A Two-Hour Delayed Version of the Dividing Line

And welcome to The Dividing Line, my name is James White. Let's try this all again, shall we? Two hours ago we tried this and the audio did not work for us.

Do not know why. It would be good if we knew why, but do not know why.

But we're doing it completely differently now, so we will see if this is going to work. I am running blind in here, so I don't know what's going on.

Oh, hey, there it is. It's that icky looking pixelated one, but it's at least there.

So, what we were doing before we were most rudely interrupted by technical difficulties.

And could be rudely interrupted again. The tests worked fine, but one thing

I learned running sound at a very large church once is you can test everything you want and it can work absolutely perfectly before the show starts.

And then once the show starts, well, it's completely different. Someone in channel says it's the

Tribble's fault, which is the wild card issue.

We had not actually had the Tribble make the Tribble sound on the program before.

So, it is a possible issue. I sort of doubt it, though.

Anyway, I was mentioning that last week or the week before last, we had encountered a summer reading list that included

Don Johnson's book, And the Petals Fall, A Rebuttal of Tulip Theology.

So, here you can see there's And the Petals Fall, A Rebuttal of Tulip Theology.

And I wanted to find out specifically of all the things that the advertisement on the website indicated was how

John 6 actually teaches the opposite of Calvinism. And we've been looking at some attempts to get around the teaching of John 6.

And what we're discovering is there's really only one way to do it. And that is basically to insist, and notice he has to get on his old man glasses here, is to insist that those that the father gives to the son, the father gives because of a pre -existing fulfillment of certain requirements on the part of that individual.

Pre -existing faith, the goodness of that individual, the person was already a believer, etc., etc.,

etc. And so, this is actually taking the faithful Jews before Jesus and making them into faithful believers, in essence, is all that allegedly this is saying.

Now, the problem with that, of course, is that that doesn't answer the question of the text itself because the specific

Jews to whom Jesus is speaking are not identified as Jewish leaders.

These are not the, they're not identified as scribes and Pharisees. In fact, they're identified as what?

Maatheitai, disciples. And then it said that they were no longer following after Jesus, they went away.

But this group that is unbelieving is specifically different than the violent response of the

Jews in John chapter 5, and John chapter 8, and John chapter 10.

These are individuals who had listened all day to Jesus the day before, and they're now seeking after signs.

They're not naturally the enemies of Jesus' claims. They're friendly toward all of that. They don't mind being called disciples.

They've rowed across a lake to find Jesus. And yet, Jesus says, you are unbelievers.

Why are they unbelievers? Because they're not looking to Jesus as their sole source of spiritual sustenance, and that they need to recognize this reality.

And when they see the focused proclamation of the gospel upon the person of Jesus Christ, they are offended.

But they're offended at a level of saying, this is a difficult saying. Who can understand it? Who can, who is able to bear it?

And they turn around, they walk away. They don't try to stone Jesus. They don't try to throw him off of a cliff.

They don't try to get the Romans to come and take him away or anything like that.

And so, the whole idea that what you've got here is

Jesus explaining that those that the Father gives me are the ones the

Father has already found faithful in believing in him. Is the exact opposite of what we would conclude when we look at the situation in John chapter 6, because that would mean that the 11 disciples, we'll leave

Judas out of this for the moment, though he's an interesting aspect of the study. That the 11 disciples are given by the

Father, the Son, because the Father already knows that they are good. That they are better than others.

That they are faithful. That they are more pliable. It always comes down to the same thing, no matter how you slice it.

When people say, well, I want to go over the third way. I don't, this Calvinism, that's just not enough options here.

It's real simple. Either you're going to be in heaven because you were better than other people, or you're going to be in heaven because of God's grace.

One of the two. That's one of the two. And you need to realize the synergist who says, oh, it's all of grace.

If it weren't for God's grace, no one would be saved. That's great. That's fine. That's wonderful.

Rome says the same thing. Even Mormonism says that. Now, obviously, it's greater in lesser extents as to the role of grace in all of this.

But if you're a synergist, you can talk about grace until the cows come home.

But A, grace itself can't save. And B, there is something other than God's free will that constrains the success of God's grace and salvation.

That's just, you've got to establish that to be a synergist. If you don't, you're a monergist. And so what you're hearing here is, well, sure sounds like in John 6 there are these strong words, but the reality is that the ones that the

Father gives have fulfilled certain requirements. They're God -fearers.

They're more spiritually sensitive. However you want to fill it in. That's how it's going to work. Let's listen to what

Don Johnson and the pedals fall says here. Having said the scriptures mean what they say and say what they mean, all three of the above verses, which is

John 637, 644, and 665, are true as they stand.

And there is no need to change any word whatsoever in them or infer anything into them. They are to be believed exactly as they were written.

There is, however, one small caveat. These verses were all applicable at that time in history when

Jesus spoke them. And when I saw that time in bold, I thought, oh, is this the dispensational way around this?

Because we've looked at a couple sort of hyper -dispensational. This only had to do with the Jews and, you know, that type of thing.

But it's not. When he spoke those words during his earthly ministry, all three verses were relevant for that period of time.

There is no need to get around them, nor should there be. Since it is the Father who gives or the

Father who draws or those who were given by the Father, the questions are asked, who is given by the

Father? Verse 37. Who is it that the Father draws? Verse 44. Who are they that were given unto the

Son by the Father? Verse 65. To answer these questions, let's begin by looking at a parallel passage.

And he goes to John chapter 10. At least it is, in fact, a parallel passage.

It's nice that it is relevant. Definitely a parallel text.

You have the giving of the Father to the Son, the Son's role in salvation, the very triune nature of salvation here, that the

Father and the Son are united in the salvation of God's people. Definitely the parallel passage.

Mr. Johnson goes on. Jesus said that His sheep hear His voice, they know Him, they follow Him, and He gives them eternal life.

Then He said, My Father which gave them Me. Here is the giving that was mentioned back in John 6 .37,

6 .65. If they are Jesus' sheep and they follow Him because they hear

His voice, then the logical extension is, they were His Father's sheep, then they must also have followed the

Father and heard Him. Two things. Notice the insertion of the synergism there.

Synergism got inserted there. It says, if they are Jesus' sheep and they follow

Him because they hear His voice. They hear

His voice because they are His sheep. See, it is just so incredibly common for the synergist to insert synergism into his interpretation of monergistic passages.

Let me give you an example of this. It is one that I have used many times before. Look with me real quickly at John chapter 8.

There are two texts that I like to point out at this point. I have done it before, but it fits with this, so it works together.

By the way, since it is later in the day, we might even get some calls. 877 -753 -3341, 877 -753 -3341.

Verse 43, John 8, 43. Why do you not understand what

I am saying? Now, stop right there. He is talking to fake believers.

These are the ones who had, earlier in the chapter, had heard

Him saying, arguing with the Jews like this, and they believed in Him.

Eris, not present tense. It is not saving faith in the Gospel of John that is in view here, but they had believed in Him.

As soon as Jesus said, if you continue My word, then you are My disciples indeed. You shall know the truth.

The truth shall set you free. As soon as Jesus says, you shall be set free, they become offended. If you want to find out if someone has really embraced grace and understood their true standing before God, talk about the need to be set free.

It is not long until that old man comes popping out. What do you mean set free?

I don't need to be set free. Well, so they become upset. So this is who he is talking to.

If he said, why do you not understand what I am saying, what is the response going to be from a monergist versus a synergist?

There is going to be lots of synergistic responses to this. Jesus' response is, it is because you cannot hear

My word. You are unable. You are not able to hear.

You lack the capacity, the ability to hear My word, and therefore you do not understand.

So I guess what is being suggested by many people today is that there are certain lost people that this is descriptive of, but only certain ones.

There are others who possess the ability to hear, and that this does not apply to them.

This is only these particular individuals, that there would have been others. Now remember, these are, again, foe disciples, just as in John 6.

Now they are going to end up picking up stones in John 8. But they had just believed in Jesus.

These aren't the Jewish leaders in that sense, though I would say the application is the same too.

Anyone, you are of your father the devil. Are there people who do not have the devil as their father?

Something tells me that a lot of these synergists would have to come to that conclusion that yes. Only certain people have the devil as their father.

So there is a much wider variety of people from their perspective,

I would assume. But then notice verse 47.

He who is of God hears the words of God. Now what we are hearing from Mr.

Johnson, I already started to hear from Mr. Johnson, is that to belong to God, to be of God, is to already have demonstrated that you fear

God. That you are a God -fearer. And so, this is something that people can accomplish in and of themselves.

It is something that can be done apart from the supernatural activity of saving grace. I haven't read enough of the book yet to know if he is into prevenient grace and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

But verse 47 says, The one who is of God, the one who belongs to God, is hearing the

Remata of God. The words of God. For this reason you do not hear them.

Now ask a synergist what the rest of the sentence is going to be without letting him read the verse.

For this reason you do not hear them. Because you do not choose to do so. That would be a true statement, but it would be an insufficient statement.

They don't choose to do so. They don't want to. They don't want to submit themselves to the law of God.

That's what Romans 8 says. But that's not what Jesus said. Jesus said, because you are not of God.

So the order, the reason you do not hear, is because you are not of God.

Yet now we're being told there are people who can hear, and that's why they then come to belong to God, is because they choose to.

See, that's how you get the synergism in. There's something in them. They're good enough.

They're different. They make the free will choice. And therefore, they belong to God.

Not because God chose them, but because they chose God. And that then, all we're really talking about in John 6 and John 8, is an extended revelation from the

God they're already following as to who he is and the revelation that he has made in Jesus Christ.

That's what we're getting at. So, if they're

Jesus' sheep and they follow him because they hear his voice, then the logical extension is, well, careful, they were his father's sheep, then they must also have followed the father and heard him.

See, notice that the shift now has been, I mean, if anyone's read

John chapter 10, the emphasis is upon the actions, capabilities, and powers of whom?

The shepherd or the sheep? The shepherd or the sheep?

In any synergistic reading, it's the sheep. That's what we got right here. Then they must also have followed the father and heard him.

Why? Because they already belong to his sheep. That's the whole point of John chapter 10, is that the shepherd chooses his sheep.

The shepherd defines the flock. Here, you've got the flock defining itself for the shepherd.

Did that come from John chapter 10? Where did it come from? The traditions that Don Johnson has imbibed.

Now, he doesn't realize that, I would imagine, but there it is. Otherwise, you would have a shepherd the sheep do not know, which is ridiculous, particularly in the context.

Of course, but who establishes the relationship between shepherd and sheep?

This is saying, the sheep do. The Bible is saying, the shepherd does.

It's that simple. Here we have the first clue as to who it is that was given or who it was that was drawn.

These would first be the father's sheep. A category, by the way, that we never find in this discussion.

The focus is upon Jesus as the shepherd of the sheep. We have a new category, which is the father's sheep, who become the son's sheep.

They're given by the father to the son. That way, we can deal with John 10 and John 17 and John 6.

But we've come up with this whole other discussion that, for some reason, doesn't make it into the Bible about how these individuals made themselves sheep by their own goodness and their own free will choice and so on and so forth.

What would make them the father's sheep? The fact was, just like they did with the son, they heard and followed him.

This would, of course, make the father their shepherd. In other words, those who were given or those who were drawn to the son were believers in the father already.

What Jesus is actually doing in John 6 is he's saying,

You are unbelievers. You have seen me and yet you have not believed. Believers will follow me.

That's all he's saying. All the father gives me will come to me.

Well, of course, because they've already come to the father. So coming and believing, it's all of man.

If you're good in here, you'll do it. If you're not, you won't. It has nothing to do with God.

It has nothing to do with his sovereignty. No, no, no, no, no. It's all of man. All Jesus is saying is, even though you claim to be following me, and even though you listened to my teaching, and even though you rode across the lake, and even though I looked at my own eleven disciples, and they're completely confused, and the whole idea that they made themselves the sheep of the father beforehand because they were better than other people is just such a complete overturning of the entire concept of the

New Testament. It doesn't matter. The whole point is that the only people who will come to me are the people who've already come to the father because it'll be natural if you've already come to the father for you to come to the son.

And that's all I'm going to be saying here, is that, well, that's what's going on here, and that explains your unbelief.

No, it doesn't explain their unbelief at all. It doesn't explain their unbelief at all. But that's what we're being told.

In other words, those who were given, or those who were drawn to the son were believers in the father already. They were not reprobates.

I'm not sure how you define what a reprobate is. But were believers already in God.

This is precisely why Jesus used the term, the father. God was already their father, therefore he could give them to his son.

But why was he their father? Because they chose to have him as such. People have either a heavenly father, or they are their father the devil,

John 8, 44. All of the people who were drawn, or given to the son, were already believers in the father.

And I'm just reading this the way he has it. Sovereign grace had nothing to do with it. Top of page 162, for all of you who have a copy.

Sovereign grace, in quotation marks, had nothing to do with it. So, this is, we're starting to see this over and over again.

Last week, we looked at Cheryl Schatz's commentary on John 6, 37.

She's put another one up, titled, Why are people not coming to Jesus?

And if you read through it, exact same argument. Exact same argument. Section 2.

God is not their father, and they do not know him. Because they do not know the father, they will not listen to Jesus or his disciples.

Now, she mixes a lot of the context. She'll mix chapter 5 with 6, and so on and so forth.

But, the problem is, you have to come up with the idea that there are people who are not described by Romans chapter 3.

Are not described by Jesus in John chapter 8. Remember what Jesus said in John chapter 8?

If you continue my word, then you'll be my disciples indeed. You shall know the truth, the truth shall set you free. How could these people have been free to follow the father, but now had to be set free a second time to follow the son?

How does that work? You see, either you are a slave of sin, or you are a slave of righteousness.

Either you have a heart of stone, or a heart of flesh. Which one is it?

And so, are we to understand that the people who are good enough to be the sheep of the father, and hence will be given to the son, when do they get their heart of flesh?

When does this, what we call regeneration take place? Were these unregenerate followers of the father who become regenerate when they follow the son?

Or were they regenerate followers of the father who do not become regenerated by following the son because they're already regenerate?

I don't know. God is not their father, do not know him, because they do not know the father, they will not listen to Jesus or his disciples, they cannot know

Jesus, they cannot know who Jesus is, they cannot know Jesus is, they do not, there's got to be a typo there,

I'm sorry. They cannot know Jesus is, they do not know the father, and if they know Jesus, they would have to know the father as well.

They cannot hear what Jesus said, because they are not of God, they have not come to know God, and have the nature of liars.

Well, right there is a citation of John 8, 47, but the impact was missed.

They cannot hear what Jesus said, because they are not of God. Not the other way around, which is the argument that's being made here.

If you just look through the interpretations that are given, you end up recognizing that what's being said is, they are, section 7, they are not of Jesus' sheep, because they never belonged to the father.

They have never been believers, and because they have never believed the father, they could not come to Jesus, because the father did not grant unbelievers to come to Jesus.

So there's the exact same argument that Don Johnson's using there, here Sheryl Schatz is using it, in this new article, and what's all of, why is, what's the big attempt here?

Yeah, you can't get around the fact that there are particular people that the father gives the son. You cannot get around that.

So if we're going to defend synergism, then what we have to do is we have to create a pretext, that is before the text of John 6, concept of what it means to belong to the father.

So that when the father gives, the sphere of his freedom to give is limited by what?

What's it limited by? By man's choice. Not by God's choice. You can't have it being

God's choice. No, no, no. It's not that God owns all mankind, and gives a particular elect people to the son, who are undeserving, and they're graciously saved.

No, no, no, no. You can't have that. Gotta have man in control. Gotta have man in control.

So what you do is you say, well, God doesn't actually own everyone.

God does not have the right to give anyone to the son. The only ones that can be given by the father to the son are those that have freely already believed in the father.

They have enabled the father. It's the sheep that shows the father is shepherd, then can be given by the father to the son.

For him to be their shepherd. But the choice has to be the sheep, and never the shepherd.

Never the shepherd. Can't have the shepherd. No, no, no. Can't do that. So, there you go.

There you go. How does that answer to John chapter 6?

Well, I don't believe that it does. Beginning at verse 35,

Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will not hunger. He who believes in me will never thirst.

I said to you that you have seen me, and yet do not believe. So what's his focus upon?

His focus is upon himself as the central mechanism of providing spiritual sustenance.

And that these men were looking for the wrong sustenance. They weren't looking for a savior.

They were looking for a miracle worker. For all the father, you do not believe, all that the father gives me will come to me.

These folks are saying, oh naturally. Naturally. Because they've already come to the father. There's nothing about coming to the father in John chapter 6.

There's nothing about that being the pretext. There's nothing about that being the prerequisite. That which allows, that which gives

God the right to do something, is not there. All that the father gives me will come to me.

There's where the faith is. There's no faith before that. There's no concept of having faith in the father separately from the son, and that that's what then enables the father to give you to the son.

That's complete eisegetical insertion. But it's absolutely necessary. I understand why it's necessary. If that's your tradition, if you think that that's just the big thing, you've got to defend it.

There's lots of reasons why people do what they do with the text of scripture. All that the father gives me will come to me.

It's the giving of the father that results in the coming to the son. The one who comes to me, I will certainly not cast out.

Talk about speaking the obvious. If we take this interpretation that is being offered to us here, if we take the interpretation that it is man's faith that allows him to that allows

God to give him to someone, then how could

Jesus ever cast out such a person in the first place? Read John 6 .37

again in that way. All that the father gives me, who have given themselves to the father already, will come to me.

And the one who comes to me, I will certainly not cast out. Well, how could he ever cast out one? That would result in a disunity in the

Godhead itself. Wouldn't it? He's not really saying anything here.

I'm just going to follow the status quo, is what Jesus is saying here.

Because they've already come to the father. And now they're getting a special revelation of who I am. And I won't cast them out either.

All of this really detracts from both the sovereign power of the father and the son.

Because the emphasis here is, For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. This is the will of him who sent me.

That of all that he has given me, I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. The focus is on the power of Jesus to save a specific people.

And that's going to lead to why the end of John 6 is not depressing. Because what's at the end of John 6?

Beginning, 5 ,000 excited men. The end, 11 confused true disciples and one devil.

Why isn't that depressing? Because God doesn't want his church filled with driftwood in the first place.

And God knows those who are his and he's going to accomplish his purposes. That's why it's not depressing.

Just a focus there upon what's going on in the establishment of a synergistic reading.

Alright, well, I just now saw this and that's an awful long section that I'm supposed to be reading here and I don't see anything whatsoever to do with the topic at all.

Completely, 1 ,000 % irrelevant. If you've given me the right reference. That's the right reference.

Okay, well, we were told that we had a caller that said when you disagree with both of you it means me or a synergist.

Don Johnson or Cheryl Schatz? Yeah, well, okay. You sure it was

Acts 27, 23 -31? I'm pretty sure that's what he said.

So he didn't want to go on the air because he was waiting for you to get back with him so that you all can get together and have a nice chat.

So he wants to wait for that. Okay, well, I can't respond to it because I don't see it has absolutely anything whatsoever to do with the topic at all.

Yeah, my phone will ring soon. 877 -753 -3341 877 -753 -3341

I finally got the briefing downloaded today. It was totally messed up in iTunes and on the web and everything.

I finally got hold of it. And Brother Moeller did mention this story that came out on the 2nd from England.

NHS to fund sperm bank for lesbians. Yep, NHS to fund sperm bank for lesbians.

New generation of fatherless families paid for by you. Well, not by us, but we won't be very far behind them.

Britain is the first NHS funded and that's what happens, folks, when you have national healthcare is those politicians get to determine what healthcare is.

Britain is the first NHS funded national sperm bank to make it easier for lesbian couples and single women to have children.

Remember not very long ago when there were lots of really smart people who were trying to tell us that what we see in our society is an all out fundamental attack upon the family.

Oh, everybody mocked them and oh, come on, it doesn't have anything to do with that.

If you want to get married and have kids, no one is saying you can't do it. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I can't think of anything that is any longer less disputable than that the forces of godlessness in our society loathe the family.

Loathe the family. They recognize that a father and a mother functioning in a biblical paradigm that is where you're not just looking to yourself.

You are looking to the future. You are looking to the betterment of your children. You want your children to grow up to be responsible

God honoring adults who will follow in your footsteps and will likewise marry and have children and serve in that fashion the church, the name of Christ and because of that the world around them because that kind of person makes for a really good neighbor.

The forces that hate Christianity hate the family. They hate when people give in to the stereotypes.

They hate leave it to Beaver. Because you've got a daddy and a mommy and you've got a family and you've got people sitting around a table having dinner together.

Shocking, right? Just shocking. But now we're really seeing.

Here you have people who have become so self -obsessed.

The culture of death is a culture of narcissism because life is found in serving others, not in just serving yourself.

Here you have the culture of narcissism. Oh, I want to get together my girlfriend and we'll have babies.

Loathsome in God's sight. Never be blessed by God. Those poor children.

Child abuse. Absolutely child abuse. There was a day when we had enough common sense in Western culture to recognize that a child deprived its father.

A community needed to come together and try to help that young man because that young man needs guidance.

A child deprived the mother. Same thing. But to purposefully, out of your own perverse self -obsession to bring children into the world in that context whether you're a lesbian or even as a quote -unquote single mom well, you know,

I don't really have time for that man thing, but I would sort of like to have a child sort of, you know, play around with and dress up and it doesn't really matter if I'm purposefully putting it in the position of never having a father around.

That's okay. I don't mind. It's all about me anyway. Absolute common sense has been washed away.

And it took a lot to get there. It took a lot of time and effort and a whole lot of the public school system just washing away the conscience of humanity itself.

It's just absolutely amazing. But Dr.

Moeller commented on this and I don't even know if I want to read through all of this.

One person said this is social experimentation it's one thing for a child not to have a mother or father through tragedy but it's another to plan children to come into the world without a father.

Exactly. Amazing. Amazing.

Words absolutely fail me to describe the amazing thing that's going on in our society.

877 -753 -3341 I just as we were going on the air saw that Simon Gathercolt from the

University of Cambridge has a new book out unfortunately published by Brill.

The Gospel of Thomas Introduction and Commentary may be one of the first full scholarly analyses of the

Gospel of Thomas in a commentary form. Now that's exciting. Gathercolt is good and I would love to read it myself.

One little problem from Brill Average Brill book in my library

I think I've gotten a couple of Brill books that were only $129

I would say the average price is $169

This one is $250 I think

I saw this I lost it here

I think I saw this from Hurtado's blog and he made some somewhat humorous comment about hoping that the paperback would require something less than a gold reserve.

I forget what the joke was he was acknowledging that it is outlandishly and absurdly expensive

Eventually and the paperback if it's $250 hardback the cheap paperback will probably be at least $89 and that would be a steal

That is one book though that if it landed on my desk even in paper format

I'd crush all the way through it because it's does it say here it is

Ah! With the pages it's still in the approximate so this may not even be publication date was

May of 2014 so I'm not sure why they'd have an approximate number 700 pages it's a substantial tome

Oh! We have some calls Max, I was going to get back to some of your book today sorry, it's on my screen that little thing, that's

Kindle The task of a Molinus perspective of middle knowledge is to remove the perceived dilemma between human freedom and divine foreknowledge

You know you wrote that and that's where I want to start with Anyway, we'll get to it

I haven't forgotten about you Max I know you're still out there By the way, we're trying to work on something in Glasgow trying to work on a debate in Glasgow That reminds me,

I haven't heard back from him Either on the Thursday show or next week

I want to have my good friend from South Africa Rudolf Buschhoff on the program

We're going to try to do it via Skype I want to talk about the state of the church in South Africa It's coming up, haven't talked about in a while but we still need your help to get to South Africa and to get to Ukraine and as long as it still is

Ukraine and that we don't have Ebola breakouts in South Africa and that kind of fun stuff unfortunately

But we still need your assistance with that Rudolf has been working on lining up debates

He's got some great topics lined out It's nice to have someone who knows what they're doing and knows what kind of subjects would be really best to fill out the dialogue between Christians and Muslims and we're trying to get a

Muslim down there to really deal with Isaiah 53 and exciting stuff Alright, let's get to some of these calls because we only have a short amount of time on the program today

Let's talk to Chris Hey, how's it going? I've got a couple quick questions

First of all, I just want to thank you for your ministry The Lord has really used you greatly in my life

Really quick First question is more of a general ministry question

I know personally I tend to when I get into theological discussions with people it's more of a head thing and not necessarily me

You know what I'm trying to say? I've heard you say it before where we draw theological blood with our sword

For you personally what have you done in your life to make it less of a head thing and more of a head going down to the feelings and doing theological truths displaying them so that others might glorify

God Is there any practical thing you've been able to do in this matter?

Well normally when I'm talking about someone just drawing their theological sword and running somebody through I'm talking about people who just want to win that particular argument and exalt themselves if you're doing what you're doing first and foremost for the glory of God and for the desire to see him using that truth that you're proclaiming to bring a person to a saving knowledge of himself or even, as is so often the case a situation where you're on the street or you're in a debate or something like that even if God does not use your particular words in life, the person you're talking to if there are other people who are listening knowing that he can utilize it in that way

I remember very clearly a response I gave to one of the guys this has now been posted online

I don't think we've ever gotten a copy in the debate in Lanasia in South Africa there was a

Muslim that asked a question from the audience I think some people would be a little surprised at how aggressive

I was in responding to him because he was being aggressive with me but I was really thinking about other people at that particular point in time who needed to hear a strong response now it just happened to turn out that a couple nights later he attended another debate and was like my best friend all of a sudden so he actually respected the fact that I had not just laid over and given him the floor so the point is it's a matter of your ultimate priority and why you're doing what you're doing and the people who've gone out witnessing with us and who wanted to do the theological swordplay they generally don't last long in it they're a flash in the pan and then it gets old after a while and they move on to other things so if you have perseverance that in and of itself is a really good thing well

I tend to notice myself even though I go into a conversation with good feelings just like Paul said to the

Corinthians this knowledge has a tendency to puff up our heads and I have that tendency sometimes

I don't know if you've had that too where sometimes it doesn't become about God but more about me and I don't know if there's any way you've ever experienced that and how you've had to deal with that or how do you even notice that when it's gone awry?

Well I think that's one of the reasons that we have a rule that only people who are involved with local churches that are members of local churches in good standing should be involved in such activities because it doesn't you can't just do that kind of work you have to be balanced in what you're doing and the people who just do that kind of thing eventually do either burn out or end up joining the groups that they're trying to deal with or spiraling off into heresy or whatever else it might be but having a proper balance and recognizing that the kingdom of God is going to go on whether you're around or not really comes from just having maturity in Christ and if you're in a good church you're going to be having that preached to you every

Sunday pretty much so it really comes from having that kind of a balance and doing apologetics within the context of the church is the way that it really must be done or it does become a sort of caricature.

Okay I've got one more really quick question I feel myself called to the ministry and I do love the

Southern Baptist Convention but I'm kind of new to it I know that there's some seminaries that are kind of very liberal and some that are more like Southern Theological Baptist Seminary which is a lot more centered and I was just wondering if you could just give me a couple of recommendations as to the more solid...

You're talking about Southern Baptist Seminaries? Yes. There are only a certain number of them and I don't care what seminary you go to you are going to have to be very very discerning and while it's easier and more enjoyable to go to a seminary where pretty much everybody is on the same page to be honest with you

I didn't know why at the time but I had to go to a seminary where almost nobody was on the same page and that ended up being my greatest benefit was that I had professors who taught the perspectives that I would then have to be responding to in my ministry later on and that was extremely helpful so obviously

Southern is best known as having the widest range of solid teaching and consistency of teaching along those lines but you're going to find solid people at all the seminaries even you'll find solid professors at the seminaries that are best known for being anti -reformed but I couldn't ever recommend that someone go to a seminary where you're going to have to go on a quest, you're going to have to get

Indiana Jones to help you find that one gem amongst the hailstorm of wheat and chaff that is all the other stuff that's going on at that seminary so I can tell you that Southwestern and New Orleans both are well known for promoting an anti -reformed perspective so all of them are going to have a differing mixture of reformed, non -reformed and then conservative, non -conservative when it comes to professors as well so they're all a mixture there and so you really what you have to do is determine what you want to be your major focus and then look at who's teaching at the campus that you'd be attending so for example, a number of the seminaries are recognizing they're seeing the handwriting on the wall the big centralized we may have to go a little longer we'll catch everybody else on the phone so Jeff and Andrew don't hang up, we'll get to you even if we have to go a little longer the feed's working, we better use it while it's functioning it's not cutting out right now, let's use it but what you might want to do is at least if you can get an idea of what you want to focus upon and then look at the staff at each of the seminaries in that area so for example, you might have a seminary that has a lot of good systematic theologians but you specifically want to do text criticism and that may not be the best place for you to go to be able to do that another place might have a lot better teachers in that particular area, maybe some published authors in that particular area and you might have to hold your nose in a few classes there or something like that but it's always going to be a mixture, a balance like that and I'm not convinced that it's not appropriate for you to have to go through some classes where you really are uncomfortable because it may very well help to ground you in those issues even better than if you're just going with the flow along with everybody else and then you get out of there and all of a sudden boom, you discover this whole other world of opposition and other perspectives and things like that so there are some people that say that seminaries should just be a learning experience as far as positive, everyone's on the same page but I don't know in the society we live in today, it might be best to get your toes stomped on a number of times in seminary before you actually get out and into the real world and you might be in a little better stead at that point.

Well, if I did end up getting a hardcore Arminian professor, would he dock me for any kind of points?

Depends on the professor, depends on the school. Alright, well thank you very much.

Alrighty Chris, thank you. Appreciate it. Alright, give us, bye bye. God bless. Alright, let's go to Andrew.

Hi Andrew. Hello, is this James White? That's generally the person that answers the phone here.

Sorry about that. Hey, just a couple really quick questions and the first one

I hope I don't get hung up on. Not that thing you would but it's just, this is one that most people don't like answering.

Okay, I'm moving my cursor over to the drop button just in case here. And I can hit it fast, man, so behave.

Don't worry, no profanity. Here's the thing, is that I'm a

Reformed Baptist like you, proud to be, but I also love my Presbyterian brothers because oftentimes, you know,

I agree with the Presbyterians more things than often I do. Most Baptists I think you would experience that to some level as well.

And I can call them brothers because even though they baptize their children they do not believe in baptismal regeneration.

Most of them. I'm a little concerned about some of the Federal Visionists but that's another issue.

Yeah, Doug Wilson, yeah, that whole deal. Well, and Doug's the least radical of that group, so I'm not even thinking about Wilson at that point.

I think Wilson's my brother. I was just naming the biggest known one of them.

But the people who really, really believe in baptismal regeneration according to what

I've been reading is Lutherans and Martin Luther especially.

Depends on which Martin Luther and which Lutheran. Right, yeah, and so like, and speaking to somebody who has not only learned not of Church history, but taught

Church history in Martin Luther's refined, like I guess you could say in his last days, because I mean like that's what,

I mean you would want to look at the first copy of the Institutes of the

Christian Religion for Calvin and you'd want to look at the last institute to get, to know what his refined theology was.

So, towards the end of his days, what would you say that he believes in baptismal regeneration of Luther and a more important question, does, should baptismal regeneration, should we use that as a means to put people outside the pale of orthodoxy?

I do not claim to be a Luther scholar because there is so much to be read in Luther and there's so much both development and contradiction in Luther that anyone who does apologetics and then also claims to be a

Luther scholar, it's one or the other. I don't think how you could possibly do both, but I would struggle a little bit with the idea that what you want is

Luther's final perspective because, to be honest with you the pre -1525

Luther I think resonates a whole lot more biblically than the post and it's not, it doesn't have anything to do with theological maturity if anything it has to do with such a pressure in regards to the relationship between church and state

Between him and what's his name, the Duke guy? Well, not just that, and not just later

Melanchthon's influence, that's a whole other issue, but given what happened with the

Peasants' Revolt and what Luther said about it and then southern

Germany breaking away and there just seems to be a real change in Luther's perspective on certain things because of what took place politically in his context, and so when you say well we want to go with the mature

Luther I'd rather go with the most biblical Luther who is not as influenced by the political situation around him as any other

Luther so that's where I struggle a little bit with the idea of saying well at the end of his life he wrote all those antisemitic things which were just reflective of the general culture of his day unfortunately but still is that what you really want to look at and as far as I can tell you can prove when you talk about baptismal regeneration for Luther, now you're raising all the issues of infantile faith, the relationship between justification by faith and infantile faith and sacramentalism and I've listened to a lot of folks you know

Chris Rosebaugh is a Lutheran so he does his thing, I don't believe that it's possible to put forward a consistent

Martin Luther doctrine on that because Luther was a theologian of the heart not a theologian of the head and the very thing that Calvin I was going to say the very thing that Calvin is attacked for is the fact that and I'm in the same boat here and so if we're wrong but I don't think

God is glorified by inconsistency I don't think God is glorified by my affirming contradictory statements about about God and so clearly

Calvin had the emphasis in his thinking that I need to listen to all of what

God has to say and if there are things he says that my heart doesn't like then my heart needs to change,

I don't need to change what God has said. So Luther was a great theologian but he was not nearly as consistent as Calvin was and so I don't think you can put together

I've talked to Lutherans who greatly de -emphasize the concept of baptismal regeneration in that sense they have a high view of baptism but they have a higher view of justification by faith and then

I've met Lutherans who are just straight down the road, I was baptized when I was an infant that's all

I need, voila which seems to me a lot like those easy believers when you're five years old you say a prayer and you're sealed forever, it seems very similar to that to me again it depends on the

Lutheran you're talking to and there's a lot of wiggle room there

I mean one of the first people that assisted us back in the early days of the internet and I had a lot of discussions about this very kind of thing and I've talked to many a

Lutheran that was so, it's interesting the Lutherans that I've talked to that have had the most interaction with Rome and hence have the most reaction against Rome are the ones that emphasize the earlier

Luther and his justification statements and de -emphasize the idea of infant baptism actually resulting in regeneration and then the

Lutherans who are much more ecumenical in spirit in the sense of Roman Catholicism just the opposite, so probably not a satisfactory answer for you but I don't claim and see a bunch of people, who was that guy?

Remember the guy in limited atonement last year sometime, about a year ago, more than a year ago there was a

Lutheran guy that wanted to debate unlimited atonement I'm sorry, I don't remember the guy, I responded to something he called in, remember?

and we had that, you know people say, why do you debate all these other people, why won't you debate? Because to debate a

Lutheran is to fall into an abyss of a massive amount of material and it's just like Eastern Orthodoxy, I'm sorry there's only so much

I can do and there's only so much time in the day and I want to do what

I do well and I have no feeling whatsoever that the Lord is asking me to start spending those hours that I spend studying as it is, expanding that out to reading

Luther and trying to figure out where each of these Lutheran groups are coming from and what their influences are and how much they read of Melanchthon and where they are in the development.

I just know how complex the issues are and a lot of the people that were clamoring, oh you're hiding from this guy, just don't know what the issues are.

The same thing with Eastern Orthodoxy, same thing. So, but just to be clear, but anybody who says regeneration and therefore justification occurs at the moment of baptism, whether that's at infant stage or I guess you could say in the way the

Church of Christ does it, you have to prove your worthiness of baptism and then do any sort of baptismal regeneration is outside the pale of Orthodoxy.

Outside the pale of Biblical Orthodoxy I would say yes. If they are simply an ex -operato sacramentalism that fundamentally denies the freedom of God in election and the nature of saving faith, yes.

Does that mean that a person who believes that a child could be regenerated but they have to be of the elect and so on and so forth, it can get pretty sticky there and obviously as a

Baptist I just go, you know it would be a whole lot easier just to allow the New Testament to speak. Wait until they're older.

Just follow the New Testament paradigm, that might be good. It would simplify things a whole lot.

Just a little bit. Yeah, and one last thing.

Real quick, I still gotta get to Jeff. Oh yeah, sorry about that. Well then, have a great day. Oh no, if you want to get the other one in real quick.

Okay, do you think that when you're trying to explain the

Trinity, completely shifting gears, when you're trying to explain the Trinity to non -Trinitarians or people who simply don't understand it, explaining the fact that God is outside of the universe and therefore he created logic and therefore not absolutely subject to it is a good way to go?

I don't believe that the Trinity is illogical. So, I wouldn't go there because I think there is a meaningfully communicable distinction between being in person and once you can communicate that to someone, the alleged contradictions disappear because we're talking about a unique being.

We're not looking for analogies that are going to work in every way because if he's truly unique, then there is no analogy in the created order that would actually fit.

And once you recognize that being in person are not the same thing, no, I wouldn't go there because I don't think that there is a contradiction to logic.

It may be above our experience, but it's not illogical. Is that in your book,

The Forgotten Trinity? Yes. Alright, that's on my reading list. Thank you, Andrew.

Alright, last call. Let's get to Jeff.

Hi, Jeff. Hi, Dr. White. How are you doing? Doing good. Okay, I'll try to make it quick.

So I was having a conversation with some Roman Catholics a little bit ago and one of the justifications was kind of what we were discussing.

And they couldn't quite understand since biblical justification when kind of we were dealing with James and Romans how genuine faith will lead to genuine work, they couldn't quite get how that differed or why that difference between that and Rome mattered.

And I pointed them to Galatians and trying to point out how it mattered to Paul. Which, you know, since we had the same authority, but that really didn't really cut it with them.

So I was wondering if that topic has ever come up with you and obviously it has.

But if that specific point comes up, how would you discuss that with a

Roman Catholic? Well, yeah, I wrote a book a number of years ago called

The Roman Catholic Controversy and there are about three or four chapters on, well, at least chapters nine and ten actually are on the subject of justification and you'll find that that's sort of the heart of the book because the thesis of the book is that the

Roman Gospel cannot give a person peace because they cannot look back upon that finished work.

But not only that, but there are a number of rather interesting citations. Ludwig Ott has a citation and I'm looking for I would assume it would be in here someplace

I wonder if Ludwig Ott is in the well, look at that, I've got a scripture, oh there we go

Ludwig Ott could we have some, oh there's John O 'Brien oh there's

Ludwig Ott, oh great, way too many citations of Ludwig Ott, but 132 and 134 could put me in the right place here help if I was wearing my glasses, aha

I found it it was at the top of the page, there's the problem listen to what Ludwig Ott had to say, I knew it was in here this is in his book

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma the reason for the uncertainty of the state of grace lies in this, that without a special revelation nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification so think about what that means, the

Roman Catholic considers it to be presumption for you to believe that you know that you have eternal life, because you cannot know with certainty whether you have fulfilled all the conditions necessary for achieving justification that's what happens when you redefine justification from its biblical parameters to the

Roman Catholic concept the other illustration that Martin Luther to use a previous caller actually may have touched on this may be one of those illustrations that Luther did or did not use but it does tend to get some good airplay in discussions with Roman Catholics and that is the issue of the dung hill, if you remember it has been attributed to Luther and it certainly is a

Lutherian, it's certainly not a Melanchthonian so it certainly would fit with Luther if you've ever heard the story that Luther likened the difference between justification and sanctification to being a pile of dung when the snow, the first snow of the season comes, it covers over those piles of dung that back in the olden days the

Germans would keep out in the field because that's going to be their fertilizer for the next spring to make their fields fertile so obviously until that time especially on a hot fall day in Germany, those are going to smell and they're going to have flies and it's going to be ugly, but that first snowfall comes and it covers over everything and he likened justification to that snowfall the dung is still dung but it's offensiveness has been taken away and Roman Catholics love to go after that by saying that's just horrible that's just such a surface level understanding and if all

Luther was saying was that all God has done for us is to cover us over with some snow and leaves us a dung pile, then yeah but what he was saying was that justification is not about us it's about our standing to God it's about removing the impediments to our relationship with God, it is a forensic declaration, it's the removal of that guilt on the basis of what somebody else has done he said a lot more than just that, but his point was to point out that it is not changing the pile into something else that makes it pleasing, it is the covering over of it by that which is pleasing in God's sight and I like to turn that around and say to the

Roman Catholic let's look at the hill of dung analogy from your perspective what you're saying is, you're a pile of dung until you're baptized and when you're baptized, you're turned into a pile of gold and that's why you go to heaven is because gold is pleasing to God and he wants it in heaven with him, and so you get to go to heaven problem is, that in at least historic

Roman Catholic theology who knows what Roman Catholic theology is anymore but at least in dogmatic

Roman Catholic theology if you commit a mortal sin you lose the grace of justification and boom, you become a pile of dung again so then you have to go through the process of the sacramental system to be returned into a pile of gold and then you also have temporal sins and so as you experience temporal sins in your life then you get flecks of dung and pieces of dung clinging to the surface of the gold and so the gold is still good enough to get to go to heaven but before it goes into heaven, it has to be purged it has to be cleaned, and so that's what purgatory is about and so all the dung gets burned off by your suffering in purgatory and the problem is you never know which one you are you can't know, in this life, which one you are you can have various levels of confidence but you can't know whether you're a pile of dung or a pile of gold the question

I have is though, besides ruining assurance would, if I say Paul said the people who trust in more than Christ were condemned, right?

so what is the reason for that condemnation? my gut instinct is telling me that because you're trusting in more than Jesus, you're trusting in that dung and you're basically saying that Jesus can't pay for your sins is essentially what you're also saying you're saying that Jesus' payment is not enough without the addition of the merits of others, the merits of Mary the merits of the saints, the merits of yourself certainly, it makes

Jesus' death earns a treasury of merit that then we, through the sacramental system avail ourselves of that grace it is a form of auto -satirology in its most bold form the problem is, most of our evangelical friends also engage in forms of auto -satirology they just don't do it as boldly as their own

Catholics do so say, if you trust in more than Jesus you're not really trusting in Jesus if you went to Galatians 5 you probably went to some of the strongest language in the

New Testament in Galatians chapter 5 and what did Paul say? he said, if you're circumcised, then you've got to go the whole way

Christ will be of no benefit to you you have fallen from grace the road of grace and the road of righteousness of self -righteousness go 180 degrees opposite you can't get very far down both roads and anyone who wants to try to make

Jesus a partial savior or a co -savior with themselves will find out he will not be a savior at all that's why

Paul is so strong about this he says, do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery that's why we have to evangelize

Roman Catholics because they really have been given a gospel that does not save one quick thing before you have to close the show the

Pope is coming to Philadelphia next September and they're expecting 1 -2 million people to show up oh

I'm sure, yeah when the other Pope came here to Phoenix a long time ago, we had a lot of folks there's a few of us in our local church who are thinking that something should be we would like to do something soon but the difference is we don't really know if there's anybody to contact and I was wondering if you know anyone to contact about what?

well, basically doing some evangelism are there any good ministries or other organizations who might be beneficial to be put in contact with I know you're just kind of like a 2 -3 man operation and street evangelism isn't quite your forte well actually we still have some good old tracks from the olden days but we certainly could send somebody a

PDF file or something like that well there's a lot of good material on the subject of Roman Catholicism but this is if you're talking about having somebody come in and do training for you or are you talking about looking for materials or what?

probably a little of both and also looking for people in the area who would be interested in doing it we're just looking for people who have contacts for that type of ministry best thing

I would suggest to you is someone you'll run into some interesting views among some of my

Presbyterian brothers but I bet you'll find all sorts of folks at Westminster that are already thinking about it that would be the first place

I'd go and say ok what's already being planned because I didn't even know about it but I'm sure somebody there knows about it you're talking about September 2015 or 2014?

2015 well that's certainly something I would be interested I would love to see if someone in that area would challenge some of the

Tim Staples and Patrick Madrids of the world to engage in debate on the papacy before the

Pope comes well you also wanted to do a debate with that Muslim guy in New Jersey so you could kill two birds with one stone well we are doing that I think we already set the date for that in October but just stay a month, that's fine that's just this year, we're talking next year oh next year that's not

World Youth Day is it? it's like a family conference it's like a two or three day thing well there will still be a lot of interest in it you're now officially charged with finding out if anybody there wants to host a debate and see if we can get someone like Tim Staples or somebody to come out and debate the issue of the papacy itself we would love to do that maybe through Twitter or other channels

I'll try to ping you occasionally and try to keep you abreast of progress or try to see what's going on because obviously

I have no idea what I am doing so I might be the perfect vessel well actually

Chris Arnzen is up in Pennsylvania so he's not all that far from there so you might just need to get him involved because he's helping set stuff up for this trip back in October yeah

I'm involved pretty well with the Jewish ministry and we have an interest in helping out but at the same time it's like well we're a

Jewish ministry you could have some interesting jokes so we're used to getting yelled at on the street we can handle ourselves on the street and also if there's going to be a million people all hands on deck alright

Jeff we'll be looking forward to hearing from you alright well we'll be in touch then

God bless you thank you for your ministry alright folks thanks for listening to Dividing Line today

I was almost jumbo I mean 8 more minutes would have been a jumbo edition but the most important thing is you actually heard all of it that was the good part so now we've got to put stuff back together and just very slowly do the other stuff don't touch it you'll break it we'll see you next time