Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate: Part 5

A mighty fortress is our God. A bulwark never failing.

I don't like Calvinists because they've chosen to follow John Calvin instead of Jesus Christ. I have a problem with them. They're following men instead of the Word of God.

Our helper he amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing.

On top of my feet, standing on a stump and crying out, he died for all. Those who elected were selected.

For still our ancient foe does seek to work us woe. His craft and power are great and armed with cruel hate.

Well, first of all, James, I'm very ignorant of the Reformers.

On earth is not his equal.

I think I probably know more about Calvinism than most of the people who call themselves Calvinists.

Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing.

But God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.

We're not the right man on our side, the man of God's own choosing. Doomed before the womb? You ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is he. Lord, swallow off his name. Read my book. From age to age the same.

And he must win the battle.

Debate Format and Cross-Examination Rules

And now from our underground bunker, hidden deep beneath Liberty University, where no one would think to look, safe from those mutter Calvinists, Dave Hunt fans, and those who have read and re-read George Bryson's book, we are Radio Free Geneva, broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to say to his own eternal glory.

And good afternoon. Welcome to segment number five, the final segment of the debate on the doctrines of grace as normal. We are doing a little fill here for another 50 seconds or so. And then we will have a little whistling for a little while.

And then I really hope we can skip the bios. We've heard the bios so many times now. We don't need the bios. But anyway, today, cross-examination with time limits and rules. Each person will have one minute to ask the question.

The other person have two minutes to respond. And then the questioner will have one minute to comment on the response. And that will allow, I think, for depending on, you know, I suppose if you answer a question really, really, really quickly, we might get more than six rounds of that in, but at least six good questions and some discussion, but no talking over anyone.

That is the important part of doing cross-examination. So we should be getting started about now. And here we go.

The narrow path Monday through Friday at the same time. Usually it's an open line kind of a program where people call in and ask questions about the Bible. But the past five broadcasts, including today's, have been occupied with a different kind of programming.

I've had as my guest the scholar James White, who is a Calvinist author and a Christian apologist. And he and I have been discussing the issues, at least some of the issues related to Calvinism, not very many of them.

Just a few have come up. We have so limited time. But we are actually having something like a radio debate. And we're actually going to change the format of it today. I'm going to turn it over to my timekeeper, Paul Spurlock, to explain what we're doing.

And this will be our last day of this exchange between Dr. White and myself. 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 Four Views, a very popular book, a commentary on the book of Revelation. He has a wealth of biblical knowledge, and it was no doubt developed by his yearly teachings through the Bible at the school he founded.

It's called the Great Commission School. And it was located in northern Oregon, I believe. Steve is also a frequent Bible teacher all over the world with youth with a mission, or YWAM. 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. The Dividing Line Radio. The Reformed Baptist Church.

A professor at Golden Gate Theological Seminary. And finally, Dr. White is a frequent demonologist. He's also the author of many books. As Steve mentioned, we have a format change today. Sure. You bet.

Okay.

The Holy Spirit's Restraining Work and the Final Judgment

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 sink to the lowest level that they could sink, 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 of 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 dommers 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, 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, a change of 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 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. It doesn't really matter to me. I would think that would probably be the best way to do it. Would it probably allow me to ask a question now and just go back and forth?

That would be fine. Go ahead. That would probably be the best way to do it. Okay. You didn't use full one a minute, so I've got one minute to ask my question now. Mr. Craig, 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 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?

Okay. My response to 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 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 can have true knowledge. On what basis does he give prophecy?

If he's only taking in passive 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 Galatians 1 .15, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach among the Gentiles.

This was a specific point in time. This was 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.

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 -8, when he says that the mind set 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. However, you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the spirit of God dwells 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 just a 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 in 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 delight in the law of God. All the things that Romans 8, 7 -8 says those who are according to 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 themselves in that situation. And that is their highest priority and 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.

I personally would wish to point out that while...

All right. Thank you. Mr. Gregg, Romans 3 -19 tells us that God has placed all the world, Jews and Gentiles, without distinction under accountability before Him for sin. Every mouth the 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 -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 would just respond by pointing out that Paul himself interprets his own words in saying that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

He is 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 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 when writing to the Church of Rome.

And so, since he himself makes the application that Jews and Gentiles both stand before God and they stand before God in the exact same plane as condemned sinners, the idea that there are people who are not described by the universal sinfulness of man in those texts, I think falls without support.

Is that a question? Well, again, I would simply point out what the Apostle's 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 Apostle's 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 through 318, what is he going toward?

What is his intention? Yes, he has just discussed the privileges of the Jews and things like that. But then he is 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? This is 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 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 before 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.

Well, you know, because I believe that I'm 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...

Christ's Intercession and Particular Redemption

Okay, in Romans 8, 34, we are told that Christ intercedes for the elect of God, and this is why there can be no condemnation of them. In Hebrews 7, 25, we are told Jesus is able to save Aistopontellos, 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 7?

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 Jesus is able to save to the uttermost those individuals drawn near unto God through Him.

But my primary concern is the fact that the act of intercession is a part of the work of the high priest. The high priest offers his sacrifice, and then 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 that is His because it is His appearance before the Father in our place that guarantees our salvation.

And so that is the reason for the question as it was asked. 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. Let me clarify that, and you can start over.

I've never heard of a distinction between the non-elect who hear and the non-elect who do not, to be perfectly honest with you. And from a Reformed perspective, there wouldn't be any real differentiation between the two that I could see as far as having any relevance to 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 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, 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 makes 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 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 results 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.

Grace Given in Christ Before the Ages

2 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 this 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?

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 a direct object, called us to a holy calling, not because of works but because of His own purpose and 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, it doesn't say He gave this grace to a general group of people, a choir.

Why would grace have to be given except to individuals who are in need of grace? See, this is where Christian salvation becomes a depersonalized 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 2 Timothy 1 .9. 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 it is the strongest language ever found in the lips of the Lord.

And in verse 13 we have an echo of the same concept we find in 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 in AD 70, is seen as having as part of its most heinous element the fact that the Jewish leaders had sought to stand against the prophets of old.

You can see this in what happens with Jeremiah. Just read the prophecy of Jeremiah, what happens to him over and over again in regards to the leadership of Jerusalem. And that this had continued even to the point where the Son of God himself enters into human flesh and walks the streets of Jerusalem.

The reason I address Matthew 23 -37 is primarily because of its gross misuse over and over again of people saying, ah, you see in verse 37, which by the way, this isn't even a salvation passage. He's 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 cooperate, etc., etc.

And that of course is not what Jesus said. We need to at least understand that the condemnation that he is uttering here in Matthew 23 -37 has to do with their standing in the way of the proclamation of 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.

Divine Hardening, Human Responsibility, and John 6

Okay, 1 Peter 2, verse 8 speaks of the stumbling of disbelievers at the proclamation of the person of Jesus Christ. Peter says, they stumble because they disobey the word as they were destined to do. Given your repeated statement that you see no eternal decree of God relating to 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? It could be that he's referring back. Yeah, well, again, I would direct people to the text itself. And I criticized Mr. Gregg 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 stumbled in disobedience.

And the text is fairly straightforward in what it's saying here. And a person may not like it, but this takes us back to, once again, from whence do we derive our theology? Do we derive our theology from the comfortable passages?

And 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 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. Talk about next here. 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 exhortations direction as to how people are to live, how they are to prepare their hearts or anything 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 recognition of the whole character and the whole counsel 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 us 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 is going to say, well, actually, you know, those who are the enemies of God, those who stand opposed to God, who do not bow the knee today before Jesus Christ or bow the knee before their creator, they worship pagan gods, whatever it might be, they still possess within themselves this ability somehow to shluff these chains of slavery to sin off and do what is pleasing before a holy God.

If the holy prophet Isaiah could stand before God in the holy place in 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 undoneness of those pagans who continue rebelling against God?

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, I'm not sure what cans of interpretation would be able to answer the question as to when we dismiss promises as being universal when 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 are the ones who had already, this is the remnant, they had already come to God, and so now God the Father is transferring them to Jesus.

It seems to me and to many other people that you have the very same parallel that is found, for example, in this section in 2 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 that are given to him in John chapter 6.

And please, I 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. Why is it that we...

Repentance, Faith, and the Hardening of Pharaoh

Well, of course, the first answer to 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 that they were 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 Calvinists, 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. That 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, you know, the list is a 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 are the same thing. This is part of judgment coming upon these people, and God hardens their hearts by not giving them the full message that is given to them.

The question is then asked, well, why would he 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 and of themselves, and they would repent if they just heard the truth.

Again, that's taking an extension from that statement and ignoring the clear statements of Scripture that that's not, in fact, what the natural man could ever do. Okay, are we out of time? It's five minutes till— Almost.

We have a—.

All right.

The Importance of Hermeneutics for Evangelism and Christian Doctrine

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 has 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. And just remember—.

All right, and thank you for listening to The Dividing Line today. I think we had, in that last hour, an excellent example of why there need to be debate rules. You will notice, I think, that pretty much every subject that Mr. Gregg had wanted to get to yesterday, we were able to get to in time and with clarity, with no one talking over anybody else.

And that's how it needs to be done. And the mistake I made yesterday is I should have immediately thought of that. Instead of the last two minutes of the program thinking of that, I should have immediately said, Hey, let's stop right now and let me suggest this.

This is what we used in the last debate that I was in. Let's see how that would work. And that, I think, would have helped out a lot. But I wasn't thinking along those lines. So I still had one question.

I think that might have worked out to one question extra for Steve, but that's fine. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I think we covered a wide range of topics. And I think hopefully, thankfully, the last day might undo some of the damage of the second day, as far as that is concerned.

I will say that in looking at some of the things that have been posted over on certain portions of the Internet, it is very disappointing to see the level of ad hominem, personal attacks that have been posted there.

I certainly have no interest in that kind of stuff. I think we need to focus upon what the text says. And if someone's misrepresenting the text, then that needs to be pointed out. But I don't think you need to be going after individuals on a personal basis to do that kind of thing.

And I would just let folks examine their hearts as to their motivations along those lines. All right. Tomorrow we will have open phones at our regular time, our Thursday afternoon time, 4 p .m. Pacific Daylight Time is when we will be on, taking your phone calls on this subject and other things.

We'll see you then. God bless.

The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries. If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O. Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the World Wide Web at aomin .org, that's A-O-M-I-N dot O-R-G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.

Join us again next Tuesday morning at 11 a .m. for The Dividing Line.