Here’s the starting details of how I see Romans from what I shared in this debate: Lost Perspective on Romans (2-Part Romans) kzread.info/dash/bejne/n6iLw8mymr3Zkqw.html

James White is pretty solid here.

From strictly a debate perspective, there really was no "debate" here. James' arguments went wholly untouched and when James pressed you (Jason) you either weren't able to answer (like in Hebrews) or you claimed to know something you actually didn't (like the Greek hina clause).

@gideondavid30

4 ай бұрын

Huh? Can you be more specific.

@whatisyouranchor

4 ай бұрын

About which part? I gave 2 rather specific examples, my friend. Both instances took place throughout the rebuttal periods and then came out clearly during the cross-examination periods.@@gideondavid30

@rocketsurgeon1746

4 ай бұрын

Disagree. You are clearly biased and easily fooled by white's rhetoric. James did not answer directly then built amazing strawmen and red herrings :) so easy to see white's strategy. 1. Clutch pearls 2. Claim he has "never heard of..." 3. Make extreme what if statement 4. Hopes that opposition doesn't mean [fill in the blank]

@truthseeker5698

4 ай бұрын

Fortunately, real life application isn’t intensely myopic, like your comment. Calvinism reformed theology are not coherent systems. Sola de thankful these systems and adherents of these systems are exposed more every day!

@jarrodjames5673

4 ай бұрын

You don’t have to know what a hina clause is to know that Limited Atonement is a doctrine without a text. Look at what Jesus said to those who would walk away from him in this same chapter. My father gave you the true bread from heaven. What might that bread be? Christ who would die on a cross for sinners that they might have life. 🎤🫳 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. - John 6:32

Jason is playing on emotionalism.

Thank God for Dr. James White

@Spatie-dk8mm

3 ай бұрын

Amen! He is such a wonderfull man of God

@teeemm9456

12 күн бұрын

Indeed, I'm so glad he's around to help me be more assured that Calvinism is wrong.

An Ad popping up every 5 minutes..... it's just the best thing ever.

@ronaldsmall8847

4 ай бұрын

Not when you block them.

@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT

4 ай бұрын

@@ronaldsmall8847 "Block them" ... I'm all ears.

@sorrowinchrist3387

4 ай бұрын

@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT you cant block them youtube will not play video if you do

@mrslisabaird

4 ай бұрын

You have to buy KZread Premium to avoid ads. 🥹

@atyt11

4 ай бұрын

I use it enough to justify $20mo for premium. It's worth every penny. I freak'in HATE ads

As a Free Will theology community, we need to be intellectually honest enough with ourselves to admit that James White clearly won this debate. Mr. Breda did not address JW's claims, and his refusal to exegete a relevant passage was a pivotal moment. The appeal to historical reformed teachings was an uninformed attempt at a red herring, at best. We can't live in an echo chamber, it only hurts the advancement of Free Will theology in the long run. I'm sure Mr. Breda has the best of intentions, but we need better, more skilled representation in these kinds of debates.

@mmtas1995

4 ай бұрын

How could anyone possibly do better against some like White who has done 175+ debates? He knows how to rip his opponent to shreds. Jason was more Christ like in the debate. In my view that is what matters most.

@henryb.7723

4 ай бұрын

The pursuit of being more "Christ-like" is not an excuse for us to check our brains at the door. We are called to worship with our minds as well. In Isaiah, God calls us to REASON with him - we can't hand wave intellectual arguments in the name of a vague sentiment. It doesn't take an expert debater to exegete relevant passages when presented, address claims made by an opponent in a formal debate, or to avoid irrelevant red herring arguments. We cannot settle for "Well Calvinists are better debaters and that's just the way it is"

@Dizerner

4 ай бұрын

Yep, he didn't do very well.

@timkoelln3826

4 ай бұрын

Well, that’s one of the reasons I’m not a huge fan of debates. One can support a wrong idea “well” and “win” the debate while still being completely wrong. I give him credit for having the courage to try against someone as experienced in debate tactics and rhetoric as James White, but it’s honestly a waste of time casting pearls before swines many times.

@mmtas1995

4 ай бұрын

@@henryb.7723 Personally, I’m glad our guy isn’t the arrogant and prideful one on the stage, who spoke perfectly with calculated answers. God is with the humble and lowly in heart and is far from the proud. As far as Christ likeness, Lord Jesus made it clear it is our love for one another is that which proves we are His disciples. The apostle Paul did not preach with convincing words of man’s wisdom, but was in fear and trembling as he spoke the gospel.

@LivingChristian hello brother, I was wondering if you can please summarize your point regarding the argument you made on Romans? It is unclear what you were trying to express. If you would please elaborate, briefly, we would appreciate it 🙏..Thank you and God bless 🥰

@LivingChristian

4 ай бұрын

Hello sister, I will do this in a future video! 🙂

@Luinilblue

4 ай бұрын

Jason, I really think you should give the answer whenever they give us answers ! about Where does it specifically say the atonement is limited or where does it specifically say what John MacArthur says that some are partially loved, because he offers the sun to some and the rain and health here on earth , and the elect are loved in more special way from the beginning.. when he chose us like skittles, I like the pink I like the red I like the blue I don’t like the green ones. sorry if I’m a little sarcastic

It was about 20 years ago that I purchased a debate from one of Dr. White's opponents. I nearly wore out that CD, listening over and over again, trying to hold to my anti-Calvinist position. I finally gave up my stubbornness and submitted to the obvious meaning roof the text. Submit to the text Jason. Election is a wonderful gift from God.

This wasn’t a debate. He never dealt with James arguments at all. The person bringing the positive is supposed to be answered. Besides the error on the Greek - the unwillingness to interpret 7:25 - and giving us the chopper version of Romans, was really bizarre.

@andrewtsousis3130

4 ай бұрын

Hebrews 7:25 “he is able to save completely those who come to God though him” - NOT “he is able to save completely those who God gives him from eternity past, who then come to him, and are saved through him”. Hebrew’s is one of the best books that displays clearly that God requires, belief, faith and obedience emphasizing that you cannot have either of these 3 things without freewill choice.

@rprestarri

4 ай бұрын

@@andrewtsousis3130 What you don't realize is how the Old Testament sacrificial system worked. The Great High Priest would enter into the Holy of Holies and offer a sacrifice for the atonement of the people, that is Israel, and Israel only. The High Priest would intercede on behalf of the nation, praying that God would accept the offering in their stead. The point with Hebrews is that all whom Christ intercedes for are the same ones whom He atoned for. Everyone whom Christ gave Himself as an offering for, are the same ones whom He pleads in heaven for the Father to forgive. Thus, all the ones whom Christ intercedes for are the exact ones that draw near to God through Him. Therefore, Christ had to have only died for a particular people, for not all people draw near unto God.

@fuzzycounsellor9147

2 ай бұрын

@@andrewtsousis3130 You do realize that belief is a verb & faith is a noun and that they are essentially the same having the same root in the Greek. I have faith in Jesus, I believe in Jesus. They mean the same thing. So really you only list 2 things.. faith & obedience “he is able to save completely those who come to God though him” Q) Who are those who come to God through Him? A) Those the Father gives to Jesus, who are drawn by the Father. The way you word it makes it sound disjointed. Here is a better phrase to include these steps in the process; He is able to save completely those that Father gives Him, those who the Father foreknew before the foundations of the earth and predestined to be conformed into His image. These are those who come to God through Him and receive life eternal.

@andrewtsousis3130

2 ай бұрын

@@rprestarri you’re dodging the point that God required them to be obedient, Ie they still had to come to God with the required sacrifice. They had free will choice to do this, there are many examples where they either didn’t, or did it wrong and we know the consequences. Your deterministic view must say that those who didn’t or did it wrong were determined by God to conduct their own sacrificial ceremony incorrectly why? So God can show others His soverignty? This is utter nonsense.

@rprestarri

2 ай бұрын

@@andrewtsousis3130 I smell a straw man... It's always bad when you have to tell your opponent what they say or what they believe, when they neither say, or believe any of those things... Bring up a text of God's holy word, and we can talk about it. Otherwise, your comment doesn't go any deeper into understanding each other, rather is just another example of the surface level banter we see all over the internet scene today.

I'm glad James White is an apologist because he is savage in debate...

@glennishammont7414

4 ай бұрын

The right word: Savage, think about it.

@igrathke

4 ай бұрын

@@glennishammont7414 It's a play on words mixed with what a hillbilly might think apologist means.

@KnightFel

26 күн бұрын

@@glennishammont7414 Paul was a savage too, especially in Galatians. Why though? Think about it.

@glennishammont7414

25 күн бұрын

@@KnightFel James White, savage in the sense of manipulating the truth.

Jason's argument regarding election primarily referring to jews and only secondarily to gentiles reminds me of the Jehovah's Witness interpretation, where they say that those verses primarily refer to the 144,000 and only secondarily to the earthly flock. What ends up happening, if you're consistent, is that you split the gospel up into two. If you're not consistent with this and insist on one gospel, which I think Jason did, then what was the point of even bringing it up? Jason admitted these verses also apply to gentiles in the same way; so what was the point?

@the1der

4 ай бұрын

Jason's closing argument regarding the ability to preach the Gospel if you hold to limited atonement is a GRRRROSSSSSSS misrepresentation of the position and the preachers preaching and leading people to a Savior who died that forgiveness may be given to those "who come unto him." Gross misrepresentation to make an empty point. I didnt like hearing that fallecy.

@VinCato7

3 ай бұрын

@the1der agreed but that happens with a lot of reformed doctrines. Sola scriptura and sola fide are constantly strawmanned. When I hear the strawman of course the position seems ridiculous. Why don't we actually argue the real position?

@nicholasmolling8887

12 күн бұрын

The analogy is made in Romans 11

As a former neo- provisionist now reformed Baptist, I found it odd that Jason denied the fact that romans 1-8 is about EVERYONE! The book of romans starts out with Jews are unrighteous, ch 2 says gentiles are unrighteous, and 3 starts the argument from universal condemnation regardless of genetic lineage. Hence why you see Paul writing “πάντα” (all or everything within) is ways used in reference to those that are condemned under the law and unrighteous. Need I also point out that every argument against reformed theology be emotional rather than grounded in scripture in context.

@danielwarton5343

4 ай бұрын

I agree with you in terms of soteriology

@wannabewoodworker9705

3 ай бұрын

The context of Romans 9 is in verses 30-32

@ThetaMinistries

2 ай бұрын

Update I became Presbyterian💀

Whenever someone uses half of their opening statement to convince me that someone was wrong in the book they wrote or of what the reformers believed or what the early church fathers believed I know they don’t have much to tell me in the way of what scripture says.

Im not even gonna listen after reading the comments, I've listened to to many debates against Reformed theology and 100% of the time the opponent invokes opinion,and an emotional argument,and routinely takes scripture out of context

@timdodenhoff7942

2 ай бұрын

Agreed, because they cannot answer the scripture passages.

@alfredmontoya5620

4 күн бұрын

That's Calvinism for you.

I'm not sure what Breda's argument is.

@winburna852

Ай бұрын

He pulled a Leighton Flowers (his buddy) and went all over the place and ended up not dealing with the topic. He was supposed to argue against the Reformed Doctrine of the Atonement.

@throwawaypt2throwawaypt2-xp8nx

Ай бұрын

I dont even think he knows:)

There was no rebuttal to the opening statement. What's the point of debate if the two ships are sailing past one another?

@ravissary79

4 ай бұрын

There was a huge amount of James' intro that don't touch on any real point of contention. So why would those details require a rebutal? Jason didn't pick this topic. It's not a very well designed topic to actually show their point of contention. Jason seemed to do his best to refrain this is terms of where their differences on this topic actually lie.

@rogervincent2092

4 ай бұрын

@ravissary79 That's the rules of engagement in a debate. That is what notes are for? Jason accepted the invitation and should have done his homework. White constantly brought up the book of Hebrews and exegeted it in the opening; whereas Jason responded by ignoring Hebrews, and when White brought it to his attention. Jason responded that he would exegete it in the future? That debate was a huge waste of my time.

@ravissary79

4 ай бұрын

@@rogervincent2092 like i said, he did address the topic, but white chose to design an opener that doesn't touch on their differences sufficiently to make a point by point rebutal unproductive... even dishonest. Example: early on, James made it a point to go on about the relationship between the trinity and redemption. Does Jason believe in redemption? Does Jason believe in the trinity? So what does a rebutal of his opening points sound like? If He doesn't contest the trinity or redemption then he's running from James' points! Oh noes!

@rogervincent2092

4 ай бұрын

@ravissary79 I wholeheartedly disagree with you. White was spot on with the TOPIC- 'the reformed doctrine of the atonement' There was much for rebuttal. Go the exegete route. I really have no idea what you are talking about saying there wasn't much. White cited 5 plus verses Jason doesn't believe in the trinity?????

@rogervincent2092

4 ай бұрын

@ravissary79 of course went on about redemption and the trinity to demonstrate the the reformed dictrine is consistent and ties in. Jason is also a universalist, right?

Provisionist is just another word for humanist or progressivist. All glory to Christ.

@coltonditmore9087

4 ай бұрын

Calvinist is just another word for gnosticism

@Jammaster1972

3 ай бұрын

Gee that's odd because most Calvinists I know are the liberal progressives that you find in the church. You know these type, they tend to symbolize Scripture more than literal interpretation. They tend to believe in the social gospel (which is quite humanistic), the notion that everything is going to keep getting better before Christ's return. And like most socialists, which is just a more subdued form of Marxism, they tend engage in the age old tactic of projecting, which is accusing others of doing the very same thing they are guilty of (just like today's Democrat Party), and oddly enough, they tend to justify voting for the Democrat Party platform.

@jasonlewis5350

Ай бұрын

@@coltonditmore90871,000 % correct. History matters.

@KnightFel

26 күн бұрын

@@coltonditmore9087 Your lack of historical understanding is disturbing.

@KnightFel

26 күн бұрын

@@jasonlewis5350 Yes it does, that's why Calvinism has nothing to do with Gnosticism. You'd know that if you knew history. History matters.

Just for future reference (or for anyone else reading this), the closing statement isn’t supposed to bring up new information or arguments. It’s supposed to recap and reflect on what was discussed. In the debate Dr. White exemplified this well and closed it well. Jason Breda pretty much started a whole new debate. I know Dr. White has hundreds of debates down and this is Jason’s first, so I’m not accusing, but this is just for future knowledge.

@DelicueMusic

4 ай бұрын

I actually agree. It's basically like writing an essay. You say what your points will be. Expound on them. Defend and compare them to others. Then reflect and reiterate your points. Starting a new one is like a cliffhanger for your audience.

@Luinilblue

4 ай бұрын

And just expressing my opinion, I believe when we go to church, or when the gospel is being preached, it should be preached without lies. The word of God says to preach the word of God boldly. If they were to preach the word boldly , and with confidence it would sound totally different. So if Jason didn't close out in a clear, closing statement is not as bad as not preaching what you truly believe. I think their gospel is divided into the good news and the bad news Jesus said go and preach the good news I don’t remember reading the bad news too.

@CBALLEN

3 ай бұрын

Hes been hanging out with Leighton too much,he can't stay on topic.

And I just studied/ taught Isaiah 28:9-13, 23-26. "And the word of the Lord will be to them, precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little that they may go and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken." Isaiah 28:13. God graciously helped me to better understand this visually in this debate. Glory to God!

James White has it. These are necessary corrections. These truths cannot be cut out of the Scripture. Excellent debate. Much to learn. Thank you

I realize this was probably your first debate, but the point of a debate is to respond to your opponents main position. You actually did a presentation instead of a debate. I didn't find it productive for your side.

@LivingChristian

4 ай бұрын

I thought I responded to his Trinitarian harmony position in my opening. I made the case that the context of Romans refutes the argumentation white brought.

@CalebPreach4245

4 ай бұрын

​@@LivingChristianNot true, brother. When James pressed about it, you ultimately admitted to him that the first 8 chapters is pertaining to BOTH Jew and Gentile, remember?

@glennjohn3919

4 ай бұрын

​@@LivingChristian I remember him saying that it applied primarily to Jews with a wider application to Gentiles. James raving about this being heresy was a strange rebuttal to the argument. I have seen many hold this position, White clearly mischaracterized his opponents position.

@aletheia8054

4 ай бұрын

@@LivingChristian do you know what a hina clause is now?

@LivingChristian

4 ай бұрын

@aletheia8054 yes, again I knew of it, but couldn’t provide a good definition. Bill Mounce defines it as the following: a marker that shows purpose or result: in order that, in order to, so that, then; it can focus on the introduction of a discourse or on the content itself

Jason, I gotta say, you’ve got your feet firmly planted in mid air on this one.

@jcthomas3408

4 ай бұрын

When one doesn't have a good argument, they resort to putting down the other person. If you have a criticism of his logic you should reference it.

@carlpeterson8182

4 ай бұрын

@@jcthomas3408 Interesting because that is what Jason did in the beginning of his closing argument. He seemed to fain humbleness and then say something like if he believed differently than White then he must be against the Bible. White gave reasons during his talk and even tried to understand Jason's position. It is not White's fault if Jason could not articulate his own position very well in a debate. He said Romans 1-8 were to the Jews but then also that passages could be attributed also to the gentiles while giving no reason or hermeneutic to determine which ones should be or not. He said he would go into later.

@teejay7510

4 ай бұрын

@@jcthomas3408the whole debate was lacking substance from Jason

@Parks179-h

4 ай бұрын

@@teejay7510agreed. It’s not a personal attack to say that Jason’s argument lacks substance. If you want a better rendering of Romans, you could grab hold of Douglas Moo’s commentary on Romans.

Outstanding defense of the faith Mr White

Please help, what is the debate/disagreement about, or, where do they differ? Limited atonement and nothing else? Is this a secondary issue after, say, Christ's deity and Justification by faith, or is it of equivalent importance?

@santossingleterry2621

4 ай бұрын

It is secondary. Yet still important, especially in the way that we do evangelism.

@igrathke

4 ай бұрын

It has profound implications for understanding Scripture and who God is. It has implications in universalism, free will, evangelism, the sovereignty of God. I didn't actually hear what the alternative to limited atonement is in this debate so it's difficult to say if this is a secondary issue or not.

@dustinnyblom7835

4 ай бұрын

No they disagree on election and ordo solutis and sovereignty and man’s abilities and the atonement

Let’s Goooooo

I am giving up. Really a waste of time. Why can't provisionists learn from past debates? They always just attack Calvinism rather than making a biblical case for what they hold. Jason's opening was really weak and did not make a case for the fundamental issue, which White noted: What does Christ's propitiation actually accomplish (especially as regards unbelievers)? There is a good answer but I never hear provisionists give it. Hey guys, try just teaching your audience what the Bible says on this subject rather than trying to teach them what they already know about the various reformed positions. And stop rehashing weak gotcha questions.

@AndrewJohnH

4 ай бұрын

If you'd like to hear a "teaching your audience what the Bible says on this subject" type of provisionism, here's an answer I gave in a different comment, relating to the harmony of the Trinity, and asking why God would send the Son to die, and call people who would never come (and likely meant to be a "gotcha" question, pointing to provisionists believing God fails when He tries to save some). I hope this encourages you that a clear answer can be given (although I do think it would be a challenge to give this response in under a minute, if the question came up during a debate): Why would the Father send the Son to die, and call all people to repentance, including those who He knows will never come? Out of love for His creation. John 3:16-18: 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. You may ask, how do we know that God calls all people to repentance, though some reject that call? That He calls both those who listen, and those who refuse to listen? We see it in His Word. Isaiah 65: 1-2, 12: 1 “I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me; I was found by those who did not seek me. To a nation that did not call on my name, I said, ‘Here am I, here am I.’ 2 All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations- .... 12 I will destine you for the sword, and all of you will fall in the slaughter; for I called but you did not answer, I spoke but you did not listen. You did evil in my sight and chose what displeases me.” But you may ask, as many Calvinists do, doesn't this mean that God has failed? That He has tried something and not succeeded in it? No, God can be sovereign and infallible, omniscient and fully loving, in offering salvation to all, knowing who will respond and who will not, before the foundations of the world, and assigning the appropriate destiny to each for His glory, according to His will, and based on His foreknowledge of how they will choose. Romans 9:22-24: 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory- 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? Before we get into this any further, would you agree that a point of contention many Calvinists have with non-Calvinists is that if God offers salvation to all, and anyone that He offers it to rejects His offer, then He has tried to save them and failed, and is therefore not sovereign over all? And doesn't this fly in the face of Hebrews 7:25? 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. (some translations may say "save forever", or "save to the uttermost") I'm not looking to shy away from what Scripture says, I'm happy to go there, and learn from it, and apply it. So let's look at Hebrews 7:25. Who does it say Jesus is interceding for and saving? Those who come to God through Him. While many Calvinists read this passage through a lens of unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace, and so they may see all of those points affirmed here, the phrasing of the passage does not speak to any of those things. In context, human priests die, and so others need to be appointed. But Jesus lives forever, death has no hold on Him, so the priesthood never passes on from Him. We come to Him, only Him, always Him, to intercede for us. When it says, "those who come to God through him," I see this as the perfect combination of human repentance and God's salvation. "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Romans 10:13) We do the calling (in response to His call), He does the saving. A common Calvinist objection at this point is that this makes us responsible for our salvation, rather than God, and is therefore an affront to His sovereignty and omnipotence. Let me explain to you how this is not a necessary conclusion: - God, in His sovereignty, created mankind in His image, giving us the ability and responsibility to choose. When He created mankind, He said that it was good. This indicates to me that humans making choices was part of God's intent. - Therefore, humans making real choices is not a defeater to God's decree, but flows from it. - Circling back to the previous point of contention, if God decreed that we would make choices, and expects and requires us to do so, then the choices we make are a result of God's sovereignty, and do not need to be micromanaged by Him in order to be so. If we choose other than He commands, then we made a choice as per His decree, and we face the consequences of our actions, as per His decree. If we choose repentance and salvation, then we made a choice as per His decree, and we are saved, as per His decree. - If God decreed choice and responsibility for each person, and we see many verses that assume people do have choices that they are responsible for, with real consequences, then whatever choice a person makes falls in line with that decree, rather than superceding it. - God, in His omniscience, knows from all eternity each choice that every person will choose. He doesn't have to have micromanaged it to know it. Some Calvinists ask where that knowledge comes from - it doesn't come from somewhere, He is God. He doesn't learn or grow in knowledge, He has all knowledge already. His knowledge doesn't have to "come from" a decree, and His knowledge doesn't have to "come from" peering down the corridors of time, His knowledge is intrinsic to His character. Another Calvinist objection is often, but isn't this man-centred? Man chooses, man repents, man, man, man! God has to respond to man! - But Who decreed that man would choose? Who commanded and called man to repent? Who has been calling, reaching out, showing His glory through nature, through His Word, through His Son? The only reason man can choose is because God ordained it so. The only reason God responds to man is because He decreed that He would draw near to those who draw near to Him. And men must first respond to God! No, my friend. This is not a man-centred gospel. Each of us must humble ourselves, and respond to the God Who calls everyone to come. And to all who do come, He will give eternal life. John 6:37, 40: 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.... 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” Under our view: - God decrees that we must choose - God knows eternally who will choose Him - God decrees that all who choose Him will have eternal life - God decrees that all who do not choose Him stand condemned. - All those who He foreknows will choose Him, the Father gives to the Son. - The Son does not drive away any who choose Him. - All who choose the Son receive eternal life from the Father. - All who are in Christ have the Holy Spirit living in them. (Romans 8:9) - The Trinity is in harmony. The Father, Son, and Spirit unite in the salvation of all those who respond to His call. The call, and offer of atonement, need not be limited in order for God to accomplish His will to the full. It is His will that all of humanity must make a response, and though He is certainly powerful enough to override our will and micromanage every choice we make, He does not go against His own decree in that way. Certainly He strengthens people in the choices they have made, for good or evil. (Pharaoh hardened his heart, and God hardened Pharaoh's heart - Exodus 4-14, multiple occurrences of each phrase.) (Romans 1:18-32) (Philippians 2:13) And certainly no one comes to God without a long string of His gracious actions drawing them along. (Romans 10:14-15) I do not set aside the grace or sovereignty of God, and I look to all of Scripture to inform my views, and I must stay humble and willing to allow the Scripture to correct my views wherever they may be in error. All of this being said, I put to you that unless one starts with the presuppositions of Calvinism, the plain reading of the totality of Scripture does not discount human will, but acknowledges it as a part of God's sovereign plan. Will any of us fully understand how God does all of this? Hopefully once we get to Heaven, we can all understand it better, and laugh about how much higher God's thoughts are than ours. In the meantime, shall we not love one another, as God loved us? Shall we not forgive one another, as God in Christ forgave us? And shall we not respond with kindness (even on the Internet?!?) to others, since it is the kindness of God that led us to repentance? I say that by God's grace, we shall, and call all of God's people to that sort of behaviour.

There's a bit of a typo in your description. Bibvkicak

@LivingChristian

4 ай бұрын

I noticed that. Thanks, it’s fixed

This seems like a debate on covenant theology vs dispensationalism.

Breda was unprepared and did not present a scriptural basis for his beliefs. I am not a Calvinist and was disappointed in what was presented.

James White won the debate basically right away. Jason Breda spent his entire time arguing that Romans 1-8 isn’t for Gentiles and didn’t respond to anything t JW said.

@Jammaster1972

3 ай бұрын

"James White won the debate" yeah and Johnnie Cochran won the case for OJ Simpson. Calvinism is still guilty of being a false doctrine.

@tjkhan4541

3 ай бұрын

@@Jammaster1972can you explain why Calvinism is false or unbiblical?

@Jammaster1972

3 ай бұрын

@@tjkhan4541 Because it supposes that God is the author of evil. It impugns His character, i.e. to create a person for the purpose of sentencing him to Hell for an eternity with no hope for redemption simply because he was not the chosen, and that it was predetermined. It nullifies the concept of Free Will. It basically asserts that God rigged the chess board so that you would lose. On the contrary, the truth is that His foreknowledge does not mean He fore-caused and event to occur (for example, He knew the Chiefs would win the Superbowl, but that does not mean He caused them to win the Superbowl). Most importantly, the doctrines of Calvinism directly contradict a myriad of Bible verses (available upon request). We know from John 10:35 that the word of God cannot and should not contradict itself. If it even contradicts one verse, as far as I'm concerned, it is false or the interpretation of that verse is false or taken out of context.

Sir I think you misinterpreted the passage. Especially In Romans just to fit your belief! That is dangerous

Not at all trying to favor one side over the other with that thumbnail. One giving a nice smile, the other a scowl, nope not at all.

4 ай бұрын

Classic

@garfd2

4 ай бұрын

I think it matches the tone of the debaters fairly well. I don't think Dr. White smiles much when interacting with non-Calvinist content.

@spartybuck7215

4 ай бұрын

​@@garfd2lol Jason was the only one to like this comment. He big mad 🤣 honestly I wish David Allen would agree to debate White. Provisionists are just embarrassing themselves

Jason’s closing statement was like a second opening statement. What info in it was from the debate? It was a second presentation offering new info. Debate L.

@LivingChristian

4 ай бұрын

You’re right. I def could have stuck with the talking points addressed in the first half of the debate for my closing and pushed back more specifically from what White brought out. I am though glad I said what I said in the closing. It’s what I believe the Lord wanted me to share. Rather walk in obedience to the Lord than desired debate format. Hope people understand.

@Postmillhighlights

4 ай бұрын

@@LivingChristian to intentionally violate a debate format that you agreed to? You had also mentioned you weren’t ‘trying to win an argument.’ Isn’t that what a debate is?

@LivingChristian

4 ай бұрын

@@Postmillhighlights I didn’t intentionally violate the debate format. I don’t think I properly understood the format nor was I given any direction other than present your view of the atonement from a general perspective.

@Postmillhighlights

4 ай бұрын

@@LivingChristian bless you brother.

@Bat_Dad_116

3 ай бұрын

@@LivingChristianso your claiming God wanted you to violate the agreed terms of the debate. That seems an unwise thing to pin on God.

So, why is there a Biblical elect in the first place? What is the purpose, if not a group which God chooses to be the recipients of His grace. If atonement is universal, unlimited, why have an elect?

Why are there ads on here? Where can I watch this without ads?

The atonement was indeed completely effective. Read 2 Cor 5:19 and 1 John 2:2. It dealt with all sin. Period. So that now the free gift of salvation could be offered to all. It’s theirs to receive or not, have faith in Jesus or not.

@williammarinelli2363

4 ай бұрын

Yall heed what was written above. Because of the atonement, "All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men." The sons of men are me and you, whoever you are. Mark 3:28.

@ewallt

4 ай бұрын

Jesus said “If I be lifted up, I will draw all unto Me” so it’s not simply that the lost do not accept the offer, but also resist the drawing of the Holy Spirit.

@RNLWW

4 ай бұрын

@@ewallt “This he said, signifying what death he should die.” These verses say that His death, burial, and resurrection, not the Holy Spirit, would draw all men to Himself. This why Paul pleaded with the Corinthians, “be ye reconciled” (2 Cor 5:19-21). Being resurrected from the dead is a pretty powerful draw.

@ewallt

4 ай бұрын

@@RNLWW The death and resurrection draws someone apart from the Holy Spirit? How?

@RNLWW

4 ай бұрын

@@ewallt “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John‬ ‭3‬:‭16‬ “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John‬ ‭15‬:‭13‬ ‭ His immense love for mankind. When we stop sullying the incredible gift God offers us today with all sorts of works and come to truly realize what Jesus did for us, how can we not be drawn to Him?

Jason I am so proud of you. Everyone has to start somewhere. You started with one of our best debaters. You are going to learn so much from this and I believe become one of our best up and coming defenders of the faith. You are humble, gracious, and teachable! I have the great honor of knowing you and your family personally. You are a man of character. God is going to use you to further the Kingdom. I appreciate James White and his work as well, but I don’t know him behind closed doors. You my friend and brother are a shining example to us all!! You did a wonderful job and I look forward to watching you continue to grow in the area of debating.

Absolutely crushing

Hi brother, is there a way I could contact you to send some good information that might be useful for upcoming debates or videos about this same topic? God bless you!

@LivingChristian

4 ай бұрын

Livingchristian101@gmail.com

Jason was very civil and respectful, and I give him credit for going into the lion’s den with Dr. White. Unfortunately, the subject of limited atonement is hard to refute, as we saw here.

Hi Jason. If I were to investigate your assertion about the first 8 chapters of Romans being addressed to the Jews, where would you recommend I go to gain a better understanding of that argument? I guess what I'm trying to say is "convince me". - edit: I now see said in another comment that you will make a video about it. I hope you do. Sounds interesting.

@LivingChristian

4 ай бұрын

Dr Al Garza is one person he has a KZread channel, J17 Apologetics (another KZread channel). Book called 2Part Romans by Brent Lay to name a few.

@JoeBloggs-4096

4 ай бұрын

@@LivingChristian Thank you brother

@Luinilblue

4 ай бұрын

The Remnant of Israel 11 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. If you notice the word foreknew here. Paul mentioning this to the gentiles, explaining to them not to be arrogant towards the jews, you can see the conversation shifting completely from Jews to gentiles. like Jason said ! yes we are part of the blessings that come together with our brothers the Jews but that’s because they were stubborn and did not believe so. How can God use us to provoke them to jealousy and at the same time be chosen from the beginning, when it clearly says we were grafted in, and some were broken off I believe Romans 11 has a lot of insight to how Paul was shifting his conversation from Jews to gentiles . specially when it’s talking about the elect, the conversation is shifted towards the Jews I will paste the whole chapter here. I hope it helps many study it carefully and again, if I misspelled anything, I am using voice over. Romans 11 New International Version The Remnant of Israel 11 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah-how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”[a]? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”[b] 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. 7 What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, 8 as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day.”[c] 9 And David says: “May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. 10 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.”[d] Ingrafted Branches 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree! All Israel Will Be Saved 25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way[e] all Israel will be saved. As it is written: “The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. 27 And this is[f] my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”[g] 28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Doxology 33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and[i] knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! 34 “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”[j] 35 “Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?”[k] 36 For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.

@Luinilblue

4 ай бұрын

7 What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, 8 as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day.”[c] 9 And David says: “May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. 10 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.”[d] ps I believe this is talking about the Pharisees and the people who put Christ on a cross and I do believe this was fully the will of God but if you read carefully, I think around verse 25 or 23. I’m not sure it tells us that if they repent, they will be grafted back in. PS in this chapter, we see a lot of grafting in and out and mentions that he can graft out gentiles and graft in jews and so on, and so forth back-and-forth this doesn’t sound like an established will, from the beginning of time or from before the foundations of the earth this sounds that Christ gives us the opportunity to have unbelief in our hearts or to believe

@truththroughlove1012

4 ай бұрын

​@Luinilblue yes but we have to remember that teaching people how to live and conveying doctrine of God are different. A warning that one must overcome to receive the manna of God doesn't necessary mean he won't get the people he wants in heaven there, but merely that he is using a method of teaching to get them there. One can say but then it's not ordained if he must use such methods or such language but the acts of God to accomplish his will are done in such a manner that provides the individual the growth opportunity required for such ascension but that doesn't exclude a zeal of God to complete his work of teaching in those he pleases.

An honest question for the limited atonement view because genuinly dont know what the argument against it is. What is the fallacy of saying the atonement is limited to those who are “in Christ”, but deny that those “in Christ” were individually and personally chosen before the foundation of the world?

Jason thought that all Calvinists thought and believed about Reformed theology the same way as he did; I think that’s where he went wrong.

Jason, I truly enjoyed the debate. You did an awesome job with your arguments and you modeled for us all the love of Christ and sharing the truth in love. God bless brother

@LivingChristian

4 ай бұрын

Thank you brother!

If your first debate is against James White, you can debate anybody now.

@bloodbought251

4 ай бұрын

No, on the contrary, he's unqualified to be on the same stage as Dr. White nor is he properly prepared to argue his stance.

@ianhastie5785

3 ай бұрын

Yeah unfortunately the gentleman isn’t remotely prepared to debate like, ever again. A debate is a debate, it’s not just displaying an opinion but combating (peacefully) the opposite side as well. He didn’t do the latter in the slightest, just put out points built on a foundation of sand.

Jason / @LivingChristian, at around 2:17:30 you state the following: "Everything is from God, everything is a gift but it's a matter of when is the gift applied. Is Faith only then arbitrarily selected to a group of people that God has ordained from eternity past." (edit forgot close quote) You go on to state the provisionist position, which leads me to think that you believe the above quote represents the calvinist position. Are you saying that in the Calvinist system, God is arbitrary. Can you confirm, deny, or clarify? Thanks!

@williammarinelli2363

4 ай бұрын

Arbitrary is an overloaded word. One of the Merriam Webster definitions speaks of "coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will." I can see the Calvinist would rather not have his caricature of God described as capricious, although the "seemingly" takes a bit of the edge off. Another definition is " depending on individual discretion (as of a judge)." So yeah, if a decision is based solely on the will of an arbitrator, it's arbitrary. I'll step up and say that the Calvinistic caricature of God is indeed arbitrary. I'll add that I am more compassionate than that caricature of deity. Hope that comes off as a straight answer.

@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT

4 ай бұрын

@@williammarinelli2363 🎯🎯

@queenfoursuited

4 ай бұрын

@@williammarinelli2363 the caricature of God I see is yours. We (Reformed) specifically articulate why election is not an arbitrary act of God. See also Ephesians 1:5.

@williammarinelli2363

4 ай бұрын

@@queenfoursuited Thanks for response. I think to support the Augustinian perversion of election (to conversion) one would better cite Eph 1:4, which uses to synonym chosen (not to salvation but to being holy and blameless, not chosen to be in Him, but chosen in Him.) Eph 1:5 is better suited to assert the Augustinian perversion of predestination to conversion as opposed to Biblical predestination to the adoption, to wit, the redemption of the body as per Rom 8:23.

@jacobchesney1558

3 ай бұрын

@@williammarinelli2363 How can one be holy and blameless, and not saved? It sounds as though you're saying Paul thinks that someone can be holy and blameless, as though being saved isn't a prerequisite. Isn't the most natural reading of Ephesians 1:3-11 that we are predestined to be His elect, saved and made holy and blameless in Christ? It even goes on from verse 5 to say in v7 that we have redemption through His blood. Is this not a salvific reference? How else can we be holy and blameless? Wouldn't we need to be saved?

I really liked your approach: take the opportunity to speak to those with ears to hear ❤.

Thanks for sharing this debate with us Jason! You presented excellent conduct, especially for being someone not experienced in the debate realm! Glad Kevin, Leighton, and Alan were able to come show support too. I saw Leighton's review on this too, and he was spot on about the biggest problem from the onset: James White was coming from a different starting point and that was never addressed, so it was the usual - assume Calvinism, shoot off from there. And you wanting to address that was immediately going to be shot down and so he would think "I only wanted to stay on topic, so I "win". Though, kinda funny how you get Janes White to start talking about "the saving work of Christ for ALL" 😏 You mean all the elect right bro? "😱 YES elect! Elect! I meant all elect!!!"

@tjkhan4541

3 ай бұрын

Do you really think White assumed Calvinism, and did not argue and give reasons for his view?

Weak-kneed Christianity is what has gotten this nation where it is. Refusing to exegete the relevant passage is crazy.

@faithfulservantofchrist9876

4 ай бұрын

Exegete Romans 9 for me I thought you were elected before the foundation of the world? Romans 9 is in the womb. Romans 9:11-12 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls- 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” The older will serve the younger that's Gods sovereign. Elect is always referring to service or servitude in the old testament not salvation. If Elect is salvation Israel is automatically saved even if they don't worship Christ. Isaiah 45:4 King James Version 4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

@doejohn215

4 ай бұрын

@@faithfulservantofchrist9876 so you make that contradict Ephesians? I don’t see the problem.

@faithfulservantofchrist9876

4 ай бұрын

@@doejohn215 @doejohn215 @doejohn215 I don't make it contradict anything it does it by itself. You do see the problem because I didn't say Ephesians. So you absolutely see that it's a contradiction. God elected Esau to serve Jacob that's God sovereign election that the older brother who would have the birthright won't. Esau didn't even serve Jacob either by the way, so much for God's sovereign election. Ephesians 1:4 English Standard Version 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love Ephesians 2:12 English Standard Version 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. You were separated from Christ, so you weren't in Christ from before the foundation of the world. It's not to be in him either, Its in him you will be holy and blameless and he chose this before the foundation of the world. Predestination is the believer being predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ in the life to come. Not an unregenerate person to be regenerated there is nothing in the Bible that it shows that.

@spartybuck7215

4 ай бұрын

@@faithfulservantofchrist9876 I see chosen before birth, revealed in the womb. Once again anticalvs not understanding gods prescriptive vs decreetive will

@DGran67

4 ай бұрын

This is an example of how not to divide the word truth correctly. There are text that refer to individual election and text that refer to Israel’s election as a theocratic nation. You can’t just take a word in a context and shove all your point of views in to every place it appears. Both elections are biblical without destroying the other. What is sad when it comes to interpreting the Bible most people lose their common sense interpreting ability in exchange for their ideology.

The debate was supposed to be regarding “The Reformed position on the atonement is correct and important” (close to that if not perfectly stated). It was an entertaining discussion, but seemed like much of it was not dealing with this question at all.

No disrespect, but I think jason lost the debate when he himself mentioned, early on, that his view was not a popular view, but still worthy of consideration.

Great job Jason! The complaints I'm reading/hearing against you seem to have to do with you not letting James White control the conversation. He is a master at doing that and you didn't let him. That's a win in my book! Plus, you apparently introduced him to a Biblical interpretation he had never heard before. That's another win! And, most importantly, you were gracious, kind and respectful in your disagreement with him. Big win!

@tyc4587

4 ай бұрын

This is a troll comment. That’s like saying great job to a pee wee team get slaughtered by the Yankees when the Yankees thought they had a real team to play against. Not only does this man not understand biblical theology, he doesn’t possess a rational defensible argument to present to people. Arminians have better theology than this. Do not encourage this. It was not a good job, he lost and his deceptive colors were shown.

@DamonNomad82

4 ай бұрын

@@tyc4587 At least you start out with an honest statement, as your comment is 100% a troll comment! The rest of it is pure, unadulterated horse hockey, as is typical from a (James) White supremacist.

You did well considering James White and the way by which he debates. I'm thankful that you stuck to what you wanted to say and didn't chase his bunny trails. 2 of the most important statements you made were regarding not trying to win and the hope that what you presented would be a pebble in their shoe. Too many who debate James try to change his mind. I believe your focus was to challenge the audience to consider something outside of their systematic presuppositions. Great job brother. I hope you provide a critique and further explanation of some of your points video soon.

@LivingChristian

4 ай бұрын

Thank you for the encouragement! Tomorrow morning I’m doing a live to share my process, thoughts and answer questions

Thanks

Who are the "US"? The "US" refers to the believers who put their faith in Christ. Just like in the Old Testament, the one who brings the sacrifice is the one who is atoned for. Atonement applies only to those who bring a sacrifice. However, atonement is open to all who will avail themselves of it. In both the Old and New Testaments, atonement does not save individuals, but rather it puts them in right standing before God. Atonement in the Old and New Testaments serves to reconcile individuals with God and restore their relationship with Him. It is important to note that the resurrection of Christ is what gives life to a believer, providing them with eternal life and salvation.

James White's conclusion was some of the most powerful Gospel preaching I have heard in a long time, especially starting at 1:51:50. "The message of Scripture is that Father, Son and Holy Spirit, together have brought about the perfect redemption of God's people. This was not merely a provision, this was an accomplishment. And that was the dividing line even at the time of the Reformation. It's the dividing line between grace and non-grace."

@ewallt

4 ай бұрын

What was accomplished was accomplished for all. What’s provisional is that which involves a response on the part of man.

Thank you Jason for your Christlike character and witness. Great job!

What I learned about Provisionism from this debate, and from Dr. Flowers' Anti-Calvinist videos, is that it should be called "Perversionism".

Mr Breda didn't answer the questions being asked in the Q&A. He reinterpreted the questions and then gave an answer to his own re-interpretations.

Jason, I am thankful for your humble, respectful, and loving spirit during this debate. I do not think this was a slam dunk for James as others have stated. The foundation between the two of you is fundamentally different. This was very challenging task to debate this coming from such a different foundations as the scriptures are read through Calvinistic lenses and not in context. I appreciate you and your ministry. Stay in the Way.

@doejohn215

4 ай бұрын

He was not respectful to the audience.

I've never seen Dr James white. So, frustrated he was asking questions but got no answer. Respect to you tho for debating mr white God bless you and keep seeking you will find truth.

Nice to have arguments against Calvinism to reinforce the truth of it. Thanks for the debate! Would love to see an across the table discussion. Formal debates are tough.

Is this not a semantic debate? Could this not be summed up in Matthew 22:14? Many are called but few are chosen (eklektos in the Greek)? It seems that those who are chosen are indeed by default the only ones Yeshua atones for. In the same regard his atonement is for all of mankind but it's only the chosen that receive the benefit.

Jason, you were kind, gracious, sweet, and….wrong… Those that are complaining about the about the abrasive personality of White really needs an expository course on Nehemiah 13

@rprestarri

4 ай бұрын

I think I remember a sunday school lesson about some prophet ripping out sabbath-breakers beards....

@AndrewJohnH

4 ай бұрын

Are we sure that Jason fits into the context of "leading the people of God away from Him", as with those who Nehemiah took to task? If not, maybe 2 Timothy 2:24-26 would fit better. How would you exposit this? "And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will."

@rprestarri

4 ай бұрын

Yes, however, sometimes it seems subjective based on if someone doesnt like the other person when they say such and such, i.e. James White, was not gentle etc... From my vantage point he was. You do have to weigh in the seriousness of a topic, as well as the level of reverence one has for a subject. Also the context they are in, which is a Debate format, which is necessarily argumentative. Jesus didn't think it was too harsh to drive out money changers with a whip and call the Pharisees hypocrites and whitewashed tombs. I would also be careful to say that a Prophet of God's behaviour was wrong, in regards to Nehemiah, which it doesn't seem like your saying, when scripture gives no indication that he was. When it comes to the Atonement, this is a serious subject, this is why the Reformation happened, and why we separated from Rome and strove under intense persecution, many being slaughtered for their faith. This new movement, "Provisionsim" is so quick to throw Calvin, Luther, the Reformers, the Puritans, under the bus, when God used them to give clarity to the gospel in the face of much opposition. They continue to bash the "Reformed system" when it was this same air tight "system" or system of dogmatics derived from scripture that could stand the greatest thrust of the Antichrist, that is the Roman Pontiff, or Papacy. They are the ones introducing a new system, all while denying they are doing any such thing. They throw contempt on the history and unwittingly open us up to all kinds of attacks from our opponents in the Roman Catholic realm and the Eastern Orthodox realm. SOmetimes it seems like they just live in a bubble and don't realize that Calvinism isn't their greatest opponent, and for this reason they say things that need sharp rebuke. Yet, these rebukes do not land because of how disconnected they are from the history of the church and mistake it as mean and condescending. If anything, I would be grateful for James, pushing their perspective to the scriptures to solidify it and to not be HERETICS. they are in a very vulnerable position, they haven't really solidified where they want to stand, and in affect, they dabble with dangerous doctrines that have been destroyed for a long time like Pelagianism, sinless birth, Annihilationism and all the rest. I think James is right to take a hard stance and show the brutal reality of what it means to introduce new doctrines into the Church of Jesus Christ. They better be BIBLICAL, or you are dabling with FIRE. Anyways, that's my rant. Obviously all of this should be done in the supernatural love of God, through His strength alone, otherwise, none can or will turn to the truth of God's word. We are wholly dependent upon His grace. @@AndrewJohnH

@CBALLEN

3 ай бұрын

Provisionist = Jesus created a tool for man to save himself,but man must put the tool to work.

@LivingChristian

3 ай бұрын

@CBALLEN wow that’s what you see? I don’t think you understand provisionism.

This was an absolute disaster. I was hoping to hear a cogent argument against Calvinism. What a disappointment. You really need to do a great deal of study and understanding of the word.

Thanks!

@LivingChristian

4 ай бұрын

Thank you so much ❤

@atyt11

4 ай бұрын

@@LivingChristian Keep doing what your doing. I so appreciate your attitude of truth at all costs, but with a real humbleness. Considering the presuppositions that you were debating, Ha!..... Great job!

Why does James have a mug shot on the cover photo...lol???

Jason - I watched your debate and have to tell you how proud I am of your performance. You debated a seasoned debater who threw some ugly punches and you stood your ground. You also exemplified a humble, Christ-like demeanor in spite of Dr. White’s arrogance and condescension. Your answers were focused and biblical. Well done, brother!

@SDRBass

4 ай бұрын

lol James White has been making the exact same arguments for 20+ years and Jason didn’t address any of them. What are you talking about?

@BRNRDNCK

4 ай бұрын

@@SDRBass The blind leading the blind, brother

@SDRBass

4 ай бұрын

@@BRNRDNCK I don’t even think James White makes the best arguments for limited atonement. Still doesn’t change the fact that Jason Breda read his cross questions from a binder lol. 😂

@BRNRDNCK

4 ай бұрын

@@SDRBass What do you consider the best arguments for particular atonement?

@SDRBass

4 ай бұрын

@@BRNRDNCK I like using Leviticus 16 because it’s quoted in Hebrews. The offering of the Day of Atonement only covered the people of the Israel. The high priest represents the chosen people of God. No more, no less. And Jesus as our priest also represents the chosen people of God, no more, no less, with His sacrifice and intercession work (as mentioned in Hebrews).

18:00 White believes that Jesus interceded one at the cross and literally "saved" all of the elect back then. Hebrews 7 is speaking about a continuing intercession for "those who draw near to God through him". If it is continuous and ongoing and it is for those who draw near to God, then nothing here supports Limited Atonement. It doesnt even support White's phrase that he always says that "Jesus actually saved at the cross" (paraphrased). If it's a one time event, why would it matter if Christ lived forever? Why would Christ need to "always live to make intercession for [those who draw near to God]."? This seems weak.

@rprestarri

4 ай бұрын

What you don't realize is how the Old Testament sacrificial system worked. The Great High Priest would enter into the Holy of Holies and offer a sacrifice for the atonement of the people, that is Israel, and Israel only. The High Priest would intercede on behalf of the nation, praying that God would accept the offering in their stead. The point with Hebrews is that all whom Christ intercedes for are the same ones whom He atoned for. Everyone whom Christ gave Himself as an offering for, are the same ones whom He pleads in heaven for the Father to forgive. Thus, all the ones whom Christ intercedes for are the exact ones that draw near to God through Him. Therefore, Christ had to have only died for a particular people, for not all people draw near unto God. (P.S. before you pick on James, you have to remember that James could never make his point about that passage because Jason wouldn't exegete the verse...)

@huntsman528

4 ай бұрын

@rprestarri please explain how my comment was "picking on James White"? If I do an analysis based on what I know, how is that picking on him? Did I call him names? Did I call him stupid? Simply disagreeing with someone is not "picking" on someone. The OT sacrificial system atoned for the sins of all of Israel. Specifically for all of the sins committed that previous year since the last atonement. This included those who died during that year. It included all sins for all of Israel, but it didn't mean that all in Israel was saved. This is a great misconception. Israel had Ba'al worshipers at many points. While they are included in the annual atonement, they are not in heaven. The OT sacrificial system was ongoing or done annually for past sins up to that point. If the OT system is our model, then Christ is constantly interceeding for the sins recently committed. This makes sense when it says "he always lives to make intercession for [those who draw near to God]". Christ's sacrifice took away the sins of the world, according to John the Baptist. This makes sense when it says that Christ doesn't need to offer up sacrifice ongoing because He already did this part "once for all when he offered up himself". This is separate from intercession, which is ongoing. You want to connect those who draw near to God with those whom the Father draws. What's the connection with Jesus drawing literally everybody to Himself through the gospel? This feels inserted. It also feels like it completely lacks the understanding of the cosmic nature of Christ's death and resurrection, reconciling all of creation to Himself. Jesus took away the sins of the world, He reconciled literally everything in heaven and on earth to Himself, and He sacrificed Himself once for all. All of this is consistent with Hebrews 7 and none of it implies or requires limited atonement.

@rprestarri

4 ай бұрын

By "Picking on James", I meant nothing more than you providing a response to an exegetical argument that James never was able to make, and assuming that you knew his presuppositions on that verse, and arguing from that place without White able to give a response to said argument. I personally don't think it is your fault, I assume you have watched Flowers who continually brings up Hebrews, and how easy it is to respond to that verse, assuming he knows why James White brought out that verse, which to me is a little silly. As to not all Israel being saved, yes and amen. I agree. But that wasn't exactly my point, but you kind of made it for me. The Atonement was made for Israel only... Not every nation in the world, not every individual in every nation. The point in Hebrews is that a better priesthood is here, where He now saves all Israel, that is the true Israel, those of like faith with Abraham, for He offers a better sacrifice and is always before the Father to make intercession for them. Hence it is said that He "died for the sins of the many". That is, just as His name would suggest, "Jesus: for He will save His people from their sins." Not imperfectly, as the Old Covenant was in cleansing the Jews, but perfectly, by His own precious blood. That is to say, All whom He made the Atonement for, are therefore interceded for, just as the Old priesthood, and therefore are drawn to Himself and saved perfectly. As to the "sins of the world". If this meant every individual, as you posit, then this therefore means that every individual is afforded the intercession of Jesus Christ, for all whom the Atonement is made for, is also interceded for, and thus, all the world ought to be saved perfectly, as Hebrews explains. Although, not all people are saved perfectly, as the scriptures demand, therefore, the Atonement must of necessity be made for the sheep and not the goats, that is to say it must be particularly for "the many" "the elect" "the sheep" "the chosen" "the remnant", whatever name you are pleased to classify this group as. Rather, this means, "the sins of the world", not the sins of the jews only, as this Mosaic Covenant would only allow, but rather of the Gentiles also, which the Scriptures so forcefully proclaims with much opposition from the Jews at that time, even the Apostles struggled with that idea, hence Peter not eating with the Gentiles, and the letter of Galatians wherein there were the judaizers who were telling Gentiles that they had to become Jews to be saved. @@huntsman528

@rprestarri

4 ай бұрын

BTW, I appreciate the time you gave to provide a response. It is welcomed with gratitude brother. @@huntsman528

1:23:07 -- "Does the word 'faith' appear in Rom. 8 verses 31 & following?" Negative inference fallacy. So, according to James White, "if 'faith' is not found in Rom. 8, then Rom. 8 has nothing to do with faith."

@andrewtsousis3130

4 ай бұрын

Yep. We can also say to White. Does the word “regeneration” precede “believe” or” faith” in any of the scriptures regarding salvation? Ummmm.

@jayrodriguez84

4 ай бұрын

Is it possible to possess Christ's imputed righteousness yet not possess the Holy Spirit?

@TheBlubunni

4 ай бұрын

Impossible! ​@@jayrodriguez84

@jayrodriguez84

4 ай бұрын

@@TheBlubunni Does faith precede regeneration?

@TheBlubunni

4 ай бұрын

When we believe we are born again by God's Spirit, we are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, baptised into God's family, awaiting the redemption of our bodies. Praise Jesus.

1:06:00 if Johns gospel is speaking to the Jews before chapter 9, then why does John say salvation is of the Jews when he’s been using terms like “us” or “our”? Why is there this distinction “of THE JEWS” here? If he’s already speaking directly to the Jews, why does he go from us/our to the Jews?

Your issue isn’t a lack of debating skill but biblical knowlege

@hvNews

4 ай бұрын

I believe Mr. White is an expert in keeping the topic so narrow that (God forbid) the listeners are able to see the larger context of a passage. Jason did great at not taking the bait!

@KnightFel

26 күн бұрын

@@hvNews Debates are narrow, they are on one topic. What's the issue?

Being someone who probably listens to all Dividing Line Podcasts, my only issue with James White, in this debate, is that he spoke over the head of most believers. We are so dumbed down in the church that his presentation sounded like a foreign language.

@mmtas1995

4 ай бұрын

He is clearly a master of reformed theology rhetoric.

@timkoelln3826

4 ай бұрын

Yeah, that’s a common tactic in debate. Use “impressive” words appeal to the Greek etc etc to appear smart and therefore “win” the debate without really making a good argument.

@lespaul382

4 ай бұрын

The "lord" of Calvinism is Lucifer

@timbushong4387

4 ай бұрын

@@timkoelln3826 Are the words "propitiation," or "mediator" or "intercede" all that difficult? Does the use of such words sound all that impressive?

@s3rm0n56

3 ай бұрын

Calvinism sounds like a foreign language to most believers, that's why most Christians utterly reject it

The same person who ascribes to Calvinism and says we bring nothing to Salvation says that many left catholicism and became Christians because of debates. Besides, by saying that limited atonement makes it specific and personal implies that if it isnt limited atonement then it no longer is specific and personal. If that's what he means then it's an erroneous position to take. Also, James White is quite prideful, arrogant, and unnecessarily condescending to those that do not hold his position. He had more grace towards the liberal Brandon guy on a podcast with Apologia studios. Calvinism is unbiblical and blasphemous when carefully examined. P.S. reach out to Nate Sala at Wise Disciple for help with debates.

Im sure if you really thought you had a win in this debate you'd be making immediate follow up videos on all your highlights. But we know all the highlights are on Dr White side.

Well done Bro.Jason🎉🎉

It's incredibly sad that a dogma could cause one to believe in monster who elects certain people and damns others on his own whims without allowing man a choice as to whether they want to be damned or not.

Question for JW or anyone - why does the “church fathers’”theology = Biblical theology? To be more specific- James White 45:51 said at the beginning of his rebuttal that he has never heard in all of church history . . . Regarding Jason’s interpretation of Romans. James seems to imply the correctness of “church history” or individuals he has studied over Jason’s interpretation. Shouldn’t the argument be considered on its face first rather than who originated or mentioned it in “church history”. Sides get drawn. - I am of Apollos. Does looking at the text itself matter less than what we have studied from church history? I guess it does for some. On another note, why is “church history” glorified so much? I appreciate all of the comments. I pray for the body of Christ to be one as He desired us to be.

@johnnydekker700

4 ай бұрын

It doesn’t. That’s not White’s perspective. White acknowledges that he differs with the fathers on many (important) issues

@christopherneedham9584

4 ай бұрын

Watch White debate a catholic and ask that question again. White is very consistent that the church fathers are wrong on tons of things.

@CalebPreach4245

4 ай бұрын

Watch White's debates with Catholics. He is correct that the church fathers were fallible and made tons of mistakes, like say Jesus was 50 yrs old when he was crucified etc.

@Jondoe_04

4 ай бұрын

I see the point of your question now. The church fathers don't equal Biblical theology, that said if basically no one up until about 100 years ago explained the text the way you do, there is reason to be slow at adopting that viewpoint. Especially if the way you interpret it invalidates the ways the most common ways it has been explained. For example, JW's (the cult, not James White) say that Christ made all other things as he was the first crested and to clarify the confusion, add the word other to their NWT. That not only invalidates what the text actually says, it is a theological precomitment that overrides not only the text but the consistent exegesis of the text.

@andys3035

4 ай бұрын

The consensus of the Fathers as articulated at the ecumenical councils is what is biblical theology. Considering not one Father had the market cornered on Biblical understanding, the Reformers mainly built their theology off of St. Augustine which is a problem. Calvin tried quoting the Fathers to support his views but went even further than Augustine.

Jason, is John 6 a theological construct by Messiah?

Jason you did great. I find it quite ironic that White finishes his summation with “Christ the perfection redemption for us” . “Us” who? Only the Calvinists in the room? lol

@5StarPWC

4 ай бұрын

Us - is meaning Christians. James has the decency to recognize that Christians disagree on things. Unlike the people on your side who thinks people who believe in sovereignty are not Christian’s. Your comment proves this.

@andrewtsousis3130

4 ай бұрын

@@5StarPWC ??? Ummm. I assume you are a Calvanist? Doesn’t your doctrine say that if you don’t persevere then you were never a Calvinist, therefore are non-elect? Are you saying you can be elect and not be a Calvanist?

@andrewtsousis3130

4 ай бұрын

@@5StarPWC BTW I think anyone who puts their trust in a Christ alone for salvation is saved, Calvanist or not. The question is, does the average Calvanist do this? I don’t know?

@andrewtsousis3130

4 ай бұрын

@@5StarPWC The question all Calvinists have to ask themselves is, can God still be sovereign and allow us to have free will? (Because your whole doctrine is based on the answer no). I’m happy to say yes of course, because this is biblical. So your comment re “people believing in a Sovereign God” is totally in-appropriate and assumes that non-Calvinists don’t believe in a Soverign God. Did you ever think that your doctrine might make God less Sovereign, because (basically a committee) decided that He couldn’t be Soverign if He allowed free will?

@richbaker7187

4 ай бұрын

@@5StarPWC The argument hinges on the Calvinist's definition of "sovereign". I am NOT a Calvinist, and I believe the Sovereignty of God, AND, I believe God gave us free will. I also believe we are given free will. However, the Calvinist ahs ALSO changed that definition as well.

Romans 1-8 addressed to jews alone? I understand why James might be a tad sharp with language or attitude.

@aletheia8054

4 ай бұрын

I can only imagine what Jesus or Paul or the apostles would’ve said to him.

@AnniEast

4 ай бұрын

When you read the OT, do you have any take-aways as a member of the Body of Christ? It clearly wasnt written to gentiles, do you throw out the whole OT bc of it? It pays to really listen to what someone is proposing. JB never said it was to Jews ALONE with zero application for gentiles. He was saying that Paul was speaking to the Jews and should be understood as such, as it clarifies some things for the reader. Do you take the verse, 'I know the plans I have for you, plans to prosper...' and apply it to your life? Do you think that you will only prosper as a Christian? Could you still look at that verse and think that the same God that made that promise to Israel is the same God that loves you, and He is trustworthy and able to see you through whatever comes your way? Don't just assume the worst of people, and even if they are being the worst, let your words be sprinkled with salt. JW should keep his attitude and demeaner in check regardless of what is thrown at him.

@aletheia8054

4 ай бұрын

@@AnniEast the Old Testament was written for gentiles. Hebrews 10

@AsTheWatersCoverTheSea33

4 ай бұрын

@@AnniEast yes as a gentile the promises are yes and amen in Christ. And jew and gentile in Christ are true Israel. My only point was not to justify bad attitude but to say I can see why sharpness is there in his response. The position as I think James pointed out is unfounded in the book

@aletheia8054

4 ай бұрын

@@AsTheWatersCoverTheSea33 the Bible says to speak with great plainness of speech. The Greek word means to not beat around the bush, to say it plainly. People these days don’t like that

I wanted to hear the end of the prayer! Imagine a public prayer in church like that and someone just gradually cranks up the music as the word just kind of trail off... lol!

@LivingChristian

4 ай бұрын

Sorry I didn’t mean to drown out the words.

Honest question, in Jason’s closing statement when he’s talking about a Calvinist saying to someone “you may have the wrath of God satisfied for you” and seeing this as a negative, how does his position not fall into the same category? From his view if someone rejects the gospel Gods wrath remains on him correct? So how can he say definitively “Gods wrath does not abide on you” or “you are elect” when he does not know if the person will believe in Christ or not? Of course both sides agree that anyone who believes in Christ are elect and Gods wrath does not abide on them any longer, so how could his position say to an unbeliever “you are elect” if he is not sure if they will believe or not?

@AnniEast

4 ай бұрын

I doubt his position would be to call any unbeliever an elect. His position would call unbelievers loved and present them with the gift of salvation that is offered by God by His grace, and must be received through faith.

@joelzaloum9209

4 ай бұрын

@@AnniEast ok so then he too would say “you may or may not be elect” which would be the same as the Calvinist at that point. Doesn’t mean his position is necessarily wrong, but that’s a bad and self defeating argument.

@AnniEast

4 ай бұрын

@@joelzaloum9209 but the may or may not is not determined by a long ago decree, but by the acceptance of a free gift. God determined that there would be an elect group of people that would be conformed to the image of His Son, and who would be adopted as sons. Who ends up in that group is based on what they believe/faith. Is is what God promised, that WHOMEVER believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. We dont have to speculate who is or who isnt elect, as we cannot know what they will and wont believe. God on the other hand already knows who would and wont believe, but that doesnt mean He determines who believes and who doesnt.

@joelzaloum9209

4 ай бұрын

@@AnniEast sure and those are all separate issues that can be addressed. My only point was that the emotional strength of that argument fails because both sides cannot confidently say to the non believer “you are elect”.

@AnniEast

4 ай бұрын

@@joelzaloum9209 and my point was they we dont have to. Upon a positive confession of faith we might say such things, and even then it must be done with great humility, as only God knows the heart. The problem with the calvinistic view of election is that nothing they say can be said with confidence or honesty. They cant say Jesus died for your sins bc in their view that only applies to the elect. Non calvinist do not have that problem. They cant say Jesus loves you bc that only applies to the elect. Non calvinists do not have that issue. They cant say repent and believe the gospel bc repenting and believing is only possible for the elect. Non calvinists do not have that issue.

Dang does anyone else get an ad every like 10 minutes 😪

I’ve been following Dr. White for a few years now. He’s an excellent debater. I don’t normally listen to the questions from the audience but I did with this. I must say this was the first time I got the impression from an audience question that the question presented that was supposed to be in opposition was actually meant as a softball for a home run. The question asked to James on “the offer of salvation” was almost like listening to the press secretary answer a question from a major news network. I’ve heard that question many times and everyone knows the answer. Hung that right over the plate.

There seems to be some confusion about what the word “specifically” means. If something is specific to group, it is unique. When White asked him about Romans 8:23-33, he said it could be applied to Gentiles also. If it can be applied to the Gentiles, it is not specific to the Jews. Also by Breda’s logic, Paul told both Jew and Gentile that he longed to see them and was hindered in Romans 1:13 and 15:15, so the “you” is not ambiguous. He is speaking to both Jews and Greeks. The “you” in Romans 1:13 is clearly defined in Romans 1:7, beloved of God, called as saints. There are parts of Romans where Paul is clearly addressing the Jews or Gentiles specifically, but the letter is to the believers in Rome. He doesn’t specifically address the Jews until Romans 2. Saying Romans 8 is specifically to the Jews is highly problematic, and surely Romans 12-14 is not specific to the Gentiles. Also I’m confused about whether Breda answered White’s question about what the atonement achieves. He seems adamant that atonement applied doesn’t mean atonement achieved, but how can one hold such a firm position if without stating what atonement actually achieves.

Jason, just to start, I am nobody. I saw your interview with Keith Foskey, you seem like a nice guy, and kudos for going toe to toe with a debater like James White, not sure I'd ever wanna attempt that! I don't know why but I feel led to just say to you, you're getting a lot of feedback on both sides of the aisle with this debate, it's kind of a big point in your personal walk and your public ministry. My advice, again im no one, but it's that you allow yourself to remain teachable. I do not get the vibe from you that you're just an anti-calvinist guy, but that you do care about ministry and serving Christ. You yourself have said, if I remember right, that you just want to go with what the text says. Remain that way, even if it leads you back into "Calvinism". Your job is to be faithful to God and His Word. I know you know that. I'm just trying to encourage you to stay in that. Don't let yourself be swayed by anybody that has an agenda either. Be discerning. At this point I'll reveal that I am on the Calvinist side of this debate. But I don't believe that means that we can't have unity in Christ. I say that to say, I see some people appear to think that Dr. White was just mean and arrogant. I would encourage you to, even if you think he was, look past that and try to learn from what he has said, and in your own study try to address the concerns that he raised. Anyway, long message on this and I'd rather this be a personal message but this seemed like the easiest way to get this to you. Hope you receive this in the spirit with which I intend it.

@glennishammont7414

4 ай бұрын

If you followed his five part series on ‘Calvinism’ you would be assured that won’t happen, I believe that Jason received the required spiritual revelation concerning an actual heresy at such a level that he is absolutely convinced that there is even an urgent kairos prophetic moment in time to expose it, more and more ‘converts’ from Calvinism are sharing the same urgency today because Calvinism undercuts the need and effect of the Gospel message in the most alarming way possible.

@Rinseitoff

4 ай бұрын

James White didnt come across as arrogant. I dont necessarily agree with his position, either. But i understand Whites concern and pressing Jason over Romans 1-8. Jason appears to be very humble and sweet im rooting for him!

@LivingChristian

4 ай бұрын

Amen. I receive it well. Thank you! 🙏

What keeps standing out in these types of debates is the misunderstanding of the word “gentile” as meaning “non-jew”, when in fact it more accurately means NATION or NATIONS… and in the context of this debate is referring to the nations of the house of Israel.

Do a debate with Jay dyer

I've been trying to figure out where to watch this! hah I didn't remember your name and didn't know the topic of the debate...

Jason if Romans 8 is to the Jews what does that mean or change? I'm not a Calvinist by the way I believe limited atonement is wrong and if you were to ask all the Calvinist in the audience about the verses that prove it wrong, they wouldn't have an answer until James figures a work around for them.

Jason, your patience is fantastic. James did not directly answer a single one of your questions and it frustrates me so much.

James White used the word to dismantle the provisionist view. Props to him.

@ahembd1

4 ай бұрын

"Provisionist" just means "a partial salvation." Or a 'potential salvation.' It means that Christ in essence saved no one.

When quoting romans 8:28, why did James forget to say "for those that love God" part of the verse?

@DamonNomad82

4 ай бұрын

It was probably one of two things. Either Mr. White forgot that part of the verse because he's always ignoring it exists, or he deliberately left it out because he wishes it didn't exist!

@Postmillhighlights

4 ай бұрын

Are you suggesting that impacts the reading of the following two verses?

@rocketsurgeon1746

4 ай бұрын

@@Postmillhighlights please explain how you think starting with "those that love God..." is not important to the following verses.

@Postmillhighlights

4 ай бұрын

@@rocketsurgeon1746 I’m sorry what? Explain how a verse isn’t impactful to the reading? Well, I suppose if you think ‘those that love God’ somehow causes or precedes Gods foreknowledge and predestination…then sure…it would have an impact. Does anyone actually believe that though? It’s pretty apparent that Gods foreknowing and predestining action determines who loves him, not the other way around, right?

@rocketsurgeon1746

4 ай бұрын

@@Postmillhighlights read the verse, brother. Simple reading shows first, those that love God, then, those who are called according to His purpose. It is easy to be deceived if you pick and choose phrases out of context. Be careful. Are you really saying it doesn't matter if we leave out the "to those that love God.."?

While I have read Romans many times, it wasn't with a goal of discovering which parts were written to Jews, to Gentiles, or to both. As I go through a plain reading of Romans 8 and surrounding now, here are some thoughts to that end. Keep in mind that this is just a plain reading, and doesn't prove that more of it isn't written to a specific audience: Paul seems to speak directly to the Jews in 7:1-6. He seems to speak directly to Gentiles in 9:1-5. In between, it is not exactly clear if the audience is general, or stays with mostly Jews and then switches to mostly Gentiles at some point. Moreover, I think the point of the audience is not actually addressing the point of contention in this passage. I think the difference is what does 8:29-30 mean by "predestined", and how do verses 28-39 play out in light of that understanding? I think this can be addressed clearly and consistently without a Calvinist framework, without departing from the teaching of Scripture. I just think that putting something else forward (like the audience) as a main point muddies that understanding, and confirmed James White further in his belief that there is no consistent biblical framework that addresses this passage differently than he does.

Jason, very well done brother! 🤗 May God bless you and continue to use you for His purpose 🙏

I think it interesting that these men spend more time quoting books and the positions of other men rather than exegeting the scripture

James white said. We’d have a hard time explaining “us all” if we don’t hold to his view…. Let’s see… if I’m writing a letter to a group of people in a room… and the people in the room and I share the same benefits regarding a certain store. When I address those benefits, I can easily say those benefits are for “US ALL” without it having to mean anything along the lines of election or predestination.

Jason, I’m just a couple minutes into your opening statement and learning things I never knew about the first reformers views. I’m excited to watch the rest. Thank you for representing us on this stage. It sure feels like God is using you for His purposes and our edification. Cheers, brother.