DEBATE ｜ Double Predestination Jeremiah Nortier vs Marc Gajeton

All right, here we are, we are live on Standing for Truth.

My name is Donnie and I am your host and moderator for tonight's debate on double predestination.

I am pumped for this one. And this is our Reformation Day debate.

And I got to say, I am thrilled to have two true professionals here,

Jeremiah Nortier from the Apologetic Dog YouTube channel and ministry, and also

Mark Gageton to engage this important topic. This as a matter of fact, is their round two debate.

And I am here to tell you folks, they are bringing the heat tonight. This is going to be one to remember.

And so gentlemen, firstly, thanks for giving us your time for this debate on Reformation Day.

Secondly, let's break the ice, get to know our guests tonight just a little bit before we begin.

Jeremiah, let's start with you. How have you been? And also a little bit of both. Been really good,

Donnie. Thanks for having me back. It's been a little bit. I guess today there's been a lot of candy circulating out there.

So I hope to get back home in a little bit and tap into some of that. So looking forward to that. The Apologetic Puppy, JJ is one year old.

And so he went and got some candy earlier. So yeah, thanks for having me back. My pleasure.

It's great to have you back. A good idea would be to consume some of that candy before the debate, and that'll bring more hype to the debate with the sugar buzz.

So Jeremiah. I'm juiced up on coffee. There we go. Me too. I'll be digging into my next coffee soon too.

So I appreciate that. I always trust fellow coffee drinkers. And so for those who want to see more from Jeremiah Nortier, please do check the description box.

I have his YouTube channel linked for people to check out, to go over and subscribe to.

And as he said, this is not his first time here. You're not a stranger to debates, Jeremiah, nor are you a stranger to this channel.

And so people can find, yeah. Also just want to say that I also serve as a pastor at 12

Five Church in Jonesboro, Arkansas. That's Northeast Arkansas. So if you're anywhere in the area, we'd love for you to come check out our fellowship and just we'd love to get to meet you.

And like Donnie said, the apologetic dog is where I'm able to do more apologetics ministry.

And when you look at the bearded dog logo, you see First Timothy 620, which Paul is telling

Timothy to guard the deposit that's been entrusted to him. And that is the gospel of grace. And so that's always my heart desire.

The gentleman that I'll be debating, Mark, is a good friend of mine. And so this is just one of those many avenues where we get to sharpen one another, searching out the whole council of God.

Amen. Well said. Just three good friends coming together on Reformation Day, me to host and moderate and you guys to duke it out in what

I like to call the debate octagon. Our open mic's the debate dojo, but this is a formal debate.

And so tonight we're in the debate octagon. Mark, always great to have you as well.

Certainly not your first time here and not your first time debating

Jeremiah. And so I'm thrilled to have you. I hope you've been well. And Mark, a little bit about yourself.

Thank you, Donnie. And to add to that, you know, not only friends, but I'll say brothers in Christ and celebrating this as heirs of the

Reformation, this Reformation Day together. So I do appreciate that. Now I too am a coffee man, but I've finished all my coffee and now

I'm on my Lutheran beverage right here. Nice to wind down a little bit.

It's been a crazy day. And you know, it's the last day in October, so I want to sneak one last

October session before the changing of the month. But I've been well.

As you mentioned, you know, not my first time debating Jeremiah. I know since then, you know, he's taken on another member of the family and I didn't realize that he's one year old at this point.

So that's exciting. And I too will be adding another little one here in a few weeks.

So congratulations to the both of you. Thank you. And thanks again for having me,

Donnie and Jeremiah for stepping into the rain once more.

Yes. You're going to make him sweat again tonight, aren't you, Mark? I'm going to try my best. He's a tough one.

He took it easy on me last time. Right. He's bringing the heat tonight. So this is round two and we'll just have to, as we were discussing before we went live, we'll have to figure out another topic that you gentlemen disagree on and get a full trilogy in there.

Part three, I always call end game. So okay, Jeremiah, Mark, I do appreciate us breaking the ice, getting acquainted with each other.

Again, to the audience, if you want to see more from Jeremiah or you want to see more from Mark, make sure to check the channel for their previous debates and also the description box for relevant links.

Okay, so I am going to go over tonight's format. Firstly, debate proposition. The scripture teaches double predestination.

Jeremiah Nortier is taking the affirmative, Mark taking the negative. We are going to be again having a formal debate, 15 minute openings followed by a 10 minute uninterrupted rebuttal.

Then we're going to get into everybody's favorite part of these debates, a 50 minute cross exam.

And so we do have plenty of time for our debaters tonight to engage each other in cross exam, asking questions, of course.

And then we're going to wrap things up with a five minute concluding statement where the guests can wrap up their thoughts and points.

And then this is where we get you guys in the audience involved. We will be having a roughly a 25 minute audience

Q &A. So please, if you do have a question for tonight's debaters, just make sure to tag me either at Donnie or at Standing for Truth, and that way

I won't miss your question. Okay, with that, Jeremiah, we're going to get into the first opening statement, my brother.

And so please, whenever you're ready, let me know. And you got 15 minutes. You're good to go.

So I just want to start off with the question, what does double predestination mean? Well, this is talking about how

God predestines the elect unto salvation. And God also predestines the reprobate unto judgment.

But please hear me. This is asymmetrical. The way that God predetermines the elect is not the same way in how he predetermines the reprobate or the wicked unto judgment.

And so this is asymmetrical, meaning that God uses different means. God not only predestines the ends, but he's also sovereign and determines the means to get there.

And that's the key for the debate tonight. The means are different for the reprobate and the elect.

From all eternity, God decreed everything that occurs without reference to anything outside of himself.

He did this by the perfect, wise, and holy counsel of his own will freely and unchangeably.

Yet God did this in such a way that he is neither the author of sin nor has fellowship with any of their sin.

This decree does not violate the will of the creature or take away any free working or contingency of secondary causes.

On the contrary, these are established by God's decree. In this decree, God's wisdom is displayed in all things, and his power and faithfulness are demonstrated in accomplishing his decree.

And so that's important to understand that God is truly sovereign. He exhausts transcendent rule and power over every facet of his creation.

So this would necessarily entail the elect and the non -elect. And so, like I said, the difference, though, is the means.

God effectually works in and through the will of the elect at the moment of their salvation.

So God intervenes, if you will. He actually partakes in those secondary causes. But the reprobate is not symmetrical.

This is different. God does not force or manipulate or coerce the reprobate. He gives them over to their heart's desire to suppress the truth, and they delve headlong into sin.

And so God is active in giving them over to what they truly desire, and it's to rebel against him.

They are at war with their creator. And so I want to give a quote in honor of the Reformation. Martin Luther himself said,

God lies not, but does all things immutably, and his will cannot be resisted, changed, or hindered.

And the reason why I like this debate so much, I understand that I'm debating a Lutheran, but Martin Luther himself understood that God's will is immutable.

It's unchanging. And this, I believe, if we go back to who God is, that we understand that his predetermining hand encompasses everything.

And so God is absolutely sovereign, and this means that he's eternal. He is absolute.

He is unchanging in his character. He is omnipotent, and he is omniscient.

And so in the bondage of the will, Luther goes on to say, if we affirm just these two necessary attributes of God, namely his omniscience and his omnipotence to create ex nihilo from nothing, then there's no such thing as free will.

And so Mark and I will talk about what the will of man looks like in bondage, because I understand there's an aspect where that's talking about our will spiritually, but maybe we'll talk about how there's something else that our will touches, which is natural.

And so my position says both features, the spiritual realities and the natural realities, all fall under the purview of God's absolute sovereignty, his determinative will that encompasses everything.

And so if we start with God and these necessary attributes, how he is absolute, he's unchanging, that he's eternal and he's omnipotent and omniscient, then this necessarily impacts our view of man and his relationship with his creator.

God necessarily decrees and has divine purpose in whatsoever comes to pass in this world.

He not only knows the end from the beginning, but he declares the end from the beginning and everything in between.

And so I love when we talk about all of history. History is his story. It's Christ's story of redemption.

And so after the fall of Adam in the garden, this means that the elect, God reaches down and regenerates a dead sinner's heart in order to look to King Jesus in saving faith.

God does this by his loving hand. That is a part of the means of bringing the elect unto salvation.

And so for the reprobate, it's different. Remember, it's asymmetrical. God in real time allows, permits the reprobate to continue in their wickedness to receive justice for their lawlessness.

And so God sovereignly and predetermines asymmetrically, positive, negative,

God predestines different means for how the elect come to salvation and the reprobate to judgment.

And so this necessarily avoids the fallacy of equal ultimacy. Okay, this is the view that hyper -Calvinists say

God actively works faith into the elect and God actively works evil into the hearts of the wicked.

And so this is to be rejected outright. This actually says that the way that God works is positive, positive.

It is symmetrical. This view is called hard determinism, incompatibilism, and this makes

God the author of sin. And so I want to get into a few verses where we talk about how

God predetermines the elect unto salvation. One of the clearest verses I believe that we could look at comes from Acts 13, 48.

And when the Gentiles heard this, the gospel, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord as many were appointed to eternal life believed.

So perhaps Mark and I will find some common ground with the elect predestined unto salvation.

Where the rub really comes into play is how God predetermines and is sovereign over the reprobate unto judgment.

And so another verse that just affirms that God works salvation, faith into the elect is the golden chain of redemption.

Those whom God has predestined, he also called, and those whom he called, he justified, and those whom he justified, he glorified.

And so some verses, and there's so many more, but I want to switch gears and talk about some verses for the reprobate unto judgment.

Proverbs 16, 4 says, the Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.

And so, yes, the Proverbs are very poetic, but this whole proverb talks about the sovereignty of God.

Nothing can happen apart from God's hand and his control. The last verse of Proverbs 16 talks about the lap is cast into the lap, but it's every decision is from the

Lord. And so Proverbs 16, verse 9 talks about man plans his way according to his heart's desire, but it is ultimately

Yahweh that establishes his steps. And so in the New Testament, 1 Peter chapter 2 talks about this nature that God has destined, even predetermined, the wicked in his created world.

1 Peter chapter 2, starting in verse 7 says, so the honor is for you who believe, but those who do not believe, the stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone, and the stone of stumbling, a rock of defense.

They stumble because they disobeyed the word as they were destined to. And someone may say, well, it doesn't say predestined,

Jeremiah. Okay, fine. I believe this is echoing things like in Acts chapter 4, the prayer of the early church, both

Herod, Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and many of the people of Israel, those people that crucified

Jesus according to their wicked hearts intent, and they carry this out in actions. And the writer goes on to say, to do whatever your hand,

God, your plan had predestined to take place. Well, this was predestined to take place because it was prophesied from the prophet

Isaiah in Isaiah 53 10. Jesus is suffering on the cross by the intention of wicked men.

This was the will of Yahweh. This was the means that God had predetermined, ordained to crush the suffering servant.

And I believe one good example of how God has sovereign, determinative purpose with the reprobate is none other than Judas Iscariot.

Jesus chose Judas, even though he was a devil. He was prophesied to betray the son of man all the way in the

Old Testament. And Jesus talks about that he was the prophesied son of prediction that he might fulfill the scriptures.

And so I also want us to take a peek into Romans chapter 9. I believe this is one of the slam dunk passages in a conversation about double predestination, but also being careful never to venture over into equal ultimacy or falling into the side of Arminianism that says that this is either just talking about nations or God is somehow just looking down the corridors of time and learning.

And so in Romans chapter 9, I'd like to draw your attention to verse 10, where we read about Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather

Isaac, though they were not born and had not done anything good or bad in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works, but because of him who calls.

I just want to pause and say that God's purpose of election, this assumes his sovereignty earlier back in the context, we read that Christ is

God overall. And so conversations about, I don't know if this is talking about nations or individuals, it has to be talking about both.

And this is in the context of salvation. But I want you to see the asymmetrical nature of how he brings up individuals.

Yes, these people represent nations, but they themselves are also individuals.

Rebecca, God told her that the older will serve the younger, as it is written, Jacob I've loved, but Esau I've hated.

And so God has different purposes for the older brother. When we see the means that God ordained, he sold his birthright.

And we see that Jacob, he loved with this agape love. And we see that it's ultimately going to result in his salvation.

And so there's a difference there. And people oftentimes say, well, God can't do that. God can't have special purposes for one individual without having the same intention for another individual.

That's exactly the objection we see in verse 14. What shall we say then? Is there any injustice on God's part?

By no means. And so the verse goes on to say, what does he say about Moses?

He has mercy on whomever he will have mercy and compassion on whomever he will have compassion.

This cannot be argued to be only talking about the nations. This is talking about individuals, right?

He will have mercy on whom, singular, he will have mercy and whom he will have compassion, singular.

But this talks about that it's not dependent on man, not internally or externally. So then it depends not on human will, right?

The inner intentions of man or their exertion or their striving or their works, but on God who has mercy.

And so this term mercy is salvific. We're going to see here in just a moment that God calls whom he will.

In fact, when we look back earlier, verse 11, God's purpose of election might continue not because of works, but because of him who calls.

This is echoing the golden chain of redemption, right? Those whom God predestined, he called.

And those whom he called, he justified and he glorified, all in the past tense, because from God's perspective, it's a sure thing.

And now I want you to pay careful attention to verse 18. He says, so then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

God is sovereign, right? Christ is God over all. So God plays a part overseeing and decreeing the reprobate, those that are willingly warring against their creator and loving their sin.

He plays a part of that in his decree, and he gives them over to their heart's desire.

And God also plays a part in electing and predestining the elect unto salvation.

And so this is echoed in verse 21, where the potter, the question is, has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel of honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

Okay, so God is the potter here. He is a sovereign, right? He can fashion a vessel for honor, and he can also, he has the ability to fashion a vessel for dishonor if he so chooses.

Verse 22, what if God desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

And so this is teaching double predestination. But what we have to understand, the way that God works in the elect is not the same in which

God has handed over the reprobate to the lust of their hearts, and they choose to sin against God.

Is God involved in that? Yes, but he is not the author of sin because he does not force or coerce unbelievers in their unbelief.

They, by their own merits and their own efforts, suppress that truth. And I believe all this is compatible with God having exhaustive purpose in all things.

And so just to kind of wind down, I also want to point our attention to Isaiah 46, verse 10, and there's a context there, but we learn from the prophet that God is the one declaring the end all the way from the beginning.

And if this is exhaustively talking about whatsoever comes to pass, well, that necessarily entails divine determinism, meaning that everything has divine purpose.

Those that one day will be saved and those that will not be saved, but will receive just punishment.

And I believe one of the biggest takeaways from this doctrine of double predestination is that if you have seen and tasted that the

Lord is good and you have a love for King Jesus and that you put your faith in him, then you can rest knowing that this is a work of the sovereign triune

God in your life. When we read in Philippians chapter one, that it's God that began this good work in you, and he's the one that sees it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

And so, yes, we understand that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, all to the glory of God alone.

And we also trust those that reject God, they will receive justice.

And in their disobedience, in no way did they thwart God's purposes ultimately for everything that happens in this world.

Thirty seconds. Okay, you're good. Thank you very much, Jeremiah, for that 15 -minute opening statement.

We're now going to hand it over to Mark. Mark, whenever you're ready, you also have an opening statement of 15 minutes if you needed to screen share.

I can certainly help you out with that. And to the audience, if you do have questions for our guests tonight,

Mark or Jeremiah, please do tag me and just let me know who the question is for. We'll have a solid audience

Q &A. And I think you might be on mute too,

Mark. So just make sure. Yeah, I'm trying to get the screen share going, trying to make sure

I share the right screen here. No worries. All right.

I think I've got it. There will be one second. Okay, do you have my screen?

Yes, looks good, Mark. Whenever you're ready to go, you got 15 minutes, the floor is yours. Perfect.

So first of all, thank you again, Donnie, for hosting this and Jeremiah for being here to do this debate with me on this blessed

Reformation day. It is exciting. And I want to begin by first looking back to our previous debate about baptism, because from a

Lutheran perspective, these two topics are closely related. And I hope that that will come out clearly in this debate.

But I also want to begin by pointing out kind of the way that that debate went down.

Because if you'll remember, what I tried to accomplish in that debate was simply to show that the clear passages of the texts that speak about baptism do so clearly and unambiguously, and they present a doctrine of baptism that is entirely consistent if you simply take the words at their plain meaning.

What you're going to find here, I think, in this debate is—and actually what then happened there was

Jeremiah was kind of forced to reinterpret those verses in ways other than according to what they said plainly, according to their grammar.

What you're going to find here in this debate is that Jeremiah is going to have to work from texts that do not clearly and unambiguously say or indicate that God predestines some to damnation, which is a really strange way of doing theology to explain away those passages that speak clearly about a particular doctrine.

But then on the other hand, to turn around and work from texts that do not speak clearly and unambiguously on a particular doctrine, in this case, the predestination of some to damnation.

So it has been said that—oh, I'm trying to click here.

And—oh, here we go. Okay. Yeah, that's good now. So it has been said that the

Lutheran—well, first of all, both the Lutheran and Reformed hold to the

Scripture principle. And it's been said that this is the formal principle of the Reformation, and so we agree on that.

But where we differ—and this is, again, it has been said—that the

Lutherans, for them, the material principle for doing theology is justification by faith, whereas for the

Reformed, it's God's sovereignty. And what I mean is that the material principle designates the actual substance of the salvation itself, a salvation testified of in Scripture.

The formal principle, on the other hand, designates the authentic witnessing of salvation as it has actualized itself in the historical revelation.

So—and I think this is really, you know, the underlying difference between us, is that for the

Reformed, they really want to maintain, almost at any cost, God's sovereignty over His creation, whereas for us

Lutherans, we are concerned with justification by faith and the way that God has revealed that to us in time.

So, again, to begin, I want—and again, I think that this results in the fact that they hold to this idea of double predestination, although—and this is what

I'm going to argue and maintain—Scripture nowhere states in clear and unambiguous terms a predestination of men to damnation.

So, first, I want to begin with some terminology, and the two terms that I want to distinguish between here are predestination and foreknowledge.

So, predestination is used with reference to a special act of God toward the elect by which

He calls, justifies, and saves them. Foreknowledge, on the other hand, signifies simply

His knowledge of future things and is used with regard both to good things as well as evil things.

Therefore, Augustine says, predestination cannot exist without foreknowledge, although foreknowledge may exist without predestination, because God foreknew by predestination those things which

He was about to do. Whence it is said, He made those things that shall be. Moreover, He is able to foreknow even those things which

He does not Himself do, as, for example, all sins whatever. And Fulgentius, who followed after Him, also says, therefore

God foreknew all human works, whether good or evil, because nothing could be hidden from Him, but He predestined only the good works which

He foreknew He would do in the children of grace. I want you to keep in mind this distinction, because it's going to be important throughout this debate.

Sorry. The second distinction I'd like to make is this idea of the hidden versus the revealed

God. God has come forth from His hidden throne and revealed Himself first through the work of creation, and then finally through the sending of His Son.

Insofar as God Himself has not revealed something of Himself, He continues to remain hidden in that regard.

Luther says, this hidden will of God is not to be inquired into, but reverently adored, as by far the most awe -inspiring secret of the divine majesty reserved for Himself alone and forbidden to us much more religiously than any number of Corinthian caverns.

We have to argue in one way about God, or the will of God as preached, revealed, offered, and worshipped, and in another way about God as He is not preached, not revealed, not offered, not worshipped.

To the extent, therefore, that God hides Himself and wills to be unknown to us, it is no business of ours.

And again, he says, with regard to God, to the extent that He is not revealed, there is no faith, no knowledge, no understanding.

Here we must hold to what has been said. What is beyond us has nothing to do with us. For thoughts that go beyond and outside the revelation of God and pry into something too lofty are completely of the devil.

By such thoughts, nothing more is gained than that we hurl ourselves headlong into destruction because they set up an object which defies investigation, namely the unrevealed

God. Now, what I would argue is that this is what the Reformed do. They desire to peer into this hidden will of God, which

God has not revealed to us and therefore is of no concern to us. And again, this is because of the fact that Scripture nowhere in clear and unambiguous terms elucidates a doctrine of double predestination.

So at this point, I'm going to offer various proofs besides the fact that, again,

Scripture nowhere states in clear and unambiguous terms a predestination of men to salvation. So, for example, and Jeremiah mentioned this, and on this we agree,

Scripture clearly indicates that God has predestined. He has elected some to salvation.

On that we agree. Where we disagree is that He has also predestined men to damnation.

So think about all those passages where God talks about the election of individuals to salvation, that He has elected them, that He's chosen them in Christ, that He has predestined them to salvation, to being conformed to the image of His Son.

We do not get similar Scripture passages speaking of a predestination to damnation.

Not even one. So in the same way that it speaks about the election or the predestination to salvation.

So harking back to our previous debate, I want to, again, introduce this rule that I introduced there, that individual articles of faith have their own setting in clear passages and statements of Scripture, and it is from these that the true meaning of each locus is to be established without any ambiguity.

The second proof against a double predestination to damnation is from the universal benevolence of God.

So the universal benevolence of God is that act of divine grace by which God, having witnessed the common misery of fallen men, has moved not only earnestly to desire the salvation of them all, but also to give

Christ as mediator for its accomplishment. And to a point, appropriate and efficacious means with the intention that all men should use them, attain through them true faith in Christ and possess and enjoy eternal salvation procured through him to the praise of the divine goodness.

So here belong, for example, those Scripture passages which speak of God's universal good will toward men.

I think of the Christmas story, peace on earth and good will toward men.

I do recognize that there's a textual variant there, but I would argue that peace, good will toward men is the proper reading in that spot.

John 3, 16, God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

First Timothy 2, 4, who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

And Romans 11, 32, for God hath concluded them all in unbelief that he might have mercy upon all.

Thirdly, from the universal merit of Christ, Scripture emphatically expresses in many ways the universality of the merit and satisfaction provided through Christ.

First, it uses universal terminology. Christ tasted death for all. See here passages

Romans 5, 8, 2 Corinthians 5, 14, Hebrews 2, 9.

But God commended his love toward us and that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. For the love of Christ constraineth us because we thus judge that if one died for all, then we're all dead.

Who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time. First Timothy 2, 6.

From the will of God revealed in the call. And this one I think is utterly important, and this is what

I mentioned at the beginning that this doctrine is so closely related to our previous debate on baptism.

So because the benefits obtained through the obedience and satisfaction of Christ apply to all, therefore they are offered to all through the word.

This calling of God is earnest. It is made ineffective by the fault of men, but not because of any absolute decree of God.

So, for example, Luke 24, 47.

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem. Mark 16, 15.

And he said unto them, go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Matthew 11, 28.

Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest. So you see here that the call goes out to all men and it's not a fake call.

It's not a deceitful call. God truly desires the salvation of all men and this is revealed to us in the fact that he calls men and he doesn't, it's not some trick that he's playing on men when he calls them.

He sincerely desires that men respond positively to his call to repentance and faith in Christ.

And here I could bring up the parable of the wedding feast where the king sends servants to call people and they ignore it.

So he sends more servants and when they finally ignore it, he sends the call to others.

So the call goes out to all men and it is a true call.

From the image of God and man, whomever God has created in his own image, those have not been rejected by an absolute hatred, nor were they destined to eternal damnation.

In Adam, all men were created for eternal life, not damnation. I'd also add here that Christ, in uniting to himself for all time, a human nature, has restored the image of God.

And so we, by nature, by having a like nature with him, share in that redemption which he has won for us on account, again, of sharing this nature with him.

And six, I think this is my last one, that hell is for the devil and his angels, not man.

So Matthew 25, 34 says, then shall the king say unto them on his right hand, come ye blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

But to them on the left, he shall say, depart from me, ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.

The godly are called to possess their inheritance of the heavenly kingdom. Here, these people are sentenced to eternal fire.

There, it is called a kingdom to which the godly are called, and which has been prepared for them from the beginning of the world.

Here, it is fire to which the ungodly are condemned. It is said to have been prepared not for men, but for the devil and his angels who consented to him in falling away.

So Irenaeus beautifully explains this when he says, Christ means that eternal fire has been prepared principally not for man, but for him who misled man.

And caused him to offend for him, I say, who is the prince of apostasy, for the prince of falling away, and for those angels who became apostates with him, whom these men to be sure will justly receive, who have persisted in works of evil, like he has without penance and without return.

And I think that's my time. So I will end there. All right, Mark, I appreciate that 15 minute opening statement.

Gentlemen, that concludes the opening statements for tonight's debate. And we got some solid points on the table to rebut.

And so I think this is going to be a lot of fun. The audience is engaged already as I have several questions saved.

And so I do appreciate it. Okay, gentlemen, we're moving into our round of rebuttals.

And so Jeremiah, whenever you're ready, you have 10 minutes for a rebuttal and the floor is yours.

Thanks so much, Donnie. Mark, I'm appreciating round two.

And yeah, last debate, I noticed what we got into was what we subjectively mean or how we interpret those unambiguous words.

Because I think the only way to adjudicate what Mark thinks is truly clear and what Jeremiah thinks is truly clear is we have to look at semantic domains of words.

We have to know the full range of what the human writers meant when they said what they did.

And we have to look at context. And so that's a little bit what we have to do this evening is we have to look at context.

You brought up some verses. I brought up some verses. And I totally respect where you're coming from in terms of like what is preeminent is

Scripture alone gives us the ultimate rule and faith and practice of how we should live to the glory of God with our lives.

So in that regard, you and I are on the same team. Obviously, we understand the context differently.

And so something that you said that is made note of was you said there is no absolute will of God.

That really hurts my heart because God is wholly other than us, but he does break through the barrier and he reveals truth to us.

We can truly know him. We can know Jesus Christ whom he crucified and that he is truly our

Savior. But God is absolute. He very clear passages tell us,

I, the Lord, do not change. OK, so God is absolute. He is eternal.

And this is going to be a big distinction, I'm sure, between me and Mark is God does not react to me.

Right. God can ask questions to provoke a response, but God is all knowing. Right. If we look at the crescendo of benediction doxology in Romans in chapter 11, we see that God doesn't need a counselor.

And so God is all knowing. He has perfect knowledge. He himself is perfect. And so we have a right view of God, then we're allowed to understand who man is.

We are an image bearer of God. We reflect God in his many attributes. God is absolute.

Therefore, his will is absolute. God is omnipotent, meaning that his choice is without limit.

And so that necessarily entails what's going to go on in this creative world.

So Mark brought up two terms, predestination and foreknowledge. I want to acknowledge that these words do not mean the same thing, but they are inextricably linked together.

Think about it. God is omniscient, so he has knowledge before he creates. Right. But he's also omnipotent.

And he determines every facet that happens in this world. That's only based on the two attributes of God's omniscience and omnipotence.

This was Martin Luther's whole argument is from these two attributes of God alone.

This destroys the Roman concept of free will. And so I want us to talk about that word as well, because if Mark believes in what's called libertarian free will, then that erodes and contradicts necessary attributes of God.

We need to look at God first, having a foundation of who he is, and then we understand who we are in light of that.

And so, yes, predestination and foreknowledge, they are related, but they are distinct. And if God spoke this world into existence and knew everything that was going to exist, well, it's all determined to happen one way, because libertarian free will says at the moment of choice, you have the ability to choose

A or not A. Well, not if God is omniscient. If he has absolute foreknowledge, then at the moment of choice, you can only do what

God absolutely knows to be certain. And so since time is limited, maybe we can bring up some of these arguments here momentarily.

But he talked about the universal benevolence, the universal love of God to all men.

Well, double predestination agrees with that. God demonstrates his love to Jews and Gentiles, okay?

So when we look at the whole world in John 3, 16, for God so loved the world, he demonstrated his love universally to the world of humanity by sending one and only

Savior. But this is very narrow. Everybody wants to emphasize the word whosoever as though.

You have this categorical ability to choose God or to reject God. That's just simply reading in a tradition and a philosophy into the text, because it says the believing one, whosoever believes, that's who receives the benefits of Christ.

And earlier in the context, we see that regeneration actually must precede faith. And it's not talking about a wet immersion.

Someone has to be literally born from above in order to see the kingdom of God. So context is so important.

And I noticed we're talking about unambiguous terms from the scripture. I like that language because I can use that too.

And so when we look at 1 Timothy chapter 2, I want to turn there briefly. I made it.

He quoted a fantastic verse, starting in verse 4. God, our Savior, who desires all people to be saved.

I want you to listen to Mark. That is unambiguous language, that God has this same love demonstrated for everybody until we keep reading.

For there is one God and there is one mediator between God and man, the man

Christ Jesus. So yes, what does it mean that Jesus gave a ransom for all, right?

What does it mean that he desires that all people will be saved? We're talking about those who he mediates for.

Hey, Mark, does Jesus mediate for the unbeliever? I'd be curious to hear your answer on that.

And so my point is, whatever proof text that you hear Mark bring up, the apologetic dog is going to push back with context because context is king.

But that's what we should be doing is we should always be looking at context. And so when he talks about the universal merit of Christ, that he tasted death for all, absolutely,

Jesus died, but he didn't state it. He tasted it. And it was for humanity.

And so the writer of Hebrews has the Hebrew audience in mind. How did they understand all men?

Jew, Gentile, right? Double procrastination says election isn't just for the

Jews, but it goes all the way into the Gentile world as well. And so with my remaining time, I want to talk about another just super clear, unambiguous text that talks about God's sovereignty,

God's transcendent rule over all things in both the elect and when we say the reprobate, the unbelieving ones, the wicked that choose sin and will be justly held accountable for that.

So it's Romans 9. I believe one of the clearest verses here when we read about Jacob, I've loved.

Noticed earlier, Mark read that verse, but he didn't emphasize the second part of that verse,

Esau, who I've hated. If we look at this verse and say, I cannot believe that God hated Esau.

We're understanding this verse completely backwards because God is holy, right? God shows his wrath against sin because that's what perfect love does when it comes in context and sees sin.

What should surprise us is that Jacob, I have loved, right? Because, oh my goodness, God is holy.

He is just, but he can show mercy and love to undeserving sinners. That is the thing that should cause us great surprise and joy.

And so when he says there's no unambiguous verses that talk about God having a hand, a predetermination for the reprobate unto damnation,

I want to point later in the context. So verse 18 in Romans chapter 9, so then God has mercy on whomever he wills and he hardens whomever he wills.

So this is setting the stage that God has purpose for both those who will be saved and those who will not be saved.

Verse 21, has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel of honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

Mark, what does honorable use mean? Is this in any way talking about salvation? Because if you say yes, then it's inescapable of what dishonorable use, dishonorable vessel means there as well.

And so he makes it very clear in verse 22. What if God desiring to show his wrath to make known his power has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

What's that talking about? I understand that Matthew 25 is talking about how hell was created for the angels.

It doesn't say for the angels and the demons only. I quoted you the proverb that says that God is the creator of all things, even the wicked for the day of judgment.

God is sovereign. And when we say that, we're just saying nothing escapes his sight and his permission.

And so we have not even touched on other verses like Isaiah 46 that says

God declares the end from the beginning. Mark, what is that talking about? Because if that's talking about everything exhaustively happening in our world, then that necessarily means

God had a purpose. He predetermined a world in which there would be some people that would reject them from the heart.

And where are they going to go if they reject Jesus and die in their sin? Well, they're going to go to destruction.

They're going to spend eternity in hell, and they're going to do it because of their sin that they chose against their creator.

And what's the backside of that? Yeah, God had an overarching purpose to do so, but he didn't force them to sin.

He simply gave them over for what was already in their hearts. Because when Adam sinned, this had an effect on all the nature of Adam's children and posterity.

No man seeks after God. No, not one. That's all we need, the mercy and the grace and the love of God to save us out of our depravity.

So Donnie, I'll yield the rest of my time there. All right, very good. Thank you so much, Jeremiah Nortier from the

Apologetic Dog for that 10 -minute rebuttal. We're now going to hand it over to Mark.

Mark, whenever you're ready, you also have your rebuttal, and the rebuttal is 10 minutes.

And so whenever you're ready, the floor is yours. Make sure to unmute before you speak, and we're good to go.

Thank you. I definitely would have forgotten that there. So thank you,

Jeremiah, for that rebuttal. So I do want to start out,

I know I'm supposed to be rebutting your opening statement, but you mentioned something there that I said God does not have an absolute will, and I don't think that's what

I said, and if I did, that's definitely not what I believe.

So I think what I said was God does something against an absolute decree.

So maybe you misheard me, or maybe I misspoke, but I do want to clear that up before going on.

You did make a lot of points in your opening statement. One, I think it's kind of interesting that, you know, a lot of Reform, they like to refer to Luther's bondage of the will thinking that somehow he is on their side on this, but I think a lot of them really misunderstand much of what

Luther says there, and in fact, it's there in the bondage of the will that he elucidates this distinction between the hidden and the revealed

God, and I don't know, you know, some people have done it before him, but I think he's really the one who did it most clearly and put it the best, and he says that we have no dealing with God insofar as he has not revealed himself to us, but we are only to concern ourselves with the revealed will of God.

So Jeremiah, the main point he made in his opening statement was that double predestination is asymmetrical, but that the key is that the difference, however, is the means.

Well, I do first want to point out that Jeremiah gave us a definition of double predestination, but he did not actually give us a definition of predestination, so that's definitely one thing we're going to want to get from him, because, you know, you can say that double predestination is true, that it's asymmetrical, and therefore

God, you know, he predestines the elect in one way, but he predestines the reprobate in another way, but I think at that point you're equivocating, because you're meaning something entirely different by the word predestination on the one hand and predestination on the other hand, although even then

I still don't think that his assertion there is very meaningful, because he says that the difference is the means.

This goes back to what I was talking about when I said that our last debate is so closely related to this one, because what

I want to say is that the means whereby God brings about his election in those whom he has elected are the

Word and the sacraments, so baptism. So yeah, absolutely,

God has predestined the means whereby he gathers his elect. He predestined that Christ would become incarnate, that he would suffer under Pontius Pilate, be crucified, died, and buried, and rise again on the third day and ascend into heaven, and that the

Word would go out into all the world and the sacraments administered. Yeah, those are the means that he predestines for his elect.

So that being said, what does it mean? What are the means whereby

God brings about the reprobation of the non -elect?

I don't know. I don't think Jeremiah indicated. He mentioned

God is active in giving them over to their desire, but I'm not really sure what that means.

Maybe we can get some clarification on that. So God's predetermining hand encompasses everything.

Well, so from my perspective, predetermining, I think to determine or to predetermine has a different connotation for me than predestined.

So I think Jeremiah will have to clarify on that later. And, you know, what

I'll point out at this point is I don't think that Jeremiah is really making very clear and helpful distinctions.

So we'll definitely want to get into that in the question period.

So he mentioned that, yes, so in his opening statement, he mentioned something to the effect about the freedom of the will in spiritual, and he said natural, matters or realities.

So I think I kind of understand what he's saying there. And, you know,

I was thinking that I would agree with him, but he then says that God, that both spiritual and natural realities fall under God's sovereignty.

But he also talked about the will being in bondage. So from our perspective, when we talk about the will being in bondage, it's that we, as Adam's descendants, are in bondage to sin, to original sin.

And so, but it seems here that Jeremiah was saying something along the lines that men are in bondage to God's sovereignty.

I don't think that's what he was trying to say, but that's what it sounded like when he says that both spiritual and natural realities fall under God's sovereignty.

So we absolutely affirm freedom of choice.

So man has freedom of choice in what

Jeremiah, what I think Jeremiah is referring to as natural matters.

We would call this civil righteousness. So man has the ability to perform the works of the law to some extent, right?

So a man can, you know, he can refrain from murdering his neighbor. He can refrain from stealing, even if he hasn't been converted, he can do these things.

Now he doesn't actually fulfill the law according to the spirit, if you want to think about it in terms of Augustine's terminology, the spirit and the letter.

So man doesn't, he can't fulfill the law according to the spirit. But what we would say is that man, because he is in bondage to his sinful nature, he does not have freedom in spiritual matters to incline himself toward God.

He hates, the natural man is at enmity with God, right?

So some of the passages that Jeremiah brought up, and again,

I want to say at the outset here that, so let me pull up, for example,

Ephesians 1 .4, according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.

Let's see. So for whom he did foreknow,

Romans 8 .29 -30, for whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son, that he might be the first of his people, amongst many brethren.

Moreover, whom he did predestinate, he also called, etc., etc. What I want to point out here is that we have these passages that speak specifically in terms of predestination, election to salvation.

Whereas, for example, he brought up Proverbs 16 .4, the Lord hath made all things for himself, yea, even the wicked, for the day of evil.

Well, I think he's reading a lot into that. The day of evil, if he takes that to mean the judgment, the eternal hellfire, you have to read a whole lot into that to get there.

Whereas, I could simply say that what is being said here is that yes,

God makes all things. He's the creator. He's the creator of man, even in his fallen, sinful state, yet he is not the creator of the wickedness of man.

He's not the cause of man's wickedness. He's not the cause of man's eternal damnation.

So, I don't think that this is a verse for him. Let's see.

Romans 9. I'm running out of time here. He brought up Romans 9. I'm sure we'll get into that some more.

What he didn't bring up is Matthew 22, the parable of the wedding feast.

If one really wants to understand the doctrine of election, that is the main passage in Scripture for how we are to understand election.

So, I think I've gone over there. I apologize. That's good. That's 10 minutes on the dot.

Good job, gentlemen. That concludes now the rebuttals and the opening statements.

Fantastic debate so far. As always, I appreciate the time and work you both put into this debate.

Okay, we're now moving into the cross exam. The first cross exam will be to you,

Jeremiah, as in you will be leading the way in the first 25 minutes. So, gentlemen, whenever you're ready, the floor is yours.

Go ahead. All righty, and start. Mark, I think you're on mute still.

I was getting there. Oh, no, you're good. I've been looking forward to this interaction, and honestly, it's an honor to be able to have a

Lutheran and a Calvinist talk about reformational doctrines. So, I've been excited for this, and I appreciate a lot of your opening statement.

I think you brought out a lot of good points. I do have some questions on Romans 9, because a lot of my arguments—because

I think we probably share a lot of common ground in predestination for the elect unto salvation.

So, the big difference, I think, and you could speak to this, is how we view the reprobate unto damnation.

So, do you think we agree a lot of the predestination for the elect? I think so.

You know, typically we don't use the term monergism.

I think that's more of a reformed term, but that approximates kind of what we believe, right?

That God—we're not saved by anything, any merit in us, not our works, nothing, right?

So, I do think that we probably largely agree on many of those things, but maybe not all the finer details.

That is one reason why I didn't spend a lot of time on talking about election, because I was thinking maybe the reprobate side we could get into.

And so, kind of one of my first questions about Romans 9 is, do you see it talking about salvation, in any sense?

Yes. Yeah, I do think so, yeah. What about the flip side, when he talks about destruction in Romans 9?

Do you think that's talking about ultimate judgment, hellfire? So, which verse?

Verse 22. I'll read it real fast. What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

Yeah. Okay, I'll just make sure we're on the same page.

I'm still learning Lutheran doctrine, reading that Book of Concord. So, with our big distinction on, you hold to a single predestination,

Ryan, and I hold to a double predestination, does that mean, and I may be using different words, and you can kind of help me out here, does that mean you see

God being active with the predestination of the elect unto salvation, and God's not active really in any way with the wicked going to judgment one day?

Uh, well, you know, it kind of depends what you mean by being active.

So, if I could give you a definition of election, just to clarify kind of some terminology here, so, and this is from the

Book of Concord, you should have read this. So, God's election is a cause that gains, works, helps, and promotes our salvation and what belongs to it.

So, the flip side of that, I would deny that God, that God's, so let me say this,

I do hold to a decree of reprobation, although obviously

I think we would not agree on what that means. On the flip side,

I would not say that God's reprobation is a cause that gains, works, helps, and promotes man's damnation and what belongs to it.

So, I think I meet that requirement of asymmetry for you. So, quick question, would you say, is

God some way active in the reprobate going to hell?

If so, I'm curious, okay, and so how is that? He's active in inflicting the punishment for man's unbelief and unrepentance.

Okay, so just the end, right, when they stand before judgment, that's him actively inflicting wrath.

Well, maybe not necessarily just the end because he is active in, for example, limiting the evil that man purposes in his own heart.

So, God is certainly active over all of his creation.

It's just he's active in different ways, and maybe this is what you were getting at when you said that the difference is the means, but then again, at that point,

I don't know what you mean by predestination in regard to the reprobate.

Yeah. I can wait to ask my question. That's okay. Well, no,

I just appreciate you saying that in some way, God is active in the reprobate on not just the end, but on their way to final judgment.

Is that a fair representation that you agree in some way God is active in their ultimate damnation, the means of them going away?

Sure, but not in such a way that he wills or desires it or brings it to pass by the power of his own will.

He's not a cause of it. He doesn't predestine sins. He doesn't cause men to sin.

He's not the, as you said, author of evil.

You're sounding a little bit more reformed than I last thought when we talked, but that's okay.

Well, you know, these immigrants came first, and then y 'all came after. We had time to sit and chew on it for sure, but honestly, we found a lot of common ground there because you do see

God playing an active part in the hardening of the reprobate unto destruction, so I do appreciate that.

Well, I don't think I said he plays an active part in the hardening of them, although it depends what you mean by that because obviously

Scripture talks about... Real quick, Mark, can you tell me if there's any part in your view that God plays an active role in hardening the reprobate?

Maybe you could say none at all, or if you do believe in some way, I'm curious to hear that. Yes, if by active we could understand the withdrawal of God's grace, but not such that the hardening did not already previously exist, so that when

God hardens, or is said to harden, so Augustine has this great line that when

God does not soften, He is said to harden, and what he means by that is that it's not that God, by a movement of His will, of His omnipotence, takes a man's heart and compels him toward evil or unbelief or anything like that.

It's that He, I think as you said a few times, He leaves men to their own desires.

So far, there's not a strong distinction between our positions. That's why I asked you if God played any active part in the hardening of the reprobate, and you're saying yes to some degree, and I'm like, ah, there's a dual aspect there.

God plays a part in the salvation of the elect, and like you're saying,

God does play a part in the hardening of the reprobate unto judgment, so I'm just saying

I appreciate that. So I guess I'll wait to ask, you know, but so I think in that case, you know, you're sounding more

Lutheran than I am sounding Reformed is what it is. We're on the right side of the Reformation, so I appreciate that.

Okay, continuing in the context of Romans 9, verse 21 says, has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel of honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

In your opinion, what is the lump referring to there? Oh, that's a good question.

Out of the same lump. So what

Paul is responding to here is this idea that God has not been faithful to his word, that he has, that he has, to his promises toward Israel, in which case, what's that one?

One of vessel to honor and unto dishonor? Honestly, I don't know exactly.

At this point, I get one tally mark for that. That's okay. So let me offer this interpretation to see if you like it, because you'll probably agree.

This is referring to fallen humanity, the lump. Okay, yeah, sure.

Okay, because think about it. God is showing mercy on these vessels that will one day see glory.

So for him to demonstrate mercy assumes, presupposes their fallen sinful state.

So God is actively working mercy into these fallen vessels, right?

But he is transforming their will. He's transforming their heart unto salvation. That's why he can say one vessel for honorable use.

Okay. Now also in the same lump of fallen humanity, another for dishonorable use.

So I have another question for you. Are you aware? Can I respond to that real quick? I think you didn't ask a question. So the difference between you and me here is that when it said that God makes one vessel unto honor and one unto dishonor, it's not saying that God makes the dishonorable vessel dishonorable.

He doesn't make the vessel. He's the creator. So God is the, say it again. So you agree the terminology is he makes out a vessel for dishonorable use, correct?

So he makes it out. He is the creator of all things.

Look back at 21. Has no water, no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and it still make out another for dishonorable use.

Yes. So now let's slow it down.

Is that an individual person? Are you thinking of vessel as an individual person? Okay. So since I'm at, let me, let me ask you this.

Yeah. Do you think Romans nine is talking about nations or individuals or maybe some other third option?

So I do think that largely in the context and Paul's argument what is in view here is a

Jew and Gentile. However, I do think there are implications in Romans nine for individual salvation.

What are those implications? So for example, if you are thinking of one vessel unto honor and one vessel being an individual,

I would not disagree with you on that. But what I'm saying is that God, yes,

God makes vessels. He doesn't make one dishonorable. He makes a vessel, which by his own, first of all, we all begin a dishonorable.

So he makes out of that lump dishonorable vessels, right?

He makes vests. We are out of one lump. The whole lump is dishonorable. The whole lump is consigned to sin.

Now we're talking about, he's not the creator of original sin.

So I might ask you this question when it's my turn, is God the creator? It'd be no.

Okay. So question. So when we read has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump fallen humanity, one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use are you familiar?

The only other time in Romans where Paul uses the Greek word for dishonorable, are you familiar where he uses that again in Romans?

Not off the top of my head. So back in Romans one, we're reading about how man actively suppresses the truth of God in their love for sin.

And then listen to how God in the active tense, just like earlier in verse 18, that says he hardens,

God active tense hardens whom he wills. In Romans one, we are told how

God hardens the reprobate. He gave them up active tense to the lust of their hearts, to impurity.

He gave them over to the reprobate or depraved mind. And one last point here, for this reason,

God gave them up active tense to dishonorable passions. And so do you agree?

This is the means in which God actively hands over the reprobate to dishonorable use.

Yeah, so giving them up, but not being the cause of their being dishonorable in the first place, which is the sinful will of man and the devil.

So God is active and he's not only active, but he's active in giving them up.

And then the writer Paul also talks about how he gives them over to a spirit of stupor.

So God is active in allowing man to choose sin according to their willful desires.

That's the distinction, and I want to hear your response to this. That's the distinction of how God asymmetrically predetermines the reprobate unto damnation.

The means in which God gives them over is different of how God intervenes and regenerates a dead sinner's heart, like in Romans 8.

Is that a fair way of how the means look different and how God is sovereign over both? So I'm still,

I guess, not quite understanding the means terminology.

I do understand how you are trying to hold to a kind of asymmetry here, yes.

But again, I think that in which case you're sounding more

Lutheran than you are Reformed, because I have no idea how that is in any way a predestining, how that is not equivocating on the term to predestine.

Yes, let's get into that a little bit with our about 10 minutes left. So you said you do not see, make sure

I understand you right, predestine is not the same as predetermine? Right, I would hold to a distinction there.

So when you look up, we'll just say lexical definitions of words, do you ever look at BDAG?

Okay, so I have this definition, and maybe you can kind of help qualify what you mean.

So predestine, like we see in Acts chapter 4, it's to decide upon beforehand, predetermine.

And you see this in Romans 8 .30, Acts 4 .28, Ephesians 1 .11, Romans 8 .29.

And so it seems like BDAG sees no functional difference with the terminology.

Context always matters. And so this isn't a gotcha moment, but at least BDAG sees the English word coming from perizzo, translating it predestine, and it's within the definition saying it's to predetermine.

Is that not? Right, so I think what is going on here is that I'm making a theological distinction, and it's kind of similar to my distinction between foreknowledge and election or predestination, because as you're probably aware, the term foreknowledge in Scripture can have a meaning, a more fuller meaning than simply

God's knowledge of future events. So what I'm making here is a distinction.

A theological distinction. A theological distinction whereby predestination is

God actively, by the power of His will, bringing something about, so such that He is the cause of that thing.

And this is why it can be said that all good things come from God, because He is the cause of all good things.

On the other hand, when it comes to evil, God is not the cause of evil, but He does determine it.

And what I want to say by determine is that He sets boundaries and limits to it, and He only allows it to go so far.

So for example, in the case of the Israelites, or the number of the years of the iniquity coming in in the case of the ancient pagan nations,

God determines the limits. He sets the boundaries to the amount of evil that He's going to allow.

But He's not the cause of it. That's the distinction. He's not the effectual cause of it. We agreed there. So I have a question about your view of free will.

Are you familiar with the philosophical term libertarian free will? A little bit.

I watched a little bit. I watched some of your debate with AK. And I don't think

I'm a libertarian free will. No, no, not a. So now, OK, help me out here.

So the basic function of libertarian free will basically says man can make choices that have not been predetermined by God.

That's the basic core of libertarian free will. So are you saying you affirm that?

You deny it? You want to tweak it? But that's what I'm saying. Man can make some choices that are not predetermined by God.

Man can make some choices that are not predetermined. Now, are you using predetermined and predestination interchangeably here?

Yes. Yes. Then I would affirm that man can make at least some choices that are not predestined by God, for example, evil choices.

OK, so now I have a question about Isaiah 46.

So what do you think Isaiah 46 10 means? And definitely takes time to develop the context.

But as the prophet is declaring that Yahweh, he says, I am God and there is none like me declaring the end from the beginning.

So I just want to pause there because I do want to ask you the context. But what does that mean that God is the one declaring the end from the beginning?

Well, he has I mean, the simple answer would be that he has foreknowledge of all future events.

That's a part of his omniscience. What I would deny is that he predestines, you know, every whatsoever comes to pass as the

West. I think the Westminster Confession of 1689. Say it again.

1689 London Baptist Confession. Oh, is that the 1689? So do you not see the end from the beginning as not assuming the middle there?

Say it again. Can you repeat the question? Yeah. Oh, absolutely. So when he says declaring the end from the beginning, you're saying that this does or does not assume the middle exhaustively?

Yeah, he has foreknowledge of all future events, the beginning, the middle, the end. Okay. So one of my issues with this take is he does it.

So there's a Hebrew word for knowledge, and we see it back earlier in Isaiah 40, and that's not the word that's being entailed here.

It's talking about God is the one that makes known, declares ancient times, things that happened in the past and things that are still yet to come.

He gives an explanation of the things in the past, and he's able to prophesy exhaustively of what's going to come to pass in the future.

Now, it's not just a mere foreknowledge, but he makes known. Is that a fair way of understanding that verse?

I'm not sure what... I guess. Yeah. I guess.

I don't disagree with that. I mean, what I would disagree with is that he makes known because he has predetermined.

He has predestined those things that he actually brings to pass by the power of his will, all of those things, including the evil.

That's what I would reject. So, okay. Then how is it the end from the beginning if it doesn't also assume evil?

So he knows evil, but he doesn't predestine it. He doesn't cause it. Does he determine a world in which that's necessarily going to exist?

Does God determine a world in which evil is necessarily going to exist?

In a very particular way. Like at the moment of choice, when a person chooses to sin, if God is all -knowing and omnipotent, which

Martin Luther said that this is important, and I understand me and him aren't totally on the same side. If he was consistent here, he would be.

Does that make sense? That the moment of choice, when a person chooses to sin, that was necessarily going to take place.

Oh, well, it depends. It's funny because your friend, who

I think is sitting next to you, he and I like to go back and forth on this distinction of necessity.

So actually there's a theological distinction here between the necessity of compulsion and the necessity of immutability or infallibility.

So from one perspective, it can be said that all things happen by necessity.

That is the necessity of immutability, which refers to God's foreknowledge. So because of the fact that God foreknows something, it will infallibly come to pass because his knowledge cannot err.

However, it does not err according to the necessity of compulsion, because God's foreknowledge doesn't impose necessity on a person to act in a particular way.

Again, his foreknowledge is simply the knowledge of future events, even contingent things.

So at the moment of choice, can that person that God infallibly knows will sin, at that moment of choice in real time, do they actually have the ability to choose not to sin and follow through with that action?

So according to the necessity of immutability, no. According to the necessity of compulsion, yes.

Yes, okay. Because God's foreknowledge does not impose necessity on the person to actually commit that evil.

I want to ask you about 1 Timothy 2, 4, when it says, God our Savior desires all people to be saved.

Now I took it that you meant every person exhaustively, not all people without distinction.

So the next verse talks about how there is one God and one mediator between God and man.

Does God mediate for unbelievers? Define mediate?

Yeah, so being their high priest, atoning for their sin, and being their federal head in salvation.

Does he do that for unbelievers? Yes, he does. He has atoned for the sins of the whole world by virtue of sharing a like nature with us.

So that, you know, whoever shares in the nature that the Son of God has assumed into his person for all eternity, that person is by virtue of sharing that like nature under that atonement.

So Mark, he atoned for their unbelief? Yes. Okay, sounds like everybody's getting saved.

All right, that was a fast -paced, that was a quick 25 -minute cross -exam.

So gentlemen, great job keeping this debate engaging and very interesting. It's an important topic tonight.

So all right, Mark, it's your turn to make Jeremiah sweat now as you have, yeah, here we go, bring the heat.

This is round two, reminder. So Mark, you have 25 minutes now to lead the way in cross -exam.

Again, the floor is yours, gentlemen. Go ahead. Okay, can you define predestined?

Yeah, so I would appeal to peridzo that we talked about earlier. Let's see here, peridzo.

I would say to decide upon beforehand, predetermined, and that's the

Bayer definition of peridzo. Okay, would you agree with the definition that I gave you earlier, and I can repeat it for you, that God's election or predestination is a cause that gains, works, helps, and promotes our salvation and what belongs to it?

Maybe, a lot of that I like, because when I think of helps, I do think of sanctification, but the difference is that you and I hold to, and don't let me give long -winded answers,

Mark, just cut me off, but I believe there's an exact moment where God is going to regenerate the heart.

Forgive me, not through the waters of baptism, but the Holy Spirit, when He regenerates, there's a guarantee that that person who sees

Jesus in saving faith will ultimately be glorified, so the Holy Spirit indwells them.

Providence is in their favor. God will intervene and chasten those whom He loves, so I do think we have a sharedness understanding there somewhere.

Yeah, so I'm not one to really cut people off. I like to listen, so you said there's a moment, and I agree.

I obviously agree, but when we're talking about predestination, this obviously is something that takes place in eternity past, so we're not talking about the moment of a person's conversion or regeneration, so did

God from eternity past make a decree which then is the cause that gains, works, helps, and promotes the salvation and what belongs to it of particular individuals?

Yes. Yeah, baby. Yes, okay. So then does

God's predestination of certain men to damnation, is that a cause that gains, works, helps, and promotes man's damnation and what belongs to it?

I appreciate this question because in my opening statement, I was trying to say

God predetermines the routes of all individuals. It's all marked out, infallibly going to take place the way that the sovereign triune

God determined it. Ephesians 1 .11, God works all things. I'm a Calvinist that said here, all means all.

Works all things together after the counsel of His will. This is before the foundation of the world, Trinitarian counsel, but the means in which

God brings that about actively is different than how God uses the means to bring about the salvation of the elect.

What are the means of man's reprobation? The means is, yeah, yeah, kind of Romans 1.

God gives them over to a reprobate heart, mind. He simply restrains

His common grace, and like you said earlier, in God's restraining, that means something in real time.

He is giving them over to what they truly desire. Now, that's going to happen in a particular way, but that man who's a rebel of God truly spits at God, and God will be glorified in His justice in that individual's life.

Sorry, the giving over. Is His giving over of man to His desires the cause that gains, works, helps, and promotes that man's damnation or reprobation?

Not the same way of the elect, but it is in a way. It is a cause.

So God is the ultimate cause, but He uses secondary means. So yes, God has marked out the secondary means.

That's the proximate cause of their evil desires, and that proximate cause is fallen man deliberating to sin openly against their creator.

And so God is the primary cause of all things, but He has ordained secondary causes to bring that about.

Does that help? What is the cause of man's damnation? What is the cause?

It is. I'm going to introduce terms for you here, but it is the proximate cause of man's hatred for God, choosing to willfully rebel against Him and choose their sin.

So sin is sin the cause of man's damnation. Are you talking about the ultimate cause or the proximate cause?

So when we're talking about sin, it's not a thing.

It's not a substance. So what the ancients would say is that to look for an efficient cause of sin is not quite proper, because there is no efficient cause of something that is not a thing.

Sin is a deficiency. It's a corruption of nature. It's a corruption of God's good order. Therefore, there is no efficient cause of sin, but you must look for a deficient cause of sin.

There's no deficiency in God. Right. That's why He uses secondary means to bring about His end goals.

But I think we have to agree that evil and sin actually exist. It's a corruption, not a complete abstraction like where there's no on -toss whatsoever.

So I want to come back to that, but you said God uses the secondary causes.

So what are these secondary causes of man's damnation that God predetermined or predestined?

Yeah. It's man's sin. It's man's hatred for God. It's their open rebellion against their

Creator, their suppression of truth in unrighteousness. God causes those in order to bring about...

Ultimately, He spoke the world into existence where that would come about necessarily. But in real time, man chooses.

He is the cause of his sin. Okay. So I don't want to be the dead horse.

I'm just not under... I think you're equivocating on the word predestined here. It hurts.

Yeah, I know. But I don't want to be the dead horse there. And I said I would come back to the sin not being a thing, but I don't think that's entirely relevant.

I'll keep it in mind. But you do think sin exists. It's a kind of thing.

It's a corruption, not an absence altogether. Oh, yes. I think sin exists, but it's not...

So in the beginning, God created everything, and He saw that it was good. So God did not create evil.

We agree. It doesn't exist in that way. So anyway, are you familiar with the term absolute decree?

This came up in your rebuttal. Are you familiar with the term absolute decree? Yeah, I'm sorry if I misrepresented you earlier.

I really thought that you said that God has no absolute will. And what you were meaning, or am

I misunderstood, is because I do affirm that there's an absolute decree of whatsoever comes past, and I figured we would disagree on that.

Okay. Yes. So what's your understanding? Well, let me ask you this.

So when I say absolute decree, here's what Calvin says. He says, At last, he concludes that God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy and whom he will hardeneth.

You see how he refers both to the mere pleasure of God. Therefore, if we cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just that it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.

When God has said to visit in mercy or harden whom he will, men are reminded that they are not to seek for any cause beyond his will.

Would you agree with that statement of Calvin? Yes, you can't pit me against Calvin like that.

Okay. So God does this merely out of his good pleasure.

It is his good pleasure to reprobate men to hell. Is that your position? Really what

I would qualify that. Apart from anything in man or anything that man has done.

So for example, before Jacob or Esau did anything,

I don't know if you think that is referring to God's reprobation of Esau, but before they did anything, before they were even born, it was based on nothing other than his good pleasure, he loved

Jacob and hated Esau. Yeah. So you got to think from the reform paradigm, all of history is

God's history in the sense that it's all working towards a particular end. Ephesians 1, 11 is my go -to for the sovereign, unchangeable decree of God.

All things work together after the counsel of his will, his decree, the plan.

And so that includes, and so to your credit, that includes the elect and the reprobate, and it's all working towards Romans 11, 36, for of him and through him and to him are all things to whom be the glory forever.

Amen. And so when we talk about his good pleasure, if we're talking about to the praise of his glorious grace, that God be glorified in all things, then yes, that's what

Calvin's talking about. Oh, I can't hear.

Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry about that. It's God's good pleasure to reprobate man to hell apart from anything, including his unbelief.

Simply his good pleasure. That's not what Calvin is referring to, because once again, their reprobation includes the means that bring them to that ultimate goal.

So I'm just saying like a reformed person would say, like, when we look at Romans 9, before they had done good or evil, yes,

God is going to display mercy on whomever he chooses, and God is actively going to harden by handing over Esau to the desires of his heart.

So the absolute decree says is that it's apart from anything that God foresees in man.

That's what the absolute decree says. So apart from the foreknowledge even of man's persistent unbelief.

So what we would say is God doesn't foresee and learn. That's the whole point.

He doesn't look down the corridors. He doesn't see what Esau's going to do. I agree. He sees everything in an eternal present now.

Yes. But in any case, it's his absolute decree is apart from any prior consideration, even logical.

Okay. What is the basis for election, if anything? To demonstrate mercy, love?

No, I mean, is it based on anything or is it? It's based on God, his glory.

Okay. Come on, you like that one. Well, what I mean is, so from a

Lutheran perspective, election is based on Christ's merit, and election is

Christ's merit apprehended by faith.

This is why we can also say that God's reprobation is not his predestination of man to damnation, but rather God's decree that he desires to punish those who persist in their unbelief and reject

Christ's merit. Yes. So would you agree? So Ephesians 1 says to the praise of his glorious grace, that's repeated three times for each person in the

Trinity. And so that's the reason, and if I could respond to that. Yeah.

So to kind of put that into, that's the final cause, that's the end.

But what is the meritorious cause is what I meant. So in any case,

I don't want to belabor it if you don't want to give any further answer.

But how do you understand that we are chosen in Christ? So you got to think being

Reformed, it's unconditional, not based on any foreseen things that we're going to do.

But God wants to demonstrate the full range of his glory, namely his attributes. And so he decrees a world that puts on display maximally all of his attributes to the praise of his glorious grace.

So that's going to be the elect unto salvation, where he can demonstrate his attributes of mercy, grace, and love.

God is also going to display his attributes of holiness, justice, and wrath on those that hate him.

And so God, we would say, is sovereign and determines the whole kit and caboodle the way that the prophet

Isaiah said, he is the one truly that declares the end from the beginning. Why are many called but few chosen?

Well, this is good, because is this from the parable that you're referencing earlier? Yeah, Matthew 22 verses 1 through 14.

Yeah. Yeah, no, I'm glad you brought this back up, because many are called. And I would say there's an external call that is meant to go out to all men.

So that to me is the beautiful parable that you brought up, is we're to go to the highways and byways and declare the gospel to all men, where Jesus says, come to me.

The imperative of if you are a human being, you must come. Repent, right, is the command for all men.

But the reforms say there's a reason why only some respond. I know this is where we, once again, part ways, but I don't want to keep harping on if you've got to follow up.

Yeah, so do you distinguish then between an external call and an inward effectual call?

Yes. So is the external call indicative of God's will toward individuals?

Yeah, the external call is meant to go out to all people, all nations. In what way, or what does it indicate about God's will toward individuals?

So I believe it's 2 Corinthians that talk about the gospel proclamations is to go out to all.

Some is going to be a sweet -smelling aroma unto life, and some it's going to be a stench unto death.

And so Isaiah 55 says that when God's word goes forth, it never is going to return empty or void, meaning it's going to actually accomplish what it was set out to do.

So externally, the gospel is meant to touch every single people, to go out to them, to call them to faith and repentance in Christ.

But God is sovereign over their rejection, too, and it serves in this grand purpose in all of history that everything is working towards.

So does the external call actually indicate that God truly desires that everyone who hears the call would repent and be saved?

Well, you're alluding to 1 Timothy 2 .4 when you say that, so I think me and you understand that.

Not really. Okay. What I'm getting at is that, so if you posit an external call and an effectual call, are they still one and the same call?

No, they're different. They're different calls. So then the one, the external call, does not truly indicate that God desires that that person hearing the call would repent and be saved, whereas the effectual call does indicate a true desire on God's part for a person to repent and be saved, namely the elect.

Is that right? You lost me a little bit, but no, they are different functions.

The external call is the gospel proclamation, what all men exhaustively ought to do, which is repent and believe.

But the internal call is that witness of the Holy Spirit that regenerates the heart and causes them to positively respond to that external call, and that is dependent on God's mercy, and God has done no injustice if He hands someone over to their reprobate mind and the lust and the desires of their sin in that process.

So the internal call is different. It's the mercy of God through the Holy Spirit regenerating them.

Does the internal call contradict the external call? No, they're different.

What I mean is, does what the internal call indicates is the will of God toward that individual?

Well, first of all, the internal call, not everyone gets the internal call, is that right? Right, only the elect.

Do those who get the internal call get it apart from the external call? No. Okay, so the external call, let's just put this in concrete example, goes out to all the world, including unbelievers, or non -elect, let's say.

The external call goes out to a non -elect person. The external call does not actually indicate that God desires that person to be saved because God does not actually desire that person to be saved because that person's not elect.

Would you agree with that? He does not desire them to be saved in the sense that he will guarantee the elect to be saved.

So there is a sense in which God demonstrates his love, but this is the key difference.

But not through that external call. Right, the external call is a truth that they ought to repent and believe, but without the internal call, they will necessarily reject it, and that is

God's ultimate sovereign will of whatsoever comes to pass. Does that make sense?

There's a purpose in the reprobate rejection of the external call.

A purpose on whose part? Both God and man in different ways, God being eternal and man being temporal.

And the purpose being that God actually desires to reprobate that person rather than that person turn and repent and believe the gospel.

The external call is the gospel. Would you agree? The external call is the preaching of the Word. In our case, we would also include the sacraments, but the external call is the preaching of the

Word, right? Yeah. Okay, but God's purpose in that call is not the same toward each person it goes out to.

Right, so like double predestination. The gospel is going out, but for the reprobate, they will not receive that internal call, but here's the distinction of what we're talking about.

Because God does not actually desire to save them. That's what I'm getting at. Well, God ultimately and absolutely has decreed that they will never be saved, but that's compatible with their hatred for the

Creator of all things. So this is also getting into compatibilism versus incompatibilism, and so I reject libertarian free will because of who

God is, and so God does not want them to be saved in the same way that He wants the elect to be saved.

Are you elect? Absolutely. And how do you know that? Because I have a little faith in the perfect Savior, and that is completely outside of this world, and so since I love the sovereign

King Jesus, I know that that is an effectual work from God, and since His Word tells me that that cannot fail to bring me to glory,

I know therefore I'm elect. Do you ever waver in faith, or is it possible that you could waver in faith?

Like a moment of doubt or despair or something like that? Yeah, I think when you choose to sin,

I think 1 John tells us that there will be a separation of that joy and that peace, and so I do think that that can come in waves of doubt, definitely, but when you go back...

Is it possible for the elect to do that? Yeah, to struggle to... Then in those instances, what is the assurance that a person is still among the elect?

The gospel. The call? It's the internal witness that God has changed me from the inside out, and...

So not the gospel as an external call, but the gospel as an internal call?

The whole counsel of God, that would include the gospel, but that would include the deeper truths of what

God is doing. So yeah, we renew our heart and mind with the will of God the way that Romans 12 verse 2 says.

So how can you know that the gospel is actually for you is kind of what

I'm getting at, that you can actually have assurance in that if it's not the external call that actually conveys

God's will toward you. It's really the internal call that not everyone gets. And that's what

Paul says in Romans 8, that we have the witness of the Holy Spirit within us, telling us, bearing witness that we are truly sons of God that cry out,

Abba, Father. So yeah, this is the thing, Mark. I can't objectively convince you that I'm one of the elect, but I can know that I am one of the elect because of the love that I have for Christ.

And it's not the amount of love, but it's a love at all. So it's something subjective, not objective?

You can't have assurance of my salvation, but I can have assurance of my salvation. Okay. So with just a little time left,

Romans 9. Who is it that prepares...

Hang on. Let me get my bearings here. My mouse isn't working. Okay. Okay.

Who is it that prepares vessels of wrath fitted for destruction?

And great question. I think in that context, it's talking about man that chooses to sin against this

Creator. However, I believe that's also compatible with God sovereignly, which is earlier in the context of Romans 9.

He is actively at work giving them up to that reprobate mind. So I think, first of all, you agree that, at least according to the text, it does not indicate here that God is the one who prepares the vessel of wrath for destruction.

Well, he forms it. He makes it out of the same one. So God, willing to show his wrath and make his power known, endured with long -suffering the vessels of wrath, and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afford prepared under glory.

So he prepares the vessels of mercy to glory, but he's not the one who prepares the vessel of wrath for destruction.

Well, I would point you back to it says he makes out of that same lump both vessels, and so God is active in the mercy of the elect, and he is active in an asymmetrical, different way with the hardening of the vessels unto destruction.

One last question. What's your favorite Reformation hymn? Amati Fortress. Ah, yes,

Luther. There you go, guys. Great way to wrap up a fantastic cross -exam.

So you both did not disappoint in terms of giving us a Reformation night debate to remember.

And so great way to wrap up the day. Okay, gentlemen, we still have our closing statements, which means to the audience, we have exactly 10 minutes before we enter a 25 -minute audience

Q &A. So please, if you do have a question for Jeremiah, or a question for Mark, just make sure you're tagging me and we'll have some fun with those.

Okay, Jeremiah, you get the first five -minute closing statement. And so whenever you're ready, just let me know, and I'll start your timer.

All right, I'm good to go. Well, I enjoyed this debate. To me, it felt just like a friendly dialogue with Mark, a very smart individual.

I appreciate him willing to do this on Reformation Day. It truly is an honor. Listening to the

Lutheran position and studying a lot of the Book of Concord and looking at church history, there's really not much of a difference between our position.

It's interesting because they will say things, like there's no absolute decree of all things that comes to pass.

And then when I'm asked about, well, did God not only know, but did He decree a particular world where everything comes out in a particular manner?

I mean, He says yes to that. And I'm saying, okay, well, God's responsible for that world.

And so anyway, I think we use a lot of different terms, but at the end of the day, He affirms that God is sovereign and has determined all things that come to pass in a very particular manner.

One moment in the debate that I thought was very meaningful that I want you to walk away from is I was accused of equivocating between predestined and predetermination.

And you saw Mark, when I appealed to Peridzo in the Greek, they are the same contextually.

And so that's because God is sovereign. God has foreordained everything that comes to pass.

Notice there wasn't a lot of pushback when I quoted the prophet Isaiah, because he's the one that declares the end from the beginning.

When Mark affirms that that is everything, including sin. And then later I asked, did

God determine a world in which sin would come about? He's committed to saying yes. And so Romans 9,

I thought it was good when we started talking about, He agrees that God is active in election.

And I thought we were going to get some rub, but we didn't. And I'm over here saying, listen to Mark talk about this dual aspect where there is a sense in which

God has marked out and determined not only the elect, but he agrees that God actively hardens the reprobate unto damnation.

And then we agree by different means. It's asymmetrical. God isn't forcing and coercing evil into the heart of the wicked.

But Romans 1, he pulls back. And this is an act of restraint on God's part of him giving them over,

Romans 11 says, to a spirit of stupor. Romans 1 says he's giving them over to that reprobate mind.

And so I appreciate Mark saying, look, we have to go back to sola scriptura.

And so we do look at clear, unambiguous terminology.

And I'm over here saying that's what we should all be doing, because where I'm coming from, I truly believe that God is sovereign.

When we read an unambiguous passage like God works all things together after the counsel of his will,

I'm simply saying, yes, that would include the elect, which is more of the central context in Ephesians 1.

But it says all things, right? All things are working together after the counsel of his will. And so what's neat is

Paul uses that same language in connection once again with the elect and the assurance of their salvation,

Romans 8, 28. And we know that for those who love God, this would be the elect, all things work together for good for those who are called according to his purpose.

All things are working together for our salvation. Even those people that reject the gospel, that's a part of the all things that are working together for our good, for our sanctification to conform us more into the image of Christ.

I just want to encourage you, if you agree that Romans 9 is talking about salvation, well, it's also talking about damnation, destruction, right?

And so to me, the key verse is verse 18. So then God has mercy on whomever he wills.

God is active in that, and it's a package deal. God is also active. It says he hardens whomever he wills.

God is active in both, but it's asymmetrical. And so when we're talking about clear and unambiguous language, verse 21 talks about how

God is active, and out of the same lump, God, Mark, to agree with me, this is talking about fallen humanity.

Listen, the potter has the right over the clay to make out of that lump of fallen humanity one vessel for honorable use, right?

Glory, salvation. And out of that same lump of fallen humanity, another for dishonorable use, right?

For greater clarity. Those vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, right?

In order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he prepared before him.

And so I know when we think about double predestination, it's like, oh, but this is meant to give assurance for those that have tasted and seen that the

Lord is gracious. And so yes, we can have true assurance of our salvation when we look back to that external call in our life where our whole life changed, but it wasn't just external.

It was also internal, right? We have a love, not a perfect love, but a love in the perfect savior.

And if you have a love at all for Christ, then you can rest assured knowing that he's going to see it to the day of completion at the day of glory.

Thanks so much, Donnie. Thank you, Jeremiah, for that five -minute closing statement.

Again, gentlemen, excellent debate tonight. Okay, Mark, we're going to hand it over to you now for a five -minute concluding statement.

I will restart the timer. The floor is yours. Go ahead. All right. And I've unmuted myself without any prodding from you.

So thank you again, Donnie, for hosting this debate. And thank you, Jeremiah. I really enjoy it. And just to reiterate,

I consider you a brother and I largely only know you from, well, this debate and our last, but I've really enjoyed our discussions together.

So thank you. And thank you to the audience for your patience and for tuning in. It really is an exciting

Reformation day. So I want to end just by pointing out again,

I think the main issues here are that Jeremiah really, he's not using precise terms.

So when I say that he's equivocating, you don't equivocate on two different terms.

He's equivocating on the same term. So he's equivocating on predestination in regard to the elect and predestination in regard to the non -elect.

So to go back to the quote from Fulgentius that I quoted in my opening statement, therefore

God foreknew all human works. So he foreknows them. He has foreknowledge of them, whether good or evil.

So he foreknows both good and evil because nothing could be hidden from him, but he predestined only the good works, which he foreknew he would do in the children of grace.

Predestination properly understood really only applies to the elect, unless one is going to say that God, that his predestination of the irreprobate is a cause that works, that gains, works, helps, and promotes the reprobation of, or the damnation of man and what belongs to it.

So it's in that sense that I continue to maintain that Jeremiah here is equivocating on this term predestination in regard to the elect and the non -elect.

But the fact of the matter is that if he wants to no longer use this term to refer to the reprobation of the non -elect, then he's just moving closer to the

Lutheran position. The fact is that within the Reformed camp, there are a wide variety of views, and Calvin was much more of a hard double predestination,

I guess you could say. So I don't see, and I don't think Jeremiah really holds to the same view that Calvin did.

The second thing is the call. So Jeremiah, yeah, he talked about Romans 9 a lot, and actually what's interesting about Romans 9 is that most commentators, they do not recognize that Romans 9 is really the place to seek a substantial doctrine of predestination, because that's just not what

Paul's program is in that particular chapter. Instead, what

I tried to point to is the fact that if one really wants to understand the doctrine of election, the place to look for it is

Matthew 22 1 -14, where the king there's a marriage, and he invites people to the wedding, and he sends out his call to people.

Some reject it, some even slay the servants, and so what does he do?

He withdraws his grace. How does he do that? He withdraws his grace by withdrawing the call.

He no longer calls them. He turns from them toward another people, and he calls others.

He sends his servants to go into the highways and byways to call others to come to the wedding, and what

Christ wants to show with this is that we don't need to look to some hidden, unrevealed foreknowledge of God's, anything that he has not revealed.

What God has revealed is that he sincerely desires men to be saved, and he demonstrates this by sending his word, by calling people to repentance, to faith in Christ.

He's sent his son. The wedding is prepared. He wants everyone to come, and the fact that some don't come is not because he did not sincerely desire them to come.

Some don't come because of their sinful natures. That's the point, and really that's the simplest way to understand the doctrine of election.

There is no hint of a double predestination in Matthew chapter 22, and I think that's my time.

Thank you again to everyone, and I hope you enjoyed the debate. Mark, I appreciate it.

Thank you, gentlemen, for the concluding statements. Again, the night has flown by.

You both gave me a difficult job tonight. I mean, you're bringing the heat, constantly interrupting each other.

This was one of the most heated debates. I'm just kidding. You guys did great. Like I said, a couple of true professionals and a great way to end

Reformation Day. So Jeremiah and Mark, you can both smile and smile big because you gave us a great debate.

So okay, to the audience real quick, I will let you know. We're hosting four to five events a week, and so we got another couple epic debates coming for you this week, and this one's coming up, the

Great Faith Alone Debate. So Turretin Fan, he's an experienced debater, and Seraphim Hamilton, another experienced debater.

So they will be here later this week for the Great Faith Alone Debate. Specifically, the thesis will have to do with the imputed righteousness of Christ.

You're not going to want to miss out on this one, ladies and gentlemen, and then we've also got another two -in -one event night.

So we've got the round two between Dr. Dino and Mr. Anderson, and immediately following this, we will transition into our usual all -night open mic.

And so creationists, evolutionists, make sure you are here for this, and we'll have some good debate.

Okay, gentlemen, are you ready for some solid Q &A from our awesome audience?

All right. Okay, let's do it. We've got 25 minutes on the clock. Gentlemen, this ain't your first rodeo, so whoever the question's for, we'll just make sure they get the last word.

That way, we'll be able to move along smoothly. Okay, here we go. First question comes in from PraiseTheIM, and it looks like he's coming at you,

Jeremiah, so feel free to give him the heat. So he says, if mercy equals salvation in Romans 9 -15, then please explain

Romans 11 -32. Go ahead. Yeah, so just Romans 11 -32, for God has consigned to all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

And so the whole context, when you look at the block of Romans 9, 10, and 11, we read back in Romans 9 that not all

Israel are of Israel. And so this is demonstrating that out of the initial disobedience and lump of clay of fallen humanity, that he is showing mercy on all who come to saving faith.

And so this is talking about mercy on all of true Israel, is how I essentially understand this statement.

But you got to look at the flow of his argument, because he's initially talking about the mystery of Israel's salvation.

And so out of that same lump that he displays mercy on all of the elect, and he uses

Jacob as an example of that, they truly disobeyed. They were at once,

Paul says elsewhere, children of wrath. And so out of that lump of fallen humanity, he shows mercy on what somebody was once disobedience in their rebellion.

Forgot to hit the timer, so I don't know how much time I have left. Oh, that's okay. That's good. I appreciate it, Jeremiah. And Mark, over to you.

Go ahead. So what Paul is doing in Romans 9 through 11, as I mentioned earlier, is that he's responding to this claim that God is not being faithful to his promises toward Israel.

And so what he's doing in Romans 11, verse 32, is he's saying, in order to show mercy toward both

Jew and Gentile, because Israel, they're thinking of themselves as the elect people.

But what Paul wants to demonstrate, especially with the examples that he uses of of Jacob and Esau, is that you're not among the elect according to the flesh.

You're among the elect according to the promise. So this is kind of why I mentioned in the discussion earlier that there are implications for individual salvation, predestination here in Romans 9, but that's not really the main thrust of Paul's argument.

And so the hardening, most commentators will recognize this as a temporal hardening.

The idea is not to harden toward damnation. The idea is to harden temporarily in order to graft the

Gentiles in, and then in order that eventually

God will have mercy on all, both Jew and Gentile, as he says in chapter 11. So that's the idea behind Paul's argument.

And this is also why I say that Romans 9 is really not the main place you want to go to establish a doctrine of predestination.

I appreciate it, Mark. Jeremiah, you get the last word. Go ahead. All right. A minute. Is that right, Donnie? Yeah, roughly a minute.

Yeah, go ahead. So I disagree with Mark's rebuttal because we see that these vessels were prepared for destruction.

And Mark earlier in the debate agreed that this is talking about final and ultimate judgment.

But going back to the question here, so I wanted to read a little bit more in the context. And we go back up into this partial hardening.

So Mark is right. There is a partial hardening on Israel for the sake of the

Gentiles, right? That the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. But then he says, as regard to the gospel, the

Jews are enemies for your sake. But as it regards to election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers, for their gifts and callings of God are irrevocable.

For just as you were at one time disobedient to God, but now have received mercy for their disobedience.

So they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you, they may also now receive mercy.

And so, yeah, Israel's disobedience serves a purpose in demonstrating mercy to all, meaning not just the

Jews, but also the Gentiles. Okay, very good. Thank you very much for the final word there,

Jeremiah. Next one comes in from Echoing Erudite. And it's another one for you,

Jeremiah. You're kind of in the hot seat tonight. I do appreciate you being a good sport, but that's good. That's good.

So, okay, here we go. How's the coffee, by the way, brother? This turned into water.

I can't keep drinking the coffee this late. Smart. Yes, tonight is a late night debate.

So, okay, here we go. Question from Echoing Erudite. How can some be predestined for the fire when 2

Peter 3 .8 says God delays judgment due to wanting all saved and follow

Joshua 24 verse 15, choose this day whom we will serve.

All right. I appreciate this question. So, 2 Peter 3 .8 says, but do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that the day of the

Lord is like a thousand years and a thousand years one day. Now, he should have quoted verse nine, because this is usually where the emphasis comes out.

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promises. Some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach under penance.

Got to ask the question contextually, who's the you, the any, and the all? What's the beloved? And he's writing a second letter to those he previously wrote in chapter one, which is the elect, right, that are been dispersed all over the world.

And so God is not willing that any of the elect or the beloved would perish.

And so he is long suffering to a world that hates him so that he can draw the elect unto repentance.

And so when Joshua 24 says, choose this day, this is that categorical imperative to all men that all should choose

God ultimately, but not all do. I appreciate it,

Jeremiah. Mark, floor is yours. Yeah. So, so obviously

Paul is speaking to an entire congregation here. So the fact that he says beloved, there are wheat among the tares in every congregation, as it were.

So to assume then that he's only thinking of the elect here,

I don't think really is tenable in the context. But what I want to point out is that this is the point that God's revealed will for people is that they repent and believe.

And this is revealed to all whom

God calls by the word of his gospel. So going back to, for example,

Romans 9, God is long suffering with these people, and he's long suffering wanting them to repent.

And there's a, similarly, I didn't get to bring this particular passage up earlier.

It's 2 Timothy 2. And it's, but in a great house, there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth, and some to honor and some to dishonor.

If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel into honor, sanctified and meet for the master's use and prepared unto every good work.

This is a direct cross reference with that passage in Romans 9.

The idea being that we simply look to the revealed will of God, revealed to us in the word, revealed to us in preached word, that he sincerely desires that all men repent and come to faith.

And it's not a false call. It truly indicates the true desire of God toward fallen man, all men.

Thank you, Mark. Jeremiah, you get the last word. Go ahead. All right. So Mark said, this is not just talking about the elect.

And I'm like, man, he's going to make me prove this. I'm okay with that. So like I said back in verse 9, who is the any, the you, and the all referring to?

But back in verse 8 with the question, it's the beloved. Where did we see the beloved earlier? Back in verse 1 of chapter 3.

This is now the second letter I'm writing to you, beloved. Okay.

Let's go back to the first letter to see who he's addressing. Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ to those who are elect, elect exiles of the dispersion of Pontius, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia.

And then Peter goes on in chapter 2. He says, look, guys, you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession that you may proclaim the ecclesies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

It is talking about the elect. Okay, perfect. Thank you very much for the final word,

Jeremiah. Now we've got a question for both Clint Little, one of your best buds,

Jeremiah in the chat asking several questions. So here we go.

I appreciate the engagement question for both. So, okay. Whoever wants to volunteer,

I guess, but let me read the question. Okay. So he says, read

Hebrews 5, 8 to 9, and then tell us if Jesus had to obey, why would we get a pass on obedience as part of salvation?

So, yeah, I'll go first. That's fine. And I'll read the passage so you don't have to.

So Hebrews 5, 8 through 9, though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation and to all them that obey him called of God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

So, I mean, I guess I don't really know. It sounds like Jeremiah kind of has a little more context to this question.

We don't really know Clint Little. Salvation by faith alone. So he interprets that as we don't have to obey.

Okay, yeah. So, actually, from a Lutheran perspective, and I'm pretty sure, well,

I'm not going to answer for Jeremiah, but, you know, our works, our good works, our new obedience does not merit justification or eternal life with God.

Our justification, our eternal life is based solely on God's free grace.

However, that does not give us a license to, you know, sin, to live wicked lives.

So the whole point of redemption is that we would be remade in the image of God, which

Christ restored to us in his incarnation and his death and resurrection and in winning salvation for us.

So the whole point is that we would be made new creatures, that we would be born again, that would be regenerated to a new life.

So the person who does not, and this, so the person who does not do this should not, or that this change in whom this change does not take place should not consider himself among the elect to bring this back to the topic of our debate tonight.

There are outward external signs that indicate whether one is among the elect, so I'll just leave it there.

Okay, thank you, Mark. Jeremiah, the floor is yours. Go ahead. Yeah, so Clint Little's Church of Christ, and so when they hear that we are justified by faith alone and we say apart from works, they interpret that to mean, oh, well, you don't think you have to obey the gospel.

And so this is silly because when you look at the word obey, it means to hearken unto, to listen, to heed, to submit to, to agree with.

And you can agree, obey from the heart, that form of doctrine, which is

God's tangible revealed will to man. And you know how justification has always happened? By grace through faith.

And so when you put your faith in King Jesus, you're being obedient from the heart. You're obeying the gospel from the heart.

And so that's the whole thing. So when somebody is justified by faith, trusting in the finished work of Jesus apart from anything that they do, they will necessarily continue to obey in works, good works to glorify

God with their entire lives, the way that Paul said in Ephesians 2 10 and Jesus on the

Sermon on the Mount, that we live our lives so others may see your good works, your works of obedience.

Yeah. All right. Very good. Thank you, Jeremiah and Mark for those answers.

Oh, do I not get another one? Well, I guess it was a question for both. So basically one was fine.

No, I'm sorry. Well, you know, Jeremiah has gotten two questions so far. They are mostly for Jeremiah.

So he gets the benefits of having the last word on most of them. So, well, I mean, we do have a question here for you,

Mark. It's a tough one. Doki Doki Bible club asks, what's that on your wall? It's Adam's synchronic, well, there's two things actually.

There's, let me start my timer. There's Adam's synchronological chart of history, which is a really interesting visual display of like the entire history of man through like 18 something or other synchronologically arranged so that, you know, you can see, you know, where, for example, various events in the

Bible coincide with other secular events taking place at any place in the world at any given time.

The second thing that I have back here is Luther's small catechism, which

I would heartily recommend to anyone as a, the best, simplest exposition and summary of the

Christian faith, you know, outside of the historic ecumenical creeds. So.

Very cool, Mark. I appreciate that. Okay. Well, we'll give you a minute though, right? So let me use my minute and go back to that Clint Little question because what

I want to point out is that in the parable of the wedding feast, a man shows up without the proper attire.

And so what the doctrine of election, one of the things that the, one of the purposes of the doctrine of election is we are to understand that we, one, that we are to attend to those means that God has ordained for us, for our use, for our salvation, which is the word and the sacraments.

So the people who reject the word, those are, they're cut off. The person who shows up without the proper attire, well, that's two ways.

Christ is put on in two ways. So he's not in Christ. He hasn't put Christ on. He hasn't put him on by faith and he has not put him on.

He has not put Christ on as his example. That is the way in which he should now live his life in obedience to God.

So that's why he's cast into outer darkness. Can I get a minute? Yes. To be fair.

How about Jeremiah, we give you a minute and then Jeremiah, you decide who gets the last word. We get two, right?

He already got his two minutes. That's true. Okay. So since he did two. It's for me.

The question's for me. So Jeremiah should get two. Okay. Well, Jeremiah, you go ahead.

I think it's more so to do with the Clint Little question though. Clint has become the star of the show.

I want your thoughts on my wall for us. There you go, Jeremiah. I love Martin Luther. So just know

I'm hashtag team reformation, baby. So, and you're right. My favorite work is the bondage of the will.

Surprise, surprise. But I love what you got going on the wall. I was going to comment on our wall too.

This is actually the pulpit area for 12 Five Church where we get to preach. And so we think aesthetics communicates something.

So we want people to investigate the commentaries of old, the saints that have come before us that have been regenerated and gifted by the spirit.

And so we want people to know that we care diligently about rightly handling the truth of God's word.

And so we have a historic faith where, and so I just want to appreciate what you said too.

One other thought when you said, and I'll start a minute here on this one. The wedding feast to me is nothing but the external call.

And so when you said earlier, if you want to go to a passage about a predestination, go to this parable.

And I'm like, come on, you least should have said to Ephesians chapter one, or a place that talks about predestination.

Now, when you said many are called and few are chosen, many are called externally.

Look at the parable that tells us, go to the highways and byways and call everyone to repent and believe the gospel.

But there's a reason why some people respond and why some people don't. And I would actually put it back on the

Lutherans. If they're totally depraved and can't respond to God, then why does the

Holy Spirit regenerate some and not others? This was the big sticking point in our last debate.

And you told me we don't know. And so I appreciate the honesty there. Very good gentlemen, battle of the backdrops or back walls tonight.

Both look good actually. And especially like your lighting. So you were supposed to get one minute and then

I get a minute and then you get another minute, but you went two minutes in a row. Oh, is it not two minutes? Oh, I'm sorry.

I've been going. I guess two minutes. So two to one. But I'm not overly strict.

Some questions might take a few seconds over and that's all right. You're fine too. Okay. So I assume we're moving on now.

That was good. This has been great. And an easy going Q &A. This is awesome gentlemen.

So here we go. Next question from Shannon. Question for Jeremiah.

How is the reprobate justly punishable when no one knows why

God has elected him to damnation? Okay. So I get two minutes. That's right.

I've been just going for one. Let me change that. Yeah. So we do know why the reprobate are justly punishable.

Um, now he says when no one knows why God has elected him to.

Yeah. So that's actually, I mean, he's mixing categories. And so the elect are the chosen unto salvation.

The reprobate are those predestined, not chosen for glory, but predestined for damnation.

And we know why it's all to glorify God in his holiness and his justice and his wrath.

And I would, I differ with Mark. Surprise, surprise. Romans nine is so crystal clear, that you've got some vessels for glory that have been prepared, that they've received mercy.

But God equally, I say God equally is involved active, not symmetrically, but God is also involved in giving over the reprobate to the dishonorable passions.

And so we're told it's to the glory of God. So God can be glorified in his mercy, his love, his grace, right in salvation.

And God also receives glory, um, for giving the reprobate over to dishonorable passions.

And so one of the verses that I would point Shannon to is Romans 1136 for of him and through him and to him are all things to whom be the glory forever.

Amen. And so we know exactly why God has predetermined some unto damnation.

It's that he might be glorified his attributes of justice, holiness, and wrath.

Thank you very much, Jeremiah. Mark, floor is yours. Go ahead. Yeah. So, okay.

So don't think I'm like going back to our previous debate and dwelling on it. These things are, they're so closely and intimately related.

The reason why some are saved and not others, some are saved because they accept the gospel.

They receive it. They believe it. They trust in it and they repent and live new lives of, uh, of, uh, obedience.

Others reject it and they are, they are therefore justly punished. So interestingly,

Jeremiah, we did not actually get into this, but, uh, he, he had a quibble there about the word elected.

So the thing is, is that, uh, in some cases, so election and predestination in some cases are synonymous, they're interchangeable.

Um, but predestination can also be understood more broadly. So throughout this debate, um, you'll, you'll, if you think back, you'll probably realize that I've been using predestination, uh, at synonymously with election.

Um, so that, you know, I could say the elect are predestined, uh, to, you know, such and such, and the non -elect are not predestined.

Um, so, uh, just a, an interesting point there, but, uh, you know,

Jeremiah, I think, uh, again, just to reiterate the, one of the main points of the debate, he, he equivocates on this word predestination because it means one thing in regard to the elect, but it means something else in regard to the reprobate.

Uh, whereas from my perspective, uh, predestination simply does not apply to the reprobate, um, uh, except in the case that God predestines their punishment.

So not the fact that they're not, not the, the fact in itself that they are damned, but that they would be punished for their unbelief.

Thank you very much, Mark. Jeremiah, question was for you. You get the last word. Go ahead. Yeah, no,

Mark already conceded that predestined is a part of the semantic domain is predetermined.

And he, he agrees that God, um, not only predetermines the end for the reprobate, but in some way he determines this world in which they will necessarily sin.

So it's kind of a word game there. Uh, and people need to go back and listen to our, our last debate because when he said,

Oh, some choose Jesus and are regenerated unto everlasting life. And some reject the question is why, why do some look to Jesus when they're totally depraved?

And I'm so glad I get the last word here because he wants to say that, um, you got the Armenians and the

Calvinists and they're wrong. So we're this third category and we rock straight down the middle. The problem is that's not what's going on.

They dip into Arminianism when it's convenient. And then they dip over to Calvinism when it's, it's convenient. And so the real reason why some actually respond to the gospel positively is because they are regenerated by the

Holy spirit and the ones that reject are not regenerated. They are simply given over to the passions of the lust of their flesh and they always will deny the gospel.

So that's, that's the reason why some receive and some reject. All right. Thank you for the final word there,

Jeremiah, to be fair, what we can do the next questions for both. And so Jeremiah, let's start with you.

And then that way Mark can have a final word here. And so this comes in from victory street ministry, $5 super chat.

I do appreciate the support question for both an exegetical base question here.

And he is asking for you both to please exegete Ezekiel 33 verse 11.

Okay. Um, so the full verse says, say to them as I live declares the

Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live, turn back, turn back from your evil ways for why will you die?

Oh, Israel. Now this, this is a fantastic question because, you know, back earlier,

Mark was talking about something that I affirm in terms of there is we, we look to the revealed will of God.

So in reformed theology, we have God's sovereign will of whatsoever comes to pass.

This includes what's going to happen in the future. Um, and we're not privy to those things, right? Deuteronomy 29, 29 says you've got the secret council of God and that which has been revealed to your children for all generations.

And so God's revealed will tells us that it does not bring him joy when the wicked die in their sin.

Is it necessarily going to come to pass for God's overarching purpose of putting his glory on display?

Yes. But he is revealing to us that he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

He is revealing to us in analogical anthropomorphic terms that we can truly understand, even though that it's necessary, this does not bring

God joy in the wicked dying. And so objectively they ought to turn and look to the promises of God and be saved.

Thank you, Jeremiah, for that response. Mark, the floor is yours now. Go ahead. Yeah. So, uh,

I mean, it sounds like the, uh, person who asked the question, well, I guess there's no indication there in the question, but, um,

Jeremiah, he says that he looks to the revealed will of God, but I want to remind you about, uh, something that came up earlier in the debate where I asked him about this quote from Calvin.

Uh, and I'll read it again. So at last he concludes that God have mercy on whom he will have mercy in whom he will.

He hardeneth. You see how he refers, refers both to the mere pleasure of God. Therefore, if we cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just so that it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others, but his will, when

God has said to visit in mercy or harden whom he will men are reminded that they are not to seek for any cause beyond his will.

So, um, Jeremiah said he did not want to be pitted against Calvin, uh, uh, regarding this quote.

So, but here he's saying that God really does not desire, uh, that, uh, he, he really truly does not desire, um, the, the death of the wicked or the damnation.

I don't remember, uh, sorry, exactly how you phrased it just now, but, uh, let me, let me emphasize those words of Calvin again, the mere pleasure of God.

Um, so I, I, I think he's contradicting himself here in some way or just not being consistent.

Uh, but this is what the absolute decree is. Uh, this is why we as Lutherans reject an absolute decree.

So, uh, God's gracious election is in Christ. Um, his reprobation of men, his decree to reprobate is not his mere good pleasure.

Um, because he, as Ezekiel says here, he doesn't desire the death of the wicked, uh, his decree to punish those men for their, uh, unbelief is, is on account of that, uh, precisely their unbelief, their persistence in, uh, sin and rejection of Christ.

Okay. Thank you, Mark, for that last word there, gentlemen, we got one final question and then we're going to wrap it up.

It's been an excellent debate and the Q and A as always, just a ton of fun. So great job to the both of you.

And the last question goes to you, Jeremiah, and this comes in from Oki all day.

And he asks if man's rebellion is the reason for them going to hell, then the logical question would be where did the rebellion come from?

And did God ordain that or did he not? Hmm. Good question.

I mean, this can come in all different shapes and sizes, um, in terms of when we're asking about specific things.

So like, this is a great logical question. Um, where did the rebellion come from? Well, we would say ultimately it comes from God.

God is the primary cause for whatsoever comes to pass, but that is compatible with man's real decisions to rebel against God.

God is the primary cause of all things, but he uses secondary means to bring about the end goal, um, ultimately.

And so this is, uh, I would want, I want the, the questioner, I would love for you to go watch my debate, uh, with AK where we talk about, um,

I took the negative to the proposition that says man has libertarian free will.

And so, um, if you're compatibilist, you say, okay, God can ordain something to come to pass eternally.

And man can make certain decisions temporarily and these work together.

And so it's not that God is coercing man to rebel. He's decreed that it's going to come about, but he uses the secondary means and the desires of fallen humanity, all of those of Adam's posterity.

And like we're, me and, uh, Mark find a lot of agreement is those means are

God giving over man over to what he desires, the reprobate in, um,

Romans chapter one. So man actively through secondary means suppresses the truth in unrighteousness in their rebellion against God.

So my big point is yes, God did ordain that he decrees whatsoever comes to pass. And you believe that in some shape or form, if you affirm that God is omnipotent, omnipotent and omniscient and determined to create a world with knowing everything that's going to take place infallibly.

So, and so God ordained this world to exist in every event that takes place. If you affirm that history is

God's story, his story of redemption, then if you believe in the classical understanding of God and his attributes, then you too agree that God has ordained everything that comes to pass.

But in real time, man is the secondary means that God has chosen to bring about those things like man's rebellion against God.

Jeremiah, I appreciate it, Mark. Yeah. So, you know, it, it, it may have sounded like we agree on a lot and maybe we do, but I think as I pointed out earlier, it's probably because he's closer to the

Lutheran position or at least trying to not, he doesn't want to say,

I think, certain things. And, and the result is that, as I pointed out many times now,

I think he uses many words imprecisely. And, and actually I hear this a lot from the

Reformed about God being the first cause and using secondary causes and such, but I want to,

I want to actually give an example that one of our theologians gives. So I'm just going to read it here because it's really helpful, a really helpful illustration for how this works, what this actually looks like.

So he says, as we have said previously, the secondary cause by itself cannot do anything positive, but its effect is attributed to the first cause, but it can act by itself only in the sense of lacking, erring, or being deficient.

And this effect is not attributed to the first cause. So think sin. Okay. Now this reply may seem somewhat unclear, but it can be better understood by this illustration from Augustine.

If a person is lame because he has a deformed or dislocated shin bone, two points can be considered regarding his walk.

The one is his motion or progress. The other is his limp, that is a certain defect in his walking.

Now it is established that the movement itself in the walking of a lame man is from the power, which is called locomotive power, that there is the defect of lameness in his motion or walking does not arise from his locomotive power but from the dislocation of his leg bone.

Therefore, just as the defect of lameness is not attributed to the power of motion but to a bent leg bone, so the lack or defect of the secondary cause must not be attributed to the primary cause, which is a cause to be sure for the acting of the secondary but is not the cause whereby the actions of the secondary cause are defective.

So God basically sustains his creation, but he does not will, approve, or aid, or cause the sin, the defect, or anything in man, which is attributed to that man alone.

That's the way that this should be understood. Thank you, Mark. I appreciate it. Jeremiah, you get the last word.

Go ahead. Yeah. So when we say that God doesn't force sin, we're saying he doesn't work evil into the heart of a fallen man.

They already desire to do that in light of Adam's fall, but that is compatible with God for ordaining everything that comes to pass.

We could say that a different way, that he works all things together after the counsel of his will or he declares the end from the beginning.

And so really this debate is a...we have to be consistent with the whole counsel of God.

We can't look at some of these passages that tell us about God not changing, being immutably so, like Martin Luther said.

And we have to carry that. God's immutable will, right? His will that this world and everything that's going to take place in it is going to happen necessarily.

God is ultimately and primarily responsible for that, but not in a blameworthy way.

How can God do that? Well, he's transcendent. He's eternal. He's the creator over his creation.

And so yes, God can choose differently, eternally ordain whatsoever comes to pass because of who he is.

And that doesn't negate man's actual choice in every state of affairs.

So I just want people to understand that you have to look for consistency. God is the author, the effectual author of everything that is good.

How do I know that? Genesis 1 and 2. That came from God's loving, gracious hand when he spoke the world into existence.

And then like Mark said earlier, sin is a corruption of that which is good. And so we are that secondary cause of bringing about sin and evil, but that doesn't negate

God's overriding purpose in whatsoever comes to pass. Jeremiah, I appreciate that final word.

And gentlemen, that wraps up the audience Q &A and the debate itself.

This was an excellent debate on the topic of double predestination. And so I'm always thrilled to have two people who have thoroughly studied this topic to engage it.

And so again, thanks so much for the time you've given to us. Let's get some quick final words, final thoughts.

Mark, let's start with you again. Appreciate your time for this. And some final thoughts.

Yeah, I really enjoyed it. I don't want to try to rehash anything.

I will say one thing that I didn't mention is that how I know I'm elect is because I'm baptized.

And that's one of the means that God has ordained that I be brought to him to salvation.

So yeah, I really enjoyed this debate. I figured it was going to be a nice, lighthearted debate between brothers here on this

Reformation Day. What are we now? 506 years since the posting of the 95 theses.

So yep. Thank you, Donnie, for hosting again, and Jeremiah for being here and for being a gracious interlocutor.

And I hope everyone out there enjoys the rest of this day and this festival season of the church year.

Tomorrow is All Saints Day, one of my favorites. So it's just really a great time in the year.

So that's it for me. Thank you again. All right.

My pleasure. I appreciate it. That is the topic of your first debate, the great baptism debate.

So for anybody who has joined us tonight and has not seen that debate, I should, and if I don't,

I will make sure it's linked in the description box. Check that debate out because I would say these have been two excellent debates and both of you, two very heated exchanges in both.

So with that, Jeremiah, thank you as well for your time for this debate.

Always a pleasure. Some final words, final thoughts. Yeah. Thank you so much, Donnie, for having me back on.

And Mark, you've been an awesome interlocutor. And I do find us talking more and more that there are some strong overlaps, and it shouldn't surprise me so much because we're on the same side of the

Reformation. And thank you for having this debate on Reformation Day. It's almost midnight where I'm at, and so it's been a blast.

I just want to encourage the audience to check out the Apologetic Dog where I've been able to do apologetics ministry.

I just want to give a shout out to my wife, who's the babe of all babes. She supports me in allowing me to be able to break away and do this on the side.

And my church family at 12 .5, they are in wonderful support of me pursuing apologetics.

They hold me accountable. I have them in mind when I do these things. And so I just want to thank everybody out there for that.

And I want to say that I know that I'm elect because I have a faith internally that the

Holy Spirit has graciously granted to me. I know that because God has revealed that to me in His Word, and He cannot lie.

And to Mark's delight is I love baptism. I do think it is not totally separated from the gospel.

I think it declares the gospel. I think it's a sanctifying means of grace.

So we have a lot in common. I know we have our disagreements, and dude, we'll have to do a debate again sometime in the future.

Yes, we have to get a complete trilogy, the Mark versus Jeremiah debate trilogy, part three, end game.

So, okay. Great job to the both of you. Great final words from the both of you. I really do appreciate that. It's been a late one, but it was worth it.

It was a debate to remember, and I really enjoyed sitting back and listening to the points on both sides.

I think you both did an excellent job engaging each other's questions. You're both good sports. And brothers, again, thank you so much for doing this.

To the audience, thank you so much for tuning in. I appreciate all the questions, the support, and the engagement.

And so with that, everybody have an excellent night. God bless, and Standing for Truth is out.