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 at 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

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 yet, 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 for 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 him 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 understanding 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 1348 is translated in all major translations

Or in first printed in 1615 the reason you have devoted themselves because there is a reflexive 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 judge themselves

Which would you judge yourself again the 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 elected 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 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 belong to that?

Category of who were appointed to return to 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 would not

Believe 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 as that that did that determined by the preceding phrase, which is those who were hearing

There's nothing in the ground whatsoever that would warrant your insertion of 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 well I 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 hot boy a son tepid mentally 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 now

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 Isogesis 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 in Antioch for all eternity Believe in 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've pointed out the parallels

That are suggested by shank by the people site and shank and that mr. Gregg has cited in his mp3s and in his writings do not engage this text on its most basic level

I've pointed 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. Gregg explain this form of the language and that's that that is where you get isogesis 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 at 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 the SV 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

Gentiles 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 that because it says when the Gentiles heard this

They believed having been appointed to eternal life Now if it's having disposed themselves 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 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 it's like that. It's just not what it says. It's describing for us and it's the last phrases and They believed who believed

Hathoi a son tethog menoi ices away in 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 1 29 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 unless 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 1st

Timothy 2 4 and act 1348 in my comments on it I Have never said that you should translate 1st

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 1st 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 Adopted 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 1st

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 every single individual is that even how

Paul interprets it look at the next verse it is not For kings and all who are in high positions that 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 that the cons 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 We 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 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 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 Omin org at both websites

It's very easy to locate and access the mp3 files of all five days worth of debates once are 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 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. I 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 answer 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, are you

I suggesting there? Where's the word all? Well the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness 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

I'm 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

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

We're James. We're gonna go 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 has 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 He's 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 nuts 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're the guy I'm talking to you. 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 yet Edwise Edweiser 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, dr. I 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, well, I'll ask 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, damn nation is asking questions not making comments at the end that are an unsubstantiated, but what

I did that's not true dr. White that is not true you make comments about questions that I answer to You see we have to have we have to have a fair exchange where I get to answer some questions

And I get to ask some questions, too I think maybe you're just accustomed to dominating the You just said that I said you did something into the text.

Yes. You said that this is about all men It does not say that anywhere You just made that at the end and I have argued to you that to Take it the way that you are taking it and to say this is only about a certain group of men and that there are

People who have had knowledge of God, but and they have thanked him without Having been redeemed or or some kind of Entire concept unknown to the entire book of Romans and to let you get away with that that somehow is me reading, okay?

Okay, dr. White. Let's let's drop this point because I think our listeners have seen What you've said and what

I've said and we'll let them use their own reasoning powers about this The truth of the matter is and you don't have to answer any more dr.

Wright until it's your turn which will be just a couple minutes actually, but What seems clear is that?

There's nothing in Romans 1 that says that Paul's how about all men what he says might in fact be true of all men

We don't know but Paul doesn't tell us that it is and therefore it we have to bring that idea in now

I asked dr. White at what point in a person's and an unbeliever's life their hearts are darkened Paul talks about these people as people who once knew

God, but their hearts have become darkened Why because they suppress the truth I would think that dr.

White's view is that all unbelievers are born with their hearts darkened He describes them as dead in sins and darkened in their hearts and their imaginations and so forth

I don't find anywhere in the Bible that states that this is the birth condition of every man I do see

Paul saying that there are certainly many men and he's talking about them right here Who have known the truth?

And they've rejected the truth and as a result darkness has come upon their hearts I believe this is true in virtually all the passages that talk about Total depravity at least that are used the reason

I wanted to ask some specific questions about a passage and In my opinion the reason dr. White didn't want me to do so is because it does not allow

The Calvinist to simply rattle off passages and say see there for example when dr.

White gave his original argument He talked about the state of the antediluvian people that the thoughts and imaginations of their heart were only evil continually

He talked about the leopard can't change its spots in the Ethiopian can't change its skin So cannot you who are accustomed to evil do good?

He talked about the heart being desperately wicked and and deceitful above all things He used a lot of scriptures which the

Bible directs towards certain audiences and says this is true of them But if we look at the context of each of these we find that it's a specific group of people if we want to exegete the passage

We can't go to Genesis 6 or Jeremiah or these passages and find a place where it is saying all human beings

Fit this category Jeremiah is addressing the Jews of his day who were that way now of course

I'm not arguing that there aren't many others who are that way and that's what dr. White's answer about Romans 1 was getting at he's suggesting that I think that no one else would find this applicable to them

I'm not questioning how many people besides This would be applicable to I'm questioning what the passage is actually teaching

I believe the passage is teaching what it says there are people who have known God There are people who did not like to know

God They've suppressed the truth in their unrighteousness and as a result they become darkened and God is angry at them because they suppress the truth

Now I'm going to go ahead and I wanted to talk about quite a few passages if we'd gotten shorter answers to some of these things

We might have covered more ground, but I really need to give dr. White the microphone because we're gonna run out of time here.

Yeah, we if we give him 12 minutes We're gonna run near the end, so let's go ahead and turn it over. Thank you, dr.

White all right. Thank you Steve dr. White the next 12 minutes are yours If I've given shorter answers, okay, well,

I I'm sorry that this This has developed. I really think that these are issues

That require a very high level of of discussion, and I don't think that that kind of interaction

With questions that are that you know I'm sorry but when you when you have to throw in little tag lines at the end those are not questions are meant to get at the truth and I think that the vast majority of our listeners will recognize that if you look at Romans chapter 1 and You look at the vice list the list of sins listed by the

Apostle Paul they Seem beginning 28 and following to be very much the very same sins that Paul lists elsewhere as the very things that all

Christians struggle against and that are a part of the fallen nature of man and what happens is after this universal

Condemnation of man the the Jew says ah yes But I don't do that because I have the law and he then says well the mere possession of the law does not justify you

Before God, that's what Romans chapter 2 is about and Romans chapter 3 then Wraps all this stuff up and it presents to us the foundation of Justification by faith by saying all men stand before God on the same ground there is none righteous

No Not even one now if you use what was just said Then you'd have to go back to the text to the

Paul's claim of that well. That's just about one group You know this is about his enemies at a certain point in time that we can't

Paul you can't extend this out to all people Come on, but there is none who understand there is none who seeks for God.

Well. That was just a particular group But what does the Apostle do with these texts?

Verse 19 now we know that whatever the law says it speaks those who are under the law So that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God Because by the works of the law no flesh

Will be justified in his sight and so what I tried to say which is what you'll find in the vast majority of commentaries on the subject is that what we have here is a single argument

Paul didn't divide this up into chapters and So to start in the front part of the argument and to come to a conclusion there and ignore the next two -thirds of the argument which as we would be looking at it would be chapters two and three and To pretend we can come to a meaningful conclusion at that point.

I think is is disingenuous and not not worth Really discussing to any any length what we have is the assertion

That all flesh is made to be silent before God everyone stands Equally condemned and that is why you need one

Savior for Jews and Gentiles You can't have one Savior for Jews in a different favor for Gentiles This is how the

Apostle Paul is avoiding the Jewish Gentile split is to emphasize the unity that exists in the condemnation of mankind

But again, I think there is a fundamental difference between how we approach even the inspiration of Scripture the canon of Scripture It's certainly how we view the very nature of God as well in regards to whether it is glorifying to God or not

That that he has exhaustive knowledge of future events Whether there is a decree that is involved all of these things are

I think very very important and they are part of the fundamental difference that exists between us and Maybe we can go into those things at some point in time,

I suppose But I think they do result in a lot of the the problems that we are having in discussing these things

So yes, I I do believe that If we are going to assert that Romans chapter 1 is to be limited in audience to well, we weren't told who to but to some subgroup

Then if that means that there are people who though they had a revelation from God gave thanks to God That there are people who do not react in by suppressing the knowledge of God Then what that means is we need to identify these folks.

Where are they? Where are they discussed in Romans? They're not discussed in Romans 1 are they in Romans 2?

No, they're not in Romans 2. Romans 3? Nope. Now we're just talking about sinners. Where are they discussed? Why do they need a

Savior? I? Mean to just go well, you know Paul might mean that but we don't know

I Guess this is this this idea that is very popular today of epistemic humility we just don't know where we just don't want to go beyond the text you see and My experience in the

Academy is that that is the the road that leads you to those people Who will point us to the scriptures and let's say

I believe the Word of God But I really don't believe that you can derive any particular systematic theology out of it

You know, there's conflict between this person that person we really don't know and if we really don't know

What God is doing for example in? the atonement or Do we know what he's doing the resurrection?

Do we know he's doing it all the gospel? What message do we have when we have to look to the world to go? We just don't know.

I mean we have some theories and and but we want to be epistemically You know humble and just admit what we don't know

And so we're not sure what to say to you. We're not really sure who Jesus is or things like that That's why at the very very beginning.

I said that the key issue here is the consistency of one's interpretation of Scripture and whether one will allow all of Scripture to speak or whether you will cut it up into pieces and That's why

I have tried to object to the idea of let's isolate Romans one out

Let's not allow it to be connected to Romans two and three which is actually one big long argument and let's just ask yes or no questions on this

I object to that I Would never ask anybody else to do that. I have not asked you Greg to do that when

I have asked him questions about Acts 13 48 it is because he has told people that a particular

Translation of the text is better than another and he's wrong. This is all there is to it.

It's a factual thing It's not a loaded question. It is let's look at the text Does that do do the scholarly sources back up this kind of assertion or not is there are there?

Reciprocal pronouns the reflective pronouns there are they there those things are direct clear questions about the meaning of a particular text

It is not the same thing as saying well I only want you to look at Acts 13 48, and I don't want you to look at Acts 13 46

I've never said that to someone And as I said before that's not at all parallel first Timothy 2 for the discussions that are found there and the questions that I have

Asked in regards to whether Christ does intercede for those Who will eventually be under the wrath of God as God's wrath fall upon others when when we talk about the perfection of Christ's work?

When it is said that Christ appears in the very presence of the Father for us Who is he appearing in the presence of Christ of the

Father for whose name is written upon his hand When it says that we are the sheep of Christ and Christ says

I know my own my own know me There is a reciprocal relationship that exists between Christ the

Shepherd and his sheep How can he someday stand in front of those people and say depart from me for I never knew you

How can that happen or or is are we not really looking here? at the issue of whether we look at the gospel as something that God does for his own glory or Whether it is something that man is in essence in charge of it's a plan that has been provided God wants every single individual to take advantage of the plan even though for some reason you waited until tens of thousands of generations of people have passed by that ever hearing about it and So on so forth and then even then he didn't send prophets to certain people and things like that But God still wants everybody to take advantage of it, and that's his heart's desire, and he is going to be eternally disappointed

Because they're going to be people in hell under his wrath that he loves and he loves perfectly but They just he just didn't he's just gonna be disappointed for all eternity.

That's just the way it's going to be or Do we listen to all of what scripture has to say?

Recognize that such things as libertarianism in regards to the human will ignores the biblical teaching about sin

Ignore the fact that the Bible says that when Jesus said he who sins the slave of sin

Yes, a slave may desire to be free, but who must set that slave free according to Jesus own words

It is of course the Son must set you free and is in that very same section of John chapter 8

That Jesus explained the unbelief of the Jews who by the end of the chapter pick up stones with stone him the very people who had

Said they believed in him halfway through the chapter He explained their unbelief by saying why do you not hear my words?

It is because you cannot hear them those who belong to God hear my words

Now who makes that decision are the sheep the ones who choose the shepherd or Is Jesus's explanation the only way

Jesus explanation makes any sense is to recognize that God is the one who gives ears God is the one who gives eyes and It is those that his mercy is extended to who then experience that and so it is an important thing

It's important for example the fact that in just a matter of hours this weekend I will be in Fullerton, California debating a

Muslim on the deity of Christ, and I will use the exact same Hermeneutical methodology to defend the deity of Christ that I would use to defend the resurrection monotheism the inspiration of Scripture or whatever else it might be and I will present to the

Muslims if there are any questions relevant to it and there have been in the past a Reformed understanding of God's sovereignty and the gospel and I must do so if I'm going to be consistent in my study of the scriptures my proclamation the scriptures and my defense of the faith we are called upon to give an answer a

Reason for the hope that lies within us and the only way to do that I believe is to start off with a firm foundation and that firm foundation is to have the same view of Scripture It was held by Jesus and the

Apostles by those in the Old Testament that this is God speaking to us and If it is

God's purpose to reveal to us What these texts mean for our edification for our sanctification and to restrain the madness of man?

Who is constantly trying to insert himself into the glory of God and to control the power of God?

Then I think it is vitally important to discuss these things but I obviously feel that it must be it must be done in such a way that it is the text that gets focused upon and all of the text that gets focused upon and I can say without any

Doubt whatsoever that in asking the questions that I have asked whether they will be answered or not.

I do not know But an answer asking the questions that I have asked my purpose in asking them is to clarify

The very words of Scripture and to search for consistency of theology to the glory of God That is the purpose for asking of those questions, and I hope people will hear that and will come come through clearly to them

Thank you very much Thank you. Dr. Weiss. It's we have a couple minutes before the end of the hour perhaps gentlemen you can give us

Maybe a 20 second Shot each about what you hope to look into or discuss tomorrow

Steve. How about you? Well, I'd like to ask some of the questions tomorrow that I wanted to ask dr.

White about some of his key passages. They are exegetical questions. They're not trick questions. They are they are loaded questions

It is true, but they're not trick questions they're honest questions, which if honest answers are given will give us insight into the what the text says and So I there's quite a few of the proof texts of capitalism.

I'd like to do that with I don't know if dr White will want to give me those answers if he doesn't I'll just give the questions to our listeners and see if they can

Dig out the answers themselves All right, dr. White. How about you a little preview for tomorrow?

Really? No, no plans I don't again as long as questions are based upon the text and you're actually allowed to Correct any false presuppositions that are made as a part of the question.

That's fine. But I think if there's going to be Things like yes or no questions that that defy yes or no answers.

I don't I don't know if that's going to be worthwhile Well, thank you, dr. White and I encourage our listeners perhaps who've joined late to visit both

Steve and dr White's websites as Steve's is the narrow path .com. Dr. White's is a

Omin .org at both websites. It's easy to locate and access the five mp3 files of the preceding days

Today is day four or five tomorrow's it at 2 p .m. Pacific Time for Steve show and Alpha and Omega ministries webcasts, which is the dividing line is 11 a .m.

Tuesdays and 4 p .m. Thursdays both Mountain Standard Time. So gentlemen, thank you very much

We look forward to tomorrow encourage our listeners to join with us for the final day and now Steve Yeah, I just need to wind down the program.

I want to thank dr. White again I consider that dr. White's time is extremely valuable and it's a pleasure Having him give us so much of it here this week and last week

I don't know that we've gotten very far but you know, that's not that's not too surprising often in debates you know very little of substances covered just because a topic this large really would require a

Semester or two rather than a few hours of broadcasting, but I'm hoping that we can get down to brass tacks again

Maybe even a little more tomorrow It'll be our last broadcast with dr. White You've been listening to the narrow path.

The radio broadcast is a daily program. It's a listener supported ministry We pay the radio bills from well, where do we have from we don't have any commercial breaks or have any sponsors?

We don't have anything at all for sale at our website or on the air All the money comes from one place and that's from people who think it's worth keeping it on the air

So if you're one of those people would like to help us out you can write to the narrow path P o box 36 33

Santa Cruz, California 9 5 0 6 3 That's the narrow path

P o box 36 33 Santa Cruz, California 9 5 0 6 3 our website as Paul mentioned is

The narrow path comm if you'd like a more extensive treatment of any of the scriptures Brought up here or any of the topics.

There's plenty of lectures over 900 mp3 Lectures for your free download on all these topics and hundreds more.

Thanks for joining us. Join. Dr White and myself again tomorrow for our final installment in this series