James White Note Backup

*Editable Tuck/Scott/Aaron

JAMES WHITE’S RESPONSE TO THE AUTHENTIC CHRISTIAN PODCAST EPISODE ON CALVINISM

His youtube Alpha and Omega Ministries, tweeted at us, had some people send it, we took a look, didn’t get to do this response as early as we’d liked, busy traveling and had to wait til end of year things to slow down

Let me be clear,

we don’t take any of his response personally, he think we are in error, we think he is,

we respect him

we disagree with him on big topics, salvation,

I respect the man, he is very very intelligent, in my personal opinion he’s the best debater, making the case for reformed theology that is out there.

I’ve read some of his books, King James only controversy was the first one. Really great dealing with evidence and translations, not like we don’t have respect for him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_ud6KdESCE

Radio Free Geneva segment

Deal with objections to Reformed Theology

He starts around 3 minutes talking about other things

Starting at 7:45 talks a bout someone sending him our video so he decided to do a review

7:45-11:10 Begin with a discussion of Total Depravity vs. Original Sin

Says “we confuse them throughout the program as the same thing”

He states they are closely related, we agree

We don’t believe they are the same thing, thats why we stated some groups (Catholics) teach original sin

He states one does follow from another closely, we agree

i know he knows theres a difference, but he uses it same way we do

Said have to paint w broad brush

11:10-13:48 end at vaunted (boasting in excessive way) free will of man

Ignore Comments on mis-spelling, Voddie Baucham

Not sure what denomination represent = “Reformed Baptists”

Elder at a Reformed Baptist church

Most Calvinists I have discussed with are either presbyterian or baptist

James says the pastors, including him, believe:

Total depravity

Deadness of man in sin

Federal headship of adam

Federal headship of Christ

Man is dead in sin, Inveterately opposed, Hostile to God

Examine

Background on Romans 1-7

Believe that Paul taught in Romans 8 “according to the flesh cannot do what is pleasing to God”

context wrong, what is the flesh here?

Romans written to christians

Romans 6 talked about you are a slave to whom you obey

What is flesh?

Phil. 3 flesh

Cant be a faithful jew and christian at same time, Law of Moses dead

Look at Romans 7 context

Dead to Law which said thou shalt not covet

Romans 8 read through chapter

Same thing they do in 1 Cor 2:14

carnal man is the one who doesn’t respect God’s word, calls those christians carnal in 1 Cor. 3:1-4 4 times

Jesus “if you continue in my word then you are my disciples indeed you should know the true shall make you free, and as soon as those men heard him make that statement they became offended at the idea that they heard to be set free.”

John 8:31-32

They were offended because they were descendants of Abraham

Thought physical relations to Abraham’s was what would save them

Book of Romans

13:49 - 14:50 -

Comments about us getting to Acts 2:38

Acts 2:38 Talks about the plan of salvation, forgiven of sins, Soteriology, not important to discuss?

Think its very important, end of the First Gospel sermon on the Day of Pentecost, People ask Peter what to do and Peter tells them the response

14:51-16:15

Compares us with the Catholic church, tries to link us up with them

What ever happened to seeing if something lines up with Scripture?

If the Catholics have some things right that align with Scripture, then it’s right because Scripture teaches, not because the Catholics teach it

If a baptist is right about the deity of Christ, it’s right because Scripture teaches it, not because a baptist teaches it.

It’s right because the Bible teaches it

Should we disagree w something because Roman Catholics teach it?

Original Sin - Augustin

Says we just have

“A Shorter list of things you have to do to be saved than Rome does”

What about the list that Scripture gives? Are those necessary?

My list of what to do to be saved is going to match what Scripture says and God will be the judge

Acts 16:30-34

Acts 2:38

Acts 22:16

His list of what to do to be saved? Nothing (Monergism)

He talks about synergism, What is synergism?

You have a part

Acts 2:37, Acts 9:6

16:07 “As far as “no God cannot save any individual in an of himself”, smack dab with Rome.”

We never said God cannot choose how to save people. We do believe God is Sovereign but that sovereignty means God can choose what He wants to do, He makes the rules. And when the New Testament clearly outlines how a person is saved from sin, and it includes their own choices, their own obedience, then we agree with God. I don’t want to limit God and say God cannot give us a part in salvation. That’s what reformed theology says “If God is Sovereign, then you can’t have a part”

What if God in His Sovereignty decided that you do have a part. God wants you to display your faith. And when you do you are given the gift of Salvation

Consistent with God’s Nature,

Joshua 6, gives Joshua a city but requires him to march around it

2 Kings 5 Naaman, Pool of Siloam

Acts 2, Peter shares with them what they MUST do

Acts 8, The Ethiopian Eunuch is told he can respond to the Gospel “IF he believes with all his heart that Jesus is the Son of God” the system of faith

Acts 22, Saul is told he must be baptized to have his sins forgiven

Misunderstanding of origins of the churches of Christ

He think we are another denomination that came out of the reformation

2 Episodes on this What is the church of Christ. Church you read about in your NT didn’t come from the reformation, we say you do what they did, become what they were

16:16-18:30

Number of citations and comments we bring up, first one he deals with is Romans 3 and the context of Romans 3

Context of book of Romans is salvation by faith in the Gospel, not the Law of Moses

I explain Romans 3 the same way he did in this clip

Romans 1 Gentiles are sinners,

Romans 2 Jews are sinners

Romans 3 All men have sinned and fall short of Glory of God Romans 3:23

This chapter however does not teach what reformed theology teaches which is that from birth all men have hated God and were born totally depraved sinners

Romans 3:10-19

All have sinned and when they did that wages of sin are death Romans 6:23

Romans 3:10 none are righteous, all sinned

Romans 3:12 all have turned aside, become unprofitable,

Does this say they were born this way? No,

Have to reconcile this with other passages

Ezekiel 18:20

Deut. 1:39

1 John 3:4

18:30-19:29

1 John 2:2 being forgiven and staying forgiven episode season 1, go watch see if you think we explain context or not, let you be the judges

propitiation

Says we Don’t have a problem stringing passages together, he said same context, but he meant out of context, stringing those passages together to prove our point?

Given an example, maybe hes saying this is the example

I wish he would have given an explanation to 1 John 2:2

John 3:16

19:30-20:31

Perseverance of the Saints vs. Once Saved Always Saved

I did say they were different

I said “some people have an issue with the definitions”

Some use both interchangeably, some don’t

for instance

Show clip from 2 Minute Ligonier Video, Robert Godfrey, nov 29

said they are the same thing, one way is more helpful in speaking

Romans 8

already dealt with it

20:31-20:59

short segment, had to stop

He says ““One of the repeated errors throughout this presentation was this idea that total depravity means that mankind cannot do anything.”

He says then Mankind can do all sorts of things those who are outside of christ or in rebellion against god” 

I wanted to go back, make sure I didn’t misrepresent reformed theology

That’s not what we said, I actually restated what RC Sproul stated

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JBm7Z7RdcY

Show clip from our episode about free will but in a prison where you can only do evil, Actually appears later in this same video at 43:55-44:12

Episode 1  Calvinism

3:16-3:33 describe only choosing evil

19:20-19:50

27:08-27:18

I don’t think i misrepresented it, i restated what RC Sproul stated

21:00-21:49

Can unregenerate man do what is pleasing to God?

He admits Faith and repentance are pleasing to God

Unregenerate men cannot come to God

Acts 2:38 still in their sins right? need to be forgiven

unregenerate?

Already believed, and were pricked in their hearts

Unregen, can understand scripture? and be pricked by it?

Regenerate?

Believed, but hadn’t repented? or been forgiven of their sins

Does Scripture command people to repent?

Acts 17:30, Luke 13:3,5

Commands all men to repent and do something pleasing to God, but reformed theology, they can’t do it

He says “Jesus said they can’t”

We just talked about acts 2, Peter is preaching by inspiration HS, John 16:12-15 Jesus said that message was coming from Him, Acts 2 was from Jesus

John 6:44

He says we gve a 3 second workaround, we dind’t spend as much time as we could have, short episode, can now

Lets go to John 6:44,45

First lets look at John 5:34,5:40

John 5:34 say these things that you might be saved

John 5:40 but you are not willing

John 6:25 they found him on other side of the sea

John 6:45 drawn how? things they hear and they learn and teach

2 Tim. 3:16-17

John 6:63 Spirit that quickens, the words I speak, they are spirit and they are life, WORDS

John 6:65 Therefore, pointing back to context

John 5:34 say these things that you might be saved

John 5:40 but you are not willing

John 12:32 draw all men to me, how? The Cross, the Beauty of the Gospel

Romans 2:4 Goodness of God leads you to repentance

John 16:12-15- Spirit would convict the world of sin,

2 Thess. 2:14-15 Called by the Gospel

Article on the Podcast Resource Page

- Drawing Power of God

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1395-the-drawing-power-of-god

Our position has been refuted for millenia?

Look at early church fathers see what they look at

deal with that later more

Said speaking to unregenerate people, John 5:34, John 5:40

John 6:45

Hilary of Poiters in his work “On the Trinity” “Hammer of the Arians” (300-367)

says this is same thing as John 14:6 , come to the Father through the Son, vs 45 taught learn come, drawn by the cross

21:49-23:31

already covered Romans 8

Why did message offend them? They wouldn't listen, doesn’t mean they didn't have a choice

OSAS or Perseverance of Saints, already shown Ligonier Ministry says they are the same thing

John 6:39 perfect savior

Jesus is still a perfect savior if He gives an opportunity and man rejects it

23:31-25:18

Start with proper foundation, man or God

Start with the Bible, Bible is God’s Word

Reformed theology starts w Agustin or John Calvin

God knows the future, He is Omniscient

That doesn’t mean God isn’t powerful enough to carry out His Own Will using peoples free will

Less powerful God to say He can’t control the future without controlling everyone

man centered or God centered

Reformed theology is God- centered

Says we aren’t God-centered.

God is in charge, Bible is about God’s saving plan for man is it not

Romans 1:16-17

John 3:16

Gal. 4:4-5

God sent His Son into the world to save man

25:19- 27:09

Asserted basis of Calvinism is Total Depravity

discussion was on disproving TULIP

hinges on total depravity

STULIP (sovereignty

“If man is thus” (man-centered)

“I said if God chose to make man thus”

I said God gave me that ability, God made that decision

“I don’t need election/predestination”

Not the Calvinistic definition of it

The Biblical version yes

Getting Pelagianism in it’s modern form

Who is Pelagius?

Labeled heretic by Roman Catholic church Augustin was opponent

We base our doctrines off Scripture. Didn’t agree with Augustin on Free will and no original sin

Reformed Theology would be in agreement with Rome, we would be opposed

27:10- 29:41

Man centered ness

how Reformed theology is centered on God, not man

Just not true, We say God makes the rules, they say God makes the rules

We are disagreeing on what God says

Just a straw man ARROGANT saying Reformed theology is a much more God-respecting

God says X, we say yes sir,

Hebrews 5:9 Author of eternal salvation to those who obey?

principle of hermeneutics

easy interpret hard, getting close to catholic church

Romans 9, over 2 peter 3:9, 1 tim. 2:3-4, John 5:40, John 3:16, 1 John 2:2

Reminds me of the catholic church is the idea you cant understand scripture for yourself, its not that simple,

We have never said we have to be sinless like Jesus

29:42-31:36

Ephesians 2:3 “by nature children of wrath”

He stops to look at context

Eph. 2:1 you were dead

Yes spiritually dead?

THink what hes getting at is this idea,

Dead can’t respond, Lazarus couldnt resurrect Himself

Different than spiritual

Luke 15:24 prodigal son, my son was dead, now alive

Why not use that example

Why not Paul’s conversion?

After all Eph. 2:3 we,we,we us,us,us

Paul was dead in his sins right? Acts 22:16 dead in sins and told what? Arise and be baptized and wash away your sin, calling on the Name of the Lord”

Eph. 2:1-2 dead in trespasses and sins in which you walked

addressed to Ephesian believer, he said corinthians, he meant Ephesians, i’ve done that before

Chosen before time Eph. 1:4

us (persons) direct object of verb (chosen) not “In Him” before foundation of world

Don’t have a problem with that

God chose us (christians) to be in Christ

Question is how?

Chosen (eklegomai)

In Christ? Galatians 3:26-27 baptized into Christ have put on Christ

vs. 5 having predestined us (prohorizo)

fixed boundaries

Is God not allowed to determine the boundaries?

Salvation is in Christ

31:36-36:42

“Our argument is that “we are not by nature children of wrath”

Not argument Eph.2:3 says we are, our argument is what does it mean to be a child of wrath by nature

Each word has a range of meaning, we disagree on the meaning of this word here,

Says we are using eisegesis (putting into the text)

By Nature (phusis)

BDAG 1)natural state 3) regular or established order of things 1 Cor. 11:14 men and women’s hair, way they were born? both men and women’s hair grows long, jewish men had long hair in OT, sinful? seems to be connected with not natural birth,

Nature can mean “natural birth” or “long standing practice” and Thayer’s greek lexicon gives that meaning in Ephesians 2:3 because its contrasted in verse with the way they walked previously (manner of life)

Semantic range, doesn’t have to mean by natural birth

That’s different from trying to determine in context what is the proper application of the word, which meaning.

Ok he says by birth, we say by learned habit, choice

Are there other verses that show theres a time when a child is sinless

Romans 7:9

Talking about spiritually obviously

There at the end he said “Couldn’t there be a sinless person at Ephesus?

Romans 3:23 all had sinned and fall short

Romans 3:10 none is righteous no not one

Gone astray

Doesn’t mean sinners from birth

36:42- 37:32

By nature and by choice, he says the nature is what causes the choice

Did Adam have free will apart from a sinful nature?

James White says Adam did have free will?

Yes? Why did he sin?

Made a choice without a sinful nature?

Did He thwart God’s will? or Did God ordain Adam sin?

No? So God ordained Adam to sin

Rom. 5:12 through Adam sin entered the world?

37:32-40:30

We are active, but because we chose it

We never said we are innocent and God made us do it

Ecc. 7:29

Look at Ecc. 7:29

Hebrew word adam is singular, but the word adam means mankind

meaning is plural here, doesn’t mean God made Adam in the garden upright, God made mankind upright

Look at second line, but THEY have sought ought many schemes

“NASB even renders it “Men” not man”

Look at Ecc. 6:1

Singular Adam

common among Adam? no common among mankind

40:30-43:30

2 Samuel 12:22-23

2 Samuel 12 not inspired?

Determine for yourselves whether it would comfort David to know his kid died and I will die too?

or that he knew he would be with his child again?

Rom. 7:9

alive apart from the law?

Does it seem to you like an obscure idea about the implications of a doctrine that teaches children are born inheriting sin from Adam?

Sin causes us to be lost right or wrong?

I think it’s a strong argument and also that wasn’t the only passage we used in the full podcast, just one.

43:30-46:40

I don’t remember Scripture telling us that God kept roman soldiers from killing Jesus’s parents

46:40-53:20

Hebrews 4:15

He said that we said in every single way, he said he is saying in every way,

no we aren’t saying that, we are saying in major categories of sin, 1 John 2:15-16

Makes this argument about his cell phone, Jesus never tempted to watch online pornography in His iPhone, no road rage,

no one ever cut off Jesus on a horse, donkey, camel, cut in front of him walking in Jerusalem?, no one in a big crowd ever bumped into him?)

Pride of life category of sins

Online pornography thing

Was Jesus never tempted with lust of the eyes or lust of the flesh

1 John 2:15-16

Matthew 5:27-29

why can Jesus sympathize without our weaknesses? He’s been tempted

tempted to sin a second time?

tempted to repeat a sin? tempted to look at pornography, lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes,

second time? not lust of the flesh, not lust of the eyes?

Hebrews 4:14-16

Doesn’t answer the argument

53:21-1:00:59

- We never said that wasn’t fair, we never brought that up

We want mercy and grace, Fair would be I sin, I die Rom. 6:23,

Free gift of God, Salvation in Christ Rom. 6:23

We just never said that, he’s inserting it

focuses in on “by transgression of the one” (Rom. 5:15)

White says “we say “it’s because they sinned”

He says thats not what it says, yes thats what it says in verse 12,

you don’t ignore what verse 12 says which started the passage out, you understand Paul laid that out at the beginning of passage.

Rom. 5:15

they say many died from Adam’s transgression, MUCH MORE did ...of Jesus Christ abound to the many, which many? the many that died

they say all died automatically, thus all men would be saved automatically

Rom. 5:16

not like the one who sinned

focuses in on the one who sinned

yeah Adam introduced sin into the world

That’s the comparisons between the 2 Adams, Adam introduced sin into the world, Christ took care of sin, thats the overarching point of this section

verse 12 already said death spread to all men because all sinned

vs. 18 already explained in verse 12, Paul doesn’t have to repeat himself

We say, I say, verse 12 sets the tone, don’t ignore verse 12

death spread to all men because all sinned

Mentions particular redemption which is the idea that Christ only died for the elect, Limited Atonement, atonement only for the elect and those God did not choose have no atonement via the blood of Christ

1 John 2:2 passage we mentioned earlier

John 3:16

“Not fair, you don’t want fair”

I actually think whatever God's Word says, i don’t deserve fair

Is this view consistent with other CLEAR passages of Scripture

Principle of Hermeneutics is you interpret hard passages in light of clear passages

Not the other way around

Doesn’t mean you ignore hard passages, but be careful not to look at a very complex text and then use it to ignore very clear texts

2 Peter 3:15-16 say some people twist these hard passages

consistent with other Scriptures like

Ezekiel 18:1-3

proverb similar to original sin, total depravity, federal headship

Ezekiel 18:19ff

In Romans, original did not have BCV, used rhetorical devices

 1st century rhetorical style, Epictetus in his discourses

One greek resource said it was one of the strongest statements in greek

Notice a pattern in the book, me genoito, NKJV, certainly not, KJV, God forbid, NASB May it never be, ESV By no means,

Rom. 3:4,6,31

Discussing all under sin, people justified by faith, not by works of the Law of Moses, but the purpose of the Law was to expose sin until the Messiah would come and take care of sin

Context of Romans 5:12-19

Rom. 6:1-2

Rom. 6:15-16

Rom. 7:7,13

Rom. 9:14

Rom. 11:1

1st century rhetorical style, Epictetus in his discourses

One greek resource said it was one of the strongest statements in greek

Is this view consistent overall with passages like Rom. 2:11, Acts 10:34-35,

God shows no partiality, not a respecter of persons, I don’t think it is

He said we can’t walk through it

Let’s walk through Romans 5:12-21

What is context leading up to this?

Salvation is in the Gospel, not the Law of Moses

Chapter 1 Gentiles sinners, Ch. 2 Jews guilty of sin also, Ch. 3 All are guilty,

Ch 3:21-26

Their response Paul sees ahead of time Romans 3:27, 3:28-30restates his thesis

Romans 3:31 another objection, we establish the purpose of the law, to show sin and the need for a savior Romans 3:20

Ch. 4 Going to show the Jews, Abraham was justified before circumcision, thus Law of Moses was not intended to justify, but the bring the Law of Christ, why? Chapters 4-5 so that Christ could fix the sin problem Adam introduced

Romans 5:12-19

Paul just got done explaining how people are saved Romans 5:1-11, now going to show why its necessary, discussing fall of man and plan of redemption

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned (constantive aorist)

before Adam, no sin, very good (Gen. 1:31)

“Just as” giving a comparison (Arndt and Gingrich pg. 889)

thus (in this manner) death spread to all men?

How? All Have Sinned (thus all deserve death Rom. 2:12,3:23)

Spiritual death is conditional on sin, 1 John 3:4 sin transgression of the law, Ezekiel 18:20 the son will not inherit the guilt of father

Sinned is a constantive aorist, taking the actions of generations into a single word (Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar of Greek NT pg. 195)

Romans 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

until Law (from Adam to Moses in vs 14),

we are talking about the Law of Moses

Flood Genesis 6 people were still punished for sin, sin was in the world, but Law of Moses was not in effect yet

sin imputed when people have a law, not the law of Moses, yet they had a law Rom. 1:21,32

God only imputed sin where there was law, and Law of Moses magnified sin Rom. 7:7-11

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Adam had a direct law from God, broke it, seems like those in Patriarchy didn’t have a written down code like the Law of Moses,

Neither Justification (Ch 4) nor Condemnation (ch 5) was ever dependent only on the Law of Moses, both existed before, and now after

Adam was a type, what Adam introduced, Christ will fix,

Romans 5:15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died (how? 5:12 they sinned), much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

What is the free gift? (Rom. 5:17,18, righteousness, life 6:23 salvation)

What is the offense? Condemnation, how? introduced by Adam, all sin Rom. 5:12

How are they different?

Cure (Christ’s) is GREATER than the curse (Adam introducing sin)

People die because of their own sin (Rom. 5:12)

They are made alive because of Christ

He tries to make the curse greater than the cure

Calvinism says curse to all but the cure only to some

We teach curse to all (by introducing sin into the world) cure to all who will do what God asks them to do

Passage says the Cure (salvation in Christ abounded much more)

Romans 5:16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification.

Resulted in condemnation, how? Automatically? No, 5:12 don’t ignore 5:12, don’t get rid of it, It’s how Paul sets up the section and where he starts, lays the ground work

Many offenses? Rom. 3:23, Rom. 5:6 weak, Rom. 5:8 sinners Rom. 5:10 enemies

Romans 5:17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

Adam introduced sin and spiritual death into the world and allowed it to take the throne, until Christ came and took it back.

Romans 5:18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

How? Rom. 3:23, 6:23, 5:12 Not automatically, conditionally,

Look at Romans 6:17-18

Titus 2:11-12

Romans 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so (in the same manner) also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

Many (Jew and Gentile) focus of the book is no difference now between Jew and Gentile

Two men, First Adam brought sin, Second Christ dealt with it.

Both had an impact on mankind

Question is Automatically? or Conditionally

Not saying we don’t have the ability to choose, book in many other places makes this clear

Rom. 2, Rom. 6, Rom. 10-11

Romans 5:20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more,

Rom. 3:20 told us “law brought knowledge of sin” but still could not justify, makes us aware of sin as Rom. 7:7-11 does

Romans 5:21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

God’s grace is much bigger than all of men’s sins

More info on Romans 5, watch the Keith Mosher series GBN has. 16 hours taking you through the book in the first century context of Law of Moses being done away with but some Jews who became christians couldn’t let go of it. Thought christianity was an addition, not a replacement or fulfillment of Law Of Moses

1:00:59-1:03:20

Respecter of persons?

Reformed = None of you have any opportunity= everyones equal

We say everyone gets the same opportunity= everyones equal

Question to determine which is true, based of God’s Word, God centered

Read Romans 2:2-11

Read 2 Cor. 5:10-11

Acts 10:34-35 says same thing

God is not a respecter of persons, gives all the same terms, same opportunity

John 5:28-29

Acts 17:30 commands all,

Some can’t come, some can, is that a respecter of persons if God commands all?

how? he chooses people before foundations of world based on nothing they have done and that’s what determines their eternal destiny?

No. John 5:28-29

Done good- resurrection of life

Done evil- resurrection of condemnation

Reformed theology says take all those passages we just read and toss them out, they don’t matter

God elected you not based on anything you have done

1:03:20-1:06:47

Parent chaining kids to pole, doesn’t like, horrific, i agree it is, thats what I think reformed theology teaches

Lets make this clear

We never made light of sin

We never said sin isn’t a big deal

We are the ones taking responsibility for our sin

It’s my fault, not Adam’s fault

I don’t blame it on Adam, my sin nature didn’t make me do it, I DID IT, I am guilty, and that’s what makes the Gospel beautiful. I was and am rebellious still at times, Christ knew that and died for me anyway and for all those other people out there watching, rebellious ones, He died for you while you were an enemy (Romans 5:8-9)

We do believe

4 Chained Children in a Room

4 Rebellions in a Burning Castle

1 Father goes into the room

1 Prince goes into the burning castle

2 Children Released by the choice of the Father

2 Rebellions’ Hearts Changed by the choice of the Prince

Authentic Christian | Same Method: Father Picked 

James White | Same Method: Prince Picked

James White says that our example was horrific but no matter the subject of the method explained, his explanation is the exact same method.

His analogy

“God created man in His Image, Man suppresses that image, exchanges truth for a lie, rebel against the creator”

“Castle on fire, rebels against the king, Kings son dies for all of them and could and would be just to nuke them all”

Don’t have a problem with that analogy at all

Difference is that we believe Christ died for all those rebels and not just that he randomly picked some and let the others burn

“These people don’t believe that men are God-haters”

I believe people are rebellious but it is their own fault, not Adams

How does God give someone a new heart?

Ezekiel 18 :31 repent and get a new heart and new spirit

How does that happen? God’s word convicts of sin and righteousness, thats what the HS purpose was John 16:7-15

We believe James 1:13-18

Our own desires are what made us sin

We were made upright before that Ecc. 7:29 but we sought out many schemes

Rom. 7:9 there was a time we were alive apart from the law, reached an age, commandment came, sin revived taking advantage of that commandment, we died

Just Make a better argument, love them a little more to Jesus

That’s not what the Bible teaches

Why did Paul waste all his time arguing in synagogues? Because Paul thought it was worth teaching people because the power was in the Word of God

1 Cor. 1:18-21

His Analogy modified

Parallel story

Sovereign king willed that all who came before him on a certain day and pledged loyalty would be blessed. Those who submitted would be blessed, those who would not and rebelled, were not blessed.

Did this king surrender his sovereignty?

Does a king have the right to determine whether he wants to impose conditions?

Did he lose power because some did not submit? Is he less king?

Questions for Calvinist?

Can God offer blessings to those who obey and still be Sovereign?

Does God have the power to give man a choice?

Ezekiel 18:26

Josh. 24:15

Hebrews 6:4-6

1 Cor. 15:1-2

Titus 2:11-12, 1 John 2:2 propitiation for christians, and whole world

Next is short clip

1:06:47-1:07:08

If you take Romans 3 seriously you get total depravity

Maybe he meant Romans 5?

Romans 3:10ff if thats what hes referring to

Romans 3:12 “all turned aside, become unprofitable”

1:07:08- 1:10:28

Matthew 23:37

One of misquoted passages

Synergist

Judgement oracle, yeah agreed, Wanted to gather your children together, but you weren’t willing

Don’t disagree that I didn’t quote it perfectly, I don’t always quote every passage perfectly believe it or not haha

Don’t think that the point I was making is wrong

If the children were elect, could the pharisees really thwart stop God’s purpose

If they were un-elect why would it matter?

Irenaus in Against Heresies uses this verse to teach free will

chap. xxxvii.—men are possessed of free will, and endowed with the faculty of making a choice. it is not true, therefore, that some are by nature good, and others bad.

1. This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. 

Jesus said same thing in John 5:34,5:40

Jesus literally is giving witnesses trying to convince them of who He is and He says John 5:40 you are not willing to come to me that you may have Iife.

1:10:29-1:14:22

“Didn’t exist until Augustin”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnOMORGM2Qw

Dr. Leighton Flowers, interviews one of today's foremost Augustinian scholars, Dr. Ken Wilson, PhD from Oxford

Manichean (Manikeean) Gnostic prior- gnostics came from Essenes, thought things were predestined to heaven or hell,

Wilson says that Manicheans used the same verses as calvinists use

Irenaeus made quote against gnostics, that God doesn’t need to determine all things to make it happen. God can allow free will and still carry it out.

Lorraine Boetnerr Calvinist historian admits Augustin was the first

Calvin said everyone before Augustin was confused

Ironic thats what he said about baptism of himself, all prior expositors were confused John 3:3-5

“Suppose if he offered meaning exegetical interpretation of like 6 chapters and many others”

Just not possible in an hour, he didn’t do that in his video either

Augustin 5th century (410-420 to death)

Quote from Clement of Rome, Epistle to give you his soteriology (doctrine of salvation)

end of first century quote, maybe earlier

possibly before AD70 (talks about persecution , so some think Nero or later if Domitian, not sure)

300 years before Augustin

uses the term “the elect”

1 Peter 1:2

so does Scripture so that’s really nothing new

Clement (Phil. 4:3 maybe) wrote letter to church in Corinth, one MS last time I checked in Codex Alexandrinus

“day and night you were anxious for the whole brotherhood that the number of Gods elect might be saved with mercy and a good conscience.” 1 Clement 2:8-10

That passage doesn’t sound like such a good support passage to me? Maybe he has better ones

God is Omniscient so God knows that number of who will be saved, doesn’t say anything about God

1 Peter 1:2 says elect according to the foreknowledge of the Father

Matthew 24 uses “the elect” many times speaking of AD70 and Rome attacking the city, God tells the future, He’s Omniscient, We’ve never denied that God knows the future

1 Tim. 5:21 talks about elect angels, yet 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 say what? Angels sin and were cast down to Tartarus (2 Pet. 2:4), they did not keep their proper domain and left their proper abode

I have read this entire epistle

Give examples of early church writers on free will

1 Clement statements much clearer that don’t support his position

1 Clement 7:10-13, 8:1-18 (Whole chapter)

1 Clement 10-11 The Lord gives up such as depart from Him to punishment and torture

1 Clement 35 Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those that wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised gifts. But how, beloved, shall this be done? If our understanding be fixed by faith towards God; if we earnestly seek the things which are pleasing and acceptable to Him; if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will; and if we follow the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and inquity,20 along with all covetousness, strife, evil practices, deceit, whispering, and evil-speaking, all hatred of God, pride and haughtiness, vain glory and ambition.

1 Clement 46:13 were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about [his neck], and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones.” Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continueth.

Non elect don’t need their faith subverted, they aren’t regenerate acc. to Calvinism

Text says elect can have their faith subverted

Justin Martyr, Dialogues 141

I said briefly by anticipation, that God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness; possessing reason, that they may know by whom they are created, and through whom they, not existing formerly, do now exist; and with a law that they should be judged by Him, if they do anything contrary to right reason: and of ourselves we, men and angels, shall be convicted of having acted sinfully, unless we repent beforehand. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall be certainly punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably [wicked], but not because God had created them so. So that if they repent, all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God: and the Scripture foretells that they shall be blessed, saying, ‘Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin;’1 that is, having repented of his sins, that he may receive remission of them from God;

Irenaeus- Against Heresies

chap. xxxvii.—men are possessed of free will, and endowed with the faculty of making a choice. it is not true, therefore, that some are by nature good, and others bad.

1. This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, “But dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” “But glory and honour,” he says, “to every one that doeth good.” God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do.

2. But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made [originally]. But since all men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it,—some do justly receive praise even among men who are under the control of good laws (and much more from God), and obtain deserved testimony of their choice of good in general, and of persevering therein; but the others are blamed, and receive a just condemnation, because of their rejection of what is fair and good. And therefore the prophets used to exhort men to what was good, to act justly and to work righteousness, as I have so largely demonstrated, because it is in our power so to do, and because by excessive negligence we might become forgetful, and thus stand in need of that good counsel which the good God has given us to know by means of the prophets.1

Chrysostom (400 AD in his homily on Romans 8:28-30

Now He justified them by the regeneration of the laver. “And whom He justified, them He also glorified” by the gift, by the adoption.1

Titus 3:5, 1 Cor. 6:11, pointing back to their baptisms, not Roman catholic baptism of infants, baptism of repenting, confessing, believers is what Scripture teaches

Chrysostom Homily on Romans 6,

For this is not the only thing Baptism has the power to do, to obliterate our former transgressions

1:14:23-1:16:50

We appreciate the kind words about way we presented it

We absolutely don’t want to come across as anything else

Disagrees and strongly,

Debate in original languges?

I have just started studying, building vocabulary, just left corporate world 3.5 years ago, i don’t claim to be the most knowledgeable, I try to reference the greek where I can, not fluent by any means

Nowhere near Dr. Whites ability in original languages

I know guys who I think would do a better job in original languages from the church

For those of you who made it to the end, we appreciate you watching

Need more resources or have questions reach out to us.

Check out the podcast resource page

thanks for watching