I came across the above video in which Eli Ayala interviews James White. It is a long video, and I am only going to briefly comment on what was said at time reference 1:17:21 into the video, where the following question is asked of James White:
“Here is a question from the Provisionist perspective. Question: What does White think, quote: ‘It is not too difficult,’ mean in that Deuteronomy 30 passage? In other words, if it is not teaching libertarian freedom, then what is the point of saying, ‘It is not too difficult?’ It seems like they are saying, ‘Hey, the choice should be easy, to pick the right thing. You know, you are not being withheld by God’s determining forces.’”
The reference is to the following passage of scripture, with regard to the Calvinist doctrine of predestination and predetermination—canceling out freewill. The following quote is given from the KJV, so the wording may not be identical to the reference given, but the meaning is clear:
Deuteronomy 30:
10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
16 In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
(See further Deuteronomy 4:5-9; also chapters 28-29; and Joshua 24:13-28) To this then James White gives the following answer:
“Well, once again we do see that the people of Israel did eventually come up with the idea that it was too difficult, because of what had happened to their fathers. It is not too difficult for the regenerate heart, for the heart of flesh. Yes, if we love God, and have been changed by God’s grace, then we love his law, and we desire to live in such a fashion as to glorify him. But what do you hear from those who refuse to obey God’s commands? Well, it is too difficult. We can’t do that. That is what the people of Israel said, ‘We are surrounded by people with other gods, and it is too difficult to just worship the one true God, because they will attack us etc.’ So there was a context of the people of Israel, and then there is a context to us today. It is not ‘too difficult’ for whom? That is, just let the rest of the entire revelation of scripture speak. It is too difficult for those who are spiritually dead, but provisionists don’t believe that there really is anybody who is spiritually dead, so they might struggle with that. But you have to deal with heart of stone, heart of flesh. It is right there in the text. You gotta let the whole thing speak.”
That is an illogical argument. If chapter 30 is spoken only to (unconditionally) “regenerate” people, then according to his Calvinist theology, once you are “regenerated” you will automatically “believe,” and you will automatically “obey,” and you will automatically be “saved,” and there are no “ifs” about it. The scripture presents an “if” conditional. It presents it as a real choice, to either obey or disobey—and expect the consequences. “Obey and prosper, or disobey and suffer”—that is the choice. If his theology is correct, then there is no “choice” involved. You are either “regenerated” and automatically go one way; or you are not “regenerated” and automatically go the other way—by a unilateral and unconditional action of God. The fact that scripture presents it as a choice (which may or may not be obeyed) invalidates both his argument, as well as the theology that he is trying to defend. The subsequent history of Israel also confirms this. As long as the Israelites collectively and nationally obey this law, they prosper; when they start disobeying them (against the warnings of their prophets), they are brought into bondage, and chastened until they repent. And when they repent, they are delivered from bondage and prosper again—proving and demonstrating that they had a genuine “choice” all along.
No comments:
Post a Comment