DEBATE ｜ Double Predestination Jeremiah Nortier vs Marc Gajeton

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 gotta 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 gonna 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 -.

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 wanna 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 wanna 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, 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 good

Lutheran beverage right here.

Nice to wind down a little bit.

It's been a crazy day.

And 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, not my first time debating Jeremiah.

I know since then 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 ring once more.

Yes, you're gonna make him sweat again tonight, aren't you, Mark?

I'm gonna 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's 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 wanna 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 wanna get into a few verses where we talk about how God

predetermines the elect unto salvation.

So 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.

And 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 wanna switch gears and talk about some verses for the reprobate unto judgment.

Proverbs 16, four 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 Proverbs 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 nine 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 2 talks about this nature that God has destined, even

predetermined the wicked in His created world.

1 Peter 2, starting in verse seven 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 four, 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 perdition that he might

fulfill the scriptures.

And so I also want us to take a peek into Romans chapter nine.

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 nine, 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 also 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 gonna 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.

God plays a part in that.

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 chapter 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.

30 seconds.

Okay, you're good.

Thank you very much, Jeremiah, for that 15 minute opening statement.

We're now gonna 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.

Bear with me 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 wanna 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 gonna 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 gonna find here in this debate is that Jeremiah is going to have to work from

his own words 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, he's going 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, 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.

Once 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 Coriccan caverns.

We have to argue in one way about God or the will of God as preached, revealed, offered, and worshiped.

And in another way about God as he is not preached, not revealed, not offered, not worshiped.

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 of which speak of God's

universal goodwill toward men.

Think of the Christmas story, peace on earth and goodwill toward men.

I do recognize that there's a textual variant there, but I would argue that peace, goodwill 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 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.

You see here passages, Romans 5, 8, Second 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, He'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.

And 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 in 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 and the devil and His angels, not men.

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.

And 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 gonna 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 I just 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.

Okay, so God is absolute.

He is eternal.

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

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 when 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 them.

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 had 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 2, I wanna turn there briefly.

I made it.

He quoted a fantastic verse, starting in verse four, God, our Savior, who desires all people

to be saved.

I want you to listen to Mark.

That is unambiguous language, that God has the 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?

Well, he's 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 gonna 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 pre -estimation 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 wanna 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 nine.

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

contact 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 wanna point later in the context.

So verse 18 in Romans chapter nine, so then God has mercy on whomever he wills and he hardens

whomever he wills, okay?

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 gonna go if they reject Jesus and die in their sin?

Well, they're gonna go to destruction.

They're gonna 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 in 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 gonna 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 would have definitely would have forgotten that there.

So thank you, Jeremiah, for that rebuttal.

So I do wanna 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 wanna clear that up before going on.

You did make a lot of your points, a lot of points in your opening statement.

One, I just, I think it's kind of interesting that 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, 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 in so far 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 can say that double predestination is true, that it's

asymmetrical and therefore God, 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.

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 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 up to a point, 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 men, 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.

So, 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 hate, 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 through 30, for whom he did foreknow, he also did

predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son, that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren.

Moreover, whom he did predestinate them, he also called, et cetera, et cetera.

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, you know, 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 know,

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 God, 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.

And the first cross exam will be to you, Jeremias, and you will be leading the way

in the first 25 minutes.

And 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 doctrine.

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.

And yeah, 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.

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, right?

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?

Well, it kind of depends what you mean by being active.

So if I could give you a definition

of election,.

Okay.

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'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.

Well, no, I just, I 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 that way?

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.

So -.

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

But I mean, and a lot of -.

Well, you know, re -reference came first and then y 'all came after, so.

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, you know, scripture talks about

So 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, you know, if by active, we could understand the withdrawal of God's grace, but

not such that, you know, 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,

you know, 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, although

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 it's not -.

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 shall the thing form say -.

So what Paul is responding to here is this idea

that God has not been faithful to his word, that he has,

that he is to his promises toward Israel, in which case

What's that lump?

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.

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 the question, but 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 it out.

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.

He has the water, no rot over the clay to make out of the same lump

one vessel for honorable use and it's still make out another for

dishonorable use.

Yes?

So now let's -.

Is that an individual person?

Are you thinking of vessel as an individual person?

Okay, so since I'm at, let me ask you this.

Just for clarification.

Yeah, yeah, 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, but first of all, we all begin

a dishonorable.

So -.

He makes out of that lump dishonorable vessels, right?

He makes vessels.

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 of sin?

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 wanna 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.

I'm trying.

You know, like, again, I think that in which case you're sounding more Lutheran than

you are Reformed because I have no idea how that is any way a

predestining.

How that is not equivocating on the term to predestined.

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.

Predestined is not the same as predetermined?

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 peridzo for predetermined or predestined, like we see in Acts chapter four,

it's to decide upon beforehand predetermined.

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 peridzo,

translating it predestined.

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.

Because when I -.

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 determined 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, 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, okay, 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 it's 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.

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

So what do you think Isaiah 46 10 means?

And definitely takes some time to develop the context.

But the prophet is declaring that Yahweh, he says, I am God and there is none like me

declaring the end from the beginning.

And so I just want to pause there because I do want to ask you about 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.

Say it again.

1689, London Baptist Confession.

Oh, is that the 16?

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, including 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 is, 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, how does, 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 are totally on the same side.

I'm kind of, if he was consistent here, he would be later on.

So 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.

So 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.

Yeah, 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.

So however, it is not necessary.

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, did 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 wanna 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 of 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 don't, I don't, I like to listen.

So, but, 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 of, 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, the 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 gonna 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.

So is His, 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, so like -.

But it is in a way, it is a cause.

Then?

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, yeah, what is the cause?

It is, I'm gonna 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?

Uh, so when we're talking about sin is that

sin is not a, 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.

I may agree.

There's no deficiency in God.

Right, 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 wanna 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.

Okay, and God causes those in order to bring about?

Ultimately, he spoke the world into existence to where that would come about.

Necessarily, but in real time, man chooses, he is the cause of

his sin.

Okay, so I don't wanna be the dead horse, I'm just not under, I think you're equivocating on the word

predestined here because, Yeah, I know, but I don't wanna 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.

But you do think sin exists, like it's a kind of thing, it's a corruption, not a 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.

It doesn't exist in that way.

Anyway, do you know, 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 as.

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

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 gotta 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 111 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, you're muted.

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

That's what the absolute decree says.

Yes, yes.

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 gonna do.

I agree.

He sees everything in an eternal present now.

Yes.

But in any case, 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.

So, 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 would,

that he desires to punish those who persist in their unbelief and reject Christ's merit.

Yeah, so would you agree?

Oh, I mean, so Ephesians one 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.

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.

Do you understand, how do you understand that we are chosen in Christ?

So you gotta thank 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 gonna 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?

Oh, this is good, because is this from the parable that you're referencing earlier?

Yeah, Matthew 22 verses one 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 wanna keep harping on if you 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 gonna be a sweet smelling aroma unto life and some it's gonna 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 in the same call?

No, they're different.

So they're different calls, so are they, 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.

And 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, 100%, 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, it

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 between -.

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?

Like 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, so, 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, no.

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?

Where you, 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 -.

And 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 two

says.

So, but if, how can you know that the gospel is

actually for you, is kind of what I'm getting, that you can actually have assurance in that

if it's not the external call that actually, it conveys

God's will toward you.

It's really the internal call that not everyone gets.

And that's what Paul says in Romans eight, 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 internally,

I'm 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.

That's how, absolutely.

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 nine.

Who is it that prepare, let's hang on.

Let me get my bearings here.

My mouse isn't working.

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 his creator.

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

nine.

He is actively at work giving them up to that reprobate man.

So I think first -.

But 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 table.

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'd point you back to 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 a

asymmetrical different way with the hardening of the vessels unto destruction.

One last question.

What's your favorite Reformation hymn?

A Mighty 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, you know, 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, you know, I was accused of

kind of equivocating between predestined and predetermination.

And you saw Mark, when I appealed to Perizzo 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, you know, did God determine

a world in which sin would come about?

He's committed to saying yes.

And so Romans nine, I thought it was good when we started talking about, he agrees that God is

active in election, and I thought we were gonna 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 one, right?

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 stupid.

Romans one 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, right?

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.

Like when we read an unambiguous passage, like God works all things together after the council of

his will.

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

Ephesians one, but it says all things, right?

All things are working together after the council of his will.

And so what's neat is Paul uses that same, 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, right?

For our sanctification to conform us more into the image of Christ.

I just wanna encourage you, if you agree that Romans nine 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, okay?

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 in 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, ugh, but this

is meant to give assurance for those that have taste 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?

That 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 gonna 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, he's not, 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 reprobate

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 wants to hold, he invites people to the wedding, and he sends out his call

to people.

Some reject it, some even slay the servants.

And so he, 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 goes into the, or 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 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.

You know, 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 cause 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.

So you're not gonna wanna 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 Praise Thee I Am.

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 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.

That's how I essentially understand this statement.

But you gotta 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

Jacob and Esau is that the election,

you're not elect.

You're not among the elect according to the flesh.

You're among the elect according to the promise.

So this is kinda 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 wanna 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 so this, 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 on 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.

A 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 promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you not wishing that

any should perish but that all should reach under repentance.

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 had 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 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 wanna 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.