August 12, 2003

The Dividing Line Opens With Scripture and Program Announcements

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Upcoming Debate, Website Updates, and Sermon on Homosexual Activism

Well, good morning and welcome to the dividing line a Tuesday morning the 12th of August 2003 and We have an interesting program lined up for you today. Don't forget a week from this morning. We will have Eric Svensson online with us.

Lord willing. We'll be discussing his debate with Jerry Matic. There's a new main page article at a omen org some of you who have given up. Attempting to even bother logging on to find out if there is a new one.

There is one. It's only been about two and a half months. I think the last update was around May 30th or so. So we're not doing too bad. The calendar is still back in April, but that's it's still in the same calendar year, which for us is quite an accomplishment and The main page article sort of talks about stuff coming up.

And so you might want to take a look at in fact. There's I took the time last late last night to put a bunch of neat links into it. If you have any friends who are into the Dave Hunt scenario you might want to direct them to that particular article because I do discuss my challenge to him to debate and his Declining that challenge and there's a link.

Some of you have already seen this. Steven Luker has put together a wonderful web page on straightgate .com and remember straight gate is King James what that means is it's str a IT Gat straight gate calm.

There's an excellent web page. Sub web page there on all the stuff about Dave Hunt's including his debate with dr. Piper. All the programs I've done our initial radio program that we did all this stuff on one page all available right there Straight gate great resource that's linked to from the main page as well.

Hopefully that will increase the number of folks that are taking a look at that. So new main page article up you might want to take a look at it. Nothing overly heat and big it's just a discussion of some of the upcoming debates and and A little bit about I even mentioned.

I preached this past that Sunday Saturday. Yes, I've become a Seventh-day Baptist preached this past Sunday on Just the onslaught absolute onslaught of homosexual activism in Western culture and You know given that only about 3 At the most of the society is actually homosexual that means there's there's a large percentage of folks cooperating with these people to give them their super rights, and they're doing so for their own reasons, and I discussed the issue of freedom of speech and all in light of Psalm 11 and 12 at Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church and those Links are available in the main page article as well.

So you might want to take a look at that, but we have an interesting program today, I have another clip from the Svensson matics debate play. I've forgotten a lot of positive comments from folks as I have played those clips over the past two programs and the commented on them and sort of as a study of How not to do a debate from mr. Matics perspective and how to do a debate from Eric Svensson's view I said in the main page article.

I can only hope to do as well as the dr. Svensson did. And because I have a shorter period of time the debate will be about 20 minutes shorter than the one that is currently available between Svensson and matics and so less time means well more more focus I guess and so I would like to Go ahead and start with that and then I'm going to be commenting on some comments Made by Hank Hanegraaff in regards to libertarian freedom this past Friday on the Bible Answer Man broadcast hopefully again and the way we've done so in the past that is with gentleness and reverence befitting a dialogue between believers and Hank made some comments Nothing overly new.

This is his standard defense of libertarian freedom the bitch people call in this program and ask about all the time. So I thought I'd just head y 'all off but There was in the commentary Especially and this is what was interesting after the caller hung up.

There was a commercial break and then When they came back before they went to the next caller Hank had some more comments to make now normally that only happens when when Hank has really see he never would have done that four or five years ago on this subject and so he generally only does that when he really is is sort of pushing a particular perspective and So since that those comments Involved assertions that in essence could only be taken as Calvinists don't do exegesis I want to comment on that as well.

So a couple of things to play here. Let's hope that my program doesn't hang on me. It did just a few minutes for the program started dying on me. So Let's hope that doesn't happen because well, you know, you live by technology you die by technology.

I got hit with that that worm yesterday and many of you have heard about that the msblast .exe thing don't worry, I got it taken care of but It by the way, just a public service announcement here if you have not updated your system you need to I've installed a firewall on my dial-up connection, which I probably should have had before and Within 30 seconds. I got three hits of P of something or other out there attempting to load that thing into my system so if you're not protected you've probably got it and So you might want to take care of that.

It's a it's an issue. Anyway Let's start off listening. This is just a let me set this up so you can understand the reason for sharing this with you. This is I believe Jerry Matta ticks second rebuttal period or first rebuttal period one of the two.

I think it's the second and Eric has been focusing upon Issues for example of marriage he has discussed what Paul said of the Corinthians concerning the the debt of marriage the fact that in the vast majority of Jewish marriages in the first century sexual activity was a given it was a part and parcel of why people marry and this really illustrates to me just the fact that the the entire Roman Catholic position is Based upon the most Unusual possible interpretations of words phrases and concepts.

I mean every time when you look at Adele Foss What is its 99 usage? Oh, but it's it's Possible that maybe it means this over here and as long as it can Possibly mean this then we can dogmatically define that it does and anathema ties you if you disagree with us I mean, that's what Rome does with so many of these things.

We talked about it last week the the microscopic probabilities that this long chain of Complex reasoning in regards to papacy or the bodily assumption of Mary or here the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is this is part and parcel and but Matta ticks is an expert at making the remotely Possible look like it is the truth.

I mean that is exactly what he does and so Anyways, Eric has been talking about the nature of marriage and he's been talking about You know this claim that Matta ticks never even attempts to substantiate in any meaningful fashion that Mary Well, he argues it from from her statement and Eric blows this away, but her statement.

How can this be since I do not know a man In regards to the angel and so she had made this this vow of perpetual virginity Even before the angel came and all the rest is I mean just complete is a Jesus complete reading into the text.

But he's in front of a Catholic audience. And when Jerry's in front of a Catholic audience all he needs to worry about is giving the Catholics just enough to keep believing what they believe because he knows that they do not believe what they believe because the Bible says it they believe what they believe because the church tells them and all they need is just a little bit to to make it past the Criticisms that he would be leveling that his opponent be loving against him.

So as Eric has presented this stuff now Jerry gets up and he's responding to What Eric has said now listen carefully to how he presents this ready for the computer.

Here we go. And let me remind you it is God Almighty himself who introduced the historical novum. It is a new thing for a virgin to become a mother. I know that you believe that the incarnation is unique.

It is unique situation. God does not become man except in this one instance. So, of course the birth of Jesus Christ is unique. Of course, his mother is unique. Only one woman out of all the women who have walked the face of this earth was selected to be Simultaneously a virgin and a mother and to bear God within her.

Only one woman's body had the privilege of being a tabernacle for Emmanuel God with us within her. So it seems rather odd to say now, wait a minute. You can't start saying there's something special about Mary something special about her marriage something special about her relationship with with with st. Joseph.

This is nothing but special ladies and gentlemen, there's something pretty special about God becoming man. It doesn't happen every day. It only happened once and of course, we are led by the uniqueness of the incarnation to say what other Special ramifications of this would there be in the life of the mother?

Now let's let's consider what has just been said. Did Eric Svensson anywhere say that Mary was not unique. No, he did not. Did Eric suggest that there is anything non unique about the incarnation? No, he did not.

So what has Jerry done for the past? That I was about a minute and about 90 seconds of his time he has preached to the audience and he has in essence blown smoke. And what you're doing when you do that kind of thing is you're you're only appealing to your audience and you are you are emphasizing things where there is no argument and By banging away on something where there is no dispute.

There is no argument. You're proving what is not in dispute at that particular point in time. You're simply seeking to puff yourself up in the light of a particular segment of your audience. That's all you're attempting to do.

You're not actually engaging the debate. If you were engaging the debate you would be dealing with the criticism that your assertion of this perpetual Vow of virginity needs to have a foundation and you would be spending your time attempting to provide that logical foundation, but that's not what he does and That's not what he normally does in the vast majority of his presentations is he instead is using In biblical terminology these flattering words.

And he's arguing about things that no one has in fact brought into dispute in the first place. It he does mention. Well, you know if the incarnation is unique. Then maybe we need to look at what else what else is unique about Mary.

But you know, this is one thing that I plan on raising and in fact, I'm going to mention this and when we have Eric Svensson on. If Jerry Manateeks is a wise person I'm well aware of the fact that we have Roman Catholic apologists who listen to this program.

And so they're going to contact him and hopefully he'll listen to this. I hope he'll listen to this so that we don't get the I'm so unprepared. My library still in boxes and I'm living on a diet coke and all my notes are on a yellow pad.

And I just about killed a little old lady in a crosswalk when I was driving here because I was so unprepared because I was writing My notes on the yellow pad. I really hope that doesn't happen. We don't have time for there's too much in this topic to deal with.

Okay, so I hope that doesn't happen this time. It did happen in the Svensson debate. It's happened at least three or four of ours. Jerry if you listen to this dump it. Okay, forget it. No one buys it anymore.

Anyone who's heard that two or three times starts getting the idea. You know what? This is a cheap debating trick dump it be prepared. That's that's not doing that stuff. Okay. All right, so I Hope they listen to it because I'm gonna let you know exactly what I'm gonna do.

I mean, I've written a book on this subject. There's a chapter on the perpetual virginity of Mary. I'm gonna be talking about this stuff. And one of the things I'm going to emphasize is very similar to my discussion in Regarding the term mother of God or Theotokos or as the Eastern folks pronounce it They Otakos, but I pronounce on the crown crowns as an honor as an O so you can differentiate them from Omega.

But anyway I'm gonna emphasize the same thing I emphasize in talking about that and that is modern Marian dogma. Focuses upon titles and and developments in ancient history that initially were Christological in focus not Mariological what I mean by that is that term Theotokos which literally means one bearing God one giving birth to God Was initially a Christological term.

It was about Christ not Mary. Now the vast majority of Roman Catholics today when they talk about the mother of God. That's all they're talking about. They don't even they don't even understand the Christological background out of which the term came it has been completely Transformed and has been transformed to something that's completely improper.

But the term initially was something about Christ. Not something about Mary. And later on Jerry asks Eric during the cross-examination. Why is Mary called the Virgin Mary throughout the history of the church and he says and what I mean by that is if I had a a bachelor uncle and He was a bachelor for a long time and then he got married.

Would I continue to call him a bachelor uncle? The argument of course being that no you wouldn't call him a bachelor uncle any longer. Because he's no longer a bachelor and if you marry cease being a virgin you wouldn't call her the virgin any longer.

But this is a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about. See, he's focusing upon Mary. Whereas the early church was focusing upon Christ and his birth. He did not have a physical father. The point of the phrase Virgin Mary in Scripture or the virginity of Mary in Scripture.

And hence the title as it's used later on is about Christ. Not about Mary after the birth. So does this complete flip-flopping of emphases away from Christ and to Mary and is that not the very function of Modern Roman Catholic Mariology and Mariolatry is to is to Remove not purposely.

They say no. No, it's never for that. But functionally in the lives of those who become involved in it. Is it not to remove the centrality of Christ and replace that with Mary it is there's there's no.

There's no no way around it. And so the same thing is happening here the reason she's called the Virgin Mary the reason we call her the Virgin Mary is that? Mary the mother of the Lord was a virgin when she was found to be with child.

That is the point. It has nothing to do with what happened after that. The Bible is very clear. She had other sons and daughters afterwards and there's nothing wrong with that in any way shape or form.

So if mr. Mattox is listening, I'm gonna make that point in fact, I'm gonna make one point that wasn't made in this debate at all and by the way the Link is right there on straightgate .com. If you want to listen to this this debate, like I said, it's uh, In fact, it's I put on the main page article to listen to this debate.

Listen to it in its entirety. It's it's truly an excellent excellent debate well worth believe me. There is nothing Absolutely nothing on television Worth watching in comparison to listening to a debate like this.

In fact, I would like to suggest you try listening. When you listen you have to engage in self-discipline and it seems to me straightgate is down right now is fine this morning. It was fine just a little while ago when I was pulling stuff off of it to put in the in the main page article.

But anyway, um, it'll be back up just like all the rest of them. It seems to me that many people today really struggle. Really really struggle to listen for any period of time. I Grew up with radio. I'm no I'm not that old.

My father was in radio. I was in radio in high school and in college. I worked on the air 36 hours a week sometimes longer and I've always been around radio and I'm so thankful that my parents used to we used to all go into my parents room and We'd all get into bed and we'd have the lights off and we'd listen to what was it called.

What was that theater thing on the radio? It wasn't fear than mine. Well, we did listen to the shadow, you know, the what's evil looks in the hearts of men the shadow knows. But there's just been some tremendous theater done on the radio.

And if you've ever listened to it, you know what I'm talking about. So many kids today have no concept of that at all. The radio is just for background noise that that's all the radio is the idea of actually Concentrating on the spoken word and creating mental images and I'm afraid it's becoming a lost art.

It's it's it's a sort of like along with reading Something that a lot of people just don't do anymore because it takes too much self-discipline. Listen to those debates put turn off the music and the TV and the distractions.

Listen and listen carefully in your mind put yourself in that situation and You know listen to what What's going on and and visualize it and so on so forth. It'd be very very Very very interesting. Anyhow, I digress for the moment there's an excellent example of how Jerry Argues his point and and people will listen that and sadly people listen.

I go. Yeah, it's a great point boy I did that Derek sends the guy can't answer that but of course, that's not part of the dispute in the first place and I was looking I was looking at The the debate this past May with the Mitch Pack we've been playing it in Bible study at our church.

And I was watching as Bill Shishko the moderator the uber moderator the the man who knows how to run a debate. You got to give the guy credit. He was sort of briefly trying to instruct the The the listening audience in how to listen to a debate and He was specifically saying well what you need to do is you need to use a flowchart and You need to sort of just write down on on this side of the paper.

The points made by this person this side the points made by the other one and then follow them along and see who's responding to Who that's an excellent idea and if you flowcharted this debate between Svensson and matatix matatix is Absolutely blown off the planet I mean he when you start putting the points down and then asking is this relevant to the to is this a relevant response?

Even the most jaded person will have to admit well No, not really. That's not really relevant to what was being said, you know, but people don't do that. They just go on impressions and boy didn't Jerry sound did Mr. Svensson the incarnation is unique.

Well, of course it is, but that's not part of the debate now, is it? And that's not relevant now is it? No, it's not but that's that's how it goes. So anyways This might be something you might want to do.

The link is on the the website. If you're listening live, I've been informed that currently straight gate is down. But that's probably just a host issue and it'll it'll be back up. Hopefully in by the time people start listening the archive of this anyways.

And especially maybe we crashed it because I put so many links to stuff at straight gate in the main page article. That's that people are getting that the the server is getting slammed or something. I don't know.

It's a it's possibility. That would be I guess a good thing or a bad thing one way or the other eight seven seven seven five three three three four one let me start this next clip before we go to our break and I just love how the I have haven't found this the switch to turn the click off on my new XP system I upgraded to XP Pro and Things click when I click on them.

They're not supposed to but anyway As I mentioned I Received word that another discussion and this happens all the time this happens all the time I I Was informed that another discussion had taken place on the Bible answer man broadcast and Why he might say well, why do you hear about it?

Well? Because I've been on the program many times and I have mentioned my reformed views on the program. When for example Tim Staples was on he tried to use that as a divide-and-conquer methodology and You know people are well aware of the fact this is a reformed ministry and that When I approach the issue of soteriology I do so very firmly and strongly from the position of the sovereignty of God the the sole glory of God in salvation and that that's just part and parcel of what we do and how we do it and So people contact us and they say hey, you know Hank said this and Hank said that and and You know, I would love to dialogue on this this subject.

I Would love to see Give-and-take exegetically based discussions taking place, but it's not happening. It's just not happening the people who are the most likely to criticize reformed theology are also the least likely to do so in the presence of someone who Can provide a response and that's that's just my experience.

I mean Norman Geisler won't do it. Dave Hunt won't do it. You know, I I get on some of these websites there's this baptistfire .com or dot org or something like that and I have I have Written to them more than once come on our program.

I mean, they're just they're just vicious in their in their comments About these things, but they won't defend themselves they we want to have monologues not dialogues is is in essence what what they're all about and so How do you what do you do?

Well at least on our program we actually play what what the other folks are saying and Go from there. We allow them to speak and would love to allow them to speak more if it was a give-and-take type thing but that doesn't change the fact we need to address these issues and when especially when the The assertion is made that we are not engaging in exegesis that we are not allowing the scripture to speak for itself.

That's when I go. Wait a minute. Wait a minute if we're going to be consistent if we're going to really deal. You know if we're gonna tell others that you need to gauge an exegesis You need to study these things you need to be consistent.

You need to answer these questions then we need to do the same thing vice versa and when it's when that that accusation is made for us, then we need to respond and so a caller called in and Unfortunately, the caller mentioned Genesis 50.

I don't say unfortunate for the caller, but I wish there had been some discussion of it but there wasn't and that that's what I'm waiting for is to hear a Discussion of The key texts such as Genesis 50 and Isaiah 10 and acts for I want to hear that but so far I haven't heard that.

Let's go ahead and start Listening to at least a portion of this before we take our bottom of the hour break nice talking to you.

What a good Jeff in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Next I Jeff.

Hi Hank. It's a great pleasure talking to you. Nice talking to you. Thank you. I had a question I was rummaging around your internet broadcast archives and I was listening to your interview with Paul Cochran.

Mm-hmm. And One thing he said I kind of had questions about and I think I had a disagreement with him. He was uncomfortable with saying that God ordains all things because that that to him was. Too close to saying that God or is the author of evil.

Right. I know and a lot of classical Christian thought and in Westminster, for example, they say, you know God ordains all things but in such a way where he is not the author of evil and I've heard you on a number of occasion mentioned That God creates the potentiality.

For evil, right? And I just kind of wanted a clarification because I mean a lot of places in the Bible like with us going down to Egypt It seems like a straight exegetical reading would be that God it seems that God ordained all things.

I think I would agree with the Westminster convent Confession in such a way where he isn't the author of evil, but I was just what your views on the matter are.

How you view this issue? Yes. Well, I certainly as you point out I do not believe that God Ordains sin or that God is the the author of evil. I think that you have to preserve The justice of God and the sovereignty of God as well as genuine human.

Responsibility in these issues, but let me go ahead and stop it right there and just define some some terms and we'll go ahead and take our break. What what's interesting is later the the caller will mention the issue of open theism and I've raised that issue because of that term that was just used genuine freedom.

That is a term that will appear at least on every other page. Of every open theistic work I've ever read and I've read most of them and It's a buzzword. I don't know that that Hank is using it as a buzzword.

I think the resources and individuals with whom he's dialoguing may use it as a buzzword. But we need to understand that for most folks who hold to libertarian freedom genuine freedom excludes incompatibilism it excludes an overarching decree of God and hence there is Implicit in the use of the term the assertion that unless you have libertarian freedom i .e No overarching decree of God that determines actions within it within time that man is not held accountable within his own sphere of existence and Hence there can be an overarching decree.

But man's accountability exists on different plane from that. Because man is not created to have access to that that higher plane of eternity itself to have knowledge of it. Unless man has libertarian freedom outside of any decree of God, then it is not genuine.

It is it is fake in essence now. There are many who argue. I think very successfully. That that entire theory of libertarianism is bankrupt philosophically and logically as well but that is the point that is being made that is the assertion that is being made is this this type of Genuine freedom and he's going to even say later on in the clip.

He's going to say and I emphasize genuine and That's what lies behind that and that would be one of the first things to address is is is this biblically defensible in light of a Bimelech in light of Genesis 50 and Joseph's brothers and all the hundreds of free moral agents that were involved in bringing Joseph into the position he was in to save lives in Genesis 50 and the Thousands of free moral agents in Isaiah 10 and the hundreds of free moral agents involved in Acts 4.

Is that a biblically defensible? Use the term genuine. I don't believe that it is. But that would be one of the issues that we would need to we would need to address and hopefully would be able to address.

Well with that, let's go ahead and take our first break and we come back. We'll continue listening this clip giving a reformed response. We'll be right back.

Divine Sovereignty, Libertarian Freedom, and the Meaning of Genuine Freedom

But your remedy today, mr. Strong and true quickly fall away.

Incorporating the most recent research and solid biblical truth letters to a Mormon elder by James White is a series of personal letters written to a fictional Mormon missionary. Examining the teaching and theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The book brings a relational approach to material usually presented in textbook style. James White draws from his extensive apologetics ministry to thousands of Mormons in presenting the truth of Christianity with well-defined arguments.

James White provides readers with insight and understanding into the Book of Mormon the prophecies visions and teachings of Joseph Smith the Theological implications of the doctrines of Mormonism and other major historical issues relevant to the claims of the LDS Church.

This marvelous study is a valuable text for Christians who talk with Mormons and is an ideal book to be read by Mormons. Letters to a Mormon elder. Get your copy today in the Mormonism section of our bookstore at a omen.

Or more than any time in the past Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder-to-shoulder against social evils. They're joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements and many Evangelicals are finding the history tradition and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing.

This newfound rapport has caused many evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age-old disagreements that have divided Protestants and Catholics. Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language?

James White's book The Roman Catholic Controversy is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture the papacy the mass purgatory and indulgences and Marian doctrine. James White points out the crucial differences that remain in regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself.

They cannot be ignored. Order your copy of the Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at a omen org. What is dr Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book chosen, but free a new cult secularism false prophecy scenarios.

No, dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent. Philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant in his book the potter's freedom.

James White replies to dr. Geisler, but the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply. It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate.

James White Masterfully counters the evidence against so-called extreme Calvinism. Defines what the reformed faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture the potter's freedom a defense of the Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen.

But free you'll find it in the reformed theology section of our bookstore at a omen. Org.

God’s Decree, the Cross, and the Charge of Fatalism

And welcome back to dividing line, my name is James White. We're listening to a call on the subject well of God and evil and man's will and Compatibilism even though that specific term. I don't think was used and all those neat wonderful other things.

Let's continue and listen shoes, but I believe that God created the potential for evil and Certainly Adam and Eve actualized that potential when they fell into a life of constant sin Terminated by death, but I do not want to get into the idea that God actually ordained That Adam would sin or decreed that Adam would sin in some kind of fatalistic determinism because because The moment you do that then you have God being The author of evil and in the way it has been explained by some Calvinist theologians for example and well.

Let's wait till he gets to Grudem's the Grudem's example there, which I Think the first time he used Grudem's example is just a few months ago. So obviously this is an ongoing area of study an ongoing area of reading anyways but Notice the the immediate assertion that if there is a sovereign decree which includes the fall of Adam then God must be the author of evil secondary causes Are are immediately removed and again?

I I can't do anything more than say if that is the case then please provide a sound biblically based hermeneutically solid exegesis of Genesis 50 in Isaiah 10 and acts 4 and all these places where where We read in Scripture of God hardening the hearts of men for purposes of judgment and all the rest of these other things I need to hear an exegesis of these texts especially those texts that firmly and Clearly assert the sovereign decree of God over all the affairs of men psalm 33 and all these other Daniel for all these passages.

That's not what I'm hearing when I hear the the standard Evangelical as it as it is expressed in different perspectives, and you know Hank says there's not just two and two ways looking at this well, yeah, but Fundamentally you're either a monergist and believe in a sovereign decree of God or you're a synergist and in some way shape or form modify that concept the point where That sovereign decree is no longer free, but becomes a passive thing based upon some Theory of foreknowledge and and all the rest of stuff that that becomes that becomes the issue.

So I I wish there was the opportunity of saying that what do you mean, but how about these passages? That's what needs to take place for this to become a meaningful discussion. Bruton's.

Systematic theology he uses the analogy of a six Shakespearean play where Macbeth murders King Duncan and Shakespeare therefore according to Wayne Grudem is Fully 100 the cause of Duncan's death because of course Shakespeare authored Macbeth and Likewise then by way of analogy God is the author of evil even though we as agents Carry out that evil and as such are morally culpable.

I Think there's a danger in making that claim. The danger in that view is God decrees that Adam would sin or eat Ordains that Adam would sin and that creates a couple of problems. How does that preserve God from being the author of evil.

Well?

Let's answer that I would like to hear you know let's have the opportunity of providing an answer to that. If it is being asserted It sounds like it is being asserted that God's decree did not involve this then the questions that immediately come up are.

So the incarnation was not something eternally decreed by God or was the incarnation something Decreed by God after he gained knowledge of the fall was it something necessitated by the fall in a way that was not necessitated before God took in knowledge of this fall or.

Are we simply saying that God has eternally? Taken in passive knowledge of what would happen in time. But time determines God's actions. And if that is the case then is there a a coherent theism that can even be created out of that mess.

I don't know that there is and so obviously if the Cross is a part of the decree of God isn't it interesting to John Sanders in his work says the incarnation Was eternally a part of God's decree, but not the cross.