DEBATE: The Reformed Doctrine of Atonement is Biblical and Important | James White vs. Jason Breda

Good afternoon.

I'd like to introduce myself.

My name is Doug Wilson, and I'll be the moderator of today's debate.

Actually, in all honesty, my name is Chris Arnzen.

I'm the host of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio.

It really doesn't matter who I am.

I'm here to introduce our debaters today.

But before I do that, I just want to thank everyone for being here, for supporting this conference, especially those of you who have been here all three

days.

We're so blessed to have heard the word of God preached to us.

And we're blessed now to have these two gentlemen who are going to engage in scholastic debate, theological debate.

And we are going to be very respectful of them as they do that.

One of the things I want to ask you, as the audience, to please refrain from both

positive and negative affirmations during their speech.

They have a limited amount of time.

And anything that you say or sounds that you might make, even a hearty, hey, man,

is really not appropriate because it's taking away from their time.

At the end of their opening statements, you'll have an opportunity for applause.

And then after the first set of rebuttals, or after the only set of rebuttals, we will have a break.

During that break, you're going to have an opportunity to ask questions.

We'll have someone with pieces of paper for you to write your questions down.

Those questions will be given to me.

And during the question and answer period, I will be reading them from this stage.

I believe that's all that we have in the way of information that you need to know.

So I will ask that we begin with a word of prayer.

Our Father and our God, we are thankful that we have this opportunity to come together today

and to hear your word discussed.

And Lord, we know that your word is the very lamp unto our feet and light unto our path.

Your word is fixed forever in the heavens.

Your word is truth.

Jesus said that we are sanctified by the truth and the word is the truth.

So I pray that both of these men would, within the power that you have given them and by the spirit that

resides within them, that they would come and seek to give clarity to the truth.

And where they disagree, I pray that you would give us clarity in being able to discern the truth.

We pray, God, that your Holy Spirit would be here among us.

This is not just a scholastic debate, Lord.

This is a debate over the very issues of the atonement.

And so, God, I pray that you'd be merciful as we seek to come to

right conclusions about this very important and foundational

discussion.

And I pray all this, Lord, in the name of Jesus Christ and for his sake, amen.

We have two debaters today and I want to introduce them and

we will begin with Dr. James White.

Dr. James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries.

He is professor of church history and apologetics at Grace Bible Theological Seminary and has

taught Greek, Hebrew, systematic theology, textual criticism, church history, and various topics in the field of apologetics

for numerous other schools.

He has authored or contributed to more than 24 books, including The King James Only

Controversy, The Forgotten Trinity, The Potter's Freedom, The God Who Justifies, and What Every

Christian Needs to Know About the Quran.

He is an accomplished debater, having engaged in more than 185 moderated public

debates as of today with leading proponents of Roman Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah Witnesses,

and Mormonism, as well as critics such as Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and

John Shelby Spong.

Before travel restrictions, James debated in such locations as London, Sydney, as well as mosques

in Toronto and South Africa.

He is a pastor and elder of Apologia Church in Arizona.

He's been married to Kelly for more than 40 years.

He has two children and five living grandchildren.

Welcome, Dr. James White.

On the other side of the stage, we have Jason Brita, an ACBC

certified biblical counselor.

He is a devoted husband, father, and steadfast follower of Christ with a passion

for serving others and nurturing spiritual growth with over 20 years of experience in Christian

ministry.

In addition to his commitment to counseling, Jason serves as a director at Christian Healthcare Ministries

and is the founder of Living Christian, a YouTube ministry, where he encourages believers to deepen their

understanding of the word and empowers them to be good Bereans.

Jason is a devoted family man, cherishing his role as a husband to his beloved wife, Chelsea,

and father to their five children.

Jason remains steadfast in his commitment to serving the Lord and his people, embodying the principles of

love, compassion, and truth by God's grace and for his glory.

Please welcome Jason.

The proposition today, the reformed doctrine of atonement is

biblical and important.

Both debaters will have a 20 -minute opening statement followed by a

15 -minute rebuttal.

After that, we will take our break.

We will then come back and have 15 -minute cross -examinations where one person will get

to ask questions of the other person for 15 minutes.

Finally, we will conclude with 10 -minute closing statements at which time we will then open to our audience

questions.

So that is all of our information that I believe we need to know.

So I welcome our first debater, Dr. James White.

Well, good afternoon.

It is great to be with you this afternoon.

I am going to have to sort of whisper to you this afternoon.

I hope that doesn't impact you too much.

But the stuff that I've been fighting for seven or eight weeks decided to come back with a

vengeance today.

So we will just deal with it as best we can.

Our topic this afternoon is, I think, an extremely important one.

There might be a few reformed folks out there that are hesitant to stand before an audience and affirm

particular redemption or limited atonement.

I am not one of them.

I believe, in my thesis statement for this debate, I believe that a consistent

understanding of what Scripture teaches about the role of the Father, the Son, and the Holy

Spirit in bringing about the self -glorification of the Trinity in the

salvation of God's elect people requires and demands consistently

an understanding that the atonement is in perfect harmony with the electing

purpose of God the Father and the application of the Holy Spirit of God.

You cannot have the divine persons working at odds against one another.

And so when we go to Scripture, we don't go to passages that are just in passing, making a reference here, reference

there, that are not about salvation itself.

When we go to Scripture and ask what it teaches about God's purpose in salvation, about

soteriology specifically, and about the impact and effect of the atonement, we see

that the New Testament gives us a consistent testimony on these particular subjects.

We don't have a lot of time, so I want to just simply lay out for you the fact that one of the most

important realities about the Christian doctrine of atonement in the New Testament

is that Jesus, as our high priest, is both the one who is

offered upon the cross as well as the one who then presents that

offering before the Father.

As high priest, that's what the high priest did.

Look at Leviticus chapter 16.

On that Yom Kippurim, the day of atonements, he would take the blood of that sacrifice which had

been offered, and he would go into the holy place, and he would sprinkle the mercy seat with that blood.

Those were all pictures of the coming work of Jesus Christ.

And so what that means is we have to bring together and keep together the biblical teaching

of what the high priest did.

So it's not just the offering itself, but then the intercession, the fact that

the Son appears in the presence of the Father in our place and intercedes for

us.

What is he presenting?

What is he doing?

Is that some extra work beyond the cross?

No, it is the presentation of that finished work, and that means we can look at what the New Testament

teaches about intercession.

An intercession is very clearly made for a specific people for one real reason.

It always works.

Anyone for whom the Son intercedes will be saved.

And therefore, that intercessory work as part of the work of the high priest once again

shows the specificity of the work of atonement.

Let's look to the scriptures because my argument this evening is very much a scriptural argument.

Turn with me to Romans chapter eight.

You know Romans chapter eight, the golden chain of redemption that is

found in verses 28 and following, and we know that for those who love God, all things work

together for good for those who are called according to his purpose because those whom he foreknew, active verb,

it's something God does.

It's not just taking in knowledge.

He also predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son so that he would be the firstborn among many brothers,

and those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he

justified he also glorified.

Why take the time to read this?

Because it's the context of the legal court scene that is presented to us immediately

thereafter, and it defines for us who the us in the verses that follow are.

It's those who have been foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified.

These are the elect of God.

These are the ones in the preceding verses that the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too

deep for words.

This is a very specific group.

Verse 31, what then shall we say to these things?

If God is for us, who is against us?

Who can say these words?

Can those who abide under the wrath of God today, can those who are in right now

undergoing, suffering the punishment of their sins, this is before the

final day, so we're talking about in a place called Hades, are those who are

separated from God, are they able to say if God is for me,

who can be against me?

Who is this us?

He who indeed did not spare his own son, but delivered him over for

us all.

If you're going to believe in a general, nonspecific, impersonal atonement,

you're gonna have a hard time explaining but delivered him over for us all,

because that's specific.

That's speaking of a specific group.

How will he not also with him graciously or freely give us all

things?

And then verse 33 identifies who we're talking about.

Who will bring a charge against God's elect?

There is the us.

It's God's elect.

God is for God's elect.

Who can be against God's elect?

He who did not spare his own son, but delivered him over for God's elect.

This is the message that's being presented to us.

Who will bring a charge against God's elect?

Here is the courtroom scene.

God the Father is the judge.

God is the one who brings down the gavel and says righteous, just in my sight.

Well, how can he do that?

We know that we are sinners.

How can he do that?

Well, because while God is the one who justifies, who is the one who condemns?

Who brings the charge against God's elect?

Who can possibly succeed in doing so?

Because Christ Jesus is he who died, yes, rather who was raised,

who was at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

So here's the intercessor.

Here's the one who intercedes for those who are being given, this charge is being brought against them.

It's Christ Jesus.

And since he has died, then any penalty has been fulfilled in him.

And he has been raised.

He is at the right hand of God the Father.

And he intercedes for us because of his finished work in our

place.

Anybody who says Jesus died for me is borrowing reformed

theology to say that.

If you know anything about church history, there have been lots of theories about the atonement.

You have the ransom theory and the recapitulation theory and the moral government theory and all these other things.

But if you actually say Jesus died for me, you're talking about substitutionary

atonement.

And if that's substitutionary, then it must be personal and it must correspond exactly with who

the Father has elected unto salvation and those who the Spirit brings unto salvation.

There has to be perfect unity between Father, Son, and Spirit.

And so we have this one who intercedes for us and as a result of the perfection

of his work in our place, we then have the words, who will separate us from the love of Christ?

Will affliction or turmoil or persecution or famine or nakedness or peril or sword?

Verse 37, all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through him who loved us.

There is a specific redeeming, redemptive love that is seen in the

courtroom scene that is the very foundation upon which the gospel itself

stands.

So keeping that in mind, turn with me to the book of Hebrews.

And in the book of Hebrews, we have chapter after chapter after chapter arguing for the

supremacy of Christ.

The main message of the book of Hebrews is there's nothing to go back to.

There's nothing to go back to even though the temple's still standing at this time.

I think this was written before AD 70.

There's nothing to go back to, why?

Because everything was pointing to Christ.

And so he begins to talk about the priesthood of Christ.

Verse 23 of chapter seven.

After he has said, in verse 22, so much more, Jesus also has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

And the former priests on the one hand existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from

continuing.

But Jesus, on the other hand, because he continues forever,

holds his priesthood permanently without successor.

The term refers to something that's not gonna be passed on to someone else.

He holds his priesthood permanently.

Therefore, because of that, he is able, notice who has the ability,

the power, the capacity.

He is able to do what?

To save completely, ponte less.

It can be completely or forever.

Obviously, both of them imply the other.

To save forever or completely those who draw near to God through him.

This refers back to who was it under the old covenant when the offerings were being made.

The people had to come into the presence of the Lord.

They became the congregation of the Lord.

When those offerings were made, they weren't made for the Amorites.

They weren't made for the Babylonians.

They weren't made for the Egyptians.

They were specific under the old covenant.

Therefore, he is able to save completely those who draw near to God through

him, only him.

Why?

How does he have this capacity?

How does he have this power?

Since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Now, the high priest made intercession, but he always had to do so with what?

The blood of the sacrifice.

But what did we see in Romans chapter eight?

And I believe Paul preached Hebrews in Hebrew and Luke wrote it in Greek.

That answers pretty much all the questions for me as far as that is concerned.

So I think this is the same theology, but it's all from the Holy Spirit anyways.

Since he always lives to make intercession for them.

The work of intercession is specifically for a specific people

and it results in their salvation.

It results in their salvation.

It does not provide a means.

It doesn't just simply make men savable.

Notice the result is, he always lives to make intercession for them and that's the ground upon

which he has the capacity and the power to save completely.

That's the perfection of the work of our high priest.

And the author continues on, he then quotes from Jeremiah 31, the long section on the nature of the new

covenant, that this is a new covenant that will result in what?

It will result in their forgiveness of sins.

He will write his law upon their hearts.

I will be their God, they will be my people.

They will have forgiveness of sins.

From the least to the greatest of them, they will know me.

This is the new covenant and he is the mediator of that new covenant.

So who is in that new covenant?

Then we have a continued discussion in chapter nine about the new covenant,

verse 11, but when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, he entered through the greater and more

perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation and not through the blood of goats and calves,

but through his own blood, he entered the holy places once for all,

temporal, one time, having obtained eternal redemption.

Not having made it possible, he actually obtained it by his work.

For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of flesh,

how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit, offered himself without blemish to God, please note the

Trinitarian nature of the gospel there, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

This is why he is the mediator of a new covenant so that since

a death has taken place for the redemption of the trespasses that were committed under the first covenant,

those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal

inheritance.

This is the argumentation of the book of Hebrews.

It goes on, I can't read all of it, the time is very, very short, but it goes on to say in verse 23,

therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly

things themselves with better sacrifices than these, for Christ did not enter holy

places made with hands, mere copies of the true ones, but into heaven itself, now to

appear in the presence of God, what?

For us, who pair him own.

Substitution, representation, for us.

Nor was it that he would offer himself often as a high priest enters the holy places year by year with blood that is not his own,

otherwise he would have needed to have suffered often since the foundation of the world, but now once at the consummation of the

ages, he has been manifested to do what?

To put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

His sacrifice accomplishes the putting away of sin.

And what's the result of this?

Well, we see in chapter 10, instead of the ongoing repetitious sacrifices of the

old covenant, every year the high priest going in and doing the same thing, we have the singular

one sacrifice.

The old repetitive sacrifices reminded us of sin.

The one sacrifice reminds us of the sin bearer who takes our sin

away.

The result then is, when you have the citation from the Old Testament, I have come to do your will, verse

nine, he takes away the first, the first will in order to establish the second.

By this will, this second will, we have been sanctified through the offering of

the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

We, keep seeing the we and the us in a specific group,

the Trinitarian nature of these things, the harmony of the father and the son in his perfect work,

and then the application by the spirit.

It is plainly presented to us over and over again.

And then verse 12, but he having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time,

sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies are put as

a footstool for his feet, for by one offering he has perfected for all

time those who are being sanctified.

So let's make application.

There's so many passages we can go to that talk about Christ's death for his people.

When the angel announces that he will save his people from their sins, and Christ's death for the

church, and people will come back and say, well, just because it's just for them doesn't mean it's for others.

The issue of the subject of the atonement must always be what

does it accomplish?

What does it accomplish?

Because then we have a consistent answer of for whom has it been offered.

And when we look at what the scriptures teach us on that subject, we have

the electing grace of God the Father, the Son

submitting himself to the will of the Father in behalf of his people,

their sins are imputed to him, his righteousness is imputed to them.

That's how we have peace with God.

This is one of the primary issues between us and Rome.

Rome doesn't have a substitutionary atonement.

The death of Christ merits grace from Rome's perspective, but there is no

righteousness that is imputed to us that is a perfect righteousness.

And then at the time that the Father has determined, the Spirit comes

and makes real in our experience by raising us from spiritual death, even though we're enemies

of God, at that point in time, and everyone in here, probably everyone in here remembers when that was

in your own experience, the Spirit of God raises us to spiritual life,

and we come to understand what has been done for us long before we took our

first breath.

Even when God the Father knew us intimately and knew what our sins would be,

the mountain of them, they were placed upon Christ in our place.

And so, Trinitarian harmony in the Gospel.

The Father elects a specific people.

The Son dies in their place, bears their sins and His body

upon the cross, makes available to them perfect salvation

through their union with Him.

And the Spirit, at that right time, comes and takes that rebel sinner,

that person in rebellion against God, and because of what Christ has done for us

in our place, raises us to spiritual life.

This is the testimony of the New Testament.

This is the consistency of the teaching of the New Testament.

It's glorious, and as the thesis says, the Reformed doctrine of the Atonement is

true and important.

It's important because, since it's the work of the triune God, it precludes

any boasting on our part whatsoever.

Let he who boasts boast in the Lord.

That's the truth of the Atonement.

Thank you for your attention.

You may applaud now.

Thank you.

All right.

Now, Jason, you will have your 20 -minute opening statement.

Martin Luther, when he nailed his 95 thesis to the church door in Wittenberg, Germany on October 31st,

1517, began his thesis with these words, out of love for the truth and the

desire to elucidate it, which means to make clear, and this is the same reason why we are

gathered here today as those who seek to know him and make him known.

I want to thank Doug Wilson for moderating this debate this day,

and I want a special thank you to Jeffrey Rice, wherever he's at, for his hospitality and kindness.

And welcome, brothers and sisters.

It's good to be here with you, and I hope that you'll be edified by what we do.

And thank you also to Dr. White for the opportunity to have this discussion.

It's an honor, and I'm humbled to be given my understanding of the Atonement.

At the end of the day, what we're here for is to glorify God.

Well, in the spirit of respectful discourse, I wish to ensure everyone here that this debate is not about questioning the

sincerity of anyone's faith.

We're here to examine a doctrine and its validity regarding it being a biblical position or not.

My goal is for the Bible to have the final word.

Now, the title of this debate, the Reformed Doctrine of the Atonement, is biblical and important, I think is lightly

an unfortunate title, because it does suggest that there is only one Reformed position of the Atonement, which

is not true.

And it does then also present itself that the position that a Calvinist, Dr. White, is

holding to, that be limited Atonement, is the correct position.

And for someone like myself, a former Calvinist, holding to an unlimited Atonement is not

biblical, nor important, or even a Reformed position at all.

However, did you know that scholars say that the first -generation Reformers held to a

universal Atonement, and in fact, not just held to it, but rejected limited Atonement?

Many respected theologians and historians, such as Richard Muller, affirm first -generation Reformers, such as

Luther and Calvin, held to a universal Atonement.

Limited Atonement wasn't a part of any Reformer's theological framework until Theodore Beza, 23 years

after Calvin died.

And prior to Beza, most theologians, except for the exception of God's chalk, a ninth

-century monk, supported universal Atonement.

And when God's chalk presented limited Atonement, it was rejected by three French councils.

So I actually feel confident in telling you that the first -generation Reform doctrine of the Atonement is biblical

and important, because it emphasized what the early church held onto, and even what the early Reformers held onto, which

was unlimited Atonement.

I think it's insightful that the debate has continued to go on.

One -fourth of the Council of Dort rejected limited Atonement.

One -third of Westminster rejected limited Atonement.

And I would admonish you to go into church history and catalog all of the Calvinists that have not held

onto limited Atonement.

I think you'd be quite amazed how many there actually are.

So why are we here debating the Atonement today?

If the church held to a universal Atonement until the end of the 16th century,

what weight is the limited Atonement position?

Well, several high Calvinistic theologians and writers like John Owen, Gary Long, and there's definitely others

that support limited Atonement.

They have influenced the theory of it using philosophy and theological concepts which seem to present

some strong arguments, and I give it that.

Dr. White supports and echoes ideas that are in the works of such as the death of death and the death of Christ,

and definite Atonement, and of course, there's others for consideration as well.

The main reason I think that limited Atonement holds so strongly to men like Dr. White is the fact that it is the

greatest theological position that supports Calvinism's highest theological position, and that is

unconditional election.

All Calvinists agree on unconditional election, and I think limited Atonement is just the newest

theological theory to support the greatest doctrine for Calvinism, which is election.

Hence why I believe it has the credibility that it does.

I've got two main points.

The first point is limited Atonement is logical, it's theological, but it's not biblical.

Limited Atonement is a concept that aligns logically within the systematic of Calvinism, and while it holds

significant in discussions, it's crucial to remember that any position, no matter how logical or

theological it can be, needs to be discarded if it's not biblical.

Our shared goal should be to interpret the text and let the word of God be the ultimate authority, and what truly

matters is drawing understanding from the scriptures, not imposing our own interpretations onto it.

Much of the arguments that support limited Atonement stem back to Owen's book, and he presents

theological and logical arguments, but they're not biblical.

Literally every argument that Owen brings up in his book starts with the general principle that determines the

outcome of his presentation before he takes you to the scriptures to support it.

So Owen uses a deductive approach to interpretation, not an inductive approach, and a lot of

eisegesis.

A few primary examples are the Covenant of Redemption.

This suggests that God the Father and the Son made an agreement before time began to elect

where the Father committed to provide salvation only to the elect based on the Son's Atonement, and despite the

fact that this doctrine has theological language, such as covenant and redemption, there's

no direct mention of this language or this agreement in the scriptures.

Critics of Owen's work not only are non -Calvinists, but also Calvinists.

Swiss reform theologian Karl Barth criticized Owen's theory, labeling it a Christian mythology.

Owen also argued that a universal atonement would imply Christ's failure as a savior since he intends to save all,

but not all are saved.

Thus, Owen concluded, one of two options must be true, universalism or limited atonement,

but both positions are wrong.

You've heard Dr. White discuss the Trinitarian harmony argument, and Trinitarian harmony, as he mentioned, emphasizes the

unity within the Trinity concerning redemption and how Christ's intercessory work only

applies to the elect.

I do see this as a smokescreen to support limited atonement, and we all believe that there's harmony within the

Trinity.

I mean, I think we all at least agree on that, that there is no disunity within the Trinity, but

my disagreement lies in the interpretation behind how White and Owen view

God is working in redemption, how they're unified in redemption.

Owen, the originator of this Trinitarian harmony theory, uses Romans 8 .32 through 34 to support its findings.

I acknowledge the fact that Dr. White follows a similar approach to Owen, for Dr. White said in a podcast,

quote, if you have a universal atonement, you must have a universal intercession, because if God knew

from eternity who was going to be saved and Jesus is interceding for all people, yet only the blood is

applied to some, what is the purpose of that intercession for those who do not believe, end quote.

Now, I know we already went through it, but let's go through it together again.

Verse 32 of chapter eight, he who indeed did not spare his own son but delivered him over for us all,

how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

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.

So which portion of this text that we just read displays the application of the atonement?

I don't see it.

Do you see a pre -temporal pact between the Trinity before time began?

I don't.

You must confess that this argument does involve the use of the negative inference fallacy, which is when someone draws a

conclusion based on the absence of evidence.

There's no evidence for the Trinitarian harmony theory.

Suggesting the application of the atonement is here where it is not explicitly stated is a misstep

for any biblical scholar.

And we cannot allow Old Testament typology to trump New Testament statements of Christ's atonement and

all the passages that support a universal extent.

Charles Hodge, a Presbyterian theologian, rightly understood that the atonement unapplied saves no one.

There needs to be an application.

And there is a difference between the intent of the atonement the extent of the atonement and the application of the atonement.

And nowhere in scripture does it tell us that the atonement achieved equals the atonement applied.

That concept is read into the Bible by those who adhere to limited atonement.

My second point is that limited atonement is false because it misunderstands the biblical and the

historical context of numerous passages and books of the Bible.

I have the time to draw out one example.

There are these moments in the scriptures that I now refer to as the dividing line of redemptive history.

And I admit this is gonna be pretty shocking for some of you because it was shocking for me as well.

Continuing though to look at Romans chapter 32 through 34, I wanna show you that the

biggest reason why the Trinitarian harmony theory fails is because it overlooks the broader context of the

entire book of Romans and the specific audience Paul is writing to in chapter eight.

Now, just back up, Paul's practice was to visit local synagogues and to preach to the

Jews first.

This is the pattern laid out and recorded in Acts nine times.

In Romans, we see Paul repeat this phrase, to the Jew first and also to the Greek or the Gentiles.

The Roman church in this time transitioned from predominantly a Jewish church to a mainly

Gentile church after the dispersion of the Jews in 41 through 53 AD.

So when Paul wrote this, most scholars agreed in 57 to 59 AD is when he wrote it.

And so the church would actually be primarily Gentile with a minority of Jews coming back.

Paul's letter to the Romans is much more than just a great theological book with gospel truths that we can glean from and

apply.

It is actually a letter of reconciliation between the Jew and the Gentile believers.

It's also a theme we see all throughout the New Testament.

And it's really beautiful once you see this.

And as I mentioned, there is a dividing line in the book to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Romans eight is not speaking to Jew and Gentile and every believer in general as the Trinitarian harmony would suggest.

Paul is actually speaking directly to his Jewish audience here in chapter eight.

But not just chapter eight, actually from the chapter one all the way back.

So not only, if this is true, not only does this go against the Trinitarian harmony theory, it actually

goes against the golden chain of redemption and who the elect are.

So I tell you, this is massively big.

Let me show you why and how.

If you turn back to Romans chapter one, we see in verse 13 that there is an ambiguous antecedent.

Chapter one, verse 13.

It says, I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that often I have planned to come to

you and have been prevented so far so that I may have some fruit among you also,

even as among the rest of the Gentiles.

Now you must affirm that there is an ambiguous antecedent in verse 13 and this happens, when this

happens, context defines who the audience is.

And obviously this is crucial for biblical interpretation.

Many scholars as well as Calvin in his commentary skip past or miss the ambiguous antecedent and I do think

this is how a flawed interpretation gets passed on to others and they get popularized and then they get assumed on as the

truth.

Paul expresses in Ephesians and Colossians and also at the end of Romans, his desire for all to

understand the mystery of the gospel that the Gentiles are being grafted in.

If you go to chapter 16 of Romans, verse 25 and 26, in a paraphrase it says, the revelation of the mystery

has been made known to all the Gentiles.

Going back to chapter one, sorry for the flipping around, verse five says, through whom

we received grace and apostleship for the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his

name.

Now it's interesting, who's Paul talking to?

Normally Paul's letters open up with Paul and apostle of Jesus Christ and someone else.

Romans doesn't do that, he starts, Paul and apostle of Jesus Christ includes no one else.

But in verse five he says, we have received apostleship to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.

Who is the we?

I don't think any apostle was part of his ministry to the Roman church.

He's obviously not talking about the Jewish Christians, he's not talking about the Gentile Christians in the Roman church,

he's talking about him and the other apostles.

Verse six, among whom you also are the called.

Interesting, think about that when we go to chapter eight.

Who also are the called?

Again, verse five states his apostleship and then in six he mentions whom you also are the

called referring to the Jewish Christians who are also the called of Jesus Christ.

This distinction is crucial.

If we go then to chapter eight, well before we do, sorry.

If you look at the pronouns, every pronoun that Paul is referencing the Jews in the first eight chapters,

every single one is in the first person.

And usually it's either directed directly to the Jews or it is Paul including himself along with the Jews.

Just 23 of chapter eight is an example.

Not only this but we ourselves also having the first fruits of the spirit, even we

ourselves grown within ourselves eagerly waiting our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

You see the we in the our language, Paul includes himself.

Who had the first fruits of the spirit?

The Gentiles?

No, the Jews.

The exegetical mistake made by many is assuming the inclusive nature of we, our and brethren in chapter eight

applies to all believers.

But 113 and the context indicates Paul is addressing his Jewish audience.

The assumed minority in the church at the time.

So in chapters one through eight, there are 22 direct verses where Paul speaks directly to the Jews in first person and then he

includes himself in that as well.

But then chapter nine through 16, interesting, Paul's audience shifts.

Look at verse three, chapter nine.

For I wish that I myself were a curse separated from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen

according to the flesh, who are Israelites to whom belong the adoption as sons.

That's calling us back to chapter eight.

And the covenants and the glory and the giving of the law and the temple services and the promises who are the fathers and from

whom is the Christ according to the flesh.

Who is God over all, blessed forever, amen.

Do you see how Paul shifts from using we and our to now his brothers, his kinsmen according to

the flesh?

There's a notable difference.

And now you see he's now talking directly to the Gentiles.

He's teaching them what took place.

Go to chapter 10, verse one.

Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God is for Israel and their salvation.

Paul just ended chapter nine by explaining why so many Jews are not following Jesus.

Obviously, I think a very prevalent thought for the Gentile believers.

It's because they did not seek it by faith like we see in 9 .32.

They stumbled at the stumbling stone.

They did not believe by faith like Abraham, like Paul brought out in chapters four and five.

And so now he's communicating to the Gentiles his desire and prayer is for God to save Israel.

Go to chapter 11, verse 11.

Paul states, I then, did they stumble so far as to fall?

May it never be, but by their transgressions, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make them

jealous.

The there and the them represent the Israelites, validating Paul is not writing to the Jews in first person anymore.

He's speaking and teaching Gentiles.

Verse 13 of chapter 11.

But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles inasmuch that I am an apostle of the Gentiles

and magnify my ministry.

Verse 28, Paul says, from the standpoint of the gospel, Israel are enemies for your sake, but from the

standpoint of God's choice, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.

Paul's message in Romans eight is directed at the foreknown, predestined, and called Jewish Christians,

assuring them of God's presence and desire for their salvation, despite their possible wavering

and doubts of God's love for them when so many Jews were not following after Jesus.

So understanding the biblical and the historical context is crucial.

Chapters nine through 16, there are 15 at least, verses where Paul speaks directly to the Gentiles in first person.

The Jewish Christians needed to hear Paul, what Paul said in the first eight chapters, and the

Christian Gentiles needed to hear what Paul said in the second eight chapters.

And I think this revelation is phenomenal.

But my goal is to just put a pebble in your shoe and now have you go back to the scriptures

and verify for yourself.

And so may we all study to show ourselves approved.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

And now we will move to our rebuttal period.

Each presenter will have 15 minutes to offer a rebuttal.

And then at the end of that, we will take our break.

Okay, thank you very much, Jason, for that presentation.

But I will have to confess, I have never heard that perspective ever before in my life.

I have never heard Romans chopped up into pieces like that ever before in my life.

I don't know anybody in church history, it's funny.

Well, all of church history had this position and you've got a different position, but I'm gonna give you a presentation that's different than all of church

history.

Seems to be an inconsistent position to take.

It seemed at the beginning, I was hearing David Allen speaking.

Much of the discussion about people I had never quoted, I didn't quote Calvin, I didn't quote Owen, I didn't quote any of these

individuals.

I gave a biblical presentation.

They're interesting to talk about.

I teach church history, so we could do it.

But I gave a biblical presentation.

It was said that the church held to universal atonement, but the reality is, anybody who knows church history knows, that

the early theories were things like the ransom to Satan theory, the recapitulation theory of Irenaeus, Christus' victor

theory, and that the first full -length book on the atonement didn't appear until the fourth century.

Those are the realities of church history.

By the way, he said Karl Barth called it a Christian mythology.

I wanna be called a Christian, holding Christian mythology if I'm gonna be called that by Karl Barth.

I went to Fuller, and oh, I got sick of Karl Barth.

I truly do.

We are told that Trinitarian harmony is a smokescreen.

No, okay.

But why?

What was the fundamental argumentation?

We heard nothing about Hebrews at all.

I'm gonna be really interested to find out how you chop Hebrews up into things that are for one group and one group.

It seems this is the new thing by those who are trying to oppose Reformed theology.

There's a guy out there who's saying Ephesians chapter one is only about the apostles up to verse 14 and all the

rest of this kind of stuff, and now we're being told that the first eight chapters of Romans are addressed

to the Jews?

So the intercessory work of the Spirit of God for the believer is only for

Jewish believers?

There is no way to even begin to try to make that a

consistent methodology of exegesis.

It is eisegesis on steroids.

Think about what is being said here.

When you look at Romans chapter one, we were told that Romans chapter one, verse 13,

uses, and I don't know what Jason believes this means, but

he made the assertion, and during cross -examination, obviously we'll get right into it, but I

think what he said is an indefinite or whatever terminology was used,

pronoun, about, but I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren,

as if this is somehow indicating to us that when Paul's writing to the church at Rome, and that's what he identifies,

in verse seven, he says he's writing to all of those

who are in Rome beloved of God, called

saints, and the whole point of Romans is that there's only one

church.

The big emphasis he has, for example, Romans 3 .23.

We all know it, right?

You all know Romans 3 .23.

Don't tell me you don't know Romans 3 .23.

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, right?

If you look at it in context, what he's saying is all, as in Jews and Gentiles

together.

His whole point in Romans 3, see, in Romans 1, he talked about universal

sin.

Romans 2, he applied it to the Jews.

Romans 3, he then brings them all together.

He uses a bunch of passages from the Old Testament to demonstrate that everyone, Jew and Gentile,

is under the condemnation of sin, and only then, halfway through chapter three, can he then say,

being justified freely.

Who?

Jews and Gentiles.

Everyone.

He's writing this epistle to Rome because he knows just as because he wrote to Ephesus

that you're gonna have a church there where that word is gonna go out, he knows the church at Rome is gonna

be most important in getting these things out to the whole world, and therefore, they need to have a clear explication

of the gospel.

And so, in chapter three, he brings everyone to the point of being condemned for their sin.

Their head is down, their mouths are closed, and now, they are able to hear the message of

justification by faith.

And so, the rest of chapter three, everyone, Jew and Gentile, justified

by faith in the same way.

Chapter four, prove it from Abraham, because Abraham was justified by faith

before circumcision.

And so, faith has always been the way, for Jews or Gentiles.

Application Romans 5 .1, therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord

Jesus Christ.

Is that only Jewish believers?

I hope that's not what's being said tonight.

I don't think anyone's ever believed that.

That's all of us.

This is what the gospel is about.

And so, all the way through, you have Paul emphasizing, what he doesn't want happening

is what happened, he talks about in Galatians, in Antioch, where when the people

come from James in Jerusalem, there's a split, and Peter won't sit with the Gentiles

anymore.

And he opposes him to his face, and accuses him of not orthopodeo,

walking in a straight and in accordance with the truth of the gospel.

That's his great concern, is that there's gonna be a split, and you're gonna have a Jewish Christian church, and a

Gentile Christian church.

And that's why he says, there is no distinction.

And so, everything that's said about the federal headship of Adam in Romans chapter five.

Chapter six, the application of how it is that you walk in grace

as a result of being a Christian.

How does that happen?

How does that work out?

It works out for Jew and Gentile the same, because we're all indwelled by the same spirit.

Chapter seven, the indwelling presence of sin, that's same for Jews and Gentiles.

And when you get into chapter eight, the whole point is, this is the capstone, this is the summing up

of everything God has done in Jesus Christ, and to say that this is somehow for one specific group,

who has ever believed that?

I don't know of anyone who has ever believed that.

I honestly have never heard that argument before in my entire adult life.

And I just ask you, apply that concept to the things that you have said.

It was said, for example, chapter eight, however, you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if

indeed the spirit of God dwells in you.

Is that only Jewish believers?

Or is that true of Gentile believers?

That's all, once you make the fundamental concern, I have here,

is that the very thing that Paul was so concerned about, is

now being presented to us as a means of trying to keep Romans chapter eight from informing

us as to the audience of the redeeming work of Christ.

And I truly am amazed that that is what is being said.

I don't know what else to say about it, other than to point out that

even if that were the case, which it is not, there's absolutely nothing in the text that even

begins to suggest such a radical interpretation.

Even if that were the case, that in no way deals with the actual thesis that we're dealing with.

Because if you're saying, well, Romans chapter eight is being written to Jews, and this is

what God has done for them, are we saying that Jews stand before God on a different foundation and basis than we do?

Isn't the New Testament teaching?

Doesn't Paul say to the Philippians, we are the true circumcision who worship God in Christ

Jesus?

This Jew -Gentile division has been healed, that's what Ephesians is about.

There is one body, there is one body of Christ.

Don't divide it up.

You say, well, but he does address the Jews in Romans too.

Yeah, he does.

He does address Jewish objections at that particular point in time, he does.

But his application in chapter three is to both Jews and

Gentiles.

The idea of dividing this up and saying, well, that's not really relevant here, that's not

really relevant there, is some of the most dangerous eisegesis I can think of.

Because you try to make this work outside of our little context here, you try

to go out and apply this to Roman Catholicism and things like that, it all falls apart really

quickly.

You have to be consistent in your analysis of these things.

So what do we need to hear from Jason?

Well, we need a whole lot more than what was asserted.

I need to know when verse 13 says, I do not want you to be unaware, brothers,

that often I have planned to come to you, okay?

What about that?

What is it that Jason thinks this is somehow dividing our audience up?

So we're gonna need to know more about that.

Hopefully, we're certainly gonna get into it in cross -examination, but hopefully in the rebuttal period, I'd like to hear more about that.

Secondly, in the rebuttal period that is going to be provided to him here just in five minutes,

we need to hear what about Hebrews?

What about the consistency of the message that we saw in Romans 8, and

we find we can go to Ephesians, we can go to Colossians, we can go to, there's all sorts of places we can go,

but what about the consistency of the presentation from Romans chapter 8

with what is found in the book of Hebrews?

Now, Hebrews is written to Hebrew Christians, that's true, but all of the application is

for everyone because it's talking about what God has done in Christ

Jesus by that one sacrifice.

How is it that Christ can save to the uttermost, panteles,

because he ever lives to make intercession?

Is there any distinction whatsoever in the intercessory work of

Jesus Christ in regards to Jew or Gentile?

I hope that the first thing Jason's gonna say when he gets up here is no, there is no

distinction whatsoever.

I didn't mean to even begin to communicate that.

How can you be so stupid, White, to think that?

I hope that's what we hear because if it's not what we hear, what we're hearing is direct heresy.

It's direct heresy.

It's fundamentally dangerous.

We have to have a consistent message of the New Testament as to how it is we can have peace with God, and that

is through the finished work of Jesus Christ in our place.

And when you start dividing it up in that way, I don't even know what

to say in response to something like that.

So, back to the beginning.

How do we determine the thesis of this debate?

Well, it's been said,.

Well, there's not just one Reformed view.

This, again, goes back to David Allen got this stuff from the Amaraldians.

We could respond to it.

We could talk about Roger Nicole's article about Calvin's view of the temple.

We can get into all that stuff, but we don't have time to do that today, and that's not what the thesis was about.

The position I'm holding is the position that is defended and defined in the Westminster

Confession of Faith, in the London Baptist Confession of Faith, and that's what we need to be looking at today is

what did Jesus Christ accomplish and for whom?

What is the result of his offering of himself upon the cross of Calvary?

For whom does he offer himself?

And how is that related to his intercessory work?

So, we're gonna need to hear from Jason.

What does Jesus's intercessory work accomplish, and for whom does he intercede?

If he's in the presence of the Father, what's he doing up there?

Why is his presence before the Father, why does that give him the capacity to

save forever and completely a particular people?

What is it about that that makes that such an important accomplishment?

That's what we need to hear for this to be something that will be perfectly relevant to all of us

as we think upon this particular subject, and I thank you for your time.

Jason, before you come up for just one second, I need to make an announcement.

Jeffrey came up and mentioned something to me.

We did not mention this at the beginning, so if you have already done this, you're absolved up until this point, but we will

ask not for no videoing or live streaming of this event.

We have a person who is videoing it, and it will be published, but we're asking for no individuals to be doing that.

So again, if you've already done that, again, you're absolved to this point, but stop, and we appreciate it.

All right, thank you, sir.

Well, thank you, Dr. White.

There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

God is not a respecter of persons, and yes, Jew and Gentile alike.

I think one of the things that gets missed on here is that the emphasis I see through the first eight

chapters is that Paul's main audience is directly to the Jews.

That does not mean that there's no applicable application for anyone who is not a Jew.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Yes, that is true.

That's not just Paul talking to the Jews.

You have to understand that there's a general message that can be given and applied

to us.

We don't read the Old Testament this way when we look at, as believers in the new covenant,

we don't read the Old Testament and say, well, that specifically applies to me.

Not all of it does.

It was directed for a particular people, but there are some applications that we draw from it, and what does God want me to

do to honor and obey his word?

Dr. White brought up, you know, where has this whole concept even come from

before?

There are several people.

Romano Pena, I don't know how to pronounce the name, has a book called Paul the Apostle, Jew and

Gentile alike.

There is a Jewish scholar in biblical studies in Denver, Colorado,

Professor Eisenbaum.

I'm butchering their names, I'm sure, but they hold to this view amongst

others as well.

So, I mean, yes.

Is it the fan favorite?

No, it's not.

But is it something for an examination and a worthy look at?

Yes.

At the end of the day, that's what we're called to do is examine the text for what it says.

And the point is very clear that there is a first person focus to the Jews for the

first eight chapters, and it's not first person to the Gentiles until chapter nine.

So that is evident right there.

But if you go to chapter seven, verse one of chapter seven says,

or do you not know, brothers, for I am speaking to those who are of the law, that the law is a

master over that person as long as he lives.

So from seven, one, and on, the audience never changes.

Paul tells us that he's speaking directly to the Jews right there.

Those are who are under the law.

Who's under the law?

It's the Jews.

It would not be the Gentiles.

And so the audience never changes until chapter nine.

And so even if you want to say that you don't want to go all the way back to chapter one, I would be okay with that, but

I think that the context is clear.

From chapter seven, one, on until nine, verse three, there's a direct connection to

the Jews.

Phil Johnson, a good friend of Dr. White, said in his sermon titled The Nature of the Atonement that Kurt

Daniel's book, The History and Theology of Calvinism, is the single greatest historical work on

Calvinism.

Even Kurt Daniels acknowledges that many that call themselves Calvinists take different positions to explain

the universal and the particular aspects of the atonement.

Kurt confirms that God's truck was the first person to bring out limited atonement in the ninth century.

And Phil says in his message, Calvin himself had a view of the extent of the atonement that

was far more broad and far more extensive than the average Calvinist today would care to recognize.

At one point, Phil references a particular verse that has six different reformed positions.

Just one verse has six different reformed positions.

So there's not just one position of the reformed doctrine of the atonement.

And so I think that's pretty clear.

And I know Dr. White believes in having a consistent theology.

You've heard that and I've heard it throughout the years with him.

And I think we should have a consistent theology, no doubt.

But if there is something that is very inconsistent, it is what is the reformed position of the atonement.

There's just not consistency there amongst the reformed crowd.

So which position is correct?

I think there is a correct position within the reformed camp of the atonement.

But I would appeal that a universal atonement is the correct position.

If you take out the philosophical arguments, you take away the theological bias, and you take away the

need to fill in the gaps of Calvinism, I think what you are left with in every text that tries to

support limited atonement is eisegesis and negative inference fallacy.

I'll bring up something else in the remaining time, which is another thing that I see is very important for us to

understand regarding the atonement.

And that is the old covenant and then the new covenant aspect.

And there is another dividing line that I see here in John chapter three.

Calvin said in his commentary on John chapter three, verse 16, faith in Christ brings life

to all and that Christ brought life because the heavenly father loves the human race and wishes that they

should not perish.

You could read that directly from his commentary.

I bring up John three because I think there is significant importance.

And again, just going with the theme of, I'm not doing this because I want to do this, I'm doing this because I see it in the

text.

John's gospel 71 times uses the word eodius, and I know I'm probably butchered that,

but I'm not the Greek scholar like James is, but I see 71 times in

the gospel of John.

Chapter one, verse 11, there's an expression to the Jews.

Jesus came to his own, but his own did not receive him.

Who are his own?

That is the Jews.

Calvin affirms this.

God was manifested in the flesh to the Jews.

And if you go to chapter, verse 12, but as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become the children of

God, even those who believe in his name.

We see in John 4 .22 that salvation is of the Jews.

So there is a massive Jewish theme in John's gospel that I think we cannot deny.

But the dividing line is how, where this is in redemptive history.

Jesus's ministry and incarnation, we're still in old covenant.

The new covenant is not established until his resurrection.

And so I see the dividing line in John chapter three, verses 14 and 15.

It says, and as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifted up,

so that whoever believes in him will have eternal life.

We know the context of John chapter three.

Jesus is talking to Nicodemus, a teacher of the law, and he reminds Nicodemus about the serpent in the wilderness

from Numbers 21 .9, which says Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard.

And as it happened, that if the serpent bit any man when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived.

The provision was made to those who looked to the serpent.

And Jesus says, just as Moses lifted up the serpent, so must the son of man be lifted up.

That's not the dividing line, just so you know.

That just proves that there must be, the provision is provided to those who look to Christ.

That's the parallel.

But God's provision has always been conditional.

Just as the Israelites only had the death angel pass over them, there's a difference between the lamb being

slaughtered and the blood being applied to the door.

The provision didn't take place unless the blood was applied to the door.

Notice what Jesus says to Nicodemus, or what he doesn't say, I should say, is that Jesus does not tell him, repent and believe,

Nicodemus.

Why does he not do that?

Because in John's gospel, he's telling Nicodemus, you're the teacher of the law and you don't

understand these things.

Don't you know that there's a promised new covenant?

Going back to Jeremiah 31, 31, don't you know that the Holy Spirit is promised?

There's so many things that Jesus could've drew out there, maybe he did, it's not recorded, but there's so many things that he could draw

out to Nicodemus, he was speaking his language.

Nicodemus would've known these things.

And John 4, 23, Jesus also professes that the true worshipers of the Father will

worship the Father in spirit and in truth.

And later says that those that would follow Jesus were true worshipers of the Father

and that they would follow Jesus because they knew that he came from the Father.

Okay, this is the Jewish audience.

The dividing line, I see this in verse 14 and 15, where it says, the son of man must be lifted up so

that conjunction, whoever believes, condition, will have

eternal life, provision.

This is a future promise that the new covenant is coming.

Salvation is coming to whosoever believes.

And you have to think what is going on in Nicodemus' mind.

Like, how could God be stretching out his arms.

To the whole world?

I thought he was here making the covenant with just us, the Jews.

Hebrews 9, verse 16 validates this when it says, where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one

who made it.

Jesus had to die for the new covenant to be established.

And remember the first fruits in Romans 8, 23, Paul is referencing the Jews.

Jews were the first to receive the gospel and salvation.

But not all of them, only those that looked to God's provision, the lamb who takes away the sin

of the world.

Remember Nicodemus when he asked the question, how can these things be?

How can one be born again?

Jesus explains in Nicodemus that the son of man must first be lifted up so that

whoever believes can be saved.

There's one verse that contains every aspect of the atonement, John 3, 16.

For God so loved the world, the intent of the atonement, that he gave his only begotten son,

that whoever, extent of the atonement, believes in him should not perish but have eternal

life.

Application of the atonement.

Intent, extent, and application all in one verse.

And then look at verse 17, the world, cosmos, might be, the word, the

phrase might be, eris passive subjunctive, which means an action taken without indicating its completion.

That they might be saved is crucial to know because that shows us that God is not determining

certain people to be saved or else it would be communicated with an actual language, not potential

language.

There is potential for people to be saved and have the blood applied to them if they follow

God's provision.

What is his provision?

Faith on the Lord Jesus Christ.

If you follow in faith in Jesus, if you believe on the Lord Jesus, you will be saved.

Faith is not a work, it's nothing that we're earning, it is something that every man has the ability to do.

And if limited atonement is true, God wants people to worship him in spirit and in truth.

God cannot lie, then why wouldn't he just tell us that the only ones who will believe are the ones that Christ

atoned for?

Why are there no verses that tell us that God's eternal decree is to elect a certain people and that Christ

only atoned for those people?

Even D .A. Carson would acknowledge that never in all of scripture does the word world mean elect.

You have to change the definitions of words in order to make this fit.

And I see that as a tragedy.

Fascinating that Martin Luther wrote a book called On the Jews and Their Lies when he was

criticized for this for it being hateful rhetoric and anti -Semitic.

Not only Luther, but his hero Augustine wrote a book called Against the Jews.

And could their disposition against the Jews and the influence, the great influence that both of these

men had change the course of Christian teaching and the way that people interpret the Bible?

I think very much yes, so.

I see the potential for someone to discredit the Jewish nature that we see, that I've tried to bring out

in the New Testament and in reinterpreting John and Romans from a very individualistic perspective.

So it's not easy to, it's very easy to read ourselves into the text.

I didn't realize I'd have enough time to keep going, but let me continue.

In Dr. White's opening, he talked about the verses that talk about Christ dying for the sheep, dying for

his church, dying for his friends.

It was a passing statement.

I just want to address it really quick.

The same use could be that Owen used to say a few select verses tell us that Jesus is

dying for his church, people, sheep, et cetera.

Is the negative inference fallacy.

This would be like to say that all Orthodox Jews believe in Moses.

Mr. Smith here is not an Orthodox Jew, so therefore Smith doesn't believe in Moses.

That's the same logic to say that the church, Jesus died for the church, is only the

people of the church, that those who are professing believers in Christ.

Same thing with sheep, same thing with friends.

In fact, John 10, 15 does not have an atonement context where he died for his sheep, especially not a context

that speaks to the extent of the atonement.

This is another example of starting with the premise and finding a text that you can make it fit.

And this is the same case with every single passage to support limited atonement, which is why I don't

hold to it.

Matthew 1, 21 says that Jesus died for his people.

It's not a reference for the elect in the sense that God's predetermined people.

Every time the Bible uses God's people, it is a reference to the nation of Israel.

And knowing Matthew had a very Jewish audience, this would make sense.

The whole book starts out proving that Jesus is the Messiah to the Jews.

And so this is where I think I'll end my time, thank you.

Thank you, Jason.

Ladies and gentlemen, go ahead.

Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take a 10 minute, it was supposed to be five minutes, but let's take 10.

We got a lot of people here.

We're gonna ask that no one come and try to approach the debaters, they need to have a few minutes to rest.

They don't need to be answering questions or signing books.

So you have 10 minutes and we'll be back.

Ladies and gentlemen, we now come to the portion of the debate that is cross -examination where

each debater will get to ask questions of the opponent for 15 minutes.

And during this time, I would encourage you to listen to both the question and the answer.

And the only time I would ever interject in this is if a statement continues to bloviate

to waste time.

We need to ask questions and move on.

So at this point, Dr. White will be the first one to ask questions and that

will take the next 15 minutes.

Okay, Jason, do you have your opening notes with you?

What did you specifically say about verse 13 of Romans chapter one?

It seemed to be absolutely central to your thesis.

Could you, you said something about, I thought you said an indefinite, what did you say?

Oh, ambiguous.

Okay.

Ambiguous antecedent.

Okay.

Okay, so what, please explain to me, Romans 113 is

central to your rebuttal of my position and I do not understand why.

Can you please explain why?

Okay, so if you look at the 22 verses that are from chapter one to

the end of chapter eight, every time that Paul references the Jews, he's speaking to them in first person.

And so it starts with who the audience is.

Yes, he does open the letter like he does very much in a general sense.

And this is not to say that the rest of, anywhere in between Romans one through eight, is

there not still a general sense?

Because as I mentioned, chapter 323, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

All of that is still applicable to all people.

But I think the major emphasis is that he's specifically talking to the Jews.

And I think there's a principle from the way Paul practiced his ministry is that he always went to the synagogue

first.

He always preached to the Jew first.

Okay, let's look at verse 13.

And I do not want you to be unaware brothers that often I have planned to come to you and have been

prevented so far so that I may have some fruit among you even as among the rest of the Gentiles.

So the you is the Jews or the Gentiles?

Or is it just the church at Rome?

I see that as the Jews.

He's specifically talking to the Jews right there.

That I may have some fruit among you also even as among the rest of the

Gentiles.

So he's actually taught, he's the apostle Gentile.

So he's saying, even as among the rest of the Gentiles, that's how he's addressing them.

How do you get Jews?

The term Jews doesn't appear, right?

Yeah, that's why it's ambiguous.

And so when you say ambiguous antecedent, antecedent of what?

The you?

Yeah, so like if you go back to verse five, through whom we receive grace and apostleship for the

obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name.

Verse six, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ.

Now he just gets done talking about specifically the Gentiles.

His focus is to the Gentiles.

He's a minister to the Gentiles.

But among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ.

So who are the you also?

When he just referenced the Gentiles, I think that's his Jewish audience.

And just knowing Paul, like he's got this idea to get the message to

the Jews first.

And knowing that they're coming back from the dispersion and it's predominantly a Gentile church

and we know the contentions within Jew and Gentile and wanting to have reconciliation between

the two.

Okay, so it says through whom we received grace and apostleship for the obedience of faith among

all the Gentiles for the sake of his name among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ.

So you're making a distinction and verse six then is about Jews as well?

Yes.

Okay, all right.

So what does any of this have to do with Romans chapter eight.

If you admit that it's not this kind of sharp distinction, then

who is it that Jesus intercedes for

in verse 34 of chapter eight?

And that's another thing too.

Does Jesus only intercede for the Jews as my position would probably hold to?

No, that's not the case.

But who is his main audience and who he's talking about here who are the elect of God?

I see that as the Jews contextually.

And if you go back to chapter seven, as I mentioned in my rebuttal time, or do you not know brothers for I am

speaking to those who know the law and that the law is a master over a person as long as he

lives.

And so the audience never changes.

Okay, so you believe that in Romans 833, who will bring a charge against God's

elect is to be understood who will bring a charge against Jewish Christians?

Correct.

And when it says God is the one who justifies then does God justify Jewish Christians differently than Gentile Christians?

No, he doesn't do that differently.

But it's just saying that he's trying to give encouragement and we see that all through the

rest of chapter eight.

He's giving encouragement to the Jewish believers because you got to think that the Gentiles now are the ones that

are following Christ and most of the Jews aren't following Jesus.

And so the contention and the idea is like, well, if you think about what the Gentiles are thinking, Jesus is the

Jewish Messiah who's now saving the whole world.

And how come most of the Jews are rejecting him?

And with the persecution that's happening, and we see that in the end of verse eight or chapter eight,

that's, this is the context that I see.

Okay, okay, what then shall we say to these things.

If God is for Jews, who is against Jews?

Yes, but see, that's a statement where it is, it is specific to his audience, but you can also apply it

to the Gentile believers as well.

So you can apply it to the Gentile believers.

So 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, who is the us?

Yeah, well, he's, I think, specifically talking to the Jews, does that mean that Jesus doesn't intercede for Gentiles?

No, that doesn't mean that.

But I think his main audience is the Jews.

What does intercession result in?

When Christ intercedes for someone, what is the result of that?

And this would be a good point to just make this statement, just because I don't want there to be anything missed with

anyone that listens now or after when it's recorded, is that we both work off of a different foundation of

our theological premise, where I know that you would hold to God's eternal decree for God the Father to elect a certain people,

and then Christ to atone for those people, where my position is that Christ, that has provided

the provision, God's eternal decree is that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and that the condition is on faith,

and faith, when it is applied, anyone that can and anyone that does apply faith through

Christ, on Christ, can be saved.

That provision is what I just wanna make sure that, so people don't think that we're talking past each other.

Well, we seem to be talking past each other, because I haven't heard, what does the intercession of Christ

at the right hand of the Father actually accomplish?

The intercession is applied to those who are in Christ.

There's no Bible text that says Jesus is interceding for unbelievers.

So I don't wanna make that type of connection when the Bible doesn't explicitly tell us.

On what basis does Christ intercede for us?

On the condition of faith.

Those who have placed their faith in Christ are now redeemed, they're now bought with the blood of

Christ.

Now Jesus is applying the intercession.

So same thing as the -.

Does the word faith appear in Romans chapter eight, verses 31 and following?

No, but you have to interpret scripture and take the whole counsel of God.

So when it says that he intercedes for us, the immediate context

is his death and resurrection and exaltation, right?

That's the preceding part of the very sentence, right?

Okay, yeah.

Okay, why wouldn't that be the basis of his intercession?

Why would human faith be the basis of how his intercession succeeds?

Could you say that in a different way?

Since verse 34 says Christ Jesus is he who died, yes rather who was raised, who's the right hand of

God, who also intercedes for us.

That's all one action on the part of Christ.

So where do you find a place to put in human faith

that becomes the operational determiner of whether intercession actually accomplishes full

salvation?

Well, I don't know if I understand the question too well, but I mean, you go back to verse one in chapter eight, there's no

condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

And so he's obviously talking to, in at least a general sense, believers.

There's no, that's true.

That's applied to both.

Now again, I think he's specifically talking to the Jews, but that doesn't mean that that doesn't apply to any Gentile

believer as well.

And so when he gets to verse 34, so who is the one who condemns Christ Jesus is he who died, yes

rather who was raised, who was at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

He's talking to Christians.

He's talking to those who have already placed their faith and trust in Christ.

And so I don't see that faith was purchased at the cross or the intercession was

purchased at the cross or anything like that.

I see that that is the condition to which once faith is

operated through the condition on the Lord Jesus Christ, and then they are now saved, that is when the

intercession begins.

In Hebrews chapter seven, did I miss, while I was taking notes,

did I miss your response to Hebrews 7, 8, 9, and 10,

or did you choose not to address it?

No, I didn't, it's not that I didn't choose to address it, but I think that

if you, if I'm coming from the position that the intercessory work

is not, I understand the logic and the consistency that you want to have within the systematic

in which you hold to.

And so I do like, you know, wanna say like, that's good that you wanna be consistent in the theology in which you

have, but I don't see, but we're working off of a different foundation.

So if Jesus, from eternity past, if God did decree that there is a condition that needs to be

met, and that condition is faith, and he's given us the ability of the will to then exercise faith on Christ,

which is not a work, then we then, through Christ, are now redeemed because we have met that

condition.

And so the whole argument that you wanna present,.

I think is -.

You're going on and on and on.

Please just answer my questions.

Hebrews 7 .25 says, "'Therefore, he is able to save forever "'those who draw near to God through him,

"'since he always lives to make intercession for them.'".

Do you see a connection between the giving of intercession and the

accomplishment of saving Panteles to the uttermost or forever?

The way that you're connecting it, no.

No?

Okay, then please look at Hebrews 7 .25 and

exegete that verse for me.

Tell me how, why the first part of the sentence is not connected to the last

part of the sentence.

Yeah, well, I don't think I would be able to do the proper justice today to do that, but what I'd love to do is to

return to that at a later point in time and do a proper exegesis.

I'd be glad to do that.

So I don't wanna -.

You're saying you will not exegete a verse that is specifically on the subject of our debate this evening?

Exegete one single verse is gonna be difficult because you need to properly understand the context and the

context truly matters.

And so I'd rather have more study to do that first and then provide that kind of response.

I'd hate to do a throwaway statement.

I'm not trying to win an argument.

You know, I'm going to submit to whatever the text says, but I don't wanna do that.

I would rather give a proper response and do a proper exegesis.

Just one last thing.

Two last things then.

All right.

John chapter three, verse 17.

You made a claim about it.

I hadn't brought it up, but you made a claim about John 3, 17 in your rebuttal period.

And you made the assertion that there is something uncertain

at the end of verse 17.

Do you remember what you said?

Yeah.

When it says in order that the world might be saved through him.

Do you know what a Hinnah clause is, sir?

Yeah.

What's a Hinnah clause?

Okay, well, I'm not gonna give you the good definition that's probably gonna be accurate, but I know of it, so.

But you don't know what it is.

I couldn't give you a good proper definition.

For it right now.

Last question.

You mentioned, and I don't know why.

Well, I guess, okay.

You mentioned Luther's anti -Jewish book that he wrote toward the end of his life, right?

Correct.

Were you attempting to say that that book somehow influenced some

reformed dismissal of a focus upon Jews

in Romans or somewhere else?

Why did you bring that up?

I think it could play a role.

I mean, the way that we understand the Bible and the way that we understand culture and things influences the way that we can

read.

I mean, I don't know all the ins and outs of what was going on with Martin Luther or Augustine, and so, you know, but you

can draw, like, why did he write the book that obviously was something that was heavy and pressing in his

perception of the Jews and did that influence?

Do you know that Luther held two very different positions on the Jews during his life?

No.

You're not familiar with the pre -1525 Luther or the after 1525 Luther?

How about Johann Eck?

Do you know who Johann Eck was?

I know, I've heard of him, but.

You know, okay.

All right, thank you.

All right, now we will turn to Jason, who will give us his questions to Dr. White.

He will also be given 15 minutes, beginning whenever you say your first word.

Dr. White, do you believe that the atonement achieved equals the atonement applied?

Do I believe that the atonement achieved equals the atonement applied?

Not temporally.

Obviously, there is a difference between when the atonement was achieved and then when it is

applied to individuals in regeneration.

So, but the achievement does determine

the application and the fact that it will be applied.

There will be no failure of that achievement.

Okay, so if one cannot suffer for the consequences of sin, once the sins have been paid for,

then how were the elect ever under the wrath of God at any point in time after the cross?

Well, once again, that's actually an objection to the very idea that there could be a union of the people of

God with Christ in his death.

This involves, again, and this is very common in certain philosophical and theological systems today, a

rejection of the fact that the Bible tells us eternal things in one aspect and

temporal things in others.

So we are told that we are seated in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus right now.

But I've been watching some of you eating food and I know that you're not in heaven right now, especially you're eating.

So there is the now and the not yet.

There is the eternal and then there is the temporal.

And so how could we receive the damage of sin in our

life because we are living in this world?

And the forgiveness of that sin is what allows the spirit of God to dwell in us.

You see, the question also ignores something fundamental to the gospel.

Christ's righteousness has been imputed to us.

Our sins imputed to him, his righteousness imputed to us.

That's why we have peace with God.

Okay, so if people are rejecting the gospel, aren't they rejecting the God who first rejected them?

I have no idea what that has to do with my presentation.

I know exactly where all these questions are coming from.

But if people reject the gospel, are they not simply rejecting the God who rejected them?

Again, this is coming from a source that just simply refuses to hear the entire counsel of God, no matter how hard

you try.

And that is, Romans chapter five says that we are in Adam.

And you are either in Adam and hence receive from Adam what only Adam can give you, which is death,

or you're in Christ.

There's two humanities, in Adam and in Christ.

So the idea of Christ rejecting someone is just biblical blather.

It is sin that results in just judgment upon

all of humanity.

And grace is the free act of God where he saves

individuals who do not deserve to be saved.

It's not a matter of rejection.

It's a matter of acceptance of those for which there is no reason for acceptance outside of Jesus Christ.

Okay, so if God's eternal decree was to elect a certain group of people to be saved in Jesus's atonement,

isn't Jesus's atonement just the means to accomplish that end?

Jesus's atonement is central to the fulfillment of the decree of the Father and the

application of the Spirit.

So I wouldn't say just a means to an end because it's also the demonstration with the second

person of the Trinity entering into human flesh of the tremendous love and condescension of God.

Do you believe that the apostles properly understood the atonement?

Of course.

Okay.

If the apostles did, how come it wasn't until the end of the 16th century that limited atonement became

the position that it was held to?

Let me point out again, have you read Irenaeus?

Athanasius.

Isn't that a lot of asked questions?

Okay, all right.

Thank you very much, Keith.

I will get you later for that.

Okay, I can't ask you the question.

So if you have ever read Irenaeus or Athanasius or Justin Martyr or any of the others, then

you would know that there were numerous theories that were extremely

unbiblical in the early church.

And I would simply say the apostles gave us Hebrews 7 .25, which you can't tell us what it

means, but the apostles gave it to us and it remains true.

I can tell you what it means.

I would just rather do that.

That's not a question, is it?

All right.

See how that works both ways?

Yeah.

If Christ paid only for the elect, did he truly abolish sin and death at the cross?

Not only did he abolish sin and death at the cross, but he did so for people who are undeserving.

If you're saying that he would have to do that in a universal fashion, then

you're missing the point.

How is death and sin abolished in the unregenerate, in

those who are not elect?

That will be abolished in that great day of judgment when the books are opened and the judgment

is placed upon them that is just for them.

So no one gets injustice.

You either get mercy in Christ or you get justice in Adam.

And in all of these situations, judgment will be done.

Death and sin will be done away with.

Everything will be summed up in Jesus Christ.

And in only one of those ways does God have freedom to actually act in his world.

Okay, so can you show me a verse that says Jesus only defeated death and sin for the elect or that he

only died for the elect?

In that terminology, of course not, because what the Bible teaches is his ability to save to the

uttermost those who draw nigh to God by him because he ever lives to make intercession for them.

So that is the biblical utilization of terminology that teaches the

conclusion that you're now asking about.

One of many places, but that's one of them.

Does limited atonement diminish faith to a commodity that can be bought?

No.

And if that is correct, understanding of language doesn't, the Bible, do you believe that the Bible uses

that type of language metaphorically or literally?

What type of language are you referring to?

Faith?

Bought, yeah, like bought, ransomed, is it?

Depends on what the context is.

Give me a text and I'll tell you whether it's being used metaphorically or not.

But can bought be used metaphorically?

Yes, it can be.

So for example, when Peter talks about false teachers being bought, the issue

is bought with a price or not bought with a price?

Is it metaphorically in regards to God's sovereignty in using them or is it a redemptive thing?

So you have to look at each context to know what is being referred to.

Okay, do you affirm that there's a condition to the atonement's benefits?

A condition to what?

The atonement's benefits.

Benefits?

The atonement is one aspect of the entire work of the triune God that

brings about his self -glorification, the salvation of his people.

And with us, that includes our regeneration, our redemption, our

adoption, faith, forgiveness,.

All of these things.

So they're all aspects of what God accomplishes in time in

our lives that are based upon one act in history.

So do you affirm that faith was purchased at the cross for the elect?

The ability, well, again, faith is definitely a gift given to the elect, saving faith,

that's why it abides.

When you say purchased, in the broad sense that there

has to be, you have to deal with, a lot of people don't think about this, but how is it that the Holy

Spirit of God can even dwell with us who have abiding sin within us?

The only way that can happen is if the atonement provides the basis upon which that can

take place.

So you could say, in a sense, that it's purchased in the

sense that the barriers to the presence of the Spirit in our lives are taken away because

our sins are imputed to Christ, his righteousness is imputed to us.

Okay, Charles Hodge stated that there is no grace in accepting a pecuniary

satisfaction, that it can't be refused.

The moment the debt is paid, the debtor is free and without any condition.

Does that not undermine grace and a genuine offer?

I would have to look at what Hodge was talking about, what was the topic, what he was addressing.

There's no context there for me to work on, and I can guarantee you one thing.

The effectiveness and sufficiency and perfection of the work of Christ is the very

essence of grace, not something that undercuts it.

Do you adhere to the double payment theory that if universal atonement is true, that you believe

that presents itself a double payment as Owen adhered to?

Well, I'll go ahead and answer the question.

Even though I would just point out, my presentation is not really being dealt with even in the cross

-examination questions.

But do I believe that it is an appropriate observation to say

that if Christ, if the wrath of God due to sin X

has fallen upon Christ so that he has suffered and borne it in its totality,

then to take that punishment and place it upon the person who committed it and upon Christ

both would involve a fundamental injustice on God's part.

That wasn't my argument, but if you want to go there.

No, I was just curious.

So you affirm it or no?

If that is true.

Well, I think I affirmed it.

I don't know what terminology you're using.

I know where you're getting this stuff, and I just simply say that there's a certain professor

that used to be at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary that I have refuted many times on my program.

And the categories that are utilized in that material are frequently

erroneous.

That's what I got.

Thank you.

Please put your hands together for these gentlemen.

This brings us to the final statements of both.

I was gonna say, would you like to do it sitting or would you rather have the podium?

We can have the podium.

It'll take us two seconds to get it up there.

Which would you prefer?

Let's bring it up.

Okay.

Talk amongst yourself.

All

right, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your patience.

We will now have our 10 -minute closing statement from each of our debaters, beginning with

Dr. White.

Well, thank you very much for your attention this afternoon to this very important subject.

I simply have to summarize by saying that my argument has been utterly ignored.

There was no exegesis offered.

Instead, an overarching, highly unusual, utterly indefensible

theory was presented as if that's enough to undo the clear teaching

of Romans 8 or Hebrews 7 through 9 and the other passages that I could have gone to, but I wanted

to make this a biblical argument.

You didn't hear me quoting Calvin.

You didn't hear me quoting Hodge.

We can debate those things.

We can read Roger Nicole's article and stuff like that, and I can guarantee you I've read far more on this

than my opponent and those who have been giving him information.

I can assure you of that.

But that's not why we're here this evening.

That's not what this debate was supposed to be about.

This debate was supposed to be about what the scripture says and during the cross -examination, I brought

us to the very text of the word of God and I said, what is this

saying?

And it is clearly, without a question, one of the most important

verses on this topic.

It's specifically on atonement.

It's specifically on intercession.

It's specifically on the audience that is in view from the biblical perspective,

and I was told, I'll do it later.

We'll do it at some other time.

I do not understand that.

I do not understand why you would take a position on a subject when one of the key texts of the scripture

on that very subject, you refuse to touch.

I will be very honest.

The debate ended at that point from any meaningful perspective.

It really did, and you may say, well, you should just leave that to everybody else.

Okay, listen to me.

The concept of Christ's atonement is not just something that should

be a subject of debate.

It is central to the definition of the gospel.

I have said for years that most people's understanding of the cross, they derived from hymns,

not from the Bible.

They're emotional, they're not biblical, and the result is a degradation of our worship and a

degradation of our theology.

Only a matter of days ago, I stood in front of a even larger audience than this

and debated a very sharp Roman Catholic apologist on the subject of purgatory.

Let me tell you something.

The fundamental assertions I have made about the

sufficiency of Christ's work as sin bearer so that

his righteousness, not just the taking away of my sins, but his positive righteousness, his

fulfillment of the law can be imputed to me as the grounds of my peace with God.

That is the issue with Rome, and the perspective presented tonight

makes hash out of how you respond to Rome.

I hope this is not presented to a sharp Roman Catholic.

They would have a heyday with it.

You say, you sound pretty serious.

Yes, because I don't believe these debates are about what we do for a couple hours and an

afternoon at a conference.

I've seen people come out of the Roman Catholic system because of the debates we've done over the past 30 plus years,

because we have consistently presented the sufficiency of the work of Christ, and no one can make

heads or tails out of the idea that well, you know, the first eight chapters are about the Jews, and then you divide this up there, and

then I've got this guy on YouTube who's saying Ephesians chapter one that was just about the apostles, and

you're just left going, do you all realize the results of what you're saying?

Do you know what you're saying?

In Romans chapter eight, for example, we were literally told that Romans chapter eight, verse 23,

is about the Jews, and not only this, but also we ourselves

having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves grown within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the

adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

Let me tell you something.

That ain't just for Jews.

That's not primarily addressed to Jews.

Romans is addressed to the saints at Rome, which included Jews and Gentiles,

and if you try to start dividing that up, it's because you don't believe what Paul wrote to the Romans.

That's why.

Think about the cost, but we also ourselves having the first fruits

of the Spirit.

We're talking about the Spirit's work in the primitive church.

Do you as a believer, do you have the Spirit working within you?

When we pray that the church will come to understand God's truth and stand firm on it in

the midst of a world that because of its secularism is challenging everything that Christianity stands

for, what foundation are you gonna be standing on?

You have to believe that we all have the first fruits of the Spirit if you're even gonna pray that God would work in his church

in this way.

Even we ourselves grown within ourselves, isn't that all of us?

Eagerly waiting for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body, that's language

addressed to us all.

It's astonishing to me.

You go to John 6, you go to Ephesians 1, you go to Romans 8.

Wow, I wonder why it is that people come up with ideas that this really isn't about us all.

It is about us all and the promises are ours.

And I am so thankful that they are.

I wanna say to Jason, I admire your bravery coming to a why Calvinism

conference to debate this subject, I truly do.

But I just simply have to say that the theology presented to us this evening,

I just have to, and as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, that

theology is not biblical, it is incoherent and it's indefensible.

And it will fundamentally cripple the ability of anybody who holds to it to provide a

meaningful defense of the faith.

And I'm sort of focused on the fact that we need to be able to provide a defense of the faith.

I said in my opening statement and I gave the biblical foundation.

God the Father elected a particular people in Jesus Christ.

The atonement is not some impersonal thing, the elect is not some impersonal group that we decide whether we're gonna

get in or out of it.

We were chosen in him before the foundation of the world, predestined

to be conformed to his image.

That's God the Father's right.

He has a people, he gives them to the Son.

And he says to the Son, save them perfectly.

And how does the Son do that?

Incarnation, ministry, death, burial, resurrection, enthronement.

The grace flows from the Father, it's accomplished in the awesome work of the Son.

And then, aren't you glad that God and his patience

didn't wrap things up 20 years after the cross?

That's what Peter's talking about when he talks about God's patience, is that the elect are still being brought

in.

And yet, that beautiful hymn says it right.

My name was written on his hand.

When he died, he knew.

He knew me, he knew my sin, and he knew he was bearing my sin in his body upon the tree.

Can you imagine that?

Without that, you have an impersonal atonement.

Without that, you have the Roman system, you have sacraments, you have work salvation, you have all sorts of things that man

has come up with because man doesn't want to have to go, it's all of God and

none of me.

The only thing I contribute to my salvation is what?

What's the famous saying?

My sin, my sin.

That is absolutely destructive,

destructive of human pride and arrogance, and so man works hard to

create systems.

The message of Scripture is that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

together have brought about the perfect redemption of God's people.

This was not merely a provision, this was an accomplishment,

and that was the dividing line even at the time of the Reformation.

It's the dividing line between grace and non -grace.

The Scriptures have been clear.

What are we gonna do with what their testimony is is what I have to ask each one of us.

I personally glorify God and I'm thankful that Jesus Christ

accomplishes perfect redemption on the cross of Calvary for each one of us.

God bless you, thank you.

And now Jason will give his 10 -minute closing statement.

Well, thank you, Dr. White.

I do wanna acknowledge the fact that James is very well -versed in the

form of debate, and I can clearly see where I lack in some of those

things, but that's not why we're here.

We're here to defend what the Bible says, and I think it's funny that he mentioned

defending the faith.

When anyone that's not a believer can't do that if God doesn't give them faith.

They can't actually defend anything if God doesn't give it to them to defend.

I do have to acknowledge the fact that I do realize that if there's anything that I say that is

contrary to Dr. White, that it's not biblical.

So it's just the nature of the way things are, and I get that.

I wanna talk to you really quick about Paul and his writing to the Corinthian church, chapter

two.

He makes the following proclamation and says this.

And when I came to you, brothers, I did not come with superiority of word or of wisdom, proclaiming to you

the witness of God, for I am determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and

him crucified.

When Paul preached, he preached as if all could receive the gospel, all could have the blood

applied to them.

He persuaded people, he pleaded with people to turn to Christ and believe on the finished

work of Jesus on the cross, and that it is accomplished for them.

Think about for a moment what it means to preach a gospel that no one knows if it is efficient or

effective at all.

And I do have to say that this is how I see Calvinism presenting the gospel, because if you're honest, this is how

you have to preach it.

You can't tell someone that Jesus died for them.

You can't tell somebody that he was buried and raised for them.

You can't tell somebody that he defeated sin and death for them, and that Jesus is the propitiation

for them, offering hope, a genuine offer of hope in the gospel on the Lord

Jesus Christ.

If the position of limited atonement, and I should add unconditional election, is true, you can't share the

gospel this way, because it puts you in a position of potentially lying to someone who is going to spend all

eternity in hell because Jesus didn't atone for them and the Father didn't elect them.

There is no genuine offer that can be given.

You can preach a message that says God may save you, you may have the wrath of God satisfied

for you if he has predestined you, you may have the blood applied to you, and you may have

Jesus interceding for you if God preordained this to happen.

You can preach a message like this, and I think that would be consistent in the systematic.

And I see this as, if that is the truth, that this makes salvation not based on the finished work of Jesus

on the cross and his perfect sacrifice for us, but it's based on God's eternal predetermined

election, which again, as I stated already, which makes Jesus just the means to accomplish the end for which anyone is

actually saved in Calvinism, which is election.

Jesus Christ is not the life, election is.

Paul didn't go around and proclaim to people, I am determined to know nothing among you except if God has preordained you from

eternity past.

And neither should we.

We should say, I am determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

That's the message that we preach.

The message of reconciliation, the message, the genuine offer of hope in the gospel.

The message of whosoever believes.

Will you trust the Savior today?

He will change your life, he will give you a new heart and new affections, he will give you the Holy Spirit.

He will never leave you or forsake you.

Today is the day of salvation if you repent and believe.

The genuine offer is there, and you can do that in the gospel message.

I wanna share really quick the theme of jurisdiction and what actually Christ did at the cross.

We see in Hebrews five, seven and eight, contemplate for a moment the concept of Jesus appealing

to his father who heard his son's prayers and supplications even with fervent, loud

crying and tears despite having the power and the ability to intervene and save

Jesus from impending death on the cross.

The father chose not to, and this shows the profound obedience of Christ through enduring

immense suffering.

Why did Jesus have to die?

Romans 5, 12 says, therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, so death spread to all men

because all sinned.

And upon reading this verse, what captures your mind and attention the most?

I think for many of us it would be sin.

However, I am more inclined now to think of it being the word death.

For the wages of sin is death, but the gracious gift of God is eternal life in Jesus

our Lord.

A theologian and historian by the name of Bruce Demarest said in his work The Cross and Salvation the

following words.

Many patristic and church authorities before the time of Anselm interpret the atonement as a cosmic

victory over death.

This dramatic or ransom theory which depicts God triumphing over enslaving spiritual forces

was the dominant view of the church for the first thousand years.

The emphasis was not on Christ bearing sinner's penalty, aka substitutionary atonement, or the

propitiating God's wrath.

Both are true, I fully affirm.

But upon his act of delivering believers from enslaving powers and his victory

over death, Christ is the victor.

Jesus had to die and rise again to take back the jurisdiction of death's power.

Just very briefly look at how this theme runs through the Bible.

God, in the beginning, Adam was bestowed upon him dominion and jurisdiction over the entire earth,

particularly the garden.

But regrettably, Adam's transgression resulted in death for all.

God forewarned Adam that consuming the forbidden fruit and the disobedience of it would lead to

death.

Fast forward, when God instructed Pharaoh to release his people, they only departed

once Pharaoh complied.

Now think about that, that's very interesting.

God warned Israel not to form alliances with any nation in the promised land of Canaan.

But despite this, Israel was deceived by the Gibeonites into making a covenant which God made Israel

honor, and even though it was not his intention.

However, 400 years later, when Saul broke the covenant, God held Israel

accountable.

David was anointed 10 years for king of Israel prior to him actually taking the position of

king over Israel.

So the concept of jurisdiction is a reoccurring theme all throughout the Bible, and I think it's important to see

that.

Hosea 13, 14 says, shall I ransom them from the power of the grave?

Shall I redeem them from death?

O death, where are your thorns?

O death, where is your sting?

He will swallow up death for all time.

The Lord Yahweh will wipe away tears from all faces.

When Jesus rose from the grave, he defeated death and the power

of it in our lives.

First Corinthians 15, 21.

Paul says, for since by man came death, and by man also came the resurrection of the dead.

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when he has established all rule and all

authority and power.

For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet, and the last enemy to be abolished

is death.

The Bible uses language that sin and death are conquered at the cross.

It is never used in anything grammatically or contextually that assumes that sin and death are only accomplished for the elect.

Revelation 118, Jesus says, I am the first and the last and the living one.

I was dead and behold, I am alive forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and Hades.

If Jesus did truly defeat death and sin only for the elect, my question to you is,

did he truly abolish sin and death?

Did he really do that?

Or is there a limit to him abolishing sin and death?

I'll leave you with this.

Hebrews chapter two, verse nine, but we do see him who was made for a little while lower than the

angels, Jesus, because of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace

of God, he might taste death.

For what?

For who?

For everyone.

Everyone, brothers and sisters.

Now, my biggest appeal to you is to do what every Christian should

strive to do, is to listen to the arguments that were presented, but to go and do your own work in

the scriptures and to learn what the text says.

Be a good Berean, and you're going to learn and you're going to grow.

And the positions that you hold to right now might not be the positions as you continue and

press through the scriptures.

And so, my admonishment to you is to go and be a good Berean and to stand firm in the truth

and to walk faithful to King Jesus.

Thank you so much.

We're now going to move into our time for questions from the audience, and

I've gone through the questions and I have separated them into three categories, those that are directed to each

debater, and there are more that are directed to you, Jason.

I think that's just the nature of the audience, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a few for Dr. White, so

we'll try to, I'm sorry?

That's what I'm, yeah, yeah, yes, sir, yes, sir.

By the way, everybody thank Jeff for the hard work that they've done this, this is Jeff, he's the, for those who came just for the

debate, Jeff and Haps and Braden are the responsible for this and we're so

grateful for the work that they've done and they're so, so gracious and loving and we're so thankful for them.

Keith, are we going to just have the person to whom it's addressed answer with no response from the other, or is it

gonna be a minute and 30 seconds, or how do you wanna work that out?

I was just gonna say, my original thought was to give two minutes and one minute, but if that's

too long, why don't we do a minute and 30 and then a 30 second rebuttal?

Minute and then 30 seconds.

A minute and 30, okay.

Otherwise we're gonna be, we're all gonna get.

A few questions done.

So a minute to answer, 30 seconds for the other side.

Sound fair?

Sure.

You're good with that?

All right.

The first one then we will give to Jason and the question is

this.

Jason, could Jesus have died for the entire world and yet no one was saved because

no one came to Christ and endured to the end of their own volition?

Well, I think there's, that's, the question in itself is problematic and I do understand that you're coming

from the position and most likely the understanding that total depravity is true.

I don't hold to total depravity or total inability, which means that we can't believe unless God

imparts that regeneration first and then applies faith from what Christ did at the cross.

So I think it starts off with, if you understand, if you're working through that system that you believe that total

depravity is true, then you must then ask questions like that, which I think is just,

it's just a faulty question.

No offense, it's just I think that you're trying to be consistent within your systematic of understanding, but

if you understand my position, I think that's where you would go, I think.

I'm sorry.

That was it, I think.

Okay.

No answer was given and I think it's fairly obvious why.

I mean, aside from the fact that scripture says there is none who seeks after God, read Romans three for yourself, the reality is

if Christ died for all people and yet it's not the effective work of the Holy Spirit that brings them

to faith in Jesus Christ, then yes, not only could no one have been saved, but you have to also

answer if he dies for all and they are not all saved and there are many people and I'm out of time.

Thank you.

See, I use my clock.

And there are a lot of questions and if anyone, certainly there will be some that are left out.

None are being intentionally left out.

I'm really just trying to make sure if there are ones that ask the same thing, trying to gather them together.

All right, Dr. White, why does God create people who he intends to

never be atoned for?

Never be atoned for.

Well, why did God create at all?

This is what a universalist asks.

Universalist believes that all people will be saved and if anyone is damned, then that's a problem for them.

The problem is there is only one way in which God's freedom can be demonstrated.

If everyone's saved, God has no freedom.

If no one's saved, God has no freedom.

If some people are saved and some people are not, God has freedom to do what?

To demonstrate his wrath and his judgment and his holiness and his

love and his mercy and his goodness.

There's only one way in which that can be done in its fullness and God has chosen to do

that in Jesus Christ.

Now remember, I believe that the number of the elect are as the sand of the sea.

And I believe that that's what's gonna end up happening.

But the freedom of God must be our first priority.

Thank you.

I have a hard, I think that's hard to grasp in the sense that that's

a theological concept and it's using philosophical ideas of that God needs to perfectly

provide his wrath and his love in equal amounts that I don't see as specific or explicit

text that then defines that.

And so that we're creating an argument that is, I think, pious and we want to attribute and

give God glory and we all do want that to take place but I don't see that as an

explicit text that defines who God is and what he's doing.

Thank you.

All right, Jason, this is directed to you.

If Romans 1 to 9, I think you actually said 1 to 8, so if Romans 1

to 8 is directed toward the Jews, how do you know if or when a text is

also relevant to Gentiles?

Well, I mean, the scriptures have a variety of genres and literary

ways of how it's written and so Romans 1 through 8 has

specific.

You just have to look at who Paul is talking to.

He's talking to, 22 verses, he's directly speaking to the Jews in first person and then from 9

on till the end of 16, he never talks to the Jew in first person ever past that point but he

talks to the Gentiles in first person from 9 through 16.

He switches it.

So you have to at least acknowledge the fact that why is that there?

Is there a specific sense in which Paul says, yes, there's general

information and revelation for all to know all of this but I

want to emphasize this particularly to a particular audience.

That's a big thing when we come to biblical hermeneutics.

We need to know who is the audience and it's not easy to do that.

I want to acknowledge that first off.

It's not easy to do that.

Todd, thank you.

The audience is directly expressed to us in Romans chapter one at the beginning.

It's to all those who are called in Christ Jesus in Rome.

It is a completely artificial mechanism to try to place this upon the text

and I have not seen any meaningful argumentation provided to substantiate the assertion.

Dr. White, what other verses besides Romans 8 and Hebrews 8 and 9

show limited atonement?

Well, again, I made reference to other passages we could look at and my assertion was

misunderstood or just not heard because when I talk about Christ's death for his sheep,

he makes that very specific in John chapter 10 when I talk about Christ's death.

Of the church.

When you read that in the context of what the Bible teaches the effect of

Christ's death is, then very clearly these are passages that are relevant to limited atonement.

It's not what David Allen, David Allen has one response to these things and by the way, I would love to have David Allen

sitting there.

I've challenged him for years.

He will not debate me and there's a reason for it but this idea, well, you're just using

a logical argument here.

No, if you understand what Christ's death accomplishes and how it forms the church, then you can

understand why those passages would then teach particular or limited atonement.

What I think I heard James say is that you need to interpret Hebrews 7 through 9

and then go to John 10 and Matthew 1 and then understand how that context

should be communicated which I don't think is proper exegesis.

That's not what I said either.

Jason, I'm gonna read it as written.

It says, brother.

Brita made the analogy of the blood of the Passover lamb being painted to illustrate the

conditional or provisional nature of God's offer of salvation.

If this application represents the actions of the individual believer, what role in this economy

of salvation is left for Christ's intercessory work and the work of the Holy Spirit?

Okay, so I might need you to repeat it again.

If I, just repeat it again just to make sure it's loaded.

It's a long question, so I'll do it again.

Brother Brita made the analogy of the blood of the Passover lamb being painted to illustrate the conditional or

provisional nature of God's offer of salvation.

They're saying in your presentation, you said that was a provisional thing.

Sure, yeah, yeah.

If this application represents the actions of the individual believer, what role in

this economy of salvation is left for Christ's intercessory work and the work of the Holy Spirit?

Okay, so I think it's, whoever asked that question is assuming

that if man has the ability to choose through the provision God

has given, that would be in the New Testament covenant, the faith on Christ.

It sounds like that what role does the Holy Spirit play in this, and then what role

does Jesus' intercessory work play in this?

I think that's the question that's being asked, so forgive me if that's not correct.

Faith is not a work, and so no one's working to put their faith in anything.

If you look at Romans chapter 10, verse 14, how then will they call on him who they've

never believed?

How will they then believe on him who they've never heard?

How will they hear without a preacher?

How will they then preach unless they are sent?

However, they did not heed the good news, for Isaiah says, the Lord who has believed our people.

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

So we preach the gospel, and if someone exercises faith on the Lord Jesus Christ, they then can

be saved.

The regeneration work is from the Spirit, and Jesus is interceding for all who believe.

Brother, we're out of time.

I'd like to have half that time.

The intercessory work of Christ is a part of the new covenant, and Jesus is the guarantee of

a better covenant, because he's a better mediator.

The fact of the matter is, one side, the synergistic side, has to say that the

intercessory work of Christ is limited in its fundamental capacity.

That's why we couldn't end up dealing with Hebrews in depth because of what it actually says as

to its power and efficacy.

Dr. White, setting aside all the biblical passages that speak of the offer of

salvation to all, if Christ only died.

I'm sorry, the author, what?

Offer.

Okay, offer of.

I'll read it again.

Setting aside all the biblical passages that speak of the offer of salvation to all,

if Christ only died for the elect and reprobated all others, predestinating them to sin

and death through his divine determinism, then doesn't that make God to be a

moral monster who punishes people for

their actions when they could do no other?

Of course not.

And this is a fundamental rebellion against biblical revelation.

It is the very spirit of the man that Paul refers to in Romans nine.

Who are you, O man, who answers back to God?

That is the very essence of that.

And the whole way in which the question is phrased is avoiding not only the

culpability of man.

It's like, oh, man's being forced to do bad things and God's a big moral monster.

And that, we're opening the same pages of scripture where God is long

-suffering and dealing with people and he is providing a way of salvation to people who don't want

anything to do with him.

How do we get to such a perverted understanding?

Who are you, man, who answers back to God?

I don't understand it.

It requires ripping everything the Bible teaches about God's long -suffering

out of the text of scripture.

I don't do it.

All right, brother?

So, if God determines all things, then he determines the sin that we commit.

You can't have both.

And I think 1 Corinthians 10, 13 is a huge defense against that system.

No temptation has overtaken you, but such as is common to man.

But God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will make a way of escape

so that you will be able to endure it.

If God is determining things, then that verse is not true.

Okay.

We are going to have one more for each.

Is that fair?

Okay.

Jason, if everyone has the ability of faith, then why does scripture say faith

is a gift?

Yeah, faith is a gift.

I affirm that faith is a gift.

Life is a gift.

Breath is a gift.

The fact that we're here together and we get to fellowship with one another, that's a gift.

Everything is from God.

Everything is a gift.

But it's a matter of when is the gift applied?

Is faith only then arbitrarily selected to a group of people that God has ordained from eternity

past?

Or is it applied to everyone through the provision of the gospel message that we go and preach to every creature?

And it's just as I read in Romans 10, that if once they hear, then they can

have that faith to choose if they believe on the Lord Jesus.

That's not a work.

That is the provision God has provided in the new covenant, as we saw in John chapter three and elsewhere.

Next week, I'm teaching Baptist church history at the seminary.

And one of the things we're covering are the early missionaries to India and places like that.

And the beautiful thing is those people who went, they were Calvinists, and they believed faith is a gift.

And they prayed earnestly that God would grant it and give it, and God did.

And I'm so thankful that they went.

Dr. White, did you sing Jesus Loves Me to your

children or any songs about his love?

Did you tell your children that they may or not be elect?

Well, thankfully, I don't know who the elect are.

And I, right now, listening to, my wife just sent me audio

of my little one -year -old grandson singing with his daddy.

And they are catechized, and they are taught, and they're taught the law of God, and they're taught the word of God, and they're called to have faith in Christ.

And I've had the glorious privilege of baptizing three of my grandchildren so far who have professed faith

in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I am so thankful that I can trust a true and loving God to save his elect people

and to keep them.

And I don't have to trust their little hearts and their little lives as if they're

the ones who are in charge of all of these things.

I don't know who the elect are.

I pray that God will draw them to himself.

But I can trust him, not mankind, on that fundamental issue.

I would say that I trust God in his provision to have a genuine offer where we

see in Romans 10, 21 that he has extended his hands all day long for a

disobedient people.

There is a genuine offer in the gospel.

To say that God is extending his arms, but yet he's only going to secretly

share salvation with those he's preordained, there's not a revealed and a

secret will of God.

And so I hold to the fact that all can come to faith in Christ.

Most won't because they love darkness rather than light.

But we have the ability to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Please thank both of our debaters for their time.

You have,

it is important to understand that this is an exercise in mental gymnastics and both of

these men are going to be intellectually exhausted after this.