Calvinism vs Arminianism, Part 3

Thank You Steve, thank you for joining us listening audience today We have two proponents one that being

Calvinism the other non -Calvinism or Arminian ism And that view is held by Steve Gregg who is the host of the narrow path

Steve is also the author of revelation for views He is a career Bible teacher

Steve is joined today by dr. James White. Dr. James White is a frequent debater

Debates Roman Catholic most recently Muslim apologists He is also the author of debating

Calvinism and co -authored that book with David Hunt He's also the author of the Potter's freedom another book relevant to this discussion today he is also the elder of a

Phoenix Reform Baptist Church, and he is professor at Golden Gate Theological Seminary and Director of Alpha and Omega ministries and apologetics oriented ministry

Which also serves the I suppose as a sub program of that ministry the dividing line radio ministry

Which is similar to the narrow path that has call -ins and theological and apologetic discussion so welcome dr.

Dr. James White our format today will be 12 minutes segments for the presenters to each

Divided by brief breaks and with that Steve you will have the first 12 minutes to make your positive

Presentation of your non -Calvinist view Steve All right, thank you Paul.

I've been advised to do a number of different things with this program one is to give a Take a block of time and give the positive case for my viewpoint

Which I've not actually had opportunity to do yet Or at least haven't taken the opportunity prior to this and the others that I should interact more a short

Short bursts with James so that we talk back and forth more I'm going to try to do both of those things in this program in my first segment

I will try to give a brief positive case for the view that I'm espousing and in my second 12 minutes

I would like to interact more with dr. White Now when it comes to giving a positive case for a non -Calvinist view well by definition

Non -Calvinist is a negative Position Basically by saying

I'm not a Calvinist what I'm saying Is that a person's default position if they read the

Bible and are not taught Calvinism? I believe that they will reach conclusions that are not very Calvinistic and Only when a

Calvinist defender comes and points out and argues from certain proof texts that the

Calvinist view is Convincing then that person is likely to become a Calvinist now that may not be true with everybody

But it certainly is true of most people. I believe it certainly was true of the early church We know that the view that I'm taking was held by all the church fathers until Augustine I don't even think

Calvinists would care to dispute that I think everyone knows enough church history to know that this is true The church fathers did believe that men had the choice freely to choose to serve

God or not Which is a non -Calvinist position, and they did not believe that God ordains all things that happen again a non -Calvinist position now

Because the church father said that doesn't mean it's true It only means that since it took 400 years for any

Christians to come up with an alternative view It's fair to call this a default view in my opinion

If anyone reads the Bible without any instruction from outside they will get several impressions

They'll get the impression that God created man of course that God has a reason to expect obedience from man That God gave commands to man and in commanding men to do what is right

God seems to have left some decisions to man Because that's what commands imply man frequently violates those commands

Which means that God's will is not always done because God expresses his willings commands and men disobey

God holds men responsible for those violations and such responsibility implies that man had a choice to obey or not to obey

You don't have responsibility for things that are not in your power to do Since God is angry and disappointed by man's choices

God must not have ordained to them or else God would seem to be a strange person who ordains that something shall happen and then

Gets angry when it does thus the judgment of God is just and condemning man and gracious and forgiving man now

Those are the impressions. I believe those are very basic impressions that people I think would get when they read the

Bible they see commands of God they see judgments from God They see God holding men responsible. We see God getting angry you read enough of that and there

And this is not just a few proof texts. This is hundreds of texts There's hundreds of commands in the

Bible. There's hundreds of times for God denounces sinners And so I'm not saying that that proves Arminian ism

What I'm saying is that it gives the a default impression that God is not ordaining everything

And that man is making some choices of his own that God does not even approve of necessarily now coming from that Unless someone is told otherwise they will get the impression that God does not ordain all things that happen and That man has free will and those are the positions

I espoused at the beginning and referred to as the default position obviously many Calvinist might argue that that is not the default position and that they read the

Bible and just got a Calvinist worldview and the doctrines of Grace according to reformed theology just first time they read through the

Bible and I won't call them liars But I haven't known very many people who got that impression reading the Bible Calvinist I have met have become

Calvinist as a result of being trained to be Calvinist And so the question then is if there is a default position that people generally get in which the whole church got for 400 years

Before anyone else came up with an alternative It seems to me that Calvinism is the is the novel view that has to prove itself to be true

And therefore the case for Calvinism has got to be stronger in terms of specific exegesis

I think of individual texts then the case for a view that is simply taking the drift of the whole of Scripture and does exegete

Proof text as well. There are proof texts for the non -Calvinist view that will come up, too But I just want to give you a quick survey

What I would call a positive case for biblical sovereignty now first of all that is biblical sovereignty not including

Meticulous Providence and if you don't know those terms meticulous Providence means that God Meticulously controls everything by his sovereign decrees.

I believe in the sovereignty of God as all Christians do and actually dr White misspoke in the first debate.

He said that this is a debate about God's freedom This is not a debate about God's freedom If it is we can close down the microphones right now.

I believe in God's freedom and all Christians believe in God's freedom This is a question not about whether God is free.

It's a question about how God exercises his freedom. And what is he free to do? The the

Calvinist believes that God is only free to control everything The non -Calvinist believes that God is free to do that He's also free to not do that if he doesn't want to because the

Arminian believes that God is really free God can really sovereignly make any decision He wants to make and if he wanted to make a world that had free choice in it that was uncontrolled by him

That's one of his prerogatives because as the sovereign God he has all the prerogatives My first point is that in saying that God is sovereign in the

Bible The word sovereign is not used in the Bible But we get this from the fact that God is compared with other sovereign entities that we know for example kings

The Bible often says that God is a king. This is a quote from James White in his book the Potter's freedom on page 41

He says I believe one of the reasons modern men struggle with some of the plain biblical truths of old is

Because so few of us any longer have a king Royal power and authority was fundamental when the scriptures were written and often the power of God to properly rule over his creation is likened

To the power of a king to rule over his realm Since most of us do not bow to a king we see little reason why we should bow to God unquote

Well non Calvinists agree 100 % with dr. White on this I agree one of the biggest problems of Modern free men is they don't know what it means to have a king and they do if they're not

Christians at least they do see Little reason why they should bow to God However, we're not debating that point.

We're not debating whether there's a God and whether God is a king or not But what dr. White points out is that in the

Bible this is dr White's words the power of God to properly rule over creation is likened to the power of a king to rule over his realm and that's exactly what the non

Calvinists agrees with that the power of an earthly king is the image the Bible uses to describe

God's Sovereign rule now earthly kings do not micromanage every thought and every decision of every person in their realm.

They make laws They keep order They make sure that their plans are carried out when there's something important enough for them to carry out

But they do allow their subjects to Marry who they want to marry get up in the morning when they want to get up in the morning eat what they want to eat in other words

The king does not have to control every decision or every action of his subjects in order to be sovereign kings

Don't do that generally and the Bible does not indicate to my mind that God does that either?

He is a king however, and he is sovereign and he can do whatever he wants and when he has a purpose He fulfills that purpose.

Dr. White spent his first presentation quoting a lot of verses about God Fulfilling his purposes and no one can stop him.

There's not a Christian who disagrees with that There's not a non Calvinist who disagrees with that What we're discussing is not whether God has the freedom or the power to do what he wants

What we're asking is what does the Bible tell us about how God exercises his freedom in his sovereignty?

And that's a different question. And that is not really Debated here. We are also told though that in addition to God being like a king.

He is like a father This is what Jesus taught us particularly and he is a father who can be disappointed by his children

In Isaiah 1 2 he says listen. Oh heavens and hero earth for the Lord speaks sons I have reared and brought up, but they have revolted against me

Well, okay. He's like a father fathers raised children fathers have sovereign Authority over their children, but sometimes the children revolt

God has found the same thing in his life Jesus used the parable of the prodigal son

Partly to demonstrate what the fatherhood of God is like and the father in that parable was not you know he was in charge of his family, but he allowed his son to make a choice to go away and He made he allowed this son to make the choice to come back later, too

The father did not ordain all the choices the son made but that did not make the father any less sovereign over his household sovereignty does

Not suggest meticulous providence. It only suggests absolute authority, which means the right to make decisions

Now God has left some decisions to man the Bible teaches us that in Deuteronomy 30 verse 19

I call heaven to earth to witness against you today that I've said before you life and death Blessing and curse so choose life in order that you may live and you and your descendants of course everyone knows

Joshua 2415 if it's disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve whether the gods which are

Your father served beyond the river or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you're living But as for me in my house

We will serve the Lord Joshua tells people to choose who they will serve in Isaiah 66 verses 3 and 4

God says as they have chosen their own ways and their soul delights in their abomination

So I will choose their punishments and will bring them on them what they dread because I called and no one answered

I spoke and they did not listen and they did evil in my sight and chose that in which I did not delight now in this passage

We see Sovereignty very much as a king or a father It has you know, he he calls he makes orders

But people don't always obey the people choose what they will do, but he chooses what will happen to them

And there's this distinction made he says as they have chosen their own ways. I will choose the results

I will choose the outcome. I will choose their delusions In other words, God did not choose that they would sin, but he does choose what will happen to them because they're sinned

That's what Kings do that's their prerogative in Luke 730 It says the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves

Not having been baptized by John the purpose of God there is the will of God and they and God had a will for them

But they rejected God's will for them. So says the scripture and so we see that God has left some choices to man and And he does not ordain everything that happens

He does ordain what he wants to ordain and he controls everything that he wants to control The question we have here is does the

Bible anywhere say that God controls everything including every human choice? If it does it certainly is counterintuitive, but it may be true, but I would think the proof that he does rests upon the person who claims

That to prove because it's not at all obvious when you read the scripture God seems to be disappointed with man's choices and by the way,

I have a much longer list of here But I see my time is up. So I'm going to yield the floor to dr. White Thank You Steve and now dr.

White you're free with the next 12 minutes to present or do with as you wish dr. White Thank you very much.

I would begin just briefly responding by saying I do not Of course accept the assertion that somehow a synergistic position is the default position for whatever reasons were listed

I would say that synergism is more default because of the fact that people

Generally will assert the free will of man over the free will of God And that certainly is a common element of human religion if we want to call that the default position

But I would say a default position is that which is defined by the Word of God. I would dispute the assertion that Augustine was the first person in church history to believe in these things

Clemens Epistle to the Corinthians has a number of references to the elect Diagnosius likewise So that was not the issue of the early church certainly people like just a martyr who were far more influenced by Greek philosophy

Than they were by the Pauline corpus would definitely emphasize the free will of man But that's a Greek philosophical position not not a biblical one last year when

I listened to Steve Gregg's 13 and a half hours of mp3s and Did a number of programs respond to them because we kept having people write to us and say this is the person you need to responding to I Raised a number of issues and there were two particular issues

I want to try to get to today or we start trying to get to today That should I think lead to some of the interaction and and that is two issues where I made a very clear assertion

That mr. Gregg was guilty of engaging in eisegesis reading into the text and meaning that is not

Substantiated by the form the text itself and those two were on Romans chapter 9 and Acts chapter 13 verse 48

There is a almost 50 minutes presentation I did on Romans 9 on the main page of a website

Anybody can go and listen to Steve's mp3s and listen to the response if they want an even fuller discussion but I don't think any quote -unquote debate would be a real debate if we did not get to these particular texts and Bring them into the discussion

I also want to get to 1st mp2 4th 2nd Peter 3 9 and Matthew 23 37 as The time will allow over the course of today and tomorrow

But first and foremost, I want to go to Romans chapter 9 and maybe we can take a look at some of the specifics of That text and hopefully that will be useful to us today

I have to do so very quickly not nearly as in -depth as I would like but that's nature of debates I begin by asserting this is the continuation of the of the preceding material from Romans chapter 8 the golden chain of redemption

The fact that no one can bring a charge against God elect having made this great announcement of the victory in Jesus Christ Paul then turns to the primary apologetic issue that he had to deal with and that was people are saying

Paul of what you're saying It's true. If Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, then why aren't the Jewish people as a whole embracing him?

Why in fact are your primary enemies the Jews themselves? And so he enumerates beginning in chapter 9 his desire for the salvation of his fellow

Jews He enumerates the great blessings that were there is even including the deity of Christ in Romans 9 5 and then

I believe we have the section of Romans 9 that all those who try to turn this into just a merely merely a discussion of national honor

And blessing and so on and so forth try to turn this into a discussion of nations They cannot explain this text and they cannot allow it to continue on through the context and that is these words

But it is not as though the Word of God has failed verse 6 of chapter 9 For they are not all

Israel who are descended from Israel Now that statement cannot be made about nations

You cannot talk about nations not being Israel or descended from Israel when

I talk about different Israels or things like this We are talking about individuals. We are talking about people

We are explaining why it is that there are descendants of Israel who do not embrace the faith of Abraham Even to that day and now we're not embracing

Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior He continues on nor are they all children because they're

Abraham's descendants, but through Isaac your descendants will be named So what Paul is doing here is he's explaining that the fact that the

Jewish people continue to reject as a whole Certainly, he was one of the exceptions this but continue to reject as a whole the

Messiahship of Jesus is not inconsistent with Jewish history itself he is going to draw numerous examples from the history that the

Jewish people would have to agree to of People Jewish and non -jewish who were hardened or received mercy and it was all due to the freedom of God And I would submit to anyone if you're going to say well

You know some of these quotes are from minor prophets. They're about nations about individuals Tell me where that change takes place if you're gonna say well

This is all about nations by the time you get down to verse 20 or so You're clearly talking about individuals where the change take place

Why can't we walk through this entire text and see it as a whole? Let's try to walk through it and emphasize what it says

That is it is not the children of flesh or the children of God the children of the promise are regarded as descendants What is that promise by the way does that promise not include the new covenant and salvation itself?

This is not merely national blessing for this is a word of promise this time I'll come and Sarah shall have a son and not only this but there was

Rebecca also when she conceived twins by one man our father Isaac for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad

Please notice they individuals had not done anything good or bad. Yes, they both become fathers of nations

But this is not talking about they're becoming fathers of nations It says for though they had not done anything good or bad so that God's purpose according to his choice would stand

Not because of works not works of nations But works of individuals But because of him who calls those his choice his calling versus doing good or bad and because of works of the contrast

It was said to her the older will serve the younger just as written Jacob. I love but you thought I hated now

Here's a very very quick point to throw out if your interpretation of text turns

Paul's argument on its head then you need to take your argument up with the Apostle not with me if You're arguing the way that the people opposing the

Apostle Paul argued that is indication that you've got the wrong Position if you're at least seeking to follow after the apostolic example

What then shall we say there is no injustice with God is there notice again?

The Apostle brings up objections to his own position May it never be for he says to Moses and here

I point out once again the Greek language has verbs We don't have an English. I will mercy whom

I mercy and I will compassion whom I compassion these are active verbs these are things that God does and He revealed this in Exodus 33 to Moses and the apostolic

Interpretation of this text that is given by the Apostle Paul verse 16 says So then it does not depend on the man not the nation the man who wills men have wills

Or the man who runs that is is active does things again. These are easily understood words but on God who mercies

So I don't know how much clearer can be so it does not depend on the willing of man or the actions of man but on the mercy of God that's his interpretation of the words of God to Moses in verse 15

Then in verse 17 for the scripture says to Pharaoh for this very purpose I raised you up that was written to an individual to demonstrate my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth

God had a purpose at a particular point in time and he wanted to accomplish that purpose at a particular point in time

He did not wait until someone evil enough Or someone rebellious enough comes along He did not want to do it in one century had to do it three centuries later because he kept waiting for somebody would fit

Into his plan. No, he raised Pharaoh for particular purpose that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth

That was God's purpose and that's what he accomplished the apostolic Interpretation of those words in verse 18 of chapter 9 is so then he mercies whom he desires and he

Hardens whom he desires and they are placed in direct parallel to one another. They are both active verbs

He mercies and he hardens and the determination is whom he desires that Those are the words of Scripture themselves

Then please notice the verse 19. You will say to me then why does he still find fault for who resists his will now?

Mr. Greg has a very unusual reading of this But I think if we just look at the text of all these the line of argumentation here

It is very easy to understand we've already seen up in verse 14 that the Apostle introduces an objection

What was the objection being raised? What would be natural objection to verse 18

B? Well, it's the very one that's raised by most people who don't like Calvinism. It's the very ones who raised this objection

They say well Who resists his will if his if he the very word will is in the proceeding that he desires to do this whom he desires

He hardens whom he desires he mercies How then can God judge?

Because if it's God's will it's being accomplished He'd have no basis upon which to judge which of course is the very common

Arminian objection but it's the objection that the Apostle raises to his own position and I would submit that if you find yourself in the

Position of the objector to the Apostle you might realize that that means you're on the wrong end of this particular discussion

The response from Paul is on the contrary. Who are you? Oh, man, who answers back to God? In fact, it's oh man at the very first in the

Greek. Oh, man. Who are you answers back to God the thing molded? We'll not say the molder Why did you make me like this will it and I would love to be able to expand upon the fact that is a very full

Answer it takes us back to a recognition of our creatureliness the fact that we are the pot

We are the clay and God is the one who fashions us and we have no right to put him in the dock so to speak and demand of him an answer and The answer then is you are a man and you cannot answer back to God who is the

Creator you cannot say to him Why did you make me like this and why? verse 21 does not the

Potter have the right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use the

Potter has that right over the clay the clay cannot say you must make me to be an honorable a

Beautiful China vessel or something like that the clay has no right to do this But God has the right as the

Potter to use the clay as he wishes. Please notice then That the apostolic

Paul's own interpretation of his own Words here, though. He's clearly drawing from Old Testament parallel is what if God although willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known

Endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction And he did so to make known the riches of glory upon vessels of mercy which he prepared prepared beforehand

For glory and there are some will say oh well You know they prepared themselves so forth what is the direct parallel here the direct parallel is between those vessels?

For honorable use and those vessels for common use coming from the one lump in the hand of the Potter to those who are

Being the experience God's wrath he makes his power known he brings judgment upon them

He endures them with much patience But they are vessels of wrath and the contrast to them is what? Vessels of mercy which he be prepared beforehand for glory and so here

What are these words mercy and wrath judgment all of these are salvation words?

They're not just well We're talking about nations here, and God deals with one nation one way in another nation another way.

He's talking about individuals He's talking about salvation. This has been God's freedom all along. We'll continue with that in the next section

Thank You dr. White before we move on to the second set of 12 -minute sections for the presenters

Let me just encourage our listeners to visit both Steve's and dr. White's websites Steve's is of course the narrow path comm dr.

White's is alpha and Omega ministries That's a o m. I n org at both websites

It's easy to locate and access the mp3 files of all five days worth of this debate once they're all completed

But you can actually access Last Thursday and Fridays and now you'll also be able to discover hundreds of terrific resources

So be sure to check out those websites and now Steve your second 12 -minute section

I Would like to interact with dr. White, I hope I will have time after I answer him about Romans 9

I would I will say that I've heard dr. White and other Calvinists deal with what they think the

Armenian view of Romans 9 is and it's clear that they have apparently not processed the line of argument

Which is surprising to me because dr. White is otherwise of a fairly careful scholar Even when he dealt with my treatment of Romans 9 on his webcast

I was surprised that he did not understand the argument that because his criticisms were not relevant to the argument

I would say that if I don't say enough here now Which of course I won't in 12 minutes time That anyone who wishes to can go to my website and download my lectures on Calvinism or my verse -by -verse lectures on Romans Even more so because I've of course focused more on the flow of thought there than here.

I'll just say very briefly. Dr White thinks that Armenians feel that Paul is only talking about nations here.

He made it very clear. That's what he thinks That is not what any Armenian I know thinks but that's because I think the

Calvinists have heard That we do believe that Jacob and Esau represent the nations of Jacob and Esau, but apparently they make the mistake of thinking therefore

We think the whole thing is about nations No, the whole thing is about God's plan for Israel and God's fulfillment of his promises to Israel You're I agree with dr.

White that it springs from chapter 8 where it says that no one shall separate God's elect From him and yet the question is raised then.

Well, why then is most of Israel separated from him? Aren't they the elect and so Paul Describes what

God means by Israel. There are promises made to Israel In fact, there's statements in the

Old Testament says all Israel shall be saved and Paul has that in mind But he wants to explain why this hasn't happened at least not the way people thought it would especially the way the

Jews thought it Would because Paul's theology teaches that most of Israel is not saved and so he explains in verse 6 not all are

Israel who are of Israel and what that means of course is that not everyone who's born from the

Jewish race is The Israel that the promises apply to there are promises made to Israel But not everyone who's

Jewish is that Israel the promises belong to a segment of Israel? And that segment of course as Paul has developed in the earlier part of his epistle is those who believe

Those who are justified by faith those who have come to Christ who are in Christ Okay, so there's a portion of Israel that is in Christ that is a portion of the

Jewish race And there's a portion that are not These are like two vessels made from one lump of clay in the

Old Testament Israel in Jeremiah 18 and elsewhere was likened to a lump of clay and God the potter and what

Paul argues here is that God has done Just that he's taken one lump of clay, which is the nation of Israel He's divided it into two vessels

That is one vessel is the believing portion of Israel and the other is the unbelieving portion of Israel the believing portion are for honorable purposes and for glory the unbelieving are for wrath and for dishonorable purposes now

That's his argument now how he develops it is he talks about the fact that most Jews think that if they're just descended from Abraham Isaac And Jacob then they are

Israel and whatever privileges are promised Israel should be theirs Paul says no Abraham had two sons

Isaac and Ishmael, but only one of them was chosen. God said in Ishmael your seat should be called likewise

Isaac had two sons Jacob and Esau and only one of them was chosen Jacob was chosen over Esau God said

Jacob I have loved Esau I've hated and he said the older shall serve the younger And so what he's pointing out here is that even in the earliest days of the

Jewish race? There were people who are descended from Abraham who were not the true

Israel there were people who are descended from Isaac Who are not the true Israel? And he's pointing that out by giving these historic examples and of course his argument today is and it gets to it further in chapter 11 he says even now today.

There's a Remnant within Israel who have received the grace of God who are the elect now of course the use of the word election not immediately imply

Calvinist definitions of that word dr. White mentioned that there were Church fathers before Augustine who used the word elect and therefore they were

Calvinist He says no Armenians all use the word elect also We have to talk about the meaning of that word before we decide whether it's an

Armenian or a Calvinist interpretation That's another story the point is here that Paul is acknowledging and and explaining that not everyone who's

Jewish by blood is The Israel that the promises are made to but rather that's a segment within them one vessel of the two the one lump of clay

Israel has been divided into two vessels and They are defined by their faith or their unbelief now

He's not saying that Ishmael was rejected and Isaac was chosen because of Isaac's faith

And he certainly is not saying that Jacob was chosen over Esau because of his faith But he's not talking about the salvation of those men if he is he certainly has hidden it

Well, there's no suggestion here that Ishmael was lost and went to hell or that Isaac went to heaven

They might have but Paul doesn't discuss it nor does the scripture anywhere else discuss it for all we know Ishmael might have been saved

But we that's not an issue here What is being chosen here is which son will carry on?

The birthright that is made to Abraham that through his seed all the nations of the earth to be blessed

That's the birthright of the family of Abraham Likewise that decision was made in the next generation

God chose Jacob and not Esau to be the progenitor of The race that would carry that birthright now

Yes, we are talking about nations here And it's very clear that it is because Paul quotes two Old Testament verses he quotes

Genesis where God says to Rebekah You have two nations in your womb and the older shall serve the younger now notice

There's nothing there about anyone going to heaven or hell for Esau to serve Jacob is not anything to do with his eternal

Life or Jacob's eternal life we're talking about their earthly careers here that Jacob would be the one who carries on the birthright

Esau would not That's simply what was decided and it's making Paul's point that not everyone within the family of Israel is going to have the birthright not

Everyone's going to be the elect not everyone is going to be the Israel of God so he points out that Jacob was chosen to carry on that that family privilege and Esau was not

Likewise where it says Esau I have hated Jacob. I have loved that's quoting from Malachi You can look at the context of Malachi one

It's clearly talking about the nation of Jacob and the nation of Esau these men were long dead before Malachi made this point

But he's talking about how God had wasted Edom's that's Esau's descendants mountains and so forth had judged

Edom. That's his hatred of Esau So we're not talking about the individual salvation of two men here we're simply talking about how

God has historically throughout the history of Israel divided Israel into a Chosen for privilege and one not chosen for privilege the question of what privilege is in view has got to be taken case -by -case

But of course by the time Christ came that privilege included eternal life. And so even now

There are two vessels There are those Jews who follow Christ and there are those who do not and just as there have always been some

Jews that were part of the Israel of God and some that were not so is it now and It just so happens that the

Jews who believe in Christ have in addition to the Abrahamic birthright of being the ones through whom

The nation's be blessed. They also have the privilege of personal eternal life themselves, which is of course something introduced by Christ It's a it's a privilege of his disciples.

So there is not anything really here to suggest that Jacob. I love these I've hated is talking about God hating an individual in the woman decided to send him to hell

I would challenge dr. White since he doesn't like I said Jesus and would like to read from the text What's there to show me where in the text?

It says anything about Jacob or Esau having any particular eternal destiny either in the

Old Testament or in this passage I find nothing stated about it. I believe Paul's talking about what he says. He's talking about.

That's the easiest way to take Paul He's quoting Genesis. He's quoting Malachi and he's talking about the same thing that they're talking about Why why would he quote them to make his point if he if he was not making the same point?

So I don't agree with dr. White's argument to see his argument doesn't really touch My argument very much because he didn't seem to understand what my argument was

And I don't think he or dr. Sproul who have also read try to answer this I don't think he really understands what the non -Calvinist is saying because they keep misrepresenting it

The truth is that when Paul says who are you a man to reply against God? I?

Do take it. I think probably the way that dr. White thinks I take it Paul Anticipates that there is an objector going to say why does

God still find fault for who is resisted as well? Now there's two questions here.

Why does God find fault and it's based on the question who has resisted as well? The idea being the objector thinks that if no one can resist

God's will then God can't find fault the Calvinist agrees with that objector and Says well, it's true

No one does resist God's will but God still does find fault because God can even though no one resists as well

I believe that Paul is saying is the objector is misunderstanding Paul has not said anything about no one resisting

God's will people do resist God's will in many cases Paul's friend Luke said in Luke chapter 7 verse 30 that the scribes and Pharisees Rejected the will of God for themselves by not being baptized by John and we read all over the place in the scripture of people not

Doing what God tells him to do if God's will is not what he commands them to do But he has a secret will that he hasn't let anyone on about then his revealed will is somewhat deceptive

He makes people think he wants something, but he really has something else in mind now God's sovereign he could do that if he wants to but I believe the

Bible teaches that God isn't deceptive and I believe that he Has basically revealed what he wants us to do and people do resist

God's will all the time I believe what Paul's saying is that this objector is not making a law in logic

By suggesting that if no one can resist God's will then God can't find fault. That is the objectors suggestion

But his logic is not bad his premise is bad his premise is that no one resists

God's will that's a bad premise people resist God's will all the time and therefore God can find fault Paul points it out

He says well who are you a man you're resisting God doesn't use that word He says you're replying against God it seems like if you're replying against God you're in resistance to him

Just like Stephen said to the Sanhedrin you always resist the Holy Spirit I believe that people resist

God all the time, and I know dr. I shouldn't put it that because I know dr. White's answer to that of course people resist

God they just don't resist his sovereign decrees And of course that would be something I'd be I'd like to see established in Scripture Before I could accept that I'd like to actually find a scripture that says that God has sovereign decrees

Such as the Calvinist talks about it'd be nice to see something like that before we're asked to believe in such things

Well, okay now. I've occupied my whole time with Romans 9. I really wanted to interact with dr. White about something else, but time does go by fast at this point

I will just turn it back over to you Paul all right Thank you, Steve you have the award so far for finishing the closest to the allotted amount of time that was 11 minutes 58 seconds

So dr. White there's your challenge is now your turn sir to respond with your next 12 minutes Well, thank you very much.

I I would like to immediately go back to the text when it is still hopefully fresh in people's hearing

I I guess One of my problems with the thing we just understand our minions are saying there's all sorts of different Arminian Perspectives and of course

I have debated a number of different Arminians on the subject including in writing and so Many of them do seek specifically to make this nothing, but a discussion of national blessing in Romans chapter 9

I Would just simply say if it is the statement being made none of this has to do with heaven or hell

And if the term hell has to appear in any reference that has to do with salvation Then there are almost no references to salvation all of Scripture Notice what

Paul says that he has great sorrow and unceasing grief in his heart for I could wish that I myself were accursed

Separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren my kinsmen according to flesh What are you talking about here? Is he only talking about the continuation of a national line?

Or is he talking about the very reason why he evangelizes the Jews and calls them to faith in Christ of course?

This is about salvation of course. This is about God's freedom in the subject of salvation

It is what follows through all the way through the entire text So to say that well this is you know

This is just simply who's going to continue on the name or something like that obviously it does not take into consideration

Terminology such as not doing anything good or bad because of him who calls not because of work

What are these words in Pauline theology if they do not in fact have to do with the very issue of salvation itself and so when we get to the the

Key text and he's talking about Moses. I'll have mercy on him. I'll mercy compassion. We have compassion

How does this have to do with a continuation of a national line of blessing? Why is what why does

Paul then say does not depend on man who will the man who runs by God was mercy is this mercy? Only in regards to the continuation of the line of one

Israel versus another Israel And what does Pharaoh have to do with any of this? Why bring

Pharaoh in at this point you would make no sense if that was the if that was the thrust but the thrust is Not that the thrust of course is explaining

They are not all descendants of Israel who call themselves Israel this issue of God's freedom has been the case all along God has had the freedom to go to the

Gentiles Which is going to be what's going to continue on as we go through Romans chapter 9. He's had that freedom all along and Then we get to verse 20.

I really think this is a good example of the the Isagetical characteristic of this kind of argumentation because you will say to them

Why did he still find fault for who resists as well not I believe that Steve just said we'll see that You know, that's where he the objector goes wrong people resist as well all the time

This comes right after verse 18 that says so then he mercies whom he wishes

He hardens whom he wishes This is the very essence of the argumentation and these the words that come beforehand

And so the question then becomes what is this all about? What what is going on here?

This is this is the the Greek term fellow Whom he wishes he mercies whom he wishes he hardens

You will say to me then Why does he still find fault?

For her resist as well and all of a sudden we insert into this text someplace. Oh, well

Oh, man, don't you get it people resist as well all the time. Is that what follows through beginning of verse 20?

Do we do we go to these other texts where people resisted God's attention for them? We go to a discussion of the of the wills of God and secret revealed and the law revealing the perfect will of God the new decrees of God and we don't go back to Genesis 15

Genesis 45 and Acts 4 and all the places we already been to point out these purposes and decrees of God Is that what

Paul does? No, he says will what is molded say to its mold or why have you made me like this? So the the interpretation that says well, you know

The objector just got it wrong does not even answer to what Paul's response thereafter

Actually is and so I think Again, if you know, we say if we just read the text, you know

I some Calvinist didn't come along and cram Calvinism into my mind I remember very clearly having a debate with a an atheist many many years ago

And here is an atheist never been a Christian says it's so obvious when you read the Bible It clearly says

God's in charge of all things He's sovereign over all things and everything happens according to his will and it's very obvious very clear

Had no problem recognizing the default position is if you just read the Bible with that very clear

And he found a very odd. In fact, he was sad. He found very odd that I would actually defend that He encountered so many

Christians as I can't believe all these Christians They try to read all the free will stuff into the Bible and I and why don't

I seem to believe the Bible more than they Do and we found a very strange that I then came from a reform perspective and defended those very things

He but didn't think anybody these days would defend So again, what I what

I said was I think that it's very clear that both sides believe the other side has an overriding agenda or hermeneutic or Tradition whatever else it might be

Obviously from my perspective it is the Arminian who is inserting Into his theology a concept the libertarian free will that is simply unbiblical

It is contradicted by scripture the fact that God calls for us to be obedient that he uses means to accomplish his will is

Not an argument against those biblical texts Which we saw that teach that man is the slave of sin as Jesus said he who commits sin is the slave of sin

The son must set you free. You cannot just simply choose to be free

The son must set you free and so it is in that context then that I turn to acts 1348

Because this is not a text that is trying to didactically teach Anything about the sovereignty of God and salvation what it does reflect though is the fact that Luke just in passing

Recognizes why it is some people believe and other people do not and it's not because there are some people who are better than other

People it's not because some people dispose themselves to eternal life or anything of the like The reason that you can sow the seed and some of the seed

Produces a hundredfold and some of the seed is eaten by the birds you look at that ground and why is the ground the way?

That it is why is it that we can preach the gospel today? And why is it that you might live right next door to an atheist both of you have heard the gospel you believe?

He does not believe because you're better because you've disposed yourself because you're more spiritually sensitive If you find the answer in yourself,

I am saying to you that is an unbiblical answer The answer that is given by scripture is That God is the one behind that God is the one who must show mercy

God is the one who must Redeem the person must free them from their slavery must change them from being

God haters into God lovers And so act 1348 simply says when the Gentiles heard this and this of course is the situation the synagogue

The the Jews have brought the jealousy to the proclamation of the gospel There are God fears there people who are attracted to monotheism

But they had not gone through all the conversion rituals of Judaism when the Gentiles heard this that is Paul saying we are now taking the message to the

Gentiles they began rejoicing and glorifying the Word of the Lord and As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed

Now I see in those words in Luke's understanding the fact that those who had been appointed to eternal life

Believed that is it was their appointment to eternal life that resulted in their faith the fact the Bible teaches that faith is the gift of God Paul could say the

Philippians of Libyans 129 that they were appointed to believe that this is something that they're appointed to as a

Gift from God's hand the fact that these Biblical texts are there Doesn't surprise me then to hear

Luke saying and as many has been appointed to eternal life believed But mr. Gregg's position the synergist position cannot allow that to stand

Because that would make the the appointment of God prior to and determinative of human faith and the the

Central point of this affirmation is that it is man Who makes this decision and God can only help he can extend grace and do things like that But fundamentally it comes down to man, and here's one one of my grave concerns in this issue

If we look at English translations produced by teams of scholars from a wide variety of backgrounds

We find consistency in what is rendered here The numeric affairs many has been appointed to eternal life believed

ESV as many as were appointed to eternal life believed This is found throughout the entire range of translations produced by teams of scholars the

New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses says that they were who were disposed to eternal life believed and I Find a individual here and individual there who might try to come up with this idea that there was a self -action here

But what really concerns me? What concerns me the most is that at this point we can really get into the text and when we do so a book that Mr..

Gregg has referenced number of times Robert Shanks elect in the Sun And I think that pretty much his presentation both in the mp3s and then in the written material that he's dragged me to comes pretty

Much from elect in the Sun beginning page 183 in the edition that I have One thing that really concerns me is that if you're going to overthrow

All of these translations say all of them have missed it that there is a better Translation than these in fact to quote mr.

Gregg he says of course there is no need to settle for this present translation another possible translation would be

Quote as many as were disposed to eternal life believed and quote this would not speak of God's eternal degree

But of the predisposition however arrived at of the individuals who believed on this occasion now you then go through a number of Verses where you have

Tetagmenoi and that is the Greek term that is found here and well you can go over here to first Corinthians 16 15 the household

Of Stavonis have devoted themselves the ministry of the Saints and so as many as had devoted themselves to eternal life believed

The problem is there's a reason why all these English translations are consistent And that is the

Greek language doesn't exist as simply strings of words put together tetagmenoi appears as a

Paraphrastic construction what really shocked me is that when I read elect in the Sun by shank in all the pages of his discussion he never once even mentioned the tetagmenoi is in a paraphrastic instruction here and that determines the meaning a

Paraphrastic construction is not just one word you have to look at both of them together and This becomes what's what's called a pluperfect translation

That means you would actually have to understand that these Gentiles before ever hearing the gospel presented to them had disposed themselves to be ready for eternal life

And that's why they believed and that that's what Luke is actually presenting here And you could never find anywhere in Luke or anywhere else in the testament where that kind of paraphrastic instruction bears that kind of a meaning

To insert into this text and so that's what concerns me I mean certainly thankfully

Steve Gregg did not do in following Robert Shank what Dave Hunt did in trying wildly to defend all these amazing statements that he made about x 1348 even to the point of positing a

Hebrew original 13 that no one's ever seen and yet when scholars did see what no one has ever seen

It actually meant that they disposed themselves But it is the length to which people will go in these types of situations

To defend this concept of the libertarian will of man That is of great concern to me the text is actually very very clear

And I'd like to have some interaction next time around on that subject Thank You dr. White very nice Twelve minutes on the spot there did

I not You win you win the debate right on I'm gonna let Steve close this out and Steve I want to thank

James White again for Mercying us with his presence here. James was a very busy man and a very prominent man and For him to take the time to be on a small potatoes show like this is really a very kind thing for him to do

And I'm sure he does it because he's interested in our listeners knowing the truth And that's of course exactly my interest as well, and we'll continue to explore the truth in the next couple of Programs together you've been listening to the narrow path radio broadcast

You can write to us at the narrow path p .o. Box 36 33 Santa Cruz, California 950 6 3 that's the narrow path p .o.

Box 36 33 Santa Cruz, California 950 6 3 our website is www .the