Cross Examination, White vs. Sungenis, Free Will?

It's not going to let us do much conversation, I'm afraid, but I guess we know what we've got to go with.

Do we have 15? A total of 15? A total for you of 15. So I'm asking, answering, and then we're going to do 15 the other direction.

My first question then, since I need to make them fairly long questions, because you have a few minutes to respond to, is based on Romans chapter 9, when the

Apostle Paul says, What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there?

May it never be. Where he says to Moses, I will have mercy on him, I have mercy on him, I have compassion on him, I have compassion.

Could you explain what the Apostle is saying in verse 15 of Romans chapter 9 in light of your statement, in your opening statement?

Where you, in essence, accused Reformed people of having an insecure

God who you would not want to be around. You expressed a real strong dislike for the freedom of choice that God has.

Could you explain Romans 9 .15 in light of your statements? Sure. Romans 9 .15,

which says, I will have mercy on him, I have mercy on him, I have compassion on him, I have compassion on him, is a quote taken from Exodus 33 .19.

So if you go back there and look, you'll read that passage, Exodus 33 .19, God says to Moses, I myself will make all my goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the

Lord before you, and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will show compassion on him,

I will show compassion on him. And then he goes on to tell Moses that you cannot see my face and live, so I'm going to put you in the cleft of the rock, and I'm going to pass by and see my back parts.

If you look at the context of Exodus 33, actually you can go back to Exodus 32, it's the story about the

Israelites who worship the golden calf, and God is just about to destroy them, and Moses pleads with God in Exodus 32 and asks him not to destroy

Israel, and he says, you know, what are we going to do to explain to all the Egyptians?

You took them out here in the desert, and you destroyed them right away, and what about your promise to Abraham?

And he's pleading, and Deuteronomy 9 verse 5 tells us that Moses actually fasted for 40 days and 40 nights on the mountain to appease

God, and then in verse 14 it says God changed his mind and decided not to destroy the

Israelites. Then in Exodus 33, how much time do

I have? A minute, a minute and a half. Exodus 33, God says he's not going to go with the Israelites through the desert, and Moses pleads with him again.

He says, will you please go with us? And God says, okay, for you, Moses, because I love you and you are my friend,

I will go with you. He changed his mind again. And in verse 11 it says that Moses was the friend of God, saw

God face to face. So what the passage is telling us here is that God does not just arbitrarily have mercy on someone just to have mercy.

Not some, just Joe off the street here, well, I'll have mercy on you, but I'm not going to have mercy on you. No, the passage is talking about Moses' relationship with God, and God had mercy on the

Israelites because Moses appeased him, and Moses was a very humble, righteous man that God listened to, as He did with Job and Noah and all kinds of people like that.

And that's why God had mercy. I will have mercy because I decide to have mercy because you appeased me, you asked me out of your humility to accept these people again, and I did.

So it was not arbitrary at all. It was because Moses did what was necessary to appease the wrath of God.

In light of the interpretation you just gave of the Exodus 33 text as being used here by Paul in Romans 9 .15,

could you explain how, why it is that what you just said, and that is that this was based upon Moses' appeasing of God, why it is that Paul interprets that text in verse 16 as, so then it does not depend on the man who wills, or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

Because He had mercy on the Israelites because of what Moses did. It's not because of what the Israelites did, it's not how they ran, it's not what they willed, they were all in sin, they were worshipping a golden calf.

It was because God had mercy because Moses appeased Him. So, if that's the case, then why does

Paul then conclude by saying in verse 18, so then he has mercy on whom he desires, and he hardens whom he desires.

Does this all go back to Moses' act of appeasing God? Well, you've entered into another phase of Paul's argument.

Now he's talking about Pharaoh. And this passage with Pharaoh that talks about hardening comes from Exodus chapter 9 and Exodus chapter 10.

And if you read those passages what you'll find is in Exodus 9 verse 35 it says,

And Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not let the sons of Israel go, just as the Lord had spoken through Moses.

The verse before that says, But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned again and hardened his heart, he and his servants.

So you have a double action here. First you have Pharaoh hardening his heart, then

God is reacting to Pharaoh hardening his heart, and God hardens his heart even more.

Then in chapter 10 verse 1 it says, Then the Lord said to Moses, Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may perform these signs of mine among them.

But the fact is in 934 Moses or Pharaoh himself had already hardened his heart.

So you have to read these things in context to know what Paul is saying. So, if those interpretations are true to where you have this constant emphasis on, well it's what

Moses did, it's what Pharaoh did, and God's responding to them. Why then does

Paul raise the objection in verse 19, You will say to me then, why does he still find fault for who resists his will?

And then he provides the answer, on the contrary, who are you? Oh man, who answers back to God, the thing molded, why do you make it like this?

Because the natural reaction would be, well why is God hardening Pharaoh's heart? Why is

God taking the prerogative after Pharaoh hardened his own heart, for God to harden his heart also?

Well that's God's prerogative. That's not the question. The question is, did God harden

Pharaoh's heart arbitrarily because God just says, well I'm going to harden your heart Pharaoh. No, the context tells us that Pharaoh hardened his heart first, then

God came in and hardened his heart. So the question would be, well does God have the right to do that? Does God have the right to reaffirm the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, once Pharaoh hardened his own heart?

Well apparently it does. God does, I have no argument with that. God can do that and he has every right to do that, because Pharaoh hardened his heart in the first place.

So it seems like the entirety of your answer is based on this idea that, well Pharaoh hardened his heart first, therefore

God can do anything after that. Why is it that before Moses stepped foot in Egypt, as he was going there,

God told Moses, I will harden Pharaoh's heart. He said he would harden

Pharaoh's heart, before Pharaoh ever saw Moses standing in front of him.

Because God can predict the future. He just prophesied to Moses what's going to happen, and then it finally happened, and we have an explanation of what happened in Exodus 9 and 10.

So when he said, I will harden Pharaoh's heart, he was acting on his foreknowledge that, what he was really saying is,

Pharaoh will harden his own heart and therefore I will harden his heart after that. That's what the text says. That's what the text says, okay.

Specifically, before I go to Romans 8, all of this interpretation in Romans 9 was based on what

Moses did, what Pharaoh did, mankind's activities being prior, and God's responding to them.

Yet, if we start back at Romans chapter 9, beginning at verse 10, it says, and not only this, but there was also when she conceived twins by one man, our father

Isaac. For though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to his choice would stand, not because of works, but because of him who calls, it was said to her, the older will serve the younger.

Isn't that the context that then determines that it's not man's actions, it's not man's running, it's not man's will, it's

God's calling and God's choice that is primary? Well, you have to first interpret the passage as quoted before you go on and use that as a basis for interpreting the rest of the passage, that we've already looked at.

So, in my answer, what I'm going to do is execute that passage for you. The Jews, throughout

Paul's discourse in Romans, have been shown to be people that want to get to God by their works.

Already in verse 32, chapter 9, it says that, well, verse 31, but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.

Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.

They stumbled over the stumbling stone. So, they were working for their salvation. So, in order to prove to them that you can't work for your salvation, he has to take them back to a situation where it's impossible for two people to work.

Namely, Jacob and Esau in the womb. This is going to prove Paul's argument. It proves his argument because God chose

Esau to serve Jacob before they could do anything good or bad.

What does that tell us? Does it say that God predestined Esau to hell and predestined

Jacob to heaven? No, it doesn't say that. All it says is that the older will serve the younger.

It doesn't say anything about who's being chosen to heaven or hell here. And as it turned out,

Esau did serve Jacob. Jacob was given the inheritance and Esau was not.

So, that's the context of the passage here. It's talking about Paul's teaching about the fact that we cannot work for our salvation.

He uses Jacob and Esau. And then he goes on to develop the decisions of God based on what certain men have done to show that God's in complete control.

This control does not mean that man is not making decisions as God is in control. That's the whole reason we're having this debate today.

In light of what you just said, I was about to go to another text, but is it your belief that the

Reformed position is that men don't make decisions? No. My position is that the

Reformed faith says that after Adam sinned, man does not have a free will to accept or reject

God. And they will not accept that stipulation. Even if you say that the free will of man after Adam is given the power to make the decision by the power of God, by God's grace, they still won't accept it.

And this is the reason I'm complaining about absolute predestination, because it absolutely precludes any kind of rationale for man making a decision, whether it's by grace or whatever.

Autonomous? You take the whole category and you throw the baby out with the bathwater. I would agree with you.

I don't want an autonomous free will either. Because we're not semi -Pelagian. We're not

Pelagian or semi -Pelagian. But we're certainly not going to get ourselves in deep water with the rest of Scripture and find ourselves contorting all these passages that he endures to the end, shall we say, it's just a demonstrative, and all the other passages talk about warning and admonition, and say, well, they really don't mean what you think they mean, even though they sound like they mean that, because we've already decided that man can't have a free will.

You solve one problem, but you create a whole other set of problems when you do that.

When the Apostle Paul said, Those who are in the flesh cannot please God, why is this not a statement?

Well, let me back up. It says, Speaking of the mind, said 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 cannot please God. Why does Paul talk about the inability of the fleshly mind by saying it is not able to subject itself to the law of God, if, in fact, every human being does have the capacity due to, however you define free will, to turn and repent.

Would that not be subjecting itself to the law of God, which says to turn and repent? No. What he's talking about here is, if you, using your free will, decide,

I'm going to go against God, and I'm going to do things my way, like the Jews were doing.

We just read in the next chapter, chapter 9, where the Jews are living by the flesh.

They are saying to God, Well, you know, I really don't need to go through what God says.

Let me just try to do it by my own flesh. And that's why Paul complains in verse 32 about them trying to get to heaven by their works, because that flesh, that saying to God, I can do something for myself to attain my salvation.

Paul says, no, you can't do that. You're in bondage if you do that. Same thing he says in Galatians chapter 5, when he talks about the

Jews using circumcision. He says, if you do that, you're condemned. You're anathema.

You can't get to God by the flesh. You can only get to him by grace. If you try to get to heaven by circumcision, let me just read that, because I think it's apropos.

Galatians chapter 5, verse 1. It was for freedom, is my time up? It was for freedom that Christ set us free.

Therefore, keep standing firm and do not subject again to the yoke of slavery. There you have it.

Behold, I, Paul, say to you, that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, he is under obligation to keep the whole law.

You have been severed from Christ. You are seeking to be justified by law. You have fallen from grace.

But we, through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. And this is the same spirit that Paul talks about in Romans chapter 8.

Okay, Dr. St. Janice, 15 minutes. My questions are going to be rather short, so you can answer as long as you want, but I didn't plan on having one minute questions.

Dr. White, do you believe Adam had a free will to accept or reject God? Well, the problem with Adam's will is that we don't know anything about it.

He is created and he falls in the very next chapter. There is no discussion of the nature of his will.

There is no discussion of anything. Theologians have obviously recognized that there would not be a sin nature involved.

But the nature of Adam's will is a matter of speculation that the scriptures themselves never ever raise, never make as a foundation for any argumentation about God's justice or anything along those lines.

So the distinction I think that is somewhat useful that Augustine introduced is the difference between someone who has the possibility of sin and someone who does not have the possibility of sin.

To differentiate between Adam who is made perfectly, but in a state where it is possible for him to sin in comparison with the glorified saints in heaven who will be in a position where they are no longer in a...

because they will be perfected, but they will not be in a position where it will be possible for them to sin.

That is where the distinction has been raised. But the fact of the matter is we have almost no biblical revelation whatsoever to go on to give any meaningful answer as to the nature of Adam's will.

Okay, if I said to you that Augustine says this in the Admonition and Grace, that because Adam was of his free choice untrue to God, he experienced the just judgment of God so that he was condemned with his whole progeny.

Do you agree with that statement or not? Sure. Okay, so here he uses free choice. So let me ask you again.

Do you believe Adam had a free will to accept or reject God or not? Well, since Augustine himself makes differentiation between free choice and the different natures of the will in regards to an unfallen man or redeemed man, the term free will has to be defined.

We have not had any biblical text that used the term free will because it is not a biblical phrase other than the phrase free will offerings which just means offerings under the law that are not demanded for sin.

And so as I have from the beginning, I have been functioning on the definition of free will for mankind being a creaturely will.

And Adam would be the only one, Eve as well, who for a brief period of time was not a slave to sin.

Everyone else who is born of the lineage of Adam outside of course the person of Jesus Christ who is himself free of original sin.

Anyone else who comes from his lineage is a slave of sin from the time of their conception.

And so I believe in a creaturely will but that man's creaturely will is enslaved to sin.

Adam's will would not have been enslaved to sin at the point in time of his fall in the way that ours is.

That's not the same as an autonomous will which is possessed only by God. All right. Augustine says this also.

Certain angels, the leader of whom is he that is called the devil, have by their own free choice been made outcasts from the

Lord God. And then I'm going to read this one again to you. But because Adam was of his free choice, excuse me, untrue to God, he experienced the judgment of God.

So do you believe Adam had a free choice to accept or reject God? If you mean free choice as in Adam was not forced by external forces against his desire, then yes.

But as Edwards, I think, was quite right to point out in his treatise on the freedom of will, the will decides based upon the desires that are presented to it by a person's nature.

We can't tell what Adam's nature was outside of saying that there was no sin. But there was no perfection in him that would keep him from having an evil desire, which evidently he did, which led to his fall.

I do affirm and have to affirm, I think everyone has to affirm unless they're an open theist, that not only did

God have knowledge of what Adam was going to do, but if God's knowledge of the future is based upon his decree, then it was a part of God's decree.

So are you saying then that God decreed that Adam sinned? God decreed the fall as well as everything else that takes place in time.

Okay, so you're saying God decreed the fall. Could you explain what you mean by decree? What does that mean for us?

Well, as I said at the beginning of my presentation, Yahweh does whatever he pleases in the heavens and the earth.

As the creator of all things, he determines the very shape of time itself, as in the book of Isaiah where he very strongly emphasizes that his creatorship and his sovereignty are related to one another.

He knows the beginning from the end, not passively. It's not like God is standing outside the realm of time and he goes, oh, wow, that's really interesting what happens in creation and now he has perfect knowledge.

I do not believe that that is the nature of God's knowledge. The reason God's knowledge is certain of all future events is because he has decreed all of creation, which includes all of time and what takes place in time.

God is not subject to time, but he does not passively take in knowledge of future events. He does so actively on the basis of his decree.

Okay, what I'm trying to get at here, and bear with me, is what you mean by decree, and I'm not done with my question yet.

I believe God decrees things also. I'm just trying to figure out what you believe by the word decree. You've put the adjective, or the adverb, actively decrees into the formula as opposed to passively waiting.

So my question then would be, are you saying to us that God actively decreed that Adam sin, such that Adam really has no free choice, as we understand that term normally, but that Adam was, things were set up such that Adam was going to sin?

Can you explain that to us? I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. God's decree includes the means by which he accomplishes his decree, which includes the decisions of men.

We have three clear indications of this. Well, we have many more, but three that I will very briefly mention.

Genesis chapter 50, which I mentioned to you, Joseph recognizes that in the actions of his brothers, there was hatred on their part and evil on their part, but good on God's part.

One action, God decreed it happen, and yet the brothers are justly judged for acting upon the basis of their desires.

Isaiah chapter 10 describes the destruction of the Assyrian people, and God says he brings

Assyrians against Israel to judge them, that he's bringing them, and yet he then turns around and judges the haughty heart of the

Assyrian king because of what fills his heart. And, of course, we have the clearest indication, and that is the prayer of the early church in Acts chapter 4, where they confess, they know that Pontius Pilate, Herod, the

Romans, and the Jewish people had gathered together against his holy servant Jesus. Now, there's four different groups with four different completely different sets of motivations.

Herod's a nut, Pilate's a coward, the Jews hate Jesus because he's exposed them, and the

Romans just kill people for the fun of it at times. And so you have four different groups, and yet what does

Acts 4 .28 say? To do what your hand predestined to occur. And so, very clearly, the means by which

God's decree is accomplished, which includes the decisions that men make, are included in the decree, or you'd have to say that the cross itself could not have been something that was certain.

And yet, Jesus is described, at least in one translation, it's an appropriate translation, as the lamb slain for the foundation of the earth.

How could that be if there was uncertainty as to what was going to happen in the future?

There isn't uncertainty, not because God passively takes in knowledge, but because God's decree includes even the actions of men in time, which would include

Adam as well. Okay, so you have said, correct me if I got this wrong, but, you have said

God's decree includes the decisions of men. Yes. Okay. So you then, principally, would have no objection saying that God's decree and free choice of men can work together.

Would that be correct? Well, when you say free choice, I refer, of course, to creaturely will.

And yes, man's creaturely will, this is what's called compatibilism.

It is compatible that God has a decree, and that man is held accountable for his decisions.

Yes. Alright, thank you. Does God call the whole human race to repentance?

Yes, God calls all men everywhere to repent. That's Acts chapter 17. Okay. Does God give only certain people the ability to repent?

Yes, His elect. Okay. Dr. White, just talking to you as a man, a man who

I hope in your life as well as mine, we try to be fair and honest as best we can with human beings, with God and ourselves.

Does it seem odd to you that God would call people to repentance without giving them the ability to repent?

No, sir, it does not. Why not? Because we're talking about people who are condemned sinners and the extension of mercy and grace to rebels who hate

God, who are at enmity with Him, who are called God -haters, who spit upon His law, whose hearts are filled with every kind of venom.

I feel like reading Romans 1 and 3 just simply to remind us of the true nature of man. The extension of mercy and grace to those individuals has to be absolutely free on God's part.

It cannot be demanded. And so the command of God to all men everywhere to repent is a part of His revealed will.

God's will in the law says, Thou shalt not kill. And yet God's decree was that Jesus should die upon the cross.

We have to allow all of those texts to stand together and to recognize the difference between His revealed will and that of His decree.

And so, no, it does not strike me odd at all that God would use His law, as He has so many times in the past, to curb man's evil, to control man's evil, and yet the only ones in whose ears those commands become alive are those in whose heart the

Spirit of God brings spiritual life. Otherwise, as Romans 8 says, they do not subject themselves to the law of God because they are not even able to do so.

I desire to subject myself to the law of God. Why? Solely one word.

Grace. Okay, thank you. Dr. White, you said that,

I said, doesn't it strike you as odd that God would not give certain people the ability to repent?

You said no. And then you went on to explain, correct me if I get this wrong, but you said something to the effect of them being these dirty, rotten, scoundrel people who hate

God, spit on God, all kinds of adjectives like that. I think I got the gist of what you said.

But isn't that the case of everyone in the world? I mean, you've made a distinction between certain kinds of people, which, you said that these people, the dirty, rotten, scoundrels,

God's not going to save. Okay? But then that leaves this other group, which, by the implication of what you just said, implies that these are somehow not dirty, rotten, scoundrels, and yet Scripture says that there is none righteous, no, not one.

So my question to you again is, if all of these people are dirty, rotten, scoundrels, none righteous, no, not one, doesn't it seem odd to you that God would only give a certain amount of these dirty, rotten, scoundrels the ability to repent and not the others?

I have been very, very clear for decades, and all of my writing on this subject, all men are described in Romans 1 and Romans 3 as haters of God.

Grace must be free. You're asking, why don't

I feel that it's odd that God, in His freedom, regenerates and gives the gift of faith and repentance to certain people.

And I say, really, it's odd about that, is that God would save anyone. But the fact that He does save is not odd at all.

He has revealed that He will have mercy upon whom He has mercy, and He will harden whom

He will harden. Those who are hardened are simply receiving justice from God. Those that He mercies are receiving from Him something that they not only don't deserve, they de -deserve it.

They deserve punishment. They get grace. They get mercy.

That's what's amazing. So, no, I would in no way, shape, or form and have fought for a long time against anyone who would say that the reason that some are given the gifts of faith and repentance is because they're better than others.

No. The sole basis upon which God's choice is made is the good pleasure of His own will,

Ephesians chapter 1. That's why some are predestined. That's why some receive the grace of Christ even before eternity itself

God chooses to do this. Why does He do this? He does this solely on the basis of His own will, not on the basis of anything found in the creature.

That's what unconditional election is all about. And while Dr.

St. Janus in the opening statement said, see, this is against unconditional election, I'm not sure that this shows understanding of what unconditional election actually is.

We have how long? One more question. Okay. Does he have time to answer my question?

Actually, 15 minutes is up, but that's okay. Yeah, my clock says 32 seconds. Okay, let's cut it here, then.

What? Let's cut it here, then. Cut it here? Well, I wanted to ask him one more question. That's why

I was asking you that question the whole time. Go ahead. All right, we've covered it.