Calvinism vs Arminianism, Part 5

Intercession, Common Grace, and the Final Judgment

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'll 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 had the last word yesterday, so you come to with Steve starting us off today.

Okay? Yeah, yeah.

We need to bring your 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 in 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 stay on 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 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 Domers 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 that 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 that 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 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 aren't 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 would 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 a minute, 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 freewill 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 Calvinists believe that if God knows the future he must have determined it.

There is a third position which non Calvinists have historically held and that God can passively know the future. God can know what is going to happen without being the one who determines it. I I realize that both openness theologians and Calvinists 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? Arminians 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 when he had that magnificent revelation of Christ.

But many people saw Christ glorified 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 he wished 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.

Okay, 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 that doesn't answer the question could he have resisted.

If you say he could have resisted then how would God know these things? This idea of God passively taking in knowledge introduces all sorts of Problems with whether God could have true knowledge. What on what basis does he give prophecy?

If he's only taking impassive knowledge that means he created without knowing what the ends would be or the ends are determined by someone else and even the Apostle Paul himself said That it was God. But when God in 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, but I might preach you among the Gentiles.

This is 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.

Okay, I'm gonna 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 were once dead and Trespasses.

Or in Ephesians 2 says dead and 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 through 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 just 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 and 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 its creator and is Twisting that relationship and so the 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 according the flesh cannot do because they are 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.

The Universal Sinfulness of Jews and Gentiles in Romans 3

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 through 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 suppressed 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, but 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's 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 out that David and Isaiah are talking about their Jewish Countrymen who are in this condition now again, I'm not denying that 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 or 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 and writing to 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 of sin He means all people. Jews and Gentiles certainly have sinned at a point.

I would make I'm that 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 that 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 simply 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 3 10 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 the 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 of 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'd be my understanding anyway.

I'll go ahead and turn back over to you. Okay. In Romans 8 34. 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 are told Jesus is able to save.

I stop on tell us that is completely all. Because of his always living to make an accession for them sense intercession is part of the work of the high priest. Could you explain whether you believe Jesus 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's 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 to 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 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 their 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 sound like you just affirmed that the Jesus is able to save to the uttermost Those individuals drawn near and to God through 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 reformed 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.

The guarantees our salvation and so that's that is the reason for the question as it was that.

God's Will, the Elect, and Particular Redemption

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 your self-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.

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 your self-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. 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 are 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 does not give the son in their behalf.

He does not send the spirit to bring them to spiritual life and 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 it that's normally confused with and that is since 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 hearts of his people.

And Many of the objections that I hear are based upon the assumption that we somehow can know Who the elect are and 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.

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 as 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 that I think most Humans and most Christians feel comfortable with. But I know that you would probably consider that human sense of justice including that of that Christians hold.

Maybe isn't isn't the same as God's.

Corporate Election in Christ

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 grace can be granted to a specific group of people from all eternity if there is no specific?

Identifiable decree to save a specific people that is the elect of God.

Yeah, well when you when you mention the elect of God as a specific people I realize that you're talking about a specific number to which nothing can be added or subtracted as the category of 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 elect in 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 of it 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, you know chosen to this great privilege of singing 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 I can only with respect say that there 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 up is a 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 this grace to a general group of people acquired.

Why would grace have to be given except to individuals who are in need of grace? See, this is this is where Christian salvation becomes in a deep personalized concept when you simply cannot allow for the idea that God would choose to give his grace his 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 23 37, which is one of the big three that you like to talk about.

It is your view that when Jesus said Jerusalem. Jerusalem. You that kill the prophets and those who are 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 23 37 is one of the summary statements of that.

Many of their sins are listed in this very very difficult text difficult not to interpret. But difficult because 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.