Debate Teacher Reacts: Michael Brown vs. James White

But look what Brown is doing. He's not, he's not referencing scripture. He's forcing White to wrestle with a scenario that is emotionally advantageous to his position.

He wants all of us to picture a mother and a baby in hell. That's powerful for the audience because however you hash it, nobody, nobody answering

Brown is going to say something emotionally satisfying for a human being to hear. That's the bottom line. Now, what should

White do? White should. It is that time, time for a brand new

Debate Teacher Reacts video. My name is Nate. I'm the president of a Christian nonprofit organization called

Wise Disciples. Some of you are like, why is he still introducing himself to me? It's because the YouTube audience is continuing to grow.

And I'm very grateful for all of you who interact with it. Today, we're looking at James White versus Michael Brown on the issues of election, predestination and the will of God.

As I've said in the past, cross -examination is where it's at. I would often tell my students in the classroom when

I taught debate that cross -exam, that's where you get to like quickly shine or suck badly all in real time.

So we're going straight to cross -exam. Just so you know what I'm looking for in order to adjudicate during cross -exam.

Here are a few things in no particular order. Number one, who engages with their opponent's contentions better than the other guy?

All right. Contentions are those arguments that are clearly stated and defended in an opponent's opening statement.

Cross -exam is meant to engage with those specific contentions who engaged better than the other.

Number two, who engages with the scripture better? No doubt both men are going to appeal to the scripture. What I'm looking for is who is doing a better job of rightly handling the word of truth.

That's the question. Now, you might think to yourself, well, Nate, the reason why this debate is happening in the first place is because the scripture is not 100 % clear one way or the other, which is why

Christians have been going back and forth on these matters for millennia. You're not wrong. OK, you're not wrong.

That's a given. So what I'm looking for is someone who handles the word of God rightly.

They're scratching below the surface level reading of scripture. They actually don't take scripture out of context.

They handle it in a way that respects the flow of the author's thought and all of those things. And number three, who provides a more qualitative set of challenges in cross -examination?

All right. The questions that come out in cross -examination should provide real true clash.

The question should be designed to poke serious holes and reveal flaws in the presentation provided by the interlocutor in their opening statements.

Now, there's more to say about all these things, but these are the bigger pieces that I'm looking for with this kind of a debate.

All right. So let me stop talking. You know what? Just shut up, Nate. Just get into it. OK. You guys are the boss. Let's get right into it.

All right. And because we are respectful gentlemen, I will not give a four minute, 59 second question, nor will he give a four minute, 59 second answer.

So let's just start on a practical level in terms of election predestination. I'm 100 percent sure that I'm a child of God.

My sins are forgiven. If I was to die right now, I'd be in his presence. I assume you feel the same.

Therefore, since you know that in an election predestined, can you say that you know that it is absolutely impossible for you to ever fall away?

Well, you're confusing, I think, creaturely categories of knowledge. What an interesting question to start off with.

You know, in terms of the topics that are on the docket for debate, there just seem to be so many better questions to ask, like why start off with the possibility of losing your salvation unless Brown is setting a garden path for white, in which case this is a setup.

So let's find out in divine categories of knowledge. I would take infallibility and infallible knowledge as a divine category.

So in the sense that this Holy Spirit testifies to me of my sonship, as certain as a person can be at that point, given our human limitation.

Yes. But I differentiate between any kind of making my certainty the same kind of level of certainty that we have in Scripture.

Then I have as a non -Calvinist, a greater assurance than I don't believe. Well, it says we could know.

John says, I write these things that you can know. So you know you have eternal life, but you could be deceived, possibly. Remember what 1

John chapter 5 says. Well, the fact is, Mike, you and I are both old enough now to know many people who used to stand with us in the church and who made those statements to us.

And we believed them and they fell away. Yes. And so my theology allows for that. So does mine.

They went out from us so that they might be shown they were not truly of us. Right. Some, that's the case. Those are the ones that are being described.

And that's why there's warning after warning. Don't harden your heart. Exactly. And we are made partakers if we continue to the end.

So we agree on perseverance. Exactly. So you're saying you're sure, but not not God, 100 percent sure. I'm not divine.

So I have to recognize that as far as the Holy Spirit testifies to my heart. Yes. And that's in 1

John 5, by the way, it says that you may know what I wrote these things to you. What were those things?

That you love the brethren, that you walk in light. White is answering more than the question here.

You know, he he's positioning himself with the answer to to get at perhaps like where this is all really headed.

OK. And, you know, maybe these guys have talked before so they can already anticipate each other.

I'm not too familiar with White and Brown. They look like they're friends. They seem to be alluding to the fact that, you know, this has happened in the past or something like that.

I guess my point is, it looks like Brown is trying to set White up with a series of questions that presumably will lead to a humdinger of a question.

White knows this and is shaping his responses in anticipation of the humdinger. So therefore the warnings, the warnings are real to you.

Yes, they are. OK, fine, fine. That's that's important. All right. Do you agree?

Well, so that's where this was going. The warning passages of falling away. That's it.

I mean, again, predestination, election and the will of God. Perseverance of the saints.

Was that on the docket for discussion? The statement of Calvin that I read, God arranges all things by his sovereign counsel in such a way that individuals are born who are doomed from the womb to certain death and are to glorify him by their destruction.

I do. OK, so if there's a mom here, say, with her kids, she's seeking to raise them in the faith, it's possible that God could have preordained before he created the world that she will give birth to a child that will be apostate.

No matter prayer, raising him, no matter what she does, that child will be apostate and will glorify God by going to hell.

The fact of the matter is that child is born. I just had my first grandchild. That child is born as a fallen son or daughter of Adam.

And the very fact that death could possibly stalk that young child is evidence that they are already under the wrath of God and fallen in that in that state.

So to say, well, it's possible that person could be, quote unquote, one of the reprobate. That's not the term you use, but I'll utilize the more specific term.

David discovered that people have discovered that all down to the down to history. So God, God ordained that.

And that mother should rejoice then that God has given potentially given if that child dies in sin and rebellion, that she therefore says,

God, you preordained that the child you gave me was going to burn forever in hell to your glory. And that was my role.

What she rejoices at, what she rejoices in is the goodness of God that has saved her and has given her mercy and rejoiced in the fact that if she has any child that has, in fact, turned that God, by his grace, had changed their heart.

This is an excellent question. All right. It didn't start off great with Brown, but now he's he's asked a question that is posed in such a manner to be rhetorically powerful.

It is. You have a picture of a mom, a baby and an eternal torment in hell. That's powerful image.

What's noticeably absent from this discussion, though, is scripture. So, for example, the reason why James White is saying what he's saying is because probably

Romans nine, that's probably where, you know, like folks like James White get this idea from. And let's face it,

Romans nine is a difficult passage to read. You know, I've said this before, but you can't prevenience your way easily through Romans nine.

You can't provision your way easily through Romans nine. OK, but look what Brown is doing.

He's not he's not referencing scripture. He's forcing White to wrestle with a scenario that is emotionally advantageous to his position.

He wants all of us to picture a mother and a baby in hell. That's powerful for the audience, because however you hash it, nobody nobody answering

Brown is going to say something emotionally satisfying for a human being to hear. That's the bottom line. Now, what should

White do? White should quote scripture. OK, that's the best way to respond to situations like this. He should respond by reframing the discussion around scripture.

All right. Let's see what he does. Rejoice in everything God predetermined. I mean, certainly we can't be selective. And that's what God predetermined.

And then she should rejoice in it and thank God that their child that she bore was predestined for hell. But certainly, Michael, you see that the recognition of the question, the foundation of the question you're asking, destroys the distinction of not only

God's word, but our experience of God's word. That is, by saying that you're to rejoice in all things. Obviously, my rejoicing in, say, persecution that comes to me is different than my rejoicing in other aspects of my life.

But you should still rejoice. In the proper sense that, for example, not just that mercy came to others, but that damnation came to her child.

She should rejoice in the justice of God in all aspects, which includes the fact that she has been given life and forgiveness and predetermined that she would give birth to a refugee child.

She should rejoice in that also, because that's everything God does is good. There's nothing God does that's bad. Everything God does is good.

So that's what he does. He's pressing hard. You know, Brown, I think, knows that he's asked an emotionally powerful question and he wants to get all of the force out of it that he possibly can right now.

I should also rejoice in the rape of that child because God ordained it. And whatever God ordained is good. Again, you're changing the categories of what rejoicing means.

I don't think when Paul says, rejoice in all things, that he's saying that I should, when I stub my toe,

I just grab and go, oh, praise God. Oh, praise God. That's that's that's that's a ridiculous kind of understanding, but ultimately, ultimately in the death room, in the room where death has taken place, our final solace is only that God's will will be done.

When you and I can't know what the outcome is, God's will will be done. That is our solace and that is our ground of rejoicing.

Yes. Yeah. So White answered Brown and he essentially stayed within the scenario that Brown had presented.

Again, generally speaking, if someone in this kind of context presents you with an emotionally compelling scenario.

And, you know, I'm sure Calvinists do the same thing back to Arminians and Molinists. In other words, we all do this to each other at some point.

But when this happens, my advice is to reframe the discussion around scripture. Oh, Nate, you want moms to rejoice when their babies die?

Well, you know what? God's word tells every Christian to rejoice in their sufferings, no matter what the suffering, because 2

Corinthians 12 says the power of Christ rests on us in our suffering or whatever verse you use, you know, then the issue shifts from your interlocutor versus you to your interlocutor versus God's word.

Does that always play out perfectly every single time? No. But generally speaking, that's a good strategy.

OK, let's see if we could get some some clarification on a couple of those points that were brought up before. From from your perspective, was was

Romans is Romans chapter two giving us a way that a person could be made right with God? Or is it just do you not see 13 to 14 as theoretical?

It's possible to see this theoretical. It's certainly a matter of major debate. The issue is, though, that if those first ones are recipients of grace,

God has helped them to do the right thing. And that's why they're doing it. They'll be rewarded for it. In other words, throughout scripture.

What White is asking is so back in Brown's opening statement, which I encourage you all to watch the whole debate,

OK? Which, by the way, for those of you that are just watching my section of the you realize cross exam is just one segment of a greater debate.

The the battle is fought, so to speak, across all segments of a debate. The opening statements, the rebuttals, all of it goes towards actually winning a real debate.

I can only look at cross exam because you don't want a four hour video. Nobody wants. So, you know,

I encourage you all to watch the whole debate. The link is in the notes below. But Brown said in his opener that God commends people to trust and obey him.

And then he condemns those who refuse his grace. And then he brought up Romans chapter two as an example of this.

There will be tribulation and wrath for those who do evil and glory and honor and peace for those who do good. OK. And so White is asking here, is that an accurate depiction of human beings in our world?

You know, there there are those who do good and there are those who do evil. Or is

Paul setting up his readers for Romans three, you know, where he says no one does good?

No, not one. That's probably where this is going. But let's find out. Scripture, we are to demonstrate our faith by our works, by our deeds, by a changed life.

So it doesn't talk about the origin of that. It's not saying someone is righteous because they worked hard enough.

This is the reflection of their obedience to God and they're living it out. So it could be theoretical. It could also be the demonstration of one is living in obedience, the other who's not.

And it's not that God predetermined one or the other. It's that this is the expression of their faith or lack thereof. Does God give grace to every single person equally to follow after him?

That can be circumstantial. In other words, does God desire equally that everyone follows after him?

Yes, I believe the answer is. Does he give the same opportunity? There are conditions of heart. There are responses.

There are a thousand and one things God doesn't tell us. In other words, I think one of the bigger differences between us is if I see a text that says

X, Y, Z, God does this. I'm not trying to figure out how it works or how God could know this. I'm just embracing what the text says.

So it doesn't. I'm not saying you're denying the text. I'm simply saying the philosophical questions. When you asked me if I was a

Molinist, I had to look it up because I'd never used the term before. All right. Because it's not an insult, but it's just an area to say,

I see God expressing his mercy. He mercies all through the cross. And then he works with different hearts and lives.

He knows where to draw one and why one and not another. So if you're wondering whether or not

Brown answered the question, nope. You know, there is no clear answer there.

Let me expand a little bit upon that, because I think it's an important difference between us. When you say you're just trying to work with the text and seemingly implying that some somebody else in the room isn't,

I'm not sure who it might be. But isn't it true that this is not the first time this conversation has been had?

Surely. This conversation has been going on for thousands of years. Right.

Sure. So isn't it, isn't it probable? In fact, isn't it absolutely certain that you have governing presuppositions theologically, whether you identify them with a particular camp or not?

Aren't they there? Yeah, of course. Okay. So can't we examine them more clearly when we can identify them and see how people have discussed these things than just simply saying,

I'm not going to get involved. So let me explain. My presupposition is if God does not give me access to certain information,

I shouldn't try to pry and figure it out. I should. I don't have to ever figure out how he knows certain things in advance.

I don't have to. It doesn't tell me to. Simply tells me in scripture to bow down and worship him as God and to rest in that assurance and then to take at face value the other statement.

So I don't, I don't find the contradiction. I don't find the struggle with how God can foreknow without foreordaining. I know.

So Brown is definitely a Jew. Okay. You can tell. I've said it before, but Jews, especially

Jews in the first century, they're known as being men of two hands. All right. On the one hand and on the other hand.

Okay. In other words, they would find two categorical descriptions in the Bible that appear to be a tension between each other and hold them up and acknowledge them, but not seek to resolve the apparent tension between them.

They wouldn't. They would just rather say, praise God. You know, God, there is a mystery.

Uh, praise God. This is what Brown is doing. Uh, that gets a little interesting when you start thinking to yourself, wait a sec, the debate is on categories that appear to be a tension with each other.

So if Brown is not willing to resolve these tensions at least a little bit, then why did he agree to do this debate in the first place?

You know, you say the only logical Arminianism is an open theism. That's your logical conclusion.

As I look at the text, God inhabiting eternity, he's not time bound to me. He's not just trying to figure out what's going to happen here.

And then write and fix this because he transcends all of that. So, so it's mixing categories of eternity and time to me that I don't see scripture mixing.

It sounded like you were just saying, though, we can't actually answer the question as to how God knows the future outside of simply stating, well, he's somehow, he transcends time.

He transcends time, which is not a biblical phrase. Isaiah 57, 15, he inhabits eternity since time is something created and we know scientists tell us it's created.

It started at a certain point. Even science knows that. Right. So he inhabits eternity. Therefore, he transcends time.

I think it's a biblical proposition. Okay. So, so the Bible is clear enough to tell us about God's relationship to time, but we can't answer the question of when he created and he knew what was going to happen in time, how he knew that.

No, we can't. Because Bible, the Bible doesn't tell us, it does tell us so that he did not ordain everything that happens.

How about, how about the text in Isaiah 41? How can God challenge the false gods to not only tell us what's going to happen in the future, but also tell us what happened in the past that we may consider them and know their outcome?

How can he challenge the false gods to do that? If from his own perspective, he didn't know the outcome of those things because there was no purpose in it.

He did know the outcome. Who said he didn't? That's, I'm not trying to be obtuse. I honestly don't follow the question or conclusion.

Of course. Yeah, that's not a good question that White just asked. Brown just got done saying that God transcends time, which informs to some degree how he knows what will happen.

A lot of that trades on what transcend means. That's a whole separate conversation. But Brown didn't say that God doesn't know the future outcome because there's no purpose in it.

That's not what he said. That's White's characterization of Brown. That wasn't a good question. Of course, he knew the conclusion. He knew the purpose.

He knew all of it. And he decided to create a world where there would be certain freedoms because for God to accomplish his will, there had to be certain freedoms given.

So it would not be a world of automatons. For example, when you when you were just jokingly talking about Joseph and his brothers, right, that they weren't

God wasn't forcing them to do something, but they were doing what they were predestined to do. They were doing what

God made them to do. All right, my turn. Um, they were doing what God made them to do.

Yeah. But what does that mean? If God grieves when people do evil that he did not ordain, you know, which is this is what

Brown was saying. He doesn't predetermine all responses from humanity. These are a couple of I'm paraphrasing

Brown's contentions in his opening statement. Then what does it mean that God made somebody do something? That sounds awful

Calvinistic, which, by the way, it's kind of difficult because both men have missed huge opportunities to press.

Their opponent and draw out true clash. All right. But I will say right now, I think

I think Brown may have an advantage. I don't know.

I got to keep watching. But purely from his previous line of questioning regarding mom and baby and rejoicing, that was pretty powerful stuff.

But let's see what happens if salvation has nothing whatsoever to do with us. It's not based on our response or anything in us.

In other words, God didn't want to correct that. Right. God did not foreknow that I would believe or that you would humble yourself.

So salvation is purely based on God's sovereign choice and nothing that he saw in.

He saw this in James. He saw this in Michael. So he saved us. But he didn't see the same thing in someone else. We're talking about unconditional election.

Right. Unconditional election is not based upon. Isn't that somewhat of a divine flip of the coin if it's based on nothing in any human being?

It could have just as well been someone else. And in that sense, is the equivalent to a flip of the coin?

Well, I don't believe that an eternal being can flip a coin, first of all. He can't? Can he build a coin too big to flip?

Well, there's a good question. What does what does flip? I've proven my points.

But the question is, what does flipping mean in eternity? That's, you know, we can go a long ways here with this.

But my point is, an ultimate being cannot do anything that is arbitrary.

That's my first point. All right. Secondly, we are told what the basis of God's choice is in Ephesians chapter one, according to the kind intention of his will, not our will.

But it wasn't God's will. It was God's will freely to create. Could God have not created?

I don't know. But it was his will to freely create. And what he tells us in scripture is that he's chosen to do so in such a way that it's all according to the good pleasure of his will.

So that's not a that's not a flip of the coin. But it certainly shows that God is free when it comes. Mercy and grace has to be free.

He did not have to mercy me because I was somehow better than somebody else. But there's no injustice then, because he created everyone without them asking to be created, created them all damnable.

Right. In other words, he created us in such a way that the only possible destiny for all of us was damnation. Unless he chose to have mercy on some.

No, I think that that's a misrepresentation of the position we take. We believe in federal headship. We fell in Adam.

And so just as just as it is right for God to credit or impute the righteousness of Christ to us without, quote unquote, asking us, it was right for God to include us in Adam, just as it was right for Achan to be stone.

But when he but when he created the human race, he created us with a specific decree that we would all be fallen.

Well, but Adam was created. You got to remember that Adam said the fall is not something that's just simply an ancillary thing.

I understand that. But but it was by God's decree and plan. So in that sense, he created a race that would be a damned race so he could have mercy on some.

Falls. Yeah, this is always interesting when I hear this. What is the point of this kind of question against the

Calvinist? OK, God chose to create knowing that his creation would be damned.

But wait a sec. The Arminian and the Molinist must also hold to the same view. God created with complete foreknowledge that his creation would be damned.

So where is this question leading? I mean, where could this go exactly?

In Adam and that he treats right. So that's what he decreed. He created a race that would be a damned race so he could have mercy on some.

And that somehow is a sign of goodness. Yes. OK. All right.

Because can I can I expand upon? Yeah, please. Because that is what brings about the very parameters and foundation of the incarnation itself.

This is the very means by which God demonstrates his mercy and grace, which, by the way, transcend categories of mere justice, is that he enters into that human race, is treated horribly by them, restrains his power and doesn't destroy them and gives his life voluntarily as the means by which all of his elect people joined to him will have eternal life.

But you understand with my understanding of the story that grace expressed to the cross is just as great and amazing. But come back to this, then someone hears the scriptures quoted.

Yes, it's great and amazing, but I think we do need to talk about the specificity of it. That's that's fine.

It comes to each of us specifically in the knowledge that Jesus died for me specifically was actually no greater for me as a

Calvinist than Arminian because I had received such a revelation of God's goodness and love. But let me go to my last question, because I've just got a minute here again.

What makes the Arminian position any better or the Molinist position? You know, by the way,

I'm not saying why is correct at all. OK, the goal should be for all of us to truly wrestle with each view and determine where we stand based on the merits and the deficiencies of each view.

So I'm just trying to survey all the views here for a moment on this particular issue, because under White's view, as far as I understand it,

God ordained that man would sin, but God did not force man to sin, which means man freely sinned because White is not a fatalist.

As far as I understand, this leads to the curse of sin that we all find ourselves under. So White can truly say that it is

Adam's fault, you know, this curse of sin that we are under and God ordained that.

But what I'm getting at is what's the difference between God ordaining that the world he created would fall into sin and God instantiating the world that he knew would fall into sin through his foreknowledge?

Like, what is the significant difference between God's goodness in either one of those scenarios? I just I don't get the appeal to this line of questioning.

If you're going to challenge White, ask him to explain on a philosophical level how

God can ordain something in eternity past and man can still be free. Ask him to explain the logic of his own view there.

Attack any one of his contentions. I mean, White only had two contentions, essentially. Or I don't know.

Go back to the scenario about mom and the baby. You know what I mean? You could have a lot more success in other areas of questioning.

They hear Paul in the synagogue. Brothers, I'm preaching to you the forgiveness of sins through the Messiah. And then they think of Isaiah 53, 6,

Kulana Katsonta, we've all turned away and God's laid on him the iniquity of all of us.

Right. And he says, Paul, you're saying the Messiah died for my sins? You're saying the Messiah died for the sins of Israel, died for my sins?

Is that what you're saying? I can receive forgiveness through him? What do you tell that person? To which Paul would say, I'm saying the

Messiah died for everyone who will put faith in him. They will find him to be a perfect savior. He will never lose any of them because they turn in repentance and faith toward him.

But I don't find anywhere. And I would challenge you to show me anywhere in the pages or pages of scripture or whatever you call it electronically, pages of scripture where he said to someone, you do this because Christ died for you.

If you can show that to me, no one's ever been able to show that to me. Yeah. Well, the confession in Isaiah 53, 6, though, all of us have sinned.

Right. But who says that? The nation speaking, confessing. But hang on. All of us have sinned. God's laid on him the iniquity of all of us.

But I'll save your challenge for my closing statement. All right. All right. I've got to go back to what you said.

You said something and I just. It was the whole debate standing right there. You made the statement.

It's the coin flip thing. No. About about his purpose. You specifically use the term his purpose in the very same way that I have used the phrase his decree.

You use that phrase. You're there, brother. Just a step over the line. It's right here. We'll welcome you home.

But seriously, I've been home enjoying this. We're both we're both at home right now and we're having an argument in the front room.

Can we can we agree? Yes. Yes. We've chosen to do that. All right. But here's here's the question.

And God has granted you the grace, brother. So anyway, we could do this all night. I bet they could.

We could travel around the country and do the Armenian Calvinist show. But here's the question. When we talk about his purpose, does he have a specific purpose in the salvation of an individual person?

Let me make the general application. You said that he knows who is going to the terminology used was in your rebuttal.

He says it's not a nameless faceless because he foresees who is going to believe in him. Right. OK.

You say Christ dies, that person, even though God foresees that he's ever going to believe. Right. Yes.

OK. That's how he has mercy on all. Exactly. OK. So he's had mercy on all by actually removing the penalty due to their sin, paying for it.

And if they'll receive it, it's removed. In other words, the debt has been paid. Will it be received or not? OK. So when they don't, then

Jesus pays the penalty and then they pay the same penalty the second time. They reject it. They suffer for rejecting.

They suffer for rejecting him. They suffer for rejecting God's mercy. So the only thing people are in hell for in the future is for rejecting

Jesus, not for their own sins. No, the payment for their sins has been rejected. But the payment was paid by Jesus.

Yes. If received. It's only actualized by faith. It's actualized by faith. But his wrath fell upon Jesus.

What is the purpose of the wrath that's going to fall upon the person in hell because that wrath has already been spent on Jesus?

Well, the greatest sin they've committed is rejecting God's mercy as expressed in the cross. So unbelief is not taken care of in the cross.

Unbelief, if rejected, is here. I mean, we could go around on that one. But let me go back to this phrase you used, his purpose.

Yeah. Does God, what is God's purpose? For every person in light of his foreknowledge that there are going to be some who are going to accept and some who are not.

Okay. Very simply. God desired to create a world, all right, a world in which in his foreknowledge knew it involved suffering, pain, sin, all of which would bring a glorious outcome.

All right. That's the first thing. Second thing, it required certain freedom of human beings so that, as C .S.

Lewis said, there wouldn't be a world of automatons. And as I would say, that love is not coerced. You wouldn't use the word coerced, but it's not coerced.

But I'm using that word. So he creates this world in which he will now have a people who, when offered mercy and grace, will freely receive it.

Did he predetermine the number of that people? No. Did he predetermine that you and I will get in and these three will not get in?

No. He predetermined that there would be a company of people and he foresaw exactly who they would be.

Okay. So he foresaw who they would be. So from the point of creation, there can be no fewer or no more than what he foresaw.

He foresaw it based on what would happen. Yes. So the number is fixed from eternity? No. It's foreknown.

So did he come to know that? When he created, he knew what the outcome would be.

Right. And within that, it was based on free choices. That's our sovereign God. Okay. I understand that.

But the point is, and I think everybody's hearing the point, this is where I think open theism is the consistent

Arminianism. Because you just said God foreknew exactly how many were going to be saved.

Yes. But not from eternity? So he learned that at some point? He foreknew it from eternity, but he didn't predetermine the results.

Okay. So there are things that exist. I mean, it's a strange thing for us to be missing it because it's so simple to me.

I'm not missing it. Believe me, I understand what you're saying. Okay. But there are things that exist that are not a part of God's creative decree then.

His creative decree is the way you're defining it. I see nowhere in scripture where God decreed that all the following events will happen and people will make all the following choices and these will be in heaven, these will be in hell.

I see no such decree referred to anywhere in scripture on any level. That to me is a reading something into the text beyond what he decrees is going to act with justice and mercy and so on.

But when God decreed, when did he gain knowledge of who would be saved?

From eternity. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. That was good.

That was solid. Out of all of the cross -exam segments there, that was the best.

That was the best example of cross -exam from White. It was right there. And here's what White is doing.

He's basically trying to get Brown to explain how his view logically works.

Just explain it. Because there's a potential problem with your view. If you cannot explain the logic of it, this is what

White is suggesting implicitly to Brown. There's a problem here because it commits you to problematic and unbiblical views of God.

And that's why it's imperative that Brown at least attempt to put words to give clear explanations for his view.

But that's not what he's doing. He speaks ambiguously, probably because Brown doesn't know how his view logically works, at least not all the way through.

He, like a good Messianic Jew, sees two ideas that appear to be in tension. And when

White asks him to resolve the tension, he doesn't. He speaks ambiguously in order to not resolve the tension.

I'm sympathetic to this way of thinking, you know, especially as I get older. But then why get into a debate about it?

Like, if that's your ultimate attitude. This was an interesting exchange. And my initial thoughts are just coming out of it.

There were a number of missed opportunities from both Brown and White. Brown should have spent the majority of his time on two things.

White's contentions from his opener and his use of scripture. And Brown really didn't do that a whole lot.

Instead, he asked about perseverance of the saints, whether people should rejoice if their children go to hell, and whether God is truly good if he ordains for evil to be in the world that he created.

OK, White also didn't press Brown about Romans chapter two.

He followed Brown down a rabbit trail before he could really press him. He had an opportunity there, but he didn't he didn't go after it.

He got busted mischaracterizing Brown's own view on foreknowledge. But there were a couple of occasions where White pressed

Brown and Brown simply did not answer the questions. It was in those final cross exams that both

Brown and White did better, probably because they were more warmed up. You know, the the oil had gotten into all the joints and now the pistons were firing, you know, whatever the car metaphor is.

I don't work on cars. But the bottom line is White engaged with Brown's contentions better than his opponent.

OK, overall, White asked better questions to his opponent than Brown did, in my opinion.

And Brown didn't answer a few of those very important questions. In terms of the scripture, gosh, you could make the argument that it was about even on the area of handling scripture.

Both Brown and White know their scripture cross exam. And I predicted this. It would be the least developed in the area of handling the word of God rightly going below surface level understanding of scripture, throwing it out and just saying what it means.

And but ultimately, all of these things put together tips the scales in favor of James White.

James White, in my opinion, won this debate. Now, here's the deal, though. Maybe Brown outshined White in his opening in his rebuttal periods.

Right. So go look at the full debate. Like I said, you tell me, who do you think won this debate? Let me know in the comments below.

Also, let me know which debate you would like me to react to next. Throw those down in the comments. I'm keeping a list of all of your suggestions.

Look, at the end of the day, I hope this video blessed you in some form or fashion. But now it's time for me to go off and take a break.