DEBATE: The Atonement & TWO-PART ROMANS (2PR)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- This is the full debate between James White & Jason Breda.
Debate Title: The Reformed Doctrine of the Atonement is Biblical & Important
0:16-Moderator Opening
06:50-James White Opening
26:49-Jason Breda Opening
45:09- James White Rebuttal
59:14- Jason Breda Rebuttal
1:14:21- Intermission
1:14:45-James White Cross Ex
1:29:48- Jason Breda Cross Ex
1:41:01- James White’s Closing
1:52:52- Jason Breda’s Closing
2:02:59- Audience Q&A
👉 Try the most affordable Bible study tool that’s unlocking new levels of depth: tinyurl.com/63...
W H A T T O W A T C H N E X T :
💡 WHY I LEFT CALVINISM: tinyurl.com/5n...
👀 MY DEBATE WITH DR. JAMES WHITE: tinyurl.com/38...
🏛️ DEEP STUDY OF THE LETTER OF ROMANS: tinyurl.com/6u...
📚 THE BEST BIBLE STUDY APPROACH: tinyurl.com/2r...
😱 CONQUER FEAR & ANXIETY BIBLICALLY: tinyurl.com/bd...
📖 THIS IS MY FAVORITE BIBLE STUDY TOOL: tinyurl.com/4h...
_________________________________________________________________________________
📲 Subscribe to Good Berean: / goodberean
✅ Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @goodberean
_________________________________________________________________________________
😎 Exclusive Bible Resource & Discounts
1️⃣ Logos Bible Software Exclusive 50% Discount: partner.logosb...
2️⃣ Dwell Exclusive 30% Discount: fas.st/t/uo2nDrsB
3️⃣ Epidemic Sound: share.epidemic...
4️⃣ Canopy Parental Control App: Exclusive Discount by using Code: PROTECT24
_________________________________________________________________________________
👕 BE A GOOD BEREAN APPAREL: goodberean.myspreadshop.com
☑️ WEBSITE: beagoodberean.com
📑 EXEGETICAL OBSERVATIONS WORKBOOK: tinyurl.com/63...
For those who don't believe I was a Calvinist or understood Calvinism, please read articles when I was a Calvinist here @ Wordpress: livingchristia...
X: / goodberean1
Facebook: / goodberean1
Instagram: / goodberean1
✅ SUBSCRIBE to get updates: / goodberean
Thanks for watching!
In His Name; for His glory,
Jason
#GoodBerean #Bible #BibleStudy #Exegesis #Hermeneutics #Jesus #Christian
#JasonBreda #BibleTools #BibleStudyTools #ScriptureStudy #BiblicalTruth #GodsWord #BibleWisdom #BibleKnowledge #BibleLearning #BiblicalExegesis
#Scripture #BibleTeaching #BiblicalHermeneutics#FaithJourney #Discipleship
#StudyTheWord #BibleInsight #DailyBible #InDepthStudy #GospelTruth
#BiblicalUnderstanding #DeepDiveIntoScripture #BibleStudyResources
#JesusChrist #ChristianLiving #GrowInFaith #WordOfGod #Theology #BiblicalStudies #ScripturalTruths #BibleLessons #LearnTheBible
#BibleReading #BibleReflection #BibleMeditation #VerseByVerse #BiblicalTools
#KnowTheWord #BibleExploration #ChristianGrowth #StudyGodsWord #TitusTwoModel #JasonBredaTeaching #Dwell #Logos #Brentlay #Epidemicsound #Calvinism #Soteriology #Canopy #soul #counseling #biblicalcounseling
Here’s the starting details of how I see Romans from what I shared in this debate: Lost Perspective on Romans (2-Part Romans)
ruclips.net/video/mtWagyjZsbI/видео.html
@GoodBerean
It's tough going against a seasoned debater but I applaud you. We know what calvanism is and what the truth is. Sometimes when it's a debate, there is no winning because the 2 debaters are just too contrary and the one that is perceivedthe winner is just the one who spits the most so called knowledge out. The 2 of you don't even agree on the same Bible which are 2 separate final authorities. Hes always going to take things out of context no matter what is spoken about. Then you throw greek garbage into it and it's now open for more private interpretation rather than what the book says in its context. White is a bible corrector, always has been.
As a former neo- provisionist now reformed Baptist, I found it odd that Jason denied the fact that romans 1-8 is about EVERYONE! The book of romans starts out with Jews are unrighteous, ch 2 says gentiles are unrighteous, and 3 starts the argument from universal condemnation regardless of genetic lineage. Hence why you see Paul writing “πάντα” (all or everything within) is ways used in reference to those that are condemned under the law and unrighteous. Need I also point out that every argument against reformed theology be emotional rather than grounded in scripture in context.
I agree with you in terms of soteriology
The context of Romans 9 is in verses 30-32
Update I became Presbyterian💀
James White is pretty solid here.
Probably one of the most confusing positions I’ve ever heard from Mr. Jason.
I will be launching a 10-part series of this later this year! Stop back once it’s out
From strictly a debate perspective, there really was no "debate" here.
James' arguments went wholly untouched and when James pressed you (Jason) you either weren't able to answer (like in Hebrews) or you claimed to know something you actually didn't (like the Greek hina clause).
Huh? Can you be more specific.
About which part? I gave 2 rather specific examples, my friend. Both instances took place throughout the rebuttal periods and then came out clearly during the cross-examination periods.@@gideondavid30
Disagree. You are clearly biased and easily fooled by white's rhetoric. James did not answer directly then built amazing strawmen and red herrings :) so easy to see white's strategy. 1. Clutch pearls 2. Claim he has "never heard of..." 3. Make extreme what if statement 4. Hopes that opposition doesn't mean [fill in the blank]
Fortunately, real life application isn’t intensely myopic, like your comment.
Calvinism reformed theology are not coherent systems. Sola de thankful these systems and adherents of these systems are exposed more every day!
You don’t have to know what a hina clause is to know that Limited Atonement is a doctrine without a text. Look at what Jesus said to those who would walk away from him in this same chapter. My father gave you the true bread from heaven. What might that bread be? Christ who would die on a cross for sinners that they might have life. 🎤🫳
Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
- John 6:32
Whenever someone uses half of their opening statement to convince me that someone was wrong in the book they wrote or of what the reformers believed or what the early church fathers believed I know they don’t have much to tell me in the way of what scripture says.
I'm glad James White is an apologist because he is savage in debate...
The right word: Savage, think about it.
@@glennishammont7414 It's a play on words mixed with what a hillbilly might think apologist means.
@@glennishammont7414 Paul was a savage too, especially in Galatians. Why though? Think about it.
@@KnightFel James White, savage in the sense of manipulating the truth.
An Ad popping up every 5 minutes..... it's just the best thing ever.
Not when you block them.
@@ronaldsmall8847 "Block them" ... I'm all ears.
@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT you cant block them youtube will not play video if you do
You have to buy RUclips Premium to avoid ads. 🥹
I use it enough to justify $20mo for premium. It's worth every penny. I freak'in HATE ads
So, why is there a Biblical elect in the first place? What is the purpose, if not a group which God chooses to be the recipients of His grace.
If atonement is universal, unlimited, why have an elect?
As a Free Will theology community, we need to be intellectually honest enough with ourselves to admit that James White clearly won this debate. Mr. Breda did not address JW's claims, and his refusal to exegete a relevant passage was a pivotal moment. The appeal to historical reformed teachings was an uninformed attempt at a red herring, at best.
We can't live in an echo chamber, it only hurts the advancement of Free Will theology in the long run. I'm sure Mr. Breda has the best of intentions, but we need better, more skilled representation in these kinds of debates.
How could anyone possibly do better against some like White who has done 175+ debates? He knows how to rip his opponent to shreds. Jason was more Christ like in the debate. In my view that is what matters most.
The pursuit of being more "Christ-like" is not an excuse for us to check our brains at the door. We are called to worship with our minds as well. In Isaiah, God calls us to REASON with him - we can't hand wave intellectual arguments in the name of a vague sentiment.
It doesn't take an expert debater to exegete relevant passages when presented, address claims made by an opponent in a formal debate, or to avoid irrelevant red herring arguments. We cannot settle for "Well Calvinists are better debaters and that's just the way it is"
Yep, he didn't do very well.
Well, that’s one of the reasons I’m not a huge fan of debates. One can support a wrong idea “well” and “win” the debate while still being completely wrong. I give him credit for having the courage to try against someone as experienced in debate tactics and rhetoric as James White, but it’s honestly a waste of time casting pearls before swines many times.
@@henryb.7723 Personally, I’m glad our guy isn’t the arrogant and prideful one on the stage, who spoke perfectly with calculated answers. God is with the humble and lowly in heart and is far from the proud. As far as Christ likeness, Lord Jesus made it clear it is our love for one another is that which proves we are His disciples. The apostle Paul did not preach with convincing words of man’s wisdom, but was in fear and trembling as he spoke the gospel.
It was about 20 years ago that I purchased a debate from one of Dr. White's opponents. I nearly wore out that CD, listening over and over again, trying to hold to my anti-Calvinist position. I finally gave up my stubbornness and submitted to the obvious meaning roof the text. Submit to the text Jason. Election is a wonderful gift from God.
@@KevinAlawine praise be to GOD!!! Bless you brother all glory to God! I did the exact thing to a year and book after book levels me to the floor, my own way to start of salvation was completely monergistic and realized that the whole time but had others around me in a SBC church telling me otherwise, how unfortunate ,
When we stay in Gods word it is all revealed as he wills it to be ! Praise Christ our savior LORD AND GOD
@@jeremynethercutt206 thank you Jeremy! God bless you!
Provisionist is just another word for humanist or progressivist.
All glory to Christ.
Calvinist is just another word for gnosticism
Gee that's odd because most Calvinists I know are the liberal progressives that you find in the church. You know these type, they tend to symbolize Scripture more than literal interpretation. They tend to believe in the social gospel (which is quite humanistic), the notion that everything is going to keep getting better before Christ's return. And like most socialists, which is just a more subdued form of Marxism, they tend engage in the age old tactic of projecting, which is accusing others of doing the very same thing they are guilty of (just like today's Democrat Party), and oddly enough, they tend to justify voting for the Democrat Party platform.
@@coltonditmore90871,000 % correct. History matters.
@@coltonditmore9087 Your lack of historical understanding is disturbing.
@@jasonlewis5350 Yes it does, that's why Calvinism has nothing to do with Gnosticism. You'd know that if you knew history. History matters.
Mr Breda didn't answer the questions being asked in the Q&A. He reinterpreted the questions and then gave an answer to his own re-interpretations.
Just for future reference (or for anyone else reading this), the closing statement isn’t supposed to bring up new information or arguments. It’s supposed to recap and reflect on what was discussed. In the debate Dr. White exemplified this well and closed it well. Jason Breda pretty much started a whole new debate.
I know Dr. White has hundreds of debates down and this is Jason’s first, so I’m not accusing, but this is just for future knowledge.
I actually agree. It's basically like writing an essay. You say what your points will be. Expound on them. Defend and compare them to others. Then reflect and reiterate your points. Starting a new one is like a cliffhanger for your audience.
And just expressing my opinion, I believe when we go to church, or when the gospel is being preached, it should be preached without lies.
The word of God says to preach the word of God boldly. If they were to preach the word boldly , and with confidence it would sound totally different. So if Jason didn't close out in a clear, closing statement is not as bad as not preaching what you truly believe. I think their gospel is divided into the good news and the bad news Jesus said go and preach the good news I don’t remember reading the bad news too.
Hes been hanging out with Leighton too much,he can't stay on topic.
This wasn’t a debate. He never dealt with James arguments at all. The person bringing the positive is supposed to be answered. Besides the error on the Greek - the unwillingness to interpret 7:25 - and giving us the chopper version of Romans, was really bizarre.
Hebrews 7:25 “he is able to save completely those who come to God though him” - NOT “he is able to save completely those who God gives him from eternity past, who then come to him, and are saved through him”.
Hebrew’s is one of the best books that displays clearly that God requires, belief, faith and obedience emphasizing that you cannot have either of these 3 things without freewill choice.
@@andrewtsousis3130 What you don't realize is how the Old Testament sacrificial system worked. The Great High Priest would enter into the Holy of Holies and offer a sacrifice for the atonement of the people, that is Israel, and Israel only. The High Priest would intercede on behalf of the nation, praying that God would accept the offering in their stead.
The point with Hebrews is that all whom Christ intercedes for are the same ones whom He atoned for. Everyone whom Christ gave Himself as an offering for, are the same ones whom He pleads in heaven for the Father to forgive. Thus, all the ones whom Christ intercedes for are the exact ones that draw near to God through Him. Therefore, Christ had to have only died for a particular people, for not all people draw near unto God.
@@andrewtsousis3130 You do realize that belief is a verb & faith is a noun and that they are essentially the same having the same root in the Greek. I have faith in Jesus, I believe in Jesus. They mean the same thing. So really you only list 2 things.. faith & obedience
“he is able to save completely those who come to God though him”
Q) Who are those who come to God through Him? A) Those the Father gives to Jesus, who are drawn by the Father.
The way you word it makes it sound disjointed. Here is a better phrase to include these steps in the process; He is able to save completely those that Father gives Him, those who the Father foreknew before the foundations of the earth and predestined to be conformed into His image. These are those who come to God through Him and receive life eternal.
@@rprestarri you’re dodging the point that God required them to be obedient, Ie they still had to come to God with the required sacrifice.
They had free will choice to do this, there are many examples where they either didn’t, or did it wrong and we know the consequences.
Your deterministic view must say that those who didn’t or did it wrong were determined by God to conduct their own sacrificial ceremony incorrectly why? So God can show others His soverignty?
This is utter nonsense.
@@andrewtsousis3130 I smell a straw man... It's always bad when you have to tell your opponent what they say or what they believe, when they neither say, or believe any of those things...
Bring up a text of God's holy word, and we can talk about it. Otherwise, your comment doesn't go any deeper into understanding each other, rather is just another example of the surface level banter we see all over the internet scene today.
Im not even gonna listen after reading the comments, I've listened to to many debates against Reformed theology and 100% of the time the opponent invokes opinion,and an emotional argument,and routinely takes scripture out of context
Agreed, because they cannot answer the scripture passages.
That's Calvinism for you.
James White won the debate basically right away.
Jason Breda spent his entire time arguing that Romans 1-8 isn’t for Gentiles and didn’t respond to anything t JW said.
"James White won the debate" yeah and Johnnie Cochran won the case for OJ Simpson. Calvinism is still guilty of being a false doctrine.
@@Jammaster1972can you explain why Calvinism is false or unbiblical?
@@tjkhan4541 Because it supposes that God is the author of evil. It impugns His character, i.e. to create a person for the purpose of sentencing him to Hell for an eternity with no hope for redemption simply because he was not the chosen, and that it was predetermined. It nullifies the concept of Free Will. It basically asserts that God rigged the chess board so that you would lose. On the contrary, the truth is that His foreknowledge does not mean He fore-caused and event to occur (for example, He knew the Chiefs would win the Superbowl, but that does not mean He caused them to win the Superbowl). Most importantly, the doctrines of Calvinism directly contradict a myriad of Bible verses (available upon request). We know from John 10:35 that the word of God cannot and should not contradict itself. If it even contradicts one verse, as far as I'm concerned, it is false or the interpretation of that verse is false or taken out of context.
Jason's argument regarding election primarily referring to jews and only secondarily to gentiles reminds me of the Jehovah's Witness interpretation, where they say that those verses primarily refer to the 144,000 and only secondarily to the earthly flock. What ends up happening, if you're consistent, is that you split the gospel up into two. If you're not consistent with this and insist on one gospel, which I think Jason did, then what was the point of even bringing it up? Jason admitted these verses also apply to gentiles in the same way; so what was the point?
Jason's closing argument regarding the ability to preach the Gospel if you hold to limited atonement is a GRRRROSSSSSSS misrepresentation of the position and the preachers preaching and leading people to a Savior who died that forgiveness may be given to those "who come unto him."
Gross misrepresentation to make an empty point. I didnt like hearing that fallecy.
@the1der agreed but that happens with a lot of reformed doctrines. Sola scriptura and sola fide are constantly strawmanned. When I hear the strawman of course the position seems ridiculous. Why don't we actually argue the real position?
The analogy is made in Romans 11
Great job Jason! The complaints I'm reading/hearing against you seem to have to do with you not letting James White control the conversation. He is a master at doing that and you didn't let him. That's a win in my book! Plus, you apparently introduced him to a Biblical interpretation he had never heard before. That's another win! And, most importantly, you were gracious, kind and respectful in your disagreement with him. Big win!
This is a troll comment. That’s like saying great job to a pee wee team get slaughtered by the Yankees when the Yankees thought they had a real team to play against. Not only does this man not understand biblical theology, he doesn’t possess a rational defensible argument to present to people. Arminians have better theology than this. Do not encourage this. It was not a good job, he lost and his deceptive colors were shown.
@@tyc4587 At least you start out with an honest statement, as your comment is 100% a troll comment! The rest of it is pure, unadulterated horse hockey, as is typical from a (James) White supremacist.
Pretty sure James has heard every position on every subject brother
Jason is playing on emotionalism.
"THEY WILL hear My Voice..and they WILL follow Me." John 1: to those who [n]believe in His name, 13 who were [o]born, not of [p]blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God.
James White's conclusion was some of the most powerful Gospel preaching I have heard in a long time, especially starting at 1:51:50.
"The message of Scripture is that Father, Son and Holy Spirit, together have brought about the perfect redemption of God's people. This was not merely a provision, this was an accomplishment. And that was the dividing line even at the time of the Reformation. It's the dividing line between grace and non-grace."
What was accomplished was accomplished for all. What’s provisional is that which involves a response on the part of man.
We're really not any better than the Catholics.
I believe James White is a great apologist, however when it comes to atonement and election, Mr. White keeps his blinders on. It is unfortunate for the body of Christ, that Mr. White sees all scripture based on his presuppositions. Mr. White is also very condescending and misrepresents Jason’s points. This is intellectually dishonest! May the Lord help him in his pride.
You keep your blinders on because of your presuppositions. See how easy that was to say?
There was no rebuttal to the opening statement. What's the point of debate if the two ships are sailing past one another?
There was a huge amount of James' intro that don't touch on any real point of contention.
So why would those details require a rebutal?
Jason didn't pick this topic. It's not a very well designed topic to actually show their point of contention. Jason seemed to do his best to refrain this is terms of where their differences on this topic actually lie.
@ravissary79 That's the rules of engagement in a debate. That is what notes are for? Jason accepted the invitation and should have done his homework. White constantly brought up the book of Hebrews and exegeted it in the opening; whereas Jason responded by ignoring Hebrews, and when White brought it to his attention. Jason responded that he would exegete it in the future? That debate was a huge waste of my time.
@@rogervincent2092 like i said, he did address the topic, but white chose to design an opener that doesn't touch on their differences sufficiently to make a point by point rebutal unproductive... even dishonest.
Example: early on, James made it a point to go on about the relationship between the trinity and redemption.
Does Jason believe in redemption?
Does Jason believe in the trinity?
So what does a rebutal of his opening points sound like?
If He doesn't contest the trinity or redemption then he's running from James' points! Oh noes!
@ravissary79 I wholeheartedly disagree with you. White was spot on with the TOPIC- 'the reformed doctrine of the atonement' There was much for rebuttal. Go the exegete route. I really have no idea what you are talking about saying there wasn't much. White cited 5 plus verses
Jason doesn't believe in the trinity?????
@ravissary79 of course went on about redemption and the trinity to demonstrate the the reformed dictrine is consistent and ties in. Jason is also a universalist, right?
I realize this was probably your first debate, but the point of a debate is to respond to your opponents main position.
You actually did a presentation instead of a debate.
I didn't find it productive for your side.
I thought I responded to his Trinitarian harmony position in my opening. I made the case that the context of Romans refutes the argumentation white brought.
@@GoodBereanNot true, brother. When James pressed about it, you ultimately admitted to him that the first 8 chapters is pertaining to BOTH Jew and Gentile, remember?
@@GoodBerean I remember him saying that it applied primarily to Jews with a wider application to Gentiles. James raving about this being heresy was a strange rebuttal to the argument. I have seen many hold this position, White clearly mischaracterized his opponents position.
@@GoodBerean do you know what a hina clause is now?
@aletheia8054 yes, again I knew of it, but couldn’t provide a good definition. Bill Mounce defines it as the following: a marker that shows purpose or result: in order that, in order to, so that, then; it can focus on the introduction of a discourse or on the content itself
James White absolutely smacked this one out of the park. Well done.
He called Jason a heretic. Do you agree?
Disagree wholeheartedly. James WILL NOT allow anyone to corner him on his heretical presuppositions founded on errant TULIP systematic and his deterministic definition of sovereignty. He comes across to me as a disrespectful debater as he talks down to Jason (and frankly, anyone with whom he disagrees)
@@ddascola01 Seems strange that White has a habit of choosing opponents that are less qualified than him, then he smacks them down (belittles them) even though they are making valid points. I think Leighton gave him a lot of deference before, but next time will be different.
If your first debate is against James White, you can debate anybody now.
No, on the contrary, he's unqualified to be on the same stage as Dr. White nor is he properly prepared to argue his stance.
Yeah unfortunately the gentleman isn’t remotely prepared to debate like, ever again. A debate is a debate, it’s not just displaying an opinion but combating (peacefully) the opposite side as well. He didn’t do the latter in the slightest, just put out points built on a foundation of sand.
Jason, I gotta say, you’ve got your feet firmly planted in mid air on this one.
When one doesn't have a good argument, they resort to putting down the other person. If you have a criticism of his logic you should reference it.
@@jcthomas3408 Interesting because that is what Jason did in the beginning of his closing argument. He seemed to fain humbleness and then say something like if he believed differently than White then he must be against the Bible. White gave reasons during his talk and even tried to understand Jason's position. It is not White's fault if Jason could not articulate his own position very well in a debate. He said Romans 1-8 were to the Jews but then also that passages could be attributed also to the gentiles while giving no reason or hermeneutic to determine which ones should be or not. He said he would go into later.
@@jcthomas3408the whole debate was lacking substance from Jason
@@teejay7510agreed. It’s not a personal attack to say that Jason’s argument lacks substance. If you want a better rendering of Romans, you could grab hold of Douglas Moo’s commentary on Romans.
Jason - I watched your debate and have to tell you how proud I am of your performance. You debated a seasoned debater who threw some ugly punches and you stood your ground. You also exemplified a humble, Christ-like demeanor in spite of Dr. White’s arrogance and condescension. Your answers were focused and biblical. Well done, brother!
lol James White has been making the exact same arguments for 20+ years and Jason didn’t address any of them. What are you talking about?
@@SDRBass The blind leading the blind, brother
@@BRNRDNCK I don’t even think James White makes the best arguments for limited atonement. Still doesn’t change the fact that Jason Breda read his cross questions from a binder lol. 😂
@@SDRBass What do you consider the best arguments for particular atonement?
@@BRNRDNCK I like using Leviticus 16 because it’s quoted in Hebrews. The offering of the Day of Atonement only covered the people of the Israel. The high priest represents the chosen people of God. No more, no less. And Jesus as our priest also represents the chosen people of God, no more, no less, with His sacrifice and intercession work (as mentioned in Hebrews).
I am giving up. Really a waste of time. Why can't provisionists learn from past debates? They always just attack Calvinism rather than making a biblical case for what they hold. Jason's opening was really weak and did not make a case for the fundamental issue, which White noted: What does Christ's propitiation actually accomplish (especially as regards unbelievers)? There is a good answer but I never hear provisionists give it. Hey guys, try just teaching your audience what the Bible says on this subject rather than trying to teach them what they already know about the various reformed positions. And stop rehashing weak gotcha questions.
If you'd like to hear a "teaching your audience what the Bible says on this subject" type of provisionism, here's an answer I gave in a different comment, relating to the harmony of the Trinity, and asking why God would send the Son to die, and call people who would never come (and likely meant to be a "gotcha" question, pointing to provisionists believing God fails when He tries to save some). I hope this encourages you that a clear answer can be given (although I do think it would be a challenge to give this response in under a minute, if the question came up during a debate):
Why would the Father send the Son to die, and call all people to repentance, including those who He knows will never come? Out of love for His creation. John 3:16-18:
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
You may ask, how do we know that God calls all people to repentance, though some reject that call? That He calls both those who listen, and those who refuse to listen? We see it in His Word. Isaiah 65: 1-2, 12:
1 “I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me;
I was found by those who did not seek me.
To a nation that did not call on my name,
I said, ‘Here am I, here am I.’
2 All day long I have held out my hands
to an obstinate people,
who walk in ways not good,
pursuing their own imaginations-
....
12 I will destine you for the sword,
and all of you will fall in the slaughter;
for I called but you did not answer,
I spoke but you did not listen.
You did evil in my sight
and chose what displeases me.”
But you may ask, as many Calvinists do, doesn't this mean that God has failed? That He has tried something and not succeeded in it? No, God can be sovereign and infallible, omniscient and fully loving, in offering salvation to all, knowing who will respond and who will not, before the foundations of the world, and assigning the appropriate destiny to each for His glory, according to His will, and based on His foreknowledge of how they will choose. Romans 9:22-24:
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory- 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
Before we get into this any further, would you agree that a point of contention many Calvinists have with non-Calvinists is that if God offers salvation to all, and anyone that He offers it to rejects His offer, then He has tried to save them and failed, and is therefore not sovereign over all? And doesn't this fly in the face of Hebrews 7:25?
25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
(some translations may say "save forever", or "save to the uttermost")
I'm not looking to shy away from what Scripture says, I'm happy to go there, and learn from it, and apply it. So let's look at Hebrews 7:25. Who does it say Jesus is interceding for and saving? Those who come to God through Him. While many Calvinists read this passage through a lens of unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace, and so they may see all of those points affirmed here, the phrasing of the passage does not speak to any of those things. In context, human priests die, and so others need to be appointed. But Jesus lives forever, death has no hold on Him, so the priesthood never passes on from Him. We come to Him, only Him, always Him, to intercede for us. When it says, "those who come to God through him," I see this as the perfect combination of human repentance and God's salvation. "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Romans 10:13) We do the calling (in response to His call), He does the saving.
A common Calvinist objection at this point is that this makes us responsible for our salvation, rather than God, and is therefore an affront to His sovereignty and omnipotence. Let me explain to you how this is not a necessary conclusion:
- God, in His sovereignty, created mankind in His image, giving us the ability and responsibility to choose. When He created mankind, He said that it was good. This indicates to me that humans making choices was part of God's intent.
- Therefore, humans making real choices is not a defeater to God's decree, but flows from it.
- Circling back to the previous point of contention, if God decreed that we would make choices, and expects and requires us to do so, then the choices we make are a result of God's sovereignty, and do not need to be micromanaged by Him in order to be so. If we choose other than He commands, then we made a choice as per His decree, and we face the consequences of our actions, as per His decree. If we choose repentance and salvation, then we made a choice as per His decree, and we are saved, as per His decree.
- If God decreed choice and responsibility for each person, and we see many verses that assume people do have choices that they are responsible for, with real consequences, then whatever choice a person makes falls in line with that decree, rather than superceding it.
- God, in His omniscience, knows from all eternity each choice that every person will choose. He doesn't have to have micromanaged it to know it. Some Calvinists ask where that knowledge comes from - it doesn't come from somewhere, He is God. He doesn't learn or grow in knowledge, He has all knowledge already. His knowledge doesn't have to "come from" a decree, and His knowledge doesn't have to "come from" peering down the corridors of time, His knowledge is intrinsic to His character.
Another Calvinist objection is often, but isn't this man-centred? Man chooses, man repents, man, man, man! God has to respond to man!
- But Who decreed that man would choose? Who commanded and called man to repent? Who has been calling, reaching out, showing His glory through nature, through His Word, through His Son? The only reason man can choose is because God ordained it so. The only reason God responds to man is because He decreed that He would draw near to those who draw near to Him. And men must first respond to God! No, my friend. This is not a man-centred gospel. Each of us must humble ourselves, and respond to the God Who calls everyone to come. And to all who do come, He will give eternal life. John 6:37, 40:
37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away....
40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
Under our view:
- God decrees that we must choose
- God knows eternally who will choose Him
- God decrees that all who choose Him will have eternal life
- God decrees that all who do not choose Him stand condemned.
- All those who He foreknows will choose Him, the Father gives to the Son.
- The Son does not drive away any who choose Him.
- All who choose the Son receive eternal life from the Father.
- All who are in Christ have the Holy Spirit living in them. (Romans 8:9)
- The Trinity is in harmony. The Father, Son, and Spirit unite in the salvation of all those who respond to His call.
The call, and offer of atonement, need not be limited in order for God to accomplish His will to the full. It is His will that all of humanity must make a response, and though He is certainly powerful enough to override our will and micromanage every choice we make, He does not go against His own decree in that way. Certainly He strengthens people in the choices they have made, for good or evil. (Pharaoh hardened his heart, and God hardened Pharaoh's heart - Exodus 4-14, multiple occurrences of each phrase.) (Romans 1:18-32) (Philippians 2:13)
And certainly no one comes to God without a long string of His gracious actions drawing them along. (Romans 10:14-15)
I do not set aside the grace or sovereignty of God, and I look to all of Scripture to inform my views, and I must stay humble and willing to allow the Scripture to correct my views wherever they may be in error. All of this being said, I put to you that unless one starts with the presuppositions of Calvinism, the plain reading of the totality of Scripture does not discount human will, but acknowledges it as a part of God's sovereign plan.
Will any of us fully understand how God does all of this? Hopefully once we get to Heaven, we can all understand it better, and laugh about how much higher God's thoughts are than ours.
In the meantime, shall we not love one another, as God loved us? Shall we not forgive one another, as God in Christ forgave us? And shall we not respond with kindness (even on the Internet?!?) to others, since it is the kindness of God that led us to repentance? I say that by God's grace, we shall, and call all of God's people to that sort of behaviour.
Jason I am so proud of you. Everyone has to start somewhere. You started with one of our best debaters. You are going to learn so much from this and I believe become one of our best up and coming defenders of the faith. You are humble, gracious, and teachable!
I have the great honor of knowing you and your family personally. You are a man of character. God is going to use you to further the Kingdom.
I appreciate James White and his work as well, but I don’t know him behind closed doors.
You my friend and brother are a shining example to us all!! You did a wonderful job and I look forward to watching you continue to grow in the area of debating.
Breda was unprepared and did not present a scriptural basis for his beliefs. I am not a Calvinist and was disappointed in what was presented.
And I just studied/ taught Isaiah 28:9-13, 23-26. "And the word of the Lord will be to them, precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little that they may go and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken." Isaiah 28:13. God graciously helped me to better understand this visually in this debate. Glory to God!
I'm not sure what Breda's argument is.
He pulled a Leighton Flowers (his buddy) and went all over the place and ended up not dealing with the topic. He was supposed to argue against the Reformed Doctrine of the Atonement.
I dont even think he knows:)
Jason thought that all Calvinists thought and believed about Reformed theology the same way as he did; I think that’s where he went wrong.
Not at all trying to favor one side over the other with that thumbnail. One giving a nice smile, the other a scowl, nope not at all.
Classic
I think it matches the tone of the debaters fairly well. I don't think Dr. White smiles much when interacting with non-Calvinist content.
@@garfd2lol Jason was the only one to like this comment. He big mad 🤣 honestly I wish David Allen would agree to debate White. Provisionists are just embarrassing themselves
This is clearly a David against Goliath situation. Well done Jason, for being our David. Thank you also for broadcasting this.
In this case though, David is the one who was slain, and Goliath won.
Wow calling a brother a server of Satan.
Repent brother!
Jason was very civil and respectful, and I give him credit for going into the lion’s den with Dr. White. Unfortunately, the subject of limited atonement is hard to refute, as we saw here.
That was Strawman fallacy on steroids by James White. Shocking!!
Jason never said or implied that chapters 1 thru 8 are only to the Jews. He even confirmed and clarified tha it was not what he said during the rebuttal portion.
Yet James flat out insisted that it was what Jason claimed. He just made up a faulty position and attributed it to Jason and started to attack it.
Ha! The only fallacy was the Motte and Bailey fallacy that Jason Breda pulled!
He literally says in his latest videos that Romans 1-8 are only to the jews. It's not for the gentiles. Depressing!
Jason, I truly enjoyed the debate. You did an awesome job with your arguments and you modeled for us all the love of Christ and sharing the truth in love. God bless brother
Thank you brother!
Jason's arguments were answered by James white, James whites arguments were untouched. Jason didn't want to exegete one verse, the debate was over by then already.....
Jason’s closing statement was like a second opening statement. What info in it was from the debate? It was a second presentation offering new info. Debate L.
You’re right. I def could have stuck with the talking points addressed in the first half of the debate for my closing and pushed back more specifically from what White brought out. I am though glad I said what I said in the closing. It’s what I believe the Lord wanted me to share. Rather walk in obedience to the Lord than desired debate format. Hope people understand.
@@GoodBerean to intentionally violate a debate format that you agreed to?
You had also mentioned you weren’t ‘trying to win an argument.’ Isn’t that what a debate is?
@@Postmillhighlights I didn’t intentionally violate the debate format. I don’t think I properly understood the format nor was I given any direction other than present your view of the atonement from a general perspective.
@@GoodBerean bless you brother.
@@GoodBereanso your claiming God wanted you to violate the agreed terms of the debate. That seems an unwise thing to pin on God.
Who are the "US"? The "US" refers to the believers who put their faith in Christ. Just like in the Old Testament, the one who brings the sacrifice is the one who is atoned for. Atonement applies only to those who bring a sacrifice. However, atonement is open to all who will avail themselves of it.
In both the Old and New Testaments, atonement does not save individuals, but rather it puts them in right standing before God. Atonement in the Old and New Testaments serves to reconcile individuals with God and restore their relationship with Him. It is important to note that the resurrection of Christ is what gives life to a believer, providing them with eternal life and salvation.
The atonement was indeed completely effective. Read 2 Cor 5:19 and 1 John 2:2. It dealt with all sin. Period. So that now the free gift of salvation could be offered to all. It’s theirs to receive or not, have faith in Jesus or not.
Yall heed what was written above. Because of the atonement, "All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men." The sons of men are me and you, whoever you are. Mark 3:28.
Jesus said “If I be lifted up, I will draw all unto Me” so it’s not simply that the lost do not accept the offer, but also resist the drawing of the Holy Spirit.
@@ewallt “This he said, signifying what death he should die.” These verses say that His death, burial, and resurrection, not the Holy Spirit, would draw all men to Himself. This why Paul pleaded with the Corinthians, “be ye reconciled” (2 Cor 5:19-21). Being resurrected from the dead is a pretty powerful draw.
@@RNLWW The death and resurrection draws someone apart from the Holy Spirit? How?
@@ewallt “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16
“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13
His immense love for mankind.
When we stop sullying the incredible gift God offers us today with all sorts of works and come to truly realize what Jesus did for us, how can we not be drawn to Him?
All the names in the Book of Life were written from the foundation of the world. (Revelation 17:8)
This seems like a debate on covenant theology vs dispensationalism.
James White has it. These are necessary corrections. These truths cannot be cut out of the Scripture. Excellent debate. Much to learn. Thank you
I've never seen Dr James white. So, frustrated he was asking questions but got no answer. Respect to you tho for debating mr white God bless you and keep seeking you will find truth.
Thank God for Dr. James White
Amen! He is such a wonderfull man of God
Indeed, I'm so glad he's around to help me be more assured that Calvinism is wrong.
He might even be one of the elect!
Thank you Jason for your Christlike character and witness. Great job!
Romans 1-8 addressed to jews alone? I understand why James might be a tad sharp with language or attitude.
I can only imagine what Jesus or Paul or the apostles would’ve said to him.
When you read the OT, do you have any take-aways as a member of the Body of Christ? It clearly wasnt written to gentiles, do you throw out the whole OT bc of it? It pays to really listen to what someone is proposing. JB never said it was to Jews ALONE with zero application for gentiles. He was saying that Paul was speaking to the Jews and should be understood as such, as it clarifies some things for the reader.
Do you take the verse, 'I know the plans I have for you, plans to prosper...' and apply it to your life? Do you think that you will only prosper as a Christian? Could you still look at that verse and think that the same God that made that promise to Israel is the same God that loves you, and He is trustworthy and able to see you through whatever comes your way?
Don't just assume the worst of people, and even if they are being the worst, let your words be sprinkled with salt. JW should keep his attitude and demeaner in check regardless of what is thrown at him.
@@AnniEast the Old Testament was written for gentiles. Hebrews 10
@@AnniEast yes as a gentile the promises are yes and amen in Christ. And jew and gentile in Christ are true Israel. My only point was not to justify bad attitude but to say I can see why sharpness is there in his response. The position as I think James pointed out is unfounded in the book
@@AsTheWatersCoverTheSea33 the Bible says to speak with great plainness of speech. The Greek word means to not beat around the bush, to say it plainly.
People these days don’t like that
@LivingChristian hello brother, I was wondering if you can please summarize your point regarding the argument you made on Romans? It is unclear what you were trying to express. If you would please elaborate, briefly, we would appreciate it 🙏..Thank you and God bless 🥰
Hello sister, I will do this in a future video! 🙂
Jason, I really think you should give the answer whenever they give us answers ! about Where does it specifically say the atonement is limited or where does it specifically say what John MacArthur says that some are partially loved, because he offers the sun to some and the rain and health here on earth , and the elect are loved in more special way from the beginning.. when he chose us like skittles, I like the pink I like the red I like the blue I don’t like the green ones. sorry if I’m a little sarcastic
Question for JW or anyone - why does the “church fathers’”theology = Biblical theology?
To be more specific- James White 45:51 said at the beginning of his rebuttal that he has never heard in all of church history . . . Regarding Jason’s interpretation of Romans. James seems to imply the correctness of “church history” or individuals he has studied over Jason’s interpretation. Shouldn’t the argument be considered on its face first rather than who originated or mentioned it in “church history”.
Sides get drawn. - I am of Apollos.
Does looking at the text itself matter less than what we have studied from church history? I guess it does for some.
On another note, why is “church history” glorified so much?
I appreciate all of the comments. I pray for the body of Christ to be one as He desired us to be.
It doesn’t. That’s not White’s perspective. White acknowledges that he differs with the fathers on many (important) issues
Watch White debate a catholic and ask that question again. White is very consistent that the church fathers are wrong on tons of things.
Watch White's debates with Catholics. He is correct that the church fathers were fallible and made tons of mistakes, like say Jesus was 50 yrs old when he was crucified etc.
I see the point of your question now. The church fathers don't equal Biblical theology, that said if basically no one up until about 100 years ago explained the text the way you do, there is reason to be slow at adopting that viewpoint. Especially if the way you interpret it invalidates the ways the most common ways it has been explained. For example, JW's (the cult, not James White) say that Christ made all other things as he was the first crested and to clarify the confusion, add the word other to their NWT. That not only invalidates what the text actually says, it is a theological precomitment that overrides not only the text but the consistent exegesis of the text.
The consensus of the Fathers as articulated at the ecumenical councils is what is biblical theology. Considering not one Father had the market cornered on Biblical understanding, the Reformers mainly built their theology off of St. Augustine which is a problem. Calvin tried quoting the Fathers to support his views but went even further than Augustine.
Jason,
I am thankful for your humble, respectful, and loving spirit during this debate. I do not think this was a slam dunk for James as others have stated. The foundation between the two of you is fundamentally different. This was very challenging task to debate this coming from such a different foundations as the scriptures are read through Calvinistic lenses and not in context. I appreciate you and your ministry.
Stay in the Way.
He was not respectful to the audience.
Sir I think you misinterpreted the passage. Especially In Romans just to fit your belief! That is dangerous
There a lot of midwits in this comment section praising you. But you got demolished, sir. Reading your cross examination questions from a binder? Are you serious?
I remember reading that in 2 Condescendings chapter 3 verse 5. Only a fool calls his brother a midwit. Calvies never disappoint. Keep sending the humble our way, we will take them all.✌✌
@@atyt11 Nah I was calling people midwits long before I became a Christian. And believe me, Christianity is full of them.
@@atyt11 Ha that has nothing to do with my Calvinism. I converted later in life. Hearing religious people speak is often unpleasant, even now.
@@SDRBass 👍👍 Keep it up. Nothing say Christ quite like a 10 year old adolesent saying..."NAh! NAH!, burn, crispy, your such a looser!!!"
"A religious person speaking" You are dead on, THAT is exactly what we heard from JW. No Christianity, just a arogant religous person speaking.
@@atyt11 Maybe it’s because your side doesn’t understand the most rudimentary of arguments about God’s sovereignty, knowledge, and providence. In fact, you refuse to understand because it will hurt you in the feels. “You mean God didn’t give His creatures libertarian free will 😭. I’ll never worship that God! 😤”
Nice to have arguments against Calvinism to reinforce the truth of it. Thanks for the debate! Would love to see an across the table discussion. Formal debates are tough.
You did well considering James White and the way by which he debates. I'm thankful that you stuck to what you wanted to say and didn't chase his bunny trails. 2 of the most important statements you made were regarding not trying to win and the hope that what you presented would be a pebble in their shoe. Too many who debate James try to change his mind. I believe your focus was to challenge the audience to consider something outside of their systematic presuppositions. Great job brother. I hope you provide a critique and further explanation of some of your points video soon.
Thank you for the encouragement! Tomorrow morning I’m doing a live to share my process, thoughts and answer questions
Jason did such a great job! For a first tine debater, he really held his own. I like that he used a more original argument. Rather than rely on past arguments of church fathers, he went to the scripture and brought something new and different. THAT is what advances the kingdom... not re-hashing old arguments over and over. My dead authors arguing against your dead authors.
I take a similar approach. This debate demonstrates why both Calvin and Arminius' views of atonement should be abandoned. Only within that joint framework do you run into problems with the universal AND limited aspects of atonement. A minor, Biblically sound adjustment to perspective resolves this debate forever in a way that could be satisfactory for both sides.
Consider the Original Sin.
Rom 5:16 NASB95 - 16 The gift is not like [that which came] through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment [arose] from one [transgression] resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift [arose] from many transgressions resulting in justification.
For a SINGLE TRANSGRESSION, the judgment of DEATH came into the world. For Adam's single sin (not even Eve's sin, but only Adam's sin), Adam, Eve, all their offspring, the animals, the plants, the ground of the whole globe, the whole of creation was condemned with death. This is a UNIVERSAL, corporate judgment for a single transgression. As such, if God intended to atone for the Original Sin, how many sins would need to be forgiven? One! If you forgave that ONE sin, the result would be a universal, corporate resurrection of every person (and probably every animal) who had ever died for that single transgression. So is Christ's gift of righteousness applied to the single, universal, corporate transgression of Adam? NO!! In Rom 5:16b it says "the gift of righteousness is NOT like the transgression in that it arose from MANY transgressions." In other words, Christ's gift of righteousness (atonement) applies individually, not corporately. Each person has their own individual sins, and it is in the INDIVIDUAL judgement where Christ's atonement applies, not in the universal, corporate judgment.
So is there a universal resurrection from the dead? Yes!
Acts 24:15
having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.
John 5:28
“Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
Revelation 21:8
“But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
Daniel 12:1
Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.
2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.
1Co 15:22 NASB95 - 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
Rom 5:18 NASB95 - 18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
We can absolutely see there is a universal, corporate resurrection from the dead WITHOUT RESPECT to guilt or innocence. So is this universalism? NO!! Why? Because of the timing of the universal resurrection. The universal resurrection occurs BEFORE the Great White Throne Judgment (GWTJ). The GWTJ is many individual judgments. You can't have "universal resurrection" from "individual judgments." You can only have universal resurrection from a universal judgment. You need to have individual resurrections from the individual judgments... and there is no mechanism for individual resurrections from the GWTJ.
Rev 20:11-15 NASB95 - 11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one [of them] according to their deeds. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
We see that all are judged individually according to their own deeds. But we also see there is absolutely and indisputably a corporate, universal resurrection prior to the GWTJ as death gives up all that is in it. Then, some will have Christ's righteousness applied to their account in the GWTJ individual judgment, and some will be judged with a second death and eternal torment in Hell (the Lake of FIre).
So HOW does a universal, corporate resurrection occur without the application of atonement or Christ's righteousness being applied?
2Ti 1:10 NASB95 - 10 but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,
1Co 15:26 NASB95 - 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
By Christ's APPEARING, Adam's Original Sin death judgment is ABOLISHED, not atoned for or forgiven. This is not by Christ's death and resurrection ... this is by his appearing!! As long as there are none who are righteous... not even one... a universal, corporate judgment is JUST. However, as soon as a SINGLE righteous person appears on the earth, this renders a universal, corporate judgment UNJUST and so it must be vacated in lieu of individual judgments. That legal process of the vacatur of Original Sin is what causes the universal, corporate resurrection of ALL without regard to guilt or innocence.
In the 10 commandments it states:
Exo 20:5 NASB95 - 5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
This is more closely related to the Eastern Orthodox notion of "ancestor sin." The Jews also had this very same notion... remember they asked Jesus "who sinned, this man or his parents that he would be born blind?" In the notion of "ancestor sin" each generation would have had to perpetuate sin through the ages (which of course they did). However, if you take a look at Ezekiel's prophecy, you will see that this practice (be it Augustine's version of Original Sin, or Eastern Orthodox's version of "ancestor sin") was prophesied to end:
Eze 18:20 NASB95 - 20 "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
So regardless of one's stance on Original Sin, there should be no dispute that 1)it was prophesied to end, and that 2)a universal resurrection is the event which would end or abolish the Original Sin judgment.
Therefore, we can take this and see that there is BOTH a universal resurrection as a result of Christ's righteousness appearing on the earth, and a limited atonement in the GWTJ as Christ's gift of righteousness is applied to the account of all those who believe. This UNTETHERS atonement from the implications of predestination or Original Sin and allows substitutionary atonement to stand on its own whether you hold to Calvinism or Provisionism without needing to be conscripted into the service of bolstering one's soteriological framework.
Not only is the debate between limited and unlimited atonement resolved, but so is Universalism, infant damnation, and Original Sin... all of these debates are resolved by this framework.
Outstanding defense of the faith Mr White
In Africa nothing is known about Calvinism, it's a European concept which is not entertained whenever the gospel is preached
I believe Calvin gleamed his position from Augustine, an African church father.
@@BibleStudywithVernon true. I don't accept the Limited Atonement in Calvinism but the Reformed system is far better than the Shamanism rampant in Africa ( TB Joshua, ect).
Africa is a very big continent...Augustine came from the very tippy top part, closer to Israel than South africa is from Tunisia.
Roughly 3000kms from Tunisia to Israel.
Roughly 10000kms from South Africa to Tunisia.
The original poster is correct in his statement, the vast majority of christians on the African continent know very little about calvinism. It only started to spread in the most Southern parts since youtube made pastors like John MacArthur and Paul Washer famous. The closest we have to Calvinism in South africa is the Dutch Reformed and even they would not know about half of what is being preached by calvinists.
It is growing and for the very reason stated by another poster. People are sick of the charismaric madness, and see (like I did) the reformed approach as more balanced and biblical. But as for me, I soon realized I jumped from the pan into the fire. Blessed to have come to my senses since then.
Do you believe God knows all things even before it takes place?
@@jakeham4017 yes, God is omniscient
Weak-kneed Christianity is what has gotten this nation where it is. Refusing to exegete the relevant passage is crazy.
Exegete Romans 9 for me I thought you were elected before the foundation of the world? Romans 9 is in the womb.
Romans 9:11-12
11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls-
12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”
The older will serve the younger that's Gods sovereign. Elect is always referring to service or servitude in the old testament not salvation. If Elect is salvation Israel is automatically saved even if they don't worship Christ.
Isaiah 45:4
King James Version
4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
@@faithfulservantofchrist9876 so you make that contradict Ephesians?
I don’t see the problem.
@@doejohn215 @doejohn215 @doejohn215 I don't make it contradict anything it does it by itself. You do see the problem because I didn't say Ephesians. So you absolutely see that it's a contradiction. God elected Esau to serve Jacob that's God sovereign election that the older brother who would have the birthright won't. Esau didn't even serve Jacob either by the way, so much for God's sovereign election.
Ephesians 1:4
English Standard Version
4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Ephesians 2:12
English Standard Version
12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
You were separated from Christ, so you weren't in Christ from before the foundation of the world. It's not to be in him either, Its in him you will be holy and blameless and he chose this before the foundation of the world. Predestination is the believer being predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ in the life to come. Not an unregenerate person to be regenerated there is nothing in the Bible that it shows that.
@@faithfulservantofchrist9876 I see chosen before birth, revealed in the womb. Once again anticalvs not understanding gods prescriptive vs decreetive will
This is an example of how not to divide the word truth correctly. There are text that refer to individual election and text that refer to Israel’s election as a theocratic nation. You can’t just take a word in a context and shove all your point of views in to every place it appears. Both elections are biblical without destroying the other. What is sad when it comes to interpreting the Bible most people lose their common sense interpreting ability in exchange for their ideology.
The same person who ascribes to Calvinism and says we bring nothing to Salvation says that many left catholicism and became Christians because of debates.
Besides, by saying that limited atonement makes it specific and personal implies that if it isnt limited atonement then it no longer is specific and personal. If that's what he means then it's an erroneous position to take. Also, James White is quite prideful, arrogant, and unnecessarily condescending to those that do not hold his position. He had more grace towards the liberal Brandon guy on a podcast with Apologia studios.
Calvinism is unbiblical and blasphemous when carefully examined.
P.S. reach out to Nate Sala at Wise Disciple for help with debates.
Your issue isn’t a lack of debating skill but biblical knowlege
I believe Mr. White is an expert in keeping the topic so narrow that (God forbid) the listeners are able to see the larger context of a passage. Jason did great at not taking the bait!
@@hvNews Debates are narrow, they are on one topic. What's the issue?
I used to admire James White, and he is clearly very intelligent and knowledgeable. But every time I hear him speak, he seems angry, haughty, and condescending. I do not sense the fruits of the Spirit in his demeanor and approach. He assumes his presuppositions (i.e. his understanding of sovereignty, determinism, election, and human freedom) are true and then tries to represent your argument as if it were based on his presuppositions. But he knows perfectly well that your argument is not based on his presuppositions and he also knows that your argument does not flow naturally from his presuppositions. Which is what allows him to say, time and time again, that he is the only consistent one. He is very skilled at making his opponents views seem foolish when he bases them on his presuppositions. But it is a childish and ultimately invalid approach.
Yea I heard Flowers say James is used to outer faith debates so he treats inter faith debates as hostile which is a shame, as Jason treats him with the love we expect to see from brothers discussing such subjects.
Yes I agree. It’s very sad. I believe they really haven’t encountered the Lord,true love the Pharisees had the same problem. Funny, they used to brag about being the elect. Also PS It really crushes my spirit when he does that
I come from his overall theological position, but I fully agree about his proud attitude. That has gotten worse recently it seems, and it is a visible problem, both in how he treats people, and in how he reasons and communicates. It does not help his teaching or debating at all. It's a poor witness. It is something I hope those close to him point out and lead him to repentance in a brotherly way.
Narcissism is at the heart of Calvinism. Not to mention the "lord" of Calvinism is ACTUALLY Lucifer. Where do you think it comes from?...
@lespaul382 explain the Lord of calvinism is lucifer statement!!
Let’s Goooooo
john 3:27 A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven. That means everything Grace ,Faith ,Repentance, interpretation of scripture, coming to Christ. Romans 11:8 “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear. God does make and has made choices .Jesus did the will of the Father and gave him Glory. How can one be like Christ and refuse to give the Father glory for what he has done not us.
Thanks for sharing this debate with us Jason!
You presented excellent conduct, especially for being someone not experienced in the debate realm!
Glad Kevin, Leighton, and Alan were able to come show support too.
I saw Leighton's review on this too, and he was spot on about the biggest problem from the onset:
James White was coming from a different starting point and that was never addressed, so it was the usual - assume Calvinism, shoot off from there. And you wanting to address that was immediately going to be shot down and so he would think "I only wanted to stay on topic, so I "win".
Though, kinda funny how you get Janes White to start talking about
"the saving work of Christ for ALL" 😏
You mean all the elect right bro?
"😱 YES elect! Elect! I meant all elect!!!"
Do you really think White assumed Calvinism, and did not argue and give reasons for his view?
Notice... @ 2:19:09 DR. White's specific, 'carefully chosen', words regarding his Grandchildren... He ONLY says he's "glad he can trust a true and loving God to save his 'elect' people"... but he doesn't express any joy, or actually rejoice that his grandchildren are saved....Because he realizes his Calvinism does not afford him that assurance. He must confess even if they live their entire lives 'as-if' they are saved they may discover many years later that this "true and loving God" he 'trusted' only gave them a dose of Evanescent Grace, never intended to persevere. And, according to God's 'secret' will they were un-elect, even as infants, and God hated them before they were ever born.🤦🏻♂
He says he can trust God, but he may have baptized reprobates!! Whatever faith he thinks they have, or even his own faith for that matter, may only be an episode of Evanescent Grace, never intended to 'persevere'. He admits he doesn't know who the elect are.... and this MUST include the man in the mirror.🤷🏻♂
As a Calvinist, other than to sooth his own conscience, why would Dr. White pray that God will draw his grandchildren to himself? 🤔
Can anything change God's decree in eternity past? 🤔
Will God the God of Calvinism change his mind because of Dr. White's prayer?🤔
A knowledgeable Calvinist can't trust the faith they think they have any more than the God they think gave it to them.
What a tragedy how this doctrine robs even believers of any confidence they are truly loved by our Heavenly Father.
This was an absolute disaster. I was hoping to hear a cogent argument against Calvinism. What a disappointment. You really need to do a great deal of study and understanding of the word.
Why does James have a mug shot on the cover photo...lol???
Jason, you were kind, gracious, sweet, and….wrong…
Those that are complaining about the about the abrasive personality of White really needs an expository course on Nehemiah 13
I think I remember a sunday school lesson about some prophet ripping out sabbath-breakers beards....
Are we sure that Jason fits into the context of "leading the people of God away from Him", as with those who Nehemiah took to task?
If not, maybe 2 Timothy 2:24-26 would fit better. How would you exposit this?
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will."
Yes, however, sometimes it seems subjective based on if someone doesnt like the other person when they say such and such, i.e. James White, was not gentle etc... From my vantage point he was. You do have to weigh in the seriousness of a topic, as well as the level of reverence one has for a subject. Also the context they are in, which is a Debate format, which is necessarily argumentative.
Jesus didn't think it was too harsh to drive out money changers with a whip and call the Pharisees hypocrites and whitewashed tombs. I would also be careful to say that a Prophet of God's behaviour was wrong, in regards to Nehemiah, which it doesn't seem like your saying, when scripture gives no indication that he was.
When it comes to the Atonement, this is a serious subject, this is why the Reformation happened, and why we separated from Rome and strove under intense persecution, many being slaughtered for their faith. This new movement, "Provisionsim" is so quick to throw Calvin, Luther, the Reformers, the Puritans, under the bus, when God used them to give clarity to the gospel in the face of much opposition. They continue to bash the "Reformed system" when it was this same air tight "system" or system of dogmatics derived from scripture that could stand the greatest thrust of the Antichrist, that is the Roman Pontiff, or Papacy.
They are the ones introducing a new system, all while denying they are doing any such thing. They throw contempt on the history and unwittingly open us up to all kinds of attacks from our opponents in the Roman Catholic realm and the Eastern Orthodox realm. SOmetimes it seems like they just live in a bubble and don't realize that Calvinism isn't their greatest opponent, and for this reason they say things that need sharp rebuke. Yet, these rebukes do not land because of how disconnected they are from the history of the church and mistake it as mean and condescending.
If anything, I would be grateful for James, pushing their perspective to the scriptures to solidify it and to not be HERETICS. they are in a very vulnerable position, they haven't really solidified where they want to stand, and in affect, they dabble with dangerous doctrines that have been destroyed for a long time like Pelagianism, sinless birth, Annihilationism and all the rest.
I think James is right to take a hard stance and show the brutal reality of what it means to introduce new doctrines into the Church of Jesus Christ. They better be BIBLICAL, or you are dabling with FIRE.
Anyways, that's my rant. Obviously all of this should be done in the supernatural love of God, through His strength alone, otherwise, none can or will turn to the truth of God's word. We are wholly dependent upon His grace.
@@AndrewJohnH
Provisionist = Jesus created a tool for man to save himself,but man must put the tool to work.
@CBALLEN wow that’s what you see? I don’t think you understand provisionism.
1:23:07 -- "Does the word 'faith' appear in Rom. 8 verses 31 & following?"
Negative inference fallacy.
So, according to James White,
"if 'faith' is not found in Rom. 8, then Rom. 8 has nothing to do with faith."
Yep. We can also say to White. Does the word “regeneration” precede “believe” or” faith” in any of the scriptures regarding salvation? Ummmm.
Is it possible to possess Christ's imputed righteousness yet not possess the Holy Spirit?
Impossible! @@jayrodriguez84
@@TheBlubunni Does faith precede regeneration?
When we believe we are born again by God's Spirit, we are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, baptised into God's family, awaiting the redemption of our bodies. Praise Jesus.
James White with the masterclass!
What I learned about Provisionism from this debate, and from Dr. Flowers' Anti-Calvinist videos, is that it should be called "Perversionism".
Cope harder 😢 Your man made doctrine is completely anti-biblical.
@@noybiznatch Anyone can also say the same thing about Provisionism.
It's incredibly sad that a dogma could cause one to believe in monster who elects certain people and damns others on his own whims without allowing man a choice as to whether they want to be damned or not.
Jason, just to start, I am nobody. I saw your interview with Keith Foskey, you seem like a nice guy, and kudos for going toe to toe with a debater like James White, not sure I'd ever wanna attempt that! I don't know why but I feel led to just say to you, you're getting a lot of feedback on both sides of the aisle with this debate, it's kind of a big point in your personal walk and your public ministry. My advice, again im no one, but it's that you allow yourself to remain teachable. I do not get the vibe from you that you're just an anti-calvinist guy, but that you do care about ministry and serving Christ. You yourself have said, if I remember right, that you just want to go with what the text says. Remain that way, even if it leads you back into "Calvinism". Your job is to be faithful to God and His Word. I know you know that. I'm just trying to encourage you to stay in that. Don't let yourself be swayed by anybody that has an agenda either. Be discerning. At this point I'll reveal that I am on the Calvinist side of this debate. But I don't believe that means that we can't have unity in Christ. I say that to say, I see some people appear to think that Dr. White was just mean and arrogant. I would encourage you to, even if you think he was, look past that and try to learn from what he has said, and in your own study try to address the concerns that he raised. Anyway, long message on this and I'd rather this be a personal message but this seemed like the easiest way to get this to you. Hope you receive this in the spirit with which I intend it.
If you followed his five part series on ‘Calvinism’ you would be assured that won’t happen, I believe that Jason received the required spiritual revelation concerning an actual heresy at such a level that he is absolutely convinced that there is even an urgent kairos prophetic moment in time to expose it, more and more ‘converts’ from Calvinism are sharing the same urgency today because Calvinism undercuts the need and effect of the Gospel message in the most alarming way possible.
James White didnt come across as arrogant. I dont necessarily agree with his position, either. But i understand Whites concern and pressing Jason over Romans 1-8. Jason appears to be very humble and sweet im rooting for him!
Amen. I receive it well. Thank you! 🙏
One thing I noticed James White doing after almost every question (whether he asked or answered) he would have a comment/snarky remark about you or your words.
I am proud you didn’t follow his example lol. And I agree with your choices of going up there to share the gospel rather than primarily focus on Dr White’s points. I truly believe debates are majorly unfruitful because yes, iron sharpens iron, but clashing swords creates dull blades.
There seems to be some confusion about what the word “specifically” means. If something is specific to group, it is unique. When White asked him about Romans 8:23-33, he said it could be applied to Gentiles also. If it can be applied to the Gentiles, it is not specific to the Jews.
Also by Breda’s logic, Paul told both Jew and Gentile that he longed to see them and was hindered in Romans 1:13 and 15:15, so the “you” is not ambiguous. He is speaking to both Jews and Greeks. The “you” in Romans 1:13 is clearly defined in Romans 1:7, beloved of God, called as saints.
There are parts of Romans where Paul is clearly addressing the Jews or Gentiles specifically, but the letter is to the believers in Rome. He doesn’t specifically address the Jews until Romans 2. Saying Romans 8 is specifically to the Jews is highly problematic,
and surely Romans 12-14 is not specific to the Gentiles.
Also I’m confused about whether Breda answered White’s question about what the atonement achieves. He seems adamant that atonement applied doesn’t mean atonement achieved, but how can one hold such a firm position if without stating what atonement actually achieves.
18:00 White believes that Jesus interceded one at the cross and literally "saved" all of the elect back then. Hebrews 7 is speaking about a continuing intercession for "those who draw near to God through him". If it is continuous and ongoing and it is for those who draw near to God, then nothing here supports Limited Atonement. It doesnt even support White's phrase that he always says that "Jesus actually saved at the cross" (paraphrased).
If it's a one time event, why would it matter if Christ lived forever? Why would Christ need to "always live to make intercession for [those who draw near to God]."?
This seems weak.
What you don't realize is how the Old Testament sacrificial system worked. The Great High Priest would enter into the Holy of Holies and offer a sacrifice for the atonement of the people, that is Israel, and Israel only. The High Priest would intercede on behalf of the nation, praying that God would accept the offering in their stead.
The point with Hebrews is that all whom Christ intercedes for are the same ones whom He atoned for. Everyone whom Christ gave Himself as an offering for, are the same ones whom He pleads in heaven for the Father to forgive. Thus, all the ones whom Christ intercedes for are the exact ones that draw near to God through Him. Therefore, Christ had to have only died for a particular people, for not all people draw near unto God.
(P.S. before you pick on James, you have to remember that James could never make his point about that passage because Jason wouldn't exegete the verse...)
@rprestarri please explain how my comment was "picking on James White"? If I do an analysis based on what I know, how is that picking on him? Did I call him names? Did I call him stupid? Simply disagreeing with someone is not "picking" on someone.
The OT sacrificial system atoned for the sins of all of Israel. Specifically for all of the sins committed that previous year since the last atonement. This included those who died during that year. It included all sins for all of Israel, but it didn't mean that all in Israel was saved. This is a great misconception. Israel had Ba'al worshipers at many points. While they are included in the annual atonement, they are not in heaven.
The OT sacrificial system was ongoing or done annually for past sins up to that point. If the
OT system is our model, then Christ is constantly interceeding for the sins recently committed. This makes sense when it says "he always lives to make intercession for [those who draw near to God]". Christ's sacrifice took away the sins of the world, according to John the Baptist. This makes sense when it says that Christ doesn't need to offer up sacrifice ongoing because He already did this part "once for all when he offered up himself". This is separate from intercession, which is ongoing.
You want to connect those who draw near to God with those whom the Father draws. What's the connection with Jesus drawing literally everybody to Himself through the gospel? This feels inserted. It also feels like it completely lacks the understanding of the cosmic nature of Christ's death and resurrection, reconciling all of creation to Himself. Jesus took away the sins of the world, He reconciled literally everything in heaven and on earth to Himself, and He sacrificed Himself once for all. All of this is consistent with Hebrews 7 and none of it implies or requires limited atonement.
By "Picking on James", I meant nothing more than you providing a response to an exegetical argument that James never was able to make, and assuming that you knew his presuppositions on that verse, and arguing from that place without White able to give a response to said argument.
I personally don't think it is your fault, I assume you have watched Flowers who continually brings up Hebrews, and how easy it is to respond to that verse, assuming he knows why James White brought out that verse, which to me is a little silly.
As to not all Israel being saved, yes and amen. I agree. But that wasn't exactly my point, but you kind of made it for me. The Atonement was made for Israel only... Not every nation in the world, not every individual in every nation. The point in Hebrews is that a better priesthood is here, where He now saves all Israel, that is the true Israel, those of like faith with Abraham, for He offers a better sacrifice and is always before the Father to make intercession for them. Hence it is said that He "died for the sins of the many". That is, just as His name would suggest, "Jesus: for He will save His people from their sins." Not imperfectly, as the Old Covenant was in cleansing the Jews, but perfectly, by His own precious blood. That is to say, All whom He made the Atonement for, are therefore interceded for, just as the Old priesthood, and therefore are drawn to Himself and saved perfectly.
As to the "sins of the world". If this meant every individual, as you posit, then this therefore means that every individual is afforded the intercession of Jesus Christ, for all whom the Atonement is made for, is also interceded for, and thus, all the world ought to be saved perfectly, as Hebrews explains. Although, not all people are saved perfectly, as the scriptures demand, therefore, the Atonement must of necessity be made for the sheep and not the goats, that is to say it must be particularly for "the many" "the elect" "the sheep" "the chosen" "the remnant", whatever name you are pleased to classify this group as.
Rather, this means, "the sins of the world", not the sins of the jews only, as this Mosaic Covenant would only allow, but rather of the Gentiles also, which the Scriptures so forcefully proclaims with much opposition from the Jews at that time, even the Apostles struggled with that idea, hence Peter not eating with the Gentiles, and the letter of Galatians wherein there were the judaizers who were telling Gentiles that they had to become Jews to be saved.
@@huntsman528
BTW, I appreciate the time you gave to provide a response. It is welcomed with gratitude brother. @@huntsman528
People getting offended because rebuttals are somewhat harsh.
Brothers both men were very respectful
Being someone who probably listens to all Dividing Line Podcasts, my only issue with James White, in this debate, is that he spoke over the head of most believers. We are so dumbed down in the church that his presentation sounded like a foreign language.
He is clearly a master of reformed theology rhetoric.
Yeah, that’s a common tactic in debate. Use “impressive” words appeal to the Greek etc etc to appear smart and therefore “win” the debate without really making a good argument.
The "lord" of Calvinism is Lucifer
@@timkoelln3826 Are the words "propitiation," or "mediator" or "intercede" all that difficult? Does the use of such words sound all that impressive?
Calvinism sounds like a foreign language to most believers, that's why most Christians utterly reject it
Jason, your patience is fantastic. James did not directly answer a single one of your questions and it frustrates me so much.
Jason - nice try, and you had your chance - but sadly, this went along the lines of all other "provisionist" debates: Lots of projection (accusing the reformed guy of being reliant on a philosophical commitment), failure to interact with the primary exegesis of your opponent, and rebutting things that your opponent never brought up.
The main different between you two men is that reformed theology is exegetically-driven.
Referring to your last sentence: Here comes that disgusting Calvinistic arrogance again, the typical fruit of heresy and it totally confirms it moral bankruptcy by ignoring His Spirit and thus the devastating lack of the fruit of the Spirit. If you followed Jasons 5 part series about Calvinism you should acknowledge Jason has more than excellent Bible knowledge and I know for sure he is Spirit led, which I can hardly say of any Calvinist, yes heresy that comes against the Gospel and Gods righteousness does offend me deeply, rightly so.
@@glennishammont7414 - Why don't you just come out and say what you mean - Jason hears from God. I mean, that's the only thing I can think of that makes what you wrote coherent. And, you're confusing joyful confidence with arrogance. Don't point me to a series - this debate should suffice - and it did.
Buddy-let me just be as blunt and clear as possible: Calvinism is categorically the product of inductive reasoning, *not* inductive methodology. You don’t know your left hand from your right. *Shut up.*
your humble heart and open-mindedness is so apparent, for a moment there I thought you might not actually worship JW or the SOVEREIGNTY god.....not
@@atyt11 - An open mind is like an open mouth - it's intended to close on something eventually.
There are two kinds of faith, faith we have to respond to the grace of God and faith from the Holy Spirit to strengthen us for the ministry.
Hi Jason. If I were to investigate your assertion about the first 8 chapters of Romans being addressed to the Jews, where would you recommend I go to gain a better understanding of that argument? I guess what I'm trying to say is "convince me". - edit: I now see said in another comment that you will make a video about it. I hope you do. Sounds interesting.
Dr Al Garza is one person he has a RUclips channel, J17 Apologetics (another RUclips channel). Book called 2Part Romans by Brent Lay to name a few.
@@GoodBerean Thank you brother
The Remnant of Israel
11 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.
If you notice the word foreknew here. Paul mentioning this to the gentiles, explaining to them not to be arrogant towards the jews, you can see the conversation shifting completely from Jews to gentiles. like Jason said ! yes we are part of the blessings that come together with our brothers the Jews but that’s because they were stubborn and did not believe so. How can God use us to provoke them to jealousy and at the same time be chosen from the beginning, when it clearly says we were grafted in, and some were broken off I believe Romans 11 has a lot of insight to how Paul was shifting his conversation from Jews to gentiles . specially when it’s talking about the elect, the conversation is shifted towards the Jews I will paste the whole chapter here. I hope it helps many study it carefully and again, if I misspelled anything, I am using voice over.
Romans 11
New International Version
The Remnant of Israel
11 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah-how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”[a]? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”[b] 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
7 What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, 8 as it is written:
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that could not see
and ears that could not hear,
to this very day.”[c]
9 And David says:
“May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever.”[d]
Ingrafted Branches
11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!
13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
All Israel Will Be Saved
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way[e] all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is[f] my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”[g]
28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Doxology
33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and[i] knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
34 “Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?”[j]
35 “Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay them?”[k]
36 For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.
7 What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, 8 as it is written:
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that could not see
and ears that could not hear,
to this very day.”[c]
9 And David says:
“May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever.”[d] ps I believe this is talking about the Pharisees and the people who put Christ on a cross and I do believe this was fully the will of God but if you read carefully, I think around verse 25 or 23. I’m not sure it tells us that if they repent, they will be grafted back in.
PS in this chapter, we see a lot of grafting in and out and mentions that he can graft out gentiles and graft in jews and so on, and so forth back-and-forth this doesn’t sound like an established will, from the beginning of time or from before the foundations of the earth this sounds that Christ gives us the opportunity to have unbelief in our hearts or to believe
@Luinilblue yes but we have to remember that teaching people how to live and conveying doctrine of God are different. A warning that one must overcome to receive the manna of God doesn't necessary mean he won't get the people he wants in heaven there, but merely that he is using a method of teaching to get them there. One can say but then it's not ordained if he must use such methods or such language but the acts of God to accomplish his will are done in such a manner that provides the individual the growth opportunity required for such ascension but that doesn't exclude a zeal of God to complete his work of teaching in those he pleases.
Jason, I’m just a couple minutes into your opening statement and learning things I never knew about the first reformers views. I’m excited to watch the rest. Thank you for representing us on this stage. It sure feels like God is using you for His purposes and our edification. Cheers, brother.
Well done Bro.Jason🎉🎉
Its hard, if not pointless, to debate someone when they are determined (no pun intended) to assume that their presuppositions are the God's truth and that their opponent must use the them.
Jason you did great. I find it quite ironic that White finishes his summation with “Christ the perfection redemption for us” . “Us” who? Only the Calvinists in the room? lol
Us - is meaning Christians. James has the decency to recognize that Christians disagree on things. Unlike the people on your side who thinks people who believe in sovereignty are not Christian’s. Your comment proves this.
@@5StarPWC ??? Ummm. I assume you are a Calvanist? Doesn’t your doctrine say that if you don’t persevere then you were never a Calvinist, therefore are non-elect? Are you saying you can be elect and not be a Calvanist?
@@5StarPWC BTW I think anyone who puts their trust in a Christ alone for salvation is saved, Calvanist or not. The question is, does the average Calvanist do this? I don’t know?
@@5StarPWC The question all Calvinists have to ask themselves is, can God still be sovereign and allow us to have free will? (Because your whole doctrine is based on the answer no). I’m happy to say yes of course, because this is biblical. So your comment re “people believing in a Sovereign God” is totally in-appropriate and assumes that non-Calvinists don’t believe in a Soverign God. Did you ever think that your doctrine might make God less Sovereign, because (basically a committee) decided that He couldn’t be Soverign if He allowed free will?
@@5StarPWC The argument hinges on the Calvinist's definition of "sovereign".
I am NOT a Calvinist, and I believe the Sovereignty of God, AND, I believe God gave us free will. I also believe we are given free will. However, the Calvinist ahs ALSO changed that definition as well.
James white said. We’d have a hard time explaining “us all” if we don’t hold to his view…. Let’s see… if I’m writing a letter to a group of people in a room… and the people in the room and I share the same benefits regarding a certain store. When I address those benefits, I can easily say those benefits are for “US ALL” without it having to mean anything along the lines of election or predestination.
Guys and girls think Dr White is being misunderstood as he is just passionate and believes to be right. Easy to call arrogance, but the other gentleman was unprepared.
I agree with the description that Reformed theology is Bibvkicak but not important 😜
James opening statement was an amazing explanation of scriptural truth
“Is faith only then arbitrarily selected to a group of people that God has ordained from eternity past?”
This is not the Reformed position. Just because election is not based on a condition in the believer doesn’t mean it’s arbitrary. Election is based on the purpose of His will and to the praise of His glorious grace (Ephesians 1:5)
Ok. Remove the word "arbitrarily".
"Is faith only then selected to a group of people that God ordained from eternity past?"
Calvinism: Yes.
@@primeobjective5469 And when you remove the word arbitrary, it's a massive difference. Thanks! The highest reason for election is given, which is to the praise of His glorious grace. That's the only reason you need to know. Just repent and believe and know your election. It's not like there's 100 people trusting in Christ and half of them are elect. You repent and believe because you're elect. The non-elect don't care and God isn't obligated to save anyone, otherwise it would cease to be grace and mercy. Grace and mercy imply choice on the part of the giver, not the receiver. Western Christians are so soft.
@KnightFel "Just repent..."
Within Calvinism, repentance is only given to God's secret Elect.
Not only so, you're more than likely commanding the majority who have no Savior or atonement for sin, to repent to a Savior who didn't die for them, nor make propitiation for their sin.
Now, why would God command repentance from those He purposely created to be burned forever?
Why would God command sinners He's never wanted, to believe in a gospel thst was never intended for their salvation?
Or is it just all a means to an end?
Sounds quite dubious.
James White used the word to dismantle the provisionist view. Props to him.
"Provisionist" just means "a partial salvation." Or a 'potential salvation.' It means that Christ in essence saved no one.
No disrespect, but I think jason lost the debate when he himself mentioned, early on, that his view was not a popular view, but still worthy of consideration.
Those are my favorite. Those are the ones most worth considering.
limited atonement is the easiest Doctrine to defend and hardest to refute cause no one can , our Lord Jesus didn’t die on the cross and take chances who would believed on Him Rather His sure Whom He died for , Other Translations
9 “My prayer is not for the world, but for those you have given me, because they belong to you John 17:9
I’ve been following Dr. White for a few years now. He’s an excellent debater. I don’t normally listen to the questions from the audience but I did with this. I must say this was the first time I got the impression from an audience question that the question presented that was supposed to be in opposition was actually meant as a softball for a home run. The question asked to James on “the offer of salvation” was almost like listening to the press secretary answer a question from a major news network. I’ve heard that question many times and everyone knows the answer. Hung that right over the plate.
JW is never going to repent, apparently. I'm not saying it's impossible but it's very unlikely.
I'm not even sure if these debates are that profitable. In a way these debates are very disheartening to me. I admire Jason and his stand for the biblical narrative in as much as I believe he is correct. My apologies for being a bit of a downer and pessimistic as far as the fruitfulness and edification of all this.
Why would James White repent when he is correct in his exegesis of biblical texts.