The 'Read My Book' Debate on BAM

22 views

December 16, 2003

This informal debate took place on December 16th 2003 on the Bible Answerman Broadcast. James White faces off against Hank Hanegraaff (The Bible Answerman) and George Bryson (Calvary Chapel). Confronted with numerous bible passages against his philosophical position George Bryson avoids interacting with the passages and simply repeats conundrums while making a number of his own dogmatic assertions. At one point Hank even states the charge of avoidance directly to him while stating that James had repeatedly exegeted them with no response. This debate is filled with the very things that Hank decries: dogmatic assertions, philosophical constructs and broad sweeping generalities. James White is the only one who repeatedly works toward appealing to and rightly dividing the scripture. It is a perfect example of how modern defenders of Libertarian Free Will run away from scripture to the arms of philosophical conundrum in order to defend their positions. Dr. White did a follow up DL to this show. Follow the link below to listen.

Comments are disabled.

00:00: We're going to be talking about the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom.
00:05: As has just been mentioned, this has been a centuries -old debate.
00:11: It is a debate that many people want to have specific answers to. They want to have clarity on this very important subject.
00:21: In studio with me today, James White. He's the author of a book called Potter's Freedom, and George Bryson, the author of a brand new book.
00:30: In fact, I've got the first copies in my hand. It's called The Dark Side of Calvinism.
00:36: Now, I'm a little bit at a disadvantage, George, in that I have not yet had an opportunity to read your book, but I'm very familiar with your work and glad to have you with us.
00:45: James, let's start with you. You write with respect to unconditional election.
00:53: God elects a specific people unto himself without reference to anything they do.
01:00: This means the basis of God's choice of the elect is solely within himself, his grace, his mercy, his will.
01:10: It is not man's actions, works, or even foreseen faith that decrees or draws
01:17: God's choice. God's election is unconditional and final.
01:24: Does that mean, in essence, that there are perhaps, arguably, billions of people that are doomed before the womb?
01:32: Well, what it means is that God's grace is free and that that grace cannot be demanded by anyone, that it has to come from God's freedom.
01:40: And that means there are individuals who, because they love their sin and continue in their sin, will experience the justice of God, but that he, for his own purposes, and it's not, as I mentioned in that quote, anything in me, the reason that I embrace
01:54: Christ and a person across the street does not, is not found because I'm smarter, more spiritual, that I'm better in any way that they are.
02:02: Instead, just as Paul says in Romans chapter 9, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad, so that God's calling and election might stand for certain, one was chosen and one was not.
02:14: And so really the issue is God demonstrates his love, mercy, and grace with the elect and he demonstrates his justice.
02:21: And that's something that I hope comes up a good bit today, because it's not something we hear much in the evangelical church today, but God makes it a priority to demonstrate his justice.
02:31: And he does so with Pharaoh, with Pharaoh's army. I mean, we could go through history and come up with many, many examples where he has justly brought his wrath upon those individuals who loved their sin, reveled in their sin, despite the fact they were surrounded by God's creation, continued to suppress that knowledge, as Paul says in Romans chapter 1, and as such he demonstrates his justice before in his judgment of them.
02:58: Now when you say before the womb, I think it's important to point out that we were in Adam before the womb. This is part and parcel of what's called federal theology, the fact that we fell in Adam.
03:09: And so when we talk about before the womb, we need to be careful we differentiate between our experience of time and God's eternality.
03:16: Yes, before the womb, God obviously, not only for the elect, says that they are already seated in the heavenly places,
03:24: Ephesians chapter 2, but we experience salvation in time in the same way an individual prior to their birth does
03:32: God know everything they're going to do? I would argue that he does, and in fact hopefully we'll discuss upon what basis he knows what they're going to do.
03:39: What is the basis of God's exhaustive knowledge of the future? Because everyone involved in this debate believes
03:44: God has exhaustive knowledge of the future. How does God know that, and how is that related to his justice?
03:50: But there will be then, in your view, billions of people that never have an opportunity to respond to the gospel.
03:58: They are incapable and able to respond to the gospel. Is that the position?
04:03: The position is that they do not desire God. They do not have any desire to respond to any message whatsoever.
04:10: So they could respond, but they just do not deserve it. No, no, no. They themselves, because... What did Jesus say?
04:15: So the point is, they can't respond. They cannot respond because of their own sin. He who commits sin is the slave of sin,
04:22: Jesus himself said. When the people were offended, when Jesus said, if you continue my word, then you're my disciples, you know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.
04:29: They said, we are free. That concept of freedom is part and parcel of what
04:36: I believe the Bible is denying. When Jesus says, no one is able to come to me unless the
04:42: Father who sent me draws him, and I'll raise him up the last day. The Bible emphasizes God's ability and man's inability because of his sin and his fallen, corrupt nature.
04:51: So do you agree with what John Calvin wrote when he said, all are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation, and accordingly, as each has been created for one or another of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death.
05:15: You agree with that point of view? And now you have people who, like R .C.
05:21: Sproul, and George, let me direct this to you, would say that it's one thing to say that God elects some for salvation.
05:30: It is quite another to say that he elects some for reprobation. In fact, in your book, and I had an opportunity to read this quote, and you'll have to provide the source, evidently what
05:41: R .C. Sproul would say to what James White has just agreed to on the basis of Calvin's quote, that this is hyper -Calvinism with unorthodox, anti, or even sub -Calvinism perspective in mind.
05:57: Well, I would... I don't want to speak for James, because he does a great job for himself, but I would say
06:02: R .C. Sproul really believes exactly what James White believes, and what most mainstream
06:08: Calvinists believe. What he's trying to accomplish, I think, is impossible. He's trying to say, on one hand, that God can elect people to salvation without electing them to damnation.
06:18: Calvin himself said that that's the result of being a washy moderator, or a very bad interpreter.
06:26: Calvin said you can't have one without the other, if you understand unconditional election. Okay, but what
06:32: I'm trying to get at here real quickly is Sproul claims, I'm reading from your book, page thirty -four, Sproul claims, you say, that only a hyper -Calvinist could say such a thing.
06:42: He equates hyper -Calvinism with unorthodox, anti, or even sub -Calvinism.
06:47: In other words, it's one thing to say that God elects for salvation.
06:53: However, to add the other part to the equation, that he also elects to reprobation is, in fact, it seems in context, that's what you're saying
07:02: Sproul is saying, that is hyper -Calvinism, as opposed to hypo -Calvinism. What he gives you on one hand, he takes away with the other.
07:10: The truth is, again, I've been reading Sproul for years, not James White as long, but I cannot tell the difference between the position that Sproul takes.
07:20: I think James White is just a little more willing to lay it out on the table. Sproul believes exactly the same thing.
07:28: Calvin took an even harder position. But then, what's this quote? I don't understand this quote in your book. He's on one hand trying to deny what he also affirms.
07:36: That's the problem with Calvinism, is people want to back off from what they have committed themselves to.
07:41: Once you commit yourself to the doctrine of unconditional election, everything else falls into place. Now, there is something called hyper -Calvinism.
07:49: R .C. Sproul is not a hyper -Calvinist, nor is James White. James White is not a hyper -Calvinist.
07:56: What James White is referring to here is mainstream Calvinism. It is unfortunate that sometimes when you read some of what some mainstream
08:04: Calvinists say, it sounds like they're denying what James White says. I hate to sound like I'm defending
08:10: James White, but James White is a mainstream, what I would call a hypo -Calvinist.
08:16: It is what most Calvinists are, including R .C. Sproul, including
08:22: John Piper, including... They may disagree on other issues, but on the issue of the doctrine of election and reprobation, they're in exactly the same camp.
08:31: Now, you are not an Arminian. A lot of people say, Lorraine Bettner, for example, says there are only two possible choices.
08:38: You're either a Calvinist or you're an Arminian. You would say that's not correct. No, it's not correct at all.
08:43: I know what an Arminian believes, and on all of the distinctives of Arminianism, I disagree with them.
08:49: I don't disagree with them on all issues. I agree with Calvinists on a lot of issues. In fact, I could probably find areas,
08:55: I know I could find areas with James White. I believe in the absolute security of everyone who's been justified in Jesus Christ.
09:02: So there are areas in which I would agree with James White. I believe firmly in the doctrine of the
09:07: Trinity. There are many issues in which Calvinists and non -Calvinists agree, and I agree with Arminians on lots of issues.
09:13: I sympathize with them on lots of issues, but when it comes to their distinctives, the things that makes an Arminian an
09:19: Arminian, that differentiates between an Arminian and other mainstream evangelicals,
09:25: I am not. But, of course, it's easy to paint with a very broad brush and just simply say, if you're not one, you're the other.
09:32: But most mainstream evangelicals of the Baptist variety, James White is a
09:38: Reformed Baptist, but of most mainstream Baptists are neither
09:43: Calvinist nor Arminian. They're something very different. Now your book is called The Dark Side of Calvinism.
09:50: Define for us what you believe the dark side of Calvinism is. Well, the dark side of Calvinism is the side that people don't see right away.
09:58: It's the side everyone should understand that Calvin himself didn't shy away from. And, by the way, I make this point in the book.
10:04: I don't think Calvin would be embarrassed or at all offended by a book called The Dark Side of Calvinism.
10:09: He called the dark side a dreadful decree. Calvin understood the implications of what he was saying and he knew it was terrible.
10:18: He used the word that's at least translated horrible as well as dreadful to describe his position.
10:23: But it's basically what I call theistic fatalism. Calvinism, as I see it, translates to theistic fatalism.
10:31: A theist believes in a personal God. A fatalist believes the future is fixed, especially the destiny of individuals.
10:38: So if you put the two together, Calvinism is theistic fatalism. I object to Calvinism for a number of reasons, but primarily because it impugns the very character of God.
10:50: I agree with my Calvinist brothers and sisters when they argue that God is just and he can do as he pleases and the worst a man will ever get is justice.
10:59: That's the truth. The worst any man will ever get is justice. What I have a problem with is the picture painted by Calvinists, which
11:08: I don't think is scriptural, and doesn't match the justice we understand as it comes from scripture.
11:14: So the God who is just lets us know what he means by justice. So you call this a caste system as opposed to a class system?
11:22: And it is a caste system. It's a caste system because from all eternity to all eternity you are either saved or you're damned.
11:30: From all eternity God chooses to damn people unconditionally or to save them unconditionally.
11:37: Now the Calvinist can say, well, God can condemn you based on your sin, but Calvin himself pointed out why does a man sin?
11:43: Why did Adam sin? Calvin made it very clear. Adam sinned because God decreed. The ultimate reason, the ultimate cause of a man's sin is
11:53: God's decree. Therefore sin is not the root of man's problem, it's the fruit of man's problem.
12:01: Man's real problem, according to Calvinism, is that God decreed that he would be a sinner.
12:06: And he is a sinner because God decreed so. In a secondary sense Calvinists say God judges you because you're a sinner and you deserve to be judged.
12:17: But in a primary sense Calvinists argue that everyone is what, in fact,
12:24: Calvinism teaches that James White has to believe in Calvinism as I have to disagree with it because we're all decreed.
12:31: And that you're never going to change. And I can't. Because you can't. And if I think Calvinism is wrong it's because ultimately and finally behind the scenes
12:39: God has decreed that I would. Now that sounds absurd to say that and you won't get a
12:45: Calvinist to agree with me formally but in fact there are many many examples of Calvinists admitting that.
12:52: James, quickly, is God the author of evil in the Calvinist system of things?
12:59: With all due respect, George, the reason Calvinists won't say it is because that's not what they believe.
13:06: Obviously for me this issue needs to be found not in John Calvin but in the text of Scripture.
13:13: And when we address the issue of evil the Bible tells us very clearly that God is sovereign over all things.
13:19: The texts that we could present are far beyond even the amount of time that we have in regards to God's absolute sovereignty over all of human affairs.
13:28: Even to the point of naming Cyrus and what Cyrus is going to do in a political sense long before Cyrus is even born.
13:35: And the Bible tells us that there are numerous actions. Genesis chapter 50, Isaiah chapter 10, and Acts chapter 4 are passages
13:42: I'm going to ask George to explain to me during the course of our discussion today. Because in Genesis chapter 50 you know that Joseph, when his brothers come before him fearing he's now going to destroy them now that their father is dead, when talking about their sinful action, obviously
13:56: I think we'd all agree that what Joseph's brothers did to him was sinful. Throwing someone in a pit, convincing your father that he's dead, dipping his clothes in blood, selling him into slavery, these are evil things that his brothers are held accountable for.
14:10: And yet Joseph's response to them is, you meant this for evil but God meant it for good. The Hebrew is absolutely parallel.
14:17: In one action which was a sinful action God is active and he intended to do it because the rest of the verse says to save many people alive today.
14:26: God put Joseph in Egypt. It wasn't just fortuitous. God didn't look down the quarters of time and see what was going to happen.
14:32: It was God's purpose to put Joseph in Egypt to save many people alive. One sinful action,
14:38: God's purpose good, their purpose evil, they are judged properly,
14:44: God is glorified for what he does. Compatibility is the only way to understand Genesis 50.
14:49: And we want to get into this more, but we're coming to a station break. But quickly, then you're saying God is not the author of evil?
14:55: The Reformed Confessions very clearly say that God uses secondary means to accomplish his work in this world.
15:02: And it's those secondary means that intend for evil to exist out of their heart and that's why they're judged for it. And we're going to explore that further on the other side of the break.
15:09: Stay tuned, a lively debate with George Bryson, James White. We'll be back in a moment.
15:14: And again in studio, George Bryson, James White. George, back to you with the same question
15:19: I asked earlier. The question that I asked James was, is God, according to Calvinism, the author of evil?
15:29: Now let me say, according to the creeds or the various statements and affirmations of Calvinism, or at least mainstream
15:36: Calvinism, the kind of Calvinism that James White subscribes to, no. According to the explanation, not the affirmation, but what they explain by what they mean, and according to what
15:46: Calvin himself said, yes. They would never say he's the author of evil, but they would say he's the cause of evil.
15:53: For example... Now explain that for simple people like ourselves that want to understand a distinction that oftentimes at least appears to have no difference.
16:04: Well, to me, I can't explain the difference because there is no difference. That's part of why
16:09: I've written the book, is to get through this linguistic... or help people through this linguistic jungle.
16:16: When all is said and done, what Calvin teaches is that ultimately everything that happens is the result of a decree from God.
16:27: Nothing happens that God himself didn't primarily cause. They talk about secondary reasons, but the primary reason people do what they do is because God has decreed they do.
16:38: Otherwise, man would be acting independent of God. Wayne Grudem wrote a book in which he explains
16:44: Calvinism and uses a very apt analogy. He says, who killed King Duncan? In the story representing
16:52: God is Shakespeare. Shakespeare is the author. He wrote the script that decided who dies and who lives, who's responsible for the death.
17:03: On the surface, from the audience perspective, it may appear that somebody else killed
17:09: King Duncan, but from within the context of the play, if you really understand how the play works, the writer and the director, he decides who dies, who lives in that play.
17:17: In the real world, Calvinism teaches God decides who lives, who dies, and also decides who's raped and who isn't raped, who's murdered, who isn't murdered.
17:29: We all know that God is sovereign. Now, how though, George, in that kind of a system is man genuinely responsible for his sin?
17:39: Well, the point of my book is that he isn't, and even the softest version of what's called compatibilism or hypocalvinism, the kind of Calvinism that most of us are familiar with, really defines freedom away.
17:54: Probably the man who does the best job that I can tell of anybody trying to explain the
17:59: Calvinist view of freedom is John Feinberg, and John Feinberg says we have to start by redefining freedom, and what he does is define freedom away, so it becomes non -freedom.
18:11: It's like saying, we got, I use this illustration, you get two people that are having trouble in their marriage,
18:17: Sue and John. What you do is you see that Sue can't get along with John, so you move Sue out of the picture, bring
18:23: Irene in, change her name to Sue, now they're happy, everybody's getting along, you solve the marriage.
18:29: That's in fact what they've done. They have said that man isn't free by their explanation, but let's call what isn't freedom, freedom, and there by making it compatible.
18:42: I would like to know, since I brought up Genesis 50 -20, how you would respond to it, George. Could you explain how, within a libertarian system where,
18:52: I honestly don't know how you believe that God has, do you believe that God has exhausted knowledge of future events?
18:57: I do. Okay, but he does so, are you an open theist? Do you believe that he learns what man's going to do?
19:04: I'm not into open or process theology, if that's what you mean. Well, open theism is different than process theology, but...
19:10: Well, obviously he's not an open theist. Right, well, but I mean, but I just debated John Sanders not that long ago, and he calls himself consistent
19:17: Arminian. Okay, but you know that George Bryson, you debated him before, is not an open theist. But my question is, how does
19:23: God have knowledge of the future? Does he come to possess that knowledge over time, or does he have that knowledge exhaustively before he creates?
19:33: And if he does so, how could he, outside of a divine decree, and in light of that, how could
19:39: God have designed to send Joseph into slavery in Egypt to preserve many people alive in a libertarian system?
19:47: I'd like to know how you do that. We don't want to pile question on question. What we want to do is start with a basic understanding.
19:52: I believe God knows everything because he's omniscient. This is his very nature, to know everything. He knows everything actual, he knows everything potential, so the question about does
20:02: God know the future is answered. If God is omniscient, he knows everything, everything that is and could be. Now, secondly,
20:09: Calvinism argues that Calvinism knows everything because he causes everything. God knows everything.
20:15: God knows everything because he causes everything, and I'm saying there's a difference. God certainly causes things to happen, and everything that exists in the primary sense exists because God created it.
20:26: God created Adam, but he didn't create sinful Adam, so God created everything in a primary sense, but in another sense,
20:34: Adam is responsible for his own sin. God did not make Adam a sinner. Okay, now both of you have to help me a little bit, because we have to distill this for our audience in such a way that they don't get caught in the rhetoric here.
20:46: We're dealing with the idea, if, in fact, God causes all things to happen, how is it that he is not the author of evil?
21:00: Well, he would be, and this is my point, but this is a difference between my view, James White's view, and most mainstream evangelicals would differ with Calvinists on this important point.
21:10: We believe that everything has a relationship to God, but not everything has the same kind of relationship.
21:16: You can relate, everything can be traced back to God in some sense, because he's the uncaused cause of everything, but some things happened after God created the world, and the world rebelled through Adam, the world rebelled through Satan, and it never became outside of God's sovereignty in that process, but still, now things that happen are not related to God the same way, for example, when
21:43: God did something good, which is the only kind of things he does, you can't relate something bad to him the same way you can something good.
21:51: Calvinism has blurred the distinction between good and evil by simply making God responsible in the same way for good and evil.
21:58: Was it a good thing for God to have Joseph sold into slavery? Is God to be glorified for that?
22:05: Remember, we debated once, and I think those kind of questions are misleading. What I would say simply is that God uses everything that happens, some things that happen he directly causes them to happen.
22:15: Like this? Some things that happen God sovereignly oversees. How he works out all the details, nobody knows exactly, but does
22:25: God sovereignly control everything in the universe? Yes. But George, it says to preserve many people alive.
22:32: It was God's purpose to preserve the children of Israel alive in Egypt, so it was his purpose to send
22:38: Joseph, and he did so by having him sold into slavery in Egypt. Let me answer that with a question.
22:43: Let me ask you this question, and this will put it into perspective to show the difference. When a child is raped, is
22:50: God responsible, and did he decree that rape? If he didn't, then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose.
22:58: What I'm trying to point out by going to Scripture... So what is your answer there, because I want to understand the answer to that question.
23:04: I'm trying to go to Scripture to answer it. Yes, but what is the answer to the question that he just asked, so that we can understand what the answer is?
23:09: I mentioned to him, yes, because if not then it's meaningless and purposeless, and though God knew it was going to happen, he created without a purpose.
23:19: That means God brought the evil into existence, knowing it was going to exist, but for no purpose, no redemption, nothing positive, nothing good.
23:27: So he did decree it, and if he decreed it, then there's a meaning to it? It has meaning, it has purpose, suffering, all suffering has purpose, everything in this world has purpose, there is no basis for despair.
23:39: But if we believe that God created, knowing all this was going to happen, but with no decree, he just created, and all this evil is out there, and there's no purpose, then every rape, every situation like that, is nothing but purposeless evil, and God is responsible for the creation of despair.
23:56: For years I've been trying to figure out why it is that in order for rape to exist, or unless God caused it to happen, there can't be any purpose in it.
24:07: God can use evil, and he does, but to blame God, which is what a decree does, to blame
24:13: God for the rape of a child is a horrible attack on the very character and love of God.
24:20: How about to blame God for the destruction of the heart of a father, thinking that his son has been killed for many years, the weeping that he underwent?
24:29: Genesis 50 -20 has not been answered yet. Acts chapter 4 tells us that the early church believed that Pontius Pilate, and Herod, and the
24:37: Romans, and the Jews, in the crucifixion of the sinless Son of God, which I believe we would all agree is the greatest evil that man has ever committed, that that took place on the basis of the sovereign decree of God, Acts chapter 4 verses 27 -28.
24:52: If you could tell me both what you believe Acts 4 27 -28 means, and...
24:58: Let me ask you if you think that rape is a sin. I believe that... Let's...
25:03: Can we use a biblical example, Acts 4 27 -28? Rape is a biblical issue. Is rape a sin? Just as the crucifixion was a sin, yes.
25:10: Okay, so does God decree, and therefore is God the cause of sin? Again, as you well know, having read all of these things, let me just read this into everyone's hearing so they can see it.
25:22: The early church said, For truly in this city they were gathered against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod, Pontius Pilate, along with the
25:28: Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your purpose predestined to occur.
25:36: And so here is an example where men committed evil, and they did so at the predestining purpose of God.
25:44: God is glorified. His intention is positive and good. The intention of Herod, the intention of the
25:50: Jews... God... These were not innocent people, and God's standing behind them with a big gun pushing them down the road going, be evil, be evil.
25:57: In fact, how many times did God restrain them... So they're making a choice in the process. In your view.
26:04: They're not only making a choice... So they have the ability to choose. ...within the realm of their nature since they are fallen.
26:11: Remember, God restrains men from committing evil. Let me ask you, do you believe that? Why are men fallen?
26:16: That's the question. Do you believe that? The question is, why are men fallen? Could I finish a point here? Do you believe that God can keep someone from sinning?
26:24: I would like to ask you the question, is God the cause of that sin? That's the issue. I've already pointed out in Genesis chapter 50 that God's decree is based upon His good intention.
26:36: Can God keep a person from sinning? Will He violate libertarian free will to keep a person from sinning, yes or no?
26:44: It's not a yes or no question. The issue here is, and I think we really need to focus in on this, for the average person listening, they want to know, is
26:55: God morally responsible for the moral evils of our world?
27:00: When something really, really bad happens such as the molestation of a child or the murder of a mother, they want to know who's responsible for this.
27:13: And I think the Bible makes it clear that God can't be touched with that. God is righteous and holy.
27:18: He's beyond that. He's merciful and He's gracious and He's loving. Calvinism has reduced good and evil to really the same thing.
27:28: It's just simply saying God has decreed all of these things and they try to make flowery distinctions between them.
27:35: But the point is, they make God responsible and therefore God to blame for what the
27:41: Bible says He's not to blame. Again, we're talking to James White and George Bryson. James White is the author of The Potter's Freedom.
27:48: George Bryson, The Dark Side of Calvinism. And before we go to a number of other questions that I want to ask
27:53: James White and George Bryson, let's establish what we're doing here in terms of the previous discussion in the previous section.
28:02: Define for us, James, the difference from your perspective, and I'll give you the same opportunity to do this in a moment, George Bryson, the difference between compatibilistic freedom to which you hold and libertarian freedom to which
28:15: George Bryson holds from your perspective. I think the fundamental difference is I do believe in libertarian freedom.
28:20: I just believe only God is the one who has it, that we have a creaturely freedom that is based upon our being held accountable by God for acting upon the intentions of our heart.
28:30: God has often said, well, unless we have libertarian freedom, unless we are autonomous creatures, there can be no responsibility.
28:37: The reason I keep bringing these passages up is because they illustrate that God held Joseph's brothers accountable.
28:43: He held the king of Assyria accountable. He holds all these people accountable for acting on the intentions of their heart, even when he has restrained them from doing greater evil than they would have done otherwise.
28:54: And I hope we can get into whether God has the right to do that, to restrain people from committing sin, because the Bible says he does.
29:00: And so a compatibilist believes that it is compatible between the sovereign decree of God, Ephesians 1 .11,
29:06: he works all things out of the counsel of his will, Psalm 135 .6, it's all through the Bible. Even Nebuchadnezzar knew that God works all things through this world in Daniel 4.
29:14: That decree of God is compatible with holding men accountable for acting upon the intentions of their heart.
29:21: We seem to act in debates as if we as creatures have access to the details of God's eternal decree.
29:29: We do not. I do not know who the elect are, so I preach the gospel to all creatures. I do not know what the future is going to bring, and so I look to God's law.
29:37: It gives me guidelines for how I'm to live. And when things come up, I try to respond to them based upon godly principles.
29:45: Now when you preach the gospel to all creatures, as you just said, can you as a
29:50: Calvinist say to someone that you're witnessing to, God so loved you that he sent
29:57: Jesus into the world to die for your sins? Or are you not permitted to say that?
30:02: You can say that in general, but not specific, because you don't know whether Christ died for their sins. They may have been elect before the foundations of the world for reprobation.
30:11: The apostles never preach that way, so I don't either. The apostles never said to any individual person, Christ died for you.
30:17: They said Christ died for sinners. So you will not say Christ died for you.
30:22: I will say Christ died for sinners, and that anyone who believes in him... John 3, that's not really a proper paraphrase, because what he says in John 3...
30:30: I'm not trying to paraphrase anything. But when you're saying, for God so loved the world, and then he explains what he did, and that what he did has particularity, and he says he gave his son for the purpose that those who believe might have eternal life.
30:45: It is only those who believe. It is only the individuals who believe who have eternal life. And so I preach like the apostles did.
30:52: They said repentance is a command that goes out to all people. I present it to all people, because I can't look into someone's heart or mind and know whether they are or are not of the elect.
31:01: If I thought that that was a requirement, that I wouldn't go to most of the places I go to. I mean, why in the world bother going to Salt Lake City and standing outside the
31:10: General Conference of the Mormon Church and witnessing to people there? And it should be noted that both of you guys have spent your life witnessing to people in many difficult situations.
31:20: So you love people. You want them to hear the gospel. Now George, you would, in fact, answer that question differently when you're over planting churches in Russia.
31:31: For example, you will go to a Russian on the street in Moscow or in St.
31:37: Petersburg or wherever it happens to be and you'll say, God so loved you. Absolutely, and back to the issue of freedom.
31:46: Let's get to that in a second. I want to underscore this. I believe that God loves everyone and each one and he loves everyone to such a degree that God sent
31:57: Christ to die for that one in particular. I believe in particular redemption, but it was redemption in particular for each person.
32:05: Everyone, everyone can come to Christ. When I preach to somebody, I'm not just speaking to them out of ignorance.
32:13: Calvinism says you can offer salvation to somebody because you don't know that they're reprobate.
32:21: If you don't know they're reprobate, just preach to them in ignorance. Maybe they're elect, maybe they're not. I really do believe, as C .S.
32:29: Lewis says, God really does love those creatures and when I offer salvation to somebody in the name of Christ as his ambassador, as his representative,
32:38: I really believe they can repent. I believe God enables people to repent, enables people to believe.
32:45: He doesn't make them believe, he doesn't make them repent, but he enables them to do so. He doesn't force them to do so, but he allows them to do so.
32:54: Calvinism has two castes, as we talked about earlier, and it doesn't make that possible. The one caste, from all eternity to all eternity, has been condemned.
33:03: The other, from all eternity to all eternity, has been saved. Just to spell that out before we get to the question of libertarian freedom and compatibilism, you're saying that in the
33:12: Calvinist system, and this is not a debate, this is just the way it is, in the Calvinist system, before the foundations of the world, there are perhaps billions of people who are doomed before the womb.
33:23: They have no opportunity whatsoever to respond to the gospel, yet they are genuinely responsible for their sin in that moment.
33:32: Yes, and I would say Calvin didn't like that any more than I did. The difference is he believed it, and I don't.
33:39: Calvin clearly had struggle emotionally and personally. He wrestled with this issue, not intellectually.
33:46: He said it's clear in his mind, God creates people to save and he creates people to damn.
33:51: He intended for some people to exist forever, for all eternity, without him in torment, and some to be with him forever in bliss.
34:04: That was God's intent according to Calvin. He did not like it, but he admitted it. Today Calvinists try to dance around it and say, well, you know,
34:12: I don't know about this, but, you know, that is what Calvinism teaches. Soft and hard Calvinism, hyper and hypo, mainstream and extreme, they all teach the same thing.
34:22: Some of them just don't like to say it so plainly. You're shot at the same question that I asked
34:27: James White with regards to compatibilistic freedom and libertarian freedom. Well, I am a compatibilist in that I believe that both sovereignty and freedom are compatible, and I believe the sovereign
34:38: God created man responsibly free. Now, what I mean by that is not that man has all freedom, absolute freedom.
34:46: There are limits to his freedom. He's a man. God has absolute freedom within the confines of his own nature.
34:52: God can't do anything sinful because God is holy. So we would all agree that God can only do what his nature allows him to do.
35:02: He can't do anything sinful. That's why I say he can't be responsible for many of the things that Calvinists say he's responsible for.
35:08: But on the other hand, I believe he is certainly capable that sovereignty doesn't tell us what God can't do, it tells us what
35:15: God can do. And what God can do is create a man who is free. And not only can he create a man that is free, but even in man's sinful state, he can make man responsibly free, reasonably free, meaningfully free.
35:29: Calvinism takes away any meaningful freedom. So it's just, it really becomes a big game.
35:36: As Sproul describes it, you know, we're just acting out a script.
35:42: And these were his own words. And it's all set in the same spiritual cement.
35:48: Ultimately, people only do what God allows them to do. Despite the accusations of dancing and various and sundry other things,
35:56: I don't think that that's a fair analogy at all. When we say they had no opportunity,
36:02: Hank, I want to emphasize that we're talking about individuals who not only do not desire any such opportunity...
36:09: But they're created in such a way that they cannot desire. But again, they are created in the image of God, and it's their sin and their fallen nature that causes them to love their sin.
36:20: Just so we understand the paradigm itself. Is it true that God creates some people, maybe billions and billions of people, in such a way that they, by their very nature, the way that they're created, cannot respond to the gospel?
36:39: Therefore, unless they're regenerated, first, they cannot in any way respond to the gospel.
36:48: Because, is it not true that they are absolutely dead, and therefore, as a dead person, they can't respond?
36:56: They get from Adam what only Adam can give them, and that is spiritual death. Yes, we are in Adam. God acts federally.
37:03: Is there anyone who denies that? Is there anyone who denies that we're... That's not the question I'm asking. But that's the reformed answer.
37:08: It's the only answer I can give you, is that you said God created them with some sort of a defect, as if it's his...
37:13: No, no, I'm not saying that. What I'm trying to do is paraphrase what Kelvin said. And I'm trying to paraphrase what you said, so that we can establish at least what the parameters are.
37:23: But my point is that those who are in Adam receive from Adam his fallen nature, which is opposed to God.
37:31: They are the enemies of God. They hate God. They do not desire an opportunity, and if an opportunity were given to them, they would spit in God's face.
37:39: So when we say that this is not some defect in them to where I was born as a better person, and that's why
37:44: I believed... Well, maybe it would be more helpful not to talk about... Let's just talk about Adam, then. Adam did not have a sin nature.
37:50: But we are not... Adam doesn't exist. We are given two chapters about Adam before the fall. We are talking about what happens today in our redemption, and in my redemption,
37:59: I was no better than anyone else. It is an important question, though, and I think you'll agree with that. It's a very important question on the hearts and minds of so many people, because people want to know, look, how did sin get into the world?
38:11: Now, on the one hand, we can say that God is the author of evil, or God ordained, or preordained that Adam would sin.
38:19: On the other hand, we can say that God created the potential for evil. Adam actualized that evil.
38:25: But we have to give an answer for how evil got into the world. Well, not only that, but we also have to give an answer for how
38:30: God can say that He is the one who creates light and darkness. We also have to give an answer for how God can say that He acts, and no one can stop
38:38: His hand. We have to be able to give an answer for how God does have knowledge of future events, and He bases that knowledge in Isaiah chapters 40 -48 on the fact that He is the creator of all things.
38:47: These are all biblical issues, and that's why I am Reformed. It's not because of a philosophical paradigm that I look at Scripture through.
38:56: It is because the fact that when I talk to Mormons, when I talk to Roman Catholics on the nature of grace and the will of man, which this is the issue that Erasmus debated against Luther, I think we need to make sure that people understand that the difference between here,
39:12: I'm defending the position that Luther presented, the bondage of the will, over against that which
39:17: Erasmus presented from the Roman Catholic perspective, and that Luther identified this as the hinge upon which the entire
39:24: Reformation turned. Most of those who call themselves Protestants today no longer believe what the Reformers believed on the issue of the grace of God and the will of man.
39:32: They actually believe what Rome believed at that particular point in time. That's why you have this concept of synergism. These things are very, very important, but Hank, in my experience, people only come to conclusions on these things that stick as Christians, because they are convinced by the
39:48: Theanustos Word of God. That's why I am what I am. That's what has forced me.
39:53: It would be so much easier for me to not hold to these things. And a good point that you're making here. What you're saying, essentially, is you're not driven by a theological paradigm that's imposed on Scripture.
40:03: What you're doing is reading the Scripture for all it's worth. And of course, George Bryson would say the same thing. We're just getting started with a very lively debate.
40:10: And for a second day in studio, James White. George Bryson. James White is the author of The Potter's Freedom, and George Bryson, the author of The Dark Side of Calvinism.
40:20: Both men have spent a tremendous amount of time not only debating this issue, but it should be noted that both of them have spent a tremendous amount of time being effective witnesses for the
40:35: Lord Jesus Christ. And I think we need to start out today, James, by underscoring the fact that this is, although a very important debate, it is an in -house debate that can be carried on in a collegial fashion.
40:49: And it has been a number of times. I do, however, emphasize that it has tremendous impact not only upon how one preaches the
40:58: Gospel, but it also tremendously impacts one's view, for example, of the Atonement, worship, the nature of the
41:05: Church, the purpose of the Church, the character of the Church. And as I think you may recall, in 1997, talking with you in your office,
41:13: I explained that I believe it's very important for apologetics, because I think it is foundational to apologetics to be consistent in one's entire paradigm.
41:22: When you're pointing your finger at somebody else and saying you're being inconsistent, you've got three pointing back at yourself. And so that is why
41:28: I hold the position that I do, and why I'm an elder in a Reformed Baptist Church. I mean,
41:33: Reformed Baptist Churches aren't very large. Most folks have never heard about them. I've had many people say, what's a Reformed Baptist?
41:39: I mean, you're a Baptist, now you've reformed from that? You know, you've saw the light or something like that? You know, that kind of thing.
41:44: It would be much easier, as we were saying yesterday, to take a different road. But I am convinced by the exegesis of the text of Scripture, and this has only been reinforced by the debates
41:54: I've done, especially with Roman Catholics, over the years regarding the nature of grace and the nature of faith and the will of man, that I have to be consistent on these particular issues.
42:02: And this is one point that needs to be underscored, particularly with regards to James Wynne. I grew up in the Christian Reformed Church.
42:09: I grew up in Holland, actually, in the Hart of Merdekerk, and so this whole paradigm is very familiar to me.
42:15: And in my experience, so many of the people that I interacted with growing up, listening to these debates in the home, in the church, etc.,
42:25: had not really done what you did, which is to formulate their point of view based on the exegesis of Scripture.
42:33: They had a theological paradigm. They imposed it on the Scripture and read the Scripture through those glasses, so you're to be commended.
42:40: One of the things, too, that I think you ought to point out is whether or not people can consistently hold to a few points of Calvinism, or whether they have to take the whole package.
42:53: That was one of the interesting things that if we had time I'd want to interact with George on, because he said he believes in what
42:59: I guess you would call eternal security, or whatever you would place that. I don't see any foundation for believing that if it's my libertarian free will that gets me into this relationship, that my libertarian free will can't get me out of it.
43:11: I do believe that there is a consistency here, but it's not a consistency that comes from a paradigm.
43:18: You would admit you experienced a state church type situation, in the sense where you've got national churches and people.
43:24: It's a part of generation after generation after generation being passed down. I don't believe that the faith can be passed down in that fashion.
43:32: I believe each generation has to embrace it and encounter it for themselves. In fact, I experienced, James, many times sitting in church and a person would come in from the street, so to speak, and they'd sit in someone's pew and they'd say, wait a minute, that person's sitting in my place.
43:47: How dare they come into our church? And if they're the elect, God's going to bring them in if they're not.
43:53: And as a result of that, many people were not witnesses. Now, I think that that's an unfair characterization in general on Calvinism, because you have
44:02: Calvinists who have done a tremendous job in establishing great programs for teaching people, equipping
44:10: Christians to be effective witnesses. Right. And for me, the real issue, I think, is as people delve into these things, and your audience wants to study the
44:17: Word of God, they want to get into these things, they start asking questions. We barely touched on it, I didn't get a chance to comment.
44:23: They want to know about the cross. They want to know about the Atonement. Does Christ's death only make salvation a possibility?
44:29: Or is it substitutionary? Did He actually bear my sin? And if it's so, and if Christ bore the sin of every individual, then how can anyone be condemned?
44:37: How can God bring His wrath both against His Son and against the individual in hell for eternity?
44:44: That's one of the reasons people have problems with the doctrine of hell. You know how many people are attacking that today. I mean, it's extremely popular to deny the doctrine of hell, and many of our seminaries say it's just absolutely incredible.
44:53: Now, you just voiced a question. Can you elaborate that, and we'll direct that to George Bryson. Is it essentially the question, if Christ died for everyone, but everyone is not saved, then did
45:03: Christ then fail in His mission? Exactly. Spurgeon asked that exact same question. Spurgeon very strongly.
45:09: But let me clarify it, though, in this sense. If we believe in substitutionary atonement, substitutionary atonement is a reformed doctrine.
45:18: Historic non -reformed people did not believe in that concept. It's a reformed doctrine that Christ actually bears the sins of His people and His body upon the tree.
45:27: So the question becomes, if that is true, and He is prophet, priest, and king, does He mediate for those who are in hell?
45:34: Did He bear the wrath and fulfill it completely in Himself for every person who's going to be in hell?
45:39: Was it His intention to save every person who is in hell, even though we'd have to believe as God? He knew that in a large portion of those instances,
45:48: He was going to fail. That is the question. Did the cross actually bring about a true propitiation, and you know the term propitiation means a removal of wrath, or did it only make a potentiality available?
45:59: That's one of the main questions. Let's posit that question to you, George, sort of a rude way to bring you into the conversation.
46:06: Nice to have you in studio, by the way. What about that charge that is made so often that if Christ died for everyone, as you say
46:15: He did, but not everyone is saved, then it seems that He failed in some way or other in His mission to save the world.
46:23: Well, I'd like to agree with a lot of Calvinists who say, when we start with the death of Christ, we start at the wrong place.
46:29: We really need to go back. If you're going to understand the Calvinist paradigm, you have to start with election. Election has to do with God's intention to save.
46:37: Now Calvinists say when Christ died, His death inherently saves, but the death of Christ is an extension of the election of God to save some.
46:46: If He didn't elect to save some, if He chose not to save some, then whatever Christ did,
46:51: He didn't do for those. So you have to begin with election. Election is where it begins, really, and ends.
46:58: I know this is going to sound disrespectful, but it is not meant to. It's trying to get a logical extension here of the doctrine of election.
47:04: The doctrine of election makes the death of Christ, faith in Christ, all of those things are merely an afterthought or an extension of.
47:13: They're consequences of. Now let's define that, though. You say the doctrine of election. You believe in election. I do not believe in the
47:19: Calvinist doctrine of election, no. Okay, but you have to define that clearly, because the Bible teaches predestination. It teaches election, so I don't think the debate has ever been whether or not
47:28: God elects or He predestines. But I'm saying the Calvinist doctrine of election or unconditional election.
47:33: Yeah, but it's important to define the terms here. Yes, and I believe that God in Christ elects people for all kinds of reasons.
47:41: But the fact is what Scripture tells us, that God so loves the world. We learn in 1
47:46: Timothy that God is not willing that any should perish. We learn in 2 Peter that, I mean, excuse me, that God wants all to be saved, desires all to be saved.
47:55: We learn in 2 Peter that He's not willing that any should perish. There's lots of passages that tell us what
48:01: God's desire is. Lots of passages that tell us what God's provision is, 1
48:07: John 2 .2. These passages tell us what God's heart is. He wants all to be saved, none to perish.
48:14: These passages tell us what God did to accomplish that, sent Christ to die. And then we have the gospel proclamation, the work of reconciliation.
48:22: We all agree God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. But the word of reconciliation, the ministry, the message, that's ours.
48:30: We take that out. So what they say is the death of Christ inherently saves. The fact that He died means somebody's going to be saved.
48:37: The fact that He didn't die for somebody means they aren't going to be saved.
48:42: And obviously I understand the logic of that. It is a coherent system. I didn't hear
48:48: James say this, but I would totally agree that on the doctrine of salvation you can't be a one -pointer, two -pointer, three -point
48:54: Calvinist. If you're a one -point Calvinist, as James Packer said, you're a five -point
49:00: Calvinist. There's absolutely no way logically So it's a congruent system. I think it's all wrong, but people are predestined in Christ.
49:11: They're not predestined to be in Christ. They're predestined in Christ. And if you take the passages that deal with predestination in Ephesians and Romans and look at them in their context, you'll see it's talking to believers about believers.
49:22: Now Calvinists love to say you gotta look at the context. Every text out of a context is a pretext.
49:28: And I would say, well then let's go to those passages which deal with predestination and you'll see that believers are predestined to something.
49:36: No one is predestined to go to hell forever from all eternity to all eternity unconditionally.
49:43: So I think the death of Christ is an important issue, but Christ died provisionally, not inherently to save everyone, but provisionally.
49:52: And what he did for us, they say, has no meaning, has no value unless it saves some and doesn't save others.
50:00: They're saying it's impossible for us to understand that God died for everyone provisionally and still give the death of Christ any meaning at all.
50:09: And I think that's an attack on the cross of Christ. Well, I didn't hear an answer though because we asked what about, let's use the rapist example, what about the rapist that you talked about earlier?
50:20: Did Christ bear in his body upon the tree all of God's wrath against all the sins of that rapist even though he ends up in hell?
50:28: And if he does, for what is he punished in hell? God in Christ reconciled the world to himself, but that reconciliation is provisional.
50:36: It is not actionalized. As you know yourself, you were saved at a particular time and point in history.
50:42: What God decided from all eternity to all eternity did not alter the fact that one day you opened your heart, you put your faith in Jesus Christ and what he did for you.
50:51: So the work of salvation is done by God in Christ on the cross, but the word still has to get out.
51:00: Otherwise, we wouldn't need to preach. If people were inherently saved because Christ died, Hank, if people were inherently saved, automatically saved, necessarily saved because he died for them, then there would be no need to take the gospel to them.
51:13: What I say is that Calvinists who do preach the gospel do so inconsistently because if the fact that he died for somebody means they're saved, which is what they teach, then there's no need to get the message of salvation to them or if you do, it's just incidental.
51:31: That's not what we teach. That's not what we believe. We believe that we evangelize because God commands us to do so and he uses means.
51:37: You said many times, if God ordains the ends, he ordains the means to the ends. The means to the ends is that we proclaim the gospel and I'm not saying that I experience my union with Christ and my justification from eternity.
51:51: What I am saying, however, is that if substitutionary atonement is true, then the term propitiation means a removal of wrath.
51:58: You decide in 1 John 2 which refers to propitiation. If it does not remove wrath, then it's not propitiation.
52:05: If that man goes to hell and Christ has propitiated God's wrath in his place, then God is unjust. It's not an attack on the cross.
52:11: In 1 Timothy 2, 4 -5, which was cited earlier about God not wanting any to perish, and 2
52:17: Peter 3, 9, if you look at both of those in their context, you'll see that in the very next verse,
52:23: Paul says that Jesus Christ intercedes. He is the one mediator between God and men. So I ask the question, the high priest always had to mediate for those who he offered the sacrifice for.
52:34: If Christ's death was intended to save every individual, then Christ intercedes and mediates for every individual.
52:42: So are we saying that Christ is in heaven right now, interceding before the Father in behalf of every person who's already died under the wrath of God and who will be in hell forever?
52:51: The big mistake that Calvinists make, and they should know better on this, Hank, is the whole issue of, they've turned solo fide into nola fide.
53:00: They have said that faith really doesn't matter. See, the Bible conditions salvation on faith.
53:06: And when they asked Paul and Silas, when the Philippian jailer said, what must I do to be saved?
53:12: This is a must. This is not just a good idea. What must I do to be saved? He said, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
53:17: Now, did he have to do that? Yes. According to Calvinism, his salvation was settled from all eternity to all eternity, and faith just came as a consequence of his election.
53:29: It's not a condition of salvation, it's a consequence of election. And I'm saying that there's nothing in the
53:34: Bible that says everything is automatic because Christ died for those who are ultimately to be saved in time, because they were ultimately saved in eternity.
53:44: So let me clarify. Is grace necessary but not sufficient, or is grace sufficient?
53:51: Grace is necessary, and it is the only thing that saves. But the same God who saves by grace, Hank, is the same
53:57: God who saves by grace through faith. You'll never find a teaching in any portion of Scripture in which salvation is by grace, in which it isn't also said that salvation is through faith.
54:08: Salvation by grace is not pitted in Scripture against faith. Faith is the means by which we receive the grace.
54:16: Calvinists have turned it around, of course, and they've said that you have faith because of this saving grace.
54:22: And I certainly see grace as necessary even prior to faith, but not what they call saving grace.
54:30: They say you must be effectively saved, that is, born again. In Calvinism, you have to be born again first.
54:36: Then, as a result of this new nature, you get a believing nature. You get faith. So it's just a consequence of election, not a condition of salvation.
54:47: And we're going to be back in just a few moments as the debate continues between James White and George Bryson. George Bryson is the the author of a brand new book.
54:54: It's entitled The Dark Side of Calvinism, James White, the author of a book titled The Potter's Freedom.
55:00: Both books available, along with a two -part article, which they did for the Christian Research Journal, for a package offer when you call 888 -7000,
55:10: CRI, or log on to the World Wide Web at equip .org. After the break, we'll bring in our phone callers as well.
55:15: Your opportunity to speak with George Bryson and James White. And we've been talking about doing this for a long time, having
55:21: James White and George Bryson in the studio to talk about human freedom in relationship to divine sovereignty.
55:29: And we finally have them together. Before we go to our phone callers, you call your book The Potter's Freedom, alluding principally to Romans chapter 9.
55:38: And specifically over against the assertion, I mean, it's a response to Norman Geisler, specifically over against the concept of libertarian freedom.
55:45: The book itself is a response to Norman Geisler. Yes, The Potter's Freedom was a response to Chosen but Free, which ironically was published by my own publisher.
55:52: So that caused all sorts of ripples up at Bethany House, I'm sure. But I responded to it mainly because I really respect
55:59: Norman Geisler and I felt that the creation of this new kind of moderate Calvinist who believes in irresistible grace that's irresistible only on the willing and things like that just simply created a tremendous amount of confusion because it did not use the terms in a historic sense.
56:14: And so I want to emphasize the fact that the scriptures in discussing this issue in Romans 9 use that very symbology in Romans chapter 9 of the fact that God has the right to do with one lump of clay what he wills, just as any potter when he places that lump of clay upon the wheel can do with it as he wills.
56:34: And I know that I've heard Lenski's understanding of that passage on the program before.
56:39: I've responded on our website. But I really think that if we had the time, we don't, with callers coming and things like that.
56:45: If we had the time, from my perspective, I emphasize again, this is an issue where you dig into the text and you ask yourself, what are my traditions?
56:54: What is my background? Am I reading the text consistently? And I think it's important because we mentioned earlier, and I asked a question based on the fact that I've debated
57:04: John Sanders. You know what happened at ETS just a few weeks ago in regards to the subject of open theism.
57:10: These are issues that are absolutely impacting the very definition of what evangelicalism is today.
57:16: In fact, if they keep going the way they're going, we won't be able to define evangelicalism in any meaningful fashion within the next generation.
57:23: We're going to have to come up with another word because that word's going to have such a wide meaning, it's like vanilla. What in the world does that exactly mean?
57:30: And so, when I debated John Sanders on the subject of open theism, I did so as a reformed theologian, as a reformed exegete.
57:38: And that's because I believe that's the only position that can consistently respond to the assertions he's making.
57:44: Because from his perspective, he's a consistent Arminian. He believes in libertarian free will so much that he would look at you and he'd say, you're being inconsistent.
57:51: You're being inconsistent in believing in libertarian free will, but believing that God knows what you're going to do after the program today infallibly.
57:59: His perspective is, if God knows exactly what you're going to do, if he knows when you are sitting in your car and you're about to turn one way or the other out there on the road, if he knows exactly which way you're going to turn and his knowledge cannot be falsified, then you do not have the freedom to go the other direction.
58:16: Now, you don't agree with that, George Price. In fact, to know something in your view does not mean that that is determined.
58:23: Right. And I would say there's a difference between prescriptive knowledge and descriptive knowledge. And I think this is the problem with Calvinism as well.
58:30: But there are people that I would consider hyper -Arminians. And even though I don't consider myself mainstream, mainstream
58:36: Arminians do not make the same mistake. There are people who say, they say that if God knows the future, you can't be free.
58:43: They make the opposite mistake. Of course, Edwards essentially said that if God knows the future, you can't be free, therefore you're not free.
58:52: He drew a different conclusion. I think both of them were wrong on that. But the key here is that I believe the sovereign
59:00: God was capable, is capable, and has created men responsibly free, and he has not decreed that everything they do, they did.
59:11: In other words, the reason people do what they do isn't always because God made them do it. Now, could God make people do things?
59:17: Yes, but he couldn't make them do things that were sinful if he did. If he caused them to do sinful things, then the link between God who is holy and sinful things would be made.
59:30: And a holy God couldn't be holy if he caused sin. Let me just touch on this one more time with you,
59:36: James White. Let's say, for example, by way of illustration, I know as a human being that Sonny and Cher were divorced 40 years ago.
59:45: The fact that I know that doesn't presuppose in any way that I caused that. So you can know something without being the cause.
59:54: On a human level, however, God is knowing what you're going to do in the future. But the fact that he knows does not necessitate that he causes, does it?
01:00:02: But the question is, how does God know what is going to happen in the future? There's only two ways of answering that.
01:00:09: Either he knows because it is a part of his decree in which exists the compatibilist freedom of man.
01:00:14: I mean, Edwards wrote the greatest tome on the freedom of the will in the sense of the compatibilist freedom.
01:00:19: So he certainly believed in that. He either knows because it's a part of his decree, and hence the end glorifies him, all things to the glory of his grace.
01:00:27: Or, and this is what I've been asking before, when did God come to know what I was going to do?
01:00:33: If he's known from all eternity, then when he created, if there's no plan that gives order to time, why is
01:00:40: God glorified for what happened? If he just created, and he is not the one who created the ends as well as the beginning, if he is not the one who accomplished his purpose in time, as he keeps saying he's doing in Isaiah and other places, then why is he not glorified?
01:00:56: But why would he be glorified if he just simply created and he goes, oh look, I won at the end. Could it have been otherwise?
01:01:02: Could we, if we truly have libertarian freedom, could we do something else? How does God know what a libertarian free creature, a creature who is not under a decree of God, how does
01:01:14: God know what he is going to do in time? I can answer that question. God doesn't know everything because he decrees it.
01:01:21: God knows everything because by nature he is all -knowing. He knows everything.
01:01:27: But how? Well, that isn't an issue. I mean, how does an almighty God do everything? He's almighty and by definition an almighty
01:01:34: God is all -powerful. By definition, an all -knowing God is all -knowing. He doesn't have to make what happens in the future.
01:01:41: In fact, I think this idea that God can't know the future unless he makes it limits his foreknowledge.
01:01:48: God can create or decree anything that isn't contrary to his nature. You know, he can't commit a logical contradiction.
01:01:55: He can't do anything unholy. But God can do everything else. But he doesn't have to do something to know it's going to happen.
01:02:04: He can know everything that's going to happen because he is all -knowing. Would you say that that the fact that God knows what's going to happen in the future, that he works with genuinely free creatures, and yet is sovereign actually enhances his sovereignty?
01:02:22: In other words, he can accomplish his purposes through genuinely free creatures.
01:02:29: I would say it accents the fact that he's sovereign. I think the position of Calvinism limits the notion of sovereignty.
01:02:35: It tells us what God can't do. It says God can't make a man free without sacrificing his own sovereignty.
01:02:42: And I'm saying that's not true. Now could God make man not free? Certainly. He's made lots of not free things.
01:02:49: He makes rocks that aren't free. So God could make man not free. He wouldn't be what we call man, but he could do it.
01:02:55: The question is, does the fact that God makes a free man limit his sovereignty?
01:03:01: I'd say no. And those who say that God can't do it are calling into question his real sovereignty.
01:03:07: Let me ask you a question, James. According to Calvinism, God sovereignly decrees all the evil actions of men and angels solely for his divine pleasure.
01:03:20: And yet scripture says that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and calls all people everywhere to repent and believe.
01:03:28: How do you reconcile those two? I don't reconcile friends, first of all. First of all, when we're talking about a passage, and that's why
01:03:35: I like to go to passages, if you look at he does not take pleasure in the wicked in Ezekiel chapter 18, that's in a specific context of people who are trying to say that their suffering is solely because of those who came before them, and God is showing them that their suffering is because of their own sin.
01:03:50: But we're talking about ultimacies here. We're talking about in the final analysis, God is glorified in everything that takes place, and I hope that Ephesians chapter 1 makes that very clear.
01:04:01: That's exactly what the Bible does say. And what I've been trying to point out is, unless that is a result of his decree and his action, why is he glorified in what takes place in time?
01:04:11: Now, you had said the second part of your question was that he commands all men everywhere to repent.
01:04:18: There is absolutely no question of that. God's law commands all men everywhere to repent, and that's why we repeat it.
01:04:24: It almost sounds like, if that's considered an objection... But all men cannot repent. But God's grace cannot be demanded.
01:04:33: They cannot repent because they love their sin, and they need to be freed from their sin. They're spiritually dead.
01:04:38: But you would also say, along with that, just to clarify, is that they cannot repent because they are created in such a way that they cannot respond.
01:04:48: That's what I disagreed with in the last section, when I said it is not a matter of created in such a way that the lost are created with an inability that I somehow have.
01:04:59: That's not the point whatsoever that we're trying to make. If God has to free me from slavery, we either have to say that that freedom from slavery is something that God has to do, or that it's an act of grace.
01:05:12: One of the two. It can't be both. We are slaves to sin. We are enslaved to sin, and as such, my nature does not present to my will godly desires.
01:05:24: Therefore, I do not even have the desire to repent. Repentance is likened to a gift, as is faith likened to a gift in Scripture.
01:05:31: It is something that is a part that God has to change me. That's why the Bible uses such radical examples.
01:05:37: He has to take out my heart of stone. Hearts of stone don't repent. Hearts of stone are hardened against God.
01:05:42: He has to take out that heart of stone and give me a heart of flesh. A heart of flesh wants to repent.
01:05:48: A heart of flesh wants to believe. That's something that God has to do, but he is not under any obligation to do so.
01:05:55: And so, he could have destroyed Pharaoh. But are you saying then that you have to be regenerated before you can have faith?
01:06:01: Most definitely. First John 5 -1 tells us that those who are born from God are believing.
01:06:07: The ones who are believing are believing because they have been born from God. And that is a divine action.
01:06:15: That's why faith is described as a gift. Philippians 1 -29, numerous other places in Scripture. It is
01:06:20: God who... And I know, Hank, I do try to listen as often as I can. I've used this illustration.
01:06:26: You feel there's a category error in it. I don't feel that there is. But it is very parallel to Jesus' raising of Lazarus.
01:06:34: Now, Jesus... Well, that's not based on feeling. It's based on fact. But that's another issue. In other words, what
01:06:39: I'm saying here is we don't want to go based on our feelings. We want to basically look at the facts. Is it or isn't it a category error?
01:06:45: But, go ahead with your illustration. Right. Well, I was just trying to put it in such a way as to say, I know you take another perspective on this, but I believe
01:06:53: Jesus is just as sovereign in the spiritual realm as he is in the physical realm. And if the voice of the
01:06:58: Son of God brings physical life... All I'm saying, Bill, when I say it's a category mistake, is that you're asking that passage to say something it's not intended to say.
01:07:06: Well, actually... Even if your point is right, I think you're using a bad illustration to make your point. Actually, I think it's a good illustration simply because we are told that we are dead in our trespasses and sins spiritually.
01:07:17: Lazarus was dead physically. The Lord Jesus has sovereignty over the physical realm, and he has sovereignty over the spiritual realm.
01:07:24: And in that very passage, in John chapter earlier... So you think that passage was intended to speak to this issue?
01:07:30: I think that passage illustrates, through the ministry of Jesus Christ, the truths that he had already enunciated in the fact that he has sovereignty over all of human life.
01:07:39: And I do believe that since Paul himself uses the categories of resurrection in regards to regeneration, that we need to be raised to spiritual life, and that that is not something that we cause by our act of faith.
01:07:54: The Bible says that that faith is a gift from God, and that that regeneration must take place first.
01:08:00: As Paul said in Romans 8, 7 -8, those who are in the flesh cannot do what is pleasing to God. Is believing something that is pleasing to God?
01:08:07: If so, then how can a spiritually dead person do it? One can only wish we had your kind of energy.
01:08:13: James White, the potter's... He's the author of The Potter's Freedom. It is a book that we have recommended to the
01:08:20: Christian Research Institute for many years. Also, George Bryson came out with a brand new book, The Dark Side of Calvinism.
01:08:27: This is not meant to be a pejorative statement. It is something, in your view, that Calvin would say in virtually the same words,
01:08:35: The Dark Side of Calvinism. We're going to be right back with your questions right here on the
01:08:40: Bible Answer Man broadcast. So if you're hanging on, be patient, we will get to you. We'll be right back with more.
01:08:46: And just before the break, we were talking about, or James was talking about, Lazarus. Jesus Christ called out to Lazarus.
01:08:54: Lazarus was dead. Therefore, Lazarus could not respond unless he first was regenerated, in a sense, given life.
01:09:02: And that was an illustration for regeneration preceding faith. Do you take issue with that illustration? I do.
01:09:08: I think there is one really good illustration in the Bible. It starts with the story of a lost coin, moves on to the story of the lost sheep.
01:09:15: As we know, the lost coin is inanimate. Only the person who lost the coin can find it.
01:09:21: The coin can't draw attention to itself. Then you have the dumb sheep, though a little more lively than the lost coin, still is very limited in helping the seeker of the lost sheep, the shepherd, find it.
01:09:35: But when it all comes down to a conclusion, Jesus himself tells the story of the prodigal son.
01:09:42: Now the prodigal son wasn't like Lazarus in the tomb, but he was lost, and then found, and he was dead, and then made alive.
01:09:52: And I think he's the perfect illustration. We see him out there wallowing in his sin. He realizes what he's done.
01:09:59: He says, this is crazy. This is insanity. And he goes through a perfect, I think, illustration of conversion.
01:10:06: He goes, this is nuts. He doesn't understand everything. He doesn't know what the implications of his decisions are going to be.
01:10:14: But he starts back, and he's received by his father, and an incredible change and transformation of his circumstances take place.
01:10:21: But the point here is that he was not inactive in this. His will was involved.
01:10:27: His will was involved. And if you look throughout the New Testament, there is not only the clear declarations of men to repent and to believe the challenge, but there's also the assumption, if God is talking to spiritually dead men,
01:10:40: I think God is expecting them to listen to what he has to say. Not only to hear it, but to heed it.
01:10:47: I think there's a presumption. You have to assume that the spiritually dead can respond to a message of life, or why are you talking to them?
01:10:56: We don't talk to people that can't hear us. If we walked up to a man who was talking to somebody deaf, audibly, we'd think, hey, back off, he can't hear you.
01:11:07: If we really didn't think the spiritually dead could respond to God, we're really putting
01:11:13: Christians in that place. We're just saying, we're like a bunch of crazy people out there just talking to the people that can't really hear what we're saying, unless God gives them life.
01:11:22: And then, of course, if God gives them life, it didn't matter whether we talked to them or not. James Boyce puts the illustration of regeneration like this.
01:11:29: He says, we're all like a bunch of barrels. In some barrels, there's gunpowder. In some barrels, there's water. If you're elect, you've got gunpowder.
01:11:37: And if you're not elect, you've got water. The gospel preacher has a match. He lights it. He throws it in.
01:11:43: If it goes out, we know it's water. You're not elect. If it explodes, if there's an explosion, we know you were elect.
01:11:49: In other words, if you respond. But you had to be elect and regenerated first. He says, without that regeneration, there's no response.
01:11:57: So while you're talking to a spiritually dead man, they can't hear you, you're really wasting your time. We're talking to James White and George Bryson about the sovereignty of God, free will debate, the divine sovereignty, human responsibility debate.
01:12:12: Before we go to our calls, quick definition of what you say the dark side of Calvinism is.
01:12:18: The dark side is that decree of God whereby He determined from all eternity to all eternity, unconditionally, to create people to spend all eternity without Him in eternal torment, in hellfire and damnation, the eternal lake of fire.
01:12:34: It was God's purpose according to Calvin. And again, Calvin didn't like this. He didn't say this with relish.
01:12:40: In fact, he says it bothered him. But he believed that from all eternity to all eternity, without regard to anything people would do, before they were born, before anyone was even created, he decided there were some people he wanted to see suffer forever and ever.
01:12:57: And he did that according to Calvinism, according to his own good pleasure and for his glory.
01:13:04: Everything that happens to the reprobate, the very fact that they are reprobate, is according to Calvinism based on and caused by a decree of God which made unbelievers unbelievers in the first place.
01:13:18: So now you say in your view that this particular system militates in some sense against the justice of God, the sovereignty of God and genuine human responsibility?
01:13:30: I would say even Calvin admitted he had trouble reconciling his view with justice.
01:13:36: He declared and affirmed God is just, but he developed and promoted a theory which he said poses problems and so he appealed to a mystery.
01:13:45: He says he uses effectively in his theology the parallel line theory in which you have two parallel lines but in eternity they will meet.
01:13:55: He didn't use that illustration, Spurgeon did and other Calvinists have done so. R .C. Sproul has rightly pointed out if it's really parallel it doesn't meet in time or eternity.
01:14:05: If you can't reconcile the idea or if it's irreconcilable the idea that God has done what he did and that is cause people to reject him ultimately, then you can't reconcile that with the idea of justice.
01:14:21: It's impossible. The real amazing thing actually about the Bible's teaching of God's sovereignty and salvation is not
01:14:28: Esau I hated. The real amazing thing is Jacob I loved and the emphasis in Reformed theology is upon the fact that God has from eternity set his love upon the unlovable, that he has set his mercy upon those who will not even ask for mercy until he himself is merciful to them.
01:14:45: That is the amazing thing and since I would like to submit that on the issue of God's relationship with evil
01:14:52: I have yet to hear an answer to Genesis 50, Acts 4, Isaiah 10 and hence
01:14:57: I would say I continue to hold the biblical ground. Read my book. We'll go to our phone callers now. Joseph, Fremont, California.
01:15:05: You're on with my guests. Hi Joseph, who's your question for? My question is actually right towards James and the question
01:15:12: I have is do people, every single person that ever was made, created that is, have a purpose?
01:15:19: Does every person that ever was made have a purpose in his life? Well most definitely as I believe
01:15:25: Ephesians chapter 1 teaches us that God works all things after the counsel of his will, that he knew every one of us before the foundation of the world and each has a purpose.
01:15:34: The problem is what we don't like is that Paul points out that for example God says to Pharaoh I raised you up for this very purpose that my name might be glorified in you and that my justice might be displayed and if we don't feel that the display of God's justice in the punishment of sin is something that is glorifying to God and important then we're gonna have a real problem with the biblical view of why
01:15:56: God does what he does in this world. Now there's no promise that any of us get to see exactly what those purposes are this side of heaven but there is no,
01:16:06: I do not believe in not only any purposeless person but I don't believe in any purposeless event either.
01:16:13: I believe that everything that happens does so with a purpose and that the scriptures are very clear in teaching this.
01:16:19: Back to the phone lines Frank in Salome Spring Arkansas you're on the air. Hi Frank.
01:16:25: Hi Hank it's good to talk to you all. Gentlemen my question is for is for Mr. Bryson. Mr. Bryson in the first hour
01:16:32: I was I heard you and Hank really give Dr. White a hard time about God knowing that he would create people that he would send to hell and I guess my...
01:16:43: Well wait a minute Frank I'm not giving anybody a hard time I'm simply positing the question for purposes of the debate. And by the way
01:16:49: I don't disagree I don't disagree with that premise that God I think God knows everything always has known everything there's nothing gonna happen that God hasn't always known so I wouldn't disagree with James White on that issue on the absoluteness of his foreknowledge.
01:17:05: Okay well I guess given that absoluteness of foreknowledge doesn't God still create people that he's going to send to hell?
01:17:11: Yes he does but he doesn't create them to send them to hell that's there's a big difference there is something that happened in this universe both evidently celestial with the fall of Satan and the fall of the angels and also with humanity with the rebellion of Adam and Eve and what that implied and how it impacted the rest of humanity that is not right all is not right in the world there is a rebellion that has taken place now is is there any question about how it's all going to end in terms of God with his final triumph?
01:17:45: No but in the meantime when something happens that God forbids and God calls an abomination
01:17:52: I don't want to... See the problem with Calvinism is is that in order to give
01:17:58: God the credit which I understand why they want to do that they also have created a system they've concocted views which blame
01:18:06: God for the things that he himself issues he himself says he hates.
01:18:12: But Mr. Bryson if if God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the things that are going to happen and he creates the people who are going to do them even in your system that still points the finger back at God by your logic.
01:18:24: Not at all not at all knowledge is not prescriptive the fact that God created a person.
01:18:30: He created a person knowing they would be a specific way Mr. Bryson. Okay but we already covered that territory quite exhaustively there's no necessity to believe that because God knew what those people would do that he is the cause of what they would do that is not even logically necessary.
01:18:51: But my question that I maybe might help to cover something we didn't cover could God not have created those individuals so they did not go to hell or was he under some obligation to create them could he just simply have not
01:19:03: I the point the caller is making is that if he created knowing what evil would exist and knowing how many people that he loves and that he's going to I guess continue to love and hence
01:19:17: God's always going to have this unfulfilled desire to save these individuals that he tried to save he the father son and spirit did everything they could to save them but they are going to be in hell for eternity hence his desires are never going to be fulfilled how can we say that it's better to say that that that he did not have a decree that involved a purpose in them.
01:19:37: What you've just done is what Wilson would call putting a lot of extra eggs in the pudding but I would simply say this that God knows everything that's going to happen but what happens that is sinful cannot be traced to him in a direct sense as a decree traces sin to God so God cannot be blamed for evil that he can be credited for good because he is absolutely good.
01:20:01: Could he have not created could he have not created evil? God could do all kinds of things. We do of course
01:20:06: George does not believe and I mean part of the problem here as we're speaking past each other George does not believe that God created evil.
01:20:13: Well could he have created so there was no evil. George believes that God created the potential for evil if God had not created the potential for evil then in fact you get a problem because then love would not be meaningful if love was not volitional love would not be meaningful much more could be said we're out of time for this edition of the
01:20:29: Bible Answer Man broadcast we are going to stay in studio for an extra hour once we go off the air we'll continue taking your calls continue this discussion so we'll pick up on this theme in the next hour we continue the discussion with George Bryson James White on their books the potter's freedom the dark side of Calvinism two books one written by James White the potter's freedom the other by George Bryson the dark side of Calvinism this is a discussion that many people have been looking forward to for a long period of time and in the last show that we did
01:21:00: James White we talked about the whole issue of evil how did evil get into the world and we have on the one hand a person who says evil is not something that God creates not something that God preordains decrees but rather evil is the result of mankind
01:21:23: God creates the potential for evil human beings actualize that evil by their choices we went further and said those choices are necessary for love to be meaningful and at that point we ran out of time you had some comments you wanted to make so we want to start this broadcast with your comments on that particular paradigm well obviously
01:21:48: I believe that one of the problems we have here is that we're dealing with this primarily on philosophical logical grounds rather than biblical grounds the
01:21:55: Bible teaches the decree of God that teaches its absolute extension and that's where we have a different starting point
01:22:01: I mean I start with the fact that the text says what the text says God says
01:22:07: I create light I create dark he uses shalom and raw evil and good and yet he says
01:22:13: I do so in pure holiness he shows us in Isaiah chapter 10 that he brings a Syria down to punish
01:22:20: Israel and then because of the arrogance of the heart of the king of Assyria he then punishes a
01:22:26: Syria for doing what he himself said he was doing with them here you have clear compatibilism you have clearly
01:22:34: God's sovereign will bring about actions within time and yet men are accountable for the intentions of their heart and working on the intention of his heart you have
01:22:43: Genesis chapter 20 verse 6 where God keeps a man from sinning against him he keeps a
01:22:49: Bimelech from sinning against him and this is in regards to Sarah and Abraham he keeps him back he holds him back how can
01:22:57: God do that if libertarian free will is true how can God violate man's libertarian free will by withholding his volitional choice to commit sin and yet hopefully we all believe that the
01:23:09: Holy Spirit of God the restrainer is restraining man's evil on a daily basis we we don't see it but I don't think if the if the
01:23:19: Holy Spirit stopped restraining evil we couldn't walk outside this building today and make it to our cars personally
01:23:24: I don't think that would be the case at all and so the real question here is when you when you say well you have to have this to have love well
01:23:31: I believe so I'm asking the question right well from from a reformed perspective first of all
01:23:37: God commands that we love him someone might say you cannot command love and yet the very first commandment is you shall love the
01:23:45: Lord your God with our heart soul mind and strength we love ourselves and when Jesus said it's interesting the strong reaction the
01:23:54: Lord Jesus God from the Jews when he mentioned to them even these are Jews who said they believed on him he said to them if you continue my word then my disciples indeed you should know the truth truth shall set you free they were so offended at his words and saying that they need to be set free that by the end of the chapter they're picking up stones to stone him
01:24:12: Jesus said he who commits sin is the slave of sin we are shackled something has to happen that something doesn't come from me because I love my sin
01:24:22: I love my rebellion my heart of stone has to be taken out and when I love it's because God has changed my heart a heart of stone doesn't love a heart of stone only loves itself and its own sin when that heart of stone is taken out and a heart of flesh is given given to that individual that's when love can take place and it does so naturally but God has to free me to be able to do that I choose to love
01:24:47: God but God freed me to be able to have that choice up till that point
01:24:53: I was enslaved to my fallen nature and as I've pointed out before Romans 8 7 through 8 says those who according to flesh cannot term of inability do what is pleasing to God loving
01:25:06: God repenting believing they're all pleasing to God I would like to know how one who holds to libertarian free will understands
01:25:12: Romans 8 7 through 8 and the idea of being able to do what is pleasing to God that's a fair question let's go to your particular view on the same subject
01:25:22: George Bryson James White says the Bible says very clearly God creates evil you got to deal with that and what you're doing is not dealing with the biblical text which says clearly
01:25:33: God creates evil but rather you are employing a philosophical paradigm rather than looking at the text well let me put a couple of things together here first of all
01:25:41: I believe God can command and does command us to love him he commands all the right things and he does restrain evil so I don't want
01:25:50: I just don't believe you can coerce meaningfully love you can't force somebody to love you though you can certainly try you can exercise force upon somebody but it isn't if their response to use the result of that force it's not really love and the nature of the decree in Calvinism in the work that Calvin is say
01:26:09: God brings about to cause man to love him is coercion it is force but that's another issue the back to the question though you you just ask want to stay with it here well the question
01:26:23: I ask is James White makes it clear that his paradigm is based on exegeting scripture he has carefully exegeted scripture and found in the biblical text that an emphatic statement is made
01:26:36: God creates evil that's what the Bible says and he is saying that what he is doing is simply going to the text the text is
01:26:44: God creates evil and therefore that's what we have to believe and that you are being driven by a philosophical paradigm rather than buying the biblical text
01:26:53: I know James is a great linguist and he knows as well as all of us should know that even a word like evil is used in scripture in more than one way and often it's used in terms of the cause of the consequence of something somebody does wrong
01:27:12: I do believe God brings things into people's life things like judgment consequences for acts that are the result of sin but if you're saying that the text the
01:27:25: Hebrew text where the Bible teaches in any language that God creates sin and that he is the center you know if you were to say
01:27:33: I created Frankenstein then I'm responsible for Frankenstein's existence if you say
01:27:38: God created evil that is God is responsible for sin then
01:27:44: I think at least we've got something out on the table that should be understood I don't believe that the evil that God is responsible for is moral evil a spanking might to a child seem like an evil response to bad behavior on the part of the child but it's not immoral behavior there are lots of things
01:28:05: God allows which might be considered evil in this world but ultimately and finally when looked at will be seen as the cause of greater good
01:28:15: God is doing things to bring about ultimately his purposes in his plan but to make
01:28:21: God responsible for moral evil and that's why I use such radical dramatic illustrations because you don't miss the point here
01:28:28: I talk about rape or child molestation I talk about when somebody steals something
01:28:34: God doesn't make them do it now if somebody gets in trouble ends up in jail that I'd say
01:28:41: God could be responsible for but you can't make God responsible for evil in the moral sense and at the same time say he's absolutely holy that's a contradiction it cannot be true it's not just not true it's not only not scripturally true it can't be true it's impossible for eternal
01:28:59: God not to exist it's impossible for a holy God to sin okay now the passage that James specifically brought up was
01:29:07: Romans chapter 8 is asking how do you reconcile that with your you're talking about the the good
01:29:14: I do is that the passage you're referring to no it says because the mindset of flesh is hostile toward God for it does not subject self to the law of God for it is not even able to do so and those who are in the flesh cannot please
01:29:26: God and I I absolutely say Paul is right in what he's saying but I'm also saying that if you read all of Romans and in the context you'll see
01:29:35: Paul is appealing often to the very people he's talking about here to do the right thing to believe in Jesus Christ to repent of their sin so the interpretation you place on that cannot be true or Paul is going out and doing something contrary to the interpretation that you give to that passage isn't it possible that as I believe and as reformed exegetes believe that God uses those positive exhortations in the lives of regenerate people to give us guidance as to what we are to do and hence there is no contradiction
01:30:03: I would say it is not only possible I think it is true but is there a contradiction yes that's another issue it's a separate issue but again the point here is the interpretation you place on that passage would make any discussion with these people meaningless in fact
01:30:20: Jesus himself in I know a chapter that you talk about a great deal of John chapter 6
01:30:25: Jesus gets into very heated debates appealing and encouraging and arguing with people to do the right thing to believe in him because of who he is because of what he did because of his miracles because of the fulfilled prophecies
01:30:38: Jesus argues with these people he says believe if you don't believe that my words he says believe my works and I I think the very appeal to them to do this assumes they can respond the right way that was
01:30:51: John 10 but in John 6 Jesus looked at those Jews who were God seekers they just come across the sea from Capernaum they find him the synagogue and he looks at them he says you have seen me yet you are not believing and then he explains their unbelief he says all that the father gives me will come to me and the one coming to me
01:31:09: I will never cast out he explains their unbelief in light of the father's sovereignly giving to him individuals and as a result of their being given then they come to Christ but isn't that exactly your point you believe that passage
01:31:23: George deals with belief not determinism yes and both actually John 5 John 6
01:31:29: John 7 you put all of these passages together there's incredible dynamic interaction between Jesus and those most hostile to him and one of the things you get a sense of as you're reading this drama he's not just throwing out words as if they couldn't understand them and respond to them he is appealing to them to look at the evidence look at what the the evidence comes from two sources one what prophecy said look at what prophecy says and how it was fulfilled in me and also look at what
01:31:59: I've done and what I'm doing but in spite of that he said they did not believe because they would not believe whereas Calvinism says they will not believe because they cannot be worded where's the whole argument the whole tenor and tone but Jesus said the reason you do not hear my words because you do not belong to God he's the one that gave the reformed order there the question is why do they not belong to God and it's because they were not willing to believe that's not what you said you have to you have to read the book because we're gonna spend all day on this section but I'm saying anybody can pick up anybody can pick up the
01:32:33: New Testament read John 5 6 the whole chapter which you appeal to and in those chapters you see this dynamic appeal even those people most opposed to him he wanted them to put their faith in him he was disappointed in their unbelief he didn't cause their unbelief he was decrying their unbelief they their unbelief was unreasonable in light of all the evidence as to who he was as the
01:33:00: Messiah of Israel and the Savior of the world and of course one of the things we want you to do is get involved in the debate and more than just a soundbite but actually reading the books themselves the potter's freedom which was a response to a book by Norman Geisler was that book called again chosen but free and then the dark side of Calvinism by George Bryson do remember the debate that we're having in studio here or discussion better put is an in -house debate and therefore we can debate this vigorously we do not have to divide over it however as James White has appropriately pointed out it is a very significant debate it does determine much of how you look at soteriology in fact many
01:33:47: Calvinists will say and you make a point of this George in your book that this is the true gospel the five points of Calvinism without it you do not have the complete gospel so it is a very important debate and it is carried on not only on this show but in these books and we want you to engage in this debate and then make a decision not on a philosophical paradigm but rather based on the exegesis of Scripture reading
01:34:17: Scripture in light of Scripture it's important that when you come to passages like Romans chapter 9 that you read
01:34:24: Romans chapter 9 not with a theological predisposition but you read
01:34:30: Romans chapter 9 in light of Scripture when Paul is talking about the
01:34:36: Potter he is clearly making reference to Old Testament passages and to understand fully what
01:34:42: Paul is talking about you need to know the Old Testament passages so as James has pointed out it's very important to read
01:34:51: Scripture in light of Scripture to truly be a biblicist to check it out in light of the infallible
01:34:59: Word of God again the resources available when you dial 888 -7000 CRI or log on to the
01:35:06: World Wide Web at Equip .org when we come back from the break we're gonna be entertaining your questions as George Bryson and James White answers them live right here on the
01:35:17: Bible Answer Man broadcast we'll be right back again in studio James White he's the author of Potter's Freedom and George Bryson the author of The Dark Side of Calvinism let's go to our phone callers a lot of you have been very patient for a long period of time
01:35:30: Melissa Oklahoma City Oklahoma you're on the air hi Melissa hi I have a question for both people and I was hoping they would answer me directly and with Scripture who or what in their opinion decides the salvation of an individual who wants to be first here glad to okay
01:35:50: George I mean James excuse me you guys look so similar yeah well if George would shave his head we look like twins
01:35:58: I'm sure in answer to the question Melissa I would only give you the words of the Lord Jesus Christ he said in John chapter 6 verse 37 all that the
01:36:07: Father gives me will come to me and the coming to Christ is the result of being given by the
01:36:13: Father he then said that he had come down from heaven not to do his own will but will the Father and the will the
01:36:18: Father for him is that he lose none of those that have been given to him so Jesus must have the ability to save perfectly without being dependent for his success or failure upon the libertarian free will of the creature so he must have that ability within himself to be able to save perfectly and who then is saved was
01:36:38: Jesus said in John 644 no one has the ability the capacity to come to him unless something else happens unless the
01:36:46: Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day John 644 forces you either to be a universalist and everyone's going to be raised up on the last day or a reformed believer in the sense that you recognize that those who are raised up on the last day are those who were drawn by the
01:37:03: Father to the son those the ones who will as a result of so being drawn cling to him look upon him believe in him my faith and the reason it has continued on for more than 30 years in my life it has nothing to do with me
01:37:18: I'm not better than anyone else in fact I'm worse than most but the fact that I continue to believe is because the fact that I have been drawn to the father by the son and it is an effective drawing well first of all let me say that the question here is not what could
01:37:33: God do or how could he have done it could he save man without man having a say in his salvation yes he could there's lots of things
01:37:42: God could do and we know of no reason why he couldn't do those things he's certainly capable he could have done a lot of things differently than he did as far as we know but the question we have to ask is how does
01:37:54: God save man that's the question we know the saving love comes from God we know the saving work came from God in the person of Jesus Christ when he died on the cross we know the offer of eternal life comes in the gospel in which we tell people that's why it's the power of God into salvation to everyone that believes we also know the instruments in which the gospel is taken out into the world are the people the saved are sent to the lost so that they can hear the message of reconciliation the work of reconciliation we know
01:38:28: Christ did so again the idea of monergism ultimately should be monergism should be that God and God alone saves but can
01:38:37: God this is the question and did God require that man who was saved by grace alone saved by grace alone through faith alone and my answer is yes and we we see that in Ephesians 2 8 through 10 we see that I believe in John 3 16 17 and 18 we see that in first Timothy 2 for we see that and second
01:38:59: Peter 3 8 and 9 all throughout the New Testament over and over again God through his people appeals to the loss to put their faith in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross so the question who decides whether we say well in one sense
01:39:16: God makes that decision in that he offers salvation both through the provision of Christ on the cross through the proclamation of that and the condition which is putting faith in Jesus Christ do we have to respond all throughout scripture not only does it clear that we have to respond it also assumes we must and can and we want to go back to the phone lines
01:39:38: Armando Oxnard California you're next you're on with George Bryson and James White hi
01:39:43: Armando how are you guys doing I think they're doing great excellent excellent glad to hear from you guys okay my question is was evil present before the world began well
01:39:56: I'll say yeah there was evil before the world in which Adam lived obviously if Satan fell there was a sin that was not a damning there was a sin that was not human what relationship that sin had with man sin is laid out to some extent in the
01:40:14: New Testament but still yes so there was evidently evil when that happened when the fall took place perhaps
01:40:22: James White knows I don't I just know it was already present before Adam but the sin that really is of concern to us is the damage in the fall of Adam fall of man and why
01:40:36: Adam sin and we have two totally different views and interpretations of scripture present here about why
01:40:43: Adam said I believe Adam sin because he chose to and he is ultimately the only one responsible whereas Calvin taught that Adam sin because of God's decree and it's important to understand that he also said that Adam had no sinful nature therefore could not choose to sin he would have to have a sinful nature to do that therefore
01:41:03: God had to decree his sin so God is responsible according to Calvinism there's there's exactly two chapters of discussion of Adam before the fall and none of them address any of those issues so when we go to the
01:41:16: Bible we have to ask ourselves the question is what God did in the cross something that is an afterthought after the cross or was it
01:41:23: God's eternal purpose in creating to have the son come into this world incarnationally to be the lamb slain upon the cross or is this something that only comes after the fall in the sense of sort of trying to create a plan of salvation
01:41:39: I believe it was God's eternal purpose to do exactly what he's done in this world
01:41:45: Adam did choose to fall that does not mean that God puts a gun to anyone's head and forces them to do something that they do not desire to do where that desire come from the
01:41:56: Bible does not tell us but we cannot read into something a concept that is contradictory to everything else the
01:42:03: Bible says about God's sovereign purpose in this world someone 35 -6 says that he accomplishes purpose he does what he wills in heaven on the earth that's never said of man so I do believe in libertarian free will
01:42:14: I just happen to believe that God's the one who has it back to the phone lines Earl in Montgomery Maryland you're on with James White and George Bryson hi
01:42:21: Earl how you doing today guys good great thanks for taking my call Romans 9
01:42:27: I believe is very clear in terms of what I'm the descriptor has to say in terms of salvation and pre -election
01:42:34: I mean if you look at Paul's argument he begins with the issue of Jacob and Esau how that God favored how
01:42:42: God favored Jacob and over Esau before they were born before any of them did anything good or evil then we look at the issue of Pharaoh how that the scripture says
01:42:53: God says for this very purpose have I raised you up that I might make my power shown through you and how that the scripture specifically says that God it was
01:43:02: God who hardened who hardened Pharaoh's heart to cause him not to you know let the children of Israel go and then
01:43:10: Paul goes down deeper and he begins to express himself in terms of the powder and the clay how that God can take one lump of clay and from that one lump of clay he can form something good and then form something evil now is there a question here
01:43:23: I'm sorry well my point is well my question is taking all of that I mean how can one not say that there is some type of pre -election in that respect okay
01:43:33: George okay I'm gonna take a friend of mine a Calvinist from Westminster Seminary at his word but I think he's right he said the most quoted section of all of Scripture is
01:43:43: Romans 9 for some reason Paul quotes more here than any other place I'm again only assuming that that's true but it certainly seems to me that it is and I have went back to every reference that Paul quotes
01:43:55: I happen to believe in something called authorial intent and I'm most evangelicals do and that is what did the author mean by what the author said
01:44:03: I don't happen to believe that the meaning of a passage is changed because we find it in the
01:44:09: New Testament the Old Testament is quoted for a lot of different reasons and we have to be careful about how we read what we see in the
01:44:16: Old Testament and people misread what is said but I think the way to find out what was meant by what was said is to go back and see what the author said to understand authorial intent
01:44:26: I think if you take authorial intent into consideration the strongest rebuke to Calvinism is well in the
01:44:33: King James says God forbid or in no way in some modern translations when the question is is
01:44:39: God unjust it says no way that's a quick rebuke to Calvinism because Calvinism creates a system in which the justice of God is called into question now
01:44:49: I know on an affirmation level Calvinists do not say God is unjust but the interpretation they give to this makes him unjust then they simply appeal to mystery and say well we don't know how to resolve this but it certainly seems like by any definition of injustice
01:45:05: God is being unjust but Calvinists say it's okay for us just to say with Paul no he's not but leave an interpretation intact that calls into question his justice so I would say if you look up all of those passages they do not say what the
01:45:20: Calvinist intend them to say and it gives a whole new meaning but the truth is Romans 9 is a whole book all by itself let me let me quickly go to James white
01:45:29: James this passage does not start where the color suggests it starts the passage starts far earlier than that obviously
01:45:37: Romans chapter 9 and a question is being asked that Paul is addressing actually the thought continues all the way from Romans 828 and following in regards to God's sovereignty the golden chain of redemption the fact that in all those actions
01:45:49: God is the one who does these things but again since Calvinists in general are being accused of twisting the scriptures and misinterpreting and so on so forth
01:45:57: I would suggest looking at all those passages in the background and then look at the apostolic interpretation is given to them and what's tremendously ironic is that 920 would be said to be a rebuke against Calvinism when in point of fact what
01:46:09: Paul is doing in Romans 920 is he's responding to an imaginary objector and the imaginary objector upon Paul saying therefore it is not the one willing nor the one running but the mercying
01:46:21: God verse 16 and then verse 18 therefore whom he wills he mercies and whom he wills he hardens then he brings up the objector and the objector sounds to me very much like what you're saying
01:46:34: George because it says one of you will therefore say to me how can God continue to find fault for who resists his will this is the objection that is constantly raised to Calvinism and Paul is responding to the objector so what we've got here is the objector is taking the position against the
01:46:52: Apostle using the very words that are used against Calvinism and his response is truly a rebuke but it's a rebuke against man it says who are you oh man who answers back to God the thing formed will not say to the one who formed it why did you make me like this it shows the contrast between the creature man who has no basis upon which to question the right of God who we've just seen in verses 16 and verse 18 has the right to give mercy freely freely that mercy that mercy has to be free if it is going to be free at all and there is nothing in Exodus chapter 33 or any of the other passages that are drawn from here in fact
01:47:32: I'd suggest people go back and look at exodus 33 God's freedom in his self -revelation to Moses is the theme of that verse so that that passage so there's nothing in the
01:47:42: Old Testament that changes the application here and I just like to suggest before you break in anyone who really wants to deal with this look at John Piper's book it was his doctoral dissertation the justification of God I have never seen a non -reformed rebuttal of that work exegetically well
01:47:59: I think what you need to do is go to the rest of this section of scripture especially 10 in which he makes it really clear the question asked at the beginning why are some lost why are some saved some believe some refuse to believe
01:48:11: Paul puts right back on the unbeliever it's your fault the unbelieving Jew is to be blamed for his last it's not election it's not not election it is the fact that some people refuse to believe in Jesus Christ and more of your questions on the other side of the break
01:48:28: George Bryson James White right here at the studio answering your questions on this very important subject be right back again we're talking to James White he's the author of the
01:48:38: Potter's Freedom and George Bryson the author of a brand new book just out it's called the dark side of Calvinism back to the phone lines and yeah
01:48:46: Chicago Illinois you're on the air with George Bryson James White quickly we have very little time a lot of questions your question okay hi good evening my question is primarily for George but it's
01:48:58: James who wishes to join in that's fine too I was wondering if man ultimately has the ability to exercise free will and everyday matters or even in his own salvation why would we pray for a particular outcome of a situation or why would we intercede on a loved one's behalf if it's up to man to act and not ultimately up to God to cause one to act well
01:49:21: I think this confuses what is meant by free will or freedom the fact that I am free to do certain things such as pray for example doesn't mean that I am able to do the things that are accomplished when
01:49:33: God answers a prayer so you don't want to confuse these two things the very fact though that you're talking to me about freedom assumes you really believe you're free you were free to call and ask these questions
01:49:45: God didn't make you do that I don't even think the most extreme Calvinist would say you were forced to call me and ask this question so you believe in a certain amount a certain level of freedom you don't believe in absolute freedom neither the neither do
01:49:59: I but the fact that I am free to do something such as receive Jesus Christ or believe in him doesn't mean
01:50:04: I'm capable of saving myself faith that doesn't save me and my choice to believe doesn't save me
01:50:10: God is the Savior and he saves only in the person and through the work of Jesus Christ but he does so on condition of faith so there is no conflict between my freedom in that sense and the fact that I am unable to do all kinds of things
01:50:26: I think the point of the callers question is this if in point of fact God has got the father has decreed or is working for the salvation of every single individual equally if the son has substitutionarily atone for each individual providing a perfect salvation equally for each person the spirit comes and attempts to apply this and he does so equally to each individual why would we pray for someone's salvation because God's already given a hundred percent there be no reason to pray because what are we trying to do to convince
01:50:59: God to do a hundred and ten percent he's already done everything you possibly could possibly do the reason that we praise that God is is is working within us to change us so that we will be the instruments through which he then will be able to reach others we're the ones that are changed by that not
01:51:15: God being changed by them and I think one of the fundamental differences we hear between reform theology and non reform theology in all of its forms is that fundamentally what we say is that when the triune
01:51:26: God sets his love upon an individual the father decrees that person salvation the son dies to secure it the spirit comes to apply it that there is no power in heaven or earth that can stop the
01:51:38: Holy Spirit from bringing that sinner to spiritual life giving them a new nature that believes in Christ repents of sin clings to Christ and that that is the only reason why
01:51:49: I continue to do apologetics because if I thought it was up to me to try to convince people who are involved in some of these tremendously controlling groups that by their libertarian free will they were somehow going to choose
01:52:02: Christ over against the control structure that's around them and that God would never violate their free will then
01:52:08: I wouldn't even bother going up to Salt Lake City and is that what you would say or do you say that it is
01:52:13: God who changes the heart God changes the heart and God is at work what I'm saying is that this very idea that you know
01:52:20: God changes me but not things why why is God limited he he used he used
01:52:27: Elijah to stop rain for three and a half years and then bring rain God does answer prayer so he uses prayer to change things but the fact that there are lots of things
01:52:38: I cannot do doesn't mean my freedom to pray is meaningless in fact the very fact that he asks me to pray actually commands me to pray exhorts us to pray admonishes us to pray says that we ought to pray and there's a reason for praying because God himself is the one who answers prayer how does whose heart does
01:52:58: God change he changes all kinds of people's hearts does does it always result in salvation no of course not so you can have a changed heart you can take out a heart stone give you a heart of flesh and you can still be a real that is totally not what we're talking about here
01:53:12: I'm saying people still have a choice but the fact that people have choices doesn't mean they overpower
01:53:17: God if somebody says no to God and doesn't do what God commands them to do you wouldn't say that this person has more power than God God commands people to repent some people don't repent we say they're free not to repent but that doesn't overpower
01:53:31: God I'm simply saying that God asks us to do certain things such as pray such as believe such as to trust in him such as to repent but the fact that he asks us to do those things doesn't make us
01:53:44: God but Hank it doesn't sound like we're using the same terminology again because you asked him you you seemingly felt that I wasn't giving an accurate presentation what he was saying but we're not talking when
01:53:53: I say changed heart you understand I'm talking about regeneration you don't believe change of heart is regeneration right no
01:53:59: I well of course you can talk about a change of heart in different degrees I believe God regenerates people when they believe in Jesus Christ when somebody opens their heart and life and in faith puts their faith in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross
01:54:13: God gives him new life recreates them and those people are a changed people they're now in the family of God so a changed heart will not automatically believe no it's the other way around a believing person will become a new creature in Christ Jesus but the change is
01:54:32: God's doing not the believers back to the phone lines Greg Austin Texas you're on the air hi
01:54:38: Greg yes this is for James White the question I had was concerning the the concept that regeneration precedes faith and my question
01:54:49: I I will probably do better to frame it once once you give me somewhat of an answer the question
01:54:58: I have is is there any kind of time gap if you would between the time that God chooses to regenerate someone and they actually receive or exercise the faith that God has given them to believe that's a real common question and in fact
01:55:15: I was discussing it just recently with a whole group of folks and given the fact that and this is one of the issues
01:55:21: I think is has really been I feel that the George does not accurately represent Calvinism on is that we believe that God uses means and those means are very important they're not just simply secondary things and the means that he generally uses that the scripture tells us that he uses to bring about regeneration is the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ and so when that gospel is proclaimed the spirit honors that proclamation he uses that proclamation to bring about regeneration the heart and so it would seem to me than the vast majority of instances and I don't see any place in scripture where you have any violation of this you have that regeneration taking place the same time of the call to repent the call to believe the proclamation who
01:56:05: Christ is I mean when I'm when I'm born again I want my nature is to cling to Christ so I want to know about him that's part of the proclamation and so in the vast majority of instances that I see in the
01:56:15: New Testament there is not a any kind of major period of time in between these two events some people would say some of the
01:56:24: Puritans for example discussed a a lengthy period of time between Spurgeon for example his conversion story he he talks about a lengthy period time between between the the conviction of his sin and then his coming to have peace with God now
01:56:38: I'm not sure if you'd interpret that to be a difference between the period of time of regeneration and and and coming to peace or if he was just under conviction and then was regenerate at the end of that time but there have been those who have discussed those things but it seems to me that biblically in the
01:56:52: Ordo Salutis that you can't put a huge block of time between regeneration and these other things because it is natural for the new creation to believe in Christ and to cling to him and therefore inserting that that time period would would seem to be contradictory and I don't see any examples of it in the
01:57:09: New Testament okay well yeah but I think you pretty much address what I was looking for I guess part of part of what
01:57:15: I'm wrestling through in all this and by the way thank you for your books that I have read is the
01:57:22: Mormon is the Mormon my brother which I have used to great effect witnessing to Mormon missionaries but when you deal with evangelism you know want to have at least a sense that it's more than just sort of I'm obeying
01:57:39: God and that's all there is to it I could I could be you know not culturally relevant
01:57:44: I could be culturally offensive etc it doesn't matter I'm being faithful and I think you would say well that's not right so I just kind of have to have an idea that as I proclaim the gospel that there may be in fact a time gap between the the moment that God enlivens them to be able to receive the gospel and the actual act of believing that's there's just one point
01:58:10: I just I hadn't been able to get a satisfactory answer from others who are fully Augustinian well
01:58:16: I think it's important that we do maintain the fact that we've been born again by the living and abiding Word of God and that that proclamation of the gospel is part and parcel of the means by which
01:58:25: God draws his people unto himself that then becomes our confidence that's why we do not have to compromise the gospel we do not have to as Spurgeon put it shave off the rough edges because Christ's sheep hear
01:58:37: Christ's voice they will not be scandalized by Christ's truth and that then becomes the the the power of the gospel in its proclamation quick closing remarks well
01:58:45: I would just say this is one area where Spurgeon did differ only slightly with his Calvinist brethren and that is he believed that faith even though it was a gift from God came before regeneration he said why would
01:58:56: I want to talk to the regenerate but I would just simply say this whole idea that faith comes as a result of generation is based on this notion that you have an unbelieving nature you're stuck with that until God gives you a believing nature you don't really have a choice to believe after you're born again you simply believe because that's what regenerate people do unregenerate people don't believe according to Calvinism regenerate people do believe so you don't choose to believe and you don't choose not to believe you just either an unbeliever or you're a believer based on what
01:59:26: God does or doesn't do again George Bryson he's the author of the dark side of Calvinism we can carry on this debate and certainly will in future editions of the
01:59:36: Bible Answer Man broadcast George thank you for your contribution appreciate your maiden voyage on the