Dr. William Lane Craig Debate

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:14

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is the Dividing Line.

00:20

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.

00:29

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

00:35

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the

00:44

United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

00:51

James White. Good morning, welcome to the Dividing Line. On a Tuesday morning, just a program note, on Thursday we will likewise be doing the program in the morning.

01:02

I'm headed out of town and so since I'm driving, I need to leave early enough to get where I'm going basically.

01:09

So we'll do it in the morning, might do it as early as 1030 if we want to do a jumbo one or just 11 if we do a regular size one, but I'm not sure if we can do regular size ones anymore anyway, so we'll see.

01:21

But we'll go for 90 minutes today and still have, man,

01:27

I moved all of my sound files over to this other bigger screen. It really looks like I'm running a

01:34

Star Wars thing or something here, it's pretty cool. But anyway, I wanted to start off with a brief discussion of something that I heard on my ride yesterday and then get back to the three debates that we have been reviewing now for a little while.

01:50

And we're getting close to finishing off one of them, believe it or not, and so we will press on with that.

01:56

But I was listening yesterday morning to a debate between William Lane Craig and a

02:06

Dr. Silverman. Now, Dr. Silverman is a mathematics professor, an atheist, and this wasn't much of a debate.

02:16

Not the same Silverman that I debated, who's now the president of American Atheists, though similar in argumentation and brought up Osiris and all the rest.

02:27

As soon as I hear someone bring that stuff up, I know they're not serious. I just know.

02:33

I mean, you just can't have a semi -unbiased or balanced bone in your body and bring up that kind of silliness.

02:42

It just means you have no credibility in your research and stuff like that.

02:47

It's just the first thought that crossed my mind. So anyway, different Silverman and his arguments were bad, and it was a cakewalk, but, you know, obviously,

03:03

Dr. Craig comes from a very different perspective than I do as to what you're trying to accomplish, and so it was his standard, you know, greater probability of the existence of a god and all that kind of stuff, which

03:14

I just find to be very sub -biblical. It's not apostolic in its approach. But one of the issues that did come up was one of Craig's six arguments, and the sixth argument really isn't an argument.

03:25

It's just his way of presenting a little gospel vignette as part of his presentation. But one of his arguments had to do with the inability to explain the origination of objective moral values without the existence of God.

03:46

And of course, he's used this in many of his debates. And Silverman's response was to attack the moral values found in the

03:54

Bible. Well, Craig has developed a way to try to avoid having to deal with that by saying we're talking about ontology, where objective moral values come from, rather than epistemology, knowing what they are.

04:09

Well, okay, there's a difference between ontology and epistemology, but I thought

04:16

Silverman had a pretty decent response, and that is if you're going to tell me there are such things as objective moral values,

04:24

I think it's somewhat fair for me to say what are they and what are you presenting.

04:31

And I think it's a little bit of a dodge for Craig to—you know, he's found ways.

04:40

He knows that in these debates—he's done more debates than I have, I think—and he's found ways of short -circuiting the normal approaches of most atheists.

04:56

And that is, well, you know, this debate isn't about inerrancy, so we don't need to worry about that. This debate isn't about the specifics of moral absolutes, so we don't have to worry about that.

05:05

And you just rush on by those things. And I think there's a bit of a problem with that.

05:12

I think Silverman had a point in saying, hey, you know, this is sort of a bait -and -switch type thing.

05:17

You're telling me you've got these objective moral values, but you can't tell me what they are. And I don't think you can really have a discussion of what these objective moral values are and the existence of them if you can't define them.

05:32

And I think Craig sort of does, just by the back door. And so that had gone back and forth.

05:39

And so I felt there was at least one point, you know, as soon as he started throwing out biblical contradictions, none of them were difficult to deal with.

05:47

But Craig just doesn't want to go there. I've never heard him—you know, he did make one slight little statement about, well, you know, slavery in the

05:55

Bible was different than today. And it was. And that needs to be said. And it is silly for people to bring that up.

06:02

I mean, if you didn't allow for that under the Old Covenant and the

06:07

Old Testament law, what you're saying is just let people starve, because there was no other way they could even survive.

06:13

Just let them starve. Rather than controlling it and providing law for it and stuff like that, just kill them or let them starve or whatever.

06:22

And, you know, again, people don't really want to know why there was slavery in the

06:27

Old Testament or what the conditions were or things like that. And they don't want to deal with the fact that, you know, it even has to regulate people who want to stay in that relationship and stay in the home.

06:37

Because they're not really seriously dealing with the economic system of the day and stuff like that.

06:44

And they don't care about the context. And they're not really being serious about those things. So you can just sort of leave that off to the side.

06:51

So there were responses that could be given. And like I said, Craig did give at least one brief response.

07:00

But it was all coming to an end. It was the last question. You know, the audience questions.

07:06

You know how they are. And you know how much I love audience questions. Just my favorite part of the debate.

07:13

I couldn't say it with a straight face. Anyway, last question. This is the last thing that William Lane Craig says in this debate.

07:24

And I was climbing up to the Dobbins Outlook in South Mountain, which is a pretty decent grade.

07:32

And I was right at the steep part. So, you know, my heart rate's pretty high. And I hit this thing.

07:39

And I'm like, you've... I gasped. I mean, it wasn't because of the effort

07:45

I was putting out either. I could not believe that this debate ended the way that it did.

07:52

It was similar to that Mike Licona debate that we listened to, where it ended on just this complete capitulation statement.

08:01

It's like, oh, you don't want that to be the last thing that people are walking out the door with.

08:06

Oh my goodness. So here's... Silverman has already answered this question. And along comes

08:14

William Lane Craig. And so William Lane Craig, how did that happen?

08:21

Well, that's interesting. My little control thingy's moved from one screen to the other screen. I don't want my control thingy's moving from one screen to another screen.

08:30

That is inappropriate. Let's... Oh, no, no, no, no. Don't do that now. Now it wants to delete accordance?

08:36

I don't think so. That's weird. Trying to find...

08:41

There we go. Let's drag that one over there. There we go. You all stay over on this screen now, okay? All right.

08:47

Here we go. Here's William Lane Craig's statement. And I... Last thing heard in this debate.

08:56

Here it is. I think the atheistic mantra that there's no evidence for God just rings hollow after an hour's debate in which six arguments for God's existence have been presented with virtually no response to these arguments.

09:13

There's been no response to the ontological argument, the contingency argument, the argument for the beginning of the universe.

09:20

We have very good evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past. The question, what caused

09:25

God, is a nonsensical question because the premise is whatever begins to exist has a cause, not whatever exists has a cause.

09:35

The atheist thinks that the universe didn't need to have a cause because it's always existed. It never came into being, but that's been undermined by modern cosmology.

09:44

The moral argument, again, we've seen that without a transcendent foundation for moral values, we're just lost in relativism.

09:53

So it seems to me that what Dr. Silverman ought to do tonight is he ought to become a

09:59

Christian who doesn't believe in biblical inerrancy. That would be a perfectly consistent conclusion for him to draw as a result of tonight's debate, that God exists, that he's revealed himself in Christ, but he's not ready yet to believe in biblical inerrancy.

10:14

And I would be thrilled if he would make a decision like that tonight, because that's what I think he ought to do.

10:23

Well, there you go. So what does William Lane Craig say? He should become a

10:28

Christian who believes that God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ. Can I stop and just ask a simple question?

10:35

How do we know that God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ? What's the origin?

10:43

Where do we learn about this revelation of God in Jesus Christ?

10:51

Isn't that in the Christian scriptures? I don't remember any of the arguments that Dr.

10:57

Craig presented. The ontological argument, which Silverman didn't understand. No one understands the ontological argument, almost nobody.

11:07

The moral absolutes. I don't remember any of the arguments other than the sixth, which he even admitted is not an argument, which is your personal experience.

11:17

But let's put all six of them together. Did any of those six arguments explain to you what the gospel is?

11:25

Did any of those six arguments explain to you what atonement is?

11:32

Sin, the wrath of God, the necessity of redemption. Did any of those six arguments define repentance?

11:42

Any of these things. What faith is? The Jesus that Dr. Craig is saying that Dr.

11:50

Silverman should believe in. If Dr. Silverman asks a question, well, who is this

11:55

Jesus? Where is William Lane Craig supposed to go to answer that question?

12:01

His arguments haven't provided any of that, because his arguments have not been specifically Christian. His arguments have been for the greater probability of the existence of a

12:12

God. And there is this massive chasm the size of the Grand Canyon between the greater probability of the existence of a

12:19

God and the Christian God who has revealed himself in Jesus Christ. And that chasm is filled functionally with divine revelation.

12:32

And that divine revelation is found in the Bible. But so what really is he calling

12:41

Dr. Silverman to do? Is he calling Dr. Silverman to repent? Repent of what?

12:49

If Dr. Silverman says, well, you know, maybe you're right. Maybe I should believe in this Jesus. Tell me about him.

12:57

Well, Jesus was the fulfillment of, no, no, no, don't quote from the Bible because I don't believe in that yet.

13:03

Remember, you were saying I should become a Christian without believing in inerrancy, which means

13:09

I believe in inerrant Bible, which means I don't believe what it says about the prophecies of the Old Testament. So now, who's this

13:14

Jesus? Well, he's God and human. Who said that? Well, I don't believe that either, see? So how are you supposed to answer any of those questions?

13:23

Because you don't have any grounds to lead him to. And that's why liberals who don't believe that God has spoken don't do apologetics because they can't.

13:36

In fact, someone directed me to a website yesterday, and it was some guy. Oh, it was it was it was the

13:43

Assyrian Encyclopedia. He sent me a link to this guy who, I guess, had tried to respond to something

13:50

I had said on First John 5 -1 years ago and a couple years ago and sort of a progressive, he calls himself as a progressive

13:58

Christian or something along those lines. And he was responding to my comments that I made about the

14:05

Geisler -Lycona dustup that's going on right now in regards to Matthew 27 and Lycona evidently saying that the story of the tombs being opened and saints being raised is sort of hagiographic.

14:18

And I had used the phrase theology, the zombie apocalypse in my in my article.

14:24

And so he mentioned something about the zombie apocalypse. And he took just a portion of my statement and just, you know, just mocked the idea.

14:34

It was based on inerrancy. Of course, I mock that his worldview is based on inerrancy.

14:41

That's easy to do. That didn't accomplish anything. But I understand the mindset. I went to Fuller for crying out loud.

14:47

I understand the mindset. I remember one class with one of my favorite professors.

14:54

He was talking about Fuller's abandonment of inerrancy. And I put my hand up and I talked for quite some time about how

15:01

I felt like a three -headed monster. I was the redheaded stepchild. I was the token fundamentalist in Fuller's program because I believe in it.

15:10

And here's why. Well, a third of the class met me afterwards in the hallway and said,

15:15

I believe just like you. And thank you for saying it. But I understand the mindset.

15:23

But I also understand that it's those very people who don't do apologetics. They're not engaging with atheists and stuff like that.

15:30

They don't have any sure word to direct people to. All they can say is, well, you know, in my opinion,

15:36

I sort of feel this and I sort of feel that. So I'm just wondering what it was that William Legg Craig was calling

15:48

Dr. Silverman to. Perhaps he was going to give him a Four Spiritual Laws.

15:54

That's possible. That is quite possible. But the problem is the Four Spiritual Laws quotes from an errant book.

16:02

And so why should it be given any particular authority? But then again, if all you're trying to do is get someone to believe that there is a greater probability of the existence of a

16:13

God anyways, how do you get them to make that jump from the possibility of the existence of a

16:20

God to actually faith and repentance in the God who has revealed himself in Jesus Christ?

16:29

And so I was just I was just taken aback. Here, Craig has refused to defend the authority and accuracy of the

16:38

Word of God. And then at the end says, I think you should become a Christian who doesn't believe in inerrancy.

16:43

Let's just get a little closer to the kingdom there. I was like, OK, there you go.

16:50

And people ask, well, why do you talk about William Legg Craig? Everybody's running around saying he's the catch meow.

16:58

He's the best we've got. He's just the top, top dog. And I want to go,

17:04

OK, if that's the case, then where's the beef? Where is where is the specifically

17:12

Christian element to these things? The specifically

17:18

Christian element. It's one thing to defend bare theism.

17:24

And I don't mean B -E -A -R theism there, B -A -R -E theism.

17:30

We have to do that now, thanks to the other Silverman that I debated, where you come up with the idea that people used to worship bears and which

17:38

I'm like, OK, fine. If I come into my office once Betsy gets here and find somebody bowing down in front of Betsy, then we'll have evidence of that.

17:49

But some of you are wondering, Betsy? Yeah, that's the little black bear that will soon be my constant companion in my office in there.

18:01

But it's one thing to defend bear theism. It's another thing to defend

18:06

Christian theism. They are not the same thing. They really aren't.

18:12

And so I thought that I wanted to play that and go, see, that's not where we're coming from.

18:23

That is just not where we're coming from. That is not the kind of belief that I'm presenting.

18:29

All right, with that, I did about 18 minutes, so at least 10. That means I can go about 23, no, 20, and we'll figure it out.

18:40

I'm not going to do math on the run here, but I've got three debates to divide up into the next period.

18:47

And let's let's head back to the debate between Bruce Reeves and Roger Perkins first, and then we'll go to the

18:56

Cunda -Green debate and then finish off Fernandez -Comas, which is we're into the questions in Fernandez -Comas now.

19:05

And that means we're getting close on that one. And that'll allow us to make more progress than the others once we finish that.

19:12

So we will continue on now with the debate. We are listening to Roger Perkins' opening statement.

19:19

You may recall we played the entirety of this debate last week on Thursday for those who wish to listen to it.

19:25

And so you have the context there. But we continue on with Roger Perkins. Talk about what it doesn't say.

19:32

It doesn't say persons is not there. So you're going to have to provide that. But our position is that the one

19:38

Old Testament God loved us enough that he manifest himself in the flesh for the sake of our redemption.

19:44

This numerically one God assumed and acquired a human consciousness. Numerically one

19:50

God, i .e. Unitarian. It is our assumption that he's

19:55

Unitarian. Now, they need to understand they have to prove Unitarian.

20:00

You can't just assume Unitarian. We're both monotheists. We both believe that God's being is numerically one.

20:08

The question is, can you just simply assume Unitarianism rather than actually proving

20:14

Unitarianism? That the incarnation distinct from his divine consciousness.

20:20

Thus, he had a simultaneous conscious awareness of himself both as God and as man simultaneously together, fused together.

20:29

Jesus was both God and he was both man. Now, listen to what's being said here. Here is a man who constantly tells us that we should only use biblical language.

20:51

There's nothing about persons there. You're using philosophy, etc., etc. But then as soon as he starts defining his own position, he's got to use all sorts of unfused together?

21:03

Where's that in the Bible? And I'm just, I'm sitting here going, I don't have any problem doing that.

21:09

If he were just consistent. If he were consistent, he would not be constantly complaining to the

21:20

Trinitarians for their use of language. When he has to utilize this type of language himself.

21:29

Just got to have, you've got to have consistency here. And what's being said is that Jesus is two persons.

21:40

And now fused together? Is that something we're very careful to avoid? There is no intermixture of the natures in the sense of the divine is less than divine.

21:54

The human is more than human. To where you have some new divinized humanity or something along those lines.

22:05

We clearly distinguish the natures. But the union that is theirs is so close and so real without confusion or mixture.

22:21

That Jesus Christ is the God -man, one person, two natures.

22:28

Now, you might say, well, that language just isn't in Scripture. The reason we use the language is to protect the things that are in Scripture.

22:37

We have to protect the positive statements that are made in Scripture. So when the early church talks about they would not have crucified the

22:49

Lord of glory. How could they say that? I mean the glorious Lord, the glorious Kurios.

22:59

Man could never crucify the glorious Kurios, could they? But they did. How did they do that?

23:06

Well, that tells us something positive about how we must think about Christ.

23:14

And the creedal affirmations that come later are not themselves inspired.

23:22

They are not divine. But they came into existence to protect the specifically inspired statements of Scripture.

23:36

And people sometimes struggle with keeping the proper balance here. Actually, every generation has to struggle to learn what the proper balance is.

23:45

And people fall off on both sides. You have the people on the one side who don't care about those who have come before.

23:51

Think they're just the smartest thing. God's just lucky to have us. Everyone that came before us was just so dumb and stupid.

23:58

And now we are so smart and we know so many things. And we don't have to worry about anything. Anywhere that's ever been.

24:07

We're not standing on the shoulders of giants. We don't need to worry about those who came before us.

24:12

That's the radical side on one side. And then on the other side you have those who say,

24:19

Well, clearly we need to give absolute divine authority to the statements of councils.

24:26

And we need to have tradition. And we need to have a magisterium. And the Bible is just not enough. And that's your radical side on the other side.

24:34

And then you have what I hope is the balanced middle. Where we recognize our debt to those who come before us.

24:42

But we also recognize that they were but men. And so we appreciate the positive and proper things that were said.

24:54

But we always test in the way that Jesus taught us to test. On the basis of scripture.

25:00

In places like Matthew and Mark. So anyway. A slight diversion there.

25:08

But I think it's important because a lot of folks really do struggle. With understanding how to balance those things.

25:16

Let me say ladies and gentlemen. We believe that the Son is the one Old Testament God manifest in the flesh.

25:25

What does that mean? And this keeps coming up. The Son?

25:32

In distinction from the Father? Is the one Old Testament God manifest in the flesh?

25:37

Or is the Son the flesh? Now as I understand one this theology.

25:44

The Son is the flesh. The reason he is the manifestation of God is because the

25:50

Father indwelt him. But the Son is not a divine person. In distinction from the

25:57

Father. It is the Father who is a divine person. Who has now taken the role of the

26:02

Spirit. Now if he's got a different view. We need to know that before Brisbane.

26:10

Because that's important. So when he gets up here and says that we don't believe that. You remember we do believe that the

26:17

Son is God. He is the one Old Testament God manifest in the flesh. But he is not a second of three members in the

26:24

Godhead. So basically what I'm hearing there. Is okay.

26:32

He wants to defend the deity of Christ. Because he believes in the deity of Christ.

26:39

But the Son is not a separate person from the

26:44

Father. So who is the Son? And when you start asking about what the

26:50

Son was. They start talking about plans. And the Logos was a plan in the mind of the

26:55

Father. And all the rest of this stuff. And it's all to avoid the recognition of the distinction.

27:01

That is found in Scripture. Between the Father and the

27:06

Son. As divine persons. As divine persons.

27:12

We must emphasize that. And the text never says that. So he had a simultaneous awareness of himself.

27:19

Both as God and man. This explains. Now listen to this. This explains why. We have no

27:25

Father -Son interaction. Now listen. Or distinctions under the Old Testament.

27:32

And as we've pointed out. And of course. He's not repeating himself. We've gone to a different debate.

27:37

Which is easier to listen to. Just because the recording is so much better. But as we've pointed out. We do.

27:43

Using the light of the New Testament. See those distinctions.

27:50

Those distinctions are plainly laid out for us. For example. In the prologue of John.

27:57

Where we are told in John 1 .18. And it was interesting.

28:02

Another oneness advocate. I've actually contacted him. To see if we can.

28:10

Sort of. Arrange something. There's a possibility of my speaking. At one of the Psalm 119 conferences.

28:16

Next year in Texas. And. You know.

28:22

Texas is a big place. Just because it's in Texas. Doesn't mean much. That would be like.

28:27

Somebody living in Tucson. I'm going to be speaking in Flagstaff. You want to do something. Well. Two and a half.

28:34

Three or four hour drive. Some states back east. That would be a two or three state crossing.

28:40

Just to get there. I'm not sure if it's going to work out.

28:46

But I have raised the possibility. Of doing a debate. Possibly before.

28:52

One of the Psalm 119 conferences. And we'll see if that all. All works out.

28:59

But he specifically. Said to me that he actually. At John 1 .18. Takes the reading of the modern texts.

29:07

So it would be interesting. To interact with a oneness advocate. That is just not.

29:13

The old style. 1925. Vintage oneness.

29:20

Pentecostal mindset. King James only. Just give me the King James. And you know.

29:26

Make sure my wife's got a head covering. And a bun in her hair. Something like that type thing. Might be interesting to engage that.

29:35

But anyway. John 1 .18. No one. Has ever seen

29:41

God. Theon. Udais. Heorakon.

29:48

Popate. So. No one's ever seen God. But we all know that people did see

29:53

God. So who did they see? Monogenes Theos. The unique God.

30:00

Who is in the bosom of the Father. He has exegeted him. He has explained him. He has revealed him.

30:07

Well. If you're going to make the broad statement. No one has ever seen God. And John knows that people have the old covenant scriptures in their hands and there were times when people did.

30:23

Well then what's he saying? Who has made this

30:29

God known? Who has made the Father known? It's the Monogenes Theos. Now.

30:38

Most oneness don't deal with textual critical issues. In my experience. And if they do.

30:45

They just go with whatever the King James said. That's why I said this other fellow. Mr. Anderson's his name. Mr. Anderson.

30:54

Just have to say it that way. Greetings Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson.

31:03

Debating me is inevitable. Sorry. I'm doing that for Barry in the other room.

31:09

He gets all excited when I show any knowledge which is very, very miniscule but any knowledge whatsoever of popular culture even if that's a movie that's 10 years old or something like that.

31:23

Anyhow. I still wonder how that guy got into Rivendell. That's another story.

31:30

You just got that, didn't you? Their normal response would be it's the only begotten son.

31:38

And just to reject that modernistic text that you're dealing with. But if they deal with the modern text it's monogamous to us.

31:49

Who is the monogamous to us? Well, it's the son. It's the same one who became flesh.

31:57

It's the word. John 1, 1 -18 is a whole. I don't know how oneness folks can deal with a meaningful exegetical examination of the prologue of John.

32:10

But it's there and it needs to be dealt with. There you have the statement right from the text of scripture itself distinguishing between the father and son and identifying the son as the son with the term theos, deity.

32:31

I think it's very straightforward. I want you to notice something tonight.

32:37

It's the same with every Trinitarian just about that I debate. They always have to start... Sometimes I digress and I chase a rabbit.

32:46

He was saying there's no interaction. Well, what was John's point?

32:51

The one they saw in the Old Testament was the son. That's what he's going to say in John chapter 12. The one they saw sitting upon the throne, that was

32:58

Jesus. That was the son. Preincarnate, but it's there. So you do have distinction in the light of New Testament interpretation.

33:12

But here is where he lays out this. It's a hermeneutical utter contradiction between us.

33:19

He's saying, basically, the Old Testament delimits the range of revelation that can take place in the

33:30

New. The New cannot go beyond the Old. The Old says, this is it.

33:39

No more. And I say, no way. I say no way.

33:46

I mean, Hebrews chapter 1, God who in the former times spoke unto us by the prophets hath in these last days spoken unto us by a son, or his son, or the son, depending on how you want to interpret it.

34:00

But the point is the idea that the Old Testament limits us and says you can't go beyond here.

34:07

It does in certain areas. You can't all of a sudden introduce multiple gods, and I don't believe in multiple gods.

34:14

But the revelation we have in the incarnation and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is not a revelation of multiple gods.

34:22

It's not a contradiction. And you see, he begins with the assumption that the

34:29

Old Covenant reveals Unitarianism rather than Monotheism.

34:35

They are not the same things. Start with the New Testament and read that back into the

34:43

Old Testament. You cannot go to the Old Testament and find persons. In fact, why do we never find father -son interaction under the

34:51

Old Testament outside of prophetic? You won't even find the son under the Old Testament outside of prophetical, prophesied to come.

35:00

If the son is revealed between the Old Covenant and the

35:06

New Covenant, how could it be any... Just the very idea. Outside of prophetical.

35:12

Outside of prophecy. What else do you want? He's going to be born in time. The revelation is going to take place in time.

35:22

So what else would you expect there to be? This kind of...

35:29

You have to use this kind of interpretation. It just doesn't have any basis. And it's clearly not how the

35:35

New Testament writers approached anything. They didn't buy into this. This is very strange behavior from co -eternal divine persons.

35:46

Then you turn to Matthew and you find tons of father -son interaction which you do not find under the

35:52

Old Testament. So he has to bypass the foundation of the Old Testament, start with the New Testament, and read it back into the

35:58

Old Testament because you can't find his doctrine under the Old Testament. So the Covenant people of God were deceived the whole time who

36:04

God really was. Now, awesome example of a category error. I love when you have this kind of just really clear example of a category error.

36:14

We have asserted that the primary revelation of the doctrine of the

36:21

Trinity is found in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the Incarnation of the Son, which takes place in time after the writing of the

36:27

Old Covenant Scriptures. And so it makes perfect sense that the New Testament Scriptures, being

36:33

Scriptures of fulfillment, will cast light upon those Scriptures that were Scriptures of shadow and prophecy.

36:40

And this is how Christians have understood this. But then you have the twist here.

36:47

And that is the assertion. And he did this in the debate with Matt Slick, and now he's doing it here.

36:53

You're telling me that all those Old Covenant people were deceived about their God. No. No.

36:59

No. Where does that come from? So, Adam, because he doesn't know the cross, is deceived about God?

37:12

Adam, because he doesn't know all the things God's going to do with Israel, is deceived about God? Those who do not have the fullness of the completed revelation, they're somehow deceived about God?

37:24

No. That's a clear category error where you're extending someone who does not have knowledge of future acts, whether they be revelatory acts or redemptive acts or whatever else, you're confusing that with holding to a false view of God.

37:44

And what's the assumption that leads to this category error? There can't be any more revelation about God on these issues.

37:53

We've just got it all, starting from Adam, I guess. Clear category error.

38:02

It does not follow that anyone under the Old Covenant was, quote unquote, deceived.

38:09

And I turn this back upon his own position. Given that from his perspective, the

38:14

God of the Old Testament was not only going to take on a new role in inhabiting a body, not a,

38:26

I don't believe it's true incarnation, but anyways, and then was going to take on another role as spirit, and Moses didn't know about any of that.

38:37

Was Moses deceived about God? Well, he only had it prophetically, right? So he must have been deceived about God, right?

38:45

I mean, all you're saying is, if God does anything in the future, that means they were deceived about the nature of God.

38:51

Ridiculous! An expansion in the revelation of God's character and being to his people is an act of grace.

39:03

It does not mean that he was deceiving those who were not beneficiaries of that expansion in revelation and knowledge of his being.

39:14

And so it does not follow logically or rationally that there is some level of deception involved at that point.

39:24

So the Jews all through the Old Testament, because there's no mention of the Son, who is a supposed co -eternal person under the

39:30

Old Testament, you don't find him nowhere, the Jews were deceived of who God was the whole time. Now, this self -same

39:37

God, not a different God, but the self -same God entered into a new existence, a new realm of humanity, thus his divine consciousness and human consciousness was fused together, but not confused.

39:50

Listen, there were times ladies and gentlemen, that Jesus spake and acted from his genuine humanity.

39:56

For example, he slept in the bottom of a boat. The Bible said that he grew weary on Jacob, sat on Jacob's well.

40:03

Well, Psalms 121 says that God neither... Psalm 121 Just Psalm.

40:09

It's not hymns 121. It's hymn 121. It's Psalm 121. Just...

40:15

It's a pet peeve. Sorry. Neither slumbers nor sleeps. Then you read

40:21

Isaiah 40 and it says, God fainteth not, nor is weary. Yet Jesus grew weary, yet Jesus slept, yet the

40:28

Bible explicitly says, God as God, as deity does not do these things. So at other times, however, he acted and he spake from his indwelling deity.

40:37

For example, Jesus forgave sins. Well, we know that God alone forgives sins. Jesus walked on the water.

40:44

Job prophesied that the Lord God Almighty alone would walk on the water. As God, he was transcendent beyond the incarnation.

40:51

As the Son of God, he functioned within the self -imposed limitations of the incarnation, so that in the final analysis, we have a full

40:59

God and a full man simultaneously in Jesus Christ. That's our position. Except, it creates in Jesus, not one person with two natures, but two persons.

41:12

So that the Son, in his communion with the Father, in his communication with the

41:18

Father, the words that he speaks about his eternal existence, the words he speaks about his divine glory, are basically robbed of all of their meaning.

41:29

When he says, the glory which I had with you before the world was, those words become no more meaningful than if I say those very same words, because I existed in God's mind before the world was.

41:43

I was part of that plan to deny the

41:49

Son, the deity of the Son, not again, and you all remember,

41:56

Bruce Reeves made this very clear, in distinction from the Father, to deny the

42:01

Son leaves those texts without any meaning whatsoever. Alright, we're going to have to stop there and move on to our next debate, as we look at the time here and sort of figure out, because we're wrapping up at 1230, and it's now 1142, so let's move on to the next of our debates.

42:23

And we've been listening to a debate took place, Rich even told me exactly when it was last time, but it was about a year or so ago, or a little bit more, between Abdullah Kunda and Samuel Green on the doctrine of the

42:37

Trinity, and we're finding interesting parallels between Abdullah Kunda's statements and those of Roger Perkins, for very different purposes.

42:50

This is the lowest quality recording of the two, so you have to, and especially with Abdullah's accent, you have to listen carefully, but I try to repeat the point that I am responding to,

43:05

I try to remember to do that, I don't always succeed, but I am trying to do so. Let's continue on with Abdullah Kunda.

43:10

... So I guess the argument here is if you have the utilization of the term

43:35

God, if you have a specific term for the Father, if you call him God, then you assume

43:41

Unitarianism, and therefore Jesus can't be that. It's a common category error that is made by lots of folks, even

43:49

Roger Perkins will make this error in the debate we've heard, where, well, if Jesus refers to somebody as God, then that just must mean he's not.

43:59

And I like to ask people, well, if Jesus was as the

44:04

Bible, I think, clearly proclaims him to be, incarnate deity, would he be an atheist?

44:11

Would he stop referring to God? Would he stop praying? Only if you assume Unitarianism.

44:19

And it's that constant assumption of Unitarianism rather than the proving of Unitarianism that has to be challenged.

44:29

He sat down at the right hand of God. Now, if you isolate that from the rest of what the

44:35

Scriptures teach, then you might go, well, it doesn't say the Father, yeah, but would you allow the

44:42

Koran, Abdullah, to be treated in this way? Would you allow someone to chop it up into pieces and say, oh, well, it says over here, and yet, just a few verses later, it clarifies its meaning.

44:57

Would you allow that to happen? I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. It shouldn't. We should try as best we can to allow the

45:06

Koran to interpret itself. I would argue that given the genre of literature that it is, it doesn't do that very well.

45:17

It makes a claim that it's Mubinun. It makes a claim that it's sufficient in and of itself, but I don't think that even

45:23

Islamic theology has even gotten close to attempting a textually based interpretation of the

45:32

Koran. I just don't think the Koran is consistent enough to do that, but the point is that you should at least start there, right?

45:39

And so why not do the same thing with our scriptures that speak so plainly to these topics?

45:46

Jesus' life and authority is actually granted from the Father, and reading this passage,

45:53

Jesus' authority is granted from the Father, and again, I understand how a

46:00

Muslim functioning on an uncritical and unexamined Unitarianism is probably not going to be likely to understand, or even to ponder my response here, but how else could it be?

46:22

The danger, and it was interesting, I was listening also on the ride after the

46:31

Silverman debate, I listened to D. A. Carson's book on the love of God.

46:36

It's actually a booklet, it's very small, but it was some lectures he delivered on the difficult doctrine of the love of God.

46:43

I wonder why Peter Lumpkins didn't put out a doctored video about D. A. Carson.

46:49

When I talked about the dangers of addressing the doctrine of the love of God because of men's traditions and because of their sentimentalities, we got that doctored video out of it.

47:01

I wonder why they haven't done that in regards to Dr.

47:07

Carson's book. But anyway, I was listening to that, and he went through John chapter 5, and the assertions of the love of the

47:15

Father for the Son, the Son for the Father, and things like that in John chapter 5, and he made the very same point that I did.

47:23

And I had not read the book before, so it's good when you end up on Don Carson's side of many things.

47:29

That's a good thing. But he emphasized the same thing that I did, and that is, in John chapter 5, what you have fundamentally is the balanced presentation of Jesus where he in no way dodges, denies, or ameliorates his claims that are claims that can only be made by deity.

47:57

But he specifically avoids and destroys any foundation for di -theism.

48:05

He is not some renegade deity out there doing his own thing. There is perfect unity. The Son does the things that he sees the

48:13

Father doing. Think about that. The Son does nothing of himself. He only does what he sees the

48:19

Father doing. And the Muslim goes, See? See? He's not God. Think about it for a moment.

48:27

Just think about that statement. What human being can claim to do the things that God does?

48:37

He's just the whole thing that fires all this off is that he performs a healing on the

48:43

Sabbath day. And the Jews understood that God works on the

48:50

Sabbath. Now some Jews said he didn't break the Sabbath because he didn't have to lift anything above the level of his shoulders. Which it's like, okay.

49:00

So that means God's taller than the universe. I'm not really sure how that works. Anyway, the point was the

49:08

Jews understood that God continues to exercise providential care of the universe.

49:16

The stars continue to shine. The planets stay in their orbits. And chaos does not ensue for 24 hours every seven days.

49:28

The laws of nature don't, you know, gravity doesn't just stop working and everything starts floating upwards and stuff like that for 24 hours.

49:34

God stays in control. And so when Jesus said, My Father is working until now and I am working.

49:42

Those are words of deity. How else could you understand them?

49:49

The Jews certainly understood him that way. And the rest of his conversation, his response,

49:54

I was like, oh, no, no, no, I'm a mere prophet. Oh, there would have been so many times when the

50:00

Muslim Jesus would have had to respond so completely differently than the

50:08

Jesus of the New Testament. But he doesn't. His responses show us the perfect harmony and unity that exists between the

50:22

Father and the Son in the accomplishment of God's purposes. It's right there in front of us in the text.

50:32

It's beautiful to see. I understand why our Muslim friends don't see it.

50:38

That's why we take the opportunity to explain these things and hope by God's grace that they will.

50:46

It actually comes from the quote that David read. It says that the

50:52

Father has life. So he's created the Son to have life. It does not say that he created.

51:00

Now, it could be I just misunderstood him. But he's created the Son to have life. No, he's granted the

51:05

Son to have life in himself. It does not say he has granted to him life because that would make your point.

51:13

But to have life in himself means to be the source of life -giving.

51:18

And again, it was interesting. Carson addressed this as well and we presented it in the exact same context.

51:26

And he said, look, the only way to understand this is that this is an eternal relationship.

51:32

This is not one day Jesus did not have life in himself and the next day he did.

51:39

No, the Son is the source of life and eternally has been.

51:46

And the point is that there is a distinction between the Father and the Son that is being delineated for us here.

51:54

So we can know who has become incarnate. We can know who has given to us life, etc.,

52:00

etc. And again, I'm sitting here sort of smiling because I was listening to this at very high speed.

52:11

It was on the descent. It's so weird how my mind works and this is strange for me to tell everybody about.

52:17

But it's like an index. It's like a time marker thing. I'm sitting here looking at this waveform on my screen and there's time markers all the way along and I can see right where I am right now.

52:31

We're at 30 minutes, 5 .350 seconds on this waveform. Well, the way my mind works is when

52:38

I'm listening to something while riding, where I am, like specifically on South Mountain, triggers that particular memory.

52:47

So I remember exactly when Bob Morey first said the most amazing thing I've ever heard in a debate, in a debate with Shabir Ali, I remember exactly where I was again on South Mountain at that time.

52:59

How are you wanting to? Well, I'm just curious. If you rode your bike past a spilled box of toothpicks, would you be able to count how many toothpicks were laying on the ground?

53:09

No. No, no, no. 186. No. Thanks a lot.

53:18

Appreciate that. See, that's not the kind of comment that Rich would make.

53:25

You know, on this day in 1963, the hotline was officially established between Moscow and Washington, D .C.

53:32

Really? So yeah, this day, August 30th. So I just thought it was kind of fitting that we should have our own little connection. So, who am

53:39

I? Am I Washington and you're the Kremlin? Well, whatever you want to be. Well, thank you.

53:48

Barry, Vice President Barry, who is currently filling in for Rich behind the black standard not -so -excellent broadcasting microphone in the other room.

54:04

Anyway, back to my point, because we're burning daylight here.

54:11

I remember exactly where I was when Carson once again made this very, very same point in regards to the eternal nature of the son and his relationship with the father, and it's the only way to understand the fact the son gives life to whom he will.

54:31

That is divine function. That is never placed in the hands of man.

54:38

The very giving of divine life, salvation itself, again, if you allow it almost makes me chuckle when someone,

54:49

I'm going to go to the Gospel of John and show you the trend, he really isn't What? Gospel of John?

54:56

John chapter 10, in my hand, in the Father's hand, I and the Father one, John chapter 17, that John you want to go to?

55:04

Only by chopping it up into very small tiny little pieces can you do that.

55:10

... ... ... ...

55:18

... Did you catch that? It's very clear that the Father is something different to the

55:23

Son. That's the doctrine of the Trinity, Abdullah. That's what we believe. That's why we believe it.

55:30

It's because we take everything the Bible says seriously. We are not saying the

55:35

Father is the Son. We are not saying the Father became incarnate. That's Roger Perkins. That's somebody else.

55:41

We don't consider that to be Orthodox Christianity or Christianity at all. That's why they're attacking the

55:49

Trinity, too, see? So, yes, you're exactly right.

55:55

It's very clear that there is distinction between the Father and the Son. Okay? That's right.

56:02

That's part of our faith, that's part of what we believe. We accept these things and believe these things.

56:08

It does not follow, then, that the Son is merely a razool. If you will allow those texts to speak for themselves.

56:17

Who is at least superior to the Son in many ways. Who is at least superior to the Son in many ways.

56:22

The Son voluntarily took the position that was His. He humbled Himself.

56:29

It was not the Father who became incarnate. And so how could it be anything other than that?

56:35

And so when someone thinks that what they're saying is an objection to the

56:41

Trinity, when it is actually an affirmation of the Trinity, that tells you they don't really understand the doctrine of the

56:49

Trinity. And I understand why that is. It's not that this stuff is not out there.

56:55

I mean, you know, one of the things that bothers me, and someday I'm going to have to do this, I'm going to have to go through, and I probably have now that I think about it, in all the nearly 1 ,000 programs we've done or whatever it is, during which

57:13

I have never claimed to have been born in Turkey or forgot my children's names. But anyway, that's another issue.

57:22

Various looking at me oddly about that one. That's okay. We need to go through the

57:27

Athanasian Creed sometime. Because groups, various groups, love to throw it out there and go, man, this is just so confusing.

57:36

Nobody can understand it. Anybody can understand it. It's just a matter of actually engaging your mind long enough to obtain the appropriate vocabulary.

57:50

And then it makes perfect sense. And it said a long time ago, these distinctions are necessary to understand.

58:00

They're right there. This is not something we made up 20 years ago. We believe this all along.

58:07

Have there been Christians down through the history of the church who have not understood or had a very shallow knowledge?

58:15

No doubt. Does that change the fact that these things have been clear for a very long time?

58:21

Not at all. Now, if you consider the last one that I put down there, basically for those who aren't familiar with the story,

58:28

Jesus was walking to a crowd, a woman that had a illness touched him. Now, here we go.

58:34

This one's very interesting. This one's, I really,

58:41

I'm hoping, I'm working under the assumption, I haven't actually written to Abdullah.

58:47

I need to write to Abdullah. Actually, maybe I did. Now that I think about it. In fact, I did. Anyways, but not on this, on another subject.

58:54

We need to get the thesis of our debate nailed down. But I'm certain that he's listening.

59:01

And he's one of those types of guys that would do his homework. He would do preparation.

59:08

And just as I would hope that Roger Perkins is listening as well, because,

59:14

I mean, man, I would love it if my debate opponents would provide most of my work, would do most of my work for me.

59:24

By laying everything out like this, like I have been doing for hours on end now for a few weeks,

59:34

I'm really hoping that he will hear what we really believe about this, and as a result, will lay this argument aside because it's really bad.

59:47

It's not up to his level. Really not. This one needs to be retired and replaced with something significantly better.

59:58

But here comes the argument. Jesus is walking through the crowd. Remember, this is as he's going to raise

01:00:03

Jairus' daughter. And so we go from there. And at once he realized that the power had gone from him.

01:00:10

He turned around to the crowd and asked, Who touched my clothes? So remember, the woman touches him.

01:00:16

He perceives the power has gone out from him, and he turns around. Now, Abdullah is actually going to understand this to be that Jesus is ignorant about what's going on and that he can't control this power going out from him thing.

01:00:31

I mean, it just happens all the time. I mean, Peter keeps touching me during the apostolic dinners, and now he looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

01:00:39

I just don't understand what's going on. He used to be this little tiny little guy, and now he's this... No. And he just doesn't even envision the possibility that Jesus does this to bring forth the woman's confession of faith or anything.

01:00:55

It's just not even... It's just like, Duh! The power has gone out from me. What's going on? And I'm like,

01:01:01

Really? Come on. You've got to be kidding me. That's the worst possible reading of the text you could ever come up with.

01:01:06

You really mean that? You're not going to get any Christians to be overly impressed by that kind of argumentation.

01:01:13

It's that bad. So first of all, the power that Jesus had can be removed without his permission by someone touching his clothes.

01:01:20

The power that Jesus had can be removed from him without his permission by someone touching his clothes. Really? That's how you read the text.

01:01:27

Okay. Secondly, he's that ignorant that he doesn't know who touched his clothes. He has to ask the crowd.

01:01:33

And in fact, the disciples respond to him in the very next line saying, Master, do you not see how large the crowd is?

01:01:40

How do you expect us to answer that question? And I mean, it's a silly question to ask in the first place. Are these the characteristics of an uncreated

01:01:46

God? Are these the characteristics of an uncreated God? No, but neither is that an even semi -possible reading of the text, either.

01:01:58

So we want to help Abdullah abandon that one.

01:02:03

Because, look, my assumption is he wants to try to have an impact upon the

01:02:09

Christians that are listening to him. And most serious Christians can recognize really bad reading of a text of Scripture when they hear it.

01:02:19

And that's a really bad reading of a text of Scripture. Jesus turns around and he says,

01:02:26

Who touched my clothes? And the very fact that he does it forces the woman to come forward and therefore he can minister to her, bring forth that confession of faith.

01:02:37

And it also happens to be the time right then when the messengers come up from Jairus' house, and that's when

01:02:44

Jesus can turn to him and say, Be not unbelieving, but believe. And they press on in the resurrection of the daughter and the whole nine yards.

01:02:53

So it's just a horrifically bad reading of that particular text at that point.

01:02:58

Okay, we will stop there in the

01:03:03

Kunda Green debate and pick up with that one next time around on Thursday.

01:03:10

And that leaves us time. The last one, I have four waveforms on my screen.

01:03:16

When we started, I have one left. And that is the Fernandez -Comas debate, which has a little bit better sound quality to it.

01:03:27

Though we're now going to the audience questions. So what I'm going to try to do is this. When the audience member asks a question, especially of Mr.

01:03:35

Comas, I will answer first. Because one of the things we want to see here in the interaction, one of the things

01:03:43

I brought up from the very beginning, was the differences in how you respond to particular questions between a federal visionist reformed understanding and that which

01:03:59

I would hold. In fact, it was interesting. I was listening to the

01:04:04

Wayback Machine. I happened to come in, and I turned the speakers on, and it was a dividing line from 2002 that was on.

01:04:13

We're right toward the end of 2002 in the Wayback playing. And I was playing portions of Steve Schlissel's sermon from the

01:04:26

Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church Conference. And I had forgotten some of the things that were said and how strongly

01:04:37

I disagreed with the things that were being said. So it does very much impact how you respond specifically apologetically to issues regarding the reformed faith, because I think it does fundamentally alter some of those reformed beliefs.

01:05:03

So we pick up with the audience questions from the Fernandez -Comas debate.

01:05:08

In regards to the Holy Spirit, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, I understand blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to be rejection of the

01:05:15

Holy Spirit based upon who Jesus is. And it's the only sin that sends us to hell.

01:05:21

I'm just wondering why those people sent to hell are rejecting the Holy Spirit. What's the

01:05:26

Holy Spirit doing with the unelect? Now, I would immediately correct the audience questioner.

01:05:33

I do not believe that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only sin that sends to hell. Nowhere in the

01:05:39

Scriptures does it say that. Why does Paul go through all those sins and say none of these people will inherit the kingdom of God who do these things if none of those things actually send you to hell in the first place?

01:05:52

It is a common and very shallow evangelical, even jellyfish idea that, well, because of substitutionary atonement, all other sins have already been forgiven.

01:06:04

It's just this one sin that sends you to hell. So blasphemy against the

01:06:18

Holy Spirit, the blasphemy against the

01:06:28

Holy Spirit, the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the blasphemy against the

01:06:33

Holy Spirit, the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, And a lot of people didn't like D .C.

01:06:39

Martin. I really did. And the older I get, the more I'm thankful for his life and ministry.

01:06:46

He passed away a number of years ago. But I'm so thankful. And you had to get a 96.

01:06:55

96 was the low A in his class. And I'm the only person I know. There may have been others at the time.

01:07:00

Nobody knew of anybody. But I was the only person I know that never got anything but an A in D .C. Martin's class.

01:07:06

And that was because I knew I was sitting down to a feast. See, I had already started doing apologetics when

01:07:12

I was in college. I had a real advantage there. That's why I listened. I was awake during the

01:07:17

New Testament backgrounds classes and seminary. Everybody else is asleep, man. They're just like, no, just mail this one in.

01:07:24

I'm realizing, man, this is the stuff I need to do apologetics. Because I had already run into those

01:07:30

Mormon missionaries and was already studying the Watchtower stuff. And I'm like, oh, you know. So I listened very, very carefully and took excellent notes in D .C.

01:07:43

Martin's classes. And I can tell you this day, when he asked the question on his tests, why is the unpardonable sin unpardonable?

01:07:54

The only answer he would accept was, because it's unpardonable.

01:08:01

Now, if you gave that answer, then you had listened to his conversation.

01:08:06

You had listened to what he had said. If you gave some other answer, then you had been asleep. Now, what was the meaning of the answer?

01:08:14

He made it very clear. We're talking about the religious leaders here. I do not believe a person that does not have great light and revelation from God can ever commit this sin.

01:08:28

We're talking about the religious leaders here. They have great revelation from God, and what do they do?

01:08:34

They identify the Spirit of God, by whom comes conviction of sin and life is brought to someone, spiritual life, as the devil himself.

01:08:46

They can call light darkness and darkness light. They can call white black and black white. They are so twisted in their religiosity and their hypocrisy that they are the ones that Isaiah was speaking about.

01:08:59

As a result, by blaspheming the one by whom conviction itself comes, their consciences become seared, and the reason the sin is unpardonable is because the only means by which repentance can come is conviction of the

01:09:16

Holy Spirit. Once you have been so given over by God that you can look at the

01:09:21

Holy Spirit and go, that's the devil. Well, that's why it becomes unpardonable.

01:09:29

And so, while I wouldn't have time in a debate format to explain all that,

01:09:35

I could explain it more briefly than that. I just thought I'd repeat it since it's been a long, long time since I did repeat it.

01:09:43

And so I would, when he asked the question, what is the Holy Spirit doing with the non -elect?

01:09:50

We discussed this earlier. What is the Holy Spirit doing with the non -elect?

01:09:56

He does convict. I'm awful glad he convicts, because by convicting, he likewise restrains.

01:10:03

It is one of the uses of the law, is the terror of the law resounds in the ears of the criminal.

01:10:11

And it is that concern about punishment. You might think that you can get away with it with the civil authorities, but when you actually still believe you're going to someday face

01:10:22

God, it impacts your behavior. That's one of the things we're seeing in our society, where that belief is being lost, even though I would say that mankind still recognizes that.

01:10:33

And so, what's the Holy Spirit doing? He's bringing conviction, and he is restraining, and he is testifying.

01:10:41

But none of that can be assumed to mean that because he convicts, he will always be convicting for the same purpose.

01:10:50

Remember, we had discussions of love of God and things like that. And in fact, I actually addressed this a little bit in Sunday's sermons.

01:10:56

If you are interested in looking at the sermons and sermon audio from August...

01:11:03

What was that? I've already changed the calendar in here. But 29th or something like that, or 28th, or...

01:11:11

What was last Sunday? Because I turned the calendar in here. It's in September, and there's an airplane right in the middle of it.

01:11:19

21st? Oh, it wasn't. Ha ha ha! 28th!

01:11:25

Thank you very much, 28th. Just add 7 to that. Thank you very much. You're a little bit behind time, aren't you?

01:11:32

Okay, that's okay. You can listen to those sermons where I talk about the testifying work of the Holy Spirit.

01:11:38

I didn't really get to this in my discussion, but I would argue that the same covenantal reality is true with the

01:11:50

Spirit. As I tried to get into with Christ, that is that the Spirit has a dual role.

01:11:57

And ultimately, His two roles are what the Father and the Son have planned for Him.

01:12:03

So either He's going to save an individual, or He's going to damn an individual.

01:12:09

And so the Spirit will work and wrestle with men and get them to repent and believe.

01:12:18

But covenantally, there is a sense in which, yeah, the Spirit can be resisted. I even put that in my notes.

01:12:26

I believe that there is a covenantal side to this, like I've been trying to argue, that puts

01:12:33

God in the mix with man to the extent that man can thwart, in a sense,

01:12:41

God's plan for him. I don't think you're really answering it.

01:12:48

Either that or I'm just not understanding it. But if God, the Holy Spirit... Now, let me just stop there and go,

01:12:55

I can certainly understand why most of the people in the audience would be going, What?

01:13:02

Because you've got this idea in Federal Visionism, this idea of people who are in the covenant, but they are the reprobate in the covenant and the non -elect in the covenant.

01:13:17

And so there's this different thing that God's doing with them. And so you've really got three different groups. You've got the people outside the covenant and the role of the

01:13:25

Spirit with them. You've got people inside the covenant. There's two different roles in the covenant. And there's only one.

01:13:30

Certain people are going to be salvificly saved, and they're going to be saved perfectly, I would hope anyways. But then you've got other people in the covenant who it's

01:13:38

God's purpose to damn them, but they're in the covenant anyways. And so there's a different role of the

01:13:43

Spirit there. And I can understand why most Armenians staying there at the microphone are going,

01:13:50

I don't really think he's answering my question. Let's try this again. And I'm sure you believe God is the Holy Spirit.

01:13:56

Why is God the Holy Spirit, I guess, toying with unbelievers?

01:14:02

I would love to have been asked that. I would say God the Holy Spirit never toys with unbelievers.

01:14:08

God the Holy Spirit always accomplishes the purpose of God's sovereign decree in all human lives, whether those who undeservingly receive his grace and are of his elect or those who receive his justice and are not.

01:14:23

And it is not toying with them to restrain their sin or to even bring conviction, thereby demonstrating that even under conviction, they continue to love themselves more than they love

01:14:34

God or they love what is good. They love what is evil. What was the whole demonstration of the constant fall, restoration, fall, restoration of the people of Israel?

01:14:47

But you can even possess great gifts from God and great blessings from God. But unless there is the change of that heart, unless that heart of stone has been taken out and a heart of flesh has been given, you can have all the benefits in the world, and it will not change anything.

01:15:05

I would love to have the opportunity of responding in that way. I think he's toying with them.

01:15:11

He's bringing them to a greater conviction of guilt, really. I mean, if they have no choice of choosing.

01:15:20

Well, they do. They have to choose. Okay, well, why don't we do this? Why don't you let him finish? See, the person asking the question, and the problem was here they weren't asking questions.

01:15:29

They wanted to get into the debate and argue. If they have no choice, no, they've already chosen their slaves to sin, and they love their sin.

01:15:43

That needs to be emphasized over and over and over again. The whole issue of the nature of the will and the fact that the will chooses based upon the desires presented to it by the nature, by the heart of the individual.

01:15:57

Well, if the heart is hard and stony and cold, what can the will do? There has to be something that comes from outside that changes, and that is, of course, the power of the

01:16:10

Spirit. Let him finish, because then if you need to reestablish your question, you can ask the question and close it.

01:16:15

I think this is where the rubber really hits the road. I think what you're arguing against is hyper -Calvinism, which says essentially

01:16:24

God does everything and man does nothing. That's what?

01:16:30

I guess I can, I suppose, but it almost sounds to me like he thinks hyper -Calvinism is,

01:16:41

I don't know, God does everything and man does nothing. Well, in regards to what?

01:16:48

In regards to this choice? I mean, we believe that man makes a choice, but he must be freed from slavery to sin and brought to spiritual life to be able to make the right choice because of his fallen

01:17:00

Adam. So I don't know what hyper -Calvinism had to do with anything there at all. Certainly the questioner was not raising issues of the covenantal role of the

01:17:12

Spirit either. His whole point was real obvious. Well, you know, it was based upon a false understanding of what the unpardonable sin is and what conviction.

01:17:21

Conviction can only be in trying to bring someone to Christ. There can be no other role of conviction anywhere.

01:17:31

So Herod or Pilate, you know, the Spirit can't have any role in there other than simply trying to save Pilate.

01:17:40

You see? And we've already seen that that's a false understanding of the role of the Spirit. Phil, do you want to?

01:17:46

Yeah, I actually think this applies to all the different, more mild forms of Calvinism, and then

01:17:54

I just don't see a place. I think it makes blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which I see as a final heart denial of Jesus as Savior.

01:18:01

Jesus says that some people had just committed it. Where does it say anything about rejection of Jesus as Savior?

01:18:10

The unpardonable sin was the identification of the Holy Spirit as the spirit of the enemy,

01:18:18

Beelzebub. There were certain people who committed it. They were the religious people.

01:18:25

It's morphed into something else in a lot of evangelicalism. They're guilty of an eternal sin which can never be forgiven.

01:18:32

All other sins could be forgiven, but that sin cannot be forgiven. It makes no sense. If they're already of the non -elect, there was no possibility for salvation anyway.

01:18:43

But I will say this on behalf of Chris. He has the covenantal aspect. He sees God working with humans also in a non -salvific, non -saving way that is kind of a lot of people haven't really heard about that.

01:19:00

I kind of know where he's coming from, but I don't see how it meets the point on this particular issue.

01:19:07

But I do kind of see a little bit where he's coming from there. Yeah, I don't see how it meets the issue either.

01:19:14

It doesn't, and it just led to a massive amount of confusion on the part of the people attending this because they're getting this,

01:19:25

I think, very off -the -beam presentation that muddies the issues and really diminished the communication, especially during the audience

01:19:37

Q &A. Maybe I can sum it up a little better this way. Ultimately, the

01:19:43

Holy Spirit is working out whatever the Father and the Son decreed for Him to work out. So whatever the

01:19:51

Spirit ends up doing... But He needs to define what that is. Even from a Federal Visionist perspective, you still need to say that there is a role of the

01:20:02

Spirit in conviction of sin that is non -salvific because the whole question was based upon the idea that the only kind of conviction the

01:20:12

Holy Spirit can bring is one where He's trying to bring salvation. There can be no other role.

01:20:18

That was the fundamentally flawed element of the question that was asked. And when you're doing debates, you have to hear the foundation of the question and respond to that.

01:20:31

Otherwise, the debate isn't overly useful. With an individual, whether it's save them or damn them, it's ultimately based upon what the

01:20:40

Father has decreed from all eternity. Maybe that's the simplest way to put it. Our next question?

01:20:45

I have two questions, one for each side, so I suppose

01:20:51

I should ask the first. Well, as I said, each person will be able to answer to respond, so you can ask either way, but both will respond to each question.

01:20:59

Okay, so I'll ask the first question. And it's actually directed towards Mr. Comus. How is it, and this is based in 2

01:21:08

Corinthians 4 .4, how is it that the God of this world, which I'm assuming is not our triune

01:21:14

God... I immediately, once again, raise the fact that that's not the only interpretation.

01:21:22

It's very common. It's very common. Most commentaries will identify the

01:21:28

God of this world in 2 Corinthians 4 as Satan. But Don Hartley has really thrown a wrench in that by publishing his paper wherein, looking at the judgment passages, he challenges that identification.

01:21:46

If it is Satan, then obviously Satan and his activities are under the control of God and are a secondary means that God uses in judgment.

01:21:55

But that can't just simply be assumed. This could very well, in light of the judgment language in the

01:22:05

Old Testament, be taken in a different way. I just mentioned that in passing. ...must

01:22:11

blind the unbelieving, lest they believe, if they are unable to believe, in their depravity.

01:22:18

So you assume that man has certain abilities, the stuff about the heart of stone you ignore, and slavery to sin you ignore.

01:22:27

Man has certain abilities, and therefore what God is doing here is, they might repent, I might have to save them,

01:22:32

I don't really want to, so therefore I will blind them. Rather than seeing the judgment language from the Old Testament, the judgment language is coming upon them from Isaiah 6, and the commissioning of Isaiah to bring this message of judgment and the fattening of the hearts and the ears, and so on and so forth.

01:22:50

Can you repeat that? Sure. It's in 2 Corinthians 4 .4. Okay. My question is, how is it that the

01:23:03

God of this world, it's mentioned in 2 Corinthians 4 .4, must blind the unbelieving, lest they believe, if they are unable to believe in their depravity?

01:23:14

So this kind of goes to the question of your view of depravity. Now, again, I would have to challenge the statement of the question.

01:23:22

It does not say he has to. It says he has. In their case, the God of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel, the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

01:23:33

There's, again, we believe that God uses means. So even if you take

01:23:40

Hatheas to Ionas, Tutu, the

01:23:46

God of this world, as Satan, then he's being used as the means to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel, the glory of Christ.

01:23:55

Now, you're assuming, oh, well, if he doesn't, then they will, and they'll repent. No, this is the very same judgment language that is used in Isaiah.

01:24:05

And if it's not Satan, then it is just a direct... Notice it says, has blinded the minds of the who?

01:24:15

Apiston, unbelievers. Why cannot God do with those who refuse to love the truth whatever he wants to?

01:24:24

I mean, we all say he could... You know, everyone will say this, but it's one of those things where people will say something they don't really believe.

01:24:32

If you ask most Christians, would it be just of God to bring his wrath to bear at any point in a person's life who is outside of Christ?

01:24:46

Cut them off right then and there. Bring them to judgment right now. They'll say yes.

01:24:52

But they don't really believe that. They don't really, really believe that because when you then get judgment passages where God works in such a way as to confirm people in their rebellion, give them over, you can't avoid giving over language in Paul's theology.

01:25:13

It's all over the place. God has given them over in the lusts of their hearts.

01:25:22

Now, we don't know who those people are. We are called to be messengers of grace.

01:25:30

But the fact is that there are people God has given over. And we might want to guess as to who they are in this life, and we might actually be right about a few of them.

01:25:42

But that's not our job. We're not called to. But God does give people over. And when we proclaim a message that says there is no giving over, when we ignore the today is the day of salvation part of the message, we are helping to give people a refuge.

01:25:59

I don't have to worry about it today. I can go ahead and continue on. I'm never going to be given over.

01:26:05

There's never going to be a time. Well, that's what you get when you have a man -centered presentation.

01:26:15

There's no question about it. That's what you're going to get when you focus the gospel upon man.

01:26:22

And the results, well, we see it all around us. And there's no two ways about it.

01:26:30

Are you asking me if I think total depravity means total inability to believe?

01:26:37

I think, if I may, the question is, why would the Scripture say that the

01:26:42

God of this world tries to blind the eyes of the unbeliever when, in fact, they can't believe anyway?

01:26:48

Is that right? Well, I mean, I don't know. It's kind of a chicken and egg thing. Does the

01:26:55

God of this world blind them, and therefore they can't believe? Or is there unwillingness to believe in part and parcel to their blindness?

01:27:06

I mean... One of the problems in this debate was Mr. Comis started off with a very

01:27:12

Doug Wilsonian confident presentation, and then once the question started, that confidence and that Doug Wilsonianism disappeared.

01:27:23

And that says to the audience, I'm very confident when I'm reading my notes. I'm not so confident when

01:27:29

I'm having to interact with the text of the Scripture. And people can see that.

01:27:34

They sense it. They hear it. They recognize it. And it's just one of the things you have to take into consideration as you consider whether you should be involved in doing these things.

01:27:50

Well, hey, we got the... No, go ahead and leave it up. Just leave it up a little bit lower than that.

01:27:56

There you go. Bring it up a little bit more so we can hear it in the background. We're running out of time, folks, for The Dividing Line today.

01:28:03

Remember, on Thursday, we're going to get started about half an hour early because I've got a little trip to take.

01:28:11

So we'll start at 10 .30 and get over right at noon. So we'll do a jumbo

01:28:17

DL on Thursday, starting at 10 .30. We'll press on with our debates.

01:28:24

You know, we might finish off the Fernandez -Comas debate someday if we keep doing this.

01:28:30

Thanks for listening today. We'll see you on Thursday. God bless. And for the faith above us fought for We need a new

01:29:04

Reformation day It's a sign of the times

01:29:09

The truth is being trampled in And do we bear it down? Won't you lift up your voice?

01:29:16

Are you tired of plain religion? It's time to make some noise I'm going back home

01:29:22

I'm going back home I'm going back home I stand up for the truth

01:29:29

Won't you lift up your voice? Are you tired of plain religion?

01:30:01

It's a sign of the times The truth is being trampled in Won't you lift up your voice?