Back to Jerry Vines' Match Book for the Straw Man

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James White.

Reformation Day, Travel Plans, and the Day's Program

And good morning, welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning the last dividing line for about 12 days or so, I guess maybe well Actually two weeks from today. So a good good two weeks off here.

Sorry about that, huh? Yeah, it's gonna be a while. So anyway, I was it's a happy Reformation Day to you and I was looking at the blogs. I was looking at my blog roll this morning and my RSS reader and all the reformed blogs had justification by faith Martin Luther Reformation Day the five solas blah blah, but I got to my own Catholic ones and it was pumpkin carving and Yep, uh-huh.

Yep, I would I would say that Yes, that's that's a fitting a fitting thing there. Anyway, I last week had Started looking at emir canners sermon at the Thomas Road Baptist Church and I Then decided then we decided that Thursday night this Thursday evening at the conference in Orlando Tom Askew and I are going to be basically doing the presentations we would have used in in Lynchburg and Then we're going to be discussing How We would have responded to various things that the canners have said and so I've put together a bunch of clips.

For those of you complaining about the distortion go over to the other feed. We'll we'll fix it someday, but right now it's not working. So go to the other feed quit whining about it. Thank you very much.

Just a little service announcement there for those of you listening by archive. You have no idea what that's about, but we've got two feeds going and one of them isn't working right for some reason. We don't know why and everybody's just You sound like Me it work.

Boom pop, you know, just go to the feed then, you know, just skip over you're not gonna miss anything major. The world's not gonna end. So anyway What was I trying to say? Oh, yes, so we're gonna be doing that on Thursday night, and so I don't want to keep doing that right now.

Because then those of you who listen to this Then are going to hear the same thing twice, so I don't want to do that. So I'm gonna go back to the Jerry Vines Issue the Jerry Vines Presentation and then you know if we have enough demand for it or there's enough interest of for it In a couple weeks from now we can we can finish with the emir canner stuff.

There wasn't really that much there. I mean You know, it's it's the same old same old at least dr. Vines is is a little more organized, you know. There must be some clock. You know what? It must I bet you it's a little bit like when you go to the Metropolitan Tabernacle when you're at Tom's Road Babs Church now.

Let me let me explain what I mean by that. The the the Metropolitan Tabernacle you really are encouraged to Stay within your time frame, okay now, I'm I'm good at that. Anybody who's had me at a conference knows I'm the guy that tries to get you back on track.

You know somebody else to go way over and so I'll cram my stuff together. And I'll do everything I can to try to get a conference back on its time schedule. I'm not the guy blowing the time schedule off the map.

That's I just I don't think that's fair to anybody else. So You know when you're told 40 minutes you got 40 minutes, okay I understand that something tells me because of the television stuff and things like that.

There's some big mean nasty looking clock somewhere Downfront because if you notice something if you listen to both the canner Sermons the one from back in the beginning this year and now the emir canner one.

Did you notice something? It's almost like you took a Like Adobe edition or one of these programs you use to edit sound on your computer and You you squished the last five minutes, so it sounds like you You know type of a thing and and it's just our sounding like your voice is going up and you're talking faster and faster and That's almost like what they're doing now.

Maybe again. It's just simply the way you're supposed to do things. Where you just build to a crescendo and you're yelling and screaming right at the end and then you go silent for a second and everybody stops and listens and Then you make your big point because he's a whosoever kind of God or you know, whatever whatever it is.

You're trying to make maybe that's just simply a technique or something I don't know or you're watching that last minute going down to the last few seconds and boom. There you are so I don't know which one it is, but that's sort of how both of both of them did dr Vines sermon is a little more organized.

You can actually follow it a little bit better than you you could in your canner sermon which I it was very difficult to follow at all and So we'll look at that and then of course the reason aren't any more dividing lines as we're heading out.

I'm heading out tomorrow morning tomorrow evening. We'll be having a dinner at the Orlando McDonald's a Unicleman that wasn't aware of that yet, but no, I'm sure we'll probably not be though now, I know why I'm making the connection McDonald's when I flew into Orlando for the ETS meeting in 1998.

The only dinner I got. Yeah, Unicleman doesn't want to go to McDonald's the only dinner I asked the folks who picked me up at the airport to run me through the drive-thru at McDonald's. That's I don't know why it is this the Orlando Airport and McDonald's are just sort of forever welded in my brain for for some odd reason, but.

Anyhow, so we're going to be there and of course conference starts on Thursday all day Friday. And of course the debate is Friday night Saturday. We're off into the Into the sunset on on the Holland American Holland America Vindom and So it's gonna be it's gonna be it's gonna be fun.

It's gonna be a lot of work. Got a lot. I've got a lot of work yet to do. I'm gonna be working on the plane. There isn't a sleeping for me. Are we are we seated near each other? Do you have you noticed you have no idea?

I could probably call the wifey and have that taken care of and make sure that we're not.

I Not sure if I want to go on this. Is this flight. If you're gonna be working on it.

Working on it. I'm not gonna be working on. I don't work on it. Push the right the right. You're doing real well there today big guy. Yeah, uh-huh, yeah.

So anyways. No, I could. You know I think we should get a real mechanic on the plane.

We need to you need to be very nice to me today because I can without telling you Call my wifey and put you in the middle seat between two NFL linebackers who haven't bathed in a week. Would be. Aren't those middle seats fun though.

Oh, man. They're just they're just a joy anyways. So we're heading out and it's obviously a Friday night's gonna be gonna be wild. There's just no two ways about it. How do you debate with a non a person who believes in a non? theistic God.

How do you do that? I you know? Probably gonna have to start at a pretty basic point at that point to try to explain all that so let's continue on anyways. 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 4. On his phone number, but anyways we're gonna start with the Jerry Vines Sermon picking it back up.

This was I believe October 8th if I'm recalling correctly now and This was a Sunday night sermon. I believe at the First Baptist Church of Woodstock in Georgia and This is dr. Jerry Vines former president of the Southern Baptist Convention talking about.

Well remember the series was liberalism. Calvinists charismatics and drunkards. Something tells me we're gonna hear some single sermons. Together the great dangers facing the Southern Baptist Convention.

Liberals. Calvinists charismatics and drunkards. I Don't know there's something sort of odd about all.

The Canons of Dort, TULIP, and the Southern Baptist Debate over Calvinism

And in 1619 they issued the canons of dort and in those canons they give the five basic tenets of Calvinism and From them we now draw our famous acrostic tulip. T-u-l-i-p total depravity t Unconditional election you limited atonement L irresistible grace I Perseverance of the Saints P.

This came to be known as Reformed theology and the doctrines of grace by the way. There is evidence in the writings of Calvin that Calvin himself Did not subscribe to all of the five points of Calvinism.

Wonder who we've been reading maybe we've been reading some Geisler and some hunts and maybe we're actually only talking about one. Controversy in regards to his consistency in regards to limited atonement, but there is no question of any of the others.

So why don't we just? Be straightforward and say well there are people who argue that Calvin didn't believe in limited atonement. It wasn't the argument of his age. It wasn't the issue of his age. You can quote him in favor of it.

You can quote him saying things that don't seem consistent with it at all and There you go, but what does that supposed to mean? I don't know but evidently they consider it to be a And an argument of weight.

Now you will hear both sides of the issue quoting Calvin. Because there is unclarity.

At this point. Mmm. I've honestly never heard Eric and Kanner quoting Calvin. I've seen some bad quotes of Calvin that are misrepresenting what he's saying, but I've never seen I. Why would these folks only be quoting Calvin anyways?

Now in the 17th century the Westminster Confession was basically built upon the canons of dort from which our Presbyterian friends draw their basic doctrine of reformed and covenant theology. Then we trace into the Baptist movement a number of confessions.

There are the London Confessions the Philadelphia Confession the New Hampshire Confession. And these Statements of faith bear close resemblance to many of the five points. Although there is no clear-cut evidence that that bad just in their confessions of faith ever Truly subscribed to everything that the five points of Calvinism would teach.

I'm sorry, but yeah, I remember I go to a church where when you take the hymnal out It's the Trinity hymnal and in the back is the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, and I'm sorry. But you you you're seriously trying to suggest that's not a five point Calvinist document.

I'm sorry, but that's just that's just not even that that's not even close. It's you you have to be preaching this to someone who's just not going to check you out on this point and. Did dr. Vines check this out, I don't know can't tell you know are we using secondary sources.

Don't know, but I'm sorry.

That's just that's just it's just wrong. There have been great Baptists who were Calvinist William care Luther rice the missionaries Charles Haddon Spurgeon for years. I read at least one sermon of Spurgeon every week.

And it is possible to quote Spurgeon on both sides of the issue.

Wait a minute. Both sides of what issue. You just said he was a Calvinist. So what do you mean that he was inconsistent with himself? Are you saying that he was Arminian and a Calvinist and he would contradict himself?

Let's be clear as to what we're talking about here. Their times. You read him, and you think. Well sure enough.

He's a Calvinist. Another times you read him, and you say well. He might be an Arminian. And that's why you will find.

People quote Spurgeon on both sides of the issue just like they do Calvin. Actually what we find is people grossly misrepresenting Spurgeon and ripping his stuff out of context. We've we've caught Dave hunt at that numerous times.

Now moving into our Southern Baptist life our church here is a Southern Baptist Church. Our pastor doesn't dwell on it any more than I've dwelt on it when I was a pastor. We just happen to be a Baptist Church affiliated with Southern Baptist Convention.

They have absolutely no authority over us. We believe in the local autonomy of the church. We believe that we answer only to God. We believe that the denomination Exists for the churches and not the churches for the denomination.

But Southern Baptist through the years have had a series of confessions that have been known as the Baptist faith and message.

Now get ready for the two-source theory again. Which by the way they've been doing a series of articles on this particular subject on? The strange Baptist fire website. In response to that that whole idea and things like that the Baptist faith and message was revived in the year.

2000 I was on the revision committee that presented this 2000 Revision of the Baptist faith and message statement. There are elements of Calvinistic doctrine there of course. Because there are elements of New Testament truth in Calvinistic doctrine.

But it is very very difficult to prove that there has ever been a time in history or today When the majority of Southern Baptists were what we would call five-point Calvinist.

And exactly, why would you have to prove that the majority were five-point Calvinist if the Doctrine theology amongst the leadership of the founding of the denomination were reformed and if it's there.

And there were other people who weren't okay? No one argues that issue, but why would you have to when when did this majority stuff? Have you noticed this is happening a lot. You're seeing all this stuff.

Well, you know 70 say no, and and it's it's sort of like American democracy is now determining New Testament theology.

Dr.. Page Patterson my friend dr. Hunt's friend president Southwestern seminary Says that there have been two tributaries From which the Southern Baptist River flow. Here's your two-source stuff. First Baptist Charles, Charleston, South Carolina the Charleston of South Carolina Association stream and the Sandy Creek, North Carolina stream.

Charleston was more Calvinistic in its emphasis.

Sandy Creek was more evangelistic and visions oriented. Now notice the the the attempted contrast between Calvinism and being Evangelistic. In these folks minds there is a difference between the two. And remember for them Evangelism is Arminian evangelism.

For them Evangelism is appealing to the free will of man. They can't understand the idea of a proclamation like what we see in the New Testament where you command men everywhere to repent. But you are not attempting to Grant to them autonomy over God or control over God, but that's the mindset that takes place.

It then was the Charleston stream though. There's interchangeable sides. The majority of Southern Baptists are not five-point Calvinists. Lightweight research Recently released a poll in which they said only ten percent of Southern Baptist pastors Emphasize or embrace the five points of Calvinism.

For the most part Southern Baptist pastors and Southern Baptist preacher a people Have a mixture of Calvinism and Arminianism in what they believe.

That's a nice way of saying they are Inconsistent they hold to beliefs that are fundamentally inconsistent with other beliefs that they hold to which is why this issue won't go away because people don't like when they are shown to that they are inconsistent like that and Therefore the controversy arises, but he's right the vast majority of Southern Baptists are inconsistent in this issue.

They will believe in in eternal security once saved always saved, but they have no foundation for that Within their soteriology itself and recent years. It does seem to me.

There has been an especially among the young an increasing number in the Calvinist account. Several reasons for this I think. One thing it's a reaction to the shallowness and moral confusion and weak commitment of seeker-friendly Theology.

Hmm. Well, so I think another reason is it is a reaction to dead churches.

Maybe I think it's also due to the Internet and the availability of the writings of previous generation. It is a.

Also, because many have attended conferences and have listened to very popular and very articulate spokesmen for Calvinism others have been influenced by the schools which they have.

Attended that would be a reference to Southern Seminary and the people like John Piper John MacArthur RC scrolls, etc.

Etc. I had a young man from our first Baptist Church in Jacksonville born and bred brought up under our ministry. They went away to a school not a Southern Baptist school by the way. Earned his PhD became a professor of one of our Southern Baptist seminaries.

But moved further and further away in his doctrine from what we believe to the point that he embraced Reformed theology is now a professor at a reformed school. And if he has not already has announced his plans to baptize his babies to be sure they are in the covenant.

Well, I guess I'm gonna have to send Dr. Vines my most recent debate to demonstrate that that's not necessarily always what takes place.

I have a good pastor friend. I was with him on Friday of this week a rural pastor here in the state. His son went away to a school and there became influenced by reformed theology left The Baptist denomination and he is now a member of a reformed denomination.

But for the most part Southern Baptists do not embrace a five-point Calvinism. Now then let's do a little theological exposition. Are you with me now? This is tough for me. I got you got pray hard for me now.

I'm working. I'm working on this thing. I plan to get through about 930. So help me.

Something tells me that it wasn't anywhere close to 930 this particular point in time, but that's understand. I'll remember dr. Vines said that he was working from a manuscript. This was not his normal way of speaking.

So if there are some slip-ups and some difficulties, that's that's probably where it's coming from.

Divine Sovereignty, Human Responsibility, and the Problem of Free Will

Yeah, I'll get hungrier than that by then. Let's do a little theological exposition and we're gonna talk about the five points of Calvinism. But before we do we've got to take a little look now at this tension between divine sovereignty and and human responsibility.

Because when you read your Bible, it seems clear That both are taught in the Scriptures. For instance when you read your Bible, it seems very very clear that the Bible affirms Divine sovereignty. That God is sovereign.

For instance God is above all things Ephesians 4 6. God is before all things Colossians 1 17. God created all things John 1 3. God knows all things Hebrews 4 13. All things are naked and open unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do Isaiah 46 10 Declaring the end.

God declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times of the things that are not yet done. God can do all things Luke 1 37. For with God nothing shall be Impossible. God is in control of all things Daniel 435.

And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. And None can stay his hand are saying to him what doest thou.

God is in control of all Things. That's very clear in the Bible. Now the big question will be.

Will there be a limitation placed upon the realm in which he's. I know he's saying all things He just read Daniel 4 and Daniel 4 is clear. It asserts that God himself is in control in human affairs, which involves necessarily human decisions.

It's gonna be there. It's right there. That's what sovereignty means when you start looking at the outflow of sovereignty and the outworking of sovereignty in human affairs. Not over just about nations and kings, but also Within the individual life the the God has control of the king's heart and not just the king's heart.

But since he was the most powerful man everyone below him as well God Turns the heart as he pleases. You have God sovereignly acting in human affairs. Will that be allowed or will we have a philosophical construct?

Not the responsibility of man. But the autonomy of man, which are not the same thing. You can believe that God in his sovereignty holds man responsible for acting upon the desires of his heart. Without then granting to mankind some form of autonomy without grants to man some form of action where he can become synergistically Involved in his own salvation and things like that is that What we're gonna hear.

Well. That's why I stay tuned.

But now it is possible to push This matter of the sovereignty of God that God is in control of all things to extremes.

Now the philosophers called it determinism now. Let me stop just a moment. If you've said God is in control of all things How can you be more extreme than God is in control of all things? What what's what's beyond that if he's in control of all things?

The only way to be less extreme than that is to say he is only in control of some things. Right, isn't that the. The connection would seem to be but somehow we now have this this. Yeah, all means some Type of an assertion being made.

I won't go into this too much.

I'm honored in philosophy in school, which means I know absolutely nothing about it but the philosophers talk about Determinism and they have a hard determinism and a soft determinism. The hard determinist would say that Everything is caused by God if you follow to that extreme.

If you go to that extreme then where you end up is this is that God is the author of sin. And when God becomes the author of sin that means God was the author of Adam sin. God is the author of his your sin.

And if God causes it and blames us for it. It turns God into a monster. Am I right?

Now not exactly a Hopeful start for a discussion of theodicy the relationship of God's sovereign will to man's sin and the grounding of divine foreknowledge or Anything else not not much of a when you start with your conclusion Which rejects any form of compatibilism which rejects any form of divine decree?

Including the evil of man within it when you just throw all that out to start with that's not overly encouraging that there's going to be any kind of Helpful discussion going on here at all and If you will not even just honestly say to individuals Look the other side Denies, they're making God the author of sin.

They have a very full discussion of the relationship of God's will and man's will and the certainty of God's will and and how He can hold men accountable for things that are certain in time and and they go through all this.

But you know what? I just don't want to talk about all that but I'm gonna be honest enough let you know that they've actually put a whole lot of effort into this and and They've got a lot of biblical argumentation and and really if we're gonna work through this.

We're gonna have to look at at so what happens in Genesis 50 and in an Isaiah 10 and Acts 4. And we're gonna have to actually deal with this stuff. It's a whole lot easier evidently in this template and like I said last week.

There's this this template. There's this this just standard sermon. Here's the things talk about here's what you say about them. And it just seems to be being faxed back and forth between people. Hey, could I have the Calvinism sermon this week, you know?

Type of a thing and it all comes out of primarily Dave Hunt and and a few other sources and as a result, it's it's a mishmash of Pretty much worthless stuff and and I just don't understand why We don't get folks who will actually interact with our position a meaningful manner.

It's extremely frustrating, but it also, you know, you can't help but go, you know if you can't find folks to do that, there might be a reason it might just be that the reason is that they can't and That might you know be taken as indicative of something, right?

Now on the other hand there is this matter of human responsibility. When you read the Bible, it seems very clear. That man has a will and is responsible to God for how he uses that will.

Now no one would argue that but since he seems to think that's contrary to what we believe then obviously he's functioning under a Strawman understanding of reformed theology, which we see over and over and over and over and over again.

In the Garden of Eden.

God said to Adam in Genesis 2 16 of every tree of the garden thou mayest Freely eat. Listen to that thou mayest freely eat. That sound like free will doesn't it?

Okay. So we go to a pre-fall situation and say see freewill and. Of course at that point. I want to ask this is why we tried to get folks to to actually debate these issues. How did God know what Adam was going to do as a free creature?

This is what the open theists ask if God knows What he's gonna do with that free will Then it can't truly be free. It can't truly be autonomous and that's why they deny to God the knowledge of the future.

Now as Southern Baptist you can't believe that. Well, I'll take that back as a sudden. Baptist can't believe that and be consistent with the Baptist faith message supposed to be consistent here and. So he's not gonna say that God didn't know so how did God know and were once again? reduced back to the two views that are prevalent amongst these folks and and the truth and that is God knows because God's decree forms a very fabric of fine of time the events therein or You have God Passively taking in knowledge of what takes place in time.

He just he tossed the cosmic dice. It came out a certain way. Hey, whoo, that's good. We'll go with it in and Glorify me as a result, but you can't get to ask these questions when all you have are monologues Rather than dialogues and what they don't seem to understand is remember what he said earlier.

There's been a resurgence amongst young people one of the reasons that resurgence amongst young people is that when young people start thinking these things Through and they bend their their young fertile minds with all that energy of youth to these things.

They're finding that their their their leaders are Not answering these questions that they're giving fallacious shallow. Unsatisfying answers to these questions and as long as they keep doing that that kind of resurgence is going to continue.

They need to recognize they need to come up with they can't keep dodging this stuff. This kind of sermon only creates more Calvinists. Because it doesn't actually answer the questions.

After the fall of man the will of man Has been damaged. Norman Geisler says after the fall the faculty of will has been effaced but not erased and.

As we have documented Norman Geisler is wrong to allege that Calvinists believe that it has been erased. He is an error. Unrepentant error, but documented error anyways. Because Calvinists do not say that the will of man has disappeared, but that man's will is enslaved to sin.

There's a difference. It has been limited, but not lost. Man still has a will. Now there are three wills in the universe. If you'll get this this will really help you. There are three wills in the universe.

There is of course God's will. Matthew 6 10. Thy will be done. There is the devil's will. The devil's got a will. 2nd Timothy 2 26. It talks about those who are taken captive at his the devil's will. And then there of course is man's will.

Revelation 22 17. Whosoever will let him take of the water of life freely. Now man may exercise his will in harmony with or against God's will. Does this take away from the sovereignty of God? Of course not.

Listen to this. A Sovereign God. Elizabeth. A sovereign God can give man any faculty he chooses. And he has chosen to give us the ability to choose now again.

Basic straightforward synergistic Rejection of the the Reformation agreement with Roman Catholicism in its view of man's will as Being not Enslaved to sin not dead, but instead still capable evidently in some way shape or form Hopefully by some operation of prevenient grace at least in a sort of semi Pelagian fashion to cooperate with grace and To make the proper decision.

We haven't heard much of any Biblical discussion as of yet we can still hope of course. For all of those passages that talk about man's slavery to sin man's deadness and sin. And those passages that make it so painfully obvious That the will of God is of a totally different type than the will of the creature.

I mean the very ontological difference between God as God and God as unconditioned by his his creation. He is not limited by that which he is created. He has not been diminished by his creation. The fact that he is God and therefore his will partakes of that divine nature and man's creatureliness and indeed fallen man's Relation to Adam and therefore his entering into existence under the wrath of God and and and in a fallen state.

It sounded to me like those three wills were being put on a par with one another and yet from an on tilt even from just a simple logical ontological discussion of the very nature of God and man they could not be.

And Are we then having it suggested to us that that what a sovereign God has done is he has given to his creature An autonomous will equal to his own. How do you come up with this kind of stuff from the Bible in light of The Bible's clear teaching not only on the the sovereign freedom of God.

But then upon the deadness of man the fact that man is incapable of doing all these things the Bible lists but you don't hear a discussion of those things you don't hear the the discussion of man's total depravity and and His fallen nature you don't you don't get that part of that part to serve disappears and here you have really the insertion of of the fundamental tenet of man's religion and That is the concept of the autonomy of the will.

Without that then all of man's Religions that seek to control God's grace would become really useless. And that's why it's so important to man's religions to insert these things in which means ladies and gentlemen.

You remember old flip Wilson, you know flip every time he'd get in trouble. You'd say what the devil made me do that. But ladies and gentlemen the bottom line the truth of the matter is We are morally Responsible for our choices because God is the one who has given us that faculty of choice in his.

Sovereign plan and that is not something that any Calvinist would ever disagree with. However, what the Calvinist would disagree with is that means that man's Capacity to choose is Therefore outside of grace free and morally neutral it isn't.

What do you do with Jesus's statement that no one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. What do You do with Paul's statement that those who are according the flesh can not do what is pleasing before God.

They cannot subject themselves the law of God. What do you do with those statements? What do you do with the prophets? With with Jeremiah's discussion of the sinfulness of the heart and the leopards spots him and evil man cannot change these things.

This is just simply what happens when you bring philosophy in and then quote a few Texts to support your philosophical underpinnings and you you don't try to make a fully biblical theology.

So ladies and gentlemen When we sin who makes us sin. We make ourselves sin. Does this give man the final. Say no. God sets up the rules. We just operate within the rules which the sovereign God has set up.

This does not mean you can save yourself. You just simply freely receive what God has offered at 1631. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ that thou shalt be saved.

Now, I'm sorry, but there's no relevant connection between what was just being discussed in 1631 at least not to someone who has some dim idea of what's actually being discussed here. How the leap there was was massive?

How did how in the world did we get there? We only got there by ignoring all the passages. I mean I was gonna stop and and if you haven't looked at these passages go back and and do a do a. Search on in a dividing line for where we have taken the time to work through the the words of Genesis 50 20 where Joseph in talking to his brothers Recognizes their sin and yet in recognizing their sin and all the things they did to him and in the deception of their father and selling him into slavery and The lies that went on for years and years and years.

Said you meant this for evil. God meant it for good in parallel in the Hebrew language. You cannot separate those two phrases from one another. Their intention was evil, but in the very same act God Intended those actions and you can't escape the fact that God Intended Joseph to go to Egypt in the way that Joseph went to Egypt that was God's intention.