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.

And I'm going to be the one, hands standing 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.

But God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever.

Were 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 saw both his name. Read my book. From age to age the same.

And he must win the battle. 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. 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 -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 who are fans of the show, frequent listeners, just bear with me as I offer his brief bio for the listeners that come via Dr.

James White's ministry, or for anyone who's new to the show today. Steve Gregg is, of course, the host of the

Narrow Path. He is the author of Revelation, Four Views, that Gary DeMar says he can't keep in the box, as they sell quite well for his ministry.

Steve is a lifelong Bible teacher. Perhaps the thing he's known most for, knows the Word very well. He is also the founder of the

Great Commission School. And he's also a frequent teacher worldwide with the mission agency

Youth With a Mission, or YWAM. And a teacher in local churches as well in the

Bay Area. Today he'll be joined by Dr. James White. He is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, that is an apologetics -oriented ministry.

Dr. White is the author of The Potter's Freedom, a book where he critiques Dr. Norman Geisler's view of the topic today.

He also is known for, relative to this topic today, his book with Dave Hunt, which is debating

Calvinism, 5 .2 views. Dr. White is also an elder of the

Phoenix Reform Baptist Church. He's a professor at Golden Gate Theological Seminary, and a frequent debater, both with those within Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, and most recently, if you follow his ministry, you'll notice he's debating an awful lot of Muslim apologists.

And quite well, I might add. So welcome, Dr. James White, as well, along with Steve. Today we'll reverse yesterday's order.

Both debaters were able to receive two 12 -minute segments each.

Steve began today. Dr. White will begin with his. And today, a little different.

The presenters can either make a positive case for their view, or they can interview the opponent and have a little bit of an interchange, sort of a cross -examination, if they like.

So with that, Dr. White, welcome again. Thank you so much for taking the time. And you're first with the first 12 -minute section to do with.

Well, 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 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, Dr. White. This is Steve. I didn't receive the email, so that would have been okay with me.

What I'm thinking is we can have as much interchange as we want, even during these segments, if you'd like. Or we can reduce it to eight minutes.

Well, 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, you're 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're 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 it 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. White, and thank you for keeping to the time so well, as you always do. Steve, now it's your turn to either make a presentation of a related or different topic or respond to Dr.

White. Steve? 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. White 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. White 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 a 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. White, 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. OK, 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 of 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, gods 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 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 Arminian 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 an Arminian 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 in which he presents it 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, 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 receive 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 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. If you're just joining us, you're listening to the Narrow Path radio broadcast hosted by Steve Gregg.

Steve is one of the debaters today in a five -day series of debates.

We are now on day two. The debate will take off Saturday and Sunday, that is, and then resume on Monday, April 7, and conclude on Wednesday, April 9.

Representing the Calvinist view is Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, and representing the non -Calvinist view is your normal host,

Steve Gregg. Steve now will take up his second section of eight minutes where he can either present as he would like or respond to Dr.

White. So, Steve? 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 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 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 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 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. But he says us and we.

I take us and we to be a reference to all who are in Christ, whoever they may be. It's a corporate reference.

It's what Paul does throughout Ephesians. And in the whole passage that Dr. White read, there's a great emphasis on in Christ, in Christ, in Christ.

In fact, he read the statement in verse 4, which says, Just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world.

And Dr. White said, it's not Christ who's chosen, it's we are chosen in him. Well, that,

I think, is misunderstanding what in him means. Later on in chapter 2 and verse 6, Paul says,

God raised us up together and made us to sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.

Are we going to say it's not Christ Jesus who's raised up and sitting in the heavenly places? Because it says we are in him.

You see, what Paul is saying is that we are incorporated into Christ. And what is true of him is imputed to be true of us as well, because we are of his flesh and of his bones.

We are part of him. That's what it means to be in Christ. And so Christ is raised up and seated in the heavenly places.

And we are in him in that position, too. Not because we literally are there. I'm not really in the heavenly places.

I'm right here. Someday I may be caught up to meet him in the air, but right now I'm still here on earth with both feet firmly planted.

But as far as God's reckoning is concerned, what is true of Christ is also true of me. My position is reckoned to be the same as that of Christ.

And so in him I am where he is. Likewise, in all the statements about in him, it's really

Christ that is the one that has all these blessings. It's Christ the one who has all the privileges. And we have them insofar as we are in him.

And so when Paul says that God chose us in him, of course what he's saying is that Christ is the chosen one.

And in him we also are chosen. And so we are chosen in him.

That would mean that because he is chosen, we are counted as chosen also. But it does not tell us if I was chosen to be in him.

That's the question. Paul does not say that we were chosen to be in him. That would be a very different kind of statement.

You see, Paul is telling us we are in him. Those of us who are Christians are in Christ. And he's telling us what the privileges are of those of us who have that position.

We are in Christ. And as such, we have such position of privilege.

It would be interesting if Paul had said God chose us as individuals to be in Christ. That would actually make the very point that Dr.

White would like for Paul to make. Unfortunately, Paul, I don't think, makes that point here. And I don't think he makes it elsewhere either.

So Ephesians 1 and John 6 don't really present any challenges that I can see to my personal understanding of soteriology and of how

God says. I understand these are favorite proof texts of Calvinism. But once they're looked at through a non -Calvinist lens, there's nothing about them that forces us to see them in a

Calvinist way. And I don't have that prior commitment. So I just look at them and see what they do say. Thank you,

Steve. At the top of the hour, gentlemen, let me ask you this. You mentioned that after a few eight -minute chunks, you'd like to have a little bit more cross -examination.

So, Steve, would you like to opt for a shorter time now for both you and Dr.

White that would allow perhaps more direct questioning? That would be fine. Or we could still have eight minutes and use that.

I mean, he could use eight minutes to question me, and I could use eight minutes to question him if he'd like. Very well.

Dr. White, is that suitable to you? Well, we've got three more programs. I sort of figured once the main texts are presented, then there could be more give and take.

But from my perspective, I would like to continue going back and forth. I'm certainly going to interact with what is said.

But there is still much more to be presented. As Steve just said, he hasn't made his positive presentation.

So I think it would be very, very easy to get sidetracked on a minutiae if we don't get the rest of the text out there.

Very well. Why don't you begin now with your next statement? Thank you very much. I would like to respond to what was just said.

I don't think it's Calvinistic presuppositions that mean that the phrase Kathos exalexata hamas means he chose us.

The direct object of the verb is us. It is not the phrase that falls after that, en auto.

It is us who are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. And please note, unto what were we chosen?

Unto holiness and blamelessness. Now Christ isn't being chosen unto holiness and blamelessness.

That is something we need him for. So I'm sorry, but the text is very clear that who is chosen, the direct object of choose, is not

Christ. You can find that elsewhere in Peter, but that's not Paul. And right here he says, we are the ones chosen.

And nothing has been explained as to, well, if that choice is in the realm of Christ, it's only in Christ, Christ is the only means by which this can take place because of his death on the cross, that that means that somehow

Christ is the chosen one. I did not understand the reference to Ephesians chapter 2, certainly because we have been seated in heavenly places.

That does not have anything to do with Christ not being seated in heavenly places. There's no logical parallel between that.

The only reason I mention this is that many people like to try to say, well, no, no, we're not the ones that are chosen. A plan's been chosen or Christ the chosen one.

If we choose to be in him, et cetera, et cetera. That's just not what the text says. The text says we are chosen in him.

That's a direct object. There's no way around that. When I mention Cain and Matthew 23, what

I was saying there was not that I didn't have an answer to these things. What I was saying is that when we interpret one particular text, we have one particular text in John that is specifically on the subject of why some people believe and other people do not.

Cain's story is not about salvation. Matthew 23 is a section about judgment of the Jewish leaders.

Why go to texts that are not specifically on the subject, come to a disputed understanding of them, then read that back into this.

That was my concern at that particular point in time, that that was the general direction that we might be going at that point.

But to, again, help to emphasize what is found in the teachings of the

New Testament, let me present another section for Paul, and that is that which is found in his letter to the

Romans. We could start in many different places, but I think it would be best just to look at the golden chain of redemption for now.

We know that for those who love God, Romans 8 .28 says, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.

Here we have a group called the called, those who are called. And they are called according to what?

According to their actions, according to their free response of faith. No, they are called according to His purpose.

For those whom He foreknew, that is an active verb. That does not mean to have foreknowledge of future events.

To foreknow is an active verb on the part of God, and we must allow that to be a positive action from God's perspective.

What does that mean? It does not mean taking in passive knowledge of future events. It's an active verb.

Foreknowledge is a noun. That's a different thing. That has to be understood. For those whom He foreknew,

He also predestined. So this action on God's part is followed by another action on God's part.

These are active verbs, not passive verbs. These are things He does. For those whom

He foreknew, He also predestined to what? To be conformed to the image of His Son.

Is that just saying that all this is saying is that God's choice is that the elect will be like Jesus?

Or does to be conformed to the image of Christ require the entirety of salvation to be included?

How can I as a sinner be conformed to the image of the sinless Son of God if that does not include atonement, forgiveness, regeneration, sanctification?

All the things that are a part of the ordo salutis, the work of God in our hearts, in our lives.

Those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers.

Please note, this is focused upon what God's purpose is. It is God's purpose to redeem a peculiar people in Christ Jesus.

That is how He has chosen to glorify Himself. And that's how He's doing this.

And He's doing so perfectly. And those whom He predestined, He also called. And those whom

He called, He also justified. And those whom He justified, He also glorified. How many are called?

Those who are predestined. How many are justified? Those who are called. How many are glorified?

Those who are justified. If you try to break up the golden chain of redemption, you end up making mincemeat out of Paul's argument in this text.

However you see this, it is God who is active at every single point.

And clearly, this calling is the effective calling. It's the same calling we see fleshed out in John chapter 6.

It's those who are drawn by the Father to the Son. Here, that's that effective calling. They are justified.

Why? Because they will believe. How can we know that for certain? Because belief is the result of the work of the

Spirit of God who has freed us from slavery to sin. As Jesus said, those who commit sin are the slaves of sin.

We have been changed. It's a natural thing for the changed heart to believe in Christ and to cling to Christ.

And therefore, they are justified. And because they have been justified, that is, they've had the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, they also will be glorified.

Even though each one of these is placed in the past tense to emphasize the certainty of the finality with which

God has chosen to glorify Himself and bring about His own glorification. As a result,

He then says, What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?

He who did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up for us all. Who is this us all? It's the elect.

Christ is given for the elect. He is given up for the elect. He who did not spare His own Son, but gave

Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him graciously give us all things? If the us's here is the entire world, if the us's here includes those who will experience

God's wrath for all eternity, then all things have been given to them. Christ has been given for them.

The entirety of salvation has been given for them. But it fails. And hence, why in the world is

Paul even saying these words? Because they would make no sense. He who did not spare

His own Son, but gave Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against whom?

God's elect. Who will bring a charge? And why can a charge not be brought against God's elect?

Because it's God who justifies. That demonstrates the forensic or legal nature of justification. Who is to condemn?

Christ Jesus, the one who died. More than that, who was raised. Who is the right hand of God. Who indeed is interceding for us.

For whom does Jesus Christ intercede? He intercedes for the elect of God.

The elect of God must be known to Him for Him to intercede for them. The elect of God cannot be a nebulous, gaseous cloud, and the identities of those people changing as apostasy takes place, or people choose to get in or choose to get out, or whatever else it might be.

The elect of God are known, and the elect of God are known perfectly to the triune

God from eternity past. And the Son of God intercedes on their behalf, and He does so perfectly.

That is why He can fulfill the command of John chapter 6, that the will of the

Father for Him is that He lose none of them. Because what does Hebrews say? He is able to save the uttermost.

Why? Because He always lives to make intercession for them. What does all this have in common?

God is the one who is active. God never fails in bringing about the salvation of His people to His own glory.

Thank you, Dr. White. I must say that you never fail in staying within the time limit. Very good. Steve, your final eight minutes for today.

Okay. I'm just looking at my clock to see when that ends. Okay. Well, let's talk about what Dr. White brought up here.

First of all, we were talking about Ephesians chapter 1, and then, of course, in this segment, he's moved to Romans 8.

We'll talk about both of those in time, probably more in detail. But let me just say, with reference to the brief remarks that he made, when he says that, let's go back to Ephesians 1, 4 for a moment, because that's a very important verse about election.

It says, Just as He chose us in Him before the foundations of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love.

What does that mean? As I understand it, we were chosen in Christ, and we were chosen in Christ to be holy and blameless in love.

Now, what I pointed out in my last segment is, I don't read anywhere that we were chosen to be in Christ.

He says we are chosen in Christ. And what I would understand that to mean, I don't know if Dr. White agrees with this or not, but I believe that Christ, in Paul's theology, is a corporate entity, head and body, that the church and the head are

Christ. So Paul says in 1 Corinthians, and it seems to be his theology in general, so that Christ is a corporate entity, just like in the

Old Testament, Israel was a corporate entity. And we can say Israel was chosen by God to be holy and blameless also.

That would be a fair and true statement. We would say Israel was chosen of God to do certain things.

Well, if I was an Israelite then, I could say that I was chosen by God to do those things in Israel.

Not because I was chosen, but because Israel was chosen. It's the entity Israel. I could be born or never born, and Israel would still have that destiny.

Anyone who is in Israel shares that destiny. In fact, if I was born in Israel, I could defect and not be a part of Israel.

Or, if I was a Gentile, I could become part of Israel by being circumcised and becoming a proselyte. The point is, being in Israel would be a matter of personal choice.

I can be in Israel or not. But if I am in Israel, by whatever means, I am chosen as part of Israel for what

Israel is chosen for. That is, I share in the corporate election of Israel. In the New Testament, Christ is the antitype of Israel.

That's why when Hosea said, out of Egypt I've called my son, referring to Israel, Matthew applied it to Christ.

Christ is the antitype of Israel. Christ is the corporate chosen one, as Israel was the corporate chosen one in the

Old Testament. I am in Christ. Now, Paul doesn't tell me how I came to be in Christ, or whether I can leave that position or not.

He only tells me that if I am in Christ, I stand as one who is chosen in him. For what?

Well, I'm chosen to be blameless. I'm chosen to be holy. Well, yeah, that's just like being chosen in Israel for that purpose.

But my being those things is still pretty much up to me. How do I know that? Well, because Paul uses really the same expression in Colossians chapter 1.

And verse 22 and 23, Paul said, in the body of his flesh through death to present you holy and blameless.

The same two words Paul said we're chosen for in Ephesians chapter 1 -4. He says that God wants to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable in his sight.

And Paul says, if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which you have heard, which was preached, etc.

So he says, okay, we are called to be holy and blameless. And God will present us to himself holy and blameless if we don't depart from the faith, if we aren't moved away from the hope of the gospel.

So Paul makes it very clear that his theology is that there are people who are called to be holy and blameless, but their fulfilling that calling will depend on their not falling away, on their continuing in the faith.

And that agrees perfectly well with what I understand Paul's meaning of Ephesians chapter 1 to be. I am in Christ.

Christ is a corporate entity. All who are in Christ are chosen to be holy and blameless.

This is according to God's purpose. What purpose? The purpose that all who are in Christ should be holy and blameless.

That's his purpose. It's his good pleasure that this would be the case. Paul doesn't tell us anything about whether an individual person has been chosen to be in Christ.

He's only told us what those in Christ are chosen for in him. So, again,

I simply don't see a Calvinist proof text here. Now in Romans chapter 8, 28 through 30,

I will say this, Dr. White, I have said many times to my listeners, I consider this passage in Romans 8 to be a very strong Calvinistic proof text.

If it was the only thing we had on the subject, I would almost be compelled to be a Calvinist. I'll go ahead and tell you that, and I'm not ashamed to do so.

It, of course, is not the only thing that Paul or the Bible says on this subject. And while I know that Dr.

White does not prefer to bring other scriptures in from outside to help, you know, modify scriptures that need to be modified,

I want to say that in the Bible there is a harmonic principle, and that is this.

If you find a statement in the Bible about a subject that has no qualifications and no conditions attached, but you find other statements in the scripture upon the same subject that do attach qualifications and do put conditions upon it,

I believe the correct hermeneutic is to interpret the less full statement by the more full statement.

That is, if one passage tells us there are conditions, another mentions the same subject without mentioning the conditions,

I believe the conditions from the one passage, need to be understood in the passage that doesn't mention them. So that when in Mark's gospel

Jesus said, if a man divorces his wife and marries another, he commits adultery, Jesus states no conditions or no qualifications.

The same parallel statement in Matthew 19, 9 says if a man divorces wife other than for the cause of fornication and marries another, he commits adultery.

So we would say, at least I would, I don't know what Dr. White would do, but I would say the passage that contains the qualification is useful for modifying and giving more understanding of the passage that doesn't mention the qualification.

It's similar when Mark's gospel tells us, Jesus says an evil adulterous generation seeks after a sign, but no sign will be given to this generation.

There's no qualification mentioned. However, in Matthew there are qualifications mentioned of the same statement, the parallel statement says no sign will be given to this generation except the sign of the prophet

Jonah. So we have two passages, one gives no qualification, one gives qualification, and we recognize that the one that gives the qualification is a controlling passage for understanding the one that does not.

At least that's how I would do hermeneutics in general. I would do the same thing with reference to salvation. Certainly there are promises that, you know, we will never die if we become

Christians, that we will be kept and all of those things, but also there are statements in Scripture that's not every statement on the subject, but some of the statements in Scripture say if you continue, if you don't defect, if you abide in me.

And so I personally believe that all the statements about salvation need to be understood in terms of the passages that do state the conditions.

Otherwise we have a strange hermeneutic. We have to say that the statements that don't have conditions mentioned are absolutely true, and the ones that do state conditions are simply false.

And I don't believe that that's how we do hermeneutics, generally speaking. So I would say that Paul says in general, in general those who are called, you know, are justified and those who are justified are glorified, fine.

And, you know, no one can separate us. Paul only mentions external factors, but he says, you know, things that he mentions cannot separate us from the love of God.

He does not say anything about our choices in the matter, which I think Dr. White would be glad to point out.

But what needs to be understood is there are places in the Bible that do speak of our choices, and these I think Paul expects us to understand as qualifiers to statements where he doesn't always state the qualifications.

He does state qualifications, for example, in Romans 11. He said, if we don't continue in God's goodness, we'll be cut off like the

Jews were. Well, unfortunately, we're out of time. I hear the music, and I'm going to have to quit. And I apologize that Dr.

White didn't get a chance to respond to my statements, but we do have three more days of this, and I'm looking forward to those.

I think Dr. White and I will probably just interact much more rapidly in some of these days. And, Dr.

White, I want to thank you for joining us. Well, thank you for having me. We look forward to the continuation next week. It's a pleasure.

Thank you. Thank you for talking with me. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. Thank you. For those of you. All right.

Thank you for being with us today on The Dividing Line. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to make any comments on that.

I just do believe that if people will take the time, since we are having to speak so quickly, to go through the text and listen to the presentations from both sides, that you will find it to be very, very useful indeed.

So, on Monday, same time, 2 o 'clock in the afternoon is when we will continue, because, as I said, the time changes due to the fact that Steve Gregg's program is on at a particular time on,

I believe, three different stations, and so we need to coordinate with that. We will be picking up Monday at 2 o 'clock here on The Dividing Line, and we invite you to be with us

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and then Thursday of next week for Dividing Lines next week. And depending on what we do with phone calls and stuff like that, maybe we'll just dedicate that last one on Thursday to being the time for you to call in and have comments, things like that, at least for me.

I don't know if we'll be taking calls like on Wednesday of next week or something like that. I still have lots of stuff to present, and I'm trying to resist the temptation, as I mentioned in this program here, to, in essence, get tied up in a lot of the other things.

And so thanks for listening. God bless. The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at P .O.

Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the

World Wide Web at aomin .org, that's A -O -M -I -N .O -R -G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.