Calvinism vs Arminianism, Part 3

Opening Debate Format and Introductions

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 Reformed Baptist Church and he is professor at Golden Gate Theological Seminary and director of Alpha and Omega ministries an 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 minute 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.

The Default Non-Calvinist Reading of Scripture

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 Calvinist 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 Fathers 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 will as 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 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 in condemning man and gracious in 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 our minion 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 texts 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. If he wants to 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 the 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 24 15 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 the 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. 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.

Romans 9 and the Purpose of Israel

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 Diogenesius 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 thirteen 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 be 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 isogenesis reading into the text and meaning that is not Substantiated by the form of 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 wanted 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 person B 2 4 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 a 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's 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 we 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 does 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.

Those 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 this 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. Are 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 resist his will?

Now mr. Greg has a very unusual reading of this. But I think if we just look at the text of all the 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 be 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 resisted 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 who answers back to God the thing molded? Will 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 the 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 some will say oh well. You know they prepared themselves on fourth. 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 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 and 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.

The Meaning of Romans 9 for Salvation and Divine Mercy

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 calm.

Dr. White's is alpha and Omega ministries org 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 Arminian 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 Arminians feel that Paul is only talking about nations here. He made it very clear. That's what he thinks. That is not what any Arminian 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 seed 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. No Arminians all use the word elect. Also, we have to talk about the meaning of that word before we decide whether it's an Arminian or a Calvinist interpretation.

But 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.