Debate: Predestination or Free Will? (White vs Sungenis)

The following presentation is a production of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc. and is protected by copyright laws of the United States and its international treaties. Copying or distribution of this production without the expressed written permission of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc. is prohibited.

How's that? Well, thank you so much, ladies and gentlemen, for this busy midday debate. The start, really, of the 2010 DECERN Conference, and I hope you'll stay with us through the weekend. I would like to get started right away.

These gentlemen have been traveling and have two debates ahead of them, so let's get right to it. Dr. James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona.

Dr. White is a professor, having taught Greek, systematic theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics. He has authored or contributed to more than 20 books and is an accomplished debater, having engaged in more than 100 moderated public debates.

He's an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, has been married to Kelly for more than 28 years, and has two children, Joshua and Summer. And Dr. Robert St. Genes is the president of Catholic Apologetics International, an international evangelistic organization dedicated to teaching and defending the Catholic faith.

Since 1993, Dr. St. Genes has authored 12 books and hundreds of articles. He has appeared on various television programs and radio programs, including CNN, EWTN, and the BBC. He has advanced degrees in religion and theology and is presently enrolled for a second doctorate at Liverpool Hope University in England.

His master's degree comes from Westminster Theological Seminary and Philadelphia PA, making him very familiar with the positions of Dr. White and all Reformed thinkers. Now, the topic of this debate will not be everything you've ever wanted to know about soteriology.

The Debate Topic and Format

This debate is specifically on predestination, and the resolution which Dr. White will defend is, the Bible does not teach that man has a free will to accept or reject the Christian faith. Now I'd like to lay out the debate format for you.

Each debater will give a 20-minute opening statement, back to back, then a 10-minute rebuttal each, back to back, followed by a 5-minute rebuttal to the rebuttal, back to back, followed by 15 minutes of Q &A, 15 minutes each asking, 15 minutes answering, then a 10-minute closing statement by each.

So the debater's task tonight is to keep the debate civil and on topic, mine is to keep it on time, and audience members, lend me your ears, I swear I'll give them back. Yours is to comply, please. We will not have questions from the audience, which is why we're giving them a half hour to question each other, and we implore you to not applaud until the very, very end of the debate, no amening, no heckling, no calling out, nothing of the sort, as that will be occasioned to be escorted out, so please heed the warning.

And with that, Dr. White, you're up.

I turned on my microphone so you could hear me perfectly, thank you very much. And that's even much better, I thought that was going to hit me. Good afternoon, it is good to be with you, this is an extremely important topic that we are addressing today, specifically the subject of salvation and the role of God's sovereignty and man's will therein.

I don't have time in 20 minutes to get into all of the issues we could get into. We need to recognize that fundamentally what we're going to be hearing today is a discussion of the contrast between monergism and synergism, the idea of one force that accomplishes God's will in salvation versus a synergistic cooperation of wills that brings about salvation.

I truly believe there is a vast difference between a theocentric reading of the scriptures and a theocentric understanding of the gospel, and that which is anthropocentric. If we start with God and His purposes, then our reading of the New Testament text, the biblical text, will lead us to an understanding of this truth.

There's also a difference between an accomplished view of redemption and a theoretical one. Did Jesus Christ simply die to make us savable, or did He actually save a particular people in union with Himself upon the cross?

These are some of the issues. Now you, the audience, we have to assume that you're already aware of what many of these issues are. We do not have time in 20 minutes to lay a groundwork. There's no time to outline Reformed versus Roman Catholic theology and soteriology.

Much of that will come out in the comments themselves. Our task is to debate the foundations this afternoon and hopefully bring you along with that. The thesis of the debate, the Bible does not teach that man has a free will to accept or reject the Christian faith.

That's a little bit of an odd statement because I am defending a negative. So let me express it as a positive. The Bible teaches that man's will is enslaved to sin, incapable of submitting to God's law, and dependent upon God's regenerating grace.

I believe that man is dead in sin, a slave to sin, until God by His Spirit frees him from that slavery as a part of the process of drawing his elect into Himself. But even that's a problem for me. Why?

Because it's focused on man. And I believe the Gospel is theocentric. I believe it's about what God is doing to glorify Himself. And so let me put it another way. The Bible teaches that God's will is free and perfect and is always accomplished to His honor and glory.

Now there are many, many people who will confess the divine truth of God's sovereignty. But that truth of God's sovereignty is no less true when it comes to man's salvation than the governance of the universe.

Many people are happy to have God in control of wars and nations and floods and tsunamis and earthquakes and things like that. But when it comes to the chief means by which He glorifies Himself and the salvation of a specific people, well, that's where we say, no, not that far.

God's will cannot overrule my will in that situation. And that's where the issue lies. The problem is the Bible is very, very clear. Look at Psalm 135 .6. Whatever Yahweh pleases, He does in heaven and on earth and the seas and all deeps.

Whatever Yahweh pleases, He does, not what we allow Him to do. And in Psalm 33, look at the contrast here. Yahweh brings the counsel of the nations to nothing. He frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of Yahweh stands forever, the plans of His heart to all generations.

Notice, man intends to do things. Man plans things. God frustrates those. But the plans and intentions of His heart, He accomplishes those things. Even Nebuchadnezzar, the pagan king, understood that in Daniel chapter 4.

For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom endures from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and He does according to His will among the hosts of the heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth.

Notice, amongst the inhabitants of the earth. And none can stay His hand or say to Him, what have You done? Now, that's the exact same concept that Paul announced to the Ephesians when talking about the wrapping up of all things.

He talked about the God who, according to His purpose, who works all things after the counsel of His will, Ephesians 1 .11. That is the God of the Bible. What does all this have to do with man's will?

Well, it lays the foundation for our understanding of why salvation must be monergistic, why it has to be accomplished solely by God, not as something where He tries to cooperate with man's will. Because you see, man has a problem.

As Jesus Himself said in John 8 .34, Jesus answered them, truly, truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. Now slaves are not free. We have creaturely will. But even our creaturely will, not a autonomy, only God has a truly free will, but even our creaturely will is enslaved to sin.

Slaves do not have freedom. They have to be set free, which is what had offended the Jews when Jesus said these words in John chapter 8. He said, we've never been enslaved to anyone. And Jesus is explaining, well, most certainly you are.

You're enslaved to your own sin. This is exactly what Paul also taught in Romans chapter 8. Notice the words for those who are according to the flesh, that their minds and the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the spirit, the things of the spirit.

For the mindset on the flesh is death, but the mindset on the spirit is life and peace. Because the mindset on the flesh is hostile toward God, for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so.

And those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Now look very carefully at what it says. We're going to look at the text fairly closely. Notice what it says here. The minding or the thinking of the flesh is enmity, enemies of God, not neutral agents that can go one way or the other.

Anyone who is according to the flesh is the enemy of God, for they do not subject themselves to the law of God. Doesn't the law of God say, believe and repent? But those who are in the flesh can't do those things.

They will not subject themselves to that law, for they are not able to do so. Those who are in the flesh are not able to please God. They're not able to do what is pleasing to God. Now those are stark words, but those are the biblical words, and so much for the concept of the autonomy of the human will.

When the scriptures plainly say, those who are in the flesh are not able to please God. Well, what's the result then? Well, as the Apostle Paul said to the Ephesians, and you were dead in your trespasses and sins in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working, and the sons of disobedience.

Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. That's where we all were at one point in time.

And what happened? Did we by our free will get ourselves out? No. What does it say? But God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ.

Notice, God is the one who has to bring us to spiritual life. By grace you have been saved, and raised us up with him, and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. These wonderful truths are then explicated in that great passage that we all know so well.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. But think about it for a moment. When the apostle Paul said, for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, what does that refer to?

Well, as you can see on the screen, the word that is in the neuter, tuta, and there is no neuter word in the preceding phrase. Chorus is feminine, sessus menoi is a masculine participle, pistos is feminine.

So what's it referring to? Well, that's a common way to use the neuter to wrap up the entirety of the preceding phrase. Everything, the grace, the salvation, and the faith, are the gifts of God. Well, why would faith have to be a gift of God if we have some autonomous free will?

Well, as Paul had already said in other places, in Ephesians 2, Romans 8, we are dead in sin. We do not have autonomous free will. That explains then why verse 10 says, for we are his poiema, his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God before ordained in order that we might walk in them.

There's the relationship. Good works flow from the fact that it is God who has created us in Christ Jesus unto good works that we might walk in them. Jesus couldn't have made it any plainer. In John chapter 6, he said, Jesus answered and said to them, do not grumble among yourselves.

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day. Now these words are so plain and yet many people because of their traditions do not hear what Jesus is saying or because their traditions turn upside down what Jesus is saying.

Let's look again very closely at the text. No one is able to come to me. The words are plain. No one has the ability, the capacity to come to me unless something happens. No one has the ability to come to me unless something happens.

And what is that? Unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him on the last day. Please note, man does not have the natural capacity because he's a slave of sin of coming to Christ on his own.

He is dependent upon the drawing of the Father. But whom does the Father draw? Well, whoever is drawn is the one raised up on the last day. And to be raised up on the last day is to have eternal life.

If we had time to go through John chapter 6 and just walk through the text, you would see this repeated over and over and over again. Eternal life being raised up on the last day. And who is it then that is drawn by the Father to the Son?

Well, Jesus had already told us in verse 37 of the same chapter. All that the Father gives me will come to me. And the one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out. Now listen to what Jesus says.

All which the Father gives me will come to me. Coming to Christ is an act of the human will. I have believed in Christ, but the question is why? And how can Jesus say all that the Father gives me will come to me?

If my will is autonomous, Jesus could never make these statements. But my will is not autonomous, the Father's is. All that the Father gives me will come to me. Which action comes first? The giving of the Father determines who comes to the Son.

And if coming to the Son is an act on the part of the human will, then clearly we have here the sovereignty of God and His will, man's creaturely will, freed from slavery to sin, made a new creature, comes to the one who has formed him.

The one he now loves, he comes in faith to Jesus Christ. The scriptures have so many testimonies to this. Luke just mentions it in passing in Acts 13 .48. When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord.

And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. It doesn't say as many as had appointed themselves. That would be a misunderstanding of the periphrastic construction. As many as had been appointed believed.

Not by their belief, they appointed themselves. And yet so many people's traditions turn that upside down. I truly believe if we will just listen to this beautiful passage from Titus chapter 2, we have a summary statement of what God is doing in the gospel.

Christians are described as those looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus, who gave himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed and to purify for himself a people for his own possession, zealous for good deeds.

Do you hear how Paul summarized the gospel to Titus? We as believers are looking for something. We are looking for the appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior Christ Jesus. Both terms referring to Jesus Christ.

This is one of the early references, of course, in the New Testament to the deity of Christ. But listen to what Jesus has done. He gave himself for us, for a specific people, to redeem us from every lawless deed.

Not to make our redemption from every lawless deed a possibility. Not to put us in a situation where we might have to undergo suffering of atonement after death so as to bring about our own redemption from the punishments of lawless deeds.

He gave himself for us substitutionarily to redeem us, that was his purpose, from every lawless deed and to purify for what? For himself. You see folks, the gospel is theocentric. It's Christocentric because Christ is, of course, the incarnate God.

It is focused upon what the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has done in bringing about the glory of the Trinity. We are the very blessed people recipients of that work, but we are not the ones that determine whether that work is going to be accomplished or not.

God is the one who works in us both to will and to do according to his good pleasure, is the biblical phrase. And so he is working to purify for himself a people for his own possession and then notice when he's working within us, what's the result?

He's changed our nature. We are made new creatures in Christ and that new creature in Christ wants to do what? Wants to live consistently. Wants to live consistently with the one who has created him, redeemed him, loved him, and that is Jesus Christ.

So that's why we're zealous for good deeds, not to try to earn something, not to try to add to what Christ has done. The zeal that we have for doing what is good is due to what Christ has done within us.

And so hence we see clear and compelling biblical testimony that answers the question of the debate plainly. It is God, not the rebel sinner man, who has freedom in the matter of salvation. I believe in an autonomous free will.

It just happens to be free will. God's. I do not believe that rebel sinners who are at enmity with God, who are in rebellion against their creator, who with their every breath express their unwillingness to be submissive to him.

I do not believe that such a person can be described in any other words than spiritually dead, incapable, in able, slave to sin. If those words have any meaning, if those words they describe the joy that fills the redeemed's heart in recognizing, I did not choose him.

He chose me. And when, like Lazarus, we heard the voice, the son of God, calling us to spiritual life, we had no choice but to come forward. We weren't forced out of the grave. I hope we don't hear any use of the term force this evening.

It's very common. But can you imagine someone saying, ah, that Jesus, he was pretty mean to that Lazarus guy. He forced him out of his grave. That's an amazing thing, isn't it? But can you imagine if the son of God had stood before Lazarus's grave and said, Lazarus, come forth.

And Lazarus had said, no thanks. You don't know what it's like to live with those two sisters. Could the son of God have failed to glorify the father in the giving of life that day? I have actually had people who are so committed to the autonomy of the human will, the creaturely will, over God's will, that they've said yes.

Lazarus could have said no. Well, my friends, if you have been the recipient of the grace of God, there was a day when, by God's spirit, you were raised to spiritual life. You were given the gifts of faith and repentance.

As a result of your new nature, you ran to Christ. You believed in Christ. And the reason you continue to this day is because of what the spirit has done in you, because the faith that you have doesn't come from yourself.

It is the gift of God, as all of salvation is. So my friends, the gospel is thoroughly God-centered. The triune majesty is being glorified in the salvation of the elect. It is all about God, and those who are saved are the gracious recipients of unmerited favor.

That is the testimony of the scriptures. That is the testimony I desire to present this afternoon to you. Jesus Christ was entrusted by God the Father with the elect people. They were given to him. As Jesus said in John chapter 6, I've come down out of heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.

And this is the will of him who sent me, that of all that he has given me, I lose nothing but raise it up on the last day. My friends, I submit to you that for Jesus to be able to do the will of the Father for him, he must be a powerful and perfect Savior.

And it is my joy this afternoon to proclaim to you that Savior who is able to save. That is why he is called Emmanuel. That is why he is called Jesus. He will save his people from their sins. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Dr. White. Dr. St. Janice, your 20-minute opening, please.

St. Genes Opening: Predestination, Free Will, and Catholic Teaching

Thank you for inviting me to this debate today. I'm glad to be here. James and I have tussled about this topic for many years, as some of you probably know. We've had many debates together, and I always enjoy debating Dr. White.

And I want to thank you for your presentation, Dr. White. With that presentation, I'm tempted to actually skip my opening remarks because I have so many things I'd like to say about what Dr. White presented to you, but I will try to save that for my rebuttal.

So what I'm going to do is give you my version of the topic today, 20 minutes. What I want to do, first of all, is say what this debate is not about. I don't think this debate is about predestination per se, even though that's the title of it, since we both believe in predestination.

The doctrines of predestination did not start with John Calvin. They started with Jesus, Paul, the fathers of the church, and were confirmed at the Council of Orange of the Catholic Church by Pope St. Felix III in 529 A .D., specifically condemning the semi-Pelagians who believed that free will was not a product of or prompted by God's grace.

Canon 3 of the Council of Orange says, if anyone says that the grace of God can be bestowed by human invocation, but that the grace itself does not bring it to pass that it be invoked by us, let him be anathema.

Canon 4 of Orange says this, if anyone contends that in order that we may be cleansed from sin, God waits for our goodwill, but does not acknowledge that even the wish to be purged is produced in us through the infusion and operation of the Holy Spirit, he opposes the Holy Spirit.

Let him be anathema. These canons from Council of Orange are more or less repeated a thousand years later at the Council of Trent in 1563, another Catholic Council. So what is the difference between Calvin's brand of predestination and the Catholic Church's?

Calvin follows a long line of teachings that sought to make predestination absolute, that is, without including man's free will or even the grace to prompt the free will. The first to do so was Lucidus in the 5th century, then Gottschalk in the 9th century, then Wycliffe in the 14th century, then Luther and Calvin and Jensen and Zwingli in the 16th century.

Common to all these views was denial, the denial of a free will of man to accept or reject God, while the church still held on to the doctrines of predestination. Incidentally, Martin Luther was excommunicated from the Catholic Church not because he taught against indulgences, but because he taught absolute predestination, that predestination did not include the free will of man to accept or reject God.

This debate, as all the others fought about the subject in the last 2 ,000 years, boils down to one issue, that is, in conjunction with predestination, does man have a free will to accept or reject God?

If man does have a free will, it denies the T of TULIP, total depravity, since total depravity claims man had no free will to choose for God after Adam sinned. It denies the U of TULIP, since the free will of man makes Calvin's unconditional election conditional on whether man uses his free will to choose for God.

It denies the L of TULIP, since free will opens salvation up to anyone in the world who chooses for God, not just a limited few that God selects arbitrarily. It denies the I of TULIP, since free will allows man to resist God's grace and choose not to be saved.

It denies the P of TULIP, since the free will of man allows him to fall away from God's grace if he so chooses to do. So, this debate is about whether the Bible teaches that man after Adam has a free will to accept or reject God for salvation, a free will that works in conjunction with predestination, not against it, not a free will that works against predestination.

Why? Because the Bible teaches both, that's why. The Bible teaches both predestination and free will. And it all leads back to the essence of who God is, which is very complicated and hard to understand and is virtually incomprehensible.

Is God free or determined? Is He a unity or a diversity? Is He one or many? Is He moved or unmoved? These are all questions philosophers and theologians have struggled with for thousands of years. Or, are all of these divergent categories some way all in God that we don't understand?

Well, I'm here to tell you that predestination and free will work together. We may not understand how they do, but the Bible insists that they do. Dr. White believes predestination can, indeed, work with man's free will because he believes Adam, before he sinned, had a free will to accept or reject God, even though God obviously had the salvation program predestined before Adam made his choice.

What this debate is not about, this debate is not about making it appear that those who believe in free will think that it is because of something special in them, that they chose God or that they were better or smarter than other people who didn't choose for God.

It is simply about obeying God by using the power of grace that God gives us to decide to obey God by avoiding sin and helping others to do the same. If not, then the same I think I'm special argument can be used against the Calvinist, since he thinks God picked him to be saved over the rest of the human race and that nothing he does here on earth, no matter how heinous his sin, could ever jeopardize his election.

This debate is not about a personal view of predestination versus an impersonal view, wherein the personal view claims that because it sees God as choosing people, whereas the impersonal view sees Him choosing only a plan of salvation.

No, the correct view of predestination is both individual and universal. That is, God picks each person individually and He also decrees the universal plan and execution of how His choosing will be manifested.

The main difference between me and Dr. White, however, is that Dr. White believes God does the choosing without regard to man's free will. This debate is not about monergism versus synergism, one of Dr. White's favorite ways of characterizing his opponents.

Since the word synergism usually carries with it the picture of a hodgepodge of ideas all mixed together. This debate is about whether man has a free will to accept or reject God, period. If you want to talk about synergistic ideas, one only need look at the details of Calvinism itself.

There are supralapsarians, infralapsarians, intralapsarians, those who believe in the permissive will or the secret will or the revealed will or the general call versus the special call or the general election versus the special election.

On and on and on, the distinctions go. And this is what happens when you don't have the truth. You begin to make distinctions ad infinitum to cover your tracks. This debate is not about theopocentric versus anthropocentric views of salvation, although Dr. White has often cast the debate in those terms to give the impression that his view is about God and what He desires, whereas his opponent's view is about man who ignores what God desires.

No, the view that is theopocentric, if we want to use that term, is only the correct view, not the view that says that any participation of man's free will in salvation somehow taints the purity of either God or salvation.

If the view that says only God determines and man's free will has no participation in salvation is not correct, is not in Scripture, then it doesn't matter how we may advertise it as theopocentric. It is either anthropocentric or possibly even diabolopocentric.

If God Himself commands that man participate in salvation by exercising his free will to accept or reject God, then any view of salvation that excludes man's free will is heretical, pure, and simple, and thus it is not honoring God in the slightest, but dishonoring Him.

I submit to you that it is also a dishonor to God by the way in which Dr. White and fellow Reformed theologians defend their view of absolute predestination when they say that God elects certain people to salvation because He wants to display His merciful qualities, but He decides to bypass others and judge them for their sins because He wants to display His justice against evil.

This is a highly insecure and arbitrary God, is He not? What kind of God would choose to save some and allow others to remain damned just to show how merciful and just He is? Doesn't He already know how merciful and just He is?

What does He need to decide to save some purely from an arbitrary decision since all of them are equally guilty for their sins just to show that He is just? This is not the God of Scripture, a God who needs human beings to prove who He is.

No, the God of Scripture damns humans because the humans refuse to use their free will that God gave them to accept God for who He is, and then God has no choice but to damn them because He is just. Since the debate is about whether the Bible teaches whether man has a free will in accepting or rejecting Christ, let's look at some of those passages.

There are passages that teach that God wants to save all men. 1 Timothy 2, verses 3 and 4 says, God our Savior who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. The Greek for all men here is pathanthropos and literally means all men.

This is supported by the context in verse 1 which tells us to pray for all men. Paul says, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings be made on behalf of all men. This is the same Greek word, pathanthropos.

Notice it doesn't say, I want you to pray for all kinds of men. He says, I want you to pray for all men. Why would we not pray for all men? Do we select individuals whom we want to pray for? Are we going to determine who is worthy of our prayers and who is not?

This whole thing is also supported in verse 6 of the same passage which says, Christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all. Where in the words for all are the Greek huperpanton and referred to all the people in view with no limitation.

Or are we going to say that Christ did not die for all people? Here is where Calvinism has a severe problem. Since the only way they can fit all men into their belief of absolute predestination with no free will is to say that all men does not mean all men in the world, but only those who are predestined.

So Dr. White and John Calvin would retranslate 1 Timothy 2 .4 in the Calvinistic paraphrased Bible to say God desires all kinds of men to be saved. In other words, the God of Calvinism doesn't want all men to be saved.

He doesn't want them to repent of their sins. And he really doesn't want them to stop their evil because God intends on using their evil to glorify himself when he judges them at the end of time. By the same token, Dr. White and John Calvin would also have a severe problem with verse 6 referenced to Christ being the ransom for all since their theology says that Christ is only a ransom for a limited few, hence a limited atonement.

In spite of what Paul explicitly teaches, Dr. White is forced to say that Christ cannot be a ransom for all because Dr. White believes in his view of absolute predestination without free will that Christ neither wanted to save all men nor became a ransom for all men and did this precisely because he wanted to display how just he was.

Tell me, how fair and just is it to arbitrarily bypass saving the rest of the needy human race when it is no more work to save them than it is for the ones already saved? We would call a man who had the power to save all the people from a sinking ship quite a monster if he arbitrarily decided to save only a small portion of them and deliberately allowed the majority to drown simply because he wanted to show he had the power to be merciful to some but not merciful to others.

Who would want to live with such a capricious self-centered and unfeeling being? And that's why Martin Luther said, yes, it takes a great amount of faith to believe that God chooses some and damns others for reasons only he knows and nothing to do with what the man has done.

Wouldn't God get the same or possibly even more glory if he saved the whole human race rather than just a small portion of it, if we want to be logical here? On Dr. White's homepage of his website, in bold letters, his banner says, the gospel is ours to proclaim not to edit.

But that's exactly what he does with 1 Timothy 2 .4. He edits it by injecting the word kinds to make it say God desires to save all kinds of men so that it fits with his preconceived theology. Dr. White is fond of taking passages that speak of predestination at face value and in meticulous literal detail.

But when it comes to passages that speak about free will or God's desire to save all men, suddenly Dr. White refuses to take those passages at face value and seeks to add or take away words or concepts so that they fit into his preconceived theology about God's sovereignty or theopocentric salvation or all kinds of words that he uses.

But the Catholic Church says no. We interpret each scripture at face value and do not try to force it into a preconceived idea. That's why paragraph 600 of the Catholic Catechism says this, to God all moments of time are present in their immediacy.

When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of predestination he includes in it each person's free response to his grace. That's why I came back to the Roman Catholic Church after being a Protestant for 18 years because I saw that the Roman Catholic Church was the only church that would look at all of the scripture and not choose a set of scriptures to overwhelm another set of scriptures but try to balance all of the scriptures to give one solid truth.

So when the Catholic Church reads 1 Timothy 2, 4 -6 or even 1 John 2, verse 1, which says Christ is a propitiation not only for our sins but for the sins of the whole world, we take it literally and hold that Christ did propitiate God for the sins of the whole world just as the passage says.