1 Cor 15:3, John 6, "Traditional," and Charges of Heresy

And welcome to The Dividing Line. A little bit late getting started today. Somebody who remained nameless was playing with stuff, you know, right before the program.

And when you play with stuff, especially when it's Windows stuff, Windows gets really unhappy with you and you gotta do that reset thing.

So here we are, and that's why we don't do network stuff, because that's not an option.

When you're on some network, it doesn't matter. You just go. But we can't.

Well, then you're canceled. So anyway, welcome to The Dividing Line. It is a

Thursday morning here in Phoenix. Very, very warm period of the year for us.

Those nights when it doesn't get below 90 degrees at night. But that's why we live here.

And that's why not everybody lives here. Those of us that can survive this can survive anything is how we do things.

I wanted to expand upon something that we talked about in the last program.

And I'm actually feeding my accordance feed here. I've had a number of people contact me and say, well, you know,

I've run into other folks that are using the same argument that Dr. Allen has used, which again,

I just in all honesty find to be an extremely weak argument establishing the concept of universal atonement.

And that is based upon 1 Corinthians 15 3. And I have it on the screen here for I delivered to you as a first importance what

I also received that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. I sure hope that looks better going out than what

I see, because it looks like a a 320 by something super pixelated thingamabobby.

But I'm sure it looks fine. That's that's what it's supposed to look like. For I delivered to you as a first importance what

I also received not there are all sorts of scholarly discussions in the literature concerning paradidomy, parodica here that is used here and how this is and, you know, delivered.

And then Paralambano that this is standard tradition language and that it refers to the passing on of of oral tradition and that this goes all the way back to the very time of the very earliest church that this this really connects what

Paul is saying here to the most primitive as the scholarly literature would put it strata of of Christian tradition.

And so the vast majority of discussion of this text focuses upon the fact that what you have here is a is a universal summary.

It's a it's a almost creedal type statement of the gospel.

And so if if that's the case, that it's it's if what does what does

Ha here refer to Ha Kai Paralambano? Well, you've got the

Hati right after that. And so what he received is what comes next in the

Hati clause. So this is where would you ever find anywhere in Paul or anywhere else?

This kind of grammar and syntax to indicate direct quotation so that the

Hati clause gives us the specific words that Paul spoke as if this is a quote.

I mean, Greek can do that, but not this way. That's not how it does it.

Instead, the the use of the neuter here is wrapping up an entire concept.

It can it can refer to phrases, for example, in Ephesians chapter two, when we have a and that not of yourselves is a gift of God.

That's a neuter referring to the entire preceding phrase. Here you have the neuter function in a similar way.

What I also received right delivered to you. What I also received that and then here is the substance of what

Paul delivered to the Corinthians, and he's demonstrating the consistency that exists between what he delivered to the

Corinthians and what he himself received. This is not quotation language. I again have never run into anyone who thought that it was until now.

That Christ died for our sins, according to scriptures. Now, notice the reason that you have the who pair tone, how my

Tion, hey, moan, our sins is because you have who mean right here.

I delivered to you that which I also received.

So you and I together makes.

We. OK, so Christ died for our sins, according to scripture.

Is and the rest and was buried and was raised third day, according scriptures appear to see the so and so forth.

This whole summary of the gospel is just that the summary of what was delivered to him, which he faithfully delivered to the

Corinthians. The idea this is a quotation that he stood up and just said these words. That's it.

Stood up, said these words, sat down. Obviously, that is not the case. And the entire weight of this argument is based upon.

Well, while they were unregenerate, unrepentant sinners,

Paul said these exact words to them. And therefore, the temporal order of the words indicates that Paul taught unlimited unlimited atonement is one of the most vacuous, silly, desperate arguments ever heard in my life.

I mean, really, that's the best you've got. You can't go to Hebrews. I mean,

Dr. Allen wrote a commentary on Hebrews. It's nowhere near the class of Hughes or Bruce or O 'Brien or any the rest of them.

But he wrote a commentary on Hebrews. And if you're asking the obvious question, did you ever refer to it in your preaching?

No, I didn't. I did not find it to be of that class, but he's worked through it.

Why not go to Hebrews? The single longest discussion of the intention, purpose, everything of the atonement there is you.

This is this is what you think is the strongest. Um, again, pretty, pretty amazing stuff, pretty amazing stuff.

So I wanted to just point out that it is not the natural reading of this text to read it as if this is a quotation of words in a given temporal context.

This is the Hathi clause is fulfilling what. Paul had delivered to them and what he himself had received.

That's. I really don't think there are too many people that actually teach this subject that would disagree with what

I just said. I just don't think there are. I just don't think there are. Oh, we've got a another moron on.

I wasn't going to say anything about this, but we have a moron on Twitter. And so I'm going to say something about, um,

I'm blocking him right now called the purposeful pappy, whoever in the world that is.

Um, and, uh, block.

There we go. Love the block thing. Been using a lot of that. Um, I was going to just stick with what

I posted on this subject, but, um, let me just, I'll just, I'm just gonna make one statement.

Eric Cantor's critics have been silent. They've been respectful. If they were the brood of horrific people that they are painted to be, they would be using this as a weapon, but they're not because the purposes of the criticism have always been very much theological and focused upon important things.

The only people who have opened their big fat mouths and used this and abused this situation are people who call themselves the friends of Eric Cantor.

And I have one word for you. Shame, shame on you. Shut up, grow up, get a heart and get a brain, put the two of them together.

Shame on you. Absolutely. Shame on you. Amazing. I've never seen such imbecilic behavior in my life.

I mean, I just feel like turn the computer off and giving up on all of it because I just cannot believe that there are people like you out there that would use this to vent your stupidity and your spleens.

Stop it. Shut up. I don't know what else to say.

Don't know what else to say. Amazing. Just amazing. Well, sorry. Just, just, just amazing.

Okay. Pressing on, trying to press on as best as possible in the midst of pure foolishness.

Over the weeks, I collect stuff in a pocket, which is a really useful program, by the way.

I bet there are dozens of these anymore. In fact, have you noticed when you look at new stuff that people advertise, look at our new program, and you start looking at it and going, yeah, well, it allows you to save pages on the internet and then puts them all in one place for you.

And how many programs, how many of those do you need? After a while, I saw a,

I saw a report or heard a report on,

I was driving home and somebody was saying that they had done a study of the

Apple app store and that, what was the percentage? I should have written it down.

I was driving. I'm the guy, so I couldn't have written it down. Who even carries a pen anymore? Come to think of it. But I think like this,

I'm just going off top of my head. I think 65 % of the apps in the

Apple app store are zombies. And a zombie app means no one's ever purchased it.

No one's ever downloaded it. 65 % of them. And the reason is there are so many that, how can you find them?

I mean, when I go searching for something in the Droid app or iOS app, whatever it might be,

I think there, I think there is a BlackBerry app store, but I think 100 % BlackBerry is a zombie.

What do you want? I mean, come on, poor thing. I had a BlackBerry. We both had BlackBerrys.

We loved them. But you know, after a while it's sort of like, well, then came

Android and that was game over. The combined force has just destroyed poor

BlackBerry. But anyhow, yeah,

Squirrel carries a pen. Well, that's expected. What was

I saying about? Anyway, I go into these app stores and I look for something and I can normally find it, but there are like, how many screens are you going to scroll down anyways?

So it's perfectly understandable that, you know, you might put a really good program out there, but who's going to find it?

That's, that's the problem. So anyway, I use, I use Pocket and it does a good job and you can, you can install it into your various browsers and there's a little thingy and it'll save it to Pocket and it makes doing this a whole lot easier.

And so evidently sometime in the past month and a half, sometimes somebody sends me a tweet or posts it in the, in the chat channel or any more.

Yeah, I actually look at stuff on, on Facebook. I, it is, it is an amazing thing, but that does, that does happen.

And I actually tried to post some stuff on Google Plus too, but there ain't nobody there.

It's just, in comparison to responses you get at Facebook, Google Plus is just sort of like, but anyway.

Now I'm looking at all the stuff on, on Facebook here.

That's also where I see, did you see the video yesterday of, of Clementine giving me just a wonderful endorsement for my books and my debates?

I actually missed it. I'm sorry. Yesterday was... It was on Facebook.

I know, well, there is that, but actually I... It was on Facebook. I sadly spent most of my day yesterday on Twitter.

Uh -huh. It was on Facebook. And, um... And I, I, I'm, you're admitting publicly that I...

You out -Facebooked me. That has nothing to do with me doing a lot of Facebook.

It's just, uh, how the mighty have fallen. It's just, it's just... All I can tell you is, is

I'm having Romans 12 days. Yes, we all are. Yes, I, I understand. I understand that.

Um, anyway, uh, somebody says the audio's cutting out again.

And, uh, I don't know why. No, I, I think the, the, the report there is the last show we did, which was, uh, 58 to one.

And unfortunately all of the recordings we got, it did that and... 58 to one?

Uh, 58 and 30, 58 minutes and 30 seconds to one hour and one minute. Uh, the last show skipped like crazy.

And I, I don't know, but people in channel are telling me that the audio is just fine and there is no thumping.

And I think maybe somebody might be hearing you tapping on the table or something. I don't know, but I'm not hearing any thumping.

Oh, well, the thumping was you thumping on the thing before the program started. That was going out. Everybody was hearing that.

Oh, well, there is that, you know, sometimes you just gotta... This is talking about audio cut out. So as far as I know, we're doing well on this show right now.

Okay. Unless somebody calls me and tells me otherwise. Just letting you know what somebody said.

We're all, see, there's audio in the, uh, in the, in the chat room. We're all fine here now. How are you?

Get ready for the storm drippers. Yes, indeed. What was I talking about? I don't know what

I was talking about. Oh, I hear it. See, I opened Facebook and once, as soon as I opened Facebook, the entire, uh, the entire program came to a screeching halt.

That happens. That, it is an incredible time waster. Anyway, sometime over the past, uh, six weeks, six weeks or so.

Yeah, June 18th, uh, from EvangelicalArminians .org, um,

Craig L. Adams, Calvinism and John 644. Um, let's see, uh, here's the email that was sent to Mr.

Adams. I guess it's S E A. Yeah, Scott. Oh, why is it S E A? And it's

C R A. Uh, well, whatever. I read with Industry Comments and Calvin's comments on John 316 on your website.

I was wondering what your thoughts are on Jesus' words recorded in John 644. No one come to me unless the father who sent me draws him and I'll raise him in the last day.

It is unfortunate. English editions tend to translate the Greek as draws rather than more accurate compels, especially since it is also translated more accurately as dragged elsewhere.

Have you considered that perhaps Calvin's on the other hand was intended to recognize the whole of scripture says about this issue.

He just may have been appealing to theology that is rooted in scripture itself. Response from, uh, uh,

Craig L. Adams. In the first place, I'd like to point out that my correspondent is attempting to play one scripture off another that we are playing dueling scripture passages here.

Since the meaning of John 644 seems closely tied to its context, using it to fend off the idea of God's universal love in John 316, which seems to me to have more general meaning is a bad idea.

And no, no, no, no, no. Notice what the Armenian is saying is, well, John 644, its meaning is quite tied closer to its context, which he won't actually get into later on, unfortunately.

but john 316 it's just evidently it doesn't have a meaning directly it's context which actually

I think it does the context here has to do with the relationship of the father and the son on 644

I thought the context was Jews coming to Jesus in the synagogue per Neum and they're seeking him and Gia says you're only seeking me because you saw the miracles you actually are unbelievers all the father gives me will come to me when coming me

I will never cast out and then they grumble and so the context John 644 is the grumbling of unbelievers isn't it

I mean the relationship of the father and the son is in there but that's not the focus is it context errors do the relationship of the father's son

Jesus is claiming the Jews are rejecting him because in actuality they have rejected the father remember that in John 6 yeah

I don't either so I mean certainly father and son their unity is right there John 5

John 6 John 10 it's all over the place but there's obviously something going going on here in the mind this individual so the context this passage is not a discussion of whether God has chosen to send the mass of humanity to an eternal hell while choosing to arbitrarily save by compulsion dragged a few the context concerns why these particular

Jews have not been drawn to Jesus Messiah and son while others have now this is a classic mechanism whereby you create confusion by restating the issue in such a way it has nothing to do with what's actually being argued so this is not a discussion whether God has chosen to send the mass of man into an eternal hell that's whenever you find someone doing that what they're doing is they're they're trying to buy time and they're trying to use forms of argumentation that that really aren't helpful in getting thoughts started but in misdirection but the reality is these particular

Jews have not been drawn to Jesus as Messiah and son yeah there unbelievers and the immediate context in verses 36 and 37 indicated that that's because they're not given by the father to the son and the synergist just can't accept that has to run from that can't can't deal with that so you've got to got to come up with some other kind of a way around this and Jesus hurts here that is because they have first rejected the father and the testimony of the scriptures so this is this is one of the most common ways around this is what

Michael Brown did we we saw this in another article what you do is even though John doesn't make the connection back to chapter 5 and make this application that's what we need to do is need to go back

John chapter 5 and you need to try to create a context of pre -existing rejection as the grounds because again what's the what what can't a synergist allow for the synergist cannot allow that the actions of men follow the sovereign actions of God God's actions cannot be sovereign because they have to follow after the sovereign actions of men so you whatever whatever the scriptural order is isn't gonna matter the synergist will have to find a way to change that to maintain the synergistic perspective and so in John chapter 8 when

Jesus says why do you not understand what I'm saying because you not belong to God the sinner just has to take why do you understand the things that you think because you have not chosen to follow

God and therefore be given by the Father Son and therefore to belong to you've got insert you've got to find a way to pry open the text to find a place to insert libertarian free will it's just it's you have to do it and you have to spend a lot of energy try to do it and sure it doesn't flow from the text but that's why you have the problems you have just announces their claim to knowledge the father he asserts their resistance the father in the message of scriptures the reason they have not subsequently been drawn to the sun now he never establishes that asserts it they never established the point is made repeatedly then he jumps out of John 6 assumes that the

Jews of John 5 are the same Jews of John 6 and hence have the same reasons for disbelief and of course

John 5 you don't you do not have the response of the

Jews in John 6 because in fact in John 6 these men are called disciples and instead of stone stone

Jesus as you have in John 8 elsewhere John 10 what do you have in John 6 they just no longer fall after they walk away but there is a difference that difference is ignored here and an absolute equation is made between the

Jews of John 6 and the Jews of John 5 all Jews are just Jews then there's there's a 1 2 3 4 5 text cited from John 5 as if this is the point and the point is the reason they have not subsequently been drawn to the sun which is not what the text says at all and turns upside down but synergism is an upside down reading of the

Bible so that's what you do thus the point which has not been established but now in the mind of this synergist thus the point is the

Jews are rejecting him or doing so because they have first rejected the father but Jesus asserts that those who acknowledge who acknowledge the father were drawn along into acknowledging the

Sun if you're wondering where is he getting this I can't tell you because no attempt is is made to tell us my correspondent is right in saying that how cool can mean dragged it is a stronger word than is evident in our translations

John 21 6 and 11 is used the drawing of fish in a net and John 18 10 of the drawing of a sword at 16 11 and 21 30 of forcibly dragging the

Apostles into the streets and James 2 6 of being dragged into court but the context tells us what

Jesus means those who acknowledge the father and the testimony the scriptures are compelled to also acknowledge the

Sun very interesting assertion no attempt to connect to the text made of the same word how cool is also used

John 12 34 where Jesus says and I when I am lift up from the earth would draw all people to myself and RSV if he'll cool always means forcibly dragged and this passage would have to mean that all people

Pontos are saved or you could read John 12 contextually and realize that these words are in reference to the

Greeks who have come to him and that all men refers to all kinds of men and then it would have the same meaning all the way through and you wouldn't have to change meanings because you'd allow context to define meaning but that's not the synergistic way yet in Matthew 23 37 parallel Luke 13 34 you have the misuse of method 37 thus it appears that Christ desires to draw to himself people who are nonetheless willing unwilling to come and they do not again missing the fact that in Matthew 23 37 it is the children not the leaders this is a judgment pericope and it's being abused to be stuck into this particular discussion but again that's the synergist synergistic misreading of the text it is not that God chooses to arbitrarily save a few by divine compulsion should be through the cross of Christ draws all but all do not come again just make assertions you'll notice there's been so far lots of assertions next to no biblical argumentation no exegesis and we actually haven't even gotten to any type of contextual reading of John 644 and here

I think is where we get to the crux of the matter we're getting the crux of matter before exegesis common synergistic thing the

Bible continually assumes human moral responsibility nobody argues that these

Jews responsible for the rejection of the father and their rejection the testimony of the scriptures yep it is ever assumed that a choice choice can be made and that people can be held responsible for their choices it is also everywhere assumed that there is such thing as slavery to sin and spiritual death but the early

Methodists objected to Calvinism on practical grounds and not simply on theoretical grounds Fletcher opposed what he called sola fide ism because it was antinomian against the law of God it undermined human moral responsibility through an appeal to God's unconditional election to salvation or the early

Methodist misunderstood that and did not allow everything the Bible teaches in regards to God's holding men accountable and at the same time utilizing men and Genesis 50 and Isaiah 10 and all the texts we looked at before it's another one of the situations where you chop up the testimony of the

Bible rather than allowing all of the testimony of the Bible to stand clearly if you are saved and you can't be unsaved and it's only

God's choice then it doesn't matter what you do no clearly that is a simplistic misreading and dismissal of so much of the rich testimony of Scripture nothing is riding on it of course everything's riding on it

God's glory his purposes and his elect while classical Calvinist never drew this conclusion because it's a misrepresentation of what we believe and only looking at a part of what we believe some people were willing to follow the logic of Calvinism this inevitable conclusion well it's not the logical cat of Calvinism if it ignores the rest of biblical teaching which provides the barriers that allows you that keeps you from jumping off into these absurd conclusions and this is one of the things our minions and Wesleyans and Methodists have always found objectionable allowing an appeal to grace to undermine our responsibility to respond to God which

Calvinists find objectionable too because it's contrary to our entire system which is why we keep telling you our minions yeah are not even on the playing field yet even after all of these years a call to repentance for example assumes the ability to respond that's completely misunderstands

Valley of the Dry Bones stony heart Romans a

Romans 3 I mean there's just so much and so forth in many many ways the

Bible continually assumes both the capacity to respond the responsibility respond which again just not only ignoring direct biblical teaching but saying

I'm gonna believe this I'm not gonna believe that pick and choose type stuff just rolling down here yeah there's there was

John 644 was no and never ended up being touched it's never ended up being touched I mean this this is what passes for common argumentation amongst amongst our minions and then and a lot of people thought

I was gonna get to this and I I was going to but I just we ended up getting a bunch of other stuff in the way and maybe this should have been

Radio Free Geneva material because I'm addressing a lot of stuff but um on July 17th so two weeks ago what today

Alan Michael Ray posted at SBC today .com

and it is a it's a it's titled young settled and traditional

Reverend Alan Ray I am young 29 to be exact you know there was a day when

I can remember I remember being 29 I remember when Kelly and I got married we were in this megachurch and we were in the young marrieds you weren't and we'd look at the the folks in our class and we'd see some of them were 30 years old that seemed like such a long time because I got married to 19 so 30 was more than did that decade away my son will be 29 next year so it's real easy for me to to go yep you're young yep you're young yeah

I am young 29 to be exact have two beautiful daughters and one on the way never married almost eight years well

I do congratulate you Alan for not having given in to the marriage delay syndrome of our society

I I think that's that's good almost eight years to Kara my beautiful wife we met at Bruton Parker College a wonderful Georgia Baptist College in southeast

Georgia all these eight years have been spent in service to the local church my days are a little chaotic because Kara and I are humble homeschoolers

I'm also serving my first full -time church while pursuing a d -min degree that's good thankfully

I have gotten a little experience behind me I was blessed to preach my first sermon at age 12 and I was licensed to preach at 16 those early years of pulpit supply

I had only a Bible I was borrowing commentaries left and right however I became across a little orange book what

Baptists believe by Herschel H. Hobbs long before theological studies at Bruton Parker College and Luther Rice Seminary Dr.

Hobbs laid the groundwork for me I also listened to Adrian Rogers on the radio and passed out gospel tracks in my high school hallway you may be surprised to hear that the

Hobbs text is a little beat up but I still listen to Adrian Rogers and I still hand out tracks just because I am young does not mean that I am reformed

I am settled however it has taken me a while to get here I was surprised that I began my studies at a

Georgia Baptist College and discovered some professors did not believe as I did many students did not either well that often is the experience of someone who goes to college and thinks the rest the world is always believed as I believed

I remember the first time I heard about Calvinism the problem was that I just could not find it in my

Bible well you know the first time

I heard about Calvinism in that terminology was not from an overly great source either but I knew at that point that I didn't need to look in my

I didn't need to look in my exhaustive concordance for the term Calvinism I was assured that with the right training in hermeneutics

I would come around I am sorry to say that I did my desperate need at the time was to fit in the head of the

Christianity department was a Calvinist and it seems that I just could not get away from the issue I threw my lot in with them all the while my soul was tormented

I put down Hobbs I switched Rogers for Piper and wouldn't you know it I stopped handing out tracks well well brother

I I was contacted by some other folks after I mentioned this on Twitter and I know the rest of the story yeah

I know the rest of the story the rest of story had to do with his first church and one of the deacons dying the night before he was to preach his first sermon at that church and I really think if you're gonna tell this story you should tell all of it tell tell all of it because if you're honest you need to recognize that nobody including your seminary professor or Bible study teacher whatever else would want you to embrace a theological system to fit in no one who listens this program would ever say that I have ever counseled anybody to embrace a theological paradigm to fit in you need to be like us

Calvinists just to fit in furthermore you stopped handing out tracks it was my reformed faith that kept me doing that in Salt Lake City up until certain people made it impossible for that to be an effective outreach why is that in fact it was traditionalists

I hate that term I really that's that's a horrible term it's a rewriting of Southern Baptist history but it was

Armenians who kept telling us why are you going all the way to Salt Lake City why are you going out to the

Easter pageant why are you witnessing to these people there you know there's lots of pagans around right around here those are those the hard cases why worry about them it was the

Synergists that told us that not the Calvinists so there is a less than subtle and utterly ungrounded assertion here that well

I became a Calvinist it was just to fit in wrong reason my reason be a

Calvinist is if you're absolutely convicted that the scriptures teach that that system of theology and it means

I stopped being evangelistic I became consumed with my election my time was selfishly spent in trying to convert other

Christians to my theological persuasion rather than sinners to the Savior hmm you think maybe you weren't really a

Calvinist I mean can you demonstrate um reform theology that this is the necessary this is the proper mindset to have hmm like Austin Fisher well at least he knows it's

Austin not Andy my journey out of Calvinism is not one sided the bulk of my exit consisted of one restless summer where I can

I committed the soteriology of to the soteriology of study of the

Bible I was weary of wrestling with the text and I wanted to let the text wrestle me the

Bible won now conversion stories conversion stories are just that their their conversion stories and conversion stories are never balanced and so I don't put

I don't put any more weight in conversion stories to Calvinism than I do vice versa conversion stories to Mormonism or Roman Catholicism or whatever else

I've heard so many conversion stories over the years and I'll be honest with you don't bother with your conversion story with me and so you've actually held that position for at least a decade when you have actually demonstrated that you understand it and you can live it out then it's meaningful that's why you know

I raised to Austin Fisher and I raised this gentleman you're too young to be writing conversion stories about a matter of months in a theological persuasion that you clearly never understood do forgive those of us who have been here for decades for sort of going yeah okay

I dusted off my Hobbes book I thought the Bible was wrestling with you why do you need

Hobbes and dr. Rogers echoed in my car speakers once more I was back to the place

I never should have left I even ended up changing my college major to get away from the debates and controversies well if you had come to a firm conclusion why would you care about that if you could really answer the questions why would you care about that my

Calvinistic pilgrimage was brief sounds like it was really brief and confused and not really

Calvinistic pilgrimage at all right I mean let's be honest but long enough to teach me some invaluable lessons dr.

Frank pages trouble with the tulip one of the worst books on the subject of Calvinism ever written reviewed it in the past filled with straw men

I mean it should have there should be a a sticker on the back of troubled tulip not to be read near open flame because it's combustible it has so many straw men in it very shallow strong Dwight probably hmm used to have it in here

I mean I've got quite the collection over here but I don't see it right now it was a pretty thin one anyways but I actually did a whole series but you know

I didn't do it on the dividing line I did it I did it at PRBC it was in Sunday school which probably means it's on a

RAM file can anyone even anyone even read RAM files anymore does the computer know what a

RAM file is I'm not sure anyway dilly -dilly that looks weird with that big old black thing

I look like I'm sort of hidden down here behind the weird anyway for dr.

Frank pages trouble with the tulip assured me that I was not alone in my convictions oh you can find stuff anywhere guys

I am young but I am NOT restless I am settled concerning my biblical convictions that sounds that way

I am traditional are you a Hobbesian now maybe a

Rodgers Ian if we're Calvinist then why don't why don't you but before that understanding

I floated for the longest while with the release of dr. Hankins traditional statement found at www .connect

316 net I was pleased to find that I was not alone I carefully weighed the document with scripture as we have

I discussed it with my director of missions and was blessed to have the Christian index interview me about it my conclusion was that it was a brilliant appendix the

Baptist faith and message 2000 I was honored to sign it in that interesting these folks get to add stuff to the

Baptist faith and message and I think there's a lot of folks are now just sort of saying and if you don't add it well what does it mean to be traditional the

Bible takes supremacy at my house not anybody else not new Calvinist houses it means more than listening to Jerry Vines and Adrian Rogers though I considered such favorite such favored activities

I am the first one up and the last one to go to bed at my house and I'm edified by the blogs at SBC today and SBC tomorrow yeah

I keep I keep extra copies the traditional statement with me to hand out and talk to lay leaders and pastors how is this not exactly what you were just saying was wrong about your being a

Calvinist for a while it's the same thing how can you not see that it's amazing however

I would rather talk to a lost person about Jesus well that's good to public committees and generally concerned lay people the

SBC thank you for all that you do we pastors and leaders who have signed the traditional statement I want to assure you that you are close to our hearts we love you and preach to you every week if you're a

Calvinist let me encourage you that not all young seminarians young pastors are Calvinist you know what this is saying folks are you reading between the lines these folks are losing and they know it the majority of students that these schools are getting smaller and smaller and smaller and they're panicking they're panicking let me encourage you that not all young seminarians and young pastors are

Calvinists we were trained well my own experience is that Luther Rice is the epitome of biblical conservatism our local pastors preach to us the

Word of God without compromise our Sunday school teachers use biblically centered literature to teach us the fundamentals of the Christian faith

Wow if let me tell you something I remember I I remember long ago in high school my deep frustration with the quarterly's that were provided in the

Southern Bapst Convention and used at our at our at our church as an 18 year old

I was going please could we have some meat could we have some

Bible could we have something meaningful here and that was night the early 1980s and I don't get the feeling that things have gotten a whole lot better I really really don't we didn't all graduate from seminaries that are rumored to produce closet and church splitting

Calvinist I mean this is this is propaganda on an amazing level yes theophilus

I'm doing that seats that's a that's the tradition we are traditional

Baptist that's my traditional Baptist drumroll it's we like the hymns and we preach in suits well you know what

I like the hymns too and I don't always preach in a suit

I live in Phoenix that could be deadly but I do always wear a tie have you noticed though that that isn't the case at a lot of Southern Baptist places anymore

I mean I was watching that big old megachurch and I think

I saw two people in the choir that actually did have a tie on but none of the ministers did I don't think I ever saw

Richard Jackson take the pulpit without a tie oh no ever no under any circumstances no Richard Richard Jackson respected the pulpit that's as all there is to it and he demanded you to in fact

I've told you a story when the the Imperials sang at North Phoenix you remember the story

I do not recall the story okay I was I was running sound and I remember and the

Imperials roadies guys were bringing their stuff in setting up for a concert this wasn't even gonna be a worship service this wasn't a

Sunday this was like a Friday night Saturday type thing and I was just all excited because I wanted to see the

Imperials I mean I had been listening to the Imperials for years at that point and Jackson came in while they were setting up and one of their roadies was wearing a hat in the worship center and Jackson yeah that just hit me he made a beeline for that guy and said do you realize you are in a church you will take your hat off and the guy's like I mean he was obviously shocked that anyone would do that but he was also like you know when

Jackson tells you to take your hat off in the church you that hat's coming yeah a little bit of a sergeant

Carter from Gomer Pyle kind of side except he was bigger than sergeant Carter yeah oh yeah oh yeah yeah yeah mm -hmm yeah big time big time yeah yeah so we like the hymns that we preach in suits and do not seem much of a reason to change things theological fads change but the

Word of God does not you think reformed theologies a theological fad hello much older than the convention whatever name

I am called I am settled on my biblical convictions I thought you were settled on Hobbes and Rogers to my beloved

SPC friends and family there are more than a few young settled in traditional pastors out here I am thankful well

Alan that that was more of a testimony to how scary you guys are than anything else really really was really was that was that was a little little scary to me

I'll wait on going to the

John 637 stuff at mm outreach dot org till next time because I did the other one and then that one and that's

I want to try to get to we're gonna go another half after the after the hour so it'll be jumbo that's all right we're going jumbo because I want to try to at least get to the direct accusation of heresy that Bob Enyart made against me because I we haven't gotten there yet and it will be useful to define some of the

Christological issues in regards to eutychianism Nestorianism things like that so I want to try to get to that so this will give me about 35 minutes

I should be able to get there as long as I do not spend too much time talking about certain issues so let's let's dive right back in for those of you who just fell asleep or something debate

Bob Enyart open theism on his radio program thereafter he did damage control spin lots of misrepresentation and stuff

I've had I had somebody come into channel was somebody in channel or is somebody in Twitter that said that some of his followers had asked them to approach me about misrepresenting

Bob Enyart I'm playing Bob Enyart apparently it was one of his co -hosts what it was

I chatted with somebody about that apparently was one of his co -hosts really okay that but of course

I've never had any encounter with this individual people that I've encountered with have been very respectful and cordial and yeah well yeah by the way while we're at it oh yes

I did mention on Tuesday that I thought maybe they'd go the full 30 days and sure enough yesterday so I have to eat my words here yesterday the blu -rays showed up with the files and I'm beginning to work on them get them knocked out as soon as I possibly can though you've got some work to do because they were recorded in different resolution well hopefully that got straightened out last night overnight in reprocessing the files because you know sometimes you just have to go get a good converter and put them into something that's uh you can work with and yeah

I think I've got those files well we'll see we'll see good we want to have the video up as soon as possible so you can watch for yourself we will actually post the video of the actual debate what

I mean by that is there were certain issues that arose because mr.

Enyart wanted to get fancy didn't work and that impacted people's that's gonna impact people's understanding of the debate is if you try to get fancy and it doesn't work in replaying all this stuff they edited all that out and fixed it so it sounded like everything just went you know smooth as smooth as butter but it didn't so we will actually post the actual debate and and then of course people can listen to the reviews that we've done since then let's let's get to it or we're never gonna get to it

I'm gonna give I'll tell you what was said an unbeliever took

James White's appearance with Hank Hanegraaff okay that was interesting that's exactly where it was what he's playing there is his reaction to the fact that they took a video that this person had produced which interesting enough

I responded to years and years ago and YouTube dinged me for quoting them because I had to play the music behind the graphics and it's copyrighted music so they dinged me for it even though I'm responding to a criticism of me they didn't ding them but they dinged me great but the it's

Satchmo singing wonderful world so they try to start this thing and all it is is the opening instrumental to Satchmo because all he did is they just pulled the audio from the video and they didn't do it right so I'm sitting there and you know going to do to do to do sort of looking at the audience and you know this music's going on and finally they just gave up and this is then what he said you can tell he's sort of stuttering about it because he's not exactly sure how to do it

I'm now wondering if I can include that in the video when I make it yeah you should be able to it was a public thing if YouTube dinged you yeah well they might ding me yeah

I don't know but anyways that's that's what happened and that's why afterwards I said well it's first time I've ever debated

Satchmo that was it was pretty fun I'm gonna give I'll tell you what was said an unbeliever took

James White's appearance with Hank Hanegraaff and he put it to music because he thought Christians look like fools saying that God decreed rape and he has very good reasons for it let's hear so once again isolate one little portion from a three -hour thing this is it's just the best these people have they can't they can't we saw what happened in the debate you you can't attack this position without misrepresenting it

I mean it's just Bob does that that's just Bob has been misrepresenting it and he goes on no no you admit it if you think that the assertion of God's sovereignty can be properly and accurately represented by simply saying that God ordains child rape if you think that's an accurate representation of the actual assertion that all events in time every act of love every act that honors

God every act of valor everything is decreed by God for his glory and that that means that every evil is going to be defeated by the work of Christ and it has a purpose and if you think that summarizing that down to a child rape thing is accurate

I don't even know what to say to you I don't even know what to say to you any rational honest person recognizes what you're doing but Bob doesn't see it and so when

I see people doing this kind of thing you know it's it's not uncommon I know that the person who made that video could never call into this program we saw what

Bob Enyart had to do during the cross -examination had to keep cutting me off cutting me off couldn't let me talk and let me you know because misrepresentation straw man argumentation cannot survive real cross -examination which is why the cross -examination when

I did it I didn't have to use my whole time didn't have to use my whole time because it was just it was just that painfully obvious when a child is raped is

God responsible and did he decree that rape if he didn't then that rape is a pain element of meaningless evil that notice he actually asked two questions

George Bryson did is God responsible and he did he decree that anyone who wants to honestly deal with that has to ask the question of responsibility in regards to primary and secondary causation again

I'm sorry any honest Christian person has to do that why because the

Bible uses those categories doesn't it Genesis 50 Isaiah 10 acts 4 it's right there we've exegeted a thousand times you can dismiss them if you want but you've not offered any kind of meaningful counter exegesis so it's there in the scriptures you may not like it you may not be able to handle it may not be able to respond to it but it's there right so an honest

Christian person would recognize difference between the two and so he actually asked to my response was to the decree question it has no purpose what

I'm trying to point out by going what is your answer there because I want to understand the answer I'm trying to go to scripture to answer the yes now and remember once again this was the situation where we're

Hank and George working together was supposed to be an ambush didn't work out that way and that's why we make this whole thing available the answer to the question he just asked is that we can understand what the inside I mentioned to him yes because if not then it's meaningless and purposeless stop the tape stop the tape ok so first of all notice

Hank Hanegraaff has to try hard to get James White to answer the question just upright yes or no it's not a yes or no question

Bob it's a setup and you know it I'd be Mike Mike saying so you're telling me that when

God created he was stupid yes or no yes or no Bob no no don't not

Bob yes or no be honest with us yes or no Bob that's

CNN theology we don't want CNN theology ok come on let's let's get serious and that's difficult to do because he's claimed both sides on this for decades

God decrees every action every thought every molecule now when you accuse me of lying and playing both sides for decades that's why

I can hold you accountable for accurately representing what's in here because of all the stuff that I've done defending reform theology this is then the most widely read and utilized source

I know of entire churches that exist today that exists because they read this book and it rocked their world so Bob if you're gonna hold me accountable and accuse me of inconsistency then

I'm gonna respond by saying how come you clearly have never even begun to engage with this and have misrepresented what this says does this play both sides no it doesn't no it doesn't and he's actually gonna have the gall to accuse me of going ahead and answering the question on Bible Answer Man because there's so many people listening but then not elsewhere where have

I ever not answered this question directly you see you don't like the answer because I give much more of an answer than your system can even begin to respond to you have this you have this paper thin view of Calvinism it's this straw man that you've erected and anything that's deeper than that anything that's fuller than that anything that's based upon biblical exegesis you just dismiss it as not being relevant and you go back to your your your straw man that's what you've done for so long it's it's painfully obvious to watch but that's what it is and so then obviously if God decrees all the good things he decrees all the evil things too if a murderer is killing someone got to create every action the knife got to create the action he decreed it and they say man doesn't have libertarian free will so the man could not have done otherwise that's their doctrine but when he's on a show let's say he's on Bob and you're live or in a debate with me and we say

I've never been on Bob in your life by the way James White as Calvinist generally believe that God decreed every filthy and wicked thing that happens they say we do not you're misrepresenting me yeah we say that because that's not what we believe you said if you will not hear primary and secondary causation if you will not hear the positive assertion that we're making there's no reason to even try to reason with you because you're not an honest man you cannot deal honestly with the subject stop saying that you're representing

Calvinism just tell your audience I have my own view of Calvinism no

Calvinist I know will agree with it but this is what they really believe and just be honest and just say this is just an idiosyncratic you know

I'm just off in the woods by myself type thing please that's the only honest way to do this you misrepresent but why did he tell

Hank Hanegraaff well yes God decrees even the rape of a child because Hank Hanegraaff has a big audience he's on in hundreds of cities and it would have created too much of a backlash for James White to misrepresent himself on that show he couldn't have gotten away with it as easy right so he admitted yes

God decrees these filthy wicked yeah it was it was the size of the Bible Ants Man broadcast it got me to finally admit amazing fantasy world fantasy world

I mean there's just it's it's hard to respect something good things for a purpose for meaning and when you ask what is the purpose they say for his pleasure and for his glory that's their answer so that's disgusting it is and it's also disingenuous to claim that we're misrepresenting him

James White the most misrepresented man in America the Rodney King of theology if only we could all understand me then everything would be fine so we're not misunderstanding him he wants to have it both ways sort of like a

Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon come to your door and they say oh we believe in Jesus just like you do well they're feeding you a line to get you to buy in and once you buy in you find out what you bought into well there you go folks

I mean this is like I said I expected damage control I just didn't expect this level of disingenuous damage control

I guess damage control is always disingenuous in some level isn't it that's why we can't have free will and then we say well how about God does he have free will and they say

God cannot change what has been eternally decreed so they deny that God has libertarian free will as came out in the cross examination

I asked James White while Jesus was on the cross could God the Father have saved him from that hour and he refused to say yes see one of the illustrations that we have here is went once a person adopts and teaches for years and years and years a occultic mindset it's next to impossible to break them out of it we've already heard my response

I'm pretty certain I know I think I've played it when we are talking about God's free will he will not allow us to define our position he said no no no that's not your position this is your position it's like it's like debating a

Muslim on the Trinity and the Muslim demands that we define the Trinity the way the

Quran does rather than the way that Christians do well it's same thing with Bob Ben yard same mindset

I start off the debate explaining and most of you who've heard it know that I didn't have a written statement

I had a small piece of paper with a few Bible texts written on it and and a

Bible didn't even use my iPad for this one and in that process

I spoke of God's absolute freedom his absolute freedom to create his absolute freedom to determine the actions in time

God was absolutely free to decree the exact creation that the triune

God father son Holy Spirit chose to actuate to glorify themselves in the proper fashion that was pleasing to them an eternity past total freedom absolutely nothing compelling them free will he says ah but could

God change that what's the assumption God stuck in time did I reject that God was stuck in time yes

I said God created time and as a part of his decree also decreed his interaction with his creatures in time so God acts freely because he creates time how he interacts with us free choice at the time the creation but here's the entire argument yeah well for God to be free he's got to be able to improve what he decided to do that's what he's arguing that's what he's really even understands that but that's what he's arguing he has a

God who's limited in time and what he's doing is he's taking his finite

God is transferring it into reform theology and then creating all these problems we don't accept his finite

God is and he says he won't admit it that's right because I will not allow Bob Enyart to redefine

Christian theology and so I won't admit it yeah that's right I will stand firmly against any

Bob Enyart in prostitution of Christian theology that's exactly right no question about it

I will but that's what he's doing and it's it's amazing so you have to to be able to love you need the ability to hate it is not possible to love if you don't have the ability to hate it sounds like a form dualism sounds like again there's some there's some real parallels here to Mormonism there really are you know

I'm gonna skip a bunch of stuff I just need to get down to I do want to real quickly thank

God that you repented amen because love is more important than prophecy doesn't the

New Testament say that I think somewhere maybe in 1st Corinthians they say this in the love chapter right

I don't know how many times in listening to Bob Enyart's seminar he abuses 1st

Corinthians chapter 13 there is no way he could ever accept correction is no way isn't his entire teaching history and everything else is based on a gross misrepresentation of 1st

Corinthians chapter 13 does 1st Corinthians chapter 13 say love is greater than prophecy yeah does this have something to do with God's experience or is this the words the

Apostle Paul to the church at Corinth in regards their corporate experience and the balance of the giving of the gifts amongst amongst believers in this fallen world yeah that's what it's about but no no no for Bob Enyart what you have in 1st

Corinthians chapter 13 is actually supposed to be a discussion that limits and defines

God's experience so that love is more important than prophecy therefore God can give false prophecies as long as love is exalted in the failure of the prophecy it's cultic folks it's it's it's it's as bad as Joseph Smith saying that because flesh and blood will not inherit kingdom of heaven the

God the Father has a body of flesh and bones and no blood it's the same level of really you think that's what that was about it there's nothing about deriving meaning from the text it's all just the utilization of the of the framework of the text to promote your your pet theology and I just wanted to mention that because it's just so so common

I think this is where the accusations began lowered himself and became a man that was not a change divine being did not change it was an action that God undertook okay

I think the only reason you're saying that is because you're struggling between the omnis and ems and I've never mentioned it and got the

Sun becoming flesh is that a question because now this is from the cross -examination you'll notice he's breaking the rules the rules were explained to him clearly beforehand all the stuff he comes up with I didn't know about the rules and I did baloney baloney and he knows it the moderator knows it we stood there at the desk we talked about this he has enough experience

I don't buy it for a second what he was I specifically and he knows this is the case

I specifically said standing at my desk you ask a question you do not respond with an argument you respond with another question what you just do respond with an argument that was another question well you're struggling with the omnis and the ems and that's an assertion it's an argument it's not a question that's why

I asked is this a question okay I'll go on stop the tape okay is that a question

I didn't realize we were playing Jeopardy apparently there are rules for this kind of formal debate which we had discussed less than half an hour beforehand in his presence and you know that Bob this is this is where I go

Wow a little little dishonesty here man on the personal level I mean

I've got evidence of this okay I mean I didn't record that conversation starting to think that I should record everything anymore just carry a thing running the whole time but I know what was said and you were right there and you agreed and then you broke the rules this was actually the section

I was looking for after the debate even though in the debate James White admitted six times that God the

Son took on a human nature and God the Son now has two natures after the debate he and RC Sproul jr.

said God the Son does not have a human nature he never did he never will and James White added

I never said in the debate that God the Son has a human nature it's almost beyond explanation it's not beyond explanation because we think we could psychoanalyze what happened there we could psychoanalyze what happened yes

I could psychoanalyze what happened there too and it's called pretending that you know son about systematic theology when you don't all right here's here's where we get into the the whole section so God still knew even though there was a veiling for the

Sun for specific purpose in a specific time stop the tape stop the tape I almost fell off my chair but right now

I must fell off my chair again because what James White is saying is that as long as the three persons of the

Trinity have the attributes of God split between them then they're God no what

I was pointing out is that you cannot deny the omniscience of God based upon on bailing of certain knowledge on the part of the incarnate son because the father and the spirit are still fully aware of that veiled fact you're trying to deny that God has omniscience well if the father knows and he's

God then that really wouldn't impact divine omniscience would it unless you're a die theist and you've got to your finger and now you've got one guy that doesn't know that was the point and again

Bob Benyard just doesn't I mean he'll claim I've read more but then he doesn't really follow through with that like let's say

God has six attributes right like their armies and ends let's say that was it well if the father had two of the armies and the

Holy Spirit had two of the M's and the Sun had an army in an M then you add all those up and then they're

God that is utterly creative brand -new absurd theology I agree which is why you probably shouldn't have assumed that that's what

I was doing and maybe actually listen to what I was saying and that it was the specific attempt on your part to deny

God's omniscience in from a text that says the father knows and he's

God maybe you should have just listened to the what the actual objection was rather than coming up with this silliness

I realize this is red meat for your followers they're like oh yeah and you needed to do this if the debate went so poorly for you that you had to do this

I understand it you know I just didn't expect it to go this far that is absurd theology

God the Sun is God God the Sun is fully God and after the incarnation fully man now remember that James White denied and this is devastating in the aftermath of this debate desperately trying to win the debate after the debate yeah desperately trying to win the debate after the debate that's what we've been yeah that's that's that's we were that's why we did program after but actually we didn't when he realized that if God the

Sun went from one nature to two natures that's a change it's a big change which

I denied from the very start in the debate but he just simply refuses to accept the categories of historic

Christian theology and you know the store Christian theology has to bend to his perspective imagine taking on a human nature that's pretty big did

God always have a human nature no he took on one it's big so now he's the son of man he realized if God the

Sun took on a human nature that's a change and that means timelessness can't be true and immutability can't be true so after the debate

James White and R .C. his good friend R .C. Sproul jr. they both said whom

I've never met or talked to said God the Sun did not have a human nature now we've already gone through this bunch of times posted an entire video on this once again

R .C. Sproul jr. and I without any cooperation between us whatsoever as he will affirm believe in something called the hypostatic

Union and the hypostatic Union means that in the incarnation we recognize that the second person of the

Trinity voluntarily and actively took on human nature without ceasing to be fully

God that human nature remained a human nature and while they are joined in one person they remain two natures the divine nature is not added to changed confused and the whole point that Sproul was making and that I recognized as soon as I saw his language and of course systematic theologians use language very carefully in talking about these things and since Bob Enyart rejects historic

Christian theology then he gets to redefine all that stuff he stands outside says we've been wrong all along until he came along you know it's the

Joseph Smith of Denver here and so he has to redefine everything what we were saying is we accept the hypostatic

Union and the fact that there is never an intermingling there is never a change of the essence of the

Son of God for he is something he wasn't before that he loses full participation in the

Godhead or anything else that's what we were talking about evidently

Bob Enyart who again rejects so much of Christian theology doesn't mind promoting a collapse of the hypostatic

Union to where instead of and this is what you know and I didn't think he was going to do this but I saw that his

Christology was really shaky and so what did I do before he ever spoke we report on the debate in the divine like we normally do and I played one little segment from his guest hosts and what did

I respond with an exegesis of Philippians chapter 2 why because it explains the nature of the incarnation and it explains the nation of nature of kenosis kanao was not giving up something to where the divine being changes but was the voluntary taking on of the human nature and so we went through it and that the humiliation is by being made in the likeness of men by taking on the form of a servant seems like Bob Enyart is promoting eutychianism the mixture because he could change change change change the whole reason why best at it

Union was no change whole reason for the Carmen Christie in describing in those two sub clauses there in Philippians chapter 2 what's the emptying making of no reputation how can that be by taking on something because it's not a change in the divine nature that's the whole point and even before I saw this stuff coming

I just had the feeling I think this guy's got some eutychianism in him I think he's he is so into the change stuff he's so into wanting to limit

God to time so the nature of God can can be changed and make him just a big man it's it's a it's a

Mormon bent to it that it sounds like he really doesn't hold the hypostatic union that there's there is it there is eutychianism here there is a a mixture to where there is a change in the divine being and the inevitable result is a divinization of the human the the the creature in it creature a nation of the divine so that you don't have the fullness of either one any longer you have this mixture between the two and that is a a dangerous dangerous position to take

R .C. Sproul God the Son did not have a human nature R .C. Sproul got junior the junior the senior would be devastated to hear what his son wrote would be devastated the senior would fully understand what the issue was and would condemn

Bob Enyart for the heretic that he is the senior has written condemning this kind of heresy where you're splitting up the

Trinity and claiming that God the Son is not the one who became flesh which is not what he was saying and not what

I was saying and no one who has ever read anything that I've written on the subject listen to debates would ever say anything like that but you know again the parallels

Joseph Smith are amazing because read Joseph Smith's statements about what Baptists and Presbyterians and Methodists in his day were saying and you've got the exact same kind of misrepresentation exact same time he's the

Joseph Smith of Denver this is an ancient this is a Neo Nestorian heresy this is an adoptionist kind of heresy an adoptionist kind of heresy as you provide any basis for that no it's just his ignorance his misunderstanding and of course of course he doesn't have any misunderstanding that's why

I'm the Rodney King of theology but it's his misunderstanding of what the nature of the hypostatic Union is what you're ticking in ism is what the issues are and that then becomes the basis for I'm gonna skip down here because I do want to sort of figure to finish this off but saying that God does not have two natures that God the

Son does not have two natures that's heresy James White has debated scores of heretics this week in the aftermath of the debate

James White became the heretic claiming that God the Son does not have two natures and I think it was six times in the debate he agreed and he affirmed he stated that God the

Son had two natures that he took on a human nature six times so what's the logical thing to do for Bob Enyart if I affirm the incarnation of the hypostatic

Union and then refuse to import his heresy that makes me the heretic and me saying that the incarnation didn't take place rather than going okay obviously what you're saying is the

God the Son remains God the Son and is not at mixed there no admixture takes place and hence when we talk about God the

Son as the second person of the Trinity we need to make a distinction between speaking of his divine essence and speaking of God the

Son incarnate Jesus of Nazareth who was one person with two natures right yeah theologians recognize the necessity of maintaining that understanding exactly oh so that makes you an historian no it doesn't because there is a true hypostatic

Union in fact in fact it is appropriate to say that the one who was born of Mary was truly

God that's what they ought to cause originally met so you mean all you're saying is that we need to recognize the distinction between the divine second person who has always been

God and Jesus in light of the incarnation and the hypostatic

Union so you can say that God the Sun the Son of God as Jesus identify himself or the

Son of Man was both divine and human that he had a human nature well of course oh that's all you're talking about yeah so it didn't really have a reason to call you in the story in her hair to come now there you go how can it possibly be after the debate that he says

God the Sun does not have two natures I did not admit that he did I did not admit that he does I didn't admit that he will we explain it now

I mean I've done an entire video on it this is all about the hypostatic Union and we have an open theist finite goddess who is making an accusation and just doesn't understand what he's talking about just doesn't understand the issues and won't use the language and won't allow myself or others to recognize

God the Sun took on human flesh what do we mean by that do we mean that God the

Sun changed do we mean that it's that that you know in essence there's a danger of completely losing the uniqueness of the incarnation if you think the way he's thinking

I mean the way he's thinking is this is his his way of cramming

God into time limiting God to time and demonstrating the temporal experience of God and therefore if God's in time then

God has to change and and I've been right all along and all the rest of stuff okay that's what's sort of frightening is that someone would be willing to overthrow something so important as the very incarnation just simply to promote their personal little thing there but that's what he's doing that's what he's doing and that's a same oh

I get to I get to block another person who again likes to utilize tragedies to vent their spleen and you know a number have been ladies here's

Darlene Schreiber she's just got blocked there you go bye -bye Darlene nice to nice to have read one of your tweets anyway so there's response to to Bob Enyart I don't even know that I mean

I have so much more marked here there's so many things you know there is something here we got started a little bit late so I've got just a couple minutes left here but those who think that time was created by God and not an aspect of his existence please consider that time cannot be created why not because creation means going from non -existence

I think I played that before it was just an illustration of the of the philosophical nature of Bob Enyart's argumentation wasn't a biblical arguments philosophical argument but he just doesn't want to use the term so he doesn't label himself a complete hypocrite but check this out in my opening statement

I made a comment I don't expect James White to be able to process everything that was said a lot of it is new to him his entire debate we've been reading and hearing for 30 years reading more of Calvinism then

I've read of open theist by far yeah I think I did play this because wow this is this is new to him but we know this stuff we've been reading more

Calvinist and over the s well of course Calvinists have written about 15 ,000 times as much as open theist that wouldn't be all that difficult to do but it's this kind of language that allows me to hold him accountable for all the misrepresentations that he engages in because he makes the claim

I know this is new to him but it's not really new to me and this is shaking he says says in here it's just shaking him to his core okay all right well anyway maybe early next week maybe possibly unless there's some some issues with the with the with the video you can you can watch it for yourself see for yourself there you go all right lots more to get to I want to get back to John chapter 6 things like that but we will hold that off for the next edition of the dividing line and who knows what will have happened between now and then that will need our commenting

I do need to comment on the change of music that the guys at Greylevel was so kind to send us this other song that they did what is this was this one of the things they said okay