Calvinism vs Arminianism Day 4

And good afternoon good morning welcome to the dividing line and this is part number two of The debate between myself and Michael Brown today.

We have texts chosen by dr. Brown And unlike the first part of the debate where I chose the text and I went first this time since he chose the text

He will be going first and so without further delay. I welcome welcome you back Michael Brown, how are you doing?

Great to be on the air with you again today. Hey, it's good to be with you, too Dr. Brown's coming to us via Skype. Let's hope no one launches a

DNS attack on Skype just simply to mess everything up Because the sound quality is is so good

It's not like when Skype first started when it would be something like this, but you talk with him So he sounds like he's right here in the studio with me

But I think he's on the other side of the United States right now actually But today we are beginning with Luke chapter 13

Verses 34 and 35 and so dr. Brown your eight -minute opening statement.

Go ahead Luke 13 34 of Jerusalem Jerusalem who killed the prophets and stone those sent to you

How often I've longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings But you were not willing the meaning of the short and poignant passage

Which has a parallel on Matthew 23 37 is quite straightforward and not surprisingly It's one of the passages that persuaded the respected

Calvinist scholars Ned Stonehouse and John Murray to write quote We have found that God himself Expresses an ardent desire for the fulfillment of certain things which he has not decreed in his inscrutable counsel to come to pass

This means that there is a will to the realization of which he is not Decretively will the pleasure towards that which he has not been pleased to decree which they say is indeed mysterious

But what may be mysterious especially for Calvinist based on a host of biblical texts It's quite obvious here in Luke 13 34.

We have a moving expression from Israel's Messiah He addresses Jerusalem as the personification of the nation as a whole just as the prophets often did as in Jeremiah 2 2

Go proclaim to Jerusalem as I noted my commentary there Jerusalem represents the people of Israel not merely a city or a geographical location

But the people themselves both past and present Jesus longed to gather her children together meaning the inhabitants of Jerusalem Representing the nation as a whole as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings

But she again represented the people and their leadership were not willing in fact the Greek twice uses the verb fellow

To will wish desire the Lord is saying I was willing in fact over and over again

But you were not willing as expressed by da Carson Jesus claims to be the one who is long to gather and protect his rebellious nation or as noted by RT France as Jesus contemplates what lies ahead of the people he came to save it gives him no pleasure

He had wanted to gather them not to condemn them The simple and undeniable sense of the passage is plain and according to John Calvin Christ speaks here in the person of God James has written that quote a vitally important point to make here is that the ones the

Lord desired to gather are not the ones who Are not willing Jesus speaks to the leaders about their children that they the leaders would not allow him to gather

Jesus was not seeking to gather the leaders But their children this one consideration alone renders the passage useless for the

Arminian seeking to establish free will ism and quote Actually the reverse is true

First although the context in Matthew 23 37 in particular focuses on the Jewish leadership

This is not the case in Luke 13 So it must be demonstrated rather than assume that Jerusalem speaks only of the leadership rather than the people as a whole

Where else is this usage found in Scripture? Thus the ESV renders with Oh Jerusalem Jerusalem the city that kills the prophets this would be in keeping with other

New Testament passages like acts 236 which indicts the entire house of Israel at first Thessalonians 2 14 and following where the

Jewish people or Judeans are held responsible for killing the prophets and the Messiah himself Which major lexicons are top gospel scholars understand

Jerusalem here to mean the Jewish leadership only? Second to more specifically challenge

James's argument who says that Jesus didn't want to gather Jerusalem's leaders together on what textual basis

Can he make that statement and third and most importantly even on James's interpretation? We see that Jesus was seeking to gather the children of the leaders yet What he wanted to happen did not happen the children of their leaders called here

Jerusalem's children if we follow James Interpretation suffered terribly just as their leaders did this is confirmed in Luke 1941 to 44 where we read that when

Jesus drew near to Jerusalem He wept over it saying would that you even you had known on this day the things that make for peace but now they are hidden from your eyes for days will come upon you when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and Surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground you and your children within you

They will not leave one stone upon another because you did not know the time of your visitation Note carefully these words you and your children within you

There can be no possible mistaking of the fact that Jesus wanted to gather Jerusalem's children I know here in Luke 19 that Jerusalem cannot simply refer to the leadership

But they were not gathered what he so fervently desired did not happen This was a cause of profound sorrow for our

Lord who did not rejoice at the impending destruction of his beloved city and his beloved People saying yes, this is what my father and I decreed for you

And so shall it be now he wept over Jerusalem saying if only you had known if only you had understood the time of your visitation again, the text is abundantly clear and is in harmony with many other biblical passages our

Sovereign God because of his own free choice to create human beings with a measure of free will Often desires things for his people and for this world that do not happen cause you in grief and pain

That is the world he chose to create in his own inscrutable wisdom One in which he allows us a measure of free will and seeks a reciprocal love relationship with us and in the midst of it

He continues to work out his sovereign purposes bringing good out of evil and life out of death ultimately for his eternal glory next passage

Deuteronomy 5 28 to 29 in Context these verses follow Moses recounting to the children of Israel what happened when

God spoke the Ten Commandments to his people from Mount Sinai one generation earlier The people were terrified at God's voice and asked that Moses speak to them on God's behalf

Saying that they would do whatever the Lord required God accepted their request and then said if only

It would really be their desire to fear me and obey all my commandments in the future so that it may go well with them

And their descendants forever. This was God's desire But of course what else would a loving father desire for his children what else was devoted bridegroom desire for his bride?

What else with compassionate creator desire for his chosen nation? Again, the meaning of the text leaves No ambiguity is the opening

Hebrew phrase me etain means would that if only it speaks of an ardent wish or desire as in Job 6 8 where he cries out.

Oh that I might have my request In fact, the expression occurs nine times in Job pointing to the passionate desire inherent in the phrase

Also using the same idiom is Psalm 14 7 Oh that the deliverance of Israel might come from Zion The New Jewish version to the passage under discussion here in Deuteronomy 5 bears sighting

I have heard the plea that this people made to you They did well to speak thus May they always be of such mind to revere me and follow all my commandments so that may go well with them and with their

Children forever. God wants things to go well for his beloved people Thus Moses says in Exodus 20 20 in a similar context immediately after the giving of the

Ten Commandments Do not fear for God has come to test you that the fear of him may be before you that you may not sin

Parallel to this is the expression of God's desire in Isaiah 48 17 to 19 Thus said the

Lord your Redeemer the Holy One of Israel I the Lord am your God instructing you for your own benefit Guiding you in the way you should go if only you would heed my commands and your prosperity would be like a river your triumph like the waves of the sea

Both this passage in Deuteronomy 5 28 and 29 persuaded Murray in Stonehouse to recognize that God does not decree that everything

He ardently desires will come to pass and as I stated at the outset while they call this mysterious from a biblical perspective

It is quite obvious how utterly contrary to the clear and consistent testimony of the word is the notion that one

God did not desire the salvation of the entire nation of Israel to he did not desire that they would obey and hence be blessed three while repeatedly proclaiming his desire for their well -being he secretly decreed the destruction of many of them and for the unequivocal words of the

Father in the Old Testament and the Son of the New Testament did not mean what they say Must instead be turned on their heads in order to fit a theological system

Not so and I remind you these passages cannot be passed off to what is sometime called the prescriptive will of God found in his

Law where God commands his people do not murder do not commit adultery in contrast with an alleged secret so -called decree of will

Which amount to what God really wants to happen? Irresistibly causing his people to do whatever they do by way of an unconditional decree including all their sin and evil

To the contrary God does not want his people to sin or do evil and these passages describe the heart and mind and desire of God He desires blessing not cursing for his people life not death

Which is why he says elsewhere in Deuteronomy choose life that you and your descendants may live

All right. Thank you very much. And now my eight minutes begins now Um in eight minutes of discussion, uh

We never had any demonstration that the term gathered means I want to save it was just assumed

Uh, but it was never proven It was never even attempted to be proven that gathered means the same thing as bring into eternal life

Uh, there are all sorts of covenant all sorts of covenant language here It was also very confusing to me that it sounded like dr

Brown was somehow distinguishing between matthew's use of this logia and luke's both are judgment passages

Even though luke only provides a small snippet of this and places it within the context of jesus going to jerusalem and and a prophet

Must not perish outside of jerusalem Uh still it's the exact same logia and so to attempt to interpret it outside of its methion context where it's given

Its full context in regards to the specific jewish leaders I I find that uh, not to be a meaningful approach to ex jesus uh, first of all, it is very clear despite the

Denial that was just offered that jesus himself is the one who provides the contrast uh between the jewish leaders and those who

Jesus was seeking to gather and that in the context of the destruction of the coming destruction of jerusalem

Which in both of the matthew and luke references comes right after this behold your house is left to you desolate

I say to you You will not see me until the time comes when you say blesses he who comes in the name of the lord

Both and with the exact same judgment narrative. I find it odd that we are attempting to overthrow the entire biblical testimony about god's decree

On the basis of a judgment passage rather than upon a didactic text that specifically addresses these these issues

I think we're going to see that in each of the examples that have been provided in our debate today It was to the jewish leaders that god sent the prophets

It was the jewish leaders who killed the prophets and sent them Uh was sent to them hence the use of jerusalem the capital city as the symbol for the leadership.

It would be similar to my saying Uh addressing someone in washington dc everyone recognizes i'm talking about the leadership of the nation

Jesus speaks of your children and yet the vast majority of the time this text is used that is simply dismissed

In fact frequently isn't even quoted Because they don't see the distinction here because they don't see the judgment that is being brought upon the jewish leaders

For what it is that they are doing and this comes out very clearly in the in the methion context

In matthew 23 13 which comes before matthew 23 37 But woe to you scribes and pharisees hypocrites because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people

And you do not enter in yourselves nor do you allow those who are entering to go in jesus comes proclaiming the kingdom

And those who are already in charge of things say no, we do not want to have your message

The judgment that comes in luke 13 and matthew 23 is upon individuals

Who have stood in their rank religious rebellion against god the very ones that are in the day very danger of committing the unpardonable sin

They have stood before the very messiah himself and have resisted his preaching of repentance

And his ministry of warning about what is coming upon jerusalem within jerusalem itself This is the great

Judgment that is going to come upon them So where or how does a judgment logia?

Establish the idea that the gathering mentioned is a synonym for salvation. Dr Brown didn't tell us

If this is anything other than salvation itself rather than the proclamation the coming judgment upon israel

To which there would be mixed response How is this text even slightly relevant to the issue of god's decree or the allegedly all -powerful will of man?

There are just so many questions that are raised by this and I just might note Very little time was spent in exegesis of the lucan passage

Its alleged clear meaning was brought forth with dozens of other passages, but immediately went to this idea that this the desire of god expressed in his holy

Words the fact that he desires holiness the fact that he says thou shalt not kill that somehow

This means there is no decree of god that includes the evil of man And so and we immediately leave a judgment text upon the scribes and pharisees

And expand this out to a bible wide denial That results in the scriptures being tremendously contradictory to themselves.

We have all these examples Of where god hardens the people's hearts.

I mean, how are we supposed to understand this in light of jesus's own words? Uh in john chapter 12 that god had hardened their hearts

They could not believe these are going to be some of the questions that i'm going to be asking we also had

Uh deuteronomy chapter 5 presented and again, I i'm not sure what exactly is being said here

Other than well, this is what god truly desires to happen. Well, of course god's desires are always holy and just and representative of who he is

But evidently the idea is well and if he has those desires then he would never decree anything other than that folks simple question here

Did god desire pilate to do what pilate did? Did god desire herod to do what herod did did god desire the jewish leaders to turn over their own messiah to the romans for crucifixion?

What was the answer of the early church to that in acts chapter 4 verses 27 to 28 28?

They did exactly what your hand had predestined to occur not what you saw in the future, but was against your desire

They did what you had predestined to occur You see once again, we come back to the same issues that dr

Brown and I raised when we first spoke on his program and that is he denies That there is a decree of god that gives form to what happens in time

Despite the many texts of scripture that make reference to this and says no

Uh, that is not the case whatsoever since god says I owe that you would do that That means that's the only desire he has and that's the only will that he has and that's just all there is to it

He's just like a man. He really wishes we do these things and yet I know that dr Brown rejects open theism

And so if he rejects open theism, then we have an even odder situation here And that is we have god.

Oh that you would do this I know you're not going to And I brought this creation into existence and when

I brought the creation into existence I knew you weren't going to and so I brought creation existence just simply so I would be eternally disappointed in these situations

Is that really what a a synthesis? Of all of scriptural revelation rather than just taking a part of it now

Dr. Brown's already said or he made the accusation. Well, you're turning a text on its head simply for a theological system

Well, we both feel that that's what the other one's doing I believe dr Brown is ignoring the many texts of scripture where god talks about accomplishing all of his holy will bring about His purpose and simply asking the question.

Does that please god? when in the final analysis we saw this in the preceding part of the debate

Uh, we look at ephesians one. It says that he is accomplishing All things according to the counsel of his will

Is that the case or not? I think dr. Brown is saying no he's not accomplishing all things according to the counsel of his will

There's all sorts of other wills involved and there's all sorts of other wills that are doing the exact opposite Of what god would have to do

We need to have a completely biblical view of these things and the idea that god expressing his holy desires in consonance with his own his own nature

Is somehow to mean that he can Excuse me, he cannot have his own holy decree just simply does not follow

We now have four minutes of cross -examination each And then we have three minute closing statements.

We are in the first part of the debate. Dr. Brown your four minutes Okay, no debating hype here james

I'm kind of stunned by the comments you made both for putting words in my mouth that I never spoke which I hope to clarify

Along with when we get to deuteronomy 5 you excuse me going to the passages I didn't hear a syllable about deuteronomy 5.

So let's go back to specific texts. I never said that gathered meant, uh, save What do you believe gathered means in the passages in luke 13 and matthew 23?

I I certainly did not attempt to put any words in your mouth. Dr. Brown. However, uh, everything that you said, uh,

Led to the conclusion that that's what you were talking about So if you want to clarify that that that'll be that'll be great

I did actually refer to deuteronomy chapter 5 Especially in regards to his desire that they would walk in his law

So I I want to correct both of those, uh those statements right right from the beginning the gathering that jesus talking about Is the same gathering that isn't found in deuteronomy 23 13 and that is jesus seeking to proclaim the kingdom of god to all the inhabitants of his of of uh,

Well israel will use the term generically here and not make the division between galilee and judea, uh and specifically the proclamation of repentance, uh, and the coming judgment of god upon jerusalem

All right. Uh So he wanted to gather them and who are the children? The children would be the people under the authority of the jewish leaders

Okay, they were not gathered. It didn't happen, which is my whole point I had I didn't say anything about save even though you kept arguing as if I had or that's what

I was alleging My whole point was that jesus wanted to gather them as many calvinist scholars recognize, but they weren't gathered

Hence luke 19 you and your children are going to be destroyed. Yes the preaching of the prophets has always been under the assumption that If they were to respond then they would receive god's blessing the whole reason as jeremiah 7 makes so clear

Uh, the whole reason that you have this constant lack of hearing this lack of obedience

Is the demonstration that it is not simply being amongst the people of god that makes you the people of god

All right Jesus longed to gather them together and it didn't happen

How often i've gathered you through the ministry of the preaching? Yes Oh, okay. So what he desired to happen didn't happen.

That was my whole point in the passage as expressed through the preaching. Yes That does not mean again.

You just you just assume what you just assume that there there can be no no consistency between The preaching of the word of god the the prescriptive will of god in his law

And the decree of god as to what's going to take place Okay, okay. So in a lat which is really properly not just a judgment passage in genre, but a lamentation passage

So he is lamenting pouring on his heart. This was his fervent desire yet. He decreed the opposite of that.

That's what you believe He decreed the judgment of israel. Yes, there's no question about that Okay, yeah, so when we get to deuteronomy 5 we're not looking at prescriptive will do not murder

We're looking at god's desire for his people So again, you're saying that god desired that his people would not murder but decreed that some of them would yes okay, uh do you have any reason then for uh,

Why so many other calvinist scholars read these passages differently than you? I I can't answer for them

Uh, I just simply recognize that these scriptures are very very plain In making the assertion that anything that takes place has a purpose god has not created purposeless evil

He is over and over again in the same text talk about hardening hearts There are times when he does not allow preaching of the word of god that would result in the salvation of people

I simply have to take all that the scripture says I can't just take one section say ah here it is

God's desire is that everybody's good and therefore if there's anything that goes against that i'm just going to dismiss it

It's it's right there in the text Right, and I would look at it. Let's just be consistent with what the text says and it's much easier to to put things together

So, okay that my my turn for the four minutes. So i'll ask you the question. Um in light of what you just said

Did god desire to harden the people of israel's hearts so they would not believe as in isaiah 6

No, his highest desire as we'll see in other texts was that they would repent and live if they refused to Then he desired to bring judicial punishment upon them.

Then that's the way it always works So there are multiple desires from your perspective in god's in god's heart. Oh, no, it would just be like a parent

I desire that my child does not sin and mess up if he does sin I desire that he learns properly from his punishment and does not escape punishment

So the hardening so the hardening that god brings is actually the same thing as a parent punishing children

Well the the hardening we know from god's perspective. You have to look at the vocabulary that's used Vocabulary that you say for example with pharaoh begins with chazak or the hazeh to strengthen

God does not take someone that desires or is crying out or is longing to and then hardens them

He confirms us like it's often been pointed out the same sun that that bakes the the the uh, the earth melts the clay

So sometimes god's loving word coming to someone produces hardness Could pharaoh have done other than what he did?

could Pharaoh was set in a certain course god confirmed him in his course if at any moment he chose to repent

I believe there would have been grace, but god also raised him up knowing exactly who he was Well, wait a minute.

So so if it was god's intention to demonstrate his supremacy over the gods of egypt in the exodus and in the plagues

Pharaoh could have frustrated that by repenting right? No god foreknew this man. That's why he raised him up That's what paul says in romans 9 for this very purpose.

I raised you up amazingly though Of course, we have to get away from the text we're exegeting to try to argue your points

Well, well, did you you raised all sorts of points to go far beyond the text? So i'm just simply having to answer the the very issues that you raised up So god raised up pharaoh based on his foreknowledge of what pharaoh would do

Uh, not not for any other reason So so pharaoh could not have done any other than what he did because god foreknew what pharaoh was going to do

In that sense. Yes, okay Uh, so so that knowledge that god has uh of this this foreknowledge

Are you taking a middle knowledge perspective here or a simple foreknowledge perspective? i'm not looking at it from a theological perspective, but from an exegetical perspective to be honest and And we see in the text that he hardens himself over and over and over before god then confirms him in his hardness

So there's consistency there. We we don't see that pharaoh was seeking pharaoh was seeking to fear god

We don't read that god hardened the magicians who were saying come on stop already We see that god confirmed in his hardness a man that was already set in that course

It's consistent in scripture. You don't see anything contrary to that ever happening in terms of hardening in scripture really, so uh

When when you're talking about uh your understanding of the lucan passage

When jesus specifically addresses this issue in john 12 39 And i'm sorry when john specifically addresses this text in john 12 39 and says for this reason it was impossible for them to believe

Um, do you believe that that is simply because of what they had done? Or because of what god had done

Judicial hardening Beginning with their own hardness god confirmed them in it At just a second thessalonians to those who do not love the truth.

God will give over to delusion So they believe a lot. It's consistent. There's no mystery here. So That's true.

I I agree a thousand percent, but so their free will is taken from them. There's Yeah, you at one point it said well pharaoh could have done other

Uh, how about those people in in john 12 or is it over with for that? I said theoretically no in john 12.

It was at that moment It doesn't say for all time doesn't say that they were damned and doomed for all time But at that moment they were blinded and there was judicial hardening

Sometimes god gives us over to our sins and we're captive in them God can draw us again and grant us repentance, but he does give us over to our sins again

It's consistent the way it's used in scripture And your three minutes for your closing statement

All right, uh really there can be no exegetical denying of the plain sense of luke 13 matthew 23 as reformed new testament scholar

Da carson explained jesus often longed to gather and shelter jerusalem by metonymy including all jews as a hen gathers her chicks

For despite the woes pronounced jesus like the sovereign lord in ezekiel 18 32 took no pleasure in the death of anyone

According to the puritan author william perkins the things which he willeth namely the gathering of the jews by the ministry of the prophets

Was begun and practiced long before his incarnation Wherefore as I take it here his divine will is meant or the will of his godhead

Which is also the will of the father and of the holy ghost according to calvinist author walter chantry

Notice that jesus is speaking to a people who are finally going to perish and he knows it That these people are about to be consumed by the wrath of god as the main intent of christ's statement

He's pronouncing a curse upon them yet in the midst of sentencing them Jesus expresses his love for them and a desire that they would repent and believe

He reminded these very people who had soon perished that they had been repeatedly invited to come to him He assured them that even at that moment

He desired them to freely partake of his saving mercy in verse 37 Our lord said I would have gathered you but you would not the savior sincerely desired their conversion

He wanted to gather jerusalem into his saving and protecting grace, but they spurned his severe his sincere invitation and refused to turn

Finally writing in the banner of truth gerald hamster expressed how fervently the savior longs for the salvation of the lost

If only the unconverted sinner could know how rich a love dwells in the heart of our precious redeemer He understands the plight of the sinner as no one else his gracious warnings are a proof of this no less so as tears

That's why they cry out to the sinner I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked but whether that the wicked turn from his way and live

So not only does james miss the overwhelming clear sense of the passage namely that what jesus so fervently desired did not happen

But he also rejects the interpretation of many top calvinists past and present As for deuteronomy 5 28 and 29

There's no reason to get ourselves twisted in some kind of a theological pretzel that god Ardently desires that his people do not sin and yet pre -ordain some of them to sin

That god longs to see his people repent and yet has a system set up that he has pre -ordained that many of them will not repent

No, he has set up a system in his own sovereign will giving limited free choice so that people can refuse his grace

Because love cannot be coerced god wants a reciprocal relationship This is what our sovereign god set up and according to ephesians 1 11 in the midst of everything that is happening

He is working out his sovereign purpose and he will get for himself the people for his glory and his glory alone

His desire is that people will turn and repent he grieves when they do not but ultimately in the midst of it

He will accomplish his sovereign purpose All right, thank you very much I agree with much of what dr.

Brown has just said, unfortunately Uh, he seems to be trying to drive a wedge between myself and others that uh others have tried to do, too

Um, in fact, i'm sort of sensing uh their influence in some of this as as well What happens in matthew 23 is a condemnation of the jewish leaders even just now

Dr. Brown had said how long how often I wish to gather you But you were not jesus never said that he said how often i'd gather your children together

But you would not the condemnation of the you would not and anything in regards to the ability of man

Has to do with the jewish leaders and their resistance to the ministry of jesus any other use of this text

Uh simply is inappropriate now. Dr Brown has said ah But all i'm saying about this text which is not the normal armenian use this text

Is that jesus desired to do something that did not happen? And once again, we are driven back to the necessity of recognizing

That god's holy will expressed in his law is that we be perfect Even as our heavenly father is perfect His holy desire is for that which is good and just and righteous

But god is not a man And god's desires also include his own decree which gives form to the very substance of time

You see god desired to save many people alive in the days of joseph to accomplish that He decreed the selling of joseph into slavery in egypt

That involved the evil actions of men but god was sovereign over those things and His sovereign purpose was holy and just in the one action

You have the desires of men that are evil and the desires of god that are good now

If we have simply a foreknowledge perspective here To where well god created and then he saw these things are going to happen

Then how can god be said to be accomplishing his holy will it's not his holy will He's not accomplishing anything at all

In fact, all of prophecy seems to be nothing more than than god acting as a cnn reporter

And telling us what he's already seen in the future Rather than the accomplishment of his will and folks.

This is a major difference Because in one god has a specific plan that he is accomplishing not just major goals

I'm going to try to work things out at the end think of how any one of those events and especially the crucifixion itself was the result of the decree of god or Thousands and millions of free will choices of human beings

In one of those instances god is worthy of being worshiped for accomplishing all his holy will And the other

I don't know that he is and that's really what we're talking about here Is allowing all of scripture to speak to this vitally important matter

Okay, now we are moving on as quickly as we can to the next section eight minutes uh this time, uh looking at ezekiel chapter 18 actually,

I think there were three or four texts that were cited, but We'll see how many are gotten to Dr.

Brown your ezekiel exegesis, please All right. I'm determined to let the text speak for itself and not cram it into some preconceived theological system

So back to the scriptures I've selected these texts in order to reinforce the scriptural concepts that god takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked

But rather desires that they repent and live That he ardently desires certain things that do not come to pass since he has given his creation the choice to refuse his grace

And that there are times when our response or lack of response to him changes his course of action all based of course on the

Principles on which he decided to create us to accomplish his ultimate goals. It's his almighty will we have no almighty will

The backdrop to ezekiel 18 is simple The prophet is writing to jews living in babylonian exile to a certain degree.

They seem to be suffering for the sins of their fathers Lamentations 5 7 even states our fathers sinned and are no more.

We must bear their guilt Well jeremiah 15 1 through 4 indicated that the current generation would suffer because of the prior atrocities committed by king manasseh

Because of that a proverbial saying had developed What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the hand of his the land of israel?

The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge. The exiles felt the lord was being unjust

First the lord said that the proverb would no longer be applicable rather sin would be judged more quickly and the person who sins only

He shall die Second the lord demonstrated his justice on an individual level Explaining that if a wicked man had a righteous son the son would not die because of his father's sins

Conversely if the righteous son in turn had a wicked son the latter would not live because of his father's righteousness It's in the midst of this explanation that god reveals his heart towards his people including the wicked

Thus in ezekiel 18 23 the lord states is it my desire that a wicked person shall die says the lord god

It's rather that he shall turn back from his ways and live Or is rendered in the esv Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked declares the lord god and not rather that he should turn from his way and live

These sentiments are repeated at the end of the chapter Therefore i'll judge you oh house of israel Everyone according to his ways declares the lord repent and turn from all your transgressions lest iniquity be your ruin

Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit Why will you die?

Oh house of israel for i've no pleasure in the death of anyone declares the lord god So turn and live if this was not clear enough the lord says again in 33 11 in the context of warning the wicked

As I live declares the lord it is not my desire that the wicked shall die But that the wicked turn from his evil ways and live turn back turn back from your evil ways that you may not die

Oh house of israel the hebrew verb used frequently here hafatz means to desire take pleasure in want wish

When it is used in micah 7 18 to give us another glimpse into god's heart It was a god like you who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance

You do not stay angry, but delight to show mercy Is it possible that in the case of persistent unrepentant sin god desires to put these sinners to death for their sins?

This is certainly true as in isaiah 48 14 which speaks of god's hayfetz desire will to bring judgment on wicked babylon

But if we keep reading this very same text verses 18 19 We see that god's ardent desires that his people obey him and be blessed

Which exact is exactly what the passages in ezekiel of only the text already discussed in the first segment teach

God does not desire the death of the wicked. He desires that they repent and live That's the heart of our god for god did not send his son into the world to condemn the world

But in order that the world might be saved through him first john 4 8 tells us that our thrice holy all -powerful perfectly just sovereign god is love

And jeremiah 3 19 20 our next text gives us another glimpse into the heart of our loving heavenly father

The verses come in the context of severe warnings and rebukes with the impending punishment of exile hanging over the nation

But exile and destruction were not what god desired for his children as rendered in the esv

I said how I would set you among my sons and give you a pleasant land a heritage Most beautiful of all nations and I thought you would call him my father and would not turn from following me

Surely as a treacherous wife leaves her husband. So have you been treacherous to me? Oh house of israel declares the lord

Once again, just as in luke 13 where jesus desired to gather jerusalem's children together like a hen gathers her chicks under her wings

But it did not happen The lord here expressed his desire to bless his children with the land of israel Expressing his longing that they would follow him as faithful sons, but it did not happen

They behaved treacherously and so terrible punishment had to come but I asked once more what were god's sentiments in this?

Listen to lamentations 3 31 to 34 for the lord does not reject forever But first afflicts then pardons in his abundant kindness for he does not willingly bring grief or affliction to man

Crushing under his feet all the prisons of the earth and then hear god's heart again in jeremiah 31 20

Is not ephraim my dear son and the child in whom I delight I often speak against him I still remember him therefore my heart yearns for him.

I have great compassion for him declares the lord It's amazing that i'm accused of not using the consistent biblical witness when the text says the same thing over and over and over and over Even when they're under his judgment, he still longs for them

We turn now to ezekiel 22 30 and 31 I sought for man among them who should build up the wall and stand in the breach before me for the land that I should

Not destroy it, but I found none Therefore i've poured out my indignation upon them. I've consumed them with the fire of my wrath

I have returned their way upon their heads declares the lord. God The imagery used here is very graphic walls protected a city when they became broken down and full of breaches

The enemy had easy access and the city had limited defense A true prophet or intercessor would spiritually speaking build up the wall or climb into the gap in the wall itself

Thereby warding off the enemy attack with his own life That's why the false prophets are indicted for not doing this in ezekiel 13

This can be contrasted with the intercession of moses as recorded in psalm 106 23 Using identical terminology in hebrew

Therefore god said he would destroy them had not moses has chosen what stood in the breach before him to turn away his wrath from Destroying them

Ezekiel 22 god looked for someone who would climb into the breach and intercede for the people at a critical time in israel's history

Because he found none. He had to bring judgment if a faithful intercessor had been found. He would not have destroyed

This is hardly the message of everything happening according to a pre -ordained Unchangeable course of events and it is in keeping with the description of yahweh the potter in jeremiah 18 6 through 11

O house of israel. Can I not deal with you like this says the potter just like clay in the hands of the potter?

So when you in my hands o house of israel at one moment I made decree that a nation or a kingdom shall be uprooted and pulled down and destroyed

But if that nation again would against which I made that decree turns back from its wickedness I change my mind concerning the punishment

I plan to bring on it But then the text states the reverse and now say to the men of judah and the inhabitants of jerusalem

Thus said the lord god I am devising disaster for you and laying plans against you turn back each of you from your wicked ways and mend your ways and Note that the hebrew participle used for devising is yotzer meaning both potter and forming

As the text we've just examined indicate clearly should the people have repented god would have been glad Their failure to repent brought him grief and clearly god desired their repentance.

Could the text be any more plain? To borrow a phrase from my esteemed colleague This is the potter's freedom and he is determined to interact with his people in conjunction with choices

We make and what makes him all the more worthy of praise and adoration is that ultimately? He brings his purposes to pass in the midst of human sin and satanic activity not by pre -programming billions of robots

This is our sovereign all wise king and he is the one who says to us I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked but rather that he turn and live when he brings judgment

It is a necessity but his higher goal his greater desire is that they repent Aw tozer said this god sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise

Moral choice and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil

When he chooses to do evil He does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of god but fulfills it And as much as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it

If it is absolute freedom god is will to give man limited freedom who is there to stay his hand or say what doest thou?

Man's will is free because god is sovereign a god less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon his creatures

He would be afraid to do so All right, thank you very much Dr Brown said i'm committed to scripture alone rather than cramming it into a pre -existing theological structure

And yet we have heard a number of citations from other scholars today, including the very last one given

That is a pre -existing theological structure that presents a concept of divine decrees and sovereignty

Where basically god's sovereignty is limited to his granting sovereignty to mankind And where do we find the basis of that in scripture is that the

The statements that are given to us in the old testament itself I don't believe that that's the case

But I again want to focus again upon a text that I believe has been expanded out once again in contradiction to plain didactic passages

Into an expression that well, you know, if this is what god's desires are then there can't be anything beyond Just a simple understanding that if god desires this there can't be anything to his decree

There can't be anything to the interaction of god with evil God's limited to only bring good out of evil rather than actually having a purpose in the evil that takes place

There's a huge difference between those two Ezekiel chapter 18 is specifically about the refutation of a false proverb

Amongst the people the word the lord came to me what you mean by repeating this proverb They were saying it over and over again concerning the land of israel

The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge as I live declares the lord god

This proverb shall no more be used by you in israel Behold, all souls are mine the soul the father is well the soul the son is mine the soul whose sins shall die

So we have a specific situation That is in view here a situation unlike the vast majority of the applications of this text

That is god's covenant people Using his own law The the law of deuteronomy that says

I will visit the iniquity of the fathers upon their sons and their children's children uh for generations

They're using god's own law and saying there's no reason for us to repent Why because your law has doomed us we are living

What we are experiencing these judgments are due to what has happened before us Therefore there's no reason for us to listen to the prophetic call for repentance

Now that is an incredibly narrow application and therefore You have to provide some means of foundation for expanding

The conclusions you draw to any other application of these things notice then below verses 29 through 32

After a discussion of god's law and what the righteous man is yet The house of israel says the way of the lord is not just hear that the house of israel god's covenant people

Saying of their covenant god the way of the lord is not just Oh house of israel are my ways not just is it not your ways that are not just Therefore I will judge you a house of israel

Everyone according to his ways declares the lord god repent and turn from all your transgressions lest iniquity be your ruin

Cast away from you all the transgressions you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit

Why will you die o house of israel for I have no pleasure in the death of anyone declares lord god. So turn and live

Earlier in verses 20 he had said I take no pleasure in death rather than and dr Brown brought this out accurately rather than you should repent

This is the kind of pleasure in the death of the wicked that he's talking about those individuals

Rather than repenting just bringing his judgment upon them, which is what they were saying he was doing

They were saying you're unjust you are punishing us You are not allowing us to do what we desire to do.

Even if we repented it would not matter But god is not saying that at all. He is contradicting their argumentation

And saying why will you die a house of israel for I have no pleasure in the death of anyone declares lord god So turn and live do not use that proverb ever again as an excuse

For not repenting that is the prophetic message Now the only way that there can be a problem with that is if you say ah

And that means there is no eternal decree of god or something like that, which the text is not even addressing

The prophet doesn't know who the remnant are. In fact, we have to ask ourselves a question Who did repent and believe well, the clue is right there what

I just said Make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit In ezekiel, what is that?

What's going to happen? Look at ezekiel 36 ezekiel 37 Where's the new spirit a new heart come from god takes out the heart of stone.

He gives the heart of flesh He blows his spirit over the dry bones and they come together and form living beings

This is the prediction of the coming of the new covenant The new covenant made with the true people of god that god writes his law upon their heart but ironically

When the writer to hebrews interprets texts like this about the old and new covenant Interestingly, he makes a statement in hebrews chapter 8 that he did not care for them

And so he brings about a new people with a new covenant now, why would he interpret it in that particular fashion?

I don't know but what's being expressed here if the idea is well, we need to expand this out to where god could not possibly have an eternal decree that includes the destruction of the evil to the glory of his justice to the glory of his holiness

It could only be a decree where he wants to try to save everybody He knows he's not going to accomplish it, but he's just going to try to save And that's all that god can do

Well, I think we've seen that this is a rather slim foundation upon which to build something like that In light of what is actually being said in reality then a number of other texts to look at I One of them that I I guess in ezekiel 22

I think I just heard dr. Brown saying That if an intercessor had been found in ezekiel 22, then god would not have destroyed his people

And yet there were all sorts of people who interceded for the house of israel at times and in fact

Jeremiah at one point once god has made the decree This people is going into destruction.

What does he say to jeremiah do not intercede for this people? So the question then becomes

Is god only saying these things on the basis of Passively taking in knowledge of well,

I know what's going to happen. I know what these people are going to do So now it's time to say i'm going to destroy them because I know they're going to be destroyed anyways

Is that the kind of sovereign decree that is going on here? Again, we want to allow scripture as a whole to speak there were times

When god forbade people from doing things such as he forbade the

Disciples from going into asia to preach the word people died without christ as a result he forbade jeremiah from interceding for the people

Jesus in his high priestly prayer says I do not pray for the world We have to allow those texts into the discussion.

We cannot come to conclusions Based upon god's refutation of a proverb that his covenant people were using by twisting his own scriptures

We can allow a conclusion based on that to overthrow the plain statements of scripture Everywhere else that are actually addressing these particular issues

I think it is significant that the text we looked at in the first half of the debate were specifically on the subject of salvation

Justification predestination, etc, etc. Now we're taking texts to say well

I think that because god expresses holy and just desires for his covenant people Therefore it means there cannot be anything about a specific predestination

Of a specific people, etc, etc. I think that is a significant difference Between the two positions as we look at these texts

Okay, of course the text last week, I believe I I adequately exegeted contrary to the interpretations you were pointing

Uh putting on them. So now we're coming to other texts first The idea that ezekiel 18 is addressing the concept that repentance would do no good

I don't see that at all They were simply saying we're suffering for what our fathers did and it's not fair And and god was saying no

Uh, you do what's right. You'll be blessed But I see nothing in the text that says that they were using god's law to say that repentance was precluded

No, I wasn't saying the repentance was precluded. I'm saying that they they are complaining the ways of yahweh are unjust

Why are they unjust well because we're suffering for what our fathers did and they were using that however as an excuse

Not to do what is right. That's what the whole point. I didn't think that was even a a disputable point We had both come to the same conclusion that it is that proverb and the twisting of the deuteronomic law

That is in view here. These people are saying no, we don't have to listen to the prophetic word

Because the suffering is is already predetermined for us. So we're suffering for for what our parents our forefathers did

Okay, then just exegeting the text you mentioned there's no reference to an eternal decree here, of course because It's kind of to the z kill that the texts were exegeting

The question is did god mean what he said? Did he genuinely desire that the wicked people would repent and live even if he knew they wouldn't or and your theology ordained?

They wouldn't did he genuinely desire that they would again We we come back to the the same question that we keep addressing over and over and over again

And i've affirmed over and over and over that god's law represents god's holy desires

I do not believe however that that means that god was ignorant of what was happening

Ignorant of their hearts or that this overthrows ezekiel's own message That he's the one that has to give them a heart of flesh before they can do any of this

And it is his desire to give them a heart of flesh and he does but he only does that To those who the objects of his grace and clearly not all of israel was

All right So he only truly desired it for those that he had pre -ordained it for or did he have equal desire for some in which case?

His desire is disappointed in some cases again You you are confusing the desire represented in god's law that every person do exactly what is right before god

With the desire that is expressed in his decree that he himself reserves for himself 7 ,000 to not bow the knee to baal

Uh, you have to see Michael there has to be a difference between god's desire in regards to 7 ,000 that he reserves

And the 7 ,000 and first that he did not His actions demonstrate that there is some

Distinction I simply have to allow that okay so You keep mentioning the eternal decree.

So for you, that's that's a double decree He predestined some for eternal life and predestined some for damnation

Where is that ever? You constantly reference it as if it's written somewhere explicitly Where is that explicit decree of double predestination?

In a biblical text i'm seeking to just let the text speak for itself You keep bringing up this eternal decree, which is a double predestination

Where is it plainly expressed? well, not only uh Do I not believe in the form of predestination that you just mentioned because you have uh committed the error of equal ultimacy

Uh, but I have not limited god's eternal decree merely to the matter of salvation I believe that it includes all of the actions in time rendering purpose to every action in time which includes the sins of men

And i've brought those out in regards to the texan. Isaiah where he is with the beginning in the end

He accomplishes all his perfect will um, and unfortunately, uh, i'm out of time

Um, i'll try to add a few more to those uh in my closing statement, uh as we go michael

God reserved for himself 7 000 men who did not bow the knee to bail the remnant Why are is it your position?

that god's desire because you're using the you you've once used the word higher desire and I don't think you use the term lower desire, but you use higher desire

And that would the only other complementary term would be lower desire Was it god's desire?

to save every israelite equally Certainly so When he reserves seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to bail the remnant

Um What's the difference between number seven thousand and number seven thousand and one?

The difference is the remnant many of the texts I quoted last week that those that fear the lord god sets aside

God preserves god in in the midst of calamity. God will keep his people It's it's always the way he set up his decree is that he would have a people after his own heart and his decree

Will absolutely 100 percent come to pass as we see in the book of revelation chapter 7 So his desires for israel are expressed in all these texts that i've been quoting and I if we had time

I could have quoted many more and those that respond those that hear and those that humble themselves. He reserves he sets apart so he doesn't

So the reason that there are 7 000 is because there were only 7 000 people who feared the lord

God could not have reserved to himself 8 000 Uh, or he could not have reserved to himself 6 000

Because the actual number was determined by men's free actions Not by god actually doing something according to his goodwill because his goodwill is to reserve everybody

His goodwill is that those who will humble themselves and repent will be blessed His goodwill is that those who fear him and respond to his drawing will be blessed

So he accomplishes his will And that's I would like it for everyone to do really well in a class

And I set things up that those that will abide by the rules will do well So no, there was not a predestined 7 000 and god hardened the rest and made it impossible for them

There was just a tiny remnant that really feared the lord and responded And and the text really makes that clear when you look at it in context so god could not have uh, if there if those

God fears had not been there. God could not have had a remnant He would he've had to start over with the new people Ah in the brilliance of god god set things up that he would have a remnant see his

You can only see his purposes being accomplished if everyone is turned into robots somehow I see god is so brilliant and sovereign that he brings his purposes to pass with limited freedom for his creation

Have I ever introduced the concept of robots? No, but when you use monogysm synergism certain terms, they can be misunderstood

So I threw out a term that could that's the way what you're saying can sound to certain people Okay, well, but you've used you've used it twice now, uh was was harrod a robot when he did exactly what god's hand predestined to occur

It doesn't say that god Predestined that harrod would do particular things before the foundation of the world

But that this man harrod was the one that god was going to use to accomplish a predestined purpose in other words god

God is working in the midst of billions of possibilities to bring out exactly what he wants and that's amazingly sovereign and wise

That's why we bow down and worship. Mike. Michael. That's molinism. I thought you did not embrace molinism Why don't you define molinism for your listeners?

Uh, well, uh what you just said was that god is working among all these billions of possibilities these that's that's the the concept of counterfactuals and these these uh, these possible worlds

And he knows what men are going to do and so are are you seriously saying then that uh

That that's your position I did not think that you held that position No, i'm exegeting texts and just responding to questions and because you think in in very sharp clear

Terms theological philosophical terms that I may not think in that's how it may sound to you No, all i'm saying is that god uses certain people to accomplish certain purposes

So harrod was the right man to accomplish that with his wickedness with his heart god god can

Intervene whenever he chooses okay, but the ultimate relationships he will bring about by a response to his will

I I think we have to just go back to the fact that i'm doing my best time after time to quote scripture after scripture

After scripture to say we're basing things on what the bible says There is the prescriptive will of god where he says don't murder don't commit adultery and then there's his heart desire expressed

In deuteronomy the fifth chapter where he says if only my people would keep my commands that's my desire

Ezekiel the 18th chapter. This is what I desire Matthew 23 that we quoted I desire to gather your your children together and then many other

Passages that we'll still look at it in in the last segment The idea that god pre -ordains people sin

And yet he commands them not to sin and not only commands them not to sin But expresses his desire that they not sin speaks of a schizophrenic god not a sovereign god

The idea that god cannot give limited freedom to people and yet accomplish his will speaks of a god that is less than Sovereign and less than free himself in that sense

And I noticed that Ezekiel 22 you never explained what it Did mean you just explained what it couldn't mean without question things get to a point in my commentary on jeremiah

I had to look at this very carefully where there's a point of no return and judgment must come and that is just when it happens but God's desire is always expressed in the same way an ardent desire that people turn and live an ardent desire that people repent

You say well that makes him powerless. No that makes him feeling and compassionate and caring

That's why right from the beginning of the bible by the time we get to genesis 6 with with the flood account That god is grieved in his heart over the sins of human beings

We have jesus weeping over jerusalem and says if you've seen me you've seen the father This is not to trivialize god.

This is to magnify god and again the constant appeal to an Eternal decree alleged eternal decree that that predestines even sinful actions of human beings against god's prescriptive

Will and against what he says he desires is contrary to scripture after scripture after scripture in certain instances

He will harden in certain instances. He will cause certain things to happen But it's always in keeping with his justice always in keeping with his goodness.

We have any question about it We look ultimately at jesus Those are the texts we'll get to next in first john and second peter as the son of god lays down his life for a sinning world uh, all right, uh since it was just mentioned

I didn't give a positive exegesis of one of the numerous texts the point of ezekiel 22 is that god did not find any of his god fearers, uh in in jerusalem at all the the people were totally corrupt the uh, the time had come for destruction and uh,

So it's not that well if I found somebody that I wouldn't have done this The point was that the people are totally corrupt.

He found no one to intercede but it is uh amazing to me Again, it keeps coming back and i'm glad it is coming back to this

Does god have a purpose that he is accomplishing in this world now? We keep hearing oh the dozens and dozens of scriptures

I wish we'd leave that out because I consider and say oh the dozens and dozens of scriptures Uh, god accomplishes all his holy will in in in psalm 135 and and nebuchadnezzar himself

Who can stay the hand of god he accomplishes that you know, I mean we can go through all of these

But I think it's most important in this context to look at what was just said in regards to herod one side is saying god

Raised up herod because he knew what kind of a person herod would be and therefore he could use them in this way Is that what you really think a listening audience?

Is that what you really think the early church was saying when after being persecuted they gather together the church prays

And part of their prayer in acts 4 27 through 28 is For truly in this city, they were gathered together against your holy servant.

Jesus whom you anointed Both herod and pontius pilate along with the gentiles and the peoples of israel to do

Whatever your hand and your purpose predestined to occur

Here is the early church absolutely affirming that the cross of jesus christ was the result of the father's predestination and the actions

Of all the men who will be held accountable for what they did

Herod pontius pilate the roman soldiers the people of israel all having completely different roles in this and different desires in this

Did whatever his hand and his purpose predestined to occur?

Now I simply suggest to you That all statements about schizophrenic gods and everything to the side the idea that god is schizophrenic is simply an unwillingness to recognize

That we cannot see how god's decree is always being worked out, but we know that it's there

We saw it in ephesians 1 we saw it in john We saw it in romans 8 9 before the twins did anything good or bad and we see it here

The early church believed that what happened with jesus christ was what his hand and his purpose had predestined to occur

Not that he was working through all these possible worlds and coming up with the one that works

God has a purpose that he is accomplishing and uh, we're now going to first john 2 2 and Michael brown your eight minutes

All right Actually, we start with second peter 2 1 which reads but false prophets also arose among the people

Just as there will be false teachers among you who will secretly bring in destructive heresies even denying the master who bought them bringing upon themselves swift destruction

Although there's a massive scholarly debate as to who the intended recipients of second peter were with the consensus being gentile believers in several locations

This issue need not detain us since the language of the passage. It's too clear and the implications too obvious Jesus bought people for himself who denied him and were bringing damnation on themselves

Let's focus on the key terms beginning with the greek word despotis Master clearly borrowed from jude 4 where jesus is called despotis

Elsewhere in the new testament despotis refers to the father But here both the key terminology which we'll examine next and second peter's dependence on jude confirmed that the master here is the lord.

Jesus The next important word is agaradzo bought which occurs in several key redemptive contexts and ties in directly with the idea of jesus being master

A second peter scholar richard balkan observed Jesus is the master of his christian slaves because he has bought them at the cost of his death

It is implied the only allusion to the cross in second peter Thus we read in first corinthians 6 20 and 7 23

You were bought with a price using the same greek verb speaking of the price that was paid for a redemption More powerful still is revelation 5 9 you were slain and with your blood

You bought men for god from every tribe and language and people and nation as for the final key term denying

The standard greek verb are neomi is used and it's familiar to us in many contexts such as matthew 10 23

Whoever denies me before men i'll also deny before my father who's in heaven Acts 3 14, but you denied the holy and righteous one second timothy 2 12 if we deny him he'll also deny us

The meaning then of second peter 2 1 is abundantly clear So clear in fact that without an external theological system being imposed on its meaning cannot be denied

As explained by balkan second peter does not deny that the false teachers are christians But sees them as apostate christians who have disowned their master

This would also be in harmony with hebrews 10 28 29 Anyone who has set aside the law of moses died without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses

How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the one who has spurned the son of god and has profaned the blood?

Of the covenant by which he was sanctified and has outraged the spirit of grace Notice those words the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified

Return to the second peter 2 1 even if one wanted to argue that these false teachers were never believers The overall truth emerges remains just as powerful as ever.

Jesus the master paid for their sins with his blood, but they denied him The universal scope of the atonement is reinforced in first john 2 2

He's the propitiation for our sins or the atoning sacrifice or the sacrifice that turns away god's wrath

Not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world To quote stephen smalley one of the foremost scholars on the johannine letters

As in the gospel of john the scope of divine salvation is ultimately regarded as all -inclusive The fourth evangelist describes jesus as the savior of the world

And here john refers to him as the one whose atoning sacrifice relates to the sins of the whole world

The adjective whole is intensive the sacrificial offering of christ is effective not just for the sins of the world still as for our sins

Meaning john's meteor circle alone and embraces the sins of the whole world Question is how could this have expressed any more clearly?

So let's examine the use of cosmos world in in first and second john Uh chapter 2 verses 15 to 17 repeatedly do not love the world and do the things of the world 3 1 the reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him 3 13 do not be surprised brothers that the world hates you 3 17

But if anyone has the world's goods 4 1 many false prophets have gone into the world 4 3 The spirit of the antichrist is in the world already 4 4 he who's in you is greater than he was in the world 4 5

They're from the world They speak of the world the world listens to them 4 9 God sent his only son into the world that we might live through him 4 14 the father has sent his son to be the savior of the world 4 17 as he is

So are we in this world 5 4 everyone who's been born of god overcomes the world? This is the victory that's overcome the world our faith 5 5 who is it that overcomes the world except the one that believes jesus is the son of god

Then using the identical term the whole world 1 john 5 19 We know that we are from god and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one

Not also second john 1 7 for many deceivers have gone out into the world The evidence is overwhelmingly clear and consistent the world let alone the more inclusive term the whole world under no

Circumstances means the elect to quote smally again The term cosmos appears in the letters and gospel of john with two basic meanings the created universe or life on earth

And human society temporarily controlled by the power of evil organized in opposition to god

As for the word helos most often translated propitiation There's actually great scholarly debate about the precise meaning of the term

As indicated by some of the alternative renderings suggested before As a footnote in the net translation explains the term can convey both the idea of turning aside divine wrath and the idea of cleansing from sin

Both of which are certainly present in the cross through which god offers cleansing to the entire world And through which he personally saves all who truly believe

What is interesting from a philological and exegetical point of view is that helos most sometimes translates hebrew kippurim atonement?

And the subjugate as in leviticus 25 9 speaking of the day of atonement and this provides a perfect parallel Just as the sacrifices offered on this day by the high priest made atonement possible for the entire nation

Turning god's wrath away from guilty sinners. It was effectual only for those who participated in the sacred rites of the day according to leviticus 23 27 through 30

As for the calvinistic argument that john's readers were jews and when he said the whole world he meant the gentiles Not only is this stand in total contradiction to john's use of the term world elsewhere in his letter

But there's little or no evidence that john's readers were in fact all or even primarily jews With many scholars taking this as a general epistle to believers in asia minor as per revelation 2 and 3

As for the notion that by our john meant his circle of associates The fact is his uses of the whole world would be strange and unprecedented a way of speaking of the elect only

If you say but how could god love the whole world when we are told not to in first john 2 15 through 17

There's no conflict here since john is speaking of the ways of the sinful world in john 2 15

While he's speaking of the people of the sinful world in john 3 16 and first john 2 2 In both verses, however, it is clear that the world does not mean the elect

If you say but jesus himself did not pray for the world in john 17 9 But only for those whom the father gave him that only further supports my point since one in context

He was praying here for the first disciples only and two in john 17 21 and 23

He prayed for unity for his disciples in him and with one another quote that the world

May believe that you've sent me that the world may know that you sent me and love them even as you love me

There can be no doubt about the meaning of cosmos world Looking then at the overall testimony of scripture

There's unanimity and clarity john 3 16 for god So loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever believes in him should not perish but I return alive

John 4 42. We know that this is indeed the savior of the world first timothy 4 10 The living god who is the savior of all people, especially of those who believe

First timothy 2 5 and 6 for there's one god and one mediator between god and men the man christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all

Hebrews 2 9 jesus crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death Is that by the grace of god he might taste death for everyone?

And again, first john 2 2 he's the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world

Let's let the word of god speak for itself. Jesus died for the whole world and god in his predestined plan

Brought events people things together to carry out the crucifixion of jesus and then to resurrect him from the dead

That is our sovereign god. We bow down before him His will is accomplished in breathtaking fashion and he gets for himself a people

Where every tongue kindred nation that fear him and love him by the blood of jesus salvation is made possible for all

And effective completely for those who put their trust in the son of god All righty right at exactly eight minutes, uh,

I am not going to carpet bomb with verses Is uh, obviously I could respond to every single one of the texts that were just cited but not in a debate format

That was one of the reasons we wanted to do specific verses Further when dr. Brown emailed me, uh, the text for the third part is first john 2

Second peter 2 is put in parentheses, which was if you have time to get to it Uh, so unfortunately, uh, the majority of time was spent on one that was actually in in parentheses

At least as we communicate we might have had a problem with communication there So i'm going to start with first john 2 because uh, that was uh, what we had posted

And once again, the question really is, uh, not about the word world It is about the word helasmos and what it means to have a paracletas

My children i'm writing these things into you in order that you may not sin and if anyone does sin we have a paraclete

We have an advocate With the father jesus christ the righteous and he is the helasmos the propitiation

Concerning our sins and not concerning ours only notice that term manan only

But also concerning all the world So we have a text here that emphasizes that the atoning blood of christ is relevant to all the world

Just as we had had in for example, john chapter 11 Where the same author unless you're richard balkan and you think they're different authors, but whereas the same author in discussing

Uh the issue of the high priest and his prophecy after the resurrection of lazarus

Uh, if we let him go on like this john 11 48 All men will believe in him and the romans will come and take away both our place in our nation

But one of them caiaphas who was high priest that year said to them, you know, nothing at all Nor do you take into account that is expedient for you that one man die for the people

And that the whole nation not perish now, he did not say this on his own initiative But being high priest that year

He prophesied that jesus was going to die for the nation and not for the nation only But or that he might also gather together into one the children of god who are scattered

Abroad same kind of language which we then find in revelation chapter 5 which again most people think is the same author

When he introduces us to those who have been redeemed by the blood of lamb for by his sacrifice

He has made men from every tribe tongue people a nation a kingdom of priests unto god

His father this is what jesus christ does. But what does first john 2 say?

That he is a halas mas a propitiation Well, I have a simple question for you. Is he or isn't he?

If the idea is that jesus has substitutionally Substitutionally atoned for the sins of every single human being

And that's what this means not that The gospel message is to go out to everyone And that the gospel message will be valid in every generation and in every land and in every language tribe tongue people a nation

If we want to go beyond all of that And say no, it's substitutionary atonement for every single individual

Then we have two problems first of all All their sins now have been propitiated the very reason for the wrath of god

Which is inherent in the term halas mas has been removed from them Not just potentially

But he is it doesn't say he might be He is the halas mas concerning our sins not potentially must be

And if you want to make this for every single person who has ever lived or ever will live Then that means that jesus propitiated the wrath of god on behalf of the amorites before the israelites came in and destroyed them

But what's more is notice john himself makes connection with paracletus the paraclete the intercessor

And that would mean we would have to believe that in this text We are being told that jesus

Is not only the halas mas, but he is also the paraclete the one who intercedes In behalf of all those for whom his blood has been shed.

That was the role of the high priest And so we are then being given the presentation and obviously this is going way beyond what the text says

I believe that the text simply says That we have warrant to preach the forgiveness of christ to all men in every tribe tongue people nation the whole world

And that has been fulfilled and continues to be fulfilled this day But to expand that out to assert substitutionary atonement in behalf of every single individual means that jesus christ must atone and intercede

For every single individual including those to whom god never even so much as sent an apostle

And that is to go far beyond anything that the new testament teaches and to contradict The teaching of the book of hebrews in regards to the perfection of the work of christ

And of course the fact that his intercessory work and his sacrificial work are one in the same work and hence have the same audience

Now in regards to second peter chapter two We had the emphasis That agaradzo here must mean purchased with his blood

And yet if you listened carefully, and if you've read the appendix that i've added to the potter's freedom, you'll see a discussion of this uh

If you listen carefully all the other texts that dr. Brown cited Where agaradzo was used had the price mentioned did they not?

But not here this would become the hotbox the one place Where if agaradzo means to buy by atonement hence to propitiate?

Uh that this would be the one exception to the rule But I was interested that I did not hear any discussion of deuteronomy chapter 32

Which is a parallel text to this Where we have again talking about god's sovereignty.

They have acted corruptly toward him They are not his children because of their defect but are perverse are a perverse and crooked generation

Do you thus repay? Yahweh? Oh foolish and unwise people. Is he not your father who has bought you?

He has made you and established you notice that The terminology used here is directly parallel to what we have in second peter

And as gary long has rightly deserved the hebrew term translated here Uh in the greek septugen is the greek term is katah amai

Uh, the two words katah katah amai and agaradzo agaradzomai used interchangeably in two old testament parallel accounts

He gives the references these two words are also closely related in the new testament compare peter's use of ta 'amai In acts 118 and 820 where katah amai is translated respectively bought and buy in the niv and acquire and obtain

In the new american standard bible To assume that especially in light of the use of despotas here, uh despotas

Rather than kurios, which is almost always the terminology used in soteriological concepts that this again judgment narrative

Is meant to lay out a doctrine of atonement is just simply in error I'm not gonna have time to read all of this this but wayne grudem says so the text

Means not that christ has redeemed these false prophets But simply that they were rebellious jewish people or church attenders in the same position as rebellious jews

Who were rightly owned by god because they had been bought out of the land of egypt or their forefathers had But they were ungrateful to him christ specific redemptive work on the cross is not in view in this verse

So once again, why are we going to a text like second peter 2? When we have hebrews 7

And hebrews 10 that are specifically on this subject Addressing the specific issue of the result of the atonement and the extent of the atonement

And yet when we go to those texts Well, what do they say? That the atonement perfects those for whom it is made and that it has a specific audience for whom it is made as well very important things to observe

We are at the point where dr. Brown has four minutes to ask questions of me, so Uh, dr.

Brown your four minutes, sir Just for the record. I did spend about two -thirds of the time on first john 2 2 but you said that John is saying is that the atonement is relevant for the whole world.

I don't see the word relevant there I see that it is a propitiation for the whole world.

So on what basis do you add the words is relevant? No, I just simply said that uh, obviously since we can go out and preach the gospel to every tribe tongue people in nation

Uh, that means it is notice notice mana. It is not for us only but for the whole world

So there is absolutely no basis upon which saying this atonement. We've got it.

It's for nobody else. That was clearly a concern in the early church Uh, we see that in the in the acts acts council acts 15, you know

We don't want these other folks in there when it goes out to samaria, etc, etc And so the assertion is this

Propitiation Is and I say relevant what that means is what I meant by that Is I can preach the gospel today to men from every tribe tongue people in nation

Because those the ones who receive the benefit of christ's perpetuatory work

All right So acts 15 the question was did these gentiles have to become jews? The question was not was were the atonement relevant?

No, I realized that but But it was also about the fact there were jewish people that were saying you had to become jewish before you could become

A christian and that would have created a jewish christian church and a gentile christian church And I think that was a pivotal point in church history, right?

But the point is i'm looking at a text that does speak quite explicitly of the extent of the atonement

It says the whole world I gave reference after reference to say how is cosmos used in first john

It's never used with reference to the elect or the elect. I never said I never said it was In fact,

I didn't I didn't even address any of your discussion of cosmos because it was irrelevant to my position There's at least 14 different uses of cosmos in johannine corpus alone

Uh numerous in first john the point is the contrast between manan and hallu in first john 2 2

That's all there is to it All right, but none of the 14 uses in any major lexicon will say the elect so how could it be put any more plainly?

I noticed you quoted a bunch of Michael michael, I don't say it's the elect so i'm not sure why you're asking me these questions

Where am I saying the elect? He is the propitiation for the whole world and that in john is speaking of unregenerate

That is speaking of in your view non -elect people first john 519 using the identical terminology the whole world lies under the power of the evil

One how can you get around that? I'm, not trying to get around anything because you're you're not listening to my interpretation

I I one one more time Not concerning ours only what does that mean?

I'm, i'm clearly that would be in a relevant state statement if there was if this was not

Part and parcel of what the apostle was trying to warn against not concerning ours alone

But concerning the whole world and so we don't keep it to ourselves.

There is no limitation to it We can preach the message to anyone it does not follow.

However That it is a substitutionary concept because of what helos mos means

All right, there's great We have no evidence, but by the time of first john people were debating whether they should share with others

So let's just straighten that point out But when we try to find what helos means massive scholarly debate in the lexicons

But thankfully we do have it used prior to that in the subduergent for the day of atonement for uh, kippurim

That was a perfect sacrifice in its time for the whole nation But if you did not participate by faith in repentance you were cut off it did not avail for you

That's the same with the blood of christ. Well, interestingly enough, and I think that was meant to be a question Interestingly enough.

That's the whole point the offering was never meant to be substitutionary for the whole world It had a limitation in the old testament when the high priest offered it

It was only for those who drew near there was a specificity in it at that time Just as there is a specificity in it as well now

Uh four minutes, uh, dr. Brown, uh Continuing that that phrase then uh, do you believe that the wrath that the term halas mos includes the concept of?

Removing the reason for wrath on god's part Yes, uh, and when we come to god by faith

That's fully realized just as you and I who are believers now by god's grace according to ephesians Two once were objects of god's wrath by nature

So we were under wrath even though jesus had already died for us. So we came in repressive faith

Then the punishment is removed. So if a uncircumcised egyptian

Came to jerusalem at the time of the offering Then you believe that the offering would have availed for him as well.

As long as he said I I I believe If he joined himself to the people of israel, of course

There was the foreigners were taken in like ruth and others like that And again, the atonement was for the entire nation

Just like the sacrifice of jesus is for the entire world But it was made for the entire nation The text is explicit, but it only availed for those who came in repentance and faith

So there was a limitation when the high priest went into the holy of holies

And presented the blood For whom was the blood being presented? the entire nation the entire nation not those who believe

The entire nation only those who believed would benefit from it. So it did not it only removed wrath

It was only partially uh Perpetuatory Or fully perpetuatory.

It was fully perpetuatory because god at that moment should have wiped out the whole nation and he didn't yet If you did not come in repentance, then your sins would be on your own head once again

So is it your belief then given what you just said that jesus is acting as an intercessor pleading his blood in behalf of pharaoh his army and the amorites

Where would where would we tie that in with with the discussion that we're having just so I answer well because because if he if if If his atonement is for the whole world and i'm assuming you mean all men past present future have ever lived all the human race

And his intercession is clearly for the same people unless the high priest who was interceding for somebody different than the people

For whom the sacrifice been offered then it would follow that you believe that jesus is interceding before the father for pharaoh his armies the amorites herod pilot

Because they're all part of the human race, right the whole Damnable human race just as on the cross.

He says father forgive them for they know not what they do Yes He lays down his life for an entire sinning world that god should have wiped out

And if we come in repentance and faith it avails for us There are also different types of intercession as we see in john 17 where he first praised

Just for the first disciples then praise for others, etc So on he's praying for me and you differently than he's praying for someone that's not in the faith yet And we don't have further details on that So it's unwise to speculate and go beyond what's written in scripture

Except it is written in scripture that he enters into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption

Isn't that a very explicit statement? He has absolutely obtained eternal redemption and I am eternally redeemed and the way that he set it up Was that all who respond in faith whoever believes will be saved?

I mean there's verse after verse after verse after verse So he has obtained purchased the eternal redemption of all those who put their trust in him

As as some calvinists will say it's sufficient for the entire world, but it's efficient only for the elect

But if it is substitutionary, that means the wrath that was due to pharaoh for his sin fell on jesus, right

The wrath that was due to every human being for their sin fell on pharaoh But but again as I pointed out we were in our unsaved days.

We were objects of wrath So even though jesus had paid for it until we put our faith in him the wrath remains upon us

Okay, i'm out of time three minute closing statement. Here you go uh You know, I i'm asked to bring a text that speaks of the extent of the atonement and and I do

And then I quote many other passages to point out that this is the overall plain sense of the scripture

That's why it's so shocking to many non -calvinists to hear that that Calvinists do not believe that jesus died for the sins of the entire world

I don't know how it could be said any more clearly I don't know how we could exegete the text any more clearly in turn in terms of john's use of cosmos

In terms of what it means both in the gospel of john and in first and second john The whole world that lies into the power of the evil one is the whole world for which jesus died

That's the incredible message of the gospel that the sinning profane ugly world rather than god damning and destroying all of us

Instead he sends his son to die for us that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life

When we get back to second peter chapter two I was a little surprised in the treatment of agaradzo when you said that the rule is it's always used with the price

That's actually paid Well, it's used three other times one in the context of first corinthians six and seven the other in the context of revelation

The fifth chapter it's hardly a pervasive usage And if that is not a reference to the cross there Then there's actually not an explicit reference to the cross and all of second peter

I also find it interesting that you have to quote a passage in deuteronomy 32 and then say but actually in the septuagint

It doesn't use the same word, but it's a similar word. Well, hang on New testament authors are very careful in their quotations from the septuagint and the fact is agaradzo

As best as I can tell in septuagint references never used for god redeeming his people out of egypt

It's not the word that's used So the only references that we can find would be references that speak of the cross

But but again, this is consistent new testament usage as I quoted from hebrews the 10th chapter

That that people can sin against the blood by which they were sanctified It doesn't mean the blood by which jesus was sanctified as commentators recognize

But the blood by which we have been sanctified we can sin against that grace We were objects of wrath even after jesus died for us

But when by god's grace he responded to his loving call to repent and believe we have been eternally saved the blood of jesus

Accomplishes what god desires and I want to re -emphasize God's sovereign will is done.

He's the only one with an almighty will He brings his will to pass and gets for himself a people from every tribe tongue nation

The blood of jesus avails god's purposes are accomplished We bow down and worship before our sovereign god and it has been a joy and a privilege james to engage you

All right. Thank you very much. Michael. I think we might get somewhat close to uh time here uh

Just very very quickly in passing. It was just mentioned that in hebrews 10. Well, no, that's that's the uh

Blood by which the apostate was sanctified rather than jesus well I would just direct you to john owens fine comments on that in his

Massive commentary on on hebrews as to whether that is the case or not, but I would direct folks

We just heard I think the presentation idea. There's different kinds of intercession

Before the father in regards to the finished work of christ Where were the different kinds of intercession by the high priest in the old testament?

I don't believe that that's the meaning of intercession in the new testament in hebrews when jesus intercedes

He intercedes for a specific group and he saves them to the uttermost as a result of his intercession

It says why can he save them to the uttermost because he ever lives to make intercession for them

The whole idea of the text in hebrews 7 is that jesus intercedes before the father on your behalf

Your salvation is absolutely certain And this is why

I debate this issue because it seems to me that what uh, my my dear brother is saying here is that jesus

If I think he just said that jesus is interceding for pharaoh and for the amorites

And if that is the case then there remains no longer any real confidence to stand before a holy god

Because that isn't enough you have to add something to it The wonderful message is that what the the accomplished work of jesus christ has given to us is not only

That the wrath due to our sins has been propitiated Fully by our lord and savior jesus christ as as paul says

I have been crucified with christ. I say to you no person in hell will ever be able to say those words But not only has my standing with god been purchased by that perfect word

But everything that I need to experience that including the gifts of faith and repentance

That is why he can justly treat me with mercy Because his perfect wrath has been propitiated propitiated in my place

And if that is the case, then why is pharaoh suffering today? If the reason of god's wrath which includes unbelief has been propitiated

Truly When you listen to what has been said here You need to go back to the foundations

Dr. Brown says well, I just want to execute the text scripture. We both say we're doing that We both want to believe only what scripture says, but there has to be a recognition

Of what is the most important foundational things and what comes comes secondarily And I believe what god has revealed about himself and his relationship to his creation as the creator

Must come first. It doesn't come after what we determine about the creature and All right.

Well that makes for three hours of exchange. Uh, thank you very much. Dr Brown i'm going to uh wrap this up very quickly because I know you have a program to do in only half an hour

What's your topic today, by the way? uh today I do questions and answers and Because uh, we have a pre -recorded show tomorrow

So any folks that are listening to the debate that want to call in and challenge me on the air? Go for it. And then

I've got another broadcast to do after that. Well, hey, I gave you I gave you a uh, A new listener, uh last time because johnny called in and asked about melchizedek and you seem to enjoy the questions.

So, uh, there you go Johnny's one of our regular say again James, let me just say again that that I take this debate so seriously because I know you you love the lord and you're committed

To truth and you're zealous for it and you're serious about the word So I I really counted a joy and privilege to engage you in the text.

Well, michael, I think we've set um a standard Uh, I think we've demonstrated that Especially today you can you can speak your mind, but you don't have to do it with uh with anger towards somebody else um

You know, I It it for a lot of people as I mentioned in my blog article makes them very uncomfortable That we are doing this there's people on both sides of our dispute that probably aren't happy with us

Um for doing this, but I think it's important that we did it that we demonstrated that it can be done in an appropriate fashion

Um, and as such I thank you very much for engaging with me and I look forward to when we do this

Uh in a uh more uh face -to -face setting sometime in the future All righty

Did we lose him? Nope, still there still there michael Well, I guess we lost him.

All right All right. Well, thanks for listening to the dividing line today. Uh, it uh has been quite the interesting exchange

Uh, go back we'll put all these let's just go ahead and and put these together and make it uh, one uh one debate

I think that'll be easier for folks to listen to thanks for listening to the buying line We'll be back again on tuesday lord willing the regular time 11 o 'clock.

See you then god bless We need a new reformation day

The dividing line has been brought to you by alpha and omega ministries if you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at p .o

box 37106 phoenix, arizona 85069 You can also find us on the world wide web at aomen .org

That's a o m i n dot o r g where you'll find a complete listing of james white's books tapes debates and tracks