing them afar off were persuaded of them and embraced them and confessed they were strangers and pilgrims on earth so this promise had not yet been fulfilled but you have them going into the presence of God through a blood sacrifice that would not occur for thousands of years and that is the wasted blood of Jesus if you have them going and Jesus did not even have to come to the earth and die for their sins first again, this kind of argumentation is not meant to communicate anything meaningful to those of us who know we believe wasted blood of Jesus we believe that God has a purpose

He's going to accomplish that and in fact, may I point out to you that Ephesians chapter 2 it is said that we are already seated in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus how can it say that?

because God's purposes will be accomplished and even in Romans chapter 8 it says

He has glorified us it's past tense God is going to accomplish His purposes and so yes, based upon the absolute perfection of the work of Christ who is the lamb slain from the foundation before the foundation of the world

God was able to justify the faith of Abraham and bring him into His presence without violating

His justice and that's not the wasting of the blood of Jesus Christ that is the fulfillment of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ so you do believe that Jesus didn't need to die for their sins before and that is an amazing statement

I do not understand, sir how you can be so unwilling to hear what we're saying how could anyone understand what

I just said as meaning that Jesus did not have to die I said that it was absolutely certain that He was going to and He was going to succeed

I just, the level of tradition, sir you simply cannot think through it as hard as I have tried you cannot think through the level of tradition that is binding you it is a dangerous thing that is not the case

I will allow everyone in this room to judge whether that is the case how long does Reformed theology have to be around before it's a tradition

James White's been raised in a Reformed tradition it can be a tradition, sir it can be a tradition no question about it but the difference is

I analyze my traditions on the basis of scripture you refuse to even hear the accurate definition of what

Reformed theology is I see the scriptures for what they say in Galatians 3 .19

it's speaking about the law it was until the seed should come to whom the promise was made so it was until the seed would come there's very definitely a distinction made for those in the

Old Testament and the New and if you can make it into us being the context in Romans 9 you must make that the context but that isn't

I believe through exegesis and not through tradition through the scriptures

I'm showing that Abraham believed and it was accounted to him for righteousness is there no difference between the law and between the cross the cross demonstrates

God's commitment to his law and the depth of his wrath if you cannot see

God's wrath against a broken law in the cross you've never seen the cross only against that backdrop can you fully see the depth of God's love that is also demonstrated towards people but you just quoted

Galatians 3 .9 so then those who are of faith so then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham the believer isn't the whole point in Galatians 3 and in Romans 4 that we and Abraham we are he is our father according to faith so are you telling me that his standing before God is on a different basis than my standing before God I'm sorry that is not that is not exegesis yes it is a different basis in Hebrews chapter 10 it says in verse 1 for the law having a shadow of the good things to come and not the very image of the things can never these same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year make those who approach perfect do you not have to be perfect in order to enter in the presence of God do you think

Abraham was made righteous by law do you think he was not sacrificing at that time but do you think that he was made righteous by law it has never been by the blood of bulls and goats they pointed to the final completion and fulfillment in Jesus Christ that is the whole point of the book of Hebrews you just admitted it pointed to and you would have us believe that they were saved in the shadows of things to come in the certainty of what

God was going to do that's Paul's point in Romans chapter 3 are we ever going to get to Romans 9 or is it are we just I would want to change the subject verse 35 verse 35 of what

I'd actually like to look at for just a second Hebrews 9 sure why not the sarcasm does not make your arguments any more valid by the way it says in Hebrews 9 15 and for this reason he's the mediator of the new covenant by means of death for the redemption of the transgression under the first covenant that those who are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance that's how you get to heaven is this internal inheritance for where there is a testament there must of necessity be the death of the testator for a testament is not enforced after men are dead since it has no power while the testator lives there is no power in what you're saying that these people in Romans 9 were going to heaven with shadows and types that are not the substance allow me to answer those who understand reform theology or have ears to even hear what we're trying to say please hear me no one has suggested that Jesus didn't have to die no one has suggested that there was anything unspectacular about the completion of the promises of God in Jesus Christ but did you notice what was said in verse 15 those who have been what?

called where have we heard that before? hmm same thing same concept same issue what we are saying is that God saves men on the same basis faith in Him and He makes them right before Him based upon the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and yes even before that sacrifice took place

God knew it was going to happen and that's why He could demonstrate His righteousness as Paul says in Romans chapter 3 and be the just justifier of those who have faith in Jesus now we've moved to Arminianism God knew it was going to happen and yet it didn't need to happen

I think our time is up for misrepresentation thank you we will now take a short two minute break we do ask that as soon as the break is over that you come back immediately and be seen as quickly as possible right now we are about to go into our second cross -examination and I'll start the clock when you are ready ok

I would like to try to focus upon something that was actually said during the debate you raised the issue

John chapter 6 and you said that God has drawn everybody is that a correct citation of what you said yes

I believe it's the logical conclusion of universal determinism not everything that has come to pass so do you believe

I apologize do you believe that God has drawn everyone yes no

I believe that only in my view that you could even say that God draws people in fact you could

I believe that you can only say I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but I believe the logical conclusion is that everything that has ever happened in this world has happened by God's decree and in effect everything that has occurred has been drawn by God could we look at John chapter 6 sir

John chapter 6 verse 44 no one is able to come to me unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up at the last day do you believe that all men in this verse my beliefs irrelevant

I'm asking about your beliefs now do you believe that all men are drawn by the father to the son

I believe that all have been revealed the truth of God and all are responsible and again you're asking you're begging the question no

I'm just asking a question okay I'm asking you to tell everybody in this audience what does John 6 44 mean here's your opportunity it's a predeterminism according to John 6 is nothing has not been drawn by God and to say that it's equivocation to say that now

God is drawing people that are free creatures brother Tassie if someone walked up to you on the street and asked you to explain

John 6 44 would you start talking about predetermination to them yes I would you would okay all right and in fact it goes with any of the passages you would like to bring up sending a lying spirit presupposes that God had to somehow do something that the free creature was about to get out of their control and it denies the fact that the

Westminster London Reformed Baptist Confessions of Faith says that God has caused everything that comes to pass what does

James White says God is wisely and perfectly decreed whatever comes to pass in the universe brother

Tassie are we going to be able to discuss a biblical text tonight or are you simply going to stand there and refuse in front of these hundreds of people you're asking me to commit intellectual suicide

I'm asking you to answer a question based upon the text of scripture sir can you do that I want to point out that we are moving now into Arminianism in the sovereignty of God and that's what takes place let me try this again sir you are not answering my question you are violating all the rules of debate

I'm going to ask you one more time for the sake of these people in front of us show them some respect sir please show some respect and answer the questions directly what does it mean no one is able to come to me unless the father who sent me draws him

I don't care about the 1689 I don't care if I'm on the planet what does it mean it means that everybody that has ever done any act evil or otherwise has been drawn into it by the decrees of God and it it is it's intellectual suicide to say that now he's not drawing everything that comes to pass are you saying that he does not you think when

Jesus is talking to these people that this is what he meant sir even in your commentary on John 6 you talk about the inefficiency of the old covenant and and the sufficiency of the new and it it perfectly ties in with when when you teach

John do you talk about me every time you teach John again the sarcasm is

I'm asking honestly because I'm asking you to do something okay that everybody every minister in this room would jump at the opportunity of doing

I am asking you to tell us without reference to me without reference to Calvinism what does

John 644 mean from the Bible alone can you do that I'm arguing from the opposition and the opposition this is a debate on Calvinism and the opposition would be you're asking me to commit intellectual suicide to say that God didn't draw everything that comes to pass are you now

I'm sorry folks I don't I know I cannot engage I know the man will not talk to me so there's no reason for me to continue asking questions because I'm not getting answers so sir

I'm done with my time in John 6 are you saying then that not everything is causally decreed to come to pass prior to the drawing so you're now asking me good excellent

I can tell you what John chapter 6 is actually about yes John chapter 6 is

Jesus talking to unbelievers notice verse thirty five thirty six but I said to you that you have seen me and you are not believing

Jesus is explaining why they are not believing in him because verse 37 all that the father gives me will come to me and the one coming to me

I will never cast out because I have come down from heaven not in order to do my will but the will of him who sent me and this is the will of him who sent me in order to all that he has given me

I lose none of it but raise it up on the last day so he is explaining why these people can see all the miracles of the son of God they possess the scriptures and yet they are not believers and they start grumbling about this and so Jesus explains in verse 43 do not grumble amongst yourselves no one has the capacity do not

I know one is able to come to me unless something happens the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up at the last day and so there is the necessity of the effective work of the father in drawing someone to the son and please know whoever is drawn is then raised up on the last day which is the message of resurrection to eternal life so the father's drawing of someone to the son brings about the perfect salvation of that person because Jesus is able to save all those fathers given to him and that's what he meant in John chapter 6 and I do not have to mention anybody else is believed to tell you that now we have moved to Arminianism because those that now

God has to draw those that have been control is that a question because that demonstrates the fact that you refuse to honestly represent the other side the question you refuse you just said because you over and over again say if God draws it's

Arminianism no it isn't you refuse to make a necessary category recognition it's not the fact that God ordains the ends and the means that you're making a distinction between those that weren't drawn and those that were drawn in the first place is if they were autonomous and now

God has to draw them as if I never said anything even relevant to that it presupposes and begs the question you're inability to hear what

I'm saying is astounding you need to think about this stuff and you need to realize that he's gone from predeterminism now he's speaking of some kind of middle knowledge that God now has to I stand

I deny and categorically deny middle knowledge then don't then don't ask beg the question that would demand me to force you to embrace it it's either

Arminianism because are you saying that God has not caused everything that comes to pass to the point where then he now has to draw them sir now one more time one more time now they're free excuse me you asked me a question allow me to answer the answer the question you asked me a question you filibustered for my question once again while I was answering your question because you wouldn't answer in your mind once again what is the failure here the utter failure of the meaningful of having meaningful communication is because in brother

Tassie's mind if God ordains ends if what happens in time is actually meaningful if the incarnation meant anything then

Calvinism can't exist because he's crushed it all down to it's just a simple thing of God ordaining and we're all a bunch of puppets and that's not what we believe and that's why none of his arguments have anything to do with Calvinism because he refuses to allow reformed theology to speak for itself and there is the perfect example right there

God ordains the means by which he draws his people to himself which is the preaching of the gospel the work of the

Holy Spirit and the proclamation the word of God those ends are just those means are just as much a part of his intention as anything else you cannot take them out and when you do you end up with the incoherence that we're dealing with this evening it is perfectly coherent you are saying that you are seeing the equivocation of going from one view of sovereignty into another and it is impossible you commit intellectual suicide in fact speaking about a kindergarten idea that you can possibly do this would be

I would ask that you must think he at first argues that you have to God controls everything that comes to pass and then all of a sudden in John 6 he's out of control and he's got to draw some people that's the eighth is not they're supposed to be asking me questions so once again you're violating the rules of debate no one has ever violated more rules of debate than you have congratulations sir you are now the record holder and secondly

I point out once again it is a false assertion to say

I am changing my views I believe that God glorifies himself in ordaining the fact that the people of God are used as the means by which through the proclamation of the gospel the

Holy Spirit draws others to himself how many of you in here have been blessed and changed by seeing someone say because you were used by God to bring the message of grace to them aren't you glad that God allowed you to do that and that's a means of your sanctification

God ordains both the ends and the means he denies the use of means therefore he will never represent my position accurately or correctly that's why this debate never even started

I do not deny the means I am taking logical conclusions of the very statements that are taking place that he now has to say that God does not decree everything that comes where did

I say that where did I say that sir it presupposes it it does not presuppose it if you allow different categories it presupposes nothing you simply refuse to allow my position to be my position of sovereignty you're asking me to allow different views of sovereignty

I have never changed my view of sovereignty whatsoever it is your demand that sovereignty mean a simplistic puppet world that makes the problem for you here sir and please you must realize every reformed person in this room knows you're arguing against a straw man

I ask you as your brother in Christ stop and listen sir not a straw man is it possible that God is predeterministic and he is compatibilistic and he is

Arminian and he is open theist at the same time because that's what he's asking you to believe he argues these positions as if you the level of irrationality here just just broke the meter

I just asked you to be Arminian and open theistic I don't even know what to say at a point in time like this

I really don't I apologize I'm sorry you may be finding it entertaining but if you came here why would

God have to draw those that he's he chose to do it that way sir and as if he didn't cause everything why do you think up to that sir those are completely disconnected categories there how can how can you drive down the road and function in this way

I don't understand that is my point the whole night is there disconnected categories and yet he's asking me to one verse to take one verse and disconnect them no you can't disconnect them in fact

God is hardening hearts in Romans 9 now are you semi -Pelagian there's something about the heart of man that isn't you know wicked enough that now he has to harden it it presupposes that it wasn't hard enough in the first place if that was a question which it really wasn't but I would point out that the concept of judicial hardening and especially the hardening that takes place in regards to Pharaoh was in regards to what

I even explained this when I gave the excuse Pharaoh in and of himself would have relented to save his own skin but God had a purpose in the utter destruction of all the gods of Egypt and so he hardened him to his own destruction and why because it was

God's intention from the beginning to demonstrate his supremacy over all the false gods of Egypt notice the category that I allow to come from scripture that cannot be allowed it cannot be allowed if you're a predetermined see and it obviously can be to all rational people who allow for definitions to be made other than a

Calvinist will do this everybody else stays in their view of sovereignty the Calvinist uniquely switches views of sovereignty and their red herrings to try to get me to say that John 6 is somehow now

God's not sovereign and what led up to it that's a different sovereignty altogether and you must see that that nobody can hold to four views of sovereignty everybody else if I said

I was going to change my view of sovereignty James White would cry foul but he can do it and he can do it over and over with these different decrees and now

God's learning what we're doing is the logical conclusion you may be seated thank you we will now go into the closing statements ten minutes apiece dr.

why you'll be first once again my sincere apologies to the audience you have been greatly disrespected this evening

I wanted to do a debate on Romans 9 that's not what you heard my opponent has chosen purposefully and without apology to break every possible rule of debate and every possible rule of reasoning at the same time

I've never experienced anything like this but my prayer is that in the midst of this a couple things will happen first of all to my reformed brethren in the audience you must

I am struggling pray for me I have been misrepresented so often this evening and you know that you're aware of that I those of you who listen to the vinyl you're well aware of what my intentions were and I appreciate you being here this evening but even the egregious behavior of brother

Tassie this evening does not give us the right to mistreat does not give us the right to be braggadocious or to be ungracious in the results of this encounter please honor the message of reformed theology by responding in grace and the conversations take place after this can we agree to that secondly please please even if brother

Tassie will not hear me to those in his camp Dave Hunt once said something to me on a radio program when he misrepresented

John 6 at least he tried to say something about John 6 at least he tried to interpret it and when he misinterpreted it

I pointed out I said to him brother Hunt that's your tradition speaking and what he said to me was frightening some of you have heard it he said to me

James I have no traditions and I have said over and over again the man who thinks he has no traditions is the slave of his traditions we all have our traditions and tonight we have listened to a man whose traditions are so strong and so central that no matter how clearly his errors are explained him he simply cannot step back and see it so much so that he has to grossly characterize and misrepresent the side that he's debating

Christians should be taking warning from this there can be such a strong anti Calvinist derangement amongst people that you actually create a strong man that's not the real thing that should not exist amongst

Christians it should not exist amongst Christians we must examine our traditions we must does

Romans 9 teach Calvinism well that's an anachronistic phrase isn't it did Calvin accurately understand what

Romans 9 was teaching would have been a little bit more accurate is the teaching that God has a specific people undeserving not simply foreseen but chosen out of free love and free grace not deserving of anything from his hand but deserving just punishment from his hand that despite all that from eternity past he set his love upon them and provided for them in a specific way salvation that will glorify the triune

God in such a way that God's justice will be done God's power will be shown and yet God's grace mercy and love will be exalted in all these things that's what

I believe the Bible teaches and I believe that's found very clearly in Romans chapter 9 and we have not been given even the beginning of a counter exegesis to give us even the slightest idea of what it might be saying if that's not what it's saying but I would like to in the final moments we have together to remind you of the words that came right before Romans 9

I didn't have much time to focus upon them but I would like to close with something positive because I don't know what's going to come in the audience questions

I don't know what's going to come in the last 10 minutes after Paul talks about the actions of God in foreknowing that's a verb by the way that's not

God having knowledge that's something he does for knowing predestining calling justifying and glorifying it's all what

God has done and it's all in the heiress by the way Paul says these words therefore what shall we say to these things if God is for us who can be against us he who did not spare his own son but gave him up who pair hamon in our behalf how shall he not freely with him give us all things who is this for whom the son has been given it's defined right here in the text who shall bring a charge kata a collect own say you who will bring a charge against the elect of God those the ones for whom the son has given himself the elect of God God is the one justifying what a beautiful phrase

I hope you get up every morning when you recognize the wrath of God is not abiding upon you even though you know your own heart and you know the holiness of God and therefore you know it should be abiding upon you but it's not why because God is the justifier and you've been justified and you have peace with God but not because of anything you've ever done

God is the one who justifies who is the one who condemns

Christ Jesus the one who died rather who was raised who is at the right hand of God who also what intercedes who pair hamon for us do you know why any one of us can have peace with God you want to know why any one of us can get up in the morning and not fear the wrath of God is because we have an intercessor before the father we have an intercessor before the father we have a hope sure and steadfast and anchor that goes within the veil because that's where he's gone he's in the presence of the father his sacrifice has been accepted in behalf of God's people and he never fails to accomplish the salvation of those who have been given to him that's the only assurance we can have if there is any other way if it is dependent upon me in any other way guess what folks

I'm going to mess it up somehow and if you know your own heart so will you the only foundation for peace with God the only foundation for believing in the security of the believer is found in the perfection of the

Savior and when Jesus says I've come down of heaven not to do my own will the will of him who sent me and then when he says that the will the father for him is that he lose none of those that have been given to him my friends can you ever even begin to imagine

Jesus failing to accomplish the will of the father that's how certain the

Christian salvation is the certainty of the Christian salvation is the perfection of the obedience of the son to the father the perfection of his intercessory work we have an intercessor before the father let me ask you a question is he interceding for the people that are in hell is he interceding for the

Amorite priest who offered child sacrifices 400 years before the exodus so that he's failed there is perfect unity you know what reform theology is in its essence reform theology is a recognition that God in eternity past chose to glorify himself through creation and redemption of a particular people in Christ Jesus and it's all about God it's only secondarily about us it's about God's glory it's about a father who is the fount of it all and the fount of love and mercy it's about a son who's a perfect Savior who doesn't just try to say he actually say it's about a

Holy Spirit who comes and doesn't just try to bring about redemption he can actually raise us to spiritual life

I was spiritually dead my friends he raised me to spiritual life and I'm glad he did not have to wait for my cooperation that's what reform theology is it's simply allowing the

Bible to speak for itself that's exactly what Romans 9 is all about we saw that I walked through it one side exegete

Romans 9 one side didn't even try one side gave up before we started

I'm sorry that happened but that doesn't change the truthfulness of what

Romans 9 says once again my apologies for the non -debate but I do hope that even in the midst of all of that as you have seen the things that have taken place that if you're a believer in the

Bible if by God's Holy Spirit you like Jesus believe that God has spoken the scriptures that you've had a greater understanding of the fact that the gospel is first and foremost about God it's to his glory and because it is it's a powerful message for us to proclaim to the world around us let's get to it thank you very much if you believe the

Bible is the typical ad hominem that is used to those that aren't

Calvinist there's no room for any discussion when I tried to discuss and give a logical conclusion to the intellectual suicide that James White is asking me to commit he stirred up the audience and that is how you get people not the

Bible alone to say that we don't believe in the Bible is really atrocious we believe in the

Bible we've studied the Bible as much and to say that we are man centered all the ad hominems that you know that to say that we do ad hominems we are the ones trying not to but you people have been stirred up and maybe even feared that if you don't believe

Calvinism that you're trying to save yourself that you are a man -centered gospel and all of the stuff that goes with it we didn't come up with those things that is not leaving room for dialogue in fact it is attacked we don't even believe the

Bible because we don't agree with James White this is the type of thing that you need to realize that are you really

I've debated many of you and you haven't won the debates there's room for this discussion there was in the past I remember debating this topic for a long time and and you know we had these meaningful discussions on these topics and we are allowed to bring in other concepts in order to you know that's why don't leave what

I'm trying to lead you to believe don't leave that only say what

I expect you to say is what I've been asked to do Romans 9 it's clear that God hardens by his power the reprobate this is not allowing or or those of you that believe in a single predestination or a positive negative predestination it isn't in Romans 9 the only

Romans 9 soteriological argument is a positive positive double predestination and who are you to question

God if it is and you say it's not I'm not allowed to explain the contradictions and if you can believe that there's four different views on sovereignty because James White says

Arminian is automatically open theism so you know if and he even said that God allows people to do things that that's

Arminian if you can believe that then Calvinism is for you but you can't switch there's a compatibilism isn't a subcategory of predeterminism

Arminian ism isn't a subcategory of predeterminism they're called soft determinism they're different you can't be all of them at once and that if you do make all of them at once you can make up whatever you want don't for a second think that there weren't ad hominem attacks and and attempts to lead the audience into you know against me as if there's some altruistic motive here and John James White debating

Calvinism but I want to share one last thing in the video yesterday and I've got to bring it up one more time

James White called me brother Cassidy and for me

I'm from the streets I use guns I've used knives

I've done things unthinkable my brother was killed on the streets and when

I became a Christian the fact that people said brother as a brother what what do you mean by brother now

I know James White would be afraid to call me pastor Steve that would be scary for him but he called me brother

Steve and I greatly it kind of melted my heart

I think that we need to be back I have been using some hyperbole

I have been fighting because brothers fight my brother and I we used to fight and we just beat each other he was older than me

I always he's bigger and and he was always beat me down but I always fought him back and I'm not saying we should fight but sometimes brothers fight

I'm asking for a dialogue that when we say what we believe that we're not called kindergarteners

I'm saying that when we say what we believe we're not said that we are saving ourselves and we are man -centered that is a reflection of you in fact

I am not representing Calvary Chapel I could probably get in trouble for this

I am here to dialogue with you I'm here to stand up for things that have been said about my pastors about Chuck Smith about Calvary Chapel and I believe that James White has a strong influence on this negativity that's taking place in Calvary Chapel as if we are second class

Christians in the ministries that take place in this movement are somehow irrelevant but I do appreciate that he would call me his brother and I and likewise in love

I would say the same thing that I love you and we disagree and why can't we have these strong discussions and and you know get excited a little bit and and maybe say things that are you know hyperbole a little bit and yet we're going to divide and I can see it now this room is going to divide into Calvinists and non -Calvinists and it's going to be what grieves my heart that's why people don't

I believe debate James White is they know it's going to come to that end there's going to be video after video after video

I ask that I would be linked to them so I could respond but I ask also that there could be dialogue within this discussion that isn't taking place right now and it could be done with respect thank you we will now go into our audience questions

I would ask that anybody with a question come now and line up right in front of the table and I'll just remind you how we're going to do it so I'll give you the mic let me know first who the question is addressed to and then we'll go from there while everybody's lining up can we have a hand for the staff and volunteers okay so we'll go on for 30 minutes and hopefully we can get everybody in but if not

I apologize so just 30 minutes two minutes to the person who the question is addressed to one minute response and I do ask you please do not get up here and pontificate just get up here and ask a question because we do want to hear from our debaters okay my question is in act 1730

I don't know the other side we got the Bible teaches both but in act 1730 it doesn't say that God commands all people everywhere to repent and my question would be why would

God command people who are incapable of repenting to repent and then if I guess people who are dead to sin would be brought up I would say that the

Bible gives many pictures of an unsaved man it also gives a picture of people who are slain in sin actively lovers of darkness and aliens and some of them are sick and blind so I think that that is sort of poetry that's literally that incapable of doing anything okay two things why would there be commands to do things if you're not capable of doing things

God ordains I'm sorry God ordains the ends and the means and when he gives us his law that law chafes against the unbeliever but when the

Spirit of God moves in a person's heart that law then becomes the guide that tells them what is pleasing in God's sight so they can then do those things the law has numbers of functions both to restrain the evil of man bring about the condemnation of man and then to be the guide when the

Spirit of God opens the heart of man in how we respond to God and so we are to command all men everywhere to repent that is responsibility of man say well why would

God command to repent if they're sinners well I think you're assuming something you shouldn't assume

God has a prescriptive will God says be perfect none of us can be perfect so is that a worthless thing to command of us or is it something that the

Holy Spirit of God can use in our lives to give us guidance when he's working within our hearts you say that well what's said in scripture just sounds like poetry how is it poetry when the

Apostle Paul says in Romans chapter 8 that those who are according to flesh can not do what is pleasing to God who do not

I means cannot do that's not poetry that's a direct statement and that's exactly what

Jesus said in John 644 no one is able who do not I to come to me unless the

Father who sent me draws him the inability and incapacity of man is plainly stated not merely in poetic language it is it is stated in that way too but it's stated in direct didactic language that is absolutely incontrovertible

Mr. Chess did you like the response as a new question the second question

I guess just if you would like to respond to the question you just asked okay we'll go to the next there's a question addressing also did you please explain how

God who is love can use the Pharaoh and to necessary to do what they did and my understanding is that he destined them to do those things for destruction thank you there is often a misunderstanding amongst people because we live in a secularist humanist society you must understand that God had been restraining the evil of both

Pharaoh and Judas their entire lives their hearts were filled with much more darkness and God ever allowed them to express and I think if you allow the scriptures to speak

God could have brought destruction upon them at any point in time but he was long -suffering toward them why because he had a purpose he had a purpose and so we decide when we define the

God and we say well how could a loving God do this how could a loving God judge anyone how can a loving

God bring his justice and wrath to bear how can a loving God bring hailstones against the enemies of Israel those are people had families they had doggies and kitties right so we say how can a loving

God do anything we must must be very very careful the Bible says God is love and also says

God is holy it also says God is a consuming fire and if we're going to handle the word of God or right we are going to listen to all that it says not just parts of what it says and if you want to see what

God's love really looks like it is not the sticky sentimentality of modern American Christianity you want to see

God's love look at the bloody cross of Jesus Christ because there his wrath is fulfilled and in the fulfillment of his wrath against sin you have the depth the true depth the true meaning of divine love demonstrate and so how could

God didn't force these men to do anything it's not like they were innocent men God be bad that's not what

God did he restrained their evil up to that point and then he used their evil read

Isaiah chapter 10 you can see exactly how God did this to the king of Syria as well very very clearly presented

I think this is often used with Romans 828 and I think what we see here is that God meant it for good but what was taking place is that they were doing something very different than what

God meant for good in fact the grammar says what they meant is the exact same grammar that it says what

God meant to save many people of course it's not a soteriological argument but it's an argument on sovereignty and I think again we see the difference between pre determinism and that they were acting you know it doesn't say they they

God caused everything that came to pass that they were acting and and again at the same time

God works the things for good I do believe

God is sovereign I'm called a soft determinist I do believe God is some sovereign you can't just make your own way you must go

God's way and he brings about things for good for those that come to pass.

Thank you and this question is for you Pastor Cassidy. The other comment and question

God commands that we keep the law although we are incapable of keeping the law and that's why we send the son

Jesus Christ to fulfill all righteousness and to fulfill the law. My question for you

Mr. Cassidy is if you believe that Christ died for the sins of all the world then what difference has the atoning blood of Christ made for those who are in hell?

I would not fall into the category that's often explained

I believe that none of the blood of Jesus was wasted. I believe in that again

James White's definition of all is that he died for every people group and that I agree with the

I believe the early church fathers in this type of atonement and yet I don't believe that I think

I believe that it's unconditional and yet conditional to receive

Christ. That might be different than what some of you would want to box me into.

I believe that it was the intention of the son of God to bring about the perfect salvation of his people.

There is perfect consistency between the decree of the father to save and elect people, the son's death in their place because we are united with him and then the spirits coming to bring them to spiritual life.

There's perfect harmony in the Godhead. The very idea of the union of the elect with Christ so that his death becomes our death, his burial our burial, his resurrection our resurrection, key to understanding how

God is glorified in the gospel itself. I do not believe that Christ fails to save anyone for whom he dies.

If he dies that person, he is going to bring them to the full fruition of eternal life, forgiveness and presence in the presence of the triune

God for all of eternity. That's what he accomplished. That's why when he said it is finished, he didn't have to put a codicil or an asterisk.

He accomplished what he desired to accomplish. Thank you. This question is for Dr.

Boyd. My question is about equal ultimacy.

It's feeding back because of your shirt. Just so everybody knows, it says

Batman is a Calvinist, therefore your argument is invalid. Don't worry,

I studied logic. Not on your shirt, you know. There is a common tendency among non -Calvinists to say that Calvinism leads to equal ultimacy.

I am partial to the view that equal ultimacy is actually true.

That positive view is actually not problematic. You and others say that it is a problematic view and I'm not sure what exactly is problematic about it.

In Romans 9, it says that God prepares for destruction, God pardons. It seems very active and I want to know either why it is active or wrong.

Yes, you are wrong. Batman has nothing to do with it at all.

Here's the problem with equal ultimacy. Equal ultimacy does not mean that God is not active in both election and in reprobation.

That's not what it means. What's the phrase itself? Equal ultimacy. The point is that what it requires on God's part to bring about the salvation of a sinner, the extension of grace, the self -giving of the

Son of God, raising someone to spiritual life. These are some of the greatest miracles in all the history of God.

God doesn't have to do any of that to bring the reprobate into the position of his final condemnation.

So what is done by God in bringing about the salvation of his people is fundamentally different in its purpose, in its extent of power, in the nature of its power, than the concept of allowing people who are in Adam to remain in Adam and continue to do the things that Adam and his fallen children love to do.

So it can't be an equal sign. Yes, God is active in both, but the nature of that activity is so fundamentally different that the very idea itself just runs directly counter to everything the scriptures teach.

That's why I was asking when the accusation was made, well, show me where calling is used. Show me, because calling is an action, it's a divine action of God that brings about the regeneration of individuals.

Where is anything even similar to that done? And there was no answer, because there is no answer, because equal ultimacy is not true.

Well, I would agree that in Romans 9 does teach equal ultimacy, because don't we call everyone everywhere to repent?

So I don't think you find a language in Romans 9 that does not teach equal ultimacy.

We know that he makes them, they're fitted, and it's the arrowist, and they're hardened.

Now, James Whitehead just said that he leaves them to themselves by a passive decree.

The outcome is the same. It's just merely, you know, he just finishes off the reprobate somehow with a passive decree, but the outcome is nevertheless the same.

Thank you. Custodian of Jesus forgive us. Pastor, in Romans 9, 16, it says very black and white, it says,

So then it depends not on human will or exertion but on God who has mercy. My question is just very simply, is there anyone that can, whose will, their own will, can supersede, can overpower, can go along, go around the will of God in a way to do what he does not want to do?

Like in such, just for a really quick example, Judas ever decided that he didn't want to betray

Jesus because he ultimately said that his will was more than God will.

Well, we've learned tonight that actually God leads people in Romans 9.

It's not what it says, and it presupposes that it's a soteriological election that's being taught.

We don't receive it. There's strong arguments, I think, for it, but I also believe it's equally strong arguments against it.

That's why I went off topic to show reasons that I think, you know, my view is that it's not soteriological in that some of the hard, you know, why does

God harden hearts unless you're semi -Pelagian? That's, you know, questions like that make me...

I tried to be a Calvinist. I tried, you know, but it doesn't make logical sense in those cases to me.

You tried to be a Calvinist. I don't even know what that means in light of what was just said.

The example is a good one. Judas, okay? Could he have done something else?

Open theists say yes. I've even been accused of being an open theist this evening, which is a new thing, too. The open theists

I've debated would find that rather interesting as well, but the issue this evening is in Romans chapter 9 and what is taught there.

I think what we just heard was it can't be soteriological because of what that would mean, but what we haven't heard and what we need to hear is positively what it does mean.

If it's not what I've said, then what is it positively? That's the only way to actually engage in a meaningful debate, and that's the one thing we have not gotten to.

Thank you. This is also for Pastor Cassie. Pastor Cassie, could you expound on Romans 9 -11 for me and just explain briefly text being,

Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, they worried that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of words, but because of him who calls.

So what is this idea? You mentioned coming to the works briefly, but God calling and electing, what does not because of words mean?

Well, I believe that two nations were in the womb.

Again, it presupposes, and in spite of what

James Watts said, those that don't hold it to be soteriological are not second -class

Christians. We hold a different view. We hold an entirely different systematic theology.

We are not presuppositional. We're not covenant. I think it demands this different view, and for it not to be accepted as a view, it grieves me.

Yes, it's not of him who wills. The many cases in the

Bible, the one that wasn't first born received the inheritance, and it was on God's choice.

I would agree that it's not of him who wills. If it is salvation, then again, we're back to, well, it's also not of him who wills.

That is positively reprobating. This is really troubling to me.

If someone asks me what a verse means, I'm able to give them an answer based upon the language and the context of the verse, without having to bring in the fact that I disagree with Mormons, Muslims, Roman Catholics, open theists, and everybody else.

We have to be able to give a positive exegesis when asked to give a positive exegesis.

As an elder in a congregation, that is our we, look at their qualifications for an elder.

You have to be able to handle the Word of God in that way. What we were just told was not a positive, well, I think there are two nations there.

Okay, then draw it out of the text. Before the nations had done anything good or bad, something was said to the mother of the man who brought about those nations, and this has something to do with Paul's point.

It doesn't make any sense. Well, if election ...

... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ...

... This is a text that's commonly used by open theists to attempt to say that there is no exhausted decree of God.

In fact, if you want to hear a little bit more discussion of this, listen to the unbelievable radio broadcast I did with John Sanders in London back in May, I think.

I think it aired in June. I think about it. You can find it on the unbelievable website. We actually discussed this one.

... ... ...

The idea being that allegedly God is saying here, I'm just totally shocked they ever did anything like this.

I don't think that's Jeremiah's point. The point is that they had absolutely no basis whatsoever in anything that God had ever commanded them.

Remember, this is spoken to Israel. Israel was still saying they were God's people. They still had the temple.

They were still doing the temple sacrifices. God is saying, what you are doing is something that I never commanded you to do.

It was never something that ... Like my saying, it never crossed my mind that my opponent this evening in the debate would move from Romans 9 to the dividing line

I did yesterday responding to one of his videos from years ago in an attempt to help us to focus the debate this evening.

It never entered my mind. And guess what? It didn't. I never thought of that. That's simply

God's way of saying that. I think you have some serious problems if you try to turn that into I was totally shocked that you did this.

But that's what open theists do. They actually believe God was like, I never thought they'd do that.

Which means God's growing. He's learning. That means his plans can be frustrated. And that creates just a massive amount of contradiction in God's own statements about himself.

Well, he said that God commanded them not to do it. And now he has to do something to stop them to do it.

And again, we have now man in his autonomy, not

God causing everything that comes to pass. And now God has to intervene and correct what,

I guess, was about to get out of his control. Thank you. This question is for your conscience.

I want to thank you for admitting that several times you've admitted that you won't assign me to help.

I would exhort you to repent of your heresy by teaching that Abraham was saved by work.

And my question is, in Romans 10, it's common that Armenians or non -reformed folk utilized

Jeremiah and the potter and Genesis 24, Amalekiah to suggest that Paul was simply quoting in context the

Old Testament. I'm just curious if you would apply that same hermeneutic in Romans 10 where Paul is quoting from Psalm 19, verse 4 and says, their voices going on to all the earth and their words to the ends of the world.

Would you view that as the stars are going out into the world to preach the gospel, or is Paul using that in his own context to describe how people, preachers, go out and give the gospel to people?

Well, I do believe you can allow. Of course, that is not a direct quote to say that it would be some type of maybe anthropomorphism or some type of explanation to communicate to man, finite man, something that God is commanding to do, but I find there's multiple uses of potter and clay in the

Old Testament and I find it unusual for almost word for word, except Jeremiah 18, we almost turned to, almost word for word and it says that the word of the

Lord came to me saying O house of Israel, I can not do with it as the potter says to the

Lord, look at the clay as the potter. So here, and it says nation, so I am allowed to bring from the

Old Testament this type of thing. Obviously, the verse you cited would not be meant to take literal, were to interpret scripture in light, you would agree hermeneutics would ask us to interpret in light of logic and reason, is

God speaking literally, or is he not? And again, this is the you know, this is,

I think, the almost the thing that kind of follows James White is, you know,

I'm a heretic, and I'm not holding you responsible, but you know, some of the things that are said, there's no room for discussion.

I need to repent of the heresy of what I believe, and that's to say that I'm not a

Christian. Very briefly, I think what he said was the heresy of believing that Abraham was justified by what he did, rather than by his faith.

And secondly, very obviously, over and over again, we've already emphasized the reality of the fact that the

Old Testament texts, when they're cited in Romans 9, are then interpreted by the Apostle in May, that an application is made.

You can't simply run back to them and say, well, it wasn't about soteriology, therefore this can't be about it. Well, if Paul applies it, then your argument is with Paul, and therefore your argument is with Scripture.

That's what we have to deal with when dealing with Jewish apologetic, when we're debating with Jews, and they don't accept

Paul's authority. In this context, we're all supposed to be accepting Paul's authority and listening to what he has to say, and therefore he gets to interpret how he's using those texts.

How many... How many... How many...

Lane, where are we in the time? We have three and a half minutes left. So just take your time.

Pastor Jesse. Pastor, Pastor, one of my biggest issues when

I discuss these subjects is misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the term

Calvinism, and I do appreciate that you work with this definition and distinction between Calvinism and Calvinism.

Can you define Calvinism as you understand it so we know that you're not speaking past each other?

I would agree that I think even modern

Calvinists have some issues with some of the things Calvin said. Please allow me to answer the question.

Do you want to repeat the question? Could you define Calvinism for us?

Well, Calvinism is the doctrine found in the acronym of TULIP that speaks on God's election and sovereignty and how he saves.

Used in Five Points as a response to Jacob Arminius.

Okay. Looks like we have time for one more question. First of all,

Dr. Wright, I just want to thank you for your answer. You'll build a lot of things on my bucket list.

I've been in a debate with you with Cody Boncombe and Paul Washer. Thank you guys for faithfully preaching the gospel.

Really quick, Brother Steve Taskin, I will call you brother and pastor as well. Sir, my question is if the common objection to Calvinism in Romans 9 would be that it's unfair for God to choose one person over the other for salvation, how is it any more fair if you view it in a corporate election type understanding how is it any more fair that he would choose one nation over another?

I'm just curious. Well, one is eternal damnation and another one is how

God rules nations sovereignly. He raises them up and brings them down.

I believe he is just in his knowledge of that the

Jews would turn from God and they were fairly warned that that's what they put.

If I understand what he was saying, it's not satirological at all. It's only national and has nothing to do with the blessings of salvation upon those people.

It's, I guess, for other purposes. I don't know. That's the best I can come up with in hearing that. We actually have time for one more question.

So, why do the people standing behind him still stand? Are you all just...

If we stand, we're all up against him. Well, I want to thank you both for being here and helping this event.

My question is about a passage. If both sides can agree that God is the only true source of goodness, then where does the desire to repent and seek him and accept him come from if not from God?

Well, I'm not an open theist. I do believe that God through revelation draws people to himself.

I believe that what may be known of God has been revealed and we are responsible for that choice.

And again, that's the reason that people would be hardened or that certain would be drawn if we were doing predeterministically exactly what

God causes to come to pass. Those types of things become irrelevant to me.

I have no idea what open theism has to do with that personally. It doesn't have anything to do with that.

But the issue, the question that you raise is a vitally important one because fundamentally the difference between reformed theology and non -reformed theology is that when we get to heaven, the reformed person will recognize the only thing that differentiates them from those who are in hell is a five -letter word called grace.

It has nothing to do with me. It has nothing to do with me being wiser, me being more sensitive. It simply and totally has to do with grace, which is why all the praise and honor and glory will go to God, not a smidgen to anybody else.

That's what reformed theology is all about. The video will go up as soon as we can.

I appreciate you all coming out. I thank James White for coming out.

I know it was a trip for him and it was on his dime he offered to come out to debate.

I thank you. I thank you, Lane. I thank you all for coming out. I know that there are strong ties to this topic and I'm grateful that we can discuss it.

Thank you for coming. Thank you. Thank you.

We have a few at the back if anybody would like to contribute to that. Everybody drive home safe and thank you for coming out.