11/13/2014 Today on The Dividing Line: David Gushee abandons a biblical view of homosexuality

And greetings welcome to the dividing line. No, it's not really cold here I guess my shirt looks like it is a little colder here, but I mean it's in the 70s right upper 70s something like that I I think it was supposed to be like 77 today.

It's supposed to be high of 72 on Sunday. That's whoo What? Yeah, but I know no no no no no no no seventy five point nine degrees officially dress like a lubberjack

Well, thank you very much. Okay, Phoenix Sky Harbor. It is 80. Okay, never mind. Hey, hi. Hi.

Today was supposed to be 78, but 76 77 and Sunday 70 and a low of 50 all we're doing right now is just yeah

Right now we're just mocking everybody Everywhere else pretty much because I'm seeing all over Facebook and stuff

Summers talking about I had to find this special winter socks that you gave us and and we're all dying here

As I know goodness That ain't happening here ain't happening here.

But that means if it's 50 here Some of the outlying areas it will get down in the upper 30s on Sunday night, so that's

You you look like someone popped you in the face. It wasn't me was not me. There's been no violent.

No, we're good little TMJ thing going on here and you know, it's I Guess I'm getting old and well

Let's not go there Dysfunction, it's as well. Yeah, all of our bodies are falling. I'm calling

Bart. Anyway. Hey, I am Have you noticed? Wow, that looks really different That looks really really different Yeah, well, we turn lights up adjusted the the white balance, uh -huh.

Uh -huh and then of course, uh, I Sort of looks like I'm just looking through the window or something. That actually looks rather realistic.

It's I Was what I was going for move a few things around and make it look a little homie and I get that thing from I I Forget which church

I was speaking in church That is so pretty and I really liked it and they just gave it to me and I I wish

I could remember who it was oh Man that's terrible. I mean for years I did remember who it was and then it's been so long it just goes away

That's that age thing again anyways have has even been noticing the tweets

I Was I this is the third program? one two three third

Third program I've done today Did the Janet Mefford show on this

Simca Yakubovich obviously is running out of money again story It's been seven years since the

Talpiet tomb story. I think since then he claimed to have found that the the nails across and Now he's decoding 6th century stories about Joseph and his wives and turning it into stuff about Jesus and Mary Magdalene and it's

I mean I Think the Talpiet tomb was jumping the shark, but now he's jumping the shark wearing a

Black leather jacket with too much hair gel. I mean he's going for the full funds thing jumping the shark now and As I said to Janet Mefford look if you hear something weird

About Gnostic Gospels Jesus getting married any of this kind of stuff Finding Jesus body all that stuff look at the calendar if it's

November or December February March or April just move on that's when these books come out and People try to make money and that's all they're doing there is making money.

I've got that much respect for Simca Yakubovich. I mean just so we talked about that and then

I was on live with Todd Wilkinson issues, etc. And we talked about Trinitarian heresies an article

I wrote for modern Reformation is out right now on that subject and He did mention one of the categories that I I made up called

What was it confused a Terrian ism, yeah confused a Terrian ism that was the that was the last one and that's just how many evangelicals are just simply confused as to what the doctrine of Trinity is and Some main channel must have watched the video that I linked to Janet Mefford yesterday

James White is associated with Illuminati. Look at the a from the ailment logo. It's a triangle.

Yep Yeah, there are there that that was a that was a great video. I should have queued that up because it was

It was just way too much like too many people I debate How they how they think but I'm trying to get back to here

I have to scroll past Some stuff here and I'm trying to look for Matthew Vines because I started going back and forth a little bit with him

Oh, wait a minute. Where'd it all go? One day ago. Oh, I'm looking at the mind

I'm looking at the wrong thing here Matthew Vines started posting something and I wasn't sure what he was going for at first But the first first one was

There it is those who have been sharing Andrew Wilson's article mockery is not an argument it isn't very

Christlike either and I shared it and I'll share it again and I wish

I had written it because I had I had that exact idea many many times to parallel the absurd abuse of the biblical text that is being

Promoted As serious acts of Jesus by Matthew Vines and by others in his cadre

But to Andrew Wilson got to it first. Well, so what do you do rather than demonstrate? What the error is in the parallel because there is an argument being made there

You just simply try to shame the people making the argument. This is I mean, this is classic

Of Homosexual homosexualist activity This is this is how they do it.

They don't address the argument. They try to shame you for making the argument Which contains an argument in of itself that they won't defend

But there's something wrong in your drawing is parallel. So for example yesterday when

I first posted it There was this one guy going all those that slippery slope argument stuff is is foolishness

Blame why that's just it's arbitrary. Can you explain why they can't explain why it's just all emotions.

It's just all feelings That's what I've said so many times These folks are looking for people to dialogue with who will not force them to Really be mature in their thinking.

There's a tremendous amount of immaturity in homosexual and homosexual The whole homosexual movement tremendous amount of immaturity you hurt my feelings get over it

How about dealing with the arguments you hurt my feelings every day? So what I? Thought when you grow up that you you grow up and you get past that The the level of immaturity is shocking to me.

It really is The biggest thing is thou shalt not offend, especially if you happen to be a homosexual

Not be a homosexual and happen to be a conservative Christian Well, you're you can be offended all we can say all sorts of things about you

We can accuse you of being responsible for for suicides I mean, oh, it's it's all your fault.

And if you're offended, so what but you can't offend us. You can't see the double standard there amazing really is but Yeah, right after Yeah, he retweets

Matthew Andrew Wilson's thing and says those have been sharing Andrew Wilson's article mockery is not argument

It isn't very Christlike either. It wasn't mockery Matthew if you can't even hear what the argument is and seemingly you can't

Well, no, I believe you can't I think you know what the argument is and you know, what else Matthew you can't respond to it

You can't demonstrate where the parallels break down so you have to go the only other way you can and that is to attack the person and To try to shame the person without actually providing any evidence of what they did that was wrong

Other than making the assertion the argument in your words that it's wrong to do this If you don't want to be seen as having contempt for LGBT people

Then don't write and applaud pieces that demean and dismiss them demean and dismiss them What is the argument of Andrew Wilson's piece?

Andrew Wilson's piece those who didn't see it. I'm sorry For those of you who didn't see it Andrew Wilson wrote a piece yesterday where he talked about idolatrous

Christians What he did is he paralleled the common argumentation that homosexuals use with someone who would want to engage in a form of idolatry

So Jesus never talked about it didn't use these terms This is what it meant back then but we know things so differently now

Blah blah all the standard means that homosexuals use to deny the sufficiency of scripture to address this issue

He just turned it to something else. I mean, I've used that argumentation many many times But you know, it could be used for thievery

Gluttony just all sorts of things you could you could find Cultural differences between now and then throw that in there say

Jesus never talked about this real easy to to produce the parallel which Demonstrates the fundamental error and the type of argumentation that is being used by those that are promoting homosexualism within Christianity today and so where's the

Where's the where's the the refutation? How does that? Demean and dismiss them.

So if you argue that homosexuality is a sin you're demeaning people and you shouldn't do that So there can be no debate

I mean This is exactly what came up when Matthew Vines actually took a few minutes a couple weeks ago to interact with me on Twitter Well, I won't debate you because I just don't get the feeling that you're well, basically that you're willing to Admit that I'm a homosexual

Christian. Oh So we have to capitulate before we debate.

I believe homosexual I Homosexuality is not consistent with biblical

Christianity. I was debating that when you were a teenager Okay Yeah, well 2001 so, you know 13 years ago, yeah, okay

Yeah, when you when you were yeah, yeah. Okay, even before you were a teenager. I Debated Barry Lynn on that.

I've debated John Shelby Spong on that so You're you're late to the party on this

Matthew And I'm not going to capitulate my position just simply so you will actually

Stand up be a man and defend what you've put in into writing ain't gonna do it.

Sorry and If you're offended by that, well, I would say well I'm offended by you, but actually

I'm not because you see as an adult I can see the difference between These people have a different view.

This is my view. And so let's debate it Let's find out what the truth is without having to go.

Oh, you heard me Stop with it People. Oh And this is just what happened.

So he he put that out and I responded Once I saw if you don't understand why

Andrew satire is profoundly disrespectful and degrading please work to build more friendships with LGBT people

Friendships will not explain why you think that is disrespectful and degrading You are making an argument, but you but you're making it without Honesty without laying it out there so it can be examined

How can warm feelings about somebody change the reality that the parallelism which he created is a valid parallel?

How does that change anything? I? Know that for modern people who are not trained in logic and they are not trained

To think rationally and they are not trained and are not convicted by their worldview to think the truth is

Vitally important and that we must promote the truth and we must live on the basis of truth

People who think that emotion and feeling is the most important thing in the world Don't get this

But it remains irrational to make this kind of argumentation Okay it's

The only way it's disrespectful and degrading is If you can then demonstrate

That the parallelism that it is promoting is invalid. Why not just demonstrate that?

Take the argument apart then you can deal with it So I respond to that maybe you should come to realize your personal feelings seem to preclude you from hearing cogent argumentation

Friendshipping will not change the reality the Bible's actual teaching about God's purpose in his creation and a few moments later

He posted remember what matters isn't just what your position is, but how you hold and express it non -affirming

Christians You can do better now. We've got this this guy is very good at utilizing

This kind of grossly invalid argumentation and it's grossly invalid What matters isn't just what your position see he won't deal what his position is no refutation

Of what Andrew Wilson wrote and the validity of its argumentation nothing about that. No, no, no No, that's not how these guys are doing this, but how you hold and express it.

Oh, I don't like the way you're saying I Don't like the way you're saying it. Well, what did he say?

Well, you're paralleling us to sinners. Oh Well, our position is that homosexual activity is sinful

So it's a part of our position that it's sinful behavior So you're saying that if we express our position we lose?

Hmm sounds like a really irrational position to hold doesn't it?

Mm -hmm Non -affirming Christians you can do better. See there's an assertion there. What's the better way?

What's the better way to grant us what we want? Capitulate Retrench somewhere down the road, but capitulate on the key issues.

That's what you need to do All right How about explaining the actual error of the parallel made in the argument rather than avoiding its weight

Matthew? if the argument is invalid identify what is invalid you are avoiding the real issue and I didn't get any responses to that.

I Didn't get any response to any of my tweets at all But then just a few moments ago as we were getting ready to go on the air

Let me see here, where'd that one go? I wonder if somebody removed it

Because I had just responded to someone who Yeah, it looks like it went bye -bye and that happens.

Sometimes I hate when that happens I wonder if there is a if you hit the Conversation thing

You conversation there it is Kelly Ray Ramos er

Wrote to me and said I don't think anyone needs to invalidate the argument There's a way to talk about the issue without being hurtful hmm so once again

Why is it? You know, we hear all the time they've won the argument they're not making an argument

Not if you define the term argument in any meaningful fashion they're winning the feet the war of emotions because this next generation has been taught not how to think but what to think and As a result, they are the the slaves of their own emotions

There you go, there you go illustrated by What's going on right now

Hmm amazing stuff amazing stuff. It really is. It's sad sad stuff is what it is

Okay Okay homosexual then she responded

I just saw this Homosexual is not a movement. What is irrational emotional about this conversation?

I'm confused. Well, Kelly Don't have time to explain it to you right now. But if you can't see how

Homosexualism is a movement today and has been identified as such by people on both sides

I don't know what to say about that. What is irrational emotion about this conversation? Your statement that you don't have to invalidate the argument that it's just simply since it hurts somebody then it must be wrong

That is an emotional argument There you go. I will have to I'll have to Respond to that after the program is over No, I didn't see yeah,

I did see Yeah Yeah, yeah people are asking me.

How come how come Matthew Vines is willing to talk to other people not to me? I guess I would my guess would be

I spent four and four over four hours refuting his original position and He must be aware of the fact that He his position is is not going to survive in a dialogue with me so He chooses not to even

Consider the possibility of going there. That would be my guess. That'd be my guess Anyways, let's let's press on.

I want to do a few more quotes Well a lot more quotes from the David Gushy book and then we'll get back to Austin Fisher So we'll have covered a bunch of stuff there

I See a squirrel is mesmerized by the that's not a plasma lamp what is a plasma lamp now, which one would that be the the

That's called a lumen glass That's its technical name is lumen glass. Some people like want to call it the

Borg regeneration light But that's called a lumen glass.

There used to be a lot more choices of lumen glasses than there are now unfortunately, I guess

Now that yes nines off off the earth is not quite as much of it Wait, we need another

Borg movie to get some some some more of them available For purchase or something.

Yeah starts feel old when people start going. What was that? What's a Borg Borg? What?

Only only the die -hard Trekkies know about that And but but then again, how long has it been since lava lamps were real big.

I mean, that's 1970s right there, but just like bow ties and now plaid shirts.

I'm doing everything I can't look at it this way. You don't have a pet rock and you don't have a mood ring

This is true, though. I did like mood rings. They were colorful Colorful.

Can you tell I like color? Yes, I like color Wait, I wear wait till it gets cool enough for me to wear one of my

Coogee sweaters in here Haha, let's let's see your cameras survive that one. They they haven't designed a camera yet They can survive a

Coogee and I'll completely knock it out of the pot That's right. The room was white last time you wore a

Coogee. Oh sure. Yeah Yeah, it's gonna be it's gonna be ugly not the Coogee well, that's good say you just watch it right there boom watch it

Yeah, I know. I know Bill Cosby called me once as he wants his his sweaters back.

But anyway, let's get back to David Gushy And Some of the quotes that I marked from my reading of of his book

He Talks about the situation remains The situation remains that terrible in other parts of the world.

However, including in Africa where retrograde Christianity is playing a major role. So those

Retrograde Christian remember he's already used the term smarter Christianity so dumber

Retrograde Christianity is now why can't I be offended by that? I Consider that offensive, but see if you're on that side, you don't say anything offensive.

No, no, no, no, no, that's that's fine They can they can do it and then just one paragraph later still in more sophisticated

Christian conversations today including many among many on among many on the traditionalist side

The LGBT issue is not couched any longer in the language of deviance and hellfire With the word gay or homosexual a little more than an epithet well, okay but deviance and hellfire deviance as in Moving away from God's intended norm how could you not do that and Hellfire you mean punishment for sin, so it's no longer an issue of sin.

It's no longer an issue of God's natural Intentions for mankind sounds like capitulation to me

There you go, we continue on Oh I forgot to give you locations on those.

Sorry location 717 in the Kindle book and This is not even to speak about the gaps in adherence to the same to sex within marriage only ethic on the part of heterosexual singles

Especially with the rapid rise in cohabitation so what he starts doing is he he starts making the argument that basically well

You know that the church is changing and look at how it's changed his views of marriage well, let's

Admit upfront that if there has not been such a major Cultural accommodation to a collapse in the high view of marriage on the part of Many Christian churches, we would not probably be dealing with what we're dealing with now, especially in regards to the profaning of marriage in regards to saying that two men can marry each other, which is a violation of every

Possible meaning of the word Mary you don't have a husband and a wife You don't have a marriage period end of discussion husband wife male female.

It's all there is to it But I find this to be a real common ploy on the part of those pushing homosexualism especially within the church is

To try to say well, hey, you know We shouldn't be focused on this because there's a problem here is a problem there there may be a problem there

It doesn't change the fact. This is a problem in fact in some ways. It's just simply recognizing that there's sin issues everywhere and That includes

Homosexuality, it's not being used as that kind of an argument But the pastoral decision to seek to minister healing and direction to such couples

Where they are even if it is not God's best as designed could be extended to gay and lesbian couples

Actually, I need the context for that. Well, that was the context so the idea is The pastoral decision to seek to minister healing and direction to such couples where they are in other words outside of marriage

Shack it up. Okay is the term that we used to use Even if it's not God's best as designed could be extended to gay and lesbian couples, really?

This is this is an ethicist speaking folks This is an ethicist speaking.

What he's saying is well, there's parallel here, you know If you've got people that aren't living together now

What should the church do? someone comes amongst us and They're not they're not married but they're living together

Does does the church just well, we don't want to offend anybody. No, you speak directly to the issue you bring

God's Word to bear and that's what you do and I don't even only want to use this gay and lesbian couples.

No such thing a couple Also has a meaning a husband and wife male and female the the created

Gender binary is right there. God made it that way I will not join the movement to rebel against God and to deny the nature of his creation and I would invite everyone else to join with me in rebellion against this movement.

Let's be countercultural couple has a meaning Husband has a meaning wife has a meaning father has a meaning mother has a meaning let's not join the society and scrapping the meaning

Let's start extolling the appropriate Meaning of these particular things.

It's amazing how fast you can get through this book. It's not a long book There are under the

You know what to do number one read narratives of LGBT people as well as reputable work in contemporary psychology to inform your interactions with this population in the ways you speak privately and publicly about these issues dive in if only to be better informed

Be aware that in any room with 20 or more people likelihood is at least one is LGBT and orientation and or identity to two problems here as I've already mentioned when

I started reviewing this earlier It's backwards for any meaningful

Christian perspectives backwards Psychology Personal interaction with people is the primary source you go the

Bible and make it fit what you've concluded from those those sources That's sadly exactly what you have here

Now I don't think there's anything wrong in being familiar with the arguments of the other side and Being totally familiar with what their feelings and emotions are it's interesting

When are we going to start getting that emphasis for all the other behaviors that want to be normalized?

when when are we gonna start hearing read narratives of I L a people

Intergenerational love advocates so read narratives of ILA people as well as reputable work in contemporary psychology to inform your interaction to this population the ways you speak

Privately and publicly about these issues dive in if only to be better informed, right? we should be reading the the first -hand narratives of of those who

Wish to have relationships within families Grandparents with grandchildren

Brother with brother sister with sister. We should be reading their narratives and getting to know them.

That'll help a lot, right? But secondly,

I dispute this next be aware that in any room with 20 or more people likelihood is at least one is

LGBT and orientation and or identity if you mean that that room is simply made up of a cross -section of humanity

Maybe But this is directed to the church So notice the subtle Insinuation here.

The church is simply to reflect Not not it's not a it's not a place of holiness. It's not the body of Christ.

It's it's not what first Corinthians 6 says It's not but you were washed but you no no, no It's just to reflect the society as a whole that struck me that that was

That struck me what's wrong with couple My wife and I are a couple

We share love that is not mirror image love

That's what's wrong with couple That's what's wrong with couple then someone in the channel asked.

I Refuse to give up the word and to allow it to be redefined. That's what Okay Okay Then we went into a section that Once we finally got to the biblical argumentation work were second location 828

We're finally gonna start getting this stuff on the Bible after all this stuff Finally, we're gonna we're gonna get to a very very surface level

Discussion of Of the Bible and He will repeat what many skeptics say so They further ask how

Christians know which way to interpret the verses they do select from the vast canon of Scripture on a vast canon

Who determines authoritatively whether we are connecting the biblical dots correctly? He really wants to throw out some questions about connecting biblical dots

Some skeptics consider this dot connecting to be an essentially random arbitrary and normless process.

Well, yeah There are some skeptics who who think that Then he's all throws out all sorts of things where Christians disagree about that and Christians disagree about that all these fights over biblical texts and our

Interpretation of course led many to a deep skepticism as to whether the canon of Scripture should be viewed as having such profound authority

Now he's gonna say his personal opinion is X Y & Z The problem is that you not really given anything other than his personal opinion

So you're left this idea that I'm not really sure Really? No, I'm not sure that God's really spoken with clarity and look let's be honest.

The only way To maintain this position is to assert that God has not spoken with clarity.

That's it you there is no way to maintain scriptural sufficiency and Be one of those promoting homosexualism within the church.

Just not possible and So I'll stop with this one before we go into the biblical material

If we take the most commonly cited text on the issue from the traditionalist side They're dry from 11 of the 1189 chapters in the

Bible But it is not unusual to hear the broader claim that whenever the Bible mentions licit sex.

It is exclusively heterosexual. Well two points The first is to try to say ah six verses

Here, you've got 11 chapters. He actually expanded the number a little bit thankfully to address some other things

Does not even begin To reflect whether what is being said is true or not

I mean the Shema is only quoted in how many chapters in the Bible and Yet it was the very central affirmation of the

Jewish people that somehow affect its centrality and importance nothing But it is not unusual to hear the broader claim that whenever the

Bible mentions licit sex. It is exclusively heterosexual. That's for sure The Bible has absolutely positively nothing positive to say about any form of homosexual behavior nothing

The only way around that well, they didn't know about what we do You sure about that?

You sure about that God didn't know Jesus didn't know really

Fundamental denial scriptural sufficiency just admit it just just just say yeah, the

Bible's not enough Just be honest just to say it That's really where you are that's that's exactly where you are so Start here.

I Like that that works that works pretty cool. I There's some more from David Gushy put in the clutch

Let's shift gears. I'm gonna I'm gonna look over here and see what this is telling me here

Okay, nothing really specifically on that, all right, so we press forward We had gotten to a section in the old debate

New Day Calvinism thing where I was just about to put

Calvinism into into my Bible program not gonna work too well Not not the section.

I was looking for there at all Where Austin Fisher is attempting the impossible and that is in four minutes to address

Romans 9 and look, you know what? Give him give him his props, you know four minutes not easy to do not easy to do

But we're still gonna take it apart anyways, because He knows that it's it's troubling to his position and and we need to know that Let's remind us ourselves of what the last statements made were

Now according to the Calvinist interpretation Paul's answer to this is basically Unconditional predestination that God is unconditionally elected some of the

Jews But then has unconditionally damned most the Jews leaving them to their sins. He doesn't okay, so he's recognized appropriately

What John Piper recognized in his book the justification of God that verses 6 & 7 are the key hermeneutical

Juncture here, but it is not as though the Word of God has failed For they are not all

Israel who are descended from Israel Now if you're into the national interpretation and service interpretation you got to deal with this

Because the In my opinion when when people try to get around Romans 9, it's not the best you can do

When you try to get around it What is going to absolutely block your path

Like the the 300 Spartans in front of the the Persian army. What's absolutely a block your path are the objections

That Paul himself raises you're not I have never found anybody Who can actually honestly deal with the objections as they are expressed just can't do it and so There is a insinuation of an objection in verse 6, but it's not as though the

Word of God has failed. So Oh Paul all this wonderful stuff. He just got done in Romans 8

Oh, who shall separate us from the love of God and God's eternal purposes and all the rest that stuff

Wonderful awesome Paul, it's great. But um, you guys are a minority movement within Judaism, you know

Um, most most Jews don't buy what you're saying How does there's an objection

How does the Apostle respond to it? But they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel In other words, there has always been even in the history of Israel Divine election

God shows for the promise to go through certain people and it had nothing to do

With their character It was not I'm looking down the quarters of time and I see someone chooses me.

Oh that person's gonna choose me So I'll make the promise go through this this corridor here. Now, of course that raises the question.

What if there was a What if there was a generation where no one chooses to believe

Well, I'd read that raises all sorts of other issues too, but we'll leave that off to the side for the moment the point is that There is a specific

Purpose that God is fulfilling and it's not based upon foreseen merit and actions on the part of the people

It's God's Sovereign specific choice being fulfilled within the people of Israel.

How do you avoid that? Nor are they all children because they're Abraham's descendants, but through Isaac your descendants will be named so it's not genetic

It's not passed down genetically it's not because you've got Jewish genes I think it's important in Romans 11 to I think a lot of people forget that That is it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of promise are regarded as descendants.

So whatever Israel is Children promise

Yeah, it's right there, yeah right there in the text Oh One illustration for this is the word of promise this time.

I'll come and Sarah shall have a son Not only this but there was Rebecca also when she conceived twins by one man our father

Isaac For though the twins were not yet born and not done anything good or bad So God's purpose according to his choice would stand not because of works

Because of him who calls it was said to her the older will serve the younger now look again Just follow the argument just follow the argument

What is the argument? He is saying it's not genetically passed down.

It's not based upon what people do and So verse 11 says for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad

Why bring that up? It's not something foreseen. It's not God looking down the corridors.

It's not mankind by his actions determining God's course of action Contrast so that God's purpose according to his choice would stand

Let's repeat ourselves not because of works, but because of him who calls You know, it's amazing how many people can recognize that when we're talking about justification by faith that language would exclude works and And If the next part was but because of him who calls had something to do with faith

They'd have no problem seeing the complete disjunction between the two but because it's election because it's him who calls all of a sudden all bets are off and Those who are consistent and decrying work salvation justification by faith will look at that and they won't see it

They won't see it because of their traditions I Know a few people like that But the other point is this what's the common way around this?

Well, we'll get back to Austin What's the common way around this on the part of so many people?

Well, it was said to her the older will serve the younger. Oh that comes that comes to the minor prophets You know,

I mean, well actually it's not the ulcer. It's its very next phrase, which is Jacob. I loved Esau I hate it that comes from the minor prophets

So this only has to do with nations has nothing to Jacob and Esau, but what's his whole point?

his whole point was the propriety of God's choice of one line of promise which involved one person

Jacob and it wasn't because Jacob was a really nice guy. In fact for most of us. We read that story we go I wouldn't have chosen

Jacob. I Esau looks like Esau would have been on ESPN all the time, you know,

I mean yeah, they would have had on the hunting shows and the fishing shows and and You know, it sort of reminds me of Brett Favre, you know, it just you know,

Duck Dynasty. Oh, man, you're right He would be a Robson Robertson. He would be a

Robertson I was just thinking about the

Duck Dynasty study Bible. It just came out in New King James work. You didn't know about that There are a few things that they've done recently that I mean look

I've never been able to complete watching a whole show I've never seen any of it. I've Got a curiosity a couple of times

I get about five minutes in it's like What is this? Yeah, why that's that's where I am.

Why would why why I? Okay And I flip the channel

Yeah, me too, but you're right he would have been he would have been one of the Robert Roberts Robin Robertson's Robertson's anyway

It had nothing to do With Jacob was more sensitive Jacob was more godly.

No, no, no, no, no If eventually

Jacob is it's because of God's work within him it's not something foreseen This is the whole point.

So if you come along and say oh, wait a minute Romans 913, that's when the minor prophets This has to be just nations.

What are you doing? You're reading it backwards You're not allowing the

Apostle to make you're arguing with the Apostle for crying out loud You're saying his interpretation is the wrong interpretation

Do you think Paul didn't know Jacob? I loved Esau.

I hated came from Minor prophecy think you didn't know that you think you didn't know it was written later on He's saying it accurately reflects what was said in the older will serve the younger

You're arguing at the Apostle if you go the other direction So there is a consistency here

I've often said and I'll say it again The reason that the other side primarily primarily they're all number of exceptions reason the other side primarily

Wants monologues rather than dialogues is because if you really get down into the text, it's compelling

It's clear. It's weighty. I'm not having I'm not having to say well, you know, this might mean this

Now you just follow the argument you just let the way the argument speak for itself and It's compelling really is

So anyway, I guess we should get back get back as I haven't actually played anything new from Austin so far this week

That looks like that except about four seconds later Actually, it's more than that more than four seconds later

So it's sort of like Going back in time Back to the future.

Thank you. I'm being distracted by the man through the window who's holding up his iPad showing The fact that I think you must like my plaid shirt or something

I don't know flannel, but it's a thin flannel, you know, you don't need thick. You don't need thick flannel and Phoenix yet and probably won't the whole whole winter

Anyway, we go back to listening to Austin And that interpretation really does work fine

Jacob. I loved Esau. I hated if you stop reading at 923 But the problem is

Paul doesn't stop speaking at 923 Paul and then no, no, wait a minute. Hold that works fine if you stop at 923 and He did so to make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he prepared hand prepared beforehand for glory.

So You're admitting That What we have here is specifically in reference to Salvation He has mercy on whom he desires he hardens whom he desires you're admitting that or you're saying

That what is said later on will somehow provide such a massive Recontextualization That it's not really

What we've always thought it was saying one of the dangers here is

Four minutes you can end up saying things you don't really Mean to be saying Paul keeps talking and in particular

Paul gets to the head of his argument in Romans 11 11 through 32 Which is the climax of his answer to this question

Okay. Now notice what's being asserted there that the climax to his answer to this question is

In chapter 11, I disagree That's not the climax the answer to this question

He answers this question in chapter 9 he makes application that continues to build all the way into chapter 11, but the answer to the question

Again is found in the objections That are

Presented to the Apostles own position So he says so then he has mercy on whom he desires and he hardens whom he desires

You will say to me then why does he still find fault for who resists as well? So there is the objection that is being presented to him

On the contrary, who are you a man who answers back to God? Yeah, I'm not sure that I like this new feature

I Guess because I hooked up dropbox to accordance now Would you like to continue where you left off on another computer or device this will close your current session and load the latest from Dropbox.

No Go away. I'm gonna have to find the control for that and say hmm.

That's cool idea I suppose unless I happen to be doing the program and you decide to do that I don't see it hit a return and now

I'm someplace else that would not be a good thing. Anyways Uh There's the objection on the contrary who are you old man who answers back to God the thing mold will not say the mold or Why'd you make me like this?

Well, it's a the Apostle responds and It seems to me that what these guys are doing is you know, what?

We're not gonna we're not gonna get anywhere Going into the biblical text there. We're gonna need to go someplace else.

We're gonna go someplace else and so let's let's bail on Romans 9 and And let's head to Romans 11 why have so many

Jews rejected Jesus and what does Paul say there? Well, he says in Romans 11 11 that these supposed Jews who have rejected is who in Calvinism, right?

Are the unconditionally predestined to hell he says in Romans 11 11 that they have not stumbled so as to fall

See now he leaves the section that's about individual salvation and he wants to go to group

He wants to leave what's you got here? And now he wants to go to the group Because in Romans 11 what you have is the general statement of look

Gentiles and the church ignored this the church ignored this but Gentiles Cannot boast against the

Jews who've been cut off for their unbelief. Obviously not all Jews, right? Paul's a

Jew So he's left the specific individual focus of election

Romans 9 now. He's talking groups That have individual Exceptions to the rule that is all the

Jews that are being gathered in being saved even in Paul's day The Lydia's and and so on and so forth

So now he's going to the groups to try to create a theology that will somehow get rid of this specific teaching that's found in Romans chapter 9.

So he's saying to the Gentiles that don't boast against the Jews because If you unbelieve if you're filled with unbelief, you'll be cut off as well just as they were

Which really only makes sense If you recognize that faith is actually the gift of God the work of the Holy Spirit of God and you wouldn't be boasting anyways

But anyway, that's what he says. So he's jumped took him to a later part of the argument to avoid

The application of the earlier part of the argument which causes him a problem Right and just as a side note if being unconditionally predestined to hell is not stumbling so as to fall

I'm afraid I don't know what is And then Paul goes on even more importantly Romans 11 18 through 23 to say that these again supposedly unconditionally predestined to hell

Jews Now notice what he's having to do here He can't

He he can't just deal with the text. You have to keep poisoning the well

What what Calvinist? Interpreting this text is going to import that idea into a discussion of classes as If Paul is discussing that at this point,

I mean, this is just isogesis. This is Argumentative isogesis I guess is what we would what we would call it

Where you you take one element you make it the overriding issue of all things And then even if the people promoting that don't do it you read it into everything

Sort of helps you to get around your isogesis and the fact that you're skipping over the part of the matter They can actually be grafted back into God's family if they don't continue in their unbelief

Whereas conversely these Gentiles who've become a part of God's family that they can get kicked out if they don't continue in God's kindness

Now you see why it's vitally important to see the difference between the discussion in nine and discussion 11

Discussion 11 you're now talking about groups as a whole You're not talking about the direct objects of God's electing grace which you have in Romans chapter 9 by conflating them

You're now turning the scriptures on its head and it becomes a mishmash of self -contradiction All of this to say when you read

Romans 9 through 11 all the way through instead of stopping at verse 23 Which is what usually happens when you read

Romans 9 and actually deal with what's between verses 6 and 23 and accept it and believe it

And then recognize the transition into other arguments later on it all fits in that amazing

And it's very clear that the supposedly Unconditionally predestined to held use of chapter 9 simply are not unconditionally predestined to hell

Just add this a lot has been talked about God's sovereignty, you know And how if you're not a Calvinist you have to sacrifice

God's sovereignty and as Brian said God's sovereign enough to limit his sovereignty to have A world where meaning and freedom or possibility is not really illusions

Which I think they are with the determinism and compatibilism of Calvinism and more so sovereignty without goodness is no comfort uh,

I I Know there are many who

Repeat the phrase God sovereignly chooses to limit his own sovereignty That shows such a fundamental

Misunderstanding of what? Sovereignty actually means in its fullest sense sovereign

Sadly when someone makes that kind of a statement They are

Thinking on very human level very human level there. They're bringing God down to what would

What would a man be like who had all power or all authority or something like that? Sovereignty isn't something

God does Sovereign is something God is sovereign describes the actions of God Because he's

God so you saying that God Can choose to be less

God? Than he is For some people that's exactly what they are saying because what they're saying is that in essence

God has made room for little gods for little autonomous creatures

Now if that's your if that's your View of what

God's purpose in creation is. Okay. Can you show me where the Bible teaches that?

Is I I seem to recall King Nebuchadnezzar You haven't sit in this chair for hours a

King Nebuchadnezzar came to the conclusion that the king of all the universe

Has made all sorts of other little kingly creatures and we have this this great freedom, right?

That's not what he said And Ephesians 1 yeah The the God who works all things after the counsel of all the little gods pleasure and will that's not what

Ephesians 1 says Either I just I just try to find out where anywhere in Scripture you get this idea

That the God of the Bible is all about making other little gods Who are autonomous creatures?

You can assert it People will like it people that that's at that definitely strokes the ego, you know

You're you're an autonomous creature and God responds to you and all the rest that kind of stuff

But it's just incoherent to say that that's a biblical teaching because it is it is not anywhere near a biblical teaching and So it sounds real nice to say that God sovereignly limits his sovereignty

But that means you don't really understand what sovereignty is Because it's simply

God acting as God It's it's God being consistent with his own nature it's

God fulfilling his purpose in his creation. It's God glorifying himself I mean this kind of stuff

May fly in you know, the emergent coffee shop Church I Guarantee you one thing this stuff doesn't fly in the in the debate forum

With people outside the Christian faith. I mean, have you noticed that these these guys that are promoting this kind of stuff the

Brian Zahn's like They're not exactly on the front lines of apologetics It's that that form of squishy

Stuff doesn't doesn't do well in on the battlefield really really doesn't Sovereignty without goodness is not about comfort.

And again notice just sovereignty without goodness Kofi already

Kofi already got me a memed and quoted Sovereign is not something God does sovereign is who

God is. Someone is listening in Milwaukee London Thank you.

I Knew I knew when I said it someone's gonna do that wasn't trying to do that But I just I just knew that was gonna happen.

And there it is from London No less where I can guarantee you it is cooler

Cooler temperature wise it's also cooler in other ways. I gotta admit it's no, it's

I I just think about the the escalator in age on an angel station and Kofi knows the escalator angels.

It's huge. It's it's massive longest escalator in Europe, I believe Anyways, sovereignty without goodness, huh?

Sovereignty without goodness if sovereignty is in fact what

God is and it marks everything God does and God is good then his sovereign actions

Define what is good and what these guys are saying? I've listened Austin Fisher and I've listened to his teachers and I've listened to what they're saying

And in essence what they're saying is we little teeny tiny creatures living here on planet

Earth who know? One one billionth of the knowledge that's available even to our society and that is a small portion of knowledge available to God We don't know what's going on in this world.

We don't see how it's all going to end We don't see how it's all going to go come together to demonstrate

The praise of his glorious grace and yet it's okay for us little creatures to stand up on our little hind legs and Determine that what

God does isn't good God can't wipe out them. They're Canaanites.

Oh he gave him 400 years and The stuff they were doing was incredible, but no, he can't do that I Don't know

I just find I just find that to be at the very best sub -christian the very best sub -christian thinking just like I predicted there is no explanation here of how

God can hold people responsible for sins that he ordained predestined and Wanted them to commit because there is no getting around that one at the end of the day

And so you have to decide if you think the Bible teaches you to live with that And of course there is Austin's whole argument

Equivocating on the will of God want versus will That's the argument.

He's getting hardened in it It's becoming sharper not sharper in the sense of better defined and stronger sharper in the sense of expressed with less hesitation

That he did than he did earlier Which troubles me because once again,

I was a teenage Calvinist doesn't really give you the basis I think Or to make to make that kind of argument that kind of that kind of assertion

All right. So the next time we pick up here we will have only five minutes from Brian's on and then we'll be done with this one and I'm not sure if I'm gonna go back to The Michael Brown's on thing or if I'm gonna go ahead and go through Michael's opening statement, but when we do

You know if we do a just whole radio free Geneva thing or whatever Or if we sort of mix it in with other stuff like we did today.

That's where we'll be where we'll be going. I believe next week is

Normal week. It's the week after that that things get a little bit weird because I'll be heading to Kiev and Berlin of The 28th

I believe so Anyhow next week should be normal schedule. Always watch

Facebook the blog Twitter. We put all that stuff out there We try to communicate that way when we have to sort of change or change the schedule around but lord