4 Point Calvinism

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is the Dividing Line.

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll -free across the

United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. And welcome to Dividing Line on a Tuesday morning on the 26th of August, today is the 28th of August, Matt Smethurst posted an article on the

Gospel Coalition blog called The Consequences of Calvinism. This was an interview with Matthew Barrett and Thomas Nettles, editors of Whomever He Wills, a surprising display of sovereign mercy.

And as it says, it explores and celebrates doctrines of grace from multiple angles. Barrett, executive editor of Credo Magazine and assistant professor of Christian studies at California Baptist University, and Nettles, professor of historical theology at the

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. You must emphasize the word the or you're mispronouncing the entirety of the name.

I want to make sure you understand that. In Louisville, Kentucky, our self -professed Baptist Calvinist, no oxymoron there, they note,

Baptist heritage drips with Calvinism, much to Ymir Kanner's chagrin.

That's not in the article, I just thought I'd throw that in there for the fun of it. Anyway, Smethurst says,

I correspond with Barrett and Nettles about why their book matters practically, where the Calvinism is a gospel issue, what to make of four pointers and more.

Now, Whomever He Wills is, of course, a response to, whosoever will, the collected papers of those who made presentations at the

John 316 conference a number of years ago. We have responded to the majority of the John 316 conference on The Dividing Line, if you want to go back and look at that, and on videos on YouTube and articles and various other things.

Along those lines, you would think that that would have resulted in a number of excellent public debates on the subject, but remember, debate only goes one direction on this particular topic, with one exception.

I received an email last evening from my dear brother, Michael Brown, and there is a seminary, and I'll just say that it's on the wrong side of the

Mississippi River, that's all I'll say right now, that has asked if they could convince he and I to finally get around to doing that big debate on Calvinism.

So what I want to do, and then I'll be able to tell you, because I'm not, let's just put it this way,

I ain't going to be the home team, okay? I'm going to be the visitors on this one, but what

I would like to see happen is, if we could possibly work it out, is what

I would like to see is a week -long thing, and at the beginning have

Michael and I debate two Muslim apologists, and then have our debate later on.

I think that would really be neat to have the two of us together in defense of the gospel, against Islam, and then later in the week we go at the big issues, or in the middle of the week and then they want to do

Q &A, and I might even get to lecture in some classes at this seminary, which would be very interesting, because again,

I'm not the home team here, okay? That'll just give you an idea of what we're talking about here.

But anyhow, let me go back to the article here.

One of the questions that was asked is, pastorally, what are the implications of embracing the basic message of this volume, or for dismissing it?

And the response given was massive. We don't like to admit it, but how we pastor, do church, and dare we say approach missions in many ways, reflects our theological bent.

Oh, good grief, yes. As pastors, when we pray for the lost in our congregations, do we ask God to actually save them?

Or when we counsel a member who just lost her husband, can we genuinely reassure her that the God who has predestined, called, and justified her will indeed work all things, yes, even evil things, together for good?

Or when we commission missionaries to the field, perhaps even to spill their blood for the gospel, do we believe that God will unfailingly call

His elect in all nations? Those are exceptionally important questions.

And I would agree. There's absolutely no question. I'm middle -aged, heading toward the big 5 -0 here in just a matter of weeks.

But I've been in ministry long enough to know that when you look at ministries, when you look at churches, it's not too difficult to figure out what the real set of priorities that drives that ministry is.

And whether you are thoroughly Reformed or whether you're not will have a huge impact. There is absolutely no question about that in any way.

Then we have this section. And most of you know where I'm going here, but I wanted to give the article to which today's article, which

I'm going to be responding to, was actually responding. This is a very short article, by the way.

So obviously this was not some long discussion. This was obviously cobbled together from probably multiple emails and is meant to be fairly brief and to the point.

And I think some of the criticism of it that we'll look at in a moment missed that. But anyway, what about the death of Christ?

Have convictional four -point Calvinists perhaps failed to adequately consider?

So the question that is asked assumes that convictional four -point

Calvinists have failed to adequately consider something. Now, if someone were to ask me that question,

I would say, well, obviously the focus is on the high priestly role of Christ and the unity of the

Trinity, which is exactly what they respond, exactly how they say it. But that's how the question was asked.

At least two things. One, the priestly role of Christ, and two, the Trinitarian unity and redemption planned, accomplished, and applied.

First, as Stephen Wellam recently argued in his SBTS faculty address, and as David Schrock contends in Chapter 4,

Christ is the great high priest of the new covenant, and therefore acts as a representative, substitute, and intercessor on behalf of God's people.

In doing so, he not only pays the penalty for their sin, but purchases everything necessary, including the work of the Spirit, to bring them to salvation.

Universal Atonement advocates fail to situate Christ's priestly work in its covenantal context.

I agree, especially when we're talking about a covenantal context within the very

Godhead itself. I mean, I'm not the first one to have said this.

John Owen emphasized these things. People have, I think, even more finely tuned what Owen said over the years.

But I am just absolutely convinced, and when we have had dialogues, this is not an area that I have found folks to have much meaningful to say in.

You go into the book of Hebrews, you look at what the high priest does, you look at what the high priest accomplishes, and there is absolute unity between the

Father and the Son. And if the Father, Son, and Spirit together have perfect divine foreknowledge of who will be saved and who will not, the idea that the

Son would undergo in their place to absolutely no salvific end, and if you want to come up with some non -salvific purpose for this, please explain what it might be from the

Scriptures, not just philosophically or speculatively, but from the Scriptures. Where does the high priest offer sacrifice for those outside of the covenant community?

Where is that in the Old Testament? Where is that in the New Testament? We need to see these things. I think that's absolutely vitally important.

The article goes on, Second, to affirm an individual, unconditional, and particular election by the Father, and an effectual, unconditional, and particular calling by the

Spirit, but then to affirm a universal, provisional, and general atonement by the Son creates confusion in the mission of the

Trinity. I want to repeat this because this is very important. Why is it important for us to be precise about this?

Well, let me just completely jump the track here for a second, because I know

I'll remember where to get back to in the article anyways. Let me jump the track here a second and give you an illustration.

Why is it important? It's really easy for me to sit here and say, Look, folks, we glorify

God best when we are consistent in our defense of the faith. We glorify God best when we are consistent in our interpretation of the

Scriptures, etc., etc. Right? Okay. I've recently been really diving into the earliest apologetic encounters between Muslims and Christians.

The earliest ones. So I've been reading the

Nestorian Patriarch Timothy I's dialogue with the

Muslim Caliph. And I've listened now to a couple times. Pretty much all

I've been listening to or writing recently has been al -Kindi's dialogue as well.

These are from around 780 and 820, respectively. So very, very early.

This morning I started listening to Ali Tabri's Muslim, former Christian. So this is from the other side.

His explanation of why you should leave Christianity to become a Muslim. And one of the things that struck me was there are times when, and yes,

Farshad was mentioning John of Damascus and John I, and yeah, all that stuff. But there are times when seeking to be scholarly and honest and consistent,

I have to give the point to the Muslim at times in these debates.

And almost every time that happens, not always, but almost every time, it's when the Christian is attempting to defend something that simply isn't biblical.

They've allowed the opponent to force them to defend something, or their own tradition has forced them in a position of their defending something that's not biblical.

And so if we are going to be consistent apologists in giving an answer in this ever -darkening

Western culture, then we have to be consistent in our theology.

This isn't just a matter of, well, you Calvinists, you just think you're all that hot stuff, and you should just allow for differences of opinion.

This is fundamental and foundational stuff, and it's going to determine how you defend the faith.

A Calvinist is going to defend the purpose of God in creation and the purpose of God in the atonement differently than an

Arminian will. That's just a given. There's no sense to cover that over.

There's no sense to say, well, we're just all on the same page. No, there's a difference there. And there are a number of times, especially in Timothy the

First's encounter, where the

Caliph really asks penetrating questions that demonstrate that he's caught him in an inconsistency.

And when we are engaged in apologetics, that inconsistency is, well, the sign of a failed argument, isn't it?

Yes, yes it is. So back onto the train track here.

Let me read this again. Second, to affirm and... So for a Reformed person, and we're talking about four pointers here, okay?

People who allegedly affirm everything but particular redemption. Allegedly. Again, in my experience, that's not how it works.

Except for a few who've actually read historical theology enough to make the very, very fine distinctions.

But the vast majority of people with whom I have dialogued over the years, this is anecdotal evidence, but I've got a lot of anecdotes to back it up.

The vast majority of my dialogues with people who call themselves four pointers, when you're really pushed, you discover they weren't four pointers.

They didn't really believe in an all -encompassing divine decree. They really didn't believe in total inability.

And their real objections were to unconditional election. So anyways, back to the article.

Second, to affirm an individual, unconditional, and particular election by the Father, and an effectual, unconditional, and particular calling by the

Spirit. So, the work of the Father and the Spirit is specifically in line with the decree of God to save and elect people.

But then to affirm a universal, provisional, and general atonement by the Son creates confusion in the mission of the

Trinity. I agree. 100%.

That is exactly right. And if you present a theology that asserts incoherence in the actions of the

Trinity, there will be people on the other side, on the non -Christian side, on the

Muslim side, on the atheist side, who will catch you. And they will see it.

Remember when even Christopher Hitchens would catch people for their inconsistencies?

You don't have to be a Christian to catch Christians in inconsistencies. It goes on to say,

Robert Raymond captures what such inconsistency would sound like as Jesus prays in the garden,

I recognize, Father, that your election and your salvific intentions terminate on only a portion of mankind, but because my love is more inclusive and expansive than yours,

I'm not satisfied to die only for those you've elected, I'm going to die for everyone. Therefore, as Robert Latham argues, universal atonement, quote, threatens to tear apart the

Holy Trinity, close quote, for it means the Father and Spirit have different goals than the

Son. But as the Reformed slogan, opera trinitatis indivisa sunt, reminds us, the works of the

Trinity are indivisible. The Father plans redemption, the Son accomplishes redemption, and the

Spirit applies redemption, and all three persons of the Trinity are simultaneously and actively involved in each other's salvific work on behalf of the elect.

I love that! Those of you who have listened to this program for more than a year, or for much longer, if you're algo, know that's exactly what my argument has been for a very, very long period of time.

But very, very well said. Now, there are people, of course, who would argue that, well, the very fact that he quotes

Robert Raymond, he's a hyper -Calvinist. James White is a hyper -Calvinist. Those are the four pointers, and that's how they try to get around the weight of that argumentation.

So, that's part of the article. It wasn't a really long article. It didn't go much farther than that.

That prompted, evidently, this morning, Trevin Wax, August 28, 2012.

This is also one of the blogs on the Gospel Coalition. A word to my

Calvinist friends. A nice, pretty picture of a tulip there. Calvin Wax is the managing editor of the

Gospel Project at Lifeway Christian Resources. Brothers, consider me irked.

Irked as in, I love you guys, but you're talking down to me, not with me. That's my basic response after reading a brief interview with Matt Barrett and Tom Nettles about their new book,

Whomever He Wills, that puts forth a robust argumentation for a reformed view of soteriology.

Many of you are my friends, including some of the authors of this volume, so allow me to say at the outset how much I admire your conviction, your theological rigor, and your commitment to rightly interpreting the

Scriptures. Let me also put this little squabble in perspective.

When I consider the culture's current trajectory, as well as the disturbing evangelical capitulation to culture rather than biblical truth, this in -house debate between people who believe and the inerrancy and authority of Scripture is just that in -house.

It is certainly not the most important topic for discussion. Well, let me start my disagreements there.

I am concerned that this is how we approach a discussion of the coherence of the

Trinity, of the divine persons of the Trinity, in bringing about the glorification of God Himself, which, as I understand it, is the central purpose of all of creation.

Many people have been sending me links to the Jerry Walls videos. And I looked at the

Jerry Walls video, started looking at it, and how did it start out? Anybody who watched it, how did it start out? He said, here's the heart of the matter.

What's the heart of the matter to him? Was it God? Was it the coherence of the

Trinity and the works of the divine persons and the glory that results from their work? Was it any of that?

Nope. Nope. It didn't start with God. Arminianism doesn't start with God. That's the problem.

It started with man. And it started with creaturely freedom.

The central issue is creaturely freedom. No, it's not. And when you start there, you've already capitulated.

That's it. It's all over with. And so how

I respond, why is it that over the past number of months

I have spent so much time on the dividing line responding to Matthew Vines and to Harry Knox and discussing homosexuality and the profanation of marriage and all the rest of these things.

Why would I do that? Is that really connected to what

I believe as a Reformed apologist? The answer is yes.

It is. It flows of necessity from the central affirmations that I make of my faith including the doctrine of the

Trinity and the fact that in eternity past the Father, the Son, and the Spirit covenanted together to bring glory to the

Triune Godhead through creation and the redemption of a particular people through the incarnation death, burial, resurrection of Jesus Christ and the union of those people through Him their eventual glorification.

It's all what God has chosen to do to glorify Himself. And when you really think that everything your entire life, who you are what you do your entire existence is to be subjugated to that ultimate criterion that ultimate reality it changes you it changes how you respond it changes what you do and it also changes and determines the means and methodologies by which you're going to interact with this culture and why you're going to do what you do and say what you say.

So, I have to disagree with Trevin Wax when he says well this is just an in -house debate yes, it's an in -house debate in the sense that we are debating with fellow believers but that does not make it and he's not saying it's unimportant but there is a sense here in which he's saying it is certainly not the most important topic for discussion but it is on the level of foundationalism of what's going to determine how you're going to address those other things it's vitally important vitally important I continue on but as one who doesn't follow your logical arguments all the way to their conclusions

I confess my frustration with the type of condescension that often accompanies your passion for your position now

I did not find any condescension in the article you might not have liked the way in which a question was asked but the reality is if you're going to say that there is inconsistency in someone else's position it's real easy for them to say well you're being condescending to me well it would be easy for me to sit here and say well

I think Trevin Wax was condescending to all of us even if I thought that who cares why is it that modern man wears his emotions on his sleeve aren't these things more important than my perceived offenses

I don't understand why it is that in modern Christian context even we can't just I mean

I don't know what it's like and I'm not saying Trevin Wax does this but his response to this certainly strikes me as that way but I don't understand how anybody can live much of a much of an enjoyable life to be honest with you if you're always being offended

I mean I would be the most offended person on the planet the way people address me all the time I mean you know we all need to learn don't we learn this in our churches you know the people that we as elders spend the most time trying to unbend their noses are the people who walk in looking to run into the walls they're always looking for reasons to be offended by others and the people that we know we're not going to have to worry about and the people that are going to do the best and the people that are going to be working the hardest in the church are the people who aren't looking to be offended they're not going well that person didn't say anything to me today or that person didn't compliment me on my dress blah blah blah blah blah blah you know if you've got your if you've got your priorities straight that's just not where you're going to be going so um anyway

I just didn't see it I read the same article I just read it to you and you know people answering a question that was asked to them what do you find inconsistent about the four pointers well it's just you're talking down to me you're not talking with me well if I'm going to say you're inconsistent um you

I guess can interpret that as talking down to you but this idea that well you know all positions are equal you know we have thought this stuff through well if you don't give a good argument in response then maybe you haven't

I don't know particular redemption in service to universal atonement here's an example this is the example of condescension that creates frustration in Trevin Wax here's an example from the interview consider how the question is worded what about the death of Christ have convictional four point

Calvinists perhaps failed to adequately consider well why why not take this out on the person asking the question

I guess instead of asking why do you reject the unlimited atonement view the question is framed in a way that treats four pointers like they have simply failed to adequately consider all the relevant points well if you're going to say they're inconsistent you're either going to say you haven't you've either failed to consider the relevant points or you have considered them and you're just plain wrong isn't that a little bit more aggressively placed it would almost seem to me that for a lot of folks the way the question was asked was almost trying to be politically correct what haven't they considered rather than why are they wrong about that so you're darned if you do you're darned if you don't if you try to be politically correct you get it and if you don't you get it

I normally am not the politically correct one see so I feel sorry for her okay the implication is this those four pointers are good guys but they obviously haven't thought it through as well as we have well when it comes to for example well

I haven't gotten back to it for a while I apologize I need to but the the recent book by the alleged ex -Calvinist who actually was a four pointer that's exactly what

I would say I would say that the position presented in that book has not been adequately thought through it's shallow there are shallow four pointers yes there are it doesn't mean all of them are and the response that was given to this question was not at all commensurate with the idea that well those four pointers are good guys they obviously haven't thought it through as well as we have that wasn't the answer that was given

I mean the answer was a deep theologically rich answer goes on to say no my brothers there are plenty of us who reject the traditional

Calvinistic understanding of limitatoment precisely because we have adequately considered their arguments and have found them wanting the reason

I stand with theologians like J .C. Ryle, Millard Erickson, Greg Allison, Bruce Demarest, and Bruce Ware is because their argumentation is more persuasive than yours well

Trevin if they could present incredibly persuasive arguments in one paragraph why don't you because I'd like to hear it

I would like to hear a response to how it is you can have the father doing one thing the spirit doing another thing and the son doing something completely different the father and the spirit they work in harmony and as someone just pointed out in channel if you found them wanting and their argumentation isn't that rather condescending

I mean really see it's so easy to do that I don't read it that way it was

Theophilus in channel so I'll blame him I don't actually read it that way but somebody else did see so that's his problem but anyways he goes on I understand you believe you are safeguarding the reality of Christ's substitutionary sacrifice when you affirm a definite atonement position many non -Calvinists believe they are safeguarding the free offer of the gospel by affirming the general atonement position the truth is just as Calvinists can believe in definite atonement and the free offer of the gospel so also can non -Calvinists believe in general atonement and penal substitution neither one is necessarily lost by either position that's why

I defend Calvinists from the charge that taking a limited atonement position necessarily leads to apathy and evangelism I'd appreciate that if you defend your general atonement friends from the charge that our position leads to universalism instead of saying our view threatens to tear apart the holy trinity now a couple of assertions there without any reasoning that goes with it for example many non -Calvinists believe they are safeguarding the free offer of the gospel by affirming the general atonement position now we need to talk about that because the phrase free offer of the gospel has become a shibboleth in certain circles and unfortunately it is a shibboleth with hidden presuppositions that are almost never brought out with clarity what do

I mean by that? when we talk about the free offer of the gospel are we talking about the fact that we as believers can freely offer the gospel to all people that we are commanded to proclaim the gospel to every creature in heaven that we are commanded that all creatures all are commanded to repent and believe and that we are under no obligation whatsoever to be searching for fruit, searching for evidence of regeneration doing what the hyper -Calvinists do and saying well before I can proclaim the gospel to someone

I need to see evidence of regeneration and things like everybody rejects that or at least everybody who is not a hyper -Calvinist does but beyond the freedom of the universal proclamation of the gospel there is a a second strain that is now being presented as if it is the only way you can believe in the free offer of the gospel and that is you have to somehow in your mind believe that God has provided everything necessary for the person you are talking to to be saved including

Christ dying for them in their place now of course hopefully immediately they're going wait a minute we don't have access to who the elect are we aren't given that information and they're never, in fact it's interesting they fall into the same trap the hypers do here the idea being that my attitude, my knowledge has something to do with how

I should be presenting the gospel to someone when I can't look into their hearts the wonderful thing about the gospel is you proclaim it it takes care of itself because it's the power of God and salvation the

Holy Spirit of God honors that you proclaim the gospel I don't have to know anything about the person

I'm talking to anybody I really don't

I mean I'm not saying you shouldn't get to know folks but I'm saying if I meet somebody on a street corner

I can present the gospel to them I don't have to sit down and have a cup of coffee and find out where they're from I don't have to do that the apostles didn't do that that's not a necessary aspect of things and so I view

I would identify two different kinds of belief in the free offer of the gospel the coherence view and the incoherence view the coherence view is sort of like compatibilism what is compatibilism?

well, most of us reformed folks believe that God's exhaustive divine decree is compatible with creaturely freedom we define creaturely freedom in light of God's decree

God's decree determines what a creature is what a creature can and cannot do the range in which that creature is going to have choices and that creaturely freedom can only be understood within that context and hence we believe in compatibilism and we point to Genesis 50 and Isaiah 10 and Acts 4 as evidence of compatibilism functioning in the

Bible in the same way I would believe in the coherence view of the free offer of the gospel and that is that there is consistency and coherence between a recognition of God's sovereign election of an elect people with the free proclamation of that gospel to all people based upon a obedience to God this is how

God has chosen to do it he does this through the proclamation of his word the work of the Holy Spirit we are called to proclaim the gospel that's why he doesn't just cause all of us to go poof as soon as we get saved and go to heaven we have a job to do down here we continue to do it he conforms us to the image of Christ as we do these things there is coherence there is consistency between recognizing that God has an elect people and the freedom that we have to proclaim that gospel we do not have to insinuate impute or attribute incoherence to our

God in the process and what do I mean by this? well there are people who will tell you that you have to believe that God when he created decreed incoherent and incompatible desires on his own part that is that God decreed that he would desire the salvation of his elect people and that he would fulfill that desire but he also decreed that he would desire in some fashion anyway not just in the sense of the universal command and in what's called the prescriptive will of God which is found in his law, his law says do not murder therefore it is

God's desire that no one murders yet at the same time we know that a part of God's decree has included a tremendous amount of murdering including in the utmost sense the murder of his own son that's a part of God's decree but this position asserts that you have to believe that God has decreed that he is going to have a desire a true heartfelt desire that he is then going to decree not to fulfill for himself the whole basis of this is that if you don't think somehow your gospel proclamation, your gospel presentation has to be determined by what you think

God is thinking at this particular point in time. How you think God feels at this particular point in time and if you can't have absolute assurance that God is going to save the person you're talking to so in other words you need to know what

God's decree is then you're somehow going to not be as evangelistic or something like that that's the idea.

So God desires to save everybody but God doesn't desire to save everybody he has decreed an incoherent incompatible set of desires for himself so much so that for some

God's desires will remain that way for eternity. I would hope most would admit that well it's only something

God experiences well this is sort of weird, temporally and once eternity has been ushered in that those desires will end.

Otherwise God's determined that he will be as I've said in the past eternally bummed eternally unhappy eternally without fulfillment and I would call that the incoherence view you are presenting an incoherent set of desires on God's part and you can't explain the why outside of yeah well if I don't feel like God wants to save everybody then maybe

I don't want to save everybody well that's making your disobedience and your feelings determinative of what you're going to attribute to God that's going backwards that's your standard

Arminian way of thinking and so when you hear this phrase, free offer the gospel find out what someone's talking about are they talking about the fact that we can freely offer the gospel to everyone because we don't know who the elect are and God saves every single person who has ever turned repentance and faith to him is that what they mean by free offer the gospel or do they mean you need to present an incoherent view of God where God wants to do something that he's actually then determined not to do because that's what people are saying and there's a bunch of them out there and you know who you are and you run around calling everybody else hyper -Calvinist if they don't agree with you and basically

I just would ask all of you just what have you accomplished anyways other than your own little clique of people and causing problems here there and everywhere what have you really accomplished

I just sort of wonder sometimes about that so anyways we go back to the article here and I gotta go back to it quickly because I wanted to go to another one still yet today on a completely different subject

I do struggle to understand what's being argued here

I'd appreciate it he says if you defend your general atonement friends from the charge that our position leads to universalism instead of saying our view threatens to tear apart the

Holy Trinity that's not an answer to the question okay you've listed some big names you know

Bruce Ware wonderful guy but I debate Bruce Ware on this subject because I think he's wrong we go to the word and I'd ask

Bruce Ware or any of the other fellas some of whom are not with us anymore obviously okay that's nice but can you answer the assertion that was made in the article you're responding to rather than just taking offense at it and saying you're all talking down to me how about answering it how is it that the son has an intention other than that of the

Father and the Spirit you are presenting what seems to be an incoherent view of the intentions of the divine person of the

Trinity the best way to refute that is to do what demonstrate it's not incoherent not just say won't you defend us against stuff like that I can't

I can't defend you against it if you don't tell me how I'm supposed to do it can you tell me how

Christ's substitutionary death in behalf of individuals that just from a foreknowledge perspective

God knows are never going to be saved salvific substitutionary atonement sin the wrath of God completely fulfilled for every single person who will then be other

God's wrath for all of eternity can you explain how that is a coherent view

I've not heard it I've heard some amazing attempts but I've never heard a response to it says yes there are statements of scripture that stress the particularity of Christ's sacrifice and it's universality but to squeeze universal feet into tight particular shoes is precisely the wrong choice to make instead when the particular texts are nestled snugly into their universal shoes they fit more naturally

I'm sorry that sounds so nice but what does it mean are they particular texts or aren't they are they universal texts aren't they what do these texts mean

I just get the feeling that again my four point friends want to say hey we want to be in the game here as well but when you ask them okay what specifically do you mean by this then they come up with answers like this and I don't see how that's defensible that's not going to be defensible against someone outside the

Christian faith they want to know well what is this text actually saying is it universal in a particular sense did

Christ die for the Amorite high priest to whom the father never sent any prophets why what did that accomplish what did it do

I don't get these answers I'd like to hear what the answers are but just talking about shoes doesn't help there in the context of the

Old Testament particularity serves universality God chose a particular man in Genesis 12

Abraham in order that through his seed the whole world would be blessed okay God's chosen people

Israel are not selected merely to receive God's covenantal benefits but to be God's missional people like the nations in other words

God's choice of Israel was prompted by his love for the nations a particular nation of Israel was the means by which he would provide redemption for all people yeah but all people means who does that include the

Egyptians I mean it sounds so good but what's the actual application was the choice of Israel really meant to bring all the

Egyptians into covenant relationship with Yahweh no Babylonians maybe

Assyrians possibly um no that's that's not what they were doing seems rather clear and obvious there um anyways um there's much more there just in the conclusion by the way so my brothers

I thank you for your love for the Lord the scriptures of the church I simply ask you consider the effect of your rhetoric on those who disagree with you and that even when you disagree you do not put forth your view with condescension

I don't think that they did and I am very concerned I see this over and over again in the modern context people saying don't talk about these things because it hurts other people they don't like they don't like when you say these things well

I say get your emotions off your sleeve don't attribute stuff to people don't just automatically be looking for reasons why that's awfully condescending don't even don't even worry about that respond for the greater good and don't put your own don't put yourself out there again if I did that I would be the most miserable person on the planet

I mean people say nasty things about me the biggest thing that really does bug me is people who will believe everything they've ever heard about me from people who detest me without actually finding out whether it's truthful or not

I mean Christians are really really liable to do that well I heard that you did this once or I heard and they never check it out for themselves but man if I sat around mulling over these things and writing blog articles about you all need to be less condescending

I would be the most miserable person on the planet and I just don't want to be the most miserable person on the planet my mom taught me a long time ago there are people in this life that choose to be happy and people in this life that choose to be miserable and that ain't me now shifting gears completely because I only have about 14 minutes here

Paul Williams our apostate Christian turned to Islam tweeted this article so I went and looked at it it's on the calling

Christians to the truth of Islam blog and it is by Ijaz Ahmed the

Christian God non compass non compass a most suitable phrase to describe the behavior of the

Judeo Christian God what truly behooves me has to be the complete change of character from the

Old Testament God to that of the New Testament God therefore in my judgment

I have no choice but to deem this God out of his mind before I begin to explain my argument we must first examine the evidence is my rationale is based upon therefore let's examine some verses in the

Bible then there's a number of verses in which God says I am Yahweh Genesis 15 7 I am God almighty

Genesis 17 1 I am the God of your father Abraham in other words there's a lot of places all the way through Exodus and Genesis where God says

I am Yahweh do this I am God do this and of course you go into Isaiah and all sorts of places where this is found the common most frequently repeated statement in the aforementioned verses clearly indicates that in the

Old Testament Yahweh is God there are no two ways about it no one can interpret these verses to be understood that Yahweh is not

God you open up the Old Testament from Genesis to Zechariah you will find littered throughout the scriptures declarations by Yahweh that he is

God the eternal everlasting Lord these statements are frequent explicit extant not sure what that means overtly repeated bold valiantly declared boasted rash and crystal clear almost sounds like he opened up the thesaurus and word at that point and says what other phrases can we use there is no way one can miss these declarations no one has to find the need to imply that he is

God no one has to interpret an ambiguous verse no one has to do anything to prove that Yahweh is the God of the Old Testament because as it is he says so himself okay which brings me to my point what happened to Yahweh according to the

Christian version of events he came to earth and got tired of declaring himself to be God there is not a single unequivocal statement oh they just love that I mean it's

I wonder if if Achmed Ddot had any idea when he came up with that line how many people would become absolute parrots just not one single unequivocal statement in all the

Bible where Jesus says he is God worship me just repeat it over and over and over and over never think about it never actually find out whether it is true or not just repeat it there it is there is

Achmed Ddot again there is not a single unequivocal statement in the New Testament where Jesus ever declared himself

God as Yahweh did in the many verses above isn't that strange now let's just you know just step back for a moment and you know

I just have to say to Ijaz Achmed um you seem to be forgetting a little something well you seem to be forgetting a lot of things um is every single surah of the

Quran the same is it not the case that if you read the

Quran in a contextual fashion and in a chronological fashion that you will see a development that the first portions of the

Quran are primarily emphasizing Tawhid even though that specific term doesn't appear in the

Quran but the Wahad the oneness of Allah over against the polytheists and so on and so forth yes because at that time

Muhammad is a minority prophet and he is calling the Quraish and the Meccans to true worship and trying to expose the errors of polytheism and fighting with the

Mushrikeen and all the rest of that stuff makes sense and later on once you get to Medina you've got more stuff about how the

Ummah is supposed to function and stuff like that it's pretty obvious to see but does that mean that Muhammad changed and Allah changed

I mean he doesn't keep repeating the same things over and over again and some surahs are focused on one thing but that surah doesn't contain the exact same stuff that was found in another one that must mean there must be some change must be a different God well no of course not and you seem to forget that the new testament doesn't undo the old the revelation is still considered to be normative

Jesus said anyone who teaches you that this revelation of God in the old testament that these scriptures are no longer binding they're going to be released in the kingdom of heaven so why does

God have to just repeat himself all the time when

Jesus comes umm you have prophecies those prophecies identify him as El Gabor and Aviad mighty

God father of eternity when John comes he's making straight the way for whom for Yahweh the original followers of Jesus identify him with ascriptions of praise and worship and even cite texts of Yahweh in the old testament and apply them to Jesus so is your argument really that Jesus just sort of you know popped into existence well

I realized your book quotes from Christian fables and says

Jesus spoke from his cradle and talked of course the

Christian fable it's borrowing from Jesus actually said I'm the son of God from his cradle but in your version he says

I'm a prophet and it's even allegedly prophesied according to surah 3 but anyway umm is he supposed to just sort of pop out with a big sign that says

I'm God worship me that's the only way that God could do these things is that it? I'm God worship me is that really the only way

God could do it it's not possible that the

God man could come and actually desire to veil his glory

I mean seriously if you're going to take the perspective you're taking Jesus should have the amount of transfiguration thing that shouldn't have just been with three disciples up at the top of a mountain

I mean if Jesus comes walking in glowing bright where you can't even look at him and he's got

Moses and Elijah with him hey everyone's going to go hey we believe don't you think maybe there's a reason why

God didn't do it that way is it possible just just slightly possible

Ijaz that God doesn't want to present his son in this fashion that maybe the idea of faith is to be something other than just simply accepting some massive overpowering display of glory

I mean if Jesus took a nightly journey around the earth glowing and said believe in me

I'm Jesus well that would be highly effective wouldn't it nobody else can do that Jesus comes flying across same time each night you know just glowing

I'm Jesus believe in me I guess that would pretty much make everybody believe right that would be great but that's not what

God's chosen to do huh and of course it strikes me as just so incredibly inconsistent for a

Muslim to be this condescending and he really does get condescending here I'm not sure I'm going to get to it but he does get really you want condescension you want condescension

I'll show you condescension in a moment when your own Quran says that your prophet didn't come with any miracle other than the miracle of Quran now later generations came up with all sorts of stuff that he allegedly did but that was later on that's odd isn't it why doesn't there any glowing massive demonstration that Muhammad is the final prophet outside of well just the

Quran which a lot of us read and don't really find all that impressive anyways you find it that way but that's a different issue he goes on there is not a single if Jesus the

Christ is the Yahweh of the Tanakh shouldn't he emulate the bold and rash declarative statements of the Judaic God yet in spite of this jealous and glorious God whose persona is magnificent unashamed to announce his power his position we are left with nothing more than ambiguous interpolated excuses more more or less chicken scratch when it comes to the persona of Jesus as a

God timid perhaps shy not even his own mother could have understood that Jesus was trying to indicate his godly stature then we have a quote from Luke 249 -50 why are you searching for me didn't you know that I had to be in my father's house but they didn't understand what he was saying to them such an amazing change the

Christian God went from boasting about his stature to being relegated as incomprehensible by his own mother can you imagine giving birth to a

God and for the entire childhood of the child not recognizing the child as God as a God so timid is

Jesus the alleged God that even when his own mother whom he created does not realize he is God he does nothing yet when a few men looked upon the ark of the

Lord i .e. they disrespected him by looking at a sacred object he killed 50 ,000 persons in retribution 1

Samuel 6 19 yet his own mother his own creation is denying his deity she does not comprehend him to be a

God the worst kind of sin disbelief in God is being committed and so shackled so weak so pathetic so fragile is this

God that he does nothing where is the mighty God the proud Lord of the heavens and the earth nowhere to be found all bold there

I have no choice but to declare this God to be MIA missing in action hence my statement that the Christian God has to be seen as non compass mentis that is to be out of his mind the

Yahweh we're accustomed to is missing when we read the New Testament we don't have a clear explicit statement by Jesus declaring his deity as opposed to that of the

Old Testament of course when we by the way I just stopped for a moment I know you're rather offended by now anyways but let me stop for a moment and when we do get those clear statements we say they're corruptions and reject them anyways

I love the I love the inconsistency you mean like 2nd Titus 2 .13 and 2nd

Peter 1 .1 well that's just Paul you know you just reject that stuff perhaps the

Christian God suffers from selective mutism social anxiety or some other personality disorder whatever the case may be remember this is a

Muslim this is the nasty aspect of Islam and remember Paul Williams who will not debate me because he says

I am a radical fundamentalist I'm sorry an extreme fundamentalist posted this

URL now did he post it to say this is bad stuff no I don't think so he posted it because he wanted people to read this this is obviously extreme fundamentalism

Islam okay so I just found it just incredibly inconsistent and contradictory that Paul Williams referred to something like this anyways perhaps

Christian God whatever the case may be Muslims are not alone in noticing this so striking and clear is the view that these two gods represented in the

Old Testament are distinct that even early Christians themselves declared Yahweh and Jesus to be two different gods this group was called the

Martianites named after Martione so you have Martianites you have

Martione who believes the Old Testament God is a demiurge who believes the creator of this world is an evil God and yet what does each eye identify them as?

Christians talk about double standards to identify

Martione as a Christian is again for a Muslim you know we might as well just identify all the

Muslim groups out there all the little sects and cults well they're all Muslims too and you're now responsible for everything they've ever said right?

the great double standard that marks that marks the modern

Muslim he ends by saying in ending I ask one pivotal question would the real Yahweh please stand up is it the proud

God the Tanakh or the selective mute of the New Testament? so there's some nasty folks out there

I mean that's just absolutely nasty that's trash talking that's exactly what it is and Paul Williams seems to think it's good stuff because he promoted it well there you go we'll get back to responding to and continuing our refutation examination of and refutation of from a very solid foundation of Paul Williams next time around thanks for listening to The Valuing Line Lord willing we'll see you on Thursday God bless

God bless God bless

God bless God bless God bless God bless God bless God bless God bless God bless God bless God bless God bless God bless