Ignore those phone numbers. We're not going to be taking phone calls today. It is time for our debate with Dr. Michael Brown here on The Dividing Line. We're starting five minutes early so I can get the introductions in so that we have the full 90 minutes because of the format of the program. We're going to need all 90 minutes. Many of you heard the first two programs we did on Dr. Brown's program and the discussion we had. Then we decided it would be good to look at specific texts and do so we have a little more time but uh... i do emphasize the term little uh... because here's the format for today's uh... discussion and debate uh... today we're looking at the three texts that i have chosen uh... john six uh... thirty five to forty five uh... romans eight twenty eight through about nine uh... uh... twenty four so and effusions chapter one verses four through fourteen uh... each one of us will have eight minutes eight Minutes, my friends, is not a lot of time. When you're listening to a boring sermon, it might seem like an eternity, but it will not seem like much time today at all. We will each have eight minutes to provide our exegesis of the assigned text. Then we'll have four minutes each to ask questions of the other. We will stay in the order in which we're going. I'm going first this time around. Next time around, Michael will go first. We'll just keep that order. That's the only way to keep things straight and to keep the time frames correct as well. So we'll have four minutes to ask questions of the other on the specific statements made in our exegesis, obviously, not about what we think about, you know, Obamacare or anything else. And then we will have three minutes each to make concluding statements on each of the texts. If my math is good, which it generally is not, that should be half an hour per text, which means 90 minutes for the three texts that we will be covering. uh... i know it's not a lot of time but it's uh... more than you get in most webcast radio programs i can assure you that now doctor michael brown is founder and president of icn ministries he is the president of the fire school of ministry uh... he is an old testament semitic scholar holding a phd in near eastern languages and literatures from new york university he has a served as a professor at trinity uh... fuller uh... denver and king seminary region university school divinity as well Those of you who heard the initial encounters that we had know that they were, I think, done in a God-honoring way. We didn't compromise our positions, but we also did not condemn either one the other to the flames, which unfortunately is very common in these types of situations. And so our desire and our goal today is to clarify, not muddy, the issues. Obviously, you are the judges of this debate, as always must be in this situation. Of course, fundamentally, God is the judge of our hearts as we do the debates, but you are the judges of what we present. And it is our desire that the body of Christ be edified, caused to think about these things, think these things through for themselves, back i'm not sure if i can say think it through uh... doctor brown may have that particular phrase copyright i'm not sure uh... but uh... hopefully he'll forgive me if i use it uh... because that is uh... a documentary t.v. show jewish outreach program called think it through that uh... uh... he does that's why i said that anyway uh... let's go ahead and bring a doctor brown on uh... michael are you uh... are you ready all james i'm very ready and i'm thrilled to be on the program with the you know the utmost respect i have for you in your scholarship and debating techniques and my prayers been the same with god be glorified his people be edified through our interaction that's my uh... my desire as well and of course uh... uh... someone channel is asking if they call and ask you about what is a deck and i said certain calls program right after this one's over but i'm sure he'd be happy to talk to you about what is that all you want at that particular point in time but uh... with that believe it or not we've used up the five minutes introductions so uh... we're gonna start in canonical order john chapter six uh... will be my text and so with that i'm going to go ahead and reach over and uh... go ahead and uh... that's right uh... will will bring back around up when uh... when i'm done speaking and uh... we're go ahead and get started with the debate uh... right now with my eight minute uh... exegesis of john chapter six In John chapter 6, of course, we have the longest chapter in the Gospel of John. After the feeding of the 5,000, there have been men who have been looking for Jesus. They are actually seeking Jesus. They find Jesus in the synagogue, Capernaum. These are called God-seekers. They're seeking after Jesus himself. and yet after Jesus announces to them that he is the bread of life and that the one coming to him will not hunger and the one who believes in him will not thirst. Jesus says in verse 36 of John chapter 6, but I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. He identifies these men as unbelievers and the rest must be seen as explaining why it is that these men who want to make him king are going to, by the end of this chapter, walk away because Jesus is going to continually focus them upon himself as the source of spiritual life. It is in the context of saying, you do not believe, you are unbelievers. Verse 36, Egeus says, all that the Father gives me will come to me, and the one coming to me I will never cast out. Now we all love that statement, the one coming to me I will never cast out. but it is part of a sentence the reason that he will not cast out the one coming to him is because the father has given them to him notice the says all that the father gives me will come to me now there is a clear and basic rule of grammar here the coming to the sun is predicated upon the giving of the father which action comes first that the father has given someone to the sun or that they are coming to the sun very clearly it is the father's action of giving to the sun that results in every single one thus given coming to the sun anyone who believes in in a libertarian free will position needs to be able to explain how it is that the Father can give someone to the Son and everyone thusly given will come to the Son. But then the Son says, I will never, no never, error subjunctive of strong denial, cast out the one coming to me. Why? Because I have come down out of heaven not in order to do My will, but the will of Him who sent Me. Once again, the unity of the Father and the Son expressed in verse 38. And then what is the will of the one who sent Him? Verse 39. This is the will of the one who sent me, in order that of all that he has given me, I lose none of it." Notice, now it's it. It's a group. The neuter wrapping up the entire group. I lose none of it, but raise it up on the last day. Being raised up on the last day in John, especially in John 6, used of receiving eternal life. The will of the father of the son. is that the Son lose none of those that are given to Him. Here we have Jesus needing to be a perfect Savior. If it is the will of the Father for the Son that He not lose any of those that are given to Him. What must that mean about the power of the Son as Savior? He must have the capacity. He must have the power to save perfectly. I do not understand how that can be a synergistic salvation. Since there may be one, there may be two, there may be a million who would say no, who would not cooperate. Whatever else it might be, the result would be that Jesus would lose some of those that are given to him. But no, the will of the one who sent him is that of all that have been given him, he lose none, but raise them up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, in order that everyone looking upon, present tense participle, looking upon the Son, and believing in him might have eternal life and I will raise him up in the last day." Notice the raising up in the last day. Who is it who looks upon the Son? Who is it who's believing upon the Son? The ones who have been given to the Son by the Father, the ones who are coming to Him as a result. As a result of this teaching, however, the Jews are gungus mooing, they are grumbling. Who does man make himself out to be? We know his father and his mother. How does he say he's come down out of heaven? The grumbling goes on. Jesus answers them in verse 43 and says, do not grumble amongst yourselves. No one is able, udais dunatai, no one has the capacity, the ability to come to me unless something happens, unless there is a fulfillment. And what is that fulfillment? No one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day. Now please note something about the text. Jesus does not seek to stop their grumbling on the basis of, oh, you don't understand, or oh, I don't want you to be offended. No, he stops their grumbling by saying something that's even more offensive to them. In fact, if you look at the language here, you'll see that at the end of John chapter 6, what offends the people and causes them to walk away is Jesus is repeating this. He's repeating this very point over and over again. No one can come to me unless it has been granted to him of the Father. And men find that to be highly offensive. They want salvation to be that which they are in control of. They can come to Jesus on their own grounds. No, Jesus says very, very clearly, no one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him on the last day. Now, who is he going to raise on the last day? those the father gave to him in verse 37 those that the father's will that he lose none of them in verses 38 and 39 and so who is it that the father draws the son the same group the elective god of the ones that are in in line here remember he's explaining why are these men unbelievers why are these individuals who are not willing to truly believe in Jesus Christ even though they've road boats across the lake they've they've sought him out yet he recognizes that they're not seeking him out for spiritual nourishment but for physical nourishment and so we need to take very seriously Jesus words no one is able to come to me unless something happens and the that which happens is not some kind of common grace situation because it says unless the the father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up for the last day Most of the interpretations I've seen of this text try to get around the very particularity of this drawing of the elect unto Christ. Try to say, well, yeah, but there's two hymns here. Unless the father draws him, and then I will raise him up at the last day as a different hymn. Because you see, it's the same hymn. And so if the father draws everyone to Christ, then everyone's going to be raised up the last day in salvation. If it's only a particular people that are drawn to Christ, then you have reformed theology. And so many people try to drive a wedge right into the middle of the text here and say, well, everyone's drawn, frequently jumping to John chapter 12 in a completely different context, and then only certain people are raised up because they have added their own personal faith, whatever else it might be. Verse 45 then just amplifies this, saying, it is written in the prophets. they shall be taught of God everyone hearing from the father and learning from the father is coming to me here's another description what is involved in the drawing of the father it involves hearing and learning and everyone who hears and learns the father not everyone who chooses to accept something everyone who hears and learns the father is coming to me those the ones who will not be cast out now this is not popular teaching because jesus goes from having five thousand excited followers not including women and children the beginning of john chapter six to having twelve confused followers one of whom is a double at the end of chapter six the beginning of the church shrinkage movement is how i've put it many times and yet the reality is that what we have here is the proclamation on the part of the lord jesus in the synagogue a premium of his own centrality in salvation and the sovereignty of the father in the sun in saving perfectly a particular people under the glory of the triune god uh... with that believe it or not that was eight minutes and uh... so let's uh... move over to uh... doctor brown background you have eight minutes as well there you go thank you alright uh... before we get to the section proper it's already established in john that All who received Him who believe in His name, God gives the right to become His children. John 1.12. Everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. 3.16. The one who believes in the Son has eternal life. The one who rejects the Son will not see life. 3.36. Whoever drinks some of the water I have given him will never be thirsty again. 4.14. The true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. For the Father seeks such people to be His worshipers. Note that phrase, the Father seeks them. 4.23. 4.35. The fields are white for harvest. And the Lord's intent is quite specific in 534. I say these things so that you may be saved. Note also that many of the Jewish hearers rebuke for their unbelief and refusal to acknowledge Jesus. 538, you do not have his word residing in you because you do not believe the one whom he sent. That's the continual argument. You are not really following the Father. That's why you're missing me. 540, you are not willing, utelite, to come to me so that you may have life. you do not accept me 543 544 how can you believe if you accept praise for one another and don't seek the praise that comes from the only God 544 and on with this in 546 and 47 if you really believe Moses you'd believe me so Jesus is clearly holding them responsible for their unbelief pride and unwillingness to come to him 636 I told you that you have seen me and still you do not believe of course when we get into 635, the one who comes to me will never go hungry. The one who believes in me will never be thirsty. We have active present participles of coming and believing. Those are the ones who never go hungry and thirsty. And again, 636, he's saying, you should have believed, but you don't. Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me. The one who comes to me I will never send away. Who are the ones who were given, whom the Father now entrusts to the Son? But the history of Israel there was a remnant who sought after God broken hearted contrite grieved over the sins of their nation for example Malachi 3 16 to 18 those who feared the Lord talked with each other the Lord listened and heard a scroll of remembrance was written in the presence his presence concerning those who feared the Lord is honored and honored his name they will be mine says the Lord the day when I make up my treasured possession etc 5715 and Isaiah The brokenhearted and contrite dwell with him. Ezekiel 9, 3 and 4 put a mark on those who grieve and lament. Jeremiah 24, 4 through 7, which distinguishes the good figs from the bad. And then Luke 1, 17 speaks of, regarding John the immerser, that he will come to a people prepared for the Lord. We also get a hint that there is this remnant who has been following the Father. They will now be entrusted to the Son, which is the whole concept in John's Gospel. Matthew 21, 31, and 32, I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. When John came to show you the way of righteousness, you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and prostitutes did. So we see the distinction, many verses, and right in John's gospel between those who repented and believed and those who refused to repent and believe. And it is the former, the humble and contrite, like the tax collector who said, God, have mercy on me, a sinner, who are now given to Jesus for safekeeping by the Father. He entrusts the care of these people to the Messiah, the Good Shepherd. This is not a great distinction that's made among the Jewish people. Those who truly belong to God are given to the Son. And yes, verse 37b, Jesus will not drive us away from the table. This interpretation is also confirmed in verse 45, and it makes far more sense than importing an arbitrary predestination into the passage. 638 and 39, I've come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me. The emphasis here is clearly on the keeping power of the Son of God. I'm not quoting the full text here for time's sake. We see the same thing in John 10, 27 through 29, and there are two possible ways to read this. That all those given to the Son will persevere and be infallibly saved, thus raised up at the last day, or that Jesus will do his part to keep and preserve those entrusted to him. Nothing can snatch us out of his hand, and yet those given to him can still turn away, as did Judas, of whom the Lord specifically says in John 17, 12, Well, I was with them. I was keeping them in your name, which you have given me. And I guarded them, and not one of them has perished or been lost, but the son of perdition, so that the scripture would be fulfilled." The sentiments expressed here, in either case, are similar to those in Philippians 1.6 and 1 Corinthians 1.8, which must be read along with other verses, such as Colossians 1.22 and 23, which speak of both God's ability to present us blameless before His throne and our responsibility to continue in our faith, established and firm, not move from the whole hell out in the gospel. And Calvinists would say it is those who persevere to the end who are the truly saved. John 640, earlier in this chapter, throughout the book, we see that eternal life comes by faith, specifically in Jesus, as opposed to works. But we also see that it is persevering faith. It is the one who continues to look and continues to believe who has eternal life. Again, those, the true remnant, those following the Lord, are the ones given to the Son. 641-44, Once again, Jesus rebukes the pride of his hearers. They were ridiculing him, claiming he was speaking falsely. He informs them that unless God draws them to himself, they are utterly helpless to come. He was not mocking them, but telling them they needed God's help. As for verse 44, it is the one who is drawn and comes to Jesus who was raised up at the last day, as opposed to just the one drawn. It does not say here that all who are drawn will come. We can get into John 12, 32 later if necessary. It's like saying you can't come to the party without being invited, but I assure you that everyone who was invited will have a great time, obviously provided that they come. Notice also that we have a precedent for drawing. Nets can be dragged, but people are drawn. We have Hosea 11.4 and Jeremiah 31.3, the latter verse, I've drawn you with loving kindness. God pulls nets. draws people to himself with loving-kindness. And interestingly, God's drawing can be resisted in Nehemiah 9, 29, and 30. Again, using the same Greek word, helkouo, for drawing, the subdugent, in 9, 30. Look at this, 9, 29, and 30. And you warn them in order to turn them back to your law. So God's intent in warning was to turn people back, yet they acted presumptuously and did not obey your commandments, but sinned against your rules, which if a person does them, he shall live by them. They turned to stubbing shoulders, stiffened their neck, and would not obey. So God draws them. Here's what it says. Many years you bore with them. In Hebrew, literally, he drew them. OK? And again, we have helkuo, draw. In the Greek, you warn them by your spirit. Yet they would not give ear. So there's complete inability to come unless drawn. Those who are drawn and respond. We see earlier Jesus saying, you wouldn't respond. You're not listening. He's rebuking them for it. You're not willing to come. those who were drawn and respond have the promises and will be raised up the last day a 645 it is written in the prophets they will all be taught by God everyone who hears and learns from the father comes to me so we now have a specific description of those who come to Jesus it is those who hear and learn from the father this is in keeping with our initial argument that those who are given to Jesus by the father all of them then come to the sun are those whose hearts have been prepared those who receive God's testimony those who truly believe the Torah's truths. These are the ones who are now given to the Son. Again, the ones who have been loyal to the Father are now entrusted to the Son, so that the true worshipers of Yahweh, the ones that he seeks, are now identified as followers of Jesus. As noted by Barnabas Linders, the point is that all those who do respond to the Father, or are drawn by him, come to Jesus because of the unique prerogatives which he has from the Father. And then if we just continue on, verses 47 to 51, We see that Jesus is inviting. He's giving an altar call. Okay, Mike, we ran out of time there. Do you want me to give you any time warnings or anything like that? No, I was looking at my stopwatch. I must have looked wrong. Okay, all right, no problem. All right, we've just got such a tight time schedule. I just didn't know if you wanted me to do that. We have more warnings against apostasy in Hebrews than anywhere else, and the text I quoted from John 17, Judas was lost, but that was by his own choosing to refuse God's grace. in verse 44 you seem to be indicating that's this on on the basis of Nehemiah that the drawing of the father can can somehow be refused how do you explain the fact that all those who are drawn by the father are raised up by the Sun notes that all those drawn by the father it's all those who are drawn in and come We see several times the Hebrew mashach and then hakuah used in the Septuagint for a drawing of Israel that is refused. So we don't have to try to figure out prior usage. We already have it in the Septuagint and in the Hebrew background to that. But again, just the analogy, everyone who's invited, you can't come to the party unless you're invited. Everyone invited will have a great time, provided that you come. That the father gives to Jesus will come to him, but not everyone who is drawn will come however without him drawing us We have no possible hope of coming. Okay your turn All right Where we go here, so we just covered some of the questions. I was gonna ask you Can you show me through other scriptures that God's drawing cannot be resisted? Well, you know, what I want to do is exegesis of the specific text. And if we wanted to go into that, we could go into that. Did you have anything specific in the text? And if not, then I guess we can do that. But my hope has been really to be focused upon exegesis in this particular encounter. In John 6, I would say that the clear evidence of this is the fact that you have a consistent testimony throughout this section talking about a specific group that are given by the father to the son they're coming to the sun is the result of their haven't been given by the father they're raised up on the last day and the sun perfectly fulfills the father's will in saving all of those have been given to him not based upon god's foreknowledge of who would actually believe but i believe based upon god's sovereignty in giving a particular people to the sun and so that drawing of of verse forty four becomes the teaching, which is really what happens in regeneration, the revelation of Jesus Christ in verse 45. So there's obviously a difference between a drawing in some other context that's not talking about the specific work of the Spirit of God in drawing people to Christ, and this specific text where you have this repeated emphasis over it. All, all, all, it's right there in the text. Of course, when we get to the all in John 12, 32, withdrawing the identical two words there, which are quite striking, you want to interpret them differently. I guess when I do exegesis, my approach as a philologian is to try to look for word usage and see what concepts can be brought into this passage with prior understanding. then did Jesus ever lose anyone? What of John 17, 12? Well, John 17 specifically states that he is the son of perdition, so the idea that the son of perdition was given to him for salvation when he was the son of perdition doesn't make any sense. These men were given to him, but he wasn't. Jesus was never given to him for salvation, obviously, because he's called the son of perdition. But philologically speaking, you just mentioned you want to look at what concepts can be brought in, but on that same basis, John chapter 12 is in a specific context of Greeks coming to Jesus. Greeks that Jesus does not reveal himself to. And so I believe context is absolutely central in lexical semantics in determining how a term is being used and therefore the range of meaning that can be assigned to any of those terms and that's certainly the case in John chapter 12. I don't think we can take that and read it back into John chapter 6 as if it would have had any meaning to the people that jesus was speaking to uh... and since they walk away when jesus repeats this concept of them in john six sixty five if he was understanding it in the john twelve thirty two passage why did he stop it uh... but he doesn't although they're they're refusing his grace it again i i do see overwhelmingly the immediate context leading up to this you will not come you refuse to come you will not believe he's chastised an important saying those who truly will listen to my father will come but i i suspect rather time on the four minutes here not actually was for about forty five seconds but i'd like to i'd like to comment on on on what you said i i do not for Obviously, the reformed person says, you bet. They are not willing to come. Why are they not willing to come? Because all that the Father gives me will come to me. You are not willing to come because there's an inability. John chapter 8, he brings this out. Those who are of God hear the words of God. The reason you don't hear me is because you are not of me. and you're refusing refusing to listen so so when he says i say these things to you so that you may be saved in the fifth chapter does he mean that or not he means that to those that the spirit is going to draw to him preaching is always used as the means by which the elect people are brought into relationship with with jesus christ all right that ended up our time now resetting for three o'clock a three three o'clock three minutes i'll have my three minutes and then uh... michael have uh... his as well starting right Now, well, once again, my primary desire here is to exegete these specific texts, not the whole concept, and go into many, many different texts in many, many different places in the Bible, because I think that's where confusion comes in. And once again, when we go back to John 6, I think what we've seen here is, well, I believe that there is a remnant. Well, I do, too. But the remnant was a remnant according to grace. It was a remnant. God is the one who reserved these people. I'm concerned that it almost sounded like, well, there were some people who were better than other people, and they continued to follow Torah, and they continued to follow God. I would say that the remnant itself, at any point in time, the 7,000 who did not bow their knees to Baal, did so solely on the basis of grace. And it was God who specifically chose those individuals. It wasn't that God wanted to have 17,000, but he can only come up with 7,000 because they were the only ones that would synergistically cooperate with him. But to insert this into the text here without providing a foundation in the text is what is concerning to me. When we look at the explanation Jesus is giving, why is it these men have seen him and yet they have not believed? Because they have not been given by the Father to the Son. That is why they do not believe. They grumble and Jesus says, stop your grumbling. You don't need to be grumbling because you need to understand no one has the ability to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." Now was the statement being made that God draws all men without distinction to the Son? Or does He draw specific people? The drawing here does not in any way, shape, or form have any escape clause. God is sovereign in this matter. That's why Jesus saves all those that are given to Him. And the one who is drawn, notice the emphasis became no one is able to come to me unless the Father draws him, and I will raise him on the last day." Who? The one who comes, not the one who's drawn. You see, this is just a different way of reading the text, and when you come to the text, the idea that the key in verse 44 is my coming God can draw but I have to come to fulfill that rather than seeing no one has the ability to do this unless the father sent me draws him and then was verse 45 tell us all that are drawn by the father that's the learning in the hearing all that are drawn by the father come to me not just some but all that are drawn by the father that's what hearing and learning from the father is and so the consistent reading the text exegetically in its context speaks to us of the sovereignty of God and salvation, the perfection of the work of Christ, and once again the focus is either upon God's accomplishment in Jesus Christ or what God's attempting to do in Jesus Christ, but that he doesn't always accomplish that. That would be a very different reading of the text. Okay, and now three minutes for Michael Brown. God's accomplishment is perfect that all those who believe in his son will be truly and forever saved and God fully accomplishes what he has established. A profound difference I think we're having in the approach to exegesis is if I'm going to exegete John 6, I'm going to start in John 1 and I'm going to go from there. And I see overwhelmingly an invitation to all. I see the whosoever calls. And I see on top of it that the very people that are not believing, the very people in John 5, religious leaders and others who are not believing, Jesus is calling them to himself. Again, I repeat what he says in John 5, I say these things to you, 534, so that you may be saved. Who? Those of you who are in unbelief, those of you who think you're right with God and are Those of you who are not part of the remnant, those of you who didn't listen when John the Baptizer came and preached and humbled yourself, those are the ones that he is persistently calling to himself. And we see the calling continue in verses 47 to 51, as I began to quote before running out of time, that Jesus is saying there, come to me, believe in me. And that's why the whosoever verses are so powerful and profound. throughout John. So those who truly humble themselves, those who believe it's not by works, and that's the great lesson in John 6, they keep understanding on a carnal level. They were seeking him outwardly. He was seeking to get them to seek the other way by putting off their wrong understanding, by rebuking their wrong understanding, by showing them that their belief in their self-sufficiency couldn't possibly work. And the reason that they can't hear it is because they're not truly listening to the father. So what's he saying? You don't get in. The father's not drawing you. Sorry, boys. No, he's saying humble yourselves and listen and believe whoever believes will come. And we don't know that later on, some of those very same people did eventually turn and come. So, we cannot come unless drawn. Those that respond to the drawing by faith, which is the universal way in throughout the Gospel of John and everywhere else, those who receive God's witness in Jesus are then given to the Son and He will keep us safely to the end. If we get out of Jesus, renounce Him, deny Him, He has not failed in any way. He has given us a door if we want to depart from Him. those that put their trust in him, he will never fail. He will keep us safely to the end. When God finishes, he starts perfectly, and the door is open. Whoever will, can come. All righty, thank you very much. You're listening to a debate between James White and Michael Brown. The next section of the debate, half an hour on Romans chapter 8, beginning at verse 28. And I will begin my eight minutes right now. in this tremendous text we have the sovereignty of god laid out uh... with explicit clarity we're told the god causes all things to work together for good those who love god those who are the called according to his purpose and then we have the golden chain of redemption beginning with god for knowing for knowing is an active verb is not merely having for knowledge is not looking down the corridors of time is an action of god and every time god takes this action When God is the one who takes the action, it is a personal object that receives this action. And you foreknow someone, you don't foreknow what someone is going to do, at least when God does it. And so on the basis of his choosing to enter into relationship with someone, just as he chose Israel, just as he chose Jeremiah, he predestined them to be conformed to the image of his Son. Those whom he predestined, he called. Those whom he called, he justified. Those whom he justified, he glorified. The golden chain of redemption gives us the absolute sovereignty of god in his accomplishment of his own self-glorification in the salvation of a specific people as a result he says what shall we say these things of god is for us who is against us he did not spare his own son but delivered him over for us all who is the us all the us all the same people that have been to discuss before How will he not also with him freely give us all things? Who is the us? Verse 33, who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies. The same group is in view here all the way through. It is God who's called, it is God who's justified, it's God who's glorified, it's God who's given his son. in behalf of us all. He has also given to us freely all things. God is one who has justified his elect people. No one can condemn his elect people. Christ Jesus is he who died, yes rather, who was raised, who is the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. For whom does the Son of God intercede? But for a specific people, by name, not just a nebulous synergistic group, but by name, a specific group of people, And it is those people who then can claim the beautiful words of Romans 835 and following about never being separated from the love of Christ. It was in that context then that chapter 9 begins and Paul talks about the fact that he wished that he could himself were a curse, separated from Christ for the sake of his brethren, his kinsmen according to flesh, who are the Israelites, to have all these great benefits. But then he makes a very strong statement. verse 9, chapter 9, verse 6, it is not as though the word of God has failed for they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel. This is the key to the interpretation of Romans chapter 9. This is not about nations. This is not about privilege. This is not about blessings. It is the fact that from the very beginning God's promises and God's salvation has been freely given by God himself on his own grounds, not on our grounds. Not on anything that we can do, nor are they all children because they're Abraham's descendants, but through Isaac your descendants will be named. That is, it is not the children of flesh who are children of God, but the children of promise. God is the one who gives the promise. And so that is traced through. And notice how personal all this is. When people try to turn this into nations, notice how personal all this is. Verse 10, and not only this, there is Rebekah also. When she conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac, For though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose, according to His choice, would stand, not because of works, but because of him who calls, it was said to her, the older will serve the younger. Just as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. What's the center here? God's purpose, according to His choice, not man's purpose. It is specifically being contrasted in this particular text. What then shall we say? Immediately the Apostle Paul brings up the objections and we want to make sure that we are not making the same objections that the Apostle is responding to. What shall we say then? Is there any unrighteousness with God? May it never be. For he says to Moses, I will mercy whom I mercy and I will harden and I will have compassion upon whom I have compassion. In other words, it's God who can freely give his mercy. mercy that has to be demanded. Mercy, you say, God has to be merciful to every person equally, is not true mercy. That's not true compassion. Verse 16 says, so then, the apostolic interpretation of that text is, therefore, it does not depend on the one willing, neither on the one running, but on the mercying God. What's he talking about here? Is he talking about nations? Or is he talking about individuals? What's mercy needed for? What is this willing? What is this striving? This all has to do with salvation. For the scriptures say of Pharaoh, for this very reason I raised you up. To do what? To demonstrate my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth. As a result of that statement, remember, Pharaoh was raised up for what? For judgment. Not for salvation, but for judgment. He dies in the Red Sea along with his army. And what is the apostolic interpretation of this? So then, he has mercy on whom he wishes. Therefore, let's again, again, the English doesn't do well. He mercies whom he wishes and he hardens whom he wishes. parallel phraseology in verse 18 this is God's absolute freedom because when it comes to the matter of mercy we have transcended justice God must be just and bring punishment against every sinner mercy and grace goes beyond those categories and immediately the objector seeing this brings up the objection that well we hear all the time Verse 19, you will say to me then, why does he still find fault? For who resists his will? If his will is so sovereign, if his will is so powerful, who can possibly resist his will? And Paul gives a stunning answer. Oh man, who are you who is answering back to God? He reminds man of what he is and who God is. The thing molded will not say to the molder, why did you make me like this? And that is where we stumble because we do not like the idea that God is our creator. We do not like the idea that God is the one who is the potter and we are the clay. Why did you make me like this? Will it or does not the potter have a right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable or common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, things that he must do, this is what he's chosen to do, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. The parallel has to be that this is the dishonorable use that the potter has for lumps of clay, prepared for destruction. And he did so to make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory even us, whom he called not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles." Notice that last phrase, from all mankind. There is your all, there is the whole world right there, whom he has called not from among Jews only but from also among Gentiles." Clearly in this passage we have God's absolute sovereignty laid out. There is no break. There is no hiding from this drumbeat of God's freedom when it comes to the expression of His mercy and His grace. Yes, God has the right to demonstrate God has the right to demonstrate his power and to make his wrath known as he sees fit. In the same way, he has the right to demonstrate and make known his mercy and his grace as he sees fit as well. All right. Eight minutes. I'm going to take a breath. Your turn. All right, beginning with the phrase, for those whom he foreknew, this could potentially refer to a choosing based on foreknowledge. You have 1 Peter 1, 1 and 2, where the believers are elect according to foreknowledge, with a prior example found in Genesis 18, 19 with Yadah in Hebrew. Or it could refer to God's corporate electing of a people, acknowledging them as his covenant partners. It is his plan, as in Ephesians 1, to have a people who will be conformed to the image of his son. As to how an individual becomes part of this corporate body, Paul has told us repeatedly, they are those who are justified by faith. Note that the saving faith is mentioned 17 times in 321 to 425 alone. There is no mystery here. So the basic program then for this people, the destiny of those, so to say, on this ship is set forth in verses 29 and 30, predestined to become like Jesus, called, meaning designated as God's own, called as sons and daughters, just as Abraham's seed was called or named through Isaac in 9-7. identical Greek, justified, again we know how this process takes place, and glorified, probably gnomic-errorist, referring to what God does with this group. So, one possible reading of the text God foresaw everyone who would believe in his Son and chose them, those who believe and persevere to the end, or on another possible reading, which I have no problem with, God chose a corporate people, this church, this messianic congregation, and established a program for the redemption from beginning to end, and all those who remain in that people will see that destiny fulfilled. Verses 31 to 39, just as in John 6 and 10 and other New Testament passages, Jesus will keep us safely to the end and nothing has the power to pull us away from Him unless we ourselves decide to renounce Him and turn our backs on Him. As Grant Osborne notes, the lists in this section are all pressures outside the person. A host of New Testament passages, not to mention the example of Israel in the Old Testament, remind us that apostasy is possible for the New Testament believer, as expressed by B.J. Orpeza, the readers as individuals could take comfort in the promises of this passage, but only as they are identified as members of the Christian community. When we get to chapter 9, verses 1 through 5, Paul expresses the terrible pain he experiences because of the state of his people. The ancient covenant people longing for their salvation, presumably he shared God's heart in this. It seemed that God's Word had failed, the Messiah came, and God's covenant promises to Israel were not realized. So Paul explains in 9.6-8 that there is an Israel within Israel, those who are circumcised in the heart according to the language of Romans 2. As he states in 9.8, this means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. But it's here that Calvinists misread Paul's intent, interpreting the verses that follow as if they pertain primarily to individual salvation rather than to God's corporate purposes. And it's important that we look at carefully at Paul's citations from the Old Testament, since roughly one-third of all of his citations are found in Romans 9 through 11. To emphasize the corporate nature of the discussion here, note that in chapters 9 through 11, Paul never once uses the word Jew, but speaks of Israel 11 times. Whereas outside of 9 through 11, he never once uses the word Israel and Romans. This is an issue of corporate calling and corporate purpose, and it's those who hold to faith who will be part of that corporate chosen people. Verses 10 through 13. Note that the first verse cited is from Genesis 25-23. Two nations are in your womb. Two peoples from within you shall be divided. The one shall be stronger than the other. The older shall serve the younger. So this is dealing with two nations, not two individuals. Note, of course, that Esau did not serve Jacob in his lifetime, but his descendants were subjugated by the Israelites. The second citation is from Malachi 1, 2, speaking of the nations of Israel and Edom. Surely not all Israelites were saved, and not all Edomites were damned. The same could be said of all Israelites. Surely not all of them were damned. And even if one argued that corporate calling made salvation more readily available, it remains true that participation in the national promises was by faith, And foreigners by that same faith could be part of the chosen people, even in Old Testament times. Now the objections that are raised beginning in verses 14 to 16. Jewish person can protest here that by claiming that God wasn't being fair. After all, they were the chosen people, believing they had special privileges by ancestry or works. Not so, says Paul. Carrying out the imagery of God loving Jacob, Paul emphasizes that God has mercy on whoever he wants to. There's nothing a human being can do to get into a place of God's favor without him first having mercy. At this point, however, it's important to remember that the subject of election is simply a sub-theme of the larger question of God's dealing with Israel, and so chapter 9 must be read in the context of 9 through 11. And the conclusion of Paul's discussion is glorious indeed. Upon whom will God have mercy? Everyone. 11.32. For God has consigned all to disobedience. All human beings are consigned to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. As noted by F.F. Bruce, in some schools of theological thought, unfortunately, the doctrine of election has been formulated too much on the basis of this preliminary stage of Paul's present argument. without adequate account being taken of his further exposition of God's purpose and election at the conclusion of the argument. And point of fact, this appears with blessed clarity later in Paul's argument, God's grace is far wider than anyone could have dared to hope. Even the citation from Exodus 33, 19 is in the context of God saying, OK, I will not destroy the whole nation as you have pleaded for mercy. I will have mercy. 9, 17, and 18, now we begin to see exactly how God deals with people. as already described in Romans 1, those who refuse his grace are hardened, as in the Exodus narrative with Pharaoh, where he hardens his heart numerous times, Pharaoh does, before God stiffens his resistance, using a series of progressively stronger words, the first really meaning that God strengthened Pharaoh's resolved sin. As for Pharaoh himself, as emphasized by Paul's quotation from the Situagin, Craig Keener commented, apparently God chose this pharaoh not so that an honorable man would become stubborn, but so that God would judge a wicked leader, revealing God's power. So he has mercy on him every wills, and he hardens him every wills. Certainly does not apply to arbitrary acts of God in terms of individual salvation. The testimony of so much of the rest of scripture is against this idea. His mercy is free and undeserved. His hardening is utterly righteous, but both are his prerogative. Within a verse 19, you'll say to me then, why does he find fault for who can resist his will? This actually forms a close parallel to 3.5. But if our righteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, our unrighteousness rather serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? On the one hand, Paul could say, yes, people reject God's purposes, Luke 7.30. But no, Paul is after the deeper argument rebuking this arrogant attitude that would dare charge God with justice. verses 20 through 24. On the one hand, Paul is simply saying, God can do whatever he wants to do, and if he wants to save some, damn others, that's his right. But if we go deeper into the text, we see a few things. First, we see that as we go on in Romans 9, 31, 32, and thereafter, the Israelites did not pursue righteousness by faith, but as it were, by works. So that's why they've stumbled. We see at the end of the 10th chapter, of Israel, he says, all day long I've held up my hands to a disobedient and contrary people. And he speaks of trespass, rejection, unbelief. In point of fact, the strongest Potter image in scripture is Jeremiah 18, where God lays out his principle. He can do whatever he wants to do. When he decrees destruction, if people will repent, he will have mercy. So there are those who set themselves up now as objects of wrath and are hence prepared for destruction. But God's desire is that they turn and repent, just as he put up patiently with the past objects of wrath. Then in the Gentiles, we Ephesians 2, by nature, objects of wrath. godless patience puts up with us offering us repentance and the bottom line is if we respond in faith he will have mercy it is desire to have mercy on all okay four minutes I for me ask questions I you indicated that's the beginning of Romans chapter 8 verse 28 the the for knowing a section Would you agree that this is an active verb and that every time God uses it the object is personal? Yeah, I would say that primarily the usage is active. In other words, it's not that he foreknew something about someone, but that he chose certain people in advance. And it could be based on things he knows about them or not, that's not said. But yes, primarily it's speaking of choosing out of people in advance. is justification a personal or corporate thing from your perspective uh... it it is it is personal and it is the way that all of us get into the corporate body whom god has predestined okay so buddy to the events of the golden chain verse thirty calling justification glorification are personal in their actual uh... consummation and an occurrence in time Yes, in terms of our experience, yes. In terms of God's predestining, as we'll see clearly in Ephesians 1, it's always a corporate people. There's never an example of him predestining one individual to salvation and another individual to damnation. Okay. The text that says that God did not spare his own son but delivered him over for us all, would you not agree that Paul limits the us all here to God's elect? But in that particular context, us all, is specifically referring to all of us who are believers. In other contexts, the all in atonement and redemption that we'll get into next week with texts I'm asking you to exegete, those speak of His love for the entire world. But there in context, us all, absolutely, the Son was given for every single believer, all of us, without exception. Yes, sir? In light of that though, if you believe that he's also given for others, and it says in verse 34, who also intercedes for us, is it your position that this means that he's interceding, that this is just a statement that, yes, he's interceding for us, the same way he's interceding for, say, the Philistines or the Amorites? I would certainly see a different intercession for those who are within the body and those who have not yet come. So, and the primary emphasis of Jesus intercession is for his own, but since he shed his blood for the entire world and weeps and mourns for the entire world, there's certainly an intercession for the entire world. But in the context here, it's an intercession particularly for us. And I'm sure there is a particular kind of intercession that is unique to us as God's children. So there are, there are multiple kinds of intercession. Is that what I just understood you to say? That's what I see everywhere else in scripture. I would certainly believe it applies to the son of God as well. So the high priest, as he intercedes, intercedes differently for believers, but he also intercedes for unbelievers? I'm just trying to figure out what you mean by that. Yes, certainly, just as we do. We pray that people will come to the Lord. We pray that the Holy Spirit will convict them of sin. We pray that God will draw them. And then we pray, in particular, for those within, that God will keep them strong, et cetera. Just like in Galatians 6, to do good to everyone, but in particular to those of the household of faith. so i would say that we pray in ways very similar to the intercession of jesus except not with his effectuality imperfection okay i'm trying to stand in romans nine you said that god shows a dishonorable faro rather than an honorable faro it was was what did god have to sort of wait for a dishonorable faro to come along or uh... i'm i'm confused what you mean that since the pharaohs where the head of the pagan religions of israel and hence of of egypt hence any pharaoh would be dishonorable for all the god winning but what you could have you could have had a foreigner that was a god seeker you could have had someone who was responding to the light in revelation that was given uh... not everyone is as hard and wicked not everyone is a hitler in that sense uh... god could have had someone uh... die in infancy and another pharaoh be raised up and and again Paul quotes the Septuagint which that God raised him up for this purpose so he was the right man for the job just like Nebuchadnezzar my servant God's infinite wisdom is going to use the right people to accomplish his divine purpose okay but if okay anyway it's your turn okay uh... thank you uh... so uh... is there any basis on which God chooses people on on which he foreknows uh... yes the good pleasure as well and and nothing beyond that nothing down there okay uh... uh... as understood you say that the just wanted uh... said more explicitly uh... let's let's go to the climax of the discussion that god has found all men over to disobedience that he may have mercy on them all doesn't follow that the same ones that he has bound over to disobedience which is every human being on the planet those are the ones on whom he wants to have mercy I know because I would make the universalist the mercy of God in Romans chapter 9 actually results in salvation and so no I would do clearly differentiate just as Romans 5 does in recognizing that while all have sinned and Adam the justification of life is only for those who are in Jesus Christ so the distinction has already been made long before we get to Romans 11 I think it's reading the text backwards to come up with a conclusion out of romans eleven and read it back in romans nine romans eight romans five the stations are made before we get to romans eleven i don't think that the are the uh... audience is gonna be confused uh... as to what is referring to he's talked about jews and gentiles as uh... those who are with the recipients of god's grace already so the all means some jews and some gentiles uh... yet that's what the world is is jews and gentiles uh... from the public perspective but the consigned to disobedience and then the mercy on them only means some Jews and some Gentiles yes God obviously has the right to show mercy and love to those who chooses to do so and unless we are universalists and believe that that mercy is simply being shown but not how does how does mercy this is why I tried to translate this way in Romans 9 mercy is a verb it's an active verb and now we say have mercy because we don't have a verbal form to mercy someone but as you know the the verb in Romans 9 is he mercies freely he chooses those whom he mercies and so it's not show mercy as in show oneself to be merciful towards someone if they will do something it is actually mercy someone and so for a take romans eleven and say well we're just gonna create an equation here we're gonna ignore the sanctions have i been made up this point and say he's going to mercy everyone uh... then that's the only foundation i've ever found for universalism and i'm not a universalist and neither you so that it uh... right okay just for time sake that let let me move on i'd i'd like to pursue that maybe face to face we can do that one day when you say that the Old Testament texts are not speaking of nations and yet the citations refer to nations and then specifically Jacob I loved Esau I hated a national word in Malachi 1 does that mean that all the descendants of Jacob are loved and all the descendants of Jacob are hated therefore all Edomites are damned? No, I just don't think that's the way Paul is using the text at all. The apostolic interpretation of those Old Testament texts is not one that says I'm going to take these as as in reference to nations I'm going to demonstrate that God has always had the freedom to choose his people freely, and he has done so from the beginning, and he did so with Isaac. That's why it's specifically, and I emphasize this, specifically before the twins had done anything good or bad, not before the nations had done anything good or bad, but for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad so that God's purpose according to his choice would stand not because it works I mean talk about belaboring yourself not because it works but because of him who calls it was said to her the older will serve the younger Jacob I love that you saw I hated the argument is with Paul's utilization of the Malachi text not with the with anything else So what does it mean? I knew it was coming up. All right. All right. Three minutes. Three minutes. Closing statements from each of us. I get to go first again next week. Just for those of you listening, that will be reversed in case any of you are thinking that's unfair or something, etc., etc. Three minutes. I believe the text is very, very, very clear. And once again, I have attempted to follow the flow as quickly as I possibly could all the way through and I believe once again if we look at the emphasis of the text itself it's what God has done not what God has made possible but what God has done God foreknows God predestines God calls God justifies God glorifies Jesus intercedes and I think it would be very interesting someday to find out how it is that from the Old Testament we can get the idea that the high priest did different kinds of intercession I thought he offered only one sacrifice and I thought it was only for those who drew near But we have this idea of multiple kinds of intercession being brought up. And it is because Jesus intercedes and it's because God, as judge, has said that we are righteous and no one can bring a charge against God's elect. And that includes the elect, I might note, in the process who have been changed by the Spirit of God, and hence are not going to bring about their own destruction in that way. Meaning that apostasy has to do with those who have a false faith, not those who have been given by the Father to the Son. then in Romans 9 Paul is explaining well if this is true then why do so few Jews relative to the entire number of Jews believe and Paul is explaining that this has always been the case it is not just being a descendant of Abraham that makes you of the covenant people before the twins were born God freely chose the one to whom the promises would be given and the personal application my assertion is that it's the apostolic interpretation of these texts that is so clear he's not applying these two nations he's not applying these two just uh... privileges or anything of the kind and if will allow the distinctions that have been raised that the potter has the right over the clay to make one for honorable use and the other for dishonorable use and then we follow those distinctions into ten and eleven rather than going to the and eleven coming up with a lack of distinction there reading it backwards again this is this is not how exegesis is done sense John, I'm sorry, Paul has already made the distinction in Romans 5, you have the two humanities, one in Adam, one in Christ. Here in Romans 9, you have the potter determining the vessels of honor, the vessels of dishonor, etc., etc., etc. We have to allow those particular distinctions to continue throughout the text. And when we do so, we understand why it is that the objector says, how does he still find fault for who resists his will and the answer remains the same who are you all man not who are you all nation but who are you all man who answers back to god the thing mold will not say the molder why did he make me like this singular that's the application here that's why romans nine has for so many years and so clear in making this testimony and will continue to do so as long as the lord terry's alright three minutes and it's back to you michael All right, thank you. We've got to look at what Paul's after here in Romans 9 through 11. This is his section where he deals specifically with Israel, which is a fundamental part of his gospel. Romans 1 16, the gospel is the power of God's salvation to everyone who believes, first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. And the question of privilege and the question of national inheritance and the question of why haven't things panned out as expected. I would point out first that Paul's broken heart for his people makes no sense. when he's about to argue, according to the Calvinistic interpretation, hey, God damns who he wants to dam and saves who he wants to save. And Paul is defending that. Well, right here, he's broken hearted, saying, I wish I could cut myself off from my people. Why? Because God is longing for his people to come back, as we have text after text after text. in the Old Testament where he says, even when I rebuke you, my heart longs for you. I desire to see you come back. Why will you die, O house of Israel? That's a foundation that no one can argue with that's come emphatically up to this point. It's also important when Paul's raising a hypothetical argument, what if God wants to do this? Again, he doesn't specifically say it. He could have said it more profoundly, but he says, what if God did this? What if he did that? Well, let's just keep reading to see what the conclusion is. What we see in Romans, the 11th chapter, is that Israel, which is hardened right now, and Israel, which is now an object of wrath, according to Paul, individual Israelites will turn and believe, because it's by faith and not by works. If they will turn and they will believe, then, praise God, they can be grafted back in. And as to the Gentiles, who are now part of this privileged family, and the thing that to the Jews seems so unfair and not right, if they do not continue in faith, they will be cut off. That's what Paul lays out. It's also critically important to see, as we continue, first the emphasis On the verses cited, it's not just the apostle interpretation. It's where they understand the scriptures properly or not. So before Jacob and Esau were born, God chose out a destiny for Jacob's people and Esau's people, having nothing to do with either one of them. The elder serving the younger does not happen in their individual lives. It happens in the lives of their descendants. Not only so, if Esau is hated, then why does he receive blessing from Isaac? Hated in the sense of rejected as a person. That's certainly not what was being understood. And Paul would not be violating the original text with his apostolic interpretation. If that was the case, he would then be a false prophet. No Jew should rightly listen to him. I think, though, it's important that we keep reading beyond when Paul says the potter has the right. And again, I draw everyone back to Jeremiah 18, where the potter's sovereign right is laid out. And then the context is, if I prepare a vessel for destruction, if I prepare a disaster for people, if they will repent, I will relent. And I have the privilege to do that as Potter. That's what God is saying. But when we continue the rest of Romans 9, if we just keep reading the immediate context, Paul doesn't say, well, the Israelites missed it because God destined them to miss it. He says, no, they did not pursue righteousness by faith. but as it were, based on works, they've stumbled over the stone. Okay, thank you very much. We're actually, believe it or not, we're two minutes behind. I'm not sure how we did that, but we better hurry up or you're going to be just transitioning right into your own programs. Yeah, and I can do Ephesians 1 in slightly less time, perhaps. Perhaps. We'll see. I doubt either one of us will do that. All right. Now we turn to Ephesians chapter 1, last round of the three rounds today. My eight minutes begins now. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the one who blessed us. And please notice throughout this text, the direct objects of the blessings and actions of God will be personal. They will not be an impersonal group. That is a group, we are talking about the people of God, but that is always personal. And what happens in the blessings that are given, the things that happen, the forgiveness of sins cannot be understood outside of individuals being known to God. It's not that God blesses just a generic group, but it is a group that is chosen by God. the blessings that have been given to us in all spiritual blessings in the heavenly places in Christ. Throughout this text it is only in Christ. There is no pluralism to be found in Ephesians chapter 1. Just as He chose us in Him, not as He chose Him and then we can get in or out of Him by our choice. The direct object of the choosing of God before the foundation of the world is us. is personal. He chose us. The Father set his love upon the individuals who make up the elect. He did not place his love upon a nebulous, faceless group called the elect, and then we choose to get in or out based upon our own alleged free will. just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we might be holy and blameless before him." Holiness and blamelessness are not just simply saying, oh, God's just chosen the elect to be holy and blameless. The only way we can be holy and blameless is due to the work of the Spirit of God within our lives. It has to do with sanctification. It has to do with justification. It has to do with forgiveness. All these things that will be coming up in the rest of the text are part and parcel of the entire doctrine of salvation itself. And so He chose us before the foundation of the world. This is God's not looking down the corridors of time saying, oh I see you're going to choose me, so I'll choose you. No, this is God choosing us in Christ before the foundation of the world. We might be holy and blameless before Him. In love, He predestined us unto the adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto Himself. In love, He predestined us. Predestination is a personal thing. God doesn't just simply have knowledge of, you know, He created, then He sits back and goes, oh, I see what people are going to do. No, this is God's sovereignty coming out in personal manifestation. He has predestined us unto adoption, that personal relationship that we have. through Jesus Christ unto himself, and what is the basis of that predestination? Is it because he sees something in us? Is it because we've done something? No, according to the kind intention of his will. This is the only answer that is given to the question, why does God choose one and not another? Since this choosing must be free, since this choosing cannot be demanded, since if God were simply to be just he would bring wrath against all the fallen sons and daughters of Adam then his free choosing must be just that it must be free it is according to the kind intention not the evil intention if God were to save even one it would be an amazing miracle that he would condescend and provide such a tremendous salvation but it is the kind intention of his will that becomes the foundation of this predestination of us unto sonship. Sonship is personal. Groups do not become sons of God. Redeemed sinners become sons of God because it is the Spirit of God that enters into us and cries out, Abba Father. And so this could not be any more personal than it is. Furthermore, verse 6 says, this is to the praise of His glorious grace. How could it be to the praise of His glorious grace if His glorious grace is just a peanut butter grace that gets spread out all over the place and tries to save everyone equally? No, to the praise of the glory of His grace, His glorious grace, which He has graced us, literally, He has gifted us in the Beloved One. Notice this grace saved is only in Christ. See the perfection we see, the harmony we see between this and Romans chapter 8. Who does Christ intercede for? The elect of God. Where is this grace found? In Jesus Christ. See, it's all in Christ. God has this purpose that He has accomplished in Jesus Christ, which is why any one of us this day bows the knee before Jesus Christ. It's because of what God has done, not just making it as a possibility, but He set His love upon us before eternity was. to the praise is glorious grace which he graced us in the beloved one in him in whom the beloved one we have the redemption through his blood the forgiveness of our trespasses according to the riches of his grace there you have the fact that this is clearly salvation that is being discussed it is not merely some general a provision but we have not we might have but in whom we have the redemption through his blood the forgiveness of our sins and that forgiveness is not limited in any way it is according to the riches of his grace which cannot be numbered which He caused to abound to us, lavished upon us in all wisdom and understanding. Can these be words that could be spoken of anyone but the elect of God who've actually received the fulfillment of the work of the Spirit of God under the praise and honor and glory of God? He made known to us the mystery of His will. According to the kind intention which he purchased in him with a view to administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth." So here you have the broad sweep of God's eternal plan. He's summing up everything in Christ. Those who are in Christ receive eternal life. Those who are outside of Christ will see Christ as their judge. He will sit upon the throne, the one that God has ordained, Acts chapter 17, to be the judge, because He can do so justly. He lived the perfect life. He has summed up all things in heaven and earth in Christ, and in Him also we have obtained an inheritance. We've obtained it. It is ours, but only in and through Jesus Christ. We have obtained an inheritance who has returned at that obtain his inheritance those who have been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things after the council of his will there is no way to understand what if he is one is talking about if we do not understand that we're talking about the sovereign god who works all things after the council of his will to the end that we who were the first open christ to the praise of his glory and then he turns the visions and you also you you also have to listen the message truth the gospel salvation having also believed you were sealed in him with the holy spirit of promise the spirit is the one who comes and opposition to what's been said a number of times uh... so far today the spirit is one who comes he is the are a bone verse fourteen the down payment the pledge of our inheritance the promise on god's part that he's going to finish the work that he's begun in that individual Ephesians, you and us together, the Spirit of God binds us together just as the Spirit of God binds all believers together across this world. Evidence that God is accomplishing in time what he chose freely to do in eternity past in glorifying himself in the salvation of a specific people in Jesus Christ. That's how Paul begins his message to the Ephesians. Alright, eight minutes. You still with us, Michael? I'm here, I actually agreed with a good part of what you said this time. The key points that we need to make is that our election is in Christ, and just as Israel's election was corporate, so also is the election of the church. We, plural, are chosen in Him. At the end of verse 1, the faithful in Christ Jesus, then even more emphatically, the end of verse 3, has blessed us in Christ, we're in Christos at the end, Here's what we need to notice. The emphatic uses of in Christ, in Christo, and similar phrases in verses 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, a total of nine times in 14 verses, and then in the beloved in verse 6. So let's just hear this. In Christ Jesus, verse 1. In Christ, verse 3. In Him, verse 4. In the beloved, verse 6. In Him, verse 7. In Christ, verse 9. In Him, verse 10. In Him, verse 11. In Christ, verse 12. In Him, verse 13. And then also the tremendous emphasis on we and us. According to verse 4, God's eternal purpose was that He would fashion a people for Himself in His Son. A people who would love Him and serve Him and be holy and blameless before Him. A people on whom He would lavish His grace. Verse 5, the verb predestined per original means to decide on beforehand or to predetermine. So God has predetermined a certain state of affairs that he will conform believers to the image of Christ. Same verb used in 1 Corinthians 2.7, wisdom achieving the glory of his people. And then verses 11 and 12, that we will be for the praise of his glory. So Paul affirms that God determined to adopt us into his family through the redemptive work of Christ. As William Klein points out, I must observe that Paul never uses this verb to assert that God has determined the specific individuals to save, nor has He predetermined the means for specific individuals' salvation. In other words, God does not predestine that some have faith. From Paul's use, we see that predestination concerns God's predetermination of certain goals for His people, here that they become members of His family through adoption. Verse 6, we note the emphasis on God's grace, the praise of His glorious grace. Verse 7, the riches of His grace, repeated in 2-7, By grace you have been saved, 2-5, for by grace you have been saved through faith, 2-8. Everything we have throughout eternity will be through God's grace. All we could do is respond to His offer and say yes. Put our trust in Him. We who are lost, helpless, could not possibly save ourselves in forever and ever and ever. We will be floored and awed with the grace of God, which is why both Calvinists and Arminians can sing hymns written by one another about God's amazing grace. Note, though, that the word mystery, mysterion, occurs six times in Ephesians, as we look in verse 9. Here, chapter 3, verse 3, then 4, 9, 5, 32, and 6, 19. And Paul explains the meaning in 3.4 and 3.8 through 12. The mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. To me, though I'm the very least of all the saints, this grace was given to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ and to bring to light for everyone is what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things so that through the church, again it's a corporate purpose, a corporate calling, the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. And this is realized in Christ Jesus our Lord. So we individually partake of the blessings by faith. just as God called corporate Israel, and then individuals partook of the blessings by faith, and it was always by grace. Israel could never boast of anything. So the same for us. Because it is by faith, we cannot boast. We are simply receiving God's offer of mercy. Because love cannot be coerced, because love is relational, God offers it to us freely. And those who respond are then lavished with his amazing and extraordinary and breathtaking grace that floors me every time I think of it. In verse 11, Paul is not saying here that everything that happens is God's will. He's not saying that God causes everything to happen, but rather in Christ, God is accomplishing a very carefully worked out plan for his people. The message paraphrases it correctly. Long before we first heard of Christ, he got our hopes up. He had his eye on us, had designs on us for glorious living, part of the overall purpose he is working out in everything and everyone. Or in the New Living Translation, paraphrased again, he makes everything work out according to his plan. So the text certainly does not state that God causes all things to take place as they do. The scriptures testify against this consistently with God grieving over the actions of his creation, often distancing himself from their actions and making clear that he desired their obedience. But rather than in and through everything that happens in the world, he is accomplishing his plans for his people chosen in Christ. And verse 13 lays out the way in which we're saved, through hearing and believing the word of truth. Again, no mystery here. As for being sealed with the Holy Spirit, the NET renders marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit. The NLT paraphrases, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit. Freiberg's lexicon says that the word seal speaks of providing a sign of identification or ownership. Verse 14, the Spirit here is spoken of as the deposit or down payment that guarantees our inheritance. God will, using arabon in Greek, a loan word from Hebrew, guarantee the future inheritance. BDAG says this is the payment of part of a purchase price in advance, first installment, deposit, down payment, pledge. Interestingly, in secular Greek documents, the same word arabon could be used for a deposit given to a man who, upon filling certain contingencies, would then receive everything else that was contracted for. Note carefully, though, that neither the sealing of the Spirit, which is simply a mark of identification, nor the Spirit as a down payment guarantee an individual's future salvation outside of Christ, which is why Paul warns the Ephesians so clearly in Ephesians 5, 5 and 6, for you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral, impure, covetous, et cetera, has no inheritance of the kingdom of Christ and of God. Don't let anyone deceive you with empty words. Our assurance, our security, our inheritance are in Christ. and it is an absolute testimony to the grace of God that this cannot be earned or work for but the miracle of the gospel presented so radically and clearly in the New Testament laid out so powerfully by fall by Paul's that justification is by faith and not by works and that is the pathway to receive all of God's grace and to be part of this people whom God has predestined from before the foundation of the world I'm done alrighty thank you sir so four minutes for our interaction let me start off you're presenting the concept of uh... corporates election uh... in this particular tax doesn't your understanding mean that a group was chosen him but i as an individual uh... i was not that god did not specifically predestine you or me the salvation he he predestined the people in jesus just as he predestined the nation israel by calling abraham and participation in that people the recipients of god's grace is entirely by faith not by works and yet You just said that love is relational, which I understood to mean love involves persons, and yet all through this text, yes, we have in him and in Christ, and I emphasize that all the time, but we also have in love. And so in love in verse four, well, it might be verse five, depending on how you divide it up, but over and over again, we have this idea of in love. How could predestination be done in love if it's an impersonal group? that is being predestined. It's actually the exact opposite. If God arbitrarily predestined someone to believe in him through no choice of that own person, then there isn't relational What God says is, I am going to have a family. I have determined from before the foundation of the world I will have a massive family, from Jew and Gentile alike, that no one can number, that will come through faith in my Son, and all who receive my love become personal objects of my love. That's why you never see Paul speaking in his personal epistles about, you were predestined, and when choosing to speak it out, spoken of it, spoken of vocation personally. but whenever he uses the predestination language it's always in terms of us every single time but he had opportunity to use it otherwise but but you I don't think I can answer that one you said well if if it's the way I understand it then it's not really love is like that but again this predestination is in love but you're telling us that this is predestination of a non personal group just I'm going to have a family I don't see how you can lovingly predestined a family love involves persons does it not old it's uses the family analogy so you and your wife get married and say we want to have a family the kids haven't been born yet but you're full of love and as those kids are born they now become part of a lot of love for a little full of love first first is love okay in terms of god's love it's love for the entire world on three sixteen which obviously different It's love for the entire world. God's heart goes out to the entire world, and in particular, He expresses His love through Jesus. All those who receive His Son's love are especially loved by God in a personal, particular, wonderful way that I experience every day of my life. Okay, at least three times so far in our exchange today, you have said that Paul never speaks of personal election or predestination, but only to positions of service or something like that, which I believe is what Dave Hunt says over and over again. But feel free to say, I don't want to go there because it's not in Ephesians 1, but since you've mentioned it three times, Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2, 13, we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren, be loved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation, through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. Is that not an example of the choice of God in love from the beginning under salvation by means of sanctification the spirit and faith and truth yeah I'm I'm happy to go to that text I'll be a quickly the issue there was that they were Gentiles Paul was quite emphatic when he he gave his witness in Acts 15 at the sign that the God had given the spirit to the Gentiles just in Acts the 10th chapter meant that they also were chosen that's the big issue there just as you're so careful to point out that the all passages have to do with you and Gentile The Thessalonians were some of the early ones to come to faith, some of the early ones that Paul wrote to, and say, hey, God's chosen you from the beginning. You're also in his plan. And we know it because the Spirit has come to you. And how do you experience that? By being part of that family, part of that body. Again, it's always in a corporate context when the words are used. OK, your turn. All right, thank you. So if we turn this around, can you give me an example uh... in any other literature where paul is writing personally the pastoral pistols etc and ever says that you an individual work were predestined or or or chosen for salvation well first i disagree with interpretations davis i guess lonians uh... that's not a context uh... that the context is is talking about uh... the end times judgment and and uh... antichrist and things like that uh... and and so it's not in any way shape or form talking about jews are gentiles in fact it goes on to say after saying that we shall always give give thanks for you and I'm certain there were Jews in the church at Thessalonica as well. Brethren, be loved by the Lord because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation, the sanctification of the spirit and faith of truth. It was for this he called you through our gospel that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm." He makes no differentiation there, but I would say that Second Timothy very clearly does possess that very same assertion that in talking to timothy and encouraging him to be faithful and strong in his ministry as a servant of god in the church what is he based out upon he bases that upon the fact that we as believers have received this grace from god from before eternity itself and that's we know whom we have believed in our persuaded he is able to keep that we've committed him against that day because of the fact that he is the very origin source of ours of our salvation so that would make no sense if paul was not indicating that timothy was uh... participating in this as well so uh... it'd be a twofold answer all right uh... of course he doesn't use the same terminology with timothy which is one of one of my points and then for it's uh... specimens need to restart first this morning's one get the larger context there but that that texas a bit away right uh... it why why the warnings against apostasy in Ephesians, the fifth chapter, why these strong urgings and saying that certain people not get in and don't let anyone deceive you with this and don't live like this, if that's an impossibility, if the ceiling, the guarantee is such that it would be impossible for any individual that was part of that body receiving that letter to ever fall away? Well, see, there's the problem with the question right at the end. I've never even suggested and don't know of anyone who has suggested that simply being in a body uh... means that you'll never fall away of the the entire reality is that when you're talking to the gathered church you're talking to a mixed company and when Paul says that don't be deceived, no one who does these things will inherit the kingdom of God, he started off the letter talking about the fact that we've been called unto holiness and sanctification. So there would be a gross contradiction for someone to come along and say, well, you can simply live your life as you wish and you can engage in these sins. We have been called unto holiness and sanctification. Those who accept that and see that and experience that by the work of the Spirit in their lives give demonstration the fact that they have truly heard the spirit of god have been changed by the spirit of god those who come along as they otherwise are have a false faith they were of us but they were not truly of us as first on describes all okay so even though they're hearing this letter chosen you chosen you know we we us us but it may not apply to all the other person so that so that you is as a member of the election assured of your salvation is impossible than for you to ever fall away a person who is in jesus christ is impossible for christ to lose one of his elect that is true so you can have it so it's one hundred percent impossible that james white will ever fall away uh... no i didn't say that i said the jesus christ not lose any one of his own the question your your your you're confusing the the reality that jesus christ be a perfect savior with my knowledge or actually not even my knowledge your knowledge of my standing before god I mean, anyone who's been in the church knows that we've met people that sat next to us in the Lord's Supper for years on end. And if you had asked, is this person in Christ? I would have said, as far as I can tell, he most certainly is. And then that person went back to the world. of possible so that it's possible then that you are not actually in Christ the only way to know for sure is that you persevere to the alien there is the end shall be saved because saving faith indoors are okay so I have a witness in total assurance I'm in Jesus because I've entrusted my life to him I don't worry, don't fear, ever question that. With your viewpoint, you would actually have to make it to the end until you know for sure. No, I certainly have a witness that I'm in Jesus Christ. But I cannot know the reality of your witness simply by your statement of it any more than you can know the reality of mine what what is the only infallible evidence of that is of course are enduring to the end because that demonstrates the supernatural faith but we've gone way over there and in fact uh... uh... will will do the uh... no no he's he's he's he'll he'll still have about twenty-some-odd minutes to rest up before before you get the attention drive to the studio but i don't know i thought you're in the studio Now, I did it from a different location, but I'm 10 minutes away, so I'm good. Alright, so I've just got a 3-minute closing, you've got a 3-minute closing. We didn't spend as much time in Ephesians 1 as I would like to, but I think everyone understands what the difference is here. In essence, I am saying that when Paul says, just as you were chosen in him before the foundation of the world, that God's choice of individuals makes up the corporate body. The other side is saying God chooses a corporate body that you then, by your faith, fill up by joining. There is the massive difference between the two readings of this text. And I simply submit to you that when you talk about spiritual blessings in Christ, when you talk about being holy and blameless before him in love, when you talk about adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, when you talk about forgiveness of sins through his blood, redemption, all these things can not be predicated of a nameless, faceless group. This is the very foundation and again uh... with with all all due respect to my my good brother here and in so many ways we argue similarly when we're dealing with with uh... uh... muslims and we're dealing with joe was witnesses are people in my view of christ we're we're right next to each other when it comes to this i think we've seen today is when we read these tax we don't read them in the same way and use the audience have to judge why is that because when i read these tax i see what god is doing i see god as the subject The verbs are God verbs. He's the one doing them. And we are the objects. I never see a situation where our decision determines whether God is going to be successful in glorifying himself. And really, when we consider this to the praise of his glorious grace, if this grace is trying to get everybody into this group and yet failing, then why is it being praised? these are the questions that must be raised and yes the text goes on to explain why it is that we have this this experience in our own lives of repentance and faith and the point of the text is the reason you repent and believe the reason that you do these things is because of what God has done in eternity not just that he made it a possibility not that just he laid out a plan but that he himself is active he has a sovereign decree and i do want to say that when paul says in in verse eleven the god who works all things after the council as well that is the god of the old testament brings a syria and brings babylon and says i will accomplish all my will i am the sovereign who can stay my hand that is the sovereign god of the old testament that paul is talking about here in the new testament who is accomplishing his will in jesus christ okay my all yours three minutes uh... yet let me a affirm again uh... my my love and appreciation for for james and the work that he does and i was praying for him on his uh... ministry in england i'm praying for the upcoming debates that he has and i had to actually stir myself to be willing to argue strongly against a brother like this but i do it wouldn't be hard once we started to go at it uh... okay uh... so of the fusions one There's nothing nameless and faceless. We're talking about God. And God, from the beginning, knew those who would respond to his offer of grace and be his people. He knew me by face before the foundation of the world, before I ever had a face, before the idea of me ever was conceived in the heart of my mother or father. So in that sense, the choosing is absolutely personal, but it's personal by being part of this body in Christ. What could be more clear than that? And God does two things by the cross. He makes salvation available to the whole world, as His call consistently goes out, that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but desires that all will come and be saved. And then He 100% saves fully from beginning to end those who do put their trust in His Son, Jesus. And it is all by faith, which is the consistent testimony of the Scripture. All we can say is, I receive your gracious offer. helpless, worthless as I am, and then we become adopted into his family. And he knew us by name, by face, from the very beginning that we would be part of that people that he predestined to glory. So there's no failure. There is the perfect accomplishment of God's plan. And part of his plan was to give human beings a choice. The God of the Old Testament grieved over the actions of man, hence the flood. The God of the Old Testament often said to Israel, I never intended this for you. This is absolutely not what I wanted for you, and offered them life and grieved over it, which is why Jesus said that he often desired to gather Jerusalem to himself. But his people were not willing. It's God's willingness and man's unwillingness. And yet through it, God gets for himself a people that no one can number. That's the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. And I take very seriously the fact that the Spirit's been given to me as a deposit and I've now been identified by the Spirit being given to me as one of God's own. So I have no fear. I never worry for a split second about apostatizing. I don't see it as a possibility in my life because I've put my trust in a good and gracious Savior who will keep me to the end. Should my heart become hard and I turn away from them, I have nothing but fear and trembling because anything that is promised to me is wrath. But I say, that those who believe as I believe have far more assurance and far more peace than those who say, I can only know for sure that I'm truly one of God's own if I persevere in holiness to the end. But let me again emphasize our deep commonality. We're saved through the blood of Jesus. By God's grace, we will be together forever. And then we'll find out who was right and wrong at that point. All right, thank you. Thanks so much for having me on. Thank you, Michael Brown, for being on the program today. We'll get this up online next week, Thursday, same time, a different set of verses. and a reversed order in the debate on next Thursday. The fact that it's April 1st has no relevance whatsoever. It just happens to be how it worked out. And Michael will be on his program here in about 25 minutes or so. I don't know what he's going to be talking about. He said he didn't know what he was going to be talking about. I don't know if he'd want you to call him and talk about this or not. I don't know. But we'll be with you on Tuesday here on The Dividing Line. We'll see you then. God bless. And good afternoon, good morning, welcome to The Dividing Line. This is part number two of the debate between myself and Michael Brown. Today we have texts chosen by Dr. Brown and unlike the first part of the debate where I chose the text and I went first this time. Since he chose the text, he will be going first. And so without further delay, I welcome you back. Michael Brown, how are you doing? Great to be on the air with you again today. Hey, it's good to be with you, too. Dr. Brown's coming to us via Skype. Let's hope no one launches a DNS attack on Skype just simply to mess everything up, because the sound quality is so good. It's not like when Skype first started when it would be something like this, but you talk So he sounds like he's right here in the studio with me, but I think he's on the other side of the United States right now, actually. But today we are beginning with Luke chapter 13, verses 34 and 35. And so, Dr. Brown, your eight-minute opening statement. Go ahead. Luke 13, 34, of Jerusalem. Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you. How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. The meaning of this short and poignant passage, which has a parallel in Matthew 23-37, is quite straightforward, and not surprisingly, it's one of the passages that persuaded the respected Calvinist scholars Ned Stonehouse and John Murray to write, quote, We have found that God Himself expresses an ardent desire for the fulfillment of certain things which He has not decreed in His inscrutable counsel to come to pass. This means that there is a will to the realization of which he is not decretively willed, the pleasure towards that which he has not been pleased to decree, which they say is indeed mysterious. But what may be mysterious, especially for Calvinists, based on a host of biblical texts, it's quite obvious. Here in Luke 13, 34, we have a moving expression from Israel's Messiah. He addresses Jerusalem as the personification of the nation as a whole, just as the prophets often did, as in Jeremiah 2.2, go proclaim to Jerusalem. As I noted in my commentary there, Jerusalem represents the people of Israel, not merely a city or a geographical location, but the people themselves, both past and present. Jesus longed to gather her children together, meaning the inhabitants of Jerusalem represented the nation as a whole. As a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but she, again, represented the people and their leadership, were not willing. In fact, the Greek twice uses the verb thelo to will, wish, desire. The Lord is saying, I was willing, in fact, over and over again, but you were not willing. As expressed by D.A. Carson, Jesus claims to be the one who is long to gather and protect his rebellious nation. Or as noted by R.T. France, as Jesus contemplates what lies ahead of the people he came to save, it gives him no pleasure. He had wanted to gather them, not to condemn them. The simple and undeniable sense of the passage is plain, and according to John Calvin, Christ speaks here in the person of God. James has written that, quote, a vitally important point to make here is that the ones the Lord desired to gather are not the ones who are not willing. Jesus speaks to the leaders about their children that they, the leaders, would not allow him to gather. Jesus was not seeking to gather the leaders, but their children. This one consideration alone renders the passage useless for the Arminians seeking to establish free willism, end quote. Actually, the reverse is true. First, although the context in Matthew 23, 37 in particular focuses on the Jewish leadership, this is not the case in Luke 13, so it must be demonstrated rather than assumed that Jerusalem speaks only of the leadership rather than the people as a whole. Where else is this usage found in Scripture? Thus, the ESV renders with O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets. This would be in keeping with other New Testament passages like Acts 2.36, which indicts the entire house of Israel at 1 Thessalonians 2.14 and following, where the Jewish people or Judeans are held responsible for killing the prophets and the Messiah himself. Which major lexicons or top gospel scholars understand Jerusalem here to mean the Jewish leadership only? Second, to more specifically challenge James' argument, who says that Jesus didn't want to gather Jerusalem's leaders together? On what textual basis can he make that statement? And third, and most importantly, even on James' interpretation, we see that Jesus was seeking to gather the children of the leaders, yet what he wanted to happen did not happen. The children of their leaders, called here Jerusalem's children, if we follow James' interpretation, suffered terribly, just as their leaders did. This is confirmed in Luke 19, 41-44, where we read that when Jesus drew near to Jerusalem, He wept over it, saying, Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes, for days will come upon you, and your enemies will set up a barricade around you, and surround you, and hem you in on every side, and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. They will not leave one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation. Note carefully these words, you and your children within you. There can be no possible mistaking of the fact that Jesus wanted to gather Jerusalem's children. I know here in Luke 19 that Jerusalem cannot simply refer to the leadership, but they were not gathered. What He so fervently desired did not happen. This was a cause of profound sorrow for our Lord, who did not rejoice at the impending destruction of His beloved city and His beloved people, saying, Yes, this is what my Father and I decreed for you, and so shall it be. No, He wept over Jerusalem, saying, If only you had known, if only you had understood the time of your visitation. Again, the text is abundantly clear and is in harmony with many other biblical passages. Our sovereign God, because of his own free choice to create human beings with a measure of free will, often desires things for his people and for this world that do not happen, causing him grief and pain. That is the world he chose to create in his own inscrutable wisdom, one in which he allows us a measure of free will and seeks a reciprocal love relationship with us. And in the midst of it, he continues to work out his sovereign purposes, bringing good out of evil and life out of death, ultimately for his eternal glory. Next passage, Deuteronomy 5, 28-29. In context, these verses follow Moses recounting to the children of Israel what happened when God spoke the Ten Commandments to his people from Mount Sinai one generation earlier. The people were terrified at God's voice and asked that Moses speak to them on God's behalf, saying that they would do whatever the Lord required. God accepted their request and then said, if only it would really be their desire to fear me and obey all my commandments in the future so that it may go well with them and their descendants forever. This was God's desire. But of course, what else would a loving father desire for his children? What else would a devoted bridegroom desire for his bride? What else would a compassionate creator desire for his chosen nation? Again, the meaning of the text leaves no ambiguity, as the opening Hebrew phrase, mi yitayn, means would that, if only. It speaks of an ardent wish or desire, as in Job 6, 8, where he cries out, oh, that I might have my request. In fact, the expression occurs nine times in Job, pointing to the passionate desire inherent in the phrase. Also using the same idiom as Psalm 14.7, O that the deliverance of Israel might come from Zion. The new Jewish version to the passage under discussion here in Deuteronomy 5 bears citing, I have heard the plea that this people made to you. They did well to speak thus. May they always be of such mind to revere me and follow all my commandments, so that it may go well with them and with their children forever. God wants things to go well for his beloved people. Thus Moses says in Exodus 20, 20 in a similar context immediately after the giving of the Ten Commandments, Do not fear, for God has come to test you, that the fear of him may be before you, that you may not sin. Parallel to this is the expression of God's desire in Isaiah 48, 17 to 19. Thus said the Lord your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, I the Lord am your God, instructing you for your own benefit, guiding you in the way you should go. If only you would heed my commands, then your prosperity would be like a river, your triumph like the waves of the sea. Both this passage in Deuteronomy 5, 28 and 29 persuaded Murray and Stonehouse to recognize that God does not decree that everything he ardently desires will come to pass and, as I stated at the outset, while they call this mysterious, from a biblical perspective it is quite obvious. How utterly contrary to the clear and consistent testimony of the Word is the notion that 1. God did not desire the salvation of the entire nation of Israel. 2. He did not desire that they would obey and hence be blessed. 3. While repeatedly proclaiming His desire for their well-being, He secretly decreed the destruction of many of them. And 4. The unequivocal words of the Father in the Old Testament and the Son in the New Testament do not mean what they say. They must instead be turned on their heads in order to fit a theological system. Not so. And I remind you, these passages cannot be passed off to what is sometimes called the prescriptive will of God found in his law, where God commands his people, do not murder, do not commit adultery, in contrast with an alleged secret so-called decree of will, which amounts to what God really wants to happen, irresistibly causing his people to do whatever they do by way of an unconditional decree, including all their sin and evil. to the contrary, God does not want his people to sin or do evil, and these passages describe the heart, mind, and desire of God. He desires blessing, not cursing, for his people life, not death, which is why he says elsewhere in Deuteronomy, choose life that you and your descendants may live. All right, thank you very much. And now my eight minutes begins now. In eight minutes of discussion, we never had any demonstration that the term gathered means I want to save. It was just assumed but it was never proven, it was never even attempted to be proven, that gathered means the same thing as bring into eternal life. There are all sorts of covenant, all sorts of covenant language here and it was also very confusing to me that it sounded like Dr. Brown was somehow distinguishing between Matthew's use of this Logia and Luke's. Both are judgments passages. Even though Luke only provides a small snippet of this and places it within the context of Jesus going to Jerusalem and and a prophet must not perish outside of Jerusalem, still it's the exact same Logia, and so to attempt to interpret it outside of its Matthean context where it's given its full context in regards to the specific Jewish leaders, I find that not to be a meaningful approach to exegesis. First of all, it is very clear, despite the denial that was just offered, that Jesus himself is the one who provides the contrast between the Jewish leaders and those who Jesus was seeking to gather and that in the context of the destruction of the coming destruction of jerusalem which in both of the matthew and luke references comes right after this behold your house is left you desolate i say to you you will not see me until the time comes when you say blesses you comes in the name of the lord both and with the exact same judgment narrative i find it odd that we are attempting to overthrow the entire biblical testimony about God's decree on the basis of a judgment passage rather than upon a didactic text that specifically addresses these issues. I think we're going to see that in each of the examples that have been provided in our debate today. It was to the Jewish leaders that God sent the prophets. It was the Jewish leaders who killed the prophets and sent them, was sent to them, hence the use of Jerusalem, the capital city, as the symbol for the leadership. It would be similar to my saying addressing someone in Washington DC. Everyone recognizes I'm talking about the leadership of the nation. Jesus speaks of your children, and yet the vast majority of the time this text is used, that is simply dismissed. In fact, frequently isn't even quoted. because they don't see the distinction here, because they don't see the judgment that is being brought upon the Jewish leaders for what it is that they are doing. And this comes out very clearly in the Matthean context. In Matthew 23.13, which comes before Matthew 23.37, But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people. and you do not enter in yourselves nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. Jesus comes proclaiming the kingdom and those who are already in charge of things say no we do not want to have your message. The judgment that comes in Luke 13 and Matthew 23 is upon individuals who have stood in their rank religious rebellion against God. The very ones that are in the very danger of committing the unpardonable sin. They have stood before the very Messiah himself and have resisted his preaching of repentance and his ministry of warning about what is coming upon Jerusalem within Jerusalem itself. This is the great judgment that is going to come upon them. So where or how does a judgment logia establish the idea that the gathering mentioned is a synonym for salvation? Dr. Brown didn't tell us. If this is anything other than salvation itself rather than the proclamation of the coming judgment upon Israel, to which there would be mixed response. How is this text even slightly relevant to the issue of God's decree or the allegedly all-powerful will of man? There are just so many questions that are raised by this and I just might note very little time was spent in exegesis of the Lucan passage. Its alleged clear meaning was brought forth with dozens of other passages but immediately went to this idea that this the desire of God expressed in his holy words, the fact that he desires holiness, the fact that he says thou shalt not kill, that somehow this means there is no decree of God that includes the evil of man. And so we immediately leave a judgment text upon the Scribes and Pharisees and expand this out to a Bible-wide denial that results in the scriptures being tremendously contradictory to themselves. We have all these examples of where God hardens the people's hearts. I mean, how are we supposed to understand this in light of Jesus' own words in John chapter 12, that God had hardened their hearts so they could not believe? These are going to be some of the questions that I'm going to be asking. We also had Deuteronomy chapter 5 presented and again I I'm not sure what exactly is being said here other than well this is what God truly desires to happen well of course God's desires are always holy and just and representative of who he is but evidently the idea is well and if he has those desires then he would never decree anything other than that folks simple question here did God desire pilot to do a pilot did Did God desire Herod to do what Herod did? Did God desire the Jewish leaders to turn over their own Messiah to the Romans for crucifixion? What was the answer of the early church to that in Acts chapter 4 verses 27 to 28? They did exactly what your hand had predestined to occur. Not what you saw in the future, but what was against your desire. They did what you had predestined to occur. You see, once again we come back to the same issues that Dr. Brown and I raised when we first spoke on his program. And that is, he denies that there is a decree of God that gives form to what happens in time, despite the many texts of scripture that make reference to this, and says no. That is not the case whatsoever since God says I owe that you would do that That means that's the only desire he has and that's the only will that he has and that's just all there is to it He's just like a man. He really wishes we do these things and yet I know that dr. Brown rejects open theism And so if he rejects open theism, then we have an even odder situation here and that is we have God Oh that you would do this. I know you're not going to And I brought this creation into existence, and when I brought the creation into existence, I knew you weren't going to. And so I brought creation into existence just simply so that I would be eternally disappointed in these situations. Is that really what a synthesis of all of scriptural revelation, rather than just taking a part of it? Now, Dr. Brown's already said, already made the accusation, well, you're turning a text on its head simply for a theological system. Well, we both feel that's what the other one's doing. I believe Dr. Brown is ignoring the many texts of scripture where God talks about accomplishing all of his holy will, bringing about his purpose, and simply asking the question, does that please God? When in the final analysis, we saw this in the preceding part of the debate, we look at Ephesians 1, it says that he is accomplishing all things according to the counsel of his will, Is that the case or not? I think Dr. Brown is saying no. He's not accomplishing all things according to the Council's will. There's all sorts of other wills involved and there's all sorts of other wills that are doing the exact opposite of what God would have to do. We need to have a completely biblical view of these things. And the idea that God expressing his holy desires in consonance with his own nature is somehow to mean that he cannot have his own holy decree just simply does not follow we now have four minutes across domination each and then we have three minute closing statements we are in the first part of the debate dr brown your four minutes Okay, no debating hype here, James. I'm kind of stunned by the comments you made, both for putting words in my mouth that I never spoke, which I hope to clarify, along with when we get to Deuteronomy 5, you accuse me of going over the passages. I didn't even hear a syllable about Deuteronomy 5. So let's go back to specific text. I never said that gathered meant save. What do you believe gathered means in the passages in Luke 13 and Matthew 23? I certainly did not attempt to put any words in your mouth, Dr. Brown. Everything that you said led to the conclusion that that's what you were talking about. So if you want to clarify that, that'll be great. I did actually refer to Deuteronomy chapter 5, especially in regards to his desire that they would walk in his law. So I want to correct both of those statements right from the beginning. The gathering that Jesus is talking about is the same gathering that is found in Deuteronomy 23, 13, and that is Jesus seeking to proclaim the kingdom of god to all the inhabitants of his of of uh... well israel will use the term generically here not make the division between gali and and judia uh... and specifically the proclamation of repentance uh... and the coming judgment of god upon jerusalem all right uh... and so he wanted to gather them and who are the children the children would be the people under the authority of the jewish leaders okay they were not gathered it didn't happen which is my whole point I didn't say anything about save, even though you kept arguing as if I had, or that's what I was alleging. My whole point was that Jesus wanted to gather them, as many Calvinist scholars recognize, but they weren't gathered. Hence, Luke 19, you and your children are going to be destroyed. Yes. The preaching of the prophets has always been under the assumption that if they were to respond, then they would receive God's blessing. The whole reason, as Jeremiah 7 makes so clear, uh... the whole reason that you have this constant lack of hearing this lack of obedience is a demonstration that it is not simply being amongst the people of god that makes you the people of god all right but i think that's it but i was going to answer to this jesus long to gather them together and it didn't happen how often i've gathered you through the ministry the preaching yes okay so what he would desire to happen didn't happen that was my whole point in the past as expressed through the preaching yes that does not mean again you just you just as soon as you just assume that there's there can be no no consistency between the preaching of the Word of God the the prescriptive will of God in his law and the decree of God as to what's going to take place okay so in a lab which is really properly not just a judgment passage in genre but a lamentation passage so he is lamenting pouring on his heart this was his fervent desire yet he decreed the opposite of that that's what you believe he decreed the judgment of israel yes there's no question about that okay yeah so what when we get to deuteronomy five we're not looking at prescriptive will do not murder we're looking at god's desire for his people so again you're saying that god desired that his people would not murder but decreed that some of them would Okay, do you have any reason then for why so many other Calvinist scholars read these passages differently than you do? I can't answer for them. I just simply recognize that the scriptures are very, very plain in making the assertion that anything that takes place has a purpose. God has not created purposeless evil. He is over and over again in the same text talking about hardening hearts, There are times when he does not allow preaching of the Word of God that would result in the salvation of people. I simply have to take all that the Scripture says. I can't just take one section and say, ah, here it is. God's desire is that everybody's good, and therefore, if there's anything that goes against that, I'm just going to dismiss it. It's right there in the text. right and i would look at it let's just be consistent with the texas and it's much easier to to put things together so i think i think that might my turn for the four minutes and so i'll ask you the question uh... in light of what you just said did god desire to harden the people of israel's hearts so they would not believe as in isaiah six know his highest desire as we'll see another text was that they would repent and live if they refuse to then he desired to bring judicial punishment upon them then that's what always works so there are multiple desires from your perspective in God's in God's heart all know it would just be like a parent I desire that my child does not sit in mess up if he does sin I desire that he learns properly from his punishment does not escape punishment that are hardening so the hardening the God brings is actually the same thing as a parent punishing children Well, the hardening, we know from God's perspective, you have to look at the vocabulary that's used. Vocabulary that's used, say, for example, with Pharaoh, begins with chazak, or the chazek, to strengthen. God does not take someone that desires or is crying out or is longing to and then hardens them. He confirms this. Like it's often been pointed out, the same sun that bakes the earth melts the clay. So sometimes God's loving word coming to someone produces hardness. Could Pharaoh have done other than what he did? confirmed of pharaoh was set in a certain course god confirmed him in his course if at any moment he chose to repent i believe there would have been grace but god also raised him up knowing exactly who he was slow away when it so so if it was god's intention to demonstrate his supremacy over the gods of egypt in the exodus and in the plagues Pharaoh could have frustrated that by repenting, right? No. God foreknew this man. That's why he raised him up. That's what Paul says in Romans 9. For this very purpose, I raised you up. Amazingly, though, of course, we have to get away from the text we're exegeting to try to argue your points. Well, you raised all sorts of points that go far beyond the text, so I'm just simply having to answer the very issues that you raised up. So God raised up Pharaoh based on his foreknowledge of what Pharaoh would do uh... not not for any other reason so so feral could not have done any other way did because god foreknew what there was going to do in that sense yes uh... so so that knowledge that god has uh... of this this for knowledge uh... are you taking a middle knowledge perspective here or simple for knowledge perspective I'm not looking at it from a theological perspective, but from an exegetical perspective, to be honest. And we see in the text that he hardens himself over and over and over before God then confirms him in his hardness. So there's consistency there. We don't see that Pharaoh is seeking to fear God. We don't read that God hardened the magicians are saying come on stop already we see that God confirmed in his hardness a man that was already set in that course it's consistent scripture you don't see anything contrary to that ever happening in terms of hardening in scripture really so and when you when you're talking about your understanding of the look in passage when Jesus specifically addresses this issue in John 1239 and I'm sorry when John specifically addresses this text in John 1239 and says for this reason it was impossible for them to believe uh... do you believe that that is simply because of what they had done or because of what god had done judicial hardening beginning with their own hardness god confirm the minute at just a second this morning's to those who do not love the truth god will give over to delusions so they believe a lot it's consistent there's no mystery here so that that's true i i i i i agree thousand percent but so their free will is taken from them there's you at one point it said well feral could have done other uh... how about those people in in john twelve or is it only with for this i said here at no in john twelve it was at that moment it doesn't say for all time doesn't say that they were damned in doing for all time but at that moment they were blinded and there is judicial hardening sometimes god gives us over to our sins and were captive in them god can draw us again and grant us repentance but he does give us over to our sense again it's consistent which is the scripture and yours three minutes for your closing statement all right uh... really there can be no exegetical denying of the plain sense of luke thirteen matthew twenty three is this reform new testament scholar d a carson explain jesus often long to gather in sheltered russland by metonymy including all jews as a handguns for chicks for despite the woes pronounced jesus like the sovereign lord in ezekiel eighteen thirty two took no pleasure in the death of anyone According to the Puritan author William Perkins, the things which he willeth, namely the gathering of the Jews by the ministry of the prophets, was begun and practiced long before his incarnation. Wherefore, as I take it here, his divine will is meant for the will of his Godhead, which is also the will of the Father and of the Holy Ghost." According to Calvinist author Walter Chantry, notice that Jesus is speaking to a people who are finally going to perish and he knows it. That these people are about to be consumed by the wrath of God is the main intent of Christ's statement. He is pronouncing a curse upon them. Yet in the midst of sentencing them, Jesus expresses his love for them and a desire that they would repent and believe. He reminded these very people who would soon perish that they had been repeatedly invited to come to Him. He assured them that even at that moment He desired them to freely partake of His saving mercy. In verse 37, our Lord said, I would have gathered you, but you would not. The Savior sincerely desired their conversion. He wanted to gather Jerusalem into His saving and protecting grace, but they spurned His sincere invitation and refused to turn. Finally, writing in the Banner of Truth, Gerald Hamster expressed how fervently the Savior longs for the salvation of the lost. If only the unconverted sinner could know how rich a love dwells in the heart of our precious Redeemer. He understands the plight of the sinner as no one else. His gracious warnings are a proof of this. No less so are his tears. That's why they cry out to the sinner, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. So not only has James missed the overwhelming clear sense of the passage, namely that what Jesus so fervently desired did not happen, But he also rejects the interpretation of many top Calvinists past and present. As for Deuteronomy 5, 28 and 29, there's no reason to get ourselves twisted in some kind of a theological pretzel that God ardently desires that his people do not sin and yet preordain some of them to sin. That God longs to see his people repent and yet has a system set up that he has preordained that many of them will not repent. No, He has set up a system in His own sovereign will, giving Him limited free choice so that people can refuse His grace, because love cannot be coerced. God wants a reciprocal relationship. This is what our sovereign God set up, and according to Ephesians 1.11, in the midst of everything that is happening, He is working out His sovereign purpose, and He will get for Himself the people for His glory and His glory alone. His desire is that people will turn and repent. He grieves when they do not. But ultimately, in the midst of it, he will accomplish his sovereign purpose. All right, thank you very much. I agree with much of what Dr. Brown has just said. Unfortunately, he seems to be trying to drive a wedge between myself and others that others have tried to do, too. In fact, I'm sort of sensing their influence in some of this as well. What happens in Matthew 23 is a condemnation of the Jewish leaders. Even just now, Dr. Brown had said, how often I wish to gather you but you were not jesus never said that he said how far to gather your children together but you would not the condemnation of the you would not and anything in regards to the ability of man has to do with the jewish leaders and their resistance to the ministry of jesus any other use this tax uh... simply is inappropriate now doctor brown has set up but all i'm saying about this tax which is not the normal armenian uses tax is that jesus desired to do something that did not happen And once again, we are driven back to the necessity of recognizing that God's holy will expressed in his law is that we be perfect even as our Heavenly Father is perfect. His holy desire is for that which is good and just and righteous. But God is not a man, and God's desires also include his own decree which gives form to the very substance of time. You see, God desired to save many people alive in the days of Joseph. To accomplish that, He decreed the selling of Joseph into slavery in Egypt. That involved the evil actions of men. But God was sovereign over those things and His sovereign purpose was holy and just. In the one action, you have the desires of men that are evil and the desires of God that are good. we if we have simply a foreknowledge perspective here to where well God create many saw these things gonna happen then how can God be said to be accomplishing his holy well it's not his holy well he's not accomplishing anything at all in fact all of prophecy seems to be nothing more than then God acting as a CNN reporter and telling us what he's already seen in the future rather than the accomplishment of his will and folks this is a major difference because in one god has a specific plan that he is a common not just major goals i'ma try to work with me work things out the end think of how any one of those events and especially the crucifixion itself was the result of the decree of god or thousands and millions of free will choices of human beings in one of those instances god is worthy of being worship for accomplishing all his holy will in the other i don't know that he has and that's really what we're talking about here is allowing all the scripture to speak this vitally important matter okay now we are moving on as quickly as we can to the next section eight minutes uh... this time uh... looking at ezekiel chapter eighteen actually think there are three or four text or uh... cited but uh... we'll see how many are gotten to uh... that brown your ezekiel exegesis please All right, I'm determined to let the text speak for itself and not cram it into some preconceived theological system. So back to the scriptures. I've selected these texts in order to reinforce the scriptural concepts that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather desires that they repent and live, that he ardently desires certain things that do not come to pass since he has given his creation the choice to refuse his grace, and that there are times when our response or lack of response to him changes his course of action, all based, of course, on the principles on which he decided to create us to accomplish his ultimate goals. It's his almighty will. We have no almighty will. The backdrop to Ezekiel 18 is simple. The prophet is writing to Jews living in Babylonian exile. To a certain degree, they seem to be suffering for the sins of their fathers. Lamentations 5, 7 even states, our fathers sinned and are no more. We must bear their guilt. Well, Jeremiah 15, 1 through 4 indicated that the current generation would suffer because of the prior atrocities committed by King Manasseh. Because of that, a proverbial saying had developed. What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel? The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge. The exiles felt the Lord was being unjust. First, the Lord said that the proverb would no longer be applicable. Rather, sin would be judged more quickly, and the person who sins, only he shall die. Second, the Lord demonstrated his justice on an individual level, explaining that if a wicked man had a righteous son, the son would not die because of his father's sins. Conversely, if the righteous son in turn had a wicked son, the latter would not live because of his father's righteousness. It's in the midst of this explanation that God reveals his heart towards his people, including the wicked. Thus in Ezekiel 18.23, the Lord states, is it my desire that a wicked person shall die, says the Lord God? It's rather that he shall turn back from his ways and live. Or as rendered in the ESV, have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? These sentiments are repeated at the end of the chapter. Therefore I'll judge you, O house of Israel, everyone according to his ways, declares the Lord. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God, so turn and live. If this was not clear enough, the Lord says again in 3311, in the context of warning the wicked, As I live, declares the Lord, it is not my desire that the wicked shall die, but that the wicked turn from his evil ways and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways, that you may not die, O house of Israel. The Hebrew verb used frequently here, chafatz, means to desire, take pleasure in, want, wish. And it is used in Micah 7.18 to give us another glimpse into God's heart. It was a God like you who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance. You do not stay angry, but delight to show mercy. Is it possible that in the case of persistent, unrepentant sin, God desires to put these sinners to death for their sins? This is certainly true, as in Isaiah 48, 14, which speaks of God's Chephet's desire, will, to bring judgment on wicked Babylon. But if we keep reading this very same text, verses 18 and 19, we see that God's ardent desire is that His people obey Him and be blessed, which is exactly what the passages in Ezekiel, along with the text already discussed in the first segment, teach. God does not desire the death of the wicked. He desires that they repent and live. That's the heart of our God. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him. 1 John 4.8 tells us that our thrice holy, all-powerful, perfectly just, sovereign God is love. And Jeremiah 3.19.20, our next text, gives us another glimpse into the heart of our loving Heavenly Father. The verses come in the context of severe warnings and rebukes with the impending punishment of exile hanging over the nation. But exile and destruction were not what God desired for his children. As rendered in the ESV, I said how I would set you among my sons and give you a pleasant land, a heritage most beautiful of all nations. And I thought you would call me my father and would not turn from following me. Surely as a treacherous wife leaves her husband, so have you been treacherous to me, O house of Israel, declares the Lord." Once again, just as in Luke 13, where Jesus desired to gather Jerusalem's children together like a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but it did not happen, The Lord here expressed his desire to bless his children with the land of Israel, expressing his longing that they would follow him as faithful sons, but it did not happen. They behaved treacherously, and so terrible punishment had to come. But I ask once more, what were God's sentiments in this? Listen to Lamentations 3, 31-34. For the Lord does not reject forever, but first afflicts, then pardons in his abundant kindness, for he does not willingly bring grief or affliction to man, crushing under his feet all the prisons of the earth. Then hear God's heart again in Jeremiah 31 20 is not Ephraim my dear son and the child in whom I delight I often speak against him I still remember him therefore my heart yearns for him I have great compassion from declares the Lord it's amazing that I'm accused of not using the consistent biblical witness when the text says the same thing over and over and over and over even when they're under his judgment he still longs for them. We turn now to Ezekiel 22 30 and 31 I sought for man among them who should build up the wall and stand in the breach before me for the land that I should not destroy, but I found none. Therefore, I have poured out my indignation upon them. I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath. I have returned their way upon their heads, declares the Lord God." The imagery used here is very graphic. Walls protected a city. When they became broken down and full of breaches, the enemy had easy access and the city had limited defense. A true prophet or intercessor would, spiritually speaking, build up the wall or climb into the gap in the wall itself, thereby warding off the enemy attack with his own life. That's why the false prophets are indicted for not doing this in Ezekiel 13. This can be contrasted with the intercession of Moses as recorded in Psalm 106.23, using identical terminology in Hebrew. Therefore, God said he would destroy them had not Moses chosen what stood in the breach before him to turn away his wrath from destroying them. In Ezekiel 22, God looked for someone who would climb into the breach and intercede for the people at a critical time in Israel's history. Because he found none, he had to bring judgment. If a faithful intercessor had been found, he would not have destroyed. This is hardly the message of everything happening according to a preordained, unchangeable course of events, and it is in keeping with the description of Yahweh the potter in Jeremiah 18, 6-11. O HOUSE OF ISRAEL, CAN I NOT DEAL WITH YOU LIKE THIS, SAYS THE POTTER, JUST LIKE CLAY IN THE HANDS OF THE POTTER, SO ARE YOU IN MY HANDS, O HOUSE OF ISRAEL? AT ONE MOMENT I MADE DECREE THAT A NATION OR A KINGDOM SHALL BE UPROOTED AND PULLED DOWN AND DESTROYED, BUT IF THAT NATION AGAINST WHICH I MADE THAT DECREE TURNS BACK FROM ITS WICKEDNESS, I CHANGE MY MIND CONCERNING THE PUNISHMENT I PLAN TO BRING ON IT. BUT THEN THE TEXT STATES THE REVERSE, AND NOW SAY TO THE MEN OF JUDAH AND THE INHABITANTS OF Thus said the Lord God, I am devising disaster for you and laying plans against you. Turn back each of you from your wicked ways and mend your ways and your actions. Note that the Hebrew participle used for devising is Yotzer, meaning both potter and foreman. As the text we've just examined indicate clearly, should the people have repented, God would have been glad. Their failure to repent brought him grief, and clearly God desired their repentance. Could the text be any more plain? To borrow a phrase from my esteemed colleague, this is the potter's freedom. And he is determined to interact with his people in conjunction with choices we make. And what makes him all the more worthy of praise and adoration is that ultimately, he brings his purposes to pass in the midst of human sin and satanic activity, not by pre-programming billions of robots. This is our sovereign, all-wise king, and he is the one who says to us, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that he turn and live. When he brings judgment, it is a necessity, but his higher goal, his greater desire, is that they repent. A.W. Tozer said this, God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God, but fulfills it. And as much as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make, but that he should be free to make it. If it is absolute freedom, God's will, to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay his hand or say, what doest thou? Man's will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon his creatures. He would be afraid to do so. All right, thank you very much. Dr. Brown said, I am committed to scripture alone rather than cramming it into a pre-existing theological structure. And yet we have heard a number of citations from other scholars today, including the very last one given, that is a pre-existing theological structure that presents a concept of divine decrees and sovereignty where basically God's sovereignty is limited to His granting sovereignty to mankind, and where do we find the basis of that in Scripture? Is that the statements that are given to us in the Old Testament itself? I don't believe that that's the case, but I again want to focus again upon a text that I believe has been expanded out once again in contradiction to plain didactic passages, into an expression that well you know if this is what God's desires are then there can't be anything beyond just a simple understanding that if God desires this there can't be anything to his decree, there can't be anything to the interaction of God with evil. God's limited to only bring good out of evil rather than actually having a purpose in the evil that takes place. There's a huge difference between those two. Ezekiel chapter 18 is specifically about the refutation of a false proverb amongst the people. The word of the Lord came to me. What do you mean by repeating this proverb? They were saying it over and over again concerning the land of Israel. The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge. As I live, declares the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine. The soul of the father is well. The soul of the son is mine. The soul whose sins shall die. So we have a specific situation. that is in view here, a situation unlike the vast majority of the applications of this text, that is God's covenant people using His own law, the law of Deuteronomy, that says, I will visit the iniquity of the fathers upon their sons and their children's children for generations. they're using God's own law and saying there's no reason for us to repent. Why? Because your law has doomed us. We are living, what we are experiencing, these judgments are due to what has happened before us, therefore there's no reason for us to listen to the prophetic call for repentance. Now that is an incredibly narrow application and therefore You have to provide some means of foundation for expanding the conclusions you draw to any other application of these things. Notice then below, verses 29-32, after a discussion of God's law and what the righteous man is, yet the house of Israel says, the way of the Lord is not just. Hear that! The house of Israel, God's covenant people, saying of their covenant God, the way of the Lord is not just. O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel. Everyone according to his ways declares the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God. So turn and live." in verses 20 he had said, I take no pleasure in death rather than, and Dr. Brown brought this out accurately, rather than you should repent. This is the kind of pleasure in the death of the wicked that he's talking about. Those individuals, rather than repenting, just bringing his judgment upon them, which is what they were saying he was doing. They were saying, you're unjust, you are punishing us, you are not allowing us to do what we desire to do, even if we repented it would not matter. But God is not saying that at all. He is contradicting their argumentation and saying, Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God. So turn and live. Do not use that proverb ever again as an excuse for not repenting. That is the prophetic message. Now, the only way that there can be a problem with that is if you say, Ah, and that means there is no eternal decree of God or something like that, which the text is not even addressing. the prophet doesn't know who the remnant are in fact we have to ask ourselves a question who did repent and believe well the clue is right there what I just said make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit in Ezekiel what is that what's gonna happen look at Ezekiel 36 Ezekiel 37 where's the new spirit a new heart come from God takes out the heart of stone he gives the heart of flesh He blows his spirit over the dry bones and they come together and form living beings. This is the prediction of the coming of the New Covenant. The New Covenant made with the true people of God that God writes his law upon their heart. But ironically, when the writer to Hebrews interprets text like this about the Old and New Covenant, interestingly he makes a statement in Hebrews chapter 8 that he did not care for them. And so he brings about a new people with a new covenant. Now, why would he interpret it in that particular fashion? I don't know. But what's being expressed here, if the idea is, well, we need to expand this out to where God could not possibly have an eternal decree that includes the destruction of the evil to the glory of His justice, to the glory of His holiness. It could only be a decree where He wants to try to save everybody. he knows he's not gonna accomplish it but he's just gonna try to save and that's all that God can do. Well I think we've seen that this is a rather slim foundation upon which to build something like that in light of what is actually being said. In reality then a number of other texts to look at, one of them that I guess in Ezekiel 22, I think I just heard Dr. Brown saying that if an intercessor had been found in Ezekiel 22, then God would not have destroyed his people. and yet there were all sorts of people who interceded for the House of Israel at times and in fact Jeremiah at one point once God has made the decree this people's going to destruction what is it a Jeremiah do not intercede for this people so the question then becomes is God only saying these things on the basis of passively taking in knowledge of, well, I know what's going to happen, I know what these people are going to do, so now it's time to say I'm going to destroy them because I know they're going to be destroyed anyways. Is that the kind of sovereign decree that is going on here? Again, we want to allow Scripture as a whole to speak. There were times when God forbade people from doing things, such as He forbade the disciples from going into Asia to preach the Word. People died without Christ as a result. He forbade Jeremiah from interceding for the people. Jesus, in his high priestly prayer, says, I do not pray for the world. We have to allow those texts into the discussion. We cannot come to conclusions based upon God's refutation of a proverb that his covenant people were using by twisting his own scriptures. We cannot allow a conclusion based on that to overthrow the plain statements of scripture everywhere else that are actually addressing these particular issues. I think it is significant. that the text we looked at in the first half of the debate were specifically on the subject of salvation, justification, predestination, etc. etc. Now we're taking text to say, well, I think that because God expresses holy and just desires for his covenant people, therefore it means there cannot be anything about a specific predestination of a specific people, etc. etc. I think that is a significant difference between the two positions as we look at these texts. Okay, of course the text last week I believe I adequately exegeted contrary to the interpretations you were pointing, putting on them. So now we're coming to other texts. First, the idea that Ezekiel 18 is addressing the concept that repentance would do no good, I don't see that at all. They were simply saying we're suffering for what our fathers did and it's not fair. And God was saying, no, you do what's right, you'll be blessed. But I see nothing in the text that says that they were using God's law to say that repentance was precluded. Now, I wasn't saying repentance was precluded. I'm saying that they are complaining. The ways of Yahweh are unjust. Why are they unjust? Well, because we're suffering for what our fathers did. And they were using that, however, as an excuse not to do what is right. That's what the whole point. I didn't think that was even a disputable point. We have both come to the same conclusion, that it is that proverb and the twisting of the Deuteronomic Law that is in view here. These people are saying No, we don't have to listen to the prophetic word because the suffering is already predetermined for us, so we're suffering for what our parents, our forefathers did. Okay, then just exegeting the text, you mentioned there's no reference to an eternal decree here, of course, because it's got to do with Ezekiel, that the texts were exegeting. The question is, did God mean what he said? Did he genuinely desire that the wicked people would repent and live? Even if he knew they wouldn't, or in your theology ordained they wouldn't, did he genuinely desire that they would? Again, we come back to the same question that we keep addressing over and over and over again, and I have affirmed over and over and over that God's law represents God's holy desires. I do not believe, however, that that means that God was ignorant of what was happening, ignorant of their hearts, or that this overthrows Ezekiel's own message, that he's the one that has to give them a heart of flesh before they can do any of this. And it is his desire to give them a heart of flesh, and he does, but he only does that to those who are the objects of his grace, and clearly not all of Israel was. alright so he only truly desired it for those that he had preordained it for did he have equal desire for some in which cases desires disappointed in some cases again you you are confusing the desire represented in god's law that every person do exactly what is right before god with the desire that is expressed in his decree he himself reserves for himself seven thousand not bow the knee to bail You have to see, Michael, there has to be a difference between God's desire in regards to the 7,000 that He reserves and the 7,000 and first that He did not. His actions demonstrate that there is some distinction. I simply have to allow that. So you keep mentioning the eternal decree. So for you, that's that's a double decree. He predestined some for eternal life and predestined some for damnation. Where is that? You constantly reference it as if it's written somewhere explicitly. Where is that explicit decree of double predestination in a biblical text? I'm seeking to just let the text speak for itself. You keep bringing up this eternal decree, which is a double predestination. Where is it plainly expressed? Well, not only do I not believe in the form of predestination that you just mentioned, because you have committed the error of equal ultimacy, but I have not limited God's eternal decree merely to the matter of salvation. I believe that it includes all of the actions in time, rendering purpose to every action in time, which includes the sins of men. and i've brought those out in regards to the texan isaiah where he is at the beginning in the and he accomplishes all his perfect will uh... and unfortunately uh... i'm out of time uh... i'll try to add a few more to those uh... in my closing statement uh... as we go god reserved for himself seven thousand men who did not bow the need to bail the remnant why are is it your position that God's desire because you're using the you you've once used the word higher desire and I don't think he's term lower desire but she is higher desire now would the only comp other complimentary term of the Lord is our was it God's desire to save every Israelite equally certainly so when he reserves seven thousand who have not bowed in a bit need to build a remnant um... what's the difference between number seven thousand and number seven thousand one of the differences there and that many of the text i quoted last week that those that fear the lord god sets aside god preserves god in in the midst of calamity god will keep his people it's it's always the way he set up hit his decree is that he would have a people after his own heart and his decree will absolutely one hundred percent come to pass as we see in the book of revelation chapter seven so His desires for Israel are expressed in all these texts that I've been quoting, and if we had time I could have quoted many more, and those that respond, those that hear, and those that humble themselves, He reserves, He sets apart. So the reason that there are 7,000 is because there were only 7,000 people who feared the Lord. God could not have reserved to Himself 8,000, or He could not have reserved to Himself 6,000, because the actual number was determined by men's free actions not by God actually doing something according to his goodwill because his goodwill is to reserve everybody. His goodwill is that those who will humble themselves and repent will be blessed. His goodwill is that those who fear him and respond to his drawing will be blessed. So he accomplishes his will. and that's I would like it for everyone to do really well in a class and I set things up that those that will abide by the rules will do well to know there was not a predestined 7,000 and God hardened the rest made it possible for them there was just a tiny remnant that really feared the Lord and responded and then the text really makes that the clear when you look at it in context so God could not have if there if those God fears have not been there God could not have had a remnant he would we've had to start over with the new people Ah, in the brilliance of God, God set things up that he would have a remnant. You can only see his purposes being accomplished if everyone is turned into robots somehow. I see God as so brilliant and sovereign that he brings his purposes to pass with limited freedom for his creation. Have I ever introduced the concept of robots? No, but when you use monages and synergies in certain terms, they can be misunderstood. So I threw out a term that could, that's the way what you're saying can sound to certain people. Okay, well, but you've used it twice now. Was Herod a robot when he did exactly what God's hand predestined to occur? It doesn't say that God predestined that Herod would do particular things before the foundation of the world, but that this man, Herod, was the one that God was going to use to accomplish a predestined purpose. In other words, God is working in the midst of billions of possibilities to bring out exactly what He wants, and that's amazingly sovereign and wise. That's why we bow down and worship Him. Michael, that's Molinism. I thought you did not embrace Molinism. Why don't you define Molinism for your listeners? Well, what you just said was that God is working among all these billions of possibilities. That's the concept of counterfactuals in these possible worlds. And he knows what men are going to do. And so are you seriously saying then that that's your position? I did not think that you held that position. No, I'm exegeting texts and just responding to questions. And because you think in very sharp, clear terms, theological, philosophical terms that I may not think in, that's how it may sound to you. No, all I'm saying is that God uses certain people to accomplish certain purposes. So Herod was the right man to accomplish that with his wickedness, with his heart. God can intervene whenever he chooses to, but the ultimate relationships he will bring about by response to his will. I think we have to just go back to the fact that I'm doing my best time after time to quote scripture after scripture after scripture to say we're basing things on what the Bible says. There is the prescriptive will of God where he says don't murder, don't commit adultery, and then there's his heart desire expressed. in Deuteronomy 5, where he says, If only my people would keep my commands, that's my desire. Ezekiel 18, this is what I desire. Matthew 23, that we quoted, I desire to gather your children together. And then many other passages that we'll still look at in the last segment. The idea that God preordains people's sin And yet he commands them not to sin and not only commands them not to sin, but expresses his desire that they not sin, speaks of a schizophrenic God, not a sovereign God. The idea that God cannot give limited freedom to people and yet accomplish his will speaks of a God that is less than sovereign and less than free himself in that sense. And I noticed that Ezekiel 22, you never explained what it did mean, you just explained what it couldn't mean. Without question, things get to a point, and in my commentary on Jeremiah, I had to look at this very carefully, where there's a point of no return and judgment must come, and that is just when it happens. But God's desire is always expressed in the same way, an ardent desire that people turn and live, an ardent desire that people repent. You say that makes him powerless. No, that makes him feeling and compassionate and caring. That's why right from the beginning of the Bible, by the time we get to Genesis 6 with the flood account, that God is grieved in his heart over the sins of human beings. We have Jesus weeping over Jerusalem and says, if you've seen me, you've seen the Father. This is not to trivialize God. This is to magnify God. And again, the constant appeal to an eternal decree, alleged eternal decree, that predestines even sinful actions of human beings against God's prescriptive will and against what he says he desires is contrary to scripture after scripture after scripture. In certain instances, He will harden. In certain instances, He will cause certain things to happen. But it's always in keeping with His justice, always in keeping with His goodness. If we have any question about it, we look ultimately at Jesus. Those are the texts we'll get to next in 1 John and 2 Peter as the Son of God lays down His life for a sinning world. Alright, since it was just mentioned, I didn't give a positive exegesis of one of the numerous texts. The point of Ezekiel 22 is that God did not find any of his God-fearers in Jerusalem at all. The people were totally corrupt. the time had come for destruction and so it's not that well if I found somebody that I wouldn't have done this. The point was that the people are totally corrupt. He found no one to intercede. But it is amazing to me. Again, it keeps coming back and I'm glad it is coming back to this. does god have a purpose that he is accomplishing in this world now we keep hearing of the dozens and dozens of scripture that i wish we'd leave that out because i consider is that all the dozens and dozens of scriptures uh... that god accomplishes all his holy will and and and uh... someone thirty five and and never can answer himself who can stay in the hand of god he accomplishes that you know i mean that we can go through all of these but i think it's most important in this context to look at what was just said in regards to herit one side is saying god raised up Herod because he knew what kind of a person Herod would be, and therefore he could use them in this way. Is that what you really think, listening audience? Is that what you really think? The early church was saying, when after being persecuted, they gather together, the church prays, and part of their prayer in Acts 4.27-28 is, For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your purpose predestined to occur." Here is the early church absolutely affirming that the cross of Jesus Christ was the result of the Father's predestination and the actions of all the men who will be held accountable for what they did. Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Roman soldiers, the people of Israel all having completely different roles in this and different desires in this did whatever his hand and his purpose predestined to occur. Now I simply suggest to you uh... that all statements about schizophrenic gods and everything is to the side the idea that god is schizophrenic is simply and unwillingness to recognize that we cannot see how god's decree is always being worked out but we know that it's there We saw it in Ephesians 1. We saw it in John. We saw it in Romans 8 and 9, before the twins did anything good or bad. And we see it here. The early church believed that what happened with Jesus Christ was what his hand and his purpose had predestined to occur. Not that he was working through all these possible worlds and coming up with the one that works. God has a purpose that he is accomplishing. and uh... we're now going to first john to to and michael brown your eight minutes all right actually we start with second peter to one which reads but false prophets also rose among the people this is there will be false teachers among you who secretly bring in destructive heresies even denying the master who bought them bring upon themselves with destruction although there's a massive scholarly debate as to who the intended recipients of second peter were with the consensus being gentile believers in several occasions This issue need not detain us since the language of the passage is too clear and the implications too obvious. Jesus bought people for himself who denied him and were bringing damnation on themselves. Let's focus on the key terms beginning with the Greek word despotis, master, clearly borrowed from Jude 4 where Jesus is called despotis. Elsewhere in the New Testament despotis refers to the father, but here both the key terminology, which we'll examine next, and 2 Peter's dependence on Jude confirm that the master here is the Lord Jesus. The next important word is agorazo, bought, which occurs in several key redemptive contexts and ties in directly with the idea of Jesus being master. A second Peter scholar Richard Balcombe observed, Jesus is the master of his Christian slaves because he has bought them at the cost of his death. It is implied the only allusion to the cross in second Peter. Thus we read in first Corinthians 620 and 723, you were bought with a price, using the same Greek verb, speaking of the price that was paid for redemption. More powerful still is Revelation 5.9, you were slain and with your blood you bought men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. As for the final key term, denying, the standard Greek verb are ne'emi is used and it's familiar to us in many contexts such as Matthew 10.23, whoever denies me before men I'll also deny before my Father who's in heaven. Acts 3.14, but you denied the Holy and Righteous One. 2 Timothy 2.12, if we deny him he'll also deny us. The meaning of 2 Peter 2.1 is abundantly clear. So clear, in fact, that without an external theological system being imposed on it, its meaning cannot be denied. As explained by Balcom, 2 Peter does not deny that the false teachers are Christians, but sees them as apostate Christians who have disowned their master. This would also be in harmony with Hebrews 10, 28 and 29. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses died without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which He was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? Notice those words, the blood of the covenant by which He was sanctified. Returning to 2 Peter 2.1, even if one wanted to argue that these false teachers were never believers, the overall truth emerges remains just as powerful as ever. Jesus the Master paid for their sins with His blood, but they denied Him. The universal scope of the Atonement is reinforced in 1 John 2.2. He's the propitiation for our sins, or the atoning sacrifice, or the sacrifice that turns away God's wrath, not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. To quote Stephen Smalley, one of the foremost scholars on the Johannine letters, is in the Gospel of John, the scope of divine salvation is ultimately regarded as all-inclusive. The fourth evangelist describes Jesus as the savior of the world. And here John refers to him as the one whose atoning sacrifice relates to the sins of the whole world. The adjective whole is intensive. The sacrificial offering of Christ is effective not just for the sins of the world, still is for our sins, meaning John's immediate circle alone, and embraces the sins of the whole world. The question is, how could this have been expressed any more clearly? So let's examine the use of cosmos, world, in 1 and 2 John. Chapter 2, verses 15-17, repeatedly, do not love the world and do the things of the world. 3.1, the reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know Him. 3.13, do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you. 3.17, that if anyone has the world's goods. 4.1, many false prophets have gone into the world. The spirit of the Antichrist is in the world already. 4.4. He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 4.5. They are from the world. They speak of the world. The world listens to them. 4.9. God sent His only Son into the world that we might live through Him. 4.14. The Father has sent His Son to be the Savior of the world. 4.17. As He is, so are we in this world. 5.4. Everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, our faith. 5.5. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one that believes Jesus is the Son of God? Then, using the identical term, the whole world, 1 John 5.19, we know that we are from God and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. Not also 2 John 1.7, for many deceivers have gone out into the world. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear and consistent. The world, let alone the more inclusive term, the whole world, under no circumstances means the elect. To quote Smalley again, the term cosmos appears in the letters in Gospel of John with two basic meanings, the created universe or life on earth and human society temporarily controlled by the power of evil organized in opposition to God. As for the word helosmos, often translated propitiation, there's actually great scholarly debate about the precise meaning of the term as indicated by some of the alternative renderings suggested before. As a footnote in the NET translation explains, the term can convey both the idea of turning aside divine wrath and the idea of cleansing from sin, both of which are certainly present in the cross, through which God offers cleansing to the entire world and through which he personally saves all who truly believe. What is interesting from a philological and exegetical point of view is that halasmo sometimes translates Hebrew kippurim, atonement, in the Septuagint, as in Leviticus 25.9, speaking of the day of atonement. This provides a perfect parallel. Just as the sacrifices offered on this day by the high priest made atonement possible for the entire nation, turning God's wrath away from guilty sinners, it was effectual only for those who participated in the sacred rites of the day, according to Leviticus 23, 27-30. As for the Calvinistic argument that John's readers were Jews and when he said the whole world he meant the Gentiles, not only is this stand in total contradiction to John's use of the term world elsewhere in his letter, but there's little or no evidence that John's readers were in fact all or even primarily Jews, with many scholars taking this as a general epistle to believers in Asia Minor as per Revelation 2 and 3. As for the notion that by our John meant his circle of associates, the fact is his uses of the whole world would be strange and unprecedented way of speaking of the elect only. If you say, but how could God love the whole world when we are told not to in 1 John 2.15-17, there's no conflict here since John is speaking of the ways of the sinful world in John 2.15 while he's speaking of the people of the sinful world in John 3.16 and 1 John 2.2. In both verses, however, it is clear that the world does not mean the elect. You say, but Jesus himself did not pray for the world in John 17, 9, but only for those whom the Father gave him. That only further supports my point, since one, in context, he was praying here for the first disciples only, and two, in John 17, 21, and 23, he prayed for unity for his disciples in him, and with one another, quote, that the world may believe that you've sent me, that the world may know that you sent me and love them even as you love me. There can be no doubt about the meaning of cosmos world. Looking then at the overall testimony of scripture, there's unanimity and clarity. John 3.16, for God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 4.42, we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world. 1 Timothy 4.10, the living God who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. 1 Timothy 2.5 and 6, for there's one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all. Hebrews 2.9, Jesus crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. And again, 1 John 2.2, he's the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Let's let the word of God speak for itself. Jesus died for the whole world and God in his predestined plan brought events, people, and things together to carry out the crucifixion of Jesus and then to resurrect him from the dead. That is our sovereign God. We bow down before him. His will is accomplished in breathtaking fashion. and he gets for himself a people ruby tongue kindred nation that fear him and love him by the blood of jesus salvation is made possible for all and effective completely for those who put their trust in the son of god already right at exactly eight minutes I am not going to carpet bomb with verses is obviously I could respond every single other tax that were just cited but and not in a debate format that was one of the reasons we want to specific versus Further, when Dr. Brown emailed me, the text for the third part is 1 John 2, 2 Peter 2 is put in parentheses, which was if you have time to get to it. So unfortunately, the majority of the time was spent on one that was actually in parentheses. At least as we communicated, we might have had a problem with communication there. So I'm going to start with 1 John 2 because that was what we had posted. And once again, the question really is not about the word world. It is about the word halasmas and what it means to have a paracletas. My children, I am writing these things to you in order that you may not sin. And if anyone does sin, we have a paraclete. We have an advocate. with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous, and He is the halasmas, the propitiation concerning our sins and not concerning ours only, notice that term manan only, but also concerning all the world. So we have a text here that emphasizes that the atoning blood of Christ is relevant to all the world just as we had had in for example john chapter eleven where the same author unless you're richard baucom and you think they're different authors but whereas the same author in discussing uh... the issue of the high priest in his uh... prophecy after the resurrection of lazarus uh... if we let him go on like this uh... john eleven forty eight all men will believe in him in the romans will come and take away both our place in our nation But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish. Now he did not say this on his own initiative. But being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that he might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad same kind of language which we then find a revelation chapter five which again most people think is the same author when he introduces us to those who have been redeemed by the blood of lamb for by his sacrifice he has made men from every tribe tongue people a nation a kingdom of priests unto God his father this is what Jesus Christ does but what does first John to say that he is a loss loss a propitiation well I have a simple question for you is here isn't he If the idea is that Jesus has substitutionally atoned for the sins of every single human being, and that's what this means, not that the gospel messages go out to everyone, and that the gospel message will be valid in every generation, and in every land, and in every language, tribe, tongue, people, and nation. If we want to go beyond all of that, and say no, it's substitutionary atonement for every single individual, then we have two problems. First of all, all their sins now have been propitiated. The very reason for the wrath of God, which is inherent in the term halasmas, has been removed from them. Not just potentially, but He is. It doesn't say He might be. He is the halasmas concerning our sins. Not potentially, must be. And if you want to make this for every single person who has ever lived or ever will live, then that means that Jesus propitiated the wrath of God on behalf of the Amorites before the Israelites came in and destroyed them. But what's more is, notice John himself makes connection with Paracletos, the Paraclete, the intercessor. And that would mean we would have to believe that in this text we are being told that Jesus is not only the last month but he is also the paraklete the one who intercedes in behalf of all those for whom his blood has been shed that was the role the high priest and so we are then being given the presentation obviously this is going way beyond what the text says I believe that the text simply says that we have warrant to preach the forgiveness of Christ to all men in every tribe tongue people nation the whole world and that has been fulfilled and continues to be fulfilled this day But to expand that out to assert substitutionary atonement in behalf of every single individual means that Jesus Christ must atone and intercede for every single individual, including those to whom God never even so much as sent an apostle. And that is to go far beyond anything that the New Testament teaches and to contradict the teaching of the book of Hebrews in regards to the perfection of the work of Christ and, of course, the fact that his intercessory work and his sacrificial work are one in the same work, and hence have the same audience. Now in regards to 2 Peter chapter 2, we had the emphasis that agaradzo here must mean purchased with his blood. And yet if you listened carefully, and if you've read the appendix that I've added to The Potter's Freedom, you'll see a discussion of this. If you listen carefully, all the other texts that Dr. Brown cited where agaradzo was used, had the price mentioned, did they not? But not here. This would become the hapax, the one place where if agaradzo means to buy by atonement, hence to propitiate, that this would be the one exception to the rule. But I was interested that I did not hear any discussion of Deuteronomy chapter 32, which is a parallel text to this. where we have again talking about God's sovereignty, they have acted corruptly toward him. They are not his children because of their defect, but are a perverse and crooked generation. Do you thus repay Yahweh, O foolish and unwise people? Is he not your father who has bought you? He has made you and established you. Notice that the terminology used here is directly parallel to what we have in 2 Peter. And as Gary Long has rightly deserved, the Hebrew term translated here in the Greek Septuagint is, the Greek term is kata'amai. The two words kata'amai and agaradzamai are used interchangeably in two Old Testament parallel accounts. He gives the references. These two words are also closely related in the New Testament. Compare Peter's use of kata'amai in Acts 118 and 820 where kata'amai is translated respectively bought and buy in the NIV and acquired and obtained in the New American Standard Bible. to assume that especially in light of the use of despotize here a desperate case rather than courier us which is almost always terminology used in such a logical concepts that this again judgment narrative is meant to lay out a doctrine of atonement is just simply an error i'm not have time to read all this this but when grudem says so the text means not that Christ has redeemed these false prophets, but simply that they were rebellious Jewish people, or church attenders in the same position as rebellious Jews, who were rightly owned by God because they've been bought out of the land of Egypt, or their forefathers had, but they were ungrateful to Him. Christ's specific redemptive work on the cross is not in view in this verse. So once again, why are we going to a text like 2 Peter 2 when we have Hebrews 7 and Hebrews 10? that are specifically on this subject addressing the specific issue of the result of the Atonement and the extent of the Atonement. And yet when we go to those texts, well, what do they say? That the Atonement perfects those for whom it is made, and that it has a specific audience for whom it is made as well. Very important things to observe. We are at the point where Dr. Brown has four minutes to ask questions of me. So Dr. Brown, your four minutes, sir. it just for the record i did spend about two-thirds of the time on first on to to but you said that john is saying is that the atonement is relevant for the whole world i don't see the word relevant there i see that it is a propitiation for the whole world so what basis do you have the words is relevant not to simply said that uh... obviously since we can go out and preach the gospel to every tribe tongue people a nation uh... that means it is notice notice mana it is not for us only but for the whole world So there is absolutely no basis upon which saying this atonement, we've got it. It's for nobody else. That was clearly a concern in the early church. We see that in the Acts Council, Acts 15. We don't want these other folks in there when it goes out to Samaria, et cetera, et cetera. And so the assertion is this perpetuation is, and when I say relevant, what that means is, what I meant by that is I can preach the gospel today to men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation because those the ones who receive the benefit of Christ's perpetuatory work. Alright, so Acts 15, the question was, did these Gentiles have to become Jews? The question was not, was the atonement relevant? No, I realize that, but it was also about the fact there were Jewish people that were saying you had to become Jewish before you could become a Christian. And that would have created a Jewish Christian church and a Gentile Christian church, and I think that was a pivotal point in church history. Right, but the point is, I mean, looking at a text that does speak quite explicitly of the extent of the Atonement, it says the whole world. I gave reference after reference to say how is Cosmos used in 1 John. It's never used with reference to the elect or the elect only. I never said it was. In fact, I didn't even address any of your discussion of Cosmos because it was irrelevant to my position. There's at least 14 different uses of Cosmos in Johann Corpus alone. uh... numerous in first on the point is the contrast between mon on and hollow in first on to tell uh... that's all there is to it all right but none of the fourteen uses in any major lexicon will save the elect so how could it be put any more plainly i noticed you quoted a bunch of outside of of michael michael i don't say it's the elect so i'm not sure why you're asking me this question or am i going to elect He is the propitiation for the whole world, and that in John is speaking of unregenerate, that is speaking of, in your view, non-elect people. 1 John 5, 19 uses the identical terminology, the whole world lies under the power of the evil one. How can you get around that? I'm not trying to get around anything because you're not listening to my interpretation. One more time. not concerning hours only what does that mean I'm I'm clearly said that would be in a relevant state statement if there was if this was not part and parcel of what the apostle was trying to warn against not concerning hours alone but concerning the whole world and so we don't keep it to ourselves there is no limitation to it we can preach the message to anyone it does not follow however that it is a substitutionary concept because of what helosmos means. alright there's great at we have no evidence that by the time of first john people were debating whether they should share with us so let's just straighten that point out but when we try to find a colossus means massive scholarly debate in the lexicons but thankfully we do have it used prior to that in the situation for the day of atonement right uh... keepering that was a perfect sacrifice in its time for the whole nation but if you did not participate by faith in repentance you were cut off it did not avail for you that's the same with the blood of christ Well, interestingly enough, and I think that was meant to be a question, interestingly enough, that's the whole point. The offering was never meant to be substitutionary for the whole world. It had a limitation in the Old Testament. When the high priest offered it, it was only for those who drew near. There was a specificity in it at that time, just as there is a specificity in it as well now. Four minutes. Dr. Brown, continuing that phrase then, do you believe that the term holosomos includes the concept of removing the reason for wrath on God's part? Yes, and when we come to God by faith that's fully realized just as you and I who are believers now by God's grace according to Ephesians 2 once were objects of God's wrath by nature. So we were under wrath even though Jesus had already died for us. We came in repents of faith then the punishment is removed. So if a uncircumcised Egyptian came to Jerusalem at the time of the offering then you believe that the offering would have availed for him as well as I just said I I I believe if he joins himself to the people of Israel of course there is the foreigners were taken in like roots in a and others like that again the atonement was for the entire nation just like the sacrifice of Jesus is for the entire world but it was made for the entire nation the test is explicit but it only avail for those who came in repentance and faith so there was a limitation when the high priest went into the holy of holies and presented the blood for whom was the blood being presented the entire nation the entire nation not those who believe the entire nation only those who believed would benefit from it so it did not it only removed wrath it was only partially uh... propitiatory Or fully propitiatory? It was fully propitiatory because God at that moment should have wiped out the whole nation and he didn't. Yet if you did not come in repentance then your sins would be on your own head once again. So is it your belief then, given what you just said, that Jesus is acting as an intercessor, pleading his blood in behalf of Pharaoh, his army, and the Amorites? where with where would we tie that in with with the discussion that we're having to so i answer call because because if he if if if his atonement is for the whole world and i'm assuming you mean all men past present future of ever lived all the human race and his intercession is clearly for the same people unless the high priest is interesting for somebody different than the people for whom the sacrifice and offered that it would follow that you believe that jesus is interceding before the father for Pharaoh his armies the Amorites Herod pilot because they're all part of the human race right the whole damnable human race just as on the cross is his father forgive them for they know not what they do yes he lays down his life for an entire sinning world that God should have wiped out and if we come to repentance in faith it avails for us they're also different types of intercession as we see in john seventeen where he first praised just for the first disciples then praise for others etc so on he's praying for me and you differently than he's praying for someone that's not in the faith yet and we don't have further details on that so it's unwise to speculate and go beyond what's written in scripture except it is written in scripture that he enters into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption isn't that a very explicit statement he has absolutely obtained eternal redemption and i am eternally redeemed and the way that he set it up was that all who respond in faith whoever believes will be saved in this verse after verse after verse after verse so he has obtained purchased the eternal redemption of all those who put their trust in him as as some calvinist will say it's sufficient for the entire world but it's be efficient only for the elect but if it is substitutionary that means the wrath that was due to pharaoh for his sin fell on jesus right The wrath that was due to every human being for their sin fell on fire. But again, as I pointed out, in our unsaved days, we were objects of wrath. So even though Jesus had paid for it, until we put our faith in Him, the wrath remains upon us. OK, I'm out of time. Three-minute closing statement. Here you go. You know, I'm asked to bring a text that speaks of the extent of the atonement, and I do. And then I quote many other passages to point out that this is the overall, plain sense of the Scripture. That's why it's so shocking to many non-Calvinists to hear that Calvinists do not believe that Jesus died for the sins of the entire world. I don't know how it could be said any more clearly. I don't know how we could exegete the text any more clearly in terms of John's use of Cosmos. In terms of what it means both in the gospel of John and in first and second John The whole world that lies into the power of the evil one is the whole world for which Jesus died That's the incredible message of the gospel at the sinning profane ugly world rather than God damning and destroying all of us Instead he sends a son to die for us that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. I When we get back to 2 Peter 2, I was a little surprised in the treatment of agorazo when you said that the rule is it's always used with the price that's actually paid. Well, it's used three other times, one in the context of 1 Corinthians 6 and 7, the other in the context of Revelation 5. It's hardly a pervasive usage. And if that is not a reference to the cross there, then there's actually not an explicit reference to the cross and all of 2 Peter. I also find it interesting that you have to quote a passage in Deuteronomy 32 and then say, but actually in the Septuagint it doesn't use the same word, but it's a similar word. Well, hang on. New Testament authors are very careful in their quotations from the Septuagint. And the fact is, agorazo, as best as I can tell in Septuagintal references, never used for God redeeming his people out of Egypt. It's not the word that's used. So the only references that we can find would be references that speak of the cross. But again, this is consistent New Testament usage. As I quoted from Hebrews 10, people can sin against the blood by which they were sanctified. It doesn't mean the blood by which Jesus was sanctified as commentators recognize, but the blood by which we have been sanctified. We can sin against that grace. We were objects of wrath even after Jesus died for us. But when by God's grace, we responded to his loving call to repent and believe, we have been eternally saved. The blood of Jesus accomplishes what God desires. And I want to reemphasize, God's sovereign will is done. He's the only one with an almighty will. He brings his will to pass and gets for himself a people from every tribe, tongue, nation. The blood of Jesus avails. God's purposes are accomplished. We bow down and worship before our sovereign God. And it has been a joy and a privilege, James, to engage you. All right, thank you very much, Michael. I think we might get somewhat close to time here. Just very quickly in passing, it was just mentioned that in Hebrews 10, well, no, that's the blood by which the apostate was sanctified rather than Jesus. Well, I would just direct you to John Owen's fine comments on that in his massive commentary on Hebrews as to whether that is the case or not. But I would direct folks, we just heard, I think, the presentation idea that there's different kinds of intercession. before the Father in regards to the finished work of Christ. Where were the different kinds of intercession by the high priest in the Old Testament? I don't believe that's the meaning of intercession in the New Testament. In Hebrews, when Jesus intercedes, he intercedes for a specific group and he saves them to the uttermost as a result of his intercession. It says, why can he save them to the uttermost? Because he ever lives to make intercession for them. The whole idea of the text in Hebrews 7 is that Jesus intercedes before the Father on your behalf. Your salvation is absolutely certain. And this is why I debate this issue because it seems to me that what my dear brother is saying here is that Jesus, I think he just said that Jesus is interceding for Pharaoh and for the Amorites. And if that is the case, then there remains no longer any real confidence to stand before a holy God. Because that isn't enough. You have to add something to it. The wonderful message is that what the accomplished work of Jesus Christ has given to us is not only that the wrath due to our sins has been propitiated fully by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as Paul says, I have been crucified with Christ. I say to you, no person in hell will ever be able to say those words. But not only has my standing with God been purchased by that perfect Word, but everything that I need to experience that, including the gifts of faith and repentance. That is why He can justly treat me with mercy. because his perfect wrath has been propitiated in my place. And if that is the case, then why is Pharaoh suffering today? If the reason of God's wrath, which includes unbelief, has been propitiated. Truly, when you listen to what has been said here, you need to go back to the foundations. Dr. Brown says, well, I just want to execute the text of Scripture. We both say we're doing that. We both want to believe only what scripture says, but there has to be a recognition of what is the most important foundational things and what comes secondarily. And I believe what God has revealed about himself and his relationship to his creation as the creator must come first. It doesn't come after what we determine about the creature and his creation. All right, well, that makes for three hours of exchange. Thank you very much, Dr. Brown. I'm going to wrap this up very quickly because I know you have a program to do in only half an hour. What's your topic today, by the way? Today I do questions and answers, because we have a pre-recorded show tomorrow. So any folks that are listening to the debate that want to call in and challenge me on the air, go for it. And then I've got another broadcast to do after that. Well, hey, I gave you a new listener last time, because Johnny called in and asked about Melchizedek, and you seemed to enjoy the questions. So there you go. Johnny's one of our regulars. just let me just say again that that i take this debate so seriously because i know you you you love the lord and you're committed to truth in your cells for in your series about the word so i i really counted adjoining privilege to engage you in the text well michael i think we've set uh... a standard uh... i think we've demonstrated that especially today you can you can speak your mind but you don't have to do it with uh... with anger towards somebody else uh... you know i it it for a lot of people as i mentioned my blog article makes them very uncomfortable that we're doing this. There's people on both sides of our dispute that probably aren't happy with us for doing this, but I think it's important that we did it, that we demonstrated that it can be done in an appropriate fashion. And as such, I thank you very much for engaging with me and I look forward to when we do this in a more face-to-face setting sometime in the future. Alrighty? Did we lose him? Nope, still there? Still there, Michael? i guess we lost alright all right well thanks listen to the violent today uh... it's uh... has been a quite the interesting exchange uh... go back will put all these let's go ahead and and put these together and make it uh... one uh... one debate i think i'll be easier for folks to listen to thanks listen to the violent will be back again on tuesday lord willing to regular time eleven o'clock see you then god bless