Predestination and Election (White vs Barber)

Dr. James White, whom many of you know from the debates and conferences on Long Island, he is a minister at the

Phoenix Reform Baptist Church in Phoenix, Arizona, and the author of many books, and one of which

I'm hoping that you all, whatever side you're on, I hope many of you will sign up on this sheet that I'm going to put on the piano, and during breaks you can give your name, address, and phone number, and please print legibly so we can understand what you're writing there.

This book is Dr. White's latest book, which is on the theme that we're debating tonight, The Potter's Freedom, and this was written in response to a book by Norman Geisler, Chosen but Free, and if you're interested in this topic, and I hope you'll be even more interested in it after this debate is through, you can sign up and find out how to get the book later on.

And, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to introduce you to my dear friend, Dr. James White. Our next debater is

Paul Barber, who is a minister at the Northborough Church of Christ in Northborough, Massachusetts, and he is going to be, obviously, since this is a debate taking the opposite side of the issue, and let me let you know what the thesis is for the debate.

Dr. James White is going to be defending Calvinistic predestination, and to define that, that God has chosen a fixed number of souls out of the masses of lost humanity before the foundation of the world to receive the gift of salvation, and this choice on the part of God was made completely apart from his having foreseen any future belief or action on the part of those who were chosen.

And Paul Barber will oppose that thesis that Dr. White is defending.

The opening remarks are going to be 25 minutes each, and then after the opening remarks by each debater, there will be seven -minute rebuttals.

Then we're going to take a 10 -minute break, and then we're going to go into cross -examinations where each of the debaters questions the other for 15 minutes each, and then we're going to have five -minute final statements from each of the debaters.

And now I'd like to, before this begins, I'd like to have us all bow in a word of prayer. Father in heaven, your word is so precious, your word is so glorious, and your word contains the only way that we may be saved.

Lord, we ask of you tonight to not let the presuppositions of traditions of men cloud our thinking, but let us be open to only the pure biblical truth that you have offered.

We ask of you, Lord, that true Christians in this room may be strengthened and edified in their faith, and that those who are not, anyone who is lost, who is in here today, that they may come, even before this night is over, they may become a true disciple of Jesus Christ and bow their knee to you and receive everlasting life by your grace.

We love you, Lord, and we just ask of you to bless this evening and let everything be pleasing in your sight and glorifying to your name, and we pray it in the name of your son,

Jesus Christ. Amen. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, first we're going to hear a 25 -minute opening statement from Dr.

James White in defense of Calvinistic predestination. It is good to be with you this evening.

I would like to start off by saying that it was my understanding that both of us were going to be having some sort of a presentation, so I don't want anyone to think like I am taking unfair advantage by utilization of my little old computer here.

But since we do have so much to discuss and the topic is so important,

I think it will be useful to be able to look at the scriptures, and I hope you brought your Bible with you. The problem is, in a debate where you only have 25 minutes, which is considerably less period of time than most of us spend in a sermon, it's very difficult to really summarize the information.

It would be very difficult for you to be following along with your Bible, but we'll do the best that we possibly can.

I think the first thing that we need to understand is what it is we're debating, and I have on the screen the words of the 1689

Baptist Confession of Faith in regards to this issue. By the decree of God for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace, others being left to act in their sin, to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.

These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained are particularly and unchangeably designed and their number so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

Those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purposes, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, have chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving him thereunto.

So the assertion is that God has an elect people, that is a specific people, that election is personal, it's not merely a class, but that election is unto salvation and that it involves specific individuals, and that it is not based upon God looking into the future and seeing what a person is going to do, that they are going to believe in him, instead it is based upon the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will alone.

Now I believe most of us would agree that election is either the great safeguard of the sovereign freedom of the glorious God Jehovah, or if it is untrue, it is a tremendous blasphemy against God's name and character,

I don't believe that there is any middle ground when we speak of this issue of election unto divine grace.

Now this should be a biblical debate, because I believe in these doctrines because the

Bible teaches them, not because of some tradition that I was raised with or anything along those lines.

The Bible speaks of election, predestination, it speaks of the elect, those

God has chosen, etc. etc. So the question is not whether the Bible teaches election, but what the

Bible means when it teaches the doctrine of election. Now I believe the constant desire of man is to limit the freedom of God and safeguard the freedom of the creature.

That is, it is the bent of the religions of men to attempt to in some way cause

God to become our servant and we become the sovereigns over him, so that he is only allowed to do that which we allow him to do in our lives.

Therefore I believe every possible explanation of God's eternal election and predestination has been offered at some point in time by someone.

We must therefore, I believe, submit our feelings, no matter what your feelings might be, no matter what your traditions might be, your emotions, whatever it is, they must be submitted to the overriding authority of the scriptures, the word of God.

Now I believe that the person who believes in sola scriptura, that is, the scripture alone is the rule of faith for Christians, and believes in tota scriptura, that is, we must believe all of scripture, such a person must believe in divine election.

I believe that election is the only consistent exegetical conclusion that one can come to based upon the study of the text of scripture itself.

I believe divine election is taught throughout the pages of scripture. God's utter freedom and sovereignty is expressed many times, for example, in these words from Psalm 135 .6,

whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and in earth and in the seas and in all deeps.

In Psalm 115 .3, but our God is in the heavens, he does whatever he pleases.

In Isaiah 14 .27, for the Lord of hosts has planned it, and who can frustrate it? And as for his stretched out hand, who can turn it back?

In Daniel chapter 4, even a pagan king recognizes as he speaks of the most high when he praised and honored him.

He says, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion. His kingdom endures from generation to generation.

All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but he does according to his will in the hosts of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth, that's us, and no one can ward off his hand or say to him, what have you done?

God is sovereign in the affairs of men, as Isaiah recorded it, woe to the one who quarrels with his maker, an earthenware vessel, that's us, among the vessels of earth.

Will the clay say to the potter, what are you doing? Or the thing you are making say he has no hands?

Obviously that cannot possibly take place. Instead, the God who is the foundation of divine election is the

God who works all things after the counsel of his will,

Ephesians chapter 1 verse 11 says. Now, because of all of this, the question is, does the

Bible teach us the doctrine of election? And here we turn to specific passages of scripture that teach the doctrine of election without possibility of refutation, but given the constraints of time, we can only look at a few of them.

We'll look at three sections, and we'll look at them as closely as time will allow us to do so.

The first, if you'll turn your Bibles, is in John chapter 6, verses 36 through 45, or you can just read the text on the screen if you would like.

John chapter 6, Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will not hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst.

But I said to you that you have seen me, and yet do not believe. All that the

Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me

I will certainly not cast out, for I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.

This is the will of him who sent me, that of all that he has given me, I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in him will have eternal life, and I myself will raise him up on the last day.

The Jews begin to grumble, and Jesus continues by saying, no one can come to me unless the

Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Now, let's look very closely at the passage. First of all, verses 35 -36 establish the context of Jesus' words.

Why do these surface followers of Jesus truly not believe? They see

Jesus, but they don't really believe in Jesus. Why is that? Well, that's what Jesus is going to explain in these words.

He says that all that the Father gives the Son will come to the

Son. That is a divine promise. There is a specific body of people who are given by the

Father to the Son, and every single one of those people will come to the

Son. He does not say most will. He does not say we'll do our best to get a majority to come.

He says all that the Father gives me will come to me. That is the power of God in bringing about the salvation of his elect people.

Please notice something. The giving of a people by the Father to the Son precedes and determines their coming to Christ.

In other words, all that the Father gives me will come to me, not the

Father will give me whoever he foresees will come to me. The giving precedes and determines the coming.

The act of faith on the part of the individual believer is the result of his being given by the

Father to the Son, not the other way around. That is the only way to safeguard the absolute glory of God and salvation.

Also, please notice that this consideration alone renders the

God looks into the future and sees who will believe argument unbiblical, because it turns the order of salvation seen in this passage and in many other passages, as we'll see if time allows, completely upside down.

Jesus teaches that it is the Father's will that he lose none of those that are given to him.

This is election and the security of the believer together. Christ is able to save his people and his people perfectly.

Otherwise, the words make no sense. How can the Father's will for the Son be that he lose none of those that are given to him if he lacks the ability to save them?

Obviously, he has the ability to save them and to save them perfectly. Next, we notice that the one looking on Jesus in verse 40 and believing must be, in this given context, one of those given by the

Father to the Son, one of the elect. The election of that person determines their looking and believing upon the

Lord Jesus Christ. In John 6, verse 44, where Jesus says, no one can come to me unless the

Father who sent me draws him, teaches the inability of man to come to Christ outside of the divine drawing, or as John 6, verse 65 puts it, the divine enablement of the

Father to believe and to come to the Lord Jesus Christ. The Father draws the elect to the

Son. Those drawn by the Father to the Son are identical to those who are given to the

Son in John 6, verse 37. Those that the Father gives to the Son, the

Father then draws to the Son. Why is this? Because only those who are given by the

Father to the Son come, and those who are drawn come. That coming in faith, coming to Christ, all the

Father gives me will come to me. If you're drawn by the Father, you will come to the

Son. Hence, they are the same individuals, and, and this is very important, often missed in John 6, verse 44, all who are drawn are also raised up.

All who are drawn in John 6, verse 44 are also raised up. Now, this refutes the common allegation that all men are drawn by God to the

Son. Unless we are universalists, that is, we believe that everyone's going to be saved, then this passage cannot bear such a meaning.

The hymn of, unless the Father draws him, up at the last day.

If you're drawn by the Father to the Son, then you have been given by the

Father to the Son, and the Son will save that person perfectly and raise him up at the last day, and that is why glory for salvation belongs to God and to God alone.

Now, some take us over to John 12, 32 at this point, even though it's a completely different context, where Jesus speaks of being lifted up on the cross and drawing all men to himself, and say, see, this refutes this interpretation.

But instead, if you look at John 12, you discover that there Jesus is responding to the coming of Greeks, Gentiles, who are seeking him.

Remember, they came to Philip and said, we would like to see Jesus. In John 12, 32, Jesus speaks of drawing all kinds of men,

Jews or Greeks, to himself. Since the cross actually repels the lost, we are told in the

New Testament, is foolishness to Greeks, stumbling block to Jews. It is obvious the cross does not draw all men, but Christ does draw all of his elect people, whether Jew or Gentile, to himself.

Now, as time is unfortunately very fleeting, we look at Romans chapter 8, very quickly, verses 28 through 34, where we read from the pen of the apostle

Paul, and we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love

God, to those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to become conformed to the image of his

Son, so that he would be the firstborn among many brethren. And these whom he predestined, he also called.

And these whom he called, he also justified. And these whom he justified, he also glorified.

What then shall we say to these things, Paul asks? If God is for us, who is against us?

He who did not spare his own Son, but delivered him over for us all, how will he not also with him freely give us all things?

And who is the us? Verse 33 tells us. Who will bring a charge against God's elect?

God is the one who justifies, who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is he who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

Now, the golden chain of redemption is laid out here in Romans 8, 28 through 30.

Those who are foreknown, and we will see what foreknown means in just a moment, are the ones who are predestined.

Those who are predestined, the exact same group, are those who are called. The effectual call of the gospel.

Those who receive that effectual call, those are the ones who are justified. So much for justification by works.

Those who are justified are the ones who will be glorified. Every action, and these are all verbs, these are all things

God does, God foreknows, God predestines, God calls, God justifies,

God glorifies. There is no place in this golden chain of redemption where man contributes something to his own salvation.

It is God who saves the sinner. Every action is a divine action.

And every action has the exact same group in mind. He doesn't foreknow one group and predestine a different group and call a different group and then have a mixed group that are justified.

They're all the same elect of God. Now doesn't foreknown mean that God simply looked into the future and saw who would believe so that men have a free and autonomous will and God is simply looking into the future and he says, oh,

I see that John Smith is going to believe in me so I will elect him unto salvation.

No, it does not mean that and the word does not bear that meaning.

And let me explain why. The word for to foreknow is a verb.

It's describing an action of God. It's something God does. God actively foreknows persons, not actions.

It is commonly said, well, God has foreknowledge, which means he passively takes in knowledge of future events.

How he has this knowledge of future events is frequently not discussed. I would submit to you that yes,

God does know all future events because he decreed them. He is the creator of all things, including time itself and all the actions in time.

But that's not what the word here means. There's a philosophical use of the word foreknowledge, but that's not what the

Greek term progenosco means. It is only used three times in the New Testament with God as the subject.

In other words, God's the one doing the action. It is used here in Romans 8 where it's the elect people who are foreknown, in Romans 11 -2 where it is

Israel that is foreknown, another people, and 1 Peter 1 -20 where it is

Christ who is foreknown. Now, what does that tell us about the word? That it's personal.

And when we look at the Old Testament, it's used the Hebrew term yada to know. There is a personal element of knowledge and knowing that we find there as well.

For example, in Jeremiah 1 -5, before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and look at the parallel terms, and before you were born,

I consecrated you, I have appointed you a prophet to the nation. These are all personal things.

Exodus 33, the Lord says to Moses, I will also do this thing of which you have spoken, for you have found favor in my sight, and I have known you by name.

Well, it's not like God doesn't know everybody by name in the sense of having the data in his mind.

There is something personal in the fact that he has chosen Moses for a personal relationship with himself.

Look at Amos 3 -2, you only have I chosen, the New American Standard says, but literally it's the

Hebrew word to know. In talking to the people of Israel, you only have I known among all the families of the earth, but so clear is this idea of choosing, the

New American Standard translates it that way. God chose to know or enter into relationship with the elect from eternity past.

All those he foreknew he predestined, called, justified, and glorified.

Salvation is holy of the Lord. So when we hear, who will bring a charge against God's elect?

God is the one who justifies, who is the one who condemns? When we read these words, we can see that God saves his elect perfectly.

No one can bring a charge against God's elect, why? For God the Father has given the

Son in their place, in their behalf, and the Son ever lives to make intercession for them and to plead his perfect sacrifice in their place.

There is no condemnation for them because of the perfection of the work of God in their behalf.

Now this is the context of the biblical teaching of election found in Romans 9, and these words are self -explanatory.

And not only this, but there was Rebecca also when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac. For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to his choice, his election, would stand, not because of works, but because of him who calls, it was said to her, the older will serve the younger.

Remember, the choice of God is made before the twins have done anything upon which some type of choice could be made in regards to their actions.

Before they do anything, God has already made his divine choice.

Just as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. What shall we say then?

There is no injustice with God, is there? And I ask you, if anything wells up within you that says, oh, this is unjust, then realize you're taking the part of the objector to the apostle.

What does that mean? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be, Paul says.

For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom

I have compassion. So then, it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

The scripture says to Pharaoh, for this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.

So then, he has mercy on whom he desires, and he hardens whom he desires.

Salvation is of the Lord. You will say to me then, why does he still find fault for who resists his will?

On the contrary, who are you, oh man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, why did you make me like this, will it?

Or does not the potter have a right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

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

And he did so to make known the riches of his glory upon the vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom he also called, remember

Romans 8, who are those who are called? Those who are predestined, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Now I only have about two and a half minutes left, and I don't think that would be a sufficient amount of time to look at Ephesians chapter 1, 1

Timothy chapter 1, or any of the many other places where the scriptures plainly teach the truth of divine election of a specific people.

So let me simply summarize on the basis of what we've seen so far in the scriptures. God is the one who saves.

God as the sovereign king does not owe salvation to anyone. The wonder of divine election is not that God chooses to save some.

The wonder is that he chooses to save any. We know our own unworthiness.

We know our own hearts. And we know that it was God who sought us.

We were not seeking God, Romans 3, 11 says there is no God seeker. We were dead in our transgression.

It makes no more sense to say that Jesus called Lazarus from the tomb on the basis of something

Lazarus was doing in the tomb than it is to say that we ourselves did something that drew

God's electing grace to us. Divine election is a fact of revelation.

It is the only way to understand John chapter 6. The Lord Jesus felt that it was proper to teach this doctrine while standing in the synagogue in Capernaum to explain why it was that he had all these surface followers who came after him and they wanted to see more from him.

They wanted to receive more miracles and get more food, but they did not have true discipleship.

Why? Why didn't they believe? Jesus' explanation was they did not believe because they were not given by the

Father to the Son and drawn by the Father to the Son. That was his explanation of surface followers and why there are people who only follow for a little while and then don't continue.

It's a divine truth. It's a scriptural truth for which the Christian heart must rejoice.

Why? Because it's found right here in the pages of Scripture. Thank you very much. Now we're going to hear a 25 -minute opening statement opposing the

Calvinistic interpretation of predestination by Paul Barber. It's interesting when you talk about foreknowledge because foreknowledge is oftentimes connected with predestination.

But realize that foreknowledge does not necessarily mean predetermination, fixity.

For instance, you can take Amos 3 .2, Romans 11 .2 that clearly states that God foreknew

Israel. And if you're going to make that predetermination that that means

God has clearly determined that they will be his people, why do you find so many of that class of people lost?

Unless somehow after death you're going to give them a second chance, which Hebrews 9 .27

makes it very clear that there is a point that the man wants to die and then the judgment. Now God foreknew

Israel, but that doesn't mean that all of Israel was necessarily saved.

He only saved a remnant, and we'll discuss that passage a little more later.

The truth of the matter is God does foreknow all things, but that's not the real issue.

Now, when you think about God foreknowing all things, realize that God is above and beyond time.

When he said, I am, he was meaning I am the eternal one. Jesus used that in John chapter 8.

Before Abraham was, I am. There was no was, no will be, simply now

I am in all time at once. In that position, above and beyond time, we have to ask ourselves the question.

We know that God can know everything. That's very clear. The question is, does

God decree everything? Now if you have

God decreeing everything, then you have God be the author of some incredible wickedness.

If you have God decree everything, you have God creating

Satan to be exactly who he is. If you have

God decreeing everything, you have God creating and decreeing sin. James 1 .13

-15 tells us that's an impossibility. So what's the other option?

The other option is that God does have decrees, but that doesn't mean that he fixes every single variable.

He doesn't need to. Do you understand that? With all foreknowledge, God is above and beyond time.

He can see everything at once. He can cognitively recognize every single contingency possible.

Having cognitively realized every single contingency possible, it is very easy for him to decree and to cause to come into being certain events without removing the freedom of other beings making choices.

Because he knows the choices they will make. You say, well, how is that possible? It doesn't matter that you know how it's possible or not.

Just accept that God has that foreknowledge. God knows the choices that you will make, but that doesn't mean that God decrees the choices you will make.

If I decide to eat a steak and then I decide that it's unhealthy for me to eat a steak, God knew which choice

I would make. He understood the contingencies and he understood the outcomes, but that doesn't mean that he decreed them.

A good example of this is the cross. We're told in Acts chapter 2 that when

Peter said that the Romans and the Jews crucified Jesus, that it was by the predetermined plan of God.

Did God cause the Romans to do what they do? Did he cause the Jews to do what they did?

No, he simply foreknew what choices they would make and it was very easy for him to manipulate the situation to bring into being the crucifixion of his son so that sins would be forgiven.

But that doesn't mean he's the author of evil and wickedness. Others had free choice.

Judas is the same illustration. In John 6 verse 70,

Jesus made it very clear that he chose Judas knowing that he was a devil.

That's why Jesus chose Judas. But Jesus didn't cause

Judas to be that way. He didn't determine that Judas would be that way. He simply, through the

Old Testament prophecies, predicted that the close friend would betray and then knowing the character of Judas and knowing the choices that Judas would make, he used the choices of Judas to bring into being the fulfillment of prophecy, but Judas still had free will and made those choices.

When we look at predestination, we basically have to ask ourselves the question, not does

God know everything, but has God decreed everything?

That's the real question. And especially, has God decreed certain men unto salvation and certain men unto damnation?

That implies that man has no choice, which makes the

Bible an incredible fallacy. Because from the beginning pages to the end pages,

God makes it very clear to man that you have a choice. Make sure you make the right one.

You can go to almost every single page in the Bible and man is called to make a choice. In Genesis 4,

God told Cain, if you do well, if you do well, notice that, the contingency, will your countenance not be lifted up?

And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door and its desire is for you, but you must master it.

What a farce if Cain didn't have that opportunity. What a cruelty for God to say

Cain sins at the door. Cain, you must master it knowing that he had no choice and being unwilling to help him to have a choice.

There's a better option and a more scriptural option. You want to recognize the predestination refers to a select group, not select individuals.

Oh yeah, I know, there are certain individuals that are predestined to play certain roles. Jeremiah 1 .5,

you notice that God predestined him to be a prophet. That doesn't mean that God caused him to be saved.

The apostle Paul in Galatians 1 .15 and 16, God predestined for him to preach the gospel.

But that doesn't mean that God necessarily forced him. And even if he did, notice something in the case of Paul.

Notice that Paul was a special example. In that same passage in Galatians 1 .15

and 16, he said, I took no counsel from flesh and blood. So if we are the same as Paul and we are predestined like Paul was, then let us take no counsel of flesh and blood.

You see, the predestination wasn't about personal salvation, it was about the apostleship. And Romans 1 .1

will tell you that, that he was set apart for the apostleship, the exact same words. And also notice in the case of Paul that God didn't work a miracle in his heart.

God gave him the simple testimony of a resurrection appearance. That's what saved

Paul. And I'm not saying he didn't have a special opportunity. But God knew that he had an honest heart. That's why the

Pharisees in their hardness saw so many wonders saying and still rejected Christ.

But Paul, Saul, said he did everything in clear conscience. And 1

Timothy 1 .13 tells us that that is why he was shown mercy. He says it in his own words.

So what is predestination? Well, God does predestinate some individuals to a particular role, like Pharaoh, to the role of being the

Pharaoh that would resist Moses. But notice that Pharaoh hardened his own heart six times before God ever did.

God predestined Jacob to the role of receiving the birthright.

But that doesn't mean that Esau was necessarily lost. It wasn't about personal salvation. What is predestination about then?

1 Peter 5 .13, Peter says, She who is in Babylon chosen together with you sends you greetings, and so does my son

Mark. She who is in Babylon chosen. That's the church. In fact, if you go to 2

John 1 and 2 John 13, the same thing applies. It's the church.

I want to take you back to that Romans 8 passage. Romans 8 .29 and 30.

Notice that there is never, ever, ever one single indication in that passage that this is about anything other than God deciding that there would be a group.

Never in this passage. In verse 29, he said,

For those who he foreknew, God foreknew that there would be a group.

God looked down through time, and he didn't really have to look down through time. He just knew what was going to happen.

He knew that if man was a free will creature, that man would sin. And so God predestined his son to give the sacrifice on the cross.

And 1 Peter 2 and verse 5 tells us that Christ is the elect one.

God, through Christ, created this group. And those whom God foreknew refers to the fact that God did love, and God did foreknow that there would be a special group in Christ.

But that doesn't mean he decided who would be in it. And those that he foreknew, he predestined to become conformed to the image of his son so that he would be the firstborn among many brethren.

And these, once again talking about the group, he predestined. These whom he predestined, he also called.

2 Thessalonians 2 .14, through the gospel. Not through a miracle worked in the heart, but the gospel appealed to that group that would believe.

And these whom he called, he also justified. In order to make us sons of God, just like he talks about in verse 29, he had to justify us.

And so he did. He sent his son. That was all part of the plan. He justified those whom he sent out the gospel to call.

But still, he hasn't decided yet who would be in the group. And those he justified, he glorified.

He still hasn't decided yet who would be part of the group. Now, I'm not saying he doesn't know, but you want to realize something.

It's not the knowing who was in the group that caused God to predestinate.

It was the fact that the group was in his son. See, it's a grave error to think that God, for knowing who would be saved, carries along with it on the coattails the automatic teaching that that's why

God predestinated the group. I'm not here to promote that doctrine at all. I propose to you that actually

God had to know the group before he knew who was in the group.

Otherwise, he would be a respecter of persons. If God knew who was going to be in the group when he predestinated the group, then he selected some people to the exclusion of others.

That makes him a respecter of persons that he honored some over others.

The scriptures clearly teach he doesn't do that. It's a group.

In Ephesians chapter 1, turn there with me. Notice, beginning in verse 4, just as he chose us, how?

Who's the us? Those who are in him.

It's a group. Verse 3 says he blessed us, how?

In him. Verse 5 says he predestinated us, how?

Through Jesus Christ. Verse 6 says he blessings were bestowed on us, how?

In the beloved. Verse 7 says that we have redemption, how?

In him. Verse 9 says that it was God's kind intention, purpose, how?

In him. The point is that the group are those who are in Christ.

God didn't decide who would be in Christ. In his foreknowledge, he knew that there was a need.

There was a need to have a savior. There was a need to provide salvation. And so he elected his son, and that's what 1

Peter tells us. Coming to him as a living stone who has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God.

It is Christ who is the choice stone, the elected stone. The rest of them are just put in the building because they're connected to him.

But the choice one is Jesus Christ. God foreknew that there would need to be a redeemer, so he predestined that Christ would be that redeemer, thus predestinating that those who would submit themselves to him would be the care of Jesus Christ.

And that is the group that God gave to Jesus in John 6. It was a group.

You understand that? A group. Not necessarily the individuals in the group.

Now, again, God can know, but that's not why he selected the group. He said, well, how do you have...

Last debate, somebody told me. He said, how do you have a group without individuals? Well, you don't have a group without individuals, but let me give you an illustration.

What do you drive, James? What kind of car? What? Okay. What if I said, last week,

I told Ron. Ron's my buddy over here. He's my compadre, and I'm telling

Ron we're at a Bible study, and I tell Ron, okay, Ron, next Tuesday night, everybody that shows up in James White's truck gets $100 because I want everybody that gets into James White's truck to sing for he's a jolly good fellow to me, to my glory and to my praise.

Now, I have predestined whoever gets in that truck tonight, but I didn't decide who it's going to be.

You'll decide for yourself. That's the biblical doctrine.

It's a group. In Ephesians 1, you'll notice, verses 13 and 14, he says,

In him also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation, having also believed you were sealed in him with the

Holy Spirit of promise, who was given as a pledge of our inheritance with a view to the redemption of God's own possession to the praise of his glory.

The point of the matter is that we were sealed in Christ. We were made elect with the

Holy Spirit after we believed, after we heard, not before we believed.

So you can't come into the elect until you're forgiven of your sins. And you can't be given the

Holy Spirit until you're forgiven of your sins because God is an all -holy God. And he can't look on sin.

Isaiah 59 too tells us that sin separates us from God. God cannot send the Holy Spirit into your life to help you receive the new birth until after you believe and accept

Christ, experiencing the new birth, thus washing away the sin. It's backwards to say that the

Holy Spirit makes you believe and he works this work of grace in your heart when he can't even come close to you as a sinful creature until after you obey the gospel and are forgiven of your sins.

That's why Peter said in Acts 2 .38 to the crowd during the first sermon of Pentecost, he said, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.

And then you'll receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Then, after sins are forgiven, you'll receive the gift of the

Holy Spirit. You will be part of the Lord's elect. That's why the

Lord added those to the church. The last of that chapter. The truth of the matter is just...

What time am I supposed to be through here? Okay. The truth of the matter is the main difference might be this.

When you talk about election and you talk about the difference between there being a group being elected or specific individuals being elected, you have to come down to the bottom line that God desires all men to be saved.

He said so in 1 Timothy 2 .4. Now, the question as to why God desires all men to be saved and why all men are not saved, according to Calvinistic theology, is it just lies within God.

God just chooses. God chooses some to be saved and some to be damned. But He decrees only a few to be saved, but He desires all to be saved.

Well, God has decreed that there would be a few to be saved. Jesus said so in Matthew 7 .13 -14.

Not that He's decreed which ones will be saved, but the way is narrow. The gate is straight. But the question is, why is there a discrepancy between what

God desires and what God decrees? Imagine that I pass by a train wreck in the river.

There are many cars at the bottom of the river. There are people in the river. I tell the people on the shore, I want every single one of those people saved.

And then I dive in the river, and there are 12 cars, and I go to three of them. I open the doors, let the people out, and I totally ignore the others.

I swim back to the top, and I come to the shore. And I say, I'm such a loving person because I let the people in the three cars go.

I've lied. I didn't really desire all those to be saved because I could have saved them, and I didn't.

But if I dive to the bottom of that river, and the doors have to be opened, and only three of the cars will open the door from the inside, and the other...

I desired all of them to be saved, but I was limited in saving them. We'll have to continue it later, but just understand,

God is limited, not by anything outside himself, but by himself.

God doesn't want robotic worship. God created man a free will being, a moral decision maker, so that he could choose between evil and good, and having chosen between evil and good, he would have true sons of God, not just robots.

The truth of the matter is, the reason there is a discrepancy between God desiring all men to be saved, and the fact that all men are not saved, is that God requires that we worship him with our will.

Now, he'll do the rest of the work for us, but that we at least be willing, and so those who are unwilling, they will not come, and they will not become part of the elect.

Those who are willing, oh, we're a bunch of dirty down bags of sinful dust, that's for sure, but we trust that God really does want to help us, and we throw ourselves at his mercy, and he says, okay, that's all

I want, I'll do the rest. Then, we become part of the elect.

Appreciate your attention. Thank you very much.

Now we're going to hear seven minute rebuttal statements, and we're going to start with Dr.

James White. I bet

Lazarus is glad that that analogy about people having to open the doors before God can save them isn't true, because if Lazarus had to get up and roll that stone out of the way before he could obey

Jesus' command, Lazarus, come forth, well, there wouldn't be any resurrection. Men are dead in their sins.

They are not in a drowning car. You can't throw them a life ring. When you're dead in sin, you're dead in sin, and you need someone who can resurrect you, not someone who's dependent upon your, quote unquote, free will.

We have just heard that there is never, ever, ever, ever in the passage of Romans 8, anything, any sign that this is personal salvation.

Turn with me to Romans chapter 8. Those who before knew

He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. I submit to you that if we believe what we are just told, salvation is impersonal.

That being conformed to the image of Christ is only for a group, not for people. But I submit to you that is not biblical.

It is people who are conformed to the image of Christ, not groups. It is people who are called.

The gospel call comes to individuals. It is people who are justified. There is nowhere in the

New Testament in the writings of Paul the idea that groups are justified. Justification is by faith.

Groups don't believe. Groups aren't justified. Individuals are. And I am so thankful that it will be individuals who will be glorified in heaven, all the result of God.

And look at verses 31 and following. When it says, Who shall bring a charge against God's elect?

Does that mean who will bring a charge against a nebulous group of people that we don't even know who the identity is?

How could you bring a charge against some unknown group of people? There is everything in this passage that speaks of the absolute person -centered fact of election.

But we are told there is nothing whatsoever there. How could Paul say in Galatians 2 .20,

I have been crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me. And the life which

I now live in the flesh, I live by the face of the Son of God, who did what? Gave himself for a group of people?

No. Who delivered himself up for me. That's the wonder of Christian salvation is that it's personal.

God chose individuals who yes, then form a group, but he didn't just choose a nameless, faceless group of individuals and then leave it up to dead sinners to somehow get themselves into it.

That is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. Look at Ephesians chapter 1, where we look just a few moments, and I wish we had much more time.

There are so many things that I wrote down. Ephesians chapter 1, this is an impersonal passage?

When it says we've received spiritual blessings, do nameless groups receive spiritual blessings? He chose us in Christ, that's exactly right.

He didn't say he chose those who are in Christ. The action of choosing is in Jesus Christ.

All of salvation is only in Christ. That does not mean that this becomes a nameless, faceless group.

And notice what this choosing does. That we should be what? Holy. Are groups holy or are people holy?

People are holy. And without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to what?

Adoption as sons. What does Paul tell us in Romans chapter 8? The Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are the children of God.

Adoption is the single most personal aspect of the relationship of the believer to God, and yet that's what we're predestined to.

How can that be some impersonal thing? As we have been told over and over again, it doesn't make any sense.

Groups don't believe. We were told in John chapter 6. See, it's the groups that was given to Jesus.

Yeah, but groups don't come to Christ. And I think that's why if you look at the actual text, you discover at one point it talks about the

Father giving, present tense, at another point it is a perfect tense. That is, yes, the group as a whole has been given to Christ, but as we as individuals experience

God's grace in our life and come to Him, that is the other way of giving. We as individuals come and we believe belief is personal.

I just mentioned in passing an error was made in citing Ephesians 1 .13 -14 in saying that we're sealed after we believe.

Those are two aorist tenses. Two aorist tenses together are contemporaneous. That's just simply a syntactical error of interpretation that was presented.

Number three, it was said to us that if in point of fact God chooses individuals that make them respective persons,

I submit to you just the opposite is true. Because His choice is not in us, it's not because we're better, it's not because we're more godly, it's not because we're more liable to believe.

His choice is solely in His own mercy and grace. I submit to you that the other way is what makes

God a respecter of persons because He then only accepts those who are what? Smarter? Are they maybe better able to understand the gospel message?

Maybe they're better people? No, there is no respecter of persons in God because His choice is nothing in the creature man but solely and completely in His own mercy and will.

We were told that Pharaoh hardened his heart six times before God ever did. And yet, before Moses ever stepped foot in Egypt, God said,

I'm going to harden this heart. And He fulfills that the first time He meets with Pharaoh. You need to look at Exodus 4 .21

and recognize that as well. We were also told, well, if foreknown means to forechoose, then why were so many of Israel lost?

That's not what I'm saying. I did not say that the foreknown, every time it's used, means foreknown to salvation.

The son was foreknown, obviously not to salvation. The point is that foreknow is personal.

It's not merely taking in data or knowledge, it's personal. And therefore, when it says we were foreknown, predestined, it's the same group all along and it's a specific group.

The context of Romans 8 clearly places that as a soteriological or salvation context, whereas you don't have that in regards to Romans 11 .2

and the issue of Israel. Well, seven minutes is not a long time, so let me finish with this.

2 Peter 3 .9 The context of 2 Peter 3 .9 is that God is patient toward you, not wishing any to perish.

Upon what basis? Upon what basis are we to assume that the you is everybody?

The you in 2 Peter consistently is the elect of God as we see in 2 Peter 1 .1 -3. The reason that the elect of God exists today and we've experienced salvation is because God has delayed the coming of Christ to gather all of his elect in.

That's what 2 Peter 3 .9 is talking about. Now that was pretty fast, that was seven minutes, but I hope you all are taking notes.

Thank you very much. And now for a seven -minute rebuttal is

Paul Barber. Actually, James wasn't listening quite close enough because I didn't quote 2

Peter 3 .9, I quoted 1 Timothy 2 .4, which does say God desires all men to be saved.

The other thing I want to take you to is Colossians chapter 2. The truth of the matter is whether both of those words in Ephesians 1 are errors, the

Scriptures clearly teach that we are forgiven of our sins, that we are raised to new life after having believed.

If you look in verse 11, beginning, And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up.

You weren't raised up until after you came up out of those waters. In Romans 6, 3, 4, 5, and 6 teach that very truth.

In which you were also raised up with Him through faith. You already have the faith.

It had to be because it was through faith. You had faith before you had new life.

How is that possible when we're dead in sin? Well, the truth of the matter is that dead is a term that means separation.

We were separated from God. We were dead in the sense that we were separated from spiritual life.

But remember, what does it take to be connected with God? It takes the total absence of sin.

You don't have to be totally depraved to be dead in sin. All you need is one sin that's unforgiven.

You're dead in sin. The other thing is we were sinners by nature. Children of wrath, like Ephesians 2, 3 says.

And Calvin uses this word, fusin, to mean we were born this way.

It was the way we were born. We were children of wrath. It's interesting to notice that in Romans 2, 14 the

Gentiles were fusin, those who fulfilled the law of God, pleasing

Him. And they were unregenerate. See, the point is that being dead in sin doesn't mean that you have no vertical capability toward God.

The idea is taught that we can only do what we desire. And since we are slaves of sin, we can only desire that which is selfish.

Therefore, we will never want to do what God wants us to do. That's simply not the truth.

We will do what we desire for the most part. But Paul himself, in Romans 7, 18, while he was unregenerate, speaking of the time that he was unregenerate, he said that the willing was present in him.

That was when he was outside of Christ. That context is very clear. Because chapter 8 then takes him into Christ.

The truth of the matter is, is that we are capable of believing the gospel. Now, we are not capable of getting out of the habit of sin.

But understand, believing the gospel doesn't mean getting out of the habit of sin. It doesn't mean freeing ourselves from all guilt.

It doesn't mean freeing ourselves from the practice of sin. All it means is that we know we need some help.

And we believe that Jesus was sent by God to help us. You don't have to be regenerate to know that.

Romans 1, 19 and 20 makes it very clear that the Gentiles, even in the darkest of their time, had an inward and through nature, a revelation that taught them expressly that there was a

God and that they should serve him. They knew. They were blind, yes, but they knew the basics.

And to get away from those basics, men have to harden themselves. The point that I'm trying to make is that, yes, we are slaves of sin.

But being slaves of sin doesn't mean that we can't accept the testimony of faith.

And that is all that believing the gospel is. Ephesians 2, 8 does not say that faith is a gift from God.

That gift is neuter in the Greek. Faith is feminine in the

Greek. There is no way that Ephesians 2, 8, 10 grammatically mean that faith is a gift from God.

The point of the matter is that we get faith by hearing the word of Christ.

Romans 10, 17 tells us. Faith is simply the acceptance of testimony. It's the acceptance of testimony when you step outside that door and look at traffic and say, well, that might be dangerous.

You accept the testimony of the facts your eyes see. All the gospel is is certain facts are taught, revealed by God, and on the basis of those facts, men have the foundation they need to believe, if for no other reason than to preserve themselves.

That's why Peter said, from this perverse generation. And besides that, 1 John 4, 19 tells us that we love him because he first loved us.

The truth of the matter is the drawing in 644 is defined by John 12, 32.

We are drawn by the cross. Now, yes, the cross is foolishness to some. It is a stumbling block to others.

But a person that is willing to realize that they cannot save themselves and that they need to be right with God, that's no glory to them.

They are admitting that they have no glory. They are admitting that they have no righteousness. They are admitting that they are totally helpless and need the help of Christ.

That is the person that will accept the testimony of the gospel. That is the person that will gain faith.

And having believed and responding initially to the gospel, God does take over.

So it's not like it's any of us. It's all God. But the point of the matter is we can believe, and God expects us to believe.

God gives us all we need to believe. And anyone can believe if they're just willing.

Before we take a break, Pastor Moore is going to take a collection.

And I also want you folks to know that there are, I believe, visitors cards in your pews.

The back sides of those cards are blank. We want you to write a question for either

Dr. White or Mr. Barber because at the very end, after the final summations are made, we are going to be taking questions from all of you.

So when we come back from our break, you're going to have time to write your question. And later on after our break, we will collect those cards.

Pastor Moore. Okay. Gentlemen, thank you. These gentlemen have traveled a long way.

Obviously, they've spent a lot on these ties. So they need to be reimbursed.

So I would ask that you would give generously. If you're going to be writing a check, that you would make it out to North Shore Baptist Church.

And we want to reward these men for their hard work, for their diligence, and for their study in the word.

And so in just a moment, after a word of prayer, we are going to pass the plate. And I'm going to ask you to give as unto the

Lord and to give generously. Mark Amorelli, would you stand at this time and please write down.

Now we are actually reaching the point of the debate that is actually the debate. This is the most exciting part for me.

We have already frisked both debaters and removed any dangerous weapons or sharp objects.

And this is actually the part of the debate where they're cross -examining each other, which is truly, as I said, the debate in the debate.

And each cross -examination will be 15 minutes long. In other words, each debater will have an opportunity to question the other debater for 15 minutes.

And we are going to begin with Dr. James White cross -examining

Mr. Barber for 15 minutes. Mr.

Barber, in Isaiah chapter 45, the prophet prophesied that a man by the name of Cyrus would release the

Jewish people. And this takes place, I believe anyways, long before that man was ever born, long before he was king over any nation.

In light of what you said about the issue of God for knowing but not for ordaining, could you please explain how it is that Cyrus had a quote -unquote free will in his choice to release the

Jewish people when it had been prophesied by God that he would do so? Could he have not released the

Jewish people? If he could not, then how is that a free will? Actually, you misunderstood what

I said. I didn't say God doesn't predetermine anything. I said that God doesn't predetermine every event, that God can foreknow everything, but that he doesn't predetermine everything.

And actually, in this case, it matters little whether God looks down through time and sees that this is going to happen and to validate the prophet

Isaiah gives him this information so that he can validate the word of God through fulfilled prophecy or whether God actually determines it for that purpose.

It doesn't really matter which he does. The point is that he knew it would happen, whether he caused it or whether he just knew.

It's definitely going to come true if he says it. In Acts 4 .27 and 4 .28,

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 all the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your purpose predestined to occur.

Now, this is referring to Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, peoples of Israel in the crucifixion of the

Lord Jesus Christ. It says here that that was predestined to occur. Would you agree with me that it was sinful for the

Roman soldiers to drive the nails to the hands of Jesus? Yes.

Does it not follow that this was predestined to occur by the hand and purpose of God according to Acts 4 .28?

Yeah, he does predestine it, but what you want to understand, at least as far as what

I understand, is that when he predestines this, he predetermines this event, but yet he still allows them free will.

Now, that doesn't remove their choices. Because he can see all contingencies, he can make a move here, make a move here, and make a move here, so that they are placed in that position, knowing that if they are placed in that position, they will make that choice.

But still, they are the causal agents on the immediate factor. He is the causal agent in the sense that he arranged it to where they were in that situation.

God often does that. You see the same thing with Judas, that Satan entered Judas, but yet God predetermined that Judas would be one of the chosen, but God didn't force him to do that.

How does God know what a free agent is going to do in the future? I would take you to Romans 11 for that, and I mentioned that when

I was talking about that. It's not something we necessarily fully understand, but we do know that God knows all things.

And then we also see throughout the scriptures that man is, at least on the surface of the scriptures, appears to make free will choices.

So the deduction is that God can understand all contingencies. It's just like I said, if I eat a steak, having decided previously to not eat the steak, what created fixity?

God's foreknowledge or my choice? It was my choice, but nevertheless

God knew which choice I would make. In your comments, and the only reason

I put this on, and I'll need to move the computer just a little bit there, so I'm just putting the text up on the screen so everybody can see it.

In your comments, you specifically said, in Ephesians 2, 8, and 9, grammatically, faith cannot be a gift.

Is that correct? What I'm saying is that faith is feminine.

You said faith is feminine and the word that is neuter. Correct. So is it your argument that whatever is a gift of God needs to be in the neuter case?

No, that's not the point. Okay. So what is the gift of God in Ephesians 2, 8?

It's the whole thing. It's neither grace nor faith. It's the salvation. In fact, if you want to plug something into this verse, you could say that Jesus Christ is, even though it's unsaid.

The implied meaning is that the gift is salvation. The point is, grammatically, gift cannot be grace or faith in this passage.

You mean this cannot be grace or faith? Yeah. That. Okay. And that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.

Right. That is the word that is in the neuter. Okay. And are you familiar with a use in the grammar of the

Greek where you use a neuter to wrap up an entire preceding phrase? No, I'm not.

Okay. Are you aware of the many exegetes that have said, and that not of yourselves is a gift of God, means the entirety of the preceding phrase?

Certainly, I'm aware that many have said this. Can you give a grammatical reason as to why that would not be true?

Let me. Just one minute. Actually, the foremost

Greek scholar of this last century, Robertson, you're surely familiar with him. He himself says right here that it does not refer to either

Pistis or Ares, that it cannot because it is neuter. Right, because it's wrapping up the entire preceding phrase.

I'm just accepting his analysis of it here. So if it wraps up the entire preceding phrase, it would include faith, would it not?

What do you mean by wraps up the entire phrase? Well, the use of the neuter by Paul in wrapping up the preceding phrase means that none of salvation, grace, faith, any of that which came before, comes ex humone, out of us.

Instead, it is the gift of God. Maybe it would be best if we just simply looked at another passage,

Philippians 1 .29, and I can ask you why, in light of your comments on Ephesians 2 .8,

the apostle says, For to you it has been granted, and actually it's the word to give, in behalf of Christ, not only to believe in him but also to suffer for him.

So could you explain why it is that it has been granted to us, given to us, to believe in Christ?

Well, that's pretty easy. Just like Jesus said, I chose you, you didn't choose me. It wasn't necessarily me.

He chose specific individuals. Jesus is the initiator. God is the initiator. We would not have faith were we not given

Christ, were we not given the gospel, were we not given all sorts of different things that God gives us that actually leads us to faith.

But the point of the matter is, is faith is not a gift. Faith is exercised by man.

It is the trust of testimony. Now, if the testimony is given by God, and the validation of the testimony is given by God, then in one sense faith is the gift, but it's not given in the sense that a lot of people apply in Ephesians 2.

I'm sorry. When Jesus said, I chose you, you did not choose me, was he talking to individuals that he knew, or was he talking to a group that he did not know?

Well, actually he was talking to the 12 apostles, and I don't even believe he was talking about salvation there. I think he was talking about apostleship.

But the point is, is he was the initiator. Of apostleship, yes.

Of apostleship, of salvation, of everything. That's why when we talk about faith being granted by God, or repentance being granted by God, we're not saying that God chooses some to give it to and others to not give it to.

What we're saying is that the foundation that faith comes from, the foundation that repentance comes from,

God's the one that laid that foundation. He is the cause. We still have to exercise it ourselves, though.

So, in Philippians 1 .29, you're saying that God has laid the foundation of your believing in him, and laid the foundation of your suffering for Christ.

And he's done that for everyone. So everyone can suffer for Christ? Well, actually Paul said if you want to live godly in Christ Jesus, you will suffer.

Right. But do those of the world suffer for Christ? No, I think that he's talking to Christians here.

He's not talking to people in the world. But the point is, is the reason they have this faith, and the reason they have this suffering, is because they made a choice.

Now, think about this for a minute. If they didn't make the choice to become

Christians, they would have never suffered, even though God gave it. What is the difference between belief and this choice?

You're making them two different things. I thought belief was a choice. Belief is a choice.

It's the choice to accept and trust testimony. Okay. Would you agree that in John 6 .37,

all the Father gives me will come to me. That coming to Christ here in John, to come to him is to believe in him and have faith, correct?

Just a second, let me look. All the

Father gives me will come to me. Coming to Christ is obviously to come to him. Right. And I would say that that's a class.

Okay, so when it says, and the one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out, does that mean the one group that comes to me

I will certainly not cast out, or the person who comes to me I will certainly not cast out? I'm glad you brought that up because you spent a lot of time on that in your rebuttal.

God can signify a class and still talk about individuals within the class without saying he's choosing those individuals.

He still can choose a class and then talk on a personal level. That's why the confusion was there as far as the group being chosen versus the individuals.

God can choose a group and then still talk about the individuals in the group without choosing who will be in the group, but he still knows who will be in the group.

The word here, pan, all the Father gives me is used as a singular.

It means every single one. So is there only one group or are there multiple groups?

And again, I don't think I got an answer to my question there. The one who comes to me, and we just agreed that means believes in me,

I will certainly not cast out. If the second half of the verse is referring to individuals, how can the first half of the verse be referring to a group that is unknown to Christ?

How can that be an identically less group? Simply by the pronouns. All is a collective pronoun and one is a singular pronoun.

But the one is coming from the participle or common noun. The one who comes to me,

I will never cast out. That is a person, is it not? That's individual. Well, he's not talking about one singular person.

It's just like saying the one that walks through that door next, I will do this and this for him.

I haven't chosen that person. I'm just referring to the fact that he is an individual. Okay.

In John 6, 44, the Lord Jesus specifically makes this statement.

He says, No one is able to come to me. You said in your statement, everyone can believe.

Could you explain the difference between the two statements? Yeah. Go back to the foundation. If God had not laid the foundation and called us through the gospel, if he had not loved us enough to send his son, if he had not loved us enough to formulate a plan through the

Old Testament that his son would come, if he had not loved us enough to have his son die, if he would not have loved us enough to send out people into the world, the point of the matter is that we could not have come to him.

The Father draws us in that way. But that doesn't mean that, I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at, but that doesn't mean that,

Well, you just said the Father loved us. Don't you mean that he loved a group? No. You're using it individualistically, but you can't use it individualistically in your position.

Did he love us as individuals or did he just love a group and then we enter into the group by a free act of faith?

Actually, I believe God for so loved the world, every individual, he chose a group, those that would believe in the

Christ. Okay. So when it says no one is able to come to me, and yet you say each individual is able to come to Christ based on this foundation, where in John 6 do you find this phraseology on the basis of this foundation?

Well, I wouldn't find it in the basis of the foundation except that's what Jesus, I mean, just the statement that he makes, unless the

Father who sent me draws him. In other words, the Father has to do his part or else we would never be able to come to Christ.

If the Father did not do his part, we would not come to Christ. Does the Father draw every individual? I believe that the

Father sends out a general call, but that the call is in a sense a filter.

Jesus said, many are called, few are chosen. The point is that the gospel only appeals to a mind not like you said, that is so intelligent.

In fact, 1 Corinthians tells us the opposite. But remember, 1 Corinthians makes it clear that the gospel only appeals to a humble mindset that's willing to accept

God at his terms and allow God to change him. But I'm running out of time here. Again, does the

Father draw every single individual? Yes or no? When you say draw, what do you mean?

John 6. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. You have to define what you mean by draw.

Do you mean a general call that God wants all to be saved, or do you mean that God is actually sending out a message that will appeal to every single person?

Let me put it this way. It says, I will raise him up on the last day. All who are drawn by the

Father to the Son are raised up by the Son on the last day. Okay, that mentality. Just like 1

Corinthians 1, those that are the lowly, the debased,

So the Father's drawing is based upon whether we have a more godly mindset than someone else.

No, that's actually incorrect. Not a more godly mindset. The Father's drawing is based upon whether or not we realize we are ungodly.

And see, Romans 9 proves that because the Gentiles, who knew they were ungodly, they accepted the gospel, while the

Jews, they thought they were godly, they rejected the gospel. So it's not godly to recognize your own sin? When you say godly, if that's what you're talking about, then yes.

But you're trying to make it sound like it somehow merits something, and it doesn't. It doesn't merit a thing. I'm sorry, you're out of time.

Now, Mr. Barber will cross -examine James White for 15 minutes. In 1

Timothy 2, the frame of context is that we are to pray for all men.

In verse 3, this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior. The reason we're to pray for all men is because it's good and acceptable when you look at it from the

Father's point of view. Now, to prove the Father's point of view, Paul then says in verse 4, the

Father, or who, desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Now, I notice there that saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth are connected.

We realize that we're not going to be saved unless we come to the knowledge of the truth. But I just wonder, how can

God want all men to be saved and then decide that all men will not be saved?

Well, I think the answer to that is found in recognizing the context of the passage. Paul says, first of all, then

I urge that in treaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgiving, be made on behalf of all men.

Then he defines what he means by all men. He doesn't mean Timothy open up the

Ephesian phone book and start at A or Alpha and then move from there and pray for every single individual person in Ephesus.

He defines the very next phrase, for kings and all who are in authority. Now, what are kings and all who are in authority?

They are classes. They are kinds of men. So we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men, in the context, all kinds of men.

Remember, most Christians were persecuted, slaves. They were persecuted by kings and those in authority.

And Paul is exhorting them, you even need to pray for those who persecute you because God even wants to save people like that, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, for there is one

God and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. And Jesus Christ, the

Bible tells us, intercedes and mediates for the elect of God, Romans 8. That is the only consistent way of understanding

Paul in Romans 8 and 1 Timothy 2 together. So what you're saying is that God really doesn't want all men to be saved.

What I'm saying is that God wants all of his elect people to be saved and that as Romans 9 says, there are individuals such as Pharaoh that he has raised up specifically to demonstrate his justice in the judgment of those individuals, the

Assyrians in Isaiah 10, and the list goes on and on and on. So when

John 3 .16 says that God so loved the world, you would take it to mean all classes in the world.

Actually, in John 3, I would understand him to be saying the following, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that all the ones believing in him, as you know there's no indefinite relative pronoun there, all the ones believing in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

And yes, I recognize that John uses the word world in about 14 different ways. The same

Lord Jesus who uttered the words of John 3 also uttered these words in John 17 .9,

I ask on their behalf, I do not ask on behalf of the world but of those whom you have given me for they are yours.

So my Lord Jesus differentiated between the world and those who were given by the father to the son and therefore

I have to make the same differentiation. Okay, so let me rephrase that again.

Again, what you're saying is that you believe that the world refers to...

The elect of God. All of the elect of God. Thankfully all the elect of God for 2 ,000 years so far.

And before then. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to mislead anybody there. I'm not saying that there weren't any before then. Then why does

John continue, or Jesus continue on here in John 3, and say that the son was sent not to judge the world but that the world might be saved through him and then on into the fact that this is the judgment that light has come into the world and men love the darkness rather than the light.

If light came into the elect, why do the men in the elect world of verse 19 not love the light but rather they love the darkness?

Well, as I said, when we look at verse 16, for God so loved the world. Who is it that he loved?

If you want to speak of the specific individuals who receive that love of God, it would be those who will be saved through him.

Verse 17 says, but the world might be saved through him. Who are those who were saved through him?

Jesus explained that. He said, all the Father gives me will come to me and it is the Father's will that I lose none of those that are given to me but raise them up at the last day.

So you'll find the word world used in more than one way within a very short period of time in John.

It is very common for him to do that. He does it with the word hear. He'll use hear in a literal sense and metaphorical sense, sometimes within two words of each other.

So in other words, what you're saying is the world in verse 16 refers to the elect. The world in verse 19 refers to the world that are not the elect.

Can you show me another instance that John uses the world in those same two ways in that close -up position?

Not the word world. I can use the word hear and others like that, but I think that's the best example of the fact that he says that light has come into the world and men loved darkness rather than the light for their deeds were evil.

Notice that in verse 19 you have the context of judgment. In verse 16, you have the context of God's love.

There's a clear distinction between God when he acts as judge in condemning dark and evil deeds and God's love when he draws the elect unto his son and saves them infallibly as he does in John 6 .44.

Although actually, the context is the same because he then is still in that same context in verse 21, right?

In the sense of the love of God because those come to God. Verse 21 says, but he who practices the truth comes to the light.

So is he back now to the context of love and he's left the context of judgment again? No, he's describing the fact that those who love the truth come to the light and this is a description of the fact that outside of the work of Christ in our hearts, all of us, as we know, love the darkness rather than the light.

Okay. In Acts chapter 7, in verse 51, speaking to the

Jews, Stephen said, you men who are stiff -necked and uncircumcised in heart, and just for the context of the question,

I believe that that's what keeps men from believing the gospel. Not a choice of God but a choice of man.

Why or how can they always be resisting the

Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit's attempt to convict them is partial?

Well, first, the statement you just made does not represent what I believe. Okay. And that is, God is not withholding anyone from having faith in Christ.

Outside of the resurrecting power of the Holy Spirit raising a dead sinner to life, as Paul says in Romans 8, 7 -8, those who are in the flesh cannot do what is pleasing to God.

And so there is no person who has any desire, there is no God -seeker, Romans 3, 11.

So I think it is a misrepresentation of the Reformed position, a great misrepresentation, to say that the reason a person doesn't believe is because of God's choice withholding them from that belief.

The reason any person does believe is a positive choice on God's part to give them saving faith.

Okay, let me ask you in reference to that before we get to this question then. Why doesn't

God just have everybody believe then? It seems to me that it is a choice that He makes.

But you just told me it wasn't a choice. No, what I'm saying, why doesn't He have everyone believe? Why doesn't He give the gift of faith to everyone?

Is that what you're asking? Because, again, He does not owe to anyone. Remember, the reason that no man seeks after God is because we're sinners.

We are exactly described here stiff -necked and uncircumcised in heart. You said in your presentation that men know

God exists. They know that the Creator exists, Romans 1. They do. And what do they always do with that knowledge?

They suppress it and hold it down in unrighteousness. That is what every single sinner will do consistently without fail unless God in His mercy and His grace gives them spiritual life and is merciful to them.

Why does He not give faith to all people? Well, God could do one of three things.

God could give faith to no one. God could give faith to everyone. Or God could give faith to an elect people.

In only one of those scenarios does God have freedom. And in Romans 9, you have your answer.

He has mercy on whom He has mercy. And He hardens whom He hardens.

That's the words of the Apostle. Okay. We'll come back to that. I still haven't gotten 751. That's alright. Go to Romans.

Just keep a finger in action. Yeah, we'll come back. We might get back to it later. Because I know that God has the power to do that.

I mean, the frame of reference of Romans 9 is that the Jews have complained because they thought that salvation was through the law.

And now God has declared that salvation is through the gospel. And their countrymen are rejecting it. And they're saying that's not fair.

And so Paul is answering, look, you don't have any ground to complain against God because God can do what

He wants. I understand that. The question is, why would He? Why has

God chosen to save some and not all? Ecclesiastes chapter 1 says to the praise of His glorious grace.

But wouldn't it praise Him all the more if He saved more people? That's asking God that question and says in a sense

He has glorified both, according to Romans 9. And let me just read the section for you here.

It says, What if God, and I'll back up, or does not the potter, verse 21, have a right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath, if He did as you said, He could not demonstrate

His wrath. There would be no demonstration of the wrath of God. There would be no demonstration of His justice against sin.

So what if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and He did so, here's your answer, to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy which

He prepared beforehand for glory. Okay, but the point is, I don't believe that those vessels prepared for wrath were prepared by God.

Do you? I certainly do. There is absolutely nothing in the grammar of the text whatsoever that could possibly provide any foundation for saying that the word prepared there has any other object than the one context, the one object that is introduced by the context.

I know that R .H. Lensky tried to do that, various others have tried to focus upon the middle voice. I provided,

I think, a full grammatical refutation of that in this work. So then that would mean that God is the author of their sin.

No, it would mean that God is the one who has prepared them for destruction. Please remember something.

These vessels of wrath upon which He demonstrates His wrath and makes His power known, such as Pharaoh.

Pharaoh was not a good guy who wanted to do right and God forced him to do wrong.

In point of fact, I would submit to you that the vast majority of the time, God was restraining and withholding the evil of Pharaoh.

But God the potter has the right to make

His vessels and His creatures so that He brings about His own glory.

Yes, I do believe that and I believe that again based upon Scripture. So then the potter doesn't decide to make or to prepare a vessel for wrath until that vessel already shows that they themselves are preparing themselves for wrath.

I didn't say anything about vessels preparing themselves for wrath. I do not believe there is such thing as a vessel preparing itself.

That would be like saying that this pitcher of water here prepared itself to be a pitcher of water rather than to be a

LCD screen on your computer. No, each one of those things were made by a creator for a specific purpose.

And in fact, you dare not attempt to switch their purposes as dumping the water onto your computer would quickly demonstrate.

So there is a purpose, a specific purpose in both. Now that pitcher enjoys being a pitcher.

That's its nature. Pharaoh enjoyed and loved his sin. There is no such thing as a

God -seeker. Romans 3 .11. Pharaoh wanted to do what he was doing.

And God used that desire on his part. God made him that way. God made Adam as our representative and we fell in Adam and then

God uses our sin to his glory as he did with Joseph in Genesis 51, as he does with the

Assyrians in Isaiah chapter 10, and as he does with Pilate, Herod, the Gentiles, and the Jewish people in Acts chapter 4, verse 28, which we were just looking at just a few moments ago.

So Adam had free will. Adam had, quote, unquote, free will, not autonomous will.

There's a difference. Okay. Then did God predestine

Adam's sin? If Christ was the Lamb slain for the foundation of the world and he works all things after the counsel of his will, then

Adam's sin was just as much a part of God's foreordination of all things that come to pass resulting in his glory as the sinful act of nailing

Jesus Christ to the cross of Calvary was a part of his foreordination resulting in his glory.

Can I ask one more question? Sure. Then what you're saying is since God predestined Adam's sin and since Adam's sin made

Pharaoh the way he was, then God is the one that made Pharaoh sin. You just quoted

Romans chapter 9. Okay. Right. And as the objector against the apostle, and I think that proves my point.

Alrighty. We are going to now take questions from the audience.

Are we doing that before the closing statement? Oh, you know something? You're right. We're now going to take five minute closing statements and we'll begin with Dr.

James White. Do you want this?

It's not a problem. You need to forgive

Chris. He's had a long week. He's had me around and that's enough to cause anyone to forget where they are in the middle of the debate.

I think the last questions we just had I think sort of illustrated something for me and that is when we talk about this issue, we again encounter the very same thing that we encountered,

I encountered anyways, last Thursday evening in the debate against Robert St.

Genes. The positions being taken in regards to the nature of grace, the nature of faith, the nature of man are identical.

Even though in one I'm debating a Roman Catholic and the other the Church of Christ. Because on this issue, the

Church of Christ stands firmly on the other side of the Tiber River from the Reformation. The Reformers plainly taught the sovereignty of God and salvation, the bondage of the will of man in sin, and the absolute necessity of both the necessity of grace and the sufficiency of grace.

That God by His grace can save. But I want to direct your attention in just a few moments that we have to the illustration that Mr.

Barber presented to us of the people going into the river in the cars. The person swims down to save them, but the people in the cars have to open the door.

That's called synergism. That's saying God tries to save, but outside of the cooperation of the creature,

He fails. He fails. Now, the will of the

Father for the Son in John chapter 6 is that of all that He has given

Him, He lose not one. What that means is

Jesus can open the door. Jesus can say to the dead sinner,

Lazarus, come forth, and there's no argument from Lazarus in the grave. The stone rolls away because when

Jesus commands life, it happens. He's a powerful Savior. That is the difference between these two systems of salvation.

One says God has a plan of salvation, and without it nobody could be saved, but God Himself saves no one outside of the cooperative effort provided by that individual.

And there's a couple problems. First of all, you don't have the glory of God in that. You see, it is by His doing we're in Christ Jesus, Paul tells us in 1

Corinthians chapter 1. It is to His glory alone that we are, that salvation resounds.

And the other problem is, aside from the clear statements that grace was granted to us in Christ Jesus before eternity itself, and grace obviously means something that's personal, unless grace is an impersonal thing.

The other problem is, man's dead in sin. There is no God -seeker.

Romans 3 .11 There is no one seeking after God.

And if you have to be in that car and open the door, my friends, that's mission impossible salvation.

Romans chapter 8 verses 7 through 8 says those who are in the flesh cannot submit to the law of God.

Cannot do what is pleasing to God. Is faith pleasing to God? Is repentance pleasing to God?

We were told that to be spiritually dead just simply means to be separated from spiritual life. Well, if you don't have spiritual life, how can you do spiritual things like believe and repent?

The Apostle John said in 1 John 5 .1 He who is born of God believes.

The born of God precedes. It is the ground of and it's our nature as regenerated

Christians to believe in God. This is truly the issue between a salvation system that is based upon what man does to allow

God to succeed. A system that says that when Jesus Christ said, to telestai, it is finished.

He didn't mean just a plan. But that he, when he went into the presence of the

Father, had obtained eternal redemption. He had perfected all those for whom he had died.

That means his elect people understand the words of Romans 8. No one can condemn.

No one can separate us from the love of Christ. Soli Deo Gloria. It is all for the glory of God alone.

Thank you. Now with a five minute closing statement, Mr. Paul Barber.

Actually John said those who believe in his name who were born. When he talks about those who believe, he's talking about those who present tense believe, the believers.

He's saying that at one time we were born, but that doesn't mean that the birth came before belief.

The accusation of synergism, I would encourage you, comes from a misunderstanding of what

I'm teaching. Grace simply means undeserved merit.

Now, when you realize that that's what grace means, and you can see that from Ephesians 2 .9,

lest anyone boast, you realize that what grace means is that I am not meriting anything before God.

But that doesn't mean that I don't have to do anything to receive the gift that God gives me.

I could say I'm going to give you this watch, and you haven't done anything to earn the watch, believe me, it wouldn't take very much.

But you do to receive the gift have to reach out and take the gift. You have to not synergism work with God on the merit side, you have to cooperate with God with your will.

Remember, we said that's why some are lost. None of us can earn anything before God.

Think about it, just for a minute, God could tell you to climb to Mount Everest to be saved, and you still will not get rid of one day in hell.

Jesus Christ, death on the cross, the very Son of God, that was the penalty for sin.

You can't merit that, and just because God says, believe in me, doesn't mean you merit it.

Just because God says, obey me, and there are many, many passages in the scriptures that make it very clear that we must obey the gospel, not just have a mental cognition, but actually obey the gospel to be forgiven and be saved, but it doesn't mean you merit anything.

Proof in point, 1 Peter 3 .21 says that there is a like figure unto the water saving

Noah. Baptism, which now saves you. Not the cleansing of the filth of the flesh, but, check the

Greek, you will never find that that word means answer. The appeal to God for, the

Greek preposition ice, into, the appeal to God into a clear conscience on the basis of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

See, the resurrection of Christ validated his sacrifice. And God said, believe in me, turn from your sins and be immersed into the name of Jesus, into Christ.

Galatians 3, 26 and 27, you are all sons of God by faith. For as many of you who have been baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

I guess I'm teaching synergism, right? Now, what 1 Peter 3 .21 says, that it is an appeal not to my goodness.

That's what faith is all about. See, to say that faith, the acceptance of a testimony of synergism is ridiculous.

Faith doesn't say, I am meriting this and earning it. Faith says, I can't earn it.

I can't merit it. I am lost. I am, I am sinful and separated from God and a slave to sin and there's no way

I can help myself. Lord Jesus, I believe because you raised from the dead. I believe that you can save me and so I call upon you in the prayer that God asked me to do so.

The immersion commanded by the apostles all the way through Acts and through that Act you appeal to God, Lord, save me.

And if that's synergism and you think that you can earn what Jesus did on the cross because God asked you to do that, then you place a lot lower value on the cross than what the scriptures do.

Well, I'd like us all to, before we get to the questions, give both of these gentlemen a round of applause for their hard work.

This topic is obviously a very profound topic and the time that we had to debate this issue was not nearly long enough.

In fact, if we had double the time, it would not have been long enough. But I think that this, at least, was enough to wet your appetite to delve into the scriptures and to begin plummeting and digging into the scriptures to learn what

God has to say for us about this topic. And now we're going to be taking questions and each question

I'm going to ask a question of Mr. Barber and then a question of Dr. White. But also, when

Mr. Barber answers the question that I have from the audience, Mr.

White will have an opportunity to respond to Mr. Barber's answer and vice versa as well.

What time frames are you using? We're going to Same as Thursday night? You mean two minutes to respond and a minute?

Thursday night, it depends on how many questions you want to get through. Thursday night, we used one minute response, 30 seconds for the other person.

Okay. That got us through about, what, 10, 15 questions? That sounds like a good It's not a long time, but we can't filibuster that.

So each will have a minute to respond and the other debater will have 30 seconds to respond to that.

And we're going to cease the questions at 10 p .m. The first question is for Paul Barber.

You made mention of Calvinism turning men into robots because Calvinism denies that man has a free will to choose good or evil.

According to that logic, to be consistent, are not all in heaven robots since they do not have the free will to sin?

Actually, I believe they do have the free will to sin in the sense of the angels and that is proven by the fact that angels fell.

I think what you're talking about is the fact that those who go to heaven will not have the ability to sin.

But remember, they have the ability to choose between God and Satan during this life.

That doesn't mean they're robots. It just means that when sin is removed, they've already made their choice.

That's why they can't sin. Not that they're robots, but they made their choice while they were on earth and therefore when they get to heaven where there is no sin, the choice has already been made.

There's still free will. It's just that sin is removed. Mr. White? I don't understand the answer.

I think the question presents a good point and that is if it is a constituent element of the nature of man that he always has to have the ability to choose between good and evil to have a quote -unquote autonomous and free will outside of the decree of God, then if in heaven there is no sin in the sense that no one who is glorified will cease to be glorified, then that whole argument collapses in the end and the accusation of robot falls apart.

Question for Dr. White. Did Adam choose to fall or did

God harden his heart? Did Adam choose to fall?

Yes, Adam actually chose to engage in transgression according to the scriptures. There is no statement that God quote -unquote hardened his heart, but I think what the question is trying to get at, and I'm not sure,

I think what the question is trying to get at is, was the fall of Adam a part of God's decree? And I do not believe that there is any way to affirm

Ephesians 1 -11 and the description of Jesus Christ as a lamb slain from the foundation of the earth, if you do not affirm that that is a part in the same context as Isaiah chapter 45 verse 7 where God makes that very statement.

I would say that just in response to that answer, it seems contradictory because there is no

God's decree and yet still God not be the cause of it. That doesn't make sense.

I would say that God knew that if Adam had free will, he would sin. That's why

God made the preparations he made predetermining a plan that man could be saved and thus produced great glory by seating us on the throne with Christ after we are saved.

Question for Mr. Barber. Acts 13 -47. says that all those who are appointed unto eternal life believe.

How does this teach that faith precedes regeneration rather than the opposite?

Actually, it is a very common known fact that the verb tasso there in Acts 13 -48 can be either passive or middle.

If it is passive, it means that somebody else appointed them. If it is middle, it means they appointed themselves. In other words, they were determined to have eternal life.

Now all you have to do is go back to the context of the chapter and Peter warns the Jews. He says, take heed so that you won't reject this in verses 40 and 41.

And then in verse 46, Paul and Barnabas told them, look, you repudiated. You had a choice and you chose the wrong thing.

You ordained yourself unto eternal death. In like manner, in Acts 13 -48, the

Gentiles self -appointed themselves to eternal life because they believed.

And that gets confused a lot of times because people don't understand that that can easily be middle voice as well as passive.

That is not the case. That is a grammatical error. The King James Version, the ASV, the New King James, NRSV, NASV, New Living Translation, New English Translation, all translate as appointed for a reason.

There is a grammatical form called a periphrastic construction. That is what we have in Acts 13 -48. When you have the exact constructions found in Acts 13 -48, the result is called a pluperfect.

The pluperfect tense, in its understanding, in any way, shape, or form, because it would have to mean that they had appointed themselves before they actually heard the gospel.

And it simply doesn't fit. I dealt with this in my book. Question for Dr. White. Why does this matter in the big picture of things?

Can I only have a minute? It is the difference between saying

God saves his elect people perfectly and saying that God attempts to save.

But every single time an individual enters into judgment from God, he tried to save them.

He wanted to save them. The father decreed their salvation. The son died to secure it.

The spirit came to apply it. And the triune God failed because of the almighty will of the creature.

I say no. I say the scripture teaches us there is no

God seeker. There is none who seeks after God. And in 1 John 5 1, it does say, look at the grammar.

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. Born of God is a perfect tense verb.

The one believing is present tense. If you know your grammar, the perfect tense precedes. Those who are born naturally believe.

Actually, just what he said, not in 1 John 5 1, but the fact that God tried and failed is really a characteristic of our position.

We are not saying that God decreed the salvation of all men. We are saying that God decreed a plan that would give man the opportunity.

So God has not failed. God did exactly what he decreed. He wanted to give man an opportunity to be his children for eternity.

And so he sent his son to die. Men can either choose to be his children for eternity or they can choose to not be.

But the point is that God decreed that there would be a way through his son. Not that everyone would be saved and then he failed because he messed up.

Mr. Barber, if free choice to believe is how we are saved, is it possible to fall in and out of salvation by what choices we make during our life on earth?

That's actually very correct. You know, 1 Corinthians 9, 27, Paul said,

I buffet my body daily lest I become a castaway. And that does mean that you are thrown away into the garbage heap.

Romans 6 says that you are those who fall away to a degree that they can't be renewed unto repentance.

And so they have fallen away. 1 Peter chapter 3 is full of examples of men who knew the truth and who accepted the truth and yet fell away.

This is a classic example of what predestination forces people into. If God chose us, then that means that God didn't reject us.

Check John 10 and you will find that the sheep are the sheep because they can choose to be the sheep.

If you stop listening to the voice of the shepherd, you are no longer one of the sheep. Simple as that. Actually, just the opposite is true.

Jesus said that to the Jews, the reason you do not believe is because you are not of my sheep.

He did not say the opposite of that. And he specifically said in John chapter 8, you cannot hear my words because you do not belong to God.

You are not one of God's people. The scripture tells us in 1 John 2, those who go out from us, go out from us to demonstrate that they are not truly of us.

Ephesians chapter 1 says the Holy Spirit is a down payment that God places in our life for the redemption of his own purpose.

And Jesus does not fail to save his own. Dr. White, when

Jesus called Lazarus from the tomb after being dead four days and decayed, why is this looked upon as a spiritual awakening when the

Bible indicates this to be a confirmation of Jesus' power over death and resurrecting him?

Because Jesus himself used his power over death and resurrection in John chapter 5 in both the spiritual and physical realm.

In that very same passage, in fact intertwining together, you have the fact that Jesus raises to physical life in the resurrection where he will judge.

And he also is the one who raises to spiritual life. They are both united together. I am not saying that John chapter 11 is specifically about the salvation of Lazarus.

What I am saying is this, that since the Bible itself uses the language of resurrection power to describe regeneration and resurrection, it makes no more sense to say that it is dependent upon the free will choice of the dead corpse to gain spiritual resurrection as it is to say it is dependent upon the free will choice in the physical realm.

He who is dead is separated from life. That is quite true. And therefore, the power that causes regeneration must come from the outside.

Making dead men active in their own salvation simply does not work. I would simply say that is a very good question.

I understand there is a correlation between Jesus' power to raise men from physical death and Jesus' power to raise men from death in the sense of separation from God.

But to draw any more of a correlation between the two is to take something that is purely one connection and to create all sorts of different tangents from it and think that somehow you are deriving doctrinal truth.

And it was actually used that way tonight. So that is a very good question. Mr. Barber, how is choice considered consistent with the fact that some people will never hear the gospel, babies die before they have ability to choose, and people suffer from mental deficiencies when they cannot make choices?

Can all people choose or what about the above group that seems to have no choice?

Well, the point is that these babies never reached a place where there is choice.

And pure Calvinism actually would teach that since these babies have no ability to choose,

It teaches that those who are born sinful, that if you are going to be consistent with that concept, then those babies are lost and never had a choice.

Now, many Calvinists have gone back from that, but that is actually where the Catholic Church gets limbo and infant baptism and the different things to try and give these infants that haven't had a choice an opportunity to be saved.

The point of the matter is that there is a certain degree of judgment that is based upon the opportunity we have.

The Gentiles were a law unto themselves and Romans chapter 2 when they didn't have the actual law of God.

I don't understand exactly what God is going to do with the judgment, but I don't think you can necessarily say that these children are lost or you can say that Jesus said that we must become like children so they must be alright with him and it is when they reach an age of choice that choice matters.

Dr. Wayne? Well, anyone who wants to know about the salvation of infants should talk with Mr. Aronson after the debate.

That is one of his favorite subjects. In regards to this issue, I am a little confused because now

I am not exactly sure what Mr. Barber's position is. The couple of last responses has led me to ask the question, did

Christ die so as to save anyone or did he die to make a plan of salvation possible?

If God desires to save those people who never hear the gospel, why doesn't he send the gospel to them? He can do it, and if he desires to save them, why doesn't he send the gospel to them?

I don't understand that. Dr. Aronson? Dr. White, a question on predestination.

Can we arrive at a biblically accurate position on this subject, absent of first agreeing upon the state of depraved man?

He gives us examples, Romans 3 .23 and Genesis 6 .8. Well, I think the biblical teaching concerning man's deadness and sin, that he doesn't seek after God, he's the enemy of God, he's incapable of belief in Christ, he's incapable of doing what's pleasing to God, he's incapable of submitting himself to God.

In fact, the incapable phrases in the Bible are all over the place in regards to man's incapacity.

That is a part of the entire truth regarding predestination.

But it's not the foundation upon which the Bible then says that God in his sovereignty has predestined and elect people.

It is a part of the demonstration that God gives that here's part of the necessity, but the real foundation of the divine doctrine of election is

Ephesians chapter 1, to the praise of the glory of his grace. That's what it results in.

That's the purpose that is found in it. The fact that that involves the resurrection of dead sinners to life and that glorifies them, yes, that's very much a part of it.

But it's not actually the foundation. It's part of the demonstration of it. I would say that it is very important, in fact, through history, total depravity has been the foundation of why

God had to make a choice and elect people. He had to elect a certain people and regenerate them and so forth.

Really, the truth of the matter is much of this is hyperbole. Much of the phraseology of the scripture, that none seek after God, I mean go all the way through Romans chapter 3, the point isn't that man never can want to be right with God.

Just look at the Gentile nations and you will find that through history there were all sorts of people that were trying to do, on the basis of what knowledge they had, the best they could.

That's why Romans 2 makes it clear that many of them would be saved. The point is that it is hyperbole saying that man cannot fix his own problem.

He needs a Savior and he needs a Holy Spirit to help him overcome sin. Mr. Barber, if according to Romans 3 that there is no

God seeker, I guess you have ESP here, how could anyone open the train door from the inside?

Well, let me continue that by saying that the idea that if God wants these people to be saved, why doesn't

God send somebody to tell them the gospel? Actually, God has. If you will look at Romans chapter 10, the last section,

God has sent his arm out into all the world. The word of God, Colossians 1 .29,

tells us that the gospel went into all the world before all the apostles were dead. Men have had the opportunity to be saved and those that have not had the opportunity, they will be judged possibly on a different standard, but the real problem isn't that man doesn't have the opportunity.

The real problem isn't that man can't believe it. The real problem is that men harden their hearts against it.

Well, it has just been said that these are passages that are hyperbole. Let me see if this is hyperbole.

There is none righteous, not even one. There is none who understands. There is none who seeks for God. All have turned aside.

Together they have become useless. There is none who does good. There is not even one. Their throat is an open grave. With their tongues they keep deceiving.

The poison of asps is under their lips, whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood.

The structure and misery are in their paths, and the path of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.

I don't think that's hyperbole. They're all murderers. Dr. White, why did

Jesus weep over Jerusalem and their rejection of him? I can't read this word here.

If he and his father chose not to open their eyes, Jesus said, I would have gathered you, but you would not.

Matthew chapter 23, verse 37, specifically says, if I can find the quotation here.

I thought for sure I had it in here. Here it is.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who killed the prophets and stoned those sent to you. How often have you gathered your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

The you were not willing is Jerusalem, the Jerusalem that killed the prophets and stoned the ones sent to her.

Her chicks were the ones that God and Christ desired to gather, but you, the

Jewish leaders, were not willing. The willing part is the Jewish leaders who were under the judgment of God, the ones that God desired to gather, but desired to gather, but you, the

Jewish leaders, were not willing.

You, the Jewish leaders, You, the

Jewish leaders, You, the Jewish leaders, You, the Jewish leaders, were not willing.

But we were entitled to this benefit for the Jesus of Nazareth, for judgment of the for the sake of the the means of You, the

Jewish leaders, We, the Jewish leaders, However, in the

Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to leave their respective towns, cities, and villages, to go to Jerusalem at appointed times and seasons, and he told them not to worry about their enemies invading their vacant territories, because he would cause their enemies not to desire their land during those times.

How can it be said that they had free will? Because God can look through the future and he can use their free will choices to cause his plan to come into being.

That is a good illustration, that's exactly the point. God has the knowledge to look down at all the contingencies and to step in, not decreeing every single event, but time from time, to place them in situations where he knew they would make decisions which would lead them to not invade.

But that doesn't mean that he forced them to not invade, they still made the free will choice.

And then secondly, I'm not exactly sure that that has anything to do with the salvation picture anyway, because God can force people to do all sorts of things.

The question is not whether God forces people to do things or not do things, the question is, does God force men to spend one place or another place for eternity?

Dr. Wayne? I think the passage does make it very clear that God has the ability to actually control the very desires of men.

And he does this in Isaiah chapter 10 with Assyria, when he brings Assyria against Israel to punish Israel, and then holds

Assyria accountable for their sins. He does this with Joseph Brothers, he does this with Abimelech.

Over and over again, this idea of an autonomous free will, the phrase free will, as it's been used tonight, never occurs in the

Bible. Not anywhere. You have free will offerings, and that's all you've got. You don't have any statement of an autonomous, creaturely will in all of scripture.

The words aren't there. The final question of the evening. If God commands all men everywhere to repent, and if God desires all men to be saved, and if God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, how can we say that God chooses some and rejects others without their having any choice, when we see he wants all to be saved?

The questioner has misinterpreted 2 Peter 3 .9 and 1 Timothy 2 .4. Since I've already given you explanations of both,

I would direct you to Potter's freedom and his entire chapter in Matthew 23 .37 and those two passages.

But I'll again summarize. 2 Peter 3 .9 says God is patient toward you, wishing for all to come to repentance.

That's the all of you. Who is the you? Look at the context you discover. Besides that, it's not even talking about salvation in that passage anyways.

In regards, it's talking about the parousia of Christ. Why has the coming of Christ been delayed? 1

Timothy 2 .4, as I already explained, is talking about kings and those in authority, all kinds of men, and so there is an assumption that's been made in both of those.

Those assumptions are challenged and they have to be challenged in the light of the clear teaching of Scripture in Ephesians 1,

John 6, Romans 8 and 9, 1 Timothy 2, 2 Thessalonians 2 .13, Acts 13 .48,

all these passages that we've seen over and over again that affirm both the deadness of man and sin and the electing grace of God and choosing his people.

Actually, I'm not sure why we wouldn't believe that 2 Peter 3 .9 doesn't refer to salvation when

God doesn't wish for any to perish. The truth of the matter is, really, 1

Timothy 2 .4 was never answered. Somehow it was given the idea that different classes of men, but once again it says all men.

It doesn't say all classes of men, it says all men. You look at God through history and God certainly has dealt out judgments to different people, but only dealt out judgments to different people in the sense that they ask for it, so to speak.

God has always wanted men to be saved and there have been many, many examples through the

Scriptures that God, as far as the limits that he allowed himself, did what he could to try to lead men to salvation and they still rejected him.

From Cain, clear to the nations that hear the gospel in the book of Revelation, God really is a

God that wants us all to be saved. I would close with that, that I really want us all to understand that, not just some of us, but every single one of us.

Professor Moore, will you conclude the evening? Well, how many of you were at the debate we had here three years ago?

Would you not agree that the spirit of this debate was more in line with the spirit of Christ and that the participants both voiced their opinions tonight in a very articulate way, but also in a very

Christ -like way. Gentlemen, I thank you very much for that. Let's stand at this time to be dismissed and let me remind you once again that James White will be preaching here tomorrow night at 7 .30

and nursery will be provided and he will be preaching on the subject that we covered tonight, that of biblical predestination from a

Calvinistic point of view. Let's bow our heads in a word of prayer and give

God thanks for the time that we had together. Father in heaven, we bow before you and we thank you for your word, the

Bible. We thank you, Lord, that tonight we can agree that this is the sure and final word that you have given us.

Lord, as we wrestle with these texts and wrestle with these scriptures and with these doctrines, we are dependent upon your

Holy Spirit to enlighten us and to show us and to lead us in the ways of truth. Father, I thank you for these two men tonight.

I thank you for their study. I thank you for their love for you. I thank you, Lord, for the commitment which they personally have for you.

Lord, as we leave here tonight and as we leave with differing opinions, Father, I thank you,

Lord, that we leave also with an understanding of the other side and the position of the people on the other side.

Lord, I thank you we leave in a good spirit. Lord, I'd ask that you would protect us now as we go home and that you would bless us as we take