The Bondage of the Will

Well, good evening to you. My name is Matt Friedman. I'm Professor of evangelism discipleship at Wesley Biblical Seminary and so very delighted to be with you here this evening

I do want to tell you that when I accepted this role in This evening.

I did not know that I was going to be teaching a class this evening as well So my life has gotten complicated.

So we're gonna kick this off this evening and as the evening rolls on Dr.

Steve Sukkos will be taking my place as moderator and he is a professor of apologetics at Wesley Biblical Seminary, but we just want to tell you as Dysfunctional as the moderation might be we think it's going to be a great time tonight of discussing this issue

First off I want to thank so very much the Deep South regional founders conference For putting on a conference on God and three persons blessed

Trinity I'm not sure you could talk about anything more important at any conference anywhere this is a vital thing and we just need to know the impact of that for our life for our living and Obviously for our

Orthodox Christian faith. So thank you for doing this. I also think it's a great thing We're having this debate this evening this discussion

We have two Seminaries in this town that are credited by the Association of Theological Schools I think we ought to do this a lot more just my humble opinion, but I think it's a good thing a healthy thing

We're so very delighted that you're here with us tonight I'm going to introduce to you the gentleman that came this evening.

Dr. James White is a director of Alpha and Omega ministries It's a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona He's the author of more than 20 books a professor a debater and an elder of the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church And we want to say to you. Dr. White. Welcome to the Jackson Metro area.

We're so very delighted that you're here Dr. Steve Blake Moore's an assistant professor of philosophy and moral theology at Wesley Biblical Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi He's the executive director of the

Institute for third millennium faith and co -founder of resurrection youth ministry. Welcome. Dr.

Blake Moore We had a flip of a coin a few moments ago and dr

White will be going first and he'll be going first the rest of the evening as by the rules agreed upon before Any of us really showed up we're very grateful that the opening statements will come out to 18 minutes apiece and then after that there's going to be some rebuttals and those will be 10 minutes apiece and Then after that there's going to be a love offering.

I'll be generous with the love offering. Will you? These guys need to feel your love after that then

There's going to be a cross -examination time where they'll be asking one another questions We look very forward to that and then of course there's going to be closing statements by each of them of 10 minutes apiece

And of course, we do want to throw it open because we know you might have some provocative questions to ask and we can't wait

For those so that will be the format this evening Dr. James White.

Thanks again. So very much for coming and you're up first It is a privilege to be with you.

I think I'm here. Anyways, I started in Phoenix got up before three o 'clock this morning

So I cannot guarantee the orthodoxy of anything that comes after about nine o 'clock tonight.

So I'm getting to that age where you know, I need to get to bed nice and early

So I'm not sure how long the fellowship afterwards is gonna last but I'm not sure I'm gonna be there Why in the world we be revisiting a debate that has been going on for a very very very long time

Didn't Erasmus and Luther get it all taken care of quite some time ago Well, I think if you asked either one of them, they would have said to you

No, not really Luther certainly thought his work on the bondage of the will was one of the most important books that he had written

I'm not exactly sure what Erasmus thought but I'm certain that he was not convinced

By Luther's diatribe. So why are we here? Well because every generation has to think through very clearly what we believe not only about God's sovereignty

How God knows what he knows what God's decrees include and do not include if we take that type of theology

But we also have to very much understand what we believe about man We live in a day where man is exalted tremendously

Where man is considered to be the measure of all things and so we are on Constantly under pressure to adopt the world's perspective of man's capacities and man's will we need to in each generation?

and sometimes multiple times in one generation Review what the Word of God says concerning the subject of the nature of man's will

Speaking of Luther and Erasmus. I am reminded of what Luther said to Erasmus about this very issue

He said moreover I give you hearty praise and commendation on this further account That you alone in contrast to all others have attacked the real thing.

That is the essential issue You have not wearied me with some extraneous issues about the papacy purgatory indulgences and such like trifles rather than issues in respect of which almost all to date have sought my blood though without success you and You alone have seen the hinge on which all turns and aimed for the vital spot

Now Luther was talking about what what was the hinge upon which all turns the entirety of the

Reformation? Here Luther recognized that whether man's will is in bondage to sin

Needing to be freed by the powerful grace of God or whether the will was as Romans as the

Roman Catholic Church said Still had an element of freedom to it while grace was necessary.

They reject Pelagius in his entire position Still their semi Pelagian perspective was that God's grace could bring you to a sort of moral neutral point

And then you could decide from there Luther recognized that this was the very issue upon which everything else turned

Charles Spurgeon said it rather well long ago. In fact in 1856 How certain then is the salvation of every elect soul?

It does not depend on the will of man He is made willing in the day of God's power He shall be called at the set time and his heart shall be effectually changed that he may become a trophy of the

Redeemer's power That he was unwilling before is no hindrance for God giveth him the will so that he is then of a willing mind thus every air of heaven must be saved because the

Spirit is put within him and Thereby his disposition and affections are molded according to the will of God Obviously the primary focus this evening has to be upon what scripture itself testifies concerning ma 'am

If we were to simply follow the psychology of today, we would have absolutely no guidance

For you can find in the psychology of today every kind of theory every whim every movement

It would change by next week by the next time the new psychology journal was published instead we have the unchangeable

Word of God that gives testimony to man's nature and no matter how We progress in our technology man's nature does not change we are told in Genesis 6 5 that Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that Every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Do we believe these words? Are these just hyperbole? Is this just mean that man was really sinful, but there were still some really good folks around No I think that the words need to be taken the way they are and Even though in comparison of these men

Noah was found to be a holy and righteous man. We know from the story of Noah Well, he was not perfectly righteous indeed mankind was very sinful very early on The Prophet Jeremiah testifies to this very deeply throughout his book

We can only look at a couple of things that he says, but he asks us the rhetorical question Can the Ethiopian change his skin or leopard his spots then also you can do good who are accustomed to doing evil?

Can the can that animal change his nature his appearance certainly not then those who are accustomed to doing evil

Cannot do that, which is good Jeremiah 17 9 tells us the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately sick who can understand it

Well, thankfully God can't understand it through his word He can give us understanding but we and of ourselves can understand it because of its desperate sickness

The Apostle Paul brought together the entire witness of the Old Testament to the deadness of man and sin

And he says as it is written none is righteous. No, not one. No one understands. No one seeks for God All have turned aside together.

They have become worthless No one does good not even one and then he finishes this katina of passages with this tremendous

Statement there is no fear of God before their eyes What a statement to be made about mankind who is created in the image of God and yet in and of himself

Outside of the redeeming grace of God. There is no fear of God before his eyes. We don't even fear our own

Creator How can this be? What is the depth of the depravity of man that this would be the result and yet we know this is

Paul's Intentional conclusion because he is closing every door to any type of possibility of self -righteousness

He's now about to introduce us to justification by grace through faith And so he is shutting down any

Avenue whereby someone might be able to claim righteousness before God The same thing is true when he speaks to the

Ephesians in Ephesians chapter 2 He says and you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked following the course of this world following the

Prince the power of the air the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience Among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh

Carrying out the desires the body in the mind and were by nature Children of wrath like the rest of mankind

That sounds like it's a rather sweeping indictment on the part of the Apostle Paul of all of mankind

But God being rich in mercy because of the great love with which he loved us

Even when we were dead in our trespasses made us alive together with Christ by grace.

You have been saved notice on man's part depravity sinfulness a slavery to sin but God being rich in mercy because the great love with which he loved us even when we were dead in our

Trespasses now if we're gonna say there's some kind of a of a middle act of God where he doesn't actually make us alive

But he only makes us capable of somehow doing something. Where is this in the text? This seems to be

Regeneration we were dead. We were made alive. We were made alive together with Christ This is clearly forgiveness of sins

Ephesians chapter 1 which would just Had been written by the Apostle Paul by grace.

You have been saved anyone who has experienced this merciful Redemption from slavery is one of those spoken of in Ephesians 1 as having received the saving grace of God But tonight we are specifically addressing the bondage or freedom of the will and I think there are a couple of key texts

That directly addressed this and I want to spend most of my time or at least half the time I have left on these key texts

Jesus his own words in John chapter 8 lay this out So Jesus was saying to those

Jews who had believed him if you continue in my word Then you are truly disciples of mine and you will know the truth and the truth will make you free

They answered him. We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone How is it you say you will become free

Jesus and to them truly truly? I say to you everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin

Here the Lord Jesus speaks to men who believed in their own freedom, even though they were under the heel of Rome They could actually say we have never yet been enslaved to anyone

Well, in fact, they had been enslaved to many people in the history of Israel. They were in self -deception

But what is beyond that is they were offended they the text had said they had believed in Jesus It was an heiress faith not a continuing faith, but they had believed in Jesus and when

Jesus then spoke to them of Continuing his word Then they would truly be disciples and you know the truth and the truth will make you free as soon as he said that Oh the response of these individuals they are offended at the message that they need to be made free

Jesus's response to their argument. Is that everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin now

We need to understand that term slavery in the context of which it was used in the ancient world and a slave couldn't just simply

Decide to not be a slave anymore. That wasn't just a position. He had put himself in he may not have even voluntarily done so and so Jesus's statement is everyone who commits sin is the slave of Sin, I think when we come to the question of freedom or bondage

Jesus's words need to take preeminence in our understanding In that same text

Jesus said to the Jews, why do you not understand what I say? It is because you are not able to hear my word if we are free

If our wills are not bound if we are not the fallen sons of Adam if our wills are not bound

Why is it that they are not able to hear Jesus's word? He then said whoever is of God.

Here's the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not of God Now I think it's very important to look at exactly what

Jesus is saying He says notice we're at a seminary. So we might as well look at the original languages He says you are not able to hear my word

And for this reason you are not hearing Because you are not a tooth a you you are not of God Notice it is being of God or not of God that determines the capacity or ability to hear not the other way around as is the case in so much of evangelicalism today

In John 6 44 Jesus's words are stark and plain Jesus answered and said to them do not grumble among yourselves

No one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day

Once again, we have the inability of man No one has the capacity or ability to come to me unless something happens

Unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day if someone's going to say well

The father draws everyone Well, then you need to be a universalist because as you look at the text

Anyone who is drawn by the father to the son is raised up by the son on the last day to eternal life

And so Jesus says you don't have the capacity. You don't have the ability to come to me He was explaining why he had just said to Jews who had rode across a lake to come hear him speak

You are unbelievers Because they weren't coming to him for the right reason. They did not see that.

He was the source of spiritual life They were looking for the food. They were looking for the miracles and Jesus is explaining their unbelief

Beginning at verse 37 in the terms of the sovereignty of God and his giving to the

Son But I think almost no text is more plain than this text from Paul's words in Romans chapter 8

He says for the mind set on the flesh is death But the minds that on the spirit is life and peace because the minds on the flesh is

Hostile toward God for it does not subject itself to the law of God For it is not even able to do so and those who are in the flesh

Can not please God Once again, we need to hear what the inspired word is saying twice

We are told does not have the ability does not have the capacity

There are those who are according to the flesh. They are not according to the spirit

We know in Scripture that we have those who are dead in their sins Those who have been made alive in Christ those who are right with God those who are not right with God here we have those who according the flesh and those who according the spirit and Those who are according the flesh are not capable of Subjecting themselves to the law of God now does not the law of God say repent?

is not the the message that has been trusted to us to go into all the world and What did

Paul say in Acts 17 God commands men everywhere to do what to repent?

That's what God's law says but God's Word also says that there is something wrong with man is

Repentance something that is pleasing to God is Faith something that is pleasing to God Well, then the question would be if we cannot subject ourselves to the law of God those who are in the flesh cannot

Please God then how can we do those things that are self -evidently pleasing to God when the statement is made directly there?

They are not able to do what is pleasing to God There has to be a radical change now

Our discussion this evening may start off on the wrong foot to be perfectly honest with you Because when we think about it

There is I believe a truth that comes before the discussion of man's depravity

There is a truth that is prior to this that is not really a part of our debate. We may have to touch upon it

But I believe that the best place to start in this discussion is to begin with who God is What his nature is his timelessness his sovereignty his decree how he has knowledge of future events and His freedom because I do believe in the freedom of the will.

I believe in God's freedom of his will and I believe that in his freedom.

He has created a world in which he is glorifying himself Sometimes this debate can miss the heart of the issue

Because it's focused upon the creature rather than the creator who made the creature and defines the creatures purposes

And so if I might in the last two and a half minutes I have to my presentation

Provide that type of a foundation. I believe the biblical testimony is clear now We can argue all night about well, then why does

God plead with man? well Because God ordains the ends as well as the means and he has chosen to glorify himself by the means of preaching the gospel

First Corinthians chapter 1 says that's the very means by which God has made has nullified the wisdom of the world

He is decreed the means by which we are to come to him But fundamentally what it really boils down to is if we remain focused upon us as creatures

I don't think we're gonna see the full orb truth of what scripture says I believe we have to step back and just as our overall conference this week is

God in three persons Blessed Trinity. We need to see that fundamentally the message of scripture is what the triune

God is doing to glorify himself if We see ourselves as the center then we're not going to understand the balance of what scripture presents if we see that the

Father is the very source of salvation the fountainhead of the decree of salvation the eternal

Son made flesh becomes the very means through incarnation his perfect life his death his burial his resurrection by which

God is able to justly deal with man's sin to provide perfect redemption and then the spirit is the one who comes and Brings us to spiritual life then we can understand the metaphors that are used in scripture

Taking out a heart of stone and giving a heart of flesh the spirit Breathing upon the valley of dry bones and they come together and and they're brought to life

We can understand all those things not because we focus upon hearts of stone and hearts of flesh

But because we see God is about glorifying himself in the person of Jesus Christ and the salvation of an elect people in him

And so I think there's a bit of a danger in just looking at this one aspect

And so I want to at least provide that snapshot that that larger panorama That provides the context in which we see the biblical testimony concerning the fact that the fallen sons and daughters of Adam are indeed slaves to sin and Outside of the grace of God that brings spiritual life and freedom from the chains of sin

No person will ever to choose to give up his heart of stone the heart of stone likes stoniness it is only when

God by his grace changes us that we are then able as Hopefully all of us here have to embrace

Jesus Christ and to confess him as our Lord and Savior. Thank you very much I'm sure that Many of you in the audience take great pleasure in the fact that a

Wesleyan is utterly dependent upon the Calvinist I Hope that the slideshow will work

That I put together. I too am very pleased to be here and I want to say that as I stand here before you tonight representing a perspective out of the broad spectrum of Christian orthodoxy,

I Feel a little bit at a loss because of some of the caricatures that are

Placed on us And all and quite honestly Some of those characters caricatures are well -deserved.

I Was at a Bible study a while back in which a man was talking about his salvation

In which he has said the way that I've come to understand this Steve Is like this when it comes to my salvation

God has a vote And the devil has a vote and I get to cast the deciding vote well,

I Want to assure you I'm not a representative of that school of thought

Tonight if my salvation hangs upon anything so slender as me in any way shape or form

Then indeed I am a wretched man No one's salvation hangs upon them in any ultimate sense whatsoever in any way shape or form

But what I want to do tonight is to suggest that we look behind the veil because ultimately whether you're talking

Calvinism or Wesleyan Arminianism when we speak about the nature of humanity in our fallenness and yet our

Responsibility for that fallenness in our bondage to sin and yet our responsibility to Live in such a way that we could be pleasing to God because both of those

Emphases are found in the scripture We are talking about a mystery when we consider as dr

Suggested that we really need to be thinking about God ultimately about the will of God in the ways of God and how

God foreknows and how God Predestined and how God works salvation in the life of anyone at all

Ultimately what we have to do is say there is a veil behind which we cannot peer

Thank God that we have the revelation of Scripture that God in his utter goodness

Sent into the world his only begotten Son Jesus Christ so that through Jesus Christ the

Father could be made known and That we could begin to understand who

God is and what God is like in his very essence even if we cannot understand how that essence is what it is

God has in spite of the mystery of his Transcendent glory made himself known and so I want to suggest that we have to look behind the veil and in looking behind the veil

The first thing that we have to acknowledge is that when you think about this question and by the way,

I will get to the Bible Assuming I don't run. Oh run out of time Not because the

Bible is something I want to add on but I just want to draw the lines of distinction very clear

When we think about the source of our bondage there are two and only two possibilities in Christian theology either the source of our bondage is a supralapsarian thing

That somehow by God's eternal decree Adam and Eve fell from grace By the choice they made but the choice they made was a part of God's eternal decree

The choice they made was God's providential sovereign will hence the bondage of the human will is by God's eternal decree

There is instead of that. There's also an infralapsarian view in from meaning something has been

Visited upon us imposed upon us. We become bound in sin as a result of The choice that humanity made in Adam and Eve Because of Adam and Eve sin, the human condition is now marred and broken and has a bondage to sin

But this is a contingent fact Not an eternal decree by God Somewhere along in here.

There should be another Slide which is not coming

It's it's happening slowly, but surely this the slot title this slide is wherein we agree

We agree in this debate that human beings are fallen and stricken by a spiritual malady that has been called termed original sin

Not a term that's in the Bible But a good shorthand reference to the way that human beings are in bondage

We also agree that God is good and just in the fact that some are saved and Others are judged in their sinfulness.

We agree with that. We also agree that Well, there we go all three of them now we also agree that Jesus Christ is the only

Savior and the only atoning sacrifice and the only mediator between God and humanity there is no salvation possible apart from the gift of God in Jesus Christ Wherein we disagree as I see it we disagree in the role of God about the role of God in and or the response of God to the fact of human sinfulness alienation and bondage to sin

We also disagree I think about what the character of God really is or at least we define the character of God very differently

It's what as to what it means to say that God is good and God is just in matters of salvation and judgment

With regard to this question about the freedom of the will which is my side of the equation

There are two ways to think about the freedom of the will one is tech typically Referred to as the

Arminian or the libertarian view in which it's believed philosophically that an act is not free if it is causally determined in the sense that it has a sufficient cause or Condition by that I mean a cause that accounts for the choice completely prior to the choice being made and the act being done

That an act cannot be truly free if that is the case on the libertarian view

Now a free act of any agent is of course explained by the reasons for which the agent acts

But reasons for actions are not determining Choice determinations of choice fully

On the other hand there is the typically referred to Calvinist view as I understand it of compatibilism that freedom and determinism are perfectly compatible an

Act can be perfectly free even though it is fully determined by prior causes or conditions a

Free act therefore is one that is done willingly in accordance with the actors should be possessive there

I'm sorry. I do know how to punctuate. I just made a typo the actors character beliefs and desires

Therefore by this view even though God would have eternally decreed that some in this congregation tonight

Might think themselves saved But not be or some in this congregation tonight might not be saved, but just be here out of curiosity

That's an unsaved person who is eternally decreed to be unsaved Will willingly be unsaved because God has determined that they will willingly and freely be reprobate

Well those are the two views of freedom Now what does it mean to talk about the freedom of the will?

Well, this is what the freedom of the will does not mean from the Arminian Wesleyan Libertarian point of view it does not mean that we have some non

God -dependent capacity for free choice and for choosing God for ourselves out of ourselves

Even as dr. White talks about some halfway condition in which we are somehow placed in a morally neutral stance

No, that's not what libertarian freedom in the Wesleyan Arminian tradition has to mean

Secondly it does not mean that we initiate the saving relationship with God in any way shape or form

It is God's grace and God's grace alone that initiates salvation

The third thing it does not mean is that there are no restrictions upon our Capacity uh -oh

Something happened to my network It was decreed by God. I Trust that that's the case

But I'll have to trust you that that's the case There are no it doesn't mean that there are no restriction.

Hey, I get like 30 seconds extra for this, okay And ultimately that it is not

God's choice that God's choice is not the ultimate issue But the question is what has

God chosen? That's the question what has God chosen

Now just to refresh our memories the source of our bondage we reprise it there are two possibilities an eternal decree sort of bondage or a

Malady kind of bondage Something has gone wrong in the human condition

Tragically, but not by an eternal decree Now to in order to make compatibilism clear as I understand it

Because I think sometimes people embrace the compatibilist view without thinking through it clearly and so in order to make it clear

I Want to put a thought experiment in before you tonight first of all

Even in the Calvinist tradition as I have read it and the scholars I read there is this statement this claim that God truly loves all persons and Somehow this general call of the gospel goes out into all the world so that in some sense all

Persons are invited to accept the gospel the decree goes forth Secondly however if we say that talk about love

I Submit as a premise that truly loving someone is to desire their blessedness and to promote their flourishing.

I Can't even begin to imagine how our moral intuitions even fallen though they be

Our moral intuitions could not at least affirm that to love someone is to truly desire their blessedness and to promote their flourishing

Third premise which will not be controversial. I think since it's a premise of Christian Orthodox Anthropology the true well -being for any human being is found only in a right relationship with God in which we accept the invitation

Of God and come to love trust and obey him. We are made for God We are made by God Our hearts are restless until they rest in him st.

Augustine fourthly by compatibilism Since compatibilism says freedom and determinism are compatible

God could Determine all persons to freely accept his invitation in the gospel and be made right with God and be saved and This would be no less

Glorifying to God Because his judgment and his mercy would be perfectly aligned with each other if this was what

God willed to do Now compatibilism being the case to set this forth.

Then what are the soteriological conclusions? Well, therefore as dr.

White suggested universalism all will be saved However, both

Calvinist compatibilist and Wesleyan Armenians libertarians affirm unequivocally Not all will be saved

So, how are we going to become consistent in this well for the Wesleyan Armenians we can reject premise for God does not determine all persons freely to accept the invitation of the gospel but for the

Calvinist I'm not sure exactly what the Premise would be premise for is a straightforward is as straightforward a possible implication of a

Compatibilist view of freedom as the limited atonement would be Premise three is a classical view of Christian anthropology

So that leaves premise to God does not love all persons or if we talk about God loving all persons

It's a very idiosyncratic view of what love is Now What are the issues at stake in our debate tonight?

Well, I contend that first of all if the issue is not the sovereignty of God But the question of how has

God chosen to be sovereign? God's sovereign decision about how to be sovereign

Not the transcendent glory of God, but what actually brings the most glory to God Thirdly not the bondage of the will but by what influence has the will been enslaved by eternal decree of God or by an infralapsarian

Catastrophe that has befallen humanity Not the atoning grace of Christ is the issue but for whom does

Christ's life death and resurrection atone And three not the authority of Scripture But how we are to interpret

Scripture as we let Scripture interpret itself Wesleyan Arminian view of freedom of the will therefore

Moves along these Premises our bondage is not Adam's fault alone, but our willing and participation our bondage.

However is not the last word For God does not abandon the world

Or his human creation all of which bear his image God's grace is offered to humanity as a universally active enabling gift that precedes saving faith and Makes possible in each person response to God This grace that goes out to all of humanity is irresistible

No one can Resist the grace of God which comes to make it possible for them to begin to feel their need of God and say yes to God and it

Initiates our longing for God and this same grace enables both the free acceptance

Or the free resistance of God's saving invitation So all salvation is of God and God is therefore content continues to be righteous

Because those who resist this universal pre salvation grace

Can be judged by not only Adam's fall but their active participation in their own

Sinfulness because of Adam's fall and therefore God is also incredibly gloriously love

Now we're going to have to talk some more throughout the night but some biblical passages that come to my mind

Are these passages that seem to make the Sacrifice of Jesus for the world and not just for the elect

John 3 16 1st John 2 1 and 2 we can go on there with the biblical witness and I'm running out of time.

So I got to stop there. I did at least get to reference the Bible though Now we come to the point where there are two rebuttals each and we'll go back and forth dr.

White dr Blakemore, dr. White. Dr. Blakemore each rebuttal taking 10 minutes

Well, I don't know if I can run the presentations and won't we

All right. I apologize for the mess up my my Phone just simply reset in the middle of all that and it was running the network that was controlling the all the gadgetry

So that's what happens. He lives by technology dies by technology. I Hope in the second section we can hear some response to the biblical testimony that I have provided in regards to the biblical teaching

That man is dead in sin. He is enslaved to sin I think it's important to hear what was just said and I want to respond to some of those things especially the definition of grace that was just given as an enabling gift

That makes it possible for us to begin to feel our need. I Do not believe that is how grace is defined in Scripture when it says by grace you have been saved

It does not say by grace. You were brought the point to begin to feel the need to be saved now grace does that?

But you see that's not all grace does I believe that grace is powerful I believe that grace accomplishes the intention for which

God sends it and if the Intention for God's sending of his saving grace is the salvation of a particular people

They will be saved if it is God's intention to try to save that's a very different thing than what

I'm talking about when I talk about God's saving grace a very different thing indeed now the argument that has been made is basically well

We had an argument based on the nature of God's love and if you love someone then you're gonna do the best for them and The best for them would be for them to be saved and therefore the

Calvinist has a problem That assumes that God's love is identical to man's love and even at that case at that level

I would dispute the use of one of the premises in regards to the nature of love that is the

Bible affirms that God's love and kindness is upon the entirety of his creation and Yet there is a special kind of love for example seen all through the

Old Testament that God has for his specific people I mean in the fact that God provides the atoning sacrifice on the day of atonement's

Yom Kippur That was not for the Babylonians and that was not for the

Egyptians. That was for a specific people Well, does that mean somehow that we have to deny the the particularity of God's work in the

Old Testament? No more than we have to in the new God has the ability to have different kinds of love

Just as we do the love I have for my wife better not be the kind of love I have for everybody else's wives

There needs to be something very specific and very special about the love that I have for my wife

That is not like the love I have for anyone else the same thing for my children. We understand this We recognize this in regards to human love and yet when it comes to God somehow his love has to be much more monochrome it has to be a much more of a level type thing and we do not allow

God as a Person to have special kinds of love which he very clearly demonstrates.

He has in the Old Testament What if it was God's purpose? To demonstrate all of his attributes in his creation of this world

What if it was God's purpose to demonstrate his holiness and his justice as it clearly says when scripture says what?

Why why did Yahweh do what Yahweh did in the plagues in Egypt? Well, we have we don't even have to read the

Old Testament narrative Paul gives us an inspired interpretation of that and he tells us the Reason was to proclaim

The name the Lord to show his power You mean the firstborn dying?

little little children He demonstrated that in that kind of a way Yeah that's what the

Bible says and unless we embrace the idea that God has a purpose in everything that happens that there is

There is purpose behind everything and that everything is going to resound to his glory. Then we have all sorts of problems

I would like to submit to you that God desires to demonstrate all of his attributes He desires to demonstrate his wrath and his holiness and he has done so and in fact according to Romans chapter 1 is doing so this very night

Because Roman chapter 1 says the wrath of God is being revealed Present tense against all the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold down katakon tone suppress the truth and unrighteousness but I also submit to you that as God has desired to demonstrate his justice and that that means that there will be those who are under his punishment and Will remain under his punishment likewise

He is he has deemed it proper in his decree to demonstrate his love and his mercy and his kindness upon Undeserving sinners not that we somehow are better than someone else that we are more sensitive as someone else

If the grace of God is just trying to move us all in the same place Why has it gotten us where it's gotten us, but it doesn't get other people there

Why do we differ that's always a question that must be asked Why are we here tonight and people of the same intelligence receipt recipients evidently of the same grace?

Have no interest in being here at all and they remain in rebellion against Jesus Christ And in fact, they find the gospel to be the very stench of death

Why is that the only answer I can come to is either in the free and sovereign will of God or somehow those who will

Someday stand before God worshiping him. We're somehow better more sensitive more spiritually attuned something

Whereby the same grace brought us farther and hence to salvation I submit that God desires to Demonstrate his glory his glory in the demonstration of all of his attributes in the righteous punishment of sin and in the gracious salvation of an undeserving people to the glory of the

Lord Jesus Christ God the Father and the Holy Spirit and so If that is the case then the quandary

Really disappears because the focus should not be upon well what the nature of love toward a creature is

But what is God seeking to accomplish? Is there a divine decree now? I wish I could have written down more of what?

What dr. Blakemore was saying saying but I was trying to follow the presentation and click buttons So I I do want to at least address a couple other issues very very briefly and I only have three minutes and 40 seconds left

I Wanted to address biblical evidence for compatibilism and since I won't be able to read the text

I'll just simply remind you of them. I remind you of the lesson that Joseph learned in Egypt.

I Remind you the fact that when Joseph's brothers appeared before Joseph fearing he was going to kill them

He had learned something that we need to remember this evening What did he say to them? He knew that what they had done to him was sinful

He did not in any way shape or form for forgive their sin the sense of saying it wasn't sin He didn't just wink at it.

He said you meant this for evil, but God meant it for good It's exact parallel in the

Hebrew if you want to look at it in that sinful act God's intentions good pure intentions were seen

Over against the evil intentions of his brothers their hearts were evil. God's heart is good and pure, but it's the same act

It was a part of his decree. There is absolute compatibilism Were they were they doing what they desired to do?

Of course they were and in point of fact did not God have to restrain them from killing Joseph He did so much for their free will if he restrains them from doing the very things that their hearts desire to do and yet he can hold them accountable and is that not exactly what we see with the king of Assyria and Isaiah chapter 10 when

God brings them against the people of Israel to punish the people of Israel and yet once he's done punishing the People of Israel was he do he punishes the

Assyrians because of the attitude of their heart in what they did Is that divine revelation?

It's right there in front of us and Clearly the greatest example of this my friends is found in Acts chapter 4

Where the early church praying upon receiving persecution comes together in praise and praise the

Sovereign God and Recognizes that Herod and Pontius Pilate and the Jews and the

Romans Had all been brought together against his holy servant Jesus to do what his hand and his will had

Predestined to occur now think about the attitudes of those people that are mentioned there

Herod. He's just nuts Herod he's he's he's a megalomaniac Pilate he's a he's a politician and and he's a coward the

Jews are Hating Jesus because he has exposed their self -righteousness over and over again and the

Romans are just they're doing their duty man You kill the guy. Okay, we kill the guy. That's what we do. We're Romans totally different Motivations totally different attitudes of the heart and yet what is the prayer of the early church?

They did what your will your you had predestined to occur. The cross was not a mistake

The cross could not have happened two weeks later or two weeks earlier Jesus said he knew when his hour was coming and his hour had come and is that he could not have missed his hour

Now, how can that be if in point of fact, there is not a sovereign decree that determines these things and yet was

Pontius Pilate Any less guilty for doing what he did the the Jewish leaders for their blindness

Herod for his zaniness No, we see the perfect Compatibility the perfect harmony that exists.

I don't see how else we can explain these texts of Scripture This is how God has acted and he does so to his honor and to his glory in the demonstration of his holiness as Well as the demonstration of his love they go hand in hand

They fit together and I believe that is the consistent testimony of all that scripture tells us on this important issue.

Thank you very much Well, that was good

By the way, there's a there's a great irony involved tonight so far as I'm concerned I'm trying to figure out which side are the sheep and which side are the goats?

But I noticed that there are a bunch of Wesleyans mingled among the goats. I mean the rest of you

But the great irony I referred to is this I think in a couple of weeks or sometime in the future

You're going to be debating Bart Ehrman November December 2009.

Oh in 2009. See now if I had been in the audience at that moment, I Would have been your greatest cheerleader

So this is just an odd thing, but these things are important for us to talk about and think about together

Biblically and also in terms of what it means to try to glorify the God who has saved us Try to love the

God who is saving us try to serve the God who will glorify us

These things are important however, that being said Let me try to address some of the things that you have suggested

Very quickly with some other biblical observations that I was not able to get to First John 2 1 through 2

John is railing against sinfulness in believers lives Says don't

I'm writing these things to you. So you will not sin But if anyone does sin we have an advocate with the

Father Jesus Christ the righteous one He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world

Now the world in first John is very clear What John means by the world and unless we assume that he is somehow playing with language here and meaning though Something by the world in one sense in one section where he doesn't mean it in the other section then when he says he is the sack he is the

Sacrifice for the sins not only ours who believe before the sins of the whole world then something other than a kind of Eternal decree of who will be saved and who will be left out is at work here in the biblical revelation

Somehow I'm going backwards on my screen Some of you may be thinking you're going backwards in your theology.

So Don't worry about that first Corinthians 5 19 through 20

Paul is arguing about his calling to be an ambassador of Reconciliation and he says here that because they have come to believe this one thing that God Was reconciling the world to himself in Christ Not counting men's sins against them and he has committed us to the message of reconciliation

We are therefore Christ's ambassadors as though God were making his appeal through us

We implore you on Christ's behalf be reconciled to God now Calvinists can introduce into biblical

Interpretation Something extraneous to a biblical interpretation. That is this view that God has ordained the ends and the means

You can say that's an implication of Scripture, but it's an implication that comes out of a particular interpretation of Scripture But in this section

Paul is saying God was reconciling the world to himself And how is he reconciling the world by removing the offense from his perspective?

That which stands between him our offense to God He has not counted our sins against us because of the sacrifice of the only begotten

Son Jesus Christ Therefore he says because God has reconciled himself to us in Christ you then be reconciled to God Respond Now, how does one respond?

I argue that This idea that I laid out for you that there is a universal activity of God at work in the world

Because of the coming of the Son Jesus Christ Who is the light that enlightens every man who comes into the world?

Who is not a force that causes people to act one way or the other but through him a gift has been given to this fallen creation a gift which enables human beings to hear the gospel and Then either resist the gospel or respond to the gospel all by God's grace

Because God wants people to respond now Let me just say a couple of things

When it talks about God wanting God wanting to express the fullness of his attributes The problem is is that the attributes that were listed for us tonight are attributes contingent about God Before the

Holy Trinity Said let there be Before the

Holy Trinity said let us make man in our image Before there was anything other than God you don't have wrath

Before there was anything other than God you don't have justice You have the triune

God living in perfect self -contained totally self -fulfilled life the father loving the son the son loving the father the father in the son loving the spirit the

Spirit loving the father in the son the son glorifying the father the father Sharing glory with the son the father in the son glorifying the spirit in the spirit glorifying

The father in the son that is the essence of God No wonder then in the book of 1st

John we hear these words Here in his love not that we love God, but that God loved us before Because God is love

That is the essence of God. That is the nature of God when you say that Therefore by the way,

I'm just kind of excited. I'm not irritated. I'm just really excited When you and I talk really fast when you say that if we think about this premise of mine that to love is to desire the flourishing and the

Fulfillment and then we say well you reduce that down to make God's love like ours.

I contend that if we say God has to have special categories of love the way

Humans have special categories of love we in that statement have reduced the glory and the majesty of God God doesn't have to have favorites

Because God is not finite I have to have favorites in my love because I am finite

God is not God is eternal. He is boundless Nothing imposes limits on God other than God's own limits

Finally out of the Old Testament this idea that he has a special people for who the day of atonement is particular.

I Agree with that completely The calling of Israel is a special election by God But the calling of Israel at Sinai is not the beginning point

The calling of Israel at Sinai is a step in the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham That through your seed all nations will be blessed so the calling of Israel to be

God's special treasure the calling of Israel to be God's particular people the God the calling of Israel to Be the ones who received the revelation of God and to be the ones who would live in the grace of this atoning

God Their calling was to be a light to the Gentiles Which is why the prophets decry their disobedience to God How will the

Gentiles know that I am God? How will they know that? I'm not like Baal if you act that way and you live that way and So the prophets in a couple of places in the in the prophecies say and now all of the nations will stream to Jerusalem to worship

Yahweh I Agree, there's a particular calling in the Old Testament. It's specific

But God's particular calling upon Israel is to reveal himself to the world to prepare a people

To whom a Messiah could be presented Because until God teaches them that sin is a serious matter

The idea of a Savior to save us from our sins would make no sense Until there can be the certainty that there's only one true

God The try you nature of God could not be revealed in the coming of the

Sun Because then people would say oh, well now we know who the three gods are So God had to have a people to whom he would reveal himself

For whom he would make preparation to send into the world the one who would be the atoning sacrifice

Not just for the sins of Israel Not just for the sins of John's community those believers that he names in chapter 2 but to be a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world and therefore

One of the implications of this is that somehow when we think about the bondage of the will and the grace of God We need to embrace something like what

I articulated Grace as an active working to make us able to respond to God Okay, I did want to in my first rebuttal

I did not get around to it say something about the discussion of super lapsarian is super lapsarian ism and in for lapsarian ism.

I I Don't think that the presentation was was really Accurate to at least my understanding of those particular issues which have to do with the logical order of the decrees

Not the issue of whether man's sin was a part of that whether man is seen Before the fall or after the fall and where the order of the decree of election comes is what you're talking about when you talk

About super lapsarian ism or in for lapsarian ism not whether there was man's sinfulness as a part of the decree

I mean if the if the lamb is Described as lamb slain from the foundation of the earth. God knew that that was a reality.

The question is how does he know that? I've never heard a really good Consistent answer to the question.

How does God have that kind of perfect knowledge even if you say? Well, he's he's he's outside of time.

So he sees everything Yeah, but how did it come to be the way that it was did he take in passive knowledge of that?

Did he just toss the cosmic dice and go? Oh, hey, I win praise me or is this a part of his decree?

I don't mean that in a funny way. I mean it quite seriously. I mean when

God created did he know the ends and Why did he know the end? I think there's serious issues that really go way beyond the topic of the bondage of the will but I just wanted to address that particular issue

We had a number of texts that were presented to us rather quickly that again I I hesitate to even respond to him because I don't know that they have to do with the bondage of the will but may

I just very very briefly since they've been been raised first John 2 2 talks about Christ as a propitiation.

What does propitiation mean? It means that sacrifice of atonement which turns away wrath So does that mean that the wrath of God has been turned away from all mankind if he is the propitiation for every man's sin?

Does that mean every man right now is no longer under the wrath of God? That's what I need to know if that's what's being discussed I see first John 2 2 is a clear of affirmation that the gospel can be preached to every person that there is no limitation

We can't pull our holy robes around ourselves and say this is good enough. The gospel is for the whole world

That's how I understand that and by the way, I think I heard it said that we know what world means in first John Well, if we do then we know that in the

Ohanian corpus as a whole There's 14 different uses the term cosmos that has a lot of different meanings to it so I'm not sure about that, but I do know that it says propitiation and I know what propitiation means and I know that according to Hebrews chapter 7 verses 24 through 25

Jesus Christ because he ever lives to make intercession for those who draw nigh unto God by him is able to save Completely to the uttermost because he always lives to make intercession for them

So there's something about the intercessory work of Christ that saves perfectly everyone for whom he intercedes

I submit to you that the high priest on the Day of Atonement the scope of his sacrifice was identical to the scope of his intercession in the holy place you cannot make them different and Since Hebrews tells us that Jesus has the capacity and ability to save to the uttermost

Because he intercedes then I say to you propitiation really does mean what propitiation means

And so now we have the Bible saying Jesus has capacity. We've already seen where the Bible says man does not have the capacity

Why are we debating the bondage or freedom of the will? I think it's pretty much straightforward when it was said first Corinthians 5 19 through 20 that tremendous passage once again have all

Received non imputation of their sins is is that what's being said if that's the case.

I don't see how we can avoid Universalism Because if God is not imputing the sins of mankind to all of mankind if there's no particularity here

If there's no faith here If there's no if this isn't the same impute non imputation of sins We see in Romans chapter 4 verses 7 through 8 where it's clearly the one who believes in Jesus Christ If this is some other non imputation of sin

I don't see how we avoid universalism because if your sins are not imputed to you Then the wrath of God has no place in you

Your sins have been imputed to somebody else and The great exchange of first Corinthians 5 19 through 20 is if your sins are imputed to him.

Guess what's imputed to you his Righteousness, that is the very foundation by which we stand before God So if this is for all people and I couldn't really follow whether this was being said it is for all people

Then I don't see how we avoid again the issue of Universalism at that point it was said that the the fact that God's decree includes the ends as well as the means is just a

An addition a theological conclusion drawn from other things. I think it's right in the text

Ask the Assyrians if they understood God decreeing the ends as well as the means Again back to Isaiah chapter 10 if you haven't read it in a while I would suggest you do so but God brings the

Assyrians down He describes them as as the the sword in his hand the club in his hand the axe in his hand being laid

To the root of the trees, etc, etc And then he even mocks the Assyrians for saying look you're just an instrument in my hand

You are the ends you're the means to the end and Yet since you elevated your heart and since you made yourself so arrogant and and boastful

Then I am now going to bring destruction upon you because of the attitude of your heart

That's the basis upon which God judges is the attitude of the heart because he knows that perfectly in fact, even you and I don't know that perfectly and I'm awful glad I'm awful glad that God is a just judge and Every single person who will receive his just judgment

Loved their sin and died loving their sin and may I suggest to you every single person who will someday be under his wrath

God restrained them from many sins In fact,

I submit to you if God's restraining hand was not upon the sinners here in Jackson, Mississippi You and I could not even go outside the doors of this room

Every once in a while we just saw in my home state of Arizona What happens when God's restraining hand is lifted from a certain man and we are shocked

We are shocked that someone could shoot people at point -blank range could shoot a little girl but I submit to you every single day

God's restraining hand is holding back the madness of men and in fact, the very essence of hell itself is when

God's restraining hand is gone and You see what fills the hearts of men if that doesn't indicate the bondage of the will

I don't know what does Again I want us to return. Oh by the way a question was asked

There was no wrath it was said before creation Well, of course My whole point was that I submit to you that the purpose in God's creation is his self

Glorification and that he is glorified in the demonstration of his attributes

Which are seen in their perfection in the atoning work of Jesus Christ Because when you look at the cross of Christ What you first and foremost must see and many evangelicals don't see this

What you first and foremost must see is the wrath of God Against sin his holiness.

There is only one attribute in the Bible that is raised to the third degree and When the angels circled the throne

Isaiah 6, they're not going love love love is the Lord God Almighty They are saying kadosh kadosh kadosh.

Holy holy. Holy is Yahweh of hosts and When you look at the cross if you don't see first and foremost

The holiness of God that would bring the divine second person of the Trinity into human flesh

To give his life as an atonement, then you're only seeing a very small sliver of the cross That's the first thing you see and then against that awesome backdrop the holiness of God and the depravity and sinfulness of man

Then we see then we see in its fullness The love and condescension and mercy of God in that there has been a

Particular people united with him. I do not hesitate I do not shrink back to stand before you this evening and say

I believe in particular redemption because particular redemption means personal redemption

I Was known to God I was united with him.

His is a personal Substitution there will not be anyone who can stand upon the parapets of hell and scream out.

I have undone the work of Christ None will be able to say that Because he is able to save to the uttermost

He has that capacity. He has that power by one sacrifice to perfect all those who are sanctified

That is the biblical teaching on that subject. And so I come back to the bondage of the will We need to hear why did

Jesus say no one is able if the gift has been given to all? Why does he say you cannot hear me?

Only those who are of God can hear me if the gift has been given to all Why does Paul say that no one is able to do what is pleasing to God if the gift has been given to all and everyone?

Has this capacity everyone has this ability? That is the real issue when we come down to this and yes

We could debate many other prior issues And if we had time we could go through all the tremendous passages that you know

Even Nebuchadnezzar can see no one can stay his hand he is sovereign over all things and his sovereignty extends to the entirety of his creation and includes the fact that Jesus Christ Knows there is a particular people and he is redeeming those particular people to the glory of the triune

God Father Son and Holy Spirit, thank you very much The entire corpus of the scripture it seems to me

Indicates a couple of things the first of all Everyone is accountable

For his or her sins we agree on that if however there is some sense of Absolute bondage

That God does not somehow Break through to enable there to be some

Possibility of not engaging or at least turning to God then the idea of Accountability for sin

Becomes a very strange one You're accountable for being a sinner in the same way that the fish is accountable for being a fish

Or a bird is accountable for being a bird You may enjoy being a sinner

But there's nothing to do but to be it now some people live okay with that I Don't think the entirety of the scripture when you read the scripture as a whole

Where you have these marvelous passages of God's love for his creation

God's calling of Israel to be a light to the Gentiles God's deliverance for the sake of His name being known across the world and as we understand the concept of knowing

God biblically is Not just to know about God, but it's a saving knowledge now to speak back to Dr.

White's very good question regarding 2nd Corinthians 5 and the whole issue of propitiation

Well, first of all in second in 1st John chapter 2 The word their propitiation in secular

Greek did have the meaning of Removing the wrath that the

God had against you because in secular Greek understanding The whole problem that you had was the gods were just mad at you all the time so in secular

Greek Propitiation did mean always removing the wrath of God But if one looks at the way that sacrifice worked in the

Old Testament Sacrifice in the Old Testament was never simply about removing the wrath of God It was about how one maintains covenant with God that's the way the sacrificial system in the

Old Testament worked in large measure and so the purpose of Sacrifice Was not so much to remove the wrath because God had already chosen them

They were already God's people. No Jew thought he had to earn anything from God if he was a good

Jew So the word propitiation could have another meaning, you know, the

Revised Standard Version those liberals they translated expiation, but the idea is to remove that which stands between and In that sense then in 2nd

Corinthians 5 19 and 20 when Paul says God was reconciling himself to the world in Christ Reconciling the world to himself in Christ not counting men's sins against them

He is removing that which stands between He has decided my wrath will not be the final word, however that is a gift that can only be embraced by receiving it and Therefore indeed the wrath of God will burn against sinful man

Who not only lives in his sinfulness in a fallen state but rejects

Ultimately the grace of God which was shown to the world in Christ So indeed the wrath of God is still active against sin and we don't have to worry about anything like Universalism also later in that in Romans 5 rather Where Paul talks about the death of Adam that come the death from Adam that comes from upon us the many and the life

That comes upon the many through Christ He says if the death if the death that came through Adam had this effect how much more will the obedience of the one

Bring life, especially to those who receive the grace of God well

You have a theological interpretation to make at that point What does it mean to receive?

Well, if you beg the question and say well only those who are elected to receive will receive

Then okay, that's the way you'll interpret it, but if you read it straightforwardly It's rather Paul saying

There's a gift that's been offered a life that has been given back to all humanity in Christ and If anyone will receive that how much more will that life?

dwell in them and cause them to have dominion over all things in life

When you speak about the Assyrians and this whole issue of compatibilism When you said that God judges them because of the attitude of their hearts

Where does the attitude of the heart come from? Is that something that is a part of the eternal decrees of God?

That the Assyrians would not only be bad dudes Bad to the bone who could ride into Jerusalem and slap them down, but they would also be haughty and arrogant about it

Or is the attitude of their heart something that develops in them because of this propensity to sinfulness that we're all born into But even

God's judgment on it on the Assyrians is contingent upon their attitude Finally and maybe this won't speak to the issue

But I for somehow in my mind it does When I think of the Old Testament, it's a bunch of passages that are great mysteries to me.

I think for instance about Moses standing before God And God saying to Moses those people down at the bottom of this hill.

I'm fed up with them I'm gonna take you and make a great nation out of you

Moses says God you can't do that. What kind of God will you be?

You're not going to even be faithful to yourself God relents

God changes his mind Something is different about God's decision to act toward them on the basis of Moses's intercession

Jonah goes to Nineveh 40 days and then he'll be destroyed Repentance sackcloth and ashes and God Relented of the evil he would do to them when he saw their repentance

The Bondage of the will is indeed a serious thing But we have many many many many many passages of Scripture Which suggests to us that ultimately this bondage of the will is indeed

Best captured in a phrase from Paul the mystery of iniquity

That Any of us who try to break this tension that we are all accountable for all of our sins

Not just for what we're born into but because we have a possibility Seemingly to do otherwise because God will judge us

Because we haven't done what he requires And that God is sovereignly

Superintending the salvation of all of those who will be saved That that tension is where we have to live and I choose to live in the

Wesleyan Arminian side of the tension Because I think it does the greatest justice to the entirety of the biblical text and brings the greatest glory to God Thank you.

We are at the point now where there's going to be a cross -examination By dr.

White To dr. Blakemore and by dr. Blakemore to dr. White. This will take 20 minutes

The nature of it will be that dr. White will ask a question. Dr. Blakemore will answer it

Hopefully not to filibuster and vice versa And then on the heels of his hopefully succinct answer

Both participants will then ask the other the question. So dr. White asks a question. Dr Blakemore answers it on the heels of that.

Dr. Blakemore asks a question to dr. White. No No, I do ten minutes of questions.

He does ten minutes ten minutes of questions. Okay, what a moderator All right, ten minutes of questions

For dr. White ten minutes of questions for dr. Blakemore. Sorry. Okay. Thank you Since this was fresh on everybody's minds.

Dr. Blakemore if we could go back to your comments on 2nd Corinthians 5 21

You were just Indicating that it seemed to me you were you were indicating. Well, I wasn't exactly sure what you were indicating

So maybe I can ask it this way He made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf so that we might become the righteous of God in him

Who is the our and we in 2nd Corinthians 5 21? Well, it's obviously those who

Believe the gospel and who will be reconciled to God Okay, so you would not say that God made him to be sin in behalf of Someone who will experience the wrath of God for eternity

No, I would say that okay, so The the the our and the we and 2nd

Corinthians 5 21 are Believers but unbelievers can say the same thing that believers say in this text.

No No only those who Who hear the appeal?

Implored implored by as they are implored by the Apostle be reconciled to God Only they can know themselves

Reconciled because only they have Let themselves only they have

Been reconciled to God by being reconciled to God Through their reception of of the grace of God in the gospel

So there are people who receive the grace of God in the gospel who do not embrace it who could say

That God made him to be sin in their behalf Is that what you're saying?

So as long as you've heard you've heard the message then Then you could say these words whether you're whether you come to Christ or not

Or is there a particularity in the action of the father and making him who knew no sin to be sin on?

Our behalf what I'm trying to find out is whose behalf Was Jesus truly made sin?

On our behalf who's the hour? Well, if you follow through that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ So as to not count men's sins against them then

Jesus is made sin for all of the world

For every every individual. Yes every person Okay, so every person can say then the words of 2nd

Corinthians 521. Did I miss hear you before? I Thought you had earlier said that no unbelievers cannot say the words of they cannot put themselves into this verse

But now it sounded like you just said That since you understand world inverse know what you oh, excuse me.

No, please go ahead What you asked me was who is Paul talking about You didn't ask me.

Your first question was not who could say this about themselves Your first question was who was

Paul speaking about? Okay, my answer was he is speaking to those who know themselves to be reconciled to God.

Okay, so in Going back up to 519. So if you see the word world as a universal

Term in 2nd Corinthians 519 Then you would clearly see the following phrase may log it's ominous

Logged some men are sorry. I'll toys the out toys. There would be this everyone in the world

So everyone sins Will not be like it's a my imputed to them, right?

everyone sins in the sense That the offense that God has

Against sin, which is the fundamental block between us in the world

I mean between the world all of us in God in that sense, they are not imputed to us as something that Keeps us from being reconciled to God in Christ The forgiveness of God has been declared in Christ Because in Christ the judgment of God upon sin has been meted out now therefore

Something must be done about this gift Someone must respond to this gift in other words since God has reconciled himself to us

Then the Apostle says we implore you be reconciled to God By your reading it seems to me that the

Apostles comment to be reconciled to God would be Irrelevant.

So the last phrase of verse 21 the henna clause in order that we might be made the righteousness of God in him

That is just what God wants to have happen. Or is that the actual result of The divine act of he made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf

Is that just what God wants to happen, but it doesn't happen in a large portion of the instances.

That's always interesting To have this discussion

It is what happens when by grace any human being

Responds to the gift of God in Jesus Christ But there is a there is a should be a theological and exegetical subtlety going on here that I think it may be

It's easy to miss That God is doing something for the world

He is removing that which would make it impossible for him to forgive anyone

Not counting men's sins against them Okay, therefore be reconciled to God and when you are reconciled to God then indeed the full purposes of God are are

Experienced that we do become the righteousness of God. Let me try to clarify something you

Do you believe in the in the concept of substitutionary atonement indeed? Okay So Christ has borne the wrath of God for every single person who has ever lived and Yet there will be many people who will likewise bear his wrath of the same sins for which

Christ substituted They will bear the wrath of God for their

Unwillingness to accept the gift of God in Jesus Christ, so they won't bear the wrath of God against their sin

They'll bear the wrath of God against a single sin of unbelief That ultimately is what is the issue in the scripture

So there will be no leaf there'll be no levels of punishment unbelieving unbelieving hearts, okay?

Time is going really really fast here And I really wanted to ask you a question in light of this in my opening statement.

I presented Romans chapter 8 and I went through the text that says those who are in the flesh

Their mind is hostile toward God They don't subject themselves to law of God those from the flesh cannot please

God if I'm understanding your position correctly and please correct me I'm honestly trying to understand If I'm understanding your position correctly, you're saying that by the death of Christ this

Situation has been changed so that people do have by evidently a form of prevenient grace

The ability to do what is pleasing to God so would it not follow they are no longer in the flesh

Well, I'm glad you asked that question because it allows me to clarify the whole concept of prevenient grace is

Something like what people in your tradition talk about when they speak of preventing grace

But we see out of the scripture that there is a way to talk about the grace of God in which through Christ All of the world has been reconciled to God and therefore a capacity to respond to God Has been given but prevenient grace does not mean that people are no longer in the flesh

It means that the flesh does not determine all that there is to be true about us

The question then is in Romans 8 when his talks about the life of God He says those who live according to their to the flesh

Set their minds on the things of the flesh But those who live according to the

Spirit live set their minds on the things of the Spirit this whole idea of setting one's mind

Can a person who's in the flesh set their minds and the things of the Spirit by prevenient grace? No But they can begin to feel the the yearnings of God Because if you go back to Romans chapter 7

Which is the immediate context that makes sense out of Romans chapter 8 as Paul talks about this struggle that goes on with in the human person

He says there are things I want to do that I can't do and there are things that I don't want to do that.

I can't help but do So, how do we contend with that? I have a more broadly theological question and I ask this genuinely

Because ultimately I really am not about scoring points tonight Those of you who came here on my side you're going to leave here on my side for the most part

Those of you who came with dr. Whiteside, you're going to leave on dr. Whiteside. I Don't want to filibuster anymore, but I wonder what is it about the doctrine of particular redemption that you find is

So beautiful that could not be just as beautiful understood from an

Armenian or a Wesleyan point of view given what I have apparently inarticulately tried to describe about the

Universality of Christ Atonement and the engaging work of grace to draw all humanity

Well, I think I would just go to Titus chapter 2 And point out that we are looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great

God and Savior Christ Jesus Who gave himself for us and then you you clearly have laid out here another pinna clause another purpose clause in order that To redeem us from every lawless deed and to purify for himself of people for his own possessions zealous for good deeds so from my perspective the

One of the the very the very essence of the glory of the cross is not that God tried but that God accomplished

That when Christ says to tell us diet is finished. It's it's not it's not just as as Norman Geisler said

Christ death saves no one. It just makes all men savable I see a huge difference between saying that Christ's death has made men savable and saying that Christ has saved there that's the difference between being a

Savior and a potential Savior, so it's the finishedness of it, which also allows in the doctrine of penal substitution and and substitutionary atonement that his sacrifice

I Am united with him. It is only in him that I have eternal life and it is personal

We sing the song my name is written on his hands It's not that he dies for a nameless faceless group that fills itself up dependent upon whether we choose or not

It is personal it is substitutionary. It is Accomplished and finished so that's where I see the difference

Okay Do You then believe that when you talk about you asked me if I believed in the substitutionary atonement

And you seem to equate penal satisfaction With what all that substitutionary atonement would mean.

Yes, I did and what would you say all I mean? I can't see how they can be substituted.

They can't be separated from one another I would not say that penal substitution is all

The substitutionary atonement means because that would leave out union with Christ and all the positive benefits as well.

So it's Intimately connected it cannot be separated from but you see fundamentally that the problem of our

Sinfulness and the bondage of our will is in the things that we have done against God The acts because you keep you kept pushing me on the axe what has been not what can no longer be imputed well,

I certainly believe that The punishment that will be born by an individual under the wrath of God Will not simply be for unbelief unbelief is a sin

And if it is atoned for by the death of Christ, there wouldn't be any basis even for wrath against unbelief I sure hope

Christ paid for unbelief because I think we all experience it to one level or another I mean the disciples themselves said, you know increase our faith and he said oh you little face

So I believe that There will be levels of punishment in hell Dependent upon the actions of the individual based on Jesus his own teaching about crazin and beseda and Sodom and Gomorrah and so on So forth which leads me to believe that the sins of all of mankind have not been

Taken away by the death of Christ. I don't see how the Amorites to whom no prophets were sent

Who were who were given time for their iniquity to be fulfilled in the book of Genesis chapter 15?

I don't see how the Amorites Are going to be able to be forgiven of their sins on the basis of the death of Christ I believe that since they made their children to pass through the fire and everything else they will be punished for those sins

I don't believe Christ was punished for them. So you you then when

John the Baptist Points to him and says behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin

Of the world you you interpret that to mean

What well since he is the only lamb that takes away sin at all

Anyone and of course the elect are are described as what in Revelation chapter 5 men from every tribe tongue people a nation

That's the world. I mean it'd be easy enough to say Jews and Gentiles would be the world But let's let's let the the

Bible itself determine the term in John's own usage Same same text same writer anyways

What does it say in in John 11 All the children of God gathered together as one revelation chapter 5 men from every tribe tongue people a nation

There is only one Savior and he saves perfectly anyone and it is for the whole world

That's why I can go anywhere in the world. I just got back from from Lima, Peru and I can proclaim that Jesus Christ will be a perfect Savior to anyone who bows the knee in repentance and Confesses him as Lord in Lima, Peru Just as well as I can in Sydney, Australia, or where I'm gonna be in a couple weeks in in Glasgow, Scotland.

So you um What you do then is you beg the question that the world has to mean the elect

Because of your other presuppositions about the nature of grace. I didn't I wouldn't agree with that that question at all

I think it's very clear that the word world is used in numerous ways. We are not to love the world Jesus said he did not pray for those who are of the world

I mean we have to allow a context to define what the term means Yeah We are not to love the world because we are not to love the fallen way that humanity has organized itself in Rebellion against God.

Is that a question? Do you not agree? My Point obviously that I think you just made for me is that when we look at these terms

I I don't believe that there is a really good basis for reading a Universal concept of world into many of these uses.

I don't believe the original authors would have done it I don't think any of the original writers would have ever included the Amorites who are already dead in this and I'm not sure if Maybe you just mean the everyone from that point forward

I don't know. All I know is when I look at the text and it uses the term in these ways

I let the context to determine whether it is talking about every single individual who has ever lived ever will live

And was alive at that day and it just doesn't it doesn't make any sense given given the context well,

I Here's a question I hope will you be willing to continue to talk with me about this so I can understand to you

Understand from your perspective why? Something that makes absolute sense to me makes no sense to you

Well, obviously this is this is a I'm you know I almost got the sense a few moments ago that when you said

I'm gonna ask this question Honestly, you were sort of implying that I wasn't and I honestly was asking the questions

I was asking because I don't fully understand exactly how your system works either. So I think that this is a good start to understand some of those things but the reality is there's there's a lot of different perspectives on your side of the fence to you yourself brought that up and Believe it or not.

We do not want walk lockstep with one another on every single issue You know, there have been a few things that some of the brothers here probably well

I'm not sure I'd agree on this. I'm like that. I understand that but I do think at least the major outlines of where we are

Our ships passing the night here have been have been laid out. I think we see where those areas are

Well before I can ask this next question, I need to say I was not implying that you were not being genuine

I just wanted you to know that I reciprocate And truly wanting to understand

Back to the penal substitution thing. Would you then? believe that St.

Irenaeus got it wrong in his whole doctrine of recapitulation. Yes, sir You would oh, yes.

He else he else he st. St. Irenaeus. Well, I wouldn't even call him st but but Irenaeus also

Irenaeus also informed us that he had a tradition from the Apostles that Jesus was more than 50 years old when he died

So none of us follow him on that either I look at all the patristic writers and I Judge them on the basis that and look when it comes the doctrine of atonement there have been an incredible number of odd views

Of that subject I think personally that's due to the fact that the Old Testament was primarily a closed book to many of them especially after origin and the rise of allegorical interpretation

Do you do you hate Steve Soukalos as much as I do? No, God caused us to love all men

Although he doesn't James James may not know it, but he does plug one of my books in his in his teachings.

I think nation of Islam Okay, yeah Anyway After this next segment, which will take 20 minutes, we'll take questions from the audience

Closing statement closing statements ten minutes. Dr. White first ten minutes.

Dr. Blakemore. I Don't know if you just heard what's dr.

Blakemore said under his breath or maybe it wasn't intended to be under his breath but Takes a lot of work to do this, doesn't it?

Yeah It's it is a bit of a marathon and this is a short debate I've done debates four and a half hours long before and it is it can in fact be rather rather exhausting, but I'm thankful that you've stuck through it to this point and I'm thankful for your attention and I am thankful to dr.

Blakemore for being here this evening To all the folks that have worked so hard to put this together. I think it is good to have these dialogues and discussions

I don't think it's good just to have them for the sake of having them I'm not like many people in the world today that thinks that well, you know

If we just all just sit around and just talk forever I think we do need to come to some conclusions eventually and I I don't think that both of our positions can be true

So I'm not one of the ecumenists That's that sort of says well, you know, let's just all sit around and sing kumbaya

I think that this is a vitally important issue because it does have massive impact on so many areas

I have a saying theology matters and How we proclaim the gospel how we worship in the church?

How we do apologetics will be determined by the question by the questions of raised this evening and the answers to which we come.

I Don't think that we can simply put off coming to conclusions on some of these issues I would like to repeat what

I said at in my opening statement I believe that the Bible is very clear in its description of the nature of man in sin and I do not believe that any of the texts that I raised

John chapter 6 John chapter 8 Romans chapter 8 are Changed by saying well, yes, that's true outside of this great gift that has been given in Christ, which now changes all of that because Especially Romans chapter 8 is written after that great gift would have been given.

What was Paul talking about? It seems to me that Paul was talking about people who are according to the flesh are

Not able to do what is pleasing to God now how you're either according to spirit or according to flesh There's no in -between and we seemingly have this in -between group that well

They're now able to feel start feeling their need. Well, are they in the spirit or are they in the flesh? Well, they're not really in either one

Well, that doesn't seem to be the categories that are being used here you're either in the spirit or you're in the flesh you're either alive or you're dead and Jesus said no one has this ability to come to me

I don't know if we didn't get to ask this question if there's just something different about before Pentecost or something like that What was

Jesus saying when he said no man has the ability to come to me unless the Father sent me draws him are all drawn

It seems to be all now drawn But as I pointed out if that's the case and all are raised up You can't escape the fact that in John 6 44

Everyone who's drawn by the Father to the Son is raised up by the Son It is the

Father's will for the Son according to John 6 39 that of all that have been given to him He lose none, but raise him up on the last day.

That's why I don't see any way out from universalism When you go that direction

Now I did want to just mention I am very I will say this. I am very very concerned

That halas moss Expiation actually propitiation

Could be translated in such a way in the New Testament as to avoid the fact of the wrath of God I would refer you to Leon Morris's fine work on this subject as dr.

Blake Morris said yes all secular references make reference to this, but evidently the New Testament alone is different Given the fact that we have that propitiatory language used in the context of subs the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ and the concept of our transgressions being forgiven

I do not see how especially in light of the book of Hebrews and its continuous connection of the work of Christ the high priesthood of Christ and the priest giving the

Sacrifices of atonement how you can read the wrath of God out of those things. I just I don't

I don't see how you can do That I believe that it is right there and I believe that the conversation we had in 2nd

Corinthians chapter 5 Likewise is extremely important because I believe that when we talk about the non

Imputation of sins not counting their sins against them my friends again either that's

Universalism or there are particular people that are in view here There's a particular people in view in Romans chapter 4

The blessing the blessing on the man to whom the Lord will not impute sins

Who is that that David's speaking of? Well, it's only the person who is of faith in the God of Abraham Isaac of Jacob It's not anybody else and I've seen what universalism does so I'm very very sensitive to these particular assertions

And so we've talked about a whole lot more than the freedom or bondage of the will this evening

But let me summarize my concerns by first starting with the fact that I am most concerned about the freedom of God's will

I Believe we live in a day when mankind Desires a God who is in essence under our control

Who has in essence stays out of our lives stays out of this creation. He got things started, but now

He's off somewhere else That's not the God of the Bible That's not the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who has always been intimately involved in the affairs of his people

And that's not the God that is presented to us in Jesus Christ one who actually enters into his own creation in the person of the

Son that's about as intimately involved as you can get and I am very concerned that his decree that his divine decree by which he is

Glorifying himself that decree that has made reference to so many times in Isaiah where he knows the end from the beginning

He determines all things. No one can deliver out of his hand. Our God is in the heavens.

He does whatever pleases him That's one of the reasons why I asked the question at the end of 2nd

Corinthians 5 21 When it says so that we might be made the righteousness of God in him Is that just something God hopes will happen or is that the actual result of the divine act of God?

Making him who knew no sin to be sinned you see if God's sovereignty is

Not active if that decree does not result in his providential activity in the world

Then the entire basis of justification by faith and our peace with God collapses it is all one fabric and it is a beautiful fabric and Yet it becomes so important in how we proclaim this to the world very briefly over the past number of years

My primary focus has been in dealing with Islam I will be debating a Muslim apologist in London in just a few weeks on whether Islam has misrepresented

Christianity in the Quran and As I do that, I I want to listen. I I tried to find stuff by Steve Blakemore on this subject and I Google does not have anything from you on this subject just so you know that it will now but it

Did not in the past. I try to understand where people are coming from So that we can speak together in a proper way and so I listen to Muslim lectures all the time

Muslims speaking to Muslims and it has bothered me tremendously just over the past number of months to hear many

Muslims in talking about Christians and Listening to how they hear us and how they see us

They do not hear a powerful proclamation of the

King of Kings and Lord of Lords They hear us saying you need to invite

Jesus into your life You need to accept Jesus the

Jesus most Muslims have heard is the Jesus of that picture where he's standing outside the knobless door

Knocking. I had the opportunity a few years ago in London to stand in a church not far from where the 7 -7 bombings took place and debate a rather raucous

Islamic apologist And then when the time came to present my rebuttal

I looked at those people some of whom this was all you could see of their eyes those ladies in full hijab and I proclaimed to them the

Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords He is the creator of all things including yourself every beat of your heart and every breath of your mouth comes from him

And you cannot read simply treat him as a mirror Azul a mere Apostle a mere sent one

He is your creator. You must deal with him and they didn't know what to do with that Because that's not normally how

Jesus is presented But you see folks I see a perfect harmony between that and the

Jesus of John 639 when he says I've not come to do my own will but the Will of the Father who sent me and what is the will of the

Father who sent me that of all that he has given me? I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day

He is a powerful Savior. That's why he's called Savior not merely in potentiality, but in reality and The world needs to hear about the

King of Kings and the Lord of Lords who saves but he only saves those

Who bow the knee to him now? Obviously, I believe the only reason anyone ever bows the knee to him is because that heart of stones been taken out and a heart

Of flesh has been given but that's the message that the world needs to hear. That's why I'm concerned about this subject

That's why I'm here this evening. Thank you for being here Well, I I've enjoyed being here

Lord, forgive me if I've exaggerated No, I these things are important to me as well because I think ultimately it is a question about the nature of God a

Question not just about the glory of God, but about the very ultimate eternal unchanging character of God and If God before the world was made was love

Yes, holy love But the holiness of God in the

Bible is a declaration to us that God is beyond and above all things and the moral attributes of God's Holiness that we then talk about are all expressions of his love such that in the

Old Testament The central word to speak about God's character toward his people is hesed unfailing favor -giving

Undeserved will not go away creates worth in that which he loves

But his hesed for his people in the Old Testament and calling them to be as particular people is

Really to fulfill the promise made to Abraham Through your seed all nations will be blessed now.

I know I know that for you on the other side of this question all

Nations just simply means all of those who are a part of the elect who make up all of the nations of the world

I got that. I don't think that that is a straightforward reading of What Abraham would have understood or what

Moses understood as he wrote it. I am desperately concerned as well

That people do not treat Jesus like a little add -on to their lives and Quite honestly people from my side of the equation.

I'm a United Methodist Lord have mercy I'm a

United Methodist United Methodist basically tend to believe that God is nice and he wants us all to be nice Some people on the

Baptist side of things treat Jesus like Somebody that you can just sort of invite into your heart make him your own personal

Savior Well, that's scandalous But It doesn't mean we can't we are not to say to people

Will you accept the reality that Jesus Christ is your

Lord? Whether you have bowed your knee or not It's one thing to say he's a mighty

Lord Indeed he is but is he a Lord who does stand at the door and knock and If anyone will open the door to him he will come in and sup with them and They with him.

I am desperately concerned that we recover a vibrant Evangelism Not just an evangelism of forgiveness because ultimately the coming of Jesus Christ is not

So your sins can be forgiven The coming of Jesus Christ is that the

Holy Spirit be poured into our lives and that we be transformed

Into his image so that the Apostle John in his letter 1st

John in chapter 3 says Here is the great love of the Father that we should be called the children of God and the deed that is what we are

And we do not yet know what we shall be but we know this when he is revealed. We shall be like him the transformation of human life

Not the forgiveness and the keeping of us is the purpose of the gospel

It is the transformation of our lives to become by grace what Jesus in his incarnate life was by his very nature

Which is why all of those translations of the Bible that want to get away with we are the sons of God make a big mistake

It's not just a generic term. It means to say we are participating When we receive the

Lordship of Christ Acknowledge the Lordship of Christ get over ourselves and fall by grace at his face

Because the prevenient work of God has created a hunger and then I responded to that or I resisted it but as I responded more grace is given and more grace is given so indeed by the time

I get to repentance a Heart of flesh has been taken a heart of stone has been taken out and a heart of flesh has been put in me

So I can bow my knee But that has been a process of God drawing me to the place where I can bow my knee to the

Lordship of Jesus Christ So that my life can be transformed into his image.

I think that Ultimately, I just don't see how particular redemption is so intricately bound up with the absolute doctrine of justification by faith

That if you lose that you lose the whole Doctrine of justification by grace through faith completely.

I just I just don't see that I might be able to learn something from you But if I did learn too much from you,

I could no longer be a professor at Wesley Biblical Seminary So I may have to put on the brakes at some point just for my own sinful self -interest

Finally I think to the Muslim it's interesting that the Muslims you mentioned are such radical deterministic fatalistic people and It seems ultimately to me

That the word to the Muslims which would be most beneficial and I've done a good bit of Work with Muslim people not written about it or posted it on YouTube But I've done a good bit of work with Muslim people.

The one thing that the Muslim people Respond to most vigorously is that because of Jesus you can know that God Allah in their sense is a father of love

Who draws and has sent his son to overcome all of the powers of darkness and Anyone can respond to the love of God in Christ Because a victory has been won that cannot be undone.

But nonetheless it is a victory that must be stepped into Must be received must be acknowledged because ultimately

God's greatest concern is not the actions of our lives which have offended him

But biblically I cannot get away from this that the thing that so that God holds against us is

Our unwillingness to acknowledge him as God Romans chapter 1 that's the whole purpose of the wrath of God human beings

Not acknowledging God to be God, even though everything in the universe tells them he's

God they are accountable because they did not acknowledge him to be God and When we do acknowledge him to be

God and that Jesus Christ is indeed the

Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world and we step into what

God has done then there's a grace But when we stand before the throne

No one will hear God say to them. I don't believe and here

I'm speculating You know you were you were in bondage to sin and I decided not to let you get out

But because you were in bondage of sin because of nothing that you had done

You're going to hell no, they'll hear God say you were in bondage to sin

I Sent my son to be the Lamb who would take away the sin of the world

I sent my son to be one who would in his incarnate life absorb our

Righteous wrath against all of humanity that in him we

Would take our judgment upon ourselves and Because of his incarnate life

Because he has become fully God and fully man. He has united your humanity

To our divine life in a way that enables you to respond

But because you didn't respond Because you were not only in bondage to sin

But you did not respond to the grace that would allow you to move toward us because of that Depart from me

Because I never knew you but in the final analysis

Jesus Christ is Lord Dr. Blake Moore my my question is

I was intrigued by your idea that Jesus propitiated for every sin in the world for every person except faithlessness

And it seems like you were suggesting that so then men are punished based upon their faithlessness for eternity why then in passages like Revelation 21 8 is

Faithlessness one of a litany of sins whereby men are judged well,

I Would have to look at the Greek word in Revelation there to know exactly what's being translated as faithlessness but Well, if you go ahead and provide it later,

I need to answer the question so we can move along the my point is this is

I didn't articulate it clearly enough, I guess the wrath of God Has been satisfied in Jesus Therefore he no longer counts men's sins against them but we must by faith

Which is the entire argument of Romans? three and four

That we must believe God And it be accounted to us as righteousness

Following Abraham's example, but what is it that we are to believe about God? Well, we are to believe about God that he has taken care of his wrath that we cannot by works of the law

Whether it's a law written on our hearts or the law given through Moses and Israel has it

We cannot by works of the law do anything to make ourselves right with God. All we can do is say to this gift.

Yes So I wasn't intending to just say that it's faithlessness

It is an unwillingness to by faith

Receive the gift of God in Jesus Christ and the end the term the term the term since you would ask for it is

Pistoise so it is pistis that is used because as they as they go into eternity

They go into eternity as the persons they are This is where I think

Calvinism often falls short it makes holiness Christ likeness a sort of secondary consideration the third use of the law

They haven't been transformed in any way shape or form and therefore the sins that were the wrath for those sins which was propitiated

May still be set aside, but as they stand before God they stand before God is exactly what they are cowards liars

Fornicators cheats workers of Magic or whatever the other list and faithless

So that would be my attempt to answer your question in his context Yes, I have a feeling that You Wesley and start stop being so ironic come up here and ask a question

Now you may both reject this question all out But I'm sure you both believe that there will be people who are in hell or will be in hell or how do you want?

to say it here my question is Will people? Bear the wrath of God because of their bondage because of their sin and their bondage to sin

Or would you say it's because of their unwillingness to accept? Both unwilling to accept the gift of God in Jesus Christ.

I Don't think you can make a complete distinction because as Jesus said

Anyone who does not believe in Jesus Christ the wrath of God abides upon them And so there is the sinfulness of the rejection of God's revelation in Christ as well as the fact they continue to love their own sin

I honestly believe that those who will abide under God's wrath I've said this before and I'm I can't make a

Extended biblical argument for this, but I think this is at least illustrates how I see

Man's bondage to sin and that is I believe if you were to reach into whatever hell is 10 ,000 years into eternity if there is such a thing as years in eternity and Pull out a smoking soul and Blow the smoke off and sit him down in a chair and say here's your choice

You continue in what you've been going through for 10 ,000 years or you go bow in humble worship and adoration before your creator

That every single person would stand up turn around and march right back into the flames of perdition

Because they haven't been changed. They love their sin And if it were not for the restraining grace of God the hand of powerful restraint that keeps them from Fully expressing their love for their sin we would not be able to accomplish anything in this world because man would be the full the full range of his

Abilities to express his evil would be seen and so for those in hell, they don't stop sinning

You know, I've often wondered what people say Why send people to hell for an infinite period of time for a finite sins

Why did you think they become sanctified when they go to hell? There I mean, why do you think they stopped sinning at that point?

I mean that is the very essence of who they are So what Steve just said when he was talking about the the sins and in Revelation 21 8,

I think I understood him Just saying that's what they are. They have not been changed Right, but I think where we're differing is that in The judgment in Revelation 21 8 they are being described as the cowardly and the unbelieving abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars their

Part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death I don't think the point of that is that well these things have all been forgiven

But they just didn't take advantage of the forgiveness. I Think the point is that hell is a place where where perfect justice is being meted out and there's no one

There is no one who's going to be there Who did not love their sin and there's no one who's going to be there who sought

Jesus Christ as a savior Never there has never been anyone who has turned in true faith and repentance to Jesus Christ and found him to be anything other than A perfect and powerful

Savior. We don't believe that there is no one who's come to God and God said no I didn't choose you you can't do that The whole point is we are so depraved that we don't even have that desire.

We don't want that we run away from him we seek the darkness not the light and So I think that's one of the one of the differences where we where we go here

I Don't substantively disagree with anything

That James said so I believe he's exactly correct that the thing that makes hell enduring and hell hell

Is not because there's some kind of punishment going on. Although there obviously will be

But it's because of Who we are while we're there

I Wasn't often found it funny that people, you know people from my side of the persuasion tend they tend to go toward a kind of Liberalism sometimes

I fully acknowledge that but I often ask them. Why do you think when someone dies?

All of a sudden everything that they are Ceases to be true when you die you die is who you are

Maybe death is the fixing of our character So that there could be no possibility of change so Dr.

Blake more you said in one in your at the beginning of the debate you used the term for knowledge in reference to God knowing

Do you think it's significant that you use the term? for knowledge

Differently than scripture does in Romans 8 29 in that you referred in your opening to God knowing people's actions as Opposed to God knowing a certain group of people.

Do you think that's a significant distinction and why or why not? Don't let that guy come back and ask any more questions

I Would I would say this that in my opening

I was speaking in one vein and in Romans 8

Paul is speaking about For knowledge in a different way but the theological question that has to be addressed ultimately and it doesn't come just from the grammar or the syntax of Romans 8 is

On what basis does God for know not does he have information about?

But on what basis does he take special knowledge of those? Now I know that in the

Calvinist tradition the idea that somehow God would Know all that there is to know about everything

But also not only know everything as it is but know every possible counterfactual

Know everything that would be possibly true about a person's life in every possible world under every possible circumstance a

Lot of Calvinists see that as the diminution of God's Omniscience and his sovereignty

Well, you only see it that way if you assume a certain thing about what sovereignty means but if God is determined to know people and Take special note of them because God indeed sees the heart which

I think was said over and over again He judges the Assyrians by what is in their hearts not by what they've done to Israel if God knows the heart

Then maybe for knowledge There is God taking note because of what

God knows is true about certain persons whether or not they would have a love for his son if they hear the gospel or got a chance to hear the gospel in another possible world and Therefore God has foreknown them and then predestined them to be as I said at the end of my presentation to be conformed to the image of his son so that his foreknowledge is ultimately a predestination not unto avoiding hell but is it a predestination into being

Conformed into the image of the Son Jesus Christ and therefore God calls them and God justifies them and then

God glorifies them Boy, I wish somebody to ask me that question. My question is for dr.

Blight more, but I do have I did think of one to ask dr. White if I need to so what what are we doing on rules for that?

Do we need to go back and forth? sir, I Was asking do we need to go back and forth or can it be?

Leadership. I have I did I did think of one for him if I needed to Yeah, I I think you really didn't know what

I think about the last question Oh Really well if I could just very briefly

I I believe that the point of the question was that To foreknow in Romans 8 29 is an active verb.

It's something God does it's not taking in knowledge of future events It is an action on his part just as all the verbs that follow after that so just as Predestination and calling and justification and and and glorification are all divine acts

Foreknowing is a divine act as well. And it's not just merely passively taking in knowledge And if I just might comment on the raising of the concept of Molin ism

That was just raised in regards to middle knowledge what offends me about the popular forms of Molin ism

Especially as that presented by William Lane Craig is this it is a presentation of the idea that God is a massive numbers machine

He looked at all the possible universes that could exist and Limited by man's actions.

That is his middle knowledge of man's actions God chose to actuate the best of all possible worlds in which the maximum number of people was saved

God could not save everyone God could not save one more person that will be saved all based upon the fact that God really doesn't have any control over this universe, it's all based upon what his middle knowledge of man's actions allows him to do and I can guarantee you one thing

There is not a prophet in Israel or an apostle Lord Jesus Christ who ever thought of a God like that That is a philosophical construct that came out of the anti -reformation

Jesuit movement and I find it to be absolutely reprehensible. Don't get me on that subject anymore.

Thank you Would both Dr. White and dr.

Blake more be willing to address John chapter 6 verses 41 through 44 particularly the context that The crowds are following Jesus and Jesus has already stated in verse 26

That they were not looking for him because they saw the miraculous signs But they are looking for him because they had their fill of the loaves

And so in first verses 43 through 44 specifically in response to the people who have been grumbling

Jesus gives an explanation for their grumbling and says no one can come to me first 44

Unless the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up at the last day. So if dr.

White and dr. Blake Well, I know how dr.

White will answer that So I tend to I tend to think that that's exactly true

No one can come to him except the father draws him. I think in that context though It's very easy for me to justify this statement

That Jesus is talking about those who come to him in his incarnate mission Because in John 17, he says father

I have kept all those that you have given me of course save one and then he goes on to pray not only for them, but for them who will believe through their message and Then he says

I pray that they will be one not just the Apostles But all of them will be one so that the world may believe that you have sent me

So in John 6, I see that as a statement of Jesus's incarnate ministry saying to his disciples as Almost an active encouragement to them don't get discouraged

Nobody's going to come to me except the father is drawing them and God had salvific Purposes for each of the

Apostles being drawn to Jesus They respond freely, but he had specific purposes and so that's the way

I would interpret that Well, I find it strange that The context is being limited solely to the

Apostles I wonder how we determine which sections of Scripture are doing that.

What other is John 14 only about the Apostles? I'm not sure how that works But the strange thing to me is

Jesus starts John chapter 6 with 5 ,000 excited followers And he ends up with 12 confused disciples

Why because he kept emphasizing this very thing look at the end of John chapter John chapter 6 because he kept on saying

Imperfect tense. No one can come to me unless he's been enabled by the father That's what offended people and they turned around walked away.

I said it's difficult saying we can't understand it. They're offended by it and So when Jesus makes these this statement

He has already said all the father gives me will come to me and the one coming to me I will never cast out. I mean that's not a promise for all believers

Believers do not have the promise that it will not be cast out by Jesus. That's only for the Apostles The problem is that's in response to the fact that right before that Jesus said but I said to you that you have seen me and you are not believing.

Well, that wasn't that is the disciples that was these men who were had just rode across a lake to see him and Yet Jesus knew they did not have proper motivations.

He knew they were unbelievers The ones who are believers those the ones who he says in verse 39

This is the will of my father the one who sent me nor that of all that he has given me I lose none of that but raised up on the last day.

I really think that this is a test for how Biblical we are in our view of this

Do we believe that our coming to Jesus foreseen by the father? Results in our being given to the

Son or do we follow the very words of verse 37 all that the father? Gives me will come to me which of those actions is first There's really no question.

Is there it's the giving of the father that results in my coming not my coming foreseen or in any other way

Resulting my being given to the father That I think is very clear. We thank our two speakers for coming tonight.

We thank dr Blake Moore for coming in to intimate territory Next debate we'll have to have a

Wesley biblical seminary and maybe when we get to the subject of sanctification

Maybe we'll be able to have you back. Dr. White. That'll be in about four years to disagree about that But we are thankful we're thankful for filling in for Matt Friedman who had to leave