Debate Wrap Up

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 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James White And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon a week of many many dividing lines actually

This is the fourth of this particular week. You've probably OD'd I would imagine and So have

I so So well just wrap it up right now, no actually, we

Have a call immediately I want to get to because I can't imagine what it costs to call all the way from from Japan So let's go ahead and talk to rich.

I rich That's pretty good

Jay is coming to visit next week and he asked me. Hey, if you've been listening to dr White on in the debate and absolutely every day and I just want to let you know

You did a really good job Commend you on the work that you did. Oh, so what you but what you're telling me though, is that the contrast between Steve Green singing a mighty fortress and the song from Opie Taylor and his dad walking along the riverbank

The contrast is a bit too much for you I kind of got used to that.

Hey, you know By the way, it doesn't really cost me anything other than a Vonage call. So I actually saved you the dime

It didn't call your 800 Yeah, it's nice living in the Far East and having modern technology

I'm actually going to be traveling to the States or finally this summer and I'm hoping to stop by and see you

So we'll try and we'll try and link up when I'm passing through Phoenix Yeah, you had said

I said, I'm just that far behind email sometime in August and I felt like felt like responding

Oh good grief, and then I realized you've spent how long in the desert of Kuwait so I'm a marine.

I'm not like some civilian that likes to talk about that kind of You know

The thing that really was driving me crazy this week and I think you you nailed it in your last interchange

I think if I had to place What Steve Gregg is he's probably like a postmodern

Pelagius or something to that effect He doesn't really want to go all the way to define himself

But he kind of likes to speak ambiguously and I've heard other people that have called into others and talked about what a great

Well, how persuasive he is and frankly when it came to the scriptures, I didn't find him persuasive at all

Now, of course, you know people say well, of course you don't because you're cuz you're a committed Calvinist But you know, honestly if you if you just if you if you stop and try and take off lenses

I know that's impossible to do in some cases But the difference is he would never deal with the text

He would like wander all over and say well, it could mean this and it could mean that he's in fact when he first started

He said well our minions believe this and I don't know if I consider myself on our minion and all throughout

He'd never say what he believed. He would say our minions and from his very first statement I couldn't even tell if that's really what he would believe.

He would just kind of Wander around and then give the impression to cast enough doubt upon what you said by going to a bunch of other texts

But never really trying to dwell on something So I it was very frustrating to not be and to not be able to to hear a positive

Presentation at any one point because even when he was trying to give a positive presentation He would never actually execute a passage but would would wander all over the place and I think you nailed him a few times especially when when when an author cannot allow

Paul himself to to actually Give explanation for how he's using texts in the

Old Testament then there's a huge problem and in fact If if people wanted to consistently apply the way that the the

New Testament writers Targum the Old Testament They would destroy the New Testament's revelation of Christ, especially in Hebrews and elsewhere

Which would which force us all the time to go back in the context and have to conclude that these writers?

Weren't acting under the inspiration of The Holy Spirit, but we're in fact using isa

Jesus and misrepresenting what Jesus said Which is what you've noted that Muslims do all the time, right?

yeah, most most definitely now I you didn't tell me you were going to call and we haven't discussed this at all because You're saying many of the same things that if no one had called

I I would have had to have been bringing up myself as my own thoughts about about the conversation.

I Personally did not enjoy the five days and the main reason I didn't is

I find it significantly I don't mean easy in in a simplistic fashion but but much more enjoyable to debate someone who has a definable defensible position right and You know, it's well, let's use a military analogy

It's a whole lot easier to go into Iraq when there's a front line that is to be in Iraq where there ain't no lines and I couldn't if you can't define where the front line of battle is and Even even the question that I asked yesterday about the intercessory work of Christ left my studies are stuttering just a little bit

Because I can't see any Consistent, you know position to put some hooks into and say okay

Is this true? Is this false? And and you know, I used the the phrase in one of the blog articles that I wrote the ambiguizer 3 ,000

You know any text that that presents the the sovereign freedom of God.

Well, that's ambiguous We it might mean this The problem with him presenting any positive case for what he believed then at that point is that what by his hermeneutic?

You could just wander around the scriptures and collect enough to cast doubt on any of the scriptural teachings whether or not

You know God really loves people or that sort of thing I had the advantage of course of actually working out most of the time when

I was listening So I was able to burn off like excess rage Frustration, but you know like a perfect example today.

I was listening to it this early this morning and And he made an analogy like well it's like if I had a choir and I got to choose who was going to be in the choir and then the

President invited the choir and I and you know, but see the problem is Pete Other people find that persuasive.

Yes But the issue is I think that you have to go back to and this is where people lack sometimes

Spiritual and mental discipline and say is that a biblical analogy? You can always come with it up with analogies that are going to try and persuade people and say oh, yeah

I've been part of a choir in and they selected the choir They didn't select me But but is that that is that the analogy that God uses in the scriptures?

And I think there it's clearly not the case that we there's just I think you nailed it It really kind of cohered for me though I thought

I I am clear and teaching people regularly that that if we don't understand

God's Particular grace to save us and see salvation as beginning and ending in him then we have no confidence in that but I think

I really for the first time understood to a lot a greater extent how

Impersonal salvation is in the context that it's just kind of this generic idea that Christ is out there

And if you're in Christ, you're saved and if you're outside of him, you're not saved But but you know whether or not you're in that or not

God doesn't plan for it He just has sort of a plan that you can be a part of right and that that of course lends itself to you know

Basically man choosing to be in or choosing to be out and I don't know how you can have any

Have any security like the scriptures do that say on the basis of the fact that we're blessed with every rich spiritual blessing from above That we are able to do the things that we're able to do in Christ Yeah, I think it's important to to emphasize what you said in regards to the issue of sort of a postmodern

Pelagian Perspective because that that that is what I was seeing that is what I was hearing was that especially

I listened to The narrow path at least the first 45 minutes of it this afternoon

To see what kind of calls Mr. Greg would get about the debate and I you know, he had some people who disagreed with him

But most of the people were like well, you know, I appreciate this on this side and that on that side and and many of the people that have commented on his board find my

I'm just quite simply nasty in essence because I'm not into this Well, you know,

I'm glad that's how you see it And I'd like to share how I see it and I don't want to offend anyone now, you know, but but you know

Yeah, well, you know the reason I wanted to say and wait and I'm not sure I do want to qualify So people won't accuse me of nastiness and saying that he's a he's

Pelagian But when it really boiled down to it You have to conclude that he actually that the

Roman Catholic Church has a higher view of the necessity of grace than Steve Greg does mmm because at least they acknowledge the necessity for some sort of grace

Wouldn't be it dispensed by the sacraments or some other thing to be infused into the believer but Steve has a view

I was I was actually almost fell out of my seat when he was trying to challenge and Romans 1 and Whether or not the idea or in Romans whether or not there were the idea was that it was a universal application that men

That men are unrighteous that there are some people that don't and that was the the perfect example of kind of like well

It doesn't say that, you know thing It was driving me crazy and I'm thinking Steve Greg actually believes that there are men that have chosen to suppress the truth and unrighteousness and just like Pelagius There are people that have not chosen to do that and that they don't need grace to have that and if Christ would just not

Hide his parables from them. They would they would agree that they don't need to be granted

Any for any grace to believe the only thing that's hindering them is is really some a message and that sort of thing

And I was I was very shocked in it. It was if it actually goes further than Arminian theology

So I wouldn't even classify Steve Greg per se as an Arminian because he Arminians at least classically

Recognized the necessity of grace. They just believe it's spread out like peanut butter over everybody. Yeah peanut butter grace

Yeah, in fact, yeah one of the callers today on the program We were sort of chatting about in channel as people were listening to it.

And one of the issues that did come up was this the Texan Romans and he was actually sort of arguing with one of the callers and He Brought up Job and he said

Job was a righteous man And I I mentioned in channels that I don't I don't know how else to understand what he's saying

But that Job was righteous in and of himself without any supernatural Intervention on the part of God, you know exactly

Yeah, and I just don't know how else to understand it. So yeah, but I Got other if you want to talk to you,

I'm sure right. Well, we've got we got another person calling so we invite calls today and I appreciate you you're listening all the way over in Japan and We'll be looking forward to seeing you when you come through town in August.

Okay. Yeah, it was really nice talking I appreciate you taking my call early actually to get it to work. All right.

Thanks a lot. I Enjoyed your debate. Thanks a lot. We'll try and hook up later. Okay. Thanks a lot. God bless. Bye -bye.

Bye That's one of the moderators of the Puritan board And since I was in fact what happened that oh, here it is before we take our next call

And by the way, we have open lines today Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number that is a toll -free number eight seven seven seven five three three three three four one

If you would like to comment on the debate or if you'd like to comment on the upcoming debates

I would certainly encourage those of you who might support what we do here in the ministry

To consider praying for us this coming weekend I will be in Fullerton, California the information is on our front page at a omen org

I will be debating Sheikh Jalal Abu al Rube on the subject as the Bible teach the deity of Christ.

That'll be at 530 Earlier in the day David would will be debating the same gentleman on Was Muhammad a prophet?

I'm not sure the order was real wise perfectly honest with you because If there's gonna be any offense, it's gonna be in the first debate at least for the

Muslims And so I hope Lord willing to be debating Sheikh Jalal Abu al

Rube But if that for some reason doesn't work out I imagine what we would do is allow me to make a presentation to the

To the Muslims anyways and answer as many objections as I could I certainly Would to give it my best shot if that were to happen.

But anyway, that's this coming Saturday. The information is on the main page and Then we will be putting up on the main page hopefully fairly soon an

Announcement for April 22nd. That's only 10 days from Saturday. I will be at California State University East Bay And 12 noon

I will be in the activity center. I believe or the student center. I need to get that specific information

But I'll be debating a sociology professor on the subject of gay marriage.

It is not a lengthy debate It'll probably be only less than hour and a half in length, but we will be debating the subject of gay marriage and so We will be flying up there and in it.

Let me just mention in passing I Think that this invitation came to us

I know the invitation came to us through the seminary where I teach Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary and It was forwarded to me and I accepted the invitation for obvious reasons

It's not the first time we'll have debated a relevant subjects first. I've actually debated this exact subject but I have debated both

John Shelby Spong and Barry Lynn on the subject of homosexuality and a homosexual pastor come to think of it up in Salt Lake So I've done three debates on the subject of homosexuality

But we didn't go looking for this as is often the case. We didn't go looking for the debate coming up this weekend either

We're just looking to to take opportunities to present the gospel and boy, do we get the unique ones?

And so, you know after 25 years of ministry now We we do get some unique opportunities

But this trip up there We're we're having to fly me up there. I'm figuring Nobody's given me anything to come up there and do this because they were figuring well

We just called the you know, the Baptist seminary right across the bay there So those have somebody, you know drive, you know drive over the bridge and voila they weren't thinking about somebody flying from Phoenix and then having to rent a car and do all sorts that kind of stuff and the reason we can do this is because folks like you support us and So when we are doing stuff like this,

I just want to let you know That's that's how well your support goes to help us to be able to do that kind of thing

So keep us please in in mind when we do that. I Just for good next call

I someone threw into the channel early this morning a

Blog article by someone by name of Trey Austin I have no earthly idea who

Trey Austin is and I think one of the bad things possibly about the Internet is that you can Find out how many people dislike you

Maybe even detest you far faster than you could in the olden days

And I was reading this particular article and it was talking about The debate that took place and Now I understand

I'm reading that Steve Greg is your run -of -the -mill Armenian evangelical who like many of them doesn't take scripture seriously when they don't really like what it says

And I fully admit that James White is a biblical exegete of great prowess. However, my problems James White exist at several points

First I hate how James White treats everyone with whom he debates like an enemy Of course,

I'm not quite sure if I'm giving the right vocal tone. Well, I'm right reading this but like an enemy There are people whom he debates who are his enemies without a doubt

They're enemies of Christ and means the gospel and enemies of every professing believer And of course, even when people are enemies

Christ has given specific instructions as to how on how we're to treat them I don't have to go into that I don't think but suffice it to say that I don't find white living up to this attitude towards enemies who are his enemies worse though in my opinion than whites treatment of enemies in a way that does not live up to the kindness of that Christ and Joins us to is whites treatment of other

Christians as though they are enemies Without affording them even the kind that kind of treatment that he should even with enemies

James White is condescending hateful anything But charitable toward those with whom he disagrees He regularly displays an attitude that he has fully attained to the proper view of the faith and that he has nothing else to learn

That may mitigate the extremity of some of the views he holds overall

He does not put forward an attitude that would communicate the idea that he is willing to hear people out understand them and show them as His perspective where they hope to reach the mutual goal a good of all

Involved secondly James White is so fixed in his theology and ministry within the sovereignty of God That he cannot speak with any kind of sustain

Substand about God's will desire love or grace about anything other than God's sovereignty decree and predestining purpose well

I'm not even gonna go into that because it's sort of silly and everybody knows it anyways The final portion of it said so if you want pure to puritanism of the modern variety

James White is your man He toes the line to a tee So you know of course the fact that I listened to 13 and a half hours of Steve Gregg's mp3s last year played a

Large portion of them gave the man how many people? play as much of my statements

When they respond to me as I play of others does anybody do that I?

Have stuff queued up right now. I've got Tim Staples talking about me queued up right now and Mr..

Martin Yoni, and I've played Jimmy Akin and Of course like I said we went through Steve Gregg, and I play the

Muslims And I play D dots and I I give these folks I expose my audience to more of the other side than anybody

I know of and Then interact with them But what exactly?

Do you hear in the last five days other than day four when

I refused to get into a mud -slinging Fight and try to talk over people because we are doing radio here

And that would mean the people on my side of the people who are listening to my webcast would only hear me

Steve Gregg's connection to us was not all that strong What did he say today?

He? His connection is actually through some corn kind of VPN type thing and he said it kept crashing every day except for the last day and So one of his distractions was he was having to enter in passwords and stuff like that to read

It's go to your PC is how he connects Yeah Rich is looking at me amazingly that meant that the quality we were getting at times really wasn't very good and there wasn't anything

We could do about it because he's not actually on a regular phone line And so in situations where you start interrupting people

I learned a long long time ago I don't call into a radio station and argue with the host because I know the host voice is always gonna trump me and If we get into a back -and -forth,

I'm dead People aren't gonna hear what I have to say. The other guy's gonna get to say whatever he wants say That's it learn that a long time ago

So if he starts interrupting me Then the people on my end and listening to my webcast listening to the recordings coming from my end

They're gonna hear me people on his end the radio stations. They're not gonna hear me and it accomplishes absolutely positively nothing

So I just stopped I said look I've made my objection to this. We we did not have any rules for this

I should have the one mistake. I made at that point is I should have right then said, you know what? Let's drop this 12 -minute thing.

Even that's what we're supposed to be doing Let's drop this 12 -minute thing if you want to do cross -examination This is how we do it in debates one minute to frame the question two minutes to respond one minute response

That's what we did last day and it worked perfectly That's what I should have done at that point. I was still thinking about the 12 -minute thing

I didn't even didn't even give it a second thought But I that was that would have helped a whole lot at that point.

Yes, sir I wanted to interject there because somebody on his web board had started this idea about comparing

Your response to that the yes or no questions the complex questions.

He was throwing out demanding a yes or no answer And then they brought up the Tim Staples debate on on aureus and your line of questioning was

Tim Staples The interesting thing about that is is that you asked questions and Tim Staples answered those and yes, they were yes or no.

Did this happen? Yes or no. Did that happen? And yes, they were that but you didn't then step on his answer and then start to rebut

His answer you ask the question. He gives an answer. You ask the next question. You ask the question

He gives an answer you ask the next question and that's not what was happening here the other day and that would have been just a chaotic broadcast and and frankly would have gotten both of you angry and it would have served the audience and not wouldn't have done anything at all and Yeah, there is no and and the fellow who made that That's a comparison is in channel right now

And I identified it as an inane comparison and I still believe it's an inane comparison. That doesn't mean he's inane

I believe the comparisons inane And the reason is very simple. Mr. Staples Had Violated every rule of debate before this

He had taken at least three minutes of the question answer time to make a further statement of something in the previous part of the debate he wanted to talk about and then

Instead of asking questions getting answers than asking questions He asked a question get an answer and then he would sit there and rebut it and talk about it and go on and it

Only asked me about four distinct questions in 12 minutes so Interestingly enough even yesterday and you saw it a lot of people saw it when

I would ask him a question I Had one minute he'd have two minutes to respond then

I'd have a one -minute rebuttal and what almost every time not every time But at least four out of the six times

When he now had one minute to ask me a question What would he do would he just ask a question or could he resist the temptation to comment on what

I had just said? which is a violation of what you're supposed to be doing in cross -examination and I You can go back and listen to tapes never did that No matter what his response was no matter what he had said in his one minute before I then asked my question

I did not rebut what he had just said look in cross -examination You rebut the guy by the forms of the questions that you ask you

Demonstrate the inconsistency of his position the incoherence of his position you don't do it by making snide comments or Making commentary on what his answers just were that's just that's how you do it so anyways but anyhow

Other than a few moments in number four and I don't even know how that expresses hatred I was showing respect for the audience and recognizing that what was about to happen was gonna show disrespect the audience

Where does this guy going back to the blog article get this this hatred

This this assertion of hatred. Well, it's it's because he's got a deep streak of postmodernism

And if I dare to say no, sir, you are wrong. They see the postmodern way of doing it is

Let me give you an example Steve Gregg Steve Gregg kept turning direct objects into something other than direct objects and in language you have a verb as direct object a certain relationship between the words and So he kept changing that and the postmodern way of Responding to someone who's basically turning language into jello

Is to do something along the lines of well, you know, I really appreciate how you feel about that But I think that a better way of understanding that would be this

Now maybe there are some people who can do that But you know what? I was raised back in the olden days where when

I turned in a paper in in elementary school and I said 2 plus 5 equals 8

They didn't say well it that's nice But it might be better if you understood 2 plus 5 equals 7 they didn't do that back then they marked it with a big red

X and they said it was wrong and You know what? That didn't actually destroy me.

It didn't destroy my ego It didn't turn me into a psychopathic killer In fact, it was a good thing to know the difference between something that's right and something that's wrong

And when Steve Gregg tells us that disposed is an appropriate translation of to talk

Menoy a son Talking Menoy a paraphrastic instruction, but never addresses the paraphrastic instruction.

You can either go well, you know That's one way of seeing it, but I feel it would be better or you could say sir.

That is wrong and Where do you divide them? You know, where's the dividing line?

I mean the very title of this program is offensive to the post modernist The very title this program is hateful the dividing line.

We don't want to divide we want to be inclusive You know, so it really amazes me that the the people out there who think that they can do some some junior mind reading and read my heart and my soul and Inform me of what my my thoughts and intentions and motivations are

The idea that that I'm somehow focused upon Steve Gregg Is just silly

The fact the matter is I see this as a vital issue and I said this during the bait It's a vital issue because it touches upon how we defend the faith.

And as I said in the very closing statements I think some people probably found this odd But I said, you know what?

One of the things that it's really important here is Christianity is under attack from every every corner. Our freedoms are being taken away from us

Secularists are seeking to shut our mouths all across post -christian Europe and post -christian

Canada and post -christian United States and Obviously Islam is more than happy to throw us in jail or to kill us for daring to believe what we believe and that's happening all over the world in Malaysia and Indonesia and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and places like that and so we have enemies and What are we doing?

Well, it seems that there's a lot of folks who call themselves Christians sitting around gazing at their navel going.

Let's have a dialogue Let's talk How do you see this passage?

What happened to? ambassadors for Christ with a message a message of a king and a king who calls for repentance and Bowing the knee before him what happened to an authoritative proclamation?

There aren't any Spurgeons anymore. And one of the reasons is people just don't think that way anymore

Well, I refuse to buy into that way of thought just not not going there Sorry, if you want to misidentify that as hatred, it is not hatred

It is actually respect for truth and we could we could discuss that eight seven seven seven five three three three four one

Let's go with Marcus. Hi Marcus. How you doing? Hello, are you doing good?

That's good. I wanted One of the things I saw in this debate was he was saying that You know, you don't

Grow up Growing up and just looking at the scriptures. You wouldn't kept grabbing this and wouldn't grow out of it, right?

One thing is I know for sure. I didn't know it was called amendment, but I was that's how

I was raised and I think you hit the on the head when you say how

Those traditions can color the way you see scripture And I was wondering from the reformed point of view where what is the origin of evil

From the standpoint, you know, I I think we can conclusively prove from scripture and you've done it very well

That we don't have free will you know where our wills are bound to spend and yet I've heard people try to twist the

Calvinism to say that God created evil By ordaining that Adam would sin, but that doesn't

I I'm not sure. What's the reformed? Doctrine on well, obviously the the issue of the very origin of evil

Is one that's the greatest minds in Christianity whether you call them Calvinist or not in fact,

I think just using that terminology of anyone prior to the the 16th century is a little silly, but Wherever they came down on the issue of the freedom of God and the will of man so on so forth the origin the will of evil is is a question that everyone has to ask because Unless you are a an open theist, which

I do consider to be a heresy Yeah, which mr. Greg is not but if if you unless you're an open theist then when

God created God at least you have to affirm knew that evil was going to exist And so when he created he created at the very least the potentiality for evil to exist

And I would argue that if he knew that it was going to exist without any question That you really are in everyone's pretty much in the same boat at that particular point in time if you believe that creation came into existence so that God might glorify himself by the through the demonstration of the entire range of his attributes

Including his holiness His justice the demonstration of his power to the to what are called in You know

Paul makes reference to the heavenly authorities, whatever else you might think he says it whatever they are The demonstration of his wrath as well as his love his mercy

His compassion if you believe that creation is going to require the demonstration of the full range of the attributes of God Then there has to be something that that explains

How evil comes into existence if evil does not come into existence? You're not going to have the demonstration the full range of God's attributes.

You're not going to need Mercy, you're not going to need forgiveness or compassion. I can eat wrath if there is no reason for it to come into existence and so Anybody who's not an open theist?

Has to answer that question whether they are willing to do it is another issue It's pretty much only the Calvinists that are willing to do so secondly the next thing to consider is any discussion that we have about our state and our will is

Post Adam we are all fallen in him and whether a person is willing to follow Paul and his federal theology in Romans 5 or not

We are fallen creatures and even the Pelagian will admit well We have evil around us now and and so on so forth so our will and the fall in this of our nature makes it pretty difficult for us to Extrapolate backwards shall we say?

To the unique situation of Adam and yet that is where people go all the time

They want to go to Adam first and foremost and then extrapolate out from Adam To us even though it's impossible to go both directions because we can't look at someone today

Who is a new Adam? It just simply doesn't work that way though people try to make it to try to turn it into that kind of a kind of an argument

I Remember when I was oh, I don't know in my early 20s

Spending a great deal of mental energy Seeking to find some some way to put these concepts together and I Remember thinking as a young person

I had found a way to do it, but I just couldn't put into words It was sort of a graphical thing And I maybe

I've just forgotten what it was or I've just gotten old enough to realize I was probably hadn't but I've learned the wisdom of what

John Calvin said over against Jonathan Edwards and what I mean by that is that John Calvin Would speak of the fact that we need to make an end of speaking where God makes an end of speaking that is if you go

Beyond his revelation and start speculating You can get into a lot of trouble

Jonathan Edwards didn't really take that advice to heart and he did attempt to answer all the questions that could be asked about the nature of Adam's will the relationship to God's decree and how evil could be a certainty and yet Adam not have any inclination toward it, etc, etc and Even a great fan of Jonathan Edwards like dr.

Gerstner I had to admit that the great Edwards found himself Entangled in a morass of self -contradiction from which he could not extricate himself, and I would agree

That that Edwards was probably one of the greatest theological minds certainly the greatest theological mind produced in in the

United States and and maybe of a number of centuries, but still Insufficient to do that and there's a simple reason for it

There are only two chapters of Revelation have anything to do with Adam before the fall and there's nothing in them that gives us sufficient information to come up with an answer

All we can say is that God says That he has never forced anyone to do evil

He has never caused anyone to do evil against their their desire their will and so we go back

We go back to Augustine And he says of course that the Adam was created in such a way that it was it was that while he was not a

Sinner it was possible for him yet to sin in his state of perfection And there's all sorts of discussions about well.

What's the what's the role of grace among to a person who is not a sinner? You know all the stuff that has been gotten into over over the over the years, but I don't believe that we can

Affirm in any way shape or form that God was surprised by evil and if we believe that it was his purpose to Create so that Christ could redeem a people then a need for redemption was part and parcel of that eternal decree

So is it any different honestly? To look at the fact that it was a part of God's eternal decree

That to Joseph at a certain point in time in history go into Egypt so as to accomplish

The bringing the people of Israel there the Passover the destruction of the gods of Israel, etc Etc all the things that became signs and symbols the coming of the work of Christ Is it all that different to say that was an absolute certainty and that the brothers of Joseph?

Did what their hearts desired they were not innocent bystanders that God forced to do evil and of course immediately somebody says well

Wait a minute that God was restraining them from doing evil He wasn't restraining

Adam from doing evil because Adam didn't have an evil nature That's the whole point God didn't restrain

Adam from doing what was evil and people say ah see there is libertarian free will well Adam Adam doesn't exist anymore and the exact nature of his will and its relationship the decree of God I think we can only state what scripture states and then say if you want to try to figure that out on the basis of two chapters revelation only a few words of which

Could provide you with anything that you can even begin to speculate on that's that's your desire

But I think there is a everything wise in hearing what Calvin said and that is there is as scripture says itself

The things that are revealed belong to us and to our children the secret things belong to the Lord our

God and if he does not feel fit to Necessary for us to have a lengthy theological discussion about the nature of Adam's will then that's certainly up to him

Yeah, I see what you mean. I I You know the other thing that was really helpful

I you know the other thing I heard I saw kind of like in the Steve Gregg form Was someone was upset that you were using

Greek to exegete the text and I'm like How could you not?

Well, I saw the same thing and I think part of the at least the accusation that I saw is that I was using it

Gratuitously that is I was using when there was no reason to of course whenever people yeah

Well when people when when people make that kind of an assertion I I would like to you know if I had the time or I thought was worthwhile

I like to ask them could you give me some examples and normally? The examples either are easily demonstrated to be a misapprehensions or no examples are given

So I think that the Greek that I that I presented was very important because it is interesting

Steve Gregg used it as well Evidently he can use it and that's that's not objectionable, but if I do it is objectionable, so you know yeah

I let people determine you know the the consistency from that point It helps me

To look at it. I don't know Grammar the grammar very well, and I know like you said a little

Greek is a very dangerous thing That's definitely a true statement. I mean like I'm thinking primarily like you know

I'm Matthew 22 and 14 You know many are wait many are called, but few are chosen

I've seen another translation that said many are called with you choose. Oh Goodness, and I'm like no that doesn't seem right no

Yeah, it's like reminds me of like what's the point you're making about? Acts 13 and 48 right my most of the descript most of the translations

I have seen Our chosen it's chosen ordained. Yeah, but yeah, and I saw a

I think it was a footnote somewhere or something that someone was trying to make that chose

Yeah, so I take it from your reaction that that is definitely the wrong translation

Yeah, I think we really went into into detail on that and and I honestly did not hear a meaningful response from mr.

Greg I he never touched the the paraphrastic instruction That's found there And and I don't believe that he's in a position to be able to do so the sources that he's depending upon specifically shanks

Work elect in the Sun and life in the Sun do not touch on those subjects

They just they just don't even recognize that it's there So if that's the best sources that he has and his sources failed in there

Well, that's that's where the problem was. Hey, I've got a call from the UK. I need to get to Marcus Thank you very much for your phone call. I'm not sure where Viejo, California is, but you know

Okay, so where I'll be on the 22nd then yeah All right, well,

I'll be driving through there as I head over to debate so remember us on the 22nd Thanks a lot

Marcus. Thank you. All right. God bless Yeah, I Don't know

California is a big place, you know, I was would have guessed Southern, California. But anyways, let's get to Jason over in the

United Kingdom I hope they're not listening to whatever it is You have to say Jason because I'm starting to wonder if there's any religious freedom left over there especially if you say if especially if you say anything could possibly be interpreted as Slightly offensive to any religious minority, especially

Muslims Yeah, I know I know what you mean, they're getting a bit ridiculous

Well, in fact, I did you see the article yesterday in I think the London Times or something about?

Osama bin Laden's right -hand man They can't they can't deport him and they have to give him a thousand pounds public assistance per month

Is that that's where your tax money is going? Yes. Anyway, what's up,

Jason? Well, yeah, I have a question for you regarding regarding Reformed theology and it's to do with the with the free offer of the gospel and my question is simply this then

Does God offer? Christ salvation or mercy to the non elect and does he in any sense?

Will their salvation? Well, that sounds very much like what mr. Greg was asking though I think he was a little bit more specific toward the end and the answer that I gave that I'll repeat now

Has two aspects first of all from the human aspect The free offer the gospel goes out to all people because humans do not know the identity of the elect and since no one will

Have that knowledge other than God The only way a human being can possibly answer the question

Is to say what Scripture says and that is that any person who repents and believes in Jesus Christ Will be saved

But I think the question as it is often I think somewhat unnecessarily

Asked because again it forces us into a similar situation as the last discussion of Adam To ask the question.

Well if God has not eternally decreed the salvation of John Brown then can we really say that there is a free offer of the gospel to John Brown and Again, the very phrase free offer

Demands that we discuss the means by which the offer is made But I've already said that the means is us and since we don't know who the elect are it sort of makes it

A little bit like the discussion of superlapsarian and infralapsarian positions

I mean, but there are you know, there are Calvinist theologians such as such as John Murray and Who you know, that's still

Johnson, for example, who? Who hold that view and and that I mean still

Johnson it would even even say that it's you know a hyper Calvinist tendency to deny that God in some way offers salvation to the nine elect

Well when we say when we well again If I just said that it is our and that is our job to offer

Salvation to the non -elect because we don't know who they are Then yes, the salvation is being offered to the non -elect

But when someone says in some in May, but when someone but when someone says in some way

Then I need something more of a definition of in what way? Are we going to say for example that?

Christ Gives that the Christ intercedes that Christ gives his his life for the non -elect

Even though that is not God's purpose to grant to them the freedom from their sins

So as to accept this, I mean what when we say some way I interpret some way as The free and open proclamation of the gospel hyper

Calvinism requires us to go around and and identify the elect I'm not sure how we're supposed to do that, but we can't do it.

I think the understanding is Although you know God has reprobated certain people

There is a you know a desire on his part that they should be saved Even though because he has a higher purpose

You know that you know that doesn't happen and I think one example of one verse that would might indicate that would be easy to kill c33 11 which

Says that you know surely as I live says the Lord God I have no delight in the death of the wicked, but rather they turn from their way and live

Well, that's proclaimed to you know, the whole of the nation of Israel not just you know, the elect within within that community

Yeah, and that's one of the problems I have with with Ezekiel 18 or 33 Being read into this particular issue because I feel like we're being forced to somehow attribute to God Some kind for some reason some kind of an attitude of desire that I just never see

Not only do I never see expressed but it likewise would force us to say that that God has an unfulfilled desire

But it's not really the same desire as he chooses to fulfill with other people And and we're left not only you're not only left with the the two -wills conundrum now, you've got

Multiple desires conundrums which which I don't I just don't see a reason for it So the Ezekiel texts are talking to people who were saying that there was no reason for them to repent

Because they're already doomed because of the sins of their forefathers. That's why they repeated the

Parable that their teeth being set on edge because of this the sour grapes that their their fathers had and so on so forth

And so I hear what Ezekiel is is being said Saying is is as a apologetic response to people who were saying there's no reason to preach this people there's no reason for us to even listen to the message of of the prophets because Our repentance would never be accepted now, that's different than Isaiah's commissioning where where God specifically commissions him

To proclaim a message of judgments and says he's going to harden the hearts of the individuals who hear it

That's a completely different context, but I don't I I just you know, if someone can explain to me

Where the idea comes from that we have to attribute to God a desire that he then does not fulfill

And then in fact, I evidently Causes him to have an unfulfilled desire

Unhappiness pain or something? I I know where this comes from in liberal European theology because I went to former seminary for crying out loud and I listened to All the stuff about in fact, we had somebody in channel just a couple days ago talking about well

Don't you think that God suffers like we suffer and he's sad like we're sad and all the rest of stuff and I got all

That for I know where it's coming from from there but within the reformed realm of folks,

I'm I Understand and have stood against hyper Calvinism for a long long time and people thinking that we somehow can know who the elect are

But on the other side, I want to go All right I fully understand how given the means that God uses to draw his elect into himself

That there is a free offer the gospel that I can never look at someone. I do not have the right to reprobate anybody

I can't do that. I have to proclaim to everybody but I have a problem then saying and my proclamation of the gospel to others means that I then have to affirm some kind of a partially salvific desire because it can only be partially salvific if it's truly a salvific desire and It's truly a desire of God.

Does he not do whatever he pleases in the heavens and the earth? You know, so if it's if it is his desire that he's going to accomplish it if it's not his desire, you know,

I I Think that the ambiguity at that point To use the term that so we've been using a lot is because would you say though that you've perhaps placed?

Yourself in a minority among among Calvinist. No, I don't think so I think that you have

I know that what John Murray has said, but no, I don't think that as a minority position at all

I think there are lots of folks in the past who have Expressed I think properly

The fact that Christ is to be presented to all men And that we do not have the the right to reprobate anyone.

We do not know the identity of the elect Who did not go so far as to say and what that means is that there is a partially

Salvific desire on the part of God that he has a desire But for some reason that I has never been explained to me.

He chooses not to act upon it And hence causes himself to be eternally unfulfilled

I don't see that in a large number. I don't see that in a large number of Calvinistic writers and There is a range of expression on this but no,

I don't think I'm in a in a minority position and again If someone wants to explain to me

What a partial salvific desire is and how it is expressed in Scripture then great

I'll be glad to hear it, but Might be that Might be that We that's not something that we can fully fully understand

It's something that seems to be taught in Scripture in which we we have to do that.

You believe I suppose Well, I'll be honest with you. The only the only text that I've heard other than you know the

Implication that you're you're taking from exodus 33 in second Peter 3 9 and I know that there are those who look at second

Peter 3 9 And they see there that that universal salvific will I I think that I'm giving a pretty consistent exegetical

Response to that to say well, okay I have respect for for men who have held that view, but I have not at any time

Seen any of those who take that view respond to what I said about the text and that is when you look at the pronouns

Who is being referred to here? I've never and if and if you look to a writer and the writer expresses such -and -such of you and You find no evidence that that writer had ever even encountered

An alternate exegesis that is a sound exegesis, then I don't know that that writers opinion is necessarily as weighty as it could be.

Otherwise For example, you may know That when John Owen wrote the death of death

And there would be a lot of people who would have problems with how quote -unquote severe John Owen was on certain issues but when

John Owen wrote the death of death and He tried to deal with the Hebrews 10 text

He clearly had never Read Hebrews 10 29 in such a way as to see the one who sanctifies himself as Christ Now remember death of death is his first major work 25 years later when he writes his commentary on Hebrews Now is a mature theologian.

He has now exegeted that text and he presents a completely different discussion

Now that he's had the time to work with the text and he sees ah, this is something I didn't know back then

I did it didn't even enter into my thinking and He then presents the idea the one who is sanctified in Hebrews 10 29 is in fact

Christ that he has set himself apart So the point being could someone look at what he said in death of death.

What if he had never written? His Hebrews commentary later on and what if he had never even given consideration to the other exegesis of the text

Which is just as valid as the one that he was operating on if you've never heard the other interpretation is your opinion on That text as weighty as people who have and give a response that's that's what

I'm asking when someone looks at 2nd Peter 3 9 I go. All right, who of these people have actually in their commentaries respond to What I say about the exegesis, obviously not me myself, but just simply those who agree in that way

I think there's there's something important there to look into Okay Okay.

All right. Thank you very much. Jason. Thanks for calling. All right, good Bye Yeah, well that was uh, that was quite interesting

And a lot of folks in the eyes going what were you talking about? We were you know, I think it's unfortunate

That again, you know Calvinists tend to be this way and there's a reason why we are but sometimes we focus upon some real minutiae and you know,

I I don't know how many times I have to say we don't know who the elect are and Therefore we proclaim the gospel to everybody but there are some who would say and if you don't add to that that God has a

That God has a partially salvific desire. You can go ahead and differentiate That he has a truly salvific desire for the elect, but you have to have a partial so that I just go

What does that mean? If you could tell me what it means, you know Is that common grace?

It does that mean that God has is kind to the non elect? Okay, I've said that a million times, but that's not what

I'm hearing, you know, and and I just go What does it mean to say that God desires to do something?

He then does not provide the means to do What does that mean? And no one's ever been able to tell me So once somebody can tell me then

I can jump on the bandwagon I guess if there is a bandwagon jump on to but if you can't tell me what it means then What can

I say? Can't can't go there. So Anyways, that's what that particular discussion was all about.

And guess what? We didn't get a chance to listen to Well, let me just play

I do want to play Yeah, I know but this is this takes longer than this is four minutes long But I I do

Listen to this caller on Catholic answers live then the next time we get together I can not only give you a report on the debate, but I can also

Finish this out. Listen. Listen. Oops, it would help if the thing was plugged in turn it down turn it down turn it Okay, here we go.

Here's listen to this woman's call right here in San Diego. This is Liz. Hi Liz. Welcome to the program

Hi, hi Um, so Tim I've been looking on the internet for the last six months and I originally started looking on for debates between you and other like Protestant apologists, okay, and I keep seeing this

James white guy and I've come to notice. He's a lot of hatred towards the church, especially

People that defend the faith and I just and I know that you've had interaction with him Yes, and I just what's the story with him and and is this a typical?

Position that evangelicals have towards hatred toward the church I Know I you know, how many times have we tried to get people who say that kind of thing to call?

Remember, it was a guardian. Was that guy's name? He was supposed to call how long ago now We're working on nine.

Yeah, I think he's a little overdue a little overdue. Yeah. Yeah, I think it was good I think it was guardian.

We may need to see if we can track him down. He may have left the country You know you try to get these folks to actually provide you some some meaningful examples and You just gotta get used to it.

That's that is the voice of post -modernism Hatred the post modern the post modernist looks at looks at you saying that is wrong

Rome does not give you a false gospel. Oh, you're hateful. Oh You're hateful.

That's the post modernist and folks. Let me tell you something post Post -modernism is not a valid option for the

Christian mind The mind of Christ does not think in that kind of mushy fashion

That's not hatred in any way shape or form That's so sad that that's what I think it's a part of God's judgment on our culture clear -thinking people

That's common grace muddled thinking that's God's judgment coming upon a culture and that's culture

We live in and that's culture. We talked about here on the dividing line. We'll be back Please remember to pray for the debate coming up on Saturday and Lord willing

Tuesday morning We'll have a report for you right here. Talk to you then Douglas The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 973 4602 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 r g Where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks join us again next