[From this debate, day 5, the video in the link, 18:38 timestamp] [S. Gregg]: "...because I believe I'm following Paul's line of thought here too, so we really just are disagreeing about how Paul is using the passage. I don't think Paul uses the passage differently than the psalmist meant it." - I think this is inconsistent with your views on other passages used in the new testament that show that there is one people of God in Christ (passages that you have used in dialogues with dispensationalists). For example Matthew 2:14-15 and the "Out of Egypt I have called My Son" (the fulfillment Matthew gives I accept, and the implications of which, so on this I think there would be agreement between us, and between you and J. White). I also do think that this would be the sense in which the psalmist meant it, as Peter speaks of the psalms of David and him saying of God, "Nor will you allow your Holy One to see corruption," and the apostle stating this was not spoken of by David as being about himself (though it may have been viewed that way previously or even now as a partial fulfillment by some). [The following, excerpt from the video on SteveGreggVideos channel, "Debate: The Future of Israel with Michael L. Brown and Steve Gregg", from the 39:35 timestamp] [S. Gregg]: "...see I was a dispensationalist in my upbringing and I became a believer in what I now believe not because I ever read a non-dispensationalist book, but because I read the Bible. I was fully persuaded of frankly everything that Dr. Brown is saying about Israel, but what I did is I saw how the new testament writers, who I am told in scripture Jesus 'opened their understanding that they might understand the scriptures' (take that to mean the old testament scriptures), they quoted from many of the same passages that I would have used to make Dr. Brown's points, and they quoted them as being fulfilled in the church. It was, in fact, it was commonplace. It was not just one or two times it was essentially the standard way they interpreted those kinds of passages..." [Punctuation added by me] - Also, there are those who may disagree with the application of such Psalms as Psalm 102 and Psalm 45 which are quoted in Hebrews 1, or the application of Psalm 22 (which is prophecy of the Messiah), but the application of the verses in the new testament is what it is. Basically what I'm saying is that your position seems to be untenable in light the new testament witness, at least on this point, because of its inconsistency, the same inconsistency that you observed in regards to supposed "proof-texts" of a dispensational doctrine.
I don't claim to be a Calvinist, but I clearly recall after being reborn and reading the Bible for myself concluding that God chooses individuals to be saved. It was everywhere in Scripture. It was ovious. I didn't even know what Calvinism was. I diagree with James on eschatology but disagree with Steve on this issue of God's sovereignty in salvation.. I respect and admire both very much tho
You obviously misunderstand the nature of the discussion- Gregg disrespected white as he felt. So his response is because the lack of charity given to him
White had to answer the same question several times and Greg wouldn't give him time to dive into the text and clearly Greg was upset at the beginning of the debate and weaponized these questions to try and mix up white not based on biblical truths but on some sort of quick bullet-point jabs to gain some quick wins. Romans clearly is talking about all men over and over again in 1-3.
Mr. White is a bit too smug for me to take him seriously. He uses alot of sarcasm when defending his position. It gives the appearance that he is trying to humiliate Steve. Steve seems to be more humble but firm in his beliefs
27:20 - 32:00 Funniest part! White is clearly struggling with this topic. He doesn't like the direct back and forth because it's easier to point out the flaws in what he is saying. Gregg did a good job nailing him down.
@@jeremyhewitt2637 I really don't see any disrespect. Disagreement isn't disrespect. I appreciate when people are willing to directly confront one and other. Sometimes it's not comfortable but it is necessary. James White has a habit of steamrolling over more agreeable people and it's time that comes to an end.
@@christopherneedham9584 He was responding with passages from elsewhere in the Bible. Normally that would be fine, except for the fact that White has given other people a hard time in the past for doing the exact same thing, and Gregg wasn't going to give him a pass. White is a hypocrite. Also, he completely glossed over the part in the verse where it says "men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" as if that part doesn't even exist. You can't understand the passage properly if you skip over that part. Gregg had no choice but to try and make him acknowledge it, otherwise his response would be irrelevant to what Gregg was asking.
@@meowpurrrrr responding to a question which requires you to answer using the context of the passage in this case Romans 1-3 which is a continuous argument is not what white has criticized people for. At least, not what I have seen. White has criticized people for reading later passages back into prior passages. (Where people take a verse written after something and make it as though that verse was written before) or they jump completely out of the book (Leighton flowers) and completely reinterpret the passage based on something that isn’t even in the passage.
Absolutely astonishing! At the end of day 4, around the 48:00 mark, Dr. White declared he won’t entertain any Yes or No questions about texts tomorrow, deeming them unproductive. First, it’s not his prerogative to alter the debate format midstream or dictate his opponent’s approach. I firmly believe it will be immensely productive. Second, there’s no valid reason to dodge direct answers unless he’s in the wrong. When cornered, he tends to evade, complain, or divert the topic to avoid the debate’s core issues. He did exactly that here. Third, I’ve witnessed Dr. White demand Yes or No responses from Dr. Flowers on numerous occasions. Yet, he dislikes being pinned down himself. Fourth, Dr. White selectively focuses on one text while ignoring other supportive scriptures. Later, he argues for considering the collective support of scripture, not just one text. I’ve seen him do this here and repeatedly with Dr. Flowers. It’s always about what makes him look good and what he can get away with. What a hypocrite! My respect for you, James White, is rapidly plummeting.
Double Jeopardy? I invite, nay, challenge everyone who holds to Limited Atonement to relook at the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant and look at what happens to the debt that was once forgiven.
23:01 Whether God has a purpose vs no purpose (no meaning) for evil is not the contention between Gregg and White. They both believe God has a purpose. The contention is that White believes God causes the evil in the first place and then derives a purpose, Gregg believes God merely allows the evil and then drerives purpose. "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good".
Why do you think the Book of Esther is in the Bible? Why did God make it a part of the scriptures seeing as how it doesn't mention God? If you have never read it you should and ask yourself who is in control. Hope this helps and I hope you understand what I'm getting at
@@Thinking-Biblically Read Esther many times, a favorite for sure. We just finished it this week in our daily family reading. Love the picture of God's providence and ironic reversals that forshadow the Christus Victor theme. Not sure what that has to do with Gregg and White's contention above. One view of "providence" (determinism) has God having to first cause the evil so that he can then use it for good. The other view is God's ability to allow evil, and then using it for good. - causing vs allowing is the contention, imo.
@@joefrescoln I do not believe he causes the evil. But I do believe that he determined that it would take place he allowed it like you said to happen but it is more than that. I think people have an issue that if they don't know exactly how it works I have to somehow figure it out. Let's just let God be God and understand that he is in control of everything how terrible would it be if he wasn't. That is awesome that you and your family are reading together I pray that you continue with that. Raise them up in a way that they should go and when they are old they will not depart from it. God bless
I listen to a lot of debates because I like to be open minded and I like to hear two guys that know what they are talking about debate to settle my questions. Cross exam is the most important part of debate and while I don't like when you get the extreme filibuster type of answer, I certainly don't like when the people asking expect the question to be answered a certain way. Whether it's short or yes or no answer. To me, because you think it's a yes or no question but the person has the right to answer the way they want.
Pros: Steve's teaching against dispensationalism has been HUGELY helpful. So excellent and every American Christian should listen to those. Also, of all anti-Calvinists Steve (and Mike Winger) are easily the most loving and kind. Disagreement: 1. Their hearts were "darkened" which must mean previously they were not darkened? Not at all. The Light of General Revelation made the darkness of their unbelieving hearts completely Dark or "darkened". That is why all men are without excuse. Just as the Law makes sin fully sinful, that doesn't at all mean that people without the Law have no sin. Of course they have sin, even without the law. 2. I wish Steve and all anti-Calvinists would address this point (but they never ever do that I've ever heard): Does mankind have an innate fallen pridefulness that desires to take glory away from God, and might that be the source of rejecting Calvinism? Because for me and many Calvinists I know (who never read Calvin BTW lol!), accepting a Reformed theology required surrender, dying to self-determination. So it wasn't even the theology that won me - it was I am more afraid of my own pride inserting myself into God's glory, and a theology that encourages me to believe salvation is a mere choice absolutely diminishes God's Glory. It's also flatly unbiblical. 3. Anti-Calvinists: Why does Jesus say you must be "born again"? Can a person choose to be spiritually born again by sheer will? Of course not, Jesus is speaking of a MIRACLE. Only God does miracles. Only God saves a sinner. Salvation is never a "pure" free will choice. Something has to change the heart first. That is the Holy Spirit.
Point number 2) It is not pride that makes men reject Calvinism or the reformed position it’s a that they feel such a position is unfair, unjust and cannot possible be the God of the Bible. So they interpret scripture through their bias lens.
Perhaps the one thing that stood out for me in this discussion was Steve Gregg's dismissal of the Greek text! This is totally amazing! Surely, we need to know, understand, and properly translate the original, God-breathed text! Is this not the basis of all our knowledge of God and the Scriptures?
Steve Gregg and James White both really deeply love Jesus and the church. The struggle in this debate is that James White engages at the technical scholar level and Steve Gregg engages at the lay evangelist level. Both are useful to the Kingdom of God but they approach the matter from different places and miss each other.
How is it rude by constantly correcting Steve Gregg misrepresention of What James White is trying to say? Frankly, Mr White has much patience than me, I would left the program.
If James White is correct, the Bible is at best contradictory. There are sooooo many instances of God calling out to his people Israel in the Old Testament to repent and them simply refusing based on their own will. Same in the new with both Jews and Gentiles. Does that make God weak and put man in charge? That seems to be the straw man the Calvinists construct - because God gave man a free will and because God chooses to respect man’s choice, somehow this diminishes the power of God? It would seem that a father who meticulously controls his children is actually much more insecure and worried about something going wrong than a father who trains his children but ultimately gives them the freedom to arrive at their own conclusions and lifestyle. Most people would categorize the second example as one who has a greater level of security, comfort and even authority. But the biggest hang up with divine determinism is that God must author sin because he literally controls the actions of all men, but the Bible explicitly states he is not the author of sin. I realize when you string together Romans 9, Ephesians 1 and maybe 5-10 other select Calvinistic passages you may arrive at this standpoint, but those passages need to be used to override all the freewill verses, stories and arguments that are far greater in volume. I also find it interesting how White goes back to the Greek and basically asserts his high knowledge and intellect of the Greek (which I’m not debating) to in some cases really either alter or clarify the meaning of a passage (but in his favor of course). This is a side point but if Christians needed to know Greek this much generally to understand key passages of scripture, what does that say about God? Is he hiding himself that much from us with respect to plain understanding in English or whatever language translation being used? Plus I think NT Greek is a dead language as in modern Greek differs significantly from it - so I’m pretty confident that there’s room for error in the study of a dead language and using it to really assert meaning like this but I could be wrong.
This is a painfully bad argument. You can’t agree that the Greek means what Dr. White says it means because it destroys your entire argument on the topic of who is called by God. You must accept bad Greek translation in order for your point to be true. Yikes! You also just made the case for universal salvation for all men, oops! Are you sure you’re not a unitarian?
Precisely because the "free will" of man is subjected to his sinful nature, it can not choose God. Unless human nature is regenerated by the work of the Holy Spirit, it can not choose God.
@@JonathanTheZombie you are the one fighting against hundreds of verses that talk about free will, not us. Don't be afraid, your world will fall and a better one full of love will be created out of the rubble. Is just a bit of noise and dust, is not going to hurt you.
@@johnmark2927 there are dozens of verses where God tells his people to "choose". Enough of this lunacy. Stop worshipping the golden calf that is calvinism. It's evil.
It never ceases to surprise me the noticeable character of calvinists when they speak with other Christians who are not Calvinist. Of course not all of them are like this, there are some Calvinists who truly embody the nature of Jesus, but so often, you see Calvinists ridicule, mock, make personal attacks, and attempt to humiliate other fellow Christians. For a doctrine that claims there is nothing special about man because God chose the man and it had nothing to do with the man, it appears rather that than reduce their pride it has boosted their pride and arrogance. Let us all show love and grace and mercy while not compromising on the teaching of the Bible, as the Lord Jesus did, dying to our flesh and pressing on to become more like Him! God bless!
Wait, the Gentiles in Acts never heard the good news before Acts 13:48? What was Paul telling the Gentiles at the synagogue the week before, which they then took to their friends to invite them to Paul's next talk?
It’s amazing. White has played the same game he always does in his debates in the first three parts. Gregg hits him with a little taste of his own medicine in this part and White does not like it.
I didn't think Luke's "as many as were appointed" is meant to be exhaustive, it's meant to explain that those who believed are those whom God beforehand appointed to eternal life. I wouldn't take that language to naturally mean there can't be someone present who believed at a later time.
Acts 13:48 (NASB95): and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. Now I’m not going to word this right but hopefully I’ll get close… even though the word believed comes after the “as many as were appointed” I take it to mean believed was still the reason for them being appointed. Let me try an analogy. The boat capsized. As many as were rescued treaded water until help arrived. The meaning of this would be only those who treaded water were saved but all who treaded water were saved.
James spent quite a bit of time on Luke saying it says “as many as” not “all”! Then goes into Timothy and says “it says all men but it MEANS all KINDS of men…” 😂 So it’s ok when he does it?
"there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." "Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips" Romans 3 10-13
It has been said......Does proof that I am incapable of calling the president on the telephone also prove that I am incapable of answering the telephone if the president were to call me? Of course not, yet that is essentially the principle a Calvinist is assuming in their theology
Genesis 6: 9 “This is the account of Noah and his family. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God.
I remember when I first read the Bible about 10 years ago. I remember feeling bad for pharoe because God hardend his heart. It wasn't his fault. I remember feeling bad for the Canaanites because it wasn't their fault they weren't born in the right area. I was extremely confused about how inconsistent the Bible seemed to be. My preacher was telling me that God loves everyone and yet, he clearly doesn't. Non Calvinism is not the default. I personally never heard of Calvinism and I had about 3 or maybe 4 of the 5 points of Calvinism figured without ever hearing about Calvinism. Since I heard about it, the whole Bible makes sense now. Now it's consistent
If Calvinism is true, then God forced Pharaoh to make all the wrong choices and rebel against what God told him. If Calvinism is true, he forced the Canaanites to have orgies and sacrifice their babies to false gods, then punished them for it. That is unfair. That is unjust. It makes God the author of ALL evil. How does that possibly jive with all of scripture and it's claims about God's character?
After listening to the first 4 days of debate, I think that Dr. White gives a stronger argument for John 6, Romans 9 and Acts 13:48. That is not to say that I disparage Steve's ministry. Steve is a very intelligent and skilled debater, and knows the Bible very well. I have learned much by listening to him.
Leighton flowers gives way better arguments for all those verses. Calvinism is inconsistent. The early church rejected theological determinism with a passion and for good reason. Is just the ramblings of the gnostics infecting the church. Poor Ireneus tried to expose their lies but most people reject the truth so false doctrines are inevitable. It's very sad.
Hello! John 6 is clearly explained by first reading chapter 5! Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees. A Phariess is the product of false teachings in God's name which means these people BELIEVE they are OF GOD but are not. They were FED by false teachers and because they SWALLOWED, they became Pharisees. John 5 38 And YE have not his word abiding IN YOU: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. 44 How can YE believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? Simple! These people were not EATING what men of God FED them, they were EATING what false teachers were FEEDING them which is why they did not COME to Jesus. Now if we go to John 6 it will become clear. John 6 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. CLEAR! Anyone who LEARNS of the FATHER will COME to the Son because they have the same voice!
@@dubyag4124 Yes, 400,000 rejected the cure the president offered to his 600,000 citizens. The 400,000 will definitely perish. News flash, it's been discovered the president created the virus and implanted a chip in the heads of the 400,000 to reject the cure 😮😮😮
I forgot how childish day 4 was (second time listening to this). To tell someone they can only answer yes or no and then to say that “if he gives honest answers“ is incredibly disappointing. It doesn’t matter what side is making such a statement, but to make those statements is very poor. You may disagree with the answers being given, but to then say they are not honest and you only want honest answers is just another way of saying I will only allow you to answer if you say what I want you to say. Very childish.
1 Tim 2:4 is better reasoned through the understanding of [biblical] universalism than that of Calvinism or Arminianism. In 1 Tim 2:4, Paul points out that the “all men” is the same as the “all men” in verse 6 whom Christ gave himself a ransom which the scriptures further make clear was the “whole world” 1 John 2:2. Note, not only did John say Christ was a propitiation for “our” sin [i.e.] the believer/elect, but for the whole world [i.e.] those outside of being the elect. As some seem to suggest, I see no restrictive qualifiers in 1 Tim 2:4. Paul is simply saying that he wants Timothy to pray for “all people”, which “includes” but isn’t “limited” to kings etc. 1 Tim 2:4: - who doth [will/thelō] all men to be saved, and to come to the full knowledge of the truth; Lexicon: Strong's - thelō:- Outline of Biblical Usage:- to will, have in mind, intend, to be resolved or determined, to purpose, to desire to wish to love, to like to do a thing, be fond of doing, to take delight in, have pleasure. The word thelō is in verb form, and it doesn’t lend itself to some form of wishful thinking, it speaks of action and purpose [i.e.] God intends to save [all] men, or purposes for [all] men to be saved. Apostle Paul then goes on to explain exactly what he meant in 1 Tim 2:4:- 1 Timothy 4:10:- For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of “all mankind”, >[especially]< of believers. I fail to see how the context doesn’t fit with universalism. Paul simply states that God is the saviour of “all mankind”, and “within” that “all” are believers. The word “especially” is an adverb of the word “special” and it is used in the following context: - especially: - adverb: - used to single out one person or thing over [all] others. [i.e.] he despised them [all], [especially] Jeremiah” In the example above, Jeremiah is part of the “all” that is despised, yet, he is singled out for an even stronger despising than the rest. So, 1 Tim 4:10, in context, is saying God is the saviour of “all mankind”, yet, believers are being singled out for a special kind of salvation [i.e.] the elect. To make this reasoning clearer:- Gala 6:10. :- So then, while we have opportunity, let’s do good to “all people” and >[especially]< to those who are of the household of the faith. Paul isn’t saying only do good to those that believe, he is saying that believers are to do good to “all men”, yet, whilst doing this, believers are to treat other believers with “special goodness”. This is another example of why I reason it’s the same context as 1 Tim 4:10, Paul isn’t saying God is only going to save believers, but that he is going to save “all men” whilst giving his chosen [i.e.] the elect a “special” salvation. [i.e.] They are saved, being saved and will be saved, they will be transformed at Christ’s coming 1 Corinth 15: 52, they will be spared the wrath of God 1 Thess 5:9, they will be “inheritors” of the kingdom, they are made into a kingdom of priests Rev 1:6 and they will Judge/rule with Christ in his Fathers coming kingdom Rev 20:4. Only a few are “chosen” to share in these “special” privileges. Therefore, I reason it’s only the elect in this age who will be given such positions in the next. Yet, Paul’s focus on the elect being called and chosen in this present age doesn’t mean he didn’t acknowledge God's plan to save “ALL” in the ages to come. Peace
James White makes much of the fact that Acts 13:48 contains a “periphrastic construction” and that Steve Gregg and Shank don’t mention this, otherwise they would recognize that the Calvinist interpretation is correct. But the great Greek scholar AT Robertson does specifically mention the periphrastic construction in the passage and yet he still does not see the Calvinist interpretation in the passage (see his Word Pictures in the NT)!!!!
@@Ben6Stringsshow me those debunking versus please hopefully you're not just saying stuff and then not willing to back any of it up I guess we will see
I think the consideration should be that no scripture contradicts another scripture, therefore if we seem to find contradiction it must be on our part. Let god be true and every man a liar. I would however contend with Calvinism as I have seen multiple times how the doctrine has caused despair and sorrow instead of instilling one with the hope of the gospel.
@@kimmykimko neither grace nor security of salvation exist in calvinism. God chooses arbitrarily who is going to be saved, that's not grace, that's using life and death like a game, like a kid killing insects for fun. The false god of calvinism also could make you believe you are saved only to make you reject the calvinist faith later on so you are no longer part of the elect (as they see it, is a bad interpretation) if he wants to and you can do nothing about it, so you can't even feel eternally secure either, no matter how strong your faith may be at that precise moment. Calvinism is a JOKE.
The gospel reveals both the salvation of God and His wrath - both of which reveal His righteousness. Therefore those that know the truth but hold it in unrighteousness, will be judged. Even that knowledge which is revealed by His creation, shows the glory of the invisible God so men who worship idols are without excuse. Idolatry encompasses the indulgence in a host of other sins as well, so that God gives such unrighteous men who know such things are worthy of death yet continue to do them; over to a reprobate mind. This is how such men are prepared for the wrath of God. But is that ALL men whom God treats in such a manner? No. And why is that? Because as v16 & 17 tell us, the Gospel presents men with a CHOICE and some WILL obey the Word of God when they hear it (Rom 10:27). James White rejects the belief that the Gospel has the power to change a man's mind because of his doctrines of total depravity and an election model that has God decreeing a man is saved or damned before they are even born! But the condemnation that came upon all men because Adam caused sin to enter the world, is death - and all men do sin which is what makes them sinners and worthy of death. (Rom 5...). But our God is merciful, loving & forgives sin and has prepared a way for men to have Life thru Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over ALL is rich unto ALL that call upon him. Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. All we need for believing faith, God has provided in the Gospel message that delivers us hope. There is no 'hope' in TULIP because there is no gospel to be found there. Suppressing the truth with unrighteousness is not a good place to be...
Thank you for standing for truth and reason. If you think about it, calvinism is an idol. No matter how many times God tells his people to "choose" the calvinist refuses to believe the text and instead chooses to believe the words of their masters McArthur, Bauham, Piper and others like them.
Excellent response👍🏻 You made me think about how Romans 1 states they new God, but they wouldn’t acknowledge him or even give Him thanks . That sounds to me like they had a choice. No? 👍🏻✌🏼
The funny thing is that whWhite accidentally admitted that the Greek says the believed comes before ordained. Of course he did not mention it again, as it shows how ALL the bibles have reversed the order to follow the Calvinist translated KJV. ... who believed, were ordained is not the same statement or meaning as ... who were ordained, believed. The Greek uses the first and this makes ordaning dependent upon believing, The Calvinist reading, reversing the greek order, makes believing a product of ordination. False exegetes avoid the original when it proves their doctrine wrong.
Timestamp? Edit: Addendum: Unless you are referring to 14:49, where he says, "When the gentiles heard this, they believed, having been appointed to eternal life." [Although this was the English]. The Greek was at 15:42 timestamp, and all he did was translate pretty much exactly as it is in other versions just reverses the word order, not the meaning. For example, the Young's Literal Translation renders it pretty much the same: "And the nations hearing were glad, and were glorifying the word of the Lord, and did believe -- as many as were appointed to life age-during" - "And did believe" which is something that they did at that time, present tense even though it is somewhat archaic English. "As many as were appointed to life age-during," the word "were" making this past tense, something that occurred before they believed, which I think was his overall point. Since you bring up Greek, do you read it? To confine it to English you one can look at the Young's Literal translation (which has the past tense action at the latter part of the sentence) vs. the ESV, NIV, KJV, NKJV, NASB 1995, NASB 1977, ASV, Aramaic Bible in Plain English, the Roman Catholic Dhouay-Rheims, etc. (Which put the past tense action first before "believed"). The point is that either way this does not change the meaning of the text. Even Gregg didn't dispute a past tense action occurring before the belief from my understanding of his argument, he only seemed to be asserting that the word had a different definition.
Oh please! I don't know if White will answer them...He will if you give him a second to answer the loaded questions. 48 minutes. Rebuke to Steve. How embarrassing! No don't need a Semester. Just a short book like "Chosen By God" from RC Sproul.
the best $12 I've ever spent in my life was for the RUclips premium service. I haven't seen an ad for a year now and what a dream. for the cost of one lunch out per month I enjoy ad-free listening/viewing. but then I listen to podcasts and Scripture readings for several hours each day while I'm working.....
@@JesusProtects if you watch/listen to YT an hour or two each day or more it's well worth it just for the annoyance factor. anyone can find something to cut worth $12 each month. or just sell something you don't use for circa $150 and you've got a year of ad-free viewing.
Use an adblocker its cheaper. Not ideal as you may need to adjust time to time but will still block ads and prevents you giving $150 or whatever to YT.
44:05 is the second time White says slaves may desire to be free, the first time is in video 1. He has conceded the debate, Total Depravity is untrue, slaves to sin can desire freedom.
You should really spend time with addicts. They to a man ALL want to be free from addiction. Yet why aren't they? What about the religious? They ALL want to go to Heaven. Why don't they? What's the missing link? Oh right - the Sovereign Power of God to save a sinner, to free a prisoner.
@@dubyag4124 You missed my point. No proper Christian denies that God is necessary and solely to credit in order to free a sinner from sin, death and damnation. The point of contention is whether a sinner can even admit they need help and accept God's free offer of salvation. Calvinism hinges upon Totally Depravity, which argues that they cannot or would never even do so, unless first regenerated unto new life via Irresistible Grace. Hence if sinners can recognize and yearn to be free from their slavery to sin, Total Depravity is untrue and the rest of ULIP crumbles with it.
@@scottthong9274Sorry, I'm a bit lost. You mentioned Total Depravity: could you cite from the Canons of Dort what exactly about Total Depravity that is supposed to refute?
@@oracleoftroy Why do I need to dig up Dort, which tangentially David Allen mentioned had 1/3 of the delegates reject Limited Atonement btw? How about you cite Total Depravity from it and tell me why what I mentioned doesn't address Dort's statements about it?
@@scottthong9274_"Why do I need to dig up Dort"_ Because "every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses" (Mt 18: 16). You seem to be projecting beliefs onto Calvinists that I can't find them confessing to in the first place. It would help make your argument stronger if you demonstrated conclusively what your target is. Besides, "“If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (Jn 14: 15). With how boldly many anticalvinists bear false witness against Calvinism, it is clear that they hate Christ. It will go a long way to show that you love Christ that you obey his commandments and steelman the position you are arguing against.
25:00-31:00 is a perfect display of JW M.O. with 31:30 being the capstone: “you are used to dominating the discussion” That was the truest thing ever said. JW is an arrogant, condescending, rude and manipulative person. Once he is backed into a corner he throws his hissie fits and cry baby tactics to avoid answering a question. He is hypocritical because he always cries when someone uses scripture to interpret a text but feels free to run off to other chapters to answer a straight forward question about a text. Steve is a patient as Job if you ask me.
Oh, James, James, James! If you let yourself discard the false doctrine you swallowed you will then be able to see a clear understanding of every verse you used. Calvinism is poison and it's fed to the naive...be not deceived by the likes of false teachers disguised as angels of light. James is at the point where he will not discard the poison because he wouldn't be able to bear the pain of humiliation... he has too much invested in the lie to let it go, just as the Pharisees did😢
Luke 18:11 "The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector." You sound pretty prideful too, lady. Just saying.
Man I like White sometimes, and thought he did a great job the previous 3 days. But this was hard to listen to. I felt he wasn’t being fair, and tried to dominate the conversation. Didn’t see a lot of grace in his part of the discussion
Very disappointing how Gregg behaved on Day4, disrespectful low remarks points on weakness of position. And please stop calling yourself non-calvinist, if you wish to call James as Calvinist, then call yourself Arminian. We are Christians, stop dividing on camps/fractions: like there are Christians and there are Calvinists.
Arminian is not the only non-Calvinistic view. There is Palagianism and possibly others. So 'non-Calvinist' is a fair descriptor to use. Also, if Steve does not believe all the views of Arminias (dude that armenianism is named after), then it makes sense to use 'non-calvinist' for that reason as well.
Steve asking to be fair when he the judge has someone on the seat but beckons the person to shorten testimony to forward his case. Hmmm leading the witness, establishing manipulated testimony. Maybe not so charitable
I learned a lot from Mr. White not long ago. I appreciate his debates against atheists, Muslims and others. I love that he has converted to a post-millennial point of view of Revelation as opposed to amillennialism, one of the few disagreements I have with Mr. Gregg. However, I do think he is quite haughty, and I imagine him to be the image of the Pharisees. Obviously man has free will. Yes, God can and does intervene to carry out His will. But what a boring and lonely creation this would be if He did not allow free interaction with His people. Yes, free will is the default view. That what o got out of the Bible when I first read it in full. In order to obey or not obey, one has/had to have had options. Calvinism is silly in my opinion.
Curious on peoples thoughts.... Is John 9:6-7 Monergism or synergism???? Jesus told him, “Go wash yourself in the pool of Siloam” . So the man went and washed and came back seeing!
@@billwilmoth7444 why are you yelling!!!? Soteriology = Theology = the study of the nature of God and religious belief. Bible text is not soteriology?? Lets say your right and its actually, I don't know...... math. What would your answer be to the equation?
Apologize sincerely if I seem to be harsh .. That's why text messages are so unemotional ...I meant this with all respect to you ... not in hate or abrassivness! I was just pointing out the text you gave was not a text dealing with salvation ....that's all ! Because the issue of monergism and synergism in the context of whole debate is the issue of salvation, and always has been down the line of history ....that's all I was pointing out ! And I'm typing calmly 😂😂 be blessed and God bless! Thank you for replying for clarification!👍sorry for any typos!!!
@@atyt11soteriology is regarding salvation, not theology. Theology is the study of God. They are intricately connected but not the same. So no, it’s not a soteriological text. God bless!
Last video, I commented that Steve was particularly charitable, and I commented that!... Well, this opening statement he's sounding particularly... Hmmm, we'll call it "salty" lol
Clark's Commentary Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. As many as were ordained to eternal life believed - This text has been most pitifully misunderstood. Many suppose that it simply means that those in that assembly who were fore-ordained; or predestinated by God's decree, to eternal life, believed under the influence of that decree. Now, we should be careful to examine what a word means, before we attempt to fix its meaning. Whatever τεταγμενοι may mean, which is the word we translate ordained, it is neither προτεταγμενοι nor προορισμενοι which the apostle uses, but simply τεταγμενοι, which includes no idea of pre-ordination or pre-destination of any kind. And if it even did, it would be rather hazardous to say that all those who believed at this time were such as actually persevered unto the end, and were saved unto eternal life. But, leaving all these precarious matters, what does the word τεταγμενος mean? The verb ταττω or τασσω signifies to place, set, order, appoint, dispose; hence it has been considered here as implying the disposition or readiness of mind of several persons in the congregation, such as the religious proselytes mentioned Acts 13:43, who possessed the reverse of the disposition of those Jews who spake against those things, contradicting and blaspheming, Acts 13:45. Though the word in this place has been variously translated, yet, of all the meanings ever put on it, none agrees worse with its nature and known signification than that which represents it as intending those who were predestinated to eternal life: this is no meaning of the term, and should never be applied to it. Let us, without prejudice, consider the scope of the place: the Jews contradicted and blasphemed; the religious proselytes heard attentively, and received the word of life: the one party were utterly indisposed, through their own stubbornness, to receive the Gospel; the others, destitute of prejudice and prepossession, were glad to hear that, in the order of God, the Gentiles were included in the covenant of salvation through Christ Jesus; they, therefore, in this good state and order of mind, believed. Those who seek for the plain meaning of the word will find it here: those who wish to make out a sense, not from the Greek word, its use among the best Greek writers, and the obvious sense of the evangelist, but from their own creed, may continue to puzzle themselves and others; kindle their own fire, compass themselves with sparks, and walk in the light of their own fire, and of the sparks which they have kindled; and, in consequence, lie down in sorrow, having bidden adieu to the true meaning of a passage so very simple, taken in its connection, that one must wonder how it ever came to be misunderstood and misapplied. Those who wish to see more on this verse may consult Hammond, Whitby, Schoettgen, Rosenmuller, Pearce, Sir Norton Knatchbull, and Dodd.
This is a red herring. The obfuscation to "preordination or predestination" is weak tea. There is no pre, post or otherwise in τεταγμενοι. What we have in Acts 13:48 is a mere statement of fact relevant at the occasion in question. Luke does not do this so why should we? Do not try to read something more into the text. The other translation of τεταγμενοι as "disposed" is weak as well. How many are are disposed (reflexive) to believe? There are many texts which suggest that that number is zero. To take one only we know that "There is none that seeks after God." That universal negative is pretty hard to overcome.
its so hard to listen to James White. he is so arrogant. pride is the sin God hates the most. I think that's why he is deceived by the doctrine of calvinism.
That's how people who don't do their homework sometimes feel. If you understood how Gregg butchered Acts 13, you would not spout so. White's concern is certainly justified.
@@carloparra8687 what are you talking about? We have like a hundred verses talking about free will, choosing an option for another, you are the one following what your calvinist masters say without thinking. Like a robot programmed to believe nonsense. Calvinism makes God the author of sin, is a blasphemy that spits in the grace of God and salvation by faith. Is a joke.
There is NO Calvinist truth, absolutely ZERO, touching Acts 13:48. 100% of human language, without even one single exception, the verb read first is taken first. In acts 13:48 states that All who BELIEVED were ordained. There is not a signle copy wherein the verb of being ordained comes first. Thus the true, actual and real writing gives a clear statement that the ordaining unto eternal life, comes subsequent to their believing! No honest person can speak truthfully and pretend that these positions mean the same things: All who were ordained, believed all who believed were ordained Or to be pedantic as White is: As many as believed, were ordained As many as were ordained, believed
James White assumes that having one's sins atoned for means they are saved, but nowhere in scripture to my knowledge does it say we are saved by the atonement. Steve may not have had the scripture in his mind to clarify this in the heat of the moment. Many Calvinists would say "when Jesus died on the cross, he secured the salvation of all of the elect..." There is a problem with this, when Jesus died, he did not secure the salvation of anyone, not for the first 10 minutes that he was dead, not for the first hour that he was dead, not for the first 48 hours that he was dead except for maybe the criminal who defended Him. And to my knowledge scripture does not state that the cross paid for sins exclusively, but the Bible does state in what way the cross dealt with sins. What did Jesus pay for on the cross? - (Colossians 1:19-20): For it pleased the Father in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile ALL THINGS to Himself, by Him, whether THINGS ON EARTH or THINGS IN HEAVEN, having made peace through THE BLOOD of HIS CROSS. - (Ephesians 1:9-10): Having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure, which he purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all thing in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth - in Him. (His death was not simply for the sins of all men, for sins of particular men, or for sin itself, his death was the purchase price for all of creation bringing all things back into the possession of God the Father who then gave all of these things to the Son as a possession) Who was the payment made to? (I would not hold to this dogmatically, but it is an interesting thought) - (Daniel 2:36-38): This is the dream. Now we will tell the interpretation of it before the king. You, O king, are a king of kings. For God of heaven has given you a kingdom, power, strength and glory; and wherever the children of men dwell, or the beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven, He has given them into your hand, and has made you ruler over them all - you are this head of gold. - (Matthew 4:8-9): Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, "All these things I will give you, if you fall down and worship me." Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you Satan! For it is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve!" (Daniel 2 could be the point in which all the kingdoms of the earth were given into the hands of the devil, of course the fall could be as well, being it is when sin entered, it infected all of creation. But Satan knew who he was talking to, he could not get away with lying to Jesus, so he used the best card he had). How did God deal with Sin through the cross of Jesus Christ? - (Colossians 2:13-14): And you, being dead in your trespasses, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, HAVING WIPED OUT THE HANDWRITING OF REQUIREMENTS that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. - (John 3:18-19): He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light, BECAUSE THEIR DEEDS WERE EVIL. (What is the handwriting of requirements? That's the law, he took the law out of the way nailing it to the cross, the way God dealt with sin through the cross of Christ was by removing the very thing that makes sin, sin out of the way of salvation, sin is no longer the issue for anyone. Sin obviously still affects us, it can cause our conscience to become seared (if we are totally depraved there is not point to conscience searing/hardening) but it is not the reason anyone misses out on salvation. Those who stand condemned on the day of Judgement will be in that position only because they did not believe in the Son of God, not because their sins weren't "paid for," nobody is in hell to pay for uncovered sins. Having taken the law out of the way, is there another law that the reprobates had that the "elect" did not have?) What saves? - (Romans 5:8-10): But God demonstrates His love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more having been reconciled, WE SHALL BE SAVED BY HIS LIFE. - (Titus 3:4-5): But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Spirit. (We are saved by His life/regeneration) What is regeneration? (Calvinists would say this is the life that allows us to believe) - (Romans 8:9-11): But you are not in the flesh but the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead DWELLS IN YOU, He who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies through the Spirit who INDWELLS you. - (John 1:4, 9-13): In Him was life, and the life was the light of men... That was the true Light which gives light to EVERY MAN COMING INTO THE WORLD. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN DID NOT RECIEVE HIM. But as many as received Him, to them he gave the right to to become children of God, to those WHO BELIEVE in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (If regeneration is what makes us alive, and life comes to our body through the indwelling of the spirit, then regeneration must be the indwelling of the spirit, if we are also not His if the Spirit does not indwell us, then neither are we His children until we receive the second birth by believing on Him) When do we receive regeneration/life? (the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as established by the text) - (Ephesians 1:13-14): In Him you also trusted, AFTER you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, HAVING BELIEVED, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. (If there are any hang-ups with adoption, Paul defines "the adoption" in Romans 8:23 but Calvinists just gloss over that verse and usurp the bible putting their doctrinal definition on the word rather than Paul's) - (Romans 8:22-25);For we know that the whole creation groans with birth pans together until now. Not only that but WE ALSO WHO HAVE THE FIRSTFRUITS OF THE SPIRIT, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, EAGERLY WAITING FOR THE ADOPTION. . . THE REDEMPTION OF OUR BODY. . . (Oops, guess Paul is a heretic because he disagrees with the the TULIP acrostic, he is clearly stating that the adoption is a future thing that is promised to believers, not how lost people become believers/saved) - (John 6:63): It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. - (John 20:31): But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, AND THAT BELIEVING you may HAVE LIFE IN HIS NAME. (The spirit is given as a promise to those who believe)
White arguing against the possible correct (many words have various definitions/uses) use of disposed to is funny. I am willing, I am disposed. I am willing to accept eternal life, I am disirous of eternal life, I am disposed to eternal life. Being so inclined, they listen to learn HOW this occurs. It is not a wrong use but this is moot, since faith comes first.
In Rom 1, Paul is talking about Jews, Gentiles and barbarians. The specific part of Rom 1 that Steve Gregg is looking for is right here: [+] And I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that often I have planned to come to you (and have been prevented thus far) in order that I might obtain some fruit among **you also** [Jews], even as among **the rest of the Gentiles** [and Gentiles]. I am under obligation **both to Greeks and to barbarians** [Gentiles and barbarians], both to the wise and to the foolish. Thus, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. (Rom 1:13-15) He then goes on to talk about how he's not ashamed of the Gospel and how it's aimed at all who suppress the truth of God - ostensibly his target audience of Jews, Greeks, and barbarians (V18ff). After that downward spiral in v18ff, look where Paul lands at in ch 2: [+] Therefore you are without excuse, every man of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. (Rom 2:1) Those who judge are condemned; those who sin are condemned. Everyone everywhere is without excuse (a point which Paul continues to make all throughout ch 2 an ch 3. He then begins to discuss how righteousness is appropriated in ch 4, starting with Abraham. So the 'fallen' are exactly who he is preaching at in ch 1 ..all the way though ch 3. That's everyone, everywhere. When Steve tries to pin it down to only ch 1v18-32, he's gerrymandering the passage in order to force the "context" to say things Paul is not trying to say. It's unfortunate that White popped off about it. But it's more egregious that Gregg artificially determined the "context" to his benefit.
44:12 JWhite says "The Son MUST set you free" -referencing John8:36. This is a subtle twisting of the verse, it actually say "So IF the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." In JWhite's calvinistic leaning he conveniently forgets the if and substitutes the MUST.
Calvinists love to run around saying that non-Calvinists glory man over God, which is not true, yet their definition of the Gospel selfishly focuses on mans consequence rather than the Kingship of Jesus.
I find it ENORMOUSLY rich that James White is splitting hairs about importing a philosophy onto the text, given that Augustinian Calvinism is entirely about importing Manichaean Platonist philosophy into the Bible. Augustine called the Bible "absurd" before he read it in light of Platonism. James is truly a son of Augustine.
I find it enormously rich you were deaf to the fact that James cited Clement of Rome and one other Church Father i cannot remember his name at this moment rebutting everything you are asserting here and Steve likes you comment. It just goes to show that your will is ruled by your emotions and deafens you to the truth
@@joshsimpson10 You're aware that Plato, and therefore Platonism, precedes Christianity, I hope? Quoting more Platonists interpreting the Bible through Platonism does nothing to upset my original point, and your ad hominem attacks mark you as another Calvinist bully.
@TheOverlapLifewithTimBarber you are aware Clement of Rome was a Christian early Church Father, I hope. And please don't project yourself onto me. Your original comment was completely ad hominem and baseless, and I literally refuted your assertion.
lol- 😂 James was being funny, he does have a sense of humor sometimes. Since Gregg wanted to ask the question and then turn around and answer it too, James just stopped trying to answer.
@@Pnice971 Actually, white was not answering the question. Previously, when Steve Gregg used the term, all, instead of 'as many as them', White got quite testy, asking where in the TEXT is the WORD, all. When Gregg turned the tables on him, as white claimed that ALL was in Romans 1, he decided to avoid admitting that the WORD was not in the TEXT and pretend He can do what he berates others for doing (word substitution for clarity) and pretended that the doctrine being taught means ALL. White is nothing but an arrogant self impressed coward who also happens to be a DAMNED heretic!
Great debate! White clearly was able to handle the text better. I'm not happy with the passive aggressive nature of both debaters. White is correct to point out Gregg for the uncalled for jabs. But Gregg is correct for calling out White for uncalled jabs. Both are guilty of it. White was not wrong to point out Gregg's hypocrisy. Sloppy on both parts. But White clearly handled the text better.
A King is not a KIND of man.White says , "Consistent WITH THE TEXT' Well, adding words to the text is INconsistent with the text. The Greek does, indeed, have the vocabulary and grammarly abiity to say, "All kinds of men" yet being so able, the inspiration was to NOT say it! 1Co_12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 1Co_14:10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Using the actually used grammar and vocabulary of KINDS OF, IF the Holy Spirit wanted the message to be Kinds of men, it would say Genos Anthropos, just as it says Genos Glossa or Genos Phone
@@JonathanTheZombie Specifically, his rambling about "as many as" not meaning all. Talking about all the people that will ever live in that town. Talk about intentionally twisting the point of what your interlocutor says.
I don't agree with White and listening to these debates and many other similar ones all I find is myself being irritated. I think these debates don't do a single bit of good for the kingdom. If all of this effort was applied to spreading the gospel, loving one another, helping those in need and strengthening our own walk with the Lord then a lot could be accomplished.
You are looking at it from the wrong side. Calvinism is harmful for the kingdom because it makes God another satan. Provisionism isn't, because it elevates God's love, his goodness and his grace.
The first time I heard this debate I was on Steve Gregg's side but I appreciated hearing how James worked through the scriptures and it caused me to go visit his site more. Years later now I am I favor of Dr White's position.
@@MakeAmericaNiceAgainPlz so you think God is the author of sin. That's dumb. You are easily misguided. Listen to Leighton Flowers for a better understanding of why calvinism is wrong. I mean, it should be easy, but apparently you need help. He is more gracious than me. I think calvinism is a different gospel and therefore blasphemous so sorry if I can't be more loving when speaking about it. My words are harsh because I Iove you and want you to know the truth, but I hate the doctrines of calvinism with a passion. And White, who I think is a venomous snake who is leading people to a false gospel that will save no one. And on top of everything, he spits in the doctrine of the inspiration of scripture and teaches the bible has been lost for hundreds of years until Rome invented paleography and textual criticism. It's so, so moronic.
You know Steve is on the back foot because he can’t argue the Greek other than saying “I disagree” without a reason. He MUST disagree or his worldview falls apart. He has no reason for it.
@atyt11 lol. We all have lots to learn about God. We will all be in awe of him in eternity. I'm not a Calvinist BTW. However, I do believe faith is a gift.
@@ogmakefirefiregood 👍👊 Sorry I judged. My bad. James always seems to miss the mark for me because he never seems to learn anything from his opponent except how to reword sentances to win the debate. Its not like he really learns or really cares to learn what the other side really believes. His life is DEBATE. He fires bomb after bomb at strawmen that provisionism has debunked years ago. Provisionalists believe most of what He says we do not and believe little of what he says we do. Its such an inefficient way to discuss the truth of God. I think very few calvinists will clearly and consistantly lay out the top tenets of their system without smoke and mirror terms like "Doctrines of grace" or "Golden chain of redemption" or "Monergism" or "Man centered theology" Its like calling dog poo "soft smoky pudding". Just my view. Merry Christmas.✌✌
@@atyt11He's obviously not a Calvinist, he called someone a good person. A Calvinist would say that there is none good, no not one, and least of all themselves, they are the chief of sinners.
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.
@@Ben6Strings and what is ignorant about Edwards' statement? If you believe in Libertarian Free Will, it is you that is the ideologue. LFW is a man-made concept stolen from Greek philosophy that not found in scripture.
The most evil act in the history of the world past and future was Jesus crucified at the hands of men. Their choice according to the will of God. God ordained it before the foundation of the world and yet man is still responsible for his actions. And I watch SWU. Very interesting show. It only reaffirms the fact that man is dead in sin and CANNOT choose to follow God without the Holy Spirit giving us faith. No one seeks after God. Not even one.
White has made a lot of important contributions to apologetics, but he really embarrassed himself here. He knows how debates work, knows that his opponent is under no obligation to yield his own time for extended answers to yes or no questions, but childishly refuses to engage when simple questions point out inconsistencies in his view. "That kind of interaction" is exactly what White uses to pin down opponents in other debates, and he doesn't seem to have a problem with it when he's on the offensive.
Embarrassed himself. You’re delusional. Steve is flat out lying under the pretentiousness disguise of humility. He spent all his time evading the questions White asked and then proceeded to disingenuously interrupt White ant time Whjte tried to answer his. It’s very telling by Steve’s refusal to acknowledge that Romans 1 includes himself that he thinks far too highly of both himself and fallen man. There’s nothing biblical Steve can do to combat the arguments Whjte extended here so he simply refused to answer. His tactics are ad hominems and strawmen. That’s basically all he has.
No, it is not a fallacy. If I ask if the NUMBER 7 is in the alphabet, the answer is NO. Either it IS there or it is NOT there. White called it loaded, Gregg just agreed, and pointed ou tahat this is the way White deals with everyone. White asked where the WORD all was in 13:48 Gregg asked where the WORD all was in Romans 1 White upbraided Gregg for substituting one word for another, yet white simply adds it to actually change the meaning.
Speaking of Steve; it is amazing how Man uses such gymnastics to make God's word fit their beliefs. Vessels of Wrath cannot and will not "Hear or See" what scripture says. They have been born of "Self" and there is no spirit man in them, for they are not born of God. Therefore, the Holy Spirit cannot teach them, for He, The Holy Spirit, does not dwell in them.
It's a metaphor. You are not a vessel, you are a human being. You can think and make decisions. Without free will there is no real love and real worship. Calvinism is an insult to God that says we are all programmed like robots for salvation or damnation. It makes God a monster. It's moronic.
Leave it to a heretical calvinist to essentially deny one's salvation simply because they are not brainwashed Calvinists. Wonder what those Christians ever did before the literal murderer John Calvin came along... hmmm
@@JesusProtects where does the Bible say, "without [libertarian] free will there is no real love and real worship?" Or is that man's wisdom creeping in?
2 Timothy 2: [20] But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. [21] IF a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. Clearly says IF, no-one has to be a dishonourable vessel, but if you are going to be hard clay, you better not complain when the Potter uses you for dishonourable use.
You're right. Only thousands of verses where God gives us commands, and choices and holds us accountable for those choices, not to mention the fact that Christ died for all send wants all to be saved.
James White is completely intellectually dishonest here. Steve wasnt asking for a conclusion just a statement of fact. Completely dishonest not to answer the direct question.
This is a debate, not an argument. Steve seems to ask a question, but only will allow an answer if he is satisfied with answer. The rules of a debate doesn't allow for one word answers. And it certainly doesn't allow for one to cut the other off mid answer. Disliking someone's answer is not a good enough reason for this.
I have no idea what you’re on unless it’s maybe the apocrypha, but Dr. James White legitimately began to actually school Greg around 10 minutes in. And actually had to educate him on how to read the text. This is just a classic example of a prideful Armenian, refusing to actually listen to the other side debate.sorry dude, but Greg got destroyed in this, and he brought it on himself throughout most of it. Lol!
Steve is not debating. Every question is loaded. This debate day sucks. Steve will not allow White to answer. Lousy. No respect at all. Trying to make himself look good for his broadcast and actually speaking for White. That's the way to stoop low. Is that supposed to get your audience to agree with you Steve? Last word for your viewpoint Steve? White's debate and argumentation is precise and pointed. Every response is measured. "That is why at the very, very beginning I said, that the key issue here is the consistency of ones interpretation of scripture and whether one will allow all of scripture to speak or whether you will cut it up into pieces." This whole "debate" was like a parent correcting a child and trying to guide him into the right way in interpretation and following through with a logical, biblical understanding to a right conclusion. Arminians are so intent on preserving that Free Will of Man part that they are willing to feminize God into this pathetic "gentleman God" who is powerless in ordaining all things to the pleasure of His will.
I've been running this channel for more than 10 years and Steve's Facebook group for I believe 16 years. I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've seen someone claim Steve is disrespectful.
@@SteveGreggVideos I don’t believe Mr. Gregg was being disrespectful. Asking for yes-no answers may not have been the best way to support his own viewpoint in the format that’s been laid out. My own preference would be that each person articulate his own views as opposed to giving a one word answer and letting the other person explain why you gave that answer. Hope that makes sense. Thank you again Mr. Gregg. P.S. Maligning the character of a believer for a secondary doctrinal issue (referring to them as a moron, heretic, etc) as so often seen in internet comments, calls for prayer and repentance.
Saying someone acted in a disrespectful way is not maligning a persons character. I was describing my perspective on his actions at that one time. I was not saying he is not qualified for ministry. He was very disrespectful during that one sequence of questions that does not tear down Mr. Gregg’s character. I have not seen a pattern of this behavior. Do you think he is above ever being very disrespectful to someone in his life? Trying to force a person into yes or no answers and then continually interrupting when he is trying to answer is in my perspective very disrespectful. Then Mr. Gregg wanted to act like Mr. White had a problem answering questions when it was clear it was the tactics Mr. Gregg was using was the problem.
@hixadam1: provide a Steve quote that supports your claim that Steve is "very disrespectful." Disagreement is not synonymous with disrespect. Personal attacks are disrespectful...a common tactic of James White.
You mean Gregg destroys James White's arguments. That's true. Calvinism is an insult to God's goodness and grace, it spits in the gospel of salvation by grace through faith.
@@JonathanTheZombie stop using the arguments that your calvinist masters use. They are blind leading the blind. They lie constantly about those who don't believe their nonsense. God doesn't constraint himself to our will, he CHOOSES to give us his grace because we freely believed and repented and genuinely love him, not because we are programmed to do it like robots. He does this out of love, because our faith and repentance is true and genuine, not because he feels forced to do it. Whoever came up with that false idea is extremely dumb. Think McFly, think.
@@JesusProtects Faith is given by God at His discretion. This proves the Sovereignty of God as calvinism declares. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; Ephesians 2:8 LSB
Oh, James, James, James! If you let yourself discard the false doctrine you swallowed you will then be able to see a clear understanding of every verse you used. Calvinism is poison and it's fed to the naive...be not deceived by the likes of false teachers disguised as angels of light. James is at the point where he will not discard the poison because he wouldn't be able to bear the pain of humiliation... he has too much invested in the lie to let it go, just as the Pharisees did😢
Day 5 (final day of the debate): ruclips.net/video/eK9o2MEmQDY/видео.html
[From this debate, day 5, the video in the link, 18:38 timestamp]
[S. Gregg]:
"...because I believe I'm following Paul's line of thought here too, so we really just are disagreeing about how Paul is using the passage. I don't think Paul uses the passage differently than the psalmist meant it."
- I think this is inconsistent with your views on other passages used in the new testament that show that there is one people of God in Christ (passages that you have used in dialogues with dispensationalists). For example Matthew 2:14-15 and the "Out of Egypt I have called My Son" (the fulfillment Matthew gives I accept, and the implications of which, so on this I think there would be agreement between us, and between you and J. White). I also do think that this would be the sense in which the psalmist meant it, as Peter speaks of the psalms of David and him saying of God, "Nor will you allow your Holy One to see corruption," and the apostle stating this was not spoken of by David as being about himself (though it may have been viewed that way previously or even now as a partial fulfillment by some).
[The following, excerpt from the video on SteveGreggVideos channel, "Debate: The Future of Israel with Michael L. Brown and Steve Gregg", from the 39:35 timestamp]
[S. Gregg]:
"...see I was a dispensationalist in my upbringing and I became a believer in what I now believe not because I ever read a non-dispensationalist book, but because I read the Bible. I was fully persuaded of frankly everything that Dr. Brown is saying about Israel, but what I did is I saw how the new testament writers, who I am told in scripture Jesus 'opened their understanding that they might understand the scriptures' (take that to mean the old testament scriptures), they quoted from many of the same passages that I would have used to make Dr. Brown's points, and they quoted them as being fulfilled in the church. It was, in fact, it was commonplace. It was not just one or two times it was essentially the standard way they interpreted those kinds of passages..."
[Punctuation added by me]
- Also, there are those who may disagree with the application of such Psalms as Psalm 102 and Psalm 45 which are quoted in Hebrews 1, or the application of Psalm 22 (which is prophecy of the Messiah), but the application of the verses in the new testament is what it is. Basically what I'm saying is that your position seems to be untenable in light the new testament witness, at least on this point, because of its inconsistency, the same inconsistency that you observed in regards to supposed "proof-texts" of a dispensational doctrine.
Ephesians 2:1 says "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins".
Dead people don't choose to stop being dead.
I don't claim to be a Calvinist, but I clearly recall after being reborn and reading the Bible for myself concluding that God chooses individuals to be saved. It was everywhere in Scripture. It was ovious. I didn't even know what Calvinism was.
I diagree with James on eschatology but disagree with Steve on this issue of God's sovereignty in salvation.. I respect and admire both very much tho
I'm not a Calvinist, but I can't help but to conclude the Calvinist position in scripture.
While hates it when he’s challenged! Then he starts to attack the other person on a personal level. Very poor sportsmanship.
You obviously misunderstand the nature of the discussion- Gregg disrespected white as he felt. So his response is because the lack of charity given to him
White had to answer the same question several times and Greg wouldn't give him time to dive into the text and clearly Greg was upset at the beginning of the debate and weaponized these questions to try and mix up white not based on biblical truths but on some sort of quick bullet-point jabs to gain some quick wins. Romans clearly is talking about all men over and over again in 1-3.
Mr. White is a bit too smug for me to take him seriously. He uses alot of sarcasm when defending his position. It gives the appearance that he is trying to humiliate Steve. Steve seems to be more humble but firm in his beliefs
Don't confuse autism for smugness
27:20 - 32:00 Funniest part! White is clearly struggling with this topic. He doesn't like the direct back and forth because it's easier to point out the flaws in what he is saying. Gregg did a good job nailing him down.
I don’t think you understand the disrespect that was shown in the discussion already at this point.
@@jeremyhewitt2637 I really don't see any disrespect. Disagreement isn't disrespect. I appreciate when people are willing to directly confront one and other. Sometimes it's not comfortable but it is necessary. James White has a habit of steamrolling over more agreeable people and it's time that comes to an end.
Misrepresentation is not nailing down. Cross examination requires you to allow the person to respond.
@@christopherneedham9584 He was responding with passages from elsewhere in the Bible. Normally that would be fine, except for the fact that White has given other people a hard time in the past for doing the exact same thing, and Gregg wasn't going to give him a pass. White is a hypocrite.
Also, he completely glossed over the part in the verse where it says "men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" as if that part doesn't even exist. You can't understand the passage properly if you skip over that part. Gregg had no choice but to try and make him acknowledge it, otherwise his response would be irrelevant to what Gregg was asking.
@@meowpurrrrr responding to a question which requires you to answer using the context of the passage in this case Romans 1-3 which is a continuous argument is not what white has criticized people for. At least, not what I have seen. White has criticized people for reading later passages back into prior passages. (Where people take a verse written after something and make it as though that verse was written before) or they jump completely out of the book (Leighton flowers) and completely reinterpret the passage based on something that isn’t even in the passage.
Absolutely astonishing! At the end of day 4, around the 48:00 mark, Dr. White declared he won’t entertain any Yes or No questions about texts tomorrow, deeming them unproductive.
First, it’s not his prerogative to alter the debate format midstream or dictate his opponent’s approach. I firmly believe it will be immensely productive.
Second, there’s no valid reason to dodge direct answers unless he’s in the wrong. When cornered, he tends to evade, complain, or divert the topic to avoid the debate’s core issues. He did exactly that here.
Third, I’ve witnessed Dr. White demand Yes or No responses from Dr. Flowers on numerous occasions. Yet, he dislikes being pinned down himself.
Fourth, Dr. White selectively focuses on one text while ignoring other supportive scriptures. Later, he argues for considering the collective support of scripture, not just one text. I’ve seen him do this here and repeatedly with Dr. Flowers.
It’s always about what makes him look good and what he can get away with. What a hypocrite! My respect for you, James White, is rapidly plummeting.
Double Jeopardy? I invite, nay, challenge everyone who holds to Limited Atonement to relook at the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant and look at what happens to the debt that was once forgiven.
23:01 Whether God has a purpose vs no purpose (no meaning) for evil is not the contention between Gregg and White. They both believe God has a purpose. The contention is that White believes God causes the evil in the first place and then derives a purpose, Gregg believes God merely allows the evil and then drerives purpose. "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good".
Why do you think the Book of Esther is in the Bible? Why did God make it a part of the scriptures seeing as how it doesn't mention God? If you have never read it you should and ask yourself who is in control. Hope this helps and I hope you understand what I'm getting at
@@Thinking-Biblically Read Esther many times, a favorite for sure. We just finished it this week in our daily family reading. Love the picture of God's providence and ironic reversals that forshadow the Christus Victor theme. Not sure what that has to do with Gregg and White's contention above. One view of "providence" (determinism) has God having to first cause the evil so that he can then use it for good. The other view is God's ability to allow evil, and then using it for good. - causing vs allowing is the contention, imo.
@@joefrescoln I do not believe he causes the evil. But I do believe that he determined that it would take place he allowed it like you said to happen but it is more than that. I think people have an issue that if they don't know exactly how it works I have to somehow figure it out. Let's just let God be God and understand that he is in control of everything how terrible would it be if he wasn't. That is awesome that you and your family are reading together I pray that you continue with that. Raise them up in a way that they should go and when they are old they will not depart from it. God bless
I listen to a lot of debates because I like to be open minded and I like to hear two guys that know what they are talking about debate to settle my questions. Cross exam is the most important part of debate and while I don't like when you get the extreme filibuster type of answer, I certainly don't like when the people asking expect the question to be answered a certain way. Whether it's short or yes or no answer. To me, because you think it's a yes or no question but the person has the right to answer the way they want.
Pros: Steve's teaching against dispensationalism has been HUGELY helpful. So excellent and every American Christian should listen to those. Also, of all anti-Calvinists Steve (and Mike Winger) are easily the most loving and kind.
Disagreement:
1. Their hearts were "darkened" which must mean previously they were not darkened? Not at all. The Light of General Revelation made the darkness of their unbelieving hearts completely Dark or "darkened". That is why all men are without excuse. Just as the Law makes sin fully sinful, that doesn't at all mean that people without the Law have no sin. Of course they have sin, even without the law.
2. I wish Steve and all anti-Calvinists would address this point (but they never ever do that I've ever heard):
Does mankind have an innate fallen pridefulness that desires to take glory away from God, and might that be the source of rejecting Calvinism? Because for me and many Calvinists I know (who never read Calvin BTW lol!), accepting a Reformed theology required surrender, dying to self-determination. So it wasn't even the theology that won me - it was I am more afraid of my own pride inserting myself into God's glory, and a theology that encourages me to believe salvation is a mere choice absolutely diminishes God's Glory. It's also flatly unbiblical.
3. Anti-Calvinists: Why does Jesus say you must be "born again"? Can a person choose to be spiritually born again by sheer will? Of course not, Jesus is speaking of a MIRACLE. Only God does miracles. Only God saves a sinner. Salvation is never a "pure" free will choice. Something has to change the heart first. That is the Holy Spirit.
Point number 2)
It is not pride that makes men reject Calvinism or the reformed position it’s a that they feel such a position is unfair, unjust and cannot possible be the God of the Bible. So they interpret scripture through their bias lens.
Perhaps the one thing that stood out for me in this discussion was Steve Gregg's dismissal of the Greek text! This is totally amazing! Surely, we need to know, understand, and properly translate the original, God-breathed text! Is this not the basis of all our knowledge of God and the Scriptures?
I am disappointed at Steve Gregg's approach here ... he is antagonistic and doesn't give James White time to respond exegetically!
Steve Gregg seems to be more an agnostic than a Bible believer!
Steve Gregg and James White both really deeply love Jesus and the church. The struggle in this debate is that James White engages at the technical scholar level and Steve Gregg engages at the lay evangelist level. Both are useful to the Kingdom of God but they approach the matter from different places and miss each other.
Steve is one of most courteous debaters I know White is only the second most rude Calvinist debater I know.
How is it rude by constantly correcting Steve Gregg misrepresention of What James White is trying to say?
Frankly, Mr White has much patience than me, I would left the program.
@@rbmath Steve never once misrepresented JW. JW is the “king” of misrepresenting his opponents views. 😂
Who is the first most rude? 😮
@@eriste7879 That Zacharias fella that debated Leighton Flowers was number one. He wouldn’t even call LF his brother in Christ.
If James White is correct, the Bible is at best contradictory.
There are sooooo many instances of God calling out to his people Israel in the Old Testament to repent and them simply refusing based on their own will. Same in the new with both Jews and Gentiles.
Does that make God weak and put man in charge? That seems to be the straw man the Calvinists construct - because God gave man a free will and because God chooses to respect man’s choice, somehow this diminishes the power of God?
It would seem that a father who meticulously controls his children is actually much more insecure and worried about something going wrong than a father who trains his children but ultimately gives them the freedom to arrive at their own conclusions and lifestyle. Most people would categorize the second example as one who has a greater level of security, comfort and even authority.
But the biggest hang up with divine determinism is that God must author sin because he literally controls the actions of all men, but the Bible explicitly states he is not the author of sin.
I realize when you string together Romans 9, Ephesians 1 and maybe 5-10 other select Calvinistic passages you may arrive at this standpoint, but those passages need to be used to override all the freewill verses, stories and arguments that are far greater in volume.
I also find it interesting how White goes back to the Greek and basically asserts his high knowledge and intellect of the Greek (which I’m not debating) to in some cases really either alter or clarify the meaning of a passage (but in his favor of course). This is a side point but if Christians needed to know Greek this much generally to understand key passages of scripture, what does that say about God? Is he hiding himself that much from us with respect to plain understanding in English or whatever language translation being used? Plus I think NT Greek is a dead language as in modern Greek differs significantly from it - so I’m pretty confident that there’s room for error in the study of a dead language and using it to really assert meaning like this but I could be wrong.
This is a painfully bad argument. You can’t agree that the Greek means what Dr. White says it means because it destroys your entire argument on the topic of who is called by God. You must accept bad Greek translation in order for your point to be true. Yikes!
You also just made the case for universal salvation for all men, oops! Are you sure you’re not a unitarian?
Precisely because the "free will" of man is subjected to his sinful nature, it can not choose God. Unless human nature is regenerated by the work of the Holy Spirit, it can not choose God.
@@JonathanTheZombie you are the one fighting against hundreds of verses that talk about free will, not us. Don't be afraid, your world will fall and a better one full of love will be created out of the rubble. Is just a bit of noise and dust, is not going to hurt you.
@@johnmark2927 there are dozens of verses where God tells his people to "choose". Enough of this lunacy. Stop worshipping the golden calf that is calvinism. It's evil.
It never ceases to surprise me the noticeable character of calvinists when they speak with other Christians who are not Calvinist. Of course not all of them are like this, there are some Calvinists who truly embody the nature of Jesus, but so often, you see Calvinists ridicule, mock, make personal attacks, and attempt to humiliate other fellow Christians.
For a doctrine that claims there is nothing special about man because God chose the man and it had nothing to do with the man, it appears rather that than reduce their pride it has boosted their pride and arrogance.
Let us all show love and grace and mercy while not compromising on the teaching of the Bible, as the Lord Jesus did, dying to our flesh and pressing on to become more like Him! God bless!
Looking forward to Steve's calvinist conversion on day 5.
Wait, the Gentiles in Acts never heard the good news before Acts 13:48? What was Paul telling the Gentiles at the synagogue the week before, which they then took to their friends to invite them to Paul's next talk?
It’s amazing. White has played the same game he always does in his debates in the first three parts. Gregg hits him with a little taste of his own medicine in this part and White does not like it.
I didn't think Luke's "as many as were appointed" is meant to be exhaustive, it's meant to explain that those who believed are those whom God beforehand appointed to eternal life. I wouldn't take that language to naturally mean there can't be someone present who believed at a later time.
Acts 13:48 (NASB95): and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
Now I’m not going to word this right but hopefully I’ll get close… even though the word believed comes after the “as many as were appointed” I take it to mean believed was still the reason for them being appointed.
Let me try an analogy. The boat capsized. As many as were rescued treaded water until help arrived. The meaning of this would be only those who treaded water were saved but all who treaded water were saved.
James spent quite a bit of time on Luke saying it says “as many as” not “all”! Then goes into Timothy and says “it says all men but it MEANS all KINDS of men…” 😂 So it’s ok when he does it?
"there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." "Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips"
Romans 3 10-13
It has been said......Does proof that I am incapable of calling the president on the telephone also prove that I am incapable of answering the telephone if the president were to call me? Of course not, yet that is essentially the principle a Calvinist is assuming in their theology
Genesis 6: 9 “This is the account of Noah and his family. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God.
@@atyt11Genesis 6:8
But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
I remember when I first read the Bible about 10 years ago. I remember feeling bad for pharoe because God hardend his heart. It wasn't his fault. I remember feeling bad for the Canaanites because it wasn't their fault they weren't born in the right area. I was extremely confused about how inconsistent the Bible seemed to be. My preacher was telling me that God loves everyone and yet, he clearly doesn't. Non Calvinism is not the default. I personally never heard of Calvinism and I had about 3 or maybe 4 of the 5 points of Calvinism figured without ever hearing about Calvinism. Since I heard about it, the whole Bible makes sense now. Now it's consistent
If Calvinism is true, then God forced Pharaoh to make all the wrong choices and rebel against what God told him. If Calvinism is true, he forced the Canaanites to have orgies and sacrifice their babies to false gods, then punished them for it. That is unfair. That is unjust. It makes God the author of ALL evil. How does that possibly jive with all of scripture and it's claims about God's character?
Lost count of the number of commercials inserted into a video that's less than an hour long.
Use an adblocker.
After listening to the first 4 days of debate, I think that Dr. White gives a stronger argument for John 6, Romans 9 and Acts 13:48. That is not to say that I disparage Steve's ministry. Steve is a very intelligent and skilled debater, and knows the Bible very well. I have learned much by listening to him.
Leighton flowers gives way better arguments for all those verses. Calvinism is inconsistent. The early church rejected theological determinism with a passion and for good reason. Is just the ramblings of the gnostics infecting the church. Poor Ireneus tried to expose their lies but most people reject the truth so false doctrines are inevitable. It's very sad.
Hello!
John 6 is clearly explained by first reading chapter 5!
Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees.
A Phariess is the product of false teachings in God's name which means these people BELIEVE they are OF GOD but are not. They were FED by false teachers and because they SWALLOWED, they became Pharisees.
John 5
38 And YE have not his word abiding IN YOU: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
44 How can YE believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
Simple!
These people were not EATING what men of God FED them, they were EATING what false teachers were FEEDING them which is why they did not COME to Jesus.
Now if we go to John 6 it will become clear.
John 6
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.
CLEAR!
Anyone who LEARNS of the FATHER will COME to the Son because they have the same voice!
@@JesusProtects Inconsistent? Like Jesus dies for ALL people, yet somehow people Jesus died for go to Hell?
That kind of inconsistent? :)
@@dubyag4124
Yes, 400,000 rejected the cure the president offered to his 600,000 citizens.
The 400,000 will definitely perish. News flash, it's been discovered the president created the virus and implanted a chip in the heads of the 400,000 to reject the cure 😮😮😮
Dr. White explain better Calvinism takeoff, calvinism glasses
I forgot how childish day 4 was (second time listening to this). To tell someone they can only answer yes or no and then to say that “if he gives honest answers“ is incredibly disappointing. It doesn’t matter what side is making such a statement, but to make those statements is very poor. You may disagree with the answers being given, but to then say they are not honest and you only want honest answers is just another way of saying I will only allow you to answer if you say what I want you to say. Very childish.
Big fan of Dr. White. He is incredibly wise &honest, especially in the opening when it wasn't his turn to speak. Just sayn
1 Tim 2:4 is better reasoned through the understanding of [biblical] universalism than that of Calvinism or Arminianism.
In 1 Tim 2:4, Paul points out that the “all men” is the same as the “all men” in verse 6 whom Christ gave himself a ransom which the scriptures further make clear was the “whole world” 1 John 2:2. Note, not only did John say Christ was a propitiation for “our” sin [i.e.] the believer/elect, but for the whole world [i.e.] those outside of being the elect. As some seem to suggest, I see no restrictive qualifiers in 1 Tim 2:4. Paul is simply saying that he wants Timothy to pray for “all people”, which “includes” but isn’t “limited” to kings etc.
1 Tim 2:4: - who doth [will/thelō] all men to be saved, and to come to the full knowledge of the truth;
Lexicon: Strong's - thelō:-
Outline of Biblical Usage:- to will, have in mind, intend, to be resolved or determined, to purpose, to desire to wish to love, to like to do a thing, be fond of doing, to take delight in, have pleasure.
The word thelō is in verb form, and it doesn’t lend itself to some form of wishful thinking, it speaks of action and purpose [i.e.] God intends to save [all] men, or purposes for [all] men to be saved.
Apostle Paul then goes on to explain exactly what he meant in 1 Tim 2:4:-
1 Timothy 4:10:- For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of “all mankind”, >[especially]< of believers.
I fail to see how the context doesn’t fit with universalism. Paul simply states that God is the saviour of “all mankind”, and “within” that “all” are believers. The word “especially” is an adverb of the word “special” and it is used in the following context: -
especially: - adverb: - used to single out one person or thing over [all] others. [i.e.] he despised them [all], [especially] Jeremiah”
In the example above, Jeremiah is part of the “all” that is despised, yet, he is singled out for an even stronger despising than the rest. So, 1 Tim 4:10, in context, is saying God is the saviour of “all mankind”, yet, believers are being singled out for a special kind of salvation [i.e.] the elect. To make this reasoning clearer:-
Gala 6:10. :- So then, while we have opportunity, let’s do good to “all people” and >[especially]< to those who are of the household of the faith.
Paul isn’t saying only do good to those that believe, he is saying that believers are to do good to “all men”, yet, whilst doing this, believers are to treat other believers with “special goodness”. This is another example of why I reason it’s the same context as 1 Tim 4:10, Paul isn’t saying God is only going to save believers, but that he is going to save “all men” whilst giving his chosen [i.e.] the elect a “special” salvation. [i.e.] They are saved, being saved and will be saved, they will be transformed at Christ’s coming 1 Corinth 15: 52, they will be spared the wrath of God 1 Thess 5:9, they will be “inheritors” of the kingdom, they are made into a kingdom of priests Rev 1:6 and they will Judge/rule with Christ in his Fathers coming kingdom Rev 20:4. Only a few are “chosen” to share in these “special” privileges. Therefore, I reason it’s only the elect in this age who will be given such positions in the next. Yet, Paul’s focus on the elect being called and chosen in this present age doesn’t mean he didn’t acknowledge God's plan to save “ALL” in the ages to come.
Peace
James White makes much of the fact that Acts 13:48 contains a “periphrastic construction” and that Steve Gregg and Shank don’t mention this, otherwise they would recognize that the Calvinist interpretation is correct. But the great Greek scholar AT Robertson does specifically mention the periphrastic construction in the passage and yet he still does not see the Calvinist interpretation in the passage (see his Word Pictures in the NT)!!!!
The Bible blatantly debunks Calvinism in numerous verses but Calvinists NEVER gives any answer for those verses. Always excuses.
@@Ben6Strings 🤣
@@Ben6StringsI'm a calvinist apparently you're not give me some scriptures let's see if you can defend your position
@@Ben6Stringsshow me those debunking versus please hopefully you're not just saying stuff and then not willing to back any of it up I guess we will see
@@Thinking-Biblically 1 John 2:2
I think the consideration should be that no scripture contradicts another scripture, therefore if we seem to find contradiction it must be on our part. Let god be true and every man a liar. I would however contend with Calvinism as I have seen multiple times how the doctrine has caused despair and sorrow instead of instilling one with the hope of the gospel.
Why would the Doctrines of Grace and security ever cause despair to a saved person any more than another doctrine?
@@kimmykimko neither grace nor security of salvation exist in calvinism. God chooses arbitrarily who is going to be saved, that's not grace, that's using life and death like a game, like a kid killing insects for fun. The false god of calvinism also could make you believe you are saved only to make you reject the calvinist faith later on so you are no longer part of the elect (as they see it, is a bad interpretation) if he wants to and you can do nothing about it, so you can't even feel eternally secure either, no matter how strong your faith may be at that precise moment.
Calvinism is a JOKE.
@@JesusProtectsarbitrary to you but nothing can be arbitrary to God...
Wow. White flat out freezes and refuses to answer questions.
The gospel reveals both the salvation of God and His wrath - both of which reveal His righteousness. Therefore those that know the truth but hold it in unrighteousness, will be judged. Even that knowledge which is revealed by His creation, shows the glory of the invisible God so men who worship idols are without excuse. Idolatry encompasses the indulgence in a host of other sins as well, so that God gives such unrighteous men who know such things are worthy of death yet continue to do them; over to a reprobate mind. This is how such men are prepared for the wrath of God. But is that ALL men whom God treats in such a manner? No. And why is that? Because as v16 & 17 tell us, the Gospel presents men with a CHOICE and some WILL obey the Word of God when they hear it (Rom 10:27).
James White rejects the belief that the Gospel has the power to change a man's mind because of his doctrines of total depravity and an election model that has God decreeing a man is saved or damned before they are even born! But the condemnation that came upon all men because Adam caused sin to enter the world, is death - and all men do sin which is what makes them sinners and worthy of death. (Rom 5...). But our God is merciful, loving & forgives sin and has prepared a way for men to have Life thru Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over ALL is rich unto ALL that call upon him.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
All we need for believing faith, God has provided in the Gospel message that delivers us hope. There is no 'hope' in TULIP because there is no gospel to be found there. Suppressing the truth with unrighteousness is not a good place to be...
Thank you for standing for truth and reason.
If you think about it, calvinism is an idol. No matter how many times God tells his people to "choose" the calvinist refuses to believe the text and instead chooses to believe the words of their masters McArthur, Bauham, Piper and others like them.
Excellent response👍🏻
You made me think about how Romans 1 states they new God, but they wouldn’t acknowledge him or even give Him thanks . That sounds to me like they had a choice.
No?
👍🏻✌🏼
The funny thing is that whWhite accidentally admitted that the Greek says the believed comes before ordained. Of course he did not mention it again, as it shows how ALL the bibles have reversed the order to follow the Calvinist translated KJV.
... who believed, were ordained
is not the same statement or meaning as
... who were ordained, believed.
The Greek uses the first and this makes ordaning dependent upon believing,
The Calvinist reading, reversing the greek order, makes believing a product of ordination.
False exegetes avoid the original when it proves their doctrine wrong.
Timestamp?
Edit: Addendum:
Unless you are referring to 14:49, where he says, "When the gentiles heard this, they believed, having been appointed to eternal life." [Although this was the English].
The Greek was at 15:42 timestamp, and all he did was translate pretty much exactly as it is in other versions just reverses the word order, not the meaning. For example, the Young's Literal Translation renders it pretty much the same:
"And the nations hearing were glad, and were glorifying the word of the Lord, and did believe -- as many as were appointed to life age-during"
- "And did believe" which is something that they did at that time, present tense even though it is somewhat archaic English. "As many as were appointed to life age-during," the word "were" making this past tense, something that occurred before they believed, which I think was his overall point. Since you bring up Greek, do you read it? To confine it to English you one can look at the Young's Literal translation (which has the past tense action at the latter part of the sentence) vs. the ESV, NIV, KJV, NKJV, NASB 1995, NASB 1977, ASV, Aramaic Bible in Plain English, the Roman Catholic Dhouay-Rheims, etc. (Which put the past tense action first before "believed"). The point is that either way this does not change the meaning of the text. Even Gregg didn't dispute a past tense action occurring before the belief from my understanding of his argument, he only seemed to be asserting that the word had a different definition.
Oh please! I don't know if White will answer them...He will if you give him a second to answer the loaded questions. 48 minutes. Rebuke to Steve. How embarrassing! No don't need a Semester. Just a short book like "Chosen By God" from RC Sproul.
8 ads. That is way, way too much. I guess RUclips inserted most of them without your approval. They sometimes do that.
the best $12 I've ever spent in my life was for the RUclips premium service. I haven't seen an ad for a year now and what a dream. for the cost of one lunch out per month I enjoy ad-free listening/viewing. but then I listen to podcasts and Scripture readings for several hours each day while I'm working.....
@JesusProtects RUclips premium is worth it, no ads.
@@lepton31415 sounds good. I'll do it
@@JesusProtects if you watch/listen to YT an hour or two each day or more it's well worth it just for the annoyance factor. anyone can find something to cut worth $12 each month. or just sell something you don't use for circa $150 and you've got a year of ad-free viewing.
Use an adblocker its cheaper. Not ideal as you may need to adjust time to time but will still block ads and prevents you giving $150 or whatever to YT.
44:05 is the second time White says slaves may desire to be free, the first time is in video 1. He has conceded the debate, Total Depravity is untrue, slaves to sin can desire freedom.
You should really spend time with addicts. They to a man ALL want to be free from addiction. Yet why aren't they?
What about the religious? They ALL want to go to Heaven. Why don't they?
What's the missing link? Oh right - the Sovereign Power of God to save a sinner, to free a prisoner.
@@dubyag4124 You missed my point. No proper Christian denies that God is necessary and solely to credit in order to free a sinner from sin, death and damnation. The point of contention is whether a sinner can even admit they need help and accept God's free offer of salvation. Calvinism hinges upon Totally Depravity, which argues that they cannot or would never even do so, unless first regenerated unto new life via Irresistible Grace. Hence if sinners can recognize and yearn to be free from their slavery to sin, Total Depravity is untrue and the rest of ULIP crumbles with it.
@@scottthong9274Sorry, I'm a bit lost. You mentioned Total Depravity: could you cite from the Canons of Dort what exactly about Total Depravity that is supposed to refute?
@@oracleoftroy Why do I need to dig up Dort, which tangentially David Allen mentioned had 1/3 of the delegates reject Limited Atonement btw? How about you cite Total Depravity from it and tell me why what I mentioned doesn't address Dort's statements about it?
@@scottthong9274_"Why do I need to dig up Dort"_
Because "every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses" (Mt 18: 16). You seem to be projecting beliefs onto Calvinists that I can't find them confessing to in the first place. It would help make your argument stronger if you demonstrated conclusively what your target is.
Besides, "“If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (Jn 14: 15). With how boldly many anticalvinists bear false witness against Calvinism, it is clear that they hate Christ. It will go a long way to show that you love Christ that you obey his commandments and steelman the position you are arguing against.
25:00-31:00 is a perfect display of JW M.O. with 31:30 being the capstone: “you are used to dominating the discussion” That was the truest thing ever said. JW is an arrogant, condescending, rude and manipulative person. Once he is backed into a corner he throws his hissie fits and cry baby tactics to avoid answering a question. He is hypocritical because he always cries when someone uses scripture to interpret a text but feels free to run off to other chapters to answer a straight forward question about a text. Steve is a patient as Job if you ask me.
Oh, James, James, James!
If you let yourself discard the false doctrine you swallowed you will then be able to see a clear understanding of every verse you used.
Calvinism is poison and it's fed to the naive...be not deceived by the likes of false teachers disguised as angels of light.
James is at the point where he will not discard the poison because he wouldn't be able to bear the pain of humiliation... he has too much invested in the lie to let it go, just as the Pharisees did😢
Luke 18:11 "The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector."
You sound pretty prideful too, lady. Just saying.
@@dubyag4124 I have a feeling you use this a lot.
I have sinned and fallen short of Goo'd glory, have mercy on me, a sinner.
@@KISStheSON... very often, yes. I sin way too much, but God’s grace is somehow keeping me held in His hand.
@@dubyag4124 what have I said that sounds like prideful to your ears?
@@dubyag4124If you are sinning “too much” you should consider whether you are really following Christ.
Steve dunks at 26:45
Steve Gregg in this is not acting fairly.. what he's doing is answer shopping. If he does not like what James White says, he simply cuts him off...
Man I like White sometimes, and thought he did a great job the previous 3 days. But this was hard to listen to. I felt he wasn’t being fair, and tried to dominate the conversation. Didn’t see a lot of grace in his part of the discussion
Very disappointing how Gregg behaved on Day4, disrespectful low remarks points on weakness of position. And please stop calling yourself non-calvinist, if you wish to call James as Calvinist, then call yourself Arminian. We are Christians, stop dividing on camps/fractions: like there are Christians and there are Calvinists.
Arminian is not the only non-Calvinistic view. There is Palagianism and possibly others. So 'non-Calvinist' is a fair descriptor to use.
Also, if Steve does not believe all the views of Arminias (dude that armenianism is named after), then it makes sense to use 'non-calvinist' for that reason as well.
Steve asking to be fair when he the judge has someone on the seat but beckons the person to shorten testimony to forward his case.
Hmmm leading the witness, establishing manipulated testimony. Maybe not so charitable
I learned a lot from Mr. White not long ago. I appreciate his debates against atheists, Muslims and others. I love that he has converted to a post-millennial point of view of Revelation as opposed to amillennialism, one of the few disagreements I have with Mr. Gregg. However, I do think he is quite haughty, and I imagine him to be the image of the Pharisees. Obviously man has free will. Yes, God can and does intervene to carry out His will. But what a boring and lonely creation this would be if He did not allow free interaction with His people. Yes, free will is the default view. That what o got out of the Bible when I first read it in full. In order to obey or not obey, one has/had to have had options. Calvinism is silly in my opinion.
Curious on peoples thoughts.... Is John 9:6-7 Monergism or synergism???? Jesus told him, “Go wash yourself in the pool of Siloam” . So the man went and washed and came back seeing!
Not a soterology text !
@@billwilmoth7444 why are you yelling!!!? Soteriology = Theology = the study of the nature of God and religious belief.
Bible text is not soteriology??
Lets say your right and its actually, I don't know...... math. What would your answer be to the equation?
Apologize sincerely if I seem to be harsh ..
That's why text messages are so unemotional ...I meant this with all respect to you ... not in hate or abrassivness! I was just pointing out the text you gave was not a text dealing with salvation ....that's all ! Because the issue of monergism and synergism in the context of whole debate is the issue of salvation, and always has been down the line of history ....that's all I was pointing out ! And I'm typing calmly 😂😂 be blessed and God bless! Thank you for replying for clarification!👍sorry for any typos!!!
@@billwilmoth7444 absolutly no issue. I saw the "!!" and wondered why.😂😂 God Bless
@@atyt11soteriology is regarding salvation, not theology. Theology is the study of God. They are intricately connected but not the same. So no, it’s not a soteriological text.
God bless!
Last video, I commented that Steve was particularly charitable, and I commented that!... Well, this opening statement he's sounding particularly... Hmmm, we'll call it "salty" lol
Don't get me wrong. That's just an observation. I still really appreciate Gregg going toe-to-toe with White to help sharpen all of our thinking :)
Clark's Commentary
Acts 13:48
And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
As many as were ordained to eternal life believed - This text has been most pitifully misunderstood. Many suppose that it simply means that those in that assembly who were fore-ordained; or predestinated by God's decree, to eternal life, believed under the influence of that decree. Now, we should be careful to examine what a word means, before we attempt to fix its meaning. Whatever τεταγμενοι may mean, which is the word we translate ordained, it is neither προτεταγμενοι nor προορισμενοι which the apostle uses, but simply τεταγμενοι, which includes no idea of pre-ordination or pre-destination of any kind. And if it even did, it would be rather hazardous to say that all those who believed at this time were such as actually persevered unto the end, and were saved unto eternal life. But, leaving all these precarious matters, what does the word τεταγμενος mean? The verb ταττω or τασσω signifies to place, set, order, appoint, dispose; hence it has been considered here as implying the disposition or readiness of mind of several persons in the congregation, such as the religious proselytes mentioned Acts 13:43, who possessed the reverse of the disposition of those Jews who spake against those things, contradicting and blaspheming, Acts 13:45. Though the word in this place has been variously translated, yet, of all the meanings ever put on it, none agrees worse with its nature and known signification than that which represents it as intending those who were predestinated to eternal life: this is no meaning of the term, and should never be applied to it. Let us, without prejudice, consider the scope of the place: the Jews contradicted and blasphemed; the religious proselytes heard attentively, and received the word of life: the one party were utterly indisposed, through their own stubbornness, to receive the Gospel; the others, destitute of prejudice and prepossession, were glad to hear that, in the order of God, the Gentiles were included in the covenant of salvation through Christ Jesus; they, therefore, in this good state and order of mind, believed. Those who seek for the plain meaning of the word will find it here: those who wish to make out a sense, not from the Greek word, its use among the best Greek writers, and the obvious sense of the evangelist, but from their own creed, may continue to puzzle themselves and others; kindle their own fire, compass themselves with sparks, and walk in the light of their own fire, and of the sparks which they have kindled; and, in consequence, lie down in sorrow, having bidden adieu to the true meaning of a passage so very simple, taken in its connection, that one must wonder how it ever came to be misunderstood and misapplied. Those who wish to see more on this verse may consult Hammond, Whitby, Schoettgen, Rosenmuller, Pearce, Sir Norton Knatchbull, and Dodd.
This is a red herring. The obfuscation to "preordination or predestination" is weak tea. There is no pre, post or otherwise in τεταγμενοι. What we have in Acts 13:48 is a mere statement of fact relevant at the occasion in question. Luke does not do this so why should we? Do not try to read something more into the text. The other translation of τεταγμενοι as "disposed" is weak as well. How many are are disposed (reflexive) to believe? There are many texts which suggest that that number is zero. To take one only we know that "There is none that seeks after God." That universal negative is pretty hard to overcome.
Well that's about as clear as mud
Lol Gregg finally threw the hail mary to turn this debate around. You know it's not going well when he tries to change up everything
What is this supposed "hail Mary"? - moderator
2:25 Ironically, one Bible that agrees with White's "all kinds of men" at 1 Timothy 2:4 is... the New World Translation.
its so hard to listen to James White. he is so arrogant. pride is the sin God hates the most. I think that's why he is deceived by the doctrine of calvinism.
That's how people who don't do their homework sometimes feel. If you understood how Gregg butchered Acts 13, you would not spout so. White's concern is certainly justified.
@@geekubs2778 It should be clear to anyone with discernment which of these two the Holy Spirit is truly with. you know a tree by its fruit.
Wow the way you commented it seems you interpret the scripture by your emotion.
@@lepton31415 well the Holy Spirit will lead you into right interpretation not your emotion
@@carloparra8687 what are you talking about? We have like a hundred verses talking about free will, choosing an option for another, you are the one following what your calvinist masters say without thinking. Like a robot programmed to believe nonsense.
Calvinism makes God the author of sin, is a blasphemy that spits in the grace of God and salvation by faith. Is a joke.
There is NO Calvinist truth, absolutely ZERO, touching Acts 13:48.
100% of human language, without even one single exception, the verb read first is taken first. In acts 13:48 states that All who BELIEVED were ordained.
There is not a signle copy wherein the verb of being ordained comes first.
Thus the true, actual and real writing gives a clear statement that the ordaining unto eternal life, comes subsequent to their believing!
No honest person can speak truthfully and pretend that these positions mean the same things:
All who were ordained, believed
all who believed were ordained
Or to be pedantic as White is:
As many as believed, were ordained
As many as were ordained, believed
James White assumes that having one's sins atoned for means they are saved, but nowhere in scripture to my knowledge does it say we are saved by the atonement. Steve may not have had the scripture in his mind to clarify this in the heat of the moment. Many Calvinists would say "when Jesus died on the cross, he secured the salvation of all of the elect..." There is a problem with this, when Jesus died, he did not secure the salvation of anyone, not for the first 10 minutes that he was dead, not for the first hour that he was dead, not for the first 48 hours that he was dead except for maybe the criminal who defended Him. And to my knowledge scripture does not state that the cross paid for sins exclusively, but the Bible does state in what way the cross dealt with sins.
What did Jesus pay for on the cross?
- (Colossians 1:19-20): For it pleased the Father in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile ALL THINGS to Himself, by Him, whether THINGS ON EARTH or THINGS IN HEAVEN, having made peace through THE BLOOD of HIS CROSS.
- (Ephesians 1:9-10): Having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure, which he purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all thing in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth - in Him.
(His death was not simply for the sins of all men, for sins of particular men, or for sin itself, his death was the purchase price for all of creation bringing all things back into the possession of God the Father who then gave all of these things to the Son as a possession)
Who was the payment made to? (I would not hold to this dogmatically, but it is an interesting thought)
- (Daniel 2:36-38): This is the dream. Now we will tell the interpretation of it before the king. You, O king, are a king of kings. For God of heaven has given you a kingdom, power, strength and glory; and wherever the children of men dwell, or the beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven, He has given them into your hand, and has made you ruler over them all - you are this head of gold.
- (Matthew 4:8-9): Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, "All these things I will give you, if you fall down and worship me." Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you Satan! For it is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve!"
(Daniel 2 could be the point in which all the kingdoms of the earth were given into the hands of the devil, of course the fall could be as well, being it is when sin entered, it infected all of creation. But Satan knew who he was talking to, he could not get away with lying to Jesus, so he used the best card he had).
How did God deal with Sin through the cross of Jesus Christ?
- (Colossians 2:13-14): And you, being dead in your trespasses, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, HAVING WIPED OUT THE HANDWRITING OF REQUIREMENTS that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
- (John 3:18-19): He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light, BECAUSE THEIR DEEDS WERE EVIL.
(What is the handwriting of requirements? That's the law, he took the law out of the way nailing it to the cross, the way God dealt with sin through the cross of Christ was by removing the very thing that makes sin, sin out of the way of salvation, sin is no longer the issue for anyone. Sin obviously still affects us, it can cause our conscience to become seared (if we are totally depraved there is not point to conscience searing/hardening) but it is not the reason anyone misses out on salvation. Those who stand condemned on the day of Judgement will be in that position only because they did not believe in the Son of God, not because their sins weren't "paid for," nobody is in hell to pay for uncovered sins. Having taken the law out of the way, is there another law that the reprobates had that the "elect" did not have?)
What saves?
- (Romans 5:8-10): But God demonstrates His love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more having been reconciled, WE SHALL BE SAVED BY HIS LIFE.
- (Titus 3:4-5): But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Spirit.
(We are saved by His life/regeneration)
What is regeneration? (Calvinists would say this is the life that allows us to believe)
- (Romans 8:9-11): But you are not in the flesh but the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead DWELLS IN YOU, He who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies through the Spirit who INDWELLS you.
- (John 1:4, 9-13): In Him was life, and the life was the light of men... That was the true Light which gives light to EVERY MAN COMING INTO THE WORLD. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN DID NOT RECIEVE HIM. But as many as received Him, to them he gave the right to to become children of God, to those WHO BELIEVE in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
(If regeneration is what makes us alive, and life comes to our body through the indwelling of the spirit, then regeneration must be the indwelling of the spirit, if we are also not His if the Spirit does not indwell us, then neither are we His children until we receive the second birth by believing on Him)
When do we receive regeneration/life? (the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as established by the text)
- (Ephesians 1:13-14): In Him you also trusted, AFTER you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, HAVING BELIEVED, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.
(If there are any hang-ups with adoption, Paul defines "the adoption" in Romans 8:23 but Calvinists just gloss over that verse and usurp the bible putting their doctrinal definition on the word rather than Paul's)
- (Romans 8:22-25);For we know that the whole creation groans with birth pans together until now. Not only that but WE ALSO WHO HAVE THE FIRSTFRUITS OF THE SPIRIT, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, EAGERLY WAITING FOR THE ADOPTION. . . THE REDEMPTION OF OUR BODY. . .
(Oops, guess Paul is a heretic because he disagrees with the the TULIP acrostic, he is clearly stating that the adoption is a future thing that is promised to believers, not how lost people become believers/saved)
- (John 6:63): It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
- (John 20:31): But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, AND THAT BELIEVING you may HAVE LIFE IN HIS NAME.
(The spirit is given as a promise to those who believe)
Excellent comment! Please copy and paste to as many comments sections as possible
White arguing against the possible correct (many words have various definitions/uses) use of disposed to is funny.
I am willing, I am disposed. I am willing to accept eternal life, I am disirous of eternal life, I am disposed to eternal life.
Being so inclined, they listen to learn HOW this occurs.
It is not a wrong use but this is moot, since faith comes first.
In Rom 1, Paul is talking about Jews, Gentiles and barbarians. The specific part of Rom 1 that Steve Gregg is looking for is right here:
[+] And I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that often I have planned to come to you (and have been prevented thus far) in order that I might obtain some fruit among **you also** [Jews], even as among **the rest of the Gentiles** [and Gentiles]. I am under obligation **both to Greeks and to barbarians** [Gentiles and barbarians], both to the wise and to the foolish. Thus, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. (Rom 1:13-15)
He then goes on to talk about how he's not ashamed of the Gospel and how it's aimed at all who suppress the truth of God - ostensibly his target audience of Jews, Greeks, and barbarians (V18ff). After that downward spiral in v18ff, look where Paul lands at in ch 2:
[+] Therefore you are without excuse, every man of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. (Rom 2:1)
Those who judge are condemned; those who sin are condemned. Everyone everywhere is without excuse (a point which Paul continues to make all throughout ch 2 an ch 3. He then begins to discuss how righteousness is appropriated in ch 4, starting with Abraham.
So the 'fallen' are exactly who he is preaching at in ch 1 ..all the way though ch 3. That's everyone, everywhere.
When Steve tries to pin it down to only ch 1v18-32, he's gerrymandering the passage in order to force the "context" to say things Paul is not trying to say.
It's unfortunate that White popped off about it.
But it's more egregious that Gregg artificially determined the "context" to his benefit.
44:12 JWhite says "The Son MUST set you free" -referencing John8:36. This is a subtle twisting of the verse, it actually say "So IF the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." In JWhite's calvinistic leaning he conveniently forgets the if and substitutes the MUST.
If he sets you free means He sets you free
Calvinists love to run around saying that non-Calvinists glory man over God, which is not true, yet their definition of the Gospel selfishly focuses on mans consequence rather than the Kingship of Jesus.
I find it ENORMOUSLY rich that James White is splitting hairs about importing a philosophy onto the text, given that Augustinian Calvinism is entirely about importing Manichaean Platonist philosophy into the Bible. Augustine called the Bible "absurd" before he read it in light of Platonism. James is truly a son of Augustine.
I find it enormously rich you were deaf to the fact that James cited Clement of Rome and one other Church Father i cannot remember his name at this moment rebutting everything you are asserting here and Steve likes you comment.
It just goes to show that your will is ruled by your emotions and deafens you to the truth
@@joshsimpson10 You're aware that Plato, and therefore Platonism, precedes Christianity, I hope? Quoting more Platonists interpreting the Bible through Platonism does nothing to upset my original point, and your ad hominem attacks mark you as another Calvinist bully.
@TheOverlapLifewithTimBarber you are aware Clement of Rome was a Christian early Church Father, I hope.
And please don't project yourself onto me. Your original comment was completely ad hominem and baseless, and I literally refuted your assertion.
I had the same thought when I heard him say it. 😂
@@joshsimpson10 this isn't Steve himself liking these comments.
Run coward, run!
"Are you talking to me?"
lol- 😂 James was being funny, he does have a sense of humor sometimes. Since Gregg wanted to ask the question and then turn around and answer it too, James just stopped trying to answer.
@@Pnice971 Actually, white was not answering the question. Previously, when Steve Gregg used the term, all, instead of 'as many as them', White got quite testy, asking where in the TEXT is the WORD, all.
When Gregg turned the tables on him, as white claimed that ALL was in Romans 1, he decided to avoid admitting that the WORD was not in the TEXT and pretend He can do what he berates others for doing (word substitution for clarity) and pretended that the doctrine being taught means ALL.
White is nothing but an arrogant self impressed coward who also happens to be a DAMNED heretic!
Great debate! White clearly was able to handle the text better. I'm not happy with the passive aggressive nature of both debaters. White is correct to point out Gregg for the uncalled for jabs. But Gregg is correct for calling out White for uncalled jabs. Both are guilty of it. White was not wrong to point out Gregg's hypocrisy. Sloppy on both parts. But White clearly handled the text better.
A King is not a KIND of man.White says , "Consistent WITH THE TEXT'
Well, adding words to the text is INconsistent with the text.
The Greek does, indeed, have the vocabulary and grammarly abiity to say, "All kinds of men" yet being so able, the inspiration was to NOT say it!
1Co_12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
1Co_14:10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
Using the actually used grammar and vocabulary of KINDS OF, IF the Holy Spirit wanted the message to be Kinds of men, it would say Genos Anthropos, just as it says Genos Glossa or Genos Phone
James is very talented at empty deceit/high sounding nonsense
Just because you can’t understand his point doesn’t mean he’s wrong. Are you saying his Greek translation is wrong?
@@JonathanTheZombie Specifically, his rambling about "as many as" not meaning all. Talking about all the people that will ever live in that town. Talk about intentionally twisting the point of what your interlocutor says.
If I was an Arminian I’d be a Calvinist now
Of course you being a cal would say that..
Gregg made a great point with Roman’s 1 and dr. White performing eisegesis by saying it speaks of all men.
I don't agree with White and listening to these debates and many other similar ones all I find is myself being irritated. I think these debates don't do a single bit of good for the kingdom. If all of this effort was applied to spreading the gospel, loving one another, helping those in need and strengthening our own walk with the Lord then a lot could be accomplished.
What GOSPEL are you referring to, critical_mass6453?
That is precisely why there is this debate.
Do we preach God's gospel or Calvin's gospel?
That's what many false teachers nowadays say: "Just love each other" and don't pay much attention to Scripture.
You are looking at it from the wrong side. Calvinism is harmful for the kingdom because it makes God another satan. Provisionism isn't, because it elevates God's love, his goodness and his grace.
why there's no comments in here hahaha
because the video was just uploaded an hour ago
Because Gregg silenced James white, and we all enjoy the silence.
The first time I heard this debate I was on Steve Gregg's side but I appreciated hearing how James worked through the scriptures and it caused me to go visit his site more. Years later now I am I favor of Dr White's position.
@@leepretorius4869 I thought Steve silenced by White?
@@MakeAmericaNiceAgainPlz so you think God is the author of sin. That's dumb. You are easily misguided. Listen to Leighton Flowers for a better understanding of why calvinism is wrong. I mean, it should be easy, but apparently you need help.
He is more gracious than me. I think calvinism is a different gospel and therefore blasphemous so sorry if I can't be more loving when speaking about it. My words are harsh because I Iove you and want you to know the truth, but I hate the doctrines of calvinism with a passion. And White, who I think is a venomous snake who is leading people to a false gospel that will save no one. And on top of everything, he spits in the doctrine of the inspiration of scripture and teaches the bible has been lost for hundreds of years until Rome invented paleography and textual criticism. It's so, so moronic.
You know Steve is on the back foot because he can’t argue the Greek other than saying “I disagree” without a reason. He MUST disagree or his worldview falls apart. He has no reason for it.
James destroyed Steve. Steve is a good man. Nothing personal.
Let me get out my crystal ball…..God determined you to be a Calvinist🤔🥱
@atyt11 lol. We all have lots to learn about God. We will all be in awe of him in eternity. I'm not a Calvinist BTW. However, I do believe faith is a gift.
@@ogmakefirefiregood 👍👊 Sorry I judged. My bad. James always seems to miss the mark for me because he never seems to learn anything from his opponent except how to reword sentances to win the debate. Its not like he really learns or really cares to learn what the other side really believes. His life is DEBATE.
He fires bomb after bomb at strawmen that provisionism has debunked years ago.
Provisionalists believe most of what He says we do not and believe little of what he says we do. Its such an inefficient way to discuss the truth of God.
I think very few calvinists will clearly and consistantly lay out the top tenets of their system without smoke and mirror terms like "Doctrines of grace" or "Golden chain of redemption" or "Monergism" or "Man centered theology"
Its like calling dog poo "soft smoky pudding".
Just my view.
Merry Christmas.✌✌
@@atyt11He's obviously not a Calvinist, he called someone a good person. A Calvinist would say that there is none good, no not one, and least of all themselves, they are the chief of sinners.
@@oracleoftroy 👊👊🤣🤣✌✌
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.
Jonathan Edwards was a staunch Calvinist...
@ajsalmon8303 and the OP was pointing out the ignorance of his statement.
@@Ben6Strings and what is ignorant about Edwards' statement?
If you believe in Libertarian Free Will, it is you that is the ideologue. LFW is a man-made concept stolen from Greek philosophy that not found in scripture.
No. @@noobitronius
The most evil act in the history of the world past and future was Jesus crucified at the hands of men. Their choice according to the will of God. God ordained it before the foundation of the world and yet man is still responsible for his actions. And I watch SWU. Very interesting show. It only reaffirms the fact that man is dead in sin and CANNOT choose to follow God without the Holy Spirit giving us faith. No one seeks after God. Not even one.
I hold Calvinist theologians with the same regard as flat earthers.
Yep and every nonbeliever sees you as a flat earther. See tulip point 1 to understand this
Lots of people are small minded lol Bible so clearly teaches Calvinism
White has made a lot of important contributions to apologetics, but he really embarrassed himself here. He knows how debates work, knows that his opponent is under no obligation to yield his own time for extended answers to yes or no questions, but childishly refuses to engage when simple questions point out inconsistencies in his view. "That kind of interaction" is exactly what White uses to pin down opponents in other debates, and he doesn't seem to have a problem with it when he's on the offensive.
Embarrassed himself. You’re delusional. Steve is flat out lying under the pretentiousness disguise of humility. He spent all his time evading the questions White asked and then proceeded to disingenuously interrupt White ant time Whjte tried to answer his. It’s very telling by Steve’s refusal to acknowledge that Romans 1 includes himself that he thinks far too highly of both himself and fallen man. There’s nothing biblical Steve can do to combat the arguments Whjte extended here so he simply refused to answer. His tactics are ad hominems and strawmen. That’s basically all he has.
Steve Gregg admitted at the end of this video he was asking loaded questions, which is a logical fallacy.
That’s literally what a debate is buddy, you ask questions that you think will advance your position. James white does the exact same thing
No, it is not a fallacy. If I ask if the NUMBER 7 is in the alphabet, the answer is NO. Either it IS there or it is NOT there. White called it loaded, Gregg just agreed, and pointed ou tahat this is the way White deals with everyone.
White asked where the WORD all was in 13:48
Gregg asked where the WORD all was in Romans 1
White upbraided Gregg for substituting one word for another, yet white simply adds it to actually change the meaning.
@@buzzbbird I'm sorry, but Gregg admitted it was a loaded question.
@@josephconkle3947 because he’s not a fool… all you do in debates is ask loaded questions
@clay8546 A logical fallacy is a failure in logic and isn't a debate tactic.
Do you concede Gregg's position is a failure in logic?
(Rhetorical).
Speaking of Steve; it is amazing how Man uses such gymnastics to make God's word fit their beliefs. Vessels of Wrath cannot and will not "Hear or See" what scripture says. They have been born of "Self" and there is no spirit man in them, for they are not born of God. Therefore, the Holy Spirit cannot teach them, for He, The Holy Spirit, does not dwell in them.
It's a metaphor. You are not a vessel, you are a human being. You can think and make decisions. Without free will there is no real love and real worship. Calvinism is an insult to God that says we are all programmed like robots for salvation or damnation. It makes God a monster. It's moronic.
Leave it to a heretical calvinist to essentially deny one's salvation simply because they are not brainwashed Calvinists. Wonder what those Christians ever did before the literal murderer John Calvin came along... hmmm
@@JesusProtects where does the Bible say, "without [libertarian] free will there is no real love and real worship?" Or is that man's wisdom creeping in?
You mean it’s amazing how God makes men do that. Because man has no free will to make God’s Word do anything He does not want them to do.
2 Timothy 2:
[20] But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. [21] IF a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
Clearly says IF, no-one has to be a dishonourable vessel, but if you are going to be hard clay, you better not complain when the Potter uses you for dishonourable use.
The Arminian position lacks biblical authority
You're right. Only thousands of verses where God gives us commands, and choices and holds us accountable for those choices, not to mention the fact that Christ died for all send wants all to be saved.
James White is completely intellectually dishonest here. Steve wasnt asking for a conclusion just a statement of fact. Completely dishonest not to answer the direct question.
This is a debate, not an argument. Steve seems to ask a question, but only will allow an answer if he is satisfied with answer.
The rules of a debate doesn't allow for one word answers. And it certainly doesn't allow for one to cut the other off mid answer. Disliking someone's answer is not a good enough reason for this.
@@maidenshazza
Wow
Your funny
Gregg destroyed White.
Wrong. Not even close.
sasanka207: Not difficult to do when a person like Steve has evidence on his side.
@@JonathanTheZombie
And I would consider the opinion of, JonathanTheZombie?
If you are a Christian, you would not choose this title, even jokingly.
I have no idea what you’re on unless it’s maybe the apocrypha, but Dr. James White legitimately began to actually school Greg around 10 minutes in. And actually had to educate him on how to read the text. This is just a classic example of a prideful Armenian, refusing to actually listen to the other side debate.sorry dude, but Greg got destroyed in this, and he brought it on himself throughout most of it. Lol!
@@sheilasmith7779 my name is a joke, look up “I like turtles”.
Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords.
Steve is not debating. Every question is loaded. This debate day sucks. Steve will not allow White to answer. Lousy. No respect at all. Trying to make himself look good for his broadcast and actually speaking for White. That's the way to stoop low. Is that supposed to get your audience to agree with you Steve? Last word for your viewpoint Steve? White's debate and argumentation is precise and pointed. Every response is measured. "That is why at the very, very beginning I said, that the key issue here is the consistency of ones interpretation of scripture and whether one will allow all of scripture to speak or whether you will cut it up into pieces." This whole "debate" was like a parent correcting a child and trying to guide him into the right way in interpretation and following through with a logical, biblical understanding to a right conclusion. Arminians are so intent on preserving that Free Will of Man part that they are willing to feminize God into this pathetic "gentleman God" who is powerless in ordaining all things to the pleasure of His will.
Gregg was wrong on Romans 1.
Arminian here
Respect brother
Steve Gregg very disrespectful with his tactics
I've been running this channel for more than 10 years and Steve's Facebook group for I believe 16 years. I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've seen someone claim Steve is disrespectful.
@@SteveGreggVideos I don’t believe Mr. Gregg was being disrespectful. Asking for yes-no answers may not have been the best way to support his own viewpoint in the format that’s been laid out. My own preference would be that each person articulate his own views as opposed to giving a one word answer and letting the other person explain why you gave that answer. Hope that makes sense.
Thank you again Mr. Gregg.
P.S. Maligning the character of a believer for a secondary doctrinal issue (referring to them as a moron, heretic, etc) as so often seen in internet comments, calls for prayer and repentance.
Saying someone acted in a disrespectful way is not maligning a persons character. I was describing my perspective on his actions at that one time. I was not saying he is not qualified for ministry. He was very disrespectful during that one sequence of questions that does not tear down Mr. Gregg’s character. I have not seen a pattern of this behavior. Do you think he is above ever being very disrespectful to someone in his life?
Trying to force a person into yes or no answers and then continually interrupting when he is trying to answer is in my perspective very disrespectful. Then Mr. Gregg wanted to act like Mr. White had a problem answering questions when it was clear it was the tactics Mr. Gregg was using was the problem.
@hixadam1: provide a Steve quote that supports your claim that Steve is "very disrespectful."
Disagreement is not synonymous with disrespect.
Personal attacks are disrespectful...a common tactic of James White.
I explained in my previous comment.
White destroyed Greg
James White is very hypocritical, he does to hie debate opponents exactly what he cries about when it’s done to him!
Name one time he did this.
@@JonathanTheZombie- this very debate! All of his other debates as well with non-Calvinist.
i can say that Steve Gregg destroy by James White on this part
You mean Gregg destroys James White's arguments. That's true. Calvinism is an insult to God's goodness and grace, it spits in the gospel of salvation by grace through faith.
All I see is an admittance of ignorance on your part.
@@JesusProtects your worldview constrains God to YOUR will. And you think that you are right? Big yikes.
@@JonathanTheZombie stop using the arguments that your calvinist masters use. They are blind leading the blind. They lie constantly about those who don't believe their nonsense.
God doesn't constraint himself to our will, he CHOOSES to give us his grace because we freely believed and repented and genuinely love him, not because we are programmed to do it like robots. He does this out of love, because our faith and repentance is true and genuine, not because he feels forced to do it. Whoever came up with that false idea is extremely dumb. Think McFly, think.
@@JesusProtects
Faith is given by God at His discretion.
This proves the Sovereignty of God as calvinism declares.
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Ephesians 2:8 LSB
Oh, James, James, James!
If you let yourself discard the false doctrine you swallowed you will then be able to see a clear understanding of every verse you used.
Calvinism is poison and it's fed to the naive...be not deceived by the likes of false teachers disguised as angels of light.
James is at the point where he will not discard the poison because he wouldn't be able to bear the pain of humiliation... he has too much invested in the lie to let it go, just as the Pharisees did😢