Calvinism vs Arminianism, Part 1

Let me begin by telling you a little bit about Steve for some of Dr. James White's listeners Steve is a lifelong

Bible teacher anyone that knows him knows that knows the word Well, he is the founder of the Great Commission School teaches all over the world with youth with a mission or YWAM He's the author of Revelation four views and most notably.

He is the host of the narrow path So Steve, we're excited to hear what you have to say today and also Joining, of course as you know as dr.

James White Dr. James White is the director of Alpha and Omega ministries out of Phoenix, Arizona.

It is an apologetics oriented ministry Dr. White is a frequent debater, especially with Roman Catholics and most recently with Muslim apologists

He's the author of many books perhaps most relevant to this discussion the Potter's freedom He is also the elder of Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church or one of the elders there

He's married has two children and as a professor at Golden Gate Theological Seminary our format today

Well time permitting allow both men to have approximately 12 minute sessions They can either present as they wish or for rebuttals or questions to the other

So with that, let's get right to it Steve you have the first 12 minute session I don't know if I'm taking the

Arminian position or simply the non -Calvinist position My opinion is that the position that I take is

What most people would take if they're not trained in theology as I am not and it may be what

I would call the default Position until somebody trains you to believe that Calvinism is true

I believe that if you simply read the Bible you get the impression that God Operates in a certain way in his creation and in redemption and that man operates a certain way

The views I hold are pretty much the views that were held by the church from the end of the Apostolic Age until the time of Augustine and in the 5th century

Augustine introduced ideas that we now call Calvinism I hope you're familiar with them because I don't have time to go through the five points right now

We will have five days together to talk about various things I'd like to just suggest that my main points of difference that I want to talk about between my own view and the

Calvinist view Would be on the area of what does it mean to say that God is sovereign first of all and secondly?

What is the condition of man in his natural state? And I will state what I believe the

Calvinist view to be on that so that I can tell you why I don't believe it the Calvinist view

Takes the view of God's sovereignty that suggests that God ordains all things that occur.

This is what Calvin said This is what Calvinists usually say. I'm not sure exactly in what way Dr. White will prefer to state the view that he holds on that but generally speaking

The idea is that God ordains everything that happens There's nothing that happens outside of God's ordination

There are Calvinists that I have talked to before and their books I've read that have said there's not such a thing as a single renegade

Molecule that every molecule in the universe is being directed by God in its course of course scriptures are used like you know

Not a sparrow falls to the ground apart from the will of your father the hairs of your head are numbered that give a

Give us the idea in Scripture that God is paying attention to the minute details of things in life and the

Calvinist view then is That nothing happens except what God ordains to happen at least that was

Calvin's view not all Calvinists say it quite the same way My understanding is that God does not ordain all things that happen at least not in any direct sense

God allows certain things to happen This is a this is a position that Calvin did not allow

Calvin said that it's a cop -out Basically to say that God permits things to happen

Calvin said that God actually ordains everything that happened And they are infallibly going to happen because God ordained them before the foundation of the world or whenever it was that he ordained them

I don't believe the Bible teaches that I don't believe the Bible presents that view of the sovereignty of God if it does

Then Calvinism has as its upshot the whole impact of that doctrine on man's salvation

Which would be that a man is going to be saved or lost as? God decided before he was ever born that he should be saved or lost now

Armenians also believe that God knows Beforehand who will be saved or lost?

But Armenians have always said that God ordained that those that he knew would believe that they would be saved

He foreknew they believe and therefore he drank or day may be saved And he foreknew who would not believe and therefore he ordained they'd be lost the

Calvinist view however is of an unconditional Choice on God's part God did not see that some would believe and choose them for that reason

But God just chose some without any reference to anything that he saw in them at all

Therefore it was strictly a unilateral choice on God's part to save some and not to save all

Now this doctrine. I believe does not square with what we read in the scripture for the most part

I do believe there are some verses that of course there are that's why Calvinists are there There are some verses that have a rather Calvinist sound to them

I think they need to be examined more closely in the context of Scripture But in general the

Bible seems to indicate that God does not ordain all things that people have a choice in the matter that a person can be a believer or not a believer as as they wish and What's more that there are things that people decide that are actually a great disappointment to God and God complains about this which we would

Not expect him to do if he had ordained it to happen God's continually complaining in the Old Testament especially and through the prophets about how badly people have turned out which

Gives the very strong impression that God did not determine that they should turn out this badly He's actually disappointed with it, and this is the impression you get

That's why I called my position a default position until someone teaches you that God ordains everything you get the impression from hundreds of places in Scripture that God is not ordaining everything that he's unhappy with many things that go on and That he's making offers to people that he wants them to accept

But they do not that he makes promises that are conditional, but they don't meet the conditions And so this is the impression that the

Bible gives Everywhere that God does not ordain everything that happens although Calvinism says it does of course the upshot for that for the issue of salvation

Is if God does ordain everything? Well, then God is the one who decides whether you or I will be saved and that was decided before any of us were born

Now I know many people think even people who are not strictly Calvinist think well doesn't the Bible say that doesn't the

Bible say he chose Who would be saved well? We'll have to look at specific scriptures to know if that's what the Bible says or not

I personally don't believe that the Bible teaches that God Ordained certain individuals to be saved and ordained certain people to be lost and that's just the way they're fated to be

If you believed according to Calvin's because God determined that you would believe you couldn't do anything else

But believe because you were selected by God for that destiny if you don't believe Again, it was not your choice.

It was God's choice. God determined everything and therefore you had no choice in the matter at all You're going to be damned because God chose for you to be damned.

That was his choice He could have saved you but he chose not to That's how I understand the Calvinist view of sovereignty, and I don't believe the

Bible teaches it now. I also on the view of man one of the main points and basically the foundation of the five points of Calvinism is something called total depravity and Total depravity as is taught in Calvinism teaches that man in his natural state at birth is

So in bondage to sin so dead in sin so incapable of making any response to God That in our natural state, there's nothing we can do to Approach God or even to really want to approach

God that our hearts are strictly hostile to God from birth That we hate God and we hate his laws all people do says

Calvinism because of that hatred, of course, we are incapable of Wanting to repent or wanting to believe or wanting to glorify

God. This is just not what we're wired for We're wired for sin and the desire to Please God the desire to even be saved the desire to repent is not something that will occur to us at all in our natural

State because we're too much at enmity with these ideas in our natural state. That's called total depravity

I don't believe the Bible teaches that what I do believe the Bible teaches is that all people are sinners and all people are lost and all people are

Enslaved to sin and need to be set free by God, but I don't find anything in Scripture That tells me that they can't want to be free.

I don't find anything in Scripture that says they cannot believe that they cannot choose to believe now, of course, the

Bible doesn't use the term choose to believe and Obviously one of the discussions that Calvinist and non -Calvinist have is is believing a work.

Is it not a work? Is it something that is meritorious if a person believes and God didn't make him do it?

Does that person get credit for his salvation because he believed can he boast about that? Paul said the answer is no

Paul said that if we're saved on the basis of our works We could boast but if we're saved on the basis of our faith, we can't he said boasting is excluded from that statement

So the non -Calvinist believes that a man is saved by believing why does he believe?

Well, maybe for any number of reasons, but he believes and that is his choice He believes or he chooses not to believe this is not a matter of boasting because believing is not a meritorious work

This is just a matter of putting the ultimate decision of whether one will be in relationship with God After God has already made his overtures.

It puts the final decision in the camp of man Some would say this it calls it a man -centered

Theology is not a man -centered theology. It's all about God, but it does allow man a vote It does allow man a right to decide whether he's going to be involved with God or not

And that's a view that is contrary to Calvinism and which I believe is implied throughout the scriptures

That a person is held responsible for whether they believe or not That would suggest that they had the ability to believe or not because if they're held responsible

They must be the actor who incurred responsibility by their action And it's not

God who decides if I will believe or not or else He is the actor and it is his responsibility then and if there's any penalties to be had

They'd be incurred by the person who's the actor who did the thing culpable So basically it's the view of God's sovereignty and how he rules and the view of man's condition before he's saved

That I disagree with most strenuously and I think are the main core of the differences that Calvinists have with Arminians All right.

Thank you Steve. Nice opening. Dr. White. It's your turn for 12 minutes Okay. Thank you very much.

It is my privilege to be with you today I'm hoping possibly the next segment that Steve would give us a positive presentation of his own perspective

I'm going to try to pretty much stay focused upon a positive presentation of my own in this brief period of time

It I've agreed completely that the two issues the two primary issues that were raised just now

Are the key issues that we'll keep coming back to over and over again. That is is God free in the matter of salvation?

Does God have the freedom to create in such a way that he is going to bring glorification to himself?

Through the redemption of a particular people in Christ Jesus and that he can do so perfectly he can do so To his own glory without possibility of failure without frustration

Does God have that kind of kingly freedom and as a part of that?

Is it true that man is a slave of sin? That he is dead in sin the enemy of God all phrases used

Biblically of the state of man in sin that he is a rebel sinner Undeserving of even the first bit of God's mercy and grace and yet despite his constant suppression of the knowledge of God that is descriptive of Mankind's very nature that God shows mercy and grace undeservedly to a large number of people called the elect

So that they are as the sand of the sea that men from every tribe tongue people and nation will surround the throne

Having once been God haters now having been changed by the grace of God through the work of the

Holy Spirit Into those who love and bow the knee willingly before God can God do this to his own honor and glory?

Or do we have some other message in Scripture? I am going to want to focus upon the fact that I am coming from a position.

It's a very well -known position It's a well -documented position I'm an elder in a Reformed Baptist Church, and so the 1689

London Baptist confession of faith Westminster confession of faith Savoy Declaration other documents such as this will reflect my understanding of the teaching of Scripture that God Is eternal that God is unchanging and that he has a decree he is the creator of all things including time itself

He is not limited by time and since he has created all things And I would submit that either all things have a purpose coming from his sovereign decree or things do not either

God knows the future and the past because he's the creator of all things and Therefore has perfect knowledge of these things or God passively takes knowledge in and that leaves open wide doors

To such issues as open theism now. I have read some of mr. Greg's materials and I have before me his statement

He does not feel it open theism really is a major issue that it does not endanger any central

Christian doctrines I come from the position that open theism is a heresy that it denies fundamentally the very nature of God And if we need to get into the biblical text that address that then we can do so so I would like to go to the scriptures because fundamentally

I am a Calvinist because I Am first and foremost

Dedicated to the exegesis of the text of Scripture and as I engage in apologetics with a wide variety of individuals in just a matter of days debating

Sheikh Jalal Abdu 'l -Rub over in the Fullerton, California on the deity of Christ I will purposefully use the same methods of exegesis in that debate with a

Muslim Sheikh That I will use in this debate on the subject of the freedom of God We must use the same kind of exegesis we must be consistent in our argumentation

That is why I am reformed and so when we look at the issue of the sovereignty of God over his creation

We know that Psalm 135 6 says whatever Yahweh pleases he does in heaven and earth in the seas and in all deeps

This is just the opposite of what we have of man man does not do just what he pleases in fact the contrast is drawn out

Psalm 33 we read let all the earth fear Yahweh lull the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him for he spoke and it was

Done he commanded it stood fast Yahweh nullifies the counsel of the nations

He frustrates the plans of the people the counsel of Yahweh stands forever the plans of his heart from generation to generation that is never said of mankind, but it is said of God when he compares himself to the false gods in Isaiah 46

It says remember the former things long past for I am God and there is no other I am God There is no one like me declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times

Things which have not been done saying my purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all my good pleasure

Please note the God's ability to give prophecies his ability to explain the very events of history

Not just what's going to happen in the future though He does know this and he knows it perfectly And I would like to ask anyone who does not believe that God has a sovereign decree how it is that God can know this

And and know it with certainty But notice the connection between his sovereign purpose his good pleasure

Being established and what is going to happen both in the future and what has happened in the past Explaining why history has unfolded the way that history has this is part and parcel of God's sovereign decree

This also comes out in Isaiah 41 present your case He always says bring forth your strong argument the

King of Jacob says let them bring forth and declare to us What is going to take place as for the former events declare what they were that we may consider them and know their outcome

Please notice God challenges the false gods to explain history to explain why things happen in history if things happened without Purpose in this world if mankind is out there as a as a libertarian creature

Creating new realities that have no purposes then how can God make this this challenge to the false gods to explain?

What took place in history and why it happened it goes on to say or announce to us?

What is coming declare the things are going to come afterward that we may know that you are gods indeed do good or evil

That we may anxiously look about us and fear together It is a part of the description of the true

God of the Bible that he has this kind of authority He has this kind of power that is why the

Proverbs writer could say the king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of Yahweh he turns it wherever he wishes and even the pagan king

Nebuchadnezzar after God had taken his reason away from him when his Reason returned to him he says in Daniel 4

I bless the Most High and praise and honor him who lives forever For his dominion is an everlasting dominion and 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 host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth and No one can ward off his hand or say to him.

What have you done? This does not sound to me Like a God who in his eternal purposes is frustrated who desires to do something, but does not accomplish these things

I think we need to look at the fullness of what scripture presents here Same thing in Isaiah 29 16

Where we have you turn things upside down as if the potter were thought to be like the clay Shall what is formed say to him who formed it?

He did not make me can the pot save the potter he knows nothing we are the pots and God is the potter

He is sovereign over the work of his hands as in Isaiah 45 9

Woe to the one who quarrels with his maker an earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth will the clay save the potter

What are you doing or the thing you are making to say he has no hand of course? This is the very concept that has been picked up in Romans chapter 9 when the

Apostle Paul addresses the very objections that will be raised to his gospel of God's sovereign freedom and salvation

That we have laid out for us in Romans chapter 8 then in Romans chapter 9 He then answers those objections especially based upon the unbelief of the

Jews and Demonstrates the freedom of God in salvation and uses these very same kinds of categories in establishing that very thing and so the sovereignty of God in salvation is simply an outflow of a positive and recognition of the sovereignty of God in all of creation if we if we view

God as Being limited in his knowledge limited to time limited in some fashion

Then we will have no basis upon which to build the very high doctrine of God's sovereignty and God's salvation in Jesus Christ being a perfect work that he presents to us and so in a brief amount of time

I have left I would just direct people to the outworking of this is going to come up a number of times in our discussion

I'm sure and that is the Bible presents to us the the outworking the the

Interface between God's sovereign decree and man's responsibility Yes, God holds man accountable.

We know for example in Genesis chapter 50 That's when Joseph and his brothers after Jacob has died

Joseph's brothers come to him expecting for certain That that he is going to wreak havoc upon them and instead

Joseph's response to them says do not be afraid for am I in God's place as for you you meant evil against me

But God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result to preserve many people alive

So therefore do not be afraid I will provide for you and your little ones so he comforted them and spoke kindly to them

Genesis 50 19 through 21 now Please note that in the

Hebrew language there is a direct parallel found in Genesis 50 20 You meant evil against me

God meant it for good Using the very same Hebrew term you have here one action.

What was that action that action involved? numerous Violations of God's moral law it involved lying to Jacob it involved deceit it involved selling into slavery

It was an evil thing to sell your own flesh and blood into slavery and in fact to hope for his death this was an evil act and No one is saying that the brothers were innocent of this act and yet Joseph recognizes that that one act is clearly and plainly a part of the sovereign purpose of God in fact

Notice what he says God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result to preserve many people alive

If it can be God's eternal purpose To keep these people alive to keep the promises to Abraham going

To bring a people down to Egypt and to bring them out and to demonstrate his power over the gods of Egypt and all these

Other things God has to be sovereign But it does not change the fact that Joseph and his brothers are held accountable for doing what their hearts

Desired the Genesis 50 is not the only place that clearly presents to us this interface this

Connection between God's sovereign purpose and the responsibility of man it is there for us in the very text of Scripture and When I have some more opportunity in the next section

I would like to look at some other texts that likewise lay that out and Then pursue what the Bible does say concerning the fallen nature of man and the man is the enemy of God that he is enslaved to those things and as Jesus said

He who commits sin is the slave of sin and slaves may want freedom, but they cannot bring about their own freedom

And therefore the two foundations of this particular issue Come to fruition in those texts, but my time has expired and so I turn it over to Paul Thank You dr.

White very good. Yes, 11 minutes 50 seconds. You're obviously a pro at this Steve Now your turn for the second half your second 12 minutes

All right, yeah, thank you dr. White for that I dr. White gave a very good I guess defense for the prerogatives of God in that he was not stating anything

That's distinctively Calvinistic although he did make distinctively Calvinistic Applications of it the scriptures he gave certainly are not distinctively

Calvinistic because the scriptures He gave tell us that the counsel of the Lord stands forever Whatever the

Lord pleases he does he says nevertheless the Lord's counsel that will stand God says

I work and who will reverse it. I make peace and calamity my counsel shall stand

I shall do all my pleasure etc. All of these things are True in whether whether Calvinism is true or not

Calvinism and let's just say Arminianism They do not differ from one another in deciding whether God has prerogatives or not whether God can do whatever he wants or not

Whether God does what he wants or not Calvinism and Arminianism both agree about that That's the doctrine of the sovereignty of God's that God has the right to do whatever he wants and he ends up doing whatever he

Most wants to do the question is what is his counsel? What is his purpose? What is it that he wants to do and there's where the

Calvinist and the Arminian disagree with one another? The Calvinist believes that what God wants to do is to show his glory

By saving a remnant of humanity and by damning the rest and showing his glory in in his grace and in his judgment

The Arminian thinks that God wants to show his glory in Offering salvation to all people and he desires all men to be saved but he does not desire to force that upon people because salvation is

Itself a relationship with God and relationships are not of much worth if they are forced if a person is forced to be in relation with someone they don't want to be in relationship with or did not previously want to Be and they were made to that's not the same thing as a relationship

It's not the kind of relationship God's looking for with his people So says at least the Arminian you see the

Arminian and the Calvinist both agree that God has the right to do and does do Whatever he prefers to do whatever conforms with his purpose in his plan

It's just that the Arminian believes that part of God's purpose and plan is to leave some of the decisions about a man's individual destiny to that man to make and The question of whether he'll have a relationship with God or not

God plans and purposes to leave that up to man Why do I believe that well, I believe that because the

Bible indicates that God desires all men to be saved So if not, all men are saved and God wants it to happen

There must be more than one will in the universe and there must be things happen that aren't what God would prefer

Now even of course Calvinists say that God has two wills and there's a sense in which that's true.

The difference is that The Calvinist believes that God wills to glorify himself in the damnation of many people

The Arminian believes that God wants to glorify himself in the salvation of as many as will receive him the main difference between the

Calvinist Arminian in this respect is Is one not again of whether God has prerogatives whether God's sovereign whether God has these privileges or not or the power?

Arminians agree with all those things The difference is whether God loves everybody or not and in that respect the

Calvinist emphasizes God's Privileges and his prerogatives and the Arminian Emphasizes God's love and both

Calvinist Arminians. I have found do want to glorify God Although James White and some other

Calvinists have indicated that Arminians believe what they do because they practically worship human free will I have never met an

Arminian who worshipped or was particularly obsessed with human free will But all Arminians believe there is such a thing as free will

But what the Calvinist and the Arminian both are interested in is the same thing Namely that God be glorified and that he be represented as he really is

The difference is the Calvinist thinks that God is most glorified by emphasizing his his divine rule

By emphasizing his divine prerogatives and privileges. Well Arminians believe in all that too

But Calvinist don't believe that God loves all people in a saving way Some Calvinists say that God loves all people in one way or another

But not all the same way and some Calvinists say there's some people God just doesn't love He loved

Jacob and hated Esau. He just didn't love Esau the Arminian believes that God loves everybody and that God desires all to be saved and therefore the

Arminian emphasis on God's character is Focus on his love and the

Arminian does that without denying any sense God's sovereignty again? To the Calvinist the word sovereignty means that the person who is sovereign

Meticulously controls every detail, but that's not what the word sovereignty means a king is a sovereign

He may or may not meticulously control everything that's in his power to control But he's sovereign because he has the right to do what he wants to do

The Calvinist I think does not grant God all the rights Dr. White frames this debate as one of God's freedom

In fact his book the potter's freedom makes his whole case for Calvinism arguing that only

Calvinism makes God truly free No Arminians believe that God's free to do whatever he wants to do

But Arminians just believe that God doesn't do all the things Calvinists say he does It's not a question of what can

God do or is God free to do everything the question is what has God actually said that? he does and the

Arminian believes that God gives people the opportunity to believe and repent or not as They choose and then he judges accordingly because their choices

That is a difference certainly but the point is that God's love is the focus of the

Arminians position, and they think that God is more glorified by Emphasizing God's love

I think most men would agree It's more of a flattery for a wife to say to her husband or to someone else about her husband my husband really loves me

In fact he loves the children in fact he loves the neighbors. He's a very loving man That's more glorifying to the husband than for her to tell people he controls everything there's nothing wrong with God controlling everything

But the question is what kind of a person is he? Those who are not Calvinist believe that God is more interested in us knowing what kind of a person

He is then what kind of a being he is and that's why I'm not as concerned about openness theology as some people are

Because openness people are not certain whether God knows all future things or not because they're not sure whether the

Bible says he does Calvinists and others are many of us believe that God does know all things and that he has said so But that's just a matter of how much

God knows I don't know that God is as concerned that we know how much he knows as how much he loves

That's just a difference in perspective the Calvinist thinks that defending God's prerogatives is how you glorify

God The Armenian says God has all the prerogatives But we need to defend the fact that he's a loving

God and he's not a God who has chosen To simply damn people who never had any opportunity to do other anything other than be damned.

So that's the main difference I would think we need to emphasize here Dr. Wright did not in that presentation exegete any passages.

Of course. I'm not claiming that I have either neither of us have exegeted any passages He just listed passages and he did so with giving the impression that this list proves the

Calvinist point What I'm saying is anyone can list passages until we look at what they actually say and don't say we won't know

Whether they support the Calvinist point or not. He gave this story of Joseph's brothers Selling him into captivity and pointed out that Joseph said in Genesis 15 verse

I think of verse 20 He said to his brothers you intended it for evil God meant it for good Okay, God didn't mean for Joseph to go to Egypt and that was for good

Now the question is did God put it in the brothers hearts to do evil or was that already there

You see that's not answered in that question. We can say for sure God did intend that Joseph go into slavery

He even intended once the brothers had decided to do this to let them do it God can let sinners do what he they want to do if he wants to that doesn't mean that he

Put it in their hearts or that he ordained that they would sin Joseph's brothers hated him before God ever intervened in that situation

I think they're probably lots since they would like to kill him But God never let them but God intended for Joseph to go to Egypt so he could save his people ultimately

Therefore God did not interfere when the brothers made this particular plot We have a similar situation with Jesus being delivered to the hands of the

Jews God intended for him to be delivered over to their hands to Peter tells us in the book of Acts But there were many times they wanted to take him and and kill him earlier than that then

God didn't let him God allowed them to do what they wanted to do at one point because it fit his plans for that to be done

But he didn't put it in their hearts. He didn't make them have these ideas These were the ideas they had and God used them

God simply exploited them and said okay It's my intention that Joseph go into Egypt It's my intention that Jesus be crucified and here are some willing dupes

Who are planning to do something that'll bring that about so I won't interfere and I think that that's how

God does ordain history But I don't think that he does necessarily Ordain everything that happened the

Bible doesn't tell us that the scriptures that dr. White quoted don't tell us that there's a meticulous Providence only that there's in general

God does what he proposes to do. So the next question is what does God propose to do? Does he propose to save some people and damn others without them having any kind of freedom to make any choice about that Well, he might but we'd have to find out if the

Bible says that or not Because if the Bible does not say that he does that he's still free He's free whether he does that or not

He's free to do what he wants The one thing that I think Calvinists don't do is give God the freedom to create a world

Where there's such a thing as free will on the part of the creatures What if God really wanted to do that Will the

Calvinist allow him to do that or does that that's just not one of the options God is allowed to have the Arminian thinks that God is truly free to do whatever he wants to do

He could be an Arminian type of ruler or he could be a Calvinist type of ruler But our belief is that what the scripture reveals is that he rules man

Not with this kind of iron hand that makes people just submit to everything he says because they can't do other

I believe he gives them choices and then he dishes out Desserts for their choices, which is of course the way most

Kings rule God is not like most Kings but the Bible does tell us that this is pretty much what he does at least as I understand

The scripture Thank You Steve dr. White now your turn for your second 12 minutes Well, thank you very much.

I just like to say God's love is Truly only seen with biblical balance and clarity in light of God's holiness and his justice.

It is not an either -or situation It's not emphasizing God as ruler versus God as lover, but to truly understand the depth of his love

We must first understand the depth of his holiness and therefore the price that is paid for the redemption of his people

But I haven't even gotten to that point yet. We're still looking at just simply the sovereignty of God's nature for a biblical perspective

I want to go back to what was just said about 50 and I would invite people to look at the text what we were just told in Essence is that God is dependent upon and this was

Steve's term dupes To come along and fit into his plan, I guess if the dupes don't come along then he can't do his plan

That's not what Genesis 50 we had Again, this is being recorded, but I'd ask people to go back and listen carefully to the number of different words

God permitted God allowed God let this fit into his plan That's not what

Genesis 50 says Genesis 50 said you intended it for evil God intended for good for a certain purpose the purpose was to save people alive

God is not dependent upon sinners coming along and happening to have the right plan to fit into his plan

His plan is to take the people to Egypt. His plan is to do it in a particular way Given that there are time frames in prophetic utterances in Scripture.

It cannot be that God just goes Well, I generally won't put my people down Egypt Let's see if I have some dupes who come along who have the proper attitude that I can fit them into my plan

That's not what Genesis 50 says and references made to the text I was going to be going to in Acts chapter 4 where the early church once they experienced persecution

Praying in in prayer to God say for truly in the city There were gathered together against your holy servant

Jesus whom you anointed both Herod and Pontius Pilate Along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel to do whatever your hand and your purpose predestined to occur and Now Lord take no other threats and grant that your bond servants may speak your word with all confidence

While you extend your hand to heal and find the wonders take place in the name of your holy servant Jesus This is

God's predestination this is his determination that He wasn't just looking for Dukes to come along in the form of the

Romans and the Gentiles and Pontius Pilate and Herod They did what God's hand intended to do now every single one of those men had a completely different intention in their involvement

Herod was different than Pontius Pilate who was different than the Gentiles and certainly their motivations were very different than those of the leaders of the people of Israel and Yet this was what

God had intended at the right time That was the time it was to happen it was to happen there in Jerusalem not a year before not a year later his time was fixed from the time that he was born and So it is not as if God is looking for somebody to fit into his plans

And he could have these this take place at some other point in time. It's similar to when when

Paul is is struck down on the road to Damascus And he is converted that time

I believe I have heard and I don't know if Steve still hold this perspective He he believes Paul could have said no

Paul could have resisted at that point in time and then what got what's God going to do now? He has all these plans

He has all these people who want to get saved all these churches to found and now he's got to keep moving his plan back because his plan is dependent upon the synergistic cooperation of The creatures and there simply isn't any basis for looking at Genesis 50 or Acts chapter 4

And coming to that kind of a conclusion, and I would just simply add in just briefly in passing

Maybe we'll get chance to maybe not but look at Isaiah chapter 10 verses 12 through 17. There is another tremendous text

Presenting the compatibilistic perspective that God has a sovereign decree that is a certain decree it takes place at a certain time

It is not simply a plan that's malleable that he fits different people into if one says yes great if one says no

It'll find somebody else That's not what you find in the prophetic utterances of the

God of Israel in the Old or in the New Testament And so with that in mind then

I do want to find some opportunity To look just a little bit at what we have in the scriptures in regards to the nature of man

That is does the Bible tell us that man is truly depraved that he is the enemy of God and that in fact that good

Which we see in the unregenerate man is God's common grace extended to him That in fact if it were not for God restraining the sinfulness of man

That the result of course would be the unrestrained exercise of evil

But that God does restrain the evil of men that he has that power and ability

And in fact it is rather interesting to me that we do find places where God Restrains men keeps men from sinning in Scripture, and I don't know how a libertarian free will can be explained if God keeps men from sinning

Or the many passages where he hardens men so that they resist Even the message of repentance.

This is the very substance of Isaiah's commissioning as a prophet is that he is to go and he is to deliver a

Message, but God says I am going to harden the people's hearts and ears so that they will not do so for it is my intention to bring judgment upon These people and so this is found in Scripture But the the number of texts in the

Bible that speak of this are are Overwhelming we know that back in Genesis 6

That Yahweh saw the wickedness of man was great on the earth and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only

Evil Continually we see in Genesis 8 21 the Lord smelled the soothing aroma

Lord said to himself I will never again curse the ground account of man for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth

This is a this is he who knows the hearts of men telling us What the heart of man is all about and many centuries later

Jeremiah 13 23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spot

Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil there is something about rebellion there is something about slavery to sin that puts a person in a position of servitude to it and That then comes out in Jeremiah 17 9 the heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick who can understand it

Psalm 51 5 behold I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin my mother conceived me psalm 58 3 the wicked are estranged from the womb

These who speak lies go astray from birth It is no wonder then that you can have the tremendous text in Romans chapter 1 which we hardly have time to get into but I would assert that if we do not see that Romans 1 2 & 3 are giving us a

Universal not just a limited, but a universal description of the entire simplest of man

We will have no basis for justification by grace to faith the entirety of Paul's argument his presentation of the gospel the book of Romans is

Depend upon a recognition that while Romans 1 takes a number of texts from the

Old Testament the Concept of God's creatorship and man suppressing the knowledge of God that the

Jews would have gone Oh, yes, go get him Paul then Romans 2 comes along and says who are you?

Possessing the law but not doing a lot to think that simply by possessing it you're going to be made right before God and Then it's in that tremendous text in Romans chapter 3

That you have this this collection of texts, and it's not just well all he's talking about are especially bad people here

Because when he says they've listened to how he concludes his statement as it is written

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've become useless there is none who does good There is not even one their throat is open grave with their tongues

They keep deceiving the poison of asps the nut is under their lips Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness their feet are swift to shed blood destruction and misery in their paths and the path of peace

They have not known there is no fear of God before their eyes now I just simply have to ask is that limited by Paul's own words by his own application is that limited only to particularly bad people

No look at verse 19 now We know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law so that what?

Every mouth may be stopped and the whole world may be held accountable to God His application is he's taking these texts

He's bringing them all together Romans 1 2 & 3 and he says look Everybody Jew and Gentile all have fallen short of the glory of God all stand of this condemnation

Every mouth is closed every tongue has been stopped from wagging the head of every individual is brought down No more does this does the criminal stand before the judge saying

I'm not as bad as that one I'm not as bad as that one No The picture that is painted for us by the Apostle Paul here is of a person who stands before the judge head down accepting the authority of the judge and the righteousness of the verdict and so this is about all men and it is only until this bad news this entirety of The presentation of the sinfulness of man has been clearly presented by the

Apostle Paul that we have the Explanation of what it means that Jesus Christ is

Savior that Jesus Christ has given himself as a propitiation for sin Now it comes in but it's only a message for those who stand before God with their heads bowed in recognition of the righteousness of the condemnation that is theirs and That is why then when the

Apostle Paul gives the same kind of presentation in Ephesians chapter 2 He says and you were dead in your trespasses and sins not slightly dead not mostly dead

You were dead in your trespasses and sins trespasses and this is a spiritual thing in which you

Formally walked according the course this world according the Prince the power of the air of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience and Then it's same idea in Colossians 2 13 when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh

He made you alive together with him having forgiven us all of our transgressions Colossians 2 13

And so you have this emphasis within the context of his own presentation that comes out in Romans chapter 8

Those are according the flesh that their minds the things of the flesh But those are according the spirit the things of the spirit for the mind's on the flesh is death the mind's on the spirit

Is life and peace because the mind's down the flesh is Hostile toward God for it does not subject itself to the law of God Please notice this for it is not even able to do so and those who are in the flesh

Cannot please God now unless someone's gonna say that well what Paul's really saying there Is that while you're still in the flesh you can choose to not be in the flesh and while you're still according to the flesh

You can choose to set your mind on things of spirit While you're still in the flesh you can choose to do what is right before God you can submit yourself to the law of God That's the exact opposite of the

Understanding of the text that has been held Well, it's the only understanding that makes any sense within the context of Paul's presentation

Romans chapter 8 Which is consistent with what he said in Romans chapter 1 which is consistent with the prophetic word as well

This is a testimony of Scripture to the total depravity of man his sinfulness and hence his need of a perfect Savior, thank you

Thank You dr. White doctor I just want to thank you so much for coming on the program is a privilege to have a man of your caliber here and I'm glad you deigned to actually to to give us this time because I know you're a busy man

And I look forward to actually taking on those very scriptures. You just used with you tomorrow