Calvinism vs Arminianism, Part 5

Thank You Steve yes and just a brief bio for those that are joining us for the first day as Steve said he's the host of the narrow path radio broadcast he is also the author of revelation for views

Steve is also a frequent Bible teacher all over the world with youth with a mission or why wham and we're glad to have him here today of course he is joined by dr.

James White dr. James White is the director of Alpha and Omega ministries it's an apologetics oriented ministry which provides many helpful resources and features the dividing line radio and webcast

James is also an elder at Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church a professor at Golden Gate Theological Seminary and a critical consultant for the

New American Standard Bible and finally dr. White is a frequent debater with those within the church and with those who hold other beliefs most recently with Muslim apologists he's also the author of many books most notably and relative to this debate debating

Calvinism with David Hunt and the Potter's freedom so welcome dr.

White to the program today and yes as Steve mentioned we have a format change for our fifth and final day the debaters have agreed to come to a complete change today each debater will take turns with the following first they will get to ask a question and it will have one minute to do so that will be followed by the other giving a response in which he will have two minutes to do so this will be followed by a final one minute response by the one who posed the original question taking a total of four minutes dr.

White I think you're the last word yesterday so you come to with Steve starting us off today okay yeah yeah we need to bring volume up there all right well

I can start out with a question here dr. White I've recently read your debating Calvinism book in which you made a number of statements about the condition of people who go to hell for example on page 19 you said

God is under no obligation to extend his grace to the rebel sinner and every single person who enters into eternal punishment would if given the opportunity freely choose to remain under punishment rather than to bow the knee and loving adoration of the

God of the hate on page 56 you said if those who go to hell were given the choice of eternity to either love

God completely or return to punishment every one of them would march right back into punishment I've also heard you say many times that people in hell will stand the parapet of hell screaming their eternal hatred toward God I wonder if this is the disposition of all the unbelievers that you've met or if you're getting this from some passage in the

Bible of course I'm referring to after the judgment where there's no longer any restraint that is placed upon individuals

I believe that the Holy Spirit restrains the evil of men at this time that in fact any good that comes forth from the heart of man is a part of what is called common grace that it is

God's intention to not allow men to think to the lowest level they could think but instead he restrains the evil within them he uses the law and the proclamation of his truth as one of the means by which he restrains the evil of men

I think we see in our own culture as that law becomes less and less heard in the ears of sinners we're seeing more and more amazing displays the depravity of man but the question assumes that I am seeing this in individuals as they live right now actually we only see the true depth of the hatred of man for God once in a while God does allow

Dahmer's and others to express their hatred toward God at certain times so as to remind us of the depth of that depravity to hopefully shock us and keep us in restraint but those quotations you gave for me are in reference to the fact that once the final judgment has taken place and there is no longer that restraint man is left to express his hatred without any type of limitation that it requires a change of the heart to change a

God -hater into a God -lover and that's the work of the Holy Spirit of God and since that's not going to be happening with them in the eternal state then that is the background of the statements

I've made about their standing upon the parapets of hell screaming out their hatred toward God they can no longer do anything against him or his people and so that is

I believe one of the great elements of punishment itself is that they recognize they cannot any longer do anything like that and so that comes from my understanding of the

Holy Spirit's restraining work in the world today okay thanks for clarifying that that it doesn't seem to me that there's any particular scripture that tells us what you just said that is to say the reference to the only reason people are doing that right now is because of God's restraining grace that seems to be something your doctrines would tell you perhaps a tradition of man

I don't know of anything in the scripture that says that men will be screaming out their hatred for God every one of them if God wasn't restraining them at this moment so I was wondering about that I did misunderstand your statement so I'm glad you clarified that I don't need to go any further with my response to his statement you would didn't you pull one of it so I've got one minute to ask my question now that's correct you have in the past indicated that the

Apostle Paul could have resisted at least for a time and I would assume completely the drawing of the grace of God that converted him if then

God can desire to save one more someone plan to save someone and use them in the foundational building of his church and yet this not happen does it not follow that God's knowledge of future events his ability to give prophecy and his ability to accomplish all of his will is dependent in the final analysis upon the free will actions of his creatures well that's a good question

I don't think God's knowledge of the future is dependent on anything except what the future actually comes to hold both openness theologians and Calvinist believe that if God knows the future he must have determined it there is a third position which non -Calvinist have historically held in that God can passively know the future

God can know what is going to happen without being the one who determines it I realize that both openness theologians and Calvinist believe that's ridiculous and perhaps it sounds philosophically ridiculous but the

Bible does speak of God knowing what people will do and it also speaks of them having choices and that not being fully determined and for that reason

Armenians have historically taken that position but as far as my statement that Paul could have resisted

I do believe Paul could have resisted in fact he did up to a certain point Paul when Jesus apprehended him he said it's hard for you to kick against the goats no doubt referring to goading that God was putting in Paul's heart prior to that time and Paul had been kicking against it he finally did cave in of course we had that magnificent revelation of Christ but many people saw

Christ glorified and in one way or another he manifest his glory through his miracles through raising of Lazarus and many other ways and many people did not believe in him a person can rebel even when they see

God manifest himself and I believe that Paul could have done so too now what would have become of God's plan to plant all those churches

I have no doubt that God could raise up from these stones an apostle Paul if you wish to or at least find another man who would not be so obstinate as it turned out

I believe that God knew that Paul would not be obstinate he knew that Paul would finally give in and therefore he had plans for him and plan to use him in the ways that he did so it'd be my answer to that particular question ok my response that would be that Paul's own understanding

I don't think would fit into this idea that well you know he knew that I would be pliable but that doesn't answer the question could he have resisted if you say could have resisted and how would

God know these things that idea of God passively taking in knowledge introduces all sorts of problems with whether God can have true knowledge what on what basis did he give prophecy if he's only taking in passive knowledge that means he created without knowing what the ends would be or the end of the term by someone else and even the apostle

Paul himself said that it was God but when God in Galatians 1 .15

who had set me apart even my mother's womb and called me to his grace was pleased to reveal his son in me that I might preach among the

Gentiles this was a specific point in time this was a very much a part of the decree of God and as such the idea that well you know it might have had to have happened ten years later or maybe

God had to give up and go with someone else I think runs directly against the flow of the text of scripture at this point ok

I'm going to let the strength of that statement stand on its own weight let's go to another point in Ephesians chapter 2 and in Colossians chapter 2

Paul says that we are were once dead in trespasses or in Ephesians 2 says dead in trespasses and sins you have said and most

Calvinists say that this does not mean that the unbeliever or the unregenerate is spiritually passive or inactive in fact he does a great number of active rebellious things against God but you said that's dead in sin specifically means that that person cannot believe cannot repent cannot want to seek

God now I've heard this stated by Calvinist many times I just wonder where is it that Paul defines this term this way well of course he describes this deadness in Romans chapter 8 for example when you contrast those who are dead in sin with those who are alive and contrast the abilities the likes dislikes predispositions of these two different groups he uses both in the spirit and not in the spirit and then dead and alive so those who are in the flesh for example he uses in the same way in Romans 8 7 to 8 when he says that the mind found the flesh is hostile toward God for it does not subject itself the law of God for it is not even able to do so and those who are in the flesh cannot please

God however you are not in the flesh but in the spirit if indeed the spirit of God dwelt in you etc etc then he goes on to talk about the rest there you have both of that in Romans 8 and then the parallel in Ephesians chapter 2 and of course

Colossians is the parallel to the Ephesians and so you have this assertion of spiritual deadness and since it is very clear that the same writers then do speak of man's rebellion man's love of his sin his twisting of God's truth in Romans chapter 1 it is said that man suppresses the truth and unrighteousness these are all activities of the spirit reflecting a person who is at enmity with God and is refusing to recognize

God as his creator and is twisting that relationship and so the need for resurrection spiritual resurrection so as to be a

God lover so as to be obedient to the law of God to find the light in the law of God all the things that Romans 8 7 to 8 says the those who are in the flesh cannot do because they're hostile toward God those who are in the spirit love to do they love to be subject to the law of God they love to please him they love to place the place itself in that situation and that is their highest their highest priority in their highest goal so it is a description of it flows from the description of what the spiritual man is over against the non -spiritual man who is hostile toward God he is

God's enemy thank you dr. white okay thank you for that clarification I personally would wish to point out that while it is true that Romans 8 does talk about the condition of the natural man it does not use the term dead in trespasses and sins and it might very well be saying something different about the natural man then

Paul is saying in another passage when he calls them dead in trespasses and sins to speak of somebody is dead in sin it seems to me would be similar to what is meant when the prodigal son's father said of his son my son was dead but is now alive my son was lost but now he's found it sounds like his son was dead in his sins at one point and yet the prodigal son is described by Jesus as having the full ability to repent as soon as he came to his senses of course that's not the only information we have but we don't have very many cases in the

Bible of someone being said to be dead in that sense and so we have Colossians we have Ephesians then we have the prodigal son

I don't know of any other cases but I personally think that Romans 8 is actually addressing a different issue than being dead in trespasses and sins but I'm out of time for that and so it's your turn to ask me a question all right thank you mr.

Greg Romans 319 tells us that God has placed all the world Jews and Gentiles without distinction under accountability before him for sin every mouth of text says has been closed and only upon making this claim does

Paul launch into the gospel of grace through faith in Jesus Christ to make his point Paul strung together in Romans 3 10 to 18 a number of texts from different contexts all about specific groups of evil men in history to make a final concluding point that being the universal sinfulness of man was

Paul misusing these texts and if not please explain his methodology in light of your comments on Romans 1 from yesterday okay

I consider that my comments in Romans 1 were simply I didn't get to take my position very far because we got interrupted but I was just saying that Romans 1 tells us that there are people who suppress the truth but he's not telling us there that all people do it my opinion is that he's trying to make a case against the

Jews and trying to point out that the Jews are really the ones who knew God and who suppress the truth and whom

God has given over to reprobation because they knew God and they suppressed the truth about God now

I'm not denying that Gentiles also do so I'm simply trying to follow Paul's argument and say many things may be true that Paul may not be talking about in chapter 3 of Romans he does list together a series of verses from Psalms and one from Isaiah which are talking about how sinful people are after he lists these verses he says in verse 19 now we know that whatever the law says and he means these verses he just quoted it says to those who are under the law the

Jews so he's telling us I believe that these verses are being used by Paul to point up that David and Isaiah are talking about their

Jewish countrymen who are in this condition now again I'm not denying the Gentiles are this way too but Paul's point

I think is to illustrate that Jewish people are as sinful as Gentile people that Gentiles are sinful

I think goes without saying his Jewish audience knew that he's trying to convince the Jew that the Jew is just as bad and no better there's nothing in those quotes that he uses in verses 10 through 18 that would teach the

Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity with the exception perhaps of the phrase there's none that seeks after God however

David is describing there some condition of some people who he says in the next line they have gone out of their way that is they they've gone the wrong way they've turned astray from an earlier position and so I don't think he's talking about the birth condition of people but it's just describing the fact that Jews can be just as wicked as Gentiles and that's where Paul's I think trying to argue okay

I would just respond by pointing out that Paul himself interprets his own words in saying that all have sin and fall short of the glory of God he's including in that both

Jews and Gentiles and when he says that every mouth may be closed all the world may become accountable to God it is it is difficult to follow the flow of Paul's thought to say well all of this is just about first century

Jews are Jews in that particular point in time there is no question that he does demonstrate the sinfulness of the

Jews but he's writing to the Romans and it was not the Jewish question that was the only question to deal with in writing the church

Rome and so since he himself makes the application that Jews and Gentiles both stand before God and they stand before God the exact same plane of condemned sinners the idea that there there are people who are not described by the universal sinfulness of man in those texts

I think falls without support okay my turn first of all

I certainly would not suggest that there are people who have not sinned and I believe that when Paul says all have sinned he means all people

Jews and Gentiles certainly have sinned is that a point I would make I'm moving toward the question here

I want to continue talking about this same passage I think you often use verse 11 of Romans 3 that there's none who seeks after God there's none who understands and this is

I think one of your main ways of arguing that the unbeliever cannot seek after God but I believe that the passage is using hyperbole

I think you disagree with me on that but in the same psalm the writer talks about people who are righteous and would no doubt include himself among the righteous so it seems clear that he's not speaking absolutely in fact he does use other hyperbole he says but we could eat up my people like bread that's certainly a hyperbole

I think the psalm is full of hyperbole but in saying that there's none who understands none seeks after God he certainly acknowledges there are exceptions well again

I would definitely point out what the what the Apostles own purpose is and I think that is what

I would direct the listeners to as well to go back and ask the question what is the Apostles purpose what is his own interpretation of his own words and what would the original audience of these letters have understood when

Paul begins this long catena of passages in 310 to 18 what is he going toward what is what is his intention yes he has just discussed the privileges of the of the

Jews and things like that but then he's demonstrating the faithfulness of God and to get into the gospel he then introduces these texts now it seems like what we were just told is well okay you need to go back to the individual context of each one of these texts and then limit its application to that original context is that what the

Apostle did or did the Apostle in verse 19 interpret his own collection of these texts which is this really going back to exactly the question that I asked was

Paul misusing these texts because his own conclusion is that all the world may be held accountable before God that every mouth may be stopped now if there are if there are righteous people who are righteous outside of the special work of the

Spirit of God in making them righteous and they don't fit in here then where are they discussed and why does

Paul make the wrong application in stating that all the world becomes accountable for God in light of what has been stated in these verses yes

I do believe that there is none who seeks for God I believe that men seek after all sorts of things other than God they seek after all sorts of benefits of God without God I do not believe however that any man when seeing the holiness of God goes toward that holiness unless they have been changed by the work of the

Spirit of God within them in regeneration okay well you know that's interesting because I believe that I'm following Paul's thought here too so we really just are disagreeing about how

Paul is using the passage I don't think Paul uses the passage differently than the psalmist meant it but and I certainly didn't say that there's a group of people somewhere who are righteous apart from God as you suggested my view might be

I'm simply raising the question whether there's people who seek God there might be people who are not righteous but who are seeking

God and who might find him Paul said that God set things up that people might grope after God and find him because he's not far from any of us and I think that there are people who seek after God even prior to being regenerated that be my understanding anyway

I'll go ahead and turn back over you okay in Romans 834 we are told that Christ intercedes the elect of God and this is why there can be no condemnation of them in Hebrew 725 we were told

Jesus is able to save I stop on tell us that is completely all because of his always living to make intercession for them since intercession is part of the work of the high priest could you explain whether you believe

Jesus is interceding for all men individually who have ever lived or ever will live including all who will endure

God's wrath and if so how this can be made consistent with the claims of Romans 8 and Hebrews chapter 7 well no

I don't think the Bible teaches that Jesus makes intercession for all men when when

Paul talks about Jesus intercession I think he's talking about Christ intercession for the unity and the sanctity of the body of Christ in the book of John in chapter 17

Jesus makes a prayer for his people in that prayer he says I don't pray for the world

I just pray for those that you've given me here but of course the prayer he's praying there is not about who will be saved and who won't be saved he's praying to those who are already saved about them and he's saying that he prays that they will be one and that they'll be sanctified through the truth and things like that that's exactly the kind of intercession

I think that Romans and Hebrews both talk about in Hebrews when it says he's able to save to the uttermost because he doesn't die he lives forever to intercede

I think what he's saying is okay he doesn't just save us through the door he can save us all the way to the total salvation to the end he's he is able to save to the uttermost those who come to him so that's clearly of course him interceding for only only his people there now whether Jesus ever prayed for the lost any other kinds of prayers in his lifetime

I don't know Paul tells us to pray for all men including rulers and we know that not all not all rulers are saved and probably not all of them are elect so I believe that prayer for unbelievers is not inappropriate but as far as the intercession of Christ on the few occasions that the

Bible makes mention of it it does talk about his intercession for his people for their sanctity for the unity for their eventual success in the

Christian life and so of course he wouldn't pray those things for people who aren't Christians I wondered if your question is implying that since Jesus doesn't intercede for the unbelievers he doesn't want them to be saved that would be a conclusion

I would not draw from the answer I just gave okay I'm a little confused because if a person rejects eternal security or the perseverance of the

Saints then it sounds like you just affirmed that the Jesus is able to save to the uttermost those individuals drawn here in the guy that got to him but my my primary concern is the fact that the active intercession is a part of the work of the high priest the high priest offers his sacrifice and he presents that before the throne of God and so if he is not interceding for every single individual then his sacrifice was not offered for every single individual which of course is the concept of particular redemption which is what reform people believe that there is a perfect unity between the intention of God and the sacrifice of the

Son and the intercession of his because it is his appearance before the Father in our place that guarantees our salvation and so that's that is the reason for the question as it was asked all right my turn to ask a question when you bring up that Jesus didn't die for everybody it raises an interesting question and that would be about God's will and his love for all people

I just have a question a very simple one according to yourself described Calvinistic belief system do you believe there is any sense in which

God wills the eternal salvation of the non -elect that here the gospel call does God in other words simply not have any interest in their salvation or is there any sense in which he wills that all men would be saved even the non -elect well that was a very confusing question because you said does

God will that the lost hear the gospel call and then you said does he will their salvation those are two different things no

I'm sorry I let me clarify that and you can start over again with your answer we'll start your time again here's what I said I'm reading it according to yourself described

Calvinistic belief system do you believe there is any sense in which God wills the eternal salvation of the non -elect that hear the gospel call so I didn't ask does he want them to hear the gospel call

I'm talking about the non -elect who hear it does he in any sense will for them to be saved I've never heard of a distinction between the non -elect who here in the non -elect who do not be very honest with you and from a reform perspective there wouldn't be any real differentiation between the two that I could see as far as having any relevance to that particular that particular question but if you're asking do

I believe that there is a salvific intention on the part of God in his will to save those that he then does not exercise sufficient power to save that he did not give the

Sun in their behalf he did not send the spirit to bring them to spiritual life and get a grant to them the gifts of faith and repentance then certainly not the idea of the salvific work of the

Spirit of God and the decree of their salvation is specific and it is for the elect and the number of the elect are known unto

God not passively but actively as he is the creator of all things and so as a result of from the very beginning

God's knowledge is perfect on that matter there is nothing in the elect or the non -elect that either draws the grace of God or make someone better than someone else anything along those lines at all and so the idea of a universal salvific will is different however than what is that normally confused with and that is then the church is not given knowledge of who the elect are we proclaim the gospel universally to all men not knowing who the elect are leaving the result in God's hands trusting the

Spirit of God will make that message come alive in the heart of his people and many of the objections

I hear are based upon the assumption that we somehow can know who the elect are in hence would in some way limit the proclamation limit the call to repentance and therefore no longer be used of God as the means by which he brings that life -giving message to his elect people all right that's something

I just wanted to hear you say that's fine you don't believe that God in any sense wants to save those who are the non -elect though he does want them to be preached to apparently so that they'll be the receive the greater damnation as if they needed more

I mean it's seems to me that Calvinism teaches that people are born damned and they're already damned as as they can be but they'll

I guess get hotter hell if they've heard the gospel even though they had no opportunity to no real genuine option of receiving it it's a different sense of justice and I think most humans and most

Christians feel comfortable with but I know that you would probably consider the human sense of justice including that of the

Christians hold maybe isn't isn't the same as God's second

Timothy 1 9 speaks of those who have been saved by God as those who are called with a holy calling yet this calling did not come to them because of what they did but in contrast came to them according to God's own purpose and grace yet Paul says that grace was given or granted to us in Christ Jesus from all eternity could you explain how great can be granted to a specific group of people from all eternity if there is no specific identifiable decree to say that specific people that is the elective

God yeah well when you when you mentioned the elective God is a specific people

I realize that you're talking about a specific number to which nothing can be added subtracted as the category the elect as I've explained in my lectures that you've heard

I believe that the term the elect simply refers to those who are in Christ whoever they may be at any given time that Christ is the elect one and those who are in him are elected him and certainly

God before the world began elected to give to all who were in Christ all the grace and the glory and all the things that the

Bible says belong to the elect that was something God decided before the earth was created so I have no problem with that I guess the idea of corporate election is difficult for a lot of people to understand

I I think it's sort of like this if if I would say you know our church choir was selected to to perform at the

White House well that that's a great privilege our choir was chosen to this great privilege of seeing at the

White House that doesn't mean the White House decided who would be in our choir our choir director might determine that or some members of the choir might choose to drop out or new people might choose to join it's the choir as a whole that has been chosen it's whoever may be in it is is another issue and and so the election was made that the choir this choir not another choir will play for the president other factors determine who will be in the choir and I believe that's true concerning Christ as well

God has elected Christ he is the chosen one he's the chosen vine the branches remain in him or they don't remain in him according to different considerations

Jesus said if a branch doesn't abide in him it's gonna be carried away and burned and wither up but if branches do abide in him they'll continue to experience the blessings of being in the vine well

I can only with respect say that there was no answer given to the text because what we just saw again was direct objects in the original language being turned into indirect objects and vice versa he saved us us is the direct object called us to a holy calling not because of works but because of his own purpose in grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began it's us it doesn't say he gave this grace to Christ doesn't say he gave his grace to a general group of people acquire why would grace have to be given except to individuals who are in need of grace see this is where Christian salvation becomes in a depersonalized concept when you simply cannot allow for the idea that God would choose to give his grace is undeserved grace to rebel sinners in eternity past but that is the direct assertion of the second

Timothy 1 9 well I wish I could answer that but I have to ask you a question us is a direct object that is correct but that's irrelevant to my point but we'll go somewhere else with that let's go to Matthew 2337 which is one of the big three that you like to talk about it is your view that when

Jesus said Jerusalem Jerusalem you to kill the prophets and those were sent to you how many times

I would have gathered your children as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings but you would not that Jerusalem Jerusalem is referring to the leaders of Jerusalem is it not and that the children that Jesus would have drawn is referring to the populace of Jerusalem maybe just the elect excluding the leaders and so that Jesus wanted to draw the children of Jerusalem or the maybe the general populace

I'm not sure maybe maybe just the elect and and the leaders of Jerusalem would not permit this I'm wondering if you can justify this particular interpretation from the context and from any other exegetical grounds yes most assuredly the text is specifically referring of course in Matthew 23 to the condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees the leaders of Jerusalem Matthew 2337 is one of the summary statement of that many of their sins are listed in this very very difficult text difficult not interpret but difficult because it is the strongest language ever found the lips of the

Lord and in verse 13 we have an echo of the same concept we find verse 37 but woe to you scribes and Pharisees hypocrites because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people for you do not enter in yourselves nor do you allow those who are entering to go in and so the condemnation the great condemnation that would show itself especially in the destruction of Jerusalem 1870 is seen as having as part of its its most heinous element the fact that the

Jewish leaders had sought to stand against the prophets of old they had they had you can see this and what happened with Jeremiah just read the the prophecy of Jeremiah what happened to him over and over again regard to the leadership of Jerusalem and that they could continue even to the point where the son of God himself enters into human flesh and walk the streets of Jerusalem the reason

I address Matthew 2337 is primarily because of its gross misuse over and over again of people saying are you see in verse 37 which by the way this isn't even a salvation passage is not talking about that he's talking about this is a destruction oracle against Jerusalem and they want to take out the term the children and say how often

I want to gather you but you would not and therefore we see that God cannot save anybody unless they synergistically cooperated better better and that of course is not what

Jesus said we need to at least understand that the condemnation that he is uttering here and Matthew 2337 have to with their standing in the way of the proclamation the truth and in so doing seeking to bring people under their own influence and that was a sinful influence for that they are judged to my mind that's not a valid interpretation

I believe that Jerusalem does not refer to the Scribes and Pharisees it was not they the Scribes and Pharisees didn't kill the prophets they weren't even they didn't even exist as movements at the time when the prophets lived but they did try to prevent people from going into the kingdom in fact

Jesus said they succeeded in in preventing them it says those who you do not allow those who are entering in to go in so there were people apparently drawn into the kingdom or on their way in and the scribes first did stop them but Jerusalem and the children of Jerusalem are synonyms and this is true when you use the term children of Zion children of Israel children of Jerusalem anywhere in scripture they're just a reference to the people who are the populace of that city true the leaders of the city are particularly culpable but in Luke chapter 19

Jesus said that Jerusalem is we destroyed and her children within her meaning 70 AD so the children apparently didn't come even though Jesus wished to draw them under his wings like a hen gathers her chicks under her wings that sounds like salvation to me okay 1st

Peter chapter 2 verse 8 speaks of the stumbling of disbelievers at the proclamation of the person of Jesus Christ Peter says they stumble because they disobeyed the word as they were destined to do given your repeated statement that you see no eternal decree of God relating salvation could you please explain what

Peter means when he says that these disbelievers were destined to disobey the word how does this determine the shape of your theology

I believe that they stumble because they're disobedient and that is that's a stumbling that God determined would happen for those who were disobedient

I don't personally believe that it is saying that they were destined to be disobedient they stumble because they're disobedient and that is that's a stumbling that God determined would happen for those who were disobedient so it sounds like he's saying that they were appointed to stumble because they were disobedient they stumble being disobedient to the word to which they also were appointed well were they appointed to being disobedient or to stumbling because they were disobedient

Peter sometimes tells us that there are people that were that there would be false teachers there would be people who would stumble at the word and as such it can be said of them that they were marked out before for this condemnation it could be that he's referring back to Isaiah chapter 8 where it says that Jesus would be a stumbling stone for the unbelievers that's exactly what

Peter quotes in the previous verse or in that same verse so my own thought is that yes the Bible has always indicated that there are people who will stumble at the word and people who will perish because they stumble at the word that is not to my mind saying that God is the one who determines that everyone who stumbles will stumble dr.

white your response yeah well again I would direct people to the text itself and I criticized mr.

Greg on this point last year because there is a difference between saying that they were destined to do something that is to stumble in disobedience and saying well they were destined to be punished because they were stumbled in disobedience and the text is it's fairly straightforward in what it's saying here any person may not like it but this takes us back to once again from whence do we derive our theology to we derive our theology from the comfortable passages and then we when we encounter passages that are not comfortable we just say they are ambiguous and we don't know

I didn't hear anything about why the text itself is ambiguous what the antecedents were what's what's being referred to I just heard the statement well it might mean this but looking at the text

I don't see where that came from and that's what I would direct other people to as well in the scripture the

Bible always says that people prepare their hearts or don't prepare their hearts to seek God and in fact it says the preparation heart belongs to man though the answer the tongue is from the

Lord it sounds like the Bible puts the obligation on people to prepare their hearts to seek the Lord if you look up every verse that talks about that but you would say that people cannot prepare their hearts to seek the

Lord so how is it that the preparation heart actually does belong to man and that God says that people do prepare their hearts to seek the

Lord well of course he's talking to those who are the followers of God in those contexts and he is instructing us all

Christians have to be instructed regularly to prepare their hearts to seek the Lord every Lord's Day we instruct people to be considering the coming

Lord's Day and to prepare themselves for worship how can anyone not have from God a word as to how they should live as Christian people if there are not exhortations to do these things and so the idea that well if you give exhortation direction as to how people are to live how they're to prepare prepare their hearts and like that that means that everyone therefore has that capacity by nature within themselves that's the unwarranted leap that's where you go beyond a recognition of the whole character in the whole

Council of God because it is the very same scriptures that quote for example people saying why have you hardened our hearts why have you placed in these situations you have

God even keeping one King from following his quote -unquote free will and hence engaging in sin you have him hardening not only the heart of Pharaoh but you have him hardening entire nations hearts so they might be destroyed all in regards to his purposes with Israel so you have all of that that has to be brought together and kept in one place and if someone's going to say well actually you know those who are the enemies of God those who stand opposed to God who have not bowed the knee today before Jesus Christ or bowed the knee before their

Creator they worship the pagan gods around people they still possess within themselves the ability to somehow the sloppy chains of of slavery to send off and do what is pleasing before a holy

God if the Holy Prophet Isaiah could stand before God in the holy place and Isaiah chapter 6 and his immediate response was

I am undone when he sees the holiness of God how much more would that be the undone of those pagans who continue rebelling against God okay so when the

Bible tells people to prepare their heart toward God and even condemn some people and it says because he did not prepare his heart to seek the

Lord you say this is about people who are already believers I don't see that I see that people who are believers and people who are not believers are both referred to in reference to their culpability or or their reward for having prepared the heart or not preparing their heart so it sounds like it's kind of a general thing about people and like I said

Proverbs 16 9 says or 16 1 says the preparations of the heart belong to man that sounds generic but the answer of the tongue is from the

Lord so I guess I'm not gonna accept your answer but that's okay go ahead and ask me another question if as you seem to have indicated the words the

Lord in John 6 were relevant only to first century Jews the remnant who had already given themselves to God could you comment on what in John or any of the

Gospels would still be relevant to us today could not the hermeneutic of it was only relevant to the original audience be applied to John 3 16

John 5 24 the promises of heaven and John 14 17 couldn't we say that even

John 21 and it's called to believe in Jesus and have life in his name is only relevant to the first century

Jewish remnant if not why not how can we determine well that's a that's a question

I would think you would know the answer to because certainly as an exposure scripture you know that there are things that are stated to individual people that don't apply to everybody there are things that are stated to individual groups that don't apply to everybody and there are things that apply more generally there's a lot of canons of interpretation that we have to employ about that and I think that especially one of them would be if something is repeated to every audience then it's most likely to be a universal truth and especially if there's any places in the

Bible that say it's a universal truth like the need to be justified by faith is everywhere in scripture consistently said to be true of all people and the need to repent and so forth what is not said of any people in particular outside of the gospel

John is that they had been given to Christ by the father and all

I have pointed out is that Jesus himself uses that term and tells us in chapter 17 and verse 6 of John that those who are given to him by the father that he's referring to are the ones that will belong to the father before he said they were yours and you gave them to me he does not say they were the children of the devil and God gave them to him but they they were

God's people already and so we know in the Jewish context of Jesus ministry there was a transition time the believing remnant of Israel that was there throughout all the generations was there then too and they were already

God's people and when the Messiah came just as the believing remnant of previous generations recognize the prophets and follow them so the believing remnant of Jesus generation recognized him and came to him and he saw that is

God the father is transferring the leadership of the people that were God's followers under Moses to be now

God's followers under Jesus he's given them to Jesus to be his sheep to for him to lead them so that's what

I believe the passage is best understood to teach as far as how you know when other passages don't well there's certainly lots of canons of interpretation to be consulted about that well

I'm not sure what kind of interpretation would be able to answer the question as to when we dismiss promises as being universal and we don't the idea that well these are

God's people well who determines that if you look at Romans chapter 8 Jesus makes the action of God determinative of that not the action of men whereas you're making it these the ones who had already remnant the remnant they had already come to God and so now

God the father is transferring them to Jesus it seems to mean to many other people that you have the very same parallel that is found for example in this section in second

Timothy chapter 1 where you have grace given to individuals to those that God has saved from all eternity that would be the same people the father has given unto the son and hence the promise that the son will never fail to save those who were given to him in John chapter 6 and please point that point out

John chapter 6 says if anyone looks to the son they have eternal life I believe the Christian Church has always taken that to be a universal promise not one limited to first century

Jews amen I agree with you there all right my turn to ask question if the doctrine of total depravity is true and people cannot believe unless God gives them special grace to do so I wonder why is it that we read of God hardening people's hearts it seems like the hardening of Pharaoh's heart and other hearts is to prevent them from doing the right thing from making the right choice to prevent them from believing or whatever and likewise

Jesus told his disciples that the reason he spoke to the crowds in parables is because he didn't want them to understand lest they should turn and their sins would be forgiven them in other words

Jesus felt he had to use parables to prevent people from repenting if he didn't want them to if he didn't want them to turn he had to hide the truth from them because they might otherwise turn and be forgiven so we've got the hardening of people's hearts and we've got the concealing of the truth in parables why are these things necessary if people can't repent unless God gives them a special grace of repentance well of course the first answer that is that both repentance and faith are specifically described in Scripture as the gifts of God they are the work of the

Spirit of God and as such we didn't get into those texts but would need to to establish the fact that if these are described as the work of the

Spirit of God then you can have a true and false repentance you can have true and false faith we know that's the case as well we know there are many apostates who had just a surface -level confession of faith in Christ John tells us they went out from us so it might be demonstrated they are not truly of us and so you have both those who have false confessions of faith and true confessions of faith those who have false repentance and true repentance and of course that which is born by the

Spirit of God is that which is true but it is interesting that you would bring up these sections because they are normally very much on the lips of Calvinist because they do demonstrate the fact that God brings judgment upon people you mentioned

Pharaoh for example why would you harden Pharaoh's heart well sometimes sinners will do the right thing to get out from underneath judgment it doesn't mean their hearts have been changed but if I've got frogs leaping all over me or lice or darkness or boils or let you know the list of the long one

I'm just going to try to save my skin and if that means bowing the knee before God not of course out of a true and loving heart but just try to stop this stuff

I'm going to do so and so it's interesting that God does not allow that to happen

I'm not sure what that means about libertarian free will or anything else I don't know but the parables the same thing this is part of judgment coming upon upon these people and God hardens their hearts by not giving them the full message that is given to them the question is that why we need to because it sounds like they would simply have the ability to just do these things that they would all just be good wonderful people in of themselves and they would repent if they just heard the truth again that's taking a an extension from that statement and ignoring the clear statement of scripture that that's not in fact what the natural man could ever do well

I'm not sure that's clearly stated anywhere else but the thing is that when Mark talks about this or when it's in Mark chapter 4 verse 12

Jesus did this lest they should turn which means otherwise they might turn and their sins be forgiven so it's not not worried about false faith here it's not a turning that would actually lead to their forgiveness of sins and he had to do this lest they would do this or else they might as far as hardening

I always thought that in Romans chapter 9 where Paul said whom he has compassion whom he has compassion and whom he wills he hardens that hardening the heart is taken by Calvinist to refer to hardening against salvation

I thought Romans 9 was talking about salvation there of Pharaoh and so forth in your books so I don't quite accept this explanation seems to me that God is still trying to harden some people and hide the truth from some people's because they are under judgment as far as libertarian free will no

Armenian believes that God lets people do everything they want God does judge some people and these are instances of that okay are we out of time it's almost we have a

I don't think we have time for another complete cycle but so James what I just give you we're gonna have to sign off in about a minute and a half why don't you take the next minute and summarize since this is our last opportunity here for you all right well

I do believe this is a vitally important issue because it will determine not only the form of our evangelism but also the very faith that we will seek to defend the

Christian Church is under attack from every direction the days of our freedom of speech I think even in Western democracies are coming to an end we have the attack of secularism we have the attack of Islam and the

Christian faith needs to be clear and clear in its proclamation as to who God is and what his requirements are and so I truly believe that a consistent hermeneutic that will defend the deity of Christ the

Trinity the resurrection likewise have to deal with these texts and cannot simply dismiss them as being ambiguous that's why

I engage in this discussion and I truly hope that the listeners will likewise focus very clearly upon what the inspired

Word of God says thank you for this opportunity I want to thank both of our debaters for joining us for five days very good gentlemen and just remember or just a reminder for our listening audience

I encourage you all to go to both the respective debaters websites you can download all kinds of teachings they have terrific resources

Steve's is the narrow path .com Dr. White is a o m i n that's a short for Alpha and Omega ministries dot org a o m i n dot org again thank you gentlemen

I hope people take advantage of resources continue to study and learn and now Steve take us away you've been listening to the narrow path radio broadcast

I am Steve Gregg and we are live Monday through Friday from 2 o 'clock 3 o 'clock in the afternoon

Pacific time we do pay radio bills in order to stay on the air we have no advertisements we have no sponsors we have nothing for sale the ministry doesn't sell one thing we depend entirely on gifts that come in the mail to pay the radio bills which are about ten thousand dollars a month if you'd like to help us out the address is the narrow path p .o.

box 3633 Santa Cruz California 95063 if you didn't get that address and you want it you can find it at our website you can find many free resources hundreds of downloads there for free the website is www .thenarrowpath

.com and I thank you all for joining us I certainly thank Dr. White for participating and Paul thank you for being with us also thank you