Presuppositionalism, Chorazin and Bethsaida, and Rob Bell

Honoring God's creation of time by not playing with our clocks. This is the dividing line 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 good morning or afternoon or whatever time it is where you are it is always the same time here in the great state of Arizona. I did not happen to notice the moon freezing in its place the stars stopping in their courses the sun changing its time.

No so it is eleven a .m. here just as it was last time. And yet there are those who came in the channel before going. Where is the dividing line. There's no dividing line today. And it's like uh... well it's that twice a year time we get to mock the time.

Challenged it is. It's a lot of fun actually. But uh... Anyways thanks for joining us today. Uh... i have a number of things queued up here. And uh... we also have phone calls coming in as well. And uh... i think what i'll do is uh... i'll go ahead and let's just go ahead.

And i'm gonna start with a phone call and then i've got some clips to play from an interview yesterday and then see what's uh... other uh... phone calls come in. We'll just sort of mix everything up today on the dividing line.

I'm not sure if the great master of the sound board is ready for me to go to calls. But we're going to go to them anyways. And uh... we're going to talk to uh... Ian up in utah. Hi ian.

Hi dr white how you doing. I am a long time listener first time caller. I'm a big fan. I'm privileged to talk to you.

And you you found it at the right time even i'm very proud of that.

Uh... yes yes uh... Wasn't deterred of the time. Change. There you go there you go you you you.

You recognize that you all had engaged in artificial time behavior over the weekend and and we just don't do that so anyway artificial time behavior. But i've never come up with that one before. But uh... anyway.

What can i do for you.

Well uh... i'm a student at columbia evangelical seminary i'm getting ready to write my dissertation i'm choosing an apologetic topic and uh... uh... basically uh... presuppositionalist and i listen to you a lot listen to a lot of your debate uh...

However uh... i was wondering if you have read r .c. sproles book on classical.

Apologetics. I've signed it as uh... textbook in classes when i taught christian philosophy of religion. As far back as uh... When did that come out. I'm trying to i'm trying to remember i think some like that.

Yes i've used it. I've used it many times as the counterpoint uh... to always ready or something like that so we can discuss the differences and compare and contrast. And uh... Uh... Yes uh... and in fact i will tell you that uh... when uh... i will ask the man behind the soundboard here it was like september of oh nine.

Is that when the ligonier conference was in scottsdale. Is that about right. How did i remember that. I'm not horrible at things like that uh... What. September of oh eight. Okay uh... The the the rookie says september of oh eight.

So anyway uh... it was it was ironic that uh... there's a ligonier conference and and r .c. sproles speaking at scottsdale bible church in the big big big auditorium and during the q and a he's just ripping on presuppositionalism while i'm in another building with a line of guys that i'm talking to about presuppositionalism.

So uh... at least the dialogue can take place. But i love r .c. i just think this is a blind spot uh... because the book uh... has been uh... i think soundly and properly criticized by.

Uh...

A wide range of people uh... john frame and others students of greg bonson have pointed out that the representation of the presuppositional perspective that is presented there just isn't overly uh... robust or accurate.

Always i thought it was a.

Little week.

Uh... that's that's a nice way of putting it but yeah i wasn't didn't didn't really uh... fill in the gap. No no it didn't. And did you hear uh... Did you hear uh... The uh... debates uh... that took place between uh... guys uh... that's a story i read between uh... sprawl and bonson.

Yes i did i did.

Uh...

Uh... that helps to give some context.

I did and actually i thought there were some weak points on on both sides.

Okay um...

But i was wondering. Well first of all of the one of the things i was wondering is what is the answer. Because r .c. sprawl is wrong because they say well we have to and he basically makes the argument how can you start yourself.

You have to start with yourself because you can't escape. Just wondering if there was an answer to that or if you could point me to maybe some resources that would help me with that.

Well i mean that's a that is a fundamental uh... epistemological assertion uh... that aren't our knowledge of that. All of our knowledge including our knowledge of god has to be based upon uh... mankind and upon our own experience uh...

That's a that is one of the huge differences. And uh... that's where from a reform perspective i i just don't understand dr sprawl's assertion of that uh... we cannot escape ourselves. But what are we.

We are created in the image of god. Right. And the very the very connecting point uh... that we are that we assert as a as presupposition list is exactly that that we are uh... individuals creating image of god and that there is no.

Moral.

Uh... Morally neutral point or any other kind of neutral point whatsoever because god has created everything as it is to have true knowledge of anything in creation. This comes from our our radical belief that that god is the creator of all things that jesus christ is the creator of all things and that all things have a purpose.

If you if you start there and that's not just a reformed idea that that's pretty much just a christian theistic idea i would think. Uh... But if you start there.

Then.

What does that do to that assertion that we will we cannot escape ourselves. We cannot escape our creatureliness. But does that mean that that creatureliness.

Do you think rc is saying more than that. Because that's kind of what he always comes back to.

Is that.

Is that we. We are limited as creatures and that's why we have to start with ourselves.

Well but see i would say uh... our limitedness as creatures makes us dependent upon god's revelation. That's why we don't start with ourselves. Because because again and this is where the reformed issue comes in is if we were unfallen creatures you might at least be able to make the argument that it's god's intention that as unfallen creatures for some purpose that you know i can't imagine what it would be but some purpose god wants us to function that way.

My my concern is that we are not unfallen creatures we are fallen creatures and therefore we have to have uh... that that type of uh... external source which is found in revelation. But i would argue that even adam in his unfallen state was still dependent upon divine revelation.

God had to tell him what his purpose was god had to provide revelation for him. Uh... i'd i'd never see a time.

When.

Man could ever start with himself alone outside of the priority and centrality of the divine revelation of god in the progress. For the i think our c and others drive this from thomas aquinas their their love of aquinas uh... and he was just inconsistent.

This point is not i don't i don't still believe this philosophy is consistent with a reformed epistemology. I would i would agree with while the criticisms that uh... until uh... aims that direction. And that's why i felt that the debate uh... that took place between uh... bondson and and arcee was was rather telling along those lines uh... and very useful.

Muffle. Glad they did it did again uh... i i i mentioned uh... in bellflower uh... just couple nights ago that it. It really bugs me when certain people say one time i i'm not gonna debate christians uh...

We should be the people of the best of doing inter interpersonal and intervarsity debates cuz we can show each other respect and go the word of god. But i'm awful glad that they did that. So we can hear those two perspectives.

And from from my perspective the radical purposefulness of divine creation and hence the reality of god's decree the fact is accomplishing something and that we are created in such a way that we can interact with that purpose and and are are central to that purpose.

I mean certainly it's the the the glorification trying god in the salvation of a specific people that is central to what god is doing. That gives us a ground of understanding who man is how man's to function howard to know god is found that radical purposefulness and and and i just don't see how asserting epistemology says we start with ourselves uh... rather than start as creatures.

Do you think it. We might be equivocating over the word start with.

Well he's one of us. I mean it you have to. Uh... What. What's that. What is the weight of the argument that arcee is making if it is not to change the starting point to our interaction uh... with the world around us and hence to a something like a cosmological argument or or some type of observation of the created universe.

What's. What's the way the argument if that's not what start with means.

Yeah yeah. Evening. He means start with ontologically but i think you know i mean start with logically too. Yeah yeah. I mean he said we can't escape ourselves and therefore logically we have to.

Begin from ourselves and work our way to god. Yeah. And i i i i honestly believe that if man begins with himself he will never work and see his way to the triune god of scripture. Uh... uh... i just i didn't did it.

For from my perspective if we start with ourselves we will end up creating an image of god that is uh... compatible with us and pleasing to us. Uh... we are dependent upon divine revelation. For for so much of the the truth about who god is.

And i i i understand you know i i was mentioning i i mentioned this uh... saturday night bell flower. I'm going to have the videos up sometime soon and you'll. You'll notice i i did address this but i read that there is a philosophy major from biola who asked me a question similar to this and so the the the two of us are piggyback off of each other even though he wasn't asking us for loses time a general presuppositional ism.

But one of the things that that i uh... emphasized in that context uh... that i'm that i'm the sizing here is this.

Uh...

When we look at who we are and what we are and how god has created us.

Uh...

The starting point has to be found in the radical creator the one who has made all things. When we start with ourselves it's so like as calvin said our eyes are always going to be upon the ground rather than uh... looking up and seeing the bright light of of the sun.

And i think it's a great illustration that that's uh... the calvin used. And i'd just don't believe that if we start with ourselves that the line of argumentation is going to lead us uh... to uh... the kind of argumentations used.

But i also recognize that there are connections between the arguments that we use. For example you're obviously from there is a transcendental argument.

And.

You're aware of the fact. Uh... uh... i'm not sure if you've heard this particular phraseology but there is something called p s are the principle sufficient reason. And you can hear the dependence the transcendental argument upon the upon p s are in the bonds and stein debate where were bonds and says the sign will you're appealing to brute facts and brute facts are irrational.

That is when steinke saying what's just the way things are it's a it's just as well that's a violation of p s are the principle sufficient reason. For the principle sufficient reason says there has to be a reason why things are the way they are.

You can't just simply appeal to brute facts.

Well.

Uh... The best form of the cosmological argument.

Uh...

Really boils down to other p s are is valid or not. If p s are is valid than the cosmological argument is valid as well so there's connection between the two. I'd i'd firmly believe that any argument.

Uh...

No matter what how you you phrase it it's this. It's the interpretive framework that you fitted into uh... that has to do. It has to be first and foremost our mind. And if you're dealing with an individual who is a creature of god who's rejecting his creatureliness he's going to find a way to fit any argument into that continued rejection.

That's the kid that's the that's the uh... not only the the epistemological but the moral connection point that we need to be. That we need to be going for. Uh... you know because our argumentation isn't just simply to provide an argument our desire is to see this person repent of their sins and bow the knee to the lord jesus christ.

And so you know that's not that doesn't fit into the strict philosophers handbook of how you do things. But that's another reason why functioning in the lordship of christ uh... means you're going to do things differently than the world does.

And so if i'm dealing with somebody i'm going to deal with them as the bible describes them to be. And i'm going to go ahead and press upon that conscience. Uh... that is that is hurting. And that they because they are suppressing the knowledge of god and i'm gonna pry up those fingers from him withholding and suppressing the knowledge of god.

That's what i view my role as. And uh... that's that's i think the power of the the presuppositional perspective is because the evidential perspective basically leaves you appealing to that person as if they are an autonomous authority to judge your evidences as if they have the authority to judge whether they are or not a creature of god.

I just don't see how that fits with the authoritative proclamation that we see in act seventeen where where paul says god is appointed day where he will judge every man by a man that he has appointed having raised him from the dead.

I mean there is a day of judgment coming and you're going to be judged by somebody else. And you don't have the right to say well i'm gonna opt out of.

That.

No you're not uh... That day of judgment is coming in. God has fixed it and set it and that's the way it is. And that's authoritative proclamation. That's not. Well you know i'd like to suggest these things to you and maybe if you think about it long enough you might find that this.

No uh... Because paul recognizes these are idolaters they're already suppressing the knowledge of god. What are they going to do with more knowledge of god? They're going to suppress it too. So what does he do?

He pries up the fingers. That's what i see.

But there's some disconnect there between suppressing the knowledge of god and whether or not the arguments are valid. Arguments. The suppression is a moral suppression.

But it has epistemological ramifications because it is so because it is systemic it's not just in the moral realm but it is a part of the very definition of the creature. Just as for example look at how over overarching and invasive homosexuality becomes amongst homosexuals themselves it becomes their identity.

The suppression of the knowledge of god becomes part of the very identity of the person who is in rebellion against god. And so it creates an epistemological methodology where you can find a place for any argument as long as it allows you to suppress the knowledge of god.

I've seen this happen.

Well yeah we've seen it happen. But they do it with the transcendental argument too. It's not like somebody listens to the transcendental argument and says oh i'm going to be a christian. Here's much better argumentation.

Right but the difference is the form of argumentation you're using does not appeal to the sinner to continue in his rebellion and grant to him the grounds to judge the existence of god. When you present the cosmological argument which by the way i think is valid given the validity of PSR i believe that it's valid.

Why do i believe that? Because it is consistent with the christian world view. There's reason to it. But when i present it in such a way that the atheist i'm saying well you know i think if you'll examine this you'll come to the same conclusion that i'm coming to.

And if you do so then these are the things you need to do on the basis of that. That's different in saying well i would like you to judge the existence of god and you can make up your mind one way or the other from there.

That's very different from saying you to even consider the argumentation i'm using are having to steal from the god whose existence you are suppressing. There is an immediate moral pressure in the transcendental argument that is not present in the cosmological.

Now you can call that just a functional thing but i think it's very very important to observe and to recognize. And from my perspective you have to have a big enough theology to substantiate that and that's why you don't find too many non-reformed folks using a presuppositional approach because i just don't think their theology is big enough to support it.

So what you're saying, if i can maybe boil it down you can tell me if i'm right about this or not. Is that within the transcendental or the presuppositional argument it intrinsically carries with it a moral.

Given the nature of the person to whom we're making it, yes.

Which you're saying the cosmological argument doesn't it just says here are the facts and then you make up your own mind but the presuppositional argument you would say is a better argument.

It's not just here are the facts, right. You don't have the rights. Your mind has already been made up and you need to change that mind. In other words there's an implicit call to repentance and that doesn't fit with theologies that don't have repentance in anymore either.

That's what i've found odd about my reformed brethren who reject it because it just seems to. This is something i've said many many times and that is our apologetics must flow from our theology. We shouldn't just simply have our theology and try to come up with an apologetic that at least will fit without too much of a difficulty.

It should just be the natural flow and conclusion of our theology. And it just seems to me that the presuppositional perspective flows so naturally from what we believe about God and what we believe about his decree and what we believe about man and his suppression of the knowledge of God and all these other things.

There's just this flow that is to me the real strength of the entire argument.

Well thank you, you've cleared up quite a bit for me.

Okay Ian, I would love to see what you come up with when you write your work.

Oh thank you, I might have to call you again and clarify a couple of things. I know you don't have time just for me on your show.

Well I appreciate your recognition of that. Alright thanks. Ian, bye. Hey that's how you start off the program. My brain is going to be leaking out of my ears after this because I did a reformed podcast with Chris.

Date from 9 .30 to 10 .45 so I did an hour and 15 minutes. I'll try to blog it when Chris posts that we did an hour and 15 minutes on Roman Catholic claims of authority sola scriptura, the early church, 1 Timothy 3 .15, the papacy.

I mean we covered everything and so as soon as that gets posted I'll try to let folks know about that and I'll go from there but I'm not sure I can guarantee the orthodoxy of almost anything else I have to say for the rest of this time period.

Alright, I want to get to the Rob Bell thing but it looks like we have a silly Brit on the line. In fact, silly Brit 2, silly Brit 2, come in silly Brit 2.

Hello, this is Ducky Poo Poo. I'm not bringing any more hamburgers, you don't take good care.

Are you still with the Ministry of Silly Walks?

Absolutely, how are you sir?

Just fine. Oh, thank you very much.

I thought you needed that.

Well, yeah, thank you, no, not really but thankfully most people couldn't understand what you were saying because a Japanese-British accent is really bad. Anyway, I answered one of your questions, did you notice that?

Yes, I did, and I appreciate it.

So why are you throwing these tough questions? Are you just trying to trip me up or what?

No, I just thought, I'm not sure exactly how to answer it and I thought, why not put someone else under pressure?

Oh, why not?

You know, rather than me thinking about it in the cold, calm, collected time of my own office just throw it out to James White.

Ok, well, you know, it's odd, because no one knows what we're talking about but for some reason, you have a question about Tyre and Sidon. What might that be?

Yeah, well, as you know, Luke 10, 13, Jesus said woe to you, Chorazin, woe to you, Bethsaida. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

And someone actually wrote this question to me and I've been kind of wondering the best way to respond to it. Obviously, if Tyre and Sidon had observed more mighty works they would have repented, Jesus said.

Someone then who has Arminian or synergistic glasses as they look at that text would say, look the doctrine of total depravity teaches that far more is needed than merely the observation of mighty works for someone to repent, and we'd agree with that it would need the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

How do we understand that warning? The Arminian looks at that and says, look, Jesus has not been very reformed at all in saying that if Jesus is a Calvinist then merely the observation of signs would have brought inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon to repentance.

That doesn't make Jesus very reformed. And I'm wondering how best to answer that and look at that.

Well, you know, I always like going on. But it will be more bearable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven you shall be brought down to Hades.

Obviously the focus is.

Is judgment.

Well, it's not a judgment but it is present judgment. Upon what? Upon Jewish cities filled with individuals who are claiming a knowledge of God and a kind of piety and righteousness which is the very essence of what Jesus himself attacks in Matthew chapter 23.

In the leaders themselves there is a complacency. There is a... I was looking at the well, one of the other texts that you had mentioned and that was, of course, the issue of Nazareth and the fact that the term Thaumazo is used.

Even Jesus was amazed at their unbelief and I wondered just what's behind all of that in the sense of what was it like to be someone who was around Jesus as he grew up. Is there something more there that maybe someday we will know something more about or will we even care about what was happening back on earth once we're in the presence of God.

I don't know that's speculation but my concern in uses of texts like Luke chapter 10 in this way is a concern that I have even when my Reformed brethren call in and they say, hey, could we understand this text in this way.

And in fact I think this happened on the last program or two programs ago one of the two after a while they just all squish into one big program. But someone cited a text and I'm like, well, that's consistent.

But we always need to look at what the primary purpose of any text is. And you need to be careful letting the main things be the main things and not necessarily look for other stuff. So what is the main point of Luke 10, 13 -14 is the fact that Tyre and Sidon were looked down upon as examples of worldly pagan.

Idolatrous.

Outside of the grace of God outside of the covenant community etc. etc. That's how these places were looked at. And the point is the complacent attitude of I'm so much better than somebody else because of what I possess in my genealogical history.

And the point that is being done is mighty works had been done in Chorazin and Bethsaida mighty works had been done in Capernaum and in Nazareth. And I think it's very very parallel passages here. The guilt and the weight that comes upon those people who have been given so much light before Christ comes in the scriptures.

I mean that seems to be what the whole thing of the unpardonable sin is is having so much light and yet being able to. You've got phylacteries on your forehead. Did you hear about the guys recently. By the way just a couple days ago they landed a plane because some Jewish guys were doing a prayer ritual where they were putting phylacteries on their head and they were so scared.

The flight crew became so scared because they didn't know what this was. So they landed the plane. So the phylactery stuff is still going on. So you've literally got the word of God on your forehead on your body in your clothing nailed to the door of your house.

You're surrounded by it. You say the Shema every morning you go to synagogue. You have all this light.

And that's the total contrast to the inhabitants of Tahrir.

Exactly. Who had none of that stuff. They had none of the privileges. Think of Romans 2 here. Think of the strong words of Romans 2 and Paul's statement. You think you're right with God because you merely possess the word of God.

It's not the possession of the word of God. It's doing the word of God that matters. And so you have all these privileges. And then the one that is testified to and prophesied in all those scriptures is walking your streets calling you to repentance.

And you are deaf and dumb and blind. And the point is to create the strongest possible contrast. And Jesus got himself in trouble many times by doing this because who does he say has great faith. I've never seen such a great faith in all of Israel as these Gentiles these people that had not.

Even the dogs.

Exactly these are people that had not even had the privileges that the Jewish people have had.

And yet.

It's almost as if the exposure to light brings blindness to light if you do not live in light of the light and that's what's going on here and Jesus.

That's definitely the point of the passage.

Oh yeah.

Oh yeah definitely. So when you say Jesus isn't being reformed enough what you're saying is.

Well.

I can read into this text all sorts of discussions about.

Well they couldn't have possibly repented except by.

The point actually is that these individuals who are pagans are not nearly as opposed to God and his truth as those who possess the word of God but refuse to obey it.

Yeah.

And you know we see that we see that we see that in the church we see what happens. For example as soon as we're done here I'm going to be talking a little bit about Rob Bell. And if you know anything about Rob Bell's history and the emergent movement what gives it what gives it life.

These are former fundamentalists former conservatives raised in it.

Yeah.

Exposed to it. But what happens when people who do not have the changed heart.

Are.

Are held down by the power of God's law and maybe by the in their family and things like that once they're out from underneath that.

Boom!

There comes the expression of the rebellion and the detestation of God's law and all the rest of the stuff that comes along with it and I think that's very important in the foundation of the of the emergent church movement and the same thing same thing with these folks surrounded by God's truth but if it doesn't change the heart it becomes the object of derision the object of perversion which is exactly what you see in the Pharisees.

They don't abandon it they just turn it into a means of making money.

Yes.

And filling their own lust. So that's the contrast that's being made there. And so I think Jesus is being quite reformed because he is recognizing that the individuals around him even though they possess the word of God.

That's not enough. It's not mere possession it's not genealogy there's something more to it.

And.

If I've understood you correctly then what we should do is just stick with the main point of that passage rather than camp out on a possible inference.

Well that's all that's being read. I mean it's just like my it's not a necessary one.

It's a possible one but stick with the main point.

It's just like my Roman Catholic apologist friends who attempt to create a doctrine of justification from Jesus' statement that wisdom will be justified by her children rather than going to Romans chapters 3 and 4 where that's the whole subject.

That is the subject.

I mean how in the world can you walk through Romans 1 through 3.

In 2020.

And come to the conclusion.

Well yeah you know those folks.

In Tyre and Sidon.

They were God fearers there was fear of God before their eyes.

She just proves it.

You know.

You just have to remember there's not. God has not given to us a means.

Of.

Shutting the mouth of everybody in this lifetime outside of one simple thing and that is a heart that wants to hear all of God's word and know God's truth will be able to find what that truth is but a heart that wants to remain in confusion or to maintain a tradition or something.

There you know.

People often look to me to give them that kind of answer and it's just not there at least not if you're going to be true to the text.

Yeah. And Luke 10 he's not dealing with the subject of regeneration and where it is and how it happens he's dealing with something completely different. If you want that you go to John 3 or John 6.

Or John. 10 exactly you got it brother.

I got you.

Well thank you very much and I'll have to stop by the Ministry of the City Walks. I need a new one. If you could come up with one for me please.

I'll work on it but as you know we need much more funding from the government.