Steve Gregg vs. James White Debate: Part 2

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

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

Our helper he amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing.

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

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

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

On earth is not his equal.

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

Did we in moral strength confide. Our striving would be losing?

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

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

And he must win the battle.

Opening Remarks and the Debate Format

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

And welcome to The Dividing Line on a Friday. As you hopefully know, we have a debate going on. This will be installment number two, live on The Dividing Line, simulcasting with Steve Gregg's radio program.

I attempted to send an email this morning. I'm hoping they got it. I'm going to be looking at eight-minute segments today, speed things up a little bit more, a little bit more interaction, and then maybe six minutes, then four minutes, and move things along a little bit.

We'll see. I've still got a whole lot of biblical information to even start to get to. But as you know, we need to try to coordinate our program with Steve Gregg's. And so in about 20 seconds or so, we should be able to hear the beginning of Steve Gregg's program.

And what we've done is yesterday we took the feeds from both, edited them together, so that we would give you the best ability to hear this in the archive format as well. So we will attempt to do that again today.

So we should be getting ready to hear Steve Gregg's opening music. And once that comes up, we'll just bring that up, and we'll be ready to start. Here we go.

Welcome to a special edition of The Narrow Path radio broadcast. Although we are doing this program live, we will not be able to be taking calls on the program today. Instead, we have a dialogue between myself.

My name is Steve Gregg. By the way, I'm the host of the program generally. And my guest is going to be Dr. James White, who is a well-known Christian apologist and writer. And he and I are going to be debating or discussing in sort of a debate sort of way the issues of Calvinism and Arminianism.

And we're going to have measured portions of time so that we each get equal time to present. And I'm going to let our timekeeper, Paul Spurlock, take over at this point and let him explain what's going on here.

Yes, good afternoon again. And for those of you who are familiar with Steve Gregg, you are fans of the show, frequent listeners. Just bear with me as I orient the ministry.

A positive case. Dr. White, welcome again. Thank you so much for taking the time. And your first. Very quickly, Paul. I had written this morning, and I didn't get a response. My thought was to suggest that we use eight minutes so we have an extra period of exchange.

It might speed things up, do a little more interaction. I tried to get a hold of you all this morning, but email just doesn't seem to be working for us at all.

It doesn't seem to be working during these segments.

I just figured eight minutes would put an entire extra section in of back and forth. I think there's still a lot of presentation that needs to be done. So if eight minutes is fine, that would be great.

That would work for me, too. All right. Well, Dr. White, your first. Eight-minute portion. Okay. Thank you very much. As I mentioned yesterday, the primary reason that I am Reformed, believe me, it's not for trying to build large ministries or make lots of money, because I can assure you certain things to do that are death upon a ministry or to address Roman Catholicism would be a Calvinist.

So there must be a reason why I am committed to the understanding that God is sovereign in the matter of salvation and that he saves perfectly into his own glory, and he does so based upon eternal decree.

And as I mentioned yesterday, my reasoning for that is because I believe that we must apply the same hermeneutic, the same methodology of interpretation all across the spectrum. I cannot use one form of interpretation defending the deity of Christ, defending the resurrection or justification by faith, and then something else just because it steps on my toes when it comes to issues like free will or something along these lines.

And so for me, I start with biblical exegesis, and then I create a philosophical system based upon what I believe the consistent teaching of the word of God is. I do not start with philosophy. I start with the fact that God has revealed his word and that mankind is commanded, in fact, to think his thoughts after him, to give to his revelation primacy in all things.

And so because of that, there are certain texts of scripture that I believe very clearly, very forcefully, in context, if we use a consistent hermeneutic that we would use to defend any of the other great doctrines of faith, teach the doctrines of grace as Calvinists want to call them.

One that is most popular in the sense of very well known and I think communicates very strongly to people is Jesus' own presentation of these truths in the synagogue in Capernaum. And so I would like to look at what Jesus said in that context and hopefully not just this one, but look at a few other texts as well over the course of this hour to begin laying that biblical foundation for the doctrines of grace.

And in John chapter 6, we have the story of Jesus feeding the 5 ,000 the next day. People come searching for him. These are actually seeking after Jesus. They find him in the synagogue in Capernaum and they begin to question him.

And we are told something very, very important that needs to be understood. Beginning at verse 35 of John chapter 6, Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me shall not hunger and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. Now these are people seeking after Jesus and yet he says they are unbelievers. And the rest of this text is an explanation of why there are believers and unbelievers.

And in fact, the entire rest of this chapter ends up leading us to only 12 followers of Jesus. One of them is a devil and the other 11 are confused. And they are the only ones who continue to follow after Jesus.

And so Jesus is explaining the unbelief of these men and why anyone has true faith. He says in verse 37, all that the Father gives me will come to me and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. Now please notice that to come to Christ is obviously to believe in Christ.

How is it that a person comes to believe in Christ? Because the Father gives that person to Christ. There is no question that in the original language, in any translation, however you want to put it, the giving of the Father in verse 37 precedes and determines the coming to Christ.

All that the Father gives me will come to me. And so if someone wants to say, well, that's because the Father foresaw that they would come or they were particularly good or they were better than somebody else, that has to be explained from the context.

You have to determine how that comes from the context, how Jesus' own words lead you to that. That can't just be stuck in there. Because what the text says is that the Father gives a certain people the Son and as a result they come.

Then the rest of verse 37 says, and whoever comes to me, the one coming to me, I will never cast out. Why will he never cast out one who comes to him? Because the explanation is given to us in the next two verses.

For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. So the Son has come down from heaven to do the Father's will. What is the Father's will for him? And this is the will of him who sent me that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me but raise it up on the last day.

So here is to me one of the greatest statements of what distinguishes a truly biblical soteriology, a truly biblical view of salvation from the many sub-biblical views that are very popular today. And that is, do we believe that Jesus can be a perfect Savior?

Does Jesus ever fail to save someone that is the Father's will for him to save? Can Jesus save perfectly without the cooperation of mankind? Does Jesus try to save anyone but since they refuse to cooperate or they only cooperate for a while, whatever it might be, he fails in that task.

The text is very, very, very clear. He has come down from heaven to do the will of the Father. And what is the will of the Father? That he should lose nothing of all that he has given me but raise it up on the last day.

And to be raised up on the last day is to receive eternal life and clear the forgiveness of sins. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Who are those who will look upon the Son? Who are those who will believe upon the Son unto eternal life? Those given by the Father to the Son. Many people try to go to verse 40, reverse it, read it back into verse 37 as if verse 40 came before verse 37.

That is not the methodology of the hermeneutic that we use in any other interpretation. Well, then there's grumbling about what he has said and a rejection of who Jesus is and how can he say he came down out of heaven?

And Jesus answered them, verse 43, Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, they will all be taught by God.

Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. What does Jesus say? No one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. No one has that capacity. No one has that ability.

Everyone must experience this drawing. Well, what is this drawing? Well, he who is drawn is the one who is raised up. If you're going to say that you can be drawn but resist that drawing, then you have to explain why it is that in verse 44 you introduce a distinction between the one who is drawn and the one who is raised up when there is no distinction in the original language at all.

And why in verse 45 that drawing is described as being taught by God, hearing from God, drawing from the prophets. This is what God does. All that he gives to the Son, he draws to the Son, and the Son perfectly saves them and raises them up on the last day.

Now, you may note there is nothing so far in John chapter 6 about synergism. There is nothing about how man can derail the attempts of the Father and the Son to bring about salvation. There is nothing here telling us that while God the Father is going to try and Jesus the Son is going to try and the Holy Spirit is going to come and try, that it's up to man to finally make this whole thing work.

Instead, the focus is upon the perfection of the work of Jesus Christ all to the glory of God. And so here we have in Jesus' own words this clear statement. How do we understand? All that the Father gives me will come to me.

If we believe in some sort of libertarian free will where man has the ability to reject the work of the Spirit of God, how do we understand that no one has the ability to come unto Jesus Christ unless this special drawing takes place?

These are the questions we must ask of this text and of any text that addresses these. Hopefully today we'll also get a chance to look at Romans 8, Ephesians 1, some of the other texts that are so important in this very vital discussion.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. Weintz.

Synergism, Monergism, and John 6

Yeah, well, I guess I'll go ahead and respond to that since it's on everybody's mind. I do have other things I want to present, but let's talk about John 6 a little bit. Dr. Weintz says nothing in John 6, there's nothing there about synergism.

Now, many of our listeners may not know what synergism means. Synergism means working together. The Calvinist believes in monergism, which means there's only one person working in salvation, and that's God.

And they say that Arminians believe in synergism, which means two people working or working together, God working and man working. That's not exactly what any Arminian I know believes. We don't believe that man works, but we do believe that man has to believe.

And believing is not work, so it's really synergism is a misnomer. But certainly, Dr. Weintz raises a good question. Is it possible for God to want to save somebody and for them not to come, for God to be frustrated in this effort?

I believe the Bible teaches in many places that is, in fact, true. God said to Cain that if he would do well, that he could be accepted as Abel was. That sounds like God was offering him a genuine opportunity and that God would have liked him to do it.

And he warned him, if you don't do well, sin is at the door and you must conquer it. God expressed his will to Cain, that Cain would be saved, that Cain would do well, but the man didn't. The man is the son of the devil and ended up lost.

So it didn't work out for Cain. Jesus said that he wanted to draw Jerusalem's children to him, and Jerusalem would not allow this to happen, apparently. And so it looks like some people weren't saved that God wanted to save.

So what do we do with John 6? Now, Dr. Weintz, in responding to some of my comments on an earlier occasion, said that you can't bring in verses from other passages that aren't in the context to explain them.

And yet at the beginning of his presentation today, he said we want to use the same hermeneutical principles we use, say, for proving the Trinity or the deity of Christ. Well, when we prove the Trinity, we certainly bring in verses from other places to qualify verses that we see.

If we see a verse that says there's only one God, we don't know there's a Trinity from that verse alone. We have to bring in verses that say that Jesus is God and that the Father is God and so forth. Of course, that's how we do theology.

That's how hermeneutics is done. You don't just take a passage in isolation and ignore the other relevant passages that talk about the same thing. And when Jesus said no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and when he said no one will come to me, or he says everyone that the Father gives to me will certainly come to me, Jesus is certainly talking about some group of people that he said would come to him.

They are described as those that the Father has drawn, and they're described as the ones that the Father gives him. Now, who are the ones that the Father gives him? Well, if we go to another passage, it's not really a different context because it's still in the Gospel.

John uses the same language. No one but John records this kind of language from Jesus. But in John 17 .6, Jesus said, I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given me out of the world. Okay, that's the same group, the ones that the Father has given him.

And Jesus says, they were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. So here he says that there are people that were already God's people. We have to assume these are the believing remnants in Israel.

These are the people who already believed in God. These are the ones who already were hearing Moses and the prophets, and God, they were God's people, and Jesus said they were yours, and you gave them to me.

This is not talking about him taking the devil's people and giving them to Jesus. It's taking God's people, God's who are already, you know, worshipers of God, already disposed to him. It agrees with what Jesus said just a chapter before, the one that Dr. White's using.

In John chapter 5, Jesus said to the Pharisees in verse 44, how can you believe who receive honor from one another, but don't seek the honor that comes from God alone? Do you think that I shall accuse you to the Father?

There is one who accuses you, Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. In other words, if you were one of those of the remnant of Israel who did believe in Moses, well, then you would believe in me too.

Because believing in Jesus requires exactly the same kind of openness to God's will that is involved in coming to Christ. And so, really, the people that God gave to Jesus are the people that were already God's people.

They were already the people that were, you know, worshiping God. And therefore, they do not represent a case of God taking the devil's people, who are unbelievers, and transforming them into believers.

That's not what Jesus describes there. And so, of course, God draws to Jesus the people that were already worshipers of God. They were already in God's camp. They were already his worshipers. We see the same thing in, I think it's the 16th chapter of Acts, in Lystra.

Maybe it's the 14th. I'm sure James White can tell us. I don't have it in front of me. But where it says of Lydia that God opened her heart to pay heed to what Paul said. Well, okay, there's a case of God drawing someone to Christ.

He opened her heart. But we're told in that very same verse, just, you know, a sentence earlier, that Lydia was a worshiper of God already. She was already a Jewish worshiper of God. She was part of the believing remnant of Israel already.

And because she was, she was already God's person. And, of course, it's natural for, I mean, I could say anyone who loves me will love my children. And that would be a universal statement. And it would be true.

If people love me as they should, they will, of course, for my sake, love my children too. And Jesus can say anyone who loves my father will love me. If you've listened to Moses and the prophets, well, then you'll come to me too.

You'll hear me also. So the ones that the father gave to Jesus, Jesus himself tells us they are the ones that already were believers in the father. They were already the ones who heard Moses and the prophets.

And even the passage that says that no one can come to me unless the father draws him is followed by this verse, 45, in John 6, where it says it is written in the prophets, and they shall all be taught of God.

And Jesus says, therefore, everyone who has heard and learned from the father comes to me. Now, has heard and learned from the father is past tense. Comes to me is present tense. So he's saying those who have already heard from God, those who've already listened to God, those are the ones who do come to me.

So the Armenian wouldn't really have any problem with that at all, I don't think. I can't imagine why that would be a problem to anybody who takes my position. Certainly, I could predict that anyone who's already worshiping the God of Israel, that God, when his son came, would point his son out to them, would reveal to them this is the Messiah, just like he did Simeon in the temple.

Simeon was a worshiper of God. When Jesus was brought to the temple, God revealed to him this is the Messiah, and Simeon embraced him. That's true of the whole Jewish remnant in Jesus' day. And that would be my understanding of these passages.

They do not prove a Calvinist position at all. They fit very well with the Armenian position, it seems to me. I'm going to quit there.

Thank you. I would like to respond to that because I would just invite folks. I gave a positive presentation that worked verse by verse through the text, and I didn't get that in Steve's response. Instead, I saw a number of different subjects in the text addressed without actually walking through the text, demonstrating how it's consistent in a positive way with one's position.

In essence, what we were just told, for example, we were just told in John 6, 45, everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Both of those actions are describing the drawing of the Father.

Why does the Father have to draw somebody if these people have already chosen to be God-fearers? The idea that these are the God-fearers completely ignores the context, the fact that these people who are coming to Jesus, searching after Jesus, are going to walk away.

They are going to reject him. He is explaining the unbelief of these individuals. He is contrasting them with somebody else. And yet, to read into John 6 the idea that, well, these are people who have already chosen God.

John 17, 6 that was mentioned is about the apostles and the rest of that text. He then talks about those who will believe because of their message. So clearly this is not some remnant of Israel text. This is not some context that can be taken out of the soteriological discussion that is being presented to us.

Cain, Matthew 23, none of these had really anything to do with the subject of John 6 at all. And the presentation that is made by the Lord Jesus there, it doesn't explain why it is that there has to be this drawing.

Why God had to open, why did God have to open Lydia's heart? Well, because she was a God-fearer. Those are people who attended the synagogue but who had not been converted to Judaism. She still needed to hear the gospel.

She still needed to have her heart opened for that to take place. And the fact is God opened her heart and she believed. We don't have any evidence of God opening somebody else's heart and then failing to cause them to come unto salvation.

So I really do not believe that the order that Jesus himself presents, the context which he presents in John 6, has been responded to at all. And I would repeat in light of Steve Gregg's denial of the eternal security of the believer in the fullest sense, to answer the question in verse 39, is it possible for the son to lose one of those who is truly one of his sheep?

Can Jesus ever say to one of those who is lost, I never knew you, given the fact that to truly be one of his sheep involves that intimate close communication between Jesus and those that are his. But since time is so, so short in the time that we have, let me just read into our hearing and attempt very briefly to further explicate this doctrine from Paul's letter to the Ephesians, when he says at the beginning, Please follow the pronouns and please follow the verbs.

Notice who is active and who is the recipient of the actions and in what the context is. We are blessed in Christ with every spiritual blessing. It is we who are blessed. It's not Christ who is blessed.

But it's only those who are in him. Verse 2, We are the direct object of the verb there. In him, that is in Christ. Christ is not the one who is elected here. We are the ones who are elected here in Christ, when?

Before the foundation of the world. For what purpose? That we should be holy and blameless before him. Can we be holy and blameless without this having to do with salvation? Is this only about the benefits of salvation?

No, we have to be able to be saved to be holy and blameless before him. In love, he, the father, predestined us, the elect, direct object of the verb, for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to what?

According to foreseen merit, according to our being better than someone else because we are more spiritually sensitive, we are willing to believe, repent, whatever it might be. No, according to the purpose of his will.

For what purpose? To the praise of his glorious grace with which he has blessed us in the beloved. The beloved one that is in Jesus Christ. In him, that is in Christ, we have redemption through his blood.

Only those who are in him have redemption through his blood. Notice the connection there of his blood to redemption. The forgiveness of our trespasses, according to what standard? The riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us in all wisdom and insight, making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

In him, that is in Christ, we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things, according to the counsel of his will. Please notice this description of God, that he is the one who works all things according to the counsel of his will.

And what's the context of that? The summing up of all of creation. To limit the activity of his doing all things according to the counsel of his will is to ignore the preceding verse, which is talking about God's purpose of wrapping everything up in Jesus Christ, so that the elect receive the grace and mercy of God.

Those who are not received justice, no one ever receives injustice. No one ever receives what they do not want. The elect do not want God. They reject God and his purposes. The elect, because they're changed by the work of the Spirit of God, which then comes out in verse 14, the Holy Spirit is the guarantee of our inheritance, etc., etc.

Their hearts are changed. They are made into God-lovers. They receive from God that which he desires to give to them. And so we have two texts, two different authors, both referring to eternal decisions.

Remember that when Jesus speaks of the will of the Father and his coming into the world, clearly this is the eternal covenant of redemption that is reflected here in his words. And the will of the Father for him is not something that he came up with during time.

This is something that God has determined when he created, he was going to glorify himself in this way. And here Paul is bringing out the same things in Ephesians chapter 1, reminding the church that it has been God's eternal purpose to redeem a particular people in Christ Jesus.

And so often the question is asked of me, well, why me and not someone else? Is this not arbitrary on God's part? Well, please notice the answer to that question may or may not satisfy someone, but the Bible does answer the question.

The purpose is according to the purpose of his will, verse 5, and the result is to the praise of his glorious grace. Now, if that grace is insufficient without my addition to it, if that grace is constantly failing, if that grace is just a partial reason for why I will stand before the Father in heaven and worship for eternity, then should there not be other objects of praise if my will is really the determining factor in all these things?

But in the final analysis it's not just, well, you know, the whole plan of salvation is according to God's grace and therefore that's why his glorious grace is praised. He didn't have to save anybody, but he made it available.

I think that is a real sub-biblical reading of what is found here in the text itself that points us back to eternity and to the future eternity. And who is active in all of this? What is the purpose of it?

It is God who is active. It is God who is the one who is bringing about the glorification of his own grace in eternity. And that, I believe, is a summary of a biblical concept of God's role in salvation.

Thank you, Dr. White.

Corporate Election in Ephesians 1

All right, thank you. I would like to get around to presenting here at some point, because yesterday Dr. White said he would like to hear me give a positive presentation of my two main points, which I, of course, am prepared to do.

But I want to, again, respond here to some of the points that Dr. White has made. I would just say that anyone who wishes to listen to the recording of this can decide whether I addressed the issue in John chapter 6 or not.

James White was concerned that I didn't go through verse by verse and follow the thought there. I don't need to. He already did that. We are not disagreeing about anything in the passage except who are the ones that the Father gave to Jesus.

And I already demonstrated that Jesus himself said the ones that the Father gave to him are the ones that were already gods. And that was something that, you know, if my stating that and pointing that out in Scripture isn't sufficient to convince anybody, fine, I don't need to.

I don't have anything to gain by convincing people. But I do think that it's quite obvious when you compare Scripture to Scripture. And once we've decided that, no other changes have to be made to the treatment of the passage in John chapter 6.

We just now know who he's talking about. So that's not a problem there to me. James said that the issue of Cain and the issue of Jerusalem and Jesus wanting to draw them and not coming and so forth, he said that's not relevant to the subject of John 6.

This is what I've heard James White do in many debates. As long as, you know, he can't answer something very adequately, he says it's not relevant to the passage. In fact, I think it's very relevant. If we're asking the question, and this is the question James did ask me, is it possible for God to want somebody to be saved and for them not to be saved?

Those are, in fact, examples that answer that question. It's quite relevant indeed. Now, going to Ephesians chapter 1, he said he wants us to pay very close attention to the pronouns here. Well, we can do that.

And in Ephesians chapter 1, verses 1 through 12, there's a lot of us and we's and so forth. And I think it's good to pay attention to those. But, of course, when he gets to verse 13, Paul then changes the pronouns.

Maybe we should notice that, too. In verse 13, he says, in him you also trusted after you heard the word of truth. Well, now it's no longer we and us. It's you too, you as well as we, which raises questions of, well, who is the you and who is the we?

It would seem, of course, clear that the Ephesians, well, the book may not have even been written to Ephesus. We don't really know. But at least Gentile Christians are the you too. He's writing to Gentiles, it would seem, primarily.

He does call them Gentiles in chapter 2. He says you were Gentiles. You were alienated from the commonwealth of Israel. So we'll say he's writing to Gentiles there. The you are the Gentiles. Then who are the we?

Well, it's hard to say, isn't it? But it's someone other than the Gentiles. Perhaps it's the Jews. They were the first to experience all the blessings that Paul mentions there. And then he says now you too, you Gentiles are now included as well.

There are some people, I'm not necessarily one of them, but I guess I could consider the possibility. Some people think that the we are Paul and his companion apostles. And that he's talking about the apostles having been specially chosen by God for these blessings.

And now, of course, the Gentiles get to come into the picture as well. I don't really worry about whether the we refers to the Jews or to the apostles specifically. But I do think that whatever it refers to, it tells us that God has a purpose.

And that the salvation of people in Christ is a fulfillment of that purpose. Now, he does not, of course, tell us whether the individuals who are saved were purposed individually. Or whether the church as a whole is what we're talking about.

Because, after all, he is using a plural pronoun, we or us. He doesn't say you and I. He could, of course, if he wanted to make that point. Because he would mean that an individual and he as an individual were chosen.