Were not left to our own free will (thank God) God draws us. In fact He draws all. How? Through the bible, nature, inward witness, trials, many ways. Some heed that call that warning that wooing others do not by their own free choice. God took a calculated risk creating man knowing he would not heed his voice though he voice is there, everywhere. God is everywhere just open your eyes! We inwardly know there is a God and he proves himself everyday, some come to him others do not because of their choice not because God did nothing. If God forced you into heaven against your will and saved you against your will what kind of relationship is that? Its forced its not true. It has to be free to be true. God is not going to NOT CREATE just because he knows some will reject him.
@@justtruth8310”God made a calculated risk” that’s heresy! God doesn’t play dice and He isn’t sitting around helpless before man’s free will waiting and hoping every person will make the correct decision for Jesus. Jesus said in John 6 that He loses none that the Father gives Him, that “no one may snatch them from my hand”. Free will as many use that term isn’t even coherent. The only coherent definition of the will I have ever heard is that it is an expression of one’s nature. God cannot choose to lie because he is by nature truth. He cannot choose to create a square circle because he is by nature logical. A lion cannot choose salad over a steak because he is an obligate carnivore by nature. A man with an unregenerate nature cannot choose righteousness because he has a sin nature. A regenerate man cannot live a constant life of sin because he is given a new nature and made alive in Christ.
@@J.T.Stillwell3 You quote John 6 and say, "He loses none that the Father gives Him, that “no one may snatch them from my hand.” But John 18:9 says, "Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, (the soldiers) “Who is it you want?” 5 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) 6 When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. 7 Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?” “Jesus of Nazareth,” they said. 8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.” 9 This happened so that the words he had spoken WOULD BE FULFILLED: “I have not lost one of those you gave me." You say God cannot lie, because He is by nature truth. I agree. So how could God say to Adam and Eve, "Don't eat from the tree at the center of the garden, when He knew full well (according to Calvinism) God was going to make them eat from that tree. How could God say, "Have no other gods before me..." knowing full well He was going to make countless billions worship Allah, Budha, or one of the tree million Hindu gods. How could God say do not lie, knowing full well He was (according to Calvinism) make billions lie? How could God say, do not commit murder, knowing full well He was going (again according to Calvinism) make millions murder? You give all these examples of what can't happen by nature, a lion can't choose a salad over steak, a man with an unregenerate nature cannot choose righteousness because he has a sin nature. Anything that goes against nature is a MIRACLE. God is in the business of performing miracles. If God wants to give an unregenerate man just enough free will to accept Jesus Christ, He can do it. Or are you saying, "God can't." RED FLAG.
Dr. Joel Korytko graduated with a PhD from Oxford, and now is an Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies at Northwest Seminary. He’s a Bible scholar who specializes in the Greek Septuagint. There are multiple videos you can watch where Dr. Joel Korytko calmly, politely, dispassionately and objectively demonstrates that James White’s claims about what the Greek says are wholly wrong. He even includes quoting famous Calvinists like D A Carson who say the same things about the Greek as Dr. Joel Kolytko. Please don’t be afraid of watching or ignore these videos: ‘Ex-Calvinist Bible Scholar Reviews James White Vs. Leighton Flowers Debate: John 6’ There’s a follow up video to that: ‘James White responds to my debate review’ The TH-cam channel is: ‘What your pastor didn’t tell you’ ----- It can be convincing when James White says things about the Greek in such a way to say that means his interpretation is correct, especially if you don’t know Greek. But multiple actual scholars of Greek completely disagree with him. Be careful. Don’t be fooled.
That scholars disagree is not peculiar. Scholars disagree on a host of things. However, that doesn’t mean White is wrong and Gregg is right. Your whole comment is a red herring and appeal to authority to make White look like he is wrong. Notice, though that Gregg’s interpretation is the peculiar one.
@@JRey-re9rl An appeal to authority is a valid and acceptable part of logic and debating, but where it IS a fallacy is where it is the ONLY evidence presented in an argument. A red herring is a type of logical fallacy where an irrelevant topic or piece of information is introduced to divert attention away from the main issue or argument. Your comment is factually incorrect, applying both terms where they are not evident. That could, itself, either be considered a red herring or gaslighting. The OP comment was that James White's Greek was proven incorrect, not that scholars disagree on a host of things. Nobody disagrees that James White Greek is poorly interpreted, except James White and possibly, you. Personally, I'm not a greek scholar, (will never be one), but I'm into my 2nd semester of N.T. Greek and the textbooks don't agree with James White. He's confusing Greek terms, construction and interpretation. I cannot listen to White on anything Greek because he messes me up with a tangle of interpretation.
The most convincing teaching for me against Calvinism was Steve's verse-by-verse teaching in the latter part of Romans 8 and in Romans 9. You may listen here: (lectures 20-23) thenarrowpath.com/verse_by_verse.php#Romans I don't think Steve even got around to exegeting Romans 9 in this 5 part debate, so this may be beneficial to others. I have the Romans series on video. Perhaps that will be the next thing I post after completing this debate. As a young Christian I saw all throughout scripture that God wanted everyone to repent and be saved. He wanted man to obey and love and be faithful to him. He commanded and pleaded with them to do so. He rewarded those who did so and punished those who did not. But most chose to love and serve themselves, to hate God and their neighbors. And it grieved God. This is obvious from all of scripture. But I was told that Romans 9 taught otherwise. When I got to Romans 9, it seemed they were correct. It seemed a contradiction, I didn't understand how it was correct and I didn't really like it. But I submitted myself to what I thought was the truth of God and mostly believed in what we call Calvinism...Until I came upon Steve Gregg's teachings and heard him expound on Romans 9 and all of it's Old Testament references and how they were referring to God's choice to use certain descendants of Abraham and not others, down through Israel to bring the Messiah into the world to save the world. He made it clear as a bell. It seems lazy and irresponsible to interpret that chapter the way Calvinists do. ~ Jason
WHAT is the BIBLICAL Docrtrine of ELECTION and PREDESTINA TION? Jesus revealed this doctrine of Election and Predestination in the parable of Wheat and Tares In this parable, Jesus revealed the doctrine of election and pre destination..and who are those people who are predestined to be saved, and those predestined to be burned in the lake of fire.. Jesus revealed in this parable that those who are predestined to be saved are the children of God literally.. And those who are predestined to be cast to the Lake of fire are the children of the devil literally.. Adam and his descendants are the children of God because Adam is a true son of God as revealed in Luke 3:38... Cain and his descendants are the children of the devil because Cain is the seed of the serpent(devil) as mentioned in Genesis 3:15... Cain is not the son of Adam, he is not included in the Genealogy of Adam in Genesis 5... Cain has his own Genealogy in Genesis 4.. all the descendants of Cain are very evil people like him... Jesus revealed in this parable also that there are only 2 kinds of people in the world, they are the children of God literally and the children of the devil literally The children of God are called Elect, and the children of the devil are called reprobates... Sometimes Jesus called the Elect Sheep and the Reprobate Goat.. All the Elect are predestined to be saved, and all the Reprobates are predestine to be burned in the Lake of Fire... Jesus gave His Life only for the Sheep(Elect) John 10:15 EXAMPLE of the children of the devil can be found in John 8:44 EXAMPLE of the children of God can be found in Psalm 82:6 and in Romans 8:14.. Having the knowledge of the Parable of Wheat and Tares can answer the age-old Mystery of what will happen to a newly born child who died or to the unborn fetus who died in the womb.. GOD BLESS YOU ALL WHO BELIEVES IN THIS REVELATION OF JESUS IN THE PARABLE OF WHEAT and TARES...
@@warriorpriestblog Not remotely close. God chose certain people to bring the Messiah into the world. He did not choose which individuals would be saved and which individuals would burn in hell for all eternity for being born into a fallen world with no choice to serve God and no choice to repent.
In my opinion, this is a silly debate. In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, "The people built the high places to sacrifice their children to idols, something I DID NOT COMMAND..." Joshua 24:15 says, "CHOOSE you this day whom you will serve." 2nd Peter 3:9 says, "God is NOT willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance." But Jesus himself says, "The road that leads to destruction (hell) is broad and MANY are on it." So, CLEARLY God's will is NOT always being done. Also God says, "I have put before you life and death, CHOOSE life." He does NOT say I have chosen for you. Revelation says, "WHOSOEVER will May come and drink freely of the waters of life." It does NOT say, "I, God, will decide who drinks of the waters of life. God gave His only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believes in Him shall not perish. It does not say, "God gave His only begotten Son, so that the ones He chooses shall not perish." The Bible has Jesus saying, "No one can come to me unless the Father DRAWS him." It does NOT say, "No one can come to me unless the Father FORCES him. The Calvinist says God decides EVERYTHING, BUT the Bible says God chooses or determines SOME things AND gives mankind FREEWILL in other things. You can't deny the verses above that CLEARLY say we have choices.
Romans 9:21 ESV / 1,486 helpful votes Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
James White sucks so hard. He always complains that his opponent jumps around, even though the point of theological proofs is to find consistency throughout the bible, then proceeds to jump around the bible preaching a sermon on non-Calvinist concepts, like sin or God's authority, things that all Christians agree on, but arrogantly behaving like it's proving him right. It's so cringe that so many people fall for this kind of rhetoric.
That's how I felt James did on part 1, he was spinning faster than a 4th of July pinwheel at a pool party. He was all over the theological map. I suppose people allow that kind of confusion to overwhelm their brain into thinking he's winning the argument with sheer volume. Some listeners: If he can jump around so fast, he must know his subject and if he knows his subject, he must be right. Duhhhh..... I hope he settles down. Sidenote: I know James White's arguments over years, but just wanted to hear Steve Gregg approach it.
The elephant in the room which Steve does address is that Calvinists do not believe that God loves everyone. The other elephant which Steve also addresses is that Calvinists believe (generally) that the glory and eternal bliss of the elect will be augmented by the torture of the unelect. Calvinism in my opinion typically draws people with a lot of pride and competitiveness - they are not nearly as interested in loving you as in “correcting your doctrine”.
Do you have a greater love for your children then you do for your. Neighbors? God has a special salvific love for His bride, this is not hard to understand
@@teejay7510 that analogy doesn’t work because we are all made in the image of God and Calvinism teaches that God “chooses” some to be his children (but could have easily chose others as well but simply passed them over, thus not making them his children simply by his own choice). When you take this to a personal level - how many in your family has God passed over? Since he chooses the remnant and the majority are passed over, chances are some of your loved ones will be tortured forever for the praise of his name. Sounds sick I know but that’s what this teaches
“For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. … But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” - Romans 9:15-16, 20-21
This week I was reading the writings of John of Damascus. He was the last early church father and he set out to summarise the teachings of the church without adding anything new to them. In one of his writings he is arguing against Islam and he says unambiguously that Christian theism holds to freewill.
Whites cross examination technique is getting very old. Ie accuses opponent of not going through every verse, (despite their argument being completely sound, re the same passage). When the opponent brings other chapters or even the immediate verses in the same passage as argument for context, he calls it not relevant.
@@jp22344 As you said "this is not a true cross examination", which should be tempered by "They are responding to each other arguments, Steve more so."
God chooses "us" and "we" - the Believers - to inherit the promises. We are chosen in Christ by faith in Lord Jesus *(John 3:16).* In *"Romans 8:28-30,"* the golden chain of redemption are for who? Those who love God are those are redeemed, and they receive the promises.
Great conversation, I'm new to Steve Gregg and now a fan of his clear, direct exposition. 17:20 the drawing from God comes by way of revelation. Those who've truly worshipped God the father will Jesus in the OT. "You search the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life," Jesus is saying to the Pharisees in John 5 : 39, "and these are they which testify of me." Jesus manifests via the scripture to those who've truly worshipped the father. Nothing esoteric or overly complicated to sort out, as the calvinist doctrine demands. God bless you all
Listened to part 1, now starting part 2. I was raised in Calvinist church. Never adopted a hard theology along those teachings (still don't fully understand them). My main issue with all of the different theological perspectives is, it seems to make a very broken church. As in, 'my' perspective is more accurate than 'your' perspective. How does this help a new believer (or old believer) become closer to Jesus?
WHAT is the BIBLICAL Docrtrine of ELECTION and PREDESTINA TION? Jesus revealed this doctrine of Election and Predestination in the parable of Wheat and Tares In this parable, Jesus revealed the doctrine of election and pre destination..and who are those people who are predestined to be saved, and those predestined to be burned in the lake of fire.. Jesus revealed in this parable that those who are predestined to be saved are the children of God literally.. And those who are predestined to be cast to the Lake of fire are the children of the devil literally.. Adam and his descendants are the children of God because Adam is a true son of God as revealed in Luke 3:38... Cain and his descendants are the children of the devil because Cain is the seed of the serpent(devil) as mentioned in Genesis 3:15... Cain is not the son of Adam, he is not included in the Genealogy of Adam in Genesis 5... Cain has his own Genealogy in Genesis 4.. all the descendants of Cain are very evil people like him... Jesus revealed in this parable also that there are only 2 kinds of people in the world, they are the children of God literally and the children of the devil literally The children of God are called Elect, and the children of the devil are called reprobates... Sometimes Jesus called the Elect Sheep and the Reprobate Goat.. All the Elect are predestined to be saved, and all the Reprobates are predestine to be burned in the Lake of Fire... Jesus gave His Life only for the Sheep(Elect) John 10:15 EXAMPLE of the children of the devil can be found in John 8:44 EXAMPLE of the children of God can be found in Psalm 82:6 and in Romans 8:14.. Having the knowledge of the Parable of Wheat and Tares can answer the age-old Mystery of what will happen to a newly born child who died or to the unborn fetus who died in the womb.. GOD BLESS YOU ALL WHO BELIEVES IN THIS REVELATION OF JESUS IN THE PARABLE OF WHEAT and TARES...
@@jesuschristiskingofkingslo2023 I DO Love the truth (constantly striving for it, regardless of subject), but where is the truth in the arguments about 'correct' theology. Ultimately, it becomes, how is one living their life?
@@cptrikester2671 Your theology affects how you live your life. For example, Calvinists believe God doesn't love everyone, therefore they don't love everyone and will live their life that way. The problem isn't that people are fighting, it's that your sitting on a fence because your too afraid to pick a side. Study hard and find out what the truth is. Once you do, boldly proclaim and fight for it.
Why is this verse not mentioned. Romans 9:11 KJV - (11) (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that THE PURPOSE OF GOD ACCORDING TO ELECTION MIGHT STAND, NOT OF WORKS, BUT OF HIM THAT CALLETH;)
Steve shows how scripture interprets scripture in his verse-by-verse teaching on Romans 9 . thenarrowpath.com/verse_by_verse.php#Romans It doesn't mean what you've been taught it means.
True, God decided the nation of Israel would come through the tribe of Jacob. Now, did you have anything relating to individual salvation being predestined? No? Didn't think so.
If determinism is true (Augustine/Calvinism), then your statement only makes sense if God then determined you to become Calvinist. You don't have the ability to weigh arguments and evidence and choose the most reasonable path on Calvinism, you are borrowing from a worldview of libertarian freedom!
@@jasongillis1336 I was just joking with my statement. Because I thought James white did so good. But brother, your statement (if you want a serious discussion) is not accurately representing (Jesus,Apostles,Bible/Calvinism). I do believe that determinism is true. I believe the unregenerate man chooses within his nature as well as the regenerate man chooses within his nature. God opens the eyes of the blind. Physically and Spiritually. I don’t believe that anyone that would have put their faith in Christ will die and go to hell. “All that the Father draws to me me WILL come to me”
The fact that you say you're a Calvinist proves that you don't understand scripture. You're following a man, similar to the Mormons and JWs. Are you a Christian? That is my question.
I personally do not use the name "Calvinist" BUT, Calvin is right in his understanding of these Scriptures. So I believe that TheGermdog's answer says it perfectly about these debates!!!!
What a horrible analogy, as we know that it was literally the Jews, who were persecuting Jesus and the overwhelming majority of them rejected him. Sorry, but James White absolutely dominated this one as usual.
I think you are borrowing from a worldview of libertarian freedom. You might be correct in your argumentation and reasoning, but on determinism - your thoughts are not aimed at truth. If God meticulously controls all things, that includes your reasoning. Therefore, you only "believe" if God decrees it. You ultimately do not have the ability to make judgments like "James White absolutely dominated this one" after giving your arguments. On your view God moved your will to force you to believe James White "absolutely dominated" but you didn't actually reason that out freely. Thankfully determinism is false, and you did in fact reason that out using your God given libertarian free will!
@@jasongillis1336Rom 9:19-24: "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"
@@TheHighCalvinist. Good thing the broken branch can be grafted back in as described in Romans 11. They were broken off due to unbelief, but they didn't stumble so far as to be beyond recovery. Thank God they aren't subject to individual predestined damnation.
A second episode in this debate between two accomplished brothers. From my conversion in 1974, I have been more or less 'reformed' or 'Calviunistic' even though I was for my first 30 years a member of a Brethren Assembly in Northern Ireland, which would have been then, and now, a minority view. I no longer meet with the Brethren, but I still hold generally to a Calvinistic view of the Scriptures. SDG!
Lord saved me at a Brethren Assembly in CA, USA. I have been part of a Reform church and Calvin teachings for about 4 years. What a difference! BUT I still sometimes use my William Mcdonald New Believers commentary. God bless you brother. My respect 4 my brothers in Christ and in soccer in Ireland. 😆 🙏🏼📖
The reference in John 6:45 is from Isaiah 54:13, which states: > 11 “Poor Jerusalem, storm-tossed, and not comforted, > I will set your stones in black mortar, > and lay your foundations in lapis lazuli. > 12 I will make your fortifications out of rubies, > your gates out of sparkling stones, > and all your walls out of precious stones. > 13 Then all your children will be taught by the Lord, > their prosperity will be great, > 14 and you will be established > on a foundation of righteousness. > You will be far from oppression, > you will certainly not be afraid; > you will be far from terror, > it will certainly not come near you. This passage appears to refer to the future Jerusalem, not to the context of believers coming to God. It seems to describe what will happen in the New Jerusalem, with a description similar to its physical depiction in Revelation. In the future New Jerusalem, all our children, including ourselves, will be taught by God. It seems that this verse is being taken out of context by White. Returning to John 6:44-45: > 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. > 45 It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to me- Verse 45 continues the thought from verse 44. Although verse 44 does not provide a complete description of a person coming to Jesus, it offers a brief overview. The Father calls all people; some respond, others do not. For those who stay and believe, Jesus will raise them up on the last day. After they are raised on the last day, they will all be taught by God in the New Jerusalem. This is a sequential overview: the Father calls (draws), they stay and believe (listen and learn), they eventually die, and on the LAST DAY, Jesus raises them up, and finally, then they will all be taught by God. God does not teach non-Christians, as White may imply. God may enlighten their understanding (shine a spiritual light into their spiritual darkness) through His Word or His servants to the point where the unbeliever willingly relents and gives their trust to God and accepts the Son of God, but active teaching does not occur until one is a Christian and beyond. John 6:45 refers to the distant future and has been taken out of its prophetic context.
Huge fallacy in whites argument as it relates to Lydia. He admits she was a worshipper of God but denies she was saved. I’m sorry but the Bible says the righteous will live by faith. Did God open her heart to the way of salvation? No he opened her heart to understand the teachings of Paul in relation to Messiah, which a Jew would not have understood prior to Jesus coming to earth. Same exact scenario with Cornelius. These are perfect examples of God rewarding people who already believe with more revelation.
As a Calvinist, I still appreciate Steve Gregg’s ministry…especially his recent work on the nature of Israel in light of the recent Middle East conflicts. I still think that Dr. white holds the high ground in terms of consistent exegesis of the relevant texts, including John 6. And finally, some of those who are posting in these chats, and are sinfully attacking Calvinists, shame on you. We are all brothers in Christ if we hold to the simple gospel message.
Not a Calvinist…but not overtly anti-Calvinist. My church is decidedly Reformed. I agree with your sentiments. I’ll break bread with anyone who knows Christ is their only salvation. This was a civil and edifying discussion between brethren.
"I still think that Dr. white holds the high ground in terms of consistent exegesis of the relevant texts, including John 6." I disagree, specifically on John 6, which the spirit of the teaching of calvinism removes from the greater context revealed to us. John 5 cannot be absent as the preceding revelation for understanding what we are to see and hear in John 6.
”For this reason we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of ALL people, especially of those who believe.“ 1 Timothy 4:10 ”Therefore, dear friends, since you know this in advance, be on your guard, so that you are not led away by the error of lawless people and fall from your own stable position. 2 Peter 3:17 “There were indeed false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who BOUGHT THEM, and will bring swift destruction on themselves.” 2 Peter 2:1
At 16:15 Gregs rebuttal to White is so succinct, so articulate and true to biblical hermeneutics. How anyone can make sense of calvinists logic is plainly deluded.
The format of this is merely presenting 2 opposing views. It is unfortunate that this is not a debate because there is no cross examination, no direct question to response, and as such there really no direct engagement between the 2 speakers.
I love Steve Gregg. But it’s always interesting to see Arminians squirm in John 6. As James White always says, they are _unable_ to exegete John 6, to simply walk through the passage, they have to jump all over the place to try and explain away what it clearly says. This was a perfect example.
@@YuelSea-sw2rp John 6:40, amen! WHat does that have toi do with this? Both Calvinists and Arminians believe that all who look on the Son and believe will be saved. John 5:25, again amen! We are dead in our sin, with no hope for eternal life, until we believe. This does not refute regeneration preceeding faith, since regeneration does not save a man from the death of sin, but justification through faith. Now why is it that you don't see the order in John 6:37? _All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out._ Notice that First the Father gives them, then they will come. Does the order not matter here? Now other passages shed light on this topic. 2 Corinthians 4:4 says they *cannot* see the light of the Gospel. And of course, Acts 16:14. Many more, of course. Nice out of context quote from Spurgeon! I''m not sure what you think showing this from the OT exclusively would or wouldn't prove? You won't find much by way of theology about the work of the third person of the Trinity in the OT because it was still a mystery. However, Ezekiel's vision of the valley of dry bones (Ezekiel 37) is a good example of this reality that it is God who must act first to raise the dead bones, not the dead bones who are unable.
The argument is about the designed plan of God for salvation. Calvinists asert a design salvation plan different than the non calvinists God's salvation plan and design. The difference is over what God actually designed.
I would agree, and I like how you summarized the debate. I do think Calvinists want to magnify God's sovereignty, and through determinism, they are ensured all things are determined by God either directly, or via secondary causes. Therefore, on Calvinism God is fully sovereign. Non-Calvinists may be concerned by the implications of determinism, namely God determining evil by moving people's wills to commit sin and evil. This would seem to indict God as evil, because he determines creatures to sinful and evil acts on Calvinism. If God was free to create in the libertarian sense, then the concept of freedom for creatures made in His image, and given a conscience, knowing right from wrong - then if God desired, He could create creatures with a sort of freedom. If God is omniscient, He would know how creatures would freely act in any situation they find themselves in. Therefore, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, He could choose to create a and sovereignly predestine a world of libertarian free creatures, that would accomplish His plans. I agree with you, God's plan of salvation is also a key distinction between Calvinists and non-calvinists. On Calvinism, God dictates all things via His decree. Therefore, whoever God determines to be saved, is saved. Whoever is not saved - God determined for them not to be saved. In contrast, a non-calvinist view such as Molinism, can still affirm monergism, God's prevenient grace (Titus 2:11), and agree with Paul in Romans 10:9 [9] because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." -NET So a non-calvinist can affirm salvation by grace through faith as a free gift of God to those who believe.
@jasongillis1336 Well said. I would say in your last sentence, "..... to those that accept the gift." Yes, the meaning of "sovereignty" to calvinist and non calvinists means all powerful, unlimited power....but we differ on how God used and uses that power.
@jasongillis1336 I would also assert that their use of sovernty is not to magnify God's power, since it's impossible to make greater a power that is Supreme. Rather, it is to eliminate the role of human responsibility in salvation. Although calvinists contradict themselves, they continually circle back to, humans can do no good, unless God causes it. I am still looking for the verse in scripture where God caused Abel to obey...or Abraham, Moses, Noah...etc.....or the verse that proves God created them obedient.....and then to explain, Moses NOT following God's command on how Moses was to engage the rock. When so many exceptions to the rules are applied, there is no rule, or guiding principle at all. Calvinist teaching is dizzying.
@sheilasmith7779 That's a good point, God cannot be greater in power than He is - omnipotent. It is indeed dizzying! I think some of that dizziness we experience is due to that fact we are being told that God determines all thing, including our thoughts, but of course, the reality is we do use reasoning, argumentation, weighing evidence, freely. So, it does seem to be a systematic saying, "ignore your intuition, ignore your experiences of free rationality, these are merely illusions." Another concern would be how an Augustinian/Calvinist framework affects love in a negative way. As in, it appears to completely destroy any meaning of love from one person to another. Also, if God deterministically forces a person to love Him, is that genuine love? Love must be freely given, not coerced or forced upon another being. You can call that arrangement something, but it isn't love.
@jasongillis1336 AGREE. And, your point about love explains away Calvinism. Because to BE love, it MUST be voluntarily given, received and reciprocated. I've thought many times about adding "love," to my written argument but didn't because I thought the calvinist would not know how love fits in with my central argument. If only Christians would spend a lot more time thinking about what they were taught, and less time repeating and defending what they have been taught. One simple place to start is to search is for any evidence in the history of the universe where any design by God or man exceeded its design perimeters. No thing, human or inanimate, can exceed its design characteristics, nor EVER has. With that evidence then, all scripture events make sense. Really fun, communicating with you. 😀
@@ironleatherwood I'm a Christian. I said I'm a Calvinist because it's a video debate between a Calvinist and someone who is not a Calvinist. Calm down brother
@ironleatherwood He is a Christian and a Calvinist. I am a Christian and a Molinist. There are Christians who are open theists. There are Christians who hold to a view of simple Foreknowledge of God's providence. In fact, there are Christians who may not know much about these things. This is why I love CS Lewis' appeal (following scripture) to at least recognize unity within the body as "Mere Christians". This is for sure an "in house" debate/discussion.
Steve even admits "the golden chain.." (Romans 8) he can't argue with or refute. The debate was won right there by Dr. White imo.. If you can't refute Romans 8:29- 30 but look to other passages in hopes of refuting it, you've lost. It can't be refuted.
For all you people who love James White read the Bible for yourself! Actually open it, put your fingers on the paper and read it! James White ads and takes away from the scripture to fit his narrative! And to prove it! Read it for yourselves!don’t just blindly follow a man! Read the Bible! I dare you
Ephesians 1:4, "even as he chose us in him..." should be compared with a passage like 2 Corinthians 5:19, "that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself..." Or Ephesians 4:32, "...as God in Christ forgave you." The point in Ephesians 1:4 is that Christ was the means that God used to choose us. It was not us that were in Christ, it was God that was in Christ, choosing us.
Thankful that we can have these discussions and share the common goal of knowing Christ as life, even if there are areas we disagree. I really appreciate James White and much of what he has done within the Christian community, but his reading of Scripture word by word of Ephesians 1:3-10 was shocking! Saying things like: "it is WE who are blessed, not Christ who is blessed," or "Christ is not the one who is elected here, WE are the ones who are elected;" yet seems to overlook and move past too quickly the core phrase in Ephesians 1 used over and over again: "In Him/Christ." This statement has always been the crux of Paul's letters, and a proper understanding of the totality of it's meaning really reshapes these verses. I think a Calvinists view of this passage and many others overemphasizes the human agent and it's position as elect/chosen as opposed to seeing that we uphold these things only inasmuch as we are IN CHRIST. And to be in Christ is to experience a total union, of oneness, reflected in a passage like John 15 and Romans 6, with Christ. In either case, I'm grateful for this discussion and look forward to hearing more.
James White has been using the argument that you cannot read a later verse back into an earlier verse for years. That is an absolute ridiculous argument, and I can’t believe he still sticks with it. Even when there is a verse just two verses later than one, and within the same conversation, White claims you cannot read that later verse back into the earlier verse. Anybody can see this makes no sense logically. But in order for his arguments to make sense, he hast to stick to this tactic.
Why doesn’t anyone use the parables of Jesus to answer claims of calvinists. Read the parable of the wedding feast and tell me how that description is compatible with Calvinism. The entire reason for the guest without proper clothes(the proper clothes being clothed in Christ) being thrown out after receiving the INVITATION to the feast makes no sense if the King was the only one who had the ability to give people the proper garments… the king invites a man to a wedding that only he can give the proper attire to and then questions the man as to how he got in there without the proper clothes, the man would be able to answer the kings question by saying that the king invited him but did not give him the proper clothes…
20:30 I noticed how White sneakily slips in eisegesis into a nonstop running stream of otherwise passable exegesis, by conflating what is predestined to happen to those who are saved with HOW they come to salvation. He is aware of what he is doing, as he flippantly brushes aside the fact that the passage is about sanctification with an offhand remark about needing to be saved to get onto that process (which is not the point of contention). Gregg rightly points out this out in his response.
Steve, It is good that you pointed out White's blatant dishonesty in Ephesians about the pronouns. I would point out errors (once you read my position, I think you will agree) that you, any and all Calvinists, Leighton Flowers and most arminians cling to in John 6. It is funny to see error contradicting error. First off, when the debate of John 6 is had with any Calvinist, we see that it starts around 'verse' 35, 36, or 37. 35 is the best place, if not starting before. As we all know, but in practice often forget, chapters and verses are not part of the Bible and Verse Theology will always lead to error, as Verse Theology necessarily bastardized one phrase from its natural context and once separated and pretended to have a meaning unto itself, as a Stand-Alone, Context-Free,Doctrinal Statement, it becomes a falsehood. So, in "verse' 36 we see, "But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not." Jesus acknowledges that he is speaking to people who are unbelievers, (yet his is speaking only to the Children of Israel (generically called Jews), as he was sent to no one except to the lost sheep of the House of Israel). Without a parable, Jesus did not teach nor talk publicly. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. ***But there are some of you that believe not.*** For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, ***Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.*** I end at this point because after this he addresses the 12 Contrary to the false Calvinistic reading, we see that Jesus knew that he was deal with unbelievers and he closes with the same, telling them openly that their unbelief is why God will no draw them to him. So, here is what we have: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. because you have seen me and believe not. But there are some of you that believe not. Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. The comment below this will show the next error(s)
White did mention, at the last, that Jesus will lose nothing. He wrongfully assigns a false meaning to this and does so purposely because he has had this pointed out to him MANY times before and continues to reject correction and still teaches the same error. Of the four Gospels, John uses unique language of people given to the Son by the Father. This section of not losing any is also unique and appears only 3 times in all of Scripture, all in this very Gospel (6:39, 17:12 and 18:9). Let us remember those, as they come into play very shortly. John 6 (in the portions after v 36) is dealing with the selection of the 12 (11+the betrayer). Jesus states that he will not send away those not given. He then proceeds to speak in a way that they, as unbelievers, receive as cannibalism and leave, no longer following him. Later, we also are shown that Judas was not one given as the others were given, but chosen to fulfill the prophecy of betrayal and he, too, is sent away at the last supper. In his prayer in the Garden, Jesus announces that his time of being 'in the world' has finished and that he has shown all that he was to show them, while he was in the world and those were the ones given to him by the Father. So, we see that Jesus limits those given to him, but does losing any mean eternal salvation? No. For Calvinists to assert it, they must admit that Judas was once saved, then his salvation was lost. Because of this, most will then call it Evanescent Faith, Calvin's invention, fully extra/anti-biblical. This losing is not about salvation at all, because Jesus fulfilled, completed his prophetic words prior to his death and resurrection and the not losing is fully connected to something outside the spiritual realm: Joh 18:4 -9 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground. Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: ***that the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.*** The losing none was not spiritual salvation, but saving them from arrest and crucifizion with him! Now note, the rest of the places where Jesus mentions those given to him, the 11 are there, on the spot and are those referred to as such to separate them from ALL other humans! Since Jesus prays for the ones given, and THEN prays for those who believe upon their testimony, Those people who believe upon the words of the Apostles, including all today, are not, nor can be the onew given to Jesus, because Jesus had THAT group, by name only while he was 'in the world' and he completed his personal teaching of them all that God had for them! Arminians do not teach this, Calvinists cannot teach it, as their heresy diametrically opposes all that I have stated, and most others have nor heard of it because most do not read, much less study, the Bible. I hope I have made my case clearly and cleanly and that y ou adopt this true position.
2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has CHOSEN you from the BEGINNING for SALVATION through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
The period is not after salvation, but after 'through sanctification...' So ask yourself, is the verse about predestination to salvation, or the means by which one is saved? The bible speaks of saved, being saved, and will be saved. There is a sense in which no one is yet saved. But those who have faith received the Spirit of adoption, a guarantee that they will be adopted at the future event. One can then say God has predestined that all who believe will be adopted as sons at a future time. In the mean time they will receice the Spirit to sanctify them and lead them while they are still here and awaiting that time. This giving of the Spirit and the sanctification of the believer is predetermined. It is for all who believe.
@@AnniEast Before they were born or had done anything good or bad (from eternity) God knew, had mercy on (loved) Jacob and never knew, gave justice to (hated) Esau (Romans 9). The reason for His love was not in them, but in Himself. This is an example of all mankind. Jonah 2:9 "Salvation is of the Lord." Ephesians 1:4 Just as He chose us (saints/elect) in Him (IN CHRIST) before the foundation of the world (from eternity). 2 Timothy 1:9 (God) who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us IN CHRIST Jesus BEFORE time began (from all eternity.) 1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God has NOT DESTINED US (ELECT) for WRATH, but to OBTAIN SALVATION through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has CHOSEN you from the BEGINNING for SALVATION through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. Romans 9:16 So then it depends NOT ON HUMAN WILL or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. Romans 9:22-24 What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory- even us whom He has CALLED, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? Romans 9:24 "even US, whom He also CALLED, not from among Jews only, but also from among GENTILES. (World) There's the Elect! Romans 8:29-30 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also CALLED; whom He CALLED, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. John 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, but of God. John 6:37 ALL that the Father gives Me WILL come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. John 6:44 No one can come to me UNLESS THE FATHER who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. John 6:65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me UNLESS IT IS GRANTED him by the Father.” Philippians 1:29 For it has been GRANTED TO YOU that for the sake of Christ you should not only BELIEVE in him but also suffer for his sake. Acts 11:18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also GRANTED to the Gentiles repentance to life.” 2 Timothy 2:25 "in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will GRANT them repentance, so that they may know the truth." Acts 13:48 AMP When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying [praising and giving thanks for] the word of the Lord; and all those who had been appointed (designated, ordained) to eternal life [by God] believed [in Jesus as the Christ and their Savior]. Act 2:39 "For the promise is for you and your children (Jews) and for all who are far off (Gentiles) , as many as the Lord our God will CALL to Himself.”
I would have to agree again with Steve here. Dr. White is clearly well studied, but his interpretation of these verses lacks the context of who the author is speaking to. What I see Calvinist often do is take a conversation that the author was having with his audience, and then try to use those verses in some form of universal truth. Which many verses are, but In the attempt to use those verses to support Calvinism, without proper context, the Calvinist loses the intent behind the conversation, and stretch the verses to mean something that they aren’t actually saying. As well, Steve continues to make a good point, that good hermeneutics requires that you taken into consideration all other passages that have relevance to the verse(s) that you are studying. This is also an imbalance in Calvinist exegesis that I see very often. They want to treat verses that support their theory as if they are in a vacuum and isolated from the rest of the biblical text. This complicates Scripture, creating significant inconsistencies when speaking of God’s character when we speak of soteriology, the lost state of humanity, regeneration prior to faith, etc. As for the faithful remnant, in John 17 Jesus is clearly speaking of believers that belonged to God in his present day, the faithful remnant, and not a reference to “all” believers belonging to God as Dr. White argues. Jesus clearly says that he prays for his believers in present tense as “those in the world” and so on. Jesus even prays for those “future“ believers, who would believe in him from the word of the apostles as we read further in John 17, making a distinction between believers in two different time periods. Again, an attempt to create a universal truth here about how all believers belonging to God in the sense of a determined election is a stretch. I see a connection to the faithful remnant also in the beginning of John’s gospel when in verses in chapter 1 verses 11&12 when John says of Jesus, “He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.” All that to say, this was another great debate, but I think Steve clearly comes out on top in this one also. Thank you, Steve, and also, Dr. White, for such a great and stirring conversation.
You could probably reverse the question. If we *don’t* have free will, and God is in control of everything, why does God have to draw us? We are already predestined to be saved, right?
When did Saul ask to be visited by Jesus get knocked off his high horse and be changed to Paul? When did Abram ask to be Abraham? When did Sarai ask to be Sarah?
What Gregg? Jesus wants to save those in Matthew 23? Where does it say that? It says He would’ve had they come. But they didn’t come and Jesus knew they wouldn’t. He wasn’t surprised by this.
Whether this or not, it doesn't change the clear fact of scripture that Jesus wanted to save them, just as he wants to save all men, knowing most will rebel. Matthew 23:37 NKJV "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!"
”“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!“ Matthew 23:37 Wanted or would have? I guess you’d choose a translation that seems to suit your position. Either way, if it were truly God’s will to save them, then would’ve been saved. God doesn’t fail to accomplish all His purposes.
@@matt_h_27 He would have, but they were not willing. He respects their will. It's absolutely clear, that's what he wants, but he wants them to come willingly. He doesn't force them to come like the god of calvinism. God's ultimate purpose is still accomplished. God gets billions of people who willingly come to him, repent, receive salvation and fellowship with him for eternity. God wants real love, real relationships, not programmed robot love. That should be clear from how he made humans, who are made in his image.
Why not many mighty and noble come to God? They are free to come as you teach... For you see your calling, brothers, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28. And base things of the world, and things which are despised, has God chosen, yes, and things which are not, to bring to nothing things that are: 29. That no flesh should glory in his presence. (1Co 1: 26-29)
As is always the case with Calvinists ...... context .... When ever you are dealing with Calvinists context is the last thing they consider. The whole chapter of John 6 is dealing with people in search of food signs miracles and wonders. John 6 vs 25 the people were looking for Jesus in context with food signs and wonders. In vs 26 - 27 Jesus tells them to strive for what matters salvation. From vs 29 to 34 Jesus is dealing with people who don't understand salvation like we are seeing people in thousands crammed in Arenas Cathedrals etc eating the diet of the prosperity gospel. In vs 35 Jesus talks of the bread of life and they are confused all the more. In vs 36 the SAW him YET believed not because their AGENDA was food and miracles. In vs 40 Jesus stresses the issue of believing in him. In vs 41 the Jews complain about bread and Jesus coming down from HEAVEN. In John 6 vs 44 No man can come to me unless DRAWN he is answering a question from vs 41 and 42 about bread and his coming from heaven. How do you explain a scenario of people looking for something they don't know from a person with something they need. They are coming for bread yet he wants to give them salvation. John 6 vs 45 They shall be TAUGHT of the Lord and every man must HEAR and LEARN to be saved. How Mr White and Calvinists don't understand this is shocking. Jesus is dealing with people who were looking for him for a different reason. Not everyone is in search of food and miracles. This goes to the issue of Lydia. She was attending prayers every Saturday and God opened her heart because she was in search of the truth. Lydia sought after God. Was Lydia spiritual dead as to fail to seek after salvation .... no. What about Cornelius ? By giving alms with fasting and prayer God heard him to save him. Cornelius prayed fasted ang gave alms without salvation .... Was he spiritually dead ad not to seek after God ? Noooo is the answer ... Dr White is lost
I don’t know why you think James is lost. He believes he is a sinner saved by Jesus through faith in him, not by works. As I’m sure you do. He is a fellow Christian, not an unbeliever Also, the word “draws” is an aggressive word in the original language. Often used for forceful pulling or dragging. Meaning God is the one who makes it happen regardless of what people think or desire. And it parallels verse 65, which says the Father has to “*allow*” anyone to come to Jesus. It’s not what we desire, it’s what God allows
@@brotherhoward622 I’m not sure what I need to explain. I know someone like James White would argue the language seems to say the *leaders* refused, not the people. But I don’t know the original language enough to make an argument like that. Jerusalem rejected Christ, God and the prophets, and are about to reject Jesus. I’m a compatibilist so I think God is sovereign and the people were held accountable for their unbelief
@@timothyvenable3336 explain Matthew 23 vs 37. How does God desire to save people and in the process not save them because of their unwillingness ... Matthew 23 vs 37 shows that God does not save people who are not willing. Explain what you think Matthew 23 vs 37 is saying
@@brotherhoward622 I think you hit the nail on the head. If you’re not willing to come to God, you’re not going to be saved. Jesus is the only way so if anyone is not willing to come to him, you won’t be saved. I completely agree with what you said
29:33 lies Steve lies dr White said that we are elected Christ in that text is not the elect one dr white agrees that in other passages Christ is referred to as the elect one
Yep, only confirms my view Calvinism is nothing less than gospel truth. I still like how the late RC Sproul puts it. ‘Yes, you have free will but God has more’
Definitely agree with White as far as Calvinism and his consistent exegesis. But still very much enjoy listening to Gregg speak on certain subjects, especially eschatology. This is about the third time I’ve listened to this debate.
It seems to me calvinist believe God's kingdom is divided against itself and God is the author of evil ,nowhere does it say Joseph's brothers had no choice. Don't forget the story is a type and shadow of salvation and the brothers where saved. Mr White use the brothers of Joseph as a point of those ordained to be lost from the foundation
God is the author of EVERYTHING in His Creation ..... thus He Created it ALL .......... EX NIHILO ...... out of nothing ...... and He did it to His Glory and for His Good Intentions ..... whether we agree to it or not .................... whether we understand it or not ...... and we do not get to sit in judgement of His methods in HIS creatiuon .............
...No. Dr. White used that verse to demonstrate an instance of God accomplishing good through the evil of some individuals. He never applied it to their salvation. Clearly the evil act in question occurred before the brothers repented. Calvinists do not hold that people "have no choice" or that God is the author of evil. Man's heart is already wicked, God does not need to force anyone to do something evil. This is why the brothers choicefully committed evil and are held accountable for it.
If the brothers were doing what reprobates do, and that is fill the evil desires of their heart, and born tohate God without hope of ever being saved, then how come those same reprobates were saved later on? Same with the ones that killed Jesus. If those people were created to be reprobate and kill Jesus, damned to eternity without God, how come so many of them came to saving faith in Acts 2? Could it be that the Potter uses the hard, resistful clay for dishonourable use to fulfill His purpose? But what does Paul say about that later? 2 Tim 2 [20] Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also those of wood and clay; some for honorable use and some for dishonorable. [21] So if anyone purifies himself from anything dishonorable, he will be a special instrument, set apart, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work. 'IF' sounds like a choice to me.
FYI .... there is no 'calvinist god' ..... there is the God of scripture that you do not want to accept John 1 Legacy Standard Bible The Deity of Jesus Christ 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 [a]He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, 👈👈👈👈 (ALL THINGS .... means ALL THINGS) and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 👈👈👈👈 (NOTHING means NOTHING .... NO THING) guess that includes evil, doesnt it? 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it. Romans 8 28 And we know that for those who love God [j]all things work together for good, 👈👈👈👈(ALL THINGS including EVIL) right? for those who are called according to His purpose. 29 Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers; 30 and those whom He predestined, He also called; and those whom He called, He also justified; and those whom He justified, He also glorified.
My respect to Steve but I still have to side with White on this part also. Saying that It's very hard for me to know that these 2 very educated and Godly men believe in the Trinity. To see 3 beings in the Shema and elsewhere, really? Maybe the more the known the more of a humbling will occur, hopefully
I’m of the Arminian soteriology persuasion and listen to Dr. White quite often and he does an outstanding job in debates even against the view I hold. Tge representation of my camp do ok and I think they could do a lot better if they would study how Dr.White debates. BUT Steve does very well here.
No one can believe in Jesus unless the Father gives them to Jesus, and the people that the Father gives to Jesus are those who already believe in Jesus, but no one can believe in Jesus unless the Father gives them to Jesus, so the Father gives the people who already believe in Jesus to Jesus so that they can believe in Jesus…yeah, that makes sense 😜
One slight correction here might make this statement more palatable: No one can believe in Jesus unless the Father gives them to Jesus, and the people that the Father gives to Jesus are those who already believe in GOD THE FATHER... Meaning: the Jews in that time who worshipped the true and living God will see Jesus manifest Himself in OT scripture.
John 6: [44] No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. [45] It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to me -
John 6 Jesus is talking about those "Already disposed to me". 13 minutes in and this comment comes over. How do you know who is disposed to Christ's message? Geez, you really muffed this one up bad. You really think the same group Jesus is talking to about "Those whom the father has given me will come to me" while he is talking to the ones who got their fill of the loaves and fishes...and left him because he discusses to them about drinking his blood and eating his flesh....That THEY are the ones Jesus is praying for in the High Priestly Prayer? Yeah. Why I am NOT an Arminian making stretches like this is just too much for me Gregg. A "Natural" reading of the scripture almost ANYONE would come to a different conclusion as you. Conclusion: James is faithful to the biblical text. You have to stretch things to snapping in order to disprove something you can't accept. LOL! White is jumping all over that response! I'm only 17 minutes in too!
God can sovereignly predestine a world of free creatures to accomplish His plans. The scripture nowhere states God predetermined the thoughts, beliefs, actions (including sinful actions) of His image bearers, and unilaterally forced them to be His. That is what determinism requires. The scripture does not clearly teach this. In fact, it more reasonably teaches belief, faith, repentance, love, mercy, trust - all of which are going to be extremely difficult to show have any real meaning in a world in which God determines all things.
The 'us' in Eph 1:3 is Paul referring to the Apostles, to whom the mystery was revealed (v9), they were the ones who first trusted in Christ (v12). At v13 is where 'you' begins.
so only the apostles are predestined and predetermined ......... and the rest of us are on our own ..... so God is NOT CAPABLE of saving us but only them ..... and the apostles had NO FREE WILL in this interpretation ...... but the rest of us do ............ so what exactly does this idea change .... it says God is only saveing a certain number of people ..... a PARTICULAR REDEMPTION ......... predetermined and predestined and preordained .... just not loving everyone and wanting them saved ...... you bring utter confusion to the text with that stuff ..............
@@robinq5511 then spell them out ... name even one ........... cuz i have yet to not be able to find it all in scripture ........... be specific .... name them ..............
Paul literally says 'so also you', which is literally bringing the 'you' into the 'us'. Which would literally mean that those blessings bestowed first to them, will now also apply to you. And anyone who denies that the apostles were specifically and individually called for their service, including Judas, do not read their bibles. Yet, Judas was not saved. Election is unto service, not salvation. God predetermined what will happen to those who believe, just as He predetermined what will happen to those who dont. There is a time when God doesnt know you, to a time were God does know you. You cannot be predestined for salvation, but then also claim God didnt know you in the interim, that doesnt make sense. You cannot claim to be IN Christ since the foundation of the world, but also without out God and hope in the interim. Calvinism doesnt consistently follow. Galatians 4: [8] But in the past, since you didn’t know God, you were enslaved to things that by nature are not Gods. [9] But now, since you know God, or rather have become known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elements? Do you want to be enslaved to them all over again? Ephesians 2 [12] At that time you were without Christ, excluded from the citizenship of Israel, and foreigners to the covenants of promise, without hope and without God in the world. [13] But now in Christ Jesus, you who were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Masterclass in not understanding the basic philosophical underpinnings of his determinism! If you were to believe Dr. White's position is true, namely all things (even the illusion of freedom) come from God's decree, you indict God as the author of sin and evil. You were given a conscience, an ability to know right from wrong, conviction by the Holy Spirit, but I guess none of that is actually needed, since God ultimately determines all things via His decree. Say goodbye to love, mercy, forgiveness, justice, holiness - these don't have any meaning whatsoever in a deterministic system of philosophy. That's James White's problem. He has assumed (without proving) God has created a deterministic universe. But scripture, (as well as our intuition and experience) tell us there are things God does not command or cause - namely, sin and evil committed by His image bearers. People and angels rebel against God freely, God does not cause them to. Determinism is not clearly taught in Scripture, yet God's sovereignty and man's responsibility is clearly taught. If man is responsible for the sin he commits, that's not determinism. We should all be aware, open, and honest about our presuppositions we bring to the text and what the philosophical underpinnings entail. By the way, a God who is sovereign over all things, including free creatures, and yet still brings about His purposes is a far greater view of God's sovereignty than a God who meticulously controls literally everything by His decree.
@@jasongillis1336 tell me you haven't read and understood the confessions without telling me. This common strawman based on the misunderstanding of God's decree is useless in any real debate. The reality is you care far more about your position, and the emotions you draw from it, than you do about the bible. And the fact that you have no scripture to rebut Dr. White's exegesis is proof of this.
@matt_h_27 Hello Matt, I'm sorry I don't understand your first two sentences. Can you elaborate? As for your assessment about me, how do you know that? For all you know, I have spent the past 20 years researching God's sovereignty in an attempt to better love God with all my being. The reality is, you don't know. James White's positions are well known, and he is publicly debating these topics using philosophical reasoning (like we all do) without admitting it. His determinism comes prior to his exegesis. My presupposition is that when the scripture contains throughout appeals to choose life, repent, confess, turn from sin, love your enemies- that these are genuine appeals to people. On Dr. White's view, he has to twist texts to say things that the Greek and context don't allow: prime example is Titus 2:11. The text refers to Jesus' appearance - the grace of God providing salvation to all people. This is then twisted to say "all kinds of people". See James White's interaction on this text with Michael Brown. Why does he force texts to conform to his presupposition of determinism? To my knowledge, Dr. White has never presented arguments that determinism is true, he just asserts it. When he dialogued with William Lane Craig on Unbelievable, he did the same thing "My view is the biblical view!!" Yet Craig criticized him for not admitting the that reformed dogmatic is incredibly philosophical, much of it is human reasoning outside the scripture. Which is a valid approach, the question is - does scripture support determinism, or libertarian free will? At least in some circumstances, the clear teaching of scripture is that God does not tempt us to sin, and provides a way of escape. Can you show how that is possible on determinism? James White has said many times everything comes from God's decree, and that would include sin and evil.
@@jasongillis1336 You should probably define what you mean by determinism because it’s an obviously biblical idea. The fact that God determines things in advance to accomplish His plans and purposes comes from honest exegesis. Why would man ever want to make that up? Fallen man loves the concept of libertarian free will. Why would men voluntarily dismiss libertarian free will? We wouldn’t. The only reason to do so would be because the bible rejects it. Libertarian free will IS open theism. It just is. It doesn’t matter what kinds of hoops one tries to jump through, that’s the logical conclusion. You’re inferring that appeals to choose life, repent, confess, etc. imply moral ability (desire) within fallen man. You admit that this is your presupposition. It is a presupposition and it’s a wrong one. For example, God gave humans the 10 commandments knowing full well that no one, by nature, could keep them. It requires supernatural ability that the flesh does not possess. Yet He commanded it anyway. Was God confused about man’s inability? Why would He command something that was unattainable? Well, He did it. So the theory you’re making implications for is out the window. Appeals do not necessitate ability. As far as “forcing texts” this is something non-calvinists do regularly, though they don’t apply the same recognition and standards to their own use. Just because most people agree with you doesn’t make you right, especially when most people include unbelievers who can’t spiritually discern the bible and bible illiterate church folks who may or may not even be born again. The fact is that the bible has many difficult texts. What we must agree about is that the bible is inerrant and does not contradict or disprove itself. So if we see a seeming contradiction, the issue lies with us and we must reconcile the text with itself, not with our own presuppositions. Sometimes reconciling the text with itself involves digging into the context to see where we might be mistaken. Calvinists seem like the only ones truly willing to do this. Everything that comes to pass is decreed to come to pass by God. That means nothing can happen outside of God’s ultimately good plans and purposes. That also means everything that comes to pass serves His purposes, whether good or evil. That doesn’t mean He forces evil upon otherwise neutral creatures. It also doesn’t mean He condones or approves of the evil intentions of those who practice evil. It simple means God has a good purpose in decreeing that certain evils come to pass. Just think, God could’ve upheld Adam in the garden. Why didn’t He? It wasn’t because He wanted Adam to have free will. It was because God had a grand plan to show His grace and mercy to creatures in need of grace and mercy through His Son on the cross. Jesus (God incarnate) wasn’t God’s backup plan. It WAS the plan and the only way to accomplish it was by decreeing that Adam sin. Yet God didn’t force Adam to sin. God did not approve of Adam’s sin, but God certainly planned Adam’s sin for a great purpose and put things in motion to make it so. After all, how easy would it have been for God to stop original sin at the root? The fact that He didn’t proves God’s decree.
@matt_h_27 Hello Matt, thank you for your careful thoughts on the topic, it's a good discussion. 👍🏻 1. A simple definition of determinism: "Determinism is the philosophical view that events are completely determined by previously existing causes." In the case of Augustine, it is a strong version of theological determinism (divine determinism, theistic determinism are the same idea). The concept is God dictates all events by His decree. Here's what I think is going on: I believe you could be conflating God's "predestination" of all things (which I agree is biblical) with God's "predetermination" of all things. These are distinct ideas. As a Molinist, I affirm God predestined all things, and that He takes into account the actions of free creatures. There is no problem there at all for an omniscient and omnipotent Creator. Here's where I will deny the idea you raised: God does not predetermine free creatures (men or angels) sin and evil acts, they commit those freely, apart from God. In this way, they are responsible for their rebellion, and God is just to punish such rebellion. Can you explain how God, if he is the direct cause (or the cause through a chain of secondary causes) of a creatures sin or act of evil, and the creature could not do otherwise, how is God not responsible for that act of rebellion? If God is responsible, because according to Dr. White is comes from His decree, and was predestined and predetermined to occur for the glory of God, this makes God the originator of sin and evil - not men or angels. This is precisely what Christians ought to avoid ascribing to God: that God is the author of sin and evil. But it becomes inescapable if determinism is true. One can claim God can cause evil and sin for His glory, but it become incredibly difficult to show how God Himself isn't evil in that case.
Typical Calvinist tactic- read yourself into the text! Who says Ephesians 1 is about Gentiles in 2023? This text is speaking to the early church, not us.
'Then throw it all out'...seriously? Obviously not all of the bible was written to you. Do you read the law requirements in the OT and take it as applying to you? Paul tells timothy to rightly divide the word of truth, for this very reason. You have to understand who you are (gentile turned Body of Christ) and where you came into the story (with the ministry of Paul). I do however agree that obviously ephesians is about the Body of Christ, as ephesians were gentiles turned Body of Christ. And there are no jew or gentile, male or female in 2023, only lost sinners in need of a Saviour, and the only way to come is by the Blood of Christ. There is more than one logical way to interpreted ephesians, one has to asked for discernment as to which is the right way.
My favorite part is that White ignores the condition to be met before being drawn: hearing and learning from the Father. If you have heard and learned, then you will irresistibly be drawn by the Father and given to the Son. This is so freaking easy.
The “hearing and learning” in John 6 is the result of being drawn by the Father to the Son, not the opposite. Read John 6:37-45 verse by verse and it is clear that the “hearing, learning and being taught by God” is because you have been drawn to the Son.
@@RyanJDeacon, Both you and DelicueMusic are wrong.. John 6:44-45 says: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." There are two ways to be saved.. 1) If you are drawn by the Father to Jesus. and 2) If you have learned of the Father, you will come to Jesus.. Drawn and come are two different things, or we can say the opposite to each other..
@@RyanJDeacon WHAT is the BIBLICAL Docrtrine of ELECTION and PREDESTINA TION? Jesus revealed this doctrine of Election and Predestination in the parable of Wheat and Tares In this parable, Jesus revealed the doctrine of election and pre destination..and who are those people who are predestined to be saved, and those predestined to be burned in the lake of fire.. Jesus revealed in this parable that those who are predestined to be saved are the children of God literally.. And those who are predestined to be cast to the Lake of fire are the children of the devil literally.. Adam and his descendants are the children of God because Adam is a true son of God as revealed in Luke 3:38... Cain and his descendants are the children of the devil because Cain is the seed of the serpent(devil) as mentioned in Genesis 3:15... Cain is not the son of Adam, he is not included in the Genealogy of Adam in Genesis 5... Cain has his own Genealogy in Genesis 4.. all the descendants of Cain are very evil people like him... Jesus revealed in this parable also that there are only 2 kinds of people in the world, they are the children of God literally and the children of the devil literally The children of God are called Elect, and the children of the devil are called reprobates... Sometimes Jesus called the Elect Sheep and the Reprobate Goat.. All the Elect are predestined to be saved, and all the Reprobates are predestine to be burned in the Lake of Fire... Jesus gave His Life only for the Sheep(Elect) John 10:15 EXAMPLE of the children of the devil can be found in John 8:44 EXAMPLE of the children of God can be found in Psalm 82:6 and in Romans 8:14.. Having the knowledge of the Parable of Wheat and Tares can answer the age-old Mystery of what will happen to a newly born child who died or to the unborn fetus who died in the womb.. GOD BLESS YOU ALL WHO BELIEVES IN THIS REVELATION OF JESUS IN THE PARABLE OF WHEAT and TARES...
The amount of scripture Gregg tried to use out of context to make his position fit is just embarrassing. But this is common amongst non-calvinists. And the idea that God commanding or offering something automatically implies that man must be able to obey/come is a complete misunderstanding of the text and a gross exaltation of fallen, carnal man. But again, this is common amongst non-calvinists.
@@jesuschristsaves9067so you probably shouldn’t be Protestant, then. Because virtually all Protestants believed in the bondage of the human will. So if you’re going to say Calvinists aren’t Christians, you may as well go back to Rome.
@@Jay_the_giant That statement shows you don’t know Protestantism because every Christian believes in the bondage of sin, but only Calvinists believe in the “bondage of the human will.” It also show you have no knowledge of the apostolic traditions to think it’s Protestant or Rome. Orthodox and Coptic Christians reject the papacy and Protestantism. But since you did mention it, I’m on my way into orthodoxy.
All Calvinists should be required to watch The Soft White Underbelly channel everyday for one year. At the end of one year if you still affirm God's "decree" then you're just an ideologue. "We believe in Free Will because we know about it's behaviors but not about its causes" Jonathan Edwards.
I like that your post stands against the common claim that one has to be conditioned into Calvinism by showing you need a years worth of brainwashing to disbelieve the clear teachings of scripture. I also like your quote attributed to Calvinist Johnathan Edwards. Are you saying you reject free will against the Calvinist historic affirmation of it? If so, again I appreciate that you don't just reach for the same tired strawman.
I'm strengthened by the knowledge that God is in utter control over the things presented on that channel. Do you prefer a God who is weak or who chooses to be weak? Is a God who sits back and checks out better than one who accomplishes his holy and righteous purpose through *all* of human history, even if it looks ugly now?
So if no one gets injustice how do you explain Gods non election of one’s before they existed. Of course one can’t chose Christ if he forbids them to. So because of that you’re going to spend eternity in the lake of fire. Seems like a loving father if you ask me, where can I sign up?
we are all predestined to hell by default ...... Genesis 3:17-19 ..... God Cursed the Ground from which all men were formed from ....... and thus all men are Cursed in Adam ......... in a fallen world there is no injustice ..... BUT ..... there is Mercy that none deserve nor can they demand it ........ and that belongs only to God ..............
@@michaelmichael-ci8hi if we are all by default going to hell I guess that means David’s son, all aborted babies are in hell as well. Since God only knows the elect there’s no way David could know for sure his son was. You can’t say by default if there’s a clause!
@@michaelmichael-ci8hi if we are all by default going to hell I guess that means David’s son, all aborted babies are in hell as well. Since God only knows the elect there’s no way David could know for sure his son was. You can’t say by default if there’s a clause!
@@caseylee1553 God is just as sovereign over their salvation as He is with every other person ...... i cant say where aborted babies go and neither can you ...... nor those born but die in infancy ..... we are all under the same curse of Genesis 3:17-19 ...... and all EQUALLY under Gods Mercy ...... if HE decides to grant it ...... Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us-for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”- the infant, regardless of their circumstances, have no cognicent freewill, and under that unbiblical idea, they all end up in hell as they do not know Christ ..... what synergism is there for them ....... ZERO ...........
God doesn't need to forbid anyone from believing. All are wicked and are enemies of God from their conception and would never choose Him without the unrequested interposition of His salvation. As for the question of abortion, Calvinism simply has a better answer. If God is sovereign and free in salvation, He can freely give it to any pre-born individual He desires. However, if it is reliant on the free will of the individual, no pre-born baby will choose Him because they are not able to cognitively. If you want to assert there is some sort of age of accountability, that is a different issue, but good luck finding any Scripture that would even hint at such a concept.
For every seemingly "free will" verse in the Bible, there is about 10 "calvanistic," God-is-sovereign and controlling history, verses. You cant have an irresistible force and an immovable object. Sadly, people think its their will which is irresistible, instead of immovable from its sinner status. If it is Gods will that He be served a breakfast of bacon and eggs, how does this happen without doing harm to an egg and a pig? Its impossible. God wanted and willed for us to be made into His image, even moreso than Adam and Eve, who didnt know everything both good and evil. And He accomplished this. People just dont understand the depth of the riches of Christ. Thats all i can say. Get a revelation of it. Or, next time your children are hungry, refuse to kill anything so that they may eat, be it an aminal, an egg or a vegetable. And dont anyone say this is a fallacy, because Jesus was killed exactly as God propjesied it would happen. In Isaiah it says God purposely hardened their hearts and deafened their ears so He could accomplish His ultimate will. Just like Pharaoh. I will NEVER stand before God on judgment day and say "yay! I Did it! I accepted this salvation." Oh sorry for you who didnt, you must have been less Holy and righteous and understanding of God in my own fallen nature. So sorry.
God is so good that He relieves us of any guilt about being less or better than any other. Praise God, I don't have to feel guilty for my faith given by God!! He took it all!!
@kimmykimko Hi! Those kinds of verses need not be at odds. People who see both free will and God's sovereignty can resolve this with Molinism and honestly affirm both God's omniscience and omnipotence (His knowledge of the truth value of counterfactuals, and His ability to create free creatures in the libertarian sense). The beauty of this is that it preserves freedom and sovereignty and allows God to predestine while taking into account free creatures. It's a greater view of sovereignty, in my opinion (free creatures - God's plans still always work according to His will). I am a Molinist, which affirms monergism in soteriology. It's is God who saves. By the way, I agree with a number of things you said and join you in criticism of synergism, and agree that God is 100% sovereign, I just don't see Him moving people's will casually to sin, which I think any philosophy of determinism requires. The scripture says God does not cause people to commit sin, God doesn't even tempt creatures to sin, but provides a way of escape. So that isn't determinism. God bless you!
If you meet a doctor that says he has a cure for your cancer, and you say yes to the treatment, will you afterwards say, 'yeah! I did it!'? Bizarre! And when Jesus said, 'you refuse to come to me so that you may have life' He surely just miss spoke, He shouldve said, 'you are incapable of coming to me, no chance of you ever having life unless I chose you for salvation before the foundation of the earth.' And here is a question, are you saved based on your election or on the death, burial resurrection of Christ? One day when you get to heaven will you say you are there based on you being elected, or based on what Christ accomplished? Blows my mind how the calvinist always claim they are more humble than those who humbled themselves, admitted they were lost sinners in need of a Saviour, and accepted the free gift of salvation.
@@patrolman602 study it? I used to hold to all five petals before I actually studied my word and church history more in depth. Calvinism is anti Christ. The doctrine was unknown for 1,500 years of the church. It’s a novelty view. Sort of like Mormonism, Jehovahs witnesses or 7th day Adventism.
@@jesuschristsaves9067 Unknown to the church? Ever read the Canon of Orange? That indicates broad agreement on at least 4 of the five points over 1000 years before Calvin was born. Calvin didn't exist in a historical vacuum after all, and he, along with all of the Reformers had no intention to invent new doctrine, but were keen to show that their ideas were found in scripture and in church history.
@@oracleoftroy You’re offering your interpretation of the fathers which is what Calvinists tend to do. They most certainly orthodox, not reformed. Reach out to me for a discussion. Shoot me your contact info unless you’re scared.
@michaelmichael-ci8hi To be led, those that follow submit, cooperate with the Shepard. It's a relationship between 2 parties that calvinist deny, although evidence of this relationship is throughout all of scripture.
@@sheilasmith7779 i deny what is NOT in scripture as mere philosophy and wishful thinking ....... God does not need or require your submission to buy and redeem you from slavery .......
@michaelmichael-ci8hi call beliefs not supported by scripture by whatever name you want. If God did not tells us in scripture, then the belief is made-made. Since we are God's created beings, are certainly would tell us everything He wants us to know....and He does so through a WRITTEN document.
@@sheilasmith7779 agreed ..... and free will given to man falls into that category ...... unbiblical means NOT supported by scripture ............... if you want to call calvinism by that same moniker ..... THEN BE SPECIFIC ......... which ones .........
James White is amazing Romans 8:29-30 God knew who he was going to chose. Romans 3:11 there is non who seeks after God , So God would have had to choose who would get saved that way the cross accomplished exactly what it was supposed to it saved everyone it intended.
Just explore alternative interpretations of Romans 9, and ask some questions. Who is Paul speaking to? Who is he speaking about? Could the Messiah have been born from more than one bloodline? On whom does God say He takes mercy? Use the whole of Scripture to answer these questions. Go in with an open mind and the idea that James White might be wrong.
This is for Steve Greg I just wanted to let you know that I had a dream last night and you were in the dream and I saw you open the top part of the jaw of a large Lion and when I woke up I believed that this was a dream of heaven because the Bible says that the Lion will lay down with the Lamb ; and it looked like you were in white and the dream ended God bless 🙌 🙏!
The chosen ones are those who have been born again by the Holy Spirit, no one can contribute anything. How can you contribute to your being born again? You contribute nothing at all. It is solely the work of the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of election is cristal clear, except you adore your free will by not recognizing the sovereignty will of God the Trinity. Don't be so arrogant but be humble, because this is one of the greater sins I think. Otherwise you will end up in Hell for ever and ever.
I believe we are all hell bound if left to our free will.
Were not left to our own free will (thank God) God draws us. In fact He draws all. How? Through the bible, nature, inward witness, trials, many ways. Some heed that call that warning that wooing others do not by their own free choice. God took a calculated risk creating man knowing he would not heed his voice though he voice is there, everywhere.
God is everywhere just open your eyes! We inwardly know there is a God and he proves himself everyday, some come to him others do not because of their choice not because God did nothing.
If God forced you into heaven against your will and saved you against your will what kind of relationship is that? Its forced its not true. It has to be free to be true. God is not going to NOT CREATE just because he knows some will reject him.
@@justtruth8310”God made a calculated risk” that’s heresy! God doesn’t play dice and He isn’t sitting around helpless before man’s free will waiting and hoping every person will make the correct decision for Jesus. Jesus said in John 6 that He loses none that the Father gives Him, that “no one may snatch them from my hand”. Free will as many use that term isn’t even coherent. The only coherent definition of the will I have ever heard is that it is an expression of one’s nature. God cannot choose to lie because he is by nature truth. He cannot choose to create a square circle because he is by nature logical. A lion cannot choose salad over a steak because he is an obligate carnivore by nature. A man with an unregenerate nature cannot choose righteousness because he has a sin nature. A regenerate man cannot live a constant life of sin because he is given a new nature and made alive in Christ.
@@J.T.Stillwell3 You quote John 6 and say, "He loses none that the Father gives Him, that “no one may snatch them from my hand.” But John 18:9 says, "Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, (the soldiers) “Who is it you want?” 5 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) 6 When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. 7 Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?” “Jesus of Nazareth,” they said. 8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.” 9 This happened so that the words he had spoken WOULD BE FULFILLED: “I have not lost one of those you gave me."
You say God cannot lie, because He is by nature truth. I agree. So how could God say to Adam and Eve, "Don't eat from the tree at the center of the garden, when He knew full well (according to Calvinism) God was going to make them eat from that tree. How could God say, "Have no other gods before me..." knowing full well He was going to make countless billions worship Allah, Budha, or one of the tree million Hindu gods. How could God say do not lie, knowing full well He was (according to Calvinism) make billions lie? How could God say, do not commit murder, knowing full well He was going (again according to Calvinism) make millions murder?
You give all these examples of what can't happen by nature, a lion can't choose a salad over steak, a man with an unregenerate nature cannot choose righteousness because he has a sin nature.
Anything that goes against nature is a MIRACLE. God is in the business of performing miracles.
If God wants to give an unregenerate man just enough free will to accept Jesus Christ, He can do it. Or are you saying, "God can't." RED FLAG.
Dr. Joel Korytko graduated with a PhD from Oxford, and now is an Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies at Northwest Seminary. He’s a Bible scholar who specializes in the Greek Septuagint.
There are multiple videos you can watch where Dr. Joel Korytko calmly, politely, dispassionately and objectively demonstrates that James White’s claims about what the Greek says are wholly wrong. He even includes quoting famous Calvinists like D A Carson who say the same things about the Greek as Dr. Joel Kolytko.
Please don’t be afraid of watching or ignore these videos:
‘Ex-Calvinist Bible Scholar Reviews James White Vs. Leighton Flowers Debate: John 6’
There’s a follow up video to that:
‘James White responds to my debate review’
The TH-cam channel is:
‘What your pastor didn’t tell you’
-----
It can be convincing when James White says things about the Greek in such a way to say that means his interpretation is correct, especially if you don’t know Greek.
But multiple actual scholars of Greek completely disagree with him.
Be careful. Don’t be fooled.
That scholars disagree is not peculiar. Scholars disagree on a host of things. However, that doesn’t mean White is wrong and Gregg is right. Your whole comment is a red herring and appeal to authority to make White look like he is wrong. Notice, though that Gregg’s interpretation is the peculiar one.
@@JRey-re9rl An appeal to authority is a valid and acceptable part of logic and debating, but where it IS a fallacy is where it is the ONLY evidence presented in an argument.
A red herring is a type of logical fallacy where an irrelevant topic or piece of information is introduced to divert attention away from the main issue or argument.
Your comment is factually incorrect, applying both terms where they are not evident. That could, itself, either be considered a red herring or gaslighting.
The OP comment was that James White's Greek was proven incorrect, not that scholars disagree on a host of things. Nobody disagrees that James White Greek is poorly interpreted, except James White and possibly, you.
Personally, I'm not a greek scholar, (will never be one), but I'm into my 2nd semester of N.T. Greek and the textbooks don't agree with James White. He's confusing Greek terms, construction and interpretation. I cannot listen to White on anything Greek because he messes me up with a tangle of interpretation.
James White seems to quote a text then preach a Calvinistic sermon rather than explaining why the text means what he claims.
The most convincing teaching for me against Calvinism was Steve's verse-by-verse teaching in the latter part of Romans 8 and in Romans 9. You may listen here: (lectures 20-23) thenarrowpath.com/verse_by_verse.php#Romans
I don't think Steve even got around to exegeting Romans 9 in this 5 part debate, so this may be beneficial to others. I have the Romans series on video. Perhaps that will be the next thing I post after completing this debate.
As a young Christian I saw all throughout scripture that God wanted everyone to repent and be saved. He wanted man to obey and love and be faithful to him. He commanded and pleaded with them to do so. He rewarded those who did so and punished those who did not. But most chose to love and serve themselves, to hate God and their neighbors. And it grieved God. This is obvious from all of scripture. But I was told that Romans 9 taught otherwise. When I got to Romans 9, it seemed they were correct. It seemed a contradiction, I didn't understand how it was correct and I didn't really like it. But I submitted myself to what I thought was the truth of God and mostly believed in what we call Calvinism...Until I came upon Steve Gregg's teachings and heard him expound on Romans 9 and all of it's Old Testament references and how they were referring to God's choice to use certain descendants of Abraham and not others, down through Israel to bring the Messiah into the world to save the world. He made it clear as a bell. It seems lazy and irresponsible to interpret that chapter the way Calvinists do. ~ Jason
Thanks for the Romans8/9 teaching videos link and your story - that helps!
@@evabreneisen9086 You're welcome!
Yes, God chooses some and not others. The essence of of what Calvinism teaches.
WHAT is the BIBLICAL Docrtrine
of ELECTION and PREDESTINA
TION?
Jesus revealed this doctrine of
Election and Predestination in
the parable of Wheat and Tares
In this parable, Jesus revealed
the doctrine of election and pre
destination..and who are those
people who are predestined to
be saved, and those predestined
to be burned in the lake of fire..
Jesus revealed in this parable
that those who are predestined
to be saved are the children of
God literally..
And those who are predestined
to be cast to the Lake of fire
are the children of the devil
literally..
Adam and his descendants are
the children of God because
Adam is a true son of God as
revealed in Luke 3:38...
Cain and his descendants are
the children of the devil
because Cain is the seed of the
serpent(devil) as mentioned in
Genesis 3:15...
Cain is not the son of Adam, he
is not included in the Genealogy
of Adam in Genesis 5...
Cain has his own Genealogy in
Genesis 4.. all the descendants
of Cain are very evil people like
him...
Jesus revealed in this parable
also that there are only 2 kinds
of people in the world, they are
the children of God literally and
the children of the devil literally
The children of God are called
Elect, and the children of the
devil are called reprobates...
Sometimes Jesus called the
Elect Sheep and the Reprobate
Goat.. All the Elect are
predestined to be saved, and
all the Reprobates are
predestine to be burned in the
Lake of Fire...
Jesus gave His Life only for the
Sheep(Elect) John 10:15
EXAMPLE of the children of the
devil can be found in John 8:44
EXAMPLE of the children of God
can be found in Psalm 82:6 and
in Romans 8:14..
Having the knowledge of the
Parable of Wheat and Tares
can answer the age-old
Mystery of what will happen
to a newly born child who
died or to the unborn fetus
who died in the womb..
GOD BLESS YOU ALL WHO
BELIEVES IN THIS REVELATION
OF JESUS IN THE PARABLE
OF WHEAT and TARES...
@@warriorpriestblog Not remotely close. God chose certain people to bring the Messiah into the world. He did not choose which individuals would be saved and which individuals would burn in hell for all eternity for being born into a fallen world with no choice to serve God and no choice to repent.
In my opinion, this is a silly debate. In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, "The people built the high places to sacrifice their children to idols, something I DID NOT COMMAND..." Joshua 24:15 says, "CHOOSE you this day whom you will serve." 2nd Peter 3:9 says, "God is NOT willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance." But Jesus himself says, "The road that leads to destruction (hell) is broad and MANY are on it." So, CLEARLY God's will is NOT always being done.
Also God says, "I have put before you life and death, CHOOSE life." He does NOT say I have chosen for you. Revelation says, "WHOSOEVER will May come and drink freely of the waters of life." It does NOT say, "I, God, will decide who drinks of the waters of life. God gave His only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believes in Him shall not perish. It does not say, "God gave His only begotten Son, so that the ones He chooses shall not perish." The Bible has Jesus saying, "No one can come to me unless the Father DRAWS him." It does NOT say, "No one can come to me unless the Father FORCES him. The Calvinist says God decides EVERYTHING, BUT the Bible says God chooses or determines SOME things AND gives mankind FREEWILL in other things. You can't deny the verses above that CLEARLY say we have choices.
Romans 9:21 ESV / 1,486 helpful votes
Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
James White sucks so hard. He always complains that his opponent jumps around, even though the point of theological proofs is to find consistency throughout the bible, then proceeds to jump around the bible preaching a sermon on non-Calvinist concepts, like sin or God's authority, things that all Christians agree on, but arrogantly behaving like it's proving him right. It's so cringe that so many people fall for this kind of rhetoric.
That's how I felt James did on part 1, he was spinning faster than a 4th of July pinwheel at a pool party. He was all over the theological map.
I suppose people allow that kind of confusion to overwhelm their brain into thinking he's winning the argument with sheer volume.
Some listeners: If he can jump around so fast, he must know his subject and if he knows his subject, he must be right. Duhhhh.....
I hope he settles down.
Sidenote: I know James White's arguments over years, but just wanted to hear Steve Gregg approach it.
The elephant in the room which Steve does address is that Calvinists do not believe that God loves everyone.
The other elephant which Steve also addresses is that Calvinists believe (generally) that the glory and eternal bliss of the elect will be augmented by the torture of the unelect.
Calvinism in my opinion typically draws people with a lot of pride and competitiveness - they are not nearly as interested in loving you as in “correcting your doctrine”.
Do you have a greater love for your children then you do for your. Neighbors? God has a special salvific love for His bride, this is not hard to understand
@@teejay7510 that analogy doesn’t work because we are all made in the image of God and Calvinism teaches that God “chooses” some to be his children (but could have easily chose others as well but simply passed them over, thus not making them his children simply by his own choice).
When you take this to a personal level - how many in your family has God passed over? Since he chooses the remnant and the majority are passed over, chances are some of your loved ones will be tortured forever for the praise of his name.
Sounds sick I know but that’s what this teaches
@@teejay7510Calvinism is evil and dumb
“For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. … But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” - Romans 9:15-16, 20-21
So is it Calvinism or Paul in the scriptures?
This week I was reading the writings of John of Damascus. He was the last early church father and he set out to summarise the teachings of the church without adding anything new to them. In one of his writings he is arguing against Islam and he says unambiguously that Christian theism holds to freewill.
Love St. John of Damascus
@@andys3035 he’s the hero we never knew we needed
It's God's choice not ours but blessed is he who's called and is obedient. Obedience is greater than sacrifice!!!
Love to all that are called !!!
@@michaelkeeton2979do you choose to be obedient and could you have chosen otherwise, or are all your actions predetermined?
Whites cross examination technique is getting very old. Ie accuses opponent of not going through every verse, (despite their argument being completely sound, re the same passage). When the opponent brings other chapters or even the immediate verses in the same passage as argument for context, he calls it not relevant.
Yet he he says later it is impossible to make a point without bringing in all relevant verses. He is such a hypocrate
When your worldview is full of inconsistencies so are your arguments.
This is not true cross examination. This is just two presenting sides.
@@jp22344 As you said "this is not a true cross examination", which should be tempered by "They are responding to each other arguments, Steve more so."
God chooses "us" and "we" - the Believers - to inherit the promises. We are chosen in Christ by faith in Lord Jesus *(John 3:16).*
In *"Romans 8:28-30,"* the golden chain of redemption are for who? Those who love God are those are redeemed, and they receive the promises.
Great conversation, I'm new to Steve Gregg and now a fan of his clear, direct exposition. 17:20 the drawing from God comes by way of revelation. Those who've truly worshipped God the father will Jesus in the OT. "You search the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life," Jesus is saying to the Pharisees in John 5 : 39, "and these are they which testify of me." Jesus manifests via the scripture to those who've truly worshipped the father. Nothing esoteric or overly complicated to sort out, as the calvinist doctrine demands. God bless you all
very well stated. Thx👍👍
Listened to part 1, now starting part 2.
I was raised in Calvinist church. Never adopted a hard theology along those teachings (still don't fully understand them).
My main issue with all of the different theological perspectives is, it seems to make a very broken church.
As in, 'my' perspective is more accurate than 'your' perspective.
How does this help a new believer (or old believer) become closer to Jesus?
WHAT is the BIBLICAL Docrtrine
of ELECTION and PREDESTINA
TION?
Jesus revealed this doctrine of
Election and Predestination in
the parable of Wheat and Tares
In this parable, Jesus revealed
the doctrine of election and pre
destination..and who are those
people who are predestined to
be saved, and those predestined
to be burned in the lake of fire..
Jesus revealed in this parable
that those who are predestined
to be saved are the children of
God literally..
And those who are predestined
to be cast to the Lake of fire
are the children of the devil
literally..
Adam and his descendants are
the children of God because
Adam is a true son of God as
revealed in Luke 3:38...
Cain and his descendants are
the children of the devil
because Cain is the seed of the
serpent(devil) as mentioned in
Genesis 3:15...
Cain is not the son of Adam, he
is not included in the Genealogy
of Adam in Genesis 5...
Cain has his own Genealogy in
Genesis 4.. all the descendants
of Cain are very evil people like
him...
Jesus revealed in this parable
also that there are only 2 kinds
of people in the world, they are
the children of God literally and
the children of the devil literally
The children of God are called
Elect, and the children of the
devil are called reprobates...
Sometimes Jesus called the
Elect Sheep and the Reprobate
Goat.. All the Elect are
predestined to be saved, and
all the Reprobates are
predestine to be burned in the
Lake of Fire...
Jesus gave His Life only for the
Sheep(Elect) John 10:15
EXAMPLE of the children of the
devil can be found in John 8:44
EXAMPLE of the children of God
can be found in Psalm 82:6 and
in Romans 8:14..
Having the knowledge of the
Parable of Wheat and Tares
can answer the age-old
Mystery of what will happen
to a newly born child who
died or to the unborn fetus
who died in the womb..
GOD BLESS YOU ALL WHO
BELIEVES IN THIS REVELATION
OF JESUS IN THE PARABLE
OF WHEAT and TARES...
If you don't love the truth how can you love Jesus Christ??
@@jesuschristiskingofkingslo2023 I DO Love the truth (constantly striving for it, regardless of subject), but where is the truth in the arguments about 'correct' theology.
Ultimately, it becomes, how is one living their life?
@@cptrikester2671 Your theology affects how you live your life. For example, Calvinists believe God doesn't love everyone, therefore they don't love everyone and will live their life that way. The problem isn't that people are fighting, it's that your sitting on a fence because your too afraid to pick a side. Study hard and find out what the truth is. Once you do, boldly proclaim and fight for it.
@@JWar- why are you telling me that I'm sitting on the fence?
I have picked a side. The side of truth.
Why is this verse not mentioned.
Romans 9:11 KJV - (11) (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that THE PURPOSE OF GOD ACCORDING TO ELECTION MIGHT STAND, NOT OF WORKS, BUT OF HIM THAT CALLETH;)
Because it's more fun to believe that God has to travel in time to see who's going to choose him out of their own free will.
Steve shows how scripture interprets scripture in his verse-by-verse teaching on Romans 9 . thenarrowpath.com/verse_by_verse.php#Romans
It doesn't mean what you've been taught it means.
They were not elected for “salvation.”
The question you could ask yourself, would it have been possible for the Messiah to be born from 2 seperate bloodlines?
True, God decided the nation of Israel would come through the tribe of Jacob. Now, did you have anything relating to individual salvation being predestined? No? Didn't think so.
If I wasn’t a Calvinist I would be after listening to this!
If determinism is true (Augustine/Calvinism), then your statement only makes sense if God then determined you to become Calvinist. You don't have the ability to weigh arguments and evidence and choose the most reasonable path on Calvinism, you are borrowing from a worldview of libertarian freedom!
@@jasongillis1336 I was just joking with my statement. Because I thought James white did so good.
But brother, your statement (if you want a serious discussion) is not accurately representing (Jesus,Apostles,Bible/Calvinism). I do believe that determinism is true. I believe the unregenerate man chooses within his nature as well as the regenerate man chooses within his nature. God opens the eyes of the blind. Physically and Spiritually.
I don’t believe that anyone that would have put their faith in Christ will die and go to hell. “All that the Father draws to me me WILL come to me”
The fact that you say you're a Calvinist proves that you don't understand scripture. You're following a man, similar to the Mormons and JWs. Are you a Christian? That is my question.
I personally do not use the name "Calvinist" BUT, Calvin is right in his understanding of these Scriptures. So I believe that TheGermdog's answer says it perfectly about these debates!!!!
@@solochristo65 Mark 10:17-22, irresistible grace is a lie. Would you like to continue this discussion? God bless you
DAY 3 th-cam.com/video/Hvmy5iQeq-E/w-d-xo.html
What a horrible analogy, as we know that it was literally the Jews, who were persecuting Jesus and the overwhelming majority of them rejected him. Sorry, but James White absolutely dominated this one as usual.
I think you are borrowing from a worldview of libertarian freedom. You might be correct in your argumentation and reasoning, but on determinism - your thoughts are not aimed at truth. If God meticulously controls all things, that includes your reasoning. Therefore, you only "believe" if God decrees it. You ultimately do not have the ability to make judgments like "James White absolutely dominated this one" after giving your arguments. On your view God moved your will to force you to believe James White "absolutely dominated" but you didn't actually reason that out freely. Thankfully determinism is false, and you did in fact reason that out using your God given libertarian free will!
@@jasongillis1336Rom 9:19-24: "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"
@@TheHighCalvinist. Good thing the broken branch can be grafted back in as described in Romans 11. They were broken off due to unbelief, but they didn't stumble so far as to be beyond recovery. Thank God they aren't subject to individual predestined damnation.
A second episode in this debate between two accomplished brothers. From my conversion in 1974, I have been more or less 'reformed' or 'Calviunistic' even though I was for my first 30 years a member of a Brethren Assembly in Northern Ireland, which would have been then, and now, a minority view. I no longer meet with the Brethren, but I still hold generally to a Calvinistic view of the Scriptures. SDG!
Lord saved me at a Brethren Assembly in CA, USA. I have been part of a Reform church and Calvin teachings for about 4 years. What a difference! BUT I still sometimes use my William Mcdonald New Believers commentary.
God bless you brother. My respect 4 my brothers in Christ and in soccer in Ireland. 😆
🙏🏼📖
The reference in John 6:45 is from Isaiah 54:13, which states:
> 11 “Poor Jerusalem, storm-tossed, and not comforted,
> I will set your stones in black mortar,
> and lay your foundations in lapis lazuli.
> 12 I will make your fortifications out of rubies,
> your gates out of sparkling stones,
> and all your walls out of precious stones.
> 13 Then all your children will be taught by the Lord,
> their prosperity will be great,
> 14 and you will be established
> on a foundation of righteousness.
> You will be far from oppression,
> you will certainly not be afraid;
> you will be far from terror,
> it will certainly not come near you.
This passage appears to refer to the future Jerusalem, not to the context of believers coming to God. It seems to describe what will happen in the New Jerusalem, with a description similar to its physical depiction in Revelation. In the future New Jerusalem, all our children, including ourselves, will be taught by God.
It seems that this verse is being taken out of context by White.
Returning to John 6:44-45:
> 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.
> 45 It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to me-
Verse 45 continues the thought from verse 44.
Although verse 44 does not provide a complete description of a person coming to Jesus, it offers a brief overview. The Father calls all people; some respond, others do not.
For those who stay and believe, Jesus will raise them up on the last day. After they are raised on the last day, they will all be taught by God in the New Jerusalem.
This is a sequential overview: the Father calls (draws), they stay and believe (listen and learn), they eventually die, and on the LAST DAY, Jesus raises them up, and finally, then they will all be taught by God.
God does not teach non-Christians, as White may imply. God may enlighten their understanding (shine a spiritual light into their spiritual darkness) through His Word or His servants to the point where the unbeliever willingly relents and gives their trust to God and accepts the Son of God, but active teaching does not occur until one is a Christian and beyond.
John 6:45 refers to the distant future and has been taken out of its prophetic context.
Absolutely love this debate. Excellent job by Steve!
❤️
Huge fallacy in whites argument as it relates to Lydia. He admits she was a worshipper of God but denies she was saved. I’m sorry but the Bible says the righteous will live by faith. Did God open her heart to the way of salvation? No he opened her heart to understand the teachings of Paul in relation to Messiah, which a Jew would not have understood prior to Jesus coming to earth. Same exact scenario with Cornelius. These are perfect examples of God rewarding people who already believe with more revelation.
As a Calvinist, I still appreciate Steve Gregg’s ministry…especially his recent work on the nature of Israel in light of the recent Middle East conflicts.
I still think that Dr. white holds the high ground in terms of consistent exegesis of the relevant texts, including John 6. And finally, some of those who are posting in these chats, and are sinfully attacking Calvinists, shame on you. We are all brothers in Christ if we hold to the simple gospel message.
Amen Brother !
I agree that this is an in-house debate. We are all believers in Christ the Lord
Not a Calvinist…but not overtly anti-Calvinist. My church is decidedly Reformed. I agree with your sentiments. I’ll break bread with anyone who knows Christ is their only salvation. This was a civil and edifying discussion between brethren.
They were predetermined to do that, shouldn’t u be taking that up with God?
"I still think that Dr. white holds the high ground in terms of consistent exegesis of the relevant texts, including John 6."
I disagree, specifically on John 6, which the spirit of the teaching of calvinism removes from the greater context revealed to us. John 5 cannot be absent as the preceding revelation for understanding what we are to see and hear in John 6.
”For this reason we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of ALL people, especially of those who believe.“ 1 Timothy 4:10
”Therefore, dear friends, since you know this in advance, be on your guard, so that you are not led away by the error of lawless people and fall from your own stable position. 2 Peter 3:17
“There were indeed false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who BOUGHT THEM, and will bring swift destruction on themselves.” 2 Peter 2:1
Don't you know? Obviously "all people" refers to the specific elect jews and gentiles of that time. Trust me, I know greek so I'm pretty smart.
@@JWar- 😂
At 16:15 Gregs rebuttal to White is so succinct, so articulate and true to biblical hermeneutics. How anyone can make sense of calvinists logic is plainly deluded.
2 Peter 3:9. 1 Timothy 2:3-4. I have never heard a Calvinist argument that comes close to explaining these away.
The format of this is merely presenting 2 opposing views. It is unfortunate that this is not a debate because there is no cross examination, no direct question to response, and as such there really no direct engagement between the 2 speakers.
Plenttyyyy....of Jame's White's debate tactics on TH-cam. These were recorded when he wasn't as polished, in 2005.
I love Steve Gregg. But it’s always interesting to see Arminians squirm in John 6. As James White always says, they are _unable_ to exegete John 6, to simply walk through the passage, they have to jump all over the place to try and explain away what it clearly says. This was a perfect example.
You label yourself as a Calvinist. Please tell me what God is saying in John 6:37. Thank you
@@YuelSea-sw2rp John 6:40, amen! WHat does that have toi do with this? Both Calvinists and Arminians believe that all who look on the Son and believe will be saved.
John 5:25, again amen! We are dead in our sin, with no hope for eternal life, until we believe. This does not refute regeneration preceeding faith, since regeneration does not save a man from the death of sin, but justification through faith.
Now why is it that you don't see the order in John 6:37?
_All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out._
Notice that First the Father gives them, then they will come. Does the order not matter here?
Now other passages shed light on this topic. 2 Corinthians 4:4 says they *cannot* see the light of the Gospel. And of course, Acts 16:14. Many more, of course.
Nice out of context quote from Spurgeon!
I''m not sure what you think showing this from the OT exclusively would or wouldn't prove? You won't find much by way of theology about the work of the third person of the Trinity in the OT because it was still a mystery. However, Ezekiel's vision of the valley of dry bones (Ezekiel 37) is a good example of this reality that it is God who must act first to raise the dead bones, not the dead bones who are unable.
The argument is about the designed plan of God for salvation.
Calvinists asert a design salvation plan different than the non calvinists God's salvation plan and design.
The difference is over what God actually designed.
I would agree, and I like how you summarized the debate. I do think Calvinists want to magnify God's sovereignty, and through determinism, they are ensured all things are determined by God either directly, or via secondary causes. Therefore, on Calvinism God is fully sovereign.
Non-Calvinists may be concerned by the implications of determinism, namely God determining evil by moving people's wills to commit sin and evil. This would seem to indict God as evil, because he determines creatures to sinful and evil acts on Calvinism.
If God was free to create in the libertarian sense, then the concept of freedom for creatures made in His image, and given a conscience, knowing right from wrong - then if God desired, He could create creatures with a sort of freedom. If God is omniscient, He would know how creatures would freely act in any situation they find themselves in. Therefore, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, He could choose to create a and sovereignly predestine a world of libertarian free creatures, that would accomplish His plans.
I agree with you, God's plan of salvation is also a key distinction between Calvinists and non-calvinists. On Calvinism, God dictates all things via His decree. Therefore, whoever God determines to be saved, is saved. Whoever is not saved - God determined for them not to be saved.
In contrast, a non-calvinist view such as Molinism, can still affirm monergism, God's prevenient grace (Titus 2:11), and agree with Paul in Romans 10:9
[9] because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." -NET
So a non-calvinist can affirm salvation by grace through faith as a free gift of God to those who believe.
@jasongillis1336 Well said.
I would say in your last sentence,
"..... to those that accept the gift."
Yes, the meaning of "sovereignty" to calvinist and non calvinists means all powerful, unlimited power....but we differ on how God used and uses that power.
@jasongillis1336 I would also assert that their use of sovernty is not to magnify God's power, since it's impossible to make greater a power that is Supreme. Rather, it is to eliminate the role of human responsibility in salvation. Although calvinists contradict themselves, they continually circle back to, humans can do no good, unless God causes it.
I am still looking for the verse in scripture where God caused Abel to obey...or Abraham, Moses, Noah...etc.....or the verse that proves God created them obedient.....and then to explain, Moses NOT following God's command on how Moses was to engage the rock.
When so many exceptions to the rules are applied, there is no rule, or guiding principle at all.
Calvinist teaching is dizzying.
@sheilasmith7779 That's a good point, God cannot be greater in power than He is - omnipotent.
It is indeed dizzying! I think some of that dizziness we experience is due to that fact we are being told that God determines all thing, including our thoughts, but of course, the reality is we do use reasoning, argumentation, weighing evidence, freely. So, it does seem to be a systematic saying, "ignore your intuition, ignore your experiences of free rationality, these are merely illusions."
Another concern would be how an Augustinian/Calvinist framework affects love in a negative way. As in, it appears to completely destroy any meaning of love from one person to another. Also, if God deterministically forces a person to love Him, is that genuine love? Love must be freely given, not coerced or forced upon another being. You can call that arrangement something, but it isn't love.
@jasongillis1336 AGREE.
And, your point about love explains away Calvinism.
Because to BE love, it MUST be voluntarily given, received and reciprocated.
I've thought many times about adding "love," to my written argument but didn't because I thought the calvinist would not know how love fits in with my central argument.
If only Christians would spend a lot more time thinking about what they were taught, and less time repeating and defending what they have been taught.
One simple place to start is to search is for any evidence in the history of the universe where any design by God or man exceeded its design perimeters. No thing, human or inanimate, can exceed its design characteristics, nor EVER has. With that evidence then, all scripture events make sense.
Really fun, communicating with you. 😀
Its the same on earth no every one can aproached a King or Queen.
I'm a Calvinist and love both of these teachers. Steve and James are awesome
They're both very excellent teachers - eloquent and wise.
Are you a Calvinist or a Christian, a child of God. Because if you're a Calvinist then you follow a man and not Jesus. Similar to the Mormons and JW.
@@ironleatherwood I'm a Christian. I said I'm a Calvinist because it's a video debate between a Calvinist and someone who is not a Calvinist. Calm down brother
@@ironleatherwood typical ignorant comment
@ironleatherwood He is a Christian and a Calvinist. I am a Christian and a Molinist. There are Christians who are open theists. There are Christians who hold to a view of simple Foreknowledge of God's providence. In fact, there are Christians who may not know much about these things. This is why I love CS Lewis' appeal (following scripture) to at least recognize unity within the body as "Mere Christians". This is for sure an "in house" debate/discussion.
You chased quite a rabbit trail trying to refute John 6 Mr. Gregg.
Steve even admits "the golden chain.." (Romans 8) he can't argue with or refute. The debate was won right there by Dr. White imo.. If you can't refute Romans 8:29- 30 but look to other passages in hopes of refuting it, you've lost. It can't be refuted.
For all you people who love James White read the Bible for yourself! Actually open it, put your fingers on the paper and read it! James White ads and takes away from the scripture to fit his narrative! And to prove it! Read it for yourselves!don’t just blindly follow a man! Read the Bible! I dare you
Ephesians 1:4, "even as he chose us in him..." should be compared with a passage like 2 Corinthians 5:19, "that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself..."
Or Ephesians 4:32, "...as God in Christ forgave you."
The point in Ephesians 1:4 is that Christ was the means that God used to choose us.
It was not us that were in Christ, it was God that was in Christ, choosing us.
Thankful that we can have these discussions and share the common goal of knowing Christ as life, even if there are areas we disagree.
I really appreciate James White and much of what he has done within the Christian community, but his reading of Scripture word by word of Ephesians 1:3-10 was shocking! Saying things like: "it is WE who are blessed, not Christ who is blessed," or "Christ is not the one who is elected here, WE are the ones who are elected;" yet seems to overlook and move past too quickly the core phrase in Ephesians 1 used over and over again: "In Him/Christ." This statement has always been the crux of Paul's letters, and a proper understanding of the totality of it's meaning really reshapes these verses. I think a Calvinists view of this passage and many others overemphasizes the human agent and it's position as elect/chosen as opposed to seeing that we uphold these things only inasmuch as we are IN CHRIST. And to be in Christ is to experience a total union, of oneness, reflected in a passage like John 15 and Romans 6, with Christ. In either case, I'm grateful for this discussion and look forward to hearing more.
James White is right that we are blessed and elected not in Ephesians 1:3-10, Please read it again..
James White has been using the argument that you cannot read a later verse back into an earlier verse for years. That is an absolute ridiculous argument, and I can’t believe he still sticks with it. Even when there is a verse just two verses later than one, and within the same conversation, White claims you cannot read that later verse back into the earlier verse. Anybody can see this makes no sense logically. But in order for his arguments to make sense, he hast to stick to this tactic.
Why doesn’t anyone use the parables of Jesus to answer claims of calvinists. Read the parable of the wedding feast and tell me how that description is compatible with Calvinism. The entire reason for the guest without proper clothes(the proper clothes being clothed in Christ) being thrown out after receiving the INVITATION to the feast makes no sense if the King was the only one who had the ability to give people the proper garments… the king invites a man to a wedding that only he can give the proper attire to and then questions the man as to how he got in there without the proper clothes, the man would be able to answer the kings question by saying that the king invited him but did not give him the proper clothes…
Nothing more astonishing than a Christian debating his own election.
I wonder if Jeremiah would have debated from his mother's womb.....!!!
20:30 I noticed how White sneakily slips in eisegesis into a nonstop running stream of otherwise passable exegesis, by conflating what is predestined to happen to those who are saved with HOW they come to salvation. He is aware of what he is doing, as he flippantly brushes aside the fact that the passage is about sanctification with an offhand remark about needing to be saved to get onto that process (which is not the point of contention). Gregg rightly points out this out in his response.
Steve,
It is good that you pointed out White's blatant dishonesty in Ephesians about the pronouns.
I would point out errors (once you read my position, I think you will agree) that you, any and all Calvinists, Leighton Flowers and most arminians cling to in John 6. It is funny to see error contradicting error.
First off, when the debate of John 6 is had with any Calvinist, we see that it starts around 'verse' 35, 36, or 37.
35 is the best place, if not starting before. As we all know, but in practice often forget, chapters and verses are not part of the Bible and Verse Theology will always lead to error, as Verse Theology necessarily bastardized one phrase from its natural context and once separated and pretended to have a meaning unto itself, as a Stand-Alone, Context-Free,Doctrinal Statement, it becomes a falsehood.
So, in "verse' 36 we see, "But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not."
Jesus acknowledges that he is speaking to people who are unbelievers, (yet his is speaking only to the Children of Israel (generically called Jews), as he was sent to no one except to the lost sheep of the House of Israel). Without a parable, Jesus did not teach nor talk publicly.
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. ***But there are some of you that believe not.*** For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
And he said, ***Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.***
I end at this point because after this he addresses the 12
Contrary to the false Calvinistic reading, we see that Jesus knew that he was deal with unbelievers and he closes with the same, telling them openly that their unbelief is why God will no draw them to him.
So, here is what we have:
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. because you have seen me and believe not.
But there are some of you that believe not. Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
The comment below this will show the next error(s)
White did mention, at the last, that Jesus will lose nothing. He wrongfully assigns a false meaning to this and does so purposely because he has had this pointed out to him MANY times before and continues to reject correction and still teaches the same error.
Of the four Gospels, John uses unique language of people given to the Son by the Father. This section of not losing any is also unique and appears only 3 times in all of Scripture, all in this very Gospel (6:39, 17:12 and 18:9). Let us remember those, as they come into play very shortly.
John 6 (in the portions after v 36) is dealing with the selection of the 12 (11+the betrayer). Jesus states that he will not send away those not given. He then proceeds to speak in a way that they, as unbelievers, receive as cannibalism and leave, no longer following him. Later, we also are shown that Judas was not one given as the others were given, but chosen to fulfill the prophecy of betrayal and he, too, is sent away at the last supper.
In his prayer in the Garden, Jesus announces that his time of being 'in the world' has finished and that he has shown all that he was to show them, while he was in the world and those were the ones given to him by the Father.
So, we see that Jesus limits those given to him, but does losing any mean eternal salvation?
No. For Calvinists to assert it, they must admit that Judas was once saved, then his salvation was lost. Because of this, most will then call it Evanescent Faith, Calvin's invention, fully extra/anti-biblical.
This losing is not about salvation at all, because Jesus fulfilled, completed his prophetic words prior to his death and resurrection and the not losing is fully connected to something outside the spiritual realm:
Joh 18:4 -9
Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?
They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.
As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.
Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.
Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: ***that the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.***
The losing none was not spiritual salvation, but saving them from arrest and crucifizion with him!
Now note, the rest of the places where Jesus mentions those given to him, the 11 are there, on the spot and are those referred to as such to separate them from ALL other humans!
Since Jesus prays for the ones given, and THEN prays for those who believe upon their testimony, Those people who believe upon the words of the Apostles, including all today, are not, nor can be the onew given to Jesus, because Jesus had THAT group, by name only while he was 'in the world' and he completed his personal teaching of them all that God had for them!
Arminians do not teach this, Calvinists cannot teach it, as their heresy diametrically opposes all that I have stated, and most others have nor heard of it because most do not read, much less study, the Bible.
I hope I have made my case clearly and cleanly and that y ou adopt this true position.
2 Thessalonians 2:13
But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has CHOSEN you from the BEGINNING for SALVATION through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
The period is not after salvation, but after 'through sanctification...'
So ask yourself, is the verse about predestination to salvation, or the means by which one is saved?
The bible speaks of saved, being saved, and will be saved. There is a sense in which no one is yet saved. But those who have faith received the Spirit of adoption, a guarantee that they will be adopted at the future event.
One can then say God has predestined that all who believe will be adopted as sons at a future time. In the mean time they will receice the Spirit to sanctify them and lead them while they are still here and awaiting that time.
This giving of the Spirit and the sanctification of the believer is predetermined. It is for all who believe.
@@AnniEast Before they were born or had done anything good or bad (from eternity) God knew, had mercy on (loved) Jacob and never knew, gave justice to (hated) Esau (Romans 9). The reason for His love was not in them, but in Himself. This is an example of all mankind.
Jonah 2:9 "Salvation is of the Lord."
Ephesians 1:4
Just as He chose us (saints/elect) in Him (IN CHRIST) before the foundation of the world (from eternity).
2 Timothy 1:9
(God) who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us IN CHRIST Jesus BEFORE time began (from all eternity.)
1 Thessalonians 5:9
For God has NOT DESTINED US (ELECT) for WRATH, but to OBTAIN SALVATION through our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Thessalonians 2:13
But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has CHOSEN you from the BEGINNING for SALVATION through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
Romans 9:16
So then it depends NOT ON HUMAN WILL or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
Romans 9:22-24
What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory- even us whom He has CALLED, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
Romans 9:24 "even US, whom He also CALLED, not from among Jews only, but also from among GENTILES. (World) There's the Elect!
Romans 8:29-30
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also CALLED; whom He CALLED, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
John 1:13
who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, but of God.
John 6:37
ALL that the Father gives Me WILL come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.
John 6:44
No one can come to me UNLESS THE FATHER who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:65
And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me UNLESS IT IS GRANTED him by the Father.”
Philippians 1:29
For it has been GRANTED TO YOU that for the sake of Christ you should not only BELIEVE in him but also suffer for his sake.
Acts 11:18
When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also GRANTED to the Gentiles repentance to life.”
2 Timothy 2:25
"in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will GRANT them repentance, so that they may know the truth."
Acts 13:48 AMP
When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying [praising and giving thanks for] the word of the Lord; and all those who had been appointed (designated, ordained) to eternal life [by God] believed [in Jesus as the Christ and their Savior].
Act 2:39
"For the promise is for you and your children (Jews) and for all who are far off (Gentiles) , as many as the Lord our God will CALL to Himself.”
John 5:40
And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.……….. if you believe then father draws and if you will not , the father doesn’t draw.
Steve, your answer to John 6:44 was horrendous
I would have to agree again with Steve here. Dr. White is clearly well studied, but his interpretation of these verses lacks the context of who the author is speaking to. What I see Calvinist often do is take a conversation that the author was having with his audience, and then try to use those verses in some form of universal truth. Which many verses are, but In the attempt to use those verses to support Calvinism, without proper context, the Calvinist loses the intent behind the conversation, and stretch the verses to mean something that they aren’t actually saying. As well, Steve continues to make a good point, that good hermeneutics requires that you taken into consideration all other passages that have relevance to the verse(s) that you are studying. This is also an imbalance in Calvinist exegesis that I see very often. They want to treat verses that support their theory as if they are in a vacuum and isolated from the rest of the biblical text. This complicates Scripture, creating significant inconsistencies when speaking of God’s character when we speak of soteriology, the lost state of humanity, regeneration prior to faith, etc. As for the faithful remnant, in John 17 Jesus is clearly speaking of believers that belonged to God in his present day, the faithful remnant, and not a reference to “all” believers belonging to God as Dr. White argues. Jesus clearly says that he prays for his believers in present tense as “those in the world” and so on. Jesus even prays for those “future“ believers, who would believe in him from the word of the apostles as we read further in John 17, making a distinction between believers in two different time periods. Again, an attempt to create a universal truth here about how all believers belonging to God in the sense of a determined election is a stretch. I see a connection to the faithful remnant also in the beginning of John’s gospel when in verses in chapter 1 verses 11&12 when John says of Jesus, “He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.” All that to say, this was another great debate, but I think Steve clearly comes out on top in this one also. Thank you, Steve, and also, Dr. White, for such a great and stirring conversation.
If we have free will, why does God have to draw us?
Because we have free will and can choose to worship a million other things, many of which also draw us. ~ Jason
You could probably reverse the question. If we *don’t* have free will, and God is in control of everything, why does God have to draw us? We are already predestined to be saved, right?
@@timothyvenable3336 We are but He decrees the means as well as the ends. Is that the non-calvinist answer as well?
@@John-Beza idk, I’m a Calvinist lol so I won’t speak for them
When did Saul ask to be visited by Jesus get knocked off his high horse and be changed to Paul?
When did Abram ask to be Abraham? When did Sarai ask to be Sarah?
What Gregg? Jesus wants to save those in Matthew 23? Where does it say that? It says He would’ve had they come. But they didn’t come and Jesus knew they wouldn’t. He wasn’t surprised by this.
Whether this or not, it doesn't change the clear fact of scripture that Jesus wanted to save them, just as he wants to save all men, knowing most will rebel.
Matthew 23:37 NKJV
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!"
”“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!“
Matthew 23:37
Wanted or would have? I guess you’d choose a translation that seems to suit your position.
Either way, if it were truly God’s will to save them, then would’ve been saved. God doesn’t fail to accomplish all His purposes.
@@matt_h_27 He would have, but they were not willing. He respects their will. It's absolutely clear, that's what he wants, but he wants them to come willingly. He doesn't force them to come like the god of calvinism. God's ultimate purpose is still accomplished. God gets billions of people who willingly come to him, repent, receive salvation and fellowship with him for eternity. God wants real love, real relationships, not programmed robot love. That should be clear from how he made humans, who are made in his image.
Jesus offered the rich young ruler salvation. He went away sad.
Debating James White must be a NIGHTMARE: straw man, ad hominems, mis characterization, red herrings, he has them ALL!!!
Why not many mighty and noble come to God? They are free to come as you teach...
For you see your calling, brothers, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28. And base things of the world, and things which are despised, has God chosen, yes, and things which are not, to bring to nothing things that are: 29. That no flesh should glory in his presence. (1Co 1: 26-29)
Do you make a point?
@@warnerchandler9826 If my point is hard to understand I am not expecting an answer from you.
Amen his mercy calls us his grace keeps us . Praise Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.
@@calpespa4055I know the Bible passage. Your point, though, is not clear.
As is always the case with Calvinists ...... context ....
When ever you are dealing with Calvinists context is the last thing they consider.
The whole chapter of John 6 is dealing with people in search of food signs miracles and wonders.
John 6 vs 25 the people were looking for Jesus in context with food signs and wonders.
In vs 26 - 27 Jesus tells them to strive for what matters salvation.
From vs 29 to 34 Jesus is dealing with people who don't understand salvation like we are seeing people in thousands crammed in Arenas Cathedrals etc eating the diet of the prosperity gospel.
In vs 35 Jesus talks of the bread of life and they are confused all the more.
In vs 36 the SAW him YET believed not because their AGENDA was food and miracles.
In vs 40 Jesus stresses the issue of believing in him.
In vs 41 the Jews complain about bread and Jesus coming down from HEAVEN.
In John 6 vs 44 No man can come to me unless DRAWN he is answering a question from vs 41 and 42 about bread and his coming from heaven.
How do you explain a scenario of people looking for something they don't know from a person with something they need.
They are coming for bread yet he wants to give them salvation.
John 6 vs 45
They shall be TAUGHT of the Lord and every man must HEAR and LEARN to be saved.
How Mr White and Calvinists don't understand this is shocking.
Jesus is dealing with people who were looking for him for a different reason.
Not everyone is in search of food and miracles.
This goes to the issue of Lydia. She was attending prayers every Saturday and God opened her heart because she was in search of the truth.
Lydia sought after God. Was Lydia spiritual dead as to fail to seek after salvation .... no.
What about Cornelius ? By giving alms with fasting and prayer God heard him to save him.
Cornelius prayed fasted ang gave alms without salvation ....
Was he spiritually dead ad not to seek after God ? Noooo is the answer ...
Dr White is lost
I don’t know why you think James is lost. He believes he is a sinner saved by Jesus through faith in him, not by works. As I’m sure you do. He is a fellow Christian, not an unbeliever
Also, the word “draws” is an aggressive word in the original language. Often used for forceful pulling or dragging. Meaning God is the one who makes it happen regardless of what people think or desire. And it parallels verse 65, which says the Father has to “*allow*” anyone to come to Jesus. It’s not what we desire, it’s what God allows
@timothyvenable3336 if God is the one who makes it happen how do you explain Matthew 23 vs 37.
Jerusalem refused God. Please explain
@@brotherhoward622 I’m not sure what I need to explain. I know someone like James White would argue the language seems to say the *leaders* refused, not the people. But I don’t know the original language enough to make an argument like that.
Jerusalem rejected Christ, God and the prophets, and are about to reject Jesus. I’m a compatibilist so I think God is sovereign and the people were held accountable for their unbelief
@@timothyvenable3336 explain Matthew 23 vs 37.
How does God desire to save people and in the process not save them because of their unwillingness ...
Matthew 23 vs 37 shows that God does not save people who are not willing.
Explain what you think Matthew 23 vs 37 is saying
@@brotherhoward622 I think you hit the nail on the head. If you’re not willing to come to God, you’re not going to be saved. Jesus is the only way so if anyone is not willing to come to him, you won’t be saved. I completely agree with what you said
Ywam has some of the most sketchy theology. I would never condone my kid getting involved with that.
29:33 lies Steve lies dr White said that we are elected Christ in that text is not the elect one dr white agrees that in other passages Christ is referred to as the elect one
11:30 Steve Gregg basically pointing out the wise saying "Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument". The wise man who said it? James White.
Yep, only confirms my view Calvinism is nothing less than gospel truth. I still like how the late RC Sproul puts it. ‘Yes, you have free will but God has more’
Definitely agree with White as far as Calvinism and his consistent exegesis. But still very much enjoy listening to Gregg speak on certain subjects, especially eschatology. This is about the third time I’ve listened to this debate.
It seems to me calvinist believe God's kingdom is divided against itself and God is the author of evil ,nowhere does it say Joseph's brothers had no choice. Don't forget the story is a type and shadow of salvation and the brothers where saved. Mr White use the brothers of Joseph as a point of those ordained to be lost from the foundation
Have you not read Isaiah 45:7?
God is the author of EVERYTHING in His Creation ..... thus He Created it ALL .......... EX NIHILO ...... out of nothing ...... and He did it to His Glory and for His Good Intentions .....
whether we agree to it or not .................... whether we understand it or not ...... and we do not get to sit in judgement of His methods in HIS creatiuon .............
...No. Dr. White used that verse to demonstrate an instance of God accomplishing good through the evil of some individuals. He never applied it to their salvation. Clearly the evil act in question occurred before the brothers repented. Calvinists do not hold that people "have no choice" or that God is the author of evil. Man's heart is already wicked, God does not need to force anyone to do something evil. This is why the brothers choicefully committed evil and are held accountable for it.
If the brothers were doing what reprobates do, and that is fill the evil desires of their heart, and born tohate God without hope of ever being saved, then how come those same reprobates were saved later on? Same with the ones that killed Jesus. If those people were created to be reprobate and kill Jesus, damned to eternity without God, how come so many of them came to saving faith in Acts 2?
Could it be that the Potter uses the hard, resistful clay for dishonourable use to fulfill His purpose? But what does Paul say about that later?
2 Tim 2
[20] Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also those of wood and clay; some for honorable use and some for dishonorable. [21] So if anyone purifies himself from anything dishonorable, he will be a special instrument, set apart, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work.
'IF' sounds like a choice to me.
FYI .... there is no 'calvinist god' ..... there is the God of scripture that you do not want to accept
John 1
Legacy Standard Bible
The Deity of Jesus Christ
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 [a]He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being through Him, 👈👈👈👈 (ALL THINGS .... means ALL THINGS)
and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 👈👈👈👈 (NOTHING means NOTHING .... NO THING) guess that includes evil, doesnt it?
4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
5 And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.
Romans 8
28 And we know that for those who love God
[j]all things work together for good, 👈👈👈👈(ALL THINGS including EVIL) right?
for those who are called according to His purpose.
29 Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers;
30 and those whom He predestined, He also called; and those whom He called, He also justified; and those whom He justified, He also glorified.
My respect to Steve but I still have to side with White on this part also. Saying that It's very hard for me to know that these 2 very educated and Godly men believe in the Trinity. To see 3 beings in the Shema and elsewhere, really? Maybe the more the known the more of a humbling will occur, hopefully
I’m of the Arminian soteriology persuasion and listen to Dr. White quite often and he does an outstanding job in debates even against the view I hold. Tge representation of my camp do ok and I think they could do a lot better if they would study how Dr.White debates. BUT Steve does very well here.
James white is a terrible debater
@@jesuschristsaves9067 ok. I disagree.
@@thebark_barx6231 good for you. You’re blind.
@@jesuschristsaves9067 thanks for the charitable words, brother 😒
@@thebark_barx6231 no problem. I’m only giving you a taste of White’s disposition.
No one can believe in Jesus unless the Father gives them to Jesus, and the people that the Father gives to Jesus are those who already believe in Jesus, but no one can believe in Jesus unless the Father gives them to Jesus, so the Father gives the people who already believe in Jesus to Jesus so that they can believe in Jesus…yeah, that makes sense 😜
That’s not what he said “ he said those who believed in the father were given to the son.” Trinity… dumb dumb dumb 🔉
One slight correction here might make this statement more palatable: No one can believe in Jesus unless the Father gives them to Jesus, and the people that the Father gives to Jesus are those who already believe in GOD THE FATHER... Meaning: the Jews in that time who worshipped the true and living God will see Jesus manifest Himself in OT scripture.
John 6:
[44] No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. [45] It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to me -
John 6 Jesus is talking about those "Already disposed to me". 13 minutes in and this comment comes over. How do you know who is disposed to Christ's message? Geez, you really muffed this one up bad. You really think the same group Jesus is talking to about "Those whom the father has given me will come to me" while he is talking to the ones who got their fill of the loaves and fishes...and left him because he discusses to them about drinking his blood and eating his flesh....That THEY are the ones Jesus is praying for in the High Priestly Prayer? Yeah. Why I am NOT an Arminian making stretches like this is just too much for me Gregg. A "Natural" reading of the scripture almost ANYONE would come to a different conclusion as you. Conclusion: James is faithful to the biblical text. You have to stretch things to snapping in order to disprove something you can't accept. LOL! White is jumping all over that response! I'm only 17 minutes in too!
God can sovereignly predestine a world of free creatures to accomplish His plans. The scripture nowhere states God predetermined the thoughts, beliefs, actions (including sinful actions) of His image bearers, and unilaterally forced them to be His. That is what determinism requires. The scripture does not clearly teach this. In fact, it more reasonably teaches belief, faith, repentance, love, mercy, trust - all of which are going to be extremely difficult to show have any real meaning in a world in which God determines all things.
James White is Brilliant !
😂😂😂
He threw a hissy fit.
James is not brilliant. James is very good at deceiving many, similar to RC.
James, you're a Calvinist because you love Calvin more than Jesus.
LOL...okay, calm down there fangirl.
The 'us' in Eph 1:3 is Paul referring to the Apostles, to whom the mystery was revealed (v9), they were the ones who first trusted in Christ (v12). At v13 is where 'you' begins.
so only the apostles are predestined and predetermined ......... and the rest of us are on our own .....
so God is NOT CAPABLE of saving us but only them .....
and the apostles had NO FREE WILL in this interpretation ...... but the rest of us do ............
so what exactly does this idea change .... it says God is only saveing a certain number of people ..... a PARTICULAR REDEMPTION ......... predetermined and predestined and preordained ....
just not loving everyone and wanting them saved ......
you bring utter confusion to the text with that stuff ..............
@@michaelmichael-ci8hi Yet the 'utter confusion' seems to be coming from your suppositions - that are not in the text.
@@robinq5511 so be specific ........ what is not in the text ......
@@robinq5511 then spell them out ... name even one ........... cuz i have yet to not be able to find it all in scripture ...........
be specific .... name them ..............
Paul literally says 'so also you', which is literally bringing the 'you' into the 'us'. Which would literally mean that those blessings bestowed first to them, will now also apply to you.
And anyone who denies that the apostles were specifically and individually called for their service, including Judas, do not read their bibles. Yet, Judas was not saved.
Election is unto service, not salvation. God predetermined what will happen to those who believe, just as He predetermined what will happen to those who dont.
There is a time when God doesnt know you, to a time were God does know you. You cannot be predestined for salvation, but then also claim God didnt know you in the interim, that doesnt make sense.
You cannot claim to be IN Christ since the foundation of the world, but also without out God and hope in the interim.
Calvinism doesnt consistently follow.
Galatians 4:
[8] But in the past, since you didn’t know God, you were enslaved to things that by nature are not Gods. [9] But now, since you know God, or rather have become known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elements? Do you want to be enslaved to them all over again?
Ephesians 2
[12] At that time you were without Christ, excluded from the citizenship of Israel, and foreigners to the covenants of promise, without hope and without God in the world. [13] But now in Christ Jesus, you who were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Again Mistakes from Mr. White attacking the opponent personally when he has no answer
He does that all the time.
Masterclass by James White!
Masterclass in not understanding the basic philosophical underpinnings of his determinism! If you were to believe Dr. White's position is true, namely all things (even the illusion of freedom) come from God's decree, you indict God as the author of sin and evil. You were given a conscience, an ability to know right from wrong, conviction by the Holy Spirit, but I guess none of that is actually needed, since God ultimately determines all things via His decree. Say goodbye to love, mercy, forgiveness, justice, holiness - these don't have any meaning whatsoever in a deterministic system of philosophy. That's James White's problem. He has assumed (without proving) God has created a deterministic universe. But scripture, (as well as our intuition and experience) tell us there are things God does not command or cause - namely, sin and evil committed by His image bearers. People and angels rebel against God freely, God does not cause them to. Determinism is not clearly taught in Scripture, yet God's sovereignty and man's responsibility is clearly taught. If man is responsible for the sin he commits, that's not determinism. We should all be aware, open, and honest about our presuppositions we bring to the text and what the philosophical underpinnings entail. By the way, a God who is sovereign over all things, including free creatures, and yet still brings about His purposes is a far greater view of God's sovereignty than a God who meticulously controls literally everything by His decree.
@@jasongillis1336 tell me you haven't read and understood the confessions without telling me. This common strawman based on the misunderstanding of God's decree is useless in any real debate. The reality is you care far more about your position, and the emotions you draw from it, than you do about the bible. And the fact that you have no scripture to rebut Dr. White's exegesis is proof of this.
@matt_h_27 Hello Matt, I'm sorry I don't understand your first two sentences. Can you elaborate?
As for your assessment about me, how do you know that? For all you know, I have spent the past 20 years researching God's sovereignty in an attempt to better love God with all my being. The reality is, you don't know. James White's positions are well known, and he is publicly debating these topics using philosophical reasoning (like we all do) without admitting it. His determinism comes prior to his exegesis. My presupposition is that when the scripture contains throughout appeals to choose life, repent, confess, turn from sin, love your enemies- that these are genuine appeals to people. On Dr. White's view, he has to twist texts to say things that the Greek and context don't allow: prime example is Titus 2:11. The text refers to Jesus' appearance - the grace of God providing salvation to all people. This is then twisted to say "all kinds of people". See James White's interaction on this text with Michael Brown. Why does he force texts to conform to his presupposition of determinism? To my knowledge, Dr. White has never presented arguments that determinism is true, he just asserts it. When he dialogued with William Lane Craig on Unbelievable, he did the same thing "My view is the biblical view!!" Yet Craig criticized him for not admitting the that reformed dogmatic is incredibly philosophical, much of it is human reasoning outside the scripture. Which is a valid approach, the question is - does scripture support determinism, or libertarian free will? At least in some circumstances, the clear teaching of scripture is that God does not tempt us to sin, and provides a way of escape. Can you show how that is possible on determinism? James White has said many times everything comes from God's decree, and that would include sin and evil.
@@jasongillis1336
You should probably define what you mean by determinism because it’s an obviously biblical idea. The fact that God determines things in advance to accomplish His plans and purposes comes from honest exegesis. Why would man ever want to make that up? Fallen man loves the concept of libertarian free will. Why would men voluntarily dismiss libertarian free will? We wouldn’t. The only reason to do so would be because the bible rejects it. Libertarian free will IS open theism. It just is. It doesn’t matter what kinds of hoops one tries to jump through, that’s the logical conclusion.
You’re inferring that appeals to choose life, repent, confess, etc. imply moral ability (desire) within fallen man. You admit that this is your presupposition. It is a presupposition and it’s a wrong one. For example, God gave humans the 10 commandments knowing full well that no one, by nature, could keep them. It requires supernatural ability that the flesh does not possess. Yet He commanded it anyway. Was God confused about man’s inability? Why would He command something that was unattainable? Well, He did it. So the theory you’re making implications for is out the window. Appeals do not necessitate ability.
As far as “forcing texts” this is something non-calvinists do regularly, though they don’t apply the same recognition and standards to their own use. Just because most people agree with you doesn’t make you right, especially when most people include unbelievers who can’t spiritually discern the bible and bible illiterate church folks who may or may not even be born again. The fact is that the bible has many difficult texts. What we must agree about is that the bible is inerrant and does not contradict or disprove itself. So if we see a seeming contradiction, the issue lies with us and we must reconcile the text with itself, not with our own presuppositions. Sometimes reconciling the text with itself involves digging into the context to see where we might be mistaken. Calvinists seem like the only ones truly willing to do this.
Everything that comes to pass is decreed to come to pass by God. That means nothing can happen outside of God’s ultimately good plans and purposes. That also means everything that comes to pass serves His purposes, whether good or evil. That doesn’t mean He forces evil upon otherwise neutral creatures. It also doesn’t mean He condones or approves of the evil intentions of those who practice evil. It simple means God has a good purpose in decreeing that certain evils come to pass. Just think, God could’ve upheld Adam in the garden. Why didn’t He? It wasn’t because He wanted Adam to have free will. It was because God had a grand plan to show His grace and mercy to creatures in need of grace and mercy through His Son on the cross. Jesus (God incarnate) wasn’t God’s backup plan. It WAS the plan and the only way to accomplish it was by decreeing that Adam sin. Yet God didn’t force Adam to sin. God did not approve of Adam’s sin, but God certainly planned Adam’s sin for a great purpose and put things in motion to make it so. After all, how easy would it have been for God to stop original sin at the root? The fact that He didn’t proves God’s decree.
@matt_h_27 Hello Matt, thank you for your careful thoughts on the topic, it's a good discussion. 👍🏻
1. A simple definition of determinism: "Determinism is the philosophical view that events are completely determined by previously existing causes." In the case of Augustine, it is a strong version of theological determinism (divine determinism, theistic determinism are the same idea). The concept is God dictates all events by His decree.
Here's what I think is going on: I believe you could be conflating God's "predestination" of all things (which I agree is biblical) with God's "predetermination" of all things. These are distinct ideas. As a Molinist, I affirm God predestined all things, and that He takes into account the actions of free creatures. There is no problem there at all for an omniscient and omnipotent Creator. Here's where I will deny the idea you raised: God does not predetermine free creatures (men or angels) sin and evil acts, they commit those freely, apart from God. In this way, they are responsible for their rebellion, and God is just to punish such rebellion.
Can you explain how God, if he is the direct cause (or the cause through a chain of secondary causes) of a creatures sin or act of evil, and the creature could not do otherwise, how is God not responsible for that act of rebellion?
If God is responsible, because according to Dr. White is comes from His decree, and was predestined and predetermined to occur for the glory of God, this makes God the originator of sin and evil - not men or angels. This is precisely what Christians ought to avoid ascribing to God: that God is the author of sin and evil. But it becomes inescapable if determinism is true. One can claim God can cause evil and sin for His glory, but it become incredibly difficult to show how God Himself isn't evil in that case.
Typical Calvinist tactic- read yourself into the text! Who says Ephesians 1 is about Gentiles in 2023? This text is speaking to the early church, not us.
Then throw it all out! None of the scripture was originally written to you in your scenario.
@@kimmykimko and AMEN AGAIN ...............
'Then throw it all out'...seriously? Obviously not all of the bible was written to you. Do you read the law requirements in the OT and take it as applying to you?
Paul tells timothy to rightly divide the word of truth, for this very reason. You have to understand who you are (gentile turned Body of Christ) and where you came into the story (with the ministry of Paul).
I do however agree that obviously ephesians is about the Body of Christ, as ephesians were gentiles turned Body of Christ. And there are no jew or gentile, male or female in 2023, only lost sinners in need of a Saviour, and the only way to come is by the Blood of Christ.
There is more than one logical way to interpreted ephesians, one has to asked for discernment as to which is the right way.
My favorite part is that White ignores the condition to be met before being drawn: hearing and learning from the Father. If you have heard and learned, then you will irresistibly be drawn by the Father and given to the Son. This is so freaking easy.
Where does the bible say anyone will be irresistibly drawn?
The “hearing and learning” in John 6 is the result of being drawn by the Father to the Son, not the opposite.
Read John 6:37-45 verse by verse and it is clear that the “hearing, learning and being taught by God” is because you have been drawn to the Son.
@@SteveGreggVideosSteve, keep it up, you did so great.
@@RyanJDeacon, Both you and DelicueMusic are wrong..
John 6:44-45 says:
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."
There are two ways to be saved..
1) If you are drawn by the Father to Jesus.
and
2) If you have learned of the Father, you will come to Jesus..
Drawn and come are two different things, or we can say the opposite to each other..
@@RyanJDeacon
WHAT is the BIBLICAL Docrtrine
of ELECTION and PREDESTINA
TION?
Jesus revealed this doctrine of
Election and Predestination in
the parable of Wheat and Tares
In this parable, Jesus revealed
the doctrine of election and pre
destination..and who are those
people who are predestined to
be saved, and those predestined
to be burned in the lake of fire..
Jesus revealed in this parable
that those who are predestined
to be saved are the children of
God literally..
And those who are predestined
to be cast to the Lake of fire
are the children of the devil
literally..
Adam and his descendants are
the children of God because
Adam is a true son of God as
revealed in Luke 3:38...
Cain and his descendants are
the children of the devil
because Cain is the seed of the
serpent(devil) as mentioned in
Genesis 3:15...
Cain is not the son of Adam, he
is not included in the Genealogy
of Adam in Genesis 5...
Cain has his own Genealogy in
Genesis 4.. all the descendants
of Cain are very evil people like
him...
Jesus revealed in this parable
also that there are only 2 kinds
of people in the world, they are
the children of God literally and
the children of the devil literally
The children of God are called
Elect, and the children of the
devil are called reprobates...
Sometimes Jesus called the
Elect Sheep and the Reprobate
Goat.. All the Elect are
predestined to be saved, and
all the Reprobates are
predestine to be burned in the
Lake of Fire...
Jesus gave His Life only for the
Sheep(Elect) John 10:15
EXAMPLE of the children of the
devil can be found in John 8:44
EXAMPLE of the children of God
can be found in Psalm 82:6 and
in Romans 8:14..
Having the knowledge of the
Parable of Wheat and Tares
can answer the age-old
Mystery of what will happen
to a newly born child who
died or to the unborn fetus
who died in the womb..
GOD BLESS YOU ALL WHO
BELIEVES IN THIS REVELATION
OF JESUS IN THE PARABLE
OF WHEAT and TARES...
The amount of scripture Gregg tried to use out of context to make his position fit is just embarrassing. But this is common amongst non-calvinists. And the idea that God commanding or offering something automatically implies that man must be able to obey/come is a complete misunderstanding of the text and a gross exaltation of fallen, carnal man. But again, this is common amongst non-calvinists.
I am not really pro Calvin, I am more antiarminian 😂😂😂
You’re a Calvinist. Not a Christian.
@@jesuschristsaves9067 ah, the cultist has entered the chat.
@@matt_h_27
Ok. Reach out to me. Shoot me your contact info and we could discuss my occultism.
@@jesuschristsaves9067so you probably shouldn’t be Protestant, then. Because virtually all Protestants believed in the bondage of the human will. So if you’re going to say Calvinists aren’t Christians, you may as well go back to Rome.
@@Jay_the_giant
That statement shows you don’t know Protestantism because every Christian believes in the bondage of sin, but only Calvinists believe in the “bondage of the human will.”
It also show you have no knowledge of the apostolic traditions to think it’s Protestant or Rome. Orthodox and Coptic Christians reject the papacy and Protestantism.
But since you did mention it, I’m on my way into orthodoxy.
All Calvinists should be required to watch The Soft White Underbelly channel everyday for one year. At the end of one year if you still affirm God's "decree" then you're just an ideologue. "We believe in Free Will because we know about it's behaviors but not about its causes" Jonathan Edwards.
I like that your post stands against the common claim that one has to be conditioned into Calvinism by showing you need a years worth of brainwashing to disbelieve the clear teachings of scripture.
I also like your quote attributed to Calvinist Johnathan Edwards. Are you saying you reject free will against the Calvinist historic affirmation of it? If so, again I appreciate that you don't just reach for the same tired strawman.
I'm strengthened by the knowledge that God is in utter control over the things presented on that channel. Do you prefer a God who is weak or who chooses to be weak? Is a God who sits back and checks out better than one who accomplishes his holy and righteous purpose through *all* of human history, even if it looks ugly now?
Again... Dr. Whites Eschatological view of the end times makes his conclusions incorrect. Fascinating.
So if no one gets injustice how do you explain Gods non election of one’s before they existed. Of course one can’t chose Christ if he forbids them to. So because of that you’re going to spend eternity in the lake of fire. Seems like a loving father if you ask me, where can I sign up?
we are all predestined to hell by default ...... Genesis 3:17-19 ..... God Cursed the Ground from which all men were formed from ....... and thus all men are Cursed in Adam ......... in a fallen world there is no injustice .....
BUT ..... there is Mercy that none deserve nor can they demand it ........ and that belongs only to God ..............
@@michaelmichael-ci8hi if we are all by default going to hell I guess that means David’s son, all aborted babies are in hell as well. Since God only knows the elect there’s no way David could know for sure his son was. You can’t say by default if there’s a clause!
@@michaelmichael-ci8hi if we are all by default going to hell I guess that means David’s son, all aborted babies are in hell as well. Since God only knows the elect there’s no way David could know for sure his son was. You can’t say by default if there’s a clause!
@@caseylee1553 God is just as sovereign over their salvation as He is with every other person ...... i cant say where aborted babies go and neither can you ...... nor those born but die in infancy .....
we are all under the same curse of Genesis 3:17-19 ...... and all EQUALLY under Gods Mercy ...... if HE decides to grant it ......
Galatians 3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us-for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”-
the infant, regardless of their circumstances, have no cognicent freewill, and under that unbiblical idea, they all end up in hell as they do not know Christ ..... what synergism is there for them ....... ZERO ...........
God doesn't need to forbid anyone from believing. All are wicked and are enemies of God from their conception and would never choose Him without the unrequested interposition of His salvation. As for the question of abortion, Calvinism simply has a better answer. If God is sovereign and free in salvation, He can freely give it to any pre-born individual He desires. However, if it is reliant on the free will of the individual, no pre-born baby will choose Him because they are not able to cognitively. If you want to assert there is some sort of age of accountability, that is a different issue, but good luck finding any Scripture that would even hint at such a concept.
For every seemingly "free will" verse in the Bible, there is about 10 "calvanistic," God-is-sovereign and controlling history, verses. You cant have an irresistible force and an immovable object. Sadly, people think its their will which is irresistible, instead of immovable from its sinner status. If it is Gods will that He be served a breakfast of bacon and eggs, how does this happen without doing harm to an egg and a pig? Its impossible. God wanted and willed for us to be made into His image, even moreso than Adam and Eve, who didnt know everything both good and evil. And He accomplished this. People just dont understand the depth of the riches of Christ. Thats all i can say. Get a revelation of it. Or, next time your children are hungry, refuse to kill anything so that they may eat, be it an aminal, an egg or a vegetable. And dont anyone say this is a fallacy, because Jesus was killed exactly as God propjesied it would happen. In Isaiah it says God purposely hardened their hearts and deafened their ears so He could accomplish His ultimate will. Just like Pharaoh. I will NEVER stand before God on judgment day and say "yay! I Did it! I accepted this salvation." Oh sorry for you who didnt, you must have been less Holy and righteous and understanding of God in my own fallen nature. So sorry.
God is so good that He relieves us of any guilt about being less or better than any other. Praise God, I don't have to feel guilty for my faith given by God!! He took it all!!
You definitely don’t read the scripture in its context.
@kimmykimko Hi! Those kinds of verses need not be at odds. People who see both free will and God's sovereignty can resolve this with Molinism and honestly affirm both God's omniscience and omnipotence (His knowledge of the truth value of counterfactuals, and His ability to create free creatures in the libertarian sense). The beauty of this is that it preserves freedom and sovereignty and allows God to predestine while taking into account free creatures. It's a greater view of sovereignty, in my opinion (free creatures - God's plans still always work according to His will). I am a Molinist, which affirms monergism in soteriology. It's is God who saves. By the way, I agree with a number of things you said and join you in criticism of synergism, and agree that God is 100% sovereign, I just don't see Him moving people's will casually to sin, which I think any philosophy of determinism requires. The scripture says God does not cause people to commit sin, God doesn't even tempt creatures to sin, but provides a way of escape. So that isn't determinism. God bless you!
If you meet a doctor that says he has a cure for your cancer, and you say yes to the treatment, will you afterwards say, 'yeah! I did it!'?
Bizarre!
And when Jesus said, 'you refuse to come to me so that you may have life' He surely just miss spoke, He shouldve said, 'you are incapable of coming to me, no chance of you ever having life unless I chose you for salvation before the foundation of the earth.'
And here is a question, are you saved based on your election or on the death, burial resurrection of Christ?
One day when you get to heaven will you say you are there based on you being elected, or based on what Christ accomplished?
Blows my mind how the calvinist always claim they are more humble than those who humbled themselves, admitted they were lost sinners in need of a Saviour, and accepted the free gift of salvation.
James White is brilliant people say.. here on this thread. Why?
Because he simply reads the passages in context. 😅 calvinisim = biblical teaching
😂🤣
Calvinism is just a nickname for biblically consistent theology. The only consistent Arminian, like Gregg, are open theists.
Calvinism is just a nickname for contradictory theology and ahistorical doctrine.
@@jesuschristsaves9067 no. It's biblical. You should lose the pride and study it. The only consistent Arminian is an open theist.
@@patrolman602 study it? I used to hold to all five petals before I actually studied my word and church history more in depth. Calvinism is anti Christ. The doctrine was unknown for 1,500 years of the church. It’s a novelty view. Sort of like Mormonism, Jehovahs witnesses or 7th day Adventism.
@@jesuschristsaves9067 Unknown to the church? Ever read the Canon of Orange? That indicates broad agreement on at least 4 of the five points over 1000 years before Calvin was born.
Calvin didn't exist in a historical vacuum after all, and he, along with all of the Reformers had no intention to invent new doctrine, but were keen to show that their ideas were found in scripture and in church history.
@@oracleoftroy
You’re offering your interpretation of the fathers which is what Calvinists tend to do. They most certainly orthodox, not reformed. Reach out to me for a discussion. Shoot me your contact info unless you’re scared.
What "the Father gives me." What is He GIVING?
the elect .... His Chosen Sheep ..... the sheep do not choose the shepherd ..... the Shepherd does that ... ALONE ...........
@michaelmichael-ci8hi To be led, those that follow submit, cooperate with the Shepard.
It's a relationship between 2 parties that calvinist deny, although evidence of this relationship is throughout all of scripture.
@@sheilasmith7779 i deny what is NOT in scripture as mere philosophy and wishful thinking ....... God does not need or require your submission to buy and redeem you from slavery .......
@michaelmichael-ci8hi call beliefs not supported by scripture by whatever name you want.
If God did not tells us in scripture, then the belief is made-made.
Since we are God's created beings, are certainly would tell us everything He wants us to know....and He does so through a WRITTEN document.
@@sheilasmith7779 agreed ..... and free will given to man falls into that category ......
unbiblical means NOT supported by scripture ...............
if you want to call calvinism by that same moniker ..... THEN BE SPECIFIC .........
which ones .........
James White is amazing Romans 8:29-30 God knew who he was going to chose. Romans 3:11 there is non who seeks after God , So God would have had to choose who would get saved that way the cross accomplished exactly what it was supposed to it saved everyone it intended.
😂😂😂
Just explore alternative interpretations of Romans 9, and ask some questions.
Who is Paul speaking to?
Who is he speaking about?
Could the Messiah have been born from more than one bloodline?
On whom does God say He takes mercy?
Use the whole of Scripture to answer these questions. Go in with an open mind and the idea that James White might be wrong.
This is for Steve Greg I just wanted to let you know that I had a dream last night and you were in the dream and I saw you open the top part of the jaw of a large Lion and when I woke up I believed that this was a dream of heaven because the Bible says that the Lion will lay down with the Lamb ; and it looked like you were in white and the dream ended
God bless 🙌 🙏!
Steve got waxed big time
The chosen ones are those who have been born again by the Holy Spirit, no one can contribute anything. How can you contribute to your being born again? You contribute nothing at all. It is solely the work of the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of election is cristal clear, except you adore your free will by not recognizing the sovereignty will of God the Trinity. Don't be so arrogant but be humble, because this is one of the greater sins I think. Otherwise you will end up in Hell for ever and ever.