August 12, 2003

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 at 602 -973 -4602, or toll free across the

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

James White. Well good morning and welcome to The Dividing Line. It's 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 Matitick. There's a new main page article at AOMN .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 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 it.

In fact, I took the time 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, Stephen Luker has put together a wonderful web page on StraightGate .com,

and remember, StraightGate is King James. What that means is it's

S -T -R -A -I -T, G -A -T -E, StraightGate .com.

There's an excellent web page, sub -web page there on all the stuff about Dave Hunt, 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 at StraightGate, 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 big, it's just a discussion of some of the upcoming debates and a little bit about,

I even mentioned, I preached this past 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 given that only about 3 % at the most of the society is actually homosexual, that means 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 -Matitick debate play, I've gotten a lot of positive comments from folks as I have played those clips over the past two programs and commented on them, sort of as a study of how not to do a debate from Mr.

Matitick's 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 Dr. Svensson did, 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 Matitick, and so less time means 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 in 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, which people call in this program and ask about all the time, so I thought

I'd just head you 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 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 sort of pushing a particular perspective.

And so since those comments involved assertions that in essence could only be taken as Calvinist 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 before the program started, it died 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 worm yesterday, and many of you have heard about that, the msblast .exe

thing. Don't worry, I got it taken care of, but by the way, just a public service announcement here, if you have not updated your system, you need to.

I installed a firewall on my dial -up connection, which I probably should have had before, and within 30 seconds

I got three hits of something or other out there attempting to load that thing into my system.

So if you're not protected, you've probably already got it, and so you might want to take care of that, it's an issue.

Anyway, let's start off listening, now this is just a, let me set this up so you can understand the reason for sharing this with you.

This is, I believe, Gerry Madetik's 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 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 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 Ad Elphos, what is its 99 % usage, ah, but 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 anathematize 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 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 part and parcel, but Matatex 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 this claim that Matatex never even attempts to substantiate in any meaningful fashion, that Mary, well he argues it 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 vow of perpetual virginity, even before the angel came, and all the rest of this,

I mean, just complete eisegesis, 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 make it past the criticisms that he would be leveling, that his opponent would be leveling 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.

Listen, 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 a 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 Saint 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 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 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 only appealing to your audience and 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.

He does mention well you know if the incarnation is unique then maybe we need to look at 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 when we have

Eric Svensson on. If Jerry Manateeks is a wise person and 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's 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 a yellow pad. I really hope that doesn't happen. We don't have time for it.

There's too much in this topic to deal with. So I hope that doesn't happen this time.

It did happen in the Svensson debate. It's happened in at least three or four of ours. Jerry if you're listening to this dump it.

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. Let's not do any of that stuff, okay? All right, so I hope they listen to it because I'm going to let you know exactly what

I'm going to do. I mean I've written a book on this subject. There's a chapter on the perpetual virginity of Mary. I'm going to be talking about this stuff and one of the things

I'm going to emphasize is very similar to my discussion regarding the term mother of God or theotokos or as the eastern folks pronounce it theotokos but I pronounce omicrons as an on as an oh so you can differentiate them from the omega.

But anyway I'm going to 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 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 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 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 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 it 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 going to 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 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 main page article but anyway 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 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 was that theater thing on the radio.

It wasn't theater of the mind well we did listen to the shadow you know the what evil lurks 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 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 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 people will listen that and sadly people listen I go yeah it's a great point boy that Eric Svendzik I 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 debate this past May with Mitch Pack we've been playing in Bible study at our church and I was watching as Bill Shishko the moderator the uber moderator 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 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 Svendzik and Matitix, Matitix is absolutely blown off the planet

I mean he when you start putting the points down and then asking is this relevant to the two 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. Svendzik 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 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 servers getting slammed or something

I don't know it's a possibility that would be I guess a good thing or a bad thing one way or the other 877 -753 -3341 let me start this next clip before we go to our break and I just love how the

I haven't found 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 was informed that another discussion had taken place on the

Bible answer broadcast and why might say well why do you hear about it well because I've been 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 get on some of these websites there's this baptistfire .com

or .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 4

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 want to go to 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 and 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 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 Judas and Joseph going down to Egypt it seems like a straight exegetical reading would be that God it seems that God ordains all

I think I would agree with the Westminster convention confession in such a way where he isn't the author of evil but I was just kind of wondering 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 compatibilism 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 ie no overarching decree of God that determines actions within 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 this biblically defensible in light of Abimelech in light of 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 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 aomen .org

more than any time in the past Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together they are standing shoulder -to -shoulder against social evils they are 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 purgatorian indulgences and Marian doctrine

James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored order your copy of the

Roman Catholic controversy by going to our website at aomen .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 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 the way it has been explained by some

Calvinist theologians for example and well let's wait till he gets to Grudem's Grudem's example there which

I think the first time he used grooms examples 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 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 and 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 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 all the rest of stuff that that becomes that becomes the issue so I wish there was the opportunity of saying that what do you mean by how about these passages that's what needs to take place for this to become a meaningful discussion prudence 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 he 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 you know let's have the opportunity of providing an answer to that if it is being asserted and 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 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 now think about that for just a moment and Jesus his own teaching regarding the reason for the incarnation and the the interrelationship of the incarnation and the cross men are always erring on one side of the other emphasizing one of the detriment of the other they they are intimately connected with one another and must be anyway those those issues all come up and if what's being said here is well

God cannot decree an event so that a person freely follows the desires of their hearts and yet it takes place then

I would ask why why do you say that given the fact that scripture gives us abundant evidence of God doing exactly that in those passages mentioned before then is not your position one derived from a flawed philosophy rather than a sound exegesis of the biblical text which is where Christian theology and Christian philosophy must start and how does that make

Adam genuinely culpable for his sin there you go how does it make

Adam genuinely culpable for his sin well if Adam acts freely upon his own desires then is he not culpable versus well how can he act freely if it is a part of God's decree well the scripture says that's how it works well but I can't see that well that's because you're a creature and you can only see one half of the equation which is the temporal half not the eternal half you can't get rid of the biblical documentation of biblical evidence just because the limitedness of your finite creaturely status can you do you do that with the incarnation we don't how can how can

Jesus be 100 % God 100 % man we don't have any any experience of that we don't have any way of giving an analogy to that that actually fits or works we accept the revelation of Scripture well if Scripture reveals it then that's what we need to believe would you say

God ordained the cross God knew before the foundations of the world that Jesus Christ would die for the sins of the world now that was an excellent question what about the cross what about the eternal concept of the cross if you'll listen carefully in fact

I'm gonna back this up hopefully let me do this this way because I've discovered that cool that it likes to die a thousand deaths if you stop it while it's paused this just a little of just a little warning for those of you who use cool at it do not stop it while paused it will generally turn white and say program no longer responding anyway someone needs to explain to jail and channel that I'm doing a program right now and can't really chat listen again

I'm gonna try to find the exact question listen carefully is there a positive decree or is there just God knowing something listen listen carefully

God knew before the foundations of the world that Jesus Christ would die

I missed I missed the actual let's see if this is it would you say

God ordained the cross God knew before the foundations of the world that Jesus Christ would die for the sins of the world however that does not logically necessitate that that is fatalistically determined now fatalistically determined how about sovereignly decreed the two are not the same thing now whoever is is pushing this perspective in Hank's circle of acquaintances that would be the first thing

I challenge with them upon what basis do you make God's personal sovereign decree and the accomplishment of his own purposes equivalent to fatalistic determinism that is looking at God's freedom to do as he will in his creation from the human perspective and ignoring the centrality of God's own personhood that is a common error in terminology that's being used here that I have to challenge and refute that is not a proper term to use now to say well

God knew that Jesus was going to die but that doesn't mean it was fatalistically determined that's that's getting again and and the colors you know gonna mention this that's starting to dance a little bit toward being very very subject to an open theistic position the cross was decreed before the foundation of the earth it wasn't subject think how many billions of free moral choices on the part of men went into bring about the situation of the cross over the centuries that is not a part of God's decree this is merely something

God saw that this was going to happen the incarnation is absolutely free divine initiative how can that not be a part of God's sovereign decree not based upon some passive taking in of knowledge that has been in fact

I would like to point something out if God is simply taking in knowledge of time and it's not a part of his decree that is fatalism because what then determines what happens in time fate fate does there's no personal divine decree there's no that element is gone that becomes fatalistic determinism what happens in time is what happens in time

God has perfect knowledge of it and see this is what the open theist recognizing if you take the the standard

Arminian position or the position that is being propounded here that time exists

God eternally takes in knowledge of it but he did not decree what is going to take place then that was determined by what fate it's been fatalistic determined and if God has perfect knowledge of it it cannot be changed because then his knowledge be proven to be false and that's what the open theist is saying we can't have this

God can't have perfect knowledge of the future or we have a determined timeline and it's fatalistic determinism that's their argument and most

Arminians and folks like that just aren't up to speed yet in knowing how to respond to what they're saying in other words if you look back at your life you can know with great clarity what you did in your past now notice notice this analogy if you look back on your life and he's he's attaching to God's knowledge of time our knowledge of our past he's just attaching to that then the ability of knowing the future as well but we didn't control our past we didn't have control over it in fact most the time we don't even know why it happened that's why one of the most effective passages listen to my debate with John Sanders at Reformed Theological Seminary last

November one of the most effective passages in responding to the open theist is Isaiah 40 41 and the challenge of God to the false gods tell us not only what's gonna happen the future but tell us what happened the past and why it happened that we may consider its outcome

God can do that but that requires a certain theology of God which open theism does not have right right that does not mean that you fatalistically determined your past or that your past was fatalistically determined God can see not only backwards but he can see forward as well now notice this is all passive this is this is seeing something external to himself that is a not a part of his creative decree

I do not believe you can defend a theism like this consistently over time okay so I guess what my problem is with I mean

I definitely would have a disagreeing with your view I would take more the Calvinist position is it seems to me that you open yourself up to more an openness of God sort of attack why is that well it seems that I am

NOT in any way suggesting that God is learning or that God does not fully know the future

I'm saying that the fact that God fully knows the future does not mean that he fatalistically determines the future there you go there that I'm very thankful that the the caller raised this issue because here is the the utter inconsistency of this particular understanding of divine sovereignty and libertarianism this is you you cannot put libertarian creatures and a libertarian

God in the same universe there needs to be one libertarian will ultimately and it's either going to be man or it's going to be

God and we hear here how this works God's Liberty is limited to his seeing the past present and the future and I don't think that Hank understood the validity of the assertion made by the color of course colored didn't get an opportunity of explaining he got cut off there about three words into a second sentence but the the point is the point

I just made if God's knowledge of future events is based upon this passive taking in of knowledge of observing time from the outside rather than that knowledge of future events being grounded in the creative decree of God then the result is something that a system that is extremely susceptible to refutation from the openness perspective because it destroys the very freedom that leads the

Arminian slash non -reformed person to deny God's sovereignty in the first place because if God knows perfectly what all those allegedly free choices are going to be then there is no possibility of there being anything else if God knows that Cyrus is going to let the people go and names it by name

Cyrus can't do anything other than let the people go that's the basis of prophecy and that means time has been and here properly using the phrase fatalistically determined because it's not determined by God that it's determined by fate it's an it's an impersonal determination

God just knows it turns out right at the end and as a result why would

God be praised for it I mean can God really be glorified and praised for the fact that he passively sits back and observes what happens in time that part

I don't understand in other words my view is that God is sovereign therefore as a sovereign

God I want to preserve the sovereignty of God God does not have to work with a stacked deck God can use people who are genuinely free and still genuinely accomplish his sovereignly ordained purposes through them well that sounds wonderful but I'm finding the application incoherent obviously

I reject the phrase stacked deck I think that's supposed to mean a sovereign decree and I think we're about to run into the chatty

Cathy doll stuff again but again I'm afraid that the the strident terminology is keeping us from from really considering the real issues here it's not a stacked deck the issue is that we are morally responsible creatures within the realm which

God has created us that does not require the destruction the sovereign decree of God and in fact the only sound basis for our moral responsibility is within that sovereign decree because without that sovereign decree we have man as merely the puppet of the forces that are around us it is true arrogance in the part of man to think that if we have quote -unquote libertarian freedom as it is defined within man's philosophies that we somehow gain some freedom from that we then become the mere puppets of the cosmic forces around us it is only within God's sovereign decree that a meaningful framework of that responsibility can be built that's what needs to be emphasized and and the end will be exactly as is communicated in Scripture exactly as God fully knows

God do you hear that exactly as communicated in Scripture and exactly as God knows not as God has decreed again it's this passive thing how why is

God to be glorified because he has perfect knowledge of the future and he just tells us how this fatalistically determined timeline ended up it must have just ended up positive to him without any particular interaction on his part why why should he be glorified that I don't understand is not learning he knows the future fully and I think this is the ultimate of sovereignty

God not working with a stack work deck but rather would genuinely free creatures

I believe in libertarian freedom I believe we have the freedom to act and to act otherwise

I do not believe that God made us chatty Cathy dolls there's a Cathy doll part and again

I just want to ask Cyrus Joseph Assyrians Joseph's brothers

Abimelech Pilate Herod the Romans the Jews David Solomon do we need to keep going down the road and ask for a biblical basis here great philosophy allows the exegesis hold the string and only what's programmed inside can come in come out

I think again the reason I hold my view is I want to preserve the sovereignty of God I want to preserve the justice of God and I also want to preserve genuine human and I emphasize the word genuine genuine human responsibility we're genuine human responsibility okay what does that mean well evidently that means freedom that is not under the decree of God and after the break you heard the music coming up there is a continuation that means there's more you want to say by the way we have as I mentioned before the break some great resources available in this whole issue of Calvinism versus our hermeneinism and the other positions because those are not the only two positions those are the polls and the debate we're discussing earlier just before the break but but I think one of the things that is really important for us to grapple with is what does scripture actually say a lot of people come to Romans chapter 9 and they say look does not

God if he wants to to create objects of wrath destined for destruction and therefore he wants to make

Judas in such a way that Judas has no choice he's preordained he can't do anything else he has to do what he he doesn't have any free choice whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa this is where you put your hand up in the studio go what

I don't know what you've been reading uh yeah Romans 9 most definitely if you get to that point after everything it came before which lays the foundation of it

Romans 9 definitely contrasts the the vessels of mercy with the vessels of wrath there's no question about that it's right after the discussion of the

Potter's freedom to do with the clay as he wills and to create the clay in certain ways not based upon anything within the clay itself that's all there but jumping to Judas is saying he the picture being presented here is of a horrible mean evil

God with a gun up against Judas's head saying you nice person you do evil are gonna blow your brains out that's not nothing even of the sort is is even semi relevant to the

Reformed understanding of these passages yes Judas was the son of perdition and he was a part of God's sovereign decree in regards the means by which the

Son of Man would be betrayed but even as it was God was having to extend mercy to Judas to keep him from betraying

Jesus even before he was supposed to I mean is this not Judas whose heart is filled with rebellion is this not

Judas who is righteously under the wrath of God is this not Judas who loves his sin you say well he didn't seem to because he went out and committed suicide that that that doesn't really change anything does it he loved his his selfishness and his greed enough to do what he did he's a tragic figure there's no question about that but to say that that he was some innocent person forced into this role as if he didn't want to is not what anyone is suggesting look one of the principles that we have is if we are looking at a text in Scripture we need to recognize that oftentimes in the

New Testament what's happening is something is being quoted from the

Old Testament in Romans chapter 9 and we're gonna run out of time and and I agree 1 ,000 percent

Romans chapter 9 is steeped in the Old Testament go back to Exodus 33 you see what bothers me about a statement like this is go read

John Piper's exegesis of Romans chapter 9 and you will discover that he fully exegesis all the historical passages this is a part and parcel of how you do exegesis all the time and I think that it's it's to completely miss the

Reformed understanding to think that we haven't already done that and and incorporate into our exegesis very solidly sorry about the callers who called and I didn't get to you we wanted to get those two clips played get those subjects addressed thanks for listening to Dividing Line don't forget next week

Tuesday morning Eric Spenson joins us we'll be back again Thursday evening here on the Dividing Line God bless that AOMN .org

that's AOMIN .org where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks join us again this