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 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three three-four-one. 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.

Reflections on the Debate and the Difficulty of Defining Steve Gregg

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.

Hi 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.

When we first went to it, I didn't know what was going on, but I kind of got used to that. Hey, you know anything other than a bondage call. Three hundred. Yeah, it's nice living in the Far East and having modern technology.

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 since this week and I think you you interchange. I Think if I had the place, it'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, but you know, honestly, I know that's impossible would never deal with the text. He would like wander all over and say well, it could mean this and it could mean that in fact when he first started He said well Armenians believe this and I don't know if I consider myself an Armenian and all throughout.

He'd never say what he believes he would say Armenians and from his very first statement I couldn't even tell if that's really what he would believe he would just kind of upon what you said by going to a bunch of other a positive presentation at any one point because.

Even when he was trying to place and I think you nailed him a few times, especially when. When when an author cannot allow Paul himself to to actually 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 Argum the Old Testament they would destroy the New Testament.

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

You know, it's. Well, let's use a military analogy. It's a whole lot easier to go into Iraq when there is 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 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 might mean this the problem with him presenting any positive case for what he believed then it is hermeneutic. You could just wander around the scriptures and collect enough to cast doubt on any of the scriptural teachings.

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 it's like if I had a choir and I got to choose who was going to be in the choir.

And then the twat the president invited the choir and I and you know, but see the problem is Pete. Other people find that persuasive. Issue is I think that you have to go back to and this is where people lack sometimes Spiritual and mental display allergy 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 and 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 if we don't under particular grace and it's beginning and ending and it's in that but I think I really for the fear extent.

How in person on text that it's just kind of this generic idea that Christ is out there. And you're not saying that you can be a part of right and that that of course lends itself. No, how you can have any 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.

Mm-hmm, 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 that men righteous that they're both kind of like well, it doesn't say that you know kind of 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 a message and that sort of error than Arminian theology. So I wouldn't even classify Steve Greg per se as an Arminian because he Arminians at least the necessity of grace.

Yeah being a better 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.

Yeah, and I just don't know how else to understand it. So yeah, but I. 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 to you. I appreciate you taking my call early. I actually need 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. 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 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 is the phone number that is a toll-free number 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1.

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 if 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 predestined purpose.

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

He tows 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 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 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 that point. Yes, sir.

I wanted to interject there because so many 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 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 and 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 work.

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 to 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 has 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 Tatag Menoy a son at Tatag 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 we better or you can 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 miss identify 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, how 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 Gravitas and wouldn't grow out of right.

Yeah. 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 bone ahead when you say history 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 our wills are bad and yet I've heard people try to twist the Calvin 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 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 to 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 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 of 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.

They 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.