Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
White.
Good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line. My name is James White and we are live this week. Last week I had made some reference to the fact that possibly we wouldn't be live this week. But my trip out of town was canceled.
And so we are here and will be for the foreseeable future at least until a long time When we're gone during the month of July. So we've got some some ideas as to what we're gonna be doing the next number of weeks and we will be live here on The dividing line now two things today.
I've got well a couple different topics that we could address but Two things we will be addressing and we'll be listening to some comments from Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples on the program today and responding to those and yes I have continued looking at Dave Hunt's new book called.
What love is this? In fact, it's been difficult not to I had received it the actual copy of it. I'd actually seen it first in st. Louis at the personal freedom outreach conference on discernment. Mr. Hunt had a single copy on his table and had a sign-up sheet for people who would pay for it then and then have.
It shipped to them and I had leafed through that one. Only had a few moments. I looked up some specific passages. I had had it on order for quite some time had ordered it in fact in December of last year and it finally arrived last week didn't have a lot of time before the program to Look up more things other than just many of the comments that he made concerning me.
There are many references to the Potter's freedom in the book. And so I was working at grabbing those and so last week when we were looking at passages That was based on a very brief review of the book.
I've now had more time and Absolutely Amazing the things that I have discovered for example in looking through the materials I Found on page 306 those of you who have the book. These words the gospel of God's grace which seemingly is offered to whosoever will believe must be imposed and that only upon those who God has elected as White explains this is why irresistible grace is an absolute necessity.
Then he quotes from the Potter's freedom Unregenerate man is fully capable of understanding the facts of the gospel. He is simply incapable due to his corruption and enmity to submit himself to that gospel dot dot dot dot.
To which mr. Hunt then responds. It's on page 306. This is a terrible attack upon the gospel Rendering powerless what Paul declares is the power of God and the Salvation Romans 116 and this is what white calls the reformed position.
Now I must admit if I had run into the numerous assertions that I engage not only in scripture twisting But in eisegetical insertion of foreign elements into this into the Bible and then here that I engage in a terrible Attack upon the gospel that I render powerless the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I'm not sure that the conversations that I had with. Mr. Hunt would have been quite as Quiet as they turned out to be. In fact, I have a hard time Thinking about the fact that we sat at a dinner and there was not a word of warning.
I mean if I had written stuff like this about somebody I think I would have raised those issues and talked about them, but those things didn't happen. And so later in the program today, we're gonna continue looking at what love is this Calvinism's misrepresentation of God specifically looking at two things and that is Dave Hunt's misrepresentation of Calvinism and Specifically of Charles Haddon Spurgeon.
I think you'll find that most interesting. I mentioned it last week. But now I have the full quotes to read to you as well as the fact that there is an entire chapter found in.
The.
Toward the back of what love is this an entire chapter chapter 20 Which is Dave Hunt's and I I'm not trying to be unkind here but Desperate attempt to deal with John chapter 6 and I say it's desperate.
Because once you read it, you will see it's filled with special pleading. It's filled with emotionalism and it's filled with rank errors on the meanings of words. The grammar of the Greek text and everything else.
It is it is truly an astounding example of how very very poor Dave Hunt is as far as his ability to engage in exegetical Research and in his study of of history and in argumentation and Toto it was it's truly amazing.
We'll try to spend some time looking at that and if you don't catch all of it. Or if we don't have time to look at everything today. Then I will be posting on the website an open letter to to Dave Hunt.
And I will be discussing in that letter these issues in significantly more detail than I have opportunity to do Here on the program and I provide References and all sorts of things like that. I would like to have that open letter done this weekend if I can but I simply cannot promise that I will do so because generally what's going on is as I Look more and more at the book and provide further Further responses to the book.
I find more and more things that need to have response and I'm I'm trying to resist the temptation. But I'm you know, I'm only human. So anyways, so we'll be we will be looking at that. But before we do that since we talked about it last week the the book last week.
I want to address some other subjects and in in essence We got a I don't remember if it was a phone call. I think it was a phone call. The two we were contacted by someone who noted that in the May 7th program of Catholic answers live an Announcement was made and so I I went to the it was an email.
Okay. Thank you. I went to the Catholic answers live website and began listening and lo and behold who was the guest apologist in the In that particular on that particular date, but Tim Staples now those of you who do not know Tim Staples I have debated to mr. Staples twice once in I believe it was 1998 both these were in Fullerton, California on that was on the subject of soul scripture the second time in 2000 on the subject of.
Papacy and specifically papal infallibility we have those debates available if you would like to Avail yourself of them. One of those is on straight gate .com as well. If you want to go over there and listen to that anyways.
Mr. Staples and I have also done the Bible answer man many many times actually only twice, but we did multiple hours each time and So we know each other pretty well. During the course of listening to the program the first thing that I found very interesting was mr. Staples addressing the subject of Predestination and election and the reason I'm raising this is I know that so one of our our favorite callers Who let me see here is not in channel at the moment.
Anyways, maybe he's Dispensing burgers and fries somewhere. If you know what I mean, yes, I think you're correct Spencer. I think it was 96. I was wondering is there's about four years between the two of them.
So by 1996 anyways.
We.
This this particular caller has raised the possibility of mr. Staples and I debating again in the Southern, California area. I had said after the last debate. I'm just not going to do it again because mr. Staples cannot.
Be.
Trusted to Behave properly and it is very clear that st. Joseph Catholic radio cannot be not st Joseph Catholic radio. St. Joseph's communications cannot be trusted. If they are in charge of the recording of the event the reasons for this are listed on our website.
But in essence, we were promised if videotapes were made we'd receive copies. Videotapes were made. We were refused the copies. I imagine they've probably been destroyed for all I know of the last debate and Also, mr. Staples has simply refused to follow the rules and The moderator of the debate would Jerry Usher who is the host of Catholic answers live Seemed utterly powerless to stop.
Mr. Staples or do anything about it. In fact, I was thinking this morning every time there has been a debate that went south in the sense of people misbehaving it was due to the fact that a Roman Catholic moderator Refused to do anything.
As I thought back I remember the very first debate I did with Jerry matics he did not mention the subject of the debate for the first 14 of his 20 minutes and Who was the moderator of that debate Patrick Madrid?
Art Sippo. I get up to give my presentation art Sippo leaves and goes and gets a coke. Because art Sippo doesn't need to hear what any Prost and has to say because he knows much more about anything That a Prost and could ever know anyhow and therefore his behavior was never rebuked either and who was moderator of that one Patrick Madrid and Tim Staples gets up during the question-and-answer time in Fullerton in 2000 and takes the first few minutes of his Time to be asking questions to respond to what I had said at the previous part of the debate and there stands.
Mr Usher doing nothing. So what I'm getting to is Is what I would like to have take place is. Here's here's my idea. Mr. That our caller Zorro as we call him affectionately in Channel Johnny Has said he would like to try to arrange another debate with mr Staples possibly a two-on-two debate between myself and Eric Stenson versus mr. Staples and somebody else and that's.
That's fine and In the process though, these are the things I'd like to lay down as as the issues. First of all, we would not have a Roman Catholic moderator. We would have a moderator who actually moderates and would be empowered to enforce rules of debate a.
B.
St. Joseph's communications has nothing to do with this. They will not to be there. They will not have any control over anything that happens because they cannot be trusted. They have lost all credibility as an organization because they will say one thing and do something else.
We've documented that there's no question about that. Therefore they cannot have anything to do with it. If they'd like to have the tapes to distribute them later We would be more than happy to provide them to them because unlike st Joseph's we do provide tapes to those people that we promise to provide them to so With those Caveats that is a moderator who is instructed beforehand that mr. Staples likes to break the rules the debate therefore he needs to be held in check and st. Joseph's communications is.
You know you they can come and sit in the audience they'd like but they have nothing to do with the debate. There's two topics that I would be more than happy to debate. Mr. Staples on in Southern, California.
One is predestination election and I'm gonna play you a clip here in a moment with his comments about this subject and You'll see why one of the reasons why is is back when I was preparing for the last debate with him In a in a tape series entitled Infallibility versus impeccability which is published by st. Joseph's communications tape one second side you can go and you can go and Look at this yourself.
You will hear mr. Staples say the following now. And a lot of folks folks in the channel love to imitate Tim Staples because they'll say folks folks folks listen to me folks Mr. Staples says that a lot.
But anyways You can go and listen to this and he's talking to the quote-unquote hometown crowd. So Tim gets very very animated in regards to having these kinds of conversations when he's talking to the home crowd and so Here's I'm just gonna read you exactly what I said.
I typed this out the time I didn't have time to go find it on the tape and then digitize it and do all the rest of stuff. But you can find it. Here's what he said. On the second side tape one. You do have some Protestants who tend toward that sort of schizophrenic understanding of the human person.
You know, it's not me that sins. It's my body if you have ever heard of hyper of the hyper Calvinist movement or the one saved always save people that will say oh, I'm saved my body over there just messes up.
But I'm fine, then he laughs and says, you know, that's not biblical folks. There's no biblical thing for that. It's a misinterpretation of Romans chapter 7, but that's another story so there's There's there's mr. Staples and as you're gonna hear he just finished writing an article for Envoy magazine on the subject of predestination, which I Remember Tim's a graduate of the Jimmy Swaggart Bible College so that will explain something about why he would come up with the Hyper-Calvinists or once saved always save people are the same ones and I mean, I just that anyways it would be enjoyable to debate the subject of predestination and election and I will be glad to defend the thesis that God from eternity past has elected a specific Group known as the elect unto salvation and So I would be glad to do that.
The other thing would be The immaculate conception and the bodily assumption of Mary. Mr. Staples likes to speak much upon the the Marian the doctrines and so I would be very happy to engage him on that too, so I would be defending in one and I would be he would be defending in the other and so I would be more than happy to do that if however We have a moderator who will actually moderate the debate and.
If we.
Can control mr. Staples and also if st. Joseph communications is not involved without that then it's not going to happen because we can't trust st. Joseph's and If we have a moderator who cannot control mr. Staples, then we're gonna have the same problems we had before.
Those are the those are the suggestions. Now here is the first call that got me thinking about this and of course. We've been thinking about ever since Johnny and suggested. I haven't heard anything back from him.
But anyways, here's here's the call.
And this ties in right into James Aiken's book. So I guess I should get that next. And I don't mean to sound pretentious when I ask this but what is it's kind of like a theology final. Can you compare and contrast the Thomist versus the Molinist?
Plans of predestination. Sure and and that's in two minutes or less, right? I guess I don't know. Well, basically, I think the key is in this this discussion on predestination. In fact, I just wrote an article for envoy magazine about predestination and I looked into this quite a bit.
I think the catechism in paragraphs 600 just does in 600 through 604 right there does a tremendous job at Giving us a system a synopsis of the truth concerning predestination. There are certain there is no doubt a certain mystery to predestination but basically what the church has said no matter which position you hold to be at the Molinist or Thomistic or the Position of Suarez the Franciscan and there there are some basic differences here.
We cannot go too far in one. We would deny the free will of men in this process of salvation that we're in and We cannot go too far the other way and deny the necessity of grace and historically This has been if you read the writings of st Augustine where the church has always been doing this the balancing act between the heresies of for example The Manichaeans who taught and Augustine deals with them who taught a strict sort of fatalism or predestination.
To the other end of the spectrum that Augustine dealt with the Pelagians who taught that grace is not necessary. Both are heresies. What we believe as Catholics is that God gives sufficient grace as Titus 2 11 says in sacred scripture the grace of God that brings salvation at the peer to all men all Men have received and will receive sufficient grace to be saved.
We must and here's where we get into the disagreement among our with our Calvinist friends that we must Cooperate it's of God that God gives to us, and if we choose to cooperate with that grace We will be saved if not we will be damned.
Now the Thomas now if you've ever read I Recommended the fundamentals of Catholic dogma by Luther God. He gives a pretty good little Synopsis here on page 243 of his book fundamentals of Catholic dogma and basically without reading his words Would say that the Thomas position Emphasizes the idea of efficacious grace that God gives Efficacious grace to men before Their cooperation with that grace the Marlinist emphasized the fact that God.
Sees.
Beforehand how men would freely react to various orders of grace, and it's in light of that knowledge That he communicates graces. He knows infallibly we would say in advance What use the individual will make of the grace bestowed on him and therefore?
He gives graces accordingly. Now both positions can be held by Catholics. I believe that there's a there could be obviously it's a danger in both positions if you go too far in the Marlinist position to to exclude grace and the necessity of or if.
Then there are those who use st. Thomas Aquinas and go too far, and I don't believe st Thomas did this but they go too far and have God choosing arbitrarily, okay? I'm going to give you efficacious grace, and I'm not going to give you efficacious grace.
There has to be in order for it to be Orthodox. There has to be a sense in which we say that man at st. Augustine says he will not save us without our cooperation, and I think that's the real key for us.
That help Eric.
Kinda, I guess. Oh, yeah, if you want to take a look at this. But father William most has a book where he goes into great detail on this issue of predestination. If you want a shorter synopsis, I would say fundamentals of Catholic dogma by dr. Ludwig ought does a good job and again get a hold of the catechism.
The catechism of the Catholic Church does a. Just a fantastic job. Now is the book by gregor legrange too thick for somebody without a degree or not I'm sorry. Can you create a nation?
He asked if there's a book by father gregor legrange if if that would be perhaps too thick for someone.
I would you say Eric without a degree in theology? Yeah, actually, I think that father William most book is really thick as well. I I really believe that the hell in the wisdom of the church when the when the battle was heated between the The the Jesuits of course it teach the Marlinist position and the the Dominicans basically, you know.
The Pope told both sides to shut up. You know and and the church has given us the parameters.
Of.
Orthodoxy that we have to acknowledge free will and we have to acknowledge the necessity of God's grace. I I believe that both sides. When you read the the Dominican position you see grace. You see the glory of God's grace and his power and the necessity of and Our complete impotence to get ourselves to heaven apart from God's grace.
When you read the Marlinist position you see the glory of man and the glory of our free will and the dignity We have as human beings. Human persons create an image and likeness of God. We must freely choose to cooperate With the Marlinist position as well.
You see. You know sometimes I've heard it explained this way before that the Marlinist position kind of has us Kind of like a football being kicked around on a field that God.
Moves.
Masterfully all the pieces into place though. We're absolutely free to choose one way or the other. God, you know at some point gives us an offer. We we can't refuse.
Gives us an offer. We can't refuse the glory of the free will of man, etc, etc, etc. I hope you listen to that because you know This this whole emphasis that we just heard in Tim Staples and his Roman Catholic response Which you know, there's a bunch of things that that immediately strike the mind that you want to you want to address.
But the whole emphasis is found. There is the very same emphasis that is found in Dave Hunt's book. And that's what I tried to explain to. Mr. Hunt. Almost two years ago now is that on the issue of the nature of grace and the will of man?
He and Rome stand side by side Against the Reformers and he just absolutely refused to accept that he simply would not Allow that point to stand but he had nothing you can say to refuse to refute what I had said.
When you hear you kept hearing mr. Staples say to be Orthodox that is Roman Catholic Orthodox you must affirm the necessity of grace and How many times have those of you who've listened to the dividing line over the years heard me say?
The issue has never ever been The necessity of grace the issue has always been the sufficiency of grace and when it comes to that.
Issue.
Non-reformed Protestant who Rejects the electing grace of God the deadness of man and sin the doctrines of grace as we call them. That individual stands shoulder-to-shoulder hand-in-hand with the Roman Catholic because the issue is.
Sufficiency of grace and you just heard it. You just heard it very clearly. Well, we have to be Orthodox. We have to say that grace is necessary. But we then to be Orthodox must limit that grace to being able to accomplish Only what the will of man allows it to accomplish we must Limit God's Grace to that which man will allow it to be it cannot be free.
It cannot be sovereign it has to be given to everybody and Then man chooses what he's going to do with it. We just heard mr Staples saying that but is that not exactly what many quote-unquote Protestants say today and Then we wonder why that section of Protestantism cannot produce a meaningful and challenging apologetic against Roman Catholicism.
It's because on the very issue of the gospel. They are standing side by side with them. That becomes the issue. Now it's it's fascinating as well. It's it's hard to Not chuckle just a little bit. Think with me just for a moment Roman Catholic apologists are constantly asserting The the unity that is there is because the clarity of the teachings of the magisterium.
The magisterium can explain God's truth and that's why we don't believe in solo scripture is the Bible alone can't do that and and we have the clarity of the Magisterium and that's why we have such unity is that we're not like you Protestants.
We're not left with just a man and his and the Bible with the the paper Pope out in the woods, etc Etc, etc. I mean we've all heard it over and over again. If we've ever tried to talk with Roman Catholics to any extent of time at all.
Oh Just last night. I was waiting for someone to come in on another network so I could discuss something with them and there was a Fellow with the nick of pious the 12th and channeling. Oh my goodness.
It was just the same Canned statements over and over and over again just just unbelievable. But anyways In talking to this guy he same thing while you did solo scripture was never heard of before Luther and and You people just you have no idea what to you can possibly believe because no one can agree without the teaching magisterium, etc Etc, etc, etc well here you can Certainly find unanimity amongst Roman Catholics on certain issues.
I mean, it's pretty clear what a Roman Catholic has to believe about such tremendously central issues as the bodily assumption of Mary. Or the immaculate conception. I mean you can you can get right down to the exact level of Exactly how the the grace of Christ was applied to Mary in a in a way before.
Her.
So she does not contract the stain of original sin. It's a preemptive application. I mean you can get really specific. I mean the the magisterium can get very very specific when it wants to. But did you notice something in listening to?
That entire section from from mr. Staples for some reason while Rome can can get very specific on things about Mary. All the Rome can of all the Roman Pope can do is Tell the Jesuits and the Dominicans to shut up on what.
On the very nature of grace. I mean Roman Catholics can believe absolutely positively contradictory things. You can be a Mullen ist and Believe that God has middle knowledge and don't ask me how in the world.
Maybe I missed it, but did he managed to go through a whole discussion of Mullen ism without mentioning middle knowledge? But God can have middle knowledge and God can absolutely Micromanage the entirety of time while allegedly doing the whole thing just so he can preserve quote-unquote free will or you can completely reject that you can believe something almost 180 degrees different and Rome can't tell you what the truth is.
The folks think about it how much more of scriptural revelation Is on the subject of the nature of God's grace and the sovereignty over time that on the Immaculate Conception. That should tell you a little something about Roman Catholic epistemology and how it just doesn't work.
Well, we've got another clip to play but we're going to take our break first and when we come back we will listen a little bit more about Tim Staples respond to something he said and Then move on with what love is this by Dave Hunt.
Calvinism's misrepresentation of God. Well, then why is Dave Hunt misrepresenting Charles Haddon Spurgeon and myself? We'll find out right after this. And welcome back to the budding line. My name is James White and we are talking about a bunch of different things today We were listening to a little section from the May 7th Catholic answers live program.
The reason I was listening to the program was not however because of a caller talking about Mullen ism and middle knowledge and predestination or things like that instead it was about a caller later on and some comments were made there and.
Here is that call. Next up would be Diane from Michigan. Hi Diane.
My.
And I'm worried about my husband and How he believes in faith. He's very open to let me believe what I want to believe and we're raising the kids Catholic and doing everything. They're four and six. Yes, but I'm really worried about him and his salvation and.
How do I.
How do I I get it across to him what he needs to believe but without evangelizing to him and turning it off. Do I just need to pray the Rosary to Mary for that and to God. Not pray to Mary but pray with Mary.
Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, you know, I tell you I have so many friends that are in your your position and If you remind me of a very good friend Jerry, I think you know, her name's Patti Bonds. Oh, yeah.
She's gonna be on the program in.
July that's right. She told me about that I just talked with her the other day and when you hear her story What a blessing it is and it so much reminded me of mine when my whole family when I converted.
I want to tell you my sister my family thought I was nuts. They thought I was just You know demonized and now my whole family my three older brothers are Catholic. My one brother's a priest my mother my father.
My sister-in-law my my nephews. It's just been incredible and Patti Bonds tells her story of how when she converted in and her brother is a very famous anti-catholic Apologist James White beside himself when Patti converted.
And Patti experienced incredible persecution from her husband from her children and And and everything. Well God has just done a miracle in her family in a matter of a year. Her husband now has come in the church and two of her three children have come in the church.
It's just a miracle and I'll tell you she attributes it to adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. She's invited Invited one of her children to come and sit in the presence of our Lord. We cannot underestimate the power of prayers and God will do the work.
Well there you have the assertion from mr. Staples and I found it absolutely fascinating. This is the first time I had heard that Patti Bonds is going to be on Catholic answers live. And of course it makes me sit back and think why would that be now I understand the Coming home network and things like that.
I understand I guess that. But I thought Catholic answers live was a Catholic apologetics program. What would someone who has never been involved in apologetics someone who was not involved with this ministry?
Of course, or really did not have any knowledge of apologetic issues on this subject prior to her conversion. Why do you think they would like to have Patti Bonds on? Their program. Well, I think all of you know exactly why.
Let's think about it. Who is with Catholic answers. Well, we have Carl Keating. Carl Keating the man who back in the 80s published tracks that encouraged Catholics to challenge quote-unquote. Anti-catholics, that's the term that they use.
It's a term of disrespect. They refuse to respect those on the other side as you heard Mr. Staples refuses to do so. I Refer to him, of course as a Catholic apologist Roman Catholic apologist and he refers to me as an anti Catholic apologist.
I'm not a Protestant apologist or reformed apologist. And of course, we've discussed that before but they continue. They don't aren't concerned about issues of respect. But anyways Mr. Keating would encourage in his published tracks from Catholic answers, which he started Catholics to challenge anyone who would speak out against the Roman Catholic Church in their community to engage in debates.
Except mr. Keating himself will no longer do that at least against me. He's had a standing challenge since August of 1990 and that's About what's almost 12 years ago now. To engage in debates and he will not do so then we have James Aiken who has at least twice said That he would debate and then backed out of those debates and we have Jerry Usher who was the moderator of the debate with Tim Staples now why would Catholic answers which who will not do what they challenged people to do before and Engage in debates on these subjects me.
Why do you think they would have? My older sister with whom I've had very little contact for quite some time I have not seen physically for a number of years actually. Why do you think they'd have her on the program now those of you who've listened to the program?
Oh the past number of months know that back when back in February when mrs. Bonds appeared on.
Coming home network. We did a program. There's an article on our website that talks about that whole situation and It's a sad situation and that is sad that people would in essence be using her in this way.
There's no reason for them to do so and the very fact that they would do so demonstrates the bankruptcy of their apologetic. To begin with but now now going to Catholic answers live. Fascinating fascinating indeed now, mr. Staples said that I was beside myself.
Actually, if you would talk to the first few people that I talked to. When I was informed of this I was informed of this while I was in Florida. My wife called me and Later that evening. I called my parents and I'll tell you the same thing.
They were surprised that I wasn't. That is my wife will tell you and my parents will tell you. I said look I'm not surprised this at all. What do you mean you're not surprised? Look Patty's gone through all sorts of these these new religious insights.
It's been four or five years since the last one. So I'm not surprised by this that I am to describe me as beside myself is simply ridiculous. You could never document that either from the way I responded to it.
I wrote to her in email and that's when I found out that she had anonymously contacted me. But she had never talked to me about these things didn't pick up the phone anything like that. And so a lot of people were surprised those who you know in my family and those are close.
We were surprised that I was like, yeah, well, you know, it's exactly. You know, it doesn't surprise me a whole lot. And in fact, I'll tell you right now I won't be surprised when it happens again. I'm not gonna be surprised in the future when it happens again.
So to describe myself as time is beside myself is simply a lie. It's inaccurate. Of course Tim Staples wouldn't know and So he's going on secondhand information. He doesn't verify his sources and Obviously given that they are gonna have patty bonds on the program.
They don't care. This is just a way without having to face me in public and give me equal time. This is a way that they can take shots at me which Catholic answers does all the time. Anyways, they've done it for a long time.
This is the same organization folks that has quoted text Mars as being accurate as long as he attacks me. Okay, there's no integrity here at all. There never has been. But shouldn't be surprising now, I hate to say I told you so but I did tell you so that is I.
I.
Said to my sister there is a period of time and again, we haven't spoken. We've only exchanged emails and that always gets end up ends up being cut off from her side. When I challenge her when I when I show her things, you know, you're just so angry.
You know.
If in other words if you show her anything you're angry. That happens very very often with people who've converted to a religion and they They don't know how to defend that religion and have to reply depend upon others to do so.
But I had said in one of my emails and I've kept all of them all this stuff is is Far too easy to document if the need exists to do so. But I said to her I said your handlers are not going to allow you to remain in anonymity.
They simply are not gonna allow it. Initially she said look I don't want to I don't want to be out front. I don't want to do stuff I said they're not gonna allow it. They're going to want to utilize your name your connection and They're going to put pressure upon you to tell your story and to Enhance that story and to allegedly know more and more and more when you converted than you actually did and they're simply not going to allow you to be quiet and once they're done with you and once there is there's no longer any Value to be derived whether the story becomes old they'll discard you Just as quickly as they picked you up.
That's all there is to it and Seems that that's exactly what's going on. So Coming in July. I find it interesting as July. I don't know why that is. Maybe it's connected to connect the fact that we've got a major debate in July on Long Island Where I will be debating Patrick Madrid and the subject of the veneration of Saints but the communion of Saints as Roman Catholics like to call it, but Maybe that's a connection.
Maybe there's no connection at all. Do not know not really relevant. But it is very sad that an organization which has consistently turned down challenges to debate which calls itself an apologetics organization including debates in San Diego where they would not even have to have to Travel whatsoever.
That that organization would be in essence using someone who has nothing to say in the field of apologetics at all. It's sad. I think it says much about those who would allow that kind of thing to take place, but it's pretty much what we expected and We'll respond to it when that that takes place now.
Back to the subject of what love is this? Calvinism's misrepresentation of God it is interesting last weekend last Saturday Dr. Joseph Piper of Greenville Seminary debated to Dave Hunt on the subject of Particular redemption.
I asked dr. Piper's assistant to give me a Review of the debate and it was in his words exactly what I would expect it to be. It was basically what we saw in the radio program that we did with mr. Hunt and that is The reformed side gives an exegetical presentation Explaining the necessity of particular redemption the finished work of Christ cetera cetera.
Mr. Hunt has a canned anti Calvinist speech and Basically relies upon shock factor that being the idea. Oh my goodness Listen, listen to what Calvin said this violates our traditions. Now, of course, you never say traditions because as we played last week Mr. Mr. Hunt doesn't believe he has any Mr. Hunt said on the radio.
With me I do not have any traditions and As I said to him Dave the person who is the most enslaved to his traditions is the person who thinks he doesn't have any and That's the case here and I haven't gotten to hear the debate yet.
The the tapes are going to be Made available and I'm looking forward to hearing it. Of course, I'm looking forward to hearing the tapes of my own debate with George Bryson on that subject. I haven't arrived yet getting a little bit too concerned about that, but hopefully we'll get to see them this week.
But anyways, as I mentioned the beginning of the program as I started going through this book, I discovered that it was considerably More ad hominem filled than I had realized. It's 436 pages long. At least let's give them benefit of one thing.
There's a lot of writing in here. Now there's a lot of repetition, too I'm and I'm thankful for that. I do not believe that My editors at Bethany house would have ever allowed the kind of rhetoric And the kind of gross misrepresentation That appears on the pages of what love is this into print evidently the editors at loyal are not as loyal to the truth as The editors that I would have working on my material.
It just simply wouldn't end up in in print. It wouldn't end up in print because the level of ad hominem. And it would not end up in print because the level of misrepresentation. Now let me give you an example last week I I mentioned this to you, but I did not have the quotes that I needed to have to Give you the full Flavor shall we say of the misrepresentation that mr. Hunt provides In regards to Charles Haddon Spurgeon.
Specifically if you have the book You will notice that there is the assertion on Page 19 listen to what is said and I did read this but let me give you the whole thing here. Spurgeon himself so often quoted by Calvinist to support their views is page 19.
Rejected limited atonement though. It lies the very heart of Calvinism and follows inevitably from its other points and he did so in unequivocal language. Now here's what he did. I Will read you what hunt has.
But then I'll stop and say here's what isn't included. Okay, I Know there are some this is quoting Spurgeon's biography. I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit to the blood of Jesus if my Theological system needed such limitation.
I would cast it to the winds. I cannot. I dare not allow the thought to find lodging in my mind. It seems so near akin to blasphemy in Christ. Finished work. I see an ocean of merit. My plummet finds no bottom.
My eye discerns. No sure stop. Dot dot dot dot now. Let me give you what was removed in the dot dot dot dot Quote. There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ if God had so willed it To have saved not only all in this world.
But all in 10 ,000 worlds had they transgressed their makers law. Once admit infinity into the matter and limit is out of the question. Then back to what? Mr. Hunt said having a divine person for an offering is Not consistent to it is not consistent to conceive of limited value.
Bound and measure are terms in applicable to the divine sacrifice. Stop end of Dave Hunt's citation, however, the very next line says the intent of the divine purpose fixes the Application of the infinite offering but does not change it into a finite work.
Now, what does that mean folks? Anyone who knows the reformed doctrine of limited atonement knows that's we're talking about. What was the intention of the divine purpose? Was it God's intention? To redeem all people.
Well, what does Spurgeon say the intent of the divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering. But does not change into a finite work. The very next sentence Expresses particular redemption, but let me just continue on with what?
Calvin. Calvin Spurgeon continued on to say listen to this this. This is on the same page and the next page. From the section the Dave Hunt quotes and says that the Spurgeon Unequivocally denied particular redemption.
Listen this. I begin my quote now Blessed be God. His elect on earth are to be counted by millions. I believe in the days are coming Brighter days than these when there shall be multitudes upon multitudes brought to know the Savior and to rejoice in him.
Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say it is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men. It commends itself. They say to the instincts of humanity.
There is something in it full of joy and beauty. I Admit there is but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption. But I will just show that the supposition necessarily involves if Christ on his cross Intended to save every man then he intended to save those who are lost before he died.
If the doctrine be true that he died for all men Then he died for some who were in hell before he came into this world for doubtless. There were even then myriads There who had been cast away because their sins.
Once again, if it was Christ intention to save all men How deplorably has he been disappointed for we have seen his own? Testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who According to the theory of universal redemption were bought with his blood that seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those Consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular Redemption that's not in a different book.
That's not in a different sermon by the way. I finished my quote there. That's not a different book. That's not a different sermon. It's on the next page that tells us something folks when Dave hunt quotes something You better go look at the original.
You better find out Dave hunt tells us spurgeon unequivocally a denied limited atonement and What we read here That seems to me a conception a thousand times more Repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with what?
What does he associate them with? The Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of Special and particular redemption. What did Calvin say about particular redemption? It's Christian doctrine. Christian Doctrine this will explain something.
It will explain why? Dave hunt can write chapters Chapters about John Calvin and yet not once Come close to giving you an even semi accurate picture of who John Calvin actually was because he doesn't intend to.
He doesn't intend to. It is not Dave hunts purpose to accurately represent his sources. It is only Dave hunts purpose to find within his sources those citations and quotes That can be used to substantiate his Tradition and I believe as My fine friends in the channel are producing their responses and.
As.
Others will undoubtedly be producing their responses because this isn't a difficult book to refute. It is so poor in all of its historical research in all of its historical conclusions. There is not enough exegesis in this book to fill a thimble.
It will garner many refutations all of them. Demonstrating the same thing that when Dave hunt uses sources Dave is simply looking for quotes that he can use and that has been the case in all of the subjects that he's addressed.
It's not just this one. Calvinist can Calvinist can you know take some. Some comfort in that it's not just us that have gotten shot like this. This is just simply his modus operandi and that's that's a shame.
It should not be it should not be. Sadly. When you're willing to admit when you are willing to misrepresent Spurgeon. Then you're willing to misrepresent Calvin. You're willing to misrepresent Luther and Augustine.
Then you don't mind about misrepresenting living people too. And that's what he's done with me. But even more than that, that's what he has done. With the text of Scripture and. That's why I'd like to look at.
I'd like to look at chapter 20 in the last half hour. I'll go ahead and take take phone calls though. If you'd like to call we have a different number today. I I Would like to. I'm thinking about mentioning the company that somehow a lot our phone stopped working.
We tried to get it back and after two days it said, um, we can't do it. So we need to give you another one. Gracious here's the number 877. This is toll-free, isn't it? I would assume that's toll-free.
I better be toll-free. I hope it's toll-free. I've got too much stuff on my screen here. Yes, it's toll-free good 877 seven five three three three four one eight seven seven seven five three three three four one.
Used to have it on the topic line. But we've been having problems in the channel and C star reset our topic line. Eight seven seven seven five three eight seven seven seven five three. Three three four one there.
I was putting the channel for those of you that are in there. There's a number if you'd like to call otherwise. We will. I will be looking at John chapter 6 the entire 20th chapter.
What love is this by Dave Hunt which I can tell you. I know exactly where this this chapter came from. I Listened I played my conversation with Dave Hunt from KPXQ I played it from my high school Bible classes on Thursday and Friday, and I know where chapter 20 came from Because we discussed it.
I pressed the the issue with Dave Hunt very strongly At that particular point in time, and it's very clear that the reason that I'm the main person who is quoted in this particular Chapter is because of what happened that day.
There's no question in my mind about it all but in the process we have a demonstration of The very poor nature not only of mr. Hunt's arguments because they're circular because they are.
Doing.
They assume not only the conclusion, but then they bring in all sorts of emotionalism and things like that. Because of not only that but the biblical exegesis is absolutely horrific. It's not exegesis is a Jesus Committed in the context of accusing all Calvinists of engaging in isogesis.
It's truly truly amazing. What is what is in that and that's we're gonna be looking at and by the way? I'm only gonna be able to touch on it. I Have finished the section responding to this chapter And what I may just go ahead and do is is go ahead and post The first part of this open letter and then just put a thing down at the bottom Announcing that the letter will end in a day or two once I get around to it because there's so many people asking questions About it.
It's already 27 pages in length and I go into a great deal of detail in Analyzing and refuting a Dave Hunt's fallacious arguments against John chapter 6 and I think it really does help to see Where this entire book is coming from?
So maybe I'll be able to get that up even This evening on the website as our main page article for those of you who want to take a look at it eight seven seven seven five three thirty three forty one will be taking our break and Continuing on with Dave Hunt and his new book right after this.
What is duck.
And welcome back to the dividing line. My name is James White and we are reviewing Dave Hunt's newest book Probably I don't know is 30 some odd of them so far, but for some reason. Mr. Hunt has decided to attempt to undo the Reformation and It's a sad thing I really.
Dave Hunt is a nice guy to sit around and talk to and He frequently says a lot of good things but.
He has.
And really some of you saying why are you picking on Dave Hunt? In fact, there's a guy in one of the theology lists here that just Fell by a name of Donald Metzger that's been ripping on ripping on me and he's accusing me of all sorts of.
Yeah, here's let's give an example. I have not yet read his book. But after just having listened to James White's completely incompetent replies to Dave I look forward to it. I would not myself be afraid to argue against JW's stereotypical and canned and unresponsive claims.
By the way, mr. Metzger if you're listening, the number is eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. Maybe you'd like to come on since we are having trouble getting up. Mr. Hunt to set a date.
Dave Hunt blew JW away. For example JW claimed when a reformed person talks about irresistible grace, he's talking about regeneration too bad James. No scriptural support. To neglect to give something means that you have to give something too bad James.
It doesn't mean that you have to only that you would not really be you if you did not and God is God he wills. This is the kind of kind of stuff that is being being thrown around. And he says let's see here.
Oh Yeah, this is a drink go Dave. Dave is a prophet. He has not attacked as much as I but much more publicly. Of course white wanted to override a debate on KJV ism against hunt because of Calvinism though hunt wanted to debate merely against KJV ism.
I have no idea what he's talking about there hunt doesn't debate against KJV ism. He just just spoke at at Church, that's all KJV only white is mistaken in an ungodly focus against hunt on the basis of Calvinism.
There's line. I was looking for white is mistaken in an ungodly focus against hunt on the basis of Calvinism. Well folks There is a matter of simple honesty here. The book is grossly misrepresentational, but let's you know, a lot of folks will say well look.
Maybe Dave just doesn't know. No Dave knows. He does know last night I posted a section of commentary. That I had written in the open letter on John chapter 6 verse 65 and then a section after that and As soon as I got done posting it a fellow who's in channel right now has the Nick vivid blue.
Who is a friend of Dave hunts who helped to review the book tried to warn him? Quoted the letter that he sent back to mr. Hunt while the book was still being written and the amazing thing was That even though I had never seen This man's letter We're both responding to the same argument from the same author without any any contact with one another and Yet our response to mr. Hunt on the very same issue.
Was.
Incredibly consistent. I mean we were using the same words and the same the same phraseology. It was absolutely amazing. In fact, I think I'm gonna ask vivid blue to probably send me that material and I'm gonna insert it in here just to show that you see before this book ever came out what I'm saying in response to it.
Had already been said to him beforehand. This isn't just some Calvinistic conspiracy or something. Here are two people responding to the same issue. We don't even go to the same church. I mean he and I happen to know one guy.
I mean our connection is that we both know brick and you're all going what? Fell out our church. We both know brick. That's what makes us both famous as we know brick and everybody knows brick. So so that's the only connection we've had and yet we respond in the exact same way.
Why because we both recognize the exact same error in mr. Hunt's thinking so. It mr. Hunt does know he is aware and that's why some of you may have noticed that on the Bree and call website. What was it about two weeks?
Maybe prior to the release of the book? I Saw damage control taking place. I don't know if any the rest of you did but the the Material place in the website was in essence saying we're expecting to really be attacked here.
We need your support. This is this is gonna be bigger than we're gonna be attacked more than when the subduction of Christianity came out. We really need your support. Why do you think they think they're gonna be attacked?
It could it be because they know That their position is simply incapable of defense. And by the way if anyone Directs anyone for the Bree and call this McMahon. Mr. Hunt. This mr. Metzger fella, I don't know if you're with him, but you certainly think Dave's a prophet so If you guys liked it, especially mr. Hunt and mr. McMahon and we can talk with.
We can talk in this Metzger. If you'd like to come on the program. You're welcome to Tim Staples if you'd like to come on our program, you're welcome to to See we were the ones that normally do the the challenge part because you know, there's reason for that.
But we'd love to have Dave on. I'd love to hear Dave's Explanation for where he got that. That quote from from Spurgeon. I'd like to hear the explanation and There's a lot of other things. I'd like to hear an explanation about as well.
But you're welcome on the program. Give us a call. We'll have you on. I invited you on this program a long time ago when when we did the program on KPXQ I invite you be on the program then come on along.
I would like to be able to talk to you about these things. I'd like to be able to get some of these folks who argue as mr Hunt on to the program and let's have some dialogue. Let's really look at the text and find out who's really engaging in isa Jesus that's what I'd like to do.
Well before I go back to looking at the text I see a little red blinking light over there and As I as I do my Johnny Carson Hold the envelope up to my head. Type of thing I I look at that little red light blinking and I'm getting a picture.
I'm getting a picture of a large coffee cup. And it's it's on the amazing thing about it. Is it's it's on the the. It's in a car. It's a very slow-moving car. It's a car that barely moves, but it's it's on the dashboard.
And.
Amazingly enough it doesn't fall off. Because in my panic I reach for it and grab it. So it doesn't. Oh. Is that you Java man?
The Java man, you know, I'm always recommending that you write books.
Yes. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the new theme song for the Java man, and I just wanted to bring that up there. Thank you very much. Okay.
Well, I have another suggestion for you. This one will be titled. Will the real Charles Spurgeon, please stand no kidding. Yeah, and I know that he and Murray Wrote the Forgotten Spurgeon, but I think that's something even a brief thing.
Document wrong Calvinistic bullion primarily of our many many people can edit it by people like John all right. Mm-hmm. And One one thing that you might find interesting is that I know I can edit them and decal them at and at this big carpet.
He said well now that Charles Spurgeon is in heaven. So I think that's the kind of thing that you're getting from people like Dave Hunt is Dave Hunt's Background anyway, I'm not claiming that you have to be but what is his background?
Well, my understanding anyways is that it's a Plymouth Brethren background, but I I sort of kicked myself. I just didn't feel comfortable in light of even some of the things I had read in the book. To to be asking him specific questions.
Like well, you know, where do you go on? Where you know, what church do you attend. And I did get the feeling from one section of conversation. Well, it was really conversation, but Dave was just talking about something in in the car at one point that he does go.
He is a member of a church somewhere, but I didn't. I didn't ask the specifics. So I I'm afraid I can't really give you a whole lot of information as to what his specific background is. I know that he was trained.
He took half the CPA examination and passed it. He was trained. He's basically a mathematician a A person who does accounting and things like that. That's his primary. That's his primary Area of expertise and he has publicly eschewed knowledge of the biblical languages, of course, but as to what his specific Denominational background is I had been told anyways that it was Plymouth Brethren.
But he is actually I think exactly that's so that is the whole point and unfortunately you can document a fairly.
Consistent pattern of this kind of misuse of sources where instead of allowing the source to speak within its own context You only pull those things from it That support your particular slant. This isn't the first time it's happened and I hope it's the last obviously.
But this particular book draws our attention because the fact that it addresses those very central issues. I mean, I'm sure you've listened to the dialogue that I had with with Dave and when I mentioned The fact that he was arguing as Robert soon Janice Argued in the debate on Long Island against justification by faith regarding the nature of grace and man's will he didn't like that at all but the fact the matter is if you go right now to our website and Read what Robert's and Janice says in the huge dialogue that we had on John chapter 6 and don't then go read Dave Hunt They may not say the exact same thing But they're both trying to get to the exact same point and that is this passage does not teach That all who are drawn are raised up on the last day and this passage does not teach But there is a specific number who's given by the father to the son that the son will in infallibly save they both have to try to safeguard of this concept of the autonomy of man and So, you know, I'm sorry that that he didn't Like the the comparison but the comparison is valid whether he likes it or not.
Well, I specifically say out in fact.
I was brought up on my screen here in the open letter that I'll be posting on our website.
After.
Giving the material that he didn't quote. I then quote another Section from Spurgeon, which I pulled from. All you got to do is I let me just let me just read this portion of the.
Thing.
Yes, Spurgeon was unequivocal. All right. Only he said the exact opposite of what you indicated. A quick scan of the relevant materials at www .spurgeon .org Reveals just how completely in error your assertion is and how many sermons affirms purges believe in particular redemption.
Here is one of them that I give the the URL and then I quote from it and it says we hold. We are not afraid to say that we believe that Christ came into this world with the intention of saving a multitude Which no man can number and we believe that as the result of this every person for whom he died must Beyond the shadow of a doubt be cleansed from sin and stand washed in blood before the Father's throne.
We do not believe that Christ made any effectual atonement for those who are forever damned. We dare not think that the blood of Christ was ever shed with the intention of saving those whom God foreknew never could be saved.
And some of whom were even in hell when Christ according to some men's account died to save them. And then this is what I said as a result. You really should hasten to retract this grossly errant assertion concerning Spurgeon for those of us who have even a passing Familiarity with the great English preacher your comments about him were outrageous.
However, the misuse of the quote from Spurgeon's biography is simply indefensible. Dave. Do you not think that we have these sources at hand? Will you instruct your publisher to retract this statement in the next printing the book along with a note?
Apologizing for such an error. Or will you ignore this word of corrective advice as you have ignored so many others that have been provided to you? So that's what I that's what I have in there. Well those you know.
That's that is so far beyond the area of research and mr. Hunt was doing that. Obviously, he never should have even addressed the subject. He should not have even raised the subject, but he chose to do so and you know.
Now he has to now he's responsible for it. What he'll do with it. I do not know. Thank you very much, sir. All right. Thanks for calling. Bye. Bye. 877 -753 -3341 is the phone number and It is quite true.
I mean you might say okay, so he messed up a Spurgeon quote. In fact, I'll give you even more than that I will I will say probably what happened is. Some supporter of his sent him a note sent him an email and said hey look at this see even Spurgeon didn't believe in this and It probably ended up in the book directly from that.
I don't think he went and read the source in fact as I said to him in. Let me see if I can find the section here. I even I even said to him I hope you did not Look this up because if you did then You are really responsible for simple dishonesty To it to a tremendous tremendous degree, but be that as it may why even take the time to look at it.
It's real simple. When we get into the actual meat of the book which should be exegetical. It should be focused upon the exegesis of Scripture In chapter 20, let me use it as an example.
Mr. Hunt is rather haltingly attempting to deal with John chapter 6 and what I mean by that is the the chapter defies organization. It it basically, you know. It starts off says a little bit about John 6 37 then maybe some about verse 44 and then it goes into a long Anti-calvinistic tirade.
Calvinists are bad about this and they're bad about that. And then it says a little bit more about John 6 and then there's a Whole section about how bad Calvin Calvin was. About how he was mean and terrible and nasty and anyone who could possibly even quote him Obviously just doesn't know what they're talking about and and all the rest of stuff.
And then it'll go on to some other subject. It'll come back to John chapter 6 a little bit. I mean, it's extremely difficult to follow just to give an example. He finally comes back to John 644 to ask what drawing means and Any he misrepresents me.
He says Yet Christ, this is page 339 yet Christ clearly said no man can come to me except the Father draw him. What does that mean white claims that draw indicates a total incapacity on man's part? Know it that I never said that I said the phrase who do not I?
Refers to a total incapacity on my own man's part to come to Christ outside of the drawing of the Father. I didn't say the drawing did. I mean that's just simple misrepresentation, but then when he gets to Telling us what it originally Allegedly means under the subtitle isagetical illusion.
The first paragraph reads as follows. Now think about this as a kind of argument. See if this is a Logical rational argument this is an argument that should be used by a Christian leader. To support his assertions.
White quotes Calvin to whom he refers with great admiration. Apparently as far as white is concerned Calvin's tyrannical rule of Geneva where he exhibited much pride and patience and lack of love and sympathy.
Toward those who dare to disagree with him even resorting to torture in order to persuade. Gives no cause for suspecting Calvin's understanding of and fidelity to scripture. That's the whole paragraph.
That's the whole paragraph. Now anyone who's read my book I did quote Calvin in the potter's freedom at one point in discussion on John 6. Anyone who thinks that I based my presentation on quoting Calvin is simply fruit loops.
And notice there's someone the channel with that Nick fruit loop and so it just sort of sticks in your mind anyways. It's impossible. That's obviously not what I did. But beyond that let's let's say that I did.
Let's say that I quoted him and I showed great deference to him which I did in that particular point. What kind of response is that? Is is that. Is that argumentation if so what kind. I mean not only is it grossly unfair to Calvin?
I mean, I mean, that's that the only person that I've heard used that kind of Description of Calvin was Jimmy Swaggart. That's how Jimmy Swaggart would express his absolute hatred for John Calvin. But if anyone goes and picks up for example John McNeil's Book the history and character of Calvinism.
Which has an excellent section of biography on Calvin if anyone actually goes and gets a scholarly work that's semi-fair. They're gonna realize that that hunt is unfair to the point of simple gross dishonesty.
And then that's going to completely and just totally destroy any credibility that that mr. Hunt would like to have. I don't understand that kind of argumentation and. Then when he doesn't provide any meaningful exegetical rebuttal of anything that I say and seemingly just thinking that well You know I've gotten I've gotten people so angry at this point that That I'm certain that they won't listen to what James White has to say.
What kind of argumentation is that? It is not worthy of a person who calls himself a Christian. Truly an incredible. I mean it's it's all through this entire section and again. I just you know if you have the book Take a look at it yourself and sometimes.
I'll be honest with you. I don't even know what he's saying. I Can't even follow it. Let me just read you one paragraph and and see if it makes any sense to you. Okay, here's here's Because of John 637 he quotes from Shriner and where It's talks about how the the coming coming to Christ the same as believing Christ, which is true.
Here's the paragraph. That fact indicates once again that faith comes first and is the condition of the new birth and salvation. Believing is synonymous with coming to Christ not something that is bestowed after one has been regenerated.
Surely coming to Christ result in regeneration through the gospel. The fact that coming is the same as believing also contradicts unconditional election. Irresistible grace for which coming must be without faith and is like a dead man being carried.
Yes, the father draws men to Christ, but unless they truly believe in him they have not come all the way. But have drawn back into perdition. There's the the paragraph I Don't know what that says. I don't see what it has to do with what came before after.
I mean I I hear certain sentences in there makes sense. I know he denies that faith is a gift and he made the exact same mistake as Norm Geisler on Misquoting John Calvin and Ephesians 2 and so on so forth, but I didn't understand a word that that said.
It just did not make any sense to me whatsoever. And so as you as you try to work through this this this book. You know some people said oh, this is you know this is terrible, and it's gonna create all this confusion.
You know a couple years ago. I thought the the same thing About another book called chosen, but free.
Have now in hindsight realized yet once again that God is sovereign and God is in control.
I think of the the young man that came up to me at the table after the George Bryson debate, and I really want to be able to announce next week that we have the tapes available.
He said to me you know I Hated Calvinism. Until I read the Potter's freedom and Romans 9 just blew me away, and so here's a situation. I know it was not Norm Geisler's intention to aid in the the Progress of Reform theology amongst evangelicals in In the United States.
That was not his intention. I realized that. But you see God overrules all this stuff. And I just you know even when reading just nasty comments about me Accusations of ice of Jesus, which I take very seriously, which I then have to painstakingly demonstrate are completely and totally without merit.
You know I can I could get upset about things like that, but I'm really trying to recognize You know what God is sovereign over all this, and I am just so blessed to have the the the health In my physical body to be able to respond to this stuff and to and to have the the opportunity right now.
The folks that are listening right now. I'm sitting here watching the chat room Theophorus and them fibbo and and everybody who's in the chant in the channel right now. These these these site cyber friends the some most of which I've only met once or twice, but.
And the fact that that they want to respond and they've learned About to these things and you know I'm a blessed man. I mean there was there was a time last year I wasn't even certain I was gonna be able to see to be able to do stuff like this anymore because I had complications my surgery.
But I can see beautifully now in fact my eyesight's getting better every day. Just a blessed man, so I I really try to have the proper attitude about this and realize you know what here's just another Opportunity and yeah, it's frustrating sometimes to read some of the stuff like those.
Those notes that I read earlier. Oh Dave hunt wiped JW out and you sort of just want to go. What have you been listening to you know what did you turn down the sound every time I started talking I'm reminded of the of the guy who converged Roman Catholicism then attended the the debate in Fullerton with Tim Staples and every time Tim Staples would would speak.
He'd come in and listen and when I'd stand up he'd leave and then he had the gall to say I lost the debate. I Mean that kind of mindset. Yeah, it's frustrating. It'll always be frustrating to me. But the I can't worry about folks like that instead.
You've got to you've got to focus upon the folks. That's Are really serious about the truth and when you focus upon those individuals well, then this this stuff will. You know God will take care of it and he will bring Glory to himself.
So folks watch for the main page article if You're listening this by archive months later. It'll be in the reform theology section of the website and my open letter will be posted there. It won't be short.
But it'll be posted there and as folks in the chat channel start giving me their submissions. Then we'll have more and more to be posting on the website in response to Dave Hunt's book. What love is this God still sovereign?
He's still on his throne. Let's thank him for it and we'll be back with you next week here on the dividing line.
God bless. The dividing line has been brought to you by alpha and omega ministries.
If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 0 3 1 8 or write us at p .o Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks.
Join us again next Saturday afternoon at 2 p .m. For the dividing line.