Calvinism vs Arminianism, Part 4

It's my delight today to introduce and give a brief biographical sketch of the two debaters beginning with Steve Gregg as you know. He is of course the founder and host of this very radio broadcast. The narrow path.

Steve has a wealth of biblical knowledge. He's also the author of Revelation for views. He's a frequent Bible teacher all over the world. With youth with a mission or why. Wham? It's a delight to have Steve today representing the non Calvinist view.

Steve is joined today by dr. James White. James White is the director of Alpha and Omega ministries. Which is an apologetics oriented ministry. It provides many helpful resources and features. The webcast the dividing line.

James is also an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church a professor at Golden Gate Theological Seminary and a Critical consultant for the New American Standard version of the Bible. Finally dr. White is a frequent debater with those both within the church and those of other beliefs.

And he is the author of many books most notably and relative to this debate Debating Calvinism which he co-authored with David Hunt as well as the Potter's freedom. So welcome dr. White. And today the debaters will have two 12-minute segments each there.

You can do with those times that which they please how to present or review past Arguments from the other or even cross-examine. So with that dr. White you today have the first 12 minutes.

Yeah, I'm up, and it's not my turn. It's Steve's because I had the last word on the last program I had brought up some issues regarding X 1348, and he did not have an opportunity to respond to that so it's actually his turn.

Acts 13:48 and Whether It Means “Appointed” or “Disposed”

Okay, I'll take the time then I go to X 1348 if you like where it says that the Gentiles heard Paul. Tell them that the gospel was going to the Gentiles. And they were glad to hear it, and it says and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Now just before you quit yes, so you quote it is if it said as many as were ordained to believe believed. Of course it doesn't say that says as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. And so the question is what does it mean to be ordained to eternal life as?

You pointed out most translations use the word appointed or something like that as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. I personally don't prefer that translation, but most translators do and you thought that was pretty significant.

Well, maybe it is significant. I know that when we talk about first Timothy 2 for where it says that God desires all men to be saved. That you think it means all kinds of men, but I don't know of any translations that translate it that way.

I think we do reserve the right to disagree with the translations from time to time because we recognize that. Translations do have their limits, and that's why there is exegesis. That's why you tell us what the Greek says and what the Greek verbs are and all that because you don't rely entirely on translations.

We do know that the word Tasso that is used here as many as were Appointed to eternal life is used also of the household of Stephanus in 1st Corinthians 16 15. Where it says that these people had devoted themselves to the ministry of the Saints?

I don't think we'd say they appointed themselves although. Maybe you'd say that it's clear that it's talking about disposition that they had. The word has a variety of meanings. And it's true that in some of the meanings maybe most of the meanings in the New Testament It refers to appointing somebody to an office or appointing someone to a position in the military or something like that.

But it's not the only way that the verb is understood. There are some lexicons perhaps. It's not the favored view, but even views that aren't the favored view have some attestation. Let's say that it could be disposed or devoted.

And I would say that if we read it as those who were devoted to eternal life or those who are disposed to eternal life Believed then it would be telling us something about how these Gentiles who believed differed internally.

They differed from the Jews who had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life in two verses earlier in verse 26. I Don't feel that an awful lot hangs on Acts 13 48 to tell you the truth although It is brought up a lot by Calvinist to me it tells me.

Let's take it. Let's take it as if we're talking about God appointing people to eternal life. We can we can take it that way to say that those that God had appointed to eternal life Believed simply tells me that the people who believed are the same people that God appointed to eternal life.

And we all agree with that we all agree that those who believe are appointed to eternal life. I think that God has appointed that there will be many who have eternal life. And they are the ones who are comprised of the believing community.

I don't believe however that acts is here referring to an absolute decree of eternal life to you know. That was made before the foundation of the world because and I said this once and you ridiculed it on your program.

But I'll bring it up again because it's not ridiculous. Luke tells us that practically the whole town was gathered at that synagogue. And if all who were before the foundation of the world Ordained to have eternal life if they all believed on that occasion then every person who is elect Became a Christian in that town.

That is every elect person in that town was became a Christian. And we would have to assume I think that there were no more elect people in the town after this. Because Luke is telling us what happened on that occasion I think it is more likely that he's telling us that there are two kinds of people in the synagogue Jews and Gentiles.

And The Jews had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life and the gent were of the opposite disposition. They were devoted to eternal they were disposed to eternal life as they were inclined to want eternal life.

In your discussion you mentioned that of course people who are unregenerate can't really want eternal life. Or actually what you said is a slave can't free himself. But of course a slave can want to be free and if he has somebody willing to free him.

Then a slave can be very much disposed toward freedom, and if someone offers him his freedom He can choose that. That's certainly not Something that we could argue against in terms of the nature of slavery if a slave is a slave that doesn't mean he doesn't want To be free if somebody comes and offers in his freedom.

Then he is able to be free if he's disposed toward freedom. I think many people who are not Christians are disposed toward eternal life. That is they would like to have eternal life, and I believe that those in that synagogue who were I?

Believe that they believed on that occasion, so that's how I understand that particular passage. I know it's different than what you believe, and you don't think it's a very strong exegesis. I didn't go into the Greek tense of the verbs and so forth partly because I don't think it's relevant you in your response to my remarks about this on your dividing line broadcast.

Pointed out that if it was saying that they had disposed themselves to eternal life. Then you need to have you know the pronoun in there that corresponds to themselves dispose themselves. Of course I'm not arguing that it says they dispose themselves.

I'm just saying they were disposed. It doesn't tell us who disposed them. If I say that I'm disposed to go to bed early tonight I'm not telling you whether it's something I came up with on my own or whether someone has a gun in my head and telling Me to do it.

It doesn't matter to say. I'm disposed to it is simply telling my inclinations and to say these people were inclined to eternal life. Doesn't tell us what force outside or inside themselves inclined them that way and that's.

Just like we're not told what force disposed the household of Stathon is to devote themselves to the ministry of the Saints. It's it's it can be an internal thing so it's not anything that really I think I don't think any serious doctrine hangs on it.

Necessarily, it's too ambiguous. So that's my understate of X 1348. I Realize it's very different in my approach to yours because I don't have the Greek expertise. But I've listened to your explanation of the Greek Tenses and all that and I don't really see that they make an awful lot of difference to this particular point.

I'm making. Do you want to respond to that?

Certainly. There are many things to respond to first of all. If we look at all the uses of Tasso in the New Testament, there are only a few of them. All of them are either translated the way that X 1340 is translated in all major translations.

Or in first printed in 1615 the reason you have devoted themselves because there is a reflective pronoun there. So there is no example of a disposed toward friendly toward Whatever type situation used in the New Testament.

This would be the only place in the entire New Testament where we would have that usage. We have no usage in the close context of Luke. We have no usage in far context. Nothing that would parallel even in X 1346 where it says they judged themselves, which would you judge yourselves again?

Reflexive pronoun is there. There is no reflexive pronoun X 1348 therefore to present the idea of disposed. Predisposition anything like that simply doesn't have any basis in the lexical materials in the grammar and the syntax or anything.

Excuse me anything else what. But what is more is what I did point out in my discussion. Was that none of the sources found in Schenck and I found even the argument that you've made that. This would mean everybody who was elect had to believe that one day and no one else could ever be elect in that town.

I found that in Schenck that those only two places ever found it because honestly I've never heard that kind of argument before and I cannot begin to understand the idea behind it. It certainly is not suggested by the text in any way, but but looking at what Schenck said Never in the entire discussion in his book.

And this is one of the reasons why those folks on my side the aisle the Schenck is such a horrible resource. Is he never once recognizes the syntactical category that we're looking at here in the text?

Act 1348 presents to us. Okay. Yeah, you went into that yesterday, perhaps. We shouldn't take up my time too much going into that again. I our listeners can listen to the tape of that if they're interested in knowing about that syntactic category.

I would say that. Since you say you don't understand the argument or it doesn't seem like it's in the text what I'm understanding is this. The Calvinist view is that when it says they were appointed to eternal life It's referring to an appointment that was made by God before the foundation of the world therefore at that point all people on the planet before the foundation of the world were appointed to one fate or another by God and.

That Luke according to the Calvinist view is saying that those who were in Pisidian Antioch on this occasion who belonged to that Category of who were appointed to return to her life when Paul spoke they believed.

Now that would. My argument sounds like it makes perfectly good sense if as Luke tells us virtually everyone from the whole town was there in the synagogue and All of those who were appointed to eternal life that is before the foundation of the world Believed on that occasion doesn't say that it would argue that there were none left in the town who were appointed to eternal life.

Who had not believed. Where does it say? Where's the word all appear in act 1348?

It says as many as many as.

Hopefully, that's as many that that's that's determined by the preceding phrase, which is those who were hearing. There's nothing in the ground whatsoever that that would warrant your insertion term all that you just put into your rendering.

Well, okay, so when it says as many as were ordained to eternal life believed that doesn't mean all that were ordained to eternal life believed. No.

As many as were they believed. Where where where does that where does that mean that there could not be other people who? I mean you keep saying almost, you know, well, okay.

To my mind the word as many as means the same number as. Isn't that. What the. Isn't that. What as many as means? It means the same number.

Hathaway a son tethach. Menoy means as many as were appointed did the action of the verb so those who okay?

That's fine. So as many as that's I'm not talking about the verb. I'm talking about the number when it says as many as it means the same number as.

Does it not. That's the 12-minute mark, okay, Steve. So dr. Weiss your turn to continue with this thread of thought or something of your wishes. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah.

I will I will say that inferring the word all here is Eisegesis and it is not substantiated by the text what it is saying is that all those who believed had been appointed to eternal life. To turn it around and say that everyone who is appointed to eternal life and all the city of Antioch for all of eternity Believe on that day is is grossly unwarranted and has absolutely no basis in the text.

But I do want to go back to the text because I think this is important you may dismiss it but I think it's very very important because this is what exegesis is about and this is a clear example of where a tradition a Philosophy is being forced upon the text and it's forcing the text to say something that it did not say as I have pointed out.

The parallels that are suggested by shank by the people site and shank and that mr. Greg has cited in his mp3s and in his writings do not engage this text on its most basic level. I point out the shank never points out that this is a paraphrastic instruction.

All they're doing is looking at pet dog Mennoi, they don't even recognize that it's in a paraphrastic instruction that that has meaning nowhere in the entire book. Is that even reference? I've never heard mr. Greg explain this form of the language and that's that that is where you get is a Jesus.

The text Uses a certain form that means a pluperfect. That is these individuals whatever this action means and you can't find another place in the new testament where it means Disposed it does not have a reflexive pronoun.

So I'd submit to you. That is a horrible mistranslation text that point. But if you just go with what the meaning is and this is why all the English translations produced by teams of scholars rather than a single individual Render it the same way we can start with the ASV the King James move on the way up to the modern time.

They all say the same thing as ESV NASB any tea, etc. Etc. They all say the same thing and there's a reason for this. The reason is this is a paraphrastic Construction and what it means is a pluperfect action something had already taken place prior to this and As a result, they believed now someone say yes, these people had disposed themselves to eternal life.

Please look at the text again. And when the Gentiles heard this what did they hear Paul's announcement? They were taking the gospel the Gentiles because the Jews were rejecting it. They're taking the gospel Gentile.

When they heard this they did two things there are two verbs here that describe what these individuals do they rejoice and They glorify they begin rejoicing they glorify and then they believe. They rejoice they glorify and they believe.

Now it is amazing to me that it could be suggested that these individuals had disposed themselves to eternal life. Before the message of how you have eternal life had been proclaimed to them. Because that's what's being suggested.

I have to be the way it is because it says when the Gentiles heard this They believed having been appointed to eternal life. Now if it's having disposed themselves to eternal life they had somehow disposed themselves to something before the message was delivered to them about how they could obtain it and How do you get disposed to eternal life?

We're not talking about being disposed to repentance. We're not talking about being disposed to faith. How are you disposed to eternal life? Where is that kind of phraseology ever used in the Bible? Now appointment to eternal life that's understandable, but disposed to eternal life.

These are all foreign concepts that that you can't find anywhere in the text. And so when someone says well everybody well, you know, you put the word all or something like that. That's it's just not what it says.

It's describing for us and it's the last phrase is and They believed who believed ha soy a son tetog menoy. I so Wayne Ionian those who had been Appointed to eternal life. They're the ones who believed and there's no problem with that in Luke's understanding.

There's no problem with that in a biblical understanding because it is God's appointment that grants faith faith is described as The gift of God remember what Philippians 129 tells it had been it had been granted to us to believe in Christ to suffer for his name and to Believe in Christ, so it has to be granted to us.

Well, because the same reason we have in John chapter 6 that no man is able to come unto me. And let the father who sent me draws him and it is that drawing that effective action of God that results in our then coming to Christ and so I think it is important because When and by the way, there is no parallel whatsoever between first Timothy 2 4 and act 1348 in my comments on it I Have never said that you should translate first Timothy 2 4 with a meaning.

For the words that cannot be found anywhere else in Paul's writings. I have suggested to you that the term all men needs to be defined within its context and That the immediate context before and after determines this.

I Have presented the argument that to interpret first Timothy 2 4 in such a fashion that you make it universalistic. Makes Paul contradict himself makes the New Testament contradict itself that there is no reason to do that because of the immediate context but I have never suggested that we ignore the syntax of the language the grammar of the language the lexicography of the language or anything else and adopt a translation that is not found in any of The English translations that are available to a Christian bookstore today, and so I don't have to do that.

There is no parallel to that but I think it might be good since I want to get to that first Timothy 2 4 is one of the big three and there we read that God desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and Immediately everybody just goes.

Well, there it is. All men are to be saved that that's what God's desire is. There can't be election. There can't be anything else. Well, let's continue reading or let's at least look at the at the entire context.

What is he writing to Timothy about? He's writing to Timothy about the fact that we should pray that we should have supplications prayers intercessions and thanksgivings made for who? All-men now that to be taken in a universalistic sense individually.

Are you supposed to get out the Ephesian phone book and start at the A's or the Alphas and end at the Omegas and pray for? Individual is that even how Paul interpreted look at the next verse. It is not for kings and all who are in high positions.

We may lead a peaceful and quiet life godly and dignified in every way. How does Paul interpret his own use of all men? Kinds of men kings those who an authority these are the people that need to be prayed for even though they were persecuting the Christians.

They needed to be prayed for this is good. And it's pleasing the sight of God our Savior Who desires all men to be saved to come the knowledge of the truth that is he saves all kinds of men people in leadership slaves Sailors people even people in the army.

Amazingly we're coming to know Jesus Christ. And why is that consistent with the text. Well because he goes on to say for there is one God and there is one mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus.

And Who is Jesus the mediator before between all kinds of men? But is he the mediator between? Every single human being and God. That's a question that I would ask of Steve Gregg. I'd like him to to address that.

Does Jesus Christ function as mediator? Between. Every single human being including those who will end up in eternity in hell. And the father does the son? Present his finished work before the father in behalf of those who God knows will never ever enter into his presence.

Is that what the high priest does the high priest offer a sacrifice and that sacrifice is not accepted by God? That is one of the main questions. I did raise this on the first day, and I only did so briefly.

I obviously felt it was important to lay a foundation that's been described as a Gatling gun or machine gun style approach. I don't think that that's a fair and Description of it. I think we have to recognize that there's a lot that needs to be presented in a very short period of time and So I did make reference to that fact and in reading Romans chapter 8.

That when the question is asked who will bring a charge against God's elect. One of the part of the response that demonstrates that no one can bring a charge against God's elect. Which is what demonstrates the perfection of our standing before God is the fact that we have an intercessor.

And the book of Hebrews tells us that he is able to save the uttermost because he ever lives to make intercession. He is able to save perfectly. He is able to save completely. And the reason no one can bring a charge against God's elect according to Romans chapter 8 is because he intercedes for us so.

Can Jesus Christ intercede for those that will never be saved. Can he fail in the task of intercession now? I point out that the high priest has to go into the holy place. After he's made that that sacrifice has been made he has to go in the holy place, and he has to present that sacrifice there before before God.

And so if the sacrifice of Christ is Not specific if it is not in harmony with the extent of God's electing grace. That free grace that that elect people as Paul himself said he endures all things for whom for the sake of the elect.

If there is not that group of the elect not just a nebulous group. But the individuals that God from eternity has chosen. Then for whom is Christ going to intercede if if he if his sacrifice is just general.

Then that must mean that as the high priest he presents his sacrifice before the father for all those for whom he makes atonement. And if he makes atonement for all men, then why is there anybody in hell if he has already born in himself the punishment for their sin.

Then is that punishment going to be laid a second time upon the sinner for eternity laid first upon the son though God the Father in his infinite foreknowledge knows that this is a this is this is a waste.

That that he's punishing his son and yet that that person's also going to see receive the same wrath for his sin. Is that really what's going to happen. Is that really an understanding that is consistent with the presentation of this gospel of grace or.

Do we see the perfection of John 639 for example? That he will lose none of those given to him. Does that not fit in perfectly with Romans 8. With Romans 9 with Acts 13 48 the because it is the consistency across the entire canon of the text of the Bible from beginning to end of God's freedom and the fact that God has a purpose a specific purpose that he is working out.

That's what gives purpose not only to everything in our lives. That's why we can say Romans 8 28. He causes all things to work together good for them to love God with him the called according to his purpose but for all things even though things we can't see the purposes of the entire concept of the odyssey the the Explaining why there is evil in the world all comes back to this.

Understanding that either God wound this whole thing up, and he knew there's could be evil, but he didn't have a purpose for it or he did have a purpose for it and That purpose is focused first and foremost in redeeming of people in Christ Jesus but it's going to be seen finally in God's self-glorification in eternity itself and I believe that does involve his decree.

Nebuchadnezzar certainly recognized that saw that so the Old Testament writers. That's what the early church believed in Acts chapter 4. And so if that is the case then we see. What forces me to be reformed is the entire panoply of Scripture the entire context of Scripture?

Presenting these things to me, and that's really where I'm coming from as to why this is an important subject to address.

Thank you, dr. White. If you're just joining us you're listening to a simulcast being broadcast on both the dividing line and the narrow path. May encourage our listeners who perhaps just joined us to realize that they can access All five days of the debates between Steve Gregg and dr. White.

Steve Gregg's website is the narrow path comm. Dr. White's is a o min org at both websites. It's very easy to locate and access the mp3 files of all five days worth of the base once they're all there.

That is we are now in day four of five, and we're halfway through today's program. So next up is Steve with his second set of 12 minutes. Steve.

Romans 1 and the Scope of Human Sin

Okay, thank you. Yeah, you know I've just realized that we've we're in day four almost finished with day four and Really nothing has been said on this program by dr. White or myself that cannot be found in our in his books or in my lectures.

And I would like it's a very rare opportunity for me to be able to converse with dr. White so I'd like to I'd like to talk about some things that can't be found in his books or in my lectures up to this point and that would be to cross examine some things now.

James White did ask me some questions and It's a very strong temptation for me to to take the time to answer them. But you see that's what's been happening through the whole four days as I try to answer James White's questions.

And I never get to Move beyond the subjects that he introduces. I'd like to introduce a subject or two here if I could in my time. That's so dr. White. I'd like to keep you with me on online here. Let's look at Romans chapter 1 because I want to nail down exactly what the exegetical basis is for the doctrine of total depravity.

And I just like to ask you some questions and these are really answered. These are questions that don't need long answers. They just most of them are yes or no type questions, and I have a lot of questions.

So I'd kind of like to move through them as rapidly as we can though. I don't want to give you inadequate time To answer any of the questions, but Romans chapter 1 verses 18 through 32 is Pretty much a classic proof text for total depravity.

It talks about how Wicked people are and how they've been given over by God and so forth. I just like to ask you some questions. Is this passage in your judgment about Gentiles.

It's actually about I think all of mankind. It can be applied solely to Gentiles. The Jews certainly take that to a viewpoint in Romans chapter 2. That's why in Romans chapter 3 Paul basically goes back and says no actually though you thought I was talking only about Jews.

I'm also talking about you, and he wraps everybody up in verses 10 through 18 in that okay.

So you're saying that you're saying that this passage is about all mankind. Yes, uh-huh are you I suggesting there? Where's the word all?

Well the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodly and unrighteous of men. That is the that is. No no that doesn't. Stop there. It does not stop there.

It says all unrighteous of men who suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. So it says that God is angry at all men who suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. If I were to say I am angry at all judges who legislate from the bench that doesn't mean I'm not angry at all judges.

It just means I'm angry at all the ones who legislate from the bench. So Paul tells us that God is angry at all men who suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. I'm wondering where it says he's angry at all men or that all men suppress the truth.

Yeah, all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Well of course, but that's not in this passage. We're not it's you know you're going to several chapters off. I think it's it's.

Really one of the clearest givens we can possibly have. Okay, so in other words.

That doesn't say in this passage that God is angry at all men.

I'll tell you what. Why don't you have your time. Because you're not gonna. Let me get a word in edgewise anyway.

No, no, I want to do you and then I'll James. All I need are short answers. Yes, or no because these are easy questions.

No, these these are these are loaded questions that do not allow for a means. They are and so are yours.

Okay. James. James, please let's be fair the questions you asked me are loaded also. These are questions that are not unfair questions. They're exegetical questions. The question is no. Is there anything that can be executed from this passage that tells us that Paul is talking about all Men.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. There is okay. What is it in this passage that tells us that okay?

Well, I started going there, and and you interrupted me. But it says for what can be known about God is plain to them because God's shown it to them. Who is the them. Is God's general revelation limited only to sinful men or do all men receive that knowledge?

But that's not that's not relevant to my question James because we could say we could say the general revelation is available all men. But that's not what Paul's saying. Paul's saying those who suppress the truth and unrighteous have had the advantage of his revelation.

That's true of them. It may be true of others too, but Paul hasn't raised the question of anyone else. Saying that these people have received Revelation from God and they have suppressed it and they have suppressed it.

Well yes, okay. I would agree with you that all men have. I'm not denying that but Paul's not hasn't said anything about all men. He's talking about certain men certain men who suppress the truth and unrighteous these people.

What is known of God has been made known to them now? There's nothing in the passage that tells us that Paul's talking about anyone other than these men that he's mentioned in verse 18. Now it also says that they in in verse 20 and 21 these people Say they knew God.

Okay, but they didn't want to glorify him as God. So they became futile in their thoughts and their foolish hearts were darkened. At what point in time does an unbeliever's heart become darkened? I'm sorry you're talking to me.

Yeah, you you're the guy I'm talking to. Yeah, that's right. Well. I told you that I'm asking you questions. Yeah, well.

Yeah, you you've got a few a few questions. But like I was trying to say to Paul, but I couldn't get a word as Edwise as wiser I I don't think that this kind of interaction is is overly meaningful, but when people can't hear what we're talking about.

So I really think that you should allow Full time to him and you can even take time away from me, and then we can if we want to discuss Romans chapter 1.

Okay, okay, dr. Martin. I'll tell you what I will I'll take the whole time. I won't ask you to answer any more questions, but I will say this. What I'm trying to do Is to get you to talk about some specific passages rather than rattle them off.

But don't don't say anything because you don't want to interact, but let me let me just say this no.

I would like to interact. I just don't believe that you're allowing interaction. I'm asking for some straight answers. No you're you know you you said that the questions. I asked you were loaded questions.

Yeah, I asked you specific questions about the grammar the text that you have made false statements about in public, okay?

You a similar question. You have publicly said that Romans 1 is about all men. I'm saying where in the text does it say that. Okay the entire?

Argument that the Apostle is presenting to lay the foundation for the necessity of Justification by faith and the need of a Savior to bear sins for Jews and Gentiles is found in Romans 1 2.

Okay, I'll accept that and I'll accept that answer. I'll accept that answer. Okay. In other words because of your understanding of the paradigm of Romans and the argument there you read into Romans 1 things that are not said there, and that's fine.

That is that is possible to do something. I reject. I reject that this is not interaction. That's not cross-examination. Okay, examination is asking questions not making comments at the end that are an unsubstantiated, but what I did that's not true dr.